Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One.

Vinayapiṭake

In the Vinaya Piṭaka

Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā

Vajirabuddhi-Ṭīkā

Ganthārambhakathā

Introduction to the Text

Paññāvisuddhāya [Pg.1] dayāya sabbe;

Vimocitā yena vineyyasattā;

Taṃ cakkhubhūtaṃ sirasā namitvā;

Lokassa lokantagatassa dhammaṃ.

I pay homage with my head to that Buddha, the eye of the world, by whom all beings fit for training were liberated through compassion purified by wisdom. Having paid homage, I also pay homage with my head to the Dhamma of Him who has reached the end of the worlds.

Saṅghañca sīlādiguṇehi yutta-Mādāya sabbesu padesu sāraṃ;

Saṅkhepakāmena mamāsayena;

Sañcodito bhikkhuhitañca disvā.

And having paid homage to the Sangha endowed with virtues such as moral discipline, and having taken the essence from all passages; by my intention which desires brevity, being urged by the bhikkhus and having seen the benefit for them,

Samantapāsādikasaññitāya;

Sambuddhaghosācariyoditāya;

Samāsato līnapade likhissaṃ;

Samāsato līnapade likhītaṃ.

I shall write concisely a determination of the meaning of the obscure terms in the commentary named Samantapāsādikā, composed by the teacher Buddhaghosa.

Saññā nimittaṃ kattā ca, parimāṇaṃ payojanaṃ;

Sabbāgamassa pubbeva, vattabbaṃ vattumicchatāti. –

The name, the reason for composing, the author, the extent, and the benefit—this pentad should be stated at the very beginning of every treatise by an author who wishes to speak.

Vacanato samantapāsādiketi saññā. Dīpantare bhikkhujanassa atthaṃ nābhisambhuṇātīti nimittaṃ. Buddhaghosoti garūhi gahitanāmadheyyenāti kattā. Samadhikasattavīsatisahassamattena tassa ganthenāti parimāṇaṃ. Ciraṭṭhitatthaṃ dhammassāti payojanaṃ.

By the words, 'Samantapāsādikā,' the name is stated. By 'it does not fully serve the purpose of the community of bhikkhus in another island,' the reason is stated. By 'the one whose name, Buddhaghosa, was given by his teachers,' the author is stated. By 'the text of which has a measure of over twenty-seven thousand,' the extent is stated. By 'for the long-endurance of the Dhamma,' the benefit is stated.

Tatrāha [Pg.2] – ‘‘vattabbaṃ vattumicchatāti yaṃ vuttaṃ, tattha kathaṃvidho vattā’’ti? Uccate –

Therein, a questioner asks: 'Regarding the statement, "should be stated by one who wishes to speak," what kind of speaker is meant?' The answer is stated:

Pāṭhatthavidūsaṃhīro, vattā suci amaccharo;

Catukkamapariccāgī, desakassa hitussukoti. (mahāni. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā);

A speaker is one who knows the text and its meaning, is undaunted, pure, not miserly, does not abandon the fourfold method, and is zealous for the welfare of his audience.

Tatra paṭhīyateti pāṭho. So hi anekappakāro atthānurūpo atthānanurūpo ceti. Kathaṃ? Sandhāyabhāsito byañjanabhāsito sāvasesapāṭho niravasesapāṭho nīto neyyoti. Tatra anekatthavattā sandhāyabhāsito nāma ‘‘mātaraṃ pitaraṃ hantvā’’tiādi (dha. pa. 294). Ekatthavattā byañjanabhāsito nāma ‘‘manopubbaṅgamā dhammā’’tyādi (dha. pa. 1, 2; netti. 90, 92; peṭako. 14). Sāvaseso nāma ‘‘sabbaṃ, bhikkhave, āditta’’mityādi (mahāva. 54; saṃ. ni. 4.28). Viparīto niravaseso nāma ‘‘sabbe dhammā sabbākārena buddhassa bhagavato ñāṇamukhe āpāthaṃ āgacchantī’’tyādi (mahāni. 156; paṭi. ma. 3.5). Yathā vacanaṃ, tathā avagantabbo nīto nāma ‘‘aniccaṃ dukkhamanattā’’tyādi. Yuttiyā anussaritabbo neyyo nāma ‘‘ekapuggalo, bhikkhave’’tyādi (a. ni. 1.170).

Herein, pāṭha is that which is recited. Indeed, it is of many kinds, both conforming to the meaning and not conforming to the meaning. How? There is speech with an underlying meaning, speech with a literal meaning, text with a remainder, text without a remainder, that of definitive meaning, and that of inferable meaning. Among these, speech with an underlying meaning, having many meanings, is such as: “Having killed mother and father…”. Speech with a literal meaning, having one meaning, is such as: “Mind precedes all mental states…”. Text with a remainder is such as: “All, monks, is burning…”. Its opposite, text without a remainder, is such as: “All phenomena in every way come into the range of the knowledge of the Buddha, the Blessed One…”. That of definitive meaning is to be understood just as it is stated, such as: “Impermanent, suffering, not-self…”. That of inferable meaning is to be considered by reasoning, such as: “One person, monks…”.

Atthopi anekappakāro pāṭhattho sabhāvattho ñeyyattho pāṭhānurūpo pāṭhānanurūpo sāvasesattho niravasesattho nītattho neyyatthotyādi. Tattha yo taṃtaṃsaññāpanatthamuccārīyate pāṭho, sa pāṭhattho ‘‘sātthaṃ sabyañjana’’mityādīsu (pārā. 1; dī. ni. 1.190) viya. Rūpārūpadhammānaṃ lakkhaṇarasādi sabhāvattho ‘‘sammādiṭṭhiṃ bhāvetī’’tyādīsu (vibha. 489; saṃ. ni. 5.3) viya. Yo ñāyamāno hitāya bhavati, sa ñātumarahattā ñeyyattho ‘‘atthavādī dhammavādī’’tyevamādīsu (dī. ni. 1.9, 194; 3.238; ma. ni. 1.411) viya. Yathāpāṭhaṃ bhāsito pāṭhānurūpo ‘‘cakkhu, bhikkhave, purāṇakamma’’nti (saṃ. ni. 4.146) bhagavatā vuttamato cakkhumapi kammanti. Byañjanacchāyāya atthaṃ paṭibāhayamānena vutto pāṭhānanurūpo. Vajjetabbaṃ kiñci apariccajitvā parisesaṃ katvā vutto sāvasesattho ‘‘cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjatī’’ti [Pg.3] (saṃ. ni. 4.60; mahāni. 107) ca, ‘‘sabbe tasanti daṇḍassa, sabbe bhāyanti maccuno’’tyādīsu (dha. pa. 129) viya. Viparīto niravasesattho ‘‘sandhāvitaṃ saṃsaritaṃ mamañceva tumhākañca (dī. ni. 2.155; mahā. 287; netti. 114). Tatra, bhikkhave, ko mantā ko saddhātā…pe… aññatra diṭṭhapadehī’’tyādi (a. ni. 7.66). Saddavaseneva vedanīyo nītattho ‘‘rūpā saddā rasā gandhā, phoṭṭhabbā ca manoramā’’tyādīsu (saṃ. ni. 1.151, 165; mahāva. 33) viya. Sammutivasena veditabbo neyyattho ‘‘cattārome, bhikkhave, valāhakūpamāpuggalā’’tyādīsu viya (a. ni. 4.101; pu. pa. 157). Āha ca –

The meaning is also of various kinds: the meaning of the text (pāṭhattho), the meaning of inherent nature (sabhāvattho), the meaning to be known (ñeyyattho), the meaning in accordance with the text (pāṭhānurūpo), the meaning not in accordance with the text (pāṭhānanurūpo), the meaning with a remainder (sāvasesattho), the meaning without a remainder (niravasesattho), the definitive meaning (nītattho), the inferable meaning (neyyattho), and so on. Among these, the text that is uttered for the purpose of conveying a particular meaning is the meaning of the text, as in "with meaning and with phrasing" and so on. The inherent nature, such as the characteristic, function, etc., of material and immaterial phenomena, is the meaning of inherent nature, as in "develops right view" and so on. That which, when known, is for one's welfare, is, because of its worthiness to be known, the meaning to be known, as in "one who speaks of the meaning, one who speaks of the Dhamma" and so on. The meaning spoken in accordance with the text is the meaning in accordance with the text; as it was said by the Blessed One, "The eye, monks, is old kamma," therefore the eye is also kamma. The meaning not in accordance with the text is that which is spoken by one who obstructs the meaning by means of the letter's shadow. The meaning with a remainder is that which is spoken by not abandoning something that should be excluded, thus leaving a remainder, as in "dependent on the eye and forms, consciousness arises" and "all tremble at the rod, all fear death" and so on. The opposite is the meaning without a remainder, as in "wandered on, transmigrated, by me and by you." "Here, monks, who is the knower, who can find stability… except for those who have seen the path?" and so on. The definitive meaning is that which is to be known only by the power of the word, as in "sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and tactile objects are delightful" and so on. The inferable meaning is that which is to be known by way of convention, as in "These four, monks, are persons comparable to clouds" and so on. And it is said:

‘‘Yo attho saddato ñeyyo, nītatthaṃ iti taṃ vidū;

Atthassevābhisāmaggī, neyyattho iti kathyate’’ti.

The meaning that is to be known from the word, that they know as the definitive meaning; the meaning established by conventional agreement is called the inferable meaning.

Evaṃ pabhedagate pāṭhatthe vijānātīti pāṭhatthavidū. Na saṃhīrate parapavādīhi dīgharattaṃ titthavāsenetyasaṃhīro. Bhāvanāyāgamādhigamasampannattā vattuṃ sakkotīti vattā, saṅkhepavitthāranayena hetudāharaṇādīhi avabodhayituṃ samatthotyattho. Socayatyattānaṃ pare ceti suci, dussīlyaduddiṭṭhimalavirahitotyattho. Dussīlo hi attānamupahantunādeyyavāco ca bhavatyapattāhārācāro iva niccāturo vejjo. Duddiṭṭhi paraṃ upahanti, nāvassaṃ nissayo ca bhavatyahivāḷagahākulo iva kamalasaṇḍo. Ubhayavipanno sabbathāpyanupāsanīyo bhavati gūthagatamiva chavālātaṃ gūthagato viya ca kaṇhasappo. Ubhayasampanno pana suci sabbathāpyupāsanīyo sevitabbo ca viññūhi, nirupaddavo iva ratanākaro. Nāssa maccharotyamaccharo, ahīnācariyamuṭṭhītyattho. Suttasuttānulomācariyavādaattanomatisaṅkhātassa catukkassāpariccāgī, tadatthasseva byākhyātetyattho. Atha vā paccakkhānumānasaddatthāpattippabhedassa pamāṇacatukkassāpariccāgī.

He knows the special meanings of the text that have come by way of analysis; therefore, he is called a knower of the text's meaning. He is not shaken by the censures of others or by the practices of sectarians over a long period; therefore, he is called unshaken. Because he is endowed with learning and realization, he is able to speak; therefore, he is called a speaker. He is able to make others understand by the concise and detailed methods, with reasons, examples, and so on; this is the meaning. He purifies himself and others; therefore, he is called pure, meaning he is free from the stain of immorality and wrong view. For an immoral person, harming himself, has words that are not to be heeded, like a perpetually sick physician with improper diet and conduct. One with wrong view harms others and is not a refuge for them, like a lotus grove infested with fiercely-seizing snakes. One deficient in both ways is in every way not to be associated with, like a firebrand for burning corpses that has fallen into filth or like a black serpent that has fallen into filth. But one accomplished in both, being pure, is in every way to be associated with and attended upon by the wise, like a mine of jewels that is free from danger. For him, there is no stinginess; therefore, he is called 'not stingy,' meaning he does not have the teacher's closed fist. He does not abandon the fourfold standard designated as Sutta, Suttānuloma, Ācariyavāda, and Attanomati; he is an expounder of the meaning of that alone. Or, he does not abandon the fourfold standard of proof divided into perception, inference, testimony, and implication.

‘‘Ekaṃsavacanaṃ ekaṃ, vibhajjavacanāparaṃ;

Tatiyaṃ paṭipuccheyya, catutthaṃ pana ṭhāpaye’’ti. –

“One answer is categorical, another is analytical; the third one should answer by questioning back, and the fourth, however, one should set aside.”

Evaṃ [Pg.4] vuttacatukkassa vā apariccāgī;

Hitussuko iti sotūnaṃ hitāyossuko, tesamavabodhanaṃ pati patthetī tyattho;

So eso sucittā piyo;

Catukkassa apariccāgittā garu;

Asaṃhīrattā bhāvanīyo;

Desakattā vattā;

Hitussukattā vacanakkhamo;

Pāṭhatthaviduttā gambhīrakathaṃ kattā;

Amaccharattā no caṭṭhāne niyojakoti;

‘‘Piyo garu bhāvanīyo, vattā ca vacanakkhamo;

Gambhīrañca kathaṃ kattā, no caṭṭhāne niyojako’’. (a. ni. 7.37;

netti. 113) –

Or, he does not abandon the fourfold set of answers spoken of thus. 'Eager for welfare' means he is zealous for the welfare of the listeners; he desires their understanding—this is the meaning. That teacher, because of his purity, is dear; because he does not abandon the fourfold, he is venerable; because he is unshaken, he is worthy of cultivation; because he is an expounder, he is a speaker; because he is eager for their welfare, he is patient with speech; because he knows the text and its meaning, he is a maker of profound talk; because he is not stingy, he does not engage others in what is unsuitable. “Dear, venerable, and worthy of cultivation, a speaker and patient with speech, a maker of profound talk, and one who does not engage others in what is unsuitable.”

Itiabhihito desako;

Thus is the expounder described.

Sotā idāni abhidhīyate –

Now the listener is spoken of—

Dhammācariyagaru saddhā-paññādiguṇamaṇḍito;

Asaṭhāmāyo sotāssa, sumedho amatāmukho.

A listener is one who reveres the Dhamma and the teacher, is adorned with virtues such as faith and wisdom, is not deceitful or fraudulent, is endowed with good wisdom, and is facing the Deathless.

Tattha dhammagaruttā kathaṃ na paribhavati, ācariyagaruttā kathikaṃ na paribhavati, saddhāpaññādiguṇapaṭimaṇḍitattā attānaṃ na paribhavati, asaṭhāmāyattā amatābhimukhattā ca avikkhittacitto bhavati, sumedhattā yonisomanasikarotītyattho. Vuttañhetaṃ –

In that context, due to revering the Dhamma, he does not disparage the talk; due to revering the teacher, he does not disparage the speaker. Due to being adorned with virtues such as faith and wisdom, he does not disparage himself. Due to being without deceit and fraud and due to facing the Deathless, he is not of distracted mind. Due to having good wisdom, he attends wisely. Such is the meaning. For it has been said:

‘‘Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato suṇanto saddhammaṃ bhabbo niyāmaṃ okkamituṃ kusalesu dhammesu sammattaṃ. Katamehi pañcahi? Na kathaṃ paribhoti, na kathikaṃ paribhoti, na attānaṃ paribhoti, avikkhittacitto dhammaṃ suṇāti ekaggacitto, yoniso ca manasi karotī’’ti (a. ni. 5.151).

“Monks, one who is endowed with five qualities, while listening to the good Dhamma, is capable of entering into the certainty of rightness in wholesome states. What five? One does not disparage the talk, does not disparage the speaker, does not disparage oneself, listens to the Dhamma with an undistracted and concentrated mind, and attends wisely.”

Taṃlakkhaṇappattattā bhāvanā bhavati savanassetyutto sotā.

Because of having attained that characteristic, there is the cultivation of hearing; for this reason, he is called a 'listener'.

Ganthārambhakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Introduction

Idāni assārambho – tattha yoti aniyamaniddeso, tena visuddhajātikulagottādīnaṃ kilesamalavisuddhiyā, pūjārahatāya vā akāraṇataṃ dassetvā yo koci imissā samantapāsādikāya ādigāthāya niddiṭṭhalokanāthattahetuṃ yathāvuttahetumūlena thirataraṃ [Pg.5] acalaṃ katvā yathāvuttahetukālaṃ accantameva pūrento avasāne yathāvuttahetuphalaṃ sampādetvā yathāvuttahetuphalappayojanaṃ sādheti, sova paramapūjārahoti niyameti.

Now, the treatise is begun. Therein, the word 'yo' is an indefinite indicator. By this, it is shown that pure birth, family, lineage, and so on, or purity from the stain of defilements, or the state of being worthy of veneration are not the cause. Rather, whosoever—having made the cause for being the Protector of the World, which was indicated by the introductory verse of this Samantapāsādikā, firmer and unshakeable by means of the root of that aforementioned cause; and constantly fulfilling the time which is the cause, as was stated; and in the final existence, having accomplished the fruit of the cause as was stated; and accomplishing the purpose which is the benefit of the fruit of that cause—that very one is supremely worthy of veneration. Thus it is determined.

Ettāvatā –

By this much—

Bhayasammohaduddiṭṭhi-paṇāmo nesa sabbathā;

Paññāpubbaṅgamo eso, paṇāmoti nidassito.

This veneration is in no way a veneration out of fear, delusion, or wrong view; this veneration, which has wisdom as its forerunner, is thus demonstrated.

Tatra hetūti atidukkarāni tiṃsapāramitāsaṅkhātāni puññakammāni. Tāni hi accantadukkhena kasirena vacanapathātītānubhāvena mahatā ussāhena karīyantīti atidukkarāni nāma. Atidukkarattā eva hi tesaṃ atidullabhaṃ loke anaññasādhāraṇaṃ nāthattasaṅkhātaṃ phalaṃ phalanti, taṃ tattha hetuphalaṃ; hetumūlaṃ nāma yathāvuttassa hetuno nipphādanasamatthā mahākaruṇā, sā ādipaṇidhānato paṭṭhāya ‘‘mutto mocessāmī’’tiādinā nayena yāva hetuphalappayojanā, tāva abbocchinnaṃ pavattati. Yaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ –

Therein, 'cause' refers to the meritorious deeds known as the thirty perfections, which are exceedingly difficult to perform. For they are called 'exceedingly difficult' because they are performed with absolute suffering, with hardship, with an intensity that transcends the path of speech, and with great effort. Indeed, it is precisely because of their exceedingly difficult nature that they bear as their fruit the state of a protector, which is exceedingly rare in the world and not shared with others. Therein, that is the cause-fruit. The 'root-cause' is the great compassion capable of accomplishing the aforementioned cause. Beginning from the initial aspiration, by the method of 'Being freed, I shall free others,' and so on, it proceeds unbroken for as long as the purposes of the cause-fruit exist. Concerning which, it was said:

‘‘Sakānanā sagrivarā sasāgarā,Gatā vināsaṃ bahuso vasundharā;

Yugantakāle salilānalānile,Na bodhisattassa mahātapā kuto’’ti.

“The earth, with its forests, chief mountains, and oceans, has gone to destruction many times; at the end of an eon, by water, fire, and wind, how could the great compassionate striving of a Bodhisatta be destroyed?”

Yāya samannāgatattā ‘‘namo mahākāruṇikassa tassā’’ti āha. Hetukālaṃ nāma catuaṭṭhasoḷasaasaṅkhyeyyādippabhedo kālo, yaṃ sandhāyāha ‘‘kappakoṭīhipi appameyyaṃ kāla’’nti. Tattha accantasaṃyogatthe upayogavacanaṃ veditabbaṃ ‘‘māsaṃ adhīte, divasaṃ caratī’’tiādīsu viya. Kāmañca so kālo asaṅkhyeyyavasena pameyyo viññeyyo, tathāpi kappakoṭivasena aviññeyyataṃ sandhāya ‘‘kappakoṭīhipi appameyyaṃ kāla’’nti āha. Tattha kālayatīti kālo, khipati viddhaṃsayati sattānaṃ jīvitamiti attho. Kala vikkhepe. Tattha kappīyati saṃkappīyati sāsapapabbatādīhi upamāhi kevalaṃ saṃkappīyati, na manussadivasamāsasaṃvaccharādigaṇanāya gaṇīyatīti kappo. Ekantiādigaṇanapathassa koṭibhūtattā koṭi, kappānaṃ koṭiyo kappakoṭiyo[Pg.6]. Tāhipi na pamīyatīti appameyyo, taṃ appameyyaṃ. Karontoti nānatthattā dhātūnaṃ dānaṃ dento, sīlaṃ rakkhanto, lobhakkhandhato nikkhamanto, attahitaparahitādibhedaṃ taṃ taṃ dhammaṃ pajānanto, vividhena vāyāmena ghaṭento vāyamanto, taṃ taṃ sattāparādhaṃ khamanto, paṭiññāsammutiparamatthasaccāni saccāyanto, taṃ taṃ sattahitaṃ adhiṭṭhahanto, sakalalokaṃ mettāyanto, mittāmittādibhedaṃ pakkhapātaṃ pahāya taṃ taṃ sattaṃ ajjhupekkhanto cāti attho. Khedaṃ gatoti anantappabhedaṃ mahantaṃ saṃsāradukkhaṃ anubhavanaṭṭhena gato, sampattotyattho. Saṃsāradukkhañhi sārīrikaṃ mānasikañca sukhaṃ khedayati pātayatīti ‘‘khedo’’ti vuccati. Lokahitāyāti idaṃ yathāvuttahetuphalappayojananidassanaṃ, ‘‘saṃsāradukkhānubhavanakāraṇanidassana’’ntipi eke –

Because of being endowed with which, it is said: ‘Homage to that Greatly Compassionate One.’ The time of the causes is a time with divisions such as four, eight, and sixteen incalculable eons, referring to which it is said: ‘a time immeasurable even by crores of eons.’ Therein, the accusative case should be understood in the sense of continuous connection, as in ‘he studies for a month, he walks for a day,’ and so on. And though that time is measurable and knowable by way of incalculable eons, yet, referring to its unknowability by way of crores of eons, it is said: ‘a time immeasurable even by crores of eons.’ Therein, 'time' (kāla) is so called because it drives (kālayati), that is, it casts away (khipati) and destroys (viddhaṃsati) the life of beings; such is the meaning. The root 'kala' is used in the sense of 'to cast away.' Therein, an eon (kappa) is so called because it is conceived (kappīyati), reckoned (saṃkappīyati) only by similes like the mustard-seed mountain, etc., but it is not counted by the reckoning of human days, months, or years. A ‘koṭi’ is so called because it is the culmination (koṭi) of the path of counting beginning with ‘one,’ etc.; ‘crores of eons’ (kappakoṭiyo) are the culminations of eons. It is ‘immeasurable’ (appameyyo) because it cannot be measured (na pamīyati) even by those; that is, the immeasurable time. The meaning of ‘doing’ (karonto) is as follows, due to the diverse meanings of the roots: giving gifts, protecting virtue, departing from the aggregate of greed, knowing that and that Dhamma which is divided into one’s own welfare, the welfare of others, etc., striving and exerting with various kinds of effort, enduring this and that offense of beings, making true the truths of promises, conventions, and ultimate reality, resolving on this and that welfare for beings, extending loving-kindness to the entire world, and abandoning partiality divided into friend, non-friend, etc., and regarding this and that being with equanimity. ‘Gone to exhaustion’ (khedaṃ gato) means having gone to, having attained, the boundless and great suffering of saṃsāra in the sense of experiencing it; such is the meaning. For the suffering of saṃsāra exhausts (khedayati) and fells (pātayati) both physical and mental happiness, hence it is called ‘exhaustion’ (kheda). ‘For the welfare of the world’—this indicates the aforementioned cause, fruit, and purpose. And some say it indicates the reason for experiencing the suffering of saṃsāra.

‘‘‘Jātisaṃsāradukkhānaṃ, gantuṃ sakkopi nibbutiṃ;

Ciralliṭṭhopi saṃsāre, karuṇāyeva kevala’nti. –

“Although able to go to Nibbāna, the cessation of the sufferings of saṃsāra and birth, He is long afflicted in saṃsāra purely out of compassion.”

Ca vutta’’nti, tamayuttaṃ. Na hi bhagavā lokahitāya saṃsāradukkhamanubhavati. Na hi kassaci dukkhānubhavanaṃ lokassa upakāraṃ āvahati. Evaṃ panetaṃ dasseti tiṃsapāramitāpabhedaṃ hetuṃ, pāramitāphalabhūtaṃ nāthattasaṅkhātaṃ phalañca. Yathā cāha ‘‘mamañhi, ānanda, kalyāṇamittaṃ āgamma jātidhammā sattā jātiyā parimuccantī’’tiādi (saṃ. ni. 1.129; 5.2). Tattha bhagavā yathāvuttahetūhi sattānaṃ vineyyabhāvanipphādanapaññābījāni vapi, hetuphalena paripakkindriyabhāvena parinipphannavineyyabhāve satte vinayi, saṃsāradukkhato mocayīti attho. Na evaṃ saṃsāradukkhena lokassa upakāraṃ kiñci akāsi, tasmā karonto atidukkarāni lokahitāyāti sambandho. Imissā yojanāya sabbapaṭhamassa bodhisattassa uppattikālato paṭṭhāya bodhisattassa nāthattasaṅkhātapāramitāhetuphalādhigamo veditabbo. Yo nāthoti hi sambandho adhippeto. Imassa panatthassa –

And it has been said thus.” That is unsuitable. For the Blessed One does not experience the suffering of saṃsāra for the welfare of the world. Indeed, the experience of suffering by anyone does not bring benefit to the world. Rather, it shows this: the cause, which is the division of the thirty perfections, and the fruit, known as the state of a protector, which is the result of the perfections. And as He said: “Indeed, Ānanda, by relying on me, the good friend, beings subject to birth are freed from birth,” and so on. Therein, the Blessed One, by the aforementioned causes, sowed for beings the seeds of wisdom that accomplish the state of being trainable; by the fruit of the cause, which is the state of having mature faculties, He trained beings whose trainable nature had been brought to perfection, and liberated them from the suffering of saṃsāra—this is the meaning. It is not that He benefited the world through the suffering of saṃsāra; therefore, the connection is: “while doing extremely difficult deeds for the welfare of the world.” By this construction, from the time of the arising of the very first Bodhisatta, the Bodhisatta's attainment of the cause and fruit of the perfections, known as the state of a protector, should be understood. For the intended connection is with “who is a protector.” But of this meaning—

‘‘Yadeva paṭhamaṃ citta-muppannaṃ tava bodhaye;

Tvaṃ tadevassa lokassa, pūjike parivasittha’’. –

“Whatever first thought arose in you for the sake of enlightenment; that very thought you have attended to in a worshipful manner for this world.”

Iti vacanaṃ sādhakaṃ. Paṭhamacittassa pāramitābhāvo rukkhassa aṅkurato paṭṭhāya uppattiupamāya sādhetabbo. Etthāha – ‘‘khedaṃ gatoti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ[Pg.7], yathāvuttanayena guṇasādhanāsambhavato’’ti? Na, antarā anivattanakabhāvadīpanato. Dukkarāni karonto khedaṃ gato eva, na antarā khedaṃ asahanto nivattatīti dīpeti. Lokadukkhāpanayanakāmassa vā bhagavato attano dukkhānubhavanasamatthataṃ dasseti.

This statement is proof. The state of the first thought being a perfection should be established by the simile of the arising of a tree, starting from the sprout. Here one might say: ‘Is the statement “gone to exhaustion” meaningless, since the quality cannot be established in the manner explained?’ No, because it shows the state of not turning back midway. It shows that one who undertakes difficult deeds indeed goes to exhaustion, but does not turn back midway, being unable to endure the exhaustion. Alternatively, it demonstrates the Blessed One’s capacity to endure his own suffering, he who desires to remove the suffering of the world.

‘‘Yassa kassaci varadossaṃ, yāvāhaṃ sabbasattadukkhāni;

Sabbāni sabbakālaṃ yugaṃ, padmasseva bujjhantomhī’’ti. –

“For as long as I am to be a giver of the supreme boon to any being whatsoever, I awaken to all the sufferings of all beings, at all times and all at once, like a lotus.”

Evaṃadhippāyassa attamattadukkhānubhavanasamatthatāya kāyeva kathāti atisayaṃ atthaṃ dassetīti attho. Atha vā khedaṃ gatoti byāpāraṃ paricayaṃ gatotipi attho sambhavati. Kammādīsu sabyāpāraṃ purisaṃ disvā santi hi loke vattāro ‘‘khinnoyaṃ kamme, khinnoyaṃ satte’’tiādi. Imissā yojanāya nāthoti iminā buddhattādhigamasiddhaṃ koṭippattaṃ nāthabhāvaṃ patvā ṭhitakālo dassitoti veditabbo. Keci ‘‘mahākāruṇikassāti vadanto buddhabhūtassāti dassetī’’ti likhanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ viya, bodhisattakālepi tabbohārasabbhāvato. Tasmā so ettakaṃ kālaṃ dukkarāni karonto avasāne dukkarapāramitāpāripūriyā tāsaṃ phalabhūtaṃ nāthabhāvaṃ patvā lokahitāya byāpāraṃ gatoti ayamattho nidassito hoti. ‘‘Bodhiṃ gato’’ti vuttepi subyattaṃ hetuphalaṃ dassitaṃ hoti. Buddhabhāvappattasseva ca nāthassa namo kato hoti visesavacanasabbhāvato, na bodhisattassa. Evaṃ santepi vinayādhikāro idhādhippeto. So ca pabbajitakālato paṭṭhāya yāvamaraṇakālā hoti. Taṃ ativiya parittaṃ kālaṃ lajjino atisukaraṃ sīlamattaṃ ekakassa attano hitāya attamattadukkhāpanayanādhippāyena paripūrento ko nāma idhalokaparalokātikkamasukhaṃ na gaccheyya, nanu bhagavā sakalalokadukkhāpanayanādhippāyena kappakoṭīhipi appameyyaṃ kālaṃ karonto atidukkaranirassādaṃ khedaṃ gatoti aññāpadesena guṇaṃ vaṇṇeti ācariyo.

The meaning is that it shows the supreme meaning: for one with such an intention, because of his capability to endure only his own suffering, what is there to say of suffering in the body? Alternatively, the meaning 'gone to fatigue' (khedaṃ gato) can also possibly mean 'has become accustomed to exertion'. For, upon seeing a person engaged in work and so on, there are indeed speakers in the world who say, ‘This one strives in work, this one strives in the affairs of beings,’ and so on. In this interpretation, it should be understood that by the word ‘Protector’ (nātha), the time is shown when he was established, having attained the state of a Protector which is the pinnacle, accomplished through the attainment of Buddhahood. Some write, ‘By saying “the Greatly Compassionate One,” he indicates one who has become a Buddha,’ but that does not seem correct, because that designation existed even during the time of the Bodhisatta. Therefore, this meaning is pointed out: that Bodhisatta, having performed difficult deeds for such a long time, in his final existence, through the fulfillment of the perfection of difficult practice, attained the state of a Protector—which is the fruit of those perfections—and engaged in exertion for the welfare of the world. Even when it is said, ‘He has attained enlightenment,’ the cause and effect are shown very clearly. And homage is made only to the Protector who has attained the state of Buddhahood, not to the Bodhisatta, because of the existence of a specific term. Even so, the section on the Vinaya is intended here. And that extends from the time of his going forth until the time of his death. During that very brief time, for a conscientious person, while fulfilling mere virtue which is very easy to do for the welfare of oneself alone, with the intention of removing only one's own suffering—who indeed would not attain the happiness that transcends this world and the next? Indeed, the Blessed One, with the intention of removing the suffering of the entire world, for an immeasurable time of countless crores of aeons, performing extremely difficult deeds, reached a state of joyless fatigue—thus the teacher praises his virtue by way of indirect reference.

Lokahitāyāti ettha lokiyati ettha dukkhanti loko, luyate vā jātijarāmaraṇadukkhehīti loko, iminā sattalokaṃ jātilokañca saṅgaṇhāti. Tasmā tassa sattalokassa idhalokaparalokahitaṃ atikkantaparalokānaṃ vā ucchinnalokasamudayānaṃ lokānaṃ[Pg.8], idha jātiloke okāsaloke vā diṭṭhadhammasukhavihārasaṅkhātañca hitaṃ sampiṇḍetvā lokassa, lokānaṃ, loke vā hitanti sarūpekadesekasesaṃ katvā ‘‘lokahita’’miccevāha. Nāthoti sabbasattānaṃ āsayānusayacariyādhimuttibhedānurūpadhammadesanasamatthatāya ‘‘dhammaṃ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi…pe… taṃ suṇāthā’’ti (ma. ni. 3.420) evaṃ yācanaṭṭhenāpi nāthateti nātho. Bhikkhūnaṃ vītikkamānurūpaṃ sikkhāpadapaññāpanena diṭṭhadhammikasamparāyikāya ca karuṇāya upagantvā tapati, suttantavasena vā tesaṃ sabbasattānaṃ anusayite kilese karuṇāya ca paññāya ca upagantvā tapati, abhidhammavasena vā te te saṅkhāre aniccādilakkhaṇavasena upaparikkhitvā attano kilese paññāya upecca paricchinditvā tapatīti tapanaṭṭhenāpi nāthateti nātho. Sadevake loke appaṭipuggalattā kenaci appaṭihatadhammadesanattā paramacittissariyappavattito ca issariyaṭṭhenāpi nāthateti nātho. ‘‘Dhammiyā kathāya sandassesi samādapesi samuttejesi sampahaṃsesī’’ti (mahāva. 90) vacanato sampahaṃsanasaṅkhātena āsīsaṭṭhena, paṇidhānato paṭṭhāya ‘‘kathaṃ nāmāhaṃ mutto mocayissāmī’’tiādinā nayena āsīsaṭṭhena vā nāthateti nāthoti veditabbo, sammāsambuddho. Catūhipi nāthaṅgehi catuvesārajjacatupaṭisambhidādayo sabbepi buddhaguṇā yojetabbā, ativitthārikabhayā pana na yojitā.

Herein, regarding 'for the welfare of the world,' 'world' (loka) is so called because suffering is established therein (lokiyati), or because it is afflicted (luyate) by the sufferings of birth, aging, and death. By this term, both the world of beings and the world of birth are included. Therefore, having combined the welfare in this world and the next for that world of beings; the welfare for the worlds of those who have transcended the next world, for whom the cause of the world has been cut off; and also the welfare designated as a pleasant abiding in the present life, here in the world of birth or in the spatial world—the commentator has said simply 'for the welfare of the world,' having made a partial ellipsis of a similar form from the phrases 'welfare of the world,' 'of the worlds,' or 'in the world.' He is the Protector (Nātha) because he is capable of teaching the Dhamma in accordance with the various dispositions, underlying tendencies, conduct, and inclinations of all beings, and thus he is sought (nāthate) in the sense of being requested, as when he says: 'Bhikkhus, I will teach you the Dhamma… listen to it.' He is the Protector because he torments (tapati): by laying down training rules for bhikkhus in accordance with their transgressions, having approached with compassion for their welfare in this life and the next, he torments the defilements. Or, by way of the Suttas, having approached the latent defilements of all those beings with compassion and wisdom, he torments them. Or, by way of the Abhidhamma, having investigated those various formations by way of the characteristics of impermanence and so on, and having approached and discerned his own defilements with wisdom, he torments them. Thus, he is the Protector also in the sense of tormenting (tapanaṭṭha). He is the Protector also in the sense of sovereignty (issariyaṭṭha), because he is an unparalleled person in the world with its devas, because his teaching of the Dhamma is unopposed by anyone, and because of the exercise of supreme mastery of mind. From the statement, 'He instructed, encouraged, roused, and gladdened them with a talk on the Dhamma,' he is the Protector in the sense of aspiration (āsīsaṭṭha), which is designated as gladdening. Or, starting from his original resolution, in the manner of 'How, being liberated myself, shall I liberate others?', he is the Protector in the sense of aspiration. Thus, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One is to be understood as the Protector. All the Buddha’s qualities, such as the four grounds of confidence, the four analytical knowledges, and so on, should be connected by way of these four aspects of a Protector. However, for fear of excessive elaboration, they are not connected here.

Namoti paramatthato buddhaguṇabahumānapabbhārā cittanati, cittanatippabhavā ca vacīkāyanati. Atthu meti pāṭhasesena sambandho. Mahākāruṇikassāti ettha sabbasattavisayattā mahussāhappabhavattā ca mahatī karuṇā mahākaruṇā. Tattha paṇidhānato paṭṭhāya yāvaanupādisesanibbānapurappavesā niyuttoti mahākāruṇiko, bhagavā. Ettha ca mahākāruṇikassāti iminā yathāvuttahetumūlaṃ dasseti. Nikkaruṇo hi paradukkhesu udāsino buddhatthāya paṇidhānamattampi atibhāriyanti maññanto appameyyaṃ kālaṃ atidukkaraṃ hetuṃ pūretvā nāthattasaṅkhātaṃ hetuphalappayojanabhūtaṃ lokahitaṃ kathaṃ karissati. Tasmā sabbaguṇamūlabhūtattā mahākaruṇāguṇameva vaṇṇento ‘‘namo mahākāruṇikassā’’ti āha. Ettāvatā hetuanurūpaṃ phalaṃ, phalānurūpo [Pg.9] hetu, dvinnampi anurūpaṃ mūlaṃ, tiṇṇampi anurūpaṃ payojananti ayamattho dassito hoti.

‘Homage’ is, in the ultimate sense, an inclination of the mind (cittanati) bent in great esteem for the Buddha’s qualities; and from that inclination of mind arises the inclination of speech and body. The connection is to be made with the remainder of the text as: ‘May my homage be.’ Here, in ‘to the Greatly Compassionate One,’ great compassion (mahākaruṇā) is ‘great’ because its object is all beings and because it arises from great endeavor. In that regard, he was engaged from his original aspiration right up to his entry into the city of Nibbāna without remainder of aggregates; thus he is the Greatly Compassionate One, the Blessed One. And here, by the words ‘to the Greatly Compassionate One,’ he indicates the root of the aforementioned cause. For how could one without compassion, who is indifferent to the suffering of others and who would consider even the mere aspiration for Buddhahood to be too burdensome, fulfill the extremely difficult cause for an immeasurable time and accomplish the welfare of the world—which is the purpose of the cause and the fruit, designated as Protectorship? Therefore, because great compassion is the root of all qualities, praising this very quality, he says, ‘Homage to the Greatly Compassionate One.’ By this much, the following meaning is shown: the fruit is appropriate to the cause, the cause is appropriate to the fruit, the root is appropriate to both, and the purpose is appropriate to all three.

Evaṃ acchariyapuriso, nātho nāthaguṇe ṭhito;

Namoraho anāthassa, nāthamānassa sampadaṃ.

Thus, the wonderful person, the Protector established in the qualities of a Protector, is worthy of homage, bringing to fulfillment the aspiration of the unprotected who esteem him as their refuge.

Ettha siyā ‘‘anekesu bhagavato guṇesu vijjamānesu kasmā ‘mahākāruṇikassā’ti ekameva gahita’’nti? Uccate –

Here, it might be asked: “Among the many virtues of the Blessed One that exist, why is only ‘to the Greatly Compassionate One’ taken?” The reply is given:

Dosahīnassa satthassa, codanā tu na vijjate;

Dosayuttamasatthañca, tasmā codanā apattakāti.

For a treatise that is free from faults, no accusation exists; and a faulty work is not a true treatise. Therefore, the accusation is inapplicable.

Na mayā codanā katā, kintu pucchā eva katā. Apica –

No accusation was made by me, but rather, only a question was asked. Furthermore:

‘‘Phalaṃ satipi rukkheḍḍhe, na patatyavikampite;

Codanā yā’tthu satthānaṃ, pucchanātyatthaphalaṃ mahatā.

Though there is fruit on a prosperous tree, it does not fall if unshaken; likewise, whether it be an accusation or a question directed at the treatises, the fruit of its meaning is exceedingly great.

‘‘Nabhottuṃ kurute sammā, gahituṃ nāḍḍhate ghaṭaṃ;

Akkhepe hi kate tadi-cchissāṇābuddhibandhanaṃ.

One does not make proper use of the teaching, nor does one strive with effort to grasp it. For when a reproach is made against a faultless teacher, for one who desires such fault-finding, it becomes a fetter to their authority and wisdom.

‘‘Yathā himapado paddho, pabuddho gandhalimpiyā;

Bhinnatthaviramassevaṃ, satthakatātthalimpiyā’’ti. –

Just as a lotus bestowed by the moon awakens when anointed with scent, so too a treatise free from broken meaning is well-made by being anointed with its meaning.

Evaṃ cekaṃ –

And thus it is said:

Sammāpi codanā taṃ khalu, guravo vivākyā vivaddha;

Yatisissā āghaṭṭitāti-vākyenābhyadhikaṃ gopaya.

Even when an exhortation is proper, it indeed affects teachers who have diverse speech and growing ascetic-disciples. Therefore, guard against excessive speech.

Saravatī āceraṃ kiliṭṭhā, tadicchissajitāttānaṃ;

Jayatyattānamācero, sadassasseva sārathīti. –

A disciple who is accustomed to seeing the teacher's fault, having speech that pierces like an arrow, afflicts the teacher and is thereby defeated himself. Just as a charioteer conquers his own horse, the teacher conquers the disciple who is dependent on him. Thus it should also be said.

Atroccate –

Herein, what is fitting is said:

Yassa hi vākyasahassaṃ, vākye vākye satañca jivhā;

Nāmaṃ dasabalaguṇapadesaṃ, vattuṃ kappenapi na sakkā.

For one who has a thousand mouths, and in each mouth a hundred tongues, it would not be possible, even in a whole aeon, to speak the name that indicates the virtues of the Ten-Powered One.

Yathā [Pg.10] –

For example:

Buddhopi buddhassa bhaṇeyya vaṇṇaṃ,Kappampi ce aññamabhāsamāno;

Khīyetha kappo ciradīghamantare,Vaṇṇo na khīyetha tathāgatassāti. (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.304;

3.141;

ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.425;

udā. aṭṭha. 53;

cariyā. aṭṭha. nidānakathā) –

Even if the Buddha, speaking of nothing else, were to speak the praise of a Buddha for a whole life-aeon, that long-lasting aeon would be exhausted in the interim, but the praise of the Tathāgata would not be exhausted.

Cottattā na sakkā bhagavataṃ guṇānamavasesābhidhātuṃ.

And because it has been so stated, it is not possible to declare the virtues of the Blessed Ones without remainder.

Apica –

Furthermore:

Yathā tvaṃ sattānaṃ, dasabala tathā ñāṇakaruṇā;

Guṇadvandaṃ seṭṭhaṃ, tava guṇagaṇā nāma tiguṇāti. –

O Ten-Powered One, just as you are excellent among beings, so too is the pair of wisdom and compassion excellent. Your wisdom and compassion, a collection of virtues, are called exceedingly excellent virtues.

Sabbaguṇaseṭṭhattā mūlattā ca ekameva vuttaṃ. Atha vā ‘‘chasu asādhāraṇañāṇesu aññatarattā taggahaṇena sesāpi gahitāva sahacaraṇalakkhaṇenā’’ti ca vadanti. Visesato panettha abhidhammassa kevalaṃ paññāvisayattā abhidhammaṭṭhakathārambhe ācariyena ‘‘karuṇā viya sattesu, paññā yassa mahesino’’ti paññāguṇo vaṇṇito tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ āsayānusayacaayādhimuttibhedānurūpaparicchindanapaññāya, sattesu mahākaruṇāya ca adhikārattā. Suttantaṭṭhakathārambhe ‘‘karuṇāsītalahadayaṃ, paññāpajjotavihatamohatama’’nti bhagavato ubhopi paññākaruṇāguṇā vaṇṇitā. Idha pana vinaye āsayādinirapekkhaṃ kevalaṃ karuṇāya pākatikasattenāpi asotabbārahaṃ suṇanto, apucchitabbārahaṃ pucchanto, avattabbārahañca vadanto sikkhāpadaṃ paññapesīti karuṇāguṇoyeveko vaṇṇitoti veditabbo.

Only the one virtue of compassion was stated because it is the most excellent of all virtues and because it is the root cause. Alternatively, some say: 'Because it is one among the six unshared knowledges, by taking it the others are also indeed taken by the method of concomitance.' Here, however, in particular, because the Abhidhamma is the domain of wisdom alone, at the beginning of the Abhidhamma commentary the Teacher praised the virtue of wisdom, saying: 'The wisdom of the Great Sage towards beings is like compassion.' Because it is the domain of the wisdom that discerns in accordance with the various inclinations, latent tendencies, conduct, and dispositions of those beings, and of the great compassion towards all beings, at the beginning of the Suttanta commentaries both the virtues of wisdom and compassion of the Blessed One were praised: 'His heart cooled by compassion, the darkness of delusion dispelled by the lamp of wisdom.' But here in this Vinaya, without regard for inclinations and so on, solely through compassion—hearing what is not fit to be heard even by an ordinary being, asking what is not fit to be asked, and saying what is not fit to be said—he laid down the training rule. Therefore, it should be understood that only the one virtue of compassion was praised by the Teacher.

Paññādayā attaparatthahetū,Tadanvayā sabbaguṇā jinassa;

Ubho guṇā te guṇasāgarassa,Vuttā idhācariyavarena tasmā.

Wisdom and compassion are the causes for the welfare of oneself and others; all the qualities of the Conqueror follow from them. Therefore, both those qualities of the Conqueror, the ocean of virtues, have been stated here by the noble Teacher.

Ettāvatā aṭṭhakathādigāthā,Samāsato vuttapadatthasobhā;

Ayampi vitthāranayoti cāhaṃ,Uddhaṃ ito te paṭisaṃkhipāmi.

Thus far, the preliminary verse of the commentary is beautiful with the meaning of its words stated briefly. This method of explanation is the detailed one; and without continuing in this manner, I will summarize them from this point onward.

Dutiyagāthāya [Pg.11] asambudhanti dhammānaṃ yathāsabhāvaṃ abujjhanto. Buddhanisevitanti buddhānubuddhapaccekabuddhehi gocarabhāvanāsevanāhi yathārahaṃ nisevitaṃ. Bhavā bhavanti vattamānabhavato aññaṃ bhavaṃ gacchati upagacchati, paṭipajjatīti attho. Atha vā bhavoti sassatadiṭṭhi. Tassa paṭipakkhattā abhavoti ucchedadiṭṭhi. Bhavoti vā vuddhi. Abhavoti hāni. Bhavoti vā duggati. Abhavoti sugati. ‘‘Appamāṇā dhammā, asekkhā dhammā’’tiādīsu (dha. sa. tikamātikā 13, 11) viya hi vuddhiatthattā akārassa. Bhāvayatīti bhavo, jāti. Bhavatīti vā bhavo. Savikārā bahuvidhakhandhuppatti dīpitā. Abhavoti vināso, jātibhāvaṃ maraṇabhāvañca gacchatīti vuttaṃ hoti. Ettha arahantānaṃ maraṇampi khaṇikavasena gahetabbaṃ. Bhavesu abhavo bhavābhavo, taṃ bhavābhavaṃ, bhavesu abhāvapaññattiṃ gacchatīti attho. Jīvalokoti sattaloko, saṅkhāralokaokāsalokānaṃ bhavābhavagamanāsambhavato sattalokaṃ jīvalokoti viseseti. Avijjādikilesajālaviddhaṃsinoti ettha navapi lokuttaradhammā saṅgahaṃ gacchanti. Apacayagāmitā hi catumaggadhammassa odhiso avijjādikilesajālaviddhaṃso, so assa atthi, tadārammaṇaṃ hutvā tattha sahāyabhāvūpagamanena nibbānassāpi. Yathāha ‘‘yo kho, āvuso, rāgakkhayo…pe… idaṃ vuccati nibbāna’’nti. Arahattassāpi tathā rāgādikkhayavacanasabbhāvato. Phalasāmaññena tiṇṇampi phalānaṃ atthīti navavidhopesa ‘‘avijjādikilesajālaviddhaṃsī’’ti vuccati. Atha vā sahacaraṇalakkhaṇakaāraṇatāya paṭipakkhagocaraggahaṇatā. Anabhihitopi hi dhammassa tatrābhihitova bujjhitabbo iti vacanato kāraṇagocaraggahaṇena cattāripi phalāni gahitāni. Narakādīsu apatamānaṃ dhāreti sugatiyaṃ uppādanenāti dhammo. Puna sugatimhi ajananakārī akusaladhamme nivāretvā poseti pavatteti vaḍḍhetīti dhammo. So pana kāmarūpārūpabhedato tividho accantasukhāvahanato, tatopi uttamattā dhammavaro.

In the second verse, regarding `asambudhanti`: not knowing the true nature of phenomena as it is. Regarding `Buddhanisevitaṃ`: it is suitably resorted to by Buddhas, Anubuddhas, and Paccekabuddhas through resorting to a suitable range and resorting to development. Regarding `bhavābhavaṃ`: one goes from the present existence to another existence, approaches it, and undertakes it; this is the meaning. Alternatively, `bhava` is the eternalist view; being its opposite, `abhava` is the annihilationist view. Or, `bhava` is growth, and `abhava` is decline. Or, `bhava` is a woeful destination, and `abhava` is a happy destination. For, just as in such phrases as 'immeasurable dhammas, dhammas of the adept,' the letter 'a' has the meaning of augmentation. 'It causes to become' (`bhāvayati`), therefore it is `bhavo` (becoming), i.e., birth. Or, 'it becomes' (`bhavati`), therefore it is `bhavo`. The arising of the manifold aggregates with their alterations is shown. `Abhavo` is destruction; it is said that one goes to the state of birth and the state of death. Here, even the death of Arahants should be taken as momentary death. `Abhavo` (non-becoming) in `bhavesu` (in existences) is `bhavābhava`. `Taṃ bhavābhavaṃ` means one goes to the conceptual designation of non-existence in existences; this is the meaning. `Jīvaloka` (the world of the living) is the world of beings; because going to existence and non-existence is not possible for the world of formations and the world of space, it specifies the world of beings with the term `jīvaloka`. Regarding `avijjādikilesajālaviddhaṃsino` (destroyer of the net of defilements starting with ignorance): here, the nine supramundane dhammas are included. Indeed, for the Dhamma of the four paths, the state of proceeding by destroying defilements is, specifically, the destruction of the net of defilements starting with ignorance. This exists for it. It also exists for Nibbāna, by being its object and by resorting to a state of companionship with it. As it is said: 'Friend, the destruction of lust... this is called Nibbāna.' Likewise, for the fruit of Arahantship also, this quality exists because of the presence of the term expressing the destruction of lust and so on. By the commonality of fruit, it also exists for the other three fruits. Therefore, this ninefold Dhamma is called 'the destroyer of the net of defilements starting with ignorance.' Alternatively, because it is a cause known by the characteristic of association, there is the grasping of the opposing object. For, according to the saying, 'Even what is not stated of the Dhamma there should be understood as stated,' the four fruits are also included by grasping the cause (the path) and the object (Nibbāna). It is 'Dhamma' because it sustains a being, preventing them from falling into hell and other woeful states, by causing them to arise in a happy destination. Again, it is 'Dhamma' because it prevents unwholesome dhammas that cause non-arising in a happy destination, and it nurtures, promotes, and increases wholesome states. That Dhamma, however, is threefold by the distinction of the sense-sphere, form-sphere, and formless-sphere. Because it brings ultimate happiness and because it is supreme even among those, it is the excellent Dhamma (`dhammavaro`).

Etthāha – ‘‘catunnaṃ, bhikkhave, ariyasaccānaṃ ananubodhā appaṭivedhā evamidaṃ dīghamaddhānaṃ sandhāvitaṃ saṃsarita’nti (dī. ni. 2.155; mahāva. 287) vacanato catusaccadhammaṃ asambudhaṃ bhavā bhavaṃ gacchati jīvalokoti siddhaṃ. Tasmā yaṃ asambudhaṃ gacchati, tasseva ‘‘tassā’’ti ante taṃniddesena niyamanato catusaccadhammopi avijjādikilesajālaviddhaṃsī [Pg.12] dhammavaroti cāpajjati. Aññathā ‘‘namo avijjādikilesajālaviddhaṃsino dhammavarassa tassā’’ti taṃniddesena samānavibhattikaraṇaṃ na yujjati atippasaṅganiyamanato, ‘‘avijjādikilesajālaviddhaṃsino dhammavarassā’’ti vacanaṃ visesanavacanaṃ. Tasmā dukkhasamudayasaccānaṃ tabbhāvappasaṅgo natthīti ce? Na, taṃniddesena samānavibhattiṭṭhāne avisesitattā. Api ca maggasaccanirodhasaccesu phalānaṃ apariyāpannattā nava lokuttaradhammā saṅgahitāti vacanavirodho, phalānaṃ asaṅgahe verañjakaṇḍavaṇṇanāyaṃ na kevalaṃ ariyamaggo ceva nibbānañca, api ca ariyaphaladhammehi saddhiṃ pariyattidhammopi. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘rāgavirāgamanejamasokaṃ…pe… dhammamimaṃ saraṇatthamupehī’’ti (vi. va. 887) vacanavirodho cāti pubbāparaviruddhā esā gāthā sāsanaviruddhā cā’’ti? Vuccate – sabbametamayuttaṃ vuttagāthatthājānanato. Ettha hi ācariyena pavattipavattihetuvisayavibhāgo ca dassito. Kathaṃ? Tattha asambudhanti asambodho, so atthato avijjā, tāya ca taṇhupādānāni gahitāni, tayopi te dhammā samudayasaccaṃ, bhavābhavanti ettha dukkhasaccaṃ vuttaṃ. Sugatiduggatippabhedo hi bhavo atthato pañcupādānakkhandhā honti. ‘‘Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hotī’’ti (mahāva. 1) vacanato dukkhappavatti pavatti nāma, dukkhasamudayo pavattihetu nāma, avijjāsaṅkhātassa ca pavattihetussa aggahitaggahaṇena nirodhamaggasaccadvayaṃ visayo nāma. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘tattha katamā avijjā? Dukkhe aññāṇaṃ…pe… dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāya aññāṇa’’nti (vibha. 226).

Herein, the objector says: 'Monks, due to not fully understanding and not penetrating the Four Noble Truths, this long course has been run through and wandered through by me as well as by you' (Dī. Ni. 2.155; Mahāva. 287). From this statement, it is established that the world of beings, not understanding the Dhamma of the Four Truths, goes from existence to existence. Therefore, because that which is not understood is what one transmigrates through, and because this very thing is specified at the end by the demonstrative pronoun 'tassa', it follows that the Dhamma of the Four Truths is also the excellent Dhamma that destroys the net of defilements such as ignorance. Otherwise, making it have the same case ending with the demonstrative pronoun 'tassa' in the phrase 'Homage to that excellent Dhamma that destroys the net of defilements such as ignorance' would not be suitable, due to the over-extended specification; the phrase 'to the excellent Dhamma that destroys the net of defilements such as ignorance' is a qualifying phrase. Therefore, if one were to say, 'Is there not the consequence of the truths of suffering and its origin being that excellent Dhamma?' The reply is: No, because in the instance of having the same case ending with that demonstrative pronoun, it is not specified. Furthermore, because the fruits are not included in the truths of the path and cessation, there is a contradiction with the statement that the nine supramundane Dhammas are included. If the fruits are not included, there would be a contradiction with the statement in the commentary on the Verañja section: 'not only the Noble Path and Nibbāna, but also the scriptural Dhamma along with the dhammas of the Noble Fruits.' And there would be a contradiction with the statement, 'Come for refuge to this Dhamma... free from passion, unshakable, sorrowless...' (Vimānavatthu 887). Therefore, this verse is contradictory to what comes before and after, and it is also contradictory to the Dispensation.' It is replied: All of this is unsuitable, due to not knowing the meaning of the aforementioned verse. For herein, the teacher has shown the distinction between the domains of the process of existence, the cause of that process, and the object. How? Therein, 'asambudhaṃ' means non-understanding; that, in essence, is ignorance. And by that, craving and clinging are taken. Those three dhammas are the truth of the origin. Herein, by 'bhavābhavaṃ' (from existence to existence), the truth of suffering is stated. For existence, which is differentiated into good and bad destinations, is in essence the five aggregates subject to clinging. In accordance with the statement, 'Thus is the origin of this whole mass of suffering' (Mahāva. 1), the process of suffering is called 'the process of existence'; the origin of suffering is called 'the cause of the process of existence'. And by grasping what was not previously grasped of the cause of the process of existence, which is designated as ignorance, the two truths of cessation and the path are called the 'object'. For it is said: 'Therein, what is ignorance? It is not knowing suffering... not knowing the path leading to the cessation of suffering' (Vibh. 226).

Ettha ca nirodhasaccaṃ buddhena gocarāsevanāya āsevitaṃ, maggasaccaṃ bhāvanāsevanāya. Ettāvatā asambudhaṃ buddhanisevitaṃ yanti upayogappatto yo visayo nirodho ca maggo ca, tassa yathāvuttāvijjādikilesajālattayaviddhaṃsino namo dhammavarassāti ayaṃ gāthāya attho. Pariyattidhammopi kilesaviddhaṃsanassa suttantanayena upanissayapaccayattā kilesaviddhaṃsanasīlatāya ‘‘avijjādikilesajālaviddhaṃsī’’ti vattuṃ sambhavati. Evañhi sati rāgavirāgāti gāthattho, so dhammaṃ deseti…pe… brahmacariyaṃ pakāsetīti suttattho ca asesato gahito hoti. Atha [Pg.13] vā imāya gāthāya kevalaṃ pariyattidhammova gahito hoti, yaṃ sandhāyāha ‘‘so dhammaṃ deseti ādikalyāṇaṃ…pe… brahmacariyaṃ pakāsetī’’ti (dī. ni. 1.190; pārā. 1), tampi asambudhaṃ buddheheva nisevitaṃ gocarāsevanāya anaññanisevitaṃ. Yathāha ‘‘bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā bhagavaṃnettikā bhagavaṃpaṭisaraṇā…pe… bhagavato sutvā bhikkhū dhāressantī’’ti (saṃ. ni. 2.146).

And herein, the Truth of Cessation is frequented by the Buddha through the practice of its domain, and the Truth of the Path through the practice of development. To this extent, this is the meaning of the verse: Homage to that excellent Dhamma, the destroyer of the aforementioned triple net of defilements beginning with ignorance, which is the object—namely, Cessation and the Path—that is reached by application, not comprehended by others, and frequented by the Buddhas. The scriptural Dhamma also, because it is a decisive support condition for the destruction of defilements according to the Suttanta method, and because of its nature of destroying defilements, can be called the 'destroyer of the net of defilements beginning with ignorance.' For when this is so, the meaning of the verse beginning 'dispassion for lust,' and the meaning of the Sutta 'He teaches the Dhamma... He proclaims the holy life,' are grasped completely, without remainder. Alternatively, by this verse, only the scriptural Dhamma is taken, in reference to which it is said, 'He teaches the Dhamma, good in the beginning... He proclaims the holy life' (Dī. Ni. 1.190; Pārā. 1). That too, not being comprehended by others, is frequented only by the Buddhas through the practice of its domain, and not frequented by any other. As it is said: 'Our Dhammas, venerable sir, are rooted in the Blessed One, guided by the Blessed One, with the Blessed One as their refuge... having heard from the Blessed One, the monks will bear it in mind' (Saṃ. Ni. 2.146).

Tatiyagāthāya sīlādayo kiñcāpi lokiyalokuttarā yathāsambhavaṃ labbhanti, tathāpi ante ‘‘ariyasaṅgha’’nti vacanato sīlādayo cattāro dhammakkhandhā lokuttarāva. Ettha ca ‘‘sīlasamādhipaññāvimuttivimuttiñāṇappabhutīhī’’ti vattabbe sarūpekasesaṃ katvā ‘‘vimuttiñāṇappabhutīhī’’ti vuttaṃ. Ettha ca kiñcāpi vimuttīti phaladhammāva sutte adhippetā, tathāpi ‘‘maggā vuṭṭhahitvā maggaṃ paccavekkhati. Pahīne kilese paccavekkhati. Phalaṃ paccavekkhati. Nibbānaṃ paccavekkhatī’’ti (paṭṭhā. 1.1.410) vacanato maggādipaccavekkhaṇañāṇaṃ vimuttiñāṇanti veditabbaṃ. Vimutti vimokkho khayoti hi atthato ekaṃ. ‘‘Khaye ñāṇaṃ anuppāde ñāṇanti (dha. sa. dukamātikā 142; dī. ni. 3.304) ettha khayo nāma maggo, rāgakkhayo dosakkhayoti phalanibbānānaṃ adhivacana’’nti sutte āgatameva. Pahīnakilesānaṃ khayo pākatiko khayo eva. Pabhuti-saddena tisso vijjā cha abhiññā catasso paṭisambhidāti evamādayo guṇā saṅgahitā. Samannāgamaṭṭhena aparihīnaṭṭhena ca yutto. Khettaṃ janānaṃ kusalatthikānanti ‘‘anuttaraṃ puññakkhettaṃ lokassā’’ti suttato kusalassa viruhanaṭṭhānattā, suttantanayena upanissayapaccayattā ca kāmaṃ kusalassa khettaṃ hoti saṅgho, na kusalatthikānaṃ janānaṃ. Tasmā na yujjatīti ce? Na, suttatthasambhavato. Sutte ‘‘anuttaraṃ puññakkhettaṃ lokassā’’ti (saṃ. ni. 4.341) hi vuttaṃ. Kassa lokassa? Puññatthikassa khettaṃ saṅgho, puññupanissayattā puññakkhettaṃ hoti saṅgho, kusalatthikānanti ca vuccanti. Lokepi hi devadattassa khettaṃ yaññadattassa khettaṃ sāliyavupanissayattā sālikhettaṃ yavakhettanti ca vuccati. Ariyasaṅghanti vigatakilesattā ariyaṃ parisuddhaṃ ariyānaṃ, ariyabhāvaṃ vā pattaṃ sīladiṭṭhisāmaññena saṅghatattā saṅghaṃ. ‘‘Ariya-saddena sammutisaṅghaṃ nivāretī’’ti keci likhanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ vimuttiñāṇaguṇaggahaṇena visesitattā. Sirasāti [Pg.14] iminā kāmaṃ kāyanatiṃ dasseti, tathāpi uttamasaṅghe guṇagāravena uttamaṅgameva niddisanto ‘‘sirasā namāmī’’tyāha. Sirassa pana uttamatā uttamānaṃ cakkhusotindriyānaṃ nissayattā, tesaṃ uttamatā ca dassanānuttariyasavanānuttariyahetutāya veditabbā. Etthāha – anusandhikusalo

In the third verse, although virtues such as morality, etc., may be obtained as worldly or supramundane according to what is possible, yet at the end, due to the phrase “the noble Saṅgha,” the four Dhamma-aggregates, beginning with morality, are only supramundane. And here, though it should be said “with morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge of liberation, etc.,” by way of a residual of the same form, it is stated as “with the knowledge of liberation, etc.” And here, although in the Suttas “liberation” is intended to mean only the fruition-states, still, according to the statement, “Having arisen from the path, one reviews the path. One reviews the abandoned defilements. One reviews the fruition. One reviews Nibbāna,” the knowledge that reviews the path, etc., should be understood as the knowledge of liberation. For liberation (vimutti), emancipation (vimokkha), and destruction (khaya) are one in meaning. In the phrase, “knowledge in destruction, knowledge in non-arising,” here ‘destruction’ is the path, while ‘destruction of lust, destruction of hatred’ are designations for fruition and Nibbāna, as has indeed come in the Suttas. For those whose defilements are abandoned, destruction is natural destruction indeed. By the word ‘etc.’, qualities such as the three knowledges, the six direct knowledges, and the four analytical knowledges are included. It is appropriate by the meaning of being endowed and by the meaning of being unimpaired. Regarding ‘a field for people seeking wholesome states’: from the Sutta, “the unsurpassed field of merit for the world,” because it is a place for the growth of the wholesome, and by the Sutta method, because it is a decisive support condition, the Saṅgha is indeed a field for the wholesome, not for people seeking wholesome states. If it is said, ‘Therefore, it is not fitting’? No, because the meaning of the Sutta is possible. For in the Sutta it is said, “the unsurpassed field of merit for the world.” For which world? The Saṅgha is a field for one who seeks merit; because it is a support for merit, the Saṅgha is a field of merit, and they are called ‘those who seek wholesome states.’ For in the world too, Devadatta’s field and Yaññadatta’s field are called a rice field and a barley field because they are a support for rice and barley. The ‘noble Saṅgha’ (ariyasaṅgha): because of being free from defilements, it is noble (ariya), pure; or it is of the noble ones (ariyānaṃ); or it is a Saṅgha that has attained the state of a noble one (ariyabhāva), so called because it is grouped together by a commonality of virtue and view. Some write, “By the word ‘noble’ (ariya), it excludes the conventional Saṅgha,” but that is not good, because it is already specified by the inclusion of the quality of the knowledge of liberation. By this word ‘with the head’ (sirasā), it indeed shows inclination with the body; yet, with reverence for the qualities of the supreme Saṅgha, the commentator, wishing to point out only the highest limb, said, “I bow with the head.” But the supremacy of the head is due to its being the support of the supreme faculties of the eye and ear, and their supremacy should be understood as being the cause for unsurpassed seeing and unsurpassed hearing. Here, one skilled in making connections says:

‘‘Upogghāto padañceva, padattho padaviggaho;

Codanāpratyavajjānaṃ, byākhyā tantassa chabbidhā’’ti. –

Introduction, the word, the meaning of the word, the analysis of the word, objection, and reply—the explanation of a treatise is sixfold.

Evamavatvā kasmā ratanattayapaṇāmaṃ paṭhamaṃ vuttanti? Vuccate – satācārattā. Ācāro kiresa sappurisānaṃ, yadidaṃ saṃvaṇṇanārambhe ratanattayapūjāvidhānaṃ. Tasmā ‘‘satācārato bhaṭṭhā mā mayaṃ homā’’ti karīyati, catugambhīrabhāvayuttañca vinayapiṭakaṃ saṃvaṇṇetukāmassa mahāsamuddaṃ ogāhantassa viya paññāveyyattiyasamannāgatassāpi mahantaṃ bhayaṃ hoti, bhayakkhayāvahañcetaṃ ratanattayaguṇānussaraṇajanitaṃ paṇāmapūjāvidhānaṃ. Yathāha ‘‘evaṃ buddhaṃ sarantāna’’ntiādi (saṃ. ni. 1.249). Apicācariyo satthupūjāvidhānena asatthari satthābhinivesassa lokassa yathābhūtaṃ satthari eva sammāsambuddhe satthusambhāvanaṃ uppādeti, asatthari satthusambhāvanaṃ pariccajāpeti, ‘‘tathāgatappaveditaṃ dhammavinayaṃ attano dahatī’’ti vuttadosaṃ pariharati. Antarāyabahulattā khandhasantatiyā vippakatāya vinayasaṃvaṇṇanāya attano āyuvaṇṇasukhabalānaṃ parikkhayasambhavāsaṅkāya ‘‘abhivādanasīlissa…pe… āyu vaṇṇo sukhaṃ bala’’nti (dha. pa. 109) vuttānisaṃse yāva saṃvaṇṇanāpariyosānā pattheti. Api cettha buddhassa bhagavato paṇāmapūjāvidhānaṃ sammāsambuddhabhāvādhigamatthaṃ buddhayānaṃ paṭipajjantānaṃ ussāhaṃ janeti. Lokiyalokuttarabhedassa, lokuttarasseva vā saddhammassa pūjāvidhānaṃ paccekabuddhabhāvādhigamatthaṃ paccekabuddhayānaṃ paṭipajjantānaṃ ussāhaṃ janeti. Saddhammapaṭivedhamattābhilāsino hi te. Paramatthasaṅghapūjāvidhānaṃ paramatthasaṅghabhāvādhigamatthaṃ sāvakayānaṃ paṭipajjantānaṃ ussāhaṃ janeti, maṅgalādīni vā sātthāni anantarāyāni ciraṭṭhitikāni bahumatāni ca bhavantīti evaṃladdhikānaṃ cittaparitosanatthaṃ ‘‘pūjā ca pūjaneyyāna’’nti bhagavatā pasatthamaṅgalaṃ karoti. Vuccate ca –

Without saying thus, why is the homage to the Triple Gem stated first? It is said: because of the practice of the virtuous. This is indeed the practice of good people, namely, the performance of homage to the Triple Gem at the commencement of an exposition. Therefore, it is done with the thought, 'Let us not fall away from the practice of the virtuous.' And for one who wishes to expound the Vinaya Piṭaka, which is endowed with fourfold profundity, even if endowed with proficiency in wisdom, there is great fear, like one entering the great ocean. This homage and veneration, born from the recollection of the virtues of the Triple Gem, brings about the destruction of fear. As it is said: 'Thus, for those recollecting the Buddha...' and so on. Furthermore, the teacher, by the method of venerating the Teacher, causes the world, which wrongly adheres to a non-teacher as the Teacher, to generate the true recognition of the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One as the Teacher indeed. He causes them to abandon the recognition of a non-teacher as the Teacher and avoids the fault stated as, 'He claims the Dhamma-Vinaya proclaimed by the Tathāgata as his own.' Because the continuity of the aggregates is fraught with many dangers, and fearing the possible decline of one’s own life, beauty, happiness, and strength while the Vinaya exposition is still unfinished, one aspires, until the very end of the exposition, for the benefits stated: 'For one who is habitually respectful... life, beauty, happiness, and strength.' Here also, the homage and veneration to the Blessed One, the Buddha, generates effort in those who practice the Buddhayāna for the attainment of perfect self-enlightenment. The method of veneration of the true Dhamma, whether worldly or supramundane—or solely the supramundane—generates effort in those who practice the Paccekabuddhayāna for the attainment of Paccekabuddhahood. For they desire only the penetration of the true Dhamma. The method of veneration of the ultimate Sangha generates effort in those who practice the Sāvakayana for the attainment of the state of the ultimate Sangha. Or, for the contentment of the minds of those who hold the view that auspicious acts are beneficial, free from obstacles, long-lasting, and highly esteemed, he performs the auspicious act praised by the Blessed One as, 'Homage to those worthy of homage.' And it is said:

‘‘Maṅgalaṃ [Pg.15] bhagavā buddho, dhammo saṅgho ca maṅgalaṃ;

Maṅgalādīni sātthāni, sīghaṃ sijjhanti sabbaso.

The Blessed One, the Buddha, is auspicious; the Dhamma and the Sangha are auspicious. Through auspicious acts, beneficial results are quickly and completely accomplished.

‘‘Satthu pūjāvidhānena, evamādī bahū guṇe;

Labhatīti vijānanto, satthupūjāparo siyā’’ti.

Knowing that one obtains many such virtues by the method of venerating the Teacher, one should be devoted to venerating the Teacher.

Ettha ca satthupadhānattā dhammasaṅghānaṃ pūjāvidhānaṃ satthupūjāvidhānamicceva daṭṭhabbaṃ sāsanato lokato ca. Tenetaṃ vuccati –

Here, because the Teacher is primary, the method of venerating the Dhamma and the Sangha should be regarded as precisely the method of venerating the Teacher, both from the perspective of the Dispensation and of the world. Therefore, this is said:

‘‘Satthā’’ti dhammo sugatena vutto;

Nibbānakāle yamato sa satthā;

Suvatthigāthāsu ‘‘tathāgato’’ti;

Saṅgho ca vutto yamato sa satthā.

The Dhamma was called 'Teacher' by the Sugata; for which reason, at the time of his Parinibbāna, it is the Teacher. In the Suvatthi verses, the Sangha is also spoken of as 'Tathāgata'; for which reason, it is the Teacher.

Kiñca bhiyyo –

Furthermore:

Dhammakāyo yato satthā, dhammo satthā tato mato;

Dhammaṭṭhito so saṅgho ca, satthusaṅkhyaṃ nigacchati.

Since the Teacher is the Dhamma-body, the Dhamma is therefore considered the Teacher; and that Sangha, being established in the Dhamma, also attains the designation of 'Teacher'.

Santi hi loke vattāro kosagataṃ asiṃ gahetvā ṭhitaṃ purisaṃ visuṃ aparāmasitvā ‘‘asiṃ gahetvā ṭhito eso’’ti. Tenevāha cāriyamātraccevā –

For indeed, in the world there are speakers who, without considering the sheath separately, say of a man standing holding a sword in its sheath, 'This one stands holding a sword.' Therefore, the teacher Ācariyamātracceva said:

‘‘Namatthu buddharatnāya, dhammaratnāya te namo;

Namatthu saṅgharatnāya, tiratnasamavānayī’’ti.

May there be homage to the Buddha-jewel; homage to your Dhamma-jewel. May there be homage to the Sangha-jewel. The three jewels bring forth equal benefit.

Apica sabbadhammesu appaṭihatañāṇanimittānuttaravimokkhapātubhāvābhisaṅkhātaṃ khandhasantānamupādāya ‘‘buddho’’ti yadi paññāpiyati, dhammo paṇāmārahoti kā eva kathā, saṅgho ca ‘‘saṅghe gotami dehi, saṅghe te dinne ahañceva pūjito bhavissāmi saṅgho cā’’ti vuttattā bhājananti dīpeti. Atha vā ‘‘buddhasubodhito dhammo ācariyaparamparāya suvaṇṇabhājane pakkhittatelamiva aparihāpetvā yāvajjatanā ābhatattā eva mādisānampi sotadvāramanuppatto’’ti saṅghassa ācariyo atīva ādarena paṇāmaṃ karoti ‘‘sirasā namāmī’’ti.

Moreover, if the continuum of aggregates is designated as 'Buddha' with reference to the manifestation of unsurpassed liberation, which is characterized by unobstructed knowledge in all phenomena, then what need is there to say that the Dhamma is worthy of homage? And it is shown that the Sangha is a worthy recipient because it was said, 'Gotamī, give to the Sangha. When you give to the Sangha, I myself will be venerated, as will the Sangha.' Or alternatively, because 'the Dhamma, well-understood by the Buddha, has been brought down through the lineage of teachers to the present day without diminution, like oil poured into a golden vessel, and has thus reached the ear-door of even persons such as I,' the teacher pays homage with extreme reverence, saying, 'I bow with my head.'

Evaṃ [Pg.16] anekavidhaṃ paṇāmappayojanaṃ vadanti, ācariyena pana adhippetappayojanaṃ attanā eva vuttaṃ ‘‘iccevamaccantanamassaneyya’’ntiādinā catutthagāthāya. Iccevanti ettha iti-saddo ratanattayapūjāvidhānaparisamattattho. Yadi evaṃ yathāvihitamattameva pūjāvidhānaṃ arahati ratanattayaṃ, na tato uddhanti āpajjatīti aniṭṭhappasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ ‘‘evamaccantanamassaneyya’’nti āha. Tattha evanti iminā yathāvuttavidhiṃ dasseti. Yathāvuttena vidhinā, aññena vā tādisena accantameva muhuttamapi aṭṭhatvā abhikkhaṇaṃ nirantaraṃ niyamena namassanārahaṃ namassamānassa hitamahapphalakaraṇatoti attho. Evaṃvidhaṃ dullabhaṭṭhena mahapphalaṭṭhena ca siddhaṃ ratanabhāvaṃ ratanattayaṃ namassamāno yaṃ puññābhisandaṃ alatthaṃ alabhiṃ. Akusalamalaṃ tadaṅgādippahānena punātīti puññaṃ. Kilesadarathappaṭippassaddhiyā sītalattā cittaṃ abhisandetīti abhisando. Puññañca taṃ abhisando cāti puññābhisando, taṃ puññābhisandaṃ. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘puññamahattaṃ’’nti bhaṇanti, ‘‘vipula’’nti vacanato so attho na yujjatīti ācariyo. Atha vā puññānaṃ abhisando puññābhisando, taṃ puññābhisandaṃ. Sanda savaneti dhātu. Tasmā puññasotaṃ puññussayanti attho yujjati, taṃ pana vipulaṃ, na parittanti dassitaṃ vipula-saddena.

Thus, teachers say the purpose of homage is of many kinds; however, the intended purpose was stated by the teacher himself with the fourth verse beginning, 'iccevamaccantanamassaneyya'. Herein, in 'iccevaṃ', the word 'iti' has the meaning of the completion of the procedure of venerating the Triple Gem. If it were so, the Triple Gem would be worthy of only the prescribed procedure of veneration and nothing beyond it. To prevent this undesirable implication, he said, 'evamaccantanamassaneyya'. Therein, by 'evaṃ', he indicates the aforementioned procedure. The meaning is: because it brings about welfare and great fruit for one who, by the aforementioned procedure or by another similar one, pays homage to that which is worthy of homage—constantly, without stopping even for a moment, repeatedly, uninterruptedly, and regularly. Paying homage to the Triple Gem, established in its nature as a gem of this kind by being difficult to obtain and by being of great fruit, whatever accumulation of merit I have obtained. Because it purifies the stain of the unwholesome by means of abandonment, beginning with momentary abandonment, it is called 'puñña' (merit). Because, through the calming of the torment of defilements, it is cool and soothes the mind, it is called 'abhisanda'. It is 'puñña' and it is 'abhisanda'; therefore, it is 'puññābhisanda' (an accumulation of merit). In the Gaṇṭhipada commentaries, however, they say it means 'the greatness of merit', but the teacher states that this meaning is not suitable because of the word 'vipula' (abundant). Alternatively, 'puññābhisando' is a stream or accumulation of merits. The root 'sanda' is in the sense of 'flowing'. Therefore, the meaning 'a current of merit' or 'an accumulation of merit' is suitable. That it is, however, abundant and not limited, is shown by the word 'vipula'.

Pañcamagāthā yasmiṃ vinayapiṭake pāḷito ca atthato ca anūnaṃ lajjīpuggalesu pavattanaṭṭhena ṭhite sakalaṃ tividhampi sāsanaṃ tesveva puggalesu patiṭṭhitaṃ hoti. Kassa sāsananti ce? Aṭṭhitassa bhagavato. Bhagavā hi ṭhitihetubhūtāya ucchedadiṭṭhiyā abhāvena aṭṭhitoti vuccati. Ucchedadiṭṭhiko hi paraloke nirapekkho kevalaṃ kāmasukhallikānuyogamanuyuñjanto tiṭṭhati, na paralokahitāni puññāni kattuṃ byāvaṭo hoti, sassatadiṭṭhiko tāni kattuṃ āyūhati. Bhagavā pana tathā atiṭṭhanto anāyūhanto majjhimaṃ paṭipadaṃ paṭipajjanto sayañca oghaṃ tari, pare ca tāresi. Yathāha ‘‘appatiṭṭhaṃ khvāhaṃ, āvuso, anāyūhaṃ oghamatari’’nti (saṃ. ni. 1.1). Catubrahmavihāravasena sattesu suṭṭhu sammā ca ṭhitassāti atthavasena vā susaṇṭhitassa. Susaṇṭhitattā hesa kevalaṃ sattānaṃ dukkhaṃ apanetukāmo hitaṃ upasaṃharitukāmo sampattiyā ca pamodito apakkhapatito ca hutvā vinayaṃ deseti, tasmā imasmiṃ [Pg.17] vinayasaṃvaṇṇanādhikāre sāruppāya thutiyā thomento āha ‘‘susaṇṭhitassā’’ti. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘manāpiye ca kho, bhikkhave, kammavipāke paccupaṭṭhite’’ti (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 2.35; ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.386) suttassa, ‘‘susaṇṭhānā surūpatā’’ti (khu. pā. 8.11) suttassa ca vasena susaṇṭhitassāti attho vutto, so adhippetādhikārānurūpo na hoti. Amissanti kiṃ vinayaṃ amissaṃ, udāhu pubbācariyānubhāvanti? Nobhayampi. Amissā eva hi vinayaṭṭhakathā. Tasmā bhāvanapuṃsakavasena amissaṃ taṃ vaṇṇayissanti sambandho. Pubbācariyānubhāvanti aṭṭhakathā ‘‘yasmā pure aṭṭhakathā akaṃsū’’ti vacanato tesaṃ ānubhāvo nāma hoti. Kiñci apubbaṃ disvā santi hi loke vattāro ‘‘kassesa ānubhāvo’’ti. Atha vā bhagavato adhippāyaṃ anugantvā taṃtaṃpāṭhe atthaṃ bhāvayati vibhāvayati, tassa tassa vā atthassa bhāvanā vibhāvanāti ānubhāvo vuccati aṭṭhakathā.

In the fifth verse: When the Vinaya Piṭaka, complete both in text and in meaning, is established among conscientious individuals by way of its functioning, the entire threefold Teaching is established in those very individuals. If it is asked, 'Whose teaching is it?' The answer is: 'Of the unestablished Blessed One.' For the Blessed One is called 'unestablished' (aṭṭhita) due to the absence of the annihilationist view, which is a cause for being established. For one with an annihilationist view, being indifferent to the next world, remains engaged only in the practice of indulgence in sensual pleasures; he is not engaged in making merit for the welfare of the next world. One with an eternalist view strives to do those things. But the Blessed One, not being established and not striving in that way, practicing the Middle Path, crossed the flood himself and caused others to cross. As he said: 'Friend, not being established and not striving, I indeed crossed the flood' (Saṃ. Ni. 1.1). Alternatively, `susaṇṭhitassa` is said by way of the meaning 'of one who is well and rightly established among beings through the power of the four divine abodes'. For, being well-established, desiring only to remove the suffering of beings and to bring them welfare, rejoicing in their success, and being impartial, he teaches the Vinaya. Therefore, in this section on the commentary of the Vinaya, praising with suitable praise, he said `susaṇṭhitassa` ('of the well-established one'). In the Gaṇṭhipada, however, the meaning of `susaṇṭhitassa` is stated by way of the sutta, 'When, monks, agreeable and disagreeable results of action present themselves...' (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 2.35; Ma. Ni. Aṭṭha. 2.386) and the sutta, 'well-proportioned, of good form' (Khu. Pā. 8.11); that meaning is not in accordance with the intended section. Regarding `amissaṃ` ('unmixed'): What is unmixed? The Vinaya, or the influence of the ancient teachers? Neither of the two. For the Vinaya commentary itself is unmixed. Therefore, the connection should be made thus: 'I shall expound it as unmixed', by way of the neuter gender of the abstract noun. Regarding `pubbācariyānubhāva` ('the influence of the ancient teachers'): because it will be said, 'Since in the past they composed the commentaries', the commentary is called their 'influence'. For, having seen something unprecedented, there are those in the world who say, 'Whose influence is this?' Alternatively, because it follows the intention of the Blessed One and develops and clarifies the meaning in each respective text, or because it is the development and clarification of each respective meaning, the commentary is called 'influence' (`ānubhāva`).

Pubbācariyānubhāve sati kiṃ puna taṃ vaṇṇayissanti iminā ārambhenāti tato vuccanti chaṭṭhasattamaṭṭhamanavamagāthāyo. Tattha ariyamaggañāṇambunā niddhotamalattā visuddhavijjehi, teneva niddhotāsavattā visuddhapaṭisambhidehi, visuddhapaṭisambhidattā ca saddhammasaṃvaṇṇanakovidehīti yojanā veditabbā. Keci ‘‘pubbācariyāti vutte lokācariyāpi, sāsane rāhulācariyādayopi saṅgayhanti, te apanetuṃ kāmañcātiādi vutta’’nti vadanti. ‘‘Taṃ vaṇṇayissa’’nti vuttattā pubbaṭṭhakathāya ūnabhāvo dassitoti ce? Na, cittehi nayehi saṃvaṇṇitoti dassetuṃ ‘‘kāmañcā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Saddhammaṃ saṃvaṇṇetuṃ kovidehi, tāya saṃvaṇṇanāya vā kovidehi saddhammasaṃvaṇṇanakovidehi.

The commentary, which is the powerful work of the ancient teachers, being already in existence, what is the purpose of undertaking again to explain it with the words, 'I shall explain that'? Because this criticism might be raised, after that fifth verse, the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth verses are spoken. Therein, the construction should be understood thus: by those possessing pure knowledge, because their stains have been washed away by the water of the noble path-knowledge; by those possessing pure analytical knowledge, because their cankers have been washed away by that very same water; and, because they possess pure analytical knowledge, by those skilled in expounding the good Dhamma. Some say: 'When "ancient teachers" is stated, it could include worldly teachers, and in the Dispensation, teachers such as the Elder Rāhula and others. To exclude them, the verse beginning with `kāmañca` was spoken.' If it is said: 'Because it is stated, "I shall explain it," is a deficiency in the ancient commentary thereby shown?' It should not be so said. The verse beginning with `kāmañca` was spoken to show this meaning: 'It was well expounded by the ancient commentators with various wondrous methods.' The compound `saddhammasaṃvaṇṇanakovidehi` means: skilled in expounding the good Dhamma, or skilled in that exposition.

Sallekhiyeti kilesajātaṃ bāhullaṃ vā sallikhati tanuṃ karotīti sallekho, sallekhassa bhāvo sallekhiyaṃ, tasmiṃ sallekhiye. Nosulabhūpamehīti asulabhūpamehi. Mahāvihārassāti mahāvihāravaṃsassa. Paññāya accuggataṭṭhena dhajo upamā etesanti dhajūpamā, tehi dhajūpamehi. Sambuddhavaraṃ anuayehi anugatehi sambuddhavaranvayehi, buddhādhippāyānugehīti adhippāyo. Idha vara-saddo ‘‘sāmaṃ saccāni buddhattā sambuddho’’ti vacanato paccekabuddhāpi saṅgayhanti. Tasmā te apanetuṃ vutto.

Regarding `sallekhiye`: one effaces (`sallikhati`) or makes austere (`tanuṃ karoti`) the mass of defilements or an abundance of requisites; therefore, this is `sallekho` (effacement). The state of one who practices effacement is `sallekhiyaṃ`. `Tasmiṃ sallekhiye` means: in that state of effacement. `Nosulabhūpamehi` means `asulabhūpamehi`: by those for whom a simile is not easily found. `Mahāvihārassa` means `mahāvihāravaṃsassa`: of the lineage of the Mahāvihāra. A banner is their simile (`dhajo upamā etesaṃ`) because they are highly exalted in wisdom (`paññāya accuggataṭṭhena`); hence they are `dhajūpamā` (like a banner); `tehi dhajūpamehi` means by those who are like a banner. `Sambuddhavaranvayehi` means: by those who follow (`anugatehi`) in the way (`anuayehi`) of the Sammāsambuddha's noble intention (`sambuddhavaraṃ`). The meaning is: by those who follow the Buddha's intention (`buddhādhippāyānugehi`). Here, according to the etymology, 'Because he has understood the truths by himself, he is a `sambuddho`,' the term `sambuddha` could also include Paccekabuddhas. Therefore, the word `vara` (noble) is stated in order to exclude them.

Aṭṭhakathāya [Pg.18] ūnabhāvaṃ dassetvā idāni attano karaṇavisesaṃ tassa payojanañca dassetuṃ ‘‘saṃvaṇṇanā’’tiādimāha. Na kiñci atthaṃ abhisambhuṇātīti kiñci payojanaṃ phalaṃ hitaṃ na sādhetīti attho ‘‘na taṃ tassa bhikkhuno kiñci atthaṃ anubhotī’’tiādīsu (pārā. 538) viya. Ajjhesanaṃ buddhasirivhayassāti iminā yasmā sahampatibrahmunā ajjhiṭṭhena dhammo desito bhagavatā, sāriputtassa ajjhesanaṃ nissāya vinayo paññatto, tasmā ayampi ācariyo taṃ ācariyavattaṃ pūjento imaṃ saṃvaṇṇanaṃ buddhasirittherassa yācanaṃ nissāya akāsīti dasseti. Samanussarantoti tassābhāvaṃ dīpeti ādarañca.

Without showing a deficiency in the ancient commentary, he now says 'saṃvaṇṇanā' and so on, in order to show the special reason for his own composition and its purpose. 'Not achieving any benefit' means not accomplishing any useful purpose, result, or good, just as in passages such as 'that monk does not experience any benefit from it' (Pārā. 538). By 'at the request of the one named Buddhasiri,' he shows that because the Dhamma was taught by the Blessed One at the request of Brahmā Sahampati, and the Vinaya was established based on Sāriputta's request, therefore this teacher too, honoring that duty of a teacher, made this commentary at the request of the Elder Buddhasiri. By 'Samanussaranto' ('remembering'), he indicates that Elder's good qualities and his respectedness.

Tato paraṃ dve gāthāyo kattabbavidhidassanatthaṃ vuttā. Tena tāsu aṭṭhakathāsu vuttavinicchayapaccayavimatiṃ vinodeti, ekaṭṭhakathāya kusalassa vā ‘‘ayaṃ nayo aṭṭhakathāyaṃ natthī’’ti paṭikkhepaṃ nivāreti, ayuttatthapariccāgena tattha abhiniviṭṭhānaṃ abhinivesaṃ pariccajāpeti, theravādadassanena vinayavinicchayaṃ pati vinayadharānaṃ kāraṇopapattito uhāpohakkamaṃ dasseti, ayuttattheravādapaṭikkhepena puggalappamāṇataṃ paṭikkhipatīti ime cānisaṃsā kattabbavidhidassanena dassitā honti. Saṃvaṇṇanaṃ tañca samārabhanto tassā saṃvaṇṇanāya mahāaṭṭhakathaṃ sarīraṃ katvā samārabhissaṃ, mahāpaccariyampi yo vutto vinicchayo, tatheva kurundīnāmādīsu loke vissutāsu aṭṭhakathāsu ca yo vutto vinicchayo, tatopi vinicchayato mahāaṭṭhakathānayena, vinayayuttiyā vā yuttamatthaṃ tassa sarīrassa alaṅkāraṃ viya gaṇhanto samārabhissaṃ. Kiṃ saṃvaṇṇanameva, na aññanti dassanatthaṃ puna saṃvaṇṇanāggahaṇaṃ. Atha vā antogadhattheravādaṃ saṃvaṇṇanaṃ katvā samārabhissanti yojanā veditabbā. Theravādā hi bahiaṭṭhakathāya vicaranti. Ettha ādi-saddena cūḷapaccariandhakaariyaṭṭhakathāpannavārādayopi saṅgahitā. Tattha paccarī nāma sīhaḷabhāsāya uḷumpaṃ kira, tasmiṃ nisīditvā katattā tameva nāmaṃ jātaṃ. Kurundīvallivihāro nāma atthi, tattha katattā kurundī nāma jātā.

After that, two verses are spoken to show the procedure to be followed. By this, it dispels doubt regarding the basis for the decisions stated in those commentaries; for one skilled in a single commentary, it prevents the rejection, 'This method is not in the commentary'; by abandoning an unsuitable meaning, it causes those attached to it to abandon their adherence; by showing the Theravāda, it demonstrates to the experts in the Vinaya the procedure of what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected regarding a Vinaya decision, based on the suitability of the reason; and by rejecting an unsuitable Theravāda, it rejects taking a person as the standard. Thus, these benefits are shown by demonstrating the procedure to be followed. And undertaking that explanation, I will do so having made the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā its body. Furthermore, whatever decision is stated in the Mahāpaccarī, and likewise whatever decision is stated in the commentaries renowned in the world beginning with the Kurundī and others, from those decisions too, I will undertake this work, taking the suitable meaning—in accordance with the method of the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā or with what is proper according to the Vinaya—like an ornament for that body. To show the answer to the question, 'Is it only the explanation and nothing else?', the word 'explanation' is mentioned again. Alternatively, the connection should be understood thus: 'I will undertake this work by making the Theravāda that is included within into an explanation.' For the Theravādas circulate outside the commentary. Here, by the word 'ādi' (beginning with), the Cūḷapaccarī, Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā, Ariya-aṭṭhakathā, Paṇṇavāra, and so on are also included. Among them, the name 'Paccarī', it is said, is 'a raft' in the Sinhalese language; because it was composed while seated on that, this very name arose. There is a monastery named Kurundīvalli; because it was composed there, the name 'Kurundī' arose.

Samma samārabhissanti kattabbavidhānaṃ sajjetvā ahaṃ ṭhito, tasmā taṃ me nisāmentūti gāthāya taṃ saṃvaṇṇanaṃ me mama, mayā vā vuccamānanti pāṭhaseso[Pg.19]. Nisāmentu passantu paññācakkhunā suṇantu vā saddhāvīriyapītipāmojjābhisaṅkhārena saṅkharitvā pūjayantā sakkaccaṃ dhammaṃ. Kassa dhammaṃ? Dhammappadīpassa tathāgatassa. Kiṃ dasseti? Padīpaṭṭhāniyo hi dhammo hitāhitappakāsanato, padīpadharaṭṭhāniyo dhammadharo tathāgato, tasmā parinibbutepi tasmiṃ tathāgate tattha sokaṃ akatvā sakkacca dhammaṃ paṭimānayantā nisāmentūti dasseti. Atha vā ‘‘dhammakāyā tathāgatā’’ti (dī. ni. 3.118) vacanato dhammo ca so padīpo cāti dhammappadīpo, bhagavā.

I stand ready, having prepared the arrangement of what should be done, thinking, 'They will begin rightly.' Therefore, in the verse 'let them listen to that of me,' the remainder of the reading to be supplied is: 'that explanation of mine (mama), or that explanation spoken by me (mayā).' Let them behold with the eye of wisdom, or let them hear, having conditioned themselves with the conditioning of faith, energy, joy, and gladness, honoring the Dhamma respectfully. Whose Dhamma? The Dhamma of the Tathāgata who is the Dhamma-lamp. What does this show? Indeed, the Dhamma stands in the place of a lamp because it reveals what is beneficial and not beneficial. The Tathāgata, the bearer of the Dhamma, is in the place of a lamp-bearer. Therefore, it shows that even though that Tathāgata has attained Parinibbāna, without making sorrow there, they should listen, respectfully honoring the Dhamma. Alternatively, because it is said, 'The Tathāgatas are the Dhamma-body,' he is the Dhamma and he is the lamp; thus, he is the Dhamma-lamp. The Blessed One is meant.

Yo dhammavinayo yathā buddhena vutto, so tatheva buddhaputtehi sāvakehi ñāto avabuddho, yehi tesaṃ buddhaputtānaṃ matiṃ adhippāyaṃ accajantā niravasesaṃ gaṇhantā. Pureti purā, porāṇattherā vā. Aṭṭhakathāti aṭṭhakathāyo, upayogabahuvacanaṃ.

The Dhamma-Vinaya which was spoken by the Buddha in a certain way, was known and understood in that very same way by the disciples, the sons of the Buddha, who grasped it completely, without abandoning the intention and opinion of those sons of the Buddha. `Pure` means `purā` (formerly), or the ancient elders. `Aṭṭhakathā` stands for `aṭṭhakathāyo` (commentaries); it is the accusative plural.

Yaṃ atthajātaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ, taṃ sabbampi pamādalekhakānaṃ pamādalekhamattaṃ vajjayitvā. Kiṃ sabbesampi pamāṇaṃ? Na, kintu sikkhāsu sagāravānaṃ idha vinayamhi paṇḍitānaṃ, mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana saccepi alikepi dukkaṭameva vuttaṃ, taṃ pamādalekhanti veditabbaṃ. Pamādalekhaṃ vajjayitvā pamāṇaṃ hessatīti sambandho.

Regarding whatever body of meaning is stated in the commentaries, all of that, having excluded what is merely the careless writing of careless scribes—is the word of all of them the standard? No. But rather, the word of the wise in this Vinaya who are respectful towards the trainings is the standard. However, in the Great Commentary, whether speaking truth or speaking falsely, only a `dukkaṭa` (wrongdoing) is stated; that should be known as a careless writing. The connection to be made is this: having excluded the careless writing, it will be the standard.

Tato cāti aṭṭhakathāsu vuttaatthajātato tantikkamaṃ pāḷikkamaṃ. Suttantā suttāvayavā. Antoti hidaṃ abbhantarāvayavasambhāvanādīsu dissati. Suttantesu bhavā suttantikā, tesaṃ suttantikānaṃ, suttantaganthesu āgatavacanānanti attho. Atha vā amīyatīti anto, sādhīyatīti adhippāyo. Kena sādhīyati? Suttena, suttassa anto suttanto, ko so? So so atthavikappo, tasmiṃ suttante niyuttāni vacanāni suttantikāni. Tesaṃ suttantikānaṃ vacanānamatthaṃ. Tassa tassa āgamasuttassa abhidhammavinayasuttassa cānurūpaṃ paridīpayantī, ayaṃ tāvettha samāsato atthavibhāvanā – ‘‘itipi so bhagavā’’tiādīnaṃ (saṃ. ni. 2.41; 5.479; a. ni. 6.10; pārā. 1) suttantikānaṃ vacanānamatthaṃ āgamasuttantānurūpaṃ. ‘‘Vivādādhikaraṇaṃ siyā [Pg.20] kusalaṃ siyā akusalaṃ siyā abyākata’’nti (cūḷava. 220) evamādīnaṃ abhidhammasuttantikānaṃ vacanānamatthaṃ abhidhammasuttantānurūpanti evamādi. Hessatīti bhavissati, karīyissatīti adhippāyo. Vaṇṇanāpīti ettha api-saddo sampiṇḍanattho, so tasmāti padena yojetabbo. Kathaṃ? Paṇḍitānaṃ pamāṇattāpi vitthāramaggassa samāsitattāpi vinicchayassa asesitattāpi tantikkamassa avokkamitattāpi suttantikavacanānaṃ suttantaṭṭhakathānurūpaṃ dīpanatopi tasmāpi sakkaccaṃ anusikkhitabbāti. Ettha ‘‘tantikkamaṃ avokkamitvā’’ti vacanena siddhepi ‘‘aṭṭhakathācariyā verañjakaṇḍādīsu ‘suttantikānaṃ bhāro’ti gatā, mayaṃ pana vatvāva gamissāmā’’ti dassetuṃ ‘‘suttantikāna’’nti vuttaṃ kira.

And from that, that is, from the nature of the meaning stated in the commentaries, comes the textual sequence, the Pāḷi sequence. Suttantas are parts of the suttas. Indeed, this word 'anta' is seen in the meanings of 'internal', 'part', 'praise', and so on. Those that are in the suttantas are suttantikas. Of those suttantikas, the meaning is 'of the words that have come in the sutta texts'. Alternatively, because it is accomplished, it is called 'anta'; the intended meaning is 'it is achieved'. By what is it achieved? By the sutta. The end of the sutta is the suttanta. What is that? It is this or that particular meaning. The words connected with that suttanta are suttantikas. The meaning of those suttantika words. Explaining in accordance with each respective sutta of the Āgamas and also of the Abhidhamma and Vinaya suttas—this, first of all, is the brief clarification of the meaning here. The meaning of the suttantika words such as 'Indeed, that Blessed One is...' is in accordance with the Āgama suttantas. The meaning of the Abhidhamma suttantika words such as 'A legal question concerning a dispute may be wholesome, may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate' is in accordance with the Abhidhamma suttantas, and so forth. 'Hessati' means 'it will be'; the intended meaning is 'it will be done'. Here, in 'vaṇṇanāpi', the word 'api' has the meaning of collection, and it should be connected with the word 'tasmā'. How? Because it is an authority for the wise, because the extensive path is summarized, because the decision is made without remainder, because the textual sequence is not transgressed, and because it illuminates the meaning of the suttantika words in accordance with the sutta commentary—therefore, it should also be carefully studied. Here, although it is established by the statement 'without transgressing the textual sequence,' it is said 'of the suttantikas' in order to show this: 'The commentary teachers, in the Verañjakaṇḍa and so on, proceeded, saying, "It is the responsibility of the Suttantikas," but we, however, will proceed only after having explained,' it is said.

Ganthārambhakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Commencement of the Text is concluded.

Bāhiranidānakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the External Introduction

Tadaṅgavinayādibhedena [Pg.21] vinayassabahuttā vinayo tāva vavatthapetabbo. ‘‘Buddhena dhammo vinayo ca vutto’’ti pubbe vuttattā idāni ‘‘vuttaṃ yenā’’ti na vattabbanti ce? Tassa evamādivacanaṃ sandhāya vuttanti sambandho. Dhāritaṃ yena cābhataṃ. Yatthappatiṭṭhitañcetanti vacanaṃ sakalampi vinayapiṭakaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Attapaccakkhavacanaṃ na hotīti āhacca bhāsitaṃ na hotīti adhippāyo. Na hi bhagavato atītādīsu appaccakkhaṃ kiñci atthi. Yadi attapaccakkhavacanaṃ na hoti, padasodhammāpattiṃ na janeyyāti ce? Na, sāvakabhāsitassapi padasodhammāpattijananato. Niyamābhāvā atippasaṅgoti ce? Na, padasodhammasikkhāpadaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘saṅgītittayaṃ āruḷho’’ti visesitattā. Tathā aṭṭhakathāyampi saṅgītiṃ āruḷhattā ‘‘khandhānañca paṭipāṭi…pe… saṃsāroti pavuccatī’’ti (dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā; vibha. aṭṭha. 226 saṅkhārapadaniddesa) evamādivacanaṃ, yañca saṅgītiāruḷhakkamānugataṃ, taṃ padasodhammāpattiṃ janetīti āyasmā upatisso.

Since the Vinaya is manifold by way of its divisions such as the Tadaṅga Vinaya, the Vinaya should first be classified. If it is said that since 'The Dhamma and Vinaya were spoken by the Buddha' was stated previously, now it should not be said 'by whom was it spoken?'—the connection is that this was said in reference to such initial statements. And 'by whom it was upheld and brought forth, and where it was established'—this statement refers to the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. 'It is not a statement of personal experience' means it is not spoken from direct personal knowledge. For indeed, there is nothing whatsoever for the Blessed One in the past and so forth that is not directly perceived. If it is said, 'If it is not a statement of personal experience, would it not give rise to the padasodhamma offense?' No, because even that which is spoken by disciples gives rise to the padasodhamma offense. If it is said, 'Is there an over-extension due to the absence of a fixed rule?' No, because in the commentary on the Padasodhammasikkhāpada, it is specified as 'that which has been included in the three Councils'. Similarly, in the commentary also, because it has been included in the Councils, statements like 'the sequence of the aggregates... and so on... is called saṃsāra' (DhsA. Nidānakathā; VibhA. 226, Saṅkhārapadaniddesa), and whatever follows the order of that which has been included in the Councils—these give rise to the padasodhamma offense, according to Venerable Upatissa.

Paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathāvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the First Great Council

Paṭhamamahāsaṅgīti nāma cāti ettha ca-saddo atirekattho, tena aññāpi atthīti dīpeti. Tampi sālavanaṃ upagantvā mittasuhajje apaloketvā nivattanato upavattananti pākaṭaṃ jātaṃ kira. Yamakasālānanti ekā kira sālapanti sīsabhāge, ekā pādabhāge. Tatrāpi eko taruṇasālo sīsabhāgassa āsanne hoti, eko pādabhāgassa, mūlakhandhaviṭapapattehi aññamaññaṃ saṃsibbitvā ṭhitasālānantipi vuttaṃ. Anupādisesāya nibbānadhātuyāti itthambhūtalakkhaṇe karaṇavacanaṃ ‘‘katakicco pītija hāsa ceto averamukhenābhatakuṇḍalenā’’tiādīsu viya. Parinibbāne parinibbānahetu, tasmiṃ ṭhāne vā mā socittha cittena, mā paridevittha vācāya ‘‘paridevanaṃ vilāpa’’nti vacanato. Mahāsamaṇenāti nissakkatthe karaṇavacanaṃ. Sūriyaṃ’sūbhi paṭukarā’bhā’riṇassa tāṇā ityatreva. Yañca bhagavato anuggahaṃ, tassa anuggahassāti ācariyā. Ekacce pana ‘‘yaṃ yasmā ahaṃ anuggahito’’ti vadanti. Nibbasanānīti niṭṭhitavasanakiccāni, mayā paribhuñjitvā apanītāni[Pg.22]. Yadi suyuttāni dhāressasīti pucchati, kavacasadisāni sāṇāni. Issariyasadisā nava anupubbavihārādayo. Aṭṭha samāpattiyo nirodhasamāpatti ca paṭilābhakkamena ‘‘anupubbavihārā’’ti vuttā.

In `Paṭhamamahāsaṅgīti nāma ca`, the particle `ca` has an additional meaning, thereby indicating that there are others as well. Because of returning after having gone to that Sāla grove and having informed friends and companions, the name 'Upavattana' indeed became well-known. Regarding the twin Sāla trees: it is said one row of Sāla trees was at the head-part, and one at the foot-part. Therein also, one young Sāla tree was near the head-part and another near the foot-part; it is also said that they were Sāla trees standing intertwined with one another by their roots, trunks, branches, and leaves. Regarding `anupādisesāya nibbānadhātuyā`, the instrumental case is in the sense of denoting a particular state, just as in such examples as: 'Having done what was to be done, with a joyful mind born of rapture, a face free from enmity, and adorned with earrings.' `Parinibbāne` means 'on account of the Parinibbāna' or 'in that place.' Then, in accordance with the statement 'lamentation is wailing,' it is said: 'Do not grieve with the mind, do not lament with speech.' Regarding `Mahāsamaṇena`, this is the instrumental case in the sense of the ablative, just as in `Sūriyaṃsūbhi paṭukarā’bhā’riṇassa tāṇā` (The protection for the sage is the radiance that makes things clear from the sun's rays). Regarding `Yañca bhagavato anuggahaṃ`, the teachers say it means 'of that favor.' Some, however, say it means 'because of which I was favored.' `Nibbasanāni` means: those for which the function of being worn is finished, having been used and set aside by me. 'If you are well-practiced, will you be able to bear them?'—thus he asks. The hempen cloths are like armor. The nine successive abidings, etc., are like sovereignty. The eight attainments and the attainment of cessation are called 'successive abidings' in the order of their attainment.

Anāgate sannikaṭṭhe, tathātīte cirantane;

Kāladvayepi kavīhi, purāsaddo payujjate.

In the near future, and likewise in the distant past; in both these times, the word 'purā' is employed by the wise.

Satthusāsanameva pariyatti satthusāsanapariyatti, sā suttageyyādivasena navaṅgā. Tipiṭakameva sabbapariyattippabhedaṃ dhārentīti tipiṭakasabbapariyattippabhedadharā. ‘‘Vinā na sakkā’’ti na vattabbaṃ ‘‘tipiṭakasabbapariyattippabhedadhare’’ti vuttattā, evaṃ santepi atthi viseso tehi sammukhāpi asammukhāpi sutaṃ, therena pana asammukhāpaṭiggahitaṃ nāma natthīti. Na vāyanti ettha vāti vibhāsā, aññāsipi na aññāsipīti attho. Tatra uccinane. Bahusaddo vipullattho ‘‘anantapāraṃ bahu veditabbamitya’’treva. Pubbe ‘‘tipiṭakasabbapaayattippabhedadhare’’ti vuttattā ‘‘bahu cānena…pe… pariyatto’’ti na yujjatīti ce? Na, tipiṭakassa anantattā, tasmā amhe upādāya tena bahu pariyattoti adhippāyo. Itarathā ānandatthero tehi appassutoti āpajjati, ‘‘asammukhā paṭiggahitaṃ nāma natthī’’ti vacanavirodho ca. Aḍḍhamāso atikkantoti ettha eko divaso naṭṭho, so pāṭipadadivaso, kolāhaladivaso nāma so, tasmā idha na gahito. Saṃvegavatthuṃ kittetvā kīḷanato sādhukīḷanaṃ nāma. Svepīti api-saddo apekkhāmantānuññāya. Subhasuttaṃ ‘‘aciraparinibbute bhagavatī’’ti (dī. ni. 1.444) vuttattā caturāsītidhammakkhandhasahassesu antogadhaṃ na hotīti ce? Na, bhagavato kāle laddhanayattā kathāvatthu viya. Chaḍḍitā patitā uklāpā chaḍḍitapatitauklāpā. Āṇā eva appaṭihataṭṭhena cakkanti āṇācakkaṃ. Ekato ettha nipatantīti ekanipātanaṃ. Ākāsena āgantvā nisīdīti eketi etaṃ dutiyavāre gamanaṃ sandhāyāti āyasmā upatisso. Paṭhamaṃ vā ākāsena gantvā parisaṃ patvā bhikkhupantiṃ apīḷento pathaviyaṃ nimujjitvā āsane eva attānaṃ dassesi. Ubhayathā ca āpāthaṃ gato, tena ubhayampi yujjati, aññathā dvīsu ekaṃ abhūtaṃ āpajjati.

The Teacher's teaching itself is the textual tradition (pariyatti); the textual tradition of the Teacher's teaching. That textual tradition has nine members by way of Sutta, Geyya, and so on. Because they bear the Tipiṭaka, which comprises all the divisions of the textual tradition, they are called 'bearers of all the divisions of the textual tradition of the Tipiṭaka'. It should not be said, "It is not possible without him," because it is stated, "bearers of all the divisions of the textual tradition of the Tipiṭaka." Even so, there is a distinction: by them it was heard both in the presence and in the absence of the Buddha, but for the Elder, there is nothing that was received in the absence of the Buddha. The word `vā` here has the meaning of `vibhāsā` (option). The meaning is: 'sometimes one knew, and sometimes one did not know.' There, in selecting, the word 'much' (`bahu`) has an extensive meaning, just as in "The limitless and boundless is to be known extensively." If one were to object, saying: "Because it was said before 'bearers of all the divisions of the textual tradition of the Tipiṭaka', is the statement 'much has been learned by him... the textual tradition' not suitable?" No, it is not so, because of the limitlessness of the Tipiṭaka. Therefore, the intention is that, in comparison to us, much was learned by him. Otherwise, it would follow that the Elder Ānanda was less learned than them, and there would also be a contradiction with the statement, 'There is nothing that was received in the absence of the Buddha.' Here, in the phrase "half a month has passed," one day is lost. That is the first day of the lunar fortnight; it is called the day of commotion, and therefore it is not included here. Because of playing after having proclaimed a matter for spiritual urgency, it is called `sādhukīḷanaṃ` (good play). In `svepi` (even tomorrow), the particle `api` functions in the sense of expectation, consideration, and consent. If one were to say: "Because the Subha Sutta was spoken 'soon after the Blessed One’s Parinibbāna,' is it not included in the eighty-four thousand aggregates of the Dhamma?" No, it is not so, because its method was obtained during the time of the Blessed One, just like the Kathāvatthu. Discarded, fallen rubbish is 'discarded-and-fallen-rubbish'. The command itself, in the sense of being unopposed, is the wheel; therefore, it is the 'wheel of command' (`āṇācakkaṃ`). Because they fall down together here, it is called `ekanipātanaṃ` (falling together). The Venerable Upatissa says that this statement, 'Some say: "Having come through the sky, he sat down,"' refers to his coming on the second occasion. Or, on the first occasion, having gone through the sky and reached the assembly, without disturbing the row of monks, he dived into the earth and showed himself on his own seat. And in both ways, it is plausible; therefore, both accounts are suitable. Otherwise, of the two statements, one would become untrue.

Atha [Pg.23] kho āyasmā mahākassapo āyasmantaṃ upāliṃ pucchi…pe… āyasmā upālitthero vissajjesīti idaṃ pubbe ‘‘paṭhamaṃ āvuso upālī’’tiādinā (cūḷava. 439) vuttapucchāvissajjanaṃ saṅkhipitvā saṅgītikārakehi dassitavacananti gaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ. Tathā hotu, kimatthaṃ panettha ‘‘nidānampi pucchi, puggalampi pucchi, vatthumpi pucchī’’ti evaṃ pubbe dassitānukkamena avatvā ‘‘vatthumpi pucchi, nidānampi pucchi, puggalampi pucchī’’ti evaṃ anukkamo katoti? ‘‘Vatthumūlakattā sikkhāpadapaññattiyā uppaṭipāṭiyā vutta’’nti vadanti eke. Ettha pana vicāraṇā verañjakaṇḍe sampatte karīyati. Rājāgāraketi evaṃnāmake uyyāne. Abhiramanārahaṃ kira rājāgārampi. Tattha, yassa vasenetaṃ evaṃ nāmaṃ labhati. Atha kho ‘‘āyasmā mahākassapo’’tiādinā pubbe vuttameva saṅkhipitvā dasseti saṅgītikārako vasīgaṇo. Yadi evaṃ yathā nidānampi pucchi, puggalampi pucchīti ettha pucchākkamo dassito, tathā ānandattherassa vissajjanakkamopi kimatthaṃ na dassitoti ce? Iminānukkamena saṅgahaṃ pañcapi nikāyā anāruḷhāti dassanatthaṃ. Kathaṃ pana āruḷhāti? Āyasmā mahākassapo pañcapi nikāye anukkameneva pucchi, ānandatthero pana anukkameneva pucchitampi apucchitampi tassa tassa suttassa sabhāvaṃ antarā uppannaṃ vatthuṃ uddesaniddesakkamaṃ mātikāvibhaṅgakkamanti evamādisabbaṃ anurūpavacanaṃ pakkhipitvā vissajjesi, tenevāha ‘‘eteneva upāyena pañcapi nikāye pucchī’’ti. Atha vā ‘‘ambalaṭṭhikāyaṃ rājāgārake’’ti vattabbe ‘‘rājāgārake ambalaṭṭhikāya’’nti uppaṭipāṭivacanenapi imamatthaṃ dīpeti. ‘‘Ambalaṭṭhikāyaṃ viharati rājāgārake’’ti hi vuttaṃ.

Then the Venerable Mahākassapa questioned the Venerable Upāli… and the Venerable Elder Upāli answered. This statement—the previously mentioned question-and-answer section beginning with “First, friend Upāli,” which was summarized and presented by the compilers of the Council—is written in the Gaṇṭhipada. So be it. But why here, instead of stating in the previously shown sequence—“he asked about the origin, he asked about the person, he asked about the subject matter”—was the sequence made thus: “he asked about the subject matter, he asked about the origin, he asked about the person”? Some say, “It was stated out of sequence because the subject matter is the root of the laying down of a training rule.” Here, however, the investigation will be done when the Verañjakaṇḍa is reached. `Rājāgārake` refers to a park so named. It is said that a royal resting place worthy of great delight was also made there, and it is because of this that the park obtained such a name. Then, beginning with “the Venerable Mahākassapa,” the compiler, the group of masters, presents in a condensed form what was previously stated. If so, one might ask: just as the sequence of questioning was shown here—“he asked about the origin, he asked about the person”—why was the sequence of the Venerable Ānanda’s answers not also shown? It was not shown in order to demonstrate that the five Nikāyas were not compiled according to this sequence. But how were they compiled? The Venerable Mahākassapa questioned sequentially through the five Nikāyas. The Venerable Ānanda, however, in his replies, inserted all appropriate words—including both what was asked sequentially and what was not asked, the inherent nature of each respective discourse, the subject matter that arose in between, the sequence of headings and expositions, the sequence of the matrix and analysis, and so on—and thus he answered. Therefore, it is said, “In this way, he questioned the five Nikāyas.” Alternatively, this point is also clarified by the out-of-sequence phrasing “in Rājāgāraka at Ambalaṭṭhikā,” when it should be said, “at Ambalaṭṭhikā in Rājāgāraka.” For it was said, “He dwells at Ambalaṭṭhikā in Rājāgāraka.”

Gahakāranti imassa attabhāvagehassa kārakaṃ taṇhāvaḍḍhakiṃ gavesanto yena ñāṇena sakkā so daṭṭhuṃ, tassatthāya dīpaṅkarapādamūle katābhinīhāro ettakaṃ kālaṃ anekajātisaṃsāraṃ taṃ ñāṇaṃ avindanto vicarinti attho. Dukkhā jāti punappunanti idaṃ gahakārakagavesanassa kāraṇavacanaṃ. Sabbā te phāsukāti tava sabbā anavasesakilesaphāsukā mayā bhaggā. Gahakūṭaṃ nāma avijjā. Somanassasahagataṃ ñāṇaṃ somanassamayaṃ. Na hi somanassamayaṃ ñāṇaṃ khandhasabhāvabhedato. Daḷhīkammasithilakaraṇappayojanāti yebhuyyatāya vuttaṃ, taṃ [Pg.24] pana tattha tattha pakāsayissāma. Aññamaññasaṅkaravirahite dhamme ca vinaye cāti ettha pāṇātipāto akusalanti evamādīsu maraṇādhippāyassa jīvitindriyupacchedakappayogasamuṭṭhāpikā cetanā akusalaṃ, na pāṇasaṅkhātajīvitindriyassa upacchedakasaṅkhāto atipāto. Tathā adinnassa parasantakassa ādānasaṅkhātā viññatti abyākato dhammo, tabbiññattisamuṭṭhāpikā theyyacetanā akusalo dhammoti (paṭṭhā. 1.1.27) evamādinā aññamaññasaṅkaravirahite dhamme paṭibalo vinetuṃ. Jātarūparajataṃ parasantakaṃ theyyacittena gaṇhantassa yathāvatthuṃ pārājikathullaccayadukkaṭesu aññataraṃ, bhaṇḍāgārikasīsena diyyamānaṃ gaṇhantassa pācittiyaṃ, attatthāya gaṇhantassa nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, kevalaṃ lolatāya gaṇhantassa anāmāsadukkaṭaṃ, rūpiyachaḍḍakasammatassa anāpattīti evaṃ aññamaññasaṅkaravirahite vinayepi paṭibalo vinetunti attho. Bhāvetīti vaḍḍheti, etena phalavasena javanavasena ca cittassa vuddhiṃ dasseti. ‘‘Avisiṭṭha’’nti pāṭho, sādhāraṇanti attho.

The meaning is this: I, seeking the house-builder—craving, the carpenter, the maker of this house of self-existence—have wandered for such a long time through the saṃsāra of many births, not finding that knowledge by which that house-builder can be seen, for the sake of which I made the aspiration at the feet of the Buddha Dīpaṅkara. The statement, 'Birth again and again is suffering,' is the reason for seeking the house-builder. Regarding 'All your rafters': All your rafters, which are the defilements without remainder, have been broken by me. The ridge-pole of the house (`gahakūṭa`) is ignorance. Knowledge accompanied by joy is called 'made of joy'. Indeed, knowledge is not 'made of joy', because of the distinction in the intrinsic nature of the aggregates. The phrase concerning the purpose of making firm and making lax is stated in a general way; we shall clarify this in the respective places. Herein, regarding 'in the Dhamma and the Vinaya, which are free from mutual confusion': In such statements as 'killing living beings is unwholesome,' the unwholesome factor is the volition that gives rise to the application of cutting off the life-faculty with the intention of causing death, not the act of killing itself, which is defined as the cutting off of the life-faculty designated as a living being. Similarly, the intimation known as taking another's property that is not given is an indeterminate state, but the volition of theft which gives rise to that intimation is an unwholesome state. In this way, he is able to train in the Dhamma, which is free from mutual confusion. For a monk who takes gold or silver belonging to another with a thieving mind, depending on the circumstances, one of the following offenses is incurred: Pārājika, Thullaccaya, or Dukkaṭa. For one who takes what is given by a treasurer, a Pācittiya offense is incurred. For one who takes it for one's own sake, a Nissaggiya Pācittiya offense is incurred. For a monk who handles it merely out of frivolity, an Anāmāsa Dukkaṭa (offense of touching) is incurred. For a monk designated as one who discards money, there is no offense. Thus, the meaning is that he is also able to train in the Vinaya, which is free from mutual confusion. ‘Develops’ (`bhāveti`) means ‘increases’ (`vaḍḍheti`). By this, he shows the growth of the mind by way of the fruit of attainment and by way of impulsion. The reading is `avisiṭṭha`; the meaning is 'common'.

Desentassa vasenettha, desanā piṭakattayaṃ;

Sāsitabbavasenetaṃ, sāsanantipi vuccati.

Herein, by way of the one who teaches, the three Piṭakas are called 'desanā' (discourse); by way of those who are to be instructed, this is also called 'sāsanā' (instruction).

Kathetabbassa atthassa, vasenāpi kathāti ca;

Desanā sāsanā kathā, bhedampevaṃ pakāsaye.

And by way of the meaning that is to be expounded, it is also called 'kathā' (exposition); thus should one make clear the distinction between desanā, sāsanā, and kathā.

Sāsanassa napuṃsakattā ‘‘yathā…pe… dhammasāsanānī’’ti vuttaṃ. Duccaritasaṃkilesaṃ nāma atthato cetanā, tathākārappavattacittuppādo vā. Aniccādilakkhaṇaṃ paṭivijjhitvā pavattattā vipassanācittāni visayato lokiyā’bhisamayo asammohato lokuttaro, lokuttaro eva vā abhisamayo visayato nibbānasaṅkhātassa atthassa, itarassa maggādikassa asammohatotipi eke. Ettha ‘‘paṭivedho’’ti vuttaṃ ñāṇaṃ, taṃ kathaṃ gambhīranti ce? Gambhīrassa udakassa pamāṇaggahaṇakāle dīghena pamāṇena bhavitabbaṃ, evaṃ alabbhaneyyabhāvadassanatthaṃ idānīti vuttanti eke. Yassa catthāya maggaphalatthāya. Tañca atthaṃ nānubhonti nādhigacchanti kañci attanā adhippetaṃ, itivādapamokkhañca. Kasmā? Atthassa anupaparikkhitvā gahitattā. Adhigataphalattā paṭividdhākuppo. Puna khīṇāsavaggahaṇena [Pg.25] arahantameva dasseti, na sekkhaṃ. So hi yathā bhaṇḍāgāriko rañño kaṭakamakuṭādiṃ gopetvā icchiticchitakkhaṇe upaneti, evaṃ sahetukānaṃ sattānaṃ maggaphalatthāya dhammaṃ desesi. Tāsaṃyeva tattha vinayapiṭake pabhedato vuttattā, vāyamitvā tā eva pāpuṇātīti ācariyā. Kimatthaṃ tissova vijjā tattha vibhattāti? Sīlasampattiyā etaparamupanissayabhāvato. ‘‘Aparehipi sattahaṅgehi samannāgato bhikkhu vinayadharo hoti. Āpattiṃ jānāti, anāpattiṃ, lahukaṃ āpattiṃ, garukaṃ āpattiṃ, anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussarati…pe… dibbena cakkhunā visuddhena atikkantamānusakena satte passati…pe… āsavānañca khayā…pe… upasampajja viharatī’’ti (pari. 327) suttamettha sādhakaṃ. Vinayaṃ pariyāpuṇitvā sīlasampattiṃ nissāya āsavakkhayañāṇena saheva viya dibbacakkhupubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāni paṭilabhati. Visuṃ etesaṃ parikammakiccaṃ natthīti dassanatthaṃ tāsaṃyevāti vuttanti ca vadanti eke. Abhidhamme pana tissovijjā cha abhiññā catasso ca paṭisambhidā aññe ca sammappadhānādayo guṇavisesā vibhattā. Kiñcāpi vibhattā, tathāpi visesato paññājātikattā catasso paṭisambhidā pāpuṇātīti dassanatthaṃ tāsaṃ tatthevāti avadhāraṇavipallāso kato. Attanā duggahitena dhammenāti pāṭhaseso. Kattari cetaṃ karaṇavacanaṃ, hetutthe ca, attanā duggahitahetūti adhippāyo. Kasmā panāti ‘‘anulomiko’’ti vuttatthaṃ dīpeti.

Because 'sāsana' is neuter, it is said 'yathā…pe… dhammasāsanānī'. The defilement of misconduct is, in essence, volition, or the arising of consciousness occurring in such a manner. Because they proceed by penetrating the characteristics of impermanence and so forth, the insight-consciousnesses are a mundane realization in terms of their object; the supramundane realization is by way of non-delusion. Or, the supramundane realization alone, in terms of its object, is the realization of the meaning designated as Nibbāna, while for the other, such as the path, it is a realization by way of non-delusion—so say some. Here, knowledge is what is called 'penetration'. If it is asked, 'How is it profound?' Just as when taking the measure of deep water, there must be a long measure, so too, to show the state of being unobtainable, it is said 'now'—so say some. And for the sake of which goal—for the sake of the path and fruition—they do not experience that benefit, nor do they attain any goal intended by themselves, or deliverance from such censure. Why? Because of having grasped it without investigating the meaning. Because the fruit has been attained, their penetration is unshakable. Furthermore, by the mention of 'one whose taints are destroyed', it indicates only the Arahant, not the trainee. For just as a treasurer, having guarded the king’s bracelets, crowns, and so forth, presents them at the desired moment, so too did he teach the Dhamma for the sake of beings who have the conditions, for the sake of the path and fruition. Since those very knowledges are explained in detail there in the Vinaya Piṭaka, the teachers say that by striving, one attains those very ones. Why are only the three knowledges analyzed there? Because the perfection of virtue is the ultimate supporting condition for this. 'Moreover, a monk endowed with seven other qualities is a bearer of the Vinaya. He knows an offense…pe… he recollects manifold past lives…pe… with the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human, he sees beings…pe… and having realized for himself with direct knowledge, he enters and remains in the emancipation of mind and emancipation by wisdom that are taintless in the here-and-now through the destruction of the taints' (Pari. 327). This sutta is the proof here. Having mastered the Vinaya and relying on the perfection of virtue, one attains the knowledges of the divine eye and recollection of past lives as if together with the knowledge of the destruction of the taints. To show that there is no separate preparatory work for these, it is said 'of those very ones'—so say some. In the Abhidhamma, however, the three knowledges, the six direct knowledges, the four analytical knowledges, and other special qualities such as the right exertions are analyzed. Although they are analyzed, nevertheless, to show that one attains the four analytical knowledges specifically because they are of the nature of wisdom, a reversal of emphasis was made with the phrase 'of those, right there' (`tāsaṃ tattheva`). 'By the Dhamma poorly grasped by oneself'—this is the remainder of the text. And this is an instrumental expression in the agentive sense, and also in the sense of cause; the intended meaning is 'because it was poorly grasped by oneself'. The phrase 'But why?' (`Kasmā pana`) explains the meaning stated as 'conducive'.

Paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathāvaṇṇanānayo.

The method of the explanation of the discourse on the First Great Council.

Dutiyasaṅgītikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Second Council

Pannabhārāti patitakkhandhabhārā. ‘‘Bhārā have pañcakkhandhā’’ti (saṃ. ni. 3.22) hi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sammukhā bhavissāma na bhavissāmā’’ti vattāro. Tesu daharā kira. Jamminti lāmakaṃ.

“Pannabhārā” means those whose burden of the aggregates has been laid down. For it is said, “Indeed, the five aggregates are a burden.” There are those who say, “We shall be present, we shall not be present.” Among them, some are said to be young. “Jammi” means inferior.

Dutiyasaṅgītikathāvaṇṇanānayo.

The method of the explanation of the discourse on the Second Council.

Tatiyasaṅgītikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Third Council

Brahmalokā [Pg.26] cavitvāti ettha cattāro maggā pañcānantariyāni niyatamicchādiṭṭhīti imeyeva niyatā, na mahaggatā, tasmā paṇidhivasena heṭṭhupapattipi hoti. Aticchathāti aticca icchatha, gantvā bhikkhaṃ pariyesathāti adhippāyo. Keṭubhaṃ nāma kabyakaraṇavidhiyuttaṃ satthaṃ. Kiriyākappaṃ ityeke, kattākhyādilakkhaṇayuttasatthaṃ. Asandhimittāti tassā nāmaṃ. Tassā kira sarīre sandhayo na paññāyanti, madhusitthakena kataṃ viya sarīraṃ hoti. Tasmā ‘‘evaṃnāmikā jātā’’tipi vadanti. Māgadhakena patthena cattāro patthā āḷhakaṃ, cattāri āḷhakāni doṇaṃ, catudoṇā mānikā, catumānikā khārikā, vīsatikhāriko vāhoti. Kethumālāti ‘‘sīsato uṭṭhahitvā ṭhito obhāsapuñjo’’ti vadanti. Rājiddhiadhikārappasaṅgenetaṃ vatthu vuttaṃ, nānukkamena. Anukkamena pana buddhasāsanāvahāraṃ vatthuṃ dīpento ‘‘rājā kirā’’tiādimāha. Kilesadamanena dantaṃ. Kāyavācāhi guttaṃ. ‘‘Pācīnamukho’’tipi pāṭho atthi. Pubbe jeṭṭhabhātikattā teneva paricayena pattaggahaṇatthāya ākāraṃ dasseti. Abhāsīti ‘‘bhāsissāmī’’ti vitakkesi. Apare ‘‘aññātanti vuttepi sabbaṃ abhaṇī’’ti vadanti. Amatanti nibbānasaṅkhātāya nivattiyā saguṇādhivacanaṃ, tassā appamādo padaṃ maggo. Maccūti pavattiyā sadosādhivacanaṃ, tassā pamādo padaṃ maggoti evaṃ cattāri saccāni sandassitāni honti. Saṅghasaraṇagatattā saṅghanissitā pabbajjā, bhaṇḍukammassa vā tadāyattattā. Nigrodhattherassānubhāvakittanādhikārattā pubbe vuttampi pacchā vattabbampi sampiṇḍetvā āha ‘‘puna rājā asokārāmaṃ nāma mahāvihāraṃ kāretvā saṭṭhisahassāni…pe… caturāsītivihārasahassāni kārāpesī’’ti. ‘‘Puthujjanakalyāṇakassa vā paccavekkhitaparibhogo’’ti vacanato sekkhāva paramatthato dāyādā, tathāpi thero mahindakumārassa pabbajjatthaṃ ekena pariyāyena lokadhammasiddhena evamāha ‘‘yo koci mahārāja…pe… orasaṃ putta’’nti. Vuttañhi vede –

In the phrase 'having fallen from the Brahma world': the four paths, the five heinous crimes, and fixed wrong view—these alone are fixed; the exalted states are not. Therefore, by the power of aspiration, rebirth in a lower realm also occurs. Regarding `Aticchatha`, the word division is `aticca icchatha`; the intention is: 'Having gone, seek alms.' The treatise called Keṭubha is one connected with the method of poetic composition; some say it is Kiriyākappa, a treatise endowed with characteristics such as agent and verb. 'Asandhimittā' is her name. It is said that in her body the joints were not apparent; her body was as if made with beeswax. Therefore, they also say, 'She was born with such a name.' By the Magadhan measure: four `patthas` are an `āḷhaka`; four `āḷhakas` are a `doṇa`; four `doṇas` are a `mānikā`; four `mānikās` are a `khārikā`; and twenty `khārikas` are a `vāha`. 'Kethumālā'—they say, 'a mass of light that, having risen from the head, is stationary.' This account is told in connection with the section on the king’s psychic power, not in sequence. However, explaining in sequence the account that conveys the Buddha’s Dispensation, he said, 'The king, it is said…' and so on. Tamed by the subduing of defilements. Guarded in body and speech. There is also the reading, 'facing east.' Because he was the elder brother in a previous existence, with that same familiarity he makes a gesture for the sake of receiving the bowl. Regarding `abhāsi` (he spoke): he thought, 'I will speak.' Others say: 'Even when "it is known" was said, he recited everything.' 'Deathless' is a designation according to its own quality for the cessation from the round of existence, which is called Nibbāna; its path is heedfulness. 'Death' is a designation according to its own fault for the continuation of the round of existence; its path is heedlessness. Thus, the Four Truths are well shown. The going forth is dependent on the Sangha because of having gone to the Sangha for refuge, or because the act of tonsure is dependent on it. Because this is the section proclaiming the spiritual power of the Elder Nigrodha, what was said before and what is to be said later are combined, and it is stated: 'Again, King Asoka, having built a great monastery named Asokārāma… had eighty-four thousand monasteries built.' From the statement, 'Or the use after reflection by a virtuous worldling,' it follows that only the trainees are heirs in the ultimate sense. Nevertheless, for the sake of Prince Mahinda's going forth, the Elder spoke thus with a discourse established by worldly and doctrinal convention: 'Whoever, O great king… one's own son...' For it is said in the Veda—

‘‘Aṅgā aṅgā sambhavasi, hadayā adhijāyase;

Attā ve putto nāmāsi, sa jīva saradosata’’nti.

From my very limbs you are produced, from my heart you are born; you, son, are indeed my very self. May you live for a hundred autumns.

Tasmā [Pg.27] iminā pariyāyena oraso putto mātāpitūhi pabbajito ce, atthato te sayaṃ pabbajitā viya honti. Dhammakathikā kasmā nārocenti? Rājā ‘‘theraṃ gaṇhitvā āgacchathā’’ti amacce pesesi, dhammakathikā therassa āgamanakāle parivāratthāya pesitā, tasmā. Apica tena vuttavidhināva vadanti caṇḍattā, caṇḍabhāvo cassa ‘‘ambaṃ chinditvā veḷuyā vatiṃ karohī’’ti vuttaamaccavatthunā vibhāvetabbo. Kasmā pana dhammakathikā rājāṇāpanaṃ karontīti? ‘‘Sāsanaṃ paggahetuṃ samattho’’ti vuttattā. Dīpakatittiroti kūṭatittiro. Ayaṃ pana kūṭatittirakamme niyuttopi suddhacitto, tasmā tāpasaṃ pucchi. Sāṇipākāranti sāṇipākārena. Vibhajitvā vadatīti vibhajjavādī ‘‘atthi khvesa brāhmaṇa pariyāyo’’tiādinā (pārā. 5). Apica sassatavādī ca bhagavā ‘‘atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ asaṅkhata’’ntiādi (itivu. 43)-vacanato. Ekaccasassatiko ca ‘‘sappaccayā dhammā, appaccayā dhammā’’ti (dha. sa. dukamātikā 7) vacanato. Antānantiko ca –

Therefore, by this method, if their own son is ordained by his parents, it is, in effect, as if they themselves were ordained. Why do the Dhamma-preachers not announce it? The king sent his ministers, saying, “Invite the elder and come.” The Dhamma-preachers were sent to attend the elder upon his arrival; for that reason, they do not announce. Moreover, they speak only according to the method he stated, because of his harshness. And his harsh nature should be understood through the story of the minister who was told, “Cut down the mango tree and make a fence with bamboo.” But why do the Dhamma-preachers carry out the king’s command? Because it was said, “He is able to support the Teaching.” Dīpakatittiro means a cunning partridge. But this one, although engaged in the work of a cunning partridge, had a pure mind; therefore, he asked the ascetic. Sāṇipākāraṃ means with a hemp-cloth enclosure. He is called an Analyst (vibhajjavādī) because he speaks by analyzing, as in the passage beginning, “Surely, brahmin, there is this way…” Furthermore, the Blessed One is also an eternalist (sassatavādī), because of the statement, “There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unconditioned…” And a partial-eternalist (ekaccasassatiko) because of the teaching, “There are conditioned phenomena, and unconditioned phenomena.” And a finitist-infinitist (antānantiko)—

‘‘Gamanena na pattabbo, lokassanto kudācanaṃ;

Na ca appatvā lokantaṃ, dukkhā atthi pamocanaṃ’’. (saṃ. ni. 1.107;

a. ni. 4.45);

“By traveling, the end of the world is never to be reached; nor without reaching the end of the world is there liberation from suffering.”

‘‘Anamataggoyaṃ, bhikkhave, saṃsāro pubbakoṭi na paññāyatī’’ti (saṃ. ni. 2.124; cūḷani. kappamāṇavapucchāniddesa 61) vacanato. Amarāvikkhepikapakkhampi īsakaṃ bhajati bhagavā ‘‘sassato lokoti abyākatametaṃ asassato lokoti abyākatameta’’ntiādiabyākatavatthudīpanato sammutisaccadīpanato ca. Tañhi ajjhattabahiddhādivasena na vattabbaṃ. Yathāha ‘‘ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ na vattabbaṃ ajjhattārammaṇantipī’’tiādi (dha. sa. 1437). Tathā adhiccasamuppannikapakkhampi bhajati ‘‘laddhā mudhā nibbutiṃ bhuñjamānā’’ti (khu. pā. 6.7; su. ni. 230) vacanato. Tattha hi mudhāti adhiccasamuppannavevacanaṃ. Saññīvādādiko ca bhagavā saññībhavaasaññībhavanevasaññīnāsaññībhavavasena. Ucchedavādī ca ‘‘ahañhi, brāhmaṇa, ucchedaṃ vadāmi rāgassā’’ti (pārā. 6) vacanato. Diṭṭhadhammanibbānavādī ca ‘‘khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariya’’nti (mahāva. 23; dī. ni. 2.215; saṃ. ni. 3.35) vacanato, ‘‘natthi dāni punabbhavo’’ti (mahāva. 16) vacanato, diṭṭheva dhamme nirodhasamāpattidīpanato [Pg.28] ca. Evaṃ tena tena pariyāyena tathā tathā veneyyajjhāsayānurūpaṃ vibhajitvā vadatīti vibhajjavādī bhagavāti.

“Monks, this saṃsāra is without discoverable beginning; a first point is not discerned.” The Blessed One also slightly inclines toward the side of the Amarāvikkhepikas (eel-wrigglers) because of his exposition of the undeclared points and of conventional truth, as when it is said: “Is the world eternal?—this is undeclared. Is the world not eternal?—this is undeclared,” and so on. For that conventional truth should not be spoken of in terms of internal, external, and so on. As it is said: “The base of nothingness should not be spoken of as having an internal object,” etc. Similarly, he inclines toward the side of the accidentalists because of the saying: “Having obtained Nibbāna by chance, they enjoy it.” For in that context, ‘by chance’ (mudhā) is a synonym for ‘arisen by chance’ (adhiccasamuppanna). And the Blessed One is a proponent of the view of perception and so on, by way of the existence with perception, the existence without perception, and the existence with neither-perception-nor-non-perception. He is also an annihilationist because of the saying: “For I, brahmin, declare the annihilation of lust.” He is also a proponent of Nibbāna in this very life because of the sayings: “Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived,” and “Now there is no further becoming,” and because he shows the attainment of cessation in this very life. Thus, by this and that reason, in this and that manner, according to the inclinations of those to be taught, he speaks having analyzed; therefore, the Blessed One is an analyst (vibhajjavādī).

Tatiyasaṅgītikathāvaṇṇanānayo.

The Method of the Explanation of the Account of the Third Council.

Pupphanāmo sumanatthero. Mahāpadumattheroti eke. Mahiṃsakamaṇḍalaṃ andharaṭṭhanti vadanti. Dhammacakkhu nāma tayo maggā. Sotāpattimagganti ca eke. Pañcapi raṭṭhāni pañca cīnaraṭṭhāni nāma. Rājagaheti deviyā katavihāre. Silakūṭamhīti pabbatakūṭe. Vaḍḍhamānanti alaṅkaraṇacuṇṇaṃ. Ariyadese atīva sammataṃ kira. Ekarasena nāthakaraṇā iti damiḷā. Sārapāmaṅganti uttamaṃ pāmaṅgaṃ. Petavatthuādinā saṃvejetvā abhisamayatthaṃ saccasaṃyuttañca. Meghavanuyyānaṃ nāma mahāvihāraṭṭhānaṃ. ‘‘Dvāsaṭṭhiyā leṇesū’’ti pāṭho. Dasabhātikanti abhayakumārādayo dasa, te idha na vuttā. Vutthavasso pavāretvāti cātumāsiniyā pavāraṇāyāti attho. Paṭhamapavāraṇāya vā pavāretvā ekamāsaṃ tattheva vasitvā kattikapuṇṇamāsiyaṃ avoca, aññathā ‘‘puṇṇamāyaṃ mahāvīro’’ti vuttattā na sakkā gahetuṃ. Mahāvīroti buddhopacārena dhātuyo vadati. Jaṅghappamāṇanti ‘‘thūpassa jaṅghappamāṇa’’nti vadanti. Mātulabhāgineyyā cūḷodaramahodarā. Dharamānassa viya buddhassa rasmi sarasarasmi, rañño lekhāsāsanaṃ appesi, evañca mukhasāsanamavoca. Doṇamattā magadhanāḷiyā dvādasanāḷimattā kira. ‘‘Paricchinnaṭṭhāne chijjitvā’’ti pāṭho. Sabbadisāhi pañca rasmiyo āvaṭṭetvāti pañcahi phalehi nikkhantattā pañca, tā pana chabbaṇṇāva. Kattikajuṇhapakkhassa pāṭipadadivaseti juṇhapakkhassa paṭhamadivaseti attho. Mahābodhiṭṭhāne parivāretvā ṭhitanāgayakkhādidevatākulāni. Gopakā nāma rājaparikammino tathābhāvakiccā. Tesaṃ kulānaṃ nāmantipi keci. Udakādivāhā kāliṅgā. Kāliṅgesu janapadesu jātisampannaṃ kulaṃ kāliṅgakulanti keci.

The elder named Puppha is Sumana Thera. Some say he is the elder Mahāpaduma. They say the Mahiṃsaka region is the Andha country. The five countries are called the five Cīna countries. At Rājagaha, in the monastery built by the queen. Silakūṭa means on a mountain peak. Vaḍḍhamāna means ornamental powder. It is said to be highly esteemed in the noble land. The Damiḷas say it means powders bound with a single resinous substance. Sārapāmaṅga means the supreme pāmaṅga. Having inspired a sense of urgency by means of the Petavatthu and so on, for the purpose of realization, he also taught the Saccasaṃyutta. The place called Meghavana Park is the site of the Mahāvihāra. The reading is “in sixty-two caves.” Dasabhātika means the ten princes beginning with Prince Abhaya; they are not mentioned here. Vutthavasso pavāretvā means at the Pavāraṇā at the end of the four-month rains retreat. Or, having performed the first pavāraṇā, staying there for one month, he spoke on the full moon of Kattika; otherwise, since it is said “on the full moon, the great hero,” it cannot be taken differently. The word Mahāvīra refers to the relics by way of metaphorical extension from the Buddha. Jaṅghappamāṇa means “the measurement of the thūpa’s drum,” they say. Cūḷodara and Mahodara were uncle and nephew. Like a ray of the living Buddha, there is a ray dripping with essence; he sent the king's written message, and also delivered an oral message. A doṇa measure is said to be twelve nāḷis by the Magadhan nāḷi. The reading is, 'having been cut at a defined place.' Having turned the five rays in all directions means: there are five because they emerge from the five fruits, but they are of six colors. Kattikajuṇhapakkhassa pāṭipadadivasa means the first day of the bright fortnight of Kattika. At the Mahābodhi site, the families of nāgas, yakkhas, and other deities stood surrounding it. Gopakas are royal attendants who perform such duties. Some also say this is merely the name of their families. Those who carry water and so on are called Kāliṅgas. Some say that in the Kāliṅga countries, a family of high birth is called a Kāliṅga family.

Paṭhamapāṭipadadivaseti dutiyauposathassa pāṭipadadivaseti attho. Tattha ṭhitehi samuddassa diṭṭhattā taṃ ṭhānaṃ samuddasālavatthu. Soḷasa jātisampannakulāni aṭṭha brāhmaṇāmaccakulāni. Mahāariṭṭhatthero cetiyagirimhi [Pg.29] pabbajito. Amaccassa pariveṇaṭṭhāneti sampatikālavasenāha. Mahindatthero dvādasavassiko hutvā tambapaṇṇidīpaṃ sampatto, tattha dve vassāni vasitvā vinayaṃ patiṭṭhāpesi, dvāsaṭṭhivassiko hutvā parinibbuto. Vinayo saṃvaratthāyāti vinayapiṭakaṃ, tassa pariyāpuṇanaṃ vā. Yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ sappaccayanāmarūpapariggaho. Maggādipaccavekkhaṇe asati antarā parinibbānaṃ nāma natthi sekkhassa maraṇaṃ vā, satiyeva hoti. Tasmā āha ‘‘vimuttiñāṇadassana’’nti. Anupādāparinibbānatthāyāti kañci dhammaṃ anupādāya aggahetvā īsakampi anavasesetvā parinibbānatthāyāti attho. Upanisāti ‘‘vinayo saṃvaratthāyā’’tiādikā kāraṇaparamparā. Ettāvatā attahitanipphattiṃ dassetvā idāni parahitanipphattiṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘etadatthaṃ sotāvadhāna’’nti āha. Tassattho – attano vinayakathanaṃ vinayamantanañca uggahetuṃ paresaṃ sotassa odahanaṃ sotāvadhānaṃ. Tato uggahitavinayakathāmantanānaṃ tesaṃ upanisā yathāvuttakāraṇaparamparā siddhāyevāti na puna dassitāti veditabbā. Aññathā etadatthā upanisāti iminā vacaneneva anupādāparinibbānassa saṅgahitattā anupādāparinibbānato uddhaṃ sotāvadhānāsambhavato etadatthaṃ sotāvadhānanti ante na sambhavatīti niratthakaṃ bhaveyya, na ca niratthakaṃ parahitanipphattiyā mūlakāraṇadassanatthattāti veditabbaṃ.

The phrase Paṭhamapāṭipadadivase means: on the first day after the second Uposatha. Because the ocean was seen by those standing there, that place is called Samuddasālavatthu. The sixteen families of noble birth are eight families of brahmins and eight families of ministers. The Elder Mahāariṭṭha went forth at Cetiyagiri. The minister’s residence is referred to in terms of the present time. The Elder Mahinda, being of twelve vassas, arrived at the island of Tambapaṇṇi; having stayed there for two years, he established the Vinaya. Being of sixty-two vassas, he attained Parinibbāna. 'The Vinaya is for the purpose of restraint' means the Vinaya Piṭaka, or the learning of it. The knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the full comprehension of name-and-form with its conditions. When there is no reviewing of the path and so on, there is no so-called intermediate Parinibbāna, nor is there death for a trainee; it occurs only when there is such reviewing. Therefore, it is said, “the knowledge and vision of liberation.” The phrase anupādāparinibbānatthāya means for the purpose of Parinibbāna without clinging: that is, for the purpose of attaining Parinibbāna without clinging to any phenomenon, without grasping it, and without leaving even the slightest remainder. The term upanisā means the causal sequence beginning with “the Vinaya is for the purpose of restraint.” Having thus far shown the accomplishment of one's own welfare, now, in order to show the accomplishment of others' welfare, it is said, “for this purpose, there is the application of the ear.” Its meaning is this: `sotāvadhāna` is the application of the ear for others to learn one's own recitation and discussion of the Vinaya. Therefore, for those who have learned the recitation and discussion of the Vinaya, the proximate cause for them—the causal sequence as stated above—is already accomplished, and so it is not shown again; this should be understood. Otherwise, if another meaning were taken, since Parinibbāna without clinging is already included by this very statement, 'for this purpose is the proximate cause,' and since the application of the ear is impossible beyond Parinibbāna without clinging, then the phrase 'for this purpose, there is the application of the ear' at the end would be impossible, and thus it would be meaningless. But it is not meaningless, because it serves to show the root cause for the accomplishment of others' welfare; this should be understood.

Evaṃ yathā yathā yaṃ yaṃ, sambhaveyya padaṃ idha;

Taṃ taṃ tathā tathā sabbaṃ, payojeyya vicakkhaṇoti.

Thus, whatever term might arise here in whatever way, all of that should be applied accordingly by the discerning one.

Bāhiranidānakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the external introduction is concluded.

Pārājikavaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Pārājika

Verañjakaṇḍo

The Verañja Chapter

Verañjakaṇḍavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Verañja Chapter

‘‘Tena [Pg.30] samayena buddho bhagavā vesāliyaṃ viharati mahāvane kūṭāgārasālāyaṃ. Tena kho pana samayena vesāliyā avidūre kalandagāmo nāma hotī’’ti vinayanidāne ārabhitabbe verañjakaṇḍassa ārambho kimatthoti ce? Vuccate – mūlato pabhuti vinayanidānaṃ dassetuṃ. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘paṭhamaṃ āvuso upāli pārājikaṃ kattha paññattanti, vesāliya’’nti vacanena virujjhatīti ce? Na virujjhati. Kasmā? Kattha paññattanti hi nidānapucchā. Evaṃ santepi ‘‘paṭhamassa pārājikassa kiṃnidāna’’nti pucchite sādhāraṇamahānidānavissajjanaṃ ayuttaṃ viyāti? Nāyuttaṃ, sabbesaṃ sikkhāpadānaṃ pāṭekkaṃ nidānassa puṭṭhattā tassa vissajjetabbattā ca sabbasādhāraṇamahānidānaṃ paṭhamamāha. Ekantena pucchāvissajjanakkamena pārājikādīni saṅgahaṃ āropitāni. Kathaṃ āropitānīti ce? Āyasmatā mahākassapena anukkamena sabbopi vinayo pucchito, puṭṭhena ca āyasmatā upālittherena yathāsambhavaṃ nirantaraṃ vissajjitameva. Apucchitānipi vinītavatthuādīni yujjamānāni vatthūni antokatvā vissajjanakkameneva gaṇasajjhāyamakaṃsūti veditabbaṃ. Aññathā verañjakaṇḍaṃ paṭhamapārājikasseva nidānanti vā anadhikārikaṃ vā nippayojanaṃ vā pāṭekkaṃ sikkhāpadanidānapucchānantaraṃ tadeva vissajjetabbanti vā āpajjati, tasmā ādito pabhuti vinayanidānaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘tena samayenā’’tiādi āraddhaṃ.

“At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Vesālī in the Great Wood, in the Hall with the Peaked Roof. Now at that time, not far from Vesālī, there was a village named Kalandagāma.” If it is asked, ‘What is the purpose of commencing the Verañja Chapter when the Vinaya’s origin should be commenced?’ It is said: to show the Vinaya’s origin from the very beginning. If so, does this not contradict the statement, “Friend Upāli, where was the first Pārājika rule promulgated?—At Vesālī”? It does not contradict. Why? Because the question “Where was it promulgated?” is an inquiry about the origin. Even so, when asked, “What was the origin of the first Pārājika?” is it not as if the reply with the common great origin is inappropriate? It is not inappropriate, because the origin is asked for separately for each training rule, and since that must be answered, the common great origin is stated first. The Pārājika and other rules have been compiled entirely according to the sequence of questions and answers. How were they compiled? The Venerable Mahākassapa questioned the entire Vinaya in sequence, and the Venerable Upāli Thera, when questioned, answered appropriately and without interruption. It should be understood that even unasked matters, such as disciplinary cases and other relevant topics, were included, and they made a communal recitation according to the sequence of answers. Otherwise, it would follow that the Verañja Chapter is the origin of only the first Pārājika, or that it is unrelated, or that it is without purpose, or that after a question about the origin of each training rule separately, that very thing must be given as the answer. Therefore, to show the origin of the Vinaya from the beginning, “At that time,” and so forth, has been commenced.

Idāni nidānabhaṇane payojanaṃ vakkhāma – vinayassaāṇādesanattā bhagavato tāva āṇārahabhāvadīpanaṃ, āṇābhūtassa ca vinayassa anaññavisayabhāvadīpanaṃ, āṇāya ṭhitānaṃ sāvakānaṃ mahānubhāvadīpanañcāti tividhamassa payojanaṃ. Kathaṃ? Āṇāsāsanāraho hi bhagavā pahīnakilesattā, adhigataguṇavisesattā, lokajeṭṭhaseṭṭhattā, tādibhāvappattattā ca, arasarūpatādīhi aṭṭhahi akkosavatthūhi akampanato bhagavato tādibhāvappatti veditabbā, aṭṭhannampi tesaṃ akkosavatthūnaṃ attani sambhavapariyāyadīpanapāḷiyā pahīnakilesatā veditabbā[Pg.31]. Catunnaṃ jhānānaṃ tissannañca vijjānaṃ adhigamaparidīpanena adhigataguṇavisesatā veditabbā. ‘‘Nāhaṃ taṃ brāhmaṇa passāmi sadevake…pe… muddhāpi tassa vipateyyā’’ti ca ‘‘jeṭṭho seṭṭho lokassā’’ti ca vacanena jeṭṭhaseṭṭhatā veditabbā, idañca bhagavato āṇārahabhāvadīpanappayojanaṃ. ‘‘Āgamehi tvaṃ sāriputta, āgamehi tvaṃ sāriputta, tathāgatova tattha kālaṃ jānissatī’’ti vacanaṃ anaññavisayabhāvadīpanaṃ. ‘‘Sādhāhaṃ, bhante, pathaviṃ parivatteyya’’nti ca ‘‘ekāhaṃ, bhante, pāṇiṃ abhinimminissāmī’’ti ca ‘‘sādhu, bhante, sabbo bhikkhusaṅgho uttarakuruṃ piṇḍāya gaccheyyā’’ti ca imehi therassa tīhi sīhanādehi āṇāya ṭhitānaṃ sāvakānaṃ mahānubhāvatādīpanaṃ veditabbaṃ. Sāvatthiyādīsu aviharitvā kimatthaṃ bhagavā verañjāyameva tadā vihāsīti ce? Naḷeruyakkhassa pītisañjananatthaṃ, bhikkhusaṅghassa bhikkhāvasena akilamanatthaṃ, verañjabrāhmaṇassa pasādasañjananatthaṃ, mahāmoggallānattherassa ānubhāvadīpanaṭṭhānabhūtattā, sāriputtattherassa vinayapaññattiyācanahetubhūtaparivitakkanaṭṭhānabhūtattā ca. Tesu pacchimaṃ balavakāraṇaṃ, tena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘tena samayenāti yena kālena āyasmato…pe… tena kālenā’’ti. Purimesu catūsu asaṅgahakāraṇesu paṭhamena bhagavā mettābhāvanādinā amanussānaṃ cittasaṃrakkhaṇena bhikkhūnaṃ ādaraṃ janeti. Dutiyena parisāvacarena bhikkhunā evaṃ parisā saṅgahetabbā, evaṃ appicchena santuṭṭhena ca bhavitabbanti vā dasseti. Tatiyena paccaye nirapekkhena kulānuggaho kātabboti. Catutthena evaṃ mahānubhāvenāpi paccayatthaṃ na loluppaṃ kātabbaṃ, kevalaṃ paradattupajīvinā bhavitabbanti dasseti. ‘‘Tenātiādipāṭhassa…pe… vinayassatthavaṇṇana’’nti vacanato añño tenātiādipāṭho, añño vinayo āpajjati.

Now, we will explain the purpose of the discourse on the origin. Since the Vinaya is a teaching by command, its purpose is threefold: to demonstrate the Blessed One’s worthiness to command, to demonstrate that the Vinaya, being a command, is not the domain of any other, and to demonstrate the great power of disciples who abide by his command. How so? The Blessed One is worthy to command because he has abandoned defilements, attained special qualities, is the eldest and best in the world, and has reached the state of 'Tādi' (the 'Such-like' state). His attainment of the 'Tādi' state is to be understood from his unshakenness in the face of the eight grounds for abuse, such as being without taste, without form, and so forth. The abandonment of defilements is to be understood through the passage explaining the conditions for the arising of those eight grounds of abuse in oneself. The attainment of special qualities is shown by the explanation of the four jhānas and the three true knowledges. His being the eldest and best in the world is known through statements like, “I, brahmin, do not see in this world with its devas… his head would split apart,” and “Eldest and best of the world.” This demonstrates the purpose of showing the Blessed One’s worthiness to command. The statement, “Wait, Sāriputta, wait, Sāriputta! The Tathāgata himself will know the time for that,” demonstrates that this is not the domain of any other. The great power of disciples who abide by his command is to be understood through these three lion’s roars of the Elder: “Good, venerable sir, I could turn over the earth,” “Good, venerable sir, I alone could create a hand,” and “Good, venerable sir, the entire Saṅgha of bhikkhus could go for alms in Uttarakuru.” Why did the Blessed One dwell in Verañjā at that time instead of Sāvatthī and other places? For the purpose of arousing joy in the Naḷeru Yaksha, for the non-weariness of the Saṅgha of bhikkhus regarding alms-food, for arousing confidence in the brahmin of Verañjā, because it served as a basis for demonstrating the power of the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna, and because it provided a ground for the Venerable Sāriputta’s reflection, which became the cause for requesting the establishment of the Vinaya. Among these, the last is the strongest reason. Hence, the commentary states, “At that time—the time when the Venerable… at that time.” As for the first four reasons for patronage: by the first, the Blessed One generates respect for the bhikkhus by protecting the minds of non-humans through the development of loving-kindness and other practices. By the second, he shows that the assembly should be supported in this way by a bhikkhu who frequents the assembly, or that one should be of few wishes and easily contented. By the third, he shows that support should be given to families while being unconcerned with requisites. By the fourth, he demonstrates that even one of such great power should not be greedy for requisites, but should live solely on what is given by others. From the statement, “The passage beginning 'tena'… up to the exposition of the meaning of the Vinaya,” it would follow that the passage beginning “tena” is one thing, and the Vinaya is another.

‘‘Tenātiādipāṭhamhā, ko añño vinayo idha;

Tassatthaṃ dassayantova, kare vinayavaṇṇana’’nti. –

From the passage beginning with 'Tena,' what other Vinaya is here? Explaining its meaning, should one compose the exposition of the Vinaya?

Ce? Nanu vuttaṃ pubbeva ‘‘idañhi buddhassa bhagavato attapaccakkhavacanaṃ na hotī’’tiādi, tasmā upālittherena vuttassa tenātiādipāṭhassa atthaṃ nānappakārato dassayanto karissāmi vinayassa bhagavato attapaccakkhavacanabhūtassa atthavaṇṇananti evamettha attho daṭṭhabbo. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘tena [Pg.32] samayena buddho bhagavā verañjāyaṃ viharatīti evamādivacanapaṭimaṇḍitanidānaṃ vinayapiṭakaṃ kena dhārita’’ntiādivacanaṃ virujjhati ‘‘tena samayenā’’tiādivacanassa vinayapiṭakapariyāpannabhāvadīpanatoti ce? Na, aññatthepi tabbohārasiddhito ‘‘nānāvidhabhittikammapaṭimaṇḍitavasano puriso’’tiādīsu viya. Vinayassādibhāvena saṅgītikārakehi anuññātattā vinayapariyāpannatāpi yujjati tassa vacanassa. Etthāha – yathā suttante ‘‘ekaṃ samaya’’nti ca, abhidhamme ca ‘‘yasmiṃ samaye’’ti aniyamato vuttaṃ, tathā avatvā idha ‘‘tena samayenā’’ti paṭhamaṃ taṃniddesova kasmā vuttoti? Vuccate – tassa tassa sikkhāpadapaññattisamayassa, yassa vā sikkhāpadapaññattihetubhūtassa samayassa hetu bhagavā tattha tattha vihāsi, tassa ca samayassa atītassa tesaṃ saṅgītikārakānaṃ vasīnaṃ suviditattā. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Ye te bhikkhū appicchā te ujjhāyantī’’tiādivacanato, ‘‘atha kho te bhikkhū bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesu’’nti ca ‘‘atha kho bhagavā etasmiṃ nidāne sannipātāpetvā’’ti ca ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ tadanucchavikaṃ tadanu…pe… dasa atthavase paṭicca saṅghasuṭṭhutāyā’’ti ca ‘‘evañca pana, bhikkhave, imaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ uddiseyyāthā’’ti ca khandhakesu ca ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tīhi saraṇagamanehi pabbajja’’ntiādivinayakkamassa vacanato yo so sikkhāpadapaññattisamayo, tassa tassa vinayakkamassa so paññattisamayo ca suvidito tesaṃ pañcasatānaṃ dhammadharānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ, nāyaṃ nayo suttantābhidhammesu sambhavati. Tasmā suviditattā tena samayena hetubhūtena viharatīti viharatipadena ekasambandhattā ca paṭhamaṃ yaṃniddesādino asambhavato ca vinayapiṭake taṃniddesova paṭhamaṃ vutto. Kathaṃ? Ettha ‘‘yena kho pana samayena vesāliyā avidūre kalandagāmo nāma hotī’’ti vā ‘‘yena kho pana samayena vesālī…pe… hotī’’ti vā asambhavato yaṃniddesena avatvā taṃniddesasseva sambhavato ‘‘tena kho pana samayena…pe… kalandagāmo nāma hotī’’ti vuttanti, kevalaṃ suviditattā vā. Aniyamaniddesavacananti ettha kiñcāpi yathāvuttanayena niyamaniddesavacanamevetaṃ taṃniddesattā, tathāpi sampatikālavasena taditaresaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ aviditattā ‘‘aniyamaniddesavacana’’nti vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ ‘‘ayañhi sabbasmimpi vinaye yuttī’’ti, taṃ tabbahulena vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

If it is asked: Was it not previously stated, 'This is not the Buddha’s own personally realized statement,' and so on? Therefore, the meaning here should be understood thus: while explaining in various ways the meaning of the text beginning with 'tena' spoken by the Elder Upāli, 'I shall make an exposition of the meaning of the Vinaya, which is the Blessed One's own personally realized statement.' If so, does the statement beginning, 'By whom was the Vinaya Piṭaka, whose introduction is adorned with such words as, “At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Verañjā,” maintained?' contradict the indication that the statement beginning 'tena samayena' is included in the Vinaya Piṭaka? No, because that usage is established in other contexts as well, just as in phrases like, 'a man whose dwelling is adorned with various wall paintings.' Because it was permitted by the compilers of the council as the beginning of the Vinaya, the inclusion of that statement in the Vinaya is also justified. Here, an objector said: Just as in the Suttanta, 'at one time,' and in the Abhidhamma, 'at whatever time,' are stated indefinitely, why, without saying it like that, was 'at that time'—the definite indication with 'taṃ'—stated first here? It is answered: Because that past time—the time of the enactment of each training rule, or the time which was the cause for the enactment of the training rule, for which reason the Blessed One dwelt in that very place—was well-known to those masters, the compilers of the council. How so? From statements such as, 'Those monks who were of few desires were critical…'; and, 'Then those monks reported this matter to the Blessed One…'; and, 'Then the Blessed One, on this occasion, having had the Saṅgha assembled…'; and, '…for the monks, what is suitable in that regard… for the complete well-being of the Saṅgha…'; and, 'And thus, monks, you should recite this training rule…'; and also in the Khandhakas, from the Vinaya procedure beginning with, 'I allow, monks, the going forth by the three refuges…'—whatever was the time of the enactment of the training rule, that time of enactment for each and every Vinaya procedure was well-known to those five hundred monks, the bearers of the Dhamma. This method is not possible in the Suttanta and Abhidhamma. Therefore, because it was well-known, and because of the single connection with the word 'viharati' (as in, 'he dwells at that time which was the cause'), and because of the impossibility of beginning with an indefinite pronoun like 'yaṃ', only the definite pronoun 'taṃ' was stated first in the Vinaya Piṭaka. How is it impossible? Here, because it is impossible to say, 'On the occasion when near Vesālī there was a village named Kalandaka,' or 'On the occasion when at Vesālī… there was,' and so, not speaking with the indefinite pronoun 'yaṃ', and because only the definite pronoun 'taṃ' is possible, it was said, 'At that time… there was a village named Kalandaka.' Or, it was said thus simply because it was well-known. Regarding the phrase 'indefinite indication statement': although, according to the method stated, this is indeed a definite indication statement because it is a definite pronoun ('taṃ'), nevertheless, by way of the present time, because it is not known to other monks apart from those compilers, it was called an 'indefinite indication statement.' As for the statement that was made, 'This reasoning applies throughout the entire Vinaya,' it should be understood that this was stated as applying for the most part.

Yadi [Pg.33] sabbaṃ tenāti padaṃ aniyamaniddesavacanaṃ bhaveyya, tena hi bhikkhave bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāpadanti ettha idampi pubbe siddhatthaṃ tenāti padaṃ aniyamaniddesavacanaṃ bhaveyya. ‘‘Tena samayena buddho bhagavā uruvelāyaṃ viharatī’’tiādīsu vuttaṃ tenāti padañca aniyamaniddesavacanaṃ bhaveyya, na ca hoti, tasmā yesaṃ tena taṃniddesena niddiṭṭhattho avidito, tesaṃ vasenāha ‘‘aniyamaniddesavacanameta’’nti. Atha vā tato paṭhamaṃ tadatthādassanato pacchāpi taṃsambandhena yaṃniddesadassanato ca ‘‘aniyamaniddesavacanameta’’nti vuttaṃ. Atha vā pubbaṇhādīsu ayaṃ nāmāti aniyametvā kālaparidīpanassa samayasaddassa upapadabhāvenapi evaṃ vattumarahati ‘‘yadidaṃ aniyamaniddesavacana’’nti. Atha vā ‘‘tenā’’ti vutte tena ghaṭena paṭenāti sabbatthappasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ niyamaṃ karoti ‘‘samayenā’’ti. Kena pana samayena? Parabhāge atthato siddhena sāriputtassa parivitakkasamayena. Etthāha – vitakkasamayo ce idhādhippeto, ‘‘parato idha pana hetuattho karaṇattho ca sambhavati. Yo hi so sikkhāpadapaññattisamayo sāriputtādīhipi dubbiññeyyo, tena samayena hetubhūtena karaṇabhūtena cā’’tiādivacanaṃ virujjhatīti? Na, bāhullena vuttattā. Suttantābhidhammesu viya avatvā idha vinayapiṭake karaṇavacanena kasmā niddesoti hi codanā. Tasmā tassā vissajjane bāhullena karaṇavacanappayojanaṃ vattukāmo ācariyo āha ‘‘yo so sikkhāpadapaññattisamayo’’tiādi. Na sampati vuccamānasseva karaṇavacanassa payojanaṃ vattukāmo, imassa pana hetuatthova sambhavati, na karaṇattho, tasmā āha ‘‘aparabhāge atthato siddhenā’’tiādi. Samayañcāti āgamanapaccayasamavāyaṃ tadanurūpakālañca upādāyāti attho. Paccayasāmaggiñca āgamanakālañca labhitvā jānissāmāti adhippāyo.

If the word 'tena' were in all cases a term of indefinite reference, then in the text 'tena hi bhikkhave bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāpadanti', this word 'tena', whose meaning was previously established, would also be a term of indefinite reference. In passages such as, 'At that time, the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling in Uruvelā,' the word 'tena' would also be a term of indefinite reference, but it is not so. Therefore, on account of those for whom the meaning indicated by that word 'tena'—a reference with the pronoun 'ta'—is not known, the commentator said, 'This is a term of indefinite reference.' Alternatively, it is said, 'This is a term of indefinite reference,' because that meaning is not indicated first, and also because later, in connection with it, a reference with 'ya' is to be shown. Alternatively, without specifying 'this is the name' among times such as the forenoon, it is also appropriate to say thus—'that which is a term of indefinite reference'—due to its being an adjunct to the word 'samaya', which indicates time. Alternatively, when 'tena' is said, to prevent its application in all cases, such as 'by that pot' or 'by that cloth', the specification 'by the occasion' (samayena) is made. But by what occasion? By the occasion of Sāriputta’s reflection, which is established by its meaning in the subsequent portion. Here an objector says: If the occasion of reflection is intended here, would not the subsequent statement—'Here, however, the meaning of cause and the meaning of instrument are possible. For that occasion of laying down the training rule is difficult to discern even for Sāriputta and others; by that occasion which has become the cause and has become the instrument...'—be contradicted? No, it is not contradicted, because it is stated in a general sense. Indeed, the objection is: Why is there a reference with the instrumental case here in the Vinaya Piṭaka, without stating it as is done in the Suttanta and Abhidhamma? Therefore, in answering that objection, the commentator, wishing to state the purpose of the instrumental case in a general sense, said, 'that occasion of laying down the training rule,' etc. He does not wish to state the purpose of the instrumental case for that which is being spoken of right now; for this, however, only the meaning of cause is possible, not the meaning of instrument. Therefore, he said, 'in the subsequent portion, established by its meaning,' etc. And 'samayaṃ' means taking into account the concurrence of conditions for arrival and the suitable time in accordance with that; this is the meaning. The intention is: 'We shall know, having obtained the assemblage of conditions and the time of arrival.'

Etthāha – yathā ‘‘ekova kho, bhikkhave, khaṇo samayo cā’’ti ettha khaṇasamayānaṃ eko attho, tathā kālañca samayañca upādāyāti kālasamayānaṃ eko attho siyā, apica āgamanapaccayasamavāyo cettha samayo kālassāpi āgamanapaccayattā samayaggahaṇeneva so gahitoti visuṃ kālo kimatthaṃ gahitoti ca? Vuccate – appeva nāma svepīti kālassa paṭhamaṃ niyamitattā na samayo kālattho[Pg.34]. Tasmiṃ sveti niyamitakāle itaresaṃ āgamanapaccayānaṃ samavāyaṃ paṭicca upasaṅkameyyāma yathāniyamitakālepi pubbaṇhādippabhedaṃ yathāvuttasamavāyānurūpaṃ kālañca upādāyāti sveti paricchinnadivase pubbaṇhādikālaniyatabhāvaṃ dasseti, tasmā kālasamayānaṃ na ekatthattā kālassa visuṃ gahaṇampi sātthakanti veditabbaṃ. Yasmā khaṇe khaṇe tvaṃ bhikkhu jāyasi ca jīyasi ca mīyasi ceti bhikkhuniyā santike abhikkhaṇaṃ gacchatīti (pāci. 198) ca khaṇe khaṇe bhāsati satthusāsananti ca khaṇasaddo anekattho, tathā samayasaddo ca, tasmā ekamekena niyamento ‘‘ekova kho, bhikkhave, khaṇo ca samayo cā’’ti āha. Khaṇasamayānaṃ attho ekattho yujjati khaṇo okāsalābho, aṭṭhakkhaṇavajjito navamo khaṇoti attho. Attano attano ucchedādayo diṭṭhigatasaṅkhāte samaye ettha pavadantīti samayappavādako. Sveva tindukācīrasaṅkhātāya timbarurukkhapantiyā parikkhittattā tindukācīraṃ. Ekasālaketi eko sālarukkho. ‘‘Kuṭikā’’tipi vadanti. Atthābhisamayāti attano hitapaṭilābhā. Dhīroti ca paṇḍito vuccati, nāñño. Sammā mānābhisamayāti suṭṭhu mānassa pahānena, samucchedavasena suṭṭhu mānappahānenāti attho. Dukkhassa pīḷanaṭṭhotiādīsu ‘‘catunnaṃ saccānaṃ catūhi ākārehi paṭivedho’’tiādīsu khandhapañcakasaṅkhātassa dukkhassa dukkhākāratāyaṭṭho. Saṅkhataṭṭho kāraṇuppattiattho, dukkhāya vedanāya santāpaṭṭho. Sukhāya vedanāya vipariṇāmaṭṭho. Pīḷanaṭṭhādikova abhisamayaṭṭhoti attho daṭṭhabbo. Gabbhokkantisamayotiādīsupi pathavīkampanaālokapātubhāvādīhi devamanussesu pākaṭo. Dukkarakārikasamayopi kāḷo samaṇo gotamo na kāḷotiādinā pākaṭo. Sattasattāhāni ca aññāni ca diṭṭhadhammasukhavihārasamayo.

Here, an objector says: Just as in 'Indeed, O monks, there is but one moment and one occasion,' the words 'moment' and 'occasion' have one meaning, so too, in 'taking into account time and occasion,' the words 'time' and 'occasion' might have one meaning. Furthermore, another objection is raised: Herein, 'occasion' is the concurrence of conditions for arrival. Since 'time' is also a condition for arrival, its meaning is included by the term 'occasion'. This being so, for what purpose is 'time' mentioned separately? The reply is given: Because time is first determined by 'Perhaps even tomorrow,' 'occasion' does not have the meaning of 'time'. In that determined time, 'tomorrow,' we might approach depending on the concurrence of the other conditions for arrival. And by the phrase 'taking into account... the time'—a time suitable for the aforementioned concurrence and having divisions such as the forenoon, even within a generally determined time—it is shown that within the specified day of 'tomorrow', a specific time such as the forenoon is being determined. Therefore, because 'time' and 'occasion' do not have a single meaning, it should be understood that the separate mention of 'time' is also meaningful. Because the word 'moment' has many meanings—as in 'In every moment, O monk, you are born, you age, and you die'; and 'He goes frequently to the nun's presence'; and 'He speaks the Teacher's Dispensation moment by moment'—and similarly, the word 'occasion' also has many meanings, therefore, delimiting one by means of the other, the Blessed One said, 'Indeed, O monks, there is but one moment and one occasion.' The meaning of 'moment' and 'occasion' is fittingly a single meaning. 'Moment' is the gaining of an opportunity; it means the ninth moment, which is other than the eight inopportune moments. They are called 'proponents of views' (samayappavādaka) because herein they proclaim their respective doctrines, such as annihilationism, which are designated as wrong views. That very place is called Tindukācīra because it is surrounded by a row of Timbaru trees, also known as Tinduka trees. 'Ekasālaka' means there is one Sāla tree; some also say 'there is a hut'. 'Attainment of the goal' (atthābhisamaya) is due to the attainment of one's own welfare. He is called 'wise' (dhīra) and 'learned' (paṇḍita), not anything else. 'Right overcoming of conceit' (sammā mānābhisamaya) means through the thorough abandonment of conceit, that is, through the thorough abandonment of conceit by way of eradication. In such passages as 'Suffering has the meaning of oppression,' and 'the penetration of the four truths through four aspects,' it refers to the characteristic of suffering as it pertains to the suffering designated as the five aggregates. The meaning of 'conditioned' is the meaning of arising from a cause. For painful feeling, it has the meaning of torment; for pleasant feeling, it has the meaning of change. The meaning of 'realization' (abhisamaya) should be understood as precisely the meaning of oppression and so on. Also in such instances as 'the time of conception in the womb,' it was made manifest to devas and humans by the earthquake, the appearance of light, and so on. The time of performing the ascetic practices was also made manifest by such statements as 'The ascetic Gotama is dark [from austerities], not dark [by nature],' and so on. The seven weeks and other such periods constitute the occasion for dwelling in bliss in the present life.

Accantameva taṃ samayanti ārambhato paṭṭhāya yāva pattasanniṭṭhānā, tāva accantasampayogena tasmiṃ samaye. Karuṇāvihārena vihāsīti karuṇākiccavihārena tasmiṃ samaye vihāsīti attho. Taṃ samayañhi karuṇākiccasamayaṃ. Ñāṇakiccaṃ karuṇākiccanti dve bhagavato kiccāni, abhisambodhi ñāṇakiccaṃ, mahākaruṇāsamāpattiṃ samāpajjitvā veneyyasattāvalokanaṃ [Pg.35] katvā tadanurūpakaraṇaṃ karuṇākiccaṃ. ‘‘Sannipatitānaṃ vo, bhikkhave, dvayaṃ karaṇīya’’nti (ma. ni. 1.273; udā. 12, 28) hi vuttaṃ, taṃ bhagavāpi karotiyeva. Atha vā āgantukehi bhikkhūhi ādisamāyogañca. Tattha karuṇākiccaṃ vihāraṃ dassento ‘‘karuṇāvihārena vihāsī’’ti āha. Adhikaraṇañhi kālatthoti ettha hi-kāro kāraṇattho. Tattha hi abhidhamme kālasamūhakhaṇasamavāyahetusaṅkhātavasena pañcavidho samayaṭṭho daṭṭhabbo. Kālasamūhaṭṭho samayo kathaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hoti? Adhikaraṇamuppattiṭṭhānaṃ pubbaṇhe jātoti yathā, evaṃ kālaṭṭho samayasaddo daṭṭhabbo. Kathaṃ rāsaṭṭho? Yavarāsimhi jātoti yathā. Tasmā yasmiṃ kāle puñje vā cittaṃ samuppannaṃ, tasmiṃ kāle puñje vā phassādayo uppajjantīti vuttaṃ hoti. Adhikaraṇañhīti ettha abhidhamme niddiṭṭhaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ kālaṭṭho samūhaṭṭho ca hoti, ‘‘yasmiṃ samaye’’ti vuttaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Idāni bhāvenabhāvalakkhaṇañca dassento ‘‘tattha vuttāna’’miccādimāha. Tattha abhidhamme vuttānaṃ bhāvo nāma kinti? Uppatti vijjamānatā, sā tesaṃ tattha vuttānaṃ phassādidhammānaṃ, sā pana samayassa bhāvena bhāvo lakkhīyati ñāyati, tasmā tattha bhummavacananiddeso katoti vuttaṃ hoti.

They come together with it absolutely from the beginning of the undertaking until the attainment of completion; for that long, there is an absolute connection at that time. 'He dwelt with a compassionate abiding' means he dwelt with the abiding that is the function of compassion at that time; this is the meaning. For that occasion is indeed the occasion of the function of compassion. The Blessed One has two functions: the function of knowledge and the function of compassion. Supreme enlightenment is the function of knowledge, while the function of compassion is entering the attainment of great compassion, surveying beings fit to be trained, and acting in accordance with them. For it is said, 'Monks, for you who have gathered, two things are to be done' (MN 1.273; Ud 12, 28); this the Blessed One also indeed does. Alternatively, it refers to the initial association with visiting monks. In that context, showing the abiding that is the function of compassion, he said, 'he dwelt with a compassionate abiding.' In 'for the basis has the meaning of time,' the particle 'hi' has the meaning of reason. Indeed, there in the Abhidhamma, the meaning of 'samaya' (occasion) should be understood in five ways: as time, as a collection, as a moment, as a conjunction, and as a cause. How is 'samaya' with the meaning of time and collection a basis? The basis is the place of arising, as in 'arisen in the morning'; in this way, the word 'samaya' should be understood as having the meaning of time. How with the meaning of a heap? As in 'arisen in a heap of barley.' Therefore, it is said that in whatever time or collection consciousness arises, in that time or collection contact and other factors arise. In 'for the basis,' the basis pointed out in the Abhidhamma is both that which has the meaning of time and that which has the meaning of collection; it should be understood that this was said with reference to the basis spoken of as 'at which time.' Now, also showing the characteristic of a state by means of a state, he says, 'of those stated therein,' etc. Therein, in the Abhidhamma, what is called the 'state' (bhāva) of those things stated? It is arising, existence. That is the state of those phenomena of contact and so on, stated therein. That state, however, is discerned and known by the state of the occasion. Therefore, it is said that the specification in the locative case has been made there.

Tattha khaṇo nāma aṭṭhakkhaṇavinimutto navamo khaṇo, tasmiṃ sati uppajjati. Samavāyo nāma cakkhundriyādikāraṇasāmaggī, tasmiṃ sati uppajjati. Hetu nāma rūpādiārammaṇaṃ. Tasmā tasmiṃ khaṇakāraṇasamavāyahetumhi sati tesaṃ phassādīnaṃ bhāvo vijjamānatā hotīti vuttaṃ hoti. Idha pana hetuattho karaṇattho ca sambhavatīti ettha atthadvayamekassa sambhavatīti idha vinaye vuttassa samayasaddassa kattukaraṇatthe tatiyā hetumhi ca ityuttattā. So dubbiññeyyoti ‘‘tathāgatova tattha kālaṃ jānissatī’’ti vuttattāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tena samayenāti tassa samayassa kāraṇā ‘‘annena vasati vijjāya vasatī’’ti yathā, annaṃ vā vijjaṃ vā labhāmīti tadatthaṃ vasatītyattho. Evaṃ ‘‘tena samayena viharatī’’ti vutte hetvatthe tatiyā daṭṭhabbā, tasmā sikkhāpadapaññattiyā samayañca vītikkamañca olokayamāno tattha tattha vihāsīti vuttaṃ hoti. Tatiyapārājikādīsu ‘‘icchāmahaṃ, bhikkhave, addhamāsaṃ[Pg.36], paṭisallīyitu’’nti (pārā. 162) evamādīsu daṭṭhabbā, tasmā dutiyā kāladdhāne accantasaṃyogeti dutiyātra sambhavati ‘‘māsamadhīte divasamadhīte’’ti yathā. Idha pana hetuattho karaṇattho ca sambhavatīti ettha yassa karaṇavacanassa hetuattho sambhavati, tena samayena hetubhūtena taṃ taṃ vatthuvītikkamasaṅkhātaṃ vītikkamasamayasaṅkhātaṃ vā sikkhāpadapaññattihetuñca apekkhamāno bhagavā tattha tattha vihāsi. Yassa karaṇattho sambhavati, tena karaṇabhūtena samayena sampattena sikkhāpadāni paññāpayanto bhagavā tattha tattha vihāsīti adhippāyo.

Therein, 'moment' refers to the ninth moment, free from the eight moments; when that exists, it arises. 'Confluence' refers to the harmony of conditions such as the eye faculty; when that exists, it arises. 'Cause' refers to the object such as form. Therefore, when that moment, confluence of conditions, and cause exist, the state, the existence, of contact and so forth is said to be. Here, however, the meaning of cause and the meaning of instrument both arise. Thus, because two meanings arise for a single term, it is because it is said that for the word 'samaya' as stated in this Vinaya, the instrumental case is used in the sense of agent and instrument, and also in the sense of cause. That it is difficult to understand is said to be because it is stated, 'Only the Tathāgata will know the time for that.' 'By that occasion' means 'because of that occasion,' just as in 'he dwells by food, he dwells by knowledge,' the meaning is that he dwells for the purpose of obtaining food or knowledge. Thus, when it is said, 'he dwells at that time,' the instrumental case should be understood in the sense of cause. Therefore, it is said that observing the occasion for the laying down of the training rule and the transgression, he dwelled here and there. This should be seen in the third Pārājika and so forth, as in 'I wish, monks, to go into seclusion for half a month,' and so on. Therefore, according to the rule 'the accusative is used for continuous connection with time and distance,' the accusative case is possible here, as in 'he studies for a month, he studies for a day.' Here, however, where it is said that the meaning of cause and the meaning of instrument both arise: where the meaning of cause arises for an instrumental expression, the Blessed One dwelled here and there, considering that cause which had become the occasion—whether it was what is called the transgression of that particular object, or what is called the occasion of transgression, and the cause for formulating a training rule. Where the meaning of instrument arises, the Blessed One dwelled here and there, establishing the training rules by means of that occasion which had arrived and become the instrument. This is the intended meaning.

Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘sudinnādīnaṃ vītikkamova kāraṇaṃ nāma, tassa niyamabhūto kālo pana karaṇameva taṃ kālaṃ anatikkamitvāva sikkhāpadassa paññapetabbattā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ niddosaṃ. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ ‘‘idaṃ karaṇaṃ pubbabhāgattā paṭhamaṃ vattabbampi pacchā vutta’’nti, taṃ duvuttaṃ. Hetuatthato hi yathā pacchā karaṇattho yojiyamāno anukkameneva yogaṃ gacchati, tathā ca yojito. Yaṃ pana aṭṭhakathācariyo pacchā vuttaṃ idaṃ karaṇatthaṃ paṭhamaṃ yojetvā paṭhamaṃ vuttaṃ hetuatthaṃ pacchā yojesi, taṃ yojanāsukhattāti veditabbanti ācariyena likhitaṃ. Ito paṭṭhāya yattha yattha ‘‘ācariyena likhita’’nti vā ‘‘ācariyassa takko’’ti vā vuccati, tattha tattha ācariyo nāma ānandācariyo kalasapuravāsīti gahetabbo. Etthāha – yathā suttante ‘‘ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā’’ti vuccati, tathā ‘‘tena samayena bhagavā verañjāya’’nti vattabbaṃ, atha savevacanaṃ vattukāmo thero, tathāgato sugatotiādīnipi vattabbāni, atha imasseva padadvayassa gahaṇe kiñci payojanaṃ atthi, taṃ vattabbanti? Vuccate – kesañci buddhassa bhagavato paramagambhīraṃ ajjhāsayakkamaṃ ajānataṃ ‘‘apaññatte sikkhāpade anādīnavadasso…pe… abhiviññāpesī’’tiādikaṃ (pārā. 36) ‘‘atha kho bhagavā āyasmantaṃ sudinnaṃ paṭipucchī’’tiādikañca (pārā. 39) ‘‘sādiyi tvaṃ bhikkhūti. Nāhaṃ bhagavā sādiyi’’ntiādikañca (pārā. 72) tathā purāṇavohārikaṃ bhikkhuṃ pucchitvā tena vuttaparicchedena dutiyapārājikapaññāpanañca devadattassa pabbajjānujānanañcāti evamādikaṃ vinayapariyattiṃ disvā buddhasubuddhataṃ paṭicca saṅkā sambhaveyya, ‘‘tathā kiṃ pana tuyhaṃ chavassa kheḷāsakassā’’ti [Pg.37] (cūḷava. 336) evamādikaṃ pharusavacanapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ vinayapariyattiṃ nissāya khīṇāsavattaṃ paṭicca saṅkā sambhaveyya, tadubhayasaṅkāvinodanatthaṃ āyasmatā upālittherena idameva padadvayaggahaṇaṃ sabbattha katanti veditabbaṃ. Tenetaṃ dīpeti – kāmaṃ sabbañeyyabuddhattā buddhoyeva, bhaggasabbadosattā bhagavāva, so satthāti. Paratopi vuttaṃ ‘‘jānantāpi tathāgatā pucchanti…pe… anatthasaṃhite setughāto tathāgatāna’’nti (pārā. 16). Suttante ca vuttaṃ ‘‘saṇhenapi kesi vinemi pharusenapī’’tiādi (a. ni. 4.111).

In the Gaṇṭhipada, however, it is said: 'For Sudinna and others, the transgression itself is the cause. The time which is the determinant for it, however, is indeed the instrument, because the training rule had to be laid down without exceeding that time.' That is faultless. But what was said—'This instrument, though it should be stated first as it is in the preliminary part, was stated afterwards'—is poorly stated. For, when the meaning of the instrument is applied after the meaning of cause, it connects only in sequential order, and it has been so applied. However, as for the Aṭṭhakathā master first applying this later-stated instrumental meaning and afterwards applying the first-stated causal meaning, it should be understood that this was for the sake of ease of application. From here on, wherever it is said, 'written by the teacher' or 'the teacher’s reasoning,' the teacher should be understood as the teacher Ānanda, a resident of Kalasapura. Here, an objector says: Just as in the Suttanta it is stated, 'At one time, the Bhagavā…,' so too it should be stated, 'At that time, the Bhagavā was at Verañjā…' Or else, if the Elder wishes to speak with synonyms, terms such as 'the Tathāgata,' 'the Sugata,' and so on, should also be said. However, is there any purpose in taking just these two words? That should be stated. It is said: For some who do not know the supremely profound course of intention of the Buddha, the Bhagavā, a doubt might arise concerning the Buddha's perfect enlightenment upon seeing such Vinaya scripture as: 'When the training rule was not laid down... he made it fully known...'; and 'Then the Bhagavā questioned the venerable Sudinna...'; and 'Did you consent, bhikkhu? I did not consent, Bhagavā...'; and furthermore, the laying down of the second Pārājika after questioning a bhikkhu who was formerly a judge and by the definition given by him; and the permitting of Devadatta's ordination. Furthermore, a doubt might arise concerning his state of having destroyed the cankers, relying on Vinaya scripture connected with harsh speech, such as, 'What use are you, you corpse, you phlegm-eater?' It should be understood that to dispel both these doubts, the venerable Elder Upāli made this very taking of the pair of words everywhere. By this, it is shown: Indeed, because of having awakened to all that is knowable, he is the Buddha, and because of having broken all faults, he is the Bhagavā; he is the Teacher. Elsewhere it is also said: 'Tathāgatas ask even though they know… for the sake of eliminating what is unbeneficial, the Tathāgatas strike down obstacles.' And in the Suttanta it is said: 'Kesi, I train with gentleness and also with harshness…'

Asādhāraṇahetumhīti ettha kusalamūlāni na akusalānaṃ kadāci mūlāni honti, tathā akusalamūlāni kusalānaṃ, abyākatamūlāni na kadāci kusalānanti ayameva nayo labbhati, yasmā kusalā hetū taṃsamuṭṭhānānaṃ rūpānaṃ hetupaccayena paccayo (paṭṭhā. 1.1.401 ādayo), tasmā kusalāni kusalānaṃyevātiādinayo na labbhati. Puci vuccate kuṭṭhā, te mandayati nāsayatīti pucimando. Sattānaṃ hitasukhanipphādanādhimuttatanti ettha sāmaññato vuttasatte dvidhā bhinditvā dassetuṃ ‘‘manussānaṃ upakārabahulata’’ntiādi vuttaṃ. Bahujanahitāyāti bahuno janassa hitatthāya. Paññāsampattiyā diṭṭhadhammikasamparāyikahitūpadesako hi bhagavā. Sukhāyāti sukhatthāya. Cāgasampattiyā upakārakasukhasampadāyako hi esa. Mettākaruṇāsampattiyā lokānukampāya mātāpitaro viya. Lokassa rakkhitagopitā hi esa. Devamanussānanti ettha bhabbapuggale veneyyasatteyeva gahetvā tesaṃ nibbānamaggaphalādhigamāya attano uppattiṃ dasseti. ‘‘Atthāyā’’ti hi vutte paramatthatthāya nibbānāya, ‘‘hitāyā’’ti vutte taṃsampāpakamaggatthāyāti vuttaṃ hoti, maggato uttari hitaṃ nāma natthīti. Sukhāyāti phalasamāpattisukhatthāya tato uttari sukhābhāvato. Diṭṭhisīlasaṅghātenāti ettha samādhiṃ paññañca aggahetvā diṭṭhisīlamattaggahaṇaṃ sabbasekkhāsekkhasāmaññattā. Kosambakasuttepi (ma. ni. 1.492) ‘‘sīlasāmaññagato viharati, diṭṭhisāmaññagato viharatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Diṭṭhiggahaṇena paññāpi gahitāti ce? Na, sotāpannādīnampi paññāya paripūrakāribhāvappasaṅgato, tasmā ekalakkhaṇānampi tāsaṃ paññādiṭṭhīnaṃ avatthantarabhedo atthi dhitisamādhindriyasammāsamādhīnaṃ viya[Pg.38]. Aññāsīti ettha sotadvārānusārena ñātā, atthā sutāti hi vuccanti ‘‘sutametaṃ, bho gotama, pāpakā samācārā dissanti ceva suyyanti cā’’tiādīsu viya. ‘‘Bhikkhu kho, upāli, saṅghaṃ bhindatī’’tiādīsu (cūḷava. 354) viya avadhāraṇatthe vā. Verañjāyaṃ bhavo vijjamāno. Itthambhūtassa evaṃ bhūtassa. Kathaṃ bhūtassa? Sakyaputtassa sakyakulā pabbajitassa, evaṃ hutvā ṭhitassa kittisaddo abbhuggatoti abhisaddena yoge upayogavacanāni hontīti attho.

Herein, in the text asādhāraṇahetumhi, wholesome roots are never roots of unwholesome states; likewise, unwholesome roots are never roots of wholesome states, and indeterminate roots are never roots of wholesome states—this very method is obtained. Because wholesome causes are a condition, by way of root-condition, for material phenomena co-arisen with them, therefore, the method such as 'wholesome states are a condition only for wholesome states' is not obtained. Leprosy (kuṭṭha) is called puci. Because it weakens (mandayati) and destroys (nāsayati) them (te), it is therefore called pucimanda. Herein, in the text sattānaṃ hitasukhanipphādanādhimuttatanti, in order to show the beings spoken of in a general sense by dividing them in two—namely as humans and devas—it is said, 'for the great benefit of humans,' and so on. Bahujanahitāya means for the benefit of many people. Indeed, through the accomplishment of wisdom, the Blessed One is an instructor on the welfare pertaining to the present life and to the future life. Sukhāya means for the sake of happiness. Indeed, through the accomplishment of generosity, this one is a provider of beneficial happiness. Through the accomplishment of loving-kindness and compassion, out of compassion for the world, he is like a mother and father. Indeed, this one is the protector and guardian of the world. Herein, in devamanussānaṃ, taking only those beings to be trained, individuals who are capable, he shows his own arising for their attainment of Nibbāna, the path, and the fruit. Indeed, when 'for the goal' (atthāya) is said, it means for the ultimate goal, for Nibbāna; when 'for the welfare' (hitāya) is said, it means for the sake of the path that leads to that attainment, for there is no welfare higher than the path. Sukhāya means for the sake of the happiness of the attainment of fruition, because there is no happiness higher than that. Herein, in diṭṭhisīlasaṅghātena, the taking of merely view and virtue, without taking concentration and wisdom, is done because of the commonality to all trainees and non-trainees. In the Kosambaka Sutta as well it is said, 'He dwells having attained commonality of virtue, he dwells having attained commonality of view.' If it is said, 'By the taking of view, is wisdom also taken?' No, because of the unwanted consequence of it being a fulfiller of the wisdom of stream-enterers and so on. Therefore, although they have a single characteristic, there is a difference of state between that wisdom and view, just as there is a difference of state between fortitude (dhiti), the faculty of concentration (samādhindriya), and right concentration (sammāsamādhi). Herein, in aññāsi ('he understood'), it means 'known in accordance with the ear-door'. For meanings are indeed said to be 'heard' (sutā), as in such passages as, 'This has been heard by me, venerable Gotama, that evil practices are both seen and heard,' and so on. Or, the particle kho is in the sense of emphasis, as in, 'A bhikkhu, Upāli, indeed divides the Saṅgha,' and so on. 'Being in Verañjā' (verañjāyaṃ bhavo) means 'existing' (vijjamāno). 'Of one who has become such' (itthambhūtassa) means 'of one who has become thus' (evaṃ bhūtassa). Of one who has become how? Of the son of the Sakyans, gone forth from the Sakyan clan; the sound of fame of one who is established, having become thus, has arisen. The meaning is that in connection with the prefix abhi-, accusative case endings are used.

Kāmupādānapaccayā eva mettaṃ bhāveti, brahmaloke nibbattatīti iminā kāmupādānahetu kammaṃ katvā kāmabhave eva nibbattatītivādīnaṃ vādo paṭikkhittoti vadanti, ‘‘brahmaloke paṇītā kāmā’’ti sutvā, kappetvā vā pacchā ‘‘tattha sampattiṃ anubhavissāmī’’ti kāmupādānapaccayā tadupagaṃ karotīti brahmalokepi kāmanīyaṭṭhena kāmā, ‘‘tadārammaṇattā taṇhā kāmupādānanti vuttā’’ti ca vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Kammañca cakkhussa janakakāraṇaṃ, kammassa mūlakāraṇaṃ taṇhā, tasmā na mūlakāraṇaṃ hoti janakaṃ. Rūpataṇhādayo dukkhasaccaṃ khandhapariyāpannattā, ‘‘yampicchaṃ na labhati, tampi dukkha’’nti (dī. ni. 2.387; ma. ni. 1.131; vibha. 190) vacanato ca. Tassa mūlakāraṇabhāvena samuṭṭhāpikāti tassa kāraṇabhūtassa imassa khandhapañcakassa samuṭṭhāpikāti yojetabbaṃ. ‘‘Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo’’ti (ma. ni. 1.103) vacanato tassa eva kāraṇantipi vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Apica ‘‘rūpādi viya taṇhāpi taṇhāya uppattippahānaṭṭhāna’’nti vacanato rūpādi viya taṇhāpi dukkhasaccaṃ kataṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘rūpataṇhā loke piyarūpaṃ sātarūpaṃ, etthesā taṇhā uppajjamānā uppajjatī’’ti (dī. ni. 2.400; vibha. 203) ca ‘‘etthesā taṇhā pahīyamānā pahīyatī’’ti (dī. ni. 2.401; ma. ni. 1.134) ca. Visuddhimagge ‘‘sabbākārena pana upādānakkhandhapañcakaṃ dukkhañceva ariyasaccañca aññatra taṇhāyā’’ti vacanato idha rūpataṇhādayo dukkhasaccanti vacanaṃ virujjhatīti ce? Na, aññamaññāsaṅkarabhāvena dassetuṃ tattha tattha vuttattā. Yadi taṇhā upādānakkhandhapariyāpannā na bhaveyya, saccavibhaṅge ‘‘tattha katame saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā. Seyyathidaṃ, rūpupādānakkhandho [Pg.39]..pe… viññāṇupādānakkhandho’’ti (vibha. 202) ettha ‘‘ṭhapetvā taṇhaṃ saṅkhārupādānakkhandho’’ti vattabbaṃ bhaveyya, na ca vuttaṃ, tasmā dukkhasaccapariyāpannā taṇhāti ce? Na, hetuphalasaṅkaradosappasaṅgato. Na saṅkaradosoti ce? Saccavibhaṅgapāḷiyañhi pañcahi koṭṭhāsehi samudayasaccaṃ niddiṭṭhaṃ.

They say that by this [statement from the commentary], 'One develops loving-kindness only with clinging to sensual pleasures as condition and is reborn in the Brahma-world,' the view of those who hold that 'having performed kamma due to the cause of clinging to sensual pleasures, one is reborn only in the sensual realm' is refuted. Having heard, 'In the Brahma-world, there are refined sensual pleasures,' or having conceived it, one later [thinks], 'I will experience that fortune there,' and due to clinging to sensual pleasures, undertakes that which leads to it. Therefore, even in the Brahma-world, [things] are called 'sensual pleasures' in the sense of being desirable, and they also say, 'Because it has that as its object, craving is called clinging to sensual pleasures.' This should be investigated. And kamma is the generative cause of the eye; craving is the root cause of kamma. Therefore, the generative cause is not the root cause. Craving for form and so on are the truth of suffering because they are included in the aggregates, and because of the statement, 'Not to get what one wants, that too is suffering' (Dī. Ni. 2.387; Ma. Ni. 1.131; Vibh. 190). Regarding the phrase 'the originator by being its root cause,' it should be construed thus: [craving is] the originator of this pentad of aggregates, for which that [kamma] is the cause. Because of the teaching, 'From the arising of the taints, there is the arising of ignorance' (Ma. Ni. 1.103), it is also suitable to say that it is the cause of that very [kamma]. Furthermore, because of the statement, 'Like form, etc., craving itself is a basis for the arising and abandoning of craving,' craving, like form, etc., is also made the truth of suffering. For this has been said: 'Craving for form is a dear form, a pleasant form in the world; it is here that this craving, when arising, arises' (Dī. Ni. 2.400; Vibh. 203), and 'It is here that this craving, when being abandoned, is abandoned' (Dī. Ni. 2.401; Ma. Ni. 1.134). If it is said: Because of the statement in the Visuddhimagga, 'But in every way, the five aggregates of clinging are suffering and a noble truth, except for craving,' does the statement here, 'craving for form, etc., are the truth of suffering,' conflict with it? No, because it is stated in various places in order to show their state of non-intermingling. If [it is argued]: If craving were not included in the aggregates of clinging, then in the Saccavibhaṅga, in the passage, 'Therein, what, in brief, are the five aggregates of clinging that are suffering? That is to say, the aggregate of clinging to form... the aggregate of clinging to consciousness' (Vibh. 202), it would have been necessary to say, 'the aggregate of clinging to formations, excluding craving.' But this was not said. Therefore, craving is included in the truth of suffering.' If it is argued thus, [the reply is:] No, because it would lead to the fault of confusing cause and effect. If it is said, 'There is no fault of confusion'? Indeed, in the Saccavibhaṅga text, the truth of the origin is set forth in five parts.

Kathaṃ? Taṇhāti eko vāro, taṇhā ca avasesā ca kilesāti dutiyo, taṇhā ca avasesā ca kilesā avasesā ca akusalā dhammāti tatiyo, taṇhā ca avasesā ca kilesā avasesā ca akusalā dhammā tīṇi ca kusalamūlāni sāsavānīti catuttho, taṇhā ca avasesā ca kilesā avasesā ca akusalā dhammā tīṇi ca kusalamūlāni sāsavāni avasesā ca sāsavā kusalā dhammāti pañcamo vāroti. Āma niddiṭṭhaṃ, tathāpi abhidhammabhājaniyeyeva, na aññasmiṃ, so ca nayo ariyasaccaniddese na labbhati. Tathā hi tattha ‘‘cattāri saccāni’’ccevāha, suttantabhājaniyapañhapucchakesu viya ‘‘cattāri ariyasaccānī’’ti na vuttaṃ, tasmā suttantabhājaniyova pamāṇaṃ tattha ca taṇhāya vuttattā. Yathāha ‘‘tattha katamaṃ dukkhasamudayaṃ ariyasaccaṃ, yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobhavikā…pe… seyyathidaṃ, kāmataṇhā’’tiādi (vibha. 203). ‘‘Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkha’’nti (saṃ. ni. 3.15) iminā pariyāyena vuttattā tattha vuttampi pamāṇameva. ‘‘Paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati pathavīkasiṇa’’nti (dha. sa. 186 ādayo) vacanato ‘‘kasiṇānī’’ti jhānāni vuttāni. Keci ‘‘uggahanimittapaṭibhāganimitte sandhāya vutta’’nti vadanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ. ‘‘Dvattiṃsākārāpi paṇṇattiṃ vissajjetvā paṭikūlāti sati paṭṭhapetabbā’’ti vacanato satigocarā rūpādayo ca veditabbā.

How? 'Craving is the truth of the origin': this is the first section. 'Craving and the remaining defilements are the truth of the origin': this is the second section. 'Craving, the remaining defilements, and the remaining unwholesome states are the truth of the origin': this is the third section. 'Craving, the remaining defilements, the remaining unwholesome states, and the three wholesome roots with influxes are the truth of the origin': this is the fourth section. 'Craving, the remaining defilements, the remaining unwholesome states, the three wholesome roots with influxes, and the remaining wholesome states with influxes are the truth of the origin': this is the fifth section. Yes, it has been specified, yet it is specified only in the Abhidhamma-bhājanīya, not elsewhere. And that method is not found in the Exposition of the Noble Truths. For indeed, there it is said only 'the four truths'; unlike in the Suttanta-bhājanīya and Pañhāpucchaka, it is not stated as 'the four noble truths'. Therefore, the Suttanta-bhājanīya is the authority, and there craving is stated. As it is said: 'Therein, what is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? It is this craving which leads to renewed existence... namely, sensual craving,' etc. (Vibh. 203). Because it is stated by way of 'What is impermanent, that is suffering' (SN 3.15), what is stated there is also an authority. From the statement, 'Having entered and abided in the first jhāna on the earth kasiṇa' (Dhs. 186, etc.), the jhānas are called 'kasiṇas'. Some say, 'This is said with reference to the learning sign and the counterpart sign,' but that is not correct. From the statement, 'Regarding the thirty-two parts, having abandoned the concept (paññatti), mindfulness should be established on them as repulsive,' it should be understood that the objects of mindfulness are form and so on.

Saddhāhirottappabāhusaccavīriyārambhopaṭṭhitasatisampajaññatāti ime satta saddhammā nāma. Sabhāvatoti dukkhato. Na cavatīti deve sandhāya. Ñāteyyanti ñātabbaṃ. Daṭṭheyyanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Atha vā pana ‘‘nāhaṃ gamanena lokassa antaṃ ñāteyya’’nti vadāmīti attho. Lokanti khandhalokaṃ. Gamanena na pattabboti sarīragamanena, agatigamanena vā na pattabbo, ariyagamanena lokantaṃ patvāva dukkhā atthi pamocananti vuttaṃ hoti. Samitāvīti samitakileso. Āhāraṭṭhitikāti paccayaṭṭhitikā. Ye keci [Pg.40] paccayaṭṭhitikā, sabbe te lujjanapalujjanaṭṭhena eko lokoti adhippāyo. Saṅkhārā hi sakasakapaccayāyattatāya sattā visattā sattā nāma. Pariharanti paricaranti. Disāti upayogabahuvacanaṃ. Bhanti paṭibhanti. Ke te? Teyeva virocamānā pabhassarā candimasūriyā. Aṭṭha lokadhammā saṅkhārāva. ‘‘Sinerussa samantato’’ti vacanato yugandharādayo sineruṃ parikkhipitvā parimaṇḍalākārena ṭhitāti vadanti. Parikkhipitvā accuggato lokadhātu ayaṃ. ‘‘Ma-kāro padasandhikaro’’ti vadanti. Aññathāpi lakkhaṇādibhedato saṅkhāralokaṃ, āsayānusayabhedato sattalokaṃ, cakkavāḷādiparimāṇato okāsalokañca sabbathāpi viditattā lokavidū.

Faith, moral shame, moral dread, much learning, energetic arousal, established mindfulness, and clear comprehension—these are called the seven good qualities. By nature (sabhāvato) means by suffering (dukkhato). 'He does not fall' (na cavati) is said in reference to the deities. 'To be known' (ñāteyya) means what should be known. 'To be seen' (daṭṭheyya) means what should be seen. Or alternatively, the meaning is: 'I do not say that the end of the world is to be known by going.' 'World' (loka) refers to the world of aggregates (khandhalokaṃ). 'It is not to be reached by going' means: it is not to be reached by physical going or by going the wrong way; only by the going of the noble ones, having reached the end of the world, is there liberation from suffering. Thus it is said. 'One who has quelled' (samitāvī) means one whose defilements are quelled. 'Subsisting on food' (āhāraṭṭhitikā) means dependent on conditions. Whatever beings subsist on conditions, all those beings, in the sense of perishing and disintegrating, are one world. This is the intention. Indeed, formations are dependent on their own respective conditions; beings (sattā) are so-called because they are attached (sattā) and clinging (visattā). Pariharanti means paricaranti (they move about). The word 'disā' is an accusative plural. 'They shine' (bhanti) means paṭibhanti (they shine forth). What are they? They are those very moon and sun, resplendent and radiant. The eight worldly conditions are merely formations. Following the text 'around Sineru', they say that the Yugandhara and other mountains, having encircled Mount Sineru, stand in a circular formation. Having encircled it, this world-sphere stands exceedingly high. They say, 'The letter 'ma' serves as a word-connector.' Alternatively, because of having known in all ways: the world of formations through the distinctions of characteristics, etc.; the world of beings through the distinctions of disposition and latent tendency; and the spatial world through the measure of the Cakkavāḷa, etc.—He is called Lokavidū, the Knower of the World.

Vimuttiñāṇadassanaṃ kāmāvacaraṃ parittaṃ lokiyaṃ, tena sabbaṃ lokaṃ kathaṃ abhivati? Asadisānubhāvattā sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ viya. Tañhi attano visaye bhagavato sabbaññutaññāṇagatikaṃ, lahutarappavatti ca bhavaṅgacittadvayānantaraṃ uppattito. Na kassaci evaṃlahutaraṃ cittaṃ uppajjati, api āyasmato sāriputtassa, tassa kiresa cittavāro pañcadasabhavaṅgānantaranti. Aggisikhadhūmasikhā ca nāgā kira sīhaḷadīpe. Atthassa dīpakaṃ padaṃ atthapadaṃ. Ekatthadīpakaṃ padaṃ, sabbametaṃ vākyanti attho. Aṭṭha disā nāma aṭṭha vimokkhā, samāpattiyo vā. Satthavāho satthāti nipātito yathā pisitāso pisāco. Udake maṇḍūko ahaṃ āsiṃ, na thale maṇḍūko, vārimattameva gocaro, tassa me tava dhammaṃ suṇantassa sīsaṃ daṇḍena sannirumbhitvāti pāṭhaseso. Anādaratthe vā sāmivacanaṃ. ‘‘Ettakenapi evarūpā iddhi bhavissatī’’ti sitaṃ katvā. Vimokkhoti cettha maggo, tadanantarikaṃ ñāṇaṃ nāma phalañāṇaṃ, tasmiṃ khaṇe buddho nāma. Sabbassa buddhattāti kattari. Bodhetāti hetukattari. Seṭṭhatthadīpakaṃ vacanaṃ seṭṭhaṃ nāma, tathā uttamaṃ. Sacchikāpaññattīti sabbadhammānaṃ sacchikaraṇavasena sayambhutā paññatti, attanā eva vā ñātā sacchikatātipi sacchikāpaññatti. Bhagī bhagavā cīvarapiṇḍapātādīnaṃ. Bhajī araññavanapatthāni pantāni senāsanāni. Bhāgī atthadhammavimuttirasassa. Rāgādikilesagaṇabhaggamakāsi. Bhāvitattano bhāvitakāyo. Bhavassa antaṃ nibbānaṃ maggādhigamena taṃ gatoti bhavantago.

The knowledge and vision of liberation is of the sense-sphere, limited, and mundane; by that, how can it overcome the entire world? Because of its incomparable power, it is like the knowledge of omniscience. Indeed, that knowledge, in its own domain, is similar to the Blessed One's knowledge of omniscience and has a very swift occurrence, because it arises immediately after two moments of life-continuum consciousness. For no one does such a swift mind arise, not even for the Venerable Sāriputta; for him, it is said, this thought-process arises after fifteen moments of life-continuum. It is said that in the island of Sīhaḷa there are Nāgas named Aggisikha and Dhūmasikha. A word that illuminates the meaning is an 'atthapada'. A word that illuminates one meaning. The meaning is: all this is a sentence. The eight directions are the eight liberations, or the eight attainments. The word 'satthavāho' is irregularly formed as 'satthā', just as 'pisitāso' is formed as 'pisāco'. 'I was a frog in the water, not a frog on land; my resort was only the water. While I was listening to your Dhamma, my head was pinned down with a stick'—the remainder of the text is to be supplied. Or, it is the genitive case in the sense of disregard. Having smiled, thinking, 'Even by just this, such psychic power will arise.' And here, 'vimokkha' is the path. The knowledge immediately following that is called the knowledge of fruition. At that moment, one is called a 'buddha'. The phrase 'sabbassa buddhattā' ('from having understood all') is in the agent sense (kattari). The word 'bodheti' ('he causes to understand') is in the causal agent sense (hetukattari). A word that illuminates the highest meaning is called 'seṭṭha', and likewise 'uttama'. 'Sacchikāpaññatti' is a designation that has arisen of itself by way of directly realizing all phenomena, or a designation known and directly realized by oneself. The Blessed One is an apportioner (bhagī) of robes, almsfood, and so on. He resorts to (bhajī) remote forest lodgings. He is a partaker (bhāgī) of the taste of the meaning, the Dhamma, and liberation. He effected the breaking (bhaggaṃ akāsi) of the host of defilements such as lust. He has a developed self (bhāvitatta) and a developed body (bhāvitakāya). He has gone (gato) to the end of existence (bhavassa antaṃ), which is Nibbāna, by the attainment of the path; therefore, he is 'bhavantago'.

‘‘Lobhaṃ[Pg.41], bhikkhave, ekaṃ dhammaṃ pajahathā’’tiādinā (itivu. 1) nayena ekakādivasenāgate gahetvā vadati. Saṃkilesataṇhādiṭṭhiduccaritasaṃkilesavasena aniccadukkhamanattāsubhesu niccantiādivipariyesā. Cīvarahetu vā, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno taṇhā uppajjamānā uppajjati, piṇḍapāta senāsanaitibhavābhavahetu vā (a. ni. 4.9). Cetokhilā satthari kaṅkhati, dhamme, saṅghe, sikkhāya, sabrahmacārīsu kupitoti (dī. ni. 3.319; vibha. 941) āgatā pañca. Kāme avītarāgo hoti…pe… kāye, rūpe, yāvadatthaṃ udarāvadehakaṃ bhuñjitvā, aññataraṃ devanikāyaṃ paṇidhāya brahmacariyaṃ caratīti (dī. ni. 3.320; vibha. 941) āgatā pañca vinibandhā. Vivādamūlāni kodho upanāho makkho paḷāso issā macchariyaṃ māyā sāṭheyyaṃ thambho sārambho sandiṭṭhiparāmāsitā ādhānaggāhī duppaṭinissaggitā (a. ni. 6.36; dī. ni. 3.325). Vibhaṅge pana ‘‘kodho makkho issā sāṭheyyaṃ pāpicchatā sandiṭṭhiparāmāsitā’’ti (vibha. 944) āgataṃ. Taṇhaṃ paṭicca pariyesanā, pariyesanaṃ paṭicca lābho, lābhaṃ paṭicca vinicchayo, evaṃ chandarāgo, ajjhosānaṃ, pariggaho, macchariyaṃ, ārakkho, ārakkhādhikaraṇaṃ, daṇḍādānasatthādāna…pe… akusalā dhammā sambhavantīti (dī. ni. 2.104; 3.359; a. ni. 9.23; vibha. 963) vuttānaṃ. Rūpasaddagandharasaphoṭṭhabbadhammataṇhāti cha, tā kāmabhavavibhavataṇhāvaseneva aṭṭhārasa, tā eva ajjhattikassupādāya aṭṭhārasa, bāhirassupādāya aṭṭhārasāti chattiṃsa, tā atīte chattiṃsa, anāgate chattiṃsa, paccuppanne chattiṃsāti evaṃ aṭṭhasatataṇhāvicaritānīti. Māretīti māro, pamādo ‘‘pamādo maccuno pada’’nti (dha. pa. 21) vacanato. Sammāājīvavināsanato vā kilesā vuccanti ‘‘māro’’ti, vadhakūpamattā khandhāva mārā. Abhisaṅkhārā jātidukkhābhinibbattāpanato, jātassa jarādisambhavato ca mārā. Ekabhavapariyāpannajīvitamāraṇato maccu māro. Aṇimatā nāma paramāṇu viya adassanūpagamanaṃ. Laghimatā sarīrena, cittena vā sīghagamanaṃ. Mahimatā candimasūriyādīnampipāṇinā parāmasanādi. Patti nāma yathicchitadesappatti. Pakāsanatā, lābhakassatthasādhanaṃ vā pākammaṃ. Īsattaṃ nāma sayaṃvasitā. Vasittaṃ nāma aparavasitā. Yatthakāmāvasāyitaṃ nāma yatthicchati yadicchati yāvadicchati, tattha tāva tadatthasādhanaṃ. Pīḷanasaṅkhatasantāpavipariṇāmaṭṭhena [Pg.42] vā dukkhamariyasaccantiādimhi idaṃ codanāpubbaṅgamaṃ atthavissajjanaṃ – dukkhādīnaṃ aññepi rūpataṇhādayo atthā atthi, atha kasmā cattāro eva vuttāti ce? Aññasaccadassanavasena āvibhāvato.

“Monks, abandon one thing, greed,” and so on. Thus, he speaks by taking up the teachings that have come by way of the singular, etc. By way of the defilements of craving, wrong views, and misconduct, there are the perversions of perceiving the impermanent as permanent, the unsatisfactory as satisfactory, the not-self as self, and the foul as fair. “Monks, for a monk, craving arises on account of robes, or on account of alms-food, lodging, this existence and that existence.” The five mental barrennesses mentioned are: one doubts the Teacher, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, the training, and is hostile toward one's fellows in the holy life. The five bonds mentioned are: one is not free from passion for sensual pleasures… for the body, for form; having eaten to one's belly's fill as much as one wishes, one practices the holy life aspiring for rebirth in some group of devas. The roots of dispute are: anger, hostility, denigration, spite, envy, stinginess, deceit, fraud, obstinacy, rivalry, misapprehension of one's own views, tenacious grasping, and being hard to relinquish. In the Vibhaṅga, however, it is stated: “anger, denigration, envy, fraud, evil desires, and misapprehension of one's own views.” Dependent on craving, there is seeking; dependent on seeking, there is gain; dependent on gain, there is decision-making; thus, desire and lust, clinging, possessiveness, stinginess, guarding; and on account of guarding, the taking up of rods and weapons… unwholesome states arise. Craving for forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and mental phenomena—these six, by way of craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for non-existence, become eighteen. These same eighteen, with respect to the internal and with respect to the external, become thirty-six. These thirty-six in the past, future, and present total one hundred and eight proliferations of craving. Because it kills (māreti), it is called Māra. Negligence (pamādo) is also Māra, according to the saying, “Negligence is the path of death.” Or, because they destroy right livelihood, the defilements are called “Māra.” The aggregates are Māra, being like executioners. Volitional formations are Māra because they produce the suffering of birth, and because for one who has been born, aging and so on occur. Death is Māra because it kills the life comprised within a single existence. Aṇimatā is the attainment of invisibility, like a minute atom. Laghimatā is swift movement with the body or with the mind. Mahimatā is the power of being able to touch even the moon and sun with the hand. Patti is the power of reaching a desired place. Pākammaṃ is the accomplishment of the purpose for one who desires it. Īsattaṃ is mastery over oneself. Vasittaṃ is mastery over others. Yatthakāmāvasāyitaṃ is the ability to accomplish that purpose as wished, wherever one wishes, for whatever one wishes, and as much as one wishes. In the context of the Noble Truth of Suffering, it is defined by the meaning of oppression, conditionedness, torment, and change. This explanation is preceded by a question: “If there are other meanings of suffering, such as craving for form, etc., why are only four mentioned?” The answer is: Because they become manifest through the showing of the other truths.

‘‘Tattha katamaṃ dukkheñāṇaṃ, dukkhaṃ ārabbha yā uppajjati paññā’’tiādināpi (vibha. 794) nayena ekekasaccārammaṇavasenāpi saccañāṇaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Yo, bhikkhave, dukkhaṃ passati, dukkhasamudayampi so passatī’’tiādinā (saṃ. ni. 5.1100) nayena ekaṃ saccaṃ ārammaṇaṃ katvā sesesu kiccanipphattivasenāpi vuttaṃ. Tattha yadā ekekaṃ saccaṃ ārammaṇaṃ karoti, tadā samudayadassanena tāva sabhāvato pīḷanalakkhaṇassāpi dukkhassa yasmā taṃ āyūhanalakkhaṇena samudayena āyūhitaṃ saṅkhataṃ, tasmāssa so saṅkhataṭṭho āvi bhavati. Yasmā pana maggo kilesasantāpaharo susītalo, tasmāssa maggadassanena santāpaṭṭho āvi bhavati nandassa accharādassanena sundariyā anabhirūpabhāvo viya. Avipariṇāmadhammassa pana nirodhassa dassanena tassa vipariṇāmaṭṭho āvi bhavatīti vattabbameva natthi. Sabhāvato āyūhanalakkhaṇassapi samudayassa dukkhadassanena nidānaṭṭho āvi bhavati asappāyabhojanato uppannabyādhidassanena bhojanassa byādhinidānabhāvo viya. Visaṃyogabhūtassa nirodhassa dassanena saṃyogaṭṭho. Niyyānabhūtassa ca maggassa dassanena palibodhaṭṭhoti. Tathā nissaraṇassāpi nirodhassa avivekabhūtassa samudayassa dassanena vivekaṭṭho āvi bhavati. Maggadassanena asaṅkhataṭṭho. Iminā hi anamatagge saṃsāre maggo na diṭṭhapubbo, sopi ca sappaccayattā saṅkhato evāti appaccayadhammassa asaṅkhatabhāvo ativiya pākaṭo hoti. Dukkhadassanena panassa amataṭṭho āvi bhavati. Dukkhañhi visaṃ, amataṃ nibbānanti. Tathā niyyānalakkhaṇassāpi maggassa samudayadassanena ‘‘nāyaṃ hetu nibbānassa pattiyā, ayaṃ hetū’’ti hetvattho āvi bhavati. Nirodhadassanena dassanaṭṭho paramasukhumarūpāni passato ‘‘vippasannaṃ vata me cakkhū’’ti cakkhussa vippasannabhāvo viya. Dukkhadassanena adhipateyyaṭṭho anekarogāturakapaṇajanadassanena issarajanassa uḷārabhāvo viyāti evamettha lakkhaṇavasena, ekassa aññasaccadassanavasena ca itaresaṃ tiṇṇaṃ āvibhāvato [Pg.43] ekekassa cattāro atthā vuttā. Upadhiviveko nikkilesatā.

The knowledge of the truths is also spoken of by the method beginning, “Herein, what is the knowledge in suffering? The wisdom that arises concerning suffering,” by way of taking each single truth as an object. It is also spoken of by the method beginning, “Bhikkhus, whoever sees suffering, he also sees the origin of suffering,” by way of making one truth the object and accomplishing the function regarding the remaining truths. Therein, when one makes each single truth the object, then, by seeing the origin, for suffering—which by its intrinsic nature has the characteristic of oppression—because it is accumulated and conditioned by the origin which has the characteristic of accumulation, therefore its meaning as 'conditioned' becomes manifest. And because the path removes the fever of defilements and is very cool, therefore, for this suffering, by seeing the path, its meaning as 'fever' becomes manifest, like the unattractiveness of Sundarī becoming manifest to Nanda by seeing the celestial nymphs. But by seeing cessation, which has an unchangeable nature, it is not even to be said that for that suffering, its meaning as 'changeable' becomes manifest. For the origin, which by its intrinsic nature has the characteristic of accumulation, by seeing suffering, its meaning as 'source' becomes manifest, like the state of food being the source of illness becoming manifest by seeing the illness that has arisen from unsuitable food. By seeing cessation, which is disjunction, its meaning as 'conjunction' becomes manifest. And by seeing the path, which is the escape, its meaning as 'obstruction' becomes manifest. Likewise, for cessation, which is also the escape, by seeing the origin, which is non-seclusion, its meaning as 'seclusion' becomes manifest. By seeing the path, its meaning as 'unconditioned' becomes manifest. For in this beginningless saṃsāra, the path has not been seen before; and that path too, being with a condition, is indeed conditioned. Thus, the unconditioned nature of the unconditioned state becomes exceedingly clear. But by seeing suffering, for this cessation, its meaning as 'deathless' becomes manifest. For suffering is poison, and Nibbāna is the deathless. Likewise, for the path, which also has the characteristic of escape, by seeing the origin, its meaning as 'cause' becomes manifest in the thought: 'This is not the cause for attaining Nibbāna; this is the cause.' By seeing cessation, its meaning as 'seeing' becomes manifest, like the clarity of the eye becoming manifest to one who sees extremely subtle forms, in the thought: 'Oh, how clear is my eye!' By seeing suffering, its meaning as 'sovereignty' becomes manifest, like the exalted state of a sovereign person becoming manifest by seeing a host of wretched people afflicted by many diseases. Thus here, by way of characteristics, and by way of the manifestation of the other three truths through seeing one, four meanings for each are stated. Seclusion from the substrata is the state of being without defilements.

Paṭipakkhaṃ atthayantīti paccatthikā. Pati viruddhā amittā paccāmittā. Sacchikatvā pavedetīti ettāvatā bhagavato sabbaññutaṃ dīpeti. Tena ñāṇasampattiṃ dīpetvā idāni karuṇāsampattiṃ dīpetuṃ ‘‘so dhammaṃ desesī’’tiādimāha. Atha vā kiṃ so pavedesīti? Ñāṇaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ tilokahitabhūtameva. So dhammaṃ desesīti kīdisaṃ? ‘‘Ādikalyāṇa’’ntiādi. Anena vacanena vattuṃ arahabhāvaṃ dīpeti. Sāsanadhammoti ovādapariyatti. Kiccasuddhiyāti kilesappahānanibbānārammaṇakiccasuddhiyā. Sāsanabrahmacariyaṃ nāma sikkhattayaṃ, navakoṭisahassānītiādikaṃ vā. Maggameva brahmacariyaṃ maggabrahmacariyaṃ. Tassa pakāsakaṃ piṭakattayaṃ idha sātthaṃ sabyañjanaṃ nāma. Chasu atthapadesu saṅkhepato kāsanaṃ saṅkāsanaṃ. Ādito kāsanaṃ pakāsanaṃ. Ubhayampi vitthāretvā desanaṃ vivaraṇaṃ. Puna vibhāgakaraṇaṃ vibhajanaṃ. Opammādinā pākaṭakaraṇaṃ uttānīkaraṇaṃ. Sotūnaṃ cittaparitosajananena, cittanisānena ca paññāpanaṃ veditabbaṃ. Byañjanapadesu akkharaṇato akkharaṃ, ‘‘ekakkharapadamakkhara’’nti eke. Vibhattiantaṃ padaṃ. Byañjayatīti byañjanaṃ, vākyaṃ. Padasamudāyo vā vākyaṃ. Vibhāgapakāso ākāro nāma. Phusatīti phassotiādi nibbacanaṃ nirutti, niruttiyā niddiṭṭhassa apadeso niddeso nāma. Phusatīti phasso, so tividho – sukhavedanīyo dukkhavedanīyo adukkhamasukhavedanīyoti. Etesu ayaṃ yojanā – akkharehi saṅkāsayati, padehi pakāsayati, byañjanehi vivarati, ākārehi vibhajati, niruttīhi uttāniṃ karoti, niddesehi paññāpeti. Akkharehi vā saṅkāsayitvā padehi pakāseti, byañjanehi vivaritvā ākārehi vibhajati, niruttīhi uttāniṃ katvā niddesehi paññāpeti. Akkharehi vā ugghāṭetvā padehi vineti ugghaṭitaññuṃ, byañjanehi vivaritvā ākārehi vineti vipañcitaññuṃ, niruttīhi netvā niddesehi vineti neyyanti veditabbaṃ. Atthoti bhāsitattho. Tassevatthassa paṭivijjhitabbo sako sako bhāvo paṭivedho nāma. Taṃ ubhayampi attho nāma. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘atthagambhīratāpaṭivedhagambhīratāhi sāttha’’nti. Dhammoti vā desanāti vā byañjanameva. Niddosabhāvena parisuddhaṃ sāsanabrahmacariyaṃ, sikkhattayapariggahito [Pg.44] maggo ca, ubhayampi brahmacariyapadena saṅgahitaṃ. Paṭipattiyāti paṭipattihetu. Āgamabyattitoti punappunaṃ adhīyamānā khandhādayo pākaṭā honti. Duruttasatthāni adhīyamānāni sammohamevāvāhanti.

They desire opposition, therefore they are called adversaries. Opposing, they are enemies, adversaries. Having realized and declared it, thus the Blessed One’s omniscience is illuminated. By that, having illuminated the perfection of knowledge, now to illuminate the perfection of compassion, he said, “He taught the Dhamma,” and so on. Or else, what did he declare? Knowledge—all of it solely for the welfare of the three worlds. “He taught the Dhamma”—what kind? “Good in the beginning,” and so on. By this statement, the state of being worthy to speak is illuminated. The Dhamma of the Teaching is instruction and scripture. “Purified in purpose” means by the purification of the task of abandoning defilements with Nibbāna as the object. The holy life of the Teaching is the threefold training, or the ninety billion, and so on. The path itself is the holy life—the path-holy life. Its exposition is the three baskets, here called meaningful and well-phrased. Among the six terms of meaning, a concise showing is indication. A showing from the beginning is exposition. The teaching that elaborates on both is explanation. Further, making a division is analysis. Making apparent through similes and so on is clarification. Paññāpana should be understood as that which generates delight in the minds of listeners and sharpens the mind. Among the terms of phrasing, because it does not perish, it is a syllable. Some say, 'A word of a single syllable is a syllable.' A word is a term with a case-ending. Because it expresses the meaning, it is a phrase, a sentence. Or, a collection of words is a sentence. A distinct exposition is called a characteristic. The derivation “it touches, thus it is contact,” and so on, is etymology. The detailed reference to what is indicated by etymology is called exposition. “It touches,” thus it is contact; this is threefold: contact accompanied by pleasant feeling, contact accompanied by painful feeling, and contact accompanied by neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Herein, this is the application: with syllables, he indicates; with words, he expounds; with phrases, he explains; with characteristics, he analyzes; with etymologies, he clarifies; with expositions, he makes known. Or, having indicated with syllables, he expounds with words; having explained with phrases, he analyzes with characteristics; having clarified with etymologies, he makes known with expositions. Or, it should be understood thus: having revealed with syllables, he guides the quick-witted with words; having explained with phrases, he guides the discerning with characteristics; having led with etymologies, he guides the trainable with expositions. “Meaning” is the expressed meaning. The penetration of that very meaning, its own nature to be realized, is called realization. Both are called meaning. Hence it is said, “Meaningful because of profundity of meaning and profundity of realization.” “Dhamma” or “teaching” is just the phrasing. The holy life of the Teaching, purified by its faultless nature, and the path embraced by the threefold training—both are included under the term “holy life.” “By practice” means for the sake of practice. “From skill in the scriptures” means that, by repeated study, the aggregates and so on become apparent. Studying poorly spoken teachings brings only confusion.

2-3. Kacci khamanīyaṃ sītuṇhādi. Kacci yāpanīyaṃ yathāladdhehi jīvitasādhanehi jīvitaṃ. Appābādhanti appopasaggaṃ, appātaṅkanti apparogaṃ. Kacci lahuṭṭhānaṃ sarīrakicce. Kacci balaṃ samaṇakicce. Kacci phāsuvihāro yathāvuttanayena appābādhatāya, anukkaṇṭhanādivasena vā. Sattasaṭṭhito paṭṭhāya pacchimavayo, uttarāmukhoti vuttaṃ hoti. Lokavivaraṇe jāte idha kiṃ olokesi, natthettha tayā sadisopīti āha ‘‘tvaṃ sadevakassa lokassa aggo’’tiādi. Āsabhiṃ uttamaṃ. Upapattivasena devā. Rūpānaṃ paribhogavasena, patthanāvasena vā uppannā rāgasampayuttā somanassavedanānurūpato uppajjitvā hadayatappanato ambarasādayo viya ‘‘rūparasā’’ti vuccanti. Tathāgatassa pahīnāti adhikāravasenāha. Tathāgatassapi hi kassaci te pahīnāti matthakacchinnatālo viya katā. Kathaṃ? Rūparasādivacanena vipākadhammadhammā gahitā, te vijjamānāpi matthakasadisānaṃ taṇhāvijjānaṃ maggasatthena chinnattā āyatiṃ tālapantisadise vipākakkhandhe nibbattetuṃ asamatthā jātā. Tasmā tālāvatthu viya katā. ‘‘Kusalasomanassāpi ettha saṅgahitā’’ti vadanti. Paṭhamamaggena pahīnā kammapathaṭṭhāniyā, dutiyena ucchinnamūlā oḷārikā, tatiyena tālāvatthukatā kāmarāgaṭṭhāniyā. Catutthena anabhāvaṃkatā rūparāgārūparāgaṭṭhāniyā. Aparihānadhammataṃ pana dīpento ‘‘āyatiṃ anuppādadhammā’’ti āha. Tadaṅgappahānena vā pahīnā vipassanākkhaṇe, jhānassa pubbabhāgakkhaṇe vā, vikkhambhanappahānena ucchinnamūlā jhānakkhaṇe. ‘‘Vivicceva kāmehī’’ti (pārā. 11) hi vuttaṃ. Samucchedappahānena tālāvatthukatā tatiyavijjādhigamakkhaṇe. Itthambhūtā pana te rūparasādayo anabhāvaṃkatā āyatimanuppādadhammāti ekamevidaṃ atthapadaṃ. Paṭhamāya vā abhinibbhidāya pahīnā, dutiyāya ucchinnamūlā, tatiyāya tālāvatthukatā. Itthambhūtā yasmā anabhāvaṃkatā nāma honti, tasmā āyatiṃanauppādadhammāti veditabbā. Atha vā dukkhañāṇena pahīnā, samudayañāṇena ucchinnamūlā[Pg.45], nirodhañāṇena tālāvatthukatā, maggañāṇena anabhāvaṃkatā, paccavekkhaṇañāṇena āyatiṃ anuppādadhammāti veditabbā. Lokiyamaggena vā pahīnā, dassanamaggena ucchinnamūlā, tividhena bhāvanāmaggena tālāvatthukatātiādi. Brāhmaṇassa avisayattā dhammarasā na uddhaṭā.

2–3. Is it bearable, regarding cold, heat, and so on? Is life sustainable with the means for living as they are obtained? Are there few afflictions, that is, few troubles, and few diseases, that is, few illnesses? Is there lightness when performing bodily duties? Is there strength for performing the duties of a recluse? Is there a comfortable dwelling, in the way described, by being of few afflictions or by way of being without discontent and so on? From the age of sixty-seven onward is the last stage of life; it is said to be 'facing north'. When the world-revealing miracle occurred, what was looked at here? There is not even one like you here—thus it was said: “You are the foremost in the world with its devas,” and so on. A noble and supreme (speech). Devas are so by way of their rebirth. Having arisen in accordance with feelings of mental pleasure associated with lust—which themselves have arisen either through the enjoyment of forms or through longing for them—they are called 'tastes of form' because they delight the heart, like the taste of mangoes and so on. 'For the Tathāgata, they are abandoned'—this is said by way of relevance. Indeed, for the Tathāgata or for anyone else, they are abandoned; thus, they are made like a palm tree with its crown cut off. How so? By the term 'tastes of form,' resultant phenomena and their conditioning phenomena are included. Though they exist, because craving and ignorance, which are like the crown, have been cut by the sword of the path, they have become incapable of producing in the future the series of resultant aggregates, which are like a row of palm trees. Therefore, they are made like a palm-stump. Some say, 'Wholesome feelings of mental pleasure are also included here.' By the first path, those pertaining to the courses of action are abandoned. By the second, the gross ones are uprooted. By the third, those pertaining to sensual lust are made like a palm-stump. By the fourth, those pertaining to lust for form and lust for the formless are brought to non-existence. Then, showing their nature of not declining, he said, 'They are of a nature not to arise in the future.' Or, they are abandoned by substitution of opposites at the moment of insight or at the moment of the preliminary stage of absorption; they are uprooted by suppression at the moment of absorption—for indeed, it is said: 'Quite secluded from sensual pleasures…' (Vin-piṭaka, Pārājika 11). By eradication, they are made like a palm-stump at the moment of attaining the third knowledge. Thus, these tastes of form and so on, having been brought to non-existence, are of a nature not to arise in the future—this is a single expression of meaning. Or, by the first breakthrough, they are abandoned; by the second, they are uprooted; by the third, they are made like a palm-stump. Because those of such a nature are called 'brought to non-existence,' they should be understood as being of a nature not to arise in the future. Alternatively, by the knowledge of suffering, they are abandoned; by the knowledge of the origin, they are uprooted; by the knowledge of cessation, they are made like a palm-stump; by the knowledge of the path, they are brought to non-existence; by the knowledge of reviewing, they are of a nature not to arise in the future—thus they should be known. Or, by the mundane path, they are abandoned; by the path of vision, they are uprooted; by the threefold path of development, they are made like a palm-stump, and so on. Because the tastes of the Dhamma were beyond the scope of the brahmin, they were not brought up.

11. Dhammadhātunti ettha sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ dhammadhātu nāma. Anukampavacanānurūpaṃ ‘‘puṇṇacando viyā’’ti vuttaṃ, sūriyavacanaṃ ‘‘suppaṭividdhattā’’tivacanānurūpaṃ, pathavīsamacittatāya kāraṇaṃ ‘‘karuṇāvipphāra’’nti vadanti. Paṭicchādetabbe hi attano guṇe ‘‘āraddhaṃ kho pana me vīriya’’ntiādinā pakāsento attano karuṇāvipphāraṃ pakāsetīti gahetabbo. Varabhūrimedhaso varaputhulañāṇo, bhūrīti vā bhūmi, bhūmi viya patthaṭavarapaññoti attho. Abujjhi etthātipi adhikaraṇena rukkho bodhi. Sayaṃ bujjhati, bujjhanti vā tena taṃsamaṅginoti maggo bodhi, evaṃ sabbaññutaññāṇampi. Bujjhīyatīti nibbānaṃ bodhi. Tissannaṃ vijjānaṃ upanissayavato yathāsambhavaṃ tisso vijjā veditabbā. Ekaggatāvasena tikkhabhāvo. Tikkhopi ekacco saro lakkhaṃ patvā kuṇṭho hoti, na tathā idaṃ. Satindriyavasenassa kharabhāvo, saddhindriyavasena vippasannabhāvo, antarā anosakkitvā kilesapaccatthikānaṃ suṭṭhu abhibhavanato vīriyindriyavasenassa sūrabhāvo ca veditabbo. Maggavijāyanatthaṃ gabbhaggahaṇakālo saṅkhārupekkhānantaramanulomattā.

11. Here, the term “dhammadhātu” refers to the knowledge of omniscience. In accordance with the compassionate speech, it is said, “like the full moon.” The mention of the sun is in accordance with the phrase “because of being thoroughly penetrated.” The reason for the earth-like equanimity of mind is said to be “the pervasion of compassion.” For although one’s own virtues should be concealed, by declaring, “my energy is aroused,” and so forth, it should be understood that one reveals the pervasion of one’s compassion. The noble one of vast wisdom (`varabhūrimedhaso`) means one possessing broad knowledge; or `bhūri` means expanse or ground, signifying wisdom as vast and broad as the earth. Here, because he “awakened” (`abujjhi`) there, by locative construction the tree is “awakening” (`bodhi`). One awakens by oneself, or those endowed with it awaken by means of it; thus the path is `bodhi`. So too is the knowledge of omniscience. That which is to be awakened to is Nibbāna, which is `bodhi`. For one who has the supporting condition for the three knowledges, the three knowledges should be understood as arising accordingly. The sharpness is due to one-pointedness. Though some arrows may become dull upon reaching the target, this is not so here. The firmness is due to the faculty of mindfulness, the clarity due to the faculty of faith, and the heroic quality due to the faculty of energy, because it thoroughly overcomes the adversaries, the defilements, without wavering in between. The time of conception for the purpose of giving birth to the path is immediately after equanimity toward formations, because of its conformity.

Chandoti ca saṅkappoti ca avatthantarabhedabhinno rāgova –

Desire and intention are just lust, not different except by a difference in their state—

‘‘Senahātthyaṅgamupeti,Rattahadayo rāgena;

Sammagate rattakāmamupeti,Kāmapatitaṃ lokassa mātrālamatī’’ti –

“A man with an impassioned heart, through affection, approaches a woman's body. When there is a desire to unite through lust, he approaches a state of inflamed sensual desire. A woman mingling with a man of the world reaches a state of falling into sensual desire.”

Ādīsu viya –

As in the preceding examples—

Vibhaṅgeyeva kiñcāpi attho vuttoti ettha ayamadhippāyo – vibhaṅgapāḷiṃ ānetvā idha vuttopi sabbesaṃ upakārāya na hoti, tasmā taṃ aṭṭhakathānayeneva pakāsayissāmīti. Itoti kāmehi. Kāyavivekādīsu [Pg.46] upadhiviveko tatiyo, tasmā tatiyaṃ chaḍḍetvā dve gahetvā tadaṅgādīsu vikkhambhanavivekaṃ gahetvā ‘‘tayo evā’’ti vuttā. Evaṃ sati cittavikkhambhanā ekatthā evāti viseso na siyāti ce? Appanāvārattā na panevaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kāyavivekaggahaṇena pubbabhāgaggahaṇaṃ ñāyati, tasmā cittavivekoti tadaṅgaviveko vutto, vikkhambhanena appanākāleti gahetabbaṃ asaṅkarato. Atha vā cittavivekena tadaṅgavikkhambhanā gahitā, itarena vikkhambhanaviveko evātipi yuttaṃ, kilesakāmattā vā dvīsu kammesu pariyāpanno puriso viya. Yathā avijjamānena avijjamānapaññattivasena loke ‘‘saphalo rukkho’’ti vuccati, tatheva vijjamānena vijjamānapaññattivasena sāsane ‘‘savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ jhāna’’nti vuccatīti adhippāyo.

Regarding the phrase, 'Even though the meaning is stated in the Vibhaṅga,' the intention here is this: even if the Vibhaṅga Pāḷi were brought and stated here, it would not be for the benefit of all; therefore, I will explain it only by the method of the commentary. The word 'ito' refers to 'from sensual pleasures'. Among bodily seclusion and so forth, seclusion from the substrata is the third. Therefore, having discarded the third, taken the two, and, from among seclusion-by-substitution and so forth, taken seclusion by suppression, it is said, 'only three'. If it is taken thus, one might say: 'Then mental seclusion and seclusion by suppression would indeed be of one meaning, so there would be no distinction.' However, it should not be regarded thus, because this is the section on absorption. By the taking of bodily seclusion, the taking of the preliminary part is understood. Therefore, by 'mental seclusion', seclusion-by-substitution is stated; by 'suppression', seclusion at the time of absorption is stated. Thus, it should be taken without confusion. Alternatively, by mental seclusion, both seclusion-by-substitution and seclusion by suppression are taken; by the other, seclusion by suppression itself is taken. This too is suitable. Or, it is like a person engaged in two actions because of defilement-desires. Just as in the world, by means of a designation of what is non-existent, it is said, 'a tree with fruit', so too in the Teaching, by means of a designation of what is existent, it is said, 'jhāna with initial application, with sustained application'. This is the intention.

Vūpasamāti ettha kesaṃ vūpasamāti, kiṃ paṭhamajjhānikānaṃ, udāhu dutiyajjhānikānanti? Ettha yadi paṭhamajjhānikānaṃ, natthi tesaṃ vūpasamo. Na hi paṭhamajjhānaṃ vitakkavicārarahitaṃ atthi. Yadi dutiyajjhānikānaṃ, nattheva vūpasamo tattha tadabhāvāti ce? Tenetaṃ vuccati ‘‘samatikkamā’’ti, samatikkamopi na tesaṃyeva. Kintu sakalassapi paṭhamajjhānadhammarāsissāti ce? Tenetaṃ vuccati ‘‘oḷārikassa pana samatikkamā’’tiādi. Sabbepi paṭhamajjhānadhammā oḷārikāva dutiyajjhānato, na kevalaṃ vitakkavicāradvayamevāti ce? Na vitakkavicārāyeva tehi sampayuttānaṃ oḷārikabhāvatoti tesveva ādīnavadassanena dutiyajjhānakkhaṇe tesaṃ abhāvo hoti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘dutiyajjhānakkhaṇe apātubhāvā’’ti, yassa dhammassānubhāvena, yogena vā idaṃ jhānaṃ ‘‘sampasādana’’nti vuccati ‘‘ekodibhāva’’nti ca, tassa dassanatthaṃ saddhāsamādhayo vibhaṅge vuttā. Paṇītabhojanasikkhāpade (pāci. 257 ādayo) sappiādayo viyāti vutte ayaṃ atthavaṇṇanā na virujjhati. Samaṃ passatīti līnuddhaccaṃ pahāya khīṇāsavassa chasu dvāresu iṭṭhāniṭṭhachaḷārammaṇāpāthe parisuddhapakatibhāvāvijahanākārabhūtā upekkhā chaḷaṅgupekkhā. Nīvaraṇādipaṭisaṅkhāsantiṭṭhanāgahaṇe majjhattabhūtā upekkhā, ayaṃ saṅkhārupekkhā nāma. Vicinane majjhattabhūtā upekkhā vipassanupekkhā nāma. Tattha chaḷaṅgupekkhā brahmavihārupekkhā bojjhaṅgupekkhā tatramajjhattupekkhā jhānupekkhā pārisuddhupekkhā [Pg.47] ca atthato ekā tatramajjhattupekkhāva, avatthābhedena bhedo nesaṃ. Saṅkhārupekkhāvipassanupekkhānampi ekatā paññāvasena, kiccavasena pana duvidhatā veditabbā.

Here, regarding the word 'calming' (vūpasama), is it the calming of the factors belonging to the first jhāna, or of those belonging to the second jhāna? If it is of the factors belonging to the first jhāna, there is no calming of them, for the first jhāna is not devoid of initial and sustained application. If it is of the factors belonging to the second jhāna, there is certainly no calming there due to their absence. If this is so, it is for this reason that 'through transcending' is said. And this transcending is not of them alone. But if one should ask, 'Is it of the entire collection of phenomena of the first jhāna?' For that reason, this is said, beginning with 'through the transcending of the coarse.' And if one should ask, 'Are not all phenomena of the first jhāna coarse in comparison to the second jhāna, not just the pair of initial and sustained application?' No. It is because of the coarse nature of the factors associated with them that initial and sustained application are themselves considered coarse. Therefore, by seeing the danger in those very factors, their absence occurs at the moment of the second jhāna. For this reason, it was said, 'due to their non-appearance at the moment of the second jhāna.' To show by which factor's power, or through association with which, this jhāna is called 'internal serenity' and 'one-pointedness,' faith and concentration are mentioned in the Vibhaṅga. When it is said, 'like ghee and so forth' in the training rule on fine foods, this explanation of the meaning is not contradicted. 'He sees equally' means: having abandoned sinking and restlessness, for one whose cankers are destroyed, when the six-fold agreeable and disagreeable objects appear at the six doors, the equanimity that has the characteristic of not abandoning its pure natural state is the six-limbed equanimity. The equanimity that has become neutral in the taking up of contemplation and investigation of the hindrances and so forth is called equanimity towards formations. The equanimity that has become neutral in investigation is called insight-equanimity. Among these, the six-limbed equanimity, the divine abiding equanimity, the enlightenment factor equanimity, equanimity as neutrality, jhāna-equanimity, and purity-equanimity are one in meaning; they are simply equanimity as neutrality. Their difference is due to a difference in occasion. The oneness of equanimity towards formations and insight-equanimity is by way of wisdom, but their twofold nature should be understood by way of function.

Chaḷaṅgupekkhā kāmāvacarā, brahmavihārupekkhā rūpāvacarātiādinā bhūmivasena. Chaḷaṅgupekkhā khīṇāsavasseva, brahmavihārupekkhā tiṇṇampi puthujjanasekkhāsekkhānanti evaṃ puggalavasena. Chaḷaṅgupekkhā somanassupekkhāsahagatacittasampayuttā, brahmavihārupekkhā upekkhāsahagatacittasampayuttā evāti evaṃ cittavasena. Chaḷaṅgupekkhā chaḷārammaṇā, brahmavihārupekkhā dhammārammaṇāvāti ārammaṇavasena. Vedanupekkhā vedanākkhandhena saṅgahitā, itarā nava saṅkhārakkhandhenāti khandhasaṅgahavasena. Chaḷaṅgupekkhā brahmavihārabojjhaṅgajhānupekkhā pārisuddhitatramajjhattupekkhā ca atthato ekā, tasmā ekakkhaṇe ekāva siyā, na itarā, tathā saṅkhārupekkhāvipassanupekkhāpi. Vedanāvīriyupekkhānaṃ ekakkhaṇe siyā uppattīti. Chaḷaṅgupekkhā abyākatā, brahmavihārupekkhā kusalābyākatā, tathā sesā. Vedanupekkhā pana siyā akusalāpi. Evaṃ kusalattikavasena. Dasapetā saṅkhepena cattārova dhammā vīriyavedanātatramajjhattañāṇavasena. ‘‘Dukkhadomanassasukhasomanassāna’’nti evaṃ pahānakkamena avatvā vibhaṅge vuttanayena kasmā vuttānīti ce? Suttānurakkhaṇatthaṃ. Iṭṭhāniṭṭhaviparītanti ettha ‘‘ārammaṇavasena aggahetvā iṭṭhāniṭṭhaviparītākārena anubhavatīti gahetabba’’nti vadanti. Kasmā? Ekaṃyeva kasiṇaṃ ārabbha sabbesaṃ pavattito. Tatiyajjhānato paṭṭhāya upakārā hutvā āgatāti satisīsena desanā katā, vigatavalāhakādinā sommatāya rattiyā valāhakādinā kālussiye satipi divā viya anupakārikā na hoti rattiṃ, tasmā ‘‘attano upakārakattena vā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sūriyappabhābhibhavā, rattiyā alābhāti ime dve hetū aparisuddhatāya kāraṇaṃ. Sommabhāvena, attano upakārakattena cāti ime dve sabhāgatāya kāraṇa’’nti vadanti, tassā aparisuddhāya jātiyāti vuttaṃ hoti, tasmā kāraṇavacananti eke.

Six-factored equanimity pertains to the sense-sphere, while Brahmavihāra equanimity pertains to the form-sphere; this is to be understood by way of plane. Six-factored equanimity belongs only to one whose taints are destroyed, while Brahmavihāra equanimity belongs to all three—the ordinary person, the trainee, and the non-trainee; this is to be understood by way of individual. Six-factored equanimity is associated with consciousness accompanied by joy or equanimity, while Brahmavihāra equanimity is associated only with consciousness accompanied by equanimity; this is to be understood by way of consciousness. Six-factored equanimity has six objects, whereas Brahmavihāra equanimity has only the mental phenomenon as its object; this is to be understood by way of object. Equanimity as feeling is included in the feeling aggregate, while the other nine are included in the formations aggregate; this is to be understood by way of inclusion in the aggregates. Six-factored equanimity, Brahmavihāra-, enlightenment factor-, jhāna-, purity-, and neutrality-equanimity are one in meaning; therefore, in a single moment, only one can be, not the others. Likewise, equanimity towards formations and insight equanimity are also one. The arising of feeling-equanimity and energy-equanimity can occur in a single moment. Six-factored equanimity is indeterminate, while Brahmavihāra equanimity is wholesome and indeterminate; likewise for the rest. But feeling-equanimity can also be unwholesome; this is to be understood by way of the wholesome triad. These ten, in brief, are only four phenomena by way of energy, feeling, neutrality, and knowledge. If it is asked why, in the Vibhaṅga, they are stated in that way and not in the order of abandonment as 'suffering, displeasure, pleasure, and joy,' it is for the sake of preserving the Sutta. Regarding 'agreeable, disagreeable, and the opposite,' here they say: 'It should be understood as experiencing in the manner of agreeable, disagreeable, and the opposite, without grasping by way of the object.' Why? Because all of them proceed with a single kasiṇa as the object. Starting from the third jhāna, it becomes helpful, and thus the teaching is given with mindfulness as its head. Just as on a pleasant night, even when there is obscurity from clouds and the like, the night is not unhelpful as it would be during the day; therefore, it is said, 'or by its own helpfulness.' They say: 'Being overpowered by the sun's radiance and the non-obtaining of the night—these two causes are the reason for impurity. Its pleasant nature and its own helpfulness—these two are the reason for suitability.' This means 'of its impure birth'; therefore, some say it is a word expressing cause.

Jhānakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The exposition of the discourse on jhāna is concluded.

Pubbenivāsakathāvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Discourse on Previous Abodes

12. Cittekaggatāsabhāgattā [Pg.48] jhānānaṃ ‘‘kesañci cittekaggatatthānī’’ti āha. Kusalānaṃ bhavokkamanasabhāgattā ‘‘kesañci bhavokkamanatthānī’’ti. Asabhāgattā sesaṭṭhānesu ‘‘pādakatthānī’’ti avatvā ‘‘pādakānī’’ti āha. Tena pādakabhūtānampi yathāsambhavaṃ cittekaggatā bhavokkamanatāvahataṃ, itaresaṃ yathāsambhavaṃ pādakatāvahatañca dīpeti. Asabhāgattā javanavipassanāpādakāni samānāni abhiññāpādakāni ca honti, abhiññāpādakāni ca vipassanāpādakāni hontītipi dīpeti, tathā pādakābhāvaṃ dīpeti. Abhiññāya hi catutthameva pādakaṃ, na itarāni. Tesu catutthassa tatiyaṃ pādakaṃ, tatiyassa dutiyaṃ, dutiyassa paṭhamanti. Atha vā ‘‘cattāri jhānānī’’ti yathālābhato vuttaṃ.

12. Because of the jhānas' shared nature of one-pointedness of mind, he said, 'for some, they are in the position of one-pointedness of mind.' Because of the wholesome states' shared nature of descending into existence, he said, 'for some, they are in the position of descending into existence.' Because of their dissimilar nature, in the remaining instances, without saying 'they are in the position of a foundation,' he said 'foundations.' By this, he clarifies that for those jhānas that have become a foundation, there is, as is possible, the bringing about of one-pointedness of mind and descending into existence; and for the others, as is possible, the bringing about of the state of being a foundation. Because of their dissimilar nature, he clarifies that the foundations for impulsion-insight and the foundations for direct knowledge are similar, and also that the foundations for direct knowledge are foundations for insight. Likewise, he clarifies the absence of a foundation. Indeed, for direct knowledge, only the fourth jhāna is the foundation, not the others. Among them, the third is the foundation for the fourth, the second for the third, and the first for the second; thus it should be understood. Alternatively, 'the four jhānas' is said according to what is obtained.

Vinayanidānanimittaṃ, verañjanivāsakappanaṃ;

Satthu yasmā tasmā bhagavā, vijjattayamāha verañje.

Because the Teacher's making a dwelling in Verañjā is the cause of the Vinaya Nidāna, therefore the Blessed One declared the threefold knowledge in Verañjā.

Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘vinaye suppaṭipanno bhikkhu sīlasampattiṃ nissāyā’’tiādi (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā). Sīlavato hi sīlapaccavekkhaṇatthaṃ rattiṭṭhānadivāṭhānesu nisinnassa nisajjanato paṭṭhāya attano atītakiriyānussaraṇabahulatāya pubbenivāsānussativijjā appakasirena samijjhati. Tathā attānaṃ paṭicca sattānaṃ cutipariggahaṇasīlatāya cutūpapātañāṇaṃ appakasirena samijjhati, udakādīsu sukhumatta dassanasīlatāya dibbacakkhuñāṇaṃ samijjhati. Yasmā sattavidhamethunasaṃyogaparivajjanena, kāmāsavādiparivajjanena vā brahmacariyaṃ akhaṇḍādibhāvaṃ pāpuṇāti, tasmāssa āsavakkhayañāṇaṃ appakasirena samijjhatīti ettha vinayanidāne vijjattayameva dassitaṃ, tasmā āha ‘‘yesañca guṇānaṃ dāyakaṃ ahosi, tesaṃ ekadesaṃ dassento’’ti, aññathā vijjattayapaṭilābhamattappasaṅgo siyāti.

For it has been said: 'A bhikkhu well-practiced in the Vinaya, relying on the perfection of virtue,' and so on. Indeed, for a virtuous one, when seated in places for seclusion by day and night for the purpose of reviewing his virtue, from the moment of his sitting, due to the frequency of recollecting his past actions, the knowledge of the recollection of past lives is perfected with little difficulty. Similarly, due to the practice of comprehending the passing away of beings in relation to oneself, the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings is perfected with little difficulty. Because the holy life attains an unbroken state by avoiding the sevenfold sexual union, or by abandoning the taints of sensuality and so on, therefore, the knowledge of the destruction of the taints is perfected for him with little difficulty. Thus, here in the introduction to the Vinaya, only the threefold knowledge is shown. Therefore, he said: 'Showing a part of those qualities of which it was the giver,' otherwise, the implication would be merely the attainment of the threefold knowledge.

So evanti iminā kiñcāpi catunnaṃ jhānānaṃ pubbabhāgapaṭipadāpi saṅgahaṃ gacchati, na kevalaṃ purimajjhānattikameva, tathāpi kevalaṃ purimajjhānattikameva gaṇhanto ‘‘evanti catutthajjhānakkamanidassanametaṃ, iminā paṭhamajjhānādhigamādinā kamena catutthajjhānaṃ paṭilabhitvāti vuttaṃ hotī’’ti āha, taṃ kasmāti [Pg.49] ce? Sambhārabhūmittā. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (visuddhi. 2.381) ‘‘ettha ca purimāni tīṇi jhānāni yasmā pītipharaṇena ca sukhapharaṇena ca sukhasaññañca lahusaññañca okkamitvā lahumudukammaññakāyo hutvā iddhiṃ pāpuṇāti, tasmā iminā pariyāyena iddhilābhāya saṃvattanato sambhārabhūmiyoti veditabbāni. Catutthajjhānaṃ pana iddhilābhāya pakatibhūmi evā’’ti. Idameva vā atthaṃ sandhāyāha ‘‘pubbe imāni cattāri jhānāni kesañci abhiññāpādakānī’’ti. Yadi evaṃ catutthajjhānampi antokatvā evanti kimatthaṃ na vuttaṃ. Tañhi pakatibhūmīti ce? Na vattabbaṃ, catutthajjhānato parassa samāhitādibhāvappattassa cittassa atthibhāvappasaṅgato. Yasmā yasmiṃ sati ‘‘pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya cittaṃ abhininnāmesi’’nti vuttaṃ, tasmā tasmiṃ catutthajjhānacitte pakatibhūmibhāvappatte abhiññāpādake jāte parikammacittaṃ ‘‘pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇāya abhininnāmesi’’nti āha. Abhinīhārakkhamaṃ hotīti ettha taṃ iddhividhādhigamatthāya parikammacittaṃ abhinīharati. Kasiṇārammaṇato apanetvā iddhividhābhimukhaṃ pesesi. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘abhiññāpādakajjhānato iddhividhañāṇādīnaṃ nīharaṇattha’’nti vuttattā abhinīhārakkhamanti attho pakappito.

Thus, although by this word 'thus' the preliminary practice for all four jhānas is included, not just the first three jhānas, yet, taking only the first three jhānas, he says, '“Thus” is an indication of the progression to the fourth jhāna; by this means, it is said that having attained the first jhāna and so on in sequence, one obtains the fourth jhāna.' If it is asked why, it is because they are the preparatory ground. For it has been said in the commentary: 'Herein, the first three jhānas, because by pervading with rapture and pervading with pleasure, and by entering into the perception of pleasure and the perception of lightness, one’s body becomes light, soft, and workable, and one attains psychic power, should therefore, in this way, be understood as the preparatory ground because they lead to the attainment of psychic power. The fourth jhāna, however, is indeed the natural ground for the attainment of psychic power.' Or, referring to this same meaning, he says, 'Formerly, these four jhānas were for some the basis for the higher knowledges.' If so, why was it not said 'thus,' including the fourth jhāna as well? If it is because that is the natural ground, it should not be said so, because of the consequence that there would exist a mind that has attained a state of concentration, etc., beyond the fourth jhāna. Since, when that fourth jhāna is present, it is said, 'He inclined his mind toward the knowledge of the recollection of past lives,' therefore, when that fourth-jhāna-mind has attained the state of being the natural ground and has become the basis for higher knowledge, he says that one 'inclined the preparatory mind toward the knowledge of the recollection of past lives.' In the phrase 'it is capable of being directed,' here one directs that preparatory mind for the purpose of attaining the knowledge of the kinds of psychic power. Having removed it from the kasiṇa object, one sends it forth toward the kinds of psychic power. In the Ganthipada, however, because it is said, 'for the purpose of bringing forth the knowledges of the kinds of psychic power, and so on, from the jhāna that is the basis for higher knowledge,' the meaning 'capable of being directed' is construed.

So evaṃ samāhite evaṃ āneñjappatteti yojanā veditabbā dutiyavikappe, nīvaraṇadūrībhāvena vitakkādisamatikkamenāti paṭhamajjhānādīnaṃ kiccasaṅgaṇhanato. Ayaṃ yojanā paṭhamavikappe na sambhavati ‘‘parisuddhetiādīsu panā’’ti vacanena ‘‘eva’’nti padassa anuppabandhanivāraṇato. Teneva ‘‘upekkhāsatipārisuddhibhāvena parisuddhe’’tiādimāha. Icchāvacarānanti ‘‘aho vatāhaṃ āpattiñceva āpanno assaṃ, na ca maṃ bhikkhū jāneyyu’’ntiādinā (ma. ni. 1.60) nayena uppannaicchāvasena pavattānaṃ kopaapaccayānaṃ abhāvena anaṅgaṇeti attho. Ettha ca pana yathāvuttappakārā icchāpi paṭhamajjhānādīnaṃ adhigamāya antarāyikā ‘‘sampajānamusāvādo kho panāyasmanto antarāyiko dhammo’’ti (mahāva. 134) vuttattā, pageva icchāvacarā kopaapaccayā, tasmā vuttaṃ ‘‘jhānapaṭilābhapaccanīkānaṃ pāpakānaṃ icchāvacarāna’’ntiādi. Katthaci pana ‘‘jhānapaṭilābhapaccayānaṃ icchāvacarāna’’nti potthakesu pāṭho dissati, so pamādalekho, gaṇṭhipade ca ‘‘aho vata satthā mamaññeva paṭipucchitvā dhammaṃ deseyyā’’ti [Pg.50] yo tadattho likhito, so dullikhito. Na hi jhānapaṭilābhapaccayā kopādayo anaṅgaṇasutte (ma. ni. 1.57 ādayo) vuttā, ‘‘na ca yuttito sambhavanti jhānalābhino tadabhāvā’’ti ācariyo vadati, taṃ vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Ettha vijjattayassa uttaruttaravisesadassanatthaṃ ‘‘so evaṃ samāhite citte’’tiādinā punappunaṃ aṭṭhaṅganidassanaṃ katanti veditabbaṃ. Uttaruttaravisesā cebhāsaṃ attadukkhaparadukkhadassanatadupasamattadīpanato veditabbā. Bhagavā hi pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇena attano anantasaṃsāradukkhaṃ passitvā, cutūpapātañāṇena parassa ca lokassa āsavakkhayañāṇena tadubhayavūpasamattañca passitvā taṃ deseti, paṭhamena vā attadukkhadassanato attasinehapariccāgaṃ dīpeti. Dutiyena paradukkhadassanato paresu kopapariccāgaṃ, tatiyena ariyamaggadassanato mohapariccāgañca dīpeti. Evaṃ nānāguṇavisesadīpanato imasseva lokiyābhiññādvayassa idha gahaṇaṃ katanti veditabbaṃ.

The construction 'Thus concentrated, thus having attained imperturbability' should be understood in the second alternative, because it summarizes the function of the first jhāna and so on by way of being far from the hindrances and transcending initial thought, etc. This construction is not possible in the first alternative because the words 'in being purified, etc.' prevent the sequential connection of the word 'thus.' For that reason, he says, 'being purified by the state of purity of equanimity and mindfulness,' and so on. 'Those who move in desire' means without blemish due to the absence of anger and resentment that proceed by the power of an arisen wish, according to the method of 'Oh, that I might have committed an offense, and that the bhikkhus might not know me,' and so on. And here, even a wish of the aforesaid kind is an obstacle to the attainment of the first jhāna and so on, because it is said: 'Venerable sirs, intentional false speech is an obstructive factor.' How much more so desire-ridden anger and resentment? Therefore, it is said, 'of evil, desire-ridden things that are hostile to the attainment of jhāna,' and so on. In some places, however, the reading 'of desire-ridden things that are conditions for the attainment of jhāna' is seen in the books; that is a careless writing. And in the Ganthipada, the meaning written for that term as 'Oh, that the Teacher, having questioned only me, would teach the Dhamma!' is badly written. For anger and so on are not spoken of in the Anaṅgaṇa Sutta as conditions for the attainment of jhāna. The teacher says, 'And they are not logically possible, because of their absence in one who has attained jhāna.' That should be investigated. Here, it should be understood that to show the progressively superior distinction of the three knowledges, the demonstration of the eight factors has been made repeatedly by the phrase 'with the mind thus concentrated,' and so on. And their progressively superior distinctions should be understood from its illuminating the seeing of one's own suffering, the seeing of others' suffering, and the pacification of both. For the Blessed One teaches that, having seen his own endless suffering in saṃsāra with the knowledge of the recollection of past lives; having seen the suffering of others and of the world with the knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings; and having seen the pacification of both with the knowledge of the destruction of the taints. Or, with the first knowledge, by seeing one's own suffering, he illuminates the abandonment of self-affection. With the second, by seeing others' suffering, he illuminates the abandonment of anger towards others. With the third, by seeing the noble path, he illuminates the abandonment of delusion. Thus, it should be understood that because it illuminates various special qualities, the inclusion here of just these two mundane higher knowledges has been made.

Yasmā atītajāti eva nivāso, tasmā ‘‘atītajātīsū’’ti na vattabbanti ce? Na, jātiyā ekadesepi nivāsavohārasiddhidassanato. Pāḷiyaṃ kiñcāpi ‘‘ekampi jātiṃ dvepi jātiyo’’tiādivacanena sakalajātiyā anussaraṇameva pubbenivāsānussati viya dissati, na evaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tadekadesānussaraṇampi pubbenivāsānussati evāti dassanatthaṃ, bhummavacanaṃ kataṃ okāsādisaṅgahatthañca. ‘‘Chinnavaṭumakānussaraṇādīsū’’ti ādi-saddena anivutthalokadhātudīparaṭṭhanagaragāmādiggahaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘tesaṃ chinnavaṭumakānaṃ lokuttarasīlādīni na bhagavatā bodhisattakāle viññātānī’’ti vuttaṃ. Atthāpattito lokiyāni viññātānīti āpajjati, taṃ dibbacakkhuñāṇādhikāre ‘‘ariyānaṃ upavādakā’’ti vacanena samentaṃ viya dissati. Na hi ariye apassantassa evaṃ hoti. Kimatthaṃ panettha anussati vuttā, nanu esa vijjādhikāroti ce? Ādikammikassa sativasena nibbattito, atītadhammānaṃ satiyā visesādhikārattā ca. Vuttañhi ‘‘anussarāmī’’ti.

If one were to say: 'Because only a past birth is a dwelling, therefore, should “in past births” not be stated?' No, it should indeed be stated, because the convention of 'dwelling' is established even in a part of a birth. Although in the Pāḷi, by the statement beginning with 'one birth, two births,' the recollection of the entire birth appears to be like the recollection of former dwellings, it should not be understood thus. The recollection of even a part of that birth is indeed the recollection of former dwellings. In order to show this, the locative case was used, and also for the purpose of including location and so forth. In 'the recollection of those with severed rounds, etc.,' by the word 'etc.' the inclusion of uninhabited world-systems, islands, countries, cities, villages, and so forth should be understood. However, in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said: 'The supramundane virtues, etc., of those with severed rounds were not known by the Blessed One in the time of being a Bodhisatta.' By implication, it follows that the mundane ones were known. That statement seems to be consistent with the words 'revilers of the noble ones' in the section on the divine eye knowledge. Indeed, for one who does not see the noble ones, such a thing does not occur. If one were to ask: 'For what reason is recollection mentioned here? Is this not the section on knowledge?' It is stated because for a beginner practitioner, it is produced by way of mindfulness, and because it is the special domain of mindfulness regarding past phenomena. Indeed, it is said, 'I recollect.'

‘‘Vattamānesu vijjāna-matītesvassa sarati;

Anāgatesu dhammesu, sarati vijjāna paṇidhī’’ti.

In present things, there is knowing; in past things, there is recollection. In future phenomena, there is recollection and knowing; this is the distinction.

Ācariyakumāritena silokopi vutto.

A verse was also spoken by the teacher Kumārita.

Tattha [Pg.51] rāge ussannatare tejosaṃvaṭṭo. Dose āposaṃvaṭṭo. Mohe vāyosaṃvaṭṭo. Keci ‘‘dose tejosaṃvaṭṭo, rāge āposaṃvaṭṭo, mohe vāyosaṃvaṭṭo’’ti vadanti. Yasmā amutrāti cittaṃ, vacanaṃ vā bhavādiniyamena hoti, tasmā ‘‘bhave vā’’tiādi. Evaṃnāmo evaṃgottoti padadvayena ajjhattabahiddhāmūlakaṃ paññattisaṅkhātaṃ gocaranivāsaṃ dīpeti. Pavattaphalabhojano sayaṃpatitaphalāhāro. Caturāsītikappasahassaparamāyupariyanto vāti paṇidhānato pubbe. Paṭinivattantassa paccavekkhaṇaṃ pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇaṃ na hoti. ‘‘Pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇalābhīnaṃ panetaṃ ānubhāvaparidīpana’’nti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Amutrāti ettha paṭhamayojanāyaṃ sīhokkantavasena anussaraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, tañca kho anulomavasena. ‘‘Paṭilomavasenā’’tipi likhanti, taṃ duviññeyyaṃ. Sīhokkantaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘anekāsu kappakoṭīsū’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Yathā tanti nidassanena paṭipattisādhāraṇena phalasādhāraṇataṃ dassento brāhmaṇassa ādaraṃ janeti, attānamevekaṃ ukkaṃsetīti vacanaṃ nivāreti. ‘‘Sādhu kho pana tathārūpānaṃ arahataṃ dassanaṃ hotī’’ti tassa pubbe uppannacitte eva niyojeti. Paṭhamā abhinibbhidāti vacanena avijjaṇḍakosassa bahupaṭalabhāvaṃ dasseti, tena aṭṭhaguṇissariyādinā anabhinibbhidaṃ dīpeti.

Therein, when greed is more prevalent, dissolution by fire occurs. When hatred is more prevalent, dissolution by water occurs. When delusion is more prevalent, dissolution by wind occurs. Some say: 'When hatred is more prevalent, dissolution by fire occurs; when greed is more prevalent, dissolution by water occurs; when delusion is more prevalent, dissolution by wind occurs.' Because the mind or speech there arises by the determination of existence and so on, therefore it is said, 'or in existence,' etc. By the two terms 'of such a name, of such a clan,' He indicates the dwelling place of resort, known as a concept, which is rooted in the internal and external. `Pavattaphalabhojano` means one who has for his food fruit that has fallen by itself. The phrase 'up to a maximum lifespan of eighty-four thousand aeons' refers to the time before the aspiration. For one who has regressed, the reviewing is not the knowledge of recollection of past lives. But in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said: 'This is an elucidation of the power of those who have obtained the knowledge of recollection of past lives.' Here, in the word `amutrā` ('there'), in the first construction, recollection is stated by way of the lion's leap, and that is by way of the forward order. They also write 'by way of the reverse order,' but that is difficult to understand. To show the lion's leap, it is said, 'in many crores of aeons,' etc. By the simile 'Just as that...', showing the commonality of the fruit through the commonality of the practice, He generates respect in the brahmin and prevents the saying, 'He exalts only himself.' He urges him only towards the thoughts that had previously arisen in him: 'Indeed, it is good to see such Arahants.' By the words 'the first breakthrough,' He shows the state of the eggshell of ignorance having many layers; by that, He indicates its unpenetrated state by the eightfold mastery and so on.

Pubbenivāsakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the discourse on previous abodes is concluded.

Dibbacakkhuñāṇakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Knowledge of the Divine Eye

13. ‘‘Cutūpapātañāṇāyā’’ti phalūpacārena vuttaṃ. Idañhi dibbacakkhuñāṇaṃ rūpārammaṇattā parittapaccuppannaajjhattabahiddhārammaṇaṃ hoti. Na cutiṃ vā paṭisandhiṃ vā ārammaṇaṃ karoti. Tasmā ‘‘yathākammūpage satte pajānāmī’’ti (pārā. 13) vacanaṃ viya phalūpacāreneva vuttamidanti veditabbaṃ. Dibbavihārasannissitattā kāraṇopacārena dibbaṃ. Iminā pana keci ācariyā ‘‘kusalākusalā cakkhū dibbacakkhu kāmāvacara’’nti vadanti, te paṭisedhitā honti. Catutthajjhānapaññā hi ettha adhippetā. Mahājutikattā mahāgatikattāti etesu ‘‘saddasatthānusārenā’’ti vuttaṃ. Ekādasannaṃ upakkilesānaṃ [Pg.52] evaṃ uppattikkamo upakkilesabhāvo ca veditabbo, mahāsattassa ālokaṃ vaḍḍhetvā dibbacakkhunā nānāvidhāni rūpāni disvā ‘‘idaṃ nu kho ki’’nti vicikicchā udapādi, so upakkileso upakkilesasutte (ma. ni. 3.236 ādayo) ‘‘vicikicchādhikaraṇañca pana me samādhimhi cavi, samādhimhi cute obhāso antaradhāyati dassanañca rūpāna’’nti vacanato. Tato ‘‘rūpāni me passato vicikicchā uppajjati, idāni na kiñci manasi karissāmī’’ti cintayato amanasikāro, tato kiñci amanasikarontassa thinamiddhaṃ udapādi, tato tassa pahānatthaṃ ālokaṃ vaḍḍhetvā rūpāni passato himavantādīsu dānavarakkhasādayo passantassa chambhitattaṃ udapādi, tato tassa pahānatthaṃ ‘‘mayā diṭṭhabhayaṃ pakatiyā olokiyamānaṃ natthi, adiṭṭhe kiṃ nāma bhaya’’nti cintayato uppilāvitattaṃ udapādi. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘uppilaṃ dibbarūpadassenenā’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘taṃ duvuttaṃ parato abhijappāvacanena tadatthasiddhito’’ti ācariyo vadati. Tato chambhitattappahānatthaṃ ‘‘mayā vīriyaṃ daḷhaṃ paggahitaṃ, tena me idaṃ uppilaṃ uppanna’’nti vīriyaṃ sithilaṃ karontassa kāyaduṭṭhullaṃ kāyadaratho kāyālasiyaṃ udapādi, tato taṃ cajantassa accāraddhavīriyaṃ udapādi, tattha dosaṃ passato atilīnavīriyaṃ upadādi, tato taṃ pahāya samappavattena vīriyena chambhitattabhayā himavantādiṭṭhānaṃ pahāya devalokābhimukhaṃ ālokaṃ vaḍḍhetvā devasaṅghaṃ passato taṇhāsaṅkhātā abhijappā udapādi, tato ‘‘mayhaṃ ekajātikarūpaṃ manasi karontassa abhijappā uppannā, tasmā dāni nānāvidhaṃ rūpaṃ manasi karissāmī’’ti kālena devalokābhimukhaṃ, kālena manussalokābhimukhaṃ ālokaṃ vaḍḍhetvā nānāvidhāni rūpāni manasi karoto nānattasaññā udapādi, tato ‘‘nānāvidharūpāni me manasi karontassa nānattasaññā udapādi, tasmā dāni abhijappādibhayā iṭṭhādinimittaggāhaṃ pahāya ekajātikameva rūpaṃ manasi karissāmī’’ti tathā karoto abhinijjhāyitattaṃ rūpānaṃ udapādi evaṃ pahīnaupakkilesassāpi anadhiṭṭhitattā. Obhāsañhi kho jānāmi, na ca rūpāni passāmītiādi jātaṃ.

13. "For the knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings"—this is said by way of a fruit metaphor. For this divine eye-knowledge, because it has form as its object, takes as its object limited, present, internal, and external phenomena. It does not take passing away or rebirth-linking as its object. Therefore, it should be understood that this was spoken only by way of a fruit metaphor, like the statement, "I know beings who fare according to their kamma" (Pārā. 13). Because it is dependent on the divine abiding, it is called "divine" by way of a cause metaphor. By this, however, some teachers say, "The wholesome and unwholesome eyes are the divine eye, which is of the sense-sphere," but they are refuted. For the wisdom of the fourth jhāna is intended here. In the phrases "because of great radiance" and "because of great range," it is said, "according to the science of grammar." The order of arising and the nature as an imperfection of the eleven imperfections should be understood thus: For the Great Being, having extended the light and seen various forms with the divine eye, the doubt arose, "What, indeed, is this?" That is an imperfection, in accordance with the Upakkilesa Sutta (M.N. iii. 162): "And because of doubt, my concentration wavered; when the concentration wavered, the light disappears and the vision of forms disappears." Then, for him who was thinking, "Doubt arises in me when I see forms; now I will not attend to anything," non-attention arose. Then, for him who was not attending to anything, sloth and torpor arose. Then, to abandon that, for him who extended the light and saw forms, upon seeing dānavas, rākṣasas, and so on in the Himālaya and other places, stiffness arose. Then, to abandon that, for him who was thinking, "For me, there is no fear in what is seen when it is looked at in its natural state; what fear, then, in what is unseen?", elation arose. In the Gaṇṭhipada, however, it is said, "Elation is by the seeing of divine forms." The teacher says, "That is poorly stated, because that meaning is established by the subsequent word abhijappā." Then, to abandon the stiffness, for him who was relaxing his energy, thinking, "I have exerted strong energy, and because of that this elation has arisen in me," bodily coarseness, bodily fever, and bodily sluggishness arose. Then, for him who was abandoning that, excessively exerted energy arose. Seeing the fault in that, excessively slack energy arose. Then, abandoning that, with evenly applied energy, out of fear of stiffness, having abandoned the place of the Himālaya and so on, extending the light towards the deva-world and seeing the assembly of devas, intense longing, known as craving, arose. Then, for him who was attending to various forms, at times extending the light towards the deva-world, at times towards the human world, thinking, "For me, when attending to a form of a single kind, intense longing has arisen; therefore, I will now attend to various forms," the perception of diversity arose. Then, for him who acted thus, thinking, "For me, when attending to various forms, the perception of diversity has arisen; therefore, now, out of fear of intense longing and so on, abandoning the grasping of signs such as the desirable, I will attend only to a form of a single kind," preoccupation with forms arose. Thus, even for one whose imperfections have been abandoned, because of being unestablished, the state of "I know the light, but I do not see the forms," and so on, arose.

Tassattho – yadā parikammobhāsameva manasi karomi, tadā obhāsaṃ sañjānāmi, dibbena cakkhunā rūpāni na ca passāmi, rūpadassanakāle ca [Pg.53] obhāsaṃ na jānāmīti. Kimatthamidaṃ vuttaṃ, na hi etaṃ upakkisesagatanti? Na kevalaṃ upakkilesappajahanamevettha kattabbaṃ, yena idaṃ visuddhaṃ hoti, aññampi taduttari kattabbaṃ atthīti dassanatthaṃ. Vicikicchā cittassa upakkilesotiādīsu ‘‘ime dhammā upakkilesāti ādīnavadassanena pajahiṃ, na mayhaṃ tadā uppannattā’’ti keci vadanti. Mānusakaṃ vāti iminā sabhāvātikkamaṃ dasseti. Maṃsacakkhunā viyāti iminā pariyattiggahaṇaṃ, vaṇṇamattārammaṇatañca upameti. Vaṇṇamatte hettha satta-saddo, na ‘‘sabbe sattā āhāraṭṭhitikā’’ti (a. ni. 10.27) ettha viya sabbasaṅkhatesu, hīnajātiādayo mohassa nissando vipāko. Kāyaduccaritena samannāgatā pubbe atītabhave ahesuṃ, sampati nirayaṃ upapannāti evaṃ pāṭhasesena sambandho veditabbo. ‘‘Yathākammūpagañāṇañhi ekantamatītārammaṇaṃ, dibbacakkhu paccuppannārammaṇa’’nti ubhinnaṃ kiccavasena vuttaṃ. Mahallakoti samaṇānaṃ sāruppamasāruppaṃ, lokācāraṃ vā na jānātīti adhippāyena vuttattā guṇaparidhaṃsanena garahatīti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Niyato sambodhiparāyano’’ti (saṃ. ni. 2.41; 5.998, 1004) vutto ariyapuggalo maggāvaraṇaṃ kātuṃ samatthaṃ pharusavacanaṃ yadi katheyya, apāyagamanīyampi kareyya, tena so apāyupagopi bhaveyya, tasmā upaparikkhitabbanti eke. ‘‘Vāyāmaṃ mā akāsīti therena vuttattā maggāvaraṇaṃ karotī’’ti vadanti. Pubbeva sotāpannena apāyadvāro pihito, tasmāssa saggāvaraṇaṃ natthi. ‘‘Pākatikanti pavattivipākaṃ ahosī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Vuddhi hesā, bhikkhave, ariyassa vinaye, yo accayaṃ accayato disvā yathādhammaṃ paṭikarotī’’ti (ma. ni. 3.370; dī. ni. 1.251) vacanato pākatikaṃ ahosīti eke. Sace so na khamatīti sotāpannādīnaṃ khantiguṇassa mandatāya vā āyatiṃ tassa suṭṭhu saṃvaratthāya vā akkhamanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sukhānaṃ vā āyassa ārammaṇādino abhāvā kālakañcikā asurā honti. ‘‘Ito bho sugatiṃ gacchā’’ti (itivu. 83) vacanato manussagatipi. Dibbacakkhuñāṇavijjāti dibbacakkhumeva dassanaṭṭhena ñāṇaṃ, tassa tassa atthassa vindanaṭṭhena vijjāti attho.

The meaning of this is: when I attend only to the preliminary-work light, then I perceive the light, but with the divine eye I do not see forms; and at the time of seeing forms, I do not know the light. For what purpose was this said? For is it not true that this is not subject to defilement? It was said to show that it is not only the abandoning of defilements that should be done here, whereby this becomes pure, but that there is something else to be done beyond that. Regarding such statements as, 'Doubt is a defilement of the mind,' some say: 'I abandoned them by seeing their danger thus, "These states are defilements," not because they had arisen in me at that time.' By 'or human,' it shows the transcending of one's natural state. By 'like the fleshly eye,' it makes a comparison to the grasping of what is learned and to having mere color as an object. Here, the word 'being' is used in the sense of mere color, not as in 'all beings are sustained by food' (AN 10.27), where it applies to all conditioned things. Inferior birth and so on are the outflow and result of delusion. The connection should be understood with the remainder of the text thus: 'Those endowed with bodily misconduct were so in a past existence, and now they have been reborn in hell.' For it is said in terms of the function of the two knowledges: 'The knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings according to their kamma has an exclusively past object, while the divine eye has a present object.' By `Mahallaka` is meant one who does not know what is proper or improper for ascetics, or worldly custom; because it is said with this intention, it should be understood as a criticism that denigrates his virtues. Some say: 'If a noble person, who is said to be "fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination" (SN 2.41; 5.998, 1004), were to speak harsh words capable of creating an obstruction to the path, he might also commit an act leading to the plane of deprivation, and thereby he might also go to a plane of deprivation; therefore, this should be investigated.' Others say: 'Because it was said by the elder, "Do not make an effort," he creates an obstruction to the path.' The door to the planes of deprivation was already closed by him as a stream-enterer; therefore, for him, there is no obstruction to heaven. Some say: 'By "it became normal" is meant it was a result in the course of existence.' Others say that because of the statement, 'This, monks, is growth in the discipline of the noble one: that one sees a transgression as a transgression and makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma' (MN 3.370; DN 1.251), it was restored to normal. The statement, 'If he does not forgive,' was said with reference to not forgiving, either because of the weakness of the virtue of patience in stream-enterers and others, or for the sake of that person's good restraint in the future. The Kālakañjikā asuras exist due to the absence of pleasures or of a source for them, such as objects and so on. Because of the statement, 'Sirs, go from here to a good destination' (Iti 83), the human destination is also included. Regarding `dibbacakkhuñāṇavijjā` (the true knowledge that is the knowledge of the divine eye): the divine eye itself is `ñāṇa` (knowledge) in the sense of seeing, and it is `vijjā` (true knowledge) in the sense of finding the meaning of each respective thing. This is the meaning.

Dibbacakkhuñāṇakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Elucidation of the Discourse on the Knowledge of the Divine Eye is completed.

Āsavakkhayañāṇakathāvaṇṇanā

The Elucidation of the Discourse on the Knowledge of the Destruction of the Taints

14. So [Pg.54] evaṃ samāhite citteti kiṃ purimasmiṃyeva, udāhu aññasmiṃyeva catutthajjhānacitte. Aṭṭhakathāyampi yato vuṭṭhāya purimavijjādvayaṃ adhigataṃ, tadeva puna samāpajjanavasena abhinavaṃ abhiṇhaṃ katanti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘so evaṃ samāhite citteti idha vipassanāpādakaṃ catutthajjhānacittaṃ veditabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Etthāha – yadi tadeva puna samāpajjanavasena abhinavaṃ kataṃ, atha kasmā pubbe viya ‘‘vipassanāpādakaṃ abhiññāpādakaṃ nirodhapādakaṃ sabbakiccasādhakaṃ sabbalokiyalokuttaraguṇadāyakaṃ idha catutthajjhānacittaṃ veditabba’’nti avatvā ‘‘idha vipassanāpādakaṃ catutthajjhānacittaṃ veditabba’’nti ettakameva vuttaṃ, nanu idha tathāvacanaṭṭhānameva taṃ arahattamaggena saddhiṃ sabbaguṇanipphādanato, na paṭhamavijjādvayamattanipphādanatoti? Vuccate – ariyamaggassa bojjhaṅgamaggaṅgajhānaṅgapaṭipadāvimokkhavisesaniyamo pubbabhāgavuṭṭhānagāminīvipassanāya saṅkhārupekkhāsaṅkhātāya niyamena ahosīti dassanatthaṃ vipassanāpādakamidha vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Tattha pariyāpannattā, na tadārammaṇamattena. Pariyāyatoti aññenapi pakārena. ‘‘Ime āsavā’’ti ayaṃ vāro kimatthaṃ āraddho? ‘‘Āsavānaṃ khayañāṇāyā’’ti adhikārānulomanatthaṃ. Maggakkhaṇe hi cittaṃ vimuccati, phalakkhaṇe vimuttaṃ hotīti idaṃ ekattanayena vuttaṃ. Yañhi vimuccamānaṃ, tadeva aparabhāge vimuttaṃ nāma hoti. Yañca vimuttaṃ, tadeva pubbabhāge vimuccamānaṃ nāma hoti. Bhuñjamāno eva hi bhojanapariyosāne bhuttāvī nāma. ‘‘Iminā paccavekkhaṇañāṇaṃ dassetī’’ti paccavekkhaṇañāṇassa ca paṭṭhāne ‘‘maggā vuṭṭhahitvā maggaṃ paccavekkhati, phalaṃ, nibbānaṃ, pahīne kilese paccavekkhatī’’ti ayamuppattikkamo vutto. Pavattikkamo panettha sarūpato atthatoti dvidhā vutto. Tattha ‘‘vimuttamiti ñāṇaṃ ahosī’’ti sarūpato catubbidhassapi paccavekkhaṇañāṇassa pavattikkamanidassanaṃ. ‘‘Khīṇā jātī’’tiādi atthato. Teneva ante ‘‘abbhaññāsi’’nti puggalādhiṭṭhānaṃ desanaṃ akāsi paccavekkhaṇañāṇassa tathā appavattito. Appaṭisandhikaṃ hotīti jānanto ‘‘khīṇā jātī’’ti jānāti nāma. ‘‘Dibbacakkhunā paccuppannānāgataṃsañāṇa’’nti anāgataṃsañāṇassa ca dibbacakkhusannissitattā vuttaṃ.

14. Regarding 'So, with mind thus concentrated': is this in the very same fourth jhāna consciousness as before, or in another? In the commentary, too, in order to show that since the two prior knowledges were attained upon emerging from that very jhāna, it is that same jhāna that is made new and repeated by way of re-entering it, it is said: 'Here, "So, with mind thus concentrated" should be understood as the fourth jhāna consciousness which is the basis for insight.' Here, it is asked: If it is that very jhāna that is made new by way of re-entering it, then why, unlike before, was it not said, 'Here, the fourth jhāna consciousness should be understood as the basis for insight, the basis for higher knowledge, the basis for cessation, the accomplisher of all tasks, the bestower of all mundane and supramundane qualities,' but only this much was said: 'Here, the fourth jhāna consciousness should be understood as the basis for insight'? Is it not the case that here is the very place for such a statement, because it is the accomplishment of all qualities together with the path of arahantship, not merely the accomplishment of the first two knowledges? It is answered: It should be understood that 'basis for insight' is stated here to show that the noble path's specific determination of the factors of enlightenment, path factors, jhāna factors, practice, and liberations necessarily occurred by means of the insight leading to emergence in the preceding stage, which is called equanimity toward formations. Because it is included therein, it is not merely by way of its object. 'By way of alternative' means by another manner. For what purpose was this section, 'These are the taints,' begun? For the sake of conforming to the topic, 'for the knowledge of the destruction of the taints.' For at the moment of the path, the mind is being liberated; at the moment of fruition, it is liberated. This is stated from the perspective of unity. For that which is being liberated is, in a later stage, called 'liberated.' And that which is liberated is, in an earlier stage, called 'being liberated.' Indeed, one who is eating is, at the end of the meal, called 'one who has eaten.' Regarding 'By this, he shows the reviewing knowledge': in the Paṭṭhāna, this order of arising is stated for reviewing knowledge: 'Having emerged from the path, one reviews the path, the fruition, Nibbāna, and the abandoned defilements.' Here, the order of occurrence is stated in two ways: according to its essence and according to its meaning. Therein, 'The knowledge arose, "I am liberated"' is an indication of the order of occurrence of all four kinds of reviewing knowledge according to its essence. 'Destroyed is birth,' etc., is according to its meaning. For that very reason, at the end, he gave the teaching “He directly knew” from the standpoint of the person, because reviewing knowledge does not occur in that way. Knowing, 'It is without relinking,' one is said to know, 'Destroyed is birth.' Regarding 'Knowledge of the present and future portion with the divine eye': this is stated because the knowledge of the future portion is also dependent on the divine eye.

Āsavakkhayañāṇakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Knowledge of the Destruction of the Taints is concluded.

Upāsakattapaṭivedanākathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Declaration of the State of a Lay Follower

15. Kaṇṇasukhato [Pg.55] hadayaṅgamatoti vacanameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Anattukkaṃsanatotiādi puggalavasena, kaṇṇasukhatoti sotindriyaṃ sandhāya. Āpāthāramaṇīyatoti ñāṇāpāthāramaṇīyato. Sayameva heṭṭhāmukhajātaṃ vā, maggo pana asoko hoti. Tadā hi soko pahīyamāno. Cariyādianukūlato appaṭikūlaṃ. ‘‘Madhuramima’’nti vuttattā ‘‘dhammamima’’nti vacanaṃ adhikaṃ viya dissati. Tasmā ‘‘rāgavirāgamima’’nti evaṃ visuṃ visuṃ yojetvā puna piṇḍetvā dhammamimaṃ upehīti yojetabbaṃ, ‘‘dhammameva saraṇatthamupehī’’ti paṭhanti kirāti dīpeti. Saraṇagatānaṃ teneva saraṇagamanena bhayaṃ santāsaṃ duggatiṃ parikkilesaṃ dukkhaṃ hiṃsatīti ratanattayaṃ saraṇaṃ nāma. Tappasādataggarutādīhi vihatakileso tapparāyanatākārappavatto cittuppādo saraṇagamanaṃ. Taṃsamaṅgīsatto saraṇaṃ gacchati. Pabhedena pana duvidhaṃ saraṇagamanaṃ lokuttaraṃ lokiyanti. Tattha lokuttaraṃ diṭṭhasaccānaṃ maggakkhaṇe saraṇagamanupakkilesasamucchedena nibbānārammaṇaṃ hutvā kiccato sakalepi ratanattaye ijjhati. Lokiyaṃ puthujjanānaṃ saraṇagamanupakkilesaṃ tadaṅgavikkhambhanena ārammaṇato buddhādiguṇārammaṇaṃ hutvā ijjhati. Taṃ atthato ratanattaye saddhāpaṭilābho saddhāmūlikā ca sammādiṭṭhi. Lokuttarassa cattāri sāmaññaphalāni vipākaphalaṃ, sabbadukkhakkhayo ānisaṃsaphalaṃ. ‘‘Yo ca buddhañca dhammañca…pe… sabbadukkhā pamuccatī’’ti (dha. pa. 190-192) hi vuttaṃ. Lokiyassa bhavabhogasampadā. ‘‘Ye keci buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gatāse’’ti (dī. ni. 2.332; saṃ. ni. 1.37) hi vuttaṃ. Lokiyasaraṇagamanaṃ tīsu vatthūsu aññāṇasaṃsayamicchāñāṇādīhi saṃkilissati, na mahājutikaṃ hoti, na mahāvipphāraṃ. Lokuttarassa natthi saṃkileso. Lokiyassa sāvajjo anavajjoti duvidho bhedo. Tattha aññasatthārādīsu attasanniyyātanādīhi sāvajjo hoti, so aniṭṭhaphalo. Anavajjo kālakiriyāya, so avipākattā aphalo. Lokuttarassa nevatthi bhedo. Bhavantarepi hi ariyasāvako aññaṃ satthāraṃ na uddisati. Yo koci saraṇagato gahaṭṭho upāsako. Ratanattayaupāsanato upāsako. Pañca veramaṇiyo [Pg.56] sīlaṃ. Satthasattamaṃsamajjavisavāṇijjārahitaṃ dhammena jīvikaṃ ājīvo. Vuttasīlājīvavipatti vipatti nāma. Viparītā sampatti.

15. “Pleasing to the ear and captivating to the heart” is stated with reference to that very expression. “Not praising oneself,” etc., refers to the individual; “pleasing to the ear” refers to the sense faculty of hearing. “Delightful to encounter” means delightful because it appears within the range of wisdom. Even if it arises naturally with a downward inclination, the path is without sorrow. For indeed, at that moment of the path, sorrow is being abandoned. Because it is conducive to one's conduct, etc., it is not unfavorable. Since it is said, “This is sweet,” the phrase “This Dhamma” seems somewhat redundant. Therefore, having construed it separately thus, “This dispassion from passion,” and then having combined it again, it should be construed as: “Approach this Dhamma.” It is said that some recite it as, “Take the Dhamma alone for your refuge.” The Triple Gem is called “refuge” because for those who have gone for refuge, by that very going for refuge, it destroys fear, terror, bad destinations, affliction, and suffering. Going for refuge is the arising of a state of consciousness that, having its defilements destroyed through faith in them, reverence for them, etc., proceeds in the manner of having them as its final resort. A being endowed with that goes for refuge. By way of division, however, going for refuge is twofold: supramundane and mundane. Among these, the supramundane, for those who have seen the truths, at the moment of the path, by the complete cutting off of the corruptions of going for refuge, having Nibbāna as its object, is accomplished with respect to its function in the entire Triple Gem. The mundane, for ordinary people, by the temporary suppression of the corruptions of going for refuge, having the qualities of the Buddha, etc., as its object, is accomplished. In meaning, it is the attainment of faith in the Triple Gem and right view rooted in faith. For the supramundane, the four fruits of recluseship are the resultant fruit, and the destruction of all suffering is the benefit-fruit. For it is said: “Whoever has gone to the Buddha and the Dhamma... is freed from all suffering.” For the mundane, there is the accomplishment of good existence and wealth. For it is said: “Whatever beings have gone to the Buddha for refuge...” Mundane going for refuge becomes defiled regarding the three objects by ignorance, doubt, wrong knowledge, etc.; it is not of great power, nor of great pervasiveness. The supramundane has no defilement. The mundane has a twofold breaking: blameworthy and blameless. Among these, the blameworthy breaking occurs through dedicating oneself, etc., to other teachers, etc., and it has an undesirable result. The blameless breaking occurs through death; since it is without result, it is fruitless. The supramundane has no breaking at all. For indeed, even in another existence, a noble disciple does not designate another as teacher. Any householder who has gone for refuge is an upāsaka. Because of attending upon the Triple Gem, one is an upāsaka. The five abstinences are virtue. A livelihood in accordance with the Dhamma, free from trading in weapons, living beings, meat, intoxicants, and poison, is right livelihood. Failure in the aforementioned virtue and livelihood is called “failure.” The opposite is “accomplishment.”

16. Lacchāma nu khoti duggate sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sakkhissāma nukho noti samiddhe sandhāya. Tattha verañjāyaṃ. Paggayhatīti pattaṃ paggaho, tena paggahena pattenāti attho. Samādāyevāti nidassanaṃ. Na ca vaṭṭatīti puna pākaṃ kiñcāpi vaṭṭati, tathāpi na suṭṭhu pakkattā vuttaṃ, ‘‘uttaṇḍulabhattaṃ labhitvāpi pidhetuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanañcettha sādhakaṃ. ‘‘Sāvakānaṃ vā sikkhāpadaṃ paññapessāmī’’ti iminā vacanena ājīvapārisuddhisīlaṃ sandhāya ‘‘pacchā sīla’’nti vuttaṃ. Upālittheropi taṃ taṃ vatthuṃ paṭicca bhagavatā bahūni sikkhāpadāni paññattāni atthīti dīpeti. Yadi evaṃ verañjāyaṃ ‘‘etassa bhagavā kālo’’ti vacanaṃ na sametīti ce? Na, tato pubbe sikkhāpadābhāvappasaṅgato. Thero pana paññattāni ṭhapetvā idāni paññapetabbāni pātimokkhuddesappahonakāni sandhāyāha. Bhagavāpi ‘‘na tāva sāriputta satthā sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapetī’’ti bhaddālisutte (ma. ni. 2.134; ādayo) viya ekaccesu paññattesupi tato paraṃ paññapetabbāni sandhāyāha. Idheva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sāmampi pacanaṃ samaṇasāruppaṃ na hoti na ca vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanañca, tathā ‘‘ratticchedo vā vassacchedo vā’’tiādivacanāni ca atthi. Aññathā ‘‘dvīhākārehi buddhā bhagavanto bhikkhū paṭipucchantī’’ti idhevedaṃ pāḷiṭhapanaṃ virujjhatīti ācariyena vicāritaṃ, taṃ sundaraṃ pubbepi paññattasikkhāpadasambhavato. Kintu idha pāḷiṭhapanavirodhavicāraṇā pana nippayojanā viya mama dissati. Kasmā? Upālittherena saṅgītikāle vuttapāṭhattā. Ratticchedoti sattāhakiccaṃ sandhāya vutto. ‘‘Sattāhakaraṇīyena gantvā ratticchedo vā vassacchedo vā ekabhikkhunāpi na kato’’ti vuttaṃ kira mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ, tasmā vassacchedassa kāraṇe sati sattāhakiccaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti eke. Vinayadharā pana nicchanti, tasmā aṭṭhakathādhippāyo vīmaṃsitabbo, imāya verañjāyaṃ appicchatādipaṭipadāya pasannā. Sālīnaṃ vikati sālivikati.

16. The phrase “Shall we obtain?” is said in reference to those in distress. The phrase “Shall we not be able?” is said in reference to those who are prosperous. There, in Verañjā. Regarding paggayhati (is held): because a bowl is held, it is called paggaho (a held thing); the meaning is ‘by that held bowl.’ Samādāyeva is an example. Regarding Na ca vaṭṭati (it is not allowable): although re-cooking is allowable, it is said so because it is not well-cooked; the commentary’s statement, “Even having obtained undercooked rice, it is not allowable to cover it,” is evidence for this. By the statement, “I will lay down a training rule for the disciples,” referring to the virtue of purity of livelihood, it is called “later virtue.” The Elder Upāli also indicates that with regard to particular instances, many training rules were laid down by the Blessed One. If so, does the statement in Verañjā, ‘Now is the time, O Blessed One,’ not accord with this? No, because before that, there would be the undesirable consequence of no training rules existing. However, the Elder, excluding those rules already laid down, speaks referring to those that are to be laid down now—those that suffice for the recitation of the Pātimokkha. The Blessed One also, as in the Bhaddāli Sutta, “Not yet, Sāriputta, does the Teacher lay down a training rule for the disciples,” speaks referring to those to be laid down later, even though some had already been laid down. Right here in the commentary, there is the statement, “Cooking for oneself is not befitting a recluse and is not allowable,” and also statements such as “a break in the nights or a break in the rains-residence.” Otherwise, the placement of the Pāḷi text here, “The Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, question the monks in two ways,” would be contradicted—this was examined by the teacher, and that is good because of the existence of training rules laid down even previously. However, here, the examination of the contradiction in the placement of the Pāḷi seems useless to me. Why? Because it is the text spoken by the Elder Upāli at the time of the council. “Breaking the night” (ratticchedo) is spoken in reference to the seven-day duty. It is said in the Great Commentary: “Having gone on a seven-day duty, neither a break in the nights nor a break in the rains-residence was made even by a single monk.” Therefore, some say that when there is a reason to interrupt the rains-residence, it is permissible to perform the seven-day duty. But the Vinaya experts disagree; therefore, the commentary’s intention should be investigated. In Verañjā, people were pleased by this practice of having few wishes and so on. Sālivikati is a special preparation of sāli rice.

17-8. Upapannaphaloti bahuphalo. ‘‘Khuddaṃ madhu’’nti pāṭho. Theraṃ sīhanādaṃ nadāpetuṃ pucchīti iminā ācariyo yaṃ pubbe āṇāya ṭhitānaṃ [Pg.57] sāvakānaṃ mahānubhāvatādassanaṃ ‘‘verañjāyaṃ nivāsappayojana’’nti amhehi vuttaṃ, taṃ sampādeti, rājagahe verañjāyañcāti ubhayattha vitakkuppāde ekato piṇḍetvā dassento ‘‘atha kho āyasmato sāriputtassā’’tiādimāha. Kālaṃ sandhāya ciraṃ, ṭhitiṃ sandhāya cirāti viggaho.

17-8. `Upapannaphaloti` means `bahuphalo`: 'it has much fruit.' The reading is 'khuddaṃ madhu.' By the phrase 'he asked in order to make the Elder roar the lion's roar,' the commentator fulfills what we have previously stated—the showing of the great spiritual power of the disciples who stood by his command, as in 'the purpose of dwelling in Verañjā.' The Elder, wishing to show the arisings of thought in both places, at Rājagaha and at Verañjā, by combining them into one, stated the text beginning with, 'Then to the Venerable Sāriputta…' and so on. With reference to time (`kāla`), `ciraṃ` is used; with reference to duration (`ṭhiti`), `cirā` is used. This is the analysis.

Kāmaṃ hinoti attano phalanibbattiyā sahāyaṃ gacchatīti kattari hetu, tathāpi idha tena karaṇabhūtena tassa phalaṃ hinoti pavattatīti hetu. Tathā ghaṭanti tenāti ghaṭo. Kilāsunoti payojanābhāvena avāvaṭā. Abbokiṇṇāni visabhāgehi. Āgāminiyā anāgateti attho. Imesaṃyeva noti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘sabbabuddhānaṃ hī’’ti vuttaṃ. Yāvasāsanapariyantāti yāva buddhā dharanti, tāvāti attho. Khattiyabrāhmaṇāva uccā, tatthāpi visesaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘uccanīcauḷāruḷārabhogā’’ti. ‘‘Manasi katvā’’tipi pāṭho. Upasampādyaupasampādyaiccetaṃ dvayaṃ māgadhe ‘‘upasampajjā’’ti vuccati. Anupādāyāti ārammaṇakaraṇavasena aggahetvā. Āsavehīti kattari tatiyāvibhatti. Cittānīti paccattabahuvacanaṃ. Vimucciṃsūti kammakārake. Vimocitānīti adhippāyoti ācariyo. Āsavehīti padañca paccatte karaṇavacanaṃ katvā gaṇṭhipade attho pakāsito. Yadi ariyamaggena niruddhānaṃ āsavānaṃ vasena anāsavatā, loke cittānipi anāsavā siyuṃ. Na hi niruddhāni cittāni ārammaṇāni karontīti tāni aniruddhāsavavasena sāsavānīti ce. Sotāpannassa maggacittaṃ uparimaggavajjhāsavavasena sāsavaṃ, avasiṭṭhāsavasamucchindanānubhāvattā phalāni sāsavāni siyunti? Na, āsavasamucchindanānubhāvāgataphalattā. Bhiṃsanassa karaṇaṃ bhiṃsanakataṃ, tasmiṃ bhiṃsanakatasmiṃ, bhiṃsanakiriyāyāti attho. Itthiliṅgaṃ vipallāsaṃ katvā napuṃsakaliṅgaṃ, purisaliṅgaṃ vā katvā. Nimittattheti ettha –

Indeed, ‘it happens, it goes as a companion for the accomplishment of its own fruit’—thus hetu (cause) is in the agent sense. Nevertheless, here, ‘by that which has become the cause, its fruit happens, it proceeds’—thus hetu. Likewise, ‘they strive by means of it,’ hence ghaṭo. Kilāsuno means ‘not engaged’ due to the absence of purpose. Abbokiṇṇāni means unmixed with dissimilar persons. Āgāminiyā means ‘in the future.’ To show that this is not so for these alone, it is said: ‘for of all Buddhas….’ Yāvasāsanapariyantā means ‘as long as the Buddhas are living.’ Only khattiyas and brahmins are high; to show a distinction even there, it is said: ‘of high and low, excellent and coarse enjoyments.’ There is also the reading manasi katvā. This pair, upasampādya-upasampādya, is called upasampajjā in the Magadhan language. Anupādāya means ‘without grasping’ by way of making it an object. Āsavehi is the third case (instrumental) in the agent sense. Cittāni is the plural in the subjective sense (nominative). Vimucciṃsu is in the passive voice. The teacher says the intention is ‘they were liberated’ (vimocitāni). And taking the word āsavehi as an instrumental in the subjective sense, the meaning is explained in the Ganthipada. If, by means of the taints destroyed by the noble path, there is freedom from taints, then minds in the world would also be without taints. For destroyed minds do not make the taints their objects. If you say that they are with taints by way of the undestroyed taints, then would the path-consciousness of a stream-enterer be with taints by way of the taints to be abandoned by the higher paths, and would the fruits be with taints because of the power to cut off the remaining taints? No, because it is a fruit that comes from the path possessing the power to cut off the taints. The doing of what is frightening is a ‘frightening deed’ (bhiṃsanakataṃ); in that frightening deed (bhiṃsanakatasmiṃ), the meaning is ‘in the action of frightening.’ Having inverted the feminine gender and made it neuter or masculine, it is said 'bhiṃsanakatasmiṃ'. Here, in the sense of a sign—

‘‘Cammani dīpinaṃ hanti, dantesu hanti kuñjaraṃ;

Vālesu cāmariṃ hanti, siṅgesu sarabho hato’’ti. –

“One kills a leopard for its skin; one kills an elephant for its tusks; one kills a yak for its tail-hairs; a sarabha is killed for its horns.”

Adhikaraṇaṃ.

The legal issue.

20-21. Naciraṭṭhitikakāraṇe [Pg.58] kathite ciraṭṭhitikakāraṇaṃ atthato vuttapaṭipakkhavasena kiñcāpi siddhaṃ, tathāpi taṃ therassa vinayapaññattiyācanāya okāsakāraṇādhippāyato vinayapaññattiyācanokāsaṃ pāpetuṃ puna bhagavantaṃ ‘‘ko pana, bhante, hetū’’ti pucchi. Bhagavāpi yācanaṃ sampaṭicchitukāmo byākāsi. ‘‘Āsavaṭṭhānīyā saṅghe pātubhavantī’’ti puggalassa saṅghapariyāpannattā vuttaṃ. Ādaratthavasenevettha dvikkhattuṃ vuttanti yasmā thero pubbe rājagahe, sampati verañjāyanti dvikkhattuṃ kāci, tasmā ādarena punappunaṃ yācayamānaṃ passitvā sayampi bhagavā ādareneva ‘‘āgamehi tvaṃ sāriputtā’’ti āha. Tenetaṃ dīpeti ‘‘mā tvaṃ punappunaṃ yācāhi, sampaṭicchitāva mayā te yācanā, pubbenanu tavayācanaṃ sampaṭicchatāva mayā ettake kāle ettakāni sikkhāpadāni paññattāni, na tāva me sāvakānaṃ āṇāpātimokkhuddesānujānanakālo sampatto, takkānumānavasena tayā ‘etassa bhagavā kālo’ti punappunaṃ niddisiyamānopi nesa so kālo, kintu tathāgatova tattha kālaṃ jānissatī’’ti. Yasmā pana ‘‘sikkhāpadapaññattikālato pabhuti āṇāpātimokkhameva uddisiyatī’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā pātimokkhuddesappahonakasikkhāpadameva sandhāyāha. ‘‘Tatthāti sikkhāpadapaññattiyācanāpekkhaṃ bhummavacana’’nti ekameva padaṃ vuttaṃ tassā siddhiyā itarassa siddhito. ‘‘Sāvakānaṃ visayabhāvanti iminā mahāpadumattheravādo paṭikkhitto’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ, taṃ sundaraṃ viya. Sammukhe garahā. Parammukhe upavādo. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, ūnadasavassena…pe… dukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 75) idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ bhagavā buddhattena dasavassiko hutvā paññapesi ūnadasavassikassa tassa tathā sikkhāpadapaññattiyā abhāvato. Na tadā atirekadasavassikova dasavassikānaṃ rattaññumahattappattito, tasmā taṃ sikkhāpadaṃ verañjāyaṃ vassāvāsato pubbe rājagahe eva paññattanti siddhaṃ, tasmiṃ siddhe siddhameva ‘‘yāva na saṅgho rattaññumahattaṃ pattoti vacanaṃ ito pubbe paṭhamayācanāyapi vutta’’nti. Aṭṭhakathāyampi rattaññumahattappattakāle ‘‘dve sikkhāpadānī’’ti gaṇanaparicchedavacanaṃ paṭhamayācanāya vuttavacanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Aññathā rattaññumahattappattakāle dve eva, na aññanti āpajjati.

20-21. Although the reason for long duration is, in meaning, established by way of being the opposite of what was said regarding the reason for not lasting long, nevertheless, due to the intention of creating a reason for the opportunity for the Elder's request for the laying down of the Vinaya, in order to bring it to the point of an opportunity to request the laying down of the Vinaya, he again asked the Blessed One: “But what, venerable sir, is the cause?” The Blessed One, wishing to accept the request, explained. “Things that are grounds for the taints arise in the Sangha” was said because the individual is included in the Sangha. Regarding the statement that this was said twice here out of respect: since the Elder requested twice—previously at Rājagaha, and now at Verañjā—therefore, seeing him requesting again and again with respect, the Blessed One himself said with respect: “Wait, Sāriputta.” By this, he indicates the following meaning: “Do not request again and again. Your request has already been accepted by me. Was not your request previously accepted by me? In this much time, this many training rules have been laid down. The time for me to authorize the recitation of the authoritative Pātimokkha for my disciples has not yet arrived. Although you repeatedly point out or request by way of reasoning and inference, ‘This is the time, Blessed One,’ that is not the time. Rather, the Tathāgata himself will know the time for that.” And since it was said, “From the time of laying down the training rules, only the authoritative Pātimokkha is recited,” therefore, he said this referring only to the training rules sufficient for the recitation of the Pātimokkha. “The word ‘therein’ (tattha) is a locative expression with reference to the request for the laying down of the training rule.” Only this one word was stated because from the establishment of the one (the laying down of the training rule), the establishment of the other (the recitation of the Pātimokkha) follows. In the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: “By this, ‘the state of being the domain of the disciples,’ the view of the Elder Mahāpaduma is refuted.” That seems incorrect. Reproach is in one’s presence; slander is behind one’s back. “Bhikkhus, by one who is less than ten years ordained… an offense of wrong doing.” (Mahāvagga 75) The Blessed One, having been of ten years’ seniority as a Buddha, laid down this training rule, because for one of less than ten years’ seniority there was no such laying down of a training rule. At that time, there was no one with more than ten years’ seniority, because those with ten years’ seniority had attained the state of seniority and greatness. Therefore, it is established that this training rule was laid down in Rājagaha itself before the rains residence in Verañjā. When that is established, it is indeed established that the statement, “So long as the Sangha has not attained the state of seniority and greatness,” was said even before this, at the first request. In the Commentary, too, the statement specifying the number, “two training rules,” at the time of attaining the state of seniority and greatness, was said with reference to the statement made at the first request. Otherwise, it would follow that at the time of attaining the state of seniority and greatness there were only two, and no other.

‘‘Atha [Pg.59] kho āyasmato sāriputtassā’’tiādimhi ayamādito paṭṭhāya atthavibhāvanā – ayaṃ kirāyasmā assajittherato paṭiladdhaṃ ekagāthāmattakaṃ dhammapariyāyaṃ nayasatasahassehi vivecento arahattaṃ patvā sāvakapāramīñāṇe ṭhito ‘‘aho vata mahānubhāvoyaṃ saddhammo, yo vināpi dhammasāminā parammukhato sutamattepi mayhaṃ mahantaṃ guṇavisesaṃ janesi, sādhu vatāyaṃ saddhammo ciraṃ tiṭṭheyyā’’ti cintento ‘‘katamesānaṃ nu kho buddhānaṃ bhagavantānaṃ…pe… na ciraṭṭhitika’’nti tamatthaṃ, kāraṇañca attano aggasāvakañāṇena paṭivijjhitvā ‘‘sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattantiādiciraṭṭhitikāraṇa’’nti niṭṭhaṃ katvā vinayapaññattiyācanokāsakaraṇatthaṃ bhagavantaṃ pucchi. Tato pañhassa vissajjane vinayapaññattiyācanokāse sampatte ‘‘etassa bhagavā kālo, etassa sugata kālo’’ti vinayapaññattiṃ yāci. Tato bhagavā tassā yācanāya sampaṭicchitabhāvaṃ, ‘‘etassa bhagavā kālo’’ti vuttakālassa akālataṃ, kālassa ca anaññavisayataṃ dīpento ‘‘āgamehi tva’’ntiādimāha, tato bhagavā tassa yācanaṃ, sattesu kāruññatañca paṭicca ‘‘tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū anupajjhāyakā anācariyakā anovadiyamānā’’tiādinā (mahāva. 64) nayena vepullamahattataṃ paṭicca satthā sāvakānaṃ upajjhāyavattādīni vinayakammāni, tadanurūpasikkhāpadāni ca paññapesi. Tato anukkamena dvādasamavassaṃ verañjāyaṃ vasi. Tadā ca āyasmā sāriputto satthārā niddiṭṭhesu ciraṭṭhitihetūsu jātesu ‘‘navaṅgasatthusāsanamahattatā ca sampati jātā, vinayapaññatti ca bahutarā jātā, pātimokkhuddeso eveko na tāva sāvakānaṃ anuññāto, so ca parisuddhena saṅghena karīyati. Saṅghopi etarahi parisuddho pacchimakassa sotāpannattā’’ti cintetvā pātimokkhuddesaṃ anujānāpetukāmo yattakehi ca sikkhāpadehi pātimokkhuddeso anujānīyati, tattakānaṃ paññattiyācanapubbaṅgamaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ yācanto pubbuppannavitakkasūcanapucchāvissajjanakkamavasena yācanokāse sampatte ‘‘etassa bhagavā kālo’’tiādimāha.

Regarding ‘Then to the Venerable Sāriputta…,’ this is the explanation of the meaning from the beginning. The detailed account is as follows: this venerable one, having received a Dhamma discourse of just a single verse from the Elder Assaji, analyzed it with a hundred thousand methods, attained Arahantship, and, established in the knowledge of a disciple’s perfections, thought: “Oh, how wonderful is this good Dhamma of great power, which, even without the Master of the Dhamma, when merely heard from another, has generated in me such a great special quality! It would be good indeed if this good Dhamma were to last for a long time!” Reflecting thus, he considered: “Of which Blessed Ones, Buddhas… does the teaching not last long?” Having penetrated that matter and its cause with his knowledge as a chief disciple, he came to the conclusion that “the laying down of the training rule for the disciples, and so on, is the cause for the long duration,” and then, to create an opportunity to request the laying down of the Vinaya, he questioned the Blessed One. Then, upon the answering of the question, when the opportunity to request the laying down of the Vinaya arose, he requested the laying down of the Vinaya, saying: “This is the time, Blessed One! This is the time, Sugata!” Then the Blessed One, showing that his request was accepted, that the time stated as ‘This is the time, Blessed One’ was not yet the time, and that the time was not the domain of anyone other than a Buddha, said: “Wait, you…” and so on. Then the Blessed One, on account of his request and his compassion for beings, and on account of the Sangha’s attainment of growth and greatness, laid down for the disciples the Vinaya acts such as the duties of a preceptor, and the training rules corresponding to them, by the method beginning: “Now at that time, the bhikkhus were without preceptors, without teachers, uninstructed…” Then, in due course, he spent the twelfth rains-residence at Verañjā. And at that time, when the causes for the long duration pointed out by the Teacher had arisen, the Venerable Sāriputta reflected: “The greatness of the nine-limbed Teacher’s Dispensation has now come about, and the Vinaya rules laid down have become very many. Only the recitation of the Pātimokkha has not yet been authorized for the disciples, and that is to be done by a pure Sangha. The Sangha, too, is now pure, since the last of them is a stream-enterer.” Wishing to have the recitation of the Pātimokkha authorized, and requesting the recitation of the Pātimokkha, which is preceded by a request for the laying down of as many training rules by which the recitation of the Pātimokkha would be authorized, the Elder, when the opportunity for the request arrived by way of the sequence of indicating the previously arisen thought, questioning, and answering, said: “This is the time, Blessed One…” and so on.

Tattha ‘‘yaṃ bhagavā sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapeyyā’’ti pātimokkhuddesappahonakasikkhāpadaṃ sandhāyāha, ayamattho bhaddālisuttena (ma. ni. 2.134 ādayo) dīpetabbo[Pg.60]. Tattha hi bahūsu sikkhāpadesu paññattesu, paññapiyamānesu ca ‘‘na tāva bhaddāli satthā sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapetī’’tiādi (ma. ni. 2.145) vuttaṃ apaññattaṃ upādāya, tathā idhāpi apaññattaṃ sandhāya vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Parisuddhattā saṅghassa sampati sāvakānaṃ āṇāpātimokkhuddesaṃ nānujānāmīti dassento ‘‘nirabbudo’’tiādimāha. Na hi parisuddhe saṅghe ovādapātimokkhuddesassa anuddesakāraṇaṃ atthi, tasmiṃ sati āṇāpātimokkhuddesānujānanādhippāyato. Tathā ca so tato aṭṭhannaṃvassānaṃ accayena anuññāto. Yathāha pātimokkhaṭhapanakkhandhake (cūḷava. 386) ‘‘na dānāhaṃ, bhikkhave, ito paraṃ uposathaṃ karissāmi…pe… pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyāthā’’ti. Yaṃ pana upasampadakkhandhake (mahāva. 129) ‘‘tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū aññataraṃ bhikkhuṃ upasampādetvā ekakaṃ ohāya pakkamiṃsu…pe… so tassā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevitvā cirena agamāsī’’ti vatthu āgataṃ, taṃ sudinnavatthuto parato uppannampi tattha yathādhikāraṃ samodhānetuṃ vuttaṃ. Tathā tattheva ‘‘ubhayāni kho panassa pātimokkhāni vitthārena svāgatāni hontī’’tiādinā (pāci. 147; a. ni. 8.52; 10.33) aṅgānipi veditabbāni. Na hi ādito eva ubhatopātimokkhāni siddhānīti. Apica ādito paṭṭhāya ayamanukkamo veditabbo, seyyathidaṃ – rāhulakumāre uppanne bodhisatto nikkhamitvā chabbassāni dukkaraṃ katvā sattame abhisambuddho, tasmiṃ eva saṃvacchare kapilavatthuṃ gantvā rāhulakumāraṃ pabbājesi. Ambalaṭṭhikarāhulovādasuttaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.107 ādayo) ‘‘ayañhi āyasmā sattavassikakāle bhagavantaṃ cīvarakaṇṇe gahetvā ‘dāyajjaṃ me samaṇa dehi, dāyajjaṃ me samaṇa dehī’ti dāyajjaṃ yācamāno bhagavatā dhammasenāpatisāriputtattherassa niyyādetvā pabbājito’’ti ca vuttaṃ, tasmā rāhulakumāraṃ ārabbha ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tīhi saraṇagamanehi sāmaṇerapabbajja’’nti (mahāva. 105) vuttattā saraṇagamanūpasampadā paṭhamavassabbhantare eva paṭikkhittā, ñatticatutthakammavasena upasampadā anuññātāti paññāyati. Apica rāhulavatthumhi ‘‘na, bhikkhave, ananuññāto mātāpitūhi putto pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 105) sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ, tasmā ito pubbepi sikkhāpadāni paññattānīti siddhaṃ.

Here, regarding the statement, “Whatever training rule the Blessed One would lay down for the disciples,” He said this referring to a training rule sufficient for the recitation of the Pātimokkha. This meaning should be illustrated by the Bhaddāli Sutta. For there, when many training rules had been laid down and were being laid down, it was said, “Not yet, Bhaddāli, does the Teacher lay down a training rule for the disciples,” and so on, referring to what was not yet laid down. Similarly, here too, it should be understood as referring to what had not yet been laid down. To show, 'Because the Saṅgha is pure, I do not now permit the recitation of the Pātimokkha by command for the disciples,' He said the words beginning with 'nirabbudo' (without blemish). For indeed, when the Saṅgha is pure, there is no reason for not reciting the Pātimokkha of exhortation; for if there were such a reason, it would be because of the intention to permit the recitation of the Pātimokkha by command. And so, after the lapse of eight years from then, it was permitted. As stated in the chapter on the suspension of the Pātimokkha: “Monks, from now on I will not perform the Uposatha… you should recite the Pātimokkha.” However, in the chapter on full ordination, the case is mentioned: “At that time, monks, having given full ordination to a certain monk, left him alone and departed… he, having engaged in sexual intercourse with her, came after a long time.” This incident, though arising later than the Sudinna case, was stated there to be connected according to the context. Likewise, in the same place, the factors are also to be understood from the text beginning with, “Both Pātimokkhas are well-mastered by him in detail,” and so on. For indeed, both Pātimokkhas were not established from the very beginning. Moreover, this sequence should be understood from the beginning, namely: When Prince Rāhula was born, the Bodhisatta went forth, practiced austerities for six years, and attained full enlightenment in the seventh. In that same year, he went to Kapilavatthu and ordained Prince Rāhula. In the commentary to the Ambalaṭṭhikarāhulovāda Sutta, it is also said: “For this venerable one, at the age of seven, took hold of the corner of the Blessed One’s robe and, while asking for his inheritance saying, ‘Give me my inheritance, ascetic, give me my inheritance, ascetic,’ was handed over by the Blessed One to the Elder Sāriputta, the General of the Dhamma, and ordained.” Therefore, because it was said on account of Prince Rāhula, 'Monks, I allow the going forth as a novice with the three refuges,' it appears that the full ordination by taking refuge was rejected within the first year itself, and the full ordination by means of a motion and three announcements was permitted. Furthermore, in the case of Rāhula, the training rule was laid down: “Monks, a son should not be ordained without the permission of his parents. Whoever ordains him commits an offense of wrong-doing.” Therefore, it is established that training rules had been laid down even before this.

Sutvā [Pg.61] ca yo hetunirodhamaggaṃ,Nirodhupāyaṃ paṭivijjhi khippaṃ;

Jātovapekkhena asesametaṃ,Lokaṃ vipassī sugataggasisso.

He who, having heard of the noble cessation of causes, quickly penetrated the means to cessation—that foremost disciple of the Sugata, seeing the world with insight, became one who, with contemplative wisdom, comprehended this entire matter without remainder.

So dhammasenāpati aggasisso,Saddhammarājassa tathāgatassa;

Sayaṃ munindena yasassa patto,Anekaso soḷasadhā pasattho.

That Elder, the General of the Dhamma, the foremost disciple of the Tathāgata, the King of the True Dhamma, attained to glory in the Dispensation, having been praised many times and in sixteen ways by the Lord of Sages himself.

Tasmā hi sikkhāpadabandhakālo,Ñātumpi loke atibhāriyova;

Pageva sikkhāpadabhāvabhedo,Pageva añño ubhayattha tattha.

Therefore indeed, even to know the time of establishing a training rule is extremely difficult in the world; how much more so the distinction in the nature of a training rule, and how much more so any other distinction concerning both of these.

Paccekabuddhā api taṃ dvayantu,Ñātuṃ na sakkāva pageva netuṃ;

Nissaṃsayaṃ tattha tathāgatova,Jānissaticcāha tathāgatoti.

Even Paccekabuddhas are indeed unable to know that pair; how much more so are they unable to lead others to know it. In that matter, only the Tathāgata will know without a doubt; therefore, it is said, 'Tathāgata'.

Iccetamatthaṃ idha bhikkhu ñatvā,Sikkhāpadānaṃ kamabhāvabhedaṃ;

Ñātuṃ sayaṃ no na pare ca netuṃ,Pariyesitabbo idha yuttimaggo.

A monk in this Dispensation, having understood this meaning—that one is not able to know for oneself the distinction in the sequence and nature of the training rules, nor to lead others to know it—should seek here the suitable method.

Tattha kamabhedo sikkhāpadānaṃ parato āvi bhavissati. Bhāvabhedo tāva ukkhittakānuvattanapaccayā bhikkhu anāpattiko, bhikkhunī pana samanubhaṭṭhā pārājikā hoti. Pārājikāpattipaṭicchādane bhikkhussa dukkaṭaṃ, bhikkhuniyā pārājikaṃ. Duṭṭhullaṃ ārocentassa, paṭicchādentassa ca pācittiyaṃ. Mahāsāvajjaṃ pārājikaṃ ārocentassa, paṭicchādentassa ca bhikkhussa dukkaṭaṃ. Iccevamādīhi abhāvabhedasikkhāpadānaṃ idha bhāvabhedena yuttipariyesanaṃ sādhayamānopi siyā anummādavighātabhāgīti. Ettāvatā sakalassapi vinayapiṭakassa vitakkayācanakālakālaññūkāraṇaphalapayojanehi sattahi aṅgehi paṭimaṇḍitaṃ nidānamāyasmatā upālittherena nidassitaṃ hoti. Tattha therassa vinayapaññattiyācanahetubhūto [Pg.62] vitakko nāma. Tasseva ‘‘etassa bhagavā kālo’’tiādinā pavattā yācanā nāma. Rattaññūvepullalābhaggabāhusaccamahattappatti kālo nāma. Sabbaññū eva kālaññū nāma. Āsavaṭṭhānīyānaṃ dhammānaṃ pātubhāvo kāraṇaṃ nāma. ‘‘Tesaṃyeva āsavaṭṭhānīyānaṃ dhammānaṃ paṭighātāyā’’ti vacanato āsavaṭṭhānīyadhammapaṭighāto phalaṃ nāma. ‘‘Yathayidaṃ brahmacariyaṃ addhaniyaṃ assā’’ti vacanato sāsanabrahmacariyassa ciraṭṭhiti payojananti veditabbaṃ. Hoti cettha –

Here, the distinction in the sequence of the training rules will become apparent later on. As for the distinction in nature, firstly, on account of following an expelled monk, a monk is without offense; but a nun, having been formally censured, is defeated (pārājikā). For concealing a pārājika offense, there is a wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) for a monk; for a nun, it is a pārājika offense. For one who reports or conceals a gross offense (duṭṭhulla), there is a pācittiya offense. For a monk who reports or conceals a grave pārājika offense, there is a wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). Thus, by these and other examples, even while accomplishing the search for what is suitable by means of a distinction in nature for training rules that here have no such distinction, one might be of a nature free from madness and distress. By this much, the introduction to the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, adorned with seven factors—reasoning, requesting, timing, the knower of the right time, cause, result, and purpose—has been shown by the venerable Upāli Thera. Therein, what is called 'reasoning' (vitakka) is the Thera’s thought which was the reason for requesting the formulation of the Vinaya rules. What is called 'requesting' (yācanā) is that which occurred through statements like, “Blessed One, this is the time for it.” What is called 'timing' (kāla) is the attainment of greatness in seniority, greatness in abundance, greatness in the highest of gains, and greatness in great learning. The All-knowing One alone is called 'the knower of the right time' (kālaññū). The arising of defilement-producing phenomena is called 'cause' (kāraṇa). The result (phala) is the destruction of those very defilement-producing phenomena, as stated: “for the sake of destroying those very defilement-producing phenomena.” The purpose (payojana) is the long endurance of the holy life of the Dispensation, according to the statement: “so that this holy life may endure for a long time”; thus it should be known. And here there is this:

‘‘Vitakko yācanā kālo, kālaññū kāraṇaṃ phalaṃ;

Payojananti sattaṅgaṃ, nidānaṃ vinayassidhā’’ti.

“Reflection, requesting, the time, the knower of the time, the cause, the result, and the purpose—thus the introduction to the Vinaya here has seven factors.”

22. Antimamaṇḍalanti abbhantaramaṇḍalaṃ. Tañhi itaresaṃ anto hoti, khuddakamaṇḍalaṃ vā. Anumatidānavasena tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ datvā. Tesaṃ buddhānaṃ cārikāya vinetabbā veneyyasattā. Ocinantā viyāti bahupupphaṃ gacchaṃ mālākārā ciraṃ ocinanti, evaṃ bahuveneyyesu gāmādīsu ciraṃ vasantā veneyyapuññaṃ pariharantā caranti. Santaṃ sukhaṃ, na vedanāsukhaṃ viya saparipphandaṃ. Dasasahassacakkavāḷeti devānaṃ vasena vuttaṃ. Manussā pana imasmiṃyeva cakkavāḷe bodhaneyyā uppajjanti. Mahākaruṇāya dhuvaṃ sattasamavalokanaṃ. Otiṇṇeti parisamajjhaṃ āgate, ārocite vā. Yena kāraṇena mayaṃ tumhākaṃ deyyadhammaṃ dadeyyāma, taṃ kuto sakkā laddhuṃ. Bahukiccā hi gharāvāsāti. Dutiyavikappe tanti deyyadhammaṃ. ‘‘Tumhehi taṃ kuto laddhā’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘paṭhamaṃ kiriyaṃ pekkhati, dutiyaṃ deyyadhamma’’nti vadanti. Ācariyo pana ‘‘paṭhamayojanāya yaṃ dānapuññaṃ, taṃ kuto labbhā. Puññantarāyabahulā hi gharāvāsāti. Dutiyayojanāya temāsabbhantare yamahaṃ dadeyyaṃ, atikkantakālattā tamahaṃ sampati kuto dadeyyanti dassetī’’ti vadati. Sīlādikusaladhammasandassanādidhammaratanavassaṃ.

22. “The outermost circle” means the innermost circle. For it is inside the others, or it is a small circle. Having given to those monks by way of granting permission. Those beings to be trained are to be disciplined by the journeying of those Buddhas. “Like those who pick flowers” means that just as garland-makers pick for a long time from a bush with many flowers, so too, dwelling for a long time in villages and other places with many to be trained, they wander, bearing the merit of those to be trained. Peaceful happiness, not like the happiness of feeling which is accompanied by agitation. “The ten-thousandfold world-system” is spoken of with reference to the devas. Humans who are to be enlightened, however, arise only in this very world-system. Through great compassion, there is constant, thorough observation of beings. “Having descended” means having come into the midst of the assembly, or having been announced. “The gift that we would give you, where could it be obtained? For household life has many duties.” In the second alternative, ‘that’ refers to the gift. “How was that obtained by you?” is said in the sub-commentary. Some, however, say: “The first refers to the action; the second, to the gift.” The teacher, however, says: “In the first interpretation: ‘Whatever merit of giving there is, where can it be obtained? For household life is full of obstacles to merit.’ In the second interpretation, he shows this meaning: ‘Whatever I would have given within the three months, since that time has passed, how could I now give that?’” The rain of the jewel of the Dhamma, which is the demonstration of skillful qualities such as virtue, and so on.

23. Pattuṇṇadese pattuṇṇaṃ paṭavaraṃ. Mahāyāganti mahādānaṃ. Paripuṇṇasaṅkappanti temāsaṃ sotabbaṃ ajja suṇinti.

23. In the Pattuṇṇa country, Pattuṇṇa cloth is the finest cloth. “A great sacrifice” means a great gift. “Fulfilled intention” means: “The teaching that should be heard for three months, I have heard today.”

Tatridanti idaṃ kāraṇaṃ.

“Therein, this” means this cause.

Upāli [Pg.63] dāsakoti ācariyaparamparato. Bāhirabbhantaranidānaṃ, sikkhāpadānaṃ paññattiṭṭhānasaṅkhātaṃ āveṇikanidānañca sandhāyāha ‘‘nidānassa pabhedadīpanato’’ti. Theravādādi vatthuppabhedo. Sakāya paṭiññāya mettiyaṃ bhikkhuniṃ nāsethātiādi parasamayavivajjanatotiādi. Vibhaṅganayabhedadassanatoti tisso itthiyo bhūmaṭṭhaṃ thalaṭṭhantiādi. Etthāha – kiṃ bhagavato mārāvaṭṭanapaṭighātāya satti natthīti? Atthi, tathāpissa pacchā upaguttakāle pasādahetuttā adhivāseti. Ettha upaguttādhiṭṭhānaṃ vattabbaṃ. Buddhānaṃ āciṇṇanti dijadassanena kiṃpayojananti ce? Mārāvaṭṭanahetu brāhmaṇassa puññantarāyoti payojanaṃ.

Beginning with Upāli and Dāsaka, by way of the succession of teachers. Referring to the external and internal introductions, and the special introduction known as the basis for the promulgation of the training rules, he said, “because of the clarification of the divisions of the introduction.” The divisions of the subject matter are the Theravāda and so on. Referring to, “Destroy the bhikkhunī Mettiyā by your own promise,” and so on, he said, “because of the rejection of other doctrines.” Referring to, “three women—ground-dwelling, land-dwelling,” and so on, he said, “because of showing the divisions of the method of analysis.” Here, one might ask: “Does the Blessed One not have the power to repel Māra’s turning?” He does. Nevertheless, later, at the time of Upagutta, because it is a cause for faith, He endures it. Here, the determination of Upagutta should be told. If it is asked, “What is the purpose of the Buddhas’ custom of seeing the brahmin?” The purpose is: there is an obstruction to the brahmin’s merit on account of Māra’s turning.

Dijopi so māramanorathassa,Bhaṅgaṃ karonto jinapuṅgavassa;

Sassissasaṅghassa adāsi dānaṃ,Asesakaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍabhedaṃ.

That brahmin also, frustrating Māra’s desire, gave a gift of various allowable goods without remainder to the foremost of conquerors, together with his community of disciples.

Kiṃ bhagavā sasisso tāva mahantaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ ubbhaṇḍikaṃ katvā agamāsīti? Na agamāsi, temāsibhāgiyaṃ pana puññarāsikaṃ deyyadhammaṃ appaṭikkhipanto brāhmaṇassa upāyato satthā adāsi.

Did the Blessed One, with his disciples, having made a bundle of so many allowable goods, then depart? He did not depart. However, not rejecting the offered item, which was a mass of merit for a three-month portion, the Teacher, by a skillful means, gave it back to the brahmin.

Tadaññathā māramanorathova,Pūro siyā neva dijassa bhiyyo;

Pāpaṃ mahantaṃ api pāpuṇeyya,Micchābhimānena tathāgate so.

Otherwise, only Māra’s wish would be fulfilled, and the brahmin’s wish would not be. Moreover, that brahmin might also incur great demerit through wrong pride towards the Tathāgata.

Tasmā bhagavā assādiyanto taṃ deyyadhammaṃ appaṭikkhipanto upāyena brāhmaṇassa puññabuddhiṃ katvā, mārassa ca manorathavighātaṃ katvā agamāsīti, ‘‘ayaṃ nayo aṭṭhakathaṃ vināpi pāḷinayānulomato siddho’’ti vadanti. Kathaṃ? –

“Therefore, the Blessed One, while not delighting in it, yet not rejecting that offered item, by a skillful means caused the brahmin's merit to increase, and having frustrated Māra’s wish, departed.” They say, “This method is established even without the commentary, in accordance with the way of the Pāḷi.” How so? –

‘‘Satthā sasisso yadi aggahesi,Dijassa taṃ cīvaramāditova;

Nāthassa no vīsativassakāle,Virujjhate jīvakayācanāpi;

Tathāpi sabbaṃ suvicārayitvā,Yuttaṃ nayaṃ cintayituṃva yutta’’nti.

“If the Teacher with his disciples had accepted that robe of the brahmin from the very beginning, would not Jīvaka’s request in the Lord’s twentieth year also be contradicted? Nevertheless, having considered everything well, it is proper to reflect upon a suitable method.” The story of Verañjā is finished.

Idāni [Pg.64] āyasmā upālitthero vinayapaññattiyā sādhāraṇanidānaṃ dassetvā sikkhāpadānaṃ pāṭekkaṃ paññattiṭṭhānasaṅkhātaṃ nidānamādiṃ katvā puggalapaññattianupaññattivibhāgāpattibhedantarāpattiādikaṃ nānappakāraṃ vidhiṃ nijjaṭaṃ niggumbaṃ katvā dassetuṃ ‘‘atha kho bhagavā verañjāyaṃ yathābhirantaṃ viharitvā’’tiādimāhāti. Idha ṭhatvā –

Now the Venerable Elder Upāli, having shown the common introduction to the Vinaya regulations, in order to explain—making them unentangled and clear, and beginning with the introduction for each training rule individually, known as the basis of promulgation—the various procedures such as the individual regulation, supplementary regulation, analysis of offenses, different kinds of offenses, and so on, spoke the words beginning, “Then the Blessed One, having stayed at Verañjā as long as he pleased…” Standing here—

Sikkhāpadāna sabbesaṃ, kamabhedaṃ pakāsaye;

Tasmiṃ siddhe nidānānaṃ, kamasiddhi yato bhave.

One should make clear the sequence and distinctions of all the training rules; for when that is accomplished, the accomplishment of the sequence of the introductions comes to be.

Tattha sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ yathāsambhavaṃ desanākkamo pahānakkamo paṭipattikkamo uppattikkamoti catubbidho kamo labbhati. Tattha bhagavatā rājagahe bhikkhūnaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ anujānantena pātimokkhuddesassa yo desanākkamo anuññāto, taṃ desanākkamamanulomento āyasmā mahākassapo paṭhamaṃ pārājikuddesaṃ pucchi, tadanantaraṃ saṅghādisesuddesaṃ, tato aniyatuddesaṃ vitthāruddesañca pucchitvā tadanantaraṃ bhikkhunīvibhaṅgañca teneva anukkamena pucchi, nidānuddesantogadhānañca sarūpena anuddiṭṭhānaṃ pucchanatthaṃ khandhakepi pucchi. Etena ca khandhake paññattā thullaccayā saṅgahitā honti. Pucchitānukkameneva upālitthero taṃ sabbaṃ sāpattibhedādikaṃ desento thullaccayadubbhāsitaāpattisamuṭṭhānādidīpakaṃ antokatvā desesi, ayamettha desanākkamo. Ubhatovibhaṅgakhandhakato pana uccinitvā tadā parivārapāḷi visuṃ katā. Imameva nayaṃ sandhāya aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘eteneva upāyena khandhakaparivārepi āropesu’’ntiādi (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā). Apica pāḷiyā ‘‘etenevupāyena ubhatovinaye pucchi. Puṭṭho puṭṭho āyasmā upāli vissajjesī’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ, tasmā mahākassapo ubhatovibhaṅge eva pucchi. Vissajjento pana āyasmā upāli nivarasesaṃ desento khandhakaparivāre antokatvā desesi. Tadā ca khandhakaparivārapāḷi visuṃ katāti ayaṃ desanākkamo. Yadi evaṃ nidānuddeso paṭhamaṃ desetabboti ce? Na, tadasambhavato. So hi ‘‘yassa siyā āpattī’’tiādinā (mahāva. 134) nayena pavattattā paṭhamaṃ sikkhāpadasaṅgahitāsu āpattīsu adassitāsu na sambhavati. ‘‘Yāni mayā bhikkhūnaṃ paññattāni sikkhāpadāni, tāni nesaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ anujāneyya’’nti vacanato sikkhāpadāneva paṭhamaṃ desetabbānīti pārājikuddesakkamo sambhavati.

Here, a fourfold sequence regarding all the training rules is obtained according to what is suitable: the sequence of teaching, the sequence of abandoning, the sequence of practice, and the sequence of arising. Among these, when the Blessed One at Rājagaha, in allowing the monks the Pātimokkha recitation, permitted a sequence of teaching for it, the Venerable Mahākassapa, conforming to that sequence of teaching, first questioned about the Pārājika recitation, and after that, the Saṅghādisesa recitation. Then, having questioned about the Aniyata recitation and the detailed recitation, he thereafter questioned about the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga in the very same order. And for the purpose of asking about those things which, though included in the Nidāna-uddesa, were not stated in their own form, he also questioned about the Khandhakas. And by this, the Thullaccaya offenses laid down in the Khandhakas are included. Following the very sequence of questioning, the Elder Upāli, while teaching all of that beginning with the classification of offenses, taught it including that which illuminates the arising of Thullaccaya and Dubbhāsita offenses, etc. This, here, is the sequence of teaching. But then, having selected from the Ubhatovibhaṅga and the Khandhakas, at that time the Parivāra text was made separate. With reference to this very method, it is said in the commentary: “By this very means, they also included it in the Khandhakas and the Parivāra,” and so on. Moreover, in the Pāḷi only this much is said: “By this very means he questioned about both Vinayas. Being questioned again and again, the Venerable Upāli answered.” Therefore, Mahākassapa questioned only about the Ubhatovibhaṅga. But the Venerable Upāli, when answering, taught without remainder, including the Khandhakas and the Parivāra. And at that time, the Khandhaka and Parivāra texts were made separate. This is the sequence of teaching. If it is said, “If so, should the Nidāna-uddesa be taught first?” No, because that is not possible. For since it proceeds by the method, “If there should be an offense for someone,” etc., it is not possible before the offenses included in the training rules have been shown. Based on the statement, “Those training rules that have been laid down by me for the monks, those he should permit them for the Pātimokkha recitation,” the training rules themselves must be taught first. Thus, the sequence of the Pārājika recitation is possible.

Pārājikuddesādisaṅgahitānaṃ [Pg.65] āpattiakusalānaṃ yathoḷārikakkamena pahātabbattā pahānakkamopettha sambhavati. Upasampannasamanantaraṃ ‘‘tāvadeva cattāri akaraṇīyāni ācikkhitabbānī’’ti (mahāva. 129) vacanato ‘‘samādāya sikkhati sikkhāpadesū’’ti (dī. ni. 1.193) vacanato ca yathā garukaṃ ācikkhaṇaṃ sikkhanena paṭipattikkamopettha sambhavati, evamimehi tīhi kamehi desetabbānampetesaṃ sikkhāpadānaṃ yathāsambhavaṃ uppattikkamo sambhavati. Tathā hi yaṃ yaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ, taṃ taṃ bhikkhuṃ ārabbha uppanne eva vatthusmiṃ ‘‘yā pana bhikkhunī chandaso methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyā’’ti bhikkhunīnampi paññattaṃ. Aññathā taṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ anuppannapaññatti siyā. Tato ‘‘anuppannapaññatti tasmiṃ natthī’’ti (pari. 247) parivāre etaṃ vacanaṃ virujjhati, ettāvatā purimena kamattayena paṭhamaṃ desetabbataṃ patte pārājikuddese paṭhamuppannattā methunadhammapārājikaṃ sabbapaṭhamaṃ desetukāmo upālitthero ‘‘tatra sudaṃ bhagavā vesāliya’’nti vesālimeva pāpetvā ṭhapesi. Aññathā bārāṇasiyaṃ paññattānaṃ ‘‘na, bhikkhave, manussamaṃsaṃ paribhuñjitabba’’nti (mahāva. 280) evamādīnaṃ desanādhippāye sati bārāṇasiṃ pāpetvā ṭhapeyyāti.

The sequence of abandoning also arises here, because the unwholesome states that are offenses, included in the Pārājika recitation and so on, are to be abandoned in sequence according to their grossness. Immediately after full ordination, because of the statements, “The four things not to be done should be explained at once,” and, “One trains by undertaking the training rules,” the sequence of practice also arises here through training in accordance with the declaration of the grave offenses. Thus, for these training rules that are to be taught by these three sequences, the sequence of arising is possible according to circumstance. For so it is: whichever training rule is common, when a case has arisen concerning a monk, that very rule is also laid down for nuns with the words, “Whatever nun should willingly engage in sexual intercourse…” Otherwise, that would be a rule without a precedent for the nuns. Therefore, this would contradict the statement in the Parivāra, “There is no rule without a precedent in that case.” To this extent, in the Pārājika recitation, which, by the former triad of sequences, attained the state of being what should be taught first, and because the Pārājika on sexual intercourse arose first, the Elder Upāli, wishing to teach it first of all, established the setting in Vesālī itself with the words, “There, it is said, the Blessed One was in Vesālī…” Otherwise, if there were an intention to teach the training rules laid down in Bārāṇasī, such as, “Monks, human flesh is not to be eaten,” he would have established the setting in Bārāṇasī.

Abbhantaranidānakathā niṭṭhitā.

The Discourse on the Internal Preamble is concluded.

Verañjakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Verañja Section is concluded.

1. Pārājikakaṇḍo

1. The Chapter on Defeat

1. Paṭhamapārājikaṃ

1. The First Offense of Defeat

Sudinnabhāṇavāravaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Recitation Section concerning Sudinna

Paṭhamassettha [Pg.66] nidāne, ṭhatvā pārājikassa viññeyyo;

Codanāparihāranayo, puggalavatthuppakāsaneyeva.

Here, standing in the prologue of the first pārājika, the method of accusation and defense should be understood precisely in the exposition of the person and the case.

Tattha bhagavā verañjāyaṃ vutthavasso anupubbena cārikaṃ caranto kattikajuṇhapakkhe eva vesāliṃ pāpuṇitvā yāva paṭhamapārājikasikkhāpadapaññāpanaṃ, tāva aṭṭha vassāni vesāliyaṃyeva viharanto viya pāḷikkamena dissati, na ca bhagavā tāvattakaṃ kālaṃ tattheva vihāsi. So hi sudinnassa sāvakānaṃ santike pabbajjaṃ upasampadañca anujānitvā yathābhirantaṃ tattha viharitvā cārikaṃ caranto bhesakaḷāvanaṃ patvā tattha terasamaṃ vassaṃ vasi, teneva anukkamena sāvatthiṃ patvā cuddasamaṃ vassaṃ vasi, pannarasamaṃ kapilavatthumhi, soḷasamaṃ āḷaviyaṃ, tato vutthavasso cārikaṃ caranto rājagahaṃ patvā sattarasamaṃ vasi, iminā anukkamena aparānipi tīṇi vassāni tattheva vasi. Ettāvatā bhagavā paripuṇṇavīsativasso rājagahato anupubbena vesāliṃ pāpuṇi, tato upasampadāya aṭṭhavassiko sudinno vesāliyaṃyeva methunaṃ dhammaṃ abhiviññāpesi, tato bhagavā tasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ paṭhamaṃ pārājikaṃ paññapesīti veditabbaṃ. Tattha yasmā upālitthero ito paṭhamataraṃ tattha vesāliyañca paññattasikkhāpadāni adassetukāmo, vinayanidānānantaraṃ paṭhamapārājikameva dassetukāmo, tasmā vesāliyaṃ paṭhamaṃ nivāsaṃ, pacchā imassa sikkhāpadassa paññattikāle nivāsañca ekato katvā ‘‘tatra sudaṃ bhagavā vesāliya’’ntiādimāha, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘paṭhamassettha nidāne, ṭhatvā …pe… pakāsaneyevā’’ti. Tasmā imasmiṃ paṭhamapārājikassa paññattiṭṭhānasaṅkhāte nidāne ṭhatvā ‘‘tena kho pana samayena vesāliyā avidūre kalandagāmo nāma hoti…pe… aññataraṃ vajjigāmaṃ upanissāya viharatī’’ti etasmiṃ imassa sikkhāpadassa puggalappakāsane, ‘‘tena kho pana samayena vajjī dubbhikkhā hoti…pe… tikkhattuṃ methunaṃ dhammaṃ abhiviññāpesī’’ti (pārā. 30) imasmiṃ vatthuppakāsane ca codanānayo, parihāranayo ca veditabboti [Pg.67] vuttaṃ hoti. Tatrāyaṃ pakāsanā – kimatthaṃ therena aññesaṃ sikkhāpadānaṃ puggalavatthūni viya saṅkhepato avatvā yattha ca so uppanno, yathā ca dhamme pasanno, yathā ca pabbajito, yathā ca imaṃ vatthuṃ uppādeti, taṃ sabbaṃ anavasesetvā puggalavatthūni vitthārato vuttānīti ce? Vuccate –

There, the Blessed One, having completed the rains-residence at Verañjā, wandering by stages, arrived at Vesālī in the bright fortnight of Kattika. Up to the laying down of the first Pārājika training rule, he appears, in the sequence of the Pāli, to have resided in Vesālī for eight years. However, the Blessed One did not stay there for that entire period. For, having granted the going forth and full ordination to Sudinna in the presence of the disciples, he stayed there as long as he pleased and then wandered on. Reaching the Bhesakaḷāvana, he spent his thirteenth rains-residence there. Following this sequence, he arrived at Sāvatthī and spent his fourteenth rains-residence there, his fifteenth at Kapilavatthu, and his sixteenth at Āḷavī. Then, having completed the rains-residence, he wandered on and reached Rājagaha, where he spent his seventeenth rains-residence. In this manner, he spent three more years there. By this time, the Blessed One had completed twenty years and gradually arrived at Vesālī from Rājagaha. Then, Sudinna, who had been ordained for eight years, engaged in sexual intercourse there in Vesālī. Then, regarding this matter, the Blessed One laid down the first Pārājika rule—this is to be understood. Here, because the Elder Upāli did not wish to show the training rules laid down prior to this one, both there and in Vesālī, but wished to show only the first Pārājika immediately after the origin of the Vinaya, he therefore combined the first residence in Vesālī and the later residence at the time of the laying down of this training rule and said, 'At that time, the Blessed One was dwelling at Vesālī…' Therefore, it is said, 'In this origin of the first… it should be explained.' Thus, standing in this origin of the first Pārājika, which is designated as the place of its establishment, it is said that in the exposition of the individual related to this training rule—namely, 'At that time, not far from Vesālī, there was a village named Kalandagāma… dwelling near a certain Vajjian village'—and in the exposition of the matter—'At that time, the Vajjis were suffering from famine… he engaged in sexual intercourse three times'—the method of accusation and the method of resolution should be understood. Herein, this exposition: If it is asked, 'Why did the Elder not state the individuals and matters related to other training rules briefly, as with other training rules, but instead described in detail, without omitting anything, where he arose, how he gained faith in the Dhamma, how he went forth, and how he caused this matter to arise?' It is said—

Evaṃ saddhāya kicchena, mahante bhogañātake;

Hitvā pabbajitānampi, pesalānampi sabbaso.

Thus, with great faith, having abandoned great possessions and relatives, even for those who have gone forth with difficulty, and for those who are altogether virtuous,

Sabbalāmakadhammāyaṃ, methuno yadi sambhave;

Na dhammadesanāyeva, siddhā virati sabbaso.

If this act of sexual intercourse, the lowest of all things, should occur, then complete abstinence is in no way accomplished by the teaching of the Dhamma alone.

Tasmā navaṅgasaddhamme, satthārā desitepi ca;

Vinayo paññapetabbo, tato dhammavisuddhihi.

Therefore, even though the nine-factored Good Dhamma has been taught by the Teacher, the Vinaya should be laid down. From that, indeed, comes the special purity of the Dhamma.

Vinayābhāvato evaṃ, ajjhācāro bhavissati;

Tasmā vinayapaññatti, sātthikā pesalassapi.

