Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

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

Vinayapiṭake

In the Vinaya Piṭaka

Vinayālaṅkāra-ṭīkā (paṭhamo bhāgo)

Vinayālaṅkāra-ṭīkā (Subcommentary on the Ornament of the Vinaya, First Part)

Ganthārambhakathā

Introduction to the Text

Muttahārādinayagāthā

The Verses on the Method Beginning with the Pearl Necklace

Yo [Pg.1] loke lokaloko varataraparado rājarājaggajañño;

Ākāsākārakāro paramaratirato devadevantavajjo.

He who is the light for the world, most excellent and surpassing others, king of kings, foremost of the noble; whose nature is like space, delighting in the supreme bliss, blameless among the god of gods.

Saṃsārāsārasāro sunaranamanato mārahārantaraṭṭho;

Lokālaṅkārakāro atisatigatimā dhīravīrattarammo.

The essence in the essenceless round of rebirth, revered by good people, standing as the remover of Māra; an adornment for the world, possessing supreme mindfulness, most delightful to the wise and brave.

Sīhanivattananayagāthā

The Verses on the Lion's Turning-Back Method

Saṃsāracakkaviddhaṃsaṃ, sambuddhaṃ taṃ sumānasaṃ;

Saṃnamāmi suguṇesaṃ, saṃdesitasududdasaṃ.

I bow to him, the Perfectly Enlightened One of tranquil mind, who has destroyed the wheel of existence, the lord of good qualities, who has pointed out what is exceedingly difficult to see.

Anotattodakāvattanayagāthā

The Verses on the Anotatta Water-Turning Method

Yena [Pg.2] viddhaṃsitā pāpā, yena nibbāpitā darā;

Yena lokā nissarisuṃ, yena cāhaṃ namāmi taṃ.

By whom evils are destroyed, by whom fears are extinguished, by whom worlds are transcended—to him I pay homage.

Catudīpacakkavattananayagāthā

The Verses on the Method of the Universal Monarch of the Four Continents

Saṅghaṃ sasaṅghaṃ namāmi, vantantavaradhammajaṃ;

Maggaggamanaphalaṭṭhaṃ, susaṃsaṃ subhamānasaṃ.

I bow to the Saṅgha with its assembly, born of the excellent Dhamma that ends defilements, established in the path and its fruit, well-praised and of pure mind.

Abyapetacatupādaādiyamakagāthā

The Verses of Unbroken Initial Repetition in a Quatrain

Vinayaṃ vinayaṃ sāraṃ, saṅgahaṃ saṅgahaṃ karaṃ;

Cariyaṃ cariyaṃ vande, paramaṃ paramaṃ sutaṃ.

I venerate the Vinaya, the essence of discipline; the Collection that makes a collection; the Conduct, that very conduct; the Supreme, the supreme teaching.

Byapetacatupādaādiantayamakagāthā

The Verses of Broken Four-Line Initial and Final Repetition

Pakāre bahupakāre, sāgare guṇasāgare;

Garavo mama garavo, vandāmi abhivandāmi.

To him of many kinds of help, the ocean of qualities, my reverence, my deep reverence; I bow down and pay homage.

Vatthuttaye ganthakāre, garūsu sādaraṃ mayā;

Katena namakkārena, hitvā sabbe upaddave.

By the salutation made by me with respect to the Triple Gem, the authors of the texts, and my teachers, having overcome all obstacles,

Sikkhākāmehi dhīrehi, jinasāsanakāribhi;

Bhikkhūhi vinayaññūhi, sādaraṃ abhiyācito.

I was earnestly requested by wise monks who desire the training, who are experts in the Vinaya, and who carry on the Victor’s Dispensation.

Vaṇṇayissāmi vinaya-saṅgahaṃ pītivaḍḍhanaṃ;

Bhikkhūnaṃ venayikānaṃ, yathāsattibalaṃ ahaṃ.

I shall expound the Vinaya-saṅgaha, which enhances gladness for the monks skilled in the Vinaya, according to my ability and strength.

Porāṇehi katā ṭīkā, kiñcāpi atthi sā pana;

Atisaṅkhepabhāvena, na sādheti yathicchitaṃ.

Although there is a subcommentary made by the ancients, yet because of its extreme conciseness, it does not accomplish what is wished for.

Tasmā hi nānāsatthehi, sāramādāya sādhukaṃ;

Nātisaṅkhepavitthāraṃ, karissaṃ atthavaṇṇanaṃ.

Therefore, having carefully extracted the essence from various treatises, I will compose an explanation of the meaning that is neither too concise nor too detailed.

Vinayālaṅkāraṃ nāma, pesalānaṃ pamodanaṃ;

Imaṃ pakaraṇaṃ sabbe, sammā dhārentu sādhavoti.

May all good people rightly uphold this treatise named the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a delight to the virtuous.

Ganthārambhakathāvaṇṇanā

The Explanation of the Introduction

Vividhavisesanayasamannāgataṃ [Pg.3] kāyavācāvinayanakaraṇasamatthaṃ lajjipesalabhikkhūnaṃ saṃsayavinodanakārakaṃ yogāvacarapuggalānaṃ sīlavisuddhisampāpakaṃ jinasāsanavuḍḍhihetubhūtaṃ pakaraṇamidamārabhitukāmo ayamācariyāsabho paṭhamaṃ tāva ratanattayapaṇāmapaṇāmārahabhāvaabhidheyyakaraṇahetu karaṇappakārapakaraṇābhidhānanimittapayojanāni dassetuṃ ‘‘vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā’’tiādimāha. Ettha hi vatthuttayaṃ namassitvāti iminā ratanattayapaṇāmo vutto paṇāmetabbapaṇāmaatthadassanato. Saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇinanti iminā paṇāmārahabhāvo paṇāmahetudassanato. Pāḷimuttavinicchayanti abhidheyyo imassa pakaraṇassa atthabhāvato. Vippakiṇṇamanekatthāti karaṇahetu tenevakāraṇena pakaraṇassa katattā. Samāharitvā ekattha, dassayissamanākulanti karaṇappakāro tenākārena pakaraṇassa karaṇato. Pakaraṇābhidhānaṃ pana samāharitasaddassa sāmatthiyato dassitaṃ samāharitvā dassaneneva imassa pakaraṇassa vinayasaṅgahaiti nāmassa labhanato.

Desiring to begin this treatise—which is endowed with various special methods; capable of effecting discipline in body and speech; a dispeller of doubt for scrupulous and virtuous monks; a producer of purity of virtue for yogis engaged in the practice; and a cause for the growth of the Victor’s Dispensation—this pre-eminent teacher first states the verse beginning ‘Having paid homage to the Triple Gem’ in order to show: the homage to the Triple Gem, the worthiness of being paid homage to, the subject matter, the reason for composing, the method of composing, the name of the treatise, the occasion, and the purpose. Here, by ‘Having paid homage to the Triple Gem,’ the homage to the Triple Gem is stated, as it shows the object to be paid homage to and the meaning of homage. By ‘a refuge for all beings,’ the worthiness of being paid homage to is shown, as it gives the reason for the homage. By ‘decisions on matters freed from the Pāli,’ the subject matter of this treatise is stated, because of its meaning. By ‘scattered and of many meanings,’ the reason for composing is stated, because the treatise was composed for that very reason. By ‘Having gathered it together in one place, I will show it without confusion,’ the method of composing is stated, because the treatise is composed in that manner. The name of the treatise, however, is shown by the capacity of the word ‘gathered,’ for it is by gathering together and showing that this treatise obtains the name ‘Vinayasaṅgaha’.

Nimittaṃ pana ajjhattikabāhiravasena duvidhaṃ. Tattha ajjhattikaṃ nāma karuṇā, taṃ dassanakiriyāya sāmatthiyato dassitaṃ tasmiṃ asati dassanakiriyāya abhāvato. Bāhiraṃ nāma sotujanasamūho, taṃ yogāvacarabhikkhūnanti tassa karuṇārammaṇabhāvato. Payojanaṃ pana duvidhaṃ paṇāmapayojanapakaraṇapayojanavasena. Tattha paṇāmapayojanaṃ nāma antarāyavisosanapasādajananādikaṃ, taṃ saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇinanti imassa sāmatthiyato dassitaṃ hetumhi sati phalassa avinābhāvato. Vuttañhi abhidhammaṭīkācariyena ‘‘guṇavisesavā hi paṇāmāraho [Pg.4] hoti, paṇāmārahe ca kato paṇāmo vuttappayojanasiddhikarova hotī’’ti (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. 1). Pakaraṇapayojanampi duvidhaṃ mukhyānusaṅgikavasena. Tesu mukhyapayojanaṃ nāma byañjanānurūpaṃ atthassa paṭivijjhanaṃ pakāsanañca atthānurūpaṃ byañjanassa uddisanaṃ uddesāpanañca, taṃ vinaye pāṭavatthāyāti iminā vuttaṃ. Anusaṅgikapayojanaṃ nāma sīlādianupādāparinibbānanto attho, taṃ samāharitvā ekattha dassayissanti imassa sāmatthiyena dassitaṃ ekattha samāharitvā dassane sati taduggahaparipucchādinā katapayogassa anantarāyena tadatthasijjhanatoti.

The occasion, however, is twofold: internal and external. Of these, the internal is compassion; this is shown by the capacity for the act of explaining, for without it the act of explaining is impossible. The external is the assembly of listeners; this is indicated by the phrase ‘for the monks engaged in the practice,’ as they are the object of his compassion. The purpose, however, is twofold: the purpose of the homage and the purpose of the treatise. Of these, the purpose of the homage is the removal of obstacles, the generation of confidence, and so on. This is shown by the capacity of the phrase ‘a refuge for all beings,’ for when the cause is present, the fruit is inevitable. It is said by the author of the Abhidhamma subcommentary: ‘For one who possesses special qualities is worthy of homage, and homage paid to one worthy of homage accomplishes the stated purpose.’ The purpose of the treatise is also twofold: primary and secondary. Of these, the primary purpose is the penetration and clarification of the meaning in accordance with the letter, and the pointing out and teaching of the letter in accordance with the meaning; this is stated by the phrase ‘for the sake of mastery in the Vinaya.’ The secondary purpose is the goal that extends from virtue up to final Nibbāna without clinging; this is shown by the capacity of the phrase ‘having gathered it together in one place, I will show it,’ for when it is gathered together and shown in one place, for one who has made the effort through study, inquiry, and so on, that goal is accomplished without obstacle.

Kimatthaṃ panettha ratanattayapaṇāmādayo ācariyena katā, nanu adhippetaganthārambhova kātabboti? Vuccate – ettha ratanattayapaṇāmakaraṇaṃ tabbihatantarāyo hutvā anāyāsena ganthaparisamāpanatthaṃ. Paṇāmārahabhāvavacanaṃ attano yuttapattakāritādassanatthaṃ, taṃ viññūnaṃ tosāpanatthaṃ, taṃ pakaraṇassa uggahaṇatthaṃ, taṃ sabbasampattinipphādanatthaṃ. Abhidheyyakathanaṃ viditābhidheyyassa ganthassa viññūnaṃ uggahadhāraṇādivasena paṭipajjanatthaṃ. Karaṇahetukathanaṃ akāraṇe katassa vāyāmassa nipphalabhāvato tappaṭikkhepanatthaṃ. Karaṇappakārakathanaṃ viditappakārassa ganthassa sotūnaṃ uggahaṇādīsu rucijananatthaṃ. Abhidhānadassanaṃ vohārasukhatthaṃ. Nimittakathanaṃ āsannakāraṇadassanatthaṃ. Payojanadassanaṃ duvidhapayojanakāmīnaṃ sotūnaṃ samussāhajananatthanti.

For what reason did the teacher here make the homage to the Triple Gem and so on? Should he not just have started the treatise he intended? It is said: Here, making the homage to the Triple Gem is for the purpose of completing the treatise without difficulty, having removed obstacles. Stating the worthiness of being paid homage to is for showing one’s own proper conduct, which is for pleasing the wise, which is for the sake of grasping the treatise, which is for the accomplishment of all success. Stating the subject matter is so that the wise, knowing the subject, will engage with the treatise by way of study, retention, and so on. Stating the reason for composing is to counter the charge that an effort made without reason is fruitless. Stating the method of composing is to arouse interest in the listeners for studying, etc., the treatise whose method is known. Showing the name is for ease of reference. Stating the occasion is for showing the proximate cause. Showing the purpose is for inspiring the listeners who desire the twofold purpose.

Ratanattayapaṇāmapayojanaṃ pana bahūhi pakārehi vitthārayanti ācariyā, taṃ tattha tattha vuttanayeneva gahetabbaṃ. Idha pana ganthagarubhāvamocanatthaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyehi adhippetapayojanameva kathayimha. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathācariyena –

The purpose of paying homage to the Triple Gem, however, is elaborated in many ways by the teachers, and this should be understood according to the method stated in each respective place. Here, however, to avoid making the book too heavy, we have stated only the purpose intended by the commentator. For it has been said by the commentator—

‘‘Nipaccakārassetassa[Pg.5];

Katassa ratanattaye;

Ānubhāvena sosetvā;

Antarāye asesato’’ti. (dha. sa. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā 7);

“By the power of this act of reverence done to the Triple Gem, having completely dried up all obstacles…”

Ayamettha samudāyattho, ayaṃ pana avayavattho – ahaṃ sabbapāṇīnaṃ saraṇaṃ saraṇībhūtaṃ vatthuttayaṃ namassāmi, namassitvā yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ vinaye pāṭavatthāya anekatthavippakiṇṇaṃ pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ ekattha samāharitvā anākulaṃ katvā dassayissaṃ dassayissāmīti yojanā.

This is the collective meaning here, and this is the meaning of the constituent parts: The construction is: ‘I pay homage to the Triple Gem, which is a refuge and has become a refuge for all beings. Having paid homage, for the sake of mastery in the Vinaya for monks engaged in the practice, I will gather together in one place the decisions on matters freed from the Pāli, which are scattered and of many meanings, and having made it unconfused, I will explain it.’

Tattha vasanti etthāti vatthu. Kiṃ taṃ? Buddhādiratanaṃ. Tañhi yasmā saraṇagatā sappurisā saraṇagamanasamaṅgino hutvā buddhādiratanaṃ ārammaṇaṃ katvā tasmiṃ ārammaṇe vasanti āvasanti nivasanti, tasmā ‘‘vatthū’’ti vuccati. Ārammaṇañhi ādhāro, ārammaṇikaṃ ādheyyoti. Ito parānipi vatthusaddassa vacanatthādīni ācariyehi vuttāni, tānipi tattha tattha vuttanayeneva veditabbāni. Idha pana ganthavitthārapariharaṇatthaṃ ettakameva vuttanti veditabbanti. Tiṇṇaṃ samūhoti tayaṃ, tayo aṃsā avayavā assāti vā tayaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Samudāyo. Vatthūnaṃ tayanti vatthuttayaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Buddhādiratanattayaṃ. Namassāmīti namassitvā, anaminti namassitvā. Buddhādiratanañhi ārammaṇaṃ katvā cittassa uppajjanakāle tvā-paccayo paccuppannakāliko hoti, tasmā paṭhamo viggaho kato, pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ ekattha dassanakāle atītakāliko, tasmā dutiyo viggaho. Teneva ca kāraṇena atthayojanāyapi paccuppannakālaatītakālavasena yojanā katā.

Therein, ‘they dwell in it’ (vasanti ettha), thus it is a ‘basis’ (vatthu). What is that? The Gem beginning with the Buddha. For since good people who have gone for refuge, being endowed with the act of going for refuge, take the Gem beginning with the Buddha as their object and dwell, abide, and reside in that object, it is therefore called a ‘basis.’ For the object is the support, and the subjective consciousness is what is supported. Other meanings of the word ‘basis’ have also been stated by the teachers, and these should be understood according to the method stated in those respective places. Here, however, only this much has been stated in order to avoid prolixity. A collection of three is a ‘triad’ (tayaṃ); or it has three parts or components, thus it is a triad. What is that? A collection. The triad of bases is ‘vatthuttayaṃ.’ What is that? The Triple Gem beginning with the Buddha. ‘I pay homage’ (namassāmi) is equivalent to ‘having paid homage’ (namassitvā). For when the mind arises taking the Gem beginning with the Buddha as its object, the suffix ‘-tvā’ has a present-time sense; therefore the first analysis is made. But at the time of showing the decisions on matters freed from the Pāli in one place, it has a past-time sense; therefore the second analysis is made. For this very reason, in the syntactical explanation too, the connection is made in terms of present and past time.

Sarati hiṃsatīti saraṇaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Buddhādiratanattayaṃ. Tañhi saraṇagatānaṃ sappurisānaṃ bhayaṃ santāsaṃ dukkhaṃ duggativinipātaṃ [Pg.6] saṃkilesaṃ sarati hiṃsati vināseti, tasmā ‘‘saraṇa’’nti vuccati. Vuttañhi bhagavatā –

It crushes, it destroys, thus it is a ‘refuge’ (saraṇa). What is that? The Triple Gem beginning with the Buddha. For it crushes, harms, and destroys the fear, terror, suffering, downfall into a woeful state, and defilement of good people who have gone for refuge. Therefore it is called ‘refuge.’ As the Blessed One has said—

‘‘Yasmiṃ, mahānāma, samaye ariyasāvako tathāgataṃ anussarati, nevassa tasmiṃ samaye rāgapariyuṭṭhitaṃ cittaṃ hotī’’tiādi (a. ni. 6.10; 11.11),

“Mahānāma, at the time when a noble disciple recollects the Tathāgata, his mind is not overcome by lust,” and so on (AN 6.10; 11.11).

‘‘Evaṃ buddhaṃ sarantānaṃ;

Dhammaṃ saṅghañca bhikkhavo;

Bhayaṃ vā chambhitattaṃ vā;

Lomahaṃso na hessatī’’ti ca. (saṃ. ni. 1.249);

“Thus, bhikkhus, for those who recollect the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, there will be no fear or trembling or horripilation” (SN 11.3).

Yasmā pana ‘‘saraṇa’’nti idaṃ padaṃ ‘‘nātha’’nti padassa vevacanabhūtaṃ kitasuddhanāmapadaṃ hoti, na kitamattapadaṃ, tasmā dhātvattho antonīto. ‘‘Sara hiṃsāya’’nti hi vuttaṃ hiṃsatthaṃ gahetvā sabbapāṇīnaṃ saraṇaṃ hiṃsakaṃ vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā viññāyamāne aniṭṭhappasaṅgato sabbapāṇīnaṃ saraṇaṃ saraṇībhūtaṃ nāthabhūtaṃ vatthuttayaṃ namassitvāti viññāyamāneyeva yujjati, teneva ca kāraṇena atthayojanāyampi tathā yojanā katā. Sabba-saddo niravasesatthavācakaṃ sabbanāmapadaṃ. Saha avena yo vattatīti sabboti kate pana sakala-saddo viya samudāyavācakaṃ samāsanāmapadaṃ hoti. Pāṇo etesaṃ atthīti pāṇino, pāṇoti cettha jīvitindriyaṃ adhippetaṃ. Sabbe pāṇino sabbapāṇino, tesaṃ sabbapāṇīnaṃ. Ettāvatā vatthuttayassa sabbalokasaraṇabhāvaṃ, tatoyeva ca namassanārahabhāvaṃ, namassanārahe ca katāyanamassanakiriyāya yathādhippetatthasiddhikarabhāvaṃ, attano kiriyāya ca khettaṅgatabhāvaṃ dasseti.

Now, since this word ‘saraṇa’ is a synonym for the word ‘nātha’ and is a pure primary derivative noun, not merely a primary derivative word, the meaning of the root is therefore included within it. For it is said, ‘The root sar is in the sense of harming.’ If this meaning of ‘harming’ is taken, an undesirable consequence follows when it is understood as ‘having paid homage to the threefold object, the refuge of all beings, which harms.’ It is fitting only when understood as ‘having paid homage to the threefold object that has become a refuge and a protector for all beings.’ For this very reason, the explanation has been made accordingly in the application of the meaning. The word ‘sabba’ is a pronoun that signifies ‘without remainder.’ But when formed as sabbo from saha avena, it becomes a compound noun denoting a collective, like the word sakala. ‘Those who have life (pāṇa) are pāṇino’; here, pāṇa refers to the life faculty. ‘All beings’ is sabbe pāṇino; ‘of all those beings’ is tesaṃ sabbapāṇīnaṃ. By this much, it shows that the threefold object is the refuge for the entire world and is therefore worthy of homage; that by the act of homage performed towards what is worthy of homage, it accomplishes the intended meaning; and that one's own action has thereby found a fertile field.

Evaṃ sahetukaṃ ratanattayapaṇāmaṃ dassetvā idāni pakaraṇārambhassa sanimittaṃ mukhyapayojanaṃ dassetumāha ‘‘vinaye [Pg.7] pāṭavatthāya, yogāvacarabhikkhūna’’nti. Ettha ca vinaye pāṭavatthāyāti mukhyapayojanadassanaṃ, taṃdassanena ca anusaṅgikapayojanampi vibhāvitameva hoti kāraṇe siddhe kāriyassa sijjhanato. Yogāvacarabhikkhūnanti bāhiranimittadassanaṃ, tasmiṃ dassite ajjhattikanimittampi dīpitameva hoti ārammaṇe ñāte ārammaṇikassa ñātabbato. Tattha vividhā nayā etthāti vinayo, duvidhapātimokkhaduvidhavibhaṅgapañcavidhapātimokkhuddesapañcaāpattikkhandhasattaāpattikkhandhādayo vividhā anekappakārā nayā ettha santīti attho. Atha vā visesā nayā etthāti vinayo, daḷhīkammasithilakaraṇapayojanā anupaññattinayādayo visesā nayā ettha santīti attho. Atha vā vinetīti vinayo. Kāyo vineti kāyavācāyo, iti kāyavācānaṃ vinayanato vinayo. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ –

Having thus shown the homage to the Triple Gem with its reason, he now speaks to indicate the primary purpose for beginning the treatise along with its sign: ‘For the sake of proficiency in the Vinaya, for the bhikkhus devoted to the practice.’ Here, ‘For the sake of proficiency in the Vinaya’ indicates the primary purpose. When that is shown, the secondary purpose also becomes evident, for when the cause is established, the effect is accomplished. ‘For the bhikkhus devoted to the practice’ indicates the external sign. When that is shown, the internal sign is also revealed, for when the object is known, the one who has the object is to be known. Herein, ‘Vinaya’ is so called because ‘various methods (vividhā nayā) are in it’; that is, the twofold Pātimokkha, the twofold Vibhaṅga, the fivefold recitation of the Pātimokkha, the five groups of offenses, the seven groups of offenses, and so on—many kinds of methods are in it. Or, ‘Vinaya’ is so called because ‘special methods (visesā nayā) are in it’; that is, the methods of strengthening, the methods for supplementary rules for the purpose of relaxing rules, and so on—special methods are in it. Or, ‘Vinaya’ is so called because ‘it disciplines (vineti).’ It disciplines the body and speech; thus, because it disciplines bodily and verbal actions, it is called Vinaya. As is said in the commentary:

‘‘Vividhavisesanayattā;

Vinayanato ceva kāyavācānaṃ;

Vinayatthavidūhi ayaṃ;

Vinayo ‘vinayo’ti akkhāto’’ti. (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā;

dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā;

dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā);

“Because of its various and special methods, and because it disciplines the body and speech, this Vinaya is called ‘Vinaya’ by those who are skilled in the Vinaya.” (Pārā. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā; dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā; dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā);

Ko so? Vinayapiṭakaṃ. Tasmiṃ vinaye. Paṭati viyattabhāvaṃ gacchatīti paṭu. Ko so? Paṇḍito. Paṭuno bhāvo pāṭavaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Ñāṇaṃ. Asati kāraṇānurūpaṃ bhavatīti attho. Ko so? Payojanaṃ. Pāṭavameva attho pāṭavattho, tassa pāṭavatthāya, vinayapiṭake kosallañāṇapayojanāyāti vuttaṃ hoti. Yuñjanaṃ yogo, kammaṭṭhānamanasikāro. Avacarantīti avacarā, yoge avacarā yogāvacarā, kammaṭṭhānikā bhikkhū. Saṃsāre bhayaṃ ikkhantīti bhikkhū, yogāvacarā ca te bhikkhū cāti yogāvacarabhikkhū, tesaṃ yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ. Etena [Pg.8] vinaye paṭubhāvo nāma bhikkhūnaṃyeva attho hoti, na gahaṭṭhatāpasaparibbājakādīnaṃ. Bhikkhūsu ca kammaṭṭhāne niyuttānaṃ lajjipesalabhikkhūnaṃyeva, na vissaṭṭhakammaṭṭhānānaṃ alajjibhikkhūnanti imamatthaṃ dasseti.

What is that? The Vinaya Piṭaka. In that Vinaya. One who attains proficiency (viyattabhāvaṃ) is paṭu. Who is that? A wise person. The state of being proficient is pāṭavaṃ. What is that? Knowledge. The meaning (attho) is that which is in accordance with the cause. What is that? The purpose (payojanaṃ). Proficiency itself is the purpose, hence pāṭavattho. ‘For the sake of that purpose’ means for the purpose of skill and knowledge in the Vinaya Piṭaka. Engagement (yuñjanaṃ) is yogo, that is, application of mind to a meditation subject. ‘Those who frequent’ are avacarā. Those who frequent engagement are yogāvacarā, that is, bhikkhus devoted to a meditation subject. ‘They see fear in saṃsāra,’ hence they are bhikkhū. Those who are both meditators and bhikkhus are yogāvacarabhikkhū; ‘for those meditator bhikkhus’ is tesaṃ yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ. By this it is shown that proficiency in the Vinaya is for the benefit of bhikkhus only, not for householders, ascetics, wanderers, and others. And among bhikkhus, it is only for the conscientious and scrupulous bhikkhus who are devoted to a meditation subject, not for the shameless bhikkhus who have abandoned their meditation subject. This is the meaning it shows.

Evaṃ pakaraṇārambhassa sanimittaṃ payojanaṃ dassetvā idāni sahetukaṃ abhidheyyaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘vippakiṇṇamanekattha, pāḷimuttavinicchaya’’nti āha. Tattha vippakiṇṇaṃ anekatthāti iminā pakaraṇārambhassa hetuṃ dasseti hetumantavisesanattā, imassa anekatthavippakiṇṇattāyeva ācariyassa ārambho hoti, na avippakiṇṇe sati. Vakkhati hi ‘‘samāharitvā ekattha dassayissa’’nti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā). Pāḷimuttavinicchayanti iminā pakaraṇābhidheyyaṃ. Tattha kirati vikkhipatīti kiṇṇo, pakārena kiṇṇo pakiṇṇo, vividhena pakiṇṇo vippakiṇṇo. Ko so? Pāḷimuttavinicchayo, taṃ vippakiṇṇaṃ.

Having thus shown the purpose for beginning the treatise along with its sign, he now speaks to show the subject matter along with its reason: ‘The extra-canonical decisions, scattered in many places.’ Here, by ‘scattered in many places,’ he indicates the reason for beginning the treatise, because this phrase is an adjective that indicates the reason. It is precisely because these decisions are scattered in many places that the teacher undertook this work; he would not have done so if they were not scattered. For it will be said: ‘Having collected them, I will show them in one place.’ By ‘the extra-canonical decisions,’ he indicates the subject matter of the treatise. Here, one who scatters (kirati) or throws about is kiṇṇo. Scattered in a certain way (pakārena) is pakiṇṇo. Scattered in various ways is vippakiṇṇo. What is that? The extra-canonical decisions. That is what is meant by ‘scattered’.

Anekatthāti ettha saṅkhyāvācako sabbanāmiko eka-saddo, na eko aneke. Bahvatthavācako anekasaddo. Ekantaekavacanantopi eka-saddo na-itinipātena yuttattā bahuvacananto jātoti. Tattha anekattha bahūsūti attho, pārājikakaṇḍaṭṭhakathādīsu anekesu pakaraṇesūti vuttaṃ hoti. Porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ pana anekatthāti anekesu sikkhāpadapadesesūti attho dassito, evañca sati upari ‘‘samāharitvā ekatthā’’ti vakkhamānattā ‘‘anekatthavippakiṇṇaṃ ekattha samāharitvā’’ti imesaṃ padānaṃ sahayogībhūtattā anekesu sikkhāpadapadesesu vippakiṇṇaṃ ekasmiṃ sikkhāpadapadese samāharitvāti attho bhaveyya, so ca attho ayutto. Kasmā? Anekesu pakaraṇesu vippakiṇṇaṃ ekasmiṃ pakaraṇe samāharitvāti [Pg.9] attho amhehi vutto. Atha pana ‘‘ekatthā’’ti imassa ‘‘ekato’’ti atthaṃ vikappetvā anekesu sikkhāpadapadesesu vippakiṇṇaṃ ekato samāharitvāti atthaṃ gaṇheyya, so attho yutto bhaveyya.

Here, in anekattha, the word eka is a numerical pronoun. Na eko (not one) becomes aneko. The word aneka signifies many. Although the word eka is singular, when joined with the particle na, it becomes plural. Therefore, anekattha means ‘in many places,’ that is to say, in many treatises such as the commentary on the Pārājika section. In the ancient subcommentary, however, the meaning of anekattha is given as ‘in many sections of the training rules.’ If this were so, since it will be said later, ‘having collected in one place (ekattha),’ and since these words are used in conjunction, the meaning would be, ‘having collected what was scattered in many sections of the training rules into a single section of the training rules.’ But that meaning is unsuitable. Why? Because the meaning stated by us is, ‘having collected what was scattered in many treatises into one treatise.’ If, however, one were to take the meaning of ekattha as ‘together’ (ekato), then the meaning, ‘having collected together what was scattered in many sections of the training rules,’ would be suitable.

Pakaṭṭhānaṃ āḷīti pāḷi, uttamānaṃ vacanānaṃ anukkamoti attho. Atha vā attatthaparatthādibhedaṃ atthaṃ pāleti rakkhatīti pāḷi, laḷānamaviseso. Kā sā? Vinayatanti. Muccatīti mutto, pāḷito mutto pāḷimutto. Chindiyate anenāti chayo, nīharitvā chayo nicchayo, visesena nicchayo vinicchayo, khilamaddanākārena pavatto saddanayo atthanayo ca. Pāḷimutto ca so vinicchayo cāti pāḷimuttavinicchayo, taṃ pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ. Idañca ‘‘ānagarā khadiravana’’ntiādīsu viya yebhuyyanayavasena vuttaṃ katthaci pāḷivinicchayassapi dissanato. Porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ pana pāḷivinicchayo ca pāḷimuttavinicchayo ca pāḷimuttavinicchayoti evaṃ ekadesasarūpekasesavasena vā etaṃ vuttanti daṭṭhabbanti dutiyanayopi vutto, evañca sati pāḷivinicchayapāḷimuttavinicchayehi aññassa vinicchayassa abhāvā kimetena ganthagarukarena pāḷimuttaggahaṇena. Visesanañhi sambhavabyabhicāre ca sati sātthakaṃ siyāti paṭhamanayova ārādhanīyo hoti.

Pāḷi is the line (āḷi) of excellent things (pakaṭṭhānaṃ); the meaning is the sequence of the highest words. Or, it is pāḷi because it preserves (pāleti) and protects the meaning, which is divided into benefit for oneself, benefit for others, etc.; there is no difference between the letters la and ḷa. What is that Pāḷi? The Vinaya scripture. One who is freed is mutto; freed from the Pāḷi is pāḷimutto. That by which something is cut is chayo; with the prefix ni-, this becomes nicchayo, a determination. A special determination is vinicchayo, which is the method of words and the method of meaning that proceeds in the manner of crushing stubbornness. That which is both freed from the Pāḷi and a determination is a pāḷimuttavinicchayo; the accusative is pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ. This is stated by way of the general rule, as in such phrases as ‘from the city to the Khadira wood,’ since sometimes a canonical decision (pāḷivinicchaya) is also found. In the ancient subcommentary, however, a second method is also stated: that this is said by way of an ekasesa compound, where pāḷimuttavinicchayo stands for both canonical decisions and extra-canonical decisions. But if this is so, since there are no other decisions apart from canonical and extra-canonical ones, what is the point of this cumbersome inclusion of pāḷimutta? For an adjective is meaningful only when there is both possibility and exclusion. Thus, the first method is to be preferred.

Evaṃ sahetukaṃ abhidheyyaṃ dassetvā idāni karaṇappakāraṃ dasseti ‘‘samāharitvā’’tiādinā. Duvidho hettha karaṇappakāro ekatthasamāharaṇaanākulakaraṇavasena. So duvidhopi tena pakārena pakaraṇassa katattā ‘‘karaṇappakāro’’ti vuccati. Tattha samāharissāmīti samāharitvā, saṃ-saddo saṅkhepattho, tasmā saṅkhipiya āharissāmīti attho. Anāgatakālikavasena paccamānena ‘‘dassayissa’’nti [Pg.10] padena samānakālattā anāgatakāliko idha tvā-paccayo vutto. Ekatthāti ekasmiṃ idha vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe. Ekatthāti vā ekato. Dassayissanti dassayissāmi, ñāpayissāmīti attho. Ākulati byākulatīti ākulo, na ākulo anākulo, pubbāparabyākiṇṇavirahito pāḷimuttavinicchayo. Anākulanti pana bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ, tasmā karadhātumayena katvāsaddena yojetvā dassanakiriyāya sambandhitabbaṃ.

Having thus shown the subject matter with its causes, now the mode of procedure is shown with 'having gathered' (samāharitvā) and so forth. Here, the mode of procedure is twofold: by gathering into one and by making it unconfused. Both of these are called 'the mode of procedure' because the treatise is made in that manner. Here, 'having gathered' (samāharitvā) means 'I will gather' (samāharissāmi). The prefix saṃ- conveys the sense of conciseness; hence, the meaning is 'I will gather concisely.' Because it has the same tense as the future tense word 'will show' (dassayissāmi), the -tvā suffix here is said to be in the future tense. 'Into one' (ekatthā) means 'into one thing,' here, into this treatise on the compilation of the Vinaya. Or, ekatthā means 'together' (ekato). 'Will show' (dassayissanti) means 'I will show' (dassayissāmi), 'I will make known'—this is the meaning. 'Confused' (ākulo) means 'it is confused' (ākulati), hence ākulo. Not confused is anākulo, an extra-canonical determination free from being mixed up with what comes before and after. However, anākulaṃ is a neuter abstract noun; therefore, it should be connected with the verb of showing by being construed with the gerund 'having made' (katvā).

Evaṃ ratanattayapaṇāmādikaṃ pubbakaraṇaṃ dassetvā idāni ye pāḷimuttavinicchaye dassetukāmo, tesaṃ anukkamakaraṇatthaṃ mātikaṃ ṭhapento ‘‘tatrāyaṃ mātikā’’tiādimāha. Mātikāya hi asati dassitavinicchayā vikiranti vidhaṃsenti yathā taṃ suttena asaṅgahitāni pupphāni. Santiyā pana mātikāya dassitavinicchayā na vikiranti na vidhaṃsenti yathā taṃ suttena saṅgahitāni pupphāni. Taṃ taṃ atthaṃ jānitukāmehi mātikānusārena gantvā icchiticchitavinicchayaṃ patvā so so attho jānitabbo hoti, tasmā sukhaggahaṇatthaṃ mātikā ṭhapitā. Tattha tatrāti tasmiṃ pāḷimuttavinicchaye. Ayanti ayaṃ mayā vakkhamānā. Mātā viyāti mātikā. Yathā hi puttā mātito pabhavanti, evaṃ niddesapadāni uddesato pabhavanti, tasmā uddeso mātikā viyāti ‘‘mātikā’’ti vuccati.

Having thus shown the preliminary acts such as paying homage to the Triple Gem, now, wishing to present the extra-canonical determinations, and for the sake of their sequential arrangement, he establishes a matrix, saying, 'Here is this matrix,' and so forth. For without a matrix, the explained determinations scatter and disintegrate, just as flowers not held together by a thread. But when a matrix exists, the explained determinations do not scatter or disintegrate, just as flowers held together by a thread. Therefore, those who wish to know each meaning should proceed according to the matrix, and having reached the desired determination, that meaning should be known. Hence, for the sake of easy comprehension, the matrix has been established. Therein, tatrā means 'in that collection of extra-canonical determinations.' Ayaṃ means 'this one which I am about to speak.' It is a matrix (mātikā) because it is like a mother (mātā viya). For just as children originate from a mother, so too do the terms of exposition originate from the terms of outline. Therefore, the outline is called 'matrix' because it is like a mother.

Divāseyyātiādīsu divāseyyā divāseyyavinicchayakathā. Parikkhāro parikkhāravinicchayakathā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ pakiṇṇakavinicchayakathāti yojanā. Teneva vakkhati ‘‘divāsayanavinicchayakathā samattā’’tiādi. Iti-saddo idamattho vā nidassanattho vā parisamāpanattho vā. Tesu idamatthe kā sā? Divāseyyā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ iti ayanti. Nidassanatthe [Pg.11] kathaṃ sā? Divāseyyā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ iti daṭṭhabbāti. Parisamāpanatthe sā kittakena parisamattā? Divāseyyā…pe… pakiṇṇakaṃ iti ettakena parisamattāti attho. Imesaṃ pana divāseyyādipadānaṃ vākyaviggahaṃ katvā atthe idha vuccamāne atipapañco bhavissati, sotūnañca dussallakkhaṇīyo, tasmā tassa tassa niddesassa ādimhiyeva yathānurūpaṃ vakkhāma.

In 'daytime resting' (divāseyyā) and so forth, divāseyyā is the discussion on the determination of daytime resting (divāseyyavinicchayakathā). Parikkhāro is the discussion on the determination of requisites (parikkhāravinicchayakathā)... and so forth... pakiṇṇakaṃ is the discussion on the determination of miscellaneous items (pakiṇṇakavinicchayakathā)—this is the connection. For this reason, it will be said, 'The discussion on the determination of daytime resting is finished,' and so forth. The word 'iti' has the meaning of 'this,' or the meaning of illustration, or the meaning of completion. Among these, in the meaning of 'this,' what is it? 'Daytime resting'... and so forth... 'miscellaneous'—this is it. In the meaning of illustration, how is it? 'Daytime resting'... and so forth... 'miscellaneous'—thus it should be seen. In the meaning of completion, by how much is it completed? The meaning is: 'Daytime resting'... and so forth... 'miscellaneous'—it is completed by this much. However, if the meaning of these words beginning with 'daytime resting' were to be stated here after making a sentential analysis, it would become an excessive elaboration and difficult for listeners to discern; therefore, we will explain each topic appropriately at the beginning of its respective exposition.

Ganthārambhakathāvaṇṇanā niṭṭhitā.

The exposition of the introductory discourse to the treatise is finished.

1. Divāseyyavinicchayakathā

1. Discussion on the Determination of Daytime Resting

1. Evaṃ pāḷimuttavinicchayakathānaṃ mātikaṃ ṭhapetvā idāni yathāṭhapitamātikānukkamena niddisanto ‘‘tattha divāseyyāti divānipajjana’’ntiādimāha. Tattha tatthāti tesu mātikāpadesu samabhiniviṭṭhassa ‘‘divāseyyā’’ti padassa ‘‘divānipajjana’’nti attho daṭṭhabboti yojanā. Tattha divā-saddo ahavācako ākāranto nipāto. Vuttañhi abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ ‘‘ānukūlyetu saddhañca, nattaṃ doso divā tvahe’’ti. Sayanaṃ seyyā, karajakāyagatarūpānaṃ uddhaṃ anuggantvā dīghavasena vitthārato pavattanasaṅkhāto iriyāpathaviseso. Divākālasmiṃ seyyā divāseyyā. Aruṇuggamanato paṭṭhāya yāva sūriyatthaṅgamanā, etasmiṃ kāle sayanairiyāpathakaraṇanti. Tenāha ‘‘divānipajjananti attho’’ti.

1. Having thus set out the matrix for the discussions on extra-canonical determinations, now, expounding according to the sequence of the established matrix, he says, beginning with 'Therein, "daytime resting" (divāseyyā) means lying down during the day (divānipajjana).' Herein, the word thattha means 'among those matrix topics'; for one who is well-versed in them, the meaning of the word divāseyyā should be understood as 'lying down during the day'—this is the connection. Here, the word divā is a particle ending in 'ā' that denotes 'day.' As stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: 'ānukūlyetu saddhañca, nattaṃ doso divā tvahe.' 'Lying down' (sayanaṃ) is 'resting' (seyyā), a particular mode of deportment characterized by the bodily forms not rising upwards but extending lengthwise. 'Daytime resting' (divāseyyā) is resting during the daytime. That is, from the rising of dawn until the setting of the sun, performing the mode of deportment of lying down during this time. Therefore, he says, 'the meaning is "lying down during the day."'

Tatrāti tasmiṃ divāsayane ayaṃ vakkhamāno vinicchayo veditabboti yojanā. ‘‘Anujānāmi…pe… vacanato’’ti (pārā. 77) ayaṃ paṭhamapārājikasikkhāpadassa vinītavatthūsu āgato bhagavatā [Pg.12] āhaccabhāsito ñāpakapāṭho. Tattha divā paṭisallīyantenāti divā nipajjantena. Dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā paṭisallīyitunti dvāraṃ pidahitvā nipajjituṃ. ‘‘Divā…pe… nipajjitabbanti ñāpyaṃ. Nanu pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘ayaṃ nāma āpattī’’ti na vuttā, atha kathamettha āpatti viññāyatīti codanaṃ sandhāyāha ‘‘ettha ca kiñcāpī’’tiādi. Tattha etthāti etasmiṃ divānipajjane. Ca-saddo vākyārambhajotako, kiñcāpi-saddo nipātasamudāyo, yadipītyattho. Pāḷiyaṃ ayaṃ nāma āpattīti kiñcāpi na vuttā, pana tathāpi asaṃvaritvā nipajjantassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) dukkaṭaṃ yasmā vuttaṃ, tasmā ettha āpatti viññāyatīti yojanā. Evaṃ santepi asati bhagavato vacane kathaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ siyāti āha ‘‘vivaritvā…pe… anuññātattā’’ti. Etena bhagavato anujānanampi taṃ akarontassa āpattikāraṇaṃ hotīti dasseti.

Here, the connection is that in that daytime resting place, this determination about to be spoken should be known. 'I allow... and so forth... because of the word' (Pārā. 77): this is the passage for imparting knowledge, spoken by the Blessed One for the occasion, which appears among the decided cases regarding the first Pārājika training rule. Therein, 'while secluded during the day' means 'while lying down during the day.' 'Having closed the door, one should be secluded' means 'to lie down after closing the door.' 'During the day... one should lie down' is to be made known. Now, addressing the objection, 'Indeed, in the Pāḷi text, it is not stated, "This is such-and-such an offense," so how is an offense to be understood here?', he says, 'Here, although,' and so forth. Therein, 'here' means 'in this lying down during the day.' The word 'ca' indicates the beginning of a sentence; the word 'kiñcāpi' is a compound particle, meaning 'although.' The connection is: although it is not stated in the Pāḷi, 'This is such-and-such an offense,' nevertheless, because a dukkaṭa is stated in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.77) for one who lies down without closing the door, therefore an offense is to be understood here. Even so, if there is no word from the Blessed One, how could it be stated in the commentary? He says, 'Because of having allowed... after opening... and so forth.' By this, he shows that even the Blessed One's allowance becomes a cause for an offense for one who does not do it.

Tattha ‘‘uppanne vatthumhīti itthiyā kataajjhācāravatthusmi’’nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77) vuttaṃ, sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77) pana ‘‘methunavatthusmiṃ uppanne’’ti vuttaṃ, porāṇaṭīkāyampi tameva gahetvā ‘‘uppanne methunavatthusmi’’nti vuttaṃ, tadetaṃ vicāretabbaṃ methunalakkhaṇassa abhāvā. Nanu sikkhāpadapaññāpanaṃ nāma buddhavisayo, atha kasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dukkaṭaṃ vuttanti āha ‘‘bhagavato’’tiādi. Na kevalaṃ upālittherādīhi eva aṭṭhakathā ṭhapitā, atha kho pāḷito ca atthato ca buddhena bhagavatā vutto. Na hi bhagavatā abyākataṃ tantipadaṃ nāma atthi, sabbesaṃyeva attho kathito, tasmā sambuddheneva tiṇṇaṃ piṭakānaṃ atthavaṇṇanakkamopi bhāsitoti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tattha tattha hi bhagavatā pavattitā pakiṇṇakadesanāyeva aṭṭhakathāti.

Therein, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.77), it is stated: 'When the basis has arisen' (uppanne vatthumhi) means 'in the case of a woman's misconduct' (itthiyā kataajjhācāravatthusmiṃ). However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.77), it is stated: 'When the basis for sexual intercourse has arisen' (methunavatthusmiṃ uppanne). Even in the ancient sub-commentary, taking the same, it is stated: 'When the basis for sexual intercourse has arisen' (uppanne methunavatthusmiṃ). This should be examined, due to the absence of the characteristic of sexual intercourse. Now, 'The laying down of training rules is the domain of the Buddha, so why is a dukkaṭa offense stated in the commentary?'—addressing this, he says, 'Because of the Blessed One,' and so forth. Not only was the commentary established by the Elder Upāli and others, but it was also spoken by the Buddha, the Blessed One, both in terms of the Pāḷi and the meaning. For there is no textual term left unexplained by the Blessed One; the meaning of all of them has been expounded. Therefore, it should be understood that even the sequence of the exposition of the meaning of the three Piṭakas was spoken by the Fully Enlightened One himself. Indeed, the scattered discourses given by the Blessed One here and there are themselves the commentary.

Kiṃ [Pg.13] panettha etaṃ divā dvāraṃ asaṃvaritvā nipajjantassa dukkaṭāpattiāpajjanaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā eva siddhaṃ, udāhu aññenapīti āha ‘‘atthāpattī’’tiādi. Etaṃ dukkaṭāpattiāpajjanaṃ na kevalaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā eva siddhaṃ, atha kho ‘‘atthāpatti divā āpajjati, no ratti’’nti (pari. 323) iminā parivārapāṭhenapi siddhaṃ hotīti yojanā. Katarasmiṃ pana vatthusmiṃ idaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ vuttanti? ‘‘Tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhu vesāliyaṃ mahāvane kūṭāgārasālāyaṃ divā vihāragato dvāraṃ vivaritvā nipanno ahosi. Tassa aṅgamaṅgāni vātupatthaddhāni ahesuṃ. Tena kho pana samayena sambahulā itthiyo gandhañca mālañca ādāya vihāraṃ āgamiṃsu vihārapekkhikāyo. Atha kho tā itthiyo taṃ bhikkhuṃ passitvā aṅgajāte abhinisīditvā yāvadatthaṃ katvā ‘purisusabho vatāya’nti vatvā gandhañca mālañca āropetvā pakkamiṃsu. Bhikkhū kilinnaṃ passitvā bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. Pañcahi, bhikkhave, ākārehi aṅgajātaṃ kammaniyaṃ hoti rāgena, vaccena, passāvena, vātena, uccāliṅgapāṇakadaṭṭhena. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahākārehi aṅgajātaṃ kammaniyaṃ hoti. Aṭṭhānametaṃ, bhikkhave, anavakāso, yaṃ tassa bhikkhuno rāgena aṅgajātaṃ kammaniyaṃ assa, arahaṃ so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu, anāpatti bhikkhave tassa bhikkhuno. Anujānāmi bhikkhave divā paṭisallīyantena dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā paṭisallīyitu’’nti (pārā. 77) etasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ idaṃ vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

And here, is this incurring of a dukkaṭa offense by one lying down during the day without closing the door established solely because it is stated in the commentary, or also by something else? He says, 'An offense is incurred,' and so forth. This incurring of a dukkaṭa offense is not only established because it is stated in the commentary, but also by this passage in the Parivāra, 'An offense is incurred during the day, not at night' (Pari. 323)—this is the connection. In what context, however, was this training rule stated? 'At one time, a certain bhikkhu in Vesālī, in the Great Wood, in the gabled hall, having gone to his dwelling during the day, was lying down with the door open. His limbs became stiff due to the wind. At that time, many women came to the monastery carrying perfumes and garlands, wishing to see the monastery. Then those women, seeing that bhikkhu, sat down on his private parts, did as they pleased, and saying, "What a virile man he is!" adorned him with perfumes and garlands and departed. The bhikkhus, seeing him soiled, reported this matter to the Blessed One. "Monks, the male organ becomes functional for five reasons: due to lust, feces, urine, wind, or the bite of a creeping insect. Monks, it is impossible, it is not the occasion, that the male organ of that bhikkhu became functional due to lust; that bhikkhu, monks, is an Arahant. There is no offense for that bhikkhu, monks. Monks, I allow one who is secluding himself during the day to do so after having closed the door."' (Pārā. 77) It should be understood that this was stated in reference to this incident.

2. Idāni dvāravisesaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘kīdisa’’ntiādimāha. Tattha parivattakadvāramevāti saṃvaraṇavivaraṇavasena ito cito ca parivattanayoggadvārameva. Rukkhasūcikaṇṭakadvāranti rukkhasūcidvāraṃ kaṇṭakadvārañca. ‘‘Rukkhasūcidvārakaṇṭakadvāra’’micceva vā [Pg.14] pāṭho. Yaṃ ubhosu passesu rukkhatthambhe nikhanitvā tattha vijjhitvā majjhe dve tisso rukkhasūciyo pavesetvā karonti, taṃ rukkhasūcidvāraṃ nāma. Pavesananikkhamanakāle apanetvā thakanayoggaṃ ekāya, bahūhi vā kaṇṭakasākhāhi kataṃ kaṇṭakadvāraṃ nāma. Gāmadvārassa pidhānatthaṃ padarena vā kaṇṭakasākhādīhi vā katassa kavāṭassa udukkhalapāsakarahitatāya ekena saṃvarituṃ vivarituñca asakkuṇeyyassa heṭṭhā ekaṃ cakkaṃ yojenti, yena parivattamānakakavāṭaṃ sukhathakanakaṃ hoti, taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ ‘‘cakkalakayuttadvāra’’nti. Cakkameva hi lātabbatthena saṃvaraṇavivaraṇatthāya gahetabbatthena cakkalakaṃ, tena yuttakavāṭampi cakkalakaṃ nāma, tena yuttadvāraṃ cakkalakayuttadvāraṃ.

2. Now, to show the different kinds of doors, it begins with ‘What kind?’ Therein, a revolving door means a door suitable for turning this way and that for the purpose of closing and opening. A spike-and-thorn door means a spike-door and a thorn-door. Or the reading is just ‘a spike-door-and-thorn-door.’ A spike-door is one they make by fixing wooden posts on both sides, piercing them, and inserting two or three wooden spikes in the middle. A thorn-door is one made with one or many thorny branches, suitable for closing, which is removed at the time of entering and leaving. For closing a village gate, for a door panel made of matting or thorny branches and the like, which is without a bolt-hole and latch and thus cannot be closed and opened by one person, they attach a wheel below, by which the revolving door panel becomes easy to close. In reference to this it is said, ‘a door fitted with a wheel-fitting.’ For the wheel itself, because it is to be used for the purpose of closing and opening, is called a ‘wheel-fitting’; the door panel fitted with it is also called a ‘wheel-fitting,’ and the door fitted with that is a ‘door fitted with a wheel-fitting.’

Mahādvāresu pana dve tīṇi cakkalakāni yojetīti āha ‘‘phalakesū’’tiādi. Kiṭikāsūti veḷupesikādīhi kaṇṭakasākhādīhi ca katathakanakesu. Saṃsaraṇakiṭikadvāranti cakkalakayantena saṃsaraṇakiṭikāyuttamahādvāraṃ. Gopphetvāti āvuṇitvā, rajjūhi ganthetvā vā. Ekaṃ dussasāṇidvāramevāti ettha kilañjasāṇidvārampi saṅgahaṃ gacchati. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 76-77) pana ‘‘dussadvāraṃ sāṇidvārañca dussasāṇidvāraṃ. Dussasāṇi kilañjasāṇītiādinā vuttaṃ sabbampi dussasāṇiyameva saṅgahetvā vuttaṃ, ekasadisattā ekanti vutta’’nti vuttaṃ.

But on great doors, two or three wheel-fittings are attached; thus he says, ‘on the panels,’ and so forth. ‘On the shutters’ means on the closing devices made of bamboo strips, thorny branches, and the like. ‘A door with a sliding shutter’ means a great door fitted with a sliding shutter by means of a wheel-fitting mechanism. ‘Having woven’ means having entwined or having tied with ropes. ‘Just one cloth-or-hemp door’: herein, a mat-or-hemp door is also included. But in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā it is said: ‘A cloth door and a hemp door is a cloth-and-hemp door. Everything said by way of “cloth-and-hemp,” “mat-and-hemp,” and so forth, is included under “cloth-and-hemp” and is stated thus. Because they are of one kind, it is said as “one”.’

3. Evaṃ dvāravisesaṃ dassetvā idāni yattakena dvāraṃ saṃvutaṃ hoti, taṃ pamāṇaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘kittakena’’tyādimāha. Tattha sūcīti majjhe chiddaṃ katvā pavesitā. Ghaṭikāti upari yojitā. Idāni yattha dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā nipajjituṃ [Pg.15] na sakkā hoti, tattha kātabbavidhiṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘sace bahūnaṃ vaḷañjanaṭṭhānaṃ hotī’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Bahūnaṃ avaḷañjanaṭṭhānepi ekaṃ āpucchitvā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Atha bhikkhū…pe… nisinnā hontīti idaṃ tattha bhikkhūnaṃ sannihitabhāvadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na sesairiyāpathasamaṅgitānivattanatthaṃ, tasmā nipannepi ābhogaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Nipajjitvā niddāyante pana ābhogaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Asantapakkhe ṭhitattā raho nisajjāya viya dvārasaṃvaraṇaṃ nāma mātugāmānaṃ pavesanivāraṇatthaṃ anuññātanti āha ‘‘kevalaṃ bhikkhuniṃ vā’’tiādi.

3. Having thus shown the different kinds of doors, now, to show the measure by which a door is closed, he says, ‘By how much?’ etc. Herein, ‘a bolt’ means one inserted after making a hole in the middle. ‘A latch’ means one attached above. Now, to show the procedure to be followed where it is not possible to lie down after closing the door, it is said, ‘If it is a place frequented by many…,’ etc. Even in a place not frequented by many, it is permissible to lie down after asking one person. ‘Then the bhikkhus… are seated’: this is said to show the presence of bhikkhus there, not to exclude those in other postures. Therefore, it is permissible to make a reflection even when lying down. But it is not permissible to make a reflection when one has lain down and is sleeping. Because it stands in the case where there is no one present, just like sitting in seclusion, the closing of a door is permitted for the purpose of preventing the entry of women; thus he says, ‘Only a bhikkhunī…,’ etc.

Ettha ca taṃ yuttaṃ, evaṃ sabbatthapi yo yo theravādo vā aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pacchā vuccati, so sova pamāṇanti gahetabbanti idaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanato atirekaṃ ācariyassa vacanaṃ. Ito pubbāparavacanaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanameva. Tattha taṃ yuttanti ‘‘kurundaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana…pe… na vattatī’’ti yaṃ vacanaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttaṃ, taṃ vacanaṃ yuttanti attho. Evaṃ…pe… gahetabbanti yathā cettha kurundiyaṃ vuttavacanaṃ yuttaṃ, evaṃ sabbatthapi vinicchaye yo yo theravādo vā aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pacchā vuccati, so sova pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ, pure vutto theravādo vā aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pamāṇanti na gahetabbanti adhippāyo. Idaṃ vacanaṃ aṭṭhāne vuttaṃ viya dissati. Kathaṃ? Yaṃ tāva vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttanti. Taṃ imasmiṃ āpucchanaābhogakaraṇavinicchaye aññassa ayuttassa aṭṭhakathāvādassa vā theravādassa vā abhāvā vattuṃ na sakkā. Na hi pubbavākye ‘‘bhikkhū evā’’ti avadhāraṇaṃ kataṃ, atha kho āsannavasena vā paṭṭhānavasena vā ‘‘bhikkhū cīvarakammaṃ’’iccādikaṃyeva vuttaṃ. Yampi vuttaṃ ‘‘evaṃ sabbatthapī’’tyādi, tampi anokāsaṃ. Imasmiṃ vinicchaye [Pg.16] aññassa aṭṭhakathāvādassa vā ācariyavādassa vā avacanato pure pacchābhāvo ca na dissati, ayaṃ ‘‘pamāṇa’’nti gahetabbo, ayaṃ ‘‘na gahetabbo’’ti vattabbabhāvo ca.