Thus, due to the absence of the Vinaya, transgression will occur. Therefore, the laying down of the Vinaya is beneficial even for the virtuous.

Anādīnavadassāvī, yasmā yaṃ pāpamācari;

Vinayoyeva saddhānaṃ, ādīnavavibhāvino.

Because one who does not see the danger commits an evil act, it is only the Vinaya that makes the danger clear to the faithful.

Tasmā saddhānusārīnaṃ, vinayo sātthakova yaṃ;

Dhammo dhammānusārīnaṃ, tato ubhayadesanā.

Therefore, this Vinaya is indeed beneficial for the faith-followers, and this Dhamma is indeed beneficial for the Dhamma-followers. Therefore, there is the teaching of both.

Api ca yadi paṇṇattivītikkamaṃ akarontassāpi yāva brahmalokā ayaso patthaṭo, pagevaññesanti dassanatthaṃ ajjhācārassa pākaṭabhāvadīpanaṃ. Kathaṃ? –

Furthermore, if ill repute spread as far as the Brahma world even for one not transgressing the rule, what then to say of others? This is to show the manifest nature of the transgression. How?

Abhabbo arahattassa, sudinno puttamātaro;

Bhabbānuppannapaññatti, tadatthaṃ na katā ayaṃ.

Sudinna is incapable of Arahantship; the son and mother are capable. This rule concerning what had not yet arisen was not made for their sake.

Nanu māgaṇḍikaṃ ajjhupekkhitvā mātāpitūnamassā hitatthaṃ dhammaṃ desetīti imamatthaṃ dassetuṃ bījakabījakamātūnaṃ arahattuppatti therena dīpitā. ‘‘Tena kho pana samayena vesāliyā avidūre kalandagāmo nāma hoti, yena samayena sudinno purāṇadutiyikāya methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevī’’ti vā ‘‘yena samayena bhagavā paṭhamapārājikaṃ paññapesī’’ti vā vacanaṃ idha na yujjati. Kasmā? ‘‘Idha pana hetuattho karaṇattho ca sambhavatī’’ti vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanañhi idha na labbhati. Ciraniviṭṭho hi so gāmo[Pg.68], na tasmiṃyeva samayeti. Yasmā pana so ciraniviṭṭhopi ca gāmo attano niviṭṭhakālato paṭṭhāya sabbakālamatthīti vattabbataṃ arahati, tena pariyāyena ‘‘tena kho pana samayena vesāliyā avidūre kalandagāmo nāma hotī’’ti vuttaṃ.

Was it not that, having disregarded Māgaṇḍikā, he taught the Dhamma for the welfare of her parents? To show this meaning, the Elder explained the attainment of Arahantship by Bījaka and his mother. The statement, 'Now at that time, not far from Vesālī, there is a village named Kalandagāma, at which time Sudinna engaged in sexual intercourse with his former wife,' or 'at which time the Blessed One laid down the first Pārājika rule,' is not suitable here. Why? Because the commentary statement, 'Here, however, the meaning of cause and the meaning of instrument are possible,' is not found here. For that village was long-established, not just at that very time. But since that village, though long-established, deserves to be spoken of as existing at all times from the time of its establishment, for that reason it was said, 'Now at that time, not far from Vesālī, there is a village named Kalandagāma.'

25-6. Anuññātosi pana tvanti samaṇavattadassanatthaṃ bhagavā pucchati. Mātāpitūhi ananuññātanti ettha janakeheva ananuññātadassanatthaṃ pucchīti vuttaṃ. Na kho sudinna tathāgatāti ‘‘pabbājetu maṃ bhagavā’’ti yācanāvasena panevamāha, na bhagavā sayaṃ saraṇāni datvā pabbājesi. Dukkhassāti ettha ‘‘kalabhāgampī’’ti pāṭhaseso. Vikappadvayepīti dutiyatatiyavikappesu. Purimapadassāti kiñcīti padassa. Uttarapadenāti dukkhassāti padena. Samānavibhattīti sāmivacanaṃ. Yathā kiṃ? ‘‘Kassaci dukkhassā’’ti vattabbe ‘‘kiñci dukkhassā’’ti vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Akāmakā vinā bhavissāmāti tayā saddhiṃ amaritvā akāmā jīvissāma. Sacepi na marāma, akāmakāva tayā viyogaṃ pāpuṇissāma, tayi jīvamāne eva no maraṇaṃ bhaveyya, maraṇenapi no tayā viyogaṃ mayaṃ akāmakāva pāpuṇissāma.

25-6. The Blessed One asks, 'But are you permitted?' to show the proper conduct of a recluse. Here, 'Not permitted by mother and father' is said to show that he was not permitted by his very parents. 'Not so, Sudinna, the Tathāgatas'—this he said by way of a request, 'May the Blessed One ordain me.' The Blessed One did not ordain him by giving the refuges himself. Here, regarding 'of suffering,' the remainder of the reading is 'even a portion.' 'In both alternatives' refers to the second and third alternatives. 'Of the former word' refers to the word 'something.' 'By the latter word' refers to the word 'of suffering.' 'Same grammatical case' refers to the genitive case. How so? It should be understood that instead of saying, 'of some suffering,' it is said, 'of something's suffering.' 'Unwillingly, we shall be without you' means: 'Not dying together with you, we shall live on unwillingly.' Even if we do not die, we shall unwillingly be separated from you. While you are still living, it would be our death; and even by our death, we would unwillingly be separated from you.

30. Katipāhaṃ balaṃ gāhetvāti kasmā panāyaṃ tathā pabbajjāya tibbacchando anuññāto samāno katipāhaṃ ghareyeva vilambitvā kāyabalañca aggahesīti? Anumatidānena mātāpitūsu sahāyakesu ca tuṭṭho tesaṃ cittatuṭṭhatthaṃ. Kesuci aṭṭhakathāpotthakesu keci ācariyā ‘‘ayaṃ sudinno jīvakavatthuto pacchā paṃsukūlikadhutaṅgavasena paṃsukūliko jāto’’ti saññāya ‘‘gahapaticīvaraṃ paṭikkhipitvā paṃsukūlikadhutaṅgavasena paṃsukūliko hotī’’ti likhanti, taṃ ‘‘acirūpasampanno’’ti vacanena virujjhati. ‘‘Tathā sudinno hi bhagavato dvādasame vasse pabbajito, vīsatime vasse ñātikulaṃ piṇḍāya paviṭṭho sayaṃ pabbajjāya aṭṭhavassiko hutvā’’ti, ‘‘bhagavato hi buddhattaṃ pattato paṭṭhāya yāva idaṃ vatthaṃ, etthantare vīsati vassāni na koci gahapaticīvaraṃ sādiyi, sabbe paṃsukūlikāva ahesu’’nti ca vuttena aṭṭhakathāvacanena virujjhati, pabbajjāya aṭṭhavassiko, na upasampadāya. Upasampadaṃ pana jīvakavatthuto (mahāva. 326) pacchā [Pg.69] alattha, tasmā avassiko ñātikulaṃ piṇḍāya paviṭṭho siyāti ce? Na, ‘‘alattha kho sudinno kalandaputto bhagavato santike pabbajjaṃ, alattha upasampada’’nti ekato anantaraṃ vuttattā. Pabbajjānantarameva hi so upasampanno terasadhutaṅgaguṇe samādāya vattanto aṭṭha vassāni vajjigāme viharitvā nissayamuttattā sayaṃvasī hutvā ‘‘etarahi kho vajjī dubbhikkhā’’tiāditakkavasena yena vesālī tadavasari, tasmā ‘‘paṃsukūlikadhutaṅgavasena paṃsukūliko hotī’’ti ettakoyeva pāṭho yesu potthakesu dissati, sova pamāṇato gahetabbo. ‘‘Āraññiko hotī’’ti iminā pañca senāsanapaṭisaṃyuttāni saṅgahitāni nesajjikaṅgañca vihārasabhāgattā, ‘‘piṇḍapātiko’’ti iminā pañca piṇḍapātapaṭisaṃyuttāni, ‘‘paṃsukūliko’’ti iminā dve cīvarapaṭisaṃyuttāni saṅgahitānīti. Ñātigharūpagamanakāraṇadīpanādhippāyato sapadānacārikaṅgaṃ visuṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Mā atiharāpesu’’nti kālabyattayavasena vuttaṃ. Dhammassantarāyakaratarattā ‘‘imaṃ naya’’nti anayoyeva.

30. Why, though so eager for the going forth and having been given permission, did he still delay at home for a few days to build up his physical strength? Being pleased with his parents and friends for giving their consent, he did so for the sake of their mental satisfaction. In some commentary manuscripts, certain teachers, thinking, 'This Sudinna, after the account of Jīvaka, became a wearer of rag-robes by means of the ascetic practice of wearing rag-robes,' write: 'Having rejected a householder's robe, he becomes a wearer of rag-robes by means of the ascetic practice of wearing rag-robes.' This is contradicted by the statement 'soon after his full ordination.' It is also contradicted by the commentary statement which says: 'Indeed, Sudinna went forth in the Blessed One’s twelfth year, and in the twentieth year he entered his relatives’ village for alms, having been ordained for eight years,' and 'Indeed, from when the Blessed One attained Buddhahood until this story, in this interval of twenty years, no one accepted a householder's robe; all were wearers of rag-robes.' He was eight years since his going forth, not since his full ordination. But if it is said that he received full ordination after the account of Jīvaka and therefore entered his relatives’ village for almsfood, not yet having completed a vassa, this is not so. For it is stated immediately and together: 'Sudinna the Kalandakaputta received the going forth in the Blessed One's presence; he received the full ordination.' For right after his going forth he was fully ordained. Having undertaken the thirteen ascetic qualities, he dwelt for eight years in a Vajjian village. Then, being free from dependence and self-reliant, he went to Vesālī, thinking, 'Now the Vajjian country is afflicted by famine,' and so on. Therefore, only that reading which is found in the manuscripts, namely, 'he becomes a wearer of rag-robes by means of the ascetic practice of wearing rag-robes,' should be taken as authoritative. By the phrase 'he was a forest-dweller,' the five practices connected with lodging are included, as well as the sitter's practice, since it is of the same nature as a dwelling. By 'he was an alms-eater,' the five practices connected with almsfood are included. By 'he was a wearer of rag-robes,' the two practices connected with robes are included. It should be understood that the practice of going for alms in sequence is mentioned separately to show the reason for visiting his relatives’ home. 'Do not let them carry it too far' is said with an inversion of tense. Because it is a greater obstacle to the Dhamma, 'this method' is indeed a wrong method.

Yebhuyyena hi sattānaṃ, vināse paccupaṭṭhite;

Anayo nayarūpena, buddhimāgamma tiṭṭhati.

Indeed, for most beings, when destruction is at hand, what is unprofitable in the guise of what is profitable approaches and establishes itself in the mind.

36. Apaññatte sikkhāpadeti ettha duvidhaṃ sikkhāpadapaññāpanaṃ. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Evañca pana, bhikkhave, imaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ uddiseyyāthā’’ti evaṃ sauddesānuddesabhedato duvidhaṃ. Tattha pātimokkhe sarūpato āgatā pañca āpattikkhandhā sauddesapaññatti nāma. Sāpi duvidhā sapuggalāpuggalaniddesabhedato. Tattha yassā paññattiyā anto āpattiyā saha, vinā vā puggalo dassito, sā sapuggalaniddesā. Itarā apuggalaniddesāti veditabbā. Sapuggalaniddesāpi duvidhā dassitādassitāpattibhedato. Tattha adassitāpattikā nāma aṭṭha pārājikā dhammā. ‘‘Pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso’’ti hi puggalova tattha dassito, nāpatti. Dassitāpattikā nāma bhikkhunīpātimokkhe ‘‘sattarasa saṅghādisesā dhammā nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesa’’nti hi tattha āpatti dassitā saddhiṃ puggalena, tathā apuggalaniddesāpi dassitādassitāpattitova duvidhā. Tattha adassitāpattikā nāma sekhiyā dhammā. Sesā dassitāpattikāti veditabbā. Sāpi duvidhā aniddiṭṭhakārakaniddiṭṭhakārakabhedato. Tattha aniddiṭṭhakārakā nāma sukkavissaṭṭhi musāvāda omasavāda [Pg.70] pesuñña bhūtagāma aññavādaka ujjhāpanaka gaṇabhojana paramparabhojana surāmeraya aṅgulipatodaka hasadhamma anādariya talaghātakajatumaṭṭhaka sikkhāpadānaṃ vasena pañcadasavidhā honti. Sesānaṃ puggalaniddesānaṃ vasena niddiṭṭhakārakā veditabbā.

36. Herein, the establishment of a training rule is twofold. How so? As in, 'And so, bhikkhus, you should recite this training rule,' it is thus twofold, distinguished as with recitation and without recitation. Therein, the five classes of offenses that appear in the Pātimokkha in their own form are called 'establishment with recitation' (sauddesapaññatti). That is also twofold, distinguished as with personal indication and without personal indication. Therein, an establishment in which a person is indicated, either with or without the offense, is one with personal indication (sapuggalaniddesā). The other is to be understood as being without personal indication (apuggalaniddesā). That with personal indication is also twofold, distinguished as with the offense shown and with the offense not shown. Therein, the eight Pārājika rules are those with the offense not shown (adassitāpattikā). For in the phrase, 'He is defeated, not in communion,' only the person is indicated, not the offense. Those with the offense shown (dassitāpattikā) are the seventeen Saṅghādisesa rules in the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha; for in the text, 'seventeen Saṅghādisesa rules... a Saṅghādisesa requiring expulsion,' the offense is shown together with the person. Similarly, those without personal indication are also twofold, distinguished by way of the offense being shown and the offense not being shown. Therein, the Sekhiya rules are those with the offense not shown (adassitāpattikā). The remaining are to be understood as those with the offense shown (dassitāpattikā). That is also twofold, distinguished as with an unspecified agent and with a specified agent. Therein, those with an unspecified agent (aniddiṭṭhakārakā) are of fifteen kinds, by way of the training rules concerning: intentional emission of semen, lying, abusive speech, slander, destroying plant life, prevarication, complaining, group eating, eating in succession, alcoholic drinks, tickling with the fingers, playing in the water, disrespect, a blow with the hand, and using a lacquered object. The remaining are to be understood as having a specified agent (niddiṭṭhakārakā) by way of their personal indications.

Anuddesapaññattipi padabhājanantarāpattivinītavatthupaṭikkhepapaññattiavuttasiddhivasena chabbidhā honti. Tattha ‘‘yebhuyyena khāyitaṃ āpatti thullaccayassā’’ti (pārā. 61) evamādikā padabhājaniye sandissamānāpatti padabhājanasikkhāpadaṃ nāma. ‘‘Na tveva naggena āgantabbaṃ, yo āgaccheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’tiādikā (pārā. 517) antarāpattisikkhāpadaṃ nāma. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, divā paṭisallīyantena dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā paṭisallīyitu’’nti (pārā. 75) evamādikā vinītavatthusikkhāpadaṃ nāma. ‘‘Lohituppādako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo, upasampanno nāsetabbo’’ti (mahāva. 114) evamādikā paṭikkhepasikkhāpadaṃ nāma. Khandhakesu paññattadukkaṭathullaccayāni paññattisikkhāpadaṃ nāma. ‘‘Yā pana bhikkhunī naccaṃ vā gītaṃ vā vāditaṃ vā dassanāya gaccheyya, pācittiya’’nti (pāci. 834) iminā vuttena ‘‘yā pana bhikkhunī nacceyya vā gāyeyya vā vādeyya vā pācittiya’’nti evamādikaṃ yaṃ kiñci aṭṭhakathāya dissamānaṃ āpattijātaṃ, vinayakammaṃ vā avuttasiddhisikkhāpadaṃ nāma. Chabbidhampetaṃ chahi kāraṇehi uddesārahaṃ na hotīti anuddesasikkhāpadaṃ nāmāti veditabbaṃ. Seyyathidaṃ – pañcahi uddesehi yathāsambhavaṃ visabhāgattā thullaccayadubbhāsitānaṃ, sabhāgavatthukampi dukkaṭathullaccayadvayaṃ asabhāgāpattikattā, antarāpattipaññattisikkhāpadānaṃ nānāvatthukāpattikattā, paṭikkhepasikkhāpadānaṃ kesañci vinītavatthupaññattisikkhāpadānañca adassitāpattikattā, adassitavatthukattā bhedānuvattakathullaccayassa, adassitāpattivatthukattā avuttasiddhisikkhāpadānanti. Ettāvatā ‘‘duvidhaṃ sikkhāpadapaññāpanaṃ uddesānuddesabhedato’’ti yaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ samāsato pakāsitaṃ hoti.

The establishment of rules without recitation (anuddesapaññatti) is also sixfold: by word-analysis, by intermediate-offense, by settled-case, by prohibition, by enactment, and by what is unstated but implied. Among these, the offense found in the word-by-word analysis (padabhājaniya), such as, ‘What has been mostly eaten is a grave offense,’ is called a word-analysis training rule. A rule such as, ‘One should certainly not approach naked; whoever should approach, it is an offense of wrong-doing,’ is called an intermediate-offense training rule. A rule such as, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, one who is in seclusion during the day to remain in seclusion after closing the door,’ is called a settled-case training rule. A rule such as, ‘Bhikkhus, one who has shed the blood [of a Tathāgata], if unordained, should not be ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled,’ is called a prohibition training rule. The offenses of wrong-doing and grave offenses laid down in the Khandhakas are called enactment training rules. By what is stated in the rule, ‘Whatever bhikkhunī should go to see dancing, singing, or instrumental music, it is an offense of expiation,’ whatever class of offense or Vinaya procedure is found in the commentary—such as, ‘Whatever bhikkhunī should dance, or sing, or play an instrument, it is an offense of expiation’—is called an unstated-but-implied training rule. It should be understood that this sixfold group of training rules is not suitable for recitation for six reasons, and thus is called a training rule without recitation. These are as follows: grave offenses and wrong speech are, as the case may be, dissimilar to the five recitations; the pair of wrong-doing and grave offenses, even with a similar basis, are of a dissimilar offense-type; the training rules for intermediate offenses and enactments have various bases and various offenses; for the prohibition training rules, and for some of the settled-case and enactment training rules, the offense is not shown; for the grave offense of following a schismatic, the basis is not shown; and for the unstated-but-implied training rules, the offense and basis are not shown. Thus far, what was stated as ‘The laying down of a training rule is twofold, distinguished as with-recitation and without-recitation,’ has been explained in brief.

Tattha apaññatte sikkhāpadeti sauddesasikkhāpadaṃ sandhāya vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Ekacce ācariyā evaṃ kira vaṇṇayanti ‘‘cattāro pārājikā kativassābhisambuddhena bhagavatā paññattātiādinā pucchaṃ katvā tesu paṭhamapārājiko [Pg.71] vesāliyaṃ paññatto pañcavassābhisambuddhena hemantānaṃ paṭhame māse dutiye pakkhe dasame divase aḍḍhateyyaporisāya chāyāya puratthābhimukhena nisinnena aḍḍhaterasānaṃ bhikkhusatānaṃ majjhe sudinnaṃ kalandaputtaṃ ārabbha paññatto’’ti, taṃ na yujjati, kasmā? –

Herein, it should be understood that the phrase ‘when the training rule had not been laid down’ is said with reference to a training rule with recitation. Some teachers, it is said, explain it thus: Having posed the question, ‘The four Pārājikas—in which year of his rains-residences after becoming fully enlightened were they laid down by the Blessed One?’ and so on, they say: ‘Among these, the first Pārājika was laid down at Vesālī in the fifth year of his rains-residences after becoming fully enlightened, in the first month of the winter season, in the second fortnight, on the tenth day, when the shadow was two and a half man-lengths, while he was seated facing east in the midst of twelve hundred and fifty bhikkhus, on account of Sudinna, the son of the householder Kalanda.’ This is not tenable. Why?

Yasmā dvādasamaṃ vassaṃ, verañjāyaṃ vasi jino;

Tasmiñca suddho saṅghoti, neva pārājikaṃ tadā.

Because the Conqueror dwelt at Verañjā during the twelfth rains-residence, and in that year the Saṅgha was pure, therefore the Pārājika was not laid down then.

Therassa sāriputtassa, sikkhāpaññattiyācanā;

Tasmiṃ siddhāti siddhāva, garukāpatti no tadā.

The Elder Sāriputta's request for the laying down of the training rules was manifest at that time; thus it is indeed established that a grave offense was not laid down then.

Ovādapātimokkhañca, kiṃ satthā catuvassiko;

Paṭikkhipi kimāṇañca, samattaṃ anujāni so.

Did the Teacher, being of four years, reject the Ovāda-pātimokkha? And did he permit the Āṇā-pātimokkha in its entirety?

Ajātasattuṃ nissāya, saṅghabhedamakāsi yaṃ;

Devadatto tato saṅgha-bhedo pacchimabodhiyaṃ.

Relying on Ajātasattu, Devadatta created a schism in the Saṅgha; from that, the schism in the Saṅgha occurred in the latter period of the enlightenment.

Ārādhayiṃsu maṃ pubbe, bhikkhūti munibhāsitaṃ;

Suttameva pamāṇaṃ no, sova kālo anappakoti.

‘Formerly, the bhikkhus pleased me’—so the Sage has said. For us, the Sutta alone is the authority, and that period was not insignificant.

Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ ‘‘atha bhagavā ajjhācāraṃ apassanto pārājikaṃ vā saṅghādisesaṃ vā na paññapesī’’ti, taṃ sakalasikkhāpadaṃ sandhāyāha. Na kevalaṃ sauddesasikkhāpadamattaṃ, tena sauddesānuddesapaññattibhedaṃ sakalaṃ pārājikaṃ sandhāyāhāti vuttaṃ hoti. Kiñcāpi nābhiparāmasanampi kāyasaṃsaggo, tathāpi etaṃ visesaniyamanato, acchandarāgādhippāyato ca visuṃ vuttaṃ. Chandarāgarattasseva hi kāyasaṃsaggo idhādhippeto. Asucipāne pana hatthiniyā tāpasapassāvapānena vālakābyo nāma uppajjati, vālakābyassa vatthu vattabbaṃ. Maṇḍabyassa nābhiyā parāmasaneneva kira. Rūpadassane pana vejjakā āhu –

As for the statement that was said, ‘Then the Blessed One, not seeing misconduct, did not lay down a Pārājika or a Saṅghādisesa,’ that was said referring to the entire training rule. It was not said referring merely to the training rule with recitation. Therefore, it is said that it was spoken referring to the entire Pārājika, which is distinguished by enactments with and without recitation. Although touching the navel is also lustful bodily contact, nevertheless, this was stated separately due to the special restriction and because it is not intended with lustful desire. Indeed, here bodily contact is intended only for one who is impassioned with lustful desire. Regarding the drinking of impurity, a being named Vālakābya arises from a female elephant drinking an ascetic's urine. It is said that for Maṇḍabya, a being arose merely from the touching of the navel. As for seeing a form, physicians say:

‘‘Thīnaṃ sandassanā sukkaṃ, kadāci calitovare;

Taṃ gāmadhammakaraṇaṃ, dvayasamaṃ saṅgamiya;

Gabbhādīti ayaṃ nayo, thīnaṃ purisadassanāsītyūpaneyya’’.

From a woman's sight of men, semen sometimes moves in a private chamber; having come to that act of village-practice with the equal desire of two, she conceives a womb. This is the method. It should be understood that this happens from a woman's sight of a man.

Tathāpyāhu [Pg.72] –

Furthermore, they say:

‘‘Pupphike edhiyya suddhe, passaṃ narañca itthi taṃ;

Gabbhañca nayetyutta-miti tasmā kāso itī’’ti.

When the menses is pure, a woman, seeing a man and causing the emission of seed, may also bring about that conception. Thus it is said. Therefore, the teacher Kāsa says:

Rājorodho viyāti sīhaḷadīpe ekissā itthiyā tathā ahosi, tasmā kira evaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi yāva brahmalokā saddo abbhuggacchi, na taṃ manussānaṃ visayo ahosi tesaṃ rūpaṃ viya. Teneva bhikkhū pucchiṃsu ‘‘kacci no tvaṃ āvuso sudinna anabhirato’’ti.

In the phrase ‘like one in the royal harem’: In the island of Sīhaḷa, it happened thus to a certain woman; therefore, it is said, it was spoken thus. Although the sound rose up as far as the Brahma world, it was not the domain of humans, just as their form is not their domain. For that very reason, the bhikkhus asked, ‘Friend Sudinna, are you not discontented?’

39. Kalīti kodho, tassa sāsanaṃ kalisāsanaṃ, kalaho. Gāmadhammanti ettha janapadadhammaṃ janapadavāsīnaṃ siddhiṃ. Attāti cittaṃ, sarīrañca. Asuttantavinibaddhanti vinayasutte anāgataṃ, suttābhidhammesupi anāgataṃ, pāḷivinimuttanti attho. Kusumamālanti nānāguṇaṃ sandhāyāha. Ratanadāmanti atthasampattiṃ sandhāya vadati. Paṭikkhipanādhippāyā bhaddāli viya. Padaniruttibyañjanāni nāmavevacanāneva ‘‘nāmaṃ nāmakammaṃ nāmadheyyaṃ niruttī’’tiādīsu (dha. sa. 1315) viya. Nippariyāyena virati sikkhāpadaṃ nāma. Akusalapakkhe dussīlyaṃ nāma cetanā. Kusalapakkhepi cetanāpariyāyato vibhaṅge ‘‘sikkhāpada’’nti vuttaṃ. Saṅghasuṭṭhutāyāti ettha lokavajjassa paññāpane saṅghasuṭṭhutā hoti pākaṭādīnavato. Paññattivajjassa paññāpane saṅghaphāsutā hoti pākaṭānisaṃsattā. Tattha paṭhamena dummaṅkūnaṃ niggaho, dutiyena pesalānaṃ phāsuvihāro. Paṭhamena samparāyikānaṃ āsavānaṃ paṭighāto, dutiyena diṭṭhadhammikānaṃ. Tathā paṭhamena appasannānaṃ pasādo, dutiyena pasannānaṃ bhiyyobhāvo. ‘‘Pubbe katapuññatāya codiyamānassa bhabbakulaputtassā’’ti vuttattā ‘‘sudinno taṃ kukkuccaṃ vinodetvā arahattaṃ sacchākāsi, teneva pabbajjā anuññātā’’ti vadanti, upaparikkhitabbaṃ. Tathā paṭhamena saddhammaṭṭhiti, dutiyena vinayānuggaho hotīti veditabbo.

39. Kali means anger; a dispute under its influence is a `kalisāsana`, a quarrel. Here, in the phrase gāmadhamma, it means the custom of the country-folk, the affair of the country-dwellers. Attā means mind and body. Asuttantavinibaddha means not found in the Vinaya Sutta, and also not found in the Sutta and Abhidhamma; the meaning is 'liberated from the Pāḷi text'. Kusumamālā is said with reference to various virtues. Ratanadāma is spoken with reference to the accomplishment of meaning. Those with the intention to reject are like Bhaddāli. Padaniruttibyañjanāni are merely synonyms for names, as in "name, naming, appellation, explanation," etc. Directly, abstinence is called a training rule. In the unwholesome sphere, what is called dussīlya (immorality) is volition. In the wholesome sphere too, in the Vibhaṅga, volition is figuratively called a "training rule". Here, regarding saṅghasuṭṭhutā (well-being of the Saṅgha): in the laying down of a rule concerning a worldly fault, there is the well-being of the Saṅgha because of the obvious disadvantage. In the laying down of a rule concerning a prescribed fault, there is the comfort of the Saṅgha (saṅghaphāsutā) because of the obvious benefit. There, by the first, there is the restraining of the unruly; by the second, the comfortable abiding of the virtuous. By the first, there is the warding off of future defilements; by the second, of those in the present life. Furthermore, by the first, there is the arising of faith in the faithless; by the second, an increase for the faithful. Because it is said, "of a capable clansman who, due to merit made in the past, is being admonished," they say, "Sudinna, having dispelled that remorse, realized arahantship; for that very reason, the going forth was permitted." This should be examined. Furthermore, by the first, there is the establishment of the true Dhamma; by the second, the support of the Vinaya—thus it should be understood.

Apicettha vatthuvītikkame yattha ekantākusalabhāvena, taṃ saṅghasuṭṭhubhāvāya paññattaṃ lokavajjato, yattha paññattijānane eva atthāpatti, na aññadā, taṃ saddhammaṭṭhitiyā vāpi pasāduppādabuddhiyā dhammadesanāpaṭisaṃyuttaṃ, itarañca sekhiyaṃ, idaṃ lokavajjaṃ nāma. Vatthuno paññattiyā vā vītikkamacetanāyābhāvepi paṭikkhittassa karaṇe, kattabbassa akaraṇe vā [Pg.73] sati yattha āpattippasaṅgo, taṃ sabbaṃ ṭhapetvā surāpānaṃ paṇṇattivajjanti veditabbaṃ. Āgantukavattaṃ, āvāsika, gamika, anumodana, bhattagga, piṇḍacārika, āraññaka, senāsana, jantāghara, vaccakuṭi, saddhivihārika, upajjhāya, antevāsika, ācariyavattanti etāni aggahitaggahaṇanayena gaṇiyamānāni cuddasa, etāni pana vitthārato dveasīti mahāvattāni nāma honti. Sattahi āpattikkhandhehi saṃvaro saṃvaravinayo paññattisikkhāpadameva. Tattha paññattivinayo samathavinayatthāya samathavinayo saṃvaravinayatthāya saṃvaravinayo pahānavinayatthāyāti yojanā veditabbā. Yaṃ saṅghasuṭṭhu, taṃ saṅghaphāsūti ekamiva vuttaṃ saṅghasuṭṭhutāya sati saṅghaphāsu bhavissatīti dīpanatthaṃ. Pakarīyanti ettha te te payojanavisesasaṅkhātā atthavasāti atthavasaṃ ‘‘pakaraṇa’’nti vuccati. Dasasu padesu ekekaṃ mūlaṃ katvā dasakkhattuṃ yojanāya padasataṃ vuttaṃ. Tattha pacchimassa padassa vasena atthasataṃ purimassa vasena dhammasataṃ atthajotikānaṃ niruttīnaṃ vasena niruttisataṃ, dhammabhūtānaṃ niruttīnaṃ vasena niruttisatanti dve niruttisatāni, atthasate ñāṇasataṃ, dhammasate ñāṇasataṃ dvīsu niruttisatesu dve ñāṇasatānīti cattāri ñāṇasatāni veditabbāni. Ettha saṅghasuṭṭhutāti dhammasaṅghassa suṭṭhubhāvoti attho. ‘‘Atthapadānīti aṭṭhakathā. Dhammapadānīti pāḷī’’ti vuttaṃ kira.

Moreover, here, that training rule wherein the transgression of the basis is entirely due to an unwholesome state and which is laid down for the well-being of the Saṅgha as a worldly fault; and that training rule wherein an offense occurs only upon knowing the regulation and not otherwise, which is connected with the teaching of the Dhamma for the stability of the true Dhamma or for the purpose of inspiring faith, as well as the other Sekhiya rules—this group of training rules is called a 'worldly fault' (lokavajjaṃ). Wherein, even in the absence of an intention to transgress the object or the regulation, there is the liability of an offense in the doing of what is forbidden or in the non-doing of what ought to be done—all of that, excepting the rule on drinking intoxicants, should be known as a 'regulation-based fault' (paṇṇattivajjaṃ). The duties for newcomers, residents, those departing, giving thanks, the refectory, the alms-round, forest-dwelling, lodgings, the steam-bath, the toilet, the co-resident, the preceptor, the pupil, and the teacher—these, when counted by the method of taking up what has not been taken up, are fourteen. These, however, in detail, are called the eighty-two great duties. Restraint from the seven classes of offenses is the Discipline of Restraint, which is precisely the prescribed training rule itself. Therein, the Discipline of Regulation is for the sake of the Discipline of Settlement; the Discipline of Settlement is for the sake of the Discipline of Restraint; and the Discipline of Restraint is for the sake of the Discipline of Abandoning—thus the connection should be understood. What is for the well-being of the Saṅgha is for the comfort of the Saṅgha—this is said as if they were one, to illustrate that when there is well-being for the Saṅgha, there will be comfort for the Saṅgha. Herein, those various specific purposes, designated as 'reasons of benefit' (atthavasā), are undertaken; therefore, 'reasons of benefit' (atthavasaṃ) is called a 'treatise' (pakaraṇaṃ). In the ten terms, having made each one the root and applying it ten times, a hundred terms are stated. Therein, by way of the latter term, a hundred meanings; by way of the former term, a hundred Dhammas; by way of expressions that illuminate the meaning, a hundred expressions; by way of expressions that have become Dhamma, a hundred expressions—thus, two hundred expressions. In the hundred meanings, a hundred knowledges; in the hundred Dhammas, a hundred knowledges; in the two hundred expressions, two hundred knowledges—thus, four hundred knowledges should be understood. Herein, 'well-being of the Saṅgha' (saṅghasuṭṭhutā) means the good state of the Dhamma-Saṅgha. It is said, it seems: 'Terms of meaning are the commentary; terms of Dhamma are the Pāḷi.'

Methunaṃ dhammanti evaṃ bahulanayena laddhanāmakaṃ sakasampayogena, parasampayogena vā attano nimittassa sakamagge vā paramagge vā paranimittassa sakamagge eva pavesapaviṭṭhaṭhituddharaṇesu yaṃ kiñci ekaṃ paṭisādiyanavasena seveyya pārājiko hoti asaṃvāsoti. Keci pana ‘‘pavesādīni cattāri vā tīṇi vā dve vā ekaṃ vā paṭiseveyya, pārājiko hoti. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘so ce pavesanaṃ sādiyati, paviṭṭhaṃ, ṭhitaṃ, uddharaṇaṃ sādiyati, āpatti pārājikassā’tiādī’’ti (pārā. 59) vadanti, tesaṃ matena catūsupi catasso pārājikāpattiyo āpajjati. Teyeva evaṃ vadanti ‘‘āpajjatu methunadhammapārājikāpatti methunadhammapārājikāpattiyā tabbhāgiyā’’ti, ‘‘attano vītikkame pārājikāpattiṃ, saṅghādisesāpattiñca āpajjitvā sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya gahaṭṭhakāle methunādipārājikaṃ āpajjitvā puna pabbajitvā upasampajjitvā ekaṃ saṅghādisesāpattiṃ ekamanekaṃ vā paṭikaritvāva so puggalo yasmā nirāpattiko hoti, tasmā so gahaṭṭhakāle [Pg.74] sāpattikovāti antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpannassāpi attheva āpattivuṭṭhānaṃ. Vuṭṭhānadesanāhi pana asujjhanato ‘payoge payoge āpatti pārājikassā’ti na vuttaṃ gaṇanapayojanābhāvato. Kiñcāpi na vuttaṃ, atha kho padabhājane ‘āpatti pārājikassā’ti vacanenāyamattho siddho’’ti yuttiñca vadanti. Yadi evaṃ mātikāyampi ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya pārājika’’nti vattabbaṃ bhaveyya, pārājikassa anavasesavacanampi na yujjeyya. Sabbepi hi āpattikkhandhe bhikkhugaṇanañca anavasesetvā tiṭṭhatīti anavasesavacananti katvā paveseva āpatti, na paviṭṭhādīsu, tamevekaṃ sandhāya ‘‘yassa siyā āpattī’’ti pārājikāpattimpi anto katvā nidānuddese vacanaṃ veditabbaṃ. Tasmā mātikāyaṃ ‘‘pārājika’’nti avatvā ‘‘pārājiko hotī’’ti puggalaniddesavacanaṃ tena sarīrabandhanena upasampadāya abhabbabhāvadīpanatthaṃ. ‘‘Āpatti pārājikassā’’ti padabhājane vacanaṃ antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpannassāpi pārājikassa asaṃvāsassa sato puggalassa atheyyasaṃvāsakabhāvadīpanatthaṃ. Na hi so saṃvāsaṃ sādiyantopi theyyasaṃvāsako hoti, tasmā ‘‘upasampanno bhikkhu’’tveva vuccati. Tenevāha ‘‘asuddho hoti puggalo aññataraṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpanno, tañce suddhadiṭṭhi samāno anokāsaṃ kārāpetvā akkosādhippāyo vadeti, āpatti omasavādena dukkaṭassā’’ti (pārā. 389). Anupasampannassa tadabhāvato siddho so ‘‘upasampanno bhikkhu’’tveva vuccatīti. Tena padasodhammaṃ sahaseyyañca na janeti, bhikkhupesuññādiñca janetīti veditabbaṃ. Bhikkhunīnaṃ saṅghādisesesu pana bhikkhusaṅghādisesato vuṭṭhānavidhivisesadassanatthaṃ ‘‘ayampi bhikkhunī…pe… āpannā’’ti (pāci. 679) puggalaniddesaṃ katvāpi pārājikato adhippāyantaradassanatthaṃ ‘‘nissāraṇīyaṃ saṅghādisesa’’nti (pāci. 679) āpattināmaggahaṇañca kataṃ. Ettāvatā sapuggalaniddese dassitādassitāpattidukaṃ vitthāritaṃ hoti. Apuggalaniddesesu sekhiyesu āpattiyā dassanakāraṇaṃ sekhiyānaṃ aṭṭhakathāyameva vuttaṃ. Tadabhāvato itaresu āpattidassanaṃ kataṃ. Apuggalaniddesesupi dassitādassitāpattidukañca vitthāritaṃ hotīti.

Regarding 'sexual intercourse' (methunaṃ dhammaṃ): should one engage in this act, which has obtained its name by common usage, either by one's own effort or by another's effort, with one's own organ in one's own path or in another's path, or with another's organ only in one's own path; and should one, by way of consenting, engage in any single moment among the stages of insertion, having been inserted, remaining, and withdrawal, he is defeated (pārājiko) and not in communion (asaṃvāso). Some, however, say: "Should one engage in four, three, two, or one of the stages beginning with insertion, he is defeated." For this has been said: "If he consents to the insertion, to what has been inserted, to what is remaining, to the withdrawal, it is an offense of pārājika," and so on. According to their view, one falls into four pārājika offenses in the four moments. Those same ones say thus: "Let the pārājika offense of sexual intercourse be incurred; it is of a similar kind to a pārājika offense of sexual intercourse." And: "Because a person—who, due to his own transgression, having fallen into a pārājika offense and a saṅghādisesa offense, having renounced the training, and during his time as a householder having committed a pārājika offense such as sexual intercourse, then having gone forth and been ordained again, becomes without offense only after having made amends for one saṅghādisesa offense once or many times—therefore, that person was an offender during his time as a householder. Therefore, even for one who has committed the final offense, there is indeed rehabilitation from the offense." But because there is no purification by the confessions for rehabilitation, it is not said, 'for each act, an offense of pārājika,' because there is no benefit in counting. Although it is not said, nevertheless, this meaning is established by the statement in the Padabhājana, 'an offense of pārājika,' and they state this reasoning. If so, then in the Mātikā it should also be said, 'Whatever monk should engage in sexual intercourse, a pārājika,' and the statement 'without remainder' for one who is pārājika would not be suitable. For it stands without leaving a remainder of all the aggregates of offenses and the counting as a monk. Therefore, having understood the statement 'without remainder' thus, the offense is only in the insertion, not in having entered and so on. Referring to that one alone, the statement in the Nidānuddesa, 'for whom there may be an offense,' should be understood as having included the pārājika offense. Therefore, in the Mātikā, instead of saying 'pārājika' (the offense), the statement indicating the person, 'he becomes one who is defeated' (pārājiko hoti), is for the purpose of showing, by that bodily connection (like a severed head), the state of being unfit for ordination. The statement in the Padabhājana, 'an offense of pārājika,' is for the purpose of showing that even a person who has committed the final offense, being one who is defeated and not in communion, is not in the state of being a 'thief in communion.' For he does not become a 'thief in communion' even while consenting to communion; therefore, he is called 'an ordained monk.' For that very reason, He said: "A person is impure who has committed a certain pārājika offense; if one of pure view, having made him give no opportunity, speaks with the intention to insult, it is an offense of wrong-doing for contemptuous speech." Because this is absent for an unordained person, it is established that he is called 'an ordained monk.' By this, it should be understood that he does not give rise to the Padasodhamma offense or the Sahaseyya offense, but he does give rise to the offense of slandering a monk, and so on. But in the case of the Saṅghādisesa offenses of nuns, for the purpose of showing the special procedure of rehabilitation from the Saṅghādisesa of monks, even after making the designation of the person, "This nun... has fallen into," the taking up of the offense's name, "a Saṅghādisesa requiring expulsion," was also done for the purpose of showing a different intention from a pārājika. By this much, the pair of offenses—shown and not shown—in the case of designation with a person has been explained in detail. Among the designations without a person, in the Sekhiya rules, the reason for not showing the offense is stated in the commentary on the Sekhiyas themselves. Due to its absence there, the showing of the offense is done in the others. And in the designations without a person, the pair of offenses—shown and not shown—has also been explained in detail.

Paṭhamapaññattikathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the story of the first declaration is finished.

Sudinnabhāṇavāraṃ niṭṭhitaṃ.

The Recitation Section on Sudinna is finished.

Makkaṭīvatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of the Female Monkey

40-1. Dutiyapaññattiyaṃ [Pg.75] ‘‘idha mallā yujjhantī’’tiādīsu viya paṭisevatīti vattamānavacanaṃ pacurapaṭisevanavasena vuttaṃ, ‘‘tañca kho manussitthiyā, no tiracchānagatāyā’’ti paripuṇṇatthampi paṭhamaṃ paññattiṃ attano micchāgāhena vā lesaoḍḍanatthāya vā evamāha. Paripuṇṇatthataṃyeva niyametuṃ ‘‘nanu āvuso tatheva taṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ, teneva makkaṭīvatthu vinītavatthūsu pakkhittaṃ avisesattā, tathā vajjiputtakavatthu. Vicāraṇā panettha tatiyapaññattiyaṃ āvi bhavissati. ‘‘Nanu, āvuso, bhagavatā anekapariyāyenā’’tiādi na kevalaṃ sauddesasikkhāpadeneva siddhaṃ, ‘‘tiracchānagatādīsupi pārājika’’nti anuddesasikkhāpadenapi siddhanti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Atha vā yadi sauddesasikkhāpadaṃ sāvasesanti paññapesi, iminā anuddesasikkhāpadenāpi kiṃ na siddhanti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tena hi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapessāmī’’ti tadeva sikkhāpadaṃ paṭhamapaññattameva lesatthikānaṃ alesokāsaṃ katvā āmeḍitatthaṃ katvā paññapessāmīti attho. Aññathā ‘‘aññavādake vihesake pācittiya’’ntiādīsu (pāci. 101) viya vatthudvayena āpattidvayaṃ āpajjati, na cāpajjati, so evattho aññenāpi vacanena suppakāsito, suparibyattakaraṇatthena daḷhataro katoti adhippāyo. Tatiyapaññattiyampi aññesu ca evaṃ visuddho.

In the second declaration, the present tense verb 'paṭisevati' (engages in), as in 'Here, the Mallas fight' and similar cases, is stated by way of frequent indulgence. Regarding the first declaration, which has a complete meaning, he spoke thus—'but that is with a human woman, not with an animal'—either due to his own wrong grasp or for the purpose of finding a loophole. To establish its very completeness of meaning, it was said, 'Is it not so, friend, that it is exactly like that?' For that very reason, the story of the female monkey was included among the disciplined cases due to its non-distinction; likewise the story of the Vajjiputtaka. The investigation here will become clear in the third declaration. The statement 'Is it not, friend, that by the Blessed One in many ways...' was said to show that it is established not only by the training rule with its full wording but also by the abbreviated training rule, namely, 'a pārājika offense even with animals, etc.' Or else, it was said to show this: if one were to declare that the training rule with its full wording is incomplete, is it not established by this abbreviated training rule as well? In 'Therefore, monks, I will lay down a training rule for the monks...,' the meaning is: I will lay down that very same training rule, the very first declaration, having made it so there is no opportunity for those seeking loopholes and having reiterated the meaning. Otherwise, as in cases like 'for one who speaks evasively or causes vexation, it is a pācittiya offense,' one would incur two offenses for two grounds, but one does not incur them. That very same meaning is well-explained by another statement as well; it is made firmer by making it thoroughly distinct. This is the intention. In the third declaration and in other decisions as well, the clarification should be made in this way.

Yassa sacittakapakkhetiādimhi pana gaṇṭhipadanayo tāva paṭhamaṃ vuccati, sacittakapakkheti surāpānādiacittake sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sacittakesu pana yaṃ ekantamakusaleneva samuṭṭhāpitañca. Ubhayaṃ lokavajjaṃ nāma. Surāpānasmiñhi ‘‘surā’’ti vā ‘‘pātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vā jānitvā pivane akusalameva, tathā bhikkhunīnaṃ gandhavaṇṇakatthāya lepane, bhesajjatthāya lepane adosattā ‘‘avicāraṇīya’’nti ettakaṃ vuttaṃ. Tattha na vaṭṭatīti ‘‘jānitvā’’ti vuttavacanaṃ na yujjati paṇṇattivajjassāpi lokavajjabhāvappasaṅgato. Imaṃ aniṭṭhappasaṅgaṃ pariharitukāmatāya vajirabuddhittherassa gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ ‘‘idha sacittakanti ca acittakanti ca vicāraṇā vatthuvijānaneyeva hoti, na paññattivijānane. Yadi paññattivijānane hoti, sabbasikkhāpadāni lokavajjāneva siyuṃ, na ca sabbasikkhāpadāni lokavajjāni[Pg.76], tasmā vatthuvijānaneyeva hotī’’ti, idaṃ yujjati. Kasmā? Yasmā sekhiyesu paññattijānanameva pamāṇaṃ, na vatthumattajānananti, yaṃ pana tattheva vuttaṃ ‘‘pasuttassa mukhe koci suraṃ pakkhipeyya, anto ce paviseyya, āpatti, tattha yathā bhikkhuniyā adhakkhakaṃ ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalaṃ parassa āmasanādikāle kāyaṃ acāletvā citteneva sādiyantiyā āpatti ‘kiriyāva hotī’ti vuttā yebhuyyena kiriyasambhavato, tathā ayampi tadā kiriyāva hotī’’ti, taṃ suvicāritaṃ anekantākusalabhāvasādhanato. Surāpānāpattiyā ekantākusalatā pana majjasaññinopi sakiṃ payogena pivato hotīti katvā vuttā.

However, in the section beginning with 'yassa sacittakapakkhe', the method of the Gaṇṭhipada is first stated. The term 'sacittakapakkhe' is stated with reference to the non-volitional training rules such as the drinking of intoxicants. However, among the volitional training rules, that which is certainly caused to arise by the unwholesome alone, and the non-volitional one—both are called a worldly fault. Indeed, in the training rule on drinking intoxicants, because of drinking while knowing either 'it is an intoxicant' or 'it is not allowable to drink,' it is indeed unwholesome. Similarly, for bhikkhunīs, anointing for the purpose of fragrance and complexion is indeed unwholesome. Because anointing for the purpose of medicine is without fault, only this much is said: 'It is not to be investigated.' Therein, the spoken phrase 'knowing it is not allowable' is not suitable, because of the consequence that even a fault by prescription would become a worldly fault. Due to the desire to avoid this undesirable consequence, it is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada of the Elder Vajirabuddhi: 'Here, the investigation into "volitional" and "non-volitional" is only in the matter of knowing the object; it is not in the matter of knowing the prescription. If it were in the matter of knowing the prescription, all training rules would be only worldly faults, but not all training rules are worldly faults. Therefore, it is only in the matter of knowing the object.' This is suitable. Why? Because in the Sekhiya rules, knowledge of the prescription alone is the standard, not the mere knowledge of the object. However, what is stated in that very Gaṇṭhipada: 'If someone were to pour an intoxicant into the mouth of one who is asleep, and if it should enter inside, there is an offense. Therein, just as it is said of a bhikkhunī who, at the time of being touched, etc., by another man below the collarbone and above the circle of the knee, does not move her body but consents with the mind alone, that the offense "is only an action" because for the most part it can arise from a functional-consciousness root, so too this offense, at that time, is only an action'—that statement is well-considered because it establishes its nature as not exclusively unwholesome. However, the exclusively unwholesome nature of the offense of drinking an intoxicant is stated on the grounds that it occurs even for one who, not perceiving it as an intoxicant, drinks it with a single effort.

Ayaṃ panettha attho – sikkhāpadasīsena āpattiṃ gahetvā yassa sikkhāpadassa sacittakassa cittaṃ akusalameva hoti, taṃ lokavajjaṃ. Sacittakācittakasaṅkhātassa acittakassa ca sacittakapakkhe cittaṃ akusalameva hoti, tampi surāpānādi lokavajjanti imamatthaṃ sampiṇḍetvā ‘‘yassa sacittakapakkhe cittaṃ akusalameva hoti, taṃ lokavajja’’nti vuttaṃ. Sacittakapakkheti hi idaṃ vacanaṃ acittakaṃ sandhāyāha. Na hi ekaṃsato sacittakassa sacittakapakkheti visesane payojanaṃ atthi. Yasmā panettha paṇṇattivajjassa paññattijānanacittena sacittakapakkhe cittaṃ akusalameva, vatthujānanacittena sacittakapakkhe cittaṃ siyā kusalaṃ siyā akusalaṃ siyā abyākataṃ, tasmā ‘‘tassa sacittakapakkhe cittaṃ akusalamevā’’ti na vuccatīti ‘‘sesaṃ paṇṇattivajja’’nti vuttaṃ. Adhimāne vītikkamābhāvā, supinante abbohārikattā supinante vijjamānāpi vītikkamachāyā abbohārikabhāvenāti vuttaṃ hoti. Idaṃ pana vacanaṃ daḷhīkammasithilakaraṇappayojanattā ca vuttaṃ, tena yaṃ vuttaṃ bāhiranidānakathādhikāre ‘‘daḷhīkammasithilakaraṇappayojanāti yebhuyyatāya vutta’’ntiādi, taṃ suvuttamevāti veditabbaṃ.

Herein, this is the meaning: having taken an offense under the heading of a training rule, for whichever intentional training rule the mind is solely unwholesome, that is a worldly fault. And for the non-volitional training rule, which is designated as having intentional and non-volitional aspects, in its intentional aspect the mind is solely unwholesome; that too, such as the drinking of intoxicants, is a worldly fault. Having summarized this meaning, it was said: “For whichever, in its intentional aspect, the mind is solely unwholesome, that is a worldly fault.” For this statement, “in the intentional aspect,” is said in reference to the non-volitional. Indeed, for what is exclusively intentional, there is no purpose in the specification “in the intentional aspect.” Because herein, for a prescribed fault, with the mind that knows the prescription, the mind in the intentional aspect is solely unwholesome; but with the mind that knows the object, the mind in the intentional aspect may be wholesome, may be unwholesome, or may be indeterminate. Therefore, it is not said, “For that, the mind in the intentional aspect is solely unwholesome,” and thus it was said by the commentator, “The remainder is a prescribed fault.” Because there is no intention to transgress in conceit, and because actions in a dream are non-transactional, it is meant that even though the shadow of a transgression exists in a dream, it is non-transactional. This statement, however, was also said for the purpose of strengthening a former prescription and relaxing a later one. Therefore, what was said in the section on the Bāhiranidānakathā, such as, “It is said for the most part for the purpose of strengthening and relaxing,” that should be understood as well-said.

Makkaṭīvatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Story of the Female Monkey is concluded.

Vajjiputtakavatthuvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of the Vajjiputtaka Monk

43-4. Vajjīsu [Pg.77] janapadesu vasantā vajjino nāma, tesaṃ puttā. Yāvadatthanti yāvatā attho adhippāyoti vuttaṃ hoti, tattha yaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃanāvikatvā’’ti, taṃ kāmaṃ sikkhāpaccakkhāne, tadekaṭṭhe ca dubbalyāvikaraṇe paññatte sati yujjati, na aññathā. Tathāpi idāni paññapetabbaṃ upādāya vuttaṃ, kathañhi nāma chabbaggiyā bhikkhū atirekacīvaraṃ dhāressanti (pārā. 459), āḷavakā bhikkhū kuṭiyo kārāpenti appamāṇikāyo (pārā. 342), bhikkhuniyo dve vassāni chasu dhammesu asikkhitasikkhaṃ sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpenti (pāci. 1077), saṅghena asammataṃ vuṭṭhāpentītiādi (pāci. 1084) viya daṭṭhabbaṃ. Na hi tato pubbe adhiṭṭhānaṃ vikappanaṃ vā anuññātaṃ. Yadabhāvā atirekacīvaranti vadeyya, pamāṇaṃ vā na paññattaṃ, yadabhāvā appamāṇikāyoti vadeyya, evaṃsampadamidaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. ‘‘Ullumpatu maṃ, bhante, saṅgho anukampaṃ upādāyā’’ti (mahāva. 71, 126) upasampadaṃ yācitvā upasampannena upasampannasamanantarameva ‘‘upasampannena bhikkhunā methuno dhammo na paṭisevitabbo, asakyaputtiyo’’ti (mahāva. 129) ca paññattena assamaṇādibhāvaṃ upagantukāmena nanu paṭhamaṃ ajjhupagatā sikkhā paccakkhātabbā, tattha dubbalyaṃ vā āvikātabbaṃ siyā, te pana ‘‘sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseviṃsū’’ti anupaññattiyā okāsakaraṇatthaṃ vā taṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘So āgato na upasampādetabbo’’ti kiñcāpi ettheva vuttaṃ, tathāpi itaresupi pārājikesu yathāsambhavaṃ veditabbaṃ. Na hi sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā yo pārājikavatthuṃ adinnaṃ theyyasaṅkhātaṃ ādiyati, manussaviggahaṃ vā jīvitā voropeti, paṭivijānantassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ vā ullapati, so āgato na upasampādetabbo. Anupaññatti hi daḷhīkammasithilakammakaraṇappayojanā. Sā hi yassa pārājikaṃ hoti aññā vā āpatti, tassa niyamadassanappayojanātilakkhaṇānupaññattikattā. Evañhi ante avatvā ādimhi vuttā ‘‘gāmā vā araññā vā’’ti (pārā. 91) anupaññatti viya. Paripuṇṇe panetasmiṃ sikkhāpade –

43-4. Those dwelling in the Vajjian country are called Vajjis, and their sons are the Vajjiputtakas. 'As much as is desired' means as much as is intended. Therein, the statement, 'without having renounced the training and without having declared weakness,' is applicable when a rule for renouncing the training and, in the same context, for declaring weakness has been laid down, but not otherwise. Nevertheless, it is stated here with reference to what is to be laid down, and this should be understood as being like the following cases: How indeed could the group-of-six monks wear an extra robe? The Āḷavakan monks have huts built without measure; the nuns ordain a probationer who has not trained for two years in the six rules; they ordain one not approved by the Sangha, and so on. For before that, neither determination nor sharing of robes had been permitted, in the absence of which one could speak of an 'extra robe'. Nor had a measure for huts been laid down, in the absence of which one could speak of them as being 'without measure'. This consistency of examples should be understood in this way. After requesting ordination by saying, 'Venerable sir, may the Saṅgha, out of compassion, lift me up,' and having been ordained, should not a monk who wishes to attain the state of being a non-ascetic, etc.—in light of the rule laid down immediately after ordination, 'A monk who has been ordained should not engage in sexual intercourse; he is not a son of the Sakyan'—first renounce the training he had undertaken, or declare his weakness therein? But as for them, it should be understood that the statement, 'without renouncing the training and without declaring weakness, they engaged in sexual intercourse,' was said to create an opportunity for a supplementary ruling. Although it is said right here, 'He, having come back, should not be ordained,' it should be understood to apply to the other Pārājika offenses as is applicable. For one who, without renouncing the training and without declaring weakness, takes what is not given, amounting to theft, or deprives a human being of life, or falsely claims superhuman attainments while knowing it to be so, such a person, having come back, should not be ordained. For a supplementary ruling has the purpose of strengthening or relaxing a rule. For it has the purpose of showing the fixed nature of the offense—be it a Pārājika or another offense—and thus it is a supplementary ruling that serves as a characteristic. Thus, without being stated at the end, it is stated at the beginning, like the supplementary ruling, 'from a village or from the wilderness.' But in this complete training rule—

‘‘Nidānā mātikābhedo, vibhaṅgo taṃniyāmako;

Tato āpattiyā bhedo, anāpatti tadaññathā’’ti. –

From the origin, the division of the mātikā; the Analysis is its determinant; from that, the division of the offense; and non-offense is otherwise.

Ayaṃ [Pg.78] nayo veditabbo. Tattha sudinnavatthu makkaṭivatthu vajjiputtakavatthu cāti tippabhedaṃ vatthu imassa sikkhāpadassa nidānaṃ nāma, tato nidānā ‘‘yo pana, bhikkhu, bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno…pe… asaṃvāso’’ti imissā mātikāya bhedo jāto. Tattha hi ‘‘antamaso tiracchānagatāyā’’ti itthiliṅgavacanena ‘‘saccaṃ, āvuso, bhagavatā sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ, tañca kho itthiyā no purise no paṇḍake no ubhatobyañjanake cā’’ti makkaṭipārājiko viya aññopi lesaṃ oḍḍetuṃ sakkoti, tasmā tādisassa alesokāsassa dassanatthaṃ idaṃ vuccati. Makkaṭivatthusaṅkhātā nidānā ‘‘antamaso tiracchānagatāyapī’’ti mātikāvacanabhedo na itthiyā eva methunasiddhidassanato kato, tasmā vibhaṅgo taṃniyāmako tassā mātikāya adhippetatthaniyāmako vibhaṅgo. Vibhaṅge hi ‘‘tisso itthiyo. Tayo ubhatobyañjanakā. Tayo paṇḍakā. Tayo purisā. Manussitthiyā tayo magge…pe… tiracchānagatapurisassa dve magge’’tiādinā (pārā. 56) nayena sabbalesokāsaṃ pidahitvā niyamo kato.

This method should be understood. Herein, the story of Sudinna, the story of the monkey, and the story of the Vajjiputtaka—these three kinds of stories are the origin of this training rule. From that origin, the division of this mātikā has arisen: 'Whatever bhikkhu, having undertaken the training and livelihood of the bhikkhus… is not in communion.' Here indeed, because of the feminine word 'even with a female animal,' another, like the one who committed a pārājika with a monkey, is able to raise a pretext, saying: 'Truly, friend, the training rule was laid down by the Blessed One, but that was laid down for a woman, not for a man, not for a eunuch, not for a hermaphrodite.' Therefore, this is stated to show that there is no opportunity for such a pretext. From the origin known as the Makkāṭivatthu, the distinction in the mātikā wording, 'even with a female animal,' was not made solely on account of seeing the accomplishment of the sexual act with a female. Therefore, the Analysis is its determinant; the Analysis is the determinant of the intended meaning of that mātikā. For in the Analysis, by the method beginning with, 'Three kinds of women, three kinds of hermaphrodites, three kinds of eunuchs, three kinds of men. For a human woman, three passages… for a male animal, two passages,' having closed all loopholes, a definitive rule is established.

Etthāha – yadi evaṃ sādhāraṇasikkhāpadavasena vā liṅgaparivattanavasena vā na kevalaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ, bhikkhunīnampi ‘‘sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno’’ti vibhaṅge vattabbaṃ siyā. Tadavacanena bhikkhunī purisaliṅgapātubhāvena bhikkhubhāve ṭhitā evaṃ vadeyya ‘‘nāhaṃ upasampadakāle bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpannā, tasmā na appaccakkhātasikkhāpi methunadhammena pārājikā homī’’ti? Vuccate – tathā na vattabbaṃ aniṭṭhappasaṅgato. Bhikkhunīnampi ‘‘sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno’’ti vutte bhikkhunīnampi sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ atthīti āpajjati, tañcāniṭṭhaṃ. Idaṃ aparaṃ aniṭṭhappasaṅgoti ‘‘sabbasikkhāpadāni sādhāraṇāneva, nāsādhāraṇānī’’ti. Apicāyaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpannovāti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, taṃyeva upajjha’’ntiādi (pārā. 69) vuttaṃ, apica yo tathā lesaṃ oḍḍetvā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevanto vajjiputtakā viya pārājiko hoti. Te hi ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno’’ti vacanābhāve sati ‘‘āpattiṃ tumhe, bhikkhave, āpannā pārājika’’nti vuttā bhagavatā. Ettha pana ‘‘bhikkhave’’ti vuttattā keci bhikkhuliṅge ṭhitā, ‘‘idāni cepi mayaṃ, bhante ānanda, labheyyāma bhagavato santike [Pg.79] pabbajjaṃ labheyyāma upasampada’’nti vuttattā keci vibbhantāti veditabbā. Tato āpattiyā bhedoti tato vibhaṅgato ‘‘akkhāyite sarīre pārājikaṃ, yebhuyyena khāyite thullaccaya’’ntiādi āpattiyā bhedo hoti. Anāpatti tadaññathāti tato eva vibhaṅgato yenākārena āpatti vuttā, tato aññenākārena anāpattibhedova hoti. ‘‘Sādiyati āpatti pārājikassa, na sādiyati anāpattī’’ti hi vibhaṅge asati na paññāyati. Ettāvatā samāsato gāthāttho vutto hoti. Ettha ca pana –

Here, the questioner says: If it were so, either by way of a common training rule or by way of gender transformation, it should be stated in the Vibhaṅga not only for bhikkhus but also for bhikkhunīs that they are "one who has undertaken the training and livelihood." Due to that not being stated, might a bhikkhunī, being established in the state of a bhikkhu through the manifestation of the male organ, say thus: "At the time of my ordination, I did not undertake the training and livelihood of bhikkhus; therefore, even without having renounced the training, I do not become one who has committed a pārājika offense through sexual intercourse"? It is said: It should not be stated thus, because of the undesirable implication. If it were said for bhikkhunīs also, "one who has undertaken the training and livelihood," it would imply that for bhikkhunīs also there is the renunciation of the training, and that is undesirable. This is another undesirable implication: "All training rules are common only; there are no uncommon ones." Moreover, to show that this one has indeed undertaken the training and livelihood of bhikkhus, it was said, "I allow, O bhikkhus, that same preceptor," and so on. Furthermore, whoever, having raised a pretext in that way, engages in sexual intercourse, becomes one who has committed a pārājika offense, like the Vajjiputtakas. For they, while there was an absence of the statement "one who has undertaken the training and livelihood of bhikkhus," were told by the Blessed One, "You, O bhikkhus, have committed a pārājika offense." But here, because it was said "O bhikkhus," it should be understood that some were established in the state of a bhikkhu; and because it was said, "If now, venerable Ānanda, we might receive the going forth in the presence of the Blessed One, might receive the full ordination," it should be understood that some had disrobed. Then, regarding "the distinction of the offense": from that Vibhaṅga, the distinction of the offense arises, such as, "in a body not eaten by animals, it is a pārājika offense; in a body mostly eaten, it is a thullaccaya offense," and so on. Regarding "no offense otherwise": from that very Vibhaṅga, in whatever manner an offense is stated, in a manner other than that, there is indeed a distinction of no-offense. For, if the Vibhaṅga were absent, it would not be discerned that "Consenting, there is a pārājika offense; not consenting, there is no offense." By this much, the meaning of the verse has been stated in brief. And here, moreover—

‘‘Nidānamātikābhedo, vibhaṅgassa payojanaṃ;

Anāpattipakāro ca, paṭhamo nippayojano’’ti. –

The division of the origin story and the matrix, the purpose of the analysis, and the section on non-offenses; the first is without purpose.

Imaṃ nayaṃ dassetvāva sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ attho pakāsitabbo. Kathaṃ? Bhagavatā pana yenākārena yaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññāpitaṃ, tassa ākārassa samatthaṃ vā asamatthaṃ vāti duvidhaṃ nidānaṃ, ayaṃ nidānabhedo. Mātikāpi nidānāpekkhā nidānānapekkhāti duvidhā. Tattha catutthapārājikādisikkhāpadāni nidānāpekkhāni. Na hi vaggumudātīriyā bhikkhū sayameva attano attano asantaṃ uttarimanussadhammaṃ musāvādalakkhaṇaṃ pāpetvā bhāsiṃsu. Aññamaññassa hi te uttarimanussadhammassa gihīnaṃ vaṇṇaṃ bhāsiṃsu, na ca tāvatā pārājikavatthu hoti. Tattha tena lesena bhagavā taṃ vatthuṃ nidānaṃ katvā pārājikaṃ paññapesi, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘nidānāpekkha’’nti. Iminā nayena nidānāpekkhāni ñatvā tabbiparītāni sikkhāpadāni nidānānapekkhānīti veditabbāni, ayaṃ mātikābhedo.

Having shown this method, the meaning of all the training rules should be explained. How? In whatever manner a training rule was laid down by the Blessed One, the origin story of that manner is twofold: complete or incomplete. This is the division of the origin story. The matrix is also twofold: dependent on the origin story or not dependent on the origin story. Herein, the training rules such as the fourth Pārājika are dependent on the origin story. For the monks on the bank of the Vaggumudā did not, of their own accord, speak by falsely claiming a superhuman state that they did not possess, which is characteristic of false speech. Rather, they spoke in praise of each other's superhuman state to householders, and merely by that, the ground for a Pārājika offense does not arise. There, on that pretext, the Blessed One, having made that matter the origin story, laid down the Pārājika. Therefore, it is said to be 'dependent on the origin story.' By this method, having known the training rules that are dependent on the origin story, the rules opposite to them should be understood as not dependent on the origin story. This is the division of the matrix.

Nānappakārato mūlāpattippahonakavatthupayogacittaniyāmadassanavasena mātikāya vibhajanabhāvadīpanatthaṃ tesaṃ appahonakatāya vā tadaññataravekallatāya vā vītikkame sati āpattibhedadassanatthaṃ, asati anāpattidassanatthañcāti sabbattha tayo atthavase paṭicca mātikāya vibhajanaṃ vibhaṅgo ārabhīyatīti veditabbo. Ettha pana ‘‘bhikkhakoti bhikkhu, bhikkhācariyaṃ ajjhupagatoti bhikkhu, bhinnapaṭadharoti bhikkhū’’ti kevalaṃ byañjanatthadīpanavasena pavatto vā, ‘‘samaññāya bhikkhū’’ti bhikkhubhāvasambhavaṃ anapekkhitvāpi kevalaṃ bhikkhu nāma pavattiṭṭhānadīpanavasena pavatto vā, ‘‘ehi bhikkhūti bhikkhu, saraṇagamanehi upasampannoti bhikkhu, ñatticatutthena kammena upasampannoti bhikkhū’’ti upasampadānantarenāpi bhikkhubhāvasiddhidīpanavasena [Pg.80] pavatto vā, ‘‘bhadro bhikkhu, sāro bhikkhu, sekkho bhikkhu, asekkho bhikkhū’’ti bhikkhukaraṇehi dhammehi samannāgatabhikkhudīpanavasena pavatto vā vibhaṅgo ajjhupekkhito sabbasāmaññapadattā, tathā aññabhāgiyasikkhāpadādīsu sadvāravasena, adhikaraṇadassanādivasena pavatto ca ajjhupekkhito itarattha tadabhāvatoti veditabbo.

It should be understood that in all training rules, the Vibhaṅga is undertaken depending on three purposes: to show, in various ways, the nature of the division of the mātikā by way of showing the object, effort, and mind sufficient for a root offense; to show the types of offenses when there is a transgression due to their insufficiency or a deficiency in one or another of them; and to show non-offense when there is no transgression. Here, however, the Vibhaṅga is overlooked when it proceeds merely by way of showing the meaning of the words, such as: ‘A bhikkhu is a beggar... a bhikkhu is one who wears a torn-cloth robe’; or when it proceeds merely by way of showing the basis for the occurrence of the name ‘bhikkhu’ even without considering the possibility of the state of a bhikkhu, such as: ‘Bhikkhus by designation’; or when it proceeds by way of showing the accomplishment of the state of a bhikkhu immediately upon higher ordination, such as: ‘A bhikkhu is one who is told, “Come, bhikkhu,”... a bhikkhu is one who is fully ordained by a formal act with a motion and three announcements’; or when it proceeds by way of showing a bhikkhu who is endowed with the qualities that make one a bhikkhu, such as: ‘A virtuous bhikkhu... a non-trainee bhikkhu’. This is because it is a term common to all training rules. Likewise, in the Aññabhāgiya training rules and so on, that which proceeds by way of their own doors, by way of showing legal cases, and so on, is also overlooked, because in other training rules, such a Vibhaṅga does not exist. Thus it should be understood.

Tattha tisso itthiyotiādi vatthuniyamadassanavasena pavatto, manussitthiyā tayo magge methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevantassa āpatti pārājikassātiādi payoganiyamadassanavasena pavatto, bhikkhussa sevanacittaṃ upaṭṭhitetiādi cittaniyamadassanavasena pavatto, sādiyati āpatti pārājikassa, na sādiyati anāpattītiādi vatthupayoganiyame sati cittaniyamabhāvābhāvavasena āpattānāpattidassanatthaṃ pavatto, mataṃ yebhuyyena khāyitaṃ āpatti thullaccayassātiādi vatthussa appahonakatāya vītikkame āpattibhedadassanatthaṃ pavatto, na sādiyati anāpattīti cittaniyamavekalyena vītikkamābhāvā anāpattidassanatthaṃ pavattoti. Evaṃ itaresupi sikkhāpadesu yathāsambhavanayo ayanti payojano vibhaṅgo.

Therein, the passage beginning 'three women' is set forth by way of showing the determination of the object. The passage beginning 'for one engaging in sexual intercourse in the three passages of a human woman, there is an offense of pārājika' is set forth by way of showing the determination of the effort. The passage beginning 'when a bhikkhu's mind for engaging arises' is set forth by way of showing the determination of the mind. The passage beginning 'if he consents, it is an offense of pārājika; if he does not consent, there is no offense' is set forth to show offense and no-offense by way of the presence or absence of the determination of the mind when the determination of the object and effort exist. The passage beginning 'a corpse mostly eaten... it is an offense of thullaccaya' is set forth to show the distinction of offenses in a transgression due to the object's insufficiency. The passage 'if he does not consent, there is no offense' is set forth to show no-offense because of the absence of transgression due to a deficiency in the determination of the mind. In this way, this method is to be understood as is appropriate in the other training rules as well. Thus, the purpose of the Vibhaṅga is to be seen.

Anāpattivāro pana mūlāpattito, tadaññekadesato, sabbāpattito ca anāpattidīpanavasena tividho. Tattha yo paṭhamo, so vibhaṅgo viya tayo atthavase paṭicca pavatto. Katame tayo? Mātikāpadānaṃ sātthakaniratthakānaṃ tadaññathā uddharaṇānuddharaṇavasena sappayojananippayojanabhāvadīpanatthaṃ, tadaññathā paṭipattikkamadassanatthaṃ, āpattippahonakaṭṭhānepi vissajjanatthañcāti. Kathaṃ? Eḷakalomasikkhāpade ‘‘bhikkhuno paneva addhānamaggappaṭipannassa eḷakalomāni uppajjeyyuṃ, ākaṅkhamānena bhikkhunā paṭiggahetabbānī’’ti (pārā. 572) etāni kevalaṃ vatthumattadīpanapadānīti niratthakāni nāma, tesaṃ anāpatti. ‘‘Addhānamaggaṃ appaṭipannassa uppanne eḷakalome anāpatti, ākaṅkhamānena paṭiggahite’’tiādinā nayena tadaññathā anuddharaṇena nippayojanabhāvo dīpito hoti, yadidaṃ mātikāyaṃ ‘‘methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyā’’ti, idaṃ sātthakaṃ. Tassa [Pg.81] sappayojanabhāvadīpanatthaṃ ‘‘anāpatti ajānantassa asādiyantassā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yasmā jānanasādiyanabhāvena āpatti, asevantassa anāpatti, tasmā vuttaṃ mātikāyaṃ ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya, pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso’’ti adhippāyo. ‘‘Parapariggahitaṃ parapariggahitasaññitā garuparikkhāro theyyacittaṃ avaharaṇa’’nti vuttānaṃ pañcannampi aṅgānaṃ pāripūriyā petatiracchānagatapariggahite āpattippahonakaṭṭhānepi vissajjanatthaṃ ‘‘anāpatti petapariggahite’’tiādi (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyapārājikavaṇṇanā) vuttaṃ. Anāpatti imaṃ jāna, imaṃ dehi, imaṃ āhara, iminā attho, imaṃ kappiyaṃ karohīti bhaṇatītiādi pana tadaññathā paṭipattikkamadassanatthaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Ettāvatā ‘‘nidānamātikābhedo’’tiādinā vuttagāthāya attho pakāsito hoti.

The section on non-offenses, however, is threefold by way of explaining non-offenses: from the root offense, from a portion other than that, and from all offenses. Among these, the first, like the Vibhaṅga, has proceeded depending on three purposes. What are the three? For the purpose of showing the meaningfulness and meaninglessness of the mātikā-terms by way of citation and non-citation in a different manner; for the purpose of showing the sequence of practice in a different manner; and for absolution even in a situation sufficient for an offense. How so? In the training rule concerning sheep's wool, the words: 'If sheep's wool should arise for a bhikkhu who has entered upon a long road, it is to be accepted by the bhikkhu if he is desirous.' These terms merely show the subject matter and are thus called meaningless; for them, there is no offense. By the method beginning with, 'For one who has not entered upon a long road, if sheep's wool arises, there is no offense; if it is accepted by one who is desirous,' by not citing it in a different manner, its purposelessness is shown. As for the statement in the mātikā, 'should engage in the act of sexual intercourse,' this is meaningful. For the purpose of showing its purposefulness, it was said: 'There is no offense for one who is unknowing, for one who is not consenting.' Because there is an offense through the state of knowing and consenting, and no offense for one who does not engage, it was therefore said in the mātikā: 'Whatever bhikkhu should engage in the act of sexual intercourse, he is defeated, not in communion.' This is the intention. For the five factors stated—'possessed by another,' 'the perception of it as possessed by another,' 'a heavy requisite,' 'a thievish intention,' and 'removal'—for the purpose of absolution even in a situation sufficient for an offense regarding what is possessed by a departed one or an animal, it is said: 'There is no offense regarding what is possessed by a departed one,' and so on. However, 'There is no offense for one who says, “Know this, give this, bring this, there is a need for this, make this allowable,”' and so on, should be understood as having been said for the purpose of showing the sequence of practice in a different manner. By this much, the meaning of the verse stated, beginning with 'The distinction of the introduction and the mātikā,' has been explained.

Ettha paṭhamapaññatti tāva paṭhamabodhiṃ atikkamitvā paññattattā, āyasmato sudinnassa aṭṭhavassikakāle paññattattā ca rattaññumahattaṃ pattakāle paññattā. Dutiyaanupaññatti bāhusaccamahattaṃ pattakāle uppannā. So hāyasmā makkaṭipārājiko yathā mātugāmapaṭisaṃyuttesu sikkhāpadesu tiracchānagatitthī anadhippetā, tathā idhāpīti saññāya ‘‘saccaṃ, āvuso, bhagavatā sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ, tañca kho manussitthiyā, no tiracchānagatitthiyā’’ti āha. Tatiyānupaññatti lābhaggamahattaṃ pattakāle uppannā. Te hi vajjiputtakā lābhaggamahattaṃ pattā hutvā yāvadatthaṃ bhuñjitvā nhāyitvā varasayanesu sayitvā tatiyānupaññattiyā vatthuṃ uppādesuṃ, te ca vepullamahattaṃ patte saṅghe uppannā, sayañca vepullamahattaṃ pattāti ‘‘vepullamahattampettha labbhatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Idaṃ paṭhamapārājikasikkhāpadaṃ tividhampi vatthuṃ upādāya catubbidhampi taṃ kālaṃ patvā paññattanti veditabbaṃ.

Herein, the first enactment was laid down at the time of reaching the greatness of seniority, because it was enacted after the first enlightenment had been passed and because it was enacted when the Venerable Sudinna was of eight years' standing. The second supplementary enactment arose when the greatness of great learning was reached. That venerable one who committed a pārājika offense with a monkey, with the thought, 'Just as in the training rules connected with women a female animal is not intended, so too here she is not intended,' said, 'Indeed, friend, a training rule was enacted by the Blessed One, and that was for a human woman, not for a female animal.' The third supplementary enactment arose when the greatness of the highest gain was reached. For those Vajjian monks, having reached the greatness of the highest gain, and having eaten to their heart's content, bathed, and slept on excellent beds, gave rise to the basis for the third supplementary enactment. And they arose in a Saṅgha that had reached a state of abundance, and they themselves had reached a state of abundance. Therefore, it was said: 'Herein, the greatness of abundance is also obtained.' This first Pārājika training rule should be understood as having been enacted based upon three kinds of incidents and having reached those four kinds of times.

Tattha yo panāti anavasesapariyādānapadaṃ. Bhikkhūti tassa atippasaṅganiyamapadaṃ. Bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpannoti tassa visesanavacanaṃ. Na hi sabbopi bhikkhunāmako yā bhagavatā yāya kāyaci upasampadāya upasampannabhikkhūnaṃ heṭṭhimaparicchedena sikkhitabbasikkhā vihitā, ‘‘ettha saha jīvantī’’ti yo ca ājīvo vutto, taṃ ubhayaṃ samāpannova hoti. Kadā pana samāpanno ahosi? Yāya kāyaci upasampadāya upasampannasamanantarameva [Pg.82] tadubhayaṃ jānantopi ajānantopi tadajjhupagatattā samāpanno nāma hoti. Saha jīvantīti yāva sikkhaṃ na paccakkhāti, pārājikabhāvañca na pāpuṇāti, yaṃ pana vuttaṃ andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sikkhaṃ paripūrento sikkhāsamāpanno sājīvaṃ avītikkamanto sājīvasamāpanno hotī’’ti, taṃ ukkaṭṭhaparicchedavasena vuttaṃ. Na hi sikkhaṃ aparipūrento kāmavitakkādibahulo vā ekaccaṃ sāvasesaṃ sājīvaṃ vītikkamanto vā sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno nāma na hoti. Ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena pana catukkaṃ labbhati atthi bhikkhu sikkhāsamāpanno sīlāni paccavekkhanto na sājīvasamāpanno acittakaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ vītikkamanto, atthi na sikkhāsamāpanno kāmavitakkādibahulo sājīvasamāpanno nirāpattiko, atthi na sikkhāsamāpanno na ca sājīvasamāpanno anavasesaṃ āpattiṃ āpanno, atthi sikkhāsamāpanno ca sājīvasamāpanno ca sikkhaṃ paripūrento sājīvañca avītikkamanto, ayameva catuttho bhikkhu ukkaṭṭho idha adhippeto siyā. Na hi bhagavā anukkaṭṭhaṃ vattuṃ yuttoti ce? Na, ‘‘tatra yāyaṃ adhisīlasikkhā, ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippetā sikkhā’’tivacanavirodhato. Ukkaṭṭhaggahaṇādhippāye sati ‘‘sikkhāti tisso sikkhā’’ti ettakameva vattabbanti adhippāyo. Sikkhattayasamāpanno hi sabbukkaṭṭhoti.

Herein, 'whoever' is a term that includes everything without exception. 'Bhikkhu' is a term that restricts that over-extension. 'One who has undertaken the training and livelihood of bhikkhus' is a qualifying term for that. For not every person merely called a bhikkhu is one who has undertaken both the training that should be learned, prescribed by the Blessed One for bhikkhus ordained by any kind of ordination according to the lowest limit, and the livelihood that was spoken of as 'they live together herein'. But when did one become one who has undertaken it? Immediately upon being ordained by any kind of ordination, whether knowing or not knowing, by virtue of having accepted it, one is said to be one who has undertaken both. One lives together with this training and livelihood for as long as one does not renounce the training and does not reach the state of pārājika. As for what is stated in the Andhaka Commentary, 'one who fulfills the training is one who has undertaken the training, and one who does not transgress the livelihood is one who has undertaken the livelihood' — this was said by way of the highest standard. For it is not the case that one who does not fulfill the training, or who is abundant in sensual thoughts, or who transgresses some part of the livelihood that has a remainder, is not one who has undertaken the training and livelihood. But according to the highest standard, a fourfold distinction is found: there is a bhikkhu who has undertaken the training, reflecting on the precepts, but has not undertaken the livelihood, transgressing a training rule unintentionally; there is one who has not undertaken the training, being abundant in sensual thoughts, but has undertaken the livelihood, being without offense; there is one who has neither undertaken the training nor the livelihood, having incurred an offense without remainder; and there is one who has both undertaken the training and the livelihood, fulfilling the training and not transgressing the livelihood. This fourth bhikkhu, the highest, might be intended here. If it is said, 'For it is not fitting for the Blessed One to speak of what is not the highest,' the reply is no, because of the contradiction with the statement, 'Herein, that which is the training in higher virtue, this is the training intended in this context.' If the intention were to take the highest, the meaning is that only this much should be said: 'Training means the three trainings.' For one who has undertaken the threefold training is the highest of all.

‘‘Methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyā’’ti parato vacanaṃ apekkhitvā adhisīlasikkhāva vuttāti ce? Na, tassāpi abhabbattā. Na hi adhisīlasikkhaṃ paripūrento sājīvañca avītikkamanto methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevituṃ bhabbo, taṃ sikkhaṃ aparipūrento sājīvañca vītikkamanto eva hi paṭiseveyyāti adhippāyo, tasmā evamettha attho gahetabbo. Yasmā sikkhāpadasaṅkhāto sājīvo adhisīlasikkhameva saṅgaṇhāti, netaraṃ adhicittasikkhaṃ adhipaññāsikkhaṃ vā, tasmā ‘‘tatra yāyaṃ adhisīlasikkhā, ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippetā sikkhā’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā adhisīlasikkhāya saṅgāhako sājīvo sikkhāsājīvoti vutto. Iti sājīvavisesanatthaṃ sikkhāggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Tadatthadīpanatthameva vibhaṅge sikkhaṃ aparāmasitvā ‘‘tasmiṃ sikkhati, tena vuccati sājīvasamāpanno’’ti vuttaṃ[Pg.83], tena ekamevidaṃ atthapadanti dīpitaṃ hoti. Tañca upasampadūpagamanantarato paṭṭhāya sikkhanādhikārattā ‘‘sikkhatī’’ti ca ‘‘samāpanno’’ti ca vuccati. Yo evaṃ ‘‘sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno’’ti saṅkhyaṃ gato, tādisaṃ paccayaṃ paṭicca aparabhāge sājīvasaṅkhātameva sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya, tasmiṃyeva ca dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyāti ayamattho yujjati. Kintu aṭṭhakathānayo paṭikkhitto hoti. So ca na paṭikkhepārahoti tena tadanusārena bhavitabbaṃ.

If it were said that only the training in higher virtue is meant, in consideration of the subsequent statement, 'he should engage in sexual intercourse'? That should not be said, for that too is impossible for him. For one who is fulfilling the training in higher virtue and not transgressing the livelihood is not able to engage in sexual intercourse. Indeed, only one who is not fulfilling that training and is transgressing the livelihood would engage in it; this is the intended meaning. Therefore, the meaning here should be understood thus. Because the livelihood, designated as the training rule, includes only the training in higher virtue—not the other, the training in higher mind or the training in higher wisdom—it is therefore said: 'Therein, that which is the training in higher virtue, this is the training intended in this context.' Therefore, the livelihood that includes the training in higher virtue is called 'training-livelihood'. Thus, the taking up of the word 'training' is done to specify the livelihood. For the very purpose of clarifying that meaning, it is said in the Vibhaṅga, without referring to 'training': 'He trains in that, therefore he is called one who has undertaken the livelihood.' By that, it is shown that this is a single term of meaning. And that, starting from immediately after attaining full ordination, is called 'he trains' and 'he has undertaken' because of the authorization to train. This meaning is suitable: that one who has thus come to be designated as 'one who has undertaken the training and livelihood,' having depended on such a condition, might subsequently, without renouncing the training itself designated as livelihood, and without revealing weakness in it, engage in sexual intercourse. However, the commentarial method is thereby rejected. And that is not worthy of rejection; therefore, one should proceed in accordance with it.

Adhippāyo panettha pariyesitabbo, so dāni vuccati – sabbesupi sikkhāpadesu idameva bhikkhulakkhaṇaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ, yadidaṃ ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno’’ti. Khīṇāsavopi sāvako āpattiṃ āpajjati acittakaṃ, tathā sekkho. Puthujjano pana sacittakampi, tasmā sekkhāsekkhaputhujjanabhikkhūnaṃ sāmaññamidaṃ bhikkhulakkhaṇanti katvā kevalaṃ sikkhāsamāpanno, kevalaṃ sājīvasamāpanno ca ubhayasamāpanno cāti sarūpekadesekasesanayena ‘‘sikkhāsājīvasamaāpanno’’tveva sampiṇḍetvā ukkaṭṭhaggahaṇena anukkaṭṭhānaṃ gahaṇasiddhito aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ukkaṭṭhova vutto. Tameva sampādetuṃ ‘‘tasmiṃ sikkhati, tena vuccati sājīvasamāpanno’’ti ettha sikkhāpadassa avacane parihāraṃ vatvā yasmā pana so asikkhampi samāpanno, tasmā sikkhāsamāpannotipi atthato veditabboti ca vatvā ‘‘yaṃ sikkhaṃ samāpanno taṃ appaccakkhāya yañca sājīvaṃ samāpanno tattha dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā’’ti vuttanti ayamaṭṭhakathāyaṃ adhippāyo veditabbo. Etasmiṃ pana adhippāye adhisīlasikkhāya eva gahaṇaṃ sabbatthikattā, sīlādhikārato ca vinayassāti veditabbaṃ. Yathā ca sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyanto sīlaṃ samādiyatīti vuccati, evaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paccakkhanto sīlasaṅkhātaṃ sikkhaṃ paccakkhātīti vattuṃ yujjati, tasmā tattha vuttaṃ ‘‘yaṃ sikkhaṃ samāpanno, taṃ appaccakkhāyā’’ti. Sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya paṭisevitamethunassa upasampadaṃ anujānanto na samūhanati nāma. Na hi so bhikkhu hutvā paṭisevi, ‘‘yo pana bhikkhū’’ti ca paññattaṃ. Ettāvatā samāsato ‘‘sikkhāsājīvasamānno’’ti ettha vattabbaṃ vuttaṃ.

The intention here should be sought, and it is now stated: In all the training rules, this is the common characteristic of a bhikkhu, namely, 'one who has undertaken the training and livelihood of bhikkhus.' Even a disciple whose cankers are destroyed incurs an unintentional offense, as does a trainee. An ordinary person, however, incurs even an intentional one. Therefore, having considered this to be the common characteristic of bhikkhus—trainees, non-trainees, and ordinary persons—and having summarized 'one who has undertaken merely the training,' 'one who has undertaken merely the livelihood,' and 'one who has undertaken both' into just 'one who has undertaken the training and livelihood' by the method of elliptical compounding, because the inclusion of the lesser cases is established by taking the highest case, only the highest case is mentioned in the commentary. To establish that very meaning, having stated the explanation for the non-mention of the training rule in the passage 'He trains in that, therefore he is called one who has undertaken the livelihood,' and having said, 'And since that person has also undertaken the training, therefore he should also be understood in meaning as "one who has undertaken the training,"' and having said, 'Whatever training he has undertaken, without having rejected that, and whatever livelihood he has undertaken, without having revealed weakness therein'—this is the intention in the commentary that should be understood. In this intention, however, it should be understood that the taking is of the training in higher virtue itself, because of its relevance in all cases and because the Vinaya has virtue as its domain. And just as one who undertakes a training rule is said to undertake virtue, so it is fitting to say that one who rejects a training rule rejects the training designated as virtue. Therefore, it is stated there: 'Whatever training he has undertaken, without having rejected that.' In permitting higher ordination for one who, having rejected the training, has engaged in sexual intercourse, one does not, in fact, abolish the rule. For that person did not engage in it while being a bhikkhu, and the rule is laid down as, 'Whatever bhikkhu...' Thus far, in brief, what should be said regarding 'one who has undertaken the training and livelihood' has been said.

Kiṃ iminā visesavacanena payojanaṃ, nanu ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā…pe… asaṃvāso’’ti ettakameva vattabbanti ce[Pg.84]? Na vattabbaṃ aniṭṭhappasaṅgato. Yo pana sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno theyyasaṃvāsādiko kevalena samaññāmattena, paṭiññāmattena vā bhikkhu, tassāpi sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ atthi. Sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya ca methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevantassa pārājikāpatti. Yo vā pacchā pārājikaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjitvā na sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno tassa ca, yo vā pakkhapaṇḍakattā paṇḍakabhāvūpagamanena na sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno tassa ca tadubhayaṃ atthīti āpajjati. ‘‘Paṇḍakabhāvapakkhe ca pakkhapaṇḍako upasampadāya na vatthū’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā itarasmiṃ pakkhe vatthūti siddhaṃ, tasmiṃ pakkhe upasampanno paṇḍakabhāvapakkhe paṇḍakattā na sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno, so pariccajitabbasikkhāya abhāvena sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya mukhena parassa aṅgajātaggahaṇādayo methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya, tassa kuto pārājikāpattīti adhippāyo. Ayaṃ nayo apaṇḍakapakkhaṃ alabhamānasseva parato yujjati, labhantassa pana arūpasattānaṃ kusalānaṃ samāpattikkhaṇe bhavaṅgavicchede satipi amaraṇaṃ viya paṇḍakabhāvapakkhepi bhikkhubhāvo atthi. Saṃvāsaṃ vā sādiyantassa na theyyasaṃvāsakabhāvo atthi antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpannassa viya. Na ca sahaseyyādikaṃ janeti. Gaṇapūrako pana na hoti antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpanno viya, na so sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno, itarasmiṃ pana pakkhe hoti, ayaṃ imassa tato viseso. Kimayaṃ sahetuko, udāhu ahetukoti? Na ahetuko. Yato upasampadā tassa apaṇḍakapakkhe anuññātā sahetukapaṭisandhikattā. Paṇḍakabhāvapakkhepi kissa nānuññātāti ce? Paṇḍakabhūtattā opakkamikapaṇḍakassa viya.

What is the purpose of this special statement? If one were to ask, "Should one not just say this much: 'Whatever bhikkhu, without renouncing the training and without revealing his weakness... is not in communion'?" It should not be said, because of the consequence of an undesirable meaning. For whoever is not one who has entered upon the training and livelihood—such as a thief-in-communion—or is a bhikkhu by mere designation or by mere claim, even for such a one there is the renunciation of the training. And for one who engages in the sexual act without renouncing the training, there is a pārājika offense. Or for whoever, having later fallen into a pārājika offense, is not one who has entered upon the training and livelihood; and for whoever, due to being a fortnightly paṇḍaka, by reaching the state of a paṇḍaka, is not one who has entered upon the training and livelihood—for both of them, it follows that those two factors exist. It has been said, "In the phase of being a paṇḍaka, a fortnightly paṇḍaka is not a basis for ordination." Therefore, it is established that in the other phase, he is a basis. One ordained in that phase, when in the paṇḍaka phase, due to being a paṇḍaka, is not one who has entered upon the training and livelihood. He, due to the absence of a training that ought to be abandoned, if he were to engage in the sexual act—such as grasping another's genitals with the mouth and so on—without renouncing the training, whence could there be a pārājika offense for him? This is the intention. This method is applicable only for one who does not subsequently obtain the non-paṇḍaka phase. For one who does obtain it, however, just as for formless beings at the moment of attaining wholesome states, even though there is an interruption of the life-continuum, it is like not dying; so too, even in the paṇḍaka phase, the bhikkhu-state exists. Or for one who consents to communion, there is no state of being a thief-in-communion, just as for one who has committed a final offense. And it does not generate the offenses of sleeping together, etc. However, he is not one who completes a quorum, just like one who has committed a final offense. He is not one who has entered upon the training and livelihood, but in the other phase, he is. This is the difference of this one from that one. Is this one with root-conditions, or without root-conditions? Not without root-conditions. Because ordination is permitted for him in the non-paṇḍaka phase, due to his having a rebirth-linking with root-conditions. If one asks, "Why is it not permitted even in the paṇḍaka phase?" Because of being a paṇḍaka, just as for an opakkamikapaṇḍaka.

Apica sikkhāsājīvasamāpannoti iminā tassa sikkhāsamādānaṃ dīpetvā taṃ samādinnasikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya tattha ca dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvāti vattuṃ yujjati, na aññathāti iminā kāraṇena yathāvuttāniṭṭhappasaṅgato ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāyā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Yathā cettha, tathā ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā gāmā vā araññā vā adinnaṃ theyyasaṅkhātaṃ ādiyeyya (pārā. 89), sugatacīvarappamāṇaṃ cīvaraṃ kārāpeyya atirekaṃ vā, chedanakaṃ pācittiya’’ntiādinā (pāci. 548) nayena sabbattha yojetabbaṃ[Pg.85]. Antamaso tiracchānagatāyapīti manussitthiṃ upādāya vuttaṃ. Na hi ‘‘pageva paṇḍake purise vā’’ti vattuṃ yujjati. Sesaṃ tattha tattha vuttanayameva.

Furthermore, by the phrase 'one who has undertaken the training and livelihood,' having explained that person's undertaking of the training, it is appropriate to say 'without renouncing that undertaken training and without revealing weakness therein'—not otherwise. For this reason, to avoid the consequence of the previously mentioned undesirable meaning, it is stated: 'Whatever bhikkhu, having undertaken the training and livelihood of bhikkhus, without renouncing the training...' and so on. As it is here, so too should it be applied everywhere by the method of such passages as: 'Whatever bhikkhu, having undertaken the training and livelihood of bhikkhus, without renouncing the training and without revealing weakness, should take from a village or a forest what is not given, which is considered theft; or should have a robe made of the Sugata-measure or in excess, it is an offense requiring cutting,' and so on. The phrase 'even with a female animal' is stated with reference to a human woman. For it is not appropriate to say, 'how much more so a paṇḍaka or a man.' The remainder is just as has been explained in each respective case.

Ayaṃ paṭhamapārājikassa mātikāya tāva vinicchayo.

This, for now, is the analysis in the matrix of the first Pārājika.

Catubbidhavinayakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Fourfold Vinaya

45. Nīharitvāti ettha sāsanato nīharitvāti attho. ‘‘Pañcahupāli, aṅgehi samannāgatena bhikkhunā nānuyuñjitabbaṃ. Katamehi pañcahi? Suttaṃ na jānāti, suttānulomaṃ na jānātī’’ti (pari. 442) evamādito hi pariyattisāsanato suttaṃ, suttānulomañca nīharitvā pakāsesuṃ. ‘‘Anāpatti evaṃ amhākaṃ ācariyānaṃ uggaho paripucchāti bhaṇatī’’ti evamādito pariyattisāsanato ācariyavādaṃ nīharitvā pakāsesuṃ. Bhārukacchakavatthusmiṃ ‘‘āyasmā upāli evamāha – anāpatti, āvuso, supinantenā’’ti (pārā. 78) evamādito pariyattisāsanato eva attanomatiṃ nīharitvā pakāsesuṃ. Tāya hi attanomatiyā thero etadaggaṭṭhānaṃ labhi. Api ca vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā ‘‘anupasampannena paññattena vā apaññattena vā vuccamāno…pe… anādariyaṃ karoti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (pāci. 343). Tattha hi paññattaṃ nāma suttaṃ. Sesattayaṃ apaññattaṃ nāma. Tenāyaṃ ‘‘catubbidhañhi vinayaṃ, mahātherā’’ti gāthā suvuttā. Yaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ nāgasenattherena. Āhaccapadenāti aṭṭha vaṇṇaṭṭhānāni āhacca vuttena padanikāyenāti attho, udāhaṭena kaṇṭhokkantena padasamūhenāti adhippāyo. Rasenāti tassa āhaccabhāsitassa rasena, tato uddhaṭena vinicchayenāti attho. Suttacchāyā viya hi suttānulomaṃ. Ācariyavādo ‘‘ācariyavaṃso’’ti vutto pāḷiyaṃ vuttānaṃ ācariyānaṃ paramparāya ābhatova pamāṇanti dassanatthaṃ. Adhippāyoti kāraṇopapattisiddho uhāpohanayappavatto paccakkhādipamāṇapatirūpako. Adhippāyoti ettha ‘‘attanomatī’’ti keci atthaṃ vadanti.

45. Herein, 'having extracted' means having extracted from the Teaching of the scriptures. Indeed, beginning with 'Upāli, a monk endowed with five qualities should not be questioned. What five? He does not know the Sutta, he does not know what accords with the Sutta,' they extracted the Sutta and what accords with the Sutta from the Teaching of the scriptures and proclaimed it. Beginning with '“There is no offense,” thus is the learning and inquiry of our teachers, he says,' they extracted the teachers' doctrine from the Teaching of the scriptures and proclaimed it. In the case of the Bhārukacchaka, beginning with 'The Venerable Upāli said thus: “Friends, there is no offense in a dream,”' they extracted their own opinion from the Teaching of the scriptures itself and proclaimed it. Indeed, by that very own opinion, the Elder attained the foremost position. Moreover, this was said by the Blessed One: 'Being told by one who is not fully ordained about what is prescribed or not prescribed... if he shows disrespect, there is an offense of wrong-doing.' Therein, what is called 'prescribed' is the Sutta. The remaining three are called 'not prescribed.' Therefore, this verse is well-spoken: 'For the Vinaya is fourfold, O great elders.' In reference to which it was said by the Elder Nāgasena. 'By a direct word' (āhaccapadena) means by a collection of words spoken by touching upon the eight places of articulation; the intention is by a group of words uttered, produced from the throat. 'By the essence' (rasena) means by the judgment of that which is spoken directly; the meaning is by the judgment extracted from that. Indeed, what accords with the Sutta is like the shadow of the Sutta. The teachers' doctrine is called the 'lineage of teachers' in order to show that only what is brought down through the succession of teachers mentioned in the Pāli is authoritative. 'Intention' (adhippāyo) is that which is established by reason and grounds, which proceeds by the method of induction and deduction, and which resembles the standards of direct perception and so on. Herein, regarding 'intention,' some state the meaning is 'one's own opinion.'

Parivāraṭṭhakathāyaṃ[Pg.86], 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 (pārā. 43) 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 payogaṃ gacchanti, itare ubhayatthāpi, teneva parivāre anuyogavatte ‘‘dhammaṃ na jānāti, dhammānulomaṃ na jānātī’’ti (pari. 442) vuttaṃ. Tattha dhammanti ṭhapetvā vinayapiṭakaṃ avasesapiṭakadvayaṃ. Dhammānulomanti suttantike cattāro mahāpadese. Tattha yo dhammaṃ dhammānulomañceva jānāti, na vinayaṃ vinayānulomañca, so ‘‘dhammaṃ rakkhāmī’’ti vinayaṃ ubbinayaṃ karoti, itaro ‘‘vinayaṃ rakkhāmī’’ti dhammaṃ uddhammaṃ karoti, ubhayaṃ jānanto ubhayampi sampādeti.

In the commentary on the Parivāra, and also here in this commentary on the Pārājika section, although it is said, “The four great authorities are what is called ‘conformity with the Suttas’,” nevertheless, what is established by the method of the great authorities—what is rejected and not rejected, what is permitted and not permitted, what is allowable and not allowable—is what is meant. Therein, because the words ‘ṭhāna’ (place), ‘okāsa’ (opportunity), and ‘padesa’ (region) are synonyms for ‘kāraṇa’ (reason)—according to the Teaching, as in, “This is impossible, Ānanda, there is no opportunity,” etc., and according to worldly usage, as in “a place of censure,” “a position not seen,” and “a region not seen”—therefore, ‘mahāpadesā’ means ‘great reasons.’ Here, by ‘reason’ is intended a cause that makes known. Their greatness, however, is due to their vast scope, like that of the great elements. They are of two kinds: the Vinaya great authorities and the Suttantika great authorities. Among these, the Vinaya great authorities are applied only in the Vinaya, while the others are applied in both. For that very reason, in the Parivāra, in the section on the practice of inquiry, it is said, “He does not know the Dhamma; he does not know what conforms to the Dhamma.” Therein, by ‘Dhamma’ is intended the remaining two Piṭakas, having excluded the Vinaya Piṭaka. By ‘what conforms to the Dhamma’ is intended the four great authorities in the Suttanta. Therein, one who knows the Dhamma and what conforms to the Dhamma, but does not know the Vinaya and what conforms to the Vinaya, thinking, “I will protect the Dhamma,” makes the Vinaya into non-Vinaya. The other, thinking, “I will protect the Vinaya,” makes the Dhamma into non-Dhamma. One who knows both accomplishes both.

Tatridaṃ mukhamattaṃ – tattha paṭhamo ‘‘so ce pavesanaṃ sādiyati, paviṭṭhaṃ, ṭhitaṃ, uddharaṇaṃ sādiyati āpatti, na sādiyati anāpattī’’ti ettha vippaṭipajjati. So hāyasmā sukhavedanīyassa upādinnaphoṭṭhabbassa, kāyindriyassa ca samāyoge sati paṭivijānanto kāyikasukhavedanuppattimattena sādiyati nāmāti paricchinditvā tassa āpatti pārājikassāti asevanādhippāyassapi āpattippasaṅgaṃ karoti, tathā yassa santhatattā vā yonidosavasena vā dukkhā asātā vedanā, vātopahaṭagattatāya vā neva kāyikavedanā, tassa jānato ajānatopi ‘‘anāpatti asādiyantassā’’ti (pārā. 76) suttantaṃ dassetvā sevanādhippāyassāpi anāpattippasaṅgaṃ karoti, tathā yadi mocanarāgena upakkamato mutte saṅghādiseso, pageva methunarāgenāti dukkaṭaṭṭhānaṃ gahetvā saṅghādisesaṭṭhānaṃ karoti, evaṃ vinayaṃ ubbinayaṃ karoti nāma. Itaro ‘‘anāpatti ajānantassāti vuttattā jānato jānaneneva [Pg.87] sukhavedanā hotu vā mā vā sādiyanā hotī’’ti vatvā asevanādhippāyassapi jānato anāpattiṭṭhāne āpattiṃ karoti, anavajjaṃ sāvajjaṃ karotīti evaṃ dhammaṃ uddhammaṃ karoti. Ubhayaṃ pana jānanto ‘‘bhikkhussa sevanacittaṃ upaṭṭhiteti (pārā. 57) vacanato sevanacittamevettha pamāṇaṃ, tassa bhāvena āpatti pārājikassa, abhāvena anāpattī’’ti vatvā ubhayampi rakkhati sampādeti. Iminā nayena sabbasikkhāpadesu yathāsambhavaṃ sappayojanā kātabbā.

Here is a mere introduction: Among them, the first, the Suttantika, errs in this matter: ‘If he consents to the entry, to its remaining once entered, and to its withdrawal, there is an offense; if he does not consent, there is no offense.’ That venerable one, determining that ‘consenting’ is so called merely by the arising of pleasant bodily feeling while knowing the contact that occurs when there is a coming together of a tangible object to be felt as pleasant, which is derived, and the body-faculty, thus makes the contingency of a Pārājika offense even for one who has no intention to indulge. Furthermore, for one who has a painful, unpleasant feeling either due to being covered by a cloth or due to a defect in the female organ, or for whom there is no bodily feeling at all due to the body being afflicted by wind, by showing the Sutta passage, ‘There is no offense for one not consenting,’ he makes the contingency of no offense for that person, whether knowing or not knowing, even for one with the intention to indulge. Furthermore, if there is a Saṅghādisesa offense for one who strives with the lust for emission and emits, what more is to be said of one who strives with the lust for sexual intercourse? Taking a case that is a Dukkaṭa offense, he makes it a case of a Saṅghādisesa offense. In this way, he is said to make the Vinaya into non-Vinaya. The other, the Vinayadhara, having said, ‘Because it is stated, “There is no offense for one who does not know,” for one who knows, by the very fact of knowing—whether a pleasant feeling arises or not—it is consenting,’ makes an offense in a case of no offense even for one with no intention to indulge, simply because that person knows. He makes the blameless blameworthy; in this way, he makes the Dhamma into non-Dhamma. But one who knows both, having said, ‘Because of the statement, “When a bhikkhu’s intention to indulge has arisen,” the intention to indulge itself is the standard here. By its presence, there is the falling into a Pārājika offense; by its absence, there is no offense,’ protects and fulfills both. In this way, the application with its purpose should be made in all training rules as is appropriate.

Saṅgītiṃ āropetvā ṭhapitapāḷito vinimuttaṃ katvā ṭhapitattā pāḷivinimuttā atthato, nayato, anulomato ca pāḷiokkantavinicchayappavattā anupaviṭṭhavinicchayavasena pavattāti attho. ‘‘Na samūhanissatī’’ti jānantopi bhagavā kevalaṃ ‘‘tesaṃ mataṃ pacchimā janatā mama vacanaṃ viya pamāṇaṃ karotū’’ti dassanatthañca parinibbānakāle evamāha ‘‘ākaṅkhamāno, ānanda, saṅgho mamaccayena khuddānukhuddakāni sikkhāpadāni samūhanatū’’ti (dī. ni. 2.216), tenetaṃ siddhaṃ ‘‘paññattampi ce sikkhāpadaṃ samūhanituṃ yassa saṅghassa anuññātaṃ bhagavatā, tassa paññattānulomaṃ atirekatthadīpanaṃ, pagevānuññātaṃ bhagavatā’’ti. Kiñca bhiyyo ūnātirittasikkhāpadesu ācariyakulesu vivādo aññamaññaṃ na kātabboti dassanatthañca. Kasmā saṅgho na samūhanīti? Aññamaññaṃ vivādappasaṅgadassanato. Bhagavatā ca ‘‘sabbeheva samaggehi sammodamānehi avivadamānehi sikkhitabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Tattha ca ekacce therā evamāhaṃsūti ca aññavādadassanato vivadamānehi sikkhitabbaṃ jātaṃ, tadabhāvattampi ñattidutiyakammavācaṃ sāvetvā avivadamāneheva sikkhitabbaṃ akāsi.

The meaning is this: The tradition of the Aṭṭhakathā, being free from the Pāḷi because it was established after having been submitted to the Council and made separate from the established Pāḷi, proceeds in terms of meaning, method, and conformity by way of decisions that have entered into the Pāḷi and by the power of decisions that have been successively entered. Though the Blessed One knew, 'They will not abolish it,' He spoke thus at the time of His Parinibbāna merely for the purpose of showing, 'Let the later generation take their opinion as authoritative, like my own word': 'Ānanda, if the Saṅgha wishes, after my passing, let it abolish the minor and lesser training rules.' Therefore, this is established: 'If it has been permitted by the Blessed One for a certain Saṅgha to abolish even a training rule that has been laid down, for that Saṅgha, the clarification of an additional meaning is in conformity with the enactment. How much more so in the case of practicing a training rule permitted by the Blessed One?' Furthermore, it is also to show that in regard to deficient or excessive training rules, a dispute should not be made among one another in the lineages of teachers. Why did the Saṅgha not abolish them? Because of the prospect of mutual disputes. And by the Blessed One it was said, 'It should be trained by all in unity, in harmony, and without dispute.' And in that regard, because some elders spoke thus, and because of seeing other doctrines, it came to be that training had to be done while disputing. And for the sake of the absence of that, having had the motion as the second formal act announced, he made it so that training should be undertaken only by those not disputing.

Apicāti attano matiyā pākaṭakaraṇatthaṃ ārambho. Tattha ‘‘suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsū’’ti vacanato piṭakattayassapi sādhāraṇā esā kathāti veditabbā, ‘‘atha panāyaṃ kappiya’’ntiādi vinayasseva. Kārakasaṅghasadisanti saṅgītikārakasaṅghasadisaṃ. ‘‘Suttādicatukkaṃ appaccakkhāya tena aviruddhassa kammassa kārakasaṅghasadisa’’nti dhammasirittherassa gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ, taṃ ayuttaṃ, ‘‘suttameva balavataraṃ. Suttañhi appaṭivattiyaṃ kārakasaṅghasadisa’’nti etehi padehi ayuttattā. Pākatike [Pg.88] pana gaṇṭhipade ‘‘tamatthaṃ vinicchinitvā tassa kārakasaṅghasadisa’’nti vuttaṃ. Paravādīti amhākaṃ samayavijānanako aññanikāyikoti vuttaṃ. Paravādī suttānulomanti kathaṃ? ‘‘Aññatra udakadantaponā’’ti (pāci. 266) suttaṃ sakavādissa, tadanulomato nāḷikeraphalassa udakampi udakameva hotīti paravādī ca.

Moreover, the undertaking is to make one's own opinion evident. Therein, it should be understood that this discussion is common to the three Piṭakas, according to the saying 'in the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, and Vinaya commentaries,' while the words beginning with 'but this is allowable' pertain only to the Vinaya. 'Like the assembly of doers' means like the Saṅgha that performed the recitation. In the Gaṇṭhipada of the Elder Dhammasiri, it is said: 'Without rejecting the fourfold collection beginning with the Sutta, it is like the assembly of doers for an act that is not in conflict with it.' That is incorrect, because it is incompatible with these words: 'The Sutta alone is more authoritative. For the Sutta, being unalterable, is like the assembly of doers.' However, in the Pākatika Gaṇṭhipada, it is stated: 'Having determined that meaning, it is like the assembly of doers for that decision.' An opponent is said to be a member of another school. How is it that the opponent is in accordance with the Sutta? The Sutta, 'Except for water and a tooth-stick,' belongs to the proponent; in accordance with that, the opponent also holds that the water of a coconut is indeed just water.

‘‘Nāḷikerassa yaṃ toyaṃ, purāṇaṃ pittabandhanaṃ;

Tameva taruṇaṃ toyaṃ, pittaghaṃ balabandhana’’nti. –

The water of a coconut, when old, binds the bile; that same water, when young, destroys bile and promotes strength.

Evaṃ paravādinā vutte sakavādī dhaññaphalassa gatikattā, āhāratthassa ca pharaṇato ‘‘yāvakālikameva ta’’nti vadanto paṭikkhipati. 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 attanomatīti 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 (pārā. 119) suttaṃ dassetvā paṭikkhipati.

When this is said by the opponent, the proponent rejects it, saying, 'Because it is in the category of grain-fruit and because it fulfills the purpose of food, it is indeed a yāvakālika.' In the section where the opponent cites the teachers' view, when the opponent says, 'Because of the commentary statement, "In the phrase ‘evades a tax,’ although one evades it by entering the vicinity, it is indeed theft," one who does so commits a pārājika offense,' the proponent objects by showing the Sutta passage, 'Evading a tax is an offense of dukkaṭa,' together with the statement from the Great Commentary found in that very place, saying, 'For one who does so, it is only a dukkaṭa offense.' In the section where the opponent cites his own opinion, when the opponent says, 'Because it is your Theravāda view that for one who was commanded, "Steal another's property in the forenoon," while he is striving, thinking, "I will steal it only in the forenoon," it becomes the afternoon, that effort is indeed an effort of the forenoon; therefore, the original instigator is not absolved, and for the original instigator, it is indeed a pārājika offense,' the proponent rejects it by showing the Sutta passage, 'He steals that item before or after that appointed time; there is no offense for the original instigator.'

Paro suttanti ‘‘aniyatahetudhammo sammattaniyatahetudhammassa ārammaṇapaccayena paccayo’’ti suttaṃ paṭṭhāne likhitaṃ dassetvā ‘‘ariyamaggassa na nibbānamevārammaṇa’’nti paravādinā vutte sakavādī ‘‘ārammaṇattikādisuttānulome na otaratī’’ti paṭikkhipati. Suttānulome otarantaṃyeva hi suttaṃ nāma, netaraṃ. Tena vuttaṃ pāḷiāgataṃ paññāyatīti ettakenapi siddhe tisso saṅgītiyo āruḷhapāḷiāgataṃ paññāyatī’’tiādi. Tādisañhi pamādalekhanti ācariyo. ‘‘Appamādo amataṃ padaṃ, pamādo maccuno pada’’nti (dha. pa. 21; netti. 26) vacanato dinnabhojane bhuñjitvā parissayāni parivajjitvā satiṃ paccupaṭṭhapetvā viharanto nicco hotīti. Evarūpassa [Pg.89] atthassa vasena āruḷhampi suttaṃ na gahetabbaṃ, tena vuttaṃ no ce tathā paññāyatīti siddhepi ‘‘no ce tathā paññāyati, na otarati na sametī’’ti. ‘‘Bāhirakasuttaṃ vā’’ti vuttattā attano suttampi atthena asamentaṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Paro ācariyavādantiādīsu dvīsu nayesu pamādalekhavasena tattha tattha āgataṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ theravādehi saddhiṃ yojetvā veditabbaṃ.

Regarding the opponent's sutta: having shown this sutta written in the Paṭṭhāna—‘An indeterminate root-condition is a condition for a rightness-fixed root-condition by way of object-condition’—when the opponent says, ‘The noble path does not have Nibbāna alone as its object,’ the proponent refutes this, saying, ‘It does not accord with the Suttānuloma of the Ārammaṇattika, etc.’ Indeed, only that which accords with the Suttānuloma is called a sutta; the other is not. Therefore, although it would be sufficient to say, 'what has come down in the Pāḷi is known,' it is said, ‘what has come down in the Pāḷi that was established in the three councils is known,’ and so on. Indeed, such a text is a careless writing, says the teacher. For example, from the verse ‘Heedfulness is the path to the deathless, heedlessness the path to death,’ one might wrongly infer that one who dwells having eaten offered food, having avoided dangers, and having established mindfulness, becomes permanent. By means of a meaning of this kind, even a sutta that has been established in the councils should not be accepted. Therefore, although it would be sufficient to say, ‘if it is not known to be so,’ it is said more fully, ‘if it is not known to be so, it does not accord, it does not agree.’ Because it is said, ‘or an external sutta,’ even one’s own sutta, if it does not agree with the meaning, should not be accepted. In the two methods, such as ‘the doctrine of another teacher,’ etc., a statement from the commentary that has appeared here and there by means of careless writing should be understood by reconciling it with the doctrines of the Theras.

Atha panāyaṃ ācariyavādaṃ. Paro suttanti paravādinā ‘‘mūlabījaṃ nāma haliddi siṅgiveraṃ vacā…pe… bīje bījasaññī chindati vā chedāpeti vā bhindati vā…pe… āpatti pācittiyassāti (pāci. 91) tumhākaṃ pāṭhattā haliddigaṇṭhiṃ chindantassa pācittiya’’nti vutte sakavādī ‘‘yāni vā panaññāni atthi mūle sañjāyantī’’tiādiṃ dassetvā tassa aṭṭhakathāsaṅkhātena ācariyavādena paṭikkhipati. Na hi gaṇṭhimhi gaṇṭhi jāyatīti. Paro suttānulomanti paravādinā ‘‘anāpatti evaṃ amhākaṃ ācariyānaṃ uggahoti vacanassānulomato ‘amhākaṃ porāṇabhikkhū ekapāsāde gabbhaṃ thaketvā anupasampannena sayituṃ vaṭṭatīti tathā katvā āgatā, tasmā amhākaṃ vaṭṭatī’ti 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 is the teachers' doctrine. The opponent's Sutta: when the opponent says: 'Root-seed, namely, turmeric, ginger, sweet flag… if one, perceiving it as a seed, cuts, causes it to be cut, or breaks it… there is an offense of expiation (Pācittiya 91). According to your text, for a monk who cuts a turmeric rhizome, there is a pācittiya,' the proponent of one's own view refutes this by presenting the passage beginning, 'Or whatever other things there are that grow from a root,' by means of the teachers' doctrine, which is the commentary on that text. For a rhizome does not grow from a rhizome. The opponent's conformity with the Sutta: when the opponent says: 'There is no offense. In accordance with the statement, "This is the learning of our teachers," our ancient bhikkhus, having closed off a chamber in a single mansion, held that it is allowable to sleep with an unordained person. Having acted thus, they came to this conclusion. Therefore, it is allowable for us. When some among you yourselves say this, nothing can be said to you,' the proponent of one's own view rejects this, presenting the commentary's statement beginning: 'The learning of only those teachers who have mastered the Sutta and the conformity with the Sutta is the authority.' The opponent's own opinion: regarding the question, 'Among those who sleep without asking permission after opening the door, who are exempted?', the proponent refutes the opponent's claim that, because it is your Theravāda view that two persons are exempted—the one possessed by a yakkha and the one who has been bound and made to lie down—all other monks are also exempted, however they may be lying down, and so on.

Atha panāyaṃ attanomatiṃ. Paro suttanti ‘‘āpattiṃ āpajjantī’’ti paravādinā gutte sakavādī ‘‘divā kilantarūpo mañce nisinno pāde bhūmito amocetvāva niddāvasena nipajjati, tassa anāpattī’’tiādiaṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) dassetvā ekabhaṅgena nipannādayopi muccantīti paṭisedheti. Athāyaṃ attanomatiṃ. Paro suttānulomanti ‘‘domanassaṃ pāhaṃ, devānaminda, duvidhena vadāmi sevitabbampi asevitabbampītiādivacanehi (dī. ni. 2.360) saṃsandanato sadārapose doso tumhākaṃ natthi, tena [Pg.90] vuttaṃ ‘puttadārassa saṅgaho’’’ti (khu. pā. 5.6; su. ni. 265) paravādinā vutte kiñcāpi sakavādī bahussuto na hoti, atha kho rāgasahiteneva akusalena bhavitabbanti 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 vadati.

Now, this is one's own opinion. The opponent's Sutta: when the opponent says, 'They incur an offense,' the proponent of one's own view cites the commentary passage beginning: 'A person who is weary during the day, sitting on a bed, lies down through sleepiness without having lifted his feet from the ground; for him there is no offense,' and refutes the opponent's claim by stating that those lying down in a single posture, etc., are also exempted. Now, this is one's own opinion. The opponent's conformity with the Sutta: when the opponent says, 'By comparing this with the statements beginning, "I say, O lord of the devas, that displeasure is twofold: to be cultivated and not to be cultivated," there is no fault for you in supporting one's wife and children; therefore it is said, "the support of wife and children",' the proponent of one's own view, although not very learned, rejects this, saying that it must be unwholesome since it is accompanied by lust. In the remaining cases too, this method should be applied, differently or as is suitable. All this was said by the elders such as the Thera Upatissa. The Thera Dhammasiri, however, says: 'Here, "opponent" refers to one of another school, and he brings forward only his own suttas and so on. The proponent of one's own view, having compared them with his own suttas, etc., accepts them if they agree, but if not, he rejects them.'

Catubbidhavinayakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Fourfold Discourse on the Vinaya is finished.

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Word-by-word Analysis

Sikkhāpadavibhaṅge pana kiñcāpi yo panāti anavasesapariyādānapadaṃ, tathāpi bhikkhūti iminā parapadena samānādhikaraṇattā tadanurūpānevassa vibhaṅgapadāni vuttāni. Bhikkhunibbacanapadāni tīṇi kiñcāpi sabhikkhubhāvassa, abhikkhubhāvassa cāti yassa kassaci pabbajitassa sādhāraṇāni, tathāpi ‘‘asuddho hoti puggalo aññataraṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpanno, tañce suddhadiṭṭhi samāno anokāsaṃ kārāpetvā cāvanādhippāyo vadeti, āpatti saṅghādisesena dukkaṭassā’’ti evamādisuttaṃ nibbacanatthayuttova puggalo ‘‘āpatti saṅghādisesena dukkaṭassā’’ti (pārā. 389) ettha vatthu, na itaro gihibhūtoti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Sabbassapi vinayapiṭakassa sādhāraṇaṃ bhikkhulakkhaṇaṃ vatthuñhi bhagavā ārabhi. Yo pana suddho eva samāno kenaci kāraṇena gihiliṅge ṭhito, so attano sabhikkhubhāvattā eva vatthu hoti, asuddhopi bhikkhuliṅge ṭhitattāti ayamattho dassito hoti. Asuddhopi ñātakehi, paccatthikehi vā rājabhayādikāraṇena vā kāsāvesu saussāhova apanītakāsāvo vatthu eva puna kāsāvaggahaṇena theyyasaṃvāsakabhāvānupagamanato, bhikkhunibbacanatthe anikkhittadhurattāti vuttaṃ hoti. Yo pana liṅgatthenako bhikkhunibbacanatthaṃ sayañca ajjhupagato, saṃvāsaṃ thenento, tañce suddhadiṭṭhi samāno anokāsaṃ kārāpetvā cāvanādhippāyo vadeti, āpatti [Pg.91] saṅghādisesena dukkaṭassāti ayampi attho dassito hoti.

In the Sikkhāpadavibhaṅga, although the phrase ‘yo pana’ is an all-inclusive term, nevertheless, because it is in apposition with the subsequent word ‘bhikkhu,’ its analytical terms are stated in a manner suitable to it. Although the three terms defining a bhikkhu are common to any renunciant—whether possessing the nature of a bhikkhu or not—it is nevertheless stated to show that only the person connected with the meaning of the definition in the Sutta beginning, ‘An impure person, having committed one of the pārājika offenses, if one with a pure view, intending his fall, speaks without having obtained permission, there is an offense of Saṅghādisesa or Dukkaṭa,’ is the subject here in the phrase ‘there is an offense of Saṅghādisesa or Dukkaṭa’ (Pārā. 389), and not the other who has become a layman. Indeed, the Blessed One began with the subject that has the characteristic of a bhikkhu, which is common to the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. However, one who, while being pure, for some reason adopts the appearance of a layman, is the subject precisely because of his own bhikkhu-status. This also shows that even an impure person is the subject if he maintains the appearance of a bhikkhu. Even an impure person, whose robes have been removed due to relatives, enemies, or reasons such as fear of the king, but who is still eager for the saffron robes, is indeed the subject. This is because, by taking up the saffron robes again, he does not fall into the state of a thief-in-communion, and because, in the context of the definition of a bhikkhu, he has not abandoned his duty. This is what is said. Furthermore, regarding one who is a thief of the outward sign, who has himself undertaken the purpose of the definition of a bhikkhu, and who steals the communion—if one with a pure view, intending his fall, speaks to him without having obtained permission, there is an offense of Saṅghādisesa or Dukkaṭa. This meaning is also shown.

‘‘Samaññāya bhikkhu paṭiññāya bhikkhū’’ti vacanadvayaṃ yathāvuttañca atthaṃ upabrūheti, antarā uppannāya niyatāya micchādiṭṭhiyā upacchinnakusalamūlo kevalāya samaññāya, paṭiññāya ca ‘‘bhikkhū’’ti vuccati, na paramatthatoti imaṃ atirekatthaṃ dīpeti. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? ‘‘Nāhaṃ, bhikkhave, aññaṃ ekadhammampi samanupassāmi, yaṃ evaṃ mahāsāvajjaṃ yathayidaṃ, bhikkhave, micchādiṭṭhi. Micchādiṭṭhiparamāni, bhikkhave, mahāvajjānī’’ti āhaccabhāsitaṃ saṅgītittayāruḷhaṃ suttaṃ, aṭṭhakathāyampissa ‘‘micchādiṭṭhiparamā etesanti micchādiṭṭhiparamānī’’ti (a. ni. 1.310) vuttaṃ. Pañca ānantariyakammāni mahāsāvajjāni, micchādiṭṭhi pana mahāsāvajjatarāti adhippāyoti. Kasmā? Tesañhi paricchedo atthi, sabbabalavampi kappaṭṭhitikameva hoti, niyatamicchādiṭṭhiyā pana paricchedo natthi, tāya samannāgatassa bhavato vuṭṭhānaṃ natthi, tasmā ‘‘imassa bhikkhukaraṇā kusalā dhammā saṃvijjantī’’ti vā ‘‘suddhovāya’’nti vā na sakkā vattuṃ. ‘‘Diṭṭhivipattipaccayā dve āpattiyo āpajjatī’’ti vuttattā na sakkā ‘‘asuddho’’ti vā ‘‘aññataraṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpanno’’ti vā vattuṃ. Esa hi ubhopi pakkhe na bhajati, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘samaññāya, paṭiññāya ca bhikkhu, na paramatthato’’ti.

The twofold statement, 'A bhikkhu by designation, a bhikkhu by acknowledgment,' both elaborates upon the meaning as stated and reveals this additional meaning: one whose wholesome roots have been cut off by a fixed wrong view that has arisen within is called a 'bhikkhu' merely by designation and by acknowledgment, not in the ultimate sense. What is meant by this? 'Monks, I do not see even a single other thing so greatly blameworthy as this, monks: wrong view. Monks, wrong view is the paramount of great faults.' Regarding this Sutta, which was spoken directly and included in the three recitations, it is also stated in its commentary: '“Those which have wrong view as their paramount” (micchādiṭṭhiparamāni) means that wrong view is the paramount among them.' The five deeds of immediate retribution are greatly blameworthy, but the intended meaning is that fixed wrong view is even more blameworthy. Why? Because for those deeds there is a limit; even the most powerful lasts for only one eon. But for fixed wrong view, there is no limit; for one endowed with it, there is no rising from existence. Therefore, it cannot be said of this person, 'Wholesome states exist because of his becoming a bhikkhu,' or 'He is indeed pure.' Because it is stated, 'On account of the corruption of view, one incurs two offenses,' it cannot be said, 'He is impure,' or 'He has committed a certain pārājika offense.' For indeed, such a person belongs to neither side. Therefore it was said: 'A bhikkhu by designation and by acknowledgment, but not in the ultimate sense.'

Kimatthaṃ panevaṃ mahāsāvajjāya niyatamicchādiṭṭhiyā pārājikaṃ bhagavā na paññapesīti? Dubbijānattā. Pakatiyāpesā diṭṭhi nāma ‘‘sammā’’ti vā ‘‘micchā’’ti vā duviññeyyā, pageva ‘‘niyatā’’ti vā ‘‘aniyatā’’ti vāti. Tattha pārājikāpattiyā paññattāya bhikkhū aññamaññaṃ asamadiṭṭhikaṃ pārājikaṃ maññamānā uposathādīni akatvā acireneva sāsanaṃ vināseyyuṃ, sayañca apuññaṃ pasaveyyuṃ suddhesupi bhikkhūsu vippaṭipattiyā paṭipajjanena. Tasmā upāyakusalatāya pārājikaṃ apaññāpetvā tassa ukkhepanīyakammaṃ, sammāvattañca paññāpetvā taṃ saṅghena asambhogaṃ, asaṃvāsañca akāsi. Bhagavā hi tassa ce esā diṭṭhi aniyatā, sammāvattaṃ pūretvā osāraṇaṃ labhitvā pakatatto bhaveyya. Niyatā ce, aṭṭhānametaṃ anavakāso, yaṃ so niyatamicchādiṭṭhiko sammāvattaṃ pūretvā osāraṇaṃ labhitvā pakatatto bhaveyya. Kevalaṃ ‘‘samaññāyabhikkhu [Pg.92] paṭiññāyabhikkhū’’ti nāmamattadhārako hutvā paraṃ maraṇā ariṭṭho viya saṃsārakhāṇukova bhavissatīti imaṃ nayaṃ addasa.

Why then did the Blessed One not lay down a pārājika offense for such a greatly blameworthy fixed wrong view? Because it is difficult to discern. By its very nature, this thing called 'view' is difficult to know as either 'right' or 'wrong,' let alone as 'fixed' or 'not fixed.' If a pārājika offense were laid down for this, bhikkhus, considering a fellow bhikkhu with a different view to have committed a pārājika offense, might not perform the Uposatha and other duties, and would quickly destroy the Dispensation; and they themselves would generate demerit by acting wrongly towards even pure bhikkhus. Therefore, out of skill in means, without laying down a pārājika offense, the Blessed One laid down the act of suspension and proper conduct for that person, and made him to be without communion and without association with the Saṅgha. For the Blessed One saw this line of reasoning: if that view of his is not fixed, he might fulfill the proper conduct, obtain reinstatement, and return to his original state. But if it is fixed, it is impossible, there is no opportunity, for one with a fixed wrong view to fulfill the proper conduct, obtain reinstatement, and return to his original state. He would merely become one who bears the name 'a bhikkhu by designation, a bhikkhu by acknowledgment,' and after death, like Ariṭṭha, he would become a stump in the cycle of existence.

Aṭṭhasu upasampadāsu tissovettha vuttā, na itarā pāṭipuggalattā, bhikkhūnaṃ asantakattā ca. Tattha hi ovādapaṭiggahaṇapañhabyākaraṇūpasampadā dvinnaṃ therānaṃ eva, sesā tisso bhikkhunīnaṃ santakāti idha nādhippetā, tissannampi upasampadānaṃ majjhe ‘‘bhadro bhikkhū’’tiādīni cattāri padāni vuttāni tissannaṃ sādhāraṇattā. Ehibhikkhubhāvena vā saraṇagamanañatticatutthena vā upasampanno hi bhadro ca sāro ca sekkho ca asekkho ca hoti, upasampadavacanaṃ pana nesaṃ sāvakabhāvadīpanatthaṃ. Ime eva hi āpattiṃ āpajjanti, na sammāsambuddhā, paccekabuddhā ca.

Among the eight kinds of higher ordination, only three are mentioned here; the others are not, because they are specific to individuals and do not belong to the bhikkhus in general. For among them, the ordination by acceptance of an exhortation and the ordination by answering questions apply only to two elders; the remaining three belong to the bhikkhunīs and so are not intended here. Within the section on these three kinds of ordination, the four terms—'a good bhikkhu,' and so on—are mentioned because they are common to all three. Indeed, one ordained by the 'Come, bhikkhu' method, or by the going for refuge, or by the formal act with a motion as the fourth, becomes good, substantial, a trainee, and a non-trainee. The term 'ordination,' however, is stated in reference to them to show their good state. For only these incur offenses, not the Perfectly Self-Enlightened Ones or the Paccekabuddhas.

Ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippetoti ettha ca āpattiṃ āpajjituṃ bhabbā ñatticatuttheneva kammena upasampannā. Na hi aññe ehibhikkhusaraṇagamanaovādapaṭiggahaṇapañhabyākaraṇāhi upasampannā āpattiṃ āpajjituṃ bhabbā, tenete paṭikkhipitvā ‘‘ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippeto bhikkhū’’ti antimova vuttoti kira dhammasiritthero, taṃ ayuttaṃ. ‘‘Dve puggalā abhabbā āpattiṃ āpajjituṃ buddhā ca paccekabuddhā cā’’ti (pari. 322) ettakameva vuttanti. Aññathā ehibhikkhuādayopi vattabbā siyuṃ. Kiñca bhiyyo ‘‘dve puggalā bhabbā āpattiṃ āpajjituṃ bhikkhū ca bhikkhuniyo cā’’ti sāmaññena vuttattā ca, apica āpattibhayaṭṭhānadassanato ca. Kathaṃ? Āyasmā sāriputto āvasathapiṇḍaṃ kukkuccāyanto na paṭiggahesi, cīvaravippavāsabhayā ca sabbaṃ ticīvaraṃ gahetvā nadiṃ taranto manaṃ vuḷho ahosi mahākassapo. Kiñca saraṇagamanūpasampadāya upasampanne ārabbha saddhivihārikavattādīni asammāvattantānaṃ nesaṃ dukkaṭāni ca paññattāni dissanti, tasmā dubbicāritametaṃ. Ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippeto bhikkhūti paṭikkhittāya saraṇagamanūpasampadāya anuññātappasaṅgabhayāti upatissatthero, āpattiyā bhabbataṃ sandhāya tasmimpi vutte pubbe paṭikkhittāpi sā puna evaṃ vadantena anuññātāti bhikkhūnaṃ micchāgāho vā vimati vā uppajjati, tasmā na vuttāti vuttaṃ hoti, taṃ ‘‘bhikkhunī nāma ubhatosaṅghe upasampannā’’ti (pāci. 161) iminā sameti. Idañhi sākiyādīnaṃ anuññātaupasampadāya anuppabandhabhayā vuttaṃ.

And here, the bhikkhu intended in this context is one who is capable of incurring an offense, having been ordained by the formal act with the motion as fourth. For others ordained by 'Come, bhikkhu,' by the going for refuge, by the acceptance of exhortation, or by the answering of questions, are not capable of incurring an offense. Therefore, rejecting these, the Elder Dhammasiri is said to have stated that only the final one is meant by 'This is the bhikkhu intended in this context.' But that is incorrect. For it is only stated, 'Two persons are incapable of incurring an offense: Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas.' Otherwise, those ordained by 'Come, bhikkhu,' and so on, would also have to be mentioned. Moreover, it is incorrect because it is generally stated, 'Two persons are capable of incurring an offense: bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs,' and also because a reason for fear of an offense is seen. How so? The Venerable Sāriputta, feeling scrupulous, did not accept almsfood at a guesthouse. And the Venerable Mahākassapa, out of fear of being separated from his robes, was slightly carried away by the current while crossing a river, taking all three robes with him. Furthermore, with regard to those ordained by the going for refuge, it is seen that offenses of wrong-doing were laid down for them when they did not properly observe the duties toward a co-resident and so on. Therefore, this is poorly reasoned. The Elder Upatissa says that the statement, 'This is the bhikkhu intended in this context,' was made out of fear that the rejected ordination by going for refuge might be implicitly approved. For if it were stated with reference to the capability for an offense in that case as well, a wrong view or doubt might arise for the bhikkhus that this ordination, although previously rejected, is again approved by one speaking thus. Therefore, it was not stated—this is what is meant. This is consistent with: 'A bhikkhunī is one ordained in both Saṅghas.' For this was stated out of fear of the continuation of the ordination that was permitted for the Sākiyan ladies and others.

Ayaṃ [Pg.93] panettha amhākaṃ khanti – bhikkhu-padaniddesattā yattakāni tena padena saṅgahaṃ gacchanti, ye ca vinayapiṭake tattha tattha sandissanti sayaṃ āpattāpajjanaṭṭhena vā duṭṭhullārocanapaṭicchādanādīsu paresaṃ āpattikaraṇaṭṭhena vā, te sabbepi dassetvā idāni yadidaṃ tassa bhikkhu-padassa visesanatthaṃ vuttaṃ parapadaṃ ‘‘sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno’’ti, tassa vasena idaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippeto bhikkhū’’ti. So eva hi kammavācānantarameva sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno hoti tato paṭṭhāya sauddesasikkhāpadānaṃ uppattidassanato, tasseva ca sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ dissati, netarassa. Tasseva ca sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ sambhavati ‘‘ullumpatu maṃ, bhante, saṅgho anukampaṃ upādāyā’’ti (mahāva. 71, 126) vatvā samādinnattā, tasseva ca upasampannasamanantarameva akaraṇīyanissayācikkhanadassanato, vinayaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddesaṃ paccakkhāmītiādisikkhāpaccakkhānalakkhaṇapāripūrito cāti sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ upādāya so eva idhādhippetoti vuttaṃ hoti.

Herein, this is our preference: Because this is the explanation of the term 'bhikkhu,' having shown all those meanings—whatever meanings are included by that term, and whichever ones are seen here and there in the Vinaya Piṭaka, either by way of oneself incurring an offense or by way of causing others to incur an offense in matters such as informing about or concealing a grave offense—now, by means of the subsequent term, ‘one who has undertaken the training and livelihood,’ which was stated for the purpose of qualifying that term ‘bhikkhu,’ this was said: ‘This is the bhikkhu intended in this context.’ Indeed, it is that very one who becomes ‘one who has undertaken the training and livelihood’ immediately after the kammavācā, because from that point on, the arising of the training rules with their expositions is shown. And it is of that very one that the renunciation of the training is seen, not of another. And for that very one, the renunciation of the training is possible because it has been undertaken after saying, ‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha, out of compassion, raise me up.’ Furthermore, for that very one, immediately after having been fully ordained, the instruction on things not to be done and on the supports is shown. And because he is fulfilled with the characteristic of renouncing the training, such as [saying], ‘I renounce the Vinaya, the Pātimokkha, the recitation,’ therefore, on account of the renunciation of the training, it is said that that very one is intended here.

Yasmā panassa sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ sabbathā yujjati, tasmā ‘‘sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya taṃ taṃ vatthuṃ vītikkamantassa tato tato āpattito anāpatti, itarassa āpattī’’ti vattuṃ yujjati, tasmā ‘‘yattha yattha sāvajjapaññatti, anavajjapaññatti vā, ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippeto bhikkhūti vuccati, tattha tattha tadajjhācāratthenāyameva ñatticatutthena upasampanno adhippeto nāmā’’ti vattuṃ yujjatīti veditabbaṃ. Evaṃ sante yaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘yāya kāyaci upasampadāya ayaṃ imasmiṃ ‘methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevitvā pārājiko hotī’ti atthe bhikkhūti adhippeto’’ti, tampi na vattabbameva. Kathaṃ hoti? Virodhadosopi parihato hoti. Kathaṃ? Sace ñatticatutthena upasampanno eva idhādhippeto ‘‘bhikkhū’’ti ca ‘‘upasampanno’’ti ca, tena na upasampanno anupasampanno nāmāti katvā ñatticatutthakammato aññathā upasampannā nāma mahākassapattherādayo itaresaṃ anupasampannaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā sahaseyyapadasodhammāpattiṃ janeyyuṃ, omasanādikāle ca dukkaṭameva janeyyunti evamādiko virodhadoso parihato hotīti sabbaṃ ācariyo vadati. Maṅguracchavi nāma sāmo.

However, since for that monk the renunciation of the training is in every way proper, it is therefore proper to say: 'For one who, having renounced the training, transgresses this or that rule, there is no offense from that particular transgression; for the other, there is an offense.' Therefore, it should be known that it is proper to say: 'Wherever there is a regulation concerning what is faulty or a regulation concerning what is faultless, this one is called the 'bhikkhu' intended in this context. In each of those cases, by reason of transgressing that regulation, it is only this one ordained by the act of motion and three announcements who is indeed intended.' This being so, that which was said—'By whatever kind of ordination one is ordained, in this context of "having engaged in sexual intercourse, one is defeated," this one is intended as 'bhikkhu''—even that should not be said at all. How is this so? The fault of contradiction is also avoided. How? If, here, only one ordained by the act of motion and three announcements is intended by the terms 'bhikkhu' and 'ordained one', then, having considered that one not ordained by that act is called 'unordained', those named 'ordained' by other means—such as the Elder Mahākassapa and others—standing in the position of the unordained, would incur the offense of lying down together and the offense of teaching the Dhamma word by word. And at the time of insulting and so on, they would incur only a dukkaṭa offense. In this way, such a fault of contradiction is avoided. So says the teacher. Maṅguracchavi means of a golden color.

Yasmā [Pg.94] te atimahanto jātimado cittaṃ pariyuṭṭhāti, tasmā tumhehi mama sāsane evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ. ‘‘Sātasahagatā paṭhamajjhānasukhasahagatā asubhe ca ānāpāne cā’’ti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Uddhumātakasaññāti uddhumātakanimitte paṭiladdhapaṭhamajjhānasaññā. Rūpasaññāti pathavīkasiṇādirūpāvacarajjhānasaññā. So taṃ byākāsi ‘‘avibhūtā, bhante, uddhumātakasaññā avaḍḍhitabbattā asubhānaṃ, vibhūtā, bhante, rūpasaññā vaḍḍhitabbattā kasiṇāna’’nti. Pañcaupasampadakkamo mahāvaggā gahito. Ñatticatutthenāti ettha kiñcāpi ñatti sabbapaṭhamaṃ vuccati, tissannaṃ pana anussāvanānaṃ atthabyañjanabhedābhāvato atthabyañjanabhinnā ñattitāsaṃ catutthāti katvā ‘‘ñatticatuttha’’nti vuccati. Byañjanānurūpameva aṭṭhakathāya ‘‘tīhi anussāvanāhi ekāya ca ñattiyā’’ti vuttaṃ, atthapavattikkamena padena pana ‘‘ekāya ñattiyā tīhi anussāvanāhī’’ti vattabbaṃ. Yasmā panettha ‘‘cattārimāni, bhikkhave, kammāni (mahāva. 384), cha imāni, bhikkhave, kammāni adhammakammaṃ vaggakamma’’nti (mahāva. 387) vacanato kuppakammampi katthaci ‘‘kamma’’nti vuccati tasmā ‘‘akuppenā’’ti vuttaṃ.

Because the very great pride of birth afflicts the mind, therefore, you should train thus in my Dispensation: 'Accompanied by delight, accompanied by the happiness of the first jhāna, in the foul and in in-and-out breathing'—this is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada. The perception of a bloated corpse refers to the perception of the first jhāna attained through the sign of a bloated corpse. The perception of form refers to the perception of form-sphere jhānas, such as the earth kasiṇa and others. He explained it thus: 'Venerable sir, the perception of a bloated corpse is not manifest because the foul objects are not to be developed; venerable sir, the perception of form is manifest because the kasiṇas are to be developed.' The fivefold procedure for higher ordination is taken from the Mahāvagga. Regarding the term ñatticatuttha (motion-fourth), although the motion (ñatti) is stated first, because there is no difference in meaning and phrasing among the three proclamations (anussāvana), the motion—which is distinct in meaning and phrasing—is considered the fourth in relation to them; therefore, it is called 'motion-fourth.' In accordance with the wording, the commentary states: 'With three proclamations and one motion.' However, in terms of the sequence of meaning, it should be said: 'With one motion and three proclamations.' Because here, according to the statement, 'Monks, there are these four formal acts (Mahāvagga 9.3.5); monks, these six formal acts are an unlawful act, an act done by an incomplete assembly...' (Mahāvagga 9.3.9), even a formal act liable to be overturned is sometimes called a 'formal act,' therefore the qualification 'by an unshakeable one' is stated.

Yasmā akuppampi ekaccaṃ na ṭhānārahaṃ, yena appatto osāraṇaṃ ‘‘sosārito’’ti campeyyakkhandhake (mahāva. 395 ādayo) vuccati, tasmā ‘‘ṭhānārahenā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘ṭhānārahenā’’ti idameva padaṃ vattabbaṃ, na pubbapadaṃ iminā akuppasiddhitoti ce? Taṃ na, aṭṭhānārahena akuppena upasampanno imasmiṃ atthe anadhippetoti aniṭṭhappasaṅgato. Dvīhi panetehi ekato vuttehi ayamattho paññāyati ‘‘kevalaṃ tena akuppena upasampanno ayampi imasmiṃ atthe adhippeto ‘bhikkhū’ti, ṭhānārahena ca upasampanno ayampi imasmiṃ atthe adhippeto ‘bhikkhū’ti, kuppena upasampanno nādhippeto’’ti. Tenāyampi attho sādhito hoti ‘‘yo pana, bhikkhu, jānaṃ ūnavīsativassaṃ puggalaṃ upasampādeyya, so ca puggalo anupasampanno’’ti (pāci. 403) vacanato yāva na ñāyati, tāva samaññāyabhikkhupaṭiññāyabhikkhubhāvaṃ upagatopi na pubbe dassitasamaññāyabhikkhupaṭiññāyabhikkhu viya aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ upasampannaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā omasanapācittiyādivatthu hoti, kevalaṃ anupasampannaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā ‘‘anupasampanne upasampannasaññī [Pg.95] padaso dhammaṃ vāceti, āpatti pācittiyassā’’tiādi (pāci. 47) āpattivatthumeva hutvā tiṭṭhati. Akuppena upasampanno pana pacchā pārājikopi jātito upasampannaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti ‘‘paṇḍako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo, upasampanno nāsetabbo’’tiādinā (mahāva. 109) nayena vuttesu pana vajjanīyapuggalesu koci puggalo ‘‘upasampanno’’ti vuccati, nopi upasampannaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati, koci tiṭṭhatīti veditabbaṃ.

Since even an unoverturnable procedure is sometimes not valid—as in the Campeyya section where one who has not attained reinstatement is called 'well reinstated' (Mahāvagga 9.4.8)—therefore, 'by a valid one' is stated. If so, should only this term 'by a valid one' be stated, and not the preceding term, on the grounds that the unoverturnable nature is established by this? That is not so, for it would lead to the undesired consequence that one ordained by an unoverturnable but invalid procedure is not intended in this meaning. However, when these two are stated together, this meaning is understood: 'One ordained merely by that unoverturnable procedure is also intended in this meaning as 'a bhikkhu,' and one ordained by a valid procedure is also intended in this meaning as 'a bhikkhu,' but one ordained by an overturnable procedure is not intended.' By this, the following meaning is also established: According to the rule, 'If a bhikkhu knowingly ordains a person under twenty years of age, that person is not ordained' (Pācittiya 65), as long as this is not known, even if one has attained the state of a bhikkhu by designation and by acknowledgement, he is not, like the previously mentioned bhikkhu by designation and by acknowledgement, a basis for an offense of insult, a pācittiya, etc., by standing in the place of an ordained bhikkhu for other bhikkhus. Merely by standing in the place of an unordained person, he remains only as the basis for an offense, such as in 'If, perceiving an unordained person as ordained, one teaches the Dhamma word by word, it is a pācittiya offense' (Pācittiya 4). However, one ordained by an unoverturnable procedure, even if later having committed a pārājika, still stands in the place of an ordained one by his nature as a bhikkhu. But among the persons to be avoided stated by the method of 'A eunuch, bhikkhus, being unordained, should not be ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled' (Mahāvagga 1.61), etc., it should be understood that some individuals are called 'ordained' but do not stand in the place of ordained ones, while some do stand in that place.

Ettha pana atthi kammaṃ akuppaṃ ṭhānārahaṃ, atthi ṭhānārahaṃ nākuppaṃ, atthi akuppañceva na ṭhānārahañca, atthi nākuppaṃ na ca ṭhānārahanti idaṃ catukkaṃ veditabbaṃ. Tattha paṭhamaṃ tāva vuttaṃ, tatiyacatutthāni pākaṭāni. Dutiyaṃ pariyāyena bhikkhunisaṅghato ekatoupasampannāya liṅgaparivatte sati labbhati. Tassa hi puggalassa pubbe sikkhamānakāle laddhaṃ ñatticatutthaupasampadākammaṃ kiñcāpi akuppañceva ṭhānārahañca, purisaliṅge pana pātubhūte ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, taṃyeva upajjhaṃ tameva upasampada’’nti (pārā. 69) ettha apariyāpannattā tassa puggalassa kevalaṃ sāmaṇerabhāvāpattito kammaṃ dāni kuppaṃ jātanti vuccati. Liṅgaparivattena cīvarassa adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ viya tassa puggalassa bhikkhunisaṅghena katāya upasampadāya vijahanaṃ hotīti veditabbaṃ, aññathā so puggalo upasampanno bhikkhūti āpajjati. Atha vā liṅgaparivatte asatipitaṃ ekatoupasampadākammaṃ kuppati, yathāṭhāne na tiṭṭhati. Tasmā na tāva sā ‘‘bhikkhunī’’ti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Yasmā aññataraṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ āpajjitvāpi anāpajjitvāpi uppabbajitukāmatāya gihiliṅgaṃ sādiyantiyā punapi upasampadā ubhatosaṅghe labbhati, tasmā tena pariyāyena ‘‘kuppatīti kuppa’’nti vuccati, yathāvuttakammadosābhāvato pana ‘‘ṭhānāraha’’nti. Bhikkhunī pana gihiliṅgaṃ sādiyantikāle na purisaliṅgapātubhāve sati bhikkhūsu upasampadaṃ labbhatīti sādhakaṃ kāraṇaṃ na dissati, sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya uppabbajitā ce, labhatīti eke, taṃ panāyuttaṃ bhikkhuniyā sikkhāpaccakkhanābhāvatoti amhākaṃ khantīti ācariyo. ‘‘Yathā ‘kattabba’nti vuttaṃ, tathā akate kuppatīti katvā karaṇaṃ satthusāsana’’nti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Yattha yattha ‘‘gaṇṭhipade’’ti vuccati, tattha tattha ‘‘dhammasirittherassa gaṇṭhipade’’ti gahetabbaṃ.

Here, it should be understood that there is this tetrad: (1) there is an act that is unalterable and valid; (2) there is an act that is valid but not unalterable; (3) there is an act that is unalterable but not valid; and (4) there is an act that is neither unalterable nor valid. Among these, the first has already been stated; the third and fourth are evident. The second is found by way of a particular case: when a person who has received one-sided ordination from the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha undergoes a change of sex. For such a person, although the act of ordination by motion and three announcements, obtained during their time as a trainee, is both unalterable and valid, when male characteristics manifest, it is said that the act has now become alterable. This is because that person is not included in the passage, “I allow, monks, that same preceptor and that same ordination,” and because that person merely attains the state of a novice. It should be understood that the ordination performed by the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha for that person is abandoned, just as the determination of a robe is relinquished by a change of sex; otherwise, it would follow that that person is an ordained bhikkhu. Alternatively, even without a change of sex, that one-sided ordination is alterable; it does not stand in its proper place. Therefore, she does not yet attain the designation of ‘bhikkhunī.’ Because, whether or not she has committed any pārājika offense, if, with a desire to disrobe, she adopts the characteristics of a layperson, she can receive ordination again in both Saṅghas. Therefore, by that reasoning, because it is alterable, it is called ‘alterable’; but because of the absence of the aforementioned faults in the act, it is called ‘valid.’ However, for a bhikkhunī at the time of adopting the characteristics of a layperson, should male characteristics manifest, no supporting reason is seen for the view that she does not obtain ordination among the bhikkhus. Some say that if she disrobes by renouncing the training, she obtains it. But that is inappropriate, because there is no renunciation of the training for a bhikkhunī—this is our view, says the teacher. In the Gaṇṭhipada it is said: 'Because it is alterable when not performed as it was said it "should be done," the performance is the Teacher's instruction.' Wherever ‘Gaṇṭhipada’ is mentioned, it should be understood as ‘the Gaṇṭhipada of Dhammasiri Thera.’

Sājīvapadabhājanīyavaṇṇanā

The Exposition on the Analysis of the Terms of the Sājīva

‘‘Mahābodhisattā [Pg.96] niyatā’’ti vuttaṃ anugaṇṭhipade. Yattha ‘‘anugaṇṭhipade’’ti, tattha ‘‘vajirabuddhittherassā’’ti gahetabbaṃ. Sāvakabodhipaccekabodhisammāsambodhīti vā tīsu bodhīsu sammāsambodhiyaṃ sattā bodhisattā mahābodhisattā nāma. Pātimokkhasīlabahukattā, bhikkhusīlattā, kilesapidahanavasena vattanato, uttamena bhagavatā paññattattā ca adhikaṃ, buddhuppādeyeva pavattanato uttamanti aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade. Kiñcāpi paccekabuddhāpi dhammatāvasena pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlena samannāgatāva honti, tathāpi ‘‘buddhuppādeyeva pavattatī’’ti niyamitaṃ tena pariyāyenāti. Tenāha ‘‘na hi taṃ paññattiṃ uddharitvā’’tiādi. Pātimokkhasaṃvaratopi ca maggaphalasampayuttameva sīlaṃ adhisīlaṃ, taṃ pana idha anadhippetaṃ. Na hi taṃ pātimokkhuddesena saṅgahitanti. Samantabhadrakaṃ kāraṇavacanaṃ sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ sādhāraṇalakkhaṇattā imissā anupaññattiyā ariyapuggalā ca ekaccaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjantīti sādhitametaṃ, tasmā ‘‘na hi taṃ samāpanno methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevatī’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ asamatthaṃ viya dissatīti? Nāsamatthaṃ, samatthameva yasmiṃ yasmiṃ sikkhāpade sāsā vicāraṇā, tassa tasseva vasena aṭṭhakathāya pavattito. Tathā hi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) udakukkhepasīmādhikāre ‘‘timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādetvā antaravāsakaṃ anukkhipitvā uttarantiyā bhikkhuniyā’’ti vuttaṃ bhikkhunivibhaṅge āgatattā. Eseva nayo aññepi evarūpesu. Kimatthanti ce taṃ? Pāḷikkamānuvattanena pāḷikkamadassanatthaṃ. Tatridaṃ samāsato adhippāyadīpanaṃ – padasodhammasikkhāpadassa tikaparicchede upasampanne upasampannasaññī, anāpatti, akaṭānudhammasikkhāpadavasena upasampanne ukkhittake siyā āpatti, tathā sahaseyyasikkhāpadeti evamādi. Attho panettha parato āvi bhavissati.

“Great Bodhisattas are determined for Buddhahood,” it is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada. Wherever “Anugaṇṭhipada” is mentioned, it should be understood as “that of the Venerable Vajirabuddhi.” Or, among the three enlightenments—the enlightenment of a disciple, the enlightenment of a Paccekabuddha, and perfect self-enlightenment—those Bodhisattas who are devoted to perfect self-enlightenment are called Great Bodhisattas. Because of the abundance of the Pātimokkha virtue, because it is the virtue of monks, because it functions by way of covering defilements, and because it was laid down by the supreme Blessed One, it is superior; and because it exists only at the time of a Buddha’s arising, it is supreme—thus it is said in a certain Gaṇṭhipada. Although Paccekabuddhas are also indeed endowed with the virtue of the Pātimokkha restraint by way of their nature, nevertheless, it is determined by that reason that “it exists only at the time of a Buddha's arising.” Therefore, he said, “For one does not, having set aside that regulation...” and so on. And the virtue associated with the path and fruit itself is higher virtue than the virtue of the Pātimokkha restraint, but that is not intended here, for it is not included in the recitation of the Pātimokkha. The statement of reason is good in every way; because it is a common characteristic of all training rules, it is established by this supplementary regulation that even noble individuals commit a certain offense. Therefore, does the statement of the commentary, “For one who has attained that does not engage in sexual intercourse,” seem as if it is ineffective? It is not ineffective; it is indeed effective, for the commentary proceeds by way of whichever training rule is under that particular investigation. For so it is: in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, in the section on the water-throwing boundary, it is said, “of a bhikkhunī who, having covered the three circles and having lifted up her under-robe, is crossing over,” because this comes in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga. This is the same method in other such cases as well. If one should ask, “For what purpose is this statement?” It is for the purpose of showing the sequence of the Pāḷi by following the sequence of the Pāḷi. Therein, this is a brief clarification of the intention: In the threefold section of the Padasodhamma training rule, for one who is ordained and perceives the other as ordained, there is no offense. By way of the Akaṭānudhamma training rule, for one who is ordained but suspended, there would be an offense; likewise in the Sahaseyya training rule, and so on. The meaning here will become clear later on.

Yaṃ vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘tatopi ca maggaphalacittameva adhicittaṃ, taṃ pana idha anadhippeta’’nti ca, ‘‘tatopi ca maggaphalapaññāva adhipaññā, sā pana idha anadhippetā. Na hi taṃsamāpanno bhikkhu methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevatī’’ti. ‘‘Tatra yāyaṃ adhisīlasikkhā, ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippetā sikkhā’’ti imāya pāḷiyā virujjhati. Ayañhi pāḷi adhisīlasikkhāva idha adhippetā, na [Pg.97] itarāti dīpeti. Aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ tāsampi tiṇṇaṃ lokiyānaṃ adhippetataṃ dīpeti. Ayaṃ panettha aṭṭhakathādhippāyo – tissopi lokiyā sikkhā imasmiṃ paṭhamapārājike sambhavanti, kālenāpi adhicittapaññālābhī bhikkhu tathārūpaṃ asappāyaṃ paccayaṃ paṭicca tato tato adhicittato, adhipaññāto ca āvattitvā sīlabhedaṃ pāpuṇeyyāti ṭhānametaṃ vijjati, na lokuttaracittapaññālābhī, ayaṃ nayo itaresupi sabbesu adinnādānādīsu sacittakesu labbhati, acittakesu pana itaropi. Tathāpi kevalaṃ vinayapiṭakassa, pātimokkhasīlassa ca saṅgāhakattā ‘‘sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāyā’’ti imasmiṃ uttarapade paccakkhānārahā adhisīlasikkhāva lokiyāti dassanatthaṃ pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘tatra yāyaṃ adhisīlasikkhā, ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippetā sikkhā’’ti vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

What was stated in the commentary—'Furthermore, the path-and-fruition consciousness is the higher mind, but that is not intended here,' and 'Furthermore, the path-and-fruition wisdom is the higher wisdom, but that is not intended here. For a monk who has attained that does not engage in sexual intercourse'—contradicts this Pāli passage: 'Therein, this higher training in virtue is the training intended in this context.' For this Pāli passage indicates that only the higher training in virtue is intended here, not the others. The commentary’s statement indicates that even those three mundane trainings are intended. This is the commentary’s intention here: all three mundane trainings are possible in this first pārājika offense. The possibility exists that a monk who has attained the higher mind and higher wisdom might, in time, due to an unsuitable condition, turn away from that higher mind and higher wisdom and commit a breach of virtue; this possibility, however, does not exist for one who has attained supramundane consciousness and wisdom. This method is found in all other cases involving intention, such as taking what is not given, etc.; but in those without intention, another method is also found. Nevertheless, because it is a compilation pertaining to the Vinaya Piṭaka and the Pātimokkha virtue, in order to show that in this subsequent phrase, 'without having renounced the training,' only the mundane higher training in virtue is fit for renunciation, it was said in the Pāli, 'Therein, this higher training in virtue is the training intended in this context.' Thus it should be understood.

Ettha sikkhāti kāyavacīduccaritato viratī ca cetanā ca, aññatra cetanāyeva veditabbā. Sikkhāpadanti sauddesasikkhāpadaṃ, ekaccaṃ anuddesasikkhāpadañca labbhati. Cittassa adhikaraṇaṃ katvāti tasmiṃ sikkhatīti adhikaraṇatthe bhummanti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Yathāsikkhāpadanti paccavekkhaṇavasena vuttaṃ. Sīlapaccavekkhaṇāpi hi sīlameva, tasmā suppaṭicchannādicārittesu virativippayuttacetanaṃ pavattentopi sikkhaṃ paripūrentotveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchati. ‘‘Sampajānamusāvāde pācittiya’’nti (pāci. 2) vuttamariyādaṃ avītikkamanto ‘‘tasmiñca sikkhāpade sikkhatī’’ti vuccati. Aññatarasmiṃ pana gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ ‘‘sikkhāti taṃ sikkhāpadaṃ sikkhanabhāvena pavattacittuppādo. Sājīvanti paññatti. Tadatthadassanatthaṃ pubbe methunasaṃvarassetaṃ adhivacana’’nti. Yasmā sikkhāya guṇasammatāya puññasammatāya tantiyā abhāvato lokassa dubbalyāvikammaṃ tattha na sambhavati. Patthanīyā hi sā, tasmā ‘‘yañca sājīvaṃ samāpanno, tattha dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā’’ti vuttaṃ. Āṇāya hi dubbalyaṃ sambhavatīti āyasmā upatisso.

Here, 'training' should be understood as abstinence from misconduct of body and speech, and also volition; elsewhere, it should be understood as volition alone. The 'training rule' refers to the formulated training rule, and sometimes an unformulated training rule is also obtained. The phrase 'having made the mind the location' was stated to show that in 'one trains in that,' the locative case is used in the sense of location. The phrase 'as per the training rule' is stated in the sense of reflection. For reflection on virtue is indeed virtue itself. Therefore, even when one generates a volition disconnected from restraint in conduct such as being well-covered, one is still reckoned as fulfilling the training. One who does not transgress the limit stated as, 'In intentional false speech, there is an offense entailing expiation,' is said to 'train in that training rule.' However, in a certain gloss it is stated: ''Training' is the arising of a state of mind that proceeds by way of practicing that training rule. 'Good livelihood' is a designation. To show its meaning, it was formerly a term for restraint regarding sexual intercourse.' Because, due to the absence of a tradition of training esteemed as a quality and as merit, the manifestation of the world's weakness is not possible there. For that is desirable; therefore it is said, 'And having undertaken that good livelihood, without manifesting weakness there.' For weakness is possible through a command—thus says the Venerable Upatissa.

Sikkhāpaccakkhānakathāvaṇṇanā

An Exposition of the Discussion on the Renunciation of the Training

Ettha [Pg.98] yāmīti amukasmiṃ titthāyatane, gharādimhi vā. Bhāvavikappākārenāti ‘‘ahaṃ assa’’nti āgatattā yaṃ yaṃ bhavitukāmo, tassa tassa bhāvassa vikappākārena, bhikkhubhāvato aññabhāvavikappākārenāti adhippāyo.

Here, 'I go' (yāmi) means to a certain sectarian center, or to a house and so on. 'By way of a conceptual mode of becoming' means: because it is stated as 'I would be,' whatever state one wishes to become, it is by a conceptual mode of that very state; the meaning is, by a conceptual mode of another state than the state of a bhikkhu.

46. Handāti vacasāyeva. Gihibhāvaṃ patthayamānotiādipadehi cittaniyamaṃ dasseti. Ekeneva cittena sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ hoti, na tadabhāvenāti.

46. 'Handa' is by speech alone. With phrases such as 'desiring the state of a householder,' he shows the determination of the mind. The renunciation of the training occurs with a single mind-moment alone, not by its absence.

51. Buddhaṃ dhammantiādipadehi khettaniyamaṃ dasseti. Tattha ādito cuddasahi padehi sabhāvapariccāgo, pacchimehi aṭṭhahi bhāvantarādānañca dassitaṃ hoti. Paccakkhāmi dhārehīti etehi kālaniyamaṃ dasseti. Vadatīti iminā padena payoganiyamaṃ dasseti. Viññāpetīti iminā vijānananiyamaṃ dasseti. Ummattako sikkhaṃ paccakkhāti, ummattakassa santike sikkhaṃ paccakkhātītiādīhi puggalaniyamaṃ dasseti. Ariyakena milakkhassa santike sikkhaṃ paccakkhātītiādīhi pana puggalādiniyamepi sati vijānananiyamāsambhavaṃ dasseti. Tattha ‘‘yāya milakkhabhāsāya kālaniyamo natthi, tāyapi bhāsāya kālaniyamatthadīpane sati sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ ruhatīti no matī’’ti ācariyo. Davāyātiādīhi khettādiniyame satipi cittaniyamābhāvena na ruhatīti dasseti. Sāvetukāmo na sāvetīti cittaniyamepi sati payoganiyamābhāvena na ruhatīti dasseti. Aviññussasāveti, viññussa na sāvetīti cittakhettakālapayogapuggalavijānananiyamepi sati yaṃ puggalaṃ uddissa sāveti, tasseva savane na ruhati, na aññassāti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, tena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘yadi ayameva jānātūti ekaṃ niyametvā āroceti, tañce so eva jānāti, paccakkhātā hoti sikkhā. Atha so na jānāti…pe… appaccakkhātā hoti sikkhā’’ti. Sabbaso vā pana na sāveti, appaccakkhā hoti sikkhāti cittādiniyameneva sikkhā paccakkhātā hoti, na aññathāti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Ettāvatā ‘‘sikkhā…pe… dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā’’ti padassa padabhājanaṃ tīhi ākārehi dassitaṃ [Pg.99] hoti. Tattha dve amissā, pacchimo eko missoti veditabbo. Teneva vacībhedenāti tadatthadīpanamattaṃ vacanaṃ sutvāva teneva vacībhedena jānāpetīti attho. Cittasampayuttanti paccakkhātukāmatācittasampayuttaṃ. Samayaññū nāma tadadhippāyajānanamattena hoti.

51. He shows the determination of the field with phrases such as 'Buddhaṃ, Dhammaṃ,' etc. Therein, with the first fourteen words, the relinquishment of one's state is shown, and with the last eight, the assumption of another state is also shown. With 'Paccakkhāmi, dhārehi,' he shows the determination of time. With the word 'vadati,' he shows the determination of application. With 'viññāpeti,' he shows the determination of cognition. With such phrases as 'An insane person renounces the training,' and 'one renounces the training in the presence of an insane person,' he shows the determination of person. But with such phrases as 'A noble one renounces the training in the presence of a barbarian,' he shows the impossibility of the determination of cognition even when there is determination of person and so forth. Therein, the teacher states: 'In whatever barbarian language there is no determination of time, if the meaning of the determination of time is indicated even by that language, the renunciation of the training is valid—this is our view.' With such phrases as 'In jest,' he shows that it is not valid due to the absence of the determination of mind, even when there are determinations of field and so forth. With 'Wishing to announce, he does not announce,' he shows that it is not valid due to the absence of the determination of application, even when there is determination of mind. The phrase 'He announces to one who does not understand, but does not announce to one who understands' is stated to show the following: even when there are determinations of mind, field, time, application, person, and cognition, it is valid only by the hearing of that very person for whom it is intended and announced, but not by the hearing of another. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: 'If, having determined, "Let only this one know," he announces it to one person, and if that very person knows it, the training is renounced. But if that person does not know… the training is not renounced.' The phrase 'Or if he does not announce at all, the training is not renounced' is stated to show that the training is renounced only by the determination of mind and so forth, and not otherwise. To this extent, the word analysis of the phrase 'sikkhaṃ…pe… dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā' is shown in three ways. Therein, two are unmixed, and the last one is mixed—this should be understood. Regarding 'by that very verbal expression,' the meaning is: having heard a statement that merely indicates that meaning, he makes it known by that very verbal expression. 'Associated with mind' means associated with the mind possessing the wish to renounce. 'One who knows the occasion' is so-called merely by knowing the intention of that statement.

53. Vaṇṇapaṭṭhānaṃ buddhaguṇadīpakaṃ suttaṃ. Upāligahapatinā vuttā kira upāligāthā. Paññāṇaṃ saññāṇanti atthato ekaṃ, tasmā bodhipaññāṇanti bodhisaññāṇaṃ, bodhibījanti vuttaṃ hoti.

53. The Vaṇṇapaṭṭhāna is a Sutta that illuminates the virtues of the Buddha. The verses spoken by the householder Upāli are indeed the Upāligāthā. The words 'paññāṇa' and 'saññāṇa' are one in meaning; therefore, 'bodhipaññāṇa' (enlightenment-knowledge) is said to be 'bodhisaññāṇa' (enlightenment-knowing), that is, 'bodhibīja' (the seed of enlightenment).

Dvinnampi niyametvāti ettha ‘‘dvīsupi jānantesu eva paccakkhāmīti adhippāyena vutte tesu eko ce jānāti, na paccakkhātā hotī’’ti aññatarasmimpi gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sameti. ‘‘Gihī homī’’ti vā ‘‘gihimhī’’ti vā vutte kiñcāpi vattamānavacanaṃ hoti. ‘‘Dhārehī’’ti atthābhāvā ca ‘‘dhārehī’’ti vutte ca parassupari gacchati, tasmā na hoti. Sandiṭṭhikaṃ dhammanti sabbattha dhammavacanaṃ vuttaṃ yaṃ sandhāya ‘‘sandiṭṭhika’’nti vadati, taṃ pakāsetuṃ. Aññathā ‘‘vijitavijayaṃ paccakkhāmī’’ti vutte cakkavattiādīsupi tappasaṅgato buddhasaddopi avasāne vattabbo bhaveyya. Ācariyavevacanesu pana yo maṃ pabbājesītiādi upajjhaṃ aggahetvā, paraṃ vā uddissa pabbajitaṃ sandhāya vuttanti. Okallakoti kapaṇādhivacanaṃ. Moḷibaddhoti sikhābaddho, omukkamakuṭo vā. Cellako athero. Ceṭako majjhimo. Moḷigallo mahāsāmaṇero. Manussaviggahanāgādīnaṃ nāgarūpādīnaṃ vā santike, bhāsājānanakinnarādīnaṃ vā. ‘‘Devatā nāma mahāpaññā’’ti kira pāṭho. Davāyāti sahasā. Ravābhaññenāti khalitabhaññena. Akkharasamayānañhi nābhiññātāya vā karaṇānaṃ avisadatāya vā hoti ravābhaññaṃ. Avidheyyindriyatāya ‘‘potthakarūpasadisassā’’ti vuttaṃ, garumedhassa mandapaññassa. Kittāvatā pana garumedho hotīti ce? Samaye akovidatāya.

Here, in the text 'dvinnampi niyametvā', it is said in a certain knotty passage: 'When it is said with the intention, "I renounce," while both are knowing, if among them only one knows, it is not renounced.' That does not agree with the commentary. When 'Gihī homi' (I am a householder) or 'Gihimhi' (I am a householder) is said, although it is a present tense expression, it is not effective, both because the word 'dhārehi' has no meaning here, and because when 'dhārehi' is said it passes over to another. The phrase 'sandiṭṭhikaṃ dhammaṃ' is said to explain that word 'dhamma'—which is used everywhere—in reference to which one says 'sandiṭṭhika'. Otherwise, if one were to say, 'I renounce the conquered conquest,' then due to its relevance even in the case of a wheel-turning monarch and so on, the word 'Buddha' would also have to be designated at the end. But in the teacher's alternative phrasing, the statement such as 'he who ordained me,' is said in reference to one who has gone forth without taking a preceptor, or with reference to another. 'Okallaka' is a term for a wretched person. 'Moḷibaddha' is one with a topknot, or one wearing a crown. A 'cellaka' is a non-elder novice. A 'ceṭaka' is a medium novice. A 'moḷigalla' is a great novice. In the presence of nāgas with human form, or those with the mere form of a nāga, or in the presence of kinnaras who know human speech, and so on, the training is not renounced. It is said the reading is: 'Deities, indeed, are of great wisdom.' 'Davāya' means hastily. 'Ravābhaññena' means with faulty speech. Faulty speech occurs due to not knowing the convention of letters or due to a lack of clarity in the organs of articulation. Due to unruly faculties, it is said of one with dull wisdom, of slow intelligence, that he is 'like a blank book.' If it is asked, 'To what extent is one of dull wisdom?' It is due to a lack of skill in the convention.

Sikkhāpaccakkhānakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Renunciation of the Training is finished.

Mūlapaññattikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Root Designation

55. ‘‘Paṭisevatināmā’’ti [Pg.100] padaṃ mātikāyaṃ natthi, tasmā ‘‘paṭiseveyyāti etthā’’tiādimāha. ‘‘Eso methunadhammo nāmā’’ti sabbapāḷipotthakesu, aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘eso vuccati methunadhammo nāmā’’ti uddhaṭā. Itthiyā nimittena attano nimittanti duviññeyyametaṃ dassitaṃ. Attano nimittena itthiyā nimittaṃ suviññeyyattā na dassitaṃ. Cattāri ṭhānāni muñcitvāti ettha abbhantaratalaṃ chupantaṃyeva sandhāya vuttaṃ, acchupantaṃ nīharantassa anāpatti. Majjhanti aggappadesaṃ. Uparibhāgamajjhanti uparibhāgassa aggappadesaṃ. Naṭṭhakāyappasādanti ettha upahatindriyassa āpattisambhavato idhāpi āpattīti ce? Neti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘matacammaṃ vā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Matacammañhi anupādinnaṃ, upādinne eva pārājikāpatti. Apidhāya appaṭicchādetvā. Yathā dantā na dissanti, tathā pidhāyeva nisīditabbanti adhippāyo.

55. The word 'Paṭisevatināmā' is not in the mātikā; therefore, he said, 'in the case of paṭiseveyya,' and so forth. The phrase 'Eso methunadhammo nāmā' is in all the Pāḷi books; in the commentary, 'eso vuccati methunadhammo nāmā' is cited. The connection, 'one's own organ by means of a woman's organ,' being difficult to understand, was shown by the commentator. The connection, 'a woman's organ by means of one's own organ,' was not shown because it is easy to understand. In 'having left the four places,' this refers to touching the inner surface; for one who withdraws without touching, there is no offense. 'Middle' means the tip. 'Upper middle' means the tip of the upper part. Concerning 'Naṭṭhakāyappasāda,' if one should say that an offense occurs here too, since an offense is possible for one with impaired faculties, in order to show this is not so, 'or a dead hide,' etc., was said. Indeed, a dead hide is non-appropriated, and the pārājika offense applies only to what is appropriated. `Apidhāya` means not having covered. The intention is that one should sit only having covered the mouth in such a way that the teeth are not seen.

Gonasoti goṇapiṭṭhiko maṇḍalasappo, yassa piṭṭhe lohitakāni maṇḍalāni dissanti. Kalalaparicayavāricāramacchaggahaṇena kiñcāpi samudde mahāmukhā hatthisarīrampi ekappahārena gilituṃ samatthā tato mahantatarā ca gahitā honti, tesaṃ mukhādīsu methunadhammo na sambhavatīti tattha ṭhānaparicchedo natthīti eke, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Etameva hīti anantaraṃ sandhāya. Saddhiṃ yojanāya akkharayojanāya. ‘‘Paññattaṃ pana sikkhāpadaṃ sabbehipi lajjīpuggalehi samaṃ sikkhitabbabhāvato samasikkhatā nāmāti vuttattā sabbasikkhāpadaṃ sabbabhikkhūhi sikkhitabbaṃ. Na hi kassaci ūnamadhikaṃ vā atthī’’ti tassa gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Parivāre pana –

A 'gonasa' is a snake with a variegated back, a snake with circular markings, on whose back red circles are seen. By the inclusion of the term 'fish', which refers to those accustomed to mud and those that move in water: although in the ocean there are large-mouthed creatures able to swallow even an elephant's body in one gulp and to seize even larger creatures, the act of sexual intercourse is not possible in their mouths and so on. Thus, some say that in their case there is no determination of a location; this should be accepted after investigation. The phrase 'Etameva hi' was said with reference to the immediately following verse. It is an explanation together with the grammatical construction and the construction of the letters. 'Because it is said, "The training rule that has been laid down... is called equal training because it must be trained in equally by all conscientious persons," all training rules must be trained in by all monks. For there is neither less nor more for anyone.' Thus it is said in his Ganthipada. But in the Parivāra—

‘‘Na ukkhittako na ca pana pārivāsiko,Na saṅghabhinno na ca pana pakkhasaṅkanto;

Samānasaṃvāsakabhūmiyā ṭhito,Kathaṃ nu sikkhāya asādhāraṇo siyā’’ti. (pari. 479) –

He is not one suspended, nor one on probation; he has not split the Saṅgha, nor has he gone over to another faction. Established on the ground of common communion, how then could he be not common to the training?

Vuttaṃ. Tadaṭṭhakathāya ca ‘‘ayaṃ pañhā nahāpitapubbakaṃ sandhāya vuttā. Ayañhi khurabhaṇḍaṃ pariharituṃ na labhati, aññe labhanti. Tasmā sikkhāya asādhāraṇo’’ti vuttaṃ. Taṃ sabbaṃ yathā saṃsandati sameti, tathā veditabbaṃ[Pg.101]. Bhikkhunīnaṃyeva sādhāraṇāni sikkhāpadānipi bhikkhu sikkhati, evamaññopi anhāpitapubbako bhikkhu taṃ sikkhāpadaṃ sikkhati eva tadatthakosallatthanti katvā sabbampi sikkhāpadaṃ samasikkhatā nāmāti. Yaṃ taṃ vuttanti sambandho. ‘‘Tisso itthiyo’’tiādivibhaṅgotaṃniyāmakotilakkhaṇattā vatthuniyamanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tena amanussitthippasaṅgena kate suvaṇṇarajatādimaye paṭikkhipati. Ito paṭṭhāya ye ca ‘‘tayo atthavase paṭicca vibhaṅgo pavattatī’’ti pubbe vuttā, te yathāsambhavaṃ yojetvā veditabbā.

It is said. And in its commentary it is said: “This question was stated with reference to one who was formerly a barber. For he is not allowed to carry barber's equipment, while others are allowed. Therefore, it is said, ‘he is not common to the training.’” All that should be understood as it connects and accords. Even the training rules common only to nuns are trained in by a bhikkhu; likewise, another bhikkhu who was not formerly a barber also certainly trains in that training rule for the sake of skill in its meaning. Having considered this, all the training rules are called ‘equal training.’ The connection should be made with what was said. The analysis beginning with “Three women,” etc., is stated for the purpose of defining the subject matter, as it has the characteristic of being a definition. By this, it rejects images made of gold, silver, and so on, that are made in the context of a non-human woman. From here onward, those three grounds on account of which the analysis proceeds, which were previously stated, should be understood by applying them as appropriate.

Paṭhamacatukkakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse of the First Tetrad

57. Āpatti pārājikā assa hotīti ettha yasmā sā akusalā āpatti tassa bhikkhuno sīlasambhavaṃ abhibhavati, rāgābhibhave tasmiṃ pārājikāti laddhanāmā pubbabhāge āpannā dukkaṭathullaccayādayo āpattiyo abhibhavitvā vināsetvā sayamevekā assa. Vatthunā sabhāgāhi vā asabhāgāhi vā aññāhi pārājikattena samānajātikāhi āpattīhi sayaṃ nābhibhavīyatīti eke. Taṃ taṃ pubbe vicāritameva. Yadā pana catassopi pārājikāpattiyo ekato honti, tadā tā tassa bhikkhuno bhikkhubhāvaṃ abhibhavanti, abhikkhuṃ karonti, anupasampannaṃ karonti, samaññāyapi bhikkhu na hoti. Omasavādapācittiyaṃ na janetīti eke. Dutiyena atthavikappena pārājikassa dhammassa patti sampatti āpattīti attho saṅgahito hotīti katvā āpattisampattivādīnaṃ saṅgahito hoti, yujjati cesā parasāpekkhā. Sāpattiko nāma so bhikkhu hoti, aññathā tassa khaṇabhaṅgena anāpattiko bhaveyya, na ca hotīti. Kadā pana hotīti? Yadā kālaṃ karoti, yadā ca sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya sāmaṇerādibhūmiyaṃ tiṭṭhati. Yadi evaṃ sikkhāya paccakkhātāya pārājikāpatti paccakkhātā hoti sikkhā cāti ubhayaṃ tassa ekato atthi, saṅghādisesādiāpatti sikkhāpaccakkhānena kiṃ na paccakkhātā, puna upasampannena desāpetabbā. Sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ āpattivuṭṭhānaṃ jātaṃ, abhikkhu āpattito vuṭṭhāti, gahaṭṭho vuṭṭhāti, sāmaṇero vuṭṭhāti, tato [Pg.102] vinayavirodhā na vuṭṭhāti. Hañci pana vuṭṭhāti gahaṭṭho, sāmaṇero vā sīlasampannova jhānalābhī assa, sotāpattiphalassa vā arahattaphalassa vā lābhī assa, pārājikāpattiyā sāpattiko arahā assa. Ukkhittako uppabbajito vā parivāsāraho mānattāraho uppabbajito vā sīlasampanno jhānalābhī assa, sotāpattiphalassa, arahattaphalassa vā lābhī assa, sāpattiko santarāyiko arahā assa, so puna upasampanno parivāsaṃ, mānattaṃ vā datvā abbhetabbo ukkhittako osāretabboti samāno ayaṃ upalabbhoti.

57. Herein, regarding 'the offense would be a pārājika': because that unwholesome offense destroys that bhikkhu’s state of virtue, and because when that virtue is overcome by lust, it receives the name 'pārājika'; having overcome and destroyed the offenses such as dukkaṭa and thullaccaya incurred in the preliminary stage, it alone would exist. Some say that it itself is not overcome by other offenses of the same kind in meaning as 'pārājika', whether they are similar or dissimilar to the object. That very matter has already been investigated before. But when all four pārājika offenses occur together, they overcome that bhikkhu’s state as a bhikkhu, they make him a non-bhikkhu, they make him unordained, and he is not a bhikkhu even by designation. Some say he does not incur the pācittiya for contemptuous speech. By the second alternative meaning, the meaning 'the reaching, the completion of the pārājika rule is an offense' is included. Therefore, the view of those who hold that one is endowed with the offense is included. And this is suitable, as it is dependent on another term. That bhikkhu is called one who has an offense; otherwise, through momentary destruction, he would become one without an offense, but he is not. But when does he become one without an offense? If it is asked: when he dies, and when, having renounced the training, he remains in the state of a novice and so on. If so, with the renunciation of the training, is the pārājika offense renounced, and the training too? If so, both are present for him at once. Are not the saṅghādisesa and other offenses renounced by renouncing the training? Must they not be confessed again by one who has been reordained? The renunciation of the training has become a rising from the offense. A non-bhikkhu rises from the offense; a layman rises; a novice rises. That rising, being contrary to the Vinaya, is not a rising. But if he does rise, a layman or a novice, being endowed with virtue, could be a recipient of jhāna, or a recipient of the fruit of stream-entry or the fruit of arahantship. An Arahant could be one with an offense due to a pārājika offense. A suspended one or one who has disrobed, who is worthy of probation or penance; or one who has disrobed, if he were endowed with virtue, a recipient of jhāna, or a recipient of the fruit of stream-entry or the fruit of arahantship, he would be an Arahant who has an offense and an obstacle. If such a one is reordained, having been given probation or penance, he is to be rehabilitated. A suspended one is to be reinstated. This being so, this case is found.

Ayaṃ panettha vinicchayo – pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ āpanno yāva bhikkhubhāvaṃ paṭijānāti sādiyati saṃvāsaṃ, santarāyikattā uposathadivasādīsu gahaṭṭhassa viya sayameva sīlaṃ samādiyantassapi na sīlasamādānaṃ ruhati, pageva jhānādīni. So ce bhikkhubhāvaṃ na sādiyati na paṭijānāti saṃvāsaṃ na sādiyati, kevalaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ āvikatvā rājavericorādibhayena kāsāvaṃ na pariccajati, anupasampannova hoti sahaseyyādiṃ janeti, sīlassa ca jhānādīnañca bhāgī hoti. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā –

Herein is the determination: A bhikkhu who has committed a pārājika offense, as long as he acknowledges his status as a bhikkhu and approves of communal living, due to the obstacle, even if he himself undertakes the precepts like a householder on observance days and so forth, the undertaking of precepts does not take root, let alone jhānas and so forth. But if he does not acknowledge his status as a bhikkhu and does not approve of communal living, but merely, having disclosed his offense to the bhikkhus, does not discard the saffron robe out of fear of kings, enemies, thieves, and so forth, he is indeed an unordained person and generates offenses such as sharing a bed. And he has a share in virtue and jhānas and so forth. For this was said by the Blessed One:

‘‘Āpannena visuddhāpekkhena santī āpatti āvikātabbā, āvikatā hissa phāsu hoti, paṭhamassa jhānassa adhigamāyā’’tiādi (mahāva. 134-135).

"One who has incurred an offense and desires purity, the existing offense should be disclosed. For when it is disclosed, it is comfortable for him, for the attainment of the first jhāna," and so on (Mahāvagga 134-135).

Tattha santī āpattīti sāvasesānavasesappabhedā sabbāpi āpatti āpannā adhippetā. Evaṃ santepi pageva gahaṭṭhādibhūmiyaṃ ṭhito jhānādīnaṃ bhāgī assa suddhante ṭhitattā, yo pana ukkhittako anosārito, garudhammaṃ vā āpajjitvā avuṭṭhito sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya gahaṭṭhādibhūmiyaṃ ṭhito, na so jhānādīnaṃ bhāgīyeva bhavati na suddhante ṭhitattā, sakaraṇīyattā ca, teneva bhagavatā ‘‘so puna upasampanno osāretabbo’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā tassa puggalassa te bhikkhukāle āpannā antarāyikā dhammā vippaṭisāraṃ janayitvā avippaṭisāramūlakānaṃ pāmojjādīnaṃ sambhavaṃ nivārenti, no sakāsāvesuyeva. No ce nivārenti, sambhavati. Garukaṃ āpajjitvā bhikkhūnaṃ āvikatvā ce uppabbajito, pakatatto hutvā [Pg.103] uppabbajitoti katvā jhānādīnaṃ bhāgī assa ‘‘āvikatā hissa phāsu hotī’’ti vuttattā. Pageva bhikkhukāle, na tveva ukkhittako sakaraṇīyattāti eke. Tadanuvattanako pana taṃ laddhiṃ pahāya bhāgī assa. Na, bhikkhave, sagahaṭṭhāya parisāya (mahāva. 154) sikkhāpaccakkhātakassa antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpannakassa nisinnaparisāyāti (mahāva. 183) ettha gahaṭṭho nāma pakatiyā gihiliṅge ṭhito. Sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya bhikkhuliṅge ṭhito sikkhāpaccakkhātako. So sakāsāvesu sāpekkhattā sāmaṇerabhāvaṃ patthayamāno teneva liṅgena tīhi saraṇagamanehi sāmaṇero hoti. Antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpanno saṃvāsaṃ sādiyantopi pacchā pubbe vuttakkamena asādiyitvā sāmaṇerabhāvaṃ patthayamāno sikkhāpaccakkhātako viya tīhi saraṇagamanehi sāmaṇero hoti, na puna kāsāvaṃ paṭiggāhāpetabbo bhikkhūhi paṭhamaṃ dinnaliṅgeyeva ṭhitattā. Yo pana pārājiko codiyamāno parājitvā ‘‘handa, bhante, sāmaṇero bhavāmi, saraṇāni dethā’’ti vadati, ‘‘sādhu gaṇhāhī’’ti na vattabbo, gihiliṅge ṭhapetvā puna kāsāyāni paṭiggāhāpetvā pabbājetabbo. ‘‘Idaṃ pana sabbaṃ attano matiyā vuttattā vicāretvā gahetabba’’nti ācariyo vadati. Pavesanaṃ nāma aṅgajātaṃ pavesentassa aṅgajātena samphusanaṃ. Paviṭṭhaṃ nāma yāva mūlā pavesentassa vippakatakāle vāyāmakālo. Sukkavissaṭṭhisamaye aṅgajātaṃ ṭhitaṃ nāma. Uddharaṇaṃ nāma nīharaṇakālo. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘vāyāmato oramitvā ṭhānaṃ ṭhitaṃ nāmā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ asaṅkarato dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Pavesanapaviṭṭhauddharaṇakālesupi sukkavissaṭṭhi hotiyeva.

Herein, by 'there are offenses' is meant all offenses that have been incurred, of the kinds with and without a remainder. Even so, one who was previously established on the plane of a householder and so on may be a partaker of jhāna and so on, because of being established in a pure state. But as for one who has been suspended and not rehabilitated, or who, having incurred a grave offense, has not arisen from it, he is not a partaker of jhāna and so on, because of being established in an impure state and because there is something that must be done for him. For this reason the Blessed One has said: 'If he is reordained, he should be rehabilitated.' Therefore, for that person, those obstructive states incurred during his time as a bhikkhu generate remorse and prevent the arising of gladness and so on, which are rooted in non-remorse, but this does not apply to the robes themselves. If they do not prevent it, it is possible for them to arise. If, having committed a grave offense, he disrobes without having disclosed it to the bhikkhus, he may be a partaker of jhāna and so on, on the grounds that he has disrobed as a normal person, because it is said: 'Disclosure brings him ease.' Previously, during his time as a bhikkhu, he is not a partaker if he is suspended, some say, because there is something to be done for him. But one who follows him, having abandoned that view, may be a partaker. In the passages 'Not, bhikkhus, in an assembly that includes a householder...' and '...for one who has renounced the training, for one who has committed a final offense, in a seated assembly', a 'householder' is one who stands in the mark of a layman by nature. One who has renounced the training but stands in the mark of a bhikkhu is a 'renouncer of the training.' He, having attachment to his robes and desiring the state of a novice, becomes a novice in that same mark by taking the three refuges. One who has committed a final offense, even if he consents to communion, if he later does not consent in the way stated before and desires the state of a novice, he becomes a novice by taking the three refuges, just like a renouncer of the training; but he should not be made to receive the saffron robe again by the bhikkhus, since he stands in the mark given to him at first. But one who, being accused of a pārājika offense, is defeated and says, 'Come, venerable sirs, I will become a novice; give me the refuges,' should not be told, 'Good, take them.' He should be established in the mark of a layman, made to receive the saffron robes again, and then be given the going forth. The teacher says: 'But all this is said according to my own opinion; it should be investigated before being accepted.' 'Insertion' is the contact of the sexual organ with another for one who is inserting it. 'Entered' is the period of effort for one who inserts it up to the root, during the time of an incomplete act. At the time of the emission of semen, the sexual organ is said to be 'stationed.' 'Withdrawal' is the time of removal. But in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said: 'Having desisted from the effort, the state is called "stationed."' This is said to show it without confusion. Emission of semen certainly occurs also during the times of insertion, penetration, and withdrawal.

Paṭhamacatukkakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discourse on the First Tetrad is finished.

Ekūnasattatidvisatacatukkakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Sixty-Nine and Two-Hundred Tetrads

59-60. ‘‘Mataṃ yebhuyyena akkhāyita’’nti vacanato amataṃ yebhuyyena khāyitampi pārājikavatthumevāti dasseti. Sabbaso khāyitaṃ, uppāṭitaṃ vā thullaccayavatthumevāti dasseti, tathā ‘‘yebhuyyena khāyita’’nti [Pg.104] vacanato mataṃ sabbakhāyitaṃ, uppāṭitaṃ vā dukkaṭavatthūti dasseti. Na ca sāvasesaṃ paññapenti. Kiṃ kāraṇā? Idañhi sikkhāpadaṃ lokavajjaṃ, na paṇṇattivajjaṃ. Tattha sikkhāpadanti pārājikaṃ adhippetaṃ. Tattha thullaccayampi hi lokavajjaṃ, na paṇṇattivajjaṃ. Atha vā ubhayampi anavasesaṃ paññattaṃ. Pārājikakhette hi heṭṭhimakoṭiṃ pāpetvā ṭhapite tato paraṃ thullaccayanti paññattameva hoti. Tattha thullaccayakhettampi pārājikakhettaṃ viya heṭṭhimaparicchedena vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Upaḍḍhakkhāyite thullaccayanti yattha nimittaṃ khāyitaṃ, taṃ dukkaṭavatthūti veditabbaṃ. Etthāha – paṇṇattivajjaṃ kiṃ sāvasesameva bhagavā paññāpetīti? Na. Ekaṃsato pana yathāsambhavaṃ tattha tattha pakāsayissāma, kimatthaṃ pana bhagavā upaḍḍhakkhāyite pārājikaṃ na paññāpesīti ayaṃ tāva apucchā buddhavisayattā vinayapaññattiyā. Idaṃ panettha kāraṇapatirūpakaṃ ‘‘upaḍḍhabhāvassa dubbinicchayattā’’ti. Yebhuyyena khāyitaṃ nāma vaccamaggapassāvamaggamukhānaṃ catūsu koṭṭhāsesu dve koṭṭhāse atikkamma yāva tatiyakoṭṭhāsapariyosānā khāditaṃ, tatiyakoṭṭhāsaṃ atikkamma yāva catutthakoṭṭhāsapariyosānā dukkaṭavatthu.

59-60. Based on the statement, 'The dead part is mostly not eaten,' it shows that even if the living part is mostly consumed, it is a case entailing expulsion. It shows that if it is entirely consumed or torn out, it is a case entailing a grave offense. Similarly, based on the statement 'mostly consumed,' it shows that if the dead part is entirely consumed or torn out, it is a case entailing a wrong-doing. And they do not prescribe with a remainder. For what reason? For this training rule is a worldly blame, not a prescribed blame. Therein, by 'training rule,' expulsion is intended. Therein, a grave offense is also indeed a worldly blame, not a prescribed blame. Alternatively, both are prescribed without remainder. For in the field of expulsion, once the lower limit has been reached and established, what is beyond that is prescribed as a grave offense. Therein, it should be understood that the field of a grave offense is also described with a lower boundary, like the field of expulsion. Regarding 'a grave offense for what is half-consumed': where the mark is consumed, that should be understood as a case of wrong-doing. Here one says: 'Does the Blessed One prescribe a prescribed blame only with a remainder?' No. But we will explain it definitely as it occurs in each respective case. 'But for what reason did the Blessed One not prescribe expulsion when half is consumed?' This, to begin with, is an improper question, because the legislation of the Vinaya is the domain of a Buddha. This here is an apparent reason: 'because the state of being half is difficult to determine.' 'Mostly consumed' means: among the four parts of the anal passage, urinary passage, and mouth, having surpassed two parts, it is consumed up to the end of the third part. Surpassing the third part up to the end of the fourth part is a case of wrong-doing.

Yadipi nimittaṃ sabbaso khāyitanti ‘‘jīvamānakasarīraṃyeva sandhāya vutta’’nti vadanti, taṃ vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Allasarīreti abhinave, akuthite vā manussānaṃ jīvamānasarīre akkhināsādīsu thullaccayameva. Tiracchānagatānaṃ hatthiassādīnaṃ nāsāya vatthikose ca thullaccayanti ‘‘amaggena amaggaṃ paveseti, āpatti thullaccayassā’’ti imāya pāḷiyā atthavisesenettha vuttaṃ. Upakacchakādīsu dukkaṭaṃ, sabbesampi tiracchānagatānaṃ akkhikaṇṇavaṇesu dukkaṭaṃ, avasesasarīrepi dukkaṭamevāti idaṃ vinītavatthusmiṃ ‘‘ehi, bhante, methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevā’’ti. ‘‘Alaṃ bhagini netaṃ kappatī’’ti (pārā. 79) iminā tāva methunarāgābhāvo dassito hoti. ‘‘Ehi, bhante, ūruntarikāya ghaṭṭehi…pe… so bhikkhu tathā akāsī’’ti iminā tāva mocanassādo dassito hoti, tenevāha bhagavā ‘‘āpatti saṅghādisesassā’’ti. ‘‘Yo pana methunarāgena ūruntarikāya ghaṭṭeti, tassa dukkaṭa’’nti siddhanti katvā vuttaṃ.

Even if the mark is completely consumed, and some say, 'This is stated with reference to a living body only,' that should be taken after investigation. Regarding a fresh body—that is, a new or unspoiled living human body—in the eyes, nose, and so on, it is only a grave offense. The statement that for animals such as elephants and horses, in the nose and in the genital sheath, it is a grave offense, is stated here with a specific meaning derived from this Pāḷi text: 'One enters a non-path with a non-path; it is a grave offense.' For the armpits and similar areas, it is a wrong-doing; for all animals, in the eyes, ears, or wounds, it is a wrong-doing; and even for the rest of the body, it is only a wrong-doing. In the Vinītavatthu, it is said: 'Come, venerable one, let us engage in sexual intercourse.' 'Enough, sister, this is not allowable'—by this, first, the absence of sexual lust is shown. 'Come, venerable one, rub between the thighs… and so the bhikkhu did so'—by this, first, the pleasure of emission is shown. Therefore, the Blessed One said, 'It is an offense entailing suspension.' 'But whoever, with sexual lust, rubs between the thighs, for him it is a wrong-doing'—this is established and thus stated.

Manussānaṃ [Pg.105] akkhikaṇṇavaṇādi thullaccayavatthu, tiracchānagatānaṃ dukkaṭavatthūti ettha duviññeyyo pāḷileso, tasmā ‘‘na ca, bhikkhave, rattacittena aṅgajātaṃ chupitabbaṃ, yo chupeyya, āpatti thullaccayassā’’ti vacanato rattacittena akkhikaṇṇavaṇaṃ chupantassa dukkaṭanti siddhanti ayaṃ cammakkhandhake pāḷilesoti veditabbo. ‘‘Jīvamānakapurisassāti jīvamānakasaddo mate vattabbameva natthīti ñāpanatthaṃ vutto’’ti vadanti. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ panāti idaṃ kiñcāpi ‘‘katvā mahāaṭṭhakathaṃ sarīra’’nti vuttaṃ, atha kho sesaaṭṭhakathāsu ‘‘methunarāgena mukhenā’’ti vacanābhāvato tattheva bhāvato taṃ vacanaṃ pāḷivacanena saṃsanditvā dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘taṃ sabbampīti mahāaṭṭhakathāyameva methunarāgena itthiyā nimittaṃ appavesento chupati, thullaccaya’’nti ca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Methunarāgena mukhenā’’tipi katthaci, pāḷiyaṃ avisesena ‘‘na ca, bhikkhave, rattacittena aṅgajātaṃ chupitabba’’nti vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘taṃ sabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Purimaṃ pasaṃsantīti tiracchānagati…pe… vuttanayeneva thullaccayaṃ, kāyasaṃsaggarāgena dukkaṭantiādiaṭṭhakathāvacanehi saṃsandanato. ‘‘Taṃ sabbampi…pe… purimaṃ pasaṃsantī’’ti idaṃ saṅgītito pacchā sīhaḷadīpakehi ācariyehi pāḷiyā, aṭṭhakathāyañca vuttavacanaṃ saṃsanditvā vuttavinicchayoti vuttaṃ. Ettha itarathā hīti pakatimukhena. Kasmā dukkaṭanti ce? ‘‘Aṅgulibījādīni pavesentassa dukkaṭa’’nti vuttattā yuttaṃ. Tiracchānagatitthiyā passāvamagganti ettha mahāaṭṭhakathāyampi pubbe ‘‘nimitta’’nti vatvā ettha ‘‘passāvamagga’’nti vuttattā avasesanimitte dukkaṭanti yuttaṃ viya dissati. Vuttanayenevāti methunarāgena. Thullaccayanti ca khandhake passāvanimittavasenevāgatattā upaparikkhitvā gahetabbaṃ.

In the statement, 'For humans, the eyes, ears, wounds, etc., are grounds for a grave offense, while for animals, they are grounds for a wrong-doing,' the subtle point of the Pāḷi is difficult to understand. Therefore, because of the Pāḷi, 'And, monks, one with a lustful mind should not touch the sexual organ; whoever should touch it, it is a grave offense,' it is established that for one who touches an eye, ear, or wound with a lustful mind, it is a wrong-doing. This subtle point of the Pāḷi in the Cammakkhandhaka should be understood thus. Regarding 'of a living man,' they say that the word 'living' is stated to make it known that there is nothing at all to be said regarding one who is dead. But regarding the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, although it is said, 'making the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā the body [of the work],' nevertheless, because of the absence of the statement 'with sexual lust, through the mouth' in the other commentaries, and because of its presence only there, that statement is given to show its correspondence after comparing it with the word of the Pāḷi. But in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is also said: 'Regarding "all that," it is stated only in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā: "If, with sexual lust, one touches a woman's sexual organ without inserting [one's own], it is a grave offense."' The phrase 'with sexual lust, through the mouth' is also stated in some Pāḷi text. In the Pāḷi, it is stated generally, 'And, monks, one with a lustful mind should not touch the sexual organ.' Therefore, 'all that' is stated. The phrase 'they praise the former' is stated because of its correspondence with the words of the commentary, such as: 'For an animal... a grave offense in the aforementioned way; a wrong-doing for lust of bodily contact.' It is said that this [passage], 'All that... they praise the former,' is a decision stated by the teachers from the island of Sri Lanka after the Council, having harmonized the words stated in both the Pāḷi and the commentary. Here, 'otherwise, indeed' means through the natural orifice. If one should ask, 'Why is it a wrong-doing?' [The answer is:] Because it is stated, 'For one who inserts a finger, testicles, and so on, it is a wrong-doing,' it is appropriate. Regarding 'the urinary passage of a female animal': because even in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, having previously said 'sexual organ,' it here says 'urinary passage,' the statement that for the remaining sexual organs it is a wrong-doing seems to be appropriate. The phrase 'in the aforementioned way' means with sexual lust. And the phrase 'a grave offense' should be understood after investigation, since in the Khandhaka it is mentioned only in connection with the urinary organ.

Ekūnasattatidvisatacatukkakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Discourse on the Sixty-Nine, the Two Hundred, and the Fourfold is concluded.

Santhatacatukkabhedakakathāvaṇṇanā

Exposition of the Discourse Analyzing the Fourfold Section on Felt Rugs

61-2. Itthinimittaṃ khāṇuṃ katvāti itthinimittassa anto khāṇuṃ pavesetvā samatalaṃ vā katvā atirittaṃ vā khāṇuṃ ghaṭṭentassa dukkaṭaṃ pavesābhāvā. Īsakaṃ anto pavesetvā ṭhitaṃ khāṇumeva ce aṅgajātena [Pg.106] chupati, pārājikaṃ. ‘‘Uppalagandhā uppalabhāvā’’tipi dīpavāsino paṭhanti kira. Suttaṃ bhikkhumhīti sevanacittaṃ upaṭṭhiteti (pārā. 57) ettha viya. ‘‘Suttabhikkhumhī’’ti ca paṭhanti, taṃ ujukameva.

Regarding the phrase, 'having made a stump into a woman's sign': for one who, having inserted a stump inside a woman's sign and made it level, or who rubs a protruding stump, it is a wrong-doing because of the absence of insertion. If, having inserted it a little inside, he touches with the male organ the very stump that remains there, it is a pārājika offense. The inhabitants of the island, it is said, also recite, 'The scent of a water lily, the nature of a water lily.' The phrase `suttaṃ bhikkhumhī` is like in the case of `sevanacittaṃ upaṭṭhite` ('when a thought of intercourse has arisen'). And they also recite `suttabhikkhumhī`; that is indeed straightforward.

Santhatacatukkabhedakakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Discourse Analyzing the Fourfold Section on Felt Rugs is concluded.

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Analysis of Terms is concluded.

Pakiṇṇakakathāvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of Miscellaneous Discourses

Pakiṇṇake yāni sikkhāpadāni ‘‘kiriyānī’’ti vuccanti, tesaṃ vasena kāyo, vācā ca saha viññattiyā veditabbā. Akiriyānaṃ vasena vinā viññattiyā veditabbā, cittaṃ panettha appamāṇaṃ bhūtārocanasamuṭṭhānassa kiriyattā, acittakattā ca. Tattha kiriyā āpattiyā anantaracittasamuṭṭhānā veditabbā. Aviññattijanakampi ekaccaṃ bāhullanayena ‘‘kiriya’’nti vuccati, yathayidaṃ paṭhamapārājikaṃ viññattiyā abhāvepi ‘‘so ce sādiyati, āpatti pārājikassā’’ti hi vuttaṃ ‘‘na sādiyati anāpattī’’ti ca. Viññattisaṅkhātāpi kiriyā vinā sevanacittena na hoti cittajattā, vikārarūpattā, cittānuparivattikattā ca. Tasmā kiriyāsaṅkhātamidaṃ viññattirūpaṃ itaraṃ cittajarūpaṃ viya janakacittena vinā na tiṭṭhati, itaraṃ saddāyatanaṃ tiṭṭhati, tasmā kiriyāya sati ekantato tajjanakaṃ sevanacittaṃ atthiyevāti katvā na sādiyati anāpattīti na yujjati. Yasmā viññattijanakampi samānaṃ sevanacittaṃ na sabbakālaṃ viññattiṃ janeti, tasmā vināpi viññattiyā sayaṃ uppajjatīti katvā ‘‘sādiyati, āpatti pārājikassā’’ti vuttaṃ. Nuppajjati ce, na sādiyati nāma, tassa anāpatti, teneva bhagavā ‘‘kiṃcitto tvaṃ bhikkhū’’ti citteneva āpattiṃ paricchindati, na kiriyāyāti veditabbaṃ. Ettāvatā cha āpattisamuṭṭhānāni, tāni eva āpattikarā dhammā nāmāti ca, catūhākārehi āpattiṃ āpajjati kāyena vācāya kāyavācāhi kammavācāya āpajjatīti ca etāni suttapadāni avirodhitāni honti, aññathā virodhitāni. Kathaṃ? Yañhi āpattiṃ kammavācāya āpajjati, na tattha kāyādayoti āpannaṃ, tato [Pg.107] kammavācāya saddhiṃ āpattikarā dhammā sattāti āpajjati, atha tatthāpi kāyādayo ekato vā nānāto vā labbhanti. ‘‘Catūhi ākārehī’’ti na yujjati, ‘‘tīhākārehi āpattiṃ āpajjatī’’ti vattabbaṃ siyāti evaṃ virodhitāni honti. Kathaṃ avirodhitānīti? Saviññattikāviññattikabhedabhinnattā kāyādīnaṃ. Yā kiriyā āpatti, taṃ ekaccaṃ kāyena saviññattikena āpajjati, ekaccaṃ saviññattiyā vācāya, ekaccaṃ saviññattikāhi kāyavācāhi āpajjati. Yā pana akiriyā āpatti, taṃ ekaccaṃ kammavācāya āpajjati, tañca kho avasiṭṭhāhi aviññattikāhi kāyavācāhiyeva, na vinā ‘‘no ce kāyena vācāya paṭinissajjati, kammavācāpariyosāne āpatti saṅghādisesassā’’ti (pārā. 414, 421) vacanato. Avisesena vā ekaccaṃ āpattiṃ kāyena āpajjati, ekaccaṃ vācāya, ekaccaṃ kāyavācāhi. Yaṃ panettha kāyavācāhi, taṃ ekaccaṃ kevalāhi kāyavācāhi āpajjati, ekaccaṃ kammavācāya āpajjatīti ayamattho veditabboti evaṃ avirodhitāni honti.

In the miscellaneous section, the training rules called 'actions' should be understood, in relation to them, as body and speech together with intimation. The 'non-actions' should be understood, in relation to them, as being without intimation. Herein, the mind is not the measure, because an offense originating from reporting what is factual is an action, and because it is without intention. Therein, the action of an offense should be understood as arising from the immediately preceding mind. Even a certain training rule that does not produce intimation is called an 'action' by way of generality; just as for this first pārājika, even in the absence of intimation, it is said: 'If he consents, it is a pārājika offense,' and 'If he does not consent, there is no offense.' Even the action designated as intimation does not occur without the mind of indulgence, because it is born of the mind, because it is a derived form, and because it follows after the mind. Therefore, this form of intimation, designated as an action, does not endure without its generating mind, like other mind-born matter; another, such as the sound-base, does endure. Therefore, it is not logical to say, 'if he does not consent, there is no offense,' on the grounds that when there is an action, the mind of indulgence that generates it must necessarily be present. Because the mind of indulgence, although capable of generating intimation, does not always generate intimation, therefore, on the grounds that it arises by itself even without intimation, it is said, 'If he consents, it is a pārājika offense.' If it does not arise, it is called 'not consenting,' and for him there is no offense. For that very reason, the Blessed One determines the offense by the mind alone, asking, 'What was your intention, monk?'—not by the action; this should be understood. Thus far, there are six origins of offenses, and those very things are called 'offense-causing factors.' And the scriptural statements that 'one commits an offense in four ways: by body, by speech, by body and speech, or by a formal act' are not contradictory; otherwise, they are contradictory. How so? For whatever offense one commits by a formal act, it follows that body, etc., are not involved there. Therefore, the offense-causing factors, together with the formal act, would be seven. Furthermore, if in that case body, etc., are also found either together or separately, then 'by four ways' is not correct; it should be said, 'one commits an offense by three ways.' Thus they are contradictory. How are they not contradictory? Because of the division of body, etc., into the distinction of 'with intimation' and 'without intimation'. Of the offenses that are actions, some are committed by the body with intimation, some by speech with intimation, and some by both body and speech with intimation. But of the offenses that are non-actions, some are committed by a formal act, and that too only by the remaining body and speech that are without intimation, not without them—because of the statement: 'If he does not renounce by body or speech, at the conclusion of the formal act, he commits an offense of saṅghādisesa.' Or, without distinction, some offenses are committed by body, some by speech, and some by body and speech. Among these committed by body and speech, some are committed solely by body and speech, and some are committed by a formal act. This meaning should be understood. Thus they are not contradictory.

Tatrāyaṃ samāsato atthavibhāvanā – kāyena āpajjatīti kāyena saviññattikena akattabbaṃ katvā ekaccaṃ āpajjati, aviññattikena kattabbaṃ akatvā āpajjati, tadubhayampi kāyakammaṃ nāma. Akatampi hi loke ‘‘kata’’nti vuccati ‘‘idaṃ dukkaṭaṃ mayā, yaṃ mayā puññaṃ na kata’’nti evamādīsu, sāsane ca ‘‘idaṃ te, āvuso ānanda, dukkaṭaṃ, yaṃ tvaṃ bhagavantaṃ na pucchī’’tiādīsu (cūḷava. 443), evamidha vinayapariyāye kāyena akaraṇīyampi ‘‘kāyakamma’’nti vuccati, ayameva nayo vācāya āpajjatītiādīsu. Tattha samuṭṭhānaggahaṇaṃ kattabbato vā akattabbato vā kāyādibhedāpekkhameva āpattiṃ āpajjati, na aññathāti dassanatthaṃ. Kiriyāggahaṇaṃ kāyādīnaṃ saviññattikāviññattikabhedadassanatthaṃ. Saññāggahaṇaṃ āpattiyā aṅgānaṅgacittavisesadassanatthaṃ, tena yaṃ cittaṃ kiriyālakkhaṇe, akiriyālakkhaṇe vā sannihitaṃ, yato vā kiriyā vā akiriyā vā hoti, na taṃ avisesena āpattiyā aṅgaṃ vā anaṅgaṃ vā hoti, kintu yāya saññāya ‘‘saññāvimokkha’’nti vuccati, tāya sampayuttaṃ cittaṃ aṅgaṃ, itaraṃ anaṅganti dassitaṃ hoti. Idāni [Pg.108] yena cittena sikkhāpadaṃ sacittakaṃ hoti, yadabhāvā acittakaṃ, tena tassa avisesena sāvajjattā lokavajjabhāvova vuccati, kintu sāvajjaṃyeva samānaṃ ekaccaṃ lokavajjaṃ ekaccaṃ paṇṇattivajjanti dassanatthaṃ lokavajjaggahaṇaṃ. Cittameva yasmā ‘‘lokavajja’’nti vuccati, tasmā manokammampi siyā āpattīti aniṭṭhappasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ kammaggahaṇaṃ. Yaṃ panettha akiriyālakkhaṇaṃ kammaṃ, taṃ kusalattikavinimuttaṃ siyāti aniṭṭhappasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ kusalattikaggahaṇaṃ. Yā panettha abyākatā āpatti, taṃ ekaccaṃ avedanampi saññāvedayitanirodhasamāpanno āpajjatīti katvā vedanāttikaṃ ettha na labbhatīti aniṭṭhappasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ vedanāttikaggahaṇaṃ katanti veditabbaṃ. Sikkhāpadañhi sacittakapuggalavasena ‘‘ticittaṃ tivedana’’nti laddhavohāraṃ acittakenāpannampi ‘‘ticittaṃ tivedana’’micceva vuccati. Tatridaṃ suttaṃ ‘‘atthāpatti acittako āpajjati acittako vuṭṭhāti (pari. 324). Atthāpatti kusalacitto āpajjati kusalacitto vuṭṭhātī’’tiādi (pari. 470). Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘saññā sadā anāpattimeva karoti, cittaṃ āpattimeva, acittakaṃ nāma vatthuavijānanaṃ, nosaññāvimokkhaṃ vītikkamajānanaṃ, idametesaṃ nānatta’’nti vuttaṃ.

Herein, this is the exposition of the meaning in brief: ‘Commits with the body’ means that one commits a certain offense by doing with the body accompanied by expression what ought not to be done, or by not doing with the body which is without expression what ought to be done. Both of these are called bodily action. For even what is not done is called ‘done’ in the world, as in such phrases as, ‘This was wrongly done by me, in that I did not perform a meritorious act,’ and so on. And in the Dispensation, as in, ‘This, friend Ānanda, was wrongly done by you, in that you did not ask the Blessed One,’ and so on (Cūḷavagga 443). Thus, here in the Vinaya terminology, even an omission by the body is called ‘bodily action.’ This same method applies to ‘commits with speech,’ and so on. Therein, the inclusion of ‘origin’ (samuṭṭhāna) is to show that one commits an offense only with reference to the distinction of body, etc., according to whether something should be done or not done, and not otherwise. The inclusion of ‘action’ (kiriya) is to show the distinction of body, etc., as being with expression (saviññattika) and without expression (aviññattika). The inclusion of ‘perception’ (saññā) is to show the distinction of the mind as a factor or non-factor of the offense. By this, it is shown that a mind that is present in the characteristic of action or non-action, or from which an action or non-action arises, is not indiscriminately a factor or non-factor of the offense. Rather, the mind associated with that perception by which it is called ‘perception-release’ (saññāvimokkha) is a factor, while the other is not a factor. Now, regarding the mind by which a training rule becomes intentional (sacittaka), and in the absence of which it is unintentional (acittaka)—by that, due to its being blameworthy without distinction, it is called a ‘worldly fault’ (lokavajja). However, the inclusion of ‘worldly fault’ is to show that while it is indeed blameworthy, some is a worldly fault and some is a fault by enactment (paṇṇattivajja). Since the mind itself is called a ‘worldly fault,’ the inclusion of ‘action’ (kamma) is to prevent the undesirable implication that mental action (manokamma) could also be an offense. Here, the inclusion of the ‘wholesome triad’ (kusalattika) is to prevent the undesirable implication that an action characterized by non-action might be excluded from the wholesome triad. Here, the inclusion of the ‘feeling triad’ (vedanāttika) is to prevent the undesirable implication that the feeling triad is not obtained here, considering that one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling (saññāvedayitanirodhasamāpatti) incurs certain indeterminate offenses even without feeling. This should be understood. For a training rule, having obtained the designation ‘of three minds, of three feelings’ in relation to a person with a mind, is still called ‘of three minds, of three feelings’ even when incurred by one without a mind (acittakena). In this regard, there is this passage: ‘There is an offense that one without a mind (acittako) commits and from which one without a mind emerges (Pari. 324). There is an offense that one with a wholesome mind commits and from which one with a wholesome mind emerges,’ and so on (Pari. 470). However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: ‘Perception always brings about non-offense, while the mind brings about only an offense. What is called “unintentional” (acittaka) is not knowing the object; knowing the transgression is not “perception-release.” This is their distinction.’

Sabbasaṅgāhakavasenāti sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ saṅgahavasena. Bhikkhuniyā cīvaradānādi kiriyākiriyato. Jātarūparajatapaṭiggahaṇādi siyā kiriyato. Upanikkhittāpaṭikkhepe siyā akiriyato. Desitavatthukapamāṇātikkantakuṭikaraṇe siyā kiriyato, adesitavatthukapamāṇātikkantakaraṇe siyā kiriyākiriyato. Yaṃ cittaṅgaṃ labhatiyevāti kāyacittaṃ vācācittanti evaṃ. Vināpi cittenāti ettha vināpi cittena sahāpi cittenāti adhippāyo. Yo so saviññattiko, aviññattiko ca vutto kāyo, tassa kammaṃ kāyakammaṃ, tathā vacīkammaṃ. Tattha saviññattiko kāyo uppattiyā kammaṃ sādheti, itaro anuppattiyā. Tathā vācāti veditabbaṃ, sikkhāpadanti ‘‘yo tattha nāmakāyo padakāyo’’ti vacanato vītikkame yujjatīti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Hasituppādavoṭṭhabbanānipi āpattisamuṭṭhāpakacittāni. Idampi na mayā paricchinnanti hasamāno passati yadā, tadā voṭṭhabbanaṃ javanagatika’’nti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Abhiññācittāni paññattiṃ ajānitvā iddhivikubbanādikāle gahetabbāni.

‘By way of encompassing all’ means by way of encompassing all the training rules. The giving of a robe, etc., to a bhikkhunī arises from action and non-action. The accepting of gold and silver, etc., may arise from action. The non-rejection of what is placed nearby may arise from non-action. The making of a hut exceeding the measure on a designated site may arise from action; the making of one exceeding the measure on an undesignated site may arise from action and non-action. Regarding ‘whatever mental component is indeed obtained,’ it is thus: consciousness associated with the body and consciousness associated with speech are obtained. Herein, regarding ‘even without consciousness,’ the meaning is: ‘either without consciousness or together with consciousness.’ The body that is said to be with expression (saviññattika) and without expression (aviññattika)—its action is bodily action; similarly, verbal action. Therein, the body with expression accomplishes the action of commission; the other, of omission. It should be understood that speech is likewise. As for ‘training rule,’ it is said that it is applicable in the case of transgression on account of the statement, ‘Whatever is the name-body, the phrase-body.’ It is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada: ‘The smile-arising consciousness and the determining consciousness are also minds that originate an offense. When, while smiling, one perceives, “This too has not been determined by me,” then the determining consciousness has the nature of an impulsion.’ The supernormal knowledge consciousnesses are to be taken at the time of performing psychic transformations and so on, through not knowing the concept.

Ettha [Pg.109] pana yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno…pe… methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevanto atthi koci pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso, atthi koci na pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso. Dukkaṭathullaccayavatthūsu paṭisevanto atthi koci na pārājiko. Pakkhapaṇḍako apaṇḍakapakkhe upasampanno paṇḍakapakkhe methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevanto so pārājikaṃ āpattiṃ nāpajjatīti na pārājiko nāma. Na hi abhikkhuno āpatti nāma atthi. So anāpattikattā apaṇḍakapakkhe āgato kiṃ asaṃvāso hoti na hotīti? Hoti, ‘‘abhabbo tena sarīrabandhanenā’’ti (pārā. 55; mahāva. 129) hi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Yo pana, bhikkhu, bhikkhūnaṃ…pe… asaṃvāso’’ti (pārā. 44) vuttattā yo pana bhikkhubhāvena methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevati, so eva abhabbo. Nāyaṃ apārājikattāti ce? Na, ‘‘byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo’’ti (mahāva. 86) vuttaṭṭhāne yathā abhikkhunā kammavācāya sāvitāyapi kammaṃ ruhati kammavipattiyā asambhavato, evaṃsampadamidaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tatridaṃ yutti – upasampannapubbo eva ce kammavācaṃ sāveti, saṅgho ca tasmiṃ upasampannasaññī, evañce kammaṃ ruhati, na aññathāti no khantīti ācariyo. Gahaṭṭho vā titthiyo vā paṇḍako vā anupasampannasaññī kammavācaṃ sāveti, saṅghena kammavācā na vuttā hoti, ‘‘saṅgho upasampādeyya, saṅgho upasampādeti, upasampanno saṅghenā’’ti (mahāva. 127) hi vacanato saṅghena kammavācāya vattabbāya saṅghapariyāpannena, saṅghapariyāpannasaññitena vā ekena vuttā saṅghena vuttāva hotīti veditabbo, ayameva sabbakammesu yutti. Tathā atthi methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevanto koci nāsetabbo ‘‘yo bhikkhunīdūsako, ayaṃ nāsetabbo’’ti vuttattā eva, so anupasampannova, sahaseyyāpattiādiṃ janeti, tassa omasane ca dukkaṭaṃ hoti. Abhikkhuniyā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevanto na nāsetabbo ‘‘antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpanno, bhikkhave, anupasampanno…pe… nāsetabbo’’ti pāḷiyā abhāvato. Teneva so upasampannasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, na sahaseyyāpattādiṃ janeti, kevalaṃ asaṃvāsoti katvā gaṇapūrako na hoti, ekakammaṃ ekuddesopi hi saṃvāsoti vutto. Samasikkhatāpi saṃvāsoti katvā so tena saddhiṃ natthīti padasodhammāpattiṃ pana janetīti kāraṇacchāyā dissati. Yathā bhikkhuniyā saddhiṃ bhikkhusaṅghassa ekakammādino [Pg.110] saṃvāsassa abhāvā bhikkhunī asaṃvāsā bhikkhussa, tathā bhikkhu ca bhikkhuniyā, padasodhammāpattiṃ pana janeti. Tathā ‘‘antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpannopi ekacco yo nāsetabbo’’ti avuttoti iminā nidassanena sā kāraṇacchāyā gahaṇaṃ na gacchati.

Here, however, regarding any bhikkhu who has entered upon the training and livelihood of bhikkhus… engaging in sexual intercourse—there is a certain one who becomes pārājika and is not in communion; there is a certain one who does not become pārājika but is not in communion. Engaging in the objects of dukkaṭa and thullaccaya offenses, there is a certain one who is not pārājika. A pakkhapaṇḍaka ordained in a period when he is not a paṇḍaka, who then engages in sexual intercourse in a period when he is a paṇḍaka, does not fall into a pārājika offense; thus, he is not called 'pārājika.' For there is no such thing as an offense for one who is not a bhikkhu. Since he has no offense, when he has returned to the period of not being a paṇḍaka, is he not in communion, or is he not? He is. For it is said, 'He is incapable by that bodily constitution.' Because it is said, 'Whatever bhikkhu… is not in communion,' whoever engages in sexual intercourse with the status of a bhikkhu, he alone is incapable. If one were to say: Is this one not incapable because he is not pārājika? No. In the place where it is said, 'The Saṅgha should be informed by a competent, capable bhikkhu,' just as the formal act is valid even when recited by one who is not a bhikkhu—because of the impossibility of a failure of the act—so this case should be understood as analogous. Herein, this is the reasoning: The teacher says, 'It is our view that if one who was previously ordained recites the formal act, and the Saṅgha perceives him as ordained, only then is the act valid, not otherwise.' If a householder, a sectarian, or a paṇḍaka who is perceived as unordained recites the formal act, it is as if the formal act has not been spoken by the Saṅgha. For according to the text, 'The Saṅgha should ordain, the Saṅgha ordains, one is ordained by the Saṅgha,' it should be understood that when the formal act is to be spoken by the Saṅgha, if it is spoken by one included in the Saṅgha, or by one perceived as being included in the Saṅgha, it is indeed considered as spoken by the Saṅgha. This very same reasoning applies in all formal acts. Likewise, there is a certain one engaging in sexual intercourse who is to be expelled, because it is said, 'Whoever is a corrupter of bhikkhunīs, he is to be expelled.' He is in fact unordained; he gives rise to the offense of lying down together, etc., and for insulting him, there is a dukkaṭa offense. One who engages in sexual intercourse with a non-bhikkhunī is not to be expelled, because of the absence of a Pāḷi text stating, 'Bhikkhus, one who has committed the final offense, being unordained… is to be expelled.' For that very reason, he is counted as ordained; he does not give rise to the offense of lying down together, etc. Being merely not in communion, he does not complete a quorum. For having a common formal act and a common recitation is called 'communion.' Because having the same training is also 'communion,' and that communion does not exist with him, he therefore gives rise to the padasodhamma offense—thus a semblance of a reason appears. Just as, due to the absence of communion—such as a common formal act—of the Saṅgha of bhikkhus with a bhikkhunī, a bhikkhunī is not in communion with a bhikkhu, and likewise a bhikkhu with a bhikkhunī, yet he gives rise to the padasodhamma offense. Likewise, because it is not said, 'Even one who has committed the final offense, a certain one is to be expelled,' by this example, that semblance of a reason is not accepted.

Api ca ‘‘bhikkhu suttabhikkhumhi vippaṭipajjati, paṭibuddho sādiyati, ubho nāsetabbā’’ti (pārā. 66) ca, ‘‘tena hi, bhikkhave, mettiyaṃ bhikkhuniṃ nāsethā’’ti (pārā. 384) ca vacanato yo saṅghamajjhaṃ pavisitvā anuvijjakena anuvijjiyamāno parājāpito, sopi anupasampannova, na omasavādapācittiyaṃ janetīti veditabbaṃ. Kiñcāpi ‘‘upasampannaṃ upasampannasaññī khuṃsetukāmo’’ti pāḷi natthi, kiñcāpi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ ‘‘yaṃ akkosati, tassa upasampannatā, anaññāpadesena jātiādīhi akkosanaṃ, ‘maṃ akkosatī’ti jānanā, atthapurekkhāratādīnaṃ abhāvoti imānettha cattāri aṅgānī’’ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. omasavādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vuttaṃ, tathāpi duṭṭhadosasikkhāpade ‘‘asuddho hoti puggalo aññataraṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpanno, tañce suddhadiṭṭhi samāno okāsaṃ kārāpetvā akkosādhippāyo vadeti, āpatti omasavādassā’’ti (pārā. 389) vacanato asuddhe upasampannasaññāya eva omasantassa pācittiyaṃ. Asuddhadiṭṭhissa dukkaṭaṃ. ‘‘Suddho hoti puggalo, aññataraṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ anajjhāpanno, tañce suddhadiṭṭhi samāno okāsaṃ kārāpetvā akkosādhippāyo vadeti, āpatti omasavādassā’’ti (pārā. 389) vacanato pana kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ ‘‘tassa upasampannatā upasampannasaññitā’’ti na vuttaṃ anekaṃsikattā tassa aṅgassāti veditabbaṃ.

Moreover, according to the statements: 'A bhikkhu who disagrees with a bhikkhu learned in the Suttas, and one who, being awakened, approves, both should be expelled,' and 'Therefore, bhikkhus, expel the bhikkhunī Mettiyā,' it should be understood that one who, having entered the midst of the Saṅgha and being investigated by an investigator, is defeated, is also indeed not an ordained person; he does not generate a pācittiya offense of abusive speech. Although there is no Pāḷi text stating, 'intending to scold one who is ordained, perceiving him as ordained,' and although in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī it is stated, 'Herein, these are the four factors: the one whom he scolds, that one's state of being ordained; the scolding by means of birth and so on, without referring to another; the knowledge "he is scolding me"; and the absence of putting benefit first, etc.,' nevertheless, in the training rule concerning a corrupt fault, according to the statement: 'A person is impure, having committed some pārājika offense, and if one with the view that he is pure, having arranged an opportunity, speaks with the intention to scold, there is an offense of abusive speech,' for one who disparages an impure person with the very perception that he is ordained, there is a pācittiya offense. For one who has the view that the other is impure, there is a dukkaṭa offense. However, according to the statement: 'A person is pure, not having committed any pārājika offense, and if one with the view that he is pure, having arranged an opportunity, speaks with the intention to scold, there is an offense of abusive speech,' it should be understood that in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī it is not said 'his state of being ordained and the perception of him as ordained' because that factor is not unequivocal.

Api cettha sikkhāpaccakkhātakacatukkaṃ veditabbaṃ, atthi puggalo sikkhāpaccakkhātako na sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno, atthi sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno na sikkhāpaccakkhātako, atthi sikkhāpaccakkhātako ceva sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno ca, atthi neva sikkhāpaccakkhātako na sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno. Tattha tatiyo bhikkhunīsikkhāpaccakkhātako veditabbo. Sā hi yāva na liṅgaṃ pariccajati, kāsāve saussāhāva samānā sāmaññā cavitukāmā sikkhaṃ paccakkhantīpi bhikkhunī eva sikkhāsājīvasamāpannāva. Vuttañhi bhagavatā ‘‘na, bhikkhave, bhikkhuniyā sikkhāpaccakkhāna’’nti (cūḷava. 434). Kadā ca pana sā [Pg.111] abhikkhunī hotīti? Yadā sāmaññā cavitukāmā gihinivāsanaṃ nivāseti, sā ‘‘vibbhantā’’ti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Vuttañhi bhagavatā ‘‘yadeva sā vibbhantā, tadeva abhikkhunī’’ti (cūḷava. 434). Kittāvatā pana vibbhantā hotīti? Sāmaññā cavitukāmā kāsāvesu anālayā kāsāvaṃ vā apaneti, naggā vā gacchati, tiṇapaṇṇādinā vā paṭicchādetvā gacchati, kāsāvaṃyeva vā gihinivāsanākārena nivāseti, odātaṃ vā vatthaṃ nivāseti, saliṅgeneva vā saddhiṃ titthiyesu pavisitvā kesaluñcanādivataṃ samādiyati, titthiyaliṅgaṃ vā samādiyati, tadā vibbhantā nāma hoti. Tattha yā bhikkhuniliṅge ṭhitāva titthiyavataṃ samādiyati, sā titthiyapakkantako bhikkhu viya pacchā pabbajjampi na labhati, sesā pabbajjamevekaṃ labhanti, na upasampadaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ kiñcāpi ‘‘yā sā, bhikkhave, bhikkhunī sakāsāvā titthāyatanaṃ saṅkantā, sā āgatā na upasampādetabbā’’ti vacanato yā paṭhamaṃ vibbhamitvā pacchā titthāyatanaṃ saṅkantā, sā āgatā upasampādetabbāti anuññātaṃ viya dissati. Saṅgītiācariyehi pana ‘‘catuvīsati pārājikānī’’ti vuttattā na puna sā upasampādetabbā, tasmā eva sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ nānuññātaṃ bhagavatā. Antimavatthuajjhāpannā pana bhikkhunī eva. Pakkhapaṇḍakīpi bhikkhunī eva. Kinti pucchā.

Furthermore, in this regard, the tetrad concerning one who renounces the training should be understood: there is a person who renounces the training but has not entered upon the training and livelihood; there is one who has entered upon the training and livelihood but does not renounce the training; there is one who both renounces the training and has entered upon the training and livelihood; and there is one who neither renounces the training nor has entered upon the training and livelihood. Among these, the third should be understood as a bhikkhunī who renounces the training. For as long as she does not abandon the outward sign, even if she renounces the training while still wearing the saffron robe with enthusiasm and desiring to fall away from the monastic life, she is still a bhikkhunī who has entered upon the training and livelihood. For the Blessed One has said: 'Bhikkhus, there is no renunciation of the training for a bhikkhunī.' But when does she become a non-bhikkhunī? When, desiring to fall away from the monastic life, she puts on the clothing of a laywoman, she is reckoned as 'disrobed.' For the Blessed One has said: 'As soon as she has disrobed, then she is a non-bhikkhunī.' And to what extent is one disrobed? Desiring to fall away from the monastic life, without attachment to the saffron robes, she either removes the saffron robe, or goes naked, or goes covering herself with grass or leaves, or wears the saffron robe itself in the manner of lay clothing, or wears white cloth, or, while still bearing her own sign, enters among the sectarians and undertakes observances such as plucking out hair, or adopts the outward sign of sectarians—then she is called 'disrobed.' In this case, a bhikkhunī who, while still maintaining the sign of a bhikkhunī, undertakes the practices of sectarians is like a bhikkhu who has defected to the sectarians—she does not later obtain even the going forth. The others obtain only the going forth, not full ordination. Although in the Pāli it appears as if it were permitted—based on the statement, 'Bhikkhus, a bhikkhunī who, while wearing the saffron robe, has gone over to the abode of sectarians, if she returns, is not to be given full ordination,' which implies that one who first disrobes and then goes over to the abode of sectarians, if she returns, is to be given full ordination—nevertheless, as the teachers of the Recital have said, 'There are twenty-four offenses entailing expulsion,' she is therefore not to be given full ordination again. For this very reason, renunciation of the training was not permitted by the Blessed One. However, a bhikkhunī who has committed the final offense is still a bhikkhunī. A pakkhapaṇḍakī is also still a bhikkhunī. The word 'what' here signifies a question.

Vinītavatthuvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Decided Cases

67. Vinītāni vinicchitāni vatthūni vinītavatthūni. Tesaṃ tesaṃ ‘‘tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhū’’tiādīnaṃ vatthūnaṃ pāṭekkaṃ nāmagaṇanaṃ uddharitvā uddharitvā ūnādhikadosasodhanaṭṭhena uddānā ca tā matrādisiddhigāthāhi chandovicitilakkhaṇena gāthā cāti ‘‘uddānagāthā nāmā’’ti vuttaṃ, de, sodhane iti dhātussa rūpaṃ uddānāti veditabbaṃ. Imā pana uddānagāthā dhammasaṅgāhakattherehi saṅgītikāle ṭhapitā, katthāti ce? Padabhājanīyāvasāne. ‘‘Vatthugāthā nāma ‘tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhū’tiādīnaṃ imesaṃ vinītavatthūnaṃ nidānānī’’ti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ, tasmā tattha vuttanayena vinītavatthūni eva ‘‘vatthugāthā’’ti vuttāti veditabbaṃ. Idamettha samāsato adhippāyanidassanaṃ [Pg.112] – ‘‘āpattiṃ tvaṃ, bhikkhu, āpanno pārājika’’nti mūlāpattidassanavasena vā, ‘‘anāpatti, bhikkhu, pārājikassa, āpatti saṅghādisesassa, dukkaṭassā’’ti āpattibhedadassanavasena vā, ‘‘anāpatti, bhikkhu, asādiyantassā’’ti anāpattidassanavasena vā yāni vatthūni vinītāni vinicchitāni, tāni vinītavatthūni nāma. Tesaṃ vinītavatthūnaṃ nidānavatthudīpikā tanti vatthugāthā nāma. Uddānagāthāva ‘‘vatthugāthā’’ti vuttāti eke. Tesaṃ ‘‘iminā lakkhaṇena āyatiṃ vinayadharā vinayaṃ vinicchinissantī’’ti vacanena virujjhati. Na hi uddānagāthāyaṃ kiñcipi vinicchayalakkhaṇaṃ dissati, uddānagāthānaṃ visuṃ payojanaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘sukhaṃ vinayadharā uggaṇhissantī’’ti, tasmā payojananānattatopetaṃ nānattaṃ veditabbaṃ. Tatthāyaṃ viggaho – vatthūni eva gāthā vatthugāthā. Vinītavatthuto visesanatthamettha gāthāggahaṇaṃ. Uddānagāthāto visesanatthaṃ vatthuggahaṇanti veditabbaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘gāthānaṃ vatthūnīti vattabbe vatthugāthāti vutta’’nti vadanti. Makkaṭivatthuṃ aññe tattha bhikkhū ārocesuṃ, idha sayameva. Tattha kāraṇassa ‘‘bhagavatā sikkhāpadaṃ paññatta’’nti vuttattā vajjiputtakāpi aññe eva. ‘‘Tattha ānandatthero, idha te evā’’ti aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Ācariyassa adhippāyo pubbe vutto, tasmā upaparikkhitabbaṃ.

67. Cases that have been judged and decided are vinītavatthūni (decided cases). For each of these cases, such as 'Now at that time, a certain monk...', the name and number are extracted again and again, and for the purpose of cleansing the faults of deficiency and excess, there are summaries (uddāna). And those summaries are also verses marked by the characteristic of chandoviciti with verses accomplished through matrā and so on; therefore, they are called 'summary verses' (uddānagāthā). The word uddāna should be understood as the form derived from the root 'de' in the sense of 'sodhana' (cleansing). These summary verses were placed by the Elder Compilers of the Dhamma at the time of the communal chanting. If asked where, they were placed at the end of the Padabhājanīya. It is said in the gaṇṭhipada (gloss): 'The vatthugāthā (case verses) are the introductions to these decided cases, such as "Now at that time, a certain monk..."' Therefore, following the method stated there, it should be understood that the decided cases themselves are what are called vatthugāthā. This is a concise demonstration of the meaning herein: those cases that have been judged and decided—whether by way of showing the root offense, as in, 'Monk, you have committed a Pārājika offense'; or by way of showing the distinction of offenses, as in, 'Monk, there is no Pārājika offense, but there is a Saṅghādisesa offense, a Dukkaṭa offense'; or by way of showing non-offense, as in, 'Monk, there is no offense for one who does not consent'—are called vinītavatthūni (decided cases). The canonical text that illuminates the introductory case of these decided cases is called vatthugāthā. Some say that the summary verses themselves are called vatthugāthā. This contradicts the statement: 'By this characteristic, future upholders of the Vinaya will decide upon the Vinaya.' For no characteristic of decision is seen in a summary verse. A separate purpose for summary verses has been stated: 'So that upholders of the Vinaya may learn them with ease.' Therefore, this distinction should be understood from the difference in purpose. Herein, this is the analysis: the cases themselves are the verses; hence, vatthugāthā. Here, the inclusion of the term 'gāthā' serves to distinguish them from the vinītavatthu. It should be understood that the inclusion of the term 'vatthu' serves to distinguish them from the uddānagāthā. Some, however, say: 'When it should be said "the cases of the verses" (gāthānaṃ vatthūni), it is stated as vatthugāthā.' In the monkey case, other monks reported it there; here, he himself reported it. In that case, the reason for reporting it oneself is because of the statement, 'The training rule was laid down by the Blessed One'; the Vajjiputtaka monks are also different ones. It is said in a certain gaṇṭhipada: 'There, it was the Elder Ānanda; here, it was they themselves.' The teacher's intention has been stated before; therefore, it should be investigated.

67-8. Ñatvāti apucchitvā sayameva ñatvā. Pokkharanti sarīraṃ bheripokkharaṃ viya. Lokiyā avikalaṃ ‘‘sundara’’nti vadanti, tasmā vaṇṇapokkharatāyāti paṭhamenatthena visiṭṭhakāyacchavitāyāti attho, dutiyena vaṇṇasundaratāyāti. ‘‘Uppalagabbhavaṇṇattā suvaṇṇavaṇṇā, tasmā uppalavaṇṇāti nāmaṃ labhī’’ti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Nīluppalavaṇṇā kāyacchavīti vacanaṃ pana sāmacchaviṃ dīpeti. Loke pana ‘‘uppalasamā pasatthasāmā’’ti vacanato ‘‘yā sāmā sāmavaṇṇā sāmatanumajjhā, sā pāricariyā sagge mama vāso’’ti vacanato sāmacchavikā itthīnaṃ pasatthā. ‘‘Yāvassā naṃ andhakāra’’ntipi pāṭho. Kilesakāmehi vatthukāmesu yo na limpati.

67-8. `Ñatvāti` means having known by oneself without asking. `Pokkhara` means the body, just as in `bheripokkhara`. Worldly people call one with a complete body 'beautiful'; therefore, by the first meaning, `vaṇṇapokkharatā` is to be understood as the excellence of the body's complexion, and by the second, as the beauty of the complexion. It is said in the Gaṇṭhipada: 'Because her complexion was like the inside of a lotus, that is, a golden complexion, she received the name Uppalavaṇṇā.' The phrase 'a body complexion the color of a blue lotus', however, indicates a dark complexion. In the world, however, from the saying, 'Like a lotus is the praised dark complexion,' and from the saying, 'She who is dark, of dark complexion, with a slender dark waist—that dark woman is a dwelling in heaven for my service,' a woman with a dark complexion is praised among women. There is also the reading: `Yāvassā naṃ andhakāra`. He who is not smeared by the defilements of sensual pleasure in the objects of sensual pleasure.

69. Itthiliṅgaṃ pātubhūtanti itthisaṇṭhānaṃ pātubhūtaṃ, tañca kho purisindriyassa antaradhānena itthindriyassa pātubhāvena. Evaṃ purisindriyapātubhāvepi. Etena yathā brahmānaṃ purisindriyaṃ nuppajjati, kevalaṃ purisasaṇṭhānameva [Pg.113] uppajjati, yathā ca kassaci paṇḍakassa vināpi purisindriyena purisasaṇṭhānaṃ uppajjati, na tathā tesanti dassitaṃ hoti, taṃ pana itthindriyaṃ, purisindriyaṃ vā antaradhāyantaṃ marantānaṃ viya paṭilomakkamena sattarasamacittakkhaṇato paṭṭhāya antaradhāyati. Paccuppanne indriye niruddhe itaraṃ visabhāgindriyaṃ pātubhavati. Yasmā mahāniddaṃ okkantasseva kirassa visabhāgindriyaṃ pātubhavati, tasmā ‘‘rattibhāge niddaṃ okkantassā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, taṃyeva upajjhaṃ tameva upasampada’’nti vacanato pavattinīyeva upajjhāyā, upasampadācariyā bhikkhunīyeva ācariyāti katvā tāsaṃ upajjhāyavattaṃ, ācariyavattañca iminā bhikkhunāsadāsāyaṃ pātaṃ bhikkhunupassayaṃ gantvā kātabbaṃ, tāhi ca imassa vihāraṃ āgamma saddhivihārikavattādi kātabbaṃ nu khoti ce? ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhikkhunīhi saṅgamitu’’nti vacanena vinābhāvadīpanato kevalaṃ na puna upajjhā gahetabbā, na ca upasampadā kātabbāti dassanatthameva ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, taṃyeva upajjha’’ntiādi vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Tattha bhikkhunīhi saṅgamitunti bhikkhūhi vinā hutvā bhikkhunīhi eva saddhiṃ samaṅgī bhavituṃ anujānāmīti attho, tasmā iminā pāḷilesena ‘‘tassā eva gāmantarādīhi anāpattī’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ siddhaṃ hoti, āgantvā saṅgamituṃ sakkā, yañca bhagavatā gamanaṃ anuññātaṃ, taṃ nissāya kuto gāmantarādipaccayā āpatti. Na hi bhagavā āpattiyaṃ niyojetīti yuttameva taṃ, aññathā ‘‘yā āpattiyo bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhunīhi asādhāraṇā, tāhi āpattīhi anāpattī’’ti pāḷivacanato na gāmantarādīhi anāpattīti āpajjati. Sādhāraṇatā āpattiyeva ‘‘yā āpattiyo bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhunīhi asādhāraṇā, yā ca bhikkhunīhi saṅgamantiyā gāmantaranadīpārarattivippavāsagaṇaohīyanāpattiyo, tāhi āpattīhi anāpattī’’ti na vuttattāti ce? Na vuttaṃ aniṭṭhappasaṅgato. Bhikkhunīhi saddhiṃ saṅkantāyapi tassā tā pahāya aññāhi saṅgamantiyā gāmantarādīhi anāpatti eva sabbakālanti imassa aniṭṭhappasaṅgato tathā na vuttanti attho. Tattha gāmantarāpattādivatthuṃ sañcicca tasmiṃ kāle ajjhācarantīpi sā liṅgapātubhāvena kāraṇena anāpajjanato anāpatti. Anāpajjanaṭṭheneva vuṭṭhāti nāmāti veditabbā. Tathā yogī anuppanne [Pg.114] eva kilese nirodheti. Abandhanopi patto ‘‘ūnapañcabandhano’’ti vuccati, sabbaso vā pana na sāveti appaccakkhātā hoti sikkhā, evamidha anāpannāpi āpatti vuṭṭhitā nāma hotīti veditabbā.

69. The female characteristic appears—this means the female form appears. And this occurs through the disappearance of the male faculty and the appearance of the female faculty. It is to be understood similarly in the case of the appearance of the male faculty. By this, it is shown that it is not the same for these individuals as it is for Brahmās, for whom the male faculty does not arise but only the male form arises, or as it is for some eunuchs, for whom the male form arises even without the male faculty. Furthermore, that female faculty or male faculty, while disappearing, disappears in reverse order starting from the seventeenth thought-moment, just as for those who are dying. When the present faculty has ceased, the other, dissimilar faculty appears. Because the dissimilar faculty is said to appear only when one has entered deep sleep, it was therefore said, 'upon entering sleep during the night.' If one were to ask: 'Based on the statement, “I allow, O monks, that same preceptor, that same ordination,” is the preceptor the female preceptor (pavattinī) and the teacher the bhikkhunī who was the ordination teacher? And for this reason, should the duties towards the preceptor and teacher be performed by this monk by always going to the bhikkhunī residence in the evening and morning? And should those bhikkhunīs, having come to this monk's monastery, perform the duties of a co-resident, and so on?' It should be understood that the statement beginning with, “I allow, O monks, that same preceptor...” was spoken only to show this: a preceptor should not be taken again, and ordination should not be performed again. This is because it indicates a state of being without the need for the statement, “I allow, O monks, to associate with bhikkhunīs.” Therein, 'to associate with bhikkhunīs' means: I allow them to be in harmony together with bhikkhunīs only, being without bhikkhus. Therefore, by this hint in the Pāli, the commentary's statement, “For her, there is no offense regarding going to another village, etc.,” is established. It is possible to come and associate. And since that going was permitted by the Blessed One, on account of that, how could there be an offense conditioned by going to another village, etc.? Indeed, the Blessed One does not enjoin one in an offense, so that is proper. Otherwise, from the Pāli statement, “Whatever offenses of monks are not shared with bhikkhunīs, for those offenses there is no offense,” it would follow that regarding going to another village, etc., it is not a no-offense but is indeed an offense. If one were to say: 'Because they are shared offenses, it is indeed an offense, for it was not stated thus: “Whatever offenses of monks are not shared with bhikkhunīs, and whatever offenses there are for a bhikkhunī associating with them—such as going to another village, crossing a river, staying away overnight, and being left behind by a group—for those offenses there is no offense.”'? It was not stated thus due to an undesirable consequence. The meaning is: it was not stated in that way because of the undesirable consequence of this meaning: that even for her who has gone with bhikkhunīs, if she abandons them and associates with others, there would always be no offense regarding going to another village, etc. Therein, even though she, at that time, intentionally transgresses the basis for an offense of going to another village, etc., because she does not incur it for the reason of the appearance of the new characteristic, it is a no-offense. It should be understood that she is said to be 'rehabilitated from the offense' precisely in the sense of not having incurred it. Just as a yogī eradicates defilements that have not yet arisen; just as a bowl that is not yet bound is called 'lacking the five bindings'; or just as when one does not declare it at all, the training is unrenounced; so too here, it should be understood that an offense that has not been incurred is called 'rehabilitated'.

Yasmā pana sā purisena sahaseyyāpattiṃ anāpajjantīpi sakkoti bhikkhunīhi saṅgamituṃ, tasmā anāpattīti katvā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘ubhinnampi sahaseyyāpatti hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāre ‘‘aparehipi catūhākārehi āpattiṃ āpajjati saṅghamajjhe gaṇamajjhe puggalassa santike liṅgapātubhāvenā’’ti (pari. 324). Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ parivāre ‘‘atthāpatti āpajjanto vuṭṭhāti vuṭṭhahanto āpajjatī’’ti (pari. 324), tassa sahaseyyādiṃ āpajjati asādhāraṇāpattīhi vuṭṭhāti, tadubhayampi sandhāya vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Dūre vihāro hoti pañcadhanusatikaṃ pacchimaṃ, vihārato paṭṭhāya gāmaṃ pavisantiyā gāmantaraṃ hotīti attho. Saṃvidahanaṃ parimocetvāti addhānagamanasaṃvidahanaṃ akatvāti attho. Tā kopetvāti pariccajitvāti attho. ‘‘Paripuṇṇavassasāmaṇerenāpī’’ti vacanato aparipuṇṇavassassa upajjhāyaggahaṇaṃ natthīti viya dissati. Vinayakammaṃ katvā ṭhapitoti vikappetvā ṭhapito. Avikappitānaṃ dasāhātikkame nissaggiyatā veditabbā. Puna paṭiggahetvā sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatīti pana ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūnaṃ sannidhiṃ bhikkhunīhi paṭiggāhāpetvā paribhuñjitu’’nti (cūḷava. 421) vacanato vuttaṃ. Anapekkhavissajjanenāti vatthuṃ anapekkhavissajjanena vā paṭiggahaṇena vā puna paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjissāmīti. Pakkhamānattakāle punadeva liṅgaṃ parivattati chārattaṃ mānattameva dātabbanti sace, bhikkhukāle appaṭicchannāya āpattiyā, no paṭicchannāyāti no laddhīti ācariyo.

However, because that person, even while not incurring the offense of lying down together with a man, is able to associate with bhikkhunīs, therefore, because it would otherwise be no offense, it is said in the commentary: 'For both, there is the offense of lying down together.' This is also stated in the Parivāra: 'One incurs an offense in four other ways: in the midst of the Sangha, in the midst of a group, in the presence of an individual, and by the manifestation of the sexual organ' (Pari. 324). Regarding what is stated in the Parivāra, 'One who is incurring an offense rises from it, and one who is rising from it incurs an offense' (Pari. 324), it should be understood that this is said with reference to both: incurring an offense such as lying down together, and rising from non-common offenses. A monastery is considered 'far' if it is five hundred bow-lengths away; the meaning is that starting from the outermost monastery, for a bhikkhunī entering the village, the `gāmantara` offense is incurred. 'Having set aside the arrangement' means not having made an arrangement for a long journey. 'Having angered them' means having abandoned them. From the statement, 'Even by a sāmaṇera of completed years,' it appears that for a sāmaṇera who has not completed his years, the taking of a preceptor is not permitted. 'Having performed a Vinaya act and set it aside' means having formally determined it and set it aside. For items that have not been formally determined, it should be understood that after ten days have passed, they become subject to forfeiture. Regarding 'having received it again, it is allowable for seven days,' this is said based on the statement, 'I allow, O bhikkhus, for bhikkhus to have a store received by bhikkhunīs and then use it' (Cūḷavagga 421). The phrase 'by relinquishment without expectation' is explained as relinquishing the object without expectation, or receiving it with the thought, 'I will receive it again and use it.' If, during the period of `pakkhamānatta`, the sexual characteristic changes again, `mānatta` for six nights is to be given. This applies in the case of an offense that was unconcealed at the time of being a bhikkhu, not a concealed one. 'This is our view,' says the teacher.

Parivāsadānaṃ pana natthīti bhikkhuniyā chādanāsambhavato vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Sace bhikkhunī asādhāraṇaṃ pārājikāpattiṃ āpajjitvā purisaliṅgaṃ paṭilabhati, bhikkhūsu upasampadaṃ na labhati, pabbajjaṃ labhati, anupabbajitvā bhikkhubhāve ṭhito sahaseyyāpattiṃ na janeti. Vibbhantāya bhikkhuniyā purisaliṅge pātubhūte bhikkhūsu upasampadaṃ na labhati, pārājikaṃ. Avibbhantamānassa gahaṭṭhasseva sato bhikkhunīdūsakassa sace itthiliṅgaṃ pātubhavati, neva bhikkhunīsu upasampadaṃ labhati, na [Pg.115] puna liṅgaparivatte jāte bhikkhūsu vāti. Bhikkhuniyā liṅgaparivatte sati bhikkhu hoti, so ce sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya vibbhamitvā itthiliṅgaṃ paṭilabheyya, bhikkhunīsu upasampadaṃ paṭilabhati ubhayattha pubbe pārājikabhāvaṃ appattattā. Yā pana bhikkhunī paripuṇṇadvādasavassā purisaliṅgaṃ paṭilabheyya, upasampanno bhikkhu eva. Puna sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya āgato na upasampādetabbo aparipuṇṇavīsativassattā. Puna liṅgaparivatte sati bhikkhunīsu upasampadaṃ labhati. Evaṃ ce katadvādasasaṅgahassa dārakassa liṅgaparivatte sati gihigatā itthī hoti, paripuṇṇadvādasavassā upasampādetabbā kira. Bhikkhuniyā itthiliṅgantaradhānena, bhikkhussa vā purisaliṅgantaradhānena pakkhapaṇḍakabhāvo bhaveyya, na sā bhikkhunī bhikkhunīhi nāsetabbā bhikkhu vā bhikkhūhi puna pakatibhāvāpattisambhavā. Pakatipaṇḍakaṃ pana sandhāya ‘‘paṇḍako nāsetabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Pakkhapaṇḍako hi saṃvāsanāsanāya nāsetabbo, itaro ubhayanāsanāyāti attho. Yadi tesaṃ puna pakatibhāvo bhaveyya, ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, taṃyeva upajjhaṃ tameva upasampadaṃ tāniyeva vassāni bhikkhunīhi saṅgamitu’’nti ayaṃ vidhi sambhavati. Sace nesaṃ liṅgantaraṃ pātubhaveyya, so ca vidhi, yā āpattiyo bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhunīhi sādhāraṇā, tā āpattiyo bhikkhunīnaṃ santike vuṭṭhātuṃ asādhāraṇāhi anāpattīti ayampi vidhi sambhavati. Yaṃ vuttaṃ parivāre ‘‘saha paṭilābhena purimaṃ jahati, pacchime patiṭṭhāti, viññattiyo paṭippassambhanti, paññattiyo nirujjhanti, saha paṭilābhena pacchimaṃ jahati, purime patiṭṭhāti, viññattiyo’’tiādi, taṃ yathāvuttavidhiṃ sandhāya vuttanti amhākaṃ khantīti ācariyo. Itthiliṅgaṃ, purisaliṅgaṃ vā antaradhāyantaṃ kiṃ sakalampi sarīraṃ gahetvā antaradhāyati, udāhu sayameva. Kiñcettha – yadi tāva sakalaṃ sarīraṃ gahetvā antaradhāyati, ayaṃ puggalo cuto bhaveyya. Tasmā sāmaññā cuto bhaveyya, puna upasampajjanto opapātiko bhaveyya. Atha sayameva antaradhāyati, sopi bhāvo tassa virujjhati. Itthindriyādīni hi sakalampi sarīraṃ byāpetvā ṭhitānīti khaṇanirodho viya tesaṃ antaradhānaṃ veditabbaṃ, tasmā yathāvuttadosappasaṅgābhāvo veditabbo. Aññamaññaṃ saṃsaṭṭhappabhānaṃ dīpānaṃ ekappabhānirodhepi itarissā ṭhānaṃ viya sesasarīraṭṭhānaṃ tattha hotīti veditabbaṃ.

However, it should be understood that the granting of probation is not done, because concealment is not possible for a bhikkhunī. If a bhikkhunī commits an unshared pārājika offense and then acquires the male characteristic, she does not receive higher ordination among the bhikkhus but does receive the going forth. Having gone forth again, while established in the state of a bhikkhu, he does not incur the offense of lying down together. If a bhikkhunī who has disrobed manifests the male characteristic, she does not receive higher ordination among the bhikkhus; it is a pārājika impediment. If the female characteristic appears for a layman who has violated a bhikkhunī and has not disrobed, she receives higher ordination neither among the bhikkhunīs, nor among the bhikkhus if her characteristic changes again. If a bhikkhunī’s characteristic changes and she becomes a bhikkhu, and if he then renounces the training, disrobes, and regains the female characteristic, she receives higher ordination among the bhikkhunīs—because in either case, she had not previously reached the state of pārājika. But if a bhikkhunī who has completed twelve years acquires the male characteristic, he is indeed a fully ordained bhikkhu. If he later renounces the training and returns, he should not be given higher ordination, as he has not completed twenty years of age. But if his characteristic changes again, she receives higher ordination among the bhikkhunīs. Similarly, if a boy of twelve years undergoes a change of characteristic and becomes a woman who has lived the household life, she, having completed twelve years of age, should, it is said, be given higher ordination. If through the disappearance of a bhikkhunī’s female characteristic, or through the disappearance of a bhikkhu’s male characteristic, the state of a fortnightly paṇḍaka should arise, that bhikkhunī should not be expelled by the bhikkhunīs, nor should that bhikkhu be expelled by the bhikkhus—because of the possibility of returning to the natural state. However, with reference to a natural paṇḍaka, it was said, 'A paṇḍaka should be expelled.' Indeed, a fortnightly paṇḍaka should be expelled by expulsion from co-residence, while the other should be expelled by means of both expulsions—of the characteristic and of co-residence. This is the meaning. If their natural state should arise again, this procedure is possible: 'I allow, O bhikkhus... to associate with the bhikkhunīs with that same preceptor, that same higher ordination, and those same years of seniority.' If another characteristic should appear for them, that procedure is also possible, and this procedure is also possible: that for whichever offenses of bhikkhus are shared with bhikkhunīs, one is to rise from those offenses in the presence of bhikkhunīs, but for the unshared ones, there is no offense. What was said in the Parivāra—'Simultaneously with the acquisition, one abandons the former and is established in the latter; announcements cease, regulations are annulled...' and so on—that was said with reference to the aforementioned procedure. The teacher says: This is our preference. When the female or male characteristic is disappearing, does it disappear taking the entire body with it, or does only the characteristic itself disappear? What is the case here? If it were to disappear taking the entire body with it, that person would be deceased. Therefore, they would have fallen from the monastic life, and upon re-ordaining, they would be of spontaneous birth. Now, if only the characteristic itself disappears, that state of being is also untenable for that person. For the female faculties and so on stand pervading the entire body. Their disappearance should be understood as being like momentary cessation; therefore, the absence of the consequence of the aforementioned fault should be known. It should be known that just as for lamps with intermingled lights, even when one light ceases, a basis for the other remains; so too, the rest of the body subsists there as a basis.

71-2. Muccatu [Pg.116] vā mā vā dukkaṭamevāti mocanarāgābhāvato. Avisayoti asādiyanaṃ nāma evarūpe ṭhāne dukkaranti attho. Methunadhammo nāma ubhinnaṃ vāyāmena nipajjati ‘‘tassa dvayaṃdvayasamāpattī’’ti vuttattā, tasmā tvaṃ mā vāyāma, evaṃ te anāpatti bhavissati, kiriyañhetaṃ sikkhāpadanti vuttaṃ hoti, ‘‘āpattiṃ tvaṃ bhikkhu āpanno pārājika’’nti vacanato akiriyampetaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ yebhuyyena ‘‘kiriya’’nti vuccatīti siddhaṃ hoti.

Whether one is released or not, it is only a dukkaṭa offense because of the absence of lust for release. In the context of 'not an object,' the meaning is that not consenting in such a situation is a dukkaṭa offense. The act of sexual intercourse is accomplished by the effort of both, because it is said, 'Of that is the attainment of two by two.' Therefore, 'You, do not make an effort; thus for you there will be no offense.' Indeed, it is said that this training rule has action as its origin. Because of the passage, 'You, monk, have committed a pārājika offense,' it is established that although this training rule also has non-action as its origin, it is called 'of action-origin' by the general rule.

73-4. ‘‘Pārājikabhayena ākāsagatameva katvā pavesanādīni karontassa sahasā tālukaṃ vā passaṃ vā aṅgajātaṃ chupati ce, dukkaṭamevā’’ti vadanti. Kasmā? Na methunarāgattāti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Dantānaṃ bāhirabhāvo oṭṭhānaṃ bāhirabhāvo viya thullaccayavatthu hotīti vuttaṃ ‘‘bahi nikkhantadante jivhāya ca thullaccaya’’nti. Taṃ puggalaṃ visaññiṃ katvāti vacanena so puggalo khittacitto nāma hotīti dassitaṃ hoti. Yo pana puggalo na visaññīkato, so ce attano aṅgajātassa dhātughaṭṭanacariṇijjhiṇikādisaññāya sādiyati, methunasaññāya abhāvato visaññīpakkhameva bhajatīti tassa anāpatticchāyā dissati. ‘‘Methunametaṃ maññe kassaci amanussassā’’ti ñatvā sādiyantassa āpatti eva. Paṇḍakassa methunadhammanti paṇḍakassa vaccamagge vā mukhe vā, bhummatthe vā sāmivacanaṃ. Avedayantassapi sevanacittavasena āpatti santhateneva sevane viya.

They say: 'For one who, out of fear of a pārājika offense, performs insertion and so forth only into empty space, if his sexual organ suddenly touches the palate or the flank, it is only a dukkaṭa offense.' Why? Because it is not due to sexual lust. This should be investigated. The state of the teeth being outside, like the state of the lips being outside, is a basis for a thullaccaya offense; thus it is said, 'For teeth protruding outside and for the tongue, a thullaccaya offense.' By the phrase 'having made that person unconscious,' it is shown that that person is called one with a distracted mind. But as for a person who has not been made unconscious, if he consents with the perception of his own sexual organ's customary rubbing, moving, and shifting of elements, he enters the side of the unconscious due to the absence of the perception of intercourse; thus for him, a shadow of no-offense is seen. For one who consents even after knowing, 'This, I think, is the intercourse of some non-human being,' there is an offense indeed. In the phrase 'sexual intercourse with a paṇḍaka,' the genitive case 'of a paṇḍaka' is used in the locative sense, referring to 'in the anus or in the mouth.' Even for one who does not feel sensation, there is an offense by the power of the mind that wishes to engage, just as in the act of engaging itself.

Upahatindriyavatthusmiṃ ‘‘etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ, so ārocesī’’ti duvidho pāṭho atthi. Tattha ‘‘ārocesu’’nti vuttapāṭho ‘‘vediyi vā so bhikkhave’’ti vuttattā sundaraṃ, aññathā ‘‘āpattiṃ tvaṃ bhikkhū’’ti vattabbaṃ siyā. ‘‘Vediyā vā’’ti dīpavāsino paṭhanti kira, methunadhammassa pubbapayogā hatthaggāhādayo, tasmā ‘‘dukkaṭamevassa hotī’’ti iminā purimapadena sambandho. Yasmā pana dukkaṭamevassa hoti, tasmā yāva sīsaṃ na pāpuṇāti puggalo, tāva dukkaṭe tiṭṭhatīti sambandho veditabbo. Sīsaṃ nāma maggapaṭipādanaṃ. ‘‘Sīsaṃ na pāpuṇātīti pārājikaṃ na hoti tāva pubbapayogadukkaṭe tiṭṭhatī’’ti aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ[Pg.117]. Uccāliṅgapāṇakadaṭṭhenāti ettha bhāvaniṭṭhāpaccayo veditabbo. Daṭṭhena daṃsena khādanenāti hi atthato ekaṃ.

Regarding the case of one with impaired faculties, there are two readings: “etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ” (they reported this matter), and “so ārocesī” (he reported it). Among these, the reading stated as “ārocesuṃ” is preferable, because it is said, “vediyi vā so bhikkhave” (or he might feel, O bhikkhus); otherwise, it would have to be said, “āpattiṃ tvaṃ bhikkhū” (you, bhikkhu, have committed an offense). The residents of the island, it is said, recite “vediyā vā”. The preliminary acts of sexual intercourse are such as the taking of the hand; therefore, the connection is with the preceding phrase, “For him, there is only a dukkaṭa.” And since for him there is only a dukkaṭa, the connection should be understood thus: as long as a person does not reach the “head,” he remains in a dukkaṭa. “Head” means causing entry into the passage. It is written in a certain glossary: “‘Not reaching the head’ means a pārājika offense does not occur; until then, he remains in the dukkaṭa of a preliminary act.” Here, in the phrase “uccāliṅgapāṇakadaṭṭhena” (by the bite of a caterpillar), the suffix should be understood as indicating an abstract state. For indeed, “daṭṭhena” (by the bite), “daṃsena” (by the sting), and “khādanena” (by the chewing) are one in meaning.

76-7. Saṅgāmasīse yuddhamukhe yodhapuriso viyāyaṃ bhikkhūti ‘‘saṅgāmasīsayodho bhikkhū’’ti vuccati. Rukkhasūcidvāraṃ upilavāya, ekena vā bahūhi vā kaṇṭakehi thakitabbaṃ kaṇṭakadvāraṃ. Dussadvāraṃ sāṇidvārañca dussasāṇidvāraṃ. ‘‘Kilañjasāṇī’’tiādinā vuttaṃ sabbampi dussasāṇiyameva saṅgahetvā vuttaṃ. Ekasadisattā ‘‘eka’’nti vuttaṃ. Ākāsataleti hammiyataleti attho. Ayañhettha saṅkhepoti idāni vattabbaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Kiñci karontā nisinnā hontīti vuttattā nipannānaṃ āpucchanaṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Yathāparicchedameva ca na uṭṭhāti, tassa āpattiyevā’’ti kiñcāpi avisesena vuttaṃ, anādariyadukkaṭāpatti eva tattha adhippetā. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti? ‘‘Rattiṃ dvāraṃ vivaritvā nipanno aruṇe uggate uṭṭhahati, anāpattī’’ti vuttattā, mahāpaccariyaṃ visesetvā ‘‘anādariyadukkaṭāpi na muccatī’’ti vuttattā ca, tena itarasmā dukkaṭā muccatīti adhippāyo. Yathāparicchedameva ca na uṭṭhāti, tassa āpattiyevāti ettha na anādariyadukkaṭaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yathāparicchedamevāti avadhāraṇattā paricchedato abbhantare na hotīti vuttaṃ hoti. Puna ‘‘supatī’’ti vuttaṭṭhāne viya sanniṭṭhānaṃ gahetvā vuttaṃ. Evaṃ nipajjantoti nipajjanakāle āpajjitabbadukkaṭameva sandhāya vuttaṃ, tasmā yathāparicchedena uṭṭhahantassa dve dukkaṭānīti vuttaṃ hotīti. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyampi ‘‘yadi rattiṃ dvāraṃ asaṃvaritvā nipanno ‘divā vuṭṭhahissāmī’ti, anādariye āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttaṃ, etthāpi ‘‘nipanno’’ti vuttattā ‘‘aruṇe uṭṭhite uṭṭhāhī’’ti na vuttattā ca jānitabbaṃ. ‘‘Mahāpaccariyaṃ anādariyadukkaṭameva sandhāya vuttaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttadukkaṭa’’nti eke vadanti. Tassa anāpattīti atthato anipannattā vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sace pana rattiṃ saṃvaritvā nipanno, aruṇuṭṭhānasamaye koci vivarati, dvārajagganādīni akatvā nipannassa āpattiyeva. Kasmā? Āpattikhettattā’’ti vadanti.

This monk is like a warrior at the head of the battle, at the forefront of the fight; thus, he is called 'a warrior monk at the head of the battle.' A wooden-bolt door is closed by bolting; a thorn-door is to be closed with one or many thorns. A cloth door and a hemp-curtain door are a cloth-and-hemp-curtain door. What is said by 'a mat-curtain,' and so forth, is said as being included within 'cloth-and-hemp-curtain door.' Because they are of one kind, it is called 'one.' 'Ākāsatala' means the upper storey of a building. 'This here is the summary' is said with reference to what is to be said now. Some say: 'Because it is said, "They are sitting, doing something," asking leave of those who are lying down is not allowable.' Although it is stated without specification, 'And if he does not get up exactly at the designated time, for him there is an offense indeed,' only the offense of wrong-doing due to disrespect is intended there. How is this understood? Because it is said, 'If one lies down at night with the door open and rises at dawn, there is no offense,' and because the Mahāpaccarī specifies, 'Even from the wrong-doing of disrespect, one is not exempt,' the implication is that one is exempt from the other wrong-doing. The phrase 'If he does not rise according to the fixed limit, for him there is only an offense' does not refer to the wrong-doing of disrespect here. 'Exactly at the designated time' is an emphatic statement; therefore, it is said that an offense does not occur within the designated time. Again, as in the place where 'sleeps' is said, it is stated having taken a conclusion. Thus, 'when lying down' refers only to the wrong-doing that is to be incurred at the time of lying down; therefore, it is said that for one who does not rise according to the designated time, there are two wrong-doings. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is also said: 'If one lies down at night without securing the door, thinking, "I will rise by day," there is an offense of wrong-doing due to disrespect.' Here also, it should be understood because 'lying down' is said, and because 'Rise when dawn has broken!' is not said. Some say: 'The Mahāpaccarī refers only to the wrong-doing of disrespect, not to the wrong-doing mentioned in the commentary.' 'There is no offense for him' is said because, in essence, he is not lying down. They say: 'But if one lies down at night with the door secured, and at dawn someone opens it, for the one lying down without performing the watching of the door and other duties, an offense is incurred. Why? Because it is a field of offense.'

Yasmā yakkhagahitakopi visaññībhūto viya khittacitto nāma hoti, assa pārājikāpattito anāpatti, pageva aññato, tasmā ‘‘yakkhagahitako viya visaññībhūtopi na muccatī’’ti yaṃ mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ pubbe [Pg.118] sañcicca divā nipanno pacchā yakkhagahitakopi visaññībhūtopi na muccati nipajjanapayogakkhaṇe eva āpannattāti adhippāyena vuttaṃ. Bandhitvā nipajjāpitova muccatīti na yakkhagahitakādīsveva, sopi yāva sayameva sayanādhippāyo na hoti, tāva muccati. Yadā kilanto hutvā niddāyitukāmatāya sayanādhippāyo hoti, tadā saṃvarāpetvā, jaggāpetvā vā ābhogaṃ vā katvā niddāyitabbaṃ, aññathā āpatti. Sabhāgo ce natthi, na passati vā, na gantuṃ vā sakkoti. Cirampi adhivāsetvā pacchā vedanāṭṭo hutvā anābhogeneva sayati, tassa ‘‘anāpatti vedanāṭṭassā’’ti vacanena anāpatti, tassāpi avisayattā āpatti na dissatīti visaññībhāveneva supantassa ‘‘anāpatti khittacittassā’’ti vacanena na dissati. Ācariyā pana evaṃ na kathayantīti avisesena ‘‘na dissatī’’ti na kathayanti, yadi saññaṃ appaṭilabhitvā sayati, avasavattattā āpatti na dissati, sace saññaṃ paṭilabhitvāpi kilantakāyattā sayanaṃ sādiyanto supati, tassa yasmā avasavattattaṃ na dissati, tasmā āpatti evāti kathayantīti adhippāyo.

Since even one seized by a yakkha, though as if unconscious, is called 'one with a deranged mind,' there is no Pārājika offense for him, let alone a lesser one. Therefore, the statement in the Mahāpaccarī, 'Even one who is unconscious like one seized by a yakkha is not exempt,' was spoken with this intention: one who, having intentionally lain down during the day beforehand, is afterwards seized by a yakkha and becomes unconscious, is not exempt, because the offense was already incurred at the very moment of the preliminary act of lying down. The statement, 'One who is made to lie down after being bound is exempt,' is not only for the case of one seized by a yakkha and so on. Even he is exempt only as long as he does not have the intention to lie down of his own accord. When, being weary, he has the intention to lie down out of a desire to sleep, he should sleep only after having someone restrain him, or keep him awake, or after making a mental note; otherwise, an offense is incurred. If there is no companion, or he does not see one, or is unable to go, he may endure for a long time and later, afflicted by pain, lie down without making a mental note. For him, there is no offense, by the statement, 'There is no offense for one afflicted by pain.' For one who sleeps in a state of unconsciousness, no offense is seen, in accordance with the statement, 'There is no offense for one with a deranged mind.' However, the teachers do not state it thus. They do not say 'it is not seen' without distinction. If one sleeps without having regained awareness, an offense is not seen, due to being not in control. But if, even after having regained awareness, he consents to sleeping due to bodily exhaustion, since a lack of control is not apparent in his case, they state that an offense is indeed incurred. This is the intention.

Mahāpadumattheravāde yakkhagahitako khittacittako muccati. Bandhitvā nipajjāpito asayanādhippāyattā, vedanāṭṭattā ca muccatīti adhippāyo. Evaṃ sante pāḷiaṭṭhakathā, theravādo ca sameti, tasmā tesaṃ tesaṃ vinicchayānaṃ ayameva adhippāyoti no khantīti ācariyo, anugaṇṭhipade pana yakkhagahitakopi visaññībhūtopi na muccati nāma, pārājikaṃ āpajjituṃ bhabbo so antarantarā saññāpaṭilābhatoti adhippāyo. ‘‘Bandhitvā nipajjāpito vā’’ti kurundīvacanena ekabhaṅgena nipannopi na muccatīti ce? Muccatiyeva. Kasmā? Atthato anipannattā. Kurundīvādena mahāaṭṭhakathāvādo sameti. Kasmā? Avasavattasāmaññato. Kiñcāpi sameti, ācariyā pana evaṃ na kathayanti. Na kevalaṃ teyeva, mahāpadumattheropīti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘mahāpadumattherenā’’ti vuttaṃ. Mahāpadumattheravāde ‘‘pārājikaṃ āpajjituṃ abhabbo yakkhagahitako nāmā’’ti ca vuttaṃ, tattha ācariyā pana evaṃ vadanti ‘‘sace okkantaniddo ajānantopi pāde mañcakaṃ āropeti, āpattiyevāti vuttattā yo pana patitvā tattheva sayati na vuṭṭhāti, tassa āpatti antarantarā jānantassāpi ajānantassāpi hotī’’ti[Pg.119]. Sabbaṭṭhakathāsu vuttavacanāni sampiṇḍetvā dassetuṃ ‘‘idha ko muccati ko na muccatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Yakkhagahitako vā visaññībhūto vā na kevalaṃ pārājikaṃ āpajjituṃ bhabbo eva, sabbopi āpajjati. Evaṃ ‘‘bandhitvā nipajjāpitova muccatī’’ti vacanena tassapi avasavattattā ‘‘āpatti na dissatī’’ti evaṃ na kathayanti. Yasmā ummattakakhittacittavedanāṭṭesu aññataro na hoti, tasmā ‘‘āpattiyevā’’ti kathayanti. Idaṃ kira sabbaṃ na saṅgītiṃ āruḷhaṃ. ‘‘Pavesanaṃ sādiyatītiādinā vuttattā akiriyāpi hotīti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ, yadā pana sādiyati, tadā sukhumāpi viññatti hoti evāti idha kiriyā evā’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

In the view of the Elder Mahāpaduma, one seized by a yakkha or one with a deranged mind is exempt. The meaning is that one who is bound and made to lie down is exempt due to not having the intention to lie down and due to being afflicted by pain. This being so, the Pāḷi Aṭṭhakathā and the Elder's view are in agreement. Therefore, the teacher says, 'Of those various decisions, this very meaning is suitable; this is our preference.' However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, one seized by a yakkha or one who has become unconscious is indeed not exempt; the meaning is that he is capable of falling into a pārājika offense because he intermittently regains perception. If it is said that by the statement in the Kurundī, 'or one who is bound and made to lie down,' even one lying on one side is not exempt? He is indeed exempt. Why? Because in essence, he is not lying down. The view of the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā agrees with the view of the Kurundī. Why? Because of the commonality of not being under one's own control. Although they agree, the teachers, however, do not state it thus. To show that it is not only they, but that even the Elder Mahāpaduma does not state it, the words 'by the Elder Mahāpaduma' were said. And in the view of the Elder Mahāpaduma, it is said: 'One named a 'yakkhagahitaka' (one seized by a yakkha) is incapable of falling into a pārājika offense.' Regarding that, however, the teachers say thus: 'Because it is said, "If one who has fallen into deep sleep, even without knowing, places his feet onto the bed, it is indeed an offense," as for the monk who, having fallen, lies down in that very place and does not get up, for him an offense occurs intermittently, whether he is aware or unaware.' To show a summary of the statements made in all the Aṭṭhakathās, it was said: 'Here, who is exempt, and who is not exempt?' One seized by a yakkha or one who has become unconscious is not merely capable of falling into a pārājika offense; every such one falls into an offense. Thus, they do not say that based on the statement 'Only one who is bound and made to lie down is exempt,' an offense is not seen for him due to his being not in control. They say, 'Since he is not one among the insane, the deranged, or the pain-afflicted, it is indeed an offense.' It seems all this was not submitted to the council. In the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: 'Because it is stated by the words "consents to the entry," etc., some say that it can also be an offense not originating from an action. That should not be accepted. For when one consents, at that time even a subtle intimation indeed occurs. Therefore, here it is only an action.'

Paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the First Pārājika is finished.

2. Dutiyapārājikaṃ

2. The Second Pārājika

Dhaniyavatthuvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Story of Dhaniya

84. Dutiye rājūhi eva pariggahitattā ‘‘rājagaha’’nti laddhanāmake samīpatthena, adhikaraṇatthena ca paṭiladdhabhummavibhattike gijjhakūṭe pabbate catūhi vihārehi viharantoti adhippāyo. Tassa ‘‘vassaṃ upagacchiṃsū’’ti iminā sambandho veditabbo. Tayo eva hi ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā gaṇakammaṃ karonti, na tato ūnā adhikā vā akiriyattā. Tattha vinayapariyāyena saṅghagaṇapuggalakammakosallatthaṃ idaṃ pakiṇṇakaṃ veditabbaṃ – atthi saṅghakammaṃ saṅgho eva karoti, na gaṇo na puggalo, taṃ apalokanakammassa kammalakkhaṇekadesaṃ ṭhapetvā itaraṃ catubbidhampi kammaṃ veditabbaṃ. Atthi saṅghakammaṃ saṅgho ca karoti, gaṇo ca karoti, puggalo ca karoti. Kiñcāti? Yaṃ pubbe ṭhapitaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāraṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘yasmiṃ vihāre dve tayo janā vasanti, tehi nisīditvā katampi saṅghena katasadisameva. Yasmiṃ pana vihāre eko bhikkhu hoti, tena bhikkhunā uposathadivase pubbakaraṇapubbakiccaṃ katvā nisinnena katampi katikavattaṃ saṅghena katasadisameva hotī’’ti (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496). Punapi vuttaṃ ‘‘ekabhikkhuke pana [Pg.120] vihāre ekena sāvitepi purimakatikā paṭippassambhati evā’’ti. Atthi gaṇakammaṃ saṅgho karoti, gaṇo karoti, puggalo karoti, taṃ tayo pārisuddhiuposathā aññesaṃ santike karīyanti, tassa vasena veditabbaṃ. Atthi gaṇakammaṃ gaṇova karoti, na saṅgho na puggalo, taṃ pārisuddhiuposatho aññamaññaṃ ārocanavasena karīyati, tassa vasena veditabbaṃ. Atthi puggalakammaṃ puggalova karoti, na saṅgho na gaṇo, taṃ adhiṭṭhānuposathavasena veditabbaṃ. Atthi gaṇakammaṃ ekaccova gaṇo karoti, ekacco na karoti, tattha añattikaṃ dve eva karonti, na tayo. Sañattikaṃ tayova karonti, na tato ūnā adhikā vā, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘tayo eva hi ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā gaṇakammaṃ karonti, na tato ūnā adhikā vā akiriyattā’’ti. Tasmā tayova vinayapariyāyena sampahulā, na tato uddhanti veditabbaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘kiñcāpi kammalakkhaṇaṃ tayova karonti, atha kho tehi kataṃ saṅghena katasadisanti vuttattā ekena pariyāyena tayo janā vinayapariyāyenapi saṅgho’’ti vuttaṃ, idaṃ sabbampi vinayakammaṃ upādāya vuttaṃ, lābhaṃ pana upādāya antamaso ekopi anupasampannopi ‘‘saṅgho’’ti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati kira. Pavāraṇādivasassa aruṇuggamanasamanantarameva ‘‘vutthagassā’’ti vuccanti, ukkaṃsanayena ‘‘pāṭipadadivasato paṭṭhāyā’’ti vuttaṃ, teneva ‘‘mahāpavāraṇāya pavāritā’’ti vuttaṃ. Aññathā antarāyena apavāritā ‘‘vutthavassā’’ti na vuccantīti āpajjati. Thambhādi kaṭṭhakammanti veditabbaṃ. Keci tanukaṃ dārutthambhaṃ antokatvā mattikāmayaṃ thambhaṃ karonti, ayaṃ pana tathā na akāsi, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘sabbamattikāmayaṃ kuṭikaṃ karitvā’’ti. Telamissāya tambamattikāya.

84. In the second [Pārājika], the intention is this: while dwelling on the mountain Gijjhakūṭa near Rājagaha—which obtained the name 'Rājagaha' because it was taken possession of only by kings, and where the locative case is used with the meaning of proximity and location—by means of four modes of dwelling. Its connection with 'they entered the rains residence' should be understood. Indeed, only three perform a group-act after presenting a motion, neither fewer nor more, because otherwise it is not a valid act. Here, for the sake of skill in the formal acts of the Saṅgha, a group, and an individual according to the Vinaya method, this miscellaneous section should be understood: There is a formal act of the Saṅgha that only the Saṅgha performs, not a group and not an individual; that should be understood as the other fourfold formal act, setting aside the Apalokanakamma (act of announcement), which has only a partial characteristic of a formal act. There is a formal act of the Saṅgha that the Saṅgha performs, a group performs, and an individual performs. What is that? That which was established previously. Indeed, this was stated in the Parivāra commentary: 'In a monastery where two or three persons reside, what is done by them having sat down together is just like what is done by the Saṅgha. But in a monastery where there is one bhikkhu, on the Uposatha day, the agreement made by that bhikkhu, having done the preliminary duties and preliminary functions and having sat down, is just like what is done by the Saṅgha.' Again, it was stated: 'But in a monastery with a single bhikkhu, even when the announcement is made by that one, the previous agreement is certainly pacified.' There is a group-act that the Saṅgha performs, the group performs, and the individual performs; this should be understood by way of the three purity Uposathas that are performed in the presence of others. There is a group-act that only a group performs, not the Saṅgha and not an individual; this should be understood by way of the purity Uposatha that is performed by means of mutual announcement. There is an individual-act that only an individual performs, not the Saṅgha and not a group; this should be understood by way of the determination-Uposatha. There is a group-act that one kind of group performs and another does not. Therein, an act without a motion is performed by only two, not three. An act with a motion is performed by only three, not fewer or more than that; therefore it was said, 'Indeed, only three perform a group-act after presenting a motion, neither fewer nor more, because otherwise it is not a valid act.' Therefore, it should be understood that according to the Vinaya method, only three constitute a 'multitude' (sambahulā), and not more than that. But in the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: 'Although only three perform the characteristic of the formal act, nevertheless, because it is said that what is done by them is like what is done by the Saṅgha, in one sense, three persons are also the Saṅgha according to the Vinaya method.' All this was said in reference to a Vinaya act. But in reference to gains, it seems that at the very least even one unordained person attains the designation of 'Saṅgha'. On the day of Pavāraṇā, immediately after the sunrise, they are called 'those who have completed the rains residence'; by way of the superior method, it is said 'from the first day onwards'. For that very reason, it was said, 'they have performed the invitation of the great Pavāraṇā'. Otherwise, it would follow that those who have not performed the invitation due to an obstacle are not called 'those who have completed the rains residence'. A post, etc., should be understood as 'timber work'. Some make a clay post, having placed a thin wooden post inside, but this one did not do so; therefore it was said, 'having made the hut entirely of clay'. With copper-colored clay mixed with oil.

85. ‘‘Mā pacchimā janatā pāṇesu pātabyataṃ āpajjī’’ti iminā anuddesasikkhāpadena yattha iṭṭhakapacana pattapacana kuṭikaraṇa vihārakārāpana navakammakaraṇa khaṇḍaphullapaṭisaṅkharaṇa vihārasammajjana paṭaggidāna kūpapokkharaṇīkhaṇāpanādīsu pātabyataṃ jānantena bhikkhunā kappiyavacanampi na vattabbanti dasseti, teneva pariyāyaṃ avatvā tesaṃ sikkhāpadānaṃ anāpattivāresu ‘‘anāpatti asatiyā ajānantassā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Antarāpattisikkhāpada’’ntipi etassa nāmameva. ‘‘Gacchathetaṃ, bhikkhave, kuṭikaṃ bhindathā’’ti iminā kataṃ labhitvā tattha vasantānampi dukkaṭamevāti ca siddhaṃ. Aññathā hi [Pg.121] bhagavā na bhindāpeyya. Esa nayo bhedanakaṃ chedanakaṃ uddālanakanti etthāpi, āpattibhedāva. Tato eva hi bhedanakasikkhāpadādīsu viya ‘‘aññena kataṃ paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjati, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti na vuttaṃ, tathā aññassatthāya karoti, cetiyādīnaṃ atthāya karoti, dukkaṭamevāti ca siddhaṃ, aññathā kuṭikārasikkhāpadādīsu viya ‘‘aññassatthāya vāsāgāraṃ ṭhapetvā sabbattha, anāpattī’’ti nayameva vadeyya, na bhindāpeyya. Sabbamattikāmayabhāvaṃ pana mocetvā kaṭṭhapāsāṇādimissaṃ katvā paribhuñjati, anāpatti. Tathā hi chedanakasikkhāpadādīsu bhagavatā nayo dinno ‘‘aññena kataṃ pamāṇātikkantaṃ paṭilabhitvā chinditvā paribhuñjatī’’tiādīsu. Keci pana ‘‘vayakammampīti etena mūlaṃ datvā kārāpitampi atthi, tena taṃ aññena katampi na vaṭṭatīti siddha’’nti vadanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ. Kasmā? Sambhāre kiṇitvā sayameva karontassāpi vayakammasambhavato. Kiṃ vā pāḷilese sati aṭṭhakathālesanayo. Iṭṭhakāhi giñjakāvasathasaṅkhepena katā vaṭṭatīti ettha pakatiiṭṭhakāhi cinitvā kattabbāvasatho giñjakāvasatho nāma. Sā hi ‘‘mattikāmayā’’ti na vuccati, ‘‘iṭṭhakakuṭikā’’tveva vuccati, tasmā thusagomayatiṇapalālamissā mattikāmayāpi apakkiṭṭhakamayāpi ‘‘sabbamattikāmayā’’tveva vuccatīti no khantīti ācariyo, bhasmādayo hi mattikāya daḷhibhāvatthameva ādīyanti, apakkiṭṭhakamayāpi giñjakāvasathasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati, na ca āyasmā dhaniyo ekappahāreneva kumbhakāro viya kumbhaṃ taṃ kuṭikaṃ niṭṭhāpesi, anukkamena pana sukkhāpetvā sukkhāpetvā mattikāpiṇḍehi cinitvā niṭṭhāpesi, apakkiṭṭhakamayā kuṭi viya sabbamattikāmayā kuṭi ekābaddhā hoti, na tathā pakkiṭṭhakamayā, tasmā sā kappatīti eke. Sabbamattikāmayāya kuṭiyā bahi ce tiṇakuṭikādiṃ katvā anto vasati, dukkaṭameva. Sace tattha tattha chiddaṃ katvā bandhitvā ekābaddhaṃ karoti, vaṭṭati. Anto ce tiṇakuṭikādiṃ katvā anto vasati, vaṭṭati. Kārako eva ce vasati, karaṇapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, na vasanapaccayā. Sace anto vā bahi vā ubhayattha vā sudhāya limpati, vaṭṭati. Yasmā sabbamattikāmayā kuṭi sukarā bhindituṃ, tasmā tattha ṭhapitaṃ pattacīvarādi aguttaṃ hoti, corādīhi avaharituṃ sakkā, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘pattacīvaraguttatthāyā’’ti.

85. “‘Lest the later generation should fall into the destruction of life.’ By this supplementary training rule, it is shown that where there are activities such as firing bricks, firing bowls, building a hut, having a monastery built, undertaking new work, repairing what is broken and dilapidated, sweeping the monastery, giving kindling, having wells and ponds dug, and so on, a bhikkhu who knows that destruction of life is involved should not even speak words that are allowable. For this reason, without stating the method, in the no-offense clauses of those training rules it is said: ‘There is no offense for one who is unmindful, for one who does not know.’ ‘Training rule on an intermediate offense’ is also a name for this. By the words, ‘Go, bhikkhus, break this hut,’ it is established that it is a dukkaṭa offense even for those who, having obtained what was made, live in it. Otherwise, the Blessed One would not have had it broken. This is the method also in the cases of breaking, cutting, and uprooting; it is just a difference of offense. For this reason, in the training rules on breaking and so on, it is not said: ‘Having obtained what was made by another, he uses it; it is an offense of dukkaṭa.’ Similarly, if he does it for the sake of another, or for the sake of a cetiya and so on, it is established that it is a dukkaṭa offense. Otherwise, as in the training rules on building a hut, he would have stated the principle, ‘Except for establishing a dwelling for another's sake, in all cases there is no offense,’ and he would not have had it broken. But if, having removed its nature of being entirely of clay by making it mixed with wood, stone, and so on, one uses it, there is no offense. For in the training rules on cutting and so on, the Blessed One has given the method in such passages as: ‘Having obtained what was made by another that exceeds the measure, he uses it after cutting it down.’ Some, however, say: ‘By this, “even commissioned work,” it is established that even what is commissioned by giving a price is not allowable, though it was made by another.’ This is not sound. Why? Because commissioned work is possible even for one who does it himself after buying the materials. Or rather, when there is a hint in the Pāli, what need is there for a hint from the commentary? Here, what is made of bricks, in short a brick-house, is allowable. A dwelling that is to be made by laying ordinary bricks is called a brick-house. For it is not called ‘of clay,’ but is called a ‘brick hut.’ Therefore, what is made of clay mixed with chaff, cow-dung, grass, and leaves, and also what is made of unbaked bricks, is called ‘entirely of clay.’ ‘This is our view,’ says the teacher, for ashes and so on are added to clay only for the sake of strengthening it. What is made of unbaked bricks also does not reach the category of a brick-house. And the venerable Dhaniya did not finish that hut in a single go like a potter making a pot, but he finished it by building it up with lumps of clay, letting it dry again and again. A hut of unbaked bricks, like a hut entirely of clay, is a single solid mass; a hut of baked bricks is not so. Therefore, some say it is allowable. If one makes a grass hut, etc., outside a hut entirely of clay and lives inside it, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If, having made holes here and there and having bound it, one makes it a single solid mass, it is allowable. If one makes a grass hut, etc., inside and lives inside it, it is allowable. If the maker himself lives in it, he commits a dukkaṭa offense on account of making it, not on account of living in it. If one plasters it with stucco on the inside or the outside or both, it is allowable. Because a hut entirely of clay is easy to break, a bowl, robe, etc., placed there is not secure; it can be carried off by thieves and others. Therefore it was said: ‘for the sake of the protection of the bowl and robes.’

Pāḷimuttakavinicchayavaṇṇanā

Explanation of Vinaya Decisions Not in the Pāli Text

Tena [Pg.122] kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū uccāvace patte dhārenti, uccāvacāni pattamaṇḍalāni dhārentī’’ti (cuḷava. 253) evamādīni vatthūni nissāya ‘‘na, bhikkhave, uccāvacā pattā dhāretabbā, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’tiādinā nayena akappiyaparikkhāresu ca dukkaṭaṃ paññattaṃ. Kasmā? Tadanulomattā. Yatthāpi na paññattaṃ, tattha ‘‘na, bhikkhave, uccāvacāni chattāni dhāretabbāni, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’tiādinā (cūḷava. 269-270) nayena dukkaṭaṃ sambhavati, tasmā ‘‘tatrāyaṃ pāḷimuttako’’ti ārabhitvā sabbaparikkhāresu vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ, savikāraṃ vā karontassa āpatti dukkaṭanti dīpentena ‘‘na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Etthāha – ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ṭhapetvā paharaṇiṃ sabbaṃ lohabhaṇḍaṃ, ṭhapetvā āsandiṃ pallaṅkaṃ dārupattaṃ dārupādukaṃ sabbaṃ dārubhaṇḍaṃ, ṭhapetvā katakañca kumbhakārikañca sabbaṃ mattikābhaṇḍa’’nti (cūḷava. 293) vuttattā yathāṭhapitaṃ vajjetvā itaraṃ sabbaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhampi savikārampi avisesena vaṭṭatīti? Vuccate – taṃ na yuttaṃ yathādassitapāḷivirodhato, tasmā ‘‘ṭhapetvā paharaṇi’’nti evaṃ jātivasena ayaṃ pāḷi pavattā, yathādassitā pāḷi vaṇṇamaṭṭhādivikārapaṭisedhanavasena pavattāti evaṃ ubhayampi na virujjhati, tasmā yathāvuttameva. Āraggena nikhādanaggena, ‘‘āraggeriva sāsapo’’ti (ma. ni. 2.458; dha. pa. 401; su. ni. 630) ettha vuttanayato āraggena.

Now at that time, the bhikkhus of the group of six were using various kinds of bowls and various kinds of bowl-mats. Based on such stories, it was laid down by the method beginning: ‘Bhikkhus, various kinds of bowls are not to be used. Whoever should use them, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.’ In this way, a dukkaṭa was also prescribed for unallowable requisites. Why? Because of its conformity with that. Even where it was not prescribed, a dukkaṭa arises by the method beginning: ‘Bhikkhus, various kinds of sunshades are not to be used. Whoever should use them, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.’ Therefore, beginning with, ‘Herein, this is a point not in the Pāli text,’ it should be understood that it was said, ‘It is not allowable,’ by the one who explains that for a person who makes any requisite polished or altered, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. Here, an objector says: ‘Since it is said, “I allow, bhikkhus, all metal goods except a weapon; all wooden goods except a long chair, a couch, a wooden bowl, and wooden sandals; all clay goods except a water-clearing nut pot and pottery,” does it mean that, having excluded what was set aside, all the rest, whether polished or altered, is allowable without distinction?’ The reply is: That is not proper, because it contradicts the Pāli as shown. Therefore, this Pāli passage, ‘except a weapon,’ proceeds by way of type, while the Pāli passage shown proceeds by way of prohibiting alterations such as polishing. Thus, both do not conflict. Therefore, it should be understood just as was stated. Āraggena: with the point of a stylus. From the method stated in the phrase ‘like a mustard seed on an awl-point,’ āraggena means with the point of an awl.

Paṭṭamukhe vāti paṭṭakoṭiyaṃ. Pariyanteti cīvarapariyante. Veṇiuhumuniyupeññāma. Agghiyanti cetiyaṃ. Gayamuggaranti tulādaṇḍasaṇṭhānaṃ, gayā sīse sūcikā hoti, mukhapattā ladrā. Ukkiranti nīharanti karonti ṭhapenti. Koṇasuttapiḷakā nāma gaṇṭhikapaṭṭādikoṇesu suttamayapiḷakā. Yaṃ ettha cīvaraṃ vā patto vā ‘‘na vaṭṭatī’’ti vutto, tattha adhiṭṭhānaṃ ruhati, vikappanāpi ruhatīti veditabbaṃ. Deḍḍubhoti udakasappo. Acchīti kuñjarakkhi. Gomuttakanti gomuttasaṇṭhānā rājiyo. Kuñcikāya senāsanaparikkhārattā suvaṇṇarūpiyamayāpi vaṭṭatīti chāyā dissati, ‘‘kuñcikāya vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanato aññe kappiyalohādimayāva kuñcikā kappanti pariharaṇīyaparikkhārattā. Ārakaṇṭako potthakādikaraṇasatthakajāti. ‘‘Āmaṇḍakasārako āmalakaphalamayo’’ti vadanti[Pg.123]. Tālapaṇṇabījanīādīsu ‘‘vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi tāni kuñcikā viya pariharaṇīyāni, atha kho ‘‘uccāvacāni na dhāretabbānī’’ti paṭikkhepābhāvato vuttaṃ. Kevalañhi tāni ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vidhūpanañca tālavaṇṭañcā’’tiādinā (cūḷava. 269) vuttāni. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘telabhājanesu vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭatīti senāsanaparikkhārattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Rājavallabhāti rājakulūpakā. Sīmāti idhādhippetā bhūmi, baddhasīmā ca. ‘‘Yesaṃ santakā tesaṃ sīmā, tattha parehi na kattabba’’nti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Bhūmi ca sīmā ca yesaṃ santakā, tehi eva vāretabbā. Yesaṃ pana aññesaṃ bhūmiyaṃ sīmā katā, te vāretuṃ na issarā’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Saṅghabhedādīnaṃ kāraṇattā ‘mā karothā’ti paṭisedhetabbā evā’’ti andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ kira.

`Paṭṭamukhe vāti`: at the end of the cloth strip. `Pariyanteti`: at the edge of the robe. `Veṇiuhumuniyupeññāma`: stitching in the manner of a braid. `Agghiyanti`: stitching in the shape of a cetiya. `Gayamuggaranti`: stitching in the shape of a balance-beam; the `gayā` is small at the head and large at the tip. `Ukkiranti, nīharanti, karonti, ṭhapenti`: they take out, they bring forth, they make, they place. `Koṇasuttapiḷakā nāma`: small thread-tassels at the corners of the belt-end, etc. Regarding whatever robe or bowl is said herein to be 'not allowable,' it should be understood that for such, a formal determination is valid, and a disposal is also valid. `Deḍḍubhoti`: a water snake. `Acchīti`: an elephant’s eye. `Gomuttakanti`: stripes in the shape of the path of cow's urine. Because a key is a requisite for the lodging, an impression is seen that even one made of gold and silver is allowable. But since it is said, ‘Polished work on a key is not allowable,’ other keys made only of allowable metals and so on are suitable, because it is a requisite to be carried about. `Ārakaṇṭako`: a type of curved-tip knife for incising palm-leaf books, etc. They say: ‘An `āmaṇḍakasāraka` is a container made from the āmalaka fruit.’ Regarding palm-leaf fans, etc., it is said: ‘Polished work is allowable.’ Although they, like a key, are requisites to be carried about, yet it is said so because of the absence of a prohibition, ‘Various kinds are not to be used.’ For they are simply mentioned in the passage beginning: ‘I allow, bhikkhus, a whisk-fan and a palm-leaf fan.’ But in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said: ‘Polished work on oil containers is allowable because they are requisites of the lodging.’ `Rājavallabhāti`: those who frequent the royal family. `Sīmāti`: here the intended meaning is land, and also a consecrated boundary. In the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: ‘The boundary belongs to those who own it; it should not be made there by others.’ They say: ‘The land and the boundary belong to those who own them; they alone should prevent others. But those who have made a boundary on the land of others are not able to prevent them.’ It is said, it seems, in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: ‘They should indeed be prevented with the words, “Do not do this,” because it is a cause for schism in the Sangha and so on.’

86-7. Dārukuṭikaṃ kātuṃ, kattunti ca atthi. Khaṇḍākhaṇḍikanti phalāphalaṃ viya daṭṭhabbaṃ. Āṇāpehīti vacanaṃ aniṭṭhe eva vuccatīti katvā bandhaṃ āṇāpesi. Issariyamattāyāti samiddhiyaṃ mattāsaddoti ñāpeti.

To make a wooden hut; and there is also the reading `kattuṃ`. `Khaṇḍākhaṇḍikaṃ` should be understood as being like `phalāphalaṃ` (fruit and non-fruit). The word `Āṇāpehi` (Command) is spoken only in regard to something undesirable; having considered this, he commanded the binding. Regarding `Issariyamattāya`: this shows that the word `mattā` is used in the sense of prosperity.

88. ‘‘Evarūpaṃ vācaṃ bhāsitvā’’ti ca pāṭho. Lomena tvaṃ mutto, mā punapi evarūpamakāsīti idaṃ kiṃ byāpādadīpakaṃ, dārūsupi lobhakkhandhadīpakaṃ vacanaṃ sotāpannassa sato tassa rājassa patirūpaṃ. Nanu nāma ‘‘pubbe kataṃ sukataṃ bhante, vadeyyātha punapi yenattho’’ti pavāretvā atīva pītipāmojjaṃ uppādetabbaṃ tena siyāti? Saccametaṃ sotāpannattā atīva buddhamāmako dhammamāmako saṅghamāmako ca, tasmā bhikkhūnaṃ akappiyaṃ asahanto, sikkhāpadapaññattiyā ca okāsaṃ kattukāmo ‘‘supayuttāni me dārūnī’’ti tuṭṭhacittopi evamāhāti veditabbaṃ. Imehi nāma evarūpe ṭhāne. ‘‘Āgatapadānurūpenāti aññehi vā padehi, ito thokatarehi vā āgatakāle tadanurūpā yojanā kātabbā’’ti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Na kevalaṃ imasmiṃyeva sikkhāpade, aññesupi āgacchanti, tasmā tattha tattha āgatapadānurūpena yojanā veditabbā’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Ujjhāyanattho adinnassādinnattāva, te ujjhāyiṃsu.

88. “Having spoken such words” is also a reading. Is this statement, 'You are released by a hair's breadth; do not do such a thing again,' which indicates ill will and, regarding the logs, indicates a mass of greed, fitting for that king, being a stream-enterer? Indeed, should he not, having invited them by saying, 'Venerable sirs, what was done by you before was well done. Again, whatever you have need of, you should speak of that,' have given rise to exceeding joy and delight? This is true. Because he was a stream-enterer, he was exceedingly devoted to the Buddha, devoted to the Dhamma, and devoted to the Sangha. Therefore, being unable to endure what was unseemly for the monks, and wishing to create an occasion for the laying down of a training rule, even though his mind was pleased, he spoke thus—this should be understood. In such a case, it is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada (Explanatory Notes): 'According to the words that have come, whether with other words or with slightly fewer than these, when they come, a corresponding construction should be made.' It is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada (Supplementary Explanatory Notes): 'Not only in this training rule, but they also occur in others; therefore, in each and every case, the construction should be understood according to the words that have come.' The complaining was on account of taking what was not given; they complained.

Rudradāmako nāma rudradāmakādīhi uppādito. Bārāṇasinagarādīsu tehi tehi rājūhi porāṇasatthānurūpaṃ lakkhaṇasampannā uppāditā nīlakahāpaṇā. Tesaṃ kira tibhāgaṃ agghati rudradāmako, tasmā tassa [Pg.124] pādo thullaccayavatthu hoti. Māsako pana idha appamāṇaṃ. Kahāpaṇo kiñcikāle ūnavīsatimāsako hoti, kiñci kāle atirekavīsatimāsako. Tasmā tassa kahāpaṇassa catutthabhāgo pañcamāsako viya atirekapañcamāsako vā ūnapañcamāsako vā pādoti veditabbaṃ. Imassatthassa dīpanatthaṃ ‘‘tadā rājagahe vīsatimāsako kahāpaṇo hotī’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Tattha rajatamayo suvaṇṇamayo tambamayo ca kahāpaṇo hoti. Suvaṇṇabhūmiyaṃ viya pādopi yattha tambamayova kato hoti, tattha sova pādoti ācariyo. Yasmā pādo ekanīlakahāpaṇagghanako, tasmā tassa pādassa catutthabhāgova siyā pādoti eke. Idaṃ na yujjati. Yo ca tattha pādāraho bhaṇḍo, tassa catutthabhāgasseva pārājikavatthubhāvappasaṅgato. Yadi pādārahaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ pārājikavatthu, siddhaṃ ‘‘sova pādo pacchimaṃ pārājikavatthū’’ti. Na hi sabbattha bhaṇḍaṃ gahetvā nīlakahāpaṇagghena agghāpenti. Yasmā tassa tasseva kahāpaṇagghena agghāpenti, tasmā tassa tassa janapadassa pādova pādoti tadagghanakameva pādagghanakanti siddhaṃ, ‘‘so ca kho porāṇassa nīlakahāpaṇassa vasena, na itaresanti yattha pana nīlakahāpaṇā vaḷañjaṃ gacchanti, tatthevā’’ti keci vadanti, upaparikkhitvā gahetabbaṃ.

A coin named Rudradāmaka was issued by Rudradāmaka and others. In cities such as Bārāṇasī, nīlakahāpaṇas, endowed with marks according to ancient treatises, were issued by those various kings. It is said that a Rudradāmaka is worth a third part of those; therefore, a quarter of it constitutes an object of a thullaccaya offense. Here, however, a māsaka is not a standard measure. A kahāpaṇa is sometimes less than twenty māsakas and sometimes more than twenty māsakas. Therefore, a fourth part of that kahāpaṇa—whether it be like five māsakas, more than five māsakas, or less than five māsakas—should be understood as a pāda. To clarify this meaning, the text beginning, “At that time in Rājagaha, a kahāpaṇa was twenty māsakas,” was stated. There, a kahāpaṇa can be made of silver, gold, or copper. Where the pāda is also made only of copper, as in Suvaṇṇabhūmi, the teachers say that this itself is the pāda. Some say, “Since a pāda is worth one nīlakahāpaṇa, therefore only a fourth part of that pāda would be a pāda.” This is not correct, because it would lead to the consequence that only a fourth part of an item worth a pāda would become an object of a pārājika offense. If an item worth a pāda is an object of a pārājika offense, then the statement, “that very pāda is the lowest threshold for a pārājika offense,” is established. For they do not everywhere value an item according to the worth of a nīlakahāpaṇa. Since they value it according to the worth of the kahāpaṇa of that very region, it is therefore established that the pāda of that very region is the pāda; thus, an item of that value is an item worth a pāda. Some say that the statement, “And that is with reference to the ancient nīlakahāpaṇa, not others,” applies only where nīlakahāpaṇas are in circulation. This should be accepted after investigation.

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Word-by-word Analysis

92. Gāmā vā araññā vāti lakkhaṇānupaññattikattā paṭhamapaññattiyā ādimhi vuttā. Yato vā apakkantā, so amanusso nāma. ‘‘Amanussagāmaṃ apārupitvā, gāmappavesanañca anāpucchā pavisituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Yato gāmato āgantukāmā eva apakkantā, taṃ gāmaṃ evaṃ pavisituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti eke. Keci pana ‘‘yakkhapariggahabhūtopi āpaṇādīsu dissamānesu eva ‘gāmo’ti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati, adissamānesu pavesane anāpattī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Gāmo eva upacāro gāmūpacāroti evaṃ kammadhārayavasena gahite kurundaṭṭhakathādīsu vuttampi suvuttameva hotī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Tassa gharūpacāro gāmoti āpajjatī’’ti vacanaṃ paṭikkhipati. ‘‘Gāmassupacāro ca gāmo ca gāmūpacāro cā’’ti vadanti, taṃ virujjhati, na. ‘‘Imesaṃ lābhādīsu lakkhaṇaṃ sandhāya mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘gharaṃ gharūpacāro’tiādi vuttaṃ, taṃ na mayaṃ paṭikkhipāmā’’ti ca vadanti. ‘‘Kataparikkhepo [Pg.125] cāti gharassa samantato tattako upacāro nāmā’’ti gaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘yo yo aṭṭhakathāvādo vā theravādo vā pacchā vuccatīti ito anāgataṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, nātītaṃ. Yadi atītampi sandhāya vuttaṃ, mahāpadumatheravādova pamāṇaṃ jātanti āpajjati, tasmā anāgatameva sandhāya vuttanti ācariyā kathayantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sesampīti gāmūpacāralakkhaṇampi.

92. “Whether from a village or from the wilderness”—this is stated at the beginning of the first enactment because it is a subsequent designation marking the basis of a pārājika offense. A village from which people have departed, even with the intention of returning, is called an 'uninhabited village' (amanusso). “It is permissible to enter an uninhabited village without covering oneself with the outer robe and without asking permission for entering the village,” as stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada. Some say, “When they have departed from a village with the intention of returning, it is not permissible to enter that village in this way.” But others say, “Even a village that has become possessed by yakkhas is counted as a 'village' only when shops and so on are visible; when they are not visible, there is no offense in entering.” They also say, “When 'gāmūpacāro' is taken as a kammadhāraya compound meaning 'the village itself is the vicinity' (gāmo eva upacāro), then what is said in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā and other texts is indeed well-said.” This rejects the statement that implies, “The vicinity of a house is a village.” They say, “'Gāmūpacāro' means 'the vicinity of the village and the village'.” Does that contradict? It does not. And they also say, “Referring to the characteristics of these in regard to gain and so on, it is stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā 'a house, the vicinity of a house,' etc. We do not reject that statement.” Regarding “having made a boundary,” it is written in the Gaṇṭhipada: “The area of such an extent all around a house is called the 'vicinity'.” But in the Anugaṇṭhipada it is stated: “This statement, 'Whatever commentary view or elders' view is stated later,' is said with reference to what is yet to come, not to the past. If it were said with reference to the past as well, it would imply that the view of the great elder Mahāpaduma would become the standard. Therefore, the teachers explain that it is said with reference only to what is yet to come.” By “and the rest,” the characteristic of the village vicinity is also to be understood.

Tatrāyaṃ nayoti tassa gāmūpacārassa gahaṇe ayaṃ nayo. Vikālegāmappavesanādīsūti ettha ‘‘gāmappavesanañhi bahi eva āpucchitabba’’nti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sametī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Gāmasaṅkhātūpacāraṃ sandhāya vutta’’nti gahite sametīti mama takko. ‘‘Ādi-saddato ghare ṭhitānaṃ dinnalābhabhājanādīnī’’ti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Gāmūpacāre ṭhitānaṃ pāpuṇitabbalābhaṃ sañcicca adentānaṃ pārājika’’nti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi kurundiādīsu pāḷiyaṃ vuttavacanānulomavasena vuttattā ‘‘pamādalekhā’’ti na vattabbaṃ, mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttavinicchayo saṅgītito paṭṭhāya āgato. ‘‘Yañcetaṃ mahāaṭṭhakathāya’’ntiādi sīhaḷadīpe aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttaṃ ‘‘vinicchayanayo’’ti ca. Leḍḍupāteneva paricchinditabboti parikkhepārahaṭṭhānaṃ, na upacāraṃ. So hi tato aparena leḍḍupātena paracchinno. Imasmiṃ adinnādānasikkhāpadeti niyamena aññattha aññathāti atthato vuttaṃ hoti. Tena vā niyamena yathārutavasenāpi attho idha yujjati. Abhidhamme panātiādinā aññathāpi atthāpattisiddhaṃ dasseti.

Herein is the method for understanding that village vicinity. Regarding entering a village at an improper time and so forth, it is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada: “Indeed, permission to enter a village should be asked for only from outside.” They say, “This does not accord with the Aṭṭhakathā.” It is my reasoning that if it is taken as referring to the vicinity designated as the village, it does accord. It is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada: “By the word ‘ādi’ (etc.) are meant bowls and so on, which are the gains given to those staying in a house.” It is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada: “For monks staying in the village vicinity who intentionally do not give a gain that should be received, it is a pārājika offense.” Although, because it is stated in the Kurundī and other commentaries in accordance with the words spoken in the Pāḷi, it should not be called a ‘careless writing’, the judgment stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā has come down from the time of the Saṅgīti. The passage beginning “And this which is in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā…” was stated by the commentary teachers in the island of Sri Lanka, and it was also called “the method of judgment.” By “it should be demarcated only by the toss of a clod,” the place suitable for an enclosure is shown, not the vicinity. For that vicinity is indeed demarcated from there by another toss of a clod. In this precept on taking what is not given, by this rule, it is said in terms of meaning that it is one way here, and otherwise elsewhere. Or, by that rule, the meaning is suitable here even according to the literal sense. By the passage beginning “But in the Abhidhamma…”, it is shown that the meaning is also established in another way by implication.

‘‘Pariccāgādimhi akate ‘idaṃ mama santaka’nti aviditampi parapariggahitameva puttakānaṃ pitu accayena santakaṃ viya, taṃ atthato apariccatte saṅgahaṃ gacchatī’’ti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Thenassa kammaṃ theyyaṃ, thenena gahetabbabhūtaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ. Theyyanti saṅkhātanti theyyasaṅkhāta’’nti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Taṃ theyyaṃ yassa thenassa kammaṃ, so yasmā theyyacitto avaharaṇacitto hoti, tasmā ‘‘theyyasaṅkhāta’’nti padaṃ uddharitvā ‘‘theyyacitto avaharaṇacitto’’ti padabhājanampi tesaṃ porāṇānaṃ yujjateva, tathāpi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Yañca pubbabhāge ‘avaharissāmī’ti pavattaṃ cittaṃ, yañca gamanādisādhakaṃ, parāmasanādisādhakaṃ vā majjhe pavattaṃ, yañca ṭhānācāvanapayogasādhakaṃ[Pg.126], tesu ayameveko pacchimo cittakoṭṭhāso idha adhippeto ‘theno’ti apare’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Ūnamāsakamāsapādādīsu ‘‘avaharaṇacittesu ekacittakoṭṭhāsoti ācariyā vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ.

“Even when relinquishment, etc., has not been made, and even if it is not known [by the heir] as ‘this is my property’, it is indeed property appropriated by another, just like the property of sons after the passing of their father. In essence, not having been relinquished, it is included [under appropriation].” This is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada. “The act of a thief is theft. The goods that are to be taken by the thief are designated as ‘theft’; therefore, it is called ‘designated as theft’.” This is stated in the ancient Gaṇṭhipada. That theft is the act of whichever thief; because he has a thieving mind, a mind to misappropriate, therefore, having extracted the term ‘designated as theft’, the word-analysis by those ancient teachers as ‘a thieving mind, a mind to misappropriate’ is indeed suitable. Nevertheless, it should be understood only by the method stated in the commentary. “And whichever thought has arisen in the preliminary stage as ‘I will steal’; and whichever thought has arisen in the middle, which accomplishes going, handling, etc.; and whichever thought accomplishes the effort of moving [it] from its place—among these, only this one, the last portion of thought, is intended here as ‘the thief’, according to others.” This is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada. Regarding [items worth] less than a māsaka, a māsaka, a pāda, etc., it is said: “The teachers say that among minds intent on misappropriating, it is one portion of thought.”

Pañcavīsatiavahārakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Twenty-Five Kinds of Misappropriation

Pañcavīsati avahārā nāma vacanabhedeneva bhinnā, atthato pana abhinnā. Ākulā duviññeyyavinicchayāti ācariyānaṃ mukhe santike sabbākārena aggahitavinicchayānaṃ duviññeyyā. Dukatikapaṭṭhānapāḷi (paṭṭhā. 5.1.1 ādayo, dukatikapaṭṭhānapāḷi) viya ākulā duviññeyyavinicchayā, kevalaṃ taṃ ācariyā pubbāparavirodhamakatvā saṅgītito paṭṭhāya āgatanayamavināsetvā vaṇṇayantīti ‘‘paṭṭhānapāḷimivāti apare vadantī’’ti ca vuttā. Porāṇāti saṅgītiācariyā. Ayamettha sāmīci eva, sace na deti, āpatti natthi, pārājikabhayā pana yathā sikkhākāmo deti, evaṃ dātabbameva. Yāni panettha vatthūni, tāni sīhaḷadīpe ācariyehi saṅghādīnamanumatiyā aṭṭhakathāsu pakkhittāni, ‘‘anāgate brahmacārīnaṃ hitatthāya potthakāruḷhakālato pacchāpī’’ti vuttaṃ. Āṇattikaṃ āṇattikkhaṇepi gaṇhāti, kālantarenāpi atthasādhako, kālantaraṃ sandhāyāti idametesaṃ nānattaṃ. Bhaṭṭheti apagate. Antarasamudde aturumuhude. Pharati sādheti. Navadhototi navakato. Pāsāṇasakkharanti pāsāṇañca sakkharañca.

The twenty-five kinds of theft are distinguished only by verbal expression, but in meaning they are not different. They are confused and difficult to discern in their determination; that is, for those who have not grasped the determination in all aspects in the presence of the teachers, they are difficult to discern. Like the Dukatikapaṭṭhānapāḷi, they are confused and difficult to discern in their determination. However, the teachers, without making any contradiction between earlier and later, explain them without destroying the method that has come down from the Saṅgīti. Thus, it is said, 'Others say it is like the Paṭṭhānapāḷi.' The ancients are the teachers of the Saṅgīti. This is indeed the proper course here. If one does not give, there is no offense, but out of fear of a pārājika, one should certainly give, just as one who desires training would. The cases here, however, were inserted into the commentaries by the teachers in Sri Lanka with the approval of the Saṅgha and others, with it being said, 'For the benefit of future holy-life practitioners, even after the time of their being written into books.' Theft by command (`āṇattika`) is taken even at the moment of the command; theft for one's own purpose (`atthasādhaka`) occurs after a time interval. This is their difference, with reference to the time interval. `Bhaṭṭheti` means 'when gone away'. `Antarasamudde` means `aturumuhude`. `Pharati` means `sādheti` (accomplishes). `Navadhoto` means 'newly made'. `Pāsāṇasakkharaṃ` means 'stone and gravel'.

Bhūmaṭṭhakathādivaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Bhūmaṭṭhakathā and so forth.

94. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana saccepi alikepi dukkaṭameva vuttaṃ, taṃ pamādalikhitanti veditabbanti yathetarahi yuttiyā gahetabbā. Tattha ‘‘catuvaggena ṭhapetvā upasampadapavāraṇaabbhānādisabbaṃ saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati’’cceva vattabbe ‘‘upasampadapavāraṇakathinabbhānādīnī’’ti likhantīti veditabbaṃ. Taṃ ācariyā ‘‘pamādalekhā’’tveva vaṇṇayanti, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘pamādalikhita’’nti. Yaṃ yaṃ vacanaṃ musā, tattha tattha pācittiyanti vuttaṃ. Dukkaṭassa vacane payojanābhāvā ‘‘adinnādānassa pubbapayoge’’ti vuttaṃ. Aññesampi pubbapayoge pācittiyaṭṭhāne pācittiyameva. Pamādalikhitanti ettha [Pg.127] idha adhippetameva gahetvā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanti gahite sameti viya. Ācariyā pana ‘‘pācittiyaṭṭhāne pācittiya’’nti vatvā dukkaṭe visuṃ vattabbe ‘‘saccālike’’ti sāmaññato vuttattā ‘‘pamādalekhā’’ti vadantīti veditabbāti. ‘‘Kusalacittena gamane anāpattī’’ti vuttattā ‘‘dānañca dassāmī’’ti vacanena anāpatti viya.

94. However, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is stated that even in the case of truth or falsehood, it is only a dukkaṭa. That should be understood as 'written through negligence'; now, this should be accepted by reason. There, when it should have been stated, 'It is permissible for a group of four to perform all Saṅgha acts, except for ordination, invitation, rehabilitation, and so on,' it is written as 'ordination, invitation, Kathina, rehabilitation, and so on.' This should be understood. The teachers explain this indeed as 'negligent writing'; therefore, it is said to be 'written through negligence'. Wherever a statement is false, it is said that there is a pācittiya offense. Since there is no purpose in stating a dukkaṭa, it is said, 'in the preliminary act of taking what is not given.' For the preliminary acts of others as well, in a case for a pācittiya, it is only a pācittiya. Regarding 'written through negligence,' if it is taken that what is intended here is indeed what is stated in the commentary, it appears to be consistent. However, the teachers, having stated 'where a pācittiya applies, a pācittiya is incurred,' say that it is 'negligent writing' because the dukkaṭa, which should be stated separately, is stated generally as 'in the case of truth or falsehood.' This should be understood. Because it is said, 'There is no offense when going with a wholesome mind,' it is like there is no offense in the statement, 'And I will give a gift.'

Pācittiyaṭṭhāne dukkaṭā na muccatīti pācittiyena saddhiṃ dukkaṭamāpajjati. Bahukāpi āpattiyo hontūti khaṇanabyūhanuddharaṇesu dasa dasa katvā āpattiyo āpanno, tesu uddharaṇe dasa pācittiyo desetvā muccati, jātivasena ‘‘ekameva desetvā muccatī’’ti kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā purimena sameti. ‘‘Samodhānetvā dassitapayoge ‘‘dukkaṭa’’nti vuttattā samānapayogā bahudukkaṭattaṃ ñāpeti. Khaṇane bahukānīti samānapayogattā na paṭippassambhati. Aṭṭhakathācariyappamāṇenāti yathā panettha, evaṃ aññesupi evarūpāni aṭṭhakathāya āgatavacanāni saṅgītito paṭṭhāya āgatattā gahetabbānīti attho. ‘‘Idha dutiyapārājike gahetabbā, na aññesū’’ti dhammasiritthero kirāha. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘purimakhaṇanaṃ pacchimaṃ patvā paṭippassambhati, teneva ekameva desetvā muccatī’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘visabhāgakiriyaṃ vā patvā purimaṃ paṭippassambhatī’’ti ca vuttaṃ.

In the case of a pācittiya, one is not freed from a dukkaṭa; one incurs a dukkaṭa together with the pācittiya. Even if there are many offenses—for instance, a monk who has incurred ten offenses each for digging, scraping, and removing—among those, for the offenses of removing, he is freed by confessing the ten pācittiyas. By the power of the category, it is said in the Kurundī, 'One is freed by confessing only one'; therefore, this agrees with the earlier statement. Because it is said 'a dukkaṭa' in the effort shown by combining instances, this indicates a state of many dukkaṭas due to the similar action. In digging, the many offenses do not cease due to the similar action. The meaning of 'by the authority of the commentary teachers' should be understood thus: just as here in this second pārājika, so too in other training rules, such statements that have come down in the commentary should be accepted because they have come down from the time of the Council onwards. The Elder Dhammasiri reportedly said, 'It should be accepted here in the second pārājika, not in others.' But in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said, 'The earlier digging ceases upon reaching the later, and for that very reason one is freed by confessing only one.' And it is also said, 'Or, upon reaching a dissimilar action, the earlier action ceases.'

Evaṃ ekaṭṭhāne ṭhitāya kumbhiyā ṭhānācāvanañcettha chahākārehi veditabbanti sambandho. Kumbhiyāti bhummavacanaṃ. Uddhaṃ ukkhipanto kesaggamattampi bhūmito moceti, pārājikanti ettha mukhavaṭṭiyā phuṭṭhokāsaṃ bundena mocite ‘‘ṭhānācāvanañcettha chahākārehi veditabba’’nti iminā sameti, tathā avatvā ‘‘bhūmito mutte kesaggamattampi atikkante bhūmito mocitaṃ nāma hotī’’ti daḷhaṃ katvā vadanti, upaparikkhitvā gahetabbaṃ. Ettha ekacce evaṃ atthaṃ vadanti ‘‘pubbe khaṇantena avasesaṭṭhānāni viyojitāni, tasmiṃ vimutte pārājika’’nti. Saṅkhepamahāpaccariyādīsu vuttavacanassa pamādalekhabhāvo ‘‘attano bhājanagataṃ vā karoti, muṭṭhiṃ vā chindatī’’ti vacanena dīpito.

Thus, the connection should be made that 'here, the moving of a pot situated in one place from its spot should also be understood in six ways.' The word 'kumbhiyā' is a locative term. Lifting it upwards, if one frees it from the ground even by a hair's breadth, it is a pārājika. Here, when the place touched by the rim is freed by the base, it agrees with this statement: 'the moving from its place here should also be understood in six ways.' Without stating it thus, they firmly declare, 'When it is freed from the ground and has passed beyond it even by a hair's breadth, it is called "moved from the ground."' This should be accepted after investigation. Here, some explain the meaning thus: 'Previously, by the one digging, the remaining places were separated; when that pot is freed, it is a pārājika.' That the statement made in the Saṅkhepa, Mahāpaccarī, and so forth, is a careless writing is shown by the text: 'He either makes it his own vessel, or cuts off a fistful.'

Yaṃ pana ‘‘pītamatte pārājika’’nti vuttaṃ, taṃ yathetarahi ‘‘pañcaviññāṇā uppannavatthukā uppannārammaṇā’’ti padassa ‘‘uppannavatthukāhi anāgatapaṭikkhepo’’ti [Pg.128] aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ ‘‘asambhinnavatthukā asambhinnārammaṇā purejātavatthukā purejātārammaṇā’’ti vacanamapekkhitvā atītānāgatapaṭikkhepoti parivatteti, tathā tādisehi parivatta’nti veditabbaṃ. Na hi aṭṭhakathācariyā pubbāparaviruddhaṃ vadanti. Yaṃ pana ācariyā ‘‘idaṃ pamādalikhita’’nti apanetvā paṭikkhipitvā vacanakāle vācenti, uddisanti, tameva ca imināpi ācariyena ‘‘pamādalikhita’’nti paṭikkhittaṃ. Yañca suttaṃ dassetvā te paṭikkhipanti, tameva ca dassentena iminā paṭikkhittaṃ, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘taṃ pana tatthevā’’tiādi.

As for the statement, 'a pārājika upon mere drinking,' it should be understood as being reinterpreted by such means, just as now the commentary's statement for the phrase 'the five consciousnesses have an arisen basis and an arisen object'—namely, 'the rejection of the future by means of an arisen basis'—is reinterpreted as 'the rejection of the past and future' by considering the statement 'with an unmixed basis and unmixed object, with a pre-arisen basis and pre-arisen object.' Indeed, the Aṭṭhakathā teachers do not speak in a way that contradicts earlier and later statements. Furthermore, the statement that the teachers set aside and reject at the time of recitation or teaching, saying, 'This is a careless writing,' that very statement has also been rejected by this teacher. And that which they reject after showing a sutta, that very thing is shown and rejected by this teacher. Therefore, it was said, 'but that is right there,' and so forth.

Anāpattimattameva vuttanti neva avahāro na gīvā anāpattīti byañjanatova bhedo, na atthatoti dassanatthaṃ. Taṃ pamādalikhitaṃ katarehīti ce? Pubbe vuttappakārehi, lekhakehi vā, esa nayo sabbattha. ‘‘Na hi tadeva bahūsu ṭhānesu yuttato pārājikamahutvā katthaci hotī’’ti sabbaṃ anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Duṭṭhapitaṃ vā ṭhapetīti ettha tato paggharissatīti ṭhānācāvanaṃ sandhāya katattā pārājikaṃ taṃ pana gaṇhatu vā mā vā tattheva ‘‘bhindatī’’tiādivacanato veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Tatthevāti ṭhānācāvanaṃ akarontova ṭhānā acāvetukāmova kevalaṃ ‘bhindatī’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanato ca ñāpetabba’’nti aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Tathā ‘‘paggharitehi tintapaṃsuṃ gahetvā udake pakkhipitvā pacitvā gahetuṃ sakkā, tasmā gahaṇameva sandhāya vutta’’nti apare. ‘‘Rittakumbhiyā upari karoti, bhaṇḍadeyya’’nti vuttaṃ, taṃ āṇattiyā virujjhati, ‘‘yadā sakkosi, tadā taṃ bhaṇḍaṃ avaharā’’ti atthasādhako āṇattikāle eva pārājikaṃ. Apica āvāṭakādīni thāvarapayogāni ca ettha sādhakāni. Natthi kālakatapayogāni pārājikavatthūnīti tasmā upaparikkhitabbanti eke. Yattha yattha ‘‘apare’’ti vā ‘‘eke’’ti vā vuccati, tattha tattha suṭṭhu upaparikkhitvā yuttaṃ gahetabbaṃ, itaraṃ chaḍḍetabbaṃ. Vadantīti ācariyā vadanti. Na, aññathā gahetabbatthatoti pāḷipariharaṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Evameke vadantīti taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Kasmā? ‘‘Passāvaṃ vā chaḍḍetī’’ti ca ‘‘aparibhogaṃ vā karotī’’ti ca atthato ekattā, aṭṭhakathāya ‘‘muggarena pothetvā bhindatī’’ti vuttattāpi.

The statement 'Only "no offense" is mentioned' is for the purpose of showing that the ruling 'neither taking nor swallowing is no offense' is a difference only in wording, not in meaning. If it is asked, 'By whom was that carelessly written?' one should answer: 'By those of the type previously mentioned, or by scribes.' This is the method in all cases. For it is not the case that the very same thing, while not being a Pārājika in many suitable instances, becomes a Pārājika in a certain instance; all this is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada. In the phrase, 'Or one places it having been damaged,' here, because it is done with reference to moving it from its place so that it will flow out from there, it is a Pārājika. Whether one takes that object or not, it should be understood from the statement 'he breaks' and so forth, right there. In a certain Gaṇṭhipada it is said: 'As for "right there," it should be understood that while not moving it from its place, and while desiring not to move it from its place, one merely "breaks" it, solely from the commentary's statement to that effect.' Similarly, others say: 'From that which has flowed out, it is possible to take wet earth, put it in water, strain it, and then take the substance; therefore, it is said with reference only to the act of taking.' It is said, 'He does it over an empty pot; it would be a gift of a vessel.' That contradicts the case of an order. In the case of 'When you are able, then steal that item,' which fulfills the purpose, the Pārājika occurs at the very time of the order. Furthermore, pits and other permanent applications are proof in this matter. Some say: 'There are no temporary applications that are grounds for a Pārājika offense; therefore, this should be examined.' Wherever it is said 'others' or 'some,' in that very place one should examine it well, accept what is suitable, and reject the other. 'They say' means the teachers say. 'No, it is not to be taken otherwise'—this is said for the purpose of preserving the Pāli. The statement, 'Thus some say,' should not be accepted. Why? Because 'or one discards urine' and 'or one makes it unusable' are one in meaning, and also because it is said in the commentary, 'having struck it with a club, he breaks it.'

Ayaṃ [Pg.129] panettha sārotiādikathāya ‘‘amhākaṃ ācariyassa vacana’’nti dhammasiritthero āha. Saṅgahācariyānaṃ vādoti eke. Pubbe vuttāpi te eva, tasmā vohāravasenāti achaḍḍetukāmampi tathā karontaṃ ‘‘chaḍḍetī’’ti voharanti. Evametesaṃ padānaṃ attho gahetabboti evaṃ sante ‘‘ṭhānācāvanassa natthitāya dukkaṭa’’nti aṭṭhakathāvacanena ativiya sameti, tattha ṭhānācāvanacittassa natthitāya ṭhānā cutampi na ‘‘ṭhānā cuta’’nti vuccatīti attho gahetabbo. Itarathāpīti theyyacittābhāvā ṭhānā cāvetukāmassapi dukkaṭaṃ yujjati.

In the discussion beginning with 'This is the essence here,' the Elder Dhammasiri said, 'It is the word of our teacher.' Some say it is the doctrine of the Saṅgaha teachers. Even the teachers previously mentioned are those very same ones; therefore, by way of conventional usage, even one who does not wish to abandon but acts in such a way is spoken of as 'abandoning.' Thus, the meaning of these terms should be understood. This being so, it agrees exceedingly well with the commentary's statement, 'Due to the absence of moving from the place, there is a dukkaṭa.' There, because of the absence of the thought of moving from the place, even if it is moved from the place, it is not called 'moved from the place'; this is the meaning to be understood. In the other case as well, due to the absence of the thought of theft, a dukkaṭa offense is appropriate even for one who wishes to move it from its place.

96. Sayameva patitamorasseva ito cito ca karoto thullaccayaṃ. Ākāsaṭṭhavinicchaye tappasaṅgena tasmiṃ vehāsādigatepi asammohatthaṃ evaṃ gahetabbanti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Evamaññatrāpi sāmise’’ti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Ṭhānācāvanaṃ akaronto cāletī’’ti vacanato ṭhānācāvane thullaccayaṃ natthīti vuttaṃ hoti. Keci aphandāpetvā ṭhānācāvanācāvanehipi dukkaṭathullaccaye vadanti. ‘‘Te ṭhānācāvanaṃ akarontoti imaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ dassetvā paṭisedhetabbā’’ti keci vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ.

96. Just as for a peacock that has fallen by itself, for one who moves it here and there, there is a thullaccaya offense. In the determination concerning things in space, it is said that it should be understood thus for the sake of non-bewilderment, by connection with that, even regarding an object situated in the air, etc. 'Likewise elsewhere too, in a case involving a material object,' is said in the Gaṇṭhipada. Because of the statement, 'He moves it without causing it to be moved from its place,' it comes to be said that there is no thullaccaya offense in moving it from its place. Some say that without causing it to shake, by both moving it from its place and not moving it from its place, there are dukkaṭa and thullaccaya offenses. Some say, 'They should be refuted by showing this commentary statement: “Not causing it to be moved from its place.”' This should be investigated.

97. Chedanamocanādi uparibhāgaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Avassaṃ ṭhānato ākāsagataṃ karoti. Ettha ‘‘ekakoṭiṃ nīharitvā ṭhapite vaṃse ṭhitassa ākāsakaraṇaṃ sandhāyā’’ti keci vadanti. Te pana atha ‘‘mūlaṃ acchetvā valayaṃ ito cito ca sāreti, rakkhati. Sace pana mūlato anīharitvāpi hatthena gahetvā ākāsagataṃ karoti, pārājika’’nti aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ dassetvā paṭisedhetabbā. Bhittinissitanti bhittiyā upatthambhitaṃ sandhāya vuttanti eke. Bhittiṃ nissāya ṭhapitanti nāgadantādīsu ṭhitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Chinnamatteti upari uggantvā ṭhitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

97. Cutting and releasing, etc., are said with reference to the upper part. It certainly causes it to be in the air from its place. Here, some say, ‘It refers to causing to be in the air something standing on a bamboo that has had one end removed and left standing.’ But they should be refuted by showing the commentary statement: ‘If, without cutting the root, one moves the ring back and forth, he protects himself. But if even without removing it from the root, he takes it with his hand and causes it to be in the air, it is a defeat offense.’ ‘Supported by a wall’ is said with reference to something propped up by a wall, according to some. ‘Leaning against a wall’ refers to standing supported by things like coat-hooks. ‘Just by being cut’ is said with reference to what stands projecting upwards.

98. Upari ṭhitassa piṭṭhiyāti ettha adho osāraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Heṭṭhā osārentassa uparimassa piṭṭhiyā heṭṭhimena ṭhitokāsaṃ atikkantamatte pārājikaṃ, uddhaṃ ukkhipantassa udakato muttamatte. ‘‘Evaṃ gahite [Pg.130] bhūmaṭṭhe vuttena sametī’’ti vadanti. Matamacchānaṃ ṭhitaṭṭhānameva ṭhānaṃ kira. Theyyacittena māretvā gaṇhato ūnapādagghanake dukkaṭaṃ, sahapayogattā pācittiyaṃ natthīti eke. Madanaphalavasādīnīti ettha sīhaḷabhāsā kira vasa iti visanti attho, garuḷākārena katuppeyitaṃ vā.

98. Regarding the phrase ‘for one standing above, on the back,’ this is said with reference to lowering it. For one lowering something, it is a pārājika offense as soon as the lower edge of the upper one’s surface passes its original position; for one lifting something upward, it is as soon as it is released from the water. Some say, ‘When taken in this way, this agrees with what was said in the case of something on the ground.’ The place where dead fish are is indeed their ‘place.’ If, with the intention of stealing, one kills and takes something worth less than a quarter, there is a dukkaṭa offense; some say there is no pācittiya offense because it is a conjoined effort. Regarding ‘intoxicating fruits, vasa, etc.,’ here, ‘vasa’ is said to be a Sinhala word meaning ‘poison,’ or it refers to something prepared in the form of a garuḍa.

99. Pubbe pāse baddhasūkaraupamāya vuttā eva. ‘‘Thale ṭhapitāya nāvāya na phuṭṭhokāsamattamevā’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Vāto āgammāti vacanato vātassa natthikāle payogassa katattā avahāro natthi, atthikāle ce kato, avahārovā’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ pana kesanti ce? Yesaṃ hatthe kahāpaṇāni gahitāni, tesaṃ vā, nāvāsāminā nāvāya aggahitāya nāvāsāmikassa vā’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

99. Previously, this was already stated by way of the simile of a pig caught in a snare. There is a reading: ‘For a boat placed on land, it is not merely the space it touches.’ They say: ‘Because of the thought “The wind will come,” if the effort is made when there is no wind, it is not a theft; but if it is done when there is wind, it is indeed a theft.’ It is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada: ‘If it is asked, “But to whom should the payment for the goods be given?” It should be given to those from whose hands the coins were taken, or, if the boat is not taken by the boat-owner, to the boat-owner.’

104. Nirambitvā upari. Akataṃ vā pana patiṭṭhapetīti apubbaṃ vā paṭṭhapetīti attho.

104. The phrase ‘Without support above, or one establishes what was not made’ means one establishes what is new.

106. Gāmaṭṭhe vā ‘‘gāmo nāmā’’ti na vuttaṃ paṭhamaṃ gāmalakkhaṇassa sabbaso vuttattā.

106. In the commentary on the village section, the phrase ‘a village, namely...’ was not stated at the beginning, because the characteristic of a village had already been fully stated.

107. Araññaṭṭhe araññaṃ nāmāti puna na kevalaṃ pubbe vuttalakkhaṇaññeva araññanti idhādhippetaṃ, kintu parapariggahitameva cetaṃ hoti, taṃ idhādhippetanti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Teneva atthepi araññaggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Aggepi mūlepi chinnāti ettha ‘‘na veṭhetvā ṭhitā, chinnamatte patanakaṃ sandhāya vutta’’nti vadanti. Tacchetvā ṭhapitoti araññasāmikehi parehi laddhehi tacchetvā ṭhapito. Addhagatopīti cirakālikopi. ‘‘Na gahetabboti araññasāmikehi anuññātenapī’’ti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Challiyā pariyonaddhaṃ hotīti iminā sāmikānaṃ nirapekkhataṃ dīpeti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘gahetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti. Yadi sāmikānaṃ sāpekkhatā atthi, na vaṭṭati.

107. In the commentary on the wilderness section, the term ‘wilderness’ is not intended here again to mean merely the wilderness with the previously stated characteristic; rather, it is stated to show that what is intended here is a wilderness that has been claimed by others. For that very reason, the term ‘wilderness’ is used in the explanation as well. Regarding ‘cut at the top and at the root,’ they say: ‘It does not mean standing entangled; it is said in reference to a tree that would fall as soon as it is cut.’ ‘Adzed and placed’ means it was adzed and placed by others who have obtained it from the owners of the wilderness. ‘Even having reached a long time’ means even after a considerable period. Regarding ‘It should not be taken,’ it is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada: ‘It should not be taken even if permitted by the owners of the wilderness.’ By the phrase ‘it is wrapped with bark,’ the owners’ lack of concern is indicated. Therefore it is said, ‘It is allowable to take.’ If the owners have concern, it is not allowable.

108. Tattha ‘‘bhājanesu pokkharaṇītaḷākesu ca gāvo pakkosatīti ito paṭṭhāya tayo dasa vārā ādimeva dassetvā saṃkhittā’’ti [Pg.131] anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Nibbahanaudakaṃ nāma taḷākarakkhaṇatthāya adhikodakanikkhamanadvārena nikkhamanaudakaṃ. ‘‘Gahetuṃ na labhatīti sāmīcikammaṃ na hotī’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Ito paṭṭhāya ‘‘vutta’’nti vutte anugaṇṭhipadeti gahetabbaṃ. Anikkhante udaketi pāṭhaseso, sukkhamātikāpayogattā bhaṇḍadeyyampi na hotīti adhippāyo. Taḷākaṃ nissāya khettassa katattāti ‘‘sabbasādhāraṇaṃ taḷākaṃ hotī’’ti paṭhamaṃ vuttattā taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Yasmā taḷākagataṃ udakaṃ sabbasādhāraṇampi mātikāya sati taṃ atikkamitvā gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati, tasmā taṃ sandhāya kurundiyādīsu avahāroti vutta’’nti apare āhūti. Iminā lakkhaṇena na sametīti yasmā sabbasādhāraṇadeso nāma tañca taḷākaṃ sabbasādhāraṇaṃ, katikābhāvā ca mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttameva yuttanti āhācariyo.

108. Therein, it is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada: ‘From the passage “in vessels, ponds, and lakes, one calls the cows” onwards, the three ten-fold sections, having been shown only at the beginning, are summarized.’ ‘Outflow-water’ (nibbahanaudaka) is the water that flows out through an outlet for excess water for the purpose of protecting the reservoir. It is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada: ‘One is not able to take it; thus, it is not proper conduct.’ From this point onwards, when ‘it is said’ (vuttaṃ) is stated, it should be understood as ‘in the Anugaṇṭhipada.’ ‘When the water has not flowed out’ is a remainder of the text; the meaning is that because of the effort made in a dry channel, it is not even a case where payment for the goods is required. Because the field was made depending on the reservoir, and because it was first said, ‘the reservoir is for common use,’ it is stated with reference to that. Others say: ‘Because, although the water in the reservoir is for common use, when a channel exists, it is not allowable to take it by going beyond that channel; therefore, with reference to that, it is said in the Kurundī and other commentaries that it is a theft.’ The teacher said: ‘It does not accord with this characteristic, because what is called a place for common use is that very reservoir, which is for common use, and because there is no agreement, what is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā is indeed correct.’

109. ‘‘Tato paṭṭhāya avahāro natthīti theyyāyapi gaṇhato, tasmā yathāmuṇḍamahājetabbattā, arakkhitabbattā, sabbasādhāraṇattā ca aññampi saṅghasantakaṃ idaṃ na hotī’’ti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

109. It is said in the Gaṇṭhipada: ‘From that point onwards, there is no theft, even for one who takes it with the intention to steal; therefore, because it is a thing to be won by shaven-headed monks in any way whatsoever, because it is unguarded, and because it is common to all, this is not other property of the Sangha either.’

110. Ujukameva tiṭṭhatīti ettha ‘‘samīpe rukkhasākhādīhi sandhāritattā īsakaṃ khalitvā ujukameva tiṭṭhati ce, avahāro. Chinnaveṇu viya tiṭṭhati ce, anāpattī’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ suvuttaṃ, tassa vinicchaye ‘‘sace tāni rakkhantī’’ti vuttattā. No aññathāti sampatte ce vāte vātamukhasodhanaṃ karoti, pārājikanti attho.

110. Herein, regarding ‘it stands upright’: It is said, ‘If, because of being supported by nearby tree branches and so on, it stumbles slightly and yet stands upright, it is a theft. If it stands like a cut bamboo, there is no offense.’ That is well said, because in the legal decision concerning crops, it is said, ‘if they guard them.’ Regarding ‘not otherwise’: If, when the wind has come, one clears the path of the wind, it is a pārājika offense; this is the meaning.

111. Aññesu pana vicāraṇā eva natthīti tesu appaṭikkhipitattā ayameva vinicchayoti vuttaṃ hoti. ‘‘Etena dhuranikkhepaṃ katvāpi corehi āhaṭaṃ codetvā gaṇhato anāpattīti dīpitaṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ.

111. However, in other commentaries there is no deliberation on this; because it is not rejected in them, it is said that this very decision is the one. It is said: ‘By this, it is shown that even having laid down the burden, for one who demands and takes what was brought by thieves, there is no offense.’

112. Eseva nayoti uddhāreyeva pārājikaṃ, kasmā? Aññehi pattehi sādhāraṇassa saññāṇassa vuttattā. Padavārenāti corena nīharitvā dinnaṃ gahetvā gacchato. Gāmadvāranti vohāramattameva, gāmanti attho āṇattiyā daṭṭhabbattā, dvinnampi uddhāre eva pārājikaṃ. Asukaṃ [Pg.132] nāma gāmaṃ gantvāti vacanena yāva tassa gāmassa parato upacāro, sabbametaṃ āṇattameva hoti. ‘‘Ṭhatvā vā nisīditvā vā vissamitvā purimatheyyacittaṃ vūpasamitvā gamanatthañce bhaṇḍaṃ na nikkhittaṃ, yathāgahitameva, padavārena kāretabboti, nikkhittañce, uddhārenā’’ti ca likhitaṃ. Kevalaṃ ‘‘likhita’’nti vutte gaṇṭhipade gahetabbaṃ. Theyyacittena paribhuñjantoti ṭhānācāvanaṃ akatvā nivatthapārutanīhārena ‘‘pubbevedaṃ mayā gahita’’nti theyyacittena paribhuñjanto. ‘‘Naṭṭhe bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ kirā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Añño vā’’ti vacanena yena ṭhapitaṃ, tena dinne anāpattīti dīpitaṃ hoti gopakassa dāne viya, ‘‘kevalaṃ idha bhaṇḍadeyyanti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Añño vā’’ti vacanato yena ṭhapitaṃ. So vātipi labbhatīti vicāretvā gahetabbo. Vā-saddena yassa hatthe ṭhapitaṃ, so vā deti rājagahe gaṇako viya dhaniyassa, tasmā pārājikaṃ yuttaṃ viya.

112. This is the method: a Pārājika offense is incurred in the very lifting. Why? Because a common perception with other bowls is stated. 'By the sequence of steps' refers to a monk who is going, having taken what was brought out and given by a thief. 'Village entrance' is merely a conventional expression; the meaning is 'village'. Because it is to be understood by command, for both, the Pārājika offense is in the very lifting. By the words, 'Having gone to such-and-such village,' as far as the vicinity beyond that village extends, all this is the designated place of command. It is written: 'Whether standing, sitting, or resting, if the previous thieving intention has subsided and the goods have not been put down for the purpose of going, it should be effected by the sequence of steps, just as it was taken. But if it has been put down, then by lifting.' When it is merely said 'it is written,' it should be understood as 'in the Gaṇṭhipada.' 'One who uses it with a thieving intention' means: without having moved it from its place, one uses it with a thieving intention by the mode of wearing and draping it, thinking, 'This was taken by me before.' It is written: 'If it is lost, it is, it seems, a case for restitution of goods.' By the words 'Or another,' it is shown that if it is given by the one by whom it was placed, there is no offense, as in the case of the gift from the park-keeper. It is said: 'Others say, "In this case, it is merely a case for restitution of goods."' Because of the words 'Or another,' it is the one by whom it was placed. That he alone receives it should be understood after deliberation. By the word 'or,' he in whose hand it was placed, or he gives it, like the forester in Rājagaha to Dhaniya. Therefore, a Pārājika offense seems fitting.

Tava thūlasāṭako laddhoti vuttakkhaṇe musāvāde dukkaṭaṃ. Tassa nāmaṃ likhitvāti ettha ‘‘tena ‘gahetvā ṭhapeyyāsī’ti āṇattattā nāmalekhanakāle anāpatti kusasaṅkamanasadisaṃ na hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Na jānantīti na suṇantīti attho. Sace jānitvāpi cittena na sampaṭicchanti eseva nayo. Jānantena pana rakkhituṃ anicchante paṭikkhipitabbameva etanti vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Ummaggenāti purāpāṇaṃ khaṇitvā katamaggenāti attho.

At the moment of saying, ‘You have received a coarse robe,’ there is a Dukkaṭa offense for false speech. Regarding the phrase ‘having written his name,’ it is said here: ‘Since he was instructed, “Take and place it,” there is no offense at the time of writing the name; it is not like the transfer by kusa-grass token.’ ‘They do not know’ means ‘they do not hear.’ If, even knowing, they do not accept it with their mind, this is the same principle. However, by one who knows but does not wish to guard it, it must indeed be refused; this rule should be known. ‘By the tunnel’ means by a path made by digging an ancient pit; this is the meaning.

Nissitavārikassa pana sabhāgā bhattaṃ denti, tasmā yathā vihāre panti, tatheva kātabbanti sampattavāraṃ aggahetuṃ na labhanti, ‘‘tassa vā sabhāgā adātuṃ na labhantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Attadutiyassāti na hi ekenānītaṃ dvinnaṃ pahoti, sace pahoti pāpetabboti dassetuṃ ‘‘yassa vā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Paripucchaṃ detīti pucchitapañhassa vissajjanaṃ karotī’’ti likhitaṃ. Saṅghassa bhāraṃ nāma ‘‘saddhammavācanā evā’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘navakammikopi vuccatī’’ti ca, ‘‘ito bhaṇḍato vaṭṭantaṃ puna anto pavisatīti mahāaṭṭhakathāpadassa kurundīsaṅkhepaṭṭhakathāhi adhippāyo vivarito’’ti likhitaṃ.

However, for a dependent monk on duty, his fellow monks provide food; therefore, just as there is a line in the monastery, so it should be done. Thus, they are not permitted to refuse the turn when it arrives, and it is said: 'Or his fellow monks are not permitted to withhold it.' Regarding one with a companion: since what is brought by one is not sufficient for two, if it is sufficient, it should be made to reach them—to show this, 'or to whomsoever,' etc., is said. It is written in the Gaṇṭhipada: '"Giving an inquiry" means "he gives the answer to a question asked."' The burden of the Saṅgha, it is said, is 'only the recitation of the True Dhamma,' and it is also said to be 'one who undertakes new works.' It is written: '"From this bundle of goods, rolling, it enters inside again"—the meaning of this phrase from the Mahāaṭṭhakathā is explained by the Kurundī and Saṅkhepaṭṭhakathās.'

113. Gacchante yāne vāti ettha ‘‘suṅkaṭṭhānassa bahi ṭhitaṃ sandhāya vutta’’nti upatissatthero vadati kira. ‘‘Gacchante yāne vātiādi suṅkaṭṭhānabbhantare [Pg.133] gahetabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Bahi ṭhitassa vattabbameva natthi, ‘‘anto ṭhatvā’’ti adhikāre vuttattā ceti yuttaṃ – yānādīsu ṭhapite tassa payogaṃ vināyeva gatesu pārājiko na hoti. Kasmā na bhaṇḍadeyyanti ce? Suṅkaṭṭhānassa bahi ṭhitattā. Araññaṭṭhe ‘‘assatiyā atikkamantassapi bhaṇḍadeyyamevā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.107) vuttaṃ tesaṃ sapariggahitattā. Idha pana ‘‘atra paviṭṭhassā’’ti vacanato na bahi ṭhitassa, taṃ kira suṅkasaṅketaṃ. Aññaṃ harāpetīti tattha ‘‘sahatthā’’ti vacanato anāpatti. Nissaggiyāni hontīti aṭṭhakathāto pācittiyaṃ, upacāraṃ okkamitvā pariharaṇe sādīnavattā dukkaṭaṃ.

113. Regarding the phrase 'or on a moving vehicle,' the Elder Upatissa, it is said, states: 'This was said in reference to being situated outside the customs post.' It is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada: '“Or on a moving vehicle,” and so on, should be understood as within the customs post.' For one situated outside, there is nothing to be said, because it is stated in the section on 'standing inside'; this is correct. When goods placed in vehicles and so on are carried away without his effort, there is no Pārājika offense. If it is asked, 'Why are they not dutiable goods?' It is because of being situated outside the customs post. In the section on the forest, it is said: 'For one who crosses over due to mindlessness, they are indeed dutiable goods,' because those goods are possessed. Here, however, because of the phrase 'for one who has entered here,' it is not a customs post for one standing outside; that, it is said, is the demarcated customs area. Regarding 'he has another carry it,' there, because of the phrase 'with one's own hand,' there is no offense. Regarding 'they become forfeitable,' according to the Commentary, it is a Pācittiya offense. Having entered the vicinity, for avoiding it, due to the fault involved, there is a Dukkaṭa offense.

Suṅkaṭṭhāne suṅkaṃ datvāva gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti idaṃ dāni vattabbānaṃ mātikāti dhammasiritthero. ‘‘Anurādhapurassa catūsu dvāresu suṅkaṃ gaṇhanti, tesu dakkhiṇadvārassa purato maggo thūpārāmato ānandacetiyaṃ padakkhiṇaṃ katvā jetavanavihārassantarapākārassāsanne niviṭṭho, yo na gāmaṃ pavisanto upacāraṃ okkanto hoti. Thūpārāmato ca mahācetiyaṃ padakkhiṇaṃ katvā rājavihāraṃ gacchanto na okkamatī’’ti kira mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgataṃ. Ettha cāti suṅkaghāte ‘‘dvīhi leḍḍupātehīti ācariyaparamparābhatā’’ti likhitaṃ. Dvīhi leḍḍupātehīti suṅkaghātassa paricchede aṭṭhapite yujjati, ṭhapite pana atirekayojanampi suṅkaghātaṃ hotīti tato paraṃ dve leḍḍupātā upacāroti gahetabbo. So panetthāpi duvidho bāhirabbhantarabhedato. Tattha dutiyaleḍḍupātasaṅkhātaṃ bāhiropacāraṃ sandhāya pāḷiyaṃ, mahāaṭṭhakathāyañca dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Abbhantaraṃ sandhāya kurundiyanti no khanti. ‘‘Atra paviṭṭhassa suṅkaṃ gaṇhantūti hi niyamitaṭṭhānaṃ ekantato pārājikakhettaṃ hoti, tañca parikkhittaṃ, eko leḍḍupāto dukkaṭakhettaṃ, aparikkhittañce, dutiyo leḍḍupātoti no adhippāyo’’ti ācariyo vadati.