And here, ‘That is proper. Similarly, in all cases, whatever tradition of the elders or commentarial tradition is stated later, that very one should be taken as the authority.’ This is a saying of the Teacher that is additional to the word of the commentary. The preceding and subsequent sayings are just the word of the commentary. Herein, ‘that is proper’ means that the statement made by the commentary master, ‘But in the Kurundī commentary… it is not permissible…,’ is proper. ‘Similarly… should be taken’ means: just as the statement made in the Kurundī is proper here, so too in all legal decisions, whatever tradition of the elders or commentarial tradition is stated later, that very one should be taken as the authority; a tradition of the elders or a commentarial tradition stated earlier should not be taken as the authority—this is the intention. This saying appears to be stated in the wrong place. How so? As to what was said, ‘that is proper’: that cannot be said in this legal decision concerning asking permission and making a reflection, because of the absence of any other improper commentarial tradition or tradition of the elders. For in the preceding sentence no emphasis was made such as ‘only the bhikkhus’; rather, on the basis of proximity or as a starting point, it was just said, ‘bhikkhus doing robe-work,’ etc. And what was said, ‘similarly in all cases…,’ etc., is also out of place. In this legal decision, since no other commentarial tradition or teacher’s tradition is stated, no before-and-after relationship is seen, nor is there a situation where it must be said, ‘this should be taken as the authority,’ and ‘this should not be taken.’

Upari pana ‘‘ko muccati, ko na muccatī’’ti imassa pañhassa vissajjane mahāpaccarivādo ca kurundivādo ca mahāaṭṭhakathāvādo cāti tayo aṭṭhakathāvādā āgatā, eko mahāpadumattheravādo, tasmā tattheva yuttāyuttabhāvo ca pamāṇāpamāṇabhāvo ca gahetabbāgahetabbabhāvo ca dissati, tasmā tasmiṃyeva ṭhāne vattabbaṃ siyā, suvimalavipulapaññāveyyattiyasamannāgatena pana ācariyāsabhena avattabbaṭṭhāne vuttaṃ na siyā, tasmā upari aṭṭhakathāvādasaṃsandanāvasāne mahāpadumattherena vuttanti imassa vacanassa pacchato vuttaṃ siyā, taṃ pacchā lekhakehi parivattetvā likhitaṃ bhaveyya, pārājikakaṇḍaṭṭhakathāyañca idaṃ vacanaṃ vuttaṃ. Ṭīkāyañca imasmiṃ ṭhāne na vuttaṃ, upariyeva vuttaṃ, ‘‘yo ca yakkhagahitako, yo ca bandhitvā nipajjāpito’’ti imassa aṭṭhakathāvādassa pacchimattā soyeva pamāṇato gahetabbo. Tathā ca vakkhati ‘‘sabbattha yo yo aṭṭhakathāvādo vā theravādo vā pacchā vuccati, so soyeva pamāṇato daṭṭhabbo’’ti, tasmā idamettha vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ.

Further on, however, in the answer to the question, ‘Who is absolved, and who is not absolved?,’ three commentarial traditions have come down: the Mahāpaccarī tradition, the Kurundī tradition, and the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā tradition, and one tradition of the Elder Mahāpaduma. Therefore, it is right there that the state of being proper and improper, authoritative and unauthoritative, and acceptable and unacceptable are seen. Thus, it should be stated in that very place. But it would not have been stated in a place where it should not be stated by a bull-like teacher endowed with utterly pure and vast wisdom and skill. Therefore, it might have been stated after the statement of the Elder Mahāpaduma, which comes at the conclusion of the comparison of the commentarial traditions above. Later, it may have been altered and written down by scribes. This saying is also stated in the commentary to the Pārājika section, and in the subcommentary it is not stated in this place, but is stated only further on. Because the commentarial tradition, ‘and one who is possessed by a yakkha, and one who has been bound and made to lie down,’ is the last, that very one should be taken as the authority. And so he will say: ‘In all cases, whatever commentarial tradition or tradition of the elders is stated later, that very one should be seen as the authority.’ Therefore, this should be investigated and accepted here.

4. Idāni dvāraṃ saṃvaraṇassa antarāye sati asaṃvaritvāpi nipajjituṃ vaṭṭatīti dassetuṃ ‘‘atha dvārassa’’tyādimāha. Nisseṇiṃ āropetvāti uparimatalaṃ āropetvā visaṅkharitvā bhūmiyaṃ pātetvā, chaḍḍetvā vā nipajjituṃ vaṭṭati. Idaṃ ekābaddhatāya vuttaṃ. Dvepi dvārāni jaggitabbānīti ettha sace ekasmiṃ dvāre kavāṭaṃ vā natthi, heṭṭhā vuttanayena saṃvarituṃ vā na sakkā, itaraṃ dvāraṃ asaṃvaritvā [Pg.17] nipajjituṃ vaṭṭati. Dvārapālassāti dvārakoṭṭhake mahādvāre, nisseṇimūle vā ṭhatvā dvārajagganakassa. Pacchimānaṃ bhāroti ekābaddhavasena āgacchante sandhāya vuttaṃ. Asaṃvutadvāre antogabbhe vāti yojetabbaṃ. Bahi vāti gabbhato bahi. Nipajjanakālepi…pe… vaṭṭatiyevāti ettha dvārajagganakassa tadadhīnattā tadā tassa tattha sannihitāsannihitabhāvaṃ anupadhāretvāpi ābhogaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatiyevāti vadanti.

4. Now, to show that when there is an obstacle to closing the door, it is permissible to lie down even without closing it, he says, ‘But of the door…,’ etc. ‘Having set up a ladder’ means: having set it up to the upper floor, dismantled it, and dropped it to the ground, or having discarded it, it is permissible to lie down. This is said in connection with a single building. ‘Both doors should be guarded’: here, if one door has no door panel, or it cannot be closed in the way stated below, it is permissible to lie down without closing the other door. ‘Of the doorkeeper’ means of the one guarding the door while standing in the gateway, at the great door, or at the foot of the ladder. ‘The responsibility of the last ones’ is said in reference to those who come as a single connected group. ‘In an unclosed door, or inside the inner chamber’ should be connected. ‘Or outside’ means outside the inner chamber. ‘Even at the time of lying down… it is permissible’: here they say that because it is dependent on the doorkeeper, it is permissible to make a reflection even without ascertaining his presence or absence there at that time.

Yena kenaci parikkhitteti ettha parikkhepassa ubbedhato pamāṇaṃ sahaseyyappahonake vuttasadisameva. Vuttañhi samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 51) ‘‘yañhi senāsanaṃ upari pañcahi chadanehi aññena vā kenaci sabbameva paṭicchannaṃ, ayaṃ sabbacchannā nāma seyyā…pe… yaṃ pana senāsanaṃ bhūmito paṭṭhāya yāva chadanaṃ āhacca pākārena vā aññena vā kenaci antamaso vatthenapi parikkhittaṃ, ayaṃ sabbaparicchannā nāma seyyā. Chadanaṃ anāhacca sabbantimena pariyāyena diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhena pākārādinā parikkhittāpi sabbaparicchannāyevāti kurundaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutta’’nti. ‘‘Diyaḍḍhahatthubbedho vaḍḍhakihatthena gahetabbo’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.51) vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) vuttaṃ. Mahāpariveṇanti mahantaṃ aṅgaṇaṃ. Tena bahujanasañcaraṇaṭṭhānaṃ dasseti. Tenāha ‘‘mahābodhī’’tiādi.

‘Enclosed by anything whatsoever’: here the measure of the enclosure’s height is just like what was stated in the section on what is suitable for sleeping together. For it is said in the Samantapāsādikā: ‘A lodging that is entirely covered above by five kinds of roofing or by anything else is called a “fully covered sleeping place.” … But a lodging that is enclosed from the ground up to the roof by a wall or by anything else, even by a cloth, is called a “fully enclosed sleeping place.” Even if not reaching the roof, if it is enclosed by a wall or the like with a height of one and a half cubits as the very last resort, it is still a “fully enclosed sleeping place,” so it is said in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā.’ ‘The height of one and a half cubits should be taken by a carpenter’s cubit,’ it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī and the Vimativinodanī. ‘A great compound’ means a large courtyard. By this he shows it is a place where many people move about. Thus he says, ‘the great Bodhi tree,’ etc.

Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhāti, anāpatti anāpattikhettabhūtāya rattiyā suddhacittena nipannattā. Pabujjhitvā puna supati, āpattīti aruṇe uggate pabujjhitvā aruṇuggamanaṃ ñatvā vā añatvā vā anuṭṭhahitvā sayitasantānena supati, uṭṭhahitvā [Pg.18] kattabbassa dvārasaṃvaraṇādino akatattā akiriyasamuṭṭhānā āpatti hoti anāpattikhette katanipajjanakiriyāya anaṅgattā. Ayañhi āpatti īdise ṭhāne akiriyā, divā dvāraṃ asaṃvaritvā nipajjanakkhaṇe kiriyākiriyā ca acittakā cāti veditabbā. Purāruṇā pabujjhitvāpi yāva aruṇuggamanā sayantassapi purimanayena āpattiyeva.

When dawn has risen, one gets up; there is no offense, because one lay down with a pure mind during the night, which is a field free from offenses. If, having awakened, one sleeps again, there is an offense—that is, having awakened when dawn has risen, whether one knows or does not know of the dawn's rising, and without getting up, one continues to sleep in the same posture. An offense arising from inaction occurs because of the failure to perform the duties that should be done upon getting up, such as securing the door, since the act of lying down performed in a field free from offenses is not a factor. This offense is indeed inaction in such a place; and it should be understood that during the day, the act of failing to secure the door at the moment of lying down involves both action and inaction, and is also unintentional. Even for one who awakens before dawn and remains lying down until dawn, there is an offense in the same way as before.

Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhahissāmīti…pe… āpattiyevāti ettha kadā assa āpattīti? Vuccate – na tāva rattiyaṃ, ‘‘divā āpajjati, no ratti’’nti (pari. 323) vuttattā anādariyadukkaṭā na muccatīti vuttadukkaṭaṃ pana divāsayanadukkaṭameva na hoti anādariyadukkaṭattā eva. ‘‘Aruṇuggamane pana acittakaṃ akiriyasamuṭṭhānaṃ āpattiṃ āpajjatīti veditabba’’nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77) vuttaṃ, sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. pārājika 2.77) ‘‘yathāparicchedameva vuṭṭhātīti aruṇe uggateyeva uṭṭhahati. Tassa āpattīti asuddhacitteneva nipannattā niddāyantassapi aruṇe uggate divāpaṭisallānamūlikā āpatti. ‘Evaṃ nipajjanto anādariyadukkaṭāpi na muccatī’ti vuttattā asuddhacittena nipajjanto aruṇuggamanato puretaraṃ uṭṭhahantopi anuṭṭhahantopi nipajjanakāleyeva anādariyadukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, divāpaṭisallānamūlikaṃ pana dukkaṭaṃ aruṇeyeva āpajjatī’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā evaṃ nipajjantassa dve dukkaṭāni āpajjantīti veditabbaṃ.

If one lies down thinking, 'I will get up when dawn has risen,' ... there is an offense. Here, when does the offense occur? It is said: not at night, because it is stated, 'It is committed during the day, not at night' (Pari. 323). The stated dukkaṭa for lack of respect is not escaped. However, that stated dukkaṭa is not the same as the dukkaṭa for lying down during the day, because it arises from lack of respect. 'However, at the rising of dawn, it should be understood that an unintentional offense arising from inaction is incurred,' as stated in the Vimativinodanī. The Sāratthadīpanī also says: '“One gets up just as it is defined” means one gets up precisely at dawn. For him, there is an offense—because he lay down with an impure mind, even if he is asleep, the offense rooted in daytime seclusion occurs at dawn. Since it is stated, “One who lies down in this way is not freed even from the dukkaṭa of lack of respect,” one who lies down with an impure mind, whether getting up before dawn or not getting up, incurs the dukkaṭa of lack of respect at the very time of lying down. However, the dukkaṭa rooted in daytime seclusion is incurred only at dawn.' Therefore, it should be understood that one who lies down in this way incurs two dukkaṭa offenses.

Sace dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā aruṇe uggate uṭṭhahissāmīti nipajjati, dvāre ca aññehi aruṇuggamanakāle vivaṭepi tassa anāpattiyeva dvārapidahanassa rattidivābhāgesu visesābhāvā. Āpattiāpajjanasseva kālaviseso icchitabbo, na tapparihārassāti gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā rattiṃ [Pg.19] nipajjatī’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) hi vuttaṃ. Divā saṃvaritvā nipannassa kenaci vivaṭepi dvāre anāpattiyeva, attanāpi anuṭṭhahitvāva sati paccaye vivaṭepi anāpattīti vadanti, idampi vimativinodaniyameva (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77) vuttaṃ.

If, having secured the door, one lies down thinking, 'I will get up when dawn has risen,' and even if others open the door when dawn has broken, there is no offense for him, as there is no difference between night and day concerning the securing of the door. It should be understood that a specific time is required only for incurring an offense, not for its avoidance. For it is stated, 'Having secured the door, one lies down at night.' If one lies down during the day after securing the door and someone else opens it, there is no offense. They say that even if one does not get up oneself, but the door is opened due to some reason, there is no offense. This too is stated in the Vimativinodanī.

Yathāparicchedameva vuṭṭhātīti aruṇe uggateyeva vuṭṭhāti, āpattiyevāti mūlāpattiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Anādariyaāpatti pana purāruṇā uṭṭhitassapi tassa hoteva ‘‘dukkaṭā na muccatī’’ti vuttattā. Dukkaṭā na muccatīti ca purāruṇā uṭṭhahitvā mūlāpattiyā muttopi anādariyadukkaṭā na muccatīti adhippāyo.

‘One gets up just as it is defined’ means one gets up precisely at the break of dawn. 'An offense indeed' refers to the root offense. However, an offense due to lack of respect occurs even if one gets up before dawn, since it is stated, 'He is not freed from the dukkaṭa.' 'He is not freed from the dukkaṭa' means that even if one gets up before dawn and is freed from the root offense, he is not freed from the dukkaṭa of lack of respect—this is the intended meaning.

5. Niddāvasena nipajjatīti niddābhibhūtatāya ekapassena nipajjati. ‘‘Niddāvasena nipajjatī’’ti vohāravasena vuttaṃ, pādānaṃ pana bhūmito amocitattā ayaṃ nipanno nāma hotīti teneva anāpatti vuttā. Apassāya supantassāti kaṭiṭṭhito uddhaṃ piṭṭhikaṇṭake appamattakaṃ padesaṃ bhūmiṃ aphusāpetvā supantassa. Kaṭiṭṭhiṃ pana bhūmiṃ phusāpentassa sayanaṃ nāma na hoti. Piṭṭhipasāraṇalakkhaṇā hi seyyā dīghā, vandanādīsupi tiriyaṃ piṭṭhikaṇṭakānaṃ pasāritattā nipajjanamevāti āpatti pariharitabbāva. Vandanāpi hi pādamūle nipajjatītiādīsu nipajjanameva vuttā. Sahasā vuṭṭhātīti pakkhalitā patito viya sahasā vuṭṭhāti, tassapi anāpatti patanakkhaṇe avisayattā, visaye jāte sahasā vuṭṭhitattā ca. Yassa pana visaññitāya pacchāpi avisayo eva, tassa anāpattiyeva patanakkhaṇe viya. Tattheva sayati, na vuṭṭhātīti iminā visayepi akaraṇaṃ dasseti, teneva tassa āpattīti vuttaṃ.

5. 'He lies down out of sleepiness' means he lies down on one side due to being overcome by sleep. The phrase 'he lies down out of sleepiness' is spoken conventionally, but since his feet are not lifted from the ground, this is not called lying down—hence, it is said there is no offense. 'Sleeping without leaning' refers to one who sleeps without letting even a small part of the back from the hips upward touch the ground. However, if one lets the hips touch the ground, it is not called lying down. For the characteristic of lying down is lengthwise stretching out of the back; even in acts like bowing, if the back is stretched out sideways, it is simply lying down—thus, an offense must be avoided. Indeed, even in phrases like 'he lies down at the feet' in bowing, it is simply called lying down. 'He rises up abruptly' means he gets up suddenly as if slipping and falling. Even in that case, there is no offense at the moment of falling because it is unintentional, and because he got up suddenly when awareness arose. For one who remains unaware even afterward, there is indeed no offense, just as at the moment of falling. 'But if he sleeps right there and does not get up'—this shows the non-action even when aware. Hence, it is said that there is an offense for him.

Idāni [Pg.20] aṭṭhakathāvādasaṃsandanaṃ kātuṃ ‘‘ko muccati, ko na muccatī’’tiādimāha. Tattha mahāpaccariyantiādīsu paccarīti uḷumpaṃ vuccati, tasmiṃ nisīditvā katattā tameva nāmaṃ jātaṃ. Kurundivallivihāro nāma atthi, tattha katattā kurundīti nāmaṃ jātaṃ. Mahāaṭṭhakathā nāma saṅgītittayamāruḷhā tepiṭakassa buddhavacanassa aṭṭhakathā. Yā mahāmahindattherena tambapaṇṇidīpaṃ ābhatā, tambapaṇṇiyehi therehi pacchā sīhaḷabhāsāya abhisaṅkhatā ca hoti. Ekabhaṅgenāti ekapassabhañjanena pāde bhūmito amocetvā ekapassena sarīraṃ bhañjitvā nipannoti vuttaṃ hoti. Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana mahāpadumattherena vuttanti sambandho. Tena mahāaṭṭhakathāya likhitamahāpadumattheravāde ‘‘aya’’nti dasseti. ‘‘Mucchitvā patitattā avisayattā āpatti na dissatī’’ti therena vuttaṃ. Ācariyā pana yathā yakkhagahitako bandhitvā nipajjāpito ca paravaso hoti, evaṃ aparavasattā mucchitvā patito kañcikālaṃ jānitvā nipajjatīti anāpattiṃ na vadanti, visaññite pana sati anāpattiyeva.

Now, in order to reconcile the commentarial views, he says, beginning with 'Who is freed, who is not freed?' Here, in the Mahāpaccariya and others, 'paccarī' is said to refer to a raft; because it was composed while seated on that, it came to be known by that name. There is a monastery called Kurundivallivihāra; because it was composed there, it came to be known as 'Kurundī.' The Mahāaṭṭhakathā is the commentary on the Buddha’s words in the Tipiṭaka, which has come down through the three councils. It was brought to the island of Tambapaṇṇi by the great elder Mahinda and was later compiled in the Sinhalese language by the elders of Tambapaṇṇi. 'Ekabhaṅgena' means lying down bent on one side without lifting the feet from the ground. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, however, this is connected to what was said by the elder Mahāpaduma. Therefore, he indicates the view of the elder Mahāpaduma written in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā with the word 'this'. The elder said, 'Because one fell unconscious and was unaware, no offense is seen.' The teachers, however, say that unlike one possessed by a spirit or one who is bound and made to lie down, who is powerless, one who falls unconscious but is not powerless and is aware for some time while lying down—for such a one they do not declare it a non-offense. However, if one is unconscious, there is indeed no offense.

Dve janātiādi mahāaṭṭhakathāyameva vacanaṃ, tadeva pacchā vuttattā pamāṇaṃ. Yakkhagahitaggahaṇeneva cettha visaññibhūtopi saṅgahito, ekabhaṅgena nipanno pana anipannattā āpattito muccatiyevāti gahetabbaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyañca (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77) ‘‘yo ca yakkhagahitako, yo ca bandhitvā nipajjāpito’’ti imassa aṭṭhakathāvādassa pacchimattā soyeva pamāṇato gahetabbo, tathā ca vakkhati ‘‘sabbattha yo yo aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pacchā vuccati, so soyeva pamāṇato gahetabbo’’ti. Imasmiṃ ṭhāne imassa aṭṭhakathāpāṭhassa ānītattā imasmiṃ vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇepi [Pg.21] imasmiṃyeva ṭhāne so pāṭho vattabboti no khanti. Ettha ca ‘‘rattiṃ dvāraṃ vivaritvā nipanno aruṇe uggate uṭṭhāti, anāpattī’’tiādivacanato aruṇuggamane saṃsayavinodanatthaṃ aruṇakathā vattabbā. Tatridaṃ vuccati –

'Two kinds of people,' etc., this is a statement in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā itself, and that alone is authoritative because it is stated later. Here, even one who is unconscious is included by the term 'possessed by a spirit,' but one who lies bent on one side is considered as not having lain down and thus is freed from offense—this should be understood. Furthermore, in the Sāratthadīpanī, regarding 'He who is possessed by a spirit, and he who is made to lie down after being bound'—since this commentary statement is the latter one, it alone should be taken as authoritative. And thus it will be said: 'In all cases, whichever commentary statement is stated later, that alone should be taken as authoritative.' Because this commentary passage has been cited here, the view that this passage ought to be stated in this very place in this Vinayasaṅgaha treatise as well is not approved. Here, from statements such as, 'One who lies down with the door open at night and gets up when dawn has broken, incurs no offense,' a discussion of dawn should be stated to dispel doubt regarding the rising of dawn. On this, it is said:

‘‘Ko esa aruṇo nāma;

Kena so aruṇo bhave;

Kīdiso tassa vaṇṇā tu;

Saṇṭhānaṃ kīdisaṃ bhave.

"What is this called Dawn? By what does it become Dawn? What is its color? What is its form?"

‘‘Kismiṃ kāle ca dese ca, aruṇo samugacchati;

Kiṃ paccakkhasiddho eso, udāhu anumānato’’ti.

"At what time and in what place does dawn arise? Is this directly perceived, or is it inferred?"

Tattha ko esa aruṇo nāmāti ettha esa aruṇo nāma sūriyassa pabhāviseso. Vuttañhetaṃ abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ –

Here, regarding 'What is this called dawn?', 'this dawn' refers to a particular radiance of the sun. This is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:

‘‘Sūrassodayato pubbuṭṭhitaraṃsi siyāruṇo’’ti;

“The rays that arise before the sun’s rising are the dawn.”

Taṭṭīkāyañca ‘‘sūrassa udayato pubbe uṭṭhitaraṃsi aruṇo nāma siyā’’ti. Vimativinodanīnāmikāyaṃ vinayaṭīkāyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463) ‘‘aruṇoti cettha sūriyuggamanassa purecaro vaḍḍhanaghanaratto pabhāvisesoti daṭṭhabbo’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā sūriyappabhāyeva aruṇo nāma, na aññoti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kena so aruṇo bhaveti ettha aruṇo vaṇṇo assāti aruṇo, kiñcirattavaṇṇasamannāgatoti attho. Atha vā arati gacchati rattavaṇṇabhāvena pavattatīti aruṇo. Vuttañhetaṃ abhidhānappadīpikāṭīkāyaṃ ‘‘aruṇavaṇṇatāya arati gacchatīti aruṇo’’ti. Kīdiso tassa vaṇṇoti ettha abyattarattavaṇṇo tassa vaṇṇo bhave. Vuttañhi abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ ‘‘aruṇo kiñcirattothā’’ti. Taṭṭīkāyañca [Pg.22] ‘‘kiñciratto abyattarattavaṇṇo aruṇo nāma yathā macchassa akkhī’’ti. Vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463) ‘‘vaḍḍhanaghanaratto pabhāviseso’’ti, tasmā sūriyassa rattappabhāyeva aruṇo nāma, na setappabhādayoti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhakavaṇṇanāya vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.383) ‘‘pāḷiyaṃ pana nandimukhiyāti odātadisāmukhatāya tuṭṭhamukhiyā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ kathaṃ yujjeyyāti, no na yujjeyya. Tattha hi aruṇuggatakāle aruṇobhāsena odātadisāmukhabhāvo vutto, na aruṇobhāsassa odātabhāvo. Vuttañhetaṃ udānaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (udā. aṭṭha. 23) ‘‘nandimukhiyāti aruṇassa uggatattā eva aruṇobhāya sūriyālokūpajīvino satte nandāpanamukhiyā rattiyā jātāya vibhāyamānāyāti attho’’ti.

And in its subcommentary it is said: “The rays that have arisen before the sun’s rising may be called aruṇa.” And in the Vinaya subcommentary called Vimativinodanī, it is stated: “Herein, aruṇa should be understood as a special radiance that is growing, dense, and red, which precedes the sun’s rising.” Therefore, it should be understood that aruṇa is only the radiance of the sun, and nothing else. For what reason is it called aruṇa? Here, it is 'aruṇa' because 'it has a reddish color'; the meaning is that it possesses a somewhat reddish hue. Or, it is 'aruṇa' because 'it goes' (arati, gacchati), that is, it proceeds with a reddish quality. This is stated in the subcommentary to the Abhidhānappadīpikā: “It is ‘aruṇa’ because it ‘goes’ (arati, gacchati) with a reddish color.” What is its color like? Here, its color would be an indistinctly red color. For it is stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: “Aruṇa is somewhat red.” And in its subcommentary: “What is called aruṇa is somewhat red, an indistinctly red color, like the eye of a fish.” And in the Vimativinodanī: “a special radiance that is growing, dense, and red.” Therefore, it should be understood that aruṇa is only the reddish radiance of the sun, not a white radiance or the like. If so, how is it that in the Vimativinodanī, in its explanation of the chapter on suspending the Pātimokkha, it is said: “In the Pāḷi, however, ‘nandimukhiyā’ means ‘with a delighted face’ because of the direction becoming bright”? This is not inconsistent. For there, at the time of the dawn’s rising, it is the state of the direction becoming bright by the light of the dawn that is spoken of, not the brightness of the dawn’s light itself. As stated in the Udāna Commentary: “ ‘Nandimukhiyā’ means: because the dawn has risen, the night, which is becoming bright, has a face that gladdens—by the light of the dawn—the beings who live by the light of the sun; this is the meaning.”

Jātakaṭṭhakathāyañca –

And in the Jātaka Commentary:

‘‘Jighaññarattiṃ aruṇasmimuhate;

Yā dissati uttamarūpavaṇṇinī;

Tathūpamā maṃ paṭibhāsi devate;

Ācikkha me taṃ katamāsi accharā’’ti. (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.254);

“When the hungry night is ending as the dawn is rising, she is seen, possessing the highest beauty and complexion. Just so, O deity, you appear to me; tell me, which celestial nymph are you?”

Imassa gāthāya atthavaṇṇanāyaṃ ‘‘tattha jighaññarattinti pacchimarattiṃ, rattipariyosāneti attho. Uhateti aruṇe uggate. Yāti yā puratthimā disā rattavaṇṇatāya uttamarūpadharā hutvā dissatī’’ti. Evaṃ aruṇuggatasamaye puratthimadisāya rattavaṇṇatā vuttā, tasmā tasmiṃ samaye aruṇassa uṭṭhitattā puratthimāya disāya rattabhāgo sūriyālokassa patthaṭattā sesadisānaṃ odātabhāvo viññāyati.

In the explanation of the meaning of this verse: “Herein, ‘jighaññarattiṃ’ means the last watch of the night; the meaning is ‘at the end of the night.’ ‘Uhateti’ means ‘when the dawn has risen.’ ‘Yā’ refers to the eastern direction, which is seen bearing the highest beauty because of its reddish color.” Thus, the reddish color of the eastern direction at the time of the dawn’s rising is stated. Therefore, at that time, because the dawn has risen, the eastern direction is discerned as red due to the spreading of the sun’s light, while the other directions are discerned as bright.

Saṇṭhānaṃ [Pg.23] kīdisaṃ bhaveti ettha aruṇassa pāṭekkaṃ saṇṭhānaṃ nāma natthi rasmimattattā. Yattakaṃ padesaṃ pharati, tattakaṃ tassa saṇṭhānanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Atha vā puratthimadisāsaṇṭhānaṃ. Vuttañhi jātakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255) ‘‘puratthimadisā rattavaṇṇatāya uttamarūpadharā hutvā dissatī’’ti.

What is its shape like? Herein, the dawn has no particular shape of its own, as it is merely rays. It should be understood that its shape is coextensive with the area it pervades. Or else, its shape is that of the eastern direction. For it is stated in the Jātaka Commentary: “The eastern direction is seen bearing the highest beauty because of its reddish color.”

Kismiṃ kāle ca dese ca, aruṇo samugacchatīti ettha esa aruṇo sūriyuggamanassa pure kāle puratthimadisāyaṃ uggacchati. Vuttañhetaṃ udānaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (udā. aṭṭha. 23) ‘‘uddhaste aruṇeti uggate aruṇe, aruṇo nāma puratthimadisāyaṃ sūriyodayato puretarameva uṭṭhitobhāso’’ti. Abhidhānappadīpikāyañca ‘‘sūrassodayato pubbuṭṭhitaraṃsī’’ti.

At what time and in what place does the dawn arise? Herein, this dawn arises in the eastern direction at a time before the sun’s rising. For this is stated in the Udāna Commentary: “ ‘When the dawn has appeared’ means ‘when the dawn has risen.’ Aruṇa is the light that has arisen in the eastern direction even before the sun’s rising.” And in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: “The rays that have arisen before the sun’s rising.”

Kiṃ paccakkhasiddho eso, udāhu anumānatoti ettha ayaṃ aruṇo nāma paccakkhasiddho eva, na anumānasiddho. Kasmā viññāyatīti ce? Cakkhuviññāṇagocaravaṇṇāyatanabhāvato. Akkhassa patīti paccakkhaṃ, cakkhurūpānaṃ abhimukhabhāvena āpāthagatattā cakkhuviññāṇaṃ hoti. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā ‘‘cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇa’’nti (ma. ni. 1.204, 400; 3.421, 425, 426; saṃ. ni. 2.43, 44, 45, saṃ. ni. 4.60; kathā. 465, 467), tasmā ayaṃ aruṇavaṇṇo cakkhunā disvā jānitabbato paccakkhasiddhoyeva hoti, na evaṃ sati evaṃ bhaveyyāti anumānena punappunaṃ cintanena siddhoti. Imaṃ pañhavissajjanaṃ sādhukaṃ manasi karitvā paṇḍitehi rattobhāsoyeva aruṇoti paccetabbo sallakkhetabboti.

Is this established by direct perception or by inference? Herein, this dawn is established by direct perception, not by inference. If it is asked how this is known: because it is the form-base, the domain of eye-consciousness. 'Paccakkhaṃ' (direct perception) is what is before the eye (akkhassa pati). Eye-consciousness arises because the eye and forms are face-to-face and have come into range. This was stated by the Blessed One: “Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises.” Therefore, since this color of the dawn is to be known by being seen with the eye, it is established by direct perception, not established by repeated thinking and inference of the kind, “This being so, that would be so.” Having taken this question-and-answer well to heart, the wise should accept and note that the dawn is indeed the red light.

Kasmā pana imasmiṃ ṭhāne aruṇakathā vuttāti? Imissā aruṇakathāya mahāvisayabhāvato. Kathaṃ? Uposathikā upāsakā ca upāsikāyo ca aruṇuggamanaṃ tathato [Pg.24] ajānantā anuggateyeva aruṇe uggatasaññāya khādanīyaṃ vā khādanti, bhojanīyaṃ vā bhuñjanti, mālāgandhādīni vā dhārenti, tato tesaṃ sīlaṃ bhijjati. Sāmaṇerā tatheva vikālabhojanaṃ bhuñjitvā sīlavināsaṃ pāpuṇanti. Nissayapaṭipannakā bhikkhū ācariyupajjhāyehi vinā bahisīme carantā nissayappassambhanaṃ pāpuṇanti, antovasse bhikkhū upacārasīmato bahigacchantā vassacchedaṃ, tecīvarikā bhikkhū abaddhasīmāyaṃ cīvarena vippavasantā nissaggiyapācittiyaṃ, tathā sattabbhantarasīmāyaṃ, sahaseyyappahonakaṭṭhāne anupasampannamātugāmehi saha sayantā pācittiyaṃ, tathā yāvakālikaṃ bhuñjantā bhikkhū, pārivāsikādayo vattaṃ nikkhipantā ratticchedaṃ. Evamādianekādīnavasambhavato lajjipesalānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ tathato aruṇuggamanassa jānanatthaṃ vuttāti daṭṭhabbā.

But why is the discussion about the dawn stated in this place? Because this discussion about the dawn is a topic of great scope. How so? Laymen and laywomen observing the Uposatha, not knowing the rising of the dawn as it really is, perceive it as having risen when it has not yet risen, and they eat hard foods or consume soft foods, or wear garlands, perfumes, and so on; thereby their virtue is broken. Novices, in the same way, eat at the wrong time and bring about the ruin of their virtue. Monks living in dependence, wandering outside the boundary without their teachers and preceptors, incur an interruption of their dependence. Monks within the rains-residence, by going outside the vicinity, incur a break in the rains. Monks who use only the three robes, by dwelling apart from their robes in an unestablished boundary, incur a Pācittiya offense involving forfeiture; likewise within a boundary of seven abbhantaras. Likewise, by sleeping together with an unordained woman in a place suitable for sleeping together, they incur a Pācittiya offense. Similarly, monks eating what is allowable for a limited time, and those on probation and so on who abandon their duties, incur a break in the nights. It should be understood that because of the occurrence of these and many other dangers, this was stated for the sake of scrupulous and conscientious monks, for the purpose of knowing the rising of the dawn as it really is.

Keci pana bhikkhū aḍḍharattisamaye ghaṭisuññattā aḍḍharattikālaṃ atikkamma aññadivaso hoti, tasmā tasmiṃ kāle aruṇaṃ uṭṭhitaṃ nāma hotīti maññamānā aḍḍharattiṃ atikkamma khādanīyabhojanīyādīni bhuñjanti, te pana buddhasamayaṃ ajānantā vedasamayameva manasi karontā evaṃ karonti, tasmā tesaṃ taṃkaraṇaṃ pamāṇaṃ na hoti. Bahavo pana bhikkhū aruṇassa paccakkhabhāvaṃ ajānantā anumānavasena cintituñca asakkontā anussavavaseneva paravacanaṃ saddahantā amhākaṃ ācariyā aruṇuggamanavelāyaṃ uṭṭhāya gacchantā sūriyuggamanavelāyaṃ dvisahassadaṇḍappamāṇaṃ ṭhānaṃ pāpuṇanti, tisahassadaṇḍappamāṇaṃ ṭhānaṃ pāpuṇantīti ca vadanti. Imamhā vihārā asukaṃ nāma vihāraṃ asukaṃ nāma cetiyaṃ asukaṃ nāma gāmaṃ pāpuṇantītiādīni ca vadantīti evaṃ anussavavacanaṃ vadanti, tampi appamāṇaṃ. Kasmā? Addhānaṃ nāma balavantassa javasampannassa ca rassaṃ hoti, dubbalassa santassa ca dīghaṃ hoti. Vuttañhi bhagavatā –

But some monks, because the water-clocks are empty at midnight, think that once midnight has passed it is another day, and therefore that the dawn has risen at that time. Thinking thus, they pass midnight and then consume hard and soft foods. But they do this without knowing the Buddha's system, keeping in mind only the Vedic system; therefore their action is not a valid authority. But many monks, not knowing the direct perceptibility of the dawn and being unable to figure it out by inference, simply rely on hearsay, trusting the word of others. They say: 'Our teachers, rising at the time of dawn's rising, reach a place two thousand staff-lengths away by sunrise, or they reach a place three thousand staff-lengths away.' And they say such things as: 'From this monastery they reach such-and-such a monastery, such-and-such a cetiya, such-and-such a village.' Thus they speak from hearsay, but that too is not a valid measure. Why? Because a journey is short for one who is strong and swift, but long for one who is weak and slow. For it was said by the Blessed One:

‘‘Dīghā [Pg.25] jāgarato ratti, dīghaṃ santassa yojanaṃ;

Dīgho bālāna saṃsāro, saddhammaṃ avijānata’’nti. (dha. pa. 60);

“Long is the night to one who is wakeful; long is a league to one who is weary; long is saṃsāra for the fools who do not know the good Dhamma.”

Tasmā addhānaṃ nāma sabbesaṃ ekasadisaṃ na hotīti aruṇuggamanassa lakkhaṇaṃ bhavituṃ na sakkā, na ca te āyasmanto piṭakattayato kiñci sādhakabhūtaṃ vacanaṃ āharanti, asakkhikaṃ aḍḍaṃ karonti viya yathājjhāsayameva vadantīti pamāṇaṃ na hoti.

Therefore, since a journey is not the same for everyone, it cannot be a characteristic of the dawn's rising. Nor do those venerable ones adduce any statement from the Tipiṭaka that could serve as proof. They speak just as they please, like one making an unwitnessed claim, so this is not a valid measure.

Aññe pana –

Still others say:

‘‘Atītarattiyā yāmo;

Pacchimoḍḍhamamussa vā;

Bhāviniyādippahāro;

Tadaḍḍhaṃ vājjatehya hoti –

“The last watch of the night that has passed, or its latter half; the first stroke of the coming day, or half of that, is for ‘today’—”

Kaccāyanasārappakaraṇāgataṃ gāthaṃ vatvā atītarattiyā pacchimo yāmo ajja pariyāpanno, tasmā pacchimayāmassa ādito paṭṭhāya aruṇaṃ uggacchatī’’ti vadanti. Ayaṃ vādo sakāraṇasaññāpakattā purimehi balavā hoti, evaṃ santepi ayuttoyeva. Kasmā? Ayañhi gāthā bāhirasaddasatthe jaṅgadāsappakaraṇe vuttanayena ajja bhavā ajjatanīti vuttaajjavohārassa pavattanakālaṃ dassetuṃ vuttā, na piṭakattaye vuttassa aruṇuggamanassa kālaṃ dassetuṃ, tasmā aññasādhyassa aññasādhakena sādhitattā ayuttoyeva.

Quoting this verse from the Kaccāyanasārappakaraṇa, they say: 'The last watch of the past night is included in “today”; therefore, the dawn rises from the beginning of the last watch.' This argument, because it indicates a reason, is stronger than the previous ones. Even so, it is still incorrect. Why? For this verse was stated in an external grammatical treatise, the Jaṅgadāsappakaraṇa, to show the period of currency for the term 'today' (ajjatanī)—derived as 'existing today'—not to show the time of the rising of the dawn mentioned in the Tipiṭaka. Therefore, since one thing to be established is being established by a proof for something else, it is incorrect.

Apare pana ‘‘pahāro yāmasaññito’’ti abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ vuttattā pahārayāmasaddānaṃ ekatthattā tattheva ‘‘tiyāmā saṃvarī bhave’’ti vuttattā rattiyā ca tiyāmabhāvato pāḷiyañca (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383) ‘‘abhikkantā, bhante, ratti, nikkhanto pacchimo yāmo, uddhasto aruṇo’’ti āgatattā idāni [Pg.26] rattiyā catūsu pahāresu tatiyappahārassa avasāne aruṇo uggato, tasmā avasesaekappahāramatto kālo divasabhāgaṃ bhajatīti vadeyyuṃ, ayaṃ vādo tatiyavādatopi balavataro. Kasmā? Ñāpakañāpyānaṃ anurūpabhāvato. Tathā hi ‘‘pahāro yāmasaññito’’ti ayaṃ ñāpako pahārayāmānaṃ ekatthabhāvassa anurūpo, ‘‘tiyāmā saṃvarībhave’’ti ayaṃ rattiyā tiyāmabhāvassa, ‘‘pāḷiyañcā’’tiādi tatiyappahārassa avasāne aruṇuggamanassa, tathāpi ayuttoyeva hoti. Kasmā? ‘‘Avasesaekappahāramatto kālo divasabhāgaṃ bhajatī’’ti vacanassa viruddhattā. Majjhimadese hi dasaghaṭikāpamāṇassa kālassa ekappahārattā sabbā ratti tiyāmāva hoti, na catuyāmā, idāni pana paccantavisayesu sattaṭṭhaghaṭikāmattassa kālassa ekappahārakatattā catuppahārā bhavati, tasmā majjhimadesavohāraṃ gahetvā abhidhānappadīpikāyañca ‘‘tiyāmā saṃvarī bhave’’ti vuttaṃ, pāḷiyañca (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383) ‘‘nikkhanto pacchimo yāmo, uddhasto aruṇo’’ti, tasmā rattipariyosāneyeva aruṇo uggatoti daṭṭhabbo. Tathā hi vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.201) ‘‘tathā pārivāsikādīnampi aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā vattaṃ nikkhipantānaṃ ratticchedo vutto, uggate aruṇe nikkhipitabbanti hi vutta’’nti.

Still others might argue: since it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, ‘A pahāra is called a yāma,’ the terms pahāra and yāma have the same meaning; and since it is also stated there, ‘The night (saṃvarī) consists of three yāmas,’ and the night has three yāmas; and since it is found in the Pāli Canon (Udāna 45; Cūḷavagga 383), ‘Venerable sir, the night is advanced, the last watch has passed, the dawn has risen,’ it follows that now, of the four watches of the night, at the end of the third watch the dawn has risen. Therefore, the time of the one remaining watch belongs to the day-part. This argument is stronger than the previous one. Why? Because of the correspondence between the proof and that which is to be proven. For instance, the statement ‘A pahāra is called a yāma’ corresponds to pahāra and yāma having the same meaning; ‘The night (saṃvarī) consists of three yāmas’ corresponds to the night having three yāmas; and the Pāli passage beginning ‘Venerable sir…’ indicates that dawn rises at the end of the third watch. Nevertheless, this is also incorrect. Why? Because it contradicts the statement, ‘The time of the one remaining watch belongs to the day-part.’ In the Middle Country, since one watch is ten ghaṭikās, the entire night has only three watches, not four. But now, in the border regions, because one watch is seven or eight ghaṭikās, it has four watches. Therefore, based on the usage of the Middle Country, it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, ‘The night (saṃvarī) consists of three yāmas,’ and in the Pāli Canon (Udāna 45; Cūḷavagga 383), ‘The last watch has passed, the dawn has risen.’ Thus, it should be understood that dawn rises precisely at the end of the night. For it is stated in the Vimativinodanī: ‘Similarly, for those on probation and others who set aside their duties before dawn has risen, a break of night is stated; for it is said that they should be set aside when dawn has risen.’”

Sahaseyyasikkhāpadepi (pāci. 52-54) ‘‘anupasampannehi saha nivutthabhāvaparimocanatthaṃ purāruṇā nikkhamitvā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Evaṃ cīvaravippavāsādīsu ca sabbattha rattipariyosāne āgamanavasena aruṇuggamanaṃ dassitaṃ, na atītāruṇavasenāti. Jātakaṭṭhakathāyampi (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255) ‘‘rattipariyosāneti attho’’ti. Na kevalaṃ majjhimadesesu rattiyāyeva tippahārabhāvo hoti[Pg.27], atha kho divasassapi. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhasāliniyaṃ (dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā) ‘‘sammāsambuddhassa abhidhammadesanāpariyosānañca tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sattappakaraṇauggahaṇañca ekappahāreneva hotī’’ti, mūlaṭīkāyañca (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. nidānakathāvaṇṇanā) ‘‘ekappahārenāti ettha pahāroti divasassa tatiyabhāgo vuccatī’’ti, tasmā eko rattidivo chappahāro hotīti viññāyati. Evaṃ majjhimadesavohārena tiyāmasaṅkhātassa tippahārassa avasāne sabbarattipariyosāne uṭṭhitaṃ aruṇaṃ paccantadesavohārena tippahārassa avasāneti gahetvā ekappahārāvasesakāle aruṇo uggatoti vuttattā ayampi vādo ayuttoyeva hotīti daṭṭhabbo.

In the training rule on sharing a sleeping place (Pācittiya 52-54), it is stated: 'Having gone out before dawn for the purpose of being released from the state of having dwelt with one who is not ordained,' and so on. Thus, in cases such as being separated from one's robes and others, the rising of the dawn is indicated by way of arrival at the end of the night, not by way of the dawn having passed. In the Jātaka commentary as well (Jā. Aṭṭha. 5.21.255), it is said: 'The meaning is “at the end of the night.”' Not only in the Middle Country is the night divided into three watches, but the day is as well. For it is stated in the Aṭṭhasālinī (Dha. Sa. Aṭṭha. Nidānakathā): 'The conclusion of the Abhidhamma discourse by the Perfectly Enlightened One and the mastery of the seven treatises by those monks occurred in a single watch.' And in the Mūlaṭīkā (Dha. Sa. Mūlaṭī. Nidānakathāvaṇṇanā), it is said: 'Here, by “in a single watch” is meant the third part of the day.' Therefore, it is understood that one day-and-night consists of six watches. Thus, this argument too should be seen as incorrect, because it takes the dawn that rises at the end of the entire night—which is the end of the three watches according to the usage of the Middle Country—as rising at the end of three watches according to the usage of the border countries, and thus it is said that dawn rises when one watch remains.

Bahavo pana paṇḍitā ‘‘khuddasikkhānissaye vuttaṃ –

Many wise ones, however, say: 'It is stated in the Khuddasikkhā-nissaya—

‘Setaruṇañca paṭhamaṃ, dutiyaṃ nandiyāvaṭṭaṃ;

Tatiyaṃ tambavaṇṇañca, catutthaṃ gadrabhaṃ mukha’nti. –

'First is setaruṇa (reddish-white), second is nandiyāvaṭṭa (a kind of whorl or swirl), third is tambavaṇṇa (copper-colored), fourth is the donkey's face.'

Imaṃ gāthaṃ nissāya ekarattiyaṃ aruṇo catukkhattuṃ uṭṭhahati, tattha paṭhamaṃ setavaṇṇaṃ hoti, dutiyaṃ nandiyāvaṭṭapupphavaṇṇaṃ hoti, tatiyaṃ tambavaṇṇaṃ hoti, catutthaṃ gadrabhamukhavaṇṇaṃ hotī’’ti vatvā rattobhāsato puretaraṃ atītarattikāleyeva vattanikkhipanādikammaṃ karonti. Tesaṃ taṃ karaṇaṃ anisammakāritaṃ āpajjati. Ayañhi gāthā neva pāḷiyaṃ dissati, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ, na ṭīkāsu, kevalaṃ nissaye eva, nissayesu ca ekasmiṃyeva khuddasikkhānissaye dissati, na aññanissayesu, tatthāpi neva pubbāparasambandho dissati, na hetuphalādibhāvo, na ca liṅganiyamoti na nissayakārācariyena ṭhapitā bhaveyya, atha kho pacchā aññehi lekhakehi vā attano icchānurūpaṃ likhitā bhaveyya, tasmā ayaṃ gāthā kuto ābhatā pāḷito vā aṭṭhakathāto [Pg.28] vā ṭīkāto vā vinayato vā suttantato vā abhidhammato vāti pabhavaṃ apariyesitvā nissaye diṭṭhamattameva sārato gahetvā pāḷiyaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu vuttavacanaṃ anisāmetvā katattā anisammakāritaṃ āpajjati.

Relying on this verse, they say: 'In one night, the dawn rises four times. First, it is white in color; second, it is the color of the nandiyāvaṭṭa flower; third, it is copper-colored; and fourth, it is the color of a donkey's face.' Having said this, before the light of dawn, in the latter part of the night, they perform actions such as putting away their bowls. That action of theirs falls into being done without proper consideration. For this verse is not seen in the Pāli Canon, nor in the commentaries, nor in the sub-commentaries. It appears only in the nissayas, and even there, it is found only in one Khuddasikkhā-nissaya, not in other nissayas. Moreover, no connection between its beginning and end is seen, nor a cause-and-effect relationship, nor any grammatical rule; therefore, it could not have been established by the authors of the nissayas, but rather it may have been written later by other scribes according to their own preferences. Thus, this verse—from where was it brought? From the Pāli Canon? Or from the commentary? Or from the sub-commentary? Or from the Vinaya? Or from the Suttas? Or from the Abhidhamma? Without investigating its source, merely taking what is seen in the nissaya as essential and without heeding the statements spoken in the Pāli Canon, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, because it was done thus, it falls into being done without proper consideration.

Tatrāyaṃ pāḷi ‘‘tena kho pana samayena buddho bhagavā sītāsu hemantikāsu rattīsu antaraṭṭhakāsu himapātasamaye rattiṃ ajjhokāse ekacīvaro nisīdi, na bhagavantaṃ sītaṃ ahosi. Nikkhante paṭhame yāme sītaṃ bhagavantaṃ ahosi, dutiyaṃ bhagavā cīvaraṃ pārupi, na bhagavantaṃ sītaṃ ahosi. Nikkhante majjhime yāme sītaṃ bhagavantaṃ ahosi, tatiyaṃ bhagavā cīvaraṃ pārupi, na bhagavantaṃ sītaṃ ahosi. Nikkhante pacchime yāme uddhaste aruṇe nandimukhiyā rattiyā sītaṃ bhagavantaṃ ahosi, catutthaṃ bhagavā cīvaraṃ pārupi, na bhagavantaṃ sītaṃ ahosī’’ti. Ayaṃ mahāvagge (mahāva. 346) cīvarakkhandhakāgatā vinayapāḷi. Pāḷiyaṃ nandimukhiyāti tuṭṭhimukhiyā, pasannadisāmukhāyāti attho. Ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanāya vimativinodanīpāṭho (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.346).

Here is the Pāli text: 'At that time, the Blessed One, the Buddha, was sitting in the open air during the cold winter nights of the intermediate eight-day period, at the time of snowfall, wearing only a single robe. The cold did not affect the Blessed One. When the first watch of the night had passed, the cold affected the Blessed One. The Blessed One put on a second robe, and the cold did not affect him. When the middle watch of the night had passed, the cold affected the Blessed One. The Blessed One put on a third robe, and the cold did not affect him. When the last watch of the night had passed, when dawn was rising on the joyful-faced night, the cold affected the Blessed One. The Blessed One put on a fourth robe, and the cold did not affect him.' This is a Vinaya Pāli passage from the Cīvarakkhandhaka in the Mahāvagga (Mahāva. 346). In the Pāli, 'nandimukhiyā' means 'with a joyful face,' that is, 'with the face of the directions being clear.' This is the text from the Vimativinodanī, its explanation (Vimativinodanī-ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.346).

‘‘Tena kho pana samayena buddho bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati pubbārāme migāramātupāsāde. Tena kho pana samayena bhagavā tadahuposathe bhikkhusaṅghaparivuto nisinno hoti. Atha kho āyasmā ānando abhikkantāya rattiyā nikkhante paṭhame yāme uṭṭhāyāsanā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā yena bhagavā tenañjaliṃ paṇāmetvā bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – abhikkantā, bhante ratti, nikkhanto paṭhamo yāmo, ciranisinno bhikkhusaṅgho, uddisatu, bhante, bhagavā bhikkhūnaṃ pātimokkhanti. Evaṃ vutte bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi. Dutiyampi kho āyasmā [Pg.29] ānando abhikkantāya rattiyā nikkhante majjhime yāme uṭṭhāyāsanā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā yena bhagavā tenañjaliṃ paṇāmetvā bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – abhikkantā, bhante, ratti, nikkhanto majjhimo yāmo, ciranisinno bhikkhusaṅgho, uddisatu, bhante, bhagavā bhikkhūnaṃ pātimokkhanti. Dutiyampi bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi. Tatiyampi kho āyasmā ānando abhikkantāya rattiyā nikkhante pacchime yāme uddhaste aruṇe nandimukhiyā rattiyā uṭṭhāyāsanā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā yena bhagavā tenañjaliṃ paṇāmetvā bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – abhikkantā, bhante, ratti, nikkhanto pacchimo yāmo, uddhastaṃ aruṇaṃ, nandimukhī ratti, ciranisinno bhikkhusaṅgho, uddisatu bhante bhagavā bhikkhūnaṃ pātimokkhanti. Aparisuddhā, ānanda, parisā’’ti (cūḷava. 383). Ayaṃ cūḷavagge pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhakāgatā aparāpi vinayapāḷi.

At that time the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāvatthī in the Eastern Park, in the mansion of Migāra’s mother. On that occasion, on the Uposatha day, the Blessed One was seated surrounded by the Saṅgha of bhikkhus. Then, as the night advanced and the first watch had passed, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, raised his joined palms toward the Blessed One, and said this: 'Venerable sir, the night has advanced, the first watch has passed. The Saṅgha of bhikkhus has been sitting for a long time. Let the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha for the bhikkhus.' When this was said, the Blessed One remained silent. A second time, as the night advanced and the middle watch had passed, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, raised his joined palms toward the Blessed One, and said this: 'Venerable sir, the night has advanced, the middle watch has passed. The Saṅgha of bhikkhus has been sitting for a long time. Let the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha for the bhikkhus.' A second time, the Blessed One remained silent. A third time, as the night advanced and the last watch had passed, when dawn was rising on the joyful-faced night, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, raised his joined palms toward the Blessed One, and said this: 'Venerable sir, the night has advanced, the last watch has passed, dawn is rising, the night is joyful-faced. The Saṅgha of bhikkhus has been sitting for a long time. Let the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha for the bhikkhus.' 'Ānanda, the assembly is not pure.' (Cūḷava. 383). This is another Vinaya Pāli passage from the Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhaka in the Cūḷavagga.

Nandimukhiyā rattiyāti aruṇuṭṭhitakāle pītimukhā viya ratti khāyati. Tenāha ‘‘nandimukhiyā’’ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 383) ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanābhūtasamantapāsādikaṭṭhakathāpāṭho. Abhikkantāti parikkhīṇā. Uddhaste aruṇeti uggate aruṇasīse. Nandimukhiyāti tuṭṭhimukhiyā. Ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanābhūtasāratthadīpanīpāṭho (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.383). Pāḷiyaṃ nandimukhiyāti odātadisāmukhitāya tuṭṭhamukhiyā. Ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanāya (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.283) vimativinodanīpāṭho.

'By the joyful-faced night' means that at the time of the rising of the dawn, the night appears as if it has a joyful face. Therefore, he said 'joyful-faced' (Cūḷava. Aṭṭha. 383). This is the text from the Samantapāsādikā commentary, which is its explanation. 'Advanced' means 'passed'. 'When dawn was rising' means 'when the head of the dawn has risen'. 'Joyful-faced' means 'with a pleased face'. This is the text from the Sāratthadīpanī, which is its explanation (Sāratthadīpanī-ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 3.383). In the Pāli, 'joyful-faced' means 'with a pleased face because the face of the directions is bright'. This is the text from the Vimativinodanī, its explanation (Vimativinodanī-ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 2.283).

‘‘Tatiyampi kho āyasmā ānando abhikkantāyarattiyā nikkhante pacchime yāme uddhaste aruṇe nandimukhiyā rattiyā uṭṭhāyāsanā ekaṃsaṃ cīvaraṃ katvā yena bhagavā tenañjaliṃ paṇāmetvā bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – abhikkantā, bhante, ratti, nikkhanto pacchimo yāmo, uddhasto aruṇo, nandimukhī ratti, ciranisinnā āgantukā bhikkhū, paṭisammodatu, bhante, bhagavā [Pg.30] āgantuke bhikkhū’’ti. Ayaṃ udānāgatā suttantapāḷi (udā. 45). Uddhaste aruṇeti uggate aruṇe. Aruṇo nāma puratthimadisāyaṃ sūriyodayato puretarameva uṭṭhitobhāso. Nandimukhiyā rattiyāti aruṇassa uggatattā eva aruṇobhāya sūriyālokūpajīvino satte nandāpanamukhiyā rattiyā jātāya, vibhāyamānāyāti attho. Ayaṃ taṃsaṃvaṇṇanābhūtā udānaṭṭhakathā (udā. aṭṭha. 23).