The Elder Dhammasiri said that this phrase, 'Having paid the toll at the toll station, one is permitted to go,' is now the matrix for the statements to be made. It is said to be stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā: 'At the four gates of Anuradhapura, they collect the toll. The road in front of the southern gate, having circumambulated the Ānandacetiya from the Thūpārāma, is established near the inner wall of the Jetavana monastery. One who, while entering the village, does not enter the vicinity; and one going to the royal monastery, having circumambulated the Mahācetiya from the Thūpārāma, does not enter it.' Here, regarding the toll-collection point, it is written: 'by two stone-throws, as handed down by the lineage of teachers'. The phrase 'by two stone-throws' is suitable when the boundary of the toll-collection point is not established. When it is established, however, the toll-collection point can be even more than a yojana; therefore, beyond that, two stone-throws should be understood as the vicinity. That vicinity, here too, is twofold, by the division of external and internal. Therein, with reference to the external vicinity, designated as the second stone-throw, a Dukkaṭa offense is stated in the Pāḷi and in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. With reference to the internal vicinity, in the Kurundī it is said to be a theft; this is our preference. The teacher says: 'The place designated by "Let them collect the toll from one who has entered here" is definitely the field of a Pārājika offense, and it is enclosed. One stone-throw is the field of a Dukkaṭa offense. If it is unenclosed, the second stone-throw is our intention.'

114. Dhanaṃ pana gataṭṭhāne vaḍḍhatīti ettha ‘‘vaḍḍhiyā saha avahārakassa bhaṇḍadeyya’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Taṃ vaḍḍhiṃ dassāmī’’ti aggahesi, tattha kammaṃ akarontassa vaḍḍhatīti katvā vuttaṃ. Kevalaṃ āṭhapitakhettassa na vaḍḍhati. ‘‘Yaṃ dhanaṃ vaḍḍhi, taṃ dentassa avahārakassa vaḍḍhiyā adāne pārājikaṃ hotī’’ti vadanti.

114. Here, regarding 'wealth, however, increases in the place it has gone,' it is written: 'The goods should be given to the thief along with the increase.' If he took it, thinking, 'I will give that increase,' it is said because it increases for one who does not perform work there. It does not increase for a field merely established. They say: 'When wealth has increased, for the thief who is giving it, not giving the increase becomes a pārājika offense.'

Nāmenāti [Pg.134] sappanāmena vā sāmikena katena vā.

'By name' means either by the snake's name or by a name given by its owner.

116. Rājagharassa antovatthumhi, parikkhittarājaṅgaṇaṃ vā antovatthu. Aparikkhitte rājaṅgaṇe ṭhitassa sakalanagaraṃ ṭhānaṃ. Goṇassa ‘‘aparikkhitte ṭhitassa akkantaṭṭhānameva ṭhāna’’nti vuttattā khaṇḍadvāranti attanā khaṇḍitacchiddaṃ. Tattheva ghātetīti ‘‘jīvitindriyārammaṇattā vadhakacittassa pācittiyaṃ hotīti? Na hoti. Kasmā? Adinnādānapayogattā. Tampi theyyacittaṃ saṅkhārārammaṇaṃva hoti. Idha tadubhayaṃ labhati saddhiṃ pubbabhāgāparabhāgehī’’ti vuttaṃ.

116. Within the inner area of the royal residence, or an enclosed royal courtyard, is the inner area. For one standing in an unenclosed royal courtyard, the entire city is the place. Regarding an ox, since it is said, 'For one standing in an unenclosed area, the very spot it treads is its place,' 'khaṇḍadvāra' (broken gate) means a breach broken by oneself. As for killing it right there: 'Does a pācittiya offense occur because the killing thought has the life faculty as its object?' 'No, it does not. Why? Because it is an act of taking what is not given. That thought of theft also has mental formations as its object. Here, one obtains both, together with the preliminary and subsequent parts,' it is said.

118. Tassuddhāre sabbesaṃ pārājikanti yadi yo āṇatto avassaṃ taṃ bhaṇḍaṃ harati, āṇattikkhaṇe eva pārājikaṃ. ‘‘Idha tiṇṇaṃ kasmā pārājikaṃ, nanu ‘tumhe, bhante, tayo harathā’ti vuttattā thullaccayaṃ, itaresañca paṭipāṭiyā ekekassāṇattattā ekekena ca dukkaṭena bhavitabbaṃ. Kathaṃ, eko kira māsagghanakaṃ parissāvanaṃ thenetvā desetvā nirussāho eva vā hutvā puna māsagghanakaṃ sūciṃ tatheva katvā puna māsagghanakanti evaṃ siyāti? Na evaṃ, taṃ yathā uppalathenako yena vatthu pūrati tāva saussāhattā pārājiko āsi, evamime saussāhāva na desayiṃsu vā’’ti likhitaṃ, pāḷiyaṃ, aṭṭhakathāyañca saṃvidahitvā gatesu ekassuddhāre sabbesaṃ pārājikaṃ vinā viya āṇattiyā kiñcāpi vuttaṃ, atha kho ‘‘tassāyaṃ attho’’ti vatvā pacchā vuttavinicchayesu ca ekabhaṇḍaekaṭṭhānādīsu ca sambahulā ekaṃ āṇāpentīti āṇattimeva niyametvā vuttaṃ, tasmā āṇatti icchitabbā viya, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. ‘‘‘Ekabhaṇḍaṃ ekaṭṭhāna’nti ca pāṭho ‘ekakulassa bhaṇḍa’nti vacanato’’ti vadanti.

118. 'Upon its removal, it is a pārājika for all' means that if the one who was instructed inevitably takes those goods, it is a pārājika for all at the very moment of instruction. It is written: 'Here, why is it a pārājika for the three? Should it not be a thullaccaya, since it was said, "Venerable sirs, you three take it"? And for the others, since each was instructed in turn, should it not be a dukkaṭa for each? How so? Is it like the case where one steals a water-strainer worth a māsaka and confesses it, or becomes unenthusiastic, then does the same with a needle worth a māsaka, and again with something worth a māsaka? It is not so. Just as the lotus-thief incurred a pārājika because he remained enthusiastic until the required value was completed, similarly, these monks were enthusiastic and did not confess.' In the Pāḷi and the Aṭṭhakathā, although it is said that among those who go after conspiring, upon the removal by one, it is a pārājika for all, as if without an instruction, nevertheless, having said 'this is its meaning,' in the subsequently stated legal decisions and in cases of a single item at a single location, etc., it was stated by defining it specifically as an instruction, because many monks instruct one. Therefore, an instruction seems to be required; this should be investigated. They say that the reading 'a single item, a single location' exists on the authority of the phrase 'the goods of a single family.'

119-120. Ocarake vuttanayenevāti avassaṃhāriye bhaṇḍe. Taṃ saṅketanti tassa saṅketassa. Atha vā taṃ saṅketaṃ atikkamitvā pacchā vā. Apatvā pure vā. Esa nayo taṃ nimittanti etthāpi. Akkhinikhaṇanādikammaṃ lahukaṃ ittarakālaṃ, taṅkhaṇe eva bhaṇḍaṃ avaharituṃ na sakkā, kiñci bhaṇḍaṃ dūraṃ hoti, kiñci bhāriyaṃ, taṃ gahetuṃ yāva gacchati yāva ukkhipati, tāva nimittassa pacchā hoti. Sace taṃ bhaṇḍaṃ adhigataṃ [Pg.135] viya āsannaṃ, lahukañca, sakkā nimittakkhaṇe avaharituṃ, tameva sandhāya vuttaṃ kinti? Na, pubbe vuttampi ‘‘tato paṭṭhāya teneva nimittena avaharatī’’ti vuccati āraddhattā. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘purebhattapayogo eso’’ti vāro pamāṇaṃ hoti, na ca taṃ pamāṇaṃ mahāpadumattheravādassa pacchā vuttattā, na saṅketakammaṃ viya nimittakammaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tattha hi kālaparicchedo atthi, idha natthi, idameva tesaṃ nānattaṃ.

119-120. By the method stated in the section on the spy, regarding goods that must certainly be taken. In the phrase 'that agreement' (taṃ saṅketaṃ), it means 'of that appointed time.' Or alternatively, having surpassed that appointed time, taking it afterwards; or not having reached it, taking it beforehand. This is the method also in the phrase 'that sign.' An act such as winking the eye is swift and of short duration; at that very moment, it is not possible to steal the goods. Some goods are far, some are heavy. By the time one goes to take them or lifts them, it is already after the sign. If those goods are nearby as if already obtained, and are light, it is possible to steal them at the moment of the sign. Was it said with reference to just that? No. Even regarding the previously mentioned case, it is said: 'From then on, one steals with that very sign,' because the act has been initiated. If so, the opinion, 'This is a pre-meal undertaking,' becomes the authority. But that is not the authority, because it was stated after the view of the Elder Mahāpaduma. The act by sign should not be regarded like the act by agreement. For in that case, a time-limit exists; here, there is not. This itself is the difference between them.

121. Tañca asammohatthanti eko ‘‘purebhattādīsu vā, akkhinikhaṇanādīni vā disvā gaṇhā’’ti, eko gahetabbaṃ bhaṇḍanissitaṃ katvā ‘‘purebhattaṃ evaṃ vaṇṇasaṇṭhānaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ gaṇhā’’ti vadati, evaṃvidhesu asammohatthaṃ evaṃvidhaṃ saṅketaṃ nimittañca dassetunti ca, yathādhippāyanti dutiyo tatiyassa tatiyo catutthassāti evaṃ paṭipāṭiyā ce vadantīti attho. Sace dutiyo catutthassa vadeti, na yathādhippāyoti ca. ‘‘Paṭiggahitamatteti avassaṃ ce paṭiggaṇhāti, pubbeva thullaccaya’’nti ca likhitaṃ. Paṭiggaṇhakānaṃ dukkaṭaṃ sabbatthokāsābhāvato na vuttaṃ. Pārājikāpajjanenetaṃ dukkaṭaṃ āpajjitvā āpajjanti kira. Atthasādhakāṇatticetanākhaṇe eva pārājiko hotīti adhippāyo. Tattha maggaṭṭhāniyaṃ kataraṃ, kataraṃ phalaṭṭhāniyanti ‘‘atthasādhakacetanā nāma maggānantaraphalasadisā’’ti vuttattā phalaṭṭhāniyā cetanāti siddhaṃ. Āṇatti ce maggaṭṭhāniyā siyā, cetanāsahajattā na sambhavati, tathā bhaṇḍassa avassaṃhāritā ca na sambhavati. Āṇattikkhaṇe eva hi taṃ avassaṃhāritaṃ jātanti avahārakassa paṭiggaṇhañce, tampi na sambhavati anāgatattā. Cetanā ce maggaṭṭhāniyā hoti, āṇattiādīsu aññataraṃ, bhaṇḍassa avassaṃhāritā eva vā phalaṭṭhāniyā ce, attho na sambhavati. Pārājikāpatti eva hi phalaṭṭhāniyā bhavitumarahati, na aññanti evaṃ tāva idha opammasaṃsandanaṃ sambhavati cetanā maggaṭṭhāniyā, tassā pārājikāpattibhāvo phalaṭṭhāniyo. Yathā kiṃ? Yathā paṭisambhidāmagge ‘‘saddhāya ñāṇaṃ dhammapaṭisambhidā. Saddhāya saddatthe ñāṇaṃ atthapaṭisambhidā’’ti ettha añño saddho, añño saddhāya saddatthoti siddhaṃ, yathā ca ‘‘eko amohasaṅkhāto dhammo sampayuttakānaṃ dhammānaṃ hetupaccayena paccayo [Pg.136] adhipatisahajātaaññamaññanissayaindriyamaggasampayuttaatthiavigatapaccayena paccayo’’ti ettha amoho dhammo añño, aññe tassa hetupaccayatādayoti siddhaṃ. Yathā ca vinayapiṭake yāni cha āpattisamuṭṭhānāni, evaṃ yathāsambhavaṃ ‘‘satta āpattikkhandhā’’ti vuccanti, tesaṃ aññā āpattisamuṭṭhānatā, añño āpattikkhandhabhāvoti siddhaṃ. Iminā āpattikkhandhanayena āpattādhikaraṇassa kati ṭhānānīti? Satta āpattikkhandhā ṭhānānīti. Kati vatthūnīti? Satta āpattikkhandhā vatthūnīti. Kati bhūmiyoti? Satta āpattikkhandhā bhūmiyoti evamādayopi dassetabbā. Tathā hi tassā evaṃ maggaṭṭhāniyāya atthasādhikāya cetanāya yasmā aññā pārājikāpattitā anatthantarabhūtā ākāravisesasaṅkhātā phalaṭṭhāniyā atthi, tasmā ‘‘atthasādhakacetanā nāma maggānantaraphalasadisā’’ti vuttāti veditabbaṃ. Atha vā kevalaṃ dhammaniyāmattaṃyeva upamattena ācariyena evaṃ vuttantipi sambhavatīti na tattha opammasaṃsandanaṃ pariyesitabbaṃ, ‘‘idaṃ sabbaṃ kevalaṃ takkavasena vuttattā vicāretvā gahetabba’’nti ācariyo.

121. And that is for the purpose of non-confusion—one says, “Take it, having seen things like pre-meal items or the winking of an eye, etc.,” another, making it dependent on the article to be taken, says, “At the pre-meal time, take the article of such a color and shape.” Thus, it is to show such a sign and such a mark for the purpose of non-confusion in such cases. And as for ‘as intended,’ if the second speaks to the third, the third to the fourth, and so on in sequence—this is the meaning. If the second speaks to the fourth, it is not as intended. A dukkaṭa offense for the receivers is not stated because there is no opportunity everywhere. It is said that they incur the pārājika offense, having first incurred this dukkaṭa offense in the process. The intention is that one becomes subject to a pārājika offense at the very moment of the volition of the instruction that accomplishes the purpose. Therein, which is path-like, which is fruit-like? Since it is said, “The volition that accomplishes the purpose is similar to the fruit immediately following the path,” it is established that the volition is fruit-like. If the instruction were path-like, it would not be possible, because it is co-nascent with volition; and likewise, the certainty of the article being carried away would not be possible. For at the very moment of the instruction, it would have to be certainly taken; and if the taker accepts, that too is not possible, because it is in the future. If the volition were path-like, and either the instruction or something else, or the certainty of the article being carried away itself, were fruit-like, the meaning would not be possible. For the pārājika offense itself ought to be fruit-like, not anything else. Thus, here the connection of the simile is possible: volition is path-like, and its state of being a pārājika offense is fruit-like. Like what? Just as in the Paṭisambhidāmagga: “Knowledge in faith is the discrimination of phenomena. Knowledge in the meaning of the word 'faith' by faith is the discrimination of meaning”—here, faith is one thing, and the meaning of the word 'faith' by faith is another—this is established. And just as: “One phenomenon called non-delusion is a condition for associated phenomena by way of root condition, dominance, co-nascence, mutuality, support, faculty, path, association, presence, and non-disappearance conditions”—here, the phenomenon of non-delusion is one thing, and its being a root condition, etc., are other things—this is established. And just as in the Vinaya Piṭaka, the six origins of offenses are, as appropriate, called “the seven aggregates of offenses”—here, their being an origin of offenses is one thing, and their state of being an aggregate of offenses is another—this is established. By this method of the aggregates of offenses: “How many grounds are there for the legal issue of an offense?” “The seven aggregates of offenses are the grounds.” “How many bases?” “The seven aggregates of offenses are the bases.” “How many levels?” “The seven aggregates of offenses are the levels”—thus, these and others should also be shown. For indeed, from that very volition which is path-like and accomplishes the purpose, there is another state of being a pārājika offense, which is not different in essence, is designated as a particular mode, and is fruit-like. Therefore, it should be understood that it was said, “The volition that accomplishes the purpose is similar to the fruit immediately following the path.” Or else, it is also possible that the teacher spoke thus merely by way of simile, simply as a regularity of phenomena, and therefore the connection of the simile should not be sought there. The teacher says, “All this is stated merely on the basis of reasoning—it should be accepted after investigation.”

Bhūmaṭṭhakathādivaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Bhūmaṭṭhakathā and so forth is concluded.

Āpattibhedavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Divisions of Offenses

122. ‘‘Vibhaṅganayadassanato’’ti vuttattā taṃ sampādetuṃ ‘‘idāni tattha tatthā’’tiādi āraddhaṃ. Tattha aṅgavatthubhedena cāti avahāraṅgajānanabhedena vatthussa haritabbabhaṇḍassa garukalahukabhāvabhedenāti attho. Atha vā aṅgañca vatthubhedena āpattibhedañca dassentoti attho. Atirekamāsako ūnapañcamāsakoti ettha vā-saddo na vutto, tīhipi eko eva paricchedo vuttoti. Anajjhāvuṭṭhakaṃ nāma araññapālakādinā na kenaci mamāyitaṃ. Chaḍḍitaṃ nāma anatthikabhāvena atirekamattādinā sāmikena chaḍḍitaṃ. Naṭṭhaṃ pariyesitvā chinnālayattā chinnamūlakaṃ. Assāmikavatthūti acchinnamūlakampi yassa sāmiko koci no hoti, nirapekkhā vā pariccajanti, yaṃ vā pariccattaṃ devatādīnaṃ, idaṃ sabbaṃ assāmikavatthu nāma. Devatādīnaṃ vā buddhadhammānaṃ vā pariccattaṃ parehi [Pg.137] ce ārakkhakehi pariggahitaṃ, parapariggahitameva. Tathārūpe hi adinnādāne rājāno coraṃ gahetvā hananādikaṃ kareyyuṃ, anārakkhake pana āvāse, abhikkhuke anārāmikādike ca yaṃ buddhadhammassa santakaṃ, taṃ ‘‘āgatāgatehi bhikkhūhi rakkhitabbaṃ gopetabbaṃ mamāyitabba’’nti vacanato abhikkhukāvāsasaṅghasantakaṃ viya parapariggahitasaṅkhyameva gacchatīti chāyā dissati. Issaro hi yo koci bhikkhu tādise parikkhāre corehipi gayhamāne vāretuṃ paṭibalo ce, balakkārena acchinditvā yathāṭhāne ṭhapetunti. Apariggahite parasantakasaññissa chasu ākāresu vijjamānesupi anāpatti viya dissati, ‘‘yaṃ parapariggahitañca hotī’’ti aṅgabhāvo kiñcāpi dissati, parasantake tathā paṭipannake sandhāya vuttanti gahetabbaṃ. Attano santakaṃ corehi haṭaṃ, corapariggahitattā parapariggahitaṃ hoti, tasmā paro cetaṃ theyyacitto gaṇhati, pārājikaṃ. Sāmiko eva ce gaṇhati, na pārājikaṃ, yasmā codetvā, acchinditvā ca so ‘‘mama santakaṃ gaṇhāmī’’ti gahetuṃ labhati. Paṭhamaṃ dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā ce pacchā theyyacitto gaṇhati, esa nayo. Sāmikena dhuraṃ nikkhittakāle so ce coro kālaṃ karoti, añño theyyacittena gaṇhati, na pārājiko. Anikkhittakāle eva ce kālaṃ karoti, taṃ theyyacittena gaṇhantassa bhikkhuno pārājikaṃ mūlabhikkhussa santakabhāve ṭhitattā. Corabhikkhumhi mate ‘‘matakaparikkhāra’’nti saṅgho vibhajitvā ce taṃ gaṇhati, mūlasāmiko ‘‘mama santakamida’’nti gahetuṃ labhati.

122. Because it was said, “By seeing the method of analysis,” in order to fulfill that, “now here and there,” etc., was begun. Therein, regarding “by the division of factors and objects,” the meaning is: by the division of knowing the factors of theft, and by the division of the object—the article to be taken away—into heavy and light states. Alternatively, the meaning is: showing both the factors and the division of offenses by way of the division of the object. Herein, regarding “an excess of a māsaka or less than five māsakas,” the word “or” (vā) is not stated; it should be understood that by all three phrases, only one single category is spoken of. “Unoccupied” (anajjhāvuṭṭhakaṃ) means not cherished by anyone, such as a forest guard, etc. “Discarded” (chaḍḍitaṃ) means abandoned by the owner due to not wanting it, or by one who has an excess, etc. A “lost” (naṭṭhaṃ) item, after having been searched for, has its root cut off because attachment to it has been severed. Regarding an “ownerless object” (assāmikavatthu): even if its root of attachment is not cut off, it is that for which there is no owner whatsoever; or which people relinquish without concern; or that which is dedicated to deities, etc. All this is called an “ownerless object.” If something dedicated to deities, etc., or to the Buddha and Dhamma, is taken possession of by other guardians, it is indeed considered as possessed by others. Indeed, for such a theft, kings, having seized the thief, would inflict punishments such as execution. Furthermore, in an unprotected residence, in one without a bhikkhu, or in a place without monastery attendants, etc., whatever property belongs to the Buddha and Dhamma—because of the saying, “It should be guarded, protected, and cherished by whatever bhikkhus come and go”—it is reckoned as “possessed by others,” just like the property of the Sangha in a residence without a bhikkhu. This is the semblance that appears. Indeed, if any bhikkhu in authority is capable of preventing such requisites from being taken even by thieves, he should forcibly seize them back and restore them to their proper place. In the case of an unpossessed item, for one who perceives it as belonging to another, even though the six factors are present, it appears as if there is no offense. Although the status as a factor, “and what is possessed by another,” is seen, it should be understood that this was said in reference to those who act thus with regard to another's property. If one's own property is stolen by thieves, because it has been taken possession of by the thieves, it becomes “possessed by others.” Therefore, if another person takes it with thieving intent, it is a pārājika offense. But if the owner himself takes it, it is not a pārājika, because he is permitted to take it by demanding it back or by seizing it, thinking, “I am taking my own property.” If, having first put down the burden, he afterwards takes it with thieving intent, this is the method. At the time when the owner has abandoned the claim, if that thief dies, and another takes it with thieving intent, he is not a pārājika offender. But if the thief dies at the very time before the claim is abandoned, for a bhikkhu who takes it with thieving intent, it is a pārājika, because it remains in the state of being the property of the original bhikkhu. When the thief-bhikkhu dies, if the Sangha, having divided it thinking it is the “requisites of the deceased,” takes it, the original owner is permitted to take it, saying, “This is my property.”

Etthāha – bhūmaṭṭhādinimittakammapariyosānā eva avahārabhedā, udāhu aññepi santīti. Kiñcettha yadi aññepi santi, tepi vattabbā. Na hi bhagavā sāvasesaṃ pārājikaṃ paññapeti. No ce santi, ye ime tulākūṭakaṃsakūṭamānakūṭaukkoṭanavañcananikatisāciyogaviparāmosaālopasāhasākārā ca suttaṅgesu sandissamānā, te idha āgatesu ettha samodhānaṃ gacchantīti ca lakkhaṇato vā tesaṃ samodhānagatabhāvo vattabboti? Vuccate – lakkhaṇato siddhova. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Pañcahi ākārehī’’tiādinā nayena aṅgavatthubhedena. Āpattibhedo hi pāḷiyaṃ (pārā. 128-130) vutto eva, aṭṭhakathāyañca ‘‘kūṭamānakūṭakahāpaṇādīhi vā vañcetvā gaṇhati, tassevaṃ gaṇhato avahāro theyyāvahāro’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.138; kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyapārājikavaṇṇanā) [Pg.138] āgatattā tulākūṭagahaṇādayo theyyāvahāre samodhānaṃ gatāti siddhaṃ. Viparāmosaālopasāhasākārā ca aṭṭhakathāyāgate pasayhāvahāre samodhānaṃ gacchanti. Imaṃyeva vā pasayhāvahāraṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘gāmaṭṭhaṃ araññaṭṭha’’nti mātikaṃ nikkhipitvā ‘‘gāmaṭṭhaṃ nāma bhaṇḍaṃ catūhi ṭhānehi nikkhittaṃ hotī’’tiādinā nayena vibhāgo vutto. Tenedaṃ vuttaṃ hoti – gahaṇākārabhedasandassanatthaṃ visuṃ kataṃ. Na hi bhūmitalādīhi gāmāraññaṭṭhaṃ yaṃ kiñcīti. Tattha yaṃ tulākūṭaṃ, taṃ rūpakūṭaṅgagahaṇapaṭicchannakūṭavasena catubbidhampi vehāsaṭṭhe samodhānaṃ gacchati. Hadayabhedasikhābhedarajjubhedavasena tividhe mānakūṭe ‘‘svāyaṃ hadayabhedo mariyādaṃ chindatī’’ti ettha samodhānaṃ gacchati. Hadayabhedo hi sappitelādiminanakāle labbhati. ‘‘Phandāpeti attano bhājanagataṃ karotī’’ti ettha sikhābhedopi labbhati. So ‘‘tilataṇḍulādiminanakāle labbhatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Khettaminanakāle rajjubhedo samodhānaṃ gacchati. ‘‘Dhammaṃ caranto sāmikaṃ parājetī’’ti ettha ukkoṭanaṃ samodhānaṃ gacchatīti te ca tathā vañcananikatiyopi.

Here it is asked: Are the distinctions of theft only those beginning with 'situated on the ground' and ending with 'an act as a sign,' or are there others as well? And here, if there are others, they too should be stated. For the Blessed One does not lay down the Pārājika rule with anything remaining. If there are not, then as for these—such as theft by false weights, false coins, false measures, extortion, deception, fraud, crooked practice, snatching, plundering, and violent acts—which are seen in the collections of Suttas, are they included here among those that have been mentioned? Or should their state of being included be stated according to their characteristic? It is stated: It is indeed established by way of characteristic. How? By the method beginning with 'in five ways,' through the distinction of factor and object. For the distinction of offenses is indeed stated in the Pāli, and in the commentary, because it is stated, 'One takes by deceiving with false weights, false measures, false coins, and so on; for one taking thus, the taking is theft-taking,' it is established that taking by false weights and so on are included in theft-taking. Snatching, plundering, and violent acts are included in theft by force, which is mentioned in the commentary. Or, to show this very theft by force, having laid down the matrix 'situated in a village, situated in a forest,' the detailed explanation is stated by the method beginning with, 'An article situated in a village is placed in four locations.' By that, this is said: It was done separately in order to show the distinction in the manner of taking. For there is nothing situated in a village or forest that is apart from those beginning with 'on the ground.' Among these, as for theft by false weights, it is of four kinds—by way of fraud by appearance, fraud by parts, fraud by handling, and concealed fraud—all are included under [theft of] an object in the air. Among the three kinds of theft by false measures—by way of breaking the heart, breaking the peak, and breaking the rope—'breaking the heart' is included in 'this one breaks the boundary.' For 'breaking the heart' is found when measuring ghee, oil, and so on. 'Breaking the peak' is also found in 'he makes it shake and go into his own vessel.' It is said that this is found when measuring sesame, rice, and so on. 'Breaking the rope' is included when measuring a field. 'Extortion' is included in 'practicing the law, he defeats the owner.' And likewise, deception and fraud are also included.

Āpattibhedavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the classification of offenses is concluded.

Anāpattibhedavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Classification of Non-Offenses

131. Na ca gahite attamano hoti, tassa santakaṃ vissāsagāhena gahitampi puna dātabbanti idaṃ ‘‘tena kho pana samayena dve bhikkhū sahāyakā honti. Eko gāmaṃ piṇḍāya pāvisi…pe… anāpatti, bhikkhu, vissāsaggāhe’’ti (pārā. 146) iminā asamentaṃ viya dissati. Ettha hi ‘‘so jānitvā taṃ codesi assamaṇosi tva’’nti vacanena anattamanatā dīpitā. Puna ‘‘anāpatti, bhikkhu, vissāsaggāhe’’ti vacanena attamanatāyapi sati vissāsaggāho ruhatīti dīpitanti ce? Taṃ na, aññathā gahetabbatthato. Ayañhettha attho – pārājikāpattiyā anāpatti vissāsasaññāya gāhe sati, sopi bhikkhu sahāyakattā na kuddho codesi, piyo eva samāno ‘‘kacci assamaṇosi tvaṃ, gaccha, vinicchayaṃ katvā [Pg.139] suddhante tiṭṭhāhī’’ti codesi. Sacepi so kuddho eva codeyya, ‘‘anāpattī’’ti idaṃ kevalaṃ pārājikābhāvaṃ dīpeti, na vissāsaggāhasiddhaṃ. Yo pana parisamajjhe lajjāya adhivāseti, na kiñci vadatīti attho. ‘‘Punavattukāmatādhippāye pana sopi paccāharāpetuṃ labhatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sace coro pasayha gahetukāmopi ‘‘adhivāsetha, bhante, idha me cīvarānī’’ti vatvā cīvarāni therena dinnāni, adinnāni vā sayaṃ gahetvā gacchati, thero puna pakkhaṃ labhitvā codetuṃ labhati, pubbe adhivāsanā adhivāsanasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati bhayena tuṇhībhūtattā, ‘‘yaṃ cīvaraṃ idha sāmiko paccāharāpetuṃ labhatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sāmikassa pākatikaṃ kātabbaṃ, ‘‘idaṃ kira vatta’’nti vuttaṃ. Sace saṅghassa santakaṃ kenaci bhikkhunā gahitaṃ, tassa tena saṅghassa vā dhammassa vā upakāritā atthi, gahitappamāṇaṃ apaloketvā dātabbaṃ. ‘‘So tena yathāgahitaṃ pākatikaṃ katvā anaṇo hoti, gilānādīnampi eseva nayo’’ti vuttaṃ.

131. And he is not pleased when it is taken; what belongs to him, even if taken with trust, must be given back again. This statement seems inconsistent with the passage: 'At that time, two monks were friends. One entered the village for alms... no offense, monk, in taking with trust' (Pārā. 146). For herein, by the words 'knowing this, he accused him, saying, "You are not a true ascetic,"' displeasure is shown. Again, if one were to say that by the words 'no offense, monk, in taking with trust,' it is shown that taking with trust is valid even when there is displeasure, that should not be said, because the meaning should be taken differently. Herein, this is the meaning: there is no pārājika offense when the taking occurs with the perception of trust. That monk also, because he was a friend, did not accuse out of anger; being indeed dear, he accused him, saying, 'Are you perhaps not a true ascetic? Go, and having the matter judged, establish yourself in purity.' Even if he were to accuse him out of anger, the statement 'no offense' merely indicates the absence of a pārājika offense; it does not show that the taking with trust is accomplished. But as for one who, in the midst of the assembly, acquiesces out of shame and says nothing, that is the meaning. It is said, 'But with the intention of asking for it back, he too can have it returned.' If a thief, even if intending to take by force, says, 'Venerable sir, please consent regarding my robes here,' and then takes the robes, whether given by the elder or not given, and goes, the elder, upon finding support, can demand them back. The previous acquiescence does not count as acquiescence because he remained silent out of fear. It is said, 'The robe which the owner can have returned here...' It should be restored to its original state for the owner. It is said, 'This, it seems, is the duty.' If something belonging to the Sangha is taken by any monk, and with it there is benefit for that Sangha or for the Dhamma, the amount taken should be given after informing the Sangha. It is said: 'He, having thereby restored it to its original state according to what was taken, becomes free of debt. For the sick and others, this is the same method.'

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition on the Padabhājanīya is finished.

Pakiṇṇakakathāvaṇṇanā

Exposition on Miscellaneous Topics

Sāhatthikāṇattikanti ekabhaṇḍaṃ eva. ‘‘Bhāriyañhidaṃ tvampi ekapassaṃ gaṇha, ahampi ekapassaṃ gaṇhāmīti saṃvidahitvā ubhayesaṃ payogena ṭhānācāvane kate kāyavācācittehi hoti. Aññathā ‘sāhatthikaṃ vā āṇattikassa aṅgaṃ na hoti, āṇattikaṃ vā sāhatthikassā’ti iminā virujjhatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Dhammasiritthero pana ‘‘na kevalaṃ bhāriye eva vatthumhi ayaṃ nayo labbhati, pañcamāsakamattampi dve ce janā saṃvidahitvā gaṇhanti, dvinnampi pāṭekkaṃ, sāhatthikaṃ nāma taṃ kammaṃ, sāhatthikapayogattā ekasmiṃyeva bhaṇḍe, tasmā ‘sāhatthikaṃ āṇattikassa aṅgaṃ na hotī’ti vacanamimaṃ nayaṃ na paṭibāhati. ‘Sāhatthikavatthuaṅganti sāhatthikassa vatthussa aṅgaṃ na hotī’ti tattha vuttaṃ. Idha pana payogaṃ sandhāya vuttattā yujjatī’’ti āha kira, taṃ ayuttaṃ kāyavacīkammanti vacanābhāvā, tasmā sāhatthikāṇattikesu payogesu aññatarena vāyamāpatti samuṭṭhāti[Pg.140], tathāpi turitaturitā hutvā vilopanādīsu gahaṇagāhāpanavasenetaṃ vuttaṃ. Yathā kālena attano kālena parassa dhammaṃ ārabbha sīghaṃ sīghaṃ uppattiṃ sandhāya ‘‘ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇā dhammā’’ti (dha. sa. tikamātikā 21) vuttā, evaṃsampadamidanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

In the case of `sāhatthikāṇattika`, there is only one item. 'Having agreed, saying, "This is heavy. You also take one side, and I also will take one side," when it is moved from its place by the effort of both, it is done by body, speech, and mind. Otherwise, it contradicts this statement: "The act by one's own hand is not a factor of the act by command, nor is the act by command a factor of the act by one's own hand."' Thus it is written. The Elder Dhammasiri, however, is said to have stated: 'This principle is not obtained only in the case of a heavy object. If two persons, having agreed, take even an object worth only five māsakas, for both of them the act is individually considered `sāhatthika`. Because the effort is `sāhatthika` concerning a single item, therefore the statement, "The `sāhatthika` is not a factor of the `āṇattika`," does not obstruct this principle. It is said there, "It is not a component of the `sāhatthika` object." But here, since it is said with reference to the effort, it is appropriate.' That is incorrect, because of the absence of the statement 'bodily and verbal action.' Therefore, among the efforts of `sāhatthika` and `āṇattika`, this offense arises through one or the other only. Nevertheless, this is said with reference to taking and causing to take in a great hurry, such as during looting. Just as, with reference to the very rapid arising of phenomena—at times one's own, at times another's—they are called 'phenomena with internal and external objects' (Dhammasaṅgaṇī, Tikamātikā 21), so the completion of this example should be understood.

Tatthapi ye anuttarādayo ekantabahiddhārammaṇā viññāṇañcāyatanādayo ekantaajjhattārammaṇā, itare aniyatārammaṇattā ‘‘ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇā’’ti vuccanti, na ekakkhaṇe ubhayārammaṇattā. Ayaṃ pana āpatti yathāvuttanayena sāhatthikā āṇattikāpi hotiyeva, tasmā anidassanametanti ayuttaṃ. ‘‘Yathā aniyatārammaṇattā ‘ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇā’ti vuttā, tathā aniyatapayogattā ayampi āpatti ‘sāhatthikāṇattikā’ti vuttāti nidassanameveta’’nti ekacce ācariyā āhu. ‘‘Ime panācariyā ubhinnaṃ ekato ārammaṇakaraṇaṃ natthi. Atthi ce, ‘ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇaṃ dhammaṃ paṭicca ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇo dhammo uppajjati hetupaccayā’tiādinā (paṭṭhā. 2.21.1 ajjhattārammaṇatika) paṭṭhānapāṭhena bhavitabbanti saññāya āhaṃsu, tesaṃ matena ‘siyā ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇā’ti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā, na ca niratthakaṃ, tasmā attheva ekato ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇo dhammo. Puna ‘ayaṃ so’ti niyamena ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇā dhammā viya niddisitabbābhāvato na uddhaṭo siyā. Tattha anuddhaṭattā eva dhammasaṅgahaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ubhinnampi ajjhattabahiddhādhammānaṃ ekato ārammaṇakaraṇadhammavasena ‘ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇā’ti avatvā ‘kālena ajjhattabahiddhā pavattiyaṃ ajjhattabahiddhārammaṇa’nti vuttaṃ, tasmā gaṇṭhipade vuttanayova sāroti no takko’’ti ācariyo. Tattha ‘‘kāyavacīkamma’’nti avacanaṃ panassa sāhatthikapayogattā ekapayogassa anekakammattāva, yadi bhaveyya, manokammampi vattabbaṃ bhaveyya, yathā tattha manokammaṃ vijjamānampi abbohārikaṃ jātaṃ, evaṃ tasmiṃ sāhatthikāṇattike vacīkammaṃ abbohārikanti veditabbaṃ, taṃ pana kevalaṃ kāyakammassa upanissayaṃ jātaṃ, cittaṃ viya tattha aṅgameva jātaṃ, tasmā vuttaṃ ‘‘sāhatthikapayogattā’’ti, ‘‘aṅgabhāvamattameva hi sandhāya ‘sāhatthikāṇattika’nti vuttanti no takko’’ti ca, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.

Herein also, those dhammas, such as the supramundane consciousnesses, have exclusively external objects; those, such as the consciousness of the sphere of infinite consciousness, have exclusively internal objects. The others, because of having indeterminate objects, are called 'dhammas with internal-and-external objects,' not because they have both objects in a single moment. This offense, however, by the method already stated, is indeed both committed by one's own hand and by command; therefore, it is inappropriate to say this is not an example. Some teachers say: 'Just as they are called 'dhammas with internal-and-external objects' because of having indeterminate objects, so too this offense is called 'committed by one's own hand and by command' because of having an indeterminate application; therefore, this is indeed an example.' But these teachers, with the perception that 'There is no taking as object both internal and external dhammas together. If there were, it should be stated by the Paṭṭhāna text beginning with: 'Dependent on a dhamma with an internal-and-external object, a dhamma with an internal-and-external object arises through the root condition...'', have spoken thus. According to their opinion, the statement 'it might be with internal-and-external objects' would be meaningless. And it is not meaningless, but is indeed meaningful. Therefore, there certainly is a dhamma that has both internal and external phenomena as its object together. Furthermore, because there is no way to point it out definitively, saying 'this is it', like the dhammas that are exclusively internal or external objects, it might not have been extracted. Precisely because it was not extracted there, in the commentary to the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, instead of saying 'with internal-and-external objects' by way of a dhamma that takes both internal and external dhammas as its object together, it is said: 'with an internal-and-external object' when it occurs at times internally and at times externally. Therefore, the method stated in the Gaṇṭhipada is the essential one; this is our reasoning,' said the teacher. Herein, the non-mention of 'bodily and verbal action' is because of its being an application by one's own hand and because a single application has multiple actions. If it were so, mental action should also be mentioned. Just as mental action, though existing there, becomes conventionally unmentionable, so too in that offense committed by one's own hand and by command, verbal action should be understood as conventionally unmentionable. That verbal action, however, has become merely a decisive support for the bodily action, just as the mind therein has become merely a factor. Therefore, it is said 'because of the application by one's own hand.' And also: 'Indeed, it is called 'committed by one's own hand and by command' with reference only to its being merely a factor; this is our reasoning.' This should be accepted after investigation.

Kāyavācā [Pg.141] samuṭṭhānā, yassā āpattiyā siyuṃ;

Tattha kammaṃ na taṃ cittaṃ, kammaṃ nassati khīyati.

For whichever offense the origins may be body and speech, therein that mind is not the kamma; the kamma perishes and is destroyed.

Kiriyākiriyādikaṃ yañca, kammākammādikaṃ bhave;

Na yuttaṃ taṃ viruddhattā, kammamekaṃva yujjati.

And whatever, such as action and non-action, would be kamma, non-kamma, and so on—that is not suitable due to contradiction; only one kamma is appropriate.

Vinītavatthuvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Decided Cases

132. Anāpatti, bhikkhu, cittuppādeti ettha kevalaṃ cittaṃ, tasseva uppādetabbāpattīhi anāpattīti attho. Etthāha – upanikkhittasādiyanādīsu, sabbesu ca akiriyasikkhāpadesu na kāyaṅgacopanaṃ vā vācaṅgacopanaṃ vā, apicāpatti, kasmā imasmiṃyeva sikkhāpade anāpatti, na sabbāpattīhīti? Na, kasmā.

132. In the phrase 'There is no offense, bhikkhu, in the arising of a thought,' the meaning is: there is no offense through the offenses that are to be produced by that mere thought alone. Here, one asks: In cases such as enjoying what is placed nearby, and in all training rules concerning inaction, there is no movement of the body's limbs, and yet there is an offense. Why in this training rule alone is there no offense, and not [exemption] from all offenses? No. Why?

Kattabbā sādhikaṃ sikkhā, viññattiṃ kāyavācikaṃ;

Akatvā kāyavācāhi, aviññattīhi taṃ phuse.

The training should be undertaken exceedingly well; without making a bodily or verbal intimation, how could one, by means of body and speech without intimation, incur that [offense]?

Na lesabhāvattā. Sappāye ārammaṇe aṭṭhatvā paṭiladdhāsevanaṃ hutvā tato paraṃ suṭṭhu dhāvatīti sandhāvati. Tato abhijjhāya sahagataṃ, byāpādasahagataṃ vā hutvā visesato dhāvatīti vidhāvati.

It is not [incurred] because it is a mere hint. Not being established in a suitable object, but having attained repeated practice, it then runs well—thus it 'runs on' (sandhāvati). Then, being accompanied by covetousness or ill-will, it runs in a special way—thus it 'runs about' (vidhāvati).

137. Vaṇaṃ katvā gahetunti ettha kiñcāpi iminā sikkhāpadena anāpatti, itthirūpassa nāma yattha āmasantassa dukkaṭanti keci. ‘‘Kāyapaṭibaddhaggahaṇaṃ yuttaṃ, taṃ sandhāya vaṭṭatīti vutta’’nti vadanti. Ubhayaṃ vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.

137. Regarding 'having made a wound and grasped': Here, although there is no offense under this training rule, some say that for touching the form of a woman anywhere whatsoever, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Others say: 'The grasping of what is connected to the body is proper; with reference to that, it is said to be allowable.' Both [opinions] should be accepted after investigation.

Kusasaṅkāmanavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Story of Moving the Kusa Grass Marker

138. Mahāpaccariyādīsu yaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘paduddhāreneva kāretabbo’’ti, taṃ suvuttaṃ. Kintu tassa parikappāvahārakamattaṃ na dissatīti dassanatthaṃ idaṃ vuttaṃ. Uddhāre vāyaṃ āpanno, tasmā disvā gacchanto ‘‘paduddhāreneva kāretabbo’’ti idaṃ tattha duvuttanti vuttaṃ hoti. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Sāṭakatthiko sāṭakapasibbakameva gahetvā bahi nikkhamitvā sāṭakabhāvaṃ ñatvā ‘pacchā gaṇhissāmī’ti evaṃ parikappetvā gaṇhati, na uddhāre evāpajjati. Yadā bahi ṭhatvā [Pg.142] ‘sāṭako aya’nti disvā gacchati, tadā paduddhāreneva kāretabbo’’ti na vuttametaṃ, kintu kiñcāpi parikappo dissati, pubbabhāge avahārakkhaṇe na dissatīti na so parikappāvahāro, ayamattho mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttova, tasmā ‘‘ñāyamevā’’ti vadanti. Kammantasālā nāma kassakānaṃ vanacchedakānaṃ gehāni. Ayaṃ tāvāti sace upacārasīmantiādi yāva theravādo mahāaṭṭhakathānayo, tattha keci panātiādi na gahetabbaṃ theravādattā yuttiabhāvato, na hi sāhatthike evaṃvidhā atthasādhakacetanā hoti. Āṇattike eva atthasādhakacetanā. ‘‘Sesaṃ mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttenatthena sametī’’ti vuttaṃ.

138. What is stated in the Mahāpaccariya and other commentaries, 'It should be decided by the lifting of the foot,' is well-said. However, this was stated to show that the mere state of its being a theft with forethought (parikappāvahāra) is not apparent. This monk incurs the offense at the very moment of lifting; therefore, it is said that this statement, 'For one who sees and goes, it should be decided by the lifting of the foot,' is ill-said therein. How so? It is not that this was said: 'A man who wants a cloth takes only the cloth-bag and goes outside. Knowing it to be a cloth, he plans, "I will take it later." When taking it thus, he does not incur the offense at the very moment of lifting. When, standing outside, he sees, "This is a cloth," and goes, then it should be decided by the lifting of the foot.' But although forethought is apparent, it is not apparent at the moment of stealing in the preliminary stage; therefore, it is not a theft with forethought (parikappāvahāra). This meaning was indeed stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā; therefore, they say, 'This is the correct method.' `Kammantasālā` (workshops) are the houses of farmers and woodcutters. Regarding `Ayaṃ tāva`, the method of the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā is the Theravāda view. Therein, the view beginning with `keci pana` should not be accepted, because it is the Theravāda view and because of the absence of reason. Indeed, in an act by one's own hand (sāhatthika), such an intention that accomplishes the object (atthasādhakacetanā) does not arise. Only in an act by command (āṇattika) does an intention that accomplishes the object arise. It is said, 'The rest agrees with the meaning stated in the Mahāpaccariya.'

Kusasaṅkāmanakaraṇe sace paro ‘‘nāyaṃ mama santako’’ti jānāti, itarassa hatthato muttamatte pārājikāpatti khīlasaṅkāmane viya. ‘‘Attano santakaṃ sace jānāti, na hotī’’ti vadanti. Evaṃ sante pañcakāni saṅkarāni hontīti upaparikkhitabbaṃ.

In the act of moving the kusa-marker, if another person knows, 'This is not my property,' a Pārājika offense is incurred at the very moment it is released from the other's hand, just as in the moving of a boundary post. They say, 'If one knows it to be one's own property, an offense is not incurred.' This being the case, the pentads become confused; therefore, this should be investigated.

140. Parānuddayatāyāti ettha parānuddayatāya koṭippattena bhagavatā kasmā ‘‘anāpatti petapariggahe tiracchānagatapariggahe’’ti (pārā. 131) vuttanti ce? Parānuddayatāya eva. Yassa hi parikkhārassa ādāne rājāno coraṃ gahetvā na hananādīni kareyyuṃ, tasmimpi nāma samaṇo gotamo pārājikaṃ paññapetvā bhikkhuṃ abhikkhuṃ karotīti mahājano bhagavati pasādaññathattaṃ āpajjitvā apāyupago hoti. Apetapariggahitā rukkhādī ca dullabhā, na ca sakkā ñātunti rukkhādīhi pāpabhīruko upāsakajano paṭimāgharacetiyabodhigharavihārādīni akatvā mahato puññakkhandhato parihāyeyya. ‘‘Rukkhamūlasenāsanaṃ paṃsukūlacīvaraṃ nissāya pabbajjā’’ti (mahāva. 128) vuttanissayā ca anissayā honti. Parapariggahitasaññino hi bhikkhū rukkhamūlapaṃsukūlāni na sādiyissantīti, pabbajjā ca na sambhaveyyuṃ, sappadaṭṭhakāle chārikatthāya rukkhaṃ aggahetvā maraṇaṃ vā nigaccheyyuṃ, acchinnacīvarādikāle sākhābhaṅgādiṃ aggahetvā naggā hutvā titthiyaladdhimeva suladdhi viya dīpentā vicareyyuṃ, tato titthiyesveva loko pasīditvā diṭṭhiggahaṇaṃ patvā saṃsārakhāṇuko bhaveyya, tasmā bhagavā parānuddayatāya [Pg.143] eva ‘‘anāpatti petapariggahe’’tiādimāhāti veditabbaṃ.

140. Herein, regarding compassion for others: If it were asked, 'Why did the Blessed One, who has reached the pinnacle of compassion for others, declare, "There is no offense in taking what is possessed by spirits or what is possessed by animals"?' It was precisely because of compassion for others. For, in the case of taking a requisite for which kings would not seize a thief and inflict killing and other punishments, people might think, 'Indeed, for such a requisite, the ascetic Gotama lays down a pārājika offense and makes a bhikkhu a non-bhikkhu!' Thinking thus, the great populace might have their faith in the Blessed One corrupted and be bound for a state of loss. Furthermore, trees and so on that are unpossessed by spirits are difficult to find, and it is not possible to know for certain; therefore, the lay devotee populace, fearing evil, might not build image-houses, cetiya-houses, bodhi-tree-houses, monasteries, and so on from trees and the like, and would thus fall away from a great mass of merit. The stated supports, 'The going forth is dependent on a dwelling at the foot of a tree and on rag-robes,' would become non-supports. For bhikkhus, perceiving these as possessed by others, would not make use of tree-root dwellings and rag-robes, and thus the going forth would not be possible. When bitten by a snake, unable to take wood from a tree for ash, they might die. At a time when their robes are stolen, unable to take a broken branch or the like, they would wander about naked, appearing to present the very doctrine of the heretics as if it were a good doctrine. Consequently, the world, placing faith only in heretics and adopting wrong views, would become like a stump in saṃsāra. Therefore, it should be understood that the Blessed One spoke, 'There is no offense in taking what is possessed by spirits,' and so on, precisely out of compassion for others.

141. Aparampi bhāgaṃ dehīti ‘‘gahitaṃ viññattisadisattā neva bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ na pārājika’’nti likhitaṃ, idaṃ pakatijane yujjati. ‘‘Sace pana sāmiko vā tena āṇatto vā ‘aparassa sahāyabhikkhussa bhāgaṃ esa gaṇhāti yācati vā’ti yaṃ aparabhāgaṃ deti, taṃ bhaṇḍadeyya’’nti vadanti.

141. Regarding the words, 'Give another portion too,' it is written: 'What is taken, being similar to a request, is neither compensation for goods nor a pārājika offense.' This applies to an ordinary person. However, they say: 'But if the owner, or one authorized by him, gives another portion with the thought, "This bhikkhu is taking or asking for a portion for another companion bhikkhu," then that other portion which is given is compensation for goods.'

148-9. Khādantassa bhaṇḍadeyyanti corassa vā sāmikassa vā sampattassa dinnaṃ sudinnameva kira. Avisesenāti ‘‘ussāhagatānaṃ vā’’ti avatvā vuttaṃ, na hi katipayānaṃ anussāhatāya saṅghikamasaṅghikaṃ hoti. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyampi ‘‘yadi saussāhāva gacchanti, theyyacittena paribhuñjato avahāro hotī’’ti vuttattā tadubhayamekaṃ. Chaḍḍitavihāre upacārasīmāya pamāṇaṃ jānituṃ na sakkā, ayaṃ pana bhikkhu upacārasīmāya bahi ṭhatvā ghaṇṭipaharaṇādiṃ katvā paribhuñjati khādati, tena evaṃ khāditaṃ sukhāditanti attho. ‘‘Itaravihāre tattha dittavidhināva paṭipajjitabba’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sukhāditaṃ antovihārattā’’ti likhitaṃ, āgatānāgatānaṃ santakattāti ‘‘cātuddisassa saṅghassa demī’’ti dinnattā vuttaṃ. Evaṃ avatvā ‘‘saṅghassa demī’’ti dinnampi tādisameva. Tathā hi bahi ṭhito lābhaṃ na labhati bhagavato vacanenāti veditabbaṃ.

Regarding 'compensation for goods for one who is eating': what is given to one who has arrived, whether a thief or an owner, is indeed well-given. 'Without distinction' means it is stated without saying 'or to those who have made an effort,' for indeed, due to the lack of effort of a few, what belongs to the Sangha does not become what does not belong to the Sangha. In the Great Commentary, it is also said: 'If they go having made an effort, for one who partakes with a thieving mind, there is misappropriation.' Therefore, these two statements are the same. In an abandoned monastery, it is not possible to know the extent of the precinct boundary. This bhikkhu, however, stands outside the precinct boundary, and after doing things such as striking a bell, he partakes and eats. Therefore, the meaning is that what is eaten in this way is well-eaten. It is said: 'In other monasteries, one should practice according to the method prescribed therein.' It is written: 'It is well-eaten because it is within the monastery.' The reason it is said to belong to those who have come and those who are yet to come is that it was given with the words, 'I give to the Sangha of the four directions.' Even if given without saying this, but just 'I give to the Sangha,' it is still the same. For it should be understood that, by the word of the Blessed One, one standing outside does not receive a gain.

153. ‘‘Matasūkaro’’ti vacanato tameva jīvantaṃ bhaṇḍadeyyanti katvā dātuṃ na labhati. Vajjhaṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpitaṃ hoti. Maddanto gacchati, bhaṇḍadeyyanti ettha kittakaṃ bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ, na hi sakkā ‘‘ettakā sūkarā madditvā gatā gamissantī’’ti jānitunti? Yattake sāmikānaṃ dinne te ‘‘dinnaṃ mama bhaṇḍa’’nti tussanti, tattakaṃ dātabbaṃ. No ce tussanti, atikkantasūkaramūlaṃ datvā kiṃ opāto khaṇitvā dātabboti? Na dātabbo. Atha kiṃ codiyamānassa ubhinnaṃ dhuranikkhepena pārājikaṃ hotīti? Na hoti, kevalaṃ kappiyaparikkhāraṃ datvā tosetabbova sāmiko, eseva nayo aññesupi evarūpesūti no takkoti ācariyo. ‘‘Tadaheva vā dutiyadivase vā maddanto gacchatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Gumbe khipati, bhaṇḍadeyyamevāti [Pg.144] avassaṃ pavisanake sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ettha ekasmiṃ vihāre paracakkādibhayaṃ āgataṃ. Mūlavatthucchedanti ‘‘sabbasenāsanaṃ ete issarā’’ti vacanato itare anissarāti dīpitaṃ hoti.

153. Because of the phrase 'a dead pig,' it is not permissible to give that very living pig as compensation. It is explained that what is fit for slaughter is allowable. In the text 'trampling, it goes, it is compensation,' how much is the compensation? For it is not possible to know, 'this many pigs, having trampled, have gone or will go.' As much as, when given to the owners, they are satisfied, thinking, 'my property has been given,' that much should be given. If they are not satisfied, having given the value of the pigs that have passed, should a pit be dug and given? It should not be given. Then, for the one being accused, is there a pārājika offense through the laying down of the burden by both? There is not. The owner should only be satisfied by being given suitable requisites. This is the method also in other such cases; this is our reasoning, said the teacher. It is said: 'On that very day or on the second day, it goes trampling.' The phrase 'throws into a thicket, it is indeed compensation' is said with reference to that which will certainly enter. Here, in one monastery, danger from another's army and so on has come. Regarding the cutting of the root-object, because of the phrase 'these are masters of all the lodgings,' it is explained that others are not masters.

156. Ārāmarakkhakāti vissaṭṭhavasena 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 vuttaṃ. Ayameva bhikkhu issaroti yattha so icchati, tattha attañātahetuṃ labhati kira attho. Apica ‘‘daharo’’ti vadanti. Savatthukanti saha bhūmiyāti vuttaṃ hoti. ‘‘Garubhaṇḍaṃ hotī’’ti vatvā ‘‘tiṇamattaṃ pana na dātabba’’nti vuttaṃ, taṃ kintu garubhaṇḍanti ce, arakkhiyaagopiyaṭṭhāne, vinassanakabhāve ca ṭhitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kappiyepi cāti vatvā, avatvā vā gahaṇayutte mātādisantakepi theyyacittuppādena. Idaṃ pana sikkhāpadaṃ ‘‘rājāpimesaṃ abhippasanno’’ti (pārā. 86) vacanato lābhaggamahattaṃ, vepullamahattañca pattakāle paññattanti siddhaṃ.

156. Regarding a monastery guard, it should be taken by way of being released. In 'Having known the intention': Here, the conclusion is that when owners do not guard and do not punish a bhikkhu who is receiving a gift or a share from someone, it is permissible to take that person's gift without concealing it. That too, 'it is not permissible in the case of what belongs to the Sangha,' is stated. In 'This very bhikkhu is the master': Wherever he wishes, there he obtains it for the reason of knowing his own benefit; this is said to be the meaning. Furthermore, they say, 'It is not forbidden.' 'With its basis' means 'together with the land,' so it is said. Having said, 'It is a grave item,' it is also said, 'But a mere blade of grass should be given.' If it is asked, 'But is that not a grave item?'—it is said with reference to what is in an unguarded, unprotected place and is in a state of perishing. Whether saying 'Even in the case of what is allowable' or not, an offense arises with the arising of a thieving mind even regarding what belongs to one's mother and so on, which is suitable for taking. However, this training rule was laid down at the time when the bhikkhus had reached the greatness of the highest gains and the greatness of abundance, on account of the passage, 'The king, too, is very pleased with them.' Thus, the meaning is established.

Dutiyapārājikavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Second Pārājika is concluded.

3. Tatiyapārājikaṃ

3. The Third Pārājika

Paṭhamapaññattinidānavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Origin of the First Enactment

162. Tīhi suddhenāti ettha tīhīti nissakkavacanaṃ vā hoti, karaṇavacanaṃ vā. Nissakkapakkhe kāyavacīmanodvārehi suddhena. Tathā duccaritamalehi visamehi papañcehītiādinā nayena sabbakilesattikehi bodhimaṇḍe eva suddhenāti yojetabbaṃ. Karaṇapakkhe tīhīti kāyavacīmanodvārehi suddhena. Tathā tīhi sucaritehi, tīhi vimokkhehi, tīhi bhāvanāhi, tīhi sīlasamādhipaññāhi suddhenāti sabbaguṇattikehi yojetabbaṃ. Vibhāvitanti desanāya vitthāritaṃ, vibhūtaṃ vā kataṃ vihitaṃ, paññattaṃ vā hoti. Saṃvaṇṇanāti vattamānasamīpe vattamānavacanaṃ.

162. Herein, regarding 'by the one pure in three ways,' the word 'tīhi' (by three) is either an ablative or an instrumental expression. In the ablative case, it means pure from the doors of body, speech, and mind. Similarly, by the method beginning with 'from the stains of misconduct, from unevenness, and from mental proliferation,' it should be connected as 'pure at the very Bodhi-seat from all threefold defilements.' In the instrumental case, 'by three' means pure by the doors of body, speech, and mind. Likewise, it should be connected as 'pure by all threefold qualities,' such as by the three kinds of good conduct, the three liberations, the three kinds of development, and the three trainings in virtue, concentration, and wisdom. 'Vibhāvitaṃ' means expanded upon by the teaching, or made manifest, arranged, or designated. 'Saṃvaṇṇanā' is a present tense expression used in the sense of the near present.

Na [Pg.145] kevalaṃ rājagahameva, idampi nagaraṃ. Saparicchedanti sapariyantanti attho. Saparikkhepanti eke. ‘‘Haṃsavaṭṭakacchadanenāti haṃsaparikkhepasaṇṭhānenā’’ti likhitaṃ. Kāyavicchindaniyakathanti attano attabhāve, parassa vā attabhāve chandarāgappahānakaraṃ vicchindanakaraṃ dhammakathaṃ katheti. Asubhā ceva subhākāravirahitattā. Asucino ca dosanissandanapabhavattā. Paṭikūlā ca jigucchanīyattā pittasemhādīsu āsayato. Asubhāya vaṇṇanti asubhākārassa, asubhakammaṭṭhānassa vā vitthāraṃ bhāsati. Sāmiatthe hetaṃ sampadānavacanaṃ. Asubhanti asubhanimittassa āvibhāvāya paccupaṭṭhānāya vitthārakathāsaṅkhātaṃ vaṇṇaṃ bhāsabhīti attho. Tesaṃyeva ādimajjhapariyosānānaṃ dasahi lakkhaṇehi sampannaṃ kilesacorehi anabhibhavanīyattā jhānacittaṃ mañjūsaṃ nāma.

Not only Rājagaha, but this city too. 'Having a boundary' means having a limit. Some say it means having an enclosure. It is written: 'By “with the covering of a goose-enclosure” is meant with the shape of a goose-enclosure.' 'A discourse that cuts off the body' means he speaks a Dhamma discourse that causes the abandoning and cutting off of sensual desire concerning one's own or another's existence. It is indeed unattractive because it is devoid of the appearance of beauty. And it is impure because it originates from the outflow of corruption. And it is repulsive because it is disgusting and from its being a receptacle for bile, phlegm, and the like. 'He speaks in praise of the unattractive' means he speaks in detail about the aspect of the unattractive or the meditation subject of the unattractive. For this is a dative expression in the sense of relation. The meaning is that he speaks a description, which is a detailed discourse, for the manifestation and presence of the sign of the unattractive. Because the jhāna-consciousness is endowed with the ten characteristics of their very beginning, middle, and end, and because it cannot be overpowered by the thieves that are the defilements, it is called a 'casket'.

Tatrimānīti etthāyaṃ piṇḍattho – yasmiṃ vāre paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ ekacittakkhaṇikaṃ uppajjati, taṃ sakalampi javanavāraṃ anulomaparikammaupacāragotrabhuappanāppabhedaṃ ekattanayena ‘‘paṭhamaṃ jhāna’’nti gahetvā tassa paṭhamajjhānassa appanāpaṭipādikāya khippādibhedāya abhiññāya adhigatāya kiccanipphattiṃ upādāya āgamanavasena paṭipadāvisuddhi ādīti veditabbā. Tatramajjhattupekkhāya kiccanipphattivasena upekkhānubrūhanā majjheti veditabbā. Pariyodāpakañāṇassa kiccanipphattivasena sampahaṃsanā pariyosānanti veditabbaṃ. Tattha ādicittato paṭṭhāya yāva paṭhamajjhānassa uppādakkhaṇaṃ, etasmiṃ antare paṭipadāvisuddhīti veditabbā. Uppādaṭhitikkhaṇesu upekkhānubrūhanā, ṭhitibhaṅgakkhaṇesu sampahaṃsanāti veditabbā. Lakkhīyati etenāti lakkhaṇanti katvā ‘‘visuddhipaṭipattipakkhandane’’tiādinā pubbabhāgo lakkhīyati, tividhena ajjhupekkhanena majjhaṃ lakkhīyati, catubbidhāya sampahaṃsanāya pariyosānaṃ lakkhīyatīti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘dasa lakkhaṇānī’’ti.

Herein, this is the summary meaning of 'Tatrimāni': In whichever javana-process the first jhāna arises for a single moment of consciousness, that entire javana-process—comprising the distinctions of conformity, preparation, access, change-of-lineage, and absorption—is taken as 'the first jhāna' by way of unity. The purification of the path should be known as the beginning, as it arises on account of the accomplishment of the function of the attained direct knowledge, which establishes the absorption of that first jhāna and is distinguished by quickness, etc. The strengthening of equanimity should be known as the middle, by way of the accomplishment of the function of specific neutrality. Rejoicing should be known as the conclusion, by way of the accomplishment of the function of the knowledge that brings purity. Herein, from the initial consciousness up to the arising-moment of the first jhāna, this interval should be known as the purification of the path. The strengthening of equanimity is to be known in the arising and abiding moments; rejoicing is to be known in the abiding and dissolution moments. Construing 'characteristic' as 'that by which it is characterized,' the initial part is characterized by 'the purification of the path and leaping forward,' etc.; the middle is characterized by the threefold looking on with equanimity; the conclusion is characterized by the fourfold rejoicing. Therefore, it is said, 'ten characteristics.'

Pāribandhakatoti nīvaraṇasaṅkhātapāribandhakato visuddhattā gotrabhupariyosānaṃ pubbabhāgajavanacittaṃ ‘‘cittavisuddhī’’ti vuccati. Tathā visuddhattā taṃ cittaṃ majjhimaṃ samādhinimittasaṅkhātaṃ appanāsamādhiṃ tadatthāya upagacchamānaṃ ekasantativasena pariṇāmentaṃ paṭipajjati nāma. Evaṃ paṭipannassa tassa tattha samathanimitte [Pg.146] pakkhandanaṃ tabbhāvūpagamanaṃ hotīti katvā ‘‘tattha cittapakkhandana’’nti vuccati. Evaṃ tāva paṭhamajjhānuppādakkhaṇe eva āgamanavasena paṭipadāvisuddhi veditabbā. Evaṃ visuddhassa appanāppattassa puna visodhane byāpārābhāvā ajjhupekkhanaṃ hoti. Samathappaṭipannattā puna samādhāne byāpārābhāvā ca samathappaṭipannassa ajjhupekkhanaṃ hoti. Kilesasaṃsaggaṃ pahāya ekantena upaṭṭhitattā puna ekattupaṭṭhāne byāpārāsambhavato ekattupaṭṭhānassa ajjhupekkhanaṃ hoti. Tattha jātānanti tasmiṃ citte jātānaṃ samādhipaññānaṃ yuganaddhabhāvena anativattanaṭṭhena nānākilesehi vimuttattā. Saddhādīnaṃ indriyānaṃ vimuttirasenekarasaṭṭhena anativattanekasabhāvānaṃ tesaṃ dvinnaṃ upagataṃ tajjaṃ tassāruppaṃ tadanurūpaṃ vīriyaṃ tathā cittaṃ yogī vāheti pavattetīti katvā tadupagavīriyavāhanaṭṭhena ca visesabhāgiyabhāvattā āsevanaṭṭhena ca sampahaṃsanā hotīti attho veditabbo. Apicettha ‘‘anantarātītaṃ gotrabhucittaṃ ekasantativasena pariṇāmentaṃ paṭipajjati nāmā’’ti likhitaṃ. Tattha hi pariṇāmentaṃ paṭipajjatīti etāni vacanāni atītassa na sambhavanti, yañca tadanantaraṃ likhitaṃ ‘‘appanāsamādhicittaṃ upagacchamānaṃ gotrabhucittaṃ tattha pakkhandati nāmā’’ti. Imināpi taṃ na yujjati, ‘‘paṭipattikkhaṇe eva atīta’’nti vuttattā ‘‘gotrabhucittaṃ tattha pakkhandatī’’ti vacanameva virujjhatīti ācariyo. ‘‘Ekacittakkhaṇikampi lokuttaracittaṃ āsevati bhāveti bahulīkarotī’’ti vuttattā ‘‘ekacittakkhaṇikassāpi jhānassa etāni dasa lakkhaṇānī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tato paṭṭhāya āsevanā bhāvanā evā’’tipi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Adhiṭṭhānasampannanti adhiṭṭhānena sahagata’’nti likhitaṃ. Tassattho – yañca ‘‘ādimajjhapariyosānasaṅkhāta’’nti vuttaṃ, taṃ tesaṃ tiṇṇampi kalyāṇakatāya samannāgatattā tividhakalyāṇakatañca. Evaṃ tividhacittaṃ tadadhigamamūlakānaṃ guṇānaṃ, uparijhānādhigamassa vā padaṭṭhānaṭṭhena adhiṭṭhānaṃ hoti, tasmā cittassa adhiṭṭhānabhāvena sampannattā adhiṭṭhānasampannaṃ nāmāti.

Regarding 'Pāribandhakato': the javana-consciousness of the preliminary part, which ends in the change-of-lineage (gotrabhū) state, is called 'purity of mind' (cittavisuddhi) because it is purified from the obstruction known as the hindrances. Similarly, because it is purified, that consciousness, approaching the absorption concentration—which is the middle stage and is called the sign of concentration—for the purpose of that concentration, is said to proceed, inclining by means of a single continuity of consciousness. For one who has thus proceeded, there occurs the plunging into that sign of serenity and the approaching of that state. Because of this, it is called 'the mind’s plunging in therein' (tattha cittapakkhandana). Thus, firstly, the purity of the path should be understood by way of its coming about at the very moment of the arising of the first jhāna. For one who is thus purified and has reached absorption, because there is no exertion in purifying again, there is equanimity. Because of having reached serenity, and because there is no exertion in concentrating again, for one who has reached serenity, there is equanimity. Having abandoned association with defilements, and because of being established in oneness, since exertion in establishing oneness again is not possible, for one established in oneness, there is equanimity. Regarding 'Tattha jātānaṃ': there is the purification (sampahaṃsanā) of the concentration and wisdom arisen in that mind by their nature of not surpassing one another through being yoked together, and because of their being liberated from various defilements. There is the purification of the faculties, beginning with faith, by their single function which is the taste of liberation. And because the yogī wields the effort—which is suitable to, appropriate for, and conforming to those two (concentration and wisdom) of a similar nature that do not surpass one another—and the mind that has occurred thus, there is purification also in the sense of wielding the effort suitable to them. And because of its nature as a special portion and in the sense of cultivation, there is purification. This is the meaning to be understood. Furthermore, it is written here: 'The immediately past change-of-lineage consciousness is said to proceed, inclining by means of a single continuity.' Indeed, in this context, these words 'proceeds, inclining' are not possible for a past consciousness. And that which is written immediately after: 'The change-of-lineage consciousness, approaching the absorption-concentration mind, is said to plunge therein.' By this too, that [first statement] is not suitable. Because it is said, 'It is past at the very moment of proceeding,' the very statement 'the change-of-lineage consciousness plunges therein' is contradicted. Thus says the teacher. Because it is said, 'Even a supramundane consciousness of a single mind-moment one cultivates, develops, and makes much of,' it is stated, 'Even for a jhāna of a single mind-moment, these ten characteristics apply.' And it is also said, 'From then on, it is only cultivation and development.' It is written: 'Endowed with a foundation' means 'accompanied by a foundation.' Its meaning is this: That which is called 'designated as beginning, middle, and end' is also possessed of threefold excellence because of being endowed with the excellence of those three. Thus, the threefold mind is a foundation (adhiṭṭhāna) by its nature as a proximate cause (padaṭṭhāna) for the qualities that have its attainment as their root, or for the attainment of higher jhānas. Therefore, because the mind is endowed with the state of being a foundation, it is called 'endowed with a foundation'.

Addhamāsaṃ paṭisallīyitunti ettha ācariyā evamāhu ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ aññamaññavadhadassanasavanasambhave satthuno sati tassa upaddavassa abhāve upāyājānanato ‘ayaṃ asabbaññū’ti hetupatirūpakamahetuṃ vatvā dhammissarassāpi tathāgatassa kammesvanissariyaṃ asambujjhamānā asabbadassitamadhiccamohā bahujanā avīciparāyanā bhaveyyuṃ, tasmā so bhagavā [Pg.147] pageva tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ aññamaññaṃ vadhamānabhāvaṃ ñatvā tadabhāvopāyābhāvaṃ pana suvinicchinitvā tattha puthujjanānaṃ sugatilābhahetumevekaṃ katvā asubhadesanāya vā rūpasaddadassanasavanehi nippayojanehi viramitvā pageva tato viramaṇato, sugatilābhahetukaraṇato, avassaṃ paññāpitabbāya tatiyapārājikapaññattiyā vatthāgamadassanato ca attano sabbadassitaṃ parikkhakānaṃ pakāsento viya tamaddhamāsaṃ veneyyahitanipphattiyā phalasamāpattiyā avakāsaṃ katvā viharitukāmo ‘icchāmahaṃ, bhikkhave, addhamāsaṃ paṭisallīyitu’ntiādimāhā’’ti. Ācariyā nāma buddhamittattheradhammasirittheraupatissattherādayo gaṇapāmokkhā, aṭṭhakathācariyassa ca santike sutapubbā. Tato aññe eketi veditabbā. ‘‘Sakena kāyena aṭṭīyanti…pe… bhavissantī’’ti idaṃ parato ‘‘ye te bhikkhū avītarāgā, tesaṃ tasmiṃ samaye hoti eva bhayaṃ, hoti lomahaṃso, hoti chambhitatta’’nti iminā na yujjati, idañca bhagavato asubhakathārammaṇappayojanena na sametīti ce? Na, tadatthājānanato. Sakena kāyena aṭṭīyantānampi tesaṃ ariyamaggena appahīnasinehattā khīṇāsavānaṃ viya maraṇaṃ paṭicca abhayaṃ na hoti, bhayañca pana asubhabhāvanānuyogānubhāvena mandībhūtaṃ anaṭṭīyantānaṃ viya na mahantaṃ hutvā cittaṃ mohesi. Apāyupage te satte nākāsīti evamattho veditabbo. Atha vā idaṃ purimassa kāraṇavacanaṃ, yasmā tesaṃ tasmiṃ samaye hoti eva bhayaṃ, chambhitattaṃ, lomahaṃso ca, tasmā ‘‘tena kho pana samayena bhagavā asubhakathaṃ kathetī’’tiādi vuttanti.

Regarding 'to go into seclusion for half a month,' the teachers say thus: 'If, when it was possible for the Teacher to see and hear the monks killing one another, He did not know the means to prevent that calamity, then many people, not understanding the Tathāgata's lack of mastery over their kamma, even though he is the Lord of the Dhamma, and deluded by assuming he does not see all, would say, "This one is not omniscient," speaking a non-reason that is a counterfeit of a reason, and they would be destined for the Avīci hell. Therefore, that Blessed One, having known beforehand that those monks would kill one another, and having well decided that there was no means to prevent it, and having made the attainment of a good destination the sole cause for the worldlings among them; and by causing them to refrain from the unprofitable seeing of forms and hearing of sounds through the discourse on foulness; and by that very refraining beforehand; and by creating the cause for attaining a good destination; and by showing the arising of the occasion for the third Pārājika rule which must certainly be laid down; as if displaying His own state of seeing all to those who are discerning, the Blessed One, desiring to dwell for that half-month, having made an opportunity for the attainment of fruition which accomplishes the welfare of those to be trained, said the words beginning with, "I wish, monks, to go into seclusion for half a month."' The 'teachers' are to be understood as the heads of schools such as the Elder Buddhamitta, the Elder Dhammasiri, the Elder Upatissa, and others, and also those who have previously heard from the commentary teacher. Others apart from these should be known as 'certain teachers' (eke). If one were to say: 'The statement, "They are disgusted with their own bodies... they will be," does not agree with the later statement, "For those monks who are not free from passion, at that time there is indeed fear, there is horripilation, there is stiffness." And this first statement also does not agree with the Blessed One's purpose related to the object of the discourse on foulness.' To this, the reply is: No, because of not knowing the meaning of that passage. Even for those who are disgusted with their own bodies, because their affection has not been abandoned by the noble path, they are not fearless regarding death like the Arahants. But their fear, weakened by the power of practicing the meditation on foulness, does not become great and delude the mind, as it does for those who are not disgusted. The meaning should be understood thus: it did not cause those beings to go to the lower realms. Alternatively, this latter statement is a statement of the reason for the former. Because for them at that time there certainly was fear, stiffness, and horripilation, therefore it was said, 'At that time, the Blessed One gave a discourse on foulness,' and so on.

Atha vā sakena kāyena aṭṭīyantānampi tesaṃ hoti eva bhayaṃ, mahānubhāvā vītarāgāti khīṇāsavānaṃ mahantaṃ visesaṃ dasseti, atiduppasaheyyamidaṃ maraṇabhayaṃ, yato evaṃvidhānampi avītarāgattā bhayaṃ hotītipi dasseti. Tadaññe tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pañcasatānaṃ aññatarā. Tenedaṃ dīpeti ‘‘taṃ tathā āgataṃ asihatthaṃ vadhakaṃ passitvā tadaññesampi hoti eva bhayaṃ, pageva tesanti katvā bhagavā paṭhamameva tesaṃ asubhakathaṃ kathesi, parato tesaṃ nāhosi. Evaṃ mahānisaṃsā nesaṃ asubhakathā āsī’’ti. Yo panettha pacchimo nayo[Pg.148], so ‘‘tesu kira bhikkhūsu kenacipi kāyavikāro vā vacīvikāro vā na kato, sabbe satā sampajānā dakkhiṇena passena nipajjiṃsū’’ti iminā aṭṭhakathāvacanena sameti.

Alternatively, even those who are repulsed by their own bodies feel such fear. This shows the great distinction of the Arahants, who are of great power and free from passion. This fear of death is extremely hard to endure, and it also shows that even those of such a nature experience fear due to not being free from passion. 'Others' refers to certain ones among those five hundred monks. By this, it is illustrated: "Having seen that executioner with a sword in hand approaching, even others felt such fear; what then is to be said of them? Thinking thus, the Blessed One first taught them the discourse on the unattractive, and afterward, they had no fear. Thus, the discourse on the unattractive was of great benefit to them." As for the latter interpretation here, it accords with this commentary statement: "Among those monks, it is said that not a single one made any bodily or verbal disturbance. All lay down mindfully and clearly aware on their right sides."

Apare panāhūti kuladdhipaṭisedhanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Ayaṃ kira laddhī’’ti vacanaṃ ‘‘māradheyyaṃnātikkamissatī’’ti vacanena virujjhatīti ce? Na virujjhati. Kathaṃ? Ayaṃ bhikkhū aghātento māravisayaṃ atikkamissati akusalakaraṇato ca. Ghātento pana māradheyyaṃ nātikkamissati balavattā kammassāti sayaṃ mārapakkhikattā evaṃ cintetvā pana ‘‘ye na matā, te saṃsārato na muttā’’ti attano ca laddhi, tasmā taṃ tattha ubhayesaṃ magge niyojentī evamāha, teneva ‘‘mārapakkhikā mārena samānaladdhikā’’ti avatvā ‘‘mārassā nuvattikā’’ti vuttā. ‘‘Iminā kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Yasmā mārassa anuvatti, tasmā evaṃ cintetvāpi attano laddhivasena evamāhā’’ti keci likhanti. Mama santike ekato upaṭṭhānamāgacchanti, attano attano ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ santike uddesādiṃ gaṇhāti.

The phrase 'But others said' was spoken to refute a wrong view. If one should say, 'Does the statement, "This, it seems, is the view," contradict the statement, "He will not overcome Māra’s domain"?'—it does not contradict. How so? If this person does not kill the monks, he will overcome Māra’s sphere and by not performing an unwholesome action. But by killing them, he will not overcome Māra’s domain because of the strength of the kamma. Thus, being on Māra's side, and having thought in this way, and since it is also their own view that 'those who have not died are not liberated from saṃsāra,' they spoke thus, urging him onto the path of both. For that very reason, instead of saying, 'They are of Māra's faction, having the same view as Māra,' it is said, 'They are followers of Māra.' What is meant by this? Some write: 'Because they are a follower of Māra, therefore, even having thought thus, they spoke in this way in accordance with their own view.' They come into my presence together for attendance, and each receives recitation and so on from their own teachers and preceptors.

Ānāpānassatisamādhikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Concentration through Mindfulness of Breathing

165. Ayampi kho, bhikkhaveti iminā kiṃ dasseti? Yesaṃ evamassa ‘‘bhagavatā ācikkhitakammaṭṭhānānuyogapaccayā tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ jīvitakkhayo āsī’’ti, tesaṃ taṃ micchāgāhaṃ nisedheti. Kevalaṃ tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pubbe katakammapaccayāva jīvitakkhayo āsi, idaṃ pana kammaṭṭhānaṃ tesaṃ kesañci arahattappattiyā, kesañci anāgāmisakadāgāmisotāpattiphalappattiyā, kesañci paṭhamajjhānādhigamāya, kesañci vikkhambhanatadaṅgappahānena attasinehapaayādānāya upanissayo hutvā, kesañci sugatiyaṃ uppattiyā upanissayo ahosīti sātthikāva me asubhakathā, kintu ‘‘sādhu, bhante bhagavā, aññaṃ pariyāyaṃ ācikkhatū’’ti ānandena yācitattā aññaṃ pariyāyaṃ ācikkhāmi, yathā vo pubbe ācikkhitaasubhakammaṭṭhānānuyogā, evaṃ ayampi kho bhikkhaveti yojanā veditabbā. ‘‘Assāsavasena upaṭṭhānaṃ satī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sā hi taṃ assāsaṃ, passāsaṃ vā ārammaṇaṃ katvā pubbabhāge, aparabhāge pana assāsapassāsapabhavanimittaṃ ārammaṇaṃ katvā upaṭṭhātīti ca tathā vuttā.

165. What does the phrase 'And this too, monks' indicate? It refutes the wrong view of those who might think, 'It was because of their devotion to the meditation subject taught by the Blessed One that the lives of those monks came to an end.' It was solely due to the past kamma they had performed that the destruction of their lives occurred. This meditation subject, however, became a supporting condition for some to attain Arahantship; for others, to attain the fruits of non-returning, once-returning, or stream-entry; for others, to attain the first jhāna; for others, to abandon affection for the self through suppression and momentary eradication; and for others, for rebirth in a happy destination. Thus, my discourse on the unattractive is indeed beneficial. But because the Venerable Ānanda requested, saying, 'Good, venerable sir, Blessed One, please teach another method,' I explain another method. The connection should be understood thus: Monks, just as you were devoted to the previously taught meditation subject of the unattractive, so too should this be practiced. It is said, 'Mindfulness is established by way of the in-breath.' For in the preliminary stage, that mindfulness is established by taking the in-breath or the out-breath as its object; but in the later stage, it is established by taking the sign arising from the in-breath and out-breath as its object. Thus it is also explained.

Asubhe [Pg.149] pavattaṃ asubhanti vā pavattaṃ bhāvanākammaṃ asubhakammaṃ, tadeva aññassa punappunaṃ uppajjanakassa kāraṇaṭṭhena ṭhānattā asubhakammaṭṭhānaṃ, ārammaṇaṃ vā asubhakammassa padaṭṭhānaṭṭhena ṭhānanti asubhakammaṭṭhānanti idha asubhajjhānaṃ, teneva ‘‘oḷārikārammaṇattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Paṭivedhavasenāti vitakkādiaṅgapaṭilābhavasena. Ārammaṇasantatāyāti anukkamena santakālaṃ upādāya vuttakāyadarathappaṭipassaddhivasena nibbuto. Parikammaṃ vāti kasiṇaparikammaṃ kira nimittuppādapariyosānaṃ. Tadā hi nirassādattā asantaṃ, appaṇihitañca. Yathā upacāre nīvaraṇavigamena, aṅgapātubhāvena ca santatā hoti, na tathā idha, idaṃ pana ‘‘ādisamannāhārato’’ti vuttaṃ. Dutiyavikappe asecanakoti atittikaro, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘ojavanto’’ti. Cetasikasukhaṃ jhānakkhaṇepi atthi, evaṃ santepi ‘‘ubhopi jhānā vuṭṭhitasseva gahetabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Samathena sakasantāne avikkhambhite. Itarathā pāpakānaṃ jhānena sahuppatti siyā. Khandhādīnaṃ lokuttarapādakattā nibbedhabhāgiyaṃ, visesena yassa nibbedhabhāgiyaṃ hoti, taṃ sandhāya vā. ‘‘Aniccānupassītiādicatukkavasena anupubbena ariyamaggavuḍḍhippatto samucchindati, sesānametaṃ natthī’’ti likhitaṃ.

The act of development that occurs in relation to the unattractive, or the act of development that occurs as 'unattractive', is the 'unattractive action'. That very action, because it stands as a cause for another consciousness that arises again and again, is the 'meditation subject of unattractive action'. Or, the object stands as a proximate cause for the unattractive action, thus it is the 'meditation subject of unattractive action'. Here, the unattractive jhāna is called the 'meditation subject of unattractive action'. For that very reason, it is said, 'Because of its gross object'. 'By way of penetration' means by way of the attainment of the factors beginning with applied thought. Regarding 'due to the continuity of the object', it is said, it seems, with reference to a peaceful time in sequence: by way of the calming of bodily distress, one is quenched. Or, 'preliminary work' is indeed the preliminary work on a kasiṇa, which culminates in the arising of the sign. For at that time, because of the absence of gratification, it is not peaceful and not sublime. Just as in access concentration it is peaceful through the removal of the hindrances and the manifestation of the factors, it is not so here. But this meditation, however, is spoken of as being peaceful and sublime 'from the initial application onwards'. In the second alternative, `asecanaka` means 'that which does not cause satiety'; therefore, it is said to be 'rich in flavor'. Mental happiness exists even at the moment of jhāna. Even so, it is said, 'Both bodily and mental happiness are to be grasped only by one who has emerged from jhāna'. When evil states in one's own continuity are unsuppressed by serenity. Otherwise, the co-arising of evil states with the jhāna would occur. Because the aggregates and so on are a basis for the supramundane, it is 'partaking of penetration'. Or, it is said with reference to one for whom it is especially 'partaking of penetration'. It is written: 'By way of the tetrad beginning with "contemplating impermanence," one who has successively attained growth in the noble path cuts off defilements. For the others, this is not so'.

Tathābhāvapaṭisedhano cāti soḷasavatthukassa titthiyānaṃ natthitāya vuttaṃ. Sabbapaṭhamānaṃ pana catunnaṃ padānaṃ vasena lokiyajjhānameva tesaṃ atthi, tasmiṃ lokuttarapadaṭṭhānaṃ natthi eva. ‘‘Phalamuttamanti phale uttama’’nti vuttaṃ. Ututtayānukūlanti gimhe araññe, hemante rukkhamūle, vasantakāle suññāgāre gato. Semhadhātukassa araññaṃ, pittadhātukassa rukkhamūlaṃ, vātadhātukassa suññāgāraṃ anukūlaṃ. Mohacaritassa araññaṃ anukūlaṃ mahāaraññe cittaṃ na saṅkuṭati, dosacaritassa rukkhamūlaṃ, rāgacaritassa suññāgāraṃ. Ṭhānacaṅkamāni uddhaccapakkhikāni, sayanaṃ līnapakkhikaṃ, pallaṅkābhujanena nisajjāya daḷhabhāvaṃ, ujukāyaṃ paṇidhānena assāsapassāsānaṃ pavattanasukhaṃ ‘‘parimukhaṃ sati’’nti iminā ārammaṇapariggahūpāyaṃ dasseti. Kārīti karaṇasīlo. Etassa vibhaṅge ‘‘assasati passasatī’’ti avatvā ‘‘sato kārī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tasmā ‘‘assasati passasatī’’ti [Pg.150] vutte ‘‘paṭhamacatukkaṃ eva labbhati, na sesānī’’ti ca ‘‘dīghaṃassāsavasenāti alopasamāsaṃ katvā’’iti ca ‘‘ekatthatāya avikkhepa’’nti ca ‘‘asambhogavasena pajānato’’ti ca ‘‘tena ñāṇenā’’ti ca ‘‘pajānatoti vuttañāṇenā’’ti ca ‘‘satokārīti satisampajaññāhikārī’’ti ca ‘‘paṭinissaggānupassino assāsāva paṭinissaggānupassiassāsā’’ti ca likhitaṃ. Uppaṭipāṭiyā āgatampi yujjateva, tena ṭhānena paṭisiddhaṃ. Tāluṃ āhacca nibbāyanato kira potako sampatijātova khipitasaddaṃ karoti, chandapāmojjavasena cha purimā tayoti nava. Ekenākārenāti assāsavasena vā passāsavasena vā evaṃ ānāpānassatiṃ bhāvayato kāye kāyānupassanāsatikammaṭṭhānabhāvanā sampajjati.

And 'the refutation of such a state' is stated because of the non-existence of the sixteen-fold basis for the adherents of other sects. However, by means of the first four phrases, they have only mundane jhāna, and in that there is no supramundane basis at all. 'The highest fruit' means 'the highest in fruit.' 'Suitable for the three seasons' means having gone to the forest in summer, to the foot of a tree in winter, and to an empty dwelling in the rainy season. For one with a phlegmatic constitution, the forest is suitable; for one with a bilious constitution, the foot of a tree is suitable; for one with a windy constitution, an empty dwelling is suitable. For one of a deluded temperament, the forest is suitable; in a great forest, the mind does not shrink. For one of a hating temperament, the foot of a tree is suitable; for one of a lustful temperament, an empty dwelling is suitable. Standing and walking are allied with restlessness; lying down is allied with sluggishness. By sitting with legs crossed there is firmness; by setting the body erect there is ease in the occurrence of the in-breaths and out-breaths. By 'mindfulness to the fore,' he shows the method for grasping the object. 'Kārī' means one whose nature is to do. In its analysis, instead of saying 'he breathes in, he breathes out,' it is said, 'being mindful, he is one who acts.' Therefore it is written that when it is said 'he breathes in, he breathes out,' 'only the first tetrad is obtained, not the remaining ones'; and 'by way of a long in-breath,' having formed a compound without elision; and 'non-distraction through unification'; and 'of one who knows by way of non-enjoyment'; and 'by that knowledge'; and 'knowing by the knowledge that has been stated'; and 'one who acts mindfully means one who acts with mindfulness and clear comprehension'; and 'the in-breaths of one contemplating relinquishment are themselves the in-breaths of one contemplating relinquishment.' Even what has come in reverse order is indeed suitable, but it is refuted by that point. It is said that a fledgling, just after being born, makes a sneezing sound from striking the palate and causing it to cease. By way of zeal and gladness there are six; with the former three, there are thus nine. 'In one way' means either by way of the in-breath or by way of the out-breath. Thus, for one developing mindfulness of breathing in this way, in the body, the development of the meditation subject, which is mindfulness as contemplation of the body, is accomplished.

Kāyoti assāsapassāsā. Upaṭṭhānaṃ sati. Dīghanti sīghaṃ gataṃ assāsapassāsaṃ. Addhānasaṅkhāteti kālasaṅkhāte viya kālakoṭṭhāseti attho, dīghakāle vāti attho. Eko hi assāsamevūpalakkheti, eko passāsaṃ, eko ubhayaṃ, tasmā ‘‘vibhāgaṃ akatvā’’ti vā vuttaṃ, chandoti evaṃ assāsato, passāsato ca assādo uppajjati, tassa vasena kattukamyatāchando uppajjati. Tato pāmojjanti. Assāsapassāsānaṃ duviññeyyavisayattā cittaṃ vivattati, gaṇanaṃ pahāya phuṭṭhaṭṭhānameva manasi karontassa kevalaṃ upekkhāva saṇṭhāti. Cattāro vaṇṇāti ‘‘pattassa tayo vaṇṇā’’tiādīsu viya cattāro saṇṭhānāti attho.

`Body` means the in-breaths and out-breaths. `Establishment` means mindfulness. `Long` means the in-breath and out-breath that has come to be designated as such. `Reckoned as duration` means reckoned as time, like a division of time; this is the meaning, or it means for a long time. Indeed, one person observes only the in-breath, another only the out-breath, another both; therefore it is also said, 'without making a division.' `Desire`: thus, from the in-breath and out-breath gratification arises; through its power, the desire which is the wish to act arises. From that, gladness arises. Because the in-breaths and out-breaths are an object that is difficult to discern, the mind turns away; for one who has abandoned counting and attends only to the point of contact, mere equanimity becomes established. `Four colors` means four shapes, as in such phrases as 'three colors of a bowl'; this is the meaning.

Tathābhūtassāti ānāpānassatiṃ bhāvayato. Saṃvaroti satisaṃvaro. Atha vā paṭhamena jhānena nīvaraṇānaṃ, dutiyena vitakkavicārānaṃ, tatiyena pītiyā, catutthena sukhadukkhānaṃ, ākāsānañcāyatanasamāpattiyā rūpasaññāya, paṭighasaññāya, nānattasaññāya vā pahānaṃ. ‘‘Sīlanti veramaṇi sīlaṃ, cetanā sīlaṃ, saṃvaro sīlaṃ, avītikkamo sīla’’nti (paṭi. ma. 1.39 thokaṃ visadisaṃ) vuttavidhināpettha attho daṭṭhabbo. ‘‘Atthato tathā tathā pavattadhammā upadhāraṇasamādhānasaṅkhātena sīlanaṭṭhena sīlanti vuccantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tathā ‘‘ayaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippetā sikkhā’’ti etthāpi cetanāsīlameva, katthaci viratisīlampīti attho daṭṭhabbo. Aññathā paṇṇattivajjesupi sikkhāpadesu viratippasaṅgo ahosi[Pg.151], pātimokkhasaṃvarasaṃvuto viharatīti katvā tassāpi viratippasaṅgo. Tasmiṃ ārammaṇeti ānāpānārammaṇe. Tāya satiyāti tattha uppannasatiyā. ‘‘Tena manasikārenāti āvajjanenā’’ti likhitaṃ. Etena nānāvajjanappavattidīpanato nānājavanavārehipi sikkhati nāmāti dīpitaṃ hoti, yena pana manasikārena vā. Ñāṇuppādanādīsūti ettha ādisaddena yāva pariyosānaṃ veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Tatrāti tasmiṃ ānāpānārammaṇe. Evanti idāni vattabbanayenā’’ti likhitaṃ. Tatrāti tesaṃ assāsapassāsānaṃ vā. Tañhi ‘‘pubbe apariggahitakāle’’ti iminā suṭṭhu sameti. ‘‘Paṭhamavādo dīghabhāṇakānaṃ. Te hi ‘paṭhamajjhānaṃ labhitvā nānāsane nisīditvā dutiyatthāya vāyāmato upacāre vitakkavicāravasena oḷārikacittappavattikāle pavattaassāsapassāsavasena oḷārikā’ti vadanti. ‘Majjhimabhāṇakā jhānalābhissa samāpajjanakāle, ekāsanapaṭilābhe ca uparūpari cittappavattiyā santabhāvato paṭhamato dutiyassupacāre sukhumataṃ vadantī’’’ti likhitaṃ.

`Of one who has become thus` means of one who develops mindfulness of breathing. `Restraint` means restraint by mindfulness. Or, by the first jhāna there is the abandoning of the hindrances; by the second, of initial and sustained thought; by the third, of rapture; by the fourth, of pleasure and pain; by the attainment of the base of boundless space, of perceptions of form, perceptions of resistance, and perceptions of diversity. Here the meaning should also be seen in accordance with the method stated: 'Morality is abstinence morality, volition morality, restraint morality, non-transgression morality.' It is said: 'Essentially, things that occur in such and such a way are called "morality" in the sense of disciplining, which is designated as upholding and concentrating.' So too here, in 'this is the training intended in this sense,' it is volition-morality, but in some cases the meaning should be seen as abstinence-morality too. Otherwise, the consequence would be that abstinence applies even to training rules concerning what is blameworthy by convention, and since one 'dwells restrained by the Pātimokkha restraint,' the consequence would be that this too is abstinence. `In that object` means in the object of breathing. `With that mindfulness` means with the mindfulness that has arisen there. It is written: '`With that attention` means with adverting.' By this it is shown that one trains also by means of various series of impulsion moments, or by whatever attention. In `in the production of knowledge, etc.,` the word 'etc.' should be understood as extending up to the very end. It is written: '`Therein` means in that object of breathing. `Thus` means by the method now to be stated.' Or, `therein` means of those in-breaths and out-breaths. For this fits well with 'at a time when they were not previously grasped.' 'The first opinion is that of the Dīgha Reciters. For they say: "Having attained the first jhāna and sitting in various postures, while striving for the second, at the time of the coarse mental process due to initial and sustained thought in access concentration, the in-breaths and out-breaths that occur are coarse." The Majjhima Reciters say: "For one who has attained jhāna, at the time of entering the attainment and when the attainment in a single posture is gained, because of the tranquil state of the successively higher mental processes, they speak of subtlety in the access to the second from the first."' This is written.

Vipassanāyaṃ panāti catudhātuvavatthānamukhena abhiniviṭṭhassa ayaṃ kamo, aññassa cāti veditabbaṃ. Ettakaṃ rūpaṃ, na ito aññanti dassanaṃ sandhāya ‘‘sakalarūpapariggahe’’ti vuttaṃ. Rūpārūpapariggaheti ettha aniccatādilakkhaṇārammaṇikabhaṅgānupassanato pabhuti balavatī vipassanā. Pubbe vuttanayenāti sabbesaṃyeva pana matena apariggahitakāletiādinā. Sodhanā nāma vissajjanaṃ. Assāti ‘‘passambhayaṃ kāyasaṅkhāra’’nti padassa.

Regarding 'But in the case of insight': this is the sequence for one who has entered upon it by way of the determination of the four elements, and for another as well; this should be understood. With reference to the seeing, 'Material form is only this much, there is nothing else besides this,' the words 'in the grasping of all material form' were stated. Here, in 'the grasping of material and immaterial form,' insight is powerful from the contemplation of dissolution onwards, which has the characteristics of impermanence and so on as its object. As for 'By the method stated before': this refers to the method beginning with 'at a time when they were not grasped,' according to the opinion of all. 'Purification' is the name for answering. 'Of it' refers to the phrase, 'calming the bodily formation.'

Purato namanā ānamanā. Tiriyaṃ namanā vinamanā. Suṭṭhu namanā sannamanā. Pacchā namanā paṇamanā. Jāṇuke gahetvā ṭhānaṃ viya iñjanāti ānamanādīnaṃ āvibhāvatthamuttanti veditabbaṃ. Yathārūpehi ānamanādi vā kampanādi vā hoti, tathārūpe passambhayanti sambandho. Iti kirāti iti ce. Evaṃ santeti santasukhumampi ce passambhati. Pabhāvanāti uppādanaṃ. Assāsapassāsānaṃ vūpasantattā ānāpānassatisamādhissa bhāvanā na hoti. Yasmā taṃ natthi, tasmā na samāpajjati, samāpattiyā abhāvena na vuṭṭhahanti. Iti kirāti evametaṃ tāva vacananti tadetaṃ[Pg.152]. Saddova saddanimittaṃ, ‘‘sato assasati sato passasatī’’ti padāni patiṭṭhapetvā dvattiṃsapadāni cattāri catukkāni veditabbāni.

Bending forward is inclining. Bending sideways is deviating. Bending well is contracting. Bending backward is bowing. 'Shaking, like standing while holding the knees,' is stated to make manifest inclining and so forth; this should be understood. The connection is to be understood thus: For whatever reason there is inclining, etc., or trembling, etc., one calms them accordingly. 'Iti kirā' means 'If one were to say thus.' 'Evaṃ sante' means 'This being so, if one calms even what is peaceful and subtle...' 'Bringing into being' means production. Because the in-breaths and out-breaths have been tranquillized, the development of the concentration of mindfulness of breathing does not occur. Since that is absent, one does not attain it; and because of the absence of attainment, one does not emerge from it. Regarding 'Iti kirā': this statement is thus for the time being. Sound itself is the sign of sound. Beginning with the phrases 'mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out,' the thirty-two phrases should be understood as four tetrads.

Appaṭipīḷananti tesaṃ kilesānaṃ anuppādanaṃ kiñcāpi cetiyaṅgaṇavattādīnipi atthato pātimokkhasaṃvarasīle saṅgahaṃ gacchanti ‘‘yassa siyā āpattī’’ti (mahāva. 134) vacanato. Tathāpi ‘‘na tāva, sāriputta, satthā sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapeti uddisati pātimokkhaṃ, yāva na idhekacce āsavaṭṭhānīyā dhammā saṅghe pātubhavantī’’ti ettha anadhippetattā ‘‘ābhisamācārika’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Yaṃ panettha āpattiṭṭhāniyaṃ na hoti, taṃ amissamevā’’ti vuttaṃ.

'Non-affliction' means the non-arising of those defilements. Although duties concerning shrine-yards and so on are, in terms of meaning, included in the morality of Pātimokkha restraint, according to the saying, 'for whomever there might be an offense,' still, because it is not intended in the passage, 'Not yet, Sāriputta, does the Teacher lay down a training rule for the disciples or recite the Pātimokkha, so long as certain states that are grounds for the taints have not appeared in the Sangha,' it is called 'concerned with proper conduct.' It is said: 'Whatever here is not a basis for an offense, that is unmixed.'

Yathāvuttenāti yogānuyogakammassa padaṭṭhānattā. Sallahukavutti aṭṭhaparikkhāriko. Pañcasandhikaṃ kammaṭṭhānanti ettha jhānampi nimittampi tadatthajotikāpi pariyatti idha kammaṭṭhānaṃ nāma. Gamanāgamanasampannatādi senāsanaṃ. Saṃkiliṭṭhacīvaradhovanādayo khuddakapalibodhā. ‘‘Antarā patitaṃ nu kho’’ti vikampati.

'As was said' means because it is the proximate cause for the task of application and endeavor. Of light livelihood, possessing the eight requisites. 'The meditation subject with five connections': here, jhāna, the sign, and the scriptural text that illuminates its meaning are called the meditation subject. A lodging endowed with suitability for coming and going, etc. Washing soiled robes and so on are minor impediments. One is uncertain, thinking, 'Has it perhaps fallen in between?'

Ajjhattaṃ vikkhepagatenāti niyakajjhatte vikkhepagatena. Sāraddhā asamāhitattā. Upanibandhanathambhamūlaṃ nāma nāsikaggaṃ, mukhanimittaṃ vā. Tatthevāti nāsikaggādinimitte. ‘‘Dolāphalakassa ekapasse eva ubho koṭiyo majjhañca passatī’’ti vadanti.

'Having become internally scattered' means having become scattered in one's own interior. They are agitated because of being unconcentrated. The tying-up post is the name for the nose-tip, or the sign at the mouth. 'Just there' means on the sign at the nose-tip and so on. They say: 'One sees both ends and the middle of a swing-board on one side only.'

Idha panāti kakacūpame. Desatoti phusanakaṭṭhānato. ‘‘Nimittaṃ paṭṭhapetabbanti nimitte sati paṭṭhapetabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Garūhi bhāvetabbattā garukabhāvanaṃ. Ekacce āhūti ekacce jhāyino āhu.

'But here' refers to the Simile of the Saw. 'From the region' means from the place of contact. It is said: '`A sign should be established` means mindfulness should be established on the sign.' Because it should be developed by teachers, it is a weighty development. 'Some say' means some meditators say.

‘‘Saññānānatāyā’’ti vacanato ekaccehi vuttampi pamāṇameva, saṅgītito paṭṭhāya aṭṭhakathāya anāgatattā tathā vuttaṃ. ‘‘Mayhaṃ tārakarūpaṃ nu kho upaṭṭhātī’’tiādiparikappe asatipi dhātunānattena etāsaṃ dhātūnaṃ uppatti viya kevalaṃ bhāvayato tathā tathā upaṭṭhāti. ‘‘Na nimitta’nti vattuṃ na vaṭṭati sampajānamusāvādattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Kammaṭṭhānanti idha vuttapaṭibhāganimittameva.

Because of the statement, 'due to the diversity of perception,' what has been said by some is also a valid measure; it is stated thus because of its not having come down in the commentary since the time of the council. Even when there is no such initial thought as, 'Does a star-like form appear to me?' and so on, due to the diversity of elements, it appears in various ways to one who is merely developing it, like the arising of these elements. It is said: 'It is not proper to say, "It is not a sign," because it would be a deliberate falsehood.' As for 'meditation subject,' here it is just the aforementioned counterpart sign.

Nimitte [Pg.153] paṭibhāge. Nānākāranti ‘‘cattāro vaṇṇā vattantī’’ti vuttanānāvidhataṃ. Vibhāvayanti jānaṃ pakāsayaṃ. Assāsapassāseti tato sambhūte nimitte, assāsapassāse vā nānākāraṃ. Nimitte hi cittaṃ ṭhapentova nānākāratañca vibhāveti, assāsapassāse vā sakaṃ cittaṃ nibandhatīti vuccati. Tārakarūpādivaṇṇato. Kakkhaḷattādilakkhaṇato.

In the counterpart sign. 'Of various kinds' means the aforementioned diversity stated as, 'four colors occur.' Discerning means knowing and making manifest. Regarding 'in-breaths and out-breaths': this refers to the various kinds in the sign arisen from them, or in the in-breaths and out-breaths. For, while placing the mind on the sign, one indeed discerns the diversity; or, it is said, one binds one's own mind to the in-breaths and out-breaths. From the color of a star-like form and so on. From the characteristic of hardness and so on.

Aṭṭhakathāsu paṭikkhittanti āsannabhavaṅgattāti kāraṇaṃ vatvā sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāsu paṭikkhittaṃ. Kasmā? Yasmā chaṭṭhe, sattame vā appanāya sati maggavīthiyaṃ phalassa okāso na hoti, tasmā. Idha hotūti ce? Na, lokiyappanāpi hi appanāvīthimhi lokuttarena samānagatikāvāti paṭiladdhajjhānopi bhikkhu diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāratthāya jhānaṃ samāpajjitvā sattāhaṃ nisīditukāmo catutthe, pañcame vā appetvā nisīdati, na chaṭṭhe, sattame vā. Tattha hi appanā. Tato paraṃ appanāya ādhārabhāvaṃ na gacchati. Āsannabhavaṅgattā catutthaṃ, pañcamaṃ vā gacchati thale ṭhitaghaṭo viya javanānamantare ṭhitattāti kira ācariyo.

As for 'it is rejected in the commentaries': having stated the reason 'because of nearness to the bhavaṅga,' it is rejected in the Sinhala commentaries. Why? Because when absorption occurs at the sixth or seventh javana, there is no opportunity for fruition in the path process; therefore. If one should say, 'Let it occur here,' the answer is no. For indeed, even mundane absorption, in the absorption process, has the same course as the supramundane. Thus, a bhikkhu who has attained jhāna, wishing to sit for seven days for the sake of a blissful abiding in this very life, enters jhāna and sits, having caused absorption to arise at the fourth or fifth javana, not at the sixth or seventh. For absorption occurs therein. Beyond that, it does not become a basis for absorption. The teacher, it seems, said: 'Because of nearness to the bhavaṅga, it goes to the fourth or fifth, being situated between the javanas like a pot standing on the ground.'

Puthuttārammaṇāni anāvajjitvā jhānaṅgāneva āvajjanaṃ āvajjanavasī nāma. Tato paraṃ catunnaṃ, pañcannaṃ vā paccavekkhaṇacittānaṃ uppajjanaṃ, taṃ paccavekkhaṇavasī nāma. Teneva ‘‘paccavekkhaṇavasī pana āvajjanavasiyā eva vuttā’’ti vuttaṃ. Samāpajjanavasī nāma yattakaṃ kālaṃ icchati tattakaṃ samāpajjanaṃ, taṃ pana icchitakālaparicchedaṃ patiṭṭhāpetuṃ samatthatāti. ‘‘Adhiṭṭhānavasiyā vuṭṭhānavasino ayaṃ nānattaṃ adhiṭṭhānānubhāvena javanaṃ javati, vuṭṭhānānubhāvena pana adhippetato adhikaṃ javatī’’tipi vadanti. Apica pathavīkasiṇādiārammaṇaṃ āvajjitvā javanañca javitvā puna āvajjitvā tato pañcamaṃ jhānaṃ cittaṃ hoti, ayaṃ kira ukkaṭṭhaparicchedo. Bhagavato pana āvajjanasamanantarameva jhānaṃ hotīti sabbaṃ anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

Not adverting to various objects but adverting only to the jhāna factors is called mastery in adverting. After that, the arising of four or five reviewing consciousnesses is called mastery in reviewing. For that very reason it is said: 'Mastery in reviewing, however, is stated by way of mastery in adverting.' Mastery in attaining is attaining absorption for as long as one wishes; this, it should be understood, is the ability to establish the desired time limit. Some also say: 'This is the difference between mastery in determination and mastery in emerging: by the power of determination, the impulsion runs; but by the power of emerging, it does not run on for longer than was intended.' Moreover, having adverted to an object such as the earth kasiṇa, and having run through the impulsion, and having adverted again, thereafter the fifth jhāna consciousness arises—this, it seems, is the highest limit. But for the Blessed One, jhāna arises immediately after adverting—all this is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada.

‘‘Vatthunti hadayavatthuṃ. Dvāranti cakkhādi. Ārammaṇanti rūpādī’’ti likhitaṃ. Yathāpariggahitarūpārammaṇaṃ vā viññāṇaṃ passati, aññathāpi passati. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Yathāpariggahitarūpavatthudvārārammaṇaṃ vā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yathāpariggahitarūpesu vatthudvārārammaṇāni yassa viññāṇassa, taṃ viññāṇaṃ yathāpariggahitarūpavatthudvārārammaṇaṃ [Pg.154] tampi passati, ekassa vā ārammaṇasaddassa lopo daṭṭhabboti ca mama takko vicāretvāva gahetabbo.

It is written: 'Basis' means the heart-basis. 'Door' means the eye and so on. 'Object' means form and so forth. One sees a consciousness that has a form-object as it is apprehended, or one sees it otherwise. How? It is said: 'Or as a form-basis-door-object as it is apprehended.' One also sees that consciousness for which there are a basis, door, and objects in regard to forms as they are apprehended. Or, the elision of the one word 'object' should be noted. And this is my reasoning; it should be accepted only after careful consideration.

Tato paraṃ tīsu catukkesu dve dve padāni ekamekaṃ katvā gaṇetabbaṃ. Samathena ārammaṇato vipassanāvasena asammohato pītipaṭisaṃvedanamettha veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Dukkhametaṃ ñāṇa’’ntiādīsu pana ‘‘ārammaṇato asammohato’’ti yaṃ vuttaṃ, idha tato vuttanayato uppaṭipāṭiyā vuttaṃ. Tattha hi yena mohena taṃ dukkhaṃ paṭicchannaṃ, na upaṭṭhāti, tassa vihatattā vā evaṃ pavatte ñāṇe yathāruci paccavekkhituṃ icchiticchitakāle samatthabhāvato vā dukkhādīsu tīsu asammohato ñāṇaṃ vuttaṃ. Nirodhe ārammaṇato taṃsampayuttā pītipaṭisaṃvedanā asammohato na sambhavati mohappahānābhāvā, paṭisambhidāpāḷivirodhato ca. Tattha ‘‘dīghaṃ assāsavasenā’’tiādi ārammaṇato dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Tāya satiyā tena ñāṇena sā pīti paṭisaṃviditā hoti tadārammaṇassa paṭisaṃviditattāti ettha adhippāyo. ‘‘Āvajjato’’tiādi asammohato pītipaṭisaṃvedanaṃ dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Aniccādivasena jānato, passato, paccavekkhato ca. Tadadhimuttatāvasena adhiṭṭhahato, adhimuccato, tathā vīriyādiṃ samādahato khaṇikasamādhinā.

Thereafter, in the three tetrads, the phrases should be taken two by two as single items. Here, the experiencing of joy should be understood by way of serenity as to the object, and by way of insight as to non-delusion. But in such passages as 'This is the knowledge of suffering,' what was stated as 'as to the object and as to non-delusion' is stated here in the reverse order from the method stated there. For there, either because that delusion by which suffering is concealed has been struck down so that it does not appear, or because of the ability to review as one wishes at any desired time when such knowledge has arisen, the knowledge regarding the three truths—suffering, etc.—is said to be 'as to non-delusion.' In the case of the truth of cessation, an associated experiencing of joy 'as to the object' is not possible 'as to non-delusion,' because delusion has not been abandoned and because this would contradict the Paṭisambhidāmagga text. There, 'by way of a long in-breath,' etc., is stated to show 'as to the object.' The intention here is that by that mindfulness, by that knowledge, that joy is experienced because its object is experienced. 'By adverting,' etc., is stated to show the experiencing of joy 'as to non-delusion': for one who knows, sees, and reviews by way of impermanence, etc.; for one who resolves and is intent by way of being disposed towards that; and likewise for one who applies energy, etc., with momentary concentration, that joy is experienced.

Abhiññeyyanti ñātapariññāya. Pariññeyyanti tīraṇapariññāya. Sabbañhi dukkhasaccaṃ abhiññeyyaṃ, pariññeyyañca. Tatra cāyaṃ pītīti likhitaṃ. Abhiññeyyantiādi maggakkhaṇaṃ sandhāyāhāti vuttaṃ. Maggena asammohasaṅkhātavipassanākiccanipphattito maggopi abhiññeyyādiārammaṇaṃ karonto viya vutto. Vipassanābhūmidassanatthanti samathe kāyikasukhābhāvā vuttaṃ. Dvīsu cittasaṅkhārapadesūti cittasaṅkhārapaṭisaṃvedī…pe… sikkhati passambhayaṃ cittasaṅkhārapaṭisaṃvedī…pe… sikkhatīti etesu. Modanādi sabbaṃ pītivevacanaṃ. Aniccānupassanādi kilese, tammūlake khandhābhisaṅkhāre. Evaṃ bhāvitoti na catukkapañcakajjhānanibbattanena bhāvito. Evaṃ sabbākāraparipuṇṇaṃ katvā bhāvito. Vipassanāmaggapaccavekkhaṇakālesupi pavattaassāsamukheneva sabbaṃ dassitaṃ upāyakusalena bhagavatā.

'To be directly known' is by means of full understanding as the known. 'To be fully understood' is by means of full understanding as investigation. For the entire truth of suffering is to be directly known and to be fully understood. And in that context it is written: 'This is joy.' It is said that 'to be directly known,' etc., is stated with reference to the path moment. Because the path accomplishes the function of insight, which is called non-delusion, the path, too, is spoken of as if it were making 'to be directly known,' etc., its object. This is stated to show the stage of insight, because in serenity there is no bodily pleasure. In the two passages on the mental formation: that is, in 'experiencing the mental formation… he trains' and 'calming the mental formation… he trains.' Gladness and so on are all synonyms for joy. Contemplation of impermanence, etc., abandons the defilements and the aggregate-formations rooted in them. 'Thus developed' means not developed by producing the fourfold and fivefold jhānas, but rather developed by making it complete in all aspects. Even during the times of insight, path, and reviewing, everything is shown by the Blessed One, skilled in means, by way of the occurring in-breath.

168. Kasmā idaṃ vuccati amhehīti adhippāyo.

168. The intention is: 'Why is this said by us?'

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Word-by-Word Analysis

172. Ussukkavacananti [Pg.155] pākaṭasaddasaññā kira, samānakapadanti vuttaṃ hoti. ‘‘Sutvā bhuñjantī’’ti ettha viya sañcicca voropetukāmassa sañciccapadaṃ voropanapadassa ussukkaṃ, sañcetanā ca jīvitā voropanañca ekassevāti vuttaṃ hoti. Na kevalaṃ cetasikamatteneva hoti, payogopi icchitabbo evāti dassetuṃ vuttānīti kira upatissatthero. ‘‘Jānitvā sañjānitvā cecca abhivitaritvā’’ti vattabbe ‘‘jānanto…pe… vītikkamo’’ti voropanampi dassitaṃ, tasmā byañjane ādaraṃ akatvā attho dassito. Vītikkamasaṅkhātatthasiddhiyā hi purimacetanā atthasādhikā hoti. Sabbasukhumaattabhāvanti rūpaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na arūpaṃ. Attasaṅkhātānañhi arūpānaṃ khandhavibhaṅge (vibha. 1 ādayo) viya idha oḷārikasukhumatā anadhippetā. Mātukucchisminti yebhuyyavacanaṃ, opapātikamanussepi pārājikameva, arūpakāye upakkamābhāvā taggahaṇaṃ kasmāti ce? Arūpakkhandhena saddhiṃ tasseva rūpakāyassa jīvitindriyasambhavato. Tena sajīvakova manussaviggahopi nāma hotīti siddhaṃ. Ettha mātukucchisminti manussamātuyā vā tiracchānamātuyā vā. Vuttañhi parivāre (pari. 480) –

172. The term 'Ussukkavacana,' it is said, refers to the perception of an overt sound, and it is said to be a synonymous term. Just as in the phrase 'hearing, they eat,' for one who intends to deprive of life, the word 'sañcicca' (deliberately) is synonymous with the word 'voropana' (depriving of life). It is said that the intention and the act of depriving of life are one and the same. The Elder Upatissa, it is said, stated that these words were spoken to show that it is not merely by a mental factor alone, but that application is also certainly required. When it should have been said, 'knowing, perceiving, intending, and utterly transgressing,' by saying 'knowing...transgression,' the act of depriving of life is also shown. Therefore, without paying respect to the letter, the meaning is shown. For, by the accomplishment of the purpose designated as transgression, the prior intention is what accomplishes the purpose. The phrase 'all subtle self-existence' is said in reference to material form, not the immaterial. For, in the case of the immaterial things reckoned as self, the state of being gross and subtle is not intended here, as in the Analysis of the Aggregates. 'In the mother’s womb' is a general expression; even in the case of a spontaneously arisen human, it is a pārājika offense. If one should ask, 'Since there is no means of attack on an immaterial body, why is that mentioned?' Because the life faculty arises for that very material body together with the immaterial aggregates. Therefore, it is established that a human form is indeed one with life. Here, 'in the mother’s womb' means in the womb of either a human mother or an animal mother. For it is said in the Parivāra—

‘‘Itthiṃ hane ca mātaraṃ, purisañca pitaraṃ hane;

Mātaraṃ pitaraṃ hantvā, na tenānantaraṃ phuse;

Pañhā mesā kusalehi cintitā’’ti.

“One might kill a woman who is a mother, and one might kill a man who is a father; having killed a mother and a father, one does not thereby reach an immediately resultant kamma. This question has been considered by the skillful.”

Paṭhamanti paṭisandhicittameva. Ekabhavapariyāpannāya hi cittasantatiyā paṭisandhicittaṃ paṭhamacittaṃ nāma. Cuticittaṃ pacchimaṃ nāma. Aññathā anamatagge saṃsāre paṭhamacittaṃ nāma natthi vinā anantarasamanantaranatthivigatapaccayehi cittuppattiyā abhāvato. Bhāve vā navasattapātubhāvadosappasaṅgo. Ayaṃ sabbapaṭhamo manussaviggahoti kiñcāpi imaṃ jīvitā voropetuṃ na sakkā, taṃ ādiṃ katvā santatiyā yāva maraṇā uppajjanakamanussaviggahesu aparimāṇesu ‘‘sabbapaṭhamo’’ti dissati. Yadā pana yo manussaviggaho pubbāpariyavasena santatippatto hoti, tadā taṃ jīvitā voropetuṃ [Pg.156] sakkā. Santatiṃ vikopento hi jīvitā voropeti nāma. Ettha ca nānattanaye adhippete sati ‘‘sabbapaṭhamo’’ti vacanaṃ yujjati, na pana ekattanaye santatiyā ekattā. Ekattanayo ca idhādhippeto ‘‘santatiṃ vikopetī’’ti vacanato, tasmā ‘‘sabbapaṭhamo’’ti vacanaṃ na yujjatīti ce? Na, santatipaccuppannabahuttā. Yasmā pana santati nāma anekesaṃ pubbāpariyuppatti vuccati, tasmā ‘‘ayaṃ sabbapaṭhamo’’ti vutto, evamettha dvepi nayā saṅgahaṃ gacchanti, aññathā ‘‘santatiṃ vikopetī’’ti idaṃ vacanaṃ na sijjhati. Kiñcāpi ettha ‘‘santatiṃ vikopetī’’ti vacanato santatipaccuppannameva adhippetaṃ, na addhāpaccuppannaṃ viya dissati, tathāpi yasmā santatipaccuppanne vikopite addhāpaccuppannaṃ vikopitameva hoti, addhāpaccuppanne pana vikopite santatipaccuppannaṃ vikopitaṃ hotīti ettha vattabbaṃ natthi. Tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘tadubhayampi voropetuṃ sakkā, tasmā tadeva sandhāya ‘santatiṃ vikopetī’ti idaṃ vuttanti veditabba’’nti āha. ‘‘Santatiṃ vikopetī’’ti vacanato pakatiyā āyupariyantaṃ patvā maraṇakasatte vītikkame sati anāpatti vītikkamapaccayā santatiyā akopitattā. Vītikkamapaccayā ce āyupariyantaṃ appatvā antarāva maraṇakasatte vītikkamapaccayā āpatti, kammabaddho cāti no takkoti ācariyo. ‘‘Maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyya, maraṇāya vā samādapeyya, ayampi pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso’’ti vacanato vā cetanākkhaṇe eva pārājikāpatti ekantākusalattā, dukkhavedanattā, kāyakammattā, vacīkammattā, kiriyattā cāti veditabbaṃ.

The first is merely the rebirth-linking consciousness. For in the continuity of consciousness belonging to a single existence, the rebirth-linking consciousness is called the first consciousness. The death consciousness is called the last. Otherwise, in the beginningless cycle of existence, there is no first consciousness, because without the conditions of immediate contiguity, contiguous contiguity, absence, and disappearance, the arising of consciousness is impossible. Or, were it to exist, there would be the fault of implying the manifestation of a new being. This is the very first human form—though it is impossible to deprive it of life, starting from this as the beginning, in the countless human forms arising in the continuity until death, it is seen as 'the very first.' But when a human form has reached continuity through prior and subsequent existence, then it is possible to deprive that one of life. For one who disrupts the continuity is said to deprive of life. Here, when the approach of diversity is intended, the statement 'the very first' is appropriate, but not in the approach of unity, because of the oneness of the continuity. And if it is said that since the approach of unity is intended here—as shown by the statement 'one who disrupts the continuity'—therefore, the statement 'the very first' is inappropriate? No, because of the multiplicity of the present-continuity. But since continuity is called the prior and subsequent arising of many things, therefore it is said, 'this is the very first.' Thus, here both approaches are included. Otherwise, the statement 'one who disrupts the continuity' would not be established. Though here, from the statement 'one who disrupts the continuity,' only the present-continuity is intended, and it is not apparent as the present-in-time, still, since when the present-continuity is disrupted, the present-in-time is also disrupted, and when the present-in-time is disrupted, the present-continuity is disrupted, there is nothing further to say here. Therefore, the commentary states: 'It is possible to deprive of both; therefore, it should be understood that this was said with reference to that: “one who disrupts the continuity”.' From the statement 'one who disrupts the continuity,' it follows that if there is a transgression against a being who, having naturally reached the end of its lifespan, is about to die, there is no offense, because the continuity was not disrupted by the transgression. But if, due to a transgression, a being does not reach the end of its lifespan and dies in the interim, there is an offense, and it is bound by kamma—this is our reasoning, says the teacher. Or, from the statement 'Or if one praises death, or incites another to death, this too is a Pārājika offense, entailing non-communion,' it should be understood that the Pārājika offense occurs at the very moment of intention—because it is entirely unwholesome, associated with painful feeling, is bodily action, is verbal action, and because of its nature as an action.

Sattaṭṭhajavanavāramattanti sabhāgārammaṇavasena vuttaṃ, teneva ‘‘sabhāgasantativasenā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Attano paṭipakkhena samannāgatattā samanantarassa paccayaṃ hontaṃ yathā pure viya ahutvā dubbalassa. Tanti jīvitindriyavikopanaṃ.

“The measure of seven or eight javana-moments,” this is said by way of a similar object. For that very reason, it is also said, “by way of a similar continuity,” and so on. Because it is endowed with its own opposing factor, being a condition for the immediately succeeding state, it is not as it was before and becomes weak. Tanti is the disruption of the life faculty.

Ītinti sattavidhavicchikādīni yuddhe ḍaṃsitvā māraṇatthaṃ vissajjenti. Pajjarakanti sarīraḍāhaṃ. Sūcikanti sūlaṃ. Visūcikanti sukkhamātisāraṃvasayaṃ. Pakkhandiyanti rattātisāraṃ. Dvattibyāmasatappamāṇe mahākāye nimminitvā ṭhitanāguddharaṇaṃ, kujjhitvā olokite paresaṃ kāye visamaraṇaṃ vā ḍāhuppādanaṃ vā payogo nāma.

As for Īti, they release scorpions of seven kinds and the like in battle, having them bite to cause death. As for Pajjaraka, it is burning of the body. As for Sūcikā, it is a stake. As for Visūcikā, it is severe dry dysentery. As for Pakkhandiyā, it is bloody dysentery. Creating a massive body measuring two or three hundred fathoms, lifting up a standing nāga, or by angrily gazing causing death by poison or generating burning in the body of another—this is called 'application'.

Kecīti [Pg.157] mahāsaṅghikā. Ayaṃ itthī. Kulumbassāti gabbhassa. Kathaṃ sā itarassāti ce? Tassa duṭṭhena manasānupakkhite so ca gabbho sā ca iddhīti ubhayampi saheva nassati, ghaṭaggīnaṃ bhedanibbāyanaṃ viya ekakkhaṇe hoti. ‘‘Tesaṃ suttantikesu ocariyamānaṃ na sametī’’ti likhitaṃ, ‘‘tesaṃ mataṃ gahetvā ‘thāvarīnampi ayaṃ yujjatī’ti vutte tikavasena paṭisedhitabbanti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Sāhatthikanissaggiyapayogesu sanniṭṭhāpakacetanāya sattamāya sahuppannakāyaviññattiyā sāhatthikatā veditabbā. Āṇattike pana sattahipi cetanāhi saha vacīviññattisambhavato sattasatta saddā ekato hutvā ekekakkharabhāvaṃ gantvā yattakehi akkharehi attano adhippāyaṃ viññāpeti, tadavasānakkharasamuṭṭhāpikāya sattamacetanāya sahajātavacīviññattiyā āṇattikatā veditabbā. Tathā vijjāmayapayoge. Kāyenāṇattiyaṃ pana sāhatthike vuttanayova. Thāvarapayoge yāvatā parassa maraṇaṃ hoti, tāvatā kammabaddho, āpatti ca. Tato paraṃ atisañcaraṇe kammabaddhātibahuttaṃ veditabbaṃ sati paraṃ maraṇe. Pārājikāpatti panettha ekā. Atthasādhakacetanā yasmā ettha ca dutiyapārājike ca labbhati, na aññattha, tasmā dvinnampi sādhāraṇā imā gāthāyo –

Some, that is, the Mahāsaṅghika teachers, hold as follows. This psychic power. 'Kulumbassa' refers to the fetus. If one should ask, 'How is that psychic power for that person?', when he gazes upon it with a corrupt mind, both that fetus and that psychic power perish together; like the breaking and extinguishing of a pot-fire, it happens in a single moment. It is written: 'Their view does not accord with what is taught in the Suttantas.' It is said by others: 'Having taken their view, when it is said, “This is applicable even to immovable things,” it should be rejected by way of the Tika.' In applications of Nissaggiya offenses by one's own hand, the state of being 'by one's own hand' should be understood by means of the bodily intimation co-arisen with the seventh, decisive intention. In the case of a command, however, because vocal intimation can arise together with all seven intentions, seven sounds, having come together, become single syllables; by as many syllables as one uses to make one's intention known, the state of being a command should be understood by means of the vocal intimation born together with the seventh intention, which originates the final syllable. Likewise in an application by means of knowledge. But in a command by means of the body, the method is the same as that stated for an act by one's own hand. In an application to an immovable thing, insofar as another's death occurs, to that extent one is bound by kamma, and there is an offense. Beyond that, in an excessive arrangement, an excess of being bound by kamma should be understood when a further death occurs. Here, the Pārājika offense is one. Because the purpose-accomplishing intention is found here and in the second Pārājika, and not elsewhere, these verses are common to both:

‘‘Bhūtadhammaniyāmā ye, te dhammā niyatā matā;

Bhāvidhammaniyāmā ye, teva aniyatā idha.

“Those dhammas which are determined by a past phenomenon are considered fixed; those which are determined by a future phenomenon, they are unfixed here.

‘‘Bhūtadhammaniyāmānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā paccayaṭṭhiti;

Bhāvidhammaniyāmānaṃ, sāpekkhā paccayaṭṭhiti.

“For dhammas determined by a past phenomenon, that state of conditionality is established; for dhammas determined by a future phenomenon, the state of conditionality is dependent.”

‘‘Tenaññā hetuyā atthi, sāpi dhammaniyāmatā;

Tassā phalaṃ aniyataṃ, phalāpekkhā niyāmatā.

From that cause, there is another volition; that too is the fixed nature of phenomena. Its fruit is unfixed; the volition that expects a fruit is a fixed nature.

‘‘Evañhi sabbadhammānaṃ, ṭhitā dhammaniyāmatā;

Laddhadhammaniyāmā yā, sātthasādhakacetanā.

Thus indeed for all phenomena, the established nature is the fixed nature of phenomena. Whatever volition has obtained this fixed nature of phenomena, that is the purpose-accomplishing volition.

‘‘Cetanāsiddhito pubbe, pacchā tassātthasiddhito;

Avisesena sabbāpi, chabbidhā atthasādhikā.

Because it is accomplished by volition beforehand, and its purpose is accomplished afterwards, generally, all purpose-accomplishing volition is of six kinds.

‘‘Āṇattiyaṃ [Pg.158] yato sakkā, vibhāvetuṃ vibhāgato;

Tasmā āṇattiyaṃyeva, vuttā sā atthasādhikā.

Because in the case of a command it is possible to explain in detail, therefore, that volition is called 'purpose-accomplishing' only in the context of the effort of a command.

‘‘Micchatte vāpi sammatte, niyatāniyatā matā;

Abhidhamme na sabbatthi, tattha sā niyatā siyā.

In the state of wrongness or in the state of rightness, the fixed and the unfixed are known. In the Abhidhamma, this entire distinction does not exist; therefore, there, that volition would be fixed.

‘‘Yā theyyacetanā sabbā, sahatthāṇattikāpi vā;

Abhidhammanayenāyaṃ, ekantaniyatā siyā.

All volition to steal, whether by one's own hand or by command, according to the Abhidhamma method, would be exclusively fixed.

‘‘Pāṇātipātaṃ nissāya, sahatthāṇattikādikā;

Abhidhammavasenesā, paccekaṃ taṃ dukaṃ bhaje.

Depending on the taking of life, there are efforts such as by one's own hand, by command, and so on. By way of the Abhidhamma, this volition, each one individually, partakes of that dyad.

‘‘Jīvitindriyupacchedo, cetanā ceti taṃ dvayaṃ;

Na sāhatthikakammena, pagevāṇattikāsamaṃ.

The cutting off of the life faculty and the volition—that pair is not the same as an act by one's own hand, how much less the same as an act by command.

‘‘Jīvitindriyupacchedo, cetanā ceti taṃ dvayaṃ;

Na sāhatthikakammena, pagevāṇattikāsamaṃ.

The cutting off of the life faculty and the volition—that pair is not the same as an act by one's own hand, how much less the same as an act by command.

‘‘Jīvitindriyupacchedakkhaṇe vadhakacetanā;

Cirāṭhitāti ko dhammo, niyāmeti āpattikaṃ.

The killer's volition at the moment of cutting off the life faculty has persisted for a long time. Thus, what principle determines the falling into an offense?

‘‘Jīvitindriyupacchedakkhaṇe ce vadhako siyā;

Mato sutto pabuddho vā, kusalo vadhako siyā.

If, at the moment of cutting off the life faculty, the killer were dead, or asleep, or awake, the killer would be blameless.

‘‘Kusalattikabhedo ca, vedanāttikabhedopi;

Siyā tathā gato siddho, sahatthā vadhakacetanā’’ti.

The breaking of the wholesome triad and also the breaking of the feeling triad would occur. Thus it is established that the killer's volition by his own hand determines the offense.

Yāni pana bījautukammadhammacittaniyāmāni pañca aṭṭhakathāya ānetvā nidassitāni, tesu ayamatthasādhakacetanā yogaṃ gacchatīti maññe ‘‘ayaṃ atthasādhakacetanāniyamo natthī’’ti cetanānaṃ micchattasammattaniyatānampi natthibhāvappasaṅgato. Bhajāpiyamānā yena, tena sabbepi yathāsambhavaṃ kammacittaniyāme bhajanti gacchantīti veditabbaṃ. Jīvite ādīnavo maraṇavaṇṇadassane na vibhattova, idha pana saṅkappapade atthato ‘‘maraṇasaññī maraṇacetano maraṇādhippāyo’’ti evaṃ avibhūtattā vibhatto, apākaṭattā, anoḷārikattā vā avibhāgā kāritā [Pg.159] vā. Nayidaṃ vitakkassa nāmanti na vitakkasseva nāmaṃ, kintu saññācetanānampi nāmanti gahetabbaṃ. Kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyampi evameva vuttaṃ.

Now, regarding the five fixed orders—seed, season, kamma, dhamma, and mind—which were brought forth and shown in the commentary, some think that this purpose-accomplishing volition is applicable among them; for to hold that 'this fixed order of purpose-accomplishing volition does not exist' would lead to the consequence that even those volitions fixed as wrongness or rightness do not exist. It should be known that, for whatever reason they are included, all of them, as is appropriate, enter into and are comprised within the fixed orders of kamma and mind. The danger in life was not distinguished in the showing of the praise of death; but here, in the term 'resolve' (saṅkappa), it is distinguished in terms of meaning as 'one who is perceptive of death, has the volition for death, and has the resolve for death', because it was thus unmanifest. Or, the non-distinction was made due to it being unclear or not coarse. It should be understood that this is not the name for thought (vitakka) alone, but it is also the name for perception (saññā) and volition (cetanā). In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī also, it is stated in this very way.

174. Kāyatoti vuttattā ‘‘sattiñasū’’ti vattabbe vacanasiliṭṭhatthaṃ ‘‘ususattiādinā’’ti vuttaṃ. Anuddesike kammassārammaṇaṃ so vā hoti, añño vā. Ubhayehīti kiñcāpi paṭhamappahāro na sayameva sakkoti, dutiyaṃ labhitvā pana sakkonto jīvitavināsanahetu ahosi, tadatthameva hi vadhakena so dinno, dutiyo pana aññena cittena dinno, tena suṭṭhu vuttaṃ ‘‘paṭhamappahārenevā’’ti, ‘‘cetanā nāma dāruṇāti garuṃ vatthuṃ ārabbha pavattapubbabhāgacetanā pakatisabhāvavadhakacetanā, no dāruṇā hotī’’ti ācariyena likhitaṃ. ‘‘Pubbabhāgacetanā parivārā, vadhakacetanāva dāruṇā hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Yathādhippāyanti ubhopi paṭivijjhati, sāhatthikopi saṅketattā na muccati kira.

174. Because it was said 'by means of the body', although it should have been said 'with a spear and an arrow', for the sake of verbal smoothness, it was said 'by an arrow, a spear, etc.' In the case of an unspecified target, the object of the kamma is either that one or another. Regarding 'by both': although the first blow is not able by itself, upon receiving the second, it becomes a cause for the destruction of life. Indeed, that first blow was given by the killer for that very purpose, but the second was given with a different volition. Therefore, it is well said, 'by the first blow alone'. It was written by the teacher: 'Regarding "volition is indeed cruel": the preliminary volition that arises concerning a grave matter, being a killer-volition of natural disposition, is not cruel.' It is stated: 'The killer-volition, which is the retinue of the preliminary volition, is itself cruel.' Regarding 'according to the intention': he pierces both. Even the one who acts with his own hand is not freed, it is said, due to the prearrangement.

Kiriyāviseso aṭṭhakathāsu anāgato. ‘‘Evaṃ vijjha, evaṃ pahara, evaṃ ghāhehī’ti pāḷiyā sametīti ācariyena gahito’’ti vadanti. Purato paharitvātiādi vatthuvisaṅketameva kira. Etaṃ gāme ṭhitanti puggalova niyamito. Yo pana liṅgavasena ‘‘dīghaṃ…pe… mārehī’’ti āṇāpeti aniyametvā. Yadi niyametvā vadati, ‘‘etaṃ dīgha’’nti vadeyyāti apare. Ācariyā pana ‘‘dīghanti vutte niyamitaṃ hoti, evaṃ aniyametvā vadati, na pana āṇāpako dīghādīsu aññataraṃ mārehīti adhippāyo’’ti vadanti kira. ‘‘Attho pana cittena ekaṃ sandhāyapi aniyametvā āṇāpetī’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Itaro aññaṃ tādisaṃ māreti, āṇāpako muccatī’’ti vuttaṃ yathādhippāyaṃ na gatattā. ‘‘Evaṃ dīghādivasenāpi cittena aniyamitassevāti yuttaṃ viya dissatī’’ti aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ, suṭṭhu vīmaṃsitvā sabbaṃ gahetabbaṃ, okāsassa niyamitattāti ettha okāsaniyamaṃ katvā niddisanto tasmiṃ okāse nisinnaṃ māretukāmova hoti, sayaṃ pana tadā tattha natthi. Tasmā okāsena saha attano jīvitindriyaṃ ārammaṇaṃ na hoti, tena attanā mārāpito paro eva mārāpito. Kathaṃ? Sayaṃ rasso ca tanuko ca hutvā pubbabhāge attānaṃ sandhāya āṇattikkhaṇe ‘‘dīghaṃ rassaṃ [Pg.160] thūlaṃ balavantaṃ mārehī’’ti āṇāpentassa cittaṃ attani tassākārassa natthitāya aññassa tādisassa jīvitindriyaṃ ārammaṇaṃ katvā pavattati, tena mūlaṭṭhassa kammabaddho. Evaṃsampadamidanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

This specific action is not found in the commentaries. They say, "It is accepted by the teacher as agreeing with the Pāḷi: ‘Thus pierce, thus strike, thus kill.’" The phrase 'having struck in front,' etc., it is said, is merely a discrepancy in the case. By the phrase 'one standing in the village,' the person alone is specified. But whoever commands by way of a characteristic, 'Kill the tall one… etc.,' without specifying. Others say that if he speaks having specified, he should say, 'This is the tall one.' But the teachers, it is said, say: 'When “the tall one” is said, it is specified. Thus he speaks without specifying. It is not, however, the intention of the one who commands to say, “Kill any one among the tall ones, etc.”' It is written: 'But the meaning is that with the mind, even while aiming at one, he commands without specifying.' It is said, 'The other person kills another such person; the one who commands is absolved,' because it did not proceed according to the original intention. In a certain gloss it is written: 'Thus, it appears as if it is proper that it is indeed unspecified by the mind, even by way of “the tall one,” etc.' All this should be understood after thorough investigation. Here, regarding the phrase 'because the place is specified,' one who points out, having specified the place, only desires to kill the one sitting in that place. But he himself is not there at that time. Therefore, his own life faculty, together with the place, does not become the object. Therefore, he causes only another to be killed. How so? At the moment of commanding, 'Kill the tall one, the short one, the stout one, the strong one,' the mind of the commander—who is himself short and thin—proceeds by making the life faculty of another such person its object, due to the absence of that characteristic in himself. Therefore, for the original instigator, it is connected with kamma. It should be understood that this is the accomplishment in this way.

Dūtaparamparāniddese āṇāpeti, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Itarassa āroceti, āpatti dukkaṭassāti ācariyantevāsīnaṃ yathāsambhavaṃ ārocane, paṭiggaṇhane dukkaṭaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Na vadhako paṭiggaṇhāti, tassa dukkaṭanti siddhaṃ hoti. Taṃ pana okāsābhāvato na vuttaṃ. Mūlaṭṭhena āpajjitabbāpattiyā hi tassa okāso aparicchinno, tenassa tasmiṃ okāse thullaccayaṃ vuttaṃ. Vadhako ce paṭiggaṇhāti, mūlaṭṭho ācariyo pubbe āpannadukkaṭena saha thullaccayampi āpajjati. Kasmā? Mahājano hi tena pāpe niyojitoti. Idaṃ pana dukkaṭathullaccayaṃ vadhako ce tamatthaṃ na sāveti āpajjati. Yadi sāveti, pārājikamevāpajjati. Kasmā? Atthasādhakacetanāya abhāvā. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘paṭiggaṇhati, taṃ dukkaṭaṃ hoti. Yadi evaṃ kasmā pāṭhe na vuttanti ce? Vadhako pana ‘sādhu karomī’ti paṭiggaṇhitvā taṃ na karoti. Evañhi niyame ‘mūlaṭṭhassa kiṃ nāma hoti, kimassa dukkaṭāpattī’ti sañjātakaṅkhānaṃ tadatthadīpanatthaṃ ‘mūlaṭṭhassa āpatti thullaccayassā’’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Vadhako paṭiggaṇhāti āpatti dukkaṭassa, mūlaṭṭhassa ca āpatti thullaccayassā’’ti vuttaṃ na silissati, mūlaṭṭhena āpajjitabbāpattidassanādhikārattā vadhako paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassāti vuttaṃ.

In the exposition on the succession of messengers, 'If one gives a command, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If one informs another, there is an offense of wrong-doing'—this is stated with reference to an offense of wrong-doing in informing and accepting, as is appropriate for teachers and pupils. It is established that if the killer does not accept, there is an offense of wrong-doing for him. However, this is not stated due to the absence of an opportunity. For the root-instigator, the opportunity for the offense to be incurred is indeed unlimited; hence for him in that case, a grave offense is stated. If the killer accepts, the root-instigator, the teacher, together with the offense of wrong-doing previously incurred, also incurs a grave offense. Why? Because a great number of people are indeed engaged by him in evil. However, the killer incurs this offense of wrong-doing and grave offense if he does not make known that purpose. If he does make it known, he incurs a pārājika offense itself. Why? Because of the absence of the intention to accomplish the purpose. In the supplementary passage, however, it is said: 'If he accepts, that is an offense of wrong-doing. If so, why is it not stated in the text?' The killer, however, having accepted it, saying, 'Very well, I will do it,' does not do it. Indeed, in such a case of certainty, for those in whom doubt has arisen—'What, then, befalls the root-instigator? Is his offense one of wrong-doing?'—it is stated, 'For the root-instigator, the offense is a grave one,' in order to clarify that meaning. The statement, 'The killer accepts, the offense is one of wrong-doing, and for the root-instigator, the offense is a grave one,' does not cohere, because it is in the section showing the offense to be incurred by the root-instigator that it is stated, 'The killer accepts, the offense is one of wrong-doing.'

Visakkiyadūtapadaniddese ‘‘vattukāmatāya ca kicchenettha vatvā payojanaṃ natthīti bhagavatā na vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana ‘‘mūlaṭṭhasseva dukkaṭa’’nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ vicāraṇā – ācariyena āṇattena buddharakkhitena tadatthe saṅgharakkhitasseva ārocite kiñcāpi yo ‘‘sādhū’’ti paṭiggaṇhāti, atha kho ācariyassevetaṃ dukkaṭaṃ visaṅketattā, na buddharakkhitassa, kasmā? Atthasādhakacetanāya āpannattā. Teneva ‘‘āṇāpakassa ca vadhakassa ca āpatti pārājikassā’’ti pāḷiyaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ pana mūlaṭṭhena āpajjitabbadukkaṭaṃ ‘‘mūlaṭṭhassa anāpattī’’ti iminā aparicchinnokāsattā na vuttaṃ.

In the explanation of the Visakkiyadūta passage, it is stated: “Although there is a desire to speak, since there is no benefit in speaking here with difficulty, it was not said by the Blessed One.” As for what is stated in the commentary, “The dukkaṭa offense is for the original instigator alone,” here is the analysis: When, commanded by the teacher, Buddharakkhita informed Saṅgharakkhita alone of that matter, although the latter accepted it by saying, “Good,” nevertheless, this dukkaṭa offense is for the teacher alone because of the error; it is not for Buddharakkhita. Why? Because of having incurred it with the intention of accomplishing the purpose. For that very reason, it is stated in the Pāḷi: “There is an offense of pārājika for both the one who commands and the one who kills.” However, that dukkaṭa offense to be incurred by the original instigator is not stated, because with this statement, 'There is no offense for the original instigator,' the occasion is undefined.

Avisaṅkete [Pg.161] ‘‘mūlaṭṭhassa āpatti thullaccayassā’’ti vuttattā visaṅkete āpatti dukkaṭassāti siddhanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Vadhako paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti idaṃ pana dukkaṭaṃ vadhakasseva. So hi paṭhamaṃ āṇāpakaṃ buddharakkhitaṃ pārājikāpattiṃ pāpetvā sayaṃ jīvitā voropetvā āpajjissatīti kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘so taṃ jīvitā voropeti, āṇāpakassa ca vadhakassa ca āpatti pārājikassā’’ti na vuttaṃ, tathāpi taṃ atthato vuttameva, ‘‘yato pārājikaṃ paññatta’’nti pubbe vuttanayattā ca taṃ na vuttaṃ. ‘‘So taṃ jīvitā voropeti, āpatti sabbesaṃ pārājikassā’’ti hi pubbe vuttaṃ. Ettha pubbe ācariyantevāsikānaṃ vuttadukkaṭathullaccayāpattiyo paṭhamameva anāpannā pārājikāpattiyā āpannattā. Tathāpi vadhakassa pārājikāpattiyā tesaṃ pārājikabhāvo pākaṭo jātoti katvā ‘‘āpatti sabbesaṃ pārājikassā’’ti ekato vuttaṃ, na tathā ‘‘āṇāpakassa, vadhakassa ca āpatti pārājikassā’’ti ettha. Kasmā? Vadhakassa dukkaṭāpattiyā āpannattā. So hi paṭhamaṃ dukkaṭāpattiṃ āpajjitvā pacchā pārājikaṃ āpajjati. Yadi pana antevāsikā kevalaṃ ācariyassa garukatāya sāsanaṃ ārocenti sayaṃ amaraṇādhippāyā samānā pārājikena anāpatti. Akappiyasāsanaharaṇapaccayā dukkaṭāpatti hoti eva, imassatthassa sādhanatthaṃ dhammapadavatthūhi migaluddakassa bhariyāya sotāpannāya dhanuususūlādidānaṃ nidassanaṃ vadanti eke. Taṃ tittirajātakena (jā. 1.4.73 ādayo) sameti, tasmā suttañca aṭṭhakathañca anulometīti no takkoti ācariyo. Idha pana dūtaparamparāya ca ‘‘itthannāmassa pāvada, itthannāmo itthannāmaṃ pāvadatū’’ti ettha avisesetvā vuttattā vācāya vā ārocetu, hatthamuddāya vā, paṇṇena vā, dūtena vā ārocetu, visaṅketo natthi. Sace visesetvā mūlaṭṭho, antarādūto vā vadati, tadatikkame visaṅketoti veditabbaṃ.

When there is no deviation, because it is said, 'For the root-instigator, there is an offense of thullaccaya,' it should be understood that it is established that in case of a deviation, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. However, this statement, 'The killer accepts, there is an offense of dukkaṭa,' refers to a dukkaṭa offense for the killer alone. For he, having first caused the instigator Buddharakkhita to incur a pārājika offense, will himself incur one by depriving of life. Although it is not said in the Pāḷi, 'He deprives that one of life, and for both the instigator and the killer there is an offense of pārājika,' nevertheless, that was indeed said in terms of meaning. And because of the method previously stated, 'from which a pārājika is laid down,' that was not said. For it was previously said, 'He deprives that one of life, and for all there is an offense of pārājika.' Here, the previously mentioned dukkaṭa and thullaccaya offenses for the teacher and disciples are not incurred right at the beginning, because they have incurred the pārājika offense. Nevertheless, since their state of pārājika became manifest through the killer's pārājika offense, it was said collectively, 'For all there is an offense of pārājika.' It is not so here in the case of, 'For the instigator and the killer there is an offense of pārājika.' Why? Because the killer has incurred a dukkaṭa offense. For he first falls into a dukkaṭa offense, and afterwards falls into pārājika. But if the disciples convey the message merely out of respect for their teacher, they themselves having no intention of killing, there is no offense of pārājika. There is indeed an offense of dukkaṭa because of carrying an improper message. To prove this meaning, some say the giving of a bow, arrows, stakes, etc., by the deer hunter's wife, a stream-enterer, from the stories of the Dhammapada is an example. The teacher says: That agrees with the Tittira Jātaka. Therefore, it conforms to both the Sutta and the Commentary. Such is our reasoning. Here, however, in the case of a succession of messengers, because it is said without specification in the phrase, 'Tell so-and-so, let so-and-so tell so-and-so,' whether one informs by speech, or by hand gesture, or by a leaf letter, or by means of a messenger, there is no deviation. If the root-instigator or an intermediary messenger speaks with specification, it should be known that in transgressing that, there is a deviation.

Idāni imasmiṃyeva adhikāradvaye anugaṇṭhipade vuttanayo vuccati – ‘‘vadhako paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vadhakasseva āpatti, na āṇāpakassa buddharakkhitassa. Yadi pana so vajjhamaraṇāmaraṇesu avassamaññataraṃ karoti, buddharakkhitassāṇattikkhaṇe eva pārājikadukkaṭesu aññataraṃ [Pg.162] siyā. ‘‘Iti cittamano’’ti adhikārato ‘‘cittasaṅkappo’’ti etthāpi iti-saddo viya ‘‘vadhako paṭiggaṇhāti, mūlaṭṭhassa āpatti thullaccayassā’’ti adhikārato ‘‘mūlaṭṭhassa āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttameva hoti. Kasmā sarūpena na vuttanti ce? Tato cuttari nayadānatthaṃ. ‘‘Mūlaṭṭhassa āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti hi vutte mūlaṭṭhasseva vasena niyamitattā ‘‘paṭiggaṇhantassa dukkaṭaṃ hotī’’ti na ñāyati. ‘‘Vadhako paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti hi aniyametvā vutte sakkā ubhayesaṃ vasena dukkaṭe yojetuṃ. Tasmā eva hi aṭṭhakathācariyehi adhikāraṃ gahetvā ‘‘saṅgharakkhitena sampaṭicchite mūlaṭṭhasseva dukkaṭanti veditabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Paṭiggaṇhantassa neva anuññātaṃ, na paṭikkhittaṃ, kevalantu buddharakkhitassa aniyamitattā paṭikkhittaṃ, tassa pana pārājikadukkaṭesu aññataraṃ bhaveyyāti ayamattho dīpito, tasmā tampi suvuttaṃ. Yasmā ubhayesaṃ vasena yojetuṃ sakkā, tasmā ācariyehi ‘‘paṭiggaṇhantassevetaṃ dukkaṭa’’nti vuttaṃ. Tattha mūlaṭṭho neva anuññāto ‘‘mūlaṭṭhassā’’ti vacanābhāvato, na ca paṭikkhitto ‘‘paṭiggaṇhantassa āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti pāḷiyā abhāvato, paṭiggaṇhanapaccayā vadhakassa dukkaṭaṃ siyāti nayaṃ dātuṃ ‘‘mūlaṭṭhassā’’ti pāḷiyaṃ avuttattā ‘‘taṃ paṭiggaṇhantassevetaṃ dukkaṭa’’nti yaṃ vuttaṃ, tampi suvuttaṃ. Tatra hi buddharakkhitassa paṭikkhittaṃ, vuttanayena pana tassa āpatti aniyatāti. Kasmā pana aṭṭhakathāyaṃ anuttānaṃ paṭiggaṇhanapaccayā vadhakassa dukkaṭaṃ avatvā mūlaṭṭhasseva vasena dukkaṭaṃ vuttanti ce? Aniṭṭhanivāraṇatthaṃ. ‘‘Saṅgharakkhitena sampaṭicchite paṭiggaṇhanapaccayā tassa dukkaṭa’’nti hi vutte anantaranayena sarūpena vuttattā idhāpi mūlaṭṭhassa thullaccayaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttameva hotīti āpajjati. Iti taṃ evaṃ āpannaṃ thullaccayaṃ uttānanti taṃ avatvā paṭiggaṇhantassa dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Anuttānattā aṭṭhakathāyanti imaṃ aniṭṭhaggahaṇaṃ nivāretuṃ ‘‘mūlaṭṭhassevetaṃ dukkaṭa’’nti vuttaṃ. Ācariyena hi vuttanayena paṭiggaṇhantassa dukkaṭampi uttānameva. Uttānañca kasmā amhākaṃ khantīti vuttanti ce? Paṭipattidīpanatthaṃ. ‘‘Piṭakattayādīsu appaṭihatabuddhiyopi ācariyā sarūpena pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāyañca avuttattā evarūpesu nāma ṭhānesu evaṃ paṭipajjanti, kimaṅgaṃ pana mādisoti suhadayā kulaputtā anāgate vuttanayamanatikkamitvā saṅkaradosaṃ vivajjetvā [Pg.163] vaṇṇanāvelañca anatikkamma paṭipajjantī’’ti ca aparehi vuttaṃ. Ayaṃ pana aṭṭhakathāya vā avuttattā evarūpesu nāma pāṭho ācariyena pacchā nikkhittattā kesuci potthakesu na dissatīti katvā sabbaṃ likhissāma. Evaṃ sante paṭiggahaṇe āpattiyeva na siyā, sañcarittapaṭiggahaṇamaraṇābhinandanesupi ca āpatti hoti, māraṇapaṭiggahaṇe kathaṃ na siyā, tasmā paṭiggaṇhantassevetaṃ dukkaṭaṃ, tenevettha ‘‘mūlaṭṭhassā’’ti na vuttaṃ. Purimanayepi cetaṃ paṭiggaṇhantassa veditabbameva, okāsābhāvena pana na vuttaṃ. Tasmā yo yo paṭiggaṇhāti, tassa tassa tappaccayā āpattiyevāti ayamettha amhākaṃ khanti. Yathā cettha, evaṃ adinnādānepīti.

Now, in these two instances, the method stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada is explained: 'The killer accepts; there is an offense of dukkaṭa'—the offense is for the killer only, not for the instigator, Buddharakkhita. However, if that killer certainly brings about for the one to be killed one of two outcomes, death or non-death, then for Buddharakkhita, at the very moment of the command, there would be one of either a pārājika or a dukkaṭa offense. From the context of 'thus, with a pleased mind' (`iti cittamano`), just as the word 'iti' is understood in the phrase 'mental intention' (`cittasaṅkappo`), similarly, from the context of 'the killer accepts; for the root instigator, the offense is a thullaccaya,' it has indeed been stated that 'for the root instigator, the offense is a dukkaṭa.' Why is it not stated explicitly? To provide a further principle. For if it were said, 'For the root instigator, the offense is a dukkaṭa,' because it would be specified by way of the root instigator only, it would not be known that 'for the one who accepts, there is a dukkaṭa.' But by saying, 'The killer accepts; there is an offense of dukkaṭa,' without specifying, it is possible to apply the dukkaṭa to both. Therefore, indeed, the commentary teachers, taking the context, have said: 'When it is accepted by Saṅgharakkhita, it should be known that the dukkaṭa is for the root instigator only.' For the one who accepts, it is neither permitted nor prohibited. For Buddharakkhita, however, it is prohibited because his offense is indeterminate; for him, as this meaning has been explained, there could be one of either a pārājika or a dukkaṭa offense. Therefore, that too is well said. Since it is possible to apply it to both, the teachers said, 'This dukkaṭa is for the one who accepts only.' In that case, the root instigator is neither permitted—due to the absence of the statement 'for the root instigator'—nor prohibited—due to the absence in the Pāḷi of the statement 'for the one who accepts, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.' To give the principle that 'due to the condition of accepting, there would be a dukkaṭa for the killer,' and because 'for the root instigator' is not said in the Pāḷi, what was said, namely 'That dukkaṭa is for the one who accepts only,' that too is well said. For in that Pāḷi, it is prohibited for Buddharakkhita, but according to the method stated, his offense is indeterminate. If one should ask, 'But why in the commentary, without stating the non-obvious dukkaṭa for the killer which is due to the condition of accepting, is the dukkaṭa stated by way of the root instigator only?' To prevent an undesirable meaning. For if it were said, 'When accepted by Saṅgharakkhita, due to the condition of accepting, there is a dukkaṭa for him (the root instigator),' then by the immediately preceding method, it would follow that here too, the thullaccaya for the root instigator has indeed been stated in the commentary. Thus, considering that thullaccaya which has so arisen to be obvious, without stating it, the dukkaṭa for the one who accepts is stated. To prevent this undesirable interpretation that 'it is not obvious in the commentary,' it was said, 'This dukkaṭa is for the root instigator only.' For by the method stated by the teachers, the dukkaṭa for the one who accepts is also obvious. If one should ask, 'And why was the obvious point stated as, "This is our preference"?' To illuminate the practice. 'Even teachers with unimpeded wisdom in the Three Piṭakas and so on, because it is not stated explicitly in the Pāḷi and the commentary, indeed practice in this way in such cases. What then to say of one like me? Thus, good-hearted clansmen in the future, not transgressing the stated method, avoiding the fault of confusion, and not overstepping the boundary of the commentarial explanation, will practice.' This has also been said by others. However, because this commentary passage was inserted later by the teacher, it is not seen in some books; thinking thus, we will write everything. If this were so, there would be no offense at all in accepting. And since there is an offense in acting as a go-between, accepting, and delighting in death, how could there not be an offense in accepting a request to kill? Therefore, this dukkaṭa is for the one who accepts only. For that very reason, it is not said here 'for the root instigator.' And in the previous method too, this should be understood as being for the one who accepts, but it was not stated due to a lack of opportunity. Therefore, whichever monk accepts, for that very monk, due to that condition, there is indeed an offense. This is our preference here. And just as it is here, so too in the case of taking what is not given.

175. Araho rahosaññīniddesādīsu kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ, aṭṭhakathāyañca dukkaṭameva vuttaṃ, tathāpi tattha paramparāya sutvā maratūti adhippāyena ullapantassa uddese sati uddiṭṭhassa maraṇena āpatti pārājikassa, asati yassa kassaci maraṇena āpatti pārājikassa. ‘‘Itthannāmo sutvā me vajjhassa ārocetū’’ti uddisitvā ullapantassa visaṅketatā dūtaparamparāya vuttattā veditabbā. Sace ‘‘yo koci sutvā vadatū’’ti ullapati, vajjho sayameva sutvā marati, visaṅketattā na pārājikaṃ. Yo koci sutvā vadati, so ce marati, pārājikaṃ. ‘‘Yo koci mama vacanaṃ sutvā taṃ māretū’’ti ullapati, yo koci sutvā māreti, pārājikaṃ, sayameva sutvā māreti, visaṅketattā na pārājikanti evaṃ yathāsambhavo veditabbo.

175. Although in the Pāḷi and the Commentary, only a dukkaṭa offense is mentioned regarding matters such as giving an indication while being aware of privacy, nevertheless, in that case, for one who speaks with the intention, 'Let him die after hearing it through a succession of messengers,' if there is a specific designation, a pārājika offense is incurred through the death of the designated person. If there is no designation, a pārājika offense is incurred through the death of anyone whatsoever. For one who speaks, having designated, 'Let so-and-so, having heard my word, inform the one to be killed,' the faulty nature of the communication should be understood as it is stated in the section on the succession of messengers. If one speaks, saying, 'Let whoever hears it, speak,' and the one to be killed hears it himself and dies, it is not a pārājika offense because of the faulty communication. If someone hears and speaks, and as a result he [the one to be killed] dies, it is a pārājika offense. If one speaks, saying, 'Let whoever hears my word kill him,' and someone hears and kills him, it is a pārājika offense. If he [the one to be killed] himself hears and kills himself, it is not a pārājika offense because of the faulty communication. Thus, this should be understood as is appropriate.

176. Mūlaṃ datvā muccatīti ettha bhinditvā, bhañjitvā, cavitvā, cuṇṇetvā, aggimhi pakkhipitvā vā pageva muccatīti atthato vuttameva hoti. Yesaṃ hatthato mūlaṃ gahitanti yesaṃ ñātakaparivāritānaṃ hatthato mūlaṃ tena bhikkhunā gahitaṃ, potthakasāmikahatthato pubbe dinnamūlaṃ puna gahetvā tesaññeva ñātakādīnaṃ datvā muccati, evaṃ potthakasāmikasseva santakaṃ jātaṃ hoti. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘sacepi so vippaṭisārī hutvā sīghaṃ tesaṃ mūlaṃ datvā muccatī’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yena dhanena potthako kīto, tañca dhanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kasmā? Potthakasāmikahatthato dhane gahite potthake adinnepi muccanato. Sace aññaṃ [Pg.164] dhanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na yuttaṃ potthakassa attaniyabhāvato amocitattā. Sace potthakaṃ sāmikānaṃ datvā mūlaṃ na gaṇhāti, na muccati attaniyabhāvato amocitattā. Sace potthakaṃ mūlaṭṭhena diyyamānaṃ ‘‘taveva hotū’’ti appeti, muccati attaniyabhāvato mocitattā. Etthāyaṃ vicāraṇā – yathā cetiyaṃ vā paṭimaṃ pokkharaṇiṃ setuṃ vā kiṇitvā gahitampi kārakassevetaṃ puññaṃ, na kiṇitvā gahitassa, tathā pāpampi yena potthako likhito, tasseva yujjati, na itarassāti ce? Na, ‘‘satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyyā’’ti vacanato. Parena hi katasatthaṃ labhitvā upanikkhipantassa pārājikanti siddhaṃ. Evaṃ parena likhitampi potthakaṃ labhitvā yathā vajjho taṃ passitvā marati, tathā upanikkhipeyya pārājikanti siddhaṃ hotīti. Cetiyādīti etamanidassanaṃ karaṇapaccayaṃ hi taṃ kammaṃ idaṃmaraṇapaccayanti evaṃ ācariyena vicāritaṃ. Mama pana cetiyādinidassaneneva sopi attho sādhetabbo viya paṭibhāti.

176. Here, regarding 'by giving the price, one is freed,' it is indeed said in terms of meaning that one is freed beforehand by breaking, crushing, destroying, pulverizing, or by putting it into a fire. Regarding 'from whose hand the price was taken': the price was taken by that monk from the hand of those, such as their relatives. By taking again the price previously given from the hand of the book's owner and giving it to those very same relatives and so on, he is freed. In this way, it becomes the property of the book's owner alone. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, however, it is said: 'If he, becoming remorseful, quickly gives them the price, he is freed.' This was said with reference to that very wealth by which the book was bought. Why? Because when the wealth is taken from the hand of the book's owner, one is freed even if the book is not given. If it were said with reference to other wealth, it would not be proper, because the book has not been released from being his own property. If, having given the book to the owners, he does not take the price, he is not freed, because it has not been released from being his own property. If, when the book is being given as the original price, he hands it over, saying, 'Let it be yours,' he is freed, because it has been released from being his own property. Herein is this investigation: If it is said that just as even when a cetiya, an image, a pond, or a bridge is purchased and taken, this merit belongs only to the maker, not to the one who purchased and took it; so too, the evil deed is fitting only for the one by whom the book was written, not for the other? No, because of the teaching, 'Or he should seek a weapon-bearer for him.' For it is established that for one who, having obtained a weapon made by another, places it nearby, it is a pārājika offense. Similarly, it is established that if one, having obtained a book also written by another, were to place it nearby in such a way that the person to be killed sees it and dies, it is a pārājika offense. That 'cetiya, etc.' is not a valid example; for that action (of making) has the act of making as its condition, whereas this (killing) has death as its condition—thus it was investigated by the teacher. But to me, it seems as if that meaning should be established by the very example of the cetiya, etc.

Tattakā pāṇātipātāti ‘‘ekāpi cetanā kiccavasena ‘tattakā’ti vuttā satipaṭṭhānasammappadhānānaṃ catukkatā viyā’’ti likhitaṃ. Pamāṇe ṭhapetvāti attanā adhippetappamāṇe. ‘‘Kataṃ mayā evarūpe āvāṭe khaṇite tasmiṃ patitvā maratū’’ti adhippāyena vadhako āvāṭappamāṇaṃ niyametvā sace khaṇi, taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ ‘‘imasmiṃ āvāṭe’’ti. Idāni khaṇitabbaṃ sandhāya ettakappamāṇassa aniyamitattā ‘‘ekasmimpi kudālappahāre’’tiādi vuttaṃ, suttantikattherehi kiñcāpi upaṭhataṃ, tathāpi sanniṭṭhāpakacetanā ubhayattha atthevāti ācariyā. Bahūnaṃ maraṇe ārammaṇaniyame kathanti ce? Vajjhesu ekassa jīvitindriye ālambite sabbesamālambitameva hoti. Ekassa maraṇepi na tassa sakalaṃ jīvitaṃ sakkā ālambituṃ na uppajjamānaṃ, uppannaṃ, nirujjhamānaṃ, atthitāyapāṇātipātacetanāva paccuppannārammaṇā, purejātārammaṇā ca hoti, tasmā tampi yujjati. Pacchimakoṭiyā ekacittakkhaṇe purejātaṃ hutvā ṭhitaṃ taṃ jīvitamālambaṇaṃ katvā sattamajavanapariyāpannacetanāya opakkame kate atthato tassa sattassa sabbaṃ jīvitindriyamālambitaṃ, voropitañca hoti, ito panaññathā na sakkā; evameva pubbabhāge ‘‘bahūpisatte māremī’’ti cintetvā sanniṭṭhānakāle visapakkhipanādīsu ekaṃ payogaṃ [Pg.165] sādhayamānā vuttappakāracetanā tesu ekassa vuttappakāraṃ jīvitindriyaṃ ālambaṇaṃ katvā uppajjati, evaṃ uppannāya panekāya sabbepi te māritā honti tāya eva sabbesaṃ maraṇasiddhito, aññathā na sakkā voropetuṃ, ālambituṃ vā. Tattha ekāya cetanāya bahūnaṃ maraṇe akusalarāsi kathanti ce? Visuṃ visuṃ maraṇe pavattacetanānaṃ kiccakaraṇato. Kathaṃ? Tā pana sabbā upapajjavedanīyāva honti, tasmā tāsu yāya kāyaci dinnāya paṭisandhiyā itarā sabbāpi ‘‘tato balavatarakusalapaṭibāhitā ahosikamma’’ntiādikoṭṭhāsaṃ bhajanti, punapi vipākaṃ janituṃ na sakkonti. Aparāpariyavedanīyāpi viya taṃ paṭibāhitvā kusalacetanā paṭisandhiṃ deti, tathā ayampi cetanā anantarabhave eva paṭisandhidānādivasena tāsaṃ kiccalesakaraṇato ekāpi samānā ‘‘rāsī’’ti vuttā. Tāya pana dinnāya paṭisandhiyā atitikkho vipāko hoti. Ayamettha visesotiādi anugaṇṭhipade papañcitaṃ.

Regarding the phrase 'so many acts of killing,' it is written: 'Even a single volition, by way of its function, is called ‘so many,’ like the fourfold nature of the foundations of mindfulness and the right exertions.' 'Having established a measure' means in a measure intended by oneself. With the intention, 'When a pit of such a kind has been dug by me, may one, having fallen into it, die,' if the killer, having determined the measure of the pit, digs it, it is with reference to that that it is said, 'in this pit.' Now, with reference to what is to be dug, because a measure of 'this much' has not been determined, it is said, 'even in a single strike of the spade,' and so on. The teachers state that although this is presented by the Suttantika elders, nevertheless, the determining volition certainly exists in both cases. If one should ask, 'How is the object determined in the death of many?' Among those to be killed, when the life faculty of one is taken as an object, it is indeed taken as an object for all of them. Even in the death of one, it is not possible to take their entire life as an object—not that which is arising, that which has arisen, nor that which is ceasing. Because of its existence, the volition of killing itself has a present object and a pre-nascent object. Therefore, that too is suitable. At the final limit, in one mind-moment, when the effort is made by the volition included in the seventh impulsion moment, having taken as an object that life which stands as pre-nascent, then in effect, the entire life faculty of that being is taken as an object and is cut off. Otherwise, this is not possible. Just so, in the preliminary stage, having thought, 'I will kill many beings,' at the time of determination, while accomplishing a single effort in acts such as administering poison, the volition of the type described arises, having taken as its object the life faculty of the type described of one among them. By that one volition which has thus arisen, all those beings are killed, because by that very volition, the death of all is accomplished. Otherwise, it is not possible to cut them off or to take them as an object. If it is asked how a single volition can result in a mass of unwholesomeness due to the death of many, it is because of the performance of the function of the volitions that occurred separately in each death. How? All those volitions are indeed of the type that are experiencable in the next life. Therefore, among them, by whichever one rebirth is given, all the others, being obstructed by wholesome kamma more powerful than that, fall into the category of 'defunct kamma,' and so on, and are unable to produce a result again. Just as a wholesome volition gives rebirth by obstructing that unwholesome kamma, similar to a kamma experiencable in a succession of later lives, so too this volition, although it is single, is called a 'mass' because, in the very next existence, by way of giving rebirth and so on, it performs a fraction of the function of those other volitions. However, when rebirth is given by that volition, the result is extremely severe. This is the distinction here. This and so on is elaborated in the Anugaṇṭhipada.

Amaritukāmā vāti adhippāyattā opapātikamaraṇepi āpatti. ‘‘‘Nibbattitvā’ti vuttattā patanaṃ na dissatīti ce? Opapātikattaṃ, patanañca ekamevā’’ti likhitaṃ. Atha vā ‘‘sabbathāpi anuddissevā’’ti vacanato ettha maratūti adhippāyasambhavato ‘‘uttarituṃ asakkonto marati pārājikamevā’’ti suvuttaṃ. Sace ‘‘patitvā maratū’’ti niyametvā khaṇito hoti, opapātikamanusso ca nibbattitvā ṭhitaniyameneva ‘‘uttarituṃ na sakkā’’ti cintetvā maratīti pārājikacchāyā na dissati, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘uttarituṃ asakkonto’’ti. So hi uttarituṃ asakkonto punappunaṃ patitvā marati, tena pātopi tassa siddho hotīti adhippāyo. Tattha siyā – yo pana ‘‘uttarituṃ asakkonto maratī’’ti vutto, so opātakhaṇanakkhaṇe arūpaloke jīvati. Vadhakacetanā ca ‘‘aniyato dhammo micchattaniyatassa dhammassa ārammaṇapaccayena paccayo, rūpajīvitindriyaṃ mātughātikammassa pitughātikammassa arahantaghātikammassa ruhiruppādakammassa ārammaṇapaccayena paccayo’’ti (paṭṭhā. 2.15.38 micchattaniyatattika) vacanato rūpajīvitindriyārammaṇaṃ hoti, na ca taṃ arūpāvacarasattassatthi, na ca sā cetanā ‘‘aniyato dhammo micchattaniyatassa dhammassa purejātapaccayena paccayo, ārammaṇapurejātaṃ vatthupurejātaṃ ārammaṇapurejātaṃ. Rūpajīvitindriyaṃ [Pg.166] mātughātikammassa purejātapaccayena paccayo’’ti (paṭṭhā. 2.15.48 micchattaniyatattika) vacanato anāgatārammaṇā hoti. Añño idha patitvā maraṇakasatto natthi, evaṃ sante vadhakacetanāya kiṃ ārammaṇanti ce? Yassa kassaci idha jīvanakasattassa paccuppannaṃ jīvitindriyaṃ ārammaṇaṃ. Kiñcāpi so na marati, atha kho pāṇātipāto hoti eva. Yathā kiṃ ‘‘yathākkamena ṭhite satta jane ekena kaṇḍena vijjhitvā māremī’’ti pubbabhāge cintetvā sanniṭṭhānakāle tesu ekassa jīvitamārammaṇaṃ katvā kaṇḍaṃ vissajjeti, kaṇḍo taṃ virajjhitvā itare cha jane māreti, evaṃ santepi ayaṃ pāṇātipātī eva hoti, evamidhāpi ‘‘yo kocī’’ti vikappentassa vadhakacetanā yassa kassaci jīvitārammaṇaṃ katvā pavattati, tasmiṃ amatepi itarassa vasena pāṇātipātī. Sace arahā hutvā parinibbāyati, arahantaghātakova hoti. Esa nayo sabbattha evarūpesu. Ayameva hettha ācariyaparamparāgatā yutti vinicchayakathāti vuttaṃ.

Because of the perpetrator's intention, an offense is incurred even in the death of a spontaneously arisen being, as in the case of one not wishing to die. If one should say, 'Because it is said, "having arisen," falling is not seen,' the reply is: 'Spontaneous arising and falling are simultaneous.' Thus it is written. Alternatively, from the statement, 'in every way, even without specifying,' and because the intention 'let him die' is possible here, it is well said: 'being unable to get out, he dies—it is a pārājika offense indeed.' If a pit is dug with the determination, 'Let him die by falling,' and a spontaneously arisen human, having arisen and, by the very nature of his static state, thinks, 'It is not possible to get out,' and dies, the shadow of a pārājika offense is not seen. Therefore it is said, 'being unable to get out.' For he, being unable to get out, dies by falling again and again; by that, the falling is also accomplished according to the digger's wish. This is the meaning. Here, there might be this objection: As for the one who is said to 'die, being unable to get out,' he, at the moment of the digging of the pit, is living in the formless realm. And the murderous volition, according to the statement, 'an undetermined phenomenon is a condition for a wrongly determined phenomenon by way of object condition; the life faculty of form is a condition for the act of killing one’s mother, the act of killing one’s father, the act of killing an arahant, and the act of shedding the Buddha's blood by way of object condition,' has the life faculty of form as its object. But that does not exist for a being of the formless sphere. Nor does that volition, according to the statement, 'an undetermined phenomenon is a condition for a wrongly determined phenomenon by way of prenascence condition... The life faculty of form is a condition for the act of killing one’s mother by way of prenascence condition,' have a future object. There is no other being here who, having fallen, will die. This being so, what is the object of the murderous volition? If this is asked, the answer is: The present life faculty of any living being here is the object. Although that one does not die, nevertheless, the destruction of life does indeed occur. How so? It is like one who, having thought beforehand, 'I will kill seven people standing in sequence by piercing them with a single arrow,' at the time of decision, makes the life of one of them the object and releases the arrow. The arrow, missing that one, kills the other six people. Even so, this person is indeed a killer. So too here, for one who resolves, 'whoever it may be,' the murderous volition proceeds, having made the life of anyone whatsoever its object. Even when that one who was the object does not die, by means of another, he is a killer. If the victim, having become an arahant, attains final Nibbāna, the perpetrator is indeed a killer of an arahant. This is the principle in all such cases. This very thing here is said to be the decisive discourse on what is logical, handed down through the lineage of teachers.

Patanarūpaṃ pamāṇanti ettha yathā mātuyā patitvā parivattaliṅgāya matāya so mātughātako hoti, na kevalaṃ purisaghātako, tasmā patanasseva vasena āpatti. Kasmā? Patanarūpamaraṇarūpānaṃ ekasantānattā, tadeva hissa jīvitindriyaṃ, tassa hi parivattanaṃ natthi, itthipurisindriyāneva pavattiyaṃ nirujjhanuppajjanakāni, itthipurisoti ca tattha vohāramattameva, tasmā mātughātakova, na purisaghātakoti, yathā tassa patanarūpavasenāpatti, tathā idhāpi patanarūpavasena thullaccayaṃ ekasantānattāti ayaṃ paṭhamatheravāde yutti. Dutiye kiñcāpi peto patito, yakkho ca, atha kho ahetukapaṭisandhikattā akusalavipākassa ‘‘vāmena sūkaro hotī’’ti (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 2.296; mahāni. aṭṭha. 166) ettha vuttayakkhānaṃ paṭisandhi viya sabbarūpānaṃ sādhāraṇattā, amanussajātikattā ca tiracchānarūpena mate maraṇarūpavasena pācittiyaṃ, vatthuvasena lahukāpattiyā parivattanā hoti eva tatthajātakarukkhādichedanapācittiyaparivattanaṃ viya. Ayameva yuttataro, tasmā pacchā vutto. Pārājikassa pana manussajātiko yathā tathā vā patitvā yathā tathā vā maratu, pārājikameva garukattā. Garukāpattiyā hi viparivattanā natthīti vuttaṃ.

Herein, the form at the time of falling is the standard. For example, just as when his mother, having fallen and died after her gender has changed, he becomes a matricide, not merely a killer of a man. Therefore, the offense is incurred by means of the form at the time of falling alone. Why? Because the form at the time of falling and the form at the time of death are of a single continuum. Indeed, that very thing is its life faculty, for there is no transformation of it. Only the female and male faculties cease and arise during the course of existence, and the term 'woman' or 'man' in that case is merely a convention. Therefore, he is only a matricide, not a killer of a man. Just as for that one, the offense is by means of the form at the time of falling, so too here, a grave offense is incurred by means of the form at the time of falling because of the single continuum. This is the reasoning in the view of the first Elder. In the second view, although a peta or a yakkha has fallen, nevertheless, because of having a rootless rebirth-linking, which is the result of unwholesome kamma—like the rebirth-linking of the yakkhas mentioned here in the passage 'on the left, he becomes a pig'—and because of being common to all forms, and because of being of non-human birth, if it dies with the form of an animal, a pācittiya offense is incurred by means of the form at the time of death. There is indeed a change to a lighter offense by means of the object, like the change from a pācittiya offense in the case of cutting a tree, etc., that has grown in that place. This very view is more reasonable; therefore, it was stated last. But in the case of a pārājika, if a being of human birth falls in whatever way and dies in whatever way, it is a pārājika itself because of its gravity. For it is said, 'There is no change for a grave offense.'

Thullaccayaṃ [Pg.167] tiracchāne, mate bhedassa kāraṇaṃ;

Sarūpamaraṇaṃ tisso, phusso maññeti aññathā.

A thullaccaya is incurred when an animal dies; the reason for the difference is death in its own form. Tissa thinks thus; Phussa thinks otherwise.

Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘dutiyavāde puthujjanassa patitvā arahattaṃ patvā marantassa vasena vutto’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Tiracchāne’’ti ettha keci vadanti ‘‘devā adhippetā’’ti. ‘‘Sakasakarūpeneva maraṇaṃ bhavati nāññathā’’ti ca vadanti. Yakkhapetarūpena matepi eseva nayoti thullaccayanti attho. ‘‘Tiracchānagatamanussaviggahamaraṇe viyā’’ti likhitaṃ. Pahāraṃ laddhāti sattānaṃ māraṇatthāya katattā vuttaṃ.

However, in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is written: 'In the second view, it is stated with reference to an ordinary person who, having fallen, attains Arahantship and then dies.' Here, regarding 'tiracchāne' (animals), some say, 'deities are intended.' And they also say: 'Death occurs only in one's own form, not otherwise.' Even if one dies in the form of a yakkha or peta, this same principle applies; therefore, it is a grave offense—this is the meaning. It is written: 'Like in the case of killing a human being in the form of an animal.' The phrase 'having received a blow' is stated because it was done for the purpose of killing beings.

177. Sādhu suṭṭhu maratūti vacībhedaṃ karoti. Visabhāgarogoti sarīraṭṭho gaṇḍapīḷakādi.

177. He makes the verbal expression, 'Good, very good, let him die!' Regarding 'incompatible disease' (visabhāgaroga), this refers to that which is established in the body, such as tumors, boils, and so forth.

178. Kāḷānusārīti ekissā latāya mūlaṃ kira. Mahākacchapena katapupphaṃ vā. Haṃsapupphanti haṃsānaṃ pakkhapattaṃ. Heṭṭhā vuttanayena sāhatthikāṇattikanayañhettha yojetvā kāyavācācittato samuṭṭhānavidhi dassetabbo.

178. 'Kāḷānusārī' is, they say, the root of a certain creeper. Or, it is a flower made with the mahākacchapa flower. 'Haṃsapuppha' refers to the wing feathers of swans and so forth. Here, having applied the principle of acting with one's own hand and of giving a command according to the method stated previously, the method of arising from body, speech, and mind should be explained.

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Analysis of Words (Padabhājanīya) is concluded.

Vinītavatthuvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Vinītavatthu

180. Maraṇatthikāva hutvāti imassa kāyassa bhedena saggapāpanādhippāyattā atthato maraṇatthikāva hutvā evaṃadhippāyino maraṇatthikā nāma hontīti attano maraṇatthikabhāvaṃ ajānantā āpannā pārājikaṃ. Na hi te ‘‘attano cittappavattiṃ na jānantī’’ti vuccanti. Vohāravasenāti pubbabhāgavohāravasena. Sanniṭṭhāne panetaṃ natthi. Pāse baddhasūkaramocane viya na hoti. Yathānusandhināti antarā amaritvāti attho. Appaṭivekkhitvāti avicāretvā. Heṭṭhimabhāge hi kismiñci vijjamāne vali paññāyati. Dassiteti uddharitvā ṭhapite. Paṭibandhanti tayā paṭibandhaṃ, paribhogantarāyaṃ saṅghassa mā akāsīti attho.

180. Regarding 'having become one who desires death': because their intention is to reach a heavenly realm through the breaking up of this body, in meaning they have become ones who desire death. Those with such an intention are called 'maraṇatthikā' (those who desire death). Because they do not know their own state of desiring death, they fall into a Pārājika offense. For it is not said of them that they 'do not know the process of their own mind'; they indeed know it. Regarding 'by way of convention', it means by way of the convention of the preliminary stage. But in the final determination, this does not exist. It is not like releasing a pig caught in a snare. Regarding 'according to the connection', the meaning is 'without dying in the interim'. Regarding 'without having reflected', it means 'without having considered'. For if something exists in the lower part, a fold appears. Regarding 'shown', it means when it is taken out and placed. Regarding 'hindrance', the meaning is: 'Do not create a hindrance for the Saṅgha that is connected with you, an obstruction to their use'.

181-2. Yasmā [Pg.168] kiriyaṃ dātuṃ na sakkā, tasmā ‘‘paṭhamaṃ laddha’’nti vuttaṃ. Pubbepi attanā laddhapiṇḍapātato paṇītapaṇītaṃ dento tatthapi attakāriyaṃ adāsi. Asañciccāti ettha aññaṃ ākaḍḍhantassa aññassa patane sabbena sabbaṃ abhisandhi natthi. Na maraṇādhippāyassāti paṭigho ca payogo ca atthi, vadhakacetanā natthi. Ajānantassāti ettha ‘‘vatthuajānanavasena ajānantassa doso natthi, idaṃ kira tesaṃ nānattaṃ. ‘Asañcicco aha’nti pāḷiyaṃ na dissati. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā tathārūpāya pāḷiyā bhavitabba’’nti vadanti. No ce, thullaccayanti ettha ‘‘dukkhavedanā ce nuppajjati, dukkaṭamevā’’ti vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. ‘‘Muggarā nāma khādanadaṇḍakā. Vemā nāma tesaṃ khādanadaṇḍakānaṃ heṭṭhā ca upari ca tiriyaṃ bandhitabbadaṇḍā’’ti likhitaṃ. Heṭṭhāva duvidhāpi paṭhanti. Hatthappatto viya dissati ‘‘tassa vikkhepo mā hotū’’ti upacchindati. Visesādhigamaṃ byākaritvā tappabhavaṃ sakkāraṃ lajjīyanto āhāraṃ upacchindati sabhāgānaṃ byākatattā. Te hi kappiyakhettaṃ ārocenti.

Because it is not possible to give the action, it is said, 'first obtained.' Even before, a monk giving the most excellent food from the alms-food obtained by himself, even then gave the first portion of the meal which he himself had set aside as choice. Here, in the case of 'unintentionally,' for one who is pulling another, in the falling of that other, there is no intention whatsoever. In the case of 'not having the intention to kill,' there is both aversion and application, but there is no volition to kill. Here, in the case of 'not knowing,' they say: 'For one who does not know by way of not knowing the object, there is no fault; this, it seems, is their difference. The phrase "I am unintentional" is not seen in the Pāḷi. Because it is said in the commentary, there must have been such a Pāḷi text.' Here, in the case of 'if not, a thullaccaya,' they say, 'If a painful feeling does not arise, it is only a dukkaṭa offense'; this should be investigated. It is written: 'Muggarā are mallets with handles fitted into a hole. Vemā are the cross-pieces to be bound crosswise below and above those mallets with handles.' They also recite both kinds as being only below. It appears like something that has come into one's hand. Thinking, 'Let there be no distraction for him,' he cuts it off. Having declared a special attainment, and being ashamed of the honor arising from it, he cuts off the food because it was declared to his peers. For they announce the suitable field.

186. Akataviññattiyāti na viññattiyā. Sā hi anuññātattā katāpi akatā viyāti akataviññatti. ‘‘‘Vadeyyātha, bhante yenattho’ti evaṃ akataṭṭhāne viññatti akataviññattī’’ti likhitaṃ. Titthiyabhūtānaṃ mātāpitūnaṃ sahatthā dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti. Pitucchā nāma pitubhaginī. Sacepi na yācanti ‘‘yācituṃ dukkha’’nti, sayaṃ vā evaṃ vattumasakkontā. ‘‘Yadā tesaṃ attho bhavissatī’’ti ābhogaṃ katvā vā. ‘‘‘Vejjakammaṃ vā na hotī’ti vacanato yāva sattamo kulaparivaṭṭo, tāva bhesajjaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Sabbapadesūti mahāmātuyācūḷamātuyātiādīnaṃ.

186. ‘By an unmade request’ means not by a request. For that, because it is permitted, is as if unmade even when made; therefore, it is an ‘unmade request.’ It is written: ‘A request in an unmade situation, such as, “Venerable sir, you may speak of that which is needed,” is an unmade request.’ It should be known that it is not allowable to give with one's own hand to parents who have become heretics. A ‘pitucchā’ is a father's sister. Even if they do not ask, thinking, ‘It is difficult to ask,’ or if they themselves are unable to say so, or after one has reflected, ‘When they have a need,’ it should be given. Based on the statement ‘or it is not medical practice,’ they say that it is allowable to prepare medicine for relatives up to the seventh generation. ‘In all instances’ refers to the chief maternal aunt, the younger maternal aunt, and so on.

Vuttanayena pariyesitvāti ‘‘sāmaṇerehi vā’’tiādinā. ‘‘Na akataviññattiyā’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Paccāsīsati sace, dukkaṭa’’nti vadanti. Kappiyavasenāti pupphaṃ ānethātiādinā. ‘‘Pūjaṃ akāsī’ti vuttattā sayaṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti.

Regarding 'having searched in the manner described': this refers to the method beginning with 'by novices,' and so forth. They say, 'Not by an unmade request.' They say, 'If one hopes for it, it is a dukkaṭa offense.' Regarding 'according to what is allowable': this refers to the method beginning with 'bring flowers,' and so forth. They say, 'Because it is said, “he made an offering,” it is not proper to take it oneself.'

‘‘Bhaṇathā’’ti vutte pana kātabbaṃ. Dhammañhi vattuṃ vaṭṭati. No ce jānanti, na pādā apanetabbā. Avamaṅgalanti hi gaṇhanti.

However, when told, 'Recite,' it should be done. For indeed, it is fitting to speak the Dhamma. If they do not know, the feet should not be removed. For they consider it inauspicious.

Coranāgassa [Pg.169] hi āmaṭṭhaṃ dinne kujjhissati, anāmaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭatīti aṅgulantare thokaṃ bhattaṃ gahetvā patte bhattaṃ sabbaṃ adāsi, so tena tussi. Varapotthakacittattharaṇanti sibbitvā kātabbattharaṇavikati. Piturājā damiḷassa parājito rohaṇe soḷasavassāni vasitvā mittāmaccaparivuto ‘‘rajjaṃ gaṇhāmī’’ti āgantvā antarāmagge appamattakassa kāraṇā ekaṃ amaccaṃ ghātāpesi. Sesā bhayena palāyantā araññe antarāmagge corehi viluttā hambugallakavihāraṃ gantvā tattha cātunikāyikatissatthero tesaṃ saṅgahaṃ katvā puna ānetvā rañño dassesi, tehi saddhiṃ rajjaṃ gahetvā rājā hambugallakatissattherassa abhayagirivihāraṃ akāsi. Sesāpi ekekavihāraṃ kārāpesuṃ kira.

For if touched food were given to the robber-chief Coranāga, he would be angry, and an untouched first portion of food is not proper; therefore, taking a little food between the fingers, he gave all the food in the bowl, and he (Coranāga) was pleased by that. 'Varapotthakacittattharaṇa' is a special spread that is made by sewing. The father-king, defeated by the Damiḷa king, lived in Rohaṇa for sixteen years. Surrounded by friends and ministers, he came with the intention, 'I will take the kingdom,' but on the way, for a trivial reason, he had one minister killed. The rest, fleeing in fear, were robbed by thieves on the way in the forest. They went to the Hambugallaka monastery, where the elder Tissa, who was versed in the four Nikāyas, gave them support, brought them back, and presented them to the king. Having taken the kingdom together with them, the king built the Abhayagiri monastery for the elder Tissa of Hambugallaka. It is said that the remaining ministers also had one monastery each built.

187. Corasamīpaṃ pesento ‘‘vāḷayakkhavihāraṃ pesetī’’ti iminā sadiso. Kasmā? Maraṇādhippāyattā. Taḷākādīsu macchādiggahaṇatthaṃ kevaṭṭaṃ aññāpadesena ‘‘taḷākatīraṃ gacchā’’ti pahiṇantassa pāṇātipātena bhavitabbaṃ, ‘‘vāḷayakkhavihāraṃ pāhesī’’ti imassa sadiso. Kasmā? ‘‘Maraṇādhippāyattā’’ti vacanassānulomato, aṭṭhakathāyampi ‘‘evaṃ vāḷayakkhampī’’ti vuttattā.

187. One who sends someone near a robber is similar to this case: 'He sends him to the monastery of the wild yakkha.' Why? Because of the intention of causing death. For one who, by way of a pretext, sends a fisherman to catch fish and so forth in a reservoir, etc., saying, 'Go to the bank of the reservoir,' it should be considered an offense of destroying life; this should be similar to the case of 'he sent him to the monastery of the wild yakkha.' Why? Because it is in accordance with the statement, 'because of the intention of causing death,' and also because it is stated in the commentary, 'thus also to a wild yakkha.'

189. Taṃ tatraṭṭhitaṃ chindantanti taṃ-saddo ekaccesu natthi. Itaresu pārājikathullaccayaṃ āpannāti attho. ‘‘Imaṃ chinditvā sīghaṃ gantvā saṅghassa pattacīvaraṃ dassāmī’’ti kusalacittenapi chindituṃ na vaṭṭati ananuññātattā. Aññassa pana bhikkhuno vaṭṭati anuññātattā.

189. Regarding the phrase 'cutting it while it is there,' the word 'taṃ' is absent in some versions. In others, the meaning is that one incurs a pārājika or a thullaccaya offense. Even with a wholesome intention, thinking, 'Having cut this, I will go quickly and give the bowl and robe to the Saṅgha,' it is not allowable to cut it, because it is unpermitted. For another bhikkhu, however, it is allowable, because it is permitted.

190. Kathaṃ? Kuṭirakkhaṇatthañhi bhagavatā paṭaggidānādi anuññātaṃ, kuṭi nāmesā bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya. Tasmā ‘‘bhikkhurakkhaṇatthaṃ aññassa bhikkhussa vaṭṭatī’ti vattabbamettha natthī’’ti vuttaṃ. Yadi evaṃ acchinnacīvarassa naggabhāvappaṭicchādanatthaṃ bhūtagāmapātabyatā bhagavatā anuññātā, jīvitarakkhaṇatthañca sappadaṭṭhakāle anuññātaṃ, tasmā ‘‘api jīvitaṃ pariccajitabbaṃ, na ca rukkho vā chinditabbo’’tiādi na vattabbaṃ siyā, tasmā taṃ nidassanaṃ appamāṇaṃ, aṭṭhakathācariyo evettha pamāṇaṃ. Ettha panāyaṃ ācariyassa takko – ariyapuggalesupi sattā naggiyaṃ passitvā appasādaṃ katvā nirayūpagā bhavissanti[Pg.170], tathā sappā ca ḍaṃsitvā, tesaṃ pāpavimocanatthaṃ bhūtagāmapātabyatā anuññātā. Dānapatīnaṃ cittarakkhaṇatthaṃ paṭaggidānādi. Aññathā lokassa puññantarāyo, saṅghassa ca lābhantarāyo hoti. Vadhakassa pana cittahitakaraṇaṃ natthi, taṃ pana avītikkamaṃ, jīvitapariccajanaṃ passitvā vā ‘‘aho dukkaraṃ kata’’nti pasādameva labheyyunti attano na vaṭṭati, aññassa vaṭṭati. Aññathā titthiyānaṃ asaddhammasiddhiyāti. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘jīvitatthāya rukkhaṃ chindantassa attasinehavasena chindanato akusalattā na vaṭṭati, aññassa vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Anekesu rukkhena otthatesu, opāte vā patitesu aññena aññassatthāya rukkhachedanādi kātuṃ vaṭṭati, kasmā? Paraparittāṇādhippāyatoti. Parittanti rakkhaṇaṃ, taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘samantā bhūmitacchana’’ntiādi vuttaṃ.

190. How so? For the sake of protecting a hut, the Blessed One permitted the giving of a fire-stick and so forth. This hut is indeed for the benefit of the bhikkhus. Therefore, it is said: 'Since it is permissible for another bhikkhu for the sake of protecting a bhikkhu, there is nothing to be said in this matter.' If this is so, for a bhikkhu robbed of his robe, for the sake of covering his state of nakedness, the destruction of living plants was permitted by the Blessed One. And for the sake of protecting life, it was permitted at the time of a snakebite. Therefore, it should not be said, 'Even life should be given up, but a tree should not be cut,' and so forth. Hence, that illustration is not the standard; the commentary teacher alone is the authority here. Here, however, is the teacher's reasoning: Beings, seeing even noble individuals in a state of nakedness, having generated displeasure, will become those who go to hell. Likewise, when snakes have bitten, for the sake of releasing them from evil, the destruction of living plants was permitted. The giving of a fire-stick and so forth is for the sake of protecting the minds of donors. Otherwise, there would be an obstacle to the world's merit and an obstacle to the Saṅgha's gain. But for a killer, there is no act that benefits his mind; on the contrary, having seen that non-transgression and the giving up of life, they might think, 'Oh, a difficult deed has been done!' and thereby gain faith. Therefore, it is not permissible for oneself, but it is permissible for another. Otherwise, the false doctrines of the heretics would be established. In the Gaṇṭhipada, however, it is written: 'For a bhikkhu cutting a tree for the sake of his life, because he cuts it through self-love, it is unwholesome and thus not permissible; but for another, it is permissible.' When many are crushed by a tree, or have fallen into a pit, it is permissible for one to do the cutting of a tree and so forth for the sake of another. Why? Because of the intention to protect others. Paritta means protection. To show this, 'clearing the ground all around,' and so forth was said.

191. Tīhi mārite pana visaṅketanti ettha tīsu ekena māritepi ‘‘khettameva otiṇṇattā pārājika’’nti vuttattā tayopi ekato hutvā mārenti ce, āpajjati, teneva vuttaṃ ‘‘paricchedabbhantare vā avisaṅketa’’nti. ‘‘Paricchedātikkame pana sabbattha visaṅketaṃ hotī’’ti vuttattā dvinnaṃ balaṃ gahetvā tatiyo ce māreti āpajjati viya dissati, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. ‘‘Dve mārentū’’ti vutte ekena vā dvīhi vā mārite pārājikanti ‘‘dvinnaṃ pahārānaṃ maraṇe sati dve māritā nāma honti, asati ekova hoti, tasmā vijānitabba’’nti vadanti.

191. Regarding the phrase 'when killed by three, there is uncertainty,' here, because it is said, 'Even when killed by one of the three, because one has entered the very field of killing, it is a pārājika,' if all three, having come together, kill, an offense is incurred. For that very reason, it is said, 'Within the boundary, there is no uncertainty.' Because it is said, 'But when the boundary is transgressed, there is uncertainty everywhere,' if a third person, having taken the strength of two, kills, it appears as if an offense is incurred; this should be investigated. When it is said, 'Let them kill two,' if one or two are killed by one or two persons, it is a pārājika. Therefore, they say: 'When there is death from two blows, two are said to have been killed; in the absence of death, there is only one. Therefore, it should be known.'

Tatiyapārājikavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Third Pārājika is concluded.

4. Catutthapārājikaṃ

4. The Fourth Pārājika

Vaggumudātīriyabhikkhuvatthuvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of the Bhikkhus from the Bank of the Vaggumudā River

193. Catutthe vaggu ca sā modayati ca satteti vaggumudā. ‘‘Vaggumadā’’tipi pāṭho, tassa vaggu ca sā pasannasuddhataraṅgasamiddhattā sukhumā cāti attho jīvitavaggutthanitā jīvitatthanti nīluppalantiādīsu viya. Madassāti ca bahukhajjabhojjapānādisamiddhā nadī chaṇadivasesūti nirutti veditabbā. Vaggu parisuddhāti lokena sammatāti kira attho. Bhāsito bhavissatīti pāṭhaseso.

193. In the Fourth: `Vaggumudā` is so called because that river (`sā`) is both pleasing (`vaggu`) and gladdens (`modayati`) beings (`satte`). There is also the reading `Vaggumadā`. The meaning of this is: that river is pleasing (`vaggu`) and, because it is endowed with clear, pure waves, it is also gentle (`sukhumā`). The term `jīvitavaggutthanitā` (the state of having the quality of causing fullness of life) has the meaning 'for the sake of life' (`jīvitatthaṃ`), just as in the case of `nīluppala`, etc. And regarding `madassā`, the etymology should be known thus: on festival days, the river is endowed with much hard food, soft food, drinks, and so on. The meaning, it seems, is that `vaggu` means pure, and it is esteemed as such by the world. The remainder of the reading is `bhāsito bhavissati`.

194-5. Vaṇṇavā [Pg.171] vaṇṇavanto vaṇṇavantānītipi sijjhati kira bahuvacanena. Yasmā indriyānaṃ ūnattaṃ, pūrattaṃ vā natthi, tasmā ‘‘abhiniviṭṭhokāsassa paripuṇṇattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Chaṭṭhassa abhiniviṭṭhokāso hadayavatthu. Catuiriyāpathacakke pākatindriye. Attano dahatīti attanā dahati, attanā paṭividdhaṃ katvā pavedetīti adhippāyo. Santanti vattamānaṃ. Gotrabhunoti gottamattaṃ anubhavattā nāmamattakamevāti attho.

194-5. It is said that `vaṇṇavā`, `vaṇṇavanto`, and `vaṇṇavantāni` are also formed in the plural. Because there is no deficiency or excess of the faculties, it is therefore said, 'due to the completeness of the sphere of application.' The sphere of application of the sixth faculty is the heart-base. In the cycle of the four postures, the faculties are in their natural state. In the phrase `attano dahati`, it means he himself places it or makes it known; the intention is that, having penetrated it himself, he makes it known. `Santaṃ` means the present. Regarding `gotrabhu`, the meaning is that because it experiences only the lineage of the noble ones, it is merely a name.

Savibhaṅgasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Training Rule with Its Analysis

197. Padabhājane ‘‘tisso vijjā’’ti vuttattā arūpāvacarajjhānāni paṭikkhittānīti ce? Na, tattheva ‘‘yaṃ ñāṇaṃ, taṃ dassanaṃ, yaṃ dassanaṃ, taṃ ñāṇa’’nti dassanapadena visesetvā vuttattā, tasmā eva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘vijjāsīsena padabhājanaṃ vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Dhuraṃ katvāti purimaṃ katvā.

197. If it is said that in the Padabhājaniya, because 'the three knowledges' are stated, the formless-sphere jhānas are rejected? No, because in that very context it is stated, having been specified by the word 'vision', 'what is knowledge, that is vision; what is vision, that is knowledge'. For that very reason, it is said in the commentary, 'The Padabhājaniya is spoken with knowledge as its head'. `Dhuraṃ katvā` means 'having made foremost'.

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Padabhājaniya

199. Anāgate uppajjanakarāgādīnaṃ kāraṇattā rāgādayova nimittaṃ nāma. Tissannañca vijjānaṃ aññataraṃ sandhāya ‘‘vijjānaṃ lābhīmhī’’ti bhaṇati, pārājikaṃ, na vatthuvijjādīnaṃ kilesanahānameva vuttaṃ, taṃkhaṇattā uttarimanussadhammappavatti na hotīti ce? Na, maggakiccadīpanato. Teneva ‘‘maggena vinā natthī’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Cittanti cittassa vigatanīvaraṇatāti attho. ‘‘Yāvañca vijjā anāgatā, tāva vipassanāñāṇassa lābhīmhī’ti vadanto yadi lokuttaraṃ sandhāya vadati, sopi ca tathā jānāti, pārājikameva lokuttarassapi taṃnāmattā’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Avisesenāpi vadato pārājikaṃ vuttanti lokuttaraṃ sandhāya vadato ‘pārājika’nti vattuṃ yujjati. Yathā kiṃ ‘vijjānaṃ lābhīmhī’ti bhaṇantopi pārājikamevā’ti vuttaṭṭhāne vatthuvijjādīnaṃ sambhavepi tāsaṃ anadhippetattā pārājikaṃ hoti, evamidhāpi. Na sakkā aññaṃ pamāṇaṃ kātunti attano guṇamārocetukāmo lokiyena sammissaṃ atthapaṭisambhidaṃ vadato pārājikanti pamāṇaṃ kātuṃ na sakkā, itarathā hotī’’ti aparehi vuttaṃ, ‘‘taṃ pubbāparaviruddhaṃ, tasmā vijjānidassanaṃ idha anidassanaṃ sāsane vatthuvijjādīnaṃ vijjāvidhānābhāvā. Bhagavatā vibhattakhettapade vā tesaṃ pariyāyavacanānaṃ anāmaṭṭhattā na sakkā aññaṃ pamāṇaṃ kātu’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Paṭisambhidānaṃ lābhīmhī’ti vutte pariyāyena [Pg.172] vuttattā thullaccayaṃ yutta’’nti vadanti, vicāretabbaṃ. Vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbanti ‘‘yo te vihāre vasatī’’tiādīhi saṃsandanato pariyāyavacanattā thullaccayaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Nirodhasamāpattiṃ samāpajjāmī’ti vā ‘lābhīmhāhaṃ tassā’ti vā vadatopī’’ti vuttavacanampi ‘‘sace panassevaṃ hotī’’tiādivacanampi atthato ekameva, sopi hi attano visesaṃ ārocetumeva vadati. ‘‘Yo te vihāre vasatī’tiādīsu ahaṃ-vacanābhāvā pariyāyo yujjati, idha pana ‘lābhīmhāhaṃ tassā’ti attānaṃ niddisati, tasmā pārājikaṃ āpajjituṃ yuttaṃ viyā’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Mahāpaccariyādivacanaṃ uttarimanussadhammesu ekopi na hoti, tasmā pariyāyena vuttattā na hotī’’ti vadanti, suṭṭhu upaparikkhitabbaṃ. Phalasacchikiriyā-padato paṭṭhāya eva pāṭho gahetabbo, phalasacchikiriyāyapi ekekampi ekekaphalavasena pārājikaṃ veditabbaṃ.

199. Because they are the cause of lust and so forth that are to arise in the future, lust and so forth themselves are called a 'sign' (nimitta). And if, referring to one of the three knowledges, one says, 'I am a possessor of the knowledges,' it is a pārājika offense; it is not a pārājika offense if one says this referring to mundane knowledges (vatthuvijjā), etc. It is said only with reference to the abandoning of defilements. If it is said, 'Because at that moment, the occurrence of a supramundane state does not happen'? No, because it indicates the function of the path. For that very reason, 'Without the path, there is none,' etc., was said. 'Mind' means the state of the mind being free from hindrances—this is the meaning. Some say: 'If one who says, "So long as the knowledges have not been attained, I am a possessor of insight-knowledge," speaks referring to the supramundane, and the listener also understands it as such, it is a pārājika offense indeed, because the supramundane also has that name.' Since a pārājika offense is stated even for one who speaks non-specifically, it is proper to say 'pārājika' for one who speaks referring to the supramundane. Just as in the case where it is said, 'Even one who says, "I am a possessor of the knowledges," commits a pārājika offense,' it is a pārājika offense because, even though mundane knowledges, etc., are possible, they are not intended; so too here. It is not possible to establish another standard. Others have said: 'It is not possible to establish as a standard that for a monk who, wishing to announce his own quality, speaks of the analytical knowledge of meaning mixed with the mundane, it is a pārājika offense; otherwise, it would be different.' That is contradicted by what comes before and after. Therefore, the example of 'knowledge' is not an example here, because in the Teaching, there is no prescription of mundane knowledges, etc., as 'knowledge.' Or, because in the section where the fields are defined by the Blessed One, their synonymous terms are not touched upon, it is not possible to establish another standard,' so it is written. Some say, 'When it is said, "I am a possessor of the analytical knowledges," it is proper for it to be a thullaccaya offense because it is spoken indirectly'—this should be investigated. It should be understood after investigation that by comparison with (phrases such as) 'He who dwells in your monastery,' etc., a thullaccaya offense is stated because it is an indirect expression. The statement about one who says either 'I attain the attainment of cessation' or 'I am a possessor of it,' and the statement 'If it were so for him,' etc., are one and the same in meaning, for he too speaks only to announce his own special quality. Some say: 'In (phrases such as) "He who dwells in your monastery," etc., an indirect expression is proper due to the absence of the word "I." But here, in saying "I am a possessor of it," one indicates oneself; therefore, it seems proper to incur a pārājika offense.' Some say: 'The statement in the Mahāpaccariya, etc., is not even one among the supramundane states; therefore, because it is spoken indirectly, a pārājika offense does not occur'—this should be thoroughly examined. The reading should be taken as starting from the word 'realization of fruition' (phalasacchikiriyā). Even in the case of the realization of fruition, each single one, by way of each single fruition, should be understood as a pārājika offense.

Rāgassa pahānantiādittike kilesappahānameva vuttaṃ, taṃ pana yasmā maggena vinā natthi. Tatiyamaggena hi rāgadosānaṃ pahānaṃ, catutthena mohassa, tasmā ‘‘rāgo me pahīno’’tiādīni vadatopi pārājikaṃ. Rāgā cittaṃ vinīvaraṇatātiādittike lokuttarameva vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘rāgā me cittaṃ vinīvaraṇa’’ntiādīni vadato pārājikamevāti. Akuppadhammattāti keci uttaravihāravāsino. Kasmā na hotīti ce? ‘‘Iti jānāmi, iti passāmī’’ti vattamānavacaneneva mātikāyaṃ vuttattā. Yadi evaṃ padabhājane ‘‘samāpajjiṃ, samāpanno’’tiādinā vuttattā ‘‘atītattabhāve sotāpannomhī’’ti vadatopi hotūti ce? Na, aññathā atthasambhavato. Kathaṃ? Addhāpaccuppannavasena vattamānatā gahetabbāti ñāpanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na atītattabhāvaṃ. Atītattabhāvo hi pariyāyena vuttattā ‘‘thullaccaya’’nti vuttanti ācariyā.

In the triad beginning with 'the abandonment of lust,' the abandonment of defilements alone is spoken of. But since that does not exist without the path—for indeed, by the third path is the abandonment of lust and hatred, and by the fourth, that of delusion—therefore, for one who says, 'My lust is abandoned,' etc., it is a pārājika offense. In the triad beginning with 'the mind is freed from lust,' only the supramundane is spoken of. Therefore, for one who says, 'My mind is freed from lust,' etc., it is a pārājika offense indeed. Regarding [the phrase] 'because of being of an unshakable nature,' some teachers dwelling in the Uttaravihāra [say this]. If one were to ask, 'Why is it not [a pārājika offense]?' Because it is stated in the Mātikā with the present tense verb itself, 'Thus I know, thus I see.' If this is so, then since it is stated in the Padabhājana by way of 'I was attaining, I have attained,' etc., if one were to say, 'Let it also be a pārājika offense for one who says, "In a past existence, I was a stream-enterer."' No, because the meaning is possible in another way. How so? It is stated to make known that the present tense is to be understood in the sense of the actual present, not a past existence. Indeed, because a past existence is spoken of indirectly, the teachers say it is stated to be a thullaccaya offense.

200. ‘‘Sacepi na hoti, pārājikamevā’’ti aṭṭhānaparikappavasena vuttaṃ kira. ‘‘Iti vācā tivaṅgikā’’ti vakkhati. Natthetanti purime sati pacchimassābhāvā samāpajjiṃ, samāpannoti imesaṃ kiñcāpi atthato kālaviseso natthi, vacanaviseso pana atthi eva.

200. It is said that [the statement] 'Even if it is not so, it is a pārājika offense indeed' was stated by way of an impossible supposition. He will state [in the verse], 'Thus, the statement has three aspects.' Regarding [the phrase] 'natthetaṃ' (it is not so): because when the former exists, the latter is absent. For these [words] 'samāpajjiṃ' (I was attaining) and 'samāpanno' (I have attained), although there is no distinction in time with respect to meaning, there is indeed a distinction in wording.

207. Ukkheṭitoti uttāsito. Khiṭa utrāsane.

207. Ukkheṭito means 'terrified'. The root 'khiṭa' is in the sense of 'frightening'.

Suddhikavārakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Suddhikavāra is concluded.

Vattukāmavārakathāvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Vattukāmavāra

Viññattipatheti [Pg.173] vijānanaṭṭhāne, tena ‘‘viññattipathamatikkamitvā ṭhito bhikkhu dibbāya sotadhātuyā sutvā jānāti, na pārājikanti dīpetī’’ti vuttaṃ. Jhānaṃ kira samāpajjinti ettha so ce ‘‘esa bhikkhu attano guṇadīpanādhippāyena evaṃ vadatī’’ti jānāti, pārājikameva. Aññathā jānātīti ce? Pārājikacchāyā na dissatīti ācariyo.

Viññattipathe (in the range of intimation) means 'in a place where one can know'. By that, it is said that it shows this meaning: 'A bhikkhu standing beyond the range of intimation, having heard with the divine ear-element, knows; it is not a pārājika offense.' Regarding [the statement] 'I have, it seems, attained jhāna,' if that [person who hears] knows, 'This bhikkhu speaks thus with the intention of displaying his own quality,' it is a pārājika offense indeed. If he knows otherwise? The teacher says, 'The shadow of a pārājika offense does not appear.'

Vattukāmavārakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Vattukāmavāra is concluded.

Anāpattibhedakathāvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Kinds of Non-Offenses

Anullapanādhippāyoti yadi ullapanādhippāyo bhaveyya, dukkaṭamevāti apare. ‘‘Taṃ parato ‘nāvuso, sakkā puthujjanena adhivāsetu’nti vatthunā saṃsanditvā gahetabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

Regarding [the phrase] 'with no intention to boast': others say that if there were an intention to boast, it would be a dukkaṭa offense indeed. It is said: 'That should be understood by connecting it with the story that follows, “Friend, it is not possible for an ordinary person to endure.”'

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Padabhājanīya is concluded.

Vinītavatthuvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Vinītavatthu

225-6. Dukkara āgāra āvaṭakāma abhirativatthūsu ‘‘yadi ullapanādhippāyo bhaveyya, pārājika’’nti vadanti, kāraṇaṃ pana duddasaṃ, thullaccayaṃ vuttaṃ viya, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Yānena vā iddhiyā vā gacchantopi pārājikaṃ nāpajjatīti padasā gamanavaseneva katikāya katāya yujjati. ‘‘Apubbaṃacarimaṃ gacchantoti hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā aññamaññassa hatthaṃ gaṇhanto viya gacchanto’’ti vuttaṃ. Uṭṭhetha etha gacchāmāti evaṃ sahagamane pubbāparā gacchantopi nāpajjatīti ācariyassa takko. Vasantassāti tathā vasanto ce upāsakena dissati, pārājiko hoti. ‘‘Rattiṃ vasitvā gacchanto na pārājiko’’ti vuttaṃ. Nānāverajjakāti nānājanapadavāsino. Saṅghalābhoti yathāvuḍḍhaṃ attano pāpuṇanakoṭṭhāso.

In the cases of the difficult deed, the dwelling, the desire to return, and delight, they say: 'If there were an intention to boast, it is a pārājika offense.' But the reason is difficult to see; it seems to be spoken of as a thullaccaya offense and should be investigated. The statement, 'Even one going by vehicle or by psychic power does not incur a pārājika offense,' is fitting only when the agreement was made on the basis of going on foot. It is said: '“Going neither first nor last” means going without abandoning the distance of a hand’s reach, like one holding another’s hand.' It is the teacher’s reasoning that in going together thus, 'Arise, come, let us go,' even one going before or after does not incur an offense. Regarding 'while dwelling': if, while dwelling thus, he is seen by a lay follower, he is a pārājika offender. It is said: 'One who goes after having stayed for the night is not a pārājika offender.' 'Of various regions' means dwellers of various districts. 'Gain for the Saṅgha' means one's own portion that is received according to seniority.

228. Idhāti ‘‘ko nu kho’’tiādinā vutte pañhākamme. Dhammadhātu sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ.

228. 'Here' means in the act of questioning spoken of beginning with 'Who now indeed...?'. The element of Dhamma is the knowledge of omniscience.

232. Na [Pg.174] uppaṭipāṭiyāti na sīhokkantavasena anussari. Tasmā antarābhavabhūtā ekā eva jātīti paṭivijjhatīti attho.

232. 'Not in reverse order' means he did not recollect by means of the lion's leap. Therefore, the meaning is: he penetrates the truth that the immediately preceding existence is only one birth.

Nigamanavaṇṇanā

The Concluding Exposition

233. Catuvīsatīti ettha mātughātakapitughātakaarahantaghātakā tatiyapārājikaṃ āpannā. Bhikkhunidūsako, lambiādayo ca cattāro paṭhamapārājikaṃ āpannā evāti katvā kuto catuvīsatīti ce? Na, adhippāyājānanato. Mātughātakādayo hi cattāro idhānupasampannā eva adhippetā, lambiādayo cattāro kiñcāpi paṭhamapārājikena saṅgahitā, yasmā ekena pariyāyena methunadhammapaṭisevino na honti, tasmā visuṃ vuttā. ‘‘Ekakammaṃ ekuddeso samasikkhatā’’ti evaṃ vuttasaṃvāsassa abhabbatāmattaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ ‘‘yathā pure tathā pacchā’’ti. Aññathā nesaṃ samaññāyapaṭiññāyabhikkhubhāvopi natthīti āpajjati.

233. Regarding 'twenty-four': Here, matricides, patricides, and killers of arahants incur the third pārājika offense. A defiler of a bhikkhunī, and the four such as Lambī, have indeed incurred the first pārājika offense. If, on this account, one should ask, 'How then are there twenty-four?' No, this is due to not understanding the intention. For the four—matricides and the others—are indeed intended here as unordained. Although the four such as Lambī are included under the first pārājika offense, they are stated separately because in one respect they are not partakers of the sexual act. The statement, 'as before, so after,' was said with reference only to the unsuitability for the co-residence that is spoken of as 'one act, one recitation, the same training.' Otherwise, it would follow that their state of being a bhikkhu by designation and by acknowledgement would not exist.

Catutthapārājikavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The exposition of the fourth pārājika offense is concluded.

Pārājikakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The exposition of the Pārājika section is concluded.

2. Saṅghādisesakaṇḍo

2. The Saṅghādisesa Section

1. Sukkavissaṭṭhisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Exposition of the Training Rule on Emission of Semen

235. ‘‘Okkamantāna’’nti [Pg.175] pāṭho. Etthāha – ‘‘yo pana bhikkhū’’ti kārako idha kasmā na niddiṭṭhoti? Abhi-niddesena imassa sāpekkhābhāvadassanatthaṃ. Kathaṃ? Kaṇḍuvanādiadhippāyacetanāvasena cetentassa kaṇḍuvanādiupakkamena upakkamantassa, methunarāgavasena ūruādīsu dukkaṭavatthūsu, vaṇādīsu thullaccayavatthūsu ca upakkamantassa sukkavissaṭṭhiyā satipi na saṅghādiseso. Mocanassādasaṅkhātādhippāyāpekkhāva sukkavissaṭṭhi sati upakkame, na aññathā ‘‘anāpatti na mocanādhippāyassā’’ti vacanato. Tasmā tadatthadassanatthaṃ idha kārako na niddiṭṭho, aññathā ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu sañcetanikaṃ sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ āpajjeyyā’’ti kārake niddiṭṭhe ‘‘ceteti na upakkamati muccati, anāpattī’’ti vuttavacanavirodho. ‘‘Sañcetanikāya sukkavissaṭṭhiyā aññatra supinantā’’ti bhumme niddiṭṭhepi sova virodho āpajjati, tasmā tadubhayavacanakkamaṃ avatvā ‘‘sañcetanikā sukkavissaṭṭhi aññatra supinantā’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha nimittatthe bhummavacanābhāvato hetutthaniyamo na kato hoti. Tasmiṃ akate sañcetanikā sukkavissaṭṭhi aññatra supinantā saṅghādisesāpatti, upakkame asati anāpattīti ayamattho dīpitoti veditabbaṃ.

235. “Okkamantāna” is the reading. Here it is asked: Why is the agent, “whatever bhikkhu,” not specified here? In order to show, by way of detailed exposition, the dependent nature of this rule. How so? For one who intends with the volition for the purpose of relieving an itch and so on, and who makes an effort with the exertion of relieving an itch and so on; or for one who, due to sexual lust, makes an effort regarding the thighs and so on (grounds for a dukkaṭa offense), or regarding wounds and so on (grounds for a thullaccaya offense), there is no Saṅghādisesa offense even if there is an emission of semen. An emission of semen, when there is effort, is an offense only when it is dependent on the intention known as 'the pleasure of emission,' not otherwise, in accordance with the text: 'There is no offense for one who does not have the intention of emission.' Therefore, in order to show this meaning, the agent is not specified here. Otherwise, if the agent were specified as “whatever bhikkhu should intentionally cause an emission of semen,” it would contradict the spoken word that says: “He intends, does not make an effort, it is emitted; no offense.” Even if it were stated in the locative case as “with an intentional emission of semen, other than in a dream,” the same contradiction would arise. Therefore, without stating that sequence of two phrases, it is said: “An intentional emission of semen, other than in a dream.” Herein, since there is no locative case in the sense of a condition, a restriction to the meaning of 'cause' is not made. When that restriction is not made, the meaning explained should be understood as follows: an intentional emission of semen—other than in a dream—is a Saṅghādisesa offense when there is effort; when there is no effort, it is not an offense.

236-7. Sañcetanikāti ettha paṭhamaviggahena upasaggassa sātthakatā dassitā, dutiyena ikapaccayassa. Vātapittasemharuhirādiāsayabhedatoti attho. Dhātūti ettha ‘‘pathavīdhātuādayo catasso, cakkhudhātuādayo vā aṭṭhārasā’’ti gaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ. Vatthisīsanti vatthipuṭassa sīsaṃ. ‘‘Aṅgajātassa mūlaṃ adhippetaṃ, na aggasīsa’’nti vadanti. Tathevāti ‘‘nimitte upakkamato’’tiādiṃ gaṇhāti. Tato muccitvāti ‘‘na sakalakāyato, tasmā pana ṭhānā cutamatte hotū’’ti gaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ. ‘‘Dakasotaṃ otiṇṇamatte’’ti iminā na sametīti ce? Tato dakasotorohaṇañcetthātiādi vuccati. Tassattho – nimitte upakkamaṃ katvā sukkaṃ ṭhānā cāvetvā puna vippaṭisāravasena dakasotorohaṇaṃ nivāretuṃ adhivāsemīti. Tato bahi nikkhamante adhivāsetuṃ na sakkā, tathāpi adhivāsanādhippāyena adhivāsetvā antarā dakasotato [Pg.176] uddhaṃ nivāretuṃ asakkuṇeyyatāya ‘‘anikkhante vā’’ti vuttaṃ. Kasmā? Ṭhānā cutañhi avassaṃ dakasotaṃ otaratīti aṭṭhakathādhippāyo gaṇṭhipadādhippāyena sameti. Tato muccitvāti sakaṭṭhānato. Sakasarīrato hi bahi nikkhantameva hoti, tato ‘‘bahi nikkhante vā anikkhante vā’’ti vacanaṃ virujjheyya. Yasmā pana tamhā tamhā sarīrapadesā cutaṃ avassaṃ dakasotaṃ otarati, tasmā vuttaṃ ‘‘dakasotaṃ otiṇṇamatte’’ti, iminā ca āpattiyā pākaṭakālaṃ dasseti, kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Mocanassādena nimitte upakkamato sukkaṃ bahutarampi sarīrapadesā cutaṃ tattha tattha laggāvasesaṃ yattakaṃ ekā khuddakamakkhikā piveyya, tattake dakasotaṃ otiṇṇamatte saṅghādisesāpatti. Vuttañhi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sukkavissaṭṭhisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘dakasotaṃ anotiṇṇepi saṅghādiseso’’tiādi. Tattakassa bahi nikkhamanaṃ asallakkhento ‘‘ceteti upakkamati na muccati, āpatti thullaccayassā’’ti vacanato thullaccayanti saññāya desentopi na muccati, passāvampi vaṇṇataṃ passitvā vatthikosagatassa picchilatāya vā ñatvā saṅghādisesato vuṭṭhātabbaṃ. Ayamettha tatiyattheravāde yutti. Sabbācariyā ime eva tayo therā, tesampi dakasotorohaṇaṃ nimitte upakkamananti ayaṃ dutiyo vinicchayo sādhāraṇato ettha, evaṃ upatissatthero vadati kira.

236-7. Herein, in the word `sañcetanikā`, by the first etymological analysis, the meaningfulness of the prefix is shown; by the second, that of the 'ika' suffix. The meaning is: by the distinction of the bases, such as wind, bile, phlegm, blood, and so on. Herein, in the word `dhātu`, it is written in the Gaṇṭhipada: 'The four elements beginning with the earth element, or the eighteen elements beginning with the eye element.' `Vatthisīsaṃ` means the base of the bladder-sac. They say: 'The root of the genital organ is intended, not the tip.' By `tatheva` ('just so'), it refers to 'from applying effort to the sign,' and so on. Regarding `tato muccitvā` ('having been released from there'), it is written in the Gaṇṭhipada: 'Not from the whole body, but let it be just upon being dislodged from that place.' If it is said that this does not accord with 'just upon descending into the stream of urine'? Therefore, 'and the descent into the stream of urine here...' and so on is said. Its meaning is: having applied effort to the sign and dislodged the semen from its place, one thinks, 'I will, due to regret, restrain it to prevent its descent into the urinary tract.' It is not possible to restrain it as it is exiting from there. Nevertheless, because of the inability to prevent it in the interim while it is in the upper part of the urinary tract, even though one restrains it with the intention to restrain, it is said, 'or when it has not exited.' Why? For that which is dislodged from its place inevitably descends into the stream of urine. Thus, the intention of the commentary accords with the intention of the Gaṇṭhipada. `Tato muccitvā` means from its own place. For if it were from one's own body, it would indeed be exited outside; therefore, the statement 'whether exited outside or not exited' would be contradicted. But since semen dislodged from this or that part of the body inevitably descends into the stream of urine, it is therefore said, 'just upon descending into the stream of urine.' And by this, it shows the manifest time of the offense. What is meant by this? For a monk who, with enjoyment in emission, makes an effort regarding the sign, even if much semen is dislodged from a part of the body, with a remainder sticking here and there, a Saṅghādisesa offense is incurred just upon an amount as much as a small fly could drink descending into the stream of urine. For it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī: 'Even if it has not descended into the stream of urine, it is a Saṅghādisesa,' and so on. Not noticing the exit of that small amount, even when confessing with the perception that it is a Thullaccaya offense, in accordance with the text, 'He intends, he makes an effort, he is not released; the offense is a Thullaccaya,' he is not absolved. Having seen the appearance of semen in the urine, or having known by the stickiness of that which has gone to the scrotum, he should be rehabilitated from the Saṅghādisesa offense. This here is the reasoning in the view of the third elder. All the teachers are just these three elders. For them too, this second decision concerning the descent into the urinary tract and the effort regarding the sign is common here. Thus, it is said, the Elder Upatissa speaks.

Ṭhānā cutañhi avassaṃ dakasotaṃ otaratīti katvā ‘‘ṭhānā cāvanamattenevettha āpatti veditabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Dakasotaṃ otiṇṇe eva āpatti. Sukkassa hi sakalaṃ sarīraṃ ṭhānaṃ, anotiṇṇe ṭhānā cutaṃ nāma na hotīti vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Ābhidhammikattā therassa ‘‘sukkavissaṭṭhi nāma rāgasamuṭṭhānā hotī’’ti (kathā. aṭṭha. 307) kathāvatthuṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā sambhavo cittasamuṭṭhāno, ‘‘taṃ asuciṃ ekadesaṃ mukhena aggahesi, ekadesaṃ aṅgajāte pakkhipī’’ti (pārā. 503) vacanato utusamuṭṭhāno ca dissati, so ca kho avītarāgasseva ‘‘aṭṭhānametaṃ, bhikkhave, anavakāso yaṃ arahato asuci mucceyyā’’ti (mahāva. 353; kathā. 313) vacanato. Parūpāhāraṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘atthi tassa āsayoti tassa sukkassa uccārapassāvānaṃ viya patiṭṭhānokāso atthī’’ti [Pg.177] (kathā. aṭṭha. 309) canato tassa āsayoti siddhaṃ. Pākatikacittasamuṭṭhānarūpaṃ viya asaṃsaṭṭhattā, nikkhamanato ca ‘‘vatthisīsaṃ, kaṭi, kāyo’’ti tidhā sukkassa ṭhānaṃ pakappenti ācariyā. Sappavisaṃ viya taṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ, na ca visassa ṭhānaniyamo, kodhavasena phusantassa hoti, evamassa na ca ṭhānaniyamo, rāgavasena upakkamantassa hotīti takko.

Indeed, semen that has moved from its place inevitably descends to the stream of urine; for this reason, it is said, 'Here, the offense should be known by the mere dislodging from the place.' An offense is incurred only when it has descended to the stream of urine. Indeed, for semen, the entire body is the place; when it has not descended, there is no such thing as 'moved from the place.' This should be investigated. Because the Elder is an Abhidhammika, and because it is said in the Kathāvatthu commentary, 'The emission of semen has lust as its origin,' semen is mind-originated. And from the statement, 'He took a part of that impurity with the mouth; he placed a part in the genital organ,' it is also seen to be season-originated. And that, indeed, is only for one who is not free from lust, because of the statement, 'Monks, it is impossible, it is no occasion that impurity should be emitted from an Arahant.' In the Kathāvatthu commentary, it is said, 'There is a basis for it—just as there is a receptacle for urine and feces, so too there is a resting place for that semen.' Thus, its basis is established. Because it is unmixed like natural mind-originated matter, and because of its exit, the teachers conceive the place of semen in three ways: 'the head of the bladder, the waist, and the body.' It should be regarded like snake venom—there is no fixed place for poison, as it affects one who touches it out of anger. Similarly, for this, there is no fixed place, as it occurs for one who strives through lust. This is our reasoning.

Khobhakaraṇapaccayo nāma bhesajjasenāsanāhārādipaccayo. Saṃsaggabhedatopīti etesu dvīhipi tīhipi. Pahīnavipallāsattāti ettha yaṃ kiñci supinantena sekkhaputhujjanā passanti, taṃ sabbaṃ vipallatthaṃ abhūtamevāti āpajjati. Tato ‘‘yaṃ pana pubbanimittato passati. Taṃ ekantasaccameva hotī’’ti idaṃ virujjhati, tasmā na visayaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. So hi sacco vā hoti, aliko vāti katvā tañce sandhāya vuttaṃ siyā, ‘‘asekkhā pahīnavipallāsattā saccameva passanti, nāsacca’’nti vattabbaṃ siyā. Kintu dassanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tañhi abhūtaṃ, apassantopi hi passanto viya asuṇantopi suṇanto viya amunantopi munanto viya hoti. Saccampi vipassatīti no takkoti ācariyo. Taṃ rūpanimittādiārammaṇaṃ na hoti, āgantukapaccuppannaṃ rūpanimittādiārammaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kammanimittagatinimittabhūtāni hi rūpanimittādīni bhavaṅgassa ārammaṇāni honti eva. Tattha kammanimittamatītameva, gatinimittaṃ thokaṃ kālaṃ paccuppannaṃ siyā.

The condition called 'khobhakaraṇa' is the condition of medicine, lodging, food, and the like. And also from the distinction of association: among these, by two or by three. In the context of the phrase 'because perversions are abandoned,' it would follow that whatever trainees and ordinary people see in a dream is all distorted and unreal. Therefore, this contradicts the statement, 'But what one sees from a preliminary sign is absolutely true.' Therefore, it was not spoken with reference to the object. For that object may be true or may be false, and if it were spoken with reference to that, it should be said, 'Those beyond training, because they have abandoned perversions, see only the truth, not the untruth.' But in fact, it was spoken with reference to the seeing. For that seeing is unreal; for even though not seeing, one is as if seeing; though not hearing, as if hearing; though not knowing, as if knowing. The teacher says: 'One also discerns the truth. This is our reasoning.' A form-sign and so on is not that object; it was spoken with reference to an adventitious and present object such as a form-sign. For form-signs, etc., which have become kamma-signs and destiny-signs, are indeed the objects of the life-continuum. Among them, the kamma-sign is only past; the destiny-sign may be present for a short time.

Īdisānīti paccakkhato anubhūtapubbaparikappitāgantukapaccuppannarūpanimittādiārammaṇāni, rāgādisampayuttāni cāti attho. Makkaṭassa niddā lahuparivattā hoti. So hi rukkhasākhato patanabhayā abhikkhaṇaṃ ummīlati ca supati ca. Manussā kiñcāpi punappunaṃ ummīlanti subyattataraṃ paṭibuddhā viya passanti, atha kho paṭibuddhānaṃ punappunaṃ bhavaṅgotaraṇaṃ viya supinakālepi tesaṃ bhavaṅgotaraṇaṃ hoti, yena ‘‘supatī’’ti vuccati. ‘‘Bhavaṅgacittena hi supatī’’ti vacanato bhavaṅgotaraṇaṃ karajakāyassa nirussāhasantabhāvūpanissayattā ‘‘niddā’’ti vuccati. Sā karajakāyassa dubbalabhāvena supinadassanakāle bhavaṅgato uttaraṇe satipi nirussāhasantabhāvappattiyā ‘‘pavattatī’’ti ca vuccati, yato sattā ‘‘paṭibuddhā’’ti na vuccanti, karajakāyassa nirussāhasantasabhāvappattito ca tannissitaṃ [Pg.178] hadayavatthu na suppasannaṃ hoti, tato tannissitāpi cittappavatti asuppasannavaṭṭinissitadīpappabhā viya. Teneva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘svāyaṃ dubbalavatthukattā cetanāya paṭisandhiṃ ākaḍḍhituṃ asamattho’’tiādi vuttaṃ.

By 'such' is meant: minds that have as their objects visible forms and so on—directly perceived, previously experienced, conceived, adventitious, and present—and are associated with lust and so on. A monkey's sleep is light and frequently interrupted. Due to fear of falling from a tree branch, it repeatedly opens its eyes and sleeps. Although humans open their eyes again and again and see as if more clearly awakened, yet, just as for those who are awake there is a repeated descent into the life-continuum, so too during the time of dreaming, their descent into the life-continuum occurs—by which it is said, 'one sleeps.' Because it is said, 'Indeed, one sleeps with the life-continuum consciousness,' the descent into the life-continuum is called 'sleep' due to its being a supporting condition for the physical body's state of effortlessness and tranquility. Due to the physical body's weakness, even when there is an emergence from the life-continuum at the time of seeing a dream, that sleep is also said to 'proceed' on account of having attained a state of effortlessness and tranquility, for which reason beings are not called 'awakened.' And because of the physical body's attainment of a state of effortlessness and tranquility, the heart-base dependent on it is not very clear; therefore, the process of consciousness dependent on it is like the light of a lamp dependent on an unclean wick. For that very reason, it is said in the commentary: 'This volition, due to having a weak physical basis, is unable to draw forth rebirth-linking,' and so on.

Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘dubbalavatthukattāti supine upaṭṭhitaṃ nimittampi dubbala’’nti likhitaṃ. Taṃ anekatthaṃ sabbampi nimittaṃ hoti, na ca dubbalārammaṇavatthukattā cetanā, tāya cittappavatti dubbalā atītānāgatārammaṇāya, paññattārammaṇāya vā adubbalattā, avatthukāya dubbalabhāvo na yujjati cetanāya avatthukāya bhāvanāpabhāvāyātirekabalasabbhāvato. Bhāvanābalasamappitañhi cittaṃ arūpampi samānaṃ atibhāriyampi karajakāyaṃ gahetvā ekacittakkhaṇeneva brahmalokaṃ pāpetvā ṭhapeti. Tappaṭibhāgaṃ anappitampi kāmāvacaracittaṃ karajakāyaṃ ākāse laṅghanasamatthaṃ karoti, pagevetaraṃ. Kiṃ panettha taṃ anumānakāraṇaṃ, yena cittasseva ānubhāvoti paññāyeyya cittānubhāvena vā laddhāsevanādikiriyāvisesanibbattidassanato, tasmā dubbalavatthukattāti dubbalahadayavatthukattāti ācariyassa takko. Attano mandatikkhākārena tannissitassa cittassa mandatikkhabhāvanipphādanasamatthañce, hadayavatthu cakkhusotādivatthu viya indriyaṃ bhaveyya, na cetaṃ indriyaṃ. Yato dhammasaṅgahe upādāyarūpapāḷiyaṃ uddesārahaṃ na jātaṃ. Anindriyattā hi taṃ kāyindriyassa anantaraṃ na uddiṭṭhaṃ, vatthurūpattā ca avatthurūpassa jīvitindriyassa anantarampi na uddiṭṭhaṃ, tasmā yaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘tassa asuppasannattā tannissitā ca cittappavatti asuppasannā hotī’’ti, taṃ na siddhanti ce? Siddhameva anindriyānampi sappāyāsappāyautuāhārādīnaṃ paccayānaṃ samāyogato, cittappavattiyā vikāradassanato, paccakkhattā ca. Yasmā appaṭibuddhopi paṭibuddhaṃ viya attānaṃ maññatīti. Ettāvatā karajakāyassa nirussāhasantabhāvākāraviseso niddā nāma. Sā cittassa bhavaṅgotaraṇākāravisesena hoti, tāya samannāgato satto bhavaṅgato uttiṇṇo supinaṃ passati, so ‘‘kapimiddhapareto’’ti vuccati, so sutto appaṭibuddho hotīti ayamattho sādhito hoti.

In the Gaṇṭhipada, however, it is written: 'By "due to having a weak base" is meant that the sign which has appeared in a dream is also weak.' That statement is ambiguous, or it is not certain that every such sign is weak. And the process of consciousness is not weak due to the weakness of the object. Why? Because the process of consciousness with a past or future object, or with a conceptual object, is not weak. For a volition without a physical basis, weakness is not suitable, due to the existence of excessive power originating from mental cultivation. Indeed, a mind endowed with the power of mental cultivation, though it is formless, can take the physical body, though it is very heavy, and in a single mind-moment, cause it to reach the Brahma-world and place it there. Its counterpart, a sense-sphere consciousness, even without absorption, can make the physical body capable of leaping through the air—what then to say of other minds? What, here, is the use of that inferential reasoning by which it might be known that this is the power of the mind alone? For it is from seeing the production of special actions, such as acquired practice, through the power of the mind. Therefore, the teacher's reasoning regarding 'due to having a weak base' is 'due to having a weak heart-base.' If it were capable of producing the dull or sharp nature of the consciousness dependent on it through its own dull or sharp quality, the heart-base, like the eye-base, ear-base, and so on, would be a faculty. But this is not a faculty, for in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, in the section on derived matter, it is not designated as worthy of enumeration. Indeed, because it is not a faculty, it is not indicated immediately after the body-faculty; and because it is a basis-materiality, it is also not indicated immediately after the life-faculty, which is not a basis-materiality. Therefore, if it is said that the statement, 'Due to its lack of clarity, the process of consciousness dependent on it is also not clear,' is not established, is that so? It is indeed established. This is due to the combination of conditions which are not faculties, such as suitable and unsuitable climate, food, and so on, and from seeing the alteration in the process of consciousness, and because it is directly perceived. For even one who is not awakened considers oneself as if awakened. To this extent, that particular state of the physical body which is the condition of being without exertion and tranquil, is called sleep. It occurs through a particular mode of the mind's descending into the life-continuum. A being endowed with this, having emerged from the life-continuum, sees a dream. Such a one is called 'overcome by monkey-sleep.' That one is asleep, unawakened—this meaning is thus established.

Yasmā [Pg.179] bhavaṅgavāranirantaratāya accantasutto nāma hoti, tasmā ‘‘yadi tāva sutto passati, abhidhammavirodho āpajjatī’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Yasmā pana niddākkhaṇe na paṭibuddho nāma hoti, tasmā ‘‘atha paṭibuddho passati, vinayavirodho’’tiādi vuttaṃ, yasmā ca akhīṇaniddo, anotiṇṇabhavaṅgo ca atthi, tasmā ‘‘kapimiddhapareto passatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Aññathā ayaṃ neva sutto na paṭibuddho, attanā taṃ niddaṃ anokkanto āpajjeyya. Ettāvatā ca abhidhammo, vinayo, nāgasenattheravacanaṃ yutti cāti sabbaṃ aññamaññasaṃsanditaṃ hoti. Tattha kapimiddhaparetoti bhavaṅgato uttiṇṇaniddāpareto. Sā hi idha kapimiddhaṃ nāma. ‘‘Tattha katamaṃ middhaṃ? Yā kāyassa akalyatā akammaññatā…pe… supanaṃ, idaṃ vuccati middha’’nti (dha. sa. 1163) evamāgataṃ. Idañhi arūpaṃ, imassa phalabhūto karajakāyassa akalyatā’pacalāyikāsupi niddāviseso kāraṇopacārena ‘‘kapimiddha’’nti pavuccati. Yañceva ‘‘kapimiddhapareto kho, mahārāja, supinaṃ passatī’’ti (mi. pa. 5.3.5 thokaṃ visadisaṃ) vuttanti.

Because one is called 'utterly asleep' due to the uninterruptedness of the life-continuum stream, it is therefore said: 'If one sees while asleep, a contradiction with the Abhidhamma arises,' and so on. But because one is not called 'awakened' at the moment of sleep, it is therefore said: 'But if one sees while awakened, a contradiction with the Vinaya arises,' and so on. And because there exists one whose sleep is not exhausted and who has not passed beyond the life-continuum, it is therefore said: 'One sees while overcome by monkey-sleep.' Otherwise, this person would be neither asleep nor awakened, and would fall into a state of not having entered that sleep. By this much, the Abhidhamma, the Vinaya, the statement of the Elder Nāgasena, and reasoning all become mutually consistent. Therein, 'overcome by monkey-sleep' means one who has emerged from the life-continuum and is overcome by sleep. For that sleep is here called 'monkey-sleep.' It is stated thus: 'Therein, what is torpor? Whatever is the body's unwieldiness, unworkability... and so on... drowsiness, this is called torpor' (Dhs 1163). For this torpor is indeed immaterial; its result, a particular kind of sleep which is the unwieldiness, nodding, and drowsiness of the physical body, is called 'monkey-sleep' by way of causal metaphor. And it is for this reason that it was said: 'Indeed, great king, one overcome by monkey-sleep sees a dream' (Mil 5.3.5, slightly different).

Yaṃ taṃ āpattivuṭṭhānanti ettha yena vinayakammena tato vuṭṭhānaṃ hoti, taṃ idha āpattivuṭṭhānaṃ nāma. Avayave samūhavohārena vāti ettha sākhacchedako rukkhacchedakoti vuccatītiādi nidassanaṃ, vedanākkhandhādi ruḷhīsaddassa nidassanaṃ. Na ca mayāti vīmaṃsanapadassa tassa kiriyaṃ sandhāya, mocane ca sanniṭṭhānaṃ sandhāya muccanapakatiyā cāti vuttaṃ.

Herein, regarding the term 'emergence from an offense': that disciplinary act by which there is an emergence from that offense is here called 'emergence from an offense.' Herein, regarding 'or by collective designation for a part,' the example is: 'one who cuts a branch is called a tree-cutter,' and so on; 'the aggregate of feeling, etc.' is an example of a conventional term (ruḷhīsadda). 'And not by me' is said with reference to the action of that investigative term, and in regard to release, with reference to the conclusion and also to the nature of being released.

240. Gehanti pañcakāmaguṇā. Vanabhaṅgiyanti pābhatikaṃ. Sampayuttasukhavedanāmukhena rāgova ‘‘assādo’’ti vutto. Supantassa cāti idaṃ kapimiddhapareto viya bhavaṅgasantatiṃ avicchinditvā supantaṃ sandhāya vuttanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Jagganatthāyāti sodhanatthāya.

240. In `Gehanti`, the five strands of sensual pleasure are intended. In `Vanabhaṅgiya`, it means a gift. By means of associated pleasant feeling, lust alone is called 'enjoyment.' As for the phrase 'and of one who is asleep,' this should be investigated as being said in reference to one who is asleep without interrupting the continuum of the life-continuum, as if overcome by drowsiness like a monkey. 'For the purpose of awakening' means for the sake of purification.

266. ‘‘Dārudhītalikalepacittānaṃ aṅgajātapaṭinijjhānepi dukkaṭa’’nti vadanti. ‘‘Uppanne pariḷāhe mocanarāgajo’’ti likhanti. Vālikāya vā ‘‘hatthikāmaṃ nassatī’’ti ettha viya ‘‘āpatti tva’’nti sabbattha pāṭho. ‘‘Ehi me tvaṃ, āvuso sāmaṇera, aṅgajātaṃ gaṇhāhī’’ti āgatattā ‘‘vacīkamma’’ntipi vattuṃ yuttaṃ viya dissati. Evaṃ sante aññaṃ ‘‘evaṃ karohī’’ti āṇattiyāpi [Pg.180] āpatti siyāti saṅkaraṃ hoti. Tasmā na vuttanti gahetabbanti keci.

266. They say: 'There is a `dukkaṭa` offense even in gazing at the genital organ of wooden dolls and painted figures.' They write: 'When distress arises, it is delight born of the lust for emission.' Or, as in the story of Vālikā, in the phrase 'the elephant's lust perishes,' so the reading 'there is an offense for you' exists everywhere. Since the text states, 'Come, friend novice, take my genital organ,' it seems appropriate to say this is also 'verbal action.' If this is so, an offense could also occur through another's command, such as 'Do it this way,' which creates confusion. Therefore, some say it should be taken as not having been said.

267. ‘‘Pupphāvaliyaṃ sāsavaḷiya’’nti duvidho kira.

267. It seems there are two readings: `Pupphāvaliyaṃ` and `Sāsavaḷiyaṃ`.

Sukkavissaṭṭhisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule concerning the emission of semen is finished.

2. Kāyasaṃsaggasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Physical Contact

270. ‘‘Otiṇṇo’’ti imināssa sevanādhippāyatā dassitā. ‘‘Vipariṇatena cittena mātugāmena saddhi’’nti imināssa vāyāmo dassito. ‘‘Saddhi’’nti hi padaṃ saṃyogaṃ dīpeti, so ca payogo samāgamo allīyanaṃ. Kena cittena? Vipariṇatena cittena, na pattapaṭiggahaṇādhippāyādināti adhippāyo. ‘‘Kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyyā’’ti imināssa vāyamato phassapaṭivijānanā dassitā hoti. Vāyamitvā phassaṃ paṭivijānanto hi samāpajjati nāma. Evamassa tivaṅgasampatti dassitā hoti. Atha vā otiṇṇo. Kena? Vipariṇatena cittena yakkhādinā satto viya. Upayogatthe vā etaṃ karaṇavacanaṃ. Otiṇṇo vipariṇataṃ cittaṃ kūpādiṃ viya satto. Atha vā ‘‘rāgato uttiṇṇo bhavissāmī’’ti bhikkhubhāvaṃ upagato, tato uttiṇṇādhippāyato vipariṇatena cittena hetubhūtena tameva rāgaṃ otiṇṇo. Mātugāmena attano samīpaṃ āgatena, attanā upagatena vā. Etena mātugāmassa sārattatā vā hotu virattatā vā, sā idha appamāṇā, na bhikkhunīnaṃ kāyasaṃsagge viya ubhinnaṃ sārattatāya payojanaṃ atthi.

270. By 'Overcome,' his intention to indulge lustfully is shown. 'With a perverted mind, together with a woman'—by this, his effort is shown. For the word 'with' indicates connection, and that connection is coming together and clinging. With what mind? With a perverted mind, not with an intention such as receiving a bowl—this is the meaning. 'He might engage in bodily contact'—by this, his recognition of touch resulting from effort is shown. For one who, having striven, recognizes touch is indeed said to engage. Thus, his accomplishment of the three factors is shown. Alternatively, 'Overcome.' By what? By a perverted mind, like a being possessed by a yakkha or the like. Or, this word in the instrumental case has the sense of the accusative: He has entered the perverted mind, as a being enters a well or the like. Alternatively, having undertaken the state of a monk thinking, 'I will emerge from lust,' he is overcome by that same lust, his cause being a perverted mind arising from that very intention to emerge, with a woman who has come near him, or by himself having approached her. In this case, whether the woman is attached or dispassionate is not a determining factor; unlike the case of bodily contact for bhikkhunīs, there is no requirement for the attachment of both.

Kāyasaṃsagganti ubhinnaṃ kāyānaṃ sampayogaṃ. Padabhājane pana ‘‘samāpajjeyyāti ajjhācāro vuccatī’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ samāpajjanaṃ sandhāya, na kāyasaṃsaggaṃ. Kāyasaṃsaggassa samāpajjanā hi ‘‘ajjhācāro’’ti vuccati. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘yo so kāyasaṃsaggo nāma, so atthato ajjhācāro hotī’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ parato pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘sevanādhippāyo, na ca kāyena vāyamati, phassaṃ paṭivijānāti, anāpattī’’ti (pārā. 279) vuttalakkhaṇena [Pg.181] virujjhatīti. Phassapaṭivijānanāya hi saṃsaggo dīpito. So ce ajjhācāro hoti, kathaṃ anāpatti hotīti. Suvuttametaṃ, kintu ‘‘kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyyā’’ti padaṃ uddharitvā ‘‘ajjhācāro vuccatī’’ti ubhinnampi padānaṃ sāmaññabhājanīyattā, samāpajjitabbābhāve samāpajjanābhāvena ‘‘so atthato ajjhācāro hotī’’ti vuttaṃ siyā.

‘Physical contact’ is the conjunction of the bodies of the two. However, in the analysis of the term, it is said, ‘He might engage; this is called misconduct.’ That is said referring to the act of engaging, not physical contact. For engaging in physical contact is called ‘misconduct.’ In the Commentary, however, it is said, ‘Whatever is called physical contact, that, in substance, is misconduct.’ This contradicts the characteristic stated further on in the Pāḷi: ‘There is an intention to indulge, but he does not exert himself with the body; he is aware of the touch; there is no offense.’ For by the awareness of touch, contact is indicated. If that contact is misconduct, how could there be no offense? This is well-said. However, it may be that the statement ‘it is, in substance, misconduct’ was made because, after extracting the phrase ‘he might engage in physical contact,’ the words ‘it is called misconduct’ serve as a general analysis for both phrases, and because in the absence of an object to be engaged in, there is an absence of the act of engaging.

‘‘Hatthaggāhaṃ vā’’ti ettha hatthena sabbopi upādinnako kāyo saṅgahito, na bhinnasantāno tappaṭibaddho hatthālaṅkārādi. Veṇiggahaṇena anupādinnako abhinnasantāno kesalomanakhadantādiko kammapaccayautusamuṭṭhāno gahitoti veditabbaṃ. Tenevāha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘anupādinnakenapi kenaci kesādinā upādinnakaṃ vā anupādinnakaṃ vā phusantopi saṅghādisesaṃ āpajjatiyevā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.274). Tena anupādinnakānampi kesalomādīnaṃ aṅgabhāvo veditabbo. Evaṃ santepi ‘‘phassaṃ paṭijānātīti tivaṅgasampattiyā saṅghādiseso. Phassassa appaṭivijānanato duvaṅgasampattiyā dukkaṭa’’nti iminā pāḷiaṭṭhakathānayena virujjhatīti ce? Na, tadatthajānanato. Phuṭṭhabhāvañhi paṭivijānantopi phassaṃ paṭivijānāti nāma, ayameko attho, tasmā mātugāmassa, attano ca kāyapariyāpannānaṃ kesādīnaṃ aññamaññaṃ phuṭṭhabhāvaṃ phusitvā taṃ sādiyanaṃ phassaṃ paṭivijānāti nāma, na kāyaviññāṇuppattiyā eva. Anekantikañhettha kāyaviññāṇaṃ. Mātugāmassa upādinnakena kāyena, anupādinnakena vā kāyena bhikkhuno upādinnakakāye phuṭṭhe pasannakāyindriyo ce hoti, tassa kāyaviññāṇaṃ uppajjati, teneva phassaṃ paṭivijānāti nāma so hoti. Anupādinnakakāyo, loluppo appasannakāyindriyo vā hoti, timiravātena upahatakāyo vā tassa kāyaviññāṇaṃ nuppajjati. Na ca tena phassaṃ paṭivijānāti nāma, kevalaṃ sevanādhippāyena vāyamitvā kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjanto phassaṃ paṭivijānāti nāma manoviññāṇena, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyyāti imināssa vāyamato phassapaṭivijānanā dassitā’’ti. Aparopi bhikkhu mātugāmassa kāyapaṭibaddhena vā nissaggiyena vā phuṭṭho kāyaviññāṇaṃ uppādentena phassaṃ paṭivijānāti nāma, tasmā vuttaṃ ‘‘anekantikañhettha [Pg.182] kāyaviññāṇa’’nti. Aparo vatthaṃ pārupitvā niddāyantaṃ mātugāmaṃ kāyasaṃsaggarāgena vatthassa uparibhāge saṇikaṃ phusanto vatthantarena nikkhantalomasamphassaṃ appaṭivijānantopi sevanādhippāyo kāyena vāyamitvā phassaṃ paṭivijānāti nāma, saṅghādisesaṃ āpajjati. ‘‘Nīlaṃ ghaṭṭessāmīti kāyaṃ ghaṭṭeti, saṅghādiseso’’ti hi vuttaṃ. Ayaṃ dutiyo attho. Evaṃ anekatthattā, evaṃ duviññeyyādhippāyato ca mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ phassapaṭivijānanaṃ aṅgantveva na vuttaṃ. Tasmiñhi vutte ṭhānametaṃ vijjati, yaṃ bhikkhu saṅghādisesaṃ āpajjitvāpi nakhena lomena saṃsaggo diṭṭho, na ca me lomaghaṭṭanena kāyaviññāṇaṃ uppannaṃ, timiravātathaddhagatto cāhaṃ na phassaṃ paṭivijānāmīti anāpannasaññī siyāti na vuttaṃ, apica ‘‘phassaṃ paṭivijānāti, na ca phassaṃ paṭivijānātī’’ti ca etesaṃ padānaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayaṃ dassetvā so paññāpetabbo. Ettāvatā na tadatthajānanatoti kāraṇaṃ vitthāritaṃ hoti.

‘By “grasping the hand”’: here, by ‘hand,’ the entire appropriated body is included, not a separate continuity connected to it, such as hand ornaments. By ‘grasping the hair,’ it should be understood that what is taken is the unappropriated, with unbroken continuity, consisting of head-hair, body-hair, nails, teeth, etc., which is produced by kamma as a condition and by temperature. For that reason, it is said in the Commentary: ‘Even by touching an appropriated or unappropriated part with some unappropriated thing like head-hair, etc., one still commits a Saṅghādisesa offense.’ By this, it should be understood that even unappropriated things like head-hair, body-hair, etc., have the nature of being a part of the body. Even so, if it is said that this contradicts the method of the Pāḷi and Commentary which states: ‘“He recognizes contact”: with the fulfillment of three factors, it is a Saṅghādisesa offense. Due to not recognizing the contact, with the fulfillment of two factors, it is a Dukkaṭa offense’? No, it does not contradict, because of knowing their meaning. For even one who recognizes the state of being touched is called one who ‘recognizes contact’; this is one meaning. Therefore, when the hair, etc., included in the body of a woman and of oneself touch one another, and one consents to that touch, this is called ‘recognizing contact,’ not only through the arising of body-consciousness. For here, body-consciousness is not absolute. When a woman’s appropriated body or unappropriated body touches a monk’s appropriated body, if he has a clear body-faculty, his body-consciousness arises, and for that very reason, he is called one who ‘recognizes contact.’ If the contact is with an unappropriated body part, or if the monk is greedy, has an unclear body-faculty, or has a body afflicted by a wind that causes stiffness, his body-consciousness does not arise. And by that means, he is not called one who ‘recognizes contact.’ However, one who strives with the intention of indulgence and engages in bodily contact is called one who ‘recognizes contact’ by means of mind-consciousness. For this reason, it is said: ‘“He might engage in bodily contact”: by this striving of his, the recognition of contact is shown.’ Another monk, being touched by something connected to a woman’s body or by a discarded item, is called one who ‘recognizes contact’ by causing body-consciousness to arise. Therefore, it is said: ‘For here, body-consciousness is not absolute.’ Another monk, while slowly touching the upper part of the cloth of a sleeping, clothed woman out of lust for bodily contact, even while not recognizing the contact of body-hair protruding through the cloth, if he has the intention of indulgence and strives with his body, he is called one who ‘recognizes contact’ and commits a Saṅghādisesa offense. For it is said: ‘Thinking, “I will touch the blue thing,” he touches the body; it is a Saṅghādisesa offense.’ This is the second meaning. Thus, because of having multiple meanings and because of having an intention that is difficult to know, ‘recognition of contact’ was not stated as a factor in the Mātikā Commentary. For if it were stated, this situation would exist: a monk, even after having committed a Saṅghādisesa offense, might think, ‘There was contact with a nail or body-hair, but body-consciousness did not arise in me from the brushing of the hair, and I, having a body stiffened by a wind disease, do not recognize the contact,’ and thus perceive himself as not having committed an offense. For this reason, it was not stated as a factor. Furthermore, having shown the method stated in the commentary for these phrases, ‘he recognizes contact’ and ‘he does not recognize contact,’ that meaning should be made known. By this much, the reason for the statement ‘No, because of knowing their meaning’ has been elaborated.

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Word-by-Word Analysis

271. ‘‘Rattaṃ cittaṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippetaṃ vipariṇata’’nti kiñcāpi sāmaññena vuttaṃ, vinītavatthūsu ‘‘mātuyā mātupemena āmasati…pe… āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttattā kāyasaṃsaggarāgeneva rattanti veditabbaṃ. Tathā ‘‘mātugāmo nāma manussitthī’’ti kiñcāpi avisesena vuttaṃ, atha kho avinaṭṭhindriyāva manussitthī idhādhippetā ‘‘matitthiyā kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajji…pe… āpatti thullaccayassā’’ti vuttattā. ‘‘Manussitthī’’ti ettāvatā siddhe ‘‘na yakkhī na petī na tiracchānagatā’’ti vacanaṃ avinaṭṭhindriyāpi na sabbā manussaviggahā itthī idha manussitthī nāma. Yakkhiādayo hi attano jātisiddhena iddhivisesena ijjhantiyo manussaviggahāpi hontīti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tāsu yakkhī thullaccayavatthu hoti vinītavatthūsu yakkhiyā kāyasaṃsaggena thullaccayassa vuttattā. Tadanulomattā petitthī, devitthī ca thullaccayavatthu. Tiracchānagatitthī dukkaṭavatthu. Tiracchānagatamanussaviggahitthī ca thullaccayavatthumevāti eke. Vibhaṅge pana ‘‘manussitthī ca hoti manussitthisaññī’’ti pāḷiyā abhāvena ‘‘itthī ca hoti yakkhisaññī’’tiādivacane sati yakkhiādīnaṃ anitthitāpasaṅgato, ‘‘itthī [Pg.183] ca hoti itthisaññī’’tiādimhi yakkhiādīnaṃ antokaraṇe sati tāsaṃ saṅghādisesavatthubhāvappasaṅgato ca yakkhiādayo na vuttāti veditabbā. Eke pana ‘‘vinītavatthumhi ‘aññataro bhikkhu tiracchānagatitthiyā kāya…pe… dukkaṭassā’ti ettha amanussaviggahā pākatikatiracchānagatitthī adhippetā, tasmā dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘Itthī ca hoti tiracchānagatasaññīti tiracchānagatā ca hoti itthisaññī’tiādivāresupi pākatikatiracchānagatova adhippeto, so ca tiracchānagatapurisova. Teneva duṭṭhullavācāattakaāmapāricariyasikkhāpadesu manussapurisapaṭisaṃyuttavārā viya tiracchānapaṭisaṃyuttavārāpi nāgatā’’ti vadanti. Tathā paṇḍakoti idha manussapaṇḍakova, purisoti ca idha manussapurisova āgato, tasmā amanussitthī amanussapaṇḍako amanussapuriso tiracchānagatitthī tiracchānagatapaṇḍako manussāmanussatiracchānagataubhatobyañjanakā cāti aṭṭha janā idha nāgatā, tesaṃ vasena vatthusaññāvimatibhedavasena āpattibhedābhedavinicchayo, anāgatavāragaṇanā ca asammuyhantena veditabbā, tathā tesaṃ dukamissakādivārā, āpattianāpattibhedavinicchayo ca. ‘‘Tattha amanussapaṇḍakaamanussapurisatiracchānagatitthitiracchānagatapaṇḍakāti cattāro dukkaṭavatthukā, amanussitthimanussaubhatobyañjanakā thullaccayavatthukā, amanussaubhatobyañjanakā tiracchānagataubhatobyañjanakā dukkaṭavatthukā, pāḷiyaṃ pana amanussitthiyā anāgatattā amanussapaṇḍakā, ubhatobyañjanakā purisā ca nāgatā. Tiracchānagatitthipaṇḍakaubhatobyañjanakā tiracchānagatapurisena samānagatikattā nāgatā, manussaubhatobyañjanako manussapaṇḍakena samānagatikattā anāgato’’ti vadanti. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281) pana ‘‘nāgamāṇavikāyapi supaṇṇamāṇavikāyapi kinnariyāpi gāviyāpi dukkaṭamevā’’ti vuttattā tadeva pamāṇato gahetabbaṃ.

271. Although it is generally stated, “An impassioned mind, in this sense, is intended as a perverted one,” it should be known that, because it is said in the decided cases, “He touches his mother with motherly affection… an offense of wrong-doing,” ‘impassioned’ is only by way of lust for physical contact. Similarly, although it is said without distinction, “A woman is a human female,” nevertheless, only a human female with intact faculties is intended here, because it is said, “He engaged in physical contact with a dead woman… an offense of a grave transgression.” When ‘human female’ is established by this much, the statement, “not a female yakkha, not a female peta, not a female animal,” is said to show that not every female with a human form, even with intact faculties, is here called a ‘human female’. For it is said to show that female yakkhas and others, being endowed with their own special power accomplished by birth, can also have human forms. Among them, a female yakkha is an object for a grave transgression, because in the decided cases a grave transgression is stated for physical contact with a female yakkha. Because it follows from that, a female peta and a female deity are also objects for a grave transgression. A female animal is an object for wrong-doing. Some say that a female animal with a human form is also an object for a grave transgression. But in the Vibhaṅga, it should be known that female yakkhas and others are not mentioned for two reasons: due to the absence of the Pāli text, “She is a human female and he is percipient of her as a human female,” if there were a statement like, “She is a female and he is percipient of her as a female yakkha,” it would lead to the consequence that female yakkhas and others are not female; and if female yakkhas and others were included in statements like, “She is a female and he is percipient of her as a female,” it would lead to the consequence of them being objects for a Saṅghādisesa offense. But some say: “Here, in the decided case, ‘A certain monk… with a female animal… an offense of wrong-doing,’ an ordinary female animal without a human form is intended; therefore, an offense of wrong-doing is stated. Also in the clauses like, ‘She is a female and he is percipient of her as an animal,’ and ‘She is an animal and he is percipient of her as a female,’ only an ordinary animal is intended, and that is only a male animal. For that very reason, in the training rules on coarse speech and on attending to one’s own sensual desires, just as the clauses connected with a human male are not included, so too the clauses connected with an animal are not included.” Likewise, here ‘eunuch’ is only a human eunuch, and here ‘male’ is only a human male. Therefore, these eight beings—a non-human female, a non-human eunuch, a non-human male, a female animal, an animal eunuch, and human, non-human, and animal hermaphrodites—are not included here. On account of them, the determination of the distinction and non-distinction of offenses and the enumeration of the unincluded clauses should be known without confusion, by way of the distinctions of object, perception, and doubt; similarly, their clauses of pairs, mixed, etc., and the determination of the distinction between offense and non-offense. “Among them, the four—non-human eunuch, non-human male, female animal, and animal eunuch—are objects for wrong-doing. A non-human female and a human hermaphrodite are objects for a grave transgression. A non-human hermaphrodite and an animal hermaphrodite are objects for wrong-doing. But in the Pāli, because a non-human female is not included, non-human eunuchs, hermaphrodites, and males are not included. Female animals, animal eunuchs, and animal hermaphrodites are not included because they have the same standing as a male animal. A human hermaphrodite is not included because he has the same standing as a human eunuch,” they say. But in the Commentary, because it is said, “Even with a young nāga female, a young supaṇṇa female, a kinnarī, or a cow, it is only an offense of wrong-doing,” that very statement should be taken as the authority.

Tatrāyaṃ vicāraṇā – ‘‘na, bhikkhave, tiracchānagatassa nisinnaparisāya pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba’’nti (mahāva. 183) ettha ‘‘tiracchānagatoti yassa upasampadā paṭikkhittā’’ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā tiracchānagatamanussaviggaho pākatikatiracchānagatato visiṭṭho, tathā yakkhapetatiracchānagatamanussaviggahānaṃ ‘‘tiracchānagatassa ca dukkhuppattiyaṃ apica dukkaṭamevā’’ti ettha [Pg.184] visesetvā vuttattā ca ‘‘patanarūpaṃ pamāṇaṃ, na maraṇarūpa’’nti ettha āpattivisesavacanato ca ‘‘ubhato avassute yakkhassa vā petassa vā paṇḍakassa vā tiracchānagatamanussaviggahassa vā adhakkhakaṃ ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalaṃ kāyena kāyaṃ āmasati, āpatti thullaccayassā’’ti (pāci. 661) sāmaññena vacanato ca so visiṭṭhoti siddhaṃ. Visiṭṭhattā ca tiracchānagatamanussaviggahitthiyā kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjantassāti viseso hoti, tasmā tattha āpattivisesena bhavitabbaṃ. Yadi kāyasaṃsaggasikkhāpade tiracchānagatamanussaviggahitthīpi adhippetā, rūpasāmaññena saññāvirāgattāsambhavato duṭṭhullavācāattakāmapāricariyasikkhāpadesupi sā vattabbā bhaveyya, sā cānāgatā. Sarūpena saṃkhittavārattā nāgatāti ce? Itthī ca hoti tiracchānagato ca ubhinnaṃ itthisaññīti idha āgatattā purisaliṅganiddeso na yujjati, tasmā tiracchānagatapuriso ca idha āgato, tiracchānagatamanussaviggahitthiyā pāḷiyaṃ anāgatāyapi dukkaṭameva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattāti imassa vacanassa kāraṇacchāyā pariyesitabbāti adhippāyo. Idaṃ na yujjati. Kasmā? Itthīnaṃ, purisānañca ekato vacane purisaliṅgasabbhāvato. Idha tiracchānagatapurisapaṇḍakitthiyo tissopi ekato sampiṇḍetvā ‘‘tiracchānagato’’ti vuttaṃ.

Herein is the consideration: Regarding “Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly where an animal is present” (Mahāva. 183), since the commentary states “An animal refers to one whose higher ordination is rejected” (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā), a human-shaped animal is distinct from an ordinary animal. Similarly, it is established that yakkhas, petas, and human-shaped animals are distinct because of the specific statement regarding the animal, 'and for an animal, upon the arising of suffering, it is also a dukkaṭa offense,' and because of the statement distinguishing offenses, “the standard is the falling [of the mind], not death,” and because of the general statement “If, with both [parties] aroused, one touches the body of a yakkha, or a peta, or a paṇḍaka, or a human-shaped animal, below the armpit and above the kneecap, with one’s own body, it is an offense of grave misconduct” (Pāci. 661). Because they are distinct, there is a difference when one engages in physical contact with a human-shaped female animal; therefore, a specific offense should be incurred in that case. If a human-shaped female animal were also intended in the training rule on physical contact, then, due to the similarity in form and the impossibility of the perception being altered, she should also be mentioned in the training rules on coarse speech and sexual gratification, but she is not mentioned. If it is said that she is not mentioned because the clauses are condensed in form, then since “she is a female and he is an animal, and he perceives both as a female” is mentioned here, the designation using the masculine gender is not appropriate. Therefore, a male animal is included here, and although a human-shaped female animal is not mentioned in the Pāli, the commentary states that it is merely a wrong-doing. The implication is that the underlying reason for this statement should be sought. This is not appropriate. Why? Because when women and men are spoken of together, the masculine gender is present. Here, male animals, animal paṇḍakas, and female animals—all three—are grouped together and referred to as “animal.”

Tattha ca manussaviggahāmanussaviggahesu itthipaṇḍakapurisasaññitā yathāsambhavaṃ veditabbā. Duṭṭhullavācādisikkhāpadadvaye vārānaṃ saṃkhittattā purisatiracchānagatādayo nāgatā. Yathāvuttesu āpatti, tathā tatthāpi. Aññathā purisaṃ obhāsantassa ca anāpattīti paṇḍakaṃ obhāsantassa ca thullaccayanti mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Tasmā te vārā saṃkhittāti paññāyantīti. Viseso ca paṇḍake, purise, tiracchānagate ca itthisaññissa atthi, tathāpi tattha dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttameva pamāṇanti dvinnametesaṃ vādānaṃ yattha yutti vā kāraṇaṃ vā atirekaṃ dissati, taṃ vicāretvā gahetabbanti āricayo. Evarūpesu ṭhānesu suṭṭhu vicāretvā kathetabbaṃ.

And among those, in the case of animals with a human form and those without, the perceptions of 'female', 'paṇḍaka', and 'male' should be understood as is applicable. Due to the clauses being condensed in the two training rules beginning with coarse speech, cases concerning male animals and the like are not mentioned. There is an offense in the aforementioned cases; similarly, also in those cases. Otherwise, it is stated in the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā that for one addressing a man there is no offense, but for one addressing a paṇḍaka there is a grave offense. Therefore, it is understood that those clauses are condensed. And there is a distinction for one who has the perception of 'woman' with regard to a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal; even so, a dukkaṭa offense is stated in those cases. Therefore, only what is stated in the commentary is the authority. The teacher says that between these two views, whichever appears to have more reason or cause should be examined and adopted. In such instances, one should speak after having deliberated thoroughly.

Tattha pāḷiyaṃ āgatavāragaṇanā tāva evaṃ saṅkhepato veditabbā – itthimūlakā pañca vārā paṇḍakapurisatiracchānagatamūlakā ca pañca pañcāti vīsati vārā ekamūlakā, tathā dumūlakā vīsati, missakamūlakā vīsatīti saṭṭhi [Pg.185] vārā, tāni tīṇi vīsatikāni honti. Ekekasmiṃ vīsatike ekekamūlavāraṃ gahetvā kāyena kāyapaṭibaddhavārā tayo vuttā. Sesā sattapaññāsa vārā saṃkhittā, tathā kāyapaṭibaddhena kāyavārā tayo vuttā, sesā saṃkhittā, evaṃ kāyapaṭibaddhena kāyapaṭibaddhavārepi nissaggiyena kāyavārepi nissaggiyena kāyapaṭibaddhavārepi nissaggiyena nissaggiyavārepi tayo tayo vārā vuttā, sesā saṃkhittā. Evaṃ channaṃ tikānaṃ vasena aṭṭhārasa vārā āgatāti sarūpato vuttā, sesā dvecattālīsādhikāni tīṇi vārasatāni saṃkhittāni. Tato paraṃ mātugāmassa sārattapakkhe kāyena kāyanti ekamekaṃ vaḍḍhetvā pubbe vuttā aṭṭhārasa vārā āgatāti ekavīsati vārā sarūpena āgatā, navanavutādhikāni tīṇi vārasatāni saṃkhittāni. Tato paraṃ āpattānāpattidīpakā cattāro sevanādhippāyamūlakā cattāro mokkhādhippāyamūlakāti dve catukkā āgatā.

Herein, the enumeration of clauses mentioned in the Pāli should first be understood briefly as follows: there are five clauses rooted in a woman, and five each rooted in a paṇḍaka, a man, and an animal—thus twenty single-rooted clauses. Similarly, there are twenty two-rooted clauses and twenty mixed-rooted clauses—thus sixty clauses. These are three sets of twenty. In each set of twenty, taking each single-rooted clause, three clauses concerning 'body-connected by body' are stated. The remaining fifty-seven clauses are condensed. Similarly, three clauses concerning 'body by body-connected' are stated, and the remaining are condensed. In this way, three clauses each are stated for 'body-connected by body-connected,' 'body by relinquished,' 'body-connected by relinquished,' and 'relinquished by relinquished,' while the remaining are condensed. Thus, by way of six triads, eighteen clauses are stated in their specific form; the remaining 342 clauses are condensed. After that, in the case of an impassioned woman, with respect to the 'body by body' permutations, by adding one factor to each, the previously stated eighteen clauses are presented, and thus twenty-one clauses are presented in their specific form; the remaining 399 clauses are condensed. After that, four clauses rooted in the intention to engage and four clauses rooted in the intention of release—which clarify offense and non-offense—are presented as two tetrads.

Tatthāyaṃ viseso – yadidaṃ mātikāya parāmasanapadaṃ, tena yasmā āmasanādīni chupanapariyosānāni dvādasapi padāni gahitāni, tasmā paduddhāraṃ akatvā ‘‘āmasanā parāmasanaṃ chupana’’nti āha. Parāmasanaṃ nāma āmasanā. ‘‘Chupana’’nti hi vutte parāmasanampi visuṃ ekattaṃ bhaveyyāti veditabbaṃ. Itthī ca hoti itthisaññī cāti imasmiṃ paṭhamavāre eva dvādasapi āmasanādīni yojetvā dassitāni. Tato paraṃ ādimhi dve padānīti cattāri padāni āgatāni, itarāni saṃkhittānīti veditabbāni. Nissaggiyena kāyavārādīsu pana sabbākārena alābhato āmasanamevekaṃ āgataṃ, netarāni. ‘‘Sañcopeti haratī’’ti pāṭho, sañcopeti ca. Gaṇṭhipadesu pana ‘‘purimanayenevāti rajjuvatthādīhi parikkhipane’’ti ca pacchā ‘‘purimanayenevāti sammasanā hotī’’ti ca ‘‘veṇiggāhe āpattiyā paññattattā lomaphusanepi saṅghādiseso’’ti ca ‘‘taṃ pakāsetuṃ upādinnakena hītiādi vutta’’nti ca likhitaṃ.

Herein is this distinction: namely, the term “parāmasana” in the matrix. Because by it the twelve terms beginning with “āmasana” and ending with “chupana” are included, therefore, without extracting the terms, it is stated as “āmasanā, parāmasanaṃ, chupana.” Parāmasana is indeed āmasana. For if “chupana” were stated, it should be understood that parāmasana also would become a separate single term. In this first instance, “itthī ca hoti itthisaññī ca” (she is a woman and he is percipient of her as a woman), all twelve terms beginning with āmasana are applied and shown. After that, two terms at the beginning and two later terms are mentioned, thus four terms are mentioned; it should be understood that the others are abbreviated. However, in the sections on bodily contact, etc., of the Nissaggiya rules, because they are not applicable in every way, only the single term āmasana is mentioned, not the others. The reading is “sañcopeti harati” (he moves, he carries), and also “sañcopeti.” However, in the Gaṇṭhipadas, it is written: “purimanayenevāti” means “by encircling with ropes, cloths, etc.,” and later, “purimanayenevāti” means “it is a touching,” and also, “since an offense is laid down for grasping a braid of hair, even for touching a body-hair there is a Saṅghādisesa,” and further, “to explain that, the passage beginning with ‘upādinnakena hi’ is stated.”

Yathāniddiṭṭhaniddeseti imasmiṃyeva yathāniddiṭṭhe niddese. ‘‘Sadisaṃ aggahesī’’ti vutte tādisaṃ aggahesīti garukaṃ tattha kārayeti attho, kāyasaṃsaggavibhaṅge vāti attho. Itaropi kāyapaṭibaddhachupanako. Gahaṇe cāti gahaṇaṃ vā. Virāgiteti viraddhe. Sārattanti kāyasaṃsaggarāgena [Pg.186] rattaṃ, attanā adhippetanti attho. ‘‘Mātubhaginiādivirattaṃ gaṇhissāmī’’ti virattaṃ ñātipemavasena gaṇhi, ettha dukkaṭaṃ yuttaṃ. ‘‘Kāyasaṃsaggarāgaṃ vā sārattaṃ gaṇhissāmī’’ti virattaṃ mātaraṃ gaṇhi, anadhippetaṃ gaṇhi. Ettha mahāsumattheravādena thullaccayaṃ ‘‘kāyaṃ gaṇhissāmī’’ti kāyappaṭibaddhaṃ gaṇhāti, thullaccayanti laddhikattā. ‘‘Itthī ca hoti itthisaññī sāratto ca, bhikkhu ca naṃ itthiyā kāyena kāyaṃ āmasati, āpatti saṅghādisesassā’’ti (pārā. 273) vacanato saṅghādisesopi khāyati. ‘‘Virattaṃ gaṇhissāmī’’ti sārattaṃ gaṇhāti, etthapi saṅghādisesova khāyati ‘‘nīlaṃ ghaṭṭessāmī’ti kāyaṃ ghaṭṭeti, saṅghādiseso’’ti vacanato. Ettha pana ‘‘na pubbabhāge kāyasaṃsaggarāgattā’’ti anugaṇṭhipade kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘garukāpattibhayena ‘nīlameva ghaṭṭessāmī’ti vāyāmanto kāyaṃ ghaṭṭeti, pubbabhāge tassa ‘kāyapaṭibaddhaṃ ghaṭṭessāmī’ti pavattattā dukkaṭena bhavitabba’’nti vadanti. Dhammasiritthero ‘‘evarūpe saṅghādiseso’’ti vadati kira. ‘‘Itthiubhatobyañjanakaitthiyā purisaubhatobyañjanakapurise vuttanayena āpattibhedo, itthiliṅgassa paṭicchannakālepi itthivaseneva āpattī’’ti vadanti.

In this very explanation as it has been detailed. When it is said, 'He grasped what is similar,' it means he grasped an object of that kind; therefore, a grave offense should be decided in that case. This is the meaning. Or, this is also the meaning in the Analysis of Bodily Contact. The other one is also a person who touches something connected to the body. In the phrase `gahaṇe ca`, it means 'or the grasping'. In the phrase `virāgi`, it means 'when it is contrary'. In the word `sārattaṃ`, it means a woman impassioned with lust for bodily contact; this is the meaning: a woman desired by oneself. If, intending, 'I will grasp a dispassionate person such as a mother or sister,' one grasps a dispassionate person through affection for a relative, here a `dukkaṭa` offense is fitting. If, intending, 'I will grasp one with lust for bodily contact or an impassioned one,' one grasps a dispassionate mother, one has grasped what was unintended. Here, according to the view of the Great Elder Sumana, it is a `thullaccaya` offense, because of the established view that if one, intending 'I will grasp the body,' grasps what is connected to the body, it is a `thullaccaya` offense. Because of the statement, 'There is a woman, he is percipient of her as a woman, and he is impassioned; and the monk touches her body with his body—it is an offense of `saṅghādisesa`' (Pārā. 273), a `saṅghādisesa` offense also appears. If, intending, 'I will grasp a dispassionate person,' one grasps an impassioned person, in this case also only a `saṅghādisesa` offense appears, because of the statement, 'Intending to touch the blue, he touches the body; it is a `saṅghādisesa` offense.' Here, however, the reason is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada: 'not because of lust for bodily contact in the preliminary stage.' But some say, 'Due to fear of a grave offense, while endeavoring, intending "I will touch only the blue," he touches the body; because in the preliminary stage there was the intention "I will touch what is connected to the body," it should be a `dukkaṭa` offense.' The Elder Dhammasiri is said to have said, 'In such a case, it is a `saṅghādisesa` offense.' They say, 'For a female `ubhatobyañjanaka` and for a male `ubhatobyañjanaka`, the distinction among offenses follows the stated method; even at the time when the female organ is concealed, the offense is determined as for a woman.'

Vinītavatthuvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Decided Cases

281. Tiṇaṇḍupakanti hiriverādimūlāni gahetvā kattabbaṃ. Tālapaṇṇamuddikanti tālapaṇṇamayaṃ aṅgulimuddikaṃ, tena tālapaṇṇamayaṃ kaṭaṃ, kaṭisuttakaṃ, kaṇṇapiḷandhanādi sabbaṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Tambapaṇṇivāsino itthirūpaṃ likhitaṃ, kaṭikapaṭañca na chupanti kira. Ākarato muttamatto. Ratanamissoti alaṅkāratthaṃ kato kañcanalatādivinaddho. Suvaṇṇena saddhiṃ yojetvā pacitvāti suvaṇṇarasaṃ pakkhipitvā pacitvā. Bījato dhātupāsāṇato paṭṭhāya. Thero na kappatīti ‘‘tumhākaṃ pesita’’nti vuttattā. ‘‘Cetiyassa pūjaṃ karothā’’ti vutte vaṭṭati kira. Bubbuḷakaṃ tārakaṃ. Ārakūṭalohampi jātarūpagatikameva.

281. Regarding tiṇaṇḍupaka: it is an ornament that should be made by taking roots of hirivera and so forth. Regarding tālapaṇṇamuddika: it means a finger-ring made of palm leaves. By this, it is established that all items made of palm leaves—such as anklets, waist strings, ear ornaments, and so forth—are not permissible. The dwellers of Tambapaṇṇi, it is said, do not touch painted female figures or hip cloths. Just a gem freed from its source. Regarding ratanamissa: it means made for decoration, intertwined with golden vines and so forth. Regarding suvaṇṇena saddhiṃ yojetvā pacitvā: it means cooked after adding gold essence. Starting from a seed, from a mineral stone. The Elder does not allow it because it was said, “It was sent for you.” When it was said, “Make an offering to the shrine,” it is said to be permissible. A bubbuḷaka is a star. Even ārakūṭa metal is merely of the nature of gold.

Vuttañhetaṃ andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ –

As it is said in the Andhaka Commentary:

‘‘Ārakūṭalohaṃ suvaṇṇasadisameva, suvaṇṇaṃ anulometi, anāmāsa’’nti.

“Ārakūṭa metal is just like gold, it conforms to gold, it is not to be touched.”

‘‘Bhesajjatthāya [Pg.187] pana vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanato mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayekadesopi anuññāto hotīti tattha tattha adhippāyaṃ ñatvā vibhāvetabbaṃ.

However, by the statement, “It is permissible for medicinal purposes,” even a part of the method stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā is permitted. Thus, understanding the intention in each case, it should be explained.

Kāyasaṃsaggasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Training Rule on Bodily Contact is concluded.

3. Duṭṭhullavācāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Exposition of the Training Rule on Gross Speech

283. Tatiye tayo saṅghādisesavārā tayo thullaccayavārā tayo dukkaṭavārā tayo kāyapaṭibaddhavārāti dvādasa vārā sarūpena āgatā. Tattha tayo saṅghādisesavārā dutiyasikkhāpade vuttāti tiṇṇaṃ vīsatikānaṃ ekekamūlā vārāti veditabbā, tasmā idha visesāti paṇṇāsa vārā saṃkhittā honti, aññathā itthī ca hoti vematiko sāratto ca, bhikkhu ca naṃ itthiyā vaccamaggaṃ passāvamaggaṃ ādissa vaṇṇampi bhaṇati…pe… āpatti thullaccayassa. Itthī ca hoti paṇḍakapurisasaññī tiracchānagatasaññī sāratto ca, bhikkhu ca naṃ itthiyā vaccamaggaṃ passāvamaggaṃ ādissa vaṇṇampi bhaṇati akkosatipi, āpatti thullaccayassa. Paṇḍako ca hoti paṇḍakasaññī sāratto ca, bhikkhu ca naṃ paṇḍakassa vaccamaggaṃ ādissa vaṇṇampi bhaṇati, āpatti thullaccayassāti evamādīnaṃ āpattiṭṭhānānaṃ anāpattiṭṭhānatā āpajjeyya, na cāpajjati, paṇḍake itthisaññissa dukkaṭanti dīpetuṃ ‘‘itthī ca paṇḍako ca ubhinnaṃ itthisaññī āpatti saṅghādisesena dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttattā ‘‘paṇḍake paṇḍakasaññissa thullaccaya’’nti vuttameva hoti, tasmā sabbattha saṃkhittavāresu thullaccayaṭṭhāne thullaccayaṃ, dukkaṭaṭṭhāne dukkaṭampi vuttameva hotīti veditabbaṃ. Tathā ‘‘itthī ca hoti vematiko sāratto ca, bhikkhu ca naṃ itthiyā vaccamaggaṃ passāvamaggaṃ ṭhapetvā adhakkhakaṃ ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalaṃ ādissa vaṇṇampi bhaṇati…pe… thullaccayassā’’tiādinā nayena thullaccayakhettepi yathāsambhavaṃ uddharitabbā. Tathā ‘‘itthī ca hoti vematiko sāratto ca, bhikkhu ca naṃ itthiyā kāyapaṭibaddhaṃ ādissa vaṇṇampi bhaṇati…pe… dukkaṭassā’’tiādinā nayena kāyapaṭibaddhavārāpi yathāsambhavaṃ uddharitabbā. Kāyappaṭibaddhavārattikaṃ viya nissaggiyavārattikaṃ labbhamānampi āpattivisesābhāvato na uddhaṭaṃ. Kāyappaṭibaddhavārattike pana dinnanayattā tampi tadanulomā vārā ca [Pg.188] uddharitabbā. Sabbattha na-viññū taruṇadārikā, mahallikā ummattikādikā ca anadhippetā, pageva pākatikā tiracchānagatitthīnaṃ, tathā paṇḍakādayopīti veditabbā. Sesaṃ dutiye vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.

283. In the third training rule, twelve cases are presented in their own form: three Saṅghādisesa cases, three Thullaccaya cases, three Dukkaṭa cases, and three Kāyapaṭibaddha cases. Among these, the three Saṅghādisesa cases were stated in the second training rule; therefore, they should be understood as the root cases for each of the three groups of twenty. Thus, as there are specifics here, fifty-seven cases are summarized. Otherwise, for grounds of an offense such as: 'A woman is uncertain and lustful, and a monk, referring to the woman's path of excretion or path of urination, speaks in praise… the offense is a Thullaccaya,' it would become a state of no offense. But it does not become so. To show that for one with the perception of a woman towards a eunuch, there is a Dukkaṭa offense, it was said: 'For both a woman and a eunuch, if one has the perception of a woman… the offense is a Saṅghādisesa and a Dukkaṭa.' Thus, it is indeed said: 'For one with the perception of a eunuch towards a eunuch, there is a Thullaccaya.' Therefore, it should be understood that in all the summarized cases, a Thullaccaya is stated in a place for a Thullaccaya, and a Dukkaṭa is also stated in a place for a Dukkaṭa. Similarly, by the method beginning with 'A woman is uncertain and lustful, and a monk, referring to her area below the navel and above the knee-circle, putting aside the path of excretion and the path of urination, speaks in praise… a Thullaccaya offense,' cases should also be extracted in the field of Thullaccaya as is appropriate. Likewise, by the method beginning with 'A woman is uncertain and lustful, and a monk, referring to what is connected to her body, speaks in praise… a Dukkaṭa offense,' the Kāyapaṭibaddha cases should also be extracted as is appropriate. Although the triad of Nissaggiya cases could be obtained, similar to the triad of Kāyapaṭibaddha cases, it was not extracted due to the absence of a specific offense. But in the triad of Kāyapaṭibaddha cases, because the method has been given, those cases and the cases that conform to them should be extracted. In all cases, an undiscerning young girl, an old woman, an insane woman, and so on are not intended—what then to say of ordinary female animals? It should be understood that the same applies to eunuchs and others. The remainder should be understood by the method stated in the second training rule.

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Word-by-Word Analysis

285. Vuttanayamevāti ‘‘kāyasaṃsagge itthilakkhaṇenā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Itthilakkhaṇenā’’ti kira mahāaṭṭhakathāpāṭho. Sīsaṃ na etīti akkosanaṃ na hoti, ghaṭite pana hoti. Tatrāyaṃ viseso – imehi tīhi ghaṭite eva saṅghādiseso vaccamaggapassāvamaggānaṃ niyatavacanattā, accoḷārikattā vā, na aññehi animittāsītiādīhi aṭṭhahi. Tattha alohitāsi, dhuvalohitāsi, dhuvacoḷāsi, paggharaṇīsi, itthipaṇḍakāsi, vepurisikāsīti etāni cha maggānaṃ aniyatavacanāni, animittāsi, nimittamattāsīti dve padāni anaccoḷārikāni ca, yato aṭṭhapadāni ‘‘saṅghādisesaṃ na janentī’’ti vuttāni, tasmā tāni thullaccayavatthūni. Paribbājakavatthumhi viya akkosamattattā dukkaṭavatthūnīti eke. Itthipaṇḍakāsi, vepurisikāsīti etāneva padāni sakalasarīrasaṇṭhānabhedadīpakāni suddhāni saṅghādisesaṃ na janenti sakalasarīrasāmaññattā, itarāni janenti asāmaññattā. Tāni hi passāvamaggameva dīpenti sikharaṇī-padaṃ viya. Ubhatobyañjanāsīti vacanaṃ pana purisanimittena asaṅghādisesavatthunā missavacanaṃ. Purisaubhatobyañjanakassa ca itthinimittaṃ paṭicchannaṃ, purisanimittaṃ pākaṭaṃ hoti. Yadi tampi janeti, kathaṃ animittāsītiādipadāni na saṅghādisesaṃ janentīti eke, taṃ na yuttaṃ. Purisassapi nimittādhivacanato, ‘‘methunupasaṃhitāhi saṅghādiseso’’ti mātikāya lakkhaṇassa vuttattā ca methunupasaṃhitāhipi obhāsane paṭivijānantiyā saṅghādiseso, appaṭivijānantiyā thullaccayaṃ, itarehi obhāsane paṭivijānantiyā thullaccayaṃ, appaṭivijānantiyā dukkaṭanti eke, sabbaṃ suṭṭhu vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.

285. Regarding the phrase 'Vuttanayameva' (Just as stated in the method), it is written: 'in bodily contact, by the characteristic of a woman.' The reading in the Great Commentary is indeed 'by the characteristic of a woman.' When it does not reach the 'head' (i.e., the full extent of the offense), it is not an insult; but when it is connected with the specific terms, it is. Herein lies this distinction: only when connected with these three terms is it a saṅghādisesa offense, because they are specific words for the excretory and urinary passages, or because they are very coarse words; but not when connected with the other eight words beginning with 'you are without a sign.' Among these, the six terms—'you are without blood,' 'you are with continuous blood,' 'you are with a continuous cloth,' 'you are with discharge,' 'you are a female eunuch,' 'you are a hermaphrodite'—are indefinite words for the passages. The two words, 'you are without a sign' and 'you are with just a sign,' are not coarse. Since it is said that these eight words 'do not give rise to a saṅghādisesa,' they are therefore grounds for a thullaccaya offense. Some say they are grounds for a dukkaṭa offense because they are merely insults, as in the case of the wanderer. These very words, 'you are a female eunuch' and 'you are a hermaphrodite,' being indicative of a difference in the entire bodily form, when used by themselves, do not give rise to a saṅghādisesa offense, because they refer to the general state of the entire body. The other words do give rise to it, because they are not general. Indeed, like the word 'sikharaṇī', they indicate only the urinary passage. The statement 'you are one with both signs,' however, is a mixed statement with a case not entailing a saṅghādisesa offense by means of the male organ. And for a male with both signs, the female organ is concealed while the male organ is manifest. Some say, 'If that too gives rise to an offense, how is it that the words beginning with "you are without a sign" do not give rise to a saṅghādisesa?' That is not correct. This is because it is also a designation of the male organ, and because the characteristic is stated in the Mātikā as, 'A saṅghādisesa offense arises from words connected with sexual intercourse.' Some say that even with words connected with sexual intercourse, in making an obscene remark, if she understands, it is a saṅghādisesa offense; if she does not understand, it is a thullaccaya offense. With other words, in making an obscene remark, if she understands, it is a thullaccaya offense; if she does not understand, it is a dukkaṭa offense. All this should be thoroughly investigated and understood.

287. Hasantoti yaṃ uddissa bhaṇati, sā ce paṭivijānāti, saṅghādiseso.

287. Regarding 'hasanto ti' (laughing): If he speaks directed at a certain woman, and if that woman understands, it is a Saṅghādisesa offense.

Vinītavatthuvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Settled Cases

289. ‘‘Paṭivuttaṃ [Pg.189] nāmā’’ti pāṭho. No-saddo adhiko. ‘‘Akkharalikhanenapi hotī’’ti vadanti, taṃ āvajjanasamanantaravidhinā sameti ce, gahetabbaṃ.

289. The reading is 'Paṭivuttaṃ nāma.' The word 'no' is superfluous. They say, 'It also occurs by the writing of letters,' and that should be accepted if it accords with the process immediately following adverting.

Duṭṭhullavācāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule on lewd speech is concluded.

4. Attakāmapāricariyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Commentary on the Training Rule Regarding Service for One's Own Sensual Pleasure

290. Catutthe tayo saṅghādisesavārā āgatā, sesā sattapaññāsa vārā thullaccayadukkaṭāpattikāya saṃkhittāti veditabbā, tato aññataro asambhavato idha na uddhaṭo. Sesayojanakkamo vuttanayena veditabbo. Nagaraparikkhārehīti pākāraparikhādīhi nagaraparivārehi. Setaparikkhāroti setālaṅkāro, sīlālaṅkāroti attho (saṃ. ni. aṭṭha. 3.5.4). Cakkavīriyoti vīriyacakko. Vasalaṃ duggandhanti nimittaṃ sandhāyāha, tadeva sandhāya ‘‘kiṃ me pāpakaṃ, kiṃ me duggandha’’nti vuttaṃ.

290. In the fourth, three Saṅghādisesa cases have come; the remaining fifty-seven cases are to be understood as summarized by way of Thullaccaya and Dukkaṭa offenses. From those, another one, being impossible, is not cited here. The remaining order of connection should be understood in the manner stated. Regarding `Nagaraparikkhārehi`: by the city's surroundings such as walls and moats. Regarding `Setaparikkhāro`: the meaning is 'white ornament', that is, 'the ornament of virtue'. Regarding `Cakkavīriyo`: the wheel of effort. Regarding `Vasalaṃ duggandhanti`: this was said referring to the female organ. Referring to that very same thing, it was said, 'What is evil for me? What is foul-smelling for me?'

291. Santiketi yattha ṭhito viññāpeti. ‘‘Paṭhamaviggahe sace pāḷivasena yojetīti kāmahetupāricariyāattho. Sesanti ‘adhippāyo’ti padaṃ byañjanaṃ atthābhāvato. Dutiye pāḷivasena kāmahetu-padāni byañjanāni tesaṃ tattha atthābhāvato. Evaṃ cattāri padāni dvinnaṃ viggahānaṃ vasena yojitānīti apare vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ.

291. Regarding `Santike`: where one stands and makes something known. It is said: “Others say: 'In the first analysis, if connected according to the Pāḷi text, the meaning is 'service for the sake of sensual pleasure'. Regarding `sesaṃ`, the word `adhippāyo` is a mere verbal expression as it has no meaning. In the second analysis, according to the Pāḷi text, the words `kāmahetu` are verbal expressions as they have no meaning there. Thus, the four words are connected by way of the two analyses.'”

295. Etesu sikkhāpadesu methunarāgena vītikkame sati saṅghādisesena anāpatti. Tasmā ‘‘kiṃ bhante aggadānanti. Methunadhamma’’nti idaṃ kevalaṃ methunadhammassa vaṇṇabhaṇanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na methunadhammādhippāyena tadatthiyā vuttanti veditabbaṃ, parassa bhikkhuno kāmapāricariyāya vaṇṇabhaṇane dukkaṭaṃ. ‘‘Yo te vihāre vasati, tassa aggadānaṃ dehī’’ti pariyāyavacanenapi dukkaṭaṃ. ‘‘Attakāmapāricariyāya vaṇṇaṃ bhāseyya. Yā mādisaṃ sīlavanta’’nti ca vuttattāti eke. Pañcasu aṅgesu sabbhāvā saṅghādisesovāti eke. Vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘imasmiṃ [Pg.190] sikkhāpadadvaye kāyasaṃsagge viya yakkhipetīsu duṭṭhullattakāmavacane thullaccaya’nti vadanti. Aṭṭhakathāsu pana nāgata’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Ubhatobyañjanako pana paṇḍakagatikovā’’ti vadanti.

295. In these training rules, if there is a transgression with sexual lust, there is no offense by way of Saṅghādisesa. Therefore, it should be known that this statement, 'What, venerable sir, is the foremost gift? Sexual intercourse,' is said merely for the purpose of praising sexual intercourse; it is not said with the intention of sexual intercourse or with the desire for it. In praising the service of sensual pleasure for another monk, there is a Dukkaṭa offense. Even by an indirect statement such as, 'Give the foremost gift to the one who dwells in your monastery,' there is a Dukkaṭa offense. Some say this is so because it is also said: 'One should speak praise of the service of one's own sensual pleasure... who is virtuous like me.' Some say that because of its existence in the five factors, it is indeed a Saṅghādisesa offense. This should be accepted after investigation. But in the Gaṇṭhipada it is written: 'They say that in these two training rules, as in the rule on bodily contact, in the case of yakkhīs and petīs, in speaking a gross word about one's own sensual pleasure, it is a Thullaccaya offense. But this is not found in the commentaries.' They say: 'A hermaphrodite, however, is indeed of the nature of a paṇḍaka.'

Attakāmapāricariyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning the service of one's own sensual pleasure is concluded.

5. Sañcarittasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Acting as a Go-between

297. Ahamhi duggatāti ahaṃ amhi duggatā. Ahaṃ khvayyoti ettha ayyoti bahuvacanaṃ hoti.

297. `Ahamhi duggatā` means `ahaṃ amhi duggatā` (I am unfortunate). Here, in `Ahaṃ khvayyo`, the word `ayyo` is plural.

298. Oyācantīti nīcaṃ katvā deve yācanti. Āyācantīti uccaṃ katvā ādarena yācanti. Alaṅkārādīhi maṇḍito kesasaṃvidhānādīhi pasādhito. ‘‘Maṇḍitakaraṇe dukkaṭa’’nti vadanti.

298. `Oyācanti` means they beg the devas, humbling themselves. `Āyācanti` means they beg with reverence, exalting themselves. `Maṇḍito` means adorned with ornaments and so forth; `pasādhito` means beautified with hair arrangements and so forth. They say, 'In the act of adorning, it is a Dukkaṭa offense.'

Padabhājanīyavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Word-by-word Analysis

303. Saha paridaṇḍena vattamānāti attho. Chandavāsinī nāma ‘‘piyā piyaṃ vasetī’’ti pāḷi, purisaṃ vāsetīti adhippāyo. ‘‘Piyo piyaṃ vāsetī’’ti aṭṭhakathā.

303. The meaning is: 'a woman who lives together with control.' The so-called `chandavāsinī` is, according to the Pāḷi, 'the dear one causes the dear one to dwell'; the intention is that she causes a man to dwell. The commentary states: 'The dear one causes the dear one to dwell.'

Taṃ kiriyaṃ sampādessatīti avassaṃ ārocentiyā ce ārocetīti attho. Dvinnaṃ mātāpitūnaṃ ce āroceti, saṅghādisesoti vinayavinicchaye ‘‘vatthu oloketabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Vatthumhi ca ‘‘udāyitthero gaṇikāya ārocesī’’ti vuttaṃ. Taṃ ‘‘mātādīnampi vadato visaṅketo natthī’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanato nippayojanaṃ. Taṃ panetanti ācariyassa vacanaṃ. Māturakkhitaṃ brūhīti pesitassa gantvā mātāpiturakkhitaṃ vadato tassa tassā māturakkhitabhāvepi sati visaṅketameva, kasmā? ‘‘Piturakkhitādīsu aññataraṃ vadantassa visaṅketa’’nti vuttattā itarathā ādi-saddo niratthako siyā. Ekaṃ dasakaṃ itarena dasakena yojetvā pubbe sukkavissaṭṭhiyaṃ vuttanayattā māturakkhitāya mātā attano dhītusantikaṃ pahiṇatīti gahetabbaṃ.

The meaning is this: thinking, 'He will accomplish that act,' if he informs a woman who will certainly be informed. If he informs both mother and father, it is a Saṅghādisesa offense; in the Vinayavinicchaya it is said, 'The case should be looked into.' And in the case it is said, 'The Elder Udāyi informed a courtesan.' That is pointless because of the commentary's statement: 'There is no impropriety even when speaking to the mother and others.' This, however, is the teacher’s statement. For a monk who, having been sent with the instruction, 'Speak of one protected by the mother,' goes and speaks of one protected by mother and father, there is indeed an impropriety, even though she is in fact protected by her mother. Why? Because it is said, 'There is an impropriety for one who speaks of any one among those protected by the father, etc.' Otherwise, the word 'ādi' (etc.) would be meaningless. Having combined one group of ten with the other group of ten, because of the method stated previously in the rule on emission of semen, it should be understood that the mother of the woman protected by her mother sends a message to her own daughter.

338. Anabhinanditvāti vacanamattameva, yadipi abhinandati, yāva sāsanaṃ nāroceti, tāva ‘‘vīmaṃsito’’ti na vuccati. Sāsanārocanakāleti āṇāpakassa [Pg.191] sāsanavacanakkhaṇe. Tatiyapade vuttanayenāti ekaṅgasampattiyā dukkaṭanti attho. Vatthugaṇanāya saṅghādisesoti ubhayavatthugaṇanāya kira.

338. `Anabhinanditvā` (not approving) is merely a statement; even if one approves, as long as one does not announce the message, one is not called 'investigated.' The time of announcing the message refers to the moment when the issuer of the order speaks the message. 'By the method stated in the third clause' means: it is a Dukkaṭa offense due to the fulfillment of one factor. 'It is a Saṅghādisesa offense by counting the bases' means, apparently, by counting both bases.

339. Catutthe anāpattīti ettha pana ‘‘paṭiggaṇhāti na vīmaṃsati na paccāharati, anāpattīti ettha viya ‘gacchanto na sampādeti, āgacchanto visaṃvādetī’ti anāpattipāḷiyāpi bhavitabbanti dassanatthaṃ vutta’’nti vadanti, ekaccesu potthakesu ‘‘atthī’’tipi.

339. However, here in the fourth clause, regarding 'no offense,' they say that it was said in order to show that the no-offense text 'going, he does not accomplish; coming, he deceives' should also exist, just as in the case of 'he accepts, does not investigate, does not return it; no offense.' They also say that in some books, it exists.

Vinītavatthuvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Settled Cases

341. Alaṃvacanīyāti na vacanīyā, nivāraṇe alaṃ-saddo. Therapitā vadatīti jiṇṇapitā vadatīti attho. Kiñcāpi ettha ‘‘itthī nāma manussitthī na yakkhī na petī na tiracchānagatā, puriso nāma manussapuriso na yakkho’’tiādi natthi, tathāpi kāyasaṃsaggādīsu ‘‘manussitthī’’ti itthīvavatthānassa katattā idhāpi manussitthī evāti paññāyati. Methunapubbabhāgattā manussaubhatobyañjanako ca thullaccayavatthukova hoti, sesā manussapaṇḍakaubhatobyañjanakatiracchānagatapurisādayo dukkaṭavatthukāva micchācārasāsanaṅgasambhavatoti veditabbaṃ. Yathāsambhavaṃ pana vārā uddharitabbā. Paññattiajānane viya alaṃvacanīyabhāvājānanepi acittakatā veditabbā. Duṭṭhullādīsupīti ‘‘imasmimpī’’ti vuttameva hoti. ‘‘Lekhaṃ netvā paṭilekhaṃ ārocitassāpi sañcarittaṃ natthi sañcarittabhāvamajānantassā’’ti vadanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.

341. “Alaṃvacanīyā” means 'not to be spoken to'; the word `alaṃ` is in the sense of prevention. “Therapitā vadati” means 'the aged father speaks.' Although the Pāḷi beginning with “A woman means a human woman, not a yakkhī, not a petī, not an animal; a man means a human man, not a yakkha...” is not present here, nevertheless, because the determination of 'woman' as 'human woman' has been made in the training rules such as that on physical contact, it is understood that here also it is only a human woman. Because it is a preliminary part of sexual intercourse, a human with both sexual characteristics is indeed a ground for a grave offense. The remaining cases, such as human paṇḍakas, those with both sexual characteristics, animal males, and so on, are grounds for a dukkaṭa offense, because it can be an element of conveying a message for sexual misconduct; thus it should be understood. However, the sections should be extracted as is possible. Just as in not knowing the regulation, in not knowing the state of being alaṃvacanīya also, it should be understood as unintentional. Regarding coarse speech and so on, it is just what is said by 'in this case as well.' Some say, “For one who, having taken a letter and announced the reply, does not know the nature of sañcaritta, there is no sañcaritta,” but this should be accepted after investigation.

Sañcarittasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning acting as a go-between is concluded.

6. Kuṭikārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Building a Hut

342. Yācanāti ‘‘detha dethā’’ti codanā. Viññattīti iminā no atthoti viññāpanā. ‘‘Hatthakammaṃ yācito upakaraṇaṃ, mūlaṃ vā dassatī’’ti yācati, na vaṭṭatīti. Vaṭṭati senāsane obhāsaparikathādīnaṃ laddhattāti eke. Anajjhāvutthakanti assāmikaṃ. Na āhaṭaṃ paribhuñjitabbanti ‘‘sūpodanaviññattidukkaṭaṃ [Pg.192] hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Kiñcāpi garubhaṇḍappahonakesūti vuttaṃ, tathāpi yaṃ vatthuvasena appaṃ hutvā agghavasena mahā haritālahiṅgulikādi, taṃ yācituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti.

342. “Yācanā” is urging with “Give, give.” “Viññatti” is making it known with “We have need of this.” If one asks, thinking, “If asked for manual labor, he will give either tools or money,” it is not allowable. To this, some say it is allowable because, in the matter of a lodging, obtaining it through talk of illumination and the like is permitted. “Anajjhāvutthakaṃ” means ownerless. Regarding “What is not brought should not be consumed,” it is said: “Making a hint for soup and rice is a dukkaṭa offense.” Some say: “Although it is said 'in the case of abundant heavy goods,' nevertheless, it is not allowable to ask for that which, being small in substance, is great in value, such as orpiment, cinnabar, and so on.”

344. So kirāti isi. Tadā ajjhagamā tadajjhagamā.

344. He, it is said, was a sage. “Tadajjhagamā” means: at that time (tadā), he went away (ajjhagamā).

348-9. Na hi sakkā yācanāya kātuṃ, tasmā sayaṃ yācitakehi upakaraṇehīti adhippāyo. Byañjanaṃ sameti, na attho. Kasmā? Idha ubhayesaṃ adhippetattā, taṃ dassento ‘‘yasmā panā’’tiādimāha. Idha vuttanayenāti imasmiṃ sikkhāpadavibhaṅge vuttanayena. ‘‘Saññācikāyā’’ti vacanato karontenāpi, ‘‘parehi pariyosāpetī’’ti vacanato kārāpentenāpi paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Ubhopete kārakakārāpakā. Byañjanaṃ vilomitaṃ bhaveyya, ‘‘kārayamānenā’’ti hi byañjanaṃ ‘‘karontenā’’ti vutte vilomitaṃ hoti atadatthattā. Na hi kārāpento nāma hoti. ‘‘Idha vuttanayenāti desitavatthukapamāṇikanayena. Evaṃ sante ‘karontena vā kārāpentena vā’ti vacanato karontenāpi parehi vippakataṃ vattabbanti ce, tadatthavissajjanatthaṃ ‘yadi panātiādimāhā’’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Saññācikāya kuṭiṃ karonto’’ti vacanavasena vuttaṃ. ‘‘Āyāmato ca vitthārato cā’’ti avatvā vikappatthassa vā-saddassa gahitattā ekatobhāgepi vaḍḍhite āpatti eva. Pamāṇayuttamañco kira navavidatthi. ‘‘‘Catuhatthavitthārā’ti vacanena ‘tiriyaṃ tihatthā vā’ti vacanampi sameti ‘yattha pamāṇayutto’tiādisanniṭṭhānavacanāsambhavato’’ti vuttaṃ. Pamāṇato ūnatarampīti vitthārato catupañcahatthampi dīghato anatikkamitvā vuttapamāṇameva desitavatthu. Adesitavatthuñhi karoto āpatti. Pamāṇātikkantā kuṭi eva pamāṇātikkantaṃ kuṭiṃ kareyyāti vuttattā. ‘‘Thambhatulā’’ti pāṭho. Anussāvanānayenāti ettha ‘‘damiḷabhāsāyapi vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti.

348-9. For it is not possible to do it by begging; therefore, the intention is 'with materials begged by oneself.' The wording fits, but not the meaning. Why? Because here both are intended, he shows that by saying 'but because,' etc. 'Here, in the manner stated' means in the manner stated in this analysis of the training rule. From the phrase 'by making known one's need,' one should proceed accordingly whether one is doing it oneself, and from the phrase 'gets others to complete it,' whether one is having it done. Both of these are the doer and the one who causes it to be done. The wording would be contrary; for if the wording 'by causing to do' is said as 'by doing,' it would be contrary because it does not have that meaning. Indeed, one who causes something to be done is not called a 'doer.' In the supplementary passage it is said: '“Here, in the manner stated” means by the method of the declared object and the measure. This being so, if one were to say that, on account of the phrase “by doing or by causing to do,” it should be stated that it was left unfinished by others even when one is doing it oneself, then to explain that meaning, he said “but if,” etc.' 'Building a hut by making known one's need'—this is said by way of the wording. Without saying 'in length and in width,' because the word 'or' is taken in the sense of an alternative, there is an offense even if one part is increased. A bed of the proper size, it seems, is of nine spans. It is said, 'By the phrase “four cubits wide,” the phrase “or three cubits across” also fits, because a definitive statement such as “where the proper measure applies” is impossible.' Regarding 'even less than the measure': a hut of even four or five cubits in width, as long as it does not exceed the stated measure in length, is still considered a declared object of the stated measure. For one who makes an undeclared object, there is an offense. A hut that exceeds the measure is itself what causes the offense, because it is said, '...should make a hut exceeding the measure.' The reading is 'post and beam.' By the method of recitation—here, they say, 'it applies even in the Damiḷa language.'

353. Cārabhūmi gocarabhūmi. Na gahitāti na vāritā. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘kāraṇāya guttibandhanāgāraṃ, akaraṇaṭṭhānaṃ vā dhammagandhikā hatthapādacchindanakā gandhikā’’ti likhitaṃ. Dvīhi balibaddehīti heṭṭhimakoṭiyā kira [Pg.193] vuttato āvijjituṃ na sakkā chinnāvaṭattā, nigamanassāpi atthappakāsanatthaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Pācinanti vatthu adhiṭṭhānaṃ. Tadatthāyāti tacchanatthāya. Paṇṇasālampīti ullittāvalittakuṭimeva paṇṇacchadanaṃ. Teneva ‘‘sabhitticchadana’’nti vuttaṃ, alittaṃ kira sabbaṃ vaṭṭati. Pubbe thokaṃ ṭhapitaṃ puna vaḍḍhetvā. Tasminti dvārabandhane vā vātapāne vā ṭhapite. Paṭhamamevāti ettha pattakāle evāti kira dhammasiritthero. Upatissatthero ṭhapitakālevāti kira. Purimena lepassa aghaṭitattā dutiyena vattasīsena katattā ubhinnampi anāpatti. Sace āṇattena kataṃ, ‘‘karoti vā kārāpeti vā’’ti vacanato āpatti ubhinnaṃ sati attuddesikatāya, asati mūlaṭṭhasseva. Heṭṭhimappamāṇasambhave sati sabbamattikāmayaṃ kuṭiṃ karoto āpatti dukkaṭena saṅghādisesoti ācariyassa takko.

353. The ground for walking is the ground for roaming. 'Not taken' means 'not forbidden.' In the commentary, it is written: 'For the purpose of inflicting punishment, a guarded prison; or a place where punishment is not inflicted. Things such as executioner's blocks where hands and feet are cut are called dhammagandhikā.' Regarding 'with two bullocks': it is said that from the stated lower limit, it is not possible to turn, because of there being a steep bank. It should be understood that this is said also for the purpose of clarifying the meaning of the market-town. 'Pācinan' means site, foundation. 'Tadatthāya' means for the purpose of planing. Regarding 'even a leaf-hut': it is a hut plastered inside and out that has a leaf-roof. For that very reason, it is called 'with walls and roof'. It is said that if, having previously placed a small amount of clay and then increased it, the hut is left unplastered, it is entirely allowable. Regarding 'on that': when it is placed either on the doorframe or on the window. Regarding 'at the very first': the Elder Dhammasiri, it is said, says it means 'at the appropriate time'. The Elder Upatissa, it is said, says it means 'at the very time of placing'. Because the first plastering did not join, and because it was done by the second with a roller-head, there is no offense for both of them. If it is done by one who was commanded, according to the text 'one does it or causes it to be done,' there is an offense for both if there is personal designation; if there is not, there is an offense for the originator only. When the lower measurement is possible, for one who makes a hut entirely of clay, the offense is a Saṅghādisesa together with a Dukkaṭa; this is the teacher's reasoning.

354. Chattiṃsa catukkāni nāma adesitavatthukacatukkaṃ desitavatthukacatukkaṃ pamāṇātikkantacatukkaṃ pamāṇikacatukkaṃ adesitavatthukapamāṇātikkantacatukkaṃ desitavatthukapamāṇikacatukkanti cha catukkāni, evaṃ samādisativārādīsupi pañcasūti chattiṃsa. Āpattibhedadassanatthanti ettha yasmā ‘‘sārambhe ce, bhikkhu, vatthusmiṃ aparikkamane…pe… saṅghādiseso’’ti mātikāyaṃ avisesena vuttattā sārambhaaparikkamanepi saṅghādisesovāti micchāgāhavivajjanatthaṃ āpattibhedo dassito, tasmā vuttānīti adhippāyo. Vibhaṅge evaṃ avatvā kimatthaṃ mātikāyaṃ dukkaṭavatthu vuttanti ce? Bhikkhū abhinetabbā vatthudesanāya, tehi bhikkhūhi vatthu desetabbaṃ. Kīdisaṃ? Anārambhaṃ saparikkamanaṃ, netaraṃ, itarasmiṃ ‘‘sārambhe ce bhikkhu vatthusmiṃ aparikkamane’’ti evaṃ ānisaṃsavasena āgatattā vuttaṃ. Yasmā vatthu nāma atthi sārambhaṃ, atthi anārambhaṃ, atthi saparikkamanaṃ, atthi aparikkamanaṃ, atthi sārambhaṃ saparikkamanaṃ, atthi sārambhaṃ aparikkamanaṃ, atthi anārambhaṃ saparikkamanaṃ, atthi anārambhaṃ aparikkamananti bahuvidhattā vatthu desetabbaṃ anārambhaṃ saparikkamanaṃ, netaranti vuttaṃ hoti. Kimatthikā panesā desanāti ce? Garukāpattipaññāpanahetuparivajjanupāyatthā. Vatthudesanāya hi garukāpattipaññāpanahetuttā akataviññatti gihīnaṃ pīḷājananena attadukkhaparadukkhahetubhūto ca sārambhabhāvoti ete vatthudesanāpadesena upāyena parivajjitā honti. Na hi bhikkhu akappiyakuṭikaraṇatthaṃ gihīnaṃ [Pg.194] vā pīḷānimittaṃ sārambhavatthu. Kuṭikaraṇatthaṃ vā vatthuṃ desentīti paṭhamameva sādhitametaṃ. Vomissakāpattiyoti dukkaṭasaṅghādisesamissakāpattiyo.

354. The thirty-six fourfold categories are: the fourfold category of the unindicated site, the fourfold category of the indicated site, the fourfold category of exceeding the measure, the fourfold category of the proper measure, the fourfold category of the unindicated site exceeding the measure, and the fourfold category of the indicated site of the proper measure—thus, there are six fourfold categories. Similarly, this should be understood in the five sections beginning with the samādhi section; thus, there are thirty-six. Herein, regarding 'for the purpose of showing the distinction of offenses': because it is stated generally in the Mātikā, 'If, O bhikkhu, on a site with hazards, without a surrounding cleared area... it is a Saṅghādisesa,' and in order to abandon the wrong view that a Saṅghādisesa offense occurs even in the case of a site with hazards and without a surrounding cleared area, the distinction of offenses is shown. Therefore, they are stated—this is the intention. If it is asked, 'Why, without stating it thus in the Vibhaṅga, is the basis for a dukkaṭa offense mentioned in the Mātikā?' Bhikkhus are to be brought to indicate the site; by those bhikkhus, the site is to be indicated. What kind? A site without hazards and with a surrounding cleared area, not the other kind. Regarding the other kind, it is stated, 'If, O bhikkhu, on a site with hazards, without a surrounding cleared area...' because this is mentioned by way of its benefit. Because a site is of many kinds—there is one with hazards, one without hazards, one with a surrounding cleared area, one without a surrounding cleared area, one with hazards and with a surrounding cleared area, one with hazards and without a surrounding cleared area, one without hazards and with a surrounding cleared area, and one without hazards and without a surrounding cleared area—due to this multiplicity, it is said that the site to be indicated is one without hazards and with a surrounding cleared area, not the other kind. If it is asked, 'But what is the purpose of this indication?' It is for the purpose of providing a means to avoid the cause for the laying down of a grave offense. Indeed, by the instruction on indicating a site, these things are skillfully avoided: not making a request, which is a cause for the laying down of a grave offense; causing affliction to householders; and the state of having hazards, which is a cause of suffering for oneself and for others. For bhikkhus do not indicate a site for the purpose of making an improper hut, nor do they indicate a hazardous site, which is a cause of affliction for householders, for the purpose of making a hut. This is established from the very beginning. Regarding 'mixed offenses,' these are offenses that are a mixture of dukkaṭa and saṅghādisesa.

355. Tattha ‘‘dvīhi saṅghādisesehī’’ti vattabbe ‘‘dvinnaṃ saṅghādisesenā’’ti vibhattibyattayena, vacanabyattayena ca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Āpatti dvinnaṃ saṅghādisesāna’’ntipi pāṭho.

355. Here, where it should be said ‘dvīhi saṅghādisesehī,’ it is said ‘dvinnaṃ saṅghādisesena’ due to a change of case and of number. There is also the reading, ‘āpatti dvinnaṃ saṅghādisesānaṃ’.

364. Na ghaṭayati chadanalepābhāvato, anāpatti, taṃ parato sādhiyati. Chadanameva sandhāya ullittāvalittatā vuttāti. ‘‘Kukkuṭacchikagehaṃ vaṭṭatīti vatvā puna chadanaṃ daṇḍakehītiādinā nayena taṃ dassentehi tiṇapaṇṇacchadanākuṭikāva vuttā. Tattha chadanaṃ daṇḍakehi dīghato tiriyañca jālaṃ viya bandhitvā tiṇehi vā paṇṇehi vā chādetuṃ ullittādibhāvo chadanameva sandhāya vuttoti yuttamidaṃ. Tasmā mattikāmayaṃ bhittiṃ vaḍḍhāpetvā upari ullittaṃ vā avalittaṃ vā ubhayaṃ vā bhittiyā ghaṭitaṃ karontassa āpatti eva vināpi bhittilepenā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘‘So ca chadanameva sandhāyā’ti padhānavasena vuttaṃ, na heṭṭhābhāgaṃ paṭikkhitta’’nti vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Etthāti tiṇakuṭikāya. Yathāsamādiṭṭhāyāti yathāvuttappakāranti adhippāyo. ‘‘Āpatti kārukānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭāna’’ntiādimhi so suṇātichakkampi labbhati. Ubhayattha samādiṭṭhattā āṇāpakassa anāpatti. Āṇattassa yathā samādiṭṭhaṃ āṇāpakena, tathā akaraṇapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ. Sace ‘‘ahampettha vasāmī’’ti attuddesampi karoti, saṅghādisesova. ‘‘Kuṭiṃ karothā’’ti avisesena vuttaṭṭhāne pana āṇāpakassāpi saṅghādiseso acittakattā sikkhāpadassa.

364. It does not apply due to the absence of plastering the roof; there is no offense. This is established by what follows. It is said that the mention of plastering and whitewashing refers only to the thatching. Having said, "A chicken-coop-like dwelling is permissible," and then showing it in the manner of "thatching with sticks," etc., a hut thatched with grass or leaves is described. There, the act of thatching, by binding sticks lengthwise and crosswise like a net and covering them with grass or leaves, and the state of being plastered, etc., are said to refer only to the thatching. Thus, this is appropriate. Therefore, it is written: "For one who, having built up a clay wall, plasters inside, outside, or both on the upper part connected to the wall, there is indeed an offense, even without plastering the wall itself." They say: "'That refers only to the thatching,' which is stated as the main point, not rejecting the lower part." This should be investigated. Here, it refers to a grass hut. "As specified" means in the manner described. In the phrase "An offense of three dukkaṭas for the workers," etc., the reading 'so suṇāti chakkaṃ' is also found. Because it was properly specified for both parties, the one who gives the order incurs no offense. For the one who receives the order, if he does not carry it out as instructed by the order-giver, it is a dukkaṭa. If he also acts with the intention, "I will reside here," it is a saṅghādisesa. However, in a case where the instruction is given generally, such as "Build a hut," the order-giver also incurs a saṅghādisesa because the training rule is one that does not depend on intention.

Ahañca vasissāmīti ettha parassa yassa kassaci uddiṭṭhassa abhāvā āpatti eva ‘‘karontassa vā’’ti niyamitattā, anāpatti avibhattattā. ‘‘Idha paññattijānanamattameva citta’’nti ca likhitaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ahañca vasissāmīti ettha yo ‘‘mayhaṃ vāsāgārañca bhavissatī’’ti icchati, tassāpatti. Yo pana uposathāgāraṃ icchati, tassa anāpatti, tasmā ‘‘ubhayaṃ sametī’’ti vatvā ca ‘‘vinayavinicchaye āgate garuke ṭhātabba’’nti vacanato mahāpaccarivādato itaro pacchā vattabboti ce? Na, balavattā[Pg.195]. ‘‘Vāsāgāraṃ ṭhapetvā sabbattha, anāpattī’’ti vacanato, bhojanasālādīnampi atthāya iminā katattā saṅkarā jātā. Yathā – dve tayo ‘‘ekato vasissāmā’’ti karonti, rakkhati tāvāti ettha viya. ‘‘Idaṃ ṭhānaṃ vāsāgāraṃ bhavissati, idaṃ uposathāgāra’’nti vibhajitvā katepi āpatti eva. Dvīsu mahāpaccarivādo balavā, tasmā ‘‘pacchā vutto’’tiādinā atīva papañcitaṃ. Kiṃ tena. ‘‘Attanā vippakataṃ attanā ca parehi ca pariyosāpetī’’tiādinā nayena aparānipi catukkāni yathāsambhavaṃ yojetvā dassetabbāni, leṇādīsu kiñcāpi saṅghādisesena anāpatti, akataviññattiyā sati tappaccayā āpatti eva.

Herein, regarding 'And I will reside,' since there is no other designated person, there is indeed an offense due to the fixed meaning of 'or for the one who is doing it.' There is no offense due to its unassigned nature. And it is written: 'Here, the intention is merely the knowing of the regulation.' However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, regarding 'And I will reside,' for the monk who desires, 'There will also be a dwelling place for me,' for him there is an offense. But for the monk who desires it to be an Uposatha hall, for him there is no offense. Therefore, having said, 'Both are reconciled,' and because of the saying, 'When it comes to a Vinaya decision, one should stand on the weighty opinion,' should it be said that the other tradition, apart from the Mahāpaccarī, should be stated later? No, because of its strength. Due to the saying, 'Except for a dwelling place, there is no offense in all cases,' confusion has arisen because this was also done for the purpose of dining halls and so on. For example, when two or three monks act, saying, 'We will reside together,' it is just as in the case of 'he guards it for now.' Even when it is done after having divided it, saying, 'This place will be a dwelling place, this an Uposatha hall,' there is indeed an offense. Among the two, the Mahāpaccarī tradition is the stronger one. Therefore, it is excessively elaborated with 'it was said later,' and so on. What is the use of that? By the method beginning with, 'A hut left unfinished by oneself, one finishes by oneself and with others,' the other fourfold categories should also be shown, having applied them as is possible. In caves and so on, although there is no Saṅghādisesa offense, if there is an unmade request, due to that cause, there is indeed an offense.

Kuṭikārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning the construction of huts is concluded.

7. Vihārakārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning the Construction of a Dwelling

366. Sattame vā-saddo avadhāraṇatthoti veditabbo.

366. In the seventh, the word 'vā' should be understood as having the meaning of emphasis.

Vihārakārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning the construction of a dwelling is concluded.

8. Paṭhamaduṭṭhadosasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. The Commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning Malice

380. Sāvakena pattabbanti pakatisāvakaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na aggasāvakaṃ. Yathūpanissayayathāpuggalavasena ‘‘tisso vijjā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Kenaci sāvakena tisso vijjā, kenaci catasso paṭisambhidā, kenaci cha abhiññā, kenaci kevalo navalokuttaradhammoti evaṃ visuṃ visuṃ yathāsambhavaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

380. The statement, “attainable by a disciple,” is said with reference to an ordinary disciple, not a chief disciple. The statement beginning with “the three kinds of knowledge” is said according to the supporting conditions and the individuals. It should be understood that by some disciple, the three kinds of knowledge are to be attained; by some, the four analytical knowledges; by some, the six higher knowledges; and by some, only the nine supramundane states are to be attained. Thus, it is said separately for each, according to what is possible.

382. ‘‘Ye te bhikkhū suttantikā’’tiādivacanato dharamānepi bhagavati piṭakattayaparicchedo atthīti siddhaṃ. Dhammakathikāti ābhidhammikā ratiyā acchissantītiādi āyasmato dabbassa nesaṃ tiracchānakathāya ratiniyojanaṃ viya dissati, na tathā daṭṭhabbaṃ. Suttantikādisaṃsaggato tesaṃ suttantikādīnaṃ phāsuvihārantarāyaṃ, tesampi tiracchānakathāratiyā abhāvena anabhirativāsaṃ, tato nesaṃ sāmaññā cāvanañca [Pg.196] parivajjanto evaṃ cintesīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. ‘‘Nimmitānaṃ dhammatāti sāvakehi nimmitānaṃyeva, na buddhehī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Sādhakatamaṃ karaṇa’’nti evaṃ vutte karaṇattheyeva tatiyāvibhattīti attho.

382. From the statement beginning, “Those monks who are experts in the Suttas,” it is established that the division of the three Piṭakas existed even while the Blessed One was living. Regarding the term ‘Dhamma-speakers,’ the Venerable Dabba's action appears like an encouragement for those monks who are experts in Abhidhamma to delight in animal talk, but it should not be regarded in that way. It should be understood that because of association with the Suttantika teachers and others, it causes an obstacle to their comfortable dwelling, and for those monks as well, due to the absence of delight in animal talk, it causes them to dwell in discontent; therefore, wishing to prevent their falling away from the state of a monk, he thought thus. They say, “The nature of created things” means those created by disciples only, not by Buddhas. When it is said, “The most effective means is the instrument,” the meaning is that the third case ending occurs only in the sense of the instrument.

383-4. Yanti yena. ‘‘Kattāti kattā, na kattā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Bhariyaṃ viya maṃ ajjhācaratī’’ti vadantiyā balavatī codanā. Tena hīti ettha yathā chupanamatte vippaṭisārīvatthusmiṃ kāyasaṃsaggarāgasambhavā apucchitvā eva saṅghādisesaṃ paññāpesi, tatheva pubbevassā dussīlabhāvaṃ ñatvā vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Yadi tāva bhūtāya paṭiññāya nāsitā, thero kārako hoti. Atha abhūtāya, bhagavatā ‘‘nāsethā’’ti na vattabbaṃ, vuttañca, tasmā vuttaṃ ‘‘yadi tāva paṭiññāya nāsitā, thero kārako hotī’’ti.

Yanti means yena (by which). It is written: “Kattā means a doer; na kattā means not a doer.” Of the bhikkhunī who says, “He transgresses against me as if I were his wife,” the accusation is strong. In the phrase tena hi, just as in the case of regret over mere touching, because of the possibility of lust arising from physical contact, he laid down the Saṅghādisesa rule without even asking; in that same way, it should be understood that this was said because he knew of her immoral character even beforehand. If, firstly, she is expelled by means of a true confession, the Elder is the doer. Or if by an untrue one, the Blessed One should not have said, “Expel her,” and yet he did say it. Therefore, it was said, “If she is expelled by means of a confession, the Elder is the doer.”

Atha appaṭiññāyāti ‘‘ayyenamhi dūsitā’’ti imaṃ paṭiññaṃ vinā eva tassā pakatidussīlabhāvaṃ sandhāya nāsitā, thero akārako hoti. Abhayagirivāsinopi attano suttaṃ vatvā ‘‘tumhākaṃ vāde thero kārako’’ti vadanti, kasmā? Dukkaṭaṃ musāvādapaccayā liṅganāsanāya anāsetabbattā. Pārājikasseva hi liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbā. ‘‘Nāsethā’’ti ca vuttattā pārājikāva jātā, sā kiṃ sandhāya, tato thero kārako āpajjati. ‘‘Sakāya paṭiññāya nāsethā’’ti vutte pana apārājikāpi attano vacanena nāsetabbā jātāti adhippāyo. Mahāvihāravāsinopi attano suttaṃ vatvā ‘‘tumhākaṃ vāde thero kārako’’ti ca vadanti. Kasmā? ‘‘Sakāya paṭiññāya nāsethā’’ti hi vutte paṭiññāya bhūtatā āpajjati ‘‘nāsethā’’ti vacanato. Bhūtāyeva hi paṭiññāya nāsetabbā hoti, nābhūtāyāti adhippāyo. Purimanayeti dukkaṭavāde. Purimo yuttivasena pavatto, pacchimo pāḷivacanavasena pavattoti veditabbo.

Herein, regarding ‘without a confession’: if she is expelled based on her naturally immoral character, without this confession, ‘I have been corrupted by the venerable sir,’ then the elder is not culpable. The Abhayagirivāsins also, citing their own text, say, ‘According to your view, the elder is culpable.’ Why? Because a dukkaṭa offense is incurred due to false speech, and because she is unfit to be expelled by the destruction of the characteristic. Indeed, only one who has committed a pārājika should be expelled by the destruction of the characteristic. And because it was said, ‘Expel her,’ she has become a pārājika offender. On what grounds? Therefore, the elder becomes culpable. But when it is said, ‘Expel her based on her own confession,’ then even one who has not committed a pārājika becomes one who should be expelled by her own words—this is the meaning. The Mahāvihāravāsins also, citing their own text, say, ‘According to your view, the elder is culpable.’ Why? For when it is said, ‘Expel her based on her own confession,’ the truthfulness of the confession is established by the command, ‘Expel her.’ For she should be expelled by a truthful confession only, not by a false one—this is the meaning. Regarding the earlier method: this is in the view that a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. The earlier view proceeds by way of logic; the later view proceeds by way of a scriptural statement—this should be understood.

385-6. Pītisukhehīti ettha ‘‘sukhenā’’ti vattabbe pītiggahaṇaṃ tatiyajjhānasukhaṃ, kāyikañca apanetuṃ sampayuttapītiyā vuttaṃ. Sace cuditakavasena kataṃ amūlakaṃ nāma, ‘‘anajjhāpannaṃ akata’’nti vadeyya, ime karissanti, tasmā ‘‘tādisaṃ diṭṭhasaññī hutvā codetī’’ti pāṭho[Pg.197]. ‘‘Etena nayena sutamutaparisaṅkitānipi vitthārato veditabbānī’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Catunnaṃ aññatarenā’’ti pātimokkhuddese eva āgate gahetvā vuttaṃ, itaresaṃ aññatarenāpi anuddhaṃsentassa saṅghādisesovāti no takkoti ācariyo. Bhikkhubhāvā hi cāvanasamatthato. ‘‘Samīpe ṭhatvā’’ti vacanato parammukhā codentassa, codāpentassa vā sīsaṃ na eti. Diṭṭhañce sutena parisaṅkitena codeti codāpeti, sutaparisaṅkitaṃ vā diṭṭhādīhi codite vā codāpite vā sīsaṃ eti eva amūlakena coditattā. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘diṭṭhassa hoti pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpajjanto, tañce codeti ‘suto mayā…pe… saṅghādisesassā’’ti (pārā. 387). ‘‘Asuddho hoti puggalo aññataraṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpanno, tañce asuddhadiṭṭhi samāno anokāsaṃ kārāpetvā cāvanādhippāyo vadeti, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Okāsaṃ kārāpetvā cāvanādhippāyo vadeti, anāpattī’’ti (pārā. 389) iminā na-samentaṃ viya khāyati, kathaṃ? Diṭṭhassa hoti pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpajjanto nāma asuddho puggalo hoti, ‘‘aññatarasmiṃ asuddhadiṭṭhi samāno tañce codeti ‘suto mayā pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpannosī’ti, āpatti vācāya vācāya saṅghādisesassā’’ti vacanato purimanayenāpatti. ‘‘Cāvanādhippāyo vadeti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vacanato pacchimanayena saṅghādisesena āpattīti dve pāḷinayā aññamaññaṃ viruddhā viya dissanti, na ca viruddhaṃ buddhā kathayanti, tasmā ettha yutti pariyesitabbā. Aṭṭhakathācariyā tāvāhu ‘‘samūlakena vā saññāsamūlakena vā codentassa anāpatti, amūlakena vā pana saññāamūlakena vā codentassa āpattī’’ti. Tassattho – dassanasavanaparisaṅkanamūlena samūlakena vā tadabhāvena amūlakenāpi saññāsamūlakena vā codentassa anāpatti, dassanādimūlābhāvena amūlakena vā tabbhāvena samūlakenāpi saññāamūlakena vā codentassa āpatti, tasmā diṭṭhassa hoti.

385-6. In the text “pītisukhehi,” although “sukhena” should have been said, the inclusion of “pīti” is stated by means of associated joy in order to exclude the happiness of the third jhāna and bodily happiness. If, by the power of the accused person, something is made to be baseless, he might say, “It was not fallen into, not done.” Others might then do so. Therefore, there is the text: “Having such a perception of what was seen, he accuses.” There is also the text: “By this method, what is heard, sensed, and suspected should also be known in detail.” “By any one of the four” is stated by taking only those Pārājika offenses that come in the Pātimokkha recitation. The teacher says: It is not our reasoning that for the other offenses, for one who accuses by any one of them, it is a Saṅghādisesa offense. For it is because of the ability to make one fall from the state of a monk. Because of the text “standing nearby,” for one who accuses or causes another to accuse in the person's absence, it does not reach the ‘head’ of the offense. If one accuses or causes another to accuse concerning what was seen by means of what was heard or suspected, or if one accuses or causes another to accuse concerning what was heard and suspected by means of what was seen, etc., it certainly reaches the ‘head’ of the offense, because of accusing baselessly. For this has been said: “He sees someone committing a Pārājika offense, and he accuses that person, saying ‘I have heard… (and so on)... a Saṅghādisesa offense.’” This appears not to reconcile with the following: “An impure person has committed one of the Pārājika offenses. If, being of impure view, he speaks with the intention of expulsion without having an opportunity made, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. If he speaks with the intention of expulsion after having an opportunity made, there is no offense.” How so? “One who sees another committing a Pārājika offense” is an impure person. Because of the text, “Being of impure view regarding someone, if he accuses that person, saying ‘I have heard you have committed a Pārājika offense,’ there is a Saṅghādisesa offense for every single word,” according to the former method, there is an offense. Because of the text, “If he speaks with the intention of expulsion, it is a Dukkaṭa offense,” according to the latter method, there is a Dukkaṭa offense. Thus, the two textual methods appear to contradict each other. But the Buddhas do not speak contradictions. Therefore, the proper reasoning must be sought here. The commentary teachers say: “For one who accuses with a basis or with a perceived basis, there is no offense. But for one who accuses without a basis or with a perceived lack of basis, there is an offense.” Its meaning is this: For one who accuses with a basis rooted in seeing, hearing, or suspicion, or, in the absence of that, even if baseless, with a perceived basis, there is no offense. For one who accuses without a basis rooted in seeing, etc., or, even with such a basis, with a perceived lack of basis, there is an offense. Therefore, “of one who has seen...”

Pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpajjantotiādimhi dassanamūlena samūlakenāpi ‘‘suto mayā’’ti vacanato saññāamūlakena vā codeti, āpatti saṅghādisesassa. Tadatthassa āvibhāvatthaṃ ‘‘diṭṭhe vematiko’’tiādi vārā vuttāti veditabbā.

In the passage beginning with 'one who commits a Pārājika offense,' if one accuses, even with a basis rooted in seeing, yet baselessly by way of perception due to the statement 'I have heard,' there is a Saṅghādisesa offense. To make that meaning clear, it should be understood that the sections beginning with 'one who is doubtful about what was seen,' and so on, are stated.

Asuddho [Pg.198] hoti puggalobhiādimhi pana samūlakena, saññāsamūlakena vā coditattā anāpattīti. Evamevaṃ pana tadatthadīpanatthaṃ te vārā vuttā. Tattha hi ‘‘adiṭṭhassa hotī’’tiādivārā amūlakena codentassa āpatti hotīti dassanatthaṃ vuttā. ‘‘Diṭṭhe vematiko’’tiādinā saññāamūlakena codentassa āpatti hotīti dassanatthaṃ vuttā. Aññathā ‘‘diṭṭhassa hoti, diṭṭhe vematiko’’tiādivārā nibbisesā bhaveyyuṃ. Idaṃ panettha sanniṭṭhānaṃ-yathā asuddhaṃ puggalaṃ anokāsaṃ kārāpetvā codentassa dukkaṭaṃ, akkosādhippāyassa ca omasavādena dukkaṭassa, tathā asuddhadiṭṭhikopi asuddhaṃ asuddhadiṭṭhi amūlakena codeti, āpatti. Samūlakena vā codeti, anāpattīti taṃ sanniṭṭhānaṃ yathā ‘‘anāpatti suddhe asuddhadiṭṭhissa asuddhe asuddhadiṭṭhissā’’ti iminā saṃsandati, tathā gahetabbaṃ. Aññathā yutti pariyesitabbā.

However, in the passage beginning with 'an impure person,' because one accuses with a basis or with a perceived basis, there is no offense. Similarly, those sections were stated to explain that meaning. For therein, the sections beginning with 'for one who has not seen' were stated to show that an offense is incurred by one who accuses without basis. The sections beginning with 'one who is doubtful about what was seen' were stated to show that an offense is incurred by one who accuses baselessly by way of perception. Otherwise, the sections 'for one who has seen, one who is doubtful about what was seen,' and so on, would be without distinction. Herein, this is the conclusion: just as for one who accuses an impure person without having granted an opportunity there is a Dukkaṭa offense, and for one with the intention to insult there is a Dukkaṭa offense from abusive speech, so too, if a monk of impure view, being of impure view, accuses an impure person without basis, there is an offense. But if one accuses with a basis, there is no offense. This conclusion should be understood in such a way that it aligns with the statement, 'There is no offense for one of impure view towards a pure person, nor for one of impure view towards an impure person.' Otherwise, the proper reasoning should be sought.

Sīlasampannoti ettha ‘‘dussīlassa vacanaṃ appamāṇaṃ. Bhikkhunī hi bhikkhumhi anissarā, tasmā ukkaṭṭhanaye vidhiṃ sandhāya therena vuttaṃ. Dutiyattherena bhikkhunī ajānitvāpi codeti, sikkhamānādayo vā codenti, tesaṃ sutvā bhikkhū eva vicāretvā tassa paṭiññāya kārenti. Ko ettha dosoti idaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tatiyena titthiyānaṃ vacanaṃ sutvāpi bhikkhū eva vicārenti, tasmā na koci na labhatīti evaṃ sabbaṃ sametīti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Tiṃsāni tiṃsavantāni. Anuyogoti paṭivacanaṃ. Ehitīti āgamissati. Diṭṭhasantānenāti diṭṭhanayena, diṭṭhavidhānenāti adhippāyo. Patiṭṭhāyāti patiṭṭhaṃ labhitvā. Ṭhāneti lajjiṭṭhāne.

Regarding 'endowed with virtue': here, 'the words of an immoral person are not to be taken as a measure.' For a bhikkhunī is not sovereign over a bhikkhu; therefore, the elder spoke with reference to the procedure in the strict method. By the second elder, it is said with reference to this: 'Even if a bhikkhunī accuses without knowing, or sikkhamānās and others accuse, having heard them, the bhikkhus themselves investigate and make him act according to his acknowledgement. What fault is there in this?' By the third elder, it is said: 'Even upon hearing the words of the sectarians, the bhikkhus themselves investigate. Therefore, no fault whatsoever is found—thus, the whole matter is reconciled,' so others say. Tiṃsāni means 'possessing thirty.' Anuyoga means a reply. Ehiti means 'he will come.' Diṭṭhasantānena means by the seen method, by the seen procedure—this is the meaning. Patiṭṭhāya means having obtained a footing. Ṭhāne means in a place of shame.

Gāhanti ‘‘ahaṃ codessāmī’’ti attādānaggahaṇaṃ. Cetanāti attādānaggahaṇacetanā. Vohāroti ito, etto ca ñatvā pakāsanaṃ. Paṇṇattīti nāmapaññatti. Yā vacīghosārammaṇassa sotadvārappavattaviññāṇasantānassa anantaraṃ uppannena upaladdhapubbasaṅketena manodvāraviññāṇena viññāyati, yassā viññātattā tadattho paramattho vā aparamattho vā tatiyavāraṃ uppannena manoviññāṇena viññāyatīti nāmādīhi chahi byañjanehi pāḷiyā pakāsitā, sā ‘‘vijjamānapaññatti avijjamānapaññattī’’tiādinā chadhā ācariyehi dassitā. Tabbhāgiyabhāvo atabbhāgiyabhāvo ca nipphannadhammasseva yujjati, na paññattiyā adhikaraṇīyavatthuttā[Pg.199], adhikaraṇe pavattattā ca adhikaraṇo mañcaṭṭhe mañcopacāro viyāti ca. ‘‘Pariyāyenāti amūlakā nāmapaññatti natthi. Pariyāyamattaṃ, sabhāvato natthi. Abhidhānamattameva, abhidheyyaṃ natthī’’ti ca likhitaṃ. Idhevāti imasmiṃ eva sikkhāpade. Na sabbatthāti vivādādhikaraṇādīsu. Kasmā? Na hītiādi. Vivādādhikaraṇādīnamatthitā viya amūlakaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ natthīti. Pubbe vuttasamathehīti ‘‘yaṃ adhikicca samathā vattantī’’ti vuttasamathehīti adhippāyo. Apica sabhāvato natthīti appaṭiladdhasabhāvattā vuttaṃ. Anuppannaṃ viya viññāṇādi. Na hi vivādādīnaṃ paṇṇatti adhikaraṇaṭṭhoti paṇṇattiṃ adhikicca samathā na pavattanti, tasmā na tassā adhikaraṇīyatāti na vivādādīnaṃ paṇṇatti adhikaraṇaṭṭhoti adhippāyo. Hoti cettha –

‘They grasp’ (gāhanti) means the grasping of self-assertion, thinking, ‘I will accuse.’ ‘Intention’ (cetanā) means the intention of grasping with self-assertion. ‘Expression’ (vohāra) refers to knowing and declaring from here and there. ‘Designation’ (paññatti) is name-designation. That which is known by the mind-door consciousness, arising immediately after the continuum of ear-door consciousness that has the sound of speech as its object, and with a previously acquired convention; and because of its being known, its meaning, whether ultimate or non-ultimate, is known by the mind-consciousness arising for the third time—this is expressed in the Pāli by six terms beginning with ‘name,’ and is shown by the teachers in six ways, such as ‘existent designation, non-existent designation,’ and so on. The state of being related or unrelated is applicable only to a conditioned phenomenon, not to a designation, because it is the object of a legal issue, and it occurs in a legal issue; thus, it is a legal issue, just as there is the metaphorical usage of ‘couch’ for one who is on the couch. It is also written: ‘By way of convention, a rootless name-designation does not exist. It is merely conventional; it does not exist by its own nature. It is merely a term; there is no referent.’ ‘Here’ (idheva) means in this very training rule. ‘Not everywhere’ means not in disputes, legal issues, and so on. Why? Because of the passage beginning with `Na hi`. For a rootless legal issue does not exist in the way that disputes, legal issues, and so on, exist. ‘By the previously mentioned settlements’ means by the settlements stated as ‘those settlements that proceed regarding a legal issue’—this is the intended meaning. Furthermore, it is said they have no intrinsic nature because no intrinsic nature is acquired, like unarisen consciousness, etc. For designation is not the basis of legal issues like disputes, etc.; settlements do not proceed based on designation; therefore, it is not the subject of a legal issue. The intended meaning is that designation is not the basis of legal issues like disputes, etc. And here it is said:

‘‘Pārājikāpatti amūlikā ce,Paṇṇattimattā phalamaggadhammā;

Catutthapārājikavatthubhūtā,Paṇṇattimattāva siyuṃ tatheva.

If a pārājika offense were rootless and merely a designation, then the path and fruit states, which are the basis of the fourth pārājika, would likewise be merely designations.

‘‘Tato dvidhā maggaphalādidhammā,Siyuṃ tathātītamanāgatañca;

Paṇṇattichakkaṃ na siyā tato vā,Pariyāyato sammutivādamāhā’’ti.

Therefore, the states beginning with path and fruit, and likewise the past and the future, would be twofold. The sixfold designation would not exist. Or, for that reason, by way of an alternative explanation, he stated the discourse on convention.

Anuvadantīti akkosanti. Kiccayatāti karaṇīyatā. Taṃ katamanti ce? Apalokanakammantiādi. Kiccanti viññattisamuṭṭhāpakacittaṃ kira adhippetaṃ.

`Anuvadanti` means they revile. `Kiccayatā` means that which ought to be done. If it is asked, “What is that?” It is the act of announcement, and so on. By `kicca`, it is said, the mind that gives rise to intimation is intended.

387. Sutādīnaṃ abhāvena amūlakattanti ettha yo disvāpi ‘‘diṭṭhosi mayā’’ti vattuṃ asakkonto attano diṭṭhaniyāmeneva ‘‘sutosi mayā’’ti vadati. Tassa tasmiṃ asuddhadiṭṭhittā āpatti, idha pana yo pubbe sutvā anāpatti, pacchā taṃ vissaritvā suddhadiṭṭhi eva samāno vadati, taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Esa nayo sabbatthāti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Jeṭṭhabbatiko kākekappaṭivattā. Yadaggenāti yāvatā, yadā vā. No kappetītiādi vematikābhāvadīpanatthameva vuttanti dasseti. Tena vematikova nassarati [Pg.200] sammuṭṭho nāmāti āpajjati, taṃ na yuttaṃ tadanantarabhāvato, tasmā dutiyattheravādo pacchā vutto.

387. Regarding 'being baseless due to the absence of hearing, etc.': here, one who, even having seen, is unable to say, 'You were seen by me,' and says, 'You were heard by me,' merely by his own fixed perception of having seen—for him, there is an offense because of his impure view regarding that person. But here, this was said in reference to one who, having heard previously (for whom there is no offense), later forgets it and speaks while being of pure view. It is said, 'Others say, "This is the method in all cases."' Jeṭṭhabbatika has conduct similar to that of Kāka. `Yadaggena` means 'to what extent' or 'when'. It shows that 'he does not allow,' etc., was said merely for the purpose of indicating the absence of doubt. By this, it would follow that only one who is doubtful forgets and is called 'confused'. That is not correct, because of its being immediately subsequent. Therefore, the view of the second elder was stated afterwards.

389. Sabbatthāti sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu. Okāsakammanti okāsakaraṇaṃ. ‘‘Okāsena kammaṃ okāsakamma’’nti likhitaṃ. Asūriyaṃ passati kaññāti ettha yathā kaññā sūriyaṃ na passatīti bhavati, evaṃ ‘‘anokāsaṃ kāretvā’’ti vutte okāsaṃ na kāretvāti hoti.

389. `Sabbatthāti` means in all the commentaries. `Okāsakamma` means the making of an opportunity. It is written: “An act by means of an opportunity is `okāsakamma`.” Here, in the phrase `asūriyaṃ passati kaññā` (a maiden sees a non-sun), just as the meaning is 'the maiden does not see the sun', so too, when `anokāsaṃ kāretvā` (having caused a non-opportunity) is said, the meaning is 'not having caused an opportunity'.

Paṭhamaduṭṭhadosasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the first training rule concerning a corrupt-minded fault is concluded.

9. Dutiyaduṭṭhadosasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. The Commentary on the Second Training Rule Concerning a Corrupt-Minded Fault

391. Veḷuvaneyevāti idaṃ tehi vuttavelaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Pubbe mayaṃ āvuso sutena avocumhā’’ti ‘‘amhehi sā ussāhitā kupitehi anattamanehī’’tiādivacanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, aññabhāgassa idanti manussabhikkhubhāvato aññabhāgassa tiracchānachagalakabhāgassa idaṃ chagalakajātaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ. Aññabhāgo vā assa atthīti so tiracchānachagalakabhāvasaṅkhāto aññabhāgo assa chagalakassa atthīti svāyaṃ chagalako aññabhāgiyaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ nāma.

391. “In the Bamboo Grove” — this was said with reference to the time they spoke. The statement, “Previously, friends, we spoke by hearsay,” refers to such statements as, “She was instigated by us, who were angry and displeased.” “This belongs to another party” — from the standpoint of a human monk, this legal issue, which is of the nature of a goat, belongs to another party, that of an animal-goat. Or, “he has another party” means that this other party, designated as the state of an animal-goat, belongs to this goat. Therefore, this very goat is called a legal issue belonging to another party.

Tattha paṭimāya sarīraṃ, silāputtakassa sarīranti nidassanaṃ, paṭhamaṃ panettha nibbacanaṃ jātipadatthotivādīnaṃ matena vuttaṃ. Sā hi sāmibhāvena, niccabhāvena ca padhānattā sattisabhāve ṭhitā. Tabbiparītakattā byattākati jātiyo tu padattho iti imassa suttassa vasena dutiyaṃ nibbacanaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Nāmakaraṇasaññāya ādhāroti ettha nāmameva nāmakaraṇaṃ. Nāmaṃ karontānaṃ saññā nāmakaraṇasaññā, tassā. Manussajātiko chagalakajātiādhāro nāma. Na hi taṃ nāmaṃ kacchapalomaṃ viya anādhāranti adhippāyo. Taṃ pana chagalakassa dabboti dinnanāmaṃ ‘‘deso’’ti vuccati. Tasmā theraṃ amūlakenātiādinā aññampi vatthuṃ therassa lissati silissati vohāramatteneva, na atthato, īsakaṃ allīyatīti lesoti adhippāyo. Yasmā desalesā atthato ninnānākaraṇā, tasmā ‘‘kañcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ upādāyā’’ti uddharitvā ‘‘dasa lesā jātileso’’tiādi vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Yathā nidāne[Pg.201], evaṃ sikkhāpadapaññattiyampi mātikāyampi ayamevattho. Yasmā aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassāti chagalakassa. Kañcidesaṃ lesamattaṃ upādāyāti dabboti nāmaṃ upādāyāti ayamattho aṭṭhuppattivaseneva āvibhūto, tasmā na vibhatto. Kiñca bhiyyo aniyamattā. Na hi mettiyabhūmajakānaṃ viya sabbesampi chagalakameva aññabhāgiyaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ hoti. Aññaṃ gomahiṃ sādikampi hoti, na ca mettiyabhūmajakā viya sabbepi nāmalesamattameva upādiyanti. Aññampi jātilesādiṃ upādiyanti, tasmā aniyamattā ca yathāvuttanayena na vibhattaṃ. Kiñca bhiyyo tathā vutte chagalakasseva aññabhāgiyatā sambhavati, na aññassa, yena sova dassito. Leso ca nāma lesova, na jātiādi, yena sova dassitoti evaṃ micchāgāhappasaṅgato ca tathā na vibhatto.

Herein, the body of an image and the body of a stone doll are examples. The first etymology here is stated according to the view of those who hold that 'species is the meaning of the word'. For that species, due to being primary through its nature as owner and its nature as permanent, is established in the state of potentiality. It should be known that the second etymology is stated by means of this discourse which says, "The individual, the form, and the species are the meaning of the word," because it is contrary to that. In the phrase 'a basis for the perception of naming,' the name itself is the naming. The perception of those who make a name is the perception of naming; of that. One of the human species is called the basis for the goat species. Indeed, that name is not without a basis, like the hair of a tortoise—this is the meaning. But that name given to the goat, "Dabba," is called 'desa' (a part). Therefore, regarding the Elder, by the phrase 'groundlessly,' etc., another matter clings to the Elder by way of conventional speech only; in terms of meaning, it does not adhere even slightly. Therefore, it is called 'lesa' (a trace)—this is the meaning. Since 'desa' and 'lesa' are not different in meaning, it should be known that having extracted the phrase "taking up some part as a mere trace," it is said, "desalesa (part-trace), jātilesa (species-trace)," and so on. Just as in the origin story, so too in the laying down of the training rule and in the matrix, this is the very same meaning. Because 'of a legal issue belonging to another category' refers to the goat. The meaning "taking up the name 'Dabba'" for "taking up some part as a mere trace" became manifest only by way of the arising of the case; therefore, it was not analyzed. Furthermore, it was not analyzed due to its indeterminacy. For not for everyone is the aññabhāgiya legal issue only about a goat, as it was for the Mettiyā and Bhūmajaka monks. Other animals, such as a cow or a buffalo, can also be involved. And not all monks, like the Mettiyā and Bhūmajaka, take up merely a trace of a name. They take up other things, such as a trace of species, etc. Therefore, also due to this indeterminacy, it was not analyzed in the aforementioned manner. Furthermore, if it were stated in such a way that only the goat is indicated, then the state of being aññabhāgiya would be possible only for the goat, not for another. And if it were stated in such a way that only it is indicated, it would imply that a trace is only a trace, not species, etc. Thus, also to avoid the consequence of wrong grasping, it was not analyzed in that way.