For a third time, the Venerable Ānanda, as the night advanced, when the last watch had passed, when dawn was rising on the joyful-faced night, rose from his seat, arranged his robe over one shoulder, raised his joined palms toward the Blessed One, and said this: 'Venerable sir, the night has advanced, the last watch has passed, the dawn has risen, the night is joyful-faced. The visiting bhikkhus have been sitting long. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One greet the visiting bhikkhus.' This is a Suttanta Pāli passage from the Udāna (Udā. 45). 'When dawn was rising' means 'when the dawn has risen'. Dawn is the radiance that arises in the eastern direction even before sunrise. 'By the joyful-faced night' means that because the dawn has risen, the night has become one that chiefly gladdens beings who live by the light of the dawn and the sun; the meaning is that it is dawning. This is the Udāna commentary, which is its explanation (Udā. Aṭṭha. 23).

Iti ettakāsu vinayasuttantāgatāsu pāḷiyaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ekasmimpiṭhāne aruṇo catukkhattuṃ uggatoti natthi, ekavārameva vutto. Catubbidhavaṇṇasamannāgatotipi natthi, ekavaṇṇo eva vutto. Jātakaṭṭhakathāyampi (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255) rattavaṇṇo eva vutto, na setavaṇṇādiko. Nandimukhīti ca satte nandāpanadisāmukhī ratti eva vuttā, na aruṇassa nandiyāvaṭṭapupphasadisavaṇṇatā. Tenāha ‘‘satte nandāpanamukhiyā rattiyā’’ti. Evaṃ abhidhānappadīpikāpakaraṇavacanena viruddhattā pāḷiyaṭṭhakathādīhi asaṃsandanato dubbalasādhakattā ca ayampi vādo ayuttoyevāti daṭṭhabbo, tasmā sammāsambuddhassa āṇaṃ anatikkantena lajjibhikkhunā yadi kenaci appaṭicchanne vivaṭokāse hoti, macchakkhisamānaabyattarattobhāsassa paññāyamānakālato paṭṭhāya vattanikkhipanādikammaṃ kātabbaṃ.

Thus, in all these Pāli texts, commentaries, and sub-commentaries from the Vinaya and Suttanta, in not a single place is it said that the dawn rises four times; it is mentioned only once. Nor is it said to be endowed with four kinds of colors; it is described as having only one color. Even in the Jātaka commentary (Jā. Aṭṭha. 5.21.255), it is described as being of a red color, not white or any other. And 'joyful-faced' refers only to the night whose face, the directions, gladdens beings, not to the dawn having a color like the Nandiyāvaṭṭa flower. Hence, it is said, 'the night that chiefly gladdens beings'. Since this contradicts the statement in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, does not accord with the Pāli Canon, commentaries, and so on, and because the proof is weak, this view should be seen as incorrect. Therefore, a conscientious bhikkhu, not transgressing the instruction of the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, should, if in an unenclosed, open space, perform the duties of putting away belongings and so forth, starting from the time the indistinct reddish glow resembling the eye of a fish becomes visible.

Yadi pana pabbatādinā paṭicchannaṭṭhānaṃ hoti, yattakena kālena vivaṭaṭṭhāne rattobhāso paññāyati, sūriyamaṇḍalassa dissanakālato ekaghaṭikāmattena vā dvighaṭikāmattena vā tattakaṃ kālaṃ sallakkhetvā imasmiṃ kāle aruṇo uggato bhaveyyāti takketvā kātabbaṃ, saṃsayaṃ anicchantena tatopi kañcikālaṃ adhivāsetvā nissaṃsayakāle kattabbaṃ, ayaṃ tattha [Pg.31] sāmīci. Ayaṃ pana vādo yathāvuttappakaraṇavacanehi suṭṭhu saṃsandati yathā gaṅgodakena yamunodakaṃ, tasmā paṇḍitehi punappunaṃ pubbāparaṃ āloḷentena manasi kātabbo. Evaṃ manasi karitvā aruṇapaṭisaṃyuttesu ṭhānesu saṃsayo chinditabbo, saṃsayaṃ chinditvā visāradena hutvā taṃ taṃ kammaṃ kātabbanti.

If, however, the place is obscured by a mountain or the like, one should act by reasoning, 'At this time, dawn must have arisen,' having estimated the time based on how long it takes for the reddish glow to appear in an open space, or by a period of about one or two ghaṭikās before the time the sun's disc is visible. For one who does not wish for uncertainty, one should wait for some time even after that and act at a time free from doubt. This is the proper course there. This teaching, moreover, accords well with the statements in the aforementioned treatises, just as the water of the Ganges accords with the water of the Yamuna. Therefore, the wise should take it to mind, repeatedly considering the preceding and the succeeding. Having taken it to mind thus, doubt should be cut off in matters connected with the dawn. Having cut off doubt and become confident, one should perform the respective duties.

Visuddhatthāya sīlassa, bhikkhūnaṃ piyasīlinaṃ;

Katāruṇakathā esā, na sārambhādikāraṇā.

For the purification of virtue, for bhikkhus who hold virtue dear; this discourse on dawn has been made, not for the sake of rivalry and the like.

Tasmā suṭṭhūpadhāretvā, yuttaṃ gaṇhantu sādhavo;

Ayuttañce chaḍḍayantu, mā hontu dummanādayoti.

Therefore, the good people should carefully consider, and accept what is fitting; and what is unfitting, they should reject, lest they become disheartened and so forth.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Divāseyyavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The chapter named The Adornment of the Discourse on the Determination of Daytime Resting.

Paṭhamo paricchedo.

The First Chapter.

2. Parikkhāravinicchayakathā

2. The Discourse on the Determination of Requisites.

6. Evaṃ divāseyyavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni parikkhāravinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘parikkhāroti samaṇaparikkhāro’’tiādimāha. Tattha divāseyyavinicchayakathāya ādimhi vuttaṃ ‘‘tatthā’’ti padaṃ ānetvā tattha tesu mātikāpadesu samabhiniviṭṭhassa ‘‘parikkhāro’’ti padassa ‘‘samaṇaparikkhāro’’ti attho daṭṭhabboti yojanā, esa nayo ito parepi. Samaṇaparikkhāro vutto, na gihiparikkhāroti adhippāyo. Parisamantato kariyateti parikkhāro, chattādiko. Tatrāti samaṇaparikkhāre. Kappatīti kappiyo, na kappiyo akappiyo, kappiyo ca akappiyo ca kappiyākappiyo, samāhāradvandepi pulliṅgamicchanti paṇḍitā. Kappiyākappiyo [Pg.32] ca so parikkhāro ceti tathā, tassa vinicchayo kappiyākappiyaparikkhāravinicchayo.

6. Having thus explained the determination of daytime resting, now, to explain the determination of requisites, he begins with 'requisite means a monastic's requisite,' and so on. There, bringing in the word 'there' stated at the beginning of the discourse on the determination of daytime resting, the meaning of the word 'requisite' for one who is firmly established in those headings should be understood as 'a monastic's requisite.' This is the method, and this principle applies hereafter as well. A monastic's requisite is spoken of, not a layperson's requisite—this is the intended meaning. That which is prepared all around is a requisite, such as an umbrella. 'There,' that is, regarding a monastic's requisite. What is permissible is 'kappiya'; what is not permissible is 'akappiya'; what is permissible and impermissible is 'kappiyākappiya'. Even in a collective dvandva compound, the learned prefer the masculine gender. That requisite which is both permissible and impermissible; its determination is the 'determination of permissible and impermissible requisites'.

Keci tālapaṇṇacchattanti idaṃ upalakkhaṇamattaṃ. Sabbampi hi chattaṃ tathākariyamānaṃ na vaṭṭati. Tenevāha vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85) ‘‘sabbaparikkhāresu vaṇṇamaṭṭhavikāraṃ karontassa dukkaṭanti dīpentena na vaṭṭatīti vuttanti veditabba’’nti. Na vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāyāti iminā thirakaraṇatthaṃ ekavaṇṇasuttena vinandhiyamānaṃ yadi vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ hoti, tattha na dosoti dasseti. Āraggenāti nikhādanamukhena. Yadi na vaṭṭati, tādisaṃ chattadaṇḍaṃ labhitvā kiṃ kātabbanti āha ‘‘ghaṭakaṃ vā’’tiādi. Suttakena vā daṇḍo veṭhetabboti yathā lekhā na paññāyati, tathā veṭhetabbo. Daṇḍabundeti daṇḍamūle, chattadaṇḍassa heṭṭhimakoṭiyanti attho. Chattamaṇḍalikanti chattassa anto khuddakamaṇḍalaṃ, chattapañjare maṇḍalākārena baddhadaṇḍavalayaṃ vā. Ukkiritvāti ninnaṃ, unnataṃ vā katvā uṭṭhāpetvā. Sā vaṭṭatīti sā lekhā rajjukehi bandhantu vā mā vā, bandhituṃ yuttaṭṭhānattā vaṭṭati. Tena vuttaṃ ācariyabuddhadattamahātherena –

'Some say 'palm-leaf umbrella' is merely an illustrative example. For any umbrella made in such a way is not permissible. Therefore, it is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā: 'It should be understood that it is stated as not permissible, by the one who indicates that for a person who alters the color or ornamentation of any requisite, there is a dukkaṭa offense.' By 'Not for the purpose of color or ornamentation,' this is shown: if, when being bound with a single-colored thread for the purpose of strengthening, it becomes ornamented, there is no fault in that. 'With the tip' means 'with the point of insertion'. If it is not permissible, what should be done after obtaining such an umbrella staff? He says, 'A pot-stand, or...' Or the staff should be wrapped with a cord in such a way that the markings are not visible. 'At the base of the staff' means 'at the root of the staff,' that is, at the lower end of the umbrella staff. 'The small circle of the umbrella' refers to the inner small circle of the umbrella, or the circular ring of struts bound in the umbrella frame. 'Having carved' means having made it concave or convex, or having raised it. 'That is permissible'—that marking, whether it is bound with strings or not, is permissible because it is a suitable place for binding. Therefore, it was stated by the Great Elder Ācariya Buddhadatta—

‘‘Chattaṃ paṇṇamayaṃ kiñci, bahi anto ca sabbaso;

Pañcavaṇṇena suttena, sibbituṃ na ca vaṭṭati.

'Any leaf umbrella, entirely, both outside and inside, it is not permissible to sew with five-colored thread.'

‘‘Chindituṃ aḍḍhacandaṃ vā, paṇṇe makaradantakaṃ;

Ghaṭakaṃ vāḷarūpaṃ vā, lekhā daṇḍe na vaṭṭati.

'To cut a half-moon or a makara's tooth on a leaf, or a pot-shape, the form of a beast, or a line on the staff is not permissible.'

‘‘Sibbituṃ ekavaṇṇena, chattaṃ suttena vaṭṭati;

Thiratthaṃ pañcavaṇṇena, pañjaraṃ vā vinandhituṃ.

'It is permissible to sew the umbrella with a single-colored thread; or, for the sake of firmness, to bind the frame with five-colored thread.'

‘‘Ghaṭakaṃ vāḷarūpaṃ vā, lekhā vā pana kevalā;

Chinditvā vāpi ghaṃsitvā, dhāretuṃ pana vaṭṭati.

'A pot-shape, or the form of a beast, or just a line; having cut or scraped it off, it is then permissible to use.'

‘‘Ahicchattakasaṇṭhānaṃ[Pg.33], daṇḍabundamhi vaṭṭati;

Ukkiritvā katā lekhā, bandhanatthāya vaṭṭatī’’ti.

'A cobra-hood shape is permissible at the base of the staff; a line made by carving is permissible for the purpose of binding.'

Tassa vaṇṇanāyampi chattaṃ paṇṇamayaṃ kiñcīti tālapaṇṇādipaṇṇacchadanaṃ yaṃ kiñci chattaṃ. Bahīti upari. Antoti heṭṭhā. Sibbitunti rūpaṃ dassetvā sūcikammaṃ kātuṃ. Paṇṇeti chadanapaṇṇe. Aḍḍhacandanti aḍḍhacandākāraṃ. Makaradantakanti makaradantākāraṃ, yaṃ ‘‘girikūṭa’’nti vuccati. Chindituṃ na vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Mukhavaṭṭiyā nāmetvā baddhapaṇṇakoṭiyā vā matthakamaṇḍalakoṭiyā vā girikūṭādiṃ karonti, iminā taṃ paṭikkhittaṃ. Daṇḍeti chattadaṇḍe. Ghaṭakanti ghaṭākāro. Vāḷarūpaṃ vāti byagghādivāḷānaṃ rūpakaṃ vā. Lekhāti ukkiritvā vā chinditvā vā cittakammavasena vā katarāji. Pañcavaṇṇānaṃ suttānaṃ antare nīlādiekavaṇṇena suttena thiratthaṃ chattaṃ anto ca bahi ca sibbituṃ vā chattadaṇḍaggāhakasalākapañjaraṃ thiratthaṃ vinandhituṃ vā vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Pañcavaṇṇānaṃ ekavaṇṇena thiratthanti iminā anekavaṇṇehi suttehi vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāya sibbituñca vinandhituñca na vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Potthakesu pana ‘‘pañcavaṇṇenā’’ti pāṭho dissati, tassa ekavaṇṇena pañcavaṇṇena vā suttena thiratthaṃ sibbituṃ vinandhituṃ vā vaṭṭatīti yojanā kātabbā hoti.

In its commentary: 'any leaf umbrella' means any umbrella with a covering of palm leaves or other leaves. 'Outside' means above. 'Inside' means below. 'To sew' means to make a form appear and do needlework. 'On a leaf' means on the covering leaf. 'Half-moon' means half-moon shaped. 'Makara's tooth' means makara's tooth shaped, which is called a 'mountain peak'. The connection is 'it is not permissible to cut'. By bending the rim, or at the tip of the bound leaf, or at the tip of the top circle, they make mountain peaks and the like; by this, that is prohibited. 'On the staff' means on the umbrella staff. 'Pot-shape' means pot-shaped. 'Or the form of a beast' means the form of a tiger or other beast. 'Line' means a row made by carving, or cutting, or by means of painting. The construction is that it is permissible to sew the umbrella, both inside and outside, with a single-colored thread, such as blue, from among the five colors for the sake of firmness, or to firmly bind the handle of the umbrella staff and the frame of ribs for the sake of firmness. By 'for firmness with a single color from among the five colors,' it is shown that it is not permissible to sew or bind with threads of multiple colors for the sake of ornamentation. However, in some books, the reading 'with five colors' is seen; for that, the construction should be made that it is permissible to sew or bind for firmness with a single-colored thread or with five-colored threads.

Ettha ca heṭṭhā vuttena ‘‘pañcavaṇṇena suttena sibbituṃ na ca vaṭṭatī’’ti pāṭhena ca ‘‘keci tālapaṇṇacchattaṃ anto vā bahi vā pañcavaṇṇena suttena sibbetvā vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ karonti, taṃ na vaṭṭati, ekavaṇṇe pana nīlena vā pītakena vā yena kenaci suttena anto vā bahi vā sibbituṃ, chattadaṇḍaggāhakaṃ salākapañjaraṃ vā vinandhituṃ vaṭṭati, tañca kho thirakaraṇatthaṃ, na vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāyā’’ti aṭṭhakathāpāṭhena ca virujjhati, tasmā so na gahetabbo.

Here, this contradicts both the text stated above, 'it is not permissible to sew with a five-colored thread,' and the commentary passage: 'Some make a palm-leaf umbrella ornamented by sewing it inside or outside with a five-colored thread; that is not permissible. However, with a single color—blue, yellow, or any other thread—it is permissible to sew it inside or outside, or to bind the handle of the umbrella staff or the framework of ribs. And that is for the purpose of strengthening, not for the sake of ornamentation.' Therefore, that reading should not be accepted.

Lekhā [Pg.34] vā pana kevalāti yathāvuttappakārā sakalā lekhā vā. Chinditvāti ukkiritvā kataṃ chinditvā. Ghaṃsitvāti cittakammādivasena kataṃ ghaṃsitvā. Daṇḍabundamhīti chattadaṇḍassa pañjare gāhaṇatthāya phālitabundamhi, mūleti attho. Ayamettha nissandehe vuttanayo. Khuddasikkhāgaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘chattapiṇḍiyā mūle’’ti vuttaṃ. Ahicchattakasaṇṭhānanti phullaahicchattakākāraṃ. Rajjukehi gāhāpetvā daṇḍe bandhanti, tasmiṃ bandhanaṭṭhāne valayamiva ukkiritvāti valayaṃ viya upaṭṭhāpetvā. Bandhanatthāyāti vātena yathā na calati, evaṃ rajjūhi daṇḍe pañjarassa bandhanatthāya. Ukkiritvā katā lekhā vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Yathā vātappahārena acalanatthaṃ chattamaṇḍalikaṃ rajjukehi gāhāpetvā daṇḍe bandhanti, tasmiṃ bandhanaṭṭhāne valayamiva ukkiritvā lekhaṃ ṭhapenti, sā vaṭṭatīti. Sacepi na bandhati, bandhanārahaṭṭhānattā valayaṃ ukkiritvā vaṭṭatīti gaṇṭhipade vattantīti āgataṃ, tasmā pakkharaṇesu āgatanayeneva chatte paṭipajjitabbanti.

'Or merely lines' means all kinds of lines as mentioned. 'Having cut' means having cut what was made by carving. 'Having rubbed off' means having rubbed off what was made by way of painting and so on. 'In the staff-base' means in the split base of the umbrella staff for the purpose of holding the ribs; the meaning is 'at the base.' This is the method stated here without doubt. But in the Gaṇṭhipada on the Khuddasikkhā it is said: 'at the base of the umbrella's knob.' 'Resembling a cobra's hood' means having the shape of a spread cobra's hood. They have it held with cords and bind it to the staff; 'having carved it like a ring at that binding place' means having fashioned it like a ring. 'For the purpose of binding' means for binding the framework to the staff with cords so that it does not move in the wind. The connection is: 'A line made by carving is permissible.' Just as, to prevent it from moving when struck by the wind, they have the disk of the umbrella held by cords and bind it to the staff, and at that binding place they make a line by carving it like a ring—that is permissible. 'Even if one does not bind it, since it is a place suitable for binding, it is permissible to carve a ring'—so it is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada. Therefore, one should deal with an umbrella only in accordance with the method given in the treatises.

7. Cīvare pana nānāsuttakehīti (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85; vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi. Idañca tathā karontānaṃ vasena vuttaṃ, ekavaṇṇasuttakenapi na vaṭṭatiyeva. ‘‘Pakatisūcikammameva vaṭṭatī’’ti hi vuttaṃ. Paṭṭamukheti dvinnaṃ paṭṭānaṃ saṅghaṭitaṭṭhānaṃ sandhāyetaṃ vuttaṃ. Pariyanteti cīvarapariyante. Anuvātaṃ sandhāyetaṃ vuttaṃ. Veṇīti varakasīsākārena sibbanaṃ. Saṅkhalikanti dviguṇasaṅkhalikākārena sibbanaṃ, biḷālasaṅkhalikākārena sibbanaṃ vā. Veṇiṃ vā saṅkhalikaṃ vā karontīti karaṇakiriyāya sambandho. Agghiyaṃ nāma cetiyasaṇṭhānaṃ, yaṃ ‘‘agghiyatthambho’’ti vadanti. Gayā nāma mūle tanukaṃ agge mahantaṃ katvā gadākārena sibbanaṃ. Muggaro nāma mūle ca agge ca ekasadisaṃ katvā muggarākārena sibbanaṃ. Kakkaṭakkhīni ukkirantīti [Pg.35] gaṇṭhikapaṭṭapāsakapaṭṭānaṃ ante pāḷibaddhaṃ katvā kakkaṭakānaṃ akkhisaṇṭhānaṃ paṭṭhapenti, karontīti attho. ‘‘Koṇasuttapiḷakāti gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭānaṃ koṇehi nīhaṭasuttānaṃ koṭiyo’’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ pana tā piḷakā duviññeyyarūpā kātabbāti? Koṇehi nīhaṭasuttānaṃ antesu ekavāraṃ gaṇṭhikakaraṇena vā puna nivattetvā sibbanena vā duviññeyyasabhāvaṃ katvā suttakoṭiyo rassaṃ katvā chinditabbā. Dhammasirittherena pana ‘‘koṇasuttā ca piḷakā, duviññeyyāva kappare’’ti vuttaṃ, tathā ācariyabuddhadattattherenapi ‘‘suttā ca piḷakā tattha, duviññeyyāva dīpitā’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā tesaṃ matena koṇasuttā ca piḷakā ca koṇasuttapiḷakāti evamettha attho daṭṭhabbo.

7. But in regard to a robe, 'with various threads' means with threads of various colors. This is said with reference to those who do so, for it is not permissible even with a single-colored thread. For it is said: 'Only ordinary needlework is permissible.' 'At the seam of a panel' is said with reference to the place where two panels are joined. 'At the border' means at the border of the robe; this is said with reference to the hem. 'A braid' is sewing in the shape of a varaka head. 'A chain' is sewing in the shape of a double chain, or in the shape of a cat's chain. 'They make a braid or a chain' is connected with the verb 'to make.' An 'agghiya' is a shape like a cetiya, which is called an 'agghiya pillar.' A 'gayā' is sewing in the shape of a club, made thin at the base and large at the top. A 'muggara' is sewing in the shape of a hammer, made the same at the base and the top. 'They fashion crab's eyes' means that at the end of the panels with knotted loops or fastening loops, they make a border and establish a shape like a crab's eye; this is the meaning of 'they make.' 'The corner-thread-pustules are the ends of the threads drawn out from the corners of the panels with knotted loops or fastening loops'—this is said in all three Gaṇṭhipadas. But how are those pustules to be made difficult to discern? The ends of the threads drawn out from the corners should be made difficult to discern either by making a knot once or by turning them back again and sewing them; then the thread-ends should be cut short. But by the Elder Dhammasiri it was said: 'The corner-threads and pustules should be made difficult to discern.' Similarly, by the Teacher Buddhadatta it was said: 'The threads and pustules there are explained as being difficult to discern.' Therefore, according to their opinion, the meaning here should be seen thus: 'corner-thread-pustules' are corner-threads and pustules.

Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) koṇasuttapiḷakāti gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭānaṃ koṇehi bahi niggatasuttānaṃ piḷakākārena ṭhapitakoṭiyoti keci vadanti, te piḷake chinditvā duviññeyyā kātabbāti tesaṃ adhippāyo. Keci pana ‘‘koṇasuttā ca piḷakā cāti dveyevā’’ti vadanti, tesaṃ matena gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭānaṃ koṇato koṇaṃ nīhaṭasuttā koṇasuttā nāma. Samantato pana pariyantena gatā caturassasuttā piḷakā nāma. Taṃ duvidhampi keci cīvarato visuṃ paññānatthāya vikārayuttaṃ karonti, taṃ nisedhāya ‘‘duviññeyyarūpā vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ, na pana sabbathā acakkhugocarabhāvena sibbanatthāya tathāsibbanassa asakkuṇeyyattā, yathā pakaticīvarato vikāro na paññāyati, evaṃ sibbitabbanti adhippāyo. Rajanakammato pubbe paññāyamānopi viseso cīvare ratte ekavaṇṇato na paññāyatīti āha ‘‘cīvare ratte’’ti.

In the Vimativinodanī, some say that 'corner-thread-pustules' are the ends of threads that have come out from the corners of the panels with knotted loops or fastening loops, which are arranged in the shape of a pustule. Their intention is that those pustules should be cut and made difficult to discern. But others say that 'corner-threads' and 'pustules' are two different things. According to their view, 'corner-threads' are the threads drawn from corner to corner of the panels with knotted loops or fastening loops. 'Pustules' are the square threads that run all around the border. Some make both of these into a fancy design so that they are distinguished from the robe. To prohibit this, it was said: 'A form that is difficult to discern is permissible.' This is not, however, for the purpose of sewing them so they are entirely beyond the range of the eye, because it is impossible to sew in such a way. The intention is that one should sew in such a way that the alteration from an ordinary robe is not apparent. He says, 'when the robe is dyed,' because even if a difference is apparent before the dyeing, it is not apparent when the robe is dyed, owing to the single color.

8. Maṇināti [Pg.36] nīlamaṇiādipāsāṇena, aṃsabaddhakakāyabandhanādikaṃ acīvarattā saṅkhādīhi ghaṃsituṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Kaṇṇasuttakanti cīvarassa dīghato tiriyañca sibbitānaṃ catūsu kaṇṇesu koṇesu ca nikkhantānaṃ suttasīsānametaṃ nāmaṃ, taṃ chinditvāva pārupitabbaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘rajitakāle chinditabba’’nti. Bhagavatā anuññātaṃ ekaṃ kaṇṇasuttampi atthi, taṃ pana nāmena sadisampi ito aññamevāti dassetuṃ ‘‘yaṃ panā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Lagganatthāyāti cīvararajjuyaṃ cīvarabandhanatthāya. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) ettakameva vuttaṃ.

8. 'With a gem' means with a blue gem or other such stone. Some say that because shoulder-fasteners, waist-bands, and so on are not a robe, it is permissible to rub them with a conch shell, etc. 'Corner-thread' is the name for the heads of the threads coming out at the four 'ears' and corners of the robe that has been sewn lengthwise and crosswise. This must be cut off before the robe is worn. For that reason he said: 'It should be cut at the time of dyeing.' There is also a 'corner-thread' that was permitted by the Blessed One, but to show that although it is similar in name it is different from this one, the passage beginning 'But as to what...' was stated. 'For the purpose of attaching' means for the purpose of fastening the robe to the robe-cord. This much is stated in the Vimativinodanī.

Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85) pana ‘‘pāsakaṃ katvā bandhitabbanti rajanakāle bandhitabbaṃ, sesakāle mocetvā ṭhapetabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇassa porāṇaṭīkāyampi idameva gahetvā vuttaṃ, taṃ pana cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. 344) ‘‘majjhena laggenti, ubhato galati, bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kaṇṇe bandhitunti. Kaṇṇo jīrati. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, kaṇṇasuttaka’’nti evaṃ anuññātacīvararajjuyaṃ rajitvā pasāritacīvarassa olambakasuttaṃ sandhāya vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

But in the Sāratthadīpanī it is said: 'Having made a fastener, it should be tied.' This means it should be tied at the time of dyeing, but at other times it should be untied and put aside. This same point is taken up and stated in the old subcommentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha-pakaraṇa. But this should be understood as having been said with reference to the hanging thread of a robe that has been spread out after being dyed, in connection with the robe-cord permitted in the Robes Chapter thus: 'They attach it in the middle; it slips off on both sides. They reported this matter to the Blessed One. “I allow, monks, tying at the corners.” The corner wears out. They reported this matter to the Blessed One. “I allow, monks, a corner-thread.”'

Gaṇṭhiketi cīvarapārupanakāle pāsake laggāpanatthaṃ kate dantādimaye gaṇṭhike. Piḷakāti binduṃ binduṃ katvā uṭṭhāpetabbapiḷakā. Vuttañhetaṃ vinayavinicchayappakaraṇe –

'Knots' or 'toggles' refers to the knots or toggles made of ivory and so on, which are made for fastening into the loop when wearing the robe. 'Pustules' are pustules to be raised up by making them dot by dot. This has been said in the Vinayavinicchaya-pakaraṇa:

‘‘Nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi, maṇḍanatthāya cīvaraṃ;

Samaṃ satapadādīnaṃ, sibbituṃ na ca vaṭṭati.

“It is not permissible to sew a robe with threads of various colors for the sake of adornment, in patterns like a centipede and so on.

‘‘Pattassa pariyante vā, tathā pattamukhepi ca;

Veṇiṃ saṅkhalikaṃ vāpi, karoto hoti dukkaṭaṃ.

“For one who makes a braid or a chain at the border of a panel or likewise at the seam of a panel, there is an offense of wrong-doing.

‘‘Paṭṭampi [Pg.37] gaṇṭhipāsānaṃ, aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ vidhiṃ;

Tatthagghiyagadārūpaṃ, muggarādiṃ karonti ca.

“And on the panel for knotted loops they make designs with eight corners and so on, and there they make shapes of an agghiya, a club, a hammer, and so on.

‘‘Tattha kakkaṭakakkhīni, uṭṭhāpenti na vaṭṭati;

Suttā ca piḷakā tattha, duviññeyyāva dīpitā.

“It is not permissible to raise up crab's-eye patterns there. And the threads and pustules there are explained as being difficult to discern.

‘‘Catukoṇāva vaṭṭanti, gaṇṭhipāsakapaṭṭakā;

Kaṇṇakoṇesu suttāni, ratte chindeyya cīvare.

“The panels for knotted loops are permissible only when four-cornered. One should cut the threads at the 'ear'-corners on the dyed robe.

‘‘Sūcikammavikāraṃ vā, aññaṃ vā pana kiñcipi;

Cīvare bhikkhunā kātuṃ, kārāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

“It is not permissible for a monk to make an alteration with needlework or any other kind of alteration whatsoever on a robe, nor to have one made.”

‘‘Yo ca pakkhipati bhikkhu cīvaraṃ,Kañjipiṭṭhakhaliallikādisu;

Vaṇṇamaṭṭhamabhipatthayaṃ paraṃ;

Tassa natthi pana mutti dukkaṭā.

And whatever monk, desiring a superior gloss, immerses a robe in sour gruel, flour paste, oil-cake paste, and so on, for him there is no escape from an offense of wrong-doing.

‘‘Sūcihatthamalādīnaṃ, karaṇe cīvarassa ca;

Tathā kiliṭṭhakāle ca, dhovanatthaṃ tu vaṭṭati.

However, for the purpose of washing away stains from needles, hands, and so on, during the making of a robe, and likewise when it is soiled, it is permissible.

‘‘Rajane pana gandhaṃ vā, telaṃ vā lākhameva vā;

Kiñci pakkhipituṃ tattha, bhikkhuno na ca vaṭṭati.

But it is not permissible for a monk to put scent, or oil, or lac, or anything else into the dye.

‘‘Saṅkhena maṇinā vāpi, aññenapi ca kenaci;

Cīvaraṃ na ca ghaṭṭeyya, ghaṃsitabbaṃ na doṇiyā.

One should not rub a robe with a conch shell or a gem or with anything else; it should not be scrubbed in a trough.

‘‘Cīvaraṃ doṇiyaṃ katvā, nātighaṭṭeyya muṭṭhinā;

Rattaṃ paharituṃ kiñci, hattheheva ca vaṭṭati.

Having put the robe in a trough, one should not pound it too much with the fist; it is permissible to beat the dyed robe somewhat with the hands.

‘‘Gaṇṭhike pana lekhā vā, piḷakā vā na vaṭṭati;

Kappabinduvikāro vā, pāḷikaṇṇikabhedato’’ti.

But on a knot or toggle, an incised line or a pustule is not permissible; nor is an alteration of the marking-point, in the form of a division of the border-line and the ear-like corner, permissible.

Vinayasāratthasandīpaniyampi samaṃ satapadādīnanti satapadādīhi sadisaṃ. Tulyatthe karaṇavacanappasaṅge sāmivacanaṃ. Paṭṭassa pariyante vāti anuvātassa ubhayapariyante vā. Paṭṭamukhepi vāti dvinnaṃ āyāmavitthārapaṭṭānaṃ saṅghaṭitaṭṭhāne, kaṇṇepi vā ekasseva vā paṭṭassa ūnapūraṇatthaṃ ghaṭitaṭṭhānepi vā[Pg.38]. Veṇīti kudrūsasīsākārena sibbanaṃ. Keci ‘‘varakasīsākārenā’’ti vadanti. Saṅkhalikanti biḷāladāmasadisasibbanaṃ. Keci ‘‘satapadisadisa’’nti vadanti.

The Vinayasāratthasandīpanī also states: 'Like a centipede, etc.' means similar to a centipede, etc. In the sense of equality, when the instrumental case is applicable, the genitive case is used. 'Or at the edge of a panel' means or at both ends of the border. 'Or also at the opening of a panel' means at the place where two lengthwise and widthwise panels are joined, or at a corner, or even at the place where a single panel is joined to complete a deficiency. 'Veṇī' means sewing in the shape of a kudrūsa grain head. Some say, 'in the shape of a varaka grain head.' 'Saṅkhalikā' means sewing resembling a cat-chain. Some say, 'resembling a centipede.'

Paṭṭampīti pattampi. Aṭṭhakoṇādiko vidhi pakāro etassāti aṭṭhakoṇādikavidhi, taṃ. Aṭṭhakoṇādikanti vā gāthābandhavasena niggahitāgamo. ‘‘Aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ vidhi’’nti etaṃ ‘‘paṭṭa’’nti etassa samānādhikaraṇavisesanaṃ, kiriyāvisesanaṃ vā. ‘‘Karontī’’ti iminā sambandho. Atha vā paṭṭanti ettha bhummatthe upayogavacanaṃ, paṭṭeti attho. Imasmiṃ pakkhe aṭṭhakoṇādikanti upayogavacanaṃ. Vidhinti etassa visesanaṃ. Idha vakkhamānacatukoṇasaṇṭhānato aññaṃ aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ nāma. Tatthāti tasmiṃ paṭṭadvaye. Agghiyagadārūpanti agghiyasaṇṭhānañceva gadāsaṇṭhānañca sibbanaṃ. Muggaranti laguḷasaṇṭhānasibbanaṃ. Ādi-saddena cetiyādisaṇṭhānānaṃ gahaṇaṃ.

'Paṭṭampi' means 'pattampi.' 'A method or arrangement that has eight corners etc., is its nature, therefore, that eight-cornered method.' Or, 'aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ' has an added niggahīta due to the requirements of meter. 'Aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ vidhi' is either a co-referential adjective qualifying 'paṭṭa,' or an adverb qualifying the action. The connection is with 'karontī.' Or, alternatively, 'paṭṭaṃ' here is an accusative of purpose, meaning 'for the panel.' In this case, 'aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ' is an accusative of purpose. 'Vidhi' is its qualifier. Here, 'aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ' means other than the four-cornered shape that will be described. 'Tattha' means in those two panels. 'Agghiyagadārūpa' is sewing in the shape of a treasure chest and a mace. 'Muggara' is sewing in the shape of a club. By the word 'ādi,' shapes such as a cetīya and the like are included.

Tatthāti paṭṭadvaye tasmiṃ ṭhāne. Kakkaṭakakkhīnīti kuḷīrakacchisadisāni sibbanavikārāni. Uṭṭhāpentīti karonti. Tatthāti tasmiṃ gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭake. Suttāti koṇato koṇaṃ sibbitasuttā ceva caturasse sibbitasuttā ca. Piḷakāti tesameva suttānaṃ nivattetvā sibbitakoṭiyo ca. Duviññeyyāvāti rajanakāle duviññeyyarūpā anoḷārikā dīpitā vaṭṭantīti. Yathāha ‘‘koṇasuttapiḷakā ca cīvare ratte duviññeyyarūpā vaṭṭantī’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).

'Tattha' means in that place, on the two panels. 'Kakkaṭakakkhīnī' refers to stitching patterns resembling crab claws. 'Uṭṭhāpenti' means 'they make.' 'Tattha' means on that panel with knots and loops. 'Suttā' means threads stitched corner to corner and threads stitched in squares. 'Piḷakā' refers to the stitched corners made by turning back those same threads. 'Duviññeyyā' means that at the time of dyeing, being difficult to discern and subtle, they are explained as permissible. As it is said: 'Corner threads and knots on the robe, when dyed, are difficult to discern and are permissible' (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.85).

Gaṇṭhikapaṭṭikā pāsapaṭṭikāti yojanā. Kaṇṇakoṇesu suttānīti cīvarakaṇṇe suttā ceva pāsakapaṭṭānaṃ koṇesu suttāni ca acchindati. Ettha ca cīvare āyāmato vitthārato ca sibbitvā anuvātato bahi nikkhamitasuttaṃ cīvaraṃ rajitvā sukkhāpanakāle rajjuyā vā cīvaravaṃse vā [Pg.39] bandhitvā olambituṃ anuvāte bandhasuttāni ca kaṇṇasuttāni nāma. Yathāha ‘‘cīvarassa kaṇṇasuttakaṃ na ca vaṭṭati, rajitakāle chinditabbaṃ, yaṃ pana ‘anujānāmi bhikkhave kaṇṇasuttaka’nti evaṃ anuññātaṃ, taṃ anuvāte pāsakaṃ katvā bandhitabbaṃ rajanakāle lagganatthāyā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).

The construction is: knot-bands and loop-bands. 'Threads at the corners' means one cuts off the threads at the corners of the robe and the threads at the corners of the loop-bands. Here, with regard to the robe, after it has been sewn lengthwise and widthwise, the threads protruding from the hem and the binding threads at the hem—used for tying to a rope or a robe-pole to hang it for drying after it has been dyed—are called 'corner-threads'. As it is said: 'A corner-thread on a robe is not permissible; it should be cut off at the time of dyeing. But that which was permitted thus, “Monks, I allow a corner-thread,” that should be made into a loop at the hem to be tied for the purpose of hanging at the time of dyeing' (Pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).

Sūcikammavikāraṃ vāti cīvaramaṇḍanatthāya nānāsuttakehi satapadisadisaṃ sibbantā āgantukapaṭṭaṃ ṭhapenti, evarūpaṃ sūcikammavikāraṃ vā. Aññaṃ vā pana kiñcipīti aññampi yaṃ kiñci mālākammamigapakkhipadādikaṃ sibbanavikāraṃ. Kātunti sayaṃ kātuṃ. Kārāpetunti aññena vā kārāpetuṃ.

'Or a modification of needlework' means a modification of needlework such as, for the purpose of decorating a robe, sewing with various threads in a centipede-like pattern or placing an additional panel. 'Or any other whatsoever' means any other modification of sewing, such as garland-work, or figures of beasts and birds, and so on. 'To do' means to do it oneself. 'To cause to be done' means to have it done by another.

Yo bhikkhu paraṃ uttamaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhamabhipatthayanto kañjikapiṭṭhakhaliallikādīsu cīvaraṃ pakkhipati, tassa pana bhikkhuno dukkaṭā mokkho na vijjatīti yojanā. Kañjikanti vāyanatantamakkhanaṃ kañjikasadisā sulākañjikaṃ. Piṭṭhanti taṇḍulapiṭṭhaṃ. Taṇḍulapiṭṭhehi pakkā khali. Allikāti niyyāso. Ādi-saddena lākhādīnaṃ gahaṇaṃ. Cīvarassa karaṇe karaṇakāle samuṭṭhitānaṃ sūcihatthamalādīnaṃ kiliṭṭhakāle dhovanatthañca kañjikapiṭṭhakhaliallikādīsu pakkhipati, vaṭṭatīti yojanā.

The construction is: Whatever monk, desiring a superior, excellent gloss, immerses a robe in sour gruel, flour paste, oil-cake paste, resin, and so on, for that monk there is no escape from an offense of wrong-doing. 'Sour gruel' is a sour gruel similar to the gruel from washing a weaver's thread. 'Flour' is rice flour. 'Oil-cake paste' is a paste cooked with rice flour. 'Resin' is gum. By the word 'and so on,' lac and other such things are included. The construction is: For the purpose of washing away stains from needles, hands, and so on, that have arisen during the making of a robe, and when it is soiled, it is permissible to immerse it in sour gruel, flour paste, oil-cake paste, resin, and so on.

Tatthāti yena kasāvena cīvaraṃ rajati, tasmiṃ rajane cīvarassa sugandhabhāvatthāya gandhaṃ vā ujjalabhāvatthāya telaṃ vā vaṇṇatthāya lākhaṃ vā. Kiñcīti evarūpaṃ yaṃ kiñci. Maṇināti pāsāṇena. Aññenapi ca kenacīti yena ujjalaṃ hoti, evarūpena muggarādinā aññenapi kenaci vatthunā. Doṇiyāti rajanambaṇe na ghaṃsitabbaṃ hatthena gāhāpetvā na gahetabbaṃ. Rattaṃ cīvaraṃ hatthehi kiñci thokaṃ paharituṃ vaṭṭatīti [Pg.40] yojanā. Yattha pakkarajanaṃ pakkhipanti, sā rajanadoṇī. Tattha aṃsabaddhakakāyabandhanādiṃ ghaṭṭetuṃ vaṭṭatīti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

'Tattha' means in that dye with which a robe is dyed; in that dye, for the robe's fragrance, perfume; for its brightness, oil; or for its color, lac. 'Kiñci' means anything whatsoever of this kind. 'Maṇinā' means with a stone. 'Aññenapi ca kenaci' refers to anything else by which it becomes bright, such as a mallet or any other such object. 'Doṇiyā' means it should not be rubbed in the dye vat, nor should it be held and taken up by hand. The construction is: it is permissible to strike the dyed robe a little with the hands. The vat in which prepared dye is put, that is the dye vat. There, it is permissible to rub the shoulder strap, body band, etc.—as stated in the section on knots.

Gaṇṭhiketi veḷudantavisāṇādimayagaṇṭhike. Lekhā vāti vaṭṭādibhedā lekhā vā. Piḷakāti sāsapabījasadisā khuddakabubbuḷā. Pāḷikaṇṇikabhedatoti maṇikāvaḷirūpapupphakaṇṇikarūpabhedato. ‘‘Kappabinduvikāro vā na vaṭṭatīti yojanā’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā tatheva cīvare paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

'Gaṇṭhike' refers to knots made of bamboo, ivory, horn, etc. 'Lekhā vā' means markings of various kinds, such as circles. 'Piḷakā' refers to small bubbles resembling mustard seeds. 'Pāḷikaṇṇikabhedato' means by way of different kinds, such as the form of a string of jewels or the form of a flower-ear-ornament. It is said, 'The explanation is that an alteration of the kappabindu mark is not permissible'; therefore, one should act in just that way with regard to the robe.

9. Patte vā thālake vātiādīsu thālaketi tambādimaye puggalike tividhepi kappiyathālake. Na vaṭṭatīti maṇivaṇṇakaraṇapayogo na vaṭṭati, telavaṇṇapayogo pana vaṭṭati. Telavaṇṇoti samaṇasāruppavaṇṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, maṇivaṇṇaṃ pana pattaṃ aññena kataṃ labhitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Pattamaṇḍaleti tipusīsādimaye pattaṭṭhapanakamaṇḍale. ‘‘Na bhikkhave vicitrāni pattamaṇḍalāni dhāretabbāni rūpakākiṇṇāni bhittikammakatānī’’ti (cūḷava. 253) vuttattā ‘‘bhittikammaṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, makaradantakaṃ chinditu’’nti (cūḷava. 253) vuttattā ‘‘makaradantakaṃ pana vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tenāhu porāṇā –

9. 'In a bowl or in a plate,' and so on—here, 'plate' refers to the three kinds of permissible personal plates made of copper, etc. 'It is not permissible' means the application of making it jewel-colored is not permissible, but the application of an oil-color is permissible. 'Oil-color' is said with reference to a color suitable for an ascetic; but they say it is permissible to use a jewel-colored bowl, having received one made by another. 'Bowl-stand' refers to a stand for placing a bowl, made of tin, lead, etc. Because it is said, 'Monks, ornate bowl stands adorned with figures or with wall-paintings done on them should not be used' (Cūḷavagga 253), it is stated that 'wall-painting is not permissible.' Because it is said, 'I allow, monks, the cutting of makara-tooth designs' (Cūḷavagga 253), it is stated that 'makara-tooth designs are permissible.' Therefore, the ancients said—

‘‘Thālakassa ca pattassa, bahi antopi vā pana;

Āraggena katā lekhā, na ca vaṭṭati kācipi.

No line whatsoever made with an awl, either inside or outside the plate or the bowl, is permissible.

‘‘Āropetvā bhamaṃ pattaṃ, majjitvā ce pacanti ca;

‘Maṇivaṇṇaṃ karissāma’, iti kātuṃ na vaṭṭati.

Having placed a bowl on a lathe, and having polished and fired it, thinking, ‘We will make it jewel-colored,’ it is not permissible to do so.

‘‘Pattamaṇḍalake kiñci;

Bhittikammaṃ na vaṭṭati;

Na doso koci tatthassa;

Kātuṃ makaradantaka’’nti.

On the bowl-stand, any wall-work is not permissible. There is no fault for him there in making a makara-tooth design.

Vinayasāratthasandīpaniyampi [Pg.41] āraggenāti ārakaṇṭakaggena, sūcimukhena vā. Kācipi lekhāti vaṭṭakagomuttādisaṇṭhānā yā kācipi rāji. Bhamaṃ āropetvāti bhame allīyāpetvā. Pattamaṇḍalaketi patte chavirakkhaṇatthāya tipusīsādīhi kate pattassa heṭṭhā ādhārādīnaṃ upari kātabbe pattamaṇḍalake. Bhittikammanti nānākārarūpakakammavicittaṃ. Yathāha ‘‘na, bhikkhave, vicitrāni pattamaṇḍalāni dhāretabbāni rūpakākiṇṇāni bhittikammakatānī’’ti. Tatthāti tasmiṃ pattamaṇḍale. Assāti bhikkhussa. Makaradantakanti girikūṭanti vuttaṃ, tasmā evaṃ pattathālakādīsu paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

In the Vinayasāratthasandīpanī, "āraggena" means with the tip of an awl or a needle-point. "Kācipi lekhā" refers to any line in various shapes such as circles or zigzags. "Bhamaṃ āropetvā" means having placed it on a lathe. "Pattamaṇḍalake" refers to a bowl-stand made of tin, lead, etc., to be placed beneath the bowl on a support to protect its surface. "Bhittikamma" means variegated with various kinds of figure-work. As it is said: “Bhikkhus, variegated bowl-stands, filled with figures, made like wall-work, should not be used.” "Tattha" refers to that bowl-stand. "Assa" means for the bhikkhu. "Makaradantaka" is said to be a mountain peak; therefore, one should act accordingly with regard to bowl-stands, trays, etc.

Dhamakaraṇa…pe… lekhā na vaṭṭatīti āraggena dinnalekhā na vaṭṭati, jātihiṅgulikādivaṇṇehi katalekhā pana vaṭṭati. Chattamukhavaṭṭiyanti dhamakaraṇassa hatthena gahaṇatthaṃ katassa chattākārassa mukhavaṭṭiyaṃ. ‘‘Parissāvanabandhaṭṭhāne’’ti keci. Vinayavinicchayepi –

Regarding the water-strainer… and so on… a line is not permissible: a line made with an awl is not permissible, but a line made with colors such as vermilion, etc., is permissible. "Chattamukhavaṭṭiyaṃ" means on the mouth-rim of the umbrella-shaped part made for holding the water-strainer with the hand. Some say, “at the place for tying the strainer.” Also in the Vinayavinicchaya:

‘‘Na dhammakaraṇacchatte, lekhā kācipi vaṭṭati;

Kucchiyaṃ vā ṭhapetvā taṃ, lekhaṃ tu mukhavaṭṭiya’’nti. –

No line whatsoever is permissible on the umbrella-part of the water-strainer, nor on its belly, except for the line on the mouth-rim.

Vuttaṃ. Taṭṭīkāyaṃ pana ‘‘mukhavaṭṭiyā yā lekhā parissāvanabandhanatthāya anuññātā, taṃ lekhaṃ ṭhapetvā dhamakaraṇacchatte vā kucchiyaṃ vā kāci lekhā na vaṭṭatīti yojanā’’ti vuttaṃ, tasmā tattha vuttanayeneva dhamakaraṇe paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

It is stated. But in its sub-commentary, it is stated: “The construction is that, except for the line on the mouth-rim which is permitted for tying the strainer, no line whatsoever is permissible on the water-strainer's umbrella-part or its belly.” Therefore, one should act with regard to the water-strainer in accordance with what was stated there.

10. Kāyabandhane pana kakkaṭakkhīnīti kakkaṭakassa akkhisadisāni. Makaramukhanti makaramukhasaṇṭhānaṃ. Deḍḍubhasīsanti udakasappasīsasadisasaṇṭhānāni. Acchīnīti kuñjaracchisaṇṭhānāni. Ekameva vaṭṭatīti ettha ekarajjukaṃ dviguṇatiguṇaṃ katvā bandhituṃ na vaṭṭati, ekameva pana satavārampi sarīraṃ parikkhipitvā bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. ‘‘Bahurajjuke ekato katvā ekena [Pg.42] nirantaraṃ veṭhetvā kataṃ bahurajjukanti na vattabbaṃ, taṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttattā taṃ murajasaṅkhaṃ na gacchatīti veditabbaṃ. Murajañhi nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi murajavaṭṭisaṇṭhānaṃ veṭhetvā karonti. Idaṃ pana murajaṃ maddavīṇasaṅkhātaṃ pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānañca dasāsu vaṭṭati ‘‘kāyabandhanassa dasā jīranti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, murajaṃ maddavīṇa’’nti (cūḷava. 278) vuttattā.

10. Regarding the waistband, 'crab's eyes' means resembling a crab's eyes. 'Makara-face' means shaped like a makara's face. 'Water-snake heads' means shaped like the heads of water snakes. 'Eyes' means shaped like an elephant's eyes. Herein, regarding 'only one is allowable,' it is not permissible to tie a single cord after folding it into two or three strands, but it is permissible to tie a single one after wrapping it around the body even a hundred times. Since it is said, ‘What is made by gathering many cords together and wrapping them continuously with one should not be called a “many-corded” one; that is allowable,’ it should be understood that this is not reckoned as a drum. For they make a drum by wrapping it with threads of various colors in the shape of a drum-barrel. However, this drum, the one known as a `maddavīṇa`, and the `pāmaṅga`-shape are allowable for the fringes, since it is said: ‘The fringes of the waistband wear out. I allow, bhikkhus, the `muraja` and the `maddavīṇa`’ (Cv.V.29.4).

Vidheti dasāpariyosāne thirabhāvāya dantavisāṇasuttādīhi kate vidhe. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85) pana ‘‘kāyabandhanassa pāsante dasāmūle tassa thirabhāvatthaṃ kattabbe dantavisāṇādimaye vidhe’’ti vuttaṃ. Aṭṭhamaṅgalāni nāma saṅkho, cakkaṃ, puṇṇakumbho, gayā, sirīvaccho, aṅkuso, dhajaṃ, sovatthikanti. Macchayugaḷachattanandiyāvaṭṭādivasenapi vadanti. Paricchedalekhāmattanti dantādīhi katassa vidhassa ubhosu koṭīsu kātabbaparicchedarājimattaṃ. Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇepi –

`Vidhe` means on the binding made with ivory, horn, thread, etc., at the end of the fringes, for the sake of stability. In the Sāratthadīpanī, however, it is said: 'on the binding made of ivory, horn, etc., to be made at the end of the waistband, at the base of the fringes, for the sake of its stability.' The eight auspicious symbols are: the conch, the wheel, the full pot, the `gayā`, the `sirīvaccha`, the goad, the banner, and the `sovatthika`. They are also mentioned as the pair of fish, the umbrella, the `nandiyāvaṭṭa`, etc. 'Merely a boundary line' means just a dividing line to be made at both ends of the binding made of ivory, etc. Also in the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa:

‘‘Suttaṃ vā diguṇaṃ katvā, koṭṭenti ca tahiṃ tahiṃ;

Kāyabandhanasobhatthaṃ, taṃ na vaṭṭati bhikkhuno.

Making a thread double, or weaving it here and there for the sake of beautifying the waistband—that is not allowable for a bhikkhu.

‘‘Dasāmukhe daḷhatthāya, dvīsu antesu vaṭṭati;

Mālākammalatākamma-cittikampi na vaṭṭati.

At the end of the fringe, for the sake of firmness, it is allowable at the two ends; but garland-work, creeper-work, and also painted work are not allowable.

‘‘Akkhīni tattha dassetvā;

Koṭṭite pana kā kathā.Kakkaṭakkhīni vā tattha;

Uṭṭhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati.

Having shown eyes there—what then to say of it being woven? It is not allowable to produce crab's eyes there either.

‘‘Ghaṭaṃ deḍḍubhasīsaṃ vā, makarassa mukhampi vā;

Vikārarūpaṃ yaṃ kiñci, na vaṭṭati dasāmukhe.

A pot, or a water-snake's head, or a makara's face—any kind of fancy shape is not allowable at the end of the fringe.

‘‘Ujukaṃ [Pg.43] macchakaṇṭaṃ vā, maṭṭhaṃ vā pana paṭṭikaṃ;

Khajjūripattakākāraṃ, katvā vaṭṭati koṭṭitaṃ.

A straight fishbone pattern, or a smooth band, or one shaped like a date-palm leaf—having been made thus, the weaving is allowable.

‘‘Paṭṭikā sūkarantanti, duvidhaṃ kāyabandhanaṃ;

Rajjukā dussapaṭṭādi, sabbaṃ tassānulomikaṃ.

The waistband is of two kinds: the flat band and the 'pig's gut.' A cord, a strip of cloth, etc.—all are conformable to that.

‘‘Murajaṃ maddavīṇañca, deḍḍubhañca kalābukaṃ;

Rajjuyo ca na vaṭṭanti, purimā dvedasā siyuṃ.

The drum-shaped, the soft lute, the water-snake, and the multi-stranded—these cords are not allowable; the first two may be on the fringes.

‘‘Dasā pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānā, niddiṭṭhā kāyabandhane;

Ekā dviticatasso vā, vaṭṭanti na tato paraṃ.

Fringes of a `pāmaṅga`-shape are specified for the waistband; one, two, or four are allowable, not more than that.

‘‘Ekarajjumayaṃ vuttaṃ, muninā kāyabandhanaṃ;

Tañca pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānaṃ, ekampi ca na vaṭṭati.

The waistband spoken of by the Sage is made of a single cord; and if that has a `pāmaṅga`-shape, not even one is allowable.

‘‘Rajjuke ekato katvā, bahū ekāya rajjuyā;

Nirantarañhi veṭhetvā, kataṃ vaṭṭati bandhituṃ.

Having gathered many cords together and wrapped them continuously with a single cord, it is allowable to tie what is thus made.

‘‘Dantakaṭṭhavisāṇaṭṭhi-lohaveḷunaḷabbhavā;

Jatusaṅkhamayā sutta-phalajā vidhakā matā.

Born of ivory, wood, horn, bone, metal, bamboo, or reed; made of lac or shell, born of thread or fruit—these are considered fasteners (`vidhakā`).

‘‘Kāyabandhanavidhepi, vikāro na ca vaṭṭati;

Tattha tattha pariccheda-lekhāmattaṃ tu vaṭṭatī’’ti. –

Even on the fastener of the waistband, a fancy design is not allowable; but merely a dividing line here and there is permissible.

Vuttaṃ.

It is stated.

Vinayasāratthasandīpaniyampi tahiṃ tahinti paṭṭikāya tattha tattha. Tanti tathākoṭṭitadiguṇasuttakāyabandhanaṃ. Antesu daḷhatthāya dasāmukhe diguṇaṃ katvā koṭṭenti, vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Cittakampīti mālākammalatākammacittayuttampi kāyabandhanaṃ. Akkhīnīti kuñjarakkhīni. Tatthāti kāyabandhane na vaṭṭatīti kā kathā. Uṭṭhāpetunti ukkirituṃ.

Also in the Vinayasāratthasandīpanī: 'here and there' means here and there on the flat band. 'That' means the waistband made of a doubled thread woven in that way. The construction is: 'For the sake of firmness at the ends, they weave it doubled at the end of the fringe; it is allowable.' 'And also painted work' means a waistband endowed with garland-work, creeper-work, and painted designs. 'Eyes' means elephant's eyes. 'There' means on the waistband; 'what to say' means it is certainly not allowable. 'To produce' means to carve in relief.

Ghaṭanti ghaṭasaṇṭhānaṃ. Deḍḍubhasīsaṃ vāti udakasappasīsaṃ mukhasaṇṭhānaṃ vā. Yaṃ kiñci vikārarūpaṃ dasāmukhe na vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Ettha ca ubhayapassesu macchakaṇṭakayuttaṃ macchassa piṭṭhikaṇṭakaṃ viya yassā paṭṭikāya vāyanaṃ hoti, idaṃ kāyabandhanaṃ [Pg.44] macchakaṇṭakaṃ nāma. Yassa khajjūripattasaṇṭhānamiva vāyanaṃ hoti, taṃ khajjūripattakākāraṃ nāma.

'A pot' means pot-shaped. 'Or a water-snake's head' means a water-snake's head or a face-shape. The construction is: 'Any kind of fancy shape is not allowable at the end of the fringe.' Herein, the waistband whose weaving on both sides has a fishbone pattern, like the backbone of a fish, is called the 'fishbone' waistband. The one whose weaving is like the shape of a date-palm leaf is called the 'date-palm-leaf-shape.'

Pakativikārā paṭṭikā sūkarantaṃ nāma kuñcikākosasaṇṭhānaṃ. Tassa duvidhassa kāyabandhanassa. Tattha rajjukā sūkarantānulomikā, dussapaṭṭaṃ paṭṭikānulomikaṃ. Ādi-saddena muddikakāyabandhanaṃ gahitaṃ, tañca sūkarantānulomikaṃ. Yathāha ‘‘ekarajjukaṃ pana muddikakāyabandhanañca sūkarantaṃ anulometī’’ti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 278). Tattha rajjukā nāma ekāvaṭṭā, bahurajjukassa akappiyabhāvaṃ vakkhati. Muddikakāyabandhanaṃ nāma caturassaṃ akatvā sajjitanti gaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ.

The 'pig's gut' is a band of a particular type, shaped like a key-sheath. Of that twofold waistband, a cord is conformable to the 'pig's gut' type, and a strip of cloth is conformable to the flat band type. By the word 'etc.' the ring-waistband is included, and that is conformable to the 'pig's gut' type. As it is said: 'A single cord and a ring-waistband are conformable to the “pig's gut”' (Cv.A. 278). Therein, 'cord' means single-stranded; he will speak of the unsuitability of a many-corded one. In the Gaṇṭhipada it is said that the 'ring-waistband' is one that is prepared without being made square.

Murajaṃ nāma murajavaṭṭisaṇṭhānaṃ veṭhetvā kataṃ. Veṭhetvāti nānāsuttehi veṭhetvā. Sikkhābhājanavinicchaye pana ‘‘bahukā rajjuyo ekato katvā ekāya rajjuyā veṭhita’’nti vuttaṃ. Maddavīṇaṃ nāma pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānaṃ. Deḍḍubhakaṃ nāma udakasappasadisaṃ. Kalābukaṃ nāma bahurajjukaṃ. Rajjuyoti ubhayakoṭiyaṃ ekato abandhā bahurajjuyo, tathābandhā kalābukaṃ nāma hoti. Na vaṭṭantīti murajādīni imāni sabbāni kāyabandhanāni na vaṭṭanti. Purimā dveti murajaṃ maddavīṇanāmañcāti dve. ‘‘Dasāsu siyu’’nti vattabbe gāthābandhavasena vaṇṇalopena ‘‘dasā siyu’’nti vuttaṃ. Yathāha ‘‘murajaṃ maddavīṇanti idaṃ dasāsuyeva anuññāta’’nti.

A 'muraja' is one made by wrapping, with the shape of a drum-barrel. 'By wrapping' means by wrapping with various threads. In the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya, however, it is said: 'wrapped with one cord after many cords have been gathered together.' A 'maddavīṇa' is one with a `pāmaṅga`-shape. A 'deḍḍubhaka' is one resembling a water snake. A 'kalābuka' is a many-corded one. 'Cords' means many cords not bound together at both ends; when bound in such a way, it is called a 'kalābuka.' 'Are not allowable' means all these waistbands, the `muraja` and so on, are not allowable. 'The first two' means the two named `muraja` and `maddavīṇa`. When it should be said 'should be on the fringes' (`dasāsu siyuṃ`), it is said 'may be on the fringes' (`dasā siyuṃ`) by elision of a letter due to the meter of the verse. As it is said: 'The `muraja` and the `maddavīṇa`—this is permitted only on the fringes.'

Pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānāti pāmaṅgadāmaṃ viya caturassasaṇṭhānā. Ekarajjumayanti nānāvaṭṭe ekato vaṭṭetvā kataṃ rajjumayaṃ kāyabandhanaṃ vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti ‘‘rajjukā dussapaṭṭādī’’ti ettha ekavaṭṭarajjukā gahitā. Idha pana nānāvaṭṭe ekato vaṭṭetvā katā ekāva rajju gahitā. Tañcāti taṃ vā nayampi ekarajjukakāyabandhanaṃ pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānena ganthitaṃ. Ekampi ca na vaṭṭatīti kevalampi na vaṭṭati.

'`Pāmaṅga`-shape' means square-shaped, like a `pāmaṅga`-rope. 'Made of a single cord': since it is allowable to call a waistband made of cord 'made by twisting many strands into one,' in the phrase 'a cord, a strip of cloth, etc.' a single-strand cord is meant. Here, however, a single cord made by twisting many strands together is meant. 'And that' means that single-cord waistband, by either method, plaited in a `pāmaṅga`-shape. 'Not even one is allowable' means it is not allowable at all.

Bahū [Pg.45] rajjuke ekato katvāti yojanā. Vaṭṭati bandhitunti murajaṃ kalābukañca na hoti, rajjukakāyabandhanameva hotīti adhippāyo. Ayaṃ pana vinicchayo ‘‘bahurajjuke ekato katvā ekena nirantaraṃ veṭhetvā kataṃ bahurajjukanti na vattabbaṃ, taṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti aṭṭhakathāgato idha vutto. Sikkhābhājanavinicchaye ‘‘bahurajjuyo ekato katvā ekāya veṭhitaṃ murajaṃ nāmā’’ti yaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ iminā virujjhanato na gahetabbaṃ.

The construction is: 'having gathered many cords together.' 'It is allowable to be tied'—the intention is that it is not a `muraja` or a `kalābuka`, but is just a cord-waistband. This ruling, however, which comes from the commentary—'What is made by gathering many cords together and wrapping them continuously with one should not be called a "many-corded" one; that is allowable'—is stated here. What is said in the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya—'What is made by gathering many cords together and wrapping them with one is called a `muraja`'—should not be accepted as it contradicts this.

Danta-saddena hatthidantā vuttā. Jatūti lākhā. Saṅkhamayanti saṅkhanābhimayaṃ. Vidhakā matāti ettha vedhikātipi pāṭho, vidhapariyāyo. Kāyabandhanavidheti kāyabandhanassa dasāya thirabhāvatthaṃ kaṭṭhadantādīhi kate vidhe. Vikāro aṭṭhamaṅgalādiko. Tattha tatthāti tasmiṃ tasmiṃ ṭhāne. Tu-saddena ghaṭākāropi vaṭṭatīti dīpetīti attho pakāsito, tasmā tena nayena kāyabandhanavicāro kātabboti.

By the word 'danta,' elephant tusks are meant. 'Jatu' means lac. 'Made of shell' means made from the navel of a conch shell. Regarding 'are considered fasteners,' there is also the reading `vedhikā`, a synonym for `vidha`. 'On the fastener of the waistband' means on the fastener made of wood, ivory, etc., for the sake of making the fringe of the waistband firm. The 'fancy decoration' is the eight auspicious symbols and so on. 'Here and there' means in this or that place. The meaning 'the particle `tu` indicates that even a pot-shape is allowable' is revealed. Therefore, the investigation of the waistband should be done according to that method.

11. Añjaniyaṃ ‘‘ujukamevā’’ti vuttattā caturassādisaṇṭhānāpi vaṅkagatikā na vaṭṭati. Sipāṭikāyāti vāsiādibhaṇḍapakkhipane. Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇe pana –

11. For an eye-salve container, since it is said 'only straight,' a crooked design is not allowable, even if it is square-shaped. 'In a shoulder bag' means for putting tools like an adze, etc. However, in the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa:

‘‘Mālākammalatākamma-nānārūpavicittitā;

Na ca vaṭṭati bhikkhūnaṃ, añjanī janarañjanī.

An eye-salve container adorned with garland-work, creeper-work, and various figures, for delighting people, is not allowable for bhikkhus.

‘‘Tādisaṃ pana ghaṃsitvā, veṭhetvā suttakena vā;

Vaḷañjantassa bhikkhussa, na doso koci vijjati.

However, for a bhikkhu who uses such a thing after rubbing it down, or after wrapping it with a thread, there is no fault whatsoever.

‘‘Vaṭṭā vā caturassā vā, aṭṭhaṃsā vāpi añjanī;

Vaṭṭatevāti niddiṭṭhā, vaṇṇamaṭṭhā na vaṭṭati.

An eye-salve container that is round, square, or octagonal is specified as being allowable; one that is colored and polished is not allowable.

‘‘Tathāñjanisalākāpi, añjanithavikāya ca;

Nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi, cittakammaṃ na vaṭṭati.

Likewise for an eye-salve stick and for an eye-salve bag, decorative work with threads of various colors is not allowable.

‘‘Ekavaṇṇena [Pg.46] suttena, sipāṭiṃ yena kenaci;

Yaṃ kiñci pana sibbetvā, vaḷañjantassa vaṭṭatī’’ti. –

But having sewn a shoulder bag or anything whatsoever with a single-colored thread, it is allowable for one who uses it.

Āgataṃ.

Thus it is transmitted.

Taṭṭīkāyampi mālā…pe… cittitāti mālākammalatākammehi ca migapakkhirūpādinānārūpehi ca vicittitā. Janarañjanīti bālajanapalobhinī. Aṭṭhaṃsā vāpīti ettha api-saddena soḷasaṃsādīnaṃ gahaṇaṃ. Vaṇṇamaṭṭhāti mālākammādivaṇṇamaṭṭhā. Añjanīsalākāpi tathā vaṇṇamaṭṭhā na vaṭṭatīti yojanā. Añjanīthavikāya ca nānāvaṇṇehi suttehi cittakammaṃ na vaṭṭatīti pāṭho yujjati, ‘‘thavikāpi vā’’ti pāṭho dissati, so na gahetabbo. ‘‘Pītādinā yena kenaci ekavaṇṇena suttena pilotikādimayaṃ kiñcipi sipāṭikaṃ sibbetvā vaḷañjantassa vaṭṭatīti yojanā’’ti āgataṃ.

In the Subcommentary also: 'Garlands... etc. ... decorated' means decorated with garland-work, creeper-work, and various forms such as the figures of beasts and birds. 'Delighting people' means alluring foolish people. In the phrase 'or octagonal,' the particle `api` implies the inclusion of sixteen-sided and other shapes. 'Colored and polished' means colored and polished with garland-work and so on. The construction is: 'A collyrium applicator, too, if similarly colored and polished, is not allowable.' The reading, 'And for a collyrium pouch, decorative work with threads of various colors is not allowable,' is suitable. The reading 'or a pouch' is found, but it should not be accepted. It is stated: 'The construction is: It is allowable for one who uses any small pouch, such as one made of cloth scraps, having sewn it with any thread of a single color, such as yellow or another.'

12. Ārakaṇṭakādīsu ārakaṇṭaketi potthakādiabhisaṅkharaṇatthaṃ kate dīghamukhasatthake. Bhamakārānaṃ dāruādilikhanasatthakanti keci. Vaṭṭamaṇikanti vaṭṭaṃ katvā uṭṭhāpetabbabubbuḷakaṃ. Aññanti iminā piḷakādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Pipphaliketi yaṃ kiñci chedanake khuddakasatthe. Maṇikanti ekavaṭṭamaṇi. Piḷakanti sāsapamattikāmuttarājisadisā bahuvaṭṭalekhā. Imasmiṃ adhikāre avuttattā lekhaniyaṃ yaṃ kiñci vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ pana ‘‘kuñcikāya senāsanaparikkhārattā suvaṇṇarūpiyamayāpi vaṭṭatīti chāyā dissati. ‘Kuñcikāya vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ na vaṭṭatī’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85) vacanato aññe kappiyalohādimayāva kuñcikā kappanti pariharaṇīyaparikkhārattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Ārakaṇṭako potthakādikaraṇasatthakajāti, āmaṇḍasārako āmalakaphalamayoti vadanti.

12. In regard to the awl, etc.: 'Awl' means a long-faced knife made for preparing books and so on. Some say it is a knife for turners to incise wood and so on. 'A round gem' means a bubble-like shape made round and raised up. By 'other,' it includes a pustule and so on. 'Pipphalika' refers to any small cutting knife. 'Gem' means a single round gem. 'Pustule' means many circular marks similar to a line of pearls the size of a mustard seed. Because it is not mentioned in this section, some say that any kind of decorated writing implement is allowable. But in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā it is said: 'The sense appears that a key, being a requisite of the lodging, is allowable even if made of gold and silver. But since it is said, "Decorative work on a key is not allowable" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.85), other keys made only of allowable metals and so on are suitable, because they are requisites to be carried about.' They say that an awl is a type of knife for making books, etc., and that an āmaṇḍasāraka is made from the āmalaka fruit.

Valitakanti [Pg.47] nakhacchedanakāle daḷhaggahaṇatthaṃ valiyuttameva karonti. Tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatīti iminā aññampi vikāraṃ daḷhīkammādiatthāya karonti, na vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāya, taṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpitaṃ, tena ca kattaradaṇḍakoṭiyaṃ aññamaññaṃ saṅghaṭṭanena saddaniccharaṇatthāya katavalayādikaṃ avuttampi yato upapannaṃ hoti. Ettha ca daḷhīkammādīti ādi-saddena parissayavinodanādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti, tena kattarayaṭṭhikoṭiyaṃ katavalayānaṃ aññamaññasaṅghaṭṭanena saddaniccharaṇaṃ dīghajātikādiparissayavinodanatthaṃ hoti, tasmā vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Tenāha ācariyavaro –

"Having a fold": at the time of cutting nails, they make it with a fold for the purpose of a firm grip. Therefore, by the phrase "that is allowable," it is shown that they make other modifications for the purpose of strengthening and so on, not for the purpose of decoration, and that this is allowable. And by that, rings and so on made at the end of the scissor-handle for the purpose of producing a sound by striking against each other, though unmentioned, are therefore suitable. And here, in "strengthening, etc.," the word "etc." includes the dispelling of dangers and so on. Thus, the producing of sound by the striking against each other of rings made at the end of the scissor-stick is for the purpose of dispelling dangers from snakes and so on; therefore, it shows that it is allowable. Hence the excellent teacher said:

‘‘Maṇikaṃ piḷakaṃ vāpi, pipphale ārakaṇṭake;

Ṭhapetuṃ pana yaṃ kiñci, na ca vaṭṭati bhikkhuno.

But it is not allowable for a bhikkhu to place a gem or a pustule, or anything at all, on a pipphali-knife or an awl.

‘‘Daṇḍakepi pariccheda-lekhāmattaṃ tu vaṭṭati;

Valitvā ca nakhacchedaṃ, karontīti hi vaṭṭatī’’ti.

But on the handle, a mere demarcation line is allowable; and since they make a nail-cutter with a fold, it is allowable.

Tassa vaṇṇanāyampi maṇikanti thūlabubbuḷaṃ. Pīḷakanti sukhumabubbuḷaṃ. Pipphaleti vatthacchedanasatthe. Ārakaṇṭaketi pattadhāravalayānaṃ vijjhanakaṇṭake. Ṭhapetunti uṭṭhāpetuṃ. Yaṃ kiñcīti sesavaṇṇamaṭṭhampi ca. Daṇḍaketi pipphalidaṇḍake. Yathāha ‘‘pipphalikepi maṇikaṃ vā piḷakaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭati, daṇḍake pana paricchedalekhā vaṭṭatī’’ti. Paricchedalekhāmattanti āṇibandhanaṭṭhānaṃ patvā paricchindanatthaṃ ekāva lekhā vaṭṭatīti. Valitvāti ubhayakoṭimukhaṃ katvā majjhe valiyo gāhetvā nakhacchedaṃ yasmā karonti, tasmā vaṭṭatīti yojanāti āgatā.

In its explanation too: 'Gem' means a large bubble. 'Pustule' means a fine bubble. 'Pipphali' means on a cloth-cutting knife. 'Awl' means on the piercing spike of the rings that support a bowl. 'To place' means to raise up. 'Anything at all' means also the remaining decorations. 'On the handle' means on the handle of the pipphali-knife. As it is said: 'On a pipphali-knife, it is not allowable to place a gem or a pustule or anything at all, but on the handle a demarcation line is allowable.' 'A mere demarcation line' means that having reached the place for tying the pin, a single line is allowable for the purpose of demarcation. It is stated: ''With a fold' means that because they make a nail-cutter by making the tips of both ends meet and putting folds in the middle, it is therefore allowable. This is the construction.'

Uttarāraṇiyaṃ maṇḍalanti uttarāraṇiyā pavesanatthaṃ āvāṭamaṇḍalaṃ hoti. Dantakaṭṭhacchedanavāsiyaṃ ujukameva bandhitunti sambandho. Ettha ca ujukamevāti iminā vaṅkaṃ katvā bandhituṃ na [Pg.48] vaṭṭatīti dasseti, teneva añjaniyampi tathā dassitaṃ. Ubhosu passesu ekapasse vāti vacanaseso, vāsidaṇḍassa ubhosu passesu daṇḍakoṭīnaṃ acalanatthaṃ bandhitunti attho. Kappiyalohena caturassaṃ vā aṭṭhaṃsaṃ vā kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti yojanā.

'A circle on the upper fire-stick' means there is a circular hollow for inserting the upper fire-stick. On the adze for cutting tooth-sticks, it should be bound straight: this is the connection. And here, by 'straight,' it shows that it is not allowable to bind it crookedly; for that same reason, it is shown similarly for the collyrium applicator. 'On both sides or on one side' is the ellipsis. The meaning is that it is bound on both sides of the adze-handle to prevent the ends of the handle from moving. It is allowable to make it square or octagonal with allowable metal: this is the construction.

13. Āmaṇḍasāraketi āmalakaphalāni pisitvā tena kakkena katatelabhājane. Tattha kira pakkhittaṃ telaṃ sītaṃ hoti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ ācariyena –

13. 'Āmaṇḍasāraka' means in an oil container made from the paste of pounded āmalaka fruits. It is said that oil put therein becomes cool. For so it has been said by the teacher:

‘‘Uttarāraṇiyaṃ vāpi, dhanuke pelladaṇḍake;

Mālākammādi yaṃ kiñci, vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭati.

"On an upper fire-stick, a bow, or a pressing-stick, any kind of decorative work such as garland-work is not allowable.

‘‘Saṇḍāse dantakaṭṭhānaṃ, tathā chedanavāsiyā;

Dvīsu passesu lohena, bandhituṃ pana vaṭṭati.

"On tongs, and likewise on an adze for cutting tooth-sticks, it is, however, allowable to bind it with metal on two sides.

‘‘Tathā kattaradaṇḍepi, cittakammaṃ na vaṭṭati;

Vaṭṭalekhāva vaṭṭanti, ekā vā dvepi heṭṭhato.

"Likewise on a scissor-handle, decorative work is not allowable; only circular lines are allowable, one or two below.

‘‘Visāṇe nāḷiyaṃ vāpi, tathevāmaṇḍasārake;

Telabhājanake sabbaṃ, vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ tu vaṭṭatī’’ti.

"On a horn or a tube, and likewise on an āmaṇḍasāraka, on any oil container, all decoration is allowable."

Ṭīkāyampi araṇisahite bhantakiccakaro daṇḍo uttarāraṇī nāma. Vāpīti pi-saddena adharāraṇiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Udukkhaladaṇḍassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Añchanakayantadhanu dhanukaṃ nāma. Musalamatthakapīḷanadaṇḍako pelladaṇḍako nāma. Saṇḍāseti aggisaṇḍāse. Dantakaṭṭhānaṃ chedanavāsiyā tathā yaṃ kiñci vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ na vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Dvīsu passesūti vāsiyā ubhosu passesu. Lohenāti kappiyalohena. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatīti ujukameva vā caturassaṃ vā aṭṭhaṃsaṃ vā bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Saṇḍāseti aggisaṇḍāseti nissandehe vuttaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ panettha sūcisaṇḍāso dassito[Pg.49]. Heṭṭhāti heṭṭhā ayopaṭṭavalaye. ‘‘Upari ahicchattakamakuḷamatta’’nti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Visāṇeti telāsiñcanakagavayamahiṃsādisiṅge. Nāḷiyaṃ vāpīti veḷunāḷikādināḷiyaṃ. Api-saddena alābuṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Āmaṇḍasāraketi āmalakacuṇṇamayatelaghaṭe. Telabhājanaketi vuttappakāreyeva telabhājane. Sabbaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatīti pumitthirūparahitaṃ mālākammādi sabbaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatīti āgataṃ.

In the Subcommentary too: The stick that does the work of turning together with the fire-stick is called the 'upper fire-stick.' By the word 'or,' it includes the lower fire-stick. This is a synonym for a pestle. The bow of a machine for grinding collyrium is called a 'bow.' A stick for pressing the head of a pestle is called a 'pressing-stick.' 'On tongs' means on fire-tongs. The connection is: 'and likewise on an adze for cutting tooth-sticks, any decoration is not allowable.' 'On two sides' means on both sides of the adze. 'With metal' means with allowable metal. 'It is allowable to bind' means it is allowable to bind it straight, or square, or octagonal. 'On tongs means on fire-tongs' is said without doubt. In the Commentary, a needle-tong is shown here. 'Below' means on the iron ring below. It is said in the Commentary: 'Above, it should be just like the bud of a cobra's hood.' 'Horn' means the horn of a gayal, buffalo, etc., for pouring oil. 'Or in a tube' means in a tube such as one of bamboo. By the word 'or,' it includes a gourd. 'Āmaṇḍasāraka' means in an oil-pot made of powdered āmalaka fruit. 'Oil container' means in an oil container of the kind just mentioned. It is stated: 'All decoration is allowable' means that all decoration such as garland-work, excluding male and female figures, is allowable.

Bhūmattharaṇeti kaṭasārādimaye parikammakatāya bhūmiyā attharitabbaattharaṇe. Pānīyaghaṭeti iminā sabbabhājane saṅgaṇhāti. Sabbaṃ…pe… vaṭṭatīti yathāvuttesu mañcādīsu itthipurisarūpampi vaṭṭati. Telabhājanesuyeva itthipurisarūpānaṃ paṭikkhipitattā telabhājanena saha agaṇetvā visuṃ mañcādīnaṃ gahitattā cāti vadanti. Kiñcāpi vadanti, etesaṃ pana mañcādīnaṃ hatthena āmasitabbabhaṇḍattā itthirūpamettha na vaṭṭatīti gahetabbaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85) pana ‘‘tālavaṇṭabījaniādīsu vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi tāni kuñcikā viya pariharaṇīyāni, atha kho uccāvacāni na dhāretabbānīti paṭikkhepābhāvato vuttaṃ. Kevalañhi tāni ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave vidhūpanañca tālavaṇṭañcā’’tiādinā vuttāni. Gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘telabhājanesu vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭati, senāsanaparikkhārattā vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Ācariyabuddhadattattherenapi vuttameva –

'Ground-covering' means on a covering to be spread on prepared ground, made of rush-mats and so on. By 'water-pot,' it includes all vessels. 'All... etc. ... is allowable' means that on the aforementioned beds, etc., even figures of women and men are allowable. They say this because figures of women and men are prohibited only on oil vessels, and because beds, etc., are taken separately, not counted together with oil vessels. Although they say this, it should be understood that since these items such as beds are things to be touched by hand, a figure of a woman is not allowable here. But in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā it is said: 'Decorative work is allowable on palm-leaf fans, whisks, and so on.' Although these, like a key, are to be carried about, this is said because of the absence of a prohibition against them. They are simply mentioned in such passages as: 'I allow, bhikkhus, a whisk and a palm-leaf fan.' But in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said: 'Decorative work on oil vessels is allowable; it is said this is because they are requisites of the lodging.' It has also been stated by the Elder Ācariya Buddhādatta:

‘‘Pānīyassa uḷuṅkepi, doṇiyaṃ rajanassapi;

Ghaṭe phalakapīṭhepi, valayādhārakādike.

"On a water ladle, on a trough for dye, on a pot, on a plank-seat, on a bowl-stand and so on,

‘‘Tathā pattapidhāne ca, tālavaṇṭe ca bījane;

Pādapuñchaniyaṃ vāpi, sammuñjaniyameva ca.

"Likewise on a bowl-lid, on a palm-leaf fan and a whisk, or on a foot-wiper, and on a broom,

‘‘Mañce [Pg.50] bhūmatthare pīṭhe, bhisibimbohanesu ca;

Mālākammādikaṃ cittaṃ, sabbameva ca vaṭṭatī’’ti.

"On a bed, a ground-covering, a chair, on a mattress and a pillow, all decorative work such as garland-work is allowable."

14. Evaṃ samaṇaparikkhāresu kappiyākappiyaṃ kathetvā idāni senāsane kathetuṃ ‘‘senāsane panā’’tyādimāha. Ettha pana-saddo visesajotako. Tena sabbaratanamayampi vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammaṃ vaṭṭati, kimaṅgaṃ pana aññavaṇṇamaṭṭhakammanti atthaṃ joteti. Yadi evaṃ kismiñci paṭisedhetabbe santepi tathā vattabbaṃ siyāti āha ‘‘senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthī’’ti. Vuttampi cetaṃ ācariyabuddhadattattherena –

14. Having thus spoken about the allowable and the unallowable among the requisites of an ascetic, he now says, "But in a lodging…," etc., in order to speak about the lodging. Here the word "but" indicates a distinction. It thereby illuminates the meaning: "Decorative work made of all kinds of gems is allowable, so what to say of other decorative work?" If so, one might have to speak in that way even when there is something to be prohibited. To counter this, he says: "In a lodging, there is nothing to be prohibited." This too has been said by the Elder Ācariya Buddhādatta:

‘‘Nānāmaṇimayatthambha-kavāṭadvārabhittikaṃ;

Senāsanamanuññātaṃ, kā kathā vaṇṇamaṭṭhake.

"A dwelling with pillars, doors, and walls made of various gems is allowable; what to say of decorative work?

‘‘Sovaṇṇiyaṃ dvārakavāṭabaddhaṃ;

Suvaṇṇanānāmaṇibhittibhūmiṃ;

Na kiñci ekampi nisedhanīyaṃ;

Senāsanaṃ vaṭṭati sabbamevā’’ti.

"A golden door-panel is fastened; walls and floors are of gold and various gems; not even one thing is to be prohibited; the entire dwelling is allowable."

Samantapāsādikāyampi paṭhamasaṅghādisesavaṇṇanāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.281) ‘‘senāsanaparibhogo pana sabbakappiyo, tasmā jātarūparajatamayā sabbepi senāsanaparikkhārā āmāsā. Bhikkhūnaṃ dhammavinayavaṇṇanaṭṭhāne ratanamaṇḍape karonti phalikatthambhe ratanadāmapaṭimaṇḍite. Tattha sabbupakaraṇāni bhikkhūnaṃ paṭijaggituṃ vaṭṭantī’’ti āgataṃ. Tassā vaṇṇanāyaṃ pana vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) ‘‘sabbakappiyoti yathāvuttasuvaṇṇādimayānaṃ senāsanaparikkhārānaṃ āmasanagopanādivasena paribhogo sabbathā kappiyoti adhippāyo. Tenāha ‘tasmā’tiādi. ‘Bhikkhūnaṃ dhammavinayavaṇṇanaṭṭhāne’ti vuttattā saṅghikameva [Pg.51] suvaṇṇamayaṃ senāsanaṃ senāsanaparikkhārā ca vaṭṭanti, na puggalikānīti veditabba’’nti vaṇṇitaṃ.

In the commentary on the first Saṅghādisesa in the Samantapāsādikā, it is stated: “The use of lodgings, however, is entirely allowable; therefore, all lodging accessories made of gold and silver are allowable to be touched. For the purpose of explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya to the bhikkhus, they construct a jeweled pavilion with crystal pillars adorned with jeweled garlands. There, all furnishings are allowable for the bhikkhus to maintain.” In the sub-commentary on this, the Vimativinodanī, it is explained: “‘Entirely allowable’ means that the use of lodging accessories made of gold and the like, through touching, protecting, and so on, is entirely allowable in every way; this is the intended meaning. Therefore, it is said, ‘Therefore,’ etc. Since it is stated ‘for the purpose of explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya to the bhikkhus,’ it should be understood that a golden lodging and its accessories, being communal property, are allowable, not personal belongings.”

Senāsanakkhandhakavaṇṇanāyampi samantapāsādikāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 320) ‘sabbaṃ pāsādaparibhoganti suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrāni kavāṭāni mañcapīṭhāni tālavaṇṭāni suvaṇṇarajatamayapānīyaghaṭapānīyasarāvāni yaṃ kiñci cittakammakataṃ, sabbaṃ vaṭṭati. Pāsādassa dāsidāsaṃ khettaṃ vatthuṃ gomahiṃsaṃ demāti vadanti, pāṭekkaṃ gahaṇakiccaṃ natthi, pāsāde paṭiggahite paṭiggahitameva hoti. Gonakādīni saṅghikavihāre vā puggalikavihāre vā mañcapīṭhesu attharitvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭanti, dhammāsane pana gihivikatanīhārena labbhanti, tatrāpi nipajjituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti āgataṃ. Tassā vaṇṇanāyaṃ pana vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.320) ‘‘suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrānīti saṅghikasenāsanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, puggalikaṃ pana suvaṇṇādivicitraṃ bhikkhussa sampaṭicchitumeva na vaṭṭati ‘na tvevāhaṃ bhikkhave kenaci pariyāyena jātarūparajataṃ sāditabba’nti (mahāva. 299) vuttattā, tenevettha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘saṅghikavihāre vā puggalikavihāre vā’ti na vuttaṃ, gonakādiakappiyabhaṇḍavisayeva evaṃ vuttaṃ, ekabhikkhussapi tesaṃ gahaṇe dosābhāvā’’ti vaṇṇitaṃ.

In the commentary on the Senāsanakkhandhaka, the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 320) states: “All furnishings of a residence—such as doors variegated with gold, silver, and so forth; beds; chairs; palm-leaf fans; drinking pots and drinking bowls made of gold and silver; and any crafted item—are allowable. If they say, ‘We give male and female slaves, fields, land, cattle, and buffaloes to the residence,’ there is no need for individual acceptance; when the residence is accepted, these are accepted as well. However, items like woollen rugs with long fleece and so forth are not to be used by spreading them on beds or chairs in either a Sangha dwelling or a personal dwelling. On the Dhamma seat, however, they may be obtained by way of being disposed of by a layperson, but even there, it is not allowable to lie down on them.” In its commentary, the Vimativinodanī (Vimativinodanī-ṭīkā, Cūḷavagga 2.320), it is explained: “The phrase ‘variegated with gold, silver, and so forth’ is said in reference to a Sangha lodging. But a personal item variegated with gold and so forth is not allowable for a bhikkhu even to accept, because it is said, ‘Bhikkhus, I do not in any way allow gold and silver to be accepted’ (Mahāvagga 299). For that very reason, in the commentary here, the phrase ‘in either a Sangha dwelling or a personal dwelling’ was not stated in this context; it was stated thus only concerning unallowable articles like woollen rugs, because there is no fault for even a single bhikkhu in accepting them.”

Tasmiṃyeva khandhake aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321) ‘‘sacepi rājarājamahāmattādayo ekappahāreneva mañcasataṃ vā mañcasahassaṃ vā denti, sabbe kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā, sampaṭicchitvā vuḍḍhapaṭipāṭiyā saṅghikaparibhogena paribhuñjathāti dātabbā, puggalikavasena na dātabbā’’ti āgataṃ. Tassā vaṇṇanāyaṃyeva vimativinodaniyaṃ ‘‘kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbāti iminā suvaṇṇādivicittaṃ akappiyamañcaṃ ‘saṅghassā’ti vuttepi sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti, ‘vihārassa demā’ti vutte saṅghasseva [Pg.52] vaṭṭati, na puggalassa khettādi viyāti daṭṭhabba’’nti vaṇṇitaṃ, tasmā bhagavato āṇaṃ sampaṭicchantehi lajjipesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūtehi bhikkhūhi suṭṭhu manasikātabbamidaṃ ṭhānaṃ.

In that same section, in the commentary (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 321), it is stated: “Even if kings, royal ministers, or others offer a hundred or a thousand beds at once, all allowable beds should be accepted. Having accepted them, they should be given for the Sangha's use, to be used according to seniority; they should not be given for personal use.” In the explanation of that, the Vimativinodanī says: “By the phrase ‘allowable beds should be accepted,’ it is shown that even if an unallowable bed, ornamented with gold and the like, is offered ‘to the Sangha,’ it is not allowable to accept it. If someone says, ‘We give this to the monastery,’ it is allowable only for the Sangha, not for an individual, just as with fields and the like. This should be understood.” Therefore, this point should be carefully considered by bhikkhus who are conscientious, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training, as they accept the Blessed One’s instruction.

Nanu ca senāsane viruddhasenāsanaṃ nāma paṭisedhetabbaṃ atthi, atha kasmā ‘‘senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthī’’ti vuttanti codanaṃ sandhāyāha ‘‘aññatra viruddhasenāsanā’’ti. Tassattho – viruddhasenāsanā viruddhasenāsanaṃ aññatra ṭhapetvā aññaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhakammādikammaṃ sandhāya senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthīti vuttaṃ, na tadabhāvoti. Yadi evaṃ taṃ viruddhasenāsanaṃ ācariyena vattabbaṃ, katamaṃ viruddhasenāsanaṃ nāmāti pucchāyamāha ‘‘viruddha…pe… vuccatī’’ti. Tattha aññesanti sīmassāmikānaṃ. Rājavallabhehīti lajjipesalānaṃ uposathādiantarāyakarā alajjino bhinnaladdhikā ca bhikkhū adhippetā tehi saha uposathādikaraṇāyogato. Tena ca ‘‘sīmāyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Tesaṃ lajjiparisāti tesaṃ sīmassāmikānaṃ anubalaṃ dātuṃ samatthā lajjiparisā. Bhikkhūhi katanti yaṃ alajjīnaṃ senāsanabhedanādikaṃ lajjibhikkhūhi kataṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ sukatameva alajjiniggahatthāya pavattetabbato.

“But is there not something called an ‘opposing lodging’ that should be prohibited in regard to lodgings? So why was it said, ‘There is nothing to be prohibited in regard to lodgings’?” In reference to this objection, it is said, “except for an opposing lodging.” The meaning is this: it was said, “There is nothing to be prohibited in regard to lodgings,” with reference to other work such as painting, polishing, and so forth, setting aside an opposing lodging; it was not said because there is no such thing. If so, the teacher should state what that opposing lodging is. When asked, “What is called an opposing lodging?” he says, “Opposing... is called...” Here, “of others” means of the owners of the boundary. “By those beloved by the king” refers to shameless bhikkhus with deviant views who are favorites of the king and who cause obstruction to the Uposatha and other observances of the conscientious and virtuous, because it is improper to perform the Uposatha and other observances with them. And for that reason, it is said, “of the boundary.” “Their assembly of the modest” means the assembly of the modest who are capable of giving support to those owners of the boundary. “Done by the bhikkhus” means that whatever is done by the modest bhikkhus to the shameless ones, such as the breaking up of their lodgings, is all well done, because it should be carried out for the purpose of restraining the shameless.

Ettha ca siyā – ‘‘aññesaṃ sīmāyā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, sīmā nāma bahuvidhā, katarasīmaṃ sandhāyāti? Baddhasīmaṃ sandhāyāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Mā amhākaṃ uposathapavāraṇānaṃ antarāyamakatthā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyameva vuttattā, sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha.ṭī. 2.85) ‘‘uposathapavāraṇānaṃ antarāyakarā alajjino rājakulūpakā vuccantī’’ti vuttattā, uposathādivinayakammakhettabhūtāya eva sīmāya idha adhippetattā[Pg.53]. Yadi evaṃ gāmasīmasattabbhantarasīmaudakukkhepasīmāyopi taṃkhettabhūtā eva, tasmā tāpi sandhāyāti vattabbanti? Na vattabbaṃ tāsaṃ abaddhasīmattā, na te tāsaṃ sāmikā, baddhasīmāyeva bhikkhūnaṃ kiriyāya siddhattā tāsaṃyeva te sāmikā. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘yaṃ pana sīmassāmikehi bhikkhūhī’’ti. Yaṃ pana vadanti ‘‘upacārasīmāpi taṃkhettabhūtā’’ti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ, tassā tadakkhettabhāvaṃ upari sīmāvinicchayakathādīsu (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 156 ādayo) kathayissāma. Apica gāmasīmāya aññesaṃ senāsanakaraṇassa paṭisedhitumayuttattā sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmānañca sabbadā atiṭṭhanato baddhasīmāyeva adhippetāti viññāyatīti.

Here, it might be asked: In the commentary it is said, ‘of others’ boundary.’ Boundaries are of many kinds; which boundary is intended? It should be understood as referring to a fixed boundary. If it is asked, ‘How is this known?’ (we reply) because it is stated in the commentary itself, ‘Do not cause obstruction to our Uposatha and Pavāraṇā,’ and also in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sāratthadīpanī-ṭīkā 2.85) it is stated, ‘shameless ones associated with royal families who are obstructors of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are spoken of,’ and because only the boundary that serves as the field for Vinaya acts like the Uposatha is intended here. If that is so, then should it not be said that village boundaries, seven-abbhantara boundaries, and water-throwing boundaries are also intended, since they too serve as such fields? It should not be said so, because those are unfixed boundaries, and they (the bhikkhus) are not their owners. Because only a fixed boundary is established by an act of the bhikkhus, they are the owners of it alone. Therefore, it is said, ‘that which is by the bhikkhus who are the owners of the boundary.’ As for what some say, ‘even a vicinity boundary serves as such a field,’ that should not be accepted; we will discuss its unsuitability as such a field later in the sections on the determination of boundaries (Vinayasaṅgaha-aṭṭhakathā 156, etc.). Moreover, since it is improper to prohibit others from building lodgings within a village boundary, and since seven-abbhantara and water-throwing boundaries are not always permanent, it is understood that only a fixed boundary is intended here.

Chindāpeyya vā bhindāpeyya vā, anupavajjoti idaṃ sabbamattikāmayakuṭī viya sabbathā anupayogārahaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana pañcavaṇṇasuttehi vinaddhachattādikaṃ, tattha akappiyabhāgova chinditabbo, na tadavaseso, tassa kappiyattāti chindanto upavajjova hoti. Teneva vuttaṃ ‘‘ghaṭakampi vāḷarūpampi chinditvā dhāretabba’’ntiādi.

“He may have it cut or broken; he is blameless”—this is said with reference to something entirely unfit for use, like a hut made entirely of clay. But as for an item bound with five-colored threads, like a canopy and so on, only the unallowable portion should be cut off, not the remainder, because that is allowable. Therefore, one who cuts it (the allowable remainder) is blameworthy. For this reason, it is said: “Even a small pot or a figure of a wild animal should be cut off and may be kept,” and so on.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Parikkhāravinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Requisites,

Dutiyo paricchedo.

The Second Chapter.

3. Bhesajjādikaraṇavinicchayakathā

3. The Discourse on the Determination of Preparing Medicines and Other Items

15. Evaṃ parikkhāravinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni bhesajjakaraṇaparittapaṭisanthārānaṃ vinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘bhesajjā’’tiādimāha. Tattha bhisakkassa idaṃ kammaṃ bhesajjaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Tikicchanaṃ[Pg.54]. Kariyate karaṇaṃ, bhesajjassa karaṇaṃ bhesajjakaraṇaṃ, vejjakammakaraṇanti vuttaṃ hoti. Parisamantato tāyati rakkhatīti parittaṃ, ārakkhāti attho. Paṭisantharaṇaṃ paṭisanthāro, attanā saddhiṃ aññesaṃ sambandhakaraṇanti attho. Tattha yo vinicchayo mātikāyaṃ ‘‘bhesajjakaraṇampi ca parittaṃ, paṭisanthāro’’ti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā) mayā vutto, tasmiṃ samabhiniviṭṭhe bhesajjakaraṇavinicchaye. Sahadhammo etesanti sahadhammikā, tesaṃ, ekassa satthuno sāsane sahasikkhamānadhammānanti attho. Atha vā sahadhamme niyuttā sahadhammikā, tesaṃ, sahadhammasaṅkhāte sikkhāpade sikkhamānabhāvena niyuttānanti attho. Vivaṭṭanissitasīlādiyuttabhāvena samattā samasīlasaddhāpaññānaṃ. Etena dussīlānaṃ bhinnaladdhikānañca akātumpi labbhatīti dasseti.

15. Having thus explained the determination of requisites, now, to explain the determination concerning the preparation of medicines, protection, and hospitable reception, he begins with the word “medicines.” Herein, for a physician, this work is medicine. What is that? Treatment. `Karaṇa` is the act of doing, thus `bhesajjakaraṇa` means the preparation of medicine—it means the work of a physician. `Paritta` means what protects and guards from all around—it signifies protection. `Paṭisanthāra` means a hospitable reception, that is, the act of making a connection with others. Herein, the determination stated in the matrix as “the preparation of medicine, and also protection and a hospitable reception,” is established in the determination of the preparation of medicine. “Those who share the Dhamma” (`sahadhammikā`) refers to those who train together in the same Teacher’s dispensation. Alternatively, `sahadhammikā` means those devoted to the same Dhamma—those engaged in training in the training rule designated as the common Dhamma. Being complete through possessing virtue, etc., that is dependent on what is contrary to the round of existence, it refers to those of equal virtue, faith, and wisdom. This shows that it is permissible not to do this for the immoral and for those of divergent views.

Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato vāti attano vā tesaṃ vā ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato. Na kariyitthāti akatā, ayuttavasena akatapubbā viññatti akataviññatti. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186) pana ‘‘akataviññattiyāti na viññattiyā. Sā hi ananuññātattā katāpi akatā viyāti akataviññatti, ‘vadeyyātha bhante yenattho’ti evaṃ akataṭṭhāne viññatti akataviññattīti likhita’’nti vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) ‘‘gilānassa atthāya appavāritaṭṭhānato viññattiyā anuññātattā katāpi akatā viyāti akataviññatti, ‘vada bhante paccayenā’ti evaṃ akatapavāraṇaṭṭhāne ca viññatti akataviññattī’’ti.

“Or from a place of invitation by relatives” (`Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato vā`) means from a place where one has been invited by one’s own or their relatives. “Not done” (`Na kariyitthā`) means `akatā`; a request (`viññatti`) not previously made because it is improper is an `akataviññatti`. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā states: “By `akataviññatti` is meant not by a request. For since it is unallowed, even if it is made it is as if not made—thus it is called `akataviññatti`. The phrase ‘Speak, venerable sirs, about what is needed’ is written as a request in a place where it should not be made, hence `akataviññatti`.” The Sāratthadīpanī states: “Since a request from an uninvited place is allowed for the sake of the sick, a request made otherwise, even if made, is as if not made—thus it is an `akataviññatti`. And a request in a place where no invitation has been made, such as, ‘Speak, venerable sir, about the requisite,’ is an `akataviññatti`.”

16. Paṭiyādiyatīti sampādeti. Akātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha dukkaṭanti vadanti, ayuttatāvasena panettha akaraṇappaṭikkhepo vutto, na āpattivasenāti gahetabbaṃ. Sabbaṃ [Pg.55] parikammaṃ anāmasantenāti mātugāmasarīrādīnaṃ anāmāsattā vuttaṃ. Yāva ñātakā na passantīti yāva tassa ñātakā na passanti. ‘‘Titthiyabhūtānaṃ mātāpitūnaṃ sahatthā dātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186) vuttaṃ.

16. “`Paṭiyādiyati`” means to prepare. Regarding “It is not proper not to do it” (`Akātuṃ na vaṭṭati`), here they say it is a `dukkaṭa` offense. But it should be understood that here the prohibition against not doing it is stated on account of impropriety, not on account of an offense. “All the preliminary work without touching” (`Sabbaṃ parikammaṃ anāmasantena`) is said because one does not touch the bodies of women, etc. “Until the relatives see” (`Yāva ñātakā na passanti`) means until his relatives see. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā states: “It is not permissible to give with one's own hand to parents who have become adherents of other sects.”

17. Pitu bhaginī pitucchā. Mātu bhātā mātulo. Nappahontīti kātuṃ na sakkontīti ṭīkāsu vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tesaṃyeva santakaṃ bhesajjaṃ gahetvā kevalaṃ yojetvā dātabba’’nti vatvā ‘‘sace pana nappahonti yācanti ca, detha no bhante, tumhākaṃ paṭidassāmā’’ti vuttattā pana tesaṃ bhesajjassa appahonakattā bhesajjameva yācantīti aṭṭhakathādhippāyo dissati, vīmaṃsitabbo. Na yācantīti lajjāya na yācanti, gāravena vā. ‘‘Ābhogaṃ katvā’’ti vuttattā aññathā dentassa āpattiyeva. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.18) pana ‘‘ābhogaṃ katvāti idaṃ kattabbakaraṇadassanavasena vuttaṃ, ābhogaṃ pana akatvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti tīsu gaṇṭhipadesu likhita’’nti vuttaṃ. Porāṇaṭīkāyampi tadeva gahetvā likhitaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) pana taṃ vacanaṃ paṭikkhittaṃ. Vuttañhi tattha keci pana ‘‘ābhogaṃ akatvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ bhesajjakaraṇassa, pāḷiyaṃ ‘anāpatti bhikkhu pārājikassa, āpatti dukkaṭassā’ti evaṃ antarāpattidassanavasena sāmaññato paṭikkhittattā, aṭṭhakathāyaṃ avuttappakārena karontassa sutteneva āpattisiddhāti daṭṭhabbā. Teneva aṭṭhakathāyampi ‘tesaññeva santaka’ntiādi vutta’’nti.

17. A father's sister is the paternal aunt. A mother's brother is the maternal uncle. “They are unable” (`Nappahonti`) means they are incapable of doing so, as stated in the subcommentaries. Having stated, “Taking the medicine belonging to them alone, it should be given after merely mixing it,” and that “if they are unable and request, saying, ‘Give it to us, venerable sir, we will repay you,’” then, due to their inability regarding the medicine, it appears that they are requesting the medicine itself—this seems to be the commentary's intention, which should be investigated. “They do not request” (`Na yācanti`) means they do not ask out of shame or out of respect. Since it is stated, “Having made a reflection,” giving it otherwise incurs an offense. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī, it is stated: “‘Having made a reflection’—this is said by way of showing what ought to be done. But it is permissible to give even without making a reflection—this is written in three Gaṇṭhipadas.” The Old Subcommentary also records the same. But in the Vimativinodanī, that statement is rejected. For it is said there: “Some say that it is permissible to give even without making a reflection, but this is not proper for the preparation of medicine. For in the Pāḷi it is generally rejected by way of showing an intermediate offense thus: ‘There is no `pārājika` offense for the bhikkhu, but there is an offense of `dukkaṭa`.’ It should be seen that for one who acts in a way not stated in the commentary, an offense is established by the Sutta itself. Therefore, even in the commentary, it is said, ‘belonging to them alone,’ etc.”

Ete dasa ñātake ṭhapetvāti tesaṃ puttanattādayopi tappaṭibaddhattā ñātakā evāti tepi ettheva saṅgahitā. Tena aññesanti iminā aññātakānaṃ gahaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ[Pg.56]. Tenevāha ‘‘etesaṃ puttaparamparāyā’’tiādi. Kulaparivaṭṭāti kulānaṃ paṭipāṭi, kulaparamparāti vuttaṃ hoti. Bhesajjaṃ karontassāti yathāvuttavidhinā karontassa, ‘‘tāvakālikaṃ dassāmī’’ti ābhogaṃ akatvā dentassapi pana antarāpattidukkaṭaṃ vinā micchājīvanaṃ vā kuladūsanaṃ vā na hotiyeva. Tenāha ‘‘vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotī’’ti. Ñātakānañhi santakaṃ yācitvāpi gahetuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā tattha kuladūsanādi na siyā. Sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) ‘‘mayhaṃ dassanti karissantīti paccāsāya karontassapi yācitvā gahetabbaṭṭhānatāya ñātakesu vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotīti vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186) pana ‘‘vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotīti vacanato yāva sattamo kulaparivaṭṭo, tāva bhesajjaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadantī’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Sabbapadesu vinicchayo veditabboti ‘‘cūḷamātuyā’’tiādīsu sabbapadesu cūḷamātuyā sāmikotiādinā yojetvā heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva vinicchayo veditabbo.

Regarding “Setting aside these ten relatives”: their sons, grandsons, and so forth are also relatives because they are connected to them; therefore they too are included here. Thus, by “others” (`aññesaṃ`), non-relatives should be understood. For this reason, it is said: “of their line of descendants,” etc. “Family succession” (`kulaparivaṭṭa`) means the sequence of families, that is, the lineage of families. For one preparing medicine according to the prescribed method, even if one gives without the reflection, “I will give it temporarily,” there is no wrong livelihood or defiling of families, apart from the intermediate offense of `dukkaṭa`. Therefore, it is said: “There is no offense of practicing medicine or of defiling families.” For it is permissible to take what belongs to relatives even after asking for it; hence, in such cases, there is no defiling of families or the like. In the Sāratthadīpanī it is stated: “They say that even for one who prepares medicine with the expectation, ‘They will give to me,’ since among relatives it is a situation where one may take after asking, there is no offense of practicing medicine or of defiling families.” However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā it is said only this much: “They say that from the statement ‘There is no offense of practicing medicine or of defiling families,’ it is permissible to prepare medicine up to the seventh family generation.” The determination should be understood in all cases: in all cases such as “of the younger mother,” etc., the determination should be made by connecting it with “the husband of the younger mother,” etc., in the manner explained below.

Upajjhāyassa āharāmāti idaṃ upajjhāyena mama ñātakānaṃ bhesajjaṃ āharathāti āṇattehi kattabbavidhidassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Iminā ca sāmaṇerādīnaṃ apaccāsāyapi parajanassa bhesajjakaraṇaṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Vuttanayeneva pariyesitvāti iminā ‘‘bhikkhācāravattena vā’’tiādinā, ‘‘ñātisāmaṇerehi vā’’tiādinā ca vuttamatthaṃ atidisati. Apaccāsīsantenāti (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) āgantukacorādīnaṃ karontenapi manussā nāma upakārakā hontīti attano tehi lābhaṃ apatthayantena, paccāsāya karontassa [Pg.57] pana vejjakammakuladūsanādinā doso hotīti adhippāyo. Evañhi upakāre kate sāsanassa guṇaṃ ñatvā pasīdanti, saṅghassa vā upakārakā hontīti karaṇe pana doso natthi. Keci pana ‘‘apaccāsīsantena āgantukādīnaṃ paṭikkhittapuggalānampi dātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ kattabbākattabbaṭṭhānavibhāgassa niratthakattappasaṅgato apaccāsīsantena ‘‘sabbesampi dātuṃ kātuñca vaṭṭatī’’ti ettakamattasseva vattabbato. Apaccāsīsanañca micchājīvakuladūsanādidosanisedhanatthameva vuttaṃ na bhesajjakaraṇasaṅkhātāya imissā antarāpattiyā muccanatthaṃ āgantukacorādīnaṃ anuññātānaṃ dāneneva tāya āpattiyā muccanatoti gahetabbaṃ.

“I bring for the preceptor”—this is said to show the procedure to be followed by those commanded by the preceptor, “Bring medicine for my relatives.” By this, it is also shown that it is not permissible for novices and the like to prepare medicine for other people, even without expectation. “Having sought it in the way that was stated”—by this he extends the meaning stated with “by the practice of the alms-round,” etc., and with “by relative-novices,” etc. “By one without expectation”—this means by one who does it for newcomers, thieves, etc., without desiring personal gain from them. The intention is that for one who acts with expectation, however, there is a fault through medical practice, defiling families, etc. For when a favor is done in this way, people become confident, having known the quality of the Dispensation, or they become helpers of the Sangha; in doing it thus there is no fault. Some, however, say, “It is permissible for one without expectation to give to newcomers and others, and even to prohibited persons.” This is not right, for it would lead to the meaninglessness of the distinction between what should and should not be done, since it would only need to be said that 'for one without expectation, it is permissible to give and to make for everyone'. And “without expectation” is stated only to prohibit faults such as wrong livelihood and defiling families, not for the purpose of being released from this intermediate offense called the preparation of medicine. It should be understood that one is released from that offense only by giving to those who are permitted, such as newcomers, thieves, etc.

18. Teneva apaccāsīsantenapi akātabbaṭṭhānaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘saddhaṃ kula’’ntiādi vuttaṃ. ‘‘Bhesajjaṃ ācikkhathā’’ti vuttepi ‘‘aññamaññaṃ pana kathā kātabbā’’ti idaṃ pariyāyattā vaṭṭati. Evaṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayena idañcidañca gahetvā karontīti iminā pariyāyena kathentassapi nevatthi dosoti ācariyā. Pucchantīti iminā diṭṭhadiṭṭharogīnaṃ pariyāyenapi vatvā vicaraṇaṃ ayuttanti dasseti. Pucchitassapi pana paccāsīsantassa pariyāyakathāpi na vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Samullapesīti apaccāsīsanto eva aññamaññaṃ kathaṃ samuṭṭhāpesi. Ācariyabhāgoti vinayācāraṃ akopetvā bhesajjācikkhaṇena vejjācariyabhāgo ayanti atthoti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) vuttaṃ.

18. For that very reason, in order to show a place where it should not be done even by one without expectation, it is said, “a faithful family,” etc. Even when told, “Point out the medicine,” this reply, “But a conversation should be had with each other,” is proper because it is an indirect approach. Thus, the teachers say, there is no fault for one who speaks in this indirect way, taking up this and that according to the method stated below. By “asking,” he shows that it is improper to wander about speaking, even indirectly, of the various sick people one has seen. However, they say that even for one who is asked but has expectations, such indirect talk is not appropriate. “He conversed” (`Samullapesi`): being without expectation, he initiated a conversation with another. “The teacher’s role” (`Ācariyabhāgo`): in the Vimativinodanī it is said that the meaning is: without violating the conduct of the Vinaya, this is the role of a physician-teacher fulfilled by pointing out the medicine.

Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) pana ‘‘vinayalakkhaṇaṃ ajānantassa anācariyassa tadanurūpavohārāsambhavato īdisassa lābhassa uppatti nāma natthīti ‘ācariyabhāgo nāma aya’nti vuttaṃ. Vinaye [Pg.58] pakataññunā ācariyena labhitabbabhāgo ayanti vuttaṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Pupphapūjanatthāya dinnepi akappiyavohārena vidhānassa ayuttattā ‘kappiyavasenā’ti vuttaṃ, ‘pupphaṃ āharathā’tiādinā kappiyavohāravasenāti attho’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) pana ‘‘pupphapūjanatthāyapi sampaṭicchiyamānaṃ rūpiyaṃ attano santakattabhajanena nissaggiyamevāti āha ‘kappiyavasena gāhāpetvā’ti. ‘Amhākaṃ rūpiyaṃ na vaṭṭati, pupphapūjanatthaṃ pupphaṃ vaṭṭatī’tiādinā paṭikkhipitvā kappiyena kammena gāhāpetvāti attho’’ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186) pana ‘‘kappiyavasenāti amhākaṃ pupphaṃ ānethātiādinā. ‘Pūjaṃ akāsī’ti vuttattā sayaṃ gahetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadantī’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Ayamettha bhesajjakaraṇavinicchayakathālaṅkāro.