393. Aññabhāgiyassāti cuditakato aññassa. Adhikaraṇassāti manussassa vā amanussassa vā tiracchānagatassa vāti evaṃ vattabbaṃ. Evañhi vutte manussādīnaṃyeva jātilesādayo vuttā honti, aññathā catunnaṃ adhikaraṇānaṃ te āpajjanti ‘‘adhikaraṇassa kañci desaṃ lesamatta’’nti sāmivacanaṃ pubbaṅgamaṃ uddiṭṭhattāti ce? Na, nāmassa viya jātiādīnaṃ manussādīnaṃ ādhārabhāvaniyamasambhavato, adhikaraṇabhāvāniyamatoti vuttaṃ hoti. Niyame ca sati jātiyā ādhāro jāti, liṅgassa ca liṅgaṃ, āpattiyā ca āpanno ādhāro, viruddhānampi asamādinnānampi pattacīvarānaṃ sāmiko ādhāro, yena adhikaraṇasaṅkhyaṃ gaccheyyāti āpajjatīti adhikaraṇassāti padaṃ abhājetabbameva bhaveyyāti na uddharitabbaṃ siyā, uddharitabbaṃ. Tasmā ‘‘adhikaraṇanti vacanasāmaññato’’tiādi sabbaṃ vattabbaṃ. Apākaṭā ito aññatra dassitaṭṭhānābhāvato. Jānitabbā ca vinayadharehi yasmā aññathā parivāre ‘‘vivādādhikaraṇaṃ catunnaṃ adhikaraṇānaṃ vivādādhikaraṇaṃ bhajatī’’tiādinā nayena anāgataṭṭhāne ‘‘kasmā’’ti vutte kāraṇaṃ na paññāyeyya, tasmā tesaṃ tabbhāgiyatā ca aññabhāgiyatā ca jānitabbā vinayadharehi. Tāsu hi viññātāsu vivādādhikaraṇaṃ vivādādhikaraṇaṃ bhajati. Kasmā? Tabbhāgiyattā. Itaraṃ na bhajati aññabhāgiyattāti sukhakāraṇato paññāyanti, tasmā vacanasāmaññato laddhaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ nissāyātiādi. Tattha [Pg.202] yasmā āpattaññabhāgiyaṃ mahāvisayaṃ, itarehi asadisaniddesañca, tasmā taṃ adhikaraṇapariyāpannampi samānaṃ visuṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘āpattaññabhāgiyaṃ vā hotī’’ti. Adhikaraṇapariyāpannattā ca ‘‘adhikaraṇaññabhāgiyaṃ vā’’ti ettha vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Tatthāpi mahāvisayattā, mātikāyaṃ āgatattā ca paṭhamaṃ aññabhāgiyatā vuttā, pacchā tabbhāgiyatāti veditabbā. Tattha yasmā adhikaraṇaññabhāgiyavacanena atthāpattinayena siddhaṃ. Adhikaraṇaṃ tabbhāgiyaṃ, tasmā ‘‘adhikaraṇaṃ tabbhāgiyaṃ hotī’’ti evaṃ uddesaṃ akatvā ‘‘kathaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ adhikaraṇassa tabbhāgiyaṃ hotī’’ti pucchāpubbaṅgamaniddeso kato. Tatthāpi āpattādhikaraṇassa aññabhāgiyatā kiñcāpi pārājikena anuddhaṃsibhādhikārattā pārājikānaṃyeva vasena vuttā, atha kho sesāpattikkhandhavasenāpi veditabbā. Yā ca sā codanā ‘‘asuko nāma bhikkhu saṅghādisesaṃ ajjhāpajjanto diṭṭho hotī’’tiādikā, tattha ‘‘saṅghādisese thullaccayadiṭṭhi hoti, dubbhāsite saṅghādisesadiṭṭhi hotī’’ti evamādikā vinaye apakataññutāya, taṃtaṃvatthusarikkhatāya vā vuttāti veditabbā. Sabbatthāpi ‘‘pārājikadiṭṭhi hotī’’ti na vuttaṃ. Tathāsaññino anāpattito. ‘‘Tabbhāgiyavicāraṇāya’’nti tabbhāgiyapadaniddese aññabhāgiyatāyapi niddiṭṭhattā vuttaṃ.

393. Herein, 'belonging to another party' means of someone other than the accused. 'Of a legal issue' should be stated as pertaining to a human, a non-human, or an animal. For if stated this way, species, traces, and so on, are mentioned only in relation to humans and others; otherwise, they would apply to all four types of legal issues. If one were to say: 'Is it because the genitive case—"of a legal issue, some part, a mere trace"—is stated first?' No. This is because, just as for a name, it is possible to determine the state of being a basis for species and so on in relation to humans and others, and also because the state of being a legal issue is to be determined, it is said. And when there is determination, the basis of species is species, the basis of gender is gender, the basis of an offense is the one who has committed the offense, and the owner is the basis even for conflicting or unaccepted bowls and robes. It would follow that it would be counted as a legal issue on that basis. Therefore, the term 'of a legal issue' should indeed not be analyzed and should not be extracted. However, it should be extracted. Therefore, all such as '"a legal issue", by the generality of the term' should be stated. They are not clear, because there is no place shown other than this. And they should be known by the experts in Vinaya. Because otherwise, in the Parivāra, according to the method beginning 'A dispute-legal-issue, among the four legal issues, is classified as a dispute-legal-issue,' when 'Why?' is asked in a future context, the reason would not be apparent. Therefore, their 'belonging to that category' and 'belonging to another category' should be known by the experts in Vinaya. Indeed, when these are known, a dispute-legal-issue is classified as a dispute-legal-issue. Why? Because it belongs to that category. The other kind is not so classified because it belongs to another category. This is understood for a simple reason. Therefore, it should be known that it is based on the legal issue obtained by the generality of the term, and so on. Among these, because an offense belonging to another category has a wide scope and its explanation is dissimilar to the others, therefore, even though it is included under legal issues, it is stated separately as 'or it is an offense belonging to another category.' And because it is included under legal issues, it should be understood that it is stated here as 'or a legal issue belonging to another category.' Even among these two, it should be known that due to its wide scope and its appearance in the matrix, 'belonging to another category' is stated first, and 'belonging to that category' is stated afterward. Here, because a legal issue belonging to that category is established by the method of implication through the statement 'a legal issue belonging to another category,' therefore, instead of making the statement 'a legal issue belongs to that category' as an introduction, the exposition is made with a preceding question: 'How is a legal issue one belonging to that category of a legal issue?' Even there, the 'belonging to another category' of an offense-legal-issue, although stated in terms of pārājika offenses because it is the section on non-destruction by a pārājika, should also be understood in terms of the remaining classes of offenses. And that accusation, such as, 'A certain monk was seen committing a saṅghādisesa offense,' and so on—here, statements like 'in a saṅghādisesa, there is the view of a thullaccaya; in a wrongly spoken word, there is the view of a saṅghādisesa,' and so on, should be understood as stated in the Vinaya due to being unskilled or due to similarity in the respective cases. In all cases, it is not said, 'there is the view of a pārājika.' This is because for one with such a perception, there is no offense. The phrase 'For the investigation of that which belongs to that category' is stated because in the exposition of the term 'belonging to that category', 'belonging to another category' is also indicated.

Vatthusabhāgatāyāti anuvādavatthusabhāgatāyāti attho. Aññathā ‘‘catasso vipattiyo’’ti vacanaṃ virujjheyya. Sabhāvasarikkhāsarikkhato cāti sabhāvena sadisāsadisato. Tattha jhānādivatthuvisabhāgatāyapi sabhāvasarikkhatāya uttarimanussadhammapārājikāpatti tasseva tabbhāgiyāva hoti. Tathā vatthuvasena anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ, kiccādhikaraṇañca pāṭekkaṃ catubbidhampi vuttaññabhāgiyaṃ na jātaṃ, tasmā tadaññabhāgiyatāya viditāya tabbhāgiyatā pāriyesayuttiyā avuttāpi sijjhatīti katvā ‘‘aññabhāgiyameva paṭhamaṃ niddiṭṭha’’ntipi vattuṃ yujjati. Ekaṃsena tabbhāgiyaṃ na hotīti sarikkhavasena arahattaṃ āpatti anāpattīti vivādasabbhāvato abyākatabhāvena vivādādhikaraṇassapi aññabhāgiyaṃ siyā, pāḷiyaṃ āpattādhikaraṇassa vuttattā evaṃ vuttaṃ, ādito paṭṭhāyāti ‘‘aññabhāgiyassa adhikaraṇassā’’ti ito paṭṭhāya. ‘‘Methunarāgena manussaviggaho dosenātiādinā [Pg.203] sarikkhato cā’’ti likhitaṃ. Taṃ vatthuvisabhāgatāya eva siddhaṃ. Ayaṃ pana vatthusabhāgatāyapi sati āpattisabhāgatā sarikkhatoti no takkoti ca, ekasmimpi hi vatthusmiṃ āpattibhedo hotīti ācariyo. Parato vuttanayena veditabbanti sambandho.

By 'due to similarity of the subject matter' is meant due to similarity of the subject matter of the accusation. Otherwise, the statement 'four failures' would be contradicted. And 'due to similarity and dissimilarity in nature' means because of being similar or dissimilar in nature. Therein, even with the dissimilarity of the subject matter, such as jhāna, etc., due to the similarity of nature, the pārājika offense of claiming a superior human state belongs to that very same category. Similarly, by way of the subject matter, neither a legal issue based on accusation nor a legal issue based on procedure, each being fourfold, has become what is called 'belonging to another category'. Therefore, since its nature of belonging to another category is known, its nature of belonging to its own category, even though unstated, is established by the logic of searching. For this reason, it is also proper to say, 'Only that which belongs to another category was pointed out first.' Regarding 'it is not exclusively of that category': because of the possibility of a dispute—'is it an offense or not an offense?'—concerning Arahantship, by way of similarity, a legal issue based on dispute could also belong to another category due to its indeterminate nature. Because the legal issue based on an offense is stated in the Pāḷi, it is stated thus. 'Starting from the beginning' means starting from this phrase, 'of the legal issue belonging to another category.' It is written: 'Sexual intercourse is due to lust; killing a human is due to hatred,' and so on, and 'due to similarity.' That is established precisely by the dissimilarity of the subject matter. But this is our reasoning: even when there is similarity of subject matter, there is similarity by way of the offense's nature. Indeed, even in a single subject matter, there is a difference in offenses, so says the teacher. The connection should be made thus: 'It should be understood according to the method to be stated hereafter.'

‘‘Kiccameva kiccādhikaraṇa’’nti vuttattā saṅghakammānametaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Kammalakkhaṇanti kammānaṃ sabhāvaṃ. Taṃ nissāyāti pubbeva hi saṃvidhāya saṅgho kammaṃ karoti. Atha vā purimaṃ purimanti parivāsaukkhepaniyādīni saṅghakammāni nissāya abbhānaosāraṇādi uppannanti katvā vuttaṃ. Tasmā kiñcāpi saṅghakammameva kiccādhikaraṇaṃ, tathāpi sesaviseso labbhatīti dasseti.

Because it is said, 'The procedure itself is a legal issue based on procedure,' this is a designation for the formal acts of the Saṅgha. 'The characteristic of an act' means the inherent nature of acts. Regarding 'relying on that': for, having arranged it beforehand, the Saṅgha performs the formal act. Or alternatively, regarding 'the preceding, the preceding': it is said having considered that, relying on preceding formal acts of the Saṅgha, such as probation (parivāsa), suspension (ukkhepaniya), and so forth, subsequent acts such as rehabilitation (abbhāna), reinstatement (osāraṇa), etc., have arisen. Therefore, it shows that although a formal act of the Saṅgha is itself a legal issue based on procedure, nevertheless, a further distinction is obtained.

394. Atthato ekaṃ, tasmā desassa atthamavatvā ‘‘leso’’tiādi vuttaṃ kira.

394. In meaning, it is the same. Therefore, it is said that 'a pretext,' and so forth, was stated without explaining the meaning of the passage.

395. Savatthukaṃ katvāti puggalassa upari āropetvā khattiyādibhāvena ekajātikopi dīgharassakāḷakodātādīnaṃ diṭṭhasutaparisaṅkitānaṃ vasena aññabhāgiyatā, dīghaṃ khattiyaṃ ajjhācarantaṃ disvā rassādikhattiyapaññattiyā ādhārabhāvato jātilesena codeti, ekaṃ vā khattiyaṃ ajjhācarantaṃ disvā tato visiṭṭhaññabhāgabhūtaṃ khattiyaṃ jātilesaṃ gahetvā ‘‘khattiyo diṭṭho tvaṃ khattiyosī’’ti codeti diṭṭhādiaññabhāgena. Ettha ca ‘‘dīghādayo, diṭṭhādayo ca jātināmādīnaṃ vatthubhūtattā adhikaraṇa’’nti likhitaṃ. Taṃ ‘‘adhikaraṇabhāvāniyamato’’ti vuttadosaṃ nātikkamati, aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘khattiyajātipaññattiyā ādhāravasena adhikaraṇatā ca veditabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Tampi nāmagottato aññissā nāmagottapaññattiyā nāma kassaci abhāvato na sabbasādhāraṇaṃ, tasmā ‘‘adhikaraṇassā’’ti paduddhāraṇaṃ adhikaraṇacatukkadassanatthaṃ, taṃ samānavacanadassanatthanti no takkoti. Tattha dīghādino vā diṭṭhādino vāti ettha dīghāditā, diṭṭhāditā ca aññabhāgo, yo cuditako itarassa viseso yato aññoti vuccati.

395. Regarding 'having made it have a basis,' this refers to the state of being a different aspect, which comes about by attributing to a person—even if of the same caste—characteristics such as being tall, short, dark, or fair, which are seen, heard, or suspected, by way of being a Khattiya, and so forth. For instance, having seen a tall Khattiya transgressing, one accuses him by way of a caste-pretext, because the designation 'Khattiya' (which also includes short, etc.) serves as the basis. Or, having seen one Khattiya transgressing, one takes the caste-pretext related to another Khattiya who is a distinguished and different part from that one, and accuses him by way of a different aspect of what is seen, etc., saying, 'A Khattiya was seen; you are a Khattiya.' And here it is written: 'Tallness, etc., and what is seen, etc., are a legal issue because they are the basis for caste, name, and so forth.' This does not overcome the fault stated as 'due to the non-invariability of being a legal issue.' In the commentary, it is said: 'And the state of being a legal issue should be understood by way of being the basis for the designation of the Khattiya caste.' Even that is not universally applicable, because for anyone there is no designation of name and clan other than by name and clan. Therefore, the extraction of the word 'of the legal issue' is for the purpose of showing the four legal issues; it is not our reasoning that it is for the purpose of showing a synonymous word. Therein, regarding 'of tallness, etc., or of what is seen, etc.,' here, the state of being tall, etc., and the state of being seen, etc., are a different aspect. This different aspect is a distinction of the accused from the other, from which it is called 'different.'

399. Lahukaṃ āpattinti pārājikato lahukāpatti saṅghādisesādi. Teneva ante taṃ dassentena ‘‘bhikkhu saṅghādisesaṃ ajjhāpajjanto [Pg.204] diṭṭho hotī’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Āpattilesopi kimatthaṃ jātilesādayo viya na vitthāritoti ce? Tathā asambhavatoti veditabbaṃ.

399. A minor offense means an offense lighter than a pārājika, such as a saṅghādisesa, and so forth. For that very reason, at the end, by way of demonstrating this, it is said: 'A bhikkhu is seen incurring a saṅghādisesa offense,' and so forth. If it is asked why the offense-pretext is not elaborated upon like the caste-pretext, and so forth, it should be understood that this is because it is not possible in that way.

400. Sāṭakapatto sarīraṭṭhapatto. Āpattiyāti pārājikāpattiyā aññabhāgiyaṃ saṅghādisesādi, adhikaraṇañca āpattipaññattiyā. ‘‘Leso nāma āpattibhāgo’’ti vuttattā āpattibhāvaleso vuttoti veditabbo, tasmā pārājikāpattito aññabhāgiyassa āpattipaññattiyā ādhāraṇaṭṭhena ‘‘adhikaraṇa’’nti saṅkhyaṃ gatassa saṅghādisesādino āpattinikāyassa āpattibhāvalesaṃ gahetvā codanā āpattilesacodanāti veditabbā.

400. Sāṭakapatto means sarīraṭṭhapatto (a bowl related to the body). (There is also a reading pariyaṭṭhapattaṃ, meaning an earthen bowl). In this context, āpattiyā refers to that which is a different part from a Pārājika offense, such as a Saṅghādisesa offense, etc., and it is also a legal question concerning the designation of an offense. Because it is said, "A 'pretext' (lesa) is a part of an offense (āpattibhāga)," it should be understood that the pretext which is the state of being an offense is spoken of. Therefore, an accusation made by taking the pretext which is the state of being an offense of the group of offenses such as Saṅghādisesa, etc.—which, being a different part from a Pārājika offense, has come to be called a 'legal question' (adhikaraṇa) by way of being the basis for the designation of an offense—should be known as an 'offense-pretext accusation' (āpattilesacodanā).

408. Anāpatti tathāsaññī codeti vā codāpeti vāti āpattaññabhāgiyacodanāyameva, na aññattha. Ettāvatā paṭhamaduṭṭhadose vuttavicaraṇāya saṃsanditaṃ hoti, taṃ idha kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? Kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyā vacanato. Vuttañhi ‘‘tattha idha ca āpattaññabhāgiyacodanāya tathāsaññinopi anāpattī’’ti.

408. In the phrase, "There is no offense for one who, perceiving it as such, accuses or causes another to accuse," this applies only to an accusation concerning a different part of an offense, not to another accusation. By this much, it is connected with the discussion stated in the first training rule on malicious intent. If one were to ask, "How is that apparent here?" It is apparent from the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī. For indeed, it was said: "There and here, in the case of an accusation concerning a different part of an offense, there is no offense even for one perceiving it as such."

Aññābhāgiyasikkhaṃ yo, neva sikkhati yuttito. Gacche vinayaviññūhi, aññabhāgiyatañca

Whatever monk does not properly practice the training that has the fruit of Arahantship as its part, that monk should, in the view of those skilled in the Vinaya, reach the state of being one of another faction.

Soti.

Thus.

Dutiyaduṭṭhadosasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the second training rule concerning malicious intent is concluded.

10. Paṭhamasaṅghabhedasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. The commentary on the first training rule concerning schism in the Saṅgha.

409. ‘‘Vajjaṃ na phuseyyā’’ti ca pāṭho.

409. There is also the reading: "He should not encounter a fault."

410. Tesaṃ anurūpājānanato asabbaññū assa. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabba’’nti (mahāva. 204) vuttattā paṭikkhittameva. Tikoṭiparisuddhanti parassa pāpapasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na paṭiccakammanivāraṇatthaṃ koṭīhīti ākārehi. Parisuddhanti vimuttaṃ. Dasahi lesehi uddissa kataṃ samaṇā paribhuñjanti, assamaṇā imeti sāsanassa garahabhāvo āgaccheyya[Pg.205], garahapaccayā loko vā apuññaṃ ariyūpavādaṃ pasaveyya, tehi vimuttanti attho. Vāguranti migajālaṃ. Attano atthāya vātiādinā paresaṃ atthāya kate kappiyabhāvaṃ dassetvā bhikkhūnañca aññesañca atthāya kate taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘matānaṃ petakiccatthāyā’’tiādimāha.

410. Because of not knowing what is suitable for them, he would not be omniscient. Because it is said, "Monks, one without a lodging should not enter upon the rains residence" (Mahāvagga 204), it is indeed prohibited. The phrase "pure in three aspects" (tikoṭiparisuddhaṃ) is said to prevent another's doubt that it might be an occasion for demerit; it is not said to prevent an action that arises from a cause. Here, `koṭīhi` means by aspects. `Parisuddhaṃ` means freed. If ascetics consume meat that was prepared having been specified with the ten traces, a state of being blamed would come to the Dispensation, with the thought, "These are not true ascetics." Or, on account of that blame, the world might generate demerit, the slandering of noble ones. The meaning of "freed from them" (tehi vimuttaṃ) is being free from those causes for generating demerit. `Vāgura` means a deer-net. By the phrase beginning "for one's own benefit," having shown the permissibility of what is prepared for the benefit of others, in order to show that same permissibility for what is prepared for the benefit of monks and others, he stated the phrase beginning "for the sake of funeral rites for the dead."

Yaṃ yaṃ hītiādi tassa kāraṇassa dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Puna pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ atthāya kataṃ na kappatīti vuttanti kira dhammasiritthero. Gaṇṭhipade ‘‘bhikkhūnameva suddhānaṃ atthāya kataṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Aparehi pana ‘‘matānaṃ petakiccatthāyātiādinā vuttepi kappati, bhikkhūnaṃyeva atthāyāti iminā ‘bhikkhūnampi datvā mayaṃ bhuñjissāmā’ti katampi vuttaṃ. Puna ‘pañcasu ekaṃ uddissakataṃ itaresaṃ na kappatī’ti dassanatthaṃ ‘pañcasu hi sahadhammikesūtiādi vutta’nti vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Aññatarasmiṃ pana gaṇṭhipade ‘‘amhākanti ca rājayuttādīnanti ca vutte vaṭṭatīti vatvā ‘tumhāka’nti avatvā ‘petakiccatthāyāti vuttepi vaṭṭatī’ti ca dassetvā sabbattha vuttānaṃ, ādisaddena saṅgahitānañca lakkhaṇaṃ ṭhapentena ‘bhikkhūnaṃyevā’tiādi vuttaṃ. Tattha ‘bhikkhūnaṃ uddiṭṭhe evāti adhippāyenā’ti vuttaṃ. Na ‘tumhākaṃ, amhākañcāti vutte anāpattī’ti dassanatthaṃ. Kasmā? Missakavārassa abhāvā. Lakkhaṇaṃ nāma vuttānaṃ, vuttasadisānañca hoti. ‘Sace petakiccatthāyāti vuttaṭṭhāne bhikkhūnaṃ bhojanaṃ sandhāya karontī’ti vadanti mahāaṭṭhakathāyañca ‘tasmiṃ vāre ca na tumhākanti vutte vaṭṭatī’ti vuttattā. Teneva idhāpi ‘petakiccatthāya, maṅgalādīnaṃ vā atthāya katepi eseva nayo’ti pubbe vuttatthavasena vuttaṃ. ‘Avadhāraṇatthena missake vaṭṭatī’ti ce? ‘Kappiyamaṃsassa hi paṭiggahaṇe āpatti natthī’ti vacanena akappiyapaṭiggahaṇe āpattīti āpannaṃ, ‘tañca gahetabbaṃ siyā’ti paṭikkhipitabbā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ sundaraṃ viya dissati, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Yattha cāti bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya katepi. Tamatthaṃ āvi kātuṃ ‘‘sace panā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Ettha pana ‘‘bhikkhunīnaṃ dukkaṭaṃ, itaresaṃ daṇḍakammavatthū’’ti vadanti. Kappaṃ nirayamhīti asaṅkhyeyyakappaṃ. Vivaṭṭaṭṭhāyikāleyeva saṅghabhedo hotīti. Kappanti āyukappaṃ.

The phrase `yaṃ yaṃ hi`, and so forth, is stated for the purpose of showing that reason. Furthermore, the Elder Dhammasiri reportedly said: 'Meat prepared for the sake of five fellow practitioners is not allowable.' In the Gaṇṭhipada, it is written: 'Meat prepared for the sake of only pure monks (i.e., unmixed with novices) is not allowable.' Others, however, say: 'Even when it is said, “for the sake of the dead, for funeral rites,” and so on, it is allowable. By this phrase, “for the sake of monks only,” it is also stated regarding meat prepared with the thought, “Having given to the monks, we shall eat.”' Furthermore, it is said that they say: 'To show this meaning—“Meat prepared having specified one among five fellow practitioners is not allowable for the others”—the passage beginning with `pañcasu hi sahadhammikesu` is stated.' In another Gaṇṭhipada, however, it is stated: 'Having stated, “When it is said, ‘for us,’ and ‘for royal officials and so on,’ it is allowable,” and having shown, “Without saying, ‘for you (venerable sirs),’ even when it is said, ‘for the sake of funeral rites,’ it is allowable,” the Commentator, establishing the characteristic of those who are mentioned everywhere and those included by the word `ādi` (etc.), stated the passage beginning with `bhikkhūnaṃyeva`.' Therein, it is stated that this was said with the intention: 'only in the case of meat specified for monks.' It was not stated to show that 'there is no offense when it is said, “for you” or “for us.”' Why? Because of the absence of a mixed case. A characteristic, indeed, applies to those who are mentioned and to those who are similar to what is mentioned. They say, 'If, in a situation where it is said, “for the sake of funeral rites,” they prepare it intending it as a meal for the monks,' because it is stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, 'And in that case, when it is said, “Not for you,” it is allowable.' For that very reason, here also it is stated according to the meaning previously given: 'Even when meat is prepared for the sake of funeral rites, or for the sake of auspicious ceremonies and so on, this same principle applies.' If one should say, 'Because of the emphatic meaning, it is allowable in a mixed case,' [that view] should be rejected. For it is said: 'By the statement, “Indeed, in receiving allowable meat there is no offense,” the meaning is arrived at that in receiving unallowable meat there is an offense, and that [meaning] should be accepted.' That appears sound, but it should be accepted only after investigation. Regarding the phrase `yattha ca`, this means: even when meat is prepared for the sake of monks. To make that meaning clear, the passage beginning with `sace pana` is stated. Here, however, they say: 'For nuns, it is a dukkaṭa offense; for others, it is a matter for disciplinary action.' 'A kappa in hell' means an incalculable kappa. Schism in the Saṅgha occurs only during the period of thriving. 'Kappa' here means a lifespan-eon.

411. Kusalanti khemaṃ. Āpattibhayā katā lajjīhīti ettha āpattibhayena avassaṃ ārocentīti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘lajjī rakkhissatī’’ti (visuddhi. 1.42; pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) porāṇavacanassānurūpato [Pg.206] ‘‘aññehi lajjīhī’’ti vuttaṃ. Alajjissapi anārocentassa āpattiyeva ‘‘ye passanti ye suṇantī’’ti vacanato.

411. "Kusalaṃ" means safety. Here, in the phrase "by the scrupulous who are motivated by fear of an offense," in order to show that "they certainly inform out of fear of an offense," and in accordance with the ancient saying, "The scrupulous one will guard," it is said, "by other scrupulous ones." For one who does not inform, even about a shameless person, there is an offense indeed, because of the statement, "those who see, those who hear."

416. Asamanubhāsantassāti kammakārake kattuniddeso, samanubhāsanakammaṃ akariyamānassāti attho. Odissa anuññāto nāma ummattakakhittacittavedanaṭṭādiko ‘‘anāpatti ādikammikassā’’ti ariṭṭhasikkhāpade āgatattā atthīti ce? Yampītiādi. Sā panesā anāpatti. So vuccatīti tattha āgatopi sakammabyāvaṭopi evaṃ vuccati. Etenupāyenāti asamanubhāsantassa ca ādikammikassa ca vuttatthavasena. Ṭhapetvā ariṭṭhasikkhāpadanti tattha ādikammikapadābhāvā.

416. Regarding "asamanubhāsantassa," it is an indication of the agent in the objective case; the meaning is "for one to whom the act of admonition is not being performed." If one should say, "Is there not one who is specifically permitted—namely one who is insane, mentally deranged, afflicted by pain, and so on—since it is stated in the Ariṭṭha training rule, 'There is no offense for the initial perpetrator'?" The reply is "Yampi...", etc. But that is a non-offense. Regarding "so vuccati" (he is so called): even one who has arrived there and one who is occupied with their own affairs is spoken of thus. "By this method" means: by the power of the stated meaning for both one who is not being admonished and for the initial perpetrator. The phrase "excepting the Ariṭṭha training rule" is stated because the term "initial perpetrator" is absent there.

Tivaṅgikanti ettha vācāya eva paṭinissajjantassa oṭṭhacalanādikāyaviññatti hoti, tasmā duvidhampi viññattiṃ kathentassa hoti. Vacībhedaṃ kātuṃ asakkontassa kāyavikāraṃ karontassa anāpattiyā bhavitabbaṃ. Kasmā? Tivaṅgesu ekassa parihīnattā, tasmā tivaṅgabhāvo āpattiyā, aṅgahānibhāvo anāpattiyāti gahetabbaṃ. Ettha siyā – yadi aṅgahānibhāvena anāpatti, evaṃ santepi vikāraṃ akatvā citteneva vissajjentassa anāpattiyā bhavitabbanti? Taṃ na, kasmā? Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘kāyavikāraṃ vā vacībhedaṃ vā akarontasseva pana āpajjanato akiriya’’nti hi vuttaṃ, ‘‘cittaṃ vā anuppādentassa vā’’ti na vuttaṃ, tasmā cittañca nāma viññattipaṭibaddhaṃ evāti visuṃ aṅgabhāveneva vuttattā jānitabbanti ce? Taṃ na, dvinnaṃyeva akiriyāti, tasmā cittena vissajjentassāpi āpatti viya dissati, upaparikkhitvā gahetabbaṃ. Tattha ‘‘akusalacitta’’nti vuttanti ce? ‘‘Cittabāhullato vutta’’nti vadanti. Tepi kira bāhullato vadanti.

Here, regarding the term `tivaṅgika`, for a monk who renounces by speech alone, there is bodily intimation, such as the movement of the lips; therefore, it is the case for one who makes both kinds of intimation. For one who is unable to make a verbal utterance but makes a bodily gesture, there should be no offense. Why? Because of the deficiency of one of the three factors. Therefore, it should be understood that the state of having three factors pertains to an offense, and the state of a deficient factor pertains to no offense. Here, an objection might be raised: 'If there is no offense due to the deficiency of a factor, then for one who renounces by mind alone without making a gesture, there should also be no offense.' That is not so. Why? Because in the commentary it is said, 'For one who does not make a bodily gesture or a verbal utterance, there is non-action with respect to incurring an offense'; but it is not said, 'or for one who does not arouse the mind.' If one were to argue, 'Therefore, it should be known that what is called “mind” is indeed connected to intimation, because it is spoken of as a separate factor,' that is also not so. The non-action pertains to only two factors. Therefore, for one who renounces by mind alone, it appears as if there is an offense; this should be accepted after examination. Therein, if one should say, 'It is said “unwholesome mind,”' they say, 'It is said due to the abundance of mind-states.' Indeed, those teachers too speak from the perspective of abundance.

Paṭhamasaṅghabhedasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the first training rule concerning schism in the Saṅgha is concluded.

11. Dutiyasaṅghabhedasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Commentary on the Second Training Rule concerning Schism in the Saṅgha

422. Saññīti saññino.

422. Saññīti means saññino (those who are percipient).

Dutiyasaṅghabhedasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the second training rule concerning schism in the Saṅgha is concluded.

12. Dubbacasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

12. Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Being Difficult to Admonish

424. Pataṃ [Pg.207] patitaṃ vivari vivaṭṭayi. Ekato ussāreti ca giḷitato ṭhapeti ca. Ekapaṃsuthupakanadīsaṅkhaṃ dīghamūlakapaṇṇasevālaṃ sevālaṃ daṇḍisipippariṃ paṇakaṃ pesiṭṭhiṃ nissāreti. Tilabījakanti sukhumamūlapaṇṇakaṃ hutvā udakapiṭṭhe pattharikaṃ udakapappaṭakaṃ nissāreti.

424. One uncovers and turns over every fallen thing. One also gathers them together and also places them together. One removes a single heap of dust mixed with a little mud, moss with long roots and full of leaves, the red-colored stalked plant, the water-plant called 'narapasī', moss, and moss with a small base. Here, in the word tilabījaka, it means one removes a thin film on the water that, having fine roots and fine leaves, is spread on the surface of the water.

425-6. ‘‘Dubbaccajātiko’’tipi paṭhanti. Apadānenāti purāṇakammena. ‘‘Kiṃ pubbepi mayaṃ evarūpaṃ karomātiādinā ekūnavīsatī’’ti mahāpaccariyaṃ kira vuttaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyañca anumānasuttaṭṭhakathāyañca ‘‘soḷasavatthukā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ sameti.

Some also read 'of a nature difficult to admonish' (dubbaccajātiko). Here, 'by a past deed' (apadānena) means by a past action. It is said that in the Mahāpaccariya it is stated, 'Did we also in the past do such a thing?' and so on, for nineteen topics. And in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā and the Anumānasutta commentary, 'sixteen grounds' is stated; that agrees.

Dubbacasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning being difficult to admonish is concluded.

13. Kuladūsakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

13. The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Corrupting Families

431. Na kevalaṃ vihāro eva kīṭāgiri, sopi gāmo ‘‘kīṭāgiri’’cceva vuccati. Gāmañhi sandhāya parato ‘‘na assajipunabbasukehi bhikkhūhi kīṭāgirismiṃ vatthabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Ekasaṃvacchare dvikkhattuṃ vassati kira, taṃ sandhāya ‘‘dvīhi meghehī’’ti vuttaṃ. Samadhikanti cha jane sandhāya. Akatavatthunti navaṃ aṭṭhuppattiṃ. ‘‘Jābhisumanādigacchaṃ allānaṃ haritānaṃ evā’’ti likhitaṃ. Bhūtagāmabījagāmabhedato panesa bhedo. Vatatthāyāti vatiatthāya. Yaṃkiñcīti sodakaṃ vā nirudakaṃ vā. Ārāmādiatthāyāti vanarājikādiatthāya. Mālāvaccharopanaṃ kuladūsakaṃyeva sandhāya, ganthanādisabbaṃ na sandhāya vuttanti. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? Taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘buddhena dhammo’’tiādi. ‘‘Āveḷaṃ ābiḷa’’ntipi pāṭho.

431. Not only the monastery is Kīṭāgiri; that village is also called 'Kīṭāgiri'. Indeed, referring to the village, it is stated later: 'The monks Assaji and Punabbasuka should not dwell in Kīṭāgiri.' It is said that it rains twice in one year; referring to this, 'by two clouds' is stated. 'More than that' (samadhikaṃ) is said referring to six people. 'Unmade ground' (akatavatthu) means a new occasion for an offense. It is written: 'A bush of jasmine and so on, moist and green indeed.' This distinction, however, is from the division of living plants and seed plants. 'For the sake of the fence' (vatatthāya) means for the purpose of a fence. Here, 'whatever' (yaṃkiñci) refers to a water-course, whether with or without water. 'For the sake of a park, etc.' (ārāmādiatthāya) means for the sake of a forest-line, etc. The planting of small flowering plants is said with reference only to the act of corrupting families; it should be understood that this is not said with reference to all such acts, such as stringing flowers. If it is asked, 'How is this known?'—to show this, 'the Dhamma by the Buddha,' etc., is stated. There is also the reading 'āveḷaṃ ābiḷaṃ'.

Gopphananti ganthanaṃ. Veṭhimanti taggatikameva. Vedhimaṃ aññena kenaci pupphaṃ vedhetvā kataṃ. Kaṇṭakampi bandhitunti ettha ‘‘sayaṃ vijjhanatthaṃ na vaṭṭati. Aññassatthāya vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Jālamayaṃ vitānaṃ jālavitānaṃ. Pupphapaṭicchakaṃ gavakkhaṃ viya sachiddaṃ karonti. Tālapaṇṇaguḷakanti tālapaṇṇamayaṃ puna katampi paṭichijjakameva. Dhammarajju cetiyaṃ vā bodhiṃ vā pupphappavesanatthaṃ āvijjhitvā [Pg.208] baddharajju. ‘‘Kāsāvena baddhampi suttavākādīhi baddhaṃ bhaṇḍitasadisa’’nti likhitaṃ. Aṃsabhaṇḍikaṃ pasibbake pakkhittasadisattā vedhimaṃ na jātaṃ, tasmā ‘‘sithilabaddhassa antarantarā pakkhipituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Aññamaññaṃ aphusāpetvā anekakkhattumpi parikkhipituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Pūritanti dīghato pasāretvā pūritaṃ. Ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti ‘‘yamakadāmaolambako’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Geṇḍukharapattadāmānaṃ paṭikkhittattā celādīhi katadāmampi na vaṭṭati akappiyānulomattā’’ti vadanti.

'Gopphana' means tying or stringing. 'Veṭhima' means something of that same nature. A 'vedhima' is made by piercing a flower with some other thing. Here, concerning 'even a thorn may be tied,' they say: "It is not suitable for piercing by oneself; it is suitable for the purpose of another." A canopy made of a net is a 'jālavitāna'. They make a flower-receptacle with holes, like a latticed window. Here, regarding 'tālapaṇṇaguḷaka', a cluster made of palm leaves, even if made again, is simply to be cut again. A 'dhammarajju' is a rope tied to a cetiya or a Bodhi tree, having been pierced for inserting flowers. It is written: "Even if tied with a kāsāva robe, or tied with thread, fiber, and so on, it is similar to being strung into a garland." An 'aṃsabandhika' (shoulder-strap), because it is similar to being placed in a bag, does not become a 'vedhima'; therefore, they say: "For a loosely tied one, it is suitable to insert [flowers] in the spaces in between." They say: "Without causing them to touch one another, it is suitable to encircle [it] even many times." 'Pūrita' means filled by being spread out lengthwise. Regarding 'ghaṭikadāmaolambaka', it is written as 'yamakadāmaolambaka' (a hanging pair of garlands). They say: "Because garlands of 'geṇḍuka' and 'kharapatta' are prohibited, even a garland made of cloth and so on is not suitable, because it conforms to what is unallowable."

‘‘Recakaṃ nāma tathālāsiyanāṭanaṭānaṃ nacca’’nti likhitaṃ. Taṃ ‘‘parivattantī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sāriyo nāma rutasunakhā siṅgālakammakuruṅgakeḷipane ṭhitā’’ti kira pāṭho. ‘‘Nibujjhantī’’ti pāḷi.

It is written: "'Recaka' is the dance of those who perform swaying, causing to dance, and dancing." That is said to be 'parivattanti' (they turn around). It is said that there is this reading: "'Sāriyo' are howling dogs, standing amidst the actions of jackals and the play of deer." There is the Pāḷi text 'nibujjhanti'.

432. Abalabalādi-padānaṃ uppaṭipāṭiyā. Yathā pāmokkhānaṃ vasena sabbepi ‘‘assajipunabbasukā’’ti vuttā, tathā pāmokkhappattasāvakassa vasena tadāyattavuttine sabbepi ‘‘sāriputtā’’ti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘gacchatha tumhe sāriputtā’’ti.

432. The words 'abalabala,' etc., are stated out of their proper order. Just as, by way of the chiefs, all are called 'Assaji and Punabbasu,' so too, by way of the disciple who has attained the foremost position, all those whose living is dependent on him are called 'Sāriputtas'. Therefore, it was said: "Go, you Sāriputtas."

433. ‘‘Gāme vā na vasitabba’’nti imināva tasmiṃ gāme aññattha na vasitabbanti siddhaṃ. ‘‘Tasmiṃ vihāre vā’’ti kasmā vuttanti ce? Atthasabbhāvato. Yasmiñhi gāme kuladūsakakammaṃ kataṃ, tasmiṃ gāme, yasmiṃ vihāre vasantena kuladūsanaṃ kataṃ, taṃ vihāraṃ ṭhapetvā aññasmiṃ vasituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ. Taṃ kathanti ce? ‘‘Gāme vā na vasitabba’’nti vacanena yasmiṃ gāme kuladūsanakammaṃ kataṃ, tasmiṃ vihārepi vasituṃ na labbhatīti āpannaṃ, taṃ disvā ‘‘tasmiṃ vihāre’’ti vuttaṃ, tena tasmiṃ gāme aññasmiṃ vasituṃ labbhatīti siddhaṃ. ‘‘Tasmiṃ vihāre vasantenā’’ti iminā tasmiṃ gāme aññattha vasantena sāmantagāme piṇḍāya carituṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpitaṃ hoti. Sāmantavihārepīti sāmantavihāro nāma tasmiṃyeva gāme tassa vihārassa sāmantavihāro ca tassa gāmassa sāmantavihāro cāti ubhayaṃ vuccati, etena tasmiṃ gāme aññattha vasantena tasmiṃ gāme piṇḍāya na caritabbaṃ. Sāmantagāmepi piṇḍāya carituṃ vaṭṭati, puna yasmiṃ gāme kuladūsanakammaṃ kataṃ, tassa sāmantagāme kuladūsakavihārassa sāmantavatthuvihāre vasantena tasmiṃ gāmepi carituṃ vaṭṭati. Yasmiṃ sāmantagāme kuladūsakaṃ na kataṃ, tasmimpi carituṃ vaṭṭati, neva vihāreti adhippāyo. ‘‘Na [Pg.209] nagare caritu’’nti vuttattā aññasmiṃ vihāre tasmiṃ gāme vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpitaṃ hotīti eke. Gaṇṭhipadesu pana vicāraṇā eva natthi, tasmā suṭṭhu vicāretvā kathetabbaṃ.

433. By this very statement, 'One should not dwell in the village,' it is established that one should not dwell elsewhere in that village. If it is asked, 'Why was it said, "or in that monastery"?', it is because of the possibility of a certain meaning. Indeed, it was said for the purpose of showing that in whichever village an act of corrupting families has been committed, and while dwelling in whichever monastery in that village the corruption of families was done, it is not proper to dwell in another monastery, having set aside that monastery. If it is asked, 'How is this so?', by the statement, 'One should not dwell in the village,' the meaning is arrived at that if an act of corrupting families has been committed in a village, it is not permissible to dwell even in a monastery in that village. Seeing this, it was said, 'in that monastery.' By that, it is established that it is permissible to dwell elsewhere in that village. By this phrase, 'while dwelling in that monastery,' it is clarified that while dwelling elsewhere in that village, it is not proper to go for alms in a neighboring village. Here, in the phrase 'Even in a neighboring monastery,' a 'neighboring monastery' means both a monastery that is near to that monastery in that very village, and a monastery that is near to that village; in this manner, both are meant. By this, while dwelling in another place in that village, one should not go for alms in that village. It is proper to go for alms also in a neighboring village. Furthermore, if in a certain village an act of corrupting families was done, while dwelling in a neighboring village in a monastery on grounds adjacent to the family-corrupting monastery, it is proper to go for alms even in that neighboring village. In whichever neighboring village the corruption of families was not done, it is proper to go for alms in that village as well; the intention, however, is not in the monastery where the offense was committed. Some say that because it was said, 'One should not go about in the city,' it is clarified that it is proper to dwell in another monastery in that village. But in the Gaṇṭhipadas, there is no investigation at all; therefore, this should be stated only after having investigated it well.

436-7. Dāpetuṃ na labhanti, pupphadānañhi siyā. Tasseva na kappatīti ettha yāguādīni ānetvā ‘‘dadantū’’ti icchāvasena vadati ce, sabbesaṃ na kappati, kevalaṃ pana suddhacittena attānaṃ vā paresaṃ vā anuddisitvā ‘‘ime manussā dānaṃ datvā puññaṃ pasavantū’’ti vadantassa tasseva na kappati yāguādīnaṃ paccayapaṭisaṃyuttakathāya uppannattā. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyampi ‘‘pañcannampi sahadhammikāna’’nti visesetvā avuttattā atthato sayamevāti apare. Ācariyā pana ‘‘yathā mahāpaccariyaṃ, kurundiyañca ‘tassevā’ti visesetvā vuttaṃ, evaṃ mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ visesetvā na vuttaṃ, tasmā sabbesaṃ na kappatī’’ti vadanti.

436-7. They are not allowed to cause others to give, for it would be an offering of flowers. Herein, regarding the phrase 'it is not allowable for him alone': if one, having brought rice-gruel and so forth, says, 'Let them give,' through the power of desire, it is not allowable for all. However, for one who, with a pure mind and without specifying oneself or others, says, 'May these people, having given a gift, generate merit,' it is not allowable for that one alone, because of the arising of talk connected with requisites such as rice-gruel. Others say that in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, because it is not specified by saying 'for the five co-religionists,' the meaning is 'by oneself alone.' But the teachers say: 'Just as in the Mahāpaccarī and the Kurundī it is specified as "for him alone," so in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā it is not specified; therefore, it is not allowable for all.'

Kuladūsakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning corrupting families is concluded.

Terasakakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Terasakakaṇḍa is concluded.

3. Aniyatakaṇḍo

3. The Chapter on the Indeterminate

1. Paṭhamaaniyatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the First Indeterminate Training Rule

444-5. Uddesanti [Pg.210] uddisanaṃ, āsāḷhinakkhattaṃ nāma vassūpagamapūjā. Sotassa rahoti ettha raho-vacanasāmaññato vuttaṃ duṭṭhullasāmaññato duṭṭhullārocanappaṭicchādanasikkhāpadesu pārājikavacanaṃ viya. Tasmā ‘‘cakkhussa raheneva pana paricchedo kātabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Mātugāmo nāma tadahujātāpi dārikā’’ti vacanato, ‘‘alaṃkammaniyeti sakkā hoti methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevitu’’nti vacanato ca rahonisajjassādo cettha methunasannissitakileso, na dutiye viya duṭṭhullavācassādakileso, tasmā ca paññāyati ‘‘sotassa raho nādhippeto’’ti. Keci pana ‘‘tañca labbhatīti vacanassa dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, tena dutiye vuttā viññū paṭibalā gahitā hotī’’ti vadanti. Yena vā sāti ettha vā-saddo ‘‘tena so bhikkhu kāretabbo vā’’ti yojetabbo, so ca vikappattho, tasmā kāretabbo vā paṭijānamāno, na vā kāretabbo appaṭijānamānoti attho. Tena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘paṭijānamānova tena so bhikkhu kāretabbo…pe… na kāretabbo’’ti. Tasmā eva pāḷiyaṃ tadatthadvayadassanatthaṃ ‘‘sā ce evaṃ vadeyyā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Saddheyyavacasā’’ti iminā sotāpannā atthabhañjanakaṃ na bhaṇanti, sesaṃ bhaṇantīti vādīnaṃ vādo paṭisedhito hoti. ‘‘Diṭṭha’’nti vuttattā ‘‘olokesī’’ti sundaraṃ. Rakkheyyāsīti mama visesaṃ kassaci nāroceyyāsīti adhippāyo.

444-5. 'They point out' means a declaration; the Āsāḷhī constellation means a festival of offering upon entering the Rains-residence. Herein, 'seclusion of the ear' is stated due to the general nature of the word 'seclusion', just as the word 'pārājika' is stated in the training rules on announcing and on concealing a grave offense due to the general nature of 'grave offense'. Therefore, it was said, 'but the determination should be made only by seclusion of the eye.' If it is asked, 'How is this understood?' It is understood from the passage, 'A woman means even a girl born on that very day,' and from the passage, '“Suitable for the act” means she is able to engage in sexual intercourse.' And herein, the pleasure in sitting in seclusion is a defilement associated with sexual intercourse; it is not, as in the second case, the defilement of pleasure in lewd speech. And for that reason, it is understood that 'seclusion of the ear' is not intended. But some say: 'This is stated to show the statement, "And that is also obtained." By this, the intelligent and capable woman mentioned in the second case is included.' Herein, in 'yena vā sā', the word 'vā' should be construed as 'by that, that monk should be dealt with'. And that word 'vā' has the meaning of an alternative. Therefore, the meaning is: if he confesses, he should be dealt with; if he does not confess, he should not be dealt with. For that reason, it is said in the Commentary: 'Only if he confesses should that monk be dealt with... he should not be dealt with.' For this very reason, in the Pāḷi text, in order to show these two meanings, 'If she should speak thus,' etc., is stated. By this, 'of trustworthy speech', the view of those who hold that stream-enterers do not speak falsehood that destroys the benefit, but do speak other falsehoods, is refuted. Because it was said, 'was seen', the word 'you looked' is appropriate. Regarding 'You should guard', the intention is, 'You should not announce my special attainment to anyone.'

446. ‘‘Sā ce evaṃ vadeyya ‘ayyassa mayā sutaṃ nisinnassa mātugāmaṃ duṭṭhullāhi vācāhi obhāsentassā’’’ti, idaṃ kimatthamettha vuttaṃ, na adhippetañhetaṃ idha sotassa raho nādhippetoti katvāti ce? Alaṃkammaniyaṭṭhāne duṭṭhullavācāpi labbhati, na pana nālaṃkammaniyaṭṭhāne methunanti dassanatthaṃ vuttanti veditabbanti. Yathā etaṃ, tathā ‘‘sā ce evaṃ vadeyya ‘ayyassa mayā sutaṃ mātugāmassa santike attakāmapāricariyāya vaṇṇaṃ bhāsantassā’’’ti etampi idha labbhati, na dutiye nālaṃkammaniyaṭṭhānattāti eke. Kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyāniyatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) idhāpi dutiyāniyatādhikāre pārājikāpattiñca [Pg.211] parihāpetvā duṭṭhullavācāpattiyā vuttattā paṭhamāniyate duṭṭhullavācāpatti na vuttāti ce? ‘‘Sā ce’’ti tassā pāḷiyā potthakā sodhetabbā. Gaṇṭhipade ca ‘‘idha sikkhāpade methunakāyasaṃsaggarahonisajjānamevāgatattā cakkhussarahova pamāṇa’’nti likhitaṃ, dutiyāniyatādhikāre ca ‘‘anandho kāyasaṃsaggaṃ passati, abadhiro duṭṭhullaṃ suṇāti, kāyacittato kāyasaṃsaggo, vācācittato duṭṭhullaṃ, ubhayehi ubhaya’’nti ca likhitaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘samuṭṭhānādīni paṭhamapārājikasadisānevā’’ti vuttattāpi duṭṭhullavādo na sundaro ‘‘tadahujātā’’ti vuttattāti.

446. If one were to ask: Regarding the text, 'If she were to say, "I heard from the venerable one who, while seated, was addressing a woman with lewd words,"' for what purpose is this stated here, given that seclusion of the ear is not intended in this case? It should be understood that it is stated to show this meaning: in a place suitable for sexual intercourse, lewd speech is also possible, but in a place not suitable for sexual intercourse, sexual intercourse is not. Just as this is stated, so too, some say that this statement, 'If she were to say, "I heard from the venerable one who was praising the service of his own sensual desires in the presence of a woman,"' is also possible here, but not in the second Aniyata rule because it is a place not suitable for sexual intercourse. If it is argued that in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, in the section on the second Aniyata, the offense of lewd speech is stated—having excluded the Pārājika offense—whereas in the first Aniyata, the offense of lewd speech is not stated, then the manuscripts of that Pali text beginning with 'Sā ce' should be corrected. And in the Gaṇṭhipada it is written: 'Here in this training rule, because only sexual intercourse, bodily contact, and sitting in seclusion have come down, seclusion of the eye is the standard.' And in the section on the second Aniyata it is also written: 'One who is not blind sees bodily contact; one who is not deaf hears lewd speech. Bodily contact is from body and mind; lewd speech is from speech and mind; from both, both occur.' Also, because it is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā, 'The origins and so forth are just like those of the first Pārājika,' the argument for lewd speech is not sound, on account of it being stated 'even a girl born on that very day'.

Paṭhamaaniyatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the first indeterminate training rule is concluded.

2. Dutiyaaniyatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Second Indeterminate Training Rule

453. Dutiye kesuci potthakesu ‘‘na heva kho pana paṭicchannaṃ āsanaṃ hoti āsana’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Āsananti adhikaṃ, uddharitānurūpa’’nti likhitaṃ. Dvepi rahā idha adhippetā kāyasaṃsaggaduṭṭhullavācārahonisajjaggahaṇato. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘mātugāmo nāma viññū paṭibalā’’ti kimatthaṃ vuttanti? Ayameva hi mātugāmo dvinnampi kāyasaṃsaggaduṭṭhullavācānaṃ ekato vatthubhūto, tasmā vuttaṃ. Kāyasaṃsaggassa vatthubhūto dassito, na itarassāti katvā duṭṭhullavācameva sandhāya tassā vatthuṃ dassento evamāha.

453. In some manuscripts of the second rule, it is written: “Indeed, a concealed seat is not a seat seat.” It is also written: “The word ‘seat’ is excessive and suitable for removal.” Both kinds of seclusion are intended here, because of the inclusion of bodily contact, lewd speech, and secluded sitting. If this is so, why is it said: “A woman is one who is intelligent and capable”? For this very woman is the basis for both bodily contact and lewd speech together; therefore, it is stated. The basis for bodily contact is shown, but not for the other. Considering this, referring only to lewd speech and showing its basis, it is said thus.

Etthāha – yathā paṭhame anadhippetāpi duṭṭhullavācā sambhavavisesadassanatthaṃ vuttā, idhāpi kāyasaṃsaggo, kasmā na tassa vasena cakkhussa raho gahetabboti? Āma na gahetabbo, na ca gahito, gahito eva pana nisajjavasena, na hi aṅgassa nisajjā visesoti. Appaṭicchanne sati kathaṃ cakkhussa rahoti ce? Dūrattā. Paṭhame kasmā itthisatampi anāpattiṃ na karoti, idha kasmā ekāpi karotīti ce? No vuccati siddhattā. Siddhaṃ hoti, yadidaṃ aññataro bhikkhu vesāliyaṃ mahāvane…pe… dvāraṃ vivaritvā nipanno hoti…pe… sambahulā itthiyo yāvadatthaṃ [Pg.212] katvā pakkamiṃsūti (pārā. 77). Tasmā na methunassa mātugāmo dutiyo hoti. Itthiyo hi aññamaññissā vajjaṃ paṭicchādenti, teneva bhikkhunīnaṃ vajjapaṭicchādane pārājikaṃ paññattaṃ. Tathā ‘‘āyasmā udāyī tā itthiyo vihāraṃ pekkhāpetvā tāsaṃ itthīnaṃ vaccamagga’’nti (pārā. 283) ettha ‘‘yā pana tā itthiyo hirimanā, tā nikkhamitvā bhikkhū ujjhāpentī’’ti (pārā. 283) vacanato duṭṭhullassa mātugāmo dutiyo hotīti siddhanti adhippāyo. Ubhayatthāpi ummattakādikammikānaṃ anāpattīti tesaṃ pāṭekkaṃ nidāne āgataṃ, ādikammikānaṃ anāpattīti attho. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘acelakavagge rahopaṭicchannāsanasikkhāpade ‘viññū puriso dutiyo hotī’ti (pāci. 288) imassa anurūpato ‘itthīnaṃ satampi anāpattiṃ na karotī’ti vutta’’nti ca, ‘‘dutiyāniyate ‘itthīpi purisopī’ti idaṃ bhikkhunīvagge osānasikkhāpadassa, acelakavagge appaṭicchannāsanasikkhāpadassa ca anāpattivāre ‘yo koci viññū puriso dutiyo’ti vuttaṃ. Imesaṃ anurūpato vuttanti veditabba’’nti ca vuttaṃ.

Here it is said: Just as in the first [Pārājika], even though not intended, lewd speech was mentioned to show a possible special case, so too here bodily contact was mentioned. Why, then, is 'seclusion from the eye' not to be taken by means of that? Yes, it should not be taken, and it is not taken. However, it is indeed taken by means of sitting, for sitting is not a special feature of the limb. If [one asks]: 'When it is unconcealed, how can there be seclusion from the eye?' [The answer is:] Due to distance. If [one asks]: 'In the first [Pārājika], why do even a hundred women not constitute grounds for an offense, whereas here, why does even one?' [The answer is:] It is not stated, because it is established. It is established by this story: a certain monk in the Great Wood at Vesālī... having opened the door, was lying down... many women did as they wished and then departed. Therefore, a woman is not a second party for [an accusation of] sexual intercourse. For women conceal one another's faults; for that very reason, a pārājika offense was laid down for bhikkhunīs for concealing a fault. Likewise, in the text, 'Venerable Udāyī, having had those women inspect the monastery, [showed] them his private parts,' because it is said, 'But those women who were modest, having left, complained to the monks,' it is established that for lewd speech, a woman is a second party. This is the meaning. The statement 'In both cases, there is no offense for the insane, the first offender, etc.' is stated in the origin story of each of those rules; the meaning is that there is no offense for the first offenders. But in the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: 'In the Acelakavagga, in the training rule on a secluded and concealed seat, in accordance with this text, "a discerning man is the second party," it is said, "even a hundred women do not bring about a non-offense."' And it is also said: 'In the second Aniyata rule, regarding the phrase "either a woman or a man," in the non-offense section of the final training rule in the Bhikkhunīvagga and of the training rule on an unconcealed seat in the Acelakavagga, it is said: "any discerning man is the second party." It should be understood that this is said in accordance with these rules.'

Dutiyaaniyatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the second indeterminate training rule is concluded.

Pakiṇṇakavaṇṇanā

The Miscellaneous Commentary

Apicettha idaṃ pakiṇṇakaṃ, seyyathidaṃ – idaṃ aniyatakaṇḍaṃ nippayojanaṃ apubbābhāvatoti ce? Na, garukalahukabhedabhinnāpattiropanāropanakkamalakkhaṇadīpanappayojanato. Ettha hi ‘‘sā ce evaṃ vadeyya ‘ayyo mayā diṭṭho nisinno mātugāmassa methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevanto’ti, so ca taṃ paṭijānāti, āpattiyā kāretabbo…pe… nisajjāya kāretabbo’’tiādinā (pārā. 446) āpattiyā garukāya lahukāya ca ropanakkamalakkhaṇaṃ, kāretabboti iminā anāropanakkamalakkhaṇañca dassitaṃ. Lakkhaṇadīpanato ādimhi, ante vā uddisitabbanti ce? Na, asambhavato. Kathaṃ? Na tāva ādimhi sambhavati, yesamidaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ, tesaṃ sikkhāpadānaṃ adassitattā. Na ante, garukamissakattā, tasmā garukalahukānaṃ majjhe eva uddisitabbanti arahati ubhayāmissakattā. Yā tattha lahukāpatti dassitā[Pg.213], sāpi garukādikā. Tenevāha ‘‘methunadhammasannissitakilesasaṅkhātena rahassādenā’’tiādi, tasmā garukānaṃ eva anantaraṃ uddiṭṭhātipi eke. Evaṃ sante paṭhamamevālaṃ tāvatā lakkhaṇadīpanasiddhito, kiṃ dutiyenāti ce? Na, okāsaniyamapaccayamicchāgāhanivāraṇappayojanato. ‘‘Paṭicchanne āsane alaṃkammaniye’’ti okāsaniyamato hi tabbiparīte okāse idaṃ lakkhaṇaṃ na vikappitanti micchāgāho hoti, tannivāraṇato dutiyampi sātthakamevāti adhippāyo. Kasmā? Okāsabhedato, rahobhedadīpanato, rahonisajjassādabhedadīpanato. Okāsaniyamabhāve ca rahonisajjassādabhedo jāto. Dvinnaṃ rahonisajjasikkhāpadānaṃ nānatājānanañca siyā, tathā kāyasaṃsaggabhedadīpanato. Nālaṃkammaniyepi hi okāse appaṭicchanne, paṭicchannepi vā nisinnāya vātapānakavāṭachiddādīhi nikkhantakesādiggahaṇena kāyasaṃsaggo labbhatīti evamādayopi nayā vitthārato veditabbā. ‘‘Bhikkhupātimokkhe āgatanayattā bhikkhunīpātimokkhe idaṃ kaṇḍaṃ parihīnanti veditabba’’nti vadanti. Atthuppattiyā tattha anupannattāti eke. Taṃ anekatthabhāvadīpanato ayuttaṃ. Sabbabuddhakāle hi bhikkhūnaṃ pañcannaṃ, bhikkhunīnaṃ cattāro ca uddesā santi. Pātimokkhuddesapaññattiyā asādhāraṇattā tattha niddiṭṭhasaṅghādisesapācittiyānanti eke. Tāsaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalikaaṭṭhavatthukavasena kāyasaṃsaggaviseso pārājikavatthu, ‘‘hatthaggahaṇaṃ vā sādiyeyya, kāyaṃ vā tadatthāya upasaṃhareyyā’’ti (pāci. 674-675) vacanato sādiyanampi, ‘‘santiṭṭheyya vā’’ti (pāci. 675) vacanato ṭhānampi, ‘‘saṅketaṃ vā gaccheyyā’’ti (pāci. 675) vacanato gamanampi, ‘‘channaṃ vā anupaviseyyā’’ti (pāci. 675) vacanato paṭicchannaṭṭhānapavesopi, tathā ‘‘rattandhakāre appadīpe paṭicchanne okāse ekenekā santiṭṭheyya vā sallapeyya vā’’ti (pāci. 838) vacanato duṭṭhullavācāpi pācittiyavatthukanti katvā tāsaṃ aññathā aniyatakaṇḍassa avattabbatāpattitopi na vuttanti tesaṃ adhippāyo.

Furthermore, in this matter, this is a miscellaneous point. If it were to be asked: 'Is this Aniyata section without purpose because it is not new?' No, because its purpose is to clarify the characteristics of the procedure for imposing and not imposing offenses, which are distinguished as grave and light. For here, by such passages as, 'If she were to say thus: "Venerable sir, I saw you sitting and engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman," and he confesses it, he should be dealt with according to the offense... he should be dealt with for sitting,' the characteristic of the procedure for imposing both a grave and a light offense is shown; and by the words 'he is not to be dealt with,' the characteristic of the procedure for not imposing is also shown. If it is said, 'Since it clarifies the characteristics, should it be stated at the beginning or at the end?' No, because it is impossible. How so? It is not possible at the beginning, because the training rules whose characteristics these are have not yet been shown. Nor at the end, because it is mixed with grave offenses. Therefore, it is proper that it should be stated in the middle, between grave and light offenses, as it is mixed with both. The light offense shown there also has a grave offense as its origin. Hence, it is said, “by way of the enjoyment of seclusion, which is reckoned as a defilement connected with sexual intercourse,” and so on. Therefore, some say it is stated immediately after the grave offenses. If this is so, then the first training rule alone would be sufficient, since the clarification of the characteristic is accomplished by that much. What is the purpose of the second? No, its purpose is to prevent the wrong assumption arising from the condition of the restriction of place. For from the restriction of place, “on a concealed seat, suitable for intimacy,” a wrong assumption arises that this characteristic is not construed in a place contrary to that. To prevent that, the second training rule is also meaningful—this is the intention. Why? Due to the distinction of place, the clarification of the distinction of seclusion, and the clarification of the distinction of the enjoyment of sitting in seclusion. And in the absence of the restriction of place, a distinction in the enjoyment of secluded sitting arises. There would also be the knowing of the difference between the two training rules on secluded sitting, and likewise due to the clarification of the distinction of bodily contact. For even in an unconcealed location unsuitable for intimacy, or even in a concealed one, bodily contact can be obtained by grasping the hair, etc., of a sitting woman, which has come out through openings such as windows or door-holes. Such methods and others should be understood in detail. Some say, “Because the method is given in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha, this section is to be understood as omitted in the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha.” Others say it is because the occasion for it did not arise there. That is incorrect because it clarifies the state of having many meanings. For in all eras of the Buddhas, there are five recitations for bhikkhus and four for bhikkhunīs. Some say that because the formulation of the Pātimokkha recitation is not shared, the Saṅghādisesa and Pācittiya offenses specified there are not common. For those bhikkhunīs, a specific kind of bodily contact, by way of the Ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalika and Aṭṭhavatthuka training rules, is a matter for a pārājika offense. And by the statement, “she might consent to the grasping of her hand, or she might bring her body near for that purpose,” consenting is also a matter for a pārājika offense. By the statement, “or she might stand,” standing is also a matter for a pārājika offense. By the statement, “or she might go to an appointed place,” going is also a matter for a pārājika offense. By the statement, “or she might follow him into a hidden place,” entering a hidden place is also a matter for a pārājika offense. Likewise, by the statement, “in the dark of night, without a lamp, in a concealed place, a bhikkhunī alone with a man might stand or converse,” even coarse speech is a matter for a pācittiya offense. Therefore, their intention is that the Aniyata section is not stated for them because its offenses are covered for them in other ways, and thus it is something that need not be stated.

Pakiṇṇakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Miscellaneous is concluded.

Aniyatakaṇḍaṃ niṭṭhitaṃ.

The Section on the Indefinite is concluded.

4. Nissaggiyakaṇḍo

4. 4. The Nissaggiya Chapter

1. Cīvaravaggo

1. 1. The Chapter on Robes

1. Paṭhamakathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. 1. Commentary on the First Training Rule concerning the Kaṭhina

459. Samitāvināti [Pg.214] samitā’nena kilesāti samitāvī, tena samitāvinā. ‘‘Tīṇi cīvarānī’’ti vattabbe ‘‘ticīvara’’nti vuttaṃ. Saṅkhyāpubbo digunekavacananti ettha lakkhaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Taṃ pana adhiṭṭhitassapi anadhiṭṭhitassapi nāmaṃ ‘‘ekarattampi ce bhikkhu ticīvarena vippavaseyyā’’tiādīsu ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitassa nāmaṃ. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātu’’nti (mahāva. 358) ettha anadhiṭṭhitassa nāmaṃ, idha tadubhayampi sambhavati. ‘‘Bhagavatā bhikkhūnaṃ ticīvaraṃ anuññātaṃ hotī’’ti ettha adhiṭṭhitameva. ‘‘Aññeneva ticīvarena gāmaṃ pavisantī’’ti ettha anadhiṭṭhitameva. Ekasmiṃyeva hi cīvare ticīvarādhiṭṭhānaṃ ruhati, na itarasmiṃ pattādhiṭṭhānaṃ viya, tasmā itaraṃ atirekaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘kathañhi nāma chabbaggiyā bhikkhū atirekacīvaraṃ dhāressantī’’tiādi.

459. Regarding `samitāvinā`: one is a `samitāvī` (one who has quelled) because 'the defilements have been quelled by this Blessed One'. `Tena samitāvinā` means 'by that one who has quelled'. When it should be said ‘tīṇi cīvarāni’ (three robes), it is said ‘ticīvaraṃ’. Here, the grammatical characteristic should be understood: a `digu` compound with a numerical prefix is in the singular. That name, however, applies both to what is determined and what is not determined. In passages such as “if a bhikkhu should be separated from his three robes even for a single night,” it is the name for that which is determined by the determination of the three robes. In “I allow, bhikkhus, to determine the three robes,” it is the name for that which is not determined. Here, both are possible. In “the three robes are allowed to the bhikkhus by the Blessed One,” it refers only to what is determined. In “they enter the village with another set of three robes,” it refers only to what is not determined. For the determination of the three robes is valid for only one set of three robes, not for another, just like the determination of a bowl. Therefore, the other stands in the position of an extra. Hence it is said, “How indeed could the group-of-six bhikkhus wear an extra robe?” and so on.

460-1. Paṭhamapaññattiyā panettha ekarattampi atirekacīvaraṃ dhāreyya, nissaggiyaṃ vuttaṃ hoti, tato paraṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretuṃ. Evañca pana, bhikkhave, imaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ uddiseyyātha ‘dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabbaṃ, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya’’’nti evaṃ bhagavā paripuṇṇaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññāpesi. Atha pacchimabodhiyaṃ ajātasattukāle kathinaṃ anuññātaṃ, tato paṭṭhāya bhikkhū idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine dasāha…pe… pācittiya’’nti uddisanti, esa nayo dutiyatatiyakathinesupi. Tathāpi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘dasāhaparamanti ayamettha anupaññattī’’ti ettakaṃyeva vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine’’ti vacanaṃ na paññatti, na ca anupaññattīti siddhaṃ. Na hi paññattivatthusmiṃ, anupaññattivatthumhi vā kathinādhikāro dissatīti yathāvuttanayova sāroti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ. Athāpi siyā ‘‘kathinassuppattikālato paṭṭhāya bhagavato vacanaṃ anupaññattibhāvena vutta’’nti. Yadi evaṃ dve anupaññattiyo siyuṃ, tato parivāre (pari. 24) ‘‘ekā [Pg.215] anupaññattī’’tivacanavirodho. Apica yathāvuttanayadīpanatthaṃ idha taṃ vacanaṃ paṭhamapaññattikāle avatvā pacchā vuttaṃ. Ettha sādhitattā dutiyatatiyesu pacchā vuttapaṭhamapaññattīsu evaṃ vuttaṃ. Aññathā tatthapi taṃ vacanaṃ pacchā vattabbaṃ siyā. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘pacchā vuttabhāvaṃ sandhāya niṭṭhitacīvarasmintiādīsu anupaññattī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sekkhaputhujjanānaṃ pemaṃ, arahantānaṃ gāravo. Dasamaṃ vā navamaṃ vāti ettha bhummatthe upayogavacanaṃ.

460-1. In the first promulgation, if one were to keep an extra robe even for a single night, it is said to be forfeitable. Thereafter, the Blessed One laid down the training rule in full thus: “I allow, bhikkhus, to keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days. And thus, bhikkhus, you should recite this training rule: ‘An extra robe may be kept for a maximum of ten days. For one who exceeds that, it is forfeitable and an offense of expiation.’” Then, at Pacchimabodhi, during the time of King Ajātasattu, the Kaṭhina was allowed. From then on, bhikkhus recite this training rule as: “When a bhikkhu has finished making his robe and the Kaṭhina has been lifted, for a maximum of ten days… an offense of expiation.” This is the method for the second and third Kaṭhina rules as well. Nevertheless, in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, only this much is stated: “Here, ‘for a maximum of ten days’ is a subsequent promulgation.” Therefore, it is established that the statement “When a bhikkhu has finished making his robe and the Kaṭhina has been lifted” is neither an original promulgation nor a subsequent promulgation. For the matter of the Kaṭhina is not seen in the subject-matter of the original promulgation or in the subject-matter of the subsequent promulgation. Thus, it should be concluded here that the method as stated is the essence. Alternatively, there might be this view: “From the time of the origin of the Kaṭhina, the Blessed One’s statement was made as a subsequent promulgation.” If so, there would be two subsequent promulgations, which would contradict the statement in the Parivāra: “There is one subsequent promulgation.” Moreover, to clarify the method as stated, that statement was not made here at the time of the first promulgation but was stated later. Because it has been established here, it is stated thus in the second and third rules, which are original promulgations stated later. Otherwise, that statement would have to be stated later there as well. However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: “With reference to its having been stated later, the phrase beginning with niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ is a subsequent promulgation.” The affection of trainees and worldlings is called ‘cherishing’; the reverence of Arahants is called ‘cherishing’. Here, in the phrase ‘the tenth or the ninth,’ the accusative case is used in the sense of the locative.

462-3. Niṭṭhitacīvarasminti idaṃ kevalaṃ cīvarapalibodhābhāvamattadīpanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘naṭṭhaṃ vā vinaṭṭhaṃ vā daḍḍhaṃ vā cīvarāsā vā upacchinnā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yadi dasāhaparamaṃ dhāretabbacīvaradassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ siyā, naṭṭhādikaṃ so dhāreyya. Dhāraṇañcettha ṭhapanaṃ, paribhogo vā. Taṃ dvayaṃ katepi yujjati, akatepi yujjati, tasmā ‘‘kataṃ vā hotī’’tipi na vattabbaṃ. Na hi katameva atikkāmayato nissaggiyanti, tasmā yaṃ cīvaraṃ upādāya ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’nti vuttaṃ. Tampi ubbhatasmiṃ kathine dasāhaparamaṃ kālaṃ dhāretabbanti attho na gahetabbo. Tañhi cīvaraṃ santañce, ubbhatasmiṃ kathine ekadivasampi parihāraṃ na labbhati. Apica ‘‘cīvaraṃ nāma vikappanupagaṃ pacchima’’nti vuttaṃ. Tattha ca kataṃ nāma hoti, tasmāpi na taṃ sandhāya dhāretabbanti vuttanti veditabbaṃ asambhavato.

462-3. The phrase “the robe is finished” is said merely for the purpose of clarifying the absence of any impediment concerning the robe. Therefore, it is said, “it is lost, or destroyed, or burnt, or the hope for a robe is cut off.” If it were said for the purpose of showing the robe that should be kept for a maximum of ten days, one could keep what is lost, etc. Here, “keeping” refers to storing or using. Both are applicable to a robe that is made and also to one that is not made; therefore, it should not be said, “or it is made.” For it is not that only a made robe becomes subject to forfeiture for one who exceeds the time limit. Therefore, the meaning that the robe, with reference to which “the robe is finished” is said, should also be kept for a maximum of ten days when the Kaṭhina is lifted, should not be understood. For if that robe exists, when the Kaṭhina is lifted, not even a single day’s allowance is obtained. Moreover, it is said, “A robe, namely the last one, is one suitable for determination.” And in that case, it is called ‘made.’ Therefore also, it should be understood that it is not said with reference to that robe that ‘it should be kept,’ because of the impossibility.

Anugaṇṭhipade panetaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘tattha siyā – tassa bhikkhuno cīvaraṃ naṭṭhādīsu aññataraṃ yadi bhaveyya, katamaṃ cīvaraṃ dasāhaparamaṃ dhāreyya. Yasmā dhāretabbacīvaraṃ natthi, tasmā atthuddhāravasena karaṇapalibodhadassanatthaṃ ‘naṭṭhaṃ vā’tiādipadāni vuttāni. Ayaṃ panattho ‘naṭṭhaṃ vā’tiādinā nayena vuttacīvarānaṃ aññatarasmiṃ cīvare asati gahetabbo, sati taṃ dasāhaparamaṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ. Esa nayo sabbattha. ‘Kataṃ vā hotī’ti vuttacīvaramevādhippetaṃ. Kasmā pana katacīvaraṃ imasmiṃ atthe adhippetanti na vuttanti ce? Pākaṭattā. Kathaṃ? Naṭṭhavinaṭṭhacīvarādīnaṃ dhāraṇassa abhāvato katacīvarameva idhādhippetanti pākaṭaṃ. Yathā kiṃ? Yathā paṭhamāniyate methunakāyasaṃsaggarahonisajjānamevāgatattā sotassa raho atthuddhāravasena vuttoti pākaṭo, tasmā ‘cakkhussa raho itarasmiṃ atthe adhippeto’ti na vutto. Evaṃsampadamidanti veditabbaṃ. ‘Kataṃ vā hotī’ti idaṃ na vattabbaṃ, kasmā? Akataṃ atikkāmayatopi nissaggiyattā, kiñcāpi nissaggiyaṃ hoti[Pg.216], idha pana ticīvarādhiṭṭhānamadhippetaṃ. Tasmiṃ ticīvarādhiṭṭhāne akataṃ, arajitaṃ, akappiyakatañca ‘imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī’tiādinā nayena adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭati, tadatthadīpanatthaṃ ‘kataṃ vā hotī’ti vuttaṃ. Itarathā ‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ paṭiladdhe’ti vadeyya, evaṃ sante ticīvaraṃ dasāhaṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyanti kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? Vacanappamāṇato. ‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetu’nti vuttattā idhāpi ‘atirekacīvaraṃ nāma anadhiṭṭhita’nti ettakameva vattabbaṃ siyā. Yasmā ‘kataṃ vā hotī’ti vacanena idhādhippetacīvarena saddhiṃ sesampi dasāhaparamato uttari dhāretuṃ na labbhatīti anujānanto ‘atirekacīvaraṃ nāma anadhiṭṭhitaṃ avikappita’nti āha. Tattha siyā – yathā ‘avikappita’nti atthuddhāravasena vuttaṃ, tathā ‘vikappanupagaṃ pacchima’ntipi. Kasmā? Yasmā ticīvarameva dasāhaparamaṃ dhāretabbaṃ ‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’ntiādianupaññattivasena. Itarathā ekāhātikkamepi nissaggiyaṃ hoti ‘yo pana, bhikkhu, atirekacīvaraṃ dhāreyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya’nti vacanato. Na ticīvarato aññampi cīvaraṃ dasāhaparamaṃ dhāretabbaṃ, tato paraṃ nissaggiyaṃ ‘antodasāha’nti vuttattā. Yathāha ‘anāpatti antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti, vikappetī’ti, itarathā ‘antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭhetī’ti vacanamattameva bhaveyya, tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva attho gahetabbo. Idaṃ sabbaṃ apare vadantī’’ti. Ettha antokathine uppannacīvaraṃ katameva santañce, dasāhaparamaṃ dhāretabbanti idañcimassa sādhanatthaṃ vuttavacanañca parato idheva vuttavicāraṇāya yathāvuttayuttiyā ca virujjhatīti na gahetabbaṃ.

Moreover, in the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: “Herein, there might be this objection: If a robe of that bhikkhu were to be one among those that are lost and so forth, which robe should he keep for a maximum of ten days? Because there is no robe to be kept, the words ‘lost or’ and so forth are stated for the purpose of showing the impediment to making (a robe) by way of extracting the meaning. This meaning, however, should be understood thus: when a robe is not in one of the states mentioned in the manner of ‘lost or’ and so forth, but is present, for the bhikkhu who lets it exceed the maximum of ten days, it becomes an item to be relinquished. This is the method in all cases. In the phrase ‘or if it is made,’ only the aforementioned robe is intended. If one should ask, ‘But why is it not stated that a made robe is intended in this context?’ Because it is obvious. How is it obvious? Because of the impossibility of wearing lost, destroyed robes, and so forth, it is obvious that only a made robe is intended here. Like what? Just as in the first Aniyata rule, because only sexual intercourse, bodily contact, and sitting in a secluded place are mentioned, it is obvious that ‘seclusion of the ear’ is stated by way of extracting the meaning; therefore, it is not stated that ‘seclusion of the eye’ is intended in another sense. This should be understood as a comparable case. This phrase ‘or if it is made’ should not be stated. Why? Because even for one who lets an unmade robe exceed the time limit, it becomes an item to be relinquished. Although it does become an item to be relinquished, here the determination of the three robes is intended. In that determination of the three robes, it is not allowable to determine an unmade, undyed, and improperly made robe in the manner of ‘I determine this outer robe,’ and so forth. To clarify that meaning, ‘or if it is made’ is stated. Otherwise, He would have said, ‘when a completed robe is obtained.’ If it were so, how would it be known that for a bhikkhu who lets the three robes exceed ten days, they become items to be relinquished? It is known from the authority of the text. Since it is said, ‘I allow, O bhikkhus, the determination of the three robes, not their assignment to others,’ here too, it would only be necessary to say, ‘an extra robe is that which is undetermined.’ Because, by the phrase ‘or if it is made,’ while allowing that along with the robe intended here, the remaining robes also may not be kept beyond the maximum of ten days, He said, ‘An extra robe is that which is undetermined and unassigned.’ Herein, there might be this objection: Just as ‘unassigned’ is stated by way of extracting the meaning, so too should ‘liable to be assigned later’ also be stated by way of extracting the meaning. Why was it not stated? Because it is laid down by way of a supplementary regulation, such as ‘when the robe is completed,’ that only the three robes are to be kept for a maximum of ten days. Otherwise, it would become an item to be relinquished even by exceeding one day, according to the text: ‘Whatever bhikkhu should keep an extra robe, it is to be relinquished and entails a pācittiya offense.’ Another robe, apart from the three robes, may also be kept for a maximum of ten days; beyond that, it is to be relinquished, because it is said, ‘within ten days.’ As He said: ‘There is no offense if one determines or assigns it within ten days.’ Otherwise, there would only be the mere statement, ‘one determines within ten days.’ Therefore, the meaning should be understood only according to the method stated in the commentary. All this, others say.” Herein, the view that ‘if a robe that has arisen within the Kathina period is already made, it may be kept for a maximum of ten days,’ and the statement cited to establish this, are contradicted by the investigation stated later in this very text and by the aforementioned reasoning; therefore, it should not be accepted.

Idheva vuttavicāraṇā nāma – ‘‘sve kathinuddhāro bhavissatī’’ti ajja uppannacīvaraṃ tadaheva anadhiṭṭhahantassa aruṇuggamane nissaggiyaṃ. Kasmā? ‘‘Niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’ntiādinā sikkhāpadassa vuttattā. Antokathine atirekadasāhampi parihāraṃ labhati, kathinato uddhaṃ ekadivasampi na labhati. Yathā kiṃ? Yathā atthatakathino saṅgho atthatadivasato paṭṭhāya yāva ubbhārā ekadivasāvasesepi kathinubbhāre ānisaṃsaṃ labhati, punadivase na labhati. Sace satisammosā bhājanīyacīvaraṃ na bhājitaṃ, punadivase anatthatakathinānampi sādhāraṇaṃ hoti. Divasā ce sāvasesā, atthatakathinasseva saṅghassa pāpuṇāti, evameva atthatadivasato paṭṭhāya yāva ubbhārā anadhiṭṭhitaṃ avikappitaṃ vaṭṭati anuññātadivasabbhantarattā. Kathinadivaso [Pg.217] gaṇanupago hoti, ubbhatadivasato paṭṭhāya dasāhaparamaṃ kālaṃ uppannacīvaraṃ parihāraṃ labhati, tato paraṃ na labhati. Kasmā? ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretu’’nti vacanato. Antokathinepi ekādase aruṇuggamane nissaggiyappasaṅgaṃ ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ ubbhatasmiṃ kathine’’ti ayaṃ anupaññatti vāretvā ṭhitā, na ca te divase adivase akāsīti. Tathā tatiyakathine ca vicāritaṃ ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine bhikkhuno paneva akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyyā’ti vadantena bhagavatā yaṃ mayā heṭṭhā paṭhamasikkhāpade ‘dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabba’nti anuññātaṃ, tampi kathinamāsato bahi uppannameva, na antoti dīpitaṃ hotī’’ti ca, ‘‘‘kālepi ādissa dinnaṃ etaṃ akālacīvara’nti (pārā. 500) vacanato kathinubbhārato uddhaṃ dasāhaparihāraṃ na labhatīti dīpitaṃ hoti, tehi saddhiṃ puna kathinubbhārato uddhaṃ pañca divasāni labhatīti pasaṅgopi ‘niṭṭhitacīvara…pe… khippameva kāretabba’nti akālacīvarassa uppattikālaṃ niyametvā vuttattā vārito hoti. Tadubhayena kathinabbhantare uppannacīvaraṃ kathinubbhārato uddhaṃ ekadivasampi parihāraṃ na labhatīti siddhaṃ hotī’’ti ca. Tasmā duvidhampetaṃ vicāraṇaṃ sandhāya amhehi ‘‘idheva vuttavicāraṇāya yathāvuttayuttiyā ca virujjhatīti na gahetabba’’nti vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

Here, what is called the stated investigation is as follows: If, thinking, ‘Tomorrow the withdrawal of the Kathina will occur,’ a robe arises today, and one does not determine it on that very day, it becomes subject to relinquishment at the rising of the dawn. Why? Because the training rule is stated by way of ‘When the robe-work is finished,’ and so forth. Within the Kathina period, one obtains a concession even beyond ten days, but after the Kathina, one does not obtain it even for a single day. Like what? Just as a Sangha that has spread the Kathina obtains the benefits from the day it was spread until its withdrawal, even if only one day remains until the Kathina withdrawal, but does not obtain them on the following day. If, due to a lapse of memory, a robe meant for distribution is not distributed, on the next day it becomes common property even for those who have not spread the Kathina. If days remain, it belongs only to the Sangha that has spread the Kathina. In the same way, from the day it was spread until its withdrawal, an undetermined and unshared robe is allowable because it is within the permitted days. The Kathina day is included in the count. From the day of withdrawal onward, a robe that has arisen obtains a concession for a period of at most ten days, but not beyond that. Why? Because of the statement: ‘I allow, O bhikkhus, to keep an extra robe for at most ten days.’ Even within the Kathina period, the contingency of an offense requiring relinquishment at the rising of the dawn on the eleventh day is prevented by this supplementary regulation, ‘When the robe-work is finished, when the Kathina is withdrawn’; and it did not render those days invalid. Likewise, in the third Kathina section it is investigated: By saying, ‘When the robe-work is finished, when the Kathina is withdrawn by a bhikkhu, if an out-of-season robe should arise for that bhikkhu,’ the Blessed One has shown that what was allowed by me below in the first training rule—‘An extra robe may be kept for at most ten days’—that too applies only to a robe that has arisen outside the Kathina month, not within. And also, it is shown that because of the statement, ‘Even if given designated for the season, this is an out-of-season robe,’ one does not obtain the ten-day concession after the withdrawal of the Kathina. The implication that one again obtains five days after the withdrawal of the Kathina, along with those, is also prevented because it was stated, having limited the time of arising for an out-of-season robe, ‘When the robe-work is finished… it should be made quickly.’ By both of these reasons, it is established that a robe that has arisen within the Kathina period does not obtain the concession even for a single day after the withdrawal of the Kathina. Therefore, it should be understood that it was said by us, with reference to both these kinds of investigation, that ‘It is not to be accepted because it contradicts the investigation stated herein and the reasoning stated as above.’

Etthāha – ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ ubbhatasmiṃ kathine’’ti idaṃ bhummaṃ kiṃ cīvarassa uppatti niyameti, udāhu dhāraṇaṃ, udāhu ubhayanti, kiñcettha, yadi uppattiṃ niyameti, pacchimakattikamāse eva ubbhatasmiṃ kathine uppannacīvaraṃ tato paṭṭhāya dasāhaṃ dhāretabbaṃ aniṭṭhitepi tasmiṃ māseti āpajjati. Atha dhāraṇaṃ niyameti, antokathine uppannacīvaraṃ ubbhatepi dasāhaparamaṃ dhāretabbanti āpajjati. Atha ubhayaṃ niyameti, tatiyakathine viya visesetvā vattabbanti? Vuccate – kāmaṃ ubhayaṃ niyameti, na pana visesane payojanaṃ atthi. Yaṃ antokathine uppannacīvaraṃ sandhāya ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’nti vuttaṃ, na taṃ sandhāya ‘‘dhāretabba’’nti vuttaṃ, sādhitañhetaṃ. ‘‘Kataṃ vā hotī’’tiādivacanato tadatthasiddhi, tena puna visesane payojanaṃ natthi, na hi katameva nissaggiyaṃ karoti, na ca naṭṭhādikaṃ dhāretuṃ sakkāti. Yena vā adhippāyena bhagavatā idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ, so [Pg.218] adhippāyo tatiyakathine pakāsitoti veditabbo. Kasmā tattha pakāsitoti ce? Visesavidhānadassanādhippāyato. Visesavidhānañhi ‘‘no cassa pāripūrī’’tiādi. Tatthāpi ‘‘cīvaraṃ uppajjeyyā’’ti avatvā ‘‘akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyyā’’ti visesanena ubbhatepi kathine kālacīvaraṃ atthīti dīpeti. Kiñcetaṃ? Pacchimakattikamāse uppannacīvaraṃ, teneva tattha ‘‘anatthate kathine ekādasamāse uppanna’’nti vuttaṃ, tasmā uppattiniyame vuttadosābhāvasiddhi. Yañca tattha ‘‘kālepi ādissa dinnaṃ etaṃ akālacīvaraṃ nāmā’’ti vuttaṃ, tassa dve atthavikappā. Ādesavasena ‘‘akālacīvara’’nti laddhasaṅkhyampi kāle uppannattā kālaparihāraṃ labhati, pagevānādesanti ayaṃ paṭhamo vikappo uppattiniyame vuttadosābhāvameva upatthambheti. Tathā ādesavasena akālacīvarasaṅkhyaṃ gataṃ cīvarakāle uppannattā cīvarakālato paraṃ dasāhaparihāraṃ na labhati, pagevānādesanti ayaṃ dutiyo dhāraṇaniyame vuttadosābhāvameva upatthambheti. Yadi evaṃ ādesavasena akālacīvarassa akālacīvaratā kimatthikāti ce? Saṅghuddesikassa tassa atthatakathinassapi bhikkhusaṅghassa sādhāraṇabhāvatthikāti veditabbā.

Here it is asked: “When the robe-work is finished, when the kaṭhina is withdrawn”—does this locative phrase determine the arising of the robe, or its keeping, or both? And what is the case here? If it determines the arising, then when the kaṭhina has been withdrawn in the last month of Kattika, it would follow that a robe that has arisen must be kept for ten days from then onwards, even if that month has not ended. If it determines the keeping, then it would follow that a robe that has arisen within the kaṭhina period must be kept for at most ten days even when the kaṭhina has been withdrawn. If it determines both, then should it be specified with a distinction, as in the case of the third kaṭhina? It is said: It may well determine both, but there is no purpose in making a distinction. The phrase “when the robe-work is finished” is stated with reference to a robe that has arisen within the kaṭhina period; the phrase “it should be kept” is not stated with reference to that—and this has been established. The meaning is established by the statement “or it is made,” and so forth; therefore, there is no purpose in a further distinction. For it does not make a robe that is merely made subject to relinquishment, nor is it possible to keep a lost or damaged robe. Alternatively, the intention with which the Blessed One laid down this training rule should be understood as having been clarified in the case of the third kaṭhina. If it is asked, 'Why is it clarified there?' Because of the intention to show a special regulation. The special regulation is “if there is no completion for him,” and so forth. There, too, by not saying “a robe may arise” but using the qualifier “an out-of-season robe may arise,” it indicates that even when the kaṭhina is withdrawn, a seasonal robe exists. What is this? A robe that has arisen in the last month of Kattika. For that very reason, it is said there: “arisen in the eleven months when the kaṭhina is not spread.” Therefore, the absence of the stated flaw is established when the arising is the determining factor. And as for the statement made there: “Even if given by designation in the season, this is called an out-of-season robe,” it has two alternative meanings. First alternative: Even if it has acquired the designation “out-of-season robe” by way of designation, because it has arisen in season, it obtains the seasonal allowance—how much more so if not designated. This first alternative supports the absence of the stated flaw when the arising is the determining factor. Likewise, a robe that has acquired the designation “out-of-season robe” by way of designation, because it has arisen during the robe season, does not obtain the ten-day allowance beyond the robe season—how much more so if not designated. This second alternative supports the absence of the stated flaw when the keeping is the determining factor. If so, what is the purpose of an out-of-season robe's state of being an out-of-season robe by way of designation? It should be understood that its purpose is for that robe, designated for the Sangha, to be common property for the community of monks, including those who have spread the kaṭhina.

Apica puggalassa kathinadivasāpi divasāva. Evaṃ gaṇanupagattā akālacīvarasaṅkhayāpaṭilābhānubhāvena ‘‘ubbhatasmiṃ kathine’’ti vacanāpekkhassa anissaggiyattā tadanulomattā ‘‘kālacīvarassapī’’ti evaṃ sabbathā catubbidhaṃ ettha vacananti veditabbaṃ. Apica atthi ekaccena kathinuddhārena ubbhate kathine uppannaṃ ekaccassa bhikkhuno kālacīvaraṃ hoti, ekaccassa akālacīvaraṃ, taṃ sīmātikkantassa, no ubbhāragataṃ. Taṃ dvinnaṃ vasena ubbhate uppannaṃ ṭhapetvā itaresaṃ aññatarena ubbhate uppannanti veditabbaṃ. Tañhi yassa ubbhataṃ, tassa akālacīvaraṃ, itarassa kālacīvaraṃ. Tathā atthi ekaccena kathinuddhārena ubbhate kathine uppannaṃ sabbassapi akālacīvarameva hoti. Taṃ yathāṭhapitaṃ veditabbaṃ. Tathā atthi ubbhatasmiṃ kathine uppannaṃ ṭhapetvā vassānassa pacchime māse uppannaṃ. Tathā atthi ubbhatasmiṃ kathine uppannaṃ akālacīvaraṃ, taṃ hemante, gimhe vā uppannanti veditabbaṃ. Evaṃ puggalakālabhedato bahuvidhattā uppannassa ‘‘ubbhatasmiṃ kathine uppanna’’nti na vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Anekaṃsikattā imampi atthavikappaṃ [Pg.219] dassetuṃ ‘‘ubbhatasmiṃ kathineti bhikkhuno kathinaṃ ubbhataṃ hotī’’ti. Ettāvatā siddhepi ‘‘aṭṭhannaṃ mātikānaṃ aññatarāyā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Dhārayāmī’’ti bhikkhunīvibhaṅge āgatoti vattabbo. ‘‘Eva’’nti vacanena vacanabhedo tattha natthīti vuttaṃ hoti.

Moreover, for an individual, the kaṭhina days are also just days. Thus, it should be understood that the statement here is in every respect fourfold: because it is subject to counting; by the power of obtaining the designation 'out-of-season robe'; because, with reference to the phrase 'when the kaṭhina is removed', it is not subject to forfeiture; and because of its conformity thereto for a seasonal robe as well. Furthermore, there is a case where, when the kaṭhina is removed by a certain type of kaṭhina-removal, a robe that has arisen is a seasonal robe for one monk, and an out-of-season robe for another; this applies to one who has transgressed the boundary, not to one whose kaṭhina has been formally removed. It should be understood that, excluding that which has arisen when the kaṭhina has been removed on account of two grounds, it has arisen when removed by any of the others. For the one for whom it has been removed, it is an out-of-season robe; for the other, it is a seasonal robe. Similarly, there is a case where, when the kaṭhina has been removed by a certain type of kaṭhina-removal, whatever has arisen is an out-of-season robe for everyone. This should be understood as it was established. Likewise, there is that which has arisen in the last month of the rains retreat, apart from that which has arisen when the kaṭhina has been removed. Also, there is an out-of-season robe that has arisen when the kaṭhina has been removed; it should be understood that this has arisen in winter or summer. Thus, it should be understood that because of the manifold nature of what has arisen due to distinctions of person and time, it is not stated as 'what has arisen when the kaṭhina has been removed'. Because of this ambiguity, to show this alternative meaning, it is said: 'When the kaṭhina is removed' means 'the kaṭhina is removed for that monk'. Even though this is established by just that, it is also said: 'by any one of the eight matrices', and so forth. It should be understood that 'Dhārayāmi' comes from the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga. By the word 'eva', it is said that there is no difference in the wording there.

‘‘Vikappanupagaṃ pacchima’’nti idaṃ sabbasaṅgāhikattā vuttaṃ. ‘‘Adhiṭṭhānupagaṃ pacchima’’nti asabbasaṅgāhikaṃ. Na hi yattakaṃ saṅghāṭi adhiṭṭhānupagaṃ pacchimaṃ, tattakaṃ antaravāsakādi adhiṭṭhānupagaṃ pacchimaṃ hoti adhiṭṭhānassa bahuvidhattā. Na evaṃ vikappanāya bhedo tassā ekavidhattāti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Ekādase aruṇuggamane nissaggiya’’nti antimaṃ ṭhapetvā tato purimatarasminti attho veditabbo. Antimaṃ nāma aparakattikāya paṭhamāruṇuggamanaṃ. Tañhi kālattā nissaggiyaṃ na karoti, tenevāha accekacīvarasikkhāpadaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘chaṭṭhito paṭṭhāya pana uppannaṃ anaccekacīvarampi paccuddharitvā ṭhapitacīvarampi etaṃ parihāraṃ labhatiyevā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.646-9). Imaṃyeva nayaṃ sandhāya ‘‘accekacīvarassa anatthate kathine ekādasadivasādhiko māso, atthate kathine ekādasadivasādhikā pañca māsā, tato paraṃ ekadivasampi parihāro natthī’’ti tatthevāha. Imasmiṃ naye siddhe anaccekacīvaraṃ dvādasāhe na labhatīti siddhameva hoti. Tato ‘‘anaccekacīvare anaccekacīvarasaññī, anāpattī’’ti (pārā. 650) ettha accekacīvarasadise aññasmiṃ anadhiṭṭhiteti siddhaṃ hoti. Tattha pana ‘‘pañca māsā’’ti ukkaṭṭhaparicchedavacanaṃ. Vassikasāṭikañca avassikasāṭikabhāvaṃ patvā ekādasamāse parihāraṃ labhatīti veditabbaṃ.

“The last one suitable for vikappanā” is stated because it is all-inclusive. “The last one suitable for determination” is not all-inclusive. For whatever is the last robe suitable for determination as an outer robe, that same is not the last robe suitable for determination as an undergarment and so forth, because determination is of many kinds. It should be understood that there is no such distinction for vikappanā, as it is of a single kind. “On the eleventh dawn, it is to be forfeited”—the meaning should be understood as referring to what is earlier than the very last, excluding the very last. The very last, namely, is the first dawn of the later Kattika month. For that day does not cause forfeiture, because it is the robe season. Therefore, it is said in the commentary on the training rule concerning urgent robes: “From the sixth day onwards, however, even a non-urgent robe that has arisen, and even a robe that has been set aside after being withdrawn, certainly obtains this allowance.” With reference to this very method, it is said in that same place: “For an urgent robe, when the kaṭhina is not spread, the allowance is for a month plus eleven days; when the kaṭhina is spread, it is for five months plus eleven days; beyond that, there is no allowance even for a single day.” When this method is established, it is indeed established that a non-urgent robe is not allowable for twelve days. Therefore, in the statement “Regarding a non-urgent robe, being aware of it as a non-urgent robe, there is no offense,” it is established that this refers to another robe similar to an urgent robe that has not been determined. There, however, “five months” is a statement defining the maximum limit. And it should be understood that a rains-cloth, having reached the state of being a non-rains-cloth, obtains the allowance for eleven months.

Dasāhātikkantaṃ nissaggiyanti ettha āpattivuṭṭhāne ‘‘dasāhappaṭicchannaṃ pakkhaatirekapakkhamāsaatirekamāsapaṭicchanna’’ntiādivacanabhedo viya, na idha vacanabhedo, tasmā saṃvaccharātikkantampi dasāhātikkantameva nāma, tathā dutiyakathinepi saṃvaccharavippavutthampi rattivippavutthameva. Tatiye saṃvaccharātikkantampi māsātikkantameva nāmāti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Anadhiṭṭhite adhiṭṭhitasaññī nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya’’nti idamekassa tikapācittiyassa ādipadadīpanaṃ. Esa nayo avikappitetiādīsupi, tasmā ettha aṭṭhasu tikacchedesu ekaṃ vitthāretvā itaresaṃ ekekamādipadaṃ vitthārehvā dve dve bhagavatāva [Pg.220] saṅkhittattāti bahūsupi tikacchedesu sambhavantesu eko eva vuccati, ‘‘ayaṃ vinayassa dhammatā’’ti vadanti. Dukkaṭavāresu pana ekaṃ dukkaṭaṃ vitthāretvā sesāni satta tatheva saṅkhittāni. Tathā antimantimo ekeko anāpattikoṭṭhāsoti veditabbaṃ.

“Passed beyond ten days, it is to be forfeited.” Here, in the matter of rising from an offense, unlike the distinctions in wording such as ‘concealed for ten days, concealed for more than a fortnight, concealed for more than a month,’ there is no distinction in wording here. Therefore, even if it has passed beyond a year, it is still called ‘passed beyond ten days.’ Similarly, in the second kaṭhina training rule, even if one has been separated from it for a year, it is still called ‘separated for a night.’ In the third, even if it has passed beyond a year, it is still called ‘passed beyond a month’—this should be understood. “Perceiving what is not determined as determined, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya offense”—this is the explanation of the first phrase of one of the threefold pācittiya offenses. This same method applies to the cases beginning with ‘not shared’ and so on. Therefore, here, among the eight threefold sections, after elaborating on one, for the others, two phrases each have been condensed by the Blessed One himself. Thus, even though many threefold sections are possible, only one is stated, for they say, “This is the nature of the Vinaya.” In the sections on the dukkaṭa offense, however, one dukkaṭa is elaborated upon, while the remaining seven are similarly condensed. Likewise, each very last section is a case of non-offense—this should be understood.

Anāpatti antodasāhanti ayaṃ saṅkhepattho – taṃ dasāhaparamaṃ dhāretabbaṃ. Taṃ atirekacīvaraṃ yathāsakaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti vā vikappeti vā vissajjeti vā attano dhammatāya nassati vā vinassati vā ḍayhati vā añño vā taṃ acchinditvā gaṇhāti vissāsanto vā gaṇhāti pācittiyato anāpatti. Dukkaṭato pana siyā āpatti siyā anāpatti saññābhedena. Antimānaṃ panettha dvinnaṃ padānaṃ vasena anacchinne acchinnasaññī nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Avissāsaggāhe vissāsaggāhasaññī nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyantiādikā dve tikapācittiyā, dve ca dukkaṭā saṅkhittāti veditabbā. Ettha hi yadi antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti, dasāhaparamaṃ aruṇaṃ atikkamitvā tassa divasabhāge adhiṭṭhahatīti veditabbaṃ. Ayaṃ tāva pāḷivinicchayo.

“No offense within ten days”—this is the summary meaning: it should be kept for a maximum of ten days. Regarding that extra robe, if within ten days one determines it, places it under shared ownership, or relinquishes it; or if it is lost by its own nature, is destroyed, or is burned; or if another takes it by force or with trust—there is no offense requiring expiation. From the perspective of an offense of wrong-doing, however, there may be an offense or no offense, depending on the distinction in perception. Herein, by means of the last two phrases—‘When it has not been taken away, perceiving it as taken away, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation,’ and ‘When it is not taken with trust, perceiving it as taken with trust, it is an offense of relinquishment and expiation’—it should be understood that two threefold offenses of expiation and two offenses of wrong-doing are summarized. Herein, should one determine it within ten days, it should be understood that one determines it during the daytime after the dawn of the tenth day at the latest has passed. This, for now, is the ruling of the Pāli text.

Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ito garukatarānītiādimhi ayaṃ codanāpubbaṅgamo vinicchayo – gaṇṭhipade panassa ito nissaṭṭhacīvaradānato garukampi ñattidutiyakammaṃ yathā apalokanena karonti, evamidaṃ ñattiyā kattabbampi pakativacanena vaṭṭatīti. Yadi evaṃ parivāre kammavaggassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘ñattikammampi ekaṃ ñattiṃ ṭhapetvāva kātabbaṃ, apalokanakammādivasena na kātabba’’nti (pari. aṭṭha. 482) yaṃ vuttaṃ, tena virujjheyya. Tenetaṃ vuccati ‘‘tesaṃ etaṃ anuloma’’nti, tasmā anulomanayeneva taṃ vuttaṃ. Niyamaṃ pana yathā dvinnaṃ pārisuddhiuposatho vinā ñattiyā hoti, evaṃ dvinnaṃ nissaṭṭhacīvaradānampīti vadāma, tasmā ‘‘āyasmato demā’’ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Kathaṃ panetaṃ ñātabbanti? Tadanulomattāti. Ekadevedaṃ ñattikammaṃ apalokanenāpi kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti sādhananti veditabbanti ācariyo. Anugaṇṭhipade panettha codanaṃ katvā ‘‘etaṃ sādhitaṃ. Ñattikammaṃ ekaṃ ñattiṃ ṭhapetvāva kātabba’’nti pāḷiyā āgataṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, idaṃ pana pāḷiyaṃ nāgataṃ, lesato āharitvā vuttanti katvā etaṃ apalokanenāpi vaṭṭatīti.

In the Commentary, however, in the passage beginning ‘more serious than this,’ this decision is preceded by a challenge. But in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is argued that just as a formal act with a motion and one announcement—which is more serious than this giving of a relinquished robe—is performed by an act of informing, so too this act, which should be done by a motion, is permissible by an ordinary statement. If so, it would contradict what is stated in the Commentary on the Kammavagga in the Parivāra: ‘A formal act with a motion should be done only by positing one motion; it should not be done by way of an act of informing, etc.’ (Pari. Aṭṭha. 482). Because of that, it is said, ‘This is in conformity with them,’ and thus it is stated only by way of conformity. As a rule, however, we say that just as the Uposatha of purity for two monks occurs without a motion, so too does the giving of a relinquished robe for two. Therefore, it is permissible to say, ‘We give to the venerable one.’ But how is this to be known? Because of its conformity. The teacher states that it should be known that the proof is this statement: ‘This one formal act with a motion is also permitted to be done by an act of informing.’ In the Anugaṇṭhipada, however, having raised a challenge, it is stated with reference to what has come in the Pāli: ‘This is proven. A formal act with a motion should be done only by positing one motion.’ But this has not come in the Pāli; it is stated having been brought by way of a hint, and for that reason, it is said that this is also permissible by an act of informing.

468. Esa [Pg.221] nayoti aññesaṃ cīvaresu upacikādīhi khāyitesu mamapi khāyitānītiādi. ‘‘Aññena kataṃ…pe… sādhaka’’nti vacanato samānajātikaṃ, ekatthajātikañca tatiyakathinaṃ paṭhamasamānamevāti siddhaṃ hoti.

468. ‘This is the method’ means: when the robes of others are eaten by termites and so forth, one thinks, ‘My robes are also eaten,’ and so on. Because of the text, ‘What is done by another… is effective,’ it is thereby established that the third kathina, being of the same kind and of a single purpose, is indeed the same as the first.

469. Ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātunti ettha ticīvaraṃ ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātabbayuttakaṃ, yaṃ vā ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātuṃ avikappetuṃ 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 hotīti vuttametaṃ. Vassikasāṭikaṃ tato paraṃ vikappetuṃyeva nādhiṭṭhātuṃ. Vatthañhi katapariyositaṃ antocatumāse vassānadivasaṃ ādiṃ katvā antodasāhe adhiṭṭhātuṃ anujānāmi, catumāsato uddhaṃ attano santakaṃ katvā ṭhapitukāmena vikappetuṃ anujānāmīti attho. Sugatacīvarato ūnakanti tiṇṇampi cīvarānaṃ ukkaṭṭhaparicchedo. ‘‘Ticīvaraṃ pana parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vāde pana sati tathārūpapaccaye vaṭṭati. Yathā sati paccaye vikappetuṃ vaṭṭatīti sādhitametaṃ, pageva aññena adhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātuṃ. ‘‘Antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti, vikappetī’’ti aniyamato vuttanti saṅghāṭi, uttarāsaṅgo, antaravāsakanti adhiṭṭhitānadhiṭṭhitānaṃ samānameva nāmaṃ. ‘‘Ayaṃ saṅghāṭī’’tiādīsu (mahāva. 126) hi anadhiṭṭhitā vuttā. ‘‘Ticīvarena vippavaseyyā’’ti ettha adhiṭṭhitā vuttā. Sāmantavihāre vāti gocaragāmato vihāreti dhammasiritthero. Dūratarepi labbhatevāti ācariyo. Anugaṇṭhipadepi ‘‘sāmantavihāre vāti 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 parivattitvā nāgadante ṭhapeti, taṃ ajānitvā adhiṭṭhahantassapi ruhati cīvarassa sallakkhitattā’’ti vadanti. Adhiṭṭhahitvāti parikkhāracoḷādivasena. Mahantataramevātiādi sabbādhiṭṭhānasādhāraṇalakkhaṇaṃ[Pg.222]. Tattha puna adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti adhiṭṭhitacīvarassa ekadesabhūtattā. Anadhiṭṭhitañce, adhiṭṭhitassa appabhāvena ekadesabhūtaṃ adhiṭṭhitasaṅkhyameva gacchati. Tathā adhiṭṭhitañce, anadhiṭṭhitassa ekadesabhūtaṃ anadhiṭṭhitasaṅkhyaṃ gacchatīti hi lakkhaṇaṃ, na kevalañcettha dutiyapaṭṭameva, tatiyapaṭṭādikampi. Yathāha ‘‘anujānāmi…pe… utuddhaṭānaṃ dussānaṃ catugguṇaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ…pe… paṃsukūle yāvadattha’’nti (mahāva. 348).

469. “To determine the three robes”: here, the three robes are suitable to be determined by the determination of the three robes; or it is a robe which I allow to be determined, and not made subject to `vikappana`, by means of the determination of the three robes. Since there is no time limit for its determination, I allow one who wishes to determine it at any time; I do not allow making it subject to `vikappana` after setting a time limit. However, when there is a reason, it is allowable to withdraw the determination and make it subject to `vikappana` at any time. This is established by the passage: “There is no offense if one determines it or makes it subject to `vikappana` within ten days.” This has been stated. The rains-bathing cloth, however, should only be made subject to `vikappana` after that period, not determined. For a cloth that has been finished, I allow it to be determined within ten days, starting from the first day of the rains within the four months. But after the four months, for one who wishes to keep it as their own possession, I allow it to be made subject to `vikappana`—this is the meaning. “Less than the Sugata's robe” is the maximum limit for all three robes. However, in the view that “it is allowable to determine the three robes as an accessory cloth,” it is allowable when there is such a suitable reason. Just as it is established that it is allowable to make it subject to `vikappana` when there is a reason, how much more so to determine it with another determination. The statement, “One determines it or makes it subject to `vikappana` within ten days,” is said without restriction. Thus, the names “outer robe,” “upper robe,” and “inner robe” are the very same for those that are determined and those that are not determined. Indeed, in phrases like “This is the outer robe,” an undetermined one is spoken of. In the phrase, “One might be separated from the three robes,” a determined one is spoken of. “Or in a neighboring monastery” means in a monastery near the alms-resort village, according to the Elder Dhammasiri. The Teacher says it is allowable even at a greater distance. In the Anugaṇṭhipada too, it is said: “‘In a neighboring monastery’ is merely the heading of the teaching. Therefore, having mentally marked the place where it is kept, one should determine it even if it is far away.” A neighboring monastery is a place to which one can go and return on the very same day. For one who is guarding against separation at night, it is not allowable to determine a robe that is further than that; so it is said in the Great Commentary. Some say: “If a robe placed on a robe-bamboo is moved by another and placed on an elephant-tusk peg, even for one who determines it without knowing this, the determination is valid because the robe has been mentally marked.” “Having determined it” is by way of an accessory cloth and so forth. “Even larger,” and so on, is a characteristic common to all determinations. Therein, the statement “it must be determined again” is because of it becoming a part of a determined robe. If an undetermined piece of cloth, being a small part of a determined robe, is added, it goes into the category of ‘determined’. Similarly, if a determined piece of cloth, being a part of an undetermined robe, is added, it goes into the category of ‘undetermined’. For this is the characteristic. And here it is not only a second layer, but also a third layer and so on. As it is said: “I allow… a four-fold outer robe of new cloth… as much as is needed for a rag-robe.”

Avasesā bhikkhūti vakkhamānakāle nisinnā bhikkhū. Tasmā vaṭṭatīti yathā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetu’’nti vuttaṃ, evaṃ parikkhāracoḷampi vuttaṃ, na tassa ukkaṭṭhaparicchedo vutto, na ca saṅkhyāparicchedo, tasmā tīṇipi cīvarāni paccuddharitvā ‘‘imāni cīvarāni parikkhāracoḷāni adhiṭṭhāmī’’ti adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. ‘‘Nidhānamukhameta’’nti kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhūnaṃ paripuṇṇaṃ hoti ticīvaraṃ, attho ca hoti parissāvanehipi thavikāhipī’’ti etasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, parikkhāracoḷa’’nti (mahāva. 358) anuññātattā. Bhikkhūnañca ekameva parissāvanaṃ, thavikā vā vaṭṭati, na dve vā tīṇi vāti paṭikkhepābhāvato vikappanupagapacchimappamāṇāni, atirekappamāṇāni vā parissāvanādīni parikkhārāni kappantīti siddhaṃ. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘yaṃnūnāhaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cīvare sīmaṃ bandheyyaṃ mariyādaṃ ṭhapeyya’’nti (mahāva. 346) vacanavirodhoti ce? Na, anusandhiyā ajānanato, virodhato ca. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. 326 ādayo) paṭhamaṃ gahapaticīvaraṃ anuññātaṃ, tato pāvārakosiyakojavakambalādi. Tato ‘‘tena kho pana samayena saṅghassa uccāvacāni cīvarāni uppannāni honti. Atha kho bhikkhūnaṃ etadahosi ‘kiṃ nu kho bhagavatā cīvaraṃ anuññātaṃ, kiṃ ananuññāta’’’nti etasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, cha cīvarāni khoma’’ntiādinā (mahāva. 339) kappiyacīvarajāti anuññātā, na pana saṅkhyāpamāṇaṃ. Tato ‘‘addasa bhagavā…pe… sambahule bhikkhū cīvarehi ubbhaṇḍite sīsepi cīvarabhisiṃ karitvā khandhepi cīvarabhisiṃ karitvā kaṭiyāpi cīvarabhisiṃ karitvā āgacchante, disvāna bhagavato etadahosi…pe… yepi kho te kulaputtā imasmiṃ dhammavinaye sītālukā sītabhīrukā, tepi sakkonti [Pg.223] ticīvarena yāpetuṃ, yaṃnūnāhaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cīvare sīmaṃ bandheyyaṃ mariyādaṃ ṭhapeyyaṃ ticīvaraṃ anujāneyya’’nti (mahāva. 346) cīvaraṃ anuññātaṃ, tañca kho ekameva. Chabbaggiyā pana micchā gahetvā bahūni parihariṃsu. Tāni nesaṃ atirekaṭṭhāne ṭhitāni honti. Tato ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretu’’nti (mahāva. 347) anuññātaṃ, tenetaṃ paññāyati. Atirekāni bahūni cīvarāni te parihariṃsu, ‘‘tāni dasāhaparamameva dhāretuṃ anujānāmi, na tameveka’’nti vadantena yā pubbe ticīvarādhiṭṭhānasaṅkhātā cīvare sīmābaddhā, mariyādā ca ṭhapitā, tāya satipi ticīvarabāhullapariharaṇakkamo dassito divasaparicchedavasena. Tato paraṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, atirekacīvaraṃ vikappetu’’nti (mahāva. 347) anujānantena vināpi divasaparicchedena atirekacīvarapariharaṇakkamo dassitoti dvepi tāni nidhānamukhānīti siddhaṃ. Tathā parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhānampi siyā, aññathā itaracīvarādhiṭṭhānānujānanavirodho siyā sīmāmariyādaṭṭhapanavirodhato. Ticīvarādhiṭṭhānapaññattiyeva ticīvaramariyādā hoti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘pāṭekkaṃ nidhānamukhameta’’nti. ‘‘Paṭhamaṃ ticīvaraṃ ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, puna pariharituṃ asakkontena paccuddharitvā parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, na tveva āditova idaṃ vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Yathā ticīvaraṃ pariharituṃ asakkontassa gilānassa vippavāsasammuti anuññātā, agilānassapi sāsaṅkasikkhāpade (pārā. 652) tassa antaraghare nikkhepo ca, tatopi sati paccaye chārattavippavāso, tatopi asakkontassa paccuddhāro, paccuddhaṭampi antodasāhe adhiṭṭhātuṃ, asakkontassa vikappanā ca anuññātā. Tatheva dvinnampi sammukhāparammukhāvikappanānaṃ parasantakattā vikappanapaccaye asati ‘parikkhāracoḷa’nti adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjituṃ bhagavatā anuññātaṃ siyā, yato tadadhippāyaññū evaṃ vadantī’’ti mahāpaccariyampi vuttaṃ. Pubbetiādi ‘‘pāṭekkaṃ nidhānamukha’’nti vuttassa payogadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Abaddhasīmāyaṃ dupparihāranti vikappanādiatthāya upacāraṃ atikkamitvāpi gamanasambhavato.

“The remaining bhikkhus” means the bhikkhus who were seated at the time of speaking. Therefore, it is permissible. Just as it was said, “I allow, bhikkhus, to determine the triple robe, not to share it,” so too was the accessory cloth spoken of. Its maximum limit was not stated, nor was a numerical limit. Therefore, having withdrawn even the three robes, it is permissible to determine, “I determine these robes as accessory cloths,” and then use them; this is the meaning. If it is asked, “How is this known as an opening for storage?” Because in the case where “at that time the bhikkhus’ triple robe was complete, and there was a need for water strainers and bags,” it was allowed, saying, “I allow, bhikkhus, an accessory cloth” (Mahāvagga 358). And because there is no prohibition stating, ‘Only one water strainer or bag is permissible for a bhikkhu, not two or three,’ it is established that requisites such as water strainers, whether of the minimum size for sharing or of an extra size, are allowable. If it is said, “If so, this would contradict the statement, ‘Suppose I were to set a boundary for the bhikkhus’ robes, establish a limit’?” (Mahāvagga 346), the answer is no, due to not knowing the connection and due to the apparent contradiction. What was said? In the Chapter on Robes (Mahāvagga 326 ff.), first, the householder's robe was allowed, then robes of Pāvāra silk, Kosiya silk, Kojavaka felt, blankets, etc. Then, in the case where “at that time, various robes had arisen for the Sangha. Then it occurred to the bhikkhus, ‘What kind of robe has been allowed by the Blessed One, and what has not been allowed?’” the types of allowable robes were permitted by the text beginning, “I allow, bhikkhus, six kinds of robes: linen...” (Mahāvagga 339), but not a numerical limit. Then, “the Blessed One saw... many bhikkhus coming, burdened with robes, having made a bundle of robes on their heads, on their shoulders, and on their waists. Having seen them, it occurred to the Blessed One... ‘Even those clansmen in this Dhamma and Vinaya who are sensitive to cold and fear the cold are able to manage with a triple robe. Suppose I were to set a boundary for the bhikkhus’ robes, establish a limit, and allow the triple robe’” (Mahāvagga 346). Thus the triple robe was allowed, and that was just one set. But the Group-of-six bhikkhus, having misunderstood, used many. Those stood in the category of ‘extra’ for them. Then it was allowed, “I allow, bhikkhus, to keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days” (Mahāvagga 347); by this it is known. They used many extra robes, and by his saying, “I allow those to be kept for a maximum of ten days, not that one only,” a method for managing an abundance of robes was shown by way of a limitation of days, even while the boundary and limit previously established for robes, known as the determination of the triple robe, existed. After that, by allowing, “I allow, bhikkhus, to share an extra robe” (Mahāvagga 347), a method for managing an extra robe even without a limitation of days was shown. Thus it is established that both of these are openings for storage. Similarly, the determination of an accessory cloth would be possible; otherwise, there would be a contradiction with the allowance for the other determination of robes, due to the contradiction with establishing a boundary and limit. The regulation for the determination of the triple robe itself is the limit for the triple robe. Therefore it was said, “Each is an opening for storage.” It was said: “First, the triple robe should be determined by the determination of the triple robe. Then, by one who is unable to maintain it, having withdrawn it, the accessory cloth should be determined. This was not, however, stated from the very beginning.” It is also said in the Mahāpaccarī: “Just as for a sick person unable to maintain the triple robe, permission to be away from it was allowed; and for one not sick, in the training rule concerning a dangerous situation (Pārājika 652), the placing of it inside a house was also allowed; and further, if there is a reason, being away for six nights; and further, for one unable, withdrawal; and to determine the withdrawn robe within ten days; and for one unable, sharing was also allowed. Just so, since both kinds of sharing—in person and in absence—make it the property of another, when there is no condition for sharing, it may be that it was allowed by the Blessed One to determine it as an ‘accessory cloth’ and use it, since those who know his intention speak thus.” The preceding passage (beginning with `pubbe`, 'formerly') was stated to show the application of the saying, “Each is an opening for storage.” The statement “In an area with an unbound boundary, it is difficult to maintain” is made because, for the purpose of sharing, etc., it is possible to go even beyond the vicinity.

Vassikasāṭikā anatirittappamāṇāti tassā ukkaṭṭhaparicchedassa vuttattā vuttaṃ. Paccattharaṇampi adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti ‘‘idaṃ, bhante, amhākaṃ senāsanassa upari attharitabba’’ntiādinā dinnaṃ nādhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, ‘‘idaṃ tumhāka’’nti [Pg.224] dinnaṃ sayaṃ adhippetaṃva adhiṭṭhātabbanti adhippāyo. ‘‘Sakiṃ adhiṭṭhitaṃ adhiṭṭhitameva hoti, na puna paccuddharīyati kālaparicchedābhāvato’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Ekavacanenapi vaṭṭatīti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Bhesajjanavakammamātāpituādīnaṃ atthāyāti ettha ‘‘iminā bhesajjaṃ cetāpessāmi, idaṃ mātuyā dassāmī’’ti ṭhapentena adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. ‘‘‘Idaṃ bhesajjassa, imaṃ mātuyā’ti vibhajantena adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthīti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sakabhāvaṃ mocetvā ṭhapanaṃ sandhāyāhā’’ti likhitaṃ.

It is said that the rainy-season robe should not exceed the prescribed measurement, because its maximum limit has been stated. Regarding the statement, 'An underlay is also to be determined': the intention is that what is given with words such as, 'Venerable sir, this is to be spread over our dwelling,' should not be determined. But what is given with the words, 'This is for you,' should be determined by oneself as intended. It is written: 'Once determined, it remains determined and is not to be withdrawn again, as there is no time limit.' It is said: 'Others say, "It is allowable even with a single utterance."' Regarding what is for the purpose of medicine, new work, mother, father, and so on: here, it should be determined by one setting it aside thinking, 'With this, I will have medicine procured,' or, 'I will give this to my mother.' It is said: 'Others say, "For one who specifies, ‘This is for medicine, this is for my mother,’ there is no need for determination."' It is written: 'This was stated with reference to setting something aside after relinquishing one's ownership of it.'

‘‘Puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti ayaṃ saṅgītito paṭṭhāya āgataaṭṭhakathāvādo. Tato paraṃ ācariyānaṃ tattha tattha yuttivicāraṇā’’ti vuttaṃ. Pamāṇacīvarassāti pacchimappamāṇassa. Dve cīvarānīti saha uttarāsaṅgena. Esa nayoti pamāṇayuttesu yattha katthacītiādinayova. ‘‘Taṃ atikkāmayato chedanaka’’nti (pāci. 533) vacanato uttari paṭisiddhaṃ, tato heṭṭhā appaṭisiddhattā vaṭṭati. Tattha siyā – ticīvarassa pacchimappamāṇaṃ visuṃ sutte natthīti, na vattabbaṃ, sikkhākaraṇīyehi siddhattā. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? ‘‘‘Parimaṇḍalaṃ nivāsessāmi, pārupissāmi, suppaṭicchanno antaraghare gamissāmī’ti (pāci. 576-579) vacanato yattakena pamāṇena parimaṇḍalatā, suppaṭicchannatā ca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttakkamena sampajjatī’’ti vattabbaṃ. Tesaṃ vasena pacchimappamāṇanti siddhaṃ, tañca kho muṭṭhipañcakādi yathāvuttameva vuccate. Tenevāha lesaṃ ṭhapetvā ‘‘visuṃ sutte natthī’’ti.

It was said: 'Regarding “It should be determined again,” this is the commentarial tradition that has come down since the Council. Beyond that is the teachers' investigation of what is proper in various instances.' 'Of the standard-sized robe' means of the minimum standard size. 'Two robes' means together with the upper robe. 'This is the method' means it is the method beginning with 'in any standard-sized [robe] whatsoever.' According to the passage, 'For one who exceeds it, there is an offense of cutting,' what is beyond is prohibited; what is below that is permissible, since it is not prohibited. Here, an objection might be raised: 'The minimum standard size for the triple robe is not separately stated in the Sutta.' This should not be said, because it is established by the training rules. What is meant? It should be said that, 'According to the passage, “I will wear the lower robe evenly all around; I will wear the upper robe evenly all around; I will go into inhabited areas well-covered,” by whatever standard size evenness and being well-covered are accomplished according to the method stated in the commentary.' By means of these rules, the term 'minimum standard size' is established. And that, indeed, is said to be five fists and so on, just as has been stated. Therefore, having provided a hint, he said, 'It is not separately in the Sutta.'

Apicettha adhippetaṃ, tathāpi na sametiyevāti attho, tasmā ‘‘yadī’’tiādisambandho addhā vutto. Yasmā paricchinno sameti ca. Itaresu pana ekaccasmiṃ ācariyavāde neva paricchedo atthi. Ekaccasmiṃ na pubbāparaṃ sametīti sambandho. Adhiṭṭhānaṃ adhiṭṭhānameva, paribhogakāle pana arajitaṃ na vaṭṭati. Idaṃ sabbaṃ ticīvare eva. Imassa pana sikkhāpadassa ayaṃ saṅkhepavinicchayo – anatthate kathine hemantānaṃ paṭhamadivasato paṭṭhāya atthate kathine gimhānaṃ paṭhamadivasato paṭṭhāya uppannacīvaraṃ sandhāya ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’ntiādi vuttanti.

Moreover, although this is intended here, the meaning is that it still does not quite agree; therefore, the connection beginning with 'if' is certainly stated. Because it is defined, it also agrees. However, in some other doctrines of the teachers, there is no definition at all. In some, the preceding and succeeding parts do not agree—this is the connection. A determination is just a determination, but at the time of use, an undyed robe is not allowable. All this pertains only to the triple robe. For this training rule, however, this is the concise analysis: with reference to a robe that has arisen when the Kathina is not spread, from the first day of the winter months onward, and when the Kathina is spread, from the first day of the summer months onward, the passage beginning with 'when the robe is finished' is stated.

Etthāha – ‘‘rajakehi dhovāpetvā setaṃ kārāpentassāpi adhiṭṭhānaṃ adhiṭṭhānamevā’’ti vacanato arajitepi adhiṭṭhānaṃ ruhati, tena sūcikammaṃ [Pg.225] katvā rajitvā kappabinduṃ datvā adhiṭṭhātabbanti niyamo na kātabboti? Vuccate, kātabbova patto viya adhiṭṭhito. Yathā puna setabhāvaṃ, tambabhāvaṃ vā patto adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahati, na ca pana tādiso adhiṭṭhānaṃ upagacchati, evametaṃ daṭṭhabbanti. ‘‘Yato paṭṭhāya paribhogādayo vaṭṭanti, tato paṭṭhāya antodasāhe adhiṭṭhātabba’’nti vadanti.

Here a questioner says: 'According to the statement, “Even for one who has a robe washed by a launderer and made white, the determination is still a determination,” a determination takes effect even on an undyed robe. Therefore, should the rule not be made that it must be determined only after doing the needlework, dyeing it, and applying the marking-spot (kappabindu)?' The reply is: It must indeed be made, just like a determined bowl. Just as a bowl that has become white or reddish does not lose its determination, yet such a bowl is not in a state to be determined anew, so should this be understood. They say: 'From the time that usage and so forth are allowable, from then on it must be determined within ten days.'

Avisesena vuttavacananti adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ adhiṭṭheti, vikappetabbaṃ vikappetīti evaṃ savisesaṃ katvā avacanaṃ ‘‘na vikappetu’’nti (mahāva. 358) iminā viruddhaṃ viya dissati. Idāni idaṃ adhiṭṭhānavikappananayapaṭibaddhaṃ khandhakaṃ, parivārañca missetvā pakiṇṇakaṃ vuccati – khandhake tāva ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ, vassikasāṭikaṃ vassānaṃ cātumāsaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ, tato paraṃ vikappetu’’ntiādi vuttaṃ. Parivāre ‘‘na nava cīvarāni adhiṭṭhātabbāni, na nava cīvarāni vikappetabbānī’’ti (pari. 329), ‘‘dasake dasa, ekādasake ekādasa cīvarāni adhiṭṭhātabbāni, na vikappetabbānī’’ti (pari. 331) ca anekakkhattuṃ vacanena suṭṭhu daḷhaṃ katvā ‘‘sabbāni cīvarāni adhiṭṭhātabbāni, na vikappetabbānī’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā ubhopi te viruddhā viya dissanti, khandhake eva ca ‘‘vassikasāṭikaṃ vassānaṃ cātumāsaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ tato paraṃ vikappetu’’nti (mahāva. 358) vuttaṃ. Tadaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘vassikasāṭikā anatirittappamāṇā nāmaṃ gahetvā vuttanayeneva cattāro vassike māse adhiṭṭhātabbā, tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Idañca viruddhaṃ viya dissati aññamaññaṃ hemante paccuddhārasambhavato, vassāne vikappanāsambhavato ca. Tathā idha ‘‘anāpatti antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti vikappetī’’ti vacanappamāṇato sabbattha vikappanāya appaṭisiddhabhāvo veditabboti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ parivāravacanena viruddhaṃ viya dissati, na hi viruddhaṃ tathāgatā bhāsanti, tasmā aṭṭhakathānayovettha paṭisaraṇaṃ, yena sabbampi taṃ ekarasaṃ hoti. Parivāraṭṭhakathāyañca vuttaṃ ‘‘na vikappetabbānīti adhiṭṭhitakālato paṭṭhāya na vikappetabbānī’’ti (pari. aṭṭha. 329). Ticīvarāni adhiṭṭhitakālato paṭṭhāya, vassikasāṭikādīni ca attano attano adhiṭṭhānakhette na akāmā vikappetabbānīti attho, avasesapāḷi, attho ca idha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutto, tasmā sabbampetaṃ ekarasanti.

The statement spoken without distinction means: what is to be determined, one determines; what is to be shared, one shares. Thus, the statement made with a distinction, namely, 'one should not share it,' appears contradictory. Now, this miscellaneous teaching, which is connected with the method of determination and sharing, is presented by combining the Khandhaka and the Parivāra. Firstly, in the Khandhaka, it is said: 'I allow, O bhikkhus, the determination of the three robes, not their sharing; the determination of the rains-cloth for the four months of the rains, and after that, its sharing,' and so on. In the Parivāra, it is said: 'Nine robes are not to be determined, nine robes are not to be shared'; and, made very firm by a statement repeated many times, 'In the section of ten, ten robes, and in the section of eleven, eleven robes are to be determined, not to be shared,' and 'All robes are to be determined, not to be shared.' Therefore, both of these texts appear contradictory. And in the Khandhaka itself it is said: 'to determine the rains-cloth for the four months of the rains, and after that, to share it.' In its commentary, it is said: 'The rains-cloth, of a size not exceeding the limit, is to be determined by name for the four rainy months according to the method already stated. After that, having been withdrawn, it is to be shared.' This also appears mutually contradictory, because of the possibility of withdrawal in the winter season and the impossibility of sharing in the rainy season. Likewise, here, the commentary's statement—that from the authority of the text 'There is no offense if one determines or shares within ten days,' it should be understood that sharing is not prohibited in all cases—appears contradictory to the text of the Parivāra. For the Tathāgatas do not speak what is contradictory. Therefore, in this matter, the method of the commentary is the refuge, by which all of this has a single, consistent meaning. And in the Parivāra commentary it is said: 'The words "are not to be shared" mean they are not to be shared from the time of determination onwards.' The meaning is this: the three robes are not to be shared from the time of determination onwards, and the rains-cloth and so on are not to be shared unwillingly within their own respective periods of determination. The remaining Pāḷi and its meaning are stated here in the commentary; therefore, all of this has a single, consistent meaning.

Etthāha [Pg.226] – yadi evaṃ ‘‘nava cīvarāni nādhiṭṭhātabbānī’’ti ca vattabbaṃ. Vikappitakālato paṭṭhāya hi nādhiṭṭhātabbānīti? Ettha vuccate – ‘‘ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ…pe… parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetu’’nti ettha sabbattha adhiṭṭhāne paṭisedhādassanato, vikappanāya adassanato ca ‘‘tato para’’nti dvīsveva paricchedadassanato ca ‘‘nava cīvarāni adhiṭṭhātabbāni, na vikappetabbāni ceva vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Aparo nayo – anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ akāmā. Kasmā? Kāle uppannaṃ anadhiṭṭhahantassa kālātikkame āpattisambhavato, akāle uppannaṃ anadhiṭṭhahantassa dasāhātikkame āpattisambhavato ca. Tattha yaṃ kāle uppannaṃ appahontepi dasāhe kālātikkame āpattikaraṃ, taṃ nissajjanakāle ‘‘idaṃ me, bhante, atirekacīvaraṃ dhāritaṃ nissaggiyaṃ, imāhaṃ saṅghassā’’tiādinā nissajjitabbaṃ, itaraṃ yathāpāḷimeva. Tattha paṭhamanayo ‘‘yo pana, bhikkhu, atirekacīvaraṃ dhāreyya nissaggiya’’nti imāya paṭhamapaññattiyā vasena vutto, dutiyo anupaññattiyā vasena vutto.

Here, one objects: If so, then it should also be stated, 'The nine robes are not to be determined.' Is it that from the time of sharing, they are not to be determined? To this, it is replied: In the text, 'One should determine the three robes, not share them… one should determine the accessory cloth, not share it,' it should be understood that it is said, 'The nine robes are to be determined, and not to be shared.' This is because no prohibition against determination is shown in all cases, because a prohibition against sharing is shown, and because a limit, 'beyond that,' is shown for only two robes. Another method: I allow, O bhikkhus, the determination of the three robes by one who is unwilling. Why? Because for one who does not determine a robe that has arisen in season, an offense can occur by exceeding the season; and for one who does not determine a robe that has arisen out of season, an offense can occur by exceeding ten days. Of these, the robe that has arisen in season, even if ten days are not sufficient, causes an offense when the season is exceeded. That robe must be relinquished at the time of relinquishment with the words, 'Venerable sir, this extra robe has been kept by me; it is to be relinquished. I relinquish this to the Saṅgha,' and so on. The other robe should be relinquished exactly according to the Pāḷi. Of these, the first method is stated by means of this first regulation: 'Whatever bhikkhu should keep an extra robe, it is to be relinquished.' The second is stated by means of the secondary regulation.

Yathā ca nissajjitabbavatthumhi asati yathāpāḷiṃ avatvā kevalaṃ āpatti eva desetabbā, yathā ca vassikasāṭikanissajjane kevalaṃ pariyiṭṭhamatte yathāpāḷiṃ avatvā yathāsambhavaṃ nissajjitabbaṃ, tathā idampīti veditabbaṃ. Yathā saṃvaccharātikkantaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ ‘‘dasāhātikkanta’’micceva vuccati. Saṃvaccharavippavutthaticīvaraṃ, māsātikkantañca ‘‘rattivippavuttha’’nti ca ‘‘chārattavippavuttha’’nti ca vuccati, tathā idampi ‘‘dasāhātikkanta’’micceva vuccatīti eke, tasmā siddhamidaṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ akāmā’’ti, tathā akāmā na vikappetunti attho. Icchāya hi sati ‘‘paccuddharitvā vippavāsasukhatthaṃ vikappanāya okāso dinno hoti, dasāhātikkame ca anāpattī’’ti vacanato vikappetuṃ anujānāmīti vuttaṃ hoti. Tathā vassikasāṭikā akāmā adhiṭṭhātuṃ dasāhātikkame āpattisambhavato. Kittakaṃ kālanti ce? Vassānaṃ cātumāsaṃ, icchāya pana sati uddhaṃyeva vikappetabbaṃ. ‘‘Sabbattha vikappanāya appaṭisiddhabhāvo veditabbo’’ti hi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Atthāpatti hemante āpajjati, no gimhe, no vasse’’ti (pari. 323) ca vuttaṃ, tena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā’’ti.

It should be understood that this case is similar to others: just as when there is no object to be relinquished, one should simply confess the offense without reciting the Pāḷi formula; and just as when relinquishing the rains-cloth, one should relinquish it according to the circumstances after merely searching for it, without reciting the Pāḷi formula. Just as an extra robe kept beyond a year is still called 'one that has exceeded ten days'; and just as a triple robe from which one has been separated for a year, or for more than a month, is called 'separated for a night' or 'separated for six nights' respectively; so too, some say, this is also simply called 'one that has exceeded ten days.' Therefore, this statement is established: 'I allow, O bhikkhus, the determination of the three robes by one who is unwilling.' The meaning is that one who is unwilling should not share it. For when there is willingness, because of the passage stating, 'Having withdrawn it, the opportunity for sharing is given for the sake of the comfort of living apart, and there is no offense in exceeding ten days,' it is said that one is permitted to share. Similarly, the rains-cloth is to be determined by one who is unwilling, because an offense can occur when ten days are exceeded. If one asks, 'For how long?' For the four months of the rains. But if there is willingness, it should be shared after that period. For it is said, 'It should be understood that sharing is not prohibited in all cases.' And it is also said, 'An offense occurs in the winter, not in the hot season, not in the rainy season.' Therefore, it is stated in the commentary, 'After that, one should withdraw it and share it.'

Tatrāyaṃ [Pg.227] vicāraṇā – kadā paccuddharitabbā, kadā vikappetabbā, kiñcettha yasmā ‘‘tato para’’nti vuttaṃ. Hemantañca pattamatte sā adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati, tasmā ‘‘paccuddharitvā’’ti na vattabbaṃ adhiṭṭhānassa natthitāya, atha ‘‘antocātumāse vikappetabbā’’ti na vattabbaṃ. ‘‘Tato paraṃ vikappetu’’nti hi vuttanti? Ettha ekacce vadanti ‘‘vattabbameta’’nti. Yathā parivutthaparivāso, ciṇṇamānatto ca santo niṭṭhitesupi parivāsamānattadivasesu, tathā niṭṭhitesupi adhiṭṭhānadivasesu sādhiṭṭhānametanti eke. Aṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ idaṃ sanniṭṭhānaṃ ‘‘kattikapuṇṇamadivase paccuddharitvā pāṭipadadivase vikappetabbā’’ti. Vuttañhetaṃ parivāraṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘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 vutta’’nti (pari. aṭṭha. 323). Tattha kurundinayo pacchā vuttattā sārato daṭṭhabbo, na purimo. Nivāsento hi gimhepi orenaddhamāsaṃ āpajjati eva. Idha ca ‘‘atthāpatti hemante āpajjati, no gimheti vutta’’nti kurundivacanassāyamattho dissati.

Here is the investigation: When should it be withdrawn, when should it be assigned, and what is meant here by 'after that'? The determination ceases as soon as the winter season arrives. Therefore, it should not be said, 'having withdrawn it,' because the determination no longer exists; nor should it be said, 'it should be assigned within the four months,' because it was stated, 'after that, one should assign it.' Here, some say, 'This can be said.' Just as one who has completed probation and one who has undergone penance are considered as such even after the days of probation and penance are finished, so too, even after the days of determination are finished, this is considered a determined item—so say some. The commentary teachers have concluded thus: 'On the full-moon day of Kattika, it should be withdrawn, and on the first day of the dark fortnight following, it should be assigned.' For it is said in the Parivāra commentary: 'A monk wearing a rains-cloth that was assigned and set aside on the first day following the full moon of Kattika incurs an offense in the winter season.' But in the Kurundī, it is said, 'If one does not withdraw it on the full-moon day of Kattika, one commits an offense in the winter season.' That too is well said. For it was stated, 'One should determine it for the four months, and after that, one should assign it.' Therein, the Kurundī method, being stated later, should be regarded as the authoritative one, not the former one. For one who wears it incurs an offense within half a month, even in the hot season. And here, the meaning of the Kurundī statement is seen to be: 'an offense is incurred in the winter, not in the hot season.'

‘‘Kattikapuṇṇamadivase apaccuddharitvā tasmiṃyeva divase avikappento pacchimapāṭipadadivase apaccuddhārapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, na, avikappanapaccayā dasāhaparihārasambhavato’’ti kāraṇameke vadanti. Evaṃ sati hemante pattamatte adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahatīti āpajjati, tañca ayuttaṃ. Adhiṭṭhānañhi ‘‘aññassa dānena…pe… chiddabhāvenāti imehi navahi kāraṇehi vijahatī’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) vuttaṃ, na ‘‘adhiṭṭhānakhettātikkamena vā’’ti. Asādhāraṇattā na vuttanti ce? Na, ‘‘chiddabhāvenā’’ti na vattabbappasaṅgato, chiddabhāvena pana ticīvarasseva sabbaṭṭhakathāsu adhiṭṭhānavijahanassa vuttattā. Tasmā hemantassa paṭhamadivase apaccuddhārapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, na paccuddharitvā avikappanapaccayā. ‘‘Vikappetu’’nti vacanato tato adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahatīti paññāyati. Na hi kattikapuṇṇamāsiyā pacchime pāṭipadadivase avikappetvā hemante āpajjatīti vuttanti adhippāyo, yasmā taṃ apaccuddhārapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ hemantassa paṭhamaaruṇakkhaṇe eva āpajjati, tasmā ‘‘kattikapuṇṇamadivase apaccuddharitvā’’ti vuttaṃ. Paccuddhaṭaṃ pana hemante dasāhaparihāraṃ [Pg.228] labhati. ‘‘Dasāhe appahonte cīvarakālaṃ nātikkāmetabbā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.630) hi vuttaṃ, tañca kho samaye uppannaṃ ce, nāsamaye. Tathā ca sādhitaṃ apaccuddhaṭaṃ na nissaggiyaṃ hoti, no ca taṃ paridahitaṃ, tasmā kattikapuṇṇamadivase eva paccuddharaṇañca vikappanañca kattabbanti siddhaṃ, ettha ca yathā atirekacīvaraṃ dasame divase vikappentena dasāhaparamaṃ dhāritaṃ hoti, antodasāhe ca vikappitaṃ hoti, tathā kattikapuṇṇamāya vikappentena vassānaṃ cātumāsaṃ adhiṭṭhitañca hoti, tato paraṃ anāpattikhette eva vikappanā ca hotīti veditabbaṃ. Ettāvatā atthi vikappanākhette adhiṭṭhānaṃ, adhiṭṭhānakhette ca vikappanāti dīpitaṃ hoti. Aññathā ‘‘atthāpatti adhiṭṭhānena āpajjati, anadhiṭṭhānena āpajjati. Atthāpatti vikappanāya āpajjati, avikappanāya āpajjatī’’ti dukesu dve dukāni vattabbāni siyuṃ. Tattha paṭhamaduke paṭhamapadaṃ sambhavati. Vikappanakhette hi vassikasāṭikādīnaṃ adhiṭṭhānena vinayātisāradukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Eteneva dutiyadukkaṭassa dutiyapadaṃ vuttaṃ hoti. Anadhiṭṭhānena āpajjatīti natthi. Antodasāhe anāpajjanato, vikappanādisambhavato ca vikappanāya āpajjatīti natthi sabbattha vikappanāya appaṭisiddhattā, tasmā tāni dukāni ‘‘na labbhantī’’ti na vuttāni. Etthāha – yā sā ‘‘atthāpatti hemante āpajjatī’’ti (pari. 323) vacanappamāṇato dukkaṭāpatti sādhitā, sā sañcicca apaccuddharantassa yujjati, asatiyā ce, kañci, anāpatti. Kattikapuṇṇamāya paccuddhaṭaṃ sañcicca avikappayato dukkaṭena saha punadivase nissaggiyaṃ, asatiyā avikappayato nissaggiyameva idha paṭhamapaññattiyā. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘vassikasāṭikā vassānamāsātikkamenāpi, kaṇḍupaṭicchādi ābādhavūpasamenāpi adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati, tasmā sā tato paraṃ vikappetabbā’’ti, tenetaṃ virujjhati, na kevalaṃ idameva, ‘‘tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanañca virujjhati. Tato paraṃ nāma hi hemantaṃ, tattha ce paccuddhāro, ‘‘vassikasāṭikā vassānamāsātikkamenāpī’’tiādi na yuttaṃ adhiṭṭhānābhāvena paccuddhārābhāvato. Avirodho ca icchitabbo, tasmā ‘‘paccuddharaṇaṃ vattamatta’’ntivādo etthāpi sambhavatīti ce? Na, kurundi vacanavirodhato. Tattha hi kattikapuṇṇamāya paccuddhāro vutto, tasmā [Pg.229] vassānadivasattā sādhiṭṭhānāvasā paccuddharīyatīti na paccuddhāro vattamattaṃ, tasmā ‘‘tato para’’nti yāva puṇṇamā adhippetā siyā. Yathā cāyaṃ vikappo, tathā ‘‘vassānamāsātikkamenāpi ābādhavūpasamenāpī’’ti idampi avassaṃ paccuddharitabbatāya vuttaṃ siyā. Evañca sati idha samantapāsādikāya tadavacanena sameti. Aññathā idhapi taṃ vattabbaṃ siyāti yathāvuttova vidhi ettha sambhavati, kiñcāpi sambhavati, duviññāpayassa pana lokassa suviññāpanatthaṃ vuttā. Yasmā pana sā vassānātikkamena adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati, hemantapaṭhamāruṇe ca apaccuddhārapaccayā dukkaṭā sādhitā, tasmā kattikapuṇṇamāyameva paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā, avikappitāya ‘‘nissaggiyāpajjanamevā’’ti vattabbaṃ. Ettāvatāpi santosaṃ akatvā vinicchayo pariyesitabbo. Hoti cettha –

Some say that if, on the full-moon day of Kattika, one does not revoke the determination and does not make a formal declaration on that very day, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense on the following first day of the waning moon due to not revoking, not due to not making a formal declaration, because a ten-day allowance is possible. If this is so, it would follow that the determination is abandoned as soon as winter arrives, which is not proper. For it is said that the determination is abandoned for these nine reasons: 'by giving to another... by being torn,' but it is not said, 'or by transgressing the period of determination.' If it is said that it is not mentioned because it is uncommon? No, because it would follow that 'by being torn' should not be said; however, in all the commentaries, the abandoning of the determination by being torn is mentioned only for the three robes. Therefore, on the first day of winter, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense due to not revoking, not due to not making a formal declaration after having revoked. From the statement, 'Let him make a formal declaration,' it is understood that the determination is not abandoned by that transgression of the period. For it is not said that one incurs an offense in winter by not making a formal declaration on the first day of the waning moon following the Kattika full moon—this is the intention. Because that dukkaṭa offense, due to not revoking, is incurred at the very moment of the first dawn of winter, it is therefore said, 'not having revoked on the full-moon day of Kattika.' But a revoked robe obtains a ten-day allowance in winter. For it is said, 'If ten days are not sufficient, the robe-season should not be transgressed.' And that is if the robe has arisen in season, not out of season. And so, a completed robe, even if unrevoked, is not subject to forfeiture, nor is it to be worn. Therefore, it is established that on the full-moon day of Kattika itself, both revocation and formal declaration should be done. And here, just as an extra robe, for which a formal declaration is made on the tenth day, is kept for a maximum of ten days and has a formal declaration made for it within ten days, so too, for one making a formal declaration on the Kattika full moon, it has been determined for the four months of the rains, and after that, the formal declaration occurs only in the period where there is no offense. This should be understood. By this much, it is shown that there is determination in the period of formal declaration, and formal declaration in the period of determination. Otherwise, in the couplets, two couplets would have to be stated: 'There is an offense that is incurred through determination, and that is incurred through non-determination. There is an offense that is incurred through formal declaration, and that is incurred through non-formal declaration.' There, in the first couplet, the first phrase is possible. For in the period of formal declaration, by determining the rains-cloth, etc., one incurs a dukkaṭa offense of transgressing the Vinaya. By this very reasoning, the second phrase of the second couplet is stated. The case 'one incurs an offense through non-determination' does not exist, because no offense is incurred within ten days and because formal declaration, etc., are possible. The case 'one incurs an offense through formal declaration' does not exist, because formal declaration is not forbidden anywhere. Therefore, those couplets are not stated, the reason being that 'they are not found.' Here, an objector says: That dukkaṭa offense which is established by the authority of the statement, 'There is an offense; one incurs it in winter,' applies to one who intentionally does not revoke. If he does not revoke through mindlessness, what offense is there? No offense. For one who intentionally does not make a formal declaration for what was revoked on the Kattika full moon, on the next day it becomes subject to forfeiture along with a dukkaṭa offense. For one who does not make a formal declaration through mindlessness, it is only subject to forfeiture, here by the first ruling. But as for what is said in the Mātikā Commentary: 'The rains-cloth abandons its determination also by the passing of the rains-months, and the itch-covering cloth also by the subsiding of the illness; therefore, after that, a formal declaration should be made for it'—this is contradicted by that. Not only this, but the commentary statement 'after that, having revoked it, a formal declaration should be made for it' is also contradicted. For 'after that' means winter, and if revocation occurs there, the statement 'the rains-cloth, also by the passing of the rains-months,' etc., would not be proper, due to the absence of determination and thus the absence of revocation. And non-contradiction should be desired. Therefore, if it is said that the view 'revocation is a mere formality' is also possible here? No, because of contradiction with the word of the Kurundī. For there in the Kurundī, revocation on the Kattika full moon is mentioned. Therefore, because it is a day of the rains-season, it is revoked while it still has its determination. Thus, revocation is not a mere formality. Therefore, in the phrase 'after that,' 'up to the full moon' may be intended. And just as this is an alternative explanation, so too this statement, 'also by the passing of the rains-months, also by the subsiding of the illness,' may have been said because the robe must necessarily be revoked. This being so, it agrees with the Samantapāsādikā here in its silence on that statement. Otherwise, that would have to be said here also. Thus, the procedure as stated is possible here. Although it is possible, it was said for the sake of making it easy to understand for the world which is difficult to make understand. But because that rains-cloth abandons its determination by the passing of the rains-season, and a dukkaṭa offense is established due to not revoking at the first dawn of winter, therefore, on the Kattika full moon itself, it should be revoked and have a formal declaration made for it. For that which has not had a formal declaration made, it should be said that 'only the incurring of a forfeiture offense occurs.' Even with this much, not being satisfied, a decision should be sought. And here there is:

‘‘Evaṃ abhāvaṃ vinayassa pāḷi,Bhinnaṃ abhinnañca tadatthayuttiṃ;

Viññātukāmena tadatthaviññū,Pariyesitabbā vinaye viññāyā’’ti.

Thus, a monk who desires to know the Pāḷi of the Vinaya, its non-existence, what is divided and undivided, and the logical connection of its meaning, should seek out those who know that Vinaya Pāḷi and commentary in order to understand the Vinaya.

‘‘Tuyhaṃ gaṇhāhī’’ti vutte vināpi ‘‘mayhaṃ gaṇhāmī’’ti vacanena sudinnaṃ hoti. Itaro ce adhivāseti, tenāpi suggahitaṃ hoti, no ce adhivāseti, dentena sudinnaṃ. Taṃ pana vatthu na kassaci hoti. Tathā ‘‘mayhaṃ gaṇhāmī’’ti vadati, sāmiko ce adhivāseti, vināpi ‘‘gaṇhāhī’’ti vacanena suggahitaṃ. No ce adhivāseti, sāmikasseva taṃ, na hi tassetaṃ vinayakammanti ettha vinayakammassatthāya ce gaṇhāti, na vaṭṭati. Na kevalaṃ attano atthāya gahitaṃ, puna tassapi deti, vaṭṭatīti ca. Tathā anapekkho hutvā parassa vissajjetvā puna tena dinnaṃ vā tassa vissāsanto vā paribhuñjati, vaṭṭati. Tatthāpi vinayakammavasena na vaṭṭatīti eke. Te eva ‘‘mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ karotī’’ti ettha ‘‘ticīvare dīghato vidatthi anatikkamitvā chinditvā karoti, evaṃ sesesupī’’ti vadanti. Evarūpesu ṭhānesu porāṇācariyānaṃ kathāmaggaṃ suṭṭhu ācariyakulasevanāya sañjānitvā tena saṃsanditvā sato sampajāno hutvā sotūnañca cittaṃ avimohetvā kathetabbaṃ. Esā amhākaṃ āyācanā.

When it is said, 'Take it for yourself,' even without the words 'I take it for myself,' it is well-given. If the other person consents, it is also well-received; if he does not consent, it is well-given by the giver. But that item belongs to no one. Similarly, if one says, 'I take it for myself,' and the owner consents, it is well-received even without the words, 'Take it.' If the owner does not consent, it belongs to the owner himself, for this is not a Vinaya transaction for him. Herein, if one receives it for the purpose of a Vinaya transaction, it is not allowable. It is not taken for one's own purpose only; if one gives it back to him, it is allowable. This too should be known. Likewise, having become unconcerned and having relinquished it to another, if one again enjoys what is given by that person, or enjoys it while trusting that person, it is allowable. Some say that even in that case, it is not allowable by way of a Vinaya transaction. They themselves, regarding 'whether making it large or small,' say, 'In the case of the triple robe, one makes it by cutting it lengthwise without exceeding a span, and so it is also in the case of the remaining robes.' In such cases, one should, having known well the path of speech of the ancient teachers by frequenting the lineage of teachers and having compared it with that, become mindful and fully aware, and speak without confusing the minds of the listeners. This is our request.

Paṭhamakathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the first Kathina training rule is concluded.

2. Udositasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Udosita Training Rule

471. Santaruttarena [Pg.230] janapadacārikaṃ pakkamanti. Kasmā? Kiñcāpi ‘‘na, bhikkhave, santaruttarena gāmo pavisitabbo, yo paviseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 362) paṭhamaṃ vuttaṃ. Pacchā pana ‘‘pañcime, bhikkhave, paccayā saṅghāṭiyā nikkhepāya, uttarāsaṅgassa, antaravāsakassa nikkhepāya gilāno vā hoti, vassikasaṅketaṃ vā, nadīpāraṃ gantuṃ vā, aggaḷaguttivihāro vā, atthatakathinaṃ vā hotī’’ti vuttattā, aṭṭhakathāyampissa ‘‘pañcasu petesu aggaḷagutti eva pamāṇaṃ. Gutte eva hi vihāre nikkhipitvā bahi gantuṃ vaṭṭati, nāgutte’’ti vuttattā apaññattepi kathine ‘‘te bhikkhū aggaḷaguttivihāre ṭhapethā’’ti vatvā sabhāgānaṃ hatthe cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā santaruttarena gāmappavese laddhakappiyā janapadacārikaṃ pakkāmiṃsūti veditabbaṃ.

471. They set out on a journey through the countryside with their inner and upper robes. Why? Although it was first said, “Monks, a village is not to be entered with only the inner and upper robes; whoever should enter commits an offense of wrong-doing,” it was later said, “Monks, there are these five reasons for setting aside the outer robe, the upper robe, and the inner robe: one is sick, or there is a sign of rain, or one is going to the other side of a river, or the monastery is secured with a bolt, or the Kaṭhina has been spread.” And because it is also said in its commentary, “Among these five, a monastery secured with a bolt is the standard. For it is allowable to go outside after leaving the robe in a secured monastery, but not in an unsecured one.” Therefore, it should be understood that even when the Kaṭhina was not in effect, those monks, having said, “Place the robes in the monastery secured with a bolt,” and having placed the robe in the hands of their companions, set out on their journey through the countryside with their inner and upper robes, having obtained what is allowable for entering a village.

473. Avippavāsasammutinti avippavāsatthaṃ, vippavāsapaccayā yā āpatti, tadabhāvatthaṃ vā sammutiṃ dātunti attho. Tato paṭṭhāya vaṭṭati. Kittakaṃ kālaṃ vaṭṭatīti? Māsaṃ vā atirekaṃ vā yāva gamane saussāho, tāva vaṭṭati. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘dhuranikkhepaṃ karontena paccuddharitabba’’nti. Puna sammutidānakiccaṃ natthīti sace dvādasannaṃ vassānaṃ accayena añño rogo hoti, vaṭṭati, upasampadakammaṃ viya yāvajīvaṃ ekāsammuti vaṭṭatīti ca.

473. The phrase 'authorization for non-separation' means to grant an authorization for the purpose of non-separation, or for the purpose of preventing the offense that arises from separation. From that point onward, it is allowable. For how long is it allowable? For a month or more; for as long as one is keen on the journey, for that long it is allowable. Therefore it was said: “It should be rescinded by the one who lays down the burden.” As to there being no need for a renewed act of granting authorization: if, after the passing of twelve years, another illness arises, it is allowable. And it should be understood that, like the act of higher ordination, a single authorization is allowable for life.

‘‘Kataṃ vā hotī’’tiādi imasmiṃ sikkhāpade na vattabbaṃ, kasmā? Karaṇapalibodhe upacchinnepi anadhiṭṭhitacīvarato vippavāsapaccayā āpattiyā asambhavato, tasmā ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasminti bhikkhuno cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhitaṃ hotī’’ti ettakameva vattabbanti ce? Na, tadāyattattā. Adhiṭṭhānañhi karaṇapalibodhassa niṭṭhāpanāyattaṃ, tasmā ‘‘kataṃ vātiādi vutta’’nti ca vuttaṃ. Tattha katanti pubbe vuttameva.

The phrase 'or if it is completed,' etc., should not be stated in this training rule. Why? Because even when the obstacle to the making has ceased, since the robe has not been determined, there is no possibility of an offense arising from the factor of separation. Therefore, if it is asked, 'Should it only be said, "When the robe is finished, the monk's robe is determined"?' No, because of its dependence on that. For the determination is indeed dependent on the completion of the making that was subject to an obstacle; therefore, 'or if it is completed,' etc., is stated. Therein, 'completed' is as has been stated previously.

477-8. Avippavāsalakkhaṇavavatthāpanatthanti ettha ‘‘antogāme cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā antogāme vatthabba’’ntiādivacanato avippavāsalakkhaṇaṃ vavatthāpitaṃ, tabbiparītanayena vippavāsalakkhaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Gāmo ekūpacārotiādimhi pana ṭhapetvā satthaṃ, rukkhamūlaṃ, ajjhokāsañca sesesu parikkhepāparikkhepavasena ekūpacāranānūpacāratā veditabbā. Yasmā pana [Pg.231] satthaṃ duvidhaṃ niviṭṭhaṃ, aniviṭṭhañca, tesu aniviṭṭhaṃ ekakulassa vā nānākulassa vā aparikkhittameva hoti, niviṭṭhaṃ siyā parikkhittaṃ, siyā aparikkhittaṃ, tasmā tattha parikkhepādivasena adassetvā abbhantaravasena vutto. Tathā abbhokāse. Rukkhamūle chāyāvasena. Aññathā ‘‘sattho ekūpacāro nānūpacāro’’tiādi uddesavirodho siyā vibhaṅge adassitattā, tasmā satthassa purato ca pacchato ca sattabbhantarā, passato ca ekabbhantaranti ayamekūpacāro, tato paraṃ nānūpacāro. Tathā rukkhamūlassa yattha majjhanhike kāle chāyā pharati, ayaṃ ekūpacāro. Itaro nānūpacāro. Kasmā? Tattha hi parikkhepo appamāṇaṃ. Chāyāva pamāṇaṃ. Ajjhokāsassa pāḷiyaṃ vuttova. ‘‘Satthādīnaṃ ekakulasantakavasena ekūpacāratā’’ti likhitaṃ, tasmā nivesane, udosite ca vuttaparicchedova aṭṭādīsūti katvā saṃkhittaṃ. Tato paraṃ khettadhaññakaraṇaārāmavihāresu pana parikkhittāparikkhitta-padaṃ puna uddhaṭaṃ satthavibhaṅgena adhikārassa pacchinnattā. ‘‘Nānāgabbhā’’tiādivacanaṃ pana asambhavato khettadhaññakaraṇaārāmesu na uddhaṭaṃ. Vihāre sambhavantampi tattha pacchinnattā na uddhaṭaṃ. Kulaṃ vuccati sāmiko, tasmā ‘‘ekakulassa nānākulassā’’ti iminā gāmādīnaṃ cuddasannaṃ cīvaranikkhepaṭṭhānānaṃ sādhāraṇāsādhāraṇabhāvaṃ dīpeti. Ajjhokāsassa pana asambhavato na vuttaṃ. Yasmā panettha ekakulassa, nānākulassa ca aparikkhittesu gāmādīsu parihāraviseso kiñcāpi natthi, parikkhittesu pana atthi, tasmā ekanānākulaggahaṇaṃ, ekanānūpacāraggahaṇañca sātthakanti veditabbaṃ. Tatthapi ayaṃ viseso – satthe, rukkhamūle ca kulabhedatova bhedo, nopacārabhedato. Ajjhokāse upacārabhedato ca, so pana pāḷiyaṃ na dassitoti. ‘‘Taṃ pamāṇaṃ atikkamitvāti vacanato ākāsepi aḍḍhateyyaratanappamāṇe doso natthī’’ti vadanti.

477-8. Here, in the phrase 'for the purpose of establishing the characteristic of non-separation,' the characteristic of non-separation is established by the statement beginning with 'Having placed the robe within the village, one should dwell within the village.' The characteristic of separation should be understood by the opposite method. However, in the text beginning with 'A village is a single common-ground,' setting aside a caravan, the root of a tree, and an open space, in the remaining cases, the state of being a single common-ground or different common-grounds should be understood by way of being enclosed or unenclosed. Because a caravan is of two kinds, encamped and unencamped. Among these, an unencamped caravan, whether of one family or of different families, is only unenclosed. An encamped one may be enclosed or may be unenclosed. Therefore, in that case, without indicating it by way of enclosure and so on, it is stated by way of the internal measure. Likewise in an open space. At the root of a tree, it is by way of the shade. Otherwise, the statement beginning with 'A caravan is a single common-ground, a different common-ground' would be a contradiction to the summary statement, because it is not shown in the Analysis. Therefore, for a caravan, seven abbhantaras in front and behind, and one abbhantara on the sides—this is the single common-ground. Beyond that is a different common-ground. Similarly, for the root of a tree, where the shade spreads at midday, this is the single common-ground. The other is a different common-ground. Why? Because there, the enclosure is without measure; the shade itself is the measure. For an open space, it is as stated in the Pāḷi. It is written: 'For a caravan and so on, the state of being a single common-ground is by way of being the property of a single family.' Therefore, thinking that in a dwelling and in a residence the aforementioned delimitation is as in the commentaries and so on, it is summarized. After that, however, in the cases of a field, a threshing floor, a park, and a monastery, the terms 'enclosed' and 'unenclosed' are brought up again. Since the topic was concluded with the analysis of the caravan, the statement beginning with 'different rooms,' however, is not brought up in the cases of a field, a threshing floor, and a park, as it is impossible. In a monastery, although it is possible, it is not brought up because it has already been determined in that context. The owner is called 'family.' Therefore, by this phrase 'of one family, of different families,' it indicates the state of being common or not common for the fourteen robe-placing locations beginning with a village. For an open space, however, it is not stated because it is impossible. Because here, although in unenclosed villages and so on belonging to one family or different families there is no special allowance, in enclosed ones there is. Therefore, it should be understood that the inclusion of 'one family' and 'different families,' and the inclusion of 'single common-ground' and 'different common-grounds' is meaningful. Even there, this is the distinction: in a caravan and at the root of a tree, the distinction is only from the difference of family, not from the difference of common-ground. In an open space, it is also from the difference of common-ground, but that distinction is not shown in the Pāḷi. Because of the statement 'having exceeded that measure,' they say that even in the space above, at a measure of two and a half ratanas, there is no fault.

479. ‘‘Sabhā’’ti itthiliṅgaṃ. ‘‘Sabhāya’’nti napuṃsakaliṅgaṃ, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘liṅgabyattanayenā’’ti. Napuṃsakaliṅgadassanatthaṃ kira ‘‘sabhāya’’nti paccattavasena niddiṭṭhaṃ, tassa anupayogattā ‘‘dvāramūla’’ntipi. Attano nikkhittaṭṭhāne anikkhittattā vīthihatthapāso na rakkhati, yasmiṃ ghare cīvaraṃ nikkhittaṃ hoti, tasmiṃ ghare vatthabbaṃ. ‘‘Sabhāye vā vatthabbaṃ dvāramūle vā, hatthapāsā [Pg.232] vā na vijahitabba’’nti hi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Hatthapāseyeva aruṇaṃ uṭṭhapetabba’’nti niyamitattā jānituṃ na sakkāti ce? Antoghare na sakkā, tathā tathā vuttattā, tasmā ‘‘yutti pamāṇa’’nti vuttaṃ. Ayamattho aṭṭhakathāyampi pakāsito, punapi khuddakagāme sabbasādhāraṇagāmadvāravasena. Sace tassa dvāradvayaṃ hoti, majjhe ca gharasabhāyaṃ, yatthicchati, tattha vasitabba’’nti.

479. The word “sabhā” is feminine. The word “sabhāyaṃ” is neuter; therefore, it is said, “by way of distinction in gender.” To show the neuter gender, “sabhāyaṃ” is indeed pointed out by way of the nominative case. As that is not applicable, “at the foot of the gate” is also mentioned. Because it is not placed in its own designated place, the hand's reach of the street does not afford protection. In whichever house the robe is placed, in that house one should reside. For it has been said: “One should reside either in the assembly hall or at the foot of the gate, or the hand's reach should not be abandoned.” If one were to say, “Is it not possible to know, because it is determined that ‘dawn should be made to arise only within hand's reach’?” It is not possible inside a house, because it has been stated for various reasons. Therefore, it is said, “Reason is the standard.” This meaning is also explained in the commentary. And again: “In a small village, by way of a village gate common to all, if it has two gates, and in the middle of the house and in the middle of the assembly hall, one may reside wherever one wishes.”

480-1. Yāni nivesanādīni gāmasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchanti, tāni nivesanādīnīti adhippetāni. Ajjhokāse aparisaṅkitampi cīvaraṃ atirekasattabbhantare nikkhittaṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, ettha antosīmatā na rakkhati, satthe pana rakkhati. ‘‘Nadīparihāro ca labbhatī’’ti vacanato udakukkhepasīmāyaṃ parihāro labbhatīti siddhaṃ. Sāmantavihāro ce ekasīmo, cīvaraṃ na nissaggiyaṃ.

480-1. Those dwellings and the like that do not come under the designation of 'village' are intended by 'dwellings, etc.' In an open space, even if the place is not considered dangerous, a robe placed beyond seven abbhantaras becomes subject to forfeiture. Here, being inside the boundary does not afford protection, but in a caravan, it does. From the statement, “And a river allowance is obtained,” it is established that in a water-throwing boundary, an allowance is obtained. If a nearby monastery has a single boundary, the robe is not subject to forfeiture.

Idāni –

Now –

‘‘Chinnaṃ dhutaṅgaṃ sāsaṅka-sammato santaruttaraṃ;

Acīvarassānāpatti, paccuddhārādisiddhito’’ti. –

The matter of a cut robe, the ascetic practice, a place designated as dangerous, the under-robe and upper-robe, and that there is no offense for one without a robe because of its accomplishment through rescission, etc.—this miscellaneous section should be known.

Idaṃ pakiṇṇakaṃ, tatthāyaṃ codanāpubbaṅgamo vinicchayo – keci ‘‘diguṇaṃ saṅghāṭi’’nti (mahāva. 348) vacanato ‘‘ekaccikā saṅghāṭipi nādhiṭṭhātabbā. Sace adhiṭṭhāti na ruhatī’’ti vatvā upasampadāpekkhānampi diguṇameva saṅghāṭiṃ datvā upasampādenti, te iminā suttalesena saññāpetabbā. Bhagavatā hi ‘‘chinnakaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ chinnakaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ chinnakaṃ antaravāsaka’’nti paṭhamaṃ anuññātaṃ. Tato ‘‘aññatarassa bhikkhuno ticīvare kariyamāne sabbaṃ chinnakaṃ nappahoti. Dve chinnakāni ekaṃ acchinnakaṃ nappahoti. Dve acchinnakāni ekaṃ chinnakaṃ nappahotī’’ti imasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, anvādhikampi āropetu’’nti (mahāva. 360) anuññātaṃ, tasmā ekaccikāpi saṅghāṭi vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Yā chijjamānā nappahoti, tassā kuto diguṇatāti. Aṭṭhakathāyampissa vuttaṃ ‘‘anvādhikampi āropetunti āgantukapattampi dātuṃ. Idaṃ pana appahonake āropetabbaṃ. Sace pahoti, āgantukapattaṃ na vaṭṭati, chinditabbamevā’’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 360). Kathinaṃ pana chinnakameva vaṭṭati āveṇikalakkhaṇattā, ‘‘chinnakaṃ diguṇaṃ nappahotī’’ti vacanābhāvato cāti sanniṭṭhānamettha gantabbaṃ.

This is the miscellaneous section. Herein, this is the decision preceded by an objection: some, based on the statement “a double-layered outer robe,” having said, “Even a single-layered outer robe should not be determined. If one determines it, it is not valid,” give only a double-layered outer robe even to those expecting ordination and then ordain them. They should be made to understand by this brief scriptural passage. Indeed, by the Blessed One it was first allowed, “a cut outer robe, a cut upper robe, a cut inner robe.” Then, in the case where, for a certain monk making the three robes, a robe made entirely of cut pieces was not sufficient, or two cut pieces and one uncut piece were not sufficient, or two uncut pieces and one cut piece were not sufficient, it was allowed: “I allow, monks, to apply even an additional piece.” Therefore, it is established that even a single-layered outer robe is allowable. For a robe that is insufficient when being cut, how can it be double-layered? In its commentary, it is also said: “‘To apply even an additional piece’ means to give an extra patch. But this should be applied in a case of insufficiency. If it is sufficient, an extra patch is not allowable; it must be a cut robe.” However, for the Kathina, only a cut robe is allowable, because of its special characteristic and because of the absence of a statement saying, “a cut, double-layered one is not sufficient.” Thus, this conclusion should be reached here.

Dhutaṅganti [Pg.233] anupasampannānaṃ tecīvarikadhutaṅgābhāvato ticīvareneva tecīvarikoti. Tesaṃ adhiṭṭhānābhāvato ‘‘adhiṭṭhitenevā’’ti vattabbaṃ hotūti ce? Na, dhutaṅgabhedena virodhappasaṅgato. Catutthacīvarasādiyanena hi dhutaṅgabhedo, na ticīvaravippavāsena, nāpi atirekacīvarasādiyanena, nāpi atirekacīvaradhāraṇena. Yasmā pana bhikkhūnaṃyeva bhagavatā adhiṭṭhānavasena nava cīvarāni anuññātāni, jātivasena ca vuttāni, na evaṃ anupasampannānaṃ. Tasmā tesaṃ cīvaraniyamābhāvā na taṃ dhutaṅgaṃ anuññātaṃ gahaṭṭhānaṃ viya, tasmā tassa samādānavidhāne avacanato ca sanniṭṭhānamettha gantabbaṃ.

Regarding the ascetic practice: for the unordained, since they do not have the three-robe ascetic practice, one is a 'three-robe-wearer' simply on account of the three robes. If it were said that for them, due to the absence of determination, it should be stated 'only by what is determined,' this should not be said. Why? Because it would lead to a contradiction with the breaking of the ascetic practice. For the breaking of the ascetic practice occurs by consenting to a fourth robe, not by being separated from the three robes, nor by consenting to an extra robe, nor by wearing an extra robe. Because it was for monks alone that the Blessed One allowed nine robes by way of determination, and they were spoken of by way of type, it was not so for the unordained. Therefore, for them, due to the absence of a regulation on robes, that ascetic practice is not allowed, just as for householders. Therefore, and also because it is not mentioned in the procedure for undertaking it, a conclusion should be reached in this matter.

Sāsaṅkasammatoti kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ sāsaṅkasikkhāpade visuṃ aṅgāni na vuttāni, ‘‘sesamettha cīvaravaggassa dutiyasikkhāpade vuttanayena veditabba’’nti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sāsaṅkasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vuttaṃ, na ca panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Tattha rattivippavāso catutthaṃ aṅgaṃ, idha chārattavippavāso, ayamettha visesoti, tasmā aṅgasāmaññato, sammutisāmaññato ca sāsaṅkasikkhāpadameva vadanti. Idaṃ nippadesaṃ, taṃ sappadesaṃ māsaparamattā. Tattha bahigāmepi gāmasīmaṃ okkamitvā vasitvā pakkamantassa anāpatti, idha na tathā, idha anantare anantare aruṇuggamane nissaggiyaṃ, tattha sattameti ayaṃ imesaṃ dvinnaṃ viseso. Aṅgāni pana cīvaranikkhepaṅgasampattito vipariyāyena, idha vuttanayena ca siddhattā na vuttāni. Tāni kāmaṃ na vuttāni, tathāpi catutthamaṅgaṃ visesitabbaṃ, na pana visesitaṃ. Kiṃkāraṇā? Idha vuttanissajjanakkamena nissajjetvā āpattidesanato, tatthāpannāpattivimokkhadīpanatthaṃ. Saṃvaccharavippavutthampi rattivippavutthameva, pageva chārattaṃ vippavutthaṃ. Evaṃ santepi tattha yathāvuttaaṅgasampattiyā sati tattha vuttanayeneva nissajjitabbaṃ. Hemante vā gimhe vā nissajjati ce? Idha vuttanayenāpi nissajjituṃ vaṭṭatīti ñāpanatthaṃ catutthaṃ aṅgaṃ na visesitanti no takkoti ācariyo. Māsātikkantampi cīvaraṃ ‘‘dasāhātikkanta’’nti vatvā nissaṭṭhameva. Dvayena ūnamāsaṃ hutvā ‘‘dasāhātikkanta’’nti vatvā māsātikkantanti eke. Tathāpi sace paccāsācīvaraṃ hoti, nissaggiyaṃ ‘‘dasāhātikkanta’’nti vatvā, mūlacīvaraṃ pana ‘‘māsātikkanta’’nti vatvā nissajjitabbaṃ.

Regarding `Sāsaṅkasammata`: In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, in the Sāsaṅka training rule, the factors are not stated separately. It is said, “Herein, the remainder should be understood according to the method stated in the second training rule of the Cīvaravagga,” but this is not actually stated. There, absence for one night is the fourth factor; here, it is an absence for six nights. This is the difference herein. Therefore, due to the similarity of the factors and the similarity of the designation, they call it the Sāsaṅka training rule itself. This one is without specification, while that one has a specification, on account of its limit of one month. There, for one who, even from outside the village, enters the village boundary, dwells, and then departs, there is no offense; here, it is not so. Here, at the very next dawn, it becomes subject to forfeiture; there, on the seventh. This is the difference between these two. As for the factors, they are not stated because they are established in reverse order from the completion of the factors for laying aside the robe, and also by the method stated here. Although those factors are not stated, nevertheless, the fourth factor should be specified, but it is not specified. For what reason? Here, it is because of confessing the offense after forfeiting according to the stated sequence of forfeiture; there, it is for the purpose of showing the release from an offense that has been incurred. Even an absence for a year is just an absence for one night; how much more so an absence for six nights. Even so, when there is the completion of the factors as stated there, it should be forfeited only by the method stated there. The teacher says: It is our reasoning that the fourth factor is not specified in order to make it known that it is allowable to forfeit in the winter or in the summer also by the method stated here. A robe that is over a month old is indeed forfeited by saying, “It is over ten days.” Some say that when it is less than a month, one forfeits by saying, “It is over ten days,” and when it is over a month, by saying, “It is over a month.” Nevertheless, if it is an expected robe, it is to be forfeited by saying, “It is over ten days.” The original robe, however, is to be forfeited by saying, “It is over a month.”

‘‘Santaruttara’’nti [Pg.234] vā ‘‘saṅghāṭi’’nti vā ‘‘cīvara’’nti vā kiṃ ticīvaraṃ, udāhu aññampīti. Kiñcettha – yadi ticīvarameva paṭisiddhaṃ, pariyāpannavasena acchinnacīvaracchindanadhovāpanaviññattiādivirodho. Atha aññampi, ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’nti evamādinā virodhoti? Vuccate – na niyamato veditabbaṃ yathāsambhavaṃ gahetabbato. Tathā hi ‘‘cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā santaruttarena janapadacārikaṃ pakkamantī’’ti (pārā. 471) evamādīsu ticīvarameva. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, santaruttarena gāmo pavisitabbo, santaruttaraparamaṃ tato cīvaraṃ sādhitabba’’nti evamādīsu yaṃkiñci, tathā saguṇaṃ katvā saṅghāṭiyo dātabbā, nivāsanaṃ dātabbaṃ, saṅghāṭi dātabbā, handa te, āvuso, saṅghāṭi, dehi me paṭantiādīsu. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘sabbañhi cīvaraṃ saṅghaṭitaṭṭhena ‘saṅghāṭī’ti vuccatī’’ti. Tathā ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmi’’nti etthāpīti eke. Antosamaye hi yāvadatthaṃ cīvaraṃ anuññātaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ kariyamānaṃ kadā niṭṭhānaṃ gacchissati, tasmā ticīvaramevāti eke. Acīvarassānāpatti paccuddhārādisiddhitoti kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Udositasikkhāpadassa nippayojanabhāvappasaṅgato ticīvaravippavāse tecīvarassa āpattīti eke. Tatthetaṃ vuccati na hoti āpatti paccuddhārādisiddhito. ‘‘Anāpatti antoaruṇe paccuddharati, vissajjetī’’ti hi vuttaṃ. Aññathā paccuddharantassa, antoaruṇe vissajjentassa ca yāva añño nādhiṭṭhāti, tāva āpattiṃ āpajjati yathāvuttanayena. Aññathā sattabbhantarena vippavāsassāti vippavāsato yathārutaṃyeva sati vippavāse vippavāsato avippavāse sati avippavāsatoti.

When it is said 'santaruttara' or 'saṅghāṭi' or 'cīvara', does this mean the three robes, or also another robe? Herein, if only the three robes are prohibited, then by way of inclusion, there is a contradiction with the training rules concerning robes being snatched away, cutting, having them washed, requesting, and so on. And if it is also another robe, there is a contradiction with such passages as 'when the robe is finished'. It is said in reply: This is not to be understood as a fixed rule, since it should be taken according to what is possible. For indeed, in such passages as 'having put down the robe, they set out on a journey through the country with an undergarment and an upper robe', it is only the three robes. In such passages as 'Monks, a village is not to be entered with an undergarment and an upper robe; at most an undergarment and an upper robe, from that a robe should be procured', it is any robe. Likewise, in such passages as 'having folded them well, the outer robes should be given', 'the lower robe should be given', 'the outer robe should be given', 'Come, friend, your outer robe', and 'give me the cloth'. For this was said: 'Indeed, any robe, because of being folded together, is called a "saṅghāṭī"'. Likewise, also in the case of 'when the robe is finished', so say some. For during the robe-period, robes are allowed as much as is needed. If all of that were being made, when would it reach completion? Therefore, it is only the three robes, so say some. What is meant by 'There is no offense for one without a robe due to the validity of cancellation of determination and so on'? Because it would lead to the Udosita training rule being useless, there is an offense for one who possesses the three robes when separated from them, so say some. Herein, this is said: there is no offense, because of the validity of cancellation of determination and so on. For it is said: 'There is no offense if one cancels the determination or relinquishes it before dawn'. Otherwise, for one cancelling the determination and for one relinquishing it before dawn, as long as another robe is not determined, one falls into an offense, according to the method stated. Otherwise, regarding 'of separation within seven days', the term vippavāsato (from separation) is to be understood just as it is stated: when there is separation, it is on account of separation; when there is no separation, it is on account of no separation.

Udositasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Udosita training rule is finished.

3. Tatiyakathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Explanation of the Third Kathina Training Rule

497. Nappahotīti lāmakaparicchedaṃ na pāpuṇāti, teneva ticīvarassa muṭṭhipañcakādilāmakaparicchedova tāva vutto. Cīvare paccāsā cīvarapaccāsā. Tenetaṃ dīpeti – taṃ cīvaraṃ pacchā labbhatu vā mā vā, yāva sā paccāsā chijjati, tāva idaṃ mūlacīvaraṃ ṭhapetuṃ anujānāmīti. ‘‘Cīvarapaccāsā’’ti mariyādatthe nissakkavacanaṃ, bhummatthe vā paccattavacanaṃ kataṃ.

497. `Nappahoti` means 'it does not reach the inferior limit.' For that very reason, the inferior limit of the three robes, such as the five handfuls, was stated first. `Cīvarapaccāsā` is expectation (`paccāsā`) for a robe (`cīvare`). By this, it is explained: 'Whether that robe is obtained later or not, I allow this original robe to be kept for as long as that expectation is not severed.' The word `cīvarapaccāsā` is an ablative expression in the sense of a limit, or it is a nominative expression used in the sense of the locative.

499-500. Niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ [Pg.235] …pe… cīvarāsā vā upacchinnātiādimhi tīsu cīvaresu aññataraṃ kataṃ hoti, sesā atthi, rakkhati. Cīvarapalibodhassa upacchede, ubbhatasmiñca kathine samaye vā hemantassa samaye vā akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyya, khippameva kāretabbaṃ. Sati pāripūriyā paccāsā na rakkhati, asati natthi ce paccāsā, na rakkhati. ‘‘Anatthate kathine ekādasamāse uppanna’’nti vacanato aparakattikā atthate vā anatthate vā samayova. Hemanto siyā samayo atthate, siyā asamayo anatthate. Tato paraṃ ekaṃsato asamayo vāti. ‘‘Ādissa dinna’’nti idaṃ idha alabbhamānampi atthuddhāravasena vuttaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ dutiyanissaggiye (pāci. 738 ādayo) sesaṃ akālacīvaraṃ viya. Tattha hi bhikkhunisaṅghassa ‘‘sampattā bhājentū’’ti evaṃ ādissa dinnameva ‘‘akālacīvaraṃ kālacīvara’’nti adhiṭṭhahitvā bhājentiyā nissaggiyaṃ. Tathā hi tattha yathā ‘‘akālacīvaraṃ nāma anatthate kathine ekādasamāse uppannaṃ, atthate kathine sattamāse uppanna’’nti idaṃ atthuddhāravasena vuttaṃ, evaṃsampadamidaṃ. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘ekapuggalassa idaṃ tuyhaṃ damhīti dinna’’nti idaṃ kimatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na hi taṃ bhājanīyanti ce? Abhājanīyasāmaññato vuttaṃ hoti. Yathā saṅghassa ādissa dinnaṃ atthatakathinehi eva bhikkhūhi abhājanīyattā akālacīvaraṃ nāma jātaṃ, evaṃ puggalikampi itarehīti attho. Evaṃ santepi kassaci siyā ‘‘ādissa dinnampi dasāhameva parihāraṃ labhatī’’ti. Tassetaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ. Paṭhamakathine ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine’’ti idañhi niratthakanti. Anubbhatasmimpi hi kathine dasāhaparamameva dhāretabbanti viññātattā anādissa dinnameva sandhāyetaṃ vuttaṃ siyāti ce? Evaṃ santepi anādissa dinnampi anatthatakathinānaṃ aparakattikāya dasāhameva parihāraṃ labhati ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine’’ti vuttattā. Āmantāti ce? ‘‘Anatthate kathine ekādasamāse uppanna’’nti vacanena virujjhati, tasmā yathāvuttanayenevettha sanniṭṭhānaṃ gantabbaṃ.

499-500. 'When the robe-making is finished... (and so on)... or when the hope for a robe is cut off': when, of the three robes, one has been made, the others exist, and he protects them. When the robe-impediment is cut off, and when the Kathina is withdrawn, or at the proper time, or in the winter season, should an out-of-season robe arise, it should be made very quickly. When there is sufficiency, he does not maintain the expectation; when there is no sufficiency, if there is no expectation, he does not maintain it. Because of the statement 'arisen in the eleven months when the Kathina is not spread,' the later Kattika month is indeed the proper time, whether the Kathina is spread or not spread. When the Kathina is spread, the winter season may be the proper time; when it is not spread, it may be the improper time. After that, it is definitely the improper time. The phrase 'given with designation,' although not applicable here, is stated by way of extracting the meaning, as in the second Nissaggiya offense for nuns, where the remainder is like an out-of-season robe. For there, when something is given to the Sangha of nuns with the designation 'Let those who have arrived distribute it,' for the nun who distributes it after having determined an 'out-of-season robe' as a 'season-robe,' it is a Nissaggiya offense. For just as it is stated there, 'An out-of-season robe is one that arises in the eleven months when the Kathina is not spread, or in the seven months when the Kathina is spread,' by way of extracting the meaning, so too is this case. If so, one might ask: 'For what reason was it stated, "Given to a single individual, saying, ‘We give this to you,’" since that is not to be distributed?' It is stated because of the commonality of being non-distributable. Just as what is given to the Sangha with designation becomes what is called an out-of-season robe because it is non-distributable by the monks who have spread the Kathina, so too, that which is a personal gift becomes an out-of-season robe for the others because it is non-distributable by them; this is the meaning. Even so, someone might think, 'Even what is given with designation obtains a period of keeping of only ten days.' This thought of his is merely a conjecture. For then, in the first Kathina section, this statement 'when the robe-making is finished for the monk, when the Kathina is withdrawn' would be meaningless. If one were to say: 'For even when the Kathina is not withdrawn, it is understood that a robe should be kept for ten days at most; therefore, this statement might have been said referring only to what is given without designation.' Even so, even what is given without designation obtains a period of keeping of only ten days in the later Kattika month for those who have not spread the Kathina, because it is stated, 'when the robe-making is finished for the monk, when the Kathina is withdrawn.' If one were to say, 'Yes'? It contradicts the statement 'arisen in the eleven months when the Kathina is not spread.' Therefore, the conclusion here should be reached according to the method already stated.

Anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ ‘‘paṭhamasikkhāpade sabbacīvarānaṃ yāvadatthacīvaravasena kathinamāsabbhantare dasāhātikkamepi anāpatti parihārassa dinnattā. Yathā [Pg.236] kathinamāsabbhantare ādissa dinnamakālacīvaraṃ kālacīvaraparihārameva labhati, tathā itaramāsepi labhatīti veditabbaṃ. Tasmā evaṃ ‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine bhikkhuno paneva cīvaraṃ uppajjeyyā’tiādinā sikkhāpade siddhepi anatthatakathinānaṃ pacchimakattikamāsaṃ anujānantena ‘akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyyā’ti vuttaṃ. Evañhi avutte akālacīvaraṃ nāma ‘anatthate kathine ekādasamāse uppanna’nti na sakkā vattuṃ. Evañhi vacanato anatthatakathinānaṃ atthatakathinānaṃ viya sabbacīvarānaṃ pacchimakattikamāse dasāhātikkame nissaggiyaṃ na hotī’’tiādi.

In the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is stated: 'In the first training rule, for all robes, by way of robes as needed, even when the ten days are exceeded within the Kathina month, there is no offense, because an allowance has been given. Just as an out-of-season robe given with a specific person in mind within the Kathina month receives the very allowance of a seasonal robe, so too, it is received in other months; thus it should be understood. Therefore, even though it is established in the training rule by the text beginning, ‘When a monk has finished his robe, and the Kathina is withdrawn, should another robe arise for the monk…’, by permitting the last Kattika month for those for whom the Kathina is not spread, it is said, ‘an out-of-season robe may arise’. Indeed, if this were not said, it would not be possible to say that what is called an out-of-season robe is ‘one that has arisen in the eleven months when the Kathina is not spread’. Indeed, because it is so, for those for whom the Kathina is not spread, like for those for whom the Kathina is spread, for all robes, in the last Kattika month, exceeding the ten-day limit does not become an item for forfeiture, and so on.'

Bhiyyopi evaṃ vuttaṃ – yaṃ pana mayā ‘‘paṭhamakathine dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabba’’nti anuññātaṃ, tampi kathinamāsato bahi uppannameva, na antoti ayamattho dīpito hoti. Kathaṃ? Atirekacīvarassa dasāhaparihārato uddhaṃ āpajjitabbāpattiṃ ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine’’ti anupaññattiyā kathinabbhantare vāretvā tato uddhaṃ uppannesu dasāhātikkame āpajjitabbāpattiṃ iminā sikkhāpadena vāretuṃ ‘‘akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyyā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Tena ‘‘kālepi ādissa dinnaṃ, etaṃ akālacīvaraṃ nāmā’’ti vacanato kathinubbhārato uddhaṃ dasāhaparihāraṃ na labhatīti dīpitaṃ hoti, tehi saddhiṃ puna kathinubbhārato uddhaṃ pañca divasāni labhatīti pasaṅgopi ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine bhikkhuno paneva akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyya…pe… khippameva kāretabba’’nti akālacīvarassa uppattikālaṃ niyametvā vuttattā nivārito hoti, tadubhayena kathinabbhantare uppannacīvaraṃ kathinubbhārato uddhaṃ ekadivasampi parihāraṃ na labhatīti siddhaṃ hoti. Evaṃ apare vadantīti.

Furthermore, it is said thus: That which was permitted by me—'In the first Kathina, an extra robe may be kept for a maximum of ten days'—that too applies only to a robe that has arisen outside the Kathina month, not within it. This meaning is clarified. How so? The offense to be incurred after the ten-day allowance for an extra robe is prevented within the Kathina period by the supplementary regulation, 'When the Kathina has been withdrawn by a bhikkhu whose robe-making is finished.' Then, in order to prevent the offense to be incurred by exceeding ten days with regard to robes that have arisen after that period, this training rule states, 'should an untimely robe arise,' etc. Therefore, because of the statement, 'Even if given specifically in season, this is called an untimely robe,' it is clarified that after the withdrawal of the Kathina, the ten-day allowance is not obtained. Also, the implication that one again obtains five days after the withdrawal of the Kathina is prevented, because it was said, having defined the time of arising for an untimely robe: 'When the Kathina has been withdrawn by a bhikkhu whose robe-making is finished, should an untimely robe arise for a bhikkhu... it should be made quickly.' By both of these, it is established that a robe that has arisen within the Kathina period does not obtain an allowance of even one day after the withdrawal of the Kathina. Thus others say.

Punapi vuttaṃ – ācariyā pana evaṃ vadeyyuṃ ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine bhikkhuno paneva akālacīvaraṃ uppajjeyyā’’ti ettha ‘‘niṭṭhitacīvarasmiṃ bhikkhunā ubbhatasmiṃ kathine’’ti vadanto evaṃ viññāpeti ‘‘etthantare tiṇṇannampi akālacīvarānaṃ uppatti abhāva’’nti. Kasmā pana padabhājane vitthāritānīti? Vuccate – idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, kintu paṭhame dasāhaṃ anujānitvā tasmiṃ appahonte sace paccāsā atthi, tameva vaḍḍhetvā māsaṃ anujānanto imampi atthavisesaṃ dīpeti akālacīvaraṃ nāma [Pg.237] sammukhībhūtena bhājetabbantipi dīpeti. Taṃ pana ‘‘ākaṅkhamānena bhikkhunā paṭiggahetabba’’nti iminā sikkhāpadena vaḍḍhetvā vuttanti, tasmā tīṇipi padabhājane vitthāritānīti.

Again, it is said: The teachers, however, might say thus: Herein, in the passage “When the robe-making is finished by a monk and the kathina has been withdrawn, an untimely robe might arise for that very monk,” the Blessed One, by saying, “When the robe-making is finished... and the kathina has been withdrawn,” makes it known that “within this interval, there is the non-arising of the three kinds of untimely robes.” Why then are they elaborated in the word-analysis? It is said: This training rule is stated with reference to the determination. But indeed, in the first rule, having allowed ten days, if that is insufficient and there is an expectation, He, while extending that very period to a month, also reveals this special meaning: that what is called an untimely robe is to be distributed by one who is present. That, however, is stated by extending it with this training rule: “It should be accepted by a monk who is waiting for it.” Therefore, all three are elaborated in the word-analysis.

‘‘Khippameva kāretabbanti dasāhā kāretabba’’nti idaṃ pana pahonakabhāve purimasikkhāpadalakkhaṇenāti dīpetuṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘evaṃ sīghanti vā lahunti vā’’tiādinā avatvā ‘‘dasāhā’’ti vuttaṃ. Atthatakathinassa evaṃ hotu, anatthate pana kathine kathanti vutte anatthatassa paṭikkhepataṃ dassetīti vutto apassanto vighātaṃ āpajjatīti. Ekatiṃse aruṇuggamane nissaggiyanti mahantenapi paccāsācīvarena saha ghaṭitampi tabbhāvaṃ anupatitvā nissaggiyaṃ hoti sati pacchimappamāṇasambhave, asati na hoti, puna ghaṭite hoti, aññena ghaṭite na hoti. Chinnaṃ aññavatthu hoti. Pubbaparicchedaṃ atikkantaṃ ghaṭitaṃ puna aññaparicchedaṃ labhatīti eke, upaparikkhitvā gahetabbaṃ. Aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘saṅghassa vā idaṃ akālacīvaranti uddissa dinna’nti ettha saṅghassa dinne āpatti nāma natthi, ‘sotassa raho’tiādīsu viya paduddhārena vuttaṃ, tassa lābhaṃ sandhāyāti ce? Saṅghato vā uppajjeyyāti anena siddhattā adhikamevā’’ti ca ‘‘saṅgho cīvarāni labhissati gaṇo vā’tiādināpi pāṭho atthī’’ti ca vuttaṃ. Gaṇṭhipade kosallatthaṃ pana mayā sabbaṃ likhitaṃ, suṭṭhu vicāretvā kathetabbaṃ.

This statement, ‘It should be made quickly; it should be made within ten days,’ was said to show the characteristic of the previous training rule in a case of sufficiency. Therefore, instead of saying ‘so swiftly’ or ‘so lightly,’ and so on, it was said ‘within ten days.’ For one for whom the kathina has been spread, let it be so. But for one for whom the kathina is not spread, when it is asked, ‘How is it?’, the answer shows the rejection for the one for whom it is not spread. The one who was told this, not understanding, falls into trouble. At the dawn of the thirty-first day, it becomes forfeitable. Even when joined with a large hoped-for robe, having attained that state, it becomes forfeitable if there is the possibility of the final measurement; if there is not, it does not. When joined again, it does; when joined with another, it does not. A cut piece becomes another object. Some say that what has exceeded the previous boundary, when recombined, gains another boundary; this should be examined and taken up. But in a certain Ganthipada it is said: ‘Here, in the phrase “This was given, having been designated for the Sangha or as an untimely robe,” when it is given to the Sangha, there is no offense. It is said by way of “extraction of a word,” as in “the ear in private,” etc.’ If it is said that this refers to its gain, the reply is: because it is already established by ‘or it might arise from the Sangha,’ it is simply redundant. And it is also said that there is a reading, ‘The Sangha will receive robes, or a group,’ etc. But for the sake of skill in the Ganthipada, everything was written by me; it should be discussed after careful consideration.

Tatiyakathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the third Kathina training rule is completed.

4. Purāṇacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Old Robes

503-505. Bhattavissagganti bhattakiccādhiṭṭhānaṃ. Bhattakiccādhiṭṭhānavibhāganti porāṇā. Tattha nāma tvanti tattha tayā katakamme evaṃ akattabbe sati dhovāpissasi nāma. Atha vā so nāma tvanti attho. Ubhatosaṅghe upasampannāti bhikkhūnaṃ santike upasampadāya paṭikkhittattā tadanupasaṅgabhayā evaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Purāṇacīvara’’nti ettha purāṇabhāvadīpanatthameva ‘‘sakiṃ nivatthampi sakiṃ pārutampī’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘cīvaraṃ nāma channaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññataraṃ cīvaraṃ vikappanupagaṃ pacchima’’nti vacanassa okāso na [Pg.238] jātoti eke. Yasmā vikappanupagapacchimaṃ idha nādhippetaṃ, nivāsanapārupanupagamevādhippetaṃ, teneva nisīdanapaccattharaṇe dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā na vuttanti eke. Jātippamāṇāvacanato yaṃ kiñci purāṇavatthaṃ dhovāpentassa nissaggiyameva, teneva ‘‘anāpatti cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ parikkhāraṃ dhovāpetī’’ti vuttaṃ. Thavikampi hi asucimakkhitaṃ paribhuttaṃ dhovāpeti, nissaggiyameva oḷārikattā, appatirūpattā ca. Teneva kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ imasmiṃ ṭhāne cīvaraparicchedo na vuttoti eke, vicāretvā yuttataraṃ gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Rajitvā kappaṃ katvāti kappiyaṃ katameva nivāsetuṃ, pārupituṃ vā vaṭṭati, netara’’nti vuttaṃ. Iminā ca majjhimattheravādo upatthambhito hoti, nopatthambhito. Rajitvātiādi pana vinayavidhidassanatthaṃ vuttanti mama takko. Yathā aññātikāya aññātikasaññīvāre tīṇi catukkāni, evaṃ vematikañātikavāresu cāti nava catukkāni honti. Etthāha – ekavāraṃ dhovitvā dhovanesu dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā puna ‘‘duddhota’’nti maññamānā dhovati, anāpattiyā bhavitabbaṃ, dutiyavāraṃ avuttā dhovati nāma hotīti? Vuccate – sace bhikkhu ‘‘alaṃ ettāvatā dhotenā’’ti paṭikkhipati, puna dhovantī avuttā dhovati nāmāti yujjati. No ce, vuttāva hotīti veditabbaṃ. Bhikkhussa liṅgaparivattane ekatoupasampannāya vasena āpatti sākiyānīnaṃ viya.

503-505. Herein, `bhattavissagga` means the arrangement of the meal duty. The ancient teachers say it means the arrangement and division of the meal duty. Herein, `tattha nāma tvaṃ` means: when there is an action done by you that should not have been done, will you indeed have it washed? Alternatively, the meaning is: you, being such a one. Regarding `ubhatosaṅghe upasampannā` (ordained in both Saṅghas), it should be understood that this is said because, her higher ordination having been rejected in the presence of the bhikkhus, there is fear of the transgression that would follow that. Herein, regarding `purāṇacīvara` (an old robe), it is said, 'even if worn once as an under-robe or once as an outer-robe,' only to indicate its state of being old. Therefore, some say there is no occasion for the statement, 'A robe is any one of the six robes, the smallest being suitable for `vikappana`.' Because the smallest robe suitable for `vikappana` is not intended here; only that which is suitable for wearing as an under-robe or an outer-robe is intended. For that very reason, a `dukkaṭa` offense is stated for a sitting-cloth or a ground-covering. Therefore, some say, it is not stated. Because the type and measure are not specified, for one who has any old cloth whatsoever washed, it is indeed a `nissaggiya` offense. For that very reason, it is said, 'There is no offense if, having set aside a robe, one has another requisite washed.' Indeed, if one has even a used bag smeared with impurity washed, it is a `nissaggiya` offense, because of its coarseness and unsuitability. For that very reason, some say that the delimitation of a robe is not stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī in this context; having investigated, what is more suitable should be adopted. It is stated: 'Having dyed it and made the `kappa` mark,' it is allowable to wear as an under-robe or an outer-robe only what has been made allowable, not what is other than that. And by this, the view of the middle elders is supported. Or rather, it is not supported. Instead, `rajitvā`, and so on, is said to show the Vinaya procedure; this is my reasoning. Just as in the section on a non-relative perceived as a non-relative there are three tetrads, so too in the sections on doubt and on her being a relative, there are thus nine tetrads. Herein, one asks: If, having washed once and set aside the responsibility for washing, she washes again thinking, 'It was badly washed,' should there be no offense? Is washing a second time called 'washing without being told'? The reply is given: If the bhikkhu rejects it, saying, 'Enough with this much washing,' then her washing again is properly called 'washing without being told.' If he does not reject it, it should be understood that she has been told. In the case of a bhikkhu's sex change, an offense is incurred by way of one ordained on one side, similar to the offense for the Sākyan women.

506. Ekena vatthunāti yena kenaci paṭhamena. ‘‘Tiṇṇaṃ catukkānaṃ vasenā’’ti pāṭho. Bhikkhūnaṃ santike aṭṭhavācikāya upasampannāya pākaṭattā taṃ avatvā sākiyāniyova vuttā apākaṭattā.

506. ‘By one basis’ means by any first one. There is the reading: “by way of the three tetrads.” Because her higher ordination with the eight pronouncements in the presence of the bhikkhus was well-known, that was not mentioned; only the Sākyanī was mentioned, because she was not well-known.

Purāṇacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Old Robes is concluded.

5. Cīvarapaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning the Acceptance of Robes

508-510. Apaññatte sikkhāpadeti ettha ‘‘gaṇamhā ohīyanasikkhāpade’’ti likhitaṃ. Araññavāsīnisedhanasikkhāpade apaññatteti eke, ‘‘taṃ na sundara’’nti vadanti. Vihatthatāyāti āyāsena.

508-510. Regarding the phrase 'When the training rule was unpromulgated,' it is written as 'in the training rule concerning leaving the group.' Some say this refers to when the training rule prohibiting dwelling in the forest was unpromulgated; others say, 'That is not suitable.' `Vihatthatā` means 'with difficulty.'

512. Upacāroti dvādasahattho. Mahāpaccariyaṃ, kurundiyañca vuttanti ettha rattibhāge dhammakathikassa bhikkhuno bahūsu cīvaresu mahājanena pasādadānavasena [Pg.239] paṭikkhittesu punadivase ‘‘upāsakānaṃ pasādadānāni etānī’’ti suddhacittena gaṇhantassa doso natthi, ‘‘bhikkhunīhipi dinnāni idha santī’’ti ñatvā gaṇhato doso. Taṃ acittakabhāvenāti bhikkhunīhi dinnabhāvaṃ ñatvā bahūsu tassā cīvarassa ajānanenāti attho. Paṃsukūlaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvāti ‘‘bhikkhunīhi nu kho dinnaṃ siyā’’ti avikappetvā ‘‘paṃsukūlaṃ gaṇhāmī’’ti gaṇhantassa vaṭṭati. Kurundiādīsu vuttopi attho ayameva, ekaṃ, ‘‘acittakabhāvenā’’ti vacanena ‘‘yathā tathā gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti uppathova paṭisedhitoti apare. Evaṃ dhammasiritthero na vadati, ujukameva vadatīti papañcitaṃ. Tasseva visayo, tassāyaṃ adhippāyo – yathā ‘‘paṃsukūlaṃ gaṇhissatīti ṭhapitaṃ kāmaṃ bhikkhunisantakampi avikappetvā paṃsukūlaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ, tathā dhammakathikassa bhikkhuniyā dinnampi apaññāyamānaṃ vaṭṭatīti, tasmā taṃ vuttaṃ mahāpaccariyaṃ, kurundiyañca acittakabhāvena na sametīti. Paṭikkhepo pana vikappaggahaṇe eva ruhati. Aññathā pubbāparaṃ virujjhatīti. Taṃ na yuttaṃ paṃsukūlena asamānattā. Paṃsukūlabhāvena saṅkārakūṭādīsu ṭhapitaṃ bhikkhunīhi, na taṃ tassā santakaṃ hutvā ṭhitaṃ hoti. Assāmikañhi paṃsukūlaṃ sabbasādhāraṇañca, aññopi gahetuṃ labhati. Idaṃ pubbeva ‘‘bhikkhunīnaṃ cīvara’’nti jānitvāpi paṃsukūliko gahetuṃ labhati tadā tassā asantakattā. ‘‘Paṃsukūlaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā’’ti sallekhakkamanidassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Maṃsaṃ dadantena tathāgatena sallekhato kappiyampi bhuttaṃ nissaggiyaṃ cīvaramāha yo maṃsaṃ kathanti sayamādiseyyāti.

512. An `upacāra` is an area of twelve cubits. In the Mahāpaccariya and the Kurundiya it is said: In the night, when many robes have been presented by the great populace by way of a gift of faith to a Dhamma-preaching bhikkhu, on the next day, for one who takes them with a pure mind, thinking, 'These are gifts of faith from the lay devotees,' there is no fault. For one who takes them knowing, 'There are also robes given by bhikkhunīs here,' there is a fault. 'Due to the state of being unintentional' means: knowing the fact that they were given by bhikkhunīs, but not knowing her specific robe among the many. Regarding 'having determined it as a rag-robe': for one who takes it thinking, 'I am taking a rag-robe,' without specifically considering, 'Could this have been given by bhikkhunīs?', it is allowable. The meaning stated in the Kurundī and other commentaries is this very one. However, others say that by the statement 'due to the state of being unintentional,' the wrong path, 'it is allowable to take it in any way whatsoever,' is rejected. The Elder Dhammasiri does not speak thus; he speaks only straightforwardly. This has been elaborated. This is his sphere, this is his intention: just as it is said, 'It is allowable to take even what belongs to a bhikkhunī, which was placed with the thought, "He will take it as a rag-robe," by determining it as a rag-robe without specific consideration,' so too for a Dhamma-preacher, what is given by a bhikkhunī, being unrecognizable, is allowable. Therefore, it is said that what is stated in the Mahāpaccariya and the Kurundiya does not accord with 'due to the state of being unintentional.' The rejection, however, applies only in the case of taking with specific consideration. Otherwise, the former and latter statements would be contradictory. That is not proper, because of the dissimilarity with a rag-robe. What is placed by bhikkhunīs on refuse heaps and so on, as a rag-robe, does not remain as her property. For a rag-robe is ownerless and common to all; another person may also take it. This, even having known beforehand, 'This is a bhikkhunī's robe,' a rag-robe-dweller may take, because at that time it is not her property. The phrase 'having determined it as a rag-robe' is stated to show the method of austere practice. The Tathāgata, while permitting meat, partook of what is allowable from the standpoint of austere practice and spoke of a robe entailing forfeiture. How could one who eats meat himself point this out?

Acittakattā kathaṃ paṃsukūlaṃ vaṭṭatīti ce? Tāya tassa adinnattā, bhikkhunāpi tato bhikkhunito aggahitattā ca. Assāmikampi hi paṃsukūlaṃ aññissā hatthato gaṇhāti, na vaṭṭati ‘‘aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā cīvaraṃ paṭiggaṇheyyā’’ti vuttalakkhaṇasambhavato. Aññātikāya santakaṃ ñātikāya hatthato gaṇhāti, vaṭṭatīti eke. Yathā sikkhamānasāmaṇerādīnaṃ hatthato paṭiggaṇhantassa anāpatti, tathā kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyañca ‘‘aññātikāya hatthato gahaṇa’’nti (kaṅakhā. aṭṭha. cīvarappaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) aṅgaṃ vuttaṃ. Tathā ñātikāya [Pg.240] santakaṃ sikkhamānāya, sāmaṇeriyā, upāsakassa, upāsikāya, bhikkhussa, sāmaṇerassa santakaṃ aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā hatthato gaṇhantassa ca anāpatti evaṃ yathāvuttalakkhaṇāsambhavatoti eke, teneva ‘‘ekatoupasampannāya cīvaraṃ paṭiggaṇhātī’ti avatvā ‘hatthato paṭiggaṇhāti aññatra pārivattakā, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti (pārā. 513) vuttaṃ, tasmā aññātikāya santakampi ekatoupasampannāya hatthato paṭiggaṇhantassa dukkaṭa’’nti vadanti, ubhopete na sārato daṭṭhabbā, kāraṇaṃ pariyesitabbaṃ.

If it is asked, 'Given that it is without intention, how is the rag-robe permissible?' It is because she has not given it to that bhikkhu, and because the bhikkhu has not taken it from that bhikkhunī. Indeed, even if one takes an ownerless rag-robe from the hand of another bhikkhunī, it is not permissible, because of the occurrence of the characteristic stated thus: '...should receive a robe from an unrelated bhikkhunī.' Some say it is permissible if one takes what belongs to an unrelated bhikkhunī from the hand of a related bhikkhunī. Just as there is no offense for one who receives from the hands of a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇera, and so on, so too in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, 'taking from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī' is stated as a factor. Similarly, some say there is indeed no offense for one who takes from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī the property of a related bhikkhunī, a sikkhamānā, a sāmaṇerī, a male lay follower, a female lay follower, a bhikkhu, or a sāmaṇera, because of the non-occurrence of the aforesaid characteristic. For that very reason, instead of saying, 'He receives a robe from one ordained in both Saṅghas,' it is said, 'He receives it from her hand, except in exchange—there is an offense of wrong-doing.' Therefore, they say that for one who receives even the property of an unrelated bhikkhunī from the hand of one ordained in both Saṅghas, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Both these views should not be taken as definitive; the reason must be sought.

514. Ko pana vādo pattatthavikādīsūti anadhiṭṭhātabbesu bahūsu paṭalesu. Tenevāha mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘pattatthavikādimhi anadhiṭṭhātabbaparikkhāre’’ti. Adhiṭṭhānupagesu vā tesaṃ parikkhārattā bhisichaviyā viya anāpatti. Kiṃ paṭaparissāvanaṃ parikkhāraṃ na hotīti? Hoti, kintu taṃ kira nivāsanādicīvarasaṇṭhānattā na vaṭṭati. Tasmā idha nivāsanādicīvarasādhanaṃ vikappanupagapacchimaṃ cīvaraṃ nāma. Anantarātīte nivāsanapārupanupagamevāti sanniṭṭhānaṃ. Evaṃ sante kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. cīvarappaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) kappanupagapacchimatā, pārivattakābhāvo, aññātikāya hatthato gahaṇanti tīṇeva aṅgāni avatvā aparikkhāratāti catutthamaṅgaṃ vattabbanti ce? Na vattabbaṃ, imasmiṃ sikkhāpade pattatthavikādiparikkhārassa acīvarasaṅkhyattā. Paṭhamakathinādīsu vikappanupagatā pamāṇaṃ, idha kāyaparibhogupagatāti. ‘‘Aññaṃ parikkhāra’’nti uddharitvā ‘‘pattatthavikādiṃ yaṃkiñcī’’ti vuttattā vikappanupagampi pattatthavikādiṃ gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati, ‘‘paṭaparissāvanampī’’ti vuttaṭṭhāne ca ‘‘cīvaraṃ nāma vikappanupagapacchima’’nti vacanato paṭaparissāvanaṃ cīvarameva, na parikkhāraṃ. ‘‘Ko pana vādoti nigamanavacanampi sādhaka’’nti keci vadanti, paṇṇattiṃ ajānanato acittakaṃ, na vatthuṃ, ‘‘aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā santakabhāvājānanato, cīvarabhāvājānanato ca acittaka’’nti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

514. What is to be said of bowl-bags and so forth, among the many pieces of cloth that are not to be determined? Therefore, it is said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā: 'Regarding bowl-bags and other requisites not to be determined.' Or, in the case of those items suitable for determination, because they are requisites, like a mat or hide covering, there is no offense. Is a cloth water-strainer not a requisite? It is, but it is said that because its shape is like that of a robe such as a lower garment, it is not allowable. Therefore, here, that which serves as a robe such as a lower garment, the smallest one suitable for shared ownership, is called a 'robe'. In the immediately preceding training rule, the conclusion was made that it is only that which is suitable for a lower garment or an upper garment. This being so, if it is asked whether in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, instead of stating only the three factors—(1) being the smallest suitable for shared ownership, (2) the absence of exchange, and (3) receiving it from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī—a fourth factor, 'not being a requisite,' should be stated? It should not be stated, because in this training rule, requisites such as bowl-bags are not counted as robes. In the first kaṭhina, and so forth, suitability for shared ownership is the measure; here, it is suitability for bodily use. By extracting the phrase 'another requisite' and because it is said 'whatever bowl-bag, etc.,' it is allowable to receive even a bowl-bag, etc., that is suitable for shared ownership. And in the place where it is said 'even a cloth water-strainer,' because of the statement 'a robe is the smallest one suitable for shared ownership,' the cloth water-strainer is indeed a robe, not a requisite. Some say, 'The concluding statement, "What is to be said?" is also evidence,' but this is unintentional due to not knowing the regulation, not due to the object. It is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada: 'It is unintentional due to not knowing it was the property of an unrelated bhikkhunī, and due to not knowing it was a robe.'

Cīvarapaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on receiving robes is concluded.

6. Aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Soliciting from an Unacquainted Person

515. Parikkhārānanti [Pg.241] upayogatthe sāmivacanaṃ. Ekasāṭakanti bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ, ‘‘aññātako moghapurisā’’ti vacanena pavāritopi adātukāmo aññātako appavāritaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti dīpitaṃ hoti. Aññathā ‘‘anāpatti pavāritāna’’nti iminā virujjhati.

515. The word 'parikkhārānaṃ' is a genitive case in the sense of utility. The word 'ekasāṭakaṃ' is a verbal noun in the neuter gender. By the statement, “O worthless person, a non-relative!” it is shown that even if invited, a non-relative who does not wish to give stands in the position of one not invited. Otherwise, this would contradict the statement, “There is no offense for those who have been invited.”

517. Neva tāva viññāpetabbaṃ, na bhañjitabbanti anacchinnānaṃ cīvarānaṃ attano santakānaṃ atthitāya, tattha paccāsāsabbhāvato ca. Paccāsā kittakaṃ kālaṃ rakkhatīti? Yāva gāmantarā, yāva addhayojanāti eke. Yāva dassanasavanūpacārāti eke. Yāva aññe na passantīti eke. Yāva paccāsā chijjatīti eke. Yāva sākhāpalāsapariyesanabhañjanasajjanakālaparicchedāti eke. Idaṃ sabbaṃ yathāsambhavaṃ yujjati. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Sace pana etesaṃ vuttappakārānaṃ gihivatthādīnaṃ bhisichavipariyantānaṃ kiñci na labbhati, tena tiṇena vā paṇṇena vā paṭicchādetvā āgantabba’’nti aṭṭhakathāvacanato.

517. One should neither solicit nor break off [branches]; this is on account of one's own robes not having been stolen, and because there is an expectation regarding them. How long does this expectation last? Some say as far as the next village, or as far as half a yojana. Some say as far as the range of sight and hearing. Some say as long as others do not see. Some say as long as the expectation is cut off. Some say as long as the time-limits for searching for, breaking, and preparing branches and leaves. All this is suitable according to the circumstances. If it is asked, 'How is this known?' It is known from the commentary statement: 'But if for these aforementioned things, from householder's cloth up to mats and hides, nothing is obtained, one should cover oneself with grass or leaves and then come.'

Na tāva therānaṃ dātabbānīti na tāva attano ruciyā dātabbāni, yadā therā ‘‘dethāvuso’’ti vadanti, tadā dātabbāni. ‘‘Evaṃ sati daharāpi acchinnacīvaraṭṭhāne tiṭṭhanti, sākhāpalāsaṃ bhañjituṃ vaṭṭati, na aññathā. ‘Yehi kehici vā acchinnaṃ hotī’ti hi vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Ācariyo pana evaṃ vadati ‘‘attano ruciyāpi dātuṃ labhantī’’ti. Tathā hi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘paribhogajiṇṇaṃ vā’ti ettha ca ‘acchinnacīvarānaṃ ācariyupajjhāyādīnaṃ attanā tiṇapaṇṇehi paṭicchādetvā dinnacīvarampi saṅgahaṃ gacchatī’ti vattuṃ yujjatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Athāpi siyā ācariyādīhi ‘‘āharāvuso’’ti vutteyeva, nāvutteti, na, ‘‘kehici vā acchinna’’nti ettha vuttalesato dutiyalesassa avisesabhāvappasaṅgatoti. Atha kimatthaṃ ‘‘na tāva therānaṃ dātabbānī’’ti vuttanti ce? Yāva therānaṃ atthāya sākhāpalāsāni bhañjati, tāva na dātabbāni, tato tāni theruddissakāni sākhāpalāsāni sayaṃ paridahitvā vināpi therāṇattiyā attano ruciyā dātabbāni, bhūtagāmapātabyatāya pācittiyaṃ na hoti satthunāpi anuññātattā. ‘‘Tiṇena vā paṇṇena vā’’ti hi vuttaṃ, taṃ kappiyameva sandhāya vuttanti ce? Na, ‘‘tadalābhe na tveva…pe… dukkaṭassā’’ti [Pg.242] vacanavirodhato. Etthāha – dukkaṭabhayā pācittiyavatthu ce atikkamitabbaṃ, tadalābhe thullaccayavatthu saṅghikaṃ, tadalābhe pārājikavatthupi atikkamitabbaṃ siyāti? Na, pārājikassa lokavajjattā. Apica na sabbaṃ bhūtagāmaṃ pācittiyavatthumeva, tato dukkaṭādivatthupi atthi, anāpattivatthupi kālodisakaṃ, tasmā idaṃ tadā anāpattivatthukanti veditabbaṃ. Kittāvatā bhikkhu acchinnacīvaro naṭṭhacīvaro hotīti? Ettāvatā naggo hotīti eke. Vikappanupagapacchimabhāvena, vikappanupagapacchimamādiṃ katvā viññāpentassa āpattīti eke. Nivāsanapārupanupagābhāvenāti eke. Ticīvarābhāvenāti eke. Santaruttaraparamābhāvenāti eke. Ayaṃ ekevādo yutto ‘‘santaruttaraparamaṃ tato cīvaraṃ sāditabba’’nti hi vacanato, tasmā santaruttare sati vikappanupagapacchimaṃ viññāpentassa paṭilābhena nissaggiyaṃ. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘viññāpetvā paṭilabheyya nissaggiya’’nti sikkhāpadena bhavitabbanti ce? Tanna, tadatthasiddhito nānatthattā dhātūnaṃ. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Yathā hi ‘‘tikkhattuṃ methunaṃ dhammaṃ abhiviññāpesī’’ti (pārā. 36) vutte pavattesīti attho, tathā idhāpi ‘‘cīvaraṃ viññāpeyyā’’ti viññattiyā pavatteyya uppādeyyāti attho.

“They should not yet be given to the elders” means they should not yet be given by one's own wish; when the elders say, “Give, friend,” then they should be given. “If this is so, even young monks stand in the position of one whose robe has been stolen, and it is allowable to break off branches and leaves, but not otherwise. For it is said, ‘It has been stolen by someone or other.’” The teacher, however, says: “They are able to give even by their own wish.” For thus it is said in the commentary: “And here, regarding ‘or worn out by use,’ it is proper to say that ‘even a robe given by oneself after covering oneself with grass and leaves to teachers, preceptors, and others whose robes have been stolen, is included.’” It might be argued that this is proper only when teachers and others say, “Bring it, friend,” and not when it is unsaid. This is not so, because of the consequence that the second reason would have no distinction from the reason stated in ‘stolen by someone or other.’ Then, if it is asked for what reason it was said, “They should not yet be given to the elders,” the answer is: As long as one breaks branches and leaves for the sake of the elders, they should not be given. After that, having worn those branches and leaves intended for the elders oneself, they should be given by one's own wish, even without the elders' command. There is no pācittiya offense for destroying plant life, because it has been permitted even by the Teacher. For it is said, “With grass or with leaves.” If one were to say that this was said referring only to what is allowable, that is not so, because of the contradiction with the statement, “If that is not obtained, one should not… out of fear of a dukkaṭa.” Here one says: If an object of a pācittiya offense is to be transgressed out of fear of a dukkaṭa, then if that is not obtained, would an object of a thullaccaya offense belonging to the Sangha be transgressed, and if that is not obtained, might even an object of a pārājika offense be transgressed? No, because a pārājika is condemned by the world. Moreover, not all plant life is solely an object of a pācittiya offense; from that, there are also objects of dukkaṭa and others, and there is also an object of no offense specified by time. Therefore, this should be understood as an object of no offense at that time. To what extent is a bhikkhu considered ‘one whose robe has been stolen’ or ‘one whose robe is lost’? Some say: To the extent that he is naked. Some say: By the state of having only the last robe fit for determination; there is an offense for one who requests, having made the last robe fit for determination the starting point. Some say: By the absence of a robe fit for wearing as a lower or upper garment. Some say: By the absence of the three robes. Some say: By the absence of an inner and outer robe as the limit. This last view is correct, for it is said, “A robe should be accepted up to the limit of an inner and outer robe.” Therefore, when an inner and outer robe are present, for one who requests the last robe fit for determination, it is to be forfeited upon acquisition. If one were to say that if this is so, the training rule should be, “Having requested, should he receive it, it is to be forfeited,” that is not so, because that meaning is established and because verbal roots have various meanings. What is meant? Just as when it is said, “He solicited sexual intercourse three times,” the meaning is “he engaged in it,” so also here, in “he should request a robe,” the meaning is “by requesting, he should cause it to arise, he should produce it.”

Tena nivatthoti taṃnivattho. Aññassa alābhena tameva paribhuñjato jirati, na lesena. Attanāti sayameva vattuṃ yujjati, tasmā ayuttaparibhogena aparibhuñjitvā yuttaparibhogavasena paribhuñjato jiṇṇaṃ paribhogajiṇṇaṃ nāma. Tassa sabhāgānaṃ acchinnakāle dānampi yuttaparibhoge eva saṅgahaṃ gacchatīti adhippāyo. ‘‘Ime kira dve lesā aṭṭhakathāyo, vācentānaṃ ācariyānaṃ matanti dhammasiritthero āhā’’ti vuttaṃ.

Herein, `tena nivattho` means one who has worn that. It wears out from using that very robe due to not obtaining another, not from contrived use. Herein, `attanā` means it is fitting to say 'by oneself'; therefore, what has become worn out from being used in a proper manner, not having been used improperly, is called 'worn out by use'. The intention is that even a robe given to monks of the same group at a time when robes are not stolen is included only in proper use. It is said: 'The Elder Dhammasiri said: “These two points, it is said, are the view of the teachers who teach the commentaries.”'

521. Nisīdituṃ vā nipajjituṃ vā na labhatīti yathāsukhaṃ na labhatīti adhippāyo. ‘‘Aññassatthāyā’’ti etthāpi ‘‘ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna’’nti anuvattati eva. Atthāya kassa? Tasseva aññassa. Yathā aññātake tikapācittiyaṃ, tathā appavāritepīti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna’’nti vuttaṃ. Aññathā ‘‘ñātake ñātakasaññī’’ti iminā siddhattā na niccaṃ sesaṃ āpajjati. Apicettha aññātakaggahaṇena appavāritaggahaṇaṃ hoti[Pg.243], appavāritaggahaṇena aññātakaggahaṇaṃ, aññātakā hi appavāritā honti. Tathā ñātakaggahaṇena pavāritaggahaṇaṃ hoti, katthaci na hoti. Na pavāritaggahaṇena ñātakaggahaṇaṃ hotīti imassa atthavisesassa dassanatthaṃ ‘‘ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna’’nti vuttaṃ. Tathā hi aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā appavāritāya ca cīvaraṃ aññatra pārivattakā paṭiggaṇhantassa āpatti. Ñātikāya pana pavāritāya ca vissāsaṃ gaṇhāti, anāpatti. Tathā purāṇacīvaraṃ ñātikāya anāpatti, pavāritāya pana tikapācittiyameva. Ñātakānañca ekaccānaṃ purāṇacīvaraṃ nāma dātuṃ vaṭṭati, na pavāritānaṃ. Tikacchedo ca mātikāpadeneva hoti, na aññena. Tatthāpi ekeneva, na dutiyādīhīti ayaṃ vinaye dhammatā veditabbā.

521. ‘Is not able to sit or lie down’ means one is not able to do so as one wishes; this is the intention. Herein, in ‘for the sake of another,’ the phrase ‘of relatives who have been invited (to request)’ also follows on. For whose sake? For that very other. To show that just as in the case of a non-relative there is a tikapācittiya offense, so too for one who is not invited, the phrase ‘of relatives who have been invited (to request)’ is stated. Otherwise, since it is established by the phrase ‘perceiving a relative as a relative,’ one does not always fall into the remaining offense. Moreover, here, by the mention of ‘non-relative,’ the mention of ‘uninvited’ is implied; by the mention of ‘uninvited,’ the mention of ‘non-relative’ is implied, for non-relatives are indeed uninvited. Similarly, by the mention of ‘relative,’ the mention of ‘invited’ is implied, but in some cases it is not. To show this specific meaning that by the mention of ‘invited,’ the mention of ‘relative’ is not implied, the phrase ‘of relatives who have been invited (to request)’ is stated. For instance, for a bhikkhu who accepts a robe from a bhikkhunī who is a non-relative and uninvited, except in an exchange, there is an offense. But if he takes it from a bhikkhunī who is a relative and has been invited (to request), out of familiarity, there is no offense. Similarly, regarding an old robe, from a relative there is no offense, but from one who has been invited (to request), it is indeed a tikapācittiya offense. And for some relatives, it is allowable to give what is called an old robe, but not to those who have been invited (to request). The threefold classification is made only by the mātikā-phrase, not by another. And there too, only by one, not by the second and so on—this should be understood as the nature of things in the Vinaya.

Aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Soliciting from a Non-Relative is concluded.

7. Tatuttarisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning (Requesting) Beyond That

522-4. Paggāhikasālaṃ vāti dussapasāraṃ vā. Hatthena paggahetvā ṭhatvā sālāyaṃ pasāretabbadussaṃ pasārentīti codanā. Ticīvarikenevāti vinayaticīvarikena. So hi adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitaparikkhāracoḷādīsu santesupi ticīvare acchinne santaruttaraparamaṃ viññāpetvā gahetuṃ labhati. Aññathāpīti ‘‘pamāṇikaṃ ticīvaraṃ parikkhāracoḷavasena adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjato tasmiṃ naṭṭhe bahūnipi gahetuṃ labhati, na santaruttaraparama’’nti ca, tasmā taṃ vibhāganti ‘‘ticīvarikassa taṃ vibhāganti attho, na parikkhāracoḷikassā’’ti ca keci vadanti. Ācariyo pana ‘‘aññenāti aticīvarikena, aññathāti ito vuttaggahaṇaparicchedato aññenā’’ti ettakameva vadati. Aññathāti pana sace tīṇipi naṭṭhāni, santaruttaraparamaṃ gaṇhitabbaṃ, sace dve vā ekaṃ vā naṭṭhaṃ, tena ‘‘aññathāpī’’ti dassanatthaṃ vuttanti eke. Gaṇṭhipadesu vicāraṇā eva natthi, tasmā upaparikkhitvā gahetabbaṃ. Pakatiyā santaruttarena carati, sāsaṅkasikkhāpadavasena vā taṃsammutivasena vā tatiyassa alābhena vā.

522-4. Regarding `Paggāhikasālaṃ vā` (or a hall for holding up) or `dussapasāraṃ vā` (or a place for spreading out cloth): The accusation is that they spread out cloth to be displayed in a hall, standing and holding it up with their hands. `Ticīvarikena` refers to one who observes the three-robe practice according to the Vinaya. Indeed, such a person, even when there are other requisites like determined spare cloths available, is allowed to solicit and receive at most an under-robe and an upper-robe if the three robes have been stolen. Regarding `Aññathāpi`: 'For a monk who uses a requisite cloth after having determined the standard three robes, if that requisite cloth is lost, he is allowed to receive many robes, not limited to just an under-robe and an upper-robe.' Therefore, some say, 'This allowance is for one who observes the three-robe practice, not for one who uses a requisite cloth.' The Teacher, however, says only this much: '`Aññena` means by one who does not observe the three-robe practice; `aññathā` means in a way other than the limit for receiving stated here.' As for `aññathā`, some say: if all three robes are lost, at most an under-robe and an upper-robe should be taken; if two or one are lost, the phrase `aññathāpi` is said in order to show this alternative procedure. There is no investigation of this in the knotty passages; therefore, one should understand it after careful examination. By nature, one goes about with an under-robe and an upper-robe; or one does so on account of the training rule involving suspicion, or by an agreement to that effect, or from not obtaining a third robe.

526. ‘‘Pamāṇameva [Pg.244] vaṭṭatī’’ti sallekhadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Taṃ micchā gahetvā ñātakādiṭṭhāne taduttari gaṇhantassa āpattīti ce? Taṃ pāḷiyā na sameti, ‘‘anāpatti ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna’’nti hi pāḷi. Ettha ca pavāritā nāma acchinnakālato pubbe eva pavāritā, na acchinnakāle. ‘‘Abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyyā’’ti hi vuttaṃ, tasmā yo acchinnakālassatthāya pavāreti, ubhopi appavāritā evāti veditabbā. Te hi acchinnakāraṇā naṭṭhakāraṇāva denti nāma. Apica yathā piṭṭhisamaye satuppādaṃ katvā ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato vassikasāṭikaṃ nipphādentassa tena sikkhāpadena nissaggiyaṃ, tathā idhāpi ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānepi acchinnanaṭṭhakāraṇā na vaṭṭati, tasmā ‘‘aṭṭhakathāsu pamāṇameva vaṭṭatī’ti vuttavacanameva pamāṇa’’nti dhammasiritthero āha, taṃ ayuttaṃ, kasmā? Yasmā idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ taduttari viññāpentassa paññattaṃ, tasmiñca ‘‘aññātako gahapati vā gahapatānī vā’’ti mātikāya pāḷi, vibhaṅge ca ‘‘aññātako nāma mātito vā…pe… asambaddho’’ti pāḷi, anāpattivāre ca ‘‘ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna’’nti pāḷi, tasmā tividhāyapi pāḷiyā na sametīti ayuttameva, tasmā kevalaṃ sallekhameva sandhāya vuttanti apare. Upari kāṇamātāsikkhāpade aṭṭhakathāsu pana ‘‘tesampi pātheyyapaheṇakatthāya paṭiyattato pamāṇameva vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ, na pana ‘‘pāḷiyā na sametī’’ti vuttaṃ, na tattha ca idha ca nānākaraṇaṃ paññāyati, tasmā therassa laddhi sundarā viya mama khāyati, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Yasmā panidaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ aññassatthāya viññāpanavatthusmiṃyeva paññattaṃ, tasmā idha ‘‘aññassatthāyā’’ti na vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sesaṃ uttānatthamevā’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Aññassatthāyā’’ti nidānavirodhato na vuttaṃ. Tathāpi anantare vuttanayena labbhatīti ācariyo. Evarūpesu gahapatipaṭisaṃyuttasikkhāpadesu kiñcāpi ‘‘gahapati nāma yo koci agāraṃ ajjhāvasatī’’ti vuttaṃ, tathāpi pañca sahadhammike ṭhapetvā avasesā ca sikkhāpaccakkhātako ca titthiyo ca veditabbo.

526. “‘Only the measure is allowable’ is said for the purpose of showing austerity. If one argues that, taking that wrongly, there is an offense for one who accepts something beyond that from relatives and such, that does not accord with the Pāḷi, for the Pāḷi states, ‘There is no offense for relatives who have been invited.’ And here, ‘invited’ refers to those who were invited before the time of having the robe stolen, not at the time of having the robe stolen. For it is said, ‘One should invite for bringing.’ Therefore, it should be understood that if one invites for the sake of a monk at the time of having his robe stolen, both are considered uninvited. Indeed, they give on account of the robe being stolen or on account of it being lost. Moreover, just as for a monk who, in the period following, having made an effort, has a rains-bathing cloth completed from the place of a relative's invitation, it becomes an item for forfeiture under that training rule, so too here, even at the place of a relative's invitation, it is not allowable if given on account of the robe being stolen or lost. Therefore, the Elder Dhammasiri said, ‘The statement made in the commentaries, “Only the measure is allowable,” is the authority.’ That is incorrect. Why? Because this training rule was laid down for one who requests beyond that measure, and in its matrix, the Pāḷi states, ‘an unrelated householder or householder's wife’; and in the analysis, the Pāḷi states, ‘“Unrelated” means not related from the mother's side… etc. … not connected’; and in the no-offense section, the Pāḷi states, ‘for relatives who have been invited.’ Thus, as it does not accord with the Pāḷi in these three ways, it is incorrect. Therefore, others say it was spoken referring only to austerity. Above, in the training rule concerning Kāṇā's mother, the commentaries, however, say, ‘For them too, since it is prepared for the purpose of provisions for a journey and as a gift, only the measure is allowable,’ but it is not said, ‘it does not accord with the Pāḷi.’ No difference is discernible between that case and this one, so the Elder's view seems reasonable to me, but it should be investigated. However, since this training rule was laid down specifically in a case of requesting for another, ‘for another’ is not stated here. The reading is, ‘The rest is of plain meaning.’ ‘For another’ is not stated due to contradicting the origin story. Still, it is obtained by the method stated in the immediately preceding rule, says the teacher. In such training rules connected with householders, although it is said, ‘A “householder” is anyone who dwells in a home,’ nevertheless, it should be understood that this excludes the five co-religionists but includes the rest, such as one who has renounced the training and an adherent of another sect.

Tatuttarisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning 'Beyond That' is concluded.

8. Paṭhamaupakkhaṭasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. The Commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning What is Prepared

527-8. Api [Pg.245] hoti cittanti attho. Meyyāti pāṭhassa mayhanti attho. Na ime sukarā, ‘‘na imesaṃ sukarā’’ti vā pāṭho. ‘‘Tassa na imesaṃ sukarā acchādetunti attho’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Pubbe appavārito’’ti vacanato tasmiṃ khaṇe pavāritopi appavāritova hotīti.

527-8. The meaning is 'indeed, there is a thought'. For the reading `meyyāti`, the meaning is 'mine'. The reading is `Na ime sukarā` (It is not easy for these), or alternatively, `na imesaṃ sukarā` (It is not easy for them). It is written: 'Of that reading, the meaning is: "It is not easy for these monks to cover."' Because of the statement, 'previously uninvited,' it should be understood that at that moment, even if invited, one is indeed as one uninvited.

Paṭhamaupakkhaṭasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning What is Prepared is concluded.

9. Dutiyaupakkhaṭasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. The Commentary on the Second Training Rule Concerning What is Prepared

532. Dutiyaupakkhaṭena kiṃpayojananti? Natthi, kevalaṃ aṭṭhuppattivasena paññattaṃ bhikkhuniyā rahonisajjasikkhāpadaṃ viya. Evaṃ sante tanti anāropetabbaṃ bhaveyya vināpi tena tadatthasiddhito, anissarattā, anāropetuṃ anuññātattā ca. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘ākaṅkhamāno, ānanda, saṅgho…pe… samūhaneyyā’’ti (dī. ni. 2.216). Idaṃ sabbamakāraṇaṃ. Na hi buddhā appayojanaṃ vācaṃ nicchārenti, pageva sikkhāpadaṃ, tenevāha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘tañhi imassa anupaññattisadisa’’ntiādi. Anupaññatti ca nippayojanā natthi, taṃsadisañcetaṃ, na nippayojananti dassitaṃ hoti, evaṃ sante ko panettha visesoti? Tato āha ‘‘paṭhamasikkhāpade ekassa pīḷā katā, dutiye dvinnaṃ, ayamettha viseso’’ti. Iminā atthavisesena ko panañño atirekattho dassitoti? Porāṇagaṇṭhipade tāva vuttaṃ ‘‘ekasmimpi vatthusmiṃ ubhinnaṃ pīḷā kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti ayamatirekattho dassito’’ti. Tenetaṃ dīpeti ‘‘na kevalaṃ paṭiladdhacīvaragaṇanāyeva āpattigaṇanā, pīḷitapuggalasaṅkhātavatthugaṇanāyapī’’ti.

532. What is the purpose of the second rule concerning what is prepared? There is none; it was laid down merely on account of an occasion arising, like the training rule for a bhikkhunī on sitting in a secluded place. If this is so, it might be argued that it should not have been included in the canon, since its purpose is achieved even without it. However, because one is not master to alter the canon and because its inclusion was permitted, it should be included. For it has been said: 'If it wishes, Ānanda, the Saṅgha... may abolish...' All this is not the reason. Indeed, Buddhas do not utter a useless word, how much more so a training rule. For that very reason, it is said in the Aṭṭhakathā: 'For this is like a supplementary regulation,' etc. And a supplementary regulation is not without purpose, and this is similar to that; thus it is shown that it is not without purpose. This being so, what is the distinction here? Therefore, it is said: 'In the first training rule, harm is done to one; in the second, to two. This is the distinction here.' By this distinction in meaning, what other additional meaning is shown? In the ancient glossary, it is first said: 'Even in a single case, it is possible to cause harm to two. This additional meaning is shown.' By that, this is clarified: 'The counting of offenses is not merely by the count of robes received, but also by the count of cases, which are reckoned as the individuals harmed.'

Honti cettha –

And herein are these verses:

‘‘Vatthuto gaṇanāyāpi, siyā āpatti nekatā;

Iti sandassanatthañca, dutiyūpakkhaṭaṃ idha.

By counting the cases as well, an offense might be manifold; and for the purpose of demonstrating this, the second rule concerning what is prepared was stated here.

‘‘Kāyasaṃsaggasikkhāya, vibhaṅge viya kintetaṃ;

Ekitthiyāpi nekatā, āpattīnaṃ payogato’’ti.

It is as in the Vibhaṅga of the training rule on physical contact. What is this? Even with a single woman, there is a multiplicity of offenses due to the various applications.

Apicetaṃ [Pg.246] sikkhāpadaṃ taṃjātikesu sikkhāpadesu sabbesupi gahetabbavinicchayassa nayadassanappayojananti veditabbaṃ. Āha ca –

Moreover, this training rule is to be understood as serving the purpose of showing the method for the determination to be made in all training rules of that kind. And it is said:

‘‘Aññātikāya bahutāya vimissatāya,Āpattiyāpi bahutā ca vimissatā ca;

Iccevamādividhisambhavadassanatthaṃ,Satthā upakkhaṭamidaṃ dutiyaṃ avocā’’ti.

“Because of the multiplicity and mixture of non-relatives, there is also a multiplicity and mixture of offenses; in order to show the possibility of such methods and so forth, the Teacher spoke this second training rule concerning what is prepared.”

Tassāyaṃ saṅkhepato adhippāyapubbaṅgamā vicāraṇā – purāṇacīvaraṃ ekameva bhikkhu bhikkhunīhi dvīhi, bahūhi vā dhovāpeti, bhikkhunigaṇanāya pācittiyagaṇanā, tathā dvinnaṃ, bahūnaṃ vā sādhāraṇaṃ ekameva cīvaraṃ aññatra pārivattakā paṭiggaṇhāti, idhāpi tathā dvinnaṃ, bahūnaṃ vā sādhāraṇamekaṃ viññāpeti, viññattapuggalagaṇanāya āpattigaṇanā. Tathā aññesupi evarūpesu sikkhāpadesu nayo netabbo. Ayaṃ tāva bahutāya nayo. Missatāya pana ñātikāya, aññātikāya ca ekaṃ dhovāpeti, ekato niṭṭhāpane ekaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Atha ñātikā paṭhamaṃ thokaṃ dhovitvā ṭhitā, puna aññātikā sudhotaṃ karoti, nissaggiyaṃ. Atha aññātikā paṭhamaṃ dhovati, pacchā ñātikā sudhotaṃ karoti, aññātikāya payogavasena bhikkhuno dukkaṭameva. Aññātikāya ca ñātikāya ca aññātikasaññī, vematiko, ñātikasaññī vā dhovāpeti, yathāvuttanayena nissaggiyadukkaṭādiāpattibhedagaṇanā veditabbā. Tathā aññātikāya ca ñātikāya ca santakaṃ cīvaraṃ ubhohi ekato diyyamānaṃ paṭiggaṇhantassa, aññātikāya eva hatthato paṭiggaṇhantassa ca nissaggiyameva. Atha ñātikāya anāpatti. Atha ubhosu aññātikādisaññī vuttanayeneva nissaggiyadukkaṭādiāpattibhedagaṇanā veditabbā. Tathā aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadesupi yathāsambhavaṃ nayo netabbo. Ayaṃ missatāya nayo. Ādi-saddena pana aneke aññātikā viññattāviññattapuggalagaṇanāya dukkaṭaṃ. Eko deti, eko na deti, nissaggiyaṃ. Atha aviññatto deti, na nissaggiyaṃ. Atha viññattāviññattānaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ viññatto deti, nissaggiyameva. Ubho denti, nissaggiyameva. Aviññatto deti, nissaggiyena anāpatti. Viññattassa vacanena aviññatto deti, anāpatti eva. Tathā upakkhaṭādīsupi yathāsambhavaṃ nayo netabbo.

Here is a concise analysis, with its intention as a preamble: A monk has a single old robe washed by two or by many nuns; the counting of pācittiya offenses is according to the number of nuns. Similarly, when he receives a single robe common to two or many, except for an exchange; and here also, similarly, when he requests a single robe common to two or many, the counting of offenses is according to the number of persons requested. This method should be applied to other such training rules. This is the method concerning multiplicity. Now, concerning mixed cases: he has a robe washed by a related and an unrelated nun; upon its completion together, it is one pācittiya offense. Furthermore, if a related nun first washes it a little and stops, and then an unrelated nun completes the washing, it is a nissaggiya offense. Furthermore, if an unrelated nun washes it first, and afterwards a related nun completes the washing, for the monk, due to the action of the unrelated nun, it is only a dukkaṭa offense. If he has it washed by a related and an unrelated nun while perceiving her as unrelated, being uncertain, or perceiving her as related, the counting of the various offenses—nissaggiya, dukkaṭa, etc.—should be understood according to the method as stated. Similarly, for a monk who receives a robe belonging to both an unrelated and a related nun when it is being given by both together, and for one who receives it from the hand of the unrelated nun only, it is a nissaggiya offense. Furthermore, if he receives it from the related nun, there is no offense. Furthermore, in the case of both, if he perceives them as non-relatives, etc., the counting of the various offenses—nissaggiya, dukkaṭa, etc.—should be understood by the method already stated. Similarly, this method should be applied as is suitable in the training rules concerning requesting from an unrelated person. This is the method concerning mixed cases. Now, by the word “ādi” (etc.): in the case of many unrelated persons, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred according to the number of persons requested and not requested. If one gives and one does not give, it is a nissaggiya offense. Furthermore, if an unrequested person gives, it is not a nissaggiya offense. Furthermore, if the requested one gives what is common to the requested and the unrequested, it is a nissaggiya offense. If both give, it is a nissaggiya offense. If an unrequested person gives, there is no offense by way of nissaggiya. If an unrequested person gives by the word of the requested one, there is no offense at all. Similarly, in the training rules concerning prepared items (upakkhaṭa), etc., this method should be applied as is suitable.

Dutiyaupakkhaṭasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the second training rule concerning prepared items is concluded.

10. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning a King

537. ‘‘Na [Pg.247] kho mayaṃ, āvuso, cīvaracetāpannaṃ paṭiggaṇhāma…pe… kālena kappiya’’nti ito pubbe eva rūpiyapaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadassa paññattattā vuttaṃ. Aññathā āyasmā upanando maṃsassa cetāpannaṃ ekampi kahāpaṇaṃ hatthena paṭiggaṇhanto tato mahantataraṃ cīvaracetāpannaṃ kathaṃ na paṭiggaṇhissati, evaṃ santepi cīvarapaṭisaṃyuttattā cīvaravagge saṅgāyiṃsūti.

537. This statement, "Indeed, friends, we do not accept a price for robes... at the proper time, it is allowable," was said because the training rule on accepting money had already been laid down just before this. Otherwise, the venerable Upananda, while accepting with his hand even a single kahāpaṇa as a price for meat, how would he not accept a much larger price for robes than that? Even so, because of its connection with robes, they included it in the Robes Chapter.

538-9. ‘‘Āgatakāraṇaṃ bhañjatī’’ti vuttattā nanu puna codetuṃ na labhatīti eke. Āgamanassa sātthakaṃ na hoti, cīvaraṃ na labhissati paṭisanthārassa katattāti eke. Codanālakkhaṇaṃ na hotīti katvā vuttanti eke. ‘‘Ṭhatvā codemī’’ti āgato taṃ ṭhānaṃ bhañjati, karoti cekaṃ, tīṇipi ce karoti, ekameva, ekavacanattāti eke. Tīṇi ṭhānāni bhañjatīti eke. Upatissatthero ‘‘na codanādiṃ bhañjati, codetukāmo akattabbaṃ akāsi, tena vattabhede dukkaṭa’’nti vadati. Dhammasiritthero pana ‘‘āsane ce nisīdati, ekāya nisajjāya dve ṭhānāni bhañjati. Āmisaṃ ce paṭiggaṇhāti, ekena paṭiggahena dve ṭhānāni bhañjati. Dhammaṃ ce bhāsati, dhammadesanasikkhāpade vuttaparicchedāya ekāya vācāya dve ṭhānāni bhañjati, taṃ sandhāya vutta’’nti vadati. ‘‘Yatthā’’ti vutte attano eva santikaṃ gantabbanti vuttaṃ viya hoti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘byañjanaṃ pana na sametī’’ti. Upāsakehi āṇattā taṃ. Mūlaṃ asādiyantenāti mūlassa akappiyabhāve sati asādiyantena. Tañca kho cittena, na mukhena. Sace evaṃ vutte akappiyaṃ dassetīti katvā cittena akappiyaṃ icchantova mukhena kappiyaṃ niddisati ‘‘cīvaraṃ me dethā’’ti, na vaṭṭati. Paṭilābhe rūpiyapaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpadena āpatti.

538-9. Because it is said, 'He breaks the reason for coming,' some say, 'Is it not that one does not get to request again?' Some say, 'The coming is not fruitful; he will not get the robe because hospitality was performed.' Some say, 'It is not the characteristic of a request; it was said with this in mind.' The one who came thinking, 'Having stood, I will request,' breaks that standing. If he does one of these actions, or if he does all three, he breaks only one, because it is a similar statement; thus some say. He breaks the three grounds; thus some say. The Elder Upatissa says, 'He does not break the request and so on. One who wishes to request did what should not be done; thereby, due to the breach of duty, there is a dukkaṭa offense.' But the Elder Dhammasiri says, 'If he sits on a seat, with one sitting he breaks two grounds. If he accepts a material thing, with one acceptance he breaks two grounds. If he speaks the Dhamma, with one utterance of the stated limitation in the training rule on teaching the Dhamma, he breaks two grounds. It was said referring to that.' When 'yatthā' is said, it is as if it were said, 'One should go to one's own presence.' Therefore, it is said, 'But the wording does not fit.' He was instructed by the lay supporters. By 'not consenting to the price' is meant: by not consenting when there is the unsuitability of the price. And that is with the mind, not with the mouth. If, when this has been said, he—while desiring with his mind what is unsuitable—indicates with his mouth what is suitable, saying, 'Give me a robe,' it is not allowable. Upon receiving it, there is an offense under the training rule on accepting money.

Tatrāyaṃ vicāraṇā – cittena sādiyantopi mukhena kappiyavohārena ce voharati ‘‘kahāpaṇārahena, pādārahena vā kappiyabhaṇḍena idañcidañca āharā’’ti. Kiñcāpi rūpiyaṃ sandhāya vadati, vaṭṭati eva. Kasmā? Kañci sassuṭṭhānakaṃ bhūmipadesaṃ sandhāya ‘‘sīmaṃ demāti vadanti, vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanato, ‘‘vihārassa demā’’ti vutte ‘‘paṭikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanato ca. Anugaṇṭhipade pana vuttaṃ ‘‘saṅghaṃ sandhāya ‘vihārassa demā’ti dinnaṃ garubhaṇḍaṃ na hoti, dakkhiṇodakaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ, ‘sādhū’ti ca vattuṃ, anumodetuñca [Pg.248] vaṭṭati. Kasmā? Saṅghassa ‘vihāro’ti nāmābhāvato, khettasseva ‘sīmā’ti nāmabhāvato ca, cittena ārammaṇaṃ kataṃ appamāṇaṃ, kappiyavohārova pamāṇaṃ. Kappiyamevācikkhitattā ‘na tvevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kenaci pariyāyena jātarūparajataṃ sāditabbaṃ pariyesitabbanti vadāmī’ti (mahāva. 299) vacanenapi na virujjhati. Kappiyavacanapaccayā dāyako sayameva kattabbayuttakaṃ jānissatīti adhippāyato dāyakena etassa adhippāyaṃ ñatvā kappiyakārakassa hatthe ṭhapitaṃ bhikkhussa santakameva hotī’’ti. Idaṃ sabbamayuttaṃ, kasmā? Sīmāvihāravacanassa dāyakavacanattā. Idha ca bhikkhuno vacanaṃ pamāṇaṃ. Tenevāha ‘‘athāpi ‘mama taḷākaṃ vā pokkharaṇiṃ vā saṅghassa dammī’ti vutte ‘sādhu, upāsaka, saṅgho pānīyaṃ pivissatī’tiādīni vatvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati evā’’ti. Aññathā khettaṃ sandhāya bhikkhuno khettapaṭibaddhavacanāni sīmāvacanena kappantīti āpajjati. Avihārassa ca bhikkhussa rūpiyaṃ dassetvā ‘‘idaṃ vihārassa dammī’’ti vutte attano atthāya diyyamānaṃ jānantenāpi taṃ appaṭikkhipitabbaṃ. Tathā kahāpaṇārahādino akappiyabhaṇḍabhāvaṃ, kahāpaṇādibhāvameva vā jānantameva sandhāya tathāvoharantassa ca anāpattīti āpajjati. ‘‘Na tvevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kenaci pariyāyenā’’ti nippadesato vuttattā na sakkā lesaṃ oḍḍetunti no takko, vicāretvā pana gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘No ce icchati, na kathetabba’’nti vacanato yathāvuttasāmiciyā akaraṇe anāpatti dukkaṭassāti dasseti.

Herein is this consideration: Even while consenting in the mind, if one speaks with the mouth using an allowable expression, such as, 'Bring this and that allowable article worth a kahāpaṇa or worth a pāda,' then even though one speaks referring to money, it is indeed permissible. Why? Because of the statement, 'Referring to a certain plot of land for cultivation, they say, "We give the boundary," and it is permissible,' and because of the statement, 'When it is said, "We give to the monastery," it is not allowable to refuse.' Moreover, in the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: 'When, referring to the Saṅgha, something is given with the words, "We give to the monastery," it does not become a heavy article. It is permissible to receive the water of dedication, to say "Sādhu," and to express appreciation. Why? Because the Saṅgha does not have the name 'monastery,' whereas a field does have the name 'boundary.' The object intended by the mind is not the measure; only the allowable expression is the measure. Because only what is allowable was stated, it does not conflict with the statement: "Monks, I do not say that in any way gold and silver should be consented to or sought." With the intention that, "Because of the allowable expression, the donor himself will know what ought to be done," what is placed in the hand of the kappiyakāraka by the donor, who has understood his [the monk's] intention, becomes the monk's own possession.' All this is incorrect. Why? Because the words 'boundary' and 'monastery' are the donor's speech. And here, the monk's speech is the measure. Therefore, he said: 'If it is said, "I give my tank or my lotus pond to the Saṅgha," it is indeed permissible to use it after saying such things as, "Good, lay supporter, the Saṅgha will drink the water."' Otherwise, it would follow that a monk's words connected with a field, when referring to a field, would become allowable by the word 'boundary.' And for a monk without a monastery, when shown money and told, 'I give this for the monastery,' it would have to not be refused by him, even while knowing it is being given for his own benefit. Similarly, for one who speaks in such a way, referring to one who knows the state of being unallowable goods for things worth a kahāpaṇa, etc., or their very nature as kahāpaṇas, etc., it would follow that there is no offense. Because the statement, 'Monks, I do not in any way...' was spoken unconditionally, it is not possible to insert a pretext—this is our reasoning. But it should be accepted after investigation. Because of the statement, 'If he does not wish, it should not be spoken,' it shows that for not performing the proper conduct as stated, there is no offense of wrongdoing (dukkaṭa).

‘‘Aññātakaappavāritesu viya paṭipajjitabba’’nti vacanato yathāvuttasāmicimpi na katvā ce nipphādeti, aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadena kāretabboti dasseti. Kappiyakārakā sayameva codetvā denti, vaṭṭati. ‘‘Sayaṃ karaṇameva paṭikkhitta’’nti ca vadanti. Piṇḍapātādīnaṃ …pe… eseva nayoti ettha ‘‘dukkaṭa’’nti vadanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ, dadantesupīti api-saddena saṅgahitattā nissaggiyapācittiyameva. Jātarūparajataṃ ‘‘saṅghe sādite dukkaṭa’’nti ca vikappenti. Taṃ visesetvā navuttattā pācittiyamevāti dasseti. ‘‘Nissaggiyamevāti yevāpanakasikkhāpadesu siyā’’ti vadanti, upaparikkhitabbaṃ. ‘‘Yassa kassaci hi aññassa…pe… mahāpaccariyaṃ vutta’’nti vacanato apabbajitānaṃ antamaso mātāpitūnampi atthāya sampaṭicchantassa dukkaṭamevāti dasseti.

Because of the statement, 'One should act as if among strangers and those who have not given an invitation,' it shows that if one accomplishes this without acting according to the stated propriety, the matter should be decided by the training rule on requesting from an unrelated person. If the suitable-makers request it themselves and give, it is allowable. And they say, 'Only doing it oneself is prohibited.' … Herein, some say it is an offense of wrongdoing, but that is not proper. Because it is included by the particle `api` in `dadantesupi`, it is indeed an offense entailing relinquishment and confession. They also opine regarding gold and silver, 'If the Saṅgha consents to it, it is an offense of wrongdoing.' It shows that because that case was not stated with a special distinction, it is indeed a pācittiya offense. Some say, 'It would be an offense entailing relinquishment only, as in the training rules concerning `yevāpanaka`.' This should be examined. Because of the statement in the Mahāpaccarī, 'For any other person whatsoever…,' it shows that for a monk who accepts something for the sake of non-monastics, even for the sake of his mother and father, it is indeed an offense of wrongdoing.

Sabbattha [Pg.249] sampaṭicchanaṃ nāma ‘‘uggaṇheyya vā uggaṇhāpeyyavā upanikkhittaṃ vā sādiyeyyā’’ti evaṃ vuttalakkhaṇameva. Evaṃ santepi katthaci paṭikkhipitabbaṃ, katthaci na paṭikkhipitabbaṃ, katthaci paṭikkhittaṃ sādituṃ vaṭṭati, evaṃ appaṭikkhittaṃ kiñci vaṭṭati, idaṃ sabbampi dassetuṃ ‘‘sace panā’’ti vitthāro āraddho. Tattha ‘‘cetiyassa…pe… na vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanato appaṭikkhittaṃ vihārassa dinnaṃ sādituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Tathā therassa ‘‘mātuyā demā’’tiādinā vuttepi paṭiggahaṇe āpatti pācittiyameva. Sāpattiko hotīti ettha kāya āpattiyā sāpattiko hotīti? Dukkaṭāpattiyāti eke. Na yāya kāyaci, kevalaṃ aṭṭhāne codetīti katvā ‘‘sāpattiko’’ti vuttaṃ. Yathā kathanti? ‘‘Pañcahi, bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgato saddhivihāriko paṇāmetabbo…pe… paṇāmento anatisāro’’ti (mahāva. 68) ettha na sammāvattantaṃyeva apaṇāmentassa dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Yathāha – ‘‘na ca, bhikkhave, asammāvattanto na paṇāmetabbo, yo na paṇāmeyya, āpattidukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 68), tasmā adhimattapemādiabhāvepi apaṇāmentassa anāpatti dissati. Apica ‘‘sātisāro hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Evaṃsampadamidaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāya ‘‘sātisāro hotīti sadoso hoti, āpattiṃ āpajjatī’’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 68) vuttattā na yuttanti ce? Na, tadanantarameva taṃmicchāgāhanivattanatthaṃ, tasmā ‘‘na sammāvattanto paṇāmetabbo’’ti vuttattā anāpattikā katāti. Dukkaṭāpatti hotīti ācariyo, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. ‘‘Kappiyabhaṇḍampi akappiyamevāti taḷākato nipphannadhaññena parivattetvā laddhaṃ gorasampi na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

In all cases, what is called 'acceptance' is precisely of the characteristic thus stated: 'one should receive, or cause to be received, or consent to what is placed nearby.' Even so, in some cases it should be rejected, in some cases it should not be rejected; in some cases, it is allowable to consent to what has been rejected, and thus, something not rejected is allowable. To show all this, the detailed exposition beginning with 'But if...' has been undertaken. Therein, from the statement 'for a shrine... it is not allowable,' it is established that it is allowable to consent to what is given to a monastery without being rejected. Similarly, even when it is said to the elder, 'Let us give to the mother,' etc., on account of receiving, the offense is a pācittiya indeed. In the phrase 'He becomes an offender,' by what offense does he become an offender? Some say it is by a dukkaṭa offense. It is not by just any offense; it is said, 'he becomes an offender,' simply because he reproaches in an inappropriate place. How so? In the passage, 'Monks, a co-resident endowed with five factors should be dismissed... one who dismisses is not at fault,' it is stated that for one who does not dismiss a person who is not behaving properly, there is a dukkaṭa offense. As it is said: 'And, monks, one who is not behaving properly should be dismissed; whoever should not dismiss him, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.' Therefore, even in the absence of excessive affection, etc., no offense is seen for one who does not dismiss. Moreover, it is said, 'He is at fault.' This should be seen as an example of this. If one should say that this is not proper because in the commentary it is said, '"He is at fault" means he is with fault, he incurs an offense,' this is not so. Immediately after that, it is for the purpose of dispelling that wrong grasp; therefore, because it is said, 'one who is not behaving properly should be dismissed,' it is made to be a non-offense. The teacher says that a dukkaṭa offense is incurred; this should be investigated. It is said: 'Even an allowable requisite becomes unallowable,' thus even milk products obtained by exchanging them for grain produced from a reservoir are not allowable.

Kappiyavohārepi vidhānaṃ vakkhāma, seyyathidaṃ – ‘‘udakavasenā’’tiādi. Dubbinibbhogaṃ hotīti idaṃ parato ‘‘tasseva akappiyaṃ. Kasmā? Dhaññassa vicāritattā’’ti iminā asadisaṃ, tasmā suvuttaṃ. Idañhi bhikkhussa payogavasena ādito paṭṭhāya uppannena missanti. Akatapubbaṃ navasassaṃ nāma. Khale vā ṭhatvā rakkhatīti ‘‘idaṃ vā ettakaṃ vā mā gaṇha, idaṃ gahetuṃ labbhatī’’ti vā ‘‘ito apanehi, idha puñjaṃ karohī’’ti evamādinā vā payogena ce rakkhati, taṃ akappiyaṃ. ‘‘Sace ‘mayiṭhite rakkhitaṃ hotī’ti rakkhati, gaṇhante vā passitvā ‘kiṃ karothā’ti, bhaṇati vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ. Rūpiyapaṭiggahaṇasikkhāpade ‘‘dvāraṃ pidahitvā rakkhantena vasitabba’’nti hi [Pg.250] vuttaṃ. Tasseva taṃ akappiyaṃ. Kasmā? Apubbassa anuppāditattā. Heṭṭhā ‘‘sassaṃ katvā āharathā’’ti vattuṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti. Paṇṇepi eseva nayo. ‘‘Pakatiyā sayameva karontānaṃ ussāhajananato’’ti vuttaṃ. Kasmā? ‘‘Kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattā’’ti vacanato, pageva uṭṭhāpitattāti siddhaṃ hoti. Sace dāyakā vā saṅghassa gāmakhettārāmādiṃ keṇiyā gahitamanussā vā tattha kuṭumbino ‘‘ime saṅghassa kahāpaṇā āhaṭā’’ti vadanti, ‘‘na kappatī’’ti ettakameva vattabbaṃ. Kappiyakārakāva ce vadanti, ‘‘saṅghassa kahāpaṇā na kappanti, sappiādīni vaṭṭantī’’ti vattabbaṃ, tasmā ‘‘saṅghassa kappiyakārake vā guttaṭṭhānaṃ vā ācikkhathā’’ti vatvā tehi sampāditaṃ kenaci akattabbatāya ‘‘iminā sappiṃ āharāhī’’ti vicāreti niṭṭhāpetvā itaresaṃ kappiyaṃ parato pattacatukke catutthapatto viya. Vuttañhi tattha ‘‘ime kahāpaṇe gahetvā imaṃ dehī’ti kahāpaṇe dāpetvā gahito, ayaṃ patto etasseva bhikkhuno na vaṭṭati, dubbicāritattā, aññesaṃ pana vaṭṭati, mūlassa asampaṭicchitattā’’tiādi. Yadi evaṃ sabbesaṃ akappiyaṃ. Kasmā? Kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattāti. Idaṃ duvuttanti ce? Na, mūlassa sampaṭicchitaṭṭhānaṃ sandhāya imassa vuttattā pattacatukke dutiyatatiyapattā viya, teneva vuttaṃ sayaṃkārivāre ‘‘na kappatī’’ti ettakameva vattabba’nti. Tato paraṃ mūlaṃ sampaṭicchati nāma.

We will explain the procedure regarding permissible transactions, namely, that beginning with 'by means of water.' This statement, 'it is difficult to separate,' is not similar to the later statement, 'it is impermissible for him alone. Why? Because the grain was managed'; therefore, it is well-said. Indeed, this is mixed from the very beginning with the grain that has arisen through the monk's effort. What has not been previously done is called new grain. If, standing on the threshing floor, he guards it with such efforts as saying, 'Do not take this or that much,' or 'This is allowed to be taken,' or 'Remove it from here, make a pile here,' then that is impermissible. It is said, 'If he guards it thinking, "While I am present, it is guarded," or if, seeing those who are taking it, he says, "What are you doing?" it is allowable,' and that is proper. For indeed, in the training rule on accepting money, it is said, 'One should dwell, having closed the door and guarding.' For that very one, it is impermissible. Why? Because what was new was not produced by him. However, it should be known that it is not allowable to say below, 'Having prepared the grain, bring it.' In the case of leaves also, this is the same principle. It is said, 'Because of generating effort in those who are doing it naturally by themselves.' Why? Because of the statement, 'due to the kahāpaṇas having been managed,' it is established that it was prompted from the very beginning. If donors, or people who have taken a village, field, monastery grounds, etc., of the Saṅgha on rent, or householders there, say, 'These kahāpaṇas for the Saṅgha have been brought,' only this much should be said: 'It is not permissible.' If the stewards themselves say, it should be said: 'Kahāpaṇas are not permissible for the Saṅgha; ghee and so forth are allowable.' Therefore, having said, 'Inform us of the Saṅgha's steward or a safe place,' some monk manages what has been procured by them—because it is not fit to be done otherwise—by settling the matter, saying, 'With this, bring ghee.' For the other monks, it is permissible, like the fourth bowl in the section on the four bowls later on. For it has been said there: 'A bowl taken after having caused kahāpaṇas to be given with the words, "Having taken these kahāpaṇas, give this," is not allowable for that very monk, due to being improperly managed. But for others it is allowable, because the price was not accepted by them,' and so on. If so, it would be impermissible for all. Why? Because the kahāpaṇas were managed. If it is said, 'This is poorly stated'? No, because this was said with reference to the place where the price is accepted, it is like the second and third bowls in the section on the four bowls. For that very reason, it was said in the section on acting by oneself: 'Only this much should be said: "It is not permissible."' Beyond that, it is called 'accepting the price'.

Mahāvisayasikkhattā, rājasikkhāpadaṃ idaṃ;

Rañño viya duviññeyyaṃ, cittādhippāyatopi vā.

This training rule concerning the king is difficult to understand, just as the mind of a king is, either because of its great scope of training or because of its profound intention.

Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning rulers is concluded.

Niṭṭhito cīvaravaggo paṭhamo.

The first division, the section on robes, is concluded.

2. Kosiyavaggo

2. The Division on Silk

1. Kosiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Silk

542. Kosiyakārakoti ettha kosaṃ karontīti ‘‘kosakārā’’ti laddhavohārānaṃ pāṇakānaṃ kosato nibbattaṃ kosiyaṃ nāma. Attanā kataṃ ce? Nissajjanakāle ‘‘sayaṃ kataṃ nissaggiya’’nti vattabbaṃ. Ubhohi [Pg.251] ce kataṃ, yathāpāṭhameva vattabbaṃ. Attanā ca parehi ca vippakataṃ attanā pariyosāpetītiādicatukkampi sambhavantaṃ na dassitaṃ. Vinayadhammatā hesā, yadidaṃ ekasmiṃ tike vā catukke vā dassite itaraṃ sambhavantampi na vuccatīti.

542. Here, in the section on the silk-maker: that which is produced from the cocoon of creatures who have received the designation 'cocoon-makers' (kosakārā) because 'they make a cocoon' (kosaṃ karonti), is called silk (kosiya). If it is made by oneself? At the time of relinquishment, it should be stated, 'Made by myself, it is to be forfeited.' If it is made by both, it should be stated just as in the text. The tetrad beginning with 'what was left unfinished by oneself and others, one finishes oneself,' although possible, is not shown. For this is the nature of the Vinaya: that when one triad or tetrad is shown, another, although possible, is not stated.

Kosiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning silk is concluded.

2. Suddhakāḷakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Pure Black

547. Suddhakāḷakānanti ettha yathā paṭhame ‘‘ekenapi kosiyaṃsunā’’ti vuttaṃ, tathā idha ‘‘ekenapi aññena amissetvā’’ti vacanābhāvato aññehi missabhāve satipi apaññāyamānarūpakaṃ ‘‘suddhakāḷaka’’micceva vuccatīti veditabbaṃ.

547. Here, regarding 'pure black': just as it was said in the first training rule, 'even with one silk thread,' so here, due to the absence of the statement 'without mixing with even one other,' even if there is a state of being mixed with other wools, if its appearance is not discernible, it should be understood that it is called simply 'pure black'.

Suddhakāḷakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning pure black is concluded.

3. Dvebhāgasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Two Parts

552. ‘‘Dhārayitvā dve tulā ādātabbā’’ti vacanato yathā tulādhāraṇāya kāḷakā adhikā na honti, tathā kāḷakānaṃ dve bhāvā gahetabbā ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Suddhakāḷakapaṭisedhananidānena. Tatiyaṃ odātānaṃ catutthaṃ gocariyānanti heṭṭhimaparicchedo. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘ekassapi kāḷakalomassa atirekabhāve nissaggiya’’nti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dvebhāgasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vuttaṃ, taṃ tulādhāraṇāya kiñcāpi na sameti, acittakattā pana sikkhāpadassa pubbe tulāya dhārayitvā ṭhapitesu ekampi lomaṃ tattha pateyya nissaggiyanti adhippāyoti no takko. Aññathā dve tulā nādātabbā, ūnakatarā ādātabbā siyuṃ. Na hi lomaṃ gaṇetvā tulādhāraṇā karīyati. Atha gaṇetvāva kātabbaṃ. Kiṃ tulādhāraṇāya payojananti keci. ‘‘Gocariyaodātesu ekameva diguṇaṃ katvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, aṭṭhakathāyaṃ avicāritattā vīmaṃsitabbaṃ.

552. In accordance with the statement, 'Having weighed them, two measures should be taken,' two parts of the black wool should be taken as the maximum limit, so that by weighing, the black wool is not in excess. How is this known? By the reason for the prohibition of purely black wool. The phrase 'a third part of white, a fourth part of tawny' is the minimum limit. However, in the Mātikā Commentary, it is said: 'If even one black wool fiber is in excess, it is to be forfeited.' Although this does not accord with weighing, our reasoning is this: because the training rule is unintentional, the meaning is that even if one were to weigh it beforehand and set it aside, if even a single fiber were to fall there, it is to be forfeited. Otherwise, two measures should not be taken; a lesser amount should be taken. Indeed, weighing is not done by counting the fibers. Then must it be done only by counting? What, then, would be the use of weighing? Some say: 'Among the tawny and white wools, it is permissible to take one of them, having made it double.' Because this is not examined in the Commentary, it should be investigated.

Dvebhāgasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning two parts is concluded.

4. Chabbassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Six Years

562. Navaṃ [Pg.252] nāma karaṇaṃ upādāyāti idaṃ ādikaraṇato paṭṭhāya vassagaṇanaṃ dīpeti. Karitvā vāti vacanaṃ niṭṭhānadivasato paṭṭhāyāti dīpeti. Dhāretabbanti vacanaṃ pana paribhogato paṭṭhāyāti dīpeti, yasmā laddhasammutikassa gatagataṭṭhāne channaṃ channaṃ vassānaṃ oratova katāni bahūnipi honti, tasmā aññaṃ navanti kiṃ katato aññaṃ, udāhu dhāritato aññanti? Kiñcettha yadi katato aññaṃ, tesu aññataraṃ dukkataṃ vā paribhogajiṇṇaṃ vā puna kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tañca kho vināpi purāṇasanthatassa sugatavidatthiṃ appaṭisiddhapariyāpannattā. Katato hi aññaṃ paṭisiddhaṃ, idañca pubbakatanti tato anantarasikkhāpadavirodho hoti. Atha dhāritato aññaṃ nāma, sammuti niratthikā āpajjati, paṭhamakataṃ ce aparibhuttaṃ, satiyāpi sammutiyā aññaṃ navaṃ na vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo? Tatridaṃ sanniṭṭhānanidassanaṃ – niṭṭhānadivasato paṭṭhāya channaṃ channaṃ vassānaṃ paricchedo veditabbo. Tattha ca sattame vasse sampatte chabbassāni paripuṇṇāni honti. Tañca kho māsaparicchedavasena, na vassaparicchedavasena. Sattame paripuṇṇañca ūnakañca vassaṃ nāma, tasmā vippakatasseva sace chabbassāni pūrenti, puna niṭṭhānadivasato paṭṭhāya chabbassāni labhanti. Tañca kho paribhuttaṃ vā hotu aparibhuttaṃ vā, dhāritameva nāma. Yasmā ‘‘navaṃ nāma karaṇaṃ upādāya vuccatī’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā channaṃ vassānaṃ parato tameva pubbakataṃ dukkatabhāvena, paribhogajiṇṇatāya vā vijaṭetvā puna karoti, niṭṭhānadivasato paṭṭhāya chabbassaparamatā dhāretabbaṃ, atirekaṃ vā. Anto ce karoti, tadeva aññaṃ navaṃ nāma hoti karaṇaṃ upādāya, tasmā nissaggiyaṃ. Aññathā ‘‘navaṃ nāma karaṇaṃ upādāyā’’ti iminā na koci viseso atthi. Evaṃ sante kiṃ hoti? Aṭṭhuppattīti. ‘‘Yācanabahulā viññattibahulā viharantī’’ti hi tattha vuttaṃ, tañca aññassa karaṇaṃ dīpeti. Yadi evaṃ taṃ nibbisesameva āpajjatīti? Nāpajjati. Ayaṃ panassa viseso, yasmā ‘‘aññena kataṃ paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjati, anāpattī’’ti vuttattho visesoti. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? ‘‘Navaṃ nāma karaṇaṃ upādāya vuccatī’’ti vutte atirekacīvarassa uppatti viya paṭilābhenassa uppatti navatā āpajjati. Tato paṭiladdhadivasato paṭṭhāya [Pg.253] chabbassaparamatā dhāretabbaṃ. Orena ce channaṃ vassānaṃ…pe… kārāpeyya, nissaggiyanti āpajjati, tasmā navaṃ nāma karaṇameva upādāya vuccati, na paṭilābhaṃ. Orena channaṃ vassānaṃ attano anuppannattā ‘‘nava’’nti saṅkhyaṃ gataṃ, appaṭiladdhaṃ ce kārāpeyya, yathā lābho, tathā kareyya vā kārāpeyya vāti ca na hoti. Kasmā? Yasmā aññena kataṃ paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjati, anāpattīti visesoti.

562. 'New' is said with reference to the making; this indicates the counting of years from the initial making. The statement 'or having made' indicates counting from the day of completion. But the statement 'should be used' indicates counting from the time of use. Since for one who has received permission, many rugs may be made in various places even within six years, therefore, what is 'another new one'? Is it other than what is made, or other than what is used? Moreover, if it is 'other than what is made', then it is permissible to remake any one of them, whether it was badly made or worn out from use, and that too without the Sugata's span of the old rug, because it is included in what is not forbidden. For 'another than what was made' is forbidden, and this was made before; therefore, there is a contradiction with the immediately subsequent training rule. But if it is 'another than what is used', the permission becomes meaningless. Is the intention that if the first-made rug is unused, even with permission, another new one is not allowable? Here is the decisive explanation: The period of six years should be understood as counted from the day of completion. And there, when the seventh year arrives, six years are completed. And that is by way of reckoning by months, not by way of reckoning by years. In the seventh year, a year is called both complete and incomplete. Therefore, if six years are completed for an unfinished rug, they obtain another six years from the day of completion. And that, whether it has been used or not used, is indeed called 'used'. Since it is said, "'New' is said with reference to the making," therefore, after six years, if one unravels that same previously made rug—due to its being badly made or worn out from use—and remakes it, it should be used for a maximum of six years from the day of completion, or more. If one remakes it within that period, that very rug is called 'another new one' with reference to the making; therefore, it is to be forfeited. Otherwise, by this phrase "'New' is said with reference to the making," there is no distinction. If this is so, what is the result? The distinction is the origin story. For it is said there, "They dwell asking much, requesting much," and that indicates the making of another. If so, does it become without distinction? It does not. But this is its distinction: the stated meaning, "If one obtains what is made by another and uses it, there is no offense," is the distinction. What is meant by this? If, when it is said, "'New' is said with reference to the making," its arising through acquisition were to constitute 'newness'—just like the arising of an extra robe—then it would follow that from the day of acquisition, it should be used for a maximum of six years. If one had it made within six years... it would have to be forfeited. Therefore, 'new' is said with reference only to the making, not to acquisition. Within six years, because it has not arisen for oneself, it is reckoned as 'new'. And it is not the case that if one has it made without having acquired it, one may make it or have it made in whatever way one might acquire it. Why? Because the distinction is: "If one obtains what is made by another and uses it, there is no offense."

Chabbassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Six Years is concluded.

5. Nisīdanasanthatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning the Sitting-Rug

565. Nāssudha kocīti ettha assudha-iti avadhāraṇatthe nipāto. Tattha kiñcāpi ‘‘evaṃ bhanteti kho te bhikkhū’’ti bahuvacanaṃ vuttaṃ, tathāpi te bhikkhū bhagavato paṭissuṇitvā idha tesu bhikkhūsu koci bhagavantaṃ nāssudha upasaṅkamati aññatra ekenāti attho gahetabbo. Taṃ suggāhaṃ ekāhaṃ bhante bhagavantaṃ varantiādīsu (mahāva. 337) viya, anujānāmi…pe… yathāsukhaṃ maṃ dassanāya upasaṅkamantūti dassanatthāya upasaṅkamantu.

565. Herein, in 'nāssudha koci', the word 'assudha' is a particle in the sense of emphasis. Therein, although the plural is stated in 'evaṃ bhante ti kho te bhikkhū', nevertheless, the meaning to be understood is this: after those bhikkhus had assented to the Blessed One, here among those bhikkhus, not even one approached the Blessed One, except for one. This is a good understanding, just as in cases such as 'For one day, venerable sir, they attend on the Blessed One' and so on. In 'I allow... let them approach me for a sight as they please', this means 'let them approach for the purpose of seeing'.

566-7. ‘‘Mayaṃ āyasmantaṃ upasena’’nti tassa gaṇapāmokkhattā vuttaṃ. Āraññikapiṇḍapātikapaṃsukūlikavasena sabbāni vuttāni. Tenevāha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘santhate catutthacīvarasaññitāyā’’ti. Kiṃ sabbepi te cīvaraṃ na bujjhantīti ce? Yathā hotu. Katamaṃ cīvaraṃ nāmāti? Channaṃ aññataraṃ vikappanupagaṃ pacchimanti. Kiñca vāyimaṃ avāyimanti? Vāyimamevāti. Katarasuttenāti? Addhā so suttameva na passati, siveyyakaṃ dussayugaṃ, iddhimayikañca devadattiyañca acīvaraṃ karoti. Yadi evaṃ avāyimampīti vadāmīti. Evaṃ sante siddhā santhate cīvarasaññitā kambalasīsena uṇṇāmayasāmaññato. Kiṃ pana te santhataṃ adhiṭṭhahiṃsūti? Duṭṭhu adhiṭṭhahiṃsu acīvarattā, na adhiṭṭhānupagattā ca santhatassa. Atha nādhiṭṭhahiṃsu, pubbeva tattha acīvarasaññino eteti katvā tattha cīvarasaññitāya tadubhayaṃ na yujjatīti. Kiṃ panetaṃ adhiṭṭhānupagaṃ natthīti? Tatthevāgataṃ[Pg.254], apicetaṃ avikappanupagaṃ ce, cīvaraṃ na hoti, aññathā ‘‘cīvaraṃ nāma channaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññatara’’nti ettāvatā siddhaṃ ‘‘vikappanupagaṃ pacchima’’nti na vattabbaṃ. Atha na vikappanupagampi cīvarameva siddhaṃ, anadhiṭṭhānupagaṃ, avikappanupagañca ekajjhaṃ ‘‘cīvara’’nti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Tenevāha ‘‘tecīvarikassa catutthacīvaraṃ vattamānaṃ aṃsakāsāvameva vaṭṭatī’’ti.

566-7. 'We [go to] the venerable Upasena' was said because he was the leader of that group. All the ascetic practices were stated by way of forest-dwelling, alms-gathering, and rag-robe wearing. For that reason, the commentary says, 'because of the perception of a fourth robe in a felt rug.' If it is asked, 'Do all of them not understand what a robe is?'—let it be so. What is called a robe? The last one among the six that is suitable for `vikappana`. And is it woven or un-woven? It is indeed woven. By which Sutta? Surely, that person does not see the Sutta itself; he makes the pair of cloths from the Sivi country, the one created by psychic power, and the one given by a deva not a robe. If so, one should say that even an un-woven item is a robe. This being so, the perception of a robe in a felt rug is established, due to the commonality of being made of wool, with the woolen blanket as the primary example. But did they determine the felt rug? They determined it wrongly, because it was not a robe and because the felt rug is not suitable for determination. Or, if they did not determine it, it is because they already had the perception of it not being a robe; having considered thus, because of the perception of it not being a robe there, neither of the two [woven or un-woven] is applicable. But is there then no felt rug that is suitable for determination? It is stated right there. Moreover, if that which is unsuitable for `vikappana` is not a robe, then otherwise, it would be established by just this much: 'A robe is any one of the six robes,' and it would not be necessary to say, 'the last one, suitable for `vikappana`.' Or, if it is not established, then that which is unsuitable for determination and that which is unsuitable for `vikappana` are taken together and are counted as a 'robe.' Therefore, it is said, 'For one who practices with three robes, when a fourth robe is present, only the shoulder-cloth is allowable.'

Apica santhate cīvarasaññitā na kevalaṃ tesaṃyeva, aññesampi anubandhati eva ‘‘purāṇasanthataṃ nāma sakiṃ nivatthampi sakiṃ pārutampī’’ti vacanato. Aṭṭhakathācariyo panassa acīvarataṃ sandhāyabhāsitatthadīpanena dīpeti. Nivatthapārutanti etesaṃ nisinnañceva nipannañcāti attho. Apica evaṃ santepi santhate cīvarasaññitā anubandhati eva. Khandhake (mahāva. 358) hi ‘‘nisīdanaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetu’’nti ca, parivāre (pari. 329) ‘‘nava cīvarāni adhiṭṭhātabbānī’’ti ca nisīdanasikkhāpade ‘‘dasā vidatthī’’ti ca idha ‘‘nisīdanaṃ nāma sadasaṃ vuccatī’’ti ca vuttaṃ, aṭṭhakathāyañcassa ‘‘santhatasadisaṃ santharitvā ekasmiṃ ante sugatavidatthiyā vidatthimattapadese dvīsu ṭhānesu phāletvā tisso dasā karīyanti, tāhi dasāhi sadasaṃ nāma vuccatī’’ti ca ‘‘nisīdanaṃ vuttanayena adhiṭṭhātabbameva, tañca kho pamāṇayuttaṃ ekameva, dve na vaṭṭantī’’ti ca vuttaṃ, tasmā nisīdanaṃ nāma navannaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññataraṃ cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, tañca santhatasadisaṃ eḷakalomamayasanthatavisesanti siddhaṃ, tathā nisīdanameva nisīdanasanthatañca siddhaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade ca ‘‘ekamevā’’ti vuttaṃ. Tasmiṃ siddhe siddhā santhate cīvarasaññitāti attho. Kasmā? Santhatasāmaññato.

Moreover, the perception of a robe in a felt rug applies not only to those monks, but it certainly follows for others as well, because of the saying: 'An old felt rug is that which has been worn once or put on once.' The commentary teacher, however, with reference to its state of not being a robe, elucidates it by explaining the meaning of what was said. The meaning of 'worn' and 'put on' is 'having been sat upon and having been lain upon.' Furthermore, even so, the perception of a robe in a felt rug certainly follows. Indeed, in the Khandhaka it is said, 'One should determine a sitting-cloth, not make it a shared item'; and in the Parivāra, 'Nine robes are to be determined'; and in the training rule on the sitting-cloth, 'The border is a span'; and here, 'A sitting-cloth is called "that which has a border".' And in its commentary it is said: 'Having spread something similar to a felt rug, at one end, in a place the measure of a Sugata's span, having split it in two places, three borders are made; by means of those borders it is called "that which has a border".' And it is said: 'A sitting-cloth should indeed be determined in the manner stated; and that, endowed with the proper measure, should be only one; two are not allowable.' Therefore, what is called a sitting-cloth is a certain robe among the nine robes to be determined. And that, being similar to a felt rug, is established as a special felt rug made of sheep's wool. Likewise, the sitting-cloth itself and the sitting-cloth-felt-rug are established. And in the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada, it is said, 'Only one.' When that is established, the meaning is that the perception of a robe in a felt rug is established. Why? Because of the commonality of being a felt rug.

Etthāha – kathaṃ adasameva santhataṃ cīvarasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati. Anekampi anadhiṭṭhitampi mahantampi vaṭṭati, yato sadasameva santhataṃ cīvarasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, tato adhiṭṭhānañca upagacchatīti. Asanthatapariyāpannattā orena ca channaṃ vassānaṃ vināpi sammutiṃ, tañca porāṇaṃ vissajjetvā eva, na avissajjetvā ‘‘tañca kho pamāṇayuttaṃ ekameva, dve na vaṭṭantī’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) vacanatoti. Athāpi siyā santhataṃ sayanatthameva karīyati, nisīdanaṃ asanthatamevāti. Tañca na niyamato ‘‘purāṇasanthataṃ nāma sakiṃ nivatthaṃ sakiṃ pārutampī’’ti vuttattāti. Ettha vuccati, na ettha kāraṇaṃ pariyesitabbaṃ vinayapaññattiyā anaññavisayattā.

Here, a questioner says: How is it that a felt mat without a border does not attain the designation of 'robe'? A borderless felt mat is allowable even if there are many, even if they are not determined, and even if they are large. Since only a felt mat with a border attains the designation of 'robe', determination is therefore suitable for it. [The answer is:] Because it is not included in the category of a felt mat, [a sitting-cloth] is counted as a robe. And [a new one may be made] within six years even without authorization, but that is only after having relinquished the old one, not without having relinquished it, according to the statement: 'And that very one should be of the proper measure; only one is allowable, two are not allowable.' Or, it might be the view of some that a felt mat is made only for the purpose of a bed, and a sitting-cloth is indeed not a felt mat. But that view should not be held as a fixed rule, because it has been said: 'An old felt mat is one that has been worn once or wrapped around once.' Here, it is said: A reason should not be sought in this matter, because a Vinaya regulation is not the domain of anyone other than the Buddha.

Santhatassa [Pg.255] pana acīvarabhāve ayaṃ yutti – ādito ‘‘tīṇi santhatāni pana vinayakammaṃ katvā paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭantī’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanato tāni akappiyānīti siddhaṃ, bhagavatā ca khomādīni cha anuññātānīti koseyyaṃ kappiyanti siddhaṃ. Evaṃ sante suddhakoseyyampi cīvaraṃ kappiyaṃ jātaṃ, pageva kosiyamissakasanthatacīvaranti āpajjati. Tathā kambalañca anuññātaṃ, tañca suddhikampi hoti jātikāḷakabhāvena, pageva odātagocariyamissakasanthatacīvaranti āpajjati. Tato ca aññamaññavirodho, tasmā na santhataṃ cīvaraṃ nāma hoti, nisīdanaṃ pana hoti tassa pamāṇasaṇṭhānaparicchedasambhavato. Etthāhu keci ācariyā ‘‘duvidhaṃ nisīdanaṃ santhataṃ, asanthatañca. Tattha santhataṃ santhatameva. Asanthataṃ khomādichabbidhaṃ, tadanulomaṃ vā hoti, ayametesaṃ viseso’’ti.

But regarding the felt mat's state of not being a robe, this reasoning should be known: From the beginning, because of the statement in the commentary, 'Three kinds of felt mats, even if obtained after performing a Vinaya act, are not allowable to be used,' it is established that they are unallowable. And since the Blessed One permitted six kinds of material for robes, such as linen, it is established that silk is allowable. This being so, a robe of even pure silk becomes allowable; what then needs to be said of a felt-mat-robe mixed with silk? This conclusion would arise. Similarly, woolen cloth was also permitted, and that woolen cloth, even when pure, is allowable by its nature of being naturally black; what then needs to be said of a felt-mat-robe mixed with the wool of white and dappled sheep? This conclusion would arise. And from that, a mutual contradiction arises. Therefore, a felt mat is not called a 'robe.' A sitting-cloth, however, is a robe, because of the possibility of determining its measure, shape, and boundary. Here, some teachers say: 'A sitting-cloth is of two kinds: felted and non-felted. Among them, the felted one is just a felt mat. The non-felted one is of the six kinds, such as linen, or is in conformity with them. This is the distinction between them.'

Etthāha – kasmā panettha ‘‘santhataṃ pana bhikkhunā’’ti sikkhāpadaṃ apaññāpetvā ‘‘nisīdanasanthata’’nti paññattanti? Cīvarasaññitāya santhatānaṃ ujjhitattā tesaṃ acīvarabhāvadassanatthaṃ tathā paññattanti vuttaṃ hoti, tasmā te bhikkhū dhutaṅgabhedabhayā tāni ujjhitvā terasāpi dhutaṅgāni samādiyiṃsu, sīsadassanavasena tīṇeva vuttāni, bhagavā ca tesaṃ santhataṃ anujāni, tato nesaṃ evaṃ hoti ‘‘nisīdanacīvarasaṇṭhānampetaṃ nisīdanasanthataṃ no anuññātaṃ, catutthacīvarabhāvena pageva katasanthataṃ vā’’ti. Tato santhate nesaṃ cīvarasaññitā na bhavissatīti tadatthaṃ bhagavatā nisīdanasanthatanti paññattanti adhippāyo. ‘‘Pacchimāni dve vaṭṭantī’’ti kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Anāpatti aññena kataṃ paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjatī’’ti vacanatoti.

Here it is said: Why, in this case, was the training rule not laid down as, 'A felt mat, however, by a bhikkhu,' but was instead laid down as, 'a sitting-felt-mat'? It is said that it was laid down in that way because the felt mats were discarded due to the perception of them as robes, and to show that they were not robes. Therefore, those bhikkhus, fearing the breach of the ascetic practices, discarded them and undertook all thirteen ascetic practices. Only three were mentioned as principal examples. And the Blessed One permitted them a felt mat. Then this thought occurred to them: 'Even this sitting-felt-mat, which has the appearance of a sitting-robe, is not permitted; how much more so a felt mat made as a fourth robe!' Therefore, so that their perception of the felt mat as a robe would not arise, the Blessed One laid it down as 'a sitting-felt-mat.' This is the intention. If it is asked, 'How is it known that "the latter two are allowable"?', it is known from the statement, 'There is no offense in obtaining and using one made by another.'

Nisīdanasanthatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning the sitting-felt-mat is concluded.

6. Eḷakalomasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Sheep's Wool

572-3. Addhānamaggappaṭipannassāti iminā pakatiyā dīghamaggappaṭipannassa uppannānipi tiyojanaparamameva haritabbāni, pageva appaṭipannassāti dasseti. Addhānamaggappaṭipannassa nissaggiyanti vā sambandho. Teneva vāsādhippāyassa paṭippassaddhagamanussāhattā ‘‘appaṭipanno’’ti saṅkhyaṃ gatassa [Pg.256] anāpattīti siddhā. Imasmiṃ atthavikappe hi bhikkhuno paneva eḷakalomāni uppajjeyyuṃ…pe… asantepi hārake addhānaṃ maggappaṭipannassa nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyanti yojanā veditabbā. Ākaṅkhamānena bhikkhunā paṭiggahetabbānīti attano santakānaṃyeva tiyojanātikkame āpattiṃ dasseti. Tena anākaṅkhamānena parasantakāni paṭiggahitāni atirekatiyojanaṃ harantassa anāpatti siddhā. Ayamattho ‘‘bhikkhuno uppajjeyyu’’nti iminā, ‘‘acchinnaṃ paṭilabhitvā’’ti iminā ca dīpitova hotīti. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade ca ‘‘aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ harāpento gacchati ce, dvinnaṃ anāpattīti vuttaṃ, tasmā dve bhikkhū tiyojanaparamaṃ patvā aññamaññassa bhaṇḍaṃ parivattetvā ce haranti, anāpattīti siddhaṃ, teneva anāpattivāre ‘‘aññaṃ harāpetī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kiṃ harāpeti? Jānantaṃ ajānantaṃ. Kiñcettha yadi jānantaṃ, ‘‘añño harissatīti ṭhapeti, tena haritepi āpattiyevā’’ti ekaṃsato na vattabbaṃ. Jānantopi hi ekacco haratīti. Tato aṭṭhakathāya virujjhati. Atha ajānantaṃ, ‘‘aññassa yāne vā bhaṇḍe vā ajānantassa pakkhipitvā tiyojanaṃ atikkāmeti, nissaggiyānī’’ti pāḷiyā virujjhati, atha ubhopi ekato ekaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ harāpenti, tampi nissaggiyaṃ siyā. Anissaggiyanti yuttiyā virujjhati ‘‘tiyojanaparamaṃ sahatthā haritabbāni asante hārake’’ti avisesena ca pāḷi vuttā. Hārakopi sacetano acetanoti duvidho. Sacetanopi eḷakalomabhāvaṃ vā ‘‘ahamidaṃ harāmī’’ti vā ‘‘maṃ esa idaṃ harāpetī’’ti vā jānanājānanavasena duvidho hoti. Tattha acetano nāma hārako nadīsoto vā nāvā vā assāmikayānaṃ vā hoti. Sacetano pākaṭova. Tattha ‘‘maṃ esa idaṃ harāpetī’’ti ettakaṃ jānantaṃ manussaṃ vā tiracchānagataṃ vā aññaṃ harāpeti, anāpattīti anugaṇṭhipadanayo. Ayaṃ pāḷiyā, aṭṭhakathāya ca ekaraso vinicchayo, ‘‘asante hārake’’ti kiñcāpi idaṃ avisesato vuttaṃ, ‘‘aññassa yāne vā bhaṇḍe vā ajānantassā’’ti vacanato pana sacetanova hārako tattha adhippetoti paññāyati, so ca eḷakalomabhāvañca ‘‘idaṃ harāmī’’ti ca jānanto nādhippeto. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘añño harissatīti ṭhapeti, tena haritepi āpattiyevā’’tiādi. Tattha hetukattuno abhāvatova. Pāḷiyañhi ‘‘aññaṃ harāpetī’’ti hetukattuvasena vuttā[Pg.257]. Itare dve jānantā idha sambhavanti. ‘‘Ajānantassa pakkhipitvā’’ti pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘esa harāpetī’’ti vā ‘‘idaṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamāpetī’’ti vā jānantassa yāne vā bhaṇḍe vā pakkhipitvā tiyojanaṃ atikkamāpeti, na nissaggiyā hontīti dīpeti.

By “for one who has undertaken a long journey,” it is shown that for a monk who is naturally traveling a long road, even sheep's wool that has arisen should be carried for a maximum of three yojanas; how much more so for one who is not traveling. Or, the connection is: “For one who has undertaken a long journey, it is subject to forfeiture.” For that very reason, for one whose intention is to reside and whose effort in traveling has ceased, and who is thus counted as “not traveling,” it is established that there is no offense. Indeed, in this alternative meaning, the connection should be understood as: “If sheep's wool should arise for a monk... etc... even without a carrier, for one who has undertaken a long journey, it is a pācittiya offense involving forfeiture.” By the phrase “They are to be accepted by a monk who desires them,” it is shown that an offense occurs only in the exceeding of three yojanas with regard to his own property. Therefore, it is established that there is no offense for one who, not desiring them, carries another's property, which he has accepted, beyond three yojanas. This meaning is indeed clarified by “if they should arise for a monk” and by “having received them uncut.” And in the Ancient Gloss, it is said: “If, while causing another monk to carry it, he goes, there is no offense for the two of them.” Therefore, if two monks, having reached the limit of three yojanas, exchange each other's goods and carry them, it is established that there is no offense. For that very reason, in the section on non-offenses, it is said, “he causes another to carry.” Whom does he cause to carry? One who knows or one who does not know. And here, if it is one who knows, it should not be said definitively: “He puts it down thinking, ‘Another will carry it’; even when it is carried by that person, there is still an offense.” For a certain person might carry it even while knowing. Then it contradicts the Commentary. Now, if it is one who does not know, it contradicts the Pāli text: “Having placed it in another's vehicle or goods without their knowledge and causing it to exceed three yojanas, they are to be forfeited.” Or, if both together cause one item to be carried, that too would be subject to forfeiture. It contradicts the reasoning that it should not be subject to forfeiture, and the Pāli is stated without distinction: “They are to be carried by one's own hand for a maximum of three yojanas when there is no carrier.” A carrier, too, is of two kinds: animate and inanimate. The animate carrier is also of two kinds, depending on whether he knows or does not know: either the fact that it is sheep's wool, or “I am carrying this,” or “This person is causing me to carry this.” Therein, an inanimate carrier is a river current, a boat, or an ownerless vehicle. The animate one is obvious. Therein, if one causes another—be it a human or an animal—who knows only this much, “This person is causing me to carry this,” to carry it, there is no offense. This is the method of the sub-glosses. This is a consistent decision in both the Pāli and the Commentary. Although “when there is no carrier” is stated without distinction, from the phrase “in another's vehicle or goods without their knowledge,” it is understood that an animate carrier is indeed intended there. And that person is not intended to be one who knows that it is sheep's wool and “I am carrying this.” Therefore it is said: “He puts it down thinking, ‘Another will carry it’; even when it is carried by that person, there is still an offense,” and so on. Therein, it is precisely because of the absence of a causer. For in the Pāli, “he causes another to carry” is stated in the causative sense. The other two cases of knowing are possible here. The Pāli phrase “having placed it for one who does not know” clarifies that if one places it in the vehicle or goods of someone who knows either “this person is causing me to carry” or “he is causing me to go beyond this place,” and causes it to exceed three yojanas, the items do not become subject to forfeiture.

‘‘Harāpetī’’ti idaṃ hetukattuvacanataṃ sādheti, tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sāmikassa ajānantassevā’’ti idaṃ ‘‘maṃ esa harāpetī’’ti evaṃ ajānantaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sāreti codeti anubandhāpetī’’ti idaṃ ‘‘maṃ esa idaṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamāpetī’’ti evaṃ jānantaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ajānantopi sāraṇādīhi ṭhitaṭṭhānaṃ nātikkamati, na vā anubandhati. Atha sāraṇādīhi anatikkamitvā attano ruciyā atikkamati āpatti eva bhikkhuno hetukattubhāvāsambhavato.

The word 'harāpeti' establishes the sense of a causative agent. Therefore, in the Commentary, the phrase 'even without the owner knowing' is said with reference to one who is unaware, thus: 'He is causing me to carry.' The phrase 'He reminds, incites, or causes to follow' is said with reference to one who is aware, thus: 'He is causing me to go beyond this place.' Even one who is unaware does not go beyond the place where he is through reminding and so on, nor does he follow. But if, without going beyond through reminding and so on, one goes beyond of one's own accord, it is an offense indeed for the bhikkhu, because the state of being a causative agent is impossible for him.

Idāni yathāṭhitaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya vakkhāma, ‘‘asantepi hārake’’ti hārakālābhapaccayāpi sayaṃ haraṇato nissaggiyameva, pageva sati hāraketi ayameko attho. Avadhāraṇatthaṃ api-saddaṃ gahetvā asante eva hārake nissaggiyaṃ, sati pana hārake na tena harāpentassa nissaggiyanti ayaṃ dutiyo attho. ‘‘Saṅghato vā…pe… attano vā dhanenā’’ti iminā kiñcāpi acittakamidaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ, saṅghādito pana attanā ākaṅkhamānena paṭiggahitasseva eḷakalomassa tiyojanātikkame āpatti, na ajānato appaṭiggahitassa cīvarādīsu kutoci laggassa atikkamaneti dīpeti. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘kambalassa upari nipajjitvā gacchantassa sace ekampi lomaṃ cīvare laggaṃ hoti, āpatti eva kambalato vijaṭitattā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ kambalassa paṭiggahitattā attano icchāya paṭiggahitameva hotīti yuttaṃ. Yasmā ‘‘anāpatti katabhaṇḍe’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā taṃ anekampi katabhaṇḍaṭṭhāniyameva hoti. Tañhi anena paṭiggahitaṃ, na lomaṃ. Atha lomampi aggahitameva hoti, katabhaṇḍaṃ dupparihāriyalomavinibbhogakatabhaṇḍo niyamo. Evaṃ sante akatabhaṇḍe tikapācittiyaṃ, katabhaṇḍe tikadukkaṭañca nayato dassetabbaṃ bhaveyya, aññathā tikassa dassitattā. Saussāhattāti appaṭippassaddhagamanattā. Acittakattā cāti bhikkhuno ussāhānurūpaṃ lomānaṃ tiyojanātikkamanato vināpi payogacittena haraṇacittena āpajjati evāti adhippāyo. Sā anāpatti pāḷiyā na sametīti [Pg.258] anto pana payogena tiyojanaparamaṃ atikkamitattā anāpatti. ‘‘Tiyojanaṃ haratī’’ti iminā tiyojanaṃ padasā netukāmopi antotiyojane pade pade dukkaṭaṃ nāpajjatīti dasseti, taṃ yuttaṃ ‘‘tiyojanaṃ vāsādhippāyo gantvā tato paraṃ haratī’ti vacanassatthitāyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Punapi vuttaṃ ‘‘aññaṃ harāpetīti ‘idaṃ harissāmī’ti saussāhameva aññaṃ harāpetīti attho. Itarathā gacchantassa sīse ṭhapesi, tasmiṃ ajānantepi anāpatti siyā’’ti. Sace pana ‘‘agacchante yāne vā’’tiādinā nayena vuttattā haraṇādīhi janitaussāhānaṃ hatthiādīnaṃ ‘idaṃ karissāmā’ti vā ‘harissāmā’ti vā ābhoge janite eva anāpatti, na ajaniteti upatissatthero āhā’’ti ca vuttaṃ. Parivattetvā ṭhapiteti dvinnampi bahi nikkhipitattāti upatissatthero. Bahisīmāya ṭhapitaṃ bhaṇḍikaṃ anto antosīmāyaṃ ṭhapitaṃ bahi karoto anāpattīti keci, na sundaraṃ viya.

Now, starting from the established position, we shall explain. “Even when there is no carrier”: this means that if one carries it oneself due to the lack of a carrier, it is an offense requiring forfeiture; how much more so when there is a carrier. This is one meaning. Taking the word “api” for emphasis: it is an offense requiring forfeiture only when there is no carrier; but when there is a carrier, there is no offense for one who has it carried by him. This is the second meaning. By the phrase “From the Sangha or… with one’s own wealth,” it is shown that although this training rule is unintentional, an offense is incurred in exceeding three leagues only for sheep’s wool that has been received from the Sangha and so on by one desiring it for oneself; there is no offense for exceeding the limit with wool that has attached from somewhere to robes, etc., which has not been received by one who is unaware. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, however, it is said: “If one is traveling, having lain down upon a blanket, and if even a single hair becomes attached to the robe, it is indeed an offense, because it has been detached from the blanket.” This is appropriate, for since the blanket has been received, it is considered as having been received by one's own wish. Because it is said, “There is no offense for a finished article,” therefore even many such items are only in the category of a finished article. For it is the finished article that is received by him, not the loose wool. Then the wool is also indeed unreceived. The rule concerning a finished article is that it is an article made by the separation of difficult-to-manage wool. This being so, for an unfinished article a triple pācittiya, and for a finished article a triple dukkaṭa, should be indicated according to the method, because otherwise the triple offense has been shown. “With effort” means due to the movement not being calmed. “And because of being unintentional” means that a monk indeed incurs an offense when the wool exceeds three leagues in accordance with his effort, even without the intention of using it or the intention of carrying it; this is the meaning. That non-offense does not align with the Pāḷi. However, within the limit, because of traversing at most three leagues with effort, there is no offense. By “carries it three leagues,” it is shown that even one who intends to carry it step by step within three leagues does not incur a dukkaṭa offense at every step. This is appropriate, because of the existence of the statement, “Having gone three leagues with the intention of residing, one carries it further than that.” Again it is said: “‘Has another carry it’ means one has another carry it with effort, thinking ‘I will have this carried.’ Otherwise, if one placed it on the head of someone who is going, even if that person is unaware, there would be no offense.” And it is also said: “But if, as stated in the method beginning ‘or in a vehicle that is not going,’ for elephants, etc., whose effort is generated by carrying, etc., there is no offense only when the cognition ‘we will do this’ or ‘we will carry this’ is generated—not when it is not generated; thus said the Elder Upatissa.” “Having exchanged and placed” means because of having placed both outside, according to the Elder Upatissa. Some say there is no offense for one who brings a bundle placed outside the boundary inside, or takes what was placed inside the boundary outside; but this does not seem proper.

575. Paṭilabhitvā haratīti paṭhamatiyojanato paraṃ harati, na dutiyāditoti attho. Katabhaṇḍe uppannokāsābhāvā anāpatti.

575. “Having obtained, one carries it” means one carries it beyond the first three leagues, not from the second and so on; this is the meaning. There is no offense regarding a finished article because there is no occasion for it to arise.

Eḷakalomasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning sheep’s wool is concluded.

7. Eḷakalomadhovāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Having Sheep's Wool Washed

581. Kiñcāpi purāṇacīvaradhovanasikkhāpade cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā ‘‘aññaṃ parikkhāraṃ dhovāpetī’’ti (pārā. 507) anāpattivāre vuttaṃ. Imassa pana sikkhāpadassa uppannakālato paṭṭhāya eḷakalomadhovāpanādinā āpattīti eke. Sā vā anāpatti mūlāpattito eva, na imamhāti eke. Eḷakalomānaṃ aparikkhārattā bhaṭṭhaṃ aggahaṇamevāti eke. Imassa antimanayassa atthappakāsanatthaṃ idaṃ pañhākammaṃ – ‘‘dhovāpetī’’ti idaṃ rajāpanavijaṭāpanaggahaṇena nippadesavācipadaṃ, udāhu aggahaṇena sappadesavācipadaṃ. Kiñcettha yadi nippadesavācipadaṃ, sabbattha idameva vattabbaṃ, na itarāni. Atha sappadesavācipadaṃ, ‘‘avuttā dhovati, aparibhuttaṃ dhovāpetī’’ti ettha virodho. ‘‘Avuttā rajati vijaṭeti, nissaggiya’’nti aniṭṭhappasaṅgatoti? Desanāvilāsamattaṃ [Pg.259] bhagavato vacanaṃ, katthaci tikapadavacanaṃ, katthaci ekapadavacanaṃ, nippadesapadameva te vadantīti. Sace ‘‘katabhaṇḍaṃ dhovāpetī’’ti ettha paṭivirodho, ‘‘katabhaṇḍaṃ vijaṭāpeti, anāpattī’’ti aniṭṭhappasaṅgato anāpatti evāti ce? Na, akatabhaṇḍassa suddhalomassa vijaṭāpanaṃ ito vā dātabbaṃ. Udakādidhovanavasena piṇḍetvā ṭhitānaṃ vijaṭāpanaṃ labbhatīti ce? Purāṇasanthatassa vijaṭāpane anāpattiyā bhavitabbaṃ, na ca taṃ yuttaṃ ‘‘aparibhuttaṃ dhovāpetī’’ti vacanato. Tena paribhuttaṃ dhovāpeti rajāpeti vijaṭāpeti, nissaggiyamevāti siddhaṃ hoti, tañca paribhuttaṃ nāma katabhaṇḍameva hoti. Na hi sakkā eḷakalomāni paribhuñjituṃ, aññathā ‘‘paribhuttaṃ dhovāpetī’’ti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ hoti. Na hi ettha ‘‘purāṇāni eḷakalomāni dhovāpeyya vā’’ti vacanaṃ atthi purāṇacīvarasikkhāpade viya. Tattha ādinnakappavasena, idha taṃ likhitaṃ. Lekhadosoti ce? Na, visesahetuno abhāvā, purāṇacīvarasikkhāpade aparibhuttaṃ katabhaṇḍaṃ nāma, ‘‘kambalakojavasanthatādi’’nti vacanato ca. Kiñcāpi iminā saddena ayamattho siddho, ‘‘dhovāpetī’’ti idaṃ pana siyā nippadesaṃ. Siyā sappadesaṃ. Tañhi ‘‘avuttā dhovatī’’tiādīsu nippadesaṃ. ‘‘Katabhaṇḍaṃ dhovāpetī’’ti ettha sappadesaṃ. ‘‘Akatabhaṇḍaṃ dhovāpeti rajāpeti, anāpattī’’ti ‘‘vijaṭāpeti, anāpattī’’ti vacanappamāṇato anāpatti evāti ce? Na, vacanappamāṇato eva āpattīti āpajjanato. ‘‘Aparibhuttaṃ dhovāpetī’’ti vacanameva hi taṃ aparibhuttaṃ santhataṃ vijaṭāpentassa anāpattīti dīpeti ce? Siddhaṃ paribhuttaṃ vijaṭāpentassa āpatti evāti.

581. Although in the training rule concerning the washing of old robes, it is stated in the section on no-offense that, setting aside a robe, there is no offense for having another requisite washed, some say that from the time this training rule was established, an offense is incurred by having sheep’s wool, etc., washed. Others say that that non-offense applies only to the root offense, not to this one. Some argue that since sheep’s wool is not a requisite, it is merely a case of not accepting what is spoiled. To clarify the meaning of this last opinion, this question is raised: Is the term ‘have it washed’ (dhovāpeti) an all-inclusive term, encompassing dyeing and carding, or a specific term, not encompassing them? And if it is an all-inclusive term, then this alone should be stated everywhere, not the others. But if it is a specific term, there is a contradiction in statements like ‘one washes without being asked’ or ‘one has an unused item washed.’ Is this due to the undesired consequence that ‘one dyes or cards without being asked, it is to be forfeited’? The Blessed One’s word is merely a matter of teaching style; sometimes it is a three-word expression, sometimes a one-word expression, but they express an all-inclusive meaning. If there is a contradiction regarding 'having a finished article washed', if it is said that there is indeed no offense due to the undesirable consequence 'having a finished article carded is no offense'? No, for the carding of an unfinished article, of pure wool, must be understood from this rule or elsewhere. If it is said that carding is possible for wool that has been balled up after washing it with water, etc.? There should be no offense for carding an old felt rug, but that is not correct because of the statement ‘one has an unused item washed.’ Therefore, it is established that having a used item washed, dyed, or carded is indeed to be forfeited, and that which is called ‘used’ is a finished article. For it is not possible to ‘use’ sheep’s wool; otherwise, the statement ‘one has a used item washed’ would be meaningless. Indeed, here there is no statement like ‘one may have old sheep’s wool washed’ as in the training rule concerning old robes. There, it is by way of the Ādinnakappa allowance; here, that has been written. Is this a scribal error? No, because there is no special reason, and because in the training rule concerning old robes, an ‘unused finished article’ refers to ‘a blanket, felt rug, mat, etc.’ Although this meaning is established by this word, the term ‘have it washed’ could be either all-inclusive or specific. For in phrases like ‘one washes without being asked,’ it is all-inclusive. But in ‘having a finished article washed,’ it is specific. If it is said that based on the authority of the statements ‘having an unfinished article washed or dyed is no offense’ and ‘having it carded is no offense,’ it is indeed no offense? No, precisely by the authority of the statement, it follows that an offense is incurred. If the very statement ‘one has an unused item washed’ indicates that there is no offense for one who has an unused felt rug carded? It is established that for one who has a used item carded, there is indeed an offense.

Eḷakalomadhovāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule concerning having sheep's wool washed is concluded.

8. Rūpiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule concerning Money

583-4. Sabbampīti tividhampi. ‘‘Muttā maṇi veḷuriyo saṅkho’tiādi pana kiñcāpi rājasikkhāpade ‘na vaṭṭatī’ti pasaṅgato vuttaṃ, sarūpato pana āpattidassanavasena sakaṭṭhānepi vattumāraddha’’nti vuttaṃ. Kathametaṃ? Muttādīnaṃ sakaṭṭhānaṃ jātaṃ, na hi tāni idha pāḷiyaṃ dissantīti imassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttāni, rājasikkhāpadassapi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttānīti. Na kevalaṃ [Pg.260] hiraññasuvaṇṇameva, aññampi khettavatthādikaṃ ‘‘akappiyaṃ na sampaṭicchitabba’’nti sāmaññena, na sarūpato. Pāḷiyaṃ pana sarūpato ‘‘cīvaracetāpannaṃ nāma hiraññaṃ vā suvaṇṇaṃ vā muttā vā maṇi vā’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ, tasmā rājasikkhāpadamevassa sakaṭṭhānaṃ. Muttāmaṇiggahaṇena cettha tajjātiyaggahaṇaṃ siddhamevāti nāgato imassa paṭhamameva paññattattā. Yadi evaṃ idha anāgatattā kataraṃ nesaṃ sakaṭṭhānanti? Idameva atthato, no sarūpato.

All three kinds are included. However, although 'pearls, gems, beryl, conch,' and so on, were stated in the Rāja Sikkhāpada by way of implication as 'not allowable,' it has been said that 'it has begun to be spoken of in its own form, even in its proper place, by way of showing the offense.' How is this? The proper place for pearls and so on has been established. For, since they are not seen here in the Pāḷi text, they are mentioned in the commentary on this rule, and they are also mentioned in the commentary on the Rāja Sikkhāpada. Not only gold and silver, but also other things like fields and land are covered by the general statement, 'what is improper should not be accepted,' but not in their specific form. In the Pāḷi text, however, only this much is stated specifically: '“Money for robes” means gold or silver or pearls or gems.' Therefore, the Rāja Sikkhāpada itself is their proper place. And here, by the inclusion of pearls and gems, the inclusion of items of that kind is indeed established; it was not included because this was not laid down from the very beginning. If so, since it is not included here, which is their proper place? This very rule is their context in meaning, but not in specific form.

Kathaṃ? Etāni hi ratanasikkhāpade nissaggiyavatthūni, dukkaṭavatthūni ca ekato ‘‘ratana’’nti āgatāni, ‘‘ratanasammata’’nti kappiyavatthu āgataṃ. Tesu ca dasasu ratanesu rajatajātarūpadvayaṃ idha nissaggiyavatthu, avasesaṃ dukkaṭavatthūti siddhaṃ. Idha ca siddhattā eva ratanasikkhāpadassa anāpattivāre ‘‘ratanasammataṃ vissāsaṃ gaṇhāti, tāvakālikaṃ gaṇhāti, paṃsukūlasaññissā’’ti vuttaṃ, na ratanaṃ vuttaṃ. Sattavidhadhaññadāsidāsakhettādi pana brahmajālādisuttavasena (dī. ni. 1.1 ādayo) akappiyanti siddhaṃ, tasmā idha dukkaṭavatthūti siddhaṃ, teneva anuyogavatte ‘‘dhammaṃ jānāti, dhammānulomaṃ, vinayaṃ, vinayānulomaṃ jānātī’’ti (pari. 442) vuttaṃ. Tathā āmakamaṃsampi dukkaṭavatthuṃ āpajjatīti? Na, idha vinaye anuññātattā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, amanussikābādhe āmakamaṃsa’’ntiādinā (mahāva. 264), tasmā na āmakamaṃsaṃ sutte āgatampi dukkaṭavatthu hoti, tathāpi attano paribhogatthāya paṭiggahaṇe dukkaṭamevāti no takkoti ācariyo. ‘‘Idha nikkhipāhī’ti vutte upanikkhittasādiyanameva hotī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Akappiyavicāraṇā eva na vaṭṭatīti ce? Kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitanti ettha taṃ sayaṃ aparibhogārahaṃ hutvā tadagghanakaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ paribhogārahaṃ hutvā ṭhitanti attho’’ti likhitaṃ, ‘‘paṃsukūlabhāvena ṭhitattā, guttaṭṭhānācikkhanassa kappiyattā ca kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ. ‘Idaṃ gaṇhā’tiādinā vadantassa akappiyattā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhita’’nti ca. Evampi kappiyañca akappiyañcāti ‘‘imasmiṃ okāse ṭhapitaṃ, kiṃ na passasīti chekatare imeva kahāpaṇe’’tiādivacanassa kappiyattā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ. ‘‘Idaṃ gaṇhā’’ti vutte dubbicāritattā attano akappiyattā tato āgataṃ akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitameva hoti. ‘‘Idaṃ gaṇhā’ti vutte tena gahite ‘uggaṇhāpeyya [Pg.261] vā’ti vuttavidhiṃ na pāpuṇāti, kevalaṃ dubbicāritattā tasseva taṃ akappiyaṃ hoti, mūlapaṭiggahaṇassa suddhattā parato pattacatukke tatiyapatto viyāti ca evaṃ upatissatthero vadatī’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Kiṃ bahunā, visuddhāgamattā kappiyaṃ. Dubbicāraṇāya sati akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ hotīti no takkoti ācariyo. ‘‘Evaṃ saṅghagaṇādīnampi atthāya pariccattepi tena samānagatikattā ṭhapetvā āpattivisesa’’nti vuttaṃ.

How so? For in the training rule on valuables, these objects requiring forfeiture and objects involving a `dukkaṭa` offense have come together under the term 'valuable'. In the phrase 'regarded as valuable', a permissible object is mentioned. Among these ten valuables, the pair—silver and gold—are here objects requiring forfeiture, while the remainder are objects involving a `dukkaṭa` offense; thus it is established. And because this is established, in the non-offense section of the training rule on valuables, it is said: "He accepts what is regarded as valuable on trust, accepts it temporarily, for one who perceives it as refuse-rag cloth"—'valuable' is not said. However, the seven kinds of grain, female and male slaves, fields, and so on, are established as impermissible by way of the Brahmajāla Sutta and others; therefore, here they are established as objects involving a `dukkaṭa` offense. For that very reason, in the procedure of inquiry, it is said: "He knows the Dhamma, what is in conformity with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, what is in conformity with the Vinaya." Furthermore, does raw meat also become an object involving a `dukkaṭa` offense? No, because here in the Vinaya it is permitted by the text beginning, "I allow, monks, raw meat in case of an illness caused by non-humans." Therefore, even though raw meat is mentioned in a sutta, it is not an object involving a `dukkaṭa` offense. Nevertheless, in accepting it for one's own consumption, it is indeed a `dukkaṭa` offense; this is our reasoning, thus says the teacher. They say: "When it is said, 'Place it here,' it is only a matter of consenting to what is placed nearby." If one were to say, "Is not the very handling of an impermissible item disallowed?" In the phrase 'it stands depending on the permissible and the impermissible,' it is written that this is the meaning: that item, being itself unsuitable for use, stands as a permissible requisite of that value which has become suitable for use. And also: "Because it stands in the state of being refuse-cloth, and because of the permissibility of indicating a safe place, it stands depending on the permissible. Because of the impermissibility for one who says, 'Take this,' etc., it stands depending on the impermissible." Thus also, regarding 'the permissible and the impermissible': because of the permissibility of speech such as, "It is placed in this spot. Do you not see, O very clever one, these very coins?", it stands depending on the permissible. When it is said, "Take this," because of improper handling and because of its being impermissible for oneself, what has come from that indeed stands depending on the impermissible. It is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada: "When it is said, 'Take this,' and it is taken by him, it does not meet the procedure described as 'or he may cause it to be taken up.' Merely because of improper handling, it becomes impermissible for that very person. Because of the purity of the original acceptance, it is like the third bowl in the set of four bowls from another. Thus says the Elder Upatissa." What is the use of saying more? Because of its pure origin, it is permissible. When there is improper handling, it comes to stand depending on the impermissible; this is our reasoning, thus says the teacher. It is said: "Likewise, even when it is relinquished for the sake of the Sangha, a group, etc., because it has the same nature, it is treated similarly, setting aside the specific offense."

Na kiñci kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ cetāpitanti cetāpitañce, upāyābhāvaṃ dasseti. ‘‘Upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvāti sace so upāsako ‘atibahuṃ etaṃ hiraññaṃ, idaṃ bhante ajjeva na vināsetabba’nti vatvā sayaṃ upanikkhepadese ṭhapeti, aññena vā ṭhapāpeti, etaṃ upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā tato laddhaṃ udayaṃ paribhuñjanto saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjati nāmā’’ti vuttaṃ.

Regarding the phrase 'No permissible requisite has been procured': if one has been procured, this shows the absence of a proper means. It is said: 'Regarding 'having set aside a deposit': if that lay supporter says, "Venerable Sir, this gold and silver is too much; it should not be wasted this very day," and either sets it aside himself in a place for deposits or has someone else set it aside, then, having set aside that deposit, the Sangha, by consuming the profit obtained therefrom, is said to be enjoying the requisites.'

585. Ayaṃ kira itthaṃlakkhaṇasampanno ukkaṃsato. Evaṃ aṅgasampannopi aparabhāge lobhavasena vā aññena vā kāraṇena sace nimittaṃ katvā pāteti, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Senāsanampi paribhoge paribhogeti pavese pavese. So hi kāraṇantarena rukkhamūlikassa, abbhokāsikassapi vaṭṭati eva, ṭhānanisajjādivasena nivāsādhippāye sati paribhoge paribhoge paccavekkhitabbaṃ. Bhesajjassa satipaccayatā sabbakālampīti eke. Asannihitassa pacchābhattameva, sannihitassa purebhattampīti no takkoti ācariyo. ‘‘Yāmakālikaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ āhāratthāya…pe… paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Ajjhohāre ajjhohāre āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (pāci. 244) hi vuttaṃ. Dukkaṭañhi vikālabhojanasikkhāpade āgataṃ vikāle āpajjati, no kāle āhārakālattā, sannidhisikkhāpade āgataṃ pana kālepi sannidhijātattā, teneva tattha sattāhakālikayāvajīvikadvayameva vuttanti. ‘‘Sati paccaye’’ti vacanato nāyaṃ viseso labbhatīti ce? Na, aniṭṭhappasaṅgato, vacanāniyamato ca. Sannidhisikkhāpade hi ‘‘anāpatti yāvakālikaṃ yāvakālaṃ nidahitvā bhuñjati. Yāmakālikaṃ yāme nidahitvā bhuñjatī’’ti (pāci. 256) ettha vacanappamāṇato yāmakālikaṃ na purebhatte, na pacchābhatte, na divase, na rattiyaṃ yāmameva nidahitvā bhuñjantassa anāpattīti [Pg.262] aniṭṭhappasaṅgo. Tathā tattheva ‘‘yāmakālikaṃ yāmaṃ nidahitvā bhuñjati, sattāhakālikaṃ sattāhaṃ nidahitvā bhuñjatī’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ, na vuttaṃ ‘‘sati paccaye’’ti, tasmā satipaccaya-vacanaṃ katthaci hoti, katthaci na hotīti vacanāniyamato āpattiyāpi aniyamo siyā. Evaṃ santepi yathāvuttadukkaṭaṃ āpajjati eva. Na anāhārappayojanattā yāmakālikādīnanti ce? Na, sappiādimissabhojanassa paṇītabhojanabhāvappattito. Apica sabbakālikesu yāvakālikaṃ oḷārikaṃ, taṃ āhāratthāya paṭiggaṇhantassa kāle anāpatti, pageva anoḷārikaṃ yāmakālikādiṃ, āhāratthāya eva anuññātattā. Yāvakālike eva anāpattīti ce? Na, anāhāratthāya gaṇhantassa āpattisambhavato itaraṃ āhāratthāya gaṇhantassa viya, tasmā yathāvuttamevettha sanniṭṭhānaṃ pāḷiṃ, yuttiñca anulometīti.

585. It is said that this monk is, in the highest degree, endowed with such characteristics. Even a monk so endowed with qualities, if in a later part, either through the power of greed or through another reason, having made a sign, he should cause it to be placed, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Regarding 'uses the lodging again and again,' this means at each and every entry. Indeed, that reflection, for a different reason, is allowable also for a monk dwelling at the foot of a tree and for a monk dwelling in the open air. When there is the intention of dwelling, it should be reflected upon at each and every use, by way of standing, sitting, and so on. Some say that when there is the requisite of medicine, it should be reflected upon at all times. The teacher said: 'For what is not stored, it should be reflected upon only in the after-meal period; for what is stored, it should be reflected upon also in the fore-meal period. Thus is our reasoning.' For indeed it is said: 'If one receives yāmakālika, sattāhakālika, or yāvajīvika for the purpose of food… there is an offense of wrong-doing. At each swallowing, there is an offense of wrong-doing.' Indeed, the wrong-doing that comes in the training rule on eating at the wrong time is incurred at the wrong time; it is not incurred at the proper time, because it is the time for food. But the wrong-doing that comes in the training rule on storing is incurred even at the proper time because it has become stored. For that very reason, only the two—the seven-day and the lifetime—are mentioned therein. If one should say: 'This distinction is not obtained on account of the words, "when there is a cause"?' It is not so, because of the consequence of an undesirable meaning and because of the non-fixedness of the wording. For in the training rule on storing, in the text 'There is no offense if one stores and consumes yāvakālika for its proper time; or yāmakālika for a watch,' if one takes this wording as the sole authority, an undesirable consequence would follow: that for yāmakālika, there would be no offense only for one who stores and consumes it for a watch, but not in the fore-meal period, not in the after-meal period, not during the day, and not at night. Similarly, in that very place, only this much is said: 'one consumes yāmakālika having stored it for a watch; one consumes sattāhakālika having stored it for seven days.' The words 'when there is a cause' are not said. Therefore, because the words 'when there is a cause' are present in some texts and not present in others, due to this non-fixedness of the wording, a non-fixedness of the offense would also arise. Even this being so, the aforementioned wrong-doing is indeed incurred. If one should say this is because yāmakālika and so on are not for the purpose of nourishment, it is not so, because food mixed with ghee and so on attains the state of fine food. Furthermore, among all kālikas, yāvakālika is coarse. For a monk who receives it at the proper time for the purpose of food, there is no offense. What then needs to be said of the not-coarse yāmakālika and so on? Because they are permitted for the very purpose of food. If one should say: 'Is there no offense only in the case of yāvakālika?' It is not so, because an offense is possible for one who takes it for a non-food purpose, just as for one who takes another kālika for the purpose of food. Therefore, the conclusion herein, just as it has been stated, conforms to both the Pāḷi and to reason.

Desanāsuddhīti ettha desanā nāma vinayakammaṃ, tena vuṭṭhānampi desanā eva nāma hotīti. ‘‘Paṭiggaṇhātī’’ti avatvā ‘‘paṭisevatī’’ti vuttattā paṭiggahaṇe pana satiṃ akatvā paribhoge karontassa anāpatti. Khīṇāsavā katakiccattā vibhattadāyādā viya honti, tena tesaṃ sāmiparibhogā honti. Aññathā yāvakālikabhāvaṃ anatikkantattā virujjhati. Iṇaparibhogo na vaṭṭati, bhesajje āpattito, itarasmiṃ ayuttaparibhogato, iṇaṃ viya ananuññātabhuttattā ca. ‘‘Ādito paṭṭhāya hi alajjī nāma natthi, tasmā na koci saṅkitabbo’’ti likhitaṃ. Bhārabhūtā saddhivihārikādayo. Yathādānameva gahitattāti ettha ‘‘attano hatthena ce deti, na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘atirekabhāgaṃ gahetvā punadivase attano atthāya uddhaṭabhāgaṃ tattheva dāpeti, vaṭṭatī’’ti ca. Parivattakaṃ deti, dhammiyañce, vaṭṭati. No adhammiyaṃ. ‘‘Taṃ dhammānuggahena uggaṇhituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kena lesenāti ce? ‘‘Alabbhamānāya sāmaggiyā anāpatti sambhoge saṃvāse’’ti (mahāva. 130) iminā upasampadakkhandhakavacanalesena.

In 'Purity by Confession,' 'confession' (desanā) means a Vinaya act. Therefore, even the rising (from an offense) is indeed called 'confession.' Since it is said 'he makes use of' (paṭisevati) instead of 'he receives' (paṭiggaṇhāti), there is no offense for one who makes use of something without having applied mindfulness at the time of receiving. Those whose taints are destroyed, having done their task, are like heirs who have had their inheritance divided. Therefore, their use is that of an owner. Otherwise, because the state of being for a limited time has not been overcome, it is contradictory. Use as a debt is not allowable: in the case of medicine, because of an offense; in the case of other things, because it is improper use and because, like a debt, it is used without permission. It is written: 'Indeed, from the beginning, there is no one called ‘shameless’; therefore, no one should be suspected.' Co-resident disciples and others who are burdensome. In the context of 'because it was taken just as it was given,' here it is said: 'If one gives with one's own hand, it is not allowable.' And also: 'Having taken an extra portion, if on the next day one has the portion set aside given there for one's own benefit, it is allowable.' If one gives in exchange, and it is in accordance with the Dhamma, it is allowable; not if it is unrighteous. It is said: 'It is allowable to learn it for the benefit of the Dhamma.' If it is asked, 'By what pretext?' By the pretext of this passage from the Chapter on Ordination: 'When harmony is unobtainable, there is no offense in communion and co-residence.'

586. Assatiyā dinnanti ettha ‘‘assatiyā dinnaṃ nāma apariccattaṃ hoti, tasmā dussante baddhakahāpaṇādīni satiṃ paṭilabhitvā dāyakā ce [Pg.263] puna gaṇhanti, nissaggiyameva desetabbaṃ. Tena akappiyabhaṇḍena te ce dāyakā sappiādīni kiṇitvā saṅghassa denti, tassapi bhikkhuno kappati dāyakānaṃyeva santakattā. Bhikkhunā hi ‘vatthaṃ gaṇhāmī’ti vatthasaññāya eva gahitaṃ, na rūpiyasaññāya. Idañca sikkhāpadaṃ attano atthāya uggahaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na ca tena taṃ attano atthāya paresaṃ vā atthāya gahitaṃ. Atha te dāyakā no ce āgantvā gaṇhanti, dāyake pucchitvā attano atthāya ce pariccattaṃ, saṅghe nissajjitvā āpatti desetabbā. No ce, āpatti eva desetabbā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ pubbāparaviruddhaṃ. Āpattidesanāya hi sati rūpiyaṃ paṭiggahitanti siddhaṃ, tasmiṃ siddhe ‘‘tato uppannaṃ tassapi kappatī’’ti idaṃ na yujjatīti. Kappati evāti ce? Na, vatthuṃ anissajjitvā āpatti desetabbāti na yujjati. Acittakattā sikkhāpadassa yujjatīti ce? Na, sabbattha ‘‘rūpiyaṃ paṭiggaṇhātī’’ti vacanato. ‘‘Rūpiyaṃ paṭiggaṇhātī’’ti hi vuttaṃ, aññathā sabbattha ‘‘rūpiya’’nti padaṃ niratthakaṃ hoti vināpi tena tadatthasiddhito. Anena ca vatthaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ, dāyakena ca vatthameva dinnaṃ, vatthagatampi rūpiyaṃ theyyacittena gaṇhanto padavārena kāretabbo. Aṭṭhakathāyañca ‘‘rūpiye arūpiyasaññīti suvaṇṇādīsu kharapattādisaññī’’ti vuttaṃ ‘‘rūpiyaṃ paṭiggaṇhātī’’ti vacanavasena.

586. Herein, regarding 'given without mindfulness': What is given without mindfulness is not truly relinquished. Therefore, if donors, having regained mindfulness, take back again coins and so on that were tied in the hem of a cloth, the offense entailing forfeiture must be confessed. If those donors, with that unallowable article, buy ghee and so on and give them to the Saṅgha, it is allowable for that bhikkhu also, because it is the property of the donors themselves. For it was taken by the bhikkhu with the perception of it being an article, thinking, 'I am receiving an article,' and not with the perception of it being money. And this training rule was stated in reference to receiving for one's own benefit, and it was not taken by him for his own benefit or for the benefit of others. Now, if those donors do not come and take it, having asked the donors, if it is relinquished for his own benefit, having forfeited it to the Saṅgha, the offense should be confessed. If not, only the offense should be confessed. This was stated. That statement is self-contradictory. For when the offense is confessed, it is established that money was received. When that is established, this statement, 'What is produced from that is allowable for him also,' is not correct. If one should say, 'It is indeed allowable'? No. It is not correct that the offense should be confessed without having forfeited the article. If one should say, 'It is correct because the training rule is for an unintentional act'? No, because of the phrase 'one receives money' is used everywhere. For it is said, 'one receives money'; otherwise, the word 'money' everywhere would be meaningless, since even without it, that meaning would be established. And by this bhikkhu, an article was received, and by the donor, only an article was given. One who takes the money that is on the article with a thieving mind should be dealt with according to the step-by-step valuation for theft. And in the Commentary, it is said, '“Perceiving what is money as not money” means having the perception of rough leaves, etc., with regard to gold, etc.,' by way of the statement, 'one receives money.'

‘‘Apica puññakāmā’’tiādi pana vidhānantaradassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, teneva hi ‘‘imasmiṃ gehe idaṃ laddhanti sallakkhetabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Aññathā sallakkhaṇe vimativasena, vimatiyā ca sati nissaggiyameva ‘‘rūpiye vematiko’’tiādi vacanatoti. Idaṃ vidhānaṃ niratthakameva āpajjati, na ca niratthakaṃ. Kasmā? Dussante baddhakahāpaṇādi assatiyā dinnaṃ vatthasaññāya paṭiggahitañca, tato na rūpiyaṃ dinnañca hoti paṭiggahitañcāti. Ettha āpattidesanākiccaṃ natthi, taṃ pana dāyakānameva paṭidātabbaṃ. Tato uppannaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍañca sabbesaṃ kappatīti imassa vidhānantaradassanatthaṃ ‘‘apica puññakāmā’’tiādīti no takkoti ācariyo.

Moreover, the passage beginning with 'those who desire merit' is stated to show another method. For that very reason, it is said, 'In this house, this has been received—thus it should be noted.' Otherwise, in the matter of noting, there is doubt; and when there is doubt, it is indeed a matter for relinquishment, because of the saying, 'one who is uncertain about money,' and so forth. This method would become entirely meaningless, but it does not become meaningless. Why? Because a kahāpaṇa, etc., tied in the hem of a cloth is given through mindlessness and is received with the perception of it being an article; therefore, it is not that money is given and received. Here, there is no duty of confessing an offense; however, that should be returned to the donors themselves. To show another method for this statement, 'And the allowable goods that arise from that are permissible for all,' the passage beginning with 'Moreover, those who desire merit' is stated. The teacher says, 'This is our reasoning.'

Rūpiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Money is concluded.

9. Rūpiyasaṃvohārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Transactions involving Money

587. ‘‘Jātarūparajataparivattana’’nti [Pg.264] ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena vuttaṃ, tathā ‘‘rūpiyaṃ nāma satthuvaṇṇo kahāpaṇo’’tiādi pāḷivacanañca. ‘‘Arūpiye rūpiyasaññī rūpiyaṃ cetāpetī’’tiādi tikavacanato, ‘‘dukkaṭavatthunā pana nissaggiyavatthuṃ cetāpentassa…pe… nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ garukassa cetāpitattā’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanato ca pana anukkaṭṭhaparicchedopettha labbhatīti siddhaṃ. Satthuvaṇṇo ca kahāpaṇo ca tato ye caññe vohāraṃ gacchantīti evamettha samuccayo veditabbo. Imasmiṃ pana sikkhāpade ‘‘nānappakārakaṃ nāma katampi akatampi katākatampī’’ti ettha vibhattānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ rūpiyārūpiyānañca dvinnaṃ vasena pañca tikā vuttā, aṭṭhakathācariyehi tadanulomato eko tiko dassitoti sabbe cha honti.

587. The phrase 'exchange of gold and silver' is stated according to the highest standard; similarly, the Pāḷi saying beginning with 'money means gold, the kahāpaṇa' is also stated according to the highest standard. However, from the statement of the triad beginning with 'perceiving what is not money as money, one causes an exchange of money,' and from the commentary's statement, 'for one who causes a forfeitable object to be exchanged with an object involving a dukkaṭa offense... it is a nissaggiya pācittiya because a serious object was caused to be exchanged,' it is established that a non-highest standard is also obtained here. Gold and the kahāpaṇa, and whatever other things apart from these are used in transactions—thus the collection should be understood here. In this training rule, however, in the phrase 'various kinds, namely, wrought, unwrought, and both wrought and unwrought,' five triads are stated by way of the three divided types and the two types of money and non-money. Since the commentary teachers, in accordance with these, have shown one triad, all together there are six.

Etthāha – aññasmiṃ sikkhāpade ekasmiṃ tikacchede dassite satipi sambhave itare na dassīyanti, idheva kasmā dassitoti? ‘‘Nānappakāraka’’nti mātikāyaṃ vuttattā idheva nānappakārabhāvadassanatthanti. Na kayavikkayasikkhāpadepi vattabbappasaṅgatoti ce? Na, idha dassitanayattā. Atha ca rūpiyassa vibhaṅge ‘‘ye vohāraṃ gacchantī’’ti ante vuttattā satthuvaṇṇādayo vaḷañjanupagā evāti siddhaṃ. Tato avaḷañjanupagehi jātarūparajatehi vohārena na nissaggiyanti āpajjati, tasmā taṃ āpajjanatthanti dassentena ‘‘katena kataṃ cetāpetī’’tiādayo tikā vuttāti, evaṃ sante rūpiyavibhaṅge ‘‘ye ca vohāraṃ gacchantī’’ti na vattabbaṃ, tasmiṃ pade avutte avaḷañjanupagāpi saṅgahaṃ gatāva hontīti katādīhi tikattayassa vattabbapayojanaṃ na bhavissatīti ce? Na, kappiyabhaṇḍena kappiyabhaṇḍapaavattanassāpi rūpiyasaṃvohārabhāvappasaṅgato. ‘‘Ye vohāraṃ gacchantī’’ti vacanenapi kamuka kathala kaṃsabhājana sāṭakādiparivattanassapi rūpiyasaṃvohārabhāvappasaṅgo evāti ce? Na, katādivacanena jātarūpādiakappiyavatthūnaññeva adhippetabhāvadīpanato, tasmā ubhayenapi yadetaṃ katākatādibhedaṃ pākatikarūpiyaṃ yañca kahāpaṇamāsakasaṅkhepaṃ, yañca kahāpaṇādivohārūpagaṃ, ubhayampetaṃ idha ca anantarātītasikkhāpade ca rūpiyaṃ nāmāti adhippetatthasiddhi hoti, na taṇḍulādīni, tattha katādivohārāsambhavato. Ettāvatā katāditikattayappayojanaṃ vuttaṃ.

Here it is said: In another training rule, although it is possible, when one triad-division is shown, the others are not. So why is it shown only here? Because it is stated in the matrix, “of various kinds,” it is shown only here in order to demonstrate its various kinds. If it is objected that this should also be stated in the training rule on buying and selling, this is not so, because the method has been shown here. Furthermore, because in the analysis of rūpiya, it is stated at the end, “those that are used in trade,” it is established that gold and so on are only those things used in transactions. From that, it would follow that trading with gold and silver not used in transactions would not be an offense entailing forfeiture. Therefore, to show that such an offense is incurred, the triads such as “one causes to be obtained what is made with what is made” are stated. If this is so, one might object that in the analysis of rūpiya, the phrase “and those that are used in trade” should not be stated, for if that phrase were omitted, even items not used in transactions would be included, and thus there would be no purpose in stating the three triads beginning with “what is made.” This is not so, because it would lead to the consequence that even the exchange of an allowable item for an allowable item would be considered a transaction with rūpiya. One might further object that even with the statement “those that are used in trade,” the exchange of items like areca nuts, earthenware, bronze bowls, or cloth would still be considered a transaction with rūpiya. This is not so, because the statement beginning with “what is made” clarifies that only unallowable items such as gold and silver are intended; therefore, the aforementioned consequence does not arise. Therefore, by both these statements, the intended meaning is established of what is called 'rūpiya'—both here and in the immediately preceding training rule: it is both the natural rūpiya which is distinguished as made, unmade, and so on, and that which is designated as kahāpaṇa and māsaka and is used in trade as kahāpaṇas and the like. Rice and the like are not included, because for them, a transaction involving “what is made” is not possible. Thus, the purpose of the three triads beginning with “what is made” has been stated.

Idāni [Pg.265] sesattikāni vuccati – ettha hi yathāvuttappabhedaṃ nissaggiyavatthu rūpiyaṃ nāma, sesaṃ dukkaṭavatthupi kappiyavatthupi na rūpiyanti arūpiyaṃ nāma hotīti katvā ‘‘arūpiye arūpiyasaññī pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ anāpattī’’ti idaṃ na ekaṃsikaṃ āpajjati dukkaṭavatthumhi dukkaṭāpajjanato. Idha vacanappamāṇato nissaggiyavatthuto aññaṃ antamaso muttādipi arūpiyameva nāma. Tattha pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ anāpattīti ce? Na, rājasikkhāpadavirodhato. Tattha hi ‘‘muttā vā maṇi vā’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā muttādi akappiyaṃ dukkaṭavatthūti ca siddhaṃ nissaggiyavatthūsu abhāvā. Evaṃ sante ‘‘arūpiye arūpiyasaññī pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ anāpattī’’ti suddhakappiyabhaṇḍaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na sabbaṃ arūpiyaṃ. Tato aññattha pana ‘‘arūpiye rūpiyasaññī’’tiāditikadukkaṭe ca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dassitatike ca sabbaṃ arūpiyaṃ nāmāti veditabbaṃ, tasmā arūpiyabhāvadīpanatthaṃ dutiyo tiko vutto. Tadatthameva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dassito eko tiko. Kasmā na pāḷiyaṃ so vuttoti ce? Tattha cetāpitaarūpiye rūpiyachaḍḍanakasammutikiccābhāvato. Tasmiñhi tike vutte kappiyavatthunopi arūpiyachaḍḍanakasammuti dātabbāti āpajjati, tassa vasena rūpiyachaḍḍanakasammuti eva na vattabbāti? Na, rūpiyassapi sammutikiccābhāvappasaṅgato, tasmā rūpiye rūpiyasaññī kappiyavatthuṃ cetāpeti pattacatukke tatiyapattaṃ viya, taṃ saṅghādīnaṃ nissajjitabbaṃ, nissaṭṭhaṃ pana aññesaṃ kappati tatiyapatto viya. Atha sampaṭicchitarūpiyena cetāpitaṃ hoti dutiyapatto viya, taṃ vināpi sammutiyā yo koci bhikkhu chaḍḍeti, vaṭṭati. Tato paraṃ ‘‘sace tattha āgacchati ārāmiko vā’’tiādinā vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Tattha ‘‘rūpiye’’ti vā ‘‘arūpiye’’ti vā sabbattha bhummappatte attano santakaṃ, upayogappatte parasantakanti veditabbaṃ. Etthāha – upatissatthero purimasikkhāpadena rūpiyapaṭiggahaṇaṃ vāritaṃ, iminā suddhāgamena kappiyakārakassa hatthe kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitena saṃvohāro vāritoti.

Now, the remaining triads are spoken of. Here, as previously classified, the object entailing forfeiture is called 'rūpiya'; the remainder—whether an object of wrong-doing or an allowable object—is not rūpiya, and so is called 'arūpiya'. Therefore, the statement, 'In the case of non-rūpiya, perceiving it as non-rūpiya, there is no offense for the five co-religionists,' does not apply invariably, because of the incurring of an offense of wrong-doing in the case of an object of wrong-doing. Here, by the authority of the text, anything other than an object entailing forfeiture—even pearls and the like—is indeed called 'arūpiya'. If it is said, 'In that case, there is no offense for the five co-religionists,' this is not so, because of the contradiction with the Rāja training rule. For there it is said, 'a pearl or a gem'; therefore, it is established that pearls and the like are unallowable, an object of wrong-doing, due to their absence among objects entailing forfeiture. This being so, the statement, 'In the case of non-rūpiya, perceiving it as non-rūpiya, there is no offense for the five co-religionists,' is said with reference to purely allowable goods, not all non-rūpiya. However, in other cases, such as in the triad of offenses of wrong-doing beginning with 'perceiving rūpiya in non-rūpiya' and in the triad shown in the commentary, it should be understood that all is called 'arūpiya'. Therefore, the second triad is stated for the purpose of clarifying the state of being non-rūpiya. For that very purpose, one triad is shown in the commentary. If it is asked, 'Why is it not stated in the Pāḷi?', it is because, in that case, for non-rūpiya that has been caused to be acquired, there is no procedure of formal designation for discarding rūpiya. For if that triad were stated, it would follow that even for an allowable object, a formal designation for discarding non-rūpiya would have to be given. And on account of that, should the formal designation for discarding rūpiya itself not be spoken of? No, because it would lead to the consequence of there being no procedure of formal designation even for rūpiya. Therefore, when one, perceiving rūpiya as rūpiya, causes an allowable object to be acquired, it is like the third bowl in the tetrad of bowls; that object must be relinquished to the Sangha and others. Once relinquished, it becomes allowable for others, like the third bowl. But if it has been caused to be acquired with received rūpiya, it is like the second bowl; any monk whatsoever may discard that object even without a formal designation, and it is proper to do so. Thereafter, one should proceed according to the method stated in the passage beginning, “If a monastery attendant or…” In all these cases, whether it is said 'in rūpiya' or 'in arūpiya', it should be understood that when the locative case is used, it refers to one's own property, and when the accusative case is used, it refers to another's property. Here, the Elder Upatissa said: By the previous training rule, the acceptance of rūpiya is prohibited; by this one, a transaction is prohibited for one who relies on an allowable item in the hands of a steward, when it is a simple acquisition.

589. Nissaggiyavatthunā nissaggiyavatthuṃ…pe… aparāparaparivattane imināti ettha ekasmiṃ eva vatthusmiṃ dvinnaṃ sikkhāpadānaṃ vasena ekato āpatti vuttā, taṃ pana pacchimassa vasena nissajjitabbaṃ. Etena nissaggiyaṃ āpannampi āpajjatīti eke. Parassa rūpiyaggahaṇaṃ parivattananti rūpiye aggahite tassa abhāvato imināva āpatti, na purimena omasavādo viya. Musāvādena [Pg.266] musā vadantassāpi hi omasavādeneva āpatti. Nissaggiyavatthunā dukkaṭa…pe… eseva nayoti etassa yuttiṃ dassento ‘‘yo hi aya’’nti āha.

589. Regarding 'an object entailing forfeiture by means of an object entailing forfeiture... and so on... in the case of repeated exchanges, by this': here, in a single item, an offense is stated as occurring simultaneously by means of two training rules. However, that object should be forfeited according to the latter rule. Some say that by this, one who has already incurred an offense entailing forfeiture incurs yet another. Regarding 'taking another's rūpiya is an exchange': since the rūpiya was not accepted, due to the absence of that offense, the offense is incurred by this rule alone, not by the former, just as in the case of slanderous speech. For indeed, even for one who speaks falsely by means of lying, the offense is incurred under the rule for slanderous speech alone. Regarding 'an offense of wrong-doing by means of an object entailing forfeiture... and so on... this is the method': showing the appropriateness of this text, he said, 'For indeed this...'

Vaḍḍhiṃ payojentassāti ettha idaṃ gahetvā sati māse, sati saṃvacchare ‘‘ettakaṃ dehī’’ti ce vadati. Rūpiyasaṃvohāro hoti. Vinā kappiyakārakena ‘‘ettakā vuḍḍhi hotu, ettakaṃ gaṇhā’’ti vadato dukkaṭaṃ kayavikkayalakkhaṇābhāvato. ‘‘Mūle mūlasāmikāna’’ntiādi kappiyakaraṇūpāyadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na kevalaṃ nissaṭṭhaṃ aparibhogaṃ hoti, puna evaṃ kate paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Tassapi paribhoge mūlassa kappiyakaraṇūpāyo ce na hoti, kappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbanti yathā pāḷiyā cettha kappiyakaraṇūpāyo, so ca tatiyapattepi, ‘‘yathā ca attano atthāya gahite evarūpupāyo, tathā saṅghādiatthāya gahitepi eso vā’’ti vuttaṃ. Ime kira paṭhamadutiyapatte yāva gahaṭṭhena parivatteti, tāva na kappiyakaraṇūpāyo, anekapurisayugampi ‘‘akappiyā evā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘saṅghasantakaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ vikkiṇitvā āgatakahāpaṇānipi paṭiggahaṇaṃ mocetvāva sampaṭicchitabbāni, tasmā kappiyakārako ce imāni tāni kahāpaṇānīti vadati, na vaṭṭatiyeva, paṭikkhipitabbaṃ, na vicāretabbaṃ, vicāreti ce? Sabbesaṃ na kappati. Paṭiggahaṇaṃ mocetvā sampaṭicchitāni ce vicāreti, tasseva na vaṭṭatī’’ti abhikkhaṇaṃ vuttaṃ.

Here, regarding one who applies interest: having taken this, if after a month or a year one says, 'Give this much,' it is a monetary transaction. For a monk who, without a steward, says, 'Let the increase be this much; take this much,' there is a dukkaṭa offense, because of the absence of the characteristic of buying and selling. The passage beginning with 'The principal belongs to the owners of the principal' is stated to show the method of making something allowable. It is not merely that the relinquished item is unusable; rather, when this is done, it is permissible to use it. Even in the use of that, if there is no method for making the principal allowable, one must declare what is allowable. For this reason, here the method of making it allowable is just as in the Pāḷi, and that method also exists in the case of the third bowl. 'Just as there is such a method for what is received for one's own benefit, so too for what is received for the benefit of the Sangha, etc., this is the very method,' it is said. It is said that regarding these first and second bowls, as long as a layperson exchanges them, there is no method of making them allowable. It is stated in the commentary that even after many pairs of men, 'they are indeed unallowable.' However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is frequently stated: 'Having sold allowable goods belonging to the Sangha, even the kahāpaṇas that have come must be accepted only after having relinquished the act of receiving. Therefore, if the steward says, "These are those kahāpaṇas," it is not permissible at all. It must be rejected; it must not be managed. If one does manage it? It is not allowable for all. If one manages things that were accepted after relinquishing the act of receiving, it is not permissible only for that person.'

Rūpiyasaṃvohārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule on monetary transactions is finished.

10. Kayavikkayasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Training Rule on Buying and Selling

593. Paṭapilotikānanti paṭapilotikehi. ‘‘Ajjhācarati, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti idaṃ purimasikkhāpadepi veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Kayitañca hoti vikkayitañcā’’ti etesaṃ padānaṃ viparītato ‘‘attano bhaṇḍa’’ntiādi vuttaṃ. Kasmā? ‘‘Iminā ima’’nti vacanānurūpato. Saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ panettha aṭṭhānapadānaṃ vasena veditabbaṃ.

593. “Paṭapilotikānaṃ” means “with coarse cloths.” The phrase, “one transgresses, it is a dukkaṭa offense,” should also be understood in the previous training rule. In the opposite sense of the words, “it is bought and it is sold,” the passage beginning with “one's own goods” is stated. Why? Because of its conformity to the expression “this with this.” Here, the squandering of faith-offerings should be understood by way of inappropriate grounds.

Kayavikkayasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule on buying and selling is concluded.

Niṭṭhito kosiyavaggo dutiyo.

The second chapter, the Kosiyavagga, is concluded.

3. Pattavaggo

3. The Chapter on Bowls

1. Pattasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Training Rule on Bowls

598. Bahū [Pg.267] patte sannicayanti ettha sannicayanti bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ, bahū patte vā gahetvā sannicayaṃ karissantīti attho. ‘‘Aḍḍhaterasapalamāsānaṃ gāhikā’’ti likhitaṃ. Ettha –

598. In the phrase 'they accumulate many bowls,' the word 'accumulate' (`sannicayanti`) is a verbal neuter. Or, the meaning is: 'Having taken many bowls, they will make an accumulation.' 'They hold thirteen and a half palas and māsas' is written. Herein—

‘‘Kuḍuvo catupaleyyo, kuḍuvānaṃ catugguṇaṃ;

Patthaṃ catugguṇo māsā-ti kamāhu catugguṇa’’nti. –

“A kuḍuva is four palas; four kuḍuvas make a pattha; four patthas make a māsā—thus they say, fourfold in succession.”

Ādiṃ lokavohāraṃ dassetvāva keci papañcenti.

Some elaborate only after showing such worldly conventions from the beginning.

602. Khādananti khādanīyaṃ sūpādi. ‘‘Byañjanassa mattā nāma odanato catuttho bhāgo’’ti (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.387) brahmāyusuttaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā ālopassa catutthabhāgaṃ byañjanaṃ anurūpanti gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Bhikkhuniyā pattasannicayassa vāritattā tadanulomato bhikkhūnampi dutiyo vārito’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ na yuttaṃ, pāḷiyañhi ‘‘sannicayaṃ kareyyāti anadhiṭṭhito avikappito’’ti (pāci. 735) vuttaṃ. So hi kathinakkhandhake (mahāva. 306 ādayo) nicayasannidhi viya ekopi punadivase ‘‘sannicayo’’ti vuccati. Anantarasikkhāpade pana ‘‘dutiyo vāritoti adhiṭṭhānaṃ niyataṃ, tasmā dve patte adhiṭṭhātuṃ na labhati. Sace ekato adhiṭṭhāti, dvepi na adhiṭṭhitā honti. Visuṃ visuṃ adhiṭṭhāti, dutiyo anadhiṭṭhito’’ti vadanti. Vikappetuṃ pana bahūpi labhati. Idāni vattabbaṃ sandhāya ‘‘nāmamatte viseso’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha nāmanti majjhimo majjhimomako majjhimukkaṭṭhotiādi.