In the Sāratthadīpanī it is said: 'For one who does not know the characteristics of the Vinaya and is without a teacher, the arising of such a gain is indeed impossible because conduct in accordance with it is impossible. Hence it is said, “This is called the teacher’s share.” This means it is said that this is the share to be obtained by a teacher who is an expert in the Vinaya.' In the Sāratthadīpanī it is also said: 'Even when it is given for the purpose of a flower offering, because an arrangement by means of an unallowable transaction is unsuitable, it is said, “by means of what is allowable.” The meaning is: by means of an allowable transaction, such as, “Bring flowers.”' In the Vimativinodanī it is said: 'Even money being accepted for the purpose of a flower offering, since it becomes one's own possession, is to be forfeited. Thus he said, “having had it accepted by means of what is allowable.” The meaning is: having refused it by saying, “Money is not allowable for us; for a flower offering, flowers are allowable,” etc., one has it accepted by means of an allowable procedure.' In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā it is said: '“By means of what is allowable” means by saying, “Bring us flowers,” etc. Because it is said, “He made the offering,” they say it is not allowable to take it oneself. Only this much is said.' This here is the embellishment on the discussion of the decision concerning the preparation of medicines.

19. Evaṃ bhesajjakaraṇavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni parittakaraṇavinicchayaṃ kathetumāha ‘‘paritte panā’’tiādi. Tattha yadi ‘‘parittaṃ karothā’’ti vutte karonti, bhesajjakaraṇaṃ viya gihikammaṃ viya ca hotīti ‘‘na kātabba’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Parittaṃ bhaṇathā’’ti vutte pana dhammajjhesanattā anajjhiṭṭhenapi bhaṇitabbo dhammo, pageva ajjhiṭṭhenāti ‘‘kātabba’’nti vuttaṃ, cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvāti parittaṃ karontena kātabbavidhiṃ dasseti. Cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvāti idaṃ vā ‘‘parittāṇaṃ ettha pavesemī’’ti cittena evaṃ kate parittāṇā ettha pavesitā nāma hotīti vuttaṃ. Vihārato…pe… dukkaṭanti idaṃ aññātake gahaṭṭhe sandhāya vuttanti vadanti. Pādesu udakaṃ ākiritvāti idaṃ tasmiṃ dese cārittavasena vuttaṃ. Tattha hi pāḷiyā nisinnānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pādesu rogavūpasamanādiatthāya udakaṃ siñcitvā parittaṃ kātuṃ suttañca ṭhapetvā ‘‘parittaṃ bhaṇathā’’ti vatvā gacchanti. Evañhi kariyamāne yadi pāde [Pg.59] apanenti, manussā taṃ ‘‘avamaṅgala’’nti maññanti ‘‘rogo na vūpasamessatī’’ti. Tenāha ‘‘na pādā apanetabbā’’ti.

19. Having thus explained the decision on the preparation of medicines, he now speaks in order to explain the decision on the making of a protective chant, beginning with 'But in the case of a protective chant…' Therein, if, when told, 'Make a protective chant,' they do so, it becomes like preparing medicine and like a layperson's work; thus it is said, 'It should not be done.' But when told, 'Recite a protective chant,' since this is a request for the Dhamma, the Dhamma should be recited even when one is not requested—how much more so when one is requested. Thus it is said, 'It should be done.' He shows the procedure to be done by one making a protective chant: 'having shaken the thread and smoothed it out.' Or, it is said that this phrase 'having shaken the thread and smoothed it out' means that when one does so with the thought, 'I will cause the protective power to enter here,' the protective power is said to have been made to enter here. The passage 'From the monastery… an offense of wrong doing'—they say this is said with reference to unrelated householders. 'Having sprinkled water on the feet'—this is said in accordance with the custom in that country. For there, for the purpose of pacifying illness and so on, they sprinkle water on the feet of the bhikkhus seated in a row, and having placed the thread for making the protective chant, they say, 'Recite the protective chant,' and depart. For when this is being done, if they withdraw their feet, people consider it inauspicious, thinking, 'The illness will not be pacified.' Therefore he said, 'The feet should not be withdrawn.'

Matasarīradassane viya kevale susānadassanepi idaṃ jātānaṃ sattānaṃ vayagamanaṭṭhānanti maraṇasaññā uppajjatīti āha ‘‘sīvathikadassane…pe… maraṇassatiṃ paṭilabhissāmāti gantuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti. Lesakappaṃ akatvā samuppannasuddhacittena ‘‘parivāratthāya āgacchantū’’ti vuttepi gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) vuttaṃ. Etena asubhadassananti vacanamattena lesakappaṃ katvā evaṃ gate matassa ñātakā pasīdissanti, dānaṃ dassanti, mayaṃ lābhaṃ labhissāma, upaṭṭhākaṃ labhissāmāti asuddhacittena gantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Kammaṭṭhānasīsena pana ‘‘maraṇassatiṃ labhissāmā’’tiādinā suddhacittena pakkositepi apakkositepi gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Tālapaṇṇassa parittalekhanaṭṭhānattā parittasuttassa parittakaraṇasaññāṇattā tāni disvā amanussā parittasaññāya apakkamantīti āha ‘‘tālapaṇṇaṃ pana parittasuttaṃ vā hatthe vā pāde vā bandhitabba’’nti.

Just as in seeing a dead body, so too in merely seeing a charnel ground, the perception of death arises with the thought, 'This is the place of passing away for beings who have been born.' Thus he said: 'On seeing a charnel ground… it is allowable to go thinking, “I will obtain mindfulness of death.”' In the Vimativinodanī it is said that even when told, 'Come for the sake of the retinue,' it is allowable to go without making a pretext, with a pure mind that has arisen. By this he shows that it is not allowable to go with an impure mind—merely on hearing the words 'seeing the unlovely,' having made a pretext and thinking, 'If I go thus, the relatives of the deceased will be pleased, they will give a gift, we will get a gain, we will get an attendant.' But he clarifies that it is allowable to go with a pure mind, with the meditation subject as the main point, thinking, 'We will obtain mindfulness of death,' etc., whether one is invited or not. Because a palm-leaf is a place for writing a protective text, and because a protective thread is a sign of the making of a protective chant, on seeing these, non-human beings depart because of the sign of protection. Thus he said: 'But a palm-leaf or a protective thread should be tied to the hand or the foot.'

Ettha ca ādito paṭṭhāya yāva ‘‘āṭānāṭiyaparittaṃ (dī. ni. 3.275 ādayo) vā bhaṇitabba’’nti ettakoyeva vinayaṭṭhakathābhato pāḷimuttaparittakaraṇavinicchayo, na pana tato paraṃ vutto, tasmā ‘‘idha panā’’tiādiko kathāmaggo samantapāsādikāyaṃ natthi, tīsu ṭīkāsupi taṃsaṃvaṇṇanānayo natthi, tathāpi so suttaṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatovāti taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘idha pana āṭānāṭiyasuttassa parikammaṃ veditabba’’ntiādimāha. Tattha idhāti ‘‘āṭānāṭiyaparittaṃ vā bhaṇitabba’’nti vacane. Panāti visesatthe nipāto. Dīghanikāye pāthikavagge āgatassa āṭānāṭiyaparittassa parikammaṃ evaṃ veditabbanti yojanā. Yadi paṭhamameva na vattabbaṃ, atha kiṃ kātabbanti [Pg.60] āha ‘‘mettasutta’’ntiādi. Evañhi laddhāsevanaṃ hutvā atiojavantaṃ hoti.

And here, from the beginning up to 'or the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta should be recited,' only this much is the ruling on the performance of a protective chant, which is not from the Pāli canon, brought from the Vinaya commentary; nothing further than that is stated. Therefore, the line of discussion beginning 'But here...' is not found in the Samantapāsādikā, nor is the method of its explanation found in the three subcommentaries. Nevertheless, since it has come in the Sutta commentary, in order to show that, he said, 'But here the preliminary work for the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta should be known,' etc. Therein, 'here' refers to the statement, 'or the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta should be recited.' 'But' is a particle with a special meaning. The construction is: 'The preliminary work for the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta, which has come in the Pāthikavagga of the Dīghanikāya, should be known thus.' If it should not be recited right at the start, then what should be done? He said: 'the Mettasutta,' etc. For having thus been practiced, it becomes exceedingly powerful.

Piṭṭhaṃ vā maṃsaṃ vāti vā-saddo aniyamattho, tena macchakhaṇḍapūvakhajjakādayo saṅgaṇhāti. Otāraṃ labhantīti attanā piyāyitakhādanīyanibaddhavasanaṭṭhānalābhatāya avatāraṇaṃ labhanti. Haritūpalittanti allagomayalittaṃ. Idañhi porāṇakacārittaṃ bhūmivisuddhakaraṇaṃ. Parisuddhaṃ…pe… nisīditabbanti iminā parittakārakassa bhikkhuno mettākaruṇāvasena cittavisuddhipi icchitabbāti dasseti. Evañhi sati upari vakkhamānaubhayato rakkhāsaṃvidhānena sameti. Ṭīkāyaṃ (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282) pana ‘‘sarīrasuddhipi icchitabbāti dassetī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tadetaṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Na hi ‘‘kāyasuddhimattena amanussānaṃ piyo hotī’’ti vuttaṃ, mettāvaseneva pana vuttaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā ‘‘mettāya, bhikkhave, cetovimuttiyā…pe… ekādasānisaṃsā pāṭikaṅkhā. Katame ekādasa? Sukhaṃ supati, sukhaṃ paṭibujjhati, na pāpakaṃ supinaṃ passati, manussānaṃ piyo hoti, amanussānaṃ piyo hotī’’tiādi (a. ni. 11.15; pari. 331; mi. pa. 4.4.6).

'Flour or meat': the word 'or' has the meaning of non-specification; by it, pieces of fish, cakes, sweets, etc., are included. 'They find an opportunity' means they find an opening by obtaining a dwelling place connected with the food they like. 'Smeared with green' means smeared with fresh cow-dung. For this is an ancient custom for purifying the ground. 'Perfectly clean… one should sit': by this he shows that for the bhikkhu performing the protective chant, purity of mind by way of loving-kindness and compassion should also be desired. For when this is so, it accords with the arrangement of protection on both sides to be mentioned below. But in the subcommentary it is said: 'It shows that bodily purity should also be desired.' This should be investigated. For it is not said that one becomes dear to non-human beings merely through bodily purity; rather, it is said to be by way of loving-kindness. For this was stated by the Blessed One: 'Bhikkhus, for the liberation of mind by loving-kindness… eleven benefits are to be expected. What eleven? One sleeps in comfort, wakes in comfort, does not see any bad dreams, is dear to human beings, is dear to non-human beings,' etc.

Parittakārako…pe… samparivāritenāti idaṃ parittakaraṇo bāhirato ārakkhāsaṃvidhānaṃ, ‘‘metta…pe… vattabba’’nti abbhantarato ārakkhāsaṃvidhānaṃ, evaṃ ubhayato rakkhāsaṃvidhānaṃ hoti. Evañhi amanussā parittakārakassa antarāyaṃ kātuṃ na visahanti. Maṅgalakathā vattabbāti amanussānaṃ tosanatthāya paṇṇākāraṃ katvā mahāmaṅgalakathā kathetabbā. Evaṃ upari vakkhamānena ‘‘tuyhaṃ paṇṇākāratthāya mahāmaṅgalakathā vuttā’’ti vacanena sameti. Ṭīkāyaṃ pana ‘‘pubbupacāravasena vattabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Sabbasannipātoti tasmiṃ vihāre tasmiṃ gāmakkhette sabbesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ [Pg.61] sannipāto ghosetabbo ‘‘cetiyaṅgaṇe sabbehi sannipatitabba’’nti. Anāgantuṃnāma na labhatīti amanusso buddhāṇābhayena rājāṇābhayena anāgantuṃ na labhati catunnaṃ mahārājūnaṃ āṇāṭṭhāniyattā. Gahitakāpadesena amanussova pucchito hotīti ‘‘amanussagahitako ‘tvaṃ ko nāmo’ti pucchitabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Mālāgandhādīsūti mālāgandhādipūjāsu. Āsanapūjāyāti cetiye buddhāsanapūjāya. Piṇḍapāteti bhikkhusaṅghassa piṇḍapātadāne. Evaṃ vatthuppadesena cetanā vuttā, tasmā pattidānaṃ sambhavati.

'The one performing the protective chant... surrounded by': this is the external arrangement of protection for the performance of the protective chant. 'Loving-kindness... should be spoken': this is the internal arrangement of protection. Thus there is an arrangement of protection on both sides. For in this way non-human beings are not able to cause harm to the one performing the protective chant. 'A discourse on blessings should be spoken' means that to please the non-human beings, having made a gift, the Great Discourse on Blessings should be delivered. Thus it accords with the statement to be mentioned below, 'The Great Discourse on Blessings was spoken for the sake of a gift to you.' But in the subcommentary it is said, 'It should be spoken by way of a preliminary courtesy.' 'The entire assembly' means that in that monastery, in that village-field, an assembly of all the bhikkhus should be announced: 'All should assemble in the cetiya-courtyard.' 'He is not allowed not to come' means that the non-human being is not allowed not to come because of fear of the Buddha's command and the king's command, since he is under the authority of the Four Great Kings. 'By the pretext of the one who is seized, the non-human being himself is questioned': thus it is said, 'The one seized by a non-human being should be asked, “Who are you by name?”' 'With garlands, perfumes, etc.' means with offerings of garlands, perfumes, etc. 'With the offering of a seat' means with the offering of a Buddha-seat at the cetiya. 'With almsfood' means with the giving of almsfood to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus. Thus the volition is stated by way of the item offered; therefore, a transference of merit is possible.

Devatānanti yakkhasenāpatīnaṃ. Vuttañhi āṭānāṭiyasutte (dī. ni. 3.283, 293) ‘‘imesaṃ yakkhānaṃ mahāyakkhānaṃ senāpatīnaṃ mahāsenāpatīnaṃ ujjhāpetabba’’ntiādi. Āṭāti dabbimukhasakuṇā. Te āṭā nadanti etthāti āṭānādaṃ, devanagaraṃ, āṭānāde kataṃ āṭānādiyaṃ, suttaṃ. Ṭīkāyaṃ (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282) ‘‘parittaṃ bhaṇitabbanti etthāpi ‘mettacittaṃ purecārikaṃ katvā’ti ca ‘maṅgalakathā vattabbā’ti ca ‘vihārassa upavane’ti ca evamādi sabbaṃ gihīnaṃ parittakaraṇe vuttaṃ parikammaṃ kātabbamevā’’ti vuttaṃ, evaṃ sati aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282) ‘‘etaṃ tāva gihīnaṃ parikamma’’nti vatvā ‘‘sace pana bhikkhū’’tiādinā visesatthajotakena pana-saddena saha vuccamānaṃ ‘‘idaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ parikamma’’nti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ viya hoti. Avisese hi sati bhedo kātabbo na siyā. Bhikkhūnañca yathāvuttāva bāhirārakkhā dukkarā hoti, tasmā gihīnaṃ parittakaraṇe vuttaparikamme asampajjamānepi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayeneva kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti no mati.

By 'deities' are meant the commanders of the yakkha armies. For it is said in the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta: 'These yakkhas, great yakkhas, commanders, and great commanders should be propitiated,' and so forth. Āṭā refers to the Dabbimukha birds. The place where these Āṭā cry out is called Āṭānāda, the city of the gods; the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta was composed at Āṭānāda. In the Ṭīkā it is said: 'The protective chant should be recited; here too, all these preparatory acts mentioned for laypeople in performing protective chants—such as "having first cultivated a mind of loving-kindness," "auspicious talk should be spoken," "in the grove near the monastery," and so forth—must indeed be done.' If this is so, then in the Aṭṭhakathā, after it states, 'This, indeed, is the preliminary act for laypeople,' the subsequent statement, 'This is the preliminary act for monks'—which is introduced by 'But if monks,' etc., along with the word 'pana' indicating a special meaning—seems somewhat meaningless. For if there were no distinction, there would be no need to make a distinction. Moreover, for monks, external protection as previously mentioned is difficult to achieve. Therefore, even if the preliminary acts mentioned for laypeople in performing protective chants are not fulfilled, it is still appropriate to proceed according to the method stated in the Aṭṭhakathā—this is our opinion.

Idaṃ pana idha āgataṃ āṭānāṭiyasuttaparikammaṃ sutvā ‘‘idaṃ suttaṃ amanussānaṃ amanāpaṃ, sajjhāyantassa parittaṃ karontassa [Pg.62] amanussā antarāyaṃ kareyyu’’nti maññamānā porāṇā catūhi mahārājehi ārocitaṃ sabbaññubuddhena desitaṃ mūlabhūtaṃ dīghanikāye āgataṃ āṭānāṭiyasuttaṃ (dī. ni. 3.275 ādayo) pahāya mūlasuttato gāthāchakkameva gahetvā avasesaṃ sabbaṃ suttaṃ ṭhapetvā aññagāthāyo pakkhipitvā ‘‘āṭānāṭiyaparitta’’nti ṭhapesuṃ, tampi parittaṃ amūlabhūtattā ekenākārena dhāretuṃ asakkontā keci saṃkhittena dhārenti, keci vitthārena, keci ekaccā gāthāyo pakkhipanti, keci nikkhipanti, keci bhikkhū taṃmissakaparittampi maṅgalakaraṇakālādīsu vattumavisahantā taṃ ṭhapetvā aññasuttāniyeva bhaṇanti, sabbametaṃ ayuttaṃ viya dissati. Kasmā? Cattāropi mahārājāno imaṃ āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ saṃvidahamānā buddhasāsane amanussānaṃ pasādāya, catassannaṃ parisānaṃ aviheṭhanāya eva saṃvidahiṃsu, na aññena kāraṇena. Vuttañhi tattha ‘‘tattha santi uḷārā yakkhānivāsino, ye imasmiṃ bhagavato pāvacane appasannā, tesaṃ pasādāya uggaṇhātu bhante bhagavā āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ upāsakānaṃ upāsikānaṃ guttiyā rakkhāya avihiṃsāya phāsuvihārāyā’’ti (dī. ni. 3.276).

Now, having heard this preparatory act for the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta that has come down here, some ancients, thinking, 'This sutta is displeasing to non-humans; if one recites it as a protective chant, non-humans might cause harm,' abandoned the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta—which was reported by the four great kings, taught by the Omniscient Buddha, and found in the Dīgha Nikāya as a fundamental text—and taking only six verses from the root sutta, setting aside the rest of the sutta entirely, and inserting other verses, they established it as the 'Āṭānāṭiya Paritta.' But since this paritta lacks a proper foundation, some, being unable to maintain it in one consistent form, recite it briefly, some in detail, some insert certain verses, and some omit them. And some monks, unable to bring themselves to recite even this mixed paritta during auspicious occasions, set it aside and recite other suttas instead. All this seems improper. Why? The four great kings, in establishing this Āṭānāṭiya protection, did so precisely for the sake of inspiring faith in non-humans towards the Buddha’s dispensation and for the non-harming of the fourfold community—not for any other reason. For it is stated there: 'There are mighty yakkhas dwelling here who are not devoted to this Blessed One’s teaching. For their devotion, may the Blessed One take up the Āṭānāṭiya protection for the safety, protection, non-harming, and peaceful dwelling of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen.'

Sammāsambuddhenapi imassa suttassa nigamane ‘‘uggaṇhātha bhikkhave āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ, pariyāpuṇātha bhikkhave āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ, dhāretha bhikkhave āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ, atthasaṃhitā bhikkhave āṭānāṭiyā rakkhā bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ upāsakānaṃ upāsikānaṃ guttiyā rakkhāya avihiṃsāya phāsuvihārāyā’’ti (dī. ni. 3.295) bhikkhūnaṃ dhāraṇaṃ uyyojitaṃ ānisaṃsañca pakāsitaṃ. Aṭṭhakathācariyehi ca ‘‘buddhabhāsite ekakkharampi ekapadampi apanetabbaṃ nāma natthī’’ti vuttaṃ[Pg.63], tasmā catūhi mahārājehi saṃvidahitaṃ sammāsambuddhena āhaccabhāsitaṃ tisso saṅgītiyo āruḷhaṃ pakatiāṭānāṭiyasuttameva dhāretuṃ sajjhāyituñca yuttaṃ, na bhagavatā abhāsitaṃ tisso saṅgītiyo anāruḷhaṃ missakasuttanti. Dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282) āgataṃ idaṃ āṭānāṭiyaparittaparikammaṃ pana pakatisajjhāyanavācanādiṃ sandhāya aṭṭhakathācariyehi na vuttaṃ, atha kho gahaṭṭhaṃ vā pabbajitaṃ vā amanussehi gahitakāle mocāpanatthāya lokiyehi mantaṃ viya bhaṇanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vuttañhi tattha ‘‘amanussagahitako tvaṃ ko nāmosīti pucchitabbo’’tiādi (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282).

Even the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, at the conclusion of this discourse, exhorted the monks: 'Monks, learn the Āṭānāṭiya protection, master the Āṭānāṭiya protection, retain the Āṭānāṭiya protection. Monks, the Āṭānāṭiya protection is connected with benefit for the guarding, protection, non-harming, and comfortable dwelling of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen.' (Dī. Ni. 3.295) Thus, the retention was urged upon the monks, and its benefits were declared. Moreover, the commentary teachers stated: 'Not a single syllable or word spoken by the Buddha should be removed.' Therefore, it is proper to retain and recite only the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta—which was established by the four great kings, spoken by the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One upon request, and included in the three recensions—and not a mixed discourse unspoken by the Blessed One and not included in the three recensions. However, this preliminary act of the Āṭānāṭiya protection, which appears in the Dīghanikāya commentary (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282), was not stated by the commentary teachers with reference to regular recitation or reading. Rather, it was stated with reference to a worldly chant-like utterance, meant for the liberation of a householder or a monastic when seized by non-human beings. For it is stated there: 'One possessed by a non-human being should be asked, "What is your name?"' and so forth (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282).

Āṭānāṭiyā rakkhā ca nāma na sakalasuttaṃ, atha kho ‘‘vipassissa ca namatthū’’ti padaṃ ādiṃ katvā catunnaṃ mahārājūnaṃ vasena catukkhattuṃ āgataṃ ‘‘jinaṃ vandāma gotama’’nti padaṃ pariyosānaṃ katvā vuttasuttekadesoyeva. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Atha kho vessavaṇo mahārājā bhagavato adhivāsanaṃ viditvā imaṃ āṭānāṭiyaṃ rakkhaṃ abhāsī’’ti ārabhitvā yathāvuttasuttekadesassa avasāne ‘‘ayaṃ kho mārisā āṭānāṭiyā rakkhā’’ti niyyātitattā. Tasmā yathā nāma byagghādayo attano bhakkhaṃ vilumpantānaṃ balavaduṭṭhacittā bhavanti, evaṃ attanā gahitamanussaṃ mocāpentānaṃ amanussā paduṭṭhacittā honti. Iti tathā mocāpetuṃ āraddhakāle bhikkhūnaṃ parissayavinodanatthaṃ imaṃ āṭānāṭiyaparittaparikammaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ayaṃ parittakaraṇavinicchayakathālaṅkāro.

The Āṭānāṭiya protection is indeed not the entire Sutta, but rather only a portion of the Sutta, starting with the phrase 'Homage to Vipassī' and ending with the phrase 'We worship the Victorious One, Gotama,' which appears four times in relation to the four great kings. How is this to be understood? Because it begins with 'Then, the great king Vessavaṇa, having understood the Blessed One’s consent, recited this Āṭānāṭiya protection,' and concludes at the end of the aforementioned portion of the Sutta with 'This, friends, is the Āṭānāṭiya protection.' Therefore, just as tigers and other creatures become fiercely hostile toward those who take their prey, so too do non-human beings become malevolent toward those who free a person they have seized. Thus, it should be understood that the commentary teachers prescribed this preliminary act for the Āṭānāṭiya protection to remove dangers for the monks when they undertake to free someone in this manner. This is the embellishment of the discussion on the determination of protective recitations.

20. Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapātoti (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) ettha amasiyitthāti āmaṭṭho, na āmaṭṭho anāmaṭṭho. Piṇḍaṃ piṇḍaṃ hutvā patatīti [Pg.64] piṇḍapāto. Anāmaṭṭho ca so piṇḍapāto cāti tathā, aggahitaaggo, aparibhutto piṇḍapātoti attho. Sacepi kahāpaṇagghanako hotīti iminā dāyakehi bahubyañjanena sampādetvā sakkaccaṃ dinnabhāvaṃ dīpeti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ natthī’’ti, evaṃ sakkaccaṃ saddhāya dinnaṃ mahagghabhojanampi mātāpitūnaṃ datvā saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ nāma na hoti, pageva appagghabhojaneti adhippāyo. Mātādipañcakaṃyeva vatvā bhesajjakaraṇe viya aparesampi dasannaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti avuttattā aññesaṃ ñātakānampi pesetvā dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ, ‘‘vihāraṃ sampattassa pana yassa kassaci āgantukassa vā’’iccādivakkhamānattā vihāraṃ sampattānaṃ ñātakānampi āgantukasāmaññena dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti ca. Thālaketi saṅghike kaṃsādimaye thālake. Pattopi ettha saṅgayhati. Na vaṭṭatīti iminā dukkaṭanti dasseti. Dāmarikacorassāti rajjaṃ patthentassa pākaṭacorassa. Adīyamānepi ‘‘na dentī’’ti kujjhantīti sambandho.

20. Regarding 'anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāta' (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.185): Here, 'āmaṭṭha' means 'touched,' and 'anāmaṭṭha' means 'not touched.' 'Piṇḍapāta' means 'alms-food' because it falls in lumps. Thus, 'anāmaṭṭha piṇḍapāta' means alms-food that is not touched, that is, the top portion has not been taken, unused alms-food. The phrase 'even if it is worth a kahāpaṇa' indicates that the donors have carefully prepared it with many ingredients and given it respectfully. Therefore, it is said, 'There is no destruction of faith-given offerings.' The meaning is that even if expensive food is respectfully given out of faith to one’s parents, it is not considered a destruction of faith-given offerings; how much more so for inexpensive food. Although only the five (mother, father, etc.) are mentioned, just as in the case of medicine, since it is not stated that it is permissible to give to others among the ten (categories), it is established that one should not send food to other relatives. However, since it will be stated, 'for any guest who has come to the monastery,' it is permissible to give to relatives who have arrived at the monastery, treating them as guests in general. 'Thālaka' refers to a metal bowl (such as bronze) belonging to the Sangha. An alms-bowl is also included here. The phrase 'it is not permissible' indicates that doing so entails an offense of wrong-doing. 'To a bandit chief' refers to a notorious thief seeking kingship. The connection is that even if it is not given, they may become angry, thinking, 'They are not giving.'

Āmisassa dhammassa ca alābhena attano parassa ca antare sambhavantassa chiddassa vivarassa paṭisantharaṇaṃ pidahanaṃ paṭisanthāro. So pana dhammāmisavasena duvidho. Tattha āmisapaṭisanthāraṃ sandhāya ‘‘kassa kātabbo, kassa na kātabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Āgantukassa vā…pe… kātabboyevāti vuttamatthaṃ pākaṭaṃ kātuṃ ‘‘āgantukaṃ tāvā’’tiādimāha. Khīṇaparibbayanti iminā agatibhāvaṃ karuṇāṭṭhānatañca dasseti. Tena ca tabbidhurānaṃ samiddhānaṃ āgantukattepi dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ hoti. ‘‘Apaccāsīsantenā’’ti vatvā paccāsīsanappakāraṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘manussā nāmā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Ananuññātānaṃ pana apaccāsīsantenapi dātuṃ na vaṭṭati saddhādeyyavinipātattā, paccāsāya [Pg.65] pana sati kuladūsanampi hoti. Ubbāsetvāti samantato tiyojanaṃ vilumpante manusse palāpetvā. Varapotthakacittattharaṇanti anekappakāraṃ itthipurisādiuttamarūpavicittaṃ attharaṇaṃ. Ayaṃ paṭisanthāravinicchayakathālaṅkāro.

The covering or closing of a gap or hole that arises between oneself and another due to the lack of material and spiritual gain is called 'paṭisanthāra' (kindly greeting). That greeting, however, is of two kinds: material and spiritual. In this regard, concerning material greeting, it is said, 'For whom should it be done, for whom should it not be done?' To make clear the meaning of the statement 'for a guest or... indeed, it should be done,' he says, 'First, the guest,' and so forth. The phrase 'one whose resources are exhausted' indicates both their helpless state and their being a basis for compassion. And thereby, it is established that it is not fitting to give to those who are prosperous and lack that condition, even if they are guests. Having said 'without expectation,' the phrase 'people, indeed,' and so forth, is stated to show the kinds of expectations. But for those who are not authorized, even if they have no expectation, it is not fitting to give, due to the destruction of offerings given in faith. However, if there is expectation, it even becomes a corruption of the family. 'Having driven away' means having expelled people who plunder all around for three yojanas. 'A splendidly patterned rug' refers to a spread adorned with various excellent patterns of men and women and so on, of the finest kind. This is the embellishment of the discussion on the determination of kindly greetings.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Bhesajjādivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Embellishment Called 'Discussion on the Determination of Medicines and So Forth'

Tatiyo paricchedo.

The Third Chapter.

4. Viññattivinicchayakathā

4. The Discussion on the Analysis of Solicitation

21. Evaṃ bhesajjādivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni viññattivinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘viññattīti yācanā’’tiādimāha. Tattha viññāpanā viññatti, ‘‘iminā no attho’’ti viññāpanā, yācanāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tenāha ‘‘viññattīti yācanā’’ti. Tatra viññattiyaṃ ayaṃ mayā vakkhamāno vinicchayo veditabboti yojanā. Mūlacchejjāyāti (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.342) parasantakabhāvato mocetvā attano eva santakakaraṇavasena. Evaṃ yācato aññātakaviññattidukkaṭañceva dāsapaṭiggahadukkaṭañca hoti ‘‘dāsidāsapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato (dī. ni. 1.10, 194) hotī’’ti vacanaṃ nissāya aṭṭhakathāyaṃ paṭikkhittattā. Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato pana dāsaṃ mūlacchejjāya yācantassa sādiyanavaseneva dukkaṭaṃ. Sakakammanti pāṇavadhakammaṃ. Idañca pāṇātipātadosaparihārāya vuttaṃ, na viññattiparihārāya. Aniyametvāpi na yācitabbāti sāmīcidassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, suddhacittena pana hatthakammaṃ yācantassa āpatti nāma natthi. Yadicchakaṃ kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti ‘‘hatthakammaṃ yācāmi, dethā’’tiādinā ayācitvāpi [Pg.66] vaṭṭati, sakiccapasutampi evaṃ kārāpentassa viññatti natthi eva, sāmīcidassanatthaṃ pana vibhajitvā vuttaṃ.

21. Having thus explained the analysis of medicines and so forth, he now begins with 'Solicitation means asking,' in order to explain the analysis of solicitation. Herein, making known (viññāpanā) is solicitation (viññatti); making known 'we have need of this' is what is called asking. Hence he said, 'Solicitation means asking.' Here, the construction is: 'This analysis of solicitation, which I am about to explain, should be understood.' 'By cutting off the root' means by freeing it from being the property of another and making it one's own. For one who asks thus, there is the dukkaṭa offense for soliciting from one who is not a relative and the dukkaṭa offense for accepting a male slave, because it is rejected in the commentary based on the statement, 'He abstains from accepting female and male slaves' (DN 1.10, 194). But for one who asks for a slave 'by cutting off the root' from a relative or an invited person, there is a dukkaṭa offense only by way of consenting. 'One's own work' means the work of taking life. This is said to avoid the fault of taking life, not to avoid solicitation. 'One should not ask even without specifying' is said to show proper conduct; but for one who asks for manual labor with a pure mind, there is no offense. 'It is permissible to have it done as one wishes' means that it is allowable even without asking with such words as 'I ask for manual labor, give it.' For one who has it done thus even by someone intent on his own work, there is no solicitation at all; but it is explained with distinctions for the purpose of showing proper conduct.

Sabbakappiyabhāvadīpanatthanti sabbaso kappiyabhāvadassanatthaṃ. Mūlaṃ dethāti vattuṃ vaṭṭatīti ‘‘mūlaṃ dassāmā’’ti paṭhamaṃ vuttattā viññatti vā ‘‘mūla’’nti vacanassa kappiyākappiyavatthusāmaññavacanattā akappiyavacanaṃ vā niṭṭhitabhatikiccānaṃ dāpanato akappiyavatthusādiyanaṃ vā na hotīti katvā vuttaṃ. Mūlacchejjāya vāti idaṃ idha thambhādīnaṃ dāsidāsādibhāvābhāvato vuttaṃ. Anajjhāvutthakanti apariggahitaṃ, assāmikanti attho.

'For the purpose of explaining the state of being allowable in all respects' means for the purpose of showing the state of being allowable in every way. It is said that it is allowable to say, 'Give the price,' because (1) 'we will give the price' was said first, so there is no solicitation; or (2) because the word 'price' is a general term for both allowable and unallowable things, it is not a statement about an unallowable thing; or (3) because it is given by those for whom the duty of support is completed, there is no consenting to an unallowable thing. 'Or by cutting off the root': this is said here because pillars and so on do not have the status of female slaves, male slaves, and the like. 'Unoccupied' (anajjhāvutthakaṃ) means not taken possession of, that is, without an owner.

22. Na kevalañca…pe… cīvarādīni kārāpetukāmenātiādīsu cīvaraṃ kārāpetukāmassa aññātakaappavāritatantavāyehi hatthakammayācanavasena vāyāpane viññattipaccayā dukkaṭābhāvepi cīvaravāyāpanasikkhāpadena yathārahaṃ pācittiyadukkaṭāni hontīti veditabbaṃ. Akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabbanti kappiyamukhena laddhampi tattha kammakaraṇatthāya imassa kahāpaṇaṃ dehīti vatvā ‘‘dātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Pubbe katakammassa dāpane kiñcāpi doso na dissati, tathāpi asāruppamevāti vadanti. Katakammatthāyapi kappiyavohārena pariyāyato bhatiṃ dāpentassa natthi doso, sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 1.342) pana ‘‘akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabbanti kiñcāpi akappiyakahāpaṇādiṃ asādiyantena kappiyavohārato dātuṃ vaṭṭati, tathāpi sāruppaṃ na hoti, manussā ca etassa santakaṃ kiñci atthīti viheṭhetabbaṃ maññantīti akappiyakahāpaṇādidānaṃ paṭikkhitta’’nti vuttaṃ. Tatheva pācetvāti hatthakammavaseneva pācetvā. ‘‘Kiṃ bhante’’ti ettakepi pucchite yadatthāya paviṭṭho, taṃ kathetuṃ labhati pucchitapañhattā.

22. And not only... etc. In such cases as 'by one who wishes to have robes, etc., made': it should be understood that for one who wishes to have a robe made, when he has it woven by weavers who are not relatives and not invited by way of asking for manual labor, even if there is no dukkaṭa offense conditioned by solicitation, offenses of expiation or of wrong-doing arise as is appropriate in accordance with the training rule on having a robe woven. Regarding 'Unallowable kahāpaṇas, etc., should not be given': it is said that it is allowable to give something received by an allowable means, saying, 'Give this kahāpaṇa to him for the purpose of doing the work.' Although no fault is seen in giving for work already done, they say it is still inappropriate. Even for work already done, there is no fault for one who has wages given indirectly through an allowable transaction. But in the Sāratthadīpanī it is said: '“Unallowable kahāpaṇas, etc., should not be given.” Although it is allowable for one who does not consent to unallowable kahāpaṇas, etc., to give them by way of an allowable transaction, it is still not proper, and people might think, “He has some property,” and consider that he should be harassed. Therefore, the giving of unallowable kahāpaṇas, etc., is prohibited.' Similarly, 'having it prepared' means having it prepared by way of manual labor. When asked just this much, 'What, venerable sir?', one is allowed to state the purpose for which one entered, because a question has been asked.

23. Vattanti [Pg.67] cārittaṃ, āpatti pana na hotīti adhippāyo. Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbānīti sākhāya makkhikabījanena paṇṇādichede bījagāmakopanassa ceva tattha laggarajādiappaṭiggahitakassa ca parihāratthāya vuttaṃ, tadubhayāsaṅkāya asati tathā akaraṇe doso natthi. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 1.342) pana ‘‘kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbānīti sākhāya laggarajasmiṃ patte patitepi sākhaṃ chinditvā khāditukāmatāyapi sati sukhaparibhogatthaṃ vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Nadiyādīsu udakassa apariggahitattā ‘‘āharāti vattuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Gehato…pe… neva vaṭṭatīti pariggahitudakattā viññattiyā dukkaṭaṃ hotīti adhippāyo. ‘‘Na āhaṭaṃ paribhuñjitu’’nti vacanato viññattiyā āpannaṃ dukkaṭaṃ desetvāpi taṃ vatthuṃ paribhuñjantassa paribhoge paribhoge dukkaṭameva, pañcannampi sahadhammikānaṃ na vaṭṭati.

23. The meaning is: it is a practice, but there is no offense. 'One should receive them after having them made allowable': this is said for the sake of avoiding both the destruction of the seed-group when cutting leaves and so on with a branch smeared with fly eggs or seeds, and the receiving of unreceived things like dust clinging to it. If there is no suspicion of these two, there is no fault in not doing so. But in the Sāratthadīpanī it is said: '“One should receive them after having them made allowable” is said for the sake of comfortable consumption, even when dust has fallen on a leaf clinging to a branch and one wishes to eat it after cutting the branch.' In rivers and so on, because the water is not possessed, it is said, 'It is allowable to say, “Bring it.”' 'From a house… etc. … it is not at all allowable': the meaning is that because the water is possessed, there is a dukkaṭa offense for soliciting. Based on the statement, 'One should not consume what has been brought,' even after having confessed the dukkaṭa offense incurred by soliciting, for one who consumes that item, there is a dukkaṭa offense for every act of consumption. It is not allowable for any of the five co-religionists.

‘‘Alajjīhi pana bhikkhūhi vā sāmaṇerehi vā hatthakammaṃ na kāretabba’’nti sāmaññato vuttattā attano atthāya yaṃ kiñci hatthakammaṃ kāretuṃ na vaṭṭati. Yaṃ pana alajjī nivāriyamānopi bījanādiṃ karoti, tattha doso natthi, cetiyakammādīni pana tehi kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.342) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.342) pana ‘‘alajjīhi…pe… na kāretabbanti idaṃ uttaribhaṅgādhikārattā ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, bāhiraparibhogesu pana alajjīhipi hatthakammaṃ kāretuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Ettha ca ‘‘alajjīhi sāmaṇerehī’’ti vuttattā ‘‘sañcicca āpattiṃ āpajjatī’’ti (pari. 359) alajjilakkhaṇaṃ ukkaṭṭhavasena upasampanne paṭicca upalakkhaṇato vuttanti taṃlakkhaṇavirahitānaṃ sāmaṇerādīnaṃ liṅgatthenagotrabhupariyosānānaṃ [Pg.68] bhikkhupaṭiññānaṃ dussīlānampi sādhāraṇavasena alajjilakkhaṇaṃ yathāṭhapitapaṭipattiyā atiṭṭhanamevāti gahetabbaṃ.

Because it is stated generally, 'One should not have manual labor done by shameless bhikkhus or novices,' it is not allowable to have any manual labor done for one's own benefit. However, if a shameless person does things like fanning even when being prevented, there is no fault in that. But it is allowable to have them do work on shrines and so on; this is stated in the Vimativinodanī. In the Sāratthadīpanī, however, it is said: '“One should not have manual labor done by shameless ones…” This is said with reference to things for consumption, as it is in the section on extravagance. But for external uses, it is allowable to have manual labor done even by shameless persons.' And here, since it says 'by shameless novices,' the characteristic of shamelessness, 'one intentionally commits an offense,' is stated by way of indication with reference to one who is fully ordained in the highest sense. But for novices and others who lack that characteristic, even for immoral ones who claim to be bhikkhus—those who are such only by the outward sign, by theft (of the robe), by change of lineage, up to the end—the characteristic of shamelessness should be taken in a general sense as simply not abiding in the practice as it has been established.

24. Goṇaṃ pana…pe… āharāpentassa dukkaṭanti viññattikkhaṇe viññattipaccayā, paṭilābhakkhaṇe goṇānaṃ sādiyanapaccayā ca dukkaṭaṃ. Goṇañhi attano atthāya aviññattiyā laddhampi sādituṃ na vaṭṭati ‘‘hatthigavāssavaḷavapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato hotī’’ti (dī. ni. 1.10, 194) vuttattā. Tenevāha ‘‘ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānatopi mūlacchejjāya yācituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti. Ettha ca viññattidukkaṭābhāvepi akappiyavatthuyācanepi paṭiggahaṇepi dukkaṭameva. Rakkhitvāti corādiupaddavato rakkhitvā. Jaggitvāti tiṇaannādīhi posetvā. Na sampaṭicchitabbanti attano atthāya gosādiyanassa paṭikkhittattā vuttaṃ.

24. Regarding an ox... etc. For one who has it brought, there is a dukkaṭa offense: at the moment of solicitation, conditioned by the solicitation, and at the moment of acquisition, conditioned by consenting to the oxen. For it is not allowable to accept an ox for one's own benefit even if it is obtained without solicitation, because it is said, 'He abstains from accepting elephants, cattle, horses, and mares' (DN 1.10). For that reason he said, 'It is not allowable to ask for it with permanent ownership even from a relative or an invited person.' And here, even in the absence of a dukkaṭa offense for solicitation, there is still a dukkaṭa offense in asking for and in accepting an unallowable item. 'Having guarded' means having protected it from dangers such as thieves. 'Having tended' means having nourished it with grass, fodder, and so on. 'It should not be accepted' is said because accepting cattle for one's own benefit is prohibited.

25. Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhāne pana vaṭṭatīti sakaṭassa sampaṭicchitabbattā mūlacchejjavasena yācituṃ vaṭṭati. Tāvakālikaṃ vaṭṭatīti ubhayatthāpi vaṭṭatīti atthoti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.342) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.342) pana ‘‘sakaṭaṃ dethāti…pe… na vaṭṭatīti mūlacchejjavasena sakaṭaṃ dethāti vattuṃ na vaṭṭati. Tāvakālikaṃ vaṭṭatīti tāvakālikaṃ katvā sabbattha yācituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vāsiādīni puggalikānipi vaṭṭantīti āha ‘‘esa nayo vāsī’’tiādi. Valliādīsu ca parapariggahitesu esa nayoti yojetabbaṃ. Garubhaṇḍappahonakesuyevāti idaṃ viññattiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, adinnādāne pana tiṇasalākaṃ upādāya parapariggahitaṃ theyyacittena gaṇhato avahāro eva, bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbo. Valliādīsūti ettha ādi-saddena pāḷiāgatānaṃ veḷumuñjapabbajatiṇamattikānaṃ saṅgaho daṭṭhabbo. Tattha ca yasmiṃ padese [Pg.69] haritālajātihiṅgulikādi appakampi mahagghaṃ hoti, tattha taṃ tālapakkappamāṇato ūnampi garubhaṇḍameva, viññāpetuñca na vaṭṭati.

25. But at the place of a relative or an invited person, it is allowable: because a cart is an acceptable requisite, it is allowable to ask for it with permanent ownership. 'It is allowable temporarily': this means it is allowable in both cases, so it is said in the Vimativinodanī. But in the Sāratthadīpanī it is said: '“Give a cart,” etc. … it is not allowable': it is not allowable to say, 'Give a cart,' with the intention of permanent ownership. 'It is allowable temporarily': it is allowable to ask for it temporarily in all situations. He says, 'This is the method for an adze,' etc., to show that personal items like an adze are also allowable. This method should be applied also to vines and other things possessed by others. 'Only in the case of items that constitute heavy goods': this is said with reference to solicitation. But in the case of theft, taking anything possessed by another with a thieving mind, down to a blade of grass, is indeed a theft, and the value of the item must be made good. In 'vines, etc.,' the word 'etc.' should be seen as including the bamboo, muñja grass, pabbaja reeds, grass, and clay that have come down in the Pāli. And in a region where even a small amount of substances like orpiment and cinnabar is of great value, even if it is less than the size of a ripe palm fruit, it is still a heavy item, and it is not allowable to solicit it.

26. Sāti viññatti. Parikathādīsu ‘‘senāsanaṃ sambādha’’ntiādinā pariyāyena kathanaṃ parikathā nāma. Ujukameva akathetvā ‘‘bhikkhūnaṃ kiṃ pāsādo na vaṭṭatī’’tiādinā adhippāyo yathā vibhūto hoti, evaṃ kathanaṃ obhāso nāma. Senāsanādiatthaṃ bhūmiparikammādikaraṇavasena paccayuppādāya nimittakaraṇaṃ nimittakammaṃ nāma. Tīsu paccayesu viññattiādayo dassitā, gilānapaccaye pana kathanti āha ‘‘gilānapaccaye panā’’tiādi. Tathā uppannaṃ pana bhesajjaṃ roge vūpasante bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, na vaṭṭatīti? Tattha vinayadharā ‘‘bhagavatā rogasīsena paribhogassa dvāraṃ dinnaṃ, tasmā arogakālepi bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, āpatti na hotī’’ti vadanti, suttantikā pana ‘‘kiñcāpi āpatti na hoti, ājīvaṃ pana kopeti, tasmā sallekhapaṭipattiyaṃ ṭhitassa na vaṭṭati, sallekhaṃ kopetī’’ti vadantīti.

26. Oblique intimation. Among roundabout speeches, speaking indirectly, such as, “The dwelling is crowded,” and so on, is called “roundabout speech” (parikathā). Without speaking directly, but making the intention clear in such a way, as in, “Why is a palace not suitable for the monks?” and so on, is called “suggestion” (obhāsa). Making a sign to produce requisites, by way of preparing the ground for a dwelling and so forth, is called “the act of making a sign” (nimittakamma). Intimation and so forth have been shown in regard to the three requisites. But how is it for the requisites for the sick? He said, “And for the requisites for the sick,” and so on. Further, when medicine has been thus obtained, is it permissible to consume it after the illness has subsided, or not? In this regard, the Vinaya masters say: “The Blessed One has opened the door for consumption on account of illness; therefore, it is permissible to consume it even when one is not ill, and there is no offense.” The Suttanta followers, however, say: “Although there is no offense, it corrupts one’s livelihood; therefore, for one established in the practice of effacement, it is not permissible, as it corrupts effacement.”

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Viññattivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

Named the Ornament of the Exposition on the Ascertainment of Intimation,

Catuttho paricchedo.

The Fourth Chapter.

5. Kulasaṅgahavinicchayakathā

5. The Exposition on the Ascertainment of Supporting Families.

27. Evaṃ viññattivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni kulasaṅgahavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘kulasaṅgaho’’tiādimāha. Tattha saṅgaṇhanaṃ saṅgaho, kulānaṃ saṅgaho kulasaṅgaho, paccayadāyakādīnaṃ [Pg.70] gihīnaṃ anuggahakaraṇaṃ. Anuggahattho hettha saṅgaha-saddo yathā ‘‘puttadārassa saṅgaho’’ti (khu. pā. 5.6; su. ni. 265).

27. Having thus explained the ascertainment of intimation, now, to explain the ascertainment of supporting families, he begins with “supporting families,” and so on. Therein, supporting is support (saṅgaha); supporting families is kulasaṅgaha, which means showing favor to householders who are donors of requisites and so forth. Here, the word saṅgaha has the meaning of favor, as in “the support of wife and children” (Khp. 5.6; Sn. 265).

28. Tattha koṭṭananti sayaṃ chindanaṃ. Koṭṭāpananti ‘‘imaṃ chindā’’ti aññesaṃ chedāpanaṃ. Āḷiyā bandhananti yathā gacchamūle udakaṃ santiṭṭhati, tathā samantato bandhanaṃ. Udakassāti akappiyaudakassa ‘‘kappiyaudakasiñcana’’nti visuṃ vakkhamānattā, tañca ārāmādiatthaṃ ropane akappiyavohāresupi kappiyavohāresupi kappiyaudakasiñcanādi vaṭṭatīti vakkhamānattā idhāpi vibhāgaṃ katvā kappiyaudakasiñcanādi visuṃ dassitaṃ. Ettha ca katamaṃ akappiyaudakaṃ, katamaṃ pana kappiyaudakanti? Sappāṇakaṃ akappiyaudakaṃ, appāṇakaṃ kappiyaudakanti. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce, ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ sappāṇakaṃ udakaṃ tiṇaṃ vā mattikaṃ vā siñceyya vā siñcāpeyya vā pācittiya’’nti vacanato. Yathā koṭṭanakhaṇanādikāyikakiriyāpi akappiyavohāre saṅgahitā, evaṃ mātikāujukaraṇādikappiyavohārepīti āha ‘‘sukkhamātikāya ujukaraṇa’’nti. Hatthapādamukhadhovananahaānodakasiñcananti imināpi pakārantarena kappiyaudakasiñcanameva dasseti. Akappiyavohāre koṭṭanakhaṇanādivasena sayaṃ karaṇassapi kathaṃ saṅgahoti? Akappiyanti vohariyatīti akappiyavohāroti akappiyabhūtaṃ karaṇakārāpanādi sabbameva saṅgahitaṃ, na pana akappiyavacanamattanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kappiyavohārepi eseva nayo. Sukkhamātikāya ujukaraṇanti iminā purāṇapaṇṇādīnaṃ haraṇampi saṅgahitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kudālādīni bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapetvā ṭhānato hatthena gahetvā ṭhānameva pākaṭataranti ‘‘obhāso’’ti vuttaṃ.

28. Therein, 'cutting' (koṭṭana) means cutting by oneself. 'Causing to cut' (koṭṭāpana) means causing others to cut by saying, 'Cut this.' 'Making a basin' (āḷiyā bandhana) means making an embankment all around so that water collects at the base of a tree. 'Of water' means of unallowable water, because 'sprinkling with allowable water' will be mentioned separately. And since it will be stated that sprinkling with allowable water and so forth is permissible when planting for the sake of a monastery, etc., in both unallowable and allowable transactions, here too, having made a distinction, sprinkling with allowable water and so forth is shown separately. And here, what is unallowable water, and what is allowable water? Water with living beings is unallowable water; water without living beings is allowable water. If it is asked how this is known, it is from the statement: 'Whatever bhikkhu, knowing that water contains living beings, should sprinkle or cause to be sprinkled grass or clay, it is an offense of expiation.' He says, 'straightening a dry water channel,' to show that just as bodily actions like cutting and digging are included in unallowable transaction, so too are actions like this included in allowable transaction. By 'sprinkling water for washing hands, feet, and face, and for bathing,' he also shows, in another way, the sprinkling of allowable water. How is even one’s own action, by way of cutting, digging, and so forth, included in 'unallowable transaction'? It should be understood that because it is transacted as 'unallowable,' an 'unallowable transaction' includes everything that is an unallowable act of doing or causing to do, and not merely unallowable speech. This same principle applies to allowable transaction. By 'straightening a dry water channel,' it should be understood that removing old leaves and so forth is also included. Leaving tools like a spade on the ground and then, taking them by hand from that place, makes the place itself more evident—this is called 'suggestion' (obhāsa).

29. Mahāpaccarivādaṃ patiṭṭhāpetukāmo pacchā vadati. Vanatthāyāti idaṃ keci ‘‘vatatthāyā’’ti paṭhanti, tesaṃ vatiatthāyāti [Pg.71] attho. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi tatheva vuttaṃ, ‘‘ārāmaropā vanaropā, ye narā setukārakā’’ti (saṃ. ni. 1.47) vacanato pana taṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Akappiyavohārepi ekaccaṃ vaṭṭatīti dassetuṃ ‘‘na kevalañca sesa’’ntiādimāha. Yaṃ kiñci mātikanti sukkhamātikaṃ vā asukkhamātikaṃ vā. Kappiyaudakaṃ siñcitunti iminā ‘‘kappiyaudakaṃ siñcathā’’ti vattumpi vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Sayaṃ ropetumpi vaṭṭatīti iminā ‘‘ropehī’’ti vattumpi vaṭṭatītipi siddhaṃ.

29. One who wishes to establish the view of the Mahāpaccari speaks later. Regarding 'for the sake of a forest' (vanatthāya), some read this as 'vatatthāya,' for which the meaning is 'for the sake of a fence' (vatiatthāya). The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā also states the same. However, this should be investigated in light of the saying: 'Those people who are planters of parks, planters of forests, and builders of bridges' (SN 1.47). To show that certain things are permissible even in an unallowable transaction, he says, 'And not only the rest,' and so on. 'Whatever water channel' means a dry water channel or a wet one. By 'to sprinkle allowable water,' he shows that it is also permissible to say, 'Sprinkle allowable water.' By 'it is permissible to plant oneself,' it is also established that it is permissible to say, 'Plant it.'

30. Pācittiyañceva dukkaṭañcāti pathavīkhaṇanapaccayā pācittiyaṃ, kulasaṅgahapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ. Akappiyavohārenāti ‘‘idaṃ khaṇa, idaṃ ropehī’’ti akappiyavohārena. Dukkaṭamevāti kulasaṅgahapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ. Ubhayatrāti kappiyākappiyapathaviyaṃ.

30. Both an offense of expiation and a wrong-doing: an offense of expiation on account of digging the earth, and a wrong-doing on account of supporting families. By unallowable transaction: by an unallowable transaction such as, 'Dig this, plant this.' Only a wrong-doing: a wrong-doing on account of supporting families. In both: in both allowable and unallowable earth.

Sabbatthāti kulasaṅgahaparibhogaārāmādiatthāya ropite. Dukkaṭampīti na kevalaṃ pācittiyameva. Kappiyenāti kappiyaudakena. Tesaṃyeva dvinnanti kulasaṅgahaparibhogānaṃ. Dukkaṭanti kulasaṅgahatthāya sayaṃ siñcane, kappiyavohārena vā akappiyavohārena vā siñcāpane dukkaṭaṃ, paribhogatthāya sayaṃ siñcane, akappiyavohārena siñcāpane ca dukkaṭaṃ. Payogabahulatāyāti sayaṃ karaṇe, kāyapayogassa kārāpane vacīpayogassa bahuttena. Āpattibahulatā veditabbāti ettha sayaṃ siñcane dhārāpacchedagaṇanāya āpattigaṇanā veditabbā. Siñcāpane pana punappunaṃ āṇāpentassa vācāya vācāya āpatti, sakiṃ āṇattassa bahusiñcane ekāva.

Everywhere: when planted for the sake of supporting families, for personal use, for a monastery, and so forth. A wrong-doing as well: not only an offense of expiation. With allowable: with allowable water. Of those very two: of supporting families and personal use. A wrong-doing: there is a wrong-doing when sprinkling by oneself for the sake of supporting families, or when causing it to be sprinkled by allowable or unallowable transaction; and there is a wrong-doing when sprinkling by oneself for the sake of personal use, or when causing it to be sprinkled by unallowable transaction. Due to the abundance of application: because in doing it oneself there is much physical application, and in causing it to be done there is much verbal application. The abundance of offenses should be understood: here, when sprinkling by oneself, the number of offenses should be understood by counting the breaks in the stream. But when causing it to be sprinkled, for one who commands repeatedly, there is an offense for every utterance; for one who commands once and much sprinkling is done, there is only one.

Ocinane dukkaṭapācittiyānīti kulasaṅgahapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ, bhūtagāmapātabyatāya pācittiyaṃ. Aññatthāti vatthupūjādiatthāya [Pg.72] ocinane. Sakiṃ āṇattoti akappiyavohārena āṇatto. Pācittiyamevāti akappiyavohārena āṇattattā bhūtagāmasikkhāpadena (pāci. 90-91) pācittiyaṃ. Kappiyavacanena pana vatthupūjādiatthāya ocināpentassa anāpattiyeva.

In picking, there are wrong-doings and offenses of expiation: a wrong-doing on account of supporting families, and an offense of expiation on account of destroying plant life. For another purpose: when picking for the purpose of venerating a sacred object and so forth. Commanded once: commanded by an unallowable transaction. Only an offense of expiation: because one was commanded by an unallowable transaction, it is an offense of expiation under the training rule concerning plant life (Pāc. 90–91). However, for one who causes something to be picked by allowable speech for the purpose of venerating a sacred object and so forth, there is no offense at all.

31. Ganthanena nibbattaṃ dāmaṃ ganthimaṃ. Esa nayo sesesupi. Na vaṭṭatīti kulasaṅgahatthāya, vatthupūjādiatthāya vā vuttanayena karontassa kārāpentassa ca dukkaṭanti attho. Vaṭṭatīti vatthupūjādiatthāya vaṭṭati, kulasaṅgahatthāya pana kappiyavohārena kārāpentassapi dukkaṭameva. Purimanayenevāti ‘‘bhikkhussa vā’’tiādinā vuttanayena. Dhammāsanavitāne baddhakaṇṭakesu pupphāni vinivijjhitvā ṭhapentīti sambandho. Uparūpari vijjhitvā chattasadisaṃ katvā āvuṇanato ‘‘chattādhichattaṃ viyā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Kadalikkhandhamhī’’tiādinā vuttaṃ sabbameva sandhāya ‘‘taṃ atioḷārikamevā’’ti vuttaṃ, sabbattha karaṇe, akappiyavohārena kārāpane ca dukkaṭamevāti attho. Pupphavijjhanatthaṃ kaṇṭakampi bandhituṃ na vaṭṭatīti imassa upalakkhaṇattā pupphadāmolambakādiatthāya rajjubandhanādipi na vaṭṭatīti keci vadanti. Aññe pana ‘‘pupphavijjhanatthaṃ kaṇṭakanti visesitattā tadatthaṃ kaṇṭakameva bandhituṃ na vaṭṭati, tañca aṭṭhakathāpamāṇenā’’ti vadanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Pupphapaṭicchakaṃ nāma dantādīhi kataṃ pupphādhānaṃ. Etampi nāgadantakampi sachiddameva gahetabbaṃ. Asokapiṇḍiyāti asokasākhānaṃ, pupphānaṃ vā samūhe. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.431) pana ‘‘asokapiṇḍiyāti asokapupphamañjarikāyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Dhammarajju nāma cetiyaṃ vā bodhiṃ vā pupphappavesanatthaṃ āvijjhitvā bandharajju. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.431) pana ‘‘dhammarajju nāma cetiyādīni [Pg.73] parikkhipitvā tesañca rajjuyā ca antarā pupphappavesanatthāya bandharajju. Sithilavaṭṭitāya vā vaṭṭiyā abbhantare pupphappavesanatthāya evaṃ bandhātipi vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ.

31. A cord produced by tying is a tied cord. This method applies to the rest as well. 'It is not permissible' means that for one who makes or has it made for the sake of supporting a family, or for the purpose of venerating an object of reverence and so forth, in the manner stated, there is an offense of wrong-doing. 'It is permissible' means it is permissible for the purpose of venerating an object of reverence and so forth, but for the sake of supporting a family, even for one who has it made by allowable speech, it is still an offense of wrong-doing. 'By the previous method' means by the method stated beginning with 'for a bhikkhu,' and so on. The connection is that they pierce flowers and place them on the thorns attached to the canopy of the Dhamma-seat. Because they pierce them layer upon layer and string them, making them like an umbrella, it is said, 'like an umbrella upon an umbrella.' Referring to all that was said beginning with 'on a banana trunk,' it is said, 'that is indeed extremely crude.' The meaning is that in all cases of doing it oneself, and having it done by unallowable speech, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Because even tying thorns for piercing flowers is not permissible, some say that by implication, tying ropes for hanging flower garlands and so forth is also not permissible. Others, however, say that since 'thorns for piercing flowers' is specified, only tying thorns for that purpose is not permissible, and that this is according to the authority of the commentaries. This should be investigated and accepted. A 'flower receptacle' is a flower holder made from ivory and so forth. This, and also an elephant-tusk peg, should be understood as being perforated. 'Asokapiṇḍi' refers to a cluster of asoka branches or flowers. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī, it is stated: 'Asokapiṇḍi means a spray of asoka flowers.' A 'Dhamma-cord' is a cord tied by encircling a cetiya or Bodhi tree for the purpose of inserting flowers. However, in the Vimativinodanī, it is stated: 'A Dhamma-cord is a cord tied around cetiyas and so forth, for the purpose of inserting flowers between them and the cord. Some also say that it is a cord tied in this way for the purpose of inserting flowers inside a loosely twisted coil.'

Matthakadāmanti dhammāsanādimatthake palambakadāmaṃ. Tesaṃyevāti uppalādīnaṃ eva. Vākena vāti pupphanāḷaṃ phāletvā pupphena ekābaddhaṭṭhitavākena daṇḍena ca ekābaddheneva. Etena pupphaṃ bījagāmasaṅgahaṃ na gacchati pañcasu bījesu apaviṭṭhattā paṇṇaṃ viya, tasmā kappiyaṃ akārāpetvāpi vikopane doso natthi. Yañca chinnassapi makuḷassa vikasanaṃ, tampi atitaruṇassa abhāvā vuḍḍhilakkhaṇaṃ na hoti, pariṇatassa pana makuḷassa pattānaṃ sinehe pariyādānaṃ gate visuṃbhāvo eva vikāso, teneva chinnamakuḷavikāso achinnamakuḷavikāsato parihīno, milātaniyutto vā dissati. Yañca milātassa udakasaññoge amilānatāpajjanaṃ, tampi tambulapaṇṇādīsu samānaṃ vuḍḍhilakkhaṇaṃ na hoti. Pāḷiaṭṭhakathāsu ca na katthaci pupphānaṃ kappiyakaraṇaṃ āgataṃ, tasmā pupphaṃ sabbathā abījamevāti viññāyati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.

A 'head-garland' means a hanging garland on top of a Dhamma-seat and so forth. 'Of those very ones' means of lotuses and the like. 'With a strip of bark' means having split the flower stalk and bound it together with the flower by means of a strip of bark and a stick that are bound together as one. By this, the flower is not included in the category of seed-plants, as it is not included among the five kinds of seeds, just like a leaf; therefore, there is no offense in destroying it even without having had it made allowable. And as for the blooming of a cut bud, that too is not a sign of growth, as it is not extremely young. For a mature bud, however, the blooming is simply the separation of the petals when their moisture has been exhausted. For that reason, the blooming of a cut bud is inferior to the blooming of an uncut bud, or it appears withered. And as for a withered flower becoming fresh again on contact with water, that too is not a sign of growth, being similar to what happens with betel leaves and the like. Moreover, in the Pāli and the commentaries, the making of flowers allowable is not found anywhere. Therefore, it is to be understood that a flower is in every way not a seed. This should be accepted after investigation.

‘‘Pasibbake viyā’’ti vuttattā pupphaṃ pasibbake vā pasibbakasadisaṃ bandhe yattha katthaci cīvare vā pakkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.431) pana ‘‘khandhe ṭhapitakāsāvassāti khandhe ṭhapitasaṅghāṭiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tañhi tathābandhituṃ sakkā bhaveyya. Iminā ca aññampi tādisaṃ kāsāvaṃ vā vatthaṃ vā vuttanayena bandhitvā tattha pupphāni pakkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Aṃsabhaṇḍikapasibbake pakkhittasadisattā veṭhimaṃ nāma na jātaṃ, tasmā sithilabandhassa antarantarā pakkhipitumpi vaṭṭatīti vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Heṭṭhā daṇḍakaṃ pana bandhituṃ na [Pg.74] vaṭṭatīti rajjuādīhi bandhanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, pupphasseva pana acchinnadaṇḍakehi bandhituṃ vaṭṭati eva.

Because it is said, 'like in a bag,' it is established that it is allowable to place a flower in a bag, or in a fold resembling a bag, or to insert it anywhere in a robe. But in the Sāratthadīpanī it is said: 'The words “of the ochre robe placed on the shoulder” are said in reference to the outer robe placed on the shoulder. For it could indeed be tied in that way. By this it is established that it is also allowable to tie another such ochre robe or cloth in the manner described and to place flowers in it. Because it is similar to being placed in a shoulder-bag, it does not become what is called “wrapping.” Therefore, they say, it is also allowable to insert them in the intervals of a loose binding.' The statement below that it is not allowable to tie a stick is said in reference to binding with ropes and so on; however, it is indeed allowable to bind with the flower's own uncut stalks.

Pupphapaṭe ca daṭṭhabbanti pupphapaṭaṃ karontassa dīghato pupphadāmassa haraṇapaccāharaṇavasena pūraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tiriyato haraṇaṃ pana vāyimaṃ nāma hoti, na purimaṃ. ‘‘Purimaṭṭhānaṃ atikkāmetī’’ti sāmaññato vuttattā purimaṃ pupphakoṭiṃ phusāpetvā vā aphusāpetvā vā parikkhipanavasena atikkāmentassa āpattiyeva. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatīti puppharahitāya suttavākakoṭiyā bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Ekavāraṃ haritvā parikkhipitvāti idaṃ pubbe vuttacetiyādiparikkhepaṃ pupphapaṭakaraṇañca sandhāya vuttaṃ, tasmā cetiyaṃ vā bodhiṃ vā parikkhipantena ekavāraṃ parikkhipitvā purimaṭṭhānaṃ sampatte aññassa dātabbaṃ, tenapi ekavāraṃ parikkhipitvā tatheva kātabbaṃ. Pupphapaṭaṃ karontena ca haritvā aññassa dātabbaṃ, tenapi tatheva kātabbaṃ. Sacepi dveyeva bhikkhū ubhosu passesu ṭhatvā pariyāyena haranti, vaṭṭatiyevāti vadanti.

'And in the case of a flower-cloth, it should be understood'—this is said in reference to one who is making a flower-cloth filling it with a flower garland lengthwise by carrying it back and forth. But carrying it crosswise is called 'weaving,' not the former. Because 'passes beyond the initial position' is stated generally, for one who passes beyond it by way of encircling, whether having made the initial end of the flower garland touch or not, there is an offense. 'It is allowable to tie' means it is allowable to tie with the end of the thread or strip of bark that is without flowers. 'Having carried it once and encircled'—this is said in reference to the previously mentioned encircling of a cetiya and so on, and the making of a flower-cloth. Therefore, one who is encircling a cetiya or a Bodhi tree should encircle it once and, upon reaching the initial position, should give it to another. That person too should encircle it once and do likewise. And one who is making a flower-cloth should carry it and give it to another, and that person too should do likewise. They say that even if just two bhikkhus stand on both sides and carry it in turn, it is allowable.

Parehi pūritanti dīghato pasāritaṃ. Vāyitunti tiriyato harituṃ, taṃ pana ekavārampi na labhati. Pupphāni ṭhapentenāti aganthitāni pākatikapupphāni aññamaññaṃ phusāpetvāpi ṭhapentena. Pupphadāmaṃ pana pūjanatthāya bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapentena phusāpetvā vā aphusāpetvā vā diguṇaṃ katvā ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadanti.

‘Filled by others’ means spread out lengthwise. ‘To be woven’ means to carry it crosswise; but that is not permissible even once. ‘By one who is placing flowers’ means by one who is placing unstrung, ordinary flowers, even making them touch one another. But they say that it is not allowable for one placing a flower garland on the ground for the purpose of worship to place it having made it double, whether making the ends touch or not.

32. Ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti heṭṭhābhāge ghaṭikākārayutto, dārughaṭikākāro vā olambako. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.431) pana ‘‘ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti ante ghaṭikākārayutto yamakadāmaolambako’’ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ [Pg.75] (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 431) pana ‘‘ghaṭikadāmaolambakoti yamakadāmaolambakoti likhita’’nti vuttaṃ, ekekaṃ pana dāmaṃ nikkhantasuttakoṭiyāva bandhitvā olambituṃ vaṭṭati, pupphadāmadvayaṃ saṅghaṭitukāmenapi nikkhantasuttakoṭiyāva suttakoṭiṃ saṅghaṭituṃ vaṭṭati. Aḍḍhacandākārena mālāguṇaparikkhepoti aḍḍhacandākārena mālāguṇassa punappunaṃ haraṇapaccāharaṇavasena pūretvā parikkhipanaṃ, teneva taṃ purime paviṭṭhaṃ, tasmā etampi aḍḍhacandākāraṃ punappunaṃ haraṇapaccāharaṇavasena pūretuṃ na vaṭṭati. Ekavāraṃ pana aḍḍhacandākārakaraṇe mālāguṇaṃ harituṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Pupphadāmakaraṇanti ettha suttakoṭiyaṃ gahetvāpi ekato kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Suttamayaṃ geṇḍukaṃ nāma, geṇḍukakharapattadāmānaṃ paṭikkhittattā celādīhi katadāmampi na vaṭṭati akappiyānulomattāti vadanti. Parasantakaṃ deti, dukkaṭamevāti vissāsaggāhena parasantakaṃ gahetvā dentaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Thullaccayanti ettha bhaṇḍadeyyampi hoti.

32. A ‘pot-garland-pendant’ is one having a pot-shape in its lower part, or a pendant in the shape of a wooden pot. But in the Sāratthadīpanī it is said: ‘A “pot-garland-pendant” is a double-garland-pendant that has a pot-shape at its end.’ And in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā it is said: ‘“Pot-garland-pendant” is written as “double-garland-pendant.”’ However, it is allowable to hang each single garland by tying it only by the protruding end of the thread. Even for one who wishes to join a pair of flower garlands, it is allowable to join the end of one thread to the end of another only by their protruding ends. ‘An encircling with a string of garlands in the shape of a half-moon’ means filling and encircling with a string of garlands repeatedly by carrying it back and forth in the shape of a half-moon. For that reason, it is included in the former case. Therefore, it is not allowable to fill this half-moon shape by repeatedly carrying it back and forth. But they say that it is allowable to carry the string of garlands once to make a half-moon shape. Regarding ‘the making of a flower garland,’ they say that here it is not allowable to make it into one, even by taking the end of the thread. A ‘ball made of thread.’ They say that since garlands of balls and rough leaves are rejected, a garland made of cloth and so on is also not allowable because it is analogous to what is not allowable. ‘He gives what belongs to another; it is a dukkaṭa.’ This is said in reference to one who gives what belongs to another, having taken it through trust. ‘A thullaccaya’: here it also becomes a bhaṇḍadeyya.

33. Tañca kho vatthupūjanatthāyāti mātāpitūnampi pupphaṃ dentena vatthupūjanatthāyeva dātabbanti dasseti. ‘‘Maṇḍanatthāya pana sivaliṅgādipūjanatthāyā’’ti ettakameva vuttattā ‘‘imaṃ vikkiṇitvā jīvissantī’’ti mātāpitūnaṃ vaṭṭati, sesañātakānaṃ tāvakālikameva dātuṃ vaṭṭati. Kassacipīti ñātakassa vā aññātakassa vā kassacipi. Ñātisāmaṇerehevāti tesaṃ gihiparikammamocanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Itareti aññātakā. Tehipi sāmaṇerehi ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ vattasīsena haritabbaṃ. Sampattānaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatīti saṅghikassa lābhassa upacārasīmaṭṭhasāmaṇerānampi santakattā tesampi upaḍḍhabhāgo labbhatevāti katvā vuttaṃ. Cūḷakanti upaḍḍhabhāgatopi upaḍḍhaṃ. Catutthabhāgassetaṃ [Pg.76] adhivacanaṃ. Sāmaṇerā…pe… ṭhapentīti idaṃ arakkhitaagopitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ pana ‘‘vassaggena abhājanīyaṃ sandhāya vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Tattha tatthāti magge vā cetiyaṅgaṇe vā.

33. ‘And that, too, for the purpose of venerating an object’: this shows that even when giving flowers to one's parents, it should be given only for the purpose of venerating an object. Because only ‘But for the purpose of adornment or for venerating a Sivaliṅga, etc.’ is stated, it is allowable for parents to say, ‘We will live by selling this.’ For other relatives, it is allowable to give only for temporary use. ‘To anyone’ means to anyone at all, whether a relative or a non-relative. ‘Even to related novices’: this is said for the purpose of freeing them from lay duties. ‘Others’ means non-relatives. Even by those novices, it should be carried as a point of duty for their teachers and preceptors. ‘It is allowable to give a half-share to the novices who have arrived’: this is said on the grounds that since the novices who are within the precincts also have a right to the Sangha's gains, they too indeed receive a half-share. ‘A small portion’ means a half of a half-share; this is a term for a quarter-share. ‘Novices... place...’: this is said in reference to what is unguarded and unprotected. But in the Sāratthadīpanī it is said: ‘This is said in reference to what is not to be divided by seniority.’ ‘Here and there’ means on a road or in a cetiya-courtyard.

34. Sāmaṇerehi dāpetuṃ na labhantīti idaṃ sāmaṇerehi gihikammaṃ kāritaṃ viya hotīti vuttaṃ, na pana pupphadānaṃ hotīti sāmaṇerānampi na vaṭṭanato. Vuttañca ‘‘sayamevā’’tiādi. Na hi taṃ pupphadānaṃ nāma siyā. Yadi hi tathā āgatānaṃ tesaṃ dānaṃ pupphadānaṃ nāma bhaveyya, sāmaṇerehipi dātuṃ na labbheyya. Sayamevāti sāmaṇerā sayameva. Yāgubhattādīni ādāyāti idaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya yāgubhattādisampādanaṃ sandhāya vuttattā ‘‘na vaṭṭatī’’ti avisesena vuttaṃ. Avisesena vuttanti iminā sabbesampi na vaṭṭatīti dasseti.

34. ‘They do not get to have novices give it’: this is said because it would be like having novices perform a lay task, not because it is a gift of flowers that is unallowable even for novices. And it is said, ‘by themselves,’ etc. For that would not be called a gift of flowers. For if the gift to them who have come in that way were to be called a gift of flowers, it would not be permissible for even novices to give it. ‘By themselves’ means the novices themselves. ‘Taking rice gruel, boiled rice, etc.’: since this is said in reference to the procuring of rice gruel, boiled rice, etc., for the sake of bhikkhus, ‘it is not allowable’ is said without distinction. ‘Said without distinction’: by this it shows that it is not allowable for anyone at all.

35. Vuttanayenevāti ‘‘mātāpitūnaṃ tāva haritvāpi harāpetvāpi pakkositvāpi pakkosāpetvāpi dātuṃ vaṭṭati, sesañātakānaṃ pakkosāpetvāva. Mātāpitūnañca harāpentena ñātisāmaṇereheva harāpetabbaṃ. Itare pana yadi sayameva icchanti, vaṭṭatī’’ti imaṃ pupphadāne vuttanayaṃ phaladānepi atidisati, tasmā phalampi mātāpitūnaṃ haraṇaharāpanādinā dātuṃ vaṭṭati, sesañātīnaṃ pakkosāpetvāva. Idāni ‘‘yo haritvā vā harāpetvā vā…pe… issaravatāya dadato thullaccaya’’nti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.436-437) imaṃ pupphadāne vuttanayaṃ phaladāne saṅkhipitvā dassento ‘‘kulasaṅgahatthāya panā’’tiādimāha. Khīṇaparibbayānanti āgantuke sandhāya vuttaṃ. Phalaparicchedenāti ‘‘ettakāni phalāni dātabbānī’’ti evaṃ phalaparicchedena vā. Rukkhaparicchedena vāti ‘‘imehi rukkhehi [Pg.77] dātabbānī’’ti evaṃ rukkhaparicchedena vā. Paricchinnesupi pana rukkhesu ‘‘idha phalāni sundarāni, ito gaṇhathā’’ti vadantena kulasaṅgaho kato nāma hotīti āha ‘‘evaṃ pana na vattabba’’nti. Rukkhacchallīti rukkhattaco, sā ‘‘bhājanīyabhaṇḍa’’nti vuttā. Vuttanayenāti pupphaphalādīsu vuttanayena kulasaṅgaho hotīti dasseti.

35. By ‘according to the method already stated’: He extends this method stated for the giving of flowers to the giving of fruit: ‘It is permissible to give to one's parents by taking it, having it taken, inviting them, or having them invited; for other relatives, only after having invited them. And when having it taken for parents, one should have it taken by related novices. But for others, if they themselves wish to take it, it is permissible.’ Therefore, it is also permissible to give fruit to parents by taking it, having it taken, etc., but to other relatives only after having invited them. Now, to show this method stated for the giving of flowers in a condensed form for the giving of fruit, he says, beginning with ‘But for the sake of supporting a family,’ referring to this passage: ‘For one who gives by taking it or having it taken... (pe)... with an attitude of ownership, there is a grave offense.’ ‘For those whose provisions are exhausted’ is said with reference to visitors. ‘By delimiting the fruit’ means by delimiting the quantity of fruit, ‘This many fruits are to be given.’ ‘Or by delimiting the tree’ means by delimiting the trees, ‘Fruit is to be given from these trees.’ But even when the trees have been delimited, if one says, ‘The fruits here are fine, take from here,’ this is called supporting a family, and so he says, ‘However, one should not speak in this way.’ ‘Tree bark’ is the bark of a tree; it is called ‘an item for distribution.’ ‘By the method stated’ shows that supporting a family occurs by the method stated in regard to flowers, fruits, and so on.

36. Tesaṃ tesaṃ gihīnaṃ gāmantaradesantarādīsu sāsanapaṭisāsanaharaṇaṃ jaṅghapesaniyaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘gihīnaṃ dūteyyaṃ sāsanaharaṇakamma’’nti. Dūtassa kammaṃ dūteyyaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ sāsanaṃ aggahetvāpi…pe… pade pade dukkaṭanti idaṃ ‘‘tassa sāsanaṃ ārocessāmī’’ti iminā adhippāyena gamanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tassa pana sāsanaṃ paṭikkhipitvā sayameva kāruññe ṭhito gantvā attano patirūpaṃ sāsanaṃ āroceti, anāpatti. Gihīnañca kappiyasāsanaṃ harituṃ vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Imehi pana aṭṭhahi kuladūsakakammehīti pupphadānaṃ phaladānaṃ cuṇṇadānaṃ mattikadānaṃ dantakaṭṭhadānaṃ veḷudānaṃ paṇṇadānaṃ jaṅghapesanikanti imehi yathāvuttehi. Pabbājanīyakammakatoti kuladūsanapaccayā katapabbājanīyakammo.

36. For those various laypeople, carrying messages and counter-messages to other villages, other regions, and so on, is acting as a messenger. Hence it is said: ‘For laypeople, messenger duty is the act of carrying instructions.’ The work of a messenger is messenger duty. ‘Even if one initially does not accept the instruction... (pe)... at every step there is an offense of wrong conduct’: this is said with reference to going with the intention, ‘I will deliver his instruction.’ But if, having rejected his instruction, one goes out of compassion and delivers a suitable instruction of one's own, there is no offense. The connection is: ‘And it is permissible to carry a permissible instruction for laypeople.’ ‘By these eight acts that corrupt families’: that is, by these as they have been stated: giving flowers, giving fruit, giving cosmetic powder, giving clay, giving tooth-sticks, giving bamboo, giving leaves, and acting as a messenger. ‘One for whom an act of banishment has been done’ means one for whom an act of banishment has been done on account of corrupting families.

37. Sekkhabhūmiyaṃ vāti iminā jhānabhūmimpi saṅgaṇhāti. Tiṇṇaṃ vivekānanti kāyacittaupadhivivekabhūtānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vivekānaṃ. Piṇḍāya caraṇassa bhojanapariyosānattā vuttaṃ ‘‘yāva bhojanapariyosāna’’nti. Bhutvā āgacchantassapi puna vuttanayeneva paṇidhāya cīvarasaṇṭhāpanādīni karontassa dukkaṭamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

37. ‘Or on the learner's plane’: by this he also includes the jhāna-plane. ‘Of the three seclusions’: of the three seclusions which are bodily seclusion, mental seclusion, and seclusion from the substrata of existence. Because the alms-round culminates in the meal, it is said, ‘until the conclusion of the meal.’ It should be understood that there is indeed an offense of wrong conduct even for one who is returning after having eaten, if he, having made a resolve in the way already stated, does things like arranging his robe.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, the commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Kulasaṅgahavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament of the Discourse on the Elucidation of Supporting Families

Pañcamo paricchedo.

The Fifth Chapter.

6. Macchamaṃsavinicchayakathā

6. The Discourse on the Elucidation of Fish and Meat

38. Evaṃ [Pg.78] kulasaṅgahavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni macchamaṃsavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘macchamaṃsesu panā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Tattha thale ṭhapitamatte marati, kevaṭṭādīhi vā māriyatīti maccho. Macchassa idanti macchaṃ, masiyate āmasiyateti maṃsaṃ, macchañca maṃsañca macchamaṃsāni, tesu. Macchamaṃsesu pana vinicchayo evaṃ veditabboti yojanā. Macchaggahaṇenāti ettha niddhāraṇaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Pana-saddo pakkhantarattho, divāseyyādīsu vinicchayato aparo macchamaṃsesu vinicchayo veditabboti attho. Gayhate anenāti gahaṇaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Saddo, macchaiti gahaṇaṃ macchaggahaṇaṃ, tena macchaggahaṇena, macchasaddenāti attho. Maṃsesu pana…pe… akappiyānīti ettha manussamaṃsaṃ samānajātimaṃsato paṭikkhittaṃ. Hatthiassānaṃ maṃsāni rājaṅgato, sunakhaahīnaṃ jegucchabhāvato, sesānaṃ vāḷamigattā bhikkhūnaṃ paribandhavimocanatthaṃ paṭikkhittanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

38. Having thus spoken on the elucidation of supporting families, now, in order to speak on the elucidation of fish and meat, the passage beginning 'But in regard to fish and meat' is stated. Therein, a fish is that which dies merely by being placed on land or is killed by fishermen and so on. That which is of a fish (macchassa idaṃ) is fish-meat (macchaṃ); it is crushed (masiyate) or handled (āmasiyate), thus it is meat (maṃsaṃ). Fish and meat are fish-and-meat (macchamaṃsāni); 'in regard to these' (tesu). The syntax is: 'But in regard to fish and meat, the elucidation should be understood thus.' 'By the term "fish"': here a specification should not be made. The word 'but' has the sense of a different topic; the meaning is that apart from the elucidation concerning daytime lying down and so on, another elucidation concerning fish and meat should be understood. 'Taking' (gahaṇa) is that by which something is taken. What is that? A word. The taking of 'fish' is the term 'fish' (macchaggahaṇaṃ); 'by that term "fish"' means by the word 'fish.' 'But in regard to meat... (pe)... are unallowable': here, human flesh is prohibited because it is flesh of the same species. The flesh of elephants and horses is prohibited because they are royal property; that of dogs and snakes because they are repulsive; that of the rest because they are beasts of prey, for the purpose of freeing bhikkhus from danger. This should be understood.

Tikoṭiparisuddhanti diṭṭhasutaparisaṅkitasaṅkhātāhi tīhi koṭīhi tīhi ākārehi tīhi kāraṇehi parisuddhaṃ, vimuttanti attho. Tattha adiṭṭhaasutāni cakkhuviññāṇasotaviññāṇānaṃ anārammaṇabhāvato jānitabbāni. Aparisaṅkitaṃ pana kathaṃ jānitabbanti āha ‘‘aparisaṅkitaṃ panā’’tiādi, tīṇi parisaṅkitāni ñatvā tesaṃ paṭipakkhavasena aparisaṅkitaṃ jānitabbanti attho. Idāni tāni tīṇi parisaṅkitāni ca evaṃ parisaṅkite sati bhikkhūhi kattabbavidhiñca tena vidhinā aparisaṅkite sati kattabbabhāvañca vitthārato dassetuṃ ‘‘katha’’ntiādimāha. Tattha disvā parisaṅkitaṃ diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ nāma. Sutvā parisaṅkitaṃ sutaparisaṅkitaṃ nāma. Adisvā asutvā takkena anumānena parisaṅkitaṃ tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ nāma. Taṃ tividhampi parisaṅkitasāmaññena ekā koṭi [Pg.79] hoti, tato vimuttaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ nāma. Evaṃ adiṭṭhaṃ asutaṃ aparisaṅkitaṃ macchamaṃsaṃ tikoṭiparisuddhaṃ hoti.

'Pure in three respects' means purified by the three aspects, the three modes, the three reasons, known as seen, heard, and suspected; the meaning is 'released.' Therein, the unseen and unheard should be known from their not being an object for eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness. But as to how the unsuspected should be known, he says, 'But the unsuspected,' etc. The meaning is that by knowing the three kinds of suspicion, the unsuspected should be known as their opposite. Now, to explain in detail those three kinds of suspicion, the procedure to be followed by bhikkhus when there is suspicion, and what is to be done when there is no suspicion according to that procedure, he says, 'How?' etc. Therein, suspicion after seeing is called seen-suspicion. Suspicion after hearing is called heard-suspicion. Suspicion without seeing or hearing, by reasoning and inference, is called suspicion apart from both. These three types, being suspicion in general, form one aspect; what is released from that is called unsuspected. Thus, fish and meat that are unseen, unheard, and unsuspected are pure in three respects.

Jālaṃ macchabandhanaṃ. Vāgurā migabandhinī. Kappatīti yadi tesaṃ vacanena saṅkā nivattati, vaṭṭati, na taṃ vacanaṃ lesakappaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva vakkhati ‘‘yattha ca nibbematiko hoti, taṃ sabbaṃ kappatī’’ti. Pavattamaṃsanti āpaṇādīsu pavattaṃ vikkāyikaṃ vā matamaṃsaṃ vā. Maṅgalādīnanti ādi-saddena āhunapāhunādike saṅgaṇhāti. Bhikkhūnaṃyeva atthāya akatanti ettha aṭṭhānappayutto eva-saddo, bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya akatamevāti sambandhitabbaṃ, tasmā bhikkhūnañca maṅgalādīnañcāti missetvā katampi na vattatīti veditabbaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘yathāṭhitavasena avadhāraṇaṃ gahetvā vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ. Yattha ca nibbematiko hotīti bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya katepi sabbena sabbaṃ parisaṅkitābhāvamāha.

A jāla is a fish-net. A vāgurā is a deer-snare. 'It is allowable': if the doubt ceases because of their word, it is allowable; it is not allowable to take that word as a pretext. For that reason it will be said: 'And where one is free from uncertainty, all that is allowable.' 'Readily available meat' means meat for sale in shops and so on, or carrion. 'For auspicious occasions, etc.': by the word 'etc.' he includes gifts for guests and visitors. 'Not made for the sake of bhikkhus': here the particle 'eva' is misplaced; it should be connected as 'bhikkhūnaṃ atthāya akatam eva' (truly not made for the sake of bhikkhus). Therefore, it should be understood that even if it is made mixed for both bhikkhus and for auspicious occasions, etc., it is not allowable. Some, however, say, 'Taking the emphasis as it stands, it is allowable,' but that is not good. 'And where one is free from uncertainty': this states the complete absence of suspicion even when it is made for the sake of bhikkhus.

39. Tamevatthaṃ āvikātuṃ ‘‘sace panā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Itaresaṃ vaṭṭatīti ajānantānaṃ vaṭṭati, jānatovettha āpatti hotīti. Teyevāti ye uddissa kataṃ, teyeva. Uddissa katamaṃsaparibhogato akappiyamaṃsaparibhoge visesaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘akappiyamaṃsaṃ panā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Purimasmiṃ sacittakāpatti, itarasmiṃ acittakā. Tenāha ‘‘akappiyamaṃsaṃ ajānitvā bhuñjantassapi āpattiyevā’’ti. ‘‘Paribhogakāle pucchitvā paribhuñjissāmīti vā gahetvā pucchitvāva paribhuñjitabba’’nti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 39) vacanato akappiyamaṃsaṃ ajānitvā paṭiggaṇhantassa paṭiggahaṇe anāpatti siddhā. Ajānitvā [Pg.80] paribhuñjantasseva hi āpatti vuttā. Vattanti vadantīti iminā āpatti natthīti dasseti.

39. To make that same meaning clear, the passage beginning 'But if...' was stated. 'It is allowable for the others': it is allowable for those who do not know; for one who knows, there is an offense here. 'Those very ones': those for whom it was made. To show the difference between consuming meat made on purpose and consuming unallowable meat, the passage beginning 'But unallowable meat...' was stated. In the former case, the offense is intentional; in the latter, it is unintentional. Hence it is said: 'There is indeed an offense even for one who eats unallowable meat without knowing it.' In accordance with the statement, 'At the time of consumption one should ask and then consume, or having taken it, one must ask before consuming,' it is established that for one who accepts unallowable meat without knowing, there is no offense in the acceptance. For the offense has been stated only for one who consumes it without knowing. 'They say,' 'they speak': by this he shows that there is no offense.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, the commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Macchamaṃsavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament of the Discourse on the Elucidation of Fish and Meat,

Chaṭṭho paricchedo.

The Sixth Chapter.

7. Anāmāsavinicchayakathā

7. The Discourse on the Elucidation of What Is Not to Be Touched

40. Evaṃ macchamaṃsavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni anāmāsavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘anāmāsa’’ntiādimāha. Tattha āmasiyateti āmāsaṃ, na āmāsaṃ anāmāsaṃ, aparāmasitabbanti attho. Pāripanthikāti vikuppanikā, antarāyikāti vuttaṃ hoti. Nadīsotena vuyhamānaṃ mātaranti etaṃ ukkaṭṭhaparicchedadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Aññāsu pana itthīsu kāruññādhippāyena mātari vuttanayena paṭipajjantassa nevatthi dosoti vadanti. ‘‘Mātara’’nti vuttattā aññāsu na vaṭṭatīti vadantāpi atthi. Ettha gaṇhāhīti na vattabbāti gehassitapemena kāyappaṭibaddhena phusane dukkaṭaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kāruññena pana vatthādiṃ gahetuṃ asakkontiṃ ‘‘gaṇhāhī’’ti vadantassapi avasabhāvappattito udake nimujjantiṃ kāruññena sahasā anāmāsanti acintetvā kesādīsu gahetvā mokkhādhippāyena ākaḍḍhatopi anāpattiyeva. Na hi mīyamānaṃ mātaraṃ upekkhituṃ vaṭṭati. Aññātikāya itthiyāpi eseva nayo. Ukkaṭṭhāya mātuyāpi āmāso na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘mātara’’nti vuttaṃ. Tassa kātabbaṃ pana aññāsampi itthīnaṃ karontassapi anāpattiyeva anāmāsatte visesābhāvā.

40. Having thus spoken on the elucidation of fish and meat, now, to speak on the elucidation of what is not to be touched, he states the passage beginning 'what is not to be touched.' Herein, `āmāsa` is that which is touched; `anāmāsa` is not `āmāsa`, meaning it should not be touched. 'Obstructive' means disruptive; it is said to be hindering. 'A mother being carried away by a river's current'—this is stated to show an extreme case. However, regarding other women, they say there is no fault for one who acts out of compassion in the manner described for a mother. There are also those who say that since 'mother' is mentioned, it is not allowable in the case of others. Here, 'Take hold' should not be said—this is stated with reference to the offense of wrong-doing for touching with bodily contact out of affection connected with the household life. But there is no offense for one who, out of compassion, says 'Take hold' to a woman unable to grasp a cloth or the like; nor for one who, out of compassion and with the intention of rescuing her, suddenly pulls by the hair or the like a woman who is sinking in the water, having become helpless, without thinking 'this is not to be touched.' For it is not proper to be indifferent to a dying mother. This same principle applies to an unrelated woman. The word 'mother' is used to show that touching is not allowable even toward one's own mother, who is of the highest regard. Moreover, for one who does for other women also what is to be done for her, there is no offense, as there is no difference in the state of being 'not to be touched'.

Tiṇaṇḍupakanti [Pg.81] hiriverādimūlehi kesālaṅkāratthāya katacumbaṭakaṃ. Tālapaṇṇamuddikanti tālapaṇṇehi kataṃ aṅgulimuddikaṃ. Tena tālapaṇṇādimayaṃ kaṭisuttakaṇṇapiḷandhanādi sabbaṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Parivattetvāti attano nivāsanapārupanabhāvato apanetvā, cīvaratthāya pariṇāmetvāti vuttaṃ hoti. Cīvaratthāya pādamūle ṭhapetīti idaṃ nidassanamattaṃ. Paccattharaṇavitānādiatthampi vaṭṭatiyeva, pūjādiatthaṃ tāvakālikampi āmasituṃ vaṭṭati. Sīsapasādhanadantasūcīti idaṃ sīsālaṅkāratthāya paṭapilotikāhi katasīsapasādhanakañceva dantasūciādi cāti dve tayo. Sīsapasādhanaṃ sipāṭikopakaraṇatthāya ceva dantasūciṃ sūciupakaraṇatthāya ca gahetabbanti yathākkamaṃ atthaṃ dasseti. Kesakalāpaṃ bandhitvā tattha tiriyaṃ pavesanatthāya katā sūci eva sīsapasādhanakadantasūcīti ekameva katvā sipāṭikāya pakkhipitvā pariharitabbasūciyeva tassa tassa kiccassa upakaraṇanti sipāṭikasūciupakaraṇaṃ, evaṃ vā yojanā kātabbā.

A grass pad is a coil made from hirivera roots, etc., for hair adornment. A palm-leaf ring is a finger ring made from palm leaves. Thus, it is established that anything made from palm leaves, such as waist strings, ear ornaments, and the like, is not permissible. “Turned over” means removing it from being one’s lower garment or upper robe, and it is said to be converted for the purpose of a robe. Placing it at the feet for the purpose of a robe is merely an illustration. It is also permissible for purposes like a spread, canopy, and the like, and even temporarily to touch it for purposes like worship. A head ornament and a toothpick—these are two or three: a head ornament made from strips of cloth for head adornment, and a toothpick, etc. The head ornament should be taken for the purpose of sipāṭikā equipment, and the toothpick for the purpose of needle equipment. This explains the meaning in order. A needle made for inserting horizontally after tying a tuft of hair is the same as the head ornament-toothpick—it should be considered a single item. After placing it in a sipāṭikā, it should be carried as a needle, an instrument for those various tasks, serving as a sipāṭikā-needle instrument. Alternatively, this is how the explanation should be arranged.

Potthakarūpanti sudhādīhi kataṃ pārājikavatthubhūtānaṃ tiracchānagatitthīnaṃ saṇṭhānena katampi anāmāsameva. Itthirūpāni dassetvā kataṃ vatthubhittiādiñca itthirūpaṃ anāmasitvā vaḷañjetuṃ vaṭṭati. Evarūpe hi anāmāse kāyasaṃsaggarāge asati kāyappaṭibaddhena āmasato doso natthi. Bhinditvāti ettha hatthena aggahetvāva kenaci daṇḍādinā bhinditabbaṃ. Ettha ca anāmāsampi daṇḍapāsāṇādīhi bhedanassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā, pāḷiyampi āpadāsu mokkhādhippāyassa āmasanepi anāpattiyā vuttattā ca sappiniādivāḷamigīhi gahitapāṇakānaṃ mocanatthāya taṃ taṃ sappiniādivatthuṃ daṇḍādīhi paṭikkhipitvā gahetuṃ, mātuādiṃ udake mīyamānaṃ vatthādīhi gahetuṃ, asakkontiṃ [Pg.82] kesādīsu gahetvā kāruññena ukkhipituñca vaṭṭatīti ayamattho gahetabbova. ‘‘Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘na tveva āmasitabbā’ti idaṃ pana vacanaṃ amīyamānaṃ vatthuṃ sandhāya vuttanti ayaṃ amhākaṃ khantī’’ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) vuttaṃ.

A figure made of plaster, etc., even if shaped in the form of female animals that are the basis for a pārājika offense, is still to be considered as ‘not to be touched’. And it is permissible to use objects like walls made by depicting female forms, without touching the female form. In such a case of an object not to be touched, if there is no lust for bodily contact, there is no fault for one who touches with something connected to the body. “Breaking it” here means it should be broken with a stick or something else, without grasping it with the hand. Here, because in the commentary, even breaking without touching, by means of a stick, stone, etc., is mentioned; and because in the Pāli too it is said that in emergencies there is no offense even in touching with the intention of release, therefore, for the purpose of freeing creatures whose limbs have been seized by female snakes, wild animals, etc., one may push aside those female snakes, etc., with sticks, etc., and take hold of the creatures; and one may seize a mother, etc., who is drowning in water, with cloth, etc.; and one may lift up a person who is unable to move by grasping their hair, etc., out of compassion. This meaning should be taken. “However, the statement in the commentary, ‘One should not touch’ refers to a case not involving drowning,” such is our acceptance, as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.281).

41. Maggaṃ adhiṭṭhāyāti ‘‘maggo aya’’nti maggasaññaṃ uppādetvāti attho. Paññapetvā dentīti idaṃ sāmīcivasena vuttaṃ, tehi pana ‘‘āsanaṃ paññapetvāva nisīdathā’’ti vutte sayameva paññapetvā nisīdituṃ vaṭṭati. Tattha jātakānīti acchinditvā bhūtagāmabhāveneva ṭhitāni. ‘‘Kīḷantenā’’ti vuttattā sati paccaye āmasantassa anāpatti, idañca gihisantakaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, bhikkhusantakaṃ pana paribhogārahaṃ sabbathā āmasituṃ na vaṭṭati durūpaciṇṇattā. Tālapanasādīnīti cettha ādi-saddena nāḷikeralabujatipusaalābukumbhaṇḍapussaphalaeḷālukaphalānaṃ saṅgaho daṭṭhabbo. ‘‘Yathāvuttaphalānaṃyeva cettha kīḷādhippāyena āmasanaṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttattā pāsāṇasakkharādīni kīḷādhippāyenapi āmasituṃ vaṭṭati. Anupasampannānaṃ dassāmīti idaṃ apaṭiggahetvā gahaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Attanopi atthāya paṭiggahetvā gahaṇe doso natthi anāmāsattābhāvā.

41. “Maggaṃ adhiṭṭhāya” means producing the perception of the path, thinking “This is the path.” “Paññapetvā denti” is said in the manner of respect; but when told by them, “Having prepared a seat, sit down,” it is allowable to prepare it oneself and sit. There, “jātakāni” refers to things that are not severed, existing in their natural state as plant life. Because it is said, “by one playing,” if there is a condition, there is no offense for one who touches. This is said with reference to possessions belonging to lay people, but possessions belonging to monks, being suitable for use, it is in no way allowable to touch, due to their being improperly used. In “tālapanasādīni,” with the word “ādi,” the inclusion of coconuts, bottle gourds, sponge gourds, white gourds, pumpkins, edible gourds, and cucumber fruits should be understood. Because it is said, “Touching just the aforementioned fruits for the purpose of play is not allowable here,” stones, gravel, and the like are allowable to touch even for the purpose of play. “Anupasampannānaṃ dassāmi” (I will give to the unordained) is said with reference to taking something without having formally received it. Even for one’s own sake, there is no fault in taking after having formally received it, because it is not in the category of ‘not to be touched’.

42. Muttāti (ma. ni. ṭī. 1.2 pathavīvāravaṇṇanā; sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) hatthikumbhajātikā aṭṭhavidhā muttā. Tathā hi hatthikumbhaṃ, varāhadāṭhaṃ, bhujagasīsaṃ, valāhakaṃ, veḷu, macchasiro, saṅkho, sippīti aṭṭha muttāyoniyo. Tattha hatthikumbhajā pītavaṇṇā pabhāhīnā. Varāhadāṭhā varāhadāṭhāvaṇṇāva. Bhujagasīsajā nīlādivaṇṇā suvisuddhā vaṭṭalā ca. Valāhakajā bhāsurā dubbibhāgā rattibhāge andhakāraṃ vidhamentiyo tiṭṭhanti, devūpabhogā eva ca honti. Veḷujā karakaphalasamānavaṇṇā na bhāsurā, te [Pg.83] ca veḷū amanussagocareyeva padese jāyanti. Macchasirajā pāṭhīnapiṭṭhisamānavaṇṇā vaṭṭalā laghavo ca tejavantā honti pabhāvihīnā ca, te ca macchā samuddamajjheyeva jāyanti. Saṅkhajā saṅkhaudaracchavivaṇṇā kolaphalappamāṇāpi honti pabhāvihīnāva. Sippijā pabhāvisesayuttā honti nānāsaṇṭhānā. Evaṃ jātito aṭṭhavidhāsu muttāsu yā macchasaṅkhasippijā, tā sāmuddikā. Bhujagajāpi kāci sāmuddikā honti, itarā asāmuddikā. Yasmā bahulaṃ sāmuddikāva muttā loke dissanti, tatthāpi sippijāva, itarā kadāci kāci, tasmā sammohavinodaniyaṃ (vibha. aṭṭha. 173) ‘‘muttāti sāmuddikā muttā’’ti vuttaṃ.

42. “Muttā” (pearl) refers to the eight kinds of pearls, such as those originating from an elephant’s forehead. Thus, the eight sources of pearls are: an elephant’s forehead, a boar’s tusk, a serpent’s head, a cloud, bamboo, a fish head, a conch, and an oyster. Among these, the elephant’s-forehead pearl is yellowish and lacks luster. The boar’s-tusk pearl resembles the color of a boar’s tusk. The serpent’s-head pearl is very pure, round, and has colors like blue. The cloud pearl is radiant, difficult to distinguish, and dispels darkness at night, being fit for divine use. The bamboo pearl resembles the color of a hailstone, lacks radiance, and grows in places frequented by non-humans. The fish-head pearl resembles the back of a pāṭhīna fish, is round, light, and lustrous but lacking radiance, and grows only in the middle of the ocean. The conch pearl resembles the inner shell of a conch, can be the size of a jujube fruit, and lacks radiance. The oyster pearl has exceptional radiance and comes in various shapes. Among these eight types, those from fish, conch, and oyster are marine. Some serpent pearls are also marine, while others are not. Since marine pearls, especially oyster pearls, are commonly seen in the world, while others are rare, the Sammohavinodanī states, “Muttā means marine pearls.”

Maṇīti veḷuriyādito añño jotirasādibhedo sabbo maṇi. Veḷuriyoti allaveḷuvaṇṇo maṇi, ‘‘majjārakkhimaṇḍalavaṇṇo’’tipi vadanti. Saṅkhoti sāmuddikasaṅkho. Silāti muggavaṇṇā atisiniddhā kāḷasilā. Maṇivohāraṃ agatā rattasetādivaṇṇā sumaṭṭhāpi silā anāmāsā evāti vadanti. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) pana ‘‘saṅkhoti sāmuddikasaṅkho. Silāti kāḷasilāpaṇḍusilāsetasilādibhedā sabbāpi silā’’ti vuttaṃ. Pavāḷaṃ samuddato jātanātirattamaṇi. Rajatanti kahāpaṇamāsādibhedaṃ jatumāsādiṃ upādāya sabbaṃ vuttāvasesarūpiyaṃ gahitaṃ. Jātarūpanti suvaṇṇaṃ. Lohitaṅkoti rattamaṇi. Masāragallanti kabaravaṇṇo maṇi. ‘‘Marakata’’ntipi vadanti.

“Maṇi” (gem) refers to all other gems, apart from beryl, that are of various types, such as those with essence of light. “Beryl” refers to a gem of the color of fresh green bamboo; some say it is the color of a cat’s eye. “Conch” refers to the ocean conch. “Stone” refers to very smooth black stones of the color of mung beans. They say that even stones not considered gems, if well-polished and of red, white, etc., colors, are still ‘not to be touched’. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.281) states: “Conch means the ocean conch. Stone includes all kinds of stones, such as black stone, pale stone, white stone, etc.” “Coral” is a gem born from the ocean, exceedingly red. “Silver” includes all remaining forms of silver, such as various types of kahāpaṇa and māsa coins, and lac-māsa, etc. “Gold” is refined gold. “Ruby” is a red gem. “Masāragalla” is a gem of variegated color; some call it “marakata”.

Bhaṇḍamūlatthāyāti pattacīvarādimūlatthāya. Kuṭṭharogassāti nidassanamattaṃ. Tāya vūpasametabbassa yassa kassaci rogassa atthāya vaṭṭatiyeva. ‘‘Bhesajjatthañca aviddhāyeva muttā vaṭṭatī’’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttā. Bhesajjatthāya pisitvā yojitānaṃ muttānaṃ ratanabhāvavijahanato gahaṇakkhaṇepi [Pg.84] ratanākārena apekkhābhāvā ‘‘bhesajjatthāya pana vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Yāva pana tā muttā ratanarūpena tiṭṭhanti, tāva āmasituṃ na vaṭṭanti. Evaṃ aññampi ratanapāsāṇaṃ pisitvā bhesajje yojanatthāya gahetuṃ vaṭṭati eva. Jātarūparajataṃ pana missetvā yojanabhesajjatthāyapi sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati. Gahaṭṭhehi yojetvā dinnampi yadi bhesajje suvaṇṇādirūpena tiṭṭhati, viyojetuñca sakkā, tādisaṃ bhesajjampi na vaṭṭati. Taṃ abbohārikattagatañce vaṭṭati. ‘‘Jātiphalikaṃ upādāyā’’ti vuttattā sūriyakantacandakantādikaṃ jātipāsāṇaṃ maṇimhi eva saṅgahitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ākaramuttoti ākarato muttamatto. Bhaṇḍamūlatthaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatīti imināva āmasitumpi vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Pacitvā katoti kācakārehi pacitvā kato.

‘For the price of goods’ means for the price of bowls, robes, and so forth. ‘For leprosy’ is merely an example. It is permissible for the purpose of any disease that should be alleviated by it. ‘For medicine, pearls are permissible even if not pierced’—this is stated in all three knot-passages. Because pearls ground and combined for medicinal purposes relinquish their gem status, and because even at the moment of acceptance there is no regard for them in their gem form, it is said, ‘For medicine, they are permissible.’ But as long as those pearls remain in their gem form, they are not permissible to touch. Similarly, it is permissible to take another gemstone, after having ground it, for the purpose of combining it in medicine. But gold and silver, even for the purpose of medicine to be mixed and combined, are not permissible to accept. Even medicine prepared by householders, if gold and so forth remain in it in their own form and can be separated, such medicine is also not permissible. But if it has reached the state of being unusable for transactions, it is permissible. Because it is said, ‘taking natural crystal,’ it should be understood that natural stones such as sunstones and moonstones are included within gems. ‘Pearl from the source’ means merely a pearl from its source. By the statement, ‘It is permissible to accept for the price of goods,’ it is shown that it is also permissible to touch it. ‘Made by heating’ means made by glassmakers through heating.

Dhamanasaṅkho ca dhotaviddho ca ratanamisso cāti yojetabbaṃ. Viddhotiādibhāvena katachiddo. Ratanamissoti kañcanalatādivicitto muttādiratanakhacito ca. Etena dhamanasaṅkhato añño ratanasammisso anāmāsoti dasseti. Silāyampi eseva nayo. Pānīyasaṅkhoti iminā thālakādiākārena katasaṅkhamayabhājanāni bhikkhūnaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭantīti siddhaṃ. Sesanti ratanamissaṃ ṭhapetvā avasesaṃ. Muggavaṇṇaṃyeva ratanasammissaṃ karonti, na aññanti āha ‘‘muggavaṇṇāvā’’ti, muggavaṇṇā ratanasammissāva na vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ hoti. Sesāti ratanasammissaṃ ṭhapetvā avasesā silā.

A blowing conch, and one that is washed and pierced, and one mixed with jewels—thus it should be connected. ‘Pierced’ means having holes made by piercing and so forth. ‘Mixed with jewels’ means variegated with golden creepers and so forth, and inlaid with pearls and other jewels. By this, it is shown that another conch mixed with jewels, other than a blowing conch, is not to be touched. This same principle applies to stone. By ‘water conch,’ it is established that it is permissible for monks to receive vessels made of conch shell in the shape of a bowl or the like. ‘The remainder’ means the rest, excluding that which is mixed with jewels. Because they make only mung-bean-colored ones mixed with jewels, and not others, he said, ‘or mung-bean-colored’; this means it is said that mung-bean-colored ones mixed with jewels are not permissible. ‘The remainder’ means the remaining stone, excluding that which is mixed with jewels.

Bījato paṭṭhāyāti dhātupāsāṇato paṭṭhāya. Suvaṇṇacetiyanti dhātukaraṇḍakaṃ. Paṭikkhipīti ‘‘dhātuṭṭhapanatthāya gaṇhathā’’ti avatvā ‘‘tumhākaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti pesitattā [Pg.85] paṭikkhipi. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) pana ‘‘paṭikkhipīti suvaṇṇamayassa dhātukaraṇḍakassa buddhādirūpassa ca attano santakakaraṇe nissaggiyattā vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Suvaṇṇabubbuḷakanti suvaṇṇatārakaṃ. ‘‘Rūpiyachaḍḍakaṭṭhāne’’ti vuttattā rūpiyachaḍḍakassa jātarūparajataṃ āmasitvā chaḍḍetuṃ vaṭṭatīti vuttaṃ. Keḷāpayitunti āmasitvā ito cito ca sañcāretuṃ. Vuttanti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti gopakā vā hontu aññe vā, hatthenapi puñchitvā kacavaraṃ apanetuṃ vaṭṭati, ‘‘malampi pamajjituṃ vaṭṭatiyevā’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) pana ‘‘kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti gopakā vā hontu aññe vā, hatthenapi puñchitvā kacavaraṃ apanetuṃ vaṭṭati, malampi majjituṃ vaṭṭati evāti vadanti, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sameti keḷāyanasadisattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ na sameti? Mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ cetiyagharagopakā rūpiyachaḍḍakaṭṭhāne ṭhitāti tesaṃyeva keḷāyanaṃ anuññātaṃ, na aññesaṃ, tasmā ‘‘gopakā vā hontu aññe vā’’ti vacanaṃ mahāaṭṭhakathāya na sameti.

‘Starting from the source’ means starting from the mineral stone. ‘The golden shrine’ means the relic casket. He refused because it was sent with the instruction ‘Take it for yourselves’ instead of ‘Take it for the purpose of enshrining the relic.’ However, in the Vimativinodanī, it is said, ‘“He refused” was stated because making the golden relic casket and the Buddha-image one’s own possession entails forfeiture (nissaggiya).’ ‘The golden bubble’ means a golden spangle. Because it is said, ‘in the place where money is discarded,’ it is stated that it is permissible for the one who discards money to touch gold and silver and discard it. ‘To play with’ means to touch and move them here and there. ‘It is said’ means it is said in the Great Commentary. ‘It is permissible to remove only the refuse’ means that whether they are shrine-attendants or others, it is permissible to remove the refuse even by sweeping it with the hand; and ‘it is indeed permissible to wipe away even dirt,’ as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. However, in the Vimativinodanī, it is said: ‘“It is permissible to remove only the refuse” means that whether they are shrine-attendants or others, it is permissible to remove the refuse even by sweeping it with the hand, and it is permissible to wipe away the dirt—thus they say, but this does not agree with the Commentary due to its similarity to playing.’ How does it not agree? In the Great Commentary, it is said that for the shrine-attendants standing in the place where money is discarded in the shrine house, only their playing with it is permitted, not that of others. Therefore, the statement, ‘whether they are shrine-attendants or others,’ does not agree with the Great Commentary.

Kurundiyaṃ pana tampi paṭikkhittaṃ, suvaṇṇacetiye kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti ettakameva anuññātaṃ, tasmā sāvadhāraṇaṃ katvā vuttattā ‘‘hatthenapi puñchitvā’’ti ca ‘‘malampi pamajjituṃ vaṭṭati evā’’ti ca vacanaṃ kurundaṭṭhakathāya na sameti, tasmā vicāretabbametanti. Ārakūṭalohanti suvaṇṇavaṇṇo kittimalohaviseso. Tividhañhi kittimalohaṃ – kaṃsalohaṃ vaṭṭalohaṃ ārakūṭalohanti. Tattha tiputambe missetvā kataṃ kaṃsalohaṃ nāma, sīsatambe missetvā kataṃ vaṭṭalohaṃ, rasatutthehi rañjitaṃ tambaṃ ārakūṭalohaṃ nāma. ‘‘Pakatirasatambe missetvā kataṃ [Pg.86] ārakūṭa’’nti ca sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) vuttaṃ. Taṃ pana ‘‘jātarūpagatika’’nti vuttattā uggaṇhato nissaggiyampi hotīti keci vadanti, rūpiyesu pana agaṇitattā nissaggiyaṃ na hoti, āmasane sampaṭicchane ca dukkaṭamevāti veditabbaṃ. Sabbopi kappiyoti yathāvuttasuvaṇṇādimayānaṃ senāsanaparikkhārānaṃ āmasanagopanādivasena paribhogo sabbathā kappiyoti adhippāyo. Tenāha ‘‘tasmā’’tiādi. ‘‘Bhikkhūnaṃ dhammavinayavaṇṇanaṭṭhāne’’ti vuttattā saṅghikameva suvaṇṇādimayaṃ senāsanaṃ senāsanaparikkhārā ca vaṭṭanti, na puggalikānīti gahetabbaṃ. Paṭijaggituṃ vaṭṭantīti senāsanapaṭibandhato vuttaṃ.