602. 'Food' means edible items such as bean-curry and so on. Because it is stated in the Commentary to the Brahmāyusutta, 'The measure of curry, it is said, is a fourth part of the rice,' it should be understood that a suitable amount of curry is a fourth part of a morsel. It is said, 'Because the accumulation of bowls is forbidden for a bhikkhunī, in accordance with that, a second bowl is also forbidden for bhikkhus.' That is not correct, for in the Pāḷi it is said, 'He would make an accumulation'—meaning a bowl that is not determined, not shared. For in the Kathinakkhandhaka, like a stored-up hoard, even a single bowl on the next day is called an 'accumulation.' However, in the immediately following training rule, they say: 'Because a second bowl is forbidden, the determination is fixed. Therefore, one does not get to determine two bowls. If one determines them together, both are not determined. If one determines them separately, the second is undetermined.' But one is allowed to share even many. Now, with reference to what is to be said, it was stated, 'The difference is in name only.' Therein, 'name' refers to medium, medium-small, medium-large, and so on.

608. ‘‘Pākassa hi ūnattā pattasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchatī’’ti vacanato adhiṭṭhitapattopi kharapākena setattā adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahatīti ce? Na, adhiṭṭhānavijahanesu navasu anāgatattā, tasmā paṭhamapākānaṃ eva ūnattā pattasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati, tasmiṃ sati aññaṃ viññāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati. ‘‘Ūnapañcabandhanenā’’ti hi vuttaṃ. Chidde, rājiyā vā hi sati tehi adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahatīti vijahite nāyaṃ paṭisedho, tasmā paccuddharitvā, vikappetvāpi aññaṃ viññāpetuṃ na labhati.

608. If one were to say: 'In accordance with the statement, “Due to a deficiency in the firing, it does not attain the designation of a bowl,” does even a determined bowl abandon its determination due to a rough firing and becoming white?' No, because it is not included among the nine grounds for abandoning a determination. Therefore, it is only due to the deficiency of the first firings that it does not attain the designation of a bowl; while that is the case, it is not allowable to request another. For it is said, 'With less than five bindings.' For only when there is a hole or a crack does it abandon the determination on account of them. When it is abandoned, this prohibition does not apply. Therefore, having withdrawn the determination and having made a formal disposal, one is allowed to request another.

Evaṃ pattakārako mūlaṃ labhitvāti ettha pacitvā ṭhapitadivasato paṭṭhāya. Dātukāmo hutvāti ettha dinnadivasato, sutadivasato vā [Pg.268] paṭṭhāya dasāhaṃ veditabbaṃ. Liṅgaparivattena pana dasāhātikkame pattasāmikassa bhikkhussa, bhikkhuniyā pana rattātikkame nissaggiyaṃ.

Thus, in the phrase 'the bowl-maker, having received the price,' the period begins from the day it was fired and set aside. In the phrase 'wishing to give,' ten days should be understood beginning from the day it was given or from the day it was heard of. However, by a change of gender, upon exceeding ten days, it becomes an item to be forfeited for the bhikkhu who is the owner of the bowl; but for a bhikkhunī, upon exceeding one night, it becomes an item to be forfeited.

Pattasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning the bowl is finished.

2. Ūnapañcabandhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning a Bowl with Fewer than Five Bindings

612-3. Bahū patte viññāpentīti ekamekaṃ viññāpentā bahū bhikkhū bahū patte viññāpenti, bahū vā bhikkhū patte viññāpentīti attho. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, patto viññāpetabbo, yo viññāpeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ ūnapañcabandhanena samūhataṃ hoti na hotīti? Na hoti tameva gahetvā ‘‘viññāpeti, payoge dukkaṭa’’nti vuttattāti eke. Paṭilābhampi pariyādiyitvā taṃ dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā taṃ ‘‘paṭilābhena nissaggiyo hotī’’ti iminā samūhataṃ hoti. Aññathā sadukkaṭaṃ nissaggiyaṃ āpajjati anāpattivāravirodho ca. Yā kāci pana akataviññatti ananuññātakāle dukkaṭameva. Bhinnenāti itthambhūtalakkhaṇe, bhedenāti vā attho, hetvatthe karaṇavacanaṃ.

612-3. In 'requesting many bowls,' the meaning is that many bhikkhus, requesting one by one, request many bowls, or that many bhikkhus request bowls. Is this training rule—'Bhikkhus, a bowl is not to be requested; whoever should request one, there is an offense of wrong-doing'—abolished by the rule concerning a bowl with fewer than five bindings, or not? Some say it is not, because, taking that very rule, it is stated: 'He requests; in the effort, there is a dukkaṭa.' That dukkaṭa was stated encompassing even the acquisition; therefore, that rule is abolished by this one: 'With the acquisition, it becomes an item to be forfeited.' Otherwise, one would incur a nissaggiya offense together with a dukkaṭa, and there would be a contradiction with the section on non-offenses. However, any unmade request at an unallowed time is simply a dukkaṭa. In 'bhinnena' (by a broken one), the instrumental case is in the sense of indicating a state. Or the meaning is 'by means of a break' or 'because of a break'; the instrumental case is in the sense of cause.

Ūnapañcabandhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning a bowl with fewer than five bindings is finished.

3. Bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Medicine

620. ‘‘Sā ahosi suvaṇṇamālā’’ti vacanato ṭhapetvā sahadhammike aññesaṃ yathāsukhaṃ rūpiyaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭati uggaṇhāpetuṃ, sabyohārāpebhuñcāti ācariyo, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ iddhimassa iddhivisayattā.

620. Because of the phrase 'She became a golden garland,' the teacher said that, setting aside co-religionists, it is allowable for others to give silver as they wish, to have it accepted, and to have it used in trade. This should be investigated, as it is within the sphere of power of one with psychic power.

622. ‘‘Yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī’’ti vacanena yesaṃ maṃsaṃ na kappati, tesaṃ sappiādi kiñcāpi na kappati, na pana nissaggiyavatthūti veditabbaṃ. Tathā na paṇītabhojanavatthūti. Uggahitakaṃ katvā nikkhittanti ajjhoharaṇatthaṃ nikkhittaṃ. Itarañhi paṭiggahetvā ajjhoharituṃ vaṭṭati. Ubhayesampīti pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitehi, purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitehi ca katānaṃ. ‘‘Maṃsassa akappiyattā’’ti kāraṇapatirūpakaṃ vatvā. Khādiṃsūti ‘‘vikāle [Pg.269] kevalaṃ navanītameva khāditukāmena dadhitakkagatāni apanetabbāni, pacitukāmassa sāmaṃpākaṃ na hotīti therassa adhippāyo’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Khayaṃ gamissatī’’ti vacanato khīraṃ pakkhipitvā pakkasappi vikāle kappatīti siddhaṃ. Bhesajjehīti yāvajīvikabhesajjehi. Katatelaṃ purebhattanti apacitvā kataṃ eva. Uṇhodakenāti tāpanabhāvaṃ dīpetīti keci, taṃ na sundaraṃ. Nibbaṭṭitattāti piññākādito. ‘‘Telatthāya paṭiggahita…pe… dukkaṭamevā’’ti vacanato atelatthāya paṭiggahitehi, sattāhātikkantehipi katatelaṃ katadivasato paṭṭhāya sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatīti chāyā dissati, karamandaṃ rukkhasāroti keci.

622. By the statement, 'for whom meat is allowable,' it should be known that for those beings for whom meat is not allowable, although ghee and so forth derived from them are not allowable, they are not items to be forfeited (nissaggiya). Likewise, it should be known that they are not items of fine food (paṇītabhojana). 'Having taken it up and set it down' means set down for the purpose of consumption. As for the other kind, it is indeed allowable to receive and consume it. 'For both' refers to that made from items received after the meal and from items received before the meal. Having stated, 'Because of the unallowability of the meat,' as a semblance of a reason. Regarding 'They ate,' it is said: 'By one who wishes to eat only fresh butter at an improper time, the particles of curd and buttermilk should be removed; for one who wishes to cook, there is no self-cooking. This is the Elder's intention.' From the statement, 'It will spoil,' it is established that cooked ghee with milk added is allowable at an improper time. 'With medicines' means with lifelong medicines. 'Oil made before the meal' means simply that which is made without being cooked. Regarding 'with hot water,' some say it indicates a state of being hot, but that is not fitting. 'Because it is produced' means from oil-cake and so forth. From the statement, 'Received for the purpose of oil... it is only a dukkaṭa offense,' an implication is seen that oil made from items received for a purpose other than oil, even those that have passed seven days, is allowable for seven days starting from the day it was made. Some say that karamanda is tree pith.

623. Avasakasaṭe yasmā khīrādīni pakkhipitvā telaṃ pacanti, tasmā kasaṭaṃ na vaṭṭati, telameva vaṭṭati, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘pakkatelakasaṭe viya kukkuccāyatī’’ti. Vasāya saddhiṃ pakkattā na vaṭṭatīti ce? Vadatha, bhante, navanīte dadhiguḷikātiādisambandho. Madhumhi cattāro kālikā yathāsambhavaṃ yojetabbā, ucchumhi ca, kathaṃ? Samakkhikaṃ seḷakaṃ madhu yāvakālikaṃ. Anelakaṃ udakasambhinnaṃ yāmakālikaṃ, asambhinnaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ, madhusiṭṭhaṃ parisuddhaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ. Tathā ucchu vā raso vā sakasaṭo yāvakāliko, nikkasaṭo udakasambhinno yāmakāliko, asambhinno sattāhakāliko, sukkhakasaṭaṃ yāvajīvikanti veditabbaṃ. Kasmā? Udakasambhedavisesato.

623. Because they cook oil by adding milk and other things into fat-less dregs, the dregs are not allowable; only the oil is allowable. Therefore, it is said: 'He has scruples as with cooked oil dregs.' If it is said that it is not allowable because of being cooked together with animal fat, one should state the connection, venerable sir, with the case of things like curd-lumps in fresh butter. In honey, the four time-limited allowances should be applied as is suitable, and in sugarcane as well. How? Honey containing bees and bee larvae is allowable for the morning. Honey without bee larvae, when mixed with water, is allowable for one watch; when unmixed, it is allowable for seven days. Pure beeswax is allowable for a lifetime. Similarly, sugarcane or its juice with dregs is allowable for the morning; without dregs and mixed with water, it is allowable for one watch; when unmixed, it is allowable for seven days. Dried dregs are allowable for a lifetime. Thus it should be known. Why? Because of the distinction of being mixed with water.

Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Catūsu kālikesu pubbaṃ pubbaṃ garukaṃ, aparaṃ aparaṃ lahukaṃ. Tesu cāyaṃ udakasambhedo garukaṃ lahukaṃ karoti, lahukañca garukaṃ. Ambarasādīni hi yāvakālikattā garukāni, udakasambhedo pana tāni ambapānādisamaññaṃ datvā lahukāni yāmakālikāni karoti. ‘‘Phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchumhā nibbattanti ucchurasaṃ upādāyā’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanato ucchuraso sattāhakālikoti siddhaṃ. Tattha ‘‘udakasambhedo taṃ yāmakālikaṃ karotī’’tiādiṃ bahuṃ vatvā yojitā.

What is said? Among the four time-limited allowances, the former are stricter and the latter are more lenient. Among them, this mixing with water makes the strict lenient, and the lenient strict. Indeed, things like mango juice are strict because they are allowable for the morning, but mixing with water, by giving them the designation of 'mango drink' and so on, makes them lenient and allowable for one watch. From the commentary's statement, 'Molasses is produced from sugarcane, taking sugarcane juice as its source,' it is established that sugarcane juice is allowable for seven days. There, the application is made after saying much, such as, 'mixing with water makes it allowable for one watch,' and so on.

Apicettha ucchuraso ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ucchurasa’’nti (mahāva. 300) anuññātattā guḷodakaṃ viya ucchurasasāmaññato udakena asambhinnopi agilānassa [Pg.270] vaṭṭati, tenevāha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘ucchuraso nikasaṭo pacchābhattaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti (mahā. aṭṭha. 300). Ayaṃ sabbo no takkoti ācariyo. Keci panāhu ‘‘phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchumhā nibbatta’nti vacanato, ‘ucchurasaṃ upādāyā’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanato ca ucchuraso phāṇitameva, tasmā guḷe viya paṭipajjitabba’’nti. Keci ‘‘vuttanayena sattāhakālikova samāno ‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ucchurasa’nti visuṃ anuññātattā asambhinnopi agilānassa vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Keci ‘‘vuttanayena visuṃ anuññātattā eva sambhinno vā asambhinno vā yāmakālikova, guḷodakaṃ pana sattāhakālikamevā’’ti vadanti. Keci ‘‘guḷodakaṃ viya so duvidhopi sattāhakālikoyevā’’ti vadanti.

Moreover, herein, sugarcane juice, because it was allowed by the words, “I allow, O monks, sugarcane juice,” is, like jaggery water, by virtue of being generally sugarcane juice, allowable for one who is not ill even if unmixed with water. For that very reason, it is said in the Commentary: “Sugarcane juice, if without dregs, is allowable after the meal.” This entire decision is our reasoning, thus says the teacher. Some, however, say: “Because of the Pali text which says, ‘Molasses is produced from sugarcane,’ and because of the word of the Commentary, ‘based on sugarcane juice,’ sugarcane juice is indeed molasses. Therefore, it should be treated like jaggery.” Some say: “By the aforesaid method, although it is a seven-day provision, because it is separately allowed with the words, ‘I allow, O monks, sugarcane juice,’ it is allowable for one who is not ill even if unmixed.” Some say: “By the aforesaid method, precisely because it is separately allowed, whether mixed or unmixed, it is indeed a one-watch provision; jaggery water, however, is indeed a seven-day provision.” Some say: “Like jaggery water, that sugarcane juice of both kinds is indeed a seven-day provision.”

Tatthāyaṃ paṭhamācariyavāde vicāraṇā – phāṇitānumatiyāyeva ucchurasānumatiyā siddhito visuṃ ‘‘ucchurasa’’nti uddharitvā anumati niratthikāti āpajjati, tathā ‘‘ucchuraso nikasaṭo pacchābhattaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti aṭṭhakathāpi niratthikā. ‘‘Sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vattabbaṃ siyāti, na ca tathā sakkā vattuṃ. Pacchābhattaṃ vaṭṭanakarasādhikārattāti ce? Na, tasmiṃ adhikāre sattāhakālikassa avattabbappasaṅgato. Kālabhedaṃ anapekkhitvā rasādhikāre otiṇṇattā vuttoti ce? Na sakkā ‘‘nikasaṭo sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vattuṃ. Pacchābhattaṃ vaṭṭanakarasādhikārattā na vattabbanti ce? Na, evañhi vutte tadaññaraso viya ayampi pacchābhattameva vaṭṭati, na tato paranti āpajjati. Tato paraṃ aparibhogattā ‘‘pacchābhattaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttanti ce? Na, yāvakālikabhāvappasaṅgato. Na so pasaṅgo ābhidosikassāpi ucchurasassa pākena phāṇitādibhāvappasaṅgato. Ayameva tatiyacatutthācariyavādesu vicāraṇā. Dutiyavāde vicāraṇā vuttā, vimaddo panettha bhesajjakkhandhake (mahāva. 300) āvi bhavissati. Phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchumhā nibbattanti madhukatālanāḷikeraphāṇitādito ukkaṭavatthuto nissaggiyavatthuphāṇitassa visesavacanaṃ, tenetaṃ paññāyati ‘‘nissaggiyavatthubhūtaṃ idha phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchumhā nibbattameva, na madhukādito nibbatta’’nti. Ettāvatā yaṃkiñci ucchumhā nibbattaṃ, na taṃ sabbaṃ phāṇitameva nāmāti sādhitaṃ hoti. Teneva khandhake phāṇitaṃ paṭhamaṃ anujānitvāva pacchā ucchuraso anuññāto, tathā tattheva guḷaṃ, guḷodakañca.

Herein is the examination of the first teacher's view: by the permission for molasses alone, since the permission for sugarcane juice is accomplished, it follows that a separate permission, having extracted the term 'sugarcane juice,' is pointless. Likewise, the commentary stating, 'Unstrained sugarcane juice is allowable after the meal,' would also be pointless. It should be said, 'It is allowable for seven days,' but it cannot be said so. If it is said that this is because it falls under the category of juices allowable after the meal? No, because in that category, it would follow that a seven-day allowable is not to be mentioned. If it is said that it is stated thus because it is included in the category of juices without regard to the difference in time-period? It cannot be said, 'Unstrained sugarcane juice is allowable for seven days.' If it is said that it is not stated thus because it falls under the category of juices allowable after the meal? No, for if it were said so, it would follow that this juice, like other juices, is allowable only after the meal, and not beyond that. If it is said, 'It is allowable after the meal' because it is not consumed beyond that? No, because this would lead to the consequence of it being a yāvakālika item. That consequence would not arise, because even for sugarcane juice that is left overnight, through cooking, it would follow that it attains the state of molasses and so on. This very same is the examination in the views of the third and fourth teachers. The examination of the second view has been stated; the detailed analysis of this will become clear in the Chapter on Medicines (Mahāvagga 300). The phrase, 'Molasses is what is produced from sugarcane,' is a specific statement distinguishing the molasses that is a Nissaggiya item from items of wrong-doing (dukkata) such as molasses from the madhuka tree, palmyra, coconut, and so on. By this it is understood: 'Here, what is called molasses that has become a Nissaggiya item is only that produced from sugarcane, not that produced from madhuka, etc.' By this much, it is established that not everything produced from sugarcane is called 'molasses'. For that very reason, in the Khandhaka, having first allowed molasses, sugarcane juice was allowed afterwards; similarly, in that same place, jaggery and jaggery-water were also allowed.

Ucchurasaṃ [Pg.271] upādāya apakkā vātiādimhi pana yesaṃ laddhi ‘‘ucchuraso yāmakāliko’’ti. ‘‘Te apakkā vāti sāmaṃ bhikkhunā apakkā vā. Avatthukapakkā vāti vinā vatthunā pakkā vā’’ti atthaṃ vaṇṇayanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ ‘‘ucchurasaṃ upādāyā’’ti imassa vacanassa payojanābhāvappasaṅgato, bhikkhuno pacanādhikārābhāvā. Sāmapāko idhādhippetoti ce? Sāmaṃ apakkassa ucchurasassa tesaṃ attanomatiyā phāṇitabhāvasiddhito ca parato ‘‘purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitena aparissāvitaucchurasena kataphāṇita’’ntiādinayadassanato ca taṃ ayuttaṃ, tattha ‘‘aparissāvitaucchurasena sayaṃkataṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanaṃ yaṃ tattha kasaṭaṃ sāmapākaṃ na janeti, savatthukapaṭiggahitakataṃyeva taṃ karotīti dīpeti, tasmā paṭiggahetuṃ na vaṭṭati vikāleti porāṇā. ‘‘Koṭṭitaucchuphāṇitaṃ ‘rajanapākaṃ viya oḷārikaṃ savatthukapakkaṃ nāma hotī’ti saññāya purebhattameva vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathācariyā ‘‘evaṃ phāṇitaggahaṇaṃ amadhuraṃ, tasmā pacchābhattaṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadiṃsu. Kiṃ madhuratāya, amadhuratāya vāti? Atthameva dassetuṃ mahāpaccariyaṃ tathā vuttanti upatissatthero āha kira. Taṃ yuttanti ucchuto nibbattattā vuttaṃ, tenevāha ‘‘khaṇḍasakkharaṃ pana…pe… vaṭṭatī’’ti. ‘‘Taṃ khīraghaṭe pakkhipitvā pacantī’’ti likhitaṃ. Jallikā nāma pheṇādi.

Regarding the phrase '`ucchurasaṃ upādāya apakkā vā`' and so on, there are those whose view is that 'sugarcane juice is a `yāmakālika`.' They explain '`apakkā vā`' as 'uncooked by the monk himself,' or '`avatthukapakkā vā`' as 'cooked without a substance.' This is not suitable, as it would follow that the phrase '`ucchurasaṃ upādāya`' has no purpose, and that a monk has no authority to cook. If it is said that self-cooking is intended here, that is unsuitable, both because, by their own opinion, uncooked sugarcane juice is established as being molasses, and because of the method shown later, such as 'molasses made from unstrained sugarcane juice received before the meal,' and so on. Therein, the statement 'what is made by oneself from unstrained sugarcane juice is allowable only when unmixed with other provisions' indicates that the dregs therein do not constitute an act of self-cooking; rather, it renders it as something made after having been received together with its substance. Therefore, the ancients say it is not allowable to receive it at an improper time. It is said: 'Molasses from pounded sugarcane is allowable only before the meal, with the perception that "like the cooking of dye, it is coarse and is called 'cooked with substance'"'. The teachers of the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā said, 'Thus, the acceptance of molasses that is not sweet is not allowable after the meal.' What does it matter whether it is sweet or not sweet? The Elder Upatissa reportedly said that it was stated thus in the Mahāpaccarī just to show the meaning. That is suitable; it is said because it is produced from sugarcane. For that very reason, he said, 'But sugar candy... is allowable.' It is written, 'They cook it by putting it in a pot of milk.' `Jallikā` means foam and so on.

Bhesajjodisaṃ vadantena itare atthuddhāravasena vuttā. ‘‘Āhāratthaṃ pharituṃ samatthānī’’ti khandhake (mahāva. 260) ‘‘yaṃ bhesajjañceva assa bhesajjasammatañca lokassa, āhāratthañca phareyyā’’ti vuttattā vuttaṃ. Ettha vicāraṇā bhesajjakkhandhake āvi bhavissati.

By the one who spoke the designation of medicine, the other designations are stated by way of extracting their meaning. The phrase 'capable of serving the purpose of nourishment' is stated because it is said in the Khandhaka (Mahāvagga 260): 'Whatever is both a medicine and is considered a medicine by the world, and would also serve the purpose of nourishment.' Herein, the detailed investigation will become manifest in the Bhesajjakkhandhaka (Chapter on Medicine).

624. Dvāravātapānakavāṭānīti dvārassa ca vātapānānañca kavāṭāni. Kasāvapakkhepamattena hi tāni attano sabhāvaṃ pariccajitāni honti, tasmā ‘‘makkhetabbānī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Kasāvo nāma kanakalambādīnipī’’ti vadanti. Adhiṭṭhetīti ‘‘idāni ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ na bhavissati, bāhiraparibhogo bhavissatī’’ti cittaṃ uppādeti. Idha ‘‘vikappetī’’ti padaṃ natthi. Adhiṭṭhānampi mukhāruḷhiyā vuttaṃ ‘‘imaṃ navanītaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī’’ti avattabbato.

624. `Dvāravātapānakavāṭāni` means the shutters of the door and of the windows. For, by the mere application of an astringent dye, they abandon their own nature; therefore, it is said, 'they should be smeared.' They say, 'An astringent dye also includes things like golden-colored liquid extracts and so on.' 'He determines' means he gives rise to the thought, 'Now this will not be for consumption; it will be for external use.' Here, the word 'vikappeti' is not found. The determination is also stated by way of common parlance, because 'I determine this fresh butter' should not be said.

625. Paribhuñjituṃ [Pg.272] pana na vaṭṭatīti vissāsābhāvaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sace savissāso, vaṭṭatīti ‘‘paribhuñja tva’’nti ettāvatā vissajjitaṃ hoti, tasmā ubhinnaṃ anāpattīti sambandho. Sace na vissajjitaṃ, āpatti hotīti siddhaṃ. Tasmā ubhinnaṃ santakaṃ cīvaraṃ aññatarena sammukhībhūtena adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. No ce adhiṭṭhāti, nissaggiyaṃ hotītipi yujjati. Kākanikamattañce mūlaṃ adinnaṃ, ‘‘na adhiṭṭhānupagaṃ…pe… sakabhāvaṃ na upetī’’ti iminā etaṃ sadisaṃ na hoti, ābhidhammikagaṇānaṃ dinnaṃ viya ca na hoti. Kasmā? Ābhidhammikā hi anupasampannāpi honti, pacchā ābhidhammikabhūtānampi taṃ sādhāraṇaṃ hotīti. Ettha dvepi upasampannā eva, dvinnampi tattha yathākāmakaraṇīyatā atthi mamattañca, na evaṃ tadaññesaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ, na ca dve tayo bhikkhū ‘‘ekato vassissāmā’’ti karonti, rakkhati tāva. ‘‘Avibhattattā anāpattī’’ti iminā ca idaṃ sadisaṃ, yena mūlena paṭiggahitaṃ, tassa sace itaro deti, so vā taṃ itarassa deti, sati paṭiggahaṇe sattāhātikkame nissaggiyattā, tasmā taṃ cīvaraṃ dvīsu sammukhībhūtena ekena adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Kiñcāpi ettha payogo na dissati samānaparikkhārānaṃ dvinnaṃ adhiṭṭhānapayogābhāvato, tathāpi samānasabbabhaṇḍakānaṃ dvinnaṃ telādi yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tassa kālātikkame āpattisambhavato, anadhiṭṭhāne dullabhavisesahetuttā ca ‘‘adhiṭṭhātabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Taṃ ayuttaṃ pattacīvarasattāhakālikānaṃ asadisavidhānattā. Ettha pattacīvarañhi attano santakabhāvaṃ upagatameva anadhiṭṭhahantassa kālātikkame āpatti, sattāhakālikaṃ pana parasantakasādhāraṇampi paṭiggahitaṃ paṭiggāhakassa kālātikkame āpattikaraṃ. Paṭiggahaṇañcettha pamāṇaṃ, na tattha sakasantakatā, sattāhakālikañca nissaggiyaṃ, sabbesampi anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ. Pattacīvaraṃ aññassa paribhuñjato anāpatti. Idañca kālātikkantampi nissajjitvā pacchā laddhaṃ kappati. Pattacīvaraṃ pana taṃ tassa vinayakammanti kappatīti. Avibhattassapi imassa dānaṃ ruhati, na pattacīvarassa. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘dvinnaṃ santakaṃ hoti…pe… sacepi avibhajitvā saddhivihārikādīnaṃ denti, adinnameva hotī’’ti. Yassa dānameva na ruhati, tassa kuto adhiṭṭhānaṃ. Eko ce pattacīvaraṃ dasame divase itarassa deti. Tato paṭṭhāya so dasa divase pariharituṃ labhati[Pg.273], na tathā sattāhakālikanti sabbathā upaparikkhiyamānaṃ sarikkhaṃ nakkhamatīti na taṃ sārato daṭṭhabbanti ācariyassa takko. ‘‘Vinayakammavasena pana anissajjitvā sahasā virujjhitvā kassaci pariccattampi puna paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ, sace desantaritaṃ, samuddantaritaṃ vā cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ jātaṃ, taṃ idha ṭhitena bhikkhunā ekassa vantena cittena cattaṃ katvā anapekkhitvā āpattiṃ desetvā tassa vissāsena puna gahetvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, ‘‘pattādīsu ca ayameva nayo’’ti ca vuttaṃ, ‘‘tālanāḷikeraphāṇitampi sattāhakālikaṃ evā’’ti ca. ‘‘Dvinnaṃ santakaṃ ekena paṭiggahitaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ sattāhātikkame āpattiṃ na karoti, paribhuñjituṃ pana dvinnampi na vaṭṭatī’’ti ca ‘‘parasantakaṃ paṭiggahetvā ṭhapitepi eseva nayo’’ti ca keci vadanti. Dukkaṭavatthubhūtaṃ sappiādi nissajjitabbaṃ puna paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti vidhānaṃ na dissatīti.

625. “However, it is not permissible to use it”—this was stated with reference to the absence of familiarity. If there is familiarity, it is permissible. Thus, by saying, “You may use it,” it is considered relinquished, and so there is no offense for either. If it is not relinquished, an offense occurs—this is established. Therefore, a robe belonging to both should be formally determined by one who is present. If one does not determine it, it becomes forfeitable—this is also reasonable. If even a capital share the size of a kākaṇika has not been given, this case is not similar to the statement, “It is not subject to determination… it does not attain the state of being one's own,” nor is it like something given to groups of Abhidhamma scholars. Why? Because Abhidhamma scholars can even be unordained, and later, that item remains common property even for those who become Abhidhamma scholars. Here, both are ordained monks, and both have the right to act as they wish concerning it, and a sense of ownership; it is not in this way common property for others, nor do two or three monks make an agreement, saying, “We will spend the rains retreat together”; for the time being, it is protected. And this case is similar to the statement, “Because it is undivided, there is no offense.” By whichever person it was received with the capital, if the other gives his share to him, or if that person gives it to the other, upon this receiving, it becomes forfeitable with the passing of seven days. Therefore, that robe should be determined by one of the two who is present. Although in this case a procedure is not seen—due to the absence of the procedure of determination for the shared requisites of two monks—nevertheless, it is said, “It should be determined,” because for two who share all items, if oil and so on are received by one, an offense can occur for him when the time passes, and because not determining it is a cause for a rare, special case. That is unsuitable, because the regulations for bowls and robes, and for seven-day medicaments, are not similar. Here, a bowl or robe that has indeed attained the state of being one's own property incurs an offense for the one who does not determine it when the time passes. A seven-day medicament, however, even if it is common property with another, when received, causes an offense for the receiver when the time passes. And in this case, the act of receiving is the standard, not personal ownership. And a seven-day medicament is forfeitable; it is not to be consumed by any monk. There is no offense for someone who uses another's bowl or robe. And this item, even if the time has passed, is allowable if it is received again after having been forfeited. A bowl or robe, however, is allowable for that person as a formal act of discipline. The giving of this seven-day medicament is valid even if it is undivided, but not so for a bowl or robe. For this is stated in the commentary: “It is the property of two… if they give it to co-residents and others without dividing it, it is as if not given.” For one whose very act of giving is not valid, how can there be determination? If one monk gives a bowl or robe to another on the tenth day, from that day onward, that monk may keep it for ten days; it is not so for a seven-day medicament. Thus, when thoroughly examined in every way, the comparison is not tenable. Therefore, that should not be regarded as the essential point—this is the teacher’s reasoning. But it has been said: “Even if given up to someone after hastily quarreling, without having forfeited it by means of a formal act of discipline, it is not allowable to get it back and use it.” If a robe has become forfeitable because it is in another region or across an ocean, a monk who is here should, with a mind that has relinquished it, having made it abandoned and without regard for it, confess the offense, and then, through familiarity with him, take it back again and determine it. And it has been said: “This same method applies to bowls and so on,” and, “Even palmyra and coconut molasses are indeed seven-day medicaments.” And some say: “A seven-day medicament belonging to two, received by one, does not create an offense when seven days pass, but it is not allowable for either to use it,” and, “This same method applies even when another's property is received and stored.” A regulation stating that ghee and so on, which has become the basis for a dukkaṭa offense, should be forfeited and is then allowable to be used again, is not seen.

Bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule concerning medicines is concluded.

4. Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning the Rainy-Season Robe

627. ‘‘Ekameva katvā’’ti vacanena vassikasāṭikalakkhaṇena ñātakānampi satuppādaṃ karontena ekameva gahetabbanti dhammasiritthero. Catubbidhaṃ khettanti ettha kiñcāpi tividhaṃ dissati, taṃ pana evaṃ gahetabbaṃ, yasmiṃ khette pariyesituṃ labhati, taṃ pariyesanakhettaṃ nāma, ‘‘evaṃ karaṇanivāsanādhiṭṭhānakhettānipī’’ti vuttaṃ. Ettha pacchimena purimaggāho veditabbo, na purimena pacchimaggāho, yathālābhanti ācariyo. Tassattho – adhiṭṭhānakhettena pacchimena purimānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ gāho hoti, tathā nivāsanakhettena dvinnaṃ purimānaṃ. Karaṇakhettena pana ekasseva purimassa gāho hotīti. Ettha pana kiñcāpi karaṇakhettanivāsanakhettānaṃ kālato nānattaṃ natthi, kiriyato pana ‘‘aṭṭhiṃ katvā nivāsetabba’’nti pāḷivacanato, tasmā dvidhā katvā vuttaṃ aññatarābhāvena, tadatthasiddhito ca, kathaṃ panettha nānattaṃ natthīti paññāyatīti ce? Pāḷito, ‘‘aḍḍhamāso seso gimhānanti katvā nivāsetabba’’nti hi pāḷi, tathā mātikāṭṭhakathāto (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ca.

627. The Elder Dhammasiri says that by the phrase 'Only one having been made,' and by the characteristic of a rainy-season robe, a monk who causes mindfulness to arise even for his relatives should accept only one. Regarding 'the fourfold field,' although a threefold one appears here, it should be understood thus: the field in which one is able to search is called the searching field. It is said, 'Likewise are the making, wearing, and determination fields.' Here, the inclusion of the former by the latter should be understood, not the inclusion of the latter by the former; it is 'according to what is obtained,' says the teacher. Its meaning is this: by the determination field, which is the last, there is the inclusion of the three former fields. Likewise, by the wearing field, there is the inclusion of the two former fields. But by the making field, there is the inclusion of only the one former field. Here, although there is no difference in terms of time between the making field and the wearing field, there is a difference in terms of action, due to the Pāli statement, 'Having made it firm, it should be worn.' Therefore, it is spoken of as twofold. And due to the absence of one or the other, and because the purpose of that is established, if it is asked, 'How is it known that there is no difference here?' It is known from the Pāli. Indeed, there is the Pāli text: 'Thinking, “Half a month of the hot season remains,” it should be worn,' and likewise from the Mātikāṭṭhakathā.

Tathāha [Pg.274] ‘‘pacchimo aḍḍhamāso karaṇanivāsanakhettampī’’ti, iminā nayena tividhameva khettantipi siddhaṃ. Samantapāsādikāyaṃ pana katthaci potthake ‘‘jeṭṭhamūlapuṇṇamāsiyā pacchimapāṭipadadivasato paṭṭhāya yāva kāḷapakkhuposatho, ayameko addhamāso pariyesanakhettañceva karaṇakhettañca. Etasmiñhi antare vassikasāṭikaṃ aladdhaṃ pariyesituṃ, laddhaṃ kātuñca vaṭṭati, nivāsetuṃ, adhiṭṭhātuñca na vaṭṭatī’’ti pāṭho dissati, so apāṭho yathāvuttapāḷimātikāṭṭhakathāvirodhato, tasmā tattha ‘‘aladdhaṃ pariyesituṃ vaṭṭati, kātuṃ, nivāsetuṃ, adhiṭṭhātuñca na vaṭṭatī’’ti pāṭho veditabbo. Evaṃ tāva pacchimena purimaggāhasiddhi veditabbā, na purimena karaṇakhettādīnaṃ gāho sambhavati. ‘‘Māso seso gimhānanti vassikasāṭikacīvaraṃ pariyesitabba’’nti ettakameva hi vuttaṃ, na, aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘ayameko addhamāso pariyesanakhettañceva karaṇakhettañcā’’ti vuttattāti ce? Na, tassa lekhanadosattā, tathā sādhitaṃ. Karaṇakhettena pana nivāsanakhettaggāho atthi kālanānattābhāvato, teneva pubbe yathālābhaggahaṇaṃ kataṃ, tathā ca sādhitameva, na bhedo panatthi, payojanaṃ vuttameva. Nivāsanakkhettena adhiṭṭhānakkhettaggāho natthi eva, na hi purimena pacchimaggāho veditabbo. Na pāḷivirodhatoti ce? Na, tadatthājānanato. ‘‘Māso seso gimhānanti addhamāso seso gimhāna’’nti ettha iti-saddassa hi ito paṭṭhāyāti attho. Parato āpattikhettadassanato itarassa anāpattikhettabhāvo dassitova hoti. Dinnapubbatopi ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato nipphādentassa nissaggiyaṃ piṭṭhisamayattā, pakatiyā vassikasāṭikadāyakā nāma saṅghassa vā puggalassa vā apavāretvā anusaṃvaccharaṃ dentā, tattha satuppādova vaṭṭati. Vattabhede dukkaṭanti tadaññesu.

For thus it is said: 'The latter half-month is also the field for making and wearing,' and by this method, the threefold field is also established. However, in some manuscripts of the Samantapāsādikā, this reading is seen: 'From the day after the full moon of Jeṭṭhamūla until the Uposatha of the dark fortnight, this one half-month is both the field for searching and the field for making. During this interval, it is permissible to search for the rainy-season robe if not yet obtained and to make it if obtained, but it is not permissible to wear it or to determine it.' That is an incorrect reading because it contradicts the aforesaid Pāli, Mātikā, and Commentary. Therefore, the reading there should be understood as: 'It is permissible to search for it if not obtained, but it is not permissible to make it, wear it, or determine it.' Thus, firstly, it should be understood that the inclusion of the earlier periods by the latter period is established; the inclusion of the field for making and so on by the earlier period is not possible. For it is only said, 'When a month of the hot season remains, the rainy-season robe is to be sought.' If one were to say this is not so because it is stated in the commentary, 'This one half-month is both the field for searching and the field for making,' the reply is: No, because that is a scribal error; it has been established thus. However, by the field for making, the inclusion of the field for wearing exists, due to the absence of a difference in time. For that very reason, the phrase 'according to what is received' was used previously, and thus it has been established. There is no difference, and the purpose has already been stated. By the field for wearing, the inclusion of the field for determination does not exist at all, for indeed, the inclusion of the latter by the former is not to be understood. If one were to say, 'Is it not due to contradiction with the Pāli?' The reply is: No, it is due to not knowing its meaning. Here, regarding the phrase 'When a month of the hot season remains,' the word 'iti' has the meaning 'from this point onward,' thus implying 'when a half-month of the hot season remains.' Because the field of offense is shown later, the state of the other as a field of non-offense is thereby shown. Even if previously given, for one who has it made from a place of relatives or an invited place, it is a nissaggiya offense, due to it being the piṭṭhisamaya (post-period). By nature, those called 'donors of the rainy-season robe' are those who give annually to the Sangha or to an individual without being invited. In that case, only causing mindfulness to arise is proper. In case of a breach of practice, there is a dukkaṭa offense; this applies in the case of others.

‘‘Sace kata…pe… vassūpanāyikadivase adhiṭṭhātabbā…pe… cha māse parihāraṃ labhatī’’ti vacanato antovassepi yāva vassānassa pacchimadivasā akatā parihāraṃ labhatīti dīpitaṃ hoti. Kasmā na vicāritanti ce? Atthāpattisiddhattā. ‘‘Cha māse parihāraṃ labhatī’’ti vacanena akatā labhatīti siddhameva, taṃ kiñcāpi siddhaṃ, sarūpena pana anāgatattā sarūpena dassetuṃ, dussaddhāpayattā upapattito dassetuñca idamāraddhaṃ [Pg.275] ācariyena, ‘‘yathā cettha, evaṃ kathinabbhantare uppannacīvarampi heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabba’’nti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ, taṃ duvuttaṃ tattheva pubbāparavirodhato. Yañcettha aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ sādhakattena vuttaṃ, taṃ tamatthaṃ na sādheti. ‘‘Yadi nappahoti yāva kattikapuṇṇamā parihāraṃ labhatī’’ti vacanaṃ appahontassa yāva kattikapuṇṇamā tāva parihārakhettaṃ, tato paraṃ ekadivasopi na hotīti dīpeti, tasmā appahonakabhāvena akatāva yāva kattikapuṇṇamā parihāraṃ labhati, tato paraṃ na labhatīti siddhaṃ. Tathā tadeva vacanaṃ kataparihāraṃ na labhatīti dīpeti, tasmā kattikapuṇṇamadivaseyeva adhiṭṭhātabbā. ‘‘Appahonte dasāhe antovasse karaṇapariyosānaṃyeva pamāṇa’’nti likhitaṃ.

Because of the statement, 'If made… on the day of entering the rains-residence, it should be determined… one obtains the privilege for six months,' it is thereby shown that even within the rains-residence, if it is not made by the last day of the rains-residence, one obtains the privilege. If it is asked, 'Why is this not investigated?' Because it is established by implication. By the statement, 'one obtains the privilege for six months,' it is indeed established that if it is not made, one obtains it. Although that is established, this was undertaken by the teacher in order to state it explicitly, since it had not been stated explicitly, and to demonstrate it through reasoning, because it is difficult to inspire belief. What was said in the Anugaṇṭhipada, 'Just as here, so too, a robe that has arisen within the kathina period should be dealt with only by the method stated below,' is poorly stated because of the contradiction between the earlier and later parts in that very text. And the statement from the commentary cited here as proof does not accomplish that purpose. The statement, 'If it is not sufficient, one obtains the privilege until the full moon of Kattika,' indicates that for one for whom it is not sufficient, the period of privilege lasts until the full moon of Kattika, and not even a single day beyond. Therefore, it is established that due to the state of insufficiency, if it is not made, one obtains the privilege until the full moon of Kattika, but not beyond. Likewise, that very statement indicates that the privilege is not obtained if it has been made use of; therefore, it should be determined only on the day of the full moon of Kattika. It is written, 'When there is insufficiency, within ten days during the rains-residence, the completion of the making itself is the measure.'

Etthāha – ‘‘ekāhadvīhādivasenā’’tiādi na vattabbaṃ. Kasmā? Gimhadivasānaṃ anadhiṭṭhānakālattā, tasmā eva ‘‘antodasāhe vā tadaheyeva vā adhiṭṭhātabbā’ti ca sāmaññato na vattabbaṃ gimhadivasānaṃ adhiṭṭhānakhettabhāvappasaṅgato’’ti. Ettha vuccati – na, tadatthājānanato. Dasāhānāgatāya vassūpanāyikāya gimhadivasā dasāhā honti, paṭhamadivase ca laddhā niṭṭhitā vassikasāṭikā dasāhātikkantāpi vassūpanāyikadivasaṃ adhiṭṭhānakhettaṃ appattattā na ca tāva nissaggiyaṃ hoti, vuttañcetaṃ ‘‘vassūpanāyikato pubbe dasāhātikkamepi anāpattī’’ti.

Here, an objector says: '“By way of one day, two days, etc.” and so on should not be said. Why? Because the days of the hot season are not a time for determination. Therefore, the general statement “it should be determined within ten days or on that very day” should not be said, because it would follow that the days of the hot season are a period for determination.' Here, the reply is given: No, this is due to not understanding its meaning. For the commencement of the rains-residence that has not yet arrived within ten days, the hot-season days are those ten days. And if a rains-cloth is obtained and completed on the first day, even if ten days have passed, since the period for determination—the day of commencing the rains-residence—has not been reached, it is not yet subject to forfeiture. And this has been said: “Even if ten days are exceeded before commencing the rains-residence, there is no offense.”

Antodasāhe adhiṭṭhātabbāti idaṃ na avisesena etasmiṃ antare gimhadivasepi adhiṭṭhātabbanti imamatthaṃ dīpetuṃ vuttaṃ, kintu gimhadivase ce uppannā, adhiṭṭhānakhette ca antodasāhaṃ hoti, antodasāhe khetteyeva adhiṭṭhātabbā, na khettanti katvā dasāhaṃ atikkamitabbanti dīpetuṃ vuttaṃ. Kasmā? Gimhadivasānampi gaṇanūpagattā, tasmā akhettadivasepi gaṇetvā khette eva ‘‘antodasāhe adhiṭṭhātabbā’’ti vuttaṃ hotīti.

The statement, “It should be determined within ten days,” was not said to indicate this meaning without distinction: that it should be determined even on a hot-season day within this interval. But rather, it was said to indicate this: if a rains-cloth arises on a hot-season day, and the period for determination is within ten days, it should be determined only within that ten-day period; one should not exceed the ten days by considering it not to be the period. Why? Because even the hot-season days are included in the count. Therefore, having counted even the days that are not the period, it is said, “It should be determined within the ten days only within the period.” Thus it should be understood.

Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning the rains-cloth is finished.

5. Cīvaraacchindanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Commentary on the Training Rule on Snatching a Robe

632. Sāmanti [Pg.276] sakasaññitāniyamanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Sakasaññitāyeva hi acchindāpanaacchindanesu nissaggiyaṃ, tasmā nissaggiyamūlaṅganidassanametaṃ. ‘‘Cīvara’’nti vuttattā ‘‘acīvaraṃ acchindantassa na nissaggiya’’nti vuttameva hoti. ‘‘Datvāti datvā vā dāpetvā vā’’ti kiñcāpi padabhājanaṃ yujjati, aññassa pana santakaṃ aññassa bhikkhuno dāpetvā taṃ sayaṃ vā acchindeyya, teneva vā acchindāpeyyāti aniṭṭhappasaṅgabhayā na vuttaṃ, atthato pana attano santakaṃ aññena saddhivihārikādinā dāpetvā, aññassa santakaṃ vā tassa vissāsā dāpetvā taṃ acchindeyya vā acchindāpeyya vā nissaggiyanti veditabbaṃ, tañca kho anapekkho datvā. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘cajitvā dinnaṃ acchinditvā gaṇhanto bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo’’ti idaṃ kinti ce? Sakasaññāya aggahetvā aññāya theyyāya gaṇhantaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, teneva vuttaṃ ‘‘sakasaññāya gahitattā panassa pārājikaṃ natthī’’ti, apica ‘‘anāpatti so vā deti, tassa vā vissasanto gaṇhātī’’ti vacanatopi taṃ siddhameva. Ettāvatā tāvakālikaṃ katvā dinnaṃ acchindantassa anāpatti sādhitā hoti. ‘‘Amhākaṃ santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhissatī’’tiādivacanaṃ sāmaṇerassa dānaṃ dīpeti, tañca idha nādhippetaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ (pārā. 633-634) upasampanne tikapācittiyaṃ viya anupasampanne tikadukkaṭampi āgatanti ce? Na, tadadhippāyājānanato. Anupasampannakāle evaṃ datvā aññassa santike upasampannaṃ disvā kupito ce acchindati, upasampannasseva vā ‘‘sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya tumhākaṃ santike upasampajjissāmī’’ti vadantassa datvā puna acchindati ce, nissaggiyanti ayamettha adhippāyo.

632. The word `sāmaṃ` (oneself) is stated for the purpose of defining the perception of it as one's own property. For it is only with the perception of it as one's own property that in cases of causing to snatch back or snatching back, it is an offense of relinquishment. Therefore, this is an illustration of the root-factor of the offense of relinquishment. Since 'robe' is stated, it is indeed stated that 'for one who snatches back what is not a robe, there is no offense of relinquishment'. Although the word-analysis '`datvā` means having given oneself or having caused another to give' is suitable, it was not stated due to the fear of the undesirable implication that one might cause another's property to be given to another bhikkhu and then snatch it back oneself, or cause it to be snatched back by that very one. In terms of meaning, however, it should be known that if one causes one's own property to be given by another, such as a co-resident, or causes another's property to be given through trust in that person, and then snatches it back or causes it to be snatched back, it is an offense of relinquishment; and this is when it was given without expectation of return. If so, what then is this statement: 'One who, having relinquished it, snatches back what was given, should be dealt with according to the value of the goods'? It was said in reference to one who takes it not with the perception of it as one's own, but with a different perception, that of theft. For that very reason it was said: 'But because it was taken with the perception of it as one's own, there is no pārājika offense for him.' Furthermore, from the statement, 'There is no offense if he gives it, or if one takes it trusting him,' this is indeed established. By this much, the absence of an offense is established for one who snatches back what was given on a temporary basis. The statement 'He will take a preceptor in our presence,' and so forth, indicates a gift to a novice, and that is not intended here. If one should say: 'Just as in the Pāḷi for an ordained person there is a `tikapācittiya`, for an unordained person a `tikadukkaṭa` also is found,' the answer is no, because of not knowing the meaning of that Pāḷi. If, having given thus while he was unordained, one sees him become ordained in the presence of another and, being angry, snatches it back; or if, having given to an ordained person himself who says, 'Having renounced the training, I will become ordained in your presence,' one then snatches it back, it is an offense of relinquishment. This is the meaning here.

633. Sakiṃ āṇatto bahukampi acchindati, nissaggiyanti ekabaddhattā ekaṃ pācittiyaṃ, taṃ sandhāyetaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘āṇatto bahūni gaṇhāti, ekaṃ pācittiya’’nti. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘vatthugaṇanāya āpattiyo’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ āṇattiyā bahuttā ‘‘sabbāni gaṇhā’’ti vadantassa gāhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, teneva tattha vuttaṃ ‘‘ekavācāya sambahulā āpattiyo’’ti. Evaṃ sante pāḷivacanaṃ, aṭṭhakathāvacanadvayañca aññamaññaṃ sameti, parasantakampi nissaggiyaṃ hoti paṃsukūlañca, tena ‘‘dussante baddharūpiyaṃ viyā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ [Pg.277] tadatthaniyamadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, yathāvachāditaṃ acchindanacittena sacittakaṃ, vacīkammaṃ pana kevalaṃ acchindāpentasseva ‘‘dehī’’ti balakkārena gaṇhatopi veditabbaṃ, taṃ na yuttaṃ ‘‘anāpatti so vā detī’’ti vacanato. ‘‘Tuṭṭho vā duṭṭho vā deti, anāpattiyevā’’ti mātikāṭṭhakathāvacanato vāti ce? Na, ubhayattha attano ruciyā dānaṃ sandhāya vuttattā, pasayhāvahāre anāpattippasaṅgato ca. ‘‘Bhikkhussa sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ datvā’ti pāḷivacanato ca mātikāṭṭhakathāya aṅgavavatthāne ‘upasampannatā’ti vuttattā ca ubhayattha dānaharaṇesu bhikkhubhāvo icchitabboti dīpetī’’ti vadanti, idamayuttanti no takkoti ācariyo. Kasmā? Anupasampannassa cīvaraṃ datvā taṃ upasampannakāle acchindantassa anāpattippasaṅgato. ‘‘Anupasampannassa cīvaraṃ vā aññaṃ vā parikkhāraṃ datvā…pe… āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vacanato dukkaṭaṃ tattha hotīti ce? Nāsiddhattā, dānakāle eva upasampannatā pamāṇanti asiddhametaṃ aṭṭhakathāya vā pāḷiyā vā yuttito vā, tasmā taṃ na yuttanti attho. Anupasampannassa cīvaraṃ datvā tasseva anupasampannakāleyeva cīvaraṃ acchindantassa dukkaṭaṃ, upasampannakāle vā datvā anupasampannakāle acchindantassa dukkaṭanti tassa vacanassa idaṃ vikappantarañca sambhavati, tasmā (pārā. 631 ādayo) vikappantarassa sambhavato ca na yuttaṃ, yasmā anupasampannakāle datvā upasampannakāle acchindantassa visuṃ dukkaṭaṃ na paññattaṃ, tasmā purāṇacīvaradhovāpanādisikkhāpadesu viya aparabhāge upasampannatā cettha pamāṇaṃ, tasmā ‘‘upasampannatā’’ti aṅgesu vuttattā ca taṃ na yuttanti attho. Ettha ‘‘paccāsīsantasseva dānamadhippetaṃ, na nissaṭṭhadāna’’nti dhammasiritthero vadati kira, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ.

633. If, having been commanded once, one snatches away even many robes, it is an offense of relinquishment. Here, because they are bound as one, it is one pācittiya offense. In reference to that, this was stated: 'Having been commanded, one takes many; it is one pācittiya offense.' In the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, however, it is stated: 'Offenses are according to the count of the objects.' That was said in reference to the taking by one who says, 'Take all,' due to the command being for many items. For that very reason, it is stated there: 'By one utterance, there are many offenses.' This being so, the statement of the Pāḷi and the two statements of the commentary are in agreement with each other. What belongs to another can become an offense of relinquishment, as can dust-heap cloth. Therefore, it was said, 'Like money bound in the corner of a cloth.' That was said for the purpose of showing the rule for that meaning. It is intentional when done with a mind to snatch away what is concealed. However, the verbal action should be understood to apply not only to one who causes another to snatch away, but also to one who takes by force, saying, 'Give!' That is not correct, on account of the text: 'There is no offense if he gives it...' If it is said that there is no offense on account of the Mātikāṭṭhakathā statement, 'Whether pleased or displeased, one gives; it is indeed no offense'? No, because in both cases, it was said in reference to giving according to one's own wish, and because of the consequence of no offense in a case of taking by force. Some say, 'From the Pāḷi statement, "Having oneself given a robe to a bhikkhu," and because "being ordained" is stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā in the section defining the factors, it is shown that in both cases of giving and taking, the status of a bhikkhu is required.' The teacher says, 'Our reasoning is that this is incorrect.' Why? Because of the consequence of no offense for one who gives a robe to an unordained person and then snatches it away when that person is ordained. If it is said that a dukkaṭa offense is incurred there on account of the statement, 'Having given a robe or other requisite to an unordained person... there is an offense of dukkaṭa'? No, because it is not established. That being ordained at the very time of giving is the standard—this is not established by the commentary, or by the Pāḷi, or by reasoning. Therefore, the meaning is that this is not correct. For one who, having given a robe to an unordained person, snatches away the robe while that same person is still unordained, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Or, for one who, having given it at the time of ordination, snatches it away at the time of non-ordination, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Thus, this alternative explanation of that statement is also possible. Therefore, also because of the possibility of an alternative explanation, it is not correct. Since a separate dukkaṭa offense is not prescribed for one who gives when a person is unordained and snatches it away when they are ordained, therefore, just as in the training rules concerning the washing of old robes and so forth, being ordained at a later stage is the standard here. Therefore, because 'being ordained' is stated among the factors, the meaning is that this is not correct. Here, it is said that the Elder Dhammasiri says, 'The giving intended is only that of one who expects it back, not an outright gift.' This should be investigated.

Cīvaraacchindanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on snatching a robe is concluded.

6. Suttaviññattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Requesting Thread

637. Chaṭṭhe kiñcāpi ‘‘sāmaṃ suttaṃ viññāpetvā’’ti vuttaṃ, mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘cīvaratthāya sāmaṃ viññattaṃ sutta’’nti avatvā kevalaṃ ‘‘cīvaratthāya viññāpitasutta’’nti aṅgesu vuttattā aññena cīvaratthāya viññattaṃ suttampi saṅgahaṃ gacchatīti veditabbaṃ. Sāmanti cettha kassaci niyamanaṃ. ‘‘Sāmaṃ [Pg.278] viññāpetvā’’ti kiñcāpi vuttaṃ, tathāpi ‘‘sāmaṃ vāyāpeyyā’’ti attano atthāya vāyāpeyyāti evaṃ sambandho, attho ca veditabbo, pāḷiyaṃ pana āsannapadena yojanā katā, tasmā sāmaṃ viññattaṃ suttanti aññaviññattaṃ kappiyaṃ āpajjati, hatthakammayācanavasena laddhatantavāyopi kappiyo. Vikappanupagapacchimappamāṇaṃ ce, tante vītaṃyeva sakiṃ adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, puna adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthi adhiṭṭhitena ekībhāvūpagamanato. ‘‘Sace pana paricchedaṃ dassetvāva cinasāṭakaṃ viya, antarantarā adhiṭṭhitaṃ hoti, puna adhiṭṭhātabba’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Paṭilābhenāti vacanena vāyāpetvā ṭhapessāmītiādi ekasmiṃ antogadhaṃ hotī’’ti vadanti.

637. In the sixth, although it is said, “having requested thread oneself,” in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, however, because it is said in the sections merely as “thread requested for the purpose of a robe,” without stating “thread requested by oneself for the purpose of a robe,” it should be understood that thread requested by another for the purpose of a robe is also included. And here, “oneself” does not constitute a restriction regarding anyone. Although it is said, “having requested oneself,” nevertheless, regarding the phrase “one should have it woven oneself,” the connection and the meaning should be understood as “one should have it woven for one’s own purpose.” In the Pāḷi, however, the connection is made with the adjacent word. Therefore, even with the wording “thread requested by oneself,” thread requested by another becomes allowable. Even a weaver obtained by means of requesting handiwork is allowable. If it is the final measure suitable for vikappana that is woven on the loom, it should be determined once only; there is no further task of determination, because of its having reached a state of oneness with what has been determined. It is said: “But if, however, like a Chinese cloth, showing the divisions, it is determined section by section, it must be determined again.” They say that by the phrase “upon acquisition,” such things as “having had it woven, I will set it aside” are included in a single case.

Suttaviññattisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on requesting thread is finished.

7. Mahāpesakārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Major Weavers

642. Visiṭṭhaṃ kappañca tassa vacanena visiṭṭhaṃ katañca pamāṇaṃ, na āmisadānaṃ. Kesuci potthakesu ‘‘cīvara’’nti uddharitvā vibhāgo vutto, taṃ na sametīti.

642. The special arrangement and what is made special by his word is the measure, not the giving of material things. In some manuscripts, a division is spoken of, having extracted the word 'cīvara'; that does not agree.

Mahāpesakārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on Major Weavers is finished.

8. Accekacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Emergency Robe

646. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, accekacīvaraṃ paṭiggahetvā nikkhipitu’’nti, ‘‘yāva pavāraṇā pavāritā’’ti ca yaṃ vuttaṃ, te pana bhikkhū tassa vacanassa atthaṃ micchā gahetvā accekacīvaraṃ nikkhipantā cīvarakālasamayaṃ atikkāmesuṃ. Kimidaṃ vibhattaṃ, udāhu avibhattanti? Vibhattaṃ, puggalikaṃ vā. Teneva parato ‘‘amhākaṃ, āvuso, accekacīvarānī’’ti vuttaṃ, avibhattaṃ pana saṅghikattā na kassaci nissaggiyaṃ karoti.

646. As to what was said: 'I allow, monks, having received an emergency robe, to set it aside,' and 'until the Pavāraṇā has been performed'—those monks, however, having wrongly understood the meaning of that statement, while setting aside the emergency robe, let the robe-season pass. Was this divided, or undivided? It was divided, or belonging to individuals. For that very reason, it was later said, 'Friends, these are our emergency robes.' An undivided robe, however, being communal property, does not become subject to forfeiture for anyone.

Apica ‘‘accekacīvaraṃ paṭiggahetvā nikkhipitu’’nti iminā sāmaññavacanena vassūpanāyikadivasato paṭṭhāya, piṭṭhisamayato paṭṭhāya vā yāva pavāraṇā [Pg.279] nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati eva saṅghikattā, puggalikampi ‘‘vassaṃvutthakāle gaṇhathā’’ti dinnattā. Tādisañhi yāva vassaṃvuttho hoti, tāva na tasseva, dāyakassa santakaṃ hoti, tathā ito tatiyavasse, catutthavasse vā ‘‘pavāraṇāya gaṇhathā’’tiādinā dinnampi nikkhipitvā yathādānameva gahetabbaṃ. Ayamattho aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.646-9 ādayo) pākaṭo. Tāni cīvarakālasamayātikkame na nissaggiyānīti ce? Na, uddissa dinnattā. Yasmā ayaṃ samayo ‘‘kālepi ādissa dinna’’nti ettha ‘‘kālo’’ti āgato, gaṇabhojanasikkhāpadādīsu ‘‘samayo’’tveva āgato, tasmā idha tesaṃ ekatthatādassanatthaṃ ekato ‘‘cīvarakālasamayo’’ti vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Mātikāyaṃ panettha tādisaṃ cīvaraṃ attano santakabhāvaṃ upagataṃ puggalikaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tenevāha ‘‘bhikkhuno paneva accekacīvaraṃ uppajjeyyā’’ti. Attano kuṭiyā vassaṃvutthassa bhikkhuno hi dātuṃ alabhanto antovasse eva dānakiccaṃ pariniṭṭhāpetvā gacchati, tathā saṅghassa. Tasmā idaṃ accekacīvaraṃ atthi uppannakālato paṭṭhāya saṅghassa vā puggalassa vā santakabhāvaṃ upagacchantaṃ, yaṃ na vassāvāsikabhāvena dinnaṃ, atthi uppannakālato paṭṭhāya anupagantvā vassaṃvutthakāleyeva puggalassa vā saṅghassa vā upagacchantaṃ, yaṃ vassāvāsikabhāvena uppajjitvā samaye dinnaṃ, atthi samaye dinnampi puggalassa santakabhāvaṃ anupagacchantaṃ, saṅghasantakabhāvaṃ vā dāyakasantakabhāvaṃ vā upagacchantaṃ, īdisaṃ sandhāya ‘‘saññāṇaṃ katvā nikkhipitabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Idaṃ atirekasaṃvaccharampi nikkhipituṃ labhati attano santakabhāvaṃ anupagatattā, tasmā ‘‘dasāhānāgata’’nti ito aññaṃ sandhāya vuttanti siddhametanti. Dasāhato puretaraṃ labhitvā yāva pavāraṇā nikkhipituṃ na labhati, tasmā sakabhāvūpagatameva adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, taṃyeva sandhāya ‘‘dasāhānāgata’’nti vuttaṃ, yato ‘‘antosamaye adhiṭṭheti, vikappetī’’ti anāpattivāre vuttaṃ. Saññāṇaṃ katvā nikkhipitabbakaṃ pana parassa dātabbatāya sakabhāvaṃ anupagataṃ, na hi taṃ sandhāya ‘‘adhiṭṭheti, vikappetī’’ti sakkā vattuṃ, na ca taṃ imasmiṃ atthe nissaggiyaṃ hoti saṅghassa nissaggiyābhāvato, aṭṭhakathāyampi ayamattho suṭṭhu pākaṭova. Katamaṃ saññāṇaṃ katvā nikkhipitabbanti ce? Parasantakaṃ cīvaraṃ saṅghikameva [Pg.280] hoti, tato ‘‘sallakkhetvā sukhaṃ dātuṃ bhavissatī’’ti iminā hi parassa santakabhāvo dassito.

Furthermore, by this general statement, 'Having received an emergency robe, one may store it,' it is indeed permissible to store it from the day of entering the rains-residence, or from the back-cloth period, until Pavāraṇā, because it is Sangha property; and also a personal robe, because it was given with the instruction, 'Take it at the time of having completed the rains-residence.' For indeed, as long as one has not completed the rains-residence, such a robe does not belong to him; it is the property of the donor. Likewise, a robe given in the third or fourth year from now with instructions such as, 'Take it at Pavāraṇā,' should also be stored and taken only as it was given. This meaning is manifest in the commentary. If it is said, 'Are those robes not subject to forfeiture if the robe-time and season is passed?' No, because they were given with a specific designation. Because this 'samaya' appears as 'kāla' in the phrase 'given with a designation even at the proper time,' and it appears only as 'samaya' in the training rules on group meals and so on, therefore, it should be understood that here, to show their single meaning, it is stated together as 'cīvarakālasamaya' (robe-time-season). Here in the Mātikā, however, such a robe is spoken of with reference to a personal robe that has come into one's own possession. For that very reason, it says, 'If an emergency robe should arise for a monk...' Indeed, being unable to give to a monk who has completed the rains-residence in his own dwelling, a donor completes the act of giving within the rains-residence itself and departs; likewise for the Sangha. Therefore, there is this emergency robe which, starting from the time it arose, comes into the possession of the Sangha or an individual, and which was not given as a rains-residence robe. There is the case where, not coming into possession from the time it arose, it comes into the possession of an individual or the Sangha only at the time of having completed the rains-residence, which, having arisen as a rains-residence robe, was given at the proper time. There is also the case where, even though given at the proper time, it does not come into an individual's possession, but comes into the possession of the Sangha or the possession of the donor. With reference to this kind of robe, it is said, 'It should be stored after making a mark.' This robe may be stored even for more than a year because it has not come into one's own possession. Therefore, it is established that the phrase 'not having reached ten days' is stated with reference to something other than this. Having received it earlier than ten days, it is not permissible to store it until Pavāraṇā. Therefore, only that which has come into one's own possession should be determined. With reference to that very thing, 'not having reached ten days' is stated, since in the section on no offense it is stated, 'If he determines or assigns it within the season...' But that which is to be stored after making a mark has not come into one's own possession because it is to be given to another. Indeed, with reference to that, it is not possible to say, 'he determines or assigns it,' and it is not subject to forfeiture in this sense, because there is no forfeiture procedure for the Sangha. In the commentary also, this meaning is indeed very manifest. If it is asked, 'What is to be stored after making a mark?' A robe that is the property of another is indeed Sangha property. Then, by this phrase, 'having marked it, it will be easy to give,' the ownership by another is indeed shown.

‘‘Tato paraṃ ekadivasampi parihāro natthīti dasāhaparamato uddhaṃ anupagatattā’’ti likhitaṃ, ito samayato uddhameva dasāhassa anupagatattā samayato paraṃ dasāhaṃ na labhatīti kirassa adhippāyo. ‘‘Etaṃ parihāraṃ labhatiyevā’’ti ettha ‘‘ekādasamaṃ aruṇaṃ cīvaramāse uṭṭhetī’’ti kāraṇaṃ likhitaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘anadhiṭṭhahitvā ekādasadivase nikkhipituṃ labhatī’ti vadanto bhagavā itarampi anaccekacīvarādiṃ anujānāti, accekacīvaramukhenāti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Ettha kataraṃ subhāsitaṃ? Ubhayampīti eke. Kathaṃ? Paṭhamaṃ ‘‘accekacīvarassa anatthate kathine dasadivasādhiko māso, atthate kathine dasadivasādhikā pañcamāsā’’ti iminā sameti, anugaṇṭhipadaladdhiyā hi ettha ‘‘ekādasadivasādhiko’’ti vattabbataṃ āpajjati, dutiyaṃ ‘‘dasāhānāgatanti…pe… dasāhena asampattāti attho’’ti iminā sameti. Imassa nayassa vasena ‘‘pañcamito paṭṭhāya uppannassa cīvarassa nidhānakālo dassito hotī’’ti pāṭho yujjati. Tathā gaṇṭhipadaladdhiyā ‘‘navāhānāgataṃ kattikatemāsikapuṇṇama’’nti vattabbataṃ āpajjati, tassa vasena ‘‘kāmañcesa dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabbanti imināva siddho, aṭṭhuppattivasena pana apubbaṃ viya atthaṃ dassetvā sikkhāpadaṃ ṭhapita’’nti ayaṃ pāṭho yujjati. Ko panettha sāroti? Yo pacchā vutto, sova sāro. Teneva aṭṭhakathācariyena ‘‘pañcamito paṭṭhāyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipadehi aṭṭhakathāya ca saddhiṃ saṃsandanato, ‘‘dasāhānāgata’’nti pāḷiyā saṃsandanato ca ettha gaṇṭhipadaladdhipi pāḷiyā sameti.

It is written, “Beyond that, there is no dispensation even for a single day, because it has not gone beyond the ten-day limit.” The meaning, it is said, is that because the ten-day period is not obtained beyond this robe-season, one does not obtain the ten days beyond the season. In the context of “This dispensation is indeed obtained,” the reason is written: “The eleventh dawn arises in the robe-month.” However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: “Others say that the Blessed One, in stating, ‘One may keep it for eleven days without determining it,’ also permits other non-emergency robes, etc., by means of the emergency robe.” Here, which is the well-spoken statement? Some say both. How so? The first statement agrees with this: “For an emergency robe, when the Kathina is not spread, there is a month exceeding by ten days; when the Kathina is spread, there are five months exceeding by ten days.” For, according to the tradition of the Anugaṇṭhipada, here it should be said, “exceeding by eleven days.” The second statement agrees with this: “‘The ten days have not arrived’… that is… the meaning is ‘not reached within ten days.’” According to this method, the passage, “From the fifth onwards, the time for storing a robe that has arisen is shown,” is appropriate. Likewise, according to the Gaṇṭhipada tradition, it should be said, “The Kattika full-moon of the three-month season, not having reached nine days.” By this reasoning, this passage is appropriate: “Although it is established by this very statement that an extra robe may be kept for a maximum of ten days, yet by way of the occasion of its arising, the training rule was established by showing a meaning as if it were unprecedented.” What, then, is the essence here? That which was said later is the essence. For that very reason, the commentary teacher said, “From the fifth onwards.” Because of its collation with the ancient Gaṇṭhipadas and the commentary, and because of its agreement with the Pāḷi phrase “not having reached ten days,” here the Gaṇṭhipada tradition also agrees with the Pāḷi.

Kathaṃ? Yasmā pavāraṇādivase aruṇuggamane bhikkhu vassaṃvuttho hoti, tasmā iminā dasamena ahena saddhiṃ chaṭṭhito paṭṭhāya navadivasā dasa ahānīti dasāhaṃ, tena dasāhena, sahayogatthe karaṇavacanaṃ. Kattikatemāsikapuṇṇamā cīvarasamayaṃ asampattāti katvā ‘‘anāgatā’’ti vuccati. Yathā aparakattikapuṇṇamāya vassikasāṭikaṃ paccuddharitvā vikappento ‘‘cātumāsaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ tato paraṃ vikappetu’’nti vuccati[Pg.281], evaṃsampadamidanti. Ettha vuccatīti ce? Na, imassa nippayojanabhāvappasaṅgato. Accekacīvarapaṭiggahaṇakālaṃ niyamitanti ce? Na, ‘‘chaṭṭhito paṭṭhāya uppannacīvaraṃ accekameva na hoti. Paṭhamakathinena siddhattā’’ti porāṇaṭṭhakathāgaṇṭhipadesu vuttattā tato upari ‘‘accekacīvara’’nti vuccati, paṭiggaṇhantassa āpattisaṅgaho ca. Na ca sā āpatti pāḷiyā, aṭṭhakathāya, yuttito vā sambhavati. Aṭṭhuppattimattavasena vuttanti ce? Na, dasāhādhiccakārikā aṭṭhuppattipāyaṃ na dissati. ‘‘Bhikkhū accekacīvaraṃ paṭiggahetvā cīvarakālasamayaṃ atikkāmentī’’ti ettha ettikā eva hi aṭṭhuppatti. Tathā hi parivāre (pari. 47-53) ‘‘kismiṃ vatthusmi’’nti ārabhitvā ettakameva vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Accekacīvaraṃ cīvarakālaṃ nātikkāmetabbaṃ, itaraṃ atikkāmetabbanti dassanatthaṃ idaṃ paññattanti ce? Na, accekacīvarasseva aparādhadassanato, visesakāraṇābhāvā, ‘‘kāmañcesa dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ dhāretabbanti imināva siddho’’tiādivacanavirodhato ca yathāvuttavacanāsambhavato ca.

How so? Because on the day of Pavāraṇā, at dawn, a monk has completed the rains-residence. Therefore, from the sixth day onwards, together with this tenth day, nine days become ten days—thus, 'ten days' (dasāhaṃ). By that ten-day period, the instrumental case is used in the sense of association. Since the Kattika full moon marking the three-month period has not arrived as the robe season, it is called 'not yet come.' Just as it is said regarding one who makes the rainy-season robe shared property after taking it back on the following Kattika full moon, 'He should determine it for four months, and after that, make it shared property,' so too is this case complete. If it is said so? No, because this would lead to this training rule being purposeless. If it is asked, 'Is the time for receiving an emergency robe fixed?' No, because it is stated in the ancient commentaries and glosses, 'A robe that has arisen starting from the sixth day is not exclusively an emergency robe, because it is accomplished by the first kaṭhina.' Therefore, beyond that, it is called an 'emergency robe,' and because it would entail an offense for the one who receives it. But that offense is not found in the Pāḷi, the commentaries, or by logical reasoning. If it is asked, 'Is it mentioned merely based on its occasion of arising?' No, the occasion of arising for the ten-day extra allowance is not seen in the Pāḷi. Here, in the phrase, 'Monks, having received an emergency robe, they let the robe-season-time pass,' only this much is the occasion of arising. Indeed, in the Parivāra, starting with 'In what case?' only this much is said; it should be understood thus. If it is asked, 'Is this rule established to show that an emergency robe should not be allowed to pass the robe season, but another robe may?' No, because it shows the fault of the emergency robe only, because there is no special reason, and because of the contradiction with statements such as, 'If one wishes, one may keep an extra robe for a maximum of ten days; by this itself it is accomplished,' and because the aforementioned statement is untenable.

Kathaṃ? Dasāhena saha kattikapuṇṇamā ‘‘anāgatā’’ti hi vutte dasāhato aññā sā puṇṇamāti āpajjati. Anaññā ce, saha-saddo na sambhavati, na hi attanāva attano yogo sambhavati, anāgata-saddo ca na sambhavati. Āgatā sampattā eva hi sā puṇṇamā. Cīvarasamayassa anantarattā ekībhāvaṃ anāgatattā anāgatāyevāti ce? Na, tathāpi anāgata-saddassa sambhavato, āgamanasambhave satiyeva hi anāgata-saddo sambhavati, na hi nibbānaṃ, paññatti vā ‘‘anāgatā’’ti vuccati. Nibbānaṃ viya khaṇattayaṃ, sā ca puṇṇamā na kadāci samayabhāvaṃ pāpuṇātīti ayuttameva. ‘‘Tato paraṃ vikappetu’’nti pana vacanaṃ piṭṭhisamayaṃ gahetvā ṭhitattā sambhavati. Apica pavāraṇāyaṃ aruṇe ca uṭṭhite sā puṇṇamā cīvarasamayaṃ ekāhānāgatā evāpajjati pubbe sahayogapattattā. Evaṃ sante ekībhāvagatāpi sā cīvarasamayaṃ anāgatā eva jātāti sabbadā na tathāviggahakaraṇavacanatthaṃ kocideva vacanato dīpetīti veditabbaṃ.

How so? If it is said that the Kattika full moon is 'not yet come' together with the ten days, it follows that that full moon is other than the ten days. If it were not other, the word 'together with' would not be possible, for indeed, a thing cannot be associated with itself, and the word 'not yet come' would also not be possible. For indeed, that full moon has already come, has already been reached. If it is said: 'Because it is immediately after the robe-season, and because it has not reached a state of oneness, it is indeed "not yet come"'? No, because even so, the word 'not yet come' is not possible, for indeed, the word 'not yet come' is only possible when there is the possibility of arrival. Indeed, neither Nibbāna nor a concept is called 'not yet come'. Like Nibbāna, the three moments are not spoken of as 'not yet come'. And that full moon never attains the state of being the season; therefore, that argument is indeed unsuitable. However, the statement 'He may make it shared property after that' is possible because it stands having taken the post-season. Furthermore, on the Pavāraṇā day, when the dawn has arisen, that full moon becomes 'not yet come' to the robe-season by one day, because it had previously attained association with the ten days. This being so, even having reached a state of oneness, it becomes indeed 'not yet come' to the robe-season. Therefore, it should be understood that a particular word does not always illuminate the meaning of the analytical statement in such a way.

Kimatthaṃ [Pg.282] panettha ‘‘dasadivasādhiko māso’’tiādi vuttanti? Taṃ pāripūrisambhavato. Pañcamiyañhi pure aruṇaṃ uppannaaccekacīvarassa dasadivasādhiko māsoyeva paripūroti katvā tathā vuttaṃ. Apica tassā pañcamiyā divasabhāgopi sampattāya rattiyā ‘‘hiyyo’’ti vuccati, pageva pure aruṇaṃ, tenevāha ‘‘hiyyo kho, āvuso, amhāka’’ntiādi. ‘‘Evaṃ sante ‘chaṭṭhito paṭṭhāyā’ti vuttapaṭhamapāṭhassa vasena ‘anaccekacīvarampi paccuddharitvā ṭhapitaṃ ticīvarampi etaṃ parihāraṃ labhatiyevā’’’ti ca ‘‘dasadivasādhiko māso’’tiādi ca yaṃ likhitaṃ. Taṃ na, ‘‘pañcamito paṭṭhāyā’’ti pāṭhe sajjiteva etena pariyāyena yathāvuttaatthasambhavato, na tāni ṭhānāni puna sajjitāni. Yathāṭhitavaseneva ajjhupekkhitabbānīti no takkoti ācariyo. Idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ puṇṇamāyaṃ anissaggiyatthamevāti upatissatthero. ‘‘Pavāraṇāmāsassa juṇhapakkhapañcamito paṭṭhāyā’’ti pāṭhe sajjite etena pariyāyena yathāvutto uppannassa cīvarassa nidhānakālo dassito hoti, ‘‘accekacīvaranti accāyikacīvaraṃ vuccatī’’tiādi pāṭho. ‘‘Chaṭṭhito paṭṭhāyā’’ti ca ‘‘kāmañcesa dasāhaparama’’ntiādi ca yaṃ likhitaṃ, taṃ na pāṭho, tasmā ekādasadivasaṃ parihāraṃ labhatīti katvā ācariyena ‘‘pañcamito paṭṭhāyā’’ti likhāpito kira. ‘‘Pavāraṇāmāsassa juṇhapakkhachaṭṭhito paṭṭhāya pana uppannaṃ anaccekacīvarampi paccuddharitvā ṭhapitaṃ ticīvarampi etaṃ parihāraṃ labhatiyevāti pāṭho’’ti ca ‘‘accekacīvarassa anatthate kathine ekādasadivasādhiko māso, atthate kathine ekādasadivasādhikā pañcamāsāti pāṭho’’ti ca ettha papañcenti, tasmā suṭṭhu sallakkhetvā kathetabbaṃ, tuṇhībhūtena vā bhavitabbaṃ.

Why is it said here, 'a month with an additional ten days,' etc.? That is said because of the possibility of completion. Indeed, for an emergency robe that has arisen on the fifth day before dawn, a month with an additional ten days is indeed complete; for this reason, it is said thus. Moreover, when the night has arrived, even a portion of the day of that fifth day is called 'yesterday'—how much more so before dawn. For that very reason, he said, 'Yesterday, friend, for us,' etc. Even though this is so, what is written based on the first reading which states 'starting from the sixth day'—namely, 'even a non-emergency robe and a set of three robes that have been withdrawn and set aside obtain this allowance,' and also 'a month with an additional ten days,' etc.—that is not so, because when the reading 'starting from the fifth day' is established, the meaning as stated arises through this method. Those points are not established again. They should be disregarded just as they stand. This is our reasoning," says the teacher. "This training rule is solely for the purpose of non-forfeiture on the full-moon day," says the Elder Upatissa. When the reading 'starting from the fifth day of the bright fortnight of the Pavāraṇā month' is established, by this method the period for keeping a robe that has arisen, as stated, is shown. There is a reading such as: 'An emergency robe is called an urgent robe.' And what is written as 'starting from the sixth day,' and 'if he wishes, for a maximum of ten days,' etc., that is not the authoritative reading. Therefore, thinking that one obtains an allowance of eleven days, the teacher supposedly had it written as 'starting from the fifth day.' Here some elaborate, saying: 'There is a reading: "But starting from the sixth day of the bright fortnight of the Pavāraṇā month, even a non-emergency robe and a set of three robes that have been withdrawn and set aside obtain this allowance,"' and also, 'There is a reading: "For an emergency robe, when the Kathina is not spread, it is a month with an additional eleven days; when the Kathina is spread, it is five months with an additional eleven days."' Therefore, one should speak after having considered it well, or one should remain silent.

Accekacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule on the emergency robe is finished.

9. Sāsaṅkasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Apprehension

652. ‘‘Tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññataraṃ cīvaranti idaṃ ticīvare eva ayaṃ vidhi, itarasmiṃ yathāsukhanti dassanatthaṃ vutta’’nti vadanti. ‘‘Atirekachārattaṃ vippavasantī’’ti tasmiṃyeva senāsane vāso na vippavāsoti katvā vuttaṃ. Kasmā? Cīvarappavattijānanato. Ettha kiñcāpi ‘‘āraññakaṃ nāma [Pg.283] senāsanaṃ pañcadhanusatikaṃ pacchima’’nti vacanato atirekatopi vuttaṃ, āraññakameva pana senāsanaṃ hoti, dhutaṅgaṃ rakkhati cīvarappavattijānanapalibodhasambhavato.

652. They say: 'The phrase "any one robe among the three robes" — this rule applies only to the triple robe; it was said to show that regarding other requisites, it is "as one pleases."' Regarding 'dwelling apart for more than six nights', this was said having considered that dwelling in that very same lodging is not 'dwelling apart'. Why? Because of knowing of the arising of robes. Here, although it is said according to the statement, 'A lodging called "forest-dwelling" is at a minimum five hundred bow-lengths away,' even if it is beyond that, it is still a forest-dwelling lodging. One protects the ascetic practice because of the possibility of the obstruction that comes from knowing about the arising of robes.

653. ‘‘Gāvutato atirekappamāṇena labhatī’’ti yaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Siyā ca tassa bhikkhuno kocideva paccayo tena cīvarena vippavāsāyā’’ti vacanato. Yojanappamāṇepi siyāti ce? Na, ‘‘puna gāmasīmaṃ okkamitvā vasitvā pakkamatī’’ti anāpattivāre anuññātattā. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘yojanappamāṇe na labhatī’’ti idaṃ kinti? Idaṃ nibaddhāvāsavaseneva vuttaṃ. Tattha dhutaṅgaṃ bhijjatīti? Na bhijjati, kintu na idha dhutaṅgādhikāro atthīti. Atha kasmā ‘‘ayaṃ dhutaṅgacoroti veditabbo’’ti vuttanti? Asambhavato. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Aṅgesu abhāvato. Dhutaṅgadharassa patirūpasenāsanadīpanato dhutaṅgadharatā tassa siddhā. Vacanappamāṇatoti ce? Na, vacanappamāṇato ca pāḷiyeva pamāṇaṃ. ‘‘Anāpatti puna gāmasīmaṃ okkamitvā vasitvā pakkamatī’’ti hi vuttaṃ. Gāmasīmā nikkhamitvā kittakaṃ kālaṃ vasitvā pakkamitabbanti ce? Punadivaseyeva, tasmā aṭṭhamo aruṇo nibaddhāvāse vā gantabbaṭṭhāne vā uṭṭhetabboti eke. Antochārattanti eke. Yāva nibaddhāvāsaṃ na kappetīti eke. Yāva maggaparissamavinodanāti eke. Sati antarāye antochārattaṃ vasati, anāpatti. Nibaddhāvāsakappane sati aruṇuggamane āpatti. Sace taṃsattamo divaso, tadaheva nikkhittacīvaraṃ gahetabbaṃ, paccuddharitabbaṃ vāti eke. Sace antarā navamaggapātubhāvena vā navagāmasannivesena vā, taṃ senāsanaṃ aṅgasampattito parihāyati. Tadaheva cīvaraṃ gahetabbaṃ vā paccuddharitabbaṃ vā. Chārattaṃ vippavasantassa ce parihāyati, anāpatti anuññātadivasattāti eke. Āpatti eva anaṅgasampattitoti eke. Yuttataraṃ panettha vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Sace dhutaṅgadharo hoti, gāmasīmāyaṃ avasitvā pacchimappamāṇayutte ṭhāne vasitvā pakkamitabbaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ baddhaavippavāsasīmo ce gāmo hoti, aññasmimpi māse antosīmāya vasato anāpatti. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade ‘‘yathāvuttasenāsane vasantenāpi chārattameva cīvaraṃ gāme nikkhipitabbanti adhippāyena aññaṃ antochārattampi aññampi vasato āpattiyevā’’ti vuttaṃ.

653. If it is said, 'One obtains it by a measure exceeding a gāvuta,' how is this to be understood? It is understood from the statement: 'There might be for that bhikkhu some reason for being separated from that robe.' If it is said, 'Might it be even for the measure of a yojana?' No, because in the section on no-offense it is permitted, stating: 'having re-entered the village boundary, having stayed, one departs.' If so, what is this statement, 'At the measure of a yojana, one does not obtain it'? This was said only with reference to residing in a fixed dwelling. Is the ascetic practice broken there? It is not broken, but here there is no section concerning the ascetic practices. Then why was it said, 'This one should be known as a thief of the ascetic practices'? Because of the impossibility. How is this to be understood? Due to the absence of the factors. For one who upholds the ascetic practices, his status as an upholder of the ascetic practices is established by the pointing out of a suitable lodging. If it is said, 'Is it from the authority of the statement?' No, for the Pāḷi itself is the authority, more so than the authority of the statement. For indeed, it is said: 'There is no offense for one who, having re-entered the village boundary and stayed, then departs.' If it is asked, 'Having gone out from the village boundary, for how long a time should one stay before departing?' Some say: 'On the very next day; therefore, the eighth dawn should arise either at the fixed dwelling or at the destination.' Some say: 'Within six nights.' Some say: 'Until one does not arrange a fixed dwelling.' Some say: 'Until the fatigue of the journey is relieved.' If there is an obstacle, one may stay within six nights; there is no offense. If a fixed dwelling has been arranged, there is an offense at the rising of the dawn. Some say: 'If that is the seventh day, on that very day the robe that was laid aside should be taken or reclaimed.' If in the meantime, due to the appearance of a new road or the establishment of a new village, that lodging becomes deficient in the completeness of its factors, on that very day the robe should be taken or reclaimed. Some say: 'If it becomes deficient for one who is away for six nights, there is no offense because of the permitted days.' Others say: 'There is an offense indeed, due to the incompleteness of the factors.' Here, what is more suitable should be adopted after investigation. If one is an upholder of the ascetic practices, one should not stay within the village boundary, but having stayed in a place at the final limit of the measure, one should depart. If a village was originally one with a formally established boundary of non-separation, there is no offense for one staying within the boundary, even in another month. In the ancient Ganthipada it is said: 'With the intention that even one staying in the aforesaid lodging should deposit the robe in the village for six nights only, for one staying otherwise, even within the six nights, there is an offense indeed.'

Sāsaṅkasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning apprehension is finished.

10. Pariṇatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. 10. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Designated Property

657. Dethāvuso [Pg.284] amhākanti ettha akataviññatti hoti na hotīti? Hoti, yadi evaṃ aññātakaviññattisikkhāpadassa ca imassa ca kiṃ nānākaraṇanti? Taṃ aññātakaappavāriteyeva viññāpentassa, idaṃ ñātakapavāritepi, taṃ anacchinnacīvarasseva, idaṃ tassapi, taṃ cīvaraṃyeva viññāpentassa, idaṃ acīvarampi. Evaṃ sante idaṃ taṃ antokatvā ṭhitaṃ hoti, tasmā dvinnampi aṅgasampattiyā sati kena bhavitabbanti? Iminā bhavitabbaṃ imassa nippadesatoti eke. Dvīhipi bhavitabbaṃ ubhinnampi aṅgasiddhitoti eke. Imāni tassa aṅgāni vikappanupagacīvaratā, samayābhāvo, aññātakaviññatti, tāya ca paṭilābhoti cattāri. Imassa pana saṅghe pariṇatabhāvo, ñatvā attano pariṇāmanaṃ, paṭilābhoti tīṇi. Ettha paṭhamo vādo ayutto katvāpi okāsaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ, parivāre ca avicāritattā. Yadi evaṃ tattha aṅgesu ‘‘anaññapariṇatatā’’ti vattabbanti ce? Na vattabbaṃ, atthato siddhattā. Pariṇatasikkhāpadadvayasiddhito, pariṇatasaññito, āpattisambhavato ca ‘‘mayhampi dethā’’ti vadati, ‘‘vaṭṭatī’’ti anuddiṭṭhaṃ, ‘‘amhākampi atthī’’ti vuttattā vaṭṭati. ‘‘Saṅghassa pariṇataṃ…pe… āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti ettha ‘‘puggalassā’’ti na vuttaṃ, yato suddhapācittiyavasena āgatattā. ‘‘Aññacetiyassā’’ti na vuttaṃ saṅghassa acetiyattā, tasmāyeva ‘‘cetiyassa pariṇataṃ…pe… āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti etthāpi ‘‘aññasaṅghassa aññapuggalassā’’ti na vuttaṃ. ‘‘Yato tathā idha ca ‘puggalassa pariṇataṃ…pe… āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti ettha ca ‘attanopī’ti kiñcāpi na vuttaṃ, tathāpi sambhavatī’’ti vadanti. Taṃ pana idha attano pariṇāmanādhikārattā imassa sikkhāpadassa na vuttanti eke. Tatuttarisikkhāpade ‘‘aññassatthāyā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.526) padaṃ viyāti eke. Taṃ na, ettha puggalapariṇāmanasikkhāpade avuttattā. Dhammasiritthero panāha –

657. Here, regarding the phrase 'Friend, give to us,' does this constitute an uninvited request or not? It does. If so, what is the difference between the training rule on requesting from non-relatives and this one? That one is laid down for a monk who requests from a non-relative who has not invited them, while this one is laid down even for a monk who requests from a relative who has invited them. That one is laid down only for a monk whose robe-cloth has not been taken away; this one is laid down for him also. That one is for requesting only robe-cloth; this one is for non-robe-cloth also. This being so, this rule stands by encompassing that one. Therefore, when the factors of both are fulfilled, by which training rule should it be judged? Some say it should be judged by this rule, because it is a ruling without exception. Others say it should be judged by both, because the factors of both are accomplished. These are the four factors of that rule: the state of being robe-cloth suitable for `vikappana`, the absence of the proper time, requesting from a non-relative, and receiving it through that request. The factors of this rule, however, are three: the state of being designated for the Saṅgha, knowing this and having it designated to oneself, and receiving it. Here, the first opinion is unsuitable, because although the opportunity is made in the Commentary and in the Parivāra, it is not investigated. If so, should it not be stated among the factors that it is 'not designated for another'? It should not be stated, because it is established by the meaning. And because the two training rules on designated things are accomplished, because of the perception of it being designated, and because an offense is possible, one says, 'Give to me too'. Although it is not indicated that 'it is allowable', because it was said, 'There is for us too', it is allowable. In the phrase, 'What is designated for the Saṅgha… an offense of wrong-doing,' 'for an individual' is not stated, because it comes by way of a pure and a mixed offense. 'For another shrine' is not stated because the Saṅgha is not a shrine. For that very reason, 'for a shrine, for another individual' is not stated. They say: 'Because just so here also, in the phrase "what was designated for an individual... an offense of wrong-doing", although "for oneself also" is not stated, it is nevertheless possible.' But some say that this is not stated here because this training rule is in the section on causing it to be designated to oneself. Some say it is like the phrase 'for the sake of another' in the subsequent training rule. That should not be accepted. Why? Because it is not stated here in the training rule on causing designation for an individual. The Elder Dhammasiri, however, said—

‘‘Attano aññato lābhaṃ, saṅghassaññassa vā nataṃ;

Pariṇāmeyya nissaggi, pācittiyampi dukkaṭa’’nti.

Should one divert a gain received from another, which was designated for the Saṅgha or for someone else, to oneself or to another, it entails a Nissaggiya offense, a Pācittiya offense, and also a Dukkaṭa offense.

Tassattho – saṅghassa pariṇataṃ attano pariṇāmeyya nissaggiyaṃ. Tadeva aññato pariṇāmeyya pācittiyaṃ. Aññassa pariṇataṃ attano vā [Pg.285] parassa vā pariṇāmeyya dukkaṭanti, tasmā aññātakaviññattiādīsu vuttāpattisambhavato idha pariṇatadvaye ‘‘attano’’ti padaṃ na vuttaṃ. Tasmiñhi vutte dukkaṭamattappasaṅgo siyā, avutte panetesu vuttāpattīnaṃ yathāgamamaññatarā ca idha avuttasiddhi dukkaṭañcāti dve āpattiyo ekato hontīti vinayadharānaṃ anavasesañāṇassa okāso kato hotīti.

Its meaning is: if one were to divert to oneself what was designated for the Saṅgha, it is a Nissaggiya offense. If one were to divert that very gain to another, it is a Pācittiya offense. If one were to divert what was designated for another person to oneself or to another, it is a Dukkaṭa offense. Therefore, because of the possibility of the offenses mentioned in the rules on requesting from an unrelated family and so on, here in the two training rules on designated things, the word 'attano' (for oneself) is not stated. For if it were stated, there would only be the occasion for a Dukkaṭa offense. But since it is not stated, in these cases, in accordance with the texts, one of the stated offenses arises, and here also a Dukkaṭa offense is established by the principle of the unstated. Thus, two offenses occur together. In this way, an opportunity is made for the complete knowledge of the experts in Vinaya.

Iti tiṃsakakaṇḍaṃ sāramaṇḍaṃ,Alametaṃ vinayassa sāramaṇḍe;

Idha niṭṭhitasabbasāramaṇḍaṃ,Vinayavasena punāti sāramaṇḍanti.

Thus, this thirty-part section is an excellent ornament, fit to adorn, by the power of the Vinaya, the sons of good family who are themselves excellent ornaments. Here, the entire collection of excellent ornaments is completed; by means of the Vinaya, it purifies the son of good family who is an excellent ornament.

Pariṇatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning designated property is finished.

Niṭṭhito pattavaggo tatiyo.

The third section, the Bowl Chapter, is completed.

Nissaggiyavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Nissaggiya rules is finished.

Pācittiyavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Pācittiya Rules

5. Pācittiyakaṇḍo

5. The Pācittiya Section

1. Musāvādavaggo

1. The Chapter on False Speech

1. Musāvādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule on False Speech

1. Vādakkhittoti [Pg.286] ettha avisesena vādajappavitaṇḍasaṅkhāto tividhopi kathāmaggo ‘‘vādo’’ icceva vuttoti veditabbo. Tesu ‘‘titthiyehi saddhi’’nti vacanato ṭhapetvā vādaṃ ‘‘sesā’’ti vadanti. Chalajātiniggahaṭṭhānakusalatāya kadāci katthaci avajānitvā paṭijānāti, tathā pubbe kiñci vacanaṃ paṭijānitvā pacchā avajānāti. Evaṃ vā aññathā vā aññenaññaṃ paṭicarati. Evaṃ pavatto sampajānamusā bhāsaṃ paṭissuṇitvā asaccāyanto saṅketaṃ katvā visaṃvādento evaṃ so vādakkhitto samāno pācittiyavatthuñca paripūrento vicaratīti evamadhippāyo veditabbo. Attano vādeti ettha ‘‘sabbe dhammā anattā’’ti (dha. pa. 279; cūḷani. ajitamāṇavapucchāniddesa 7; netti. 5; mahāni. 27) paṭhamamāraddhe attano vāde. ‘‘Yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā’’ti (saṃ. ni. 3.15) no samayo. ‘‘Sabbe dhammā’’ti vutte nibbānampi saṅgahaṃ gacchati. ‘‘Nibbānaṃ paramaṃ sukha’’nti (dha. pa. 203-204; ma. ni. 2.215) vuttattā pana taṃ na dukkhaṃ. No ṭhānametaṃ vijjati. Ayaṃ paravādī ‘‘yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā’’ti suttaṃ dassetvā siddhantaṃ sambhametvā ‘‘virodhi viruddho’’ti vuttaṃ dosaṃ āropessatīti tasmiṃ paṭhamavāde kañci dosaṃ sallakkhento āropite vā dose anāropite vā ‘‘nāyaṃ mama vādo’’ti taṃ avajānitvā ‘‘nibbānantveva sassata’’nti, ‘‘anattā iti nicchayā’’ti ca suttaṃ disvā tassa paṭhamavādassa niddosataṃ sallakkhetvā ‘‘mameva ayaṃ vādo’’ti tameva pacchā paṭijānāti. Evaṃ tattha yathāvuttamānisaṃsaṃ sallakkhento taṃ paṭijānitvā yadi anattā sabbe dhammā, dhammā eva na te bhavanti. Sabhāvaṃ dhārentīti hi ‘‘dhammā’’ti vuccanti.

1. In this context, regarding `vādakkhitta`, it should be known that the threefold path of speech—designated as debate (`vāda`), chattering (`jappa`), and wrangling (`vitaṇḍa`)—is, without distinction, referred to simply as 'debate' (`vāda`). Among these, some say that on account of the phrase 'with the adherents of other sects,' debate (`vāda`) is excluded, and only the remaining two are intended. Due to skill in the six kinds of grounds for censure, one might at some time or place deny something and later accept it; similarly, having first accepted some statement, one later denies it. In this way or otherwise, one prevaricates. One who is engaged thus, having agreed to speak a deliberate falsehood, not being truthful, having made an appointment and then deceiving—such a person, being one confounded in debate (`vādakkhitta`), goes about fulfilling the basis for a Pācittiya offense. This is the intention that should be understood. Regarding 'in one's own doctrine,' this refers to one's own doctrine as first undertaken, namely, 'all phenomena are non-self.' The context is not 'whatever is suffering, that is non-self.' When 'all phenomena' is said, Nibbāna is also included. But because it is said, 'Nibbāna is the supreme bliss,' it is not suffering. This situation does not exist. This opponent, by presenting the sutta 'whatever is suffering, that is non-self' to confuse the established doctrine, will impute the fault called 'contradictory and conflicting.' Thus, perceiving some fault in that first doctrine—whether a fault is imputed or not—one denies it, saying, 'This is not my doctrine.' But having seen the suttas 'Nibbāna indeed is permanent' and 'it is certain that it is non-self,' and having perceived the faultlessness of that first doctrine, one later accepts that very same thing, saying, 'This is indeed my doctrine.' Thus, perceiving the aforementioned benefit in that case and accepting that doctrine, if all phenomena are non-self, then they are not phenomena at all. For they are called 'phenomena' (`dhammā`) because they bear their own-nature.

Ayañca atta-saddo sabhāvavācīti evaṃ āropite vā dose anāropite vā dosoti sallakkhetvā ‘‘nāyaṃ mama vādo’’ti tameva paṭhamavādaṃ pacchā avajānāti. Atha so paravādī sapakkhaṃ paṭisedhe paṭijānanattāpanayanaṃ[Pg.287]. Paṭijānāti patyāssa iti vacanato ‘‘paṭiññā aññā so nāma te niggaho’’ti vutto. Sabhāvātirittaṃ atthaṃ paṭisedhādhippāyato sabhāvato atirittaṃ bālaparikappitamattānaṃ sandhāya ‘‘anattā sabbe dhammā’’ti me paṭiññātakathā, sā ca tadavatthāyevāti na me taṃ paṭiññātattāpanayanaṃ atthi, ‘‘nāyaṃ mama vādo’’ti avajānanaṃ pana sabhāvasaṅkhātaṃ attānaṃ sandhāya ‘‘anattā sabbe dhammā’’ti na vadāmīti adhippāyena katanti iminā aññena kāraṇena taṃ pubbe paṭiññātattāpanayanaṃ kāraṇaṃ paṭicchādeti. ‘‘Anattā sabbeva dhammā’’ti na vattabbaṃ ‘‘atta-saddassa sabhāvavācittā’’ti idaṃ kāraṇaṃ paṭicca tena pubbe paṭiññātattāpanayanaṃ kataṃ. Tamaññakāraṇaṃ pacchā dassitena aññena kāraṇena paṭicchādetīti adhippāyo.

And this word 'self' denotes intrinsic nature. Thus, having discerned it as a fault whether a fault is imputed or not, he later rejects that very first statement, thinking, 'This is not my view.' Then, for that opponent, when his own position is refuted, there is the retraction of what was acknowledged. Because of the statement, 'He acknowledges in return,' it is said, 'Your acknowledgement is another; that is a point of defeat for you.' (He argues:) 'My acknowledged statement, “All phenomena are non-self,” was made with the intention of refuting a meaning that transcends intrinsic nature, referring to a self imagined by the foolish that transcends intrinsic nature, and it stands only in that context. Therefore, for me, there is no retraction of what was acknowledged. The rejection, “This is not my view,” however, was made with the intention, referring to the self designated as intrinsic nature, “I do not say, ‘All phenomena are non-self’.”' By this other reason, he conceals the reason for that earlier retraction of what was acknowledged. He had previously made the retraction of what was acknowledged on account of this reason: 'One should not say, “All phenomena are indeed non-self,” because the word “self” denotes intrinsic nature.' The meaning is that he conceals that other reason with another reason shown later.

Yasmā na kevalaṃ yathādassitanayena so atthameva avajānāti, paṭijānāti ca, kintu vacanampi, tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 1) ‘‘jānitabbato’’ti paṭhamaṃ kāraṇaṃ vatvā paravādinā ‘‘yadi jānitabbato aniccaṃ, nibbānaṃ te aniccaṃ siyā’’ti vutte ‘‘na mayā ‘jānitabbato’ti kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, ‘jātidhammato’ti mayā vuttaṃ, taṃ tayā badhiratāya aññena sallakkhitantiādīni vadatīti adhippāyo. ‘Jānitabbato’ti vatvā puna ‘jātidhammato’tiādīni vadatī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Avajānitvā puna paṭijānanto taṃ avajānanaṃ iminā paṭicchādeti nāmā’’ti likhitaṃ.

Because, in the manner shown, he does not only reject and acknowledge the meaning, but also the wording itself. Therefore, in the commentary (Pāc. Aṭṭha. 1), the meaning is that having first stated the reason as 'from knowability,' when the opponent says, 'If it is impermanent from knowability, your Nibbāna would be impermanent,' he replies, 'The reason “from knowability” was not stated by me; “from having the nature of arising” was stated by me. Due to your deafness, you perceived it as something else,' and so on. It is said: 'Having said “from knowability,” he then says “from having the nature of arising,” and so on.' It is written: 'Having rejected and then acknowledging again, he indeed conceals that rejection by this means.'

2. Jānitvā jānantassa cāti jānitvā vā jānantassa vāti atthadvayaṃ dīpetīti.

2. ‘Jānitvā jānantassa ca ti’: This phrase illuminates two meanings – ‘having known’ or ‘to one who knows’.

3. Apica micchāvācāpariyāpannāti catubbidhamicchāvācāpariyāpannā. Sīhaḷādināmabhedagatāti keci, tasmā evaṃ vadato vacanaṃ, taṃsamuṭṭhāpikā cetanāti ubhayaṃ vuttanti mātikāyaṃ ubhinnaṃ saṅgahitattā. Vibhaṅge taṃ vacanaṃ yasmā vinā viññattiyā natthi, tasmā ‘‘vācasikā viññattī’’ti viññatti ca dassitā. ‘‘Evaṃ vadato vacana’’nti lokavohārena vatvā paramatthato dassento ‘‘taṃsamuṭṭhāpikā vā cetanāti vutta’’nti ca vadati. Oḷārikenevāti cetanāsamuṭṭhānavācānaṃ sukhumattā visayavaseneva katāti.

3. Furthermore, ‘micchāvācāpariyāpannā’ means encompassed by the fourfold wrong speech. Some say it falls under classifications of names like 'Sīhaḷa,' etc. Therefore, because both the speech of one who speaks thus and the volition that gives rise to it are included in the mātikā, both are mentioned. In the Vibhaṅga, since that speech does not exist without intimation, 'verbal intimation' is also shown. Having stated 'the speech of one who speaks thus' according to worldly convention, while showing it in the ultimate sense, he also says, 'or the volition that gives rise to it is said.' The phrase ‘oḷārikeneva’ means: because of the subtlety of speech arisen from volition, its classification is made only by way of its object.

9. Diṭṭhassa [Pg.288] hotīti diṭṭho assa, anena vā upacārajjhānavasena na mayā abyāvaṭo mato, ‘‘na mayā pavanto paṭo diṭṭho’’tiādiṃ bhaṇantassa ca paramatthasuññataṃ upādāya eva ‘‘itthiṃ na passāmi, na ca purisa’’nti bhaṇantassa ca na musāvādo.

9. ‘Diṭṭhassa hoti’ means 'it is seen by him.' Or, for one who, due to access concentration, says, 'He did not die while I was inattentive,' and for one who says, 'A cloth being woven was not seen by me,' etc., and for one who says, 'I do not see a woman, nor a man,' based on ultimate emptiness—it is not false speech.

11. Āpattiṃ āpajjatiyevāti ettha ‘‘dubbhāsitāpattī’’ti vadanti. Kasmā? ‘‘Keḷiṃ kurumāno’’ti vuttattā. ‘‘Vācā girā…pe… vācasikā viññattī’’ti ujukaṃ sandhāya, kāyo na ujuko.

11. ‘Āpattiṃ āpajjatiyeva ti’: Here, they say it is an “offense of wrong speech.” Why? Because it is said, “while making a jest.” “Speech, utterance... pe... verbal intimation” is directly intended, but the body is not directly involved.

Musāvādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on False Speech is Concluded.

2. Omasavādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Offensive Speech

13. ‘‘Puna are patteti puna taṃ ṭhānaṃ parivaṭṭetvā āgate aññasmiṃ are’’ti likhitaṃ. Patiṭṭhitārappadesanti bhūmiṃ. Puna areti puna tasmiṃyeva are bhūmiṃ patteti atthoti keci, taṃ na sundaraṃ viya. Jāpitoti parājito, ‘‘parājito’’ti vā pāṭho. Pāpesīti abhibhavasi. Manāpaṃ bhāsamānassa brāhmaṇassa garuṃ bhāraṃ. Udabbahīti ākaḍḍhīti attho, anādaratthe vā sāmivacanaṃ. Dhanañca naṃ alābhesīti yathā so dhanaṃ alabhi, tathā akāsīti adhippāyo.

13. It is written that 'puna are patte' means: 'having turned from that place, it comes to another spoke.' 'Patiṭṭhitārappadesaṃ' means the ground. Some say 'puna are' means 'it lands on the ground at that very same spoke again,' but that does not seem right. 'Jāpito' means 'defeated'; or the reading is 'parājito.' 'Pāpesi' means 'you overpower.' 'For a brahmin who speaks pleasingly, a heavy burden.' 'Udabbahi' means 'he dragged' or 'he pulled'; or it is the genitive case in the sense of disrespect. 'Dhanañca naṃ alābhesi' means: 'he acted in such a way that the other did not obtain the wealth'—this is the intention.

15. Pubbeti nidāne. Avakaṇṇakanti chinnakaṇṇakanāmaṃ. Javakaṇṇakanti vaṅkakaṇṇakanāmaṃ. Dhaniṭṭhakaṃ dhanavaḍḍhakanāmaṃ, sirivaḍḍhakanāmaṃ kulavaḍḍhakasseva nāmaṃ. Tacchakakammanti khaṇanakammakārā koṭṭhakā, pāsāṇakammakārāti keci. ‘‘Muddāti pabbagaṇanā. Gaṇanāti mahāgaṇanā’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Madhumehaṃ omeha’’nti likhitaṃ. Thūlakāyassa maṃsūpacayoti eke. Yabha methune. Vītarāgatādīhi akkosantopi kileseheva kira akkosati nāma, tathā ‘‘sotāpanno’’ti akkosanto āpattiyā akkosati nāmāti eke. Liṅgāyattattā accodātādipi liṅgameva jātaṃ.

15. 'Pubbe' means in the origin story. 'Avakaṇṇaka' means the name 'one with cut ears.' 'Javakaṇṇaka' means the name 'one with crooked ears.' 'Dhaniṭṭhaka' is the name 'wealth-increaser'; 'Sirivaḍḍhaka' is a name just like 'Kulavaḍḍhaka' (lineage-increaser). 'Carpenter’s work' means diggers and builders; some say stoneworkers. 'Muddā is counting on the finger joints. Gaṇanā is a large calculation,' is said in the ancient glossary. 'Madhumehaṃ omeha' is what is written. Some say it is the accumulation of flesh of a stout body. The root ‘yabh’ is in the sense of sexual intercourse. Even if one insults with words such as “one devoid of lust,” it is said that one indeed insults through defilements. Similarly, some say that one who insults by calling another a “stream-enterer” insults by way of an offense. Due to dependence on gender, even “very white” and similar terms have become gender-specific.

16. Sabbattha vadetīti uddeso. Bhaṇatīti vitthāro. Vadetīti vā iminā paraviññāpanaṃ dīpeti.

16. 'He speaks everywhere' is the summary. 'He speaks' is the detailed explanation. Or, by 'he speaks,' it indicates making something known to others.

26. Aññāpadesavāresu [Pg.289] pana ‘‘evaṃ vadetī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kasmā? Pubbe dassitauddesakkamanidassanatthaṃ. Pubbepi ‘‘hīnena hīnaṃ, hīnena ukkaṭṭhaṃ, ukkaṭṭhena hīnaṃ, ukkaṭṭhena ukkaṭṭha’’nti jātyādīsu ekekasmiṃ catudhā catudhā dassitauddesakkamassa nidassanaṃ ‘‘eva’’nti iminā karoti. ‘‘Hīnena hīnaṃ vadetī’’ti vuttaṭṭhāneyeva hi ‘‘evaṃ vadetī’’ti vutte so ākāro nidassito hotīti adhippāyo. Aññathā aññāpadesena so ākāro na sambhavatīti āpajjati. Na sambhavati evāti ce? Na, visesakāraṇābhāvā, tattha anāpattippasaṅgato, aniyamaniddesena aniyamatthasambhavato ca. ‘‘Santi idhekacce caṇḍālā’’tiādinā hi aniyamaniddesena caṇḍālaṃ vā acaṇḍālaṃ vā sandhāya bhaṇantassa āpattīti aniyamattho sambhavatīti adhippāyo. Yadi evaṃ ettakameva vattabbaṃ tāvatā pubbe dassitauddesakkamanidassanasiddhitoti? Na, ‘‘vadetī’’ti iminā ayojite ‘‘eva’’nti pade imaṃ nāma ākāraṃ dassetīti anavabodhato. Aññāpadesanayepi paraviññāpaneyeva dukkaṭapācittiyaṃ viyāti niyamanapayojanaṃ vā ‘‘vadetī’’ti padanti veditabbaṃ. Atha vā attano samīpe ṭhatvā aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ āṇāpento hīnena hīnaṃ vadeti bhaṇati, āpatti pācittiyassa. Sace sayaṃ hīno hīnena hīnaṃ caṇḍālaṃ…pe… pukkusaṃ ‘‘pukkuso’’ti bhaṇati āpatti vācāya vācāya pācittiyassa, esa nayo aññāpadesavāresupīti yojanā veditabbā. Ayamattho duṭṭhadosesu pariyesitabbo. Aññathā ‘‘vadeti bhaṇatī’’ti etesaṃ aññataraṃ ubhayattha anaññāpadesavāraaññāpadesavāresu, visesena vā aññāpadesavāresu niratthakaṃ āpajjati vināyeva tena vacanasiliṭṭhatāsambhavato. Attato pāḷiyaṃ avuttattā panettha ‘‘sāṇattika’’nti vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ padasandhi vadetīti vada itīti. Asammukhā vadantassa dukkaṭaṃ ‘‘sammukhā pana sattahipi āpattikkhandhehi vadantassa dukkaṭa’’nti andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā. Davakamyatā nāma keḷi, taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘hasādhippāyatā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Asammukhāpi davakamyatāya vadantassa dubbhāsitamevā’’ti ācariyā vadanti. Pāpagarahitāya kujjhitvāpi vadantassa dukkaṭaṃ, asammukhā anāpattīti.

26. However, in the sections on indirect reference, it is stated, “He speaks thus.” Why? For the purpose of illustrating the order of exposition shown previously. By this word 'thus', he illustrates the order of exposition shown previously, fourfold in each of the categories such as birth, as: 'low with low, low with high, high with low, high with high'. Indeed, the intention is that when “he speaks thus” is said in the very place where “he speaks of the low with a low term” is stated, that manner is illustrated. Otherwise, it would follow that that manner is not possible through indirect reference. If it is said, “Is it not possible indeed?” No, due to the absence of a special reason, due to the implication of no offense there, and due to the possibility of an indefinite meaning through an indefinite statement. Indeed, the intention is that by an indefinite statement such as “There are some outcastes here,” an indefinite meaning is possible, implying an offense for one who speaks referring to either an outcaste or a non-outcaste. If this is so, should only this much be said, since by that much the establishment of the illustration of the order of exposition shown previously is accomplished? No, because when the word 'thus' is not connected with this word 'speaks', it is not understood that it indicates this particular manner. Or, it should be understood that the word 'speaks' has the purpose of defining, just as in the method of indirect reference, a dukkaṭa or pācittiya offense arises only when conveying it to another. Alternatively, one who, standing near, commands another bhikkhu, speaks of the low with a low term; there is an offense of pācittiya. If he himself, being low, speaks of a low person—an outcaste... a scavenger—with a low term, saying, “You are a scavenger,” there is an offense of pācittiya for each and every word. This method should be understood as applicable also in the sections on indirect reference. This meaning should be sought in the sections on corrupted malice. Otherwise, one of these words, 'speaks' or 'says', would become meaningless in both places—the sections on non-indirect reference and indirect reference, or especially in the sections on indirect reference—because even without it, the coherence of the statement is possible. It should be understood that here the term 'by command' is stated because it is not stated in the Pāḷi itself. Therein, this is the word-juncture: vadetīti is vada iti. For one who speaks not in the person's presence, there is a dukkaṭa offense, because in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā it is stated, “But for one who speaks in the person's presence using the seven groups of offenses, there is a dukkaṭa.” Davakamyatā means playfulness; to show this, “having the intention of laughter” is stated. The teachers say, “Even when not in the person's presence, for one who speaks playfully, it is indeed wrong speech.” For one who speaks out of anger due to being reproached for evil, there is a dukkaṭa offense; if not in the person's presence, there is no offense.

Omasavādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on offensive speech is completed.

3. Pesuññasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Tale-bearing

36-7. ‘‘Imassa [Pg.290] sutvā amussā’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Imesaṃ sutvā’’ti na sundaraṃ. Bhedāyapīti bhedāya. Tiṇṇampi bhikkhubhāvatoyeva nipajjanato ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ pesuññe’’ti bahuvacanaṃ kataṃ.

36-7. “Imassa sutvā amussā” is the reading. “Imesaṃ sutvā” is not good. “Bhedāyapīti” means ‘for division’. Because all three are established in the state of being a bhikkhu, the plural “bhikkhūnaṃ pesuññe” is used.

38-9. ‘‘Itthannāmo āyasmā caṇḍālo…pe… pukkusoti bhaṇatī’’ti vatvā pesuññaṃ upasaṃharatīti yojanā. Aññathā ‘‘pukkusoti bhaṇatī’’ti vattabbatā āpajjati. Ettha anupasampannavāro labbhamānopi na uddhaṭo omasavāde dassitanayattā, saṅkhepato ante dassetukāmatāya vā. Tathā hi ante tīṇi dukkaṭāni dassitāni. Tāni pana dassento bhagavā yasmā ‘‘upasampannassa sutvā upasampannassa pesuññaṃ upasaṃharatī’’ti vuttānaṃ dvinnaṃ padānaṃ aññataravipallāsavasena vā ubhayavipallāsavasena vā pācittiyanti katvā dvepi tāni ekato vuttānīti dassetukāmo, tasmā sabbapaṭhamaṃyeva ‘‘upasampanno upasampannassa sutvā upasampannassa pesuññaṃ upasaṃharati, āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti āha. ‘‘Dvīsu panetesu yasmā pārājikaṃ ajjhāpannopi upasampanno tādisaṃyeva upasampannaṃ khuṃsetukāmo omasati, tādisassa sutvā tādisassa pesuññaṃ upasaṃharati, āpatti pācittiyassa, tasmā ‘upasampanno’ti idaṃ ādipadaṃ sabbattha vutta’’nti keci vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ, anavasesaāpattiṃ āpannassa puna āpattiyā asambhavato, tasmā kevalaṃ mātikāyaṃ bhikkhupadābhāvatoyeva ‘‘bhaṇati upasaṃharatī’’ti padānaṃ kārakaniddesābhāve asambhavato eva taṃ ādipadaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Idaṃ pāḷilesābhāvato anāṇattikameva. ‘‘Na piyakamyassa, na bhedādhippāyassā’’ti upasaṃharaṇāpekkhaṃ sāmivacanaṃ tuṇhībhūtassa vacanappayojanābhāvato, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘pāpagarahitāya bhaṇantassa anāpattī’’ti.

38-9. Having said, 'The venerable so-and-so says that he is a caṇḍāla... a pukkusa,' he engages in tale-bearing—this is the connection. Otherwise, it would become necessary to say, 'he says he is a pukkusa.' Here, although the section concerning the unordained is obtainable, it is not extracted because the method has been shown in the case of abusive speech, or because of the desire to show it briefly at the end. Indeed, at the end, three dukkaṭa offenses are shown. Furthermore, while showing these, the Blessed One wished to show that a pācittiya offense arises from the reversal of one or both of the two terms in the statement, 'having heard from an ordained one, he engages in tale-bearing to an ordained one,' and that both these cases are stated together. Therefore, first of all, he said: 'An ordained one, having heard from an ordained one, engages in tale-bearing to an ordained one—there is an offense of pācittiya.' Some say: 'In these two cases, because even an ordained one who has committed a pārājika, wishing to scold a similar ordained one, abuses him, and having heard from such a one, engages in tale-bearing to such a one, there is an offense of pācittiya; therefore, this initial word 'ordained' is stated everywhere.' That is not correct, because it is impossible for one who has committed an offense without remainder to commit another offense. Therefore, it should be understood that this initial word is stated simply because, due to the absence of the word 'bhikkhu' in the mātikā, the specification of the agent for the verbs 'says' and 'engages in tale-bearing' would be impossible. Due to the absence of any subtle hint in the Pali, this is indeed not by command. 'Not for one desiring affection, not for one with the intention of causing dissension'—this genitive statement refers to the act of engaging in tale-bearing, for there is no purpose in speaking for one who is silent. Therefore, it is said: 'There is no offense for one who speaks for the sake of censuring evil.'

Pesuññasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Tale-bearing is concluded.

4. Padasodhammasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Teaching the Dhamma Syllable by Syllable

45-6. Sabbametaṃ [Pg.291] padaso dhammo nāmāti ettha dhammo nāma buddhabhāsitoti evaṃ sambandho. Akkharasamūhoti asamattapade. Paccekabuddhabhāsitaṃ buddhabhāsite eva. Anupāsakagahaṭṭhehi bhāsito isibhāsitādisaṅgahaṃ gacchatīti veditabbaṃ. Katthaci potthake ‘‘devatābhāsito’’ti padaṃ natthi, yattha atthi, sā pāḷi. Gāthābandhepi ca esa nayoti ekameva akkharaṃ vatvā ṭhānaṃ labbhati eva. ‘‘Evaṃ me suta’’ntiādisuttaṃ bhaṇāpiyamāno ekāraṃ vatvā tiṭṭhati ce, anvakkharena pācittiyaṃ, aparipuṇṇapadaṃ vatvā ṭhite anubyañjanena. Padesu ekaṃ paṭhamapadaṃ virujjhati ce, anupadena pācittiyaṃ. Aṭṭhakathānissitoti aṭṭhakathānissitavasena ṭhito. Pubbe pakatibhāsāya vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathaṃ sandhāya. Pāḷinissitoti pāḷiyaṃ evāgato. Maggakathādīnipi pakaraṇāni.

45-6. All this, word by word, is called Dhamma. Here, the connection is thus: Dhamma means what is spoken by the Buddha. Akkharasamūho refers to an incomplete word. What is spoken by Paccekabuddhas is indeed included in what is spoken by a Buddha. It should be understood that what is spoken by householders who are not lay disciples falls into the category of sayings of sages, and so on. In some books, the word “spoken by deities” is not found; where it is found, that is the Pāḷi. And even in verse composition, this is the method: a basis [for an offense] is indeed established by uttering just one syllable. If, while causing a sutta beginning with “Evaṃ me sutaṃ” to be recited, one stops after uttering the syllable ‘e’, there is a pācittiya offense for each subsequent syllable; if stopping after uttering an incomplete word, [there is an offense] for each subsequent consonant. If, among the words, the first word is disrupted, there is a pācittiya offense for each subsequent word. Aṭṭhakathānissito means established based on the commentary, referring to the commentary previously stated in common language. Pāḷinissito means that which comes from the Pāḷi itself. Discussions on the path and so on are also treatises.

48. Upacāranti dvādasahatthaṃ. ‘‘Opātetīti ekato bhaṇati samāgacchatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Kiñcāpi apalāladamanampi sīlupadesopi bhagavato kāle uppanno, atha kho tesu yaṃ yaṃ buddhavacanato āharitvā vuttaṃ, taṃ tadeva āpattivatthu hotīti viññāpanatthaṃ mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘vadantī’’ti vacanehi sithilaṃ kataṃ. Buddhavacanato āharitvā vuttassa bahulatāya tabbahulanayena tesu āpatti vuttā, tasmā mahāpaccariyaṃ tassādhippāyo pakāsitoti attho. ‘‘Sabbesameva vacananti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Sace ācariyo ṭhito nisinnānaṃ pāṭhaṃ deti, ‘‘na ṭhito nisinnassa dhammaṃ desessāmī’’ti vuttāpattiṃ nāpajjatīti eke. Tesampi pāṭhadānaṃ dhammadesanato na aññanti taṃ na yuttaṃ, chattapāṇikādīnaṃ pāṭhadānena anāpattippasaṅgato, āpattibhāvo ca siddho. Vuttañhetaṃ –

48. Upacāra means twelve cubits. It is written: “Opāteti means one speaks together, one comes together.” Although the taming of the nāga-king Apalāla and the instruction on virtue also arose in the time of the Blessed One, nevertheless, to make it known that among those, only what was spoken having been brought from the word of the Buddha constitutes a basis for an offense, the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā made it flexible with the word “vadantī” (they say). Because of the abundance of what was spoken having been brought forth from the Buddha’s word, an offense was stated in those cases according to that principle of abundance; therefore, the meaning is that in the Mahāpaccarī that intention was revealed. It is said: “'It is the word of all indeed,' say others.” If a teacher, while standing, gives a lesson to those who are seated, some say he does not incur the offense stated as, “I will not teach the Dhamma to one who is seated while I am standing.” But that is not correct, as giving a lesson is not different from teaching the Dhamma; otherwise, it would lead to the consequence of there being no offense for giving a lesson to one holding an umbrella, etc., yet the state of being an offense is established. For it was said:

‘‘Ubho atthaṃ na jānanti, ubho dhammaṃ na passare;

Yo cāyaṃ mantaṃ vāceti, yo cādhammenadhīyatī’’ti. (pāci. 647);

“Both do not know the meaning, both do not see the Dhamma—the one who teaches the mantra and the one who learns it improperly.” (Pāc. 647)

Ettha adhīyatīti attho, tasmā pāṭhadānampi dhammadesanāva. Sekhiyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 634) ‘‘dhammaparicchedo panettha padasodhamme vuttanayena veditabbo’’ti vuttaṃ[Pg.292], tasmā ayameva dhammo sabbattha dhammapaṭisaṃyuttasikkhāpadesu veditabbo. Yadi evaṃ saṅkhārabhāsādivasena cittadhammaṃ desentassa sekhiyavasena anāpatti siyā, tato chapakajātakavirodho. Tattha mantānaṃ bāhiraganthattāti ce? Na, tadadhippāyājānanato. Ayañhi tattha adhippāyo ‘‘bāhirakaganthasaṅkhātampi mantaṃ ucce āsane nisinnassa vācetuṃ me bhikkhave amanāpaṃ, pageva dhammaṃ desetu’’nti. ‘‘Tadāpi me, bhikkhave, amanāpaṃ nīce āsane nisīditvā ucce āsane nisinnassa mantaṃ vācetuṃ, kimaṅgaṃ pana etarahi…pe… dhammaṃ desetu’’nti (pāci. 647) hi ayaṃ pāḷi yathāvuttameva adhippāyaṃ dīpeti, na aññaṃ. Teneva ‘‘mantaṃ vācetuṃ dhammaṃ desetu’’nti vacanabhedo kato. Aññathā ubhayattha ‘‘dhammaṃ desetu’’micceva vattabbanti.

Here, the meaning is ‘one studies’; hence, even teaching by recitation is a Dhamma discourse. In the commentary on the Sekhiya rules (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 634), it is stated: “The definition of Dhamma here should be understood in the manner explained in the section on 'Dhamma word by word'.” Therefore, this very Dhamma should be understood universally in all training rules connected with the Dhamma. If, in this way, there were no offense under the Sekhiya rules for one who teaches the Dhamma of the mind through explanations like formations and speech, then it would contradict the Chapaka Jātaka. Is it because there the mantras are considered external texts? No, it is due to not understanding that intention. For the intention there is this: “Monks, it is displeasing to me to teach even a mantra, which is considered an external text, to one seated on a high seat; how much more so to teach the Dhamma!” Indeed, this Pali passage, “Even then, monks, it was displeasing to me to teach a mantra while seated on a low seat to one seated on a high seat; what then to say now… to teach the Dhamma?” (Pācittiya 647), reveals the intention just as stated, and not another. For that very reason, the distinction in wording was made: “to teach a mantra” and “to teach the Dhamma.” Otherwise, in both cases, it should have been said only as “to teach the Dhamma.”

Mayā saddhiṃ mā vadātiādimhi pana anugaṇṭhipade evaṃ vutto ‘‘sace bhikkhu sāmaṇerena saddhiṃ vattukāmo, tathā sāmaṇeropi bhikkhunā saddhiṃ vattukāmo sahasā opāteti, ‘yebhuyyena paguṇaṃ ganthaṃ bhaṇantaṃ opātetī’’tiādīsu viya anāpatti, na hi ettāvatā bhikkhu sāmaṇerassa uddisati nāma hoti. Yasmā mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ natthi, tasmāpi yuttamevetaṃ. Sace tattha vicāretvā paṭikkhittaṃ siyā āpatti, kiriyākiriyañca nāpajjati. Kasmā? Yasmā cittena ekato vattukāmo, atha kho naṃ ‘ekato mā vadā’ti paṭikkhipitvāpi ekato vadanto āpajjati. Avattukāmassa sahasā virajjhitvā ekato vadantassa anāpatti, tena vuttaṃ ‘mayā saddhiṃ mā vadāti vutto yadi vadati, anāpattī’ti. Tathāpi ācariyānaṃ matimanuvattantena evarūpesu ṭhānesu yathāvuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Kasmā? Yasmā mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ natthi, natthibhāvatoyeva āpatti. Sace tattha anāpattiavacanaṃ na sambhavati ayamaṭṭhānattā’’ti.

However, in the supplementary passage beginning with “Do not speak with me,” it is stated thus: “If a bhikkhu wishes to speak with a sāmaṇera, and likewise the sāmaṇera wishes to speak with the bhikkhu, and one suddenly interrupts—like in the cases beginning with ‘one interrupts another who is reciting a mostly familiar text’—there is no offense. For by this much, it is not that the bhikkhu is instructing the sāmaṇera. Because this is not in the Great Commentary, this is also reasonable. If, having investigated there, it were rejected, there would be an offense, but one does not incur an offense of action and non-action. Why? Because one who wishes to speak together with intention, even after being forbidden with ‘Do not speak together,’ incurs an offense by speaking together. For one who does not wish to speak, who, having been suddenly disrupted, speaks together, there is no offense. Therefore it is said: ‘If one who has been told, “Do not speak with me,” speaks, there is no offense.’ Nevertheless, by one following the opinion of the teachers, in such cases, one should practice only according to the method as stated. Why? Because it is not in the Great Commentary, and precisely because of its absence, there is an offense. If the statement of ‘no offense’ is not possible there, it is because this is an inappropriate case.”

Tatrāyaṃ vicāraṇā – ‘‘mayā saddhiṃ mā vadā’’ti vutto yadi vadati, bhikkhuno anāpattīti yuttametaṃ bhikkhuno vattukāmatāyābhāvato, bhāvepi sajjhāyakaraṇādīsu tīsu anāpattito ca. Atha sāmaṇerena byattatāya ‘‘mayā saddhiṃ mā vadā’’ti vutto bhikkhu abyattatāya vadati, āpatti eva vattukāmatāsabbhāvato. Sahasā ce vadati, anāpatti tadabhāvato. Sace bhikkhu evaṃ ‘‘mayā saddhiṃ mā vadā’’ti [Pg.293] vatvā tena saddhiṃ sayaṃ vadati, āpatti eva. Na hi etaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ kiriyākiriyaṃ. Yadi etaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ kiriyākiriyaṃ bhaveyya, yuttaṃ. Tattha anāpattīti adhippāyo. Mahāpaccariyaṃ imināva adhippāyena ‘‘mayā saddhiṃ mā vadā’’ti vuttaṃ siyā. Na hi sāmaṇerassa kiriyā idha pamāṇanti, imasmiṃ pana adhippāye vutte atiyuttaṃvāti attho. Akkharattho byañjanattho. Kiñcāpi ‘‘yañca padaṃ yañca anupadaṃ yañca anvakkharaṃ yañca anubyañjanaṃ, sabbametaṃ padasodhammo nāmā’’ti vuttaṃ, tathāpi ‘‘padena vāceti, pade pade āpatti pācittiyassa, akkharāya vāceti, akkharakkharāya āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti idameva dvayaṃ yojitaṃ, taṃ kasmāti ce? Padena anupadaanubyañjanānaṃ saṅgahitattā. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘anupadanti dutiyapādo. Anubyañjananti purimabyañjanena sadisaṃ pacchābyañjana’’nti (pāci. aṭṭha. 45), tasmā anupadekadesamattameva anubyañjananti siddhaṃ. ‘‘Akkharānubyañjanasamūho pada’’nti ca vuttattā padamattameva vattabbaṃ tena anupadādittayaggahaṇatoti ce? Na vattabbaṃ vacanavisesato. Padena vācento hi pade vā anupade vā anubyañjane vā āpattiṃ āpajjati. Na akkharena. Akkharena vācento pana padādīsu aññatarasmiṃ āpajjati. Na hi ‘‘varo varaññū varado varāharo’’tiādimhi paṭhamaṃ va-kāraṃ vācento dutiyādiva-kāre opāteti, paṭhamaṃ ro-kāraṃ vācento dutiyaro-kāre opāteti, paṭhamaṃ ra-kāraṃ vācento dutiyara-kāre opāteti, āpatti pācittiyassāti sambhavati. Anubyañjanānulomato sambhavati evāti ce? Na, ‘‘pade pade āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti iminā viruddhattā. Idañhi vacanaṃ ekasmiṃ pade ekā āpattīti dīpeti. ‘‘Rūpaṃ aniccanti vuccamāno rūti opātetī’’ti vacanato sakalaṃ pādaṃ vācentassa paṭhamaakkharamatte ekato vutte āpattīti siddhanti ce? Na, ‘‘akkharakkharāya āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti iminā viruddhattā, tasmā rūti opātetīti vattuṃ asambhavato rū-kārassa yathāvuttadhammapariyāpannabhāvasiddhito taṃ avatvā kevalaṃ akkharāya vācentassa yathāvuttadhammapariyāpannaakkharabhāvadassanatthaṃ ‘‘rūpaṃ aniccanti vuccamāno’’ti vuttaṃ, vacanasiliṭṭhatāvasena vā anubyañjane vedanāvacanaṃ viyāti veditabbaṃ.

Herein is the deliberation: If a monk is told, “Do not speak with me,” and he speaks, it is proper that there is no offense for the monk, because of the monk's lack of desire to speak; and even if there is such a desire, there is no offense in the three cases such as making a recitation. But if a monk, having been told by a competent novice, “Do not speak with me,” speaks due to incompetence, there is indeed an offense because of the presence of the desire to speak. If he speaks thoughtlessly, there is no offense due to the absence of that desire. If a monk, having himself said, “Do not speak with me,” then speaks with that person, there is indeed an offense. For this training rule is not a matter of action and non-action. If this training rule were a matter of action and non-action, it would be proper; in that case, the intention is “no offense.” In the Mahāpaccarī, it might have been said with this very intention, “Do not speak with me.” For the novice's action is not the standard here; but when this meaning is stated, the meaning is that it is very fitting. The meaning of the letter is the meaning of the expression. Although it is said, “Whatever is a word, and whatever is a subsequent phrase, and whatever is a subsequent letter, and whatever is a secondary characteristic, all this is called the principle of purifying words,” nevertheless, only these two are applied: “If one teaches by the word, for every word there is an offense of pācittiya; if one teaches by the letter, for every letter there is an offense of pācittiya.” If one asks, “Why is that?” Because the subsequent phrase and the secondary characteristic are included by the word. For this has been said: “`Anupada` means the second foot of a verse. `Anubyañjana` means a later consonant similar to a former consonant.” Therefore, it is established that `anubyañjana` is merely a part of the `anupada`. If one were to argue: “And because it is said, ‘A word is a collection of letters and secondary characteristics,’ only the word should be mentioned, because by that the three beginning with `anupada` are included”? (The reply is:) This should not be said, due to the specific statement. For one who teaches by the word incurs an offense in a word, or a subsequent phrase, or a secondary characteristic. Not by the letter. But one who teaches by the letter incurs an offense in any one of the categories beginning with 'word'. For it is not possible that in a phrase such as “varo varaññū varado varāharo,” one who teaches the first 'va'-syllable thereby omits the second and subsequent 'va'-syllables; or that one who teaches the first 'ro'-syllable omits the second 'ro'-syllable; or that one who teaches the first 'ra'-syllable omits the second 'ra'-syllable, and that for this there is an offense of pācittiya. If one were to say, “It is indeed possible, in accordance with the secondary characteristic”? No, because it contradicts this statement: “For every word, there is an offense of pācittiya.” For this statement indicates one offense in one word. If one were to argue that, based on the statement “Being taught ‘Form is impermanent,’ he omits ‘rū’”, it is established that for one teaching the entire phrase, there is an offense when just the first letter is uttered? No, because it contradicts this statement: “For every letter, there is an offense of pācittiya.” Therefore, since it is impossible to say “he omits ‘rū’”, and since it is established that the syllable ‘rū’ is included in the aforementioned teaching, the phrase “being taught ‘Form is impermanent’” was stated not to say that, but for the purpose of showing—for one who teaches merely by the letter—that the letter is included in the aforementioned teaching. Or, it should be understood by way of verbal fluency, like the term ‘feeling’ in the context of secondary characteristics.

Padasodhammasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Padasodhamma training rule is concluded.

5. Paṭhamasahaseyyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning Shared Lodging

50. ‘‘Na [Pg.294] sahaseyyaṃ kappetabba’’nti bhāvavasena vuttaṃ, kesuci ‘‘na sahaseyyā kappetabbā’’ti pāṭho, na kappetabbā bhikkhunāti paññattanti adhippāyo. ‘‘Apassenaṃ vāti vāyimamañcakameva hotī’’ti likhitaṃ. Yaṃ etesaṃ na kappati, taṃ tesampīti upajjhāyādīnaṃ santikaṃ agantvā sahaseyyaṃ kappeyyāti pāṭhaseso.

50. The phrase 'Shared lodging should not be undertaken' is stated in the abstract sense of the action. In some textual versions, the reading is 'Shared lodgings should not be undertaken'; the intended meaning is that it is laid down that it should not be undertaken by a bhikkhu. It is written: 'Or without a support' means it is simply a woven couch. The remainder of the text should be supplied as follows: 'Whatever is not allowable for these (monks), is also not allowable for those (novices). Thinking thus, one might undertake shared lodging without first going to one's preceptors and so on.'

52. ‘‘Anupasampanno nāma bhikkhuṃ ṭhapetvā avaseso’ti vuttattā mātugāmo anupasampannoti catuttharattiyaṃ mātugāmo dvepi sahaseyyāpattiyo janetīti apare’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘bhikkhuṃ ṭhapetvā…pe… pannoti pārājikavatthubhūto tiracchānapuriso adhippeto’’ti ca, ubhayampi vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Dutiyasikkhāpade mātugāmo nāmāti manussitthiṃyeva gahetvā yakkhī petī tiracchānagatā pārājikavatthubhūtā na gahitā tesu dukkaṭattā. ‘‘Sace pana attanopi sikkhāpade dukkaṭaṃ bhaveyya, atha kasmā paṭhamasikkhāpade pācittiya’’nti ca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Aparikkhitte pamukhe anāpattī’’ti sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ, tassatthaṃ dīpetuṃ andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘bhūmiyaṃ vinā jagatiyā pamukhaṃ sandhāya kathita’’nti vuttaṃ. Puna vasatīti catutthadivase vasati. Bhikkhunipanneti bhikkhumhi nipanne. Sannipatitamaṇḍapaṃ nāma mahāvihāre sannipātaṭṭhānaṃ. ‘‘Tīṇi ca divasāni dukkaṭakhette vasitvā catutthe divase sahaseyyāpattipahonake sayati, pācittiyevā’’ti ekacce vadanti kira, taṃ na yuttaṃ.

52. Because it is said, 'An unordained person means anyone remaining, having excluded a bhikkhu,' some say, 'Therefore, on the fourth night, a woman is an unordained person and causes both offenses of shared lodging to arise.' And it is said: 'Here, in the phrase "having excluded a bhikkhu... unordained person," a male animal, which is the basis for a Pārājika offense, is intended.' Both of these statements should be investigated. In the second training rule, in the phrase 'a woman means,' only a human female is taken, while female yakkhas, petīs, and animals, which are the basis for a Pārājika offense, are not taken, because in those cases it is a dukkaṭa offense. It is also said: 'But if in one's own training rule it were a dukkaṭa offense, then why in the first training rule is it a pācittiya?' There is this statement from the Sinhalese commentary: 'There is no offense in an unenclosed porch.' To explain its meaning, in the Andhaka commentary it is said: 'This was said in reference to a porch on a terrace, not on the ground.' Here, 'dwells again' means dwells on the fourth day. 'When a bhikkhu is lying down' means when a bhikkhu is lying down. The 'assembly hall' is the meeting place in the Mahāvihāra. Some are said to claim: 'Having dwelt for three days in a domain of a dukkaṭa offense, if on the fourth day one dwells in a place sufficient to incur an offense of shared lodging, it is a pācittiya offense indeed.' That is not correct.

Paṭhamasahaseyyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning Shared Lodging is concluded.

6. Dutiyasahaseyyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. The Commentary on the Second Training Rule Concerning Shared Lodging

55. ‘‘Atha kho te manussā’’ti ca ‘‘te addhikā’’ti ca pāṭho. ‘‘Ekaratta’’ntipi atthi, so na sundaro. Paṇḍake pāḷiyaṃ dukkaṭassa vuttattā ‘‘ubhatobyañjanehi mūlāpattīti dissatī’’ti, ‘‘animittādayo itthiyovā’’ti ca vadanti ubhatobyañjanake vuttaṃ viya. Kiñcāpi matitthī pārājikavatthu hoti, anupādinnapakkhe ṭhitattā pana idha āpattiṃ na karoti. Pārājikāpattiṭṭhānañcettha na oloketabbaṃ.

55. “Then those people” and “those travelers” are variant readings. The reading “one night” also exists, but it is not good. Because it is stated in the Pāḷi that for a paṇḍaka there is a dukkaṭa offense, and because it appears that for a hermaphrodite there is a root offense, some say, “Those without distinguishing features and so on are indeed women,” as was said regarding the hermaphrodite. Although a dead woman is an object for a pārājika offense, nevertheless, because she is in the category of the un-grasped, she does not create an offense here. And the basis for a pārājika offense should not be considered here.

Dutiyasahaseyyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Second Training Rule on Lying Down Together is finished.

7. Dhammadesanāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Training Rule on Teaching the Dhamma

66. ‘‘Viññū [Pg.295] paṭibalā’’ti vacanato aviññū itthiyāpi desentassa anāpatti. Idha yakkhīādayo manussitthī viya anoḷārikattā dukkaṭavatthukā jātā. Tiracchānagatamanussaviggahitthiyā paṭibalatāya vuttattā itarāpi dukkaṭavatthuyevāti eke. ‘‘Mātugāmāyā’’ti liṅgavipallāsena vuttaṃ. ‘‘Aṭṭhakathādipāṭhaṃ ṭhapetvā damiḷādinā yathāruci kathetuṃ labhati kirā’’ti likhitaṃ, yathā yakkhīādayo dukkaṭavatthukā jātā, tathā purisaviggahaṃ gahetvā ṭhitena yakkhādinā saddhiṃ ṭhitassa mātugāmassa dhammaṃ desento dukkaṭaṃ anāpajjitvā kasmā pācittiyamāpajjatīti ce? Īsakampi dutiyapakkhaṃ abhajanato. Manussamātugāmopi na dutiyo, pageva yakkhādayoti. Na dutiyāniyate tassa dutiyattāti ce? Na tattha duṭṭhullavācāpekkhā dutiyatā, kintu nisajjāpekkhā, idha ca na nisajjamattaṃ, kintu desanā idhādhippetā. Sā ca nipajjanato oḷārikā, tasmā asamatthanidassanaṃ.

66. Because of the statement, “An intelligent person is able,” there is no offense for one who teaches even an unintelligent woman. Here, female yakkhas and so on, because of not being coarse like a human woman, have become objects for a dukkaṭa offense. Because the capability of a female animal with a human form is stated, some say that others too are indeed objects for a dukkaṭa offense. “Of a woman” is stated with a change of gender. It is written: “It is said that, having set aside the text of the commentary and so on, one may speak as one wishes in Tamil and so on.” If one were to ask: “Just as female yakkhas and so on have become objects for a dukkaṭa offense, why does one who teaches the Dhamma to a woman standing together with a yakkha or the like who has taken a male form not incur a dukkaṭa, but instead incur a pācittiya?” Because of not entering into the second party, even a little. A human woman is not a second party, how much more so yakkhas and so on. If one were to say: “One does not incur an offense because of her being a second party in the second Aniyata rule,” it should be said: There, being a second party is not with reference to lewd speech, but with reference to sitting. And here, it is not mere sitting, but teaching that is intended here. And that teaching is coarser than sitting. Therefore, that is an unfitting example.

Dhammadesanāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Training Rule on Teaching the Dhamma is finished.

8. Bhūtārocanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Training Rule on Announcing a True Attainment

67. ‘‘Catutthapārājikavatthu ca idañca ekamevā’’ti vuttaṃ, na yuttaṃ. Kasmā? Tattha ‘‘moghapurisā’’ti vuttattā. Te ariyamissakā na hontīti dvepi ekasadisānīti mama takko. ‘‘Ariyāpi paṭijāniṃsu, tesampi abbhantare vijjamānattā uttarimanussadhammassā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Sabbepi bhūtaṃ bhagavāti puthujjanaariyānaṃ uttarimanussadhammassa ārocitattā ‘bhūta’nti vuttaṃ, na attano uttarimanussadhammaṃ sandhāyāti apare’’ti vuttaṃ.

67. It was said: 'The matter of the fourth pārājika and this are one and the same,' but that is not suitable. Why? Because there it is said, 'worthless men.' They are not mixed with the noble ones; thus, my reasoning is that both are similar. It is written: 'Noble ones also confessed, because the superior human state exists within them.' It was said: 'All informed the Blessed One, saying, "It is true." Thus, others say that "true" was said because the superior human state of ordinary persons and noble ones was announced, not referring to one's own superior human state.'

77. Pubbe avuttehīti catutthapārājike avuttehīti.

77. “By those not spoken of before” means by those not spoken of in the fourth pārājika.

Bhūtārocanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Announcing a Truthful Attainment is concluded.

9. Duṭṭhullārocanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Announcing a Grave Offense

78-80. ‘‘Teneva [Pg.296] hatthena upakkamitvā asuciṃ mocesī’’ti pāṭho sampatipāṭho sundaro. Apaloketvāva kātabbā. No ce, pāḷiyaṃyeva vuttaṃ siyā. ‘‘Ottappenā’’ti vattabbe ruḷhīvasena paresu ‘‘hirottappenā’’ti vuttaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ uttānattā na vuttaṃ, pācittiyāsambhavadassaneneva hi dukkaṭanti siddhaṃ.

The reading, “With that very hand, having approached, he released impurity,” is a good one. It should be done only after asking permission. If not, it would have been stated in the Pāḷi itself. When “with moral dread” should be said, by way of convention among others, “with moral shame and moral dread” is said. In the Great Commentary, it is not stated because it is obvious; for indeed, it is established that it is a dukkaṭa offense simply by seeing the impossibility of a pācittiya offense.

83. Tattha ‘‘kamma’’nti vuttaajjhācārepi pariyāpannattā taṃ tassa daṇḍakammavatthu. ‘‘Tattha kammaṃ āpanno’’ti pubbepi likhitaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘attakāmaṃ āpanno’’ti pāṭho, ‘‘ayameva gahetabbo’’ti vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ.

83. There, because it is included even in the misconduct spoken of as an 'act' (kamma), that misconduct is the basis for his disciplinary action. “There he has committed an act” has also been written previously. In the Great Commentary, there is the reading “he has fulfilled his desire,” and they say, “This very reading should be taken.” It should be investigated.

Duṭṭhullārocanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Announcing a Grave Offense is concluded.

10. Pathavīkhaṇanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Digging the Earth

86. Kaṭasakkharā setamattikā viya mudukā sakkharajāti. ‘‘Akatapabbhāreti avalañjitabbaṭṭhānadassanatthaṃ vutta’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Anovassakaṭṭhānadassanattha’’nti vattabbaṃ. Mūsikukkuranti mūsikāhi uddhaṭapaṃsu. Suddhacittāti kiñcāpi ‘‘evaṃ pavaṭṭite pathavī bhijjissatī’’ti jānanti, no pana ce pathavībhedatthikā, suddhacittā nāma honti. Paṃsuādayo dve koṭṭhāsā āpattikarā. Keci ‘‘sabbacchannādīsu upaḍḍhe dukkaṭassa vuttattā sace dukkaṭaṃ, yutta’’nti vadanti. Tattha yuttaṃ tādisassa vatthuno sambhavā, idha pana jātapathavī ca ajātapathavī cāti dveyeva vatthūni, tasmā dvinnaṃ ekena bhavitabbanti na yuttaṃ. Etthāpi dukkaṭavacanaṃ atthīti ce? Taṃ pana saññāvasena, na vatthuvasenāti na yuttameva.

86. A type of gravel that has been worked on is soft like white clay. It is written: '“Unprepared ground” is stated for the purpose of showing a place that should not be used.' It should also be said: 'for the purpose of showing a place not soaked by rain.' In 'mūsikukkura,' it refers to earth dug up by rats. Regarding 'with a pure mind': although they know, 'If it is disturbed in this way, the earth will break,' if they do not desire the destruction of the earth, they are called 'of pure mind.' Earth and so forth, the two portions, are what cause an offense. Some say, 'Because a dukkaṭa offense is mentioned for a half portion in cases such as fully-roofed dwellings, if it is a dukkaṭa offense here, it is appropriate.' There, it is appropriate because of the possibility of such a case. But here, there are only two grounds: 'earth that has come into being' and 'earth that has not come into being.' Therefore, it must be one of the two, and for that reason, it is not appropriate. If one were to say, 'Here too there is the statement of a dukkaṭa offense,' the reply is: that, however, is stated by way of perception, not by way of the object; therefore, it is indeed not appropriate.

87. Aggiṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti ettha ettāvatā usumaṃ gaṇhāti, tasmā vaṭṭatīti keci. Evaṃ sati pathaviyā aggimhi kate dūratopi bhūmi uṇhā hoti, tattakaṃ kopetabbaṃ siyā, na ca kappati, tasmā yasmiṃ ṭhāne patati, taṃ so aggi ḍahati, tasmā vaṭṭatīti eke. Aḍahitepi ‘‘adaḍḍhāya [Pg.297] pathaviyā aggiṃ ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttattā attanā pātanāyeva doso patite upadāheti veditabbaṃ.

87. Herein, regarding 'It is allowable to make a fire': some say that by this much it takes on heat; therefore, it is allowable. This being so, when a fire is made on the earth, the ground becomes hot even from a distance, and that much of the area would have to be disturbed, which is not allowable. Therefore, some say that in whatever place it falls, that fire does not burn that place; therefore, it is allowable. Even if it is not burnt, because it is said, 'It is not allowable to place a fire on unburnt earth,' it should be understood that by one's own act of causing it to fall, if there is scorching where it has fallen, there is an offense.

Pathavīkhaṇanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning digging the earth is concluded.

Samatto vaṇṇanākkamena musāvādavaggo paṭhamo.

The first chapter, the one on false speech, is concluded in accordance with the order of the commentary.

2. Bhūtagāmavaggo

2. The Chapter on Plants

1. Bhūtagāmasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Plants.

89. Pharasuṃ niggahetuṃ asakkontoti dassitabhāvaṃ jānāpeti. Kasmā ayaṃ pharasuṃ uggirīti ce? Manussānantiādi tassa parihāro. ‘‘Ākoṭesi chindīti ca vacanato rukkhadevatānaṃ hatthāni chijjanti, na cātumahārājikādīnaṃ viya acchejjānī’’ti vadanti.

89. “Unable to restrain the axe” makes known the state that was shown. If one should ask, “Why did he raise the axe?” the answer to that is “for humans,” and so on. They say that because of the statement, “He struck and cut,” the hands of tree-deities are cut, and they are not indestructible like those of the devas of the Cātumahārājika realm and so on.

90-92. Bhavanti ahuvuñcāti dvikāliko bhūtasaddo. Yadi bījato nibbattena bījaṃ dassitaṃ, tadeva santakaṃ yadidaṃ. Sova kukkuṭo maṃsimakkhitoti ayameva hi parihāro. Aṭṭhakathāsupi hi ‘‘bīje bījasaññī’’ti likhitaṃ. Yaṃ bījaṃ bhūtagāmo nāma hoti, tasmiṃ bīje bhūtagāmabījeti yojetvā. Amūlakattā kira sampuṇṇabhūtagāmo na hoti, ‘‘samūlapatto eva hi bhūtagāmo nāmā’’ti kāraṇaṃ vadanti. ‘‘Abhūtagāmamūlattāti bhūtagāmato anuppannattā abhūtagāmamūlaṃ, bhūtagāmassa amūlakattā vā. Na hi tato añño bhūtagāmo uppajjatī’’ti dvidhāpi likhitaṃ. Piyaṅgu asanarukkho vaḍḍhanattaco khajjaphalo, ‘‘pītasālo’’tipi vuccati. Amūlakabhūtagāme saṅgahaṃ gacchatīti nāḷikerassevāyaṃ. Ghaṭapiṭṭhijātattā, bījagāmānulomattā ca dukkaṭavatthu. Na vāsetabbaṃ ‘‘durūpaciṇṇattā’’ti likhitaṃ, ‘‘yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā ruhatīti vacanato yesaṃ na ruhati, tesaṃ sākhāya kappiyakaraṇakiccaṃ natthīti siddha’’nti vuttaṃ. Muddatiṇanti tassa nāmaṃ. ‘‘Muñjatiṇanti pāṭho’’ti likhitaṃ.

90-92. The word 'bhūta' in 'bhavanti' and 'ahuvuñca' is of two tenses. If the seed is indicated by the plant life produced from the seed, then that very seed is the possession, that is, this seed. Indeed, this is the explanation: 'Like that very rooster smeared with earth.' Indeed, in the commentaries it is written: 'perceiving a seed in a seed.' That seed which is called plant life, in that seed, it should be connected as 'in the seed which is plant life.' Because it is rootless, it is said that a complete plant life does not exist; they state the reason thus: 'Indeed, only that which has a root and leaves is called plant life.' Regarding 'because its source is not from plant life': it is a source not from plant life because it does not arise from plant life, or because the plant life itself is rootless. Indeed, no other plant life arises from it. Thus it is written in two ways. Piyaṅgu is the asana tree; it has growing bark and edible fruit. It is also called 'pītasālo' (having yellow heartwood). Regarding 'it is included in rootless plant life': this refers specifically to the coconut palm. Because it is produced on the back of a pot, and because it is in conformity with the seed-group, it is a ground for a dukkaṭa offense. It should not be used, for it is written: 'because it is improperly practiced.' It is stated: 'From the text “of which trees the branch grows,” it is established that for those whose branches do not grow, there is no task of making their branches allowable.' Its name is 'muddatiṇa.' It is written: 'The reading is muñjatiṇa.'

Samaṇakappehīti samaṇavohārehi, tasmā vattabbaṃ bhikkhunā ‘‘kappiyaṃ karohī’’ti. Tassa āṇattiyā karontenāpi sāmaṇerādinā ‘‘kappiya’’nti [Pg.298] vatvāva aggiparijitaṃ kātabbanti siddhaṃ. Aggiparijitādīni viya kappiyattā abījanibbaṭṭabījānipi ‘‘pañcahi samaṇakappehī’’ti (cūḷava. 250) ettha paviṭṭhāni, yathālābhato vā samaṇakappavacanaṃ gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Kappiya’nti vattukāmo ‘kappa’nti ce vadati, ‘vaṭṭatī’ti vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Kappiya’nti vacanaṃ sakasakabhāsāyapi vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Kappiyanti vatvā’’ti vuttattā bhikkhunā ‘kappiyaṃ’icceva vattabbaṃ, ‘‘itarena pana yāya kāyaci bhāsāyā’’ti vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. ‘‘Ucchuṃ kappiyaṃ karissāmīti dāruṃ vijjhatī’’ti vacanato kappiyaṃ kātabbaṃ sandhāya viraddheti vuttaṃ hoti, ācariyā pana ‘‘kappiyaṃ kāretabbaṃ sandhāya kappiyanti sitthādiṃ kāreti, vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, tassa kāraṇaṃ vadantā kātuṃ vaṭṭanabhāveneva virajjhitvā katepi kappiyaṃ jātaṃ. Yadi na vaṭṭeyya, sitthādimhi kate na vaṭṭeyyāti, upaparikkhitabbaṃ. Uṭṭhitasevālaghaṭaṃ ātape nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati, vikopetukāmatāya sati dukkaṭaṃ yuttaṃ viya. ‘‘Puppharajjubhājanagatikā, tasmā na vaṭṭati. Nāḷe vā baddhapupphakalāpe nāḷasmiṃ katepi vaṭṭati tasmiṃ pupphassa atthitāyā’’ti vadanti. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade ‘‘bījagāmena bhūtagāmo dassito anavasesapariyādānattha’’nti vuttaṃ.

“By the conventions of ascetics” means by the usages of ascetics. Therefore, a bhikkhu should say, “Make it allowable.” It is established that even when a novice or another acts under his instruction, a thing touched by fire must be made so only after saying 'kappiyaṃ'. Just as things touched by fire and so forth are allowable, so too seeds from cuttings and extracted seeds are included here under 'the five ascetic conventions' (Cūḷavagga 250) because they are allowable; or, the term 'ascetic convention' should be understood according to what is available. It is said: “If one, wishing to say 'kappiyaṃ', says 'kappa', they say 'it is allowable'.” They also say: “The word 'kappiyaṃ' is valid in one's own respective language.” Because it is stated “having said 'kappiyaṃ'”, a bhikkhu should say only 'kappiyaṃ'. They say, “But by another, it may be said in any language whatsoever”; this should be investigated. From the saying, “Thinking, 'I will make sugarcane allowable,' he pierces the wood,” it is said that one fails with regard to making it allowable. The teachers, however, say: “Intending to have something made allowable, one has a rice-ball, etc., made while saying 'kappiyaṃ'; this is allowable.” Stating the reason for this, they say that simply by virtue of its being fit to be done, even when it is done after a procedural failure, it becomes allowable. If it were not allowable, then when a rice-ball, etc., is made, it would not be allowable; this should be investigated. It is allowable to place a water pot on which moss has grown in the sun; if there is an intention to destroy it, a dukkaṭa offense seems proper. They say: “It has the nature of a container for a flower-garland, therefore it is not allowable. Or, in a bundle of flowers tied to a stalk, even if the stalk is prepared, it is allowable because of the existence of the flower on it.” In the ancient glossary, it is said: “The plant-kind is indicated by the seed-kind for the purpose of including everything without remainder.”

Bhūtagāmasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Plants is concluded.

2. Aññavādakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Speaking Otherwise

98-9. Aññaṃ vadatīti aññavādakaṃ, ‘‘vacanaṃ kareyyā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Tuṇhībhūtassetaṃ nāma’’nti pāṭho. Ugghātetukāmoti samohanitukāmo, antarāyaṃ kattukāmoti porāṇā.

98-9. He speaks otherwise, therefore he is called one who speaks otherwise. It is written: 'One should speak.' The reading is: 'This is the name of one who has become silent.' 'Desiring to refute' means desiring to confuse; according to the ancients, it means desiring to make an obstruction.

100. ‘‘Sudiṭṭho bhante, na paneso kahāpaṇotiādīsu anāropite dukkaṭena musāvādapācittiyaṃ, aropite pācittiyadvayaṃ hotī’’ti vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ.

100. In cases such as 'Venerable Sir, it is clearly seen, but this is not a kahāpaṇa,' if the matter is not brought up, there is a pācittiya offense for false speech along with a dukkaṭa offense; if it is brought up, there are two pācittiya offenses,” they say. This should be investigated.

102. Adhammena vā vaggena vā na kammārahassa vāti ettha ‘‘mayi vutte maṃ vā aññaṃ vā saṅgho adhammena vā kammaṃ, vaggena vā kammaṃ karissati, na [Pg.299] kammārahassa vā me, aññassa vā kammaṃ karissatī’’ti na kathetīti yojetabbaṃ.

102. Here, concerning 'by unrighteous means or by a faction or against one not deserving of action,' it should be connected thus: Thinking, “If I speak, the Saṅgha will perform an action toward me or another by unrighteous means, or by a faction, or will perform an action toward one not deserving of it—whether toward me or another,” he does not speak.

Aññavādakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Speaking Otherwise is concluded.

3. Ujjhāpanakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Fault-finding

103. ‘‘Chandāyā’’ti akkharakkharāyātiādi viya liṅgavipallāsena vuttaṃ, chandatthanti vā attho. Yesaṃ senāsanāni paññapeti, tesaṃ attani chandatthanti adhippāyo.

103. The word ‘chandāyā’ is stated with a gender inversion, like ‘akkharakkharāyāti,’ etc., or its meaning is ‘for the sake of will.’ The intention is that for those for whom lodgings are assigned, it is for the sake of their own will.

106. Anupasampannantiādīsu karaṇattho gahetabbo. Aññaṃ anupasampannanti aññena anupasampannena. Tassa vāti anupasampannassa. ‘‘Sammutikāle pañcaṅgavirahādayo asammatā nāmā’’ti, ‘‘upasampannena laddhasammuti sikkhāpaccakkhānena vinassatī’’ti ca vuttaṃ. Saṅghenāti sabbena saṅghena kammavācāya assāvetvā ‘‘taveso bhāro’’ti kevalaṃ āropitabhāro. Kevala-saddo hettha kammavācāya assāvitabhāvamattameva dīpeti. Sayamevāti itaresaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ anumatiyā. Abhūtena khīyanakassa ādikammikassa kathaṃ anāpattīti ce? Iminā sikkhāpadena. Musāvāde āpattiyeva dve pācittiyo vuttā viya dissanti pubbapayoge rukkhādichindanādīsu viya, vicāretabbaṃ.

106. In the phrases beginning with ‘anupasampanna’ (not fully ordained), the instrumental sense should be understood. ‘Another not fully ordained’ means by another who is not fully ordained. ‘Of him’ means of the one not fully ordained. It is said, ‘During the time of authorization, those lacking the five qualities, etc., are considered unauthorized,’ and ‘authorization obtained by one who is fully ordained is lost by renouncing the training.’ ‘By the Saṅgha’ means that the entire Saṅgha, without announcing it by a formal act, merely assigned the responsibility by saying, ‘This is your responsibility.’ Here the word ‘kevala’ (merely) indicates only the fact that it was not announced by a formal act. ‘By oneself’ means with the agreement of the other bhikkhus. If it is asked, ‘How is there no offense for the first offender who maliciously accuses falsely?’, the answer is: Because of this training rule. In the case of false speech, there is indeed an offense; two pācittiya offenses seem to be stated, as in the preliminary action in cases like cutting down a tree, etc. This should be investigated.

Ujjhāpanakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on fault-finding is concluded.

4. Paṭhamasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the First Training Rule on Lodgings

110. ‘‘Evañcidaṃ bhagavatā bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ hotī’’ti vacanato, parivāre ‘‘ekā paññatti, ekā anupaññattī’’ti (pari. 226) vacanato ca idha atthi anupaññattīti siddhaṃ. Kiñcāpi siddhaṃ, ‘‘evañca pana, bhikkhave, imaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ uddiseyyāthā’’tiādinā pana paññattiṭṭhānaṃ na paññāyati, kevalaṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṭṭhamāse…pe… nikkhipitu’’nti ettakameva vuttaṃ, taṃ kasmāti [Pg.300] ce? Paṭhamapaññattiyaṃ vuttanayeneva vattabbato avisesattā na vuttaṃ. Yadi evaṃ kā ettha anupaññattīti? Ajjhokāseti. Ayamanupaññatti paññattiyampi atthīti ce? Atthi, taṃ pana okāsamattadīpanaṃ, dutiyaṃ cātuvassikamāsasaṅkhātakāladīpanaṃ. Yasmā ubhayampi ekaṃ kālokāsaṃ ekato katvā ‘‘ajjhokāse’’ti vuttanti dīpento bhagavā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave…pe… nikkhipitu’’nti āhāti veditabbaṃ. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vuttaṃ ‘‘yattha ca yadā ca santharituṃ na vaṭṭati, taṃ sabbamidha ajjhokāsasaṅkhyameva gatanti veditabba’’nti. Hemantakālassa anāpattisamayattā idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ nidānānapekkhanti siddhaṃ, tathā hi ajjhokāsapadasāmatthiyena ayaṃ viseso – vassānakāle ovassakaṭṭhāne ajjhokāse, maṇḍapādimhi ca na vaṭṭati. Hemantakāle pakatiajjhokāse na vaṭṭati, sabbamidha ovassakepi maṇḍapādimhi vaṭṭati, tañca kho yattha himavassena senāsanaṃ na temeti, gimhakāle pakatiajjhokāsepi vaṭṭati, tañca kho akālameghādassaneyevāti ayaṃ viseso ‘‘aṭṭha māse’’ti ca ‘‘avassikasaṅkete’’ti ca etesaṃ dvinnaṃ padānaṃ sāmatthiyatopi siddho.

110. From the statement, ‘Thus, this training rule was laid down by the Blessed One for the bhikkhus,’ and from the statement in the Parivāra, ‘There is one enactment, one supplementary enactment,’ it is established that there is a supplementary enactment here. Although it is established, the place of the enactment is not discerned by the text beginning with, ‘And thus, bhikkhus, you should recite this training rule…’; only ‘I allow, bhikkhus, for eight months…to store it away’ is stated. If it is asked why, it is because it was not stated, as it should be understood in the same way as stated in the first enactment, there being no distinction. If so, what is the supplementary enactment here? It is ‘in the open.’ If it is asked, ‘Is this supplementary enactment also in the original enactment?’ Yes, it is. However, that one is merely an indicator of place, while the second indicates the time—the period reckoned as the four months of the rainy season. Because both—time and place—are combined into one and called ‘in the open,’ it should be understood that the Blessed One, indicating this, said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus…to store it away.’ Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā it is said: ‘Wherever and whenever it is not allowable to spread out, all of that should be understood as included here in the category of “in the open.”’ Since the winter season is a time of no offense, this training rule is established as not depending on a cause. Thus, by the force of the word ‘in the open,’ this is the distinction: during the rainy season, it is not allowable in the open in a place exposed to rain, nor in a pavilion and so forth. In the winter season, it is not allowable in a normal open place; here, it is entirely allowable even in a pavilion and so forth that is exposed to rain, provided that the lodging is not dampened by frost. In the hot season, it is allowable even in a normal open place, and that is only when an unseasonal cloud is seen. This distinction is also established by the force of these two phrases: ‘for eight months’ and ‘in a place not designated for the rains.’

Kiñca bhiyyo – aṭṭhakathāyaṃ sandassitavisesova. Cammādinā onaddhako vā navavāyimo vā na sīghaṃ vinassati. Kāyānugatikattāti kāye yattha, tattha gatattā. Saṅghikamañcādimhi kāyaṃ phusāpetvā viharituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dhammasiritthero. ‘‘Saṅghikaṃ pana ‘ajjhokāsaparibhogena paribhuñjatha, bhante, yathāsukha’nti dāyakā denti senāsanaṃ, evarūpe anāpattī’’ti andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vacanato, idha ca paṭikkhepābhāvato vaṭṭati. ‘‘Aññañca evarūpanti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Pādaṭṭhānābhimukhāti nisīdantassa pādapatanaṭṭhānābhimukhā’’ti likhitaṃ. Sammajjantassa pādaṭṭhānābhimukhanti ācariyassa takko.

Furthermore, in the commentary, a special case is shown. A bed covered with leather, etc., or newly woven, does not quickly perish. 'Because it accompanies the body' means because it goes wherever the body goes. Thus said Elder Dhammasiri: 'It is not proper to dwell causing the body to touch a communal bed, etc.' 'However, donors offer a communal lodging, saying, “Venerable sirs, use it as an open-air lodging, as you please.” In such a case, there is no offense'—thus it is said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā; and because here there is no prohibition, it is permissible. It is said: 'And others say, “And another such as this.”' 'Facing the place where the feet are placed' means, for one who is sitting, facing the place where the feet will fall—thus it is written. Facing the place where the feet are placed for one who is sweeping—this is the teacher's reasoning.

111. ‘‘Pāduddhārenāti bahiupacāre ṭhitattā’’ti likhitaṃ. Gacchanti, dukkaṭaṃ dhammakathikassa viya. Kasmā na pācittiyaṃ? Pacchā āgatehi vuḍḍhatarehi uṭṭhāpetvā gahetabbato. Dhammakathikassa pana anuṭṭhapetabbattā. ‘‘Anāṇattiyā paññattiyampi tassa bhāro’’ti vuttaṃ.

111. It is written: 'Regarding pāduddhārena (by lifting the feet), it is because of standing outside the boundary.' When they go, it is a dukkaṭa offense, as in the case of a Dhamma teacher. Why is it not a pācittiya offense? Because it should be taken after having made the more senior monks who arrived later get up. However, for a Dhamma teacher, it is a pācittiya offense because he should not be made to get up. It is said: 'Even when spreading a seat on one's own accord, without being commanded, it is his responsibility.'

112. Pariharaṇeyevāti [Pg.301] ettha gahetvā vicāraṇeti dhammasiritthero. Attano santakakaraṇeti upatissatthero. Bījanīpattakaṃ caturassabījanī.

112. Here, regarding pariharaṇe eva (in the very act of handling), Elder Dhammasiri says it means 'in taking and arranging.' Elder Upatissa says it means 'in making it one's own property.' A bījanīpattaka is a square fan.

113. ‘‘Yo bhikkhu vā sāmaṇero vā…pe… lajjī hotī’ti vuttattā alajjiṃ āpucchitvā gantuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Pāṭhe ‘‘kenaci palibuddhaṃ hotī’’ti ca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘palibuddha’’nti ca senāsanaṃyeva sandhāya vuttaṃ, tasmā tathāpi atthīti gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Anāpucchaṃ vā’’ti pāṭho.

113. They say: 'Because it is said, “Whatever bhikkhu or sāmaṇera... is conscientious,” it is not proper to go after asking permission from a shameless one.' Both in the Pāḷi text, 'is obstructed by something,' and in the commentary, 'obstructed,' are said referring only to the lodging; therefore, it should be understood that this is also the case. There is the reading: 'or without asking.'

Paṭhamasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the first training rule concerning lodgings is concluded.

5. Dutiyasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The commentary on the second training rule concerning lodgings.

116-7. Ettakameva vuttamaṭṭhakathāsu, tathāpi padaṭṭhādayopi labbhanti eva. Anugaṇṭhipade ‘‘aññaṃ attharaṇādi akappiyattā na vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Mañcaṃ vā pīṭhaṃ vā vihāre vā vihārūpacāre vā’ti imināpi saṃsandanatthaṃ ‘kiñcāpi vutto, atha kho’tiādi āraddha’’nti ca vuttaṃ. Upacāramattañcetaṃ ‘‘rukkhamūle’’ti, tattha vattabbaṃ natthi.

In the commentaries, only this much is stated; nevertheless, patterned floor-coverings and so forth are indeed allowable. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: 'Other coverings, etc., are not mentioned because they are unsuitable.' And it is also said: 'For the purpose of connecting with this Pāḷi, “a bed or a seat... or in the vicinity of a monastery,” the passage beginning with “although it is said... now then...” is begun.' This phrase, “at the foot of a tree,” is merely a reference to the vicinity; there is nothing to be said regarding it.

118. Anāpucchitvāpi gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti asatiyā gacchatopi anāpatti, āpucchanaṃ pana vattaṃ sañcicca anāpucchato vattabhedadukkaṭattā. Puggalikasenāsane saṅghikaseyyaṃ, saṅghikasenāsane vā puggalikaseyyaṃ attharitvā gacchantassa dukkaṭaṃ yuttaṃ viya. Kasmā? ‘‘Seyyāmattameva nasseyyā’’ti vuttattā. Idha pana ‘‘palibuddhaṃ palibuddho’’ti duvidhampi atthi.

118. Regarding the statement, 'It is allowable to go even without asking permission,' there is no offense for one who goes unmindfully. Asking permission, however, is a duty, because for one who intentionally does not ask, there is a dukkaṭa offense for breaking a duty. For one who goes away after having spread bedding belonging to the Saṅgha in a personal lodging, or personal bedding in a lodging belonging to the Saṅgha, a dukkaṭa offense seems fitting. Why? Because it was said: 'The bedding itself should not perish.' Here, however, both Pāḷi readings, 'palibuddhaṃ' and 'palibuddho,' exist.

Dutiyasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the second training rule concerning lodgings is concluded.

6. Anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. The commentary on the training rule concerning not encroaching.

121. Chabbaggiyesuyeva therā bhikkhūti keci. Pāde dhovitvātiādimhi pavisantassa vā pādadhovanapāsāṇato yāva mañcapīṭhaṃ passāvatthāya nikkhamantassa vā yāva passāvaṭṭhānanti yojanā kātabbā. Evaṃ sante [Pg.302] ‘‘passāvatthāya nikkhamantassa vā’’ti na vattabbaṃ, ‘‘passāvaṭṭhānato nikkhamantassa vā’’ti vattabbaṃ. Passāvaṭṭhānanti katthaci potthake. Tathā hi mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘pavisantassa pādadhovanapāsāṇato yāva mañcapīṭhaṃ nikkhamantassa mañcapīṭhato yāva passāvaṭṭhānaṃ, tāva upacāro’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘pāde dhovitvā pavisantassa, passāvatthāya nikkhamantassa ca dvāre nikkhittapādadhovanapāsāṇato, passāvaṭṭhānato ca mañcapīṭha’’nti katthaci potthake pāṭho, so apāṭho. Kasmā? Mañcapīṭhānaṃ upacārassa vuttattā. Pavisantassa yāva mañcapīṭhānaṃ upacāro, nikkhamantassa tato paṭṭhāya yāva passāvaṭṭhānaṃ vaccakuṭicaṅkamaṭṭhānanti iminā atthena yathā saṃsandati, tathāvidho pāṭhoti ācariyo.

121. Some say that the senior monks are only those of the group of six. In the phrase 'having washed the feet,' and so on, for one entering, the connection should be made from the foot-washing stone up to the bed or bench; or for one exiting for the purpose of urination, up to the place for urination. This being so, it should not be said, 'or for one exiting for the purpose of urination,' but rather, 'or for one exiting from the place for urination.' The reading 'place for urination' is found in some books. Indeed, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, it is stated: 'For one entering, the vicinity extends from the foot-washing stone up to the bed or bench; for one exiting, it extends from the bed or bench up to the place for urination.' Therefore, in some books, the reading is: 'for one entering after washing the feet, and for one exiting for the purpose of urination, from the foot-washing stone placed at the door, and from the place for urination up to the bed or bench.' But this is a corrupt reading. Why? Because the vicinity of the beds and benches has been stated. For one entering, the vicinity extends up to the beds and benches; for one exiting, it extends from there up to the place for urination, the latrine, and the walking place. The teacher states that a reading which accords with this meaning is of the kind to be adopted.

122. Upacāraṃ ṭhapetvāti idha vuttaupacāraṃ ṭhapetvā. ‘‘Dassanasavanūpacārepi santharantassā’’ti likhitaṃ.

122. In the phrase 'having set aside the vicinity,' it means having set aside the vicinity mentioned in this training rule. It is written: 'Even for one spreading within the vicinity of sight and hearing.'

Anupakhajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning encroaching is concluded.

7. Nikkaḍḍhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Expulsion

126-7. Chasattakoṭṭhakāni vāti ettha dvārakoṭṭhakaṃ adhippetaṃ. ‘‘Nikkhamā’’ti vacanaṃ sutvāpi attano ruciyā nikkhamati, anāpatti; idha aggisālādi eva upacāroti.

126-7. Here, in the phrase 'six or seven rooms,' the gateway is intended. Even having heard the words 'Go out,' if one leaves by one’s own preference, there is no offense. Here, it should be known that the fire-hall and so on is the vicinity.

Nikkaḍḍhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning expulsion is concluded.

8. Vehāsakuṭisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning a High Dwelling

129. ‘‘Pamāṇamajjhimassa galappamāṇe dinnatulāpi vehāsakuṭiyevā’’ti likhitaṃ, ‘‘na sā idha adhippetā’’ti vuttaṃ.

129. It is written: 'Even a beam given at the neck-level of a person of middle stature is a high dwelling.' It is said: 'That is not intended here.'

Vehāsakuṭisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning a high dwelling is concluded.

9. Mahallakavihārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning a Large Dwelling

135. Yāva [Pg.303] dvārakosāti dvārasamīpā, yāva bhittīti attho, taṃ suvuttaṃ. Kavāṭavitthārappamāṇoti hatthapāsassādhippetattā, samantā kavāṭavitthārappamāṇaupacārassa gahitattā aparipūraupacārāpi hoti. Ālokaṃ karotīti ālokaṃ sandheti pidhetīti sandhi eva ālokasandhināmakā honti. Vātapānakavāṭalepakamme appaharitaṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthi.

9. 'As far as the door-post' means from near the door, that is, as far as the wall; that is well-stated. 'The extent of the door-leaf's breadth' is because a hand's reach is intended, and because the vicinity, having the measure of the door-leaf's breadth, is taken all around, it can also be an incomplete vicinity. 'It makes light' means it joins or covers the light, therefore the joints themselves are called 'light-joints'. In the work of plastering a window-shutter, there is no task for a place without greenery.

136. Iṭṭhakāti chadanakapālāsilādiiṭṭhakā. Chadanūparīti ettha paṭhamaṃ tāva ekavāraṃ aparisesaṃ chādetvā puna chādanadaṇḍake bandhitvā dutiyavāraṃ tatheva chādetabbaṃ. ‘‘Tatiyavāracatutthavāre sampatte dve magge adhiṭṭhahitvā tatiyamaggaṃ āṇāpetvā pakkamitabba’’nti vuttaṃ, taṃ ‘‘punappunaṃ chādāpetī’’ti iminā yujjati.

135. 'Bricks' means bricks such as roofing tiles, stone slabs, and so on. Regarding 'on top of the roofing': first, having roofed it one time without remainder, and then, having bound the roofing battens, it should be roofed a second time in the same way. It is said: 'When the third or fourth time is reached, having determined two courses, and having given the order for the third course, one should depart.' That accords with 'he has it roofed again and again'.

Porāṇā pana ‘‘paṭhamavāreyeva tayo magge adhiṭṭhātuṃ vaṭṭati, catutthato paṭṭhāya āpatti pācittiyaṃ, catutthalepato paṭṭhāya āpattī’’ti vadanti. Tattha chadane vuttavidhinidānena sameti, lepe vuttavidhitikacchedena sameti. Tathāpi so na yuttova. Nidāne, aṭṭhakathāyañca siddhalepattā sabbasovāpi acchanne, channevāpi anekaso pariyāyassa tatiyasseva adhiṭṭhānanti no sametīti ācariyo. ‘‘Dve magge’’ti, ‘‘dve chadane’’ti ca ‘‘tatiyavārato paṭṭhāya evaṃ chādāpehī’ti āṇāpetvā pakkamitabba’’nti ca upatissatthero vadati kira.

136. The ancient teachers, however, say: 'It is allowable to determine the three courses in the first instance itself; from the fourth course onwards, there is a pācittiya offense; from the fourth plastering onwards, there is an offense.' Therein, regarding the roofing, it accords with the procedure stated in the Nidāna; regarding the plastering, it accords with the detailed decision of the stated procedure. Even so, that decision is indeed not suitable. The teacher says that because in the Nidāna and in the commentary the plastering is completed, it does not accord that whether completely unroofed or roofed many times, the determination is only for the third course of the sequence. The Elder Upatissa, it is said, also states: 'Two courses,' and 'two coverings,' and 'from the third time onwards, having given the order, "Have it roofed in this way," one should depart.'

Mahallakavihārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning a large dwelling is concluded.

10. Sappāṇakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Living Beings

140. Sappāṇakasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

10. The training rule concerning living beings has an obvious meaning.

Samatto vaṇṇanākkamena bhūtagāmavaggo dutiyo.

140. The second chapter, the Bhūtagāmavagga, is concluded according to the sequence of the commentary.

3. Ovādavaggo

The Chapter on Exhortation

1. Ovādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Training Rule on Admonition

144. Kathānusārenāti [Pg.304] yo bhikkhunovādakatthiko kiṃsīlo kiṃsamācāro katarakulā pabbajitotiādi kathānusārenāti attho. Saggamaggagamanepīti api-saddena mokkhagamanepi. ‘‘Lakkhaṇappaṭivedhapaṭisaṃyutto’’ti aṭṭhagarudhammānusārena vattabbaṃ dhammakathaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

1. 'In accordance with the talk' means: by following the line of talk concerning a monk who desires to admonish bhikkhunīs, such as, 'What is his virtue? What is his conduct? From what family did he go forth?' This is the meaning. In 'even in going on the path to heaven,' by the word 'api,' going to Nibbāna is also included. The phrase 'connected with the penetration of characteristics' was said with reference to the Dhamma talk that should be given in accordance with the eight weighty rules.

145-147. Nissīmanti vihāre baddhasīmato aññaṃ abaddhasīmaṃ, gāmasīmādinti attho. ‘‘Supinantenapī’’ti na sabbesanti idha bāhullanayena vuttaṃ. Chabbaggiyā hi keci vīsativassāpi atthi atirekavīsativassāpīti iminā imaṃ majjhimabodhikāle paññattanti viññāyati. ‘‘Sīlavā hotī’’ti vatvā tassa catubbidhattā idha adhippetasīlameva dassetuṃ ‘‘pātimokkhasaṃvarasaṃvuto’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Gaṇṭhānugaṇṭhipadesu ‘‘satisaṃvarādayo idha nādhippetā, tena vibhaṅgapāṭhaṃ dasseti aṭṭhakathācariyo’’ti vuttaṃ. Atthatoti pāḷiatthato. Kāraṇatoti kāraṇūpapattito, aṭṭhakathātoti adhippāyo. Atha vā kāraṇatoti dhammato, tena atthato dhammatoti vuttaṃ hoti. Atha vā atthatoti phalato. ‘‘Kāraṇatoti hetuto. Dhammapadampi jātakena sahā’’ti likhitaṃ. Pañhaṃ kathetunti ‘‘pañhaṃ puṭṭho kathetī’’ti ettha bhikkhuniyā puṭṭhena ‘‘na jānāmī’’ti na sakkā kathetuṃ. ‘‘Na kho pana taṃ bhagavanta’’nti pāṭho. ‘‘Na kho paneta’’nti ca likhanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ. ‘‘Kāsāyavatthavasanāyā’’ti vacanato pārājikāyapi na vaṭṭati. Bhikkhuniyā kāyasaṃsaggameva vuttaṃ. Methunena hi bhikkhunīdūsako hoti.

145-147. Herein, `nissīmaṃ` (outside the boundary) means another, unestablished boundary (`abaddhasīma`) apart from the established boundary (`baddhasīma`) in a monastery, such as a village boundary, etc. This is the meaning. Herein, 'even by means of a dream' is not said for all of them; here it is stated by way of generality. Indeed, some of the group-of-six monks were also of twenty years' standing, and they were also of more than twenty years' standing. For this reason, it is understood that this training rule was laid down in the middle period of the enlightenment. Having said, 'He is virtuous,' because that virtue has a fourfold nature, in order to show only the virtue intended here, 'restrained by the Pātimokkha restraint,' etc., was said. In the passages of the `gaṇṭhi` and `anugaṇṭhi`, it is said: 'Restraint by mindfulness, etc., are not intended here; therefore, the commentary master shows the text of the Vibhaṅga.' `Atthato` means from the meaning of the Pali. `Kāraṇato` means from the suitability of the reason; this is the intention from the commentary. Alternatively, `kāraṇato` means from the Dhamma; therefore, it comes to be said as 'from the meaning and from the Dhamma.' Alternatively, `atthato` means from the result. It is written: '`Kāraṇato` means from the cause. The Dhammapada also, together with the Jātaka.' Regarding `pañhaṃ kathetuṃ` (to speak on a question): Herein, in the phrase `pañhaṃ puṭṭho kathetī` (being asked a question, he speaks), it is not possible for one who has been asked by a bhikkhunī to say, 'I do not know.' There is the reading `na kho pana taṃ bhagavanta`. And they write `na kho paneta`, but that is not good. Because of the statement 'for wearing the saffron robe,' it is not allowable even for a bhikkhunī who has committed a pārājika offense. Only bodily contact with a bhikkhunī was stated. For by sexual intercourse one becomes a defiler of a bhikkhunī.

148-9. Bhikkhūnaṃ santike upasampannā nāma parivattaliṅgā, pañcasatā sākiyāniyo vā. ‘‘Dhammadesanāpattimocanatthaṃ panā’’ti vacanato mātugāmaggahaṇena sabbattha bhikkhunīsaṅgahaṃ gacchatīti siddhaṃ. Bhikkhuniggahaṇena pana mātugāmo tiriyaṃ taraṇasikkhāpade (pāci. 187-190) saṅgahito, na aññattha. ‘‘Osāretabbā’’ti pāḷipāṭho, pāḷi osāretabbāti attho[Pg.305]. ‘‘Osāretabba’’nti aṭṭhakathāpāḷi. Ekasmiṃ ṭhāne vandite dosābhāvato bahūsu ekāya vandite vaṭṭatīti ce? Bhikkhūhi kattabbaṃ natthi, bhikkhuniyāyeva kattabbaṃ, tasmā na vaṭṭati. ‘‘Yattha katthaci nisinnāyāti antodvādasahatthe nisinnāyā’’ti vadanti. Na nimantitā hutvā gantukāmāti nimantitā hutvā gantukāmā bhikkhū idha nādhippetā, vassaṃ upagantukāmāva adhippetāti attho. Yato panāti bhikkhunīvihārato. Tatthāti bhikkhunīvihāre. Kiñcāpi ‘‘ovādadāyakā bhikkhū’’ti vacanato ovādadāyakeheva sabhikkhuko āvāso hoti, na sabbehīti āpanno, tathāpi asati bhikkhunovādake ovādasaṃvāsānaṃ atthāya yācanatthāya avassaṃ gantabbattā aññehipi bhikkhūhi sabhikkhukopi sabhikkhuko evāti veditabbo. Sā rakkhitabbāti vassacchedāpatti rakkhitabbā. Kasmā? Āpadāsu hītiādi. ‘‘Ayaṃ uposatho cātuddasikoti pucchitabba’’nti vuttaṃ, tampi terasiyaṃyeva, etarahi pana bhikkhuniyo cātuddasiyaṃyeva gantvā ‘‘kadā ayya uposatho’’ti pucchanti. ‘‘Jāyāyo vā jāriyo vā’’ti adhippāyena vuttaṃ kira. ‘‘Gaccheyya ce, āpattī’’ti pāṭho. Dve tissoti dvīhi tīhi. Ekato āgatānaṃ vasena ‘‘tāhī’’ti bahuvacanaṃ vuttanti adhippāyo. ‘‘Ekā bhikkhunī vā bahū bhikkhunī vā bahūhi bhikkhunupassayehi ovādatthāya pesitā’’ti vacanassa vitthāro ‘‘bhikkhunisaṅgho ca ayya bhikkhuniyo cā’’tiādinā vutto. ‘‘Bhikkhunisaṅgho ca ayya bhikkhuniyo cā’tiādi nānāupassayehi pesitāya vacana’’nti ca ‘‘aparipuṇṇasaṅghapuggalanānāvāsadutiyavacanavasena pañcakkhattuṃ upasaṅkamanaṃ vutta’’nti ca likhitaṃ. Yasmiṃ āvāse pātimokkhuddeso na pavattati, tatthāpi yācanaṃ sampaṭicchitvā punadivase yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tena ‘‘natthi koci bhikkhu bhikkhunovādako sammato’’tiādi vattabbaṃ. Atthi ce sammato, niddisitabbo. ‘‘Sayameva ce sammato, aha’nti vattabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Sace sammato vā ovādapaṭiggāhako vā pātimokkhaṃ uddisati, aññena ārocāpetabbanti eke, ‘‘attanāpi ārocetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti ca vadanti. Kesuci potthakesu ‘‘ayyānaṃ pavāretī’’ti likhitaṃ, evaṃ sati ‘‘ayyassa pavāremī’’ti vattabbaṃ, potthake natthi.

148-9. Those ordained in the presence of bhikkhus are, namely, those who have changed gender, or the five hundred Sākyan women. Because of the statement, 'For the purpose of teaching the Dhamma and releasing from offenses,' it is established that everywhere, by the term 'mātugāma,' the inclusion of a bhikkhunī is accomplished. However, by the term 'bhikkhunī,' 'mātugāma' is included in the training rule on crossing a river, but not elsewhere. 'Osāretabbā' is the Pāḷi reading; the meaning is that the Pāḷi should be recited to the end. 'Osāretabba' is the commentary's Pāḷi reading. If one were to say: 'Since there is no fault when paying homage in one place, is it permissible for one among many bhikkhunīs to pay homage?' There is nothing to be done by the bhikkhus; it is to be done only by the bhikkhunī. Therefore, it is not permissible. Regarding 'wherever she is seated,' they say it means 'seated within twelve cubits.' The phrase `gantukāmā` (those wishing to go) does not here refer to bhikkhus wishing to go after being invited; rather, the meaning is that only those wishing to enter the rains-residence are intended. 'From where?' means from the bhikkhunī monastery. 'There?' means in the bhikkhunī monastery. Although it follows from the statement 'bhikkhus who give advice' that a monastery is 'with bhikkhus' only because of the advising bhikkhus and not because of all bhikkhus, nevertheless, in the absence of a bhikkhunī-adviser, because it is necessary to go to request for the sake of advice and communion, it should be understood that even with other bhikkhus, it is still a monastery 'with bhikkhus.' 'She should be protected' means the offense of breaking the rains-residence should be guarded against. Therefore, he said, 'in times of danger,' etc. It was said, 'It should be asked, “Is this Uposatha on the fourteenth?”' That too should be asked only on the thirteenth day. But nowadays, bhikkhunīs go on the fourteenth day itself and ask, 'Venerable sirs, when is the Uposatha?' It is said that this was spoken with the intention: 'Are they wives or mistresses?' There is a reading: 'If one should go, there is an offense.' 'Two or three' means 'by two or three.' The intention is that the plural 'tāhi' (by them) is used on account of their having come together. The elaboration of the statement, 'One bhikkhunī or many bhikkhunīs sent from many bhikkhunī residences for the purpose of advice,' is stated by 'the Saṅgha of bhikkhunīs and the venerable bhikkhunīs,' etc. And it is written: '“The Saṅgha of bhikkhunīs and the venerable bhikkhunīs, etc.” is the statement of one sent from various residences,' and 'The fivefold approach is stated by way of the second statement regarding an incomplete Saṅgha, an individual, and various residences.' In a monastery where the recitation of the Pātimokkha does not occur, even there, having accepted the request, on the next day, the one by whom it was accepted should say, 'There is no bhikkhu appointed as a bhikkhunī-adviser,' etc. If there is an appointed one, he should be indicated. It is said, 'If he himself is the appointed one, he should say, “I am.”' If the appointed one or the one who accepted the request for advice recites the Pātimokkha, some say it should be announced by another, and they also say it is permissible to announce it oneself. In some books, it is written, 'She invites the venerable sirs.' This being so, it should be said, 'I invite the venerable sir'; this is not found in the book.

Ovādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Admonition is concluded.

2. Atthaṅgatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Explanation of the Atthaṅgata Training Rule

153. Munātīti [Pg.306] jānāti. Antaradhāyatipīti ettha taduttamaṃ ce atthi, taṃ passāmi, yaṃ vicittaṃ vā, tadatthañca. Taggha kāraṇaṃ. Saha uppādamanantarā kiriyā. Yamā ca te manasā katatra netvāti. Yathā pāto siyā pāto bhavaṃ pātova udakato uggantvā ṭhitaṃ, tathā virocamānaṃ aṅgīrasaṃ buddhaṃ passa, na kevalaṃ padumaṃ viya, virocamānaṃ tapantamādiccamivantalikkheti sambandho. Atha vā aṅgīrasaṃ buddhaṃ padumaṃva virocamānaṃ sūriyaṃva tapantaṃ passa buddhaṃ. Yathā pāto siyā phullamavītagandhaṃ kokanudasaṅkhātaṃ padumaṃ passasi, tathā virocamānaṃ aṅgīrasaṃ buddhaṃ passa. Ubhayeneva hi bhagavato kanti dīpitāti katvā dīpitaguṇasubhaṃ buddhaṃ sakkatvā taṃ kantiṃ pūjeyya. Pūjaneyyatopi vītināmeyya iti lakkhaye. ‘‘Ekato upasampannāyā’’ti pāḷi.

153. 'Munāti' means 'he knows'. Herein, regarding 'antaradhāyati', if there is a psychic power superior to that, I shall see it; whatever wondrous psychic power there is, I shall also see that psychic power for the sake of its wondrousness. Thus, indeed, having made it the cause, the action occurs immediately after the arising. And having led those psychic powers with the mind to wherever one wishes to perform them, there are also the twin psychic powers, and so on. Just as a lotus that has come to be in the morning, arisen in the morning, having risen from the water in the morning and stands, so should you see the shining Buddha, the Aṅgīrasa. Not merely like a lotus, but see the Buddha, the Aṅgīrasa, shining, blazing like the sun in the sky—this connection should be made. Alternatively: see the Buddha, the Aṅgīrasa, shining like a lotus; see the Buddha, the Aṅgīrasa, blazing like the sun. Just as in the morning you see a lotus called a kokanuda, which is fully bloomed and has an unfading fragrance, so should you see the shining Buddha, the Aṅgīrasa. Indeed, by both similes, the Blessed One's pleasing quality is shown. Thinking thus, how could one honor that beautiful Buddha whose qualities have been shown? One should note that he surpasses even what is worthy of honor. There is the Pāḷi text: 'Ekato upasampannāya'.

156. ‘‘Ekato upasampannāna’’nti aṭṭhakathāpāṭho. ‘‘Abhabbo tva’’ntiādivacanato anukampāvasena saddhivihārikādiṃ saṅghikā vihārā nikkaḍḍhāpentassa anāpatti viya dissati. Abhabbo hi thero sañcicca taṃ kātuṃ, gavesitabbāva ettha yuttīti keci. Therena sikkhāpadapaññattito pubbe katanti mama takko.

156. The commentary reading is 'Ekato upasampannāna'. From the statement 'Abhabbo tva,' etc., it appears like there is no offense for one who, out of compassion, has a co-resident, etc., expelled from a monastery belonging to the Saṅgha. Indeed, the elder is incapable of doing that intentionally; herein, the proper reason should be sought—thus say some. My conjecture is that it was done by the elder before the laying down of the training rule.

Atthaṅgatasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Atthaṅgata Training Rule is concluded.

3. Bhikkhunupassayasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Explanation of the Bhikkhunupassaya Training Rule

162. ‘‘Ekarattampi vasantī’’ti (pāci. 161) vacanato yattha rattiyaṃ na vasanti, tattha gantvā ovadituṃ vaṭṭatīti eke. Yadi evaṃ saṅketaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā ovadituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. ‘‘Tato addhayojaneyeva sabhikkhuko āvāso icchitabbo’’ti na vattabbaṃ. Bhikkhunovādako ce addhayojanaṃ gantvā ovaditukāmo hoti, bhikkhunisaṅgho ca addhayojanaṃ gantvā sotukāmo, ‘‘vaṭṭatī’’ti vattabbaṃ siyā, tañca na vuttaṃ, tasmā na vaṭṭati. Heṭṭhimaparicchedena pana ‘‘ekarattampī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tato paṭṭhāya upassayaṃ hoti, na upassayasaṅkhepena katamattenāti vuttaṃ hoti. Yattha vāsūpagatā [Pg.307] bhikkhuniyo, so upassayasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, tattha na gantvā ovādo dātabbo. Ekāvāse divā vaṭṭatīti eke, vicāretvā yuttataraṃ gahetabbaṃ.

162. Because of the statement, 'They reside even for one night,' some say it is allowable to go and advise where they do not reside at night. If so, it is established that one may go to an appointed place to advise them. It should not be said, 'From there, a residence with monks should be sought only within half a yojana.' If an advisor of bhikkhunīs wishes to go half a yojana to advise, and the Saṅgha of bhikkhunīs also wishes to go half a yojana to listen, it would have to be said, 'It is allowable'—but this was not said; therefore, it is not allowable. However, by the lower definition, 'even for one night' is stated. From that point onward, it is an upassaya; it is said that it does not become an upassaya merely by being designated as such. Where bhikkhunīs have gone to reside, that comes to be designated as an upassaya; one should not go there to give advice. Some say it is allowable during the day in the same residence—this should be investigated, and the more suitable interpretation adopted.

Bhikkhunupassayasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Bhikkhunupassaya Training Rule is concluded.

4. Āmisasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Explanation of the Āmisa Training Rule

164. ‘‘Upasampannaṃ saṅghena asammata’’nti pāḷivacanato, ‘‘sammatena vā saṅghena vā bhāraṃ katvā ṭhapito’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanato ca aṭṭhahaṅgehi samannāgato sammatena vā vippavasitukāmena ‘‘yāvāhaṃ āgamissāmi, tāva te bhāro hotū’’ti yācitvā ṭhapito, tassābhāvato saṅghena vā tatheva bhāraṃ katvā ṭhapito aṭṭhahi garudhammehi ovadituṃ labhati, pageva aññena dhammenāti siddhaṃ. ‘‘Yo pana bhikkhu asammato bhikkhuniyo ovadeyya, pācittiya’’nti pageva bhāraṃ katvā aṭṭhapitaṃ sandhāya vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Abhayagirivāsīnampi idameva mataṃ, anugaṇṭhipade pana imaṃ nayaṃ paṭikkhipitvā ‘‘natthi kocī’’tiādinā ‘‘etarahi ovādako asammato bhikkhunovādako nāmā’’ti vatvā ‘‘yaṃ pana andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ ‘upasampannaṃ saṅghena kammavācāya asammataṃ, bhikkhusaṅghena pana bhikkhunisaṅghassa anuggahaṃ karotha, bhikkhuniyo ovadatha, bhikkhusaṅghassa ca karotha phāsuvihāranti evaṃ yācitvā ṭhapito bhikkhusaṅghaṃ āpucchitvā, tato so thero bhikkhuniyo ovadati, evarūpaṃ bhikkhusaṅghena asammatanti, tatra vuttanayeneva attho gahetabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘asammato gāmaṃ ovādatthāya āgatānaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ vacanaṃ sutvā paṭivacanaṃ dento saṅghānumatiyā, na ñatticatutthenā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ anugaṇṭhipadamatena sameti, andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttavacanaṃ tena sameti, tañca pāḷivacanaṃ, na hi ovādapaṭiggāhako, pātimokkhuddesako vā ‘‘pāsādikena sampādetū’’ti vacanamattena bhikkhunovādako nāma hoti. Hotīti ce, anupasampannopi tattakena vacanena ‘‘bhikkhunovādako hotū’’ti vattabbo. Hotīti ce, yaṃ vuttaṃ gaṇṭhānugaṇṭhipadesu ‘‘asammato nāma asammatabhāvena ‘bahussuto tvaṃ ovadāhī’ti [Pg.308] saṅghena bhāraṃ katvā ṭhapito’’ti. Ettha bāhusaccena kiṃ payojanaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipadeyeva ‘‘abhayagirivāsī vadatīti sutvā sammatena vā āṇatto ovadituṃ labhatīti dhammasiritthero pacchā anujānātī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kiṃ bahukāya. ‘‘Pāsādikena sampādetū’’ti ettakamattena bhikkhunovādako hoti. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘bhāraṃ katvā’’ti iminā kiṃ payojanaṃ, tattakampi vattuṃ añño na labhati, tena ca ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ṭhapetvā bālaṃ gilānaṃ gamikaṃ avasesehi ovādaṃ gahetu’’nti (cūḷava. 414) ayaṃ pāḷi virujjheyya. Kathaṃ? Tassa hi ‘‘na, bhikkhave, ovādo na paccāharitabbo’’ti (cūḷava. 415) canato sammatāsammatabhāvena natthi kocīti ‘‘pāsādikena sampādetū’’ti vattabbaṃ siyā, vadanto ca idha paṭhamena āpattiyā kāretabbo hotīti. Hotu asammatattā, akatabhārattā ca. Imassa ca bhikkhunovādakatte imassa khīyanena dukkaṭaṃ siyā, sabbametaṃ aniṭṭhaṃ, tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘ayamettha bhikkhunovādako nāmā’’ti avuttattā tathā bhāraṃ katvā ṭhapito ovadituṃ labhatiyeva, nāññoti ācariyo.

164. From the Pāḷi statement, 'not appointed by the Saṅgha,' and from the commentary statement, 'appointed by making it a duty, either by one who is appointed or by the Saṅgha,' it is established that a bhikkhu endowed with eight qualities is permitted to admonish with the eight grave rules—when he has been appointed by one who is appointed; or by one wishing to go away, having been requested, 'For as long as I shall be gone, let the duty be yours'; or, in his absence, appointed by the Saṅgha in the same way by making it a duty—what then to speak of by another rule. This is established. The rule, 'Whatever bhikkhu, not being appointed, should admonish the bhikkhunīs, it is a pācittiya offense,' should be understood as referring to one who has not been appointed by having the duty made from the outset. The Abhayagiri residents also hold this same view. However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, rejecting this method, it is stated, beginning with 'There is none,' and further, 'Nowadays, an admonisher who is not appointed is called a bhikkhunī-admonisher.' But what is stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: 'One who is fully ordained but not appointed by the Saṅgha through a formal act, but who has been appointed after being requested by the Bhikkhu Saṅgha thus: "Please show favor to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, admonish the bhikkhunīs, and also provide for the comfortable abiding of the Bhikkhu Saṅgha," having consulted the Bhikkhu Saṅgha; therefore that elder admonishes the bhikkhunīs—such a one is not appointed by the Bhikkhu Saṅgha. In that case, the meaning should be taken according to the method stated there.' However, in the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada, it is stated: 'An unappointed one, hearing the words of bhikkhunīs who have come to the village for admonishment, gives a reply with the Saṅgha's consent, not by a ñatticatuttha-kamma.' That accords with the view of the Anugaṇṭhipada, and the statement in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā accords with that, and that is a Pāḷi statement. For indeed, one who receives admonishment or one who recites the Pātimokkha does not become a bhikkhunī-admonisher merely by the statement 'Let him accomplish it with grace.' If it is said that he does become one, then even an unordained person could become a 'bhikkhunī-admonisher' by such a statement. If it is said that he does become one, then regarding what was stated in the Gaṇṭhipadas and Anugaṇṭhipadas—'An unappointed one means one who has been appointed by the Saṅgha by making it a duty, saying, "You are very learned, you should admonish"'—what is the use of great learning here? In the Anugaṇṭhipada itself, it is stated: 'Hearing that the Abhayagiri residents say so, one who is appointed or ordered is permitted to admonish—thus the elder Dhammasiri later concedes.' What is the use of saying much? By merely saying, 'Let him accomplish it with grace,' one becomes a bhikkhunī-admonisher. In the commentary, what is the use of the phrase 'having made it a duty'? Even that much cannot be said by another. Moreover, the Pāḷi passage, 'I allow, O bhikkhus, having excluded the foolish, the sick, and the traveler, for the rest to receive admonishment' (Cūḷavagga 414), would be contradicted by this. How? For, from the statement, 'O bhikkhus, admonishment is not to be refused' (Cūḷavagga 415), it follows that there is no one who can refuse based on the admonisher's status as appointed or not appointed. Therefore, it should be said, 'Let him accomplish it with grace.' And one who speaks thus should be made to incur an offense under the first rule here. Let it be so—due to not being appointed and the duty not having been made. And if this one were a bhikkhunī-admonisher, by disparaging him there would be a dukkaṭa offense. All this is undesirable. Therefore, because the commentary does not say, 'Herein, this is what is called a bhikkhunī-admonisher,' only one who has been so appointed by having the duty made is indeed permitted to admonish, and no other—so says the teacher.

Āmisasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule concerning material things is finished.

5. Cīvaradānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning the Giving of Robes

169. Sādiyissasīti pucchā.

169. “Will you consent?”—this is the question.

Cīvaradānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule concerning the giving of robes is finished.

6. Cīvarasibbanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning the Sewing of Robes

176. Vañcetvāti ‘‘tava ñātikāyā’’ti avatvā ‘‘ekissā bhikkhuniyā’’ti ettakameva vatvā, te hi ‘‘ekissā’’ti vacanaṃ sutvā aññātikāya santakasaññino sibbesuṃ. Imasmiṃ sikkhāpade ‘‘cīvaraṃ nāma channaṃ [Pg.309] cīvarānaṃ aññataraṃ cīvara’’nti ettakameva pāḷi, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘cīvaranti yaṃ nivāsetuṃ vā pārupituṃ vā’’tiādi. ‘‘Vikappanupagaṃ pacchima’’nti ca likhitaṃ, so pamādalekho.

176. Regarding 'having deceived': without saying, “for your relative,” but saying only this much, “for a certain bhikkhunī,” those pupils, having heard the words “for a certain one,” sewed it, perceiving it as belonging to a non-relative. In this training rule, only this much is the Pāḷi text: “A robe means one of the six robes.” Therefore, it is said, “A robe is that which one may wear as a lower garment or put on as an upper garment,” and so on. And, “The last is suitable for vikappana” is also written; that is a text written through negligence.

Cīvarasibbanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule concerning the sewing of robes is finished.

7. Saṃvidhānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Arrangement

181. Tā bhikkhuniyo dūsayiṃsūti vipariṇāmo kātabbo.

181. Regarding “they corrupted those bhikkhunīs,” a change of construction is to be made.

182-4. Sampadantīti padasā gacchanti. Vuttanayenevāti ‘‘sampatanti etthāti sampāto’’tiādinā. Padagate upacāro na labbhati, accāsannattā missaṃ viya hotīti. Kukkuṭavassitaparicchinno mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ. ‘‘Tampi vohārenā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Yebhuyyena tathā sanniveso hotīti katvā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā na pamādalekho’’ti ca, ‘‘ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ, tato uddhaṃ addhayojanalakkhaṇasampattaṃ nāma hotīti gahetabba’’nti ca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Kappiyabhūmi kirāyaṃ…pe… na vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Duddasañhettha kāraṇaṃ. Kataraṃ pana tanti? ‘‘Gacchāmāti saṃvidahati, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha ‘‘gacchāmā’’ti vattamānavacanantañca, amagge bhikkhunupassayādimhi na sambhavatiyeva manussānaṃ antaragharādimhi maggasaṅkhepagamanato, uccāsayanādiuppattiṭṭhānattā ca. Na titthiyaseyyāya vā pabbajitāvāsattā. Dvāreti samīpatthe bhummaṃ, tasmā taṃ dassetuṃ puna ‘‘rathikāyā’’ti āha. Sesaaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘etthantare saṃvidahitepi bhikkhuno dukkaṭa’’nti āgatattā na sameti. ‘‘Gāmantare’’ti vacanato aññagāmassa upacārokkamane eva āpatti. ‘‘Addhayojane’’ti vacanato atikkamaneyeva yuttaṃ.

182-4. Sampadantīti means: they go on foot. Vuttanayenevāti means: by the method already stated, such as, "They arrive here, thus it is an arrival." In the case of going on foot, the designation 'vicinity' is not obtained; because of being too close, it is as if mixed. The area defined by a cock's crow is mentioned in the Great Commentary. It is written: "That too is by convention." And also: "It is stated in the commentary because for the most part, such is the settlement; therefore, it is not a careless writing." And it is also said: "It is stated in the commentary with the maximum definition; it should be understood that beyond that, the attainment of the characteristic of half a yojana does not occur." It is stated: "This is indeed a suitable ground... (etc.)... they do not say." For the reason here is difficult to see. What then is that principle? It is stated: "If one makes an arrangement, saying, 'Let us go,' there is an offense of wrong conduct." There, the word "gacchāma" is also a present tense ending. On a non-path, such as in a bhikkhunī's residence, it simply does not occur, both because of people going in the manner of a path within houses, etc., and because of it being a place where high seats, etc., arise. Or, it does not occur in the residence of heretics, because it is a dwelling of renunciants. The word dvāre is in the locative case with the meaning of 'nearness'; therefore, to show that meaning, he again said rathikāyā. Because it is stated in the remaining commentary, "Even if an arrangement is made in this interval, there is a wrong conduct for the bhikkhu," it does not agree. Because of the phrase "in another village," the offense is only in entering the vicinity of another village. Because of the phrase "at half a yojana," it is proper only in the case of exceeding it.

185. Raṭṭhabhedeti vilope. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade ‘‘tayopi saṅketā kāladivasamaggavasena, tattha pacchimeneva āpattī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Iminā maggenā’’ti vissajjetvā aññena gacchanti ce, āpattiyevāti attho.

185. Raṭṭhabhedeti means: in devastation. In the ancient gloss it is said: "There are also three kinds of appointments: by way of time, day, and path. Among them, the offense is only by the last one." If, having arranged, "By this path," they then go by another, there is an offense indeed; this is the meaning.

Saṃvidhānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition on the Training Rule Concerning Arrangements is concluded.

8. Nāvābhiruhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Exposition on the Training Rule Concerning Boarding a Boat

189. Nadiyā [Pg.310] kuto gāmantaranti ce? ‘‘Yassā nadiyā’’tiādimāha. Gāmantaragaṇanāyāti yasmiṃ gāmatitthe āruḷho, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññagāmagaṇanāya. ‘‘Mātugāmopi idha saṅgahaṃ gacchatī’’ti ācariyassa takko, teneva ‘‘ubhayattha ekato upasampannāya dukkaṭaṃ, sikkhamānāya sāmaṇeriyā anāpattī’’ti ca na vuttaṃ. Eseva nayo aññesupi evarūpesu.

189. If it is asked, 'How is there another village on a river?' To answer this, he said, 'By which river,' and so on. Regarding the reckoning of another village: having arrived at a certain village landing, excluding that one, it is by the count of another village. 'Even a woman is included here,' is the teacher’s reasoning; for that very reason, it was not said, 'For one fully ordained in both Sanghas together, there is a dukkaṭa offense; for a sikkhamānā or a female novice, there is no offense.' This is the same method in other such training rules.

191. ‘‘Lokassādamittasanthavavasena keḷipurekkhārā saṃvidahitvā’’ti vuttattā akusalacittaṃ lokavajjanti vattabbanti? Na vattabbaṃ, ‘‘keḷipurekkhārā’’ti vacanaṃ yebhuyyatāya vuttaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade ca ‘‘tīṇi cittāni tisso vedanā’’ti vuttaṃ, saṃvidahanakāle vā keḷipurekkhāro bhikkhu saṃvidahati, āpatti bhikkhuno gāmantarokkamane, addhayojanātikkame vā. Kusalacitto vā hoti paccavekkhanto, cetiyādīni vā passanto, abyākatacitto vā hoti kilamathavasena niddāyantoti ticittāni gahitānīti veditabbā.

191. Should it be said that because it was stated, 'having arranged with entertainment as the precursor, due to delight in the world, friendship, and intimacy,' an unwholesome mind is blameworthy in the world? It should not be said. The statement 'with entertainment as the precursor' was said with regard to the majority of cases. And in the ancient glossary, it is said, 'three minds, three feelings.' Or, at the time of arranging, a bhikkhu arranges with entertainment as the precursor; the offense for the bhikkhu is upon entering another village or upon exceeding half a yojana. Or, while going along reflecting or seeing shrines and so on, one may have a wholesome mind. Or, falling asleep due to fatigue, one may have an indeterminate mind. Therefore, it should be understood that the three minds are taken.

Nāvābhiruhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition on the Training Rule Concerning Boarding a Boat is concluded.

9. Paripācitasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Exposition on the Training Rule Concerning Causing Food to Be Prepared

192. Ceṭaketi dārake. Taruṇapotaketi porāṇā. ‘‘Pāpabhikkhūnaṃ pakkhupacchedāya idaṃ paññattaṃ, tasmā pañca bhojaneyevāpatti vuttā’’ti likhitaṃ.

192. Ceṭake means young boys. The ancients say it means young, tender monks. It is written: 'This was laid down to cut off the faction of evil monks; therefore, the offense was stated only for the five kinds of staple food.'

194-7. Nipphāditanti viññattiyā na hoti, kintu parikathādīhi, tasmā iminā sikkhāpadena anāpatti, taṃ sandhāya ‘‘sabbattha anāpattī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Kathānusārena tattha pasīditvā denti, idaṃ paripācitaṃ na hoti, vaṭṭantī’’ti paṭhamasikkhāpade vuttattāti dhammasiritthero, upatissatthero pana ‘‘itarampi vaṭṭatiyevā’’ti āha. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘yasmā devadatto pakatiyā tattha bhikkhuniparipācitaṃ bhuñjati, tasmā imaṃ aṭṭhuppattiṃ nidānaṃ katvā idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññatta’’nti vuttaṃ.

194-7. Nipphāditan ti means it is not accomplished by a hint, but rather by preliminary talk and so on. Therefore, by this training rule, there is no offense. With reference to that, it was said, 'There is no offense in all cases.' The Elder Dhammasiri said: 'Because it was stated in the first training rule, "Following the sequence of the talk, having gained faith in that person, they give; this is not ‘caused to be prepared’; it is allowable."' The Elder Upatissa, however, said: 'The other kind of food is also indeed allowable.' But in the ancient glosses, it is said: 'Because Devadatta, by nature, eats food there that was caused to be prepared by a bhikkhunī, this training rule was laid down having made this origin story the cause.'

Paripācitasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition on the Training Rule Concerning Causing Food to Be Prepared is concluded.

10. Rahonisajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Exposition on the Training Rule Concerning Secluded Sitting

198. ‘‘Upanandassa [Pg.311] catutthasikkhāpadena cā’’ti pāṭho.

198. The reading is: 'And by the fourth training rule of Upananda.'

Rahonisajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition on the Training Rule Concerning Secluded Sitting is concluded.

Samatto vaṇṇanākkamena ovādavaggo tatiyo.

The third chapter, the Admonition Chapter, is completed in the order of the commentary.

4. Bhojanavaggo

4. The Fourth Chapter: The Chapter on Food

1. Āvasathapiṇḍasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Exposition on the Training Rule Concerning Alms-food in a Public Rest House

203-4. Pūgassāti pūgena. Kukkuccāyantoti nissaraṇenettha bhavitabbaṃ, taṃ mayaṃ na jānāmāti sanniṭṭhānassa karaṇavasena ‘‘kukkuccāyanto’’ti vuccati. Yathā hi āyasmā upāli nayaggāhena ‘‘anāpatti āvuso supinantenā’’ti (pārā. 78) āha, tathā theropi ‘‘anāpatti gilānassā’’ti kasmā na paricchindatīti? Anattādhikārattā vinayapaññattiyā, ‘‘nāyaṃ attano okāso’’ti paṭikkhittattā, sikkhāpadassa aparipuṇṇattā. Paṭhamapārājikasikkhāpade paripuṇṇaṃ katvā paññatteyeva hi so thero ‘‘anāpatti supinantenā’’ti āha ‘‘aññatra supinantā’’ti vuttapadānusārenāti. Yasmā odissa ayāvadattheva dāyakānaṃ pīḷā natthi, tasmā ‘‘anodissa yāvadattho’’ti vuttaṃ.

203-4-6. Pūgassāti means 'by a group'. Regarding kukkuccāyanto: Herein, it should be understood as an absence of recollection. By way of making the conclusion, 'We do not know that point,' it is called kukkuccāyanto (being scrupulous). For, just as the Venerable Upāli, having grasped the method, said, 'Friend, there is no offense in the case of a dream,' in the same way, why does the Elder not decide, 'There is no offense for one who is sick'? Because the laying down of the Vinaya is not his own authority; because it was rejected with the thought, 'This is not my own sphere'; and because of the incompleteness of the training rule. Indeed, it was only when the first Pārājika training rule was laid down after being made complete that the Elder (Upāli) said, 'There is no offense in the case of a dream,' in accordance with the stated phrase, 'except in the case of a dream.' Because when something is designated but not for as long as one wishes, there is no affliction for the donors, therefore it was said, 'undesignated, for as long as one wishes.'

208. ‘‘Antarāmagge ekadivasa’nti ekaṃyeva sandhāya vutta’’nti ca ‘‘eseva nayoti vuttanayameva dassetuṃ gantvā paccāgacchanto hītiādimāhā’’ti ca ‘‘suddhacitto hutvā pakatigamaneva bhuñjituṃ labhatī’’ti ca ‘‘agilānassa gilānasaññino kāyena samuṭṭhātī’’ti ca likhitaṃ.

208. 208. And it is written: 'Regarding 'on the road for one day,' this was said with reference to eating only once.' And: 'Regarding 'this is the very method,' to show the very method that was stated, he said 'having gone and then returning,' and so on.' And: 'Having a pure mind, one is allowed to eat in the usual way.' And: 'For one who is not sick but has the perception of being sick, the offense arises through the body.'

Āvasathapiṇḍasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on alms-food in lodgings is concluded.

2. Gaṇabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Group Meals

209-218. Guḷhapaṭicchannoti apākaṭova. Eko puttenāti ekassekaṃ bhattaṃ ‘‘ahaṃ aññena nimantito’’ti na vuccati. ‘‘Sace ekato gaṇhanti [Pg.312], gaṇabhojanaṃ hotī’’ti (pāci. aṭṭha. 217-218) vuttattā cattāro upāsakā cattāro bhikkhū visuṃ visuṃ nimantetvā hatthapāse ṭhitānaṃ ce denti, gaṇabhojanaṃ hoti evāti eke, taṃ na yuttaṃ viya. ‘‘Viññattito pasavane gaṇassa ekato gahaṇe iminā sikkhāpadena āpatti, visuṃ gahaṇe paṇītabhojanasūpodanaviññattīhī’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Viññattito pasavanaṃ aṭṭhuppattivasena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ anuññātaṃ. Sūpodanādivasena tattha āpatti evā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ na yuttaṃ. Kasmā? Parivāre (pari. 168) eva dvinnaṃ ākārānaṃ āgatattā, tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘anuññāta’’nti duvuttaṃ. Aṭṭhuppattiyaṃyeva pākaṭanti ‘‘padabhājane na vutta’’nti vattabbaṃ. Ekato gaṇhantīti gahitabhattāpi aññe yāva gaṇhanti, tāva ce tiṭṭhanti, ekato gaṇhantiyeva nāma. ‘‘Gacchati ce, anāpattī’’ti vadanti.

209-218. Regarding guḷhapaṭicchanna, it was simply not apparent. Regarding eko puttena, it is not said of one meal for one monk, 'I have been invited by another.' Because it is said, 'If they receive together, it is a group meal,' some say that if four lay devotees invite four monks separately and give to them while they are standing within arm's reach, it is indeed a group meal; this, however, appears to be not proper. It is written: 'In the case of causing a meal to be procured through an intimation, when it is received together by a group, there is an offense under this training rule; when it is received separately, there are offenses under the training rules on intimating for fine food, rice, and curry.' It is said: 'Causing a meal to be procured through intimation is permitted in the commentary on the basis of the occasion of the arising of the rule. There, an offense arises on account of rice, curry, and so on.' That is not proper. Why? Because in the Parivāra itself, the two modes have been mentioned. Therefore, the statement in the commentary, 'it is permitted,' is a misstatement. It is clear in the occasion of the arising of the rule itself; therefore, it should be said, 'It is not stated in the word-analysis.' Regarding 'they receive together': even having received their meal, if they wait while others receive theirs, it is indeed called 'receiving together.' They say, 'If one goes away, there is no offense.'

Etthāha – ‘‘paṭiggahaṇameva hettha pamāṇa’’nti vuttaṃ, atha kasmā pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘gaṇabhojanaṃ nāma yattha cattāro…pe… bhuñjanti, etaṃ gaṇabhojanaṃ nāmā’’ti (pāci. 218) vuttanti? Vuccati – yatthāti upayogatthe bhummavacanaṃ. Cattāroti gaṇassa heṭṭhimaparicchedanidassanaṃ. Pañcannaṃ bhojanānanti āpattippahonakabhojananidassanaṃ. Aññatarena bhojanena nimantitāti akappiyanimantananidassanaṃ. Nimantanavaseneva pana gaṇabhojanassa vuttattā ‘‘nimantitā bhuñjantīti vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Aññataraṃ bhojanaṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjantī’’ti pana na vuttaṃ aṭṭhuppattiyaṃyeva pākaṭattā. Yaṃ bhuñjantīti evaṃ sambandho veditabbo. Tattha bhuñjantīti paṭiggāhakaniyamavacanaṃ. Na hi appaṭiggahitakaṃ bhikkhū bhuñjanti. Idaṃ vuttaṃ hoti ‘‘gaṇassa yato paṭiggahitāhārabhojanahetu pācittiya’’nti. 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 itaroti. ‘‘Bimbisāraṃ āpucchitvā sambhāre kayiramāneyeva kālā atikkantā, pacchā gaṇabhojanasikkhāpade paññatte bhagavantaṃ upasaṅkamitvā pucchī’’ti vadanti, aññathā aṭṭhakathāya virujjhanato.

Here, a questioner objects: 'It is stated in the commentary, “Receiving itself is the standard here.” If so, why is it stated in the Pāḷi text: “A group meal is where four... eat; this is called a group meal”?' The reply is given: The word `yattha` (where) is a locative case form used in the sense of 'usage' (i.e., in the accusative sense). The word `cattāro` (four) indicates the lower limit of the group. The phrase `pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ` (of the five foods) indicates food sufficient for an offense. The phrase `aññatarena bhojanena nimantitā` (invited with one of the foods) indicates an improper invitation. However, since the group meal is mentioned solely by way of invitation, it is stated, 'Being invited, they eat.' But 'having requested a certain food, they eat' is not stated, because it is already evident in the origin story itself. The connection should be understood thus: 'That which they eat...' Therein, the word `bhuñjanti` (they eat) is a term specifying the act of receiving. For indeed, monks do not eat what has not been received. This is what is meant: 'A Pācittiya offense is incurred because of the group's eating of received food.' They set aside the guest-patch after sewing it with a temporary thread; there, along the border, they rub it with their hands so that it becomes a single flat surface. `Valeti` means 'one rolls it up.' As for `parivattana` (turning), one does the turning of the thread for the sake of easy handling for those taking the thread, and also the turning of the cloth-patch for the sake of easy sewing for those sewing it. Here, a maker of a new robe is intended, not the other. They say: 'Having taken leave of Bimbisāra, while the materials were still being prepared, the time elapsed. Afterwards, when the training rule on group meals was laid down, they approached the Blessed One and asked.' This is said because otherwise, it would contradict the commentary.

220. ‘‘Dve [Pg.313] tayo ekatoti yepi akappiyanimantanaṃ sādiyitvā’’tiādivacanena akappiyanimantanapaccayā eva anāpatti, viññattito āpattiyevāti dīpeti. Animantito catuttho yassa tadetaṃ animantitacatutthaṃ. Esa nayo sabbattha. Pavesetvāti nisīdāpetvā. Cīvaradānasamayaladdhakacatukkaṃ cīvarakārasamayaladdhakacatukkanti evamādīni. Tāni cāti yehi bhojanehi visaṅketo natthi, tāni. Mahāthereti upasampanne. Aṭṭhatvāti ṭhitena nimittaṃ dassitaṃ hoti. Tattha tattha gantvāti rathikādīsu bhikkhusamīpe gantvā. Imasmiṃ pana sikkhāpade katthaci potthake ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, cīvaradānasamaye gaṇabhojanaṃ bhuñjituṃ. Evañcidaṃ bhagavatā bhikkhūna’’nti pāṭho dissati. Katthaci ‘‘bhuñjitu’’nti vatvā ‘‘evañca pana, bhikkhave, imaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ uddiseyyāthā’’ti pāṭho, ayaṃ sobhano.

220. By the text beginning with, “Dve tayo ekato... yepi akappiyanimantanaṃ sādiyitvā,” it shows this meaning: there is no offense merely on account of consenting to an improper invitation, but there is indeed an offense on account of an intimation. That for which the fourth is uninvited, that is 'having an uninvited fourth.' This is the method in all cases. 'Pavesetvā' means having made them sit. The group of four obtained at the time of robe-giving, the group of four obtained at the time of robe-making, and so forth. 'Tāni ca' means those foods for which there is no discrepancy. 'Aṭṭhatvā' means a sign is shown by one who is standing. 'Tattha tattha gantvā' means having gone to the vicinity of a monk in places such as main roads, etc. However, in this training rule, in a certain manuscript, the reading is seen: “I allow, O monks, to eat a group meal at the time of robe-giving. Thus this was laid down by the Blessed One for the monks.” In a certain manuscript, after saying “to eat,” there is the reading, “And so, O monks, you should recite this training rule.” This reading is good.

Gaṇabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on group meals is concluded.

3. Paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Successive Eating

221. Adhiṭṭhitāti niccappavattā. Badaracuṇṇasakkarādīhi yojitaṃ badarasāḷavaṃ. Kirakammakārenāti kirassa kammakārena.

221. 'Adhiṭṭhitā' means regularly established. A jujube confection prepared with jujube powder, sugar, and so forth. 'Kirakammakārena' means by the worker of Kira.

226. ‘‘Vikappetvā gaṇhāhī’’ti etthāhu porāṇattherā ‘‘bhagavato sammukhā avikappetvā gehato nikkhamitvā rathikāya aññatarassa bhikkhuno santike vikappesi, vikappentena pana ‘mayhaṃ bhattapaccāsaṃ itthannāmassa dammī’ti vattabbaṃ, itarena vattabbaṃ ‘tassa santakaṃ paribhuñja vā yathāpaccayaṃ vā karohī’’’ti. Pañcasusahadhammikesūti sammukhā ṭhitassa sahadhammikassa yassa vikappetukāmo, taṃ sahadhammikaṃ adisvā gahaṭṭhassa vā santike, sayameva vā ‘‘pañcasu sahadhammikesu itthannāmassa vikappemī’’ti vatvā bhuñjitabbanti eke, evaṃ sati thero tasmiṃyeva nisinnova tathā vācaṃ nicchāretvā paṭiggaṇhātīti takko dissati. Mahāpaccariyādīsu pana parammukhā vikappanāva vuttā, sā ‘‘tena hānanda, vikappetvā gaṇhāhī’’ti iminā sameti, tathāpi mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘tasmā yo bhikkhu pañcasu sahadhammikesu [Pg.314] aññatarassa ‘mayhaṃ bhattapaccāsaṃ tuyhaṃ dammī’ti vā ‘vikappemī’ti vā evaṃ sammukhā vā ‘itthannāmassa dammī’ti vā ‘vikappemī’ti vā evaṃ parammukhā vā’’ti vacanato sahadhammikassa santike eva vattabbaṃ, na sayamevāti dissati. Yasmā ayaṃ pacchimanayo porāṇagaṇṭhipadenapi sameti, tasmā idha mātikāṭṭhakathānusārena attho veditabbo. Ettha kiñcāpi ‘‘te manussā…pe… bhojanamadaṃsū’’ti vacanato akappiyanimantanaṃ paññāyati, tathāpi therassa kukkuccuppattikāraṇena bhattena so nimantitoti veditabbo. Aññathā parato ‘‘dve tayo nimantane ekato bhuñjatī’’ti vacanena, anāpattivārena ca virujjhati.

226. Regarding 'Having made it allowable, take it,' the ancient elders said: 'Without making it allowable in the presence of the Blessed One, having gone out from the house, he made it allowable on the street in the presence of a certain bhikkhu. Moreover, by the one making it allowable, it should be said, “I give my expectation of a meal to so-and-so,” and by the other it should be said, “Either make use of what is his, or do as is suitable.”' Regarding 'among the five co-religionists': some say that if one wishes to make it allowable to a co-religionist who is present, but without seeing that co-religionist, one may say in the presence of a householder or by oneself, 'Among the five co-religionists, I make it allowable for so-and-so,' and then it may be eaten. This being so, the reasoning appears that the elder, while sitting right there, utters such words and then accepts it. But in the Mahāpaccarī and other texts, making it allowable in absence is indeed stated. That agrees with this: 'Well then, Ānanda, having made it allowable, take it.' Nevertheless, according to the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā, which states, 'Therefore, whichever bhikkhu says to one among the five co-religionists, either in person, “I give my expectation of a meal to you” or “I make it allowable,” or in absence, “I give it to so-and-so” or “I make it allowable,”' it appears that it must be said only in the presence of a co-religionist, and not just by oneself. Because this later method also agrees with the ancient gloss, the meaning here should be understood according to the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā. Here, although from the statement, 'those people... gave food,' an improper invitation is apparent, nevertheless, it should be understood that he was invited with the meal that was the cause for the elder's scrupulousness to arise. Otherwise, it would be contradicted by the later statement, 'one eats from two or three invitations together,' and by the no-offense clause.

229. Etthāyaṃ vicāraṇā – ‘‘añño manusso pattaṃ gaṇhāti, na dātabba’’nti vacanato aparabhāge akappiyanimantanena natthi payojanaṃ, pubbabhāgeyeva akappiyanimantanena payojananti svepi bhante āgaccheyyāthāti ettha kataraṃ akappiyanimantanaṃ, tasmā adhippāyo cettha pamāṇanti. Na, ‘‘piṇḍāya caritvā laddhabhattaṃ bhuñjati, āpattī’’ti vacanatoti. Tattha ‘‘svepi bhante’’ti ettha yathā vacanamattaṃ aggahetvā akappiyanimantanakkamena attho gahito, tathā ‘‘piṇḍāya caritvā’’ti etthāpi antarā akappiyanimantanena laddhabhattaṃ sandhāya vuttanti attho gahetabbo. Piṇḍāya hi carantaṃ disvā ‘‘ettha, bhante, bhattaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti dinnampi akappiyanimantanena laddhaṃ nāma hoti. Vohārena pana ‘‘piṇḍāya caritvā laddhabhatta’’nti vuccati, evaṃsampadamidaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Aññathā mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘gaṇabhojane vuttanayeneva pañcahi bhojanehi nimantitassa…pe… parassa parassa bhojane’’ti vuttavacanavirodho. Idañhi vacanaṃ yena paṭhamaṃ nimantito, tato paṭhamanimantitaṃ ādāya gato parassa parassa nimantanakadāyakassa bhojaneti atthaparidīpanato nimantanato laddhabhattassa bhojaneyeva āpattīti dīpeti. ‘‘Dve tayo nimantane ekato’’ti vacanenapi sameti, aññathā ‘‘yena nimantito, tassa bhojanato parassa bhojane’’ti ettakaṃ vattabbaṃ siyā, pāḷiyaṃ vā ‘‘nimantanena ekatobhuñjatī’’ti ettakaṃ vattabbaṃ siyā. Dutiyanimantanassa paṭhamabhojane āpattippasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ ‘‘yena yenā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Nimantanapaṭipāṭiyā bhuñjatīti pāḷīti ce? Na, ‘‘anāpatti niccabhatte’’tiādipāḷivirodhato.

229. Here is the consideration: Because of the statement, “Another person takes the bowl, it should not be given,” in the later part an improper invitation is of no use, but only in the earlier part is an improper invitation of use. Therefore, in the phrase “Venerable, may you come tomorrow as well,” what is the improper invitation? Hence, intention itself is the standard here. No, because of the statement, “Having wandered for alms-food, one eats the food obtained; there is an offense.” Therein, just as in the phrase “Venerable, may you come tomorrow as well,” the meaning is understood according to the method of an improper invitation, not taking it as mere words, so too in the phrase “having wandered for alms-food,” it should be understood that this is stated in reference to food obtained by an improper invitation in the interim. Indeed, having seen a monk wandering for alms-food, even food given with the words, “Come, venerable, take this food,” is called ‘obtained by an improper invitation’. But by convention, it is called “food obtained having wandered for alms-food”; this consistency should be seen thus. Otherwise, it would contradict the statement made in the Mātikā commentary: “As in the case of a group meal… in the meal of one after another.” Indeed, this statement, by clarifying the meaning that one who was first invited, then having taken that first invited food, while going, eats the meal of a subsequent donor who gives an invitation, shows that there is an offense only in eating the food obtained from an invitation. It also agrees with the statement, “two or three invitations at once.” Otherwise, only this much should have been said: “by whom one was invited, in the meal of another over his own,” or in the Pāḷi, only this much should have been said: “one eats from invitations together.” The phrase “by whichever, by whichever,” etc., was stated in order to prevent the contingency of an offense regarding the first meal due to a second invitation. And if it is said, “There is a Pāḷi text stating, ‘One who eats according to the order of the invitations [commits no offense],’” [the reply is:] No, because of the contradiction with the Pāḷi text beginning with, “There is no offense in the case of a permanent meal.”

Gaṇṭhipade [Pg.315] pana ‘‘piṇḍāya caritvā laddhabhattaṃ kasmā bhuñjituṃ na labhatīti ce? ‘Paramparabhojanaṃ nāma pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññatarena bhojanena nimantito, taṃ ṭhapetvā pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataraṃ bhojanaṃ bhuñjati, etaṃ paramparabhojanaṃ nāmā’ti vuttattā’’ti likhitaṃ. Yadi evaṃ niccabhattādikampi na vaṭṭatīti āpajjatīti niccabhattādi odissakanti ce? Taṃ na, tadaññassa attano dhanena nipphannassa, saṅghato laddhassa vā pāto pacanakayāgu ce ghanā hoti, tassāpi, ekakuṭikaṃ gāmaṃ upanissāya viharato bhikkhācariyavasena labhitabbaniccabhattassa ca akappiyabhāvappasaṅgato. Tattha bhikkhācariyavasena laddhaṃ na kappati nimantanakānaṃ appasādāvahanatoti ce? Na, ‘‘pañca bhojanāni ṭhapetvā sabbattha anāpattī’’ti vacanavirodhato. Khādanīyampi hi parassa khāditvā bhuttattā nimantanabhojanaṃ abhuñjanto appasādaṃ karoti eva, tasmā appasādāvahaṃ appamāṇaṃ, tasmā niccabhattādi odissakaṃ na sambhavati. Apica heṭṭhā vuttanayena saddhiṃ idha vuttanayena saṃsanditvā yaṃ yaṃ khamati, taṃ taṃ gahetabbanti sabbopi kesañci ācariyānaṃ vinicchayo. Ācariyassa pana vinicchayo ante āvi bhavissati. ‘‘Khīraṃ vā rasaṃ vā pivato amissampīti adhippāyo’’ti vuttaṃ. Gaṇṭhipade ‘‘heṭṭhā odanenāmissetvā upari tiṭṭhatī’’ti likhitaṃ.

In the Gaṇṭhipada, however, it is written: “If it is asked, ‘Why, after going for alms and obtaining food, is one not allowed to eat it?’ [The answer is] because it is stated: ‘Successive eating (paramparabhojana) means that having been invited with one of the five kinds of food, one sets that aside and eats another of the five kinds of food—this is called successive eating.’” If so, it would follow that even regular meals and the like are not permissible. And if it is said that regular meals and the like are odissaka (specifically designated)? That is not so, because it would lead to the consequence of being unallowable for food produced by one's own wealth other than that, or obtained from the Saṅgha, or for morning gruel if it is thick, and also for the regular meal to be obtained by means of an alms-round for a bhikkhu dwelling dependent on a village with a single hut. Among these, if it is said that food obtained by means of an alms-round is not allowable because it brings about displeasure in the inviters, that is not so, because it contradicts the statement, “Setting aside the five kinds of food, there is no offense anywhere.” For even having eaten another's hard food, by not eating the invited meal, one certainly causes displeasure. Therefore, causing displeasure is not the standard. Therefore, regular meals and the like cannot be odissaka. Moreover, having compared the method stated below with the method stated here, whatever is suitable should be accepted—this is the entire decision of some teachers. The Teacher's decision, however, will become clear at the end. It is said: “The meaning is that for one drinking milk or juice, it is also unmixed.” In the Gaṇṭhipada, it is written: “It stands above, unmixed with the rice below.”

Mahāupāsakoti gehasāmiko. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘āpattī’’ti vacanena kurundiyaṃ ‘‘vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanaṃ viruddhaṃ viya dissati. ‘‘Dvinnampi adhippāyo mahāpaccariyaṃ vicārito’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Cārittatoti ‘santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā’ti parato vattabbato’’ti vuttaṃ. Vacīkammaṃ avikappanaṃ. 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 paribhuñjeyya, yathādhammo kāretabbo’’ti (mahāva. 283) vacanato ca nimantetvā vā pavedetu animantetvā vā, paṭhamagahitanimantanassa bhikkhuno paṭhamanimantanabhojanato aññaṃ yaṃ kiñci parasantakaṃ bhojanaṃ paramparabhojanāpattiṃ karoti. Attano santakaṃ, saṅghagaṇato laddhaṃ vā agahaṭṭhasantakaṃ vaṭṭati, nimantanato paṭhamaṃ nibaddhattā pana niccabhattādi parasantakampi vaṭṭati. Khandhake [Pg.316] ‘‘na ca, bhikkhave…pe… yathādhammo kāretabbo’’ti (mahāva. 283) vacanaṃ parasantakabhojanavuttaniyamanaṃ. Tato hatthakova no takkoti ācariyo.

A great lay devotee means a householder. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, the statement “it is an offense” seems to contradict the statement “it is allowable” in the Kurundī. It is written: “The intention of both was examined in the Mahāpaccarī.” It is said that `Cārittato` refers to the Cāritta training rule, which is stated later as ‘without asking the present monk’. Verbal action is not a specific determination. Here, because of the statement in the commentary, “A great lay devotee invites monks… for one who eats food obtained afterward, it is an offense. If he eats food obtained by going on alms-round, it is an offense,” and from the Pāḷi, “We ate after going for alms at the proper time,” and because of the statement in the Khandhaka, “And, monks, one should not partake of another’s food or gruel. Whoever should do so should be dealt with according to the Dhamma” (Mahāva. 283)—whether one informs after having invited or informs without having invited, for a monk who has accepted the first invitation, any other food whatsoever belonging to another, apart from the food of the first invitation, incurs an offense of successive eating. Food that is one’s own property, or obtained from the Saṅgha or a group, or is the property of non-householders, is allowable. However, because it is established prior to the invitation, a regular meal and so forth, even if it is the property of another, is allowable. In the Khandhaka, the statement “And, monks… should be dealt with according to the Dhamma” is a regulation stated concerning the eating of food belonging to another. Therefore, the teacher states: “Our reasoning is as certain as something held in the hand.”

Paramparabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Successive Eating is concluded.

4. Kāṇamātāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Kāṇamātā Training Rule

31-3. Paṭiyālokanti pacchimaṃ desaṃ. Pūvagaṇanāyāti atirittapūvagaṇanāyāti attho. Sace ‘‘apātheyyādiatthāya sajjita’’nti saññāya gaṇhāti, acittakattā sikkhāpadassa āpatti eva. Atha uggahitaṃ gaṇhāti, na muccatiyeva. Asaṃvibhāge pana anāpatti akappiyattā. Acittakatā paññattijānanābhāveneva, na vatthujānanābhāvenāti eke. Na, mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘pātheyyādiatthāya sajjitabhāvajānana’’nti aṅgesu avuttattā. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade panevaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘ekena vā anekehi vā dvattipattapūresu gahitesu tesaṃ anārocanena vā sayaṃ vā jānitvā yo aññaṃ gaṇhāti, tassa dukkaṭaṃ. Ekato tīsu, catūsu vā paviṭṭhesu ekena ce dvepattapūrā gahitā, dutiye dve gaṇhante paṭhamo ce na nivāreti, paṭhamassa pācittiyaṃ. Nivāreti ce, anāpatti, dutiyasseva dukkaṭa’’nti. Sace sañcicca na vadati, porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttanayena pācittiyaṃ, mātikāṭṭhakathāvasena (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kāṇamātāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) dukkaṭaṃ. ‘‘Atirekapaṭiggahaṇa’’nti tattha pañcamaṃ aṅgaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā appaṭiggahitattā na pācittiyaṃ, kattabbākaraṇato pana dukkaṭaṃ. Aññathā kiriyākiriyaṃ idaṃ āpajjati, anivāraṇaṃ, anārocanaṃ vā chaṭṭhaṅgaṃ vattabbaṃ siyā. Ekanikāyikānaṃ vāti ettha ‘‘āsannavihārabhikkhū, āsannaāsanasālāgatā vā sace visabhāgehi ānītaṃ na paṭiggaṇhanti, ‘ārāmikādīnaṃyeva vā dāpentī’ti jānāti, yattha paribhogaṃ gacchati, tattha dātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Dvattipattapūrā’ti vacanato pacchiādīsu adhikampi gaṇhato anāpattī’’ti keci vinayadharamānino vadanti, taṃ tesaṃyeva nisīdatu, ācariyā pana ‘‘pacchiādīsupi ukkaṭṭhapattassa pamāṇavasena dvattipattapūrā gahetabbā. Ukkaṭṭhaparicchedakathā hesā’’ti vadanti.

31-3. 'Looking back' refers to the western direction. 'Counting the cakes' means counting the excess cakes. If one accepts with the perception, 'It is prepared for the purpose of provisions, etc.,' there is an offense indeed, on account of it being an unintentional act with respect to the training rule. If, then, one accepts an object whose acceptance is invalid, one is not freed indeed. In the case of not sharing, however, there is no offense, because it is unallowable. Some say that an unintentional act is due only to not knowing the regulation, not to not knowing the object. This should not be accepted, because in the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā, 'knowing that it was prepared for the purpose of provisions, etc.' is not stated among the factors. In the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada, however, it is said thus: 'When two or three bowlfuls of cakes have been accepted by one or many, if another bhikkhu accepts more, either without informing them or knowing it himself, he commits a wrong-doing. When three or four have entered together, if one has accepted two bowlfuls of cakes, and while a second is accepting two, the first does not prevent him, the first commits an offense requiring confession. If he does prevent him, there is no offense; there is a wrong-doing for the second one only.' If one intentionally does not speak, according to the method stated in the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada, it is an offense requiring confession; according to the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā, it is a wrong-doing. 'Accepting an excess' is stated there as the fifth factor; therefore, because of not having received, there is no offense requiring confession, but because of not doing what should be done, there is a wrong-doing. Otherwise, this training rule would become an offense of commission and omission, and 'not preventing' or 'not informing' would have to be stated as a sixth factor. Regarding 'or for those of the same group,' it is said: 'If one knows that bhikkhus in a nearby monastery, or those who have come to a nearby rest house, do not accept what is brought by those of a different group, or that they have it given only to monastery attendants and so on, it is allowable to have it given where it will be consumed.' Some who consider themselves experts in Vinaya say, 'Because of the wording "two or three bowlfuls," there is no offense for one who accepts even more from baskets, etc.' Let that remain in their minds alone. The teachers, however, say, 'Even from baskets, etc., only two or three bowlfuls should be accepted, according to the measure of a superior bowl. This is the explanation of the limit of a superior bowl.'

Kāṇamātāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Kāṇamātā Training Rule is concluded.

5. Paṭhamapavāraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Commentary on the First Pavāraṇā Training Rule

236. Yāvadatthapavāraṇāya [Pg.317] pavāritā kiñcāpi ‘‘pavāritā’’icceva adhippetā aṭṭhuppattiyāva, atha kho pacchimāva idhādhippetā.

236. Although it is only in the origin story that one is considered 'invited' by the 'invitation until satisfaction', nevertheless, here only the final invitation is intended.

237. ‘‘Alametaṃ sabba’’nti vuttattā atirittaṃ nāma hoti. Bhikkhussa idampi te adhikaṃ, ito aññaṃ na lacchatīti kira attho.

237. Because it was said, 'This is enough for all,' it is called 'excess.' For a monk, 'This too is extra for you; from this you will not get other food'—this is indeed the meaning.

238-9. ‘‘Asanaṃ paññāyatī’’ti eteneva ‘‘bhuttāvī’’ti etassa siddhattā visuṃ atthasiddhi natthi. Yadi atthi, aṅgānaṃ chakkattadassananti. Vuttampi cetantiādi pavāraṇaṅgānaṃ pañcakattadassanaṃ. Varakoti yo koci varako. ‘‘Pavāraṇaṃ pana janetiyevāti visuṃ sitthaṃ vodakaṃ karonti, pavāraṇaṃ na janeti. Yāguṃ vā pivanto paṭhamaṃ udakaṃ pivati, vaṭṭati. Avasiṭṭhaṃ heṭṭhāsitthaṃ pavāraṇaṃ na janetī’’ti likhitaṃ. Upatissatthero ‘‘janetiyevā’’ti vadati, taṃ na icchanti ācariyā. Bhajjitapiṭṭhanti taṇḍulacuṇṇameva. Bhajjitasattuyo piṇḍetvā katamodako sattumodako.

By this very phrase, 'Food appears,' the meaning of 'one who has eaten' is established, so there is no separate establishment of the meaning. If there were, it being so, it would be a showing of the factors as sixfold; thus it should be known. The statement beginning 'And if it is said...' is a showing of the factors of invitation as fivefold. 'Varako' means any kind of millet. Regarding 'But it does generate the invitation': they make a lump of rice watery separately; this does not generate the invitation. Or, for one drinking gruel, if he first drinks water, it is allowable. The remaining lump of rice at the bottom does not generate the invitation,' thus it is written. The Elder Upatissa says, 'It does indeed generate it,' but the teachers do not accept this. 'Roasted flour' is only rice flour. A sweet-ball made by lumping together roasted barley-meal is a barley-meal sweet-ball.

‘‘Yāgusitthamattāneva dve…pe… paṭikkhipati, na pavāretī’’ti vuttattā paracaṅkamacchādayo pakkhipitvā pakkayāguṃ pivanto sace aññaṃ tādisaṃyeva paṭikkhipati, pavāraṇā na hotīti kira dhammasiritthero. Sace aññaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Kasmā? Asanasaṅkhātassa vippakatabhojanassābhāvato. Bhojanasālāyaṃ bhuñjanto ce, attano apāpuṇanakoṭṭhāsaṃ abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti. Kāmaṃ paṭikkhipati, patte pana ārāmiko ākirati, tato bhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Idañhi buddhappaṭikuṭṭhaanesanāya uppanneyeva saṅgahaṃ gacchati. Yathā hi saṅghato uddhaṭapiṇḍaṃ dussīlo deti, taṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti, evaṃsampadamidaṃ. ‘‘Visabhāgo lajjī ce deti, taṃ tena sambhogaṃ akattukāmatāya paṭikkhipati, pavāretīti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Parivesanāyāti bhattagge. ‘‘Maṃsena rasaṃ, maṃsañca rasañca maṃsarasanti āpajjanato ‘maṃsarasa’nti vutte paṭikkhepato hoti, maṃsassa rasaṃ maṃsarasanti viggaho nādhippeto’’ti vuttaṃ. Maṃsakarambako nāma…pe… vaṭṭatīti suddhayāgu eva hoti. Appavāraṇamissakakarambakoyeva hoti, tasmā na pavāreti, tena vuttaṃ parato ‘‘idañca karambakena na samānetabba’’ntiādi, tasmā ‘‘taṃ abhiharitvā [Pg.318] kañjiyaṃ gaṇhathā’ti vadantaṃ paṭikkhipati, pavāraṇā na hotī’’ti ca ‘‘missakayāguṃ gaṇhathā’ti avuttattā ‘sammissitaṃ visuṃ katvā detī’ti vuttattā’’ti ca vuttaṃ, yasmā yāgumissakanti ettha padadvaye pavāraṇārahassa nāmaggahaṇaṃ natthi, tasmā tatra ce yāgu bahutarā vā hoti samasamā vā, na pavāreti. Kasmā? Tattha abhihārakapaṭikkhepakānaṃ yāgusaññattā. Yāgu ce mandā, bhattaṃ bahutaraṃ, pavāreti. Kasmā? Tesaṃ ubhinnampi tattha bhinnasaññattāti takko ācariyassa. Bhattamissake pavāraṇārahassa nāmassa sabbhāvato sabbadā pavāreti eva. Missake pana vuttanayena kāraṇaṃ vattabbaṃ. Visuṃ katvā detīti yathā bhattasiṭṭhaṃ na patati, tathā gāḷhaṃ hatthena pīḷetvā parissāvetvā deti.

Because it is said, “If one refuses just two… rice-grains of gruel… one does not complete the invitation,” if, while drinking gruel cooked with things like fish from another's fishing-weir put into it, one refuses another of the very same kind, the invitation is not completed—so, it is said, the Elder Dhammasiri said. If one refuses another, one does not complete the invitation. Why? Because of the absence of unfinished food which is designated as a meal. If, while eating in the dining hall, one refuses a portion that has been brought forward but has not yet reached oneself, one does not complete the invitation. Indeed, one may refuse, but if a monastery attendant then pours it into the bowl, it is not proper to eat from it. For this is included only in what has arisen from a wrongful search censured by the Buddha. Just as when an immoral monk gives almsfood set aside from the Sangha, and one refuses it, one does not complete the invitation; the accomplishment of this example should be seen in the same way. It is said: “Others say: If a conscientious person of a different communion gives, and one refuses it due to the desire not to have communion with him, one completes the invitation.” “At the time of serving” means at the meal-place. It is said: “Because it comes to mean ‘juice with meat,’ ‘meat and juice,’ and ‘meat-juice,’ when ‘meat-juice’ is said, the invitation is completed by the refusal. The analysis ‘the juice of meat is meat-juice’ is not intended.” In the passage “A meat-porridge named… is allowable,” it is only pure gruel. It is a porridge mixed with something that does not require an invitation; therefore, one does not complete the invitation. Because of that, it is said later on: “And this should not be equated with porridge,” etc. Therefore, it is also said that if one refuses someone saying, “Having brought that, take the rice-gruel,” the invitation is not completed. And it is also said that this is because “Take the mixed gruel” was not said, and because it is said, “He gives what is mixed, having separated it.” Because here in the two words “gruel-mixture,” there is no taking of the name of something suitable for invitation, therefore, in that case, if the gruel is more or is equal, one does not complete the invitation. Why? Because in that case, for both the one who brings it and the one who refuses it, there is the perception of it as gruel. If the gruel is little and the boiled rice is more, one completes the invitation. Why? Because in that case, for both of them, there is a different perception—this is the teacher's reasoning. In the case of a mixture with boiled rice, because of the presence of the name of something suitable for invitation, one always completes the invitation. But in the case of a mixture, the reason should be stated according to the method mentioned. “He gives it having separated it” means that he gives it having pressed it firmly with the hand and strained it, so that a grain of boiled rice does not fall.

Akappiyakatanti ettha ‘‘kappiyaṃ akārāpitehi kadalipphalādīhi saddhiṃ atirittaṃ kappiyaṃ kārāpetvāpi taṃ kadalipphalādiṃ ṭhapetvā avasesaṃ bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Amissakarasattā puna tāni kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā aññasmiṃ bhājane ṭhapetvā atirittaṃ kāretvā bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. Kasmā? Pubbe tesu vinayakammassa anāruḷhattā’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Bhuttāvinā ca pavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena kata’’nti vacanato bhuttāvinā appavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena kattabbanti siddhaṃ, tasmā ‘‘pātova addhānaṃ gacchantesu dvīsu eko pavārito avuṭṭhito tattha nisīdati, so itarena piṇḍāya caritvā laddhaṃ bhikkhaṃ attanā abhutvāpi ‘alametaṃ sabba’nti kātuṃ labhati evā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ sukkapakkhe ‘‘bhuttāvinā kataṃ hotī’’ti imināva siddhaṃ, tasmiṃ pakkhe attano sattaṅgāni na pūrenti, kaṇhapakkhe paṭibhāgena satta vuttānīti veditabbaṃ. Bhuttāvinā appavāritena āsanā vuṭṭhitena, avuṭṭhitena vā kataṃ hoti, vaṭṭati. ‘‘Pavāritena āsanā avuṭṭhitenevā’’ti imaṃ pana atthavikappaṃ dīpetuṃ ‘‘sattaṅgāni vuttānī’’tipi vattuṃ vaṭṭati. So puna kātuṃ na labhati paṭhamaṃ katassa puna teneva kattabbappasaṅgato. Yañca akataṃ, taṃ kattabbanti hi vuttaṃ. Atha sova paṭhamo puna kattukāmo hoti, aññasmiṃ bhājane pubbe akataṃ kātuṃ labhati. Dutiyo paṭhamabhājanepi kātuṃ labhati. ‘‘Yena akataṃ, tena kātabba’’nti hi vuttaṃ. Imamevatthaṃ sandhāya ‘‘yena yaṃ paṭhamaṃ kappiyaṃ kataṃ, tameva so puna kātuṃ na labhati, aññena kātabba’’nti [Pg.319] likhitaṃ. Tattha tanti taṃ paṭhamaṃ katanti attho. Pesetvā kāretabbanti ettha anupasampanno ce gato, tatraṭṭhena ekena bhikkhunā paṭiggāhetvā aparena kāretabbanti tattha ekova evameva kātuṃ na labhatīti. ‘‘Yaṃ kiñci gilānaṃ uddissā’tiādivacanato vihārādīsu gilānassa pāpuṇanakoṭṭhāsampi gilānātirittaṃ nāma, tasmā vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Āhāratthāyāti vikāle evāti eke.

Here, regarding that which has not been made allowable: 'Even after having had what is extra made allowable together with banana fruits, etc., which have not been made allowable, it is permissible to set aside those banana fruits, etc., and eat the remainder. Because of having unmixed juice, again, after having had those things made allowable, placing them in another vessel, and having had the extra made allowable, it is permissible to eat. Why? Because previously, the Vinaya-act had not been applied to them,' they say. Because of the text, 'Done by one who has eaten, has been formally satisfied, and has risen from his seat,' it is established that it should be done by one who has eaten, has not been formally satisfied, and has risen from his seat. Therefore, it is said: 'Among two monks going on a journey early in the morning, one, having been formally satisfied but not having risen, sits there. Regarding the alms-food obtained by the other who went for alms, the first monk, even without having eaten it himself, is indeed permitted to make it allowable by saying, "This is enough for all."' That is established in the white section by this very phrase, 'it is done by one who has eaten.' In that section, one's own seven factors are not fulfilled. It should be understood that in the dark section, seven are stated as a counterpart. It is permissible when done by one who has eaten and has not been formally satisfied, whether having risen from the seat or not having risen. However, to clarify this alternative meaning, 'By one who has been formally satisfied, but only without having risen from his seat,' it is also permissible to say, 'The seven factors are stated.' He is not permitted to do it again, because of the consequence that what was done the first time would have to be done again by that very same person. For it is said, 'And what has not been done, that should be done.' Now, if that very same first person wishes to do it again, he is permitted to do in another vessel what has not been done before. A second person is permitted to do it even in the first vessel. For it is said, 'By whom it has not been done, by him it should be done.' Referring to this very meaning, it is written: 'By whom a certain thing was first made allowable, that very thing he is not permitted to do again; it should be done by another.' Therein, the word `tanti` means 'that which was done first.' Here, regarding 'having sent someone to have it done': if an unordained person has gone, one monk who is present there should have him receive it, and another should have it made allowable. Therefore, in that case, a single monk is not permitted to do it in this same way. From the statement beginning, 'Whatever is for a sick person...,' they say: 'Even the share that reaches a sick person in a monastery, etc., is called 'extra for the sick'; therefore, it is permissible.' Some say that 'for the purpose of food' is stated only with reference to the wrong time.

241. Kāyakammaṃ ajjhoharaṇato. Vacīkammaṃ vācāya ‘‘atirittaṃ karotha bhante’’ti akārāpanenāti veditabbaṃ.

241. Bodily action is from swallowing. Verbal action is from not causing one to say by speech, 'Make it extra, venerable sir'; thus it should be understood.

Paṭhamapavāraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the first Pavāraṇā training rule is concluded.

6. Dutiyapavāraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. The Commentary on the Second Pavāraṇā Training Rule

243. Sādhāraṇamevāti sabbapavāraṇānaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ ‘‘yāvattakaṃ icchasī’’ti idaṃ.

243. Herein, in the phrase `sādhāraṇameva`, this saying, 'as much as you wish,' is common to all Pavāraṇās.

Dutiyapavāraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the second Pavāraṇā training rule is concluded.

7. Vikālabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. The Commentary on the Training Rule on Untimely Eating

247-9. Naṭānaṃ nāṭakāni naṭanāṭakāni, sītāharaṇādīni. Mūlañca taṃ khādanīyañcāti mūlakhādanīyaṃ. Esa nayo sabbattha. Piṭṭhanti cuṇṇaṃ. Khārakamūlanti yūpasamūlaṃ. Caccumūlaṃ neḷiyamūlaṃ. Tambakaṃ vacaṃ. Taṇḍuleyyakaṃ cūḷakuhu. Vatthuleyyakaṃ mahākuhu. Vajakali nikoṭṭhaṃ. Jajjharī hirato.

247-9. The dramas (`nāṭakāni`) of dancers (`naṭānaṃ`) are `naṭanāṭakāni`, such as the abduction of Sītā. It is a root (`mūlaṃ`) and it is edible (`khādanīyaṃ`), thus it is an edible root (`mūlakhādanīyaṃ`). This method applies everywhere. In the word `piṭṭha`, it means powder. `Khārakamūla` is `yūpasamūla`. `Caccumūla` is `neḷiyamūla`. `Tambaka` is `vaca`. `Taṇḍuleyyaka` is `cūḷakuhu`. `Vatthuleyyaka` is `mahākuhu`. `Vajakali` is `nikoṭṭha`. `Jajjharī` is `hirato`.

Koṭṭhaṃ jaraṭṭhaṃ vuccati. Gaṇṭhi muhukulamudu vicayattha vajamuju vaduḷavi.

`Koṭṭha` is called `jarattha`. `Gaṇḍi`, `muhukulamudu`, `vicayattha`, `vajamuju`, and `vaduḷavi` mean a lump.

Vajjayetime kiṃsukaṃ, haliddi. Kaseruko, kaṭibalavanti tassa nāmaṃ. Ambāṭakaṃ amūlakaṃ piḍhala kakkula. Masālu kinaḷa. Āluva kaḷi taḍḍhiaḷi alasa kaṭissala namedati mera. Siggu sīri koḷa kālakaṃ nekaḷavi. Khīravallikando tumūroriyo hoti. Saṅkhato dhovanameva. Ayaṃ ‘‘parisaṅkhāro’’ti likhitaṃ. Khīrakākolī kirikaveḷi. Jīvikaṃ jīvihi. Usabhaka ummasuviyi.

One should avoid these: `kiṃsuka` and `haliddi`. `Kaseruko`: its name is `kaṭibalavanti`. `Ambāṭaka`, `amūlaka`, `piḍhala`, and `kakkula` are synonyms. `Masālu` is `kinaḷa`. `Āluva` is `kaḷi`, `taḍḍhiaḷi`, `alasa`, `kaṭissala`, `namedati`, and `mera`. `Siggu` is `sīri`, `koḷa`, `kālaka`, and `nekaḷavi`. The `khīravalli` tuber is `tumūroriyo`. Being prepared (`saṅkhato`) is merely washing. It is written: 'This is the preparation (`parisaṅkhāra`).' `Khīrakākolī` is `kirikaveḷi`. `Jīvikaṃ` is `jīvihi`. `Usabhaka` is `ummasuviyi`.

Hintālaṃ [Pg.320] kitili. Kuntāla toho tilisatā padikaḷiro paṭasevalakaḷi. Karamandakaṃ karamba daṇḍokira udakajoti kaṇḍako. ‘‘Siṅghatakotipi vuccatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Phaggava hakiḷi. Nattamālanti karañji.

`Hintāla` is `kitili`. `Kuntāla` is `toho`, `tilisatā`, `padikaḷiro`, and `paṭasevalakaḷi`. `Karamandaka` is `karamba`, `daṇḍokira`, `udakajoti`, and `kaṇḍako`. It is written: 'It is also called `siṅghatako`.' `Phaggava` is `hakiḷi`. `Nattamāla` is `karañji`.

Sellu loholiyaṃ. Kāsamaddaka kuduvavali anasikina. Ummādiya melelidiya. Cīnamuggo venamutti huramugga. Rājamāso māhaviliti. Aggimanto muñci. Sunipaṇṇako tipilavanināḷikā tilaka. Bhūmiyaṃ jātaloṇīti ettha loṇīnāmassa sādhāraṇattā ‘‘bhūmiya’’nti visesetvā vuttaṃ. Brahmīpattaṃ demeteye paṇasā. ‘‘Dīpavāsino vadantī’’ti sithilaṃ katvā kasmā vuttanti ce? ‘‘Khādanīyatthaṃ pharatīti lakkhaṇena asamānattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Padeliviniteki. Sulasipaṇṇanti tasāpalikaṃ.

`Sellu` is `loholiyaṃ`. `Kāsamaddaka` is `kuduvavali`, `anasikina`. `Ummādiya` is `melelidiya`. `Cīnamuggo` is `venamutti`, `huramugga`. `Rājamāso` is `māhaviliti`. `Aggimanto` is `muñci`. `Sunipaṇṇako` is `tipilavanināḷikā`, `tilaka`. Herein, in the phrase `bhūmiyaṃ jātaloṇī`, because the name `loṇī` is common, it is specified with `bhūmiyaṃ`. `Brahmīpattaṃ` is `demeteye`, `paṇasā`. If it is asked why 'The island-dwellers say' is stated loosely, it is stated thus because it is not the same in the characteristic of being an edible item. `Sulasipaṇṇaṃ` is `tasāpalikaṃ`.

Agandhikapupphaṃ karissayeti cekavādidapupphaṃ celepatimalaṃ. Jīvantīpupphaṃ jīvitandigamala. Bakula muthuvala. Kuyyaka punapunnāmapunnarā, jātisumana. Navamālikā cehemala.

`Agandhikapupphaṃ`. `Karissayeti cekavādidapupphaṃ` is `celepatimalaṃ`. `Jīvantīpupphaṃ` is `jīvitandigamala`. `Bakula` is `muthuvala`. `Kuyyaka` is `punapunnāma`, `punnarā`. `Jātisumana`. `Navamālikā` is `cehemala`.

Tintiṇika kacinī vileyi. Mātuluṅga lavano. Pussaphala supuli. Timbarūsaka tigibberehiti susatudhuta. Tipusavātiṅgaṇa dhutatikeṇa paṭiyi. Coca variyiyeli. Moca atireli. Goṭṭhaphalaṃ pūvaphalanti eke. Koṭṭhase kira acchiva.

`Tintiṇika` is `kacinī`, `vileyi`. `Mātuluṅga` is `lavano`. `Pussaphala` is `supuli`. `Timbarūsaka` is `tigibberehiti`, `susatudhuta`. `Tipusavātiṅgaṇa` is `dhutatikeṇa`, `paṭiyi`. `Coca` is `variyiyeli`. `Moca` is `atireli`. Some say `goṭṭhaphalaṃ` is `pūvaphalaṃ`. The word `acchiva`, it is said, is in the meaning of `koṭṭhasa`.

Asamussi bimba iti keci. Kāsmarīti sepaṇṇi. Atitemeti kariyametissa. Jātiphalaṃ kataṃmeti. Kaṭukaphalaṃ tiriraka.

Some say `asamussi` is `bimba`. `Kāsmarī` is `sepaṇṇi`. `Atitema` is a synonym for `kariyametissa`. `Jātiphalaṃ` is `kataṃmeti`. `Kaṭukaphalaṃ` is `tiriraka`.

Taruṇaphalaṃ kiriupulu. Pokkharaṭṭhi kiñcakkhaṭṭhi. Siddhatthakaṃ sāsapaṃ setavaṇṇaṃ. Rājikaṃ rattaṃ hoti.

`Taruṇaphalaṃ` is `kiriupulu`. `Pokkharaṭṭhi` is `kiñcakkhaṭṭhi`. White-colored mustard is called `siddhatthakaṃ`. Red-colored mustard is called `rājikaṃ`.

Hiṅguṃ hiṅgujatunti sabbāpi hiṅguvikatiyo. Ettha hiṅgujatu nāma pattasākhā pacitvā kātabbā. Sākhā pacitvā katā sipāṭikā. Aññehi missetvā katāti keci. Takaṃ kaṭṭhajanti aggikeḷini. Nikitissākālesayo. Timera, takapatti pasākhāpatte pacitvā kātabbā. ‘‘Takapaṇṇi sāvati eva kātabbā’’ti likhitaṃ.

`Hiṅgu` and `hiṅgujatu` are all varieties of asafoetida. Herein, `hiṅgujatu` is that which should be prepared by cooking the branches of that plant. That which is made by cooking the branches is called `sipāṭikā`. `Takaṃ` is `kaṭṭhajaṃ` (resin from the shoot). `Timera` (resin). `Takapatti` is `pasākhā` (resin from the leaves), which should be prepared by cooking the leaves. It is written: '`Takapaṇṇi` should be prepared from the dry leaves themselves.'

Vikālabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on eating at the wrong time is concluded.

8. Sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Storing Food

253. Aparajju [Pg.321] sannidhi nāma hotīti attho. Ajja paṭiggahitanti na kevalaṃ paṭiggahitameva, atha kho uggahitakampi, teneva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassāti evaṃ sannidhikataṃ yaṃ kiñci yāvakālikaṃ vā yāmakālikaṃ vā ajjhoharitukāmatāya gaṇhantassa paṭiggahaṇe tāva āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yadi taṃ paṭhamameva paṭiggahitaṃ, ‘‘paṭiggahaṇe tāvā’’ti na vattabbaṃ, tasmā veditabbametaṃ ‘‘attano kāle gahitaṃ ajja paṭiggahita’nti vutta’’nti.

253. The meaning is that it is called 'storing' with reference to the next day. In the phrase 'received today,' it is not only what has been formally received, but indeed also that for which the formal receiving has lapsed. For that very reason, it is said in the Commentary: 'For a monk who, with the desire to consume, takes anything stored thus—whether an item allowable for the morning or a limited-period-allowable—at the moment of receiving, there is the incurring of a dukkaṭa offense.' If that allowable item was received for the very first time, the phrase 'at the moment of receiving' should not be said. Therefore, this should be known: 'An allowable item taken at its proper time is said to be "received today".'

Etthāha – yathā pañca bhesajjāni uggahitakāni anadhippetāni. Sattāhātikkame anāpatti anajjhoharaṇīyattā, tathā idhāpi uggahitakaṃ nādhippetanti? Ettha vuccati – bhesajjasikkhāpade (pārā. 618 ādayo) uggahitakaṃ nādhippetanti yuttaṃ attano kālātikkamanamattena tattha āpattippasaṅgato. Ettha na yuttaṃ attano kālātikkamanamattena āpattippasaṅgābhāvato. Ajjhoharaṇeneva hi ettha āpattīti adhippāyo, tasmā anugaṇṭhipadamatena ajja uggahetvā punadivase bhuñjanto dve āpattiyo āpajjati.

Here, an objector says: Just as with the five medicines, those for which the formal receiving has lapsed are not intended for the rule. There is no offense for exceeding seven days because they are not to be consumed. Similarly, here also, is that for which the formal receiving has lapsed not intended for the rule? To this, the rebuttal is stated: In the training rule on medicines, the statement that 'that for which the formal receiving has lapsed is not intended' is fitting, because there, an offense would be entailed merely by the exceeding of its own time limit. Here, it is not fitting, because an offense is not entailed merely by the exceeding of its own time limit. Indeed, the intention here is that the offense is only through consumption. Therefore, according to the view of the Anugaṇṭhipada, a monk who, having let the formal receiving lapse today, consumes it on the next day, incurs two offenses.

Tatrāyaṃ vicāraṇā – attanā bhuñjitukāmo ajja uggahetvā punadivase bhuñjati, dve āpattiyo āpajjati. Sāmaṇerādīnaṃyeva atthāya uggahetvā gahitaṃ punadivase paṭiggahetvā bhuñjanto āpattiyā na kāretabboti. Paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassāti etthāyamadhippāyo – sace belaṭṭhasīso viya dutiyatatiyādidivasatthāya ajja paṭiggahetvā sāmaṇerādīnaṃ gopanatthāya deti, tassa punadivase ajjhoharaṇatthaṃ paṭiggahaṇe āpatti dukkaṭassāti sambhavati. Sayameva sace taṃ gopetvā ṭhapeti, punadivase patitaṃ kacavaraṃ disvā vimativasena vā paṭiggaṇhato paṭiggahaṇatova āpatti dukkaṭassāti sambhavati. No ce paṭiggaṇhāti, taṃ dukkaṭaṃ natthi. ‘‘Idañhi ‘ekaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmeti, āpatti thullaccayassā’tiādi viyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yo pana ekappahāreneva dvepi pāde atikkāmeti, tassa taṃ thullaccayaṃ natthi, evaṃsampadamidanti veditabbaṃ. Ettha paṭiggahitabhāvaṃ avijahantameva sannidhiṃ [Pg.322] janetīti dhammasiritthero, taṃ ‘‘paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti pāḷiyā virujjhati. Kapālena pīto pana sneho abbohāriko. Kiñcāpi uṇhe otāpentassa paggharati, tathāpi ‘‘bhesajjasikkhāpade viyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Itarathā kapālena pītā sappiādayopi sattāhātikkame āpattiṃ janeyyunti. Sayaṃ paṭiggahetvāti idhāpi pubbe vuttavidhiyeva. Duddhotapattakathāpi etena sameti viya. Āhāratthāyāti kālepi labbhati. Pakatiāmiseti kappiyāmise. Sāmisena mukhena ajjhoharato dveti ‘‘hiyyo paṭiggahitayāmakālikaṃ ajja purebhattaṃ sāmisena mukhena ajjhoharato dve pācittiyānī’’ti likhitaṃ. Ajja paṭiggahitaṃ yāvakālikampi hi yāmātikkantapānakena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sannidhiṃ karoti. Akappiyamaṃsesu manussamaṃse thullaccayaṃ, sesamaṃse dukkaṭañca vaḍḍhati.

Herein is the investigation: If one, desiring to eat for oneself, having let the acceptance lapse today, eats it on the next day, one incurs two offenses. If for the sake of novices and others only, one has let the acceptance lapse for what was received, a monk who eats it on the next day without receiving it again should not be charged with an offense. Regarding 'If one receives it, there is an offense of wrong-doing,' this is the intention: if, like the Elder Belaṭṭhasīsa, one receives it today for the sake of the second, third, or subsequent days and gives it to novices and others for safekeeping, for him, in the act of receiving it on the next day for the purpose of consumption, an offense of wrong-doing is possible. Or, if one stores and keeps it oneself, and on the next day, seeing fallen rubbish, for one who receives it again, perhaps due to doubt, from the very act of receiving, an offense of wrong-doing is possible. If one does not receive it, there is no such offense of wrong-doing. For it is said: 'This is like, "If one moves one foot across, there is an offense of grave transgression," and so on.' But for one who moves both feet across in a single stride, there is no such grave transgression for him; this case should be understood as being similar. Herein, the Elder Dhammasiri says that it generates storing only for one who does not abandon the state of having received it. That contradicts the Pali text: 'If one receives it, there is an offense of wrong-doing.' However, oil absorbed by a potsherd is not subject to the rule. Although it may ooze out for one who is heating it in the sun, nevertheless, it is said, 'it is like in the training rule on medicines.' Otherwise, ghee and so on, absorbed by a potsherd, would generate an offense in transgressing the seven days. Here too, regarding 'having received it oneself,' it is just the procedure stated previously. The discussion on a poorly washed bowl also seems to be in agreement with this. 'For the sake of food' is obtained even in the proper time. 'Ordinary food' means allowable food. Regarding 'for one consuming with a mouth containing food, there are two,' it is written: 'For one who, in the forenoon today, consumes with a mouth containing food a yāmakālika item that was received yesterday, there are two pācittiya offenses.' Indeed, even a yāvakālika item received today, if mixed with a drink that has passed the yāma, creates storing. Among unallowable fleshes, a grave transgression accrues for human flesh, and an offense of wrong-doing for the remaining fleshes.

255. Sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ āhāratthāyāti kālepi dukkaṭameva sannidhiṃ anāpajjanatoti keci. Tadahu paṭiggahitaṃ tadahu purebhattaṃ vaṭṭatīti ce? Na, pāḷiyampi aṭṭhakathāyampi visesassa natthitāya. Bhesajjasikkhāpade purebhattaṃ yathāsukhaṃ paribhuñjanaṃ vuttanti ce? Āhāre sappiādi saṅgahaṃ yāti, tena taggatikavasena vuttaṃ, na bhesajjavasena vuttanti upatisso.

255. Some say that regarding the seven-day and lifelong allowances for the purpose of food, it is a `dukkaṭa` offense even at the proper time, because it does not amount to storing. If it is asked: 'Is what is received on that day allowable in the morning of that same day?' No, because of the non-existence of a distinction in the Pāḷi as well as in the Commentary. If it is asked: 'In the training rule on medicine, is it not said that one may consume as one pleases in the morning?' The reply is: Ghee and so on are included under food; therefore, it is spoken of by way of being in that category, not by way of being medicine. Thus says Upatissa.

Sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning the act of storing is finished.

9. Paṇītabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Choice Food

259. Akappiyasappināti yesaṃ maṃsaṃ na kappati, tesaṃ sappinā. ‘‘Vasātelañhi ṭhapetvā akappiyasappi nāma natthī’’ti likhitaṃ. Visaṅketanti ettha ‘‘sūpodanaviññattipi na hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kāyikānīti kāyena āpajjitabbāni.

259. 'Unallowable ghee' means ghee from animals whose flesh is not allowable. It is written: 'Indeed, having set aside fat and oil, there is no such thing as unallowable ghee.' In this context, 'without a sign,' it is said: 'there is not even a request for soup and rice.' 'Bodily' means those offenses to be incurred by means of the body.

261. Mahānāmasikkhāpadena kāretabboti saṅghavasena pavārite bhesajjatthāya sappiādipañcakaṃ viññāpeti ce, tattha ‘‘na bhesajjena karaṇīyena [Pg.323] bhesajja’’nti ettha saṅgahaṃ gacchati, tasmā ‘‘tena pācittiya’’nti vuttaṃ. Pāḷimuttakesu ‘‘bhikkhunīnampi dukkaṭa’’nti likhitaṃ.

261. 'Should be dealt with according to the Mahānāma training rule' means: if, when one has been invited on behalf of the Saṅgha, one requests the five items beginning with ghee for the purpose of medicine, then it is included under the case of 'not medicine, but with a need for medicine.' Therefore, it is said, 'a `pācittiya` offense because of that.' In the Pāḷimuttaka texts, it is written: 'For bhikkhunīs too, it is a `dukkaṭa` offense.'

Paṇītabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Training Rule concerning Choice Food is finished.

10. Dantaponasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Training Rule concerning the Tooth-Stick

264-5. Mukhadvāranti kaṇṭhanāḷi. Uccāraṇamattanti ukkhipitabbamattakaṃ. Kasaṭaṃ chaḍḍetvāti samudācāravasena, achaḍḍitepi ‘‘vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Hatthapāsātikkamanti dāyakassa. Bhikkhussa detīti aññassa bhikkhussa. Kañjikanti yaṃ kiñci dravaṃ. Patto paṭiggahetabboti bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapite abhihārābhāvato. ‘‘Yathā paṭhamataraṃ patitatheve doso natthi, tathā ākiritvā apanentānaṃ patitathevepi abhihaṭattā nevatthi doso’’ti likhitaṃ. Carukenāti khuddakapiṇḍena. Jāgarantassapīti ‘‘api-saddena suttassapī’’ti likhitaṃ. Kecīti abhayagirivāsino. Tehi kāyasaṃsagge kāyapaṭibaddhenāpi tappaṭibaddhenāpi thullaccayāpatti dassitā evāti attho. Kāyapaṭibaddhapaṭibaddhenāti vacanamattamevetaṃ. ‘‘Satthakenāti paṭiggahitakenā’’ti likhitaṃ, taṃ dullikhitaṃ satipi male puna paṭiggahetabbakiccābhāvato. Kesañci atthāyāti anupasampannānaṃ atthāya. ‘‘Sāmaṇerassa hatthaṃ phuṭṭhamattameva taṃ pariccatta’’nti likhitaṃ.

264-5. 'The mouth's entrance' means the throat passage. 'Just enough to lift' means just enough to be raised. 'Having discarded the refuse' refers to conventional practice; even if not discarded, it is said, 'it is valid.' 'Beyond arm's reach' refers to the donor's. 'Gives to a bhikkhu' means to another bhikkhu. 'Gruel' means any liquid. 'The bowl should be received': this is because there is no offering when it is placed on the ground. It is written: 'Just as there is no fault in the very first drop that falls, so too, for those who are carrying it away after having poured it, even in a drop that falls, there is no fault because it has been brought forward.' 'With a small lump' means with a tiny morsel. Regarding 'even of one who is awake,' it is written that the word 'api' also implies 'even of one who is asleep.' 'Some' refers to the Abhayagiri residents. By them, it is shown that for bodily contact, whether with what is connected to the body or with what is connected to that, there is a thullaccaya offense—this is the meaning. 'With what is connected to that which is connected to the body' is merely a verbal expression. It is written, ''With a knife' means with one that has been received,' but this is poorly written because even if there is dirt or rust, there is no need to receive it again. 'For the sake of some' means for the sake of those who are not fully ordained. It is written: 'That item is relinquished by the mere touching of a novice's hand.'

Paṭiggahaṇupagabhāraṃ nāma majjhimapurisena ukkhipitabbakaṃ. Mūlapaṭiggahaṇameva vaṭṭatīti ettha ‘‘macchikavāraṇatthanti vuttattā ‘abhuñjanatthāyāpi paṭiggahetvā gahite vaṭṭatī’’’ti ye vadanti, te vattabbā ‘‘sīsamakkhanatelaṃ paṭiggahetvā ‘idaṃ sīsamakkhana’nti anābhogeneva sattāhaṃ atikkāmentassa kiṃ nissaggiyaṃ bhaveyyā’’tiādi, suttādhippāyo pana evaṃ gahetabbo ‘‘macchikavāraṇatthaṃ bījantassa tasmiṃ laggarajādimhi patte patite sukhaṃ paribhuñjituṃ sakkā’ti saññāya pubbe paṭiggahitabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Parivattanakathāyaṃ ‘‘amhākaṃ taṇḍulesu khīṇesu etehi amhākaṃ hatthagatehi sāmaṇerasantakehipi sakkā patiṭṭhapetu’nti bhikkhūnaṃ cittuppādo ce sambhavati, ‘parivattanaṃ sātthaka’nti upatissatthero’’ti vuttaṃ. Yadi evaṃ suddhacittānaṃ niratthakanti āpannameva, tathā ‘‘paṇḍito esa sāmaṇero pattaparivattanaṃ katvā dassati, mayameva ca imassa vissāsena vā yācitvā [Pg.324] vā bhuñjissāmā’’ti citte sati bhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati katepi parivattaneti ca āpannaṃ, kiṃ bahunā. Nirapekkheheva gaṇhitabbaṃ, na sāpekkhehīti dassanatthaṃ vuttanti ācariyo. Ayamevattho ‘‘sace pana sakkoti vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ, tato laddhaṃ khāditumpi vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanena siddhova. Ādhārake patto ṭhapito hoti yathāpaṭiggahitabhāve nirālayo. Samuddodakena appaṭiggahitakena. Meṇḍakassa khīraṃ khīrattāva vaṭṭati. ‘‘Attano pana khīraṃ mukheneva pivantassa anāpattīti dassetuṃ vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sarīranissitamahābhūtāni hi idhādhippetānī’’ti likhitaṃ, tadubhayampi ‘‘kappiyamaṃsakhīraṃ vā’’tiādinā nayena virujjhati.

What is called 'a load suitable for receiving' is a load that can be lifted by a man of medium strength. In this text [which states], 'Only the initial receiving is allowable,' because it is said, 'for the purpose of warding off flies,' those who say, 'Even if received for a purpose other than eating, it is allowable once taken,' should be told the following: 'If a monk receives oil for anointing the head and, merely through inattention, lets seven days pass, would it become an item for forfeiture?' and so on. However, the meaning of the Sutta should be understood thus: It is said, 'It should be received beforehand with the thought: "When dust and so forth that has stuck to the fan of one who is fanning to ward off flies falls into the bowl, it will be possible to consume [the food] with ease."' In the discussion on exchange, it is said: 'If the thought arises in the monks, "When our rice is exhausted, we can sustain ourselves with these belongings of the novices that have come into our hands," then the exchange is meaningful,' said the Elder Upatissa. If this is so, it indeed follows that for those with pure minds, it is meaningless. Likewise, it also follows that if the thought arises, 'This novice is wise; having exchanged the bowl, he will give it, and we ourselves will eat [from it] either through familiarity or by asking,' then even if the exchange is made, it is not allowable to eat. What more is there to say? It should be taken only by those without expectation, not by those with expectation—it is said to show this meaning, says the teacher. This very meaning is indeed established by the statement: 'If, however, one is able to purify one's thought, then what is obtained from that is allowable even to eat.' The bowl placed on the stand remains in the state in which it was received, without attachment. With seawater that has not been formally received. The milk of a goat is allowable simply because it is milk. It is said, 'To show that there is no offense for one who drinks his own milk directly with his mouth.' It is written, 'For the great elements dependent on the body are intended here,' but both of these are contradicted by the method beginning with 'or permissible meat and milk...'

Apica ‘‘appaṭiggahitabhājane aññabhikkhusantake attano piṇḍapātaṃ pakkhipati, ‘taṃ thoka’nti vā aññena vā kāraṇena vadati, taṃ sabbesaṃ na kappati. Kasmā? Vinayadukkaṭattā. Attanā paṭiggahetvā pakkhipitabbaṃ vinayavidhiṃ akatvā dukkaṭanti adhippāyo. Evaṃ tādisaṃ kimatthaṃ na bhuñjatīti? Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘uggahitako hotī’ti vuttattā. Evañhi tattha vuttaṃ bhūmiyaṃ vā bhājane vā phalaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci āmisaṃ vā yāvajīvikampi appaṭiggahitakaṃ ajānanto āmasati, na vaṭṭati, uggahitakaṃ hotī’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ, tasmā imassa matena bhikkhu bhikkhussa sace patte appaṭiggahite piṇḍaṃ ṭhapeti, taṃ akappiyaṃ uggahitakanti siddhaṃ. Ayamevattho ‘‘sace attano vā bhikkhūnaṃ vā yāgupacanakabhājane…pe… nirāmisaṃ katvā paribhuñjitabba’’nti vacanena saṃsanditvā kathetabbo. ‘‘Kappiyamaṃsakhīraṃ vā’’ti pasaṅgavasena vuttaṃ. Dadhi ce paṭiladdhaṃ, tañca adhippetanti keci.

Furthermore, if a bhikkhu places his own almsfood into the unreceived bowl belonging to another bhikkhu, saying, 'This is a little,' or for some other reason, that food is not allowable for any of them. Why? Because it is a dukkaṭa offense according to the Vinaya. The meaning is that it is a dukkaṭa offense for not having followed the Vinaya procedure of receiving it oneself before placing it. Thus, for what reason is such food not to be eaten? Because it is stated in the Commentary that it becomes 'taken up' (uggahitaka). For it is stated thus in the Anugaṇṭhipada: 'If one, not knowing, touches an unreceived item—be it on the ground or in a bowl, be it fruit or any kind of edible, even a lifelong tonic—it is not allowable; it becomes 'taken up' (uggahitaka).' Therefore, according to this opinion, if a bhikkhu places almsfood in the bowl of another bhikkhu while it is unreceived, it is established that this unallowable food is 'taken up'. This very meaning should be explained by connecting it with the statement: 'If, for oneself or for the bhikkhus, in a vessel for cooking gruel... it should be made free of the food item and then consumed.' The phrase 'allowable meat or milk' was stated by way of incidental mention. And if curd is obtained, some say that this too is intended.

Dantaponasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on the Tooth-Stick is concluded.

Samatto vaṇṇanākkamena bhojanavaggo catuttho.

The fourth, the Chapter on Food, is completed according to the order of the explanation.

5. Acelakavaggo

5. The Chapter on the Naked Ascetic

1. Acelakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule on the Naked Ascetic

269. Vighāsādānaṃ antarā pūvalābhena aññatarā paribbājikā pavisitvā ṭhitā. Dāpetīti anupasampannena.

269. Regarding `Vighāsādānaṃ` (eating leftovers): In the midst of them, a certain female wanderer, having obtained a cake, entered and stood. The phrase 'causes to be given' means by one who is not fully ordained.

Acelakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on the Naked Ascetic is concluded.

2. Uyyojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Incitement

276. Vijahantassāti [Pg.325] anādaratthe sāmivacanaṃ. Uyyojakassa vijahantassa sato āpatti dukkaṭassātipi attho. Idha anupasampanno nāma sāmaṇerovādhippeto.

276. The word `vijahantassa` is the genitive case used in the sense of disrespect. This is also the meaning: for the inciting bhikkhu, being aware as the other is leaving his hand's reach, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Here, by 'one who is not fully ordained', only a novice is intended.

Uyyojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on Incitement is concluded.

3. Sabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Eating Together

280. Sabhojaneti ettha paṭhamavikappo ‘‘itthī ca puriso cā’’ti iminā tatiyapadena yujjati, dutiyavikappo paṭhamehi dvīhi. Kuleti ghare. Anupavisitvā nisīdanacittena sacittakaṃ.

280. In sabhojane, the first alternative connects with this third phrase, "a woman and a man"; the second alternative connects with the first two. In kule, it means in a house. Having entered with the intention of sitting down, it is intentional.

Sabhojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on eating together is concluded.

4. Rahopaṭicchannasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule on a Concealed, Secluded Place

284. Idha pañcamaṃ upanandassa catutthaṃ hoti, tasmā bhikkhunivaggassa dasamaṭṭhakathāyaṃ upari upanandassa ‘‘tatiyasikkhāpadenā’’ti na pāṭho, ‘‘catutthenā’’ti pāṭhoti veditabbo.

284. Here, the fifth is the fourth for Upananda. Therefore, in the commentary on the tenth training rule of the Bhikkhunīvagga, regarding Upananda above, the reading is not "by the third training rule"; the reading should be "by the fourth." Thus it should be understood.

Rahopaṭicchannasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on a concealed, secluded place is concluded.

5. Rahonisajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Sitting in a Secluded Place

289. Rahonisajjasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

289. The training rule on sitting in a secluded place has a clear meaning indeed.

6. Cārittasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Proper Conduct

294. Sabhattoti nimantanabhattoti porāṇā.

294. In sabhatto, it means a meal with a common invitation; thus say the ancients.

Purebhattañca piṇḍāya, caritvā yadi bhuñjati;

Siyā paramparāpatti, pacchābhattaṃ na sā siyā.

And if, having gone for alms before the meal, one eats, there would be a successive offense; if one eats after the meal, that offense would not be.

Pacchābhattañca [Pg.326] gamiko, pubbagehaṃ yadi gacche;

Eke āpattiyevāti, anāpattīti ekacce.

And if a traveling monk, after the meal, should go to the previous house, some say it is an offense indeed; some others say it is not an offense.

Kulantarassokkamane, āpattimatayo hi te;

Samānabhattapaccāsā, iti āhu idhāpare.

Indeed, those who are of the opinion that it is an offense say so because it occurs upon entering another family's house. Others here say it is because there is an expectation of a common meal.

Matā gaṇikabhattena, samenti naṃ nimantane;

Vissajjanaṃ samānanti, eke sammukhatāpare.

Their opinion should be reconciled by the case of a group meal.

Sanniṭṭhānatthikeheva, vicāretabbabhedato;

Viññū cārittamicceva, sikkhāpadamidaṃ vidūti.

Because of the various points to be investigated by those who seek a definite conclusion, the wise know this training rule simply as 'Proper Conduct'.

Cārittasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on proper conduct is concluded.

7. Mahānāmasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Mahānāma

310. Kālanti so. Yasmā saṅghapavāraṇāyamevāyaṃ vidhi, tasmā ‘‘ñātakānaṃ pavāritāna’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Iminā hi tayā pavāritamha, amhākañca iminā ca iminā ca attho’’ti yathābhūtaṃ ācikkhitvā viññāpetuṃ gilānova labhati. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ paṇītabhojanasikkhāpade ‘‘mahānāmasikkhāpadena kāretabbo’’ti, taṃ saṅghavasena pavāritaṃ, bhesajjatthāya sappiādibhesajjapañcakaṃ viññāpeti ce, ‘‘na bhesajjena karaṇīyena bhesajjaṃ viññāpetī’ti vacanena pācittiyanti attho’’ti (pāci. 309) likhitaṃ.

310. In this context, `so` refers to that Mahānāma. Because this procedure is only for the invitation of the Sangha, therefore it is said, "of relatives who have been invited." Only a sick monk is permitted to inform by stating what is true, thus: "Indeed, by this we have been invited by you, and for us there is a need for this and this." As for what was said in the training rule on fine foods, "it should be done according to the Mahānāma training rule," that was said of an invitation by way of the Sangha. If one requests the five medicines, such as ghee, for a medicinal purpose, it is written: "By the statement, 'One requests medicine when there is no need for medicine,' a pācittiya is incurred; this is the meaning."

Mahānāmasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Mahānāma training rule is concluded.

8. Uyyuttasenāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning an Army Drawn Up for Battle

311-5. Maṃ diṭṭhenāti mayā diṭṭhena, mama dassanena vā. Ekampi sarahatthaṃ purisanti aṅgapariyāpannaṃ.

`Maṃ diṭṭhena` means `mayā diṭṭhena` (by me who has seen), or `mama dassanena` (by the seeing of me). The phrase `Ekampi sarahatthaṃ purisaṃ` (even one man with an arrow in hand) is included as a component (of the army).

Uyyuttasenāsikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning an army drawn up for battle is concluded.

9. Senāvāsasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Staying with an Army

319. Navame [Pg.327] senāparikkhepena vā parikkhepārahaṭṭhānena vā sañcaraṇaṭṭhānapariyantena vā paricchinditabbā.

319. In the ninth (rule), the boundary should be defined by the army's encampment, or by a place suitable for an encampment, or by the limit of the area for moving about.

Senāvāsasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning staying with an army is concluded.

10. Uyyodhikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning a Military Display

324. Dasame ekamekaṃ dassanāya gacchati, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Yattha ṭhito passati, āpatti pācittiyassātiādi. Aṭṭhame pana ekamekaṃ dassanāya gacchati, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Yattha ṭhito passati, āpatti dukkaṭassāti pāḷi. Kasmā? Aṅgappamāṇābhedepi anīkavisesato. Dasame pana aṭṭhamaṅgassa dassanena dukkaṭaṃ siyāti.

324. In the tenth (rule), if one goes to see each one, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. Where one stands and sees, there is an offense of pācittiya, and so on. However, in the eighth (rule), if one goes to see each one, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. Where one stands and sees, there is an offense of dukkaṭa; this is the Pāḷi text. Why? Although there is no difference in the measure of the components, it is due to the specific nature of the military formation. However, in the tenth (rule), by seeing the eighth component, there would be a dukkaṭa offense.

Uyyodhikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning a military display is concluded.

Samatto vaṇṇanākkamena acelakavaggo pañcamo.

The fifth chapter, the Acelakavagga, is completed according to the order of the commentary.

6. Surāpānavaggo

6. The Chapter on Drinking Intoxicants

1. Surāpānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Drinking Intoxicants

Āyasmato yaṃ muni sāgatassa,Mahiddhikattassa nidassanena;

Pānassa doso tassa dassanatthaṃ,Pubbeva so bhaddavatiṃ payāto.

In order to show the fault of drinking by means of the demonstration of the great psychic power of the Venerable Sāgata, that Sage proceeded beforehand to Bhaddavatī.

Tasmā passaṃ nāgamapothayitvā,Vinissaṭaṃ sāgataṃ iddhiyā ca;

Nato surāpānanisedhanatthaṃ,Kosambimevajjhagamāti ñeyyaṃ.

Therefore, seeing the Elder Sāgata who, without striking the nāga, would cause its pride to be dispelled by psychic power alone, He, for the purpose of prohibiting the drinking of intoxicants, went to Kosambī itself. Thus it should be known.

326-8. Pasupālakāti [Pg.328] ajapālakā. Yena majjati, tassa bījato paṭṭhāya. Keci ‘‘sacittakapakkhe cittaṃ akusalamevāti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā) vuttattā vatthuṃ jānitvā pivato akusala’’nti vadanti. Evaṃ sati ‘‘akusaleneva pātabbatāyāti na vattabba’’nti vutte ‘‘sacittakapakkhameva sandhāyā’’ti vadanti. Evaṃ sati ‘‘kusalākusalābyākatacittanti vattabba’’nti vutte tampi ‘‘tabbahulanayena vutta’’nti vadanti. Kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyampi avisesetvā ‘‘akusalacitta’’nti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. surāpānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘taṃ akusaleneva pivatī’’ti vadantīti.

In `Pasupālaka`: it means goat-herds. 'By which one is intoxicated': this refers to starting from the preparation of the ingredients of that intoxicant. Some say: 'Because it is stated in the section on the intentional case that "the mind is only unwholesome," for one who drinks knowing the substance, it is unwholesome.' This being so, when it is said, 'It should not be said that it is to be drunk only with an unwholesome mind,' they say, 'It is said referring only to the intentional case.' This being so, when it is said, 'It should be said that it is drunk with wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate minds,' they say, 'That too is said in the sense of the predominance of the unwholesome.' In the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī as well, without making a distinction, it is said, "unwholesome mind." Therefore, they say, 'One drinks it only with an unwholesome mind.'

Surāpānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on drinking intoxicants is concluded.

2. Aṅgulipatodakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Prodding with a Finger

330. Aṅgulipatodakasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

330. The training rule on prodding with a finger is indeed clear in meaning.

3. Hasadhammasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Playful Conduct

336. Tatiye kathaṃ tivedanaṃ? Hasādhippāyeneva ‘‘parassa dukkhaṃ uppādessāmī’’ti udakaṃ khipantassa dukkhavedanaṃ. Sesaṃ uttānaṃ.

336. In the third, how are the three feelings? For one who throws water with only the intention of jesting, thinking, 'I will cause suffering to another,' painful feeling arises. The rest is clear.

Idaṃ saññāvimokkhañce, tikapācittiyaṃ kathaṃ;

Kīḷitaṃva akīḷāti, micchāgāhena taṃ siyā.

If this is liberation by perception, how is it a triple pācittiya? That perception of 'not-playing' while actually playing would be through wrong grasping.

Ettāvatā kathaṃ kīḷā, iti kīḷāyaṃ evāyaṃ;

Akīḷāsaññī hotettha, vinayatthaṃ samādaye.

By this much, the playing is done. Thus, in the very act of playing, one has the perception of 'not-playing'.

Ekantākusalo yasmā, kīḷāyābhiratamano;

Tasmā akusalaṃ cittaṃ, ekamevettha labbhatīti.

Because one whose mind delights in play is entirely unwholesome, therefore only a single unwholesome mind is obtained here.

Hasadhammasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on playful conduct is concluded.

4. Anādariyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Disrespect

344. ‘‘Lokavajjaṃ atikkamitvā ‘idaṃ amhākaṃ ācariyuggaho’ti vadantassa na vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Yaṃ saṃkiliṭṭheneva cittena āpajjati, yaṃ vā ariyapuggalo [Pg.329] apaññatte sikkhāpade ajjhācarati, idaṃ lokavajjanti sabbatthikavādīādīni ācariyakulāni. Tattha dutiyatatiyavikappo idha na adhippeto sekhiyānaṃ lokavajjattā.

344. It is written: 'It is not proper for one who, having transgressed a worldly fault, says, “This is the teaching method of our teachers.”' That offense which one commits with a defiled mind, or that matter which a noble person transgresses before a training rule is laid down—this is a worldly fault, according to the schools of teachers such as the Sarvāstivādins. In this training rule, the second and third alternatives are not intended, because the Sekhiya rules are worldly faults.

Gārayho ācariyuggahoti ettha ‘‘yasmā ucchuraso sattāhakāliko, tassa kasaṭo yāvajīviko, dvinnaṃyeva samavāyo ucchuyaṭṭhi, tasmā vikāle ucchuyaṭṭhiṃ khādituṃ vaṭṭati guḷaharīṭakaṃ viyā’ti evamādiko sampati nibbatto gārayhācariyavādo na gahetabbo’’ti ca, paṇṇattivajje pana vaṭṭatīti ‘‘na pattahatthena kavāṭo paṇāmetabbo’ti imassa ‘yena hatthena patto gahito, tena hatthena na paṇāmetabbo, itarena paṇāmetabbo’ti atthaṃ gahetvā tathā ācaranto na āpattiyā kāretabbo. ‘Tathā buddhabodhicetiyānaṃ pupphaṃ gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭatīti tathā ācaranto’’ti ca. Tathā ācarati abhayagirivāsiko. Mahāvihāravāsino ce evaṃ vadanti, ‘‘mā evaṃ vadā’’ti apasādetabbo. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘suttaṃ suttānulomañca uggahitakānaṃyevā’’tiādi. ‘‘Idaṃ sabbaṃ upatissatthero āhā’’ti ca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Suttānulomaṃ aṭṭhakathā’’ti likhitaṃ.

Here, regarding 'A blameworthy teacher's doctrine': 'Because sugarcane juice is a seven-day allowance, and its pulp is a lifetime allowance, the combination of the two is a sugarcane stalk. Therefore, it is proper to chew a sugarcane stalk at the wrong time, like jaggery and myrobalan.' Such a blameworthy teacher's doctrine that has now arisen should not be accepted. However, in the case of a fault by prescription, it is proper. Regarding 'A door should not be pushed with the hand holding a bowl,' having taken the meaning as, 'It should not be pushed with the hand that holds the bowl; it should be pushed with the other hand or another object,' one who acts accordingly should not be charged with an offense. And also, one who acts according to the view, 'Similarly, it is proper to take flowers of the Buddha, the Bodhi tree, and a Cetiya,' should not be charged with an offense. A resident of the Abhayagiri monastery acts thus. If the residents of the Mahāvihāra say so, they should be rebuked, 'Do not speak thus.' Therefore, it is said, 'The Sutta and that which is in conformity with the Sutta should be learned only by those who have studied them,' and so on. And it is also said, 'The Elder Upatissa said all this.' It is written, 'That which is in conformity with the Sutta is the Commentary.'

Anādariyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on disrespect is concluded.

5. Bhiṃsāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Intimidation

345. Bhiṃsāpanasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

345. The training rule on intimidation is clear in meaning.

6. Jotisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Kindling a Fire

354. ‘‘Visibbanāpekkho’’ti vacanato yassa apekkhā natthi, tassa anāpatti.

354. Because of the phrase 'expecting to warm oneself,' for one who has no such expectation, there is no offense.

Jotisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on kindling a fire is concluded.

7. Nahānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Bathing

364. Nahānasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

364. The training rule on bathing is clear in meaning.

8. Dubbaṇṇakaraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Discoloring

368. Alabhīti [Pg.330] labho. Yathā ‘‘pacatīti paco, pathatīti patho’’ti vuccati, evaṃ ‘‘labhatīti labho’’ti kasmā na vuttaṃ? Pariniṭṭhitalābhasseva idhādhippetattā. Maggeti sibbinimagge. Kappakatena saddhiṃ akappakataṃ sibbeti. Yāvatā adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahati, tāvatā pubbaṃ kappameva. Kappaṃ na vijahati ce, puna kappaṃ dātabbanti ācariyassa takko.

368. Because one has obtained (alabhi), it is called a gain (lābho). Just as it is said, 'Because one cooks (pacati), it is called a cook (paco); because one recites (pathati), it is called a reciter (pāṭho)', why is it not similarly said, 'Because one obtains (labhati), it is called a gain (lābho)'? Because here, only a gain that is fully accomplished is intended. In the phrase 'magge', it means 'in the line of sewing'. One sews a robe that has not been marked with the kappa-bindu together with one that has been marked. As long as the determination is not abandoned, it remains as the previous marking (kappa). If the marking is not abandoned, a new marking should be applied again—this is the teacher's reasoning.

Dubbaṇṇakaraṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning making a disfiguring mark is concluded.

9. Vikappanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. The Commentary on the Training Rule on Vikappana (Joint Ownership)

374. Paribhogo ettha kāyakammaṃ. Apaccuddhāraṇaṃ vacīkammaṃ.

374. Here, using the robe is a bodily action. Failure to revoke the joint ownership is a verbal action.

Vikappanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule on Vikappana (Joint Ownership) is concluded.

10. Cīvarāpanidhānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Hiding a Robe

379. Dasame yasmā nisīdanasanthataṃ cīvaranisīdanampīti ubhayampi sadasameva, tasmā taṃ ubhayampi ekato katvā ‘‘nisīdanaṃ nāma sadasaṃ vuccatī’’ti āha. Tatthāpi cīvaraggahaṇena cīvaranisīdanaṃ gahitamevāti atthato santhatanisīdanameva vuttaṃ hoti. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘nisīdanasanthataṃ nāma sadasaṃ vuccatī’’ti vattabbanti? Na, itarassa anisīdanaadasabhāvappasaṅgato. Ettha nisīdanasanthatassa pācittiyavatthuttā itarampi pācittiyavatthumevāti veditabbaṃ tajjātikattā. Sassāmike sūcighare sūcigaṇanāya āpattiyoti porāṇā.

379. In the tenth rule, because both the felt sitting-cloth (nisīdana-santhata) and the robe sitting-cloth (cīvara-nisīdana) have a border, therefore, combining them both, it was said, 'A sitting-cloth is what is called bordered.' Even there, by the inclusion of the word 'robe' (cīvara), the robe sitting-cloth is already included; therefore, in meaning, only the felt sitting-cloth is being spoken of. If that is so, should it not be said, 'A felt sitting-cloth is what is called bordered'? No, because that would lead to the other one being considered not a sitting-cloth and not bordered. Here, since a pācittiya offense is stated for the felt sitting-cloth, it should be understood that the other is also a basis for a pācittiya offense, because it is of the same nature. In the case of a needle-case that has an owner, offenses are incurred according to the number of needles—so say the ancients.

Cīvarāpanidhānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning hiding a robe is concluded.

Samatto vaṇṇanākkamena surāpānavaggo chaṭṭho.

The sixth chapter, the Surāpāna Vagga, is completed according to the sequence of the commentary.

7. Sappāṇakavaggo

7. The Chapter on Living Beings

1. Sañciccapāṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Commentary on the Training Rule on Intentionally Taking Life

382. Sañciccapāṇasikkhāpadaṃ [Pg.331] uttānatthameva.

382. The training rule on intentionally taking life has an obvious meaning.

2. Sappāṇakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Water Containing Living Beings

387. ‘‘Pāṇo atthī’’ti jānantopi ‘‘marissantī’’ti avicāretvā pivatice, anāpatti.

387. Even while knowing, 'There is a living being,' if one drinks without reflecting, 'They will die,' there is no offense.

Jale pakkhipanaṃ pupphaṃ, jalappavesanaṃ idaṃ;

Evaṃ ubhinnaṃ nānattaṃ, ñeyyaṃ ñāṇavatā sadāti.

Placing a flower in water, and this entry into water—thus this distinction between the two should always be known by one who is wise.

Sappāṇakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning water containing living beings is concluded.

3. Ukkoṭanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Commentary on the Training Rule on Reopening a Settled Issue

392. Tatiye dvādasa ukkoṭā veditabbā. Tattha akataṃ kammaṃ, dukkaṭaṃ kammaṃ, puna kātabbaṃ kammanti anuvādādhikaraṇe labbhanti. Anihaṭaṃ, dunnihaṭaṃ, na puna haritabbanti vivādādhikaraṇe labbhanti, avinicchitaṃ, duvinicchitaṃ, puna vinicchitabbanti āpattādhikaraṇe labbhanti. Avūpasantaṃ, duvūpasantaṃ, puna vūpasametabbanti kiccādhikaraṇe labbhantīti aṭṭhakathānayo, pāḷiyaṃ panettha mukhamattameva dassitaṃ.

392. In the third rule, twelve reopenings are to be understood. Therein, an undone act, a badly done act, an act to be done again—these are obtained in a case of accusation. Not removed, badly removed, to be removed again—these are obtained in a case of dispute. Undecided, badly decided, to be decided again—these are obtained in a case of offense. Unsettled, badly settled, to be settled again—these three are obtained in a case of business. This is the method of the commentary. In the Pāḷi, however, only a hint is shown here.

Ukkoṭanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on reopening is concluded.

4. Duṭṭhullasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Explanation of the Training Rule on a Grave Offense

399. ‘‘Pārājikānīti atthuddhāravasena dassitānī’’ti kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? Parivārapāḷito. Vuttañhi tattha ‘‘āpattādhikaraṇapaccayā kati āpattiyo āpajjati. Āpattādhikaraṇapaccayā catasso āpattiyo āpajjati. Bhikkhunī jānaṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ paṭicchādeti, āpatti pārājikassa. Vematikā paṭicchādeti, āpatti thullaccayassa. Bhikkhu saṅghādisesaṃ paṭicchādeti, āpatti pācittiyassa. Ācāravipattiṃ paṭicchādeti[Pg.332], āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (pari. 290). Pārājikaṃ paṭicchādento bhikkhu anāpatti, no āpattiṃ āpajjati avuttattāti ce? Na, saṃkiliṭṭhena cittena paṭicchādane vinā āpattiyā asambhavato. Dukkaṭavāre vattabbāpi pārājikāpattiyo paṭhamaṃ atthuddhāravasena saṅghādisesehi saha vuttattā na sakkā puna vattunti na vuttāti veditabbā.

399. If it is asked, 'How is it known that "The Pārājika offenses are shown by way of extracting the meaning"?' From the Parivāra Pāḷi. For it is stated there: 'On account of a case concerning an offense, into how many offenses does one fall? On account of a case concerning an offense, one falls into four offenses. If a bhikkhunī knowingly conceals a Pārājika matter, there is an offense of Pārājika. If, being doubtful, she conceals it, there is an offense of Thullaccaya. If a bhikkhu conceals a Saṅghādisesa, there is an offense of Pācittiya. If he conceals a breach of conduct, there is an offense of Dukkaṭa.' (Pari. 290). If one should say: 'A bhikkhu concealing a Pārājika is without offense; he does not fall into an offense because it is not stated?' No, because it is impossible for the act of concealing with a defiled mind to be without an offense. The Pārājika offenses, although they should be stated in the section on Dukkaṭa, are not stated because, having been first stated by way of extracting the meaning along with the Saṅghādisesa offenses, they cannot be stated again. Thus it should be understood.

Yāva koṭi na chijjatīti cettha yo antamaso paṭicchādanatthaṃ aññassa ārocetu vā, mā vā, paṭicchādanacitteneva āpattiṃ āpanno. Tassa puna aññassa paṭicchādanatthaṃ anārocaneneva na koṭi chinnā hoti, kiṃ puna paṭinivattitvā vacanena payojananti na antimassa anārocanena chinnā hoti, appaṭicchādanena eva chinnā hoti, tato appaṭicchādanatthaṃ apubbassa ārocetabbaṃ, tato paṭṭhāya koṭi chinnā hoti, tadabhāvo paṭinivattitvā appaṭicchādanatthaṃ ārocetabbaṃ, evampi koṭi chinnā hotīti evaṃ no paṭibhātīti ācariyo. Tatiyena dutiyassāti ettha ‘‘dutiyo nāma paṭhamo’’ti vadantānaṃ ‘‘vatthu puggalo na vattabbo’’ti vāritattā na sundaraṃ. Aññassa catutthassa ārocanepi na sundaraṃ. Kasmā? Pubbeva sutvā aññassa anārocitattā. ‘‘Sutena aññassa ārocetabbaṃ siyā’’ti vadanti.

And here, regarding 'until the limit is not broken': whoever, at the very least, for the purpose of concealment, whether he informs another or not, having only the intention to conceal, falls into an offense. For that monk, the limit is not broken merely by not informing another for the purpose of concealment. What then is the use of turning back and speaking? Therefore, the limit is not broken by not informing the last one; it is broken only by non-concealment. Therefore, for the purpose of non-concealment, it should be told to one who has not heard before. From then on, the limit is broken. In the absence of that, one should turn back and inform for the purpose of non-concealment; even so, the limit is broken. Thus it appears to us, said the teacher. Here, regarding 'by the third to the second': for those who say, 'the second is the first,' because it is prohibited by the phrase, 'the object, the person should not be told,' it is not proper. Informing another, a fourth person, is also not proper. Why? Because having heard before, one did not inform another. They say, 'Having heard, one should inform another.'

Duṭṭhullasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the training rule concerning a grave offense is concluded.

5. Ūnavīsativassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Those Under Twenty Years of Age

404. Punappunaṃ uppajjanato bahudhā. Hāyanavaḍḍhananti mātukucchismiṃ ce dvādasannaṃ māsānaṃ ūnatāya hāyanaṃ kataṃ. Pasūtassa vaḍḍhanaṃ kātabbaṃ. Mātukucchismiṃ ce vaḍḍhanaṃ kataṃ. Pasūtassa hāyanaṃ kātabbaṃ. Nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsī nāma sāvaṇamāsassa puṇṇamāsī. ‘‘Pāṭipadadivaseti dutiye upagacchati divase’’ti likhitaṃ. So hi pasūtadivasato paṭṭhāya paripuṇṇavīsativasso hoti. Avasesānaṃ dvinnaṃ vassānaṃ adhikadivasāni honteva, tasmā nikkaṅkhā hutvā upasampādenti. Taṃ sandhāyāti gabbhavassañca pavāretvā laddhavassañca agaṇetvā jātadivasato paṭṭhāya gaṇetvā [Pg.333] ekūnavīsativassaṃ. Ekūnavīsativassoti ‘‘gabbhavassaṃ eva pahāyā’’ti likhitaṃ, taṃ dullikhitaṃ.

404. Because it arises again and again, it is of many kinds. Regarding decreasing and increasing: if in the mother's womb a decrease is accounted for due to being less than twelve months, then after birth an increase should be accounted for. If an increase is accounted for in the mother's womb, then after birth a decrease should be accounted for. The full moon day called Nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsī is the full moon day of the month of Sāvaṇa. It is written: 'Regarding the first day of the fortnight, on the second day, the day of entering upon the Rains.' For from the day of birth, he is fully twenty years old. For the remaining two years, there are indeed extra days; therefore, being without doubt, they ordain him. Regarding that: excluding the year in the womb and not counting the year acquired after the Pavāraṇā, counting from the day of birth, he is nineteen years old. Regarding 'nineteen years,' it is written, 'excluding only the year in the womb,' but that is poorly written.

406. Aññaṃ upasampādetīti upajjhāyo vā ācariyo vā hutvā upasampādeti. ‘‘Opapātikassa soḷasavassuddesikabhāvato puna cattāro vasse atikkamitvā upasampadā kātabbā’’ti ācariyā vadantīti keci.

406. Ordains another: one ordains having become either a preceptor or a teacher. Some say that the teachers say, 'For one of spontaneous birth, because of being sixteen years of age for instruction, ordination should be performed after another four years have passed.'

Ūnavīsativassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule concerning one under twenty years of age is concluded.

6. Theyyasatthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning a Caravan of Thieves

409. Theyyasattho ce suddhamātugāmo dve āpattiyo. Atha bhikkhuniyo, samayo rakkhati. Theyyasatthabhāvassa ṭhānaṃ katvā rakkhaṇīyattā sahadhammikānaṃ rakkhatiyevāti eke. Theyyabhāve na sahadhammikatā, tasmā na rakkhati evāti eke. Apārājikatheyyabhāve sati sahadhammikabhāvoti ce? Itarasmiṃ itaranti samayo anissaṭo āpajjati. Bhikkhu theyyasattho ce, yathāvatthukameva. Theyyasatthe theyyasatthasaññī saddhiṃ saṃvidhāyāti ca. ‘‘Saddhi’’nti padaṃ kesuci natthi, taṃ ananurūpaṃ. Tathā dutiyepi.

409. If it is a caravan of thieves and a mere woman, there are two offenses. But if they are bhikkhunīs, the agreement protects. Some say it certainly protects because co-religionists are to be protected, even when making the state of being a caravan of thieves the ground for it. Others say that in the state of being a thief, there is no state of being a co-religionist; therefore, it certainly does not protect. If it is said that in the case of theft not entailing a pārājika offense there is the state of being a co-religionist, then what of the other case? Therefore, the agreement not being given up, one incurs an offense. If a bhikkhu is in a caravan of thieves, the offense is simply in accordance with the case. And it should be understood as: having made an arrangement together with a caravan of thieves, while being perceptive of it as a caravan of thieves. In some texts, the word 'saddhiṃ' is not present; that is not suitable. Likewise in the second case as well.

Theyyasatthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule concerning a caravan of thieves is concluded.

7. Saṃvidhānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on Arrangements

412. ‘‘Tena kho pana samayena aññatarā itthī’’ti ca pāṭho atthi, kesuci natthi. Natthibhāvo sundaro ‘‘tena kho samayenā’’ti adhikārattāti keci. Idha ekatoupasampannā, sikkhamānā, sāmaṇerīti imāpi tisso saṅgahaṃ gacchanti. Imāsaṃ pana samayo rakkhati, ayamimāsaṃ, mātugāmassa ca viseso.

412. The reading 'At that time, a certain woman...' also exists; in some texts, it does not. Some say its absence is better because 'At that time...' is the governing clause. Here, a bhikkhunī ordained by one Saṅgha, a female probationer, and a female novice—these three are also included. For these, however, the agreement protects; this is the difference between them and a laywoman.

414. Apicettha ‘‘viññū paṭibalā’’ti vacanato appaṭibalā anāpattivatthukāti eke, taṃ na yuttaṃ dukkaṭavatthukattā. ‘‘Bhikkhu saṃvidahati, mātugāmo [Pg.334] na saṃvidahati, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti hi vuttaṃ. Tathā hi upaparikkhitabbaṃ.

414. Moreover, here, because of the text 'intelligent and capable,' some say that an incapable one is a case of no offense. That is not right, because it is a case for an offense of wrong-doing. For it has been said: 'A bhikkhu makes an arrangement, a woman does not make an arrangement; there is an offense of wrong-doing.' For that very reason, it should be investigated.

Saṃvidhānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on arrangements is concluded.

8. Ariṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Ariṭṭha

417. Gahaṭṭhassāpi bhikkhunīdūsakakammaṃ mokkhantarāyikameva, tasmā tassa pabbajjāpi paṭikkhittā. Vipākantarāyikā ahetukattā. Pubbe sañcicca āpannā sammuṭṭhā suddhasaññino antarāyikā eva. Sesāti jātikā. Rasenāti bhāvena. Adhikuṭṭanaṭṭhenāti adhikaraṇaṃ katvā kuṭṭanaṭṭhena chindanaṭṭhena. Asisūnūpamā kusaladhammacchedanaṭṭhena. Sattisūlūpamā cittavitudanaṭṭhenāti porāṇā. Anāpattipāḷiyaṃ ‘‘ādikammikassā’’ti mukhāruḷhavasena likhitaṃ.

417. Even for a layperson, the act of violating a bhikkhunī is indeed an obstacle to liberation; therefore, for that person, ordination is also prohibited. It is an obstacle to the result of kamma because of being without root-causes at rebirth. Offenses previously committed intentionally, though forgotten, are indeed obstacles for one of pure perception. In the phrase `sesāti` (the rest), it means each one. In `rasena`, it means by nature. In `adhikuṭṭanaṭṭhena`, it means having made it a basis, by the meaning of reviling, which is the meaning of cutting off. By the meaning of cutting off wholesome qualities, it is like a razor and a knife. By the meaning of piercing the mind, it is like a dart and a spear; thus say the ancients. In the Pāḷi of the non-offense section, the phrase `ādikammikassa` is written by way of being orally transmitted.

Ariṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Ariṭṭha training rule is concluded.

9. Ukkhittasambhogasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on Association with a Suspended Monk

425. ‘‘Taṃ diṭṭhiṃ appaṭinissaṭṭhenāti iminā laddhinānāsaṃvāsakataṃ dīpetī’’ti vuttaṃ. Ticittanti ettha vipākābyākatacittena sahavāseyyaṃ kappeyyāti evamattho daṭṭhabbo. Aññathā sacittakattā sikkhāpadassa kiriyābyākataṃ sandhāya na yujjati.

425. It is said: 'By this phrase, "by one who has not abandoned that view," it shows the state of being in different communion due to doctrine.' Herein, in `ticittam`, the meaning should be understood thus: one might arrange to lie down together with a resultant-indeterminate mind. Otherwise, because the training rule pertains to a conscious being, it is not suitable in reference to the functional-indeterminate.

Ukkhittasambhogasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on association with a suspended monk is concluded.

10. Kaṇṭakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Kaṇaka Training Rule

428. Yattha te na passāmāti teti taṃ. Atha vā tava rūpādiṃ na passāma. Ayaṃ samaṇuddeso pārājiko hoti. ‘‘Sace taṃ diṭṭhiṃ paṭinissajjati, saṅghassa ārocetvā saṅghānumatiyā pabbājetabbo’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ, taṃ na yuttaṃ, daṇḍakammanāsanā hi idhādhippetā. Yadi [Pg.335] so pārājiko, liṅganāsanā nāma siyā. Te paṭisevato nālaṃ antarāyāyāti ca diṭṭhi satthari asatthādidiṭṭhi na hoti. Sace sā yassa uppajjati, so pārājiko hoti, tasmimpi evameva paṭipajjitabbaṃ saṃvare atiṭṭhanto liṅganāsanāyeva nāsetabboti ācariyassa takko.

428. In 'Where we do not see you,' in the word `te`, the meaning should be understood as `taṃ` (you). Or, 'we do not see your form, etc.' This novice incurs a Pārājika. In the ancient commentary it is said: 'If he abandons that view, having informed the Saṅgha, he should be expelled with the Saṅgha's approval.' That is not correct, for here destruction by a penal act is intended. If he is a Pārājika, it would be a case of destruction of the characteristic [disrobing]. And in the phrase 'for one who associates with them, it is not sufficient for an obstacle,' the view in question is not the view regarding the Teacher as a non-Teacher, etc. If that latter view arises for someone, they become a Pārājika. For that novice also, it should be dealt with in just this way. This is the teacher's reasoning: a novice who does not stand firm in restraint should be removed only by destruction of the characteristic.

Kaṇṭakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Kaṇaka training rule is concluded.

Samatto vaṇṇanākkamena sappāṇakavaggo sattamo.

The seventh chapter, the Sappāṇakavagga, is concluded in accordance with the sequence of the commentary.

8. Sahadhammikavaggo

8. The Sahadhammika Chapter

1. Sahadhammikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the Sahadhammika Training Rule

434. Sahadhammikasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

434. The Sahadhammika training rule is of clear meaning indeed.

2. Vilekhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Disparagement

438. Āpattiñca satisammosāyāti ettha ca-saddo kattabbañca na karotīti dīpeti, na cattāri evāti vuttaṃ hoti. Raṭṭhekadeso janapado. Buddhakāle ariṭṭhakaṇṭakā sāsanapaccatthikā. ‘‘Nālaṃ antarāyāyā’’ti vacanena hi te bhagavato asabbaññutaṃ dīpenti. Parinibbute bhagavati dasavatthudīpakā vajjiputtakā. Te hi vinayasāsanapaccatthikā. Parūpahārādivādā pana suttantābhidhammappaccatthikā. Ke pana te? Ekacce mahāsaṅghikādayo, na sabbeti dīpanatthaṃ ‘‘parūpahārā…pe… vādā’’ti visesanavacanamāha. Tattha ye kuhakā pāpicchakā abhūtaṃ ullapitvā paṭiladdhavarabhojanāni bhuñjitvā muṭṭhassatī niddaṃ okkamitvā sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ pattā, aññehi taṃ disvā ‘‘atthi arahato sukkavissaṭṭhī’’ti vutte ‘‘mārakāyikā upasaṃharantī’’ti vatvā janaṃ vañcenti. Ye ca sammāpaṭipannā akuhakā, tepi taṃ vacanaṃ sutvā keci taṃdiṭṭhikā honti adhimānino ca. Attano sukkavissaṭṭhiṃ passitvāpi nādhimuccanti, anadhigate adhikatasaññinova honti. Tathā atthi arahato aññāṇakaṅkhāvitaraṇā nāmagottādīsu viya saccesu paravitaraṇā parehi paññattā nāmānīti adhippāyo yathāsambhavaṃ yojetabbo. Tattha vinayadharo ‘‘aṭṭhānametaṃ, bhikkhave, anavakāso[Pg.336], yaṃ arahato asuci mucceyya (kathā. 313; mahāva. 353). Diṭṭhadhammā…pe… aparappaccayā satthusāsane’’tiādīni (mahāva. 30) suttapadāni dassetvā te sāsanapaccatthikesu niggahitaṃ niggaṇhātīti adhippāyo. Itare ‘‘pariyatti mūla’’nti vādino. ‘‘Pātimokkhe uddissamāne’’ti nidānavasena vuttaṃ. Tathāgatassa vibhaṅgapadāni siddhāni. Siddheyeva kiṃ imassa aṅgāni? Garahitukāmatā upasampannassa santike sikkhāpadavivaṇṇanañcāti.

438. In the phrase 'Āpattiñca satisammosāya,' the word 'ca' indicates that one does not do what should be done; it is said that one does not do only the four things. A part of the country is a region. During the Buddha's time, the monk Ariṭṭha and the novice Kaṇaka were enemies of the Dispensation. Indeed, by the statement, 'It is not capable of being an obstacle,' they assert the Blessed One's non-omniscience. After the Blessed One's Parinibbāna, the Vajjiputtakas propounded the ten points. Indeed, they were enemies of the Vinaya Dispensation. However, the views such as 'parūpahāra' are hostile to the Suttanta and Abhidhamma. Who then are they? Certain Mahāsaṅghikas and others—to show that it is not all, he stated the qualifying phrase 'parūpahārā…pe… vādā.' Among them, those who are deceitful and of evil wishes, having spoken of what is not real, and having eaten the excellent food they received, being of lapsed mindfulness, fall asleep and have an emission of semen. When others see this and ask, 'Does an Arahant have an emission of semen?', they deceive the people by saying, 'Those belonging to Māra's host bring it about.' And those who are of right practice and not deceitful, they too, having heard that statement, some become holders of that view and conceited. Even when seeing their own emission of semen, they are not convinced, and in what has not been attained, they are precisely those who perceive it as attained. Similarly, the meaning should be applied as is appropriate: [the view that] an Arahant has an inability to overcome ignorance and doubt, just as in matters of names, clans, and so on; and that he is led by others concerning the truths, which are names designated by others. In this regard, the meaning is that a master of the Vinaya, having shown Sutta passages such as, 'Monks, this is impossible, it cannot be, that an impurity should be emitted by an Arahant... not relying on others in the Teacher's Dispensation,' thoroughly rebukes those enemies of the Dispensation. Others are proponents of the view, 'The scriptures are the root.' The phrase 'While the Pātimokkha is being recited' was said by way of introduction. The Tathāgata’s terms of analysis are established. Since they are established, what are the factors of this training rule? They are: the desire to criticize, and the disparagement of the training rule in the presence of an ordained person.

Vilekhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on disparagement is concluded.

3. Mohanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Causing Bewilderment

444. Mohanasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

444. The training rule on causing bewilderment is of obvious meaning indeed.

4. Pahārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Striking

452. Rattacittoti kāyasaṃsaggarāgena. Viheṭhetukāmaṃ pana disvā ‘‘sace ahaṃ imaṃ māremi, natthi me mokkho’’ti cintetvā kupito sattasaññaṃ purekkhatvā pahāraṃ deti, tassa yathāvatthukameva.

452. Regarding `rattacitto`: it means by lust for physical contact. However, upon seeing one who desires to harm, and thinking, 'If I kill this person, there is no escape for me,' he becomes angry, and having established the perception of a living being, gives a blow; for him, it is just according to the case.

Pahārasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on striking is concluded.

5. Talasattikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Uplifted Hand

456. ‘‘Kāyaṃ vā kāyapaṭibaddhaṃ vā’’ti (pāci. 456) vacanato kāyādīsu yaṃ uccāreti, taṃ talaṃ nāma. Talameva talasattikaṃ. Pothanasamatthaṭṭhena sattikanti eke. Taṃ ‘‘uppalapattampī’’ti iminā niyameti. Evaṃ kupitā hi kopavasena pothanāsamatthataṃ avicāretvā yaṃ kiñci hatthagataṃ paṭikkhipanti, sukhasamphassampi hotu, pācittiyameva. Yasmā paharitukāmatāya pahaṭe purimena pācittiyaṃ. Kevalaṃ uccāretukāmatāya uggiraṇamatte kate [Pg.337] iminā pācittiyaṃ. Iminā pana virajjhitvā pahāro dinno, tasmā na paharitukāmatāya dinnattā dukkaṭaṃ. Kimidaṃ dukkaṭaṃ pahārapaccayā, udāhu uggiraṇapaccayāti? Pahārapaccayā eva dukkaṭaṃ. Purimaṃ uggiraṇapaccayā pācittiyanti sadukkaṭaṃ pācittiyaṃ yujjati. Purimañhi uggiraṇaṃ, pacchā pahāro. Na ca pacchimapahāraṃ nissāya purimaṃ uggiraṇaṃ anāpattivatthukaṃ bhavitumarahatīti no takkoti ācariyo. ‘‘Tena pahārena hatthādīsu yaṃ kiñci bhijjati, dukkaṭamevā’’ti imināpi pahārapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ. Uggiraṇaṃ yathāvatthukamevāti siddhaṃ, suṭṭhu vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. ‘‘Tiracchānādīnaṃ asucikaraṇādīni disvā kujjhitvāpi uggirantassa mokkhādhippāyo evā’’ti vadanti.

456. In accordance with the text, 'the body or what is connected to the body' (Pāc. 456), whatever one raises from the body and so on is called `tala`. `Tala` itself is `talasattika`. Some say it is `sattika` in the sense of being capable of striking. That is defined by the phrase 'even a lotus petal.' For when angry, due to anger, without considering its capability to strike, they throw forward whatever comes to hand; even if it has a pleasant touch, it is a `pācittiya` offense indeed. Because when one has struck with the desire to strike, there is a `pācittiya` offense by the previous training rule. When merely the act of raising is done with only the desire to raise, there is a `pācittiya` offense by this rule. However, with this, having missed, a blow is given; therefore, because it was given without the desire to strike, it is a `dukkaṭa` offense. Is this `dukkaṭa` offense on account of the blow, or is it on account of the raising? The `dukkaṭa` offense is on account of the blow indeed. Regarding the statement, 'The former is a `pācittiya` offense on account of the raising,' a `pācittiya` offense together with a `dukkaṭa` offense is appropriate. For the raising is first, the blow is afterwards. The teacher says: 'It is not our reasoning that the later blow could cause the former raising to become a case of no offense.' Also by this text, 'If by that blow anything in the hands, etc., is broken, it is just a `dukkaṭa` offense,' the `dukkaṭa` offense is on account of the blow. It is established that the raising is just according to the case; this should be well investigated. They say: 'Even for one who raises his hand in anger upon seeing animals and so on making a place impure, the intention is only for release.'

Talasattikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on the Uplifted Hand is concluded.

6. Amūlakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on a Groundless Charge

462. Upasampanne anupasampannasaññī amūlakena saṅghādisesenāti sukkavissaṭṭhikāyasaṃsaggādinā saṅghādisesāpattiyā vatthunāti veditabbaṃ. Na hi anupasampannassa saṅghādisesāpatti nāma atthi.

462. In the phrase “perceiving an ordained person as unordained, with a groundless `saṅghādisesa`,” it should be understood as by the basis for a `saṅghādisesa` offense, such as emission of semen, bodily contact, and so on. For an unordained person, there is indeed no such thing as a `saṅghādisesa` offense.

Amūlakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on a Groundless Charge is concluded.

7. Sañciccasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on a Deliberate Act

468. Ūnavīsativasso maññeti ettha sayaṃ saññāya tathā amaññanto kukkuccuppādanatthaṃ ‘‘maññe’’ti vadanto kiṃ musāvādena kāretabboti? Na siyā aṅgasampattiyā, na ca kevalaṃ ‘‘maññe’’ti iminā niyamato aṅgasampatti hoti. Paramatthavihitaṃ katthaci hoti. ‘‘Udakaṃ maññe āditta’’ntiādimhi paro kukkuccaṃ uppādetu vā, mā vā, taṃ appamāṇanti mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sañciccasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘kukkuccuppādana’’nti tassa adhippāyavasena vuttanti.

468. In the phrase 'I think he is under twenty years old': here, if a monk, not thinking so by his own perception, says 'I think' for the purpose of causing scruple, should he be charged with the offense of false speech? It should not be, due to the non-completeness of the factors. Nor does the completeness of the factors necessarily occur merely by this word 'I think'. It is established somewhere in the ultimate sense. In such cases as 'I think the water is on fire,' whether another person gives rise to scruple or not is not the criterion. Therefore, it should be understood that in the Mātikā commentary, the phrase 'causing scruple' is said with reference to that monk's intention.

Sañciccasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on a Deliberate Act is concluded.

8. Upassutisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Training Rule on Eavesdropping

473. Imesaṃ [Pg.338] sutvāti ettha ‘‘vacana’’nti pāṭhaseso. Ekaparicchedānīti siyā kiriyā siyā akiriyāti iminā nayena ekaparicchedāni. Ettha kiñcāpi aññavādakapaccayāpatti kiriyā ca vihesakapaccayāpatti akiriyā ca, tadubhayaṃ pana ekasikkhāpadanti katvā taṃ aññavādakasaṅkhātaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ siyā kiriyā paṭhamassa vasena, siyā akiriyā dutiyassa vasenāti evamattho daṭṭhabbo.

473. In the phrase 'having heard these,' the supplementary reading is 'speech.' Regarding 'having one section,' it means they have one section by this method: 'it may be an action, it may be a non-action.' Here, although the offense due to prevarication is an action and the offense due to vexation is a non-action, having treated both as a single training rule, that training rule known as 'prevarication' may be an action by way of the first, and may be a non-action by way of the second. Thus the meaning should be understood.

Upassutisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on Eavesdropping is concluded.

9. Kammapaṭibāhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Training Rule on Obstructing a Formal Act

474. ‘‘Dhammikānaṃ kammāna’’nti (pāci. 475) vacanato ekacce bhikkhū dhammikānaṃ kammānaṃ ‘‘chandaṃ dammī’’ti chandaṃ denti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattameva, na paṭipatti. Adhammaṃ nissāya khiyyati, taṃ vā ukkoṭeti, anāpatti neva hotīti? Na, tathā chandadānakāle akatvā pacchā adhammakammakhiyyanādipaccayā anāpattivāre vuttattā. Adhammena vā vaggena vā na kammārahassa vā kammakaraṇapaccayā āpattimokkhakaraṇato avisesameva tathāvacananti ce? Na, chandadānakāle adhammakammakaraṇānumatiyā abhāvato, kārakasseva vajjappasaṅgato ca. Gaṇassa dukkaṭanti ce? Pārisuddhichandadāyakāva te, na gaṇo akammappattattā, parivārepi (pari. 482 ādayo) kammavagge kammappattachandadāyakā visuṃ vuttā. Tathāpi adhammakammassa chando na dātabbo dente akappiyānumatidukkaṭato. Tattha hi yojanadukkaṭato na muccantīti no takkoti ācariyo.

474. Regarding 'For lawful acts' (Pāc. 475): Some bhikkhus give their consent for lawful acts, saying, 'I give my consent.' This is merely their own opinion, not the proper practice. If one criticizes based on what is unlawful, or overturns it, is it then an offense? No, because it is stated in the section on non-offenses that this is the case when one, not having done so at the time of giving consent, afterwards criticizes for reasons such as the act being unlawful. If one were to say: 'Because an act is performed unlawfully, or by an incomplete group, or for one not worthy of the act, it brings about release from an offense; therefore, such a statement is merely a general one'? This should not be said. Why? Because at the time of giving consent, there is an absence of approval for performing an unlawful act, and because the fault accrues only to the doer. If one were to say: 'It is a `dukkaṭa` offense for the group'? They are only givers of consent for purity, not the group, because they are unfit for the act. In the Parivāra (Pari. 482 ff.) as well, in the Kammavagga, givers of consent who are fit for the act are mentioned separately. Even so, consent should not be given for an unlawful act. Why? Because in giving it, one incurs a `dukkaṭa` offense for approving what is improper. For in that case, they are not freed from the `dukkaṭa` offense of such an undertaking. This is our reasoning, says the teacher.

Kammapaṭibāhanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on Obstructing a Formal Act is concluded.

10. Chandaṃadatvāgamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Departing Without Having Given Consent

481. Sannipātaṃ anāgantvā ce chandaṃ na deti, anāpattīti eke. Dukkaṭanti eke dhammakammantarāyakaraṇādhippāyattā. Saṅghamajjhe chandaṃ dātuṃ labhatīti [Pg.339] keci. Dinnachande saṅghamajjhaṃ pavisitvā puna gatepi chando na paṭippassambheyyāti ce? Paṭippassambhati. Kasmā? ‘‘Ahatthapāso chandāraho’’tiādīhi virujjhanato. Pāḷiyaṃ pana dātukāmatāya hatthapāsaṃ atikkamantaṃ sandhāya vuttanti keci.

481. If one does not come to the assembly and does not give consent, some say there is no offense. Others say it is a `dukkaṭa` offense, because of the intention to cause an obstruction to a lawful act. Some say one may give consent in the midst of the Saṅgha. If one were to say: 'If one who has given consent enters the midst of the Saṅgha and then departs again, does the consent not lapse?' It lapses. Why? Because it contradicts such statements as, 'One outside of hand's reach is worthy of consent.' However, some say that in the Pāḷi text, this is said with reference to one who, desiring to give consent, is going beyond hand's reach.

Chandaṃadatvāgamanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on Departing Without Having Given Consent is concluded.

11. Dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Explanation of the Dubbala Training Rule

484-5. Adāsīti apaloketvā adāsi. Bhikkhūti ettha te chabbaggiyā attānaṃ parivajjayitvā ‘‘saṅgho’’ti avatvā ‘‘bhikkhū’’ti āhaṃsu. Pariṇāmentīti nenti. Tattha lābhoti paduddhārakaraṇaṃ idha anadhippetassapi yassa kassaci atthuddhāravasena lābhadīpanatthaṃ. Cīvarameva hi idhādhippetaṃ, teneva ‘‘aññaṃ parikkhāraṃ dinnaṃ khīyati, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttaṃ. Dinnanti ca parikkhāranti ca bhummatthe upayogavacanaṃ.

Regarding adāsi (he gave): he gave after having asked permission. Regarding bhikkhū (monks): here, those monks of the group of six, avoiding themselves, did not say 'the Saṅgha' but said 'monks'. Regarding pariṇāmenti (they divert): they lead. Here, regarding lābho (gain), the extraction of the word is done for the purpose of showing 'gain' by means of extracting the meaning of any word whatsoever, even one not intended here. Indeed, only the robe is intended here. For that very reason, it is said: 'If another requisite is given, it is wasted; there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa).' The words dinnaṃ (given) and parikkhāraṃ (requisite) are accusative case endings used in the sense of the locative case.

Dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Training Rule on Weakening is concluded.

12. Pariṇāmanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

12. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Diversion

491. Ñātakampi parassa dātukāmaṃ aññassa dāpeti, āpatti eva. Sabbattha āpucchitvā dātukāmaṃ yathāsukhaṃ vicāretuṃ labhati.

491. Even if someone wishes to give to a relative, if one causes it to be given to another, it is an offense indeed. In all cases, having asked the one who wishes to give, one is permitted to manage it as one pleases.

Pariṇāmanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Training Rule on Diversion is concluded.

Samatto vaṇṇanākkamena sahadhammikavaggo aṭṭhamo.

By the sequence of the explanation, the eighth chapter, the Sahadhammikavagga, is completed.

9. Ratanavaggo

9. The Chapter on Jewels

1. Antepurasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Explanation of the Training Rule on the Royal Inner Quarters

494-7. Yathā bhagavantaṃ payirupāsati, evamākārena nārahatāyaṃ puriso pāpo hotuṃ, na hoti pāpoti attho, kāraṇatthaṃ vā. Tanti [Pg.340] nipātamattaṃ, yatoti vā attho. Hatthisammaddanti saṅghāṭasammaddo, akkamanaṃ cuṇṇatāti attho.

In the manner that one attends upon the Blessed One, in such a way this man is not fit to be wicked; the meaning is, he is not wicked. Or, it has the meaning of 'reason'. Taṃ is merely a particle, or it has the meaning of yato (because). Regarding hatthisammaddaṃ (elephant-crush): it is a crushing by a herd of elephants; the meaning is the state of being crushed to powder by their treading.

498. Ratanaṃ nāma aggamahesī, tathāpi idha aññāpi devigottā na rakkhati, anāpattivāre ‘‘na mahesī hotī’’ti vacanābhāvato. Sace khattiyova hoti, nābhisitto. Abhisittoyeva hoti, na khattiyo rakkhatīti ācariyo. Anāpattivāre mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ aṅgabhāvena ca vuttattā abhisittabhāvovapamāṇaṃ. Sesaṃ ukkaṭṭhaparicchedoti eke.

498. A 'jewel' is the chief queen. Even so, here another of the queen's clan is not protected, because in the section on non-offenses there is no statement saying, 'she is not the chief queen'. The teacher says: 'If one is a khattiya but not consecrated, or if one is consecrated but not a khattiya, it is guarded.' Because it is stated as a factor in the section on non-offenses in the Mātikā Commentary, the state of being consecrated is itself the standard. Some say the remainder is the highest definition.

500-501. ‘‘Na sayanighare sayanigharasaññī’’ti tikacchedopi ettha labbhati. Na sayanigharaṃ nāma aparikkhittarukkhamūlādi.

Regarding 'Not in a sleeping-house, while perceiving it as a sleeping-house': even a threefold division is obtained here. What is called a 'sleeping-house' is not such things as the root of an unenclosed tree.

Antepurasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on the Royal Inner Quarters is concluded.

2. Ratanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Jewels

504. ‘‘Adhivāsentu gahapatino bhatta’’nti ca ‘‘me gahapatino’’ti ca atthi.

504. There is the phrasing 'May he consent to the householder's meal,' and 'of the householder for me.'

506. Kurundivacanena gharepi yadi bhikkhū āsaṅkanti, tattha ṭhatvā ācikkhitabbanti vuttaṃ hoti. Patirūpāti ‘‘ratanasammate paṃsukūlaggahaṇaṃ vā ratane nirussukkagamanaṃ vā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Tāvakālikavasenapi anāmāsaṃ paṭiggaṇhituṃ na labhatī’’ti vadanti. Samādapetvāti yācitvā ‘‘uddissa ariyā tiṭṭhanti, esā ariyāna yācanā’’ti (jā. 1.7.59) vuttanayena.

506. By the Kurundi statement, it is said that even in a house, if the monks are suspected, they should stay there and explain. Regarding 'suitable,' it is written: 'either the taking of a rag-robe in what is designated as a jewel, or going to a jewel without concern.' They say: 'Even temporarily, one cannot accept an untouchable object.' 'Having persuaded' means having requested, in the manner stated: 'The noble ones stand with this intention; this is the request of the noble ones' (Jā. 1.7.59).

Ratanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Training Rule on Jewels is concluded.

3. Vikālagāmappavisanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Training Rule on Entering a Village at the Wrong Time

511-2. Ahinā ḍaṭṭhavatthumhi so bhikkhu santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā gato, tassa kukkuccaṃ udapādi. Adinnādāne vuttanayenāti gāmo gāmūpacāroti idaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

In the story of the one bitten by a snake, that monk went without asking the present monk, and remorse arose in him. The phrase 'in the manner stated in the Adinnādāna section' was said in reference to this statement: 'the village and the village-precinct'.

Vikālagāmappavisanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Training Rule on Entering a Village at the Wrong Time is concluded.

4. Sūcigharasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Needle-Case

517. Tanti [Pg.341] bhedanakaṃ. Assāti pācittiyassa paṭhamaṃ bhedanakaṃ katvā pacchā desetabbattā. Esa nayo itaresupi.

517. Taṃ is for breaking. There would be an offense of Pācittiya because, having first done the breaking, it must be confessed afterwards. This is the method in the other training rules as well.

520. Vāsijaṭeti vāsidaṇḍake.

520. Regarding vāsijaṭa: it means on an adze-handle.

Sūcigharasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Training Rule on the Needle-Case is concluded.

5. Mañcasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Bed

521-2. ‘‘Ucce mañce’’ti ca ‘‘uccā mañce’’ti ca katthaci. Āyatoti vitthato. Aṭṭhaṅgulapādakanti bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ, aṭṭhaṅgulappamāṇaṃ pādakaṃ vā.

In some readings, there is both 'ucce mañce' and 'uccā mañce'. Regarding āyato: it means by width. Regarding aṭṭhaṅgulapādakaṃ: it is a neuter verbal noun, or it means a leg with a measure of eight finger-breadths.

Mañcasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Training Rule on the Bed is concluded.

6. Tūlonaddhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Training Rule on Cotton-Stuffed Articles

528. Poṭakitūlanti yaṃ kiñci tiṇatūlaṃ. Paṭilābhena uddāletvā pācittiyaṃ desetabbanti ettha kiñcāpi paṭilābhamatteneva pācittiyanti viya dissati, paribhogeyeva pana āpatti daṭṭhabbā, ‘‘aññena kataṃ paṭilabhitvā paribhuñjati, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vacanaṃ ettha sādhakaṃ.

528. 'Poṭakitūlaṃ' means any kind of grass-cotton. Herein, regarding the statement 'having shaken it out upon acquisition, one should confess a Pācittiya,' although it appears as if there is a Pācittiya offense by the mere acquisition, the offense should, however, be understood as occurring only upon usage. The statement, 'Having acquired what was made by another, one uses it; there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa),' is the supporting evidence here.

Tūlonaddhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Training Rule on Cotton-Stuffed Articles is concluded.

7. Nisīdanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Training Rule on the Sitting-Cloth

531. Kiñcāpi nisīdanassa jāti na dissati ettha, tathāpi cīvarakkhandhake anuññātattā, ‘‘nava cīvarāni adhiṭṭhātabbānī’’ti ettha ca pariyāpannattā cīvarajātiyevassa jātīti veditabbā. ‘‘Santhatasadisaṃ santharitvāti sadasa’’nti pubbe vuttanisīdanasanthatattā upameti. Lābhe sadasaṃ, alābhe adasampi [Pg.342] vaṭṭatīti eke, taṃ na yuttaṃ. ‘‘Nisīdanaṃ nāma sadasaṃ vuccatī’’ti tassa saṇṭhānaniyamanato.

531. Although the category of the sitting-cloth is not apparent here, nevertheless, because it was permitted in the Robe Chapter and because it is included in 'nine robes are to be determined,' it should be known that its category is indeed that of a robe. It is compared to the previously mentioned sitting-cloth being a spread. Some say, 'When one with a layer is available, it is to be used; when it is not available, even one without a layer is allowable.' That is not correct. This is because of the regulation of its form in the phrase, 'A sitting-cloth, it is said, is one with a layer.'

Nisīdanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on the sitting-cloth is concluded.

8. Kaṇḍupaṭicchādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. The Explanation of the Training Rule on the Itch-Covering Cloth

539. Yadi kaṇḍupaṭicchādi nāma adhonābhi ubbhajāṇumaṇḍalā uppannakaṇḍupīḷakādipaṭicchādikā adhippetā, tassa sugatassa sugatavidatthiyā dīghaso catasso vidatthiyo tiriyaṃ dveti idampi atimahantaṃ pamāṇaṃ dissati. Sabbo hi puriso attano attano vidatthiyā sattavidatthiko hoti, sugatassa ca ekāvidatthi majjhimassa purisassa tisso vidatthiyo honti, tasmā kaṇḍupaṭicchādi pakatipurisassa pamāṇaṃ āpajjati tiriyaṃ, dīghaso pana diguṇaṃ āpajjatīti. Āpajjatu, ukkaṭṭhaparicchedo tassā, ce icchati, sabbampi sarīraṃ paṭicchādessati, sabbasarīragatasaṅghāṭi viya bahuguṇaṃ katvā nivāsetukāmo nivāsessatīti ayaṃ bhagavato adhippāyo siyā.

539. If by 'itch-covering cloth' is meant a covering for itches, boils, and so on that have arisen below the navel and above the kneecaps, then for the Sugata, by the Sugata-span, its measure of four spans in length and two in width also appears to be a very large measure. For every person is seven of their own spans tall, and one span of the Sugata is three spans of a medium-sized person. Therefore, the itch-covering cloth reaches the measure of an ordinary person in width, but in length, it reaches double. Let it reach that size. Its maximum limit is such that, if wished, it would cover the entire body; like an outer robe that covers the whole body, one wishing to wear it would wear it having made it many-layered—this might be the Blessed One's intention.

Kaṇḍupaṭicchādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the training rule on the itch-covering cloth is concluded.

9. Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. The Explanation of the Training Rule on the Rains-Cloth

542. Vassikasāṭikāpi ukkaṭṭhapaṭicchedavasena anuññātā. Vassakāle keci saṅghāṭiparibhogeneva paribhuñjissantīti ayaṃ bhagavato adhippāyo siyā. Kiñcāpi iminā takkena anuññātā, ‘‘appamāṇikāyo kaṇḍupaṭicchādiyo dhārenti, vassikasāṭikāyo dhārentī’’ti imasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ paññattattā pana aññathā puṇṇaparicchedato adhikappamāṇāyo te bhikkhū dhāresunti katvā etaparamatā tāsaṃ anuññātāti veditabbā. Eseva nayo dasamepi.

542. The rains-bathing cloth was also permitted by way of a maximum limit. 'During the rainy season, some monks will use only the saṅghāṭi'—this may have been the Blessed One’s intention. Although it was permitted with this reasoning, because it was laid down in this story that 'they wear immeasurable itch-covering cloths and rains-bathing cloths,' and because, contrary to that, those monks wore cloths of a size exceeding the full measure, it should be understood that for this reason this maximum limit was permitted for them. This same method also applies in the tenth rule.

Vassikasāṭikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule on the Rains-Bathing Cloth is concluded.

10. Nandattherasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning the Elder Nanda

551. Tattha [Pg.343] bhisiṃ vā bibbohanaṃ vā karotīti dīghaso bahūnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sādhāraṇatthaṃ karotīti yujjati.

551. Here, 'making a mattress or a pillow' means making it at length for the common use of many bhikkhus, which is appropriate.

Nandattherasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning the Elder Nanda is concluded.

Samatto vaṇṇanākkamena ratanavaggo navamo.

The ninth, the Ratana Chapter, is concluded according to the sequence of the commentary.

Pācittiyakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Pācittiya Chapter is concluded.

6. Pāṭidesanīyakaṇḍo

6. The Pāṭidesanīya Chapter

1. Paṭhamapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the First Pāṭidesanīya Training Rule

553-5. ‘‘Paṭidesetabbākāradassana’’nti [Pg.344] aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā pāḷiyaṃ āgatavaseneva āpatti desetabbā, na aññathā. ‘‘Antaraghare antaragharasaññī’’tiādinā ca ‘‘khādanīyabhojanīye akhādanīyaabhojanīyasaññī’’tiādinā ca ‘‘bhikkhuniyā abhikkhunisaññī’’tiādinā ca nayena aparepi tayo tikacchedā yojetvā dassetabbā.

553-5. Because it is said in the commentary, 'Showing the manner of what is to be confessed,' an offense should be confessed solely in accordance with the way it appears in the Pāli, not otherwise. And by applying the method of 'inside a house, perceiving it as inside a house,' and so forth; 'regarding hard and soft food, perceiving it as not hard and soft food,' and so forth; and 'regarding a bhikkhunī, perceiving her as not a bhikkhunī,' and so forth, three other divisions of triads should also be shown.

Paṭhamapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the First Pāṭidesanīya Training Rule is concluded.

2. Dutiyapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Second Pāṭidesanīya Training Rule

559. ‘‘Nimantitā bhuñjantīti pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññatarena bhojanena nimantitā bhuñjantī’’ti kiñcāpi vuttaṃ, atha kho akappiyanimantanena nimantitatā ettha na aṅgaṃ, mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ vā idha vā anāpattivāre lesābhāvato, tasmā ‘‘nimantitā’’ti padassa attho pubbe āciṇṇavaseneva vutto. Aparepi tayo tikacchedā yojetvā dassetabbā padabhājane vuttattāti veditabbaṃ. Yathā tathā hi bhuñjantānaṃ tādisaṃ bhikkhuniṃ avārentānaṃ pāṭidesanīyameva. ‘‘Esā vosāsati nāma, vosāsantī’’ti ca duvidho pāṭho. ‘‘Ajjhohāre ajjhohāre’’ti vacanena puna ‘‘gārayhaṃ āvuso dhamma’’nti ekavacanaṃ viruddhanti. Paṭhamaṃ ajjhohāreyeva āpannaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tathā aññatrāpi āgacchati ‘‘āpajjimhā’’ti vacanato. Ekena bahūnampi vaṭṭatīti keci, taṃ na sundaraṃ. ‘‘Tehi bhikkhūhī’’tiādinā pāṭhe vuttattāti mama takko. Ekena saheva ‘‘ahaṃ āpajji’’ntipi vattabbanti ekena dvīhi tīhi desetabbato, sabbehi evaṃ vattuṃ vaṭṭati. ‘‘Āpajjimhāti sahevā’’ti vadanti. Ekena ce avārito, ‘‘ahaṃ, āvuso, gārayhaṃ dhammaṃ āpajji’’ntipi vattabbaṃ.

559. Although it is said, 'Being invited, they eat' means 'being invited with one of the five kinds of food, they eat,' however, the state of being invited by an improper invitation is not a factor here, because of the absence of a hint thereof in the section on non-offenses, either in the Mātikā commentary or here. Therefore, the meaning of the word 'invited' is stated merely by the power of previous custom. It should be understood that the other three threefold divisions should also be applied and shown, because it is stated in the Padabhājana. Indeed, for those eating in whatever way, for the monks who do not prevent such a bhikkhunī, it is indeed a Pāṭidesanīya offense. And there are two readings: 'esā vosāsati nāma' and 'vosāsantī'. With the statement 'with every mouthful', the singular 'Friend, a blameworthy matter' is again contradictory. It is said referring to the offense incurred on the very first mouthful. Similarly, it also occurs elsewhere because of the phrase 'We have fallen into an offense'. Some say it is allowable for many monks to confess with one statement, but that is not good. My reasoning is that it is stated in the text beginning with 'by those monks'. It should be said, 'I have fallen into an offense' together with one other monk. Because it should be confessed by one, by two, or by three, it is allowable for all to speak thus. Some say, 'We have fallen into an offense' means 'together'. And if one was not prevented, it should also be said, 'Friend, I have fallen into a blameworthy matter'.

Dutiyapāṭidesanīyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Second Pāṭidesanīya Training Rule is concluded.

562-570. Tatiyacatutthasikkhāpadāni uttānatthāniyeva.

562-570. The third and fourth training rules are indeed of plain meaning.

Pāṭidesanīyakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Pāṭidesanīya Chapter is concluded.

7. Sekhiyakaṇḍo

7. The Sekhiya Section

1. Parimaṇḍalavaggavaṇṇanā

1. The Explanation of the Parimaṇḍala Chapter

576. ‘‘Sikkhitasikkhenāti [Pg.345] catūhi maggehī’’ti vuttaṃ. Yasmā aṭṭhaṅgulamattaṃ otāretvā nivatthameva nisinnassa caturaṅgulamattaṃ hoti, tasmā ubhopete aṭṭhakathāvādā ekaparicchedā, ‘‘aḍḍhateyyahattha’’nti sukhumaṃ, ekapattaṃ vā sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tañhi yathāṭhānena tiṭṭhati. Dupaṭṭaṃ sandhāya ‘‘dvihatthappamāṇampī’’ti vuttanti upatissatthero. Ekapaṭṭaṃ, dvipaṭṭaṃ vā heṭṭhimaparicchedena ‘‘dvihatthappamāṇa’’nti vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Vuttañhi nissaggiyaaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘tiriyaṃ dvihatthopi vaṭṭatī’’ti, tañca kho alābhe eva ‘‘alābhe tiriyaṃ dvihatthappamāṇampi vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttattā. Idaṃ sabbaṃ adhiṭṭhānupagaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Viruddhaṃ disvā sajjetabbaṃ. No ce sajjeti, dukkaṭaṃ. Sacittakaṃ paṇṇattivijānanacitteneva ‘‘anādariyaṃ paṭiccā’’ti vuttattā, na vatthuvijānanacittena ‘‘idamevaṃ kata’’nti jānatopi āpattiyā abhāvato. Phussadevattheravādopi ekena pariyāyena yujjati. Tathā upatissattheravādopi. Paññattepi sikkhāpade apaññattepi yaṃ pakatiyā vajjaṃ, taṃ lokavajjaṃ. Idaṃ pana paññatteyeva vajjaṃ, nāpaññatte, tasmā itaralokavajjena asadisattā na lokavajjaṃ. Paṇṇattito paṭṭhāya vajjato paṇṇattivajjaṃ. Anādariyacitteneva āpajjitabbattā sacittakaṃ, tassa cittassa tivedanattā tivedanaṃ. Yasmā anādariyacittatā nāma kevalaṃ akusalameva, tañca pakatiyā vajjaṃ, tasmā idaṃ lokavajjaṃ. Sañcicca vītikkamanaṃ nāma domanassikasseva hotīti dukkhavedanaṃ. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘pāṇātipātādi viya nivāsanādidoso lokagarahito na hotīti paṇṇattivajjanti phussadevatthero’’ti likhitaṃ.