However, in the Kurundī, even that was rejected; only this much was allowed: ‘It is permissible to remove only the refuse from a golden shrine.’ Therefore, because it was stated with a restriction, the statements ‘even by sweeping with the hand’ and ‘it is indeed permissible to wipe away even dirt’ do not agree with the Kurundaṭṭhakathā. Thus, this matter should be investigated. ‘Ārakūṭaloha’ refers to a special type of artificial metal with a golden hue. There are three types of artificial metal: kaṃsaloha, vaṭṭaloha, and ārakūṭaloha. Among them, kaṃsaloha is made by mixing tin and copper, vaṭṭaloha is made by mixing lead and copper, and ārakūṭaloha is copper colored with mercury and vitriol. The Sāratthadīpanī also states, ‘Ārakūṭa is made by mixing copper with natural mercury.’ However, since it is said to be ‘of the nature of gold,’ some say that for one who accepts it, it becomes an item for forfeiture. But because it is not counted among money, it is not an item for forfeiture; it should be known that in touching and accepting it there is only a dukkaṭa offense. ‘All are allowable’ means that the use of lodgings and furnishings made of gold and so forth, as mentioned above, by way of touching, protecting, and so on, is entirely permissible; this is the meaning. Hence, it is stated, ‘Therefore…’ and so on. Because it is said, ‘for the purpose of explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya for the monks,’ it should be understood that only communal lodgings and furnishings made of gold and so forth are permissible, not personal ones. ‘They are permissible to maintain’ is said in connection with the lodgings.

43. Sāmikānaṃ pesetabbanti sāmikānaṃ sāsanaṃ pesetabbaṃ. Bhinditvāti paṭhamameva anāmasitvā pāsāṇādinā kiñcimattaṃ bhedaṃ katvā pacchā kappiyabhaṇḍatthāya adhiṭṭhahitvā hatthena gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tenāha ‘‘kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ karissāmīti sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti. Etthāpi tañca viyojetvā āmasitabbaṃ. Phalakajālikādīnīti ettha saraparittāṇāya hatthena gahetabbaṃ. Kiṭikāphalakaṃ akkhirakkhaṇatthāya ayalohādīhi jālākārena katvā sīsādīsu paṭimuñcitabbaṃ jālikaṃ nāma. Ādi-saddena kavacādikaṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Anāmāsānīti macchajālādiparūparodhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na saraparittāṇaṃ tassa āvudhabhaṇḍattābhāvā. Tena vakkhati ‘‘parūparodhanivāraṇañhī’’tiādi (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 43). Āsanassāti cetiyassasamantā kataparibhaṇḍassa. Bandhissāmīti kākādīnaṃ adūsanatthāya bandhissāmi.

43. ‘A message should be sent to the owners’ means a message should be sent to the owners. ‘Having broken’ means: first, without touching it, after making a small break with a stone or the like, and afterwards determining it for the purpose of an allowable item, it is permissible to take it with the hand. Hence it is said, ‘It is permissible to accept it with the intention, “I will make it an allowable item.”’ Here too, it should be touched only after separating it. Regarding ‘wooden slats, nets, etc.,’ here, for protection from arrows, one may take them by hand. A ‘jālika’ is a window-shutter (kiṭikāphalakaṃ) made in the form of a net with iron or other metals for eye protection, to be fastened to the head or other parts. The word ‘etc.’ includes armor and the like. ‘Not to be touched’ is said with reference to things that hinder others, such as fishnets, not with reference to protection from arrows, as that is not a weapon. Therefore, it will be said, ‘For it is for the prevention of hindering others,’ etc. ‘Of the seat’ refers to the surrounding furnishing made around the shrine. ‘I will fasten’ means: I will fasten it for the purpose of preventing spoiling by crows and the like.

‘‘Bherisaṅghāṭoti saṅghaṭitacammabherī. Vīṇāsaṅghāṭoti saṅghaṭitacammavīṇā’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) vuttaṃ. ‘‘Cammavinaddhā vīṇābheriādīnī’’ti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttavacanato visesābhāvā [Pg.87] ‘‘kurundiyaṃ panā’’tiādinā tato visesassa vattumāraddhattā ca bheriādīnaṃ vinaddhopakaraṇasamūho bherivīṇāsaṅghāṭoti veditabbo ‘‘saṅghaṭitabboti saṅghāṭo’’ti katvā. Tucchapokkharanti avinaddhacammabherivīṇānaṃ pokkharaṃ. Āropitacammanti pubbe āropitaṃ hutvā pacchā tato apanetvā visuṃ ṭhapitamukhacammamattaṃ, na sesopakaraṇasahitaṃ, taṃ pana saṅghātoti ayaṃ viseso. Onahitunti bheripokkharādīni cammaṃ āropetvā cammavaddhiādīhi sabbehi upakaraṇehi vinandhituṃ. Onahāpetunti tatheva aññehi vinandhāpetuṃ.

'The assembly of drums' means a drum with hide stretched over it. 'The assembly of lutes' means a lute with hide stretched over it—this is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.281). Since the Mahāaṭṭhakathā states, 'Lutes, drums, and other instruments bound with hide,' and there is no distinction, and because the phrase 'but in the Kurundī...' and so on begins to state a distinction from that, the collection of fastened accessories of drums and lutes should be understood as the 'drum and lute assembly,' taking 'saṅghāṭa' to mean 'that which is to be assembled.' 'Empty sounding-board' means the sounding-board of drums and lutes without hide fastened on. 'Hide placed on' means only the face-hide that was previously placed, and later removed from it and set aside separately, not together with the other accessories; that, however, is an 'assembly'—this is the distinction. 'To apply' means to place hide on the sounding-boards of drums and so on, and to fasten it with all the accessories such as hide-straps. 'To have applied' means to have others fasten it in the same way.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Anāmāsavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of What Is Not to Be Touched,

Sattamo paricchedo.

The Seventh Chapter.

8. Adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayakathā

8. The Discourse on the Ascertainment of Determination and Dispensation

44. Evaṃ anāmāsavinicchayakathaṃ kathetvā idāni adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘adhiṭṭhānavikappanesu panā’’tiādimāha. Tattha adhiṭṭhiyate adhiṭṭhānaṃ, gahaṇaṃ sallakkhaṇanti attho. Vikappiyate vikappanā, saṅkappanaṃ cintananti attho. Tattha ‘‘ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātunti nāmaṃ vatvā adhiṭṭhātuṃ. Na vikappetunti nāmaṃ vatvā na vikappetuṃ. Esa nayo sabbattha. Tasmā ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhahantena ‘imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī’tiādinā nāmaṃ vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Vikappentena pana ‘imaṃ saṅghāṭi’ntiādinā tassa tassa cīvarassa nāmaṃ aggahetvāva ‘imaṃ cīvaraṃ tuyhaṃ vikappemī’ti vikappetabbaṃ. Ticīvaraṃ vā hotu aññaṃ vā, yadi taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā vikappeti[Pg.88], avikappitaṃ hoti, atirekacīvaraṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) vuttaṃ.

44. Having thus explained the discourse on the ascertainment of what is not to be touched, now, to explain the ascertainment of determination and dispensation, he begins with the words, “But concerning determination and dispensation…” Herein, determination (adhiṭṭhāna) is that which is determined, meaning grasping or marking. Dispensation (vikappanā) is that which is dispensed, meaning intending or thinking. In this regard, ‘one should determine the three robes’ means to determine them by stating their name. ‘One should not dispense’ means not to dispense them by stating their name. This is the method everywhere. Therefore, one who is determining the three robes should determine them by stating their name, saying, ‘I determine this outer robe,’ and so on. But one who is dispensing should dispense by saying, ‘I dispense this robe to you,’ without taking up the name of that particular robe, such as ‘this outer robe,’ and so on. Whether it be the three robes or another, if one dispenses by taking up that particular name, it is not dispensed, and it remains as an extra robe. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha-ṭīkā 2.469).

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) pana ‘‘ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātunti saṅghāṭiādināmena adhiṭṭhātuṃ. Na vikappetunti iminā nāmena na vikappetuṃ, etena vikappitaticīvaro tecīvariko na hoti, tassa tasmiṃ adhiṭṭhitaticīvare viya avippavāsādinā kātabbavidhi na kātabboti dasseti, na pana vikappane doso’’ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469) pana ‘‘ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātunti ettha ticīvaraṃ ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātabbayuttakaṃ, yaṃ vā ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vikappetuṃ anujānāmi, tassa adhiṭṭhānakālaparicchedābhāvato sabbakālaṃ icchantassa adhiṭṭhātuṃyeva anujānāmi, taṃ kālaparicchedaṃ katvā vikappetuṃ nānujānāmi, sati pana paccaye yadā tadā vā paccuddharitvā vikappetuṃ vaṭṭatīti ‘anāpatti antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti vikappetī’ti vacanato siddhaṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ.

In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469), however, it is stated: “‘One should determine the three robes’ means to determine them by the name of the outer robe, etc. ‘One should not dispense’ means not to dispense them by this name; by this, it is shown that one who has dispensed the three robes is not a tecīvarika (one who possesses three robes), and for him, the procedures such as non-separation, etc., which should be done as they would be for one who has determined the three robes, should not be done. However, there is no fault in dispensing.” In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 469), however, it is stated: “Here, ‘One should determine the three robes’ means the three robes are suitable to be determined by the determination of the three robes; or, I allow one to determine them by the determination of the three robes, and not to dispense them. Since there is no time limit for that determination, I allow one who wishes to determine them for all time; I do not allow one to dispense them after making a time limit. However, if there is a reason, it is permissible to withdraw and dispense whenever it is necessary—this is established by the statement, ‘There is no offense if one determines or dispenses within ten days.’”

Imesu pana tīsu ṭīkāvādesu tatiyavādo yuttataro viya dissati. Kasmā? Pāḷiyā aṭṭhakathāya ca saṃsandanato. Kathaṃ? Pāḷiyañhi kataparicchedāsuyeva dvīsu vassikasāṭikakaṇḍupaṭicchādīsu tato paraṃ vikappetunti vuttaṃ, tato aññesu na vikappetuṃ icceva, tasmā tesu asati paccaye niccaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbameva hoti, na vikappetabbanti ayaṃ pāḷiyā adhippāyo dissati, itarāsu pana dvīsu anuññātakāleyeva adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, ‘‘tato paraṃ vikappetu’’nti evaṃ pāḷiyā saṃsandati, aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ticīvaraṃ ticīvarasaṅkhepena pariharato adhiṭṭhātumeva anujānāmi, na vikappetuṃ. Vassikasāṭikaṃ pana cātumāsato paraṃ vikappetumeva, na adhiṭṭhātuṃ, evañca [Pg.89] sati yo ticīvare ekena cīvarena vippavasitukāmo hoti, tassa cīvarādhiṭṭhānaṃ paccuddharitvā vippavāsasukhatthaṃ vikappanāya okāso dinno hotīti.

Among these three commentarial views, however, the third view appears to be more suitable. Why? Because of its correspondence with the Pāli and the commentary. How so? For in the Pāli, it is stated that only for the two items for which a time limit has been set—the rainy-season robe and the itch-covering cloth—may one dispense them after that time. For other items, it is simply ‘one should not dispense.’ Therefore, for these, if there is no reason, they must always be determined, not dispensed. This appears to be the intention of the Pāli. But for the other two [robes], they are to be determined only for the permitted time; the Pāli statement ‘after that, one may dispense’ aligns with this. In the commentary, it is said: For one who uses the three robes as a set of three, I allow only determination, not dispensation. But for the rainy-season robe, after the four months, one should only dispense it, not determine it. And thus, for one who wishes to be separated from one of the three robes, having withdrawn the determination of that robe, the opportunity for dispensation is given for the sake of convenience during absence.

Paṭhamavāde ‘‘na vikappetu’’nti nāmaṃ vatvā ‘‘na vikappetu’’nti attho vutto, evaṃ sante ‘‘tato paraṃ vikappetu’’nti ettha tato paraṃ nāmaṃ vatvā vikappetunti attho bhaveyya, so ca attho vikappanādhikārena vutto, ‘‘nāmaṃ vatvā’’ti ca visesane kattabbe sati ‘‘na vikappetu’’nti ca ‘‘tato paraṃ vikappetu’’nti ca bhedavacanaṃ na siyā, sabbesupi cīvaresu nāmaṃ avatvāva vikappetabbato, dutiyavāde ca ‘‘na vikappetu’’nti iminā nāmena na vikappetunti vuttaṃ, na anujānāmīti pāṭhaseso. Paṭhame ca ‘‘ticīvaraṃ vā hotu aññaṃ vā, yadi taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā vikappeti, avikappitaṃ hoti, atirekacīvaraṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī’’ti. Dutiye ca ‘‘na pana vikappane doso’’ti, tañca aññamaññaviruddhaṃ viya dissati, tasmā vicāretabbametaṃ.

In the first view, the meaning of ‘one should not dispense’ is given as ‘one should not dispense by stating the name.’ If this were so, then in the phrase ‘after that, one should dispense,’ the meaning would be to dispense by stating the name after that time. And that meaning is stated in the section on dispensation. Moreover, if the specification ‘by stating the name’ were to be made, there would be no distinction in the wording between ‘one should not dispense’ and ‘after that, one should dispense,’ since all robes are to be dispensed without stating a name. And in the second view, it is stated that ‘one should not dispense’ means one should not dispense by this name, with the remainder of the text being ‘I do not allow it.’ And in the first view, it says, ‘whether it is the three robes or another, if one dispenses by taking that name, it is not dispensed, and it remains as an extra robe.’ And in the second, ‘however, there is no fault in dispensing.’ These appear to be mutually contradictory. Therefore, this should be investigated.

Tato paraṃ vikappetunti cātumāsato paraṃ vikappetvā paribhuñjitunti tīsu gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘tato paraṃ vikappetvā yāva āgāmisaṃvacchare vassānaṃ cātumāsaṃ, tāva ṭhapetuṃ anuññāta’’ntipi vadanti. ‘‘Tato paraṃ vikappetuṃ anujānāmīti ettāvatā vassikasāṭikaṃ kaṇḍupaṭicchādiñca taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā vikappetuṃ anuññātanti evamattho na gahetabbo. Tato paraṃ vassikasāṭikādināmasseva abhāvato, kasmā tato paraṃ vikappentenapi nāmaṃ gahetvā na vikappetabbaṃ. Ubhinnampi tato paraṃ vikappetvā paribhogassa anuññātattā tathāvikappitaṃ aññanāmena adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabbanti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vutta’’nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) ‘‘tato paranti cātumāsato [Pg.90] paraṃ vikappetvā paribhuñjituṃ anuññātanti keci vadanti. Aññe pana ‘vikappetvā yāva āgāmivassānaṃ tāva ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī’ti vadanti. Apare pana ‘vikappane na doso, tathā vikappitaṃ parikkhārādināmena adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabba’nti vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ.

‘After that, one should dispense’ means that after the four months, one should dispense and use it—this is stated in the three Ganthipadas. Some, however, say, ‘After that, it is allowed to dispense it and keep it until the four months of the rains in the coming year.’ It is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha-ṭīkā 2.469): ‘By the statement, “I allow one to dispense after that,” the meaning should not be taken that the rainy-season robe and the itch-covering cloth may be dispensed by taking their respective names. Since after that time the name “rainy-season robe,” etc., no longer exists, therefore, even when dispensing after that time, one should not dispense it by taking its name. Because for both, use after dispensing them beyond that time is permitted, it is stated in all three Ganthipadas that what has been so dispensed should be used after determining it under another name.’ In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469) it is also stated: ‘“Beyond that”—some say it is allowed to dispense it after the four months and then use it. Others say, “It is permissible to dispense it and keep it until the rains of the coming year.” Still others say, “There is no fault in dispensing; having so dispensed it, it should be used after determining it under the name of a requisite, etc.”’

Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469) pana ‘‘vassikasāṭikaṃ tato paraṃ vikappetuṃyeva, nādhiṭṭhātuṃ. Vatthañhi katapariyositaṃ antocātumāse vassānadivasaṃ ādiṃ katvā antodasāhe adhiṭṭhātuṃ anujānāmi, cātumāsato uddhaṃ attano santakaṃ katvā ṭhapetukāmena vikappetuṃ anujānāmīti attho’’ti vuttaṃ. Idhāpi pacchimavādo pasatthataroti dissati, kasmā? Suviññeyyattā, purimesu pana ācariyānaṃ adhippāyoyeva duviññeyyo hoti nānāvādasseva kathitattā. Muṭṭhipañcakanti muṭṭhiyā upalakkhitaṃ pañcakaṃ muṭṭhipañcakaṃ, catuhatthe minitvā pañcamaṃ hatthamuṭṭhiṃ katvā minitabbanti adhippāyo. Keci pana ‘‘muṭṭhihatthānaṃ pañcakaṃ muṭṭhipañcakaṃ. Pañcapi hatthā muṭṭhī katvāva minitabbā’’ti vadanti. Muṭṭhittikanti etthāpi eseva nayo. Dvihatthena antaravāsakena timaṇḍalaṃ paṭicchādetuṃ sakkāti āha ‘‘pārupanenapī’’tiādi. Atirekanti sugatacīvarato atirekaṃ. Ūnakanti muṭṭhipañcakādito ūnakaṃ. Tena ca tesu ticīvarādhiṭṭhānaṃ na ruhatīti dasseti.

In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 469), it is stated: “After that, the rainy-season robe should only be dispensed, not determined. For cloth that has been completed, I allow one to determine it within four months, starting from the day of the rains-retreat, up to ten days. Beyond four months, if one wishes to keep it as one’s own possession, I allow one to dispense it—this is the meaning.” Here, the latter view appears more commendable. Why? Because it is easily understood, whereas the earlier teachers’ intentions are harder to grasp due to the variety of opinions expressed. The ‘fist-five’ means a group of five characterized by a fist; the meaning is that after measuring four cubits, the fifth should be measured by making a fist. Some, however, say: “The ‘fist-five’ is a pentad of fists; all five cubits should be measured by making fists.” The ‘fist-three’ follows the same principle here also. He states that it is possible to cover the three circles with an undergarment of two cubits, saying, ‘even with a covering,’ and so on. ‘Excess’ means more than the Sugata’s robe. ‘Deficient’ means less than the fist-five, etc. And by that, it shows that the determination of the three robes does not apply to these.

Imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmīti imaṃ saṅghāṭiadhiṭṭhānaṃ ukkhipāmi, pariccajāmīti attho. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) pana ‘‘paccuddharāmīti ṭhapemi, pariccajāmīti vā attho’’icceva vuttaṃ. Kāyavikāraṃ karontenāti hatthena cīvaraṃ parāmasantena, cālentena vā. Vācāya adhiṭṭhātabbāti ettha kāyenapi cāletvā [Pg.91] vācampi bhinditvā kāyavācāhi adhiṭṭhānampi saṅgahitanti veditabbaṃ, ‘‘kāyena aphusitvā’’ti vattabbattā ahatthapāsahatthapāsavasena duvidhaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ. Tattha ‘‘hatthapāso nāma aḍḍhateyyahattho vuccati. ‘Dvādasahattha’nti keci vadanti, taṃ idha na sametī’’ti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) vuttaṃ. ‘‘Idāni sammukhāparammukhābhedena duvidhaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘sace hatthapāsetiādi vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) pana ‘‘hatthapāseti ca idaṃ dvādasahatthaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tasmā dvādasahatthabbhantare ṭhitaṃ ‘ima’nti vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, tato paraṃ ‘eta’nti vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbanti keci vadanti, gaṇṭhipadesu panettha na kiñci vuttaṃ, pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāyañca sabbattha ‘hatthapāso’ti aḍḍhateyyahattho vuccati, tasmā idha visesavikappanāya kāraṇaṃ gavesitabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ pāḷiyaṭṭhakathāsupi aḍḍhateyyahatthameva hatthapāso vutto, ṭīkācariyehi ca tadeva sampaṭicchito, tasmā aḍḍhateyyahatthabbhantare ṭhitaṃ cīvaraṃ ‘‘ima’’nti, tato bahibhūtaṃ ‘‘eta’’nti vatvā adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ.

“I revoke this outer robe” means “I lift up the determination of this outer robe; I relinquish it.” However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469), it is stated: “‘I revoke’ means ‘I lay aside,’ or ‘I relinquish’—this is the meaning.” “By making a bodily gesture” means by touching the robe with the hand or moving it. “It should be determined by speech.” Here, it should be understood that by moving it with the body and uttering words, the determination is accomplished by both body and speech. Since it is to be said, “without touching with the body,” the determination is twofold: within arm’s reach and beyond arm’s reach. In this regard, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469) states: “‘Arm’s reach’ is called two and a half cubits. Some say ‘twelve cubits,’ but that does not agree here.” Now, to show the twofold determination by way of direct presence and indirect absence, it is said: “If within arm’s reach...” etc. However, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469) states: “‘Arm’s reach’ here refers to twelve cubits. Therefore, one should say ‘this’ and determine it for what is within twelve cubits; beyond that, one should say ‘that’ and determine it—so some say. But in the knot passages, nothing is said about this. In the Pāli and commentaries everywhere, ‘arm’s reach’ means two and a half cubits. Therefore, here a reason for a special distinction should be sought.” Thus, in the Pāli and commentaries, “arm’s reach” is stated as only two and a half cubits, and the subcommentary teachers also accept that. Therefore, one should say “this” and determine it for a robe within two and a half cubits, and for one beyond that, say “that” and determine it.

‘‘Sāmantavihāreti idaṃ ṭhapitaṭṭhānasallakkhaṇayogge ṭhitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tato dūre ṭhitampi ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhentena adhiṭṭhātabbameva. Tatthāpi cīvarassa ṭhapitabhāvasallakkhaṇameva pamāṇaṃ. Na hi sakkā niccassa ṭhānaṃ sallakkhetuṃ, ekasmiṃ vihāre ṭhapetvā tato aññasmiṃ ṭhapitanti adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Keci pana ‘tathāpi adhiṭṭhite na doso’ti vadanti, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sameti, vīmaṃsitabba’’nti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) vuttaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) pana ‘‘sāmantavihāro nāma yattha tadaheva gantvā nivattetuṃ sakkā. Sāmantavihāreti idaṃ desanāsīsamattaṃ, tasmā ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā dūre ṭhitampi adhiṭṭhātabbanti vadanti. Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvāti ca idaṃ ṭhapitaṭṭhānasallakkhaṇaṃ [Pg.92] anucchavikanti katvā vuttaṃ, cīvarasallakkhaṇamevettha pamāṇa’’nti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyañca (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469) ‘‘saṅghāṭi uttarāsaṅgo antaravāsakanti adhiṭṭhitānadhiṭṭhitānaṃ samānameva nāmaṃ. ‘Ayaṃ saṅghāṭī’tiādīsu anadhiṭṭhitā vuttā. ‘Ticīvarena vippavaseyyā’ti ettha adhiṭṭhitā vuttā. Sāmantavihāreti gocaragāmato vihāreti dhammasiritthero. Dūratarepi labbhatevāti ācariyā. Anugaṇṭhipadepi ‘sāmantavihāreti desanāsīsamattaṃ, tasmā ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā dūre ṭhitampi adhiṭṭhātabba’nti vuttaṃ. Sāmantavihāro nāma yattha tadaheva gantvā nivattituṃ sakkā. Rattivippavāsaṃ rakkhantena tato dūre ṭhitaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭati, evaṃ kira mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanti. Keci ‘cīvaravaṃse ṭhapitaṃ añño parivattetvā nāgadante ṭhapeti, taṃ ajānitvā adhiṭṭhahantassapi ruhati cīvarassa sallakkhitattā’ti vadantī’’ti, tasmā ācariyānaṃ matabhedaṃ saṃsanditvā gahetabbaṃ.

“The phrase ‘sāmantavihāra’ is stated with reference to something located in a place suitable for recognizing the designated spot where it is kept. Even if one is far from that place, one must still determine it by recognizing the designated spot. In this case, the key factor is simply recognizing where the robe has been placed. For it is not possible to constantly recognize the exact location, nor is it proper to determine that it has been placed in another monastery after placing it in one. Some argue that even if one determines it in this way, there is no fault, but this does not align with the commentary and should be examined.” This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469). However, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469) states: “‘Sāmantavihāra’ means a place where one can go and return on the same day. The phrase ‘sāmantavihāra’ is merely a heading for the teaching. Therefore, some say that even if one is far away, one should determine the robe after recognizing the designated place. The statement ‘by recognizing the designated place’ is made considering that recognizing the designated place is unsuitable; the recognition of the robe itself is the measure here.” The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 469) further explains: “The terms ‘outer robe,’ ‘upper robe,’ and ‘inner robe’ are common names and apply equally to robes whether determined or undetermined. In phrases like ‘this is an outer robe,’ undetermined robes are referred to, whereas in ‘one should dwell apart from the three robes,’ determined robes are meant. ‘Sāmantavihāra’ refers to the monastery from the alms-round village, says Elder Dhammasiri. Teachers say it is permissible even if farther away. The Anugaṇṭhipada also states, ‘sāmantavihāra refers to a mere illustrative point in the teaching; therefore, even if far away, one should determine the robe after recognizing the designated place.’ ‘Sāmantavihāra’ means a place where one can go and return on the same day. One who guards against spending the night apart should not determine a robe that is far away—this, it is said, is stated in the great commentary. Some argue that even if one unknowingly determines a robe after someone else has moved it from, say, a robe-stand to an elephant tusk, it is still valid because the robe was recognized.” Therefore, one should reconcile the differing opinions of the teachers and adopt accordingly.

Adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitavatthehīti parikkhāracoḷanāmena adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitavatthehi. Teneva ‘‘imaṃ paccuddharāmī’’ti parikkhāracoḷassa paccuddhāraṃ dasseti, etena ca tecīvarikadhutaṅgaṃ pariharantena paṃsukūlādivasena laddhaṃ vatthaṃ dasāhabbhantare katvā rajitvā pārupitumasakkontena parikkhāracoḷavasena adhiṭṭhahitvāva dasāhamatikkamāpetabbaṃ, itarathā nissaggiyaṃ hotīti dasseti, teneva ‘‘rajitakālato pana paṭṭhāya nikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati, dhutaṅgacoro nāma hotī’’ti visuddhimagge (visuddhi. 1.25) vuttaṃ. Puna adhiṭṭhātabbānīti idañca saṅghāṭiāditicīvaranāmena adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitukāmassa vasena vuttaṃ, itarassa pana purimādhiṭṭhānameva alanti veditabbaṃ. Puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti iminā kappabindupi dātabbanti dasseti. Adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ [Pg.93] natthīti iminā kappabindudānakiccampi natthīti dasseti, mahantataramevātiādi sabbādhiṭṭhānasādhāraṇalakkhaṇaṃ. Tattha puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti anadhiṭṭhitacīvarassa ekadesabhūtattā anadhiṭṭhitañce, adhiṭṭhitassa appabhāvena ekadesabhūtaṃ adhiṭṭhitasaṅkhameva gacchati, tathā adhiṭṭhitañce, anadhiṭṭhitassa ekadesabhūtaṃ anadhiṭṭhitasaṅkhaṃ gacchatīti lakkhaṇaṃ. Na kevalañcettha dutiyapaṭṭameva, atha kho tatiyapaṭṭādikampi. Yathāha ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave…pe… utuddhaṭānaṃ dussānaṃ catugguṇaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ…pe… paṃsukūle yāvadattha’’nti (mahāva. 348).

‘By robes determined and set aside’ means by robes that have been determined and set aside under the name of ‘requisite cloth.’ By this, he shows the revocation of the requisite cloth, saying, “I revoke this.” And by this it is shown that for one who maintains the ascetic practice of the three robes, if a cloth obtained by way of refuse-rags or other means cannot be made, dyed, and worn within ten days, it must be determined as a requisite cloth, and thus the ten-day limit may be exceeded; otherwise, it becomes an item to be forfeited. For that very reason, it is stated in the Visuddhimagga: “From the time of dyeing, it is not permissible to put it away; one becomes what is called a thief of the ascetic practice.” The phrase “should be determined again” is stated with reference to one who wishes to use it after determining it by the name of the three robes, such as the outer robe; for the other case, it should be understood that the initial determination alone is sufficient. By “should be determined again,” it is shown that a marking dot should also be applied. By “There is no need for determination,” it is shown that there is no need even for applying a marking dot. “The greater and so on” is a general characteristic common to all determinations. In this regard, “should be determined again”: if a piece is undetermined but is a small part of a determined robe, it is counted as determined; similarly, if a piece is determined but is part of an undetermined robe, it is counted as undetermined—this is the characteristic. And this is not only the case for the second fold, but also for the third fold and so on. As it is said: “I allow, bhikkhus… a fourfold outer robe made from cloths that have been removed from the season… as much as is needed from refuse-rags” (Mahāva. 348).

Muṭṭhipañcakāditicīvarappamāṇayuttaṃ sandhāya ‘‘ticīvaraṃ panā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātunti parikkhāracoḷaṃ katvā adhiṭṭhātuṃ. Avasesā bhikkhūti vakkhamānakāle nisinnā bhikkhū. Tasmā vaṭṭatīti yathā ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ, na vikappetu’’nti (mahāva. 358) vuttaṃ, evaṃ parikkhāracoḷampi vuttaṃ, na cassa ukkaṭṭhaparicchedo vutto, na ca saṅkhāparicchedo, tasmā tīṇipi cīvarāni paccuddharitvā imāni cīvarāni parikkhāracoḷāni adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. Nidhānamukhametanti etaṃ parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhānaṃ nidhānamukhaṃ ṭhapanamukhaṃ, atirekacīvaraṭṭhapanakāraṇanti attho. Kathaṃ ñāyatīti ce, tena kho pana samayena bhikkhūnaṃ paripuṇṇaṃ hoti ticīvaraṃ, attho ca hoti parissāvanehipi thavikāhipi. Etasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, parikkhāracoḷaka’’nti anuññātattā bhikkhūnañca ekameva parissāvanaṃ, thavikā vā vaṭṭati, na dve vā tīṇi vāti paṭikkhepābhāvato vikappanūpagapacchimappamāṇāni, atirekappamāṇāni vā parissāvanādīni parikkhārāni kappantīti siddhaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ, puna pariharituṃ asakkontena paccuddharitvā parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ[Pg.94], na tveva āditova idaṃ vuttaṃ. Baddhasīmāya avippavāsasīmāsammutisambhavato cīvaravippavāse nevatthi dosoti na tattha dupparihāroti āha ‘‘abaddhasīmāya dupparihāra’’nti.

Regarding the measure of the three robes starting with the five fistfuls, it is said, “Now, the three robes...” ‘To determine a requisite cloth’ means to make it a requisite cloth and determine it. ‘The remaining bhikkhus’ means the bhikkhus seated at the time of the statement to be made. Therefore, it is valid—just as it is said, “I allow, bhikkhus, the determination of the three robes, not to be made subject to joint ownership (`vikappana`)” (Mahāvagga 358), so too is the requisite cloth mentioned. No higher limit or numerical limit is stated for it. Hence, it is permissible to revoke all three robes, determine these robes as requisite cloths, and then use them; this is the meaning. ‘This is an opening for storage’ means that this determination of the requisite cloth is an opening for storage, a means for storing excess robes; this is the meaning. How is it known? At that time, the bhikkhus had a complete set of three robes, and there was also a need for straining cloths and bags. In this context, because it was said, “I allow, bhikkhus, the requisite cloth,” and because there is no prohibition stating, 'Only one straining cloth or bag is permissible for bhikkhus, not two or three,' it is established that requisites such as straining cloths are allowable up to the final measure that is subject to joint ownership, or in excess quantities. First, it should be determined by the determination of the three robes. Then, if one is unable to use them further, they should be revoked and determined as a requisite cloth. This was not stated from the beginning. Because in a bounded sīmā, the possibility of an agreement on a non-separation boundary means there is no fault in being separated from one's robes, there is no difficulty in maintaining them there. Hence, it is said, “In an unbounded sīmā, it is difficult to maintain.”

45. Atirittappamāṇāya chedanakaṃ pācittiyanti āha ‘‘anatirittappamāṇā’’ti. Tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbāti vassikamāsato paraṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā, iminā catunnaṃ vassikamāsānaṃ upari adhiṭṭhānaṃ tiṭṭhatīti viññāyati, asato paccuddharāyogā, yañca mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘vassikasāṭikā vassānamāsātikkamenāpi kaṇḍupaṭicchādi ābādhavūpasamenāpi adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahantī’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ natthi, parivāraṭṭhakathāyañca ‘‘atthāpatti hemante āpajjati, no gimhe’’ti ettha na taṃ vuttaṃ, kattikapuṇṇamāsiyā pacchime pāṭipadadivase vikappetvā ṭhapitaṃ vassikasāṭikaṃ nivāsento hemante āpajjati. Kurundiyaṃ pana ‘‘kattikapuṇṇamadivase apaccuddharitvā hemante āpajjatī’’ti vuttaṃ, tampi suvuttaṃ. ‘‘Cātumāsaṃ adhiṭṭhātuṃ, tato paraṃ vikappetu’’nti hi vuttaṃ. Tattha mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ nivāsanapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ, kurundaṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana apaccuddhārapaccayā, tasmā kurundiyaṃ vuttanayenapi vassikasāṭikā vassānātikkamepi adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahatīti paññāyati. Adhiṭṭhānavijahanesu ca vassānamāsaābādhānaṃ vigame vijahanaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyampi na uddhaṭaṃ, tasmā samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) āgatanayena yāva paccuddhārā adhiṭṭhānaṃ tiṭṭhatīti gahetabbaṃ.

45. Because for a robe of excessive size there is a pācittiya offense that requires cutting, he said, 'not of excessive size.' The phrase 'After that, it should be withdrawn and made subject to joint ownership' means that after the rainy season months, the determination should be withdrawn and the robe made subject to joint ownership. By this, it is understood that the determination remains valid beyond the four months of the rainy season, since withdrawal is not possible for what is non-existent. And what is stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā: 'The rainy-season robe relinquishes its determination even when the rainy-season months are exceeded, or when the illness or the need for the itch-covering cloth is alleviated,' this is not found in the Samantapāsādikā. And in the Parivāraṭṭhakathā, regarding 'An offense is incurred in winter, not in summer,' that is not stated there. One incurs an offense in winter by wearing a rainy-season robe that was made subject to joint ownership and put away on the day following the Kattika full moon. In the Kurundī, however, it is stated: 'If not withdrawn by the Kattika full moon day, an offense is incurred in winter.' This too is well said, for it is said: 'One should determine it for four months, and afterward, make it subject to joint ownership.' In this regard, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, a dukkaṭa offense is said to arise from the act of wearing it, but in the Kurundī-aṭṭhakathā, it arises from the failure to withdraw it. Therefore, according to the method stated in the Kurundī, it is understood that the rainy-season robe does not relinquish its determination even when the rainy-season months are exceeded. Moreover, among the cases of relinquishing determination, the Mātikāṭṭhakathā does not cite relinquishment due to the passing of the rainy-season months or the alleviation of illness. Thus, it should be understood according to the method presented in the Samantapāsādikā that the determination remains valid until it is withdrawn.

Nahānatthāya anuññātattā ‘‘vaṇṇabhedamattarattāpi cesā vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Dve pana na vaṭṭantīti iminā saṅghāṭiādīsupi dutiyaadhiṭṭhānaṃ na ruhati, taṃ atirekacīvaraṃ hotīti [Pg.95] dasseti. Mahāpaccariyaṃ cīvaravasena paribhogakiccassa abhāvaṃ sandhāya ‘‘anāpattī’’ti vuttā senāsanaparibhogatthāya dinnapaccattharaṇe viya. Yaṃ pana ‘‘paccattharaṇampi adhiṭṭhātabba’’nti vuttaṃ, taṃ senāsanatthāyevāti niyamitaṃ na hoti navasu cīvaresu gahitattā, tasmā attano nāmena adhiṭṭhahitvā nidahitvā parikkhāracoḷaṃ viya yathā tathā viniyujjitamevāti gahetabbaṃ, pāvārokojavoti imesampi paccattharaṇādinā lokepi voharaṇato senāsanaparikkhāratthāya dinnapaccattharaṇato visuṃ gahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Sace avasāne aparāvassikasāṭikā uppannā hoti, purimavassikasāṭikaṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetvā adhiṭṭhātabbāti vadanti.

Because it is allowed for the purpose of bathing, it is said, 'Even if it is dyed merely for the sake of a different color, it is permissible.' However, the statement that two are not permissible shows that a second determination is not valid for the outer robe (saṅghāṭi) and the like, thus indicating that it becomes an extra robe. In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said, 'There is no offense,' with reference to the absence of a function of using it as a robe, just as with a sitting cloth given for the purpose of using the lodging. However, the statement that 'a sitting cloth should also be determined' is not restricted to the sole purpose of lodging, because it is included among the nine robes. Therefore, it should be understood that after determining it in one's own name and putting it away, it can be used in any way, just like a requisite cloth. The pāvāro and the kojava—these too are distinguished from a sitting cloth given as lodging equipment, because of their common usage in the world as sitting cloths and so on. If, at the end of the period, another rainy-season robe is obtained, some say that the previous rainy-season robe should be withdrawn, made subject to joint ownership, and then determined.

Nisīdanamhi pamāṇayuttanti ‘‘dīghato sugatavidatthiyā dve vidatthiyo, vitthārato diyaḍḍhaṃ, dasā vidatthī’’tiiminā pamāṇena yuttaṃ, taṃ pana majjhimapurisahatthasaṅkhātena vaḍḍhakīhatthena dīghato tihatthaṃ hoti, vitthārato chaḷaṅgulādhikadvihatthaṃ, dasā vidatthādhikahatthaṃ, idāni manussānaṃ pakatihatthena dīghato vidatthādhikacatuhatthaṃ hoti, vitthārato navaṅgulādhikatihatthaṃ, dasā chaḷaṅgulādhikadvihatthā, tato ūnaṃ vaṭṭati, na adhikaṃ ‘‘taṃ atikkāmayato chedanakaṃ pācittiya’’nti (pāci. 533) vuttattā. Kaṇḍupaṭicchādiyā pamāṇikāti ‘‘dīghato catasso vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṃ dve vidatthiyo’’ti (pāci. 538) vuttattā evaṃ vuttappamāṇayuttā, sā pana vaḍḍhakīhatthena dīghato chahatthā hoti, vitthārato tihatthā, idāni pakatihatthena pana dīghato navahatthā hoti, tiriyato vidatthādhikacatuhatthāti veditabbā. Vikappanūpagapacchimacīvarappamāṇaṃ parikkhāracoḷanti ettha pana vikappanūpagapacchimacīvarappamāṇaṃ [Pg.96] nāma sugataṅgulena dīghato aṭṭhaṅgulaṃ hoti, tiriyato caturaṅgulaṃ, vaḍḍhakīhatthena dīghato ekahatthaṃ hoti, tiriyato vidatthippamāṇaṃ, idāni pakatihatthena pana dīghato vidatthādhikahatthaṃ hoti, tiriyato chaḷaṅgulādhikavidatthippamāṇaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘tassa pamāṇa’’ntiādi.

A sitting mat should be of the proper size: 'In length, two sugata spans; in width, one and a half spans; with a fringe of one span.' According to this measure, it is suitable. By the carpenter’s measure, which is reckoned as the hand of a middle-sized man, it is three hands in length, two hands and six fingers in width, and the fringe is a hand and a span. Nowadays, by the ordinary human measure, it is four hands and a span in length, three hands and nine fingers in width, and the fringe is two hands and six fingers. A smaller size is permissible, but not a larger one, for it is said: 'For one who exceeds it, there is a pācittiya offense requiring that it be cut down.' An itch-covering cloth should be of the proper size: 'In length, four sugata spans; in width, two spans.' According to this measure, it is suitable. By the carpenter’s measure, it is six hands in length and three hands in width. Nowadays, by the ordinary human measure, it is nine hands in length and four hands and a span in width—this should be understood. An accessory cloth is of the minimum size for a robe suitable for placing under joint ownership. Here, the minimum size for a robe suitable for placing under joint ownership is eight sugata fingers in length and four fingers in width. By the carpenter’s measure, it is one hand in length and a span in width. Nowadays, by the ordinary human measure, it is one hand and a span in length and a span and six fingers in width. Therefore, it was said, 'Its measure,' and so on.

Bhesajjatthāyātiādīsu attano santakabhāvato mocetvā ṭhapitaṃ sandhāya ‘‘anadhiṭṭhitepi natthi āpattī’’ti vuttaṃ, ‘‘idaṃ bhesajjatthāya, idaṃ mātuyā’’ti vibhajitvā sakasantakabhāvato mocetvā ṭhapentena adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthīti adhippāyo. ‘‘Iminā bhesajjaṃ cetāpessāmi, idaṃ mātuyā dassāmī’’ti ṭhapentena pana adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti vadanti. Senāsanaparikkhāratthāya dinnapaccattharaṇeti ettha anivāsetvā apārupitvā kevalaṃ mañcapīṭhesuyeva attharitvā paribhuñjiyamānaṃ paccattharaṇaṃ attano santakampi anadhiṭṭhātuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti, heṭṭhā pana paccattharaṇampi adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti avisesena vuttattā attano santakaṃ adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti amhākaṃ khanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Tante ṭhitaṃyeva adhiṭṭhātabbanti ettha pacchā vītaṭṭhānaṃ adhiṭṭhitameva hoti, puna adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthi. Sace pana paricchedaṃ dassetvā antarantarā vītaṃ hoti, puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti vadanti. Eseva nayoti vikappanūpagappamāṇamatte vīte tante ṭhitaṃyeva adhiṭṭhātabbanti attho.

Regarding such cases as 'for medicinal purposes,' it is stated, 'there is no offense even if it is not determined,' with reference to something set aside after having been released from one's own ownership. The meaning is that there is no need for the act of determination for one who, having divided it saying, 'This is for medicine, this is for my mother,' sets it aside after releasing it from his personal ownership. However, some say that for one who sets it aside thinking, 'With this I will have medicine bought, this I will give to my mother,' it must indeed be determined. Regarding 'a ground-covering given for the use of lodging furnishings,' some say that a ground-covering that is used by merely spreading it on a bed or a chair, without wearing it as a lower garment or wrapping it around oneself, may be used without determination even if it is one's own possession. However, since it is stated below without distinction that even a ground-covering must be determined, our view is that what is one's own possession must indeed be determined; this should be investigated and accepted. Regarding 'it should be determined while still on the loom,' in this case, when it is later removed from the loom, it is already determined; there is no need for a further act of determination. But if it is woven in sections, showing a division, some say it must be determined again. This is the same method: the meaning is that when a piece of the minimum size suitable for placing under joint ownership has been woven, it should be determined while still on the loom.

46. ‘‘Hīnāyāvattanenāti ‘sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya gihibhāvūpagamanenā’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ, taṃ yuttaṃ aññassa dāne viya cīvare nirālayabhāveneva pariccattattā. Keci pana ‘hīnāyāvattanenāti bhikkhuniyā gihibhāvūpagamanenevāti etamatthaṃ gahetvā bhikkhu pana vibbhamantopi yāva sikkhaṃ na paccakkhāti, tāva bhikkhuyevāti adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahatī’ti [Pg.97] vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ ‘bhikkhuniyā hīnāyāvattanenā’ti visesetvā avuttattā. Bhikkhuniyā hi gihibhāvūpagamanena adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ visuṃ vattabbaṃ natthi tassā vibbhamaneneva assamaṇībhāvato. Sikkhāpaccakkhānenāti pana idaṃ sace bhikkhuliṅge ṭhitova sikkhaṃ paccakkhāti, tassa kāyalaggampi cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahatīti dassanatthaṃ vutta’’nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) pana ‘‘hīnāyāvattanenāti idaṃ antimavatthuṃ ajjhāpajjitvā bhikkhupaṭiññāya ṭhitassa ceva titthiyapakkantassa ca bhikkhuniyā ca bhikkhunibhāve nirapekkhatāya gihiliṅgatitthiyaliṅgaggahaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya gihibhāvūpagamanaṃ sandhāya vuttanti keci vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ, tadāpi tassa upasampannattā cīvarassa ca tassa santakattā vijahanato’’ti vuttaṃ, iti imāni dve vacanāni aññamaññaviruddhāni hutvā dissanti.

46. 'By reverting to a lower state' means 'by returning to the lay life without having renounced the training'; this is stated in all three key passages. This is fitting, as the robe is relinquished simply through lack of attachment, just as when giving it to another. Some, however, taking the meaning of 'by reverting to a lower state' as 'by a bhikkhunī returning to the lay life,' say that even if a bhikkhu goes astray, as long as he does not renounce the training, he is still a bhikkhu and does not abandon his determination. This should not be accepted, as it is not stated with the specific qualification 'by a bhikkhunī's reverting to a lower state.' Indeed, for a bhikkhunī, there is no need to state separately the abandoning of determination upon her returning to the lay life, since she becomes a non-ascetic simply by going astray. 'By renouncing the training,' on the other hand, is stated to show that if one renounces the training while still in the guise of a bhikkhu, the determination over even the robe on his body is abandoned. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: 'The phrase "by reverting to a lower state" is said with reference to one who, having committed a final offense, remains with the claim of being a bhikkhu; to one who has gone over to the sectarians; and to a bhikkhunī who, being indifferent to her status as a bhikkhunī, adopts the guise of a layperson or a sectarian. Some say it is said with reference to returning to the lay life without having renounced the training, but that is not correct, for in that case, the determination would be abandoned while he is still ordained and the robe is still his.' Thus, these two statements appear to be in mutual contradiction.

Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘hīnāyāvattanena sikkhāpaccakkhānenā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) visuṃ vuttattā hīnāyāvattante sati sikkhaṃ appaccakkhantepi cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati, sikkhaṃ paccakkhante sati hīnāya anāvattantepīti adhippāyo dissati, tasmā sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya kevalaṃ gihibhāvaṃ upagacchantassa kiñcāpi bhikkhubhāvo atthi, cīvarassa ca tassa santakattā vijahanaṃ, tathāpi ‘‘hīnāyāvattanenā’’ti vuttattā gihibhāvūpagamaneneva adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ siyā yathā taṃ liṅgaparivattanena. Gihibhāvaṃ anupagantvā ca kevalaṃ sikkhāpaccakkhānaṃ karontassa kiñcāpi bhikkhuliṅgaṃ atthi, cīvarassa ca tassa santakattā vijahanaṃ, tathāpi ‘‘sikkhāpaccakkhānenā’’ti vuttattā sikkhāpaccakkhāneneva adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ siyā yathā taṃ paccuddharaṇe, tasmā bhikkhu vā hotu bhikkhunī vā, hīnāyāvattissāmīti [Pg.98] cittena gihiliṅgaggahaṇena cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati. Sikkhāpaccakkhānena pana bhikkhusseva cīvaraṃ bhikkhuniyā sikkhāpaccakkhānābhāvāti ayamamhākaṃ khanti. Antimavatthuajjhāpannakatitthiyapakkantakānaṃ pana cīvarassa adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ anāgatattā tesañca hīnāyāvattānavohārābhāvā vicāretabbaṃ.

In the commentary, however, since it is stated separately, 'by reverting to a lower state and by renouncing the training,' the intended meaning appears to be that when one reverts to a lower state, the determination over the robe is abandoned even without renouncing the training; and when one renounces the training, it is abandoned even without reverting to a lower state. Therefore, for one who merely returns to the lay state without renouncing the training, although his status as a bhikkhu remains and the robe is still his property, nevertheless, because it is said 'by reverting to a lower state,' the abandoning of the determination would occur simply by returning to the lay state, as in the case of changing one's guise. And for one who does not return to the lay state but merely renounces the training, although the guise of a bhikkhu remains and the robe is still his property, nevertheless, because it is said 'by renouncing the training,' the abandoning of the determination would occur simply by renouncing the training, as in the case of a revocation. Therefore, whether a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī, one abandons the determination over the robe by adopting the guise of a layperson with the thought, 'I will revert to a lower state.' By renouncing the training, however, it is only a bhikkhu's robe, since for a bhikkhunī there is no renouncing of the training—this is our view. As for the abandoning of determination over the robes of those who have committed a final offense and those who have gone over to the sectarians, since this has not come up in the commentary, and since for them there is no convention of 'reverting to a lower state,' this should be investigated.

Kaniṭṭhaṅgulinakhavasenāti heṭṭhimaparicchedaṃ dasseti. Orato paratoti ettha ca ‘‘orato chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ bhindati, parato na bhindatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ oraparabhāvo veditabboti? Yathā nadīparicchinne padese manussānaṃ vasanadisābhāge tīraṃ orimaṃ nāma hoti, itaradisābhāge tīraṃ pārimaṃ nāma, tathā bhikkhūnaṃ nivāsanapārupanaṭṭhānabhūtaṃ cīvarassa majjhaṭṭhānaṃ yathāvuttavidatthiādippamāṇassa padesassa oraṃ nāma, cīvarapariyantaṭṭhānaṃ paraṃ nāma, iti lokato vā yathā ca orato bhogaṃ parato antaṃ katvā cīvaraṃ ṭhapetabbanti vutte bhikkhuno abhimukhaṭṭhānaṃ oraṃ nāma, itaraṭṭhānaṃ paraṃ nāma, evaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ nivāsanapārupanaṭṭhānaṃ oraṃ nāma, itaraṃ paraṃ nāma. Evaṃ sāsanato vā oraparabhāvo veditabbo. Teneva yo pana dubbalaṭṭhāne paṭhamaṃ aggaḷaṃ datvā pacchā dubbalaṭṭhānaṃ chinditvā apaneti, adhiṭṭhānaṃ na bhijjati. Maṇḍalaparivattanepi eseva nayoti sakalasmiṃ cīvare adhiṭṭhānabhijjanābhijjanabhāvo dassito. Tena vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) ‘‘esa nayoti iminā pamāṇayuttesu yattha katthaci chidde adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahatītiādiatthaṃ saṅgaṇhātī’’ti.

By the tip of the smallest fingernail—this indicates the lower limit. Regarding “from the near side to the far side,” it is said: “On the near side, a hole breaks the determination, but on the far side, it does not.” How should the distinction between near and far be understood? Just as, in a region bounded by a river, the bank on the side where people reside is called the near bank, and the bank on the opposite side is called the far bank, so too for bhikkhus—the middle area of the robe, which serves as the place for wearing and covering, is called the near side in relation to the specified measurements like a span, etc., while the edge of the robe is called the far side. Alternatively, in worldly terms, when it is said that a bhikkhu should place the robe with its main part on the near side and its edge on the far side, the area facing the bhikkhu is called the near side, and the other area is called the far side. Thus, for bhikkhus, the place for wearing and covering is called the near side, and the rest is called the far side. In this way, the distinction between near and far should be understood either in terms of common usage or according to the Dispensation. Therefore, if one first applies a patch to a weak spot and later cuts away the weak spot and removes it, the determination is not broken. Even when turning the robe around, the same principle applies—thus, the state of the determination being broken or not broken is shown throughout the entire robe. Hence, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469): “This is the method—by this, it encompasses the meaning that ‘wherever there is a hole in the measured parts, the determination is relinquished,’ and so on.”

Khuddakaṃ cīvaranti muṭṭhipañcakādibhedappamāṇato anūnameva khuddakacīvaraṃ. Mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ karotīti ettha tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ catūsu passesu yasmiṃ padese chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahati, tasmiṃ [Pg.99] padese samantato chinditvā khuddakaṃ karontassa adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahatīti adhippāyo. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana vuttaṃ ‘‘mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ vā karotīti ettha atimahantaṃ cīvaraṃ muṭṭhipañcakādipacchimappamāṇayuttaṃ katvā samantato chindanenapi vicchindanakāle chijjamānaṭṭhānaṃ chiddasaṅkhaṃ na gacchati, adhiṭṭhānaṃ na vijahati evāti sijjhati, ‘ghaṭetvā chindati na bhijjatī’ti vacanena ca sameti. Parikkhāracoḷaṃ pana vikappanūpagapacchimappamāṇato ūnaṃ katvā chiddaṃ adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati adhiṭṭhānassa anissayattā, tāni puna baddhāni ghaṭitāni puna adhiṭṭhātabbamevāti veditabbaṃ. Keci pana ‘vassikasāṭikacīvare dvidhā chinne yadipi ekekaṃ khaṇḍaṃ pacchimappamāṇaṃ hoti, ekasmiṃyeva khaṇḍe adhiṭṭhānaṃ tiṭṭhati, na itarasmiṃ, dve pana na vaṭṭantī’ti vuttattā nisīdanakaṇḍupaṭicchādīsupi eseva nayoti vadantī’’ti.

A small robe is indeed a small robe, not less than the measure of five fists, etc. As for making a large robe small, here, regarding the three robes, the meaning is that if, on any of the four sides, in a part where a hole does not cause the determination to be relinquished, one cuts all around in that part to make it small, the determination is not relinquished. The Vimativinodanī, however, states: “As for making a large robe small, here, even if an excessively large robe is made to fit the minimum allowable size of five fists, etc., and then cut all around, the place being cut does not count as a hole at the time of cutting, and the determination is not relinquished; thus it succeeds. This also agrees with the statement, ‘Having joined it, one cuts it; it does not break.’ However, if a supplementary cloth is made smaller than the minimum allowable size for designation, a hole causes the determination to be relinquished because the determination lacks a basis. Those pieces, when reattached or joined, must be determined anew; this should be understood. Some, however, say: ‘In the case of a rains-cloth, if it is split into two, even if each piece meets the minimum allowable size, the determination remains on only one piece, not the other, and two [determinations] are not permissible.’ Therefore, they argue that the same principle applies to sitting cloths and itch-covering cloths as well.”

47. Sammukhe pavattā sammukhāti paccattavacanaṃ, tañca vikappanāvisesanaṃ, tasmā ‘‘sammukhe’’ti bhummatthe nissakkavacanaṃ katvāpi atthaṃ vadanti, abhimukheti attho. Atha vā sammukhena attano vācāya eva vikappanā sammukhāvikappanā. Parammukhena vikappanā parammukhāvikappanāti karaṇatthenapi attho daṭṭhabbo. Ayameva pāḷiyā sameti. Sannihitāsannihitabhāvanti āsannadūrabhāvaṃ. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭatīti ettakeneva vikappanākiccassa niṭṭhitattā atirekacīvaraṃ na hotīti dasāhātikkame nissaggiyaṃ na janetīti adhippāyo. Paribhuñjituṃ…pe… na vaṭṭatīti sayaṃ apaccuddhāraṇaparibhuñjane pācittiyaṃ, adhiṭṭhahane paresaṃ vissajjane ca dukkaṭañca sandhāya vuttaṃ. Paribhogādayopi vaṭṭantīti paribhogavissajjanaadhiṭṭhānāni vaṭṭanti. Api-saddena nidhetumpi vaṭṭatīti attho. Etena paccuddhārepi kate cīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātukāmena [Pg.100] vikappitacīvarameva hoti, na atirekacīvaraṃ, taṃ pana ticīvarādināmena adhiṭṭhātukāmena adhiṭṭhahitabbaṃ, itarena vikappitacīvarameva katvā paribhuñjitabbanti dasseti.