576. It was said: “‘By one who has trained in the training’ is meant ‘by the four paths.’” Because for one who is sitting, that which was worn having been lowered by a measure of eight finger-breadths becomes a measure of four finger-breadths, therefore both these commentarial views have the same demarcation. The statement 'two and a half cubits' was said in reference to a fine, single-layered robe. For that does not stay in its proper place. The Elder Upatissa said that “even a measure of two cubits” was said in reference to a double-layered robe. It should be understood that whether it is a single-layered or a double-layered robe, 'a measure of two cubits' was stated as the minimum limit. For it was said in the Nissaggiya commentary: “Even two cubits in width is allowable.” And that statement applies only in a case of non-acquisition, because it was said: “In a case of non-acquisition, even a measure of two cubits in width is allowable.” All this was said in reference to a robe that is suitable for determination. Having seen what is contrary, it should be adjusted. If one does not adjust it, it is a dukkaṭa offense. It is an intentional offense (sacittaka) only with a mind that knows the regulation, because it was said, “on account of disrespect.” It is not so with a mind that knows the object, because there is no offense even for one who knows, “This was done in this way.” The view of the Elder Phussadeva is also consistent in one way. Likewise, so is the view of the Elder Upatissa. Whether a training rule is laid down or not, that which is an offense by nature is a worldly offense (lokavajja). But this is an offense only when laid down, not when not laid down; therefore, because of its dissimilarity with other worldly offenses, it is not a worldly offense. Because it is an offense starting from the laying down of the regulation, it is an offense by regulation (paṇṇattivajja). Because it is to be incurred only with a mind of disrespect, it is an intentional offense (sacittaka); because that mind has three kinds of feeling, it is of three feelings (tivedana). Because the state of a disrespectful mind is purely unwholesome, and that is an offense by nature, therefore this is a worldly offense. Intentional transgression occurs only for one with a mind of displeasure; therefore, it is of painful feeling. However, in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is written that the Elder Phussadeva said: “Unlike offenses such as the destruction of life, the fault of improper wearing and so on is not censured by the world, and therefore it is an offense by regulation (paṇṇattivajja).”

577. Vihārepīti buddhupaṭṭhānādikāle, tasmā ‘‘pārupitabba’’nti uttarāsaṅgakiccavasena vuttaṃ. Paṭhamadutiyasikkhāpadesu pariḷāhādipaccayā kappati, na antaragharapaṭisaṃyuttesu.

577. Regarding 'even in the monastery' (`Vihārepi`): at a time such as attending upon the Buddha, therefore 'it should be covered' is said in terms of the function of the upper robe. In the first and second training rules, it is allowable due to a cause such as burning heat, but not in those rules connected with the interior of a house.

582. ‘‘Ekasmiṃ [Pg.346] pana ṭhāne ṭhatvā’’ti ettha ‘‘gacchantopi parissayābhāvaṃ oloketuṃ labhatiyeva. Tathā gāme pūja’’nti likhitaṃ, taṃ pana ‘‘ekasmiṃ ṭhāne ṭhatvā’’ti vuttattā tādisaṃ antarāyaṃ sandhāya vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

582. Regarding the phrase 'But having stood in one place': it is written, 'Even while going, one may indeed look for the absence of danger. Similarly, one may observe worship in the village.' However, since it was said, 'having stood in one place,' it should be understood that this was said in reference to such a danger.

Parimaṇḍalavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Parimaṇḍala Chapter is concluded.

2. Ujjagghikavaggavaṇṇanā

2. Commentary on the Ujjagghika Chapter

586. Hasanīyasminti hetvatthe bhummaṃ, hasitabbavatthukāraṇāti attho. Antaraghare uccāsaddena anumodanādiṃ karontassa anāpatti kira. Tathā hi mahindattheropi hatthisālādīsu mahājanassa kathesi.

586. The word `hasanīyasmiṃ` is a locative used in the sense of cause; the meaning is 'because of a matter that is a cause for laughter.' For one who gives thanks, etc., with a loud voice within the village, there is, it seems, no offense. For indeed, the elder Mahinda also preached to the great populace in elephant stables and so forth.

591. Keci bhikkhū ‘‘parikkhāraṭṭhapanamattena vāsūpagato hotī’’ti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattameva. Bhikkhuniyo ce vāsūpagā honti, bhikkhunupassayova kappiyabhūmi. ‘‘Yattha bhikkhuniyo ekarattampi vasanti, ayaṃ bhikkhunupassayo’’ti (pāci. 161) vacanato tāsaṃ samīpaṃ vā tāhi gahitavāsāgāraṃ vā ‘‘gacchāmī’’ti gacchato yathāsukhaṃ gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Na hi tāvatā taṃ gharaṃ antaragharasaṅkhyaṃ gacchatīti no takkoti ācariyo.

591. Some monks say, 'One has entered upon residence merely by placing one's requisites,' but that is only their opinion. If nuns have entered upon residence, the nuns' residence itself is suitable ground. Because of the statement, 'Where nuns dwell even for one night, this is a nuns' residence,' it is proper for one who goes thinking, 'I will go,' to go as one wishes either near them or to a dwelling place taken by them. The teacher said, 'Because by that much, that house does not come to be counted as within the village—this is our reasoning.'

Ujjagghikavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Ujjagghika Chapter is concluded.

3. Khambhakatavaggavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Khambhakata Chapter

604. Sūpo pattappamāṇavaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttākāro. Oloṇī vuccati kudhitaṃ, gorasato pūrā thūpitoti attho.

604. Curry (`sūpa`) is of the type mentioned in the commentary on the measure of the bowl. `Kudhitaṃ` is called `oloṇī`; the meaning is 'filled with a milk-product and heaped up'.

605. Heṭṭhā orohatīti ettha ‘‘orohanappamāṇe sati ekadese thūpīkatepi anāpattī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Pattassa pana heṭṭhā ca upari ca paduminipaṇṇādīhi paṭicchādetvā odahantiyā laddhaṃ nāma vaṭṭatī’’ti ca vadanti. Ettha ‘‘yasmā ‘samatittiko piṇḍapāto paṭiggahetabbo’ti vacanaṃ piṇḍapāto samapuṇṇo [Pg.347] paṭiggahetabboti dīpeti, tasmā attano hatthagate patte piṇḍapāto diyyamāno thūpīkatopi ce hoti, vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. ‘Thūpīkataṃ piṇḍapātaṃ paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti hi vacanaṃ paṭhamaṃ thūpīkataṃ piṇḍapātaṃ pacchā paṭiggaṇhato, āpattīti dīpeti. Pattena paṭiggaṇhato cepi thūpīkataṃ hoti, vaṭṭati athūpīkatassa paṭiggahitattā. Payogo pana natthi aññatra pubbadesā’’ti ca ‘‘samatittikanti vā bhāvanapuṃsaka’’nti ca vadanti, tasmā vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.

605. Here, regarding 'it descends below,' some say: 'When the measure for descending is present, even if it is heaped up in one part, there is no offense.' They also say: 'As for the bowl, almsfood obtained by placing it inside after covering the bowl below and above with lotus leaves and so forth is permissible.' Here, because the statement, ‘Almsfood should be received level with the brim,’ indicates that almsfood should be received just evenly full, it therefore indicates that even if the almsfood becomes heaped up while being given into the bowl held in one's own hand, it is permissible. For the statement, ‘He receives heaped-up almsfood; there is an offense of wrong-doing,’ indicates that there is an offense for one who afterwards receives almsfood that was first heaped up. And for one who receives with the bowl, even if it becomes heaped up, it is permissible, because what was received was not heaped up. However, there is no application apart from the prior instruction. They also say: 'Or, samatittika is a neuter noun indicating a state.' Therefore, this should be accepted after careful consideration.

Khambhakatavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Khambhakata Chapter is concluded.

4. Sakkaccavaggavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Sakkacca Chapter

609. Sūpodanaviññattisikkhāpade ‘‘sūpo nāma dve sūpā’’ti na vuttaṃ sūpaggahaṇena paṇītabhojanehi avasesānaṃ sabbabhojanānaṃ saṅgaṇhanatthaṃ. Anāpattivāre cassa ‘‘ñātakānaṃ pavāritānaṃ aññassatthāya attano dhanenā’’ti idaṃ adhikaṃ. Katthaci potthake ‘‘anāpatti asañcicca asatiyā ajānantassa gilānassa āpadāsū’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ, taṃ na, ‘‘samasūpakaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ bhuñjissāmī’’ti imassa anāpattivāre ‘‘aññassatthāyā’’ti katthaci likhitaṃ, tañca pamādavasena likhitaṃ. ‘‘Mukhe pakkhipitvā puna vippaṭisārī hutvā ogilitukāmassapi sahasā ce pavisati, ettha ‘asañciccā’ti vuccati. Viññattampi aviññattampi ekasmiṃ ṭhāne ṭhitaṃ sahasā anupadhāretvā gahetvā bhuñjanto ‘asatiyā’ti vuccatī’’ti likhitaṃ, anāpattivāre ekaccesu potthakesu ‘‘rasaraseti likhitaṃ, taṃ gahetabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

609. In the training rule on requesting soup and rice, it is not said, “Soup means two kinds of soup”; the taking up of the word ‘soup’ is for the purpose of including all remaining foods among choice foods. And in its non-offense section, this phrase, “for relatives, for those who have been invited, for the sake of another, with one’s own wealth,” is extra. In some manuscripts, only this much is said: “There is no offense for one who is unintentional, unmindful, unknowing, for one who is sick, or in emergencies,” but that is not correct. In the non-offense section for “I will eat alms-food with an equal amount of curry,” it is written in some places “for the sake of another,” and that is written through carelessness. It is written: “Having placed it in the mouth, and again becoming regretful, even for one who wishes to spit it out, if it enters suddenly, herein it is called ‘unintentional.’ Eating after hastily taking something that is in one place, whether requested or not, without investigating it, is called ‘unmindful.’” In the non-offense section in some manuscripts, it is written “with various flavors,” and it is said, “that should be accepted.”

Sakkaccavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Sakkacca Chapter is concluded.

5. Kabaḷavaggavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Kabaḷa Chapter

618. ‘‘Sabbaṃ hattha’’nti vacanato ekadesaṃ mukhe pakkhipantassa anāpattīti ekacce. ‘‘Sabbanti vacanato ekadesampi na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ anāpattivāre avisesitattā.

618. Some say that because of the phrase “the whole hand,” there is no offense for one who puts a portion into the mouth. Others say, “Because of the word ‘all,’ not even a portion is allowable.” That is correct, because it is not specified in the non-offense section.

624. Sitthāvakārake [Pg.348] ‘‘kacavaraṃ chaḍḍentaṃ sitthaṃ chaḍḍiyyatī’’ti ca ‘‘kacavaraṃ chaḍḍento’’ti ca pāṭho.

624. In the Sitthāvakāraka rule, there are these readings: “The lump of rice of one who is discarding refuse is discarded,” and “one who is discarding refuse.”

Kabaḷavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Kabaḷa Chapter is concluded.

6. Surusuruvaggavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Surusuru Chapter

627. ‘‘Surusuru’’nti ca ‘‘surosuro’’ti ca pāṭho. Sītīkatoti sītaṅko. ‘‘Silakabuddhoti ariyānaṃ parihāsavacanameveta’’nti likhitaṃ.

627. There are the readings “surusuru” and “surosuro.” As for sītīkato, it means afflicted by cold. It is written: “This ‘silakabuddho’ is merely a term of derision for the noble ones.”

631. Paṭikkūlavasenāti ettha yadi paṭikkūlavasena paṭikkhittaṃ, ‘‘seyyathāpi kāmabhogino’’ti na vattabbaṃ. Na hi te paṭikkūlaṃ karontīti ce? Na, issariyaliṅgavasena gahaṇasambhavato. Te hi anādarā honti. Pattadhovananti pattadhovanodakaṃ bhojanapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ.

631. Herein, regarding 'by way of repulsiveness': If it is rejected by way of repulsiveness, then 'just as sensualists' should not be said. If one were to say, 'For they do not make it repulsive,' this is not so, because of the possibility of taking it by way of a sign of authority. For they are disrespectful. 'Bowl-washing' means water from washing the bowl that is mixed with food.

634. ‘‘Chattapādukāya’’nti ca ‘‘chattapāde’’ti ca pāṭho.

634. There are the readings “chattapādukāya” and “chattapāde”.

637. Cāpoti sattakhādanavadho. ‘‘Sesā sabbā dhanuvikati kodaṇḍe paviṭṭhā’’ti ca likhitaṃ, paṭimukkanti pavesitaṃ, laggitaṃ hotīti attho.

637. 'Cāpo' is a weapon that cuts, pierces, and kills beings. And it is written: 'All other variations of the bow are included in the kodaṇḍa.' 'Paṭimukkaṃ' means entered, that is, it is attached; this is the meaning.

Surusuruvaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Surusuru Chapter is concluded.

7. Pādukavaggavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Pāduka Chapter

640. Sayaṃ yānagato hutvā, yathā yānagatassa ve.

640. Being oneself on a vehicle, it is indeed just as for one who is on a vehicle.

Alaṃ vattuṃ tathā nālaṃ, sachatto chattapāṇino.

Though able to speak, so is one with an umbrella unable to speak to one holding an umbrella in hand.

Yathā ettha, evaṃ aññatrāpi.

As here, so too should it be understood in other cases.

647. Chapakavatthusmiṃ ‘‘sacāhaṃ na labhissāmī’’ti pāṭho, ‘‘dasa ce na labhissāmī’’ti ca atthi, ‘‘vatthusmiṃ agilānassā’’ti ca āgacchati, taṃ na sundaraṃ, sikkhāpadeyeva sundaraṃ. Thomitoti ahampi jānāmīti sambandho[Pg.349]. Yā dhanayasalābhasaṅkhātā vutti vinipātena hoti samparāye apāyesu vinipātahetu hutvā pavattati. Atha vā vinipātenāti hetvatthe karaṇavacanaṃ, vinipātanāya pavattatīti adhippāyo. Adhammacaraṇena adhammacaraṇāya. ‘‘Asmā kumbhimivā’’ti ca paṭhanti.

647. In the story of Chapaka, there is the reading, 'if I do not get,' and there is also, 'if I do not get ten,' and the phrase 'in the matter of one who is not ill' also comes. That is not good; it is good only in the training rule itself. The word 'thomiti' is connected with the word 'ahampi jānāmi' (I also know). Whatever livelihood, known as the acquisition of wealth and fame, is through ruin; in the future life, it proceeds, having become a cause for ruin in the woeful states. Alternatively, in 'vinipātena' (by ruin), it is the instrumental case in the sense of cause; the intention is that 'it occurs for the sake of ruin.' 'Adhammacaraṇena' means by unrighteous conduct; 'adhammacaraṇāya' means for unrighteous conduct. And they also recite, 'like a pot from this.'

Pādukavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Pāduka Chapter is concluded.

Pakiṇṇakavaṇṇanā

The Miscellaneous Commentary

Kāyavācācittato samuṭṭhahantīti katvā ‘‘samanubhāsanasamuṭṭhānānī’’ti vuttāni. Samanubhāsanaṃ kiriyaṃ. Imāni kiriyāni. Dhammadesanasamuṭṭhānāni vācācittatoti ettha kāyavacīviññattibhāvato ujjagghikauccāsaddādīsu viya ‘‘kāyavācācittato’’ti vattabbānīti ce? Na vattabbāni. Nisīdanagamanāhārapakkhipanādikāyaviññattiyā sabbhāvā tattha yuttaṃ, na dhammadesane tādisassābhāvā.

Because they arise from body, speech, and mind, they are called 'originations of repeated admonition.' Repeated admonition is an action. These are actions. If one were to say: 'Here, regarding the originations from teaching the Dhamma, which are from speech and mind, should it not be said "from body, speech, and mind," just as in cases of laughing aloud, loud noises, and so on, due to the existence of bodily and verbal intimation?' It should not be said. Why? Because of the actual existence of bodily intimation such as sitting, walking, and putting in food, it is suitable there; but not in the teaching of the Dhamma, because of the absence of such.

Pakiṇṇakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Miscellaneous Commentary is concluded.

Sekhiyakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Sekhiya Section is concluded.

8. Sattādhikaraṇasamathavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Seven Settlements of Legal Issues

‘‘Yebhuyyasikā [Pg.350] kātabbā…pe… tiṇavatthārako kātabbo, so puggalo’’ti ca likhitaṃ.

It is also written: “A decision by majority should be made…pe… the covering over with grass should be done; that person.”

Sattādhikaraṇasamathavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Seven Settlements of Legal Issues is concluded.

Bhikkhuvibhaṅgo niṭṭhito.

The Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga is concluded.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One.

Bhikkhunīvibhaṅgavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga

1. Pārājikakaṇḍavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Pārājika Section

Ganthārambhavaṇṇanā

1. The Commentary on the Commencement of the Work

Vibhaṅge [Pg.351] viya bhikkhūnaṃ, vitthāramabhisaṅkhataṃ;

Akatvā bhikkhunīnampi, vakkhe gaṇṭhipadakkamaṃ.

Just as a detailed composition was made in the Vibhaṅga of the bhikkhus, without making a detailed composition in the Vibhaṅga of the bhikkhunīs also, I will state the sequence of difficult terms.

Yo bhikkhunīnaṃ vibhaṅgo assa, tassa saṃvaṇṇanākkamo pattoti attho.

The meaning is this: The sequence of the commentary for the Vibhaṅga of the bhikkhunīs has arrived.

Ganthārambhavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Commencement of the Work is concluded.

1. Paṭhamapārājikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the First Pārājika Training Rule

656-7. Tattha tattha ṭhānuppattikapaññā vīmaṃsā. Padapaṭipāṭiyā evāti mātikāpadapaṭipāṭiyā eva. ‘‘Vuttanti saṅgītikānaṃ upasaṅkappanānaṃ vibhājanaṃ vutta’’nti likhitaṃ.

1. 656-7. Here and there, wisdom that arises according to the situation is investigation. 'By the sequence of words' means 'only by the sequence of the words of the topic-headings'. It is written: '“It is said” means the analysis by the compilers of the council and the formulators is stated.'

658. ‘‘Ehibhikkhunīti bhikkhunī, tīhi saraṇagamanehi upasampannāti bhikkhunī’’ti idaṃ pana desanāvilāsavasena vuttanti eke. Aññabuddhakāle atthīti eke, taṃ na yuttaṃ viya dissati amhākampi buddhakāle sambhavappasaṅgato, ehibhikkhuniyā paṭisedhachāyādissanato ca. Yathāha dhammapade visākhāvatthusmiṃ (dha. pa. aṭṭha. 1. visākhāvatthu) ‘‘tassa cīvaradānassa nissandena imaṃ mahālatāpasādhanaṃ labhi. Itthīnañhi cīvaradānaṃ mahālatāpasādhanabhaṇḍena matthakaṃ pappoti, purisānaṃ iddhimayapattacīvarenā’’ti. Tīhi saraṇagamanehi upasampannāya pana bhikkhuniyā [Pg.352] sambhavo aññabuddhakāle kadāci siyā, nattheva amhākaṃ buddhakāle. Desanāvilāsena pana bhikkhudesanākkameneva bhikkhuniniddeso vutto, teneva bhikkhusaṅghavasena ekatoupasampannā bhikkhuniyo vijjamānāpi tattha na vuttā. Tāsaṃ atthitā imāya parivārakathāya veditabbā –

‘A bhikkhunī by “Come, bhikkhunī,” a bhikkhunī by being ordained through the three refuges’—this, however, is said by some for the sake of embellishing the teaching. Some say it existed in the time of other Buddhas. That does not seem appropriate, both because of the implication that it should be possible in our Buddha’s time as well, and because no shadow of a prohibition against the ‘ehi bhikkhunī’ ordination is seen. As it is said in the Dhammapada, in the story of Visākhā: ‘As a result of that offering of robes, she obtained this Mahālatā ornament. Indeed, for women, the offering of robes reaches its peak with the Mahālatā ornament; for men, it reaches its peak with a bowl and robes created by psychic power.’ However, the possibility of a bhikkhunī being ordained by the three refuges might occasionally exist in the time of another Buddha; it certainly does not exist in our Buddha’s time. But for the sake of embellishing the teaching, the exposition on bhikkhunīs is stated in the very same sequence as the teaching for bhikkhus. Therefore, even though there are bhikkhunīs ordained on one side by the Bhikkhu Saṅgha, they are not mentioned there. Their existence is to be known by this discourse from the Parivāra:

‘‘Ubho ekato upasampannā,Ubhinnaṃ hatthato cīvaraṃ paṭiggaṇheyya;

Siyā āpattiyo nānā,Pañhā mesā kusalehi cintitā’’ti. (pari. 479);

658. ‘Both are ordained together; one might receive a robe from the hands of both. There might be various offenses; this question has been considered by the skilled.’

Atha vā puthujjanakāle ehibhikkhusaraṇagamanena upasampannova itthiliṅgapātubhāvena bhikkhunibhāve ṭhitā purisūpasampannaṃ upādāya ‘‘ehibhikkhunī’’ti, ‘‘tīhi saraṇagamanehi upasampannā bhikkhunī’’ti ca saṅkhyaṃ gacchati. No ce, taṃ vacanaṃ virujjheyyāti eke, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Viññū paṭibalo’’ti dvinnaṃ avassavabhāvassa ijjhanato vuttaṃ. Ettha yasmā yaṃ kiñci āmisaṃ paṭiggaṇhantīnaṃ aggahatthā purisānaṃ hatthehi kadāci missībhāvaṃ gacchanti, vandantānaṃ vā purisānaṃ sirāni aggapādehi missitāni kadāci honti, kesacchedanakāle vā siraṃ purisānaṃ hatthehi missitaṃ hoti, cittaṃ nāmetaṃ atiraddhagavesi, durakkhiyaṃ vā, tasmā ‘‘mā atilahuṃ pārājikāpatti bhikkhunīnaṃ hotū’’ti buddhā bhagavanto kāruññena pārājikakkhettaparicchedaṃ, thullaccayakkhettaparicchedañca visuṃ visuṃ desesunti veditabbaṃ.

Or alternatively, a male who, while a worldling, was ordained by the 'Come, bhikkhu' invitation and by going for refuge, having become established in the state of a bhikkhunī due to the manifestation of female characteristics, attains the designation 'Come, bhikkhunī' or 'a bhikkhunī ordained by the three goings for refuge' by reason of the ordination that occurred while he was a male. If this were not so, that statement would be contradicted, so say some; but this should be accepted after investigation. 'One who is wise and capable' is said because of the accomplishment of the state of being free from outflows for the two. Here, because when bhikkhunīs are receiving any material offering, their fingertips sometimes come to be mingled with the hands of men; or, when men are paying homage, their heads are sometimes mingled with the tips of the bhikkhunīs' feet; or, at the time of cutting hair, the head is mingled with the hands of men, and this thing called the mind is one that seeks what is greatly desired, or it is difficult to guard. Therefore, it should be understood that the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, having considered, 'May a pārājika offense not occur too quickly for bhikkhunīs,' out of compassion taught separately the delimitation of the sphere of a pārājika offense and the delimitation of the sphere of a thullaccaya offense.

659. Tabbahulanayena sā vuttāti ettha ayamanugaṇṭhipadakkamo – yebhuyyena kiriyasamuṭṭhānattā ‘‘kiriyasamuṭṭhāna’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samāpajjeyyā’’ti avatvā pana ‘‘sādiyeyyā’’ti vuttattā akiriyatopi samuṭṭhātīti veditabbaṃ. Yathā cettha, evaṃ heṭṭhā ‘‘manussitthiyā tayo magge methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevantassa āpatti pārājikassā’’tiādinā nayena kiriyasamuṭṭhānataṃ vatvā tadanantaraṃ ‘‘bhikkhupaccatthikā…pe… so ce pavesanaṃ sādiyati, āpatti pārājikassā’’tiādinā (pārā. 56) nayena akiriyasamuṭṭhānatāyapi vuttattā paṭhamapārājikassāpi tabbahulanayeneva kiriyasamuṭṭhānatā veditabbā. Na hi pavesanasādiyanādimhi kiriyasamuṭṭhānatā dissati. Aṅgajātacalanañcettha na sārato daṭṭhabbaṃ ‘‘so ce pavesanaṃ [Pg.353] na sādiyati, paviṭṭhaṃ na sādiyati, ṭhitaṃ na sādiyati, uddharaṇaṃ sādiyati, āpatti pārājikassā’’ti (pārā. 58) ettha ṭhita na sādiyane pakatiyāpi paripuṇṇacalanattā. Sādiyanapaccayā hi sevanacalanañcettha na dissatevāti tabbahulanayeneva kiriyasamuṭṭhānatā gahetabbā. Tattha tattha aṭṭhakathāsu kasmā tabbahulanayo avuttoti ce? ‘‘Yo pana bhikkhu methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyyā’’ti (pārā. 39, 42) mātikāyaṃ kiriyasamuṭṭhānassa sarūpena vuttattā tadanurūpavasena vibhaṅganayamanoloketvā ‘‘kiriyasamuṭṭhāna’’micceva vuttaṃ. Yathā cetesu tabbahulanayena kiriyasamuṭṭhānatā vuttā, tathā surādīnaṃ akusaleneva pātabbatā, na itarathā ‘‘yaṃ akusaleneva āpajjati, ayaṃ lokavajjā, sesā paṇṇattivajjā’’ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā) vutte lokavajjapaṇṇattivajjānaṃ niyamanalakkhaṇasiddhi hoti, tathā taṃ avatvā ‘‘yassā sacittakapakkhe cittaṃ akusalameva hoti, ayaṃ lokavajjā. Sesā paṇṇattivajjā’’ti vutte lokavajjavacanaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā vatthuajānanapakkhepi akusaleneva pātabbattā. Yasmā tattha surāpānavītikkamassa akusalacittuppādo natthi, tasmā khandhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 108) ‘‘majjapāne pana bhikkhuno ajānitvāpi bījato paṭṭhāya majjaṃ pivantassa pācittiyaṃ, sāmaṇero jānitvā pivanto sīlabhedaṃ āpajjati, na ajānitvā’’ti vuttaṃ, na vuttaṃ ‘‘vatthuajānanapakkhe pāṇātipātādīnaṃ siddhikaraakusalacittuppādasadise cittuppāde satipi sāmaṇero sīlabhedaṃ nāpajjatī’’ti. Abhinivesavacanaṃ pāṇātipātādīhi samānajātikattā sāmaṇerānaṃ surāpānassa. ‘‘Surādayo panime’’ti vatthuṃ jānitvā pātabbatādivasena vītikkamantassa akusalassa asambhavo natthi. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘yassa sacittakapakkhe’’tiādi.

659. Regarding the statement, 'It is spoken of by way of predominance,' this is the sequence of the Anugaṇṭhipada: Because it arises for the most part from action, it is called 'action-originated.' However, because it is not said, 'one should engage in bodily contact,' but rather, 'one should consent,' it should be understood that it also arises without action. Just as here, so too below, in the first Pārājika, after stating the nature of being action-originated by the method beginning, 'For one who engages in sexual intercourse with a human woman in the three orifices, there is an offense of Pārājika,' and immediately thereafter, because the nature of being non-action-originated is also stated by the method beginning, 'Hostile bhikkhus... if he consents to the insertion, there is an offense of Pārājika,' the action-originated nature of the first Pārājika should also be understood by way of predominance. For in consenting to insertion and so on, the nature of being action-originated is not seen. And here, the movement of the sexual organ should not be regarded as essential, because in the passage, 'If he does not consent to insertion, does not consent to its having entered, does not consent to its remaining, but consents to its withdrawal, there is an offense of Pārājika,' even in the case of not consenting to its remaining, there is by nature complete movement. Indeed, the movement of intercourse due to consenting is not seen here at all; therefore, the nature of being action-originated should be understood only by way of predominance. If it is asked, 'Why is the way of predominance not mentioned in the various commentaries?' Because in the Mātikā, 'Whatever bhikkhu should engage in sexual intercourse,' the action-originated offense is stated in its essential form, it is called simply 'action-originated' in accordance with that, without looking at the method of the Vibhaṅga. Just as in these cases the nature of being action-originated is stated by way of predominance, so too, liquor and so on are to be drunk only with an unwholesome mind, not otherwise. When it is said, 'That which one commits only with an unwholesome mind, this is a fault in the world; the rest are faults by designation,' the establishment of the defining characteristic of faults in the world and faults by designation occurs. If, without stating it in that way, it were said, 'That for which, in the case of being intentional, the mind is only unwholesome, this is a fault in the world; the rest are faults by designation,' the statement 'fault in the world' would be meaningless, because even in the case of not knowing the object, it would be drinkable only with an unwholesome mind. Because in that case of not knowing the object, for the transgression of drinking liquor, there is no arising of an unwholesome mind, therefore in the Khandhaka Commentary it is said: 'But in the case of drinking intoxicants, for a bhikkhu who drinks an intoxicant even unknowingly, from its preparation from seed onward, there is a Pācittiya. A novice, drinking knowingly, incurs a breach of virtue; not if drinking unknowingly.' It is not said, 'In the case of not knowing the object, even if there is an arising of mind similar to the completing unwholesome arising of mind for killing living beings, etc., a novice does not incur a breach of virtue.' This statement about firm resolve is made because the drinking of liquor by novices is of the same class as killing living beings and so on. For one who transgresses knowing the object, thinking, 'These are liquors, etc.,' by way of their drinkability and so on, the arising of the unwholesome is not impossible. Therefore, the passage beginning, 'For which, in the case of being intentional...' was stated.

Kiñcettha yuttivacanena arahantānaṃ appavisanato sacittakācittakapakkhesu akusalaniyamoti ce? Na, dhammatāvasena sekkhānampi appavisanato. Acittakapakkhe akusalaniyamābhāvadassanatthaṃ supantassa mukhe pakkhittajalabindumiva surābinduādayo udāharitabbāti. Tabbahulanayena hi atthe gahite pubbenāparaṃ aṭṭhakathāya sameti. ‘‘Saddhiṃ pāḷiyā avisesattho parato āvi bhavissatīti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Idamettha vicāretabbaṃ[Pg.354]. Yadi vatthujānanapakkhe vinā akusalena majjapānaṃ siyā, kasmā nāḷimajjhaṃ nātikkamati ariyānaṃ pānakādisaññīnanti? Sīlabhedavatthuvītikkamo vināpi cittena ariyānaṃ dhammatāvaseneva na sambhavatīti ce, na, cakkhupālattheravatthu (dha. pa. aṭṭha. 1.1) ādivirodhatoti. Apica bhikkhunopi sāmaṇerassa viya surāpānaṃ sacittakameva kasmā na jātanti? Appatirūpattāti ce, sāmaṇerānampi appatirūpameva. Sahadhammikā eva hi te. Mahāsāvajjattāti ce? Sāmaṇerānampi tādisameva. Sāmaṇerānaṃ sacittakameva pārājikaṃ, itaraṃ daṇḍakammavatthūti ce? Bhikkhūnampi majjapāne natthi. Ettha tikapācittiyena na bhavitabbaṃ. Majje amajjasaññissa dukkaṭāpatti paññāpetabbā siyā. Bhikkhussa pācittiyavatthu sāmaṇerānaṃ pārājikaṃ hoti tiracchānagatasāmaṇerānaṃ viyāti ce? Acittakampi majjapānādīnaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ pārājikaṃ paññāpetabbaṃ siyā. Nācittakaṃ pārājikaṃ sambhavatīti ce? Na, paṇṇattivajjampi pārājikaṃ sambhavatīti. Nikāyantarapakkhe ayameva doso. Amhākañhi lokavajjameva majjapānanti. Kasmā panettha surāpānameva dhammatāvasena ariyā na karontīti? Na kevalaṃ surāpānameva dhammatāvasena ariyā na karonti, pāṇesupi kodhavasena pāṇasaññitāya sīsacchedanādīni na karonti, sadārasaññāya paradāraṃ na vītikkamanti, anatthabhañjakasaññāya atthabhañjakamusā na vadanti, sammādiṭṭhisaññāya micchādiṭṭhiṃ na paṭipajjantīti veditabbā. Ācariyāpi surāpāne akusalaniyamābhāvameva vadanti, tasmā eva mātikāṭṭhakathāya gaṇṭhipade lokavajjapaṇṇattivajjādhikāre ‘‘sacittakapakkheakusalanti surāpānādisaṅgahatthaṃ, itarathā yassa akusalamevāti vadeyyā’’ti likhitaṃ. Kiriyasamuṭṭhānatā panassa tabbahulanayameva, na paṭhamapārājike. Kathaṃ? Kāyasaṃsaggasikkhāpadaṃ paṭhamapārājikasamuṭṭhānaṃ. Ettha bhikkhussa ca bhikkhuniyā ca kāyasaṃsaggabhāve sati bhikkhunī kāyaṅgamacopayamānāpi citteneva adhivāsentī āpajjati, na evaṃ bhikkhu. Bhikkhu pana copayamānova āpajjati, evameva paṭhamapārājikepi copane sati eva āpajjati, nāsati. Pavesanaṃ sādiyatīti ettha pavesanasādiyanaṃ nāma sevanacittassuppādananti, evaṃ santepi ‘‘vīmaṃsitvā gahetabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

If it is asked: 'In this context, what is the point of the statement of reasoning regarding the determination of what is unwholesome for Arahants in the cases of with and without intention, since they do not enter into them?' No. It is by natural law, and because even learners do not enter into it. For the purpose of showing the absence of a determination of what is unwholesome in the unintentional case, examples such as drops of liquor placed in the mouth of a sleeping person, like a drop of water, should be cited. Indeed, when the meaning is grasped by the method of predominance, the following statement is consistent with the preceding statement in the commentary. It is said: 'Others say that the meaning, being without distinction from the Pāḷi, will become manifest later on.' This should be investigated here. If, in the case of knowing the object, the drinking of intoxicants could occur without unwholesomeness, why does it not pass beyond the middle of the throat of the noble ones who perceive it as a beverage and so on? If one were to say: 'The transgression of the basis for a breach of virtue does not occur for noble ones even without intention, solely by the power of natural law,' [the reply is:] no, because it contradicts the story of the Elder Cakkhupāla and so on. Furthermore, why does the drinking of liquor not occur for a bhikkhu only with intention, as it does for a novice? If one were to answer, 'Because it is improper,' [the reply is:] for novices also it is indeed improper. For they are indeed followers of the same Dhamma. If one were to say, 'Because it is of great fault,' [the reply is:] for novices also it is just so. If one were to say: 'For novices, only the intentional [offense] is a pārājika; the other is a matter for disciplinary action'? For bhikkhus also, in the case of drinking intoxicants, there is no [pārājika]. Here, it should not be a threefold pācittiya. For a bhikkhu who perceives an intoxicant as a non-intoxicant, a dukkaṭa offense should be laid down. If one were to say: 'What is a matter for a pācittiya offense for a bhikkhu becomes a pārājika for novices, like for animals and novices'? [Then] even the unintentional [offense] of drinking intoxicants, etc., should be laid down as a pārājika for novices. If one were to say: 'An unintentional pārājika is not possible'? [The reply is:] No, because even a transgression of a precept can be a pārājika. In the faction of the other schools, this very same fault exists. For in our view, the drinking of intoxicants is only a worldly fault. Why, then, do the noble ones by the power of natural law not engage in only the drinking of liquor? It should be known that noble ones do not, by the power of natural law, only refrain from drinking liquor. They also do not, through the power of anger and with the perception of them as living beings, do things like beheading living beings; with the perception of her as one's own wife, they do not transgress with another's wife; with the perception of it as beneficial, they do not speak falsehoods that destroy welfare; with the perception of right view, they do not practice wrong view. The teachers also state only the absence of a determination of what is unwholesome in the case of drinking liquor. Therefore, in the glossary of the commentary to the Mātikā, in the section on worldly faults and precept-based faults, it is written: 'The phrase "in the intentional case, it is unwholesome" is for the purpose of including the drinking of liquor and so on; otherwise, one might say that it is always unwholesome.' But its origination from action is indeed by the method of predominance, not as in the first pārājika. How so? The training rule on bodily contact is of the same origin as the first pārājika. Here, when there is a state of bodily contact between a bhikkhu and a bhikkhunī, the bhikkhunī, even while not moving her limbs, incurs an offense by consenting with the mind alone; not so the bhikkhu. But a bhikkhu incurs an offense only when moving. Just so, in the first pārājika also, one incurs an offense only when there is movement; when it is absent, one does not. Here, in the phrase 'consents to insertion,' 'consenting to insertion' means the arising of a mind of indulgence. Even so, it is said, 'It should be accepted after investigation.'

Paṭhamapārājikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the First Pārājika Training Rule is concluded.

2. Dutiyapārājikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Commentary on the Second Pārājika Training Rule

‘‘Kissa [Pg.355] pana tvaṃ ayye jānaṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ ajjhāpanna’’nti vacanato, ‘‘aṭṭhannaṃ pārājikānaṃ aññataraṃ pārājikaṃ ajjhāpanna’’nti (pāci. 666) vacanato, ante ‘‘uddiṭṭhā kho ayyāyo aṭṭha pārājikā dhammā’’tiādivacanato (pāci. 677), parivāre ‘‘sādhāraṇapaññatti ubhatopaññattī’’ti (pari. 201) vacanato ca bhikkhunivibhaṅgaṃ patvā bhagavā sādhāraṇāni sikkhāpadāni bhikkhūnaṃ uppannavatthusmiṃyeva ‘‘yā pana bhikkhunī chandaso methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya antamaso tiracchānagatenapi pārājikā hoti asaṃvāsā’’tiādinā nayena savisesampi avisesampi mātikaṃ nikkhipitvā anukkamena padabhājanaṃ, āpattibhedaṃ, tikacchedaṃ, anāpattivārañca anavasesaṃ vatvā vitthāresi. Saṅgītikārakehi pana asādhāraṇapaññattiyoyeva idha vitthāritāti veditabbā.

From the statement, “But why, noble lady, knowing it to be a Pārājika offense, have you committed it?”; from the statement, “She has committed one of the eight Pārājika offenses”; from the statement at the end, “Noble ladies, the eight Pārājika offenses have been recited,” etc.; and also in the Parivāra from the statement, “A common regulation is a regulation for both”—when the Blessed One came to the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga, he had already, for the common training rules, in the very context where they arose for the bhikkhus, laid down the matrix with and without specifics by the method beginning, “Whatever bhikkhunī should willingly engage in sexual intercourse, even with an animal, she is defeated, not in communion,” and had elaborated, having spoken in sequence and without remainder on the word-by-word analysis, the classification of offenses, the division into triads, and the section on non-offenses. By the compilers of the recension, however, only the non-common regulations have been elaborated here; thus it should be understood.

666. Tattha ‘‘aṭṭhannaṃ pārājikāna’’nti idaṃ kevalaṃ saṅgītikārakānaṃyeva nayato nikkhittavacanaṃ ito pubbe chaṭṭhasattamaṭṭhamānaṃ pārājikānaṃ apaññattattā. Bhagavatā pana idaṃ paññāpitamādisikkhāpadampi upādāya ‘‘channaṃ pārājikāna’’nti vuttaṃ siyā. Ito uddhaṃ paññattānipi upādāya ‘‘aṭṭhannaṃ pārājikāna’’nti vacanaṃ aparabhāge uppannanti ekacce ācariyā. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘idañca pārājikaṃ pacchā paññattaṃ, tasmā ‘aṭṭhanna’nti vibhaṅge vutta’’ntiādi vuttaṃ, tasmā aṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ matena siddhametaṃ yathāpaññattānukkamavaseneva saṅgītānīti. ‘‘Aññāsi’’nti pāṭho. Aññāsīti na gahetabbo. ‘‘Duṭṭhullasikkhāpade vuttanayenevā’’ti vacanato vajjapaṭicchādikaṃ yā paṭicchādeti, sāpi vajjapaṭicchādikaāyevāti siddhaṃ. Kiñcāpi vajjapaṭicchādanaṃ pemavasena hoti, tathāpi sikkhāpadavītikkamacittaṃ domanassikameva hotīti katvā ‘‘dukkhavedana’’nti vuttaṃ.

666. Herein, the phrase “of the eight Pārājika offenses” is merely a statement placed by the compilers of the recension according to their method, because the sixth, seventh, and eighth Pārājika offenses had not been laid down previously. But the Blessed One might have said, “of the six Pārājika offenses,” including this first training rule that was to be laid down. Some teachers say that the phrase “of the eight Pārājika offenses” arose in a later period, also including the training rules laid down after this one. In the commentary, however, it is said, “This Pārājika offense was also laid down later; therefore ‘of the eight’ is stated in the Vibhaṅga,” and so on. Therefore, according to the opinion of the commentary teachers, it is established that they were recited only according to the sequence in which they were laid down. There is the reading 'aññāsi', but it should not be accepted. From the statement, “Just as stated in the grave training rule,” it is established that she who conceals an offense is also a concealer of an offense. Although the concealment of an offense may be motivated by affection, nevertheless, because the mind that transgresses the training rule is indeed one of displeasure, it is said to be a “painful feeling.”

Dutiyapārājikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Second Pārājika Training Rule is concluded.

3. Tatiyapārājikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Commentary on the Third Pārājika Training Rule

669. Imaṃ adhippāyamattanti ‘‘codetvā sāretvā’’ti etaṃ. Etthāyaṃ vicāraṇā – yo bhikkhu ukkhittakabhikkhunā samānadiṭṭhiko laddhinānāsaṃvāsako hoti, so avandanīyo, kammākamme ukkhittako viya na [Pg.356] gaṇapūraṇo, sahaseyyampi na labhati, na tathā bhikkhunī. Sā hi yāva na samanubhaṭṭhā, tāva gaṇapūrakā ca hoti, saṃvāsañca labhati. Laddhinānāsaṃvāsikānuvattikāpi ukkhittānuvattikāva hoti. Ukkhitto ce kālaṅkato, tadanuvattako bhikkhu laddhinānāsaṃvāsako hotiyeva. Tathā vibbhantepi tasmiṃ titthiyapakkantakepi sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya sāmaṇerabhūmiyaṃ ṭhitepīti eke. Tesaṃ matena ukkhittake tathābhūtepi bhikkhunī tadanuvattikā samanubhāsitabbāvāti āpajjati. Samanubhāsanakammaṃ saṅghāyattaṃ, saṅghena sañcicca purimakāpattiṃ apanetuṃ na yuttaṃ viya khāyati. Ukkhepanīyakammañca āpattiadassanamatte, appaṭikammamatte, kudiṭṭhiappaṭinissajjanamatte ca kariyati, tassa anuvattanamattena samanubhāsitvā sāsanato cāvetabbānīti na yuttanti ce? Na vattabbameva, idaṃ apārājikavatthūsupi tappasaṅgato, anaññavisayattā ca vinayassa.

669. This is the meaning of “having rebuked and reminded.” Here is the consideration: A monk who has the same view as an expelled monk becomes one of a different communion by doctrine. He is not to be venerated; like an expelled monk, he does not complete a quorum for major or minor formal acts, nor does he receive shared lodging. A bhikkhunī is not so. For as long as she has not been formally admonished, she completes a quorum and receives communion. A bhikkhunī who is a follower of one of a different communion by doctrine is just like a follower of an expelled one. If the expelled one dies, the monk who is his follower certainly becomes one of a different communion by doctrine. Likewise if he has disrobed, if he has gone over to the sectarians, or if he remains in the state of a novice after renouncing the training—so say some. According to their view, it follows that even when the expelled one is in such a state, the bhikkhunī who is his follower must indeed be formally admonished. The act of formal admonishment is dependent on the Saṅgha; it seems as if it is not proper for the Saṅgha to intentionally remove a previous offense. And if one were to say: 'Is it not proper that they should be expelled from the Dispensation after being admonished merely for following him, for whom the act of suspension is performed for merely not seeing an offense, for merely not making amends, and for merely not renouncing a wrong view?' It should not be said at all. This is because of its connection to that in non-pārājika cases as well, and because the Vinaya is not the domain of any other.

Tatiyapārājikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Third Pārājika Training Rule is concluded.

4. Catutthapārājikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Commentary on the Fourth Pārājika Training Rule

675. ‘‘Lokassādasaṅkhātassa mittasanthavassa vasena taṃ dassetuṃ kāyasaṃsaggarāgenāti vutta’’nti likhitaṃ. Tissitthiyoti tīsu itthīsu, tisso vā itthiyo. Taṃ na seveti tāsu na sevati. Anariyāti ubhatobyañjanā. Byañjanasminti attano byañjane. Na seveti na sevati. Na cācareti nācarati. Vaṇṇāvaṇṇoti dvīhipi sukkavissaṭṭhi. Gamanuppādananti sañcarittaṃ.

675. It is written: ‘It is said “due to lust for bodily contact” in order to show this by means of friendship, which is known as worldly delight.’ `Tissitthiyoti` means: among three women, or three women. `Taṃ na seveti` means: he does not associate among them. `Anariyāti` means: a hermaphrodite. `Byañjanasminti` means: in one's own sexual organ. `Na seveti` means: one does not engage. `Na cācareti` means: one does not practice. `Vaṇṇāvaṇṇoti` means: seminal emission by both means. `Gamanuppādananti` means: acting as a go-between.

676. ‘‘Nivatthaṃ vā pārutaṃ vā’’ti ettha nivatthassa vā pārutassa vā vatthassa gahaṇaṃ sādiyatīti attho.

676. Herein, in the phrase ‘worn or draped,’ the meaning is that one consents to the taking of a garment that is either worn or draped.

Catutthapārājikasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Fourth Pārājika Training Rule is concluded.

Pārājikakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Pārājika Section is concluded.

2. Saṅghādisesakaṇḍavaṇṇanā

2. The Commentary on the Saṅghādisesa Section

1. Paṭhamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Commentary on the First Saṅghādisesa Training Rule

681. Āhatakoti [Pg.357] ānīto, niyatakoti adhippāyo. Akappiyaaḍḍo nāma saṅghassa vā ārāmikapuggalassa vā vatthussa kāraṇā saṅghassa vārikabhāvena sayameva vā adhikaraṇaṭṭhānaṃ gantvā ‘‘amhākaṃ eso dāso, dāsī, vāpī, khettaṃ, ārāmo, ārāmavatthu, gāvo, gāvī, mahiṃsī, ajā, kukkuṭā’’tiādinā voharati, akappiyaṃ. ‘‘Ayaṃ amhākaṃ ārāmiko ārāmikā, ayaṃ vāpī itthannāmena saṅghassa hatthe dohanatthāya dinnā. Ito khettato ārāmato uppajjanakacatupaccayā ito gāvito mahiṃsito ajāto uppajjanakagorasā itthannāmena saṅghassa dinnā’’ti pucchite vā apucchite vā vattuṃ vaṭṭati. ‘‘Kata’’nti avatvā ‘‘karontī’’ti vacanena kira anenakataṃ ārabbha ācikkhitā nāma hoti. Gīvāti kevalaṃ gīvā eva hoti, na pārājikaṃ. Kārāpetvā dātabbāti ettha sace āvudhabhaṇḍaṃ hoti, tassa dhārā na kāretabbā, aññena pana ākārena saññāpetabbaṃ. ‘‘Ticittaṃ tivedana’’nti vuttattā ‘‘mānussayavasena kodhussayavasenā’’ti tabbahulanayena vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

681. `Āhatako` means one who is brought; `niyatako`, a permanent slave, is the intended meaning. What is called an ‘improper legal dispute’ is when, on account of property belonging to the Saṅgha or to a monastery attendant, a monk, being on duty for the Saṅgha or acting on his own, goes to the place of judgment and makes a legal claim, saying: ‘This is our male slave, female slave, reservoir, field, monastery, monastery land, bulls, cows, female buffaloes, female goats, hens,’ and so on; this is improper. Whether asked or not, it is proper to say: ‘This is our male monastery attendant, this is our female monastery attendant. This reservoir was given by so-and-so for the purpose of washing the Saṅgha’s hands. The four requisites arising from this field and this monastery were given to the Saṅgha. The dairy products arising from this cow, this female buffalo, and this female goat were given by so-and-so to the Saṅgha.’ Without saying ‘it was done,’ by using the word ‘they are doing,’ it is, it seems, called a declaration concerning a deed done by this person. `Gīvā` is merely a substitute; it is not a Pārājika. Herein, in the phrase ‘having caused it to be made, it should be given,’ if it is an article that is a weapon, its edge should not be caused to be made. Rather, it should be made identifiable in another way, or it should be substituted. Because it is said, ‘three thoughts, three feelings,’ it should be understood that the statement ‘by way of the human state, by way of the state of anger’ is spoken according to the principle of prevalence.

Paṭhamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the First Saṅghādisesa Training Rule is concluded.

2. Dutiyasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. The Commentary on the Second Saṅghādisesa Training Rule

683. Bhaṭiputtakānaṃ kumārabhaṭikānaṃ gaṇā bhaṭiputtagaṇā. Kappanti kappiyaṃ. Kappagatikanti kappiyasabhāvaṃ. Pakkantāsupīti attano parisaṃ ṭhapetvā itarāsu pakkantāsu. Paṇṇattiṃ ajānantā ariyāpi vuṭṭhāpentīti katvā vā kammavācāpariyosāne āpattikkhaṇe vipākābyākatasamaṅgitāvasena vā ‘‘ticitta’’nti vuttanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Pabbājane na dukkaṭa’’nti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

683. `Bhaṭiputtakānaṃ` means: the groups of the servants of the prince are the `bhaṭiputtagaṇā`. `Kappanti` means: what is allowable. `Kappagatikanti` means: the state of being allowable. `Pakkantāsupīti` means: having left her own assembly behind, when the other bhikkhunīs have departed. It should be understood that it is called ‘three-minded’ either because even noble ones, not knowing the regulation, give the higher ordination, or by way of being endowed with resultant-indeterminate consciousness at the moment of the offense at the conclusion of the formal act. In the ancient gloss it is said: ‘In giving the going forth, there is no offense of wrong-doing.’”

Dutiyasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Second Saṅghādisesa Training Rule is concluded.

3. Tatiyasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Explanation of the Third Saṅghādisesa Training Rule

687. Bhaddākāpilānī [Pg.358] mahākassapassa purāṇadutiyā kira. Ñātīnaṃ kulaṃ yasmiṃ gāmake, tadetaṃ gāmakaṃ ñātikulaṃ, kulasannihitaṃ gāmakaṃ agamāsīti attho. ‘‘Ajaṃ gāmaṃ netī’’tiādīsu viya vā dvikammikaṃ katvā gāmakaṃ agamāsi ñātikulaṃ agamāsītipi yujjati.

687. It is said that Bhaddā Kāpilānī was formerly Mahākassapa's wife. The village in which her relatives' family was, that very village had her relatives' family; the meaning is that she went to the village where her family was located. Alternatively, as in such phrases as 'he leads the goat to the village,' it is also suitable to construe this with two objects, thus: 'she went to the village; she went to her relatives' family.'

692. ‘‘Aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāraṃ atikkāmentiyā’’ti vacanenapi evaṃ veditabbaṃ – vikālagāmappavesane dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃyeva vasena upacāro paricchinditabbo, itarathā yathā ettha parikkhepārahaṭṭhānaṃ parikkhepaṃ viya katvā ‘‘atikkāmentiyā’’ti vuttaṃ, evaṃ tatthāpi ‘‘aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāraṃ atikkamantassā’’ti vadeyya. Yasmā pana tattha parikkhepārahaṭṭhānato uttari eko leḍḍupāto upacāroti adhippeto, tasmā tadatthadīpanatthaṃ ‘‘aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāraṃ okkamantassā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘parikkhepārahaṭṭhānaṃyeva ‘upacāra’nti sallakkhetvā parikkhepaparikkhepārahaṭṭhānānaṃ ninnānākāraṇadīpanatthaṃ ‘upacāraṃ okkamantassā’ti vuttaṃ pāḷivisesamasallakkhetvāva aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāraṃ atikkamantassa idha upacāro parikkhepo yathā bhaveyya, taṃ upacāraṃ paṭhamaṃ pādaṃ atikkamantassa āpatti dukkaṭassa. Dutiyaṃ pādaṃ atikkamantassa āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ na gahetabbameva pāḷiyā visesasabbhāvatoti. ‘‘Aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāraṃ okkamantiyātipi ekaccesu dissati, taṃ na gahetabbanti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha ‘‘pāḷivisesamasallakkhetvā’’ti duvuttaṃ, kasmā? Vikālagāmappavesanasikkhāpadepi katthaci ‘‘upacāraṃ atikkamantassā’’ti pāṭho dissatīti, so andhakaṭṭhakathāpāṭhato gahitoti ācariyo. Aparikkhittassa upacārokkamanameva pāṭho yujjati, na atikkamanaṃ. Kasmā? Bahūsu ṭhānesu pāḷiyā aṭṭhakathāhi virujjhanato, imasmiṃ vāpi sikkhāpade virujjhati. Kathaṃ? Gaṇamhā ohīyamānāya araññe āpatti hoti, na gāme. Atha ca pana nidassanampi ‘‘sikkhāpadā buddhavarenā’’ti (pari. 479) gāthā dassitā, tasmā upacārokkamanapariyāpannanadiṃ atikkāmentiyā hoti. Kiñca bhiyyo ‘‘gacchantassa catasso āpattiyo, ṭhitassa cāpi tattakātiādīnaṃ (pari. 475) parivāragāthānaṃ [Pg.359] aṭṭhakathāhi upacārokkamanameva pāṭhoti niṭṭhaṃ gantabba’’nti ca vuttaṃ, suṭṭhu sallakkhetvā kathetabbaṃ.

692. Regarding the phrase 'for one crossing the vicinity of an unenclosed village,' it should be understood thus: In the case of entering a village at an improper time, the vicinity should be defined by the distance of two clod-throws. Otherwise, just as here, having treated a place worthy of an enclosure like an enclosure, it is said 'for one crossing,' so there too one should say, 'for one crossing the vicinity of an enclosed village.' However, since it is intended there that the vicinity is one clod-throw beyond the place worthy of an enclosure, therefore, to clarify that meaning, it is said 'for one entering the vicinity of an enclosed village.' As for what is said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: 'Having considered only the place worthy of an enclosure as the "vicinity," and for the purpose of showing the non-difference between the enclosure and the place worthy of an enclosure, it is said "for one entering the vicinity." Without considering the specific Pāḷi text, for one crossing the vicinity of an unenclosed village, just as the vicinity here would be the enclosure, for one crossing that vicinity with the first footstep, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. For one crossing with the second footstep, there is an offense of pācittiya'—that should not be accepted at all, because of the specific suitability of the Pāḷi. It is said: 'Also "for one entering the vicinity of an unenclosed village" is seen in some texts; that should not be accepted, say others.' Therein, the statement 'without considering the specific Pāḷi' is wrongly stated. Why? Because also in the training rule on entering a village at an improper time, the reading 'for one crossing the vicinity' is seen in some texts; the teacher says that this is taken from the Andhakaṭṭhakathā reading. For an unenclosed village, only the reading 'entering the vicinity' is suitable, not 'crossing over.' Why? Because it contradicts the Pāḷi texts and the commentaries in many places, and it also contradicts in this very training rule. How? For one being left behind by the group, an offense occurs in the wilderness, not in the village. Moreover, the verse 'sikkhāpadā buddhavarenā' (Pari. 479) is also shown as an example; therefore, the offense occurs for one crossing a river that is included in 'entering the vicinity.' Furthermore, it is also said: 'According to the commentaries on the Parivāra verses beginning with "For one going, four offenses; for one standing, also that many" (Pari. 475), it should be concluded that the reading is only "entering the vicinity".' This should be stated after careful consideration.

‘‘Padasā gamanameva hi idhādhippetaṃ, teneva paṭhamaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmentiyātiādimāhā’’ti ettha vikālagāmappavesanasikkhāpadādīsu tadabhāvā yānena vā iddhiyā vā pavisato, addhānaṃ gacchato ca āpattīti dīpeti. Tattha asāruppattā āpattimokkho natthīti eke, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Bhikkhunīvihārabhūmi ‘‘gāmantara’’nti na vuccati gāmantarapariyāpannāyapi kappiyabhūmittā. ‘‘Parato ‘sace bhikkhunīsu mahābodhiyaṅgaṇaṃ pavisantīsu ekā bahi tiṭṭhati, tassā āpattī’tiādivacanato bhikkhuvihāro na kappiyabhūmīti siddhaṃ, tasmā kañcinagare khandhadhammavihāro viya, kāvīrapaṭṭane sārīdhammavihāro viya ca aññopi so vihāro, tasmā sīmabaddhasukhatthaṃ gāmantarabhāve nirantarā adhiṭṭhānatthaṃ pavisantiyā, nikkhamantiyāpi gāmantarāpatti hotīti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Catugāmasādhāraṇattāti ettha evaṃvidhe vihāre sīmaṃ bandhantehi cattāropi te gāmā sodhetabbāti veditabbā. Saṃvidahitvā bhikkhuniyā vā mātugāmena vā theyyasatthena vā saddhiṃ taṃ vihāraṃ okkamantiyā catasso āpattiyo ekatova honti. ‘‘Gāmantare gāmantare āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti vuttāti eke.

In this commentary passage, where it is said, 'Indeed, only going on foot is intended here, for that reason he said, “when she oversteps with the first foot,” and so on,' it shows that in the training rules concerning entering a village at the wrong time and so on, due to the absence of that [specification of walking], an offense is incurred for one who enters by vehicle or by psychic power, and for one who goes on a long journey. Some say that in that case, due to unsuitability, there is no release from the offense. This should be accepted after investigation. The ground of a bhikkhunī monastery is not called 'another village' because it is allowable ground, even though it is included within another village. From the statement that comes later, 'If, while bhikkhunīs are entering the Mahābodhi courtyard, one stands outside, for her there is an offense,' and so on, it is established that a bhikkhunī monastery is not allowable ground. Therefore, like the Khandhadhamma monastery in Kañcinagara, and like the Sārīdhamma monastery in Kāvīrapaṭṭana, so too is any other such monastery. Others say, 'Therefore, for the ease of establishing a boundary, and for the purpose of determining it as being uninterrupted in its state as another village, for a bhikkhunī who is entering and also for one who is leaving, the offense of [crossing into] another village occurs,' it is said. Here, in the phrase 'due to being common to four villages,' it should be known that when establishing a boundary in such a monastery, those four villages must be cleared. Having made an arrangement, when entering that monastery together with a bhikkhunī, or with a woman, or with a caravan of thieves, four offenses are incurred at once. Some say this is because it is stated, 'For each and every other village, there is an offense of pācittiya.'

Dutiyapāduddhāre saṅghādisesoti ettha sace dutiyo pāduddhāro kappiyabhūmiyaṃ hoti, na saṅghādiseso, akappiyabhūmiyaṃ eva saṅghādiseso. ‘‘Ubhayatīresu vicaranti, vaṭṭatīti dassanūpacārassettha sambhavā’’ti likhitaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ. Savanūpacāro hettha nadīpāre, gāmantare vā appamāṇanti. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘paratīrato nadiṃ otaritvā dassanūpacārato dārūni, paṇṇānivā maggitvā āneti, anāpatti. Ticīvarāni paratīre otāpeti, anāpattī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Orimatīrameva āgacchati, āpattī’’ti atikkamitukāmatāya paviṭṭhattā vuttaṃ. ‘‘Nhāyanādikiccena paviṭṭhānaṃ katthevālayasambhavā vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Gāmantare pamāṇanti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ paratīrato nadiṃ otaritvā dassanūpacārato dārūni paṇṇāni sakagāmato thokampi taraṇavārena na vaṭṭati kira nikkhamitvā pavisituṃ.

Regarding 'a saṅghādisesa offense in the second lifting of the foot': here, if the second lifting of the foot is in an allowable area, it is not a saṅghādisesa; only in an unallowable area is it a saṅghādisesa. It is written, “‘They move about on both banks; it is allowable because of the possibility of being within the range of sight here’.” That is correct. Indeed, here the range of hearing on the other side of the river or in another village is without limit. But in the Andhaka commentary it is said: “Having descended into the river from the other bank, one seeks and brings firewood or leaves from within the range of sight; there is no offense. One dries the three robes on the other bank; there is no offense.” The statement, “‘One comes only to this bank; there is an offense’,” is said because one has entered with the desire to cross over. It is said: “For those who have entered for a purpose such as bathing, it is allowable because of the possibility of lingering right there.” In the commentary, regarding 'the measure in another village': having descended into the river from the other bank for firewood and leaves from within the range of sight, it is not allowable, it is said, to exit from one's own village even a little by means of crossing and then to enter.

Agāmake [Pg.360] araññeti agāmalakkhaṇe araññeti attho. Iminā āpattikhettaṃ dassitaṃ. Yasmā idaṃ āpattikhettaṃ, tasmā yā bhikkhunupassayato gāmassa indakhīlaṃ atikkamati, sā asante gāme gaṇamhā ohīyanāpattiṃ āpajjati. Dassanasavanūpacārābhāvepi pageva gāme indakhīlātikkamanakkhaṇeyeva āpajjati. Sace tattha ekā bhikkhunī atthi, tassā dassanasavanūpacārātikkamanakkhaṇe āpajjati, araññamaggagamanakāle evāyaṃ vidhīti na gahetabbaṃ. Gāmato pana nikkhamantī ito paṭṭhāya āpajjatīti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘agāmakaṃ arañña’’nti vuttaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘ārādhikā ca honti saṅgāhikā lajjiniyo, tā kopetvā aññattha na gantabbaṃ. Gacchati ce, gāmantaranadīpārarattivippavāsagaṇamhā ohīyanāpattīhi na muccatī’’tiādi. Tattha ‘‘gaṇamhā ohīyanāpatti sakiṃyevāpajjati. Itarā gāme gāme pāre pāre aruṇe aruṇe cāti veditabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Tattha ‘‘vuttañheta’’ntiādīni asādhakāni yathāsambhavaṃ gahetabbattā. ‘‘Mahābodhiyaṅgaṇantiādi evaṃ gāmassa āsannaṭṭhānepi imaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjatīti dassanatthaṃ vutta’’nti likhitaṃ.

“In a wilderness without a village” means in a wilderness characterized as being without a village. By this, the field of the offense is shown. Because this is the field of the offense, therefore, whichever bhikkhunī crosses the threshold of the village from the bhikkhunī's monastery, she, in the absence of a village, incurs the offense of being left behind by the group. Even in the absence of the range of sight and hearing, she incurs the offense already at the very moment of crossing the threshold in the village. If there is one bhikkhunī there, she incurs the offense at the moment of crossing beyond the range of sight and hearing of that bhikkhunī. It should not be understood that this rule applies only at the time of traveling on a wilderness path. However, to show that one leaving the village incurs the offense from this point onwards, the phrase “a wilderness without a village” was stated. For it is said: “They are pleasing, supportive, and conscientious bhikkhunīs. Having angered them, one should not go elsewhere. If one does go, one is not freed from the offenses of going to another village, crossing a river, spending the night separately, and being left behind by the group,” and so on. Therein, it is said: “The offense of being left behind by the group is incurred only once. The others, it should be known, are incurred in every village, on every shore, and at every dawn.” Therein, the phrases “For it is said,” and so on, are not proofs, because they are to be taken as is appropriate. It is written: “The phrase ‘the courtyard of the Mahābodhi,’ and so on, was stated to show that one incurs this offense even in a place near a village.”

Tatiyasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the third Saṅghādisesa training rule is concluded.

4. Catutthasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Fourth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule

694. Paṭivattāti paṭivacanaṃ denti. Kammadosanti ‘‘anaññāya gaṇassa chandanti evamādī’’ti likhitaṃ. Kattabbaṭṭhānadosanti porāṇā. Kārakagaṇassāti kārakasaṅghassa. ‘‘Bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ sannipātetvā’ti vuttattā kārakasaṅghopi ayamevāti ce? Paṭhamameva kārakasaṅghaṃ na āmantetvā balakkārenāyaṃ thullanandā taṃ bhikkhuniṃ osāresī’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ, tasmā kārakabhikkhūnaṃ sammukhāpi tesaṃ anumatiṃ paṭhamaṃ aggahetvā taṃ kammaṃ na paṭippassambhetabbanti siddhaṃ hoti, paṭippassaddhaṃ balakkārena na kātabbamevāti adhippāyo. ‘‘Bhikkhunīpi diṭṭhāvikammaṃ kātuṃ labhatī’’ti ca tattha vuttaṃ.

694. They give a reply. Regarding `kammadosa`, it is written: 'without knowing the consent of the assembly, and so on'. The ancients say this means 'a fault in the place where it should be done'. `Kārakagaṇassa` means of the `kārakasaṅgha`. If one were to say, 'Because it is said, “having assembled the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha,” is this very assembly also the `kārakasaṅgha`?'—it is said in the ancient glossary: 'Without first inviting the `kārakasaṅgha`, this Thullanandā reinstated that bhikkhunī by force.' Therefore, it is established that even in the presence of the acting bhikkhus, that formal act should not be rescinded without first taking their consent. The intention is that the rescinding should not be done by force at all. And it is also said there: 'A bhikkhunī, too, is allowed to perform the formal act of making one's view known'.

698. Asante kammakārakasaṅghe osāreti, anāpattīti ettha kittāvatā asanto nāma hotīti? Idaṃ sabbattha na vicāritaṃ. Kārakānaṃ [Pg.361] kālakiriyāyāti eke. Ekassapi abhāvenāti eke. Ekasmiṃ rajjeti eke. Ekaraṭṭheti eke. Ekagāmeti eke. Ekasmiṃ āvāseti eke. Yattha sakkā apaloketunti eke. Antoaddhayojaneti eke. Tattha tasmiṃ āvāse asante kārakasaṅghe osāreti, anāpattīti idaṃ pasaṃsanti ācariyā. Yattha sakkā apaloketunti sāmīci.

698. Regarding 'When one reinstates in the absence of the formal act-performing Saṅgha, there is no offense'—to what extent is it called 'absent'? This matter has not been investigated in all the glossaries. Some say: due to the death of the acting monastics. Others say: due to the absence of even one. Some say: in one kingdom. Others say: in one country. Some say: in one village. Others say: in one residence. Others say: where it is possible to make an announcement. Others say: within half a yojana. Among these, the teachers praise this decision: if one reinstates in the absence of the formal act-performing Saṅgha in that residence, there is no offense. The statement 'where it is possible to make an announcement' is the proper practice.

Catutthasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Fourth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule is concluded.

5. Pañcamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Commentary on the Fifth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule

701. Etaṃ na vuttanti bhikkhuniyā avassutabhāvo daṭṭhabboti etaṃ niyamanaṃ na vuttaṃ. Taṃ avacanaṃ pāḷiyā sameti. Katarapāḷiyāti? ‘‘Anavassutoti jānantī paṭiggaṇhātī’’ti imāya. Yadi hi puggalassa avassutabhāvo na pamāṇaṃ, kiṃ imāya pāḷiyā payojanaṃ, ‘‘anāpatti ubho anavassutā honti, anavassutā paṭiggaṇhātī’’ti ettakameva vattabbaṃ siyā. Attano hi anavassutabhāvoyeva pamāṇanti. Imassa pana anāpattivārassa ayamattho – ubho ce anavassutā, sabbathāpi anāpatti. Atha bhikkhunī anavassutā samānā avassutampi ‘‘anavassuto’’ti saññāya tassa hatthato paṭiggaṇhāti, evampi anāpattīti. Atha sā anavassutāpi aññaṃ anavassutaṃ vā avassutaṃ vā ‘‘avassuto’’ti jānāti, dukkaṭameva. Vuttañhetaṃ anantarasikkhāpade ‘‘kissa tvaṃ ayye na paṭiggaṇhāsīti. Avassuto ayyeti…pe… nāhaṃ avassutā’’ti.

701. Herein, 'This was not stated' means that the stipulation, 'the bhikkhunī's uncorrupted state is to be seen,' was not stated. That non-statement accords with the Pāḷi. With which Pāḷi? With this: 'Knowing him to be uncorrupted, she receives.' For if the uncorrupted state of the person were not the standard, what would be the purpose of this Pāḷi? Only this much should have been said: 'There is no offense if both are uncorrupted; an uncorrupted one receives.' For one's own uncorrupted state is indeed the standard. However, this is the meaning of this non-offense clause: if both are uncorrupted, there is no offense in any way. Furthermore, if a bhikkhunī, being uncorrupted, receives from the hand of one who is corrupted, with the perception that 'he is uncorrupted,' even so there is no offense. But if she, though uncorrupted, knows another—whether uncorrupted or corrupted—to be 'corrupted,' it is only a dukkaṭa offense. And this was stated in the immediately preceding training rule: 'Why, venerable lady, do you not receive?' 'The venerable sir is corrupted.' ... 'I am not corrupted.'

Pañcamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Fifth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule is concluded.

6. Chaṭṭhasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Sixth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule

705. Tenāti tasmā. Yasmā uyyojikā na deti na paṭiggaṇhāti, tasmā paṭiggaho na vijjatīti attho. Itarissā paribhogapaccayā. ‘‘Akusalacitta’’nti bāhullena vuttaṃ. ‘‘Vaṭṭatīti saññāya vadantiyāpi āpattī’’ti vadanti.

705. Herein, `tena` means 'therefore.' Because the instigating bhikkhunī neither gives nor receives, therefore there is no 'receiving'; this is the meaning. For the other, the offense is conditioned by enjoyment. The phrase 'unwholesome mind' is stated by way of generalization. They say: 'There is an offense even for one who speaks with the perception that “it is allowable.”'

Chaṭṭhasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Sixth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule is concluded.

7. Sattamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Seventh Saṅghādisesa Training Rule

712-4. Kammavācato [Pg.362] pubbe āpannāpattiyo na paṭippassambhanti. Ñattiyā dukkaṭathullaccayā paṭippassambhanti saṅghādisese patteti porāṇā. Taṃ ‘‘ajjhāpajjantiyā’’ti pāḷiyā sameti. ‘‘Sutvā na vadantī’’ti ettha sace jīvitabrahmacariyantarāyabhayā na vadanti, anāpatti. ‘‘Adhammakamme adhammakammasaññā āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttattā ‘‘anāpatti asamanubhāsantiyā’’ti saṅghādisesaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

Offenses incurred before the Kammavācā do not subside. The ancients say that when a Saṅghādisesa has been incurred, the dukkaṭa and thullaccaya offenses subside by the ñatti. This accords with the Pāḷi text 'ajjhāpajjantiyā' (while incurring). Here, in 'having heard, they do not speak,' if they do not speak due to fear of danger to life or the holy life, there is no offense. Because it is said, 'In an unlawful act, with the perception of it as an unlawful act, there is an offense of dukkaṭa,' the statement 'there is no offense for one who does not admonish' is said with reference to the Saṅghādisesa.

Sattamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Seventh Saṅghādisesa Training Rule is concluded.

8. Aṭṭhamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Eighth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule

715. Paccākatāti parājitā. Kuladūsakasikkhāpadassa, imassa ca nidānamattameva nānākaraṇaṃ. Vuttañhi tattha ‘‘tassa vacanassa paṭinissaggāya eva vacanīyo, na kuladūsananivāraṇatthāyā’’ti. Evaṃ sante ubhopetā āpattiyo aññamaññaṃ sabhāgatthā, tasmā idaṃ tassa anupaññattisadisaṃ āpajjati, tato idaṃ niratthakameva āpajjatīti? Na evaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vatthuvisesato, kammavācāvisesato ca ubhinnaṃ nānākaraṇaṃ.

715. Here, 'rejected' means they have committed a pārājika offense. The difference between the training rule on corrupting families and this one is only a matter of the origin story. For it is said there: 'He should be spoken to only for the retraction of that statement, not for the purpose of preventing the corrupting of families.' This being so, are both these offenses similar in nature to each other, and therefore this one becomes like an amendment to that one, and thus becomes entirely pointless? It should not be seen thus. The difference between the two lies in the specific object and the specific formal act.

Aṭṭhamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Eighth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule is concluded.

9. Navamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Ninth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule

723. ‘‘Kāyikavācasikena saṃsaggenā’’ti pāṭhaseso.

723. The remainder of the text should be understood as: 'through bodily and verbal association.'

Navamasaṅghādisesasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Ninth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule is concluded.

Saṅghādisesakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Saṅghādisesa Section is concluded.

3. Nissaggiyakaṇḍavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Nissaggiya Section

1. Paṭhamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the First Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

733. Paṭhamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadaṃ [Pg.363] uttānameva.

733. The First Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is self-explanatory.

2. Dutiyanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Second Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

740. Vatthusampattattā vā na tassā anāpannakāmatāya vā anāṇattikatāya vā akālacīvaramadaṃsu. Yathādāne eva upanetabbaṃ, na bhājetabbaṃ puggalikattāti adhippāyo. Atthato hi itarampi yathādāne eva upanetabbameva. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘ayyāya dammīti evaṃ paṭiladdhanti nissaṭṭhapaṭiladdhaṃ. Yathādāneti dāyakehi pariccattavidhānena. Upanetabbanti akālacīvarabhāvena bhājetabbanti adhippāyo. Idha bhājāpitāya laddhacīvarameva nissaggiyaṃ hoti, taṃ vinayakammaṃ katvāpi attanā na labhatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Yadi nissaṭṭhapaṭiladdhaṃ sandhāya idaṃ vuttaṃ siyā, ‘‘nissajjitabbaṃ saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā puggalassa vā dadeyya, dadeyyuṃ, ayyāya dammī’’ti vuttattā tīṇipetāni padāni vattabbāni siyuṃ, tasmā na kevalaṃ nissaṭṭhapaṭiladdhameva yathādāne upanetabbaṃ, aññāhi bhikkhunīhi laddhakoṭṭhāsampi yathādāneyeva upanetabbaṃ.

740. Either because the object was complete, or because of the desire for her not to incur an offense, or because it was not by command, they gave an out-of-season robe. The meaning is that it should be brought just as it was given; it should not be divided, because it is a personal gift. Indeed, in essence, even another robe should be brought just as it was given. But in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is written: 'Regarding "having been obtained thus, 'I give to the venerable lady'": this is a robe obtained through forfeiture. "As it was given" means in the manner given up by the donors. "It should be brought" means it should be divided as an out-of-season robe.' This is the meaning. Here, only a robe obtained through having it divided becomes subject to forfeiture; having performed the Vinaya act for it, one does not obtain it oneself. If this were said in reference to a robe obtained by forfeiture, because it is said, "It should be forfeited; one should give it to the Sangha, or to a group, or to an individual; they should give; 'I give to the venerable lady'," these three phrases would have to be stated. Therefore, not only a robe obtained by forfeiture should be brought as it was given, but also a share obtained by other bhikkhunīs should be brought just as it was given.

741. ‘‘Akālacīvare kālacīvarasaññāya anāpattī’’ti pana bhājanapaccayā āpajjitabbāpattiṃ nāpajjatīti ettakameva dīpeti, na paṭiladdhaṃ, na yathādāne dātabbanti imamatthaṃ dīpeti. Lesena pana gaṇhāti ce, bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbā.

741. The statement, 'There is no offense regarding an out-of-season robe if one perceives it as in-season,' however, indicates only this much: that one does not incur an offense that should be incurred due to the condition of division. It does not indicate about what was obtained, nor does it indicate this meaning: that it should be given as it was originally given. But if one takes it by a hint, she should be made to pay the value of the goods.

Dutiyanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Second Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

3. Tatiyanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Third Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

744. Sakasaññāya gahitattā pācittiyaṃ, dukkaṭañca vuttaṃ. Itarathā bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbaṃ.

744. Because it is taken with the perception of it being one's own, a Pācittiya offense and a Dukkaṭa offense are stated. Otherwise, it should be made good at the value of the goods.

Tatiyanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Third Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

4. Catutthanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Fourth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

752. Lesena [Pg.364] gahetukāmatā, aññassa viññussa viññāpanaṃ, paṭilābhoti tīṇi aṅgāni, tasmā paṭhamaṃ viññattaṃ alabhitvā aññaṃ tato ūnatarampi labheyya, nissaggiyameva aṅgasampattito. Esa nayo aññatthāpi.

752. The desire to take by a hint, making it known to another wise person, and acquisition: these are the three factors. Therefore, if without obtaining what was first requested, one obtains another thing, even one of lesser value than that, it is indeed subject to forfeiture due to the completion of the factors. This is the principle in other cases as well.

Catutthanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Fourth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

5. Pañcamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Fifth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

753. ‘‘Telaṃ gopetvā sappimpi me attano kulagharā’’ti kira pāṭho.

753. It is said that the reading is: 'Having stored oil, ghee also is from my own family home.'

Pañcamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Fifth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

6. Chaṭṭhanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Sixth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

758-762. Pāvārikassāti dussavāṇijakassa. Yāya cetāpitaṃ, tassā nissaggiyaṃ, nissaṭṭhapaṭilābho ca. ‘‘Itarāsaṃ pana jānitvā vassaggena pattakoṭṭhāsaṃ sādiyantīnampi na nissaggiyaṃ, kevalaṃ yathādāne eva tāhipi upanetabba’’nti vadanti. ‘‘Nissaṭṭhaṃ paṭilabhitvāpi yathādāne upanetabba’nti vuttattā sesāhi gahitaṃ suggahita’’nti vadanti. Ettha gilānāyapi na mokkho.

`Pāvārikassa` means 'of the cloth merchant'. For whichever bhikkhunī it was caused to be bought, for her it is to be forfeited, and there is recovery of the forfeited article. They say: 'However, for the other bhikkhunīs who, knowing, consent to the share that has arrived by seniority in the rains-residence, it is not to be forfeited; merely, it should be brought by them just as it was given.' They also say: 'Because it is said, "Even having recovered the forfeited item, it should be brought just as it was given," the item taken by the remaining bhikkhunīs is well-taken.' Here, there is no exemption even for a sick bhikkhunī.

Chaṭṭhanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Sixth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

7. Sattamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Seventh Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

764. Sattame ‘‘sayaṃ yācitakenā’’ti kiñcāpi avisesena vuttaṃ. Tathāpi aññadatthikena attuddesikena saññācikenāti attho veditabbo. Ayamattho ‘‘bhikkhuniyo tena ca parikkhārena sayampi yācitvā [Pg.365] bhesajjaṃ cetāpetvā paribhuñjiṃsū’’ti imissā pāḷiyā atthena saṃsanditvā veditabbo. Tassāyamattho – tena parikkhārena bhesajjaṃ cetāpetvā ca-saddena saññācikena ca bhesajjaṃ cetāpetvāti imamatthaṃ dīpento ‘‘sayampi yācitvā bhesajjaṃ cetāpetvā’’ti āha. Aññathā ‘‘tena parikkhārena bhesajjaṃ cetāpetvā sayampi yācitvā paribhuñjiṃsū’’ti iminā anukkamena pāḷi vattabbā siyā.

764. In the seventh, although the term `sayaṃyācitakena` ('by what is requested by oneself') is stated generally, it should nevertheless be understood to mean 'by what is requested for another's purpose, for one's own sake, with enticement.' This meaning is to be understood by connecting it with the meaning of this Pali passage: 'The bhikkhunīs, with that requisite and also having requested for themselves, caused medicine to be bought and used it.' The meaning of that passage is this: to explain the meaning 'having caused medicine to be bought with that requisite, and (by the word `ca`) also with what was requested with enticement,' he said, 'having also requested for themselves and caused medicine to be bought.' Otherwise, the Pali text would have to be stated in this sequence: 'having caused medicine to be bought with that requisite, and having requested for themselves, they used it.'

Padabhājane pana ‘‘saṃyācikenāti sayaṃ yācitvā’’ti tasseva padassa adhippāyamattaṃ vuttaṃ. Sā hi padabhājanadhammatā. ‘‘Saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ pariṇata’’ntiādipadānaṃ bhājane pana sā pākaṭā. Aññathā saṃyācikapadena ko añño atirekattho saṅgahito siyā, so na dissatīti tadeva padaṃ nippayojanaṃ, idañca sikkhāpadaṃ purimena ninnānākaraṇaṃ siyā. Attano hi santakaṃ yathākāmaṃ karaṇīyanti. Ettha ca saṅghassa yācanāya vasena ekato hutvā yācanāya laddhaṃ saṃyācikanti veditabbaṃ. Aññathā ito parena saṃyācika-saddena idaṃ nibbisesaṃ āpajjatīti ‘‘puggalikena saṃyācikenā’’ti idañca sikkhāpadaṃ visuṃ na vattabbaṃ siyā idheva tena āpajjitabbāpattiyā saṅgahitattā, na ca saṅgahitā āpattidvayabhāvato. Missetvā cetāpitattā hi ekameva āpattīti ce? Na, saṃyācikapadassa nippayojanabhāvappasaṅgato, evaṃ saṅghikamahājanikapuggalikāni missitvā cetāpane ekāpattibhāvappasaṅgato ca.

In the word analysis, however, ‘saṃyācikena’ means ‘having requested oneself’—only the intended meaning of that very word is stated. Indeed, such is the nature of word analysis. In the analysis of terms beginning with ‘saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ pariṇataṃ,’ however, this is evident. Otherwise, what other additional meaning would be included by the term ‘saṃyācika’? That is not seen. Therefore, that very word would be useless, and this training rule would have no difference from the previous one. For one’s own property may be dealt with as one wishes. And here, what is obtained by requesting, having come together by means of a request of the Saṅgha, should be known as ‘saṃyācika.’ Otherwise, this would become indistinct from the subsequent word ‘saṃyācika.’ Therefore, this training rule, ‘puggalikena saṃyācikena,’ should not be stated separately, because the offense that should be incurred by that other rule would be included right here. But it is not included, because there are two offenses. If one were to say: 'Because it was caused to be purchased after mixing, there is indeed only one offense'? No, because of the consequence that the word ‘saṃyācika’ would be useless, and because of the consequence that there would be only one offense when causing Saṅghika, Mahājanika, and Puggalika items to be purchased after mixing them.

Sattamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Seventh Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

8. Aṭṭhamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Eighth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

769. Gaṇassāti ābhidhammikādigaṇassa, ūnacatuvaggassa ca.

769. Regarding 'gaṇassa' (of a group): this refers to a group such as the Abhidhammika group, and to a group of less than four.

Aṭṭhamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Eighth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

9. Navamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Ninth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

774. Saññācikenāti gaṇayācanāya laddheneva, na aññena.

774. 'Saññācikena' means: only with what is obtained by a group request, not with anything else.

Navamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Ninth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

10. Dasamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Tenth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

779. Dasame [Pg.366] pana ‘‘yā pana bhikkhunī aññadatthikena parikkhārena aññuddisikena puggalikena aññaṃ cetāpeyya, nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya’’nti evaṃvidhena bhavitabbaṃ, ‘‘puggalikena saṃyācikenā’’ti iminā ekādasamena bhavitabbaṃ siyā yathākkamena sambhavato. Kāmameva cetaṃ aṭṭhuppattiyā abhāvato na vuttaṃ, atthato pana gahetabbameva. Ettha pana saṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ pavāritaṭṭhāne, puggalasseva ñātakaṭṭhāne ca anāpattichāyā dissati, idaṃ sabbaṃ amhākaṃ takkānusāravaseneva vuttanti katvā na sārato daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vicāretvā yathā niccalakāraṇaṃ disvā yaṃ vā vinayakkamakovidā anujānanti, taṃ tadeva gahetabbaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘āpadāsupi aññaṃ garubhaṇḍameva cetāpetabbaṃ, itaraṃ na vaṭṭati, bhikkhussa pana vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

779. In the tenth, however, the Pāḷi should be of this kind: 'Whatever bhikkhunī should have another requisite obtained with a requisite intended for another purpose, designated for another, or belonging to an individual, it is an offense of expiation with forfeiture.' With the words 'with a personally requested [requisite],' this should be the eleventh, as it should occur in due order. Indeed, this training rule was not stated due to the absence of an origin story, but it should certainly be taken in terms of its meaning. Here, however, a shadow of non-offense is seen in a place where one has been invited by the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual, and in the case of an individual's relatives. All this has been stated only according to our line of reasoning, and thus should not be regarded as essential. Having investigated and seen the firm reason, whatever the experts skilled in the Vinaya procedure permit, that very thing should be accepted. But in the ancient glosses, it is said: 'Even in times of danger, only another heavy article should be caused to be purchased; another [type of article] is not allowable. For a bhikkhu, however, it is allowable.'

Dasamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Tenth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

11. Ekādasamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Explanation of the Eleventh Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule

784. ‘‘Dutiyavaggassa paṭhame’’ti avatvā ‘‘ekādasame’’ti idha vuttaṃ. Kasmā? Bhikkhunivibhaṅge tiṃsakakaṇḍaṃ patvā vaggakkamassa avuttattā. Yasmā pavāritaṭṭhāne viññatti nāma na paṭisedhetabbā, tasmā bhagavā aññātikaappavāritaṭṭhāne dhammanimantanavasena vadeyya ‘‘yenattho’’ti vuttāya ‘‘catukkaṃsaparamaṃ viññāpetabba’’nti paricchedaṃ dassetīti veditabbaṃ. Aññathā ‘‘nidānena sikkhāpadaṃ na sameti, sikkhāpadena ca anāpattivāro’’ti ca ‘‘akataviññattiyā catukkaṃsaparamaṃ viññāpetabba’’nti ca aniṭṭhaṃ āpajjati, tasmā mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ cetāpetabbanti ṭhapetvā sahadhammike ca ñātakapavārite ca aññena kismiñcideva guṇena, parituṭṭhena ca vadeyya ‘‘yenattho’’ti vuttassa ‘‘viññāpetabba’’nti vuttanayena attho daṭṭhabbo. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘idaṃ paricchinnapavāraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Anāpatti ñātakānaṃ pavāritānanti pana sabbappakārena pavattaṃ niccapavāraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Niccapavāraṇā nāma yadā yenattho, tadā taṃ vadeyyāthāti evaṃ pavattā[Pg.367]. ‘Handa sītapāvuraṇa’nti dentānaṃ pana atirekacatukkaṃsampi gahetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Ayameva nayo dasamepīti.

784. Instead of saying 'in the first of the second chapter,' it is stated here 'in the eleventh.' Why? Because in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, having reached the section of thirty, the sequence of chapters is not stated. Because a request should not be forbidden at a place of invitation, therefore, it should be understood that the Blessed One, at a place of non-relatives where one is not invited, indicates the limit by way of a doctrinal invitation, saying, 'a maximum of four kaṃsas should be requested' for what is needed. Otherwise, it would lead to the undesirable meaning that 'the training rule does not accord with the origin story, and the chapter on non-offenses does not accord with the training rule,' and that 'for an unmade request, a maximum of four kaṃsas should be requested.' Therefore, in the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā, regarding 'one may cause to be obtained,' setting aside fellow monastics and invited relatives, if another person, due to some virtue or being pleased, should say, 'whatever is needed,' the meaning for what was said should be understood according to the method stated as 'it should be requested.' In the ancient glosses, however, it is said: 'This is stated in reference to a limited invitation. But the passage "There is no offense for invited relatives" is stated in reference to a perpetual invitation that occurs in all ways. A perpetual invitation is one that proceeds thus: "Whenever there is a need for something, you may state it." For those who give, saying, "Here, take a winter cloak!", it is permissible to accept even more than four kaṃsas.' It should be understood that this same method is found in the tenth rule as well.

Ekādasamanissaggiyapācittiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Eleventh Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule is concluded.

Bhikkhunīvibhaṅge tiṃsakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

In the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, the explanation of the section of thirty is concluded.

Nissaggiyakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Nissaggiya section is concluded.

4. Pācittiyakaṇḍavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Pācittiya Section

1. Lasuṇavaggo

1. The Garlic Chapter

1. Paṭhamalasuṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the First Garlic Training Rule

793-7. Ahaṃ [Pg.368] lasuṇenāti ettha ‘‘pavāremī’’ti pāṭhaseso. Badarasāḷavaṃ kira badaraphalāni sukkhāpetvā cuṇṇetvā kattabbā khādanīyavikati.

793-7. Here, in 'I with garlic,' the remainder of the text, 'I invite,' should be supplied. Badarasāḷava, it is said, is a type of edible food to be made by drying jujube fruits and powdering them.

Paṭhamalasuṇasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the First Garlic Training Rule is concluded.

2. Dutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Second Training Rule

800. Saṃharāpeyyāti ‘‘saṃharati vā saṃharāpeti vā’’ti padabhājanaṃ veditabbaṃ. Kiñcāpi ettha āpattibhedo na dassito, tathāpi khurasaṇḍāsakattariādipariyesanaghaṃsanādīsu pubbapayogesu dukkaṭaṃ yujjati, yathā cettha, evaṃ talaghātakādimhi ca āpattibhedo pāḷiyaṃ na vutto. Yathāsambhavaṃ pana pubbapayogesu dukkaṭaṃ sambhavati. Evaṃ bhikkhussa ettha ca lasuṇe ca dukkaṭaṃ. Idaṃ kiriyākiriyanti porāṇā. Tattha ‘‘kiriyākiriya’’nti na vuttaṃ.

800. 'Saṃharāpeyya' (Should cause to be removed): the analysis of the phrase should be understood as 'saṃharati vā saṃharāpeti vā' (one removes or causes to be removed). Although a distinction of offenses is not shown here, nevertheless, in the preliminary acts of searching for, sharpening, etc., a razor, tweezers, scissors, and so on, a dukkaṭa offense is fitting. Just as in this training rule, so too in the case of striking with the palm, etc., a distinction of offenses is not stated in the Pāḷi. However, as is possible, a dukkaṭa offense can arise in the preliminary acts. Similarly, for a bhikkhu, both in this training rule and in the one concerning garlic, a dukkaṭa is fitting. The ancients say, 'This is an action-and-non-action [offense].' In that [training rule on garlic], 'action-and-non-action' is not stated.

Dutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Second Training Rule is concluded.

802-6. Tatiyacatutthasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

The Third and Fourth Training Rules are of obvious meaning.

5. Pañcamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Explanation of the Fifth Training Rule

812. Pañcame udakasuddhipaccaye satipi phassasādiyane yathāvuttaparicchede anāpatti. Tattha dvinnaṃ pabbānanti ‘‘dvinnaṃ aṅgulānaṃ sahapavesane ekekaaṅgulassa ekekaṃ pabbaṃ katvā dve pabbā, ekaṅgulappavesane dvinnaṃ pabbānaṃ [Pg.369] upari na vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Mahāpaccariyampi ayameva nayo dassito’’ti likhitaṃ.

812. In the fifth training rule, even if there is enjoyment of the contact for the purpose of purification with water, there is no offense within the aforementioned limit. Therein, regarding "of two joints," it should be understood thus: "When two fingers are inserted together, by taking one joint from each finger, there are two joints. When one finger is inserted, it is not allowable beyond two joints." In the Mahāpaccarī also, this very method is shown. Thus it is written.

Pañcamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Fifth Training Rule is concluded.

815. Chaṭṭhasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

815. The Sixth Training Rule is of obvious meaning.

7. Sattamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. The Explanation of the Seventh Training Rule

820-822. ‘‘Nagaraṃ atiharantī’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Nagaradvāre atiharantī’’ti katthaci, tattha dvārenāti attho. Ayameva vā pāṭho. Taṃ pubbāparaviruddhanti ‘‘punapi vutta’’nti vuttaṃ vādaṃ sandhāya, na tato pubbe tattha vuttaṃ vādaṃ. Ettha ‘‘mātarampi viññāpetvāti vacanena virujjhatī’’ti likhitaṃ, taṃ dullikhitaṃ, na hi tena virodhaṃ sandhāya idaṃ vuttanti. Karaṇe ce pācittiyaṃ, kārāpanepi pācittiyeneva bhavitabbaṃ. Atha kārāpane dukkaṭaṃ, karaṇepi dukkaṭeneva bhavitabbaṃ. Na hi karaṇe vā kārāpane vā viseso atthi āpajjane satīti adhippāyo.

The reading is 'nagaraṃ atiharantī'. In some places, it is 'nagaradvāre atiharantī'; there, the meaning is 'by the gate'. Or this itself is the reading. The statement, "That is contradictory to what precedes and follows," was said with reference to the view stated as "it is said again," not with reference to the view stated there before that. Herein, it is written, "It contradicts the statement 'mātarampi viññāpetvā'", but that is poorly written, for indeed this was not said with reference to that contradiction. If there is a pācittiya offense in doing it, there should be only a pācittiya offense in causing it to be done. Now, if there is a dukkaṭa offense in causing it to be done, there should be only a dukkaṭa offense in doing it. For there is no difference in incurring the offense, whether in doing it or in causing it to be done—this is the intention.

823. Sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatīti appaṭikkhipitvā ‘‘sādhū’’ti vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. Na hi paṭiggahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Anāmāsattā ‘‘āmakadhaññaṃ pana ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānepi na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘kappiyena laddhaṃ dhaññaṃ bhajjitvā bhuñjantiyā dukkaṭaṃ. Aparaṇṇepi eseva nayo’’ti ca ‘‘anāpatti ābādhapaccayāti vacanato satta dhaññānipi anāmāsānīti siddhaṃ, teneva heṭṭhā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dukkaṭavatthumhi satta dhaññānipi gahitāni anāmāsānī’’ti ca vuttāni. Āmāsāni kappiyavatthūni ca yadi bhaveyyuṃ, yathā ñātakapavārite sandhāya ‘‘aparaṇṇaṃ viññāpetī’’ti avisesena vuttaṃ, evaṃ ‘‘anāpatti ñātakānaṃ pavāritānaṃ aññassa atthāya viññāpeti, ummattikāya ādikammikāyā’’ti vattabbaṃ. Yasmā dukkaṭavatthuttā ca anāmāsattā ca mātarampi sattavidhaṃ dhaññaṃ viññāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati, tasmā tadatthadīpanatthaṃ sattavidhaṃ dhaññaṃ sandhāya ‘‘anāpatti ābādhapaccayā’’ti vuttaṃ, yathā bhikkhuniyā ābādhapaccayā vaṭṭati, tathā bhikkhussāpīti [Pg.370] ca. Yathā vā pana bhikkhuniyā bhajjanādīni kārāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati, evaṃ bhikkhussāpi. Vuttampi cetaṃ andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘aññataro bālabhikkhu kappiyaṃ ajānanto etadavoca ‘āmakadhaññaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ bhikkhūnaṃ na vaṭṭati. Etaṃ dhaññaṃ bhajjitvā koṭṭetvā pacitvā yāgukhajjakaṃ bhattañca dethā’ti, āṇāpakasseva bhikkhussa āpatti, sabbesaṃ anāpattī’’ti. Tasmā ‘‘saṅghavārikānaṃ dhaññaṃ koṭṭethā’’ti ārāmikānaṃ vattuñca na vaṭṭati. ‘‘Divasaṃ paribbayaṃ gaṇhatha, taṇḍule sampādetha, tvaṃ ettake gaṇha, tvaṃ ettake’’ti evamādīni pana vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti ca. Yaṃ pana ‘‘aviññattiyā labbhamānaṃ pana navakammatthāya sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ, tampi heṭṭhā ‘‘imaṃ taḷākaṃ khettaṃ vatthuṃ vihārassa demā’ti vutte ‘sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ nayaṃ sandhāya vuttattā suvuttameva. ‘‘Navakammatthāya dhaññaṃ demā’’ti vutte ‘‘sādhū’’ti vattabbaṃ. Yaṃ pana heṭṭhā ‘‘tattha nissaggiyavatthuṃ attano vā saṅghagaṇapuggalacetiyānaṃ vā atthāya sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati…pe… dukkaṭavatthuṃ sabbesampi atthāya sampaṭicchato dukkaṭamevā’’ti vuttaṃ, tampi suvuttameva. Kasmā? ‘‘Cetiyassa atthāya dhaññaṃ dātukāmomhi, tumhe bhante tadatthāya sampaṭicchathā’’ti vutte paṭiggahetuṃ akappiyattā. ‘‘Idaṃ pana tādisaṃ na hotī’’ti ca vuttaṃ. Sabbopāyaṃ upatissattheravādo kira. Dhammasiritthero panevamāha ‘‘pubbepi navakammatthāya paṭiggaho na vārito, saṅghassatthāya paṭiggahitampi paṭiggāhakasseva akappiya’’nti.

823. Herein, 'it is permissible to accept' means it is permissible to say 'good' without rejecting. For it is not proper to receive it for oneself. Because it is an untouchable object, it is said: 'Raw grain, however, is not proper even in a place of invitation from relatives.' But in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it should be known that: 'For a bhikkhunī who roasts and eats grain obtained by a permissible means, there is a dukkaṭa offense. In the case of pulses also, this is the method.' And it is said: 'Because of the statement, "There is no offense on account of illness," it is established that the seven kinds of grain are also untouchable; for that very reason, in the commentary below, in the section on dukkaṭa objects, the seven kinds of grain are also taken as untouchable.' If they were touchable and permissible objects, then just as it is said without distinction, with reference to an invitation from relatives, 'one may request pulses,' so too it should be said: 'There is no offense if one requests on behalf of another from relatives who have made an invitation, nor for a madwoman or a first offender.' Because it is a dukkaṭa object and because it is untouchable, it is not proper to request the seven kinds of grain even from one's mother. Therefore, in order to explain that meaning, with reference to the seven kinds of grain, it was said: 'There is no offense on account of illness.' And just as it is proper for a bhikkhunī on account of illness, so too for a bhikkhu. Or however, just as it is not proper for a bhikkhunī to have roasting, etc., done, so too for a bhikkhu. And this was also said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: 'A certain foolish bhikkhu, not knowing what is permissible, said this: "It is not proper for bhikkhus to receive raw grain. Having roasted, pounded, and cooked this grain, give gruel, snacks, and rice." There is an offense for the bhikkhu who is the commander; for all the others, there is no offense.' Therefore, it is not proper to say to the monastery attendants, 'Pound the grain for the bhikkhus on duty from the Saṅgha.' But it is proper to say such things as: 'Take the provisions for the day; prepare the rice grains; you take this much, you take that much.' And this should be known. As for the statement, 'But it is proper to accept that which is being obtained without a request for the purpose of new construction,' that too is indeed well-said, because it was said with reference to the method stated below: 'When it is said, "We give this pond, field, or land to the monastery," it is proper to accept.' When it is said, 'We give grain for the purpose of new construction,' it should be said, 'Good.' As for what was stated below: 'Therein, it is not proper to accept an object to be forfeited for the benefit of oneself, the Saṅgha, a group, an individual, or a cetiya... for one who accepts a dukkaṭa object for the benefit of all, there is only a dukkaṭa offense,' that too is indeed well-said. Why? Because of it being improper to receive by hand when it is said: 'Venerable sirs, I wish to give grain for the benefit of the cetiya; please accept it for that purpose.' And it was said: 'This case, however, is not of such a nature.' This entire decision, it is said, is the view of the Elder Upatissa. But the Elder Dhammasiri says thus: 'Previously also, receiving for the purpose of new construction was not forbidden. That which is received for the benefit of the Saṅgha is improper only for the receiver himself.'

Sattamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Seventh Training Rule is concluded.

8. Aṭṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. The Explanation of the Eighth Training Rule

824. Porāṇā ‘‘nibbiṭṭharājabhaṭo’’ti paṭhanti. Tassattho vāritabhattavetano rājabhaṭoti. ‘‘Taññeva bhaṭapathanti taṃyeva bhattavetana’’nti atthaṃ vadanti. Ummukanti alātaṃ.

824. The ancients recite, 'nibbiṭṭharājabhaṭo.' Its meaning is: a royal soldier whose food-stipend is forbidden. They state the meaning as, 'that very food-stipend.' 'Ummuka' means a firebrand.

826. Ettha chaḍḍitaṃ kiriyā. Anolokanaṃ akiriyā.

826. Here, discarding is an action. Not looking is an inaction.

Aṭṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Eighth Training Rule is concluded.

9. Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. The Explanation of the Ninth Training Rule

832. ‘‘Sāmike [Pg.371] apaloketvā chaḍḍetī’’ti 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 kātabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

832. The reading, 'Having informed the owner, one discards it,' is not found in some books but is found in others; its presence is indeed better because the training rule is one of action and inaction. Here, field-keepers and guardians of monasteries and so forth are indeed the owners. It is said: 'If there is no agreement that "rubbish should not be discarded in the Saṅgha's field and in its monastery," it is allowable for a bhikkhu to discard it, because he is included in the Saṅgha, but not for bhikkhunīs. For them too, it is allowable on property belonging to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, in the way that has been stated, but not for a bhikkhu there. Even so, it should be done only in a suitable manner.' Thus it was said.

Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the ninth training rule is finished.

10. Dasamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. The Explanation of the Tenth Training Rule

833. Sādhukīḷitagītaṃ vāti ettha pāciṇṇagītampi sotuṃ na vaṭṭati. ‘‘Gītupasañhitaṃ pana dhammaṃ sotuṃ vaṭṭatīti dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘dhammagītampi na vaṭṭatī’’ti vatvā ‘‘buddhassa gāyāma vādemāti vutte sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati, dukkaṭaṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘pūjaṃ karoma, jātakaṃ vā vatthuṃ vā desemāti vutte ‘sādhū’ti sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti ca vuttaṃ.

833. Here, regarding the phrase 'or a well-played song,' it is not allowable to listen even to a noble, well-practiced song about the virtues of the Buddha. It is said: 'However, it is stated in the Dīghanikāya-aṭṭhakathā that it is allowable to listen to the Dhamma connected with song.' But in the ancient Gaṇṭhipada, having said, 'Even a Dhamma song is not allowable,' it is stated: 'When it is said, "Let us sing or play music for the Buddha," it is not allowable to accept; it is a dukkaṭa offense.' And it is also stated: 'When it is said, "Let us make an offering," or "Let us teach a Jātaka or a story," it is allowable to accept by saying, "Sādhu".'

836. Ekapayogo nāma ekadivasāvalokanaṃ. Tesaṃyevāti yesaṃ naccaṃ passati. ‘‘Bhikkhunī sayampi naccituṃ vā gāyituṃ vā vādituṃ vā na labhatī’’tiādi idha sikkhāpade natthi. Kasmā? Eḷakalomasamuṭṭhānattā. Yadi evaṃ kasmā vuttanti ce? Suttānulomamahāpadesato. Yadi naccādīni passituṃ vā sotuṃ vā na labhati, pageva attanā kātunti nayato labbhamānattā vuttaṃ. Itarathā mahāpadesā niratthakā siyuṃ. Evamaññatthāpi nayo netabbo. ‘‘Samuṭṭhānampi idha vuttameva aggahetvā chasamuṭṭhānavasena gahetabba’’nti likhitaṃ. Taṃ ‘‘aññe nacca, gāya, vādehī’’ti vattuṃ na labbhatītiādivacīkammaṃ sandhāya likhitañce, taṃ sulikhitaṃ eḷakalomasamuṭṭhāne vācāya abhāvato. ‘‘Sayampi naccitu’’ntiādikāyakammañce sandhāya likhitaṃ, dullikhitaṃ. Eḷakalomasamuṭṭhānañhi ekantato kāyakammaṃ [Pg.372] hoti, tasmā uddhaṭaṃ aggahetvā ādisaddena saṅgahitameva idha gahetabbanti. Etaṃ eḷakalomasamuṭṭhānattāti ettha kāraṇavacane suttānulomamahāpadesatoti ettha pana uddhaṭaṃ gahetabbaṃ, evaṃ yathālābhavasena taṃ likhitanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Āhaccabhāsitasikkhāpadavasena eḷakalomasamuṭṭhāna’’nti vuttanti upatissatthero. ‘‘Eḷakalomasamuṭṭhānañce idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ, āṇāpako mucceyya, na ca muccatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Taṃ ‘‘kasmā’’ti vutte ‘‘sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu vutta’’nti aṭṭhakathācariyo āhāti dhammasiritthero.

836. What is 'single application' (ekapayoga)? It is observing for a single day. 'Of those very ones' (Tesaṃyeva) refers to those whose dancing one sees. The statement, 'A bhikkhunī herself is not allowed to dance, or sing, or play an instrument,' and so on, is not found in this training rule. Why? Because of its origin from goat's wool. If so, why was it said, you might ask? Due to the Great Reference concerning conformity with the Suttas. It was said based on the reasoning that if one is not allowed to watch or listen to dancing and so on, how much less so to do it oneself. Otherwise, the Great References would be meaningless. This method should be applied elsewhere as well. It is written: 'Regarding the origin also, not taking just what is stated here, it should be taken according to the six origins.' If that was written with reference to verbal action such as, 'It is not allowed to say to others, "Dance, sing, play an instrument!"', then it is well-written, because in the origin from goat's wool there is no speech. If it was written with reference to bodily action such as 'to dance oneself', it is poorly written. For the origin from goat's wool is exclusively bodily action. Therefore, not taking what is explicitly stated, only what is included by the word 'etc.' should be taken here. This is in the causal statement 'because of its origin from goat's wool'; but here, in 'due to the Great Reference concerning conformity with the Suttas', what is explicitly stated should be taken. Thus, it should be understood that this was written according to what was available. The Elder Upatissa says: 'It was said, "The origin is from goat's wool by way of a training rule spoken on a specific occasion."' It is said: 'If this training rule has its origin from goat's wool, the one who commands would be released, but he is not released.' The Elder Dhammasiri said: 'When asked, "Why was that said?", the commentary teacher replied, "Because it is said in all the commentaries."

837. Ārāme ṭhatvāti na kevalaṃ ṭhatvā, tato gantvā pana sabbiriyāpathehipi labhati. ‘‘Ārāme ṭhitāti pana ārāmapariyāpannāti attho, itarathā nisinnāpi na labheyyā’’ti likhitaṃ, taṃ sulikhitameva.

837. As for 'standing in the monastery', it is not only by standing; but having gone from there, one is allowed in all postures. It is written: 'But "standing in the monastery" means "included within the monastery"; otherwise, one would not be allowed even while sitting.' And that is indeed well-written.

Dasamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the tenth training rule is finished.

Lasuṇavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Garlic Chapter is finished.

2. Andhakāravaggavaṇṇanā

2. The Explanation of the Chapter on Darkness

1. Paṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. The Explanation of the First Training Rule

839. ‘‘Divāpi andhakāraṃ atthi, tappaṭisedhanatthaṃ ‘rattandhakāre’ti vutta’’nti vadanti porāṇā. Santiṭṭheyyāti ettha ṭhānāpadesena catubbidhopi iriyāpatho saṅgahito, tasmā purisassa hatthapāse tena saddhiṃ caṅkamanādiṃ karontiyā pācittiyameva. ‘‘Sallapeyya vā’’ti kevalaṃ nidānavasena vuttaṃ visesābhāvato. ‘‘Sallapeyyavāti purisassa hatthapāse ṭhitā sallapati, āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti hi vuttaṃ, taṃ na yuttanti eke. Kasmā? Yasmā tassa purisassa hatthapāse ṭhiteneva ekaṃ pācittiyaṃ. Sallapanenapi aparampi ekaṃ āpajjatīti nāpajjati, kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Aṅgavasena. Imassa hi rattandhakāratā, purisassa hatthapāse ṭhānaṃ vā sallapanaṃ vā, sahāyābhāvo, rahopekkhatāti imāni cattāri aṅgāni vuttāni. Tattha yadi ṭhānapaccayā ekā āpatti visuṃ siyā, tassā [Pg.373] cattāri aṅgāni siyuṃ. Yadi sallapanapaccayā ekā, tassāpi pañca aṅgāni siyuṃ. Tasmā mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘cattāri vā pañca vā aṅgānī’’ti vattabbaṃ siyā, na ca vuttaṃ, tasmā sallapanapaccayā visuṃ natthīti. Atthiyeva, mātikāṭṭhakathāvacanañca tadatthamevāti eke. Kathaṃ? Sahuppattito dvinnaṃ āpattīnaṃ. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Sallapane sati ṭhānapaccayā āpajjitabbaṃ caturaṅgikaṃ, sallapanapaccayā āpajjitabbaṃ caturaṅgikanti dve pācittiyāni sahuppannāni ekato āpajjantīti. Idaṃ ayuttaṃ pāḷivirodhato. Pāḷiyañhi ‘‘sallapeyya vāti purisassa hatthapāse ṭhitā sallapati, āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yadi dve siyuṃ, ‘‘āpatti dvinnaṃ pācittiyāna’’nti na vattabbatā siyāti. Ayaṃ nayo dutiyādīsupi yathāyogaṃ veditabbo. Ettha dutiyenāpi saddhiṃ yadi bhikkhuniyā rahopekkhatā atthi, so ce puriso, na dutiyo, purisagaṇanāya āpattiyo. Atha dutiyā bhikkhunī hoti, tassā ca tena purisena saddhiṃ rahopekkhatā atthi, sā ca bhikkhunī na dutiyā hoti. Ubhinnampi āpajjatīti eke, vicāretvā pana gahetabbaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana vuttaṃ ‘‘hatthapāse ṭhānena dukkaṭa’’nti, taṃ pāḷiyā virujjhati. ‘‘Purisassa hatthapāse tiṭṭhati, āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti hi pāḷi, kiṃbahunā. Catutthasikkhāpade mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyikauyyojanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘santiṭṭhanādīsu tīṇi pācittiyānī’’tiādivacanato vatthugaṇanāya āpatti veditabbā. ‘‘Aṅgāni cettha cattāri pañca vā’’ti vattabbanti sanniṭṭhānaṃ.

839. The ancients say: 'There is darkness even during the day; to preclude that, 'in the darkness of night' was said.' Here, in the phrase 'should stand together,' by indicating the posture of standing, all four postures are included. Therefore, for a bhikkhunī who performs walking back and forth and so on with a man within his arm's reach, there is a pācittiya offense indeed. The phrase 'or should converse' is stated merely due to the origin story, because there is no distinction. For it is said: 'Or should converse means: standing within a man's arm's reach, she converses; there is an offense of pācittiya.' Some say this is not appropriate. Why? Because by merely standing within that man's arm's reach, one pācittiya is incurred, and by conversing as well, another one is incurred. [To this, some reply that a second offense] is not incurred. How is this known? By way of the factors. For of this training rule, these four factors have been stated: the darkness of night; standing or conversing within a man's arm's reach; the absence of a companion; and the desire for seclusion. Therein, if there were a separate offense on account of standing, it would have four factors. If there were one on account of conversing, it would have five factors. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, it should have been said, 'four or five factors,' but it was not said. Therefore, there is no separate offense on account of conversing. Some say: 'It does exist, and the statement in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā has that very meaning.' How so? Due to the simultaneous arising of two offenses. What is meant by this? When there is conversation, the offense to be incurred on account of standing has four factors, and the offense to be incurred on account of conversing has four factors; thus two pācittiya offenses, having arisen simultaneously, are incurred together. This is inappropriate because it contradicts the Pāli. For in the Pāli it is said: 'Or should converse means: standing within a man's arm's reach, she converses; there is an offense of pācittiya.' If there were two offenses, it would have been necessary to say, 'an offense of two pācittiyas.' This method should be understood as is appropriate in the second training rule and so on. Here, if a bhikkhunī has a desire for seclusion with a man who is her companion, if he is a man, he is not a companion; the offenses are according to the number of men. Now, if there is a companion bhikkhunī, and she also has a desire for seclusion with that man, then that bhikkhunī is not a companion. Both incur an offense—so some say. This, however, should be accepted only after investigation. But in the ancient glosses it is said, 'By standing within arm's reach, there is a dukkaṭa offense,' which contradicts the Pāli. For the Pāli states: 'She stands within a man's arm's reach; there is an offense of pācittiya.' What more needs to be said? In the fourth training rule, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, from the statement beginning, 'In standing together, etc., there are three pācittiya offenses,' the offense should be understood by the count of the instances. The conclusion should be seen as: 'It should be said that the factors here are four or five.'

Paṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the first training rule is concluded.

2-3-4. Dutiyatatiyacatutthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2–3–4. Explanation of the Second, Third, and Fourth Training Rules

842-6. Dutiyatatiyacatutthāni uttānāni. Sabbattha ‘‘sallapatīti yaṃ kiñci tiracchānakathaṃ kathetī’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

842-6. The second, third, and fourth are clear. In all the training rules, it is stated in the ancient glosses that 'sallapati' means: 'one speaks any kind of worldly talk'.

852. Catutthe panāyaṃ viseso – ‘‘ekenekā’’ti paṭhamaṃ vuttattā dutiyikaṃ vā bhikkhunīnaṃ uyyojeyya, pācittiyaṃ na sambhavatīti ce? Sambhavati. Kasmā? Santiṭṭhanādittayamattāpekkhattā, tassa vacanassāpi vā aññāyapi rahopekkhanassādasambhave sati ubhinnaṃ ekatthasambhavato ca sādhitametaṃ. ‘‘Hatthapāsaṃ [Pg.374] vijahitvā santiṭṭhati vā sallapati vā’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Kasmā ‘‘nikaṇṇikaṃ vā jappetī’’ti na vuttaṃ? Hatthapāsātikkame asambhavato. Tassa tatiyassa padassa pacchinnattā sambhavantampi ‘‘dutiyikaṃ vā uyyojetī’’ti na vuttaṃ, tasmā atthato hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā santiṭṭhati vā sallapati vā dutiyikaṃ vā uyyojeti, āpatti dukkaṭassāti vuttaṃ hoti. Esa nayo yakkhena vātiādīsupi. Tattha ‘‘hatthapāse’’ti vā ‘‘hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā’’ti vā na vuttaṃ ubhayattha dukkaṭattā. Anāpattivārepi asambhavato ‘‘nikaṇṇikaṃ vā jappetī’’ti na vuttanti ce? Sambhavati sati karaṇīye nikaṇṇikaṃ vā jappetīti sambhavato. Atha kasmā evaṃ na vuttanti ce? Anavajjakathāyaṃ nikaṇṇikajappane payojanābhāvā, dhammakathāyampi udāyiṃ ārabbha paṭisiddhattā ca.

852. In the fourth, however, there is this distinction: if one were to say that since 'one with one' was stated first, a pācittiya offense does not arise if one dismisses a second nun, (the reply is:) it does arise. Why? Because that word also depends only on the triad of actions beginning with 'standing'; or, because this statement is established from the fact that when there is the arising of delight in looking for privacy on the part of that nun or another, a single purpose is possible for both of them. Only 'stands or speaks having relinquished arm's reach' is stated. Why is 'or whispers in the ear' not stated? Because it is not possible when arm's reach is surpassed. Because that third phrase is separate, even though it is possible, 'or dismisses a second one' is not stated. Therefore, in meaning, it is said that if, having relinquished arm's reach, one stands, or speaks, or dismisses a second one, one incurs an offense of dukkaṭa. This is the same principle in the cases beginning with 'with a yakkha'. There, neither 'within arm's reach' nor 'having relinquished arm's reach' is stated, because in both cases it is a dukkaṭa offense. If one were to ask: 'Is it not stated in the section on no offense either, because it is not possible?' (The reply is:) It is possible. Because it is possible to 'whisper in the ear' when there is a reason to do so. Then if one were to ask: 'Why is it not stated thus?' (The reply is:) Because in blameless talk, there is no purpose in whispering in the ear, and because, even in a Dhamma talk, it was prohibited in connection with Udāyin.

Dutiyatatiyacatutthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the second, third, and fourth training rules is concluded.

5. Pañcamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Fifth Training Rule

856. ‘‘Kulaṃ nāma cattāri kulānī’’ti vuttattā titthiyārāme kappati tassa kulavohārābhāvatoti eke. Titthiyānaṃ khattiyādipariyāpannattā na kappatīti eke. Tassa kappiyabhūmittā na yuttanti ce? Na, yathāvuttakhattiyādīnaṃ sambhavato. Tathāpi gocarakulaṃ idhādhippetaṃ. ‘‘Upacāro dvādasahattho’’ti likhitaṃ.

856. Some say that, as it is stated, “Household means the four kinds of households,” it is permissible in a sectarian monastery because there is no designation of ‘household’ for it. Others say it is not permissible because sectarians are included among the khattiyas, etc. If one were to argue that this is not appropriate because it is allowable ground, [the reply is:] no, because of the possibility of the aforementioned khattiyas, etc. Nevertheless, a household visited for alms is intended here. It is written: “The boundary is twelve hands’ breadth.”

Pañcamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the fifth training rule is concluded.

6. Chaṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Commentary on the Sixth Training Rule

860. ‘‘Nisīdantiyā ekā, nipajjantiyā ekā’’ti avatvā ‘‘nisīditvā gacchantiyā’’tiādi na vattabbaṃ. Na hi gamanapaccayā esā āpattīti? Na, pariyosānādhippāyavasena vuttattā. ‘‘Nisīditvā nipajjantiyā dve’’ti vacanenapi gamanaṃ idha nādhippetanti dassitaṃ hoti, tathā ‘‘nipajjitvā nisīdantiyā dve’’tipi vattabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘tasmiṃ abhinipajjati, āpatti dvinnaṃ pācittiyāna’’nti kasmā na vuttanti ce? Anisīditvāpi nipajjanasambhavato. Nipajjanatthāya [Pg.375] nisīditvā nipajjantiyā nipajjanakapayogattā ekā āpattīti keci.

860. If one were to say that, instead of stating, 'For one who is sitting down, one offense; for one who is lying down, one offense,' one should not say, 'For one who, having sat down, is going,' and so on, because this offense does not arise from the act of going—the reply is: it is not that this should not be said; it should indeed be said. Why? Because it is stated with the intention of the final act. By the statement, 'For one who, having sat down, lies down, two offenses,' it is shown that going is not intended here. Similarly, it should also be said, 'For one who, having lain down, sits down, two offenses.' If one were to ask, 'If so, why is it not said, “She lies down on it; there is an offense of two pācittiyas”?'—the reply is: because it is possible to lie down even without having sat down. Some say that for a bhikkhunī who, having sat down for the purpose of lying down, then lies down, there is one offense because it is a preparatory act for lying down.

Chaṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the sixth training rule is concluded.

7. Sattamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

7. Commentary on the Seventh Training Rule

867. Anāpattivāre ‘‘dhuvapaññatte’’ti na vuttaṃ ‘‘santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā’’ti vuttattā. Idha chaṭṭhe vuttanayena pakatiyā paññatte abhinisīdati vā abhinipajjati vā, pācittiyameva. Aññattha dhuvapaññattaṃ. Idha vuttanayena santharitvā vā santharāpetvā vā abhinisīdati vā abhinipajjati vā, pācittiyameva. Ubhayatthāpi pañcame vuttanayena anāpucchā pakkameyya, pācittiyameva, anāpattivāre mātikāyaṃ vuttakālato aññakālassa aparāmaṭṭhattāti no takkoti ācariyo. Apica atthāpattikāle āpajjati, no vikāletiādittike, atthāpatti rattiṃ āpajjati, no divātiādittike ca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ idha pañcamachaṭṭhasattamasikkhāpadehi saṅgahitāpattīnaṃ aparāmaṭṭhattā yathāsambhavaṃ tividhakāle tividhametaṃ yojetvā dassetuṃ vaṭṭati eva mahāpadesanayānulomato.

867. In the section on non-offenses, 'permanently spread' is not stated, because 'having spread it oneself or having had it spread' is stated. Here, according to the method stated in the sixth rule, if one sits down or lies down on what is naturally spread, it is a pācittiya offense. Elsewhere, it is 'permanently spread'. Here, according to the method stated, if one sits down or lies down after having spread it oneself or having had it spread, it is a pācittiya offense. In both cases, according to the method stated in the fifth rule, if one were to depart without asking, it is a pācittiya offense; our teacher reasons that this is because in the section on non-offenses, a time other than the time stated in the matrix is not considered. Furthermore, regarding such Tīkā passages as, 'An offense is incurred at the proper time, not at the wrong time,' and 'An offense is incurred at night, not during the day,' because the offenses included by the fifth, sixth, and seventh training rules are not considered here in the Aṭṭhakathā, it is indeed proper to apply and present this threefold offense at the three kinds of times, as is possible, in accordance with the method of the Great References.

Sattamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the seventh training rule is concluded.

8. Aṭṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Eighth Training Rule

869. Aṭṭhame bhikkhussa dukkaṭaṃ sambhavati.

869. In the eighth, a dukkaṭa offense arises for a monk.

Aṭṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the eighth training rule is concluded.

9. Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Ninth Training Rule

875-7. Duggāhavasena vā suggāhavasena vā yathāvuttanayena sapathakaraṇe āpattīti veditabbaṃ. Yasmā mātikāyaṃ ‘‘attānaṃ vā paraṃ vā’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā yā attānameva ārabbha sapathaṃ kareyya, tassā ekā[Pg.376]. Paramevārabbha tassā ekā. Ubhopi ārabbha tassā dve āpattiyo sambhavanti. Tikacchedo panettha paramevārabbha sapathakaraṇaṃ sandhāya pavatto.

It should be known that there is an offense in making a curse by the method stated, whether by way of wrong grasping or by way of right grasping. Because it is stated in the matrix, 'oneself or another,' therefore, for whichever bhikkhunī should make a curse concerning only herself, for her there is one offense. Concerning only another, for her there is one. Concerning both, for her two offenses arise. Here, the threefold division is established with reference to making a curse concerning only another.

Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the ninth training rule is concluded.

10. Dasamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Commentary on the Tenth Training Rule

882. Dasame anāpattivāro rodanasseva, na vadhassa, tasmā ñātibyasanādīhi phuṭṭhāpi attānaṃ vadhati eva, na rodati, dukkaṭameva.

882. In the tenth, the section on non-offenses is for weeping only, not for striking. Therefore, even a bhikkhunī afflicted by the loss of relatives and so forth, if she only strikes herself and does not weep, it is only a dukkaṭa.

Dasamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the tenth training rule is concluded.

Andhakāravaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Andhakāra Vagga is concluded.

3. Naggavaggavaṇṇanā

3. Commentary on the Naggavagga

1-2. Paṭhamadutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1-2. The Commentary on the First and Second Training Rules

883. Naggavaggassa paṭhamadutiyāni uttānāni. Paṭhame ayaṃ viseso – bhikkhussa tathā nhāyantassa dukkaṭaṃ aññatra jantāgharaudakapaṭicchādīhi. Na ca vigarahi tattha bhagavā attanāva ananuññātattā udakasāṭikāyāti porāṇā. ‘‘Ekameva nivāsetvā, pārupitvā ca nahāyituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

883. The first and second rules of the Naggavagga are clear. In the first, this is the distinction: for a bhikkhu bathing thus, there is an offense of wrong-doing, except in a steam-bath or with a water-covering. The Blessed One did not rebuke in that case because the bathing-cloth had not been permitted by himself, so say the ancients. 'It is not proper to bathe having worn only one garment or having draped only one garment,' so it is said in the ancient glosses.

Paṭhamadutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the first and second training rules is concluded.

3. Tatiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. The Commentary on the Third Training Rule

894. Tatiye antocatūhapañcāhaṃ dhuraṃ nikkhipantiyāpi āpatti eva. Liṅgaparivatte dhuraṃ nikkhipantiyā dukkaṭaṃ tikadukkaṭattā. ‘‘Sambahulāhi bhikkhunīhi saddhinti ettha catassopi sambahulā’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

894. In the third rule, for a bhikkhunī who lays down the burden even within four or five days, there is an offense indeed. For a bhikkhunī who lays down the burden upon a change of sex, there is an offense of wrong-doing because it is a triple wrong-doing. 'In the phrase "with many bhikkhunīs", here even four are considered "many",' so it is said in the ancient glosses.

Tatiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the third training rule is concluded.

4. Catutthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. The Commentary on the Fourth Training Rule

898. Catutthe [Pg.377] saṅghāṭicāranti ettha saṅghāṭiādivasena adhiṭṭhitānaṃyevāyaṃ vidhi, netarāsaṃ kira. Tattha ticīvare eva vippavāsapaccayā nissaggiyaṃ. Antocīvarakālepi pañcāhikaṃ saṅghāṭicāraṃ atikkāmentiyā āpattiyeva. ‘‘Vinā etehi cīvarehi upasampadaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

898. In the fourth rule, regarding the phrase saṅghāṭicāra, this procedure applies only to robes that have been determined, such as the outer robe and so forth, it is said, not to others. In that case, it is an offense of forfeiture only for the three robes, due to the condition of being separated from them. Even during the robe-period, for a bhikkhunī who exceeds the five-day saṅghāṭicāra, there is an offense indeed. 'It is not proper to perform the higher ordination without these robes,' so it is said in the ancient glosses.

Catutthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the fourth training rule is concluded.

5. Pañcamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

5. The Commentary on the Fifth Training Rule

906. Pañcamassa anāpattivāre tāya vā avippavāsāyāti atthato labbhati.

906. In the non-offense section of the fifth rule, the meaning of 'or by not being separated from her' is obtained from the sense of the text.

Pañcamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the fifth training rule is concluded.

907-911. Chaṭṭhasattamāni uttānāni.

907-911. The sixth and seventh rules are clear.

8. Aṭṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

8. The Commentary on the Eighth Training Rule

916. Sokajjhāyikā nāma kira māyākārā. Vilumpakā bhaṇḍakāti ca porāṇā.

916. The so-called Sokajjhāyikā, it is said, are magicians. The ancients also say they are plunderers and disputants.

Aṭṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the eighth training rule is concluded.

9. Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. The Commentary on the Ninth Training Rule

920. ‘‘Kathañhi nāma atikkāmessatī’’ti vuttattā thullanandā cīvarakālasamayaṃ āgamethāti atikkamāpesīti siddhaṃ hoti.

920. Because it was said, 'How indeed will she cause it to be exceeded?', the meaning is established that Thullanandā, having said, 'Wait for the robe-season!', caused it to be exceeded.

Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the ninth training rule is concluded.

10. Dasamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. The Commentary on the Tenth Training Rule

927. Dasame [Pg.378] ekakulaṃ etadavocunti ettha kulaṃ nāma tasmiṃ manussā, tasmā bahuvacanaṃ.

927. In the tenth training rule, regarding “one family said this”—here, “family” means the people in that household; therefore, the plural form is used.

Dasamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the tenth training rule is concluded.

Naggavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Naggavagga is concluded.

4. Tuvaṭṭavaggavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Tuvaṭṭavagga

1. Paṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the First Training Rule

934-5. Ekāya nipannāya aparā nipajjati, āpatti pācittiyassāti ‘‘ubhinnampi paṭhamanipannāya anuṭṭhāpanā’’ti vatvā ettha kiriyākiriyanti eke, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya virujjhati. ‘‘Kiriya’’nti hi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Atha kassā āpattīti? Ubhinnampi nipajjanakiriyaṃ paṭicca. Imassa anāpattivāre ‘‘vavatthānaṃ dassetvā’’ti natthi, tasmā vavatthānaṃ katvā nipajjituṃ na vaṭṭatīti eke. Vipulatare vaṭṭatīti eke. ‘‘Antaraṃ katvā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ.

934-5. Regarding "When one has lain down and another lies down, there is an offense of pācittiya," some, having stated, "For both, it is the failure of the one who lay down first to get up," say it is an action-and-non-action. This contradicts the commentary, for in the commentary it is said to be an "action." Then for whom is the offense? For both, on account of the act of lying down. In the non-offense clause for this, "having shown a delimitation" is not found; therefore, some say it is not permissible to lie down having made a delimitation. Others say it is permissible if the space is more ample. "It is permissible to lie down after making a separation"—so it is written in the ancient glosses.

Paṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the First Training Rule is concluded.

2. Dutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Second Training Rule

940. Vavatthānaṃ dassetvāti ettha upari pārupanampi majjhe obhogaṃ katvā ubhinnaṃ antare otāreti, vaṭṭatīti eke. Vavatthānañca yathā ṭhāne na tiṭṭhati, tathā atikkamitvā tuvaṭṭentiyā āpattiyevāti. ‘‘Kiriyākiriya’’nti ca porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

940. Regarding "having shown the delimitation": here, some say it is permissible to make a fold in the middle of the upper robe and lower it between the two. And if the delimitation does not remain in its proper place, there is indeed an offense for the one who rolls over, transgressing it. And "action-and-non-action" is stated in the ancient glosses.

Dutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Second Training Rule is concluded.

3. Tatiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Third Training Rule

941. Attano [Pg.379] sajjhāyanaṭṭhāne ce vuḍḍhatarā āgacchati, vandanakāle vā, āpucchanakiccaṃ natthi. Ekasmiṃ ovarake āpucchitabbaṃ. ‘‘Atha ovarake mahātherī vasati, sammukhe itarā, āpucchitabbā tassā upacārattā’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

941. If a more senior nun comes while one is in the place of recitation, or at the time of paying respects, there is no need to ask leave. One should ask leave when in the same room. "If the great elder nun resides in the inner room, the other in her presence should ask for leave, because it is her precinct"—so it is stated in the ancient glosses.

Tatiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Third Training Rule is concluded.

946-950. Catutthapañcamasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

946–950. The fourth and fifth training rules are of clear meaning.

6. Chaṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Sixth Training Rule

956. Gahapati nāma ṭhapetvā sahadhammike veditabbo, tasmā bhikkhunā vā sāmaṇerena vā ananulomikena saṃsaggena saṃsaṭṭhāpi na samanubhāsitabbāti sambhavati eva.

956. "Householder" is to be understood as excluding those who share the Dhamma. Therefore, it is indeed possible that even a bhikkhunī who has associated with a bhikkhu or a sāmaṇera through an unsuitable association should not be formally admonished.

Chaṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Sixth Training Rule is concluded.

961-5. Sattamaaṭṭhama sikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

961-5. The seventh and eighth training rules are of clear meaning indeed.

9. Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Ninth Training Rule

969. Ekindriyanti kāyindriyeneva ekindriyaṃ, nigaṇṭhānaṃ acelakānaṃ mataṃ. Kāpilā pana ‘‘pañcindriyā’’ti maññantā evaṃ vadanti ‘‘sacakkhukattā alābumāluvādayo yattha ālambanaṃ, tattha gacchanti. Sasotakattā kadaliyo meghagajjitaṃ sutvā gabbhaṃ gaṇhanti. Saghānakattā panasādayo kuṇapagandhena phalanti. Sajivhakattā udakaṃ pivanti yena, sabbepi ‘pādapā’ti vuccanti. Sakāyapasādattā itthisamphassena asokarukkhā pupphantī’’ti. Saṅghātanti vināsaṃ.

969. Regarding "one faculty": that there is only one faculty, the body faculty, is the view of the Nigaṇṭhas, the naked ascetics. The Kāpilas, however, thinking "there are five faculties," say thus: "Because of having the eye faculty, gourd creepers, māluvā creepers, and so on go where there is a support. Because of having the ear faculty, banana trees, having heard the sound of thunder, conceive. Because of having the nose faculty, jackfruit trees and so on bear fruit by the smell of corpses. Because of having a tongue, by which they drink water, all are called ‘pādapā’ (foot-drinkers). Because of having body sensitivity, asoka trees blossom by the touch of women." "Saṅghātaṃ" means destruction.

970. Idha [Pg.380] ca vassacchedena dukkaṭaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ āvasitvā pacchā cārikā caraṇapaccayā pācittiyaṃ āpajjatīti veditabbaṃ. Atha vassaṃ avasitvā carati, avassupagamanapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘antosattāhe antovasse cārikaṃ carantiyā pācittiyaṃ. Sattāhakaraṇīyena pana vaṭṭati, bhikkhuno dukkaṭaṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ.

970. And here, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred for breaking the rains-residence. It should be known that if one first dwells and afterwards goes on tour, one incurs a pācittiya offense on account of going on tour. If one goes on tour without having dwelt for the rains, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense on account of not undertaking the rains-residence. But in the ancient glosses it is said: “For a bhikkhunī who goes on tour within the rains-residence, there is a pācittiya. For a seven-day duty, however, it is allowable; for a bhikkhu, there is a dukkaṭa.”

972. Kenaci ubbāḷhāti vassacchedakāraṇenāti no takkoti ācariyo. Kittāvatā cārikā hotīti? Idaṃ na sabbattha vicāritaṃ. Anantarasikkhāpade ‘‘antamaso chappañcayojanānipī’’ti vuttattā so ca maññe heṭṭhimaparicchedoti.

972. Regarding "harassed by someone": the teacher states that one should not infer this to mean "by a reason for breaking the rains-residence." The question of to what extent it is considered wandering has not been investigated in all glossaries. Because it is said in the following training rule, "at least five or six yojanas," I think that this is the lower limit.

Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Ninth Training Rule is concluded.

10. Dasamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

10. Explanation of the Tenth Training Rule

973. Dasame ‘‘āhundarikā’’ti paṭhanti kira.

973. In the tenth, it is said that they read ‘āhundarikā’.

Dasamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Tenth Training Rule is concluded.

Tuvaṭṭavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Tuvaṭṭa Vagga is concluded.

5. Cittāgāravaggavaṇṇanā

5. Explanation of the Cittāgāra Vagga

1. Paṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the First Training Rule

978. Kīḷanaupavanaṃ nāma kañcinagarassa nagarupavanaṃ viya daṭṭhabbaṃ. Uyyānaṃ nāma tattheva nandavanauyyānaṃ viya daṭṭhabbaṃ. ‘‘Tattheva ṭhatvā taṃ taṃ disābhāgaṃ viloketvā passantiyā pana pāṭekkā āpattiyo’’ti pāṭho. Evaṃ vutte yaṃ pubbe vuttaṃ padaṃ ‘‘anuddharamānā’’ti, taṃ ekasmiṃyeva disābhāgeti siddhanti eke. Upacāro dve leḍḍupātoti ca.

978. A ‘recreational grove’ should be understood as like a city grove of a certain city. A ‘park’ should be understood as like the Nandavana pleasure garden there. The reading is: “But for her, standing right there, looking around and seeing in each different direction, there are separate offenses.” When this is said, some conclude that the previously mentioned phrase “not withdrawing” refers to just one direction. And the ‘approach’ is two clod-throws.

Paṭhamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the first training rule is concluded.

2. Dutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Second Training Rule

984. ‘‘Āharimehi [Pg.381] vāḷehī’’ti ‘‘asaṃhārimenā’’ti ca duvidho pāṭho. ‘‘Visuṃ katvā pacchā saddhiṃ tehi vāḷehī’’ti likhitaṃ. Yathā tathā vāḷarūpe uṭṭhapetvā katapādaṃ ‘‘pallaṅka’’nti vuccati anāpattivāre ‘‘asaṃhārimehi vāḷehi kataṃ paribhuñjatī’’ti vacanābhāvato.

984. There are two readings: “with removable borders” and “with a non-removable one.” It is written: “Having first separated them, afterwards joining those borders together.” In any case, what is made by raising up border-like forms and making legs is called a ‘couch’ (pallaṅka), because in the section on non-offenses there is no statement, “one may use one made with non-removable borders.”

Dutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the second training rule is concluded.

3. Tatiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

3. Explanation of the Third Training Rule

988. ‘‘Ujjavujjaveti hatthappasāraṇe’’ti likhitaṃ, taṃ na yuttaṃ ‘‘yattakaṃ hatthena añchitaṃ hoti, tasmiṃ takkamhi veṭhite ekāpattī’’ti vacanato.

988. It is written: “‘Ujjavujjaveti’ means stretching out the hand,” but that is not appropriate, because of the statement: “For whatever amount is drawn out by the hand, there is one offense for each winding on the spindle.”

Tatiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the third training rule is concluded.

4. Catutthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Fourth Training Rule

993. ‘‘Yāgupāneti yāgudāne’’ti likhitaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade ‘‘mātāpitūnaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

993. It is written: “‘Yāgupāne’ means in the giving of rice-gruel.” In the ancient glossary, it is stated: “It is allowable to give to one’s parents.”

Catutthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the fourth training rule is concluded.

994. Pañcamasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

994. The fifth training rule is clear in meaning.

6. Chaṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Sixth Training Rule

1001. Chaṭṭhe bhikkhuvibhaṅge acelakasikkhāpadena ekaparicchedaṃ. Idha agāriko viseso, tasmā ‘‘asādhāraṇa’’nti vadanti.

1001. The sixth rule is treated as a single section along with the training rule concerning the naked ascetic in the Bhikkhuvibhaṅga. Here, the householder is the special case; therefore, they call it “uncommon.”

Chaṭṭhasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the sixth training rule is concluded.

1003-8. Sattamaṭṭhamesu vattabbaṃ natthi.

There is nothing that needs to be said regarding the seventh and eighth.

9. Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

9. Explanation of the Ninth Training Rule

1015. ‘‘Khīlanamantaṃ [Pg.382] dārusārakhīlaṃ mantetvā pathaviyaṃ pavesetvā māraṇamantaṃ. Nāgamaṇḍalaṃnāma nāgarodhamantaṃ, piṭṭhādīhi vā parikkhepaṃ katvā tattha manusse pavesenti guttatthāyā’’ti likhitaṃ.

1015. It is written: “The peg incantation is to recite a mantra over a hardwood peg and drive it into the ground; the death incantation. The ‘serpent-circle’ is the incantation for confining snakes, or, having made a boundary with flour and the like, they cause people to enter there for protection.”

Navamasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the ninth training rule is concluded.

1017. Dasamasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

1017. The tenth training rule is of clear meaning.

Cittāgāravaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Cittāgāra Vagga is concluded.

6. Ārāmavaggavaṇṇanā

6. Explanation of the Ārāma Vagga

1021. Paṭhamasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

1021. The first training rule is of clear meaning.

2. Dutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Second Training Rule

1030. Bhikkhunī ce bhikkhuṃ akkosati, iminā sikkhāpadena pācittiyaṃ. Bhikkhuniṃ ce akkosati, omasavādena āpajjati. Omasavāde sammukhāva ruhati, idha pana parammukhāpi.

1030. If a bhikkhunī reviles a bhikkhu, there is a pācittiya offense by this training rule. If she reviles a bhikkhunī, she incurs an offense through disparaging speech. In the case of disparaging speech, the offense is incurred only when face-to-face, but here, it is also incurred in absence.

Tatrāyaṃ vicāraṇā – bhikkhuvibhaṅge osamavādasikkhāpade bhikkhunī anupasampannaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti katvā bhikkhunivibhaṅgepi omasavādasikkhāpade bhikkhu bhikkhuniyā anupasampannaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti siddhaṃ. Idha ca anupasampannassa akkosane dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ, bhikkhussa upasampannassa akkosane pācittiyaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā imāni dve sikkhāpadāni bhikkhumhi saṃsandiyamānāni aññamaññaṃ na samenti. Yathā samenti, tathā jānitabbaṃ. Tattha porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttanayena bhikkhunīnaṃ omasavādasikkhāpade anupasampannoti na gahetabbo, idamettha yuttaṃ. Paribhāseyyāti aññatra akkosavatthūhi. Tesu hi aññatarasmiṃ sati omasavādapācittiyamevāti eke, taṃ na yuttaṃ[Pg.383]. Omasavāde pāḷimuttakaakkose hi dukkaṭaṃ hotīti. Dukkaṭokāse idaṃ pācittiyaṃ tehi niddiṭṭhaṃ hoti, tasmā ‘‘bālā etā’’ti pāḷiyaṃ idha āgatapadānaṃyeva vasena paribhāsanaṃ veditabbaṃ.

Herein is the investigation: In the Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga, concerning the training rule on disparaging speech, a bhikkhunī stands in the place of an unordained person. Therefore, in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga as well, concerning the training rule on disparaging speech, it is established that a bhikkhu stands in the place of an unordained person in relation to a bhikkhunī. And here, a dukkaṭa offense is stated for reviling an unordained person, while a pācittiya offense is stated for reviling an ordained bhikkhu. Therefore, these two training rules, when compared with respect to a bhikkhu, do not agree with each other. How they agree should be understood. Therein, according to the method stated in the ancient glosses, in the bhikkhunīs’ training rule on disparaging speech, the term ‘unordained’ should not be taken; this is proper here. The term `paribhāseyya` (‘one should revile’) is to be understood as something other than the grounds for insult. For if any of those grounds are present, some say it is solely a pācittiya offense for disparaging speech, but that is not correct. For in the case of disparaging speech, a dukkaṭa offense occurs for insults that are not found in the Pāḷi. This pācittiya offense would thus be designated by them in an instance that is properly a dukkaṭa. Therefore, the reviling should be understood as being based only on the terms that appear here in the Pāḷi, such as, ‘these are foolish’.

Dutiyasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the second training rule is concluded.

1033. Tatiyasikkhāpadaṃ uttānatthameva.

1033. The third training rule is of clear meaning.

4. Catutthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

4. Explanation of the Fourth Training Rule

1038. Nimantitā vā pavāritā vāti ettha porāṇagaṇṭhipade tāva evaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘pavāritāpi yāguṃ pātuṃ labhati, bhojjayāguṃ na labhati. Yāgu panettha khādanīyabhojanīyasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati. Nimantitā bhikkhunī piṇḍāya caritvā bhuñjitukāmā sāmike apaloketvāva bhuñjituṃ labhati. Paramparabhojanāpatti bhikkhunīnaṃ natthi. Nimantitā taṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjitvā vā abhuñjitvā vā pavāritā kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā bhuñjituṃ na labhati, akappiyanimantanena nimantiyamānā dve nimantanāni sampaṭicchituñca na labhatī’’ti. Tattha ‘‘pavāritāpi yāguṃ pātuṃ labhatī’’ti vuttaṃ pāḷiyaṃ, aṭṭhakathāyañca anuññātattā. ‘‘Nimantitā appavāritā yāguṃ pivatī’’ti hi pāḷiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Tatridaṃ sikkhāpadavaṇṇanāpubbaṅgamasanniṭṭhānaṃ – nimantitā vā pavāritā vāti ettha vāsaddena akappiyanimantanena nimantitā appavāritā ṭhapetvā yāguṃ aññaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ aññatra sāmikānaṃ apalokanā. Paramparabhojanābhāvena bhikkhunīnaṃ ko guṇo jātoti? Na etāsaṃ guṇalābho, kevalaṃ pākaṭataraṃ jātaṃ. Bhikkhūpi vikappetvā missetvāva bhuñjituṃ labhanti. Samaye yathāsukhaṃ labhanti. Iminā apalokanena kinti? Pavāritā vā animantitā vā na kiñci kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā gilānātirittampi labhanti, nimantitā ca pavāritā ca yāgumpi na labhanti, apaloketvāpi na labhantīti.

1038. In the phrase 'invited or refused', it is stated thus in the ancient glosses: 'Even one who has refused is allowed to drink gruel; she is not allowed to eat gruel that is a meal. Herein, gruel does not fall into the category of staple or non-staple food. An invited bhikkhunī, having gone for alms-food, if she wishes to eat, is allowed to eat only after informing the donors. There is no offense of consecutive eating for bhikkhunīs. An invited one, whether she has eaten that meal or not, if she has refused, is not allowed to eat after having it made allowable. A bhikkhunī being invited with an improper invitation is not allowed to accept two invitations.' Therein, the statement 'Even one who has refused is allowed to drink gruel' is made because it is permitted in the Pāḷi and in the Commentary. Indeed, in the Pāḷi it is said, 'An invited one who has not refused drinks gruel.' Therein, this is the conclusion preceded by the explanation of the training rule: In the phrase 'invited or refused', by the word 'or' it is understood that if a bhikkhunī who was invited with an improper invitation and has not refused should eat or consume any other staple or non-staple food, setting aside gruel, it is a Pācittiya offense, unless she informs the donors. If it is asked, 'Due to the absence of consecutive eating, what benefit has arisen for the bhikkhunīs?' For them, no gain of benefit has arisen; it has merely become more evident. Bhikkhus too are allowed to eat only after making a formal disposal and mixing it. At the proper time, they receive it as they wish. What is gained by this informing? Those who have refused or are uninvited do not receive anything, not even the remainder for the sick, after having it made allowable. And those who are invited and have refused do not receive even gruel; they do not receive it even after informing. Thus it should be understood.

Catutthasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the fourth training rule is concluded.

Ārāmavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Ārāma Vagga is concluded.

7. Gabbhinivaggavaṇṇanā

7. Explanation of the Gabbhinī Vagga

1. Paṭhamādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

1. Explanation of the First and Subsequent Training Rules

1067. ‘‘Gabbhini’’nti [Pg.384] dassanādīhipi gabbhasambhavato vuttaṃ. Padabhājanepi pavāritabhāvo na dissati.

1067. The term "pregnant" (`gabbhinī`) is used because of the arising of conception through seeing and so forth. And in the analysis of words, the state of having refused is not found.

1074. Dhāti vāti ettha dārakaṃ sāmikānaṃ datvā āhaṭe vaḍḍheti, tathā mātāpīti keci.

1074. Herein, regarding 'nurse' (`dhāti`), some say it is one who, having given the child to its owners, raises it when it is brought back; and that the mother also does so similarly.

1080. ‘‘Sikkhamāna’’nti pāṭhaṃ dīpavāsino rocenti kiriyākiriyattā, jambudīpavāsino ‘‘sikkhamānā’’ti. Tassattho sikkhādhammamānanato sikkhamānāti. Idha kiriyā na hoti, saññāva adhippetā. Na etāsu asikkhitā upasampādetabbā upajjhāyinīādīnaṃ āpattibhāvā. ‘‘Tassā upasampadā hoti evā’’ti vadanti.

1080. The reading 'sikkhamānaṃ' is favored by the island-dwellers because of it being both action and non-action; the dwellers of Jambudīpa favor 'sikkhamānā'. Its meaning is: she is called a 'sikkhamānā' because she honors the rules of training. Here, it is not an action; only a designation is intended. One who has not trained in these rules should not be given higher ordination, because of the occurrence of an offense for the preceptor nun and others. They say, 'Her higher ordination indeed occurs.'

1082. Dhammakammeti upasampadakammaṃ adhippetaṃ.

1082. By 'a formal act in accordance with the Dhamma' (`dhammakamma`), the act of higher ordination (`upasampadakamma`) is intended.

1112. Vuṭṭhāpitanti sāmaṇeribhūmito yāya theriyā upasampadāpekkhā vuṭṭhapitā, sā therī vuṭṭhāpitā nāma, teneva puna visesanatthaṃ ‘‘pavattini’’nti āha.

1112. Regarding 'one who has raised up' (`vuṭṭhāpitā`): that female elder by whom a candidate for higher ordination has been raised from the state of a female novice is called `vuṭṭhāpitā`. For that very reason, for the purpose of further specification, it is said 'preceptor' (`pavattinī`).

Paṭhamādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the first and subsequent training rules is concluded.

Gabbhinivaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the Gabbhinī Vagga is concluded.

8. Kumāribhūtavaggavaṇṇanā

8. Explanation of the Kumāribhūta Vagga

2. Dutiyādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

2. Explanation of the Second and Subsequent Training Rules

1124. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, aṭṭhārasavassāya kumāribhūtāya…pe… sikkhāsammutiṃ dātu’’nti idha vuttaṃ viya ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dasavassāya gihigatāya…pe… sikkhāsammutiṃ dātu’’nti na vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘paripuṇṇadvādasavassāya eva gihigatāya sikkhāsammuti dātabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Gihigatāya sikkhāsammuti dātabbāti eketi katvā dasavassāyapi vaṭṭati[Pg.385]. Kasmā? ‘‘Anāpatti paripuṇṇadvādasavassaṃ paripuṇṇasaññā vuṭṭhāpetī’ti (pāci. 1093-1095) ca ‘anāpatti paripuṇṇadvādasavassaṃ gihigataṃ…pe… sikkhitasikkhaṃ vuṭṭhāpetī’ti (pāci. 1097-1101) ca vuttattā’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Kiṃ iminā parihārena. ‘‘Dasavassāya gihigatāya sikkhāsammuti dātabbā’’ti hi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Gihigatātipi vattuṃ na vaṭṭatī’ti sace vadanti, kammaṃ kuppatī’’ti likhitaṃ.

1124. Just as it is stated here, 'I allow, Bhikkhus, to give the consent for training to a maiden (`kumāribhūtā`) of eighteen years... (etc.)', it is not stated, 'I allow, Bhikkhus, to give the consent for training to one who has gone to a household life (`gihigatā`) at ten years... (etc.)'. Therefore, it is said, 'The consent for training should be given only to a `gihigatā` who has completed twelve years.' Some say, 'The consent for training should be given to a `gihigatā`.' For this reason, it is also allowable for a ten-year-old. Why? Because it is stated in the ancient glosses (`porāṇagaṇṭhipada`): 'There is no offense for one who gives higher ordination to one who has completed twelve years, perceiving her to be complete,' and 'There is no offense for one who gives higher ordination to a `gihigatā` who has completed twelve years... (etc.) ... and has trained in the training rules.' What is the use of this explanation? For it is said, 'The consent for training should be given to a `gihigatā` of ten years.' In this matter, if they say, 'It is not allowable even to say `gihigatā`,' it is written, 'the formal act is invalid.'

1146. Ahameva nūna…pe… alajjinī, yā saṅghoti ettha yā ahameva nūna bālāti attho. ‘‘Yaṃ saṅgho’’tipi atthi, tattha yaṃ yasmā deti, tasmā ahameva nūna bālāti attho.

1146. Regarding 'Ahameva nūna… alajjinī, yā saṅgho': Herein, the meaning is: 'Am I not indeed the foolish one?' There is also the reading 'yaṃ saṅgho'. Therein, 'yaṃ' means 'yasmā' (because); therefore, the meaning is, 'Am I not indeed the foolish one?'

1159. Purisasaṃsaṭṭhā kumārakasaṃsaṭṭhā caṇḍī sokāvāsāvakathaṃ sikkhamānāti vuccati, padabhājane eva cāyaṃ sikkhamānā ‘‘chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhā’’ti kasmā vuttanti? Pubbe gahitasikkhattā, pubbe paripuṇṇasikkhattā ca evaṃ vuccatīti veditabbaṃ.

1159. How is one who associates with men, associates with youths, is irascible, and dwells in sorrow called a probationer? And in the Padabhājanī itself, why is this probationer said to be 'one trained in the six rules'? It should be understood that she is so called because she has previously undertaken the training and because she has previously perfected the training.

1166-7. Pahūtaṃ khādanīyaṃ bhojanīyaṃ passitvāti ettha ‘‘sikkhamānāya ñātakā kira sampādayiṃsu, taṃ passitvā there bhikkhū uyyojesi. Uyyojetvā tesaṃ chandaṃ gahetvā pubbe chandadāyake gaṇaṃ katvā sesānaṃ chandaṃ chandameva katvā kammaṃ kārāpesī’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Chandaṃ vissajjetvāti ettha anugaṇṭhipade evaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘idaṃ kammaṃ ajja na kattabbaṃ. ‘Yathāsukha’nti vatvā vissajjitaṃ hoti, tasmā yo koci mukharo, bālo vā kiñcāpi ‘yathāsukha’nti vadati, therāyattattā pana therassa anumatiyā satiyā vissajjito hoti, asatiyā na hoti, tathāpi puna chandaṃ gahetvāva kammaṃ karonti, ayaṃ payogo. Gahaṇe payojanaṃ pana natthi. Saṅghatthero ce vissajjeti, chandaṃ gahetvāva kātabbaṃ. Chandaṃ vissajjetvā kāyena vuṭṭhitāyāti ettha idha sambādho, ‘amukamhi ṭhāne karissāmā’ti hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvāpi gacchanti ce, natthi doso. Kiñcāpi natthi, tā pana hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvāva gacchanti, ayaṃ payogo’’ti. ‘‘Rattipārivāsiye uposathapavāraṇāva na vaṭṭati, aññakammaṃ pana vaṭṭati. Uposathapavāraṇāpi anuposathapavāraṇadivase na vaṭṭanti, itaraṃ sabbakālaṃ vaṭṭati. Parisapārivāsiye [Pg.386] hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā catūsu gatesu catuvaggakaraṇīye aññasmiṃ pañcasu dasasu vīsatīsu gatesu sesehi visuṃ tahiṃ tahiṃ gantvāpi puna sannipātaṭṭhānaṃ āgantvā kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ajjhāsayapārivāsiye hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā yathānisinnāva nisinnā ce, puna kātuṃ vaṭṭati hatthapāsassa avijahitattā’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Tesaṃ porāṇānaṃ matena chandapārivāsiyamevekaṃ na vaṭṭatīti āpannaṅgañca dassitaṃ, idhāpi taṃ visuṃ na dassitaṃ asambhavatoti eke. Chandadāyake parisaṃ patvā gate tassa pubbachandadānaṃ chandapārivāsiyanti no takkoti ācariyo.

Regarding 'having seen abundant hard and soft food,' it is said in the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada: 'It is said that the relatives of the probationer provided it. Seeing that, she dismissed the elder bhikkhus. Having dismissed them, having taken their consent, having first formed a group with the consent-giver, and having treated the consent of the remaining ones as just consent, she had the formal act performed.' Regarding 'having dismissed the consent,' it is thus stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada: 'This formal act should not be performed today. Having said, "As you please," it is considered dismissed. Therefore, although any talkative or foolish person might say, "As you please," it is nevertheless dependent on the elder. It is dismissed when there is the elder's approval, but not when there is not. Nevertheless, they perform the formal act only after taking consent again; this is the procedure. But there is no benefit in taking it. If the elder of the Saṅgha dismisses it, it must be done only after taking consent.' Regarding 'having dismissed the consent and having risen up with the body,' here there is a confined space. Even if they go, having left the hand's reach, thinking, 'We will do it in such-and-such a place,' there is no fault. Although there is no fault, they go only without leaving the hand's reach; this is the procedure.' 'In the case of an overnight stay invalidating the quorum, only the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are not allowable; another formal act, however, is allowable. The Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are also not allowable on a non-Uposatha, non-Pavāraṇā day; the other is allowable at all times. In the case of the assembly's quorum being invalidated, without leaving the hand's reach, when four have gone for another act requiring a quorum of four, or when five, ten, or twenty have gone, it is allowable for the remaining ones, having gone separately here and there, to perform it after returning again to the meeting place. In the case of the intention invalidating the quorum, if they remain seated just as they were, without leaving the hand's reach, it is allowable to perform it again because of not having left the hand's reach.' This is stated in the Porāṇagaṇṭhipada. According to the opinion of those ancients, only the one case of consent invalidating the quorum is not allowable, and thus the factor of falling into an offense is shown. Here too, that is not shown separately because of its impossibility, say some. The teacher says: When the consent-giver, having reached the assembly, has gone, his prior giving of consent is not a case of consent invalidating the quorum; this is our reasoning.

Tatridaṃ sanniṭṭhānaṃ – parisapārivāsiye aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘aññatra gacchāmāti chandaṃ avissajjetvāva uṭṭhahanti…pe… kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttavacane hatthapāsā vijahanaṃ na paññāyati. Ettha pana kammappattānaṃ hatthapāsassa avijahanameva icchitabbanti katvā porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi na paññāyati, appaṭikkhittattā pana vaṭṭatīti ce? Na, paṭikkhittattā. Kathaṃ? Chando nāma kammappattesu bhikkhūsu ekasīmāya sannipatitesu āgacchati, nāsannipatitesu. Idha hi ‘‘chandaṃ avissajjetvā’’ti ca ‘‘chandassa pana avissaṭṭhattā’’ti ca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Ajjhāsayaṃ avissajjetvā’’ti ca ‘‘ajjhāsayassa avissaṭṭhattā’’ti ca na vuttaṃ, tasmā chandassa avissajjanaṃ kammappattānaṃ hatthapāsāvijahaneneva hoti, na vijahaneti siddhaṃ.

Herein, this is the conclusion: In the commentary on the Parisapārivāsiya, in the statement, “Without having relinquished their consent, saying ‘Let us go elsewhere,’ they rise… it is permissible to perform the formal act,” the abandonment of the hand’s reach is not apparent. Here, however, because it is said in the ancient gloss that only the non-abandonment of the hand’s reach of those eligible for the formal act should be intended, if one were to say, “Although it is not apparent, is it permissible because it is not rejected?”—it should not be said, because it is rejected. How so? Consent, it is said, arises among monks eligible for the formal act when they have assembled within a single boundary, not when they are not assembled. For here it is said, “without having relinquished consent,” and “because consent has not been relinquished.” It is not said, “without having relinquished intention,” nor “because intention has not been relinquished.” Therefore, it is established that the non-relinquishing of consent by those eligible for the formal act occurs only through the non-abandonment of the hand’s reach, not through its abandonment.

Hoti cettha –

And on this matter, there is this summary verse:

‘‘Yato āgamanaṃ yassa, tadabhāvassa niggahe;

Tasmā sannipatitesu, bhikkhūsu tassa bhedato’’ti.

From which cause the arrival of which consent occurs, for the sake of controlling its absence; therefore, among the assembled monks, it is determined by the specific nature of that consent.

Rattipārivāsiyachando viya rattipārivāsiyapārisuddhipīti tadanulomena vaṭṭati svātanāya chando vā pārisuddhi vā pavāraṇā vā, tāya kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Uposathapavāraṇā pana anuposathadivase na vaṭṭati, itaraṃ vaṭṭati. Pannarasiuposathaṃ cātuddasiyaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati khettattā. Na cātuddasiuposathaṃ pannarasiyaṃ akhettattā anuposathadivasattā pāṭipadadivasattāti ekacce ācariyā, tasmā tesaṃ [Pg.387] matena cātuddasiuposathaṃ tatiyaṃ, sattamaṃ vā pannarasiyaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ panettha vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sace cātuddasikaṃ uposathaṃ karissāmāti nisinnā, pannarasoti kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti. Tato ‘‘pannarasiyameva ‘cātuddasikaṃ uposathaṃ karissāmā’ti nisinnā punadivase attano taṃ uposathaṃ ‘pannaraso’ti kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti attho’’ti evaṃ pariharanti, taṃ tesaṃ mataṃ ‘‘tathārūpapaccaye sati aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) iminā mātikāṭṭhakathāvacanena na sameti. Na hi tattha ‘‘aññasmimpi pannarase cātuddasikaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ santepi ‘‘sakiṃ pakkhassa cātuddase vā pannarase vā’’ti anuññātadivase pariyāpannattā channaṃ cātuddasikānaṃ pacchimā pannarasī anuposathadivaso na hotīti siddhaṃ hoti. Kiñcāpi siddhaṃ, iminā pana ‘‘āvāsikānaṃ pannaraso, āgantukānaṃ cātuddaso, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ samasamehi vā appatarehi vā anuvattitabba’’nti vacanamettha niratthakaṃ hotīti veditabbaṃ.

Just as the consent for a night's probation and the purity for a night's probation are allowable, so too, in accordance with that, consent, purity, or invitation for the morrow is allowable; it is allowable to perform a formal act based on that. However, the Uposatha-Pavāraṇā is not allowable on a non-Uposatha day, whereas another formal act is allowable. It is allowable to perform the fifteenth-day Uposatha on the fourteenth day, as it is a proper occasion. It is not allowable to perform the fourteenth-day Uposatha on the fifteenth day, as it is not a proper occasion, is a non-Uposatha day, and is the first day of the next fortnight—thus say some teachers. Therefore, according to their view, it is not allowable to perform the third or the seventh fourteenth-day Uposatha on the fifteenth day. As for what is stated in the commentary—'If, having sat down intending, "We will perform the fourteenth-day Uposatha," it is allowable to perform it as the fifteenth'—they resolve this thus: 'The meaning is that having sat down on the fifteenth day itself intending, "We will perform the fourteenth-day Uposatha," it is allowable on the next day to perform that Uposatha as "the fifteenth."' This view of theirs does not agree with the statement from the Mātikāṭṭhakathā: 'When such a condition exists, it is allowable to perform the Uposatha on another fourteenth day.' For it is not stated there: 'It is allowable to perform the fourteenth-day Uposatha on another fifteenth day.' Even so, since it is included among the permitted days—'once in a fortnight, on the fourteenth or on the fifteenth'—it is established that the fifteenth day following the last of the six fourteenth-day Uposathas is not a non-Uposatha day. Although this is established, it should be understood that in this context the statement, 'For residents, the fifteenth; for visitors, the fourteenth; the residents should follow the visitors if they are equal or fewer in number,' becomes meaningless.

Dutiyādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Second and Subsequent Training Rules is finished.

Kumāribhūtavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Young Women is finished.

9. Chattupāhanavaggavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Chapter on Umbrellas and Sandals

11. Ekādasamādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

11. Commentary on the Eleventh and Subsequent Training Rules

1214. Upacāraṃ sandhāya kathitanti ‘‘dvādasahatthaṃ upacāro’’ti likhitaṃ.

1214. This is said with reference to the vicinity: 'The vicinity is twelve cubits,' so it is written.

1221. Suttante okāsaṃ kārāpetvā vinayaṃ vā abhidhammaṃ vā pucchatīti ettha ca tīṇi piṭakāni attano attano nāmena vuttānīti katvā abhidhammo buddhena bhāsito evāti dīpitaṃ hoti.

1221. Here also, in the passage, “Having created an opportunity in the Suttanta, one asks about the Vinaya or the Abhidhamma,” because the three Piṭakas are spoken of by their own respective names, it is thereby shown that the Abhidhamma was indeed spoken by the Buddha.

1224-5. Thano ca udaro ca thanudarā. ‘‘Saṃkaccikāya pamāṇaṃ tiriyaṃ diyaḍḍhahatthā’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāraṃ [Pg.388] okkamantiyā’’ti bahūsu potthakesu, saṅghādisesakaṇḍe viya ‘‘upacāraṃ atikkamantiyā’’ti pāṭho appakesu, sova pāṭho. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘parikkhepaṃ atikkamantiyāti ekena pādena atikkante dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyena pācittiyaṃ. Upacārepi eseva nayo’’ti vacanampi ‘‘upacāraṃ atikkamantiyā’’ti pāṭhoti dīpetīti no takkoti ācariyo.

The breast and the belly are thanudarā. In the ancient Gaṇṭhipada, it is said: “The measurement of the saṃkaccikā across is one and a half cubits.” In many books, the reading is “entering the vicinity of an unenclosed village”; in a few, like in the Saṅghādisesa section, the reading is “crossing the vicinity”; that very reading is found. The teacher said: “It is our inference that the statement in the commentary—‘When crossing the boundary, there is a dukkaṭa for crossing with one foot, and a pācittiya for the second; this same method applies also to the vicinity’—also shows that the reading is ‘crossing the vicinity.’”

Ekādasamādisikkhāpadavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Eleventh and Subsequent Training Rules is concluded.

Chattupāhanavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Umbrellas and Footwear is concluded.

Nigamanavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Conclusion

Giraggasamajjādīni ‘‘acittakāni lokavajjānī’’ti vuttattā ‘‘nacca’’nti vā ‘‘gandho’’ti vā ajānitvāpi dassanena, vilimpanena vā āpajjanato vatthuajānanacittena acittakāni. ‘‘Nacca’’nti vā ‘‘gandho’’ti vā jānitvā passantiyā, vilimpantiyā ca akusalattā eva lokavajjāni. Corivuṭṭhāpanādīni ‘‘corī’’tiādinā vatthuṃ jānitvā karaṇe eva āpattisabbhāvato sacittakāni. Upasampadādīnaṃ ekantena akusalacitteneva akattabbattā paṇṇattivajjāni. ‘‘Idha sacittakācittakatā paṇṇattijānanājānanatāya aggahetvā vatthujānanājānanatāya gahetabbā’’ti likhitaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘giraggasamajjādīni ‘acittakāni lokavajjānī’ti vuttattā ‘nacca’nti vā ‘saṅghāṇī’ti vā ‘gandho’ti vā tassa nāmavasena ajānitvā māyākārassa māyāni sīsaṭṭhiādīni paṭisaṅkhāya passantiyā, akkhamālādiatthāya saṅghāṇiṃ kaṭiyā bandhantiyā, ‘sedagandhaṃ apanetvā buddhapūjaṃ karissāmī’ti uppannena cittena gandhaṃ vilimpetvā nahāyantiyā ca āpattisabbhāvato nāmena saddhiṃ nāmavasena vā vatthussa ajānanacittena acittakāni nāma. Na andhakāre ‘kaṭisuttamida’nti saññāya saṅghāṇiṃ gahetvā kaṭiyaṃ dhāraṇakāle, mattikāsaññāya ca gandhaṃ gahetvā vilimpanakāle āpattisabbhāvato ‘acittakānī’ti vattabbāni. Tasmiṃ kāle anāpatti, teneva saṅghāṇiyā asaṅghāṇisaññāvārepi ‘āpatti pācittiyassā’ti pāḷi na vuttā. Yathā ‘khettaābādhapaccayā, kaṭisuttakaṃ dhāretī’ti vacanato vināpi akusalena saṅghāṇiādīni sakkā dhāretunti siddhaṃ, evaṃ ābādhapaccayā vināpi akusalena na sakkā suraṃ [Pg.389] pātunti siddhaṃ ‘anāpatti ābādhapaccayā majjaṃ pivatī’ti pāḷiyā abhāvato. Akusalena vinā madhupuṇṇamuṭṭhiyaṃ pakkhittamajjassa ajjhoharaṇakālādīsu surāpānāpattiṃ āpajjatīti ca siddhaṃ ‘majje amajjasaññī pivati, āpatti pācittiyassā’ti (pāci. 328) vuttattā. Kiṃbahunā, kāmabhogasaññāya saddhiṃ ‘saṅghāṇī’ti ca ‘gandho’ti ca jānitvā vinā anāpattikāraṇena dhārentiyā ekantākusalattā lokavajjāni nāma vuccanti. Iminā upāyena sesesupi nayo netabbo. Ettha surāpānādhikāre upatissattheravādo’’ti vuttaṃ. Asaṃkaccikasikkhāpade ‘‘aparikkhittassa gāmassa upacāraṃ okkamantiyāti pāṭho’’ti ca ‘‘paṇītabhojanaviññatti, acelakasikkhāpadaṃ, nimantitassa cārittāpajjanaṃ, duṭṭhullappaṭicchādanaṃ, ūnavīsativassupasampadaṃ, mātugāmena saddhiṃ saṃvidhāya addhānagamanaṃ, rājantepurappavesanaṃ, santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā vikāle gāmappavesanaṃ, nisīdanaṃ, vassikasāṭikanti pāṭho’’ti ca vuttaṃ.

Because the Giragga festival and others are called 'mindless worldly faults,' they are mindless because an offense is incurred by seeing or anointing even without knowing it as 'dancing' or 'perfume,' with a mind that does not know the object. For a bhikkhunī who sees or anoints knowing it as 'dancing' or 'perfume,' they are worldly faults precisely because of unwholesomeness. Reinstating a female thief and other such acts are mindful offenses because an offense occurs precisely when the act is done with knowledge of the object, such as 'this is a female thief.' Higher ordination and similar acts are faults of designation because they must not be done with an entirely unwholesome mind. It is written: 'Here, the state of being mindful or mindless should be understood based on knowing or not knowing the object, not on knowing or not knowing the designation.' However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: 'Because the Giragga festival and others are called “mindless worldly faults,” they are called mindless when, with a mind that does not know the object either together with its name or by way of its name, an offense occurs for a bhikkhunī who, having reflected, sees the illusions of a magician, such as a skull, without knowing it by name as “dancing,” “a girdle,” or “perfume”; or for one who ties a girdle on her waist for the sake of a rosary, etc.; or for one who bathes after anointing with perfume with the thought that has arisen, “Having removed the smell of sweat, I will make an offering to the Buddha.” They should not be called 'mindless' on the grounds that an offense occurs when, in the dark, one takes a girdle with the perception 'this is a waistband' and wears it on the waist, or when one takes perfume with the perception of clay and anoints with it, for at that time, there is no offense. For that very reason, even in the section on perceiving a girdle as not a girdle, the Pāḷi does not state, “There is a pācittiya offense.” Just as it is established from the text, “On account of an illness of the ‘field,’ one may wear a waistband,” that girdles and so on can be worn even without unwholesomeness, so too, it is established that one cannot drink liquor on account of illness even without unwholesomeness, because of the absence of a Pāḷi text stating, “There is no offense if one drinks intoxicants on account of illness.” And it is also established that one incurs the offense of drinking liquor when swallowing liquor that has been put into a handful of honey, etc., without unwholesomeness, because it is stated, “If one drinks an intoxicant, perceiving it as a non-intoxicant, there is a pācittiya offense” (Pāc. 328). What more is there to say? For a bhikkhunī who knowingly wears a girdle or applies perfume together with the perception of enjoying sensual pleasures, without a reason for no offense, these are called “worldly faults” because of being entirely unwholesome. By this method, the principle should be applied in the remaining cases as well. Herein, in the section on drinking liquor, this is the view of the Elder Upatissa,” it is said. In the Asaṃkaccika training rule, it is also said: “The reading is ‘entering the vicinity of an unenclosed village.’” And also: “The reading is ‘requesting fine food,’ ‘the training rule concerning a naked ascetic,’ ‘incurring a transgression after being invited,’ ‘concealing a grave offense,’ ‘ordaining one under twenty years of age,’ ‘going on a journey by arrangement with a woman,’ ‘entering the royal inner quarters,’ ‘entering a village at the wrong time without asking leave of a monk who is present,’ ‘a sitting cloth,’ and ‘a rains-cloth.’”

Nigamanavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Conclusion is concluded.

Pācittiyakaṇḍavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Pācittiya Section is concluded.

Ubhatovibhaṅgaṭṭhakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Subcommentary on the Ubhatovibhaṅga is concluded.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One.

Mahāvaggavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Great Chapter

1. Mahākhandhakavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Great Khandhaka

Bodhikathāvaṇṇanā

1. The Commentary on the Bodhi Story

Yaṃ [Pg.391] khandhake līnapadādibheda-pakāsanaṃ dāni supattakālaṃ;

Tasmā apubbaṃ vinayatthameva, vakkhāmi saṅkhepagahaṇatthaṃ.

Now is the suitable time for the exposition of the distinctions of obscure terms and so forth in the Khandhaka; therefore, I will explain only the meaning of the Vinaya, which has not been explained before, for the sake of concise comprehension.

Tattha kenaṭṭhenāyaṃ khandhakoti? Khandhānaṃ samūhattā vibhaṅgo viya. Te pana kathanti? Khandhānaṃ pakāsanato dīpanato. Khandhāti cettha pabbajjādivinayakammasaṅkhātā, cārittavārittasikkhāpadasaṅkhātā ca paññattiyo adhippetā. Pabbajjādīni hi bhagavatā paññattattā ‘‘paññattiyo’’ti vuccanti. Paññattiyañca khandha-saddo dissati ‘‘dārukkhandho aggikkhandho udakakkhandho’’tiādīsu viya. Tesaṃ paññattisaṅkhātānaṃ khandhānaṃ pakāsanato vaṇṇanato pabbajjakkhandhakādayo vīsati ‘‘khandhakā’’ti vuttā, avasāne dve taṃsadisattā velāya sadisattā sīlassa velāti vacanaṃ viya. Apica bhāgarāsatthatāpettha yujjate tesaṃ paññattīnaṃ bhāgato ca rāsito ca vibhattattā. Kiṃ panetesaṃ khandhakānaṃ anupubbakāraṇanti? Nāyaṃ pucchā sambhavati, aññathā vuttesupi tappasaṅgānatikkamanato. Atha vā pabbajjupasampadāpubbaṅgamattā sāsanappavesanassa tadatthasaṅgahako mahākhandhako paṭhamaṃ vutto. Kenāti ce? Dhammasaṅgāhakattherehi. Bhagavatā pana tattha tattha uppannavatthuṃ paṭicca tathā tathā vuttāni, na iminā anukkamena. Therā pana taṃ taṃ payojanaṃ paṭicca samānajātike ekajjhaṃ katvā anukkamena sajjhāyiṃsu. Sesānaṃ payojanaṃ tattha tattheva āvi bhavissati.

Herein, for what reason is this called 'Khandhaka'? It is so called because it is a collection of sections, like the Vibhaṅga. Alternatively, it is so called because it proclaims and clarifies the sections. Here, by 'khandha' are meant the regulations designated as the disciplinary acts beginning with the going forth, as well as the training rules concerning conduct to be followed and conduct to be avoided. For the acts beginning with the going forth were laid down by the Blessed One; hence, they are called 'regulations'. And the word 'khandha' is seen in the sense of a regulation, as in 'a log of wood,' 'a mass of fire,' 'a body of water,' and so forth. Because it proclaims and explains these sections, which are designated as regulations, the twenty sections beginning with the 'Going-Forth Khandhaka' are called 'Khandhakas'; at the end, the two are also called so because of their similarity to those, just as the phrase 'the boundary of morality' (sīlassa velā) is used because of its similarity to a boundary (velā). Moreover, the sense of 'portion' and 'collection' is also fitting here, because these regulations are divided into portions and collections. But what is the sequential reason for these Khandhakas? This question is not fitting, for even if they were stated otherwise, the pertinent connection would not be avoided. Alternatively, because the going forth and higher ordination are the precursors for entry into the Dispensation, the Mahākhandhaka, which collects those matters, is stated first. By whom? By the Elders who compiled the Dhamma. The Blessed One, however, spoke in various ways in those respective places, depending on the circumstances that arose; they were not spoken in this sequence. But the Elders, depending on the various purposes, grouped similar matters together and rehearsed them in sequence. The purpose of the remaining sections will become clear in their respective places.

Khandhakovidāti paññattibhāgarāsaṭṭhena nesaṃ khandhatthakovidā, niruttipaṭisambhidāpārappattāti attho. Tesaṃ anuttānatthānaṃ padānaṃ saṃvaṇṇanā. Kasmā panevaṃ visesitanti? Tato sesabhāgā yuttā. Mātikāṭṭhuppattiggahaṇampettha [Pg.392] padabhājaniyaggahaṇeneva veditabbaṃ. Yehi atthā yesaṃ padavisesānaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pakāsitā, tesaṃ te padavisese puna idha vadeyyāma, vaṇṇanāya pariyosānaṃ kadā bhave te te attheti vuttaṃ, taṃ tassa niddesena yujjati. Uttānā ceva yā pāḷi, tassā saṃvaṇṇanāya kinti vattabbaṃ? Na hi atthā uttānāti sambhavati. Adhippāyānusandhīhītiādivacanehipi taṃ vacanaṃ sambhavatīti ce? Na, atthaggahaṇena cettha padavisesānaṃ gahitattā. Te hi atthato anapetatthena, abhidhānatthena vā atthopacārena vā atthāti veditabbā. Saṃvaṇṇanānayoti saṃvaṇṇanā nāma avuttesu uhāpohakkamanidassanato ‘‘nayo’’ti vutto.

‘Skilled in the Khandhakas’ means skilled in the meaning of ‘khandha’ by way of the meaning of ‘concept,’ ‘division,’ and ‘collection’; it means those who have reached the further shore of the analytical knowledge of language. This is the meaning. An explanation of those words whose meanings are not clear. But why is it thus specified? From that, the remaining portions are connected. Herein, the grasping of the origin of the mātikā’s meaning should also be known through the grasping of the Padabhājanī itself. For if we were to speak again here of those specific words whose meanings have been explained in the commentary, saying ‘those various meanings,’ when would the explanation ever end? That is fitting with its exposition. What is to be said by way of explanation for the Pāḷi that is already clear? For the interpretation ‘the meanings are not clear’ is possible. If one should say, ‘That statement is also possible through such words as “by intention and connection”?’ No, because here the specific words are also grasped by the grasping of the meaning. For they should be known as ‘meanings’ either by their nature of being inseparable from the meaning, by their expressed meaning, or by metaphorical usage in relation to the meaning. Regarding ‘the method of explanation,’ an explanation is called a ‘method’ because it indicates the procedure of addition and subtraction concerning matters that are unstated.

1. Uruvelāti yathāvuttavālikarāsivasena laddhanāmako gāmo, tasmā samīpatthe etaṃ bhummaṃ. Tathābhāvadassanatthaṃ ‘‘najjā nerañjarāya tīre’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Aññathā tasmiṃ vālikarāsimhi viharatīti āpajjati, ‘‘uruvelaṃ piṇḍāya pāvisīti yena uruvelasenānigamo’’tiādivacanavirodho ca. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana mūlakāraṇameva dassitaṃ. Tattha taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ…pe… daṭṭhabboti nigamanavacanaṃ. Taṃ kimatthanti ce? Gāmaṃ sandhāya yathāvuttapadatthasambhavadassanatthaṃ. ‘‘So pana gāmo tadupacārena evaṃ nāmaṃ labhatī’’ti vacanaṃ pana avuttasiddhanti katvā na vuttanti veditabbaṃ, atha vā yassa ‘‘uruvelā’’ti yathāvuttavālikarāsissa, tassa samīpagāmassapi nāmaṃ. Tattha āyasmā upālitthero na idha gāmaṃ sandhāya ‘‘uruvelāyaṃ viharatī’’ti āha gocaragāmapayojanābhāvato. Na hi bhagavā taṃ gāmaṃ gocaraṃ katvā tadā tattha vihāsi, tasmā ettha vālikarāsissa samīpe bodhirukkhamūle vihāraṃ sandhāya so evamāhāti dassetukāmo aṭṭhakathācariyo evamāhāti veditabbaṃ, tasmā bhagavato gāmato dūratare araññe abhisambodhidīpanena dutiyuppattiṭṭhānaniyamaṃ tīhi padehi akāsi theroti veditabbaṃ, aññathā padattayavacanapayojanābhāvato. Tattha nadantā gacchatīti nadī. Nelañjalāyāti vattabbe la-kārassa ra-kāraṃ katvā ‘‘nerañjarāyā’’ti vuttaṃ, kaddamasevālavirahitattā niddosajalāyāti attho, nīlajalāyāti tassā nāmameva vā etaṃ.

1. Uruvelā is a village that has obtained its name by means of the aforementioned heap of sand; therefore, this locative case is in the sense of proximity. To show that it is so, it is said, 'on the bank of the river Nerañjarā,' and so on. Otherwise, it would be implied that he dwelled on that heap of sand, and there would be a contradiction with statements such as, 'he entered Uruvelā for alms,' and 'where the market town of Uruvelā was.' In the commentary, however, only the root cause itself is shown. There, with reference to that, the concluding statement '...should be understood' is said. If one should ask, 'For what purpose is that?' It is for the purpose of showing, with reference to the village, the possibility of the meaning of the aforementioned word. However, the statement, 'That village obtains such a name by metaphorical extension from that,' should be understood as not having been stated, because it is established without being said. Alternatively, 'Uruvelā' is the name of the aforementioned heap of sand, and it is also the name of the village near it. In this context, the Venerable Upāli Thera did not say 'he dwelled in Uruvelā' with reference to the village, because there was no purpose for an alms-resort village. Indeed, the Blessed One did not dwell there at that time, having made that village his alms-resort. Therefore, it should be understood that the commentary teacher, wishing to show that he [Upāli] spoke with reference to the dwelling near the heap of sand, at the foot of the Bodhi tree, said this. Therefore, it should be understood that the Elder, by indicating the full enlightenment of the Blessed One in the wilderness farther from the village, established with three phrases the determination of the place of the second birth (i.e., the enlightenment). Otherwise, there would be no purpose for the utterance of the three phrases. Therein, it is called a 'river' (nadī) because it goes along making a sound. When 'Nelañjalāya' should have been said, the 'la' character was made into an 'ra' character, and 'Nerañjarāya' was said. The meaning is 'having faultless water' because it is free from mud and algae. Alternatively, 'Nīlajalā' is simply its name.

Bodhirukkhamūleti [Pg.393] ettha ca bodhi vuccati abhisambodho. So ca atthato bhagavato catutthamaggañāṇaṃ hoti ‘‘vimokkhantikametaṃ nāma’’nti (paṭi. ma. 1.162) paṭisambhidāvacanato. Kiñcāpi taṃ nāmakaraṇabhūtaṃ catutthaphalañāṇampi vattuṃ sambhavati, kattabbakiccānaṃ pana karaṇato taṃ catutthamaggañāṇameva ettha bodhīti veditabbaṃ. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘tatiyavijjāya āsavānaṃ khayañāṇāyā’’ti tadeva dassitaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘bojjhaṅgā’’ti, ‘‘bodhipakkhiyā dhammā’’ti ca. Tattha yasmā catūsu maggesu ñāṇaṃ ‘‘bodhī’’ti vuccati, tasmā sāmaññato vattukāmatādhippāyavasena ‘‘bodhi vuccati catūsu maggesu ñāṇa’’nti (cūḷani. khaggavisāṇasuttaniddesa 121) vuttaṃ idhādhippetañāṇassapi tadantogadhattā. Atha vā pāḷiyaṃ bhagavato ādimaggattayavacanassa vuttaṭṭhānābhāvā catutthamaggañāṇameva bhagavato uppannaṃ, na bhagavā sotāpannādibhāvaṃ patvā buddho jātoti samayantarappasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ ‘‘catūsū’’ti vuttaṃ ādittayassa catutthaupanissayasambhavena bodhipariyāyasiddhito. ‘‘Puggalopi senāsanampi upanissayapaccayena paccayo’’ti (paṭṭhā. 1.1.9 paccayaniddesa) vacanato phalahetuko phalajanako rukkho phalarukkhoti viya bodhiheturukkho bodhirukkhoti veditabbo. Ettha ‘‘yasmā kevalaṃ bodhīti rukkhassapi nāmaṃ, tasmā bodhī’’ti parato vuttaṃ. Nigrodhādirukkhato assa visesanavacanaṃ pana tadaññabodhimūlappasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ. Maggañāṇañhi kusalamūlattā bodhi ca taṃ mūlañcāti saṅkhyaṃ labheyya. Paṭhamābhisambuddho nisīdatīti sambandho. Tena abhisambuddhadivasena saddhiṃ aṭṭhāhaṃ ekapallaṅkena nisinnabhāvaṃ dasseti. Ettha eka-saddo tassa nisajjāsaṅkhātassa pabbajjānuyogānurūpassa pallaṅkassa aññena iriyāpathena anantariyabhāvaṃ athassa akopitabhāvaṃ dasseti. Vimuttisukhanti ettha vimuttiyaṃ vā sukhanti na sambhavati. Pañcamajjhānikattā bhagavato phalasamāpattisaṅkhātā vimutti eva anujaṅghanaṭṭhena nibbānasukhanti vimuttisukhaṃ, taṃ samāpajjanena paṭisaṃvedī anubhavanto nisīdi. Veneyyakālānatikkamanato taṃ apekkhamāno nisīdi, na vimuttisukhasaṅgena.

At the foot of the Bodhi tree—here, 'bodhi' refers to full awakening. In essence, this is the Blessed One’s knowledge of the fourth path, as stated in the Paṭisambhidāmagga: 'This is called the culmination of liberation' (Paṭi. Ma. 1.162). Although it is possible to refer also to the knowledge of the fourth fruition, which is the basis for this name, yet because it performs the tasks that must be done, here 'bodhi' should be understood as the knowledge of the fourth path itself. For this very reason, in the Pāḷi it is shown as, 'for the knowledge of the destruction of the taints through the third knowledge,' indicating just that. In the commentary, however, it is shown as 'the enlightenment factors' and 'states conducive to enlightenment'. Therein, because knowledge in the four paths is called 'bodhi', therefore, with the intention of speaking generally, it is said, 'Bodhi is called the knowledge in the four paths' (Cūḷani. Khaggavisāṇasuttaniddesa 121), since the knowledge intended here is also included within them. Alternatively, because there is no place in the Pāḷi where the Blessed One's first three paths are spoken of, only the knowledge of the fourth path arose for the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not become a Buddha after attaining the state of a stream-enterer and so on. Thus, to prevent the arising of a different doctrine, 'in the four' was said, because the first three paths are established as a synonym for 'bodhi' by being the proximate cause for the fourth. According to the statement, 'A person and a dwelling are also conditions by way of proximate condition' (Paṭṭhā. 1.1.9, Paccayaniddesa), just as a tree that is for the sake of fruit and produces fruit is called a 'fruit tree', so too a tree that is the cause of enlightenment should be known as the 'Bodhi tree'. Here, it is stated subsequently, 'Because "bodhi" is also simply the name of a tree, therefore "bodhi"'. The distinguishing term, however, is used to differentiate it from other trees like the banyan and to prevent the implication of any other 'bodhi-root'. Indeed, path-knowledge, because it has wholesome roots, may be designated as both 'bodhi' (awakening) and 'mūla' (its root). The connection is: 'Having first become fully awakened, he sat'. By this, it shows that He remained seated in a single cross-legged posture for eight days, including the day of His full awakening. Here, the word 'eka' (one) shows that His cross-legged posture—which is called a 'seat' and is suitable for an ascetic's practice—was uninterrupted by any other posture and was undisturbed. Regarding 'the bliss of liberation', here 'bliss in liberation' is not a possible meaning. Because the Blessed One possesses the fifth jhāna, liberation itself, which is designated as the attainment of fruition, is the bliss of Nibbāna in the sense of the cessation of defilements; thus it is 'the bliss of liberation'. He sat experiencing and feeling that bliss by entering into that attainment. He sat awaiting the proper time, so as not to let the occasion for training those who could be trained pass, not out of attachment to the bliss of liberation.

Atha khoti adhikārantarārambhe nipātadvayaṃ. Tena vimuttisukhaṃ paṭisaṃvedayamāno na paṭiccasamuppādaṃ manasākāsi, kintu tato vuṭṭhāyāti dasseti[Pg.394]. Paṭivedhavaseneva sumanasikatassa paṭiccasamuppādassa punappunaṃ manasikaraṇaṃ gambhīrattā assādajananato, na apubbanayadassanādhippāyato. Paccakkhabhūtasabbadhammattā bhagavato asammohato, paṭividdhassa visayato vā manasikaraṇaṃ pana vijitadesapaccavekkhaṇaṃ viya rañño apubbaṃ pītiṃ janeti. Vuttañhi ‘‘amānusī ratī hoti, sammā dhammaṃ vipassato’’ti (dha. pa. 373). Rattiyā paṭhamaṃ yāmanti accantasaṃyogavasena upayogavacanaṃ, tena tassa vikappanānattataṃ dasseti. Kiñcāpi ‘‘anulomapaṭilomaṃ manasākāsī’’ti ekatova vuttaṃ, tathāpi iminā anukkamenāti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘avijjāpaccayā’’tiādi. Tattha ca kiñcāpi pavattimattapaccavekkhaṇā adhippetā kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Paṭhamabhāvāya, paṭilomamanasikaraṇaṃ pana anulome paccayānaṃ, paccayuppannānañca tathābhāvasādhanatthaṃ. Yasmā avijjāya eva nirodhā saṅkhāranirodho, na aññathā, tasmā saṅkhārānaṃ avijjā paccayo, tassā ca saṅkhārā phalanti dīpanato. Tathā nibbānapaccavekkhaṇāya anulomamanasikaraṇaṃ kāraṇanirodhā phalanirodhasādhanatthaṃ. Ettha ca anubhāvato nibbānaṃ dassitaṃ. Na hi taṃ avijjādinirodhamattanti. Tattha ‘‘yato khayaṃ paccayānaṃ avedī’’ti vacanena anulomo nādhippetoti siddhaṃ. Maggapaccavekkhaṇāya vattabbaṃ natthi, ubhayatthapi kiccato, ārammaṇato ca tassa maggassa visayato ca tattha maggo dassito.

Now then, these two particles indicate the commencement of another topic. By this, it is shown that while experiencing the bliss of liberation, he did not attend to dependent origination, but rather, having arisen from that, he did attend to it. The repeated mental attention to dependent origination, which had been well attended to by the power of penetration, was due to its profundity and its production of relish, not due to the intention of seeing a new method. Because all phenomena are directly realized by the Blessed One, who is free from delusion, the mental attention to the object that has been penetrated—like a king surveying his conquered territory—produces unprecedented joy. For it is said: “For one who rightly sees the Dhamma, there is a non-human delight” (Dhammapada 373). The phrase “during the first watch of the night” is an accusative usage in the sense of continuous connection; by this, it shows the diversity of its specific aspects. Although it was stated as one phrase, “he attended to it in forward and reverse order,” nevertheless, to show that he attended to it with this sequence, the text beginning “With ignorance as condition…” was stated. And here, although only the contemplation of the mere process of existence is intended, how is this known? Because it comes first. The reverse mental attention, however, is for the purpose of establishing the true nature of the conditions and the conditionally arisen phenomena within the forward order. Because it is only from the cessation of ignorance that there is the cessation of formations, and not otherwise, it is therefore illuminated that ignorance is the condition for formations, and formations are its result. Similarly, for the contemplation of Nibbāna, the forward mental attention is for the purpose of establishing the cessation of the effect through the cessation of the cause. And here, Nibbāna is shown by its power, for it is not merely the cessation of ignorance and so on. There, by the statement “when he understood the destruction of the conditions,” it is established that the forward order is not intended. Regarding the contemplation of the path, there is nothing to be said, for in both cases the path is shown there in terms of its function, its object, and the scope of that path.

Tatthāha – ‘‘paṭiccasamuppādaṃ paṭilomaṃ manasākāsī’’ti na yujjati, na hi paṭilomāpadesena niddiṭṭhaṃ nibbānaṃ paṭiccasamuppādo bhavitumarahatīti? Vuccate – na, tadatthajānanato. Anulomapaṭilomanti hi bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ. Anulomato, paṭilomato ca taṃ paṭiccasamuppādaṃ manasākāsīti hi tattha attho. Aññathā nirodhassa paṭilomappasaṅgāpattiyevāpajjati. Paṭilome ca panetasmiṃ anukkamaniyamo anulome anukkamaniyamato siddhoti veditabbaṃ. Evaṃ sati paṭiccasamuppādassa paṭilomo nāma apaṭiccasamuppādoti siddhaṃ hoti. Tena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘nirodho hotīti anuppādo hotī’’tiādi. Evaṃ sante pubbāparavirodho hoti. Kathaṃ? Paṭiccāti hi iminā phalassa paccayapariggahena, paccayānañca paccayāyattupagamanena tassa uppādābhimukhabhāvadīpanato [Pg.395] asamuppādo na sambhavati, tasmā apaṭiccasamuppādoti evaṃ ubhayapaṭikkhepena panassa paṭilomatā veditabbāti eke. Taṃ ayuttaṃ tassa anulomabhāvaniyamanato, atthātisayābhāvato, tasmā appaṭiccasamuppādo tassa paṭilomoti veditabbaṃ. Teneva bhagavatā pāḷiyaṃ paccayapaccayuppannanirodho vutto. Tattha hi ‘‘avijjāya tveva asesavirāganirodhā’’ti evaṃ paccayassa samucchinnapaccayabhāvavasena paccayanirodhaṃ, phalassa paccayapaṭiggahābhāvavasena paccayuppannanirodhañca dīpeti. Duvidho pāḷiyaṃ nirodho atthato anuppādo nāma hotīti katvā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘nirodho hotīti anuppādo hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ sante nibbānaṃ paccayapaccayuppannānaṃ nirodhamattanti āpajjatīti ce? Na, tassānubhāvadīpanādhippāyato. Viditavelāyanti manasikatavelāyanti attho, aññathā tato pubbe aviditappasaṅgato.

Herein, a questioner said: The statement, ‘He reflected on dependent origination in reverse,’ is not suitable. Why? Because Nibbāna, which is indicated by way of the reverse order, is not fit to be dependent origination. The reply is: It is not so, because its meaning is known. For ‘forward and reverse’ is a neuter verbal noun. The meaning there is that he reflected on that dependent origination both in the forward order and in the reverse order. Otherwise, it would indeed lead to the consequence of Nibbāna being the reverse order. And in this reverse order, it should be understood that the rule of sequence is established from the rule of sequence in the forward order. This being so, it is established that what is called the reverse of dependent origination is non-dependent origination. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: ‘Cessation is non-arising,’ and so on. This being so, there is a contradiction between the former and the latter. How so? By this word ‘dependent,’ because it indicates the state of facing towards arising for the result through the grasping of conditions, and through the conditions’ proceeding by dependence on other conditions, non-arising is not possible. Therefore, some say that its reverse nature is to be understood by the rejection of both, and thus it would be non-dependent origination. That is unsuitable, because it is determined by the nature of the forward order and because there is no excess of meaning. Therefore, it should be understood that non-dependent origination is its reverse. For that very reason, the Blessed One stated in the Pāḷi the cessation of conditions and conditioned phenomena. Therein, with the words, ‘through the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance itself,’ he thus shows the cessation of the condition by way of the state of its cause being utterly cut off, and the cessation of the conditioned phenomenon by way of the result’s state of not grasping a condition. Having considered that cessation in the Pāḷi is twofold and is, in meaning, called non-arising, it is said in the commentary: ‘Cessation is non-arising.’ If this is so, does it follow that Nibbāna is the mere cessation of conditions and conditioned phenomena? No, because of the intention to show its power. ‘At the time of knowing’ means at the time of attending with the mind; otherwise, there would be the consequence of it being unknown before that.

Jhāyatoti ettha kāmaṃ lakkhaṇūpanijjhānena jhāyato bodhipakkhiyadhammā pātubhavanti, catuariyasaccadhammā vā pakāsanti, tathāpi pubbabhāge samathādiyānikavibhāgadassanatthaṃ ārammaṇūpanijjhānaggahaṇaṃ. Catusaccadhammaggahaṇaṃ kāmaṃ anulomapaṭiccasamuppādadassanādhikārena virujjhati, tathāpi ‘‘yo dukkhaṃ parijānāti, so samudayaṃ pajahatī’’ti laddhivasena katanti veditabbaṃ.

Herein, in the phrase 'one contemplates': indeed, for one who contemplates by means of the close examination of characteristics, the factors of enlightenment become manifest, or the four noble truths become clear. Nevertheless, in the preliminary stage, the taking up of the close examination of an object is for the purpose of showing the division of the vehicles beginning with serenity. Although this indeed conflicts with the section on showing dependent origination in forward order, it should be understood as done according to the received principle: 'Whoever fully understands suffering, they abandon its origin.'

2. ‘‘Paccayakkhayassā’’ti kiccapariyāyavasena vuttaṃ. Tena paccayanibbānaṃ, tadupanissayanibbānañcāti duvidhaṃ nibbānaṃ dassitaṃ hotīti. Kāmañca taṃ na kevalaṃ paccayakkhayamattaṃ karoti, atha kho paccayuppannakkhayampi karoti. Yato ubhinnampi nirodho dassito, tathāpi hetunirodhā phalanirodhoti katvā ‘‘paccayakkhayassā’’ti vuttaṃ. Vuttappakārā dhammāti ettha catusaccaggahaṇaṃ paṭhamagāthāyaṃ vuttanayavipallāsena katanti veditabbaṃ.

2. ‘Of the destruction of conditions’ is stated by way of the function-aspect. By this, two kinds of Nibbāna are shown, namely: Nibbāna as the condition, and Nibbāna as the causally arisen which is dependent on that. And indeed, that does not bring about only the mere destruction of the condition, but rather it also brings about the destruction of what is causally arisen. Although the cessation of both is shown, it is stated as ‘of the destruction of conditions’ because ‘through the cessation of the cause, there is the cessation of the result.’ Herein, in the phrase ‘the dhammas of the kind spoken of,’ the taking up of the four truths should be understood as done by way of reversing the method spoken of in the first verse.

3. Samudayanirodhasaṅkhāto atthoti ettha samudayo kiccavasena, nirodho ārammaṇakiriyāya. Etena dvippakārā nirodhā dassitā honti tassa anubhāvassa vasenāti attho. Yasmā pallaṅkābhujitaṭṭhānañca ‘‘pallaṅko’’ti vuccati, tasmā phalādhigamaṭṭhānaṃ ‘‘pallaṅka’’nti vuttaṃ.

3. Herein, in the phrase ‘the meaning designated as origin-cessation’: ‘origin’ is by way of function, and ‘cessation’ is by the activity of the object. By this, two kinds of cessation are shown by way of its power. Because the place of sitting cross-legged is also called a ‘pallaṅka’ (seat), therefore the place of attaining the fruit is called ‘pallaṅka’.

Ajapālakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Ajapāla Story

4. Sammodīti [Pg.396] hitakāmatāya bhagavā tena brāhmaṇena saddhiṃ sammodi. Vedehi antanti ettha nibbānaṃ anto nāma. Vedānaṃ vā antaṃ gatattāti ettha arahattaṃ. Tattha paṭhamena vedantagū yasmā, tasmā eva vusitabrahmacariyo. Dutiyena vedantagū yasmā, tasmā vusitabrahmacariyoti evaṃ yojanā kātabbā. Kiñcāpi brāhmaṇassa catusaccayuttaṃ atthato vuttaṃ, udānagāthāyaṃ vuttapaṭivedhābhāvaṃ sandhāya ‘‘dhammacakkappavattana’’nti vuccatīti parihāro.

4. Regarding ‘sammodi’ (He rejoiced): The Blessed One spoke joyfully with that brahmin out of a desire for his welfare. Herein, regarding ‘vedehi antaṃ’ (the end with the Vedas): Nibbāna is called the end. Or, regarding ‘vedānaṃ...antaṃ gatattā’ (having gone to the end of the Vedas): Arahantship is the end. In that regard, by the first interpretation, because he is a ‘vedantagū’ (one who has gone to the end of knowledge), therefore he has lived the holy life. By the second, because he is a ‘vedantagū’, therefore he has lived the holy life—thus the connection should be made. Although for the brahmin a discourse connected with the Four Truths was spoken in terms of its meaning, with reference to the absence of the penetrative knowledge of what was spoken in the Udāna verse, it is called ‘the setting in motion of the Wheel of Dhamma’—this is the resolution.

Ajapālakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Ajapāla story is finished.

Mucalindakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Mucalinda Story

5. Mucalindavatthumhi etamatthanti idāni vattabbamatthaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Taṃ vivekanti upadhivivekaṃ. ‘‘Abyāpajjaṃ sukhaṃ loke’’ti iminā paṭhamamaggaṃ dasseti tena sattesu māraṇavasena uppajjanakabyāpādappahānasiddhito. ‘‘Pāṇabhūtesu saṃyamo’’ti iminā dutiyamaggaṃ dasseti. Maggī hi puggalo avasiṭṭhabyāpādatanuttavasena pāṇabhūtesu saṃyato hoti vihiṃsādhippāyābhāvato. Evaṃ cattāro hi maggā anukkamenāpi gahitā honti.

5. The phrase ‘etam atthaṃ’ (this meaning) in the Mucalinda story was said with reference to the meaning that is now to be spoken. Regarding ‘taṃ vivekaṃ’ (that seclusion), it means seclusion from the substrata of existence. By the phrase ‘abyāpajjaṃ sukhaṃ loke’ (Harmlessness is happiness in the world), he teaches the first path, because by that path the accomplishment of abandoning the ill-will that arises by way of the desire to kill beings is achieved. By the phrase ‘pāṇabhūtesu saṃyamo’ (restraint towards living beings), he teaches the second path. Indeed, a person possessing the path is restrained towards living beings by way of the attenuation of the remaining ill-will, due to the absence of an intention to harm. Thus, the four paths are also taken in sequence.

Mucalindakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Mucalinda story is finished.

Rājāyatanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Rājāyatana Story

6. Rājāyatanaṃ pātali. ‘‘Catuddisā āgantvā’’ti pāṭhaseso. Mukhavaṭṭiyaṃ kirassa dinnānaṃ catunnampi lekhāparicchedo atthi, te vāṇijā devatāya gāravadassanena bhagavato rūpakāyadassanena pasannattā saraṇaṃ aggahesuṃ. Devatāya ‘‘bhagavā rājāyatanamūle paṭhamābhisambuddho’’ti vacanaṃ sutvā sāvakasaṅghābhāvaṃ, abhisambuddhadhammasabbhāvañca jāniṃsūti veditabbaṃ. Jānantīti buddhāti sambandho.

6. The Rājāyatana is the Pāṭali tree. ‘Catuddisā āgantvā’ (Having come from the four directions) is the remainder of the text to be understood. It is said that on the rim of the four bowls that were offered to him, there was a line of demarcation. Those merchants, because they were pleased by the deity's showing of reverence and by seeing the physical body of the Blessed One, took refuge. Upon hearing the deity’s words, ‘The Blessed One first became fully enlightened at the foot of the Rājāyatana tree,’ it should be understood that they knew of the non-existence of a community of disciples and the actual existence of the Dhamma of the Fully Enlightened One. The connection of ‘jānanti’ (they know) is with ‘buddha’.

Rājāyatanakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Rājāyatana story is finished.

Brahmayācanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of Brahmā’s Request

7. Adhigato [Pg.397] kho myāyantiādimhi dhammoti catusaccadhammo, gambhīrattā duddaso. Duddasattā duranubodho. Santoti nibbuto. Paṇītoti atappako. Idaṃ dvayaṃ lokuttarameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Atakkāvacaroti takkena ākāraparivitakkena ogāhitabbo na hoti, ñāṇeneva avacaritabboti attho. Paṇḍitavedanīyoti sammāpaṭipadaṃ paṭipannehi paṇḍitehi vedanīyo. Sabbasaṅkhārasamathotiādi sabbaṃ nibbānameva. Tañhi phalūpacārena ekampi samānaṃ tathā tathā vuccati. Rāmāti pajā. Anu anu acchariyā anacchariyā. Tesaṃ bhagavato pubbabhāgapaṭipadaṃ sutapubbānaṃ, dhammassa vā gambhīrabhāvaṃ adhigatapubbānaṃ. Kiñcāpi bhagavato cattāropi maggā sukhappaṭipadā, tathāpi bodhisattapaṭipadaṃ sandhāya ‘‘kicchena me’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Pakāsitaṃ pakāsitu’’nti ubhayathāpi pāṭho. Paretehi yuttehi. Rāgarattāti kāmarāgadiṭṭhirāgehi rattā. Attaniccādigāhakā na dakkhanti na passissanti.

7. In the phrase beginning with 'Adhigato kho myāyaṃ,' 'Dhamma' refers to the Four Noble Truths. Because of its profundity, it is difficult to see. Because it is difficult to see, it is difficult to awaken to. 'Peaceful' (santo) means extinguished. 'Sublime' (paṇīto) means insatiable. These two terms are said referring solely to the supramundane. 'Beyond the sphere of logic' (atakkāvacaro) means it is not to be grasped by mere reasoning about its characteristics; the meaning is that it is to be traversed by wisdom alone. 'To be experienced by the wise' (paṇḍitavedanīyo) means it is to be experienced by the wise who have undertaken the right practice. 'The stilling of all formations' (sabbasaṅkhārasamatho) and so on all refer to Nibbāna itself. For, though it is one, it is spoken of in various ways by a figurative use of 'fruit'. `Rāmā` means beings. `Anu anu acchariyā anacchariyā`: For those who had previously heard of the Blessed One’s practice in a former time, or who had previously understood the profundity of the Dhamma, these wonders are not wonders. Although the Blessed One’s four paths are of easy practice, it is said, 'with difficulty by me' (kicchena me), referring to the Bodhisatta’s practice. There are two readings: 'declared' (pakāsitaṃ) and 'to declare' (pakāsituṃ). `Paretehi` means yoked with. `Rāgarattā` means dyed with the lust of sensual desire and the lust of views. Those who grasp at self, permanence, and so on will not see (`na dakkhanti`), that is, they will not perceive (`na passissanti`).

8. Sahaṃpati kira ‘‘nassati vata bho loko’’ti imaṃ saddaṃ tathā nicchāreti, yathā dasasahassilokadhātubrahmāno sutvā sannipatiṃsu. Paññāmaye akkhimhi santānānusayitavasena appaṃ parittaṃ rāgādirajaṃ etesaṃ, evaṃsabhāvāti apparajakkhajātikā. Assavanatāti assavanatāya.

8. Brahmā Sahampati, it is said, uttered this cry, “Alas, the world is perishing!” (nassati vata bho loko) in such a way that the Brahmās of the ten-thousandfold world-system heard it and gathered. In the eye of wisdom, due to the power of what lies latent in the continuity, there is little, slight dust of lust and so on in them; having such a nature, they are therefore of a species with little dust in their eyes (apparajakkhajātikā). `Assavanatā` means because of not hearing (`assavanatāya`).

Samalehi satthārehi. Apāpuretanti vivara etaṃ. Amatassa dvāranti ariyamaggaṃ, catusaccadhammaṃ vā. Vijjattayacatumaggañāṇehi punappunaṃ buddhaṃ paṭividdhaṃ. Seleti silāmaye. Vigatarajattā sukhadassanayogge ito ca etto ca āgantvā yathā ṭhito cakkhumā puriso samantato janataṃ passeyya. Tvampi sumedha sundarapañña sabbaññutaññāṇādhigamāya samantacakkhu. Sabbakilesasaṅgāmānaṃ vijitattā vijitasaṅgāma. Jātikantārādinittharaṇatthaṃ veneyyajanasatthavāhanasamatthatāya satthavāha. Kāmacchandaiṇassa abhāvato aṇaṇa.

By the six teachers who have stains. `Apāpurantūti`: `vivara etaṃ`, meaning 'open this'. `Amatassa dvāraṃ` means the Noble Path, or the Four Noble Truths. The Dhamma, penetrated and known again and again by means of the three kinds of knowledge and the four path-knowledges. On a rock (`sele`) means on one made of stone (`silāmaye`). Just as a man with sight, standing on a mountain peak free from dust and suitable for pleasant seeing, without going from here or there, would see the multitude of people all around. You too, O Sumedha of beautiful wisdom, having attained the knowledge of omniscience, are the All-seeing Eye. Because you have conquered all the battles which are the defilements, you are the Conqueror of the battle (`vijitasaṅgāma`). For the purpose of crossing over the wilderness of birth and so on, due to your capability to lead forth the multitude of trainable beings, you are the Caravan Leader (`satthavāha`). Because of the absence of the debt which is sensual desire, you are the Unindebted One (`aṇaṇa`).

9. Buddhacakkhunā indriyaparopariyattañāṇena ca āsayānusayañāṇena ca. Imesañhi dvinnaṃ ñāṇānaṃ ‘‘buddhacakkhū’’ti nāmaṃ. Uppaliniyanti uppalavane. Evaṃ sesesupi[Pg.398]. Anto nimuggaposīnīti yāni anto nimuggāneva posiyanti, tattha yāni udakaṃ accuggamma ṭhitāni, tāni sūriyaraṃsisamphassaṃ āgamayamānāni ṭhitāni ajja pupphanakāni. Yāni samodakaṃ ṭhitāni, tāni sve pupphanakāni. Yāni udakānuggatāni, tāni tatiyadivase pupphanakāni. Udakā pana anuggatāni aññānipi sarogauppalādīni nāma honti. Yāni neva pupphissanti macchakacchapabhakkhāneva bhavissanti, tāni pāḷināruḷhāni, āharitvā pana dīpetabbāni. Etehi ugghaṭitaññū vipañcitaññū neyyo padaparamoti cattāro puggalā yojetabbā. Paccabhāsīti pati abhāsi.

9. By the Buddha-eye, that is, by the knowledge of the disposition of faculties of beings and by the knowledge of their inclinations and underlying tendencies. For the name of these two knowledges is 'Buddha-eye.' In `uppaliniyaṃ`: it means 'in the lotus grove.' It should be understood likewise in the remaining phrases. In `anto nimuggaposinīti`: those lotuses that will grow while being submerged inside. Among them, those that stand having risen above the water, awaiting the touch of the sun's rays, will bloom today. Those that stand level with the water will bloom tomorrow. Those that are submerged in the water will bloom on the third day. However, other lotuses that have not risen from the water are called diseased lotuses and so on. Those that will never bloom and will just become food for fish and turtles are not included in the Pāḷi text, but they should be brought up and explained. With these, these four persons should be connected: the one who understands with a brief instruction (`ugghaṭitaññū`), the one who understands with a detailed explanation (`vipañcitaññū`), the one who is to be led (`neyyo`), and the one for whom the words are the highest attainment (`padaparamo`). In `paccabhāsīti`: `pati abhāsi` means 'he spoke in return.'

Apārutāti vivaṭā. Pacchimassa padadvayassa ayamattho. Ahañhi attano paguṇaṃ suppavattampi imaṃ paṇītaṃ uttamaṃ dhammaṃ kāyavācākilamathasaññī hutvā nābhāsi.

`Apārutāti` means `vivaṭā`, 'are opened.' This is the meaning of the last two words. For I, perceiving that it would be wearisome for body and speech, did not speak this sublime, supreme Dhamma of mine, even though it was well-practiced and well-mastered.

Brahmayācanakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Story of Brahmā’s Request is concluded.

Pañcavaggiyakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse to the Group of Five.

10. Idāni pana sabbo jano saddhābhājanaṃ upanetu, pūressāmi nesaṃ saṅkappanti. Apparajakkhajātikoti samāpattiyā vikkhambhitakilesattā nikkilesajātiko. Ājānissatīti ce na niṭṭhānamakaṃsu dhammasaṅgāhakā te vinayakkamaññā, ahaṃ deseyyaṃ paṭivijjhissatīti adhippāyo, ‘‘muddhāpi tassa vipateyyā’’ti (a. ni. 8.11; pārā. 2) ettha viya abhūtaparikappo kireso. Loke tassa adhimuttabhāvadīpanatthañhi idaṃ vacanaṃ attano tadupadesena aviditabhāvadīpanatthaṃ. Tassa anantevāsikabhāvadīpanatthanti evamādīni panettha payojanāni. Bhagavatopi kho ñāṇanti sabbaññutaññāṇaṃ tassa maraṇārammaṇaṃ uppajji. Tena tato pubbe tassa sati dhammadesanāya khippaṃ jānanabhāvārammaṇanti dīpeti. Paropadesato ajānitvā paccakkhato maraṇasacchikiriyampi dasseti. Buddhānampi anekañāṇasamodhānābhāvato suvuttametaṃ. Cittapubbikā hi cittappavatti, aññathā navasattapātubhāvappasaṅgo. Sabbadhammānaṃ ekato gahaṇe viruddhakālānaṃ ekato [Pg.399] jānanappasaṅgo. Tato ekañāṇassa vitathabhāvappattidoso, tasmā sabbassa vinānekañāṇasamodhānaṃ āpajjitadhammesu appaṭihatañāṇavantattā pana sabbaññū eva bhagavāti veditabbaṃ, na sabbakālaṃ ekato. Āḷārādīnaṃ maraṇājānanatoti ce? Na, tassa jānanena puthujjanassāpi sabbaññutāpattippasaṅgato. Yadābhāvena yadābhāvo tabbhāvena tassābhāvappasaṅgo loke siddhoti. ‘‘Bhagavatopi kho ñāṇaṃ udapādī’’ti vacanato tassa maraṇajānanaṃ siddhanti katvā bhavaṃ mateneva bhagavā sabbaññūti siddhaṃ na devatārocanato pubbe ajānanatoti ce? Na, visesaṃ pariggahetvā antarā pajānanato, devatāya sabbaññubhāvappattidosato ca. Na hi so kassaci vacanena aññāsīti.

10. Now, however, may all people bring forth the vessel of faith; I shall fulfill their aspiration. Regarding 'of little dust': because the defilements were suppressed by attainment, he was of a nature free from defilements. Regarding 'Would he understand?': If those Elders, the compilers of the Dhamma who know the order of the Vinaya, had not made a decision, the intention is: 'I would teach, and he would penetrate the truth.' This is like in the passage 'his head would surely split.' This is indeed an unreal supposition. Indeed, in the world, this statement is for the purpose of showing that person's state of high resolve, for the purpose of showing His own state of not having known through that indication of his, and for the purpose of showing that he was not His disciple. Such as these are the purposes here. Regarding 'Even for the Blessed One, knowledge arose': the knowledge of omniscience, with his death as its object, arose. Therefore, it shows that before that, while he was alive, the teaching of the Dhamma had as its object the state of being quickly known. It also shows the direct realization of death, not having known it from another's instruction. This is well-said because even for the Buddhas, there is no simultaneous arising of multiple knowledges. Indeed, the occurrence of thought is preceded by thought; otherwise, there would be the consequence of the appearance of a new being. If all phenomena were grasped at once, there would be the consequence of knowing things of contradictory times at once. From that, there would be the fault of a single knowledge becoming false. Therefore, because the Blessed One possesses unimpeded knowledge regarding phenomena to be adverted to, without the simultaneous arising of multiple knowledges, he should be known as truly omniscient—but not knowing all things at all times at once. If it is asked, 'Is it because of not knowing the death of Āḷāra and others?' No, for by knowing that, there would be the consequence of even an ordinary person attaining omniscience. It is established in the world that when the existence of one thing entails the non-existence of another, the existence of the latter entails the non-existence of the former. If it is said: 'Because of the statement, "Knowledge arose for the Blessed One," it is established that He knew of the death. Having established this, it is proven by your own view that the Blessed One is omniscient, and not that He did not know before the devas' announcement'? No, because He knew in the interim, having grasped a distinction, and because there would be the fault of the deva attaining the state of omniscience. For indeed, He did not know through the word of anyone.

Apica kimidaṃ tattha jānanaṃ nāma tadārammaṇañāṇuppattīti ce? Na, loke sabbaññuno accantābhāvappasaṅgato. Sādhikā hi mayā ekañāṇakkhaṇe sabbaṃ ñāṇaṃ, tadaññesañca tadaññāṇānuppatti. Apica sabbaññuno sabbadhammavisaye ñāṇapaccupaṭṭhānasiddhi tassa ñāṇassa attanāva attano avisayoti ce? Na, hetunidassanānuppattito. Apica ‘‘bhagavatopi kho ñāṇaṃ udapādī’’ti ettha visesavacanaṃ atthi. Yena devatārocanuttarakālameva bhagavato ñāṇaṃ udapādīti paññāyati. Na hi vacanapubbāpariyabhāvamattena tadatthapubbāpariyatā hoti, tasmā ayuttametaṃ. Abhidosakālaṃkatoti paṭhamayāme kālaṃkato. ‘‘Majjhimayāme’’tipi vadanti. Ubhayatthapi mahājāniyo. Sattadivasabbhantare, ekadivasabbhantare ca pattabbamaggaphalato parihīnattā mahatī jāni assāti mahājāni. Tesu hi dvīsu āḷāro ākiñcaññāyatanabhave nibbatto, udako bhavagge, tasmā nesaṃ dhammadesanāya akkhaṇe nibbattabhāvaṃ sandhāya bhagavā evaṃ cintesi, na ito manussalokato cutibhāvaṃ sandhāyāti veditabbaṃ. Abuddhaveneyyatañca sandhāyāti no takko, aññathā aniṭṭhappasaṅgoti ācariyo.

Furthermore, what is this so-called knowing there? Is it the arising of knowledge having that as its object? No, because it would logically follow that there is the absolute non-existence of an omniscient one in the world. For it has been established by me that all is known in a single moment of knowledge, and also the non-arising of non-knowledge concerning other things. Furthermore, if one should say that for an omniscient one, the establishment of the manifestation of knowledge in the sphere of all phenomena means that this knowledge, by itself, is not its own object? No, because of the unsuitability of showing a reason. Furthermore, in the statement, 'Indeed, knowledge arose for the Blessed One,' there is a distinguishing word, by which it is understood that the Blessed One's knowledge arose only at the time after the announcement by the devas. Indeed, the sequence of the meaning does not occur merely by the sequence of the words; therefore, this is inappropriate. 'He passed away recently' means he passed away in the first watch. Some also say, 'in the middle watch.' In both cases, it was a great loss. Because he was deprived of the attainable path and fruit within seven days or one day, his loss was great; hence, it is called a 'great loss'. Indeed, among those two, Āḷāra was reborn in the sphere of nothingness, and Uddaka at the peak of existence. Therefore, it should be understood that the Blessed One thought thus considering their having been reborn at an inopportune time for the teaching of the Dhamma, not considering their having passed away from this human world. And our reasoning is not that He thought thus with reference to their being untrainable by a Buddha; otherwise, says the teacher, an undesirable consequence would follow.

Bodhisattassa jātakāle supinapaṭiggāhakā ceva lakkhaṇapariggāhakā ca aṭṭha brāhmaṇā. Tesu tayo dvidhā byākariṃsu ‘‘imehi lakkhaṇehi samannāgato agāraṃ ajjhāvasanto rājā hoti cakkavatti, pabbajanto buddho’’ti. Pañca brāhmaṇā ‘‘agāre na tiṭṭhati, buddhova hotī’’ti ekaṃsabyākaraṇāva ahesuṃ. Tesu purimā tayo yathāmantapāraṃ [Pg.400] gatā. Ime pana mantapāraṃ atikkamantā attanā laddhaṃ puññamahattaṃ vissajjetvā bodhisattaṃ uddissa puretarameva pabbajiṃsu. Ime sandhāya vuttaṃ ‘‘pañcavaggiyā’’ti. ‘‘Tesaṃ puttā’’tipi vadanti, taṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ paṭikkhittaṃ. Kasmā panettha bhagavā ‘‘bahūpakārā kho me’’ti cintesi. Kiṃ upakārakānaṃ eva esa dhammaṃ deseti, itaresaṃ na desetīti? No na deseti. Upakārānussaraṇamattakeneva vuttanti aṭṭhakathānayo. Attano kataññukatavedibhāvappakāsanatthaṃ, kataññutādipasaṃsanatthaṃ, paresañca kataññubhāvādiniyojanatthaṃ, khippajānanappasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ.

At the time of the Bodhisatta's birth, there were eight brahmins who were receivers of dreams and interpreters of marks. Among them, three made a two-fold declaration: 'One endowed with these marks, if he lives the household life, becomes a wheel-turning monarch; if he goes forth, he becomes a Buddha.' Five brahmins made a one-sided declaration: 'He will not remain in the household; he will surely become a Buddha.' Among them, the first three prophesied according to the lore of the sacred texts. These others, however, surpassing the lore of the sacred texts and relinquishing the great merit they had acquired, went forth even earlier for the sake of the Bodhisatta. It is with reference to these that it is said, 'the group of five.' Some also say they were their sons, but that is refuted in the commentary. Why, in this context, did the Blessed One think, 'They have been very helpful to me'? Does he teach the Dhamma only to those who have been helpful and not to others? It is not that he does not teach others. This was said merely out of recollection of their help; this is the method of the commentary. It was said for the purpose of revealing his own state of being grateful and acknowledging what has been done, for praising gratitude and so on, for encouraging others in the state of gratitude and so on, and for preventing the implication of knowing quickly.

11. Antarā ca gayaṃ antarā ca bodhinti gayāya ca bodhiyā ca majjhe tigāvutantare ṭhāne. Bodhimaṇḍato hi gayā tīṇi gāvutāni. Bārāṇasinagaraṃ aṭṭhārasa yojanāni. Upako pana bodhimaṇḍassa ca gayāya ca antare bhagavantaṃ addasa. Antarā-saddena pana yuttattā upayogavacanaṃ kataṃ. Īdisesu ca ṭhānesu akkharacintakā ekameva antarāsaddaṃ payujjanti, so dutiyapadepi yojetabbo. Ayojiyamāne pana upayogavacanaṃ na pāpuṇāti. Idha pana yojetvāva vuttoti.

11. The phrase 'Between Gayā and the Bodhi tree' refers to a place in the middle of Gayā and the Bodhi tree, within a distance of three gāvutas. Indeed, Gayā is three gāvutas from the Bodhi seat. The city of Bārāṇasī is eighteen yojanas away. Upaka, however, saw the Blessed One between the Bodhi seat and Gayā. Because of the connection with the word 'antarā', the accusative case is used. And in such instances, grammarians use the word 'antarā' only once, and it should be connected to the second term as well. If it is not connected, however, the accusative case is not obtained. Here, however, it is stated as having been connected.

Sabbābhibhūti sabbaṃ tebhūmakadhammaṃ abhibhavitvā ṭhito. Taṇhakkhayeti nibbāne. Vimuttoti ārammaṇato vimutto. Natthi me paṭipuggaloti mayhaṃ paṭipuggalo nāma natthi, asadisoti attho, mama sabbaññubhāve dosaṃ dassetvā loke ṭhātuṃ asamatthatāya mama paccatthikapuggalo vā natthīti attho. Āhañchaṃ amatadundubhinti dhammacakkhupaṭilābhāya amatabheriṃ paharissāmīti gacchāmi.

"All-conquering"—having subdued all phenomena of the three realms, one is established. "In the destruction of craving"—in Nibbāna. "Liberated"—freed from the object. "There is no counterpart for me"—for me, there is no person who is a counterpart; the meaning is 'unequalled'. Or alternatively, because of the inability to stand in the world having pointed out a fault in my omniscience, there is no rival person for me. "I shall beat the drum of the Deathless"—I go, having thought thus: "I will strike the great drum called the Deathless for the sake of attaining the Dhamma-eye."

Arahasi anantajino bhavituṃ yutto tvanti attho. Idampi attano satthunāmaṃ. Hupeyyāsīti āvuso evampi nāma bhaveyya. Pakkāmīti vaṅkahārajanapadaṃ nāma agamāsi. Bhagavāpi ‘‘tattha tassa migaluddakassa dhītuyā cāpāya ukkaṇṭhitvā puna āgantvā anāgāmī ayaṃ bhavissatī’’ti upanissayasampattiṃ disvā tena saddhiṃ ālapi. So ca tathevāgantvā pabbajitvā anāgāmī hutvā anukkamena kālaṃ katvā avihesu uppajjitvā arahattaṃ pāpuṇi.

"You are worthy to become the Infinite Conqueror; it is fitting for you to become the Infinite Conqueror—this is the meaning. This name, Anantajina, is also his own name as a Teacher. "May it be so, friend"—meaning, "Friend, even such a name may be." "He departed"—he went to the country named Vaṅkahāra. The Blessed One also, seeing the supportive condition that "There, on account of Cāpā, the daughter of a deer hunter, he will become dissatisfied, return again, and this one will become a non-returner," spoke with him. And he, having returned to that very place, gone forth, and become a non-returner, in due course passed away, was reborn in the Avihā realm, and attained Arahantship.

12. Saṇṭhapesunti [Pg.401] katikaṃ akaṃsu. Padhānavibbhantoti padhānato bhaṭṭho parihīno. ‘‘Abhijānātha nu bhāsitameta’’nti, ‘‘vācaṃ bhāsitameva’’nti ca evarūpaṃ kañci vacanabhedaṃ akāsīti adhippāyo. Bhagavantaṃ sussūsiṃsūti bhagavato vacanaṃ sotukāmā ahesuṃ. Aññāti aññāya, jānitunti attho.

12. "They established"—they made an agreement. "Strayed from striving"—fallen from striving, diminished. "'Do you remember this being said?' and 'Do you remember such a word being spoken?'"—the intention is to ask whether he made any such alteration in his words. "They wished to hear the Blessed One"—they were desirous of hearing the Blessed One's word. "He understood"—the meaning is 'having understood', 'to know'.

13. Atha kimatthaṃ āmantesīti? Tatopi suṭṭhutaraṃ paṭijānanatthaṃ, dhammassa abhibhāriyadullabhabhāvadīpanatthaṃ, akkharavikkhepanivāraṇatthañca. Tattha dvemeti antadvayavacanaṃ aññesampi tadantogadhabhāvato. Apica yojanāvasena. Taṇhāavijjāti hi saṃsārappavattiyā sīsabhūtā dve kilesā. Te ca samathavipassanānaṃ paṭipakkhabhūtattā antā nāma. Tesu taṇhāvasena kāmasukhallikānuyogaṃ bhajanto samathaṃ parihāpeti bālo, tathā avijjāvasena attakilamathānuyogaṃ bhajanto gacchanto vipassananti na sakkā ubho dve ante appahāya amataṃ adhigantunti evaṃ vuttā. Apica līnuddhaccapahānadassanametaṃ. Līno hi nikkhittavīriyārambho kāmasukhañca bhajati, itaro accāraddhavīriyo attakilamathaṃ. Ubhopi te vīriyasamatāya paṭipakkhattā antā nāma. Apica tisso sāsane paṭipadā vuttā āgāḷhā, nijjhāmā, majjhimā ca. Tattha āgāḷhā ‘‘pāṇātipātī hoti, natthi kāmesu doso’’ti evamādikā. Nijjhāmā ‘‘acelako hoti, muttācāro’’ti evamādikā, majjhimā ‘‘ayameva ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo’’ti evamādikā. Tattha kāmasukhallikānuyogo āgāḷhā nāma paṭipadā hoti sabbākusalamūlattā. Attakilamathānuyogo nijjhāmā nāma attajjhāpanato. Ubhopete majjhimāya paṭipadāya paṭipakkhabhūtattā antā nāma, tasmā imeva sandhāya dvemeti. Kimatthaṃ bhagavā ‘‘pabbajitena na sevitabbā’’ti pabbajite eva adhikaroti, na gahaṭṭheti? Pabbajitānaṃ tadadhimuttattā, sukhaparivajjanasamatthatāya, tadadhikatattā ca pabbajitā ettha adhikatā, na gahaṭṭhā. Yadi evaṃ kimatthaṃ kāmasukhallikānuyogamāha, nanu te pakatiyāpi kāmapariccāgaṃ katvā taṃ nissaraṇatthaṃ pabbajitāti? Na, tesaṃ antadvayanissitattā. Te hi idha loke kāmena visuddhimicchanti attakilamathānuyogamanuyuttā tasseva tapassa phalena pecca dibbe kāme āsīsamānā daḷhataraṃ kāmasukhallikānuyogamanuyuttāti veditabbā[Pg.402]. Antattho pana idha kucchitaṭṭhena veditabbo ‘‘antamidaṃ, bhikkhave, jīvikānaṃ, yadidaṃ piṇḍolya’’ntiādīsu (itivu. 91; saṃ. ni. 3.80) viya.

13. Then, for what purpose did he address them? For the purpose of a more ready acceptance, for showing the exceedingly weighty and difficult-to-obtain nature of the Dhamma, and for preventing the mind from wandering in the interim. Herein, the word 'these two' refers to the two extremes because others are also included within them. Furthermore, this is by way of connection. For craving and ignorance are the two defilements that are the chief causes for the continuation of saṃsāra. And because they are opposed to serenity (samatha) and insight (vipassanā), they are called extremes. Among them, the fool who, through craving, indulges in the devotion to sensual pleasures causes serenity to decline. Likewise, the fool who, through ignorance, indulges in the devotion to self-mortification causes insight to decline. Therefore, it is said thus: it is not possible to attain the Deathless without having abandoned both these two extremes. Furthermore, this is a teaching on the abandoning of sloth (līna) and agitation (uddhacca). For the slothful one, who has given up the undertaking of effort, indulges in sensual pleasure; while the other, who is overly energetic, indulges in self-mortification. Both are called extremes because they are opposed to the balance of energy. Furthermore, three practices are spoken of in the Dispensation: the excessive (āgāḷhā), the scorching (nijjhāmā), and the middle (majjhimā). Herein, the excessive is such as: 'He is a killer of living beings; there is no fault in sensual pleasures,' and so on. The scorching is such as: 'He is a naked ascetic, of unrestrained conduct,' and so on. The middle is such as: 'This is the Noble Eightfold Path,' and so on. Herein, the devotion to sensual pleasures is the practice called excessive because it is the root of all unwholesome states. The devotion to self-mortification is the practice called scorching because it scorches the self. Both of these are called extremes because they are opposed to the middle practice. Therefore, it is with reference to these that 'these two' is said. For what reason does the Blessed One, in saying 'They should not be pursued by one gone forth,' make it apply only to those gone forth, and not to householders? Because those gone forth are inclined towards these, are capable of avoiding pleasure, and because their state is one of attainment through such renunciation, those gone forth are the subject here, not householders. If so, for what reason did he speak of the devotion to sensual pleasures? Have they not gone forth for the sake of liberation from that, having renounced sensual pleasures by their very nature? No, because of their reliance on the two extremes. For they do not desire purity in this world by means of sensual pleasure; rather, being devoted to the practice of self-mortification, and hoping for divine sensual pleasures in the next life as the fruit of that very austerity, they are to be understood as being even more firmly devoted to the devotion to sensual pleasures. The meaning of 'extreme,' however, should be understood here in the sense of 'contemptible,' as in such passages as: 'This, bhikkhus, is an extreme livelihood, that is, collecting alms-food'.

Yo cāyaṃ kāmesu kāmasukhallikānuyogoti ettha kāmesūti vatthukāmo adhippeto, dutiyo kilesakāmo. Taṃsampayuttasukhamettha kāmasukhaṃ nāma. Tena vipākasukhassa niravajjabhāvaṃ dīpetīti. Allīyanaṃ nāma tadabhinandanā. Anuyogo nāma bhavantare tadanuyogapatthanā. Hānabhāgiyakarattā kusalapakkhassa, hīnapuggalabhāvitattā, hīnadhātupabhavattā ca lāmakaṭṭhena hīno. Gāmanivāsisattadhammattā gammo. Puthujjanasādhāraṇattā pothujjaniko. Anariyoti ariyānaṃ anadhippetattā, ariyadhammapaṭipakkhattā, anariyakarattā, anariyadhammattā, anariyāciṇṇattā ca veditabbo. Anatthasaṅkhātasaṃsārabhayāvahattā, anatthaphalanibbattakattā ca anatthasaṃhito. Attano kevalaṃ khedūpagamo attakilamatho nāma. So diṭṭhigatapubbakattatapānukkamakiriyāvisesaṃ nissāya pavattati, tassa diṭṭhivasena anuyogo attakilamathānuyogo nāma. Attaviyogavittāparissamattā, anupāyapavattattā sampajjamāno migayonigoyonikukkurayonisūkarayonīsu pātāyati. Vipaccamāno narakaṃ netīti anatthasaṃhito. Ete tvāti ete tu. Tathāgatenāti attānaṃ avitathāgamanaṃ āvi karoti, tenetaṃ dasseti ‘‘na mayā parivitakkitamattena vitakkitā, kintu mayā tathāgateneva satā abhisambodhiñāṇena abhisambuddho’’ti. Cakkhukaraṇītiādīhi pana tameva paṭipadaṃ thometi. Bhesajjaṃ āturassa viya ‘‘cakkhukaraṇī’’ti iminā ñāṇacakkhuvisodhanaṃ vuttaṃ. Ñāṇakaraṇīti iminā andhakāravidhamanaṃ vuttaṃ. Upasamāyāti kilesapariḷāhapaṭippassaddhi vuttā. Abhiññāyāti saccapaṭivedhanaṃ vuttaṃ. Sambodhāyāti saccapaṭivijjhanaṃ vuttaṃ. Nibbānāyāti sopādisesanibbānadhātuyā anupādisesanibbānadhātuyāti evaṃ yathāsambhavaṃ yojetvā kathetabbaṃ.

And concerning this 'indulgence in sensual pleasures' (kāmasukhallikānuyoga): here, in 'kāmesu,' first sensual objects (vatthukāma) are intended, and second, sensual defilements (kilesakāma). The pleasure associated with these is here called 'sensual pleasure' (kāmasukha). By this, the blamelessness of resultant pleasure is shown. 'Allīyanaṃ' (indulgence) means delighting in that. 'Anuyogo' (pursuit) means the aspiration for association with it in another existence. Because it leads to decline on the wholesome side, because it is cultivated by inferior individuals, and because it arises from inferior elements, it is 'low' (hīna) in the sense of being base. Because it is the nature of village-dwelling beings, it is 'vulgar' (gamma). Because it is common to ordinary people, it is 'of ordinary people' (pothujjanika). 'Ignoble' (anariya) should be understood as such because it is not desired by the noble ones, is opposed to the noble Dhamma, is of an ignoble nature, and is practiced by the ignoble. Because it brings the danger of saṃsāra, which is designated as unbeneficial, and because it produces an unbeneficial result, it is 'connected with what is unbeneficial' (anatthasaṃhita). 'Self-mortification' (attakilamatha) is merely the undertaking of one's own exhaustion. It proceeds depending on a specific kind of action, which is a sequence of asceticism preceded by wrong view; and its pursuit by way of wrong view is called 'the pursuit of self-mortification' (attakilamathānuyoga). Because of being unendowed with the wealth of wisdom that is separate from a self, and because it proceeds without proper method, when undertaken, it causes one to fall into the wombs of deer, cattle, dogs, and pigs. When it ripens, it leads to hell; therefore, it is 'connected with what is unbeneficial'. 'Ete tva' means 'ete tu' (but these). 'By the Tathāgata' (Tathāgatena)—he reveals his own unerring arrival, thus showing: 'It was not thought out by me merely by way of conjecture, but rather, by me, being a Tathāgata, it was fully awakened to with the knowledge of full awakening.' By phrases like 'eye-making' (cakkhukaraṇī), he praises that very path. 'Eye-making' refers to the purification of the eye of wisdom. 'Knowledge-making' (ñāṇakaraṇī) refers to the dispelling of darkness. 'For peace' (upasamāya) means the pacification of the fever of defilements. 'For direct knowledge' (abhiññāya) means the penetration of the truths. 'For full enlightenment' (sambodhāya) means the piercing of the truths. 'For Nibbāna' (nibbānāya) refers to the Nibbāna-element with residue and the Nibbāna-element without residue—thus, it should be explained by connecting them as appropriate.

14. Kasmā panettha bhagavā aññattha viya anupubbiṃ kathaṃ akathetvā paṭhamameva asevitabbamantadvayaṃ vatvā majjhimapaṭipadaṃ desesīti? Attādimicchābhimānanivāraṇatthaṃ, kummaggapaṭipattinivāraṇatthañca antadvayavajjanaṃ vatvā attano [Pg.403] visesādhigamadīpananayena abāhullikādibhāvadassanatthaṃ, tesañca majjhimapaṭipadādīpanena tattha anuyojanatthaṃ pacchā sammāpaṭipadaṃ desesi, tato tassa majjhimapaṭipadāsaṅkhātassa ariyamaggassa visayadassanatthaṃ catusaccadhammaṃ saṅkhepavitthāravasena desetukāmo ‘‘idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkha’’ntiādimāha, ayamettha anusandhi. ‘‘Idaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccanti me, bhikkhave’’tiādi suttānusandhipakaāsanatthaṃ ayamanukkamo veditabbo. Yathāvuttaṃ paṭipadaṃ sutvā kira koṇḍañño āha ‘‘kathaṃ bhagavatā vuttapaṭipadāya uppatti siyā. Ayañhi paṭipadā kilesānaṃ anuppattiyā sati sambhavati, na aññathā. Kilesānañca yadi lobhato uppatti khuppipāsānaṃ viya, tadāsevanāya anuppatti siyā, tadavatthussa vā tesaṃ uppatti. Tadavatthuviparītakāyakilamathāsevanāya anuppatti siyā. Ubhopetā bhagavatā ‘antā’ti vuttā, tasmā kathaṃ panetissāya sammāpaṭipadāya uppatti sambhaveyyā’’ti. Bhagavā āha anupāyāsevanato. Kathanti ce? –

14. Why here did the Blessed One, unlike in other suttas, not give a gradual discourse, but instead, at the very beginning, having spoken of the two extremes that should not be followed, teach the Middle Path? He taught thus for the purpose of preventing wrong conception regarding self and so on, and for the purpose of preventing the practice of a wrong path. Having spoken of the avoidance of the two extremes, by the method of showing the attainment of His own special state, for the purpose of showing the state of non-indulgence and so on, and by showing the Middle Path to them, for the purpose of their engagement in it, He afterwards taught the right practice. After that, desiring to teach the Dhamma of the Four Truths by way of brief and detailed explanation, for the purpose of showing the domain of that Noble Path called the Middle Path, He said, 'This, indeed, O bhikkhus, is suffering,' and so on. This is the connection here. This sequence, starting with 'This, O bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering,' etc., should be understood for the purpose of showing the connection of the sutta. It is said that having heard the practice as it was spoken, Koṇḍañña said: 'How could there be the arising of the practice spoken of by the Blessed One? For this practice is possible when there is the non-arising of defilements, not otherwise. And if the arising of defilements is from greed, like hunger and thirst, then by indulging in that, there would be the non-arising of the practice. Or, for the state which is its basis, there is the arising of them. By indulging in bodily mortification, which is the opposite of that which is its basis, there would be the non-arising of the practice. Both of these have been called 'extremes' by the Blessed One. Therefore, how could the arising of this right practice be possible?' The Blessed One said: 'From not indulging in what is not the means.' And if asked how? –

‘‘Saṃsāramūlato ñāṇaṃ, tañca ñāṇā pahiyyati;

Jīvite sati taṃ hoti, tañca jīvitasādhane.

From the root of saṃsāra, there is ignorance, and that ignorance is destroyed by knowledge. When there is life, that knowledge exists, and that knowledge is dependent on what accomplishes life.

‘‘Tasmā ñāṇāya medhāvī, rakkhe jīvitamattano;

Ñāṇasādhanabhūtañca, sīlañca paripālaye.

Therefore, for the sake of knowledge, a wise person should protect their own life; and should perfectly maintain virtue, which is the means for accomplishing knowledge.

‘‘Jīvitañca yathā loke, bhinne kāye na vijjati;

Tatheva bhinnasīlassa, natthi ñāṇassa sambhavo.

Just as in the world, when the body is broken, life does not exist, in the very same way, for one with broken virtue, there is no possibility for the arising of knowledge.

‘‘Tasmā āyuñca sīlañca, ñāṇatthaṃ rakkhatā satā;

Sevitabbā na kāmāpi, nāpi kāyavināsanā.

Therefore, by a mindful person protecting life and virtue for the sake of knowledge, sensual pleasures should not be indulged in, nor should bodily destruction be indulged in.

‘‘Kāmesu gedhamupagamma hino gammañca,Accuddhano kilamathaṃ gamupeti mūḷho;

Yo majjhimaṃ paṭipadaṃ paramaṃ upeti,So khippameva labhate paramaṃ vimokkha’’nti.

Having fallen into greed for sensual pleasures, one is base and adopts the conduct of villagers; the deluded one, for a very long time, comes to weariness. Whoever attains the supreme Middle Path, that one quickly obtains the supreme liberation.

Sutvā [Pg.404] tadetaṃ sugatassa vākyaṃ,Paññaṃ munī so sutajaṃ labhitvā;

Cintāmayaṃ ñāṇa pavesamāno,Ucchindayaṃ pañhamimaṃ apucchi.

Having heard that utterance of the Sugata, that sage, having obtained wisdom born of learning and applying knowledge born of reflection, asked this question, wishing to sever it.

‘‘Nibbedhapadaṭṭhānaṃ pahāya ghoraṃ,Tapaṃ kathamivāti so tvaṃ;

Brūhi tadeva hoti bhikkhu cara,Virāgamupayāti ca dukkhasaccassa;

Dassaneneva dukkhānubhavanā,Tamhi dosassa paccayo’’ti.

‘Having abandoned the severe ascetic practice, the basis for penetration, how then should one practice?’ Thus he asked. ‘You, sir, please explain that.’ The Blessed One said: ‘O bhikkhu, it is just that. Practice that very thing. One reaches dispassion.’ And ‘one reaches dispassion’ occurs only by seeing the truth of suffering. Therein, the experiencing of suffering is the condition for aversion.

Sutvāva koṇḍañño munivacanaṃ,Vuṭṭhāya haṭṭho sahasā avoca;

‘‘Udāhara tvaṃ bhagavā mametaṃ,Bhikkhu yathā passati dukkhasacca’’nti.

Just upon hearing the Sage's word, Koṇḍañña, joyful, rose up hastily and spoke: 'O Blessed One, please declare this to me—how a bhikkhu sees the truth of suffering.'

Cintāmayissa paññāparipuṇṇā bhāvanāmayipaññāsampatti jānitabbā imehi iti bhagavā suttamidamāhāti kira. Kasmā bhagavā koṇḍaññassa purimameva saccadesanaṃ avaḍḍhetvā attano adhigatakkamamāhāti? Nāhaṃ kassaci āgamaṃ desemi, apica kho sayameva evamadhigatomhīti dassanatthaṃ. Tattha ‘‘pubbe ananussutesu dhammesū’’ti iminā idaṃ atthadvayaṃ dasseti, na mayā āḷārato, udakato vā ayaṃ dhammo suto, kintu pubbe ananussutesveva ñāṇaṃ me udapādīti majjhimāya paṭipadāya ānubhāvaṃ pakāseti. Apica yasmā evaṃ paṭipanno vināpi paropadesena ariyasaccāni passati, tasmā kathaṃ tumheva mamāpadesena na passathāti.

The accomplishment of wisdom born of cultivation, which perfects the wisdom of one with wisdom born of reflection, is to be known by these monks. Thus, it is said, the Blessed One spoke this discourse. Why, without elaborating on the first teaching of the truths to Koṇḍañña, did the Blessed One speak of the sequence of his own attainment? It was to show, 'I do not teach a tradition from anyone, but rather, I myself have attained it thus.' Therein, by the phrase 'in things not formerly heard,' he shows this twofold meaning: 'This Dhamma was not heard by me from Āḷāra or from Udaka, but rather, knowledge arose in me only in regard to things not formerly heard'—thus he reveals the power of the Middle Path. Furthermore, since one who has practiced thus sees the Noble Truths even without instruction from another, how then could you not see them with my instruction?

15. Cakkhuntiādīni pañca padāni ñāṇavevacanāneva. Ñāṇañhi saccānaṃ ālocanato cakkhubhūtatthajānanato ñāṇaṃ. Pakārehi jānanato paññā. Kilesavidāraṇato, vijjanato ca vijjā. Saccacchādakatamavināsanato, tesaṃ gatikoṭipakāsanato ālokoti veditabbaṃ. Tattha paṭhamena parivaṭṭena saccānaṃ aññamaññaṃ asaṅkarato ṭhapanapaññaṃ [Pg.405] dasseti, dutiyena tesaṃ kattabbākāraparicchindanapaññaṃ, tatiyena saccesu ñāṇakiccasanniṭṭhānaṃ dasseti.

15. The five terms beginning with 'eye' (cakkhu) are merely synonyms for knowledge. For knowledge (ñāṇa) is so called because it illuminates the truths and because it knows the meaning that has become manifest to the eye. Because it knows by way of modes, it is wisdom (paññā). Because it tears apart the defilements and because it penetrates, it is true knowledge (vijjā). Because it destroys the darkness that covers the truths and reveals their sphere and limit, it is to be understood as light (āloko). Therein, by the first round, it shows the wisdom that establishes the truths without mixing them with one another; by the second, the wisdom that determines the aspect of what is to be done regarding them; by the third, it shows the completion of the task of knowledge regarding the truths.

16. Yāvakīvañcāti dvīhi padehi yāvaicceva vuttaṃ hoti ‘‘iti cittamano’’tiādi viya. Rāgādīhi akuppatāya akuppā vimutti. Veyyākaraṇanti dhammadesanā. Sā hi dhammānaṃ byākaraṇato pakāsanato ‘‘veyyākaraṇa’’nti vuccati. Virajaṃ vītamalanti ettha virajaṃ visamahetuvādavigamato. Vītamalaṃ ahetukavādavigamato. Virajaṃ sassatadiṭṭhippahānato. Vītamalaṃ ucchedadiṭṭhippahānato. Virajaṃ pariyuṭṭhānappahānato. Vītamalaṃ anusayappahānato. Dhammacakkhunti dhammamattadassanaṃ, na tattha satto vā jīvo vā kārako vā vedako vāti, tenevāha ‘‘yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbantaṃ nirodhadhamma’’nti. Idañhi tassa dhammacakkhussa uppattiākāradassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tañhi nirodhaṃ ārammaṇaṃ katvā kiccavasena eva saṅkhataṃ paṭivijjhantaṃ uppajjati.

16. By the two terms in `yāvakīvañca`, only `yāva` is meant, like in `iti cittamano`, etc. Unshakeable liberation (akuppā vimutti) is so called because it is unshaken by lust and the like. 'Explanation' (veyyākaraṇa) refers to the teaching of the Dhamma, for it is called 'explanation' because it clarifies and expounds the Dhamma. Regarding 'stainless, immaculate' (virajaṃ vītamala): herein, 'stainless' is from the removal of the view of an inconsistent cause, and 'immaculate' is from the removal of the view of causelessness. 'Stainless' is from the abandoning of the eternalist view; 'immaculate' is from the abandoning of the annihilationist view. 'Stainless' is from the abandoning of active defilements; 'immaculate' is from the abandoning of latent tendencies. The 'Dhamma-eye' (dhammacakkhu) is the vision of mere phenomena—not of a being, a soul, an agent, or an experiencer. Therefore it is said, 'Whatever is of a nature to arise, all that is of a nature to cease.' This was stated to show the manner of the arising of that Dhamma-eye. For it arises by taking cessation as its object and, by way of its function alone, penetrating the conditioned.

17. Dhammacakkanti ettha desanāñāṇaṃ adhippetaṃ, paṭivedhañāṇañca labbhateva. Ettha kimatthaṃ devā saddamanussāvesunti? Nānādiṭṭhigatandhakāravidhamanato laddhālokattā, apāyabhayasamatikkamanato assāsaṃ pattattā, devakāyavimānadassanato pītipāmojjacalitattā cāti evamādīnettha kāraṇāni vadanti. Pathavikampanamahāsaddapātubhāvo ca dhammatāvaseneva hotīti eke. Devatānaṃ kīḷitukāmatāya pathavikampo. Bahuno devasaṅghassa sannipātato, bhagavato sarīrappabhājālavisajjanato cāti ekacce.

17. Here, by 'Dhammacakka,' the knowledge of teaching is intended, and the knowledge of penetration is certainly obtained. Here, why did the devas cause the sound to be heard? Because, with the darkness of diverse wrong views dispelled, they had obtained light; because, having overcome the fear of the lower realms, they had attained relief; and because they were moved by joy and gladness upon seeing the celestial mansions of the hosts of devas—such reasons and others are given here. Some say that the appearance of the earthquake and the great sound occurred merely according to the nature of things. Others say that the earthquake was due to the deities' desire to sport, and that the great light appeared due to the assembly of a great multitude of deities and to the release of the net of the Blessed One's bodily radiance.

18. Pabbajjupasampadāvisesanti attho. Tattha iti-saddo tassa ehibhikkhūpasampadāpaṭilābhanimittavacanapariyosānadassano. Tadavasāno hi tassa bhikkhubhāvo. Svākkhātotiādi ‘‘ehī’’ti āmantanāya payojanadassanavacanaṃ. ‘‘Ehibhikkhū’’ti bhagavā avoca ‘‘svākkhāto dhammo cara…pe… kiriyāyā’’ti ca avocāti padasambandho. Tattha cara brahmacariyanti avasiṭṭhaṃ maggattayabrahmacariyaṃ samadhigaccha. Kimatthaṃ? Sammādukkhassantakiriyāyāti attho. ‘‘Ehibhikkhū’’ti iminā bhagavato vacanena nipphannattā kāraṇūpacārena ‘‘ehibhikkhūpasampadā’’ti vuttā. Sāva tassāyasmato yāvajīvaṃ upasampadā ahosīti attho. Tena tassā upasampadāya [Pg.406] sikkhāpaccakkhātādinā vicchedā vā tadaññāya upasampadāya kiccaṃ vā natthīti idamatthadvayaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dasseti. Aṭṭhannampi upasampadānaṃ ehibhikkhuovādapaṭiggahaṇapañhabyākaraṇagarudhammapaṭiggahaṇūpasampadānaṃ catunnaṃ aññatarāya upasampannassa antarā vicchedo vā tadaññūpasampadāya kiccaṃ vā natthi, itarassatthīti. Nikāyantarikā panāhu ‘‘buddhapaccekabuddhānaṃ niyāmokkantisaṅkhātāya upasampadāya ñatticatutthakammupasampadañca dasavaggapañcavaggakaraṇīyavasena dvidhā bhinditvā dasavidhopasampadā’’ti. Kā panettha atthato upasampadā nāmāti? Tadadhigatakiriyāvasena nibbattiyā asekkhā tadadhivāsanacetanāya paribhāvitapañcakkhandhikā ajjhattasantati. Kā panettha paribhāvanā nāma? Tabbipakkhadhammajjhācāraviruddhabhāvo, tassa pattiyā tāya paribhāvanāya vasena katthaci ‘‘samannāgato’’ti vuccati. Yathāha ‘‘lobhena samannāgato, bhikkhave, abhabbo cattāri satipaṭṭhānāni bhāvetu’’ntiādi. Etthāhu nikāyantarikā ‘‘yathāvuttāya upasampadāya pattisaṅkhāto cittavippayutto saṅkhārakkhandhapariyāpanno dhammo atthi, tassa santativasena pubbāpariyaṃ uppajjamānassa yāva avicchedo, tāva upasampannoti, aññathā tato dhammantaruppattikkhaṇe tassa upasampannassa anupasampannabhāvappasaṅgo āpajjatī’’ti. Te vattabbā ‘‘suttaṃ āharathā’’ti. Te ce vadeyyuṃ ‘‘yo tesaṃ dasannaṃ asekkhānaṃ dhammānaṃ upādāya paṭilābhasamannāgamo ariyo hoti vippahīnoti evamādīni no suttānī’’ti. Evaṃ sati asantadhammehi, parasattehi ca samannāgamadosappasaṅgo nesaṃ pāpuṇāti. Kiṃkāraṇaṃ? Suttasambhavato. Yathāha – ‘‘rājā, bhikkhave, cakkavattī sattahi ratanehi samannāgato hotī’’ti (dī. ni. 3.199-200 atthato samānaṃ) vitthāro. Vasibhāvo tattha samannāgatasaddena vutto. Tassahitesu ratanesu vasibhāvo kāmacāro atthīti ce? Ettha vasibhāvo samannāgamasaddena vutto, aññattha pattisaṅkhāto, taṃ dhammantaranti. Kimettha visesakāraṇaṃ? Natthi ca, tasmā yathāvuttalakkhaṇāva upasampadā. Ayameva nayo pabbajjādīsupi netabbo.

18. The meaning is the distinction of going forth and higher ordination. Therein, the word 'iti' indicates the conclusion of the statement that is the cause for attaining the 'ehi bhikkhu' higher ordination. For his status as a bhikkhu has its conclusion in that. The passage beginning with 'Svākkhāto' is a statement showing the purpose of the address 'Come.' The Blessed One said, 'Come, bhikkhu,' and he also said, 'The Dhamma is well-expounded; practice... for the ending of suffering.' This is how the connection of the words should be made. Therein, by 'practice the holy life' is meant: attain the holy life of the remaining three paths. For what purpose? For the sake of making a complete end of suffering; this is the meaning. Because it is accomplished by this utterance of the Blessed One, 'Come, bhikkhu,' it is called the 'ehi bhikkhu higher ordination' by a figurative use of the cause. That very ordination was the higher ordination for that venerable one for as long as he lived; this is the meaning. By this, the commentary shows this twofold meaning: that for that higher ordination, there is neither an interruption by means of renouncing the training and so on, nor is there a need for another higher ordination. Of the eight kinds of higher ordination, for one who has been ordained by any one of the four—the 'ehi bhikkhu' higher ordination, the higher ordination by acceptance of an exhortation, the higher ordination by answering a question, and the higher ordination by acceptance of the weighty rules—there is neither an interruption in the interim nor a need for another higher ordination. For the other types, there is. However, those of other schools say: 'Including the higher ordination of Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas, known as 'entry into the fixed course,' and dividing the higher ordination by a motion and three announcements into two—according to whether it is to be performed by a chapter of ten or a chapter of five—there are ten kinds of higher ordination.' Herein, what, by meaning, is called higher ordination? It is the internal continuity of the five aggregates of one beyond training, accomplished by means of the action of attaining that, and imbued by the volition that resolves upon it. Herein, what is called 'imbuing'? It is the state of being contrary to the practice of transgressing those things which are its opposite. By means of that imbuing, through having attained that state, one is in some cases called 'endowed.' As it is said: 'Bhikkhus, one endowed with greed is incapable of developing the four establishments of mindfulness,' and so on. Herein, those of other schools say: 'In the aforementioned higher ordination, there exists a phenomenon, dissociated from mind and included in the aggregate of formations, called 'attainment'. By the power of its continuity, arising before and after, as long as there is no interruption, one is called 'ordained'. Otherwise, at the moment of the arising of a different phenomenon from that, the consequence of the ordained one becoming unordained would occur.' They should be told: 'Bring forth a sutta.' And if they should say: 'Such suttas as "The noble one is endowed with the acquisition and attainment on account of those ten qualities of one beyond training, having abandoned..." are our suttas.' This being so, the fault of being endowed with non-existent things and with other beings would follow for them. What is the reason? Because of what is found in the suttas. As it is said: 'Bhikkhus, a wheel-turning monarch is endowed with seven treasures.' The details should be understood. Therein, mastery is expressed by the word 'endowed.' If it is said that regarding those treasures, he has mastery and freedom of action? Here, mastery is expressed by the word 'endowment'; elsewhere, what is called 'attainment' is expressed. That is a different phenomenon. What is the distinguishing reason here? There is none. Therefore, higher ordination is just as defined above. This same method should be applied to going forth and so on as well.

19. Kiñcāpi vappattherassa pāṭipadadivase…pe… assajittherassa catutthiyanti evaṃ nānādivasesu pāṭekkaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi, tathāpi ovādasāmaññena [Pg.407] vappabhaddiyānaṃ, mahānāmaassajīnañcettha ekato vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

19. Although the eye of the Dhamma arose separately on different days—such as on the first day for the elder Vappa… and on the fourth day for the elder Assaji—nevertheless, it should be understood that by virtue of the common instruction, Vappa, Bhaddiya, Mahānāma, and Assaji are stated together here.

20. ‘‘Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā’’ti kimatthaṃ āditova anattalakkhaṇaṃ dīpetīti? Tesaṃ puthujjanakālepi itaralakkhaṇadvayassa pākaṭattā. Te hi manāpānaṃ kāmānaṃ aniccatādassanena saṃviggā pabbajiṃsūti aniccalakkhaṇaṃ tāva nesaṃ ekadesena pākaṭaṃ, pabbajitānañca attakilamathānuyogato kāyikadukkhaṃ, tañca mānasassa paccayoti mānasikadukkhañca pākaṭaṃ, tasmā tadubhayaṃ vajjitvā anattalakkhaṇameva dīpetuṃ ārabhi. Tañca dīpento dukkhalakkhaṇeneva dīpetuṃ ‘‘rūpañca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissā’’tiādimāha. Kimatthanti? Aniccalakkhaṇatopi tesaṃ dukkhalakkhaṇassa suṭṭhutaraṃ pākaṭattā. Tesañhi attakilamathānuyogamanuyuttattā, tapparāyaṇabhāvato ca dukkhalakkhaṇaṃ suṭṭhu pākaṭaṃ, tasmā tena tāva suṭṭhu pākaṭena anattalakkhaṇaṃ dīpetvā puna tadeva tadubhayenāpi dīpetuṃ ‘‘taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā’’ti vakkhati. Kallaṃ nūti yuttaṃ nu. Etaṃ mamāti taṇhāggāho. Esohamasmīti mānaggāho. Eso me attāti diṭṭhiggāho. Taṇhāggāho cettha aṭṭhasatataṇhāvicaritavasena, mānaggāho navavidhamānavasena, diṭṭhiggāho dvāsaṭṭhidiṭṭhivasena veditabbo.

20. “Form, monks, is not-self”—why does he begin by revealing the characteristic of not-self from the outset? Because, even in their time as worldlings, the other two characteristics were apparent to them. For they had gone forth, stirred by seeing the impermanence of desirable sensual pleasures, so the characteristic of impermanence was, to some extent, already apparent to them. And after going forth, due to their engagement in self-mortification, physical suffering arose, which was a condition for mental suffering—thus, mental suffering was also apparent. Therefore, setting aside both of those, he began to reveal only the characteristic of not-self. And while revealing it, he revealed it by means of the characteristic of suffering, saying, “For if, monks, this form were self…” and so on. Why? Because the characteristic of suffering was more clearly apparent to them than the characteristic of impermanence. For since they were engaged in the practice of self-mortification and had it as their resort, the characteristic of suffering was exceedingly apparent. Therefore, having first revealed the characteristic of not-self by means of that which was exceedingly apparent, he will then say, “What do you think, monks—is form permanent or impermanent?” in order to reveal that very characteristic by means of both. The phrase ‘Is it proper?’ means ‘Is it suitable?’. ‘This is mine’ is the grasping of craving. ‘I am this’ is the grasping of conceit. ‘This is my self’ is the grasping of view. Herein, the grasping of craving should be understood by way of the 108 modes of craving’s activity, the grasping of conceit by way of the nine kinds of conceit, and the grasping of view by way of the 62 kinds of views.

Pañcavaggiyakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Discourse on the Group of Five is concluded.

Pabbajjākathāvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Discourse on the Going Forth

25. Yena samayena bhagavā pañcavaggiye pañcamiyaṃ arahatte patiṭṭhāpetvā sattamiyaṃ nāḷakattherassa nāḷakapaṭipadaṃ ācikkhitvā bhaddapadapuṇṇamāyaṃ yasassa indriyānaṃ paripakkabhāvaṃ ñatvā taṃ udikkhanto bārāṇasiyaṃ vihāsi, tena samayena yaso nāmāti sambandho. Tassa kira uppattito paṭṭhāya tassa kulassa kittisaddasaṅkhāto, parijanasaṅkhāto vā yaso visesato pavaḍḍhati. Tena tassa mātāpitaro evaṃ nāmamakaṃsu. ‘‘Sukhumālo’’tiādi kimatthaṃ āyasmatā upālittherena vuttanti? Pacchimajanassa nekkhamme samussāhanajananatthaṃ. Evaṃ uttamabhogasamappitānampi uttamesu bhogesu appamattakenāpi [Pg.408] asubhanimittena vitajjetvā kālākālaṃ agaṇetvā vivekābhiratiyā mahantaṃ bhogakkhandhaṃ tiṇaṃ viya pahāya gehato nikkhamanā ahosi, kassa panaññassa na siyāti adhippāyo. Samaṅgībhūtassāti tehi ekattaṃ upagatassa, avivittassāti attho. Niddā okkamīti manāpesupi visayesu pavattiṃ nivāretvā tassa cittaṃ atikkamitvā abhibhavitvā attano vasaṃ upanesīti attho. Sabbarattiyo cāti tayopi yāme. Tena parijanassa vikāradassane kāraṇaṃ dasseti. Ratti-saddo panettha kāle sūriyābhāve, yāme ca pavattatīti viññeyyo. Yāmevidha viññeyyo ticīvaravippavāse ca. Kaccheti kacchapasse. Kaṇṭheti kaṇṭhassa heṭṭhā. Mudiṅgassa hi upari kaṇṭhaṃ ṭhapetvā sayantiyā kaṇṭhe mudiṅgaṃ addasāti attho. Āḷambaranti paṇavaṃ. Ubhatomukhassa tanukā dīghā. Vitthinnasamatalassa vāditassa etaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Vippalapantiyoti supinadassanādivasena asambandhapalāpaṃ vippalapantiyo. Susānaṃ maññeti susānaṃ viya addasa sakaṃ parijananti sambandho. Ādīnavoti asubhabhāvo. Nibbidāya cittaṃ saṇṭhātīti vimuccitukāmatāsaṅkhātāya ukkaṇṭhāya cittaṃ namīti attho. Udānaṃ udānesīti ‘‘ito paṭṭhāya imāhi itthīhi saha nāhaṃ bhavissāmī’’ti attamanavācaṃ nicchāresi. Dve kira ākārā tassa pamādasuttaparijanadassane pākaṭā jātā kilesānaṃ balavabhāvo, asubhākārassa atioḷārikabhāvo ca. Evaṃ sati oḷārikatare ca asubhākāre kilesavasenāyaṃ sabbopi loko ettha pīḷito mucchito. Aho kilesā balavatarāti hi passato passato tassa dvepi te ākārā pākaṭā jātā, yenevamavocāti.

25. At the time when the Blessed One dwelt in Bārāṇasī—having established the monks of the group of five in Arahantship on the fifth day, having explained the Nāḷaka practice to the Elder Nāḷaka on the seventh day, and having known on the full moon day of Bhaddapada the mature state of the faculties of the young nobleman Yasa, he waited for him—at that time, the connection to be made is: 'a wealthy merchant's son named Yasa...' It is said that from his birth, the fame of his family, known as reputation, or the esteem of his retinue, grew especially. Therefore, his parents gave him this name. Why did the Venerable Upāli Thera say “delicate” and so forth? It was for the purpose of generating encouragement in renunciation for later generations. Thus, even for those endowed with supreme enjoyments, having been startled by even a slight unattractive sign amidst supreme enjoyments, not considering whether it was the right time or the wrong time, delighting in seclusion, there was a going forth from the home, having abandoned a great mass of wealth like grass. For what other person, then, would there not be a going forth? This is the intention. ‘Being united’ means having attained a state of oneness with them, meaning not secluded. This is the meaning. ‘Sleep overcame’ means: having prevented the occurrence of consciousness even in delightful objects, having surpassed and overwhelmed his mind, it brought it under its own power. This is the meaning. ‘And all night’ means throughout all three watches. By this, it shows the reason for seeing the distorted state of his retinue. Here, it should be understood that the word ‘ratti’ (night) occurs in the sense of time, the absence of the sun, and a watch. Here, it should be understood in the sense of a watch, and also in the training rule on the separation from the three robes. ‘In the armpit’ means at the side of the armpit. ‘At the neck’ means below the neck. The meaning is that he saw a mudiṅga drum at the neck of a sleeping woman who was lying with her neck placed on the upper part of the mudiṅga drum. ‘Āḷambara’ means a paṇava drum. It has two faces and is small and long. This is a designation for an instrument that is played and has a wide, even surface. ‘Rambling’ means talking incoherently due to dreams and so forth. ‘He thought it was a charnel ground’ means the connection to be made is: he saw his own retinue as a charnel ground. ‘Danger’ means the unattractive nature became manifest. ‘His mind settled on disenchantment’ means his mind inclined towards weariness, which is designated as the desire for liberation. This is the meaning. ‘He uttered an inspired utterance’ means he sent forth a joyful utterance: “From now on, I shall not be with these women.” It is said that two aspects became manifest in his seeing the retinue sleeping in heedlessness: the powerful nature of the defilements, and the extremely coarse nature of the unattractive aspect. This being so, in this fathom-long body with its even more coarse unattractive aspect, this entire world is oppressed and deluded by the power of the defilements. Indeed, as he saw again and again, 'Ah, the defilements are so powerful!', those two aspects became manifest to him, for which reason he spoke thus.

‘‘Suvaṇṇapādukāyo ārohitvā’’ti etenassa nissaṅgatāya vissaṭṭhagamanaṃ dīpeti. So hi balavasaṃvegābhitunnahadayattā parijanassa pabodhe satipi attano gamananivāraṇasamatthabhāvaṃ asahamāno attānaṃ takkento vissaṭṭho agamāsi. Amanussāti devatā. Tā hi manussehi sugatipaṭivedhañāṇasaṇṭhānādiguṇasāmaññena ‘‘amanussā’’ti vuccanti. Na hi asamānajātikā tiracchānādayo ‘‘abrāhmaṇā’’ti vā ‘‘avasalā’’ti vā vuccanti, kintu jātisabhāgatāya eva vasalādayo ‘‘abrāhmaṇā’’ti vuccanti, evaṃ manussehi kenaci ākārena sabhāgatāya [Pg.409] devatā ‘‘amanussā’’ti vuttā. Aññathā manussā na hontīti tiracchānagatāpi ‘‘amanussā’’ti vattabbā bhaveyyuṃ.

“Having mounted the golden sandals”—this indicates his unhindered departure due to non-attachment. For he, his heart pierced by strong spiritual urgency, unable to endure the possibility of his attendants preventing his departure even if they were to awaken, urged himself on and departed freely. “Non-humans”—these are deities. For they are called “non-humans” because of a commonality of qualities with humans, such as the attainment of a good destination, penetrative knowledge, and similarity in form. For animals and other beings of different species are not called “non-brahmins” or “non-outcastes”; rather, outcastes and others are called “non-brahmins” precisely because of sharing the same species. Similarly, deities are called “non-humans” because of a shared nature with humans in some respect. Otherwise, if the criterion were simply that they are not human, even animals would have to be called “non-humans.”

26. Vanagahanaṃ disvā ‘‘sumuttohaṃ nagarato’’ti pamuditattā bhagavato avidūre udānesi. Idaṃ kho yasāti bhagavā nibbānaṃ sandhāyāha. Tañhi taṇhādikilesehi anupaddutaṃ, anupasaṭṭhatañca dassanamattenāpi assādajananato. Dhammaṃ desessāmīti yena taṃ nibbānaṃ idha nisinnamattova tvaṃ adhigamissasīti adhippāyo. Kirāti assaddheyyaabyattiparihāsesu nipāto, idha abyattiyaṃ. Suvaṇṇapādukāyo orohitvāti ca suvaṇṇapādukāhi otaritvā. Nissakkatthe hi idaṃ paccattavacanaṃ. Tassa nisinnamattasseva aññaṃ sammodanīyaṃ kathaṃ akatvā anāmantetvā anupubbiṃ kathaṃ kathesi. Suparipakkindriyattā, paṭivedhakkhaṇānatikkamanatthaṃ anupaddutānupasaṭṭhatānaṃ pāpakadhammadesanābhimukhacittattā, seṭṭhissa gahapatino acirāgamanadassanato ca. Kimatthaṃ bhagavā tassa suṭṭhutaraṃ saṃviggahadayassa bhavato muccitukāmassa bhavābhavūpāyānisaṃsakathaṃ paṭhamameva kathesīti? Sabbabhavādīnavadassanatthaṃ. So hi manussalokasseva upaddutaupasaṭṭhabhāvaṃ addasa, na saggānanti kadāci saggalokaṃ sukhato maññeyya. Tattha sukhasaññena nibbānābhimukhaṃ cittaṃ peseyyāti saggānampi ādīnavaṃ dassetukāmatāya anupubbiṃ kathaṃ ārabhi. Ettha dānaṃ, dānānisaṃsaṃ, sīlānisaṃsañca kathento dānasīlakathaṃ katheti nāma. Saggavaṇṇaṃ kathento saggakathaṃ katheti nāma. Tattha vatthukāmakilesakāmānaṃ aniccataṃ, apasādataṃ, mahādīnavatañca kathento kāmānaṃ ādīnavaṃ, okāraṃ, saṃkilesañca pakāseti. Nekkhamme tadabhāvato ca taṃnissaraṇato ca tabbiparītaṃ ānisaṃsaṃ kathento nekkhamme ānisaṃsaṃ pakāseti nāma. Tattha okāranti avakāraṃ lāmakabhāvaṃ. Saṃkilesanti saṃkilissanaṃ bādhanaṃ upatāpanaṃ vāti attho. Kallacittaṃ paññindriyassa ānubhāvena, diṭṭhiyogavicikicchāyogānaṃ paññindriyena vihatattā. Muducittaṃ satindriyasamāyogena, vihiṃsāsārambhādikilesapavesaṃ nivāretvā cittamudutādikusaladhammappavesanaṃ karontaṃ sahajātaṃ cittaṃ muduṃ karoti. Samādhindriyassa ānubhāvena vinīvaraṇacittaṃ. Tañhi visesato nīvaraṇavipakkhabhūtanti. Vīriyindriyavasena udaggacittaṃ. Tañhi thinamiddhasaṅkhātalīnabhāvavipakkhanti. Saddhindriyassa ānubhāvena [Pg.410] pasannacittaṃ tassa pasādalakkhaṇattā. Sāmukkaṃsikāti etaṃ visayavasena desanaṃ upālitthero pakāseti. Saccāni hi sāmukkaṃsikadesanāya visayāni. Aññathā dukkhādīni sāmukkaṃsikā dhammadesanāti āpajjati tassa vibhāvane saccānaṃ niddiṭṭhattā.

26. Seeing the dense forest, due to his joy he uttered an inspired utterance near the Blessed One: "I am well freed from the city!" The Blessed One said this referring to Nibbāna. For it is unafflicted by defilements such as craving, and unassailed, because it generates delight even by merely being seen with wisdom. In "I will teach the Dhamma," the intention is: I will teach that Dhamma by which you, while merely sitting here, will attain that Nibbāna. The word 'kirā' is a particle used in the sense of disbelief, lack of clarity, or contempt; here, it is used in the sense of lack of clarity. And "descending from the golden sandals" means having stepped down from the golden sandals. For this is the nominative case used in the sense of the ablative (separation). To him, who was merely sitting there, without making any other pleasant conversation or greeting him, He taught a gradual discourse. This was because his faculties were well-matured; in order not to let the moment of penetration pass; because his mind was inclined towards the Dhamma teaching for those who are unafflicted and unassailed; and because of seeing the imminent arrival of the householder, the millionaire. For what reason did the Blessed One first teach a discourse on the cause and benefit of various existences to him, whose heart was greatly agitated and who desired to be freed from existence? In order to show the danger in all existences. For he had seen the afflicted and assailed nature of the human world only, not of the heavenly worlds; thus, he might at some time consider the heavenly world to be happiness. Thinking that with a perception of happiness there, he might not direct his mind towards Nibbāna, with the desire to show the danger of the heavenly worlds also, He began the gradual discourse. Here, when speaking of generosity, the benefits of generosity, virtue, and the benefits of virtue, it is called 'teaching the discourse on generosity and virtue.' When speaking of the excellence of heaven, it is called 'teaching the discourse on heaven.' There, when speaking of the impermanence, the unloveliness, and the great danger of sensual pleasures—both as objects and as defilements—He is said to 'reveal the danger, degradation, and defilement of sensual pleasures.' When speaking of the benefit of renunciation, which is the opposite of those things, due to their absence in it and because it is the escape from them, this is called 'revealing the benefit in renunciation.' Therein, 'degradation' (okāra) means baseness, the state of being low. 'Defilement' (saṃkilesa) means pollution, or affliction, or torment. His mind became competent through the power of the faculty of wisdom, because the yokes of wrong view and doubt were destroyed by the faculty of wisdom. His mind became soft through connection with the faculty of mindfulness; for it prevents the entry of defilements such as violence and stubbornness, and by causing the entry of wholesome states such as mental softness, it makes the co-arisen mind soft. Through the power of the faculty of concentration, his mind became free from hindrances. For it is especially the opponent of the hindrances. By means of the faculty of energy, his mind became uplifted. For it is the opponent of the state of sluggishness known as sloth and torpor. Through the power of the faculty of faith, his mind became serene, because its characteristic is clarity. Regarding 'sāmukkaṃsikā,' the Elder Upāli explains this teaching by way of its subject matter. For the Truths are the subject matter of the sāmukkaṃsikā teaching. Otherwise, it would follow that suffering and so on are the sāmukkaṃsikā Dhamma teaching; because in its explanation, the Truths are specified.

27. Catuddisāti catūsu disāsu. Abhisaṅkharesīti abhisaṅkhari. Kimatthanti ce? Ubhinnaṃ paṭilabhitabbavisesantarāyanisedhanatthaṃ. Yadi so puttaṃ passeyya, puttassapi dhammacakkhupaṭilābho arahattuppatti, seṭṭhissapi dhammacakkhupaṭilābho na siyā. Diṭṭhasaccopi ‘‘dehi te mātuyā jīvita’’nti vadanto kimaññaṃ na kareyya. Yasopi taṃ vacanaṃ sutvā arahāpi samāno sayaṃ appaṭikkhipitvā bhagavantaṃ ullokento kimaññāya saṇṭhaheyya.

27. “In the four directions” means in the four directions. “He fashioned” means He fashioned. If it be asked, “For what purpose?” For the purpose of preventing the danger to the special attainment to be obtained by both. If that setthi were to see his son, for the son also the attainment of the Dhamma-eye and the arising of Arahantship would not occur, and for the setthi also the attainment of the Dhamma-eye would not occur. Even one who has seen the truth, while saying, “Give your mother her life,” what other thing would he not do? And Yasa, having heard those words, even though he was an Arahant, not rejecting them himself and looking up at the Blessed One, how could he be established in the final knowledge?

28. Ubhohipi pattabbavisesakoṭiyā pattattā bhagavā puna taṃ paṭippassambhesi. Pubbe agārikabhūtoti tassa sotāpannakālaṃ sandhāyāha. Sotāpanno hi agāramajjhe vasanārahattā agāriyabhūto nāma hoti apabbajito. Sampati pabbajito samāno agāramajjhavasanassa abhabbattā ‘‘agāriko’’ti na vuccati, tasmā evamāha. Yassa diṭṭhoti sambandho, yena diṭṭhoti vuttaṃ hoti. ‘‘Seyyathāpi pubbe agārikabhūto’’ti vacanena laddhanayattā pacchā gahapati gihivesadhārimeva yasaṃ sandhāyāha ‘‘yasena kulaputtena pacchāsamaṇenā’’ti. Tattha cara brahmacariyanti ābhisamācārikasīlaṃ brahmacariyaṃ cara paripūrehi tāva, yāva sammādukkhassantakiriyā, yāva cuticittāti adhippāyo. Liṅgabrahmacariyaṃ sandhāyāti porāṇā, tañca yuttaṃ. Liṅgamattañhi sandhāya so āyasmā ‘‘labheyyāhaṃ, bhante, pabbajjaṃ upasampada’’nti āha.

28. Because both had reached the pinnacle of the special attainment to be reached, the Blessed One then withdrew it. When it says, “formerly a householder,” He said this referring to the time he was a stream-enterer. For a stream-enterer, because he is worthy of living in the midst of a household, is called a 'householder', not having gone forth. Now, being one who has gone forth, because it is unfitting to live in the midst of a household, he is not called a 'householder'; therefore He spoke thus. The connection is to be made as 'of whom it is seen'; what is meant is 'by whom it was seen.' Because the method was obtained through the words, “just as formerly he was a householder,” the householder (father) afterwards, referring to Yasa who was still wearing the guise of a layman, said, “by Yasa the clansman, afterwards a recluse.” Therein, 'practice the holy life' means: 'Practice the holy life, which is the morality of proper conduct; fulfill it completely for as long as there is the making of a complete end to suffering, up to the death-consciousness'—this is the intended meaning. The ancients say that He said this referring to the holy life as the outward sign, and that is fitting. For indeed, referring merely to the outward sign, that venerable one said, “Venerable sir, may I receive the going forth, the higher ordination.”

Kimatthaṃ bhagavā yasassa mātu, pajāpatiyā ca bhattakiccaṃ akatvāva dhammaṃ desesīti? Yasassa pabbajjāya sokasallasamappitattā dānañca somanassikacittena na dadeyyuṃ, satthari ca domanassappattā hutvā maggapaṭivedhampi na labheyyunti bhagavā paṭhamaṃ tāva tā vigatasokasallahadayāyo katvā puna bhattakiccaṃ akāsi.

For what reason did the Blessed One teach the Dhamma to Yasa’s mother and wife without first performing the duty of the meal? This is the question. Because, being pierced by the dart of sorrow due to Yasa’s going forth, they would not give alms with a joyful mind, and having become afflicted with grief towards the Teacher, they would not attain the penetration of the path. Therefore, the Blessed One first made them have hearts freed from the dart of sorrow and then performed the duty of the meal.

30. Seṭṭhānuseṭṭhīnanti anukkamaseṭṭhīnanti porāṇā. ‘‘Seṭṭhino cānuseṭṭhino ca yāni kulāni, tāni seṭṭhānuseṭṭhāni kulāni, tesaṃ [Pg.411] seṭṭhānuseṭṭhīnaṃ kulāna’’nti likhitaṃ. Dhammavinayoti sāsanabrahmacariyaṃ pāvacananti idha atthato ekaṃ. Atha vā dhammena vinayo, na daṇḍasatthehīti dhammavinayo, dhammāya vinayo, na hiṃsatthanti vā dhammato vinayo, nādhammatoti vā dhammo vinayo, nādhammoti vā dhammānaṃ vinayo, na aññesanti vā dhammakāyattā, dhammasāmittā vā dhammo bhagavā, tassa dhammassa vinayo, na takkikānanti vā dhammavinayo. Samānādhikaraṇavasena vā dhammavinayo nīluppalaṃ viya, dhammo ca vinayo cāti dhammavinayo phalāphalaṃ viya napuṃsakamiti pulliṅgāpadesato assa liṅgabhāvo siddho, yassa vā dhammo vinayo, so dhammavinayo setapaṭo puriso viya, dhammena yutto vā vinayo dhammavinayo assaratho viyāti evamādinā nayena yojanā veditabbā.

30. Regarding 'Seṭṭhānuseṭṭhīnaṃ', the ancients say it means 'of treasurers in succession'. It is written: 'Those families that are of treasurers and successive treasurers are seṭṭhānuseṭṭhāni families; of those families of treasurers and successive treasurers.' Regarding 'Dhammavinayo', here it is one in meaning with 'the holy life of the teaching' and 'the word of the Buddha'. Alternatively, it is 'Dhammavinayo' because it is discipline by means of Dhamma, not by rod and weapons; or, discipline for the sake of Dhamma, not for the sake of harming; or, discipline from Dhamma, not from non-Dhamma; or, the discipline which is Dhamma, not that which is non-Dhamma; or, the discipline of the Dhammas, not of others. Or, because of being the Dhamma-body or because of being the Lord of the Dhamma, the Blessed One is 'Dhamma'; it is the discipline of that 'Dhamma' (the Blessed One), not of the sophists. Or, by way of having a common referent, 'Dhammavinayo' is like 'nīluppalaṃ' (blue water-lily). Or, 'Dhamma and Vinaya', therefore 'Dhammavinayo', like 'phalāphalaṃ' (fruit and non-fruit); it is neuter, and its gender is established by not indicating the masculine. Or, he for whom the Dhamma is the discipline, he is 'Dhammavinayo', like a man with a white cloth. Or, the discipline connected with the Dhamma is 'Dhammavinayo', like a horse-chariot. The application should be understood by this method and so on.

34. ‘‘Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvā’’ti bhaṇḍukammārocanapaṭiharaṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tena ‘‘sabhikkhuke vihāre aññampi etassa kese chindā’’ti vattuṃ na vaṭṭatīti. Pabbājetvāti imassa adhippāyapakāsanatthaṃ ‘‘kāsāyāni acchādetvā ehī’’ti vuttaṃ. Upajjhāyo ce kesamassuoropanādīni akatvā pabbajatthaṃ saraṇāni deti, na ruhati pabbajjā. Kammavācaṃ sāvetvā upasampādeti, ruhati upasampadā. Appattacīvarānaṃ upasampadāsiddhidassanato, kammavipattiyā abhāvato cetaṃ yujjatevāti eke. Hoti cettha –

34. The phrase “Having led him to the broken boundary” was said for the purpose of preventing the announcement of the act of tonsure. By this, it is shown that it is not proper to say, “In a monastery where monks reside, let others also cut this person’s hair.” To clarify the intention of the word ‘pabbājetvā’ (having given the going-forth), it was said, “Come, having been clothed in ochre robes.” If a preceptor, without performing the shaving of the hair and beard and so on, gives the refuges for the purpose of the going-forth, the going-forth is not valid. If he confers the higher ordination after having the formal act announced, the higher ordination is valid. Some say that this is indeed proper because it is seen that the higher ordination is accomplished for those without a bowl and robes, and because there is no defect in the formal act. And here there is a summary verse:

‘‘Saliṅgasseva pabbajjā, viliṅgassāpi cetarā;

Apetapubbavesassa, taṃ dvayaṃ iti cāpare’’ti.

“The going-forth is valid only for one with the proper appearance; the other (higher ordination) is also valid for one without the proper appearance. For one who has abandoned the former appearance, both are valid. So say others.”

Bhikkhunā hi sahatthena vā āṇattiyā vā dinnameva kāsāvaṃ vaṭṭati, adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti pana santesveva kāsāvesu, nāsantesu asambhavatoti tesaṃ adhippāyo. Evañca pana, bhikkhave, pabbājetabbo upasampādetabbo. Paṭhamaṃ…pe…anujānāmi, bhikkhave, imehi tīhi saraṇagamanehi pabbajjaṃ upasampadanti ettha iminā anukkamena dinnehi tīhi saraṇagamanehi pabbajjaṃ upasampadaṃ anujānāmi kevalehīti adhippāyadassanato –

Indeed, an ochre robe given by a bhikkhu with his own hand or by his command is valid; one not so given is not valid. However, this applies only when ochre robes are available; when they are not, it does not apply, because it is impossible. This is their intention. And in the passage, “And in this way, monks, one should be given the going-forth, one should be given the higher ordination. First… I allow, monks, the going-forth and the higher ordination by these three goings for refuge,” because the intention is seen as: “I allow the going-forth and the higher ordination by means of only these three goings for refuge given in this sequence…”

Ādinnapubbaliṅgassa, naggassāpi dvayaṃ bhave;

Netarassāti no khanti, sabbapāṭhānulomatoti. –

“For one habituated to the former appearance, even if naked, both would be valid. That it would not be so for the other is our view, because of its conformity with all the texts.” Thus said the Teacher.

Ācariyo[Pg.412]. Ācariyena adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha ‘‘pabbajjā na ruhatīti vadantī’’ti likhitaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipadepi tatheva likhitaṃ. Urādīni ṭhānāni nāma. Saṃvutādīni karaṇāni nāma. ‘‘Anunāsikantaṃ katvā ekasambandhaṃ katvā dānakāle antarā aṭṭhatvā vattabbaṃ. Vicchinditvā dānepi yathāvuttaṭṭhāne eva vicchedo, aññatra na vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Anunāsikante diyyamāne khalitvā ‘‘buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī’’ti makārena 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 buddhaguṇe, dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchanto nibbānaṃ, saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchanto sekkhadhammaṃ, asekkhadhammañca saraṇaṃ gacchatīti aggahitaggahaṇavasena yojanā kātabbā. Aññathā saraṇattayasaṅkaradoso. Sabbamassa kappiyākappiyanti dasasikkhāpadavinimuttaṃ parāmāsāparāmāsādi. ‘‘Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabbo’’ti vacanato sekhiyaupajjhāyavattādiābhisamācārikasīlamanena pūretabbaṃ. Tattha cārittassa akaraṇe vārittassa karaṇe daṇḍakammāraho hotīti dīpeti.

The Teacher. Regarding 'what is not given by the teacher is not valid,' here it is written, 'They say the going-forth does not take root.' In the ancient glosses also, it is written in the same way. The chest and so on are called the places of articulation. The constricted organs and so on are called the instruments of articulation. 'Having made it end with a nasal, having made it a single connection, it should be spoken at the time of giving without stopping in between. Even when giving with an interruption, the break is only at the place as stated; elsewhere, it is not allowable,' it is written. When giving the words ending with a nasal, if one stumbles and it becomes mixed with the letter 'm' as in 'buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi,' it is allowable because it has fallen within the field of acceptable pronunciation, so says the Elder Upatissa. It is allowable to speak having mixed it, but at the time of recitation, it should be recited without making a break at the place of the nasal, so says the Elder Dhammasiri. 'Thus it is also in the Kammavācā,' it is said. Regarding 'it is allowable only with purity on both sides,' here the great elder speaks unclearly due to reasons such as having fallen teeth, while a competent novice standing nearby causes the ordination candidate to speak competently. That he, the novice, causes the candidate to say what was not said by the great elder is not allowable. If another monk speaks during the Kammavācā, it is allowable. For the Saṅgha performs the act, not an individual. No, it is not allowable, because it is to be rejected by the principle of the commonality of a Kammavācā occurring in different boundaries. Alternatively, if the ordination candidate is unable to say what was spoken clearly by the elder, and the novice, having said it himself, causes him to say it, there is indeed purity on both sides, because what was said by the elder is precisely what was said. One going for refuge to the Buddha goes for refuge to the unique qualities of the Buddha; one going for refuge to the Dhamma goes for refuge to Nibbāna; and one going for refuge to the Saṅgha goes for refuge to the qualities of the trainees and the adepts. The connection should be made by way of grasping what has not been grasped. Otherwise, there would be the fault of confusing the three refuges. 'All that is allowable and unallowable for him' refers to that which is apart from the ten training rules, such as what is to be touched and not to be touched. In accordance with the saying, 'He should be trained in the rules of good behavior,' the virtue of good behavior—such as the sekhiya rules, the duties towards a preceptor, and so on—should be fulfilled by this novice. Therein, in the non-performance of what should be done and in the performance of what is prohibited, he becomes liable to punishment—this is explained.

Pabbajjākathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Account of the Going-Forth is concluded.

Dutiyamārakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Second Account of Māra

35. ‘‘Tena hetunā’’ti vacanato pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘yonisomanasikārāsammappadhānā’’ti hetvatthe nissakkavacananti veditabbaṃ.

35. Regarding 'For that reason' (tena hetunā): it should be understood that in the Pāli text, the word 'yonisomanasikārāsammappadhānā' is an ablative expression in the sense of cause.

Dutiyamārakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Second Account of Māra is concluded.

Uruvelapāṭihāriyakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Account of the Miracles at Uruvelā

37-8. Vaseyyāmāti [Pg.413] ‘‘tvañca ahañca vaseyyāmā’’ti piyavacanena tassa saṅgaṇhanatthaṃ vuttaṃ kira. Tejasā tejanti ānubhāvena ānubhāvaṃ. Tejodhātuyā vā tejodhātuṃ. Ubhinnaṃ sajotibhūtānanti anādaratthe sāmivacanaṃ, bhāvasattamīatthe vā. Agyāgārameva ādittaṃ, na tattha vasanako sattajātiko. Acinteyyo hi iddhivisayo. Kasmā pana bhagavā agyāgārampi anādittaṃ nādhiṭṭhāsīti? Attano dukkhuppādābhāvassa anativimhādibhāvappasaṅgato. Kimatthaṃ parasantakaṃ mahāsambhārapavattaṃ taṃ vināsetīti? Puna yathāporāṇaṃ iddhānubhāvena kattukāmatādhippāyato. Pariyādinnoti khayaṃ nīto. Tejasā tejanti ānubhāvena ānubhāvaṃ. Agyāgārassa parittattā itaro attho na sambhavati. Ayamattho ‘‘makkhaṃ asahamāno’’ti iminā ativiya sameti. Iddhānubhāvamakkhanañhi tattha makkho nāma. Pattenāti padumapattenātipi porāṇā. Paduminisaṇḍe ṭhito hi bhagavā tattha ahosīti tesaṃ mati.

37-8. "Let us dwell": it is said that this was spoken with affectionate words, "You and I, let us dwell," for the purpose of winning him over. "By fire, fire" means by power, power; or by the fire element, the fire element. "Of the two, having become radiant": this is a genitive case in the sense of disregard, or in the sense of the locative absolute. The fire-house alone was ablaze; no living being dwelling there was set ablaze. For the sphere of psychic power is inconceivable. But why then did the Blessed One not resolve that the fire-house also not be set ablaze? Because of the consequence of the non-arising of his (the ascetic's) own suffering and the state of it not being excessively astonishing. Why did he destroy that greatly furnished structure, which was another's property? Because of the intention to remake it as it was before through the power of psychic ability. "Consumed" means brought to destruction. "By fire, fire" means by power, power. Because of the smallness of the fire-house, the other meaning is not possible. This meaning agrees very well with "not tolerating contempt." For in that context, the disparagement of psychic power is called 'contempt.' "With a leaf": the ancients also say, "with a lotus leaf." For the Blessed One stood in a lotus grove; 'he was there'—such is their opinion.

39. Dinnanti anumatinti attho. Abhīto nibbhayo. Kasmā? Yato so maggena bhayamatīto. ‘‘Sumanamanasoti sundaracittasaṅkhātamano. Sumano eva vā’’ti likhitaṃ. Tejovāti aggi viya. Dhātukusaloti tejodhātumhi kusalo. ‘‘Byavahitā ce’’ti saddalakkhaṇattā ca upasaggo. Tejodhātusamāpattīsu kusalo iccevattho. Udicchareti ullokesuṃ. ‘‘Saṃparivāresu’’nti ca likhitaṃ. Iti evaṃ bhaṇantīti attho. Hatāti samāti attho, kāḷakāva hontīti kirettha adhippāyo. Īsakampi byāpāraṃ akatvā upasamānurūpaṃ tiṭṭhanti. Ye ca anekavaṇṇā acciyo hontīti taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘nīlā atha lohitikā’’tiādimāha.

39. "Given" means consented. Fearless, without fear. Why? Because he has gone beyond fear by the path. "Of joyful mind" means a mind reckoned as beautiful. Or simply "joyful," as it is written. "Fiery" means like fire. "Skilled in the element" means skilled in the fire element. "Byavahitā ce" — and because of its grammatical characteristic, it is a prefix. The meaning is simply skilled in the attainments of the fire element. "They looked up" means they gazed upward. "They surrounded" is also written. The meaning is that they speak thus. "Destroyed" means extinguished; the intent here, it is said, is that they become just black. They stand without making even the slightest effort, in accordance with peace. And to show that those flames are of many colors, he says, "blue, then red," and so on.

40. Catuddisāti catūsu disāsu.

40. "In the four directions" means in the four quarters.

44. Paṃsukūlaṃ uppannanti pariyesamānassa paṭilābhavasena uppannaṃ hoti. Cittavicittapāṭihīradassanatthāya ca sā pariyesanā. Sā ayaṃ sāyaṃ[Pg.414]. Tā imā tayimā. Dve ekato gahetvā vadati. Āyāmi ahaṃ āyamahaṃ. Etanti etassa. Yathā mayanti yasmā mayaṃ.

44. "A rag-robe has arisen" means it has arisen by way of acquisition for one who is seeking. And that seeking is for the purpose of showing the wonder of varied miracles. Sāyaṃ is sā and ayaṃ. Tayimā is tā and imā. He speaks taking two together. Āyamahaṃ is āyāmi and ahaṃ. The word etaṃ has the meaning of etassa. The phrase yathā mayaṃ means yasmā mayaṃ.

50-51. Udakavāhakoti udakogho. Udakasototi porāṇā. ‘‘Yāya tva’’nti pubbabhāgavipassanāpaṭipadaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Cirapaṭikāti cirapabhuti, nāgadamanato paṭṭhāya cirapaṭikā. ‘‘Cirapaṭisaṅkhā’’tipi vadanti. Kesamissantiādimhi abbokiṇṇaṃ visuṃ visuṃ bandhitvā pakkhittattā kesādayova kesamissāti porāṇā. Khārikājamissanti ettha khārī vuccati tāpasaparikkhāro. Jaṭile pāhesīti dve tayo tāpase pāhesi. ‘‘Soḷasātirekaaḍḍhauḍḍhāni pāṭihāriyasahassānī’’ti vuttaṃ.

50-51. "Udakavāhako" means a flood of water. The ancients say it means "udakasoto" (a current of water). "Yāya tvaṃ" is said with reference to the preliminary practice of insight. "Cirapaṭikā" means from a long time ago; from the taming of the Nāga onwards, it has been a long time. They also say "cirapaṭisaṅkhā." In the phrase beginning with "kesamissa," the ancients say that because hair and other things are tied separately and put in unmixed, they are themselves called "kesamissa." In "Khārikājamissa," the ascetic's equipment is called "khārī." "He sent the matted-hair ascetics" means he sent two or three ascetics. It is said, "three and a half thousand miracles plus sixteen."

54. Aggihutte kataparicayattā bhagavā tesaṃ ādittapariyāya-mabhāsi (saṃ. ni. 4.28). Tattha ekaccaṃ ārammaṇavasena ādittaṃ cakkhādi rāgagginā, ekaccaṃ sampayogavasena cakkhusamphassapaccayā vedayitādikeneva, ekaccaṃ abhibhūtatthena cakkhādi eva jātiādinā, ekaccaṃ paccayatthena, tadeva sokādināti yathāsambhavamettha ādittatā veditabbā. Ettha kiñcāpi dukkhalakkhaṇamevekaṃ pākaṭaṃ, tadanusārena pana itaraṃ lakkhaṇadvayampi tehi diṭṭhanti veditabbaṃ dukkhākārassa itarākāradīpanato. Santasukhataṇhābhiniviṭṭhattā panesaṃ dukkhalakkhaṇapubbaṅgamā desanā katāti veditabbā.

54. Because they were practiced in the fire-offering, the Blessed One delivered the Ādittapariyāya discourse to them (Saṃ. Ni. 4.28). Therein, some—the eye and so on—is burning by way of the object with the fire of lust; some, by way of association, through feeling and so on arising from the condition of eye-contact; some—the eye itself—by the nature of being overwhelmed by birth and so on; and some, by way of condition, that very thing by sorrow and so on. Thus, the state of being ablaze should be understood here according to what is possible. Here, although only the one characteristic of suffering is manifest, it should be understood that, following that, the other two characteristics were also seen by them, because the aspect of suffering reveals the other aspects. It should be understood that for them, because of their devotion to the craving for existing happiness, the teaching was given with the characteristic of suffering as its forerunner.

Uruvelapāṭihāriyakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Account of the Miracles at Uruvelā is concluded.

Bimbisārasamāgamakathāvaṇṇanā

Exposition of the Account of the Meeting with Bimbisāra

55-7. Vatthukāmabhūtā itthiyo kāmitthiyo. Dutiyādayo assāsakā. Yasmā anuppanne eva bhagavati buddhakolāhalaṃ loke paṭhamameva vassasahassaṃ uppajjati. Brahmāno ca brāhmaṇavaṇṇaṃ abhinimminitvā vedesu sahassattayamattaṃ buddhapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ pariyattiṃ pakkhipitvā vācenti, bhagavato jātito paṭṭhāya ca buddhakathā lakkhaṇaññūhi brāhmaṇehi uppāditā, patthaṭā loke, tasmā yujjanti, na aññathā. ‘‘Tamaddasa [Pg.415] bimbisāro, pāsādasmiṃ patiṭṭhito’’tiādigāthāhi bodhisattakāle eva abhisittatā bimbisārassa siddhā.

55-7. Women who are objects of sensual pleasure are called kāmitthiyo. The second and others are comforters. Because even before the Blessed One’s arising, a 'Buddha-uproar' first arises in the world for a thousand years. And Brahmās, having created the appearance of brahmins, insert into the Vedas a body of teaching amounting to three thousand connected with the Buddha and have it recited. Moreover, from the Blessed One’s birth onwards, talk of the Buddha has been produced and spread in the world by brahmins who know the marks; therefore, they are fitting, not otherwise. The verses beginning with “Tamaddasa bimbisāro, pāsādasmiṃ patiṭṭhito” establish that Bimbisāra was already consecrated in the Bodhisatta’s time.

58. Idhāvuso khīṇāsavo bhikkhu pañcaṅgavippahīno hoti chaḷaṅgasamannāgato ekārakkho caturāpasseno paṇunnapaccekasacco samavayasaṭṭhesano anāvilasaṅkappo passaddhakāyasaṅkhāro suvimuttacitto suvimuttapaññoti (dī. ni. 3.348, 360; a. ni. 10.19) dasa ariyavāsā nāma. Rūpārūpasamāpattiyo aṭṭha nirodhasamāpatti mahākaruṇāsamāpattītipi porāṇā. Tattha nīvaraṇā pañcaṅgā ca. Chaḷaṅgupekkhā chaḷaṅgā. Satārakkhena ekārakkhā. Saṅkhāya ekaṃ paṭisevati, adhivāseti, parivajjeti, saṅkhāya ekaṃ vinodetīti ayaṃ caturāpasseno. Puthusamaṇabrāhmaṇānaṃ puthupaccekasaccāni cattāri pahīnāni, evaṃ paṇunnapaccekasacco. Kāmesanā bhavesanā pahīnā hoti, brahmacariyesanā paṭippassaddhā, evaṃ samavayasaṭṭhesano. Kāmabyāpādavihiṃsāsaṅkappo pahīno hoti, evaṃ anāvilasaṅkappo, sukhassa ca pahānā…pe… catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati evaṃ suvimuttacitto hoti. Rāgo pahīno ucchinnamūlo…pe… anuppādadhammoti pajānāti, doso, moho anuppādadhammoti pajānāti, evaṃ suvimuttapaññoti.

58. Here, friends, a monk whose taints are destroyed has abandoned five factors, is endowed with six factors, has the one guard, has four supports, has dispelled individual truths, has quests relinquished, has untroubled intentions, has bodily formations calmed, is well-liberated in mind, and is well-liberated by wisdom—these are called the ten noble abodes. The ancients also speak of the eight attainments of form and formlessness, the attainment of cessation, and the attainment of great compassion. Herein, the five hindrances are the five factors. Six-limbed equanimity is the six factors. Guarded by mindfulness is the one guard. 'One makes use of something after reflection, endures, avoids, and removes after reflection'—this is the four supports. The various individual truths of various ascetics and brahmins are abandoned—thus, one has dispelled individual truths. The quest for sensual pleasures and the quest for existence are abandoned, and the quest for the holy life is pacified—thus, one has quests relinquished. Intentions of sensual desire, ill will, and cruelty are abandoned—thus, one has untroubled intentions. 'Having abandoned pleasure... one enters and dwells in the fourth jhāna'—thus, one is well-liberated in mind. One understands that greed is abandoned, its root cut off... that it will not arise again; one understands that hatred and delusion will not arise again—thus, one is well-liberated by wisdom.

‘‘Ṭhānāṭhānaṃ vipākañca, ñāṇaṃ sabbatthagāminiṃ;

Anekadhātuyo lokaṃ, adhimuttiñca pāṇinaṃ.

The knowledge of what is possible and impossible, and the knowledge of the results of kamma; the knowledge of the path leading to all destinations; the knowledge of the world with its many elements; and the knowledge of the dispositions of beings.

‘‘Jānāti indriyānañca, paropariyataṃ muni;

Jhānādisaṃkilesādi-ñāṇaṃ vijjattayaṃ tathā’’ti. –

The sage knows the higher and lower states of the faculties of beings; the knowledge of the jhānas, defilements, and so forth, and likewise the threefold true knowledge.

Imāni dasa balāni. Asekkhaṅgāni nāma asekkhā sammādiṭṭhi…pe… asekkhavimutti asekkhavimuttiñāṇadassananti. Tattha dasamaṃ asekkhaṃ. Etehi dasahi cupeto pāramīhīti porāṇā.

These are the ten powers. The factors of one beyond training are: the Right View of one beyond training… up to… the liberation of one beyond training, and the knowledge and vision of liberation of one beyond training. Therein, the tenth is that of the one beyond training. The ancients say that he is endowed with these ten factors and also with the perfections.

Bimbisārasamāgamakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Account of the Meeting with Bimbisāra is concluded.

Sāriputtamoggallānapabbajjākathāvaṇṇanā

The Elucidation of the Story of the Going Forth of Sāriputta and Moggallāna

60. Kiṃ kāhasīti kiṃ kāhati. ‘‘Kiṃ karoti, kiṃ karosī’’ti vā byañjanaṃ bahuṃ vatvāti attho. Paṭipādentoti nigamento. ‘‘Paccabyathā[Pg.416], paccabyatha’’ntipi paṭhanti. Kappanahutehīti ettha dasakānaṃ sataṃ sahassaṃ, sahassānaṃ sataṃ satasahassaṃ, satasahassānaṃ sataṃ koṭi, koṭisatasahassānaṃ sataṃ pakoṭi, pakoṭisatasahassānaṃ sataṃ koṭipakoṭi, koṭipakoṭisatasahassānaṃ sataṃ nahutanti veditabbaṃ. Kappanahutehīti evamanusārato abbhatītaṃ nāmāti khandhakabhāṇakānaṃ pāṭhoti.

60. In `Kiṃ kāhasi`, it means `kiṃ kāhati` (What will he do?). Or, having stated the expression at length, the meaning is 'What does he do? What do you do?'. In `Paṭipādento`, it is the conclusion. They also recite `Paccabyathā, paccabyatha`. Here, regarding `kappanahutehi`, it should be understood that a hundred tens is a thousand; a hundred thousands is a hundred-thousand; a hundred hundred-thousands is a koṭi; a hundred hundred-thousand-koṭis is a pakoṭi; a hundred hundred-thousand-pakoṭis is a koṭipakoṭi; and a hundred hundred-thousand-koṭipakoṭis is a nahuta. Regarding `kappanahutehi`, [the meaning is that] according to this sequence, it is called 'that which has passed beyond'—this is the reading of the Khandhaka reciters.

63. ‘‘Kulacchedāyā’’ti pāṭho, kulupacchedāyāti attho. Manussā ‘‘dhammena kira samaṇā sakyaputtiyā nayanti, nādhammenā’’ti na puna codesunti evaṃ pāṭhasesena sambandho kātabbo.

63. The reading is `kulacchedāya`; the meaning is `kulupacchedāya` (for the cutting off of the family). 'It is said the Sakyan ascetics lead by the Dhamma, not by non-Dhamma,' [and so] people did not admonish them again—thus the connection should be made with the remaining part of the reading.

Ettāvatā thero nidānaṃ niṭṭhapesīti veditabbaṃ. Honti cettha –

By this much, it should be understood that the Elder concluded the introduction. And here there are:

‘‘Yaṃ dhammasenāpati ettha mūla-Ganthassa siddhikkamadassanena;

Nidānaniṭṭhānamakaṃsu dhamma-Saṅgāhakā te vinayakkamaññū.

That conclusion of the introduction which the General of the Dhamma made here by showing the successful sequence of the root text, those compilers of the Dhamma, skilled in the sequence of the Vinaya, also made.

‘‘Nidānalīnatthapadānameva,Nidāniṭṭhānamidaṃ viditvā;

Ito paraṃ ce vinayatthayutta-Padāni vīmaṃsanameva ñeyya’’nti.

Having understood this conclusion of the introduction, which is only of terms whose meaning is hidden in the introduction, from here onward, only the investigation of terms connected with the meaning of the Vinaya should be understood.

Sāriputtamoggallānapabbajjākathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Elucidation of the Story of the Going Forth of Sāriputta and Moggallāna is concluded.

Upajjhāyavattakathāvaṇṇanā

The Elucidation of the Story of the Duties Towards the Preceptor

64. Buddhupajjhāyakānaṃ itaresaṃ ehibhikkhūnaṃ nivāsanapārupanakappato nesaṃ visuṃ visuṃ sadisattā ‘‘dunnivatthā duppārutā anākappasampannā’’ti vuttā. Na kevalañca itthambhūtā piṇḍāya caranti, apica manussānaṃ bhuñjamānānaṃ uparītiādi. Manussā ujjhāyanti pipāsāsahanato, itaresaṃ ākappasampattiyā pasannattā ca.

64. Although the allowance for wearing the inner and outer robes is respectively the same for them as for the other ehi-bhikkhus whose preceptor is the Buddha, they are described as 'poorly dressed, poorly covered, lacking proper conduct'. And not only do they go for alms in such a state, but also [they do things such as stand] over people while they are eating, and so on. People complain because of [these monks'] inability to endure thirst and also because they are pleased with the proper conduct of the others.

65. Kena ko upajjhāyo gahetabboti? ‘‘Tadā so yassa santike pabbājito, etarahi yassa santike upasampadāpekkho hoti. Upajjhāyena [Pg.417] ca sādhūti sampaṭicchanaṃ sandhāyā’’ti kehici likhitaṃ. Taṃ te evaṃ jānanti ‘‘upajjhāyena ‘sāhū’tiādinā sampaṭicchite saddhivihārikassa ‘sādhu suṭṭhu sampaṭicchāmī’ti vacanaṃ kevalaṃ bhikkhūhi āciṇṇameva, na katthaci dissati, tasmā vināpi tena upajjhāyo gahitova hotī’’ti. Tattha sāhūti sādhūti vuttaṃ hoti. Lahūti lahu, tvaṃ mama na bhāriyosīti vuttaṃ hoti. Opāyikanti upāyapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ, iminā upāyena tvaṃ me ito paṭṭhāya bhāro jātosīti attho. Patirūpanti anurūpaṃ te upajjhāyaggahaṇanti attho.

65. By whom should a preceptor be taken? Some have written: ‘He is the one in whose presence one was given the going forth at that time, and in whose presence one now expects the higher ordination; this is with reference to the preceptor’s acceptance with ‘sādhu’.’ They understand it thus: ‘When the preceptor accepts with ‘sāhu’ and so on, the co-resident’s response, ‘I accept well and properly,’ is merely a customary practice among monks, not found anywhere [in the texts]. Therefore, even without it, the preceptor is indeed taken.’ Therein, ‘sāhu’ means ‘sādhu’ (good) is what is said. ‘Lahu’ means ‘light’; ‘You are not a burden to me’ is what is said. ‘Opāyika’ means ‘connected with a means,’ the meaning of which is: ‘By this means, from now on, you have become a burden to me.’ ‘Patirūpa’ means ‘suitable,’ the meaning of which is: ‘Your taking of a preceptor is fitting.’

66. Tādisameva mukhadhovanodakaṃ utumhi ekasabhāgeti. Ito paṭṭhāyāti ‘‘na upajjhāyassa bhaṇamānassā’’ti ettha vuttana-kārato paṭṭhāya. Tena ‘‘nātidūre gantabbaṃ, nāccāsanne gantabba’’nti ettha vuttana-kārena anāpattīti dīpetīti eke. Sacittakā ayaṃ āpatti, udāhu acittakāti? Anādariyapaccayattā sacittakā. Anādariyapaccayatā kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? Anādariyapaccayehi saṅgahitanti. Pātimokkhuddese sekhiyānaṃ gaṇaparicchedākaraṇañhi khandhakapariyāpannāpattiyā saṅgaṇhanatthaṃ. Idaṃ pana lakkhaṇaṃ cāritteyeva veditabbaṃ, na vāritte akappiyamaṃsakhādanādiāpattīnaṃ acittakattā. Khandhakavārittānaṃ tehi saṅgaho, sekhiyavāritteyeva acittakehi sūpodanaviññattipaccayādīhīti ācariyo. Yattha yattha na-kārena paṭisedho karīyati, kiṃ sabbattha dukkaṭāpattīti? Āma. Yattha aṭṭhakathāya nayo na dassito, tattha sabbattha. Parato hi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sace pana kāḷavaṇṇakatā vā sudhābaddhā vā hoti nirajamattikā, tathārūpāya bhūmiyā ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’tiādinā nayena nayo dassito.

66. Similarly, the water for washing the face is of a shared nature in the proper season. ‘From this point onward’ means starting from the negative particle ‘na’ mentioned in ‘not while the preceptor is speaking.’ Therefore, some say that the negative particle ‘na’ used in ‘one should not go too far, one should not go too near’ indicates that there is no offense. Is this offense intentional, or is it unintentional? Because it is conditioned by disrespect, it is intentional. If it is asked, ‘How is it known to be conditioned by disrespect?’ It is known to be included with offenses conditioned by disrespect. Indeed, the non-specification of the number of the Sekhiya rules in the recitation of the Pātimokkha is for the purpose of including offenses that fall under the Khandhakas. However, this characteristic should be understood only in the case of cāritta (rules of conduct), not in the case of vāritta (rules of avoidance), because offenses such as eating unallowable meat are unintentional. The vāritta rules of the Khandhakas are included with those, whereas the vāritta rules of the Sekhiya are included with unintentional offenses conditioned by such things as requesting curry and rice, says the teacher. Wherever a prohibition is made with the negative particle ‘na,’ is it in every case a dukkaṭa offense? Yes. In every case where a method is not shown in the commentary. Indeed, later in the commentary, the method is shown by the guideline beginning: ‘But if the ground is blackened or plastered with white clay and is free from dust, then it is permissible to place something on such ground,’ and so on.

Etthāha – yasmā pāḷiyaṃyeva ‘‘sace upajjhāyassa anabhirati uppannā hoti, diṭṭhigataṃ uppannaṃ hotī’’ti (mahāva. 66) bhagavato vacanavasena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayo yuttoti dassetuṃ ‘‘nātidūre nāccāsanne’’ti ettha ko bhagavato vacanalesoti? Vuccate – ‘‘paṭhamataraṃ āgantvā āsanaṃ paññāpetabba’’ntiādīni vadanti desaniyamanato. Upajjhāyena anumataṃyeva paṭhamagamananti ce? Na, asiddhattā, siddhepi yathāvuttanayasiddhito ca[Pg.418]. Na hi vārittassa anumati anāpattikarā hoti, evaṃ santepi vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Koṭṭhakanti dvārakoṭṭhakaṃ. Na nissajjitabbaṃ, na nidahitabbaṃ vā.

Here it is said: Since the method stated in the commentary is fitting by means of the Blessed One's word in the Pāḷi itself—‘If for the preceptor dissatisfaction has arisen, or a wrong view has arisen’—in order to show this, what is the hint of the Blessed One’s word in ‘not too far, not too near’? It is said: They speak of ‘having arrived earlier, a seat should be prepared,’ and so on, due to the regulation of place. If it is said, ‘Going first is only with the preceptor’s permission,’ the reply is no, because it is not established, and even if it is established, it is also because of its being established according to the method stated. For permission for what is forbidden does not make one free from offense; even so, it should be taken up after consideration. ‘Koṭṭhaka’ means a gateway. It should not be given up, nor should it be laid aside.

Upajjhāyavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Elucidation of the Discourse on the Duties Towards the Preceptor is concluded.

Nasammāvattanādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Improper Conduct and So Forth

68. Adhimattaṃ gehassitapemaṃ na hotīti ettha gehassitapemaṃ na akusalamicceva daṭṭhabbaṃ khīṇāsavānampi sādhāraṇattā imassa lakkhaṇassa. Na khīṇāsavānaṃ asammāvattanābhāvatoti ce? Na, tesaṃ na paṇāmetabbaṃ taṃsamannāgamanasiddhito, tasmā ‘‘mamesa bhāro’’ti mamattakaraṇaṃ tattha pemanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Eko vattasampanno…pe… tesaṃ anāpattī’ti ettha viya sace eko vattasampanno bhikkhu ‘bhante, tumhe appossukkā hotha, ahaṃ tumhākaṃ saddhivihārikaṃ, antevāsikaṃ vā gilānaṃ vā upaṭṭhahissāmi, ovaditabbaṃ ovadissāmi, iti karaṇīyesu ussukkaṃ āpajjissāmī’ti vadati, te evāsaddhivihārikādayo ‘bhante, tumheva kevalaṃ appossukkā hothā’ti vadanti, vattaṃ vā na sādiyanti, tato paṭṭhāya ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ anāpattī’’ti vuttaṃ.

68. Here, in 'there is no excessive household-based affection,' household-based affection should be understood as not unwholesome, because this characteristic is common even to those whose taints are destroyed. If it is said: Is it not that because those whose taints are destroyed have no improper conduct, it is not common to them? No. For them, it is not to be dispelled, because they are established in the possession of that state of being a preceptor. Therefore, in this context, 'affection' should be understood as the act of making something one's own, as in 'This is my burden.' As in the passage: 'One who is accomplished in the duties… etc. … for them there is no offense.' It is said: 'If a monk accomplished in the duties says, “Venerable sirs, be untroubled. I will attend to your co-resident, or pupil, or the sick one; I will advise what should be advised; thus I will undertake diligence in what is to be done,” and those very co-residents and others say, “Venerable sirs, you yourselves should simply be untroubled,” or they do not consent to the duty, from then on, for the teachers and preceptors, there is no offense.'

Nasammāvattanādikathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discourse on Improper Conduct and So Forth is Concluded.

Rādhabrāhmaṇavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Story of Rādha the Brahmin

73. ‘‘Pūtimuttanti muttaṃ pūtikāyo viyā’’ti vatvāpi ‘‘pūtibhāvena muttaṃ paṭinissaṭṭhaṃ bhesajjaṃ pūtimuttabhesajja’’nti likhitaṃ. Sabbattha itthannāmoti ekova na-kāro hoti.

73. Although it is said, 'In the term `pūtimutta`, `mutta` means urine, which is like a putrid body,' it is also written, '`Pūtimuttabhesajja` is medicine (`bhesajjaṃ`) that is abandoned (`muttaṃ`) and discarded (`paṭinissaṭṭhaṃ`) due to its putrid state (`pūtibhāvena`).' Everywhere, in the word `itthannāmo`, there is only one letter 'na'.

Rādhabrāhmaṇavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Story of Rādha the Brahmin is concluded.

Ācariyavattakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Teacher’s Duties

76. ‘‘Āyasmato [Pg.419] nissāya vacchāmī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Āyasmato ovādaṃ nissāya vasāmī’’ti pāṭhasesavasena veditabbā. Nissāyāti vā nissayā, nissayenāti vuttaṃ hoti. Āyasmatoti vā upayogatthe sāmivacanaṃ.

76. It is said, 'I will live depending on the venerable one.' This should be understood according to the remainder of the text as, 'I live depending on the advice of the venerable one.' Or, `nissāya` is said to mean `nissayena` (by dependence). Or, `āyasmato` is a genitive case used in the sense of the accusative.

Ācariyavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Teacher’s Duties is concluded.

Nissayapaṭippassaddhikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Relief from Dependence

83. Disaṃ gatoti tattha dhuranikkhittavāso hutvā tirogāmaṃ gato. Yattha nissayo labbhati, tattha gantabbanti etthāpi upajjhāye vuttanayeneva ‘‘katipāhena gamissāmī’’ti gamane cesa ussāho rakkhati. Mā idha paṭikkamīti mā idha gaccha. Sabhāgā nāma upajjhāyassa sissā. Tattha nissayaṃ gahetvā. Yadi evaṃ ko visesoti ce? Tena idaṃ vuccati ‘‘appeva nāma khameyyā’’ti. Vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti upajjhāyena pariccattattā upajjhāyasamodhānaṃ niratthakanti attho. Sace upajjhāyo cirena anuggahetukāmo hoti, tato paṭṭhāya upajjhāyova nissayo. Upajjhāyo ce alajjī hoti, saddhivihārikena anekakkhattuṃ vāretvā aviramantaṃ upajjhāyaṃ pahāya vināpi nissayapaṇāmanena aññassa santike nissayaṃ gahetvā vasitabbaṃ. Upajjhāyassa ce liṅgaṃ parivattati, ekadivasampi na rakkhati. Pakkhapaṇḍako ce hoti, nissayajātiko ce ‘‘upajjhāyassa sukkapakkhaṃ āgamehī’’ti vadati, sayameva vā āgameti, vaṭṭati. Upajjhāyo ce ukkhepaniyakammakato hoti, nānāsaṃvāsakabhūmiyaṃ ṭhitattā nissayo paṭippassambhati. Sammāvattantaṃ pana passitvā kammapaṭippassaddhiṃ āgametuṃ labhati. Mānattācārī ce hoti, abbhānaṃ āgametabbaṃ. Dīghaṃ ce parivāsaṃ carati, aññassa santike nissayo gahetabbo, upajjhāyasamodhānaṃ appamāṇaṃ. Parivāsamānattacārinā hi na nissayo dātabbo. Yaṃ pana pārivāsikakkhandhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘saddhivihārikānampi sādiyantassa dukkaṭamevā’’tiādi (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 75), taṃ yathāvuttamatthaṃ sādheti eva. Yaṃ [Pg.420] pana vuttaṃ ‘‘sace saddhāpabbajitā kulaputtā ‘tumhe, bhante, vinayakammamattaṃ karothā’’ti vatvā vattaṃ karontiyeva, gāmappavesanaṃ āpucchantiyeva, taṃ vāritakālato paṭṭhāya anāpattī’’ti. Taṃ vattasādiyanapaccayā dukkaṭābhāvamattadīpanatthaṃ, saddhivihārikānaṃ sāpekkhataṃ vā sandhāya vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Tasmā te ce upajjhāyena vāritānurūpameva paṭipajjanti, nissayo tesaṃ paṭippassaddhoti siddhaṃ hoti.

83. “He has gone to another region” means: having laid down the burden of his residence there, he has gone to another village. Regarding “Wherever dependence is obtained, one should go there,” in this case also, by the method stated concerning the preceptor, if there is zeal for going, declaring, “I will go in a few days,” it protects the dependence. “Do not return here” means do not come here. “Those of the same kind” are the preceptor’s disciples. Having taken dependence there. If one asks, “If so, what is the difference?” For that reason, this is said: “Perhaps he might forbear.” “It is allowable to stay” means that because he has been abandoned by the preceptor, reconciliation with the preceptor is meaningless. If the preceptor, after a long time, wishes to show favor, from that point on the preceptor himself is the dependence. If the preceptor is shameless, the co-resident, having repeatedly admonished him, should abandon the preceptor who does not desist and, even without a formal dismissal of dependence, should take dependence from another and stay. If the preceptor’s gender changes, the dependence is not protected even for a single day. If he is a fortnightly eunuch, and if he is of a nature to give dependence and says, “Wait for the preceptor's bright fortnight,” or if he himself waits, it is allowable. If the preceptor has been subjected to an act of suspension, because he stands on a ground of non-communion, the dependence is allayed. However, upon seeing him behaving correctly, one is permitted to wait for the revocation of the act. If he is undergoing the mānatta penance, one should wait for his rehabilitation. If he is undergoing a long probation, dependence should be taken from another; reconciliation with the preceptor is not to be awaited. For dependence should not be given by one undergoing probation and the mānatta penance. However, what is stated in the commentary on the Pārivāsikakkhandhaka, “For one who consents even to the duties of co-residents, there is only a dukkaṭa offense,” etc., that indeed establishes the meaning as stated. And what is said: “If clansmen gone forth through faith say, ‘Venerable Sir, you just perform the Vinaya act,’ and they continue to perform their duties and ask permission before entering the village—from the time they are prevented, there is no offense.” This should be understood as being stated for the purpose of showing merely the absence of a dukkaṭa offense on account of consenting to the duties, or as stated in reference to the co-residents’ consideration. Therefore, if they, having been forbidden by the preceptor, conduct themselves accordingly, it is established that their dependence is allayed.

Dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā nivattatīti ‘‘ettāvatā disāpakkanto nāma hoti, tasmā antevāsike anikkhittadhurepi nissayo paṭippassambhati. Ācariyupajjhāyā dve leḍḍupāte anatikkamma leḍḍupātadvayabbhantare tirovihārepi parikkhitte, aparikkhitte vā vasituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Aparikkhitteyevāti no takkoti ācariyo, ettha pana aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānato vimutte aññasmiṃ vihāre vasantīti adhippāyo. Vihāroti cettha ‘‘tādisassa vihārassa ante ṭhitā ekā kuṭikā adhippetāti upatissatthero’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha ‘‘sace ubhopi ācariyantevāsikā kenaci…pe… nissayo na paṭippassambhatī’’ti iminā sāmaññato vuttena aṭṭhakathāvacanena dhammasirittheravādo sameti. Aparikkhitte vāti dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃ anto parikkhitto vā hoti aparikkhitto vā. ‘‘Bahisīma’’nti ca vuttattā antovihārasīmāyaṃ dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvāpi vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhattā pana upatissattheravādo na sameti. Ekāvāse hi parikkhitte vā aparikkhitte vā antamaso antotiyojanepi vasato nissayo na paṭippassambhati. So ca upacārasīmāya paricchinno, sā ca upacārasīmā parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepena aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānena paricchinno ekāvāso.

Regarding 'having passed beyond two clod-throws and turned back': by this much, one is called 'departed to another region.' Therefore, even if a pupil has not laid down the burden, the dependence ceases. It is written: 'It is permissible for the teacher or preceptor, not having gone beyond two clod-throws, to dwell within the space of two clod-throws, in another monastery, whether enclosed or unenclosed.' The teacher says it is not the case that it is 'only in an unenclosed one'; here, however, the intention is that they dwell in another monastery that is free from a place suitable for an enclosure of an unenclosed one. And here, regarding 'monastery,' it is said: 'The Elder Upatissa said that a single hut situated at the edge of such a monastery is intended.' Therein, the view of the Elder Dhammasiri accords with this statement from the commentary, spoken in general terms: 'If both teacher and pupil, by any means… the dependence does not cease.' 'Or in an unenclosed one' means that the space within the two clod-throws may be either enclosed or unenclosed. And because it is said 'outside the boundary,' and since it is established that it is permissible to dwell even having passed beyond two clod-throws within the monastery boundary, the view of the Elder Upatissa does not accord. Indeed, in a single residence, whether enclosed or unenclosed, for one dwelling even within three yojanas at the least, the dependence does not cease. And that single residence is defined by the proximity boundary; and that proximity boundary is the single residence defined by the enclosure of an enclosed monastery or by the place suitable for an enclosure of an unenclosed one.

Uposathakkhandhake ekāvāsavimatiyaṃ sīmāya anuññātattāti ce? Na, cīvarakkhandhakaṭṭhakathāya vicāritattā. Yathāha ‘‘sīmaṭṭhakasaṅgho bhājetvā gaṇhātū’’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 379). Katarasīmāya bhājetabbaṃ? Mahāsivatthero kirāha ‘‘avippavāsasīmāyā’’ti. Tato naṃ āhaṃsu ‘‘avippavāsasīmā nāma tiyojanāpi hoti, evaṃ sante tiyojane ṭhitā lābhaṃ gaṇhissanti, tiyojane ṭhatvā āgantukavattaṃ pūretvā ārāmaṃ pavisitabbaṃ bhavissati, gamiko [Pg.421] tiyojanaṃ gantvā senāsanaṃ āpucchissati, nissayapaṭippannassa tiyojanātikkame nissayo paṭippassambhissati, pārivāsikena tiyojanaṃ atikkamitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetabbaṃ bhavissati, bhikkhuniyā tiyojane ṭhatvā ārāmappavesanā āpucchitabbā bhavissati, sabbametaṃ upacārasīmāparicchedavasena kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti. Tasmā antoupacārasīmāya leḍḍupātadvayaṃ atikkamitvāpi vasato nissayo tiyojanātikkame nissayo na paṭippassambhatīti siddhaṃ. Kāmañcettha upacārasīmāya tiyojanappamāṇāya, atirekāya vā yathāvuttadosappasaṅgo siyāti. Sā hi āvāsesu vaḍḍhantesu vaḍḍhati, parihāyantesu parihāyatīti vuttattā, tasmā tādisassa vihārassa ante ṭhitā ekā kuṭi vihāroti idhādhippetā. Sāpi tasseva vihārassa kuṭikāva hotīti katvā so āvāso hoti. Nānāvāso eva ce adhippeto, ‘‘ante ṭhitā kuṭikā’’ti na vattabbaṃ. Dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃ abbhantare pana aparikkhitte nānāvāse nissayo na paṭippassambhatīti yvāyaṃ ‘‘no takko’’ti vutto, so tādise nānāvāse senāsanaggāhassa appaṭippassaddhinayena vutto. Senāsanaggāho hi ‘‘gahaṇena gahaṇaṃ ālayo paṭippassambhatī’’ti lakkhaṇattā itarattha paṭippassambhati. Tatrāyaṃ pāḷi ‘‘tena kho pana samayena āyasmā upanando sakyaputto eko dvīsu āvāsesu vassaṃ vasi…pe… detha, bhikkhave, moghapurisassa ekādhippāya’’nti (mahāva. 364). Aṭṭhakathāyañcassa evaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘idañca nānālābhehi nānūpacārehi ekasīmavihārehi kathitaṃ, nānāsīmavihāre pana senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhatī’’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 364). Aparikkhittā nānāvāsā ekūpacārasaṅkhyaṃ gacchanti. Parikkhittañca ekūpacāraṃ aparikkhittasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Ettāvatā leḍḍupātadvayabbhantare aparikkhitte aññasmiṃ vihāre vasato nissayo pana na paṭippassambhati, parikkhitte paṭippassambhati evāti ayamattho sādhitoti. Etthāha – dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvāva satopi nissayo na paṭippassambhati. Vuttañhi nissaggiyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sace gacchantānaṃyeva asampattesu daharesu aruṇaṃ uggacchati, cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, nissayo pana na paṭippassambhatī’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.495)? Vuccate – taṃ upajjhāyena samāgame saussāhatāya vuttaṃ. Idha dhuvavāsaṃ sandhāya, tasmā aññamaññaṃ na vilomenti[Pg.422]. Keci pana ‘‘dve leḍḍupātaṃ atikkammāti idaṃ devasikaṃ ārocetvā vasanavasena vutta’’nti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattamevāti mama takko. Devasikaṃ ārocetvā vatthabbanti hi neva pāḷiyaṃ na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dissati, tañca pana apakataññūhi āciṇṇanti veditabbaṃ.

If it is said that this is because in the Uposathakkhandhaka, in the section on doubt regarding a single residence, a boundary was permitted, this should not be said, for it has been examined in the Commentary to the Cīvarakkhandhaka. As it is said: “The Sangha within the boundary should divide and take it.” By which boundary should it be divided? The Elder Mahāsiva, it is said, stated, “By the non-separation boundary.” Then they said to him, “The non-separation boundary can even be three yojanas. If that is so, those standing within three yojanas would receive the gain. One would have to fulfill the duties of a guest monk after standing within three yojanas before entering the monastery. A traveler would have to ask for lodging after walking three yojanas. For one undertaking dependence, dependence would cease if he crosses beyond three yojanas. A probationary monk would have to pass beyond three yojanas before dawn breaks. A nun would have to ask for permission to enter the monastery while standing within three yojanas. All this can be done by defining the proximity boundary.” Therefore, it is established that even for one living beyond two clod-throws within the proximity boundary, dependence does not cease when crossing three yojanas. And yet, if the proximity boundary here is three yojanas or more, the aforementioned faults might arise. For it is said that it expands when residences grow and shrinks when they decline. Therefore, a single hut situated at the edge of such a monastery is here intended as a monastery. And since that is a hut of that very monastery, it becomes that residence. If different residences are intended, one should not say “a hut at the edge.” However, within two clod-throws in unenclosed separate residences, dependence does not cease. This, which is called “our reasoning,” is stated in reference to the non-cessation of the acceptance of lodging in such separate residences. For the acceptance of lodging, being characterized by “dependence ceases when one takes up another lodging,” ceases in other cases. Here is the Pāli: “At that time, the Venerable Upananda the Sakyan spent the rains alone in two residences… Give, monks, to this worthless man a single intention.” And in its commentary it is said thus: “This was spoken regarding single-boundary monasteries with different gains and different proximities. But in separate-boundary monasteries, the acceptance of lodging ceases.” Unenclosed separate residences are reckoned as a single proximity. And an enclosed single proximity is reckoned as unenclosed. By this much, it is established that within two clod-throws, dependence does not cease for one living in another unenclosed monastery, but it does cease in an enclosed one. Here someone says: “Even for one who is beyond two clod-throws, dependence does not cease.” For it is stated in the Nissaggiya-aṭṭhakathā: “If dawn breaks while they are still walking and have not reached the young monks, the robe becomes forfeit, but dependence does not cease.” It is replied: That was said with respect to the diligence in meeting with the preceptor. Here, it refers to permanent residence; therefore, they do not contradict each other. Some, however, say, “Going beyond two clod-throws is stated with respect to residing after announcing daily.” That is merely their opinion, according to my reasoning. For dwelling after announcing daily is seen neither in the Pāli nor in the commentaries, and it should be understood as practiced by those who are unskilled in the Vinaya.

Nissayapaṭippassaddhikathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the discussion on the cessation of dependence is concluded.

Upasampādetabbapañcakakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discussion on the Pentad of those to be given Higher Ordination

84. Na asekkhena sīlakkhandhenātiādi ‘‘attānameva paṭhamaṃ, patirūpe nivesaye’’ti (dha. pa. 158) vacanavasena vuttaṃ, na āpattiaṅgavasena. Nīlasamāyogato nīlaṃ viya vuttaṃ ‘‘asekkhena vimuttiñāṇadassanakkhandhenā’’ti. Adhisīle sīlavipanno nāma āpajjitvā avuṭṭhito.

84. “Not by the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training,” and so on—this is stated according to the saying, “First, one should establish oneself in what is proper” (Dhp. 158), not by way of a factor of an offense. Just as something is called blue from its association with blue, so it is said, “by the aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation of one beyond training.” One who is corrupt in higher virtue is one who, having fallen into an offense, has not arisen from it.

Upasampādetabbapañcakakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discussion on the Pentad of those to be given Higher Ordination is concluded.

Aññatitthiyapubbavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Story of Former Adherents of Other Sects

86. Yo so aññatitthiyapubboti ettha dve atthavikappā – tassa pasūrassa bhikkhubhāvaṃ sandhāya aññatitthiyapubbo, so bhikkhu taṃyeva titthāyatanaṃ saṅkamīti ayameko attho. Evaṃ titthiyapakkantako puna gihivesena āgato aññatitthiyapubbo, so āgato na upasampādetabboti ayameko attho. Taṃ aññatitthiyapakkantakaṃ ṭhapetvā ‘‘yo so, bhikkhave, aññatitthiyapubbo’’ti ettha na gihivesadhāraṇova pubbasaddena vutto, kintu tasmiṃ attano yathāsamādinnatitthiyavese ṭhitopi. Diṭṭhivasena atitthiyabhūtattā atitthiyapubbo, so panāgato vibbhanto āgacchati, tassa parivāsadānakiccaṃ natthi. Kiṃ imassa aññatitthiyapubbassa bhikkhuvesaṃ gahetvā saraṇagamanena sāmaṇerapabbajjā jātā, na jātāti? Kiñcettha yadi jātā, ‘‘yo so, bhikkhave, aññopi aññatitthiyapubbo imasmiṃ dhammavinaye ākaṅkhati pabbajjaṃ, ākaṅkhati upasampadaṃ, tassa cattāro māse parivāso dātabbo’’ti (mahāva. 86) vacanaṃ virujjhati. Atha [Pg.423] na jātā, parivāsakammavācāya pabbajjāya aparāmasanaṃ virujjhatīti. Tattha mahāvihāravāsino ‘‘sāmaṇerasseva sato parivāso dātabbo’’ti vadanti. Itare tathā na vadanti. Te hi ‘‘evaṃ ārādhako kho bhikkhave aññatitthiyapubbo āgato upasampādetabbo’ti (mahāva. 87) suttapadaṃ pariharitabbaṃ, pure ca pacchā ca ‘aññatitthiyapubbo’ti vacanasāmaññato na sāmaṇero jātoti ce, yadi evaṃ apabbājetvāva upasampādetabboti āpajjati. Tato ca sabbapaṭhamaṃ vuttasuttaṃ virujjhati. ‘Titthāyatanaṃ saṅkanto’ti pāṭhopi na sundaraṃ. Pāṇātipātādīsu aññataraṃ sace bhindati, cattāro māse paripuṇṇepi puna paripūretabbaṃ viya dissati. Vuttampi tassa saṃvaraṃ bhikkhukaraṇatthāya anuññātattā sīle vattabbaṃ natthī’’ti vadanti, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Saraṇāni sace bhijjanti sāmaṇerasseva.

86. Herein, regarding 'one who was formerly of another sect,' there are two interpretations of the meaning. With reference to the state of being a monk of that Pasūra, he was formerly of another sect; that monk went over to that very sectarian ground. This is one meaning. Thus, a monk who has gone over to the sectarian fold, having returned again in the guise of a layman, is one who was formerly of another sect. Having come, he is not to be given the higher ordination. This is another meaning. Setting aside that one who has gone over to another sect, herein, in the phrase 'O monks, one who was formerly of another sect,' by the word 'formerly' it is not said of only one who wears the guise of a layman, but rather, it is also said of one who abides in the sectarian guise that he has undertaken for himself. By way of view, because he was not truly a sectarian, he is 'formerly a non-sectarian'. But when that one comes, he comes having disrobed; for him, there is no duty of giving probation. For this one who was formerly of another sect, by taking the guise of a monk and by going for refuge, has the novice ordination arisen or not? And here, if it has arisen, the statement, 'O monks, if any other who was formerly of another sect desires the going forth, desires the higher ordination in this Dhamma and Discipline, he should be given probation for four months,' is contradicted. Or if it has not arisen, the non-mention of the going forth in the formal act of probation is contradicted. In this matter, the residents of the Mahāvihāra say, 'Probation should be given only to one who is already a novice.' The others do not say so. For they say, 'The sutta passage, "O monks, an aññatitthiyapubba who has come and is satisfactory should be given the higher ordination," should be set aside. If you say that because of the generality of the expression "aññatitthiyapubba" both before and after, he has not become a novice, then it follows that he should be given the higher ordination without having been given the going forth. And because of that, the sutta spoken at the very beginning is contradicted.' Also, the reading 'has gone over to the sectarian ground' is not good. If he breaks any of the precepts such as killing living beings, it seems as if, even when the four months are complete, it must be fulfilled again. They also say, 'Because his restraint was permitted for the purpose of making him a monk, there is nothing to be said regarding virtue.' This should be understood after investigation. If the refuges are broken, it is only in the case of a novice.

Aññatitthiyapubbavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Story of the Former Sectarian is concluded.

Pañcābādhavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of the Five Sicknesses

88. Nakhapiṭṭhīti cūḷaṅgulinakhapiṭṭhi adhippetā. ‘‘Paṭicchanne nakhapiṭṭhito mahantampi vaṭṭati, evaṃ sesesupī’’ti keci vadanti, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sameti viya. Padumakaṇṇikāpi āruḷhe rattapadumavaṇṇacitraṃ.

88. Regarding 'nakhapiṭṭhi', the back of the little finger's nail is intended. Some say, 'In a concealed place, even a large mark is allowable on the back of the nail; it is thus in the remaining cases as well.' That seems not to agree with the commentary. 'Padumakaṇṇikā' is a variegated sore that has arisen, having the color of a red lotus.

Pañcābādhavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Story of the Five Sicknesses is concluded.

Coravatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of the Thief

91-2. Dhammasāmīti yasmā sayaṃ dhammasāmī, tasmā bhikkhūhi apabbājetabbakampi coraṃ aṅgulimālaṃ pabbājetvā āyatiṃ evamāhāti attho. Pāḷipotthakesu ‘‘kharabhedako’’tipi likhitaṃ. Sannisinnāsūti vūpasantāsu.

Regarding 'Dhammasāmī': Because He Himself is the Lord of the Dhamma, therefore, having ordained Aṅgulimāla, a thief who was one not to be ordained by monks, He spoke thus regarding the future—this is the meaning. In the Pāḷi books, it is also written as 'kharabhedako'. 'Sannisinnāsu' means 'when they had subsided' or 'when they were calmed'.

Coravatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Story of the Thief is concluded.

Iṇāyikadāsavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of the Debtor-Slave

96. Passa [Pg.424] me pattacīvaramattaṃ, ahaṃ idaṃ dassāmīti sāmīci, yato natthi āpatti. Upaḍḍhupaḍḍhanti thokaṃ thokaṃ.

96. ‘See my mere bowl and robes; I will give this.’ This is proper, because there is no offense. 'Upaḍḍhupaḍḍhaṃ' means 'a little at a time, a little at a time'.

97. Desacārittanti sāvanapaṇṇāropanādi taṃ taṃ desacārittaṃ. ‘‘Devadāsiputte vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Ārāmikaṃ ce pabbājetukāmo, aññamekaṃ datvā pabbājetabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Mahāpaccarivādassa ayamidha adhippāyo. ‘‘Bhikkhusaṅghassa ārāmike demā’’ti dinnattā na te tesaṃ dāsā. ‘‘Ārāmiko ca neva dāso na bhujissoti vattabbato na dāso’’ti likhitaṃ. Takkāsiñcanaṃ sīhaḷadīpe cārittaṃ. Te ca pabbājetabbā saṅghassārāmikattā. Nissāmikaṃ dāsaṃ attanāpi bhujissaṃ kātuṃ labhati. ‘‘Dāsassa pabbajitvā attano sāmike disvā palāyantassa āpatti natthīti vadantī’’ti ca likhitaṃ. Attano vā dāso assa bhikkhunoti attho. Nissāmikassa dāsassa rājā sāmi, tasmā rājānaṃ vā tasmiṃ gāme manusse vā āpucchitvā pabbājetabboti eke. ‘‘Bhujissaṃ katvā’’ti likhitaṃ. Tassa parihāraṃ bhaṇanti ‘‘yathā bhujisso hoti, tathā kattabbo’’ti. Evaṃ saṅkappena vatvā ‘‘payojanaṃ natthī’’ti kehici likhitaṃ. Bhujissaṃ kātumeva vaṭṭatīti ‘‘sace passanti, anubandhissantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Āpatti natthi. ‘‘Asuddhā kira metipi taṃ sandhāyeva vutta’’nti vadanti.

97. Regarding 'local custom': it refers to various local customs such as making announcements and posting notices. It is written, 'It is permissible for the son of a temple slave.' It is said, 'If one wishes to ordain a monastery worker, he should be ordained after giving another person in exchange.' This, here, is the intention of the Mahāpaccarivāda. Because they are given with the words, 'We give monastery workers to the community of monks,' they are not their slaves. It is written, 'A monastery worker is not their slave.' The pouring of the shuttle is a custom on the island of Sri Lanka. And they should be ordained because they are monastery workers of the Sangha. One may make a masterless slave a freeman even by oneself. And it is written, 'They say, "For a slave who, having been ordained, runs away upon seeing his masters, there is no offense."' Alternatively, the meaning is: he is the monk's own slave. For a masterless slave, the king is the master; therefore, some say he should be ordained after asking permission from the king or the people in that village. It is written, 'Having made him a freeman.' They speak of his treatment: 'He should be treated in the way that a freeman is.' Having spoken with such an intention, it is written by some, 'There is no purpose.' Regarding 'It is indeed proper to make him a freeman,' it is said, 'If they see him, they will pursue him.' There is no offense. They say, 'The statement "My teachings are indeed not for the impure" was said with reference to that very freeman-monk.'

Iṇāyikadāsavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Story of the Debtor-Slave is concluded.

Kammārabhaṇḍuvatthādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of the Blacksmith Bhaṇḍu and Others

98. Kammārabhaṇḍūti ettha dārako cūḷāmattaṃ ṭhapetvā āgacchati, tasmā āpucchituṃ labhati. Tañce so vā añño vā avaharati, doso natthi. ‘‘Kesamassuorohanaṃ akatvā asatiyā saraṇāni datvā pabbājeti, ruhatevā’’ti vadanti.

98. In this passage on Kammārabhaṇḍu: a boy comes, having left only a topknot; therefore, one may ask his leave. If he or another removes it, there is no offense. They say, 'If one, without having the hair and beard shaved off, unmindfully gives the refuges and ordains him, the ordination is surely not valid.'

101-3. Ettha kule. ‘‘Ubhayāni kho panassa…pe… anubyañjanasoti sabbopāyaṃ pabhedo mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ ñāto hotī’’ti ca ‘‘āpattiṃ [Pg.425] jānātīti pāṭhe avattamānepi idaṃ nāma katvā idaṃ āpajjatīti jānāti ce, vaṭṭatī’’ti ca likhitaṃ. ‘‘Tañca kho tato pubbe pāṭhe paguṇe kateti gahetabbaṃ, ācariyupajjhāyānampi eseva nayo’’ti vuttaṃ.

101–3. Here, in this lineage. And it is written: “This entire distinction, ‘…pe… anubyañjanaso,’ is known in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā.” And it is written: “Even if the text ‘āpattiṃ jānāti’ (one knows the offense) is not recited, if one knows thus, ‘Having done such-and-such, one falls into this offense,’ it is allowable.” It is said: “And that should be understood when the text has been made familiar beforehand. This is the same method for teachers and preceptors as well.”

Kammārabhaṇḍuvatthādikathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Story of the Blacksmith Bhaṇḍu and Others is concluded.

Rāhulavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Story of Rāhula

105. ‘‘Aṅgārino dāni dumā bhadante’’tiādīhi (theragā. 527) saṭṭhimattāhi. Dassehi iti maṃ āṇāpesi. Ettha iti-saddo āharitabbo. Pokkharavassanti pokkharapattavaṇṇaṃ udakaṃ, tamhi vassante temitukāmāva tementi. Uṇhīsato paṭṭhāyāti muddhato paṭṭhāya.

105. By about sixty verses beginning with, “Now the trees are like embers, venerable sir.” He commanded me, “Show!” Here, the word ‘iti’ should be supplied. ‘Pokkharavassa’ means water the color of a lotus leaf; when it rains, only those who wish to be wet get wet. ‘Starting from the turban’ means starting from the head.

‘‘Siniddhanīlamudukuñcitakeso,Sūriyanimmalatalābhinalāṭo;

Yuttatuṅgamudukāyatanāso,Raṃsijālavitato narasīho’’ti. (apa. aṭṭha. 1.santikenidānakathā;

jā. aṭṭha. 1.santikenidānakathā) –

“With hair glossy, dark blue, soft, and curling; with a forehead bright like the surface of the spotless sun; with a nose long, high, and well-proportioned; pervaded by a web of light—the lion among men.”

Ādigāthāhi. Atha vā –

By the opening verses. Or—

‘‘Cakkavaraṅkitarattasupādo,Lakkhaṇamaṇḍitaāyatapaṇhi;

Cāmarachattavibhūsitapādo,Esa hi tuyha pitā narasīho.

“With beautiful red feet marked with excellent wheels; with long heels adorned with the marks; with feet honored by the chowry and parasol; this indeed is your father, the lion among men.”

‘‘Sakyakumāravaro sukhumālo,Lakkhaṇacittikapuṇṇasarīro;

Lokahitāya gato naravīro,Esa hi tuyha pitā narasīho.

“The best of Sakyan princes, exceedingly delicate; with a full body adorned with the marks; a heroic man who has fared for the welfare of the world; this indeed is your father, the lion among men.”

‘‘Puṇṇasasaṅkanibho mukhavaṇṇo,Devanarāna piyo naranāgo;

Mattagajindavilāsitagāmī,Esa hi tuyha pitā narasīho.

“His facial complexion is like the full moon; he is beloved of gods and men, a great man among men; his gait is as graceful as a lordly elephant in rut; this indeed is your father, the lion among men.”

‘‘Khattiyasambhavaaggakulīno[Pg.426],Devamanussanamassitapādo;

Sīlasamādhipatiṭṭhitacitto,Esa hi tuyha pitā narasīho.

“Born of the warrior caste, of the highest lineage; his feet are revered by gods and humans; his mind is established in virtue and concentration; this indeed is your father, the lion among men.”

‘‘Āyatayuttasusaṇṭhitanāso,Gopakhumo abhinīlasunetto;

Indadhanū abhinīlabhamūko,Esa hi tuyha pitā narasīho.

“With a nose long, well-proportioned, and beautifully formed; with eyelashes like a cow’s and beautiful, very dark blue eyes; with very dark eyebrows arched like Indra’s bow; this indeed is your father, the lion among men.”

‘‘Vaṭṭasuvaṭṭasusaṇṭhitagīvo,Sīhahanū migarājasarīro;

Kañcanasucchaviuttamavaṇṇo,Esa hi tuyha pitā narasīho.

“With a neck round, well-rounded, and beautifully formed; with a jaw like a lion and the torso of the king of beasts; with a supreme complexion and beautiful skin the color of gold; this indeed is your father, the lion among men.”

‘‘Suddhasugambhīramañjusaghoso,Hiṅgulabaddhasurattasujivho;

Vīsati vīsati setasudanto,Esa hi tuyha pitā narasīho.

“His voice is pure, deep, and melodious; with a beautiful tongue, exceedingly red, as if smeared with vermilion; with twenty teeth above and twenty below, perfectly white—this indeed is your father, the lion among men.”

‘‘Añjanavaṇṇasunīlasukeso,Kañcanapaṭṭavisuddhanalāṭo;

Osadhipaṇḍarasuddhasuuṇṇo,Esa hi tuyha pitā narasīho.

“With beautiful hair the color of collyrium, exceedingly dark; with a forehead pure and beautiful like a golden plate; with a pure, shining uṇṇa hair-tuft like the morning star—this indeed is your father, the lion among men.”

‘‘Gacchatinīlapathe viya cando,Tāragaṇāpariveṭhitarūpo;

Sāvakamajjhagato samaṇindo,Esa hi tuyha pitā narasīho’’ti. (jā. aṭṭha. 1.santikenidānakathā) –

“Just as the moon, its form surrounded by a host of stars, proceeds along the path of the wind; so the Lord of Ascetics, amidst his disciples, proceeds—this indeed is your father, the lion among men.”

Imāhi.

With these verses.

Uddiṭṭheti evaṃ caritabbanti attano, ‘‘uttiṭṭhe’’ti dhammapadapāṭho. Dhammanti sapadānacārikavattaṃ. Anesanaṃ vajjetvā sucaritaṃ care.

In `Uddiṭṭhe`, the meaning is 'thus one should practice'. By oneself, the Dhammapada reading is `uttiṭṭhe`. In `Dhammaṃ`, the meaning is the duty of going for alms from house to house without interruption. Having avoided improper seeking, one should practice good conduct.

Kesavissajjananti [Pg.427] pañcasikhākāraṃ vajjetvā ekasikhākāraṃ. Paṭṭabandhoti ettha paṭṭoti tasmiṃ kule āciṇṇo alaṅkāraviseso. Gharamaṅgalanti gharamaho. Chattamaṅgalanti yuvarājachattapaṭṭi. Vaṭṭānugatanti kilesavaṭṭānugataṃ. Vighātapaccayattā savighātakaṃ. Thero rādhaṃ brāhmaṇaṃ pubbe pabbajitvā kasmā idāni ‘‘kathāhaṃ, bhante, rāhulaṃ pabbājemī’’ti āhāti ce? Tattha upasampadāpaṭikkhepo adhippeto, tasmā ‘‘bhagavā upasampadameva paṭikkhipi, idāni anāgate saṃsayāpanayanādhippāyo bhagavā’’ti ñatvā āha. Cittasamuṭṭhānarūpavasena ‘‘aṭṭhimiñjaṃ āhaccā’’ti vuttaṃ kira. Buddhānaṃ, cakkavattīnañca byattādivasena nānattaṃ veditabbaṃ, aññathā nandādayopi pabbajitvā buddhā siyuṃ ‘‘sace pabbajati, buddho hotī’’ti vacanato.

“Kesavissajjana” means avoiding the five-peaked hairstyle and adopting a single-peaked hairstyle. In “Paṭṭabandha,” “paṭṭa” is a special ornament customary in that family. “Gharamaṅgala” means a household festival. “Chattamaṅgala” refers to the raising of the crown prince’s parasol. “Vaṭṭānugata” means following the cycle of defilements. Because it is a cause of affliction, it is afflictive. If one should ask why the Elder, having previously ordained the brahmin Rādha, now says, “How, venerable sir, shall I ordain Rāhula?”—there, the rejection of the higher ordination is intended. Therefore, knowing, “The Blessed One rejected only the higher ordination; now, the Blessed One’s intention is to dispel doubt in the future,” he spoke. It is said that “reaching the bone marrow” was spoken by way of mind-originated form. The distinction between Buddhas and wheel-turning monarchs should be understood by way of their skill, etc. Otherwise, even Nanda and others would become Buddhas after going forth, because of the statement, “If he goes forth, he becomes a Buddha.”

Pesetvā dassetuṃ vaṭṭati, āpucchissāmāti pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatīti ca idaṃ yasmā videsappatto nāma lokasaṅketenāpi mātāpituvāsato mutto serivihārīti vuccati, tasmāssa te asantapakkhe ṭhitā viya hontīti katvā ‘‘na tassa pabbajjācariye vā appasādaṃ karontī’’ti evaṃ vuttaṃ naṭṭhameva. Pabbajitā samagatikāti lokavohāro. Teneva cettha dukkhappattādinā desantaragamanañca samagatikaṃ kataṃ. Videsaṃ gantvāti cettha videso nāma mātāpituvāsato añño deso, na uppattidesato. Byañjanattho eva ce pamāṇaṃ, na yutti. Matamātāpitikopi na pabbājetabboti āpajjati, tasmā anuppattabbaṭṭhāne ṭhitehiyeva mātāpitūhi ananuññāto putto na pabbājetabboti evamidhādhippāyo veditabbo, aññathā pāḷiyā virujjheyya, āpattiṭṭhānassa ca sithilakaraṇaṃ aṭṭhakathāya na yujjati. Idaṃ tāva evaṃ hotu, ‘‘vihāraṃ vā jhāpemī’’tiādinayo kathaṃ na virujjhatīti ce? Attaparūpaddavappasaṅgabhayena avasena pabbajitattā, puttarakkhaṇatthaṃ pabbajitattā ca. Evañhi sati sayameva so attanā pabbajito hoti, na kenaci upalāpetvā pabbajito. ‘‘Puttapemaṃ vā puttarakkhe piyo hotī’’ti nidānānulomato na virujjhati.

This statement, 'It is proper to send for and show,' and 'It is proper to ordain after asking permission,' is because one who has gone to a foreign country is, even by worldly convention, said to be freed from the parents' residence and to be one who lives at will. Therefore, it is as if his parents are in the position of being absent. For this reason, the statement, 'They do not show displeasure towards his preceptor,' is indeed nullified. 'The ordained have a similar destiny' is a worldly expression. For that very reason, here, going to another country due to encountering suffering and so on is also made to be of a similar destiny. And here, in 'having gone to a foreign country,' a foreign country means a country other than the parents' residence, not other than one's place of birth. If the literal meaning of the words alone is the authority, and not the reasoning, it would follow that even one whose parents are deceased should not be ordained. Therefore, the intention to be understood here is thus: a son not permitted by his parents, who are indeed in a place that can be reached, should not be ordained. Otherwise, it would contradict the Pāli, and the weakening of the basis for an offense is not suitable for the commentary. Let this be so for now. If it is asked, 'How does the method beginning with, “I will burn down the monastery,” not contradict?' It does not contradict because of having been ordained under duress due to fear of the occurrence of harm to oneself and others, and because of having been ordained for the sake of protecting the son. For, this being so, he is ordained by himself of his own accord; he is not ordained after being persuaded by anyone. It does not contradict, being in accordance with the origin story: 'Love for a son is dear to one who protects the son.'

Rāhulavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Story of Rāhula is concluded.

Sikkhāpadadaṇḍakammavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Exposition of the Story of the Disciplinary Action for the Training Rule

107. Attano [Pg.428] pariveṇañcāti puggalikaṃ. Mukhadvārikanti mukhadvārena bhuñjitabbaṃ. Tattha niyojitabbakaṃ, tassa āvaraṇaṃ nivāraṇaṃ karonti. Atha vā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, āvaraṇaṃ kātu’’nti yaṃ āvaraṇaṃ anuññātaṃ, taṃ āvaraṇaṃ mukhadvārikaṃ āhāraṃ karontīti adhippāyo.

107. 'One's own dwelling' means personal. 'For the mouth-door' means to be eaten by way of the mouth. There, for him who is to be enjoined, they make a barrier, a prevention. Or alternatively, the intention is this: that barrier which was permitted, 'Bhikkhus, I allow the making of a barrier,' they apply that barrier to the food to be consumed by mouth.

Sikkhāpadadaṇḍakammavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition of the Story of the Disciplinary Action for the Training Rule is concluded.

Anāpucchāvaraṇavatthuādikathāvaṇṇanā

Exposition of the Stories beginning with the Case of the Barrier without Asking

108. Parassa dussīlabhikkhussapīti attho. Keci ‘‘dussīlabhikkhūpī’’ti likhanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ. Porāṇā pana ‘‘yāvatatiyaṃ vuccamāno ce na oramati, saṅghaṃ apaloketvā nāsetabbo, puna pabbajjaṃ yācamānopi apaloketvā pabbājetabbo’’ti vadanti. Bhikkhūnaṃ upasampadakammavācāsadisanti ettha ‘‘yathā upasampanno sikkhaṃ paccakkhāya yathānivatthapārutova hutvā pacchā upasampanno pubbe attano navakatarassa samānavassikassa puna vandanādīni karoti, evaṃ sāmaṇeropi puna gahitasaraṇo tato pubbe attano navakatarassa samānavassikassa sāmaṇerassa puna vandanādīni karoti. Liṅgaṃ panettha vuḍḍhatarabhāvaṃ na sādhetīti vuttaṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vikālabhojanaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ vītikkamevāti eke. ‘‘Accayo maṃ, bhante, accāgamā’’tiādinā nayena accayaṃ desāpetabbo. ‘‘Diṭṭhiyā anissajjanena ‘tvaṃ, sāmaṇera, gacchā’ti vutteyeva pārājiko hotī’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘yāvatatiyanti vuttattā buddhādīnaṃ avaṇṇabhāsitamattena ca diṭṭhiggahitamattena ca saraṇāni na bhijjantīti vuttaṃ hotī’’ti vadanti. Evaṃ sante pāṇātipātādiṃ karontassāpi taṃ sambhotīti mama takko. ‘‘Nissīlassa puna nāsanā vuttā’’ti ca keci vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ viya. Na hi bhagavā sīlavantassa liṅganāsanaṃ anujānātīti vicāretabbaṃ, bhikkhunidūsakāpadesena bhabbābhabbe saṅgaṇhātīti porāṇā. ‘‘Pabbajjampi na labhatīti yathā cettha ayamattho dassito, tathā ‘paṇḍako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo, upasampanno nāsetabbo’ti (mahāva. 109) ādinā [Pg.429] nayena vuttānampi pabbajjaṃ natthīti dīpitaṃ hoti. Na hi idaṃ ṭhānaṃ ṭhapetvā tesaṃ pabbajjāya vāritaṭṭhānaṃ atthi. ‘Bhikkhunidūsako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo, upasampanno nāsetabbo’ti (mahāva. 114) vuttenapi samānattā tassa pabbajjā viya tesampi pabbajjā vāritāva hotītipi dassetuṃ puna bhikkhunidūsakoti gahitanti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Kiṃ iminā? Nanu aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘yassa cettha pabbajjā vāritā, taṃ sandhāya idaṃ vuttaṃ anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo, upasampanno nāsetabbo’’ti.

108. The meaning is also for another immoral monk. Some write 'dussīlabhikkhūpi,' but that is not good. The ancients, however, say: 'If, even when told up to the third time, he does not desist, he should be expelled after informing the Saṅgha. Even if he requests the going-forth again, he should be given the going-forth after informing the Saṅgha.' Here, it is similar to the formal act of higher ordination for monks: it is said that just as one who has received higher ordination, having renounced the training and reverted to being dressed and cloaked as before, upon receiving higher ordination again, then performs acts of respect such as bowing to one of the same seniority who was previously his junior; so too a novice, having taken the refuges again, performs acts of respect such as bowing to a novice of the same seniority who was previously his junior. It is said that the meaning is: the monastic mark here does not establish seniority. Some say that eating at the wrong time is indeed a transgression for novices. He should be made to confess the transgression in the manner of saying, 'Venerable sir, a transgression has overcome me,' and so on. It is said: 'By not relinquishing his wrong view, as soon as he is told, "You, novice, go away!" he becomes one who has committed a pārājika offense.' They say that because it is said 'up to the third time,' the meaning is that the refuges are not broken merely by speaking dispraise of the Buddha and so on, nor merely by holding a wrong view. If that is so, it is my reasoning that this also applies to one who commits the killing of living beings and so on. And some say, 'The expulsion of an immoral one is spoken of again,' which seems correct. Indeed, it should be considered that the Blessed One does not permit the removal of the monastic mark for a virtuous one. The ancients say that under the pretext of a 'corrupter of nuns,' it includes both the suitable and the unsuitable. It is said: 'Just as the meaning "he does not even receive the going-forth" is shown here, so too it is explained that there is no going-forth for those spoken of in the manner beginning with, "A paṇḍaka, O monks, who has not received higher ordination should not be given higher ordination; if he has received higher ordination, he should be expelled" (Mahāvagga 109). For, apart from this passage, there is no other place where the going-forth is forbidden for them. Others say that the term "corrupter of nuns" is taken up again to show that, due to the similarity with what is said in "A corrupter of nuns, O monks, who has not received higher ordination should not be given higher ordination; if he has received higher ordination, he should be expelled" (Mahāvagga 114), just as his going-forth is forbidden, so too is their going-forth forbidden.' What is the use of this? Is it not said in the commentary: 'This statement, "one who has not received higher ordination should not be given higher ordination; if he has received higher ordination, he should be expelled," is said in reference to one for whom the going-forth is forbidden here'?

Anāpucchāvaraṇavatthuādikathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Case of Obstruction without Asking Permission, and so on, is concluded.

Paṇḍakavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Case of the Paṇḍaka

109. Opakkamikapaṇḍakassa hīnaṅgattā apabbajitassa pabbajjā vāritā, pabbajitassa upasampadā na kātabbā. Pubbe upasampannassa ce upacaraṇaṃ atthi, na nāsanā kātabbāti no takkoti ācariyo. Chinnaṅgajāto na paṇḍako. Pañcasu napuṃsakapaṇḍakova abhāvako. Itare cattāro sabhāvakāti veditabbā. Bhāvo pana tesaṃ paṇḍako hoti. Ete cattāropi kira purisāvāti eke. Itthīpi pakkhapaṇḍakī hotīti eke. Upakkame kate paṇḍakabhāvo avassaṃ hoti, tasmā pabbajjaṃ na labhati. ‘‘Yadi pana kassaci na hoti, pabbajjā na vāritāti vinicchayaṃ vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ.

109. For an opakkamika-paṇḍaka, because of having a deficient organ, the going-forth is forbidden for one who has not yet gone forth; for one who has already gone forth, the higher ordination should not be performed. If there is an investigation concerning one who was previously higher-ordained, expulsion should not be carried out. Thus is our reasoning, says the teacher. One whose sexual organ is severed is not a paṇḍaka. Among the five types, only the napuṃsaka-paṇḍaka lacks a sexual organ. The other four are to be understood as possessing a sexual nature. However, their sexual nature is deficient. Some say that these four are indeed men. Others say that a woman can also be a pakkhapaṇḍakī. When the procedure is performed, the state of being a paṇḍaka certainly occurs; therefore, one does not obtain the going-forth. It is said: 'They state the decision that if, however, for someone this state does not occur, the going-forth is not forbidden.'

‘‘Pabbajjā vāritāti apaṇḍakapakkhe pabbājetvā paṇḍakapakkhe nāsetabboti adhippāyo’’ti likhitaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana māsapaṇḍakalekhapaṇḍakehi saha satta paṇḍakā vuttā. Tattha lekhapaṇḍako nāma kira mantavasena upahatabījo. Tattha ‘‘opakkamikalekhapaṇḍakā pabbajitā na nāsetabbā. Yo pabbājeti, tassa dukkaṭa’’nti ca vuttaṃ.

It is written: 'The meaning of "The going-forth is forbidden" is that one should give the going-forth in the case of a non-paṇḍaka, and one should expel in the case of a paṇḍaka.' But in the ancient Gaṇṭhipada, seven paṇḍakas are mentioned, together with the māsa-paṇḍaka and the lekha-paṇḍaka. There, the one called a lekha-paṇḍaka, it is said, is one whose testicles have been removed by the power of a mantra. And there it is stated: 'Opakkamika-paṇḍakas and lekha-paṇḍakas, if they have gone forth, should not be expelled. For the teacher who gives them the going-forth, there is a dukkaṭa offense.'

Paṇḍakavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Case of the Paṇḍaka is concluded.

Theyyasaṃvāsakavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Case of One in Stolen Communion

110. Theyyasaṃvāsakoti [Pg.430] ettha kiñcāpi byañjanatthavasena saṃvāsatthenakova theyyasaṃvāsakoti paññāyati, atha kho tayo theyyasaṃvāsakā. Saṃvāsoti cettha na ekakammādiko saṃvāso, kintu bhikkhuvassagaṇanādiko kiriyabhedo idha saṃvāso nāma. Imañhi sakkā theyyāya kātuṃ, netaranti aṭṭhakathāya adhippāyo. Videsaṃ gantvā pabbajitehi pucchite ‘‘dasavasso’’tiādiṃ bhaṇantassa doso. Gihīnaṃ vutte doso natthīti keci. Rājabhayādīhi gahitaliṅgānaṃ ‘‘gihī maṃ samaṇoti jānātū’’ti vañcanacitte satipi bhikkhūnaṃ vañcetukāmatāya, tehi saṃvasitukāmatāya ca abhāvā doso na jāto. ‘‘Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattānīti vihāraṃ āgantvā saṅghikaṃ gaṇhantassa saṃvāsaṃ pariharituṃ dukkaraṃ, tasmā vutta’’nti ca likhitaṃ. ‘‘Sūpasampanno’’ti vuttattā gahaṭṭhampi sace upasampādenti, sūpasampannoti āpannaṃ, ‘‘anupasampannakāleyevā’’ti iminā sace upasampannakāle suṇāti, sūpasampanno eva anārocentopīti dasseti. Andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ, porāṇagaṇṭhipadesu ca dussīlabhikkhu ‘‘theyyasaṃvāsako’’ti vutto ‘‘theyyāya vo, bhikkhave, raṭṭhapiṇḍo bhutto’’ti (pārā. 195) iminā kira pariyāyenāti veditabbaṃ. Tenevāha ‘‘taṃ na gahetabba’’nti. ‘‘Mahāpeḷādīsū’’ti etena gihisantakaṃ dassitaṃ.

110. Regarding the term 'theyyasaṃvāsaka': Here, although by the literal meaning of the words it is understood only in the sense of 'communion by theft' (theyyasaṃvāsa), there are, however, three types of theyyasaṃvāsaka. As for 'communion' (saṃvāsa) here, it is not communion beginning with common acts; rather, a distinction of practice beginning with the counting of a bhikkhu's years is here called 'communion'. For it is possible to commit theft in this regard, but not in the other—this is the intention of the commentary. If one goes to another country and, when asked by the ordained, says, 'I have ten years of seniority,' and so on, there is an offense. Some say there is no offense if it is said to laypeople. For those who have assumed the monastic appearance due to fear of the king and so forth, even if there is a deceitful thought, 'Let laypeople know me as an ascetic,' an offense does not arise because of the absence of the desire to deceive bhikkhus and the desire to live in communion with them. And it is written: 'For one who comes to a monastery and takes what belongs to the Sangha, it is difficult to avoid communion; therefore, it was said.' Because it is said 'well-ordained', even if they ordain a householder, it follows that he is 'well-ordained'. By the phrase 'only at the time of not being ordained,' it is shown that if he hears it at the time of being ordained, he is indeed well-ordained even without announcing it. In the Andhaka commentary and in ancient glosses, an immoral bhikkhu is called a 'theyyasaṃvāsaka', and it should be understood that this is said, it seems, by this expression: 'Bhikkhus, the country's alms-food has been eaten by you through theft' (Pārā. 195). For that very reason, it was said, 'That should not be taken.' By 'in Mahāpeḷā and so forth,' what belongs to a householder is shown.

Sayaṃ sāmaṇerova kūṭavassāni gaṇetvā gaṇhanto pārājiko hoti, theyyasaṃvāsako pana na hoti, tathā bhikkhupi, so pana bhaṇḍagghena kāretabboti iminā adhippāyena ‘‘sayaṃ sāmaṇerovā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Ayaṃ pana theyyasaṃvāsako nāma yasmā pabbajitova hoti, nāpabbajito, tasmā ‘‘theyyasaṃvāsako, bhikkhave, apabbajito na pabbājetabbo, pabbajito nāsetabbo’’ti vattuṃ na sakkāti katvā imassa vasena paṇḍakato paṭṭhāya ‘‘anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo’’tiādinā pāḷi ṭhapitā, na upasampadāmattasseva abhabbattā ekādasannampi nesaṃ pabbajjārahabhāvappasaṅgato. Apica aniṭṭhadosappasaṅgato tathā eva pāḷi ṭhapitā. Yasmā titthiyapakkamanaṃ, saṅghabhedanañca upasampannasseva hoti, nānupasampannassa, so [Pg.431] duvidhopi pabbajitova hoti, nāpabbajito, tasmā ‘‘titthiyapakkantako, bhikkhave, apabbajito na pabbājetabbo’’tiādipāḷiyā sati te ubhopi apabbājetabbā hontīti aniṭṭhappasaṅgo āpajjatīti. Tīsu pana theyyasaṃvāsakesu sāmaṇerālayaṃ karonto liṅgatthenako, upasampannālayaṃ karonto saṃvāsatthenako, ubhayatthenako ca. Na hi sāmaṇerasaṃvāso idha saṃvāso nāma, teneva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘bhikkhuvassagaṇanādiko hi sabbopi kiriyabhedo imasmiṃ atthe saṃvāso’’ti vuttanti eke. Yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanasādiyanāsanapaṭibāhanānaṃ sāmaṇerasaṃvāsasāmaññato nevāti ācariyo.

A novice himself, having counted deceitful years and taking them, becomes one who has committed a pārājika offense, but he is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. Likewise for a bhikkhu. With the intention that 'he, however, should be made to pay according to the value of the goods,' the passage beginning 'a novice himself...' was stated. Now, this one called a theyyasaṃvāsaka is so because he is one who has gone forth, not one who has not gone forth. Therefore, because it is not possible to say, 'Bhikkhus, a theyyasaṃvāsaka who has not gone forth should not be given the going forth; one who has gone forth should be expelled,' on account of this, starting from the paṇḍaka, the Pāḷi was established with the words, 'One who is not fully ordained should not be given the higher ordination,' and so on. This is not merely because of their unfitness for just the higher ordination, but because of the consequence that all eleven of those persons would be fit for the going forth. Furthermore, the Pāḷi was established in that very way because of the consequence of an undesirable fault. Because defection to another sect and causing a schism in the Saṅgha occur only for one who is fully ordained, not for one who is not fully ordained, and both of these two types are ones who have gone forth, not ones who have not gone forth, therefore, if there were a Pāḷi text like 'Bhikkhus, one who has defected to another sect who has not gone forth should not be given the going forth,' etc., the undesirable consequence that both of them should not be given the going forth would arise. Now, among the three types of theyyasaṃvāsaka, one who makes a pretext of being a novice is a liṅgatthenaka; one who makes a pretext of being a fully ordained one is a saṃvāsatthenaka and also a ubhayatthenaka. For communion as a novice is not called 'communion' here. Therefore, in the commentary, some say, 'Indeed, every kind of action, such as the counting of a bhikkhu's years, is 'communion' in this sense.' The teacher says: It is not so, because of the commonality with a novice's communion in regard to paying homage, accepting a seat, and preventing another from taking a seat according to seniority.

Theyyasaṃvāsakavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Case of the Theyyasaṃvāsaka is concluded.

Titthiyapakkantakakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on One Who Has Defected to Another Sect

Titthiyapakkantako, bhikkhavetiādi attano nidānabhūte pasūravatthusmiṃ eva vattabbaṃ samānampi tattha vāritaadhikārābhāvā abhabbā. Idheva theyyasaṃvāsakena vinā sambhavato vutto. Tattha ‘‘atha kho na pabbājetabbopī’’ti idheva vacanaṃ pasūrassa upasampadāya eva yācanicchāya dassanena, ‘‘so āgato na upasampādetabbo’’ti bhagavato upasampadāmattapaṭisedhanena ca pabbajjānumatidosappasaṅgabhayāti veditabbaṃ. Tesaṃ liṅge ādinnamatte laddhiyā gahitāyapi aggahitāyapi titthiyapakkantako hoti, avandanīyasseva naggaliṅgassa seṭṭhabhāvaṃ vā upagacchati, na muccati, ettha ‘‘padavāre dukkaṭaṃ, ājīvako bhavissanti visamacittavasena gatattā naggo hutvā na gamanenā’’ti vadanti. Ubhinnampi vasena yuttanti mama takko. Tāva naṃ laddhi rakkhati asampaṭicchitattā. Upasampannabhikkhunā kathitoti kathaṃ paññāyati? Aṭṭhakathāvacanappamāṇatovāti eke. Nidānavasenāti eke. Pasūrassa upasampannattā upasampannānaṃ eva titthiyapakkantatāvacanatoti eke. Yathāha ‘‘upajjhāyo pakkantovā hoti, vibbhanto vā, kālaṃkato vā, pakkhasaṅkanto vā’’ti ācariyo. Pakkhasaṅkanto vāti sāmaṇeranāsanāvatthūsu abhāvatoti eke. Aññatitthiyapubbassa upasampannassa sato pakkhasaṅkantabhayā anupasampannakāle upasampadatthaṃ parivāsapaññāpanenāti eke[Pg.432]. Pabbajjatthampīti ce? Na, pubbe vicāritattā, apabbajitassa adhisīlābhāvato ca. Pātimokkhasīlañhi adhisīlaṃ nāma, tañca apabbajitassa natthi. Imassa ca parivāsavatte adhisīlaṃ vuttaṃ. Yathāha ‘‘puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, aññatitthiyapubbo tibbacchando hoti uddese paripucchāya adhisīle’’ti (mahāva. 87). Apica ‘‘sace, bhikkhave, jātiyā sākiyo aññatitthiyapubbo āgacchati, so āgato upasampādetabbo’’ti (mahāva. 87) ettha upasampadāmattaparidīpanato. Upasampadāmattaparidīpanañhettha tasseva parivāsadānasiddhito. Parivāsadānattanidassanatthe hesā pāḷi.

The section beginning with 'One who has defected to another sect, O bhikkhus'—although this should be spoken only regarding the case of Pasūra, which serves as its origin, it is not suitable there due to the absence of a prohibited matter. Here, it is stated because it is possible without one who has stolen communion. There, the statement 'but he should not even be given the going forth' should be understood as being stated here due to the fear of the fault of implying permission for the going forth, which is shown by Pasūra's desire to request only higher ordination, and by the Blessed One's prohibition of higher ordination alone with the words 'having come, he should not be given the higher ordination.' Merely upon taking on their sign, whether their view has been adopted or not, one becomes a defector to another sect; he attains the superior status of the naked sign, which is not to be venerated, and is not freed. Here, some say: 'At every footstep, there is a dukkaṭa offense. This is because he has gone with an unsteady mind, thinking, "I will become an Ājīvaka," not because of going naked.' My reasoning is that it is suitable in both ways. For the time being, the view protects him, because it has not been accepted. How is it known that this was spoken by a fully ordained bhikkhu? Some say it is known from the authority of the commentary's statement. Others say it is due to the origin story. Others say it is because Pasūra was fully ordained, and because the state of being a defector to another sect is spoken of only for the fully ordained. As the teacher said: 'The preceptor may have gone away, or disrobed, or died, or changed factions.' Some say this is because 'changing factions' is absent among the grounds for the expulsion of a novice. Others say it is known from the fact that probation is prescribed for the purpose of higher ordination while one is not yet ordained, due to the fear that one who was previously a sectarian might change factions after being ordained. If one should say, 'Is it also for the purpose of the going forth?' No, it should not be said, because it has been considered before, and because one who has not gone forth lacks the higher virtue. Indeed, the Pātimokkha virtue is called the higher virtue, and that does not exist for one who has not gone forth. And for this person, during the practice of probation, the higher virtue is mentioned. As it is said: 'Furthermore, O bhikkhus, one who was previously a sectarian is of strong desire in recitation, in questioning, and in the higher virtue.' Moreover, in the passage 'If, O bhikkhus, a Sākiyan by birth who was previously a sectarian comes, having come, he should be given the higher ordination,' it is known from the showing of only the higher ordination. And the showing of only the higher ordination here is established by the granting of probation to him. Indeed, this Pali passage is for the purpose of illustrating the granting of probation.

Titthiyapakkantakakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Account of One Who Has Defected to Another Sect is concluded.

Tiracchānagatavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Account of Animal Births

111. Nāgayoniyāti nāgayonito, attano nāgajātihetūti adhippāyo. Kiṃkāraṇā? Abhikkhaṇaṃ sakajātiyā methunapaṭisevane, vissaṭṭhaniddokkamane ca sabbesampi.

111. `Nāgayoniyā` means: because of being of the nāga-species (`nāgayonito`); the implication is 'due to the cause of being of one's own nāga-birth'. What is the reason that one is vexed? Because frequently, for all of them, when engaging in sexual intercourse with their own kind and when descending into relaxed sleep, their nāga body appears.

Tiracchānagatavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Account of Animal Births is concluded.

Mātughātakādivatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Account of Matricide and So Forth

112-5. Apavāhananti pakkhalanaṃ, kāsāyavatthanivāsanaṃ icchamānanti attho. Duṭṭhacittena. Kīdisena? Vadhakacittenāti adhippāyo. Lohituppādanavasena duṭṭhacittanti keci, taṃ na sundaraṃ.

112-5. `Apavāhanaṃ` means cleansing (`pakkhalanaṃ`); the meaning is desiring to wear the saffron robe. `Duṭṭhacittena` (With a corrupt mind). Of what sort? The implication is: with the mind of a killer. Some say 'corrupt mind' is in the sense of producing blood; but that is not good.

Mātughātakādivatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Account of Matricide and So Forth is concluded.

Ubhatobyañjanakavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Account of Hermaphrodites

116. ‘‘Yadi paṭisandhiyaṃ uppannaliṅgena etaṃ nāmaṃ labhantīti adhippāyo’’ti likhitaṃ.

116. "The intention is: if they receive this name at rebirth-linking by means of the arisen sexual characteristic," is written.

Ubhatobyañjanakavatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Account of Hermaphrodites is concluded.

Anupajjhāyakādivatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Account of Those Without a Preceptor and So Forth

117. ‘‘Keci [Pg.433] ‘kuppatī’ti vadanti, taṃ ‘na gahetabba’’nti yaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ ‘‘pañcavaggakaraṇīyañce, bhikkhave, kammaṃ bhikkhunipañcamo kammaṃ kareyya, akammaṃ na ca karaṇīya’’ntiādinā (mahāva. 390) nayena vuttattā paṇḍakādīnaṃ 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’’tiādivacanassābhāvā 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 abhikkhuttā’’ti vacanampi na gahetabbaṃ. 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 ācariyaupajjhāyānaṃ vā saṅgaho katoti ce? Na, ‘‘dvādasahākārehi parisato kammāni vipajjantī’’ti etassa vibhaṅge tesamanāmaṭṭhattā. Ayamattho ‘‘yasmā tattha tattha sarūpena vuttapāḷivaseneva sakkā jānituṃ, tasmā nayamukhaṃ dassetvā saṃkhittoti ayamassa yuttigavesanā’’ti vuttaṃ. Tatridaṃ vicāretabbaṃ – anupajjhāyakaṃ upasampādentā te bhikkhū yathāvuttanayena abhūtaṃ taṃ vatthuṃ kittayiṃsu, udāhu musāvādabhayā tāneva padāni na sāvesunti. Kiñcettha yadi tāva upajjhāyābhāvata [Pg.434] na sāvesuṃ, ‘‘puggalaṃ na parāmasatī’’ti vuttavipattippasaṅgo hoti, atha sāvesuṃ, musāvādo nesaṃ bhavatīti? Vuccate – sāvesuṃyeva yathāvuttavipattippasaṅgabhayā, ‘‘kammaṃ pana na kuppatī’’ti aṭṭhakathāya vuttattā ca, na musāvādassa asambhavato, musāvādenāpi kammasambhavato ca. Na hi sakkā musāvādena kammavipattisampattiṃ kātunti. Tasmā ‘‘anupajjhāyakaṃ upasampādentī’’ti vacanassa ubhayadosavinimutto attho pariyesitabbo.

117. Regarding the statement, 'Some say, "It becomes invalid," but that should not be accepted,' that statement is well-said. This is because it has been stated by the method beginning with, 'Bhikkhus, if a legal act that should be done by a group of five were to be performed with a bhikkhunī as the fifth, it would be an invalid act and one that should not be done.' Therefore, a legal act becomes invalid only in the case where eunuchs and the like are fulfilling the quorum, not every legal act. Otherwise, there would have to be a Pāli text such as, 'If a legal act were performed with a eunuch as preceptor, it would be an invalid act and one that should not be done.' Just as, at the time of ordination for one whose bowl and robes are incomplete, when during the formal act proclamation it is announced, 'His bowl and robes are complete,' declaring a matter that is not true, the ordination nevertheless succeeds even though that is not present; so too, even when an ordination is performed by announcing an untrue matter—such as, 'This Buddharakkhita is the candidate for ordination of the venerable Dhammarakkhita,' when the preceptor is a eunuch, or announcing a matter that is non-existent—the ordination still succeeds due to the presence of those who complete the quorum. Because there is no statement such as, 'Bhikkhus, one should not be ordained by a eunuch preceptor; whoever should so ordain incurs an offense of wrongdoing, and that person is not ordained,' this meaning is indeed established. For the Buddhas do not fail to say what ought to be said. Therefore, it is stated, 'Whatever bhikkhu, knowing... a person under twenty years of age... that person is not ordained,' and so on. Likewise, the statement, 'Based on the text "The Saṅgha should be informed by a competent, capable bhikkhu," an ordination performed with a proclamation by a teacher who is a thief-in-disguise, etc., does not succeed because they are not bhikkhus,' should also not be accepted. Furthermore, when the success and failure of legal acts are being discussed by the method beginning with, 'These four legal acts fail in five ways,' it is not stated that 'Legal acts fail in seven ways: due to the basis, the motion, the proclamation, the boundary, the assembly, the preceptor, or the teacher'; therefore, this should not be accepted. If it is said that the teacher and preceptor are included in the phrase 'due to the assembly,' this is not so, because they are not mentioned in the analysis of 'Legal acts fail in twelve ways due to the assembly.' This meaning is stated: 'Because in each and every case it can be known simply by the Pāli text as it is stated in its own form, therefore, having shown the introduction to the method, it is abbreviated. This is the investigation of its logic.' Herein, this should be investigated: Did those bhikkhus, when ordaining someone without a preceptor, announce that untrue matter according to the aforesaid method, or, out of fear of false speech, did they not recite those very words? And here, if they did not recite them due to the absence of a preceptor, there would be the consequence of the failure stated as 'it does not refer to the person.' But if they did recite them, would it not be false speech for them? It is said: They did indeed recite them, out of fear of the consequence of the aforesaid failure, and because it is said in the commentary, 'But the legal act does not become invalid.' This is not because false speech is impossible, but because a legal act is possible even with false speech. For it is not possible by means of false speech to cause the failure or success of a legal act. Therefore, a meaning for the statement 'they ordain someone without a preceptor' should be sought that is free from both these faults.

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 upajjhāyoti 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 ruhatī’ti vatvā ‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, paccantimesu janapadesu vinayadharapañcamena gaṇena upasampada’nti (mahāva. 259) vuttattā keci ‘vinayadharapañcamena upajjhāyena sannihiteneva bhavitabba’nti vadantī’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. So ce pāṭho pamāṇo 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.

And this is the reasoning here: 'Just as previously, although there were preceptors for the going forth and for the higher ordination, because they were not taken in accordance with the procedure for appointing a preceptor, it was said, "At that time, the monks were without a preceptor," and so on; so also here, although a preceptor is indeed present, because he has not been taken, it is said, "They confer the higher ordination without a preceptor." However, the Kammavācācariya, with the perception that the preceptor has been taken by the candidate, having announced the preceptor, should recite the kammavācā. Alternatively, if the preceptor does not give his physical presence for some reason, he recites the kammavācā after obtaining his consent. Or, a preceptor gives the preceptorship to a candidate for higher ordination, and afterwards, when that one has been ordained, in such a case, whether being questioned or not, the sāmaṇera confesses just before the giving of the preceptor, or confesses to being one who has given up the training or one who has committed a terminal offense; or, like the consent-carriers and others, the preceptor has gone to another boundary. The kammavācā is valid. And, because it was said, "I allow, monks, in the border regions, higher ordination by a chapter with a Vinaya expert as the fifth," some say, "The preceptor must be present with the chapter having a Vinaya expert as the fifth." Thus it is said in the ancient Gaṇṭhipada. If that text is the authority, this is problematic due to the absence of that statement in the middle countries. If it is argued that it follows that the kammavācā is valid even when the preceptor is not present? No. Why? In the completion of the act, the text that says, "it refers to the person," is our authority. For a person designated as a preceptor who is not present there is not worthy of reference. Therefore, the reference to the person should be understood there like the reference to the Saṅgha. They ordain by means of the Saṅgha, by means of a chapter, and by means of a preceptor, because these are, in essence, individuals. The ancients say that they ordain with a preceptor who is a eunuch, etc., because at the time of ordination this was not known.

Apattakādivatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of Those Without a Bowl, and so forth

118. Apattacīvaraṃ [Pg.435] upasampādentīti kammavācācariyo ‘‘paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’’nti saññāya, kevalaṃ atthasampattiṃ anapekkhitvā santapadanihārena vā ‘‘paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’’nti kammavācaṃ sāveti. Yathā etarahi matavippavutthamātāpitikopi ‘‘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 anuññātakammavācāya ‘‘paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’’nti avacanamettha sādhakanti veditabbaṃ. Tañhi vacanaṃ anukkamenānuññātanti.

118. In the phrase `apattacīvaraṃ upasampādenti` (they ordain one without a bowl and robes), the Kammavācācariya recites the Kammavācā, 'his bowl and robes are complete,' with the perception that this is so, either disregarding the actual accomplishment of the matter or simply by uttering the existing words. It is just as nowadays when even one whose parents are dead or far away, upon being asked, 'Have you been permitted by your mother and father?' says, 'Yes, venerable sir.' What is the use of saying much? This is the essence here: because the characteristic of 'at that time, four formal acts fail in five ways' had not yet been laid down, they ordained those without a preceptor, and so forth. Because the persons to be avoided had not been spoken of, they ordained others with a eunuch, and so forth, as preceptor. Because the questioning about the thirteen obstacles was not seen, they ordained one without a bowl and robes. In the very first Kammavācā that was permitted—'I allow, monks, to ordain by a formal act with the motion as the fourth'—the non-utterance of 'his bowl and robes are complete' should be understood as the proof in this matter. For that statement was indeed permitted in due course.

Hatthacchinnādivatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of One with a Severed Hand, and so forth

119. Idaṃ tāva sabbathā hotu, ‘‘mūgaṃ pabbājenti, badhiraṃ pabbājentī’’ti idaṃ kathaṃ sambhavitumarahati ādito paṭṭhāya ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, imehi tīhi saraṇagamanehi pabbajja’’ntiādinā (mahāva. 34) 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 ‘‘tatiyaṃ saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī’’ti, so pabbajjāpekkho 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 vadatī’’ti vuccati, taṃ pariyāyaṃ gahetvā mūgaṃ pabbājentīti veditabbaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade ‘‘mūgaṃ kathaṃ pabbājentī’ti pucchaṃ katvā tassa kāyappasādasambhavato kāyena [Pg.436] pahāraṃ datvā hatthamuddāya viññāpetvā pabbājesu’’nti vuttaṃ. Kiṃ bahunā, ayaṃ panettha sāro – yathā pubbe pabbajjādhikāre vattamāne pabbajjābhilāpaṃ upacchinditvā ‘‘paṇḍako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo’’tiādinā 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, appatto osāraṇaṃ, tañce saṅgho osāreti, sosārito’’ti (mahāva. 396) vacanato mūgo upasampanno hotīti siddhaṃ. So ‘‘kevalaṃ upasampannova hoti, na pana pabbajito tassa pabbajjāya asambhavato’’ti micchāgāho hoti. Taṃ pariccajāpetvā yo upasampanno, so pabbajitova hoti. Pabbajito pana atthi koci upasampanno, atthi koci anupasampanno. Imaṃ sammāgāhaṃ uppādeti bhagavāti veditabbaṃ.

119. First, let this be in all respects: How is this matter possible, 'They give the going forth to a mute person; they give the going forth to a deaf person,' since from the beginning it was allowed by the text beginning, 'I allow, O monks, the going forth by these three goings for refuge'? It is said: In the passage, 'And thus, O monks, one should be given the going forth. Speak thus... and so on... for the third time, I go to the Sangha for refuge,' they gave the going forth to a mute person by wrongly grasping the meaning of the phrase, 'Speak thus.' Having instructed the candidate for the going forth, 'Speak thus,' the preceptor himself should say, 'For the third time, I go to the Sangha for refuge.' Whether that candidate, thus instructed, repeats the preceptor’s words or not, in such cases the Blessed One says, 'He makes known by body, he makes known by speech, he makes known by body and speech; the preceptor is accepted. Consent is given. Purity is given. The invitation is given.' Or, by inference from that, the going for refuge is made known by that candidate by means of the body. Also in the world, one who makes known by body is said to 'speak thus.' It should be understood that, having taken this method, they give the going forth to a mute person. In the ancient glossaries, having asked the question, 'How do they give the going forth to a mute person?', it is said: 'Because of the possibility of his bodily faculty, having given a touch with the hand and having made it known by a hand gesture, they gave the going forth.' What is the use of saying much? This is the essence here: Just as previously, while the section on the going forth was current, having interrupted the expression for the going forth, the expression was made by way of full ordination itself, by the method beginning with, 'A eunuch, O monks, who is not fully ordained, should not be given full ordination,' and so on. In the section on the thief-in-communion, due to the impossibility [of his going forth], although that expression [prohibiting it] was not made, the going forth itself is what is being addressed there. In all cases, however, the going forth is intended by the expression for full ordination, because of its influence. This is done on the principle that when the going forth is prevented by the [prohibition of] full ordination, the full ordination is [truly] prevented. Similarly here, while the section on full ordination is current, it should be understood that having interrupted the expression for full ordination, the expression for the going forth was made with reference to full ordination itself. Indeed, that should not have been done; because of the impossibility in the case of the mute, it seems that from the beginning the expression for full ordination itself should have been made. Nevertheless, on account of that very case of the mute, from the beginning the expression for the going forth itself was made in order to prevent wrong grasping. How so? According to the text, 'A mute, O monks, has not reached reinstatement; if the Sangha reinstates him, he is well reinstated,' it is established that a mute is fully ordained. Then the wrong grasping arises: 'He is only fully ordained, but not one who has gone forth, because the going forth is impossible for him.' Causing that wrong grasping to be abandoned, the Blessed One teaches that whoever is fully ordained is indeed one who has gone forth. But as for one who has gone forth, there is one who is fully ordained, and there is one who is not fully ordained. It should be understood that the Blessed One causes this right grasping to arise.

Apica tesaṃ hatthacchinnādīnaṃ pabbajitānaṃ supabbajitabhāvadīpanatthaṃ, pabbajjābhāvāsaṅkānivāraṇatthañcettha pabbajjābhilāpo kato. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, hatthacchinno pabbājetabbo’’tiādinā paṭikkhepena, ‘‘pabbajitā supabbajitā’’ti vuttaṭṭhānābhāvena ca tesaṃ pabbajjābhāvappasaṅkā bhaveyya. Yathā pasaṅkābhave, tathā pasaṅkaṃ ṭhapeyya. Khandhake upasampadaṃ sandhāya ‘‘hatthacchinno, bhikkhave, appatto osāraṇaṃ, tañce saṅgho osāreti, sosārito’’tiādinā nayena bhagavā nivāreti. Teneva pana nayena pabbajitā te 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 [Pg.437] ca apabbajito’’ti 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, here the expression 'going forth' is used for the purpose of clarifying that those with severed hands and the like who have gone forth are indeed well-gone-forth, and for the purpose of dispelling any doubt that their going forth is invalid. How so? Due to the prohibition, 'Monks, one with a severed hand is not to be given the going forth,' and because there is no passage where it is stated, 'Those who have gone forth are well-gone-forth,' a doubt that their going forth is invalid could arise. In the Khandhaka, with reference to higher ordination, the Blessed One prevents it by the method beginning with, 'Monks, one with a severed hand has not reached reinstatement. If the Sangha reinstates him, he is well-reinstated.' By that very same method, however, it is clarified that all those who have gone forth are indeed well-gone-forth. Otherwise, this undesirable consequence would arise: that all these are only higher-ordained, not gone-forth. How so? If the canonical text were established as, 'Monks, one with a severed hand is not to be given the going forth; one who has gone forth is to be expelled,' or as, 'Monks, one with a severed hand is not to be given the going forth; whoever should give the going forth commits an offense of wrong-doing, and he is not one who has gone forth,' then, because it is said in the Campeyyakkhandhaka, 'he is well-reinstated,' the following undesirable alternative would arise: either 'these with severed hands and so on are only higher-ordained, not gone-forth,' or 'even if higher-ordained, if they have gone forth, they are to be expelled.' This is the intention.

Idaṃ panettha vicāretabbaṃ – ‘‘so ca apabbajito’’ti vacanābhāvato mūgassa pabbajjasiddhippasaṅgato pabbajjāpi ekatosuddhiyā hotīti ayamaniṭṭhakoṭṭhāso kathaṃ nāpajjatīti? Pabbajjābhilāpena upasampadā idhādhippetāti sammāgāhena nāpajjati, aññathā yathābyañjanaṃ atthe gahite yathāpaññattadukkaṭābhāvasaṅkhāto aparopi aniṭṭhakoṭṭhāso āpajjati. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, mūgo pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttadukkaṭaṃ pabbajjapariyosāne hoti, na tassāvippakatāya. Pubbapayogadukkaṭameva hi paṭhamaṃ āpajjati, tasmā mūgassa pabbajjapariyosānasseva abhāvato imassa dukkaṭassa okāso ca sabbakālaṃ na sambhaveyya. Upasampadāvasena pana atthe gahite sambhavati kammanipphattito. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘na, bhikkhave, paṇḍako upasampādetabbo, yo upasampādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti dukkaṭaṃ na paññattaṃ. Apaññattattā pubbapayogadukkaṭameva cettha sambhavati, netaraṃ, ettāvatā siddhametaṃ ‘‘pabbajjābhilāpena upasampadā ca tattha adhippetā, na pabbajjā’’ti.

Herein, this should be considered: Since there is no statement 'and he is not one who has gone forth,' and because it would follow that the going-forth of a mute person is invalid, how does this undesirable consequence—that the going-forth is also by one-sided purity—not arise? It does not arise due to the correct understanding that here, by the expression 'going forth,' higher ordination is intended. Otherwise, if the meaning is taken literally, another undesirable consequence arises, namely the non-existence of the prescribed dukkaṭa offense. How so? The dukkaṭa offense stated as, 'Monks, a mute person should not be given the going-forth; whoever should give the going-forth incurs an offense of dukkaṭa,' occurs at the conclusion of the going-forth, not before its completion. For indeed, only the dukkaṭa of the preliminary effort is incurred first. Therefore, since for a mute person there is no completion of the going-forth, there would never be any occasion for this dukkaṭa offense. However, when the meaning is taken in the sense of higher ordination, it is possible, because of the completion of the formal act. For that very reason, in the Pāli, a dukkaṭa for the completed act is not prescribed with the words: 'Monks, a eunuch should not be given higher ordination; whoever gives one higher ordination incurs an offense of dukkaṭa.' Because it is not so prescribed, only the dukkaṭa of the preliminary effort is possible here, not the other. By this much, this is established: 'By the expression "going forth," higher ordination is also intended there, not the going-forth itself.'

Etthāha – sāmaṇerapabbajjā na kāyapayogato hotīti kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Vuccate – kāyena viññāpetītiādittikādassanato. Hoti cettha –

Here it is asked: 'How is it known that the going-forth as a novice is not accomplished by bodily effort?' It is said: It is known because the Tika beginning with 'He makes known by the body' is not seen. And there is here:

‘‘Appeva sasako koci, patiṭṭheyya mahaṇṇave;

Na tveva catugambhīre, duggāho vinayaṇṇave’’ti.

Perhaps some small hare might find a footing in the great ocean; but never in the fourfold-deep, hard-to-fathom ocean of the Vinaya.

Brahmujugattoti ettha ‘‘niddosatthe, seṭṭhatthe ca brahma-saddaṃ gahetvā niddosaṃ hutvā uju gattaṃ yassa so brahmujugatto’’ti likhitaṃ. Atha vā kāmabhogittā devindādayo upamāvasena aggahetvā brahmā viya ujugatto brahmujugatto. Mahākucchito ghaṭo mahākucchighaṭo. Tena samāno vuccati ‘‘mahākucchighaṭasadiso’’ti. Galagaṇḍīti desanāmattamevetanti kathaṃ paññāyatīti? ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, pañcahi ābādhehi phuṭṭho pabbājetabbo’’ti [Pg.438] vacanato. Kilāsopi idhādhippetoti na kevalaṃ so eveko, kintu pañcahi ābādhehi phuṭṭho, pāḷiyaṃ āgatā rājabhaṭādayo dāsapariyosānā, rāhulavatthumhi āgatā ananuññātamātāpitaro cāti dasapi janā idhādhippetā. Tadatthadīpanatthameva likhitakakasāhatalakkhaṇāhate pubbe vuttepi ānetvā upālitthero idha hatthacchinnapāḷiyaṃ āha. Teneva campeyyakkhandhake ‘‘atthi, bhikkhave, puggalo appatto osāraṇaṃ, tañce saṅgho osāreti, ekacco sosārito, ekacco dosārito’’ti (mahāva. 396) imassa vibhaṅge ‘‘pañcahi ābādhehi phuṭṭhā, rājabhaṭā, corakārabhedakaiṇāyikadāsā, ananuññātamātāpitaro cā’’ti satta janā na gahitā, na ca labbhanti, aññathā imepi tassa vibhaṅge vattabbā siyuṃ. Na vattabbā tattha abhabbattāti ce? Evaṃ sante ‘‘saṅgho osāreti, ekacco dosārito’’ti imassa vibhaṅge vattabbā paṇḍakādayo viya, na ca vuttā. Ubhayattha avuttattā na cime anubhayā bhavitumarahanti, tasmā avuttānameva dasannaṃ yathāvuttānaṃ saṅgaṇhanatthaṃ puna likhitakādayo vuttāti. Atha kimatthaṃ te idha uppaṭipāṭiyā vuttāti? Iṇāyikadāsānaṃ sosāritabhāvepi iṇāyikadāsā sāmikānaṃ dātabbāti tadadhīnabhāvadassanatthaṃ. Teneva tattha vuttaṃ ‘‘palātopi ānetvā dātabbo’’tiādi. Yo panettha coro katakammo pabbajati, rājabhaṭo vā sace katadoso, iṇāyikaggahaṇeneva gahitoti veditabbo. Atha vā yathāvuttalakkhaṇo sabbopi iṇāyikadāsānaṃ ‘‘sosārito’’ti vattabbāraho na hotīti katvā tesaṃ parivajjanatthaṃ uppaṭipāṭiyā desanā upari ārohati, na heṭṭhāti dīpanato. Likhitako ‘‘sosārito’’ti vuttattā desantaraṃ netabbo. Tathākārabhedakādayopīti veditabbaṃ.

Here, regarding 'Brahmujugatta,' it is written: 'Taking the word "brahma" in the sense of faultlessness and excellence, one whose body is faultless and straight is "Brahmujugatta."' Alternatively, not taking the lord of devas and others who enjoy sensual pleasures as a comparison, one whose body is straight like a Brahmā is 'Brahmujugatta.' A pot with a large belly is a 'mahākucchighaṭa.' One who is similar to it is called 'mahākucchighaṭasadisa.' Regarding 'Galagaṇḍī' (goiter) being merely a designation, how is this known? From the statement: 'Monks, one afflicted by the five ailments should not be given the going forth.' Because kilāsa (a skin disease) is also intended here, it is not only that one case, but rather: one afflicted by the five ailments; those mentioned in the Pāḷi, from royal servants down to slaves; and those mentioned in the story of Rāhula, whose parents have not given permission—thus, all ten types of people are intended here. For the very purpose of clarifying that meaning, the Elder Upāli, even though the branded criminal, the one who has been flogged, and the one who has been marked were mentioned before, brought them up again and spoke of them here in the Pāḷi passage concerning one with a severed hand. For that very reason, in the Campeyya Khandhaka, in the analysis of the statement: 'Monks, there is a person who has not reached rehabilitation. If the Saṅgha rehabilitates him, one is well-rehabilitated, another is badly-rehabilitated,' the seven types of persons—those afflicted by the five ailments, royal servants, thieves, prison-breakers, debtors, slaves, and those whose parents have not given permission—are not included, nor are they found there. Otherwise, these too should have been mentioned in its analysis. If it is said, 'They should not be mentioned there because they are incapable,' in that case, they should have been mentioned in the analysis of 'the Saṅgha rehabilitates... one is badly-rehabilitated,' just like the eunuchs and others, but they were not mentioned. Since they are not mentioned in either place, these persons should not be considered as belonging to neither category. Therefore, to include the ten aforementioned persons who were not mentioned, the branded criminals and others are mentioned again. Now, for what reason are they mentioned here out of order? To show that even if debtors and slaves are well-rehabilitated, they must be given to their masters, thus demonstrating their dependent status. For that very reason, it is said there: 'Even if he has run away, he must be brought back and given over,' and so on. Here, whichever thief, having committed a theft, goes forth, or a royal servant, if he has committed an offense, he is to be understood as included simply under the category of 'debtor.' Alternatively, because no debtor or slave with the aforementioned characteristics is worthy of being called 'well-rehabilitated,' the teaching ascends out of order for the purpose of avoiding them, and does not descend—this is what is indicated. Because the branded criminal is said to be 'well-rehabilitated,' he should be taken to another country. Likewise for the prison-breakers and others; thus it should be understood.

Ettāvatā bhagavatā attano desanākusalatāya pubbe gahitaggahaṇena yathāvuttānaṃ dasannampi pabbajjupasampadākammanipphatti, uppaṭipāṭivacanena puggalavemattatañca desanāya kovidānaṃ dīpitaṃ hotīti veditabbaṃ. Hoti cettha –

Thus, it should be known that by this much, the Blessed One, due to his own skill in teaching, has illuminated for those skilled in the teaching—by not stating what has already been stated previously—the completion of the acts of going forth and higher ordination for all ten persons as mentioned, and—by stating them out of order—the diversity of individuals. And here there is this:

‘‘Vattabbayuttaṃ vacanena vatvā, ayuttamiṭṭhaṃ nayadesanāya;

Sandīpayantaṃ sugatassa vākyaṃ, cittaṃ vicittaṃva karotipī’’ti.

Having spoken with words what is suitable to be spoken, and illuminating by the method of teaching what is desired though unsuitable to be spoken, the speech of the Well-farer indeed creates great wonder.

Etthāha [Pg.439] – campeyyakkhandhake ūnavīsativasso ubhayattha avuttattā anubhayo siyāti? Na siyā avuttattā eva. Yadi hi tatiyāya koṭiyā bhavitabbaṃ, sā avassaṃ bhagavatā vattabbāva hoti, na ca vuttā, tasmā na so anubhayo hoti. Atha kataraṃ pakkhaṃ bhajatīti? Dosāritapakkhaṃ bhajati. Atha kasmā na vuttoti? Sikkhāpadena paṭisiddhattā. Upanāhaṃ bandhitvāti puna bandhanaṃ katvā. ‘‘Nānāvidhehi osadhehi pādaṃ bandhitvā āvāṭake pavesetvā kattabbavidhānassetaṃ adhivacana’’nti likhitaṃ. Kappasīso vā hatthī viya. Gobhattanāḷikā nāma gunnaṃ bhattapānatthaṃ katanāḷikā. Upakkamukho nāma kudhitamukho vuccati, vātaṇḍiko nāma aṇḍakesu vuḍḍhirogena samannāgato. Vikaṭo nāma tiriyaṃ gamanakapādehi samannāgato. ‘‘Guṇi kuṇī’’ti duvidho kira pāṭho. Yesañca pabbajjā paṭikkhittā, upasampadāpi tesaṃ paṭikkhittāvātiādi yasmā hatthacchinnādayo upasampadāvaseneva vuttā, tasmā te eva hatthacchinnādayo sandhāyāha.

Here, one asks: 'In the Campeyyakkhandhaka, since one who is under twenty years of age is not mentioned in either case, might they belong to neither category?' It could not be, precisely because of not being mentioned. For if there were to be a third category, it would surely have been stated by the Blessed One, but it was not stated. Therefore, that person does not belong to neither category. Then to which side do they belong? They belong to the side of those not to be admitted. Then why were they not mentioned? Because it is prohibited by the training rule. Regarding 'having bound a poultice,' it means having applied a binding again. It is written: 'This is a designation for the procedure to be done by binding the foot with various kinds of medicines and placing it in a pit.' Or one with a flat head (kappasīso), like an elephant. Gobhattanāḷikā is the name for a tube made for the food and drink of cattle. Upakkamukho is said to be one with an inflamed mouth. Vātaṇḍiko is the name for one afflicted with a disease of swelling in the testicles. Vikaṭo is the name for one endowed with feet that go sideways. It is said that there is a twofold reading: 'guṇi' and 'kuṇī'. Regarding the text beginning, 'And for those whose going forth is rejected, their higher ordination is also rejected': since those with severed hands and so on were mentioned only in connection with higher ordination, therefore it was said referring to those very ones with severed hands and so on.

Hatthacchinnādivatthukathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the story concerning those with severed hands and so forth is concluded.

Alajjīnissayavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of Dependence on the Shameless

120. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, alajjīnaṃ nissayo dātabbo’’ti iminā alajjīhi bhikkhūhi, sāmaṇerehi vā saddhiṃ dvepi dhammāmisaparibhogā paṭikkhittā honti nissayabhāve bhāvato tesaṃ. Yathāha ‘‘ācariyena, bhikkhave, antevāsiko saṅgahetabbo anuggahetabbo uddesena paripucchāya ovādena anusāsaniyā’’tiādi (mahāva. 79) upajjhāyassapi nissayappaṇāmanasambhavato, sopi saddhivihārikassa nissayoti veditabbaṃ, tasmā upajjhāyo ce alajjī hoti, na taṃ nissāya vasitabbanti siddhaṃ hoti. Bhikkhūnaṃ sammāpaṭipattiyā samānabhāgo bhikkhu sabhāgo. Tassabhāvo bhikkhusabhāgatā. Taṃ bhikkhusabhāgataṃ. Yāva jānāmīti adhippāyena vasituṃ vaṭṭati. Bhikkhūhi sabhāgataṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Lajjibhāvaṃ. ‘‘Sattāhaṃ…pe… gahetabbo’’ti ettha ‘‘sattāhamattaṃ vasissāmi, kiṃ bhikkhusabhāgatājānanenāti [Pg.440] jānane dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā vasituṃ na labhatīti attho’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Bhikkhusabhāgataṃ pana jānanto sveva gamissāmi, kiṃ me nissayārocanenā’’ti aruṇaṃ uṭṭhapetuṃ na labhati. ‘‘Pure aruṇaṃ uṭṭhahitvā gamissāmī’’ti ābhogena sayantassa ce aruṇo uggacchati, vaṭṭati.

120. By this statement, 'Monks, dependence should not be given to the shameless,' both kinds of sharing—of the Dhamma and of material requisites—are prohibited with shameless monks or novices, because if they are in a state of dependence, it leads to a shameless state. Just as it is said: 'A teacher, monks, should gather and support a pupil with teaching, questioning, advice, and instruction,' etc. (Mahāvagga 79). Since it is possible to terminate dependence even on a preceptor, he too should be understood as a source of dependence for his co-resident. Therefore, it is established that if the preceptor is shameless, one should not live in dependence on him. A monk who has an equal share in the right practice of monks is a `sabhāga` (one of a similar kind). The state of that is `bhikkhusabhāgatā` (the state of being of a similar kind to monks). It is permissible to dwell with the intention of getting to know that `bhikkhusabhāgatā`. What is that which is shared by monks? The state of having moral shame. In the passage 'For seven days... he should be taken...' it is written: 'The meaning is that one is not allowed to stay having set aside the burden of knowing, thinking, "I will stay for only seven days; what is the use of knowing the `bhikkhusabhāgatā`?"' However, knowing the `bhikkhusabhāgatā`, one is not allowed to let dawn break with the thought, 'I will leave tomorrow; what need is there for me to announce dependence?' If, for one who is sleeping with the intention, 'I will get up before dawn and leave,' the dawn should rise, it is permissible.

Gamikādinissayavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Basis for Dependence, Beginning with Travelers

121. ‘‘Addhānamaggappaṭipannena bhikkhunā nissayaṃ alabhamānena anissitena vatthunti avassakāleyeva vassakāle addhānagamanassa pāḷiyaṃyeva paṭikkhittattā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ appamāṇaṃ sattāhaṃ vassacchedādivasena addhānagamanasambhavato, gacchantasseva vassakālagamanasambhavato ca. Antarāmagge…pe… anāpattīti nissayadāyakābhāveyeva. ‘‘Tassa nissāyā’’ti pāṭhānurūpaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ nissāyāti attho. ‘‘Yadā patirūpo nissayadāyako āgacchissatī’’ti vacanena ayaṃ vidhi avassakāle evāti siddhaṃ. ‘‘Antovasse pana kassaci āgamanābhāvā’’ti vuttaṃ. Sace so jalapaṭṭane vā thalapaṭṭane vā vasanto vassūpanāyikāya āsannāya gantukāmo suṇāti ‘‘asuko mahāthero āgamissatī’’ti, taṃ ce āgameti, vaṭṭati. Āgamentasseva ce vassūpanāyikadivaso hoti, hotu, gantabbaṃ tattha, yattha nissayadāyakaṃ labhatīti. Pātimokkhuddesakābhāvena ce gantuṃ vaṭṭati, pageva nissayadāyakābhāvena. Sace so gacchanto jīvitantarāyaṃ, brahmacariyantarāyaṃ vā passati, tattheva vasitabbanti eke.

121. It is said: “For a monk traveling on a long road who cannot obtain dependence and is without support, it is allowable only in the non-rains season, because traveling on a long road during the rains season is prohibited in the Pāḷi itself.” That statement is not authoritative, because travel for up to seven days is possible by way of breaking the rains-residence, etc., and because traveling during the rains season is possible for one who is already going. In “Along the way… no offense,” this applies only in the absence of a giver of dependence. The phrase “tassa nissāya” is stated in accordance with the reading; the meaning is “relying on him.” The statement, “When a suitable giver of dependence will arrive,” establishes that this rule applies only in the non-rains season. It is said: “But during the rains-residence, there is no arrival of anyone.” If he, while staying at a river port or a land port, intending to go as the rains-residence approaches, hears, “Such-and-such a great elder will come,” and if he awaits that elder, it is allowable. Even if the day of entering the rains-residence arrives while he is awaiting him, so be it; he should go to that place where he can obtain a giver of dependence. If it is allowable to go due to the absence of a Pātimokkha reciter, how much more so due to the absence of a giver of dependence. If, while going, he sees a danger to his life or a danger to the holy life, some say he should stay right there.

122. ‘‘Nāhaṃ ussahāmi therassa nāmaṃ gahetu’’nti itthannāmo itthannāmassa āyasmatoti lakkhaṇato āha. ‘‘Gottenāpī’ti vacanato yena vohārena vohariyanti, tena vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ, tasmā ‘ko nāmo te upajjhāyo’ti puṭṭhenāpi gottameva nāmaṃ katvā vattabbanti siddhaṃ hoti, tasmā catubbidhesu nāmesu yena kenaci nāmena anussāvanā kātabbā’’ti vadanti. Ekassa bahūni nāmāni honti, tattha ekaṃ nāmaṃ ñattiyā, ekaṃ anussāvanāya kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, atthato, byañjanato ca abhinnāhi anussāvanāhi bhavitabbanti. Katthaci ‘‘āyasmato buddharakkhitattherassā’’ti vatvā katthaci kevalaṃ ‘‘buddharakkhitassā’’ti [Pg.441] sāveti, ‘‘sāvanaṃ hāpetī’’ti na vuccati nāmassa ahāpitattāti eke. Sace katthaci ‘‘āyasmato buddharakkhitassā’’ti vatvā katthaci ‘‘buddharakkhitassāyasmato’’ti sāveti, pāṭhānurūpattā khettameva otiṇṇantipi eke. Byañjanabhedappasaṅgato anussāvane taṃ na vaṭṭatīti eke. Sace pana sabbaṭṭhānepi tatheva vadati, vaṭṭati bhagavatā dinnalakkhaṇānurūpattā. Lakkhaṇavirodhato aññathā na vaṭṭatīti ce? Na, payogānurūpattā. Tattha tathā, idha aññathā payogoti ce? Na, vipattilakkhaṇānaṃ virodhato. Na sabbena sabbaṃ, sāvanāhāpanā eva hi pāḷiyaṃ tadatthavibhāvane āgatāti aññapadesu sāvanesu parihāro na sambhavati āciṇṇakappavirodhato. Sopi kiṃpamāṇanti ce? Pamāṇaṃ ācariyuggahassa pamāṇattā.

122. He said, “I do not presume to take the elder’s name,” because of the characteristic “the venerable one of such-and-such a name.” Because of the Pāḷi text “By clan as well,” it is established that it is proper to use whatever designation they are called by. Therefore, it is established that even when asked, “What is the name of your preceptor?” one should answer by using the clan name as the name. Therefore, they say that among the four kinds of names, the announcement should be made using any name whatsoever. One person may have many names; in such a case, it is not proper to use one name for the motion and another for the announcement, for the announcements must be identical in meaning and in wording. In some instances, one might say, “of the venerable elder Buddharakkhita,” while in others simply announcing, “of Buddharakkhita.” Some say this is not called “omitting the announcement,” since the name itself is not omitted. If in one instance one says, “of the venerable Buddharakkhita,” and in another announces, “of Buddharakkhita the venerable,” some hold that this pertains only to the text itself, as it conforms to the reading. Some say that this is not proper in an announcement because of the consequence of a difference in wording. But if one speaks in that same way in all instances, it is proper, as it conforms to the characteristic given by the Blessed One. If one should say that to do otherwise is not proper because it contradicts the characteristic? It is not so; it is proper because it conforms to usage. If one should say, “There the usage is thus, but here it is otherwise”? That should not be said, because it would contradict the characteristics of failure. This is not so in every respect, for indeed, only the omission of the announcement is mentioned in the Pāḷi when clarifying its meaning. Therefore, in other instances of announcements, an omission is not possible, as it would contradict established custom. And if one should ask, “What is the standard for that custom?” It is what is learned from the teacher, for that is the standard.

123. Dve ekānussāvaneti ettha gaṇṭhipade tāva evaṃ likhitaṃ ‘‘ekato pavattaanussāvane’’. Idaṃ sandhāyāti nānupajjhāyaṃ ekācariyaṃ anussāvanakiriyaṃ sandhāya, tañca anussāvanakiriyaṃ ekenupajjhāyena nānācariyehi anujānāmīti attho. Nānupajjhāyehi ekenācariyena na tveva anujānāmīti atthoti. Porāṇagaṇṭhipadepi tatheva vatvā ‘‘tiṇṇaṃ uddhaṃ na kenaci ākārena ekato vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ, na hi saṅgho saṅghassa kammaṃ karotīti ācariyo. Idaṃ panettha cintetabbaṃ. Kathaṃ? Cattāro vā atirekā vā upasampadāpekkhā saṅghavohāraṃ na labhanti bhikkhubhāvaṃ appattattā. Kevalaṃ bhagavatā paricchinditvā ‘‘tayo’’ti vuttattā tato uddhaṃ na vaṭṭatīti no takkoti ācariyo. Anugaṇṭhipadepi ayamevattho bahudhā vicāretvā vutto. Tathā andhakaṭṭhakathāyampi. Na sabbattha imasmiṃ atthavikappe matibhedo atthi. Yā panesā ubho paripuṇṇavīsativassā, ubhinnamekupajjhāyo, ekācariyo, ekā kammavācā, eko upasampanno, eko anupasampannoti parivārakathā, taṃ dassetvā eko ce ācariyo dvinnaṃ, tiṇṇaṃ vā upasampadāpekkhānaṃ ekaṃ kammavācaṃ ekenupajjhāyena sāveti, vaṭṭatīti eke. Taṃ ayuttaṃ, na hi sakkā sithiladhanitādibyañjanalakkhaṇasampannaṃ tasmiṃ khaṇe kammavācaṃ dassetuṃ vimuttadosādīsu patanato. Visuṃ visuṃ karaṇaṃ sandhāya idaṃ vuttanti dīpanatthaṃ ‘‘tayo paripuṇṇavīsativassā[Pg.442], tiṇṇamekupajjhāyo, ekācariyo, ekā kammavācā, dve upasampannā, eko anupasampanno’’ti na vutto. Evañhi vutte sakkā tīsu ākāsaṭṭhamapanetvā sīmaṭṭhānaṃ dvinnamanurūpaṃ kammavācaṃ dassetuṃ, tamaniṭṭhappasaṅgaṃ nivāretuṃ ‘‘ubho’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tattha paripuṇṇavīsativassavacanena vatthusampatti, parisāya padhānattā, ācariyupajjhāyavacanena parisasampatti, kammavācāya anussāvanasampatti dassitā, sīmasampatti evekā na dassitā. Tato vipatti jātā kammavācānaṃ nānākkhaṇikattā. Ekakkhaṇabhāve sati ubhinnaṃ sampatti vā siyā vipatti vā, na ekasseva sampatti ekassa vipattīti sambhavati vimuttādibyañjanadosappasaṅgato’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ vacanaṃ ubhopi cete sīmagatāva honti, ubhinnaṃ ekato kammasampattidīpanato dvinnaṃ ekato anussāvanaṃ ekena upajjhāyena ekenācariyena vaṭṭatīti sādheti. Dvinnaṃ, tiṇṇañca ekato sasamanubhāsanā ca pāḷiyaṃyeva dassitā, tañca anulometi. Aṭṭhakathācariyehi nānuññātaṃ, na paṭikkhittaṃ, vicāretvā gahetabbanti ācariyo, taṃ dhammatāya virujjhati.

123. In the phrase 'two proclamations as one' (dve ekānussāvane), it is written thus in the Gaṇṭhipada: 'in a proclamation that proceeds as one.' This is said in reference to the act of proclamation for those with various preceptors and one teacher; and the meaning is that I allow that act of proclamation by one preceptor and various teachers. The meaning is that I certainly do not allow it by various preceptors with one teacher. Also in the ancient Gaṇṭhipada, having stated in the same way, it is said: 'Beyond three, it is not allowable to do it together in any way.' That is correct, for indeed the Saṅgha does not perform an act for the Saṅgha, says the teacher. Herein, this should be considered. How? Four or more ordination candidates do not obtain the designation 'Saṅgha' because they have not attained the state of a bhikkhu. Merely because the Blessed One, having defined it, said 'three,' it is not allowable beyond that—this is our reasoning, says the teacher. Also in the Anugaṇṭhipada, this very meaning is stated after being examined in many ways. Likewise in the Andhaka-aṭṭhakathā. In all these, there is no difference of opinion in this alternative meaning. But as for that discussion from the Parivāra—'Both are of fully twenty years, for both there is one preceptor, one teacher, one kammavācā; one is ordained, one is not ordained'—having presented that, some say: 'If one teacher, with one preceptor, makes two or three ordination candidates hear one kammavācā, it is allowable.' That is improper, for it is not possible at that moment to recite a kammavācā endowed with the correct consonantal features, such as lax and aspirated sounds, because of falling into faults such as vimutta. To clarify that this was said with reference to performing it separately for each, it was not stated as: 'Three of fully twenty years, for the three one preceptor, one teacher, one kammavācā, two are ordained, one is not ordained.' For if it were stated thus, it would be possible, having removed from the three the one standing in the open space, to present a suitable kammavācā for the two standing in the boundary. To prevent that undesirable consequence, 'both' was said. 'Therein, by the statement 'of fully twenty years', the perfection of the individual is shown; because of the prominence of the assembly, by the statement of 'teacher' and 'preceptor', the perfection of the assembly is shown; by the kammavācā, the perfection of the proclamation is shown. Only the perfection of the boundary is not shown. From that, a failure arises because the kammavācās are at different moments. If they are at the same moment, there would be either perfection or failure for both; it is not possible that there is perfection for one and failure for the other, because of the liability of faults in consonants such as vimutta,' it is said. That statement establishes that if both of these candidates are indeed within the boundary, a proclamation for two together by one preceptor and one teacher is allowable, because it shows the perfection of the act for both together. And the joint admonition for two and three is shown in the Pāḷi itself, and this ruling conforms to that. The teacher says: 'It was not allowed by the commentary teachers, nor was it rejected; it should be accepted after investigation.' That statement contradicts the nature of the Dhamma.

Ayañhi buddhānaṃ dhammatā – yadidaṃ yattha yattha vacananānattamatthi, tattha tattha garukesu ṭhānesu vattabbayuttaṃ vadanti. Dūtena upasampadādayo cettha nidassanaṃ. Yasmā cettha pubbe anuññātakammavācāya nānattaṃ natthi, tasmā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, dve tayo ekānussāvane kātu’’nti vatvā ‘‘evañca pana, bhikkhave, kātabbo’’ti na vuttaṃ. Nānatte satipi tattha tattha dvinnaṃ, bahūnaṃ vā vasena vuttakammavācānusārena gahetabbato avuttanti ce? Na hi lahukesu ṭhānesu vatvā garukesu avacanaṃ dhammatāti ācariyo. Aññatarasmiṃ pana gaṇṭhipade evaṃ papañcitaṃ dve ekānussāvaneti dve ekato anussāvane. ‘‘Ekena’’ iti pāṭho, ekena ācariyenāti attho. Purimanayenevāti ‘‘ekena vā dvīhi vā ācariyehī’’ti vuttanayena eva, tasmā ekenācariyena dve vā tayo vā anussāvetabbā. ‘‘Dvīhi vā tīhi vā’’ti pāṭho. Nānācariyā nānupajjhāyāti ettha ‘‘tañca kho ekena upajjhāyena, na tveva nānupajjhāyenā’’ti vuttattā na vaṭṭatīti ce? Vaṭṭati. Kathaṃ? Ekena anussāvane ekānussāvaneti viggahassa pākaṭattā līnameva dassetuṃ ‘‘ekato anussāvane’’ti viggahova vutto, tasmā ujukattameva sandhāya [Pg.443] tañca kho ekena anussāvanaṃ ekānussāvanaṃ, ekena upajjhāyena anujānāmi, na tveva nānupajjhāyenāti attho. Idaṃ sandhāya hi dvidhā viggaho, tasmā ‘‘nānācariyehi nānupajjhāyā na vaṭṭantīti siddhamevā’’ti aññathāpi vadanti. Tañca kho ekena upajjhāyena ekassa upajjhāyassa vā vattabbaṃ anussāvanaṃ, na tveva nānupajjhāyena anujānāmīti attho. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? ‘‘Eko ācariyo, dve vā tayo vā upasampadāpekkhā dvinnaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vā upajjhāyānaṃ na tveva anujānāmī’’ti kira vuttanti. Aparasmiṃ pana gaṇṭhipade ‘‘ekena anussāvaneti viggahassa pākaṭattā taṃ pakāsetuṃ ‘ekenā’ti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ vutte avassaṃ paṇḍitā jānanti. Taṃpākaṭattā ce jānanti, ekenāti iminā kinti ce? Kiñcāpi jānanti, vivādo pana hoti aladdhalesattā, jānituñca na sakkā, ‘ekenā’ti vutte pana taṃ sabbaṃ na hotīti vutta’’nti likhitaṃ. Evaṃ ettha aneke ācariyā ca takkikā ca anekadhā papañcenti, taṃ sabbaṃ suṭṭhu upaparikkhitvā garukulaṃ payirupāsitvā vaṃsānugatova attho gahetabbo. ‘‘Na sabbattha imasmiṃ atthavikappe matibhedo atthī’’ti vuttameva.

Indeed, this is the nature of the Buddhas: wherever there is a variation in wording, in those very places, they speak what is fit to be said in weighty matters. Higher ordination by a messenger and so forth are an example in this matter. And because in this matter there was previously no variation in the authorized formal act, therefore, having said, 'Monks, I allow a single proclamation to be performed for two or three,' it was not said, 'And thus, monks, it should be done.' If one were to say: 'Even when there is a variation, it was not stated because it should be understood in each case according to the formal act already spoken for two or for many'? For it is not the nature of things to speak on minor matters and not speak on weighty ones, says the teacher. However, in a certain glossary, it is elaborated thus: 'two in a single proclamation' means 'two together in the proclamation.' There is the reading 'by one,' and the meaning is 'by one teacher.' By 'according to the previous method' is meant the method stated as 'by one or by two teachers'; therefore, two or three should be proclaimed by one teacher. There is the reading 'or by two or by three.' If one were to say: 'Regarding different teachers and different preceptors, this is not allowable because it was stated, "And that, indeed, by one preceptor, but not by different preceptors"'? It is allowable. How? Because the analysis of 'a single proclamation' as 'by one proclamation' is clear, the analysis 'together in the proclamation' was stated merely to show the hidden meaning. Therefore, referring only to the straightforward meaning, the meaning is: 'And that proclamation by one is a single proclamation; I allow it by one preceptor, but not by different preceptors.' Indeed, with this meaning in mind, the analysis was stated in two ways. Therefore, others also say, 'Thus it is established that different teachers and different preceptors are not allowable.' And that, by one preceptor, means: 'The proclamation that should be recited is for one preceptor; I do not allow it by different preceptors.' This is the meaning. What is meant by this? It is reportedly said: 'One teacher for two or three candidates for higher ordination of two or three preceptors—this I do not allow.' However, in another glossary, it is written: 'Because the analysis "by one proclamation" is clear, to clarify that meaning, "by one" was stated. When it is stated thus, the wise certainly understand. If they understand because its meaning is clear, what is the use of this "by one"? Although they know, there is still dispute because a basis for argument has not been obtained, and it cannot be known for certain. But when "by one" is stated, all that does not happen. Thus it is said.' Thus, regarding this text, many teachers and logicians elaborate in many ways. Having thoroughly investigated all that, and having attended upon a venerable lineage of teachers, only the meaning that follows the tradition should be accepted. It should not be accepted in every case, for it has indeed been said: 'In this alternative interpretation, there is a difference of opinion.'

Upasampadāvidhikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Procedure for Higher Ordination

125. Kuṭṭhaṃ gaṇḍoti ettha kuṭṭhādiggahaṇena hatthacchinnādayopi gahitāva hontīti porāṇā, tasmā ‘‘manussosi purisosī’’ti etehi bhabbābhabbapuggalaparivajjanaṃ karoti. ‘‘Bhujissosi aṇaṇosī’’tiādīhi pubbe hatthacchinnādhikāre vuttaatthavikappesu dutiyaṃ vikappaṃ upathambheti. Tattha ‘‘aṇaṇosi bhujissosī’’ti anukkamena avatvā uppaṭipāṭiyā vacanena bhujisso hoti, na ca rañño bhattavetanavasena bhaṭo. Rājādhīnattā pana so rājabhaṭapakkhaṃ bhajatīti tabbipakkhabhāvapucchanatthaṃ ‘‘nasi rājabhaṭo’’ti vuttaṃ. Aññathā pañcahi ābādhehi phuṭṭhānaṃ gahaṇeneva sabbesaṃ gahaṇe siddhe itare na vattabbā. Atha vattabbā, sabbepi vattabbā siyuṃ.

125. Here, the ancients say that by the inclusion of 'leprosy, boils,' and so forth, those with severed hands and the like are also included. Therefore, with these phrases, 'Are you a human being? Are you a male?,' he excludes fit and unfit persons. With phrases such as 'Are you a freeman? Are you not in debt?,' he supports the second of the alternative interpretations of meaning stated previously in the section on those with severed hands. There, the reason for not saying in sequence, 'Are you not in debt? Are you a freeman?,' but speaking out of order, is this: he is a freeman, and not a servant by way of the king's food and wages. However, because he is subject to the king, he sides with the king's servants; thus, to ask about his not being a king's servant, it is said, 'Are you not a king's servant?'. Otherwise, when the inclusion of all is accomplished just by the inclusion of those afflicted with the five diseases, the others should not be stated. If they are to be stated, then all should be stated.

Cattāronissayādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Four Requisites and Related Topics

128-9. ‘‘Tāvadeva chāyā metabbā’’tiādi ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ pāde vandāpetvā’’ti vacanato therātherabhāvajānanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Cirena agamāsī’’ti kira porāṇapāṭho, ciraṃ akāsīti catthi.

128-9. The phrase 'Only this much shade should be measured,' and so forth, is said for the purpose of knowing the state of being a senior or non-senior monk, because of the text, 'having caused homage to be paid at the feet of the monks.' It is said that 'He arrived after a long time' is an ancient reading; there is also the reading, 'He did for a long time.'

130. Anāpatti [Pg.444] sambhoge saṃvāseti ukkhittakena saddhiṃ sambhogasaṃvāsapaccayā pācittiyāpatti paññattā, tato anāpattīti attho. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Saṃvāsaggahaṇe. Alajjinā saddhiṃ sambhogapaccayā āpajjitabbaṃ dukkaṭaṃ pana āpajjati eva, na saṃvāsapaccayā. Na hi alajjinā saddhiṃ saṃvāso paṭikkhitto. Saṃvāso panettha sahaseyyappahonake āvāse sahavāso, na ‘‘pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso’’ti ettha vuttasaṃvāso. Ayaṃ saṃvāso ukkhittakena saddhiṃ na vaṭṭati. Alajjinā saddhiṃ ekacco vaṭṭati. Dhammasambhogavinimuttovetaro. Idaṃ pana ‘‘ukkhittako vibbhamī’’tiādisuttaṃ imasmiṃ upasampādetabbānupasampādetabbadīpanasāmaññato vuttaṃ. Kiñca bhiyyo paṭipattikkamatova āpattito suddhi hoti, na vibbhamena, tasmā upasampanno bhikkhu antamaso dubbhāsitampi āpajjitvā aparabhāge vibbhamitvā āgato upasampajjati, taṃ āpattiṃ desetvāva sujjhati, na aññathāti upasampannassa suddhikkamadassanatthaṃ. Asādhāraṇāpattiyā adassanapaccayā ukkhittakassa liṅgaparivattanena āpattito vuṭṭhitassa puna ce pakatiliṅgamevuppajjati, nānāsaṃvāsakatāva, vibbhamitvā āgatepi yathāvuttanayeneva upasampādetvā na vuṭṭhitattāti ce? Na liṅgantarapātubhāvā. Na vibbhamena kammāsujjhanato. Na kammāsujjhane puna upasampadākammavipattippasaṅgato. Na ca kammavipatti, na ca kammapaṭippassaddhi. Vibbhamena ca anupasampanno nānāsaṃvāsakabhāvena kammaṃ kopeti dhammissarena āhacca bhāsitattā. Teneva ‘‘passissasī’’ti anāgatavacanaṃ kataṃ. Tādiso pana gahaṭṭho nikkhittavattapārivāsiko viya pakatattabhūmiyaṃ vibbhamādinā anupasampannapakatiyaṃyeva tiṭṭhatīti imassa sabbassapi atthavikappassa dassanatthamidaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Pubbe vuttappakāro pana parivattitaliṅgo hutvā puna pakatiliṅge ṭhitaukkhittako puna pucchitabbo ‘‘passasī’’ti. ‘‘Āma passāmī’’ti vadanto osāretabbo. ‘‘Desehī’’ti na vattabbo liṅgaparivattanena vuṭṭhitattā. Tappaṭikammo ukkhittako pucchitabbo ‘‘paṭikammaṃ kiṃ te kata’’nti, ‘‘āma kata’’nti vadanto osāretabbo. ‘‘Kattabbaṃ me paṭikammaṃ na hotī’’ti vadanto na osāretabboti eke. Asādhāraṇāpattimhi idaṃ vidhānaṃ, na sādhāraṇāya. Tattha ukkhittako [Pg.445] liṅgaparivattaneneva paṭippassaddhakammoti eke. Vicāretvā yuttataraṃ gahetabbanti ācariyo. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘alajjiparibhogo sahatthadānādivasena paricchinditabbo, ‘sāraṇīyadhammapūrakādayo dassetvā alajjissa sahatthā dātuṃ vaṭṭatī’ti vadantānaṃ vādo paṭisedhetabbo. Kathaṃ? Ukkhittakassa sahatthā dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti vinicchayānusārena. Dāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatevāti ca. Kiñcāpi alajjiparibhogavasena dukkaṭaṃ, atha kho ayaṃ alajjī na hoti, tasmā sabbākārena nirāpattitaṃ sandhāya ‘anāpatti sambhoge saṃvāse’ti vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Viññeyyo atthato ucchurasakasaṭānaṃ sattāhakālikayāvajīvikattā ‘vaṭṭati vikāle ucchuṃ khāditu’nti saññaṃ uppādetvā taṃ khāditvā tappaccayā pācittiyaṃ na passati, vaṭṭatīti tathāsaññitāya. Yo vā pana āpattiṃ āpannabhāvaṃ paṭijānitvā ‘na paṭikaromī’ti abhinivisati, ime dve –

130. ‘No offense in communion and co-residence.’ A Pācittiya offense has been laid down on account of communion and co-residence with a suspended monk; the meaning is that from that [co-residence], there is no offense. How is this known? By the inclusion of ‘co-residence.’ However, one does incur a Dukkaṭa offense due to communion with one who is shameless, but not due to co-residence. For co-residence with a shameless person is not prohibited. Here, ‘co-residence’ refers to living together in a residence suitable for sleeping together, not the ‘co-residence’ spoken of in the phrase ‘he is defeated and there is no co-residence.’ This co-residence is not allowable with one who has been suspended. With a shameless person, a certain kind is allowable. The other [co-residence] is indeed exempt from communion in the Dhamma. However, this text beginning with ‘the suspended one disrobed’ is stated due to the commonality of explaining who should and should not be ordained. Furthermore, purification from an offense comes only through the process of practice, not through disrobing. Therefore, an ordained monk, having incurred even a Dubbhāsita offense at the very least, if he later disrobes and returns, he is to be ordained; he is purified only by confessing that offense, not otherwise. This is for the purpose of showing the process of purification for one who is ordained. If it is said: For a monk suspended for not seeing an uncommon offense, who has arisen from that offense by changing his characteristic—if his normal characteristic then arises again, it is simply a state of separate co-residence. And even if he returns after disrobing and is ordained in the aforementioned way, is this because he has not arisen from the suspension? No, because of the manifestation of a different characteristic. He is not purified by disrobing, because the formal act is not purified thereby. This is not so, for if the formal act were not purified, it would lead to the failure of the subsequent ordination act. And there is no failure of the formal act, nor is there pacification of the formal act. And by disrobing, being unordained, he corrupts the formal act through the state of separate co-residence, because it was spoken pointedly by the Lord of the Dhamma. For that very reason, the future tense word ‘you will see’ was used. It should be known that this was stated to show all these alternative meanings: that such a householder, like a monk on probation whose duties have been set aside, stands in his normal state—that is, by disrobing and so forth, he stands only in the natural state of an unordained person. However, a suspended monk of the type mentioned before, who has changed his characteristic and is then re-established in his normal characteristic, should be asked again, ‘Do you see?’ One who says, ‘Yes, I see,’ should be reinstated. He should not be told, ‘Confess,’ because he has arisen from the offense by changing his characteristic. A suspended monk who has made amends should be asked, ‘Have you performed the remedy?’ One who says, ‘Yes, it is done,’ should be reinstated. One who says, ‘The remedy does not need to be done by me,’ should not be reinstated, so say some. This procedure is for an uncommon offense, not for a common one. In that case, some say that the suspended monk's formal act is pacified just by changing his characteristic. The teacher says: ‘Having investigated, the more suitable view should be adopted.’ However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, ‘communion with a shameless one’ should be defined by way of giving with one's own hand, etc. The view of those who say, ‘It is allowable to give to a shameless monk with one's own hand, having pointed out that he is one who fulfills the states of cordiality, etc.’ should be rejected. Why? In accordance with the ruling that ‘It is not allowable to give to a suspended monk with one's own hand.’ And because ‘It is indeed allowable to cause something to be given.’ Although a Dukkaṭa offense is incurred through communion with a shameless one, nevertheless this monk is not shameless. Therefore, referring to the state of being without offense in every way, it was said, ‘No offense in communion, in co-residence.’ How is this known? It should be understood by way of the meaning: because sugarcane juice and bagasse are seven-day and lifetime allowances, one who, having formed the perception, ‘It is allowable to chew sugarcane at the wrong time,’ chews it, does not see a Pācittiya offense on account of that, because he had such a perception that it was allowable. Or whichever monk, having admitted the fact of having fallen into an offense, resolves, ‘I will not make amends’—these two…

‘Sañcicca āpattiṃ āpajjati, āpattiṃ parigūhati;

Agatigamanañca gacchati, ediso vuccati alajjīpuggalo’ti. (pari. 359) –

‘He intentionally commits an offense, conceals the offense, and pursues wrong courses; such a one is called a shameless person.’

Vuttalakkhaṇe apatanato alajjino na honti, tasmā ‘yo āpattidesanapaṭikammāni na karoti, tena saddhiṃ sambhogādikaraṇe anāpattī’ti visesetvā vuttavacanena, itarenapi saddhiṃ kiñcāpi rūpiyasaṃvohāro na hoti, atha kho kayavikkayena āpatti hotiyevāti nayo dinno hoti, pañcahi saddhiṃ sabbathāpi anāpattīti nayo ca. Evaṃ sāpattiṭṭhānesu visesetvā ca vacanato idha tathā avuttattā tena saha alajjiparibhogo natthi. Bhajāpiyamāno pana alajjipakkhaṃ bhajatīti imināpi upāyena sabbattha taṃ taṃ saṃsanditvā attho pariyesitabboti apare. Ācariyā pana evaṃ na vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sacāhaṃ na passissāmīti vadati, na pabbājetabbo’’ti vuttattā pubbe āpannāpattiyo uppabbajitassāpi na paṭippassambhantīti siddhaṃ, teneva ācariyā āpattiṃ desāpetvāva sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ kārāpentīti ca anāpatti sambhoge saṃvāseti idaṃ pubbe āpannaṃ santiṃ eva āpattiṃ na passatīti āsaṅkitabbo. Sā paṭippassaddhāti ñāpanatthaṃ vuttanti [Pg.446] ca eke. ‘‘Passissasī’’ti gahaṭṭhattā desetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti anāgatavasena vuttaṃ. ‘‘Upasampādetvā passissasī’’ti parivāsādinā kattabbassa atthibhāvena ‘‘passasī’’ti avatvā anāgatavasena vuttaṃ, osāretvāti abbhānavasena. Tattha puna kātabbassa abhāvā ‘‘passasī’’ti vuttaṃ. Idaṃ sabbaṃ sabbattha paṭijānanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ekatrāpi puna na paṭijānāti, etena saha tassā āpattiyā anurūpena saṃvāso na kātabbo, alajjibhāvenāti vuttaṃ hoti. Diṭṭhiyātiādīsu osāraṇaṃ nāma samānakammādinā karaṇanti attho. Anāpatti sambhogeti ukkhittakena sambhoge anāpatti. Kasmā? Ukkhittakakammassa gahaṭṭhabhāvena paṭippassaddhattā, teneva ‘‘alabbhamānāya sāmaggiyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Idāni bhikkhubhāve kattabbatoti keci. Dvīsupi vāresu kammapaṭippassaddhividhānaṃ teyeva jānanti, tasmā sabbavāresu yuttamayuttañca suṭṭhu sallakkhetvā kathetabbaṃ.

They are not shameless ones for not falling into the stated characteristic. Therefore, because of the statement spoken with distinction, 'There is no offense in performing association, etc., with a monk who does not perform the confession of an offense and its remedy,' and although with another there is no transaction with money, nevertheless, the principle is given that an offense indeed occurs through buying and selling; and the principle is also given that with five others, there is no offense in any way. Thus, because it is stated with distinctions in cases where an offense is incurred, and because it is not stated so here, there is no association with him as with a shameless one. However, others say that when one is made to associate, one joins the shameless faction; and by this method also, in all cases, the meaning should be sought by connecting this and that text. But the teachers do not speak thus,' it is said. Because it is said, 'If he says, "I will not see," he should not be given the going forth,' it is established that offenses incurred previously do not become settled even for one who has disrobed. For that very reason, the teachers have the offense confessed first and only then cause the renunciation of the training. And regarding this statement, 'no offense in association, in communion,' he should be suspected thus: 'He does not see an existing offense incurred previously.' And some say it is said for the purpose of making it known that 'That offense is settled.' 'You will see' is said in the future tense because, being a layman, it is not proper for him to confess. 'Having given the higher ordination, you will see' is said in the future tense, not 'you see,' because of the existence of what must be done, such as probation. 'Having reinstated him' is said by way of rehabilitation. There, because there is nothing further to be done, 'you see' is said. All this is said with reference to acknowledging in every case. If he does not acknowledge again even in one case, communion with him should not be performed in a manner befitting that offense; it is said that this is due to his shamelessness. In cases of wrong view, etc., 'reinstatement' means performing an act of equal status, etc.—this is the meaning. Regarding 'no offense in association,' there is no offense in associating with one who has been suspended. Why? Because the act of suspension has been settled by his becoming a layman; for that very reason, it is said, 'when unanimity is not obtainable.' Some say that now, because it is to be done in the state of a monk, there is no offense. In both cases, they alone know the procedure for settling the formal act. Therefore, in all cases, one should speak after having carefully considered what is proper and improper.

Yo khandhakaṃ pabbajjanāmadheyyaṃ,Nānānayaṃ sāsanamūlabhūtaṃ;

Ñatvā pakāseti parassa sammā,Tassādhipaccaṃ munisāsanasminti.

The bhikkhu who, having known the Khandhaka named Pabbajjā, which has various methods and is the root of the Dispensation, explains it well to another—his would be the supremacy in the Dispensation of the Sage.

Mahākhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Great Section is concluded.

2. Uposathakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

2. The Commentary on the Uposatha Section

Sannipātānujānanādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Permission for Assemblies and Other Related Matters

132-3. Tena [Pg.447] samayenāti attano ovādapātimokkhuddese dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā bhikkhūnaṃyeva visuṃ uposathakaraṇaṃ anujānitvā ṭhitasamayena. Ko pana soti? Majjhimabodhiyaṃ pātimokkhuddesappahonakasikkhāpadānaṃ pariniṭṭhānakālo. Tenevāha ‘‘tāni nesaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ anujāneyya’’nti. ‘‘Evañca pana, bhikkhave, uddisitabba’’nti nidānuddesaṃ paññāpetukāmatāya ca sikkhāpadānaṃ uddesaparicchedanidassanatthañca vuttaṃ. Aññathā ‘‘evañca pana, bhikkhave, imaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ uddiseyyathā’’ti sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ uddisitabbakkamassa dassitattā idāni ‘‘evañca pana, bhikkhave, uddisitabba’’nti idaṃ niratthakaṃ āpajjati, idañca sabbasaṅghuposathaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

In the text, 'tena samayena' refers to the time when he was established, having laid down the burden of reciting the Ovāda-pātimokkha himself and having permitted the bhikkhus themselves to perform the Uposatha separately. What time is that? It is the time of the completion of the collection of training rules sufficient for the recitation of the Pātimokkha at the Middle Bodhi. For that very reason, he said, 'He should permit them the recitation of the Pātimokkha.' The statement 'And thus, monks, it should be recited' was said because of the desire to lay down the introductory recitation and also to show the division of the recitation of the training rules. Otherwise, because the sequence to be recited of all the training rules was shown by the phrase 'And thus, monks, you should recite this training rule,' this phrase 'And thus, monks, it should be recited' would now become meaningless. And this was said in reference to the Uposatha of the entire Saṅgha.

134. ‘‘Yaṃnūna ayyāpi…pe… sannipateyyu’’nti bahūnaṃ adhikārappavatti. Tatrāpi vinayaṃ āgamma vutto bhikkhu sāmi, na kevalaṃ saṅghattheroti dassanatthaṃ, saṅghassa gāravayuttavacanārahatādassanatthañca ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante’’ti āha. Tattha sayaṃ ce thero, bhikkhuṃ sandhāya ‘‘āvuso’’ti vattuṃ yujjati. Kathaṃ paññāyati? Buddhakāle saṅghatthero abyatto nāma dullabho. Sabbakammavācāya payoganidassane ca ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho’’ icceva bhagavā dassetīti ce? Evametaṃ tathā dassanato. Saṅghaṃ upādāya saṅghattherenāpi ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho’’ti vattabbaṃ, bhikkhuṃ upādāya ‘‘āvuso’’ti mahākassapassa kammavācāya payogadassanato, pārisuddhiuposathe ca therena bhikkhunā ‘‘parisuddho ahaṃ, āvuso’’ti payogadassanato ca. ‘‘Yadi saṅghassa pattakalla’’nti parato paññāpetabbe uposathakaraṇantarāye sandhāyāha. Uposathassa bahuvidhattā sarūpato vattuṃ ‘‘pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyā’’ti āha. Ettāvatā ñattiṃ niṭṭhapesi. Ñattidutiyakammato eva hi uposathakammaṃ. Na, tatiyānussāvanasambhavatoti ce? Na, aññehi ñatticatutthakammehi asadisattā. Na hi ettha catukkhattuṃ ‘‘suṇātu me’’ti ārabhīyatīti. Aññehi ñattidutiyehi asadisattā ñattidutiyampi māhotūti ce? Na, ñattidutiyakammassa [Pg.448] aññathāpi kattabbato. Tathā hi ñattidutiyakammaṃ ekaccaṃ apalokanavasenapi kātuṃ vaṭṭati, na aññaṃ aññathā kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Idameva uposathakammaṃ ñāpakaṃ.

134. The phrase 'Perhaps the venerable ones... should assemble' is a statement that occurs according to the wish of many monks. In that context, the monk who speaks, relying on the Vinaya, is the master. He says, 'Venerable sirs, listen to me,' in order to show that it is not merely the Saṅghatthera who is the master, and also to show that the Saṅgha is worthy of being addressed with respectful speech. Therein, if he himself is the elder, it is proper to say 'friend,' addressing a monk. How is this known? In the Buddha's time, an incompetent Saṅghatthera was rare. If it is said: 'And in demonstrating the application of all formal acts, the Blessed One shows only "Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me"'? This is so, because of showing the Kammavācā text in that way. With reference to the Saṅgha, even the Saṅghatthera should say, 'Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me'; with reference to a monk, one should say 'friend,' because of seeing the application of the formal act by Mahākassapa, and because of seeing the application by the elder monk in the Purity Uposatha: 'I am pure, friend.' He says, 'If it is the proper time for the Saṅgha,' with reference to the obstructions to performing the Uposatha that are to be laid down later. Because the Uposatha has many varieties, to state its essential nature, he says, 'one should recite the Pātimokkha.' With this much, he completes the motion. For the Uposatha act is indeed a motion-and-one-proclamation act. If it is said: 'No, because a third proclamation is possible'? No, because of its dissimilarity to other motion-and-three-proclamation acts. For here 'listen to me' is not begun four times, it should be known. If it is said: 'Because of its dissimilarity to other motion-and-one-proclamation acts, let it also not be a motion-and-one-proclamation act'? No, because a motion-and-one-proclamation act can also be done in another way. Thus, some motion-and-one-proclamation acts are suitable to do by means of informing, but others are not suitable to do otherwise. How is this known? This very Uposatha act is the indicator.

‘‘Kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakicca’’nti idaṃ na ñatti niṭṭhapetvā vattabbaṃ, tañhi ñattito puretarameva karīyatīti. Tasmā ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakiccaṃ, yadi saṅghassā’’ti vattabbaṃ siyāti? Tathāpi na vattabbaṃ, na hi taṃ ñattiyā antokarīyatīti. Yadi evaṃ sabbattha na vattabbaṃ payojanābhāvāti ce? Na, yathāgataṭṭhāneyeva vattabbato, parapadāpekkhatāyāti vuttaṃ hoti. Idaṃ pubbakiccaṃ akatvā uposathaṃ karonto saṅgho, puggalo vā ṭhapanakkhettātikkame āpajjati. Na hi tasmiṃ khette atikkante sammajjanāsanodakapadīpakaraṇe āpattimokkho hoti. Uposathakammato pubbe kattabbakiccākaraṇapaccayattā tassā āpattiyā, na sā kammapariyosānāpekkhā etthāgatasampajānamusāvādāpatti viya, tasmā pātimokkhuddesako bhikkhu ‘‘pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocethā’’ti vattukāmo paṭhamaṃyeva parisuddhāparisuddhapaccayaṃ pubbakiccaṃ sarāpeti. Tañhi kataṃ parisuddhapaccayo hoti, akataṃ aparisuddhapaccayo, teneva ubhayāpekkhādhippāyena ‘‘kataṃ na kata’’nti avatvā ‘‘kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakicca’’ miccevāha. Tattha akatapakkhe tāva pārisuddhiārocanakkamanidassanatthaṃ parato ‘‘yassa siyā āpatti, so āvi kareyyā’’ti ca, katapakkhe ‘‘asantiyā āpattiyā tuṇhī bhavitabba’’nti ca vakkhati.

The phrase 'What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha?' should not be said after completing the motion, for that is done even before the motion. Therefore, should one say, 'Venerable sirs, let the Sangha listen to me. What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha? If it is timely for the Sangha...'? Even so, it should not be said, for that is not included within the motion. If so, should it not be said in all cases due to lack of purpose? No, for it should be said only in its proper place, because it is dependent on a subsequent phrase, so it is said. The Sangha or an individual who performs the Uposatha without having done this preliminary duty incurs an offense by transgressing the designated area. For when that area is transgressed, there is no release from the offense through the act of sweeping, preparing seats, providing water, or lighting lamps. This is because that offense has, as its condition, the non-performance of a duty that must be done before the Uposatha ceremony; it is not, like the offense of intentional lying mentioned here, dependent on the completion of the formal act. Therefore, the monk reciting the Pātimokkha, wishing to say, 'Venerable sirs, declare your purity,' first reminds them of the preliminary duty, which is a condition for purity and impurity. For when it is done, it is a condition for purity; when not done, a condition for impurity. Precisely with the intention of considering both aspects, without saying 'done or not done,' he says only, 'What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha?'. In this regard, in the case where it has not been done, in order to show the procedure for declaring purity, it will be said subsequently, 'Whoever has an offense, let him reveal it.' And in the case where it has been done, it will be said, 'If there is no offense, one should remain silent.'

Pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocetha. Kiṃkāraṇā? Yasmā pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmi. Ettha ca ‘‘uddisāmī’’ti vattamānakālaṃ aparāmasitvā ‘‘uddisissāmī’’ti anāgatakālaparāmasanena yvāyaṃ ‘‘dāni nesaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ anujāneyya’’nti (mahāva. 150) ettha vuttapātimokkhuddeso, taṃ sandhāya ‘‘pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī’’ti vuttanti eke. Yasmā ‘‘pañcime, bhikkhave, pātimokkhuddesā’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā vattamānassa nidānuddesasaṅkhātassa pātimokkhassa yadetaṃ ante ‘‘kaccittha parisuddhā’’tiādikaṃ yāvatatiyānussāvanaṃ, tasseva āpattikhettattā, avayavepi avayavīvohārasambhavato ca idha āpattikhettameva sandhāya ‘‘pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī’’ti [Pg.449] vuttaṃ. Evañhi vutte yasmā parato āpattikhettaṃ āgamissati, tasmā āpattibhīrukā tumhe sabbeva paṭhamameva pārisuddhiṃ ārocethāti ayamattho sambhavati. Vattamānakālavasena vutte ‘‘pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocethā’’ti vacanameva na sambhavati tadārocanassa paṭhamaṃ icchitabbattā, pageva tassa karaṇābhāvena ‘‘pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī’’ti vacanaṃ. Ayaṃ nayo santiyā āpattiyā ārocane yujjati, na tuṇhībhāve, akammapariyosānā tuṇhībhāvappattito, evaṃ santepi tasmiṃ yujjateva. Pātimokkhuddesako hi aññamaññaṃ āpattiāvikaraṇaṃ akatvā tuṇhībhūte bhikkhū passitvā teneva tuṇhībhāvena ārocitapārisuddhiko hutvā ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante’’ti pātimokkhuddesaṃ ārabhi.

Venerable sirs, declare your purity. For what reason? Because I will recite the Pātimokkha. And here, some say that 'I will recite the Pātimokkha' is said with reference to the Pātimokkha recitation spoken of in the passage, 'Now he should permit their Pātimokkha recitation,' by not considering the present tense 'uddisāmi' but by considering the future tense 'uddisissāmi'. Because it is said, 'Monks, there are these five Pātimokkha recitations,' therefore, regarding the present Pātimokkha known as the introductory recitation, that which is at the end—from 'Is everyone here pure?' up to the third proclamation—since that very part is the field of offenses, and because it is possible to speak of a part as the whole, here 'I will recite the Pātimokkha' is said with reference to the field of offenses alone. For when it is said thus, the following meaning is possible: since the field of offenses will come later, therefore all of you who are fearful of offenses should declare your purity at the very beginning. If it were said in the present tense, the very statement 'Venerable sirs, declare your purity' would not be suitable, because that declaration is desired first; how much less would the statement 'I will recite the Pātimokkha' be suitable, since that action has not yet been performed. This method is suitable for declaring an existing offense, but not for silence, because silence is maintained until the end of the formal act. Even so, it is indeed suitable in that case. For the Pātimokkha reciter, having seen the monks silent and not having disclosed offenses to one another, takes their purity as declared by that very silence and begins the Pātimokkha recitation with, 'Venerable sirs, let the Sangha listen to me.'

Etthāha – paṭhamaṃ ‘‘saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyya, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyā’’ti vuttattā idhāpi ‘‘saṅgho uposathaṃ karissati, pātimokkhaṃ uddisissatī’’ti vattabbaṃ, atha ‘‘puggalassa uddesā’’ti lakkhaṇattā yathārutameva vattabbaṃ, tathāpi ‘‘uposathaṃ karissāmi, pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī’’ti vattabbanti? Na vattabbaṃ lakkhaṇavirodhato, aniṭṭhappasaṅgato ca. Puggalassa uddesā eva hi saṅghassa uposatho kato hoti, na puggalassa uposathakaraṇena. Tañca sova karissati, na saṅghoti aniṭṭhappasaṅgova āpajjati. ‘‘Suṇāthā’’ti vutte acittasāmaggippasaṅgabhayā ‘‘suṇomā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Suṇissāmā’’ti vattabbaṃ ‘‘uddisissāmī’’ti vuttattāti ce? Na vattabbaṃ, āpattikhettadassanādhippāyanirapekkhatāya ‘‘suṇoma’’ icceva vattabbaṃ. Ekapadeneva hissa tadadhippāyo atikkantoti. Yadi evaṃ kimatthaṃ taṃ sabbeheva āraddhanti ce? ‘‘Uddisissāmī’’ti iminā asādhāraṇavacanena āpannassa acittasāmaggippasaṅganivāraṇatthaṃ. Saramānenāti iminā cassa sampajānamusāvādassa sacittakataṃ dasseti. Antarāyiko dhammo vutto bhagavatāti evaṃ akiriyasamuṭṭhānassāpi evaṃ parittakassa imassa musāvādassa mahādīnavataṃ dasseti. Visuddhāpekkhenāti sāvasesaṃ āpattiṃ upādāya anāpattibhāvasaṅkhātaṃ anavasesañca upādāya gihibhāvasaṅkhātaṃ visuddhiṃ icchantena kasmā āvi kātabbā? Antarāyabhāvānupagamanena phāsuvihārapaccayattā. Idha [Pg.450] ‘‘ajjuposatho pannaraso’’ti na vuttaṃ parato divasaniyamassa kattukāmatādhippāyena avuttattā. Evaṃ pana te bhikkhū sabbadivasesu uddisiṃsu.

Here, one objects: Since it was first stated, 'The Saṅgha should perform the Uposatha, should recite the Pātimokkha,' here too it should be said, 'The Saṅgha will perform the Uposatha, will recite the Pātimokkha.' Or if, due to the characteristic 'by the recitation of an individual,' it should be stated just as it is written, even so, should it be said, 'I will perform the Uposatha, I will recite the Pātimokkha'? It should not be said, due to contradiction with the characteristic and because it leads to an undesirable consequence. For indeed, the Saṅgha's Uposatha is accomplished only by the individual's recitation, not by the individual's performance of the Uposatha. And that Uposatha, he alone will perform, not the Saṅgha; thus, an undesirable consequence indeed arises. When 'Listen' is said, 'We listen' is said out of fear of the consequence of communion occurring without intention. If it is argued that 'We will listen' should be said because 'I will recite' was stated, the answer is: it should not be said. Because of being without regard for the intention of seeing the field of offenses, it should be said only as 'We listen.' For indeed, by that one word alone, his intention is already conveyed. If so, for what purpose is this response undertaken by all? It is undertaken to prevent, for one who has an offense, the consequence of communion without intention, by this personal statement, 'I will recite.' By this phrase 'while remembering,' it shows that this intentional false speech is done with consciousness. By the phrase 'An obstructive dhamma was spoken by the Blessed One,' it shows the great danger of this minor false speech, even though it arises from non-action. Regarding 'by one who desires purity'—that is, by one desiring the purity designated as the state of no-offense (with reference to an offense with a remainder), and the purity designated as the state of a householder (with reference to an offense without a remainder)—why should it be made manifest? Because by not arriving at the state of being an obstruction, it is a condition for comfortable living. Here, 'Today is the Uposatha, the fifteenth' was not said, because it was not stated with the intention of wanting to make a determination of the day hereafter. Because it was not said thus, however, those monks recited on all days.

135. ‘‘Ādimeta’’nti sīlapātimokkhameva vuttaṃ, kiñcāpi ganthapātimokkho adhippeto. ‘‘Pañcannaṃ vā’’ti mātikāyaṃ vuttānaṃ vasena vuttaṃ. Anajjhāpanno vāti puggalādhiṭṭhānadesanā. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘‘uposathaṃ kareyyā’ti ettāvatā ñatti hoti. Yāvatatiyānussāvanā nāma ‘yassa siyā āpattī’tiādivacanattayaṃ, ante ‘dutiyampi tatiyampi pucchāmī’ti idañcāti duvidhaṃ. Tattha paṭhamaṃ āpattiṃ saritvā nisinnassa, dutiyaṃ asarantassa sāraṇattha’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Vacīdvāre’’ti pākaṭavasena ujukameva vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi kāyaviññattiyāpi karīyati, kāyakammābhāvā pana vacīviññattiyāyeva āvi kātabbā. ‘‘Saṅghamajjhe vā’’tiādi lakkhaṇavacanaṃ kira. Saṅghuposathakaraṇatthaṃ saṅghamajjhe ce nisinno, tasmiṃ saṅghamajjhe. Gaṇuposathakaraṇatthañce gaṇamajjhe nisinno, tasmiṃ gaṇamajjhe. Ekasseva santike ce pārisuddhiuposathaṃ kattukāmo, tasmiṃ ekapuggale āvi kātabbāti, ‘‘etena na kevalaṃ saṅghamajjhe evāyaṃ musāvādo sambhavati, atha kho ettha vuttalakkhaṇena asatipi ‘pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocethā’tiādividhāne gaṇuposathepi sāpattiko hutvā uposathaṃ kattukāmo anārocetvā tuṇhībhūtova karoti ce, sampajānamusāvādāpattiṃ āpajjatīti imassatthassa āvikaraṇato lakkhaṇavacanaṃ kireta’’nti vadanti takkikā. Aññathā ‘‘gaṇamajjhevā’’ti na vuttanti tesaṃ adhippāyo. Ārocanādhippāyavasena vuttanti no takkoti ācariyo. Ārocento hi saṅghassa ārocemīti adhippāyena āvi karonto saṅghamajjhe āvi karoti nāma. Attano ubhatopasse nisinnānaṃ ārocento gaṇamajjhe. Ekassevārocessāmi sabhāgassāti adhippāyena ārocento ekapuggale āroceti nāma. Pubbe vibhattapadassa puna vibhajanaṃ atthavisesābhāvadīpanatthanti veditabbaṃ.

135. In the text 'Ādimetaṃ', although the Ganthapātimokkha is intended, only the Sīlapātimokkha is stated. The text 'Pañcannaṃ vā' is stated by way of the offenses mentioned in the Mātikā. The teaching 'Anajjhāpanno vā' is a teaching based on the individual. However, in the ancient commentary (Porāṇagaṇṭhipada), it is stated: 'By this much, "uposathaṃ kareyyā," the motion (ñatti) occurs. What is called the proclamation up to the third time (yāvatatiyānussāvanā) is twofold: the triad of statements beginning with "yassa siyā āpattī," and this at the end, "dutiyampi tatiyampi pucchāmī." Therein, the first is for one who is seated having remembered an offense; the second is for the purpose of reminding one who does not remember.' The text 'Vacīdvāre' is stated straightforwardly by way of what is manifest. Although it may also be done by bodily intimation, due to the absence of a bodily action, it must be made evident by verbal intimation alone. The text 'Saṅghamajjhe vā,' etc., is, it is said, a defining phrase. If one is seated in the midst of the Saṅgha for the purpose of performing the Saṅgha-uposatha, it must be made evident in the midst of that Saṅgha. If one is seated in the midst of a group for the purpose of performing the group-uposatha, it must be made evident in the midst of that group. If one desires to perform the purity-uposatha in the presence of just one person, it must be made evident to that one person. By this it is shown that 'this false speech does not arise only in the midst of the Saṅgha; but rather, even in a group-uposatha where the procedure beginning with "Venerable sirs, declare your purity" is absent, if one who has an offense and desires to perform the uposatha does so without declaring, just remaining silent, he falls into an offense of intentional false speech. Because it makes this meaning clear, this is, it is said, a defining phrase,' thus say the logicians. Otherwise, 'in the midst of a group' would not have been stated—this is their intention. The teacher says: 'It is our reasoning that it is stated by way of the intention to declare.' For one who is declaring with the intention, 'I will declare to the Saṅgha,' is called making it evident in the midst of the Saṅgha. One who declares to those seated on both sides of oneself is making it evident in the midst of a group. One who declares with the intention, 'I will declare to just one associate,' is called declaring to one person. The re-division of a previously divided term should be understood as being for the purpose of showing the absence of a special meaning.

136-7. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, devasikaṃ…pe… dukkaṭassā’’ti vatvā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, uposathe pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu’’nti idaṃ anuposathe eva taṃ dukkaṭaṃ[Pg.451], uposathe pana devasikampi vaṭṭatīti dīpeti, tasmā te bhikkhū cātuddasiyaṃ uddisitvāpi pannarasiyaṃ uddisiṃsu, tenāha ‘‘sakiṃ pakkhassā’’ti. Tattha purimena sāmaggīdivaso uposathadivaso evāti dīpeti. Ubhayena aṭṭhamiṃ paṭikkhipitvā devasikaṃ paṭikkhepassa atippasaṅgaṃ nivāreti. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Bhinno ce saṅgho pāṭipadadivase samaggo hoti, tasmiṃ divase sāmaggīuposathaṃ karonto ubhayampi dukkaṭaṃ āpajjanto ubhayena ekībhūtena nivārito hotīti vuttaṃ hoti. Aññathā sāmaggīuposatho na devasiko. Ce, ahorattaṃ kātabbo. Tasmiñca pakkhe pakatiuposatho na devasiko. Ce, ahorattaṃ kātabbo. Tasmiñca pakkhe pakatiuposatho anuddiṭṭho. Ce hoti, sāmaggīuposatho kātabboti āpajjati. Na apavādanayena gahetabbattāti ce? Na, aniṭṭhappasaṅgato. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Sāmaggīdivase sāmaggīuposathaṃ katvā puna tasmiṃ pakkhe pakatiuposathadivase sampatte pakatiuposatho na kātabboti. Apavādoti. Apavāditabbaṭṭhānato aññattha ussaggavidhānaṃ nivāreti.

136-7. Having said, “Monks, not daily… it is an offense of wrong-doing,” this statement, “I allow, monks, the recitation of the Pātimokkha on the Uposatha day,” indicates that only on a non-Uposatha day is that an offense of wrong-doing, but on an Uposatha day, even a daily recitation is permissible. Therefore, those monks, having recited on the fourteenth, also recited on the fifteenth. For that reason, it was said, “once a fortnight.” Therein, the former statement indicates that the day of concord is indeed the Uposatha day. By both, having rejected the eighth day, it prevents the over-extension of the rejection of daily observance. What is meant by this? If a divided Saṅgha becomes harmonious on the first day of the fortnight, a monk performing the concord-uposatha on that day, thereby incurring a twofold offense of wrong-doing, is prevented by the two factions having become unified. This is what is meant. Otherwise, the concord-uposatha is not a daily observance; if it were, it would have to be performed day and night. And in that fortnight, the regular uposatha is not a daily observance; if it were, it would have to be performed day and night. And if in that fortnight the regular uposatha is not recited, it follows that the concord-uposatha must be performed. If it is said, “Does this not follow because it should be taken by way of an exception?” No, because of the undesirable consequence. What is meant by this? Having performed the concord-uposatha on the day of concord, when the regular uposatha day arrives again in that fortnight, the regular uposatha should not be performed. This is an exception. It prevents the laying down of a general rule in a place other than where an exception should be made.

Kittāvatā nu kho sāmaggīti etthāyamadhippāyo – sāmaggī nāmesā sabhāgānaṃ sannipāto. Sabhāgā ca nāma yattakā sahadhammikā, te sabbepi honti, udāhu āvāsasabhāgatāya sabhāgā nāma hontīti. Tattha yadi sahadhammikānaṃ sāmaggī sāmaggī nāma, sabbesaṃ puthuvibhattānaṃ sāmaggī icchitabbā. Athāvasathavasena, ekāvāsasabhāgānanti vuttaṃ hoti. Aññathā ekāvāse sāmaggīti āpajjati. Mā no agamāsīti agato mā hoti.

To what extent, indeed, is there harmony? Herein, this is the intention: this, called harmony, is the assembly of those who are of a common nature. And are those called 'of a common nature' all who are co-religionists, or are they called 'of a common nature' due to sharing a common residence? Therein, if harmony is called harmony among co-religionists, then harmony should be desired among all who are separately divided. Or, if it is by way of residence, it is meant to be harmony among those who are of a common nature by sharing one residence. Otherwise, it would follow that harmony is only within a single residence. As for the phrase, 'May he not have come to us,' it means, may he not have arrived.

Sīmānujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Discourse on the Permission for Boundaries

138. Ekāvāsagatānaṃ vasena sāmaggiṃ paṭikkhipitvā ekasīmagatānaṃ vasena anujānitukāmo bhagavā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sīmaṃ sammannitu’’nti āha. Atha āvāsaparicchedaṃ vattukāmo bhaveyya. Ettāvatā ekāvāso yāvatā ekāsīmā. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sīmaṃ sammannitu’’nti vadeyya. Tasmā na idha anuññātabaddhasīmāvasena ekāvāsaparicchedo hoti, upacārasīmāvaseneva hotīti veditabbaṃ. Kathaṃ jānitabbanti ce? Pāḷitova, yathāha ‘‘tena kho pana samayena āyasmā [Pg.452] upanando sakyaputto eko dvīsu āvāsesu vassaṃ vasi…pe… ekādhippāya’’nti (mahāva. 364). Aññathā vassacchedoti aniṭṭhappasaṅgova, kathaṃ? Ekāvāsavaseneva ce sāmaggī, bahuāvāsaanāvāsesu na sambhaveyya. Tato so taṃ āvāsaṃ gacchanto bahiddhā uposathaṃ karoti. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, tadahuposathe sabhikkhuko anāvāso gantabbo’’tiādi (mahāva. 181)-pāḷivirodho satipi saṅghe anāvāse uposathassa akattabbato. Anāvāsepi ce sāmaggī labbhati, ‘‘ettāvatā sāmaggī, yāvatā ekāvāso’’ti na vattabbaṃ, tasmā sabbathā purimanayo pacchimeneva paṭikkhittoti katvā nānāvāsavasenapi sāmaggīti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Taṃ kammaṃ karomāti vatvā na akaṃsū’tiādīsu viya anāgatampi apekkhati, tasmā ‘karomā’ti vutte na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Sīmaṃ asodhetvāpi nimittaṃ kittetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Heṭṭhimakoṭiyā aḍḍhaṭṭhamaratanubbedho hatthippamāṇo. Sace eko baddho hoti, na kātabboti ettha ‘‘catūsu disāsu catunnaṃ pabbatakūṭānaṃ heṭṭhā piṭṭhipāsāṇasadise pāsāṇe ṭhitattā ekābaddhabhāve satipi pathavito uddhaṃ tesaṃ sambandhe asati heṭṭhā pathavigatasambandhamatte abbohārikaṃ katvā kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva ‘piṭṭhipāsāṇo atimahantopi pāsāṇasaṅkhyameva gacchatī’ti vuttaṃ. Pathavito heṭṭhā tassa mahantabhāve gayhamāne pabbatameva hotī’’ti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. ‘‘Cinitvā katapaṃsupuñje tiṇagumbarukkhā ce jāyanti, pabbato hotīti dhammasiritthero. Nevāti upatissatthero’’ti vuttaṃ.

138. The Blessed One, wishing to reject unity based on a single dwelling and to allow it based on a single boundary, said, “I allow, monks, a boundary to be delimited.” Then, one might wish to define the extent of the dwelling. A single dwelling extends as far as a single boundary. One might say, “I allow, monks, a boundary to be delimited.” Therefore, it should be understood that here the definition of a single dwelling is not based on an authorized bound boundary, but rather on the proximity boundary. How is this to be known? From the Pāḷi itself, as it is said: “At that time, the Venerable Upananda the Sakyan, being one person, spent the rains-residence in two dwellings…with a single intention” (Mahāvagga 364). Otherwise, it would result in the breaking of the rains-residence, an undesirable consequence. How so? If unity were based solely on a single dwelling, it would not be possible in multiple dwellings or non-dwellings. Therefore, one going to that dwelling would perform the Uposatha outside. This contradicts the Pāḷi beginning, “Monks, on the Uposatha day, a non-dwelling where there are monks should not be gone to,” etc. (Mahāvagga 181), as the Uposatha cannot be performed in a non-dwelling even if the Saṅgha is present. If unity is achieved even in a non-dwelling, it should not be said, “Unity extends only as far as a single dwelling.” Therefore, having entirely rejected the former method by the latter, it should be understood that unity can also be based on various dwellings. They say: “Just as in cases like ‘Having said, “We will perform that act,” they did not do it,’ it also considers the future; therefore, when ‘We will do it’ is said, it is not valid.” It is written: “Even without purifying the boundary, it is valid to declare the marker.” The lower limit [of a marker] is seven and a half cubits high, of elephantine measure. Regarding the statement, “If one [marker] is bound, it should not be done,” herein: “In the four directions, beneath the four mountain peaks, on stones like backrest stones, because they stand, even if there is a single bound state, when there is no connection for them upwards from the earth, it is valid to declare them, having made the mere connection that has gone into the earth below non-conventional. For that very reason, it is said, ‘Even a very large backrest stone is counted merely as a stone.’ If its great size is considered from below the ground, it becomes a mountain.” This is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada. It is said: “If grass, shrubs, or trees grow on a heap of earth that has been made by piling it up, it becomes a mountain,” says the Elder Dhammasiri. “It does not,” says the Elder Upatissa.

Pāsāṇoti ‘‘sudhāmayapāsāṇopi vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Vīmaṃsitabbaṃ iṭṭhakāya paṭikkhittattā. Dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇo tulatāya, na tulagaṇanāya. Sopīti khāṇuko viya uṭṭhitapāsāṇo.

Regarding a stone: they say, 'Even a stone made of plaster is allowable.' This should be investigated, since bricks are rejected. A stone the size of a lump of molasses weighing thirty-two palas is to be taken by weighing, not by the count of weights. That too is a stone pillar that has arisen like a tree stump.

Catupañcarukkhanimittamattampīti ekaccesu nimittasaddo natthi. Ettha tayo ce sārarukkhā honti, dve asārarukkhā, sārarukkhānaṃ bahuttaṃ icchitabbaṃ. ‘‘Susānampi idha ‘vanamevā’ti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati sayaṃjātattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘catūsu dve antosārā ce, vaṭṭati. Antosārā adhikā, samā vā, vaṭṭati. Tasmā bahūsupi dve ce antosārā atthi, vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti.

Regarding 'even the mere sign of four or five trees': in some manuscripts, the word 'nimitta' (sign) is not present. Herein, if there are three heartwood trees and two non-heartwood trees, a majority of heartwood trees is to be desired. It is said: 'Even a charnel ground, in this context, is counted as a forest because it is self-grown.' Some, however, say: 'If among four trees, two are heartwood trees, it is allowable. If the heartwood trees are more, or equal, it is allowable. Therefore, even among many trees, if there are two heartwood trees, it is allowable.'

Parabhāgeti [Pg.453] ettha ‘‘etehi baddhaṭṭhānato gatattā vaṭṭati. Tathā dīghamaggepi gahitaṭṭhānato gataṭṭhānassa aññattā’’ti vadanti.

Regarding 'in the other part': Herein, they say, 'By these, because they have gone from the bound place, it is allowable. Similarly, even on a long road, it is allowable because the place gone to is different from the place taken from.'

Anvaddhamāsanti ettha ‘‘anubaddho addhamāso, addhamāsassa vā anū’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Antaravāsako temiyatī’’ti vuttattā tattakappamāṇaudakeyeva kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti keci. Temiyatīti iminā heṭṭhimakoṭiyā nadilakkhaṇaṃ vuttaṃ. Evarūpāya nadiyā yasmiṃ ṭhāne cattāro māse appaṃ vā bahuṃ vā udakaṃ ajjhottharitvā pavattati, tasmiṃ ṭhāne appodakepi ṭhatvā kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti eke. ‘‘Pavattanaṭṭhāne nadinimitta’nti vuttattā setuto parato tattakaṃ udakaṃ yadi pavattati, nadī evā’’ti vadanti.

Regarding 'fortnightly': Herein, it is written, 'A connected half-month, or the sequence of a half-month.' Some say that because it is said, 'The under-robe is dampened,' it is allowable to perform the act only in water of that much quantity. By this word 'temiyati' (is dampened), the characteristic of a river at its lower limit is stated. Some say: 'In a river of such a nature, in whatever place water flows, having inundated it, for four months, whether a little or a lot, in that place it is allowable to perform the act, having stood even where the water is little.' They also say: 'Because it is said, “The sign of a river is in the place of flowing,” if that much water flows beyond a dyke, it is indeed a river.'

Jātassarādīsu ṭhitodakaṃ jātassarādipadesena anantarikampi nimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati nadipārasīmāya nimittaṃ viya. Sace so padeso kālantarena gāmakhettabhāvaṃ pāpuṇāti, tattha aññaṃ sīmaṃ sammannituṃ vaṭṭati. Ukkhepimanti uddharitvā gahetabbakaṃ.

In natural lakes and so on, it is allowable to make the standing water a sign, even if it is contiguous with the area of the natural lake, etc., just like the sign for a river-bank sīmā. If that area, after a time, becomes a village-field, it is allowable to establish another sīmā there. 'Ukkhepimaṃ' means that which is to be taken by scooping or drawing out.

Abaddhasīmavihārānaṃ sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvāti ‘‘āyatiṃ sammannitabbāya okāsaṃ ṭhapetvā’’ti likhitaṃ. Antonimittagatehi panāti ‘‘ekassa upaḍḍhaṃ antokattukāmatāya sati sabbesaṃ āgamane payojanaṃ natthīti katvā ‘antonimittagatehī’ti vuttaṃ, tañca sāmīcivasenā’’ti vadanti. Anāgamanampi vaṭṭatīti ‘‘sīmāya abaddhattā vaggaṃ nāma na hotī’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Aññasmiṃ gāmakhette ṭhatvā nimittakittanakāle, samānasaṃvāsakasīmāya sammannanakāle ca āgamanapayojanaṃ natthī’’ti vuttaṃ. Bherisaññaṃ vāti ‘‘sammannanapariyosānaṃ karomāti vatvā’’ti likhitaṃ, tena tādise kāle taṃ kappatīti siddhaṃ hoti. Kiṃ iminā? Sukhakaraṇatthanti mahājanasannipātanaparissamaṃ akatvā appatarehi sukhakaraṇatthaṃ. Yadi mahāsīmābandhanakāle antarāyo hoti, tattakenapi sukhavihāroti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘paṭhama’’nti vuttanti eke. Tato oraṃ na vaṭṭatīti kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Vīsativaggakaraṇīyaparamattā saṅghakammassa. Kammārahena saddhiṃ ekavīsati bhikkhū ce gaṇhāti, vaṭṭati. Tattakappamāṇaṃ sukhanisajjavasena veditabbaṃ. Tameva nimittaṃ aññepi kittetvā sace bandhanti, vaṭṭatīti eke.

Regarding 'having set aside the vicinity of the boundary for monasteries with an unestablished boundary,' it is written: 'having set aside an opportunity for one to be designated in the future.' But as for 'by those who have gone inside the marker,' some say: 'Since there is no purpose in everyone coming, it is said, “by those who have gone inside the marker,” and that is said by way of propriety.' Regarding 'Even non-arrival is allowable,' it is written: 'Because the boundary is not established, it is not called a group.' It is said: 'When standing in another village-field at the time of announcing the markers, and at the time of designating the boundary for common residence, there is no purpose in coming.' Regarding 'or a drum signal,' it is written: 'Having said, “Let us make the conclusion of the designation.”' Therefore, at such a time, that is allowable; thus it is established. What is the purpose of this? For the sake of ease: for the sake of making it easy with fewer bhikkhus, without the exertion of gathering a large assembly. Some say it is said 'first' in order to show that if an obstacle arises during the establishment of a great boundary, there is a comfortable abiding even with just that much of a partial boundary. 'Less than that is not allowable'—how is this known? Because the supreme limit of a formal act of the Sangha is that which is to be performed by a group of twenty. If one takes twenty-one bhikkhus together with one who is worthy of the act, it is allowable. That much of a measure should be known by way of comfortable sitting. Some say that if other bhikkhus also, having announced that very marker, should establish the boundary, it is allowable.

‘‘Evaṃ [Pg.454] baddhāsu pana…pe… sīmantarikā hi gāmakhettaṃ bhajatī’’ti na āvāsavasena sāmaggīparicchedo, kintu sīmāvasenevāti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Nimittupagapāsāṇe ṭhapetvā’’ti sañcārimanimittassa tapparato vuttaṃ. Ito paṭṭhāya gaṇṭhipadakkamo hoti – na sakkhissantīti te avippavāsaṃ asallakkhetvā ‘‘samānasaṃvāsakameva samūhanissāmā’’ti vāyāmantā samūhanituṃ na sakkhissanti. ‘‘Ekaratanappamāṇā’’ti suviññeyyantarā hotīti katvā vuttaṃ. Ekaṅgulamattampi vaṭṭateva. Khaṇḍasīmato paṭṭhāya bandhanaṃ āciṇṇaṃ. Āciṇṇakaraṇena vigatasammoho hotīti. Kuṭigeheti kuṭighare bhūmighare. Udukkhalaṃvāti bhūmiudukkhalaṃ viya khuddakāvāṭaṃ. ‘‘Pamukhe’’ti bhūmikuṭiṃ sandhāya vuttanti eke. Heṭṭhā na otaratīti bhittito oraṃ nimittāni ṭhapetvā kittitattā heṭṭhā ākāse na otarati, upari kate pāsādeti attho. Bhittilaggeti bhittinissitake. Ime kira bhittilaggāpi ‘‘ekābaddhā’’ti na vuccanti. Sabbo pāsādo sīmaṭṭho hotīti ekābaddho vā hotu, mā vā. Tālamūlakapabbato nāma anupubbena tanuko. Ākāsapabbhāranti aparikkhepapabbhāraṃ. Susirapāsāṇo nāma leṇaṃ hoti. Antoleṇanti pabbatassa antoleṇaṃ. Dvāraṃ pana sandhāya parato ‘‘orato’’ti vuttaṃ, sabbathāpi sīmato bahileṇena otaratīti adhippāyo.

“Thus bound... the intermediate space between boundaries indeed belongs to the village-field”—this is stated to show that the definition of unity is not by means of the residence, but only by means of the boundary. “Having placed stones that have gone to the marker…” This was said with reference to the measure of a movable marker. From here onwards, the sequence of glosses begins. They, without perceiving non-separation, though striving by saying, “We will remove only those of shared residence,” will not be able to remove it. “Of the measure of one cubit” is stated because the interval is easily distinguishable. Even a finger's breadth is sufficient. Binding from a fragmented boundary onwards is the traditional practice. By following the traditional practice, one becomes free from confusion. “Kuṭigeha” means a hut-house or an earthen house. “Like a mortar” refers to a small opening like an earthen mortar in the ground. “At the front” is said by some with reference to an earthen hut. “It does not descend below”: because the markers are placed and proclaimed inside from the wall, it does not descend into the space below; the meaning refers to a building made above. “Attached to the wall” means those relying on the wall. These, it is said, even if attached to the wall, are not called “single-bound.” The entire building is situated within the boundary, whether it is single-bound or not. A “Tālamūlakapabbata” is one that is gradually tapering. An “Ākāsapabbhāra” is a slope without an enclosure. A “Susirapāsāṇa” is a cave. “Antoleṇa” means a cave inside the mountain. With reference to the door, however, “inside” is said of what is beyond it; the intention is that in any case, it descends by way of the cave that is outside the boundary.

Mahāsīmaṃ sodhetvāti sīmaṭṭhaṃ dūragatampi sīmagataṃ sīmasambandhaṃva, tasmā taṃ anāmasitvā ṭhātabbanti adhippāyo. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘tannissitakaṃ apanetvā kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vattabbaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyampi ‘‘sīmaṃ sodhetvā kātabba’’nti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Mahātherāpi ‘‘sodhetabba’’micceva vadantīti eke. ‘‘Mahāsīmaṃ sodhetvā vā kammaṃ kātabba’’nti ca pāṭho atthi. ‘‘Vuttanayenevā’’ti ca parato vakkhati, tasmā sādhāraṇapāṭhova sundaroti eke. Purimanayepīti khaṇḍasīmāya uṭṭhahitvā mahāsīmāya onatepīti attho. Ukkhipāpetvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Kasmā? Anto ṭhitattā. Rukkhassa heṭṭhā pathavigataṃ mūlaṃ khaṇḍasīmāva hoti, abbohārikaṃ vāti apare. ‘‘Majjhe pana chinne mahāsīmāya ṭhitamūlaṃ mahāsīmameva bhajati, khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhitaṃ khaṇḍasīmameva bhajati tadāyattapathavirasādīhi anuggahitattā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sīmāya pacchā uṭṭhitarukkhe nisīditvā kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati [Pg.455] pacchāsīmāyaṃ katagehe viyā’’ti vatvā ‘‘bandhanakāle ṭhitarukkhe nisīditvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati uparisīmāya agamanato’’ti kāraṇaṃ vadanti. Evaṃ sati bandhanakāle puna ārohaṇaṃ nāma natthi, bandhitakāle eva āruhatīti āpajjati. Pacchā uṭṭhitarukkho pana tappaṭibaddhattā sīmasaṅkhyameva gato, evaṃ pubbe uṭṭhitarukkhopīti gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Yaṃ kiñcipī’’ti vacanato tiṇādipi saṅgahitaṃ. Mahātherāpi tiṇaṃ sodhetvāva karontīti.

Regarding 'Having cleared the great sīmā': that which stands in the sīmā, even if it has gone far, is considered as being within the sīmā, as it is indeed connected with the sīmā. Therefore, one should stand without touching it—this is the intended meaning. If so, it should be said, “After removing what depends on it, the act may be performed.” In the Great Commentary, only this much is said: “The boundary should be cleaned before performing the act.” Some say that the great elders also simply say, “It should be cleaned.” There is also a reading: “Or the act should be performed after cleaning the great boundary.” And later it will be said, “In the manner already stated,” so some hold that the common reading is preferable. “In the previous way as well” means even after rising up from a fragmented boundary and entering into the great boundary. It is not permissible to perform the act after having caused it to be lifted up. Why? Because it stands inside. The roots of a tree that have gone into the earth beneath belong to the fragmented boundary, or they are not formally designated, according to others. “But if the middle is cut, the roots standing within the great boundary belong to the great boundary, and those standing within the fragmented boundary belong to the fragmented boundary, because they are supported by the earth’s nutrients and so forth dependent on that,” it is said. “One may perform the act while sitting on a tree that has grown up after the boundary, like in a dwelling made in the sīmā afterwards,” they say, and give the reason: “But one may not perform the act while sitting on a tree that was standing at the time of establishing the boundary, because it does not go to the upper boundary.” If this is so, then at the time of establishing the boundary there is no such thing as “growing up again”; it would follow that it only grows up at the time of being established. A tree that grows up afterward, however, is counted as part of the boundary because it is connected to it. Similarly, it should be understood that a tree that grew up beforehand is also counted as part of the boundary. Because of the statement “Whatever it may be,” even grass and the like are included. The great elders also perform the act only after clearing away the grass.

140. Yasmā majjhato koṇaṃ hoti, tasmā ‘‘koṇato koṇa’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Āpattiñca āpajjati acittakattā’’ti vadanti. Pārayatīti ajjhottharati. Kā sā? Sīmā. ‘‘Yā sabbantimena…pe… vahatī’’ti tato heṭṭhimā nāvāsaṅkhyaṃ na gacchatīti katvā vuttanti eke, taṃ na yuttaṃ dutiyapārājike nāvaṭṭhabhaṇḍādhikāre tassāpi adhippetattā. Majjhimapurisassa bhārappamāṇena vuttanti eke. Bhikkhunīnampi nadīpārasīmāsambhavato tāsaṃ ‘‘ekā vā nadīpāraṃ gaccheyyā’’ti vuttadosapariharaṇatthanti ācariyassa takko. Ubhayatthāpi dhuva-saddo gahito. Tena uposathantarāya pariharaṇatthaṃ uposathadivaso niyamatova vutto. Ettha ca nāvā nāma pamāṇayuttā sabbasādhāraṇā thambhanāvā adhippetā, na kullanāvāti no takkoti ācariyo. Rukkhaṃ chinditvā katoti attho. Sace ekaṃ gāmakhettaṃ, sabbanimittānaṃ anto ṭhite bhikkhū hatthapāsagate katvā sammannitabbā. Nānāgāmakhettaṃ ce, anāgamanampi vaṭṭati. Ubhayatīre nimittakittanamattena dīpako saṅgahito na hoti, tasmā dīpake nimittāni kittetabbāneva. ‘‘Nadiyā heṭṭhā nisinnabhikkhu kammaṃ kopeti. Upariyeva hi nadī hotī’’ti vadanti.

140. Because it is a corner from the middle, it is said, 'from corner to corner.' They say, 'He incurs an offense due to it being unintentional.' 'Pārayati' means to cover over. What is that? Some say that it was said because a boat smaller than that which 'carries... etc.' does not count as a boat, but that is not correct, because in the section concerning goods left on a boat in the second Pārājika, that too is intended. Some say it is stated according to the burden-carrying capacity of an average man. Regarding nuns, since a river-crossing boundary is possible for them, the teacher's reasoning is that the statement 'one may go to the far side of the river' is made to avoid that fault. In both cases, the word 'dhuva' (permanent) is taken. Therefore, to prevent an obstacle to the Uposatha, the Uposatha day is stated as a fixed rule. Here, a 'boat' is intended to be a properly sized, common, anchored boat—not a raft; this is the teacher's reasoning. The meaning is that it is made by cutting down a tree. If it is a single village-field, the agreement should be made by having the monks standing within all the landmarks come within arm’s reach. If there are multiple village-fields, not coming is also permissible. An island is not included merely by announcing landmarks on both banks, so landmarks must be announced on the island itself. They say, 'A monk sitting downstream invalidates the formal act, for the river is indeed upstream'.

Sīmānujānanakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The explanation of the discourse on the permission of boundaries is concluded.

Uposathāgārādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Uposatha Hall and So Forth

141. ‘‘Yaṃ saṅgho ākaṅkhati vihāraṃ vā…pe… guhaṃ vā’’ti vacanato na kevalaṃ pathaviyaṃyeva, vihārādīnaṃ uparipi sīmā anuññātā hoti uposathakammapadhānattāti siddhaṃ. Tappadhānā sīmāti kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? Tadadhikārānuññātattā, sammutiyaṃ ‘‘samānasaṃvāsā’’ti ettāvatā [Pg.456] siddhe visuṃ ‘‘ekūposathā’’ti vacanato ca. ‘‘Uposathaṃ ṭhapetvā sesakammāni samānasaṃvāsā nāmā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Ekaṃ samūhanitvā’’ti pāḷipāṭho.

141. From the statement, “Whatever the Saṅgha desires, whether a monastery… or a cave,” it is established that a boundary is permitted not only on the ground but also above monasteries and so forth, because the Uposatha ceremony is primary. If it is asked how it is known that the boundary has that as its primary purpose, it is because it was permitted in that context, and because—while it is established by just this much in the agreement: “of common communion”—there is the separate statement, “of one Uposatha.” It is written: “Setting aside the Uposatha, the remaining ceremonies are called ‘of common communion’.” There is the Pāḷi reading: “ekaṃ samūhanitvā.”

142. Katovassāti ekasīmāya samagge sandhāya vuttaṃ. Aññathā nānāsīmāyaṃ ṭhitānaṃ savanaṃ pamāṇaṃ, ekasīmāyapi hatthapāsaṃ muñcitvā ṭhitānaṃ vā savanameva pamāṇanti aniṭṭhaṃ āpajjati. Tattha sammatāya vā asammatāya vāti uposathāgārasammutiyā, na sīmāsammutiyā. Kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Adhikārato, parato chandadānapaññattito, pārisuddhidānapaññattito ca. Tattha purimaṃ kāraṇaṃ purimaṃ aniṭṭhaṃ nivāreti, pacchimaṃ pacchimanti veditabbaṃ. Uposathamukhanti uposathaṭṭhānaṃ. ‘‘Uposathamukhassāti uposathāgāraṭṭhānassā’’ti likhitaṃ. Yāni kānici nimittāni kittetuṃ vaṭṭetīti idaṃ kathaṃ paññāyatīti? ‘‘Paṭhamaṃ nimittā kittetabbā nimitte kittetvā’’ti ettakameva vuttattā. Paṭhamaṃ vuttattā na vuccantīti ce? Taṃ pana akāraṇaṃ, na hi buddhānaṃ desanāya ālasiyaṃ atthi. Sīmāsamūhananakāle uposathāgāraṃ samūhanitvāva sīmāsamūhananaṃ ijjhatīti eke. Taṃ ayuttaṃ abaddhāya sīmāya uposathāgārasammutisiddhitoti no takkoti ācariyo. Uposathamukhanti uposathāgārassa mukhanti ācariyā. Uposathamukhassa nimittakittanā sīmāya vuttanayena kātabbā. Ekenāpi kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti eke. ‘‘Pāsādo vā hotu, maṇḍapādīsu vā aññataro. Kammavācāya pana ‘uposathamukha’micceva vattabba’’nti vadanti. ‘‘Porāṇako āvāso nāma mūlāvāso’’ti likhitaṃ. Vadati ghaṭamattā iti hi lakkhaṇaṃ.

142. ‘Katovassā’ was said with reference to the united Saṅgha within a single boundary. Otherwise, for those standing in separate boundaries, the measure is hearing; even within a single boundary, if they stand beyond arm’s reach, the measure is still hearing—this leads to an undesirable consequence. Here, ‘sammatāya vā asammatāya vā’ pertains to the agreement on the Uposatha hall, not the boundary agreement. How is this understood? From the context, from the subsequent ruling on giving consent, and from the ruling on giving purity. In this regard, it should be understood that the first reason prevents the first undesirable outcome, and the latter prevents the latter. ‘Uposathamukha’ means the place of the Uposatha. It is written, ‘“Uposathamukhassa” means the location of the Uposatha hall.’ How is it understood that ‘it is proper to declare whatever landmarks’? Because only this much is stated: ‘First, the landmarks should be declared; after declaring the landmarks.’ If it is said, ‘Because it was stated first, they are not mentioned,’ that is not a valid reason, for there is no laziness in the teachings of the Buddhas. Some say that at the time of dissolving a boundary, the boundary dissolution is accomplished only after dissolving the Uposatha hall. That is incorrect, for the agreement on the Uposatha hall is established even for an unconsecrated boundary; this is the teacher's reasoning. ‘Uposathamukha’ means the entrance of the Uposatha hall—so the teachers say. The declaration of landmarks for the Uposatha entrance should be done in the manner stated for the boundary. Some say it is proper for even one person to declare it. They say, “Whether it is a mansion or any other structure like a pavilion, in the formal act, the term ‘uposathamukha’ must be used.” It is written, “The ancient dwelling is called the root dwelling.” The characteristic is that it speaks of a mere pot.

Avippavāsasīmānujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Permitting the Non-Separation Boundary

143-4. ‘‘Manamhi vūḷho’’ti vā pāṭho. Tattha manamhi vūḷhoti manaṃ vūḷho amhīti attho. Ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcāti antaragharasaṅkhātaṃ gāmañca gāmūpacārañca ṭhapetvā. Keci ‘‘parikkhittaṃ gāmaṃ sandhāya ‘gāma’nti vuttaṃ, aparikkhittaṃ sandhāya ‘gāmūpacāra’’nti vadanti, taṃ pana aṭṭhakathāya virujjhati. Tasmā nivesanaracchādayo sandhāya gāmaṃ, parikkhepārahaṭṭhānāni sandhāya ‘‘gāmūpacāra’’nti ca vuttaṃ. Ettha pana anekadhā paṭhanti. Kiṃ tena, pāḷiñca [Pg.457] aṭṭhakathañca suṭṭhu upaparikkhitvā yathā samenti, tathā gahetabbaṃ. Bhikkhūnaṃ purimakammavācā na vaṭṭatīti gāmagāmūpacāre antokatvā samānasaṃvāsakasīmāya sammatāya upari avippavāsasīmāsammutiyaṃ yujjati. Yattha pana kevalaṃ araññaṃyeva sammataṃ, tattha kathaṃ na vaṭṭatīti. Tattha ‘‘ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcā’’ti vacanaṃ na sātthakanti ce? Vuccate – evametaṃ, kintu anussāvanahānippasaṅgato taṃ vacanaṃ vattabbamevāti imināva adhippāyena ‘‘purimakammavācā na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ siyā. Ekasmiṃ vā atthe kammavācādvayaābhāvatoti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Na hi te aññamaññassa kamme gaṇapūrakā hontī’’ti vuttattā ubhinnaṃ nānāsaṃvāsakasaṅghānampi ayameva vidhi āpajjeyyāti ce? Nāpajjati paṭiggahasannidhīnaṃ anuññātattā, omasanādipaccayā avisesato, kammapaṭippassaddhimattāpekkhatāya ca. Tassāti bhikkhunisaṅghassa. Na kammavācaṃ vaggaṃ karontīti kammaṃ na kopentīti attho. Etthāti ṭhapetvā gāmanti ettha. ‘‘Yadi bhikkhūnaṃ avippavāsasīmā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca na otarati, atha kasmā gāme sīmābandhanakāle avippavāsaṃ sammannantīti ce? Āciṇṇakappena, na tato aññaṃ kañci atthaṃ apekkhitvā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Atthato hi sā bahiddhāpi abaddhā eva hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Antaragāme baddhā samānasaṃvāsasīmā yasmā gāmasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati, tasmāti eke. Sopi sīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchatīti avippavāsasīmāsaṅkhyaṃ gacchatīti attho. Idaṃ panettha vicāretabbaṃ – gāmaṃ antokatvā baddhāya sīmāya puna avippavāsasammutiyaṃ araññapadese ṭhatvā avippavāsakammavācā kātabbā, udāhu gāme ṭhatvāti? Gāme ṭhatvā katāyapi kappiyabhūmiyā pharatīti. Bahisīme ṭhitasammatadosānulomattā akappiyabhūmiyaṃ ṭhatvā na kātabbāti no takko, esa nayo samūhananepīti ācariyo. Khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā avippavāsasīmātiādīsu mahāsīmā kira ‘‘avippavāsasīmā’’ti vuttā.

143-4. Or, the reading is: 'with mind carried away.' There, 'with mind carried away' means 'I am one whose mind is carried away.' 'Excluding the village and the village precincts' means excluding the village, which is designated as the inner house, and the village precincts. Some say that 'village' is said with reference to an enclosed village, and 'village precincts' with reference to an unenclosed one, but that contradicts the commentary. Therefore, 'village' is said with reference to dwellings, roads, and so on, and 'village precincts' is said with reference to places suitable for enclosure. Here, however, they recite in many ways. What of that? Having carefully examined the Pāḷi and the commentary, it should be accepted in such a way that they are in agreement. 'The monks' prior formal act is not valid' is applicable in the case of the agreement of a non-separation boundary on top of a common-residence boundary that has been agreed upon including the village and village precincts. But where only the forest is agreed upon, how is it not valid? If one should say: There, the statement 'excluding the village and the village precincts' is not meaningful? It is said: This is so, but because of the possibility of a defect in the announcement, that statement must indeed be said. It may be that 'the prior formal act is not valid' was said with just this intention. Or, it was said because of the absence of two formal acts in one matter. If one should say: Since it is said, 'For they do not complete the quorum for each other's act,' would this very same method apply also to two Saṅghas of different communion? It does not apply, because of the allowance of acceptance and presence, because of the non-difference of conditions such as touching, and because of the dependence only on the pacification of the act. 'Of her' means of the Saṅgha of nuns. 'They do not make the formal act incomplete' means they do not corrupt the act. 'Here' means here in 'excluding the village.' It is written: 'If the non-separation boundary of the monks does not extend over the village and the village precincts, then why do they agree upon a non-separation boundary at the time of binding the boundary in the village? By established custom, not with regard to any other purpose than that.' It is said: 'For in meaning, it is indeed unbound even outside.' Some say that because a common-residence boundary bound within a village does not attain the designation of 'village,' it therefore attains only the designation of a boundary. This means it goes into the category of a non-separation boundary. This should be investigated here: In the case of a boundary bound including a village, during the subsequent agreement of non-separation, should the formal act of non-separation be performed standing in a forest region, or standing in the village? Even when done standing in the village, it pervades the suitable ground. It is our reasoning that it should not be done standing on unsuitable ground, because of its conformity with the fault of an agreement made while standing outside the boundary. This is the method also in removal, says the teacher. In cases such as 'a non-separation boundary standing in a partial boundary,' the great boundary, it is said, is called the 'non-separation boundary.'

146. ‘‘Yassāyasmato khamati etissā sīmāya samānasaṃvāsāya ekūposathāya samugghāto, so tuṇhassā’’ti andhakapotthake, sīhaḷapotthakesu ca kesuci pāṭho atthi. Kesuci ‘‘samugghāto etissā sīmāyā’’ti paṭhamaṃ likhanti, kesuci ‘‘etissā sīmāya samugghāto’’ti ca.

146. ‘If it is agreeable to the venerable one that there be an abolition of this boundary for common dwelling and a single Uposatha, let him remain silent.’ There is a reading in the Andhakapotthaka and in some Sīhaḷapotthakas. Some write first, “the abolition of this boundary,” and some also write, “of this boundary, the abolition.”

Gāmasīmādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discussion on Village Boundaries and So Forth

147. Sā [Pg.458] cāti sā paricchinditvā dinnagāmasīmā ca itarā ca. Sā katamāti ce? ‘‘Pakatigāmā’’tiādimāha. Baddhasīmāsadisāyeva hontīti sā ca hoti itarā ca hotīti adhippāyo, tasmāyeva ‘‘ticīvaravippavāsaparihāraṃ labhatī’’ti ekavacanaṃ kataṃ, taṃ na yuttaṃ ubhinnampi gāmattāti eke. ‘‘Honti, na labhantī’’ti ca bahuvacanampi karontīti. ‘‘Sā ca itarā cā’’ti vuttā ‘‘majjhe bhinditvā dinnagāmasīmā pakatigāmādayo abhinnā’’ti ca vadanti. ‘‘Bhikkhuvasatī’’ti pāṭho, ‘‘vasantī’’ti ca likhitaṃ. ‘‘Athassa ṭhitokāsato’’ti vuttattā ekavacanameva yuttaṃ. Sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmāti kataraṃ sīmaṃ paṭikkhipati? Baddhasīmaṃ, ekādasavipattisīmaññatarappasaṅgatoti ācariyā. Sace paṭhamaṃ sīmāya baddhāya pacchā nadiādayo honti, paṭikkhepoti pasaṅgo āpajjati, tasmā abaddhasīmameva paṭikkhipati. Yathā sabbo gāmo gāmasīmā, tathā sabbā nadī asīmā. Kintu tassa tassa bhikkhuno udakukkhepasīmāti sīmānānattaṃ dassetīti no takkoti ācariyo. Yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepāti pana ekissā nadiyā catuvaggādīnaṃ saṅghānaṃ visuṃ catuvaggakaraṇīyādikammakaraṇakāle sīmāparicchedadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Ticīvarena vippavāsāvippavāsaparicchedadassanatthampi sattabbhantarasīmāya paricchedadassanaṃ viyāti ācariyā, tasmā udakukkhepaparicchedābhāvepi antonadiyaṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ.

147. “And that” refers to the village-sīmā given by demarcation and the other. If it is asked, “Which is that?”, he says, “The natural village,” and so on. They are indeed like a consecrated sīmā; this is the meaning: both that one and the other are. Therefore, the singular form “obtains the exemption from separation from the three robes” was used. Some say that this is not suitable, because both are villages. They also use the plural form: “they are, they do not obtain.” Regarding the statement, “that one and the other,” some also say, “The village-sīmā given by dividing in the middle, and the natural villages and so on, are undivided.” The reading is “a bhikkhu resides,” and it is also written as “they reside.” Because it is said, “Then, from his standing place,” only the singular form is suitable. “All rivers, O bhikkhus, are not a sīmā”—which sīmā does this reject? The teachers say it rejects a consecrated sīmā, because of the consequence of it being one among the eleven defective sīmās. If, after a sīmā has first been consecrated, rivers and so on later come to be, the consequence of rejection would arise. Therefore, it rejects only an unconsecrated sīmā. Just as every village is a village-sīmā, so every river is not a sīmā. However, it is our reasoning, says the teacher, that it shows a diversity of sīmās, such that for each individual bhikkhu there is a water-splash sīmā. The statement, “the water-splash all around of a man of medium build,” is said concerning a single river to show the demarcation of the sīmā at the time when separate groups of four bhikkhus, etc., are performing acts to be done by a quorum of four, and so on. The teachers say that this is also for the purpose of showing the demarcation of separation and non-separation from the three robes, just like the showing of the demarcation of a seven-abbhantara sīmā. Therefore, it is established that even in the absence of a demarcation by water-splash, it is allowable to perform a formal act within a river.

Ayaṃ pana viseso – tattha nāvāgato ce, nāvāyaṃ vuttanayena. Satthagato ce, satthe vuttanayena. So ce atirekacātumāsaniviṭṭho, gāme vuttanayena ticīvarāvippavāso veditabbo. Tatthāpi ayaṃ viseso – sace sattho udakukkhepassa anto hoti, udakukkhepasīmāpamāṇanti 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. ‘‘Aṭhapetumpi vaṭṭati evā’’ti vuttaṃ. Gacchantiyā panāti ettha ‘‘udakukkhepamanatikkamitvā parivattamānāya kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Aññissā sīmāya ñattītiādi kiṃ sīmato kammavipattibhayā vuttaṃ[Pg.459], udāhu parisatoti? Ekakammassa nānāsīmāya asambhavato sīmatoti. Ekakammassa nānāsīmaṭṭhasaṅghena asambhavato parisatotipi eke. ‘‘Savanaṃ hāpetī’’ti vuttadosappasaṅgatoti no takko. Ekissā hi sīmāya ekaṃ kammaṃ aniṭṭhapento hāpetīti ācariyo.

This, however, is the distinction: if one has gone by boat, the non-separation from the three robes is to be understood in the manner spoken of for a boat. If one has gone with a caravan, it is to be understood in the manner spoken of for a caravan. If that caravan has been established for more than four months, the non-separation from the three robes is to be understood in the manner spoken of for a village. Therein also, this is the distinction: if the caravan is within a water-throw, some say the water-throw boundary is the measure. The teachers say the caravan itself is the measure. In the phrase beginning with "If there are many monks here," because of the desire to speak of some performing the Uposatha by determination, some by a group, and some by the Saṅgha, it is said "monks" without saying "many Saṅghas." Here, regarding "However, a lesser distance is not permissible," the Elder Upatissa says this is "because of the possibility of the overlapping of boundaries." Indeed, those establishing it should not establish a lesser one. It is said, "It is not permissible even not to establish it." Here, regarding "But while it is going," it is written: "It is permissible to perform the act while turning around, without having crossed the water-throw." Regarding the passage beginning with "The motion in another boundary," was this said out of fear of a procedural failure due to the boundary, or was it due to the assembly? It was said "due to the boundary" because of the impossibility of a single formal act in different boundaries. Some say it was said "also due to the assembly" because of the impossibility of a single formal act with a Saṅgha situated in different boundaries. The reasoning that it is because of the consequence of the fault spoken of as "he omits the recitation" is not correct. For the teacher says: One who does not bring a single formal act to completion within a single boundary omits it.

Bahinaditīre jātarukkhassa antonadiyaṃ paviṭṭhasākhāya vāti ettha ca naditīre khāṇukaṃ koṭṭetvāti ettha ca sace pana setu vā setupādā vā bahitīre patiṭṭhitāti ettha ca sīmāsodhanaṃ nāma gāmasīmaṭṭhe hatthapāsānayanaṃ. Khaṇḍasīmāya uṭṭhitarukkhato viyojetvā kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Kasmā? Tīraṭṭhe rukkhe baddhanāvāya gāmo ādhāroti. ‘‘Ubhatobhāgena gāmasīmaṃ phusitvā ṭhitasetu khaṇḍasīmāmahāsīmāyo phusitvā ṭhitarukkhena upametabbo’’ti ca likhitaṃ. Tattha purimanaye tāva idaṃ vicāretabbaṃ – tādise ṭhāne katakammaṃ kiṃ nadiyaṃ katasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, udāhu gāmasīmāyaṃ, atha ubhayatthāti? Kiñcettha taṃ ce nadiyaṃ katasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, udakukkhepasīmāva sodhetabbā, na itarā. Atha gāmasīmāyaṃ katasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, udakukkhepasīmā na sodhetabbā. Yadi ubhayattha katasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, dvīsu sīmāsu ekakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti aniṭṭhappasaṅgo āpajjati. Tato ‘‘aññissā sīmāya ñatti, aññissā anussāvanā hotī’’ti idañca ‘‘khaṇḍasīmāmahāsīmaṭṭhānaṃ kāyasāmaggiyā kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti idañcāniṭṭhaṃ āpajjatīti? Ettha vuccate – yathāvuttaṃ kammaṃ ubhayattha katasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati, na ca yathāvuttaṃ aniṭṭhaṃ āpajjati. Kasmā? ‘‘Ñattianussāvanānaṃ ekekasīmāyaṃ pavattattā, kārakabhikkhūnaṃ vā ekekasīmāyaṃ ṭhitattā’’ti vadanti. Ubhayatthāpi ṭhātuṃ sakkuṇeyyatāya pana taṃ akāraṇaṃ. Ekībhāvaṃ upagatasīmaṭṭhāne katattāti idaṃ acalakāraṇaṃ. Ekībhāvaṃ upagatāsu hi dvīsu nadīgāmasīmāsu kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti ca. Sattabbhantarasīmāyaṃ ce nadī hoti, samuddo vā, jātassaro vā. Tesu ṭhitabhikkhu sattabbhantarasīmāyaṃ ṭhitasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati. Tattha ce nadiādilakkhaṇaṃ appatto dīpako, pāsāṇo, rukkho vā hoti, sattabbhantarasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Manussehi vaḷañjanaṭṭhānaṃ ce taṃ hoti, gāmakhettasaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Kataragāmakhettaṃ? Yato manussā sañcaranti, sabbe ce sañcaranti, visuṃ gāmakhettasaṅkhyaṃ gacchatīti ca ācariyā.

In cases such as a branch of a tree grown on the outer riverbank that has entered into the river, or a post driven on the riverbank, or a bridge or bridge-posts established on the outer bank, what is called 'purification of the boundary' is the bringing of the monks standing in the village boundary into hand's reach. In the case of a separate boundary, it is proper to perform the act after disjoining it from a tree that has grown there. Why? Because the village is the support for a boat tied to a tree standing on the bank. And it is written: 'A bridge standing touching the village boundary on both sides should be compared with a tree standing touching the separate and great boundaries.' There, in the former method, this should first be investigated: In such a place, does an act performed count as done in the river, or in the village boundary, or else in both? And what is the consequence here? If that act counts as done in the river, only the water-throw boundary should be purified, not the other. If it counts as done in the village boundary, the water-throw boundary should not be purified. If it counts as done in both, an undesirable consequence arises, namely that it would be proper to perform one act in two boundaries. From that, does this undesirable consequence arise, namely, 'the motion is in one boundary, and the proclamation is in another'; and does this undesirable consequence arise, namely, 'for those in the separate and great boundaries, it is proper to perform an act with bodily unity'? Here, the reply is given: The aforesaid act counts as done in both, and the aforesaid undesirable consequence does not arise. Why? They say it is 'because the motion and proclamations occur in each respective boundary, or because the officiating monks stand in each respective boundary.' But because it is possible to stand in both places, that is not a reason. 'Because it is performed in a boundary-place that has reached a state of unity'—this is the unshakeable reason. For it is proper to perform an act in the two boundaries, the river-boundary and the village-boundary, that have reached a state of unity. If there is a river, or an ocean, or a natural lake within a seven-abbhantara boundary, a monk standing in them does not count as standing within the seven-abbhantara boundary. If there, there is an island, a rock, or a tree that does not have the characteristics of a river, etc., it counts as within the seven-abbhantara. If that is a place used by people, it counts as a village-field. Which village-field? The one from which people travel. If all travel from there, it counts as a separate village-field, thus say the teachers.

Pacchimanaye [Pg.460] sace setu nadīlakkhaṇaṭṭhānaṃ aphusitvā ṭhito, gāmasīmāsaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Tattha eko ce gāmo, taṃ sodhetvā, dvīsu tīresu sace dve, dvepi gāme sodhetvā kammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Evañhi kataṃ ubhayatra kataṃ hoti. Iminā nayena dvīsu nadīsu, jātassaresu ca ekakammapasiddhi veditabbā. Ayaṃ pana nayo khaṇḍasīmāmahāsīmānampi labbhateva. Sace setu nadīlakkhaṇaṭṭhānaṃ phusitvā ṭhito, udakukkhepasīmāpi sodhetabbā.

In the latter method, if a bridge stands without touching the place with the characteristics of a river, it is counted as a village boundary. There, if there is one village, after purifying it, and if there are two villages on the two banks, after purifying both villages, the act should be performed. For an act thus performed is performed in both places. By this method, the validity of a single act in two rivers and in natural lakes should be known. This method, moreover, is indeed applicable to separate and great boundaries. If the bridge stands touching the place with the characteristics of a river, the water-throw boundary must also be purified.

Sīmānameva cekattaṃ, vehāsaṭṭhaṃ vinā gato;

Viditvā ekakammassa, sīmato idamādise.

Indeed, there is a oneness of the boundaries, excluding the one established in the sky. Having understood this for a single act, one should declare this from the boundary.

Ekasīmaṃ dvisīmaṃ vā, tisīmaṃ catusīmakaṃ;

Ekakammaṃ siyā tassa, kopo parisato siyāti.

Whether it concerns one boundary, two boundaries, three, or four boundaries, it would be a single act. There might be agitation from the assembly on account of it.

Ayaṃ panettha viseso – nadiyaṃ karontānaṃ udakukkhepato bahi rukkhādisambandho appamāṇaṃ. Gāme karontānaṃ nadiyaṃ sambandharukkhassa udakukkhepato bahi ṭhitabhikkhu appamāṇaṃ, tato oraṃ pamāṇaṃ. Baddhasīmāya sambandharukkhassa baddhasīmāya ṭhitabhikkhu pamāṇanti veditabbaṃ, teneva vuttaṃ ‘‘sīmaṃ sodhetvā kammaṃ kātabba’’nti. ‘‘Sace pana setu vā setupādā vā bahitīre patiṭṭhitā kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanampi pārohādīsu viya sakalasīmāsodhanameva kātabbanti sādheti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Ativuṭṭhikāle panāti ettha ativuṭṭhi nāma yathā cātumāsikāyāti veditabbā, tasmā catumāsaṃ ativuṭṭhiyeva sace hoti, sabbopi oghena otthaṭokāso nadī eva. Atha ekissāpi ativuṭṭhiyā ogho catumāsaṃ tiṭṭhati, sandati vā, bahitīre patiṭṭhitaoghena otthaṭokāso sabbopi nadī eva. Nadiṃ ottharitvā sandanaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāyāti tameva vā nadiṃ aññaṃ vā apubbaṃ vā padesaṃ attano pavattavasena nadilakkhaṇappattaṃ ottharitvā sandanaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya vaṭṭati. Gāmanigamasīmaṃ ottharitvāti catumāsappavattiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Agamanapatheti tadahu gatapaccāgataṃ kātuṃ asakkuṇeyyake’’ti likhitaṃ. Yaṃ pana andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Kasmā? Nadiyampi taṃdosappasaṅgato. Tipusakādīti ettha ādi-saddena kamaluppalādīnipi saṅgahaṃ gacchanti[Pg.461]. Sabbopi ajātassaro hoti, gāmasīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchatīti yehi kataṃ, tesaṃ gāmasīmāsaṅkhyaṃ vā, samantato tīraṭṭhagāmehi ce kataṃ, sabbagāmasaṅkhyaṃ vā, aññehi gāmakhettehi asambandhaṭṭhānaṃ ce, visuṃgāmasīmāsaṅkhyaṃ vā gacchatīti attho.

Herein is the distinction: For those performing the act in a river, a connection to trees and so forth outside the water-casting boundary is not a factor. For those performing the act in a village, a monk standing outside the water-casting boundary of a tree connected to the river is not a factor; within that, he is a factor. It should be understood that for a tree connected to a fixed boundary, a monk standing within the fixed boundary is a factor. Therefore, it is said, “The act should be performed after purifying the boundary.” The statement, “If, however, a bridge or bridge foundations are established on the far bank, it is not permissible to perform the act,” also establishes that, as in the case of river-bank growths and so forth, the entire boundary must be purified; this should be investigated. Regarding 'at the time of excessive rain': here, 'excessive rain' should be understood as that which causes water to stand for four months. Therefore, if there is indeed excessive rain for four months, the entire area covered by the flood is the river itself. Furthermore, if a flood from even a single excessive rain stands for four months, or flows, the entire area on the far bank covered by the established flood is the river itself. Regarding 'having overflowed the river, from the place of flowing': it is permissible from the place where it overflows and flows, whether it be that same river, or another, or an unprecedented area that, by its own flowing, has attained the characteristics of a river. 'Having overflowed the village or town boundary' is said with reference to a four-month flow. Regarding 'an impassable path': it is written, '[this means] a place where one is unable to go and return on that same day.' However, what is stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā should not be accepted. Why? Because the same fault would apply to a river as well. Regarding 'Tipusaka, etc.': here, by the word 'etc.', lotuses, water lilies, and so forth are also included. All of this is a natural lake. It is counted only as a village boundary. For those by whom it was established, it is counted as their village boundary; or, if it was established by the villages situated on the bank all around, it is counted as the boundary of all villages; or, if it is a place unconnected with other village-fields, it is counted as a separate village boundary. This is the meaning.

148. Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti iminā āsannattaṃ dīpeti, tena padesasambhindanā idha sambhedoti dīpeti. So pana vaḍḍhanto sīmāsaṅkaraṃ karotīti baddhasīmaṭṭhānappavesanavasena ‘‘ekadesabaddhasīmā’’ti vattabbato saṅkaradoso hoti. Na, bhikkhave, sīmāya sīmā sambhinditabbāti ettha ‘‘paṭhamaṃ baddhasīmāya pacchā attanā bandhitabbasīmā na sambhinditabbā’’ti eke adhippāyaṃ saṃvaṇṇayanti. Paṭhamaṃ sammatasīmāyaṃ sambhedābhāvato svādhippāyo ajjhottharaṇena yujjati, tasmā pacchā bandhitabbasīmāya paṭhamaṃ baddhasīmā na sambhinditabbā. Sakalaṃ vā ekadesato vā nimittānaṃ antokaraṇena paṭhamaṃ baddhasīmāya sīmantarike akittetvā sammannanato hi sambhindati nāma, paresaṃ baddhasīmaṃ sakalaṃ vā ekadesato vā nimittānaṃ antokaraṇena ajjhottharati nāma, tenevāha ‘‘sīmaṃ sammannantena sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvā’’tiādi. Tassattho – paṭhamaṃ baddhasīmāya sīmantarikaṃ pacchā bandhitabbasīmāya nimittabhūtaṃ ṭhapetvā pacchā sīmaṃ sammannitunti. Imā dvepi vipattiyo bhikkhubhikkhunīsīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ na sambhavanti. So pana vaḍḍhanto sīmāsaṅkaraṃ karotīti ettha kevalaṃ sīmāsaṅkarameva karoti. Tasmiṃ katakammāni na kuppantīti keci, taṃ nayuttaṃ sākhāpārohachedanasīmāsodhanānaṃ vuttattā. Idaṃ sabbaṃ suṭṭhu vicāretvā garukule payirupāsitvā gahetabbayuttakaṃ gahetabbaṃ, itaraṃ chaḍḍetabbaṃ.

148. “Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā” (intermingled branches) indicates proximity; by this, it indicates that the intermingling of a region is here called “sambheda” (overlap). However, if it expands and causes boundary confusion, then because it is called “ekadesabaddhasīmā” (partially fixed boundary) by way of entering a fixed boundary area, the fault of confusion arises. In “Monks, a boundary should not overlap another boundary,” some explain the meaning as: “A boundary that is to be fixed later by oneself should not overlap a boundary fixed earlier.” Since there is no overlap in a boundary agreed upon first, that interpretation is consistent with encroachment. Therefore, a boundary fixed earlier should not be overlapped by a boundary to be fixed later. For it is called “overlapping” when, by including the markers of a boundary fixed earlier, either entirely or partially, one establishes a boundary without designating a boundary interval. It is called “encroaching” when one includes the markers of another’s fixed boundary, either entirely or partially. Therefore, he said, “When establishing a boundary, one should leave a boundary interval,” and so forth. Its meaning is: one should establish the later boundary after having set aside the boundary interval of the boundary fixed first, which serves as a marker for the boundary to be fixed later. These two faults do not occur mutually between the boundaries of monks and nuns. However, regarding 'if it expands and causes boundary confusion': it only creates boundary confusion. Some say that acts performed within it are not invalidated, but that is not proper, because the cutting of branches and offshoots and the purification of the boundary have been stated. All this should be carefully considered, and after attending upon one's teachers, what is proper to be accepted should be accepted, and the rest should be discarded.

Uposathabhedādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Division of the Uposatha and so forth

149. ‘‘Dveme, bhikkhave, uposathā’’ti tadā sāmaggīuposathassa ananuññātattā vuttaṃ. Sāmaggīuposathassa pubbakicce ‘‘ajjuposatho sāmaggī’’ti vattabbaṃ, na ca kammavācāya bhagavatā payogo dassito, pāḷinayato aṭṭhakathācariyehi uddisitabbakkamo dassito. Tathā pañcannaṃ pātimokkhuddesānaṃ uddesakkamo siddhoti veditabbaṃ. Tayo vā dve vā pātimokkhaṃ uddisanti, adhammena samaggaṃ nāma hotīti ettha kāmaṃ [Pg.462] saṅghassa sāmaggī nāma hoti vaggakathāya yathākammaṃ sāmaggīvavatthānato. Tathāpi vaggapaṭipakkhabhāvena samaggaṃ, samaggapaṭipakkhabhāvena ca vaggaṃ nāma kataṃ. Āveṇikato vā gaṇakammādisambhavato, tassa ca samaggavaggabhāvasambhavato vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Dhammena vagganti ettha pārisuddhikaraṇaṃ dhammikaṃ, saṅghasseva chandāgamanaṃ, na gaṇassāti katvā vaggaṃ nāma hoti. ‘‘Ekavāraṃ kataṃ sukataṃ, āpattiṃ pana āpajjati, puna kātuṃ na labhantī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Pañcasu ekassa chandaṃ āharitvā catūhi pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ, chandahārake bhikkhūnaṃ santikaṃ patte tena saṅgho pahoti, tasmā chando saṅghappatto hotīti katvā vuttaṃ.

149. “These two, bhikkhus, are Uposathas”—this was said at a time when the communal Uposatha had not been permitted. For the preliminary duty of the communal Uposatha, it should be announced, “Today is the communal Uposatha,” but the procedure for the formal motion was not shown by the Blessed One; the order to be recited was indicated by the commentary teachers according to the Pāli method. Similarly, it should be understood that the order for the five Pātimokkha recitations is established. In the case of 'Whether three or two recite the Pātimokkha, it is called “united by unrighteousness”': indeed, it is called unity of the Sangha, since in the matter of a faction, unity is established according to the formal act. Nevertheless, by being the opposite of division, it is called united, and by being the opposite of unity, it is called divided. Or, it should be understood that this was said because of the separate possibility of group-acts and so on, and because of the possibility of that act being one of unity or division. In the case of 'divided by Dhamma': the act of purification is righteous; the giving of consent belongs only to the Sangha, not to a group, and for this reason, it is called divided. Some say: “Done once, it is well done. But one incurs an offense; they are not able to do it again.” Others say: “Among five, having brought the consent of one, it is permissible for four to recite the Pātimokkha.” That is proper, for when the consent-bringer has arrived in the presence of the bhikkhus, with him the Sangha is sufficient. Therefore, it is said that the consent has reached the Sangha.

Pātimokkhuddesakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Recitation of the Pātimokkha

150. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho…pe… āvikatā hissa phāsu hoti, tatthāyasmante pucchāmi…pe… tasmā tuṇhī. Evametaṃ dhārayāmī’ti vatvā ‘uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidāna’ntiādinā nayena avasese sutena sāvite uddiṭṭho hotī’’ti vuttattā ‘‘evametaṃ dhārayāmīti sutā kho panāyasmantehī’’ti ettha ‘‘dhārayāmī’’ti vatvā ‘‘uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidāna’’nti vacanaṃ saṃkhittanti gahetabbaṃ, teneva khuddakapeyyālavasena likhitaṃ. Evaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyampi ‘‘āvikatā hissa phāsu hoti, tatthāyasmante’’ti etthāpi ‘‘uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidāna’’nti vacanaṃ saṃkhittanti gahetabbanti eke. Keci ‘‘avivadamānehi sikkhitabba’nti vutte nidānuddeso niṭṭhito nāma hoti, tasmā anāvikaronto āpattiṃ āpajjatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ. Kasmā? ‘‘Nidānaṃ uddisitvā’’ti niṭṭhānavacanena hi nidānassa niṭṭhitabhāvo vutto, nidānāvasāne ca āpatti vuttāti. ‘‘Sarabhaññaṃ nāma sarena bhaṇana’’nti likhitaṃ. Sajjhāyaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvāti ‘‘sajjhāyaṃ karomī’’ti cittaṃ uppādetvā. ‘‘Āpucchāmīti vuttamattena kathetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Taṃ tuṇhībhāve yujjati. ‘‘Athāpi lābhādinā abhibhūto vāreti, taṃ na pamāṇa’’nti vadanti. Eseva nayoti kathento yadi vicchindati, puna āpucchitabbanti.

150. In the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, because it is said: 'Having stated, «Let the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, listen to me… for it is comfortable for him to declare it openly. Therefore, I ask the venerable ones… therefore, be silent. I remember it thus,» it is considered recited when the remainder has been announced by hearing, in the manner beginning with, «Venerable sirs, the introduction has been recited.»' Therefore, in the phrase, «I remember it thus. Venerable sirs, you have indeed heard...,» it should be understood that after saying «I remember it,» the statement «Venerable sirs, the introduction has been recited» is abbreviated; for that reason, it is written in the form of a minor abbreviation. Thus, some hold that also in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, in the phrase «for it is comfortable for him to declare it openly. Therefore, I ask the venerable ones,» the statement «Venerable sirs, the introduction has been recited» is abbreviated. Some say: 'When it is said, «One should train without disputing,» the recitation of the introduction is considered finished. Therefore, a monk who does not make it manifest commits an offense.' That is not correct. Why? Because by the concluding words, «Having recited the introduction,» the completion of the introduction is stated, and an offense is mentioned at the end of the introduction. It is written: 'Sarabhañña is reciting with intonation.' 'Having determined on recitation' means having aroused the thought, 'I will do the recitation.' They say: 'It is allowable to speak merely by having said, «I ask leave.»' That is appropriate in the case of silence. They say: 'If, being overcome by gain and so forth, he should prevent it, that is not a valid measure.' This is the method: if one interrupts while speaking, one should ask leave again.

Adhammakammapaṭikkosanādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Rejection of Unrighteous Actions and So Forth

154. ‘‘Tesaṃ [Pg.463] anupaddavatthāyā’’ti saṅgho saṅghassa kammaṃ na karoti, aññopi upaddavo bahūnaṃ hoti, tasmā vuttaṃ.

154. 'For their non-affliction': the Saṅgha does not perform an act of the Saṅgha, and another affliction also arises for many; therefore, it is said.

Pātimokkhuddesakaajjhesanādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Request for the Pātimokkha Reciter and So Forth

155. ‘‘Therādhikaṃ pātimokkha’’nti vatvāpi pacchā avisesena ‘‘yo tattha byatto paṭibalo, tassādheyya’’nti vuttattā ‘‘bhante’’ti vacanaṃ therassāpi atthīti siddhaṃ hoti. ‘‘Gacchāvuso saṃkhittena vā vitthārena vā’’ti vacanato asatipi antarāye thāmaṃ pamāṇanti siddhaṃ hoti.

155. Even though it was said, 'The Pātimokkha is under the authority of the senior monk,' because it was later stated without distinction, 'Whoever there is who is skilled and able, to him it should be entrusted,' it is established that the saying 'Venerable sir' is also for a senior monk. Because of the statement, 'Go, friend, either in brief or in detail,' it is established that even when there is no obstacle, strength is the measure.

Disaṃgamikādivatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of Those Going to Other Regions and so forth

163. ‘‘Sacassa saddhiṃcarā bhikkhuupaṭṭhākā atthī’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Utuvasseti utusaṃvacchare hemantagimhesū’’ti likhitaṃ.

163. There is the reading: 'If he has companion monks and monk-attendants.' It is written: 'Regarding the word utuvassa, it means in the seasonal year, in winter and summer.'

Pārisuddhidānakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Giving of Purity

164. Pārisuddhiṃ dammīti ‘‘sāpattiko therānaṃ deti, sampajānamusāvāde dukkaṭaṃ sambhavatī’’ti ācariyena likhitaṃ. Kiṃ nu kho kāraṇaṃ? Sampajānamusāvādena dukkaṭāpatti nāma kevalaṃ bhagavatā vuttattā akiriyasamuṭṭhānā hotīti. ‘‘Pārisuddhiṃ dammī’’ti ettha pana kiriyā paññāyati, tasmā sampajānamusāvāde pācittiyaṃ viya dissati, suṭṭhu upaparikkhitabbaṃ. Mahantā hi te ācariyā nāma. Tattha ‘‘dammī’’ti attano uposathakammanibbattinimittaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Harā’’ti ca ‘‘ārocehī’’ti ca hārakassa anārocanapaccayā dukkaṭamocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Eseva nayo chandadānepi. Tattha ‘‘dammī’’ti attano cittasāmaggidīpanavacanaṃ, sesaṃ vuttanayameva, evaṃ upatissatthero vaṇṇeti. Atha vā paṭhamaṃ samaggabhāvaṃ sandhāya, dutiyaṃ pacchā vidhātabbabhāvaṃ, tatiyaṃ chandahārakassa dukkaṭamocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Ubhayatthāpi ‘‘saṅghappatto pakkamatī’’tiādivacanato saṅghe samagge eva chandapārisuddhidānaṃ ruhati, nāsamaggeti siddhaṃ. ‘‘Saṅghappatto ukkhittako paṭijānāti, āhaṭā hoti pārisuddhī’’tiādivacanato ukkhittakādīnampi chandapārisuddhidānaṃ ruhatīti siddhaṃ, tañca kho [Pg.464] pakatattasaññāya, no aññathāti takko. Jānitvā sāmaṇerassa dinne na yāti, āpatti ca, ajānitvā dinne yāti ca, anāpattīti eke. Biḷālasaṅkhalikā nāma pārisuddhīti ettha saṅkhalikā nāma anantarena sambajjhati, aññena ca saṅkhalikenāti kevalaṃ saṅkhalikā pārisuddhi nāma hotīti upatissatthero. Evaṃ sante visesanaṃ niratthakaṃ hoti. Biḷālasaṅkhalikā baddhāva hoti antogehe eva sampayojanattā. Yathā sā na katthaci gacchati, tathā sāpi na katthaci gacchatīti kira adhippāyo.

164. Regarding 'I give purity,' it is written by the teacher: 'A monk who has an offense gives it to the elders; due to intentional false speech, a `dukkaṭa` offense should arise.' What, then, is the reason? It is because the `dukkaṭa` offense for intentional false speech arises from non-action, solely because it was stated by the Blessed One. But here, in the phrase 'I give purity,' action is apparent; therefore, in the case of intentional false speech, it appears like a `pācittiya` offense and should be thoroughly examined. For those teachers are indeed great. There, 'I give' is spoken for the purpose of completing one's own Uposatha ceremony. And 'Take' and 'Announce' are said for the purpose of releasing the bearer from a `dukkaṭa` offense due to not announcing. This same method applies also in the giving of consent. There, 'I give' is a statement indicating one's own unity of mind; the rest is by the method already stated. Thus the Elder Upatissa explains. Alternatively, the first part refers to the state of harmony, the second to what is to be arranged afterwards, and the third is said for the purpose of releasing the consent-bearer from a `dukkaṭa` offense. In both cases, from the statement 'having reached the Sangha, he departs,' etc., it is established that the giving of consent and purity is valid only when the Sangha is in harmony, not when it is not. From the statement, 'Having reached the Sangha, a suspended monk acknowledges, "the purity has been brought,"' etc., it is established that the giving of consent and purity is valid even for suspended monks and others. And that is so only with the perception of being a monk in good standing, not otherwise—this is the reasoning. Some say that if it is knowingly given to a novice, it is not conveyed and there is an offense; if unknowingly given, it is conveyed and there is no offense. Regarding 'cat's-chain purity,' the Elder Upatissa says that a 'chain' is connected to the adjacent one and to another chain, and so it is simply called a 'chain-purity.' If this is so, the qualifier becomes meaningless. A cat's chain is always bound only within the house because of its being attached there. The intended meaning, it seems, is that just as that chain does not go anywhere, so too this purity does not go anywhere.

Chandadānādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Giving of Consent and so forth

165-7. ‘‘Chandaṃ datvā khaṇḍasīmaṃ vā sīmantarikaṃ vā bahisīmaṃ vā gantvā āgato bhikkhu kammaṃ na kopeti, tasmā gamikabhikkhūnaṃ chandaṃ gaṇhitvā khaṇḍasīmaṃ bandhitvā puna vihārasīmaṃ bandhituṃ tesaṃ chandaṃ na gaṇhantī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Muhuttaṃ ekamantaṃ hothā’’tiādivacanato yaṃ kiñci bhikkhukammaṃ gahaṭṭhādīsu hatthapāsagatesu na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Nissīmanti bahisīmaṃ. Tassa sammutidānakiccaṃ natthīti tasmiṃ satipi vaṭṭatīti attho. Āsanena saha udakanti attho. Pannarasopīti api-saddo cātuddasiṃ sampiṇḍeti, tena vuttaṃ mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘yadi no eta’’nti. ‘‘Ajja me uposatho pannaraso’’ti adhiṭṭhānaṃ sadā na kiñci, na aññathāti eke.

165-7. 'A monk who, having given consent, goes to a split boundary, or an intermediate boundary, or an outer boundary and returns does not invalidate the formal act. Therefore,' they say, 'after taking the consent of the monks residing in the village and establishing a split boundary, they do not take their consent again to establish the monastery boundary.' From the Pāḷi text beginning with, 'Be aside for a moment,' it is established that any formal act of the monks is not allowable when householders and so on are within arm's reach. `Nissīmaṃ` means an outer boundary. Regarding the statement, 'There is no duty of giving formal consent for it,' the meaning is that it is allowable even if that mad monk is present. The meaning is: water together with the seat. In the word `pannarasopi`, the particle `api` includes the fourteenth; therefore, it is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, 'If it is not this...' Some say that the determination, 'Today is my Uposatha, the fifteenth,' is always so, not sometimes, and not otherwise.

Āpattipaṭikammavidhikathādivaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Procedure for Making Amends for Offenses, and so on.

169-170. Paṭidesemīti yāya kāyaci bhāsāya vutte desanā ca paṭiggaho ca hotiyeva diṭṭhāvikammena visuddhiyā vuttattāti keci. Vematikena ‘‘ahaṃ, bhante, ekissā thullaccayāpattiyā vematiko, yadā nibbematiko bhavissāmi, tadā taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissāmī’’ti vattabbaṃ. Evaṃ kate yāva nibbematiko na hoti, tāva sabhāgāpattiṃ paṭiggahetuṃ na labhati, aññesañca kammānaṃ parisuddho nāma hoti. Puna nibbematiko hutvā desetabbaṃ. Na cāti neva pāḷiyaṃ na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ atthi, desite pana doso natthīti. Tathā ito vuṭṭhahitvā taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissāmīti ettha ca sakalasaṅghe sabhāgāpattiṃ [Pg.465] āpanne, vematike ca. Tathā ca ‘‘sabbo saṅgho sabhāgāpattiṃ āpajjitvā yadā suddhaṃ passissatī’’ti, ‘‘tadā tassa santike taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissatī’ti vatvā ‘uposathaṃ kātuṃ labhatī’’ti ca likhitaṃ.

169-170. Some say that regarding the phrase, 'I confess' (Paṭidesemi), when it is spoken in any language whatsoever, both the confession and the acceptance certainly occur, because purification through a formal act done in one's presence has been stated. By a monk who is in doubt, it should be said: 'Venerable sir, I am in doubt about a certain thullaccaya offense. When I become free from doubt, I will then make amends for that offense.' When this is done, as long as he is not free from doubt, he is not permitted to accept a confession of a similar offense, and he is called 'purified' for other formal acts. Again, having become free from doubt, it should be confessed. The phrase 'na ca' is not found in the Pāḷi nor in the Aṭṭhakathā, but there is no fault when it is confessed. Similarly, this applies in the case of the resolution, 'Having risen from this, I will make amends for that offense,' when the entire Saṅgha has incurred a similar offense, and when one is in doubt. And so it is written that, having said, 'When the entire Saṅgha, having incurred a similar offense, sees a pure monk, then in his presence he will make amends for that offense,' he is permitted to perform the Uposatha.

Anāpattipannarasakādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Fifteen Points of Non-Offense, and so on.

172-3. ‘‘Atthaññe’’ti pubbavāre, ‘‘athaññe’’ti pacchāvāre pāṭho. Sīmaṃ okkante vā okkamante vā passanti. Dhammasaññino pana aññāṇena honti. ‘‘Vematikapannarasakaṃ uttānamevā’’ti pāṭho.

172-3. In the earlier section, the reading is 'atthaññe'; in the later section, the reading is 'athaññe'. They see them either having entered or while entering the boundary. But those who perceive it as a valid formal act are so through ignorance. 'The fifteen points concerning doubt are indeed obvious'—this is the reading.

Sīmokkantikapeyyālakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Sīmokkantika Abbreviated Passage.

178. ‘‘Na akāmā dātabbā’’tivacanato icchāya sati dātabbāti siddhaṃ.

178. From the statement, “It should not be given unwillingly,” it is established that it should be given when there is willingness.

Liṅgādidassanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Seeing the Marks, and so on.

180. Nābhivitarantīti ettha laddhinānāsaṃvāsakā kira te. Kammanānāsaṃvāsakañhi diṭṭhiṃ paṭinissajjāpetvā tassa osāraṇakammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Evañhi kate tena saddhiṃ uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Itarena laddhinissajjanamattena kātunti vuttaṃ. Āpattiyā adassane appaṭikamme ukkhittakañca diṭṭhiyā appaṭinissagge ukkhittakañca jānitvā tena saddhiṃ karontassa pācittiyaṃ, tasmā ime ukkhittānuvattakāti veditabbāti eke.

180. Herein (in the phrase 'nābhivitaranti'), they are indeed those of different communion based on doctrine (laddhinānāsaṃvāsakā). Indeed, for one of different communion based on formal acts (kammanānāsaṃvāsaka), after having made him renounce his view, the act of rehabilitation (osāraṇakamma) should be performed. For only when this is done is it allowable to perform the Uposatha with him. With the other one (i.e., the one of different communion based on doctrine), it is said that it is allowable to perform it merely by the renunciation of the view. For one who, knowing a monk has been suspended for not seeing an offense and for not making amends, or a monk has been suspended for not relinquishing a wrong view, performs (the Uposatha) together with him, there is a Pācittiya offense. Therefore, these should be known as followers of the suspended—thus say some.

Nagantabbagantabbavārakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Section of What Should Not Be Gone To and What Should Be Gone To.

181. Na gantabboti kiṃ sandhāya? ‘‘Aññatra saṅghenā’’ti vacanato yasmiṃ vihāre sataṃ bhikkhū viharanti, te sabbe kenacideva karaṇīyena dasa dasa hutvā visuṃ visuṃ nānāudakukkhepasīmādīsu ṭhatvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ labhanti. Navakammasālādikā nānāsīmākoṭi uposathādhiṭṭhānatthaṃ sīmāpi nadīpi na gantabbā. Garukaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ vissajjitvā lahukassa akattabbattā ‘‘aññatra saṅghenā’’ti vacanaṃ sādheti. Tattha ‘‘yasmiṃ āvāse [Pg.466] uposathakārakā …pe… akatvā na gantabbo’’ti vacanato vissaṭṭhauposathāpi āvāsā gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. ‘‘Tato pārisuddhiuposathakaraṇatthaṃ vissaṭṭhauposathā gantuṃ vaṭṭati, khaṇḍasīmaṃ vā pavisitunti apare vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Iminā neva uposathantarāyoti ‘‘attano uposathantarāyo’’ti likhitaṃ.

181. With reference to what was 'One should not go' said? Because of the statement 'Except for the Sangha,' in whatever monastery a hundred monks reside, if all of them, due to some duty, form groups of ten and, staying in various separate water-throwing boundaries and so on, they may perform the Uposatha. For the purpose of determining the Uposatha, one should not go to a new work hall, etc., nor to various boundary limits, nor to a boundary, nor to a river. Because, having abandoned the weighty recitation of the Pātimokkha, a lesser act should not be performed, this establishes the statement 'Except for the Sangha.' Therein, because of the statement 'In whatever residence the Uposatha-performers... without having performed it, one should not go,' it is established that even a monk whose Uposatha is excused is permitted to go from the residence. It is stated: 'Therefore, for the purpose of performing the Uposatha of purity, it is permissible for a monk whose Uposatha is excused to go, or to enter a broken boundary—thus say other teachers.' Regarding the phrase 'By this, there is no obstacle to the Uposatha,' it is written: 'For oneself, there is no obstacle to the Uposatha.'

Vajjanīyapuggalasandassanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Pointing Out Persons to Be Avoided.

183. ‘‘Antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpannassa nisinnaparisāya kalahādibhayena nāhaṃ karissāmī’’ti cittaṃ uppādetvā nisīdituṃ vaṭṭati. Aññakamme tassa nisinnaparisāya āpatti natthīti eke. ‘‘Na ca, bhikkhave, anuposathe uposatho kātabbo aññatra saṅghasāmaggiyā’’ti (mahāva. 183) vacanato sāmaggīdivaso anuposathadivasoti atthato vuttaṃ viya dissati. ‘‘Dveme, bhikkhave, uposathā’’ti vuttavacanavasenetaṃ vuttaṃ, aññathā parivārapāḷiyā virujjhatīti ācariyā. Cātuddasiyaṃ, pannarasiyaṃ vā ce saṅgho samaggo hoti, ‘‘ajjuposatho sāmaggī’’ti avatvā pakatinīhāreneva kattabbanti dassanatthaṃ yathādesanā katāti no takko. Aññathā yathāvuttadvaye ce sāmaggī hoti, tattha uposathaṃ akatvā anuposathadivase eva sāmaggīuposatho kātabboti āpajjati. Aññathā pubbe paṭisiddhattā idāni paṭisedhanakiccaṃ natthi. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, devasikaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba’’nti (mahāva. 136) pubbe hi vuttaṃ. Atha vā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, uposathe pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu’’nti pubbe vuttattā ‘‘sakiṃ pakkhassa cātuddase vā pannarase vā’’ti ca ‘‘dveme, bhikkhave, uposathā’’ti (mahāva. 149) ca pacchā vuttattā tato aññasmiṃ divase uposatho na kātabboti atthato āpannaṃ aniṭṭhaṃ, sati saṅghasāmaggiyā añño divaso pakativasena anuposathopi uposathadivaso nāma hotīti dassanavasena nivāretumpi evaṃdesanā katāti veditabbā.

183. It is proper for one who has transgressed a final offense to sit down after arousing the thought, 'I will not act due to fear of quarrels and so on in the seated assembly.' Some say there is no offense for him in a seated assembly during another formal act. Because of the Pāḷi which states, 'Monks, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day, except for the harmony of the Saṅgha' (Mahāvagga 183), it appears as if it is said, in terms of meaning, that the day of harmony is a non-Uposatha day. This is stated by the power of the words, 'Monks, there are these two Uposathas.' Otherwise, it contradicts the Parivāra Pāḷi, say the teachers. If the Saṅgha is in harmony on the fourteenth or fifteenth day, it should be performed in the normal manner without saying, 'Today is the harmony Uposatha.' That the teaching was given to show this is our reasoning. Otherwise, if there is harmony on the two aforementioned days, the meaning would follow that the harmony Uposatha should be performed only on a non-Uposatha day, without performing the Uposatha on those days. Alternatively, since it was prohibited before, there is now no need for prohibition. For it was indeed said before, 'Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited daily' (Mahāvagga 136). Or, because it was said before, 'Monks, I allow the recitation of the Pātimokkha on the Uposatha day,' and because it was said later, 'once a fortnight, on the fourteenth or the fifteenth,' and 'Monks, there are these two Uposathas' (Mahāvagga 149), the meaning that follows is that the Uposatha should not be performed on another day, which is an undesirable conclusion. It should be understood that this teaching was given also to prevent this by way of showing that when there is harmony in the Saṅgha, another day, even one that is by nature a non-Uposatha day, becomes what is called an Uposatha day.

Uposathakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Uposatha Chapter is Completed.

3. Vassūpanāyikakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

3. The Commentary on the Chapter on Entering the Rains-residence.

Vassūpanāyikānujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Account of Allowing the Entering of the Rains-residence.

184. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyampi [Pg.467] ‘‘saṅkāsayissantī’’ti pāṭho, dīpavāsino ‘‘saṅkāpayissantī’’ti paṭhanti kira. ‘‘Kati nu kho vassūpanāyikā’’ti cintāyaṃ ‘‘kiṃ nimitta’’nti vutte ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vassaṃ upagantu’’nti yaṃ vassūpagamanaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ ‘‘imaṃ temāsaṃ vassaṃ upemī’’ti vatvā upagantabbaṃ. Vassānamāsā ca cattāro. Tattha paṭhamaṃ temāsaṃ, pacchimaṃ temāsanti duvidhaṃ temāsaṃ. Tenāyaṃ tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cintā ahosi.

184. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā also, the reading is 'saṅkāsayissantī'; the residents of the Island, it is said, recite it as 'saṅkāpayissantī'. Regarding the thought, 'How many enterings upon the Rains are there?', when it was asked, 'What is the reason?', the entering upon the Rains which was spoken of as, 'Bhikkhus, I allow you to enter upon the Rains,' is to be undertaken by saying, 'I enter upon the Rains for this three-month period.' And the months of the Rains are four. Among them, the three-month period is of two kinds: the first three-month period and the last three-month period. For that reason, this thought arose in those bhikkhus.

Vassānecārikāpaṭikkhepādikathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse Concerning the Prohibition of Wandering During the Rains, etc.

185. Anapekkhagamanena vā aññattha aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpanena vā āpatti veditabbāti ettha paṭhamaṃ tāva so sattāhaṃ anāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamati. ‘‘Āgaccheyya vā so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu taṃ āvāsaṃ na vā āgaccheyya, tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca paññāyati, paṭissave ca anāpattī’’ti vacanato oraṃ sandhāya vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Tathā hi ‘‘so tadaheva akaraṇīyo pakkamati, sakaraṇīyo pakkamati, tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca na paññāyati, paṭissave ca āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 207) vuttaṃ.

185. Herein, regarding the statement that 'an offense is to be understood through departing without taking leave or by causing the dawn to arise elsewhere,' firstly, a bhikkhu departs on business when the Pavāraṇā has not yet arrived within seven days. Because it is said, 'Whether that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, returns to that residence or not, for that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the first period of the Rains is established, and in regard to his promise, there is no offense,' it should be understood that this was said in reference to a period of less than seven days. For indeed, it is said: 'He departs on that very day without business... for that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the first period is not established, and in regard to his promise, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.'

Sattāhakaraṇīyānujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse Concerning the Permission for a Seven-Day Task

187-8. Dutiyaṃ pana ‘‘so taṃ sattāhaṃ bahiddhā vītināmeti, tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca na paññāyati, paṭissave ca āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vacanato sattāhato paraṃ veditabbaṃ. Tathā hi ‘‘so taṃ sattāhaṃ anto sannivattaṃ karoti, tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca paññāyati, paṭissave ca anāpattī’’ti (mahāva. 207) vuttaṃ. Satipi kāraṇadvaye vassacchedakāraṇābhāve āpatti veditabbā, tasmā tīṇipi etāni vacanāni yathāsambhavaṃ yojitāni viggahāni honti. Tīṇi parihīnānīti tāsaṃ natthitāya.

Secondly, because of the statement, 'He spends that seven-day period outside; for that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the first period is not established, and in regard to his promise, there is an offense of dukkaṭa,' it should be understood as referring to a time beyond seven days. For indeed, it is said: 'He returns within that seven-day period; for that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the first period is established, and in regard to his promise, there is no offense.' Even when there are two reasons, if there is no reason for breaking the Rains-residence, an offense is to be understood. Therefore, these three statements, applied as is suitable, become analyses. The statement 'The three are deficient' is said because of their (the bhikkhunīs') non-existence.

Pahiteyevaanujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse on Allowing Only When Sent

199. ‘‘Anujānāmi [Pg.468] bhikkhave, saṅghakaraṇīyena gantuṃ, sattāhaṃ sannivatto kātabbo’’ti vacanato antovasse saṃhārikabhāvena gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha dhammachandavasenapi āgate saṅghassa āyamukhaṃ vinassati. Tato ‘‘senāsanāni katvā’’ti ca vuttaṃ. Āgatanti āgamanaṃ. Bhāvettha tapaccayoyaṃ. Saṅghakaraṇīyena gantunti ettha ‘‘senāsanapaṭisaṃyuttesu eva saṅghakaraṇīyesu, na aññesū’’ti dhammasiritthero vadati kira. Aṭṭhakathāyampi taṃ padaṃ uddharitvā ‘‘yaṃ kiñci uposathāgārādīsu senāsanesū’’tiādinā senāsanameva dassitaṃ, tasmā upaparikkhitabbaṃ.

199. Because of the statement, 'Bhikkhus, I allow you to go for Sangha business; a return within seven days must be made,' it is permissible to go during the Rains-residence by reason of having a duty to be undertaken. In that case, even when they come out of zeal for the Dhamma, the Sangha's source of income is destroyed. Therefore, it is also said, 'having prepared the lodgings.' `Āgataṃ` means 'coming'; this is a `ta`-suffix in the sense of an abstract state. Regarding the phrase 'to go for Sangha business,' it is said that the Elder Dhammasiri states, 'It is permissible to go only for Sangha business connected with lodgings, not for others.' In the Commentary also, having extracted that phrase, only lodging is shown by the text beginning with 'whatever lodgings in the Uposatha hall, etc.' Therefore, this should be investigated.

Animantitena gantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti tassa ratticchedo ca dukkaṭāpatti ca hoti, taṃ ‘‘vassacchedo’’ti ca vadanti. Nimantitoyeva nāma hotīti ettha upāsakehi ‘‘imasmiṃ nāma divase dānādīni karoma, sabbe sannipatantū’’ti katāyapi katikāya gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Pavāraṇāya navamito paṭṭhāya paṃsukūlikacīvaraṃ pariyesituṃ kāvīrapaṭṭane viya sabbesaṃ gantuṃ vaṭṭati anusaṃvaccharaṃ niyamato upāsakehi sajjitvā ṭhapanato. Vuttampi cetaṃ andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘bhikkhusaṅghena vā katikā katā ‘samantā bhikkhū gacchantū’ti, ghosanaṃ vā kataṃ upāsakehi, tattha gacchantassa ratticchedo natthīti tathā ‘anusaṃvaccharaṃ āgacchantū’ti sakiṃ nimantitepi vaṭṭatī’’ti ca ‘‘cīvarakālato paṭṭhāya niyamaṃ katvā samantato āgatānaṃ sajjetvā dānato kāvīrapaṭṭane ghosetvā karaṇākāro paññāyatīti apare’’ti ca. Ācariyā pana evaṃ na vadanti.

Regarding the statement that it is not permissible to go uninvited, for such a person there is both an interruption of the residence-period and an offense of wrong-doing; this they also call 'the breaking of the Rains-residence.' Regarding the statement that one is indeed to be considered invited: even when an agreement has been made by lay supporters, saying, 'On such-and-such a day we will make offerings and so on; let all assemble,' it is permissible to go. From the ninth day after the Pavāraṇā, it is permissible for all to go to seek a rag-robe, as in Kāvīrapaṭṭana, because it is annually prepared and set aside by the lay supporters as a regular practice. And this is also stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: 'Or the community of bhikkhus has made an agreement, saying, "Let bhikkhus come from all around," or an announcement has been made by the lay supporters that for one who goes there, there is no interruption of the residence-period. Likewise, it is permissible even if invited only once with the words, "Let them come annually."' And others say: 'From the robe-season onwards, having made it a rule, the manner of doing so is known by announcement in Kāvīrapaṭṭana, because of the giving after preparing for those who have come from all around.' The teachers, however, do not say thus.

Antarāyeanāpattivassacchedakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse of No Offense in Breaking the Rains-Residence Due to an Obstacle

201. ‘‘Sace dūraṃ gato hoti, sattāhavārena aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo’’ti vacanato ‘yasmiṃ antarāye sati vassacchedaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmiṃ antarāyeva vassacchedamakatvā sattāhakaraṇīyena vītināmetuṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpitanti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Vinayadharā pana na icchanti, tasmā ‘‘sattāhavārena aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo’’ti idaṃ tatruppādādinimittaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Taṃ sandhāya ‘‘ācariyā pana evaṃ na vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Gāvuṃ [Pg.469] vāti balibaddhaṃ vā. Bahisīmāya ṭhitānanti tehi khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhitehipīti upatissatthero. Vassacchede assa vassacchedassa. Vihārā aññattha vuṭṭhāpentehi tattheva sannipatitvā ‘‘iminā ca iminā ca kāraṇena imasmiṃ nāma padese imaṃ vihāraṃ netvā vuṭṭhāpemā’’ti anussāvetvāva kātabbanti.

201. Because of the statement, 'If one has gone far, the dawn must be made to arise within the seven-day allowance,' it is said that others explain it thus: 'When there is an obstacle for which it is allowable to break the Rains-residence, it is allowable to pass the time by means of the seven-day leave without breaking the Rains-residence on account of that very obstacle.' The Vinaya experts, however, do not approve of this. Therefore, it should be known that this statement, 'the dawn must be made to arise within the seven-day allowance,' is said concerning a reason such as the arising of requisites there. In reference to that, it is said, 'But the teachers do not speak thus.' `Gāvuṃ vā` means `balibaddaṃ vā` (or an ox). Regarding 'those standing outside the boundary,' the Elder Upatissa says this means 'by those standing even in a broken boundary.' `Vassacchede` refers to `assa vassacchedassa` (of this breaking of the Rains-residence). By those who are causing others to rise from the Rains-residence in a place other than the monastery, it should be done only after having assembled right there and announced: 'For this and that reason, having brought them to this monastery in this so-named place, we will cause them to rise from the Rains-residence.'

Vajādīsuvassūpagamanakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse on Undertaking the Rains-residence in a Cattle-pen and So Forth

203. Vajena saddhiṃ gatassa vassacchede anāpattīti vassacchedo na hotīti kira adhippāyo. Satthassa avihārattā ‘‘imasmiṃ vihāre’’ti avatvā ‘‘idha vassaṃ upemī’’ti ettakaṃ vattabbaṃ. ‘‘Satthe pana vassaṃ upagantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ‘imasmiṃ vihāre imaṃ temāsa’nti vā ‘idha vassaṃ upemī’ti vā na vaṭṭati, ālayakaraṇamatteneva vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo’’ti likhitaṃ. Taṃ pana aṭṭhakathāya virujjhati. ‘‘Idha vassaṃ upemīti tikkhattuṃ vattabba’’nti hi vuttaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāvacanampi pubbāparaṃ virujjhatīti ce? Na, adhippāyājānanato. Sattho duvidho ṭhito, sañcāroti. Tattha ṭhite kuṭikāya ‘‘idha vassaṃ upemī’’ti vatvā vasitabbaṃ. Idañhi sandhāya ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, satthe vassaṃ upagantu’’nti vuttaṃ, sañcārimhi pana satthe kuṭikāya abhāvato vassaṃ upagantuṃ na vaṭṭati. Sati sivikāya vā sakaṭakuṭikāya vā vaṭṭati, tathā vajepi. Tīsu ṭhānesu bhikkhuno natthi vassacchede āpatti.

203. Regarding the statement, 'There is no offense in the breaking of the rains-residence for one who has gone with a cattle-pen,' the intention, it is said, is that the breaking of the rains-residence does not occur. Because a caravan is not a monastery, without saying, 'in this monastery,' just this much, 'I undertake the rains-residence here,' should be said. It is written: 'Regarding, "However, it is not proper to undertake the rains-residence in a caravan," the intention is that it is not proper to undertake it by saying either, "in this monastery for these three months," or, "I undertake the rains-residence here"; it is proper merely by making it a dwelling place.' But that contradicts the commentary. For it is said, '“I undertake the rains-residence here” should be said three times.' If one were to say, 'The statement of the commentary also contradicts what comes before and after,' it is not so; this is due to not knowing the intention. A caravan is of two kinds: stationary and traveling. Therein, in a stationary caravan, one should reside after saying in a hut, 'I undertake the rains-residence here.' Indeed, it was with reference to this that it was said, 'I allow, bhikkhus, to undertake the rains-residence in a caravan.' But in a traveling caravan, due to the absence of a hut, it is not proper to undertake the rains-residence. If there is a palanquin or a cart-hut, it is proper; likewise also in a cattle-pen. In these three situations, there is no offense of breaking the rains-residence for a bhikkhu.

Pavāretuñca labhatīti etthāyaṃ vicāraṇā – ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yena vajo, tena gantu’’nti idaṃ kiṃ vassarakkhaṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ, udāhu vassacchedāpattirakkhaṇatthanti? Kiñcettha yadi vassarakkhaṇatthaṃ, ‘‘na, bhikkhave, asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabba’’nti idaṃ virujjhati. Atha vassacchedāpattirakkhaṇatthaṃ vuttanti siddhaṃ na so pavāretuṃ labhatīti, kā panettha yutti? Yato ayameva tividho pavāretuṃ labhati, netaro. Vāḷehi ubbāḷhādiko hi upagataṭṭhānāpariccāgā labhati. Pariccāgā na labhatīti ayamettha yutti. Yena gāmo, tattha gatopi pavāretuṃ labhatīti ekenāti ācariyo. Yo hi pubbe ‘‘idha vassaṃ upemī’’ti na upagato, ‘‘imasmiṃ vihāre’’ti upagato, so [Pg.470] ca pariccatto. Aññathā vinā vihārena kevalaṃ gāmaṃ sandhāya ‘‘idha vassaṃ upemī’’ti upagantuṃ vaṭṭatīti. Āpajjatūti ce? Na, ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, vaje satthe nāvāya vassaṃ upagantu’’nti vacanaṃ viya ‘‘gāme upagantu’’nti vacanābhāvato. Yasmā ‘‘tīsu ṭhānesu bhikkhuno natthi vassacchede āpattī’’ti vacanaṃ tattha vassūpagamanaṃ atthīti dīpeti tadabhāve chedābhāvā, tasmā ‘‘satthe pana vassaṃ upagantuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti kuṭiyā abhāvakālaṃ sandhāya vuttanti siddhaṃ. Tīsu ṭhānesu bhikkhuno natthi vassacchede āpattīti ‘‘tehi saddhiṃ gacchantasseva natthi, virujjhitvā gamane āpatti ca, pavāretuñca na labhatī’’ti likhitaṃ, tasmā yaṃ vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘atha sattho antovasseyeva bhikkhunā patthitaṭṭhānaṃ patvā atikkamati…pe… antarā ekasmiṃ gāme tiṭṭhati vā vippakirati vā’’tiādi, taṃ ettāvatā virujjhitvā gatānampi virujjhitvā gamanaṃ na hoti, tasmā pavāretabbanti dassanatthanti veditabbaṃ.

Regarding the statement, 'And he is allowed to perform the Pavāraṇā,' this is the investigation: Was this statement, 'Bhikkhus, I allow you to go where the cattle-pen is,' spoken for the sake of protecting the Rains-residence, or for the sake of protecting against the offense of breaking the Rains-residence? And here, if it was said for the sake of protecting the Rains-residence, then this statement, 'Bhikkhus, the Rains-residence should not be undertaken by one without a dwelling,' is contradicted. But if it is established that it was said for the sake of protecting against the offense of breaking the Rains-residence, then he is not allowed to perform the Pavāraṇā. What is the reasoning here? Because only this one of three kinds is allowed to perform the Pavāraṇā, not another. A teacher states that, according to one opinion, 'Even one who has gone to a village is allowed to perform the Pavāraṇā.' For there is the case of one who previously did not undertake the Rains saying, 'I undertake the Rains-residence here,' but undertook it saying, 'in this monastery,' and that monastery was abandoned. Otherwise, it would follow that without a monastery, it is permissible to undertake the Rains merely with reference to a village, saying, 'I undertake the Rains-residence here.' If one should say, 'Let it be so,' the reply is: No, because there is no statement 'to undertake the Rains in a village' like the statement, 'Bhikkhus, I allow you to undertake the Rains-residence in a cattle-pen, in a caravan, or in a boat.' Because the statement, 'In three situations, there is no offense of breaking the Rains-residence for a bhikkhu,' indicates that undertaking the Rains-residence is valid there, for in the absence of that undertaking, there is no breaking. Therefore, it is established that the statement, 'But it is not permissible to undertake the Rains-residence in a caravan,' was said with reference to a time when there is no hut. Regarding, 'In three situations, there is no offense of breaking the Rains-residence for a bhikkhu,' it is written: 'There is no offense only for one who goes together with them; in going after separating from them, there is an offense, and he is not allowed to perform the Pavāraṇā.' Therefore, what was said in the commentary—'Then a caravan, while the bhikkhu is still within the Rains-residence, having reached the desired destination, passes beyond… or on the way stops in a certain village or disperses,' and so on—was said for the purpose of showing that, by this much, even for those who have gone after separating, their going does not constitute a separation that breaks the Rains. Therefore, the Pavāraṇā should be performed. Thus it should be understood.

Tattha ‘‘padaracchadanaṃ kuṭiṃ katvā upagantabba’’nti vacanato senāsanatthāya rukkhaṃ āruhituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ hoti, na pāḷivirodhatoti ce? Na, tappaṭikkhepeneva siddhattā, imassa idha punapi paṭikkhepanato. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabba’’nti iminā paṭikkhepena siddhe ‘‘na, bhikkhave, ajjhokāse vassaṃ upagantabba’’nti paṭikkhepo viya siyāti ce? Na, ajjhokāsassa asenāsanabhāvānumatippasaṅgato. Ajjhokāso hi ‘‘ajjhokāse palālapuñje’’ti vacanato senāsananti siddhaṃ. Catusālaajjhokāse vasantopi ‘‘catusālāya vasatī’’ti vuccati, tasmā tattha vaṭṭatīti āpajjati, tasmā idha asenāsaniko nāma attanā vā parena vā attano nibaddhavāsatthaṃ apāpitasenāsanikoti veditabbaṃ. Aññathā dvinnaṃ paṭikkhepānaṃ aññatarātirekatā ca rukkhamūlepi nibbakosepi vassaṃ upagantuṃ vaṭṭatīti ca, apāpitasenāsanikenāpi gabbhe vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti ca āpajjati, sadvārabandhameva senāsanaṃ idha adhippetanti kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? Nidānato. Ayañhi asenāsanikavassūpagamanāpatti ‘‘tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū asenāsanikā vassaṃ upagacchanti, sītenapi uṇhenapi kilamantī’’ti imasmiṃ nidāne paññattā, tasmā [Pg.471] sītādipaṭikkhepameva idha senāsananti adhippetabbanti siddhaṃ. Evaṃ sante siddhaṃ pubbapakkhanidassananti ce? Na, pubbe aparatthapavattisūcanato. Dutiyajjhānaniddese ‘‘vitakkavicārānaṃ vūpasamā avitakkaṃ avicāra’’nti (dī. ni. 1.228; ma. ni. 1.271) vacanāni nidassanaṃ. Ajjhokāsapaṭikkhepanidānena bahiajjhokāsova paṭikkhitto, na catusālādimajjhagato ajjhokāsoti āpajjati, tasmā na nidānaṃ pamāṇanti ce? Na, niyamato. Kiñci hi sikkhāpadaṃ nidānāpekkhaṃ hotīti sādhitametaṃ. Idaṃ sāpekkhaṃ, idaṃ anapekkhanti kathaṃ paññāyati, na hi ettha ubhatovibhaṅge viya sikkhāpadānaṃ padabhājanaṃ, anāpattivāro vā atthīti? Idhāpi desanāvidhānato paññāyati. ‘‘Deve vassante rukkhamūlampi nibbakosampi upadhāvantī’’ti hi imehi dvīhi nidānavacanehi bahi vā anto vā sabbaṃ ovassakaṭṭhānaṃ idha ajjhokāso nāma. Anovassakaṭṭhānampi anibbakosameva idha icchitabbanti siddhaṃ hoti. Tena na upagantabbanti na ālayakaraṇapaṭikkhepo, ‘‘idha vassaṃ upemī’’ti vacanapaṭikkhepo. Chavasarīraṃ dahitvā chārikāya, aṭṭhikānañca atthāya kuṭikā karīyatīti andhakaṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ. ‘‘Ṭaṅkitamañcoti kasikuṭikāpāsāṇaghara’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Akavāṭabaddhasenāsane attano pāpite sabhāgaṭṭhāne sakavāṭabaddhe vasati ce, vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Payogopi atthi, ‘‘asenāsanikena vassaṃ na upagantabba’’nti pāḷi ca aṭṭhakathā ca, tasmā upaparikkhitabbaṃ.

Here, by the statement, “Having made a hut with a roof of planks, one should undertake the Rains Retreat,” it is established that it is permissible to climb a tree for the purpose of a lodging. If it is said, “This is not established because it contradicts the Pāli,” this is not so, for it is established by that very prohibition, and because of the prohibition for this one here again. If it is said that when it is established by the prohibition, “Monks, one who is without lodging should not undertake the Rains Retreat,” it would be like the prohibition, “Monks, one should not undertake the Rains Retreat in the open air,” this is not so, because it would lead to the implication that the open air is not a lodging. For the open air is established as a lodging by the statement, “in the open air, on a heap of straw.” Even one dwelling in a four-gabled open space is said to be “dwelling in a four-gabled hall”; therefore, it would follow that it is permissible there. Therefore, here, “one without lodging” should be understood as one for whom a lodging has not been secured for one's fixed dwelling, either by oneself or by another. Otherwise, one of the two prohibitions would be redundant, and it would also follow that it would be permissible to undertake the Rains Retreat even at the foot of a tree or in a place where water drips, and that one for whom a lodging has not been secured could dwell in a room. If it is said, “How then is it understood that only a lodging with a door-fastening is intended here?” From the origin story. For this offense of undertaking the Rains Retreat without lodging was laid down in this origin story: “At that time, monks without lodgings undertook the Rains Retreat and suffered from cold and heat.” Therefore, it is established that here, a lodging is intended as a shelter from cold and the like. This being so, if it is said that the presentation of the initial view is established, this is not so, because it indicates what follows later elsewhere. In the description of the second jhāna, the words, “with the subsiding of applied and sustained thought…” (Dīgha Nikāya 1.228; Majjhima Nikāya 1.271) serve as an example. By the origin story of the prohibition against the open air, only the external open air is prohibited, and it would follow that the open air within a four-gabled hall or the like is not prohibited. Therefore, if it is said that the origin story is not the standard, this is not so, because it is definitive. For it is established that some training rules depend on the origin story. How is it discerned whether “This one is dependent” or “This one is not dependent”? For here, unlike in the two Vibhaṅgas, there is no word-analysis of the training rules, nor is there a section on non-offenses. Here too, it is discerned from the method of teaching. For by these two statements from the origin story—“When it rains, they run to the foot of a tree or to a place where water drips”—every place exposed to rain, whether outside or inside, is here called “open air.” It is established that here, a place not exposed to rain is intended to be only a place where water does not drip. Therefore, “one should not undertake” is not a prohibition against making a dwelling, but a prohibition against the statement, “I will undertake the Rains Retreat here.” The Andhakaṭṭhakathā states: “Having burned a corpse, a small building is made for the ashes and for the bones.” It is written: “A ṭaṅkitamañca means a grass hut or a stone house.” It is said: “When a lodging without a door-fastening has been secured for oneself, if one dwells in a shared place that is secured with a door-fastening, it is permissible.” There is also a practical application: “One without a lodging should not undertake the Rains Retreat”—both the Pāli and the commentary state this, so it should be examined.

Adhammikakatikādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Unrighteous Rules, and so forth.

205. Mahāvibhaṅge vuttanti ettha ayaṃ andhakaṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ ūnapannarasavassena sāmaṇerena idha vihāre na vatthabbā, na paṃsukūlaṃ āhiṇḍitabbaṃ, na coḷabhikkhā gahetabbā, na aññavihāre bhuñjitabbaṃ, na aññassa bhikkhussa vā bhikkhuniyā vā santakaṃ bhuñjitabbaṃ, aññamaññaṃ neva ālapeyyāma na sallapeyyāma, na sajjhāyitabbaṃ, mattikāpattena vaṭṭati, na aparipuṇṇaparikkhārassa vāsoti.

205. As for “stated in the Mahāvibhaṅga,” herein this is a saying from the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: A novice under fifteen years of age should not stay in this monastery; should not wander about for rag-robes; should not accept cloth for robes; should not eat in another monastery; should not make use of what belongs to another monk or nun; they should not address one another nor converse with one another; should not recite. An earthen bowl is allowable. There is no dwelling for one with incomplete requisites.

206. Musāvādoti visaṃvādo adhippeto. Keci ‘‘visaṃvādanavasena paṭissuṇitvāti vutta’’nti ca, ‘‘rañño vuttavacanānurūpato musāvādoti gahaṭṭhā gaṇhantīti vutta’’nti ca vadanti.

206. By musāvāda, deception is intended. Some say that it is stated, “Having promised with the intention to deceive,” and also that it is stated, “Householders understand it as musāvāda in accordance with the word spoken by the king.”

207. ‘‘Purimikā [Pg.472] ca na paññāyati. Kasmā? ‘Dutiye vasāmī’ti citte uppanne paṭhamasenāsanaggāho paṭippassambhati. Puna ‘paṭhame eva vasāmī’ti citte uppanne dutiyo paṭippassambhati. Ubhayāvāse vidhānaṃ natthī’’ti likhitaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘paṭhamaṃ gahitaṭṭhāne avasitvā aññasmiṃ vihāre senāsanaṃ gahetvā dvīhatīhaṃ vasati, tato paṭhamaggāho paṭippassambhatīti purimikā ca na paññāyati. Pacchimaggāho na paṭippassambhati. Idañhi divasavasena paṭippassambhanaṃ nāma hoti. Atha pacchimaṃ temāsaṃ aññasmiṃ vasati, purimikā ca na paññāyati, idaṃ senāsanaggāhānaṃ vasena paṭippassambhanaṃ nāmā’’ti vuttaṃ. Ubhopete atthavikappā idha nādhippetā. Yatthāyaṃ paṭissuto, tattha purimikā ca na paññāyati, paṭissave ca āpatti dukkaṭassa. Kattha pana purimikā paññāyatīti? Antarāmagge dvīsu āvāsesu yattha tadaheva pacchimaggāho, tattha paṭhamaṃ gahitaṭṭhāne sattāhakaraṇīyena gacchato na vassacchedo, so tadaheva akaraṇīyo pakkamatītiādimhi ‘‘karaṇīyaṃ nāma sattāhakaraṇīya’’nti likhitaṃ.

207. “And the former is not apparent. Why? When the thought, ‘I will reside in the second,’ arises, the first taking of a lodging is pacified. Again, when the thought, ‘I will reside in the first itself,’ arises, the second is pacified. ‘There is no provision for both residences,’ thus it is written. However, in the ancient textual gloss it is said: ‘Having not resided in the place first taken, and having taken a lodging in another monastery, one resides for two or three days; because of that, the first taking is pacified, and the former is not apparent. The later taking is not pacified. For this is called pacification by way of days. Or, if one resides in another for the latter three-month period, the former is not apparent; this is called pacification by way of the takings of lodgings,’ thus it is stated. Both these alternative meanings are not intended here. Wherein this has been promised, there the former is not apparent, and for the promise, there is an offense of wrong-doing. But where is the former apparent? On the road between two residences, wherein the later taking is on that very day, there is no break in the rains-residence for one going to the first taken place for a seven-day business. In the text beginning, ‘if one departs on that very day without business,’ it is written: ‘Business means a seven-day business.’”

Pāḷimuttakaratticchedavinicchaye ‘‘dhammassavanādī’’ti vuttaṃ. Ādimhi catūsu vāresu nirapekkhapakkamanassādhippetattā ‘‘sattāhakaraṇīyenā’’ti na vuttaṃ tasmiṃ sati nirapekkhagamanābhāvato. Tattha purimā dve vārā vassaṃ anupagatassa vasena vuttā, tasmā upagatassa tadaheva sattāhakaraṇīyena gantvā antosattāhaṃ āgacchato na vassacchedoti siddhaṃ. Pacchimā dve vārā upagatassa nirapekkhagamanavasena vuttā, ‘‘sattāhaṃ anāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamatī’’ti tato bahiddhā sattāhaṃ vītināmentassa vassacchedoti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tattha ‘‘akaraṇīyo pakkamatī’’ti vacanābhāvā vinā ratticchedakāraṇena gantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Pavāretvā pana gantuṃ vaṭṭati pavāraṇāya taṃdivasasannissitattā. Tattha na vā āgaccheyyāti antarāyena. Ācariyo pana ‘‘na puna idhāgacchāmī’ti nirapekkhopi sakaraṇīyova gantuṃ labhatīti dassanatthaṃ akaraṇīyo’ti na vutta’’nti vadati. ‘‘Sīhaḷadīpe kira cūḷapavāraṇā nāma atthi, taṃ pavāraṇaṃ katvā yathāsukhaṃ sakaraṇīyā gacchanti, payogañca dassentī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tattha cha aruṇā antovasse honti[Pg.473], eko bahi, tasmā so temāsaṃ vuttho hotīti apare’’ti ca, ‘‘ācariyo evaṃ na vadatī’’ti ca vuttaṃ. Sabbattha vihāraṃ upetīti attano vassaggena pattagabbhaṃ upetīti porāṇā. Asatiyā pana vassaṃ na upetīti ettha ‘‘imasmiṃ vihāre imaṃ temāsa’’nti avacanena. ‘‘Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaratticchedakāraṇaṃ vinā tirovihāre vasitvā āgacchissāmīti gacchatopi vassaccheda’’nti likhitaṃ.

In the determination of the breaking of the night outside the Pāḷi, it is said, “through hearing the Dhamma, etc.” In the beginning, in the four cases, because a departure without attachment is intended, it is not said, “with a seven-day duty,” since when that is present, there is no departure without attachment. Therein, the first two cases are stated for one who has not entered the Rains-residence; therefore, for one who has entered, who goes on that very day with a seven-day duty and returns within seven days, it is established that there is no breaking of the Rains-residence. The latter two cases are stated for one who has entered, with reference to a departure without attachment; it is said, “he departs with a duty when the Pavāraṇā is less than seven days away,” in order to show that for one who spends seven days outside of that, there is a breaking of the Rains-residence. Therein, because there is no statement, “he departs without a duty,” it is established that it is not proper to go without a reason for breaking the night. However, it is proper to go after having performed the Pavāraṇā, because of its dependence on that day of the Pavāraṇā. Therein, “or he might not return” means due to an obstacle. The teacher, however, says: “In order to show that even one who is without attachment, thinking, ‘I will not come here again,’ is indeed permitted to go with a duty, it was not said, ‘without a duty.’” It is said: “In the island of Sri Lanka, it seems, there is what is called the Lesser Pavāraṇā. Having performed that Pavāraṇā, those with a duty go as they please, and they show the procedure.” And it is said: “Therein, six dawns are within the Rains-residence, one is outside; therefore, he has resided for three months,” say others. And it is said: “The teacher does not speak thus.” In all cases, “he approaches the monastery” means he approaches the cell obtained according to his seniority in the Rains, say the ancients. However, regarding “in the absence of mindfulness, he does not enter the Rains-residence,” this is by not saying, “in this monastery for this three-month period.” It is written: “Even for one who goes intending, ‘I will stay in another monastery and return,’ without a reason for breaking the night as stated in the commentary, there is a breaking of the Rains-residence.”

208. Paṭissuto hoti pacchimikāyāti antarā pabbajitabhikkhunā, chinnavassena vā paṭissuto, aññena pana purimaṃ anupagantvā pacchimikāyaṃ paṭissavo na kātabbo. Ratticchede sabbattha vassacchedoti sanniṭṭhānaṃ katvā vadanti. Keci pana na icchanti. Taṃ sādhetuṃ anekadhā papañcenti. Kiṃ tena.

208. In the phrase, “He is promised for the later rains-residence,” this means having been promised by a monk ordained in the interim, or by one whose rains-residence has been broken. However, for some other reason, without having entered the earlier rains-residence, a promise for the later rains-residence should not be made. When there is a breaking of the night, in all cases, they make the conclusion and say, “It is a breaking of the rains-residence.” But some do not accept this. To prove that, they elaborate in many ways. What is the use of that?

Vassūpanāyikakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Taking up the Rains-residence is finished.

4. Pavāraṇākkhandhakavaṇṇanā

4. Commentary on the Pavāraṇā Chapter

Aphāsukavihārakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse on Uncomfortable Dwellings

210. ‘‘Saṅghaṃ [Pg.474] āvuso pavāremī’’ti vuttattā pacchāpi ‘‘vadatu maṃ saṅgho’’ti vattabbaṃ viya dissati. Ayaṃ panettha adhippāyo – yasmā ahaṃ saṅghaṃ pavāremi, tasmā tattha pariyāpannā therā, majjhimā, navā vā avisesenāyasmanto sabbepi maṃ vadantūti.

210. Because it is said, “Friends, I invite the Saṅgha,” it appears as if “Let the Saṅgha speak to me” should also be said afterwards. This is the intention here: Because I invite the Saṅgha, therefore, let all the venerable ones included therein—whether elders, of middle standing, or new—without distinction, speak to me.

Pavāraṇābhedavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Divisions of Pavāraṇā

212. Dvemā, bhikkhave, pavāraṇāti ettha tādise kicce sati yattha katthaci pavāretuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva mahāvihāre bhikkhū cātuddasiyaṃ pavāretvā pannarasiyaṃ kāyasāmaggiṃ idānipi denti. Cetiyagiri mahādassanatthampi aṭṭhamiyaṃ gacchanti, tampi cātuddasiyaṃ pavāretukāmānaṃyeva hoti. ‘‘Sattāhaṃ anāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamati, anāpattīti vacanato idaṃ āciṇṇa’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘No ce adhiṭṭhaheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti ekassa vuttadukkaṭaṃ, tasseva vuttaṃ pubbakiccañca saṅghagaṇānampi netabbaṃ.

212. In the phrase, “Monks, there are these two Pavāraṇās,” when such a duty exists, it is proper to perform Pavāraṇā in any place whatsoever. For this very reason, even now, the monks at the Mahāvihāra, having performed Pavāraṇā on the fourteenth day, establish bodily concord on the fifteenth day. They also go to Cetiyagiri on the eighth day for the purpose of the great sight. That too is only for those who wish to perform Pavāraṇā on the fourteenth day. It is written: “Because of the saying, ‘If one with business to attend to departs when the Pavāraṇā is seven days away, there is no offense,’ this has become customary.” In the phrase, “If one should not determine, there is an offense of wrong-doing,” the wrong-doing spoken of is for a single individual; and the prior duty spoken of for that same one should also be applied to the Saṅgha and to groups.

Pavāraṇādānānujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse on the Authorization of Giving the Pavāraṇā

213. Tena ca bhikkhunāti pavāraṇādāyakena.

213. “And by that monk” means by the one who gives the Pavāraṇā.

Anāpattipannarasakādikathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse on the Fifteen Grounds for No Offense and Others

‘‘Tassā ca pavāraṇāya ārocitāya saṅghena ca pavārite sabbesaṃ suppavāritaṃ hotīti vacanato kevalaṃ pavāraṇāya pavāraṇādāyakopi pavāritova hotī’’ti vadantīti.

They say: “Because of the statement, ‘When that Pavāraṇā has been announced and the Saṅgha has performed Pavāraṇā, it is well-performed for all,’ merely by the Pavāraṇā, even the one who gives the Pavāraṇā is indeed one who has performed it.”

222. Avuṭṭhitāya parisāyāti pavāretvā pacchā aññamaññaṃ kathentiyā. Ekaccāya vuṭṭhitāyāti ekaccesu yathānisinnesu ekaccesu sakasakaṭṭhānaṃ gatesu. Puna pavāretabbanti punapi sabbehi samāgantvā [Pg.475] pavāretabbaṃ. Āgacchanti samasamā, tesaṃ santike pavāretabbanti ‘‘gate anānetvā nisinnānaṃyeva santike pavāretabbaṃ, uposathakkhandhakepi eseva nayo’’ti likhitaṃ. Sabbāya vuṭṭhitāya parisāya āgacchanti samasamā, tesaṃ santike pavāretabbanti ‘‘yadi sabbe vuṭṭhahitvā gatā, sannipātetuñca na sakkā, ekacce sannipātāpetvā pavāretuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Kasmā? Ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā kattabbasaṅghakammābhāvā vaggaṃ na hoti kira. Ettha pana ekaccesu gatesupi sabbesu gatesupi sabbe sannipātāpetvā ñattiṃ aṭṭhapetvā kevalaṃ pavāretabbaṃ. Ekacce sannipātāpetvā pavāretuṃ na vaṭṭati ‘‘saṅghaṃ, bhante, pavāremī’’ti vacanato. Sabbepi hi sannipatitā pacchā diṭṭhaṃ vā sutaṃ vā parisaṅkitaṃ vā vattāro honti. Anāgatānaṃ atthibhāvaṃ ñatvāpi ekaccānaṃ santike pavāraṇāvacanaṃ viya hoti. Sammukhībhūte cattāro sannipātāpetvā nissaggiyaṃ āpannacīvarādinissajjanaṃ viya pavāraṇā na hoti sabbāyattattā. ‘‘Samaggānaṃ pavāraṇā paññattā’’ti vacanañcettha sādhakaṃ. ‘‘Ito aññathā na vaṭṭati aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ananuññātattā’’ti upatissatthero vadati. ‘‘Thokatarehi tesaṃ santike pavāretabbaṃ ñattiṃ aṭṭhapetvāvā’’ti vuttaṃ. Āgantukā nāma navamito paṭṭhāyāgatā vā vajasatthanāvāsu vutthavassā vā honti.

222. “In an assembly that has not risen” means an assembly conversing with one another after having performed the Pavāraṇā. “In an assembly where some have risen” means while some monks remain seated as they were, others have gone to their respective places. “They should perform the Pavāraṇā again” means that all should gather together again and perform the Pavāraṇā. Regarding “They come together equally, and the Pavāraṇā should be performed in their presence,” it is written: “Without bringing back those who have left, the Pavāraṇā should be performed only in the presence of those who are seated; this is the same principle in the Uposathakkhandhaka as well.” Regarding “If the entire assembly has risen and they come together equally, the Pavāraṇā should be performed in their presence,” they say: “If all have risen and left, and it is not possible to gather them, it is permissible to have some gather and perform the Pavāraṇā.” Why? Because there is no formal act of the Saṅgha to be done by presenting a motion, it is said that an incomplete group does not occur. Here, however, whether some have left or all have left, all should be made to gather, and without presenting a motion, merely the Pavāraṇā should be performed. It is not permissible to have some gather and perform the Pavāraṇā, because of the statement, “Venerable sirs, I invite the Saṅgha.” For, when all are gathered, they are afterwards able to speak of what has been seen, or heard, or suspected. Even knowing of the existence of those who have not come, it would be like the word of Pavāraṇā in the presence of only some. The Pavāraṇā is not like the relinquishment of a robe, etc., that has become subject to forfeiture, which is done by having four monks who are present gather, because it is dependent on all. And the statement, “The Pavāraṇā is prescribed for those in harmony,” is the proof here. The Elder Upatissa says, “Otherwise than this is not permissible, because it is not allowed in the commentary.” It is said: “The Pavāraṇā should be performed in their presence by a smaller number, or without presenting a motion.” “Newcomers” are those who have arrived from the ninth day onwards, or those who have spent the rains-residence in cattle-pens, caravans, or boats.

237. ‘‘Dasavatthukā micchādiṭṭhi hoti tathāgatotiādī’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Natthi dinnantiādī’’ti vuttaṃ.

237. It is written: “The ten-fold wrong view is that which begins with ‘Tathāgata,’ and so on.” It is said: “There is nothing given, and so on.”

239. ‘‘Upaparikkhitvā jānissāmāti tena saha pavāretabba’’nti likhitaṃ.

239. It is written: “Having investigated, we will know”; therefore, one should perform Pavāraṇā with him.

Pavāraṇākkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Pavāraṇā Section is concluded.

5. Cammakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

5. The Commentary on the Leather Section

Soṇakoḷivisavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Story Concerning Soṇa Koḷivisa

242. Asītiyā [Pg.476] …pe… kāretīti ‘‘asīti gāmikasahassāni sannipātāpetvā’’ti imassa kāraṇavacanaṃ. Tattha ‘‘gāmānaṃ asītiyā sahassesū’’ti vattabbe ‘‘asītiyā gāmasahassesū’’ti vuttaṃ. Gāmappamukhā gāmikā, tesaṃ sahassāni. ‘‘Kammacittīkatānī’’ti upacārena vuttaṃ. Kammapaccayautusamuṭṭhāne hi tesaṃ añjanavaṇṇabhāvo. ‘‘Kenacideva karaṇīyenā’’ti vattabbe ‘‘kenacidevā’’ti vuttaṃ. Ettha evaṃ-saddo opamme pavattati. Evamupamānopadesapucchāvadhāraṇapaṭiññātaopamme. Purato pekkhamānānanti anādaratthe sāmivacanaṃ. Tato pana bhagavato gandhakuṭiyā kavāṭaṃ subaddhaṃ passitvā icchitākārakusalatāya iddhiyā gantvā kuṭiṃ pavisitvā ārocesi. Vihārapacchāyāyanti vihārassa vaḍḍhamānacchāyāyaṃ. ‘‘Aho nūnāti aho mahanto’’ti likhitaṃ. Bhagavato sambahulehi saddhiṃ āhiṇḍanaṃ āyasmato soṇassa vīriyārambhanidassanena anāraddhavīriyānaṃ uttejanatthaṃ, evaṃ sukhumālānaṃ pādarakkhaṇatthaṃ upāhanā anuññātāti dassanatthañca.

242. The phrase ‘Asītiyā…pe… kāretī’ is a statement of reason for the text ‘asīti gāmikasahassāni sannipātāpetvā’ (having caused eighty thousand village headmen to assemble). Therein, when it should have been said ‘gāmānaṃ asītiyā sahassesū’ (among eighty thousand villages), it was said ‘asītiyā gāmasahassesū’ (among eighty village-thousands). The village headmen are the village chiefs; their thousands are meant. The phrase ‘Kammacittīkatāni’ (made variegated by kamma) is spoken figuratively. For their color like dark collyrium arises in a place conditioned by kamma and season. When it should have been said ‘kenacideva karaṇīyena’ (for some reason or other), it was said ‘kenacideva’. Here, the word ‘evaṃ’ occurs in the sense of a simile. ‘Evaṃ’ occurs in the senses of simile, instruction, questioning, restriction, agreement, and comparison. The phrase ‘Purato pekkhamānānaṃ’ (of those looking ahead) is a genitive case in the sense of disrespect. Then, seeing the door-leaf of the Blessed One’s fragrant hut well-secured, due to his skill in the desired manner, he went by psychic power, entered the hut, and informed him. ‘Vihārapacchāyāyaṃ’ (in the shade of the monastery) means in the growing shade of the monastery. It is written: ‘Aho nūna’ means ‘aho mahanto’ (oh, great!). The Blessed One’s wandering together with many monks was for the purpose of inciting those who had not undertaken energy by showing the Venerable Soṇa’s undertaking of energy, and also for the purpose of showing that footwear was permitted for protecting the feet of the delicate.

Soṇassapabbajjākathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Story of Soṇa's Going Forth

243. Tattha ca nimittaṃ gaṇhāhīti tesaṃ indriyānaṃ ākāraṃ upalakkhehi.

243. And there, 'take the sign' means to mark the characteristic of their faculties.

244. Adhimutto hotīti paṭivijjhitvā paccakkhaṃ katvā ṭhito hoti. Nekkhammādhimuttotiādīhi nibbānaṃ, arahattañca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tañhi sabbakilesehi nikkhantattā ‘nekkhamma’nti ca gehato pavivittattā ‘paviveko’ti ca byāpajjābhāvato ‘abyāpajja’nti ca arahattaṃ upādānassa khayante uppannattā ‘upādānakkhayo’ti ca taṇhāya khayante uppannattā ‘taṇhakkhayo’ti ca sammohābhāvato ‘asammoho’ti ca vuccatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sabbehi arahattaṃ vuttanti keci. Siyā kho evamassāti kadāci evamassa, assa vā āyasmato evaṃ siyā. Paccāgacchanto jānanto. Karaṇīyamattānanti attano. So eva vā [Pg.477] pāṭho. Nekkhammādhimuttoti imasmiṃyeva arahattaṃ kathitaṃ. Sesesu nibbānanti keci. Asammohādhimuttoti ettheva nibbānaṃ. Sesesu arahattanti keci. ‘‘Sabbesvevetesu ubhayampī’’ti vadanti. Pavivekañca cetaso, adhimuttassa, upādānakkhayassa cāti upayogatthe sāmivacanaṃ. Āyatanānaṃ uppādañca vayañca disvā.

244. “He is resolute” means he stands having penetrated and directly experienced. By “resolute in renunciation” and so on, Nibbāna and Arahantship are spoken of. For it is said: “It is called 'renunciation' because it has departed from all defilements; 'seclusion' because it is secluded from the household; 'non-ill will' because of the absence of malice. And Arahantship is called 'the destruction of clinging' because it arises at the end of the destruction of clinging; 'the destruction of craving' because it arises at the end of the destruction of craving; and 'non-delusion' because of the absence of delusion.” Some say that Arahantship is spoken of by all these terms. “Perhaps it might be so” means sometimes it might be so, or it might be so for that venerable one. “Returning, knowing.” “Karaṇīyamattānaṃ” means “of oneself.” Or that itself is the reading. Some say that in this very term “resolute in renunciation,” Arahantship is spoken of, and in the remaining terms, Nibbāna is spoken of. Some say that right here in “resolute in non-delusion,” Nibbāna is spoken of, and in the remaining terms, Arahantship is spoken of. Others say, “In all these very terms, both are spoken of.” Regarding “pavivekañca cetaso, adhimuttassa, upādānakkhayassa ca,” the genitive case is in the sense of application. “Having seen the arising and passing away of the sense bases.”

Sabbanīlikādipaṭikkhepakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Rejection of All Things Blue, etc.

246. ‘‘Rañjanacoḷakena puñchitvā’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Khallakādīni apanetvā’ti vuttattā dve tīṇi chiddāni katvā vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadantānaṃ vādo na gahetabbo.

246. “Having wiped with a dyed cloth” is a reading. Because it is said, “Having removed the khallaka and other things,” the argument of those who say, “It is allowable to use it after making two or three holes,” should not be accepted.

Yānādipaṭikkhepakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Rejection of Vehicles, etc.

254. ‘‘Caturaṅgulādhikānī’’ti vuttattā caturaṅgulato heṭṭhā vaṭṭatīti eke. Ubhatolohitakūpadhānanti ettha ‘‘kāsāvaṃ pana vaṭṭati, kusumbhādirattameva na vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ.

254. Because it was said, “more than four finger-breadths,” some say it is allowable if it is less than four finger-breadths. In the context of “a pillow red on both sides,” it is written: “But an ochre-colored one is allowable; only that which is dyed with safflower and so on is not allowable.”

Sabbacammapaṭikkhepādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Rejection of All Leather, etc.

255. Kissa tyāyanti kissa te ayaṃ.

255. For the phrase “kissa tyāyanti,” the word division should be made as “kissa te ayaṃ.”

256. Gihivikatanti gihīnaṃ atthāya kataṃ. ‘‘Yattha katthaci nisīdituṃ anujānāmīti attho’’ti likhitaṃ. Kiñcāpi dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘ṭhapetvā tūlikaṃ sabbāneva gonakādīni ratanaparisibbitāni vaṭṭantī’’ti vuttaṃ, atha kho vinayapariyāyaṃ patvā garuke ṭhātabbato idha vuttanayenevettha attho gahetabbo. ‘‘Tattha pana suttantikadesanāya gahaṭṭhādīnampi vasena vuttattā tesaṃ saṅgaṇhanatthaṃ ṭhapetvā ‘tūlikaṃ…pe… vaṭṭantī’ti vuttaṃ viya khāyatīti apare’’ti vuttaṃ.

256. Regarding 'gihivikata': it means made for the benefit of householders. It is written, "It means 'I allow sitting anywhere.'" Although in the commentary to the Dīghanikāya it is said, "Except for a cotton-filled mattress, all items such as gonaka cloths adorned with jewels are permissible," nevertheless, having come to the Vinaya discourse, because it must be established in a weighty matter, the meaning here should be taken only in accordance with the method stated here. It is also said: "However, some say it appears as if it was said there in the Suttanta teaching by way of householders and so on in order to include them, thus: 'Except for a cotton-filled mattress... are permissible.'"

259. Migamātukoti tassa nāmaṃ. Vātamigoti ca tassa nāmaṃ. ‘‘Kāḷasīho kāḷamukho kapī’’ti likhitaṃ. Cammaṃ na vaṭṭatīti yena pariyāyena cammaṃ vaṭṭissati, so parato āvi bhavissati. ‘‘Attano puggalikavasena [Pg.478] parihāro paṭikkhitto’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, kiñci cammaṃ dhāretabba’’nti ettāvatā siddhe ‘‘na, bhikkhave, gocamma’’nti idaṃ parato ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sabbapaccantimesu janapadesu cammāni attharaṇānī’’ti ettha anumatippasaṅgabhayā vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

259. "Migamātuka" is its name. "Vātamiga" is also its name. It is written: "A kāḷasīha is a black-faced monkey." As for the statement "Leather is not allowed," the way in which leather will become allowable will become evident later. It is said: "Use as a personal possession is prohibited." Since it was already established by "No leather whatsoever should be used, bhikkhus," it should be understood that this statement, "No, bhikkhus, cowhide," was said out of fear of implying permission in the later statement, "I allow, bhikkhus, in all border regions, leather coverings."

Cammakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Leather Khandhaka is concluded.

6. Bhesajjakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

6. The Explanation of the Khandhaka on Medicines

Pañcabhesajjādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Five Medicines, etc.

260. ‘‘Yaṃ [Pg.479] bhesajjañceva assā’’ti parato ‘‘tadubhayena bhiyyoso mattāya kissā hontī’’tiādinā virodhadassanato nidānānapekkhaṃ yathālābhavasena vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Yathānidānaṃ kasmā na vuttanti ce? Tadaññāpekkhādhippāyato. Sabbabuddhakālepi hi sappiādīnaṃ sattāhakālikabhāvāpekkhāti 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 bhagavato mūlabhesajjādīni tāni paṭiggahetvā yāvajīvanti kālaparicchedo. Yaṃ pana ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tāni pañca bhesajjāni kāle paṭiggahetvā kāle paribhuñjitu’’nti vacanaṃ, taṃ ‘‘sannidhiṃ katvā aparāparasmiṃ divase kāle eva paribhuñjituṃ anujānāmī’’ti adhippāyato vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Aññathā atisayattābhāvato ‘‘yaṃ bhesajjañceva assā’’tiādi vitakkuppādo na sambhavati. Paṇītabhojanānumatiyā pasiddhattā ābādhānurūpasappāyāpekkhāya vuttānīti ce? Tañca na, bhiyyoso mattāya kisādibhāvāpattidassanato. Yathā ‘‘ucchurasaṃ upādāya phāṇita’’nti vuttaṃ, tathā ‘‘navanītaṃ upādāya sappi’’nti 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 veditabbaṃ. Vuttañhi tattha ‘‘pacitvā sappiṃ katvā paribhuñjitukāmena adhotampi pacituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.622). Tattha sappi pakkāva hoti, nāpakkā. Tathā phāṇitampi. Navanītaṃ apakkameva.

260. It should be known that the statement was made without regard to a specific occasion, but according to what is available, because of the contradiction seen later in the words, 'By both of these, why are they excessively thin beyond measure?' If one asks, 'Why was it not stated according to the specific occasion?' It is because the intention was to consider other factors. For indeed, even in the time of all Buddhas, the nature of ghee and other such items as being allowable for seven days is considered; such is the Blessed One's intention in that statement. For that very reason, it was said, 'It should suffice for nourishment, and coarse food should not be apparent.' Indeed, in the phrase 'having accepted at the proper time, one may consume at the proper time,' no time-limit was specified. Given that the Blessed One's intention was to consider other factors, from where could the time-limit 'for as long as life lasts' possibly be obtained for those root-medicines and so on, once they have been accepted? As for the statement, 'I allow, monks, these five medicines to be accepted at the proper time and consumed at the proper time,' it should be known that this was said with the intention, 'Having stored them, I allow them to be consumed on subsequent days only at the proper time.' Otherwise, due to the absence of any special meaning, the arising of the thought, 'That which would be medicine...' would not be possible. If one were to say, 'They were stated in accordance with what is suitable for an illness, since this is established by the allowance for fine food'? That is not so, because it indicates the possibility of attaining a state of emaciation and so on from an excessive amount. If one were to say: 'Just as it was said, "Molasses, being derived from sugarcane juice," so too, because it should be said, "Ghee, being derived from fresh butter," fresh butter should not be stated separately'? This is not so, because of the intention to show a distinction. Just as sugarcane juice, though its inclusion is accomplished by the mention of molasses, was later permitted separately with the intention of placing it in the category of sugar-water in a general sense, so too, it should be known that fresh butter was permitted separately with the intention of showing a special procedure for it.

Etthāha – navanītaṃ viya ucchurasopi sattāhakālikapāḷiyaṃ eva vattabboti? Na vattabbo. Kasmā? Sattāhakālikapāḷiyaṃ vutte [Pg.480] ucchuraso guḷāpadesena yathā agilānassa phāṇitaṃ paṭisiddhaṃ, tathā ucchurasopīti āpajjati, avutte pana guḷaṃ viya so phāṇitasaṅkhyaṃ na gacchati. Idha avatvā pacchā vacanena guḷodakaṭṭhāneva ṭhapito hoti. Tadatthameva pacchābhattaṃ vaṭṭanakapānakādhikāre vutto, tasmā eva yāmakālikoti ce? Na, aṭṭhakathāvirodhato. Na upādāyatthassa nissayatthattāti ce? Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti – ‘‘ucchurasaṃ upādāya ucchuvikati phāṇitanti veditabbā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623) yadetaṃ nissaggiyaṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ, tattha ‘‘upādāyā’’ti imassa nissāya paccayaṃ katvāti atthoti. Na, parato aparakiriyāya adassanato. Yathā ‘‘cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe cā’’tiādīsu (ma. ni. 1.204, 400; 3.421, 425; saṃ. ni. 2.43) ‘‘paṭiccā’’ti imassa ussukkavacanassa ‘‘uppajjatī’’ti aparakiriyā dissati, na tathā ‘‘ucchurasaṃ upādāyā’’ti ettha aparakiriyā dissatīti. Ayuttametaṃ tattha tadabhāvepi siddhattā. Yathā ‘‘cattāro ca mahābhūtā catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya rūpa’’nti (dha. sa. 584) ettha aparakiriyāya abhāvepi ussukkavacanaṃ siddhaṃ, tathā etthāpi siyāti? Na, tattha pāṭhasesāpekkhattā. Yathā cattāro mahābhūtā upādāya vuttaṃ, pavattakaṃ vā rūpanti imaṃ pāṭhasesaṃ sā pāḷi apekkhati, na tathā idaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ kañci pāṭhaṃ apekkhati. Paripuṇṇavādino hi aṭṭhakathācariyā. Saññākaraṇamattaṃ vā tassa rūpassa. ‘‘Atthi rūpaṃ upādāyā’’tiādīsu (dha. sa. 584) hi saññākaraṇamattaṃ, evamidhāpīti veditabbaṃ. Idha pana ‘‘ucchurasaṃ upādāyā’’ti ucchurasaṃ ādiṃ katvā, tato paṭṭhāyāti attho, tasmā ‘‘ucchurasena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ bhattaṃ agilāno bhikkhu viññāpetvā bhuñjanto paṇītabhojanasikkhāpadena kāretabbo, bhikkhunī pāṭidesaniyenā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ ayuttanti eke. Te visesahetuno abhāvaṃ dassetvā paññāpetabbā.

Here it is said: 'Like fresh butter, should sugarcane juice also be mentioned only in the text on seven-day allowances?' It should not be so stated. Why? If it were mentioned in the text on seven-day allowances, it would follow that, by implication of jaggery, just as molasses is prohibited for a monk who is not ill, so too would sugarcane juice be prohibited. But if it is not mentioned, like jaggery, it does not attain the designation of 'molasses'. Here, not having been mentioned, it is later, by a subsequent statement, placed in the category of jaggery-water. If it is said: 'For that very reason, it is mentioned in the section on allowable drinks after the meal; therefore, it is a yāmakālika item,' the reply is: No, because it contradicts the Commentary. If it is said: 'Is it not because the meaning of 'upādāya' is that of dependence?' What is meant? In this statement from the Nissaggiya Commentary, '“Having taken sugarcane juice as the basis, it should be known as phāṇita, a product of sugarcane,”' the meaning of this word 'upādāya' is 'having made it a condition, a dependence'. The reply is: No, because a subsequent action is not seen afterwards. Just as in 'dependent on the eye and forms,' etc., for this active term 'paṭicca', the subsequent action 'arises' is seen, it is not so here in 'based on sugarcane juice' that a subsequent action is seen. This is unsuitable, because there it is established even in the absence of that. If one were to ask: 'Just as here in “the four great elements, and form derived from the four great elements,” the active term is established even in the absence of a subsequent action, could it be so here as well?' The reply is: No, because there it is dependent on the remainder of the text. Just as that Pāḷi text depends on this remainder of the text—namely, 'form that is spoken of in dependence on the four great elements, or that proceeds from them'—this Commentary statement does not similarly depend on any text. For the Commentary masters are speakers of what is complete. Or, it is merely the making of a name for that form. For in 'There is form derived from…,' etc., it is merely the making of a name; so it should be understood here also. But here, in 'based on sugarcane juice,' the meaning is 'having made sugarcane juice the beginning, starting from that.' Therefore, it is said: 'A monk who is not ill, having requested and while eating food mixed with sugarcane juice, is to be dealt with according to the training rule on fine foods; a nun, according to the Pāṭidesaniya.' Some say this is unsuitable. They should be made to understand by showing the absence of a special reason.

Ettāvatā ‘‘ucchurasaṃ upādāyāti ucchurasaṃ ādiṃ katvā’’tiādīnaṃ padānaṃ atthaṃ micchā gahetvā yadi ‘‘ucchurasaṃ upādāyā’’ti vacanena ucchuraso phāṇitaṃ siyā, ‘‘apakkā vā’’ti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ apakkavacanena ucchurasassa gahitattā. Atha ‘‘pakkā vā’’ti vacanena ucchuraso phāṇitanti siddhaṃ, ‘‘ucchurasaṃ upādāyā’’ti vacanaṃ niratthakanti uttaraṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ anuttaranti sādhitaṃ hoti. So cetehi apakkā vāti sāmaṃ bhikkhunā apakkā [Pg.481] vā. Avatthukapakkā vāti bhikkhunāva sāmaṃ vinā vatthunā pakkā vāti attho. Tasmā aññathā ‘‘savatthukapakkā vā’’ti ca vattabbanti attho dassito, so duṭṭhu dassito. Kasmā? Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘jhāmaucchuphāṇitaṃ vā koṭṭitaucchuphāṇitaṃ vā purebhattameva vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttattā, ‘‘savatthukapakkā vā’’ti vacanassa ca laddhivirodhato avuttattā. ‘‘Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana ‘etaṃ savatthukapakkaṃ vaṭṭati no vaṭṭatī’ti pucchaṃ katvā ‘ucchuphāṇitaṃ pacchābhattaṃ no vaṭṭanakaṃ nāma natthī’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ yutta’’nti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623) vuttattā ca savatthukapakkā vāti attho ca vuttoyeva hoti, tasmā duddassitoti siddhaṃ. Āhāratthanti āhārapayojanaṃ. Āhārakiccaṃ yāpananti atthoti ca.

By this much, the following is established: if one, having wrongly taken the meaning of phrases such as 'ucchurasaṃ upādāya' to be 'starting with sugarcane juice,' were to hold that by the statement 'ucchurasaṃ upādāya' sugarcane juice is molasses, then the statement 'or unboiled' would be meaningless, because sugarcane juice is included by the word 'unboiled.' Now, if by the statement 'or boiled' it is established that sugarcane juice is molasses, then the statement 'ucchurasaṃ upādāya' would be meaningless—this reply was given, but it is untenable. And this 'or unboiled' means unboiled by the bhikkhu himself. 'Or boiled without a substance' means boiled by the bhikkhu himself without a substance; this is the meaning. Therefore, the meaning that it should also be stated as 'or boiled with a substance' is shown, but it is poorly shown. Why? Because in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā it is stated, 'Molasses from burnt sugarcane or molasses from pounded sugarcane is allowable only before the meal,' and because the statement 'or boiled with a substance' is not stated, being contrary to the established view. And because in the Mahāpaccarī it is stated, 'Having posed the question, “Is this boiled with a substance allowable or not allowable?” it was said, “There is no such thing as sugarcane molasses that is not an allowable item after the meal,” and that is proper,' the meaning of 'or boiled with a substance' is indeed stated; therefore, it is established that this is poorly shown. 'Āhāratthaṃ' means for the purpose of food. And the meaning is that the function of food is sustenance.

262. Telaparibhogenāti sattāhakālikaparibhogena.

262. `Telaparibhogena` means by the use of a seven-day allowance.

263. 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 vuttaṃ. Tasmā siddhaṃ satipaccayatā gilānāgilānavasena duvidhāti. Aññathā asati paccaye guḷodakādīsu āpajjati. Tato ca pāḷivirodho.

263. Here, in `sati paccaye` ('when there is a reason'), the state of having a reason should be understood as twofold, by way of being sick or not sick. For in the non-offense section of the training rule concerning eating at the wrong time, the state of having a reason is stated without distinction for all three kālikas, such as yāmakālika. In this Khandhaka, it is stated: 'I allow, Bhikkhus, molasses for the sick, and molasses-water for the not-sick; I allow, Bhikkhus, salt-sour gruel for the sick, and that mixed with water for the not-sick.' Therefore, it is established that the state of having a reason is twofold, by way of being sick or not sick. Otherwise, if there were no reason, one would incur an offense with regard to molasses-water and so forth. And from that, there would be a contradiction with the Pāḷi.

Piṭṭhehīti pisitatelehi. Koṭṭhaphalanti koṭṭharukkhassa phalaṃ. ‘‘Madanaphalaṃ vā’’ti ca likhitaṃ. 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 kittimalomalākhā. Takapaṇṇīti pakkalākhā’’ti likhitaṃ. Ubbhidaṃ nāma ūsapaṃsumayaṃ.

`Piṭṭhehi` means with pressed sesame oils. `Koṭṭhaphalaṃ` means the fruit of the koṭṭha tree. And it is also written: 'or madana fruit.' `Hiṅgujatu` is that which is produced from cooking the stems, young leaves, and shoots of the hiṅgu tree. `Hiṅgusipāṭikā` is that which is produced from cooking its roots and branches. `Takaṃ` is the decoction of that tree's bark. `Takapattī` is the decoction of its leaves. `Takapaṇṇī` is the decoction of its fruit. Alternatively, it is written: '`Takaṃ` is lac. `Takapattī` is kittimaloma-lac. `Takapaṇṇī` is cooked lac.' `Ubbhidaṃ` salt is that which is made from saline soil.

264. Chakaṇaṃ gomayaṃ. Pākatikacuṇṇaṃ nāma apakkakasāvacuṇṇaṃ, tena ‘‘ṭhapetvā gandhacuṇṇaṃ sabbaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Cālitehīti parissāvitehi.

264. `Chakaṇaṃ` is salt made from cow dung. `Pākatikacuṇṇaṃ` means uncooked astringent powder; therefore, they say, 'Setting aside scented powder, all is allowable.' `Cālitehi` means with that which has been strained.

265. Nānāsambhārehi katanti nānosadhehi.

265. 'Made with various ingredients' means 'with various medicines'.

Guḷādianujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse concerning the Allowance for Molasses and So Forth

274. Sāmaṃ [Pg.482] pakkaṃ samapakkanti duvidhaṃ viya dīpeti, tasmā khīrādīsu uṇhamattameva pāko. Tena uttaṇḍulādisamānā honti.

274. `Sāmaṃ pakkaṃ` and `samapakkaṃ`—this indicates it as if twofold. Therefore, in the case of milk and so forth, mere heat itself is 'cooking'. For that reason, they become similar to rice with uncooked grains and so forth.

276-8. ‘‘Buddhappamukha’nti āgataṭṭhāne ‘bhikkhusaṅgho’ti avatvā ‘saṅgho’ti vuccati bhagavantampi saṅgahetu’’nti vadanti. Nāgoti hatthī.

They say: 'In the place where `buddhappamukha` ("with the Buddha at its head") occurs, instead of saying `bhikkhusaṅgha` ("the community of bhikkhus"), the word `saṅgha` is used in order to include the Blessed One as well.' By `nāgo` is meant 'an elephant.'

279. Sambādheti vaccamagge bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā ca passāvamaggepi anulomato. Dahanaṃ paṭikkhepābhāvā vaṭṭati. Satthavattikammānulomato na vaṭṭatīti ce? Na, paṭikkhittapaṭikkhepā, paṭikkhipitabbassa tapparamatādīpanato, kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Pubbe paṭikkhittampi satthakammaṃ sampiṇḍetvā pacchā ‘‘na, bhikkhave…pe… thullaccayassā’’ti dvikkhattuṃ satthakammassa paṭikkhepo kato. Tena sambādhassa sāmantā dvaṅgulaṃ paṭikkhipitabbaṃ nāma. Satthavattikammato uddhaṃ natthīti dīpeti. Kiñca bhiyyo pubbe sambādheyeva satthakammaṃ paṭikkhittaṃ, pacchā sambādhassa sāmantā dvaṅgulampi paṭikkhittaṃ, tasmā tasseva paṭikkhepo, netarassāti siddhaṃ. Ettha ‘‘satthaṃ nāma satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyyā’’tiādīsu viya yena chindati, taṃ sabbaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘kaṇṭakena vā’’tiādi. Khāradānaṃ panettha bhikkhunivibhaṅge pasākhe lepamukhena anuññātanti veditabbaṃ. Eke pana ‘‘satthakammaṃ vā’’ti pāṭhaṃ vikappetvā vatthikammaṃ karonti. ‘‘Vatthī’’ti kira agghikā vuccati. Tāya chindanaṃ vatthikammaṃ nāmāti ca atthaṃ vaṇṇayanti, te ‘‘satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyyā’’ti imassa padabhājanīyaṃ dassetvā paṭikkhipitabbā. Aṇḍavuḍḍhīti vātaṇḍako. Ādānavattīti ānahavatti.

279. `Sambādheti` means 'it obstructs': in the passage for defecation of a monk and of a nun, and also, accordingly, in the passage for urination. Cauterization (`dahanaṃ`) is allowable due to the absence of a prohibition. If it is asked, 'Is a surgical operation not allowable accordingly?' That is not so; it is indeed allowable. Why? Because it prohibits only what should be prohibited, and because it indicates that what is to be prohibited has that as its limit. What is meant? Previously, having combined even the surgical operation that was prohibited, later the prohibition of surgical operation was made twice, saying, 'Monks... it entails a grave offense.' By that, what is called 'to be prohibited' is two finger-widths around the afflicted area. It indicates that there is nothing beyond the surgical operation. Furthermore, previously, the surgical operation was prohibited only in the afflicted area itself; later, two finger-widths around the afflicted area were also prohibited. Therefore, the prohibition is only for that area; there is no prohibition for what is beyond it. Thus, the meaning is established. Here, as in passages such as 'one should seek a knife-carrier for him,' 'knife' (`satthaṃ`) is any object with which one cuts. Therefore, it is said, 'or with a thorn,' etc. Here, however, the giving of caustic substances should be understood as being permitted in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga for a side-branch (`pasākhe`) by means of a paste. Some, however, having altered the reading 'or surgical operation,' perform an act of binding with cloth (`vatthikamma`). `Vatthī`, it is said, is called a coarse cloth (`agghikā`). And they explain the meaning that cutting with that coarse cloth is called `vatthikamma`. They are to be refuted by showing the word-analysis of the phrase 'one should seek a knife-carrier for him.' `Aṇḍavuḍḍhi` is hydrocele (`vātaṇḍako`). `Ādānavattī` is a suppository (`ānahavatti`).

Manussamaṃsapaṭikkhepakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse concerning the Prohibition of Human Flesh

280. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, manussamaṃsaṃ…pe… thullaccayassā’’ti vuttattā, ‘‘na ca, bhikkhave, appaṭi…pe… dukkaṭassā’’ti ca vuttattā appaṭivekkhaṇadukkaṭañca thullaccayañcāti dve āpajjati, tasmā kappiyamaṃsepi appaṭivekkhaṇapaccayā dukkaṭameva. Keci ‘‘maṃsabhāvaṃ jānantova āpajjati. Pūvādīsu ajānantassa kā paccavekkhaṇā’’ti vadanti. Ajānantopi āpajjati sāmaññena vuttattāti keci.

280. Because it is said, 'Monks, human flesh... entails a grave offense,' and also because it is said, 'And monks, without reflecting... entails an offense of wrong-doing,' one incurs two offenses: an offense of wrong-doing for not reflecting and a grave offense. Therefore, even with permissible meat, due to the cause of not reflecting, an offense of wrong-doing is indeed incurred. Some say, 'One incurs an offense only when knowing it to be meat. In the case of cakes and so forth, what reflection is there for one who does not know?' Some say that even one who does not know incurs an offense, because it is stated generally.

Hatthimaṃsādipaṭikkhepakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse concerning the Prohibition of Elephant Flesh and So Forth

281. Imesaṃ [Pg.483] …pe… sabbaṃ na vaṭṭatīti idaṃ dasannampi manussamaṃsādīnaṃ akappiyabhāvamattaparidīpanavacanaṃ, nāpattivibhāgadassanavacanaṃ. Yaṃ kiñci ñatvā vā añatvā vā khādantassa āpattiyevāti idampi aniyamitavacanameva ‘‘ayaṃ nāma āpattī’’ti avuttattā. Tadubhayampi heṭṭhā manussādīnaṃ maṃsādīsu thullaccayadukkaṭāpattiyo hontīti gahitanayehi adhippāyo jānituṃ sakkāti evaṃ vuttaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ adhippāyo – yasmā etesaṃ manussādīnaṃ maṃsādīni akappiyāni, tasmā manussānaṃ maṃsādīsu thullaccayāpatti. Sesānaṃ sabbattha dukkaṭāpattīti. Pāṭheyeva hi lohitādiṃ maṃsagatikaṃ katvā ‘‘na, bhikkhave, manussamaṃsaṃ…pe… thullaccayassā’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattheva hatthādīnaṃ maṃsādīsupi dukkaṭāpatti paññattā. Tena vuttaṃ sīhaḷaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘manussamaṃse vā kese vā nakhe vā aṭṭhimhi vā lohite vā thullaccayamevā’’ti vuttaṃ. Iminā eva –

281. This statement, 'Among these... all are not permissible,' is a statement that merely clarifies the state of being impermissible for the ten kinds of human flesh and so forth; it is not a statement that shows the classification of offenses. This statement also, 'For one who eats anything, whether knowing or not knowing, there is indeed an offense,' is merely an indefinite statement, because it is not said, 'This is such-and-such an offense.' The meaning of both these can be known by the principles established below, namely that for the flesh, etc., of humans, etc., there are grave offenses and offenses of wrong-doing; therefore, it is said thus. Therein, this is the meaning: because the flesh, etc., of these humans, etc., are impermissible, therefore, for the flesh, etc., of humans, there is a grave offense. For the rest, in all cases, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Indeed, in the text itself, having treated blood, etc., as being of the same nature as flesh, it is said, 'Monks, human flesh... entails a grave offense.' In that very text, an offense of wrong-doing is also prescribed for the flesh, etc., of elephants, etc. Therefore, it is said in the Sinhalese commentary: 'For human flesh, or hair, or nails, or bone, or blood, there is indeed a grave offense.' By this very...

‘‘Aṭṭhipi lohitaṃ cammaṃ, lomamesaṃ na kappatī’’ti. –

'Of these beings, bone also, blood, skin, and hair are not permissible.'

Khuddasikkhāgāthāpadassa attho ca adhippāyo ca suviññeyyoti. Paṭiggahaṇeti ettha anādariyadukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Udakamanussādimaṃsampi na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Nāgarājena vuttādīnave satipi ujjhāyanādhikārameva gahetvā ‘‘paṭikūlatāyā’’ti vuttaṃ.

...the meaning and the intention of the verse of the Khuddasikkhā are easily understood. Here, regarding 'acceptance,' an offense of wrong-doing due to disrespect is stated. Some say, 'The flesh of water-humans and so forth is also not permissible.' Although there is the danger spoken of by the Nāga king, having taken only the grounds for complaint, it is stated, 'due to repulsiveness.'

Yāgumadhugoḷakādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse concerning Gruel, Honey Balls, and So Forth

283. Yathādhammo kāretabboti idaṃ saṅgītikārakavacanaṃ. Na hi bhagavā tameva sikkhāpadaṃ dvikkhattuṃ paññapesi, evaṃ evarūpesūti eke. Paṭhamapaññattameva sandhāya vuttaṃ, tathāpi na ca te bhikkhū sāpattikā jātā. Kathaṃ? Paramparabhojanasikkhāpadassa aṭṭhuppattiyā. ‘‘Apica mayaṃ kālasseva piṇḍāya caritvā bhuñjimhā’’ti vuttaṃ. Mātikāvibhaṅge (pāci. 227) ca ‘‘paramparabhojanaṃ nāma pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññatarena bhojanena nimantito, taṃ ṭhapetvā aññaṃ pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataraṃ bhojanaṃ bhuñjati, etaṃ paramparabhojanaṃ nāmā’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā aññaṃ bhojanaṃ nāma nimantanato laddhaṃ yaṃ kiñcīti siddhaṃ. Yasmā na bhojjayāgunimantanato laddhabhojanaṃ, tasmā [Pg.484] ‘‘ettha anāpattī’’ti te bhikkhū paribhuñjiṃsūti. Ettha ‘‘yathādhammo kāretabbo’’ti vuttattā pana aññanimantanato laddhabhojanameva bhuñjantassa āpatti, netaranti anuññātaṃ. Tato paṭṭhāya tassa anāpattivāre ‘‘niccabhatte salākabhatte pakkhike uposathike pāṭipadike’’ti vuttaṃ. Pubbe vesāliyā paññattakāle natthi, yadi atthi, aṭṭhuppattimātikāvibhaṅgavirodho, tasmā ‘‘apica mayaṃ kālasseva piṇḍāya caritvā bhuñjimhā’’ti aṭṭhuppattiyaṃ vuttattā, padabhājanepi ‘‘aññaṃ pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataraṃ bhojanaṃ bhuñjatī’’ti avisesena vuttattā ca paṭhamaṃ vā pacchā vā nimantitaṃ bhojanaṃ ṭhapetvā animantitameva bhuñjantassa āpatti, netaranti kiñcāpi āpannaṃ, ‘‘na, bhikkhave, aññatra nimantitena aññassa bhojjayāgu paribhuñjitabbā’’ti vuttattā pana paṭhamanimantitabhojanato aññaṃ pacchā laddhaṃ nimantitabhojanaṃ, niccabhattādīni ca bhuñjantassa āpattīti āpajjamānaṃ viya jātanti anupaññattippasaṅganivāraṇaṃ, animantanabhojane āpattippasaṅganivāraṇañca karonto, paṭhamapaññattisikkhāpadameva iminā atthena pariṇāmento ca ‘‘yathādhammo kāretabbo’’ti bhagavā āha, tasmā tato paṭṭhāya pacchā nimantanabhojanaṃ bhuñjantasseva āpatti. Tesu na niccabhattādīnīti āpannaṃ. Tenevāyasmā upālitthero tassa anāpattivāre ‘‘niccabhatte’’tiādīni pañca padāni pakkhipitvā saṅgāyi. Adhippāyaññū hi te mahānāgā, tasmā paṭhamameva yaṃ bhagavatā vuttaṃ ‘‘pañca bhojanāni ṭhapetvā sabbattha anāpattī’’ti vacanaṃ, pacchāpi taṃ anurakkhantena abhojanaṃ madhugoḷakaṃ aparāmasitvā bhojjayāgu eva vuttāti evaṃ ācariyo.

283. “It should be dealt with according to the Dhamma”—this is the statement of the compilers. Indeed, the Blessed One did not lay down the same training rule twice. Thus it should be understood in such cases, say some. It was stated with reference to the first promulgation, yet those monks did not become guilty of an offense. How so? Because of the origin story of the training rule on successive meals. It is said, “Moreover, we ate after going for alms early.” And in the Mātikāvibhaṅga it is said: “What is called ‘successive meals’? Having been invited with one of the five kinds of meals, and then, setting that aside, eating another of the five kinds of meals—this is called ‘successive meals.’” Therefore, it is established that ‘another meal’ means any food whatsoever obtained from an invitation. Because it was not food obtained from an invitation for food-gruel, those monks partook, thinking, “There is no offense in this.” Here, however, because it is said, “It should be dealt with according to the Dhamma,” it was permitted that an offense is incurred only for one who eats food obtained from another invitation, and not for the other case. From then on, in the exemption clause for that rule, it is stated: “In the case of a regular meal, a ticket meal, a fortnightly meal, an Uposatha meal, or a first-day-of-the-fortnight meal.” Previously, at the time of the promulgation in Vesālī, these did not exist. If they had, it would contradict the origin story and the Mātikāvibhaṅga. Therefore, because it was said in the origin story, “Moreover, we ate after going for alms early,” and also because in the Padabhājanī it was said without specification, “eating another of the five kinds of meals,” although it would follow that an offense is incurred for one who, setting aside an invited meal (whether invited first or later), eats only an uninvited meal, and not for the other case; however, because it was said, “Monks, apart from what is invited, another food-gruel should not be consumed,” it became as if an offense was incurred for one who eats invited food obtained later after the first invited food, and also regular meals and so on. And so, while preventing the occasion for a supplementary rule and preventing the occasion for an offense regarding uninvited food, and while adapting the first-promulgated training rule with this meaning, the Blessed One said, “It should be dealt with according to the Dhamma.” Therefore, from then on, an offense is incurred only for one who eats food from a later invitation. In those cases, it follows that there is no offense for regular meals and so on. For that very reason, the venerable Elder Upāli, in the exemption clause for that rule, inserted the five terms beginning with “in the case of a regular meal” and recited it at the council. Indeed, those great Nāgas are knowers of the intention. Therefore, the teacher says thus: The Blessed One later upheld the statement he had made at the very beginning—“Setting aside the five kinds of meals, there is no offense in all cases”—by not touching upon non-food like honey-balls and speaking only of food-gruel.

Etthāha – yathā pacchāladdhalesena therena niccabhattādipakkhepo kato, evaṃ kathinakkhandhake paramparabhojanaṃ pakkhipitvā ‘‘atthatakathinānaṃ vo, bhikkhave, cha kappissantī’’ti kimatthaṃ na vuccanti? Vuccate – yathāvuttalesanidassanatthaṃ. Aññathā idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ vesāliyaṃ, andhakavinde cāti ubhayattha upaḍḍhupaḍḍhena paññattaṃ siyā. No ce, sāpattikā bhikkhū siyuṃ, na ca te sāpattikā appaṭikkhittepi tesaṃ kukkuccadassanato. ‘‘Tena hi, brāhmaṇa, bhikkhūnaṃ dehīti. Bhikkhū kukkuccāyantā na paṭiggaṇhantī’’ti hi vuttaṃ. Tesañhi ‘‘paribhuñjathā’’ti bhagavato āṇattiyā paribhuttānampi ‘‘odissakaṃ nu kho idaṃ amhāka’’nti vimatippattānaṃ vimativinodanatthaṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yāguñca madhugoḷakañcā’’ti [Pg.485] vuttaṃ. Evamidhāpete paññattaṃ paramparabhojanasikkhāpadaṃ omadditvā paramparabhojanaṃ kathaṃ bhuñjissantīti. Etthāhu keci ācariyā paramparabhojanasikkhāpadeneva ‘‘aññassa bhojanaṃ na kappatī’’ti jānantāpi ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yāguñcā’’ti visuṃ anuññātattā ‘‘paṭaggidānamahāvikaṭādi viya kappatī’’ti saññāya bhuñjiṃsu. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘apica mayaṃ kālasseva bhojjayāguyā dhātā’’tiādi, taṃ ayuttaṃ tattha aṭṭhuppattimātikāvibhaṅgavirodhena anāpattivāre niccabhattādīnaṃ asambhavappasaṅgato, bhikkhūnaṃ sāpattikabhāvānatikkamanato, micchāgāhahetuppasaṅgena bhagavatā anuññātappasaṅgato ca. Te hi bhikkhū yasmā bhagavā katthaci vinayavasena kappiyampi ‘‘gāthābhigītaṃ me abhojaneyya’’nti (saṃ. ni. 1.194; su. ni. 81; mi. pa. 4.5.9) paṭikkhipati, tasmā bhagavato adhippāyaṃ pati ‘‘kukkuccāyantā na paṭiggaṇhantī’’ti vuttaṃ, sikkhāpadaṃ pati bhagavāpi attano adhippāyappakāsanatthameva ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yāguñcā’’ti āha. Duravaggāho hi bhagavato adhippāyo. Tathā hi bhāradvājassa pāyāsaṃ abhojaneyyanti akataviññattippasaṅgato paṭikkhipi. Ānandattherena viññāpetvā sajjitaṃ tekaṭulayāguṃ pana ‘‘yadapi, ānanda, viññattaṃ, tadapi akappiya’’nti avatvā ‘‘yadapi, ānanda, antovuttha’’ntiādimevāha. Tena no ce taṃ antovutthaṃ kappatīti adhippāyadassanena paṇītabhojanasūpodanaviññattisikkhāpadāni upatthambheti bhagavatopi kappati, pageva amhākanti.

Here it is said: Just as the inclusion of regular meals, etc., was made by the Elder who later obtained a hint, similarly, in the Kathinakkhandhaka, after including successive meals, why was it not said, “For you, O monks, who have spread the kathina, six things will be allowable”? It is said: For the purpose of illustrating the aforementioned point. Otherwise, this training rule would have been laid down half in Vesālī and half in Andhakavinda. If it were not so, the monks would be guilty of an offense. And they were not guilty of an offense, even though it was not prohibited, because their scruple was seen. For it was said: “Well then, brahmin, give to the monks.” The monks, being scrupulous, did not accept. For, to dispel the doubt of those monks who, even after having consumed by the Blessed One's command, “Consume!”, had fallen into doubt, thinking, “Is this indeed specifically for us?”, it was said, “I allow, O monks, gruel and honey-balls.” Similarly here also, how would these monks, having transgressed the laid-down training rule on successive meals, consume successive meals? Here, some teachers said that even while knowing through the training rule on successive meals itself that “food from another is not allowable,” they consumed it with the perception that “it is allowable, like the case of the offering at the forefront of the fire, great delicacies, etc.,” because it was separately allowed by the words, “I allow, O monks, gruel…” Therefore, it was said, “Moreover, we were satisfied in the morning with food and gruel,” etc. That is incorrect because of the contradiction with the origin story, the Mātikā, and the Vibhaṅga in that training rule; and because of the consequence that regular meals, etc., would be impossible in the section on non-offenses; and because the monks would not have overcome the state of being guilty of an offense; and because of the consequence that the Blessed One would have allowed it due to a reason that would lead to wrong view. For, since the Blessed One in some cases, by way of discipline, rejects even what is allowable—as when he said, “What is sung with verses is not to be eaten by me”—it was therefore said with regard to the Blessed One's intention that “being scrupulous, they did not accept.” With regard to the training rule, the Blessed One also said, “I allow, O monks, gruel…” for the very purpose of clarifying His own intention. For the Blessed One's intention is difficult to fathom. For so it is: He rejected Bhāradvāja's milk-rice, saying it was “not to be eaten,” because of the implication of it being an item obtained by a hint without a formal request. But as for the three-spiced gruel prepared after being requested by the Elder Ānanda, without saying, “Ānanda, even what is requested is also unallowable,” He only said, “Ānanda, that which is stored indoors,” etc. Therefore, by showing the intention that if it was not stored indoors, it is allowable, He supports the training rules on requesting fine foods, curries, and rice. He supports the view that it is allowable even for the Blessed One, how much more so for us.

284. Gilānasseva bhagavatā guḷo anuññātoti ‘‘yāni kho pana tāni gilānānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ paṭisāyanīyānī’’ti (pārā. 622) vacanavasena vuttaṃ, teneva te idha paṭiggahaṇe kukkuccāyiṃsu. Idha pana ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānassa guḷodaka’’nti vattabbe guḷādhikārattā pubbe anuññātañca vatvā agilānassa guḷodakaṃ anuññātaṃ, tena gilānena sati paccaye guḷo paribhuñjitabbo, guḷodakaṃ asati paccayepi vaṭṭatīti imaṃ visesaṃ dīpeti. Tattha ‘‘guḷodakaṃ kālikesu sattāhakālikaṃ, bhagavatā odissānuññātattā sattāhātikkamena dukkaṭa’’nti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ, udakasambhinnattā sattāhakālikabhāvaṃ jahati. ‘‘Yathā ambādi udakasambhinnaṃ yāmakālikaṃ jātaṃ, tathā sattāhakālikaṃ jahitvā tadanantare [Pg.486] yāvajīvike ṭhita’’nti vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ, tañca bhagavatā odissānuññātattā paccavekkhaṇābhāve doso natthi. ‘‘Guḷodaka’nti vuttattā udakagatika’’nti vadanti. Yadi udakamissaṃ udakagatikaṃ hoti, madhupi siyā taṃ tathā anuññātattā. Mā hotu, appaṭiggahetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ siyā udakagatikattā, tañca na hoti, ‘‘sabbatthāpi upaparikkhitvā gahetabba’’nti aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

284. That jaggery was allowed by the Blessed One only for the sick was stated by way of the phrase, 'Whatever is suitable for sick monks' (Pārā. 622); for that very reason, they felt scrupulous about accepting it here. Here, however, although it should have been said, 'I allow, monks, jaggery-water for the sick,' because jaggery is the main topic, having stated what was previously allowed, jaggery-water was allowed for the non-sick. By this, he clarifies the following distinction: a sick monk, when there is a reason, may consume jaggery; jaggery-water is allowable even when there is no reason. Therein, some say, 'Among time-limited items, jaggery-water is a seven-day allowable; because it was specifically allowed by the Blessed One, after the passing of seven days, there is an offense of wrong-doing.' That is not correct; because it is mixed with water, it abandons its nature as a seven-day allowable. Some say, 'Just as mango, etc., when mixed with water, becomes allowable for a watch of the night, so too, having abandoned its nature as a seven-day allowable, it becomes established immediately after as a lifetime allowable.' That is correct. And since it was specifically allowed by the Blessed One, there is no fault in the absence of reflection. Some say, 'Because it is called "jaggery-water," it has the same status as water.' If something mixed with water has the same status as water, then honey would also be so, because it was allowed in the same way. Let it not be so. It would be consumable without being formally received because it has the same status as water, and that is not the case, for it is said in a certain gloss: 'In all cases, it should be accepted after examining.'

285. Suññāgāranti catutthajjhānaṃ.

285. An empty dwelling is the fourth jhāna.

Kappiyabhūmianujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Discourse on the Allowance of Permissible Ground

295. Oravasaddanti mahāsaddaṃ. Bahūhi samparivāretvāti ettha ekenāpi vaṭṭati. ‘‘Bahūsu ekassapi vacanena saha siyāti vutta’’nti vadanti. ‘‘Āmasitvā’’ti vuttattā anāmasite na vaṭṭati. ‘‘Doso natthī’’ti vacanena sesāpi anuññātā. ‘‘Bhittiñce upasante pacchā taṃ pūrenti, tattha kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, pakatibhūmiyaṃyeva kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Taṃ upari aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘iṭṭhakādīhi katācayassā’’tiādinā virujjhati viya. Mattikāpiṇḍaṃ vāti ettha ‘‘asatiyā anadhiṭṭhitāya saritaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya ce upari adhiṭṭhitā, heṭṭhā ṭhitaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ akappiyaṃ, upariṭṭhitameva kappiyaṃ, ayamettha viseso’’ti vuttaṃ. Ettha kappiyakuṭi laddhuṃ vaṭṭatīti evaṃvidhe puna kātabbāti attho. Kappiyakuṭiṃ kātuṃ demāti ettha kappiyakuṭikiccaṃ kātunti adhippāyo. Bhojanasālā pana senāsanameva, tasmā tattha kātabbanti apare. ‘‘Akatepi vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

295. ‘Oravasaddaṃ’ means a great sound. Regarding ‘surrounded by many,’ even one is allowable. They say, ‘It is said, “Among many, it may be [valid] with the word of even one.”’ Because it is said, ‘Having touched,’ it is not allowable if not touched. By the statement, ‘There is no fault,’ the remaining commentaries are also permitted. They say, ‘If they fill a wall after it is finished, it is not allowable to do so there; it is allowable to do so only on the natural ground.’ This seems to contradict what is said above in the commentary, beginning with ‘of a structure made with bricks, etc.’ Regarding ‘or a lump of clay,’ it is said here: ‘If, through a lapse of mindfulness, it was not determined, and if it is then determined for the upper part, starting from the place one remembers, the item placed below is not allowable; only that which is placed above is allowable. This is the distinction here.’ Here, it is allowable to obtain a suitable hut; the meaning is that in such a case, it should be done again. Regarding ‘We give [permission] to make a suitable hut,’ the intention is ‘to do the work of a suitable hut.’ A dining hall, however, is indeed a lodging; therefore, others say it should be done there. It is said, ‘Even if not done, it is allowable.’

‘‘Mukhasannidhi nāma bhojanakāle sannidhī’’ti likhitaṃ. Mukhasannidhīti tassa nāmaṃ. ‘‘Yadi sannidhi hoti, pācittiyaṃ bhaveyya, mukhasannidhi pana dukkaṭaṃ, tasmā sannidhi anadhippetā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tassa santakaṃ katvā’’ti vuttattā anapekkhavissajjanaṃ nādhippetaṃ. Cīvaravikappane viya kappiyamattaṃ ñātabbanti keci.

It is written: 'What is called mukhasannidhi is storing at mealtime.' Mukhasannidhi is the name for that. It is said: 'If it were storing (sannidhi), it would be a pācittiya offense; mukhasannidhi, however, is a dukkaṭa offense. Therefore, storing (sannidhi) is not intended.' Because it is said, 'Having made it the property of that novice,' an unconcerned relinquishing is not intended. Some say that, as in the case of the formal determination (vikappana) of a robe, it should be understood as merely making it allowable.

Keṇiyajaṭilavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Story of the Ascetic Keṇiya

300. ‘‘Attanā paṭiggahitaṃ purebhattameva pariccajitvā sāmaṇerādīhi pānakaṃ katvā dinne purebhattameva vaṭṭati, na pacchābhattaṃ savatthukapaṭiggahitattā’’ti vadanti, tattha puna paṭiggahaṇe niddosattā, purebhattameva paṭiggahaṇassa [Pg.487] nissaṭṭhattā, attanā ca aggahitattā doso na dissati, upaparikkhitvā gahetabbaṃ. Sālūkā nāma kandā, ‘‘ito kiñcitaka’’nti voharanti. ‘‘Phārusakanti goḷavisaye eko rukkho’’ti ca likhitaṃ. ‘‘Pakkaḍākarasa’’nti visesitattā ‘‘apakkaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kurundivacanenapi siddhameva. Taṇḍuladhovanodakampi dhaññaraso eva. ‘‘Nikkasaṭo ucchuraso sattāhakāliko’’ti likhitaṃ. Sāvittīti gāyatti. Chandasoti vedassa. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, pabbajitena akappiye samādapetabba’nti vuttattā anupasampannassāpi na kevalaṃ dasasu eva sikkhāpadesu, atha kho yaṃ bhikkhussa na kappati, tasmimpīti adhippāyo’’ti vuttaṃ.

300. They say: 'Having relinquished an item received by oneself only in the forenoon, when juice is prepared and given by novices and others, it is allowable only in the forenoon, not after midday, because it was received together with its basis.' In that case, because there is no fault in receiving it again, because the item received only in the forenoon has been relinquished, and because it was not held by oneself, no fault is seen; it should be taken after examination. 'Sālūkā' are tubers; they are called 'a little from this.' And it is written: 'Phārusaka is a certain tree in the Goḷa region.' Because it is specified as 'juice of ripe pakkaḍāka,' it is said: 'The unripe is allowable.' This is established also by the word of the Kurundī. Even rice-washing water is indeed grain juice. It is written: 'Sugarcane juice without dregs is a seven-day allowable.' 'Sāvittī' is the Gāyatrī meter. 'Chandaso' refers to the Veda. Because it was said, 'Monks, one who has gone forth should not be made to undertake what is unallowable,' it is said that the meaning is this: for one not yet fully ordained also, it is not only in regard to the ten training rules, but also in regard to whatever is not allowable for a monk, that he should not be made to undertake it.

305. Dve paṭā desanāmenevāti cīnapaṭṭasomārapaṭṭāni. Tīṇīti pattuṇṇena saha tīṇi. Iddhimayikaṃ ehibhikkhūnaṃ nibbattaṃ. Devadattiyaṃ anuruddhattherena laddhaṃ. ‘‘Yāmātikkame sannidhivasena sattāhātikkame bhesajjasikkhāpadavasenā’’ti likhitaṃ.

305. Regarding 'two cloths by the name of their country': they are Chinese cloth and Somāra cloth. Regarding 'three': it means three together with Pattuṇṇa cloth. The robe made by psychic power is the one that arose for the 'ehi-bhikkhu' monks. The Devadattiya robe was obtained by the Elder Anuruddha. It is written: 'In exceeding the watch, it should be decided by way of storing; in exceeding seven days, by way of the training rule on medicines.'

Bhesajjakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Chapter on Medicines is finished.

7. Kathinakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

7. The Commentary on the Kathina Chapter

Kathinānujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Allowance of the Kathina

306. ‘‘Kathinanti [Pg.488] pañcānisaṃse antokaraṇasamatthatāya thiranti attho’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Pañca kappantī’’ti avatvā ‘‘kappissantī’’ti anāgatavacanaṃ ‘‘vo’’ti imassa sāmivacanapakkhe yujjati tesaṃ tasmiṃ khaṇe anatthatakathinattā. Dvīsu panetesu atthavikappesu pacchimo yutto sabbesampi tesaṃ pāveyyakānaṃ sabbadhutaṅgadharattā. Nimantanaṃ sādiyantasseva hi anāmantacāro paññatto, tathā gaṇabhojanaṃ. Asamādānacāro anadhiṭṭhitaticīvarassa natthi atecīvarikassa yāvadatthacīvaracatutthādicīvaraggahaṇasambhavato. Itarassāpi anadhiṭṭhānamukhena labbhati. Cīvaruppādo apaṃsukūlikasseva. ‘‘Kathinatthatasīmāya’’nti upacārasīmaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Upacārasīmaṭṭhassa matakacīvarādibhāgiyatāya baddhasīmāya tatruppādābhāvato viññeyyametaṃ upacārasīmāvettha adhippetāti. Kathinatthāraṃ ke labhantīti ke sādhentīti attho. Pañca janā sādhenti. Kathinadussassa hi dāyakā pacchimakoṭiyā cattāro honti. Eko paṭiggāhakoti. ‘‘Tatra ce, bhikkhave, yvāyaṃ catuvaggo bhikkhusaṅgho ṭhapetvā tīṇi kammāni upasampadaṃ pavāraṇaṃ abbhāna’’nti (mahāva. 388) campeyyakkhandhake vuttattā ‘‘na pañcavaggakaraṇīya’’nti gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Yassa saṅgho kathinadussaṃ deti, taṃ hatthapāse akatvāpi bahisīmāya ṭhitassapi dātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ hatthapāse katvā eva dātabbaṃ. Kasmā? ‘‘Tassa kammappattattā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tatruppādena taṇḍulādinā vatthesu cetāpitesu atthatakathinānameva tāni vatthāni pāpuṇanti. Vatthehi pana taṇḍulādīsu cetāpitesu sabbesaṃ tāni pāpuṇantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Paṭhamapavāraṇāya pavāritā labhantīti idaṃ ukkaṭṭhakoṭiyā vuttaṃ. Antarāyena appavāritānampi vutthavassānaṃ kathinatthārasambhavato itare gaṇapūrake katvā kathinaṃ attharitabbanti kathaṃ paññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Dvinnaṃ puggalānaṃ atthataṃ hoti kathinaṃ atthārakassa ca anumodakassa cā’’ti (pari. 403) parivāre ekavacanakaraṇato, tattheva ‘‘saṅghassa atthataṃ hoti kathinaṃ, gaṇassa puggalassa atthataṃ hoti kathina’’nti (pari. 414) vacanato ca.

306. “Regarding ‘Kathina,’ it is written that the meaning is ‘firm’ because of its ability to include the five benefits. Without saying ‘five are allowable,’ the future tense ‘they will be allowable’ is appropriate in consideration of the genitive case of ‘vo’ (for you), since at that moment, the Kathina was not yet spread for them. Among these two interpretations of the meaning, the latter is correct, as all those Pāveyyaka monks were observers of all the ascetic practices. Indeed, the practice of going uninvited is laid down only for one who accepts an invitation; similarly, group-eating. The privilege of going without the determined set of robes does not exist for one who has not determined his three robes. The privilege of keeping extra robes is not for one who is not a strict three-robe-wearer, given the possibility of receiving a fourth robe and so on. For another monk also, it is obtained by means of non-determination. The privilege concerning the arising of robes is only for one who is not a refuse-rag wearer. ‘Within the Kathina-spreading boundary’ is said with reference to the vicinity-boundary. It should be understood that the vicinity-boundary alone is intended here, because for one who is within the vicinity-boundary, there is the state of having a share in funeral robes, etc., and because in a fixed boundary there is no arising of things that arise there. ‘Who obtains the Kathina-spreading?’ means ‘Who accomplishes it?’ Five individuals accomplish it. Indeed, for the Kathina cloth, the donors are, at the minimum, four, and one is the recipient. Because it is said in the Campeyyakkhandhaka, ‘There, O monks, this group of four monks, excepting three acts: higher ordination, pavāraṇā, and rehabilitation…’ (Mahāva. 388), it should be understood that it is not an act requiring a fivefold group. Some say, ‘To whichever monk the Saṅgha gives the Kathina cloth, it is allowable to give it even without bringing him into hand’s reach, even if he is standing outside the boundary.’ But it should be given only after bringing him into hand’s reach. Why? Because it is said, ‘Because of his being present for the formal act.’ It is said: ‘If, with what has arisen there, such as rice, cloths are caused to be bought, then those cloths accrue only to those for whom the Kathina has been spread. But if, with cloths, rice, etc., are caused to be bought, then they accrue to all.’ That those who have performed the first pavāraṇā receive it—this is stated as the highest standard. If it is asked: ‘Since it is possible for even those who have completed the rains-residence but have not performed pavāraṇā due to an obstacle to spread the Kathina, how is it known that the Kathina should be spread by making others complete the quorum?’ (It is known because) in the Parivāra, the singular is used: ‘For two individuals, the Kathina is spread: for the one who spreads it and for the one who rejoices in it’ (Pari. 403); and because it is stated in that same text: ‘The Kathina is spread for the Saṅgha; the Kathina is spread for a group, for an individual’ (Pari. 414).

Aññasmiṃ [Pg.489] vihāre vutthavassāpi na labhantīti idaṃ kiṃ ekasīmasmiṃ, udāhu nānāsīmasminti? Kiñcettha – yadi tāva ekasīmasmiṃ, parato ‘‘sace pana ekasīmāya bahū vihārā honti, sabbe bhikkhū sannipātetvā ekattha kathinaṃ attharitabbaṃ, visuṃ visuṃ attharituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti iminā aṭṭhakathāvacanena virujjhati. Idañhi vacanaṃ sabbesaṃyeva eko kathinatthāroti dīpeti. Atha nānāsīmasmiṃ, upanandassa ekādhippāyadānānumatiyā virujjhati. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘detha, bhikkhave, moghapurisassa ekādhippāya’’nti (mahāva. 364). Idañhi vacanaṃ dvīsupi āvāsesu tassa kathinatthārasiddhiṃ dīpetīti. Avirodhova icchitabbo appaṭisiddhattā, tasmā ekasīmasmiṃ vā nānāsīmasmiṃ vā nānūpacāre aññasmiṃ vihāre vutthavassāpi na labhantīti adhippāyo veditabbo. ‘‘Pacchimikāya upasampanno paṭhamapavāraṇāya pavāretumpi labhati, vassiko ca hoti ānisaṃsañca labhatīti sāmaṇerānaṃ vassūpagamanaṃ anuññātaṃ hoti, sāmaṇerā kathinānisaṃsaṃ labhantī’’ti vadanti.

Regarding the statement, 'Even those who have completed the rains-residence in another monastery do not receive the privilege,' does this refer to a single boundary or to different boundaries? Herein, if it refers to a single boundary, it contradicts the subsequent commentary statement: 'If, however, there are many monasteries within a single boundary, all the bhikkhus should assemble and spread the Kaṭhina in one place; it is not permissible to spread it separately.' For this statement indicates that there is only one spreading of the Kaṭhina for all. If, on the other hand, it refers to different boundaries, it contradicts the permission given to Upananda for a gift with a single intention. For it was said: 'Give, bhikkhus, to this foolish man according to his single intention' (Mahāvagga 364). This statement shows that the spreading of the Kaṭhina is effective for him in both dwellings. Non-contradiction is to be desired, as it is not prohibited. Therefore, the meaning should be understood as: whether in a single boundary or in different boundaries, those who have completed the rains-residence in another monastery in a different vicinity do not receive the privilege. Some say: 'One ordained on the last day can also perform the first Pavāraṇā, is considered one who has kept the rains, and receives the benefits. Thus, the undertaking of the rains-residence is permitted for novices, and novices receive the benefits of the Kaṭhina.'

Tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññatarappahonakanti idaṃ ‘‘na aññatra saṅghāṭiyā uttarāsaṅgena antaravāsakena atthataṃ hoti kathina’’nti imāya pāḷiyā virujjhanaṃ viya dissati. Ayañhi pāḷi tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññataravirahenāpi na atthataṃ hoti kathinanti dīpetīti ce? Na, tadatthajānanato, na tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ aññataravirahena na atthataṃ hoti kathinanti hi dīpetukāmo bhagavā taṃ pāḷimāha. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘aññatra saṅghāṭiyā uttarāsaṅgena antaravāsakenā’’ti na vattabbā siyāti ce? Na, adhippāyajānanatova. Yo saṅghāṭiyā attharitukāmo, tassa aññatra saṅghāṭiyā na atthataṃ hoti. Esa nayo itaratthāpīti ayamettha adhippāyo. Teneva sukkapakkhe ‘‘saṅghāṭiyā atthataṃ hotī’’tiādinā nayena ekameva cīvaraṃ vuttaṃ, evaṃ sante ‘‘catuvīsatiyā ākārehi anatthataṃ hoti kathinaṃ, sattarasahi ākārehi atthataṃ hoti kathina’’nti yathārahaṃ ukkaṭṭhakoṭiyā vuttanti veditabbaṃ, tasmā kaṇhapakkhe ullikhita…pe… nissīmaṭṭhānumodanānaṃ catuvīsatiyā ākārānaṃ sambhavantānaṃ sabbena sabbaṃ abhāvenapi nimittakatādīnaṃ asambhavantānaṃ aññatarabhāvenapi na atthataṃ hoti kathinanti evamadhippāyo [Pg.490] veditabbo. Sukkapakkhepi ahatāhatakappa…pe… sīmaṭṭhānumodanānaṃ sattarasannaṃ ākārānaṃ sambhavantānaṃ aññatarabhāvenapi itaresaṃ sabbena sabbaṃ abhāvenapi atthataṃ hoti kathinanti evamadhippāyo veditabbo. Aññathā aññamaññavirodho, yathāsambhavaṃ yojetvā veditabbo.

The statement, “It is sufficient with any one of the three robes,” seems to contradict this Pāḷi text: “The kathina is not spread except with the double-layered robe, the upper robe, and the lower garment.” If one were to say: “Does this Pāḷi text indeed show that the kathina is not spread even with the absence of any one of the three robes?” That should not be said. Why? Because of knowing its meaning. Indeed, it is not the case that the Blessed One spoke that Pāḷi text wishing to show that ‘the kathina is not spread with the absence of any one of the three robes.’ If one were to say: “If this were so, the phrase ‘except with the double-layered robe, the upper robe, and the lower garment’ should not have been spoken.” That should not be said. Why? Precisely because of knowing the intention. For whichever monk wishes to spread the kathina with the double-layered robe, for him it is not spread except with the double-layered robe. This is the method in the other cases as well. This is the intention here. For that very reason, in the ‘white section’ (sukkapakkha), by the method beginning with ‘it is spread with the double-layered robe,’ only one robe was spoken of. This being so, it should be known that the statement, ‘the kathina is not spread in twenty-four modes, and is spread in seventeen modes,’ was spoken, as is suitable, as the highest limit. Therefore, in the ‘black section’ (kaṇhapakkha), the intention should be understood thus: the kathina is not spread even with the complete absence of the twenty-four possible modes—from ullikhita… to… nissīmaṭṭhānumodana—or even with the presence of any one of the impossible modes, beginning with making a sign. In the ‘white section’ (sukkapakkha) also, the intention should be understood thus: the kathina is spread even with the presence of any one of the seventeen possible modes—from ahatāhatakappa… to… sīmaṭṭhānumodana—and with the complete absence of the others. Otherwise, there would be mutual contradiction; it should be understood by applying it as is suitable.

Tatridaṃ mukhamattanidassanaṃ – kaṇhapakkhe ‘‘uttarāsaṅgena atthate kathine na aññatra saṅghāṭiyā na aññatra antaravāsakena atthataṃ hoti kathina’’nti vacanappamāṇato taṃ kathinaṃ anatthataṃ siyā. Sukkapakkhe ca ‘‘animittakatena atthataṃ hoti kathina’’nti vacanappamāṇato animittakatena kathine atthate tañce parikathā kataṃ, tathāpi atthatameva kathinaṃ hotīti ayaṃ duvidhopi virodho. Yathāvuttanayena adhippāye gahite parihāro hotīti veditabbaṃ.

Herein, this is a mere introductory example: In the negative section, according to the authority of the statement, 'When the kathina is spread with the upper robe, it is not spread without the double-layered robe, nor is it spread without the lower robe,' that kathina would be considered unspread. And in the positive section, according to the authority of the statement, 'The kathina is spread by that which is undesignated,' when the kathina is spread with an undesignated robe, and that robe has been made the subject of preliminary talk, even so, the kathina is indeed spread. Thus, this is a twofold contradiction. It should be understood that the resolution is found when the intention is grasped according to the method already stated.

Yo ānisaṃsaṃ bahuṃ detīti iminā paccayalolabhāvaṃ viya dīpeti, tathāpi bhagavatā yāvadatthacīvarapariyesanapaññāpanamukhena dvāraṃ dinnanti katvā saṅghānuggahatthaṃ hoti. ‘‘Akātuṃ na hotīti anādariyena akarontassa dukkaṭa’’nti likhitaṃ. Anumodāmāti ettha sabbasaṅgāhikavasena evaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Anumodāmī’’ti ekakena vattabbaṃ, itarathā ‘‘na vaṭṭatī’’ti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ kira vuttaṃ. Kathinacīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā ‘‘imāya saṅghāṭiyā kathinaṃ attharāmī’’ti vācāya bhinnamattāya puggalassa atthataṃ hoti. ‘‘Kammavācā pana ekāyeva vaṭṭatīti kathinadussassa eva kammavācā, sesacīvaradāne apalokanamevāti attho’’ti likhitaṃ. Ekasīmāyāti ekaupacārasīmāyāti attho yujjati. Keci pana ‘‘baddhasīmā adhippetā ekasīmāya ekaṭṭhāne attharite sabbattha attharitaṃ hoti ‘sabbe bhikkhū sannipatitvā’ti vuttattā, tehipi anumodantehi attharitameva hoti, upacāraparicchinne tattha tattha laddhaṃ tehi tehi laddhabbaṃ hoti. Tattha paviṭṭhehipi labhitabbaṃ sabbehipi attharitattā, ayaṃ viseso. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyampi evameva vutta’’nti vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ.

By this statement, 'Which gives many benefits,' it seems to indicate a state of greed for requisites. Nevertheless, considering that the Blessed One has given an allowance by means of laying down the rule concerning the seeking of robes only as needed, it is for the support of the Saṅgha. It is written: 'Regarding “It is not right not to do,” for one who does not do it out of disrespect, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred.' Herein, 'Anumodāma' (We rejoice) is said by way of including all. 'Anumodāmi' (I rejoice) should be said by an individual; otherwise, 'it is not proper,' so it is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. Having determined the kathina robe, merely by the utterance of the words, 'With this double-layered robe, I spread the kathina,' the spreading is accomplished for the individual. It is written: 'Regarding “But the formal act is proper only once,” the meaning is that the formal act is only for the kathina cloth; in the giving of the remaining robes, there is only an announcement.' Regarding 'in one boundary,' the meaning 'in one vicinity-boundary' is suitable. But some say: 'A consecrated boundary is intended. When it is spread in one place within one boundary, it is spread everywhere, because it is said, “all the bhikkhus having assembled.” By them also, who are rejoicing, it is indeed spread. When the vicinity is defined, what is received in various places should be received by those various bhikkhus. It should also be received by those who have entered there, because it has been spread by all. This is the distinction. Also in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā it is said just so.' This should be investigated.

308. Catuvīsati ākāravantatāya mahābhūmikaṃ. ‘‘Dīghasibbitanti pacchākatasibbanaṃ, ovaṭṭitvā sibbanaṃ vā’’ti likhitaṃ. Kaṇḍusaṃ nāma pubbabandhanaṃ. Paṭhamacimilikā ghaṭetvā ṭhapitā hotīti kathinadussaṃ dubbalaṃ disvā [Pg.491] taṃ balavatā attano pakatidussena saddhiṃ ghaṭetvā dupaṭṭaṃ katvā sibbitukāmehi kathinadussato pakatidussassa mahantatāya paṭhamaṃ tappamāṇānurūpaṃ bandhakaṇḍuse ghaṭetvā rajjukehi bandhitvā kataṃ hotīti adhippāyo. Kathinacīvarassa appatāya paṭhamaṃ baddhadussaṃ kucchicimilikā hoti, mahāpaccariyaṃ, kurundiyañca vuttavacananidassanaṃ, byañjane eva bhedo, atthe natthīti dassanatthaṃ katanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Iminā kiṃ dīpetīti ce? Tathākataṃ dupaṭṭacīvaraṃ pakaticīvarassa mahantatāya pakaticīvarasaṅkhyameva gacchati, na kathinacīvarasaṅkhyanti kassaci siyā, nevaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ kucchicimilikabhāvena ṭhitampi kathinacīvaraṃ. Mahantampi taṃ pakaticīvaraṃ attano kathinacīvaramevāti. Heṭṭhimakoṭiyā pañcakassa icchitabbattā kathinadussaṃ khaṇḍākhaṇḍaṃ bahudhā chinditvā sibbitukāmo kathinacīvarato paṭṭaṃ gahetvā aññasmiṃ akathinacīvare paṭṭamāropetī’’ti likhitaṃ. Atha vā bahūni kathinadussāni paṃsukūlāni khuddakakhuddakāni ekacīvaratthāya, mahantāni ca ūnatthāya dinnāni honti. Kathinacīvaratoti bhikkhu ekaccato kathinacīvarato paṭṭaṃ gahetvā aññasmiṃ āropeti. Etthāha – kiṃ paṃsukūlāni kathinadussāni vikappanupagapacchimāni dātabbāni, udāhu khuddakānipīti? Ettha acīvarasaṅkhyattā khuddakāni dātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Kammavācā tattha na ruhatīti eke. ‘‘Paṃsukūlena atthataṃ hotī’’ti pāḷiyaṃ nayadānato kucchicimilikabhāvena ṭhitassa kathinadussassa attano sabhāvena anadhiṭṭhānupagassa purāṇacīvarabhāveneva adhiṭṭhānārahassapi kathinacīvarabhāvānumatimukhena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ padānato ca khuddakānipi dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tañhi kathinatthārako ghaṭetvā kathinacīvaraṃ karissatīti katvā kappatīti eke, yuttataraṃ gahetabbaṃ.

308. Because it possesses twenty-four characteristics, it is called Mahābhūmika. It is written: 'Long stitching means stitching done afterwards, or stitching done by rolling it up.' 'Kaṇḍusaṃ' means the initial binding. The phrase 'the first cimilikā is prepared and set aside' has this intended meaning: seeing that the kathina cloth is weak, those who wish to stitch it, having joined it with their own strong ordinary cloth and made it double-layered—because the ordinary cloth is larger than the kathina cloth—first prepare a binding 'kaṇḍusa' of appropriate size, and having joined it and tied it with strings, complete it. Due to the weakness of the kathina robe, the first bound cloth is the 'kucchicimilikā'. The statement mentioned in the Mahāpaccarī and the Kurundī is an example of this. It should be understood that this is done to show that the distinction is only in the wording, not in the meaning. If asked, 'What does this indicate?'—someone might think that such a double-layered robe, due to the largeness of the ordinary cloth, is counted only as an ordinary robe, not as a kathina robe. This should not be seen as such. Even when existing as a 'kucchicimilikā,' it is a kathina robe. And even if that ordinary cloth is large, it is indeed one's own kathina robe. It is written: 'Because a five-panel robe is desired as the minimum, a monk who wishes to cut the kathina cloth into many pieces and stitch it may take a strip from the kathina robe and apply it to another, non-kathina robe.' Alternatively, many very small kathina cloths, being rag-robes, are given for the purpose of a single robe, and large ones are given for the purpose of making up a deficiency. A monk takes a strip from a certain kathina robe and applies it to another. Here, a questioner asks: 'Should the rag-robes that are kathina cloths be given only if they are at the minimum size for `vikappana`, or can even smaller pieces be given?' Here, because they are not counted as a robe, it is not allowable to give small pieces. The `kammavācā` does not apply to them, so say some. Because of the guideline given in the Pāḷi, 'It is spread with a rag-robe,' and because it is stated in the commentary—by way of allowing its status as a kathina robe—that even a kathina cloth which exists as a `kucchicimilikā`, which by its own nature is not fit for formal determination, and which is fit for formal determination only in the manner of an old robe, it is allowable to give even small pieces. Some say it is permissible because the monk who spreads the kathina will assemble it and make a kathina robe. The more reasonable view should be adopted.

Nicayasannidhi saṅghāyattā saṅghena katattā. Rattātikkantaṃ nissajjitabbattā ‘‘nissaggiya’’nti vuccati. Pañca khaṇḍāni paṭṭāni pamāṇaṃ assāti pañcakaṃ. Tena vā atirittena vāti attho. Tadaheva sañchinnenāti saṅghena kathinatthārakassa kammavācaṃ vatvā dinneneva tadaheva sañchinnena samaṇḍalikatena bhavitabbaṃ. Evaṃ dinnaṃyeva hi parivāre ‘‘pubbakaraṇaṃ sattahi dhammehi saṅgahita’’nti vuttaṃ, na dāyakena diyyamānaṃ, tasmā pariniṭṭhitapubbakaraṇameva ce [Pg.492] dāyako saṅghassa deti, sampaṭicchitvā kammavācāya dātabbaṃ. Tena ca tasmiṃyeva sīmāmaṇḍale adhiṭṭhahitvā attharitvā saṅgho anumodāpetabbo katapubbakaraṇassa puna kattabbābhāvato. Atthārakassa hatthagatameva hi sandhāya ‘‘na ullikhitamattenā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Pariniṭṭhitapubbakaraṇampi puna dhovitvā visibbitvā kātabbameva vacanapamāṇatoti ce? Na, chinnassa puna chedāsambhavato. Aññasmiṃ ṭhāne chinditabbamevāti ce? Na, pabbajjādhikāre ‘‘kesamassuṃ ohārāpetvā’’ti vacanappamāṇato muṇḍikassa chinnepi kese pariyesitvā sirasmiṃ ṭhapetvā puna ohārāpetvā pabbājetabbappasaṅgato, na idha na-kārena paṭisiddhattāti ce? Na, ‘‘na aññatra saṅghāṭiyā’’ti na-kārena paṭisiddhattā uttarāsaṅgena atthate anatthataṃ hotīti aniṭṭhappasaṅgato, tasmā abhiniveso na kātabbo. ‘‘Bahiupacārasīmāya ṭhito’’ti vuttattāpi pubbe vuttavinicchayova gahetabbo.

The accumulation and storage is dependent on the Saṅgha because it is done by the Saṅgha. Because it has passed one night and must be forfeited, it is called 'nissaggiya'. A robe of five sections (pañcaka) is so called because its measure is five sections or strips. The meaning is: either by that or by what is in excess of it. Regarding 'cut on that very day': it must be a robe that, having been given by the Saṅgha to the monk who is to spread the kathina after reciting the formal act, is cut and made with a border on that very day. Indeed, regarding only what is given in this way, it is said in the Parivāra, 'The preliminary work is comprised of seven factors,' not regarding what is being given by a donor. Therefore, if a donor gives to the Saṅgha a robe for which the preliminary work is already completed, it should be accepted and then bestowed by means of a formal act. And that monk, having determined it and spread it out within that very boundary area, should have the Saṅgha rejoice, because for that for which the preliminary work has been done, there is nothing further to be done. Indeed, with reference to what has come into the hands of the spreader, it is said, 'Not by mere marking,' and so forth. If it is said: 'Even for a robe for which the preliminary work is completed, must it be washed and unstitched again, taking the text as the authority?' No, because for what has been cut, a re-cutting is impossible. If it is said: 'It must be cut in another place'? No, because in the section on ordination, if one takes the text 'having had the hair and beard removed' as the authority, it would lead to the absurd consequence that one would have to ordain a bald person by searching for his already-cut hair, placing it on his head, and having it removed again. If it is said: 'Here, that absurd consequence would not arise, because it is prohibited by the negative particle 'na'?' No, because it would lead to the undesirable consequence that, due to the prohibition by the negative particle 'na' in the phrase 'not other than the double-layered robe,' if one were to spread the kathina with an upper robe, it would be considered 'not spread'. Therefore, adherence should not be practiced. Also because it is said, 'standing outside the precinct boundary,' the decision stated previously should be accepted.

309. Asannidhikatena atthataṃ hoti kathinanti ettha kiṃ kathinatthāramāseyeva duvidhopi sannidhi adhippeto, udāhu tato pubbepi, dāyakena vā kadā dātabbaṃ, kiṃ kathinatthāramāseyeva, udāhu tato pubbepi, kathinatthāramāsepi asukasmiṃ divaseyeva atthāratthāya dammīti dātuṃ vaṭṭati na vaṭṭatīti idaṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Kathinatthāramāse eva duvidhopi sannidhi. Dāyakenāpi vassāvāsikaṃ viya kathinacīvaraṃ uddissa dinnaṃ na vaṭṭati. Kasmā? ‘‘Kathinadāyakassa vattaṃ atthī’’tiādinā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 306) nayena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā. Ukkaṭṭhamattametanti ce? Na, ‘‘kathinaṃ nāma atiukkaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 308) vuttattā. Na āgamanaṃ sandhāya vuttanti ce? Na, idampi āgamanameva sandhāya vuttaṃ, pubbe dinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti.

309. Herein, regarding the statement 'the kathina is spread by one who has not stored it up,' is both kinds of storage intended only during the month of the spreading of the kathina, or even before that? And by the donor, when should it be given? Only during the month of the spreading of the kathina, or even before? And even during the month of the spreading of the kathina, is it permissible or not permissible to give on a specific day, stating, 'I give for the purpose of spreading'? This matter should be investigated. Both kinds of storage are intended only in the month of the spreading of the kathina. Also by the donor, it is not permissible to give a kathina robe having designated it beforehand, like a rains-residence robe. Why? Because it is stated in the commentary by the method beginning, 'There is a duty for the kathina donor.' If one were to say, 'This is merely the highest standard,' it should not be said. Why? Because it is stated, 'The kathina, indeed, is permissible only at the highest standard.' If one were to say, 'This was not said with reference to the scriptural tradition,' the answer is no. This too was said with reference to the scriptural tradition itself; it should be understood that what is given beforehand is not permissible.

310. Kathinassāti kathinatthārassa. Ubbhārāyāti vūpasamāya, appavattiyāti attho. Kimatthiyaṃ ubbhāranidassananti ce? Pañcahi anāpattikālapariyantadassanena tesu saṃvaruppādanatthaṃ. Aññathā ‘‘cīvarakālasamayo nāma anatthate kathine vassānassa pacchimo māso, atthate kathine pañca māsā’’ti (pārā. 649) vibhaṅge vuttattā antarāpakkamanantikādiubbhārābhāvepi pañcahi pañcasu māsesu anāpattiyevāti micchāgāho siyā[Pg.493]. Tato āpattikhette anāpattikhettasaññāya taṃ taṃ āpattiṃ āpajjati, itaresañca bhikkhūnaṃ lābhantarāyaṃ karotīti veditabbaṃ.

310. ‘Of the kathina’ means ‘of the spreading of the kathina.’ ‘For the withdrawal’ means ‘for the cessation,’ that is, ‘for the non-occurrence.’ If it is asked for what purpose the indication of the withdrawal is shown, it is for the purpose of producing restraint in those cases by showing the limit of the period of no-offence regarding the five grounds. Otherwise, because it is stated in the Vibhaṅga, ‘The robe-time, indeed, is the last month of the rains-residence when the kathina is not spread, and five months when the kathina is spread,’ even in the absence of a withdrawal due to the departure-limit and so on in the interim, a wrong view might arise that for the five grounds during the five months there is only no-offence. Therefore, in a field of offence, with the perception of a field of no-offence, one falls into that very offence and creates an obstacle to the gains of other bhikkhus. This should be understood.

Ādāyasattakakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Heptad of Taking

311. Sanniṭṭhānantike dvepi palibodhā ekato chijjantīti idha, parivāraṭṭhakathāyañca vuttaṃ imissā khandhakapāḷiyā sameti ekato ubhinnampi dhuranikkhepassa katattā. ‘‘Idaṃ bahisīmāyameva vuttaṃ sanniṭṭhānantikaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ parivāre ‘cattāro kathinuddhārā siyā antosīmāya uddhariyyanti, siyā bahisīmāya uddhariyyanti, niṭṭhānantiko sanniṭṭhānantiko nāsanantiko āsāvacchediko’ti (pari. 416). Tattha bahisīmāya sanniṭṭhānantiko uddhariyyatīti idha dassitanayova. Kathaṃ antosīmāya sanniṭṭhānantiko? Akatacīvaramādāya ‘na paccessa’nti gato, gatagataṭṭhāne phāsuvihāraṃ alabhanto tameva vihāraṃ āgacchati, tassa cīvarapalibodho ṭhito. So ca ‘nevimaṃ cīvaraṃ kāressa’nti citte uppannamatte chijjati, tasmā antosīmāya uddhariyyati, tasmā duvidho sanniṭṭhānantiko’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ, aññathā antosīmāya ‘‘nevimaṃ cīvaraṃ kāressa’’nti pavattaubbhāro itaresu samodhānaṃ na gacchatīti atiritto siyā. Sīmātikkantikoti cīvarakālasīmātikkantiko. Saubbhāre cīvarapalibodho paṭhamaṃ chijjanto viya khāyati, atha kho sāpekkhatāya cīvarakaraṇe saussāhova hotīti lesaṃ sandhāya parivāravasena ‘‘dve palibodhā apubbaṃ acarimaṃ chijjantī’’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 311) vuttaṃ. ‘‘Katacīvaro’’ti vuttattā idha na sambhavati.

311. Regarding the withdrawal by determination-ending, the statement that ‘both hindrances are cut off simultaneously,’ which is mentioned both here and in the Parivāra commentary, agrees with this Khandhaka Pāḷi, because the laying down of the burden for both is done simultaneously. This is stated with reference to the determination-ending that occurs only outside the boundary. However, in the Parivāra, it is said: ‘There are four withdrawals of the Kathina: some are withdrawn within the boundary, and some are withdrawn outside the boundary; they are the withdrawal by completion-ending, by determination-ending, by destruction-ending, and by cutting off of hope.’ Among those, that the withdrawal by determination-ending is done outside the boundary is the very method shown here. How is there a withdrawal by determination-ending within the boundary? A monk, having taken an unmade robe, goes away thinking, ‘I will not return.’ Not finding a comfortable dwelling in whatever place he goes, he returns to that very monastery; his robe-hindrance remains. And as for him, as soon as the thought ‘I will certainly not make this robe’ arises in his mind, it is cut off. Therefore, it is withdrawn within the boundary. Thus, the withdrawal by determination-ending is of two kinds.” This is written in the ancient glossaries, and it is correct. Otherwise, the withdrawal that occurs within the boundary with the thought ‘I will certainly not make this robe’ would not find inclusion among the others and would thus be superfluous. ‘Crossing the boundary’ means crossing the boundary of the robe-period. In the case of withdrawal with the robe-cloth, the robe-hindrance appears as if it is cut off first. However, due to remaining expectation, one is still eager in the making of the robe. With reference to this subtle point, it is stated according to the Parivāra: ‘The two hindrances are cut off neither one before nor one after.’ Because it is said, ‘one whose robe is made,’ it is not applicable here.

316. Sabbaṃ attano parikkhāraṃ anavasesetvā pakkamanto ‘‘samādāya pakkamatī’’ti vuccati. ‘‘Kathinuddhāre viseso natthi. Puggalādhippāyavisesena kevalaṃ vāradassanatthaṃ samādāyavārā vuttā’’ti sabbesu gaṇṭhipadesu likhitaṃ. Idha pana puggalādhippāyena payojanaṃ vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Pakkamanantikassa abhāvā ‘‘yathāsambhava’’nti vuttaṃ. Vippakatepi dhuranikkhepavasena pakkamanantikatā sambhavati, tasmā pakkamanantikavāropi vattabboti ce? Na, sanniṭṭhānantikalakkhaṇappasaṅgato. Akatacīvarassa na savanantikatā ca.

316. One who departs without leaving behind any of his requisites is called ‘one who departs taking them along.’ It is written in all the Ganthipadas: “There is no distinction in the removal of the Kathina. The ‘taking-along’ sections are stated solely for the purpose of showing the allowance, based on the particular intention of the individual.” Here, however, the purpose should be examined based on the intention of the individuals. Due to the absence of a departure-ending, it is said ‘as is possible.’ If one were to say that even when the robe is unmade, the state of being a departure-ending is possible by way of relinquishing the burden, and therefore the departure-ending section should also be stated? No, because it would involve the characteristic of the determination-ending. And for an unmade robe, there is no state of being a hearing-ending.

Tatrāyaṃ [Pg.494] ādito paṭṭhāya vāravibhāvanā – ādāyavārā satta, tathā samādāyavārāti dve sattakavārā. Tato pakkamanantikaṃ vajjetvā vippakatacīvarassa ādāyavārā, samādāyavārā cāti dve chakkavārā. Tato paraṃ niṭṭhānasanniṭṭhānanāsanantikānaṃ vasena tīṇi tikāni dassitāni, tattha paṭhamattikaṃ antosīmāya ‘‘na paccessa’’nti imaṃ vidhiṃ anāmasitvā bahisīmāyaṃ eva ‘‘na paccessa’’nti pavattaṃ, tasmā pakkamanantikasīmātikkantikasaubbhārā tattha na yujjanti. ‘‘Āsāvacchediko sambhavantopi yathāvuttakāraṇena na vutto. Dutiyattikaṃ antosīmāya ‘na paccessa’nti pavattaṃ, ettha kiñcāpi pakkamanantiko sambhavati, tathāpi yehi cīvarapalibodho chijjati, tesaṃyevādhippetattā na vutto’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Sabbasmimpi pannarasake vippakatacīvarassevādhippetattāti takko. Adhiṭṭhānupage ca vippakate sati na niṭṭhānantiko. Niṭṭhānāvasese sati na nāsanantikoti porāṇā. Tatiyattikaṃ anadhiṭṭhita-padena visesetvā pavattaṃ, atthato paṭhamattikena sameti. Tassa atthadassanapayojanaṃ kira taṃ. Yasmā ime tayo atthavikappā imehi eva tīhi kathinuddhārehi sakkā dassetuṃ, tasmā imeva yojitā ekasambandhavasena, aññathā paṭhamattikaṃ chakkaṃ bhaveyya imassa pannarasakassa ante chakkaṃ viya. Tatiyattikānantaraṃ catutthattikaṃ sambhavantaṃ ‘‘antosīmāyaṃ ‘paccessa’’nti vacanavisesena sambhavati. Tathā ca yojiyamānaṃ itarehi savanantikādīhi aviruddhakkamaṃ hoti, tasmā catutthattikaṃ ahutvā chakkaṃ jātanti veditabbaṃ. Evaṃ tīṇi tikāni ekaṃ chakkañcāti paṭhamaṃ pannarasakaṃ veditabbaṃ. Idāni idameva pannarasakaṃ upasaggavisesena dutiyaṃ samādāyapannarasakaṃ nāma kataṃ. Puna vippakatacīvaraṃ ādāyāti tatiyaṃ pannarasakaṃ, samādāyāti catutthaṃ pannarasakaṃ dassitaṃ. Evaṃ cattāri pannarasakāni veditabbāni. Tattha paṭhamadutiyesu pannarasakesu sabbena sabbaṃ akatacīvaraṃ adhippetaṃ, itaresu dvīsu vippakatanti yojetabbaṃ. ‘‘Pubbe nibaddhaṭṭhāne cīvarāsāya gahetabbaṃ, aññattha na vaṭṭati. Upacchinnāya ce cīvarāsāya cīvaraṃ uppannaṃ, na taṃ cīvarapalibodhaṃ karotī’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Nissaggiyesu tatiyakathine āgatacīvarapaccāsā idha cīvarāsāti takko. Yattha cīvarāsā, taṃ ṭhānaṃ adhikaraṇūpacārena ‘‘cīvarāsā’’tveva vuccatīti katvā ‘‘taṃ cīvarāsaṃ payirupāsatī’’tiādi vuttaṃ, tasmā anāsāya labhatīti anāsāyitaṭṭhāne labhatītiādinā attho [Pg.495] gahetabbo. Ettha niṭṭhānasanniṭṭhānanāsanaāsāvacchedikavasena eko vāroti idamekaṃ catukkaṃ jātaṃ, tasmā pubbe vuttāni tīṇi tikāni āsāvacchedikādhikāni tīṇi catukkānīti ekaṃ anāsāyadvādasakanti veditabbaṃ. Tadanantare āsāyadvādasake kiñcāpi paṭhamadvādasakkamo labbhati, tathāpi taṃ nibbisesanti tamekaṃ dvādasakaṃ avuttasiddhaṃ katvā visesato dassetuṃ ādito paṭṭhāya ‘‘antosīmāya paccessa’’nti vuttaṃ, taṃ dutiyacatukke ‘‘so bahisīmagato suṇātī’’tiādivacanassa tatiyacatukke savanantikādīnañca okāsakaraṇatthanti veditabbaṃ. Idaṃ pana dvādasakaṃ anāsāya vasena labbhamānampi iminā avuttasiddhaṃ katvā na dassitanti veditabbaṃ. Evamettha dve dvādasakāni uddharitāni. Karaṇīyadvādasakepi yathādassitaanāsāyadvādasakaṃ, avuttasiddhaṃ āsāyadvādasakañcāti dve dvādasakāni uddharitabbāni. Idāni disaṃgamikanavakaṃ hoti. Tattha yasmā ‘‘disaṃgamiko pakkamatī’’ti vacaneneva ‘‘na paccessa’’nti idaṃ avuttasiddhameva, tasmā taṃ na vuttaṃ. Ettāvatā āvāsapalibodhābhāvo dassito.

Herein, this is the clarification of the sections, starting from the beginning: the ‘taking’ sections are seven; similarly, the ‘undertaking’ sections are seven. Thus, there are two sevenfold sections. From that, excluding the departure-ending, for a bhikkhu with an unfinished robe, there are the ‘taking’ sections and the ‘undertaking’ sections; thus, there are two sixfold sections. After that, three triads are shown by way of the completion-ending, determination-ending, and loss-ending. Among them, the first triad proceeds only outside the boundary with “I will not return,” without considering this procedure within the boundary. Therefore, the departure-ending, the boundary-crossing-ending, and the with-removal-ending are not applicable there. “Although the cutting-off-of-hope-ending is possible, it is not mentioned for the reason already stated. The second triad proceeds within the boundary with ‘I will not return.’ Here, although the departure-ending is possible, nevertheless, because only those removals by which the robe-impediment is cut off are intended, it is not mentioned.” Thus it is said in the ancient gloss. The reasoning is that in the entire fifteenfold section, only the unfinished robe is intended. And when a robe suitable for determination is unfinished, there is no completion-ending. When there is a remainder after completion, there is no loss-ending. Thus say the ancients. The third triad proceeds, being distinguished by the term ‘undetermined’; in meaning, it agrees with the first triad. It has the purpose of showing the meaning of that first triad. Because these three variations of meaning can be shown by these very three Kathina removals, therefore these very ones are connected by way of a single connection. Otherwise, the first triad would become a sixfold section, like the sixfold section at the end of this fifteenfold section. After the third triad, a fourth triad, while being possible, is possible with the specific statement, “I will return within the boundary.” And being connected in such a way, it has a non-conflicting sequence with the others, such as the hearing-ending. Therefore, it should be understood that a fourth triad did not come to be, but a sixfold section has arisen. Thus, three triads and one sixfold section should be understood as the first fifteenfold section. Now, this very fifteenfold section, with a specific prefix, is made into what is named the second, the ‘undertaking’ fifteenfold section. Again, with ‘taking an unfinished robe,’ the third fifteenfold section is shown; with ‘undertaking,’ the fourth fifteenfold section is shown. Thus, four fifteenfold sections should be understood. Among them, in the first and second fifteenfold sections, a completely unmade robe is intended; in the other two, ‘unfinished’ should be applied. “With hope for robe-material, it should be taken at the previously designated place; elsewhere, it is not allowable. If, when the hope for robe-material is cut off, a robe arises, it does not create a robe-impediment.” Thus it is said in the ancient gloss. The reasoning is that the ‘expectation for robe-material that has arrived’ in the third Kathina rule of the Nissaggiyas is here called ‘hope for a robe.’ Where there is hope for robe-material, that place, by metaphorical extension of the basis, is called ‘hope for a robe.’ Because of this, “he attends to that hope for a robe,” etc., is said. Therefore, from ‘he obtains without hope,’ the meaning should be taken as ‘he obtains in a place where there is no hope,’ etc. Here, by way of completion, determination, loss, and cutting off of hope, there is one section; thus this one tetrad has arisen. Therefore, the three triads previously mentioned, with the addition of the cutting-off-of-hope-ending, become three tetrads, and this should be understood as one twelvefold section without hope. After that, in the twelvefold section with hope, although the sequence of the first twelvefold section is obtained, nevertheless, making that one twelvefold section implicitly understood in order to show it specifically, from the beginning “I will return within the boundary” is stated. It should be understood that this is for the purpose of making an opportunity for the statement “he, having gone outside the boundary, hears,” etc., in the second tetrad, and for the hearing-ending, etc., in the third tetrad. It should be understood that this twelvefold section, although also obtainable by way of being without hope, is not shown, having been made implicitly understood by this other one. Thus, two twelvefold sections have been extracted here. Also in the twelvefold section of what is to be done, two twelvefold sections should be extracted: the twelvefold section without hope as shown, and the implicitly understood twelvefold section with hope. Now there is the ninefold section on one going to another region. There, because by the very statement “one going to another region departs,” this “I will not return” is indeed implicitly understood, therefore it is not stated. By this much, the absence of the residence-impediment is shown.

321. ‘‘Cīvarapaṭivīsaṃ apavilāyamāno’’ti iminā cīvarapalibodhasamaṅgitamassa dasseti. Paṭivīsoti attano pattabbo cīvarabhāgo. Apavilāyamānoti ākaṅkhamāno. Tassa cīvaralābhe sati vassaṃvutthāvāse niṭṭhānasanniṭṭhānanāsanantikānaṃ vasena ekaṃ tikaṃ, tesaṃyeva vasena antarāmagge ekaṃ, gataṭṭhāne ekanti tiṇṇaṃ tikānaṃ vasena ekaṃ navakaṃ veditabbaṃ. Tato paraṃ niṭṭhānasanniṭṭhānanāsananti kasīmātikkantikasaubbhārānaṃ vasena phāsuvihārapañcakaṃ vuttaṃ. Ubhayattha sesakathinuddhārāsambhavo pākaṭova. Ayaṃ panettha pañcake viseso – samādāyavāro na sambhavati ‘‘paccessa’’nti paccāgamanādhippāyato.

321. By “not letting go of the robe-share,” it shows his being endowed with the robe-impediment. “Share” means the portion of the robe due to him. “Not letting go” means desiring. When he obtains a robe, after having spent the rains residence, one triad is to be understood by way of the completion-ending, determination-ending, and loss-ending; and by way of these same, one on the journey in between, and one at the place reached—thus, one ninefold section is to be understood by way of three triads. After that, the fivefold section concerning comfortable abiding is stated by way of the completion-ending, determination-ending, loss-ending, boundary-crossing-ending, and with-removal-ending. In both cases, the impossibility of the remaining Kathina removals is evident. The particular difference in this fivefold section is this: the “undertaking” section is not possible because of the intention to return, as in “I will return.”

325. Dveme bhikkhave kathinassa palibodhāti kathinatthārassa anupabandhanapaccayāti.

325. In the phrase, “These two, bhikkhus, are hindrances to the Kathina,” the meaning should be understood as: the conditions for not continuing the Kathina spreading.

Kathinakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Kathina chapter is concluded.

8. Cīvarakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Robe Chapter

Jīvakavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Story of Jīvaka

326. Rājagahakoti [Pg.496] rājagahavāsī.

326. “Rājagahako” means a resident of Rājagaha.

328. Amohajātikattā na cirasseva viññutaṃ pāpuṇi. Ahaṃ te pitā, kenaṭṭhena? Yasmā tvaṃ mayā posāpito.

328. Because he was of an undeluded nature, he quickly attained understanding. It is said, “I am your father.” In what sense? Because you were raised by me.

329. ‘‘Sakke vissaṭṭhamatte’’ti pāṭho, aṭṭhamasikkhāpade vissaṭṭhamattova.

329. The reading is “Sakke vissaṭṭhamatte”; in the eighth training rule, it is simply “vissaṭṭhamatta.”

Pajjotarājavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Story of King Pajjota

334. Bhuñjituṃ nisinnassāti ettha ‘‘dhammapade ‘bahinagare disvā’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā dvīsu divasesu dinnaṃ tena tesu ekekaṃ gahetvā dvīsu aṭṭhakathāsu vuttanti yujjatī’’ti vadanti.

334. Regarding “while sitting to eat,” here they say: “It is said in the Dhammapada, ‘having seen outside the city.’ Therefore, it is fitting that what was given on two days—taking one from each—is mentioned in the two commentaries.”

Samattiṃsavirecanakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Story of the Thirty Purges

336. Kabaḷe kabaḷeti ettha kiñcāpi guḷādīsu pakkhittaṃ, taṃ pana bhagavāva paribhuñji, tasmā natthi doso.

336. Regarding “in every mouthful,” here, although it was put into molasses and so forth, only the Blessed One partook of it; therefore, there is no fault.

Varayācanakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Story of the Request for a Boon

337. Mahāpiṭṭhiyakojavaṃ nāma atirekacaturaṅgulapupphaṃ kira.

337. What is called Mahāpiṭṭhiyakojava, it is said, is a flower exceeding four finger-widths.

Kambalānujānanādikathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Story of the Allowance for Blankets and So Forth

340. Upacāreti susānassa upacāre. Bahipi vaṭṭatīti eke. Katikakaraṇaṃ dassetvā ‘‘mayhaṃ santakaṃ tava ca mama ca hotūti vatvā itarena ca tathāvutte vaṭṭatī’’ti samānaparikkhāravidhiṃ vadanti.

340. In the phrase `upacāre`: in the vicinity of the charnel ground. Some say it is permissible even outside. Having shown the reason for making an agreement, and having said, 'Let what is mine be yours and mine,' and when the other has spoken likewise, it is permissible. Thus they speak of the procedure for shared requisites.

342. ‘‘Khaṇḍasīmāyapi sammannituṃ vaṭṭatīti vuttattā sesakammānipi tattha nisīditvā kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Evaṃ sante corikāya katasadisaṃ hoti[Pg.497], tasmā na vaṭṭatī’’ti dīpavāsino vadanti kira. ‘‘Corikāya gahitattā na pāpuṇātīti senāsanakkhandhake āgatasuttañca sādhaka’’nti vadanti, tasmā tesaṃ matena idaṃ āveṇikalakkhaṇanti veditabbaṃ.

342. Because it is said, 'It is permissible to agree upon even a fragmentary boundary,' it is said that it is permissible to perform the remaining acts, having sat down there. 'If this is so, it becomes like something done by stealth; therefore, it is not permissible,' the island-dwellers are said to say. 'Because it was taken by stealth, one does not attain it,' and the Sutta that comes in the Section on Lodgings is proof, they say. Therefore, according to their view, it should be understood that this is a distinctive characteristic.

Bhaṇḍāgārasammutiādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discussion Beginning with the Designation of a Storehouse

343. ‘‘Idaṃ pana bhaṇḍāgāranti āveṇikalakkhaṇa’’nti vuttaṃ.

343. It is said: 'This, however, is a distinctive characteristic' in the passage concerning the storehouse.

Cīvararajanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discussion on Robe-Dyeing

344. Gomaye āpatti natthi, virūpattāvāritaṃ. ‘‘Kuṅkumapupphaṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Allikāyā’’tipi pāṭho atthi.

344. In the case of cow dung, there is no offense; it is forbidden because of its unseemliness. They say, 'The saffron flower is not permissible.' There is also the reading `allikāya`.

Nisīdanādianujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discussion on the Allowance for Sitting Cloths and So Forth

353. Aṭṭhānametanti ettha rūpakaṇḍe ‘‘catusamuṭṭhānika’’nti vuttattā kammasamuṭṭhānaṃ rāgacittābhāvā na muccatīti vā rāgapaccaye sati kammasamuṭṭhānaṃ hotīti vā vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ kathāvatthunā ca.

353. In the phrase `aṭṭhānametaṃ` ('this is impossible'): here, because it is stated in the section on form to be 'of four origins,' it should be understood by investigating with the Kathāvatthu as well whether (1) that which is originated from kamma is not released due to the absence of a mind-state with lust, or (2) when the condition of lust is present, that which is originated from kamma occurs.

362. Aggaḷaguttiyeva pamāṇanti imehi catūhi nikkhepakāraṇehi ṭhapentena aggaḷaguttivihāreyeva ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo.

362. In the phrase `aggaḷaguttiyeva pamāṇaṃ` ('security by a bolt itself is the standard'): the meaning is that it is permissible for one who is depositing something for these four reasons for depositing to deposit it only in a monastery with a secure bolt.

Saṅghikacīvaruppādakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discussion on the Arising of Robes for the Sangha

363. No ce atthataṃ hoti ‘‘ekaṃ cīvaramāsa’’nti na vattabbaṃ. Kasmā? ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tasseva tāni cīvarāni yāva cīvaramāsā’’ti vacanassa abhāvato, tasmā anatthatakathinassa ananuññātanti ce? Na, heṭṭhā anuññātattā, tato līnatthadīpanatthamidha tathā vuttattā ca. Heṭṭhā hi ‘‘akālacīvaraṃ nāma anatthate kathine ekādasamāse uppannaṃ, atthate kathine sattamāse uppannaṃ, kālepi ādissa dinnaṃ, etaṃ akālacīvaraṃ nāmā’’ti (pārā. 500) vacanato anatthatakathinānaṃ ekacīvaramāse uppannaṃ, tesaṃyeva hotīti siddhaṃ, tasmā idha taṃ avatvā ekopi tayo gaṇapūrake labhitvā kathinaṃ attharituṃ labhatīti imaṃ līnatthaṃ pakāsetuṃ ‘‘yāva kathinassa ubbhārāyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Itarathā ayamattho na ñāyati. ‘‘Jānitabbo [Pg.498] ca vinayadharehīti tathā vuttoti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Atthataṃ hoti, pañca māse sabbaṃ tasseva bhikkhuno hotīti sambandho. Accantasaṃyogavasena upayogavacanaṃ. ‘‘Idha vassaṃvutthasaṅghassā’’ti niyamitattā ‘‘vassāvāsikaṃ demā’’ti ettha ca ‘‘idhā’’ti adhikārattā tasmiṃ vutte labhati. ‘‘Piṭṭhisamaye uppannattāti cīvarakālassāsannattā ca anatthatakathinānampi vutthavassānañca anuññātaṭṭhānattā eva vutta’’nti aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘yaṃ pana idaṃ ‘idha vassaṃvutthasaṅghassā’tiādiṃ katvā yāva ‘anāgatavasse’ti padaṃ, tāva pucchitvā ‘kasmā? Piṭṭhisamaye uppannattā’ti idaṃ parato ‘tatra sammukhībhūtānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇātī’ti imassa pariyosāne ‘kasmā? Piṭṭhisamaye uppannattā’ti likhitabbaṃ. Kasmāti ce? Parato ‘cīvaramāsato paṭṭhāya yāva hemantassā’ti vuttena nibbisesattā, tasmā eva ekaccesu paṇḍitanti vadantī’’ti vadanti. Idha pana idha-saddena visesitaṃ, tattha natthi, tasmā aññamaññavirodho natthīti gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Mayhimāni cīvarāni pāpuṇantī’’ti vacanamevādhiṭṭhānaṃ, idamettha ukkaṭṭhavasena vuttaṃ. ‘‘Mayhimāni cīvarānī’ti vuttepi adhiṭṭhitameva hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Mayhimānī’ti vutte tassa cīvarāni nāma natthi, tasmā ‘cīvarāni pāpuṇantī’ti vattabbamevā’’ti vadanti. Duggahitānīti saṅghikāneva honti. ‘‘Gahitameva nāmā’ti imassa idaṃ pattanti kiñcāpi na viditaṃ, te pana bhāgā tesaṃ atthato pattāyevāti adhippāyo’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Ekasmiṃ apatite puna āgatā labhantī’’ti vuttaṃ.

363. If the Kathina is not spread, one should not say, 'one robe-month.' Why? Because there is no statement such as, 'I allow, bhikkhus, those very robes for the duration of the robe-month.' Therefore, if one were to say that it is not permitted for one for whom the Kathina is not spread? No, because it was permitted below, and because it is stated thus here in order to clarify the hidden meaning from that. For below it was said: 'An untimely robe is one that arises during the eleven months when the Kathina is not spread, or during the seven months when it is spread, or even if given during the season but designated as such—this is called an untimely robe.' By this statement, it is established that what arises in the single robe-month for those for whom the Kathina is not spread, belongs to them alone. Therefore, here, without stating that, it is said, 'until the lifting of the Kathina,' in order to reveal this hidden meaning: that even one bhikkhu, having obtained three bhikkhus who complete the quorum, is able to spread the Kathina. Otherwise, this meaning would not be known. It is said by others, 'It should be understood by those versed in the Vinaya, and so it was stated thus.' The connection is as follows: if the Kathina is spread, for five months everything belongs to that very bhikkhu. The word for 'use' is employed in the sense of complete association. 'Here, for the Sangha that has spent the Rains'—because it is specified—and in 'we give to the Rains-resident,' because 'here' has governing force, it is obtained when stated thus. 'Because it arises at the back time (piṭṭhisamaya), and because it is close to the robe season, and because it is a case where permission is given both to those for whom the Kathina is not spread and to those who have spent the Rains'—thus it is written in a certain commentary note. Some, however, say: 'As for this passage, beginning with "here, for the Sangha that has spent the Rains" and so forth up to the word "in the coming Rains," having set it aside as a question, this phrase, "Why? Because it arises at the back time," should be written later at the conclusion of "there, it reaches all those present." If it is asked "Why?", it is because there is no distinction with what is stated later: "from the robe-month onwards up to the winter"; therefore, some say of them, "They are wise."' Here, however, it is specified by the word 'here,' while there it is not; therefore, it should be understood that there is no contradiction between them. 'These robes reach me'—this statement itself is the determination; this is stated here in the pre-eminent sense. It is said that even if 'these robes are mine' is said, it is still determined. If 'these are mine' is said, that statement contains no word 'robes'; therefore, it must indeed be said, 'the robes reach me'—so they say. 'Misapprehended'—they are indeed Sangha property. It is written: 'Regarding the statement, "It is indeed taken by name," although it is not known that "this has been obtained," nevertheless, those portions have in substance been obtained by them—this is the intention.' 'If one has not arrived, those who come later receive a share'—thus it is said.

Upanandasakyaputtavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Story of Upananda the Sakyan

364. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, aññatra vassaṃvutthenā’’ti cīvarasamayaṃ upādāya paṭikkhepo kato.Ekasmiṃ vihāre ‘‘rājavihāre viya nānāpariveṇesu vā idha vā vutthā labhatū’’ti vatvā dinnaṃ. ‘‘Sattāhavārena aruṇameva uṭṭhāpetīti etaṃ vacanamattameva ekavihāre sattāhakiccābhāvā’’ti ca likhitaṃ.

364. “Monks, not unless one has completed the rains-residence,” thus a refusal was made with reference to the robe-season. In one monastery, it was given after saying, “Let those who have completed the rains-residence here receive it, just as in a royal monastery or in various separate dwellings.” And it was written, “This statement, ‘He causes the dawn to be announced on a weekly turn,’ is merely a saying, because in a single monastery there is no seven-day duty.”

Matasantakakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Account of the Property of the Deceased

369. Bhikkhussāti bhikkhusmiṃ kālaṃkate. Tattha ‘‘pattacīvare’’ti padhānaparikkhāradassanamukhena sabbaparikkhāranidassananti veditabbaṃ. Adhammena uppannañcetaṃ [Pg.499] hoti, saṅghassa kappiyameva matattāti eke. Noti takko pattacatukke sabbathā akappiyapattanayavirodhato. Adhammena uppannasenāsane ca vasato anāpatti. Aññatarasmiṃ āvāse dve bhikkhū vasanti, tattha ceko kālaṃkato, itaro tassa parikkhāraṃ apāpetvā taṃ theyyacittena gaṇhāti, saṅghasantakaṃ gahitaṃ hoti, bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. Anāvāse gaṇhāti, na kāretabbo assāmikassa gahitattā. Maraṇasamaye vattuṃ asahanto ce citteneva deti, puññaṃ pasavati, saṅghova tassa sāmī. Paro vā avissāsiko sayameva gaṇhāti, gahaṇaṃ na ruhati, theyyacittena ce, bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. Tassa ca āvāsagatassa ko sāmī. ‘‘Saṅgho sāmī’’ti vacanato saṅghena balakkārena so vāretabboti eke. Jīvamānakāle gahitattā na saṅgho sāmīti eke. Sāmiko ce sayaṃ passitvā acchindituṃ labhati, saṅghopi labhati sāmiṭhāne ṭhitattāti itare, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.

369. “Bhikkhussa”: this concerns a bhikkhu who has passed away. Therein, “pattacīvare” (bowl and robe) should be understood as an indication of all requisites by way of showing the principal requisites. Some say that even if it has arisen unlawfully, it is permissible for the Sangha because its owner is dead. The reasoning against this is that it is not permissible, because it completely contradicts the principle concerning impermissible bowls in the section on the four bowls. And there is no offense for one dwelling in a lodging that has arisen unlawfully. In a certain dwelling, two bhikkhus reside; if one of them dies there, and the other, without delivering his (the deceased's) requisites, takes them with a thieving mind, what is taken is the Sangha's property; he should be made to pay its value. If he takes it in a non-dwelling, he should not be made to pay, because what was taken was ownerless. If at the time of death, being unable to speak, he gives with the mind alone, merit arises; the Sangha alone is its owner. Or if another, an untrusted person, takes it by himself, the taking is not valid; if with a thieving mind, he should be made to pay its value. And of his property that is in the dwelling, who is the owner? Because of the statement “The Sangha is the owner,” some say that he should be forcibly restrained by the Sangha. Some say that the Sangha is not the owner because it was taken while he was alive. If there is an owner, he, having seen it, is able to seize it back; the Sangha is also able to, because it stands in the position of the owner, thus say others. It should be taken after investigation.

Matakassa hiraññādiakappiyabhaṇḍaṃ hoti. Uggahitañcetaṃ hoti, uggahite vuttanayena paṭipajjitabbaṃ. Dhammena uppannaṃ ce, kappiyakārako ācikkhitabbo. Dāso ce gahito hoti, na saṅgho sāmī, ārāmiko ce, saṅgho sāmī. Gāvīmahiṃsīādayo honti, āvāsagatānaṃ saṅgho sāmī, anāvāsagatānaṃ na saṅgho sāmī. Saṅgho ce āvāsaṃ ānetvā attano santakaṃ katvā pacchā samīpe bahisīmāya ṭhapeti, kārakasaṅgho sāmī, tathā ārāmike. Matakassa parikkhāro nikkhepavasena ṭhapito hoti, esova sāmī. Mahaggho ce hoti, sesassa saṅgho sāmī. ‘‘Kenaci gilānupaṭṭhākenā’’ti vattabbakkamo etena dassito. Puna upaṭṭhākānaṃ bahubhāve sati sabbesaṃ dātabbakammaṃ dassentena bhagavatā kammavācāyaṃ ‘‘gilānupaṭṭhākāna’’nti vuttaṃ. Sāmaṇeravāre ‘‘cīvara’’nti pāṭho. ‘‘Imaṃ tuyhaṃ demi dadāmi dajjāmi oṇojemi pariccajāmi vissajjāmi nissajjāmī’ti vā ‘itthannāmassa demi…pe… nissajjāmī’ti vā vadati, ‘sammukhā vā parammukhā vā vutte dinnaṃyeva hotī’ti dānalakkhaṇassa ca ‘tuyhaṃ gaṇhāhī’ti vutte ‘mayhaṃ gaṇhāmī’ti vadati, ‘sudinnaṃ suggahitañcā’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) gahaṇalakkhaṇassa ca vuttattā ‘mama [Pg.500] santakaṃ tava ca mama ca hotū’ti evamādivacanena samānaparikkhāraṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti ācariyā’’ti likhitaṃ.

If a deceased monk has gold and other unallowable items, and if these have been accepted, one should proceed according to the method stated in the Uggahita training rule. If they have arisen lawfully, the one who makes things allowable should be informed. If a slave has been accepted, the Sangha is not the owner; if it is a monastery attendant, the Sangha is the owner. If there are cows, buffaloes, and the like, for those that are on the monastery grounds, the Sangha is the owner; for those not on the monastery grounds, the Sangha is not the owner. If the Sangha brings an item to the monastery, makes it its own property, and later places it nearby outside the boundary, the Sangha that performed the act is the owner; the same applies in the case of a monastery attendant. If a deceased monk's requisites have been placed by way of a deposit, that very person with whom they are deposited is the owner. If they are of great value, the Sangha is the owner of the remainder. The procedure to be followed is indicated by the phrase, 'by some attendant of the sick.' Furthermore, when there are many attendants, the Blessed One, showing the act of giving to all of them, said in the formal act (kammavācā), 'to the attendants of the sick.' In the section on novices, the reading is 'robe.' One says, 'I give this to you, I grant, I would give, I dedicate, I relinquish, I release, I give up,' or 'To one named so-and-so I give... I give up.' And because of the characteristic of giving—that 'when it is said whether in one's presence or in one's absence, it is indeed given'—and because of the characteristic of receiving—that when told, 'Take this for yourself,' one says, 'I take what is for me,' and it is said, 'it is well-given and well-received'—it is written: 'The teachers state that it is allowable to make requisites common property with such words as, "Let my property be yours and mine."

Anugaṇṭhipade pana atīva papañcaṃ katvā puna ‘‘idamettha ācariyānaṃ sanniṭṭhānaṃ – sacesambahulā, dve vā samānaparikkhāraṃ kattukāmā honti, te sabbe attano santakaṃ vattamānaṃ uppajjanakena saddhiṃ pesalassa ekassa pariccajanti, so puna tesameva pariccajati, ettāvatā te samānaparikkhārikā hontīti. Idaṃ samānaparikkhāralakkhaṇaṃ pāḷiādīsu vuttalakkhaṇeyeva patanato acalappattaṃ hoti, tathāpi porāṇavidhiṃ ajjhottharitvā vattanato paṭisedhetabbo, ācariyānaṃ matānusārena kātabbaṃ kātukāmenāti apare’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘vassaṃvutthasāmaṇero pañcasu sikkhāpadesu ekaṃ atikkamitvā puna gahito lābhaṃ na labhati, antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpanno nāma hotī’’ti vadanti.

However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, having greatly elaborated, it is further said: 'This is the conclusion of the teachers herein: if many monks, or two, wish to have shared requisites, they all relinquish their own present belongings, together with future belongings, to one virtuous monk; he, in turn, relinquishes it to those same monks. By this much, they become sharers of requisites. This characteristic of shared requisites, because it falls within the very characteristic stated in the Pāḷi and other texts, becomes unshakeable. Nevertheless, because it proceeds by overwhelming the ancient procedure, it should be rejected. It should be done by one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of the teachers, thus others say.' It is said: 'They say that a novice who has completed the rains-residence, having transgressed one of the five training precepts and having been reinstated, does not receive the gain; he is called one who has committed a final offense.'

Vassaṃvutthānaṃanuppannacīvarakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Robe-cloth Not Yet Arisen for Those Who Have Completed the Rains-residence

375. Uppanne cīvare abhājite pakkamatīti ettha ‘‘saṅghena tatruppādato ekekassa bhikkhuno ettakaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ dātuṃ saṅghassa ruccatī’’ti sāvitepi vibbhamati, tato na labhati, puna pabbajitvā upasampajjitvā cīvarabhājanaṃ sambhāventopi na labhatiyeva pubbapakatito bhaṭṭhattā. Atha pāpite vibbhamati, labhatī’’ti ca vuttaṃ.

375. Herein, regarding 'he departs when the robe-cloth has arisen but is undivided': Even when it has been announced, 'The Saṅgha approves of giving this much rains-residence cloth to each monk from what has arisen there,' if he disrobes, because of that he does not receive it. Even having gone forth again, received higher ordination, and being present for the robe-distribution, he certainly does not receive it, because of having fallen from his former state. And it is said: 'Now, if he disrobes after it has been brought, he receives it.'

Saṅghebhinnecīvaruppādakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Arising of Robe-cloth When the Saṅgha is Split

376. Parasamuddeti jambudīpe.

376. Regarding `parasamudde`: it means in Jambudīpa.

Aṭṭhacīvaramātikākathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Mātikā of the Eight Robe-cloths

379. Yasmā aparikkhittassa parikkhepārahaṭṭhānaṃ dubbijānaṃ, tasmā ‘‘apicā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Tattha dhuvasannipātaṭṭhānampi pariyantagatameva gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana bhikkhūsupi…pe… pāpuṇātīti ‘upacārasīmāya demā’ti evaṃ dinnameva sandhāyā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Samānasaṃvāsakasīmāyā’’ti vutte khaṇḍasīmādīsu ṭhitānaṃ na pāpuṇāti tāsaṃ visuṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmattā. Samānasaṃvāsakaavippavāsasīmānaṃ idaṃ nānattaṃ – ‘‘avippavāsasīmāya dammī’’ti dinnaṃ gāmaṭṭhānaṃ na pāpuṇāti. Kasmā? ‘‘Ṭhapetvā gāmañca [Pg.501] gāmūpacārañcā’’ti vuttattā. ‘‘Samānasaṃvāsakasīmāyā’’ti dinnaṃ pana yasmiṃ ṭhāne avippavāsasīmā atthi, tattha ṭhitānaṃ, itaratra ṭhitānañca pāpuṇāti. ‘‘Khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā ‘sīmaṭṭhakasaṅghassa dammī’ti vutte upacārasīmāya eva paricchinditvā dātabba’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Avippavāsasīmāya demā’’ti khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā dinne tattheva pāpuṇātīti keci. Yojanasatampi pūretvā nisīdantīti ettha vihārūpacāre hatthapāsena, bahigāmādīsu dvādasahatthena upacāroti eke. ‘‘Imasmiṃ vihāre saṅghassā’’ti vutte ekābaddhā hutvāpi parikkhepaparikkhepārahaṭṭhānaṃ atikkamitvā ṭhitānaṃ na pāpuṇātīti eke. ‘‘Bhikkhunivihārato bahi yattha katthaci ṭhatvā ‘saṅghassā’ti vutte bhikkhusaṅghova sāmī’’ti vadanti. Ekopi gantvāti ettha sabbesaṃ vā pāpetvā gantabbaṃ, ānetvā vā pāpetabbaṃ, itarathā gatassa na pāpuṇāti. Samānalābhakatikā mūlāvāse sati siyā, mūlāvāsavināsena katikāpi vinassati. Samānalābhavacanaṃ sati dvīsu, bahūsu vā yujjati. Teneva ekasmiṃ avasiṭṭhe yujjatīti no mati.

379. Because, for a monastery that is not enclosed, the area suitable for an enclosure is difficult to know, therefore, 'apicā,' etc., was said. Therein, even a place of constant assembly should be taken as only that which is situated at the boundary. In the Mahāpaccarī, however, it is written: '...it reaches even the bhikkhus...etc.'—this refers only to that which is given thus: 'We give within the proximity boundary.' When 'within the common residence boundary' is said, it does not reach those standing in fragmented boundaries, etc., because they have separate common residence boundaries. This is the difference between the common residence boundary and the non-separation boundary: what is given with the words, 'I give within the non-separation boundary,' does not reach those situated in the village. Why? Because it was said, 'excluding the village and the village vicinity.' But what is given with the words, 'within the common residence boundary,' reaches those standing in a place where a non-separation boundary exists, and also those standing in another place. It was said: 'When, having stood in a fragmented boundary, one says, "I give to the Sangha of the boundary," it should be given having demarcated it only by the proximity boundary.' Some say that when, having stood in a fragmented boundary, one gives, saying, 'We give within the non-separation boundary,' it reaches only that very non-separation boundary. Regarding 'they sit filling even a hundred yojanas,' some say that the proximity is by a hand's reach in the monastery's vicinity, and by twelve cubits outside the village, etc. Some say that when it is said, 'To the Sangha in this monastery,' even if it is a single connected area, it does not reach those who are standing having gone beyond the enclosure and the area suitable for an enclosure. They say that when, having stood anywhere outside a bhikkhunī's monastery, one says, 'To the Sangha,' only the Bhikkhu Sangha is the owner. Regarding 'even one may go,' one should go having made it reach all, or one should have it brought and made to reach them; otherwise, it does not reach the one who has gone. An agreement for shared gains may exist when the original residence exists; with the destruction of the original residence, the agreement is also destroyed. The term 'shared gains' is applicable when there are two or many. That it is applicable for that very reason when one remains—this is our opinion.

‘‘Tāvakālikakālena, mūlacchedavasena vā;

Aññesaṃ kammaṃ aññassa, siyā nāvāsasaṅgamo’’ti. –

For a temporary period, or by way of cutting off the root, the formal act of some concerning others may result in non-association in the residence.

Ācariyo.

The teacher.

Sabbattha dinnamevāti ‘‘samānabhāgova hotī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Ekamekaṃ amhākaṃ pāpuṇātīti ce vadati, vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti vibhāgassa katattā. ‘‘Bhikkhusaṅghassa cīvare dinne paṃsukūlikānaṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Ubhatosaṅghassā’’ti vutte ‘‘bhikkhusaṅghassā’’ti avuttattā bhikkhunisaṅghena missitattā, tattha apariyāpannattā ca puggalo visuṃ labhati. Evaṃ sante ‘‘bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunisaṅghassa ca dammī’’ti vuttepi ‘‘ubhatosaṅghassa dinnameva hotī’’ti iminā virujjhatīti ce? Na virujjhati, taṃ dvinnaṃ saṅghānaṃ dinnabhāvameva dīpeti, na ubhatosaṅghapaññattiṃ, tasmā eva ‘‘bhikkhusaṅghassa ca bhikkhunisaṅghassa ca tuyhañcā’’ti vāro na vutto. Atha vā aṭṭhakathāvacanameva pamāṇaṃ, na vicāraṇāti eke. Yasmā eko addhānādiyako viya duvidho na hoti, tasmā ubhatosaṅghaggahaṇena eko bhikkhu na gahitoti. ‘‘Sabbāvāsassa ca cetiyassa ca dhammassa [Pg.502] cā’ti vutte sabbavihāresu cetiyadhammānaṃ ekekassa bhikkhuno bhāgo dātabbo’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Bhikkhusaṅghassa ca cetiyassa cā’’ti vutte na virujjhatīti ce? Na, tattha ‘‘bhikkhusaṅghassā’’ti vuttattā, idha vihārena ghaṭitattā ca tamhi tamhi vihāre ekabhāgaṃ labhitabbamevāti pariharanti. Attano pāpetvāti vikāle aparibhogattā sakalopi vaṭṭeyyāti ce? ‘‘Bhikkhusaṅghassa harā’’ti vuttattā, tena ‘‘harāmī’’ti gahitattā ca na vaṭṭati. Pacchimavassaṃvutthānampīti ettha api-saddo avadhāraṇattho, pacchimavassaṃvutthānamevāti attho, itarathā samuccayatthe gahite ‘‘lakkhaṇaññū vadantī’’ti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā. Kasmāti ārabhitvā papañcaṃ karonti. Kiṃ tena, parato ‘‘cīvaramāsato paṭṭhāya…pe… atītavassaṃvutthānameva pāpuṇātī’’ti iminā siddhattā na vicāritaṃ, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘lakkhaṇaññū’’ti acalavasena. Sace pana bahiupacārasīmāya ṭhito…pe… sampattānaṃ sabbesaṃ pāpuṇātīti yattha katthaci vutthavassānanti adhippāyo ‘‘yattha katthaci vutthavassānaṃ sabbesaṃ sampattānaṃ pāpuṇātī’’ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. akālacīvarasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ vuttattā. Gimhānaṃ paṭhamadivasato paṭṭhāya vutte pana yasmā anantarātītaṃ hemantaṃ eva vutthā nāma honti, na vassaṃ, tasmā ‘‘mātikā āropetabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Ye vā therehi pesitā, tesaṃ pāpuṇātīti kira attho.

Because it is given to all, they say, 'There is an equal share.' They say, 'If one says, "It reaches each one of us," it is allowable,' because the division has been made. They say, 'When a robe is given to the Bhikkhu Saṅgha, it is not allowable for the rag-robe wearers.' When 'to the dual Saṅgha' is said, because 'to the Bhikkhu Saṅgha' is not said, and because it is mixed with the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha, and because an individual is not included therein, a person receives separately. This being so, if one were to say: does it contradict the statement, 'It is indeed given to the dual Saṅgha,' even when it is said, 'I give to the Bhikkhu Saṅgha and to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha'? It does not contradict. That indicates only the fact of having been given to the two Saṅghas; it does not indicate the designation 'dual Saṅgha'. For that very reason, the case 'to the Bhikkhu Saṅgha and to the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and to you' is not stated. Alternatively, some say the word of the commentary itself is the authority, not investigation. Because one person, like a traveler, is not twofold, therefore by the term 'dual Saṅgha' a single bhikkhu is not included. When it is said, 'To all residences, and to the cetiya, and to the Dhamma,' they say that in all monasteries, a share for the cetiya and the Dhamma should be given to each bhikkhu. If one were to say: does this contradict the ruling given when it is said 'to the Bhikkhu Saṅgha and to the cetiya'? No. Because there it was stated 'to the Bhikkhu Saṅgha,' and here, because it is connected with the monastery, they resolve it thus: 'In each respective monastery, one share must indeed be received.' Regarding 'having brought it for oneself': if one were to say, 'Since it is not for consumption at the wrong time, would the whole thing be allowable?' Because it was said, 'Take it for the Bhikkhu Saṅgha,' and because it was taken by him with the thought, 'I am taking it,' it is not allowable. Here, in 'also for those who have completed the later rains-retreat,' the word 'also' (api) has the sense of emphasis. The meaning is 'only for those who have completed the later rains-retreat.' Otherwise, if it were taken in the sense of conjunction, the statement 'those who know the characteristics say' would be meaningless. If one asks, 'Why?', they begin to elaborate. What is the use of that? Since it is established by the later statement, 'From the robe-month onwards... it reaches only those who have completed the past rains-retreat,' it is not investigated. Therefore, 'those who know the characteristics' is said in the sense of being unshakeable. In the passage, 'But if, standing outside the surrounding boundary... it reaches all who have arrived,' the intended meaning is 'for those who have completed the rains-retreat anywhere whatsoever,' because it is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī: 'It reaches all who have arrived who have completed the rains-retreat anywhere whatsoever.' But when it is said 'from the first day of the hot season onwards,' because only the immediately preceding cool season is what is called 'completed,' not the rains-retreat, therefore it is said, 'The matrix should be applied.' Or, for those who were sent by the elders, the meaning is that it is said to reach them.

Cīvarakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Robes is Concluded.

9. Campeyyakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

9. The Commentary on the Campeyya Section

Dvenissāraṇādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Account Beginning with the Two Kinds of Expulsion.

395. Appatto [Pg.503] nissāraṇanti ettha nissāraṇaṃ nāma kuladūsakānaṃyeva anuññātaṃ, ayaṃ pana kuladūsako na hoti, tasmā ‘‘appatto’’ti vutto. Yadi evaṃ kathaṃ sunissārito hotīti? Cūḷavagge ‘‘ākaṅkhamāno saṅgho pabbājanīyakammaṃ kareyyā’’ti (cūḷava. 27) vuttattā. ‘‘Tassapāpiyasikakammārahassa tassapāpiyasikakammaṃ karontī’’ti vacanato cakkaṃ bandhanti ñātabbaṃ.

395. Herein, regarding the phrase ‘Not liable for expulsion’: the act called expulsion is permitted only for those who corrupt families, but this monk is not a corrupter of families; therefore, he is said to be ‘not liable’. If so, how is he well-expelled? Because in the Cūḷavagga it is said, ‘If the Saṅgha wishes, it may perform the act of banishment,’ he is well-expelled. In accordance with the statement, ‘They perform the tassapāpiyasikakamma for one who is deserving of the tassapāpiyasikakamma,’ it should be understood that they bind the wheel.

Upālipucchākathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Account of Upāli’s Questions.

400. ‘‘Paratoti upālipucchato para’’nti likhitaṃ. Dosāritapāḷiyaṃ ‘‘ūnavīsativasso na āgato vippannavatthukattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Imasmiṃ campeyyakkhandhake adhammakammāniyeva dvidhā katvā pañcāgatānīti veditabbaṃ. Teneva parivāre imasmiṃ khandhake ‘‘pañca adhammikānī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Andhamūgabadhiro sosārito’’ti iminā apabbajitassapi upasampadā ruhatīti siddhaṃ.

400. ‘Parato’ is written as ‘after the questions of Upāli.’ In the Dosārita-pāḷi, it is stated, ‘A person of less than twenty years has not come (to ordination) because of having a faulty basis.’ In this Campeyya Section, it should be understood that the unlawful acts themselves, having been divided into two, have come to five. For that very reason, both in the Parivāra and in this section, it is said, ‘five are unlawful.’ By this text, ‘A blind, mute, and deaf person is well-admitted,’ it is established that the higher ordination of one who has not gone forth also succeeds.

Campeyyakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Campeyya Section is concluded.

10. Kosambakakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

10. The Commentary on the Kosambaka Section.

Kosambakavivādakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Account of the Kosambaka Dispute.

451. Suttantikoti [Pg.504] ettha kiñcāpi ‘‘vinayadharo mātikādharo’’ti vuttaṃ, ubhatovibhaṅgaṃ pana sandhāya vuttaṃ, na khandhakabhāṇako hoti. Āvuso ettha āpattīti vacanaṃ upādāya ‘‘so tassā āpattiyā āpattidiṭṭhi hotī’’ti vuccati. Pacchā vinayadharo ‘‘vatthumhi sati pamāṇaṃ, na paññattiya’’nti satiṃ paṭilabhitvā tassā āpattiyā āpattidiṭṭhi ahosi, tena vuttaṃ ante ‘‘aññe bhikkhū tassā āpattiyā āpattidiṭṭhino hontī’’ti.

451. Herein, regarding 'Suttantika': although it is said, 'a Vinaya-holder, a Mātikā-holder,' this is said in reference to both Vibhaṅgas; he is not a reciter of the Khandhakas. Based on the statement, 'Friend, herein is an offense,' it is said, 'he has the view of an offense regarding that offense.' Later, the Vinaya-holder, having regained mindfulness that 'when there is a basis, it is the standard, not the regulation,' had the view of an offense regarding that offense. Therefore, it is said at the end, 'other bhikkhus have the view of an offense regarding that offense.'

455. ‘‘Yathā mayā ñattī’’ti likhanti ‘‘paññattā’’ti ekavacanattā.

455. They write, 'As the motion by me,' because 'paññattā' is in the singular.

Dīghāvuvatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Account of the Story of Dīghāvu.

458. ‘‘Bhūtapubbaṃ, bhikkhave, bārāṇasiyaṃ brahmadatto’’ti likhanti. Purāṇapotthakesu ‘‘bārāṇasiya’’nti natthi, ‘‘natthibhāvova sundaro’’ti vadanti.

458. They write: ‘Formerly, bhikkhus, in Bārāṇasī, Brahmadatta...’ In ancient palm-leaf manuscripts, the reading ‘bārāṇasiya’ is not present; they say, ‘Its very absence is good.’

Pālileyyakagamanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Account of the Going to Pālileyyaka.

467. Rakkhitavanasaṇḍeti saṅgītittherehi suviññeyyaṃ katvā vuttaṃ. ‘‘Pālileyyoti gāmo, tassa vasenā’’tipi vadanti, taṃ dhammapadaṭṭhakathāya na virujjhati.

467. ‘In the Rakkhita Forest Grove’ was stated by the Elders of the Council, having made it easily understandable. They also say, ‘Pālileyya is a village; it is on account of that.’ This does not contradict the Dhammapada Commentary.

Aṭṭhārasavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Account of the Eighteen Matters.

473. Na tveva…pe… paṭibāhitabbanti vadāmīti ettha senāsanārahassa yo senāsanaṃ paṭibāhati, tasseva āpatti dukkaṭassa. ‘‘Kalahakārakādīnamettha okāso natthītiādikaṃ saṅghassa katikaṃ vatvā taṃ na paññāpentassa vā ‘ahaṃ buddho’ti pasayha attanā attano paññāpetvā gaṇhantaṃ ‘yuttiyā gaṇhathā’ti vatvā vārentassa vā doso natthi. Idha kalahavūpasamanatthaṃ āgatānaṃ kosambikānampi ‘yathāvuḍḍha’nti avatvā ‘vivitte asati vivittaṃ katvāpi dātabba’nti vuttattā vivittaṃ katvā dentaṃ [Pg.505] paṭibāhentasseva āpattīti kira ayamattho pārivāsikādīnaṃ vihārapariyantadāpanena sādhitabbo’’ti likhitaṃ.

473. Herein, regarding the passage, ‘I do not say… it should be obstructed’: For one who obstructs a lodging for a monk deserving of a lodging, for that very one there is an offense of wrong-doing. Having stated the Saṅgha's formal act, such as, ‘There is no opportunity here for quarrel-makers and the like,’ there is no fault for the one (the Buddha) who did not lay down that rule, nor for one who prevents another—who, having forcibly declared, ‘I am the Buddha,’ makes this known to his own disciples and takes them—by saying, ‘Take them by right.’ Here, for the purpose of quelling the quarrel, even for the Kosambī monks who have come, since it was said, without saying ‘according to seniority,’ that ‘If there is no secluded place, it should be given even after making one secluded,’ there is an offense only for the one who obstructs another who is giving a lodging after making it secluded. It is written that it seems this meaning should be established by having the very last monastery given to those on probation and the like.

Saṅghasāmaggīkathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Account of Saṅgha Harmony.

475. ‘‘Atha kho te ukkhittānuvattakā bhikkhū taṃ ukkhittakaṃ bhikkhuṃ osāretvā yena ukkhepakā bhikkhū…pe… tassa vatthussa vūpasamāya saṅghasāmaggiṃ karomā’’ti vacanaṃ duviññeyyavinicchayaṃ vinayalakkhaṇakusalassa. Vijjamāne hi kārakasaṅghe itaro saṅgho osārituṃ na labhati. Osārento ce, te bhikkhū kārakasaṅghena samānaladdhikabhāvaṃ pattattā tena samānasaṃvāsakā honti, tato ukkhepakānaṃ chandaṃ aggahetvā osārentānaṃ kammaṃ kuppati, tasmā ‘‘tena hi, bhikkhave, taṃ bhikkhuṃ osārethā’’ti (mahāva. 474) bhagavato vacanena ukkhittānuvattakā osāresuṃ, udāhu nissīmaṃ gantvā, udāhu itaresaṃ chandaṃ gahetvā osāresuṃ, nanu etesamaññatarenettha bhavitabbaṃ, na ca panetaṃ sabbagaṇṭhipadesu vicāritaṃ. Ayaṃ panettha takko –

475. The statement, ‘Then those bhikkhus who followed the expelled one, having reinstated that expelled bhikkhu, went to the expelling bhikkhus… for the resolution of that matter, let us perform Saṅgha harmony,’ is a decision difficult to discern even for one skilled in the characteristics of the Vinaya. For when the acting Saṅgha exists, the other Saṅgha cannot reinstate him. If they do reinstate him, those bhikkhus, having attained the state of holding the same view as the acting Saṅgha, become of the same communion with them. Then, for those who reinstate without obtaining the consent of the expelling bhikkhus, the act is invalid. Therefore, by the Blessed One’s statement, ‘Well then, bhikkhus, reinstate that bhikkhu,’ did the followers of the expelled one reinstate him? Or did they go beyond the boundary and reinstate him? Or did they obtain the consent of the others and reinstate him? Surely, one of these must have happened here. However, this has not been examined in all the knotty points. Here is our reasoning:

‘‘Yasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ saṅghena, katakammassa bhikkhuno;

Sati tasmiṃ na aññassa, paṭippassambhanaṃ khamaṃ.

‘In a matter where an act has been performed by the Saṅgha concerning a bhikkhu, while that matter exists, its revocation by another is not allowable.

‘‘Viramante tato doso, api saṅgho akārako;

Osāretuṃ alaṃ yasmā, kārako anulomiko’’ti.

‘There would be a fault in refraining from that; since the acting Saṅgha is in conformity, even a non-acting Saṅgha is not fit to reinstate.’

477. ‘‘Aṭṭha dūtaṅgāni nāma sotā ca hoti, sāvetā ca uggahetā ca dhāretā ca viññātā ca viññāpetā ca kusalo ca sahitāsahitadassano ca akalahakārako cāti etānī’’ti vuttaṃ.

477. ‘Eight qualities of a messenger are named: he is a listener, one who makes others listen, a learner, a retainer, one who understands, one who makes others understand, skilled, one who discerns what is beneficial and not beneficial, and not a quarrel-maker.’ Thus it is said.

Kosambakakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Kosambaka Section is concluded.

Mahāvaggassa līnatthapakāsanā niṭṭhitā.

The Elucidation of the Obscure Meanings of the Mahāvagga is concluded.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One.

Cūḷavaggavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Cūḷavagga

1. Kammakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Kammakkhandhaka.

Adhammakammadvādasakakathāvaṇṇanā

1. The Commentary on the Discourse of the Twelve Unrighteous Acts.

4. Asammukhā [Pg.507] kataṃ hotītiādayo tikā kevalaṃ desanāmattameva. Na hi tīhi eva aṅgehi samodhānehi adhammakammaṃ hoti, ekenapi hoti eva, ayamattho ‘‘tiṇṇaṃ, bhikkhave’’tiādipāḷiyā (cūḷava. 6) sādhetabbo. ‘‘Appaṭiññāya kataṃ hotī’’ti lajjiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kaṇhapakkhe ‘‘adesanāgāminiyā āpattiyā kataṃ hotī’’ti sukkapakkhe ‘‘desanāgāminiyā āpattiyā kataṃ hotī’’ti idaṃ dvayaṃ parato ‘‘tīhi, bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgatassa bhikkhuno ākaṅkhamāno saṅgho tajjanīyakammaṃ kareyya. Adhisīle sīlavipanno hotī’’ti iminā virujjhati, adesanāgāminiṃ āpanno hi ‘‘adhisīle sīlavipanno’’ti vuccatīti. Yuttametaṃ, kattu adhippāyo ettha cintetabbo. Etthāha upatissatthero ‘‘tajjanīyakammassa hi visesena bhaṇḍanakārakattaṃ aṅga’nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ pāḷiyā āgatanidānena yujjati, tasmā sabbattikesupi bhaṇḍanaṃ āropetvā bhaṇḍanapaccayā āpannāpattivasena idaṃ kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, tasmā ‘adhisīle sīlavipanno’ti etthāpi pubbabhāge vā aparabhāge vā codanāsāraṇādikāle bhaṇḍanapaccayā āpannāpattivaseneva kāretabbaṃ, na kevalaṃ saṅghādisesapaccayā kātabba’’nti. ‘‘Adesanāgāminiyā āpattiyāti pārājikāpattiyā’ti ettakamattaṃ vatvā parato ‘adhisīle pārājikasaṅghādisese ajjhācārā’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vutta’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Adhisīle sīlavipanno’ti saṅghādisesaṃ sandhāyā’’ti gaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ. Idaṃ porāṇagaṇṭhipade purimavacanena sameti, tasmā tattha pacchimaṃ pārājikapadaṃ atthuddhāravasena vuttaṃ siyā[Pg.508], aṭṭhakathāyañca ‘‘adesanāgāminiyāti pārājikāpattiyā vā saṅghādisesāpattiyā vā’’ti vuttaṃ, tattha pārājikāpatti atthuddhāravasena vuttā siyā. Yato gaṇṭhipade ‘‘adhisīle sīlavipanno’ti saṅghādisesaṃ sandhāyā’’ti ettakameva likhitaṃ, tasmā sabbattha gaṇṭhipade sakalena nayena pārājikāpattipaccayā uppannabhaṇḍanahetu na tajjanīyakammaṃ kātabbaṃ payojanābhāvā, saṅghādisesapaccayā kātabbanti ayamattho siddho hoti. Na, sukkapakkhe ‘‘desanāgāminiyā āpattiyā kataṃ hotī’’ti (cūḷava. 5) vacanatoti ce? Na, ekena pariyāyena saṅghādisesassapi desanāgāminivohārasambhavato,

4. The triads beginning with 'It is done not in the presence' are merely a matter of teaching. Indeed, an unlawful formal act does not occur only by the combination of three factors; it occurs even by one. This meaning should be established by the Pāḷi text beginning with 'Monks, of three...'. The statement 'It is done without acknowledgement' was said in reference to a scrupulous person. In the black section, 'It is done for an offense not leading to confession,' and in the white section, 'It is done for an offense leading to confession'—these two statements are contradicted by the following: 'Monks, the Saṅgha, if it wishes, may carry out the formal act of censure on a monk endowed with three factors. He is corrupt in higher virtue.' For one who has fallen into an offense not leading to confession is called 'corrupt in higher virtue'. This objection is fitting. The intention of the author should be considered here. Here, the Elder Upatissa said: 'Indeed, it is said in the commentary: "For the formal act of censure, being a maker of quarrels is a specific factor." That is consistent with the origin story that has come down in the Pāḷi. Therefore, in all triads as well, having imputed quarreling, this formal act should be done on account of an offense one has fallen into due to quarreling. Therefore, in the case of "corrupt in higher virtue" as well, it should be carried out only on account of an offense one has fallen into due to quarreling, either in the earlier part or in the later part, at the time of accusation, reminding, etc.; it should not be done merely on account of a Saṅghādisesa offense.' It is written: 'Having said just this much, "‘An offense not leading to confession’ means a Pārājika offense," it is said later in the ancient glossary, "‘In higher virtue’ means transgression in Pārājika or Saṅghādisesa.”' It is written in the glossary: 'The phrase "corrupt in higher virtue" is said in reference to a Saṅghādisesa offense.' This agrees with the previous statement in the ancient glossary. Therefore, there, the latter term 'Pārājika' may have been said for the purpose of extracting the meaning. And in the commentary it is said: 'An offense not leading to confession means either a Pārājika offense or a Saṅghādisesa offense.' There, 'Pārājika offense' may have been said for the purpose of extracting the meaning. Since in the glossary only this much is written, 'The phrase "corrupt in higher virtue" is said in reference to a Saṅghādisesa offense,' therefore, everywhere in the glossary, by the entire method, the formal act of censure should not be done on account of a quarrel that has arisen due to a Pārājika offense, because there is no purpose. It should be done on account of a Saṅghādisesa offense. Thus this meaning is established. If it is said, 'This is not so, because of the statement in the white section, "It is done for an offense leading to confession,"' that should not be said. Why? Because in one way, it is possible to speak of a Saṅghādisesa offense also as 'leading to confession'.

Yena kammena santajjanaṃ karīyati, taṃ tajjanīyakammaṃ nāma. Yena kammena nissāya te vatthabbanti nissiyati bhajāpiyati niyasso, taṃ niyasakammaṃ nāma. Yena tato āvāsato, gāmato ca pabbājenti kuladūsakaṃ, taṃ pabbājanīyakammaṃ nāma. Yena kammena akkuṭṭhagahaṭṭhasamaīpameva paṭisāriyati so akkosako pacchā pesiyati, taṃ paṭisāraṇīyakammaṃ nāma. Yena samānasaṃvāsakabhūmito ukkhipiyati. Chaḍḍīyati sātisāro bhikkhusaṅghena, taṃ kammaṃ ukkhepanīyakammaṃ nāmāti veditabbaṃ.

The act by which intimidation is done is called the act of censure (tajjanīyakamma). The act by which one is made to depend, saying, 'You should dwell in dependence,' and is made to associate with a teacher, that is called the act of dependence (niyasakamma). The act by which they expel a corrupter of families from that monastery and from that village is called the act of expulsion (pabbājanīyakamma). The act by which that abuser is sent only to the presence of a householder who is not angry and is sent back afterwards is called the act of reconciliation (paṭisāraṇīyakamma). The act by which a monk with an offense is removed from the ground of communal living and is discarded by the Saṅgha of monks, that should be known as the act of suspension (ukkhepanīyakamma).

11. ‘‘Nissāya te vatthabba’’nti garunissayaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na itaranti.

11. The statement, 'You should dwell in dependence,' was said with reference to dependence on a respected teacher; it was not said with reference to another.

21. Assajipunabbasukavatthusmiṃ ‘‘tesu vibbhantesupi kammaṃ paṭippassambhetuṃ anuññātampi sammāvattantānaṃyevā’’ti likhitaṃ. Sammukhā vuttameva gihipaṭisaṃyuttaṃ nāma. Parammukhā vuttaṃ desanaṃ gacchati.

21. In the story of Assaji and Punabbasu, it is written: 'Although it was permitted to revoke the formal act even for those monks who had disrobed, it was permitted only for those who were practicing well.' Only what is said in one's presence is called 'connected with a householder.' What is said in one's absence amounts to a report.

41. Khamāpentena ‘‘khamāhī’’ti vattabbamattameva, na ukkuṭikādisāmīcinā payojananti. Anudūtanti sahāyanti attho.

41. By one asking for forgiveness, only 'Forgive' should be said; there is no need for proper conduct such as squatting. The meaning of 'anudūta' is a companion.

50. Adassaneyeva ukkhepanīyaṃ kātabbaṃ, na aññathā. ‘‘Tajjanīyādikaraṇakāle āpattiṃ ropetvā tassā adassane, appaṭikamme vā bhaṇḍanakārakādiaṅgehi kātabba’’nti likhitaṃ.

50. The act of suspension should be done only for not seeing an offense, not for any other reason. It is written: 'At the time of performing an act of censure and so on, having charged him with an offense, the act should be done on account of his not seeing that offense, or not making amends for it, or on account of factors such as being quarrelsome.'

Tajjanīyakammādīsu ayaṃ pakiṇṇakavinicchayoti veditabbo. Kiṃ tajjanīyakammaṃ, tajjanīyakammassa kiṃ mūlaṃ, kiṃ vatthu, kiṃ pariyosānaṃ, kasmā [Pg.509] ‘‘tajjanīyakamma’’nti vuccatīti? Kiṃ tajjanīyakammanti vatthusmiṃ sati karaṇasampatti. Tajjanīyakammassa kiṃ mūlanti saṅgho mūlaṃ. Tajjanīyakammassa kiṃ vatthūti kalahajātāpattivatthu. Kiṃ pariyosānanti bhāvanāpariyosānaṃ. Kasmā tajjanīyakammanti vuccatīti saṅgho kalahakārakapuggalaṃ kalahe ca bhede ca bhayaṃ dassetvā khantiyā janeti, upasame janeti, tasmā ‘‘tajjanīyakamma’’nti vuccati. Kathaṃ tajjanīyakammaṃ kataṃ hoti, kathaṃ akataṃ. Kinti ca tajjanīyakammaṃ kataṃ hoti, kinti ca akataṃ. Kena ca tajjanīyakammaṃ kataṃ hoti, kena ca akataṃ. Kattha ca tajjanīyakammaṃ kataṃ hoti, kattha ca akataṃ. Kāya velāya tajjanīyakammaṃ kataṃ hoti, kāya velāya akataṃ hoti? Kathaṃ tajjanīyakammaṃ kataṃ hotīti samaggena saṅghena ñatticatutthena kammena. Kathaṃ akataṃ hotīti vaggena saṅghena ñatticatutthena kammena. Kinti ca kataṃ hotīti karaṇasampattiyā. Kinti ca akataṃ hotīti karaṇavipattiyā. Kena ca kataṃ hotīti saṅghena. Kena ca akataṃ hotīti gaṇena puggalena. Kattha ca kataṃ hotīti yassa puggalassa saṅgho tajjanīyakammaṃ karoti, tassa puggalassa sammukhībhūte. Kattha ca akataṃ hotīti yassa puggalassa saṅgho tajjanīyakammaṃ karoti, tassa puggalassa asammukhībhūte. Kāya velāya kataṃ hotīti yadā kalahajātāpatti saṃvijjati. Kāya velāya akataṃ hotīti yadā kalahajātāpatti na saṃvijjati. Katihākārehi tajjanīyakammassa pattakallaṃ hoti, katihākārehi apattakallaṃ? Sattahākārehi tajjanīyakammassa pattakallaṃ hoti, sattahākārehi apattakallaṃ. Katamehi sattahākārehi pattakallaṃ, katamehi sattahākārehi apattakallaṃ hoti? Kalahajātāpatti na saṃvijjati, so vā puggalo asammukhībhūto hoti, saṅgho vā vaggo hoti, asaṃvāsiko vā puggalo tassaṃ parisāyaṃ saṃvijjati, acodito vā hoti asārito vā, āpattiṃ vā anāropito. Imehi sattahākārehi tajjanīyakammassa apattakallaṃ hoti, itarehi sattahākārehi pattakallaṃ hoti. Evaṃ sesakammesūti.

In regard to the act of censure (tajjanīyakamma) and other such matters, this miscellaneous judgment should be understood. What is the act of censure? What is the root of the act of censure? What is its basis? What is its conclusion? Why is it called ‘the act of censure’? Regarding the question, 'What is the act of censure?': it is the accomplishment of the procedure when a basis exists. Regarding the question, 'What is the root of the act of censure?': the Saṅgha is the root. Regarding the question, 'What is the basis of the act of censure?': an offense arising from a quarrel is the basis. Regarding the question, 'What is its conclusion?': the announcement (kammavācā) is the conclusion. Regarding the question, 'Why is it called ‘the act of censure’?': because the Saṅgha, showing the quarrelsome person fear regarding quarrels and divisions, generates patience and generates calm; therefore it is called ‘the act of censure’. How is the act of censure carried out, and how is it not carried out? In what way is the act of censure carried out, and in what way is it not carried out? By whom is the act of censure carried out, and by whom is it not carried out? Where is the act of censure carried out, and where is it not carried out? At what time is the act of censure carried out, and at what time is it not carried out? How is the act of censure carried out? By a harmonious Saṅgha with a formal act preceded by a motion. How is it not carried out? By a factional Saṅgha with a formal act preceded by a motion. In what way is it carried out? By the accomplishment of the procedure. In what way is it not carried out? By the failure of the procedure. By whom is it carried out? By the Saṅgha. By whom is it not carried out? By a group or an individual. Where is it carried out? In the presence of the person against whom the Saṅgha is carrying out the act of censure. Where is it not carried out? In the absence of the person against whom the Saṅgha is carrying out the act of censure. At what time is it carried out? When an offense arising from a quarrel exists. At what time is it not carried out? When an offense arising from a quarrel does not exist. In how many ways is the act of censure fit to be carried out, and in how many ways is it unfit to be carried out? In seven ways, the act of censure is fit to be carried out; in seven ways, it is unfit to be carried out. Which seven ways make it fit to be carried out, and which seven ways make it unfit to be carried out? An offense arising from a quarrel does not exist; or that person is not present; or the Saṅgha is divided; or a person who is not in communion is present in that assembly; or he has not been accused or reminded; or the offense has not been charged. In these seven ways, the act of censure is unfit to be carried out; in the other seven ways, it is fit to be carried out. Thus it should be understood for the remaining acts.

Kammakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Chapter on Formal Acts is finished.

2. Pārivāsikakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

2. The Commentary on the Chapter concerning Probationers

Pārivāsikavattakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Probationer's Observances

75. Pārivāsikakkhandhake [Pg.510] ‘‘mā maṃ gāmappavesanaṃ āpucchathāti vutte anāpucchāpi gāmaṃ pavisituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Saṅgho attano pattaṭṭhāne gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Oṇojanaṃ nāma vissajjanaṃ. ‘‘Taṃ pana pārivāsikena pāpitassa attanā sampaṭicchitasseva punadivasādiatthāya vissajjanaṃ kātabbaṃ, asampaṭicchitvāyeva ce vissajjeti, na labhatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

75. In the chapter concerning probationers, they say: 'When it is said, "Do not ask me about entering the village," it is permissible to enter the village even without asking.' It is permissible for the Saṅgha to take at its place of arrival. Relinquishment (oṇojana) is giving up. It is said: 'But that relinquishment should be done by the probationer for the purpose of the next day, etc., only of that which has been brought to him and accepted by himself; and if he relinquishes it without having accepted it, he does not obtain it.'

76. Pakatiyāva nissayoti ettha ‘‘antevāsikānaṃ ālayasabbhāve yāva vassūpanāyikadivaso, tāva kappati, tassa ālayassa sabbhāve nissayo na paṭippassambhatīti ce? Na vaṭṭati. Tattha idāni khamāpeyyāmītiādinā vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha ekantena vissaṭṭhattā, idha pana ekanteneva dvinnampi samabhāvo icchitabbo evāti eke. Paṭibalassa vā bhikkhussāti ettha ‘‘laddhasammutikena āṇattopi garudhammehi, aññehi vā ovadituṃ na labhatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Tato vā pāpiṭṭhatarāti ettha ‘‘asañcicca āpannasañcarittato sukkavissaṭṭhi pāpiṭṭhatarāti ayampi nayo yojetabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Paccayanti vassāvāsikaṃ. Senāsanaṃ na labhati seyyapariyantabhāgitāya. ‘‘Uddesādīni dātumpi na labhatī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Sace dve pārivāsikā gataṭṭhāne aññamaññaṃ passanti, ubhohipi aññamaññassa ārocetabbaṃ avisesena ‘āgantukena ārocetabbaṃ, āgantukassa ārocetabba’nti vuttattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Aññavihāragatenāpi tattha pubbe ārocitassa punārocanakiccaṃ natthi. ‘‘Anikkhittavattassa bahi ārocitassa yathā puna vihāre ārocanakiccaṃ natthi, evaṃ ‘āgantukasodhanatthaṃ uposathadivase ārocetabba’nti vacanañhettha sādhaka’’nti vadanti.

76. Herein, regarding 'natural dependence,' it is said: 'For disciples, if there is attachment, it is allowable until the day of entering the rains-residence. If one were to say that in the presence of that attachment the dependence does not cease, that is not proper. Therein, it is said that it is proper by stating, "Now I will ask for forgiveness," etc.' Therein, it ceases because it is entirely relinquished. But here, some say that an equal status for both should indeed be desired. Herein, regarding 'or of a capable monk,' it is written: 'A monk who has received authorization, even if instructed, is not able to advise concerning grave matters or other things.' Herein, regarding 'or more evil than that,' it is said: 'The offense of emission of semen is more evil than a sañcaritta offense incurred without intention; this method should also be applied.' Regarding 'requisite,' it refers to the rains-residence lodging. One does not obtain it because one's share is limited to a sleeping place. They say: 'One is not able to give recitations, etc., either.' It is said: 'If two probationers see each other in the place they have gone to, both should inform each other, because it is said without distinction, "The newcomer should inform; the newcomer should be informed."' Even for one who has gone to another monastery, there is no duty to inform again one who has been previously informed there. Some say: 'Just as for one who has not laid aside the observance and has informed outside, there is no duty to inform again in the monastery, so also the statement, "One should inform on the Uposatha day for the purpose of purifying newcomers," is the proof in this matter.'

81. Ekacchanne nisinnassāpi ratticchedadukkaṭāpattiyo hontīti eke. Avisesenāti pārivāsikassa ukkhittakassāti imaṃ bhedaṃ akatvā. ‘‘Tadahupasampannepi pakatatte’’ti vacanato anupasampannehi vasituṃ vaṭṭati. ‘‘Samavassāti etena apacchā apurimaṃ nipajjane dvinnampi vattabhedāpattibhāvaṃ dīpetī’’ti likhitaṃ.

81. Some say that even for one sitting under a common roof, offenses of wrong conduct for interrupting the night occur. 'Without distinction' means without making the distinction between a probationer and one who has been suspended. Because it is said, 'Even one ordained on that day is a monk in good standing,' it is proper to live with those not fully ordained. It is written: 'By this, "of equal seniority," it indicates that for both, in lying down not in order of seniority, there is an offense of breaking the observance.'

Pārivāsikavattakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Probationer's Observances is concluded.

Mūlāyapaṭikassanārahavattakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Observances for One Deserving Return to the Root

86. Attano [Pg.511] attano navakataranti pārivāsikādinavakataraṃ. Paṭhamaṃ saṅghamajjhe parivāsaṃ gahetvā nikkhittavattena puna ekassapi santike samādiyituṃ, nikkhipituñca vaṭṭati. Mānatte pana nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati. Ūne gaṇe caraṇadosattā na gahetunti eke. Paṭhamaṃ ādinnavattaṃ ekassa santike yathā nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭati, tathā samādiyitumpi vaṭṭatīti porāṇagaṇṭhipade.

86. Herein, 'newer for each one' refers to a younger monk on probation. First, having taken probation in the midst of the Sangha, for one whose practice has been set aside, it is permissible to undertake it again in the presence of even one monk, and also to set it aside. In the case of penance, however, it is permissible to set it aside. Some say that it is not proper to undertake it in an incomplete group because of the fault of conduct. In the Ancient Commentary it is said: 'Just as it is permissible to set aside the initially undertaken practice in the presence of one monk, so too is it permissible to undertake it.'

Pārivāsikakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Probation is concluded.

3. Samuccayakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

3. The Explanation of the Chapter on Compilation

Sukkavissaṭṭhikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Seminal Emission

97. ‘‘Vedayāmīti [Pg.512] jānāmi, cittena sampaṭicchitvā sukhaṃ anubhavāmi, na tappaccayā ahaṃ dukkhitoti adhippāyo’’ti likhitaṃ. Yassa māḷake nārocitaṃ, tassa ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ. Yassa ārocitaṃ, tassa puna ārocanakiccaṃ natthi, kevalaṃ nikkhipitabbameva. Vattaṃ nikkhipitvā vasantassa upacārasīmāgatānaṃ sabbesaṃ ārocanakiccaṃ natthi. Diṭṭharūpānaṃ sutasaddānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ, adiṭṭhaassutānampi antodvādasahatthagatānaṃ ārocetabbaṃ. ‘‘Idaṃ vattaṃ nikkhipitvā vasantassa lakkhaṇa’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Parikkhittassa vihārassa parikkhepato’tiādi kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ natthi, atha kho aṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ vacanena tathā eva paṭipajjitabba’’nti ca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Atthibhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāti dvādasahatthe upacāre sallakkhetvā, anikkhittavattānaṃ upacārasīmāya āgatabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā sahavāsādikaṃ veditabba’’nti ca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Nikkhipantena ārocetvā nikkhipitabbaṃ, payojanaṃ atthī’’ti ca vuttaṃ, na pana taṃ payojanaṃ dassitaṃ. Ciṇṇamānatto bhikkhu abbhetabboti ciṇṇamānattassa ca abbhānārahassa ca ninnānākāraṇattā aññathā ‘‘abbhānāraho abbhetabbo’’ti vattabbaṃ siyā. Ukkhepanīyakammakatopi attano laddhiggahaṇavasena sabhāgabhikkhumhi sati tassa anārocāpetuṃ na labhati.

97. It is written: '“I feel” means “I know”; having accepted it with the mind, I experience pleasure. Because of that reason, I am not suffering'—this is the intended meaning. For a monk for whom it has not been announced outside the chapter hall, it should be laid aside after having been announced to him. For one to whom it has been announced, there is no further duty of announcing; it should simply be laid aside. For one who is dwelling having laid aside the observance, there is no duty of announcing to all who have come to the proximity boundary. It should be announced to those whose forms are seen and whose sounds are heard; it should also be announced to those whose forms are not seen and whose sounds are not heard but who have come within twelve cubits. It is said: 'This is the characteristic of one who is dwelling having laid aside the observance.' And it is also said: 'Although the passage beginning “of an enclosed monastery, from its enclosure…” is not in the Pāḷi (Canon), it should nevertheless be practiced exactly according to the word of the commentary teachers.' And it is also said: 'Regarding the phrase “having discerned their presence”: having discerned within the twelve-cubit proximity, and having discerned the fact of the arrival of those who have not laid aside the observance into the proximity boundary, co-residence and so forth should be understood.' And it is also said: 'By one who is laying aside the observance, it should be laid aside after having been announced; there is a purpose,' but that purpose is not shown. Regarding the phrase 'a monk who has completed the mānatta should be reinstated': because there is no difference between one who has completed the mānatta and one who is worthy of reinstatement; otherwise, it should have been said, 'one worthy of reinstatement should be reinstated.' Even one who has been subjected to an act of suspension, by way of his own taking up of a view, cannot, when a monk of the same group is present, refrain from having it announced to him.

Parivāsakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Probation

102. ‘‘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 paṭikarissatī’ti (mahāva. 171) vuttattā lahukassevāyamanuññātā[Pg.513]. 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 (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) vacanena kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ pakāsitova. Saṅghādisesaṃ pana ñattiyā ārocetvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tassā ñattiyā ayamattho yadā suddhaṃ bhikkhuṃ passissati, tassa santike ārocanavasena paṭikarissati. Evaṃ paṭikate ‘‘na ca, bhikkhave, sāpattikena pātimokkhaṃ sotabbaṃ, yo suṇeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (cūḷava. 386) vuttāpattito mokkho hotīti, tasmā ‘‘garukaṃ vā hotu lahukaṃ vā, ñattiyā āvi kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ, ubhosu nayesu yuttataraṃ gahetabbaṃ.

102. “However, there is a reading: ‘For one without an obstruction who conceals with the perception of an obstruction, it is indeed not concealed.’” An associate through non-enmity is a non-enemy associate. “But for one who has incurred a shared Saṅghādisesa offense, it is not proper to disclose it in his presence”; this is explained here in context. There is no prohibition regarding minor offenses. Because it is permitted there to make known a minor shared offense through a formal announcement (ñatti) and then perform the Uposatha, it is proper to disclose a minor shared offense. But it seems that announcing a shared Saṅghādisesa offense through a formal announcement is not proper. “Because it was said, ‘He will deal with that offense in his presence,’ this permission is only for minor offenses. For it is not possible to carry out the rehabilitation for a Saṅghādisesa offense in the presence of a single pure monk,” thus it is written. Even with respect to minor offenses, it is not proper to disclose a shared offense; therefore, indeed, disclosure by formal announcement is permitted, otherwise it would be pointless. Mutual disclosure is proper; the permission to disclose by formal announcement is solely for the purpose of clarifying that it is not proper otherwise, and thus here “For one who has incurred a shared Saṅghādisesa offense,” etc., is stated. This meaning is indeed disclosed in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī with the statement, “With just this much, these two become free from offenses, and the remaining shared offenses should be confessed in their presence.” However, having announced a Saṅghādisesa offense through a formal announcement, it is proper to perform the Uposatha. The meaning of that announcement is this: when he sees a pure bhikkhu, he will deal with it by means of disclosure in his presence. Once dealt with in this way, there is release from the offense stated, “Monks, a person with an offense should not listen to the Pātimokkha. Whoever listens, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa).” Therefore, it is said, “Whether grave or minor, it is proper to disclose by formal announcement.” In both methods, the more reasonable should be adopted.

Nāmañceva āpatti cāti ‘‘tena tena vītikkamenāpannāpatti āpatti. Nāmanti tassā āpattiyā nāma’’nti likhitaṃ. Ārocetvā nikkhipitabbanti ettha ārocanaṃ vattabhedadukkaṭapaaharaṇappayojananti veditabbaṃ. Akāraṇametanti ‘‘sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajji’’nti vutte vuṭṭhānato.

Regarding 'name and offense,' it is written: 'The offense incurred by that transgression is an offense. "Name" is the name of that offense.' Regarding 'having declared, it should be put aside,' it should be understood that the declaration has the purpose of removing the dukkaṭa offense for breaking the observance. Regarding 'This is without reason,' it is because of emerging from the offense when it is said, 'He has committed many Saṅghādisesa offenses.'

Dasasataṃ rattisatanti dasasataṃ āpattiyo rattisataṃ chādetvāti yojetabbaṃ. Agghasamodhāno nāma sabhāgavatthukāyo sambahulā āpattiyo āpannassa bahurattiṃ paṭicchāditāpattiyaṃ nikkhipitvā dātabbo, itaro nānāvatthukānaṃ vasenāti ayametesaṃ visesoti.

Regarding 'a thousand, a hundred nights,' it should be construed as: 'having concealed a thousand offenses for a hundred nights.' Agghasamodhāna is to be given to one who has committed many offenses of a similar basis, having grouped them into the offense concealed for many nights. The other is to be given by way of offenses with different bases. This is the distinction between them.

Parivāsakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Discourse on Probation is concluded.

‘‘Gāmassāti na vutta’’nti vacanato kira gāmūpacārepi vaṭṭatīti adhippāyoti likhitaṃ. Vuttañca ‘‘ayaṃ pana viseso’’ti. ‘‘Ettha aṭṭhakathācariyāva pamāṇaṃ. Yuttaṃ na dissatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘ayaṃ pana viseso, āgantukassa…pe… okkamitvā gacchati, ratticchedo hotiyevā’’ti vacane heṭṭhā ‘‘antoaruṇe eva nikkhamitvā gāmūpacārato dve [Pg.514] leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā’’tiādinā nayena garuṃ katvā vacanato, bhikkhunīnaṃ garukavaseneva tattha tattha sikkhāpadānaṃ paññattattā ca tadanurūpavaseneva aṭṭhakathācariyena bhikkhunīnaṃ garuṃ katvā mānattacaraṇavidhidassanatthaṃ ‘‘yattakā purebhattaṃ vā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Kurundiādīsu vuttavacanena karontassapi doso natthīti dassetuṃ kevalaṃ lakkhaṇamattameva vuttaṃ, tadubhayampi tena tena pariyāyena yujjati, vinicchaye patte lakkhaṇe eva ṭhātabbato kurundiādīsu vuttavacanaṃ pacchā vuttaṃ. Payogo pana purimova. Yathā cettha, tathā sace kāci bhikkhunī dve leḍḍupāte anatikkamitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhapeti, doso natthi, tathāpi sabbaṭṭhakathāsu vuttattā ‘‘purimameva āciṇṇa’’nti vuttaṃ. Parivāsavattādīnanti ‘‘parivāsanissayapaṭippassaddhiādīnaṃ upacārasīmāya paricchinnattā bhikkhunupassayassa upacārasīmāva gahetabbā, na gāmo’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Tasmiṃ gāme bhikkhācāro sampajjatī’tiādi pavāritavasena vuttaṃ. Na hi tattha antogāme vihāro atthī’’ti ca likhitaṃ, ‘‘tampi tena pariyāyena yujjati, na atthato’’ti ca.

It is written: “Because it is not stated as ‘of the village,’ the intention is that it is permissible even in the vicinity of a village.” And it is said: “But this is the distinction.” It is written: “Here, the commentary teachers are the authority. What is suitable is not apparent.” In the sub-commentary, however, regarding the statement, “But this is the distinction: for a visitor… having entered, he goes—there is indeed an interruption of the night,” it is said below, “having left just before dawn, passing beyond two stone-throws from the vicinity of the village,” and so on, by way of treating the matter with gravity. Because the training rules for bhikkhunīs were laid down with gravity in various places, the commentary teachers, in accordance with that gravity, stated, “as much as before the meal,” and so on, to demonstrate the method of observing mānatta for bhikkhunīs by treating it with gravity. In the Kurundī and other commentaries, it is said that to show there is no fault even for one who acts according to the statement, only the characteristic is mentioned. Both are justified in their respective ways. When a decision is reached, one should stand only on the characteristic; therefore, the statement in the Kurundī and other commentaries was stated later. The application, however, is as before. Just as here, if any bhikkhunī causes the dawn to arise without having passed beyond two stone-throws, there is no fault. Nevertheless, because it is stated in all the commentaries, it is said: “only the earlier practice is followed.” Regarding the observances of probation and so on, it is written: “Because probation, dependence, cessation, and so on are defined by the vicinity-boundary, the vicinity-boundary of the bhikkhunīs’ residence should be taken, not the village.” It is also written: “The statement, ‘In that village, the alms-round is successful,’ and so on, is said by way of invitation. For there is no monastery within that village,” and also, “that too is justified in that way, but not in terms of its direct meaning.”

Paṭicchannaparivāsādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Discourse on Concealed Probation and so on

108. ‘‘Visuṃ mānatthaṃ caritabbanti mūlāya paṭikassanaṃ akatvā visuṃ kammavācāyā’’ti ca likhitaṃ. ‘‘Saṅghādisesāpattī’’ti vuttattā ekova, ekavatthumhi āpannā saṅghādisesā thullaccayadukkaṭamissakā nāma. Makkhadhammo nāma chādetukāmatā.

108. And it is also written: “To undergo mānatta separately means it should be undergone by a separate formal act without having been sent back to the root.” Because it is said “a Saṅghādisesa offense,” there is only one. Saṅghādisesa offenses incurred on a single occasion are called those mixed with thullaccaya and dukkaṭa offenses. The characteristic of hypocrisy (makkha) is the desire to conceal.

143. Dhammatāti dhammatāya, tathātāyāti attho ‘‘alajjitā’’ti ettha viya.

143. Regarding `dhammatā`: the meaning is 'by its nature,' 'by its true state,' as in the case of `alajjitā`.

148. Purimaṃ upādāya dve māsā parivasitabbāti ettha ‘‘parivasitadivasāpi gaṇanūpagā hontī’’ti likhitaṃ.

148. Regarding the statement, “Taking into account the previous, probation should be undergone for two months,” it is written: “Even the days on which probation was undergone are included in the count.”

184. Tasmiṃ bhūmiyanti tassaṃ bhūmiyaṃ. Sambahulā saṅghādisesā āpattiyo āpajjati parimāṇampītiādi jātivasenekavacanaṃ.

184. `Tasmiṃ bhūmiyaṃ` means 'in that place' or 'in that ground.' The phrase beginning with 'he incurs numerous Saṅghādisesa offenses, and also of a certain measure' is in the singular by way of class. The Exposition of the Discourse on Concealed Probation and so on is concluded.

Samuccayakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Accumulation is concluded.

4. Samathakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

4. The Commentary on the Chapter on Settlement

Sammukhāvinayakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on Face-to-Face Adjudication

186-187. Yattha [Pg.515] yattha kammavācāya ‘‘aya’’nti vā ‘‘ime’’ti vā sammukhāniddesaniyamo atthi, sabbaṃ taṃ kammaṃ sammukhākaraṇīyameva, na kevalaṃ tajjanīyādipañcavidhameva. Pañcavidhasseva pana uddharitvā dassanaṃ kammakkhandhake tāva tasseva pāḷiāruḷhattā, catuvīsatiyā pārājikesu vijjamānesu pārājikakaṇḍe āgatānaṃyeva catunnaṃ uddharitvā dassanaṃ viyāti veditabbaṃ. Tattha ‘‘puggalassa sammukhatā hatthapāsūpagamanamevā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ kāraṇaṃ sammukhākaraṇīyassapi sammukhāniddesaniyamābhāvato. Kāmaṃ ayamattho kammakkhandhakeyeva ‘‘tīhi, bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgataṃ tajjanīyakammaṃ adhammakammañca hoti…pe… asammukhākataṃ hotī’’ti (cūḷava. 4) vacaneneva siddho, tattha pana āpatti na dassitā. Idha ‘‘yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti tattha bhavitabbāpattidassanatthaṃ idaṃ āraddhanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Sammukhāvinayapatirūpakena vūpasantampi sammukhāvinayeneva vūpasantagaṇanaṃ gacchatīti dassetuṃ ‘adhammavādī puggalo’tiādi āraddha’’nti vuttaṃ, likhitañca. Evaṃ vūpasantaṃ sammukhāvinayapatirūpakena vūpasantaṃ nāma hoti, na sammukhāvinayena ca aññena kenacīti dassetuṃ idamāraddhanti ācariyo.

In whichever formal act there is a rule of designation in the presence, saying ‘this’ or ‘these,’ all such acts must be performed in the presence, not merely the five kinds beginning with the act of censure. However, the presentation of only the five kinds by singling them out in the Chapter on Formal Acts is because they alone are included in the Pāḷi text. This should be understood to be like the presentation of only the four Pārājikas that are mentioned in the Section on Pārājikas by singling them out, even though twenty-four Pārājikas exist. Therein, it is said, “The presence of a person is only the coming within arm’s reach.” That is because, even for an act that must be performed in the presence, there is no rule of designation in the presence. Indeed, this meaning is already established in the Chapter on Formal Acts itself by the statement: “Monks, an act of censure endowed with three factors is an unlawful act… it is not performed in the presence…” However, the offense is not shown there. Here, it should be understood that this was introduced to show the offense that should be incurred therein, by the words, “Whoever should do so, commits an offense of wrong conduct.” It is said, and also written: “The passage beginning with ‘a person who speaks contrary to the Dhamma’ was introduced to show that even what is settled by a semblance of the face-to-face procedure is counted as settled by the face-to-face procedure itself.” The teacher says that this was introduced to show that what is thus settled is called ‘settled by a semblance of the face-to-face procedure,’ and it is not settled by the face-to-face procedure itself, nor by any other means. The Commentary on the Discourse on Face-to-Face Adjudication is concluded.

Sativinayakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Procedure for Mindfulness

195. Dabbassa kammavācāya ‘‘saṅgho imaṃ āyasmantaṃ dabba’’nti sammukhāniddeso natthi, tathāpi ‘‘paṭhamaṃ dabbo yācitabbo’’ti vacanena sammukhākaraṇīyatā tassa siddhā. Tathā aññatthāpi yathāsambhavaṃ leso veditabbo. Sativepullappattassa dātabbo vinayo sativinayo.

195. In the formal act concerning Dabba, there is no designation in the presence, such as “The Saṅgha… this Venerable Dabba.” Nevertheless, the fact that it must be performed in his presence is established by the statement, “First, Dabba should be requested.” Similarly, in other cases as well, a hint should be understood as is possible. The procedure to be given to one who has attained the full expansion of mindfulness is the procedure for mindfulness. The Commentary on the Discourse on the Procedure for Mindfulness is concluded.

Amūḷhavinayakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Procedure for One Not Deluded

196-7. ‘‘Yassa ummattakassa taṃtaṃvītikkamato anāpatti, tādisasseva amūḷhavinayaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti amūḷhassa kattabbavinayo amūḷhavinayo’’ti likhitaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ ‘‘saṅgho gaggassa bhikkhuno amūḷhassa amūḷhavinayaṃ [Pg.516] detī’’ti vacanato. ‘‘Tīṇimāni, bhikkhave, adhammikāni amūḷhavinayassa dānānī’’ti imassa vibhaṅge ‘‘na sarāmī’’ti vacanaṃ vītikkamakālaṃ sandhāya tassa vibhaṅgassa pavattattā. Amūḷhavinayadānakāle panassa amūḷhatā vinicchitabbā.

It is written: “For whichever insane person there is no offense for transgressing this or that, it is proper to grant the procedure for one not deluded only to such a one; thus, the procedure to be performed for one who is not deluded is the procedure for one not deluded.” This is appropriate because of the statement, “The Saṅgha grants the procedure for one not deluded to the bhikkhu Gagga, who is not deluded,” and because in the analysis of “Monks, these three are unrighteous ways of granting the procedure for one not deluded,” the statement “I do not remember” proceeds in reference to the time of the transgression. However, at the time of granting the procedure for one not deluded, his state of not being deluded must be ascertained. The Commentary on the Discourse on the Procedure for One Not Deluded is concluded.

Paṭiññātakaraṇakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on Acting upon Acknowledgement

200. ‘‘Appaṭiññāya bhikkhūnaṃ kammāni karontī’’ti ārabhantassa kāraṇaṃ vuttameva. Paṭiññātena karaṇaṃ paṭiññātakaraṇaṃ.

200. The reason for beginning with, “They perform formal acts for the bhikkhus by way of acknowledgement,” has already been stated. Acting upon acknowledgement is `paṭiññātakaraṇa`. The Commentary on the Discourse on Acting upon Acknowledgement is concluded.

Tassapāpiyasikākathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on the Procedure for Further Misconduct

207. ‘‘Tīhi, bhikkhave, aṅgehi samannāgataṃ tassapāpiyasikākamma’’nti ārabhitvā pañca aṅgāni dassetvā pāḷi gatā, ‘‘sā peyyālena saṅkhipitvā gatāti ñātabba’’nti likhitaṃ. Tathā sukkapakkhepi.

207. Having begun with, 'Monks, the Tassapāpiyasikā act is endowed with three factors,' and having shown five factors, the Pāḷi text proceeds. It is written: 'It should be known that it proceeds, having been abbreviated by means of peyyāla.' It is likewise in the bright section.

Tiṇavatthārakādikathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on Tiṇavatthāraka and so forth

214. ‘‘Sabbeheva ekajjhaṃ sannipatitabba’’nti chandadānassa paṭikkhittattā pavāraṇakkhandhakaṭṭhakathāyañca ‘‘bhinnassa hi saṅghassa samaggakaraṇakāle, tiṇavatthārakasamathe, imasmiñca pavāraṇasaṅgaheti imesu tīsu ṭhānesu chandaṃ dātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 241) vuttattā idha āgantvā vā chandaṃ datvā pariveṇādīsu nisinnāti idaṃ virujjhati viya khāyatīti ce? Na khāyati adhippāyaññūnaṃ. Ayañhettha adhippāyo – visujjhitukāmehi sabbeheva sannipatitabbaṃ, asannipatitassa natthi suddhi chandadāyakassa. Kevalaṃ taṃ kammaṃ sannipatitānaṃ sampajjati. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ visujjhitukāmānaṃ chandaṃ dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. Itarathā pāḷiyā ca virujjhati. ‘‘Ṭhapetvā ye na tattha hotī’’ti hi ayaṃ pāḷi sannipātaṃ āgantvā chandaṃ datvā ṭhitānaṃ atthitaṃ dīpeti. Nissīmagate sandhāya vuttaṃ siyāti ce? Nissīmagate ṭhapetvā idha kiṃ, tasmā yo sāmaggīuposathe chandaṃ datvā tiṭṭhati ce, nānāsaṃvāsakabhūmiyaṃyeva tiṭṭhati, tassa chandadāyakassa pavāraṇasaṅgahopi natthi. Yo ca tiṇavatthārakakamme nāgacchati, so tāhi āpattīhi na sujjhatīti veditabbaṃ. Yassa etaṃ na ruccati, tassa parivāre vuttaparisato kammavipattilakkhaṇaṃ [Pg.517] virujjhati, tattha hi kevalaṃ chandārahānaṃ chando anāhaṭo hoti sace, akataṃ tabbiparītena sampattidīpanatoti vuttaṃ hoti. Tathā pattakallalakkhaṇampi virujjhati. Tesu tīsu ṭhānesu kammappattāyeva sabbe, na tattha chandāraho atthīti ce? Na, catuvaggādikaraṇavibhājane avisesetvā chandārahassa āgatattā, taṃ sāmaññato vuttaṃ. Idañca āveṇikalakkhaṇaṃ, teneva satipi diṭṭhāvikamme idaṃ paṭikuṭṭhakataṃ na hotīti ce? Na, nānattasabhāvato. Idha hi ye pana ‘‘na metaṃ khamatī’ti aññamaññaṃ diṭṭhāvikammaṃ karontī’’ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 214) vacanato na saṅghassa diṭṭhāvikammaṃ kataṃ. Tasmiṃ sati paṭikuṭṭhakatameva hoti. Aññathā pubbabhāgā tā ñattiyo niratthikā siyuṃ, na ca parivāraṭṭhakathāyaṃ chandārahādhikāre nayo dinno. Pavāraṇakkhandhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘tīsu ṭhānesu chandaṃ dātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 241) vuttattā virujjhatīti ce? Na, aṭṭhakathāya pamāṇabhāve sati ‘‘idha chandaṃ datvā pariveṇādīsu nisinnā’’tiādi vacane suddhikāmato eva gahite sabbaṃ na virujjhatīti eke. ‘‘Āgantvā vā chandaṃ datvā pariveṇādīsu nisinnā, te āpattīhi na vuṭṭhahantī’’ti idaṃ na vattabbaṃ. Kasmā? Heṭṭhā ‘‘sabbeheva ekajjhaṃ sannipatitabba’’nti chandadānassa paṭikkhepavacanato aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘tīsu ṭhānesu chandaṃ dātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttattā, andhakaṭṭhakathāyampi tatheva vuttattā cāti? Na, ekajjhameva kamme karīyamāne yo idha ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho, amhākaṃ…pe… gihipaṭisaṃyutta’’nti sādhāraṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā puna ‘‘suṇantu me, āyasmantā’’tiādinā asādhāraṇañattiyo ṭhapetvā ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho, amhākaṃ…pe… evametaṃ dhārayāmī’’ti ekatopakkhikānaṃ sandhiyā katāya tadanantare kenaci karaṇīyena chandaṃ datvā gacchati, tassa āpattīhi vuṭṭhānaṃ natthi. Aparesampi ekatopakkhikānaṃ abbhantare ṭhitattā vibhūtattā karaṇassa ayamatthova vutto. Sādhāraṇavasena dutiyāya ñattiyā ṭhapitāya ye tasmiṃ khaṇe ñattidutiyakammavācāsu anāraddhāsu, apariyositāsu vā chandaṃ datvā gacchanti, tesampi na vuṭṭhāti eva. Ye na tattha hontīti padassa ca ye vuttappakārena nayena tattha na hontīti attho gahetabbo. Vuttappakāratthadīpanatthañca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘chandaṃ datvā pariveṇādīsu nisinnā’’ti idameva [Pg.518] avatvā ‘‘ye pana tehi vā saddhiṃ āpattiṃ āpajjitvāpi tattha anāgatā, āgantvā vā chandaṃ datvā pariveṇādīsu nisinnā’’ti vuttaṃ, evaṃ pubbenāparaṃ sandhīyati. ‘‘Pāḷiyā ca tattha diṭṭhāvikammena kammassa akuppatā veditabbā’’ti vuttaṃ.

214. “All should gather together in one place”—because the giving of consent is rejected, and because it is stated in the commentary on the Pavāraṇakkhandhaka: “At the time of performing the harmony Uposatha for a divided Sangha, during the tiṇavatthāraka settlement, and during this Pavāraṇā saṅgaha, it is not proper to give consent in these three situations.” If one were to say: “Here, does the statement ‘[some monks] having come and given consent are sitting in their own quarters, etc.’ seem contradictory?” It does not appear so to those who understand the intention. For the intention here is this: those who desire purification must all gather together. There is no purification for the one who, being a giver of consent, does not assemble. Only, that act is accomplished for those who have gathered. The intention in the commentary is that it is not proper for those desiring purification to give consent. Otherwise, it contradicts the Pāḷi. This Pāḷi passage, “except those who are not present there,” indeed indicates the existence of those who come to the gathering, give consent, and remain. If one were to say: “Might it refer to those outside the boundary?” [The reply is:] Setting aside those outside the boundary, what relevance is that here? Therefore, if someone gives consent for the Uposatha of unity but remains [away], he remains in a place of different affiliation, and for that consent-giver, there is no inclusion in the Pavāraṇā saṅgaha. And one who does not attend the tiṇavatthāraka act should be understood as not purified from those offenses. For one who does not accept this, the characteristic of a failed act, as stated in the Parivāra, is contradicted. For there, it is said that if merely the consent of those entitled to give consent is not brought, the act is considered not done, and by its opposite, accomplishment is indicated. Likewise, the characteristic of fitness for the act is also contradicted. If one were to say: “In those three situations, are all fit for the act, with no one there entitled to give consent?” No, because in the analysis of acts performed by groups of four or more, one entitled to give consent is mentioned without distinction. That [statement about the three places] is a general statement. If one were to say: “And is this a special characteristic, so that even in the case of diṭṭhāvikamma, this is not considered paṭikuṭṭhaka?” No, due to the difference in nature. Here, according to the statement, “those who say, ‘This is not agreeable to me,’ and perform diṭṭhāvikamma against each other,” diṭṭhāvikamma has not been performed by the Sangha. In such a case, it is indeed paṭikuṭṭhaka. Otherwise, those preliminary motions would be meaningless, and the commentary on the Parivāra does not provide a method in the section on those entitled to give consent. If one were to say: “Does it contradict because the commentary on the Pavāraṇakkhandhaka states, ‘It is not proper to give consent in these three situations’?” No. According to some, since the commentary is authoritative, if the statement, “Here, having given consent, they sit in their own quarters,” etc., is understood in the context of desiring purification, then nothing is contradictory. Should it not be said, “Having come and given consent, they sit in their own quarters, and they are not freed from those offenses”? Why? Is it because previously, the statement, “All should gather together in one place,” rejects the giving of consent, and the commentary states, “It is not proper to give consent in these three situations,” and the Andhakaṭṭhakathā says the same? No. When the act is being performed together in one place, if someone—after establishing the common motion, ‘Venerable sirs, let the Sangha hear me… connected with householders,’ and then establishing the specific motions with ‘Venerable sirs, hear me…,’ and then after the unification of one faction is made with, ‘Venerable Sangha, hear me… thus do I hold it’—immediately after this, gives consent and leaves for some reason, they are not freed from those offenses. For others too, this very meaning is stated, because they remain within the one faction and the matter is clear. When the second motion has been established as common, those who at that moment give consent and leave while the ñatti-dutiyakamma-vācās have not begun or are incomplete, they too are indeed not freed. The phrase, “those who are not present there,” should be understood as meaning those who are not there in the manner described. And to clarify the meaning as described, the commentary, instead of just saying, “having given consent, they sit in their own quarters,” states, “those who, having committed an offense together with them, have not come there, or having come, give consent and sit in their own quarters.” Thus, the latter connects with the preceding. “And in the Pāḷi, the act’s unshakeability should be understood as due to diṭṭhāvikamma there,” it is said.

Adhikaraṇakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on Disputes

220. Cittuppādo vivādo. Vivādasaddopi kāraṇūpacārena kusalādisaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Taṃ sandhāya ‘‘samathehi ca adhikaraṇīyatāya adhikaraṇa’’nti vuttaṃ. Atha vā vivādahetubhūtassa cittuppādassa vūpasamena sambhavassa saddassapi vūpasamo hotīti cittuppādassapi samathehi adhikaraṇīyatā pariyāyo sambhavati. ‘‘Kusalacittā vivadantī’’ti vuttavivādepi ‘‘vipaccatāya vohāro’’ti vuttaṃ, na vuttavacanahetuvasenāti veditabbaṃ.

220. A thought-arising is a dispute. Also, the term 'dispute,' through metaphorical usage for the cause, attains the designation of 'wholesome, etc.' Referring to that, it was said: 'And because it is to be settled by the means of settlement, it is an issue (adhikaraṇa).' Alternatively, since by the calming of the thought-arising that has become the cause of the dispute, there is also the calming of the word that has arisen, it is therefore possible that for the thought-arising also, the figurative expression 'being something to be settled by the means of settlement' applies. Regarding the dispute spoken of in 'Wholesome thoughts dispute,' it is said to be 'a conventional expression of opposition,' not by way of the spoken word being the cause—thus it should be understood.

222. ‘‘Āpattiñhi āpajjanto kusalacitto vā’’ti vacanato kusalampi siyāti ce? Na taṃ āpattādhikaraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, yo āpattiṃ āpajjati, so tīsu cittesu aññataracittasamaṅgī hutvā āpajjatīti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘yaṃ kusalacitto āpajjatī’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Yo ‘‘paññattimattaṃ āpattādhikaraṇa’’nti vadeyya, tassa akusalādibhāvopi āpattādhikaraṇassa na yujjateva vivādādhikaraṇādīnaṃ viyāti ce? Na, ‘‘natthāpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusala’’nti iminā virodhasambhavato. Anugaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘āpattādhikaraṇaṃ nāma tathāpavattamānaakausalacittuppādarūpakkhandhānametaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Avasiṭṭhesu kusalābyākatapaññattīsu ‘āpattādhikaraṇaṃ siyā akusalaṃ siyā abyākata’nti vacanato paññattitāva paṭisiddhā kusalattike apariyāpannattā. Kusalapaṭisedheneva tena samānagatikattā kiriyābyākatānampi paṭisedho veditabbo, kiriyābyākatānaṃ viya anugamanato vipākābyākatānampi paṭisedho katova hoti, tathāpi abyākatasāmaññato rūpakkhandhena saddhiṃ vipākakiriyābyākatānampi adhivacananti veditabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Tattha ‘‘kusalacittaṃ aṅgaṃ hotī’’ti vinaye apakataññuno sandhāya vuttaṃ appaharitakaraṇādike sati. Tasmāti yasmā [Pg.519] ‘‘natthi āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusala’’nti vattuṃ na sakkā, tasmā kusalacittaṃ aṅgaṃ na hotīti attho. Yadi evaṃ kasmā ‘‘ticittaṃ tivedana’’nti vuccatīti ce? Taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘nayida’’ntiādi āraddhanti eke. Āpattisamuṭṭhāpakacittaṃ aṅgappahonakacittaṃ nāma. ‘‘Ekantatoti yebhuyyenāti attho, itarathā virujjhati. Kasmā? ‘Yassā sacittakapakkhe cittaṃ akusalameva hotī’ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā) vuttattā’’ti vadanti. Tena kiṃ? Vipāko natthi, kasmā? Ekantākusalattā, tasmā kathāva tattha natthi. Yattha pana atthi, taṃ dassento ‘‘yaṃ pana paṇṇattivajja’’ntiādimāha. Asañcicca pana kiñci ajānantassa…pe… abyākataṃ hotīti bhikkhumhi kammaṭṭhānagatacittena nipanne, niddāyante vā mātugāmo ce seyyaṃ kappeti, tassa bhikkhuno vijjamānampi kusalacittaṃ āpattiyā aṅgaṃ na hoti, tasmā tasmiṃ khaṇe seyyākārena vattamānarūpameva āpattādhikaraṇaṃ nāma. Bhavaṅgacitte vijjamānepi eseva nayo. Tasmiñhi khaṇe uṭṭhātabbe jāte anuṭṭhānato rūpakkhandhova āpatti nāma, na vipākena saddhiṃ. Sace pana vadeyya, tassa evaṃvādino acittakānaṃ kusalacittaṃ āpajjeyya. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Eḷakalomaṃ gahetvā kammaṭṭhānamanasikārena tiyojanaṃ atikkamantassa, paṇṇattiṃ ajānitvā padaso dhammaṃ vācentassa ca āpajjitabbāpattiyā kusalacittaṃ āpajjeyyāti. Āpajjatiyevāti ce? Nāpajjati. Kasmā? ‘‘Natthi āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusala’’nti vacanato.

222. If one were to say, 'Because of the statement, "one who commits an offense with a wholesome mind," could the offense-basis also be wholesome?' This was not said with reference to the offense-basis. Rather, it was said to show that whoever commits an offense does so being endowed with one of three minds; thus, the statement beginning with 'one who commits an offense with a wholesome mind' was said. If someone were to say, 'The offense-basis is merely a designation,' would it not follow that in their view, the state of the offense-basis as unwholesome, etc., is indeed untenable, just as for dispute-issues and so on? No, because of the possibility of a contradiction with this statement: 'There is no wholesome offense-basis.' However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: 'The term "offense-basis" is a designation for the unwholesome mind-moments and the aggregate of form that occur in such a way. Among the remaining wholesome, indeterminate, and designations, because of the statement, "an offense-basis could be unwholesome or indeterminate," its being a designation is precluded, as it is not included in the wholesome triad. By the very preclusion of the wholesome, because they have a similar nature, the preclusion of functional-indeterminate states should also be understood. Just as with functional-indeterminate states, because they follow suit, the preclusion of resultant-indeterminate states is also indeed made. Nevertheless, due to their general indeterminacy, it should be known that this is also a designation for resultant- and functional-indeterminate states along with the aggregate of form.' Therein, the statement 'a wholesome mind is a factor' was said in the Vinaya with reference to those who are unskilled, when there are cases such as the clearing of green grass. Therefore, since it is not possible to say, 'There is no wholesome offense-basis,' the meaning is that a wholesome mind is not a factor. If so, why is it said, 'three minds, three feelings'? To explain this, some begin with 'this is not...' and so on. The mind that originates an offense is called a mind sufficient to be a factor. Some say: 'The meaning of "exclusively" is "for the most part"; otherwise, it is contradicted. Why? Because it is said, "For whom, in the case involving mind, the mind is exclusively unwholesome".' What of that? There is no result. Why? Because it is exclusively unwholesome. Therefore, there is no discussion of it there. But showing where there is, he said, 'But as for what is a fault by designation...' and so on. For one who unintentionally and unknowingly... it is indeterminate. For instance, if a monk is lying down with a mind gone to a meditation subject, or is drowsing, and a woman prepares a bed, for that monk, even though a wholesome mind is present, it is not a factor for the offense. Therefore, at that moment, only the form that is occurring in the manner of lying down is called the offense-basis. Even when a life-continuum mind is present, this is the method. For at that moment, when the need to get up has arisen, from not getting up, only the aggregate of form is called an offense, not together with a result. But if one were to say this, for such a speaker, an offense would be incurred with a wholesome mind in the mindless cases. What is meant? For one who, having taken sheep's wool, transgresses three yojanas with attention on a meditation subject, and for one who, not knowing the designation, teaches the Dhamma word by word, the offense that should be incurred would be incurred with a wholesome mind. If one says, 'One does indeed commit it'? One does not commit it. Why? Because of the text, 'There is no wholesome offense-basis'.

Calito kāyo, pavattā vācā, aññatarameva aṅganti aññatarameva āpattīti attho. Kevalaṃ paññattiyā akusalādibhāvāsambhavato āpattitā na yujjati. Āpattiṃ āpajjanto tīsu aññatarasamaṅgī hutvā āpajjatīti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘yaṃ kusalacitto’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Tassattho – pathavīkhaṇanādīsu kusalacittakkhaṇe vītikkamavasena pavattarūpasambhavato kusalacitto vā abyākatāpattiṃ āpajjati. Tathā abyākatacitto vā abyākatarūpasaṅkhātaṃ abyākatāpattiṃ āpajjati, pāṇātipātādīsu akusalacitto vā akusalāpattiṃ āpajjati, rūpaṃ panettha abbohārikaṃ. Supinapassanakālādīsu pāṇātipātādiṃ karonto sahaseyyādivasena āpajjitabbāpattiṃ āpajjanto akusalacitto [Pg.520] abyākatāpattiṃ āpajjatīti veditabbo. Idaṃ vuccati āpattādhikaraṇaṃ akusalanti akusalacittuppādo. Porāṇagaṇṭhipadesu pana ‘‘puthujjano kalyāṇaputhujjano sekkho arahāti cattāro puggale dassetvā tesu arahato āpattādhikaraṇaṃ abyākatameva, tathā sekkhānaṃ, tathā kalyāṇaputhujjanassa asañcicca vītikkamakāle abyākatameva. Itarassa akusalampi hoti abyākatampi. Yasmā cassa sañcicca vītikkamakāle akusalameva hoti, tasmā vuttaṃ ‘natthi āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusala’nti. Sabbattha abyākataṃ nāma tassa vipākābhāvamattaṃ sandhāya evaṃnāmakaṃ jāta’’nti likhitaṃ, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.

The body is moved, speech is uttered, and one of these is a factor; this means that one of these is an offense. Since unwholesome states and so on cannot arise by mere designation, the status of being an offense is not justified. To show that one who incurs an offense does so while endowed with one of three states of mind, it is said, 'When one has a wholesome mind,' and so on. The meaning is this: during moments of wholesome consciousness in acts such as digging the earth, one with a wholesome mind incurs an indeterminate offense due to the arising of the corresponding physical action by way of transgression. Similarly, one with an indeterminate mind incurs an indeterminate offense, which is reckoned as indeterminate form. In cases like killing living beings, one with an unwholesome mind incurs an unwholesome offense. Here, however, form is not a matter for discussion. When one kills or commits similar acts in dreams or the like, incurring an offense that should be incurred in the manner of co-sleeping and so on, one with an unwholesome mind incurs an indeterminate offense—this should be understood. This is called the offense-issue as unwholesome—that is, the arising of an unwholesome state of mind. In the ancient glosses, however, it is written: after presenting the four types of individuals—the ordinary person, the virtuous ordinary person, the trainee, and the Arahant—it is stated that for the Arahant, the offense-issue is solely indeterminate; likewise for trainees; and likewise for the virtuous ordinary person when unintentionally transgressing, it is indeterminate. For the other person, it can be unwholesome or indeterminate. Because for this person, when transgressing intentionally, it is solely unwholesome, it is said, 'There is no wholesome offense-issue.' In all cases, what is called 'indeterminate' is so named in reference to the mere absence of its result. This should be considered and understood.

224. Vivādo vivādādhikaraṇanti yo koci vivādo, so sabbo kiṃ vivādādhikaraṇaṃ nāma hotīti ekapucchā. ‘‘Vivādo adhikaraṇanti vivādādhikaraṇameva vivādo ca adhikaraṇañcāti pucchati. Tadubhayaṃ vivādādhikaraṇamevāti pucchatīti vuttaṃ hotī’’ti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Kesuci potthakesu ayaṃ pucchā natthi. Yadi evaṃ imāya na bhavitabbaṃ vivādo vivādādhikaraṇaṃ, vivādādhikaraṇaṃ vivādo, vivādādhikaraṇaṃ vivādo ceva adhikaraṇañcāti pañcapañhāhi bhavitabbaṃ siyā. Kesuci potthakesu tisso, kesuci catasso, pañca natthi. Tattha dve vibhattā. Itarāsu adhikaraṇaṃ vivādoti yaṃ kiñci adhikaraṇaṃ, vivādasaṅkhyameva gacchati, vivādo adhikaraṇanti yo koci vivādo, so sabbo adhikaraṇasaṅkhyaṃ gacchatīti pucchati. Esa nayo sabbattha.

224. Regarding 'A dispute is a dispute-issue': Is any given dispute called a dispute-issue? This is one question. In the ancient gloss, it is said: 'Regarding 'A dispute is an issue,' it asks if a dispute-issue is both a dispute and an issue. It is said that it asks if both together are simply a dispute-issue.' In some books, this question is not found. If so, this question should not be; rather, there should be five questions: Is a dispute a dispute-issue? Is a dispute-issue a dispute? Is a dispute-issue both a dispute and an issue? Is an issue a dispute? Is a dispute an issue? In some books, there are three questions; in some, four; there are not five. Therein, two are analyzed. Among the other questions, regarding 'An issue is a dispute,' it asks: Does any given issue come to be designated as a dispute? Regarding 'A dispute is an issue,' it asks: Does any given dispute come to be designated as an issue? This is the method in all cases.

228. Sammukhāvinayasminti sammukhāvinayabhāve.

228. In the presence-procedure, meaning in the state of being a presence-procedure.

230. ‘‘Antarenāti kāraṇenā’’ti likhitaṃ.

230. It is written: '`Antarena` means by reason.'

233. Ubbāhikāya khiyyanake pācitti na vuttā tattha chandadānassa natthitāya.

233. A `pācitti` offense is not stated for disparagement by means of a formal act of the Sangha, because in that case there is no giving of consent.

236. Tassa kho etanti esoti attho ‘‘etadagga’’nti ettha viya.

236. The meaning of the phrase `tassa kho etaṃ` should be understood as `eso`, as in the case of `etadagga`.

238. ‘‘Kā [Pg.521] ca tassa pāpiyasikā’’ti kira pāṭho.

238. The reading is said to be: 'And what is his procedure for the more serious offense?'

242. ‘‘Kiccameva kiccādhikaraṇa’’nti vacanato apalokanakammādīnametaṃ adhivacanaṃ, taṃ vivādādhikaraṇādīni viya samathehi sametabbaṃ na hoti, kintu sammukhāvinayena sampajjatīti attho.

242. Because 'A duty itself is a duty-issue,' this is a designation for formal acts such as proclamation and so on. Unlike dispute-issues and the like, it is not to be settled by settlements, but rather is accomplished by the presence-procedure. This is the meaning.

Samathakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Settlements is finished.

5. Khuddakavatthukkhandhakavaṇṇanā

5. The Commentary on the Chapter on Minor Matters

Khuddakavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on Minor Matters

244. Puthupāṇinā [Pg.522] kattabbaṃ kammaṃ puthupāṇikaṃ.

244. An act to be done with the back of the hand is called `puthupāṇika`.

245. ‘‘Kaṇṇato nikkhantamuttolambakādīnaṃ kuṇḍalādīna’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Kāyūra’’nti pāḷipāṭho. ‘‘Keyūrādīnī’’ti ācariyenuddhaṭaṃ.

245. It is written: '...of earrings and the like, such as pearl pendants, that have come out from the ear.' The Pāḷi reading is `kāyūra`. `Keyūrādīni` is what is cited by the teacher.

248. ‘‘Sādhugītaṃ nāma parinibbutaṭṭhāne gīta’’nti likhitaṃ. Dantagītaṃ gāyitukāmānaṃ vākkakaraṇīyaṃ. Dantagītassa vibhāvanatthaṃ ‘‘yaṃ gāyissāmā’’tiādimāha.

248. It is written: 'What is called a song of praise is a song sung in the place where Parinibbāna was attained or in a matter connected with it.' A tooth-song is the preparation of the voice for those who wish to sing. In order to clarify 'tooth-song,' he said, 'What we shall sing,' and so on.

249. Caturassavattaṃ nāma catuppādagāthāvattaṃ. ‘‘Taraṅgavattādīni uccāraṇavidhānāni naṭṭhapayogānī’’ti likhitaṃ. Bāhiralominti bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ, yathā tassa uṇṇapāvārassa bahiddhā lomāni dissanti, tathā dhārentassa dukkaṭanti vuttaṃ hoti.

249. What is called the square style is the style for reciting a four-line verse. It is written: 'The methods of recitation such as the wave style have fallen out of use.' The word 'bāhiralomi' is a neuter noun denoting a state. Just as the hairs on the outside of that woolen cloak are visible, so for the monk who wears it, there is an offense of wrong conduct; thus it is said.

251. Virūpakkhehītiādi sahayogakaraṇavacanaṃ. Sarabūti gehagoḷikā. Sā kira setā savisā hoti. Sohanti yassa me etehi mettaṃ, sohaṃ namo karomi bhagavatoti sambandho. Aññamhi…pe… chetabbamhīti rāgānusaye.

251. 'With the Virūpakkhas,' etc., is an instrumental case used in the sense of accompaniment. 'Sarabū' is a house lizard. It is said that if it is white, it is poisonous. In 'so'haṃ,' the connection is: 'I, who have loving-kindness for these Virūpakkhas, pay homage to the Blessed One.' In 'when another... should be cut,' it refers to the latent tendency of lust.

252. Uṭṭitvāti pakkhipitvā. Otaratūti iddhiyā otāretvā gaṇhātu. Anupariyāyīti anuparibbhami.

252. 'Having arisen' means 'having put in.' 'Let him descend' means 'having brought it down by psychic power, let him take it.' 'He went around' means 'he wandered about.'

253. Na acchupiyantīti na lagganti. Rūpakākiṇṇānīti itthirūpādīhi vokiṇṇāni.

253. 'They are not defiled' means 'they do not cling.' 'Filled with forms' means 'replete with forms of women and so on.'

254. Ālindakamiḍḍhikādīnanti pamukhamiḍḍhikādīnaṃ. Parivattetvā tatthevāti ettha ‘‘parivattetvā tatiyavāre tattheva miḍḍhiyā patiṭṭhātī’’ti likhitaṃ. Paribhaṇḍaṃ nāma gehassa bahi kuṭṭapādassa thirabhāvatthaṃ katā tanukamiḍḍhikā [Pg.523] vuccati. Ettha ‘‘parivaṭṭitvā patto bhijjatīti adhikaraṇabhedāsaṅkāya abhāve ṭhāne ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Pattamāḷako vaṭṭitvā pattānaṃ apatanatthaṃ vaṭṭaṃ vā caturassaṃ vā iṭṭhakādīhi parikkhipitvā māḷakacchannena kato. ‘‘Pattamaṇḍalikā pattapacchikā tālapattādīhi katā’’ti ca likhitaṃ. Miḍḍhante ādhārake ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati pattasandhāraṇatthaṃ vuttattā. Mañce ādhārakepi na vaṭṭati nisīdanapaccayā vāritattā. Āsannabhūmikattā olambetuṃ vaṭṭati.

254. Ālindakamiḍḍhikādīnaṃ means 'of principal ledges and so on.' In 'parivattetvā tattheva,' it is written: 'Having turned, on the third time, it stands on that very ledge.' What is called 'paribhaṇḍa' is said to be a small ledge made outside the monastery at the base of the wall for the sake of stability. Here, it is written: 'Lest the bowl break by being turned over, it is permissible to place it in a place where there is no fear of the support breaking.' A 'pattamāḷaka' is made by enclosing a round or square area with bricks and so on, with a roofed stand, to prevent the bowls from falling by rolling. And it is also written: 'A bowl-ring and a bowl-basket are made from palm leaves and so on.' It is permissible to place it on a support at the edge of the ledge, because it was said for the purpose of holding a bowl. It is not permissible to place it even with a support on a bed, because it is forbidden on account of being a requisite for sitting. Because it is a place for sitting, it is permissible to hang it down.

255. ‘‘Aṃsakūṭe laggetvāti vacanato aggahatthe laggetvā aṅke ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti keci vadanti, na sundaraṃ, ‘‘na kevalaṃ yassa patto’’tiādi yadi hatthena gahitapatte bhedasaññā, pageva aññena sarīrāvayavenāti katvā vuttaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ pana pacuravohāravasena vuttaṃ. Ghaṭikapālamayaṃ ghaṭikaṭāhaṃ. Chavasīsassa pattanti ‘‘silāputtakassa sarīraṃ, khīrassa dhārātiādivohāravasena vuttaṃ. Mañce nisīdituṃ āgatoti attho. ‘‘Pisācillikāti pisācadārakā’’tipi vadanti. Dinnakameva paṭiggahitameva. Cabbetvāti khāditvā. Aṭṭhikāni ca kaṇṭakāni ca aṭṭhikakaṇṭakāni. ‘‘Etesu sabbesu paṇṇattiṃ jānātu vā, mā vā, āpattiyevā’’ti likhitaṃ.

255. Some say that because of the phrase 'having hung it on the shoulder-top', it is not permissible to hang it from the fingertips or to place it on the lap. This is not sound. Regarding 'not only whose bowl,' etc., it is said having considered that if there is a perception that a bowl held by the hand will break, what need is there to speak of holding it with another part of the body? In the Pāḷi, however, it is stated according to common usage. A ghaṭikaṭāha is a bowl made by a potter. The phrase 'the bowl of a corpse's head' is stated by way of conventional expressions such as 'the body of a stone doll' or 'a stream of milk.' The meaning is: 'He has come to sit on the bed.' Some also say: 'Pisācillikā means young pisācas.' What is given is indeed what is accepted. 'Cabbetvā' means 'having chewed.' Bones and fish bones are 'aṭṭhikakaṇṭakāni'. It is written: 'In all these cases, whether one knows the regulation or not, there is indeed an offense.'

256. Vipphāḷetvāti phāḷetvā. Kiṇṇena pūretunti surākiṇṇena pūretuṃ. Bidalakaṃ nāma diguṇakaraṇasaṅkhātassa kiriyāvisesassa adhivacanaṃ. Kassa diguṇakaraṇaṃ? Yena kilañjādinā mahantaṃ kathinamatthataṃ, 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 vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Tattha hi keci akappiyasaññino. Paṭiggaho nāma aṅgulikoso.

256. 'Vipphāḷetvā' means 'having split open.' 'Kiṇṇena pūretuṃ' means 'to fill with yeast.' 'Bidalaka' is a term for the specific action known as 'doubling.' Doubling of what? Of the large kaṭhina cloth that is spread out on a kilañja mat or the like. Indeed, that should be folded at the edge to the size of a daṇḍakathina and made double. Otherwise, there is no space for the hand when making arrangements such as the border strip and hem for a small robe. When there is a pin, having pierced one of the two robes, it is easily discerned whether it is sewn or unsewn. When the daṇḍakathina is made, there is no need for many companions. It is written: 'Without wrinkling, the robe becomes even, and the corners are also even.' Because it is said, 'making a mark with turmeric-dyed thread,' it is established that it is also proper to sew the robe with turmeric-dyed thread. Therein, some have the perception that it is improper. 'Paṭiggaha' is a finger-stall.

257-8. Pātīti [Pg.524] paṭiggahasaṇṭhānaṃ. Paṭiggahatthavikanti aṅgulikosatthavikaṃ. Sūcisatthakānaṃ pubbe āvesanatthavikāya anuññātattā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, bhesajjatthavika’’nti vuttaṃ. Ettha sūcisatthakādīnipi ṭhapetabbānīti nidānaṃ sūceti. Sacepi upanando bhikkhu alajjī, tathāpi santakametaṃ amūlacchedakatabhikkhuno lajjinopi samānassa kappatīti yujjati. Na sammatīti na pahoti.

Pāti means a bowl shaped like a thimble. Paṭiggahatthavikā means a bag for a thimble. Since a bowl-shaped basket for needles and knives was previously allowed, it is said: ‘Monks, I allow a medicine bag.’ The introduction indicates that needles, knives, and the like should also be kept in this. Even if the monk Upananda is shameless, nevertheless this possession is allowable even for a conscientious monk who has not committed a root-cutting offense; thus it is suitable. Na sammati means it is not sufficient.

260-1. Bahi kuṭṭassa samantato nīcavatthukaṃ katvā ṭhitaṃ ‘‘maṇḍalika’’nti vuccati. Jantāgharappaṭicchādinā channassa naggiyaṃ yassa na paññāyati, tasseva parikammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Esa nayo udakavatthapaṭicchādīsupi.

A thing established with a low base all around the outside of a wall is called a ‘maṇḍalika’. For one who is covered by a covering for a steam-bath house, whose nakedness is not apparent, for him only should the rubbing of the body be done. This is the same method in cases of being covered by water, by a cloth, and so on.

262-3. Paṇiyā nāma paṇiyakārakā. Ākaḍḍhanayantaṃ ākaḍḍhiyamānaṃ kūpassa uparibhāge paribbhamati. Arahaṭaghaṭiyantaṃ sakaṭacakkasaṇṭhānayantaṃ. Tassa are are ghaṭikāni bandhitvā ekena, dvīhi vā paribbhamiyamānassa udakanibbāhanaṃ veditabbaṃ. Āviddhapakkhapāsaṃ nāma yattha maṇḍalākārena pakkhapāsā bajjhanti āviddhavatthatā viya āviddhapakkhapāsakā. Pubbe pattasaṅgopanatthaṃ, idāni ṭhapetabbaṃ bhuñjituṃ ādhārako anuññāto.

Paṇiyā means vendors of vegetables. A pulling-machine revolves in the upper part of a well when it is being pulled. An arahaṭaghaṭiyanta is a machine shaped like a cart-wheel; the drawing out of water should be understood as it is made to revolve by one or two, having tied pots to its spokes. Āviddhapakkhapāsa is where side-fastenings are tied in a circular manner, like an unpierced object; these are called āviddhapakkhapāsakā. Previously, this was for protecting the bowl; now a stand is allowed for placing the bowl on in order to eat.

273. Paragalaṃ gacchatīti imassa payogābhāvā vaṭṭati. Kammasatenāti mahatā ussāhena.

273. Paragalaṃ gacchati: This is allowable because of his absence of effort. Kammasatena means with great effort.

277-8. Lohabhaṇḍaṃ nāma kaṃsato sesalohabhaṇḍaṃ. 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 vā’’ti likhitaṃ.

Lohabhaṇḍa means metalware other than bronze. Muddikakāyabandhana means a waistband that is prepared without being made square. A pāmaṅgadasā is square. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānena, on the outer robe, means in the manner of sewing a mudiṅga drum, or in the shape of a millet head. Pavananto means the end of the loop. And it is written: ‘dasāmūla’. Upon entering a village without a waistband, whether intentionally or unintentionally, there is an offense. It is written: ‘From the place where one remembers, one should tie it and enter, or one should turn back.’

279. Sattaṅgulaṃ vā aṭṭhaṅgulaṃ vāti ettha ‘‘sugataṅgulenā’’ti avuttattā pakatiaṅgulena sāruppatthāya vaḍḍhetvāpi karonti ce, na doso.

279. Seven or eight finger-breadths—here, since 'Sugata finger-breadth' is not mentioned, if they make it by increasing it with a normal finger-breadth for the sake of suitability, there is no fault.

280. Tālavaṇṭākārena sīhaḷitthīnaṃ viya.

280. In the shape of a palm-leaf fan, like the manner of dress of Sinhalese women.

Khuddakavatthukkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Chapter on Minor Matters is concluded.

6. Senāsanakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

6. The Explanation of the Chapter on Lodgings

Vihārānujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Permission for Dwellings

294. Nilīyanti [Pg.525] bhikkhū etthāti vihārādayo leṇāni nāma. Āgata-vacanena tassāgatasaṅghova sāmī, na anāgatoti keci, taṃ na yujjati samānalābhakatikāya siddhattā.

294. Because bhikkhus hide (nilīyanti) or dwell here (ettha), dwellings and so on are called ‘shelters’ (leṇāni). Some say that by the word ‘arrived’ (āgata), only the Sangha that has arrived is the owner, not the one that has not arrived. That is not appropriate, because it is established by the agreement of equal gain.

296-7. Dīpinaṅguṭṭhenāti ettha ‘‘dīpinā akappiyacammaṃ dassetī’’ti likhitaṃ. Thambhakavātapānaṃ nāma tiriyaṃ dārūni adatvā ujukaṃ ṭhiteheva dārūhi kattabbaṃ. Bhisīnaṃ anuññātaṃ vaṭṭatīti bimbohane vaṭṭatīti attho. Tūlapūritaṃ bhisiṃ apassayituṃ na vaṭṭati uṇṇādīnaṃyeva anuññātattā. Nisīdananipajjanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tasmā apassayituṃ vaṭṭatīti ce? Akappiyanti na vaṭṭatīti keci. Yadi evaṃ akappiyamañcañca apassayituṃ na vaṭṭeyya. Yasmā vaṭṭati, tasmā doso natthi. Apica gilānassa bimbohanaṃ nipajjitumpi anuññātaṃ, tasmā bhisipi vaṭṭati apassayituṃ. Ācariyā ca anujānanti, vaḷañjenti cāti eke. Simbalitūlasuttena sibbitaṃ cīvaraṃ vaṭṭati. Kasmā? Kappāsassa anulomato. ‘‘Akkaphalasuttamayampi akkavākamayameva paṭikkhitta’’nti te eva vadanti.

296-7. Regarding `dīpināṅguṭṭhena`, it is written: 'By `dīpinā`, an unallowable hide is indicated.' A 'pillar-window' (`thambhakavātapāna`) is one that should be made with upright wooden beams, without placing wooden beams horizontally. The meaning of `bhisīnaṃ anuññātaṃ vaṭṭati` (it is allowed for bolsters) is that it is allowed for a pillow (`bimbohana`). It is not allowed to lean on a bolster (`bhisi`) stuffed with cotton, because only wool and the like are permitted. This was said with reference to sitting and lying down. Therefore, if one were to say, 'It is allowed to lean on it'? Some say it is not allowed, as it is an unallowable item. If so, it would not be allowed to lean on an unallowable bed either. Since that is allowed, there is no fault. Moreover, for a sick person, a pillow is permitted even for lying down; therefore, it is also allowed to lean on a bolster. Some say that the teachers permit it and also use it. A robe sewn with thread from the silk-cotton tree is allowed. Why? Because it is in accordance with cotton. Those same ones say: 'That made of thread from the Akka fruit is also allowed; only that made from Akka bark is rejected.'

298. Anibandhanīyo alaggo. Paṭibāhetvāti maṭṭhaṃ katvā. ‘‘Setavaṇṇādīnaṃ yathāsaṅkhyaṃ ikkāsādayo bandhanatthaṃ vuttā’’ti likhitaṃ.

298. `Anibandhanīyo` means unfettered; `alaggo` means unattached. `Paṭibāhetvā` means having made smooth. It is written: 'For white colors and the like, lac and so on are mentioned for the purpose of binding, in corresponding order.'

300. Pakuṭṭaṃ samantato āviddhapamukhaṃ.

300. `Pakuṭṭaṃ` means having an opening pierced from all around.

303. Sudhālepoti sudhāmattikālepo.

303. `Sudhālepo` means a plaster of lime and clay.

305. Āsatti taṇhā. Santiṃ adaraṃ.

305. `Āsatti` means `taṇhā` (craving). `Santiṃ` means `adaraṃ` (respect).

307. Ketunti kayena gahetuṃ.

307. `Ketuṃ` means to take by buying.

308. Citāti iṭṭhakāyo kabaḷena niddhamanavasena chinditvā katāti attho.

308. `Citā` means that bricks are made by cutting and removing them in lumps.

310. Chabbaggiyānaṃ [Pg.526] bhikkhūnaṃ antevāsikāti ettha vīsativassaṃ atikkamitvā chabbaggiyā uppannā. ‘‘Ārādhayiṃsu me bhikkhū citta’’nti (ma. ni. 1.225) vuttattā aññasmiṃ kāle sāvatthigamane uppannaṃ vatthuṃ idha āpattidassanatthaṃ āharitvā vuttanti yuttaṃ viya, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Vuddhanti vuddhataraṃ.

310. Regarding 'the disciples of the group-of-six bhikkhus,' herein the group-of-six arose after twenty years had passed. Because it is said, 'The bhikkhus pleased my mind' (MN 1.225), it seems appropriate that an incident that occurred at another time during a journey to Sāvatthī has been brought here and stated for the purpose of showing the offense; this should be investigated and understood. Regarding `vuddha`, it means a more senior elder.

313. Santhareti tiṇasantharādayo.

313. `Santharati`: [This refers to] spreading grass mats and so forth.

Senāsanaggāhakathāvaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Discourse on the Taker of Lodgings

318. ‘‘Seyyaggenāti mañcaṭṭhānaparicchedena. Vihāraggenāti ovarakaggenā’’ti likhitaṃ. Thāvarāti niyatā. Paccayeneva hi tanti tasmiṃ senāsane mahātherā tassa paccayassa kāraṇā aññattha agantvā vasantāyeva naṃ paṭijaggissantīti attho. Aghaṭṭanakammaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘na tattha manussā’’tiādimāha. ‘‘Vitakkaṃ chinditvā suddhacittena gamanavatteneva gantabba’’nti pāṭho. Muddavedikā nāma cetiyassa hammiyavedikā. Paṭikkammāti apasakkitvā. Samānalābhakatikā mūlāvāse sati siyā, mūlāvāsavināsena katikāpi vinassati. Samānalābha-vacanaṃ sati dvīsu, bahūsu vā yujjati, teneva ekasmiṃ avasiṭṭheti no mati. Tāvakālikaṃ kālena mūlacchedanavasena vā aññesaṃ vā kammaṃ aññassa siyā nāvāyaṃ saṅgamoti ācariyo. Puggalavaseneva kātabbanti apalokanakāle saṅgho vassaṃvutthabhikkhūnaṃ pāṭekkaṃ ‘‘ettakaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ vatthaṃ deti, ruccati saṅghassā’’ti puggalameva parāmasitvā dātabbaṃ, na saṅghavasena kātabbaṃ. Na saṅgho saṅghassa ettakaṃ detīti. ‘‘Ekasmiṃ āvāse saṅghassa kammaṃ karotī’ti vacanato saṅghavasena kātabba’’nti likhitaṃ. Na hi tathā vutte saṅghassa kiñci kammaṃ kataṃ nāma hoti. ‘‘Sammatasenāsanaggāhāpakato aññena gāhitepi gāho ruhati aggahitupajjhāyassa upasampadā viyā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Kammavācāyapi sammuti vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ.

318. It is written: 'By `seyyagga` is meant by the demarcation of the bed's location. By `vihāragga` is meant by the order of the inner chamber.' `Thāvarā` means fixed. Indeed, the meaning is that the great elder monks, because of that very requisite, will attend to that lodging, dwelling there without going elsewhere. To show an undisturbed act, he said, 'No people are there,' and so on. There is a reading: 'Having cut off thought, one should go with a pure mind by the very practice of going.' What is called `muddavedikā` is the railing of the stupa's platform. `Paṭikkamma` means having withdrawn. The agreement of equal gain would exist if the original residence remains; with the destruction of the original residence, the agreement also perishes. The statement of equal gain is fitting when there are two or many; for that very reason, it is our opinion that it does not apply when only one remains. The teacher says: What is temporary may, in time, either by way of uprooting or through the work of others, become another's, like a meeting on a boat. It should be done on the basis of the individual: at the time of the announcement, having considered only the individual, it should be given to each monk who has completed the rains-residence, stating: 'This much rains-residence cloth is given; it is agreeable to the Sangha.' It should not be done on the basis of the Sangha. The Sangha does not give this much to the Sangha. It is written: 'Because of the statement, "He performs an act of the Sangha in one residence," it should be done on the basis of the Sangha.' For indeed, if it were so stated, no act would be called an act of the Sangha. It is written: 'Due to the absence of an appointed lodging-assigner, even when taken by another, the taking is valid, like the ordination of one whose preceptor has not been accepted.' It is written: 'Even by a formal act, an appointment is valid.'

Aṭṭhapi soḷasapi janeti ettha kiṃ visuṃ visuṃ, udāhu ekatoti? Ekatopi vaṭṭati. Na hi te tathā sammatā saṅghena kammakatā nāma honti[Pg.527], teneva sattasatikakkhandhake ekato aṭṭha janā sammatāti. Tesaṃ sammuti kammavācāyapīti ñattidutiyakammavācāyapi. Apalokanakammassa vatthūhi sā eva kammavācā labbhamānā labbhati, tassā ca vatthūhi apalokanakammameva labbhamānaṃ labbhati, na aññanti veditabbaṃ. Imaṃ nayaṃ micchā gaṇhanto ‘‘apalokanakammaṃ ñattidutiyakammaṃ kātuṃ, ñattidutiyakammañca apalokanakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti gaṇhāti, evañca sati kammasaṅkaradoso āpajjati. Maggo pokkharaṇīti ettha maggo nāma magge katadīghasālā, pokkharaṇīti nahāyituṃ katapokkharaṇī. Etāni hi asenāsanānīti ettha bhattasālā na āgatā, tasmā taṃ senāsananti ce? Sāpi ettheva paviṭṭhā vāsatthāya akatattā. Bhojanasālā pana ubhayattha nāgatā. Kiñcāpi nāgatā, upari ‘‘bhojanasālā pana senāsanamevā’’ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) vuttattā senāsanaṃ. ‘‘Kappiyakuṭi ca ettha kātabbā’’ti vadanti, taṃ neti eke. Rukkhamūlaveḷugumbā channā kavāṭabaddhāva senāsanaṃ. ‘‘Alābhakesu āvāsesūti alābhakesu senāsanesū’’ti likhitaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ. Na hi pāṭekkaṃ senāsanaṃ hoti. Taṃ saññāpetvāti ettha paññattiṃ agacchante balakkārenapi vaṭṭati. Ayampīti paccayopi.

Here, regarding 'it generates eight or sixteen,' is it separately or together? It is permissible even together. For indeed, they, having been authorized in that way, are not called 'those for whom an act has been done by the Sangha'; for that very reason, in the Sattasatikakkhandhaka it is said, 'eight persons are authorized together.' 'Their authorization is also by a formal act' means it is also by a formal act consisting of a motion and one announcement. It should be understood that for an act of seeking approval, that very formal act is obtained by its subject matters; and for that formal act, only an act of seeking approval is obtained by its subject matters, not another. One who wrongly grasps this principle thinks, 'It is permissible to perform an act of seeking approval as a formal act consisting of a motion and one announcement, and to perform a formal act consisting of a motion and one announcement as an act of seeking approval.' This being so, the fault of confusion of acts arises. Here, in 'path, lotus pond,' 'path' means a long hall built on the path, and 'lotus pond' means a pond made for bathing. Here, in 'These are indeed not resting places,' the kitchen hall is not included. If one were to ask, 'Therefore, is it a resting place?'—it too is included right here, because it was not made for the purpose of dwelling. The dining hall, however, is not included in either. Although it is not included, it is a resting place because it is stated above, 'But the dining hall is indeed a resting place.' Some say, 'And a suitable hut should be made here,' but others say this is not so. The foot of a tree or a bamboo thicket, when covered and fitted with a door, is a resting place. It is written, '“In residences where there are no gains” means “in resting places where there are no gains”'; that is correct. For an individual component is not a resting place. Here, in 'having informed them,' it is permissible to compel, even by force, those who do not go to the designated place. 'This also' means also the forfeited requisites.

Upanibandhitvāti tassa samīpe rukkhamūlādīsu vasitvā tattha vattaṃ katvāti adhippāyo. Pariyattipaṭipattipaṭivedhavasena tividhampi. ‘‘Dasakathāvatthukaṃ dasaasubhaṃ dasaanussati’’nti pāṭho. ‘‘Paṭhamabhāgaṃ muñcitvāti idaṃ ce paṭhamagāhitavatthuto mahagghaṃ hotī’’ti likhitaṃ. Chinnavassānaṃ vassāvāsikaṃ nāma pubbe gahitavassāvāsikānaṃ pacchā chinnavassānaṃ. Bhatiniviṭṭhanti bhatiṃ katvā viya niviṭṭhaṃ pariyiṭṭhaṃ. ‘‘Saṅghikaṃ pana…pe… vibbhantopi labhatevā’’ti idaṃ tatruppādaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Iminā apalokanameva pamāṇaṃ, na gāhāpananti keci. Vinayadharā pana ‘‘amhākaṃ vihāre vassaṃ upagatānaṃ ekekassa ticīvaraṃ saṅgho dassatī’tiādinā apalokitepi abhājitaṃ vibbhantako na labhati. ‘Apalokanakammaṃ katvā gāhita’nti vuttattā, ‘abhājite vibbhamatī’ti evaṃ pubbe vuttattā cā’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Paccayavasenāti gahapatikaṃ vā aññaṃ vā vassāvāsikaṃ paccayavasena gāhita’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Ekameva vatthaṃ dātabbanti tattha nisinnānaṃ ekamekaṃ [Pg.528] vatthaṃ pāpuṇātī’’ti likhitaṃ. Dutiyo therāsaneti anubhāgo. Paṭhamabhāgo aññathā therena gahitoti jānitabbaṃ.

Upanibandhitvāti means: having stayed near that monastery at the foot of a tree or such places, and having performed duties there—this is the meaning. It is threefold by way of learning (pariyatti), practice (paṭipatti), and realization (paṭivedha). The reading is: 'The ten topics of discussion, the ten meditations on foulness, the ten recollections.' It is written: 'Regarding "having abandoned the first portion," if this is more valuable than the object first taken.' For those who have broken the Rains-residence, the vassāvāsika (rains-residence robe) is for those who, having previously received a rains-residence robe, later broke their Rains-residence. Bhatiniviṭṭhaṃ means: as if having made a payment, it was sought for, thoroughly searched for. This, 'However, what belongs to the Saṅgha… even one who has disrobed still obtains it,' is said with reference to its arising there. By this, some say that announcement alone is the measure, not the causing to be taken. But the Vinaya experts say: 'Even if an announcement is made with phrases like, "In our monastery, the Saṅgha will give the three robes to each of those who have entered the Rains-residence," one who has disrobed does not receive it while it is still undivided. This is because it is said, "Having performed the act of announcement, it is caused to be taken," and because it was previously stated, "One disrobes while it is undivided."' It is written: 'Paccayavasena (by means of a requisite)' means 'a robe from a householder or another rains-residence robe is received by means of a requisite.' It is written: 'Ekameva vatthaṃ dātabbaṃ (only one cloth should be given)' means 'there, to each one seated, one cloth is obtained.' Dutiyo therāsane (the second in the elder's seat) is a portion. It should be understood that the first portion was taken differently by the elder.

Upanandavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Story of Upananda

320. Tivassantarenāti tiṇṇaṃ vassānaṃ anto ṭhitena. Hatthimhi nakho assāti hatthinakho. Pāsādassa nakho nāma heṭṭhimaparicchedo. Gihivikaṭanīhārenāti gihīhi katanīhāreneva. ‘‘Tehi attharitvā dinnāneva nisīdituṃ labbhanti, na bhikkhunā sayaṃ attharitvā vissajjitabbaṃ saṅghena attharāpetvā vā’’ti likhitaṃ.

320. Tivassantarena (within three years) means: by one who has stayed within three years. Hatthinakho (elephant-nail) is so called because it has a nakha (projection) like an elephant's. The nakha of a mansion is the lower boundary. Gihivikaṭanīhārena (in the manner of what is fashioned by householders) means: precisely in the manner of what is made by householders. It is written: "They are allowed for sitting on only when they have been spread and given by them (householders); if it is spread by a bhikkhu himself, or caused to be spread by the Saṅgha, it must be relinquished."

Avissajjiyavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Story of Non-Relinquishable Items

321. ‘‘Na vissajjetabbaṃ saṅghena vā gaṇena vā puggalena vā’’ti vacanaṃ ‘‘yaṃ agarubhaṇḍaṃ vissajjiyaṃ vebhaṅgiyaṃ saṅghikaṃ, taṃ gaṇo ce tasmiṃ āvāse vasati puggalopi vā, gaṇena vā puggalena vā vissajjitaṃ saṅghena vissajjitasadisameva hotī’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttavacanaṃ sādheti, aññathā ettha gaṇapuggalaggahaṇaṃ niratthakaṃ. Arañjaro udakacāṭi, alañjalo, bahuudakagaṇhanakoti attho. ‘‘Vaṭṭacāṭi viya hutvā thokaṃ dīghamukho majjhe paricchedaṃ dassetvā kato’’ti likhitaṃ. Maṃsadibbadhammabuddhasamantacakkhuvasena pañca.

321. The statement, 'It should not be relinquished by the Saṅgha, or by a group, or by an individual,' establishes the statement spoken in the commentary: 'Whatever property is light, relinquishable, divisible, and communal—if a group or an individual resides in that monastery, then what is relinquished by the group or by the individual is just like being relinquished by the Saṅgha.' Otherwise, the inclusion of 'group' and 'individual' here would be meaningless. Arañjaro is a water pot; alañjalo means capable of holding much water. It is written: 'It is made like a round pot, with a slightly long mouth, showing a division in the middle.' By way of the fleshly eye, the divine eye, the Dhamma-eye, the Buddha-eye, and the all-seeing eye, there are five.

Garubhaṇḍena ca garubhaṇḍanti saṃhārimaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Pattacīvaraṃ nikkhipitunti aṭṭakacchannena kate mañce. Vaṭṭalohaṃ nāma pītavaṇṇaṃ. Pārihāriyaṃ na vaṭṭatīti āgantukassa adatvā paricārikahatthato attano nāmaṃ likhāpetvā gahetvā yathāsukhaṃ pariharituṃ na vaṭṭati. ‘‘Gihivikaṭanīhārenevāti yāva attano kammanibbatti, tāva gahetvā detī’’ti likhitaṃ. Sikharaṃ nāma yena paribbhamantā chindanti. Pattabandhako nāma pattassa gaṇṭhiādikārako. ‘‘Paṭimānaṃ suvaṇṇādipattakārako’’tipi vadanti. ‘‘Aḍḍhabāhūti kapparato paṭṭhāya yāva aṃsakūṭa’’nti likhitaṃ. Ito paṭṭhāyāti imaṃ pāḷiṃ ādiṃ katvā. Daṇḍamuggaro nāma yena rajitacīvaraṃ pothenti. ‘Paccattharaṇagatika’nti vuttattā, ‘‘tampi garubhaṇḍamevāti vuttattā ca api-saddena pāvārādipaccattharaṇaṃ sabbaṃ garubhaṇḍamevā’’ti vadanti. Eteneva [Pg.529] suttena aññathā atthaṃ vatvā ‘‘pāvārādipaccattharaṇaṃ na garubhaṇḍaṃ, bhājanīyameva, senāsanatthāya dinnapaccattharaṇameva garubhaṇḍa’’nti vadanti, upaparikkhitabbaṃ. Gaṇṭhikāti cīvaragaṇṭhikā. Bhañcako nāma sarako.

By 'heavy goods' is meant movable property. 'Placing the bowl and robe' means on a bed made with a canopy. Vaṭṭaloha is a yellow-colored metal. The phrase 'It is not permissible to use' means: it is not permissible, without giving it to an incoming bhikkhu, to take it from the hand of an attendant, have one's own name inscribed on it, and use it as one pleases. It is written: 'As with a mat made by householders, it can be taken until one’s own work is completed, then given back.' A sikhara is that with which one pierces while rotating. A pattabandhaka is one who makes the knots, etc., for a bowl. They also say: 'One who makes bowls of fine color and so on by shaping them well.' It is written: 'Aḍḍhabāhu means from the elbow up to the tip of the shoulder.' 'Starting from here' means beginning with this Pāḷi text. A daṇḍamuggara is that with which one beats a dyed robe. Because it is said to be 'included among coverings,' and because it is said, 'that too is a heavy item,' they say that by the word api, all coverings, such as cloaks, are included as heavy items. However, interpreting this very text differently, others say: 'Coverings such as cloaks are not heavy items but are only distributable; only a covering given for the sake of a lodging is a heavy item.' This should be investigated. Gaṇṭhikā is a stick for beating robes. Bhañcaka is a cup.

Navakammadānakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse on Giving for New Construction

323-4. Aggaḷabandhasūcidvārakaraṇamattenapi. ‘‘Kapotabhaṇḍikā nāma vaḷabhiyā upari ṭhapetabbavalayaṃ vā tiṇacchadanagehassa piṭṭhivaṃsassa heṭṭhā ṭhapetabbaṃ vā ubhayamassa gatā dārū’’ti likhitaṃ. Kārantarāti tadā puna pavisaṭṭhaṃ pubbapayojitānānaṃ vacanapātasenāsanavāso. Na pana patisaṭṭhatoti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Sabbattha vinaṭṭhavāso na ca paṭisedhako hotīti daṭṭhabbo. Dvāravātapānādīni apaharitvā dātuṃ asakkuṇeyyato ‘‘paṭidātabbāniyevā’’ti vuttaṃ. Gopānasiādayo dentassa vihāro palujjatīti ‘‘mūlaṃ vā dātabba’’ntiādi vuttanti eke. ‘‘Nevāsikā pakatiyā anatthatāya bhūmiyā ṭhapenti ce, tesampi anāpattiyevā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Dvāravātapānādayo aparikammakatāpi apaṭicchādetvā na apassayitabbā’’ti likhitaṃ.

Even by the mere act of fastening a bolt and inserting the pin. It is written: 'Kapotabhaṇḍikā is the name for either a ring to be placed above a door-frame, or a ring to be placed below the ridge-pole of a grass-thatched monastery; it is wood that pertains to both of these for that monastery.' Regarding 'kārantara': at that time, it is a re-entering, a dwelling in a lodging subject to various designations not previously applied. It should be understood, however, that this is not a dwelling by way of being completely abandoned. It should be understood that everywhere, a ruined dwelling is not prohibited. Because one would be unable to give away the lodging without removing the doors, windows, and so on, it is said, 'They must indeed be returned.' Some say that because the monastery is ruined when a bhikkhu gives away the rafters and so on, it is said, 'the foundation should be given,' etc. It is written: 'If resident bhikkhus place things on ground that is naturally without a covering, for them too there is indeed no offense.' And it is written: 'Doors, windows, and so on, even if they are unfinished, should not be leaned against without being covered.'

Saṅghabhattādianujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse Concerning the Allowance of Meals for the Saṅgha and Other Such Topics

Uddesabhattakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse on the Designated Meal

325. Yā bhattuddesaṭṭhānabhūtāya bhojanasālāya pakatiṭhitikā. Dinnaṃ panāti yathā so dāyako deti, taṃ dassento ‘‘saṅghato bhante’’tiādimāha. Ekavaḷañjanti ekadvārena vaḷañjitabbaṃ. Ticīvaraparivāranti ettha ‘‘udakamattalābhī viya aññopi uddesabhattaṃ alabhitvā vatthādimanekappakāraṃ labhati ce, tasseva ta’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Uddesapatte dethā’ti vatvā gahetvā āgatabhāvena saṅghassa pariccattaṃ na hotiyeva tasseva hatthe gatattā, tasmā tehi vuttakkamena sabbehi bhājetvā bhuñjitabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Paṭipāṭipattaṃ vā ṭhitikāya ṭhitapattaṃ vā. ‘‘Kūṭaṭṭhitikā nāma aggahetabbānampi gāhitattā’’ti likhitaṃ, ‘‘paṇītabhattaṭṭhitikañca ajānitvā missetvā gāhitepi evameva paṭipajjitabba’’nti [Pg.530] ca likhitaṃ. Tañce theyyāya haranti pattahārakā, āṇāpakassa gīvā hoti. Atikkantampi ṭhitikaṃ ṭhapetvāti ettha ‘‘taṃdivasameva ce bhikkhā labbhati, aparadivasato paṭṭhāya na labbhati kirā’’ti likhitaṃ. Pacchā ‘‘sabbo saṅgho paribhuñjatū’’ti avuttepi bhājetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. ‘‘Ettake bhikkhū saṅghato uddisitvā dethā’ti avatvā ‘ettakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhathā’ti dinnaṃ saṅghikanimantanaṃ nāmā’’ti likhitaṃ.

325. In the dining hall, which is the place for the designation of meals, there are the normal arrangements. Regarding `dinnaṃ pana` (given, however): showing the manner in which that donor gives, He said, `‘saṅghato bhante’` (from the Sangha, venerable sir), and so on. `Ekavaḷañjaṃ` means it is to be used through one door. Regarding `ticīvaraparivāraṃ` (accompanied by the three robes), here it is written: 'Just as one who receives only water, if another monk, not receiving the designated meal, receives various items such as cloth, it belongs to that very monk.' It is said: 'Having said, "Give the designated shares," and having taken them and come, it is not relinquished to the Sangha because it has gone into that very monk's hand. Therefore, it should be distributed by all of them according to the stated procedure and then consumed.' A bowl in order, or a bowl placed according to the arrangement. It is written: 'A deceitful arrangement is so-called because even what should not be taken is taken,' and it is also written: 'Even when, not knowing the arrangement for superior food, it is taken mixed, one should proceed in this very same way.' If the bowl-carriers take it with intent to steal, the one who gives the order is liable for a penalty. Regarding `atikkantampi ṭhitikaṃ ṭhapetvā` (even having set aside the arrangement that has passed), here it is written: 'If alms are received on that very day, it is said that from the next day onwards they are not received.' Afterwards, even if it is not said, 'Let the entire Sangha partake,' it should be distributed and partaken of. It is written: 'Without saying, "Having designated so many monks from the Sangha, give," a gift given by saying, "Take the meal for so many monks," is called an invitation to the Sangha.'

Nimantanabhattakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Invitation Meal

Paṭipāṭiyāti yathāladdhapaṭipāṭiyā. Vicchinditvāti bhattaṃ gaṇhathāti padaṃ avatvā. Ālopasaṅkhepenāti ayaṃ nayo nimantanāyameva, uddesabhatte pana ekassa pahonakappamāṇe eva ṭhitikā tiṭṭhati. ‘‘Ekavāranti yāva tasmiṃ āvāse vasanti bhikkhū, sabbeva labhantī’’ti likhitaṃ.

Regarding `paṭipāṭiyā` (in order): in the order it was received. Regarding `vicchinditvā` (having divided): without saying the phrase, 'Take the meal,' having divided it into portions. This method applies only to an invitation; in a designated meal, however, the arrangement stands only for an amount sufficient for one person. Regarding `ekavāraṃ` (one turn), it is written: 'For as long as monks reside in that monastery, all of them receive.'

Salākabhattakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Ticket Meal

Na hi bahisīmāya saṅghalābhoti ettha ‘‘uddesabhattādīsu bahisīmāya ṭhitassapi ce upāsakā denti, gahetuṃ labhanti, attanopi pāpetvā gahaṇaṃ anuññātaṃ, tathā idha na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Na pāpuṇantīti uddisitvāpi. Vāragāmanti dūrattā vārena niggahena gantabbagāme. Phātikammamevāti atirekalābhā ca bhavanti. Sammukhībhūtassāti yebhuyyena ce bhikkhū bahisīmaṃ gatā, sammukhībhūtassa pāpetabbaṃ. Sabhāgattā hi ekena laddhaṃ sabbesaṃ pahoti, tasmimpi asati attano pāpetvā dātabbaṃ. ‘‘Laddhā vā aladdhā vā’’ti vacanasiliṭṭhavasena vuttaṃ. Vihāre apāpitaṃ pana…pe… na vaṭṭatīti salākabhattaṃ vihāre uddisiyati. Tena pana dinnasalākena. Tassāti gahetvā gatassa. Salākā gahetabbāti yuttaṃ viya. Sabbapotthakesu ‘‘gāhetabbā’’ti pāṭho, tasmā tenāti salākaggāhāpakenāti attho. ‘‘Corikāya gahitattā na pāpuṇātī’’ti vacanato ‘‘kuṭisodhanaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti ca dīpavāsino vadanti kira. Ekaṃ mahātherassāti mahāthero vihārato yebhuyyena na gacchati, itare kadāci gacchati, tasmā sabhāgā ce, attano pāpetvā puna itaresaṃ diyyati. Vihāre therassa pattasalākabhattanti mahāthero ekakova vihāre ohīno, ‘‘avassaṃ sabbasalākā attano pāpetvā ṭhito’’ti [Pg.531] paṭissayaṃ gantvā āgantukabhikkhūnampi adassanato kukkuccaṃ akatvā bhuñjanti.

Herein, regarding 'For a gain for the Saṅgha does not occur outside the boundary': it is said, 'In the case of designated meals and so on, even for a monk standing outside the boundary, if lay devotees give, it is allowable to take. It is permitted to have it brought to oneself and receive it; in such a way, it is not allowable here.' 'They do not receive it' means even if it is designated. 'Vāragāma' refers to a village that must be gone to by turn or by compulsion due to its distance. 'Phātikamma only' means there are also excess gains. 'To one who is present' means if, for the most part, the monks have gone outside the boundary, it should be brought to the one who is present. Because of common ownership, what is received by one is sufficient for all. If that one is also not present, it should be brought to oneself and given. 'Whether received or not received' is said for the sake of a smooth expression. Regarding 'But if it is not brought to the monastery... it is not allowable': the ticket-meal is designated in the monastery. But by that monk who has been given the ticket. 'His' refers to the one who, having taken it, has gone. The statement 'The tickets should be taken' appears as if it were correct. In all the manuscripts, the reading is 'should be caused to be taken'; therefore, 'by him' means by the one who causes the ticket to be taken. Because of the statement 'Because it was taken by stealth, it does not reach him,' the residents of the island say, it is said, 'The announcing of a hut is allowable.' 'One for the great elder' means the great elder, for the most part, does not go from the monastery, while the others go sometimes. Therefore, if the fellow monks go, having had it brought to oneself, it is given again to the others. Regarding 'The ticket-meal that has come to the elder in the monastery': the great elder alone is left behind in the monastery. Thinking, 'He has surely remained, having had all the tickets brought to himself,' they go to the lodging and, not seeing any incoming monks either, they eat without remorse.

Pakkhikabhattakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Fortnightly Meal

Uposathadivase āpattidesanaṃ sandhāya ‘‘parisuddhasīlāna’’nti āha. Lekhaṃ katvā nibaddhāpitaṃ. ‘‘Āgantukabhattampi gamikabhattampī’’ti āgantukova hutvā gacchantaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Anāthagilānupaṭṭhākopi tena dinnaṃ bhuñjati ce, tassapi pāpetabbameva. Guḷapiṇḍaṃ tālapakkamattaṃ.

On the Uposatha day, with reference to the confession of an offense, He said, “of those with purified virtue.” Having been written, it was established. The phrase, “both the meal for a newcomer and the meal for one who is departing,” was said in reference to one who, having been a newcomer, is departing. If one who attends to the unprotected sick eats what is given by that person, it must be brought to him as well. A lump of molasses is the size of a ripe palm fruit.

Senāsanakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Lodgings is concluded.

7. Saṅghabhedakakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

7. The Commentary on the Chapter on Schism in the Sangha

Chasakyapabbajjākathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Story of the Going Forth of the Six Sakyans

330. ‘‘Anupiyaṃ [Pg.532] nāmā’’ti ekavacanena dissati, sattamiyaṃ pana ‘‘anupiyāya’’nti. ‘‘Kāḷudāyippabhutayo dasa dūtā’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Na heṭṭhāpāsādā na heṭṭhāpāsādaṃ vā’’ti likhitaṃ.

330. “Anupiyaṃ nāma” appears in the singular, but in the locative case, “anupiyāya” appears. There is the reading: “Kāḷudāyi and others, ten messengers.” It is written: “He does not descend downwards from the palace, or he does not descend to the lower palace.”

332. Pubbe pubbakāle. ‘‘Rañño sato’’ti ca ‘‘raññovasato’’ti ca pāṭho.

332. `Pubbe` means in a former time. There is the reading “rañño sato” and also “raññova sato”.

333. Na lābhataṇhā idha kāmataṇhā, jhānassa nesā parihāni hetu. Buddhattasīlaṃ pana patthayanto jhānāpi naṭṭhoti. Nanu pattabhāvanā. Manomayanti jhānamanomayaṃ.

333. Here, it is not craving for gain, but craving for sensual pleasures. This is not the cause for the decline of jhāna. But it should be understood that because he desired the false practice of claiming Buddhahood, he was lost even from jhāna. When the question is asked, “Is the attained development not mind-made?” The answer is that jhāna is mind-made.

334. Satthāroti gaṇasatthāro.

334. `Satthāro` means teachers of a group.

339. Potthanikanti churikaṃ.

339. `Potthanikaṃ` means a dagger.

340. Manusseti purise.

340. `Manusse` means persons.

341. Ekarattādhikārena rakkhaṃ paccāsīsantā īdisāti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘pañcime’’tiādi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Pubbe rakkhasseta’’nti vuttattā mayhaṃ pana rakkhaṇe kiccaṃ natthīti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Parūpakkamena tathāgataṃ jīvitā voropeyyāti idaṃ āṇattiyā āgatattā evaṃ vuttaṃ.

341. In order to show that those who hope for protection by the authority of more than one night are of such a nature, the phrase “these five,” etc., was said. Because it was said previously, “You shall protect,” it was said in order to show, “But for me, there is no duty of protecting.” This phrase, “One might deprive the Tathāgata of life through the undertaking of another,” was said thus because it came by way of a command.

342. Mā āsadoti mā vadhakacittena upagaccha. Itoti imamhā jīvitamhā. ‘‘Yatoti yasmā, yatoti vā gatassā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Paṭikuṭitoti apasakkitvā saṅkucito hutvā vā paṭisakkatī’’ti likhitaṃ.

342. `Mā āsado` means do not approach with a murderous mind. `Ito` means from this life. It is written: “`Yato` means `yasmā` (because); or, `yato` means ‘for you who have gone from this very existence.’” It is written: “`Paṭikuṭito` means: having drawn back, or having become contracted, he retreats.”

343. Tikabhojananti tīhi bhuñjitabbabhojanaṃ. ‘‘Tikabhojanīya’’ntipi pāṭho. Parikappato hi tiṇṇaṃ bhuñjituṃ anujānāmi, tato uddhaṃ gaṇabhojanameva hoti, tassāpi idameva vuttaṃ. Idha apubbaṃ natthi. ‘‘Akataviññattiladdhaṃ [Pg.533] tiṇṇaṃ bhuñjantānaṃ kiñcāpi taṃ gaṇabhojanaṃ nāma na hoti, viññattivasena pana na vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Tayo atthavase paṭiccāti etthāpi ‘‘mā pāpicchāpakkhaṃ nissāya saṅghaṃ bhindeyyu’’nti pesalānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ phāsuvihārāyāti yojetabbaṃ. Kulānuddayatāya cāti kulānaṃ pasādarakkhaṇatthaṃ. Vajjanti vajjameva. ‘‘Vajjamimaṃ phuseyyā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Vajjanīyaṃ puggalaṃ phuseyyā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Imassa mano na phuseyyā’’ti vattabbampi siyā. Cakkabhedanti sāsanabhedaṃ. Āyukappanti ettha kiñcāpi avīcimhi āyuparimāṇaṃ natthi, yena pana kammena yattakaṃ anubhavitabbaṃ, tassa āyukappanti veditabbaṃ.

343. A meal for three (tikabhojana) is food to be eaten by three. There is also the reading 'allowable for three' (tikabhojanīya). For, by arrangement, I allow three to eat; beyond that, it becomes a group meal, and for that also this very rule is stated. Here, there is nothing new. It is written: 'Although for three eating what is obtained without a formal request, it is not called a group meal, it is, however, not allowable by means of a formal request.' In regard to 'depending on three reasons' (tayo atthavase paṭicca)—here too, it should be connected thus: for the comfortable dwelling of virtuous bhikkhus, 'lest they, relying on the faction of evil desire, should split the Saṅgha.' And 'out of compassion for families' (kulānuddayatāya ca) means for the protection of the families' faith. 'Fault' (vajja) means a fault indeed. It is written: 'He might incur this fault.' It is said: 'He might come into contact with a person who should be avoided.' It could also be said: 'May it not affect his mind.' 'Breaking the wheel' (cakkabheda) means the schism of the Dispensation. 'Life-eon' (āyukappa)—here, although in Avīci there is no fixed life-span, whatever duration must be experienced for a certain kamma, that should be understood as the 'life-eon'.

345. ‘‘Aññataraṃ āsanaṃ gahetvā nisīdī’’ti vacanato visabhāgaṭṭhānaṃ gatassa pesalassapi bhikkhuno tesaṃ āsane nisīdituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Āgilāyatīti rujjati. Ādesanāpāṭihāriyānusāsaniyāti tassa tassa cittācāraṃ ādissa ādissa desanā, ādesanāpāṭihāriyānusāsanī. Iddhi eva pāṭihāriyaṃ iddhipāṭihāriyaṃ, iddhipāṭihāriyasaṃyuttāya anusāsaniyā ovadatīti attho. Nanu taṃ āvusoti ettha taṃ vacanaṃ nanu mayā vuttosīti attho.

345. From the statement 'Having taken a certain seat, he sat down,' it is established that it is allowable for even a virtuous bhikkhu who has gone to a place of those with a different disposition to sit on their seats. `Āgilāyati` means it aches. `Ādesanāpāṭihāriyānusāsanī` is the teaching given by repeatedly pointing out the mental conduct of each and every being. Psychic power (iddhi) itself is the miracle, the miracle of psychic power (iddhipāṭihāriya); the meaning is that he advises with the instruction connected with the miracle of psychic power. Regarding 'Friend, were you not told that?' (nanu taṃ āvuso), the meaning is: 'Friend, were you not told that word by me?'

346-9. Suvikkhālitanti sudhotaṃ. Saṃkhāditvāti suṭṭhu khāditvā. ‘‘Mahiṃ vikubbatoti mahāvisālo’’ti likhitaṃ. Tassa bhisaṃ ghasamānassa. Tattha nadīsu jaggatoti pālentassa. ‘‘Kiṃ? Hatthiyūthaṃ gantu’’nti vadanti. ‘‘Asaṃpāto’ti pāṭho, apatto hutvāti attho’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Apāyabahuttā puna dassito’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Evaṃsateti evaṃ assa te āsavā’’ti likhitaṃ.

`Suvikkhālita` means well-washed. `Saṃkhāditvā` means having eaten well. It is written: '`Mahiṃ vikubbato` means very large.' Of him eating the lotus root. Regarding `tattha nadīsu jaggato`, it means 'of him guarding.' They say, 'What is the use of going to the elephant herd?' It is written: 'The reading is `asaṃpāto`, and the meaning is "not having attained".' It is said: 'It is shown again because of the abundance of the lower realms.' Regarding `evaṃsate`, it is written: `evaṃ assa te āsavā`, meaning 'thus for him are those taints'.

350. ‘‘Vosānaṃ pariniṭṭhānaṃ vā’’ti ca likhitaṃ. Jātūti daḷhatthe nipāto. Mā udapajjathāti mā uppajjeyya. ‘‘So pamādamanuyuñjanto’’ti pāṭho. Anādaraṃ kusalesu. Udadhi mahāti kittako mahā? Bhesmā yāva bhayānako, tāva mahāti vuttaṃ hoti.

350. It is also written: '`Vosāna` means the end or completion.' `Jātu` is a particle in the sense of strengthening. `Mā udapajjathā` means 'may it not arise.' The reading is '`So pamādamanuyuñjanto`.' `Anādara` means disrespect towards wholesome qualities. Regarding `udadhi mahā` (the great ocean): How great is it? It is said to be as great as it is frightening.

351. Na kho, upāli, bhikkhunī saṅghaṃ bhindatīti ettha bhikkhu saṅghaṃ na bhindati, bhikkhunī saṅghaṃ bhindatīti keci, netaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Kevalaṃ ‘‘saṅgho’’ti [Pg.534] vutte bhikkhusaṅghova adhippeto. ‘‘Saṅghassa deti, ubhatosaṅghassa deti cā’’ti (mahāva. 379) mātikāvacanampi sādheti. Tasmiṃ adhammadiṭṭhibhede dhammadiṭṭhi siyā. ‘‘Sīlasatibhedesupi samāno dhammaṃ kātunti saṅghabhede vematikopi tādiso vā’’ti likhitaṃ. Vinidhāyāti attano vañcanādhippāyataṃ chādetvā.

351. Regarding 'Indeed, Upāli, a bhikkhunī does not split the Saṅgha': here some say that a bhikkhu does not split the Saṅgha, but a bhikkhunī does split the Saṅgha. This should not be accepted. Simply, when 'Saṅgha' is said, only the Bhikkhu Saṅgha is intended. The wording of the matrix, 'He gives to the Saṅgha, and he gives to both Saṅghas,' also proves this. In that division by wrong view, there might be a right view. It is written: 'Also in divisions of virtue and mindfulness, one should act in accordance with the Dhamma; in a schism of the Saṅgha, one who is doubtful is also of such a nature.' `Vinidhāya` means having concealed one's own intention to deceive.

Saṅghabhedakakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Schism is concluded.

8. Vattakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

8. Commentary on the Chapter on Observances

Āgantukavattakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Observance for Visitors

357. Ekasmiṃ [Pg.535] gāme aññavihārato āgatopi āgantukova. Tattha keci evaṃ vadanti ‘‘āvāsiko katthaci gantvā sace āgato, ‘tenāpi āgantukabhattaṃ bhuñjitabba’nti vuttattā dūrāgamanaṃ vuttaṃ hoti, na gāme, tasmā na yutta’’nti. Te vattabbā ‘‘āgantukabhattaṃ nāma gahaṭṭhehi ṭhapitaṃ. Yasmiṃ nibaddhaṃ, tato aññagāmatoti āpannaṃ. Tathā vihārādhikārattā aññavihārato āgatopi āgantuko vā’’ti ācariyānaṃ sanniṭṭhānaṃ. Pānīyaṃ pucchitabbaṃ, paribhojanīyaṃ pucchitabbanti uddharitvā ghaṭasarāvādigataṃ sandhāya paṭhamaṃ, dutiyaṃ kūpataḷākādigatanti ācariyo. Dutiyavāre attano vasanaṭṭhānattā visuṃ pucchitabbameva, tasmā vuttaṃ etaṃ ‘‘paricchinnabhikkho vā gāmo’’ti. Bahūsu potthakesu duvidhāpi yujjati.

357. In the same village, even one who comes from another monastery is a visitor. On this point, some say: 'If a resident bhikkhu, having gone somewhere, returns, since it is said, "He too should eat the visitor's meal," coming from afar is meant, not coming within the village; therefore, it is not proper.' They should be told: 'The visitor's meal is that which is established by householders. Where it is regularly established, from another village is what is meant. Likewise, because it is a matter concerning the monastery, even one who comes from another monastery is a visitor.' This is the teachers' conclusion. The phrases 'Drinking water should be asked for' and 'Water for use should be asked for' should be extracted. The first refers to water in drinking pots, bowls, and so on; the second, says the teacher, refers to water in wells, ponds, and so on. On the second occasion, because it is one's own dwelling place, it should indeed be asked for separately; therefore, this was said: 'a village with a designated bhikkhu.' In many manuscripts, both ways are suitable.

Anumodanavattakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Observance of Thanksgiving

362-4. Pañcame anumodanatthāya nisinne. ‘‘Manussānaṃ parivisanaṭṭhānanti yattha manussā saputtadārā āvasitvā dentī’’ti likhitaṃ. Imasmiṃ khandhake āgantukāvāsikagamikānumodanabhattaggapiṇḍacārikāraññakasenāsanajantāgharavaccakuṭiupajjhācariyasaddhivihārikantevāsikavattāni cuddasa mahāvattāni nāma. Aggahitaggahaṇena gaṇiyamānāni asīti khandhakavattāni nāma honti.

When the fifth bhikkhu is seated for the purpose of giving thanks. It is written: 'The place of serving for humans' means 'where people, together with their children and wives, dwell and give.' In this Chapter, the fourteen observances—for visitors, residents, travelers, giving thanks, the refectory, the alms-round, forest-dwelling, lodgings, the steam-bath house, the latrine, the preceptor, the teacher, the co-resident, and the pupil—are called the Great Observances. When counted without taking up what has already been taken up, they are eighty Chapter Observances.

Vattakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Chapter on Observances is concluded.

9. Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

9. Commentary on the Chapter on the Suspension of the Pātimokkha

Pātimokkhuddesayācanakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of Requesting the Pātimokkha Recitation

383-4. ‘‘Nandimukhī’’ti [Pg.536] likhitaṃ. Āyatakenevāti ādimhi eva. Yanti yasmā. Savantiyo mahānadiyo. ‘‘Mahantabhūtāna’’nti pāṭho. Pattāti patvā. ‘‘Samūlikāya ṭhapeti akatāyā’’ti ṭhapanakassa saññāmūlavasena vuttaṃ. Taṃ vatthuṃ avinicchinitvāva parisā vuṭṭhāti.

'Nandimukhī' is written. `Āyatakeneva` means 'just in the beginning.' For `yanti`, the meaning is `yasmā`. `Savantiyo mahānadiyo` means 'flowing great rivers.' There is the reading 'mahantabhūtāna.' For `pattā`, the meaning is `patvā` (having reached). The phrase `samūlikāya ṭhapeti akatāya` ('he suspends for a rooted transgression that is not done') is said with reference to the one who suspends, by way of it being rooted in his perception. Without having decided that matter, the assembly rises.

Attādānaaṅgakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discussion of the Factor of Taking Oneself as an Authority

398-9. ‘‘Attādānanti sayaṃ parehi codito attānaṃ sodhetuṃ anādiyitvā paresaṃ vippaṭipattiṃ disvā sāsanaṃ sodhetuṃ attanā āditabba’’nti likhitaṃ. Vassārattoti vassakālo. Sappaṭimāsoti ākaḍḍhanayuttoti adhippāyo.

398-9. It is written: 'Attādāna' means that when reproached by others, without undertaking to purify oneself, but seeing the misconduct of others, one should undertake to purify the Dispensation. 'Vassāratto' is the rainy season. 'Sappaṭimāso' means suitable for prolongation—this is the intended meaning.

401. Upadahātabboti uppādetabbo, vippaṭisāramukhena dhāretabboti adhippāyo.

401. 'Upadahātabbo' means it should be produced; the intended meaning is that it should be maintained with an expression of remorse.

Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Chapter on the Suspension of the Pātimokkha is concluded.

10. Bhikkhunikkhandhakavaṇṇanā

10. 10. The Explanation of the Chapter on Bhikkhunīs

Mahāpajāpatigotamīvatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Story of Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī

402-3. Sūnehīti [Pg.537] sutehi. ‘‘Setaṭṭikā nāma rogajātī’’ti pāḷi. ‘‘Setaṭṭhikā’’ti aṭṭhakathā. ‘‘Paṭisambhidāpattakhīṇāsavaggahaṇena jhānānipi gahitāneva honti. Na hi nijjhānikānaṃ sabbappakārā sampatti ijjhatī’’ti likhitaṃ.

402-3. 'Sūnehīti' means 'sutehi': with oozing blood. The Pāli is: 'A type of disease called Setaṭṭikā.' The commentary has: 'Setaṭṭhikā.' It is written: 'By the inclusion of the group of those who have attained the analytical knowledges and are taint-destroyed, the jhānas are also included. Indeed, for those who are without jhāna, no attainment of any kind is accomplished.'

Bhikkhunīupasampadānujānanakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Account of Granting Permission for Bhikkhunī Ordination

404. Yadaggena yaṃ divasaṃ ādiṃ katvā. Tadevāti tasmiṃ eva divase. ‘‘Anuñattiyā’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Anupaññattiyā’’ti na sundaraṃ.

404. 'Yadaggena' means: from which day, having made it the beginning. 'Tadevāti' means: on that very day. The reading is 'anuñattiyā'. The reading 'anupaññattiyā' is not good.

405. ‘‘Paṭiggaṇhāmi yāvajīvaṃ anatikkamanīyo’’ti vatvā idāni kiṃ kāraṇā varaṃ yācatīti ce? Parūpavādavivajjanatthaṃ. Dubbuddhino hi keci vadeyyuṃ ‘‘mahāpajāpatiyā paṭhamaṃ sampaṭicchitattā ubhatosaṅghassa yathāvuḍḍhaabhivādanaṃ na jātaṃ. Gotamī ce varaṃ yāceyya, bhagavā anujāneyyā’’ti.

405. If one should ask, 'Having said, "I accept for life that which is not to be transgressed," for what reason does she now request a boon?' It is for the purpose of avoiding the criticism of others. For some of weak understanding might say, 'Because Mahāpajāpatī was the first to accept, the salutation according to seniority between the two Saṅghas did not come to be. If Gotamī were to request a boon, the Blessed One would grant it.'

408. Vimānetvāti aparajjhitvā.

408. 'Vimānetvāti' means 'aparajjhitvā': having offended.

410-3. Kammappattāyopīti kammārahāpi. Āpattigāminiyopīti āpattiṃ āpannāyopi. Dve tisso bhikkhuniyoti dvīhi tīhi bhikkhunīhi. ‘‘Manosilikāyā’’ti pāṭho.

410-3. 'Kammappattāyopīti' means 'kammārahāpi': even those deserving of a formal act. 'Āpattigāminiyopīti' means 'āpattiṃ āpannāyopi': even those who have committed an offense. 'Dve tisso bhikkhuniyo' means 'dvīhi tīhi bhikkhunīhi': with two or three bhikkhunīs. The reading is 'Manosilikāyā'.

420. ‘‘Tena ca bhikkhu nimantetabbo’’ti sāmīcivasena vuttaṃ.

420. The statement, 'And a bhikkhu should be invited by her,' was said as a matter of propriety.

422-3. ‘‘Anujānāmi…pe… tāvakālika’’nti puggalikaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na saṅghikanti ācariyo. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, utuniyā kaṭisuttaka’’nti vacanato bhikkhussa vinibandhaṃ kaṭisuttakaṃ na vaṭṭati. Paggharantī visaviṇā. Vepurisikā massudāṭhī.

422-3. The statement, 'I allow... for a temporary period,' was said in reference to what is personal, not what is communal, says the Teacher. Because of the statement, 'I allow, monks, a waistband for a menstruating woman,' a tied waistband is not allowable for a bhikkhu. 'Paggharantī' means a woman with flowing blood. 'Vepurisikā' means a woman with a beard and canine teeth.

425. Tayo nissayeti rukkhamūlañhi sā na labhati.

425. Regarding 'the three dependencies,' she indeed does not obtain the root of a tree as a dwelling.

426. Bhattagge [Pg.538] sace dāyakā bhikkhunisaṅghassa bhuttavato catupaccaye dātukāmā honti, yathāvuḍḍhameva.

426. In the refectory, if donors wish to give the four requisites to the Saṅgha of bhikkhunīs after they have eaten, it should be done only according to seniority.

427. Vikāleti yāva vikāle honti, tāva pavāresunti attho. Ajjattanāti ajjatanā.

427. Regarding 'vikāle', the meaning is: for as long as it was the wrong time, for that long they invited. Regarding 'ajjattanā', it means 'ajjatanā' (until today).

428. Anuvādanti issariyaṭṭhānaṃ. Idaṃ sabbaṃ ‘‘ajjatagge ovaṭo bhikkhunīnaṃ bhikkhūsu vacanapatho’’ti paññattassa garudhammassa vītikkamaāpattipaññāpanatthaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ, aññathā yesaṃ garudhammānaṃ paṭiggahaṇena bhikkhunīnaṃ upasampadā anuññātā, tesaṃ vītikkame anupasampannāva siyāti āsaṅkā bhaveyya.

428. Regarding 'anuvādanti', it refers to a position of authority. It should be understood that all this was said for the purpose of laying down the offense for transgressing the weighty rule that was established as: 'From today onward, the path of speech from bhikkhunīs to bhikkhus is closed.' Otherwise, the doubt could arise that, by transgressing those weighty rules through the acceptance of which ordination was allowed for bhikkhunīs, she would become unordained.

429. Itthiyuttenāti itthīhi gāvīādīhi dhuraṭṭhāne yuttena. Purisantarenāti purisena antarikena. ‘‘Purisadutiyenā’’ti likhitaṃ, purisasārathināti adhippāyo. ‘‘Bāḷhataraṃ aphāsū’’ti vacanato gilānāya vaṭṭaticceva siddhaṃ, bhagavantaṃ āpucchitvā anuññātaṭṭhāne upasampajjissāmīti adhippāyo.

429. Regarding 'itthiyuttena', it means yoked in the place of the yoke with women, cows, and so on. Regarding 'purisantarena', it means by a vehicle driven by a man. It is written 'purisadutiyena' (with a man as a companion); the intention is 'with a male charioteer.' Because of the statement, 'more severe discomfort,' it is thus established that it is allowable for one who is sick. The intention is: 'Having asked the Blessed One, I will receive ordination in a permitted case.'

430. Sā kenacideva antarāyenāti sabbantarāyasaṅgahanavacanaṃ, tasmā taṃ na antarāyaṃ kittetvā, vuttantarāyena ‘‘rājantarāyenā’’ti sādhetabbanti ācariyo.

430. The statement, 'she, by some obstacle,' is a statement that comprehends all obstacles. Therefore, without enumerating that obstacle, the meaning should be established by the stated obstacle, 'an obstacle from the king,' says the Teacher.

431-2. ‘‘Navakammanti katvā ‘ettakāni vassāni vasatū’ti apaloketvā saṅghikabhūmidāna’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Sāgāra’’nti vuttattā agārapaṭisaṃyuttarahonisajjasikkhādivajjitāti keci, yuttametaṃ. Kasmā? ‘‘Sahāgāraseyyamattaṃ ṭhapetvā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, posetu’’nti vacanato posanayuttakammaṃ sabbaṃ vaṭṭati mātuyā, na aññesaṃ. Vasituṃ ce na sakkoti dutiyaṃ vinā, sammannitvāva dātabbā tāya iti no mati. Kittakaṃ kālaṃ? Vasitvā ce dutiyā gantumicchati, aññaṃ sammannituṃ yuttāva. Sā vijātā labheti ācariyo.

431-2. It is written: 'Having done new work, and having requested, "May she dwell for this many years," it is a giving of Saṅgha land.' Because it is said 'with a dwelling,' some say that what is connected with a dwelling, such as the training rule on sitting in seclusion, is to be excluded; this is correct. Why? Because in the commentary it is said, 'having set aside the mere sharing of a dwelling.' Because of the statement, 'I allow, O bhikkhus, to support,' all actions connected with supporting are allowable for the mother bhikkhunī, not for others. If she is not able to dwell without a companion, a companion should be given to her only after having been appointed; this is our opinion. For how long? If the companion, after having dwelt, wishes to go, it is proper to appoint another. The teacher says: 'She who has given birth should receive one.'

434. ‘‘Idaṃ odissa anuññātaṃ vaṭṭatīti ekato vā ubhato vā avassave satipi vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Kesacchedādikaṃ kammaṃ anujānāmi sādituṃ [Pg.539]’’icceva vuttattā vuttaṃ ‘‘tadaññe sāditu’’nti. ‘‘Kesacchedādikaṃ kammaṃ anujānāmi, bhikkhave’’ti avatvā ettakaṃ yasmā ‘‘sāditu’’nti bhāsitaṃ, tasmā sā vicikicchāya ubhatopi avassave api pārājikakhettena sā pārājikaṃ phusati. Iti aṭṭhakathāsvetaṃ sabbāsupi vinicchitaṃ. Odissakābhilāpo hi aññathā nibbisesato taṃ pamāṇaṃ. Yadi tathā bhikkhussa kappati vicikicchā.

434. It is written: 'Regarding the statement, "It is allowable, having been permitted with reference to this," it is allowable even if there is an outflow from one side or from both sides.' Because it was said only thus, 'I allow the act of cutting hair, etc., to be consented to,' it is said, 'to consent to other than that.' Because, without saying, 'I allow the act of cutting hair, etc., O bhikkhus,' only this much was spoken—'to consent'—therefore, that bhikkhunī, with doubt, even if there is an outflow from both sides, touches upon a Pārājika offense by way of the Pārājika-realm. Thus, this has been decided in all the commentaries. Indeed, a statement of specific designation is the standard; otherwise, it is without distinction. If it were so, doubt would be allowable for a bhikkhu.

Kālamodissa naṃ padaṃ, na sattodissakañhi taṃ;

Atha bhikkhuniyā eva, kālamodissa bhāsitaṃ.

That statement refers to a time, for it does not refer to a being. Then, for the bhikkhunī alone, it was spoken with reference to a time.

Evaṃ pārājikāpatti, sithilāva katā siyā;

Sabbaso pihitaṃ dvāraṃ, sabbapārājikasminti.

Thus, the Pārājika offense would be made lax. In every Pārājika, the door is completely closed.

Niratthakabhāvato, ubbhajāṇumaṇḍale;

Tasmā na sādiyantīti, nidānavacanakkamaṃ.

Because of its becoming meaningless in the case of what is above the knees, therefore, one should follow the sequence of the introductory words, 'they do not consent.'

Nissāya satthunā vuttaṃ, sāditunti na aññathā;

Attano paṇhisamphassaṃ, sādituṃ yena vāritaṃ.

It was said by the Teacher with reference to a specific case, 'to consent,' and not otherwise; by whom consenting to the touch of one's own heel was forbidden.

Api pārājikakkhette, kathaṃ dvāraṃ dadeyya so;

Tathāpi buddhaputtānaṃ, buddhabhāsitabhāsitaṃ.

In the realm of Pārājika, how indeed would he grant an opening? Nevertheless, for the sons of the Buddha, there is the teaching as it was spoken by the Buddha.

Vacanañca samānento, no cettha yuttikathā dhīrā;

Kesacchedādikammassa, avassaṃ karaṇīyato.

The wise, having well adduced the word, our statement in this matter should be a suitable one, also because the act of cutting hair and so forth must necessarily be done.

Cittassa cātilolattā, gaṇassa ca aṅgasampadā-Bhāvā bhikkhunīnaṃ mahesinā, rakkhituñca asaṅkattā;

Nanu modissakaṃ katanti.

And because of the extreme fickleness of the mind, and because of the group's lack of completeness of factors, and because the Great Sage was without hesitation to protect the bhikkhunīs, was not a specific regulation made? Thus it should be known. The Explanation of the Discourse on Permitting the Higher Ordination for Bhikkhunīs is finished.

Bhikkhunikkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Khandhaka on Bhikkhunīs is finished.

11. Pañcasatikakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

11. The Explanation of the Chapter on the Five Hundred

Saṅgītinidānakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Origin of the Council

437. Chinnapātanti [Pg.540] bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ, tenākārena patantīti attho. Upaddutā ca mayaṃ homāti atītatthe vattamānavacanaṃ, ahumhāti attho. Atha vā tasmiṃ sati homa. ‘‘Pañca bhikkhusatānī’’ti gaṇanavasena vatvā ‘‘vassaṃ vasantā’’ti puggalaniddeso kato.

437. The term 'chinnapāta' is a neuter noun of state, meaning 'they fall in that broken manner'. The phrase 'upaddutā ca mayaṃ homa' is a present tense form used in a past sense, meaning 'we were oppressed'. Or alternatively, 'when he is present, we are oppressed'. Having stated 'five hundred bhikkhus' by way of enumeration, the designation of the individual is made with 'dwelling for the rains-retreat'. The Explanation of the Discourse on the Origin of the Council is finished.

Khuddānukhuddakakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Minor and Lesser Matters

443. ‘‘Vassikasāṭikaṃ akkamitvā’’ti vacanato bhagavato catutthacīvarampi atthīti siddhaṃ. Tenevāha cīvarakkhandhake ‘‘catutthaṃ cīvaraṃ pārupī’’ti.

443. From the statement, 'having stepped on the rains-retreat cloth,' it is established that the Blessed One also had a fourth robe. For that very reason, it is said in the Chapter on Robes: 'he donned the fourth robe.'

444. ‘‘Apica yatheva mayā’’tiādi saṅgītiyā aggahaṇādhippāyavasena vuttaṃ, kintu susaṅgītā āvuso therehi dhammo ca vinayo ca. Apicāhaṃ nāma tathevāhaṃ dhāressāmīti yatheva mayā bhagavato sammukhā sutaṃ sammukhā paṭiggahitaṃ, tatheva therehi bhagavatā sayameva etadaggaṃ āropitehi, tasmā susaṅgahitā saṅgītīti vuttaṃ hoti.

444. The phrase beginning 'Moreover, just as by me...' was spoken with the intention of not accepting it at the council. However, friends, the Dhamma and the Vinaya were well-recited by the elders. Furthermore, in the passage '...I will remember it just as it was heard by me in the presence of the Blessed One, received in his presence,' if it was so for me, what need is there to say so for the elders who were appointed to this foremost position by the Blessed One himself? Therefore, it is said that the council was well-compiled. The Explanation of the Discourse on the Minor and Lesser Matters is finished.

Brahmadaṇḍakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Discourse on the Brahma-penalty

445. ‘‘Tvaṃyeva āṇāpehī’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ, therā pana brahmadaṇḍaṃ katvā vuttaṃyeva ‘‘channassā’’tiādimāhaṃsūti veditabbaṃ. Ettha ca ānandatthero viya aññopi saṅghena āṇatto bhikkhu brahmadaṇḍakatena bhikkhunā ālapituṃ labhati, na añño. Ujjavanikāyāti paṭisotagāminiyā. Āgamā nu kho idha āgamā nu khvidha. Āgamā kho idha, te orodhā idha āgamā kho. ‘‘Bhisicchavīti bhisitthavikā’’ti likhitaṃ. Sabbevimeti sabbameva. Kulavaṃ gamentīti niratthakavināsaṃ gamenti. Kucchito lavo kulavo, anayavināsoti vuttaṃ hoti. Imāya kho pana ‘‘dhammavinayasaṅgītiyā’’ti vattabbe visesena vinayassa sāsanamūlabhāvadassanatthaṃ, tasmiṃ ṭhite sakalasāsanaṭhitisiddhidīpanatthañca ‘‘idaṃ vo kappati, idaṃ vo na kappatī’’ti vatthusmiṃ āraddhattā, imissā ca pariyattiyā vinayapiṭakattā ‘‘vinayasaṅgītiyā’’ti idha vuttaṃ.

445. “You alone should command”—only this much was said. But it should be understood that the elders, having imposed the brahma-penalty, spoke what had been said, namely, “for Channa,” and so on. Here, like the Venerable Ānanda, any other bhikkhu commanded by the Saṅgha may address a bhikkhu who has been subjected to the brahma-penalty, but no other. Ujjavanikāya means in a boat going upstream. “Did you come here? Is there a reason for coming here? Indeed, you have arrived here. Indeed, having come here, let there be your confession.” “Bhisicchavī means bhisitthavikā”—so it is written. Sabbevimeti means all indeed. Kulavaṃ gamenti means they bring about meaningless destruction. Kucchito lavo is kulavo; it is said to mean unprofitable destruction. Although it should have been said “this Dhamma-Vinaya recitation,” it is specifically called “Vinaya recitation” here for the purpose of showing that the Vinaya is the root of the Sāsana; and to demonstrate that when it is established, the establishment of the entire Sāsana is accomplished; and because it was undertaken concerning the matter of “this is allowable for you, this is not allowable for you;” and because this scripture is the Vinaya Piṭaka.

Pañcasatikakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the Khandhaka of the Five Hundred is finished.

12. Sattasatikakkhandhakavaṇṇanā

12. The Commentary on the Khandhaka of the Seven Hundred

Dasavatthukathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse of the Ten Topics

446. Nikkhittamaṇisuvaṇṇāti [Pg.541] sikkhāpadeneva paṭikkhittamaṇisuvaṇṇā. Tattha maṇiggahaṇena sabbaṃ dukkaṭavatthu, suvaṇṇaggahaṇena sabbaṃ pācittiyavatthu gahitaṃ hoti. Bhikkhaggena bhikkhugaṇanāyāti vuttaṃ hoti.

446. Nikkhittamaṇisuvaṇṇā means jewels and gold rejected by the training rule itself. Therein, by the term “jewels,” all matters of wrong conduct (dukkaṭa) are included; by the term “gold,” all matters of expiation (pācittiya) are included. Bhikkhaggena means by the number of bhikkhus.

447. Mahikāti himaṃ. Posāti sattā. Sarajāti sakilesarajā. Magāti magasadisā. Tasmiṃ tasmiṃ visaye, bhave vā netīti netti, taṇhāyetaṃ adhivacanaṃ, tāya saha vattantīti sanettikā.

447. Mahikā means snow or frost. Posā means beings. Sarajā means having the dust of defilements. Magā means similar to a deer. In this or that sphere, or in this or that existence, it leads (neti)—thus it is called netti (that which leads). This is a designation for craving. Because they exist together with it, they are called sanettikā (those with that which leads).

450-2. Ahogaṅgoti pabbatassa nāmaṃ. Anumānessāmāti paññāpessāma. Āsutāti sajjitā, ‘‘asuttā’’ti vā pāṭho, anāvilā apakkā taruṇā.

Ahogaṅga is the name of the mountain. Anumānessāma means we shall make known. Āsutā means prepared; or there is the reading asuttā, meaning untroubled, with unripe wisdom, and young.

453. Ujjaviṃsu paṭisotena gacchiṃsu.

453. They went upstream; they went against the current.

455. Appeva nāmāti sādhu nāma. Mūlā dāyakā pesalakā. ‘‘Kullakavihārenāti khuddakavihārenā’’ti likhitaṃ. Rūpāvatārattā kullakavihāro nāma. Kathaṃ panetaṃ paññāyati, yena sannidhikataṃ yāvajīvikaṃ yāvakālikena tadahupaṭiggahitena sambhinnarasaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitasaṅkhayaṃ āgantvā sannidhikatāmisasaṅkhyameva gacchatīti? Vuccate – ‘‘yāvakālikena, bhikkhave, yāvajīvikaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita’’nti vacanato purepaṭiggahitaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitenāmisena ce sambhinnaṃ, purepaṭiggahitasaṅkhyameva gacchatīti siddhaṃ. Aññathā ‘‘sattāhakālikena, bhikkhave, yāvajīvikaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ sattāhaṃ kappatī’’ti (mahāva. 305) vuttaṭṭhāne viya idhāpi ‘‘yāvakālikena, bhikkhave, yāvajīvikaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ kāle kappatī’’ti vadeyya, tañcāvuttaṃ. Tasmā purepaṭiggahitaṃ taṃ āmisasambhinnaṃ āmisagatikamevāti veditabbaṃ. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘sannidhikārakaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā’’ti (pāci. 253) vuttaṃ. Byañjanamattaṃ na gahetabbaṃ.

455. In `Appeva nāma`, it means 'it is indeed good.' The root donors are those who love virtue. In `Kullakavihārena`, it is written as `khuddakavihārena` (by a small dwelling). Because it is from the Rūpāvatāra, it is called Kullakavihāra. But how is this known, that a stored lifelong item, having a mixed taste with a temporary item received on that day, having arrived at the designation of 'received on that day,' goes only to the designation of 'mixed with a stored edible'? It is said: Because of the statement, 'O bhikkhus, a lifelong item received on that day with a temporary item...,' it is established that if a lifelong item previously received is mixed with an edible received on that day, it goes only to the designation of 'previously received.' Otherwise, just as in the place where it is said, 'O bhikkhus, a lifelong item received with a seven-day item is allowable for seven days,' here also one should say, 'O bhikkhus, a lifelong item received with a temporary item is allowable for the proper time.' But that was not said. Therefore, it should be understood that the previously received item, when mixed with an edible, has the same nature as the edible. But in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said: 'storable hard food or soft food.' The mere word should not be taken.

457. Idhāti [Pg.542] imasmiṃ pāṭhe. ‘‘‘Kāle kappati, vikāle na kappatī’ti (mahāva. 305) vuttavacanamattena ‘vikāle kappatī’ti vikālabhojanapācittiyaṃ āvahaṃ hotīti attho, ‘na kappatī’ti sannidhibhojanapācittiyaṃ āvahaṃ hotīti attho, yadi sambhinnarasaṃ ajjapaṭiggahitampi yāvajīvikanti attho’’ti likhitaṃ. Suttavibhaṅgeti mātikāsaṅkhāte sutte ca tassa padabhājanīyasaṅkhāte vibhaṅge cāti attho. Idaṃ āgatameva. Kataranti? ‘‘Atikkāmayato chedanaka’’nti idaṃ.

457. `Idha` means 'in this text.' It is written: "By the mere words spoken, 'It is allowable at the proper time, not allowable at the improper time,' the meaning is that 'it is allowable at the improper time' brings about the pācittiya offense of eating at the wrong time; and the meaning is that 'it is not allowable' brings about the pācittiya offense of eating stored food; the meaning is: if a lifelong item, even if received today, has a mixed taste." `Suttavibhaṅge` means in the Sutta called the Mātikā and in its analysis, the Vibhaṅga called the Padabhājanīya. This has indeed been stated. Which? This: "For one who causes it to be passed over, it is a cutting offense."

Tividatthipamāṇañce, adasaṃ taṃ nisīdanaṃ;

Nisīdanaṃ kathaṃ hoti, sadasaṃ tañhi lakkhaṇaṃ.

If that sitting-cloth is of the measure of three spans, but is without a border, how can it be a sitting-cloth? Indeed, its characteristic is to have a border.

Tividatthipamāṇaṃ taṃ, dasā tattha vidatthi ce;

Taṃnisīdananāmattā, tasmiṃ chedanakaṃ siyā.

That sitting-cloth is three spans in measure. If there is a border of one span on it, then because it has the name 'sitting-cloth,' cutting should be done on it.

Anisīdananāmamhi, kathaṃ chedanakaṃ bhave;

Iti ce neva vattabbaṃ, nisīdanavidatthito.

If one were to say: 'In a cloth that does not have the name "sitting-cloth," how could there be cutting?'—this should not be said, because of the three-span measure of the sitting-cloth.

Kappate sadasāmattaṃ, nisīdanamiti kāraṇaṃ;

Kathaṃ yujjati no cetaṃ, nisīdanassa nāmakaṃ.

How could this reason be suitable: 'A sitting-cloth with a border of just one span is allowable'? For this, which is only a border, does not have the name 'sitting-cloth'.

Nisīdananti vuttattā, pamāṇasamatikkamā;

Tassānumatihetuttā, tattha chedanakaṃ bhave.

Because it is called a 'sitting-cloth,' because it exceeds the measure, and because it is a cause for consent, cutting occurs in that case.

Jātarūpakappe –

In the section on accepting gold and silver—

Jātarūpaṃ paṭikkhittaṃ, puggalasseva pāḷiyaṃ;

Na saṅghassāti saṅghassa, tañce kappati sabbaso.

In the Pāḷi, gold and silver are rejected only for an individual, not for the Saṅgha. Therefore, if it is allowable for the Saṅgha in every way...

Vikālabhojanañcāpi, puggalasseva vāritaṃ;

Na saṅghassāti saṅghassa, kappatīti kathaṃ samaṃ.

Eating at the wrong time is also forbidden only for an individual, not for the Saṅgha. How then could the two cases be consistent in concluding, 'It is allowable for the Saṅgha'?

Sattasatikakkhandhakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Khandhaka of the Seven Hundred is finished.

Cūḷavaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the Cūḷavagga is finished.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Homage to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One.

Parivāravaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Parivāra

Soḷasamahāvāravaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Sixteen Great Sections

Paññattivāravaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Section on Designations

1-2. Sīlasamādhipaññāvimuttivimuttiñāṇadassanasaṅkhātassa [Pg.543] dhammakkhandhasarīrassa sāsaneti attho. Parivāroti saṅgahaṃ yo samāruḷho, tassa parivārassa. Vinayabhūtā paññatti vinayapaññatti. ‘‘Paññattikālaṃ jānatā’’ti dukanayavasena vatvā puna suttantanayena vattuṃ ‘‘apica pubbenivāsādīhī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha passanaṃ nāma dassanattā dibbacakkhunā yojitaṃ paṭivedhañāṇadassanaṃ. Desanāpaññāya passatāti āsayānusayādike. Pucchāyāti sattamī. Punapi etthāti pucchāvissajjane. Micchādiṭṭhīti natthikadiṭṭhi antaggāhikadiṭṭhi. ‘‘Ājīvahetu paññattānī’’ti vacanato imāni cha sikkhāpadāni ṭhapetvā sesā ācāravipatti nāmāti veditabbaṃ. Kāyena pana āpattiṃ āpajjatīti ettha ‘‘pubbabhāge sevanacittamaṅgaṃ katvā kāyadvārasaṅkhātaṃ viññattiṃ janayitvā pavattacittuppādasaṅkhātaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjati, kiñcāpi cittena samuṭṭhāpitā viññatti, tathāpi cittena adhippetassa atthassa viññattiyā sādhitattā ‘kāyadvārena āpajjatī’ti vutta’’nti imamatthaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na bhaṇḍanādittayavūpasamaṃ. Āpāṇakoṭikanti jīvitapariyantaṃ katvā. Porāṇakehi mahātherehīti sīhaḷadīpe mahātherehi potthakaṃ āropitakāle ṭhapitāti attho. ‘‘Catutthasaṅgītisadisā potthakāruḷhasaṅgīti ahosī’’ti vuttaṃ.

1-2. The meaning is: in the teaching of the Blessed One, whose body is the aggregates of Dhamma known as virtue, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation. The Parivāra is that which has been included in the compilation. The regulations that constitute the Vinaya are called Vinayapaññatti. Having stated the dual method by saying, “by one knowing the time of designation,” it is then explained again according to the sutta method with the words, “moreover, through past lives, etc.” Here, “seeing” refers to the knowledge and vision of penetration, connected with the divine eye because of its nature of seeing. In the phrase 'one sees with the wisdom of teaching', it refers to inclinations, latent tendencies, and so on. “Pucchāya” is in the locative case. “Again, here” refers to the question and answer. “Wrong view” means nihilistic view and view of extremes. From the statement, “due to livelihood, regulations are established,” it should be understood that apart from these six training rules, the rest are called misconduct in behavior. Regarding “one commits an offense with the body,” this is said with reference to the meaning that in the preliminary stage, having formed the intention to engage as an element, one generates intimation, which is called the bodily door, and thereby incurs an offense, which is called the arising of consciousness that proceeds. Although the intimation is produced by the mind, nevertheless, because the intended purpose of the mind is accomplished through the intimation, it is said, “one commits an offense through the bodily door.” This is not said with reference to the pacification of the triad beginning with quarreling. “Up to the limit of life” means having made the limit of life. “By the ancient elders” refers to the elders in Sri Lanka who established it when the book was compiled. It is said, “The compilation of the book was like the Fourth Council.”

Mahāvibhaṅge paññattivāravaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Section on Designations in the Mahāvibhaṅga is concluded.

Katāpattivārādivaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Section on Offenses, etc.

166. Katāpattivāre [Pg.544] ‘‘saṅghikaṃ mañcaṃ vā’’tiādi ajjhokāsattā vihārabbhantarepi āpajjanato leḍḍupātātikkamavasena vuttaṃ. Dutiye seyyaṃ santharitvāti abbhantare santharitabhāvato vihārato bahigamanepi taṃdivasānāgame āpajjanato ‘‘parikkhepaṃ atikkāmetī’’ti vuttaṃ.

166. In the section on offenses, regarding “a monastic bed or” etc., due to being in the open air, the offense can be incurred even within the monastery precincts; hence it is stated in terms of exceeding the throwing of a clod. In the second case, having spread out a sleeping place, because it has been spread out inside, the offense is incurred even when going outside the monastery if that day has not ended; hence it is stated as “crossing the boundary.”

171. Sañcicca pāṇaṃ jīvitā voropento catasso āpattiyoti ettha kiñcāpi tasmiṃ sikkhāpade tiracchānagatapāṇova adhippeto, atha kho pāṇoti vohārasāmaññato atthuddhāravasena ‘‘catasso’’ti vuttaṃ. Esa nayo aññesupi evarūpesu ṭhānesu.

171. Herein, regarding “intentionally depriving a living being of life incurs four offenses,” although in that training rule only an animal is intended, nevertheless, due to the common usage of the term “living being,” “four” is stated by way of extracting the meaning. This is the principle in other such instances as well.

173. Vikāle gāmappavesane ‘‘paṭhamaṃ pādaṃ parikkhepaṃ atikkāmeti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti vuttattā upacāre nāpajjati, parikkhepaṃ atikkamitvāva āpajjatīti siddhamevā’’ti vadanti.

173. Regarding entering a village at an unseasonable time, some say: “Because it is said, ‘When one makes the first foot cross the boundary, there is an offense of wrong-doing,’ one does not incur an offense in the vicinity; one incurs it only after having crossed the boundary. This is indeed established.”

193. Paccayavāre purimavārato viseso atthiyeva, ‘‘methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevanto kati āpattiyo āpajjatī’’ti vutte jatumaṭṭhakassokāso na jāto, idha pana ‘‘methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭisevanapaccayā’’ti vutte puggalaniddesābhāvā jatumaṭṭhakañca paviṭṭhaṃ, evaṃ viseso atthi. Tathā evarūpesu ṭhānesu.

193. In the section on conditions, there is indeed a distinction from the previous section. When it is said, “Engaging in sexual intercourse, how many offenses does one incur?” the occasion for the Jatumaṭṭhaka training rule does not arise. Here, however, when it is said, “on account of engaging in sexual intercourse,” due to the absence of specifying a person, the Jatumaṭṭhaka training rule is also included. Thus, there is a distinction. It is the same in other such instances.

Mahāvibhaṅge ca bhikkhunivibhaṅge soḷasamahāvāravaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

In the Mahāvibhaṅga and in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, the explanation of the sixteen great sections is concluded.

Samuṭṭhānasīsavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on Origins

257. Anattāti [Pg.545] attavirahitā ‘‘alavaṇabhojana’’ntiādīsu viya. Karuṇāsītalabhāvena candasadiso. Kilesatimirappahānato ādicco. Yasmā te desayanti, tasmā aṅgīrasopi. Piṭake tīṇi desayi tesaṃ aññatarattāti attho. Vinayo yadi tiṭṭhati, evaṃ paṭipattisaddhammādi nīyati pavattatīti attho. Ayaṃ pana kathaṃ tiṭṭhatīti? Āha ‘‘ubhato cā’’tiādi. Parivārena ganthitā tiṭṭhantīti attho. Tasseva parivārassa sutte. Niyatasamuṭṭhānaṃ kataṃ, vuttanti adhippāyo. Asambhinnasamuṭṭhānāni asaṅkarasamuṭṭhānāni, aññehi asadisasamuṭṭhānānīti attho. Yasmā parivāre sati vinayo tiṭṭhati, vinaye sati saddhammo tiṭṭhati, yasmā samuṭṭhānāni ca sutte dissanti, tasmā sikkheti attho. ‘‘Dhammakāmo supesalo’’ti parivāre gāravajananatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tatthāti ‘‘dissantī’’ti tattha. ‘‘Ekena samuṭṭhānena samuṭṭhātīti paṭhamapārājikaṃ ekena samuṭṭhānena samuṭṭhātī’’ti vuttaṃ. Pāḷiyañhi niddiṭṭhasamuṭṭhānañca dissati. ‘‘Tasseva parivārassa, samuṭṭhānaṃ niyato kata’’nti vuttaṃ purimanayeti attho. Yathāñāyanti yathābhūtaṃ. ‘‘Sañcarittābhāsanañcā’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Sañcarittānubhāsanañcā’’tipi atthi. Nayavajjehi vinayavajjehīti attho.

257. “Non-self” means devoid of self, as in “food without salt,” and so on. He is like the moon by virtue of his compassionate coolness. He is like the sun by virtue of having dispelled the darkness of defilements. Because they teach, therefore Aṅgīrasa also taught the three Piṭakas; the meaning is that this is one of them. If the Vinaya stands, in that case the good Dhamma of practice, and so on, is led on and proceeds—this is the meaning. But how does this stand? He said, “on both sides,” and so on. The meaning is that they stand, being strung together by the Parivāra. In the Sutta of that very Parivāra, the fixed origin is made; the intention is that it is stated. Undivided origins are unmixed origins, meaning origins dissimilar to others. Because when the Parivāra exists, the Vinaya stands; when the Vinaya stands, the good Dhamma stands; and because the origins are also seen in the Sutta, therefore one should train in the Parivāra—this is the meaning. “Dhamma-loving, very amiable” is said in the Parivāra to generate respect. The word “there” refers to “are seen” in that context. It is said, “The first Pārājika arises from one origin; it arises from one origin.” For in the Pāḷi, the designated origin is also seen. It is said, “Of that very Parivāra, the origin is made fixed,” meaning according to the previous method. “As is appropriate” means as it truly is. There is the reading, “And speaking as a go-between.” There is also, “And repeating as a go-between.” The meaning of `nayavajjehi` is 'by faults of the Vinaya'.

Paṭhamapārājikasamuṭṭhānavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Origins of the First Pārājika

258. Nānubandhe pavattininti ‘‘yā pana bhikkhunī vutthāpitaṃ pavattiniṃ dve vassāni nānubandheyyā’’ti vuttasikkhāpadañca. Ayaṃ pāṭho ekaccesu potthakesu na dissati. Chasattati paṭhamapārājikasamuṭṭhānā.

258. Regarding 'not following the pavattinī,' this refers to the training rule that was stated: 'Whatever bhikkhunī should not follow for two years a pavattinī who has been rehabilitated...' This reading is not found in some manuscripts. There are seventy-six origins of the first Pārājika.

Dutiyapārājikasamuṭṭhānavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Origins of the Second Pārājika

259. ‘‘Kukkuccaṃ cīvaraṃ datvāti kukkuccuppādanañca dhammikānaṃ kammānaṃ chandaṃ datvā khīyanañca cīvaraṃ datvā khīyanañcā’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Datvā’’ti uppaṭipāṭiyā vuttaṃ, tasmā ‘‘kukkuccaṃ dhammikaṃ datvāti pāṭho sundaro’’ti vadanti, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.

259. Regarding 'Kukkuccaṃ cīvaraṃ datvā,' the reading is: '...the causing of regret, and disparaging after having given consent for righteous deeds, and disparaging after having given a robe.' The word 'datvā' is said to be out of order; therefore, they say, 'The reading "kukkuccaṃ dhammikaṃ datvā" is good.' This should be accepted after investigation.

269. Akatanti abhinavaṃ.

269. 'Akataṃ' means new.

Antarapeyyālaṃ

Intermediate Repetition Section

Katipucchāvāravaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Chapter on Questions

271. Paṭiniddesanti [Pg.546] punappunaṃ niddisanaṃ. Āpattikkhandhehi vinītāni saṃvarānīti attho. Etehi āpattikkhandhehi. ‘‘Ārakā’’ti nivattiatthena vuttattā taṃ puna sarūpena vattukāmo ‘‘bhusā vā’’ti āha. ‘‘Gehaṃ dhūmena puṇṇaṃ ādhūmita’’ntiādīsu viya rāgādiveraṃ maṇati vināseti. Etāyāti viratiyā. Vela calane. Niyyānaṃ maggaṃ sinoti bandhatīti setu. ‘‘Setughātoti vītikkamapaṭipakkhabhūtā virati, tadatthanibbattikaracittuppādo vā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Dhammassavanagganti dhammaṃ suṇantānaṃ samūha’’nti likhitaṃ. Sace na gacchati, vikkhitto vā nisīdati. Kāyappāgabbhiyaṃ kāyaduccaritaṃ. ‘‘Pamāde’’ti vatvā tadatthaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘sativippavāse’’ti vuttaṃ.

271. 'Paṭiniddesa' means repeated instruction. The meaning is: restraints are things disciplined by the aggregates of offenses. By these aggregates of offenses. Because 'ārakā' is said with the meaning of avoidance, wishing to state that again in its own form, he said 'bhusā vā'. It crushes, it destroys the enmity of lust and so on. 'By this' means by abstinence. The word 'vela' is used in the sense of movement. Because it binds the path of deliverance, it is a 'setu' (dam). It is said: 'Setughāta (destroying the dam) is abstinence which is the opposite of transgression, or it is the arising of a thought that accomplishes that purpose.' It is written: 'Dhammassavanaggaṃ means an assembly of those who listen to the Dhamma.' If one does not go, or sits distracted. 'Kāyappāgabbhiyaṃ' (bodily impudence) is bodily misconduct. Having said 'pamāde' (negligence), to show its meaning, 'sativippavāse' (absence of mindfulness) is stated.

272-3. Saparasantāne vāti sasantāne vā parasantāne vā. Tathā vivadantā panāti bhedakaravatthūni nissāya vivadantā. Ubhayehipīti theranavehi. Nanti mettaṃ kāyakammaṃ. Yesaṃ puggalānaṃ piyaṃ karoti, tesaṃ mettākāyakammasaṅkhāto dhammo. Ettakanti āmisavibhattidassanaṃ. Asukassa cāti puggalavibhattidassanaṃ. ‘‘Dussīlassa adātumpi vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttattā eva alajjiparibhogo vārito. Sabbesaṃ dātabbamevāti sanniṭṭhānena ajānantena vibhāgaṃ akatvā dātabbabhāvaṃ dīpetīti eke. ‘‘Sabbesaṃ dātabbamevā’’ti vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu. Tattha ‘‘alajjiukkhittakānaṃ paribhogasīsena sahatthā na dātabbaṃ, dāpetabbanti apare’’ti vuttaṃ. Vicinitvā dānaṃ viceyya dānaṃ. Yasmā ayaṃ viseso kātabboyevāti ayaṃ karoti, tasmā puggalavibhāgo na katoti sambandho. Pakativaṇṇena visabhāgavaṇṇena. ‘‘Idaṃ nāma āpanno’’ti parehi aparāmasitabbato aparāmaṭṭhāni. Anulomehi gahitasaṅkhārārammaṇehi nibbānārammaṇaṃ katvā niyyāti.

272-273. 'Saparasantāne vā' means in one's own continuum or in another's continuum. 'Tathā vivadantā pana' refers to those who dispute, having relied on divisive subjects. 'Ubhayehi pi' means by both the elders and the new monks. The word 'naṃ' means loving-kindness in bodily action. The quality called loving-kindness in bodily action belongs to those persons to whom one shows affection. 'Ettakaṃ' shows the distribution of material things. 'Asukassa ca' shows the distribution among individuals. Because it is said, 'It is allowable even not to give to the immoral,' the consumption by the shameless is prohibited. Some say that the phrase 'It should be given to all' indicates that it should be given by one who does not know with certainty, without making a distinction. 'It should be given to all' is stated in the commentaries. Therein, it is said: 'Others say that to the shameless and the suspended monk, it should not be given with one's own hand for the purpose of consumption; it should be caused to be given by another.' Giving after investigating, giving after discerning. The connection is as follows: Because this one acts thinking, 'This distinction must indeed be made,' therefore the distinction among individuals is not made. With natural color, with dissimilar color. Because they are not to be touched by others with the thought, 'Such and such has been attained,' they are called 'untouched'. By means of conformable states of mind that have taken formations as their object, having made Nibbāna the object, one is liberated.

Chaāpattisamuṭṭhānavārādivaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Sections on the Six Origins of Offenses, etc.

276. ‘‘Paṭhamena āpattisamuṭṭhānena dubbhāsitaṃ āpajjeyyāti na hīti vattabba’’nti vuttaṃ vācācittavasenevāpajjitabbato.

276. It is said, 'It should not be said that one would incur an offense of wrong speech through the first origin of an offense,' because it is to be incurred only by the power of speech and mind.

277. Kuṭiṃ [Pg.547] karotīti ettha sañcarittamavatvā dukkaṭathullaccayasaṅghādisesānaṃ ekasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ paṭipāṭiyā uppattidassanatthamidaṃ vuttaṃ. Na hi sañcaritte eva āpajjati. ‘‘Iminā pana nayena sabbattha paṭipāṭiyā aggahaṇe kāraṇaṃ veditabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

277. Herein, regarding 'He makes a hut,' without mentioning sañcaritta, this is said in order to show the sequential arising of dukkaṭa, thullaccaya, and saṅghādisesa offenses in a single case. For one does not incur an offense only in the case of sañcaritta. It is said, 'But by this method, the reason for not taking the sequence in all cases should be known.'

283. Vivekadassināti tadaṅgavivekādipañcavidhavivekadassinā.

283. 'One who sees seclusion' means one who sees the five kinds of seclusion, beginning with momentary seclusion.

284. Attano duṭṭhullanti saṅghādisesaṃ.

284. 'One's own gross offense' means a saṅghādisesa offense.

288. Vivādādhikaraṇapaccayāti aññehi, attanā vā pubbabhāge āpannapaccayāti attho. Omasatīti ‘‘ayaṃ dhammo, ayaṃ vinayo’’ti vivadanto ‘‘tvaṃ kiṃ jānāsī’’tiādinā omasati. Tīhi samathehi sammukhāvinayapaṭiññātakaraṇatiṇavatthārakehi. ‘‘Sammukhāvinayañcettha sabbattha icchitabbato ‘sammukhāvinayena ceva paṭiññātakaraṇena cā’tiādinā dvīhipi yojitaṃ. Esa nayo sabbatthā’’ti vuttaṃ.

288. The phrase 'due to a cause for a legal issue involving dispute' means due to the cause of having previously fallen into an offense, either by others or by oneself. 'He disparages' means that while disputing, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya,' one disparages with words such as, 'What do you know?'. By the three settlements: settlement in the presence, settlement by acknowledgement, and settlement by covering with grass. Because settlement in the presence is desired in all cases, it is connected with both by means of the phrase 'by settlement in the presence and by acknowledgement,' and so on.

291. Ṭhapetvā satta āpattiyoti ettha ‘‘kiñcāpi avasesā natthi, tathāpi paṭipāṭiyā pāṭavajananatthaṃ pucchā katā’’ti vuttaṃ.

291. Regarding 'except for the seven offenses,' here it is said: 'Although there are no remaining ones, the question is nevertheless asked in order to generate proficiency in the sequence.'

Antarapeyyālaṃ niṭṭhitaṃ.

The Intermediate Repetition Section is concluded.

Samathabhedavaṇṇanā

291. Explanation of the Classification of Settlements

Adhikaraṇapariyāyavārādivaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Section on Categories of Legal Issues, etc.

293-4. Lobhakāraṇā [Pg.548] vivādanato ‘‘lobho pubbaṅgamo’’ti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ sesesu. Ṭhānānītiādīni kāraṇavevacanāni. Kāraṇañhi tiṭṭhanti etthāti ṭhānaṃ, vasanti etthāti vatthu, bhavanti etthāti bhūmīti vuccati. Ke tiṭṭhanti vasanti bhavanti cāti? Vivādādhikaraṇādayo. Kusalākusalābyākatacitto hutvā vivadanato ‘‘nava hetū’’ti vuttaṃ. Kodhano hoti upanāhītiādīni dvādasa mūlāni. Akkosantena hi catūsu vipattīsu ekena anuvadanato ‘‘catasso vipattiyo ṭhānānī’’ti vuttaṃ. Cuddasa mūlānīti vivādādhikaraṇe vuttā dvādasa, kāyo, vācā ca.

293-294. Because one disputes due to the cause of greed, it is said, 'greed is the forerunner.' It should be understood similarly in the remaining cases. 'Grounds,' and so on, are synonyms for 'cause'. For a cause is called a 'ground' (ṭhāna) because things stand (tiṭṭhanti) there; it is called a 'basis' (vatthu) because they dwell (vasanti) there; it is called a 'plane' (bhūmi) because they arise (bhavanti) there. What things stand, dwell, and arise? Legal issues involving dispute, and so on. Because one disputes after having a wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate mind, it is said, 'nine causes.' 'One is angry, one is resentful,' and so on, are the twelve roots. For, because one who reviles accuses by means of one of the four failures, it is said, 'the four failures are grounds.' The fourteen roots are the twelve mentioned in the context of a legal issue involving dispute, plus body and speech.

295-6. Satta āpattikkhandhā ṭhānānīti ettha ‘‘āpattiṃ āpajjitvā paṭicchādentassa yā āpatti hoti, tassā āpattiyā pubbe āpannā āpatti ṭhānaṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Natthi āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusalanti vacanato natthi āpattādhikaraṇassa kusalahetu, kusalacittaṃ pana aṅgaṃ hotī’’ti likhitaṃ. Cattāri kammāni ṭhānānīti ettha ‘‘evaṃ kattabbanti ṭhitapāḷi kammaṃ nāma. ‘Yathāṭhitapāḷivasena karontānaṃ kiriyā kiccādhikaraṇaṃ nāmā’’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘pāḷianusārena paṭikātabbalakkhaṇaṃ vā kammaṃ. Tatheva karaṇaṃ kiccādhikaraṇa’’nti ca. Ñattiñattidutiyañatticatutthakammāni ñattito jāyanti, apalokanakammaṃ apalokanato, ‘‘kiccādhikaraṇaṃ ekena samathena sammati sampajjatīti attho’’ti likhitaṃ. Siyunti honti. Kathañca siyāti kathaṃ hoti. Vivādādhikaraṇassa dveti te dve ṭhapetvā aññehi na sammati.

In 'The seven groups of offenses are grounds,' it is said: 'For a monk who, having committed an offense, conceals it, the previously committed offense is the ground of that offense.' It is written: 'Because of the statement “An offense-issue is not wholesome,” there is no wholesome cause for an offense-issue, but a wholesome mind is a factor.' In 'The four formal acts are grounds,' it is said: 'The established Pāḷi text stating “Thus it should be done” is called a formal act. The action of those performing it according to the established Pāḷi text is called a duty-issue.' And also: 'Alternatively, a formal act has the characteristic of what should be performed in accordance with the Pāḷi. The performance in that very way is a duty-issue.' The formal acts of a motion, a motion with one announcement, and a motion with three announcements arise from a motion; the formal act of seeking leave arises from seeking leave. It is written: 'The meaning is that a duty-issue is settled and accomplished by a single settlement.' 'They might be' (`siyunti`) means 'they are' (`honti`). 'And how might they be?' (`kathañca siyā`) means 'how is it?' (`kathaṃ hoti`). For a dispute-issue, there are two; excluding those two, it is not settled by other settlements.

297. Sādhāraṇāti taṃ sametabbā.

297. `Sādhāraṇā` (common) means that it (the dispute-issue) should be settled.

298. Tabbhāgiyāti taṃkoṭṭhāsā.

298. `Tabbhāgiyā` means having that as its portion.

299. Ekādhikaraṇaṃ sabbe samathā samaggā hutvā sametuṃ bhabbāti pucchanto ‘‘samathā samathassa sādhāraṇā’’ti āha. Samathā samathassā siyā sādhāraṇā siyā asādhāraṇā.

299. Asking, 'Are all settlements, having become harmonious, able to settle a single issue?', he said, 'Settlements are common to a settlement.' Settlements may be common to a settlement, or they may be uncommon.

300. Samathā [Pg.549] samathassa tabbhāgiyavārepi eseva nayo.

300. This same method applies also in the section on `tabbhāgiya` (belonging to that portion) of settlements to a settlement.

301. Ime samathā samathā, na sammukhāvinayoti attho.

301. The meaning is: these settlements are just settlements, not the 'procedure in the presence'.

302. ‘‘Samathā vinayo’’tipi vuccati, tasmā vinayo sammukhāvinayoti vinayavāro uddhaṭo siyā. Na sammukhāvinayoti sammukhāvinayaṃ ṭhapetvā sativinayādayo sesasamathā.

302. 'Settlements are discipline' is also said; therefore, a section on discipline might be extracted, stating, 'discipline is the procedure in the presence.' 'Not the procedure in the presence' means that, having set aside the procedure in the presence, the remaining settlements are the procedure of mindfulness and so on.

303. Saṅghassa sammukhā paṭiññāte taṃ paṭijānanaṃ saṅghassa sammukhatā nāma hotīti ‘‘tassa paṭijānanacittaṃ sandhāya ‘sammukhāvinayo kusalo’tiādi vutta’’nti vadanti. Natthi sammukhāvinayo akusaloti ‘‘dhammavinayapuggalasammukhatāhi tivaṅgiko sammukhāvinayo etehi vinā natthi. Tattha kusalacittehi karaṇakāle kusalo, arahantānaṃ karaṇakāle abyākato, etesaṃ akusalapaṭipakkhattā akusalassa sambhavo natthi, tasmā ‘natthi sammukhāvinayo akusalo’ti vutta’’nti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Yebhuyyasikā adhammavādīhi vūpasamanakāle salākaggāhāpake dhammavādimhi kusalā, dhammavādīnampi adhammavādimhi salākaggāhāpake jāte akusalā, sabbattha arahato vaseneva abyākatatā, anarahato sañcicca sativinayadāne sativinayo akusalo, amūḷhavinayo anummattakassa dāne, paṭiññātakaraṇaṃ mūḷhassa ajānanato paṭiññāyakaraṇe, tassapāpiyasikā suddhassa karaṇe, tiṇavatthārakaṃ mahākalahe, sañcicca karaṇe ca akusala’’nti likhitaṃ.

303. When there is a confession in the presence of the Sangha, that confession is called 'presence of the Sangha.' Therefore, they say: 'With reference to that person's mind of confession, it is said, “The procedure in the presence is wholesome,” and so on.' Regarding 'The procedure in the presence is not unwholesome,' it is written: 'The procedure in the presence has three factors: the presence of the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the person; without these, it does not exist. Therein, at the time of its performance with wholesome minds, it is wholesome; at the time of its performance by Arahants, it is indeterminate. Because these are the opposite of the unwholesome, there is no possibility of the unwholesome. Therefore, it is said, “The procedure in the presence is not unwholesome.”' It is also written: 'The procedure of the majority, at the time of pacifying those who speak against the Dhamma, is wholesome when the one who makes them take the voting-tickets is one who speaks in accordance with the Dhamma. When those who speak in accordance with the Dhamma have one who speaks against the Dhamma as the one who makes them take the voting-tickets, it is unwholesome. In all cases, for an Arahant, it is indeterminate by their very nature. For a non-Arahant, the procedure of mindfulness is unwholesome when given with intention; the procedure for one who is no longer deluded is unwholesome when given to one who is not insane; the procedure of acknowledgement is unwholesome when carried out for one who is confused and unknowing; the procedure for further misconduct is unwholesome when carried out for one who is pure; and the covering over with grass is unwholesome in a great quarrel and when done with intention.'

Yatthavārapucchāvāravaṇṇanā

The Section on 'Where': Explanation of the Section on Questions

304. Labbhatīti pucchā.

304. The question is: “Is it obtained?”

Samathavāravissajjanāvāravaṇṇanā

The Section on Settlements: Explanation of the Section on Answers

305. Yasmiṃ samaye sammukhāvinayena cātiādi tassā vissajjanaṃ. Yasmiṃ samaye sammukhāvinayena ca yebhuyyasikāya ca adhikaraṇaṃ vūpasammati, tasmiṃ samaye yattha yebhuyyasikā labbhati, tattha sammukhāvinayo labbhatīti evaṃ sabbattha sambandho. Yattha paṭiññātakaraṇaṃ labbhati, tattha sammukhāvinayo labbhatīti ettha ekaṃ vā dve vā bahū vā āpattiyo āpanno [Pg.550] bhikkhu ‘‘imaṃ nāma āpattiṃ āpannosī’’ti pucchito ‘‘āmā’’ti āpattiṃ paṭijānāti, dvepi labbhanti. Tattha saṅghasammukhatā dhammavinayapuggalasammukhatāti evaṃ vuttasammukhāvinaye saṅghassa purato paṭiññātaṃ kataṃ ce, saṅghasammukhatā. Tattheva desitaṃ ce, dhammavinayasammukhatāyopi laddhā honti. Avivadantā aññamaññaṃ paṭijānanti ce, puggalasammukhatā. Tasseva santike desitaṃ ce, dhammavinayasammukhatāyopi laddhā honti. Ekasseva vā ekassa santike āpattidesanakāle ‘‘passasi, passāmī’’ti vutte tattha dhammavinayapuggalasammukhatāsaññito sammukhāvinayo ca paṭiññātakaraṇañca laddhaṃ hoti.

305. This is the answer to that question: ‘At the time when by the procedure in the presence,’ etc. At the time when a legal issue is settled by the procedure in the presence and by the procedure of the majority, at that time, wherever the procedure of the majority is obtained, there the procedure in the presence is also obtained—thus the connection should be made in all cases. Where the procedure of acknowledgment is obtained, there the procedure in the presence is also obtained. Here, when a monk who has committed one, two, or many offenses is asked, “Monk, have you committed such-and-such an offense?” and he acknowledges the offense by saying, “Yes, I have committed it,” then both are obtained. In this regard, in the procedure in the presence thus stated as the presence of the Sangha, the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya, and the presence of individuals: if an acknowledgment is made before the Sangha, it is the presence of the Sangha. If it is confessed right there, the presences of the Dhamma and Vinaya are also obtained. If they acknowledge among themselves without disputing, it is the presence of individuals. If it is confessed in the presence of that very individual, the presences of the Dhamma and Vinaya are also obtained. Or, in the case of just one person, at the time of confessing an offense in the presence of one person, when “Do you see?” “I see” is said, then the procedure in the presence—designated as the presence of the Dhamma, Vinaya, and individuals—and the procedure of acknowledgment are obtained.

Saṃsaṭṭhavārādivaṇṇanā

Exposition of the Section on Associated Matters and So Forth

306. Adhikaraṇānaṃ vūpasamova samatho nāma, so adhikaraṇaṃ vinā natthi, tasmā na ca labbhā vinibhujjitvā nānākaraṇaṃ kātuṃ.

306. The settling of legal issues is itself called a settlement. It does not exist without a legal issue. Therefore, it is not possible to separate them and make a distinction.

309-310. Samathā samathehi sammantīti ettha sammantīti sampajjanti. Adhikaraṇā vā pana sammanti vūpasammantīti attho, tasmā ‘‘yebhuyyasikā sammukhāvinayena sammatī’’ti imāya sammukhāvinayena saddhiṃ sampajjati, na sativinayādīhi tesaṃ tassā anupakārattāti attho. Samathā adhikaraṇehi sammantīti ettha samathā abhāvaṃ gacchantīti attho.

Here, in ‘settlements are settled by settlements,’ ‘are settled’ means they are accomplished. Or, the meaning is that legal issues are settled, are pacified. Therefore, the meaning is: ‘the procedure of the majority is settled by the procedure in the presence’ means it is accomplished in conjunction with the procedure in the presence, not with the procedure of mindfulness and so forth, because they are not helpful to it. Here, in ‘settlements are settled by legal issues,’ the meaning is that settlements cease to exist.

311. ‘‘Sammukhāvinayo vivādādhikaraṇena na sammatī’’ti pāṭho. Yebhuyyasikāya samānabhāvato ca avasāne ‘‘sammukhāvinayo na kenaci sammatī’’ti (pari. 313) vuttattā ca sammukhāvinayo sayaṃ samathena vā adhikaraṇena vā sametabbo na hotīti katvā vutto. Sativinayo kiccādhikaraṇena sammati. Amūḷhavinayatassapāpiyasikatiṇavatthārakāpi kiccādhikaraṇena sammanti.

311. The reading is: 'The procedure in the presence is not settled by a dispute-issue.' And because it is equivalent to the procedure of the majority, and because at the end it is stated (Pari. 313), 'The procedure in the presence is not settled by any settlement,' it is said, having considered that the procedure in the presence is not to be settled by a settlement itself or by an issue. The procedure of mindfulness is settled by a duty-issue. The procedures for one who is no longer deluded, for further misconduct, and of covering over with grass are also settled by a duty-issue.

313. Vivādādhikaraṇaṃ kiccādhikaraṇena sammatīti ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante…pe… paṭhamaṃ salākaṃ nikkhipāmī’’ti evaṃ vivādādhikaraṇaṃ kiccādhikaraṇena sammati. Anuvādādhikaraṇaāpattādhikaraṇāpi kiccādhikaraṇena sammanti. ‘‘‘Akataṃ kammaṃ dukkaṭaṃ kamma’nti evaṃ kiccādhikaraṇampi kiccādhikaraṇena sammatīti [Pg.551] evaṃ pāṭho veditabbo’’ti likhitaṃ. Aññatarasmiṃ pana gaṇṭhipade ‘‘‘samathā adhikaraṇehi sammantī’ti ettha yasmā sabbe samathā kiccādhikaraṇena sammanti, tasmā ‘samathā kiccādhikaraṇena sammantī’ti pāṭho gahetabbo’’ti vuttaṃ.

313. A dispute-issue is settled by a procedural-issue—as in, 'Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha hear me… I cast the first voting slip.' Thus, a dispute-issue is settled by a procedural-issue. Accusation-issues and offense-issues are also settled by a procedural-issue. It is written: 'The reading should be understood thus: Regarding the statement, “The act was not done; the act was wrongly done,” thus even a procedural-issue is settled by a procedural-issue.' However, in a certain sub-commentary, it is said: 'Herein, regarding the text “settlements are settled by issues,” because all settlements are settled by a procedural-issue, therefore the reading should be taken as “settlements are settled by a procedural-issue.”'

314. Vivādādhikaraṇaṃ katamaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ samuṭṭhāpetīti ‘‘nāyaṃ dhammo’’ti vuttamattena kiñci adhikaraṇaṃ na samuṭṭhāpeti.

314. What issue does a dispute-issue give rise to? By the mere saying, 'This is not the Dhamma,' it does not give rise to any issue.

318-9. ‘‘Katamādhikaraṇapariyāpanna’’nti pāṭho. Vivādādhikaraṇaṃ vivādādhikaraṇaṃ bhajatīti paṭhamuppannavivādaṃ pacchā uppanno bhajati. Vivādādhikaraṇaṃ dve samathe bhajatīti ‘‘imaṃ vūpasametuṃ samatthā tumhe’’ti vadantaṃ viya bhajati ‘‘mayaṃ taṃ vūpasamessāmā’’ti vadantehi viya dvīhi samathehi saṅgahitaṃ.

The reading is: 'In which issue is it included?' A dispute-issue resorts to a dispute-issue—meaning, a later arisen dispute resorts to a first arisen dispute. A dispute-issue resorts to two settlements—it resorts as if to one saying, 'You are capable of settling this issue,' and it is encompassed by two settlements as if by those saying, 'We will settle that dispute-issue.'

Samathabhedavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Exposition on the Analysis of Settlements is concluded.

Khandhakapucchāvāravaṇṇanā

The Exposition of the Section on Questions about the Khandhakas

Pucchāvissajjanāvaṇṇanā

The Exposition on Questions and Answers

320. Nidānaṃ nāma kālañca nagarañca deso ca bhagavā ca. Vatthupuggalādi niddeso. Yāni tattha upasampadakkhandhake ‘‘na, bhikkhave, ūnavīsativasso puggalo upasampādetabbo’’tiādinā nayena uttamāni padāni vuttānīti sambandho. Sā sā tassa tassa padassa āpattīti vuccatīti yā ‘‘na, bhikkhave, ūnavīsativasso puggalo upasampādetabbo’’ti padena paññattā āpatti, sā tassa padassāti adhippāyo. Cammasaṃyutteti cammakkhandhake.

320. The introduction is called the time, the city, the region, and the Blessed One. The exposition is of the subject matter, individuals, and so on. The connection is thus: supreme terms were spoken there in the Ordination Chapter by the method beginning with, 'Monks, a person under twenty years of age should not be ordained.' Regarding the statement, 'That is the offense for that particular term,' the intention is this: the offense established by the term, 'Monks, a person under twenty years of age should not be ordained,' is the offense of that term. 'Connected with hides' means in the Chapter on Hides.

Ekuttarikanayavaṇṇanā

Exposition of the Method of Increasing by One

Ekakavāravaṇṇanā

Exposition of the Single Section

321. Ekuttarikanaye [Pg.552] āpatti jānitabbāti ettha āpatti nāma kiṃ paramatthasabhāvā, udāhu na vattabbasabhāvāti? Na vattabbasabhāvā. Vuttañhi parivāre ‘‘vatthu jānitabbaṃ, gottaṃ jānitabbaṃ, nāmaṃ jānitabbaṃ, āpatti jānitabbā’’ti etesaṃ padānaṃ vibhaṅge ‘‘methunadhammoti vatthu ca gottañca. Pārājikanti nāmañceva āpatti cā’’ti. Nāmañca gottañca ‘‘nāmagottaṃ na jīratī’’ti (saṃ. ni. 1.76) vacanato sammutimattaṃ, tasmā ‘‘kusalattikavinimuttā na vattabbadhammabhūtā ekaccā sammuti evā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ samathakkhandhake ‘‘āpattādhikaraṇaṃ siyā akusalaṃ, siyā abyākata’’nti (cūḷava. 222), taṃ ‘‘vivādādhikaraṇaṃ siyā kusalaṃ, siyā akusalaṃ, siyā abyākata’’nti (cūḷava. 220) ettha viya pariyāyato vuttaṃ. Atthato hi vivādo nāma ekacco sammutiviseso. Yo cittasamaṅgino, so ‘‘taṃ cittapariyāyena pana siyā kusala’’ntiādi vohāraladdho, tathā āpattādhikaraṇampīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Teneva vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘āpattiṃ āpajjamāno hi akusalacitto vā āpajjati kusalābyākatacitto vā’’ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā). Aññathā samathehi adhikaraṇīyatā na sambhavati. Na hi samathā kusalādiṃ akusalādiṃ vā adhikiccapavattanti, samathavasena vā kusalādi sammati. Na ca kusalassa vivādassa, anuvādassa vā kusalādisamathehi vūpasametabbatā āpajjatīti tesaṃ adhikaraṇamattameva na sambhaveyya, tasmā adhikaraṇānaṃ, samathānañca kusalādibhāvo pariyāyadesanāya labbhati, no aññathā, teneva sammukhāvinaye viya āpattādhikaraṇe tikaṃ na pūritaṃ. Sañcicca āpattiṃ āpajjamānassa yasmā sañcetanā ekantato akusalāva hoti. Itarassa sacittakassa vā acittakassa vā tadābhāvamattaṃ upādāya ‘‘abyākata’’nti vuttaṃ. Yathā hi ‘‘tikkhattuṃ codayamāno taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeyya, iccetaṃ kusala’’ntiādīsu (pārā. 538) na kusalasaddo sukhavipāko, ‘‘samparāyikānaṃ akusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ paṭighātāyā’’tiādīsu (pari. 498) na akusalā vā hoti. Itarassa sacittakassa [Pg.553] vā acittakassa vā tadābhāvamattaṃ upādāya ‘‘abyākata’’nti vuttaṃ. Yathā hi dvikkhattuṃ codayamāno taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādeyya, yaṃ panettha ‘‘āpattādhikaraṇaṃ akusala’’nti vuttaṃ, tassa vasena tadakusalato satta vinītavatthūni veditabbāni, tato cīvaranti sambhavato acīvarakā, antarāpattikā ca. Anantarikalakkhaṇappattassa vasena niyatā ca nāmāti veditabbaṃ. Sammutiniddese garukalahukaniddesopi sambhavati. Aññathā ‘‘anantarāyikā paṇṇattivajjā, anavajjāpaṇṇattī’’ti ca vuttā. Kuṭikāramahallakāpatti antarāyikā lokavajjasāvajjapaṇṇattito. Sampajānamusāvādo omasavādādito garukādi na sambhaveyya, tato vā ayaṃ lahukādīti idaṃ sabbaṃ ekaccānaṃ ācariyānaṃ mataṃ, ‘‘sabbaṃ ayutta’’nti vadanti. Kasmā? Yasmā ‘‘pārājikanti nāmañceva āpatticā’’ti vacanena ce āpatti na vattabbadhammo siyā, vatthu ca na vattabbadhammo siyā gottena samānādhikaraṇabhāvena vuttattā, tasmā ‘‘methunadhammo’’ti padaṃ ajjhācārasaṅkhātaṃ vatthuñca dīpeti. Ajjhācāravaseneva āpattiyā laddhanāmaṃ asādhāraṇanāmattā ‘‘gotta’’nti ca vuccatīti ayaṃ tattha attho.

321. In the method of counting by ones, regarding the statement 'an offense should be known,' is what is called 'offense' of an ultimate nature, or is it of a nature that cannot be spoken of? It is of a nature that cannot be spoken of. For it is stated in the Parivāra, in the analysis of these terms—'The object should be known, the family should be known, the name should be known, the offense should be known'—that 'sexual intercourse is the object and the family, and pārājika is the name and the offense.' The name and the family are merely conventional, according to the saying 'name and family do not decay' (Saṃyutta Nikāya 1.76). Therefore, it is said: 'Some conventions, being free from the wholesome triad, are indeed phenomena that cannot be spoken of.' However, what is stated in the Samathakkhandhaka—'An offense-issue may be unwholesome or indeterminate' (Cūḷavagga 222)—is said figuratively, just as it is said there: 'A dispute-issue may be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate' (Cūḷavagga 220). For in essence, a dispute is a particular kind of convention. In the case of one endowed with a mind, that particular convention is designated by common usage through the way of the mind, as in 'it may be wholesome,' etc. Similarly, it should be understood that an offense-issue is also designated thus. Thus, it is stated in the commentary: 'Indeed, one who commits an offense does so either with an unwholesome mind or with a wholesome or indeterminate mind' (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, First Pārājika Explanation). Otherwise, the state of being an issue to be settled by settlements would not be possible. For settlements do not proceed by focusing on the wholesome, etc., or the unwholesome, etc., nor does the wholesome, etc., become settled by way of settlements. Moreover, since the state of being settled by wholesome, etc., settlements does not apply to a wholesome dispute or accusation, their mere status as issues would not be possible. Therefore, the nature of issues and settlements as wholesome, etc., is obtained through figurative teaching, not otherwise. For this reason, the triad is not fully applied to offense-issues, as it is in the face-to-face procedure. Because for one who intentionally commits an offense, the volition is entirely unwholesome. For another case, whether it be a precept involving consciousness (sacittaka) or one without consciousness (acittaka), it is called 'indeterminate' merely by virtue of the absence of that unwholesome volition. Just as in statements like 'If one urges three times and produces that robe, this is wholesome' (Pārā. 538), the term 'wholesome' does not mean a pleasant result; and just as in 'for the destruction of unwholesome states leading to the hereafter' (Pari. 498), unwholesome states do not arise. For another case, whether it be a precept involving consciousness or one without consciousness, it is called 'indeterminate' merely by virtue of the absence of that wholesome or unwholesome state. Just as if one urges twice and produces that robe. Regarding what is stated here, 'An offense-issue is unwholesome,' based on that, from that unwholesomeness, seven settled cases should be understood. From that, because the existence of a robe is possible, those without robes are subject to intermediate offenses. And it should be understood that they are fixed in name by virtue of having the characteristic of immediacy. In the exposition of conventions, the exposition of grave and minor also applies. Otherwise, it would be said: 'Non-obstructive offenses are transgressions by convention,' and 'Blameless offenses are mere conventions.' The offense of constructing a large hut is obstructive due to being a worldly fault and a blameworthy convention. Intentional false speech would not be heavier, etc., than abusive speech, etc., nor would this offense be lighter, etc., than that one. All this is the opinion of some teachers, but they say, 'All this is incorrect.' Why? Because if, by the statement 'pārājika is the name and the offense,' the offense were a phenomenon that cannot be spoken of, then the object would also be a phenomenon that cannot be spoken of, since it is stated to be co-referential with the family. Therefore, the term 'sexual intercourse' clarifies the object, which is called transgression. The name obtained for the offense through the transgression itself, because it is a unique name, is also called 'family' (gotta). This is the meaning there.

‘‘Āpattādhikaraṇassa kiṃ pubbaṅgamanti? Lobho pubbaṅgamo, doso, moho, alobho, adoso, amoho pubbaṅgamo’’ti ‘‘kati hetūti? Cha hetū tayo akusalahetū, tayo abyākatahetū’’ti ca vuttattā nippariyāyeneva ‘‘āpattādhikaraṇaṃ siyā akusalaṃ, siyā abyākata’’nti vuttaṃ. Samathakkhandhake pana sandhāyabhāsitavasena tathā eva vuttaṃ. Tasmā āpattādhikaraṇaṃ sabhāvato nippariyāyeneva akusalā cattāro khandhā, rūpaabyākatā ca honti. ‘‘Natthi āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusala’’nti (cūḷava. 222) vuttattā kusalameva paṭikkhittaṃ, khīṇāsavānaṃ kiriyābyākataṃ nāma hotīti kusale paṭikkhitte kiriyābyākatampi paṭikkhittameva hoti. Tasmiṃ paṭikkhitte sabbathā avāvaṭaṃ vipākābyākataṃ paṭikkhittameva hoti. Nibbānābyākate vattabbameva natthīti eke, taṃ ayuttaṃ ‘‘cha hetuyo’’ti vuttattā. Kiñcāpi vuttaṃ sāmaññena, tathāpi vipākahetuyeva tattha adhippeto, na kiriyāhetu, te hi kusalasabhāvā ca, tasmā rūpaṃ, vipākābyākatañcāpatti. Tattha akusalāpattito vinītavatthūni. Itarassāpi ādito chādanā kusalacittatoti vuttaṃ [Pg.554] hoti. Antarāyikaniyatasāvajjapaññattibhāvopi cassā vevacanavasena veditabbo paṇṇattivajjāya, sañcicca āpannāya ca, tasmā ‘‘jīvitindriyaṃ siyā sārammaṇaṃ siyā anārammaṇa’’nti vacanaṃ viya ekantākusalaṃ anekantākusalañca lokavajjaṃ, ekantābyākataṃ bhūtārocanaṃ anekantābyākatañca sesaṃ paṇṇattivajjaṃ ekato sampiṇḍetvā ‘‘āpattādhikaraṇaṃ siyā akusalaṃ siyābyākata’’nti vuttaṃ. Samathakkhandhake pana paṇṇattivajjameva sandhāya tathā vuttaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ, gaṇṭhipade ca ‘‘āpattādhikaraṇaṃ siyā akusalaṃ, siyā abyākataṃ, natthi āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusala’nti ettha sandhāyabhāsitavasena attho veditabbo. Yasmiñhi pathavikhaṇanādike āpattādhikaraṇe apakataññuno sandhāya appaharitakaraṇādikāle kusalacittaṃ aṅgaṃ hoti, khaṇanādipayogasaṅkhātaṃ rūpābyākataṃ āpattisamuṭṭhāpentaṃ hotīti adhippāyo’’ti. Yaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ ‘‘atthāpatti kusalacitto āpajjati, kusalacitto vuṭṭhātī’’tiādi. Tasmiñhi sati na sakkā vattuṃ ‘‘natthi āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusala’’nti. Yasmā āpattisamuṭṭhāpakaṃ cittaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ na hoti, tasmā na yidaṃ aṅgappahonakacittaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yadi taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, ‘‘siyā kusala’’nti ca vattabbaṃ bhaveyya, na ca vuttaṃ. Tasmā idaṃ pana sandhāya vuttaṃ – yaṃ tāva āpattādhikaraṇaṃ lokavajjaṃ, taṃ ekantato akusalameva, tattha ‘‘siyā akusala’’nti vikappo natthi. Yaṃ pana paṇṇattivajjaṃ, taṃ yasmā sañcicca ‘‘imaṃ āpattiṃ vītikkamāmī’’ti vītikkamantasseva akusalaṃ hoti, asañcicca pana kiñci ajānantassa sahaseyyādivasena āpajjato rūpavipākaṃ abyākataṃ hoti anuṭṭhānato. Tasmā tassa paṇṇattivajjassa sañciccāsañciccavasena imaṃ vikappabhāvaṃ sandhāya idaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘āpattādhikaraṇaṃ siyā akusalaṃ, siyā abyākataṃ, natthi āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusala’’nti.

“What is the forerunner of a legal matter concerning an offense? Greed is the forerunner, hatred, delusion, non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion are the forerunners.” And, “How many roots are there? There are six roots: three unwholesome roots and three indeterminate roots.” Because this has been stated, it is said without qualification that “a legal matter concerning an offense may be unwholesome or may be indeterminate.” However, in the Chapter on Settlement, it is stated in the same way by way of an implicit statement. Therefore, a legal matter concerning an offense, by its intrinsic nature and without qualification, consists of the four unwholesome aggregates and indeterminate form. Because it is stated, “There is no wholesome legal matter concerning an offense,” only the wholesome is rejected. For the Arahants, there is what is called functional indeterminate consciousness; thus, when the wholesome is rejected, the functional indeterminate is also rejected. When that is rejected, the resultant indeterminate, which is in no way prohibited, is also rejected. Regarding indeterminate Nibbāna, there is nothing to be said. So say some. That is incorrect, because it is stated, “six roots.” Although it is stated in a general sense, nevertheless, only the resultant roots are intended there, not the functional roots, for they are not of a wholesome nature. Therefore, form and resultant indeterminate consciousness constitute the offense. In that regard, the settled cases are to be known from the unwholesome offense. For the other type as well, it is said to be from the outset from a concealing unwholesome consciousness. And its nature as an obstructive, fixed, and blameworthy-by-prescription offense should be understood by way of its synonyms for a blameworthy-by-rule offense and for one committed intentionally. Therefore, just like the statement, “The life faculty may be with an object or may be without an object,” having combined into one the worldly offense, which is both exclusively and not exclusively unwholesome, and the blameworthy-by-rule offense—which is exclusively indeterminate (such as confessing a fault) and not exclusively indeterminate (in other cases)—it is said, “A legal matter concerning an offense may be unwholesome or may be indeterminate.” In the Chapter on Settlement, however, it is stated thus with reference only to the blameworthy-by-rule offense. And this is stated in the commentary and in the sub-commentary: “In the passage, ‘A legal matter concerning an offense may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate; there is no wholesome legal matter concerning an offense,’ the meaning should be understood by way of an implicit statement. For in a legal matter concerning an offense such as digging the earth, with reference to those unskilled in the Vinaya, at the time of clearing green plants, etc., wholesome consciousness is a factor, and the indeterminate form, known as the effort of digging, etc., originates the offense—this is the intention.” That with reference to which it is said, “There is an offense which one commits with a wholesome mind and from which one emerges with a wholesome mind,” etc. For if that were the case, it could not be said, “There is no wholesome legal matter concerning an offense.” Because it is not said with reference to the consciousness that originates the offense, therefore this is not said with reference to the consciousness that is a mere component. If it were said with reference to that, it would have to be said, “it may be wholesome,” but it was not said. Therefore, this is said with reference to the following: whatever legal matter concerning an offense is a worldly offense, that is exclusively unwholesome; in that case, there is no alternative of “may be unwholesome.” But as for what is a blameworthy-by-rule offense, since it is unwholesome only for one who transgresses intentionally, thinking, “I will transgress this offense,” whereas for one who is unaware and transgresses unintentionally by way of co-sleeping, etc., it is indeterminate form and resultant indeterminate consciousness, due to not having arisen from sleep. Therefore, with reference to this state of being an alternative for that blameworthy-by-rule offense, based on whether it is intentional or unintentional, this is said: “A legal matter concerning an offense may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate; there is no wholesome legal matter concerning an offense.”

Sace pana koci vinaye apakataññū ‘‘yaṃ kusalacitto āpajjati, idaṃ vuccati āpattādhikaraṇaṃ kusala’’nti vadeyya, tassevaṃvādino acittakānaṃ eḷakalomādisamuṭṭhānānampi kusalacittasamaṅgikāle tāsaṃ āpattīnaṃ kusalacitto āpajjeyya, na vā āpajjati[Pg.555]. Kiṃkāraṇaṃ? Na ca tattha vijjamānampi kusalacittaṃ āpattiyā aṅgaṃ. Attabhāvo sabhāvo pakatīti vuttaṃ hoti. Kataraṃ pana tassā āpattiyā tadā aṅgasabhāvoti? Vuccate – kāyavacīviññattivasena pana calitassa kāyassa, pavattāya vācāya cāti etesaṃ dvinnaṃ calitappavattānaṃ kāyavācānaṃ aññatarameva aṅgasabhāvo, tañca rūpakkhandhapariyāpannattā abyākatanti. Kiṃ vuttaṃ hoti? Kāyo, vācā ca tadā āpattādhikaraṇanti vuttaṃ hoti. Yā panettha akusalāpattikkhaṇe kāyavācāyo abyākatabhāvo, tā abbohārikā honti kāyavacīkammakāle manokammaṃ viya. Tadā hi kāyavācāyo āpattikarādiṭṭhāne tiṭṭhanti. Yaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ ‘‘āpattikarā dhammā jānitabbā. Kati mūlānīti cha āpattisamuṭṭhānāni mūlānī’’tiādi. Yadā pana kāyavācāyo āpattiyā aṅgameva honti, tadā ‘‘cittaṃ cittādhipateyya’’nti (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 1 kāmāvacarakusalavaṇṇanā) vacanaṃ viya pubbapayogānaṃ aparapayogassa paccayabhāvato āpattikarādipaññattiṃ na vijahanti. Yathā tabbhāvepi ‘‘āpattādhikaraṇassa kati vatthūnīti? Satta āpattikkhandhā vatthūni. Kati bhūmiyoti? Satta āpattikkhandhā bhūmiyo’’ti vuttaṃ. Tathā tabbhāvepi āpattikarā ‘‘āpattisamuṭṭhānā’’icceva vuccantīti veditabbā. Ettāvatā āpatti nāma cattāro akusalakkhandhā sañcicca vītikkamakāle bhūtārocanaṃ ṭhapetvā sabbāpi avisesato, visesato pana sabbāpi ekantākusalā akusalā, anekantākusalā pana giraggasamajjacittāgārasaṅghāniitthālaṅkāragandhavaṇṇakavāsitapiññākappabhedā, bhikkhuniādīnaṃ ummaddanaparimaddanappabhedā cāti dasappabhedā sakanāmehi paricchinditvā vatthujānanasacittakakāle eva akusalā, tadabhāvato acittakakāle vinā anāpattādhikaraṇena kammaṭṭhānādisīsena kusalacittena taṃ taṃ vatthuṃ vītikkamantassa āpatti kevalaṃ rūpaabyākatameva.

But if some monk, unskilled in the Vinaya, were to say, “The offense which one commits with a wholesome mind, this offense-matter is called wholesome,” then in the view of one who speaks thus, even for offenses that are unintentional, such as those originating from goat's wool and so on, at the time of being endowed with a wholesome mind, one would commit those offenses with a wholesome mind, yet one does not actually commit them. What is the reason? For even though a wholesome mind is present there, it is not a factor of the offense. It is said: “Personal existence is its intrinsic nature, its natural state.” But what, then, is the characteristic nature of the constituent of that offense at that time? It is said: By means of bodily and verbal intimation, of the moved body and the uttered speech—of these two, the moved and the uttered, that is, the body and speech—one or the other is the very characteristic nature of the constituent, and since it is included in the form aggregate, it is indeterminate. What is said? It is said that the body and speech at that time are the offense-matter. Herein, the indeterminate nature of the body and speech at the moment of an unwholesome offense is not subject to designation, like mental action at the time of bodily and verbal action. For then, the body and speech stand in the position of being offense-causing, and so on. With reference to which it was said: “Offense-causing phenomena should be known. How many roots? Six origins of offenses are the roots,” and so on. But when body and speech are the very factors of an offense, then, like the saying, “Mind has mind as its dominant condition,” because of prior effort being a condition for subsequent effort, they do not abandon the designation of “offense-causing,” and so on. Just as, although this is the case, it is said: “How many objects are there for an offense-matter? The seven offense-aggregates are the objects. How many grounds? The seven offense-aggregates are the grounds.” Similarly, although this is the case, the offense-causers are called just “origins of offenses”; this should be known. To this extent, an offense, by name, is the four unwholesome aggregates. At the time of an intentional transgression, excluding the rule about reporting a fact, all offenses are so without distinction. But specifically, all such offenses are exclusively unwholesome. The not-exclusively unwholesome ones, however, are of ten types: those related to festivals on mountain-tops, picture galleries, the saṅghāṇī robe, women's ornaments, scents and colors, and scented sesamum paste; and those related to massaging and rubbing bhikkhunīs and others. These, having been delimited by their own names, are unwholesome only at the time of being conscious and knowing the object. Due to the absence of that, at a time of non-consciousness, for one transgressing that particular object with a wholesome mind headed by a meditation subject, etc., without it being a non-offense matter, the offense is merely material and indeterminate.

Keci panettha ‘‘appakāse ṭhāne kaṭisuttakasaññāya saṅghāṇiṃ, mattikāsaññāya gandhavaṇṇakādiṃ vā dhārentiyāpi āpatti, tasmā acittakāyevā’’ti vaṇṇayanti. Te ‘‘saṅghāṇiyā asaṅghāṇisaññāya dhāreti, āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti pāṭhābhāvaṃ dassetvā paṭikkhipitabbā. Surāpānāpatti pana acittakāpi ekantākusalāva. Teneva [Pg.556] ‘‘majje amajjasaññī pivati, āpatti pācittiyassā’’ti (pāci. 328) vuttaṃ. Yasmā panettha ābādhapaccayāpi na sakkā vinā akusalena surāpānaṃ pātuṃ, tasmā yathāvuttesu anekantākusalesu viya lokavajjesu idha ‘‘surāpānesu anāpatti ābādhapaccayā’’ti na vuttaṃ. Sūpasaṃpākādi pana amajjameva. Tattha kukkuccavinodanatthaṃ ‘‘anāpattī’’ti vuttaṃ udakadantapoṇe viya. Bhūtārocanāpatti rūpābyākatameva, acittakakāle sahaseyyādi rūpavipākābyākatameva, tattha supinanto vijjamānampi akusalaṃ anaṅgattā abbohārikaṃ hoti. Kusale kathāva natthi anāpatti sabhāvattā kusalassa. Tathā kiriyāti iminā nayena sabbattha yathāsambhavaṃ akusalaṃ vā suddharūpaṃ vā savipākaṃ vāti tidhā bhijjatīti ayamattho dassito hoti.

Some explain here: “For a bhikkhunī who, in an unapparent place, wears a saṅghāṇī with the perception of it being a waist-string, or scented powder and the like with the perception of it being clay, there is also an offense. Therefore, it is only unintentional.” They should be refuted by showing the absence of a passage such as: “For one who wears a saṅghāṇī with the perception of it not being a saṅghāṇī, there is a pācittiya offense.” The offense of drinking intoxicants, however, is exclusively unwholesome, even if unintentional. For that very reason, it is said: “If one, perceiving an intoxicant as a non-intoxicant, drinks it, there is a pācittiya offense.” Because here, even on account of illness, it is not possible to drink an intoxicant without unwholesomeness, therefore, unlike in the case of the aforementioned worldly faults which are not exclusively unwholesome, it is not said here: “In the case of drinking intoxicants, there is no offense on account of illness.” But soup-seasoning and the like are indeed not intoxicants. There, for the sake of dispelling scrupulousness, it is said, “There is no offense,” just as in the case of water for a tooth-stick. The offense of reporting a fact is merely indeterminate form. At an unintentional time, lying down together and so on is merely indeterminate form and indeterminate resultant. In that case, even an unwholesome state existing in a dream, because of not being a factor, is not reckonable. In the case of the wholesome, there is no question, because the nature of the wholesome is to be without offense. Likewise for the functional. By this method, it is shown that this meaning, everywhere, as is possible, is divided in three ways: as unwholesome, or pure form, or form with resultant.

Tattha ṭhapetvā surāpānaṃ ekaccañca paṇṇattivajjaṃ, ekantākusalañca sacittakameva, bhūtārocanaṃ acittakameva, sesaṃ saha surāpānena anekantākusalaṃ lokavajjañca anekantābyākataṃ paṇṇattivajjañca yebhuyyena sacittakācittakanti sabbasikkhāpadaṃ tippabhedaṃ hoti. Yaṃ panettha sacittakameva, taṃ methunādivatthujānanacitteneva sacittakaṃ, sabbaṃ sekhiyaṃ paṇṇattijānanacitteneva sacittakaṃ ‘‘anādariyaṃ paṭiccā’’ti vacanatoti sacittakaṃ duvidhaṃ hoti. Ekantācittakaṃ paṇṇattijānanacittābhāvena, na vatthujānanacittābhāvena. Tadabhāvato ekantākusalaṃ surāpānaṃ, ekantābyākataṃ sañcarittaṃ, vatthujānanacittassa vā paṇṇattijānanacittassa vā ubhinnaṃ abhāvena acittakabhāvena acittakaṃ hoti. Surāpānaṃ pana sacittakaṃ hoti vatthujānanacitteneva. Ariyapuggalānaṃ itaresaṃ ubhinnaṃ vā aññatarassa bhāvena sesaṃ cittakācittakaṃ. Visesato ca vatthujānanacittābhāvena, apakataññuno paṇṇattijānanacittābhāvena vā acittakabhāvena acittakaṃ hoti. Tattha ekantācittakañca sacittakañca ‘‘acittaka’’micceva vuccati. Ayaṃ tāva ‘‘āpatti jānitabbā’’ti ettha vinicchayo.

Herein, all training rules are of three kinds. Setting aside the drinking of intoxicants, some offenses by prescription are exclusively unwholesome and only intentional. Reporting a fact is only unintentional. The remaining rules, together with the drinking of intoxicants—which are not-exclusively unwholesome, worldly faults, not-exclusively indeterminate, and offenses by prescription—are for the most part both intentional and unintentional. As to what herein is only intentional, it is intentional only through the mind that knows the object, such as in the case of sexual intercourse. All the Sekhiya rules are intentional only because of the mind that knows the prescription, due to the statement, 'on account of disrespect.' Thus, 'intentional' is of two kinds. An offense is exclusively unintentional due to the absence of the mind that knows the prescription, not due to the absence of the mind that knows the object. Due to the absence of that, the drinking of intoxicants, which is exclusively unwholesome, and acting as a go-between, which is exclusively indeterminate, become unintentional; this state of being unintentional is due to the absence of either the mind that knows the object or the mind that knows the prescription, or both. However, the drinking of intoxicants is intentional only through the mind that knows the object. For noble individuals and others, the remaining rules are both intentional and unintentional due to the presence of one or the other of these two types of mind. And specifically, an offense becomes unintentional due to the absence of the mind that knows the object; or, for one who is unskilled, it becomes unintentional due to the absence of the mind that knows the prescription. Herein, both what is exclusively unintentional and what is intentional are also called 'unintentional.' This, for now, is the determination herein regarding 'an offense should be known.'

Mūlavisuddhiyā antarāpattīti antarāpattiṃ āpajjitvā mūlāyapaṭikassanaṃ katvā ṭhitena āpannāpatti. Ayaṃ agghavisuddhiyā antarāpattīti [Pg.557] sambahulā āpattiyo āpajjitvā tāsu sabbacirapaṭicchannavasena agghasamodhānaṃ gahetvā vasantena āpannāpatti. ‘‘Punapi āpajjissāmī’’ti saussāheneva cittena. ‘‘Ayaṃ bhikkhuniyā evā’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Pārājikamevā’’ti idañca bhūtavasena dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. ‘‘Evaṃ desite pana yā kāci āpatti na vuṭṭhātīti apare, taṃ na gahetabba’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Dhammikassa paṭissavassa asaccāpane’’ti vuttattā adhammikapaṭissave dukkaṭaṃ na hoti. ‘‘Pubbe suddhacittassa ‘tumhe vibbhamathā’ti vutte ‘sādhū’ti paṭissuṇitvā sace na vibbhamati anāpatti, evaṃ sabbatthā’’ti ca vuttaṃ. ‘‘Āvikaro jānitabbo’’tipi pāḷi. Kālena vakkhāmi, no akālenā’’tiādīsu pañcadasasu dhammesu. Bhabbāpattikā nāma āpattiṃ āpajjituṃ bhabbā.

An intermediate offense in terms of root-purity is an offense committed by one who, having fallen into an intermediate offense and having performed the restoration to the root, is now established. An intermediate offense in terms of value-purity is an offense committed by one who, having committed numerous offenses, undertakes the agghasamodhāna probation by way of the longest-concealed offense among them all, and is undergoing it. It is written: “A confession made with a mind that is indeed eager, thinking, ‘I will commit it again,’ is for a bhikkhunī only.” And this, “It is only a pārājika,” is said in order to show what is real. It is said: “Some say that when a confession is made in this way, one is not lifted from any offense whatsoever; that view should not be accepted.” Because it is said, “for failing to fulfill a lawful promise,” there is no offense of wrong-doing in the case of an unlawful promise. And it is also said: “Previously, for one with a pure mind, when it is said, ‘You should disrobe,’ if, having replied, ‘Very well,’ he does not disrobe, there is no offense; it is thus in all cases.” There is also the Pāli text: “One who reveals should be known.” In the fifteen factors, such as, “I will speak at the proper time, not at an improper time.” One called ‘capable of an offense’ is one who is capable of committing an offense.

Dukavāravaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Section of Dyads

322. Nidahane ātape. ‘‘Ekarattampi ce bhikkhu ticīvarena vippavaseyya (pārā. 472). Chārattaparamaṃ tenā’’tiādinā (pārā. 653) vuttāpattiko gaṇapūrako hutvāpi kammaṃ kopeti nānāsaṃvāsakattā. Kammena vā salākaggāhena vāti ettha uddeso ceva kammañca ekanti ettha pātimokkhuddesoti vā kammanti vā atthato ekameva, tesu yaṃ kiñci kate saṅghabhedo hotīti attho. Pubbabhāgāti saṅghabhedato pubbabhāgā. ‘‘Pamāṇa’’nti imesaṃ dvinnaṃ aññatarena bhedo hoti, na itarehīti vuttaṃ. Vinaye siddhā vinayasiddhā, romajanapade jātaṃ romakaṃ, anuññātaloṇattā dukesu vuttāti.

322. In the burning heat of the sun. A bhikkhu who has committed the aforesaid offense, such as in, “If a bhikkhu were to be separated from his three robes even for one night... the limit is six nights for him,” even if he is a quorum-filler, invalidates the formal act because he is of a different communion. Regarding “by a formal act or by the taking of voting-tickets”: here, the recitation and the formal act are one. That is, the recitation of the Pātimokkha or the formal act are indeed one in meaning. The meaning is that when any one of these two is done, there is a schism in the Saṅgha. “Preliminary parts” means the preliminary parts of a schism of the Saṅgha. Regarding “standard”: it is said that schism occurs by one of these two, not by the others. Established in the Vinaya is vinayasiddha; born in the Roman country is romaka; because it is a permitted salt, it is mentioned in the dyads.

Tikavāravaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Section of Triads

323. Vo tumhehi na samudācaritabbaṃ. Vacīsampayuttaṃ kāyakiriyaṃ katvāti kāyena nipaccakāraṃ katvāti attho. Upaghāteti vināseti. Omadditvāti abhibhavitvā. Vadatoti vadantassa. ‘‘Bālassa nissayo dātabbo’’ti duke āgataṃ, idha pana ‘‘na dātabbo’’ti vuttaṃ, āpattibāhullaṃ sandhāya nādātabbaṃ, ‘‘imasmā vihārā paraṃ mā nikkhamāhi, vinayadharānaṃ vā santikaṃ āgaccha vinicchayaṃ dātu’’nti vutte tassa vacanaṃ na gahetabbanti attho. Tikabhojanaṃ nāma sace tayo hutvā bhuñjanti, gaṇabhojanena [Pg.558] anāpatti, idaṃ sandhāya tikaṃ. ‘‘Pasutto’’ti bāhullato vuttaṃ. Atha vā nipajjitvāti attho. ‘‘Idaṃ ṭhapetvā gacchāmi, tāvakālikaṃ bhante dethāti vutte ‘navakammādiatthaṃ vinā dātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti likhitaṃ. Vikappetvā ṭhapitaṃ vassikasāṭikaṃ pacchime pāṭipadadivase nivāsento dukkaṭaṃ āpajjatīti attho. Apaccuddharitvāti paccuddharaṇaṃ akatvāti attho. ‘‘Vikappetu’’nti vacanato avikappanapaccayā āpatti hemante āpajjati, vikappanā pana kattikapuṇṇamadivase kātabbāti dassanatthaṃ vuttanti ñātabbaṃ. Ayaṃ nayo avikappanaṃ sandhāya, purimo vikappitaparibhogapaccayāpattiṃ sandhāya. Vatthapaṭicchādi sabbakappiyatāyāti vatthapaṭicchādi sabbattha kappiyattāti attho. Keci imamatthaṃ asallakkhetvā ‘‘vatthapaṭicchādi sabbakappiyatā tāya paṭicchannenā’’ti likhanti. ‘‘Vatthameva paṭicchādi vatthapaṭicchādī’’ti viggahattā ‘‘tāyā’’ti na yujjati. ‘‘Tenā’’ti bhavitabbattāti idaṃ sabbaṃ aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade likhitaṃ, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.

323. You should not speak. `A bodily action connected with speech` means having performed a bodily act of reverence. `To destroy` means to ruin. `Having crushed` means having overpowered. `Speaking` refers to one who is speaking. “The support of a fool should be given” is stated in the Duka (Book of Twos), but here it is said “should not be given”; with reference to an abundance of offenses, it should not be given. When it is said, “Do not go out from this monastery to another, or come to the presence of the Vinaya experts to give a decision,” his words should not be heeded—this is the meaning. A `tikabhojana` (meal for three) is so called because if three eat together, there is no offense under the rule of group meals; this is with reference to a group of three. `Asleep` is said due to its prevalence. Alternatively, it means having lain down. When it is said, “Having set this aside, I will go; venerable sir, give me temporary permission,” it is written, “It is not allowable to give it without a purpose such as new construction.” Having designated and set aside a rainy-season robe, one who wears it on the day after the prescribed period incurs a dukkaṭa offense—this is the meaning. `Not having revoked` means not having performed the revocation—this is the meaning. Because of the text “One should designate,” an offense is incurred in winter due to not designating. This is said, however, to show that the designation should be made on the full-moon day of Kattika; this should be understood. This method is with reference to non-designation; the former, with reference to the offense incurred through using what was designated. `The allowability of covering with a cloth everywhere` means that covering with a cloth is allowable everywhere—this is the meaning. Some, not discerning this meaning, write, “The allowability of covering with a cloth everywhere is by that covering.” Because of the analysis, “the cloth itself is the covering, hence ‘cloth-covering’,” `tāyā` (‘by that’ [fem.]) is not suitable. It should be `tenā` (‘by that’ [neu.])—all this is written in a certain sub-commentary and should be accepted after careful consideration.

Catukkavāravaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Section of Fours

324. Catūhākārehi āpattiṃ āpajjati…pe… kammavācāya āpajjatīti ettha yañhi āpattiṃ kammavācāya āpajjati, na tattha kāyādayoti āpannaṃ, tato kammavācāya saddhiṃ āpattikarā dhammā sattāti āpajjati, evaṃ sati ‘‘cha āpattisamuṭṭhānānī’’ti vacanavirodho, tāni eva āpattikarā dhammā nāma. Atha tatthāpi kāyādayo ekato vā nānāto vā labbhanti, catūhākārehīti na yujjatīti ‘‘chahākārehi āpattiṃ āpajjatī’’ti vattabbaṃ siyāti evaṃ etāni suttapadāni virodhitāni honti. Kathaṃ avirodhitāni? Saviññattikāviññattikabhedabhinnattā. Kāyādīnaṃ yā kiriyā āpatti, naṃ ekaccaṃ kāyena saviññattikena āpajjati, ekaccaṃ saviññattikāya vācāya, ekaccaṃ saviññattikāhi kāyavācāhi āpajjati, yā pana akiriyā āpatti, taṃ ekaccaṃ kammavācāya āpajjati, tañca kho avasiṭṭhāhi aviññattikāhi kāyavācāhiyeva, na vinā ‘‘no ce kāyena vācāya paṭinissajjati, kammavācāpariyosāne āpatti saṅghādisesassā’’ti (pārā. 414) vacanato, avisesena vā ekaccaṃ āpattiṃ kāyena āpajjati, ekaccaṃ vācāya[Pg.559], ekaccaṃ kāyavācāhi. Yaṃ panettha kāyavācāhi, taṃ ekaccaṃ kevalāhi kāyavācāhi āpajjati, ekaccaṃ kammavācāya āpajjatīti ayamattho veditabboti evaṃ avirodhitāni honti.

324. One commits an offense by four modes… (etc.) …one commits an offense by a formal act. Herein, for the offense that one commits by a formal act, body and so forth are not present; this is the meaning that is reached. Therefore, it follows that, together with the formal act, the factors that cause an offense are seven. This being so, there would be a contradiction with the statement, “There are six origins of an offense,” for those very things are called the factors that cause an offense. Furthermore, if even in that case body and so forth are found either together or separately, then “by four modes” is not suitable, and it should be said, “one commits an offense by six modes.” Thus, these text passages are contradictory. How are they not contradictory? Because of the distinction between actions with intimation and without intimation. Of an offense that is an action of the body and so forth, one commits a certain one by the body with intimation, a certain one by speech with intimation, and a certain one by body and speech with intimation. But as for an offense that is not an action, one commits a certain one by a formal act, and that indeed is only by the remaining body and speech without intimation—not without them—because of the statement: “If one does not renounce by body or speech, at the conclusion of the formal act, there is an offense of Saṅghādisesa.” Or, without distinction, one commits a certain offense by the body, a certain one by speech, and a certain one by body and speech. Herein, of that which is committed by body and speech, one commits a certain one by mere body and speech, and a certain one by a formal act. This is the meaning that should be understood. In this way, they are not contradictory.

Tatrāyaṃ samāsato atthavibhāvanā – kāyena āpajjatīti kāyena saviññattikena akattabbaṃ katvā ekaccaṃ āpajjati, aviññattikena kattabbaṃ akatvā āpajjati, tadubhayampi kāyakammaṃ nāma. Akatampi hi loke ‘‘kata’’nti vuccati ‘‘dukkaṭaṃ mayā, yaṃ mayā puññaṃ na kata’’nti evamādīsu, sāsane ca ‘‘idaṃ te, āvuso ānanda, dukkaṭaṃ, yaṃ tvaṃ bhagavantaṃ na pucchī’’ti (cūḷava. 443) evamādīsu, evamidha vinayapariyāyena kāyena akaraṇampi ‘‘kāyakamma’’nti vuccati. Ayameva nayo ‘‘vācāya āpajjatī’’tiādīsu. Puratīti puriso, pura aggagamane. Puratīti purato gacchati sabbakammesu pubbaṅgamo hoti. Paṭhamuppannavasenāti paṭhamakappiyesu hi paṭhamaṃ purisaliṅgaṃ uppajjati, ‘‘purima’’nti saṅkhaṃ gataṃ purisaliṅgaṃ jāyatīti attho. Sataṃ tiṃsa cāti ettha asādhāraṇāpi pārājikā no antogadhāyeva jātā pārājikāpannānaṃ bhikkhubhāvāya abhabbattā. ‘‘Asādhāraṇavacanena pana sāmaññena uddhaṭānī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Satañceva tiṃsañca sikkhāpadānīti pāṭho’’ti ca vadanti. Bhikkhussa ca bhikkhuniyā ca catūsu pārājikesūti sādhāraṇesu eva. Atthi vatthunānattatā no āpattinānattatāti paṭhamapañho idha dutiyo nāma. Atthi āpattisabhāgatā no vatthusabhāgatāti etena viseso natthi. Mantābhāsāti matiyā bhāsā. ‘‘Abhivādanārahāti yathānisinnāva sīsaṃ ukkhipitvā vandanti. Navamabhikkhunito paṭṭhāya anuṭṭhitabbato āsanā na paccuṭṭhenti. Avisesenāti upajjhāyassa, itarassa vā vippakatabhojanassa, samīpagato yo koci vuḍḍhataroti attho. Vippakatabhojanenāpi hi uṭṭhahitvā āsanaṃ dātabbaṃ. Idha na kappantīti vadantopīti paccantimajanapadesu ṭhatvā ‘‘idha na kappantī’’ti vadanto vinayātisāradukkaṭaṃ āpajjati. Kappiyañhi ‘‘na kappatī’’ti vadanto paññattaṃ samucchindati nāma. Tathā idha kappantītiādīsupi ṭhatvā ‘‘idha kappantī’’ti vadanto vinayāgatabhikkhu vinayo pucchitabboti attho.

Herein, this is the concise explanation of the meaning. Regarding 'one falls into an offense by means of the body': one falls into a certain offense by doing with the body possessing intimation what ought not to be done, or by not doing with the body possessing non-intimation what ought to be done; both of these are called 'bodily action'. For even what is not done is called 'done' in the world, as in such cases as, “A wrong deed was done by me, in that merit was not done by me,” and in the Teaching, as in such cases as, “Friend Ānanda, this was a wrong deed for you, in that you did not ask the Blessed One” (Cūḷava. 443). Thus, according to the Vinaya method, even not doing by means of the body is called 'bodily action'. This very same method applies in cases such as 'one falls into an offense by means of speech'. Because he goes before (purati), he is called a person (purisa); the word 'pura' is in the sense of going foremost. 'Purati' means: he goes before, he is a forerunner in all actions. By way of being first arisen: for among the beings of the first aeon, the male characteristic arises first. The meaning is: the male characteristic, which has come to be designated as 'first' (purima), is born. Regarding 'one hundred and thirty': here, even the uncommon Pārājika offenses are not included, because those who have fallen into a Pārājika offense are unfit for the state of a bhikkhu. Some say, “But by the term ‘uncommon,’ they are excluded in a general sense.” And some say, “The reading is ‘one hundred and thirty training rules’.” Regarding 'in the four Pārājikas for a bhikkhu and for a bhikkhunī': this refers only to the common ones. The first question, 'Is there a variety of bases but not a variety of offenses?', is here called the second. By this phrase, 'Is there a commonality of offense but not a commonality of basis?', there is no distinction. 'Mantābhāsā' is speech with wisdom. Regarding 'worthy of salutation': they pay homage just as they are seated by raising their heads. Starting from the ninth bhikkhunī, because one should not stand up, they do not rise from their seats. Regarding 'without distinction': the meaning is any elder whatsoever who has approached a preceptor or another who has an unfinished meal. For even one with an unfinished meal should stand up and offer a seat. Regarding 'one who says, “Here it is not allowable”': one who, while staying in the border districts, says, “Here it is not allowable,” falls into a dukkaṭa offense of transgressing the Vinaya. For one who says of what is allowable, “It is not allowable,” is called one who cuts off the regulation. Similarly, one who, while staying there, says, “Here it is allowable,” and so on, [also cuts off the regulation]. The meaning is that a bhikkhu versed in the Vinaya should be asked about the Vinaya.

Pañcakavāravaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Section of Fives

325. Na [Pg.560] upeti puggalo. ‘‘Nimantito sabhatto samāno santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā’’ti (pāci. 299) vacanato nimantanābhāvā piṇḍapātikassa anāmantacāro vaṭṭati. ‘‘Gilānasamayo’’tiādinā ābhogaṃ katvā bhojanaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā bhojanaṃ nāma. ‘‘Mayhaṃ bhattapaccāsaṃ itthannāmassa dammī’’ti evaṃ avikappanā. Parammukhe aguṇavacanaṃ ayaso. Sammukhā garahā. Sīladiṭṭhibyasanānaṃ vinayapariyāpannattā tehi saddhiṃ itare pañcakaṃ pūretuṃ vuttā. ‘‘Vinayadharapañcamena gaṇenā’’ti (mahāva. 259) vuttattā pañcakaṃ jātaṃ. Aññatarasmiṃ vihāre eko theroti attho. ‘‘Yonakavisayatoti cīnaṭṭhānā’’ti likhitaṃ. Aṭṭha kappe anussarīti pubbenivāsañāṇaṃ nibbattesīti attho. Anantare ṭhāne ṭhatvāti attho. Ñattiyā kammappatto hutvāti ñattiṭṭhapitakāle kammappatto hoti. Puna kammavācāya kammasiddhi. Ñattikhettanti ñattiyāva kātabbaṭṭhānaṃ tassā khettaṃ, ñattidutiyādikamme paṭhamaṭṭhapanaṃ tassā okāso nāma. Āraññake idañcidañcānisaṃsanti evaṃ idamatthitanti attho.

325. A person is not liable. Because of the text, “Having been invited to a meal, without asking permission from a present monk” (Pāc. 299), and due to the absence of an invitation, wandering without being invited is allowable for one who lives on alms. By means of the phrase “The time of illness,” etc., having made a mental note and having determined the food, it is called eating. The statement “I give my share of the meal to so-and-so” is thus a case of non-disposal. Speaking of faults in one's absence is disgrace; in one's presence, it is censure. Because the misfortunes of conduct and view are included in the Vinaya, the others are mentioned together with them in order to complete the pentad. Because it is said, “by a chapter with a Vinaya expert as the fifth” (Mahāva. 259), a pentad is formed. The meaning is: one elder in a certain monastery. It is written: ‘Regarding “from the country of the Yonakas,” it means “from the region of China.”’ Regarding “He recollected eight eons,” the meaning is: he produced the knowledge of previous existences. The meaning is: having stood in the adjacent place. Regarding “having become subject to the formal act by the motion,” at the time the motion is established, he becomes subject to the formal act. Then, by the proclamation of the formal act, the completion of the formal act occurs. The field of the motion means the place where something is to be done by the motion itself; that is its field. In a formal act with a motion as the second, etc., the first placement is called its occasion. Regarding a forest-dweller, the phrase “there is this and that benefit” means thus: this is desired.

Chakkavāravaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Section of Sixes

326. ‘‘Chabbassaparamatā dhāretabba’’nti vibhaṅge pāṭhattā evaṃ vuttaṃ. Cuddasaparamāni nava chakkāni honti. Kathaṃ? Paṭhamaṃ ekaṃ chakkaṃ, sesesu aṭṭhasu ekekena saddhiṃ ekekanti evaṃ tīṇi chakkāni antarapeyyāle vuttāni. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Catutthena āpattisamuṭṭhānena cha āpattiyo āpajjatī’’tiādinā nayena pañcamena, chaṭṭhena ca tīṇi chakkāni. Lobhādayo cha vivādamūlāni, tathā anuvādassa. Dīghaso cha vidatthiyo vassikasāṭikāya. Tiriyaṃ cha vidatthiyo sugatacīvarassa. Vippakatacīvaraṃ ādāya pakkamane niṭṭhānantiko, sanniṭṭhānanāsana savana sīmātikkantikasahubbhārāti cha, samādāya vārepi chāti chakkadvayaṃ. Sattake pakkamanantikena saha satta.

326. “A maximum of six years should be kept”—because this text is found in the Vibhaṅga, it is thus stated. The fourteen maxima consist of nine sets of six. How so? The first is one set of six; with each of the remaining eight, there is one each. Thus, three sets of six are stated in the intermediate abbreviation section (antarapeyyāla). How so? By the method beginning with, “Through the fourth origin of an offense, one commits six offenses,” and similarly with the fifth and the sixth, there are three sets of six. Greed and so forth are the six roots of dispute; likewise for accusation. The rains-bathing cloth is six spans in length. The Sugata's robe is six spans in width. In the case of departing with an unfinished robe, there are six types of withdrawal of the kathina privilege: ending with completion (niṭṭhānantika), ending with determination (sanniṭṭhāna), ending with loss (nāsana), ending with hearing (savana), ending with crossing the boundary (sīmātikkantika), and ending with the Sangha's withdrawal (sahubbhāra). In the section on undertaking, there are also six. Thus, there are two sets of six. In the section of sevens, together with ending with departure (pakkamanantika), there are seven.

Sattakavāravaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Section of Sevens

327. Chakke [Pg.561] vuttāniyeva sattakavasena yojetabbānīti chakke vuttacuddasaparamāni sattakavasena yojetabbāni. Sattame aruṇuggamane nissaggiyanti ‘‘chārattaparamaṃ tena bhikkhunā tena cīvarena vippavasitabbaṃ, tato ce uttari vippavaseyyā’’ti evaṃ vuttaṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Campeyyakkhandhake sugatacīvarabhāṇavārassa parato ‘‘idha pana, bhikkhave, bhikkhussa na hoti āpatti daṭṭhabbā, tamenaṃ codeti saṅgho vā sambahulā vā ekapuggalo vā’’tiādinā nayena vuttasattakāti.

327. The phrase 'What was stated in the section of sixes is to be applied in the manner of the section of sevens' means that the fourteen maxima stated in the section of sixes are to be applied in the manner of the section of sevens. As for the phrase, 'At the seventh sunrise, it is to be relinquished': the robe spoken of thus, 'For a maximum of six nights, that monk may be separated from that robe; if he should be separated beyond that,' becomes subject to relinquishment. In the Campeyyakkhandhaka, after the recitation section on the Sugata's robe, the sets of seven are stated by the method beginning with, 'Herein, O monks, it should be understood that there is no offense for the monk. The Saṅgha, or a group, or an individual may accuse him.'

Aṭṭhakavāravaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Section of Eights

328. Tena saddhiṃ uposathādikaraṇaṃ ānisaṃso, akaraṇaṃ ādīnavo, tasmā ete aṭṭhānisaṃse sampassamānenāti attho. ‘‘Ayaso akkoso’’ti vuttaṃ. Pubbevassa hoti ‘‘musā bhaṇissa’’nti, bhaṇantassa hoti ‘‘musā bhaṇāmī’’ti, bhaṇitassa hoti ‘‘musā mayā bhaṇita’’nti, vinidhāya diṭṭhiṃ khantiṃ ruciṃ bhāvaṃ saññanti evaṃ akappiyakataṃ hoti appaṭiggahitakatantiādayo aṭṭha anatirittā. Sappiādi aṭṭhame aruṇuggamane nissaggiyaṃ hoti. Aṭṭhavācikā bhikkhunīnaṃ upasampadā ubhatoñatticatutthattā. Vassikasāṭikadānādīni aṭṭha varāni.

328. With that monk, performing the Uposatha and other duties is a benefit, and not performing them is a drawback. Therefore, the meaning is 'by one who is clearly seeing these eight benefits.' It is said, 'Abuse is disrepute.' Before speaking, one thinks, 'I will speak falsely'; while speaking, one thinks, 'I am speaking falsely'; after speaking, one thinks, 'I have spoken falsely'; having laid aside view, tolerance, preference, disposition, and perception; thus what is done improperly is what is not received—these and others are the eight, no more. Ghee and so on becomes subject to forfeiture at the eighth sunrise. The ordination of nuns has eight verbal announcements because it is a motion-as-fourth-act by both Sanghas. The giving of the rains-cloth and so on are eight boons.

Navakavāravaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Chapter of Nines

329. Navahi bhikkhūhi bhijjati. Manussamaṃsavajjehi nava maṃsehi vinicchayo. Sundaraṃ na sundaranti saṅghāṭiādīni nava cīvarāni. Tāneva adhiṭṭhitakālato paṭṭhāya na vikappetabbāni, adhiṭṭhitakālato paṭṭhāya apaccuddharitvā na vikappetabbānīti adhippāyo. Nava vidatthiyo sugatacīvarassa. ‘‘Vaggaṃ bhikkhunisaṅghaṃ vaggasaññī ovadatī’’tiādinā nayena adhammakamme dve navakāni pācittiyavasena vuttāni.

329. A schism is created by nine monks. A decision is made concerning nine kinds of meat, excluding human flesh. There are nine robes, such as the Saṅghāṭi, etc., whether beautiful or not. The meaning is that those same robes, from the time of determination onwards, should not be placed under joint ownership; from the time of determination onwards, without having withdrawn the determination, they should not be placed under joint ownership. The Sugata’s robe is nine spans. By the method beginning with, 'Perceiving a faction of the nuns' Sangha as a faction, one admonishes them,' in the case of an unlawful act, two sets of nine are stated by way of a Pācittiya offense.

Dasakavāravaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Chapter of Tens

330. ‘‘Oramattakañca adhikaraṇaṃ hoti, na ca gatigata’’ntiādinā (cūḷava. 204) dasa adhammikā salākaggāhā. Viparītā dhammikā. Samathakkhandhake vuttehi [Pg.562] samannāgato hotīti sambandho. ‘‘Saṃkaccikaṃ vā pakkhipitvā dasā’’ti vuttaṃ kappiyattā etesaṃ. Māturakkhitādayo dasa itthiyo. Dhanakkītādayo dasa bhariyā. ‘‘Sikkhāsammutiṃ datvā dasavassāya tassā dvādasavassakāle sayampi dvādasavassā bhavissatī’’ti vuṭṭhāpanasammuti sāditabbā. ‘‘Vinayadharasseva ‘āpattānāpattiṃ na jānātī’ti ārabbha yāva ‘ubhayāni kho panassa…pe… anubyañjanaso’ti pañcaṅgāni vatvā punapi ‘āpattānāpattiṃ na jānāti’cceva ārabbha yāva ‘adhikaraṇe ca na vinicchayakusalo hotī’ti pañca vuttā, te tathā tathā pañca pañca katvā dasa hontī’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Dasavassāya bhikkhuniyā nissayo dātabbo’’ti ekaccesu potthakesu natthi, kiñcāpi natthi, pāṭho eva pana hoti.

330. By the text beginning with, “A dispute that is minor and not recurring,” there are ten unlawful takings of voting tickets. The opposite are the lawful ones. The connection should be understood as: he is endowed with what is stated in the Samathakkhandhaka. It is said, “Having inserted a shoulder-strap or the fringes,” because of the allowability of these. Ten women, such as those protected by their mother. The agreement for ordination should be sought with the understanding that “having given the training permission to a ten-year-old, when she is twelve years old, she (the preceptor) herself will also be twelve years ordained.” It is written: “Regarding one who upholds the Vinaya, beginning with ‘he does not know offenses and non-offenses,’ up to ‘both…and so on…in detail,’ five factors are stated; and again, beginning with the very text ‘he does not know offenses and non-offenses,’ up to ‘and he is not skilled in settling a dispute,’ five are stated. Those, having been made five and five in that respective way, become ten.” The text, “Support should be given to a bhikkhunī of ten years' standing,” is not found in some books; although it is not found, it is indeed the root text.

Ekādasakavāravaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Chapter of Elevens

331. Na vodāyanti na pakāsenti. Rogameva rogātaṅkaṃ. Rogantarāyaṃ vā.

331. `Na vodāyanti` means they do not reveal. Illness itself is the affliction of illness, or the danger from illness.

Ekuttarikanayavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The commentary on the numerical sequence is complete.

Uposathādipucchāvissajjanāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Questions and Answers Concerning the Uposatha and So On

332. ‘‘Saṅghaṃ, bhante, pavāremī’’tiādi pavāraṇakathā nāma vinītagāthāsu viya.

332. “Venerable sirs, I invite the Saṅgha,” and so on, is called the Pavāraṇā Talk, as in the Vinīta Gāthās.

Atthavasapakaraṇavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Section on the Reasons of Purpose

334. Dasa atthavase paṭiccāti ettha tassa tassa sikkhāpadassa paññāpane guṇavisesadīpanato, apaññāpane ādīnavadassanato ca saṅghasuṭṭhutā hoti. Tattha yathāsambhavaṃ lokavajjassa apaṇṇattisambhavassa paññāpane payogavisuddhi guṇo. Paṇṇattisambhavassa pana sekhiyassa lokavajjassa paññāpane [Pg.563] paṭipattivisuddhi guṇo, paṇṇattivajjassa āsayavisuddhi guṇo appicchādiguṇāvahanato, tenevāha ‘‘subharatāya suposatāya appicchatāya appicchassa vaṇṇaṃ bhāsitvā’’ti. Samaṇācāravisuddhi cassa guṇoti veditabbaṃ. Atha vā lokavajjassa paññāpane saṅghasuṭṭhutā hoti pākaṭādīnavato, paṇṇattivajjassa paññāpane saṅghaphāsutā hoti pākaṭānisaṃsattā. Tathā paṭhamena dummaṅkūnaṃ niggaho, dutiyena pesalānaṃ phāsuvihāro, paṭhamena samparāyikānaṃ āsavānaṃ paṭighāto, dutiyena diṭṭhadhammikānaṃ, tathā paṭhamena appasannānaṃ pasādo, dutiyena pasannānaṃ bhiyyobhāvo, tathā paṭhamena saddhammaṭṭhiti, dutiyena vinayānuggaho hotīti veditabbo. Parivāranayena vā paṭhamena pāpicchānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pakkhupacchedo, dutiyena gihīnaṃ anukampā hoti. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘dve atthavase paṭicca tathāgatena sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññattaṃ gihīnaṃ anukampāya pāpicchānaṃ pakkhupacchedāyā’’ti (pari. 498). Tathā diṭṭhadhammikasamparāyikānaṃ verānaṃ vajjānaṃ akusalānaṃ vasenapi yojanā kātabbā. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘dve atthavase…pe… paññattaṃ diṭṭhadhammikānaṃ verānaṃ samparāyikānaṃ verānaṃ paṭighātāyā’’tiādi (pari. 498). Apicettha sabbampi akataviññattipaṭisaṃyuttaṃ, gihīnaṃ pīḷāpaṭisaṃyuttaṃ, tesaṃ pasādabhogakkhayarakkhāpaṭisaṃyuttañca gihīnaṃ anukampāya paññattaṃ nāma, kuladūsakagaṇabhojanāni pāpicchānaṃ pakkhupacchedāya paññattaṃ. Sabbaṃ lokavajjaṃ diṭṭhadhammikasamparāyikaverādipaṭighātāya, mātugāmena saṃvidhānaṃ diṭṭhadhammikaverādisaṃvarāya paññattanti veditabbaṃ. Apicettha ādito paṭṭhāya dasaatthavasapakaraṇameva nissāya vinicchayo veditabbo.

334. “For ten reasons” — here, the establishment of each training rule, by demonstrating special qualities and by seeing the dangers if not established, results in the Saṅgha’s well-being. In this regard, as appropriate: for the establishment of what is blameworthy in the world, which is unsuitable for prescription, the benefit is the purification of effort. But for the establishment of what is suitable for prescription, namely the Sekhiya rules which are blameworthy in the world, the benefit is the purification of practice. For what is an offense by prescription, the benefit is the purification of intention, as it brings about qualities such as fewness of wishes; for that reason he said, “for ease of support, for ease of sustenance, for fewness of wishes, having spoken in praise of one with few wishes.” Alternatively, the establishment of what is blameworthy in the world ensures the Saṅgha’s well-being because of its obvious drawbacks, while the establishment of what is an offense by prescription ensures the Saṅgha’s comfort due to its obvious benefits. Thus, by the first, the restraint of the ill-behaved; by the second, the comfortable living of the virtuous. By the first, the prevention of future influxes; by the second, of present ones. Similarly, by the first, the inspiring of faith in the unfaithful; by the second, the increase of faith in the faithful. Similarly, by the first, the stability of the True Dhamma; by the second, the support of the Discipline—this should be understood. Or, according to the method of the Parivāra, by the first, the cutting off of the faction of wicked bhikkhus; by the second, compassion for householders. As it is said: “For two reasons the Tathāgata has laid down a training rule for his disciples: out of compassion for householders and for the cutting off of the faction of wicked bhikkhus.” Similarly, the connection should be made with reference to present and future enmities, faults, and unwholesome things. As it is said: “For two reasons… it has been laid down for the prevention of present enmities and future enmities,” and so on. Moreover, here, every rule connected with improper asking, connected with oppressing householders, and connected with protecting their faith and wealth from destruction is laid down out of compassion for householders. The rules on corrupting families and group meals are laid down for the cutting off of the faction of wicked bhikkhus. Everything blameworthy in the world is laid down for the prevention of present and future enmities, and so on. Making arrangements with a woman is laid down for the restraint of present enmities, and so on—this should be understood. Moreover, here, from the beginning, the judgment should be understood based solely on the section on the ten reasons.

Vatthuvītikkamena yaṃ, ekantākusalaṃ bhave;

Taṃ saṅghasuṭṭhubhāvāya, paññattaṃ lokavajjato.

Whatever training rule is entirely unwholesome by transgressing its object, that is laid down for the well-being of the Saṅgha because it is blameworthy in the world.

Pārājikādiṃ,

The Pārājika and so on,

Paññattijānaneneva, yatthāpatti na aññathā;

Taṃ dhammaṭṭhitiyā vāpi, pasāduppādabuddhiyā.

Wherein an offense is incurred only by knowing the prescription, and not otherwise, that is laid down for the stability of the Dhamma, or for the purpose of giving rise to confidence.

Dhammadesanāpaṭisaṃyuttaṃ itarañca sekhiyaṃ, idaṃ paṇṇattisambhavaṃ lokavajjaṃ nāma. Vatthuno, paññattiyā vā vītikkamacetanāyābhāvepi paṭikkhittassa karaṇe, kattabbassa akaraṇe vā sati yattha āpatti pahoti, taṃ sabbaṃ ṭhapetvā surāpānaṃ paṇṇattivajjanti veditabbaṃ. Tattha ukkoṭanake pācittiyaṃ, ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu dhammikānaṃ kammānaṃ chandaṃ datvā pacchā khīyanadhammaṃ āpajjeyya, pācittiyaṃ (pāci. 475), yo pana bhikkhu saṅghe vinicchayakathāya vattamānāya [Pg.564] chandaṃ adatvā uṭṭhāyāsanā pakkameyya, pācittiyaṃ (pāci. 480), yo pana bhikkhu samaggena saṅghena cīvaraṃ datvā pacchā khīyanadhammaṃ āpajjeyya…pe… pācittiya’’nti (pāci. 485) evamādi saṅghaphāsutāya paññattaṃ. ‘‘Aññavādake vihesake pācittiyaṃ (pāci. 101), pārājikādīhi anuddhaṃsane saṅghādisesādi ca dummaṅkūnaṃ niggahāya, anupakhajjanikkaḍḍhanaupassūtisikkhāpadādi pesalānaṃ phāsuvihārāya, sabbaṃ lokavajjaṃ diṭṭhadhammikasamparāyikānaṃ āsavānaṃ paṭighātāya, sabbaṃ paṇṇattivajjaṃ diṭṭhadhammikānameva saṃvarāya. Sabbaṃ gihipaṭisaṃyuttaṃ appasannānaṃ vā pasādāya pasannānaṃ vā bhiyyobhāvāya ca. Visesena ariṭṭhasamaṇuddesasikkhāpadaṃ, sāmaññena paccayesu mariyādapaṭisaṃyuttañca saddhammaṭṭhitiyā, ‘‘appicchassāyaṃ dhammo, nāyaṃ dhammo mahicchassā’’ti (dī. ni. 3.358; a. ni. 8.30) ādisuttamettha sādhakaṃ. ‘‘Sikkhāpadavivaṇṇake (pāci. 439) mohanake pācittiya’’ntiādi (pāci. 444) vinayānuggahāya paññattanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Bhūtagāmapātabyatāya pācittiya’’nti (pāci. 90) idaṃ kimatthanti ce? Appasannānaṃ pasādāya, pasannānaṃ bhiyyobhāvāya ca. Kathaṃ?

The training rule connected with teaching the Dhamma and the other Sekhiya training rule, this is called a worldly offense arising from a prescription. Regarding the object or the rule, even in the absence of an intention to transgress, when there is the doing of what is prohibited or the not-doing of what should be done, wherever an offense arises, all that—except for the drinking of alcohol—is to be known as an offense by prescription. For overturning a formal act, it is a pācittiya offense: 'If a bhikkhu, having given consent to lawful formal acts, afterwards speaks disparagingly, it is a pācittiya' (Pāc. 475); 'If a bhikkhu, while a legal discussion is being conducted in the Saṅgha, rises from his seat and departs without having given consent, it is a pācittiya' (Pāc. 480); 'If a bhikkhu, having given a robe with a united Saṅgha, afterwards speaks disparagingly… it is a pācittiya' (Pāc. 485), and so on—these were prescribed for the comfort of the Saṅgha. 'For speaking evasively or for being vexatious, it is a pācittiya' (Pāc. 101); and the saṅghādisesa and so on for not censuring with pārājika and so on were prescribed for the restraint of the ill-behaved. The training rules concerning encroaching, dragging out, and eavesdropping, and so on, were prescribed for the comfortable living of the virtuous. All worldly offenses are for the warding off of cankers in the present life and in future lives. All offenses by prescription are for restraint only in the present life. All rules connected with householders are for inspiring faith in the unfaithful and for the increase of it in the faithful. Specifically, the training rule concerning the novice Ariṭṭha, and generally the one connected with the limit on requisites, were prescribed for the stability of the good Dhamma. 'This Dhamma is for the contented, not for the greedy' (Dī. Ni. 3.358; A. Ni. 8.30)—this sutta and so on is the authority here. 'For disparaging the training rules, it is a pācittiya' (Pāc. 439), 'for causing confusion, it is a pācittiya' (Pāc. 444), and so on—it should be known that these were prescribed to uphold the Vinaya. If it is asked, 'For what purpose was this rule, "It is a pācittiya for destroying plant life" (Pāc. 90), prescribed?' For inspiring faith in the unfaithful and for the increase of it in the faithful. How so?

‘‘Bhūtagāmo sajīvoti, avipallattadiṭṭhino;

Tassa kopanasaññāya, pasādo buddhasāvake.

'The plant world is alive,' thus is the view of those of unperverted view. Because of the perception of destroying it, faith arises in the Buddha's disciple who refrains from doing so.

‘‘Nijjīvasaññitaṃpetaṃ, akopento kathaṃ muni;

Jīvaṃ kopeyya niddoso, macchamaṃsānujānane.

The sage, not destroying even this which is perceived as lifeless, how could he destroy a living being? Therefore, he is faultless in allowing fish and meat.

Evampi –

Even so—

‘‘Tassa kopanasaññāya, pasādo buddhasāvake;

Yato titthakarāvime, viratā bhūtagāmato;

Lokassa cittarakkhatthaṃ, tatopi virato munī’’ti. –

Because of the perception of destroying it, faith arises in the Buddha's disciple. Since these sectarians abstain from destroying the plant world, for that reason, to protect the minds of the world, the sage also abstains from that.

Pasannānaṃ bhiyyobhāvo hoti.

There is an increase of faith for the faithful.

Vivittasenāsanabhogataṇhāvasenanijjīvamitārakkhaṃ;

Buddhobhininnañca vivajjayanto;

Sikkhāpadaṃ tattha ca paññapesi.

And wishing to avoid excessive blame—[people saying,] 'By the power of craving for enjoying various lodgings, he destroys this lifeless thing that has a guardian'—the Buddha laid down the training rule in that matter.

Nijjīvassāpi [Pg.565] maṃsassa, khādanakaṃ yatiṃ pati;

Nindamānaṃ janaṃ disvā, bhūtagāmaṃ pariccaji.

Seeing the people criticizing the ascetic who eats meat, even though it is lifeless, He proscribed [the destruction of] the plant world.

Tikoṭiparisuddhattā, macchamaṃsānujānane;

Paṭicca maṃsānujānanaṃ, kamme diṭṭhippasaṅgabhayā.

The allowance of fish and meat is due to its purity in three aspects; it should be known that the allowance of meat is on account of fear of the occasion of wrong view concerning kamma.

Aparikkhakassa lokassa, parānuddayatāya ca;

Bhūtagāmapātabyatāya, pāṇātipātappasaṅgabhayā.

For the uninvestigating world, and out of compassion for others, the rule regarding the destruction of the plant world was laid down out of fear of the occasion of destroying life.

Tattha pariyāyavacanaṃ anujāni bhagavā, uddissa kataṃ paṭikkhipi parassa vā pāpappasaṅgabhayena. Idha pana bhūtagāmapātabyatāya pāpābhāvañāpanatthaṃ attuddesikaṃ vihāraṃ, kuṭiñca anujānīti veditabbaṃ. Pakiriyanti ettha te te payojanavisesasaṅkhātā atthavasāti atthavasapakaraṇanti.

In that case [of meat], the Blessed One permitted indirect speech; he rejected what was prepared specifically for him, out of fear of the occasion of evil for another. But here, in the matter of destroying the plant world, it should be known that he allowed a monastery and a hut intended for oneself for the purpose of making known the absence of evil. Herein, those various grounds of benefit, known as specific purposes, are set forth. Therefore, this is the Section on the Grounds of Benefit.

Mahāvaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Mahāvagga is concluded.

Paṭhamagāthāsaṅgaṇikavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the First Collection of Verses

Sattanagaresu paññattasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Training Rules Promulgated in the Seven Towns

335. Vacanasampaṭicchanatthe [Pg.566] vā nipātoti attho. Aḍḍhuḍḍhasatānīti tīṇi satāni, paññāsāni ca. Viggahanti manussaviggahaṃ. Atirekaṃ vāti dasāhaparamaṃ atirekacīvaraṃ. Kāḷakanti ‘‘suddhakāḷakāna’’nti (pārā. 552-554) vuttakāḷakaṃ. Bhūtanti bhūtārocanaṃ. Paramparabhattanti paramparabhojanaṃ. Bhikkhunīsu ca akkosoti yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuṃ akkoseyya vā paribhāseyya vā (pāci. 1029). Antaravāsakanti aññātikāya bhikkhuniyā cīvarapaṭiggahaṇaṃ. Rūpiyanti rūpiyasabbohāraṃ. Suttanti sāmaṃ suttaṃ viññāpetvā tantavāyehi. Ujjhāpanaketi ujjhāpanake khīyanake. Pācitapiṇḍanti bhikkhunīpaapācitapiṇḍapātaṃ. Cārittanti nimantito sabhatto samāno santaṃ. Cīvaraṃ datvāti samaggena saṅghena cīvaraṃ datvā. Vosāsantīti bhikkhū paneva kulesu nimantitā bhuñjanti (pāci. 558), tattha cesā. Giraggacariyāti ‘‘yā pana bhikkhunī naccaṃ vā gītaṃ vā’’ti (pāci. 834) ca, ‘‘antovassaṃ cārikaṃ careyyā’’ti (pāci. 970) ca vuttadvayaṃ. Chandadānenāti pārivāsikachandadānena sikkhamānaṃ vuṭṭhāpeyya (pāci. 1167). Pārājikāni cattāri, bhikkhunīnaṃ saññācikakuṭiñca kosiyamissasanthatañca seyyā ca anupasampannena saha pathavīkhaṇanaṃ. Gaccha devateti bhūtagāmapātabyatā sappāṇakaudakasiñcananti attho. Mahāvihāroti mahallakavihāro. Aññanti aññavādakaṃ. Dvāranti yāvadvārakosā. ‘‘Anādariyapācittīti ca sahadhammikaṃ vuccamāno’’ti pāṭho. Payopānanti surusurukārakaṃ. Eḷakalomāni patto cāti eḷakalomadhovāpanañca ūnapañcabandhanapatto ca. Ovādo ceva bhesajjanti bhikkhunupassayaṃ upasaṅkamitvā ovādo taduttaribhesajjaviññāpanañca. Sūci araññakoti ‘‘aṭṭhimayaṃ vā dantamayaṃ vā visāṇamayaṃ vā sūcighara’’nti (pāci. 517) ca ‘‘yāni kho pana tāni āraññakāni senāsanāni sāsaṅka…pe… paṭidesetabba’’nti (pāci. 570) ca. Ovādoti yā pana bhikkhunī ovādāya vā saṃvāsāya vā na gaccheyya (pāci. 1055). Pārājikāni cattārītiādi dvīsu nagaresu paññattasampiṇḍanaṃ.

335. The particle `vā` is in the sense of accepting a statement; this is the meaning. Aḍḍhaḍḍhasatāni means three hundred and fifty. Viggaha means a human body. Atirekaṃ vā refers to the training rule concerning an extra robe for a maximum of ten days. Kāḷaka refers to the Kāḷaka training rule mentioned in the phrase “of pure black” (suddhakāḷakāna). Bhūta refers to the training rule on reporting a true attainment (bhūtārocana). Paramparabhatta refers to the training rule on eating consecutively (paramparabhojana). “And reviling among bhikkhunīs” refers to the rule: “if a bhikkhunī reviles or abuses a bhikkhu” (Pāc. 1029). Antaravāsaka refers to the training rule on accepting a robe from a bhikkhunī who is not a relative. Rūpiya refers to the training rule on monetary transactions (rūpiyasabbohāra). Sutta refers to the training rule on personally requesting thread and having it woven by weavers. Ujjhāpanaka refers to the training rule on being contemptuous and complaining (ujjhāpanake khīyanake). Pācitapiṇḍa refers to the training rule on almsfood arranged by a bhikkhunī (bhikkhunīparipācitapiṇḍapāta). Cāritta refers to the training rule concerning one who, having been invited for a meal, goes to a family's house without informing a bhikkhu who is present. Cīvaraṃ datvā means giving a robe with the unanimous consent of the Saṅgha. Vosāsanti refers to the context where “bhikkhus, having been invited, eat in the families’ houses” (Pāc. 558), and this bhikkhunī is there. Giraggacariyā refers to the two training rules mentioned: “if a bhikkhunī dances or sings” (Pāc. 834) and “should wander on tour during the rains” (Pāc. 970). Chandadānena refers to ordaining a sikkhamānā by giving the formal act of consent for a probationer (Pāc. 1167). The four Pārājika offenses of the bhikkhunīs, and the training rule on a hut built by request, and the one on a felt rug mixed with silk, and the one on sleeping together with an unordained person, and the one on digging the earth. Gaccha devatā means the training rule on the destruction of plant life (bhūtagāmapātabyatā) and the one on pouring water containing living beings; this is the meaning. Mahāvihāra means a large monastery. Añña refers to the training rule on evasive speech (aññavādaka). Dvāra refers to the Yāvadvārakosā training rule. The reading is “and the pācittiya for lack of respect, when being spoken to on a matter of the Dhamma.” Payopāna refers to making a slurping sound. Eḷakalomāni patto ca refers to the training rule on having goat's wool washed and the one on a bowl with fewer than five mends. Ovāda and bhesajja refer to the training rule on going to a bhikkhunī's residence for an exhortation and the one on then requesting further medicine. Sūci and araññaka refer to the two training rules mentioned: “a needle case made of bone, ivory, or horn” (Pāc. 517) and “those wilderness dwellings that are dangerous… should be confessed” (Pāc. 570). Ovāda refers to the rule: “if a bhikkhunī does not go for an exhortation or for communion” (Pāc. 1055). Pārājikāni cattārītiādi refers to the summary of the rules laid down in the two cities.

Catuvipattivaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Four Failures

336. Ekatiṃsā [Pg.567] ye garukāti ubhato aṭṭha pārājikā, bhikkhūnaṃ terasa, bhikkhunīnaṃ dasa ca saṅghādisesā. Sādhāraṇāsādhāraṇavasena aṭṭha anavasesā nāma pārājikāni. Tadevāti sīlavipattiṃyeva. Vitthārato dassetuṃ ‘‘pārājika’’ntiādinā apucchitameva vissajjitaṃ. ‘‘Tattha yo cāyaṃ, akkosati hasādhippāyo’’ti pāṭho. Duṭṭhullavibhāvanavasenāgatavipattiṃ ṭhapetvā pucchāpaṭipāṭiyā yāvatatiyakapañhaṃ vissajjitumārabhi. Ukkhittānuvattikā bhikkhunī aṭṭha yāvatatiyakasaṅghādisesā idha pucchitattā anantarapañhā nāma jātā.

336. Regarding 'Thirty-one are grave offenses': there are eight pārājikas for both communities, thirteen saṅghādisesas for bhikkhus, and ten saṅghādisesas for bhikkhunīs. By way of being common and uncommon, the eight pārājikas are called offenses 'without remainder'. Regarding 'that very thing', it refers only to the transgression of virtue. To explain in detail, by means of 'pārājika', etc., he answered the very question that was asked. Therein, there is the reading: 'yo cāyaṃ, akkosati hasādhippāyo'. Setting aside the failure that has come by way of explaining the grave offenses, he began to answer the 'as far as the third time' questions in the order of questioning. The bhikkhunī who follows an expelled one and the eight 'as far as the third time' saṅghādisesas, because they are asked about here, have become what are called the 'immediately following questions'.

Chedanakādivaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Rules Requiring Cutting, etc.

337. Pamāṇātikkantamañcanisīdanakaṇḍupaṭicchādivassikasāṭikāsugatacīvarappamāṇaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ udakasāṭikāti cha chedanakāni. Cīvaravippavāsasammutiādayo catasso sammutiyo. ‘‘Ayaṃ tattha sāmīcī’’ti evaṃ āgatā satta sāmīciyo.

337. The six rules that are chedanaka (requiring cutting) are: those concerning a couch, a sitting-cloth, an itch-covering, a rains-cloth, and the measure of the Sugata's robe, all of which are in excess of the proper measurement; and the water-cloth for bhikkhunīs. The four rules involving permissions are those beginning with the permission to be separated from one's robes. The seven rules concerning proper conduct are those that have come down thus: 'This is proper conduct there'.

Asādhāraṇādivaṇṇanā

Explanation of the Uncommon, etc.

338. Pubbe vuttacuddasaparamāneva antarapañhe niṭṭhapetvā purimapañhaṃ vissajjento. Dhovanañca paṭiggahoti gāthā aṭṭhakathācariyānaṃ. Dve lomāni eḷakalomatiyojanaparamāni.

338. Having concluded in the intermediate question the fourteen paramas previously mentioned, he, answering the former question, said: The verse 'Dhovanañca paṭiggaho' is a verse of the commentary teachers. The two rules concerning wool are the training rules called 'Sheep's Wool' and 'The Three-Yojana Limit'.

Dvevīsati khuddakāti –

The twenty-two minor rules are:

‘‘Sakalo bhikkhunivaggo, paramparañca bhojanaṃ;

Anatirittaṃ abhihaṭaṃ, paṇītañca acelakaṃ;

Jānaṃ duṭṭhullachādanaṃ.

“The entire Bhikkhunīvagga; successive eating; bringing forward food not designated as a leftover; exquisite food; and a naked ascetic; knowingly concealing a grave offense.

‘‘Ūnaṃ mātugāmena saddhiṃ, yā ca anikkhantarājake;

Santaṃ bhikkhuṃ anāpucchā, vikāle gāmappavesanaṃ.

Making an arrangement together with a woman; and whichever training rule concerns a district where the king has not departed; entering a village at the wrong time without asking a bhikkhu who is present.

‘‘Nisīdane ca yā sikkhā, vassikāya ca sāṭikā;

Dvāvīsati imā sikkhā, khuddakesu pakāsitā’’ti. –

And the training rule concerning the sitting-cloth, and the rains-cloth; these twenty-two training rules are declared among the minor ones.”

Pāṭho[Pg.568]. ‘‘Kulesu cārittāpattī’’ti pāṭho na gahetabbo sādhāraṇattā tassa sikkhāpadassa. Chacattārīsā cimeti chacattārīsa ime. ‘‘Pārājikāni saṅghādiseso’’ti evaṃ vuttasikkhāpade eva vibhajitvā vuttattā vibhattiyo nāma. Sādhāraṇanti aṭṭhannampi sādhāraṇaṃ. Pārājikabhūtā vibhattiyo pārājikavibhattiyo. Sādhāraṇe sattavajjo saṅghādiseso. Aññatarasmiṃ gaṇṭhipade ‘‘atha vā ‘dve uposathā dve pavāraṇā cattāri kammāni pañceva uddesā caturo bhavanti, naññathā’ti pāḷiṃ uddharanti. Tattha ‘cattāri kammānī’ti visesābhāvā uddharitapotthakameva sundaraṃ, pubbepi vibhattimattadassanavaseneva cetaṃ vuttaṃ. ‘Na samathehi vūpasamanavasenā’ti vatvā cattāri kammavibhajane ‘samathehi vūpasammatī’ti na visesitaṃ uposathappavāraṇānaṃyeva vibhāgattā. Kasmā? Etthāpi ‘uposathappavāraṇānaṃyeva visesetvā nayaṃ dethā’ti vuttattā, adhammena vaggādikammena āpattiyopi vūpasammantīti āpajjanatoti veditabba’’nti vuttaṃ, vicāretabbaṃ. Dvīhi catūhi tīhi kiccaṃ ekenāti dvīhi vivādādhikaraṇaṃ, catūhi anuvādādhikaraṇaṃ, tīhi āpattādhikaraṇaṃ, ekena kiccādhikaraṇaṃ sammatīti attho.

The reading. The reading “Kulesu cārittāpattī” is not to be taken, as that training rule is common. The phrase `chacattārīsā cime` is to be divided as `chacattārīsa ime` (these forty-six). “Pārājikas, saṅghādisesas”—because they are stated having divided only the aforementioned training rules, they are called classifications. `Sādhāraṇa` means common to all eight. The classifications that have become Pārājika are Pārājika-classifications. In the common section, the Saṅghādisesa group is with seven excluded. In a certain knotty passage, they cite the Pāḷi: “Or else, ‘two uposathas, two pavāraṇās, four formal acts, and five recitations become four, not otherwise.’” There, regarding “four formal acts,” because there is no distinction, the cited text itself is good; and previously, this was stated merely by way of showing the classification. Having said, “Not by way of pacification through settlements,” in the analysis of the four formal acts, it is not specified that “it is pacified by settlements,” because only the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are analyzed. Why? Because here too it is said, “Give the method, specifying only for Uposatha and Pavāraṇā,” and because it would follow that offenses are also pacified unlawfully. It is stated, “This should be understood,” and it should be investigated. Regarding the phrase 'by two, by four, by three, a duty by one,' the meaning is: a legal issue of dispute is settled by two settlements; a legal issue of accusation, by four; a legal issue of an offense, by three; and a legal issue of duties, by one.

Pārājikādiāpattivaṇṇanā

The Explanation of Offenses Beginning with Pārājika

339. Nibbacanamattanti vevacanamattaṃ. Seseti ādito sesā majjhantā. Padanti sikkhāpadaṃ. Saddhācittaṃ pasannacittanti attho, ‘‘santācitta’’nti vā pāṭho. Anāḷiyanti daliddaṃ. Kiñcāpi idaṃ nibbacanaṃ ‘‘garukaṃ lahukañcā’’tiādipañhe natthi, ‘‘handa vākyaṃ suṇoma te’’ti iminā pana vacanena saṅgahitassatthassa dīpanatthaṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Ākāso pakkhinaṃ gatī’’ti ca pāṭho atthi, so jātivasena yujjati. Pakkhīnanti ujukameva.

339. `Nibbacanamattaṃ` is just a synonym. In `sesa`, from the beginning, the remaining are the middle and the end. `Pada` is the training rule. `Saddhācittaṃ` means a mind with faith, a serene mind; or there is the reading `santācitta`. `Anāḷiya` means a poor person. Although this explanation is not found in the question beginning with 'grave and light,' it should be understood that it is stated to explain the meaning included by this statement, 'Come, let us hear your words.' There is also the reading, 'The sky is the path of birds,' and that reading is suitable by way of species. The word `pakkhīnaṃ` is straightforward.

Paṭhamagāthāsaṅgaṇikavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Commentary on the First Verse-Compilation is concluded.

Adhikaraṇabhedavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Divisions of Legal Issues

Ukkoṭanabhedādivaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Divisions of Reopening and so forth

340. Adhikaraṇaukkoṭena [Pg.569] samathānaṃ ukkoṭaṃ dassetunti adhikaraṇāni sattahi samathehi sammanti, tāni ukkoṭento satta samathe ukkoṭeti nāmāti adhippāyo. Pasavatīti sambhavati. ‘‘Anuvādādhikaraṇe labbhantī’tiādīni ‘dhammo adhammo’tiādīnaṃ samānattā tesu visesato labbhantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Anihatanti suttādinā. Avinicchitanti ‘‘āpattianāpattī’’tiādinā. ‘‘Tattha jātakaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ ukkoṭeti…pe… tiṇavatthārakaṃ ukkoṭetī’’ti daseva vuttā. ‘‘Sammukhāvinayapaṭiññātakaraṇayebhuyyasikā avuttattā ukkoṭetuṃ na sakkā, kammavācāpi tesaṃ natthi. Tasmā te ukkoṭetuṃ na sakkāti vadantī’’ti likhitaṃ. Pāḷimuttakavinicchayenevāti vinayalakkhaṇaṃ vinā kevalaṃ dhammadesanāmattavasenevāti attho. Khandhakato vā parivārato vā ānītasuttena. Nijjhāpenti dassenti. Pubbe dhammavinayena vinicchitaṃ adhikaraṇaṃ upajjhāyādīnaṃ atthāya ‘‘adhammaṃ dhammo’’tiādīni dīpetvāti attho. Visamāni kāyakammādīni nissitattā visamanissito. Evaṃ sesesu.

340. Regarding 'to show the reopening of the settlements by the reopening of legal issues': the intention is that legal issues are settled by the seven settlements, and one who reopens them is called one who reopens the seven settlements. `Pasavati` means it is possible. It is said: 'Because things such as "they are found in a legal issue of accusation" are similar to things such as "Dhamma, not-Dhamma," they are found specifically in those cases.' `Anihaṭa` means by the Sutta, etc. `Avinicchita` means by 'offense, no-offense,' etc. 'There, one reopens a legal issue that has arisen... one reopens a case settled by covering with grass'—thus only ten are stated. It is written: 'Because it is not stated, it is not possible to reopen cases settled by procedure-in-the-presence, acceptance of the claim, and decision by majority; for them there is also no formal act. Therefore, they say, it is not possible to reopen them.' Regarding 'by a decision apart from the Pāḷi alone': the meaning is, without the characteristic of the Vinaya, merely by the power of a Dhamma teaching alone. Or by a sutta brought from the Khandhaka or from the Parivāra. `Nijjhāpenti` means they explain, they show. The meaning is: having explained things such as 'not-Dhamma as Dhamma' for the sake of preceptors, etc., regarding a legal issue previously decided by the Dhamma and Vinaya. Because of relying on unbalanced bodily actions, etc., it is called `visamanissito` (relying on the unbalanced). It should be understood thus in the remaining cases.

Adhikaraṇanidānādivaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Origin of Legal Issues and so forth

342-3. Kiṃsambhāranti kiṃparikkhāraṃ, ettha kinti liṅgasāmaññamabyayaṃ. Pubbe uppannavivādaṃ nissāya pacchā uppajjanakavivādo vivādanidānaṃ nāma. Āpattādhikaraṇapaccayā catasso āpattiyo āpajjatīti bhikkhunī jānaṃ pārājikaṃ dhammaṃ paṭicchādeti pārājikaṃ, vematikā paṭicchādeti thullaccayaṃ, bhikkhu saṅghādisesaṃ paṭicchādeti pācittiyaṃ, ācāravipattiṃ paṭicchādeti dukkaṭaṃ. Pubbe kataukkhepaniyādikiccaṃ nissāya uppajjanakakiccānaṃ. Kīdisānaṃ? Samanubhāsanādīnaṃ vasena. Taṃ hīti adhikaraṇaṃ.

342-3. 'Kiṃsambhāraṃ' means 'what are the requisites' (kiṃparikkhāraṃ). Herein, the word 'kiṃ' is an indeclinable of general gender. A dispute that arises later, based on a dispute that has arisen previously, is called the origin of disputes. Due to the condition of a legal issue concerning an offense, one falls into four offenses: if a bhikkhunī, knowing, conceals a pārājika matter, she incurs a pārājika offense; if, being doubtful, she conceals it, she incurs a thullaccaya offense; if a bhikkhu conceals a saṅghādisesa offense, he incurs a pācittiya offense; if one conceals a corruption of conduct, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense. This concerns duties that are to arise based on previously performed acts such as suspension. Of what kind? By way of duties such as formal admonition, etc. Herein, `taṃ hi` refers to the legal issue.

344. Adhikaraṇesu yena adhikaraṇena sammanti, taṃ dassetunti yadā adhikaraṇehi sammanti, tadā kiccādhikaraṇeneva sammanti, na aññehīti [Pg.570] dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na ekantato adhikaraṇeneva sammantīti dassanatthaṃ.

344. To show by which legal issue among legal issues they are settled: when they are settled from legal issues, they are settled by the legal issue concerning procedure alone, not by others—this was stated to show this, not to show that they are settled absolutely by a legal issue alone.

348. Āpattādhikaraṇe saṅgho vivadatīti āpattānāpattīti evaṃ.

348. When the Saṅgha disputes about a legal issue concerning an offense, it disputes thus: 'Is it an offense or not an offense?'

353. Samuṭṭhānābhāvato sammukhāvinaye kammassa kiriyākaraṇamiccādinā avibhajitvāva sativinayādīnaṃ channaṃyeva cha samuṭṭhānāni vibhattāni. Taṃ kasmā? Kammasaṅgahābhāvena, sativinayādīnaṃ viya saṅghasammukhatādīnaṃ kiccayatā nāma natthīti adhippāyo.

353. Due to the absence of an origin, and without analyzing the `sammukhāvinaya` by way of 'the performance of an act,' and so forth, the six origins of only the six settlements beginning with `sativinaya` have been analyzed. Why is that? The meaning is this: due to the absence of the inclusion of a formal act, there is no such thing as a functional requirement for matters such as the presence of the Saṅgha, unlike for the settlements beginning with `sativinaya`.

Adhikaraṇabhedavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Kinds of Legal Issues is Concluded.

Dutiyagāthāsaṅgaṇikavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Second Verse Collection

Codanādipucchāvissajjanāvaṇṇanā

Explanation of Questions and Answers Beginning with Accusation

359. Viggāhikakathanti attho. Nisāmayāti sallakkhehi. ‘‘Kāraya’’ iti pāṭho. Pubbāparaṃ na jānāti, tasmā akovido hotīti eke. Ayaṃ pana duvidhepi kicce kenaci iriyāpathena.

359. 'Viggāhikakathā' means 'contentious speech'. 'Nisāmaya' means 'mark well'. There is also the reading 'kāraya'. Some say: "Because he does not know the antecedent and consequent, therefore he is unskilled." But this monk, in both kinds of duties, by some posture.

Codanākaṇḍavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Chapter on Accusation

Anuvijjakakiccavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Examiner's Duty

360. Anuvijjakapucchane ājīvavipatti na pucchitā. Pañcāpattikkhandhavasena ācāravipatti pucchitā. ‘‘Ājīvavipattiyāpi tatheva, saṅgahagamanato’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Ajjhāpajjanto’’ti pāṭho.

360. In questioning the examiner, corruption of livelihood is not asked about. Corruption of conduct is asked about in terms of the five aggregates of offenses. They say: “Corruption of livelihood is also included right there [in corruption of conduct], due to its inclusion.” There is also the reading 'ajjhāpajjanto'.

363. Tasmā na ca āmisaṃ nissāyāti sambandhitabbaṃ.

363. Therefore, it should be connected with 'na ca āmisaṃ nissāya'.

Cūḷasaṅgāmavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Minor Conflict

Anuvijjakassapaṭipattivaṇṇanā

The Exposition on the Practice of the Investigator

365. Ṭhānanisajjavatthādinissitāti [Pg.571] ‘‘evaṃ ṭhātabbaṃ evaṃ nisīditabba’’nti evamādikā. Saññājananatthanti ‘‘evaṃ vattabba’’nti evaṃ sañjānanatthaṃ. Anuvidhiyantenāti citte ṭhapentenāti attho. Lajjā sā nu khoti kiṃ sā lajjā ayaṃ parisāti adhippāyo. Anuyogavattaṃ kathāpetvāti ‘‘kimanuyogavattaṃ jānāsī’’ti pucchitvā teneva kathāpetvā. Ajānanappasaṅgā nāma aññāṇaṃ.

365. `Ṭhānanisajjavatthādinissitā` means: 'One should stand thus, one should sit thus,' and so on. `Saññājananatthaṃ` means: for the purpose of knowing, 'Thus it should be said.' `Anuvidhiyantena` means: by placing it in the mind. Regarding `Lajjā sā nu kho`, the intention is: 'Why does this assembly have such shame?' Regarding `Anuyogavattaṃ kathāpetvā`: Having asked, 'Do you know the duty of interrogation?' and having made him speak on that very topic. `Ajānanappasaṅgā` means ignorance.

367. ‘‘Bhayena bhayā gacchatī’’ti bhayena bhayahetu bhayā gacchatīti hetuvasena vuttaṃ. Yathā ‘‘rattattā pana duṭṭhattā ca chandā dosā ca gacchatī’’ti hi vuttaṃ, evaṃ.

367. Regarding 'Bhayena bhayā gacchati': `bhayena` means because of the cause that is fear; `bhayā gacchati` means one goes out of fear. This is stated in a causal sense. Just as it is said, 'One goes out of desire and out of aversion, because of being lustful and because of being malevolent,' so it is stated here.

Mahāsaṅgāmavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Great Conflict

Voharantenajānitabbādivaṇṇanā

The Exposition on What Should Be Known by One Who Speaks, and so on

375. Vaṇṇāvaṇṇoti nīlādivaṇṇavasena ca ārogyatthādiavaṇṇavasena ca vuttasukkavissaṭṭhi.

375. `Vaṇṇāvaṇṇa` is the aforementioned emission of semen, both in terms of color, such as blue, etc., and in terms of non-color (dispraise), such as for the sake of health, etc.

402. Bhūmipucchāti bhūmi puthavī jagatī cāti sabbāni pathavivevacanāni.

402. Regarding `Bhūmipucchā`: `bhūmi`, `puthavī`, and `jagatī`—all these are synonyms for `pathavī` (earth).

Kathinabhedavaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Dissolution of the Kathina

Kathinaatthatādivaṇṇanā

The Exposition on the Spreading of the Kathina, and so on

403-4. Kinti [Pg.572] kathaṃ. Anādiyadānaṃ tāvakālikavatthu. ‘‘Anāgatavasena anantarā hutvā’’ti udakāharaṇādipayogassa dhovanādipubbakaraṇassa pacchā uppajjanato, dhovanādikiriyañca sandhāya payogakaraṇato vuttaṃ. Purejātapaccaye panesa payogoti attho. Ekaṃ dhammampi na labhati attano purejātassa natthitāya.

`Kinti` should be understood to mean `kathaṃ` (how). `Anādiyadānaṃ` (a gift not taken first) is a temporary matter. Regarding 'being immediate in terms of the future': this is said because it arises after the preliminary act of washing, etc., which is associated with the application of fetching water, etc., and it is said with reference to the action of washing, etc., because of the performance of the application. But in the case of the pre-nascence condition, this is the application; this is the meaning. One does not obtain even one thing because of the non-existence of one's own pre-nascent basis.

Kathinādijānitabbavibhāgavaṇṇanā

The Exposition on the Division of Things to be Known Regarding the Kathina, and so on

412. Rūpādidhammesūti vaṇṇagandhādiaṭṭhakesu. ‘‘Vassānassa pacchimo māso’’ti (pārā. 218) vuttattā pacchime māse yasmiṃ vā tasmiṃ vā divase attharituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ.

412. `Rūpādidhammesu` refers to the octads beginning with color, smell, and so on. Because it is said, 'The last month of the rains,' it is established that it is permissible to spread it on any day whatsoever in that last month.

415. ‘‘Ādiccabandhunāti vuttattā theravacana’’nti vadanti.

415. They say, 'Because it is said, "by the kinsman of the sun," it is the word of the elders.'

Palibodhapañhābyākaraṇakathāvaṇṇanā

The Commentary on the Discourse on Answering Questions about Obstructions

415-6. Sanniṭṭhānantiko kathaṃ bahisīmāya uddharīyati? Bhikkhu akatacīvaraṃ samādāya pakkamati ‘‘na paccessa’’nti, tassa bahisīmāgatassa evaṃ hoti ‘‘nevimaṃ cīvaraṃ kāressa’’nti, evametassa bahisīmāgatassa uddharīyati. Kathaṃ antosīmāya? Akatacīvaraṃ samādāya pakkamati ‘‘na paccessa’’nti, tato tattha phāsuvihāraṃ alabhanto tameva vihāraṃ āgacchati, tassa cīvarapalibodhoyeva ṭhito, so ca ‘‘nevimaṃ cīvaraṃ kāressa’’nti citte uppanne chijjati, tasmā ‘‘antosīmāya uddharīyatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sanniṭṭhānantikaṃ duvidhaṃ ‘‘na paccessa’’nti āvāsapalibodhaṃ chinditvā tato punapi tameva vihāraṃ āgantvā ‘‘nevimaṃ cīvaraṃ kāressa’’nti sanniṭṭhānaṃ karoti, bahisīmāya ṭhatvā ‘‘nevimaṃ cīvaraṃ kāressaṃ na paccessa’’nti cittuppādena sanniṭṭhānantikaṃ hoti. Gāthāyampi ‘‘dve palibodhā apubbaṃ acarima’’nti idaṃ imameva sandhāya. ‘‘Āsāvacchediko kathaṃ antosīmāya[Pg.573]? Āsīsitena ‘tumhe vihārameva patthetha, ahaṃ pahiṇissāmī’ti vutto pubbe ‘na paccessa’nti āvāsapalibodhaṃ chinditvā gato puna taṃ vihāraṃ gantvā tena ‘nāhaṃ sakkomi dātu’nti pahito hotī’’ti likhitaṃ. ‘‘Atthāre hi sati uddhāro nāmā’’ti atthāraṃ vinā uddhāraṃ na labhanti, tasmā vuttaṃ. Purimā dveti ‘‘dve kathinuddhārā ekuppādā ekanirodhā’’ti vuttādhikāre paṭhamaṃ vuttā antarabbhārasahubbhārā. Na pakkamanantikādayo dve. Ekato nirujjhantīti uddhārabhāvaṃ pāpuṇantīti attho.

How is the sanniṭṭhānantika (determination-ending withdrawal) revoked outside the boundary? A bhikkhu, taking an unmade robe, departs thinking, 'I will not return.' For that bhikkhu who has gone outside the boundary, the thought arises thus: 'I will not make this robe.' Thus, for that one who has gone outside the boundary, it is revoked. How is it revoked inside the boundary? Taking an unmade robe, he departs thinking, 'I will not return.' Then, not obtaining a comfortable dwelling there, he returns to that same monastery. For him, the robe-impediment still stands. And that impediment is severed when the thought, 'I will not make this robe,' arises. Therefore, it is said, 'It is revoked inside the boundary.' The sanniṭṭhānantika is twofold: (1) having severed the residence-impediment by thinking, 'I will not return,' and then having returned to that same monastery, he makes the determination, 'I will not make this robe.' (2) While standing outside the boundary, the sanniṭṭhānantika occurs with the arising of the thought, 'I will not make this robe; I will not return.' In the verse too, this saying, 'The two impediments, neither preceding nor succeeding,' is said with reference to just this. How is the āsāvacchedika (hope-severing withdrawal) revoked inside the boundary? It is written: 'A bhikkhu, who was previously told by one who had expressed a wish, "You should desire the monastery itself; I will send it," having severed the residence-impediment by thinking, "I will not return," departed. Later, having gone to that monastery again, he is sent a message by that person, saying, "I am unable to give it."' 'For when there is the spreading, there is the withdrawal' means that without the spreading, they do not obtain the withdrawal; therefore, it is said. 'The first two' means: in the section where it is said, 'Two kathina withdrawals, of single arising, of single cessation,' the antarubbhāra (withdrawal during the interval) and sahubbhāra (simultaneous withdrawal), which were mentioned first, are meant. The two beginning with pakkamanantika (departure-ending) are not meant. 'They cease together' means they reach the state of withdrawal; this is the meaning.

Kathinabhedavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Dissolution of the Kathina is finished.

Paññattivaggavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Chapter on Designations is finished.

Upālipañcakavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Pentad of Upāli

Anissitavaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on Non-reliance

419. Kāyikaupaghātikā [Pg.574] nāma kāyena vītikkamo.

419. What is called a kāyikaupaghātikā is a transgression by means of the body.

Nappaṭippassambhanavaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on Non-subsiding

420. Omaddakārakoti omadditvā abhibhavitvā kārako.

420. Herein, regarding `omaddakārako`: it means a monk who acts by crushing and overpowering.

Vohāravaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on Conventional Usage.

424. Bhedakaravatthūni nissāya vivādādhikaraṇaṃ samuṭṭhāti, evaṃ yathāsaṅkhyaṃ gacchati. Kodhopanāhādidvādasamūlapayogaṃ vivādādhikaraṇaṃ, tathā sesesu. Osāraṇādīsu navasu ṭhānesu kammañattiyā karaṇaṃ. Dvīsu ṭhānesu ñattidutiyañatticatutthakammesu. Yasmā mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva ubhatovibhaṅgā asaṅgahitā, tasmā yaṃ kurundiyaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ gahetabbanti sambandho.

424. A legal issue of dispute arises based on grounds for schism; thus it proceeds according to the number. The application of the twelve roots beginning with anger and hostility is a legal issue of dispute; similarly for the remaining cases. In the nine instances beginning with rehabilitation, the procedure is done by the motion for a formal act. In two instances, it is done in acts with a motion and one announcement, and acts with a motion and three announcements. Because, by the method stated in the Great Commentary, both Vibhaṅgas are not included, therefore what is stated in the Kurundī commentary should be taken; this is how the connection should be made.

Diṭṭhāvikammavaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on the Formal Act of Disclosure of What Has Been Seen.

425. Tiṇṇannaṃ upari saha āpattiṃ desetuṃ na labbhanti. Kammanānāsaṃvāsakānaṃ laddhiggahitakova laddhinānāsaṃvāsako. ‘‘Avippavāsasīmāya ṭhitassā’’ti mahāsīmaṃ kira sandhāya vuttaṃ.

425. More than three monks are not permitted to confess an offense together. Among those not in communion regarding formal acts, one who has adopted a particular view is considered not in communion due to that view. The statement, 'for one standing within the non-separation boundary,' is said, it seems, with reference to the great boundary.

433. ‘‘Ummādā cittakkhepā’’ti pāṭho.

433. There is a reading: 'From madness, from derangement of mind'.

Musāvādavaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on False Speech.

444. Pariyāyena jānantassāti yassa kassaci jānantassa pariyāyena vuttamusāvādoti attho.

444. Herein, regarding the phrase 'for one who knows by an indirect method': the meaning is that for anyone who knows, a falsehood spoken by an indirect method is indeed a falsehood.

446. Anuyogo na dātabboti tena vuttaṃ anādiyitvā tuṇhī bhavitabbanti attho.

446. Herein, regarding the phrase 'An inquiry should not be made': the meaning is that one should disregard what was said by that person and remain silent.

Bhikkhunovādavaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on the Exhortation to Bhikkhunīs.

454. Vohāraniruttiyaṃ [Pg.575] saddaniruttiyaṃ. Maggapaccavekkhaṇādayo ekūnavīsati.

454. In conventional expression; in linguistic expression. The nineteen kinds of knowledge of reflection, beginning with the reflection on the path.

Ubbāhikavaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on Suspension.

455. Pasāretā mohetā.

455. `Pasāretā`: one who inspires confidence. `Amohetā`: one who does not cause delusion.

Adhikaraṇavūpasamavaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on the Settlement of Legal Issues.

458. ‘‘Yathārattanti anupasampanne apekkhatī’’tipi vadanti. ‘‘Yathāvuḍḍhanti upasampanne apekkhatī’’ti likhitaṃ.

458. Some also say: '`Yathārattaṃ` refers to the unordained.' It is written: '`Yathāvuḍḍhaṃ` refers to the ordained.'

Kathinatthāravaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on the Spreading of the Kaṭhina

467. ‘‘Ekāvatto’’tipi paṭhanti, tassa kuddho kodhābhibhūtoti kirattho. Ekavatthotipi keci, uttarāsaṅgaṃ apanetvā ṭhitoti kirattho, taṃ sabbaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ uddhaṭapāḷiyā virujjhatīti. Ekāvaṭṭoti hi uddhaṭaṃ, tasmā na gahetabbaṃ. Antarā vuttakāraṇenāti ‘‘kiccayapasutattā vandanaṃ asamannāharanto nalāṭaṃ paṭihaññeyyā’’tiādivuttakāraṇena.

467. Some also read it as `ekāvatto`; its meaning, it is said, is 'angry, overcome by anger.' Some also read it as `ekavattho`; its meaning, it is said, is 'standing having removed the upper robe.' All of that contradicts the Pāli text cited in the commentary. For `ekāvaṭo` is indeed what is cited; therefore, this should not be accepted. Herein, regarding the phrase 'due to the reason stated in between': it refers to the reason stated, beginning with, 'Because of being preoccupied with some duty, while not paying attention to paying homage, one might strike one's forehead.'

Upālipañcakavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Upālipañcaka is concluded.

Āpattisamuṭṭhānavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Arising of Offenses

470. Pubbe vuttamevāti sahaseyyādipaṇṇattivajjaṃ. Itaranti sacittakaṃ. Desento, domanassiko aññehi bhiṃsāpanādīni katvā āpattiṃ āpajjitvāti adhippāyo.

470. As for 'as was previously stated,' it excludes the regulation concerning sleeping together and so on. As for 'the other,' it is intentional. The meaning of `Desento, domanassiko` is: having incurred an offense by doing things such as frightening others.

Dutiyagāthāsaṅgaṇikavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Second Verse Collection

Kāyikādiāpattivaṇṇanā

The Explanation of Bodily Offenses, and so on

474-5. Nidānuddesaṃ [Pg.576] vinā sesuddesābhāvā ‘‘sabbapātimokkhuddesānañca saṅgaho hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vinaye garukā vinayagarukā. Idaṃ pana dvīsu gāthāsu kiñcāpi āgataṃ, aññehi pana missetvā vuttabhāvā nānākaraṇaṃ paccetabbaṃ. Navasu ṭhānesu kammaṃ hotīti kammañatti hoti. Vācāti vacīsambhavā. Addhānahīno ūnavīsativasso. ‘‘Apicetthāti kurundivādo’’ti vuttaṃ. Vanappatinti evaṃ adinnādāne āgataṃ vanappatiṃ. Vissaṭṭhichaḍḍaneti sukkavissaṭṭhiyaṃ. Dukkaṭā katāti dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Āmakadhaññaṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjantiyā pubbapayoge dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhohāre pācittiyaṃ.

474–475. Because there is no other exposition apart from the fundamental exposition, it is said, “It is a collection of all the Pātimokkha expositions.” `Vinayagarukā` means reverence for the Vinaya. Although this has come up in two verses, because it is stated mixed with other terms, a distinction should be understood. The phrase “an act occurs in nine instances” means it is a formal act of the Sangha. `Vācā` means arising from speech. `Addhānahīno` means one who is less than twenty years of age. It is said, “As for `apicettha`, it is the Kurundi view.” As for `vanappati`, it is the `vanappati` that comes in the section on taking what is not given. As for `vissaṭṭhichaḍḍana`, it means in the case of emission of semen. As for `dukkaṭā katā`, it means a `dukkaṭa` offense is stated. For a bhikkhunī who eats raw grain after having requested it, there is a `dukkaṭa` offense in the preliminary effort, and a `pācittiya` offense upon swallowing.

Pācittiyavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Pācittiya Offenses

476. Mahāsaṅghikā sāmaṇerepi āpattiṃ desāpenti kira, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘na desāpetabbā’’ti, daṇḍakammaṃ pana tesaṃ kātabbaṃ tathārūpe oḷārikavītikkame.

476. The Mahāsaṅghikas, it is said, make even novices confess offenses; for that reason it is stated, “They should not be made to confess.” However, a punitive act should be carried out for them in the case of such a gross transgression.

Avandanīyapuggalādivaṇṇanā

The Explanation of Persons Unworthy of Veneration, and so on

477. Dasasataṃ āpattiyoti sahassaṃ āpattiyo. Campāyaṃ vinayavatthusminti campeyyakkhandhake. Adhammena vaggantiādīni cattāri kammāniyeva bhagavatā vuttānīti attho. Na kevalaṃ āpattiyeva, atha kho cha samathā…pe… sammukhāvinayena sammanti, samāyogaṃ gacchanti sammukhāvinayena sampayogaṃ gacchantīti attho. Vinā samathehi sammati, samathabhāvaṃ gacchati. Paṭisedhatthe sati vinā samathehīti samathehi vināti attho.

477. `Dasasataṃ āpattiyo` means a thousand offenses. `Campāyaṃ vinayavatthusmiṃ` means in the Campeyya-khandhaka. The meaning is that only the four formal acts beginning with `adhammena vagga` were stated by the Blessed One. Not only an offense, but rather the six settlements... are settled by the procedure of being face-to-face; the meaning is that they reach association and connection by the procedure of being face-to-face. It is settled without the settlements; it reaches a state of settlement. When `vinā` has the meaning of prohibition, `vinā samathehi` means 'apart from the settlements.'

Soḷasakammādivaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Sixteen Formal Acts, and so on

478. Asuttakanti suttavirahitaṃ, usuttaṃ tatra natthīti adhippāyo.

478. The term `asuttakaṃ` means devoid of a sutta; the intended meaning is that there is nothing therein that is not from the suttas.

Dutiyagāthāsaṅgaṇikavaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Second Verse Collection is concluded.

Sedamocanagāthāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Sweat-Inducing Verses

Avippavāsapañhāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Questions on Non-Separation

479. Tahinti [Pg.577] tasmiṃ puggale. Akappiyasambhogo nāma methunadhammādi. ‘‘Varasenāsanarakkhaṇatthāya vissajjetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti garubhaṇḍavinicchaye vutto. Ekādasāvandiye paṇḍakādayo ekādasa. Upeti saparisaṃ. Na jīvati nimmitarūpattā. ‘‘Ubbhakkhakena vadāmī’’ti iminā mukhe methunadhammābhāvaṃ dīpeti. Adhonābhivivajjanena vaccamaggappassāvamaggesu. Gāmantarapariyāpannaṃ nadipāraṃ okkantabhikkhuniṃ sandhāyāti bhikkhuniyā gāmāpariyāpannaparatīre nadisamīpameva sandhāya vuttā. Tattha paratīre gāmūpacāro ekaleḍḍupāto nadipariyantena paricchinno, tasmā paratīre ratanamattampi araññaṃ na atthi, tañca tiṇādīhi paṭicchannattā dassanūpacāravirahitaṃ karoti. Tattha attano gāme āpatti natthi. Paratīre pana ekaleḍḍupātasaṅkhāte gāmūpacāreyeva padaṃ ṭhapeti. Antare abhidhammavasena araññabhūtaṃ sakagāmaṃ atikkamati nāma, tasmā gaṇamhā ohīyanā ca hotīti ñātabbaṃ. Ettāvatāpi santosamakatvā vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Bhikkhūnaṃ santike upasampannā pañcasatā mahāpajāpatippamukhā. Mahāpajāpatipi hi ānandattherena dinnaovādassa paṭiggahitattā bhikkhūnaṃ santike upasampannā nāma.

479. `Tahiṃ` refers to that person. `Akappiyasambhogo` means improper association, such as sexual intercourse and so forth. The statement 'For the sake of protecting the excellent lodging, having relinquished it, it is allowable to use it' is stated in the Garubhaṇḍavinicchaya. The eleven unworthy of veneration are the eleven beginning with the paṇḍaka. `Upeti saparisaṃ` means one approaches with one's retinue. `Na jīvati` means it does not live, because it is a created form. By the phrase `Ubbhakkhakena vadāmi`, it indicates the absence of sexual intercourse in the mouth. `Adhonābhivivajjanena` means by avoiding what is below the navel, in the paths for excrement and urine. The phrase 'referring to a bhikkhunī who has crossed to the far bank of a river that is included in another village' is said with reference to a bhikkhunī in the vicinity of the river on the far bank that is included in the village. There, on the far bank, the village precinct is a single clod's throw, defined by the riverbank. Therefore, on the far bank, there is not even a cubit's measure of wilderness, and that, being covered by grass and so forth, is rendered outside the range of sight. In one's own village, there is no offense. On the far bank, however, one places one's foot only in the village precinct, which is designated as a single clod's throw. In between, according to the higher teaching, this is called transgressing one's own village which has become wilderness. Therefore, it should be known that one is also left behind by the group. Even with this much, one should not be content but should grasp it after investigation. The five hundred bhikkhunīs headed by Mahāpajāpatī were ordained in the presence of the bhikkhus. Indeed, Mahāpajāpatī, because of having accepted the exhortation given by the Elder Ānanda, is called 'ordained in the presence of the bhikkhus'.

Pārājikādipañhāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Questions on the Pārājika and So Forth

480. ‘‘Dussakuṭiṃ sandhāyā’’ti saha dussena vītikkamanassa sakkuṇeyyatāya vuttaṃ. Liṅgaparivatte paṭiggahaṇassa vijahanato sāmaṃ gahetvā bhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Kākaūhadanaṃ vāti kākena ūhadanaṃ vā. ‘‘Tayo purisepi upagantvā’’ti pāṭhaseso.

480. The phrase 'referring to the cloth dwelling' is said because of the possibility of transgressing together with the cloth. In the case of a change of gender, because of the abandoning of formal acceptance, it is not proper to take and eat it oneself. 'Or what is left by a crow' means what is left over by a crow. The remainder of the text is 'having approached even three men'.

Pācittiyādipañhāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Questions on the Pācittiya and So Forth

481. Methunadhammapaccayā nāma kāyasaṃsaggo. Taṃhetu methunadhammassa pubbabhāgabhūtaṃ kāyasaṃsaggaṃ vāyāmantiyāti aṭṭhavatthupūraṇaṃ sandhāya. Paribhogappaccayāti [Pg.578] paribhogakāraṇā. Tasmāti yasmā paribhogappaccayā āpajjati, tasmā bhojanapariyosāne hotīti attho. Porāṇapotthakesu ‘‘tassā’’ti pāṭho. ‘‘Kāraṇavacanaṃ sundaraṃ bhojanaparicchedadassanato’’ti vadanti.

481. What is called 'due to the condition of sexual intercourse' is bodily contact. On account of that reason, it is said with reference to the completion of the eight bases of one who strives for bodily contact, which is the preliminary part of sexual intercourse. 'Due to the condition of use' means because of the reason of using. Therefore, since one incurs an offense due to the condition of use, it happens at the end of the meal—this is the meaning. In the ancient books, there is the reading 'tassā'. They say: 'The word stating the reason is fitting, because it indicates the limit of the meal.'

Sedamocanagāthāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The Explanation of the Sedamocanagāthā is concluded.

Pañcavaggo

The Fifth Section

Kammavaggavaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Chapter on Kamma

483. ‘‘Ummattakasammutiṃ [Pg.579] ummattake yācitvā gate asammukhāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha nisinnepi na kuppati niyamābhāvā. Asammukhā kate dosābhāvaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘asammukhākataṃ sukataṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Dūtena upasampadā panettha sammukhā kātuṃ na sakkā. Kammavācānānattasabhāvā pattanikkujjanādayo hatthapāsato apanetvā kātabbā, tena vuttaṃ ‘‘asammukhā kataṃ sukataṃ hotī’’ti. ‘‘Pucchitvā codetvā sāretvā kātabbaṃ apucchitvā acodetvā asāretvā karotī’’ti ayaṃ vacanattho. Ṭhapetvā kattikamāsanti so pavāraṇāmāso, dve ca puṇṇamāsiyoti paṭhamadutiyavassūpagatānaṃ pavāraṇā puṇṇamāsā dve.

483. It is said: 'Regarding the formal designation of insanity, when the insane monk has requested it and departed, it is allowable to grant it even in his absence.' In that case, even if he is seated, it is not invalidated, because of the absence of a fixed rule. To show there is no fault when it is done in his absence, it is said: 'What is done in absence is well done.' Herein, however, ordination by a messenger cannot be done in person. Because of the diverse nature of the formal acts, procedures such as overturning the bowl must be performed after removing him from within arm's reach; therefore it is said: 'What is done in absence is well done.' The meaning of the statement is: 'It should be done after questioning, admonishing, and reminding; but he does it without questioning, without admonishing, and without reminding.' 'Except for the month of Kattika'—that is the Pavāraṇā month. 'And the two full moons'—for those who have entered upon the first and second rains-retreats, the Pavāraṇā full moons are two.

485. Padaṃ vā chaḍḍetīti attho. Ka-vaggādīsu pañcasu. Garukanti dīghaṃ, saṃyogaparañca. ‘‘Buddharakkhitattherassa yassa nakkhamatī’’ti ettha ta-kāraka-kārā saṃyogaparā. Dīghe vattabbe rassanti ‘‘so tuṇhī assā’’ti vattabbe so tuṇhi assāti vacanaṃ.

485. 'Or he omits a word'—this is the meaning. In the five classes, beginning with the Ka-class. A 'heavy' syllable is a long one or one followed by a conjunct consonant. In the phrase 'For the Elder Buddharakkhita, who does not approve,' the letters 'ta' and 'ka' are followed by a conjunct consonant. When a long vowel should be said, a short one is said. When 'so tuṇhī assā' (he should be silent) should be said, the statement is 'so tuṇhi assā'.

486. Sesaṭṭhakathāsu vuttavacanaṃ kurundiyaṃ pākaṭaṃ katvā ‘‘nisīdituṃ na sakkontī’’ti vuttaṃ.

486. Having made clear in the Kurundī commentary a statement made in the remaining commentaries, it is said: 'They are not able to sit down.'

487-8. Parisuddhasīlā cattāro bhikkhūti pārājikaṃ anāpannā. Na tesaṃ chando vā pārisuddhi vā etīti tīsu, dvīsu vā nisinnesu ekassa, dvinnaṃ vā chandapārisuddhi āhaṭāpi anāhaṭāva.

'Four monks of pure virtue' means monks who have not incurred a pārājika offense. As for 'Neither their consent nor their purity is present': when three or two monks are seated, the consent and purity of one or of two, even if brought, are as if not brought.

Apalokanakammakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Discourse on the Act of Announcement

495-6. Kāyasambhogasāmaggidānasahaseyyapaṭiggahaṇādi imassa apalokanakammassa ṭhānaṃ hotīti evampi apalokanakammaṃ pavattatīti attho. Kammaññeva lakkhaṇanti kammalakkhaṇaṃ. Osāraṇanissāraṇabhaṇḍukammādayo viya kammañca hutvā aññañca nāmaṃ na labhati, kammameva hutvā upalakkhīyatīti [Pg.580] kammalakkhaṇaṃ upanissayo viya. Hetupaccayādilakkhaṇavimutto hi sabbo paccayaviseso tattha saṅgayhati, evampi ‘‘kammalakkhaṇamevā’’ti vuttaṃ. Kammalakkhaṇaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘acchinnacīvarajiṇṇacīvaranaṭṭhacīvarāna’’ntiādi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tato atirekaṃ dentena apaloketvā dātabba’’nti vuttaṃ apalokanaṃ kammalakkhaṇameva. Evaṃ sabbattha lakkhaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Iṇapalibodhampīti sace tādisaṃ bhikkhuṃ iṇāyikā palibujjhanti. Tatruppādato dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Antarasannipātoti uposathappavāraṇādimahāsannipāte ṭhapetvā antarā maṅgaluccāraṇādi. Upanikkhepatoti cetiyassa āpadatthāya nikkhittato. ‘‘Aññā katikā kātabbā’’ti ye rukkhe uddissa pubbe katikā katā, tehi imesaṃ aññattāti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sace tattha mūle’’ti pubbe ‘‘ito paṭṭhāya bhājetvā khādantū’’ti vacanena puggalikaparibhogo paṭikkhitto hoti. Anuvicaritvāti pacchato pacchato gantvā. Tesaṃ santikā paccayaṃ paccāsīsantenāti attho. Mūlabhāganti dasamabhāgaṃ katvā. Pubbakāle dasamabhāgaṃ katvā adaṃsu, tasmā ‘‘mūlabhāgo’’ti vuttaṃ. Akatāvāsaṃ vā katvāti uppannaāyena. Jaggitakāleyeva na vāretabbāti jaggitā hutvā pupphaphalabharitakāleti attho. Jagganakāleti jaggituṃ āraddhakāle. Ñattikammaṭṭhānabhede panāti ñattikammassa ṭhānabhede.

The sharing of bodily requisites, the giving of communal items, the sharing of a lodging, the acceptance of things, and so on, is the basis for this act of announcement; thus, the act of announcement also proceeds in this way—this is the meaning. The act itself is the characteristic; therefore, it is called 'the characteristic of an act'. Like the acts of rehabilitation, expulsion, the act concerning a pederast, and so on, being an act, it does not receive another name; being just an act, it is designated as such, and therefore it is called 'the characteristic of an act', like a decisive support condition. For indeed, every specific condition that is free from the characteristics of a root-condition and so on is included therein; in the same way, it is said, “It is just the characteristic of an act.” To show the characteristic of an act, it is said, “for those with stolen robes, worn-out robes, or lost robes,” and so on. The announcement stated as, “What is in excess of that should be given after making an announcement,” is itself the characteristic of an act. In this way, the characteristic should be understood in all cases. As for “debt and obstruction”: if creditors trouble such a monk, it is allowable to give from what has been produced there. As for “an interim assembly”: setting aside the great assemblies for Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, and so on, it is an assembly in between for the recitation of auspicious verses, etc. As for “a deposit”: it means because of being placed near a cetiya for use in a calamity. As for “Another agreement should be made”: it is said because these trees are different from those trees concerning which an agreement was previously made. As for “If at the root there”: by the earlier statement, “From this point on, let them divide and eat,” personal use is prohibited. As for “having followed”: it means going behind, behind; the meaning is, by one who is expecting requisites from them. As for “the root portion”: it means having made it a tenth part. In former times, they gave after making it a tenth part; therefore, it is called “the root portion.” As for 'or having made a dwelling where none existed': this means with the income that has arisen. As for “should not be prevented during the time of tending”: the meaning is, at the time when, having been tended, the trees are laden with flowers and fruit. As for “at the time of tending”: it means at the time of beginning to tend. As for “in the distinction of the basis for an act with a motion”: it means in the distinction of the basis of the act with a motion.

Idaṃ panettha pakiṇṇakaṃ – atthi saṅghakammaṃ saṅgho eva karoti, na gaṇo, na puggalo, taṃ apalokanakammassa kammalakkhaṇekadesaṃ ṭhapetvā itaraṃ catubbidhampi kammaṃ veditabbaṃ. Atthi saṅghakammaṃ saṅgho ca karoti, gaṇo ca karoti, puggalo ca karoti, taṃ pubbe ṭhapitaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘yasmiṃ vihāre dve tayo janā vasanti, tehi nisīditvā katampi saṅghena katasadisameva. Yasmiṃ pana vihāre eko bhikkhu hoti, tena bhikkhunā’’tiādi (pari. aṭṭha. 495-496). Atthi gaṇakammaṃ saṅgho ca karoti, gaṇo ca karoti, puggalo ca karoti, taṃ yo pārisuddhiuposatho aññesaṃ santike karīyati, tassa vasena veditabbaṃ. Atthi gaṇakammaṃ gaṇova karoti, na saṅgho, na puggalo, taṃ yo pārisuddhiuposatho aññamaññaṃ ārocanavasena karīyati, tassa vasena veditabbaṃ. Atthi puggalakammaṃ puggalova karoti, na saṅgho, na gaṇo, taṃ adhiṭṭhānuposathavasena [Pg.581] veditabbaṃ. Atthi gaṇakammaṃ ekaccova gaṇo karoti, ekacco na karoti, tattha añattikaṃ dveyeva karonti, na tayo. Sañattikaṃ tayova karonti, na tato ūnā vā adhikā vāti.

Herein, this is the miscellaneous section: There is an act of the Saṅgha that only the Saṅgha performs, not a group, not an individual; that, setting aside a part of the characteristic of an act of announcement, should be understood as the other four kinds of acts. There is an act of the Saṅgha that the Saṅgha performs, a group performs, and an individual performs; that has been established previously. For it has been said: “In whatever monastery two or three persons reside, an act done by them sitting together is just like one done by the Saṅgha. But in whatever monastery there is one monk, by that monk…” and so on. There is an act of a group that the Saṅgha performs, a group performs, and an individual performs; that should be understood by way of the purity-Uposatha performed in the presence of others. There is an act of a group that only a group performs, not the Saṅgha, not an individual; that should be understood by way of the purity-Uposatha performed through mutual declaration. There is an act of an individual that only an individual performs, not the Saṅgha, not a group; that should be understood by way of the determination-Uposatha. There is an act of a group that a certain group performs, and a certain group does not. Therein, an act without a motion is performed by only two, not three. An act with a motion is performed by only three, not fewer or more than that.

Apaññattepaññattavaggavaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Chapter of the Unprescribed and the Prescribed

500. Kakusandhakoṇāgamanakassapā eva hi satta āpattikkhandhe paññapesuṃ. Vipassīādayo pana ovādapātimokkhaṃ uddisiṃsu, na sikkhāpadaṃ paññapesuṃ.

500. For only Kakusandha, Koṇāgamana, and Kassapa laid down the seven groups of offenses. But Vipassī and the others recited the Ovāda-pātimokkha; they did not lay down the training rules.

Nigamanakathāvaṇṇanā

Commentary on the Concluding Discourse

Ubhatovibhaṅgakhandhakaparivārehi vibhattaṃ desanaṃ atthi tassa vinayapiṭakassa, nāmena samantapāsādikā nāma saṃvaṇṇanā ‘‘samantapāsādikā nāmā’’ti vuttavacanasaṃvaṇṇanā samattāti āha. Tattha padhānaghare. Iddhā atthavinicchayādīhi.

Of that Vinaya Piṭaka, there is the teaching divided by the two Vibhaṅgas, the Khandhakas, and the Parivāra. He says that the commentary named Samantapāsādikā, which is the explanation of the spoken phrase 'named Samantapāsādikā', is complete. There, in the Padhānaghara monastery, it was accomplished by means of the determination of meanings and so forth.

Sammā udito samudito, te guṇe akicchena adhigato adhikappamāṇaguṇehi vā samudito, tena samuditena ‘‘gatānaṃ dhammānaṃ gatiyo samannesatī’’ti vuttāya satiyā uppāditā saddhādayo paramavisuddhā nāma samannārakkhattā. Iti satipi saddhādīhi vuttā hoti. Evaṃ sante ettha vutte catubbidhe sīle pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlaṃ saddhā maṇḍeti. Saddhāsādhanañhi taṃ. Indriyasaṃvarājīvapārisuddhipaccayaparibhogasīlāni paṭimaṇḍenti sativīriyapaññāyoti yathāyogaṃ veditabbaṃ. Apica saddhā ca buddhirahitā avisuddhā hoti buddhiyā pasādahetuttā. Buddhiyo pana tassānubhāvena paramavisuddhā nāma honti. Paññā saddhārahitā kerāṭikapakkhaṃ bhajati, saddhāyuttā eva visuddhā hoti. Vīriyañca samādhirahitaṃ uddhaccāya saṃvattati, na samādhiyuttanti vīriyassa suddhavacanato samādhipi vutto hoti, evaṃ paramavisuddhā saddhādayopi pātimokkhaṃ paṭimaṇḍentīti ñātabbaṃ. Kathaṃ? Paṭipattidesake satthari ca paṭipattiyañca paṭipattiphale ca saddhāya vinā sīlasamādānaṃ, samādinnavisodhanañca kātuṃ na sakkāti saddhā pātimokkhaṃ paṭimaṇḍeti. Tattha ‘‘itipi so [Pg.582] bhagavā’’tiādinā (dī. ni. 1.255; ma. ni. 1.74; saṃ. ni. 1.249) satthari ca pūjetuṃ sakkoti. Paṭipattiyaṃ sīlavipattisampattimūlake sandiṭṭhikasamparāyikaphale ca saddhāpavatti vitthārato ñātabbā, sīlavipattisampattinimittaṃ ādīnavamānisaṃsañca ādīnavapariccāge, ānisaṃsasampādane ca upāyaṃ disvā tathā pavattamānā paññā pātimokkhasaṃvaraṃ paṭimaṇḍeti. ‘‘Atisīta’’ntiādinā appavattanārahaṃ kosajjaṃ ‘‘yo ca sītañca uṇhañcā’’ti vuttānusārena pajahitvā anuppannuppannānaṃ asaṃvarasaṃvarānaṃ anuppādanapajahanauppādanavaḍḍhanavasena pavattamānavīriyaṃ pātimokkhaṃ paṭimaṇḍeti, iminā nayena indriyasaṃvarādīsupi yojetabbaṃ. Catunnampi saṅgahavatthūnaṃ anukūlasamudācāro idha ācāroti veditabbo. Ajjava-vacanena lābhasakkārahetu kāyaduccaritādikuṭilakaramāyāsāṭheyyapaṭipakkhaajjavadhammasamāyogadīpanena alobhajjhāsayatā dīpitā. Maddava-vacanena kakkhaḷabhāvakarapaṭighādipaṭipakkhabhūtamettādimaddavadhammasamāyogadīpanena hitajjhāsayādīni dīpitāni honti. Ādi-saddena ‘‘khanti ca soraccañca sākhalyañca paṭisanthāro cā’’tiādinā (dha. sa. dukamātikā 125-126) vuttadhammehi samāyogo dīpito hoti. Idha vuttā ajjavamaddavādayo guṇā sīlasampattiyā hetū ca honti sīlasampattiphalañca taṃsampādanato. Sakasamayoti catuparisā. Etena sabhāgadukkhabhāvābhāvo sūcito. Atha vā sakasamayoti sogataṃ piṭakattayaṃ sakasamayo eva gahanaṃ duddīpanattā, sakasamayassa sanniṭṭhānaṃ sakasamayagahanaṃ –

Well arisen, fully arisen; those qualities are attained without difficulty, or are fully arisen through qualities of exceeding measure. By that arisen state, faith and so forth—produced by mindfulness which is said to 'seek the courses of phenomena that have occurred'—are called supremely pure because they are completely guarded. Thus, mindfulness is also spoken of along with faith and so forth. This being so, in the fourfold virtue mentioned here, faith adorns the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint, for it is indeed accomplished by faith. The virtues of sense restraint, purification of livelihood, and use of requisites are adorned by mindfulness, energy, and wisdom; this should be understood as is appropriate. Furthermore, faith without wisdom is impure, because wisdom is the cause of clarity. Wisdoms, however, through the power of that faith, are called supremely pure. Wisdom devoid of faith enters the faction of the deceitful; only wisdom conjoined with faith is pure. Energy devoid of concentration leads to restlessness; that which is conjoined with concentration does not. Thus, from the statement about the purity of energy, concentration is also spoken of. In this way, it should be known that even faith and so forth, being supremely pure, adorn the Pātimokkha. How? Without faith in the Teacher who teaches the practice, in the practice, and in the fruit of the practice, it is not possible to undertake virtue or to purify the virtue that has been undertaken. Therefore, faith adorns the Pātimokkha. Therein, by means of 'Thus is that Blessed One...' and so on, one is able to honor the Teacher. Regarding the practice, the occurrence of faith in the visible and future fruits, which are rooted in the failure and success of virtue, should be known in detail. Wisdom, seeing the danger and the benefit which are the signs of the failure and success of virtue, and seeing the means for abandoning the danger and for accomplishing the benefit, and thus proceeding, adorns the Pātimokkha restraint. Having abandoned laziness—which is unworthy of being engaged in—with such thoughts as 'it is too cold,' in accordance with what was said, 'He who regards cold and heat...'; energy that proceeds by way of not producing unarisen non-restraint, abandoning arisen non-restraint, producing unarisen restraint, and developing arisen restraint, adorns the Pātimokkha. By this method, it should also be applied to sense restraint and so forth. Suitable good conduct regarding the four bases of sympathy should be known here as 'conduct' (ācāra). By the word 'straightforwardness,' through showing the association with the quality of straightforwardness—which is the opposite of crooked actions, deceit, and fraud such as bodily misconduct for the sake of gain and honor—the state of having a non-greedy intention is shown. By the word 'gentleness,' through showing the association with the quality of gentleness, such as loving-kindness—which is the opposite of things like aversion that cause a state of harshness—intentions for welfare and so forth are shown. By the word 'etc.,' association with the qualities spoken of as 'patience, gentleness, courtesy, and hospitality,' and so on, is shown. The qualities of straightforwardness, gentleness, and so forth spoken of here are both causes for the accomplishment of virtue and its fruit, because they bring about that accomplishment. 'One's own doctrine' means the fourfold assembly. By this, the absence of the state of suffering for those of a similar nature is indicated. Or alternatively, 'one's own doctrine' means the three Piṭakas of the Sugata. One's own doctrine itself is difficult to grasp because it is difficult to explain. The ascertainment of one's own doctrine is the grasping of one's own doctrine.

‘‘Saccaṃ satto paṭisandhi, paccayākārameva ca;

Duddasā caturo dhammā, desetuñca sudukkarā’’ti. (vibha. aṭṭha. 225) –

“Truth, a being, rebirth-linking, and the mode of conditions; these four things are hard to see, and very hard to teach.”

Vuttattā yathā sakasamayassa gahanapadena yojanā vuttā, tathā parasamayassapi. Paññāveyyattiyenāti anena tikhiṇena ñāṇena katasilānisitasatthasadisasabhāvapaññā vuttā. Tipiṭakasaṅkhātāya pariyattiyā pabhedo tipiṭakapariyattippabhedo. Tasmiṃ pabhede. Tanti ca tantiattho ca sāsanaṃ nāma. Idha ‘‘tanti evā’’ti vadanti. Yasmiṃ ayaṃ saṃvaṇṇanā niṭṭhāpitā, tasmiṃ kāle paṭivedhañāṇābhāvato sutamayaṃ sandhāya ‘‘appaṭihatañāṇappabhāvenā’’ti vuttaṃ. Karaṇasampattiyā janitattā [Pg.583] sukhaviniggataṃ. Sukhaviniggatattā madhurodātavacanalāvaṇṇayuttenāpi yojetabbaṃ, īdisaṃ vacanaṃ sotasukhañca sannivesasampattisukhañca hoti. ‘‘Veyyākaraṇenā’’ti avatvā ‘‘mahāveyyākaraṇenā’’ti vuttattā sikkhāniruttichandovicityādipaṭimaṇḍitapāṇiniyanyāsādhāraṇadhāraṇasabhāvo sūcito bhavati. Yuttavādinātiādīsu yuttamuttavādinā ṭhānuppattiyapaññāya samannāgatenāti attho. Ojābhedepi āyusattikaraṇatādisāmatthayogānaṃ mahākavinā racitaganthassa mahantattā vā ‘‘tipiṭakapariyattippabhede’’tiādīhi sāsane, hetuvisaye, sadde cāti imesu tīsu ṭhānesu pāṭavabhāvaṃ dīpento venayikabuddhisampattisabbhāvamassa sūceti. Yesaṃ puggalānaṃ pabhinnā paṭisambhidādi, te pabhinnapaṭisambhidādayo dhammā. Tehi parivārito ukkhittasantatiupacchedamakatvā attano santāne uppādanavaḍḍhanavasena vārito so pabhinnapaṭisambhidāparivāro. Tasmiṃ pabhinnapaṭisambhidāparivāre uttarimanussadhammeti attho. Chaḷabhiññacatupaṭisambhidādippabhedaguṇapaṭimaṇḍite pana chaḷabhiññā uttarimanussadhammā eva. Catūsu paṭisambhidāsu atthapaṭisambhidāya ekadesova. Tadubhayaṃ sayaṃ uttarimanussadhammapariyāpannaṃ kathaṃ uttarimanussadhammaṃ paṭimaṇḍetīti ce? Rukkhaṃ rukkhassa avayavabhūtapupphādayo viya sayañca yesaṃ uttarimanussadhammānaṃ avayavattāti. Kāmāvacaradhammapariyāpannapaṭisambhidāñāṇaṃ uttarimanussadhammānaṃ anavayavabhūtaṃ uttarimanussadhammaṃ paṭimaṇḍeti, purisassa anavayavabhūto alaṅkāro viya purisaṃ. Atha vā kāmāvacarapaasambhidāparivāro chaḷabhiññāpaṭisambhidādippabhedaguṇe paṭimaṇḍeti. Lokuttarapaṭisambhidaṃ sandhāya puna paṭisambhidāvacanañca. Sāsane uppajjitvā sāsanassa alaṅkārabhūtena, yasmiṃ vaṃse uppanno, tasseva vā alaṅkārabhūtena. Saṅkhepavitthāresu itarītarakaraṇaṃ, appasannapasannānaṃ pasāduppādanābhivuḍḍhikaraṇaṃ, vuttānaṃ gambhīrānaṃ gambhīruttānabhāvakaraṇanti evaṃ chabbidhācariyaguṇayogato vipulabuddhi nāma. Ye dhammacintanaṃ atidhāvantā keci ucchedādinānappakāraṃ antaṃ vā gaṇhanti, ‘‘sabbaṃ ñeyyaṃ paññatti evā’’ti vā ‘‘paramattho evā’’ti vā gaṇhanti, tesaṃ buddhi micchādiṭṭhipaccayattā samalā nāma hoti, imassa pana buddhi dhammacintātidhāvanarahitattā visuddhā nāma hoti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘vipulavisuddhabuddhinā’’ti[Pg.584]. Garūhi ‘‘piyo garu bhāvanīyo’’tiādinā (a. ni. 7.37; netti. 113) vuttaguṇehi yuttagarūhi. Guṇehi thirabhāvaṃ gatattā therena.

Because it has been said, just as the application by way of difficult passages for one's own doctrine has been stated, so too for other doctrines. In the phrase `paññāveyyattiyena`, by this sharp wisdom is meant wisdom that has a nature similar to a sword sharpened on a prepared whetstone. The division of the scriptural collection called the Tipiṭaka is `tipiṭakapariyattippabhedo`. In that division. Both the text and the meaning of the text are called the Teaching. Here, some say, 'only the text.' At the time when this commentary was completed, due to the absence of penetration-knowledge, the phrase `appaṭihatañāṇappabhāvena` was said in reference to knowledge based on learning. Because it is produced by the perfection of the vocal organs, it is called `sukhaviniggataṃ` (well-uttered). Because it is well-uttered, it should also be connected with sweet, pure speech and graceful composition; such speech is pleasant to the ear and pleasant for the perfection of comprehension. Because `mahāveyyākaraṇena` was said instead of `veyyākaraṇena`, the nature of mastering uncommon treatises such as Pāṇini's grammar, adorned by phonetics, etymology, metrics, and so on, is indicated. In `yuttavādinā`, etc., the meaning is: by one who speaks what is appropriate and freely spoken, endowed with ready wit. Also in the distinction of potency, or because of the greatness of the treatise composed by the great poet who is among those endowed with abilities such as creating life-force, by the phrases `tipiṭakapariyattippabhede`, etc., while showing proficiency in these three places—in the Teaching, in the domain of causes, and in grammar—it indicates for him the actual existence of the accomplishment of wisdom skilled in the Vinaya. The analytical knowledges, etc., which are distinguished for certain persons, are the states called `pabhinnapaṭisambhidādayo dhammā`. He is surrounded by them. Without cutting off the uplifted continuity, he is surrounded by way of producing and developing them in his own mind-stream; such a person is called `pabhinnapaṭisambhidāparivāro` (one surrounded by the analytical knowledges). In that `pabhinnapaṭisambhidāparivāre`, the meaning is 'in the superhuman state.' However, in being adorned with the qualities distinguished as the six supernormal knowledges, the four analytical knowledges, etc., the six supernormal knowledges are indeed superhuman states. Among the four analytical knowledges, only a part of the analytical knowledge of meaning is a superhuman state. If one should say: 'How does that pair, which is itself included in superhuman states, adorn a superhuman state?' [The answer is:] Just as flowers, etc., which are parts of a tree, adorn the tree, so too it adorns because it is itself a part of those superhuman states. The knowledge of analytical knowledge included in sense-sphere phenomena, not being a part of superhuman states, adorns a superhuman state, just as an ornament, not being a part of a person, adorns a person. Alternatively, the retinue of sense-sphere analytical knowledge adorns the qualities distinguished as the six supernormal knowledges, analytical knowledges, etc. And again, the word `paṭisambhidā` was said in reference to the supramundane analytical knowledge. By one who, having arisen in the Teaching, has become an ornament of the Teaching; or, by one who has become an ornament of the very lineage in which he was born. The ability to teach concisely or in detail; the ability to inspire confidence in the unconvinced and increase it in the convinced; the ability to make profound teachings that have been spoken clear—thus, through connection with these six qualities of a teacher, wisdom is called `vipulabuddhi` (extensive wisdom). The wisdom of those who, over-extending their thought on the Dhamma, grasp various kinds of extreme views such as annihilationism, or grasp that 'all knowable things are mere concepts,' or that they 'are only ultimate reality,' is called defiled because it is conditioned by wrong view. But the wisdom of this one is called pure because it is free from over-extending thought on the Dhamma. Therefore, it was said, `vipulavisuddhabuddhinā` (by one with extensive and pure wisdom). By teachers means by noble teachers endowed with the qualities mentioned in the phrase `piyo garu bhāvanīyo`, etc. By the Elder, because he has reached a state of stability through qualities.

Sīlena sīlassa vā visuddhiyā sīlavisuddhiyā. Avijjaṇḍakosaṃ padāletvā paṭhamaṃ abhinibbattattā lokajeṭṭhassa. Lokassa vā gambhīre mahante sīlādikkhandhe esi gavesīti mahesīti.

The compound `sīlavisuddhiyā` means: by virtue, or for the purification of virtue. Because of being the first to arise, having split the eggshell of ignorance, He is the foremost in the world. Or, because He sought and searched for the great aggregates of qualities such as virtue in the world, which is like a deep abyss, He is called a Great Seer.

Ettāvatā samadhikasattavīsatisahassaparimāṇāya samantapāsādikasaññitāya vinayaṭṭhakathāya sabbapadesu vinicchayajātaṃ saṅkhipitvā gaṇṭhiṭṭhānavikāsanā katā hoti, tathāpi yaṃ ettha likhitaṃ, taṃ suṭṭhu vicāretvā pāḷiñca aṭṭhakathañca sallakkhetvā ye ācariyā buddhassa bhagavato mahānubhāvaṃ, vinayapiṭakassa ca vicitranayagambhīratthataṃ sallakkhetvā porāṇānaṃ kathāmaggaṃ avināsetvā attano matiṃ pahāya kevalaṃ saddhammaṭṭhitiyā, parānuggahakāmatāya ca vinayapiṭakaṃ pakāsentā ṭhitā, tesaṃ pādamūle vanditvā khantisoraccādiguṇasamannāgatena hutvā vattasampattiyā tesaṃ cittaṃ ārādhetvā paveṇiyā āgataṃ vinicchayaṃ kathāpetvā upadhāretvā yaṃ tena saṃsandati, taṃ gahetabbaṃ, itaraṃ chaḍḍetabbaṃ. Itarathā tuṇhībhūtena bhavitabbaṃ. Vinicchayasaṅkarakarena pana na bhavitabbameva. Kasmā? Sāsanassa nāsahetuttā. Hoti cettha –

By this much, having condensed the collection of decisions in all parts of the Vinaya commentary known as the Samantapāsādikā, which has a measure of over twenty-seven thousand, the explanation of the knotty points has been made. Nevertheless, whatever is written herein, that should be accepted only after carefully considering it and noting the Pāḷi and the Aṭṭhakathā. As for those teachers who, recognizing the great power of the Blessed Buddha and the varied and profound meaning of the Vinaya Piṭaka, expound the Vinaya Piṭaka without destroying the path of speech of the ancients, having abandoned their own views, solely for the stability of the good Dhamma and from the wish to benefit others—having paid homage at their feet, having become endowed with qualities such as patience and gentleness, having pleased their minds through the accomplishment of duties, and having caused them to speak of the decision that has come down through tradition and having investigated it, whatever of that traditional decision agrees with this text, that should be accepted; the other should be rejected. Otherwise, one should remain silent. One should certainly not be a person who confuses decisions. Why? Because it is a cause for the destruction of the Dispensation. And there is a summary verse on this matter:

‘‘Asambudhaṃ buddhamahānubhāvaṃ,Dhammassa gambhīranayatthatañca;

Yo vaṇṇaye taṃ vinayaṃ aviññū,So duddaso sāsananāsahetu.

“Whatever unwise monk, not understanding the great power of the Buddha and the profound method and meaning of the Dhamma, explains that Vinaya—he is a cause for the destruction of the Dispensation, a fact that is hard to see.”

Pāḷiṃ tadatthañca asambudhañhi,Nāseti yo aṭṭhakathānayañca;

Anicchayaṃ nicchayato parehi,Gāheti teheva purakkhato so.

“Indeed, whoever, not understanding the Pāḷi, its meaning, and the method of the Aṭṭhakathā, causes others to accept what is undecided as decided—he, being esteemed by those very ones, destroys the Pāḷi, its meaning, and the method of the Aṭṭhakathā.”

Anukkameneva [Pg.585] mahājanena,Purakkhato paṇḍitamānibhikkhu;

Apaṇḍitānaṃ vimatiṃ akatvā,Ācariyalīḷaṃ purato karotī’’ti.

“Gradually honored by the great multitude, one who fancies himself wise, without dispelling the doubts of the unwise, puts on the airs of a teacher before them.”

Samantapāsādikāya gaṇṭhipadādhippāyappakāsanā samattā.

The Elucidation of the Intended Meaning of the Knotty Terms of the Samantapāsādikā is complete.

Vajirabuddhiṭīkā niṭṭhitā.

The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā is finished.