47. Sammukha (face-to-face) is a personal expression that is a qualification of the designation. Therefore, even when “sammukhe” is used in the locative case, it conveys the meaning of “in front of” or “facing.” Alternatively, “sammukhāvikappanā” is a designation made by one’s own words in person, and “parammukhāvikappanā” is a designation made in absence—the instrumental sense should also be understood here. This agrees with the Pāli. “Sannihitāsannihitabhāva” (the state of being near or not near) means nearness and distance. Up to this point, it is permissible to store the robe, meaning that since the act of designation is completed within this limit, it does not become an extra robe, and thus does not give rise to a forfeiture offense if the ten-day period is exceeded—this is the intended meaning. The phrase “Paribhuñjituṃ…pe… na vaṭṭati” (it is not permissible to use, etc.) refers to the pācittiya offense incurred by using it oneself without first formally renouncing the designation, and the dukkaṭa offense incurred by determining it for oneself or giving it to others; this is the intended meaning. The phrase “Paribhogādayopi vaṭṭanti” (use, etc., are also permissible) means that using, giving away, and determining the robe are permissible. The word “api” (also) indicates that even storing it is allowed. This shows that even if a formal renunciation has been made, if one wishes to determine the robe, it is still a designated robe, not an extra robe. If one wishes to determine it under the name of the triple robe or the like, it should be determined as such. Otherwise, one should use it only after having it designated.

Keci pana ‘‘yaṃ vikappitacīvaraṃ, taṃ yāva paribhogakālā apaccuddharāpetvā nidahetabbaṃ, paribhogakāle pana sampatte paccuddharāpetvā adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Yadi hi tato pubbepi paccuddharāpeyya, paccuddhāreneva vikappanāya vigatattā atirekacīvaraṃ nāma hoti, dasāhātikkame patteva nissaggiyaṃ, tasmā yaṃ aparibhuñjitvā ṭhapetabbaṃ, tadeva vikappetabbaṃ. Paccuddhāre ca kate antodasāheyeva adhiṭṭhātabbaṃ. Yañca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) ‘tato paraṃ paribhogādi vaṭṭatī’tiādi vuttaṃ, taṃ pāḷiyā virujjhatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattameva. Pāḷiyañhi ‘‘antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti vikappetī’’ti (pārā. 469) ca ‘‘sāmaṃ cīvaraṃ vikappetvā apaccuddhāraṇaṃ paribhuñjeyya pācittiya’’nti (pāci. 373) ca ‘‘anāpatti so vā deti, tassa vā vissāsanto paribhuñjatī’’ti (pāci. 376) ca sāmaññato vuttattā, aṭṭhakathāyañca (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) ‘‘imaṃ cīvaraṃ vā vikappanaṃ vā paccuddharāmī’’tiādinā paccuddhāraṃ adassetvā ‘‘mayhaṃ santakaṃ paribhuñja vā vissajjehi vā yathāpaccayaṃ karohī’’ti evaṃ attano santakattaṃ amocetvāva paribhogādivasena paccuddhārassa vuttattā, ‘‘tato pabhuti paribhogādayopi vaṭṭantī’’ti adhiṭṭhānaṃ vināpi visuṃ paribhogassa nidhānassa ca vuttattā vikappanānantarameva paccuddharāpetvā anadhiṭṭhahitvā eva ca ticīvararahitaṃ vikappanārahaṃ cīvaraṃ paribhuñjituñca nidahituñca idaṃ pāṭekkaṃ vinayakammanti khāyati. Apica bahūnaṃ pattānaṃ vikappetuṃ paccuddharetuñca vuttattā paccuddhāre tesaṃ [Pg.101] atirekapattatā dassitāti sijjhati tesu ekasseva adhiṭṭhātabbato, tasmā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ āgatanayeneva gahetabbaṃ.

Some, however, say: “The robe that has been designated should be stored away until the time for use arrives, without having its designation formally renounced. When the time for use arrives, it should be formally renounced, determined upon, and then used. If one were to formally renounce it before that time, since the designation would be lost by that formal renunciation, it would become an extra robe, incurring a forfeiture offense if kept beyond ten days. Therefore, only what is to be set aside without being used should be designated. And when the formal renunciation is done, it should be determined upon within ten days. What is said in the commentary—‘From then on, use, etc., is allowable’—is contradicted by the Pāli.” But this is merely their opinion. For in the Pāli, it is said generally: “One determines upon and designates within ten days,” and “If one uses a robe after designating it oneself without formally renouncing it, it is an offense of expiation,” and “There is no offense if he gives it or, trusting him, uses it.” And in the commentary, without showing a formal renunciation by saying, “I formally renounce this robe or this designation,” etc., but by stating, “Use what is mine, or give it away, or do as you see fit,” thus without relinquishing ownership, the formal renunciation is mentioned in terms of use, etc. Moreover, it is said that “from then on, use, etc., are also allowable,” and that without determination, the mere act of use or storage is mentioned separately. Therefore, it appears that the individual Vinaya practice is to have the robe formally renounced immediately after designation, and then to use or store the robe suitable for designation without determining it, even if one is without the three robes. Furthermore, since it is said that many bowls may be designated and formally renounced, it follows that their status as extra bowls is shown upon formal renunciation, because only one of them should be determined upon. Therefore, the method given in the commentary should be followed.

Mittoti daḷhamitto. Sandiṭṭhoti diṭṭhamatto, na daḷhamitto. Paññattikovido na hotīti evaṃ vikappite anantarameva evaṃ paccuddharitabbanti vinayakammaṃ na jānāti. Tenāha ‘‘na jānāti paccuddharitu’’nti. Imināpi cetaṃ veditabbaṃ ‘‘vikappanāsamanantarameva paccuddhāro kātabbo’’ti. Vikappitavikappanā nāmesā vaṭṭatīti adhiṭṭhitaadhiṭṭhānaṃ viyāti adhippāyo.

A friend is a firm friend. An acquaintance is merely someone seen, not a firm friend. He is not skilled in the regulations, for he does not know the disciplinary procedure that when something has been designated in this way, it should be renounced in this way immediately. Therefore, it is said, “He does not know how to renounce it.” By this too, it should be understood: “The renunciation should be done immediately after the designation.” This, which is called designating what has been designated, is permissible; the meaning is that it is like determining what has already been determined.

48. Evaṃ cīvare adhiṭṭhānavikappanānayaṃ dassetvā idāni patte adhiṭṭhānavikappanānayaṃ dassento ‘‘patte panā’’tiādimāha. Tattha patati piṇḍapāto etthāti patto, jinasāsanabhāvo bhikkhābhājanaviseso. Vuttañhi ‘‘pattaṃ pakkhe dale patto, bhājane so gate tisū’’ti, tasmiṃ patte. Panāti pakkhantaratthe nipāto. Nayoti adhiṭṭhānavikappanānayo. Cīvare vuttaadhiṭṭhānavikappanānayato aññabhūto ayaṃ vakkhamāno patte adhiṭṭhānavikappanānayo veditabboti yojanā. Pattaṃ adhiṭṭhahantena pamāṇayuttova adhiṭṭhātabbo, na appamāṇayuttoti sambandho. Tena pamāṇato ūnādhike patte adhiṭṭhānaṃ na ruhati, tasmā tādisaṃ pattaṃ bhājanaparibhogena paribhuñjitabbanti dasseti. Vakkhati hi ‘‘ete bhājanaparibhogena paribhuñjitabbā, na adhiṭṭhānūpagā na vikappanūpagā’’ti.

48. Having thus shown the method of determination and relinquishment for a robe, now, to show the method of determination and relinquishment for a bowl, he begins with "But as for the bowl..." Herein, the bowl is called "patto" because almsfood falls (patati) into it; it is a special vessel for alms, being part of the Conqueror's dispensation. For it is said: "The word 'patta' is used in the sense of a wing or a leaf; in the sense of a vessel, it is used in three ways." Regarding that bowl, "panā" is a particle indicating a transition to another topic. "Nayo" refers to the method of determination and relinquishment. This method of determination and relinquishment for a bowl, which is about to be explained, should be understood as distinct from the method of determination and relinquishment for the robe previously described—this is the connection. When determining a bowl, one should determine one of suitable size, not one of unsuitable size—this is the connection. Therefore, a determination does not succeed for a bowl that is too small or too large in size; thus, he shows that such a bowl should be used merely as a utensil. For it will be said: "These should be used merely as utensils; they are not suitable for determination or for relinquishment."

Dve magadhanāḷiyoti ettha magadhanāḷi nāma yā māgadhikāya tulāya aḍḍhaterasapalaparimitaṃ udakaṃ gaṇhāti. Sīhaḷadīpe pakatināḷito khuddakā hoti, damiḷanāḷito pana [Pg.102] mahantā. Vuttañhetaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.602) ‘‘magadhanāḷi nāma aḍḍhaterasapalā hotīti andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Sīhaḷadīpe pakatināḷi mahantā, damiḷanāḷi khuddakā, magadhanāḷipamāṇayuttā, tāya magadhanāḷiyā diyaḍḍhanāḷi ekā sīhaḷanāḷi hotīti mahāaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutta’’nti. Atha vā magadhanāḷi nāma yā pañca kuḍuvāni ekañca muṭṭhiṃ ekāya ca muṭṭhiyā tatiyabhāgaṃ gaṇhāti. Vuttañhetaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.598-602) ‘‘magadhanāḷi nāma chapasatā nāḷīti keci. ‘Aṭṭhapasatā’ti apare. Tattha purimānaṃ matena tipasatāya nāḷiyā dve nāḷiyo ekā magadhanāḷi hoti. Pacchimānaṃ catupasatāya nāḷiyā dve nāḷiyo ekā magadhanāḷi. Ācariyadhammapālattherena pana pakatiyā catumuṭṭhikaṃ kuḍuvaṃ, catukuḍuvaṃ nāḷikaṃ, tāya nāḷiyā soḷasa nāḷiyo doṇaṃ, taṃ pana magadhanāḷiyā dvādasa nāḷiyo hontīti vuttaṃ, tasmā tena nayena magadhanāḷi nāma pañca kuḍuvāni ekañca muṭṭhiṃ ekāya muṭṭhiyā tatiyabhāgañca gaṇhātīti veditabba’’nti. Tattha kuḍuvoti pasato. Vuttañhi abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ –

"Two Magadhan measures": Here, a Magadhan measure is that which, according to the Magadhan scale, holds an amount of water equivalent to twelve and a half palas. In Sri Lanka, it is smaller than the native measure, but larger than the Tamil measure. As stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.602): "The Magadhan measure is twelve and a half palas, as stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. In Sri Lanka, the native measure is larger, the Tamil measure is smaller, and the bowl is of a size suitable for a Magadhan measure. One Sinhalese measure is one and a half of that Magadhan measure, as stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā." Alternatively, a Magadhan measure is that which holds five kuḍuvas plus one fistful and one-third of a fistful. As stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.598-602): "Some say the Magadhan measure is a nāḷi of six pasatas, while others say eight pasatas. According to the former view, two nāḷis of three pasatas make one Magadhan measure. According to the latter, two nāḷis of four pasatas make one Magadhan measure. However, the venerable Ācariya Dhammapāla stated that by convention a kuḍuva is four fistfuls, four kuḍuvas make one nāḷika, sixteen nāḷikas make one doṇa, and that doṇa is twelve nāḷis by the Magadhan nāḷi. Therefore, according to this method, the Magadhan measure should be understood as holding five kuḍuvas, one fistful, and one-third of a fistful." Here, a kuḍuva is a pasata. As stated in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:

‘‘Kuḍuvo pasato eko;

Pattho te caturo siyuṃ;

Āḷhako caturo patthā;

Doṇaṃ vā caturāḷhaka’’nti.

"A single kuḍuva is a pasata; Four of those would be a pattha; Four patthas are an āḷhaka; And a doṇa is four āḷhakas."

Atha vā magadhanāḷi nāma yā catukuḍuvāya nāḷiyā catasso nāḷiyo gaṇhāti. Vuttañhetaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602) ‘‘damiḷanāḷīti purāṇakanāḷiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Sā ca catumuṭṭhikehi kuḍuvehi aṭṭhakuḍuvā, tāya nāḷiyā dve nāḷiyo magadhanāḷi gaṇhāti, purāṇā pana sīhaḷanāḷi tisso nāḷiyo gaṇhātīti vadanti, tesaṃ matena magadhanāḷi [Pg.103] idāni vattamānāya catukuḍuvāya damiḷanāḷiyā catunāḷikā hoti, tato magadhanāḷito upaḍḍhañca purāṇadamiḷanāḷisaṅkhātaṃ patthaṃ nāma hoti, etena ca omako nāma patto patthodanaṃ gaṇhātīti pāḷivacanaṃ sameti. Lokiyehipi –

Alternatively, the Magadhan nāḷi is that which holds four nāḷis of the four-kuḍuva nāḷi. This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602): "The expression 'Damiḷa nāḷi' refers to the ancient nāḷi. That ancient nāḷi is eight kuḍuvas, with each kuḍuva being four fistfuls. The Magadhan nāḷi holds two of those nāḷis. But the ancient Sinhalese nāḷi holds three nāḷis, they say. According to their view, the Magadhan nāḷi is now equal to four nāḷis of the current Damiḷa nāḷi of four kuḍuvas. And half of that Magadhan nāḷi is called a 'pattha,' which is reckoned as the ancient Damiḷa nāḷi. And with this, the Pāḷi statement that the small bowl called 'omaka' holds a pattha of rice is consistent." Also among people in the world—

‘Lokiyaṃ magadhañceti, patthadvayamudāhaṭaṃ;

Lokiyaṃ soḷasapalaṃ, māgadhaṃ diguṇaṃ mata’nti. (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602) –

"'Worldly' and 'Magadhan,' these two measures are declared; The worldly is sixteen palas, the Magadhan is considered double.'"

Evaṃ loke nāḷiyā magadhanāḷi diguṇāti dassitā. Evañca gayhamāne omakapattassa ca yāpanamattodanagāhikā ca siddhā hoti. Na hi sakkā aṭṭhakuḍuvato ūnodanagāhinā pattena athūpīkataṃ piṇḍapātaṃ pariyesitvā yāpetuṃ. Teneva vuttaṃ verañjakaṇḍaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘pattho nāma nāḷimattaṃ hoti, ekassa purisassa alaṃ yāpanāyā’ti’’. Vuttampi hetaṃ jātakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.192) ‘‘patthodano nālamayaṃ duvinna’’nti, ‘‘ekassa dinnaṃ dvinnaṃ tiṇṇaṃ pahotī’’ti ca, tasmā idha vuttanayānusārena gahetabbanti. Ālopassa ālopassa anurūpanti odanassa catubhāgamattaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ majjhimanikāye brahmāyusuttasaṃvaṇṇanāyaṃ (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.387) ‘‘byañjanassa mattā nāma odanacatutthabhāgo’’ti. Odanagatikānīti odanassa gati gati yesaṃ tāni odanagatikāni. Gatīti ca okāso odanassa antopavisanasīlattā odanassa okāsoyeva tesaṃ okāso hoti, na aññaṃ attano okāsaṃ gavesantīti attho. Bhājanaparibhogenāti udakāharaṇādinā bhājanaparibhogena.

Thus, in the world, it is shown that a Magadhan nāḷi is double a nāḷi. And when this is understood, the capacity of the small bowl to hold rice sufficient for sustenance is also established. For it is not possible to sustain oneself by seeking alms with a bowl that holds less than eight kuḍuvas of rice, even if the alms are heaped up. Therefore, it is said in the Verañjakaṇḍa commentary: 'A pattha is the measure of a nāḷi, sufficient for the sustenance of one man.' Moreover, it is stated in the Jātaka commentary: 'A pattha of rice is not enough for two,' and 'What is given to one suffices for two or three.' Therefore, it should be understood here according to the method stated. "Suitable for each morsel" means a quarter portion of the rice. This is said in the commentary on the Brahmāyu Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya: 'The measure of the relish is a quarter portion of the rice.' 'Odanagatikāni' means those things for which rice is their resort. 'Gati' here refers to space; because they have the characteristic of entering into the rice, their space is indeed the space of the rice. They do not seek any other space for themselves—this is the meaning. 'By the use of a vessel' means by using it as a utensil for drawing water and so on.

Evaṃ pamāṇato adhiṭṭhānūpagavikappanūpagapattaṃ dassetvā idāni pākato mūlato ca taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘pamāṇayuttānampī’’tiādimāha. Tattha ayopatto pañcahi pākehi pattoti [Pg.104] kammārapakkaṃyeva anadhiṭṭhahitvā samaṇasāruppanīlavaṇṇakaraṇatthāya punappunaṃ nānāsambhārehi pacitabbo, ayopattassa atikakkhaḷattā kammārapākena saddhiṃ pañcavārapakkoyeva samaṇasāruppanīlavaṇṇo hoti. Mattikāpatto dvīhi pākehi pakkoti etthāpi eseva nayo. Tassa pana mudukattā kumbhakārakapākena saddhiṃ dvivārapakkopi samaṇasāruppanīlavaṇṇo hoti. Evaṃ katoyeva hi patto adhiṭṭhānūpago vikappanūpago ca hoti, nākato. Tena vakkhati ‘‘pāke ca mūle ca suniṭṭhiteyeva adhiṭṭhānūpago hoti. Yo adhiṭṭhānūpago, sveva vikappanūpago’’ti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 48). So hatthaṃ āgatopi anāgatopi adhiṭṭhātabbo vikappetabboti etena dūre ṭhitampi adhiṭṭhātuṃ vikappetuñca labhati, ṭhapitaṭṭhānasallakkhaṇameva pamāṇanti dasseti. Idāni tamevatthaṃ vitthāretumāha ‘‘yadi hī’’tiādi. Hi-saddo vitthārajotako. Tattha pacitvā ṭhapessāmīti kāḷavaṇṇapākaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

Having thus shown the bowl suitable for determination and relinquishment in terms of measure, now, to show it in terms of its preparation and cost, he says, "even for those of proper measure," etc. Here, an iron bowl is said to be prepared by five firings: having been fired by the blacksmith, it must be repeatedly fired with various materials, without being determined, solely for the purpose of giving it the blue color suitable for ascetics. Due to the extreme hardness of the iron bowl, it only acquires the blue color suitable for ascetics after being fired five times along with the blacksmith's firing. An earthen bowl is prepared by two firings: here too, the same principle applies. However, because of its softness, it acquires the blue color suitable for ascetics after just two firings along with the potter's firing. For only a bowl prepared in this way becomes suitable for determination and relinquishment—not one unprepared. Therefore, it will be said: "Only when fully prepared in terms of firing and cost does it become suitable for determination. What is suitable for determination is also suitable for relinquishment" (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 48). Whether it has come into one’s hands or not, it should be determined or relinquished. By this, he shows that one may determine or relinquish it even when it is at a distance, and that the criterion is merely the recognition of the place where it is kept. Now, to elaborate on this very point, he says, "For if," etc. The particle "hi" serves to introduce the detailed explanation. Here, "having fired it, I will set it aside" refers to the firing for achieving the black color.

Idāni pattādhiṭṭhānaṃ dassetumāha ‘‘tattha dve pattassa adhiṭṭhānā’’tiādi. Tattha sāmantavihāreti idaṃ upalakkhaṇavasena vuttaṃ, tato dūre ṭhitampi adhiṭṭhātabbameva. Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvāti idampi upacāramattaṃ, pattasallakkhaṇamevettha pamāṇaṃ.

Now, to explain the determination of the bowl, he says: "Here, there are two determinations of the bowl," and so on. Here, "in the neighboring monastery" is stated by way of illustration; even if the bowl is at a distance from there, it should still be determined. "Having observed the place where it is kept"—this too is merely a figure of speech; the recognition of the bowl itself is the criterion here.

Idāni adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘evaṃ appamattassa’’tyādimāha. Tattha patte vā chiddaṃ hotīti mukhavaṭṭito heṭṭhā dvaṅgulamattokāsato paṭṭhāya yattha katthaci chiddaṃ hoti.

Now, to show the abandoning of the determination, he says, “Thus, for one who is heedful,” and so on. Herein, “there is a hole in the bowl” means wherever there is a hole starting from a space of about two fingerbreadths below the rim.

Sattannaṃ [Pg.105] dhaññānanti –

Of the seven kinds of grain—

‘‘Sāli vīhi ca kudrūso;

Godhūmo varako yavo;

Kaṅgūti satta dhaññāni;

Nīvārādī tu tabbhidā’’ti. –

“Rice, paddy, and kudrūsa; wheat, varaka, and barley; kaṅgu—these are the seven grains. Nīvāra and others are varieties thereof.”

Vuttānaṃ sattavidhānaṃ dhaññānaṃ.

Of the seven kinds of grain that have been mentioned.

49. Evaṃ pattādhiṭṭhānaṃ dassetvā idāni pattavikappanaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘vikappane panā’’tiādimāha. Taṃ cīvaravikappane vuttanayeneva veditabbaṃ.

49. Having thus shown the determination of the bowl, now, to show the sharing of the bowl, he begins with “But in sharing…”. This should be understood in the same way as stated for the sharing of the robe.

50. Evaṃ vikappanānayaṃ dassetvā idāni patte bhinne kattabbavidhiṃ dassetumāha ‘‘evaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā’’iccādi. Tattha apattoti iminā adhiṭṭhānavijahanampi dasseti. Pañcabandhanepi patte aparipuṇṇapāke patte viya adhiṭṭhānaṃ na ruhati. ‘‘Tipupaṭṭena vā’’ti vuttattā tambalohādikappiyalohehi ayopattassa chiddaṃ chādetuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva ‘‘lohamaṇḍalakenā’’ti vuttaṃ. Suddhehi…pe… na vaṭṭatīti idaṃ uṇhabhojane pakkhitte vilīyamānattā vuttaṃ. Phāṇitaṃ jhāpetvā pāsāṇacuṇṇena bandhituṃ vaṭṭatīti pāsāṇacuṇṇena saddhiṃ phāṇitaṃ pacitvā tathāpakkena pāsāṇacuṇṇena bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Aparibhogenāti ayuttaparibhogena. ‘‘Anujānāmi bhikkhave ādhāraka’’nti vuttattā mañcapīṭhādīsu yattha katthaci ādhārakaṃ ṭhapetvā tattha pattaṃ ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭati ādhārakaṭṭhapanokāsassa aniyamitattāti vadanti.

50. Having thus shown the method of sharing, now, to show the procedure to be followed when a bowl is broken, he says, “Having determined thus,” and so on. Herein, by “not a bowl,” he also indicates the abandoning of the determination. In the case of a bowl with five bands, the determination does not take hold, just as with an under-fired bowl. Since it is said, “or with a sheet of tin,” it is permissible to cover a hole in an iron bowl with suitable metals such as copper or bronze. For this reason, it is stated, “with a metal disc.” With pure… it is not permissible—this is said because they dissolve when hot food is placed in it. It is permissible to bind with stone powder after heating molasses—meaning, after cooking molasses together with stone powder, it is permissible to bind with that thus-cooked stone powder. “By improper use” means by unsuitable use. Since it is said, “I allow, monks, a stand,” some say that because the place for setting up a stand is not specified, it is permissible to place a bowl on any stand placed on a bed, chair, or elsewhere.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

Named the Embellishment of the Discourse on Determination, Sharing, and Ruling,

Aṭṭhamo paricchedo.

The Eighth Chapter.

9. Cīvaravippavāsavinicchayakathā

9. The Discourse on the Ruling on Separation from a Robe

51. Evaṃ [Pg.106] adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayakathaṃ dassetvā idāni cīvarena vināvāsavinicchayakaraṇaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘cīvarenavināvāso’’tyādimāha. Tattha cīyatīti cīvaraṃ, cayaṃ sañcayaṃ karīyatīti attho, ariyaddhajo vatthaviseso. Idha pana ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhahitvā dhāritaṃ cīvarattayameva. Vināti vajjanatthe nipāto. Vasanaṃ vāso, vinā vāso vināvāso, cīvarena vināvāso cīvaravināvāso, ‘‘cīvaravippavāso’’ti vattabbe vatticchāvasena, gāthāpādapūraṇatthāya vā aluttasamāsaṃ katvā evaṃ vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tathā ca vakkhati ‘‘ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena…pe… vippavāso’’ti, ‘‘imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmi, imaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ adhiṭṭhāmi, imaṃ antaravāsakaṃ adhiṭṭhāmī’’ti evaṃ nāmena adhiṭṭhitānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ cīvarānaṃ ekekena vippavāsoti attho, ekenapi vinā vasituṃ na vaṭṭati, vasantassa bhikkhuno saha aruṇuggamanā cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, pācittiyañca āpajjatīti sambandho. Vasitabbanti ettha vasanakiriyā catuiriyāpathasādhāraṇā, tasmā kāyalaggaṃ vā hotu alaggaṃ vā, aḍḍhateyyaratanassa padesassa anto katvā tiṭṭhantopi carantopi nisinnopi nipannopi hatthapāse katvā vasanto nāma hoti.

51. Having explained the discourse on determination, sharing, and ruling, now, to show the ruling on dwelling without a robe, the passage beginning with “dwelling without a robe” is stated. Herein, “robe” (cīvara) is so called because it is accumulated (cīyati); the meaning is that accumulation and gathering are done—a special cloth, the banner of the noble ones. In this context, however, it refers specifically to the set of three robes worn after having been determined by the determination of the three robes. “Without” (vinā) is a particle in the sense of exclusion. “Dwelling” (vāso) is living; “dwelling without” (vināvāso) is living without. “Dwelling without a robe” (cīvaravināvāso) is said thus due to the speaker's intention, or for the sake of completing a verse; it should be understood that it is stated thus having formed an unelided compound, when “separation from the robe” (cīvaravippavāso) should be said. And so it will be said: “By the determination of the three robes… separation (vippavāso).” The meaning is separation from any one of the three robes that have been determined by name—“I determine this outer robe, I determine this upper robe, I determine this lower robe.” It is not permissible to dwell without even one. For a monk dwelling thus, at the rising of dawn the robe becomes subject to forfeiture and he incurs an offense of expiation; this is the connection. Herein, in “dwelling,” the act of dwelling is common to the four postures. Therefore, whether it is touching the body or not, one is considered to be dwelling when it is within arm’s reach, while standing, walking, sitting, or lying down within a space of two and a half cubits.

Evaṃ sāmaññato avippavāsalakkhaṇaṃ dassetvā idāni gāmādipannarasokāsavasena visesato dassetumāha ‘‘gāmi’’ccādi. Tattha gāmanivesanāni pākaṭāneva. Udosito nāma yānādīnaṃ bhaṇḍānaṃ sālā. Aṭṭo nāma paṭirājādipaṭibāhanatthaṃ iṭṭhakāhi kato bahalabhittiko catupañcabhūmiko patissayaviseso. Māḷo nāma ekakūṭasaṅgahito caturassapāsādo. Pāsādo nāma dīghapāsādo. Hammiyaṃ nāma muṇḍacchadanapāsādo, muṇḍacchadanapāsādoti [Pg.107] ca candikaṅgaṇayutto pāsādoti vuccati. Sattho nāma jaṅghasattho vā sakaṭasattho vā. Khettaṃ nāma pubbaṇṇāparaṇṇānaṃ viruhanaṭṭhānaṃ. Dhaññakaraṇaṃ nāma khalamaṇḍalaṃ. Ārāmo nāma pupphārāmo phalārāmo. Vihārādayo pākaṭā eva. Tattha nivesanādīni gāmato bahi sanniviṭṭhāni gahitānīti veditabbaṃ. Antogāme ṭhitānañhi gāmaggahaṇena gahitattā gāmaparihāroyevāti. Gāmaggahaṇena ca nigamanagarānipi gahitāneva honti.

Having thus shown the general characteristic of non-separation, now, to show it specifically by way of the fifteen kinds of locations beginning with “village,” he says “village,” and so on. Herein, villages and settlements are evident. An “udosita” is a hall for vehicles and goods. An “aṭṭa” is a special kind of dwelling, built with bricks and having thick walls, four or five stories high, for the purpose of repelling enemy kings and the like. A “māḷa” is a square palace with a single peak. A “pāsāda” is a long palace. A “hammiya” is a flat-roofed palace; a flat-roofed palace is also called a palace with a moon-terrace. A “sattha” is either a caravan of foot travelers or a caravan of carts. A “khetta” is a place where early and late grains grow. A “dhaññakaraṇa” is a threshing floor. An “ārāma” is a flower garden or a fruit garden. Monasteries and the like are evident. Herein, it should be understood that settlements and so on are taken as being located outside the village, for those situated inside the village are already included by the term “village” itself, being part of the village precinct. And by the term “village,” market towns and cities are also included.

Parikhāya vā parikkhittoti iminā samantā nadītaḷākādiudakena parikkhittopi parikkhittoyevāti dasseti. Taṃ pamāṇaṃ atikkamitvāti gharassa upari ākāse aḍḍhateyyaratanappamāṇaṃ atikkamitvā. Sabhāye vā vatthabbanti iminā sabhāsaddassa pariyāyo sabhāyasaddo napuṃsakaliṅgo atthīti dasseti. Sabhāsaddo hi itthiliṅgo, sabhāyasaddo napuṃsakaliṅgoti. Dvāramūle vāti nagarassa dvāramūle vā. Tesanti sabhāyanagaradvāramūlānaṃ. Tassā vīthiyā sabhāyadvārānaṃ gahaṇeneva tattha sabbānipi gehāni, sā ca antaravīthi gahitāyeva hoti. Ettha ca dvāravīthigharesu vasantena gāmappavesanasahaseyyādidosaṃ pariharitvā suppaṭicchannatādiyutteneva bhavitabbaṃ. Sabhā pana yadi sabbesaṃ vasanatthāya papāsadisā katā, antarārāme viya yathāsukhaṃ vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Atiharitvā ghare nikkhipatīti vīthiṃ muñcitvā ṭhite aññasmiṃ ghare nikkhipati. Tenāha ‘‘vīthihatthapāso na rakkhatī’’ti. Purato vā pacchato vā hatthapāseti gharassa hatthapāsaṃ sandhāya vadati.

“Enclosed by a moat or…” indicates that even if surrounded on all sides by water, such as a river or lake, it is still considered enclosed. “Exceeding that measurement” means going beyond two and a half cubits in the sky above the house. “Or in an assembly hall” explains that the word `sabhāya` is a synonym for the word `sabhā` and is neuter in gender. For the word `sabhā` is feminine, while `sabhāya` is neuter. “Or at the base of the gate” means at the base of the city gate. “Of those” refers to the assembly hall, the city, and the base of the gate. By the inclusion of the assembly halls and gates of that street, all the houses there and that inner street are also included. Herein, one living in houses on the streets near the gate must avoid faults such as entering the village or sleeping together with laypeople, and must be endowed with proper concealment and other such qualities. However, if an assembly hall is made like a pavilion for everyone to dwell in, it is to be understood that it is permissible to stay there as one pleases, like in an inner monastery garden. “Carrying it past and placing it in a house” means, having left the street, placing it in another house situated there. Hence it is said, “The arm’s reach of the street does not protect.” “Before or behind within arm’s reach” is said with reference to the arm’s reach of the house.

Evaṃ gāmavasena vippavāsāvippavāsaṃ dassetvā idāni nivesanavasena dassento ‘‘sace ekakulassa santakaṃ nivesanaṃ hotī’’tiādimāha. Tattha ovarako nāma gabbhassa [Pg.108] abbhantare añño gabbhoti vadanti, gabbhassa vā pariyāyavacanametaṃ. Idāni udositādivasena dassento ‘‘udositi’’ccādimāha. Tattha vuttanayenevāti ‘‘ekakulassa santako udosito hoti parikkhitto cā’’tiādinā nivesane vuttanayena. Eva-saddo visesanivatti attho. Tena viseso natthīti dasseti.

Having thus shown separation and non-separation by way of the village, now, showing it by way of a dwelling, he says, “If there is a dwelling belonging to a single family,” and so on. Herein, an `ovaraka` is said to be another chamber inside a main chamber, or it is a synonym for `chamber`. Now, showing it by way of an `udosita`, and so on, he says, “udosita,” and so on. Herein, `in the very same way as stated` means in the manner stated regarding a dwelling, beginning with “if an `udosita` belonging to a single family is enclosed…”. The word `eva` has the meaning of precluding a distinction. Thus, it shows that there is no difference.

Idāni yesu viseso atthi, te dassento ‘‘sace ekakulassa nāvā’’tiādimāha. Tattha pariyādiyitvāti vinivijjhitvā, ajjhottharitvā vā. Vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti ‘‘antopaviṭṭhenā’’tiādinā. Tattha antopaviṭṭhenāti gāmassa, nadiyā vā antopaviṭṭhena. ‘‘Satthenā’’ti pāṭhaseso. Nadīparihāro labbhatīti ettha ‘‘visuṃ nadīparihārassa avuttattā gāmādīhi aññattha viya cīvarahatthapāsoyeva nadīparihāro’’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Aññe pana ‘‘iminā aṭṭhakathāvacanena nadīparihāropi visuṃ siddhoti nadīhatthapāso na vijahitabbo’’ti vadanti. Yathā pana ajjhokāse sattabbhantaravasena araññaparihāro labbhati, evaṃ nadiyaṃ udakukkhepavasena nadīparihāro labbhatīti katvā aṭṭhakathāyaṃ nadīparihāro visuṃ avutto siyā sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmānaṃ araññanadīsu abaddhasīmāvasena labbhamānattā. Evañca sati samuddajātassaresupi parihāro avuttasiddho hoti nadiyā samānalakkhaṇattā, nadīhatthapāso na vijahitabboti pana atthe sati nadiyā ativitthārattā bahusādhāraṇattā ca antonadiyaṃ cīvaraṃ ṭhapetvā nadīhatthapāse ṭhitena cīvarassa pavattiṃ jānituṃ na sakkā bhaveyya. Esa nayo samuddajātassaresupi. Antoudakukkhepe vā tassa hatthapāse vā ṭhitena pana sakkāti ayaṃ amhākaṃ attanomati, vicāretvā gahetabbaṃ. Vihārasīmanti avippavāsasīmaṃ sandhāyāha. Ettha ca [Pg.109] vihārassa nānākulasantakabhāvepi avippavāsasīmāparicchedabbhantare sabbattha cīvaraavippavāsasambhavato padhānattā tattha satthaparihāro na labbhatīti ‘‘vihāraṃ gantvā vasitabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Satthasamīpeti idaṃ yathāvuttaabbhantaraparicchedavasena vuttaṃ.

Now, to show the distinctions where they exist, he says, “If a boat belongs to a single family,” and so on. Here, `pariyādiyitvā` means having penetrated or having encompassed. This very meaning is clarified by the phrase “by one who has entered within,” and so on. Here, “by one who has entered within” means having entered within the village or within the river. “With the caravan” is a textual remainder. Regarding “the river boundary is obtained”—here, because the river boundary is not separately stated, as it is elsewhere than for villages and so on, the robe's hand-reach itself is the river boundary, as is said in all three difficult passages. Others, however, say, “By this commentarial statement, the river boundary is also separately established; therefore, the river-hand-reach should not be abandoned.” Just as in the open air the wilderness boundary is obtained by way of seven `abbhantaras`, so in a river the river boundary is obtained by way of the splash of water. Thus, the river boundary might not have been separately stated in the commentary because the seven-`abbhantara` and water-splash boundaries are obtained in the wilderness and in rivers by way of an unfixed boundary. This being the case, in sea-born lakes also, the boundary is established without being stated, due to their similarity to a river. However, as to the meaning that 'the river-hand-reach should not be abandoned,' because rivers are very extensive and commonly shared, having placed the robe inside the river, it would not be possible for one standing at the river's hand-reach to know the condition of the robe. This same method applies to sea-born lakes. But for one standing within the water-splash or at its hand-reach, it is possible. This is our own opinion; it should be considered and adopted. “Monastery boundary” is said with reference to the boundary of non-separation. And here, even if the monastery belongs to various families, because non-separation from the robe is possible everywhere within the defined boundary of non-separation, and this is the primary consideration, the caravan boundary is not obtained there. Hence, it is said, “Having gone to the monastery, one should reside.” “Near the caravan” is stated in accordance with the aforementioned definition of the `abbhantara`.

Yasmā ‘‘nānākulassa parikkhitte khette cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā khettadvāramūle vā tassa hatthapāse vā vatthabba’’nti vuttaṃ, tasmā dvāramūlato aññattha khettepi vasantena cīvaraṃ nikkhipitvā hatthapāse katvāyeva vasitabbaṃ.

Since it is said, “Having placed the robe in an enclosed field belonging to various families, one should dwell either at the field's entrance or within its hand-reach,” therefore, when dwelling elsewhere in the field than at the entrance, one should dwell only after having placed the robe and keeping it within hand-reach.

Vihāro nāma saparikkhitto vā aparikkhitto vā sakalo āvāsoti vadanti. Yasmiṃ vihāreti ettha pana ekagehameva vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.491-494) pana ‘‘vihāro nāma upacārasīmā. Yasmiṃ vihāreti tassa antopariveṇādiṃ sandhāya vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Ekakulādisantakatā cettha kārāpakānaṃ vasena veditabbā.

“A monastery (vihāra),” they say, “is an entire residence, whether enclosed or unenclosed.” But here, in the phrase “in which monastery one dwells,” only a single building is meant. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: “A monastery is the precinct-boundary. The phrase ‘in which one dwells’ is stated with reference to its inner compound, etc.” Here, its belonging to a single family, etc., should be understood in accordance with the builders.

Yaṃ majjhanhike kāle samantā chāyā pharatīti yadā mahāvīthiyaṃ ujukameva gacchantaṃ sūriyamaṇḍalaṃ majjhanhikaṃ pāpuṇāti, tadā yaṃ okāsaṃ chāyā pharati, taṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana ‘‘chāyāya phuṭṭhokāsassāti ujukaṃ avikkhittaleḍḍupātabbhantaraṃ sandhāya vadatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Agamanapatheti tadaheva gantvā nivattetuṃ asakkuṇeyyake samuddamajjhe ye dīpakā, tesūti yojanā. Itarasminti puratthimadisāya cīvare.

When it is said, “at midday the shadow spreads all around”: this is said in reference to when the solar disk, moving straight along the great path, reaches its zenith, and the space over which the shadow spreads at that time. But in the Vimativinodanī, it is said: “The space touched by the shadow refers to the straight, uninterrupted space within which a thrown clod falls.” As for “on the path of no return”: the connection is to those islands in the middle of the ocean from which one cannot go and return on the very same day. In the other case, it refers to the robe in the eastern direction.

52. Nadiṃ otaratīti hatthapāsaṃ muñcitvā otarati. Nāpajjatīti paribhogapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ nāpajjati. Tenāha ‘‘so hī’’tiādi. Aparibhogārahattāti iminā nissaggiyacīvaraṃ anissajjitvā paribhuñjantassa dukkaṭaṃ acittakanti siddhaṃ. Ekaṃ [Pg.110] pārupitvā ekaṃ aṃsakūṭe ṭhapetvā gantabbanti idaṃ bahūnaṃ sañcaraṇaṭṭhāne evaṃ akatvā gamanaṃ na sāruppanti katvā vuttaṃ, na āpattiaṅgattā. Bahigāme ṭhapetvāpi apārupitabbatāya vuttaṃ ‘‘vinayakammaṃ kātabba’’nti. Atha vā vihāre sabhāgaṃ bhikkhuṃ na passati, evaṃ sati āsanasālaṃ gantvā vinayakammaṃ kātabbanti yojanā. Āsanasālaṃ gacchantena kiṃ tīhi cīvarehi gantabbanti āha ‘‘santaruttarenā’’ti naṭṭhacīvarassa santaruttarasādiyanato. Saṅghāṭi pana kiṃ kātabbāti āha ‘‘saṅghāṭiṃ bahigāme ṭhapetvā’’ti. Uttarāsaṅge ca bahigāme ṭhapitasaṅghāṭiyañca paṭhamaṃ vinayakammaṃ katvā pacchā uttarāsaṅgaṃ nivāsetvā antaravāsake kātabbaṃ. Ettha ca bahigāme ṭhapitassapi vinayakammavacanato parammukhāpi ṭhitaṃ nissajjituṃ, nissaṭṭhaṃ dātuñca vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ.

52. “He crosses the river” means he crosses after leaving the hand's-reach. “He does not fall into an offense” means he does not fall into a dukkaṭa offense on account of using it. Therefore it is said, “For he,” etc. By this phrase, “because it is unfit for use,” it is established that for one who uses a robe to be forfeited without having forfeited it, the dukkaṭa offense is unintentional. “Having worn one and placed one on the shoulder, one should go”—this is said because in a place where many people move about, it is not proper to go without doing so; it is not a factor for an offense. It is also said, “a vinaya procedure should be done,” because it should not be worn even when left outside the village. Or, if he does not see a fellow monk in the monastery, in that case the connection is that he should go to the assembly hall and perform the vinaya procedure. When going to the assembly hall, with which of the three robes should one go? He said, “With the inner and upper robes,” because one whose robe is lost may use the inner and upper robes. But what should be done with the saṅghāṭi? He said, “Having left the saṅghāṭi outside the village.” First, the vinaya procedure should be done for the upper robe and for the saṅghāṭi left outside the village; afterwards, having worn the upper robe as a lower garment, it should be done for the inner robe. And here, from the statement about the vinaya procedure for what is left outside the village, it should be understood that it is permissible to forfeit it even when it is out of sight, and to give what has been forfeited.

Daharānaṃ gamane saussāhattā ‘‘nissayo pana na paṭippassambhatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Muhuttaṃ…pe… paṭippassambhatīti saussāhatte gamanassa upacchinnattā vuttaṃ, tesaṃ pana purāruṇā uṭṭhahitvā saussāhena gacchantānaṃ aruṇe antarā uṭṭhitepi na paṭippassambhati ‘‘yāva aruṇuggamanā sayantī’’ti vuttattā. Teneva ‘‘gāmaṃ pavisitvā…pe… na paṭippassambhatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Aññamaññassa vacanaṃ aggahetvātiādimhi saussāhattā gamanakkhaṇe paṭippassaddhi na vuttā. Dhenubhayenāti taruṇavacchagāvīnaṃ ādhāvitvā siṅgena paharaṇabhayena. Nissayo ca paṭippassambhatīti ettha dhenubhayādīhi ṭhitānaṃ yāva bhayavūpasamā ṭhātabbato ‘‘antoaruṇeyeva gamissāmī’’ti niyametuṃ asakkuṇeyyattā vuttaṃ. Yattha pana evaṃ niyametuṃ sakkā, tattha antarā aruṇe uggatepi nissayo na paṭippassambhati bhesajjatthāya gāmaṃ paviṭṭhadaharānaṃ viya.

Because of the eagerness in the going of the young monks, it is said, “But the dependence does not lapse.” “For a moment... it lapses”—this is said because the eager going is interrupted. However, for those who rise before dawn and go with eagerness, even if dawn breaks along the way, the dependence does not lapse, because it is said, “they lie down until sunrise.” For that reason it is said, “Having entered the village... the dependence does not lapse.” In the passage beginning “without taking one another's word,” the lapsing is not mentioned at the moment of going because of the eagerness. “By fear of a cow” means by fear of being struck with the horns by a young cow with a calf running towards them. “And the dependence lapses”—this is said here because for those who have stopped due to fear of a cow and so on, since they have to stand until the fear subsides, it is impossible to determine, “I will go only before sunrise.” But where it is possible to determine thus, there, even if dawn breaks along the way, the dependence does not lapse, just as for the young monks who have entered the village for the sake of medicine.

Antosīmāyaṃ [Pg.111] gāmanti avippavāsasīmāsammutito pacchā patiṭṭhāpitagāmaṃ sandhāya vadati gāmañca gāmūpacārañca ṭhapetvā sammannitabbato. Paviṭṭhānanti ācariyantevāsikānaṃ visuṃ visuṃ gatānaṃ avippavāsasīmattā neva cīvarāni nissaggiyāni honti, saussāhatāya na nissayo paṭippassambhati. Antarāmaggeti dhammaṃ sutvā āgacchantānaṃ antarāmagge.

“A village within the boundary” refers to a village established after the designation of the boundary of non-separation, because the village and the village precincts must be designated by excluding them. “Of those who have entered” means that for the teacher and pupils who have gone separately, because it is the boundary of non-separation, their robes do not become subject to forfeiture, and because of their eagerness, the dependence does not lapse. “On the way” refers to being on the way for those who are returning after having heard the Dhamma.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Cīvaravippavāsavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament Called the Discussion on the Decision concerning Separation from Robes.

Navamo paricchedo.

The Ninth Chapter.

10. Bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayakathā

10. The Discussion on the Decision concerning the Care of Goods

53. Evaṃ cīvaravippavāsavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘bhaṇḍassa paṭisāmana’’ntiādimāha. Tattha bhaḍitabbaṃ bhājetabbanti bhaṇḍaṃ, bhaḍitabbaṃ icchitabbanti vā bhaṇḍaṃ, bhaṇḍanti paribhaṇḍanti sattā etenāti vā bhaṇḍaṃ, mūladhanaṃ, parikkhāro vā. Vuttañhi abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ –

53. Having thus spoken on the decision concerning separation from robes, now, in order to speak on the decision concerning the care of goods, he begins with the passage, 'the care of goods.' Therein, `bhaṇḍa` is what should be spoken of or divided; or `bhaṇḍa` is what should be spoken of or desired; or `bhaṇḍa` is that by which beings are tied up or bound; or it is capital or a requisite. For it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā:

‘‘Bhājanādiparikkhāre, bhaṇḍaṃ mūladhanepi cā’’ti.

'The word `bhaṇḍa` is used for requisites such as bowls, and also for capital.'

Tassa bhaṇḍassa, paṭisāmiyate paṭisāmanaṃ, rakkhaṇaṃ gopananti attho. Tenāha ‘‘paresaṃ bhaṇḍassa gopana’’nti. Mātu kaṇṇapiḷandhanaṃ tālapaṇṇampīti pi-saddo sambhāvanattho. Tena pageva aññātakānaṃ santakanti dasseti. Gihisantakanti iminā pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānaṃ santakaṃ paṭisāmetuṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Bhaṇḍāgārikasīsenāti etena vissāsaggāhādinā gahetvā paṭisāmentassa anāpattīti dasseti. Tena vakkhati ‘‘attano atthāya gahetvā paṭisāmetabba’’nti. Chandenapi bhayenapīti vaḍḍhakīādīsu chandena[Pg.112], rājavallabhādīsu bhayena balakkārena pātetvā gatesu ca paṭisāmetuṃ vaṭṭatīti yojetabbaṃ.

Of those goods, `paṭisāmana` is taking care of them; the meaning is protecting, guarding. Therefore he said, 'the guarding of others' goods.' 'A mother's ear-ornament, even a palm-leaf'—here the particle `pi` (even) has the sense of possibility. By this he shows that this is all the more so for the property of unknown persons. By 'property of a householder,' he indicates that it is proper to take care of the property of the five kinds of co-religionists. By 'with the disposition of a treasurer,' he shows that there is no offense for one who takes care of it after having taken it with trust and so on. Therefore he will say, 'It should be taken care of after having taken it for one's own sake.' 'By desire or by fear' should be connected thus: it is proper to take care of it in the case of carpenters and others who leave it by desire, and in the case of royal favorites and others by fear, and when they have dropped it by force and gone.

Saṅgopanatthāya attano hatthe nikkhittassa bhaṇḍassa guttaṭṭhāne paṭisāmanapayogaṃ vinā ‘‘nāhaṃ gaṇhāmī’’tiādinā aññasmiṃ payoge akate rajjasaṅkhobhādikāle ‘‘na dāni tassa dassāmi, na mayhaṃ dāni dassatī’’ti ubhohipi sakasakaṭṭhāne nisīditvā dhuranikkhepe katepi avahāro natthi. Keci panettha ‘‘pārājikameva paṭisāmanapayogassa katattā’’ti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ, na sārato paccetabbaṃ. Paṭisāmanakāle hissa theyyacittaṃ natthi, ‘‘na dāni tassa dassāmī’’ti theyyacittuppattikkhaṇe ca sāmino dhuranikkhepacittappavattiyā hetubhūto kāyavacīpayogo natthi, yena so āpattiṃ āpajjeyya. Na hi akiriyasamuṭṭhānā ayaṃ āpattīti. Dāne saussāho, rakkhati tāvāti avahāraṃ sandhāya avuttattā ‘‘nāhaṃ gaṇhāmī’’tiādinā musāvādakaraṇe pācittiyameva hoti, na dukkaṭaṃ theyyacittābhāvena sahapayogassapi abhāvatoti gahetabbaṃ.

For goods placed in one's own hand for the purpose of safekeeping, if, without the act of putting it away in a safe place, and when no other act such as saying 'I am not taking it' has been done, during a time of state turmoil and the like, even if both parties, sitting in their own places, abandon the responsibility with the thoughts, 'Now I will not give it to him,' and 'Now he will not give it to me,' there is no theft. Some here say, 'It is indeed a pārājika offense because the act of taking care of it was done,' but that is merely their opinion and should not be accepted as authoritative. For at the time of taking care of it, he has no intention to steal; and at the moment the intention to steal arises with the thought 'Now I will not give it to him,' there is no bodily or verbal action that is the cause for the owner's mind to proceed to abandon the responsibility, by which he would fall into an offense. For this offense does not arise from inaction. Since the phrase 'He is eager to give, he protects it for the time being' is not said in reference to theft, it should be understood that for telling a falsehood by saying 'I am not taking it,' etc., there is only a pācittiya offense, not a dukkaṭa, because of the absence of an intention to steal and also the absence of an action accompanying it.

Yadipi mukhena dassāmīti vadati…pe… pārājikanti ettha katarapayogena āpatti, na tāva paṭhamena bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanapayogena tadā theyyacittabhāvā, nāpi ‘‘dassāmī’’ti kathanapayogena tadā theyyacitte vijjamānepi payogassa kappiyattāti? Vuccate – sāminā ‘‘dehī’’ti bahuso yāciyamānopi adatvā yena payogena attano adātukāmataṃ sāmikassa ñāpesi, yena ca so adātukāmo ayaṃ vikkhipatīti ñatvā dhuraṃ nikkhipati, teneva payogenassa āpatti. Na hettha upanikkhittabhaṇḍe pariyāyena mutti atthi. Adātukāmatāya hi ‘‘kadā te dinnaṃ, kattha te [Pg.113] dinna’’ntiādipariyāyavacanenapi sāmikassa dhurenikkhipāpite āpattiyeva. Teneva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘kiṃ tumhe bhaṇatha…pe… ubhinnaṃ dhuranikkhepena bhikkhuno pārājika’’nti. Parasantakassa parehi gaṇhāpane eva hi pariyāyato mutti, na sabbatthāti gahetabbaṃ. Attano hatthe nikkhittattāti ettha attano hatthe sāminā dinnatāya bhaṇḍāgārikaṭṭhāne ṭhitattā ca ṭhānācāvanepi natthi avahāro, theyyacittena pana gahaṇe dukkaṭato na muccatīti veditabbaṃ. Eseva nayoti avahāro natthi, bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ pana hotīti adhippāyo.

In the passage, 'Even if he says with his mouth, "I will give it"... up to... a pārājika offense': here, by which action is there an offense? Not by the first action of taking care of the goods, because at that time there is an absence of thievish intent. Nor by the action of saying 'I will give it,' because although a thievish intent is present then, the action is allowable. It is said: Though repeatedly asked by the owner, 'Give it!,' he does not give it, and by whatever action he makes his unwillingness to give known to the owner, and by which the owner, knowing 'This person is unwilling to give, he is prevaricating,' abandons the responsibility—by that very action is his offense. Here, for deposited goods, there is no escape by indirect speech. For, out of unwillingness to give, if the owner is made to abandon the responsibility even by indirect speech such as 'When was it given to you? Where was it given to you?', there is indeed an offense. Therefore it is said in the commentary: 'What are you saying? ... by the abandonment of responsibility by both, it is a pārājika for the bhikkhu.' It should be understood that there is escape by indirect means only when another's property is caused to be taken by others, not in all cases. Here, 'because it was placed in his own hand': because it was given into his own hand by the owner and because he stands in the position of a treasurer, even in displacing it from its location there is no theft. But it should be understood that if he takes it with thievish intent, he is not freed from a dukkaṭa offense. This is the method: there is no theft, but the goods are to be given back. This is the intention.

54. Pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānanti bhikkhubhikkhunīsikkhamānasāmaṇerasāmaṇerīnaṃ. Etena na kevalaṃ gihīnaṃ eva, atha kho tāpasaparibbājakādīnampi santakaṃ paṭisāmetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Naṭṭhepi gīvā na hoti, kasmā? Asampaṭicchāpitattāti attho. Dutiye eseva nayoti gīvā na hoti, kasmā? Ajānitattā. Tatiye ca eseva nayoti gīvā na hoti, kasmā? Paṭikkhipitattā. Ettha ca kāyena vā vācāya vā cittena vā paṭikkhittopi paṭikkhittoyeva nāma hoti.

54. 'Of the five co-religionists' means of bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, female probationers, male novices, and female novices. By this he shows that it is not proper to take care of the property not only of householders, but also of others such as ascetics and wanderers. Even if it is lost, he is not liable. Why? The meaning is: because it was not accepted. In the second case, this is the method: he is not liable. Why? Because he did not know. And in the third case, this is the method: he is not liable. Why? Because he rejected it. And here, one who has rejected it by body, or by speech, or by mind is indeed called one who has rejected it.

Tasseva gīvā hoti, na sesabhikkhūnaṃ, kasmā? Tasseva bhaṇḍāgārikassa bhaṇḍāgāre issarabhāvato. Bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti alasajātikasseva pamādena haritattā. Dutiye bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti tassa anārocitattā. Naṭṭhe tassa gīvā tena ṭhapitattā. Tasseva gīvā, na aññesaṃ tena bhaṇḍāgārikena sampaṭicchitattā ṭhapitattā ca. Natthi gīvā tena paṭikkhipitattā. Naṭṭhaṃ sunaṭṭhameva bhaṇḍāgārikassa asampaṭicchāpanato. Naṭṭhe gīvā tena ṭhapitattā. Sabbaṃ tassa gīvā tassa bhaṇḍāgārikassa pamādena haraṇato. Tattheva upacāre vijjamāneti bhaṇḍāgārikassa samīpeyeva uccārapassāvaṭṭhāne vijjamāne.

The liability is his alone, not the other monks'. Why? Because that very storekeeper has authority in the storehouse. The storekeeper has no liability, as it was taken due to the negligence of the one who is of a lazy nature. In the second case, the storekeeper has no liability because it was not reported to him. When it is lost, the liability is his because it was placed there by him. The liability is his alone, not others', because it was accepted and placed there by that storekeeper. There is no liability because it was refused by him. What is lost is well and truly lost because the storekeeper did not accept it. When it is lost, the liability is his because it was placed there by him. The entire liability is his because it was taken due to that storekeeper's negligence. ‘Being present right there in the vicinity’ means being present in the place for urination and defecation near the storekeeper.

55. Mayi [Pg.114] ca mate saṅghassa ca senāsane vinaṭṭheti ettha kevalaṃ saṅghassa senāsanaṃ mā vinassīti iminā adhippāyena vivaritumpi vaṭṭatiyevāti vadanti. ‘‘Taṃ māressāmī’’ti ettake vuttepi vivarituṃ vaṭṭati ‘‘gilānapakkhe ṭhitattā avisayo’’ti vuttattā. Maraṇato hi paraṃ gelaññaṃ avisayattañca natthi. ‘‘Dvāraṃ chinditvā harissāmā’’ti ettake vuttepi vivarituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Sahāyehi bhavitabbanti tehipi bhikkhācārādīhi pariyesitvā attano santakampi kiñci kiñci dātabbanti vuttaṃ hoti. Ayañhi sāmīcīti bhaṇḍāgāre vasantānaṃ idaṃ vattaṃ. Lolamahātheroti mando momūho ākiṇṇavihārī sadā kīḷāpasuto vā mahāthero.

55. Regarding the statement ‘And when I die, the Sangha’s lodging may be destroyed,’ they say that here it is indeed permissible to open up with the sole intention, ‘May the Sangha’s lodging not be destroyed.’ Even when just this much is said, ‘I will kill him,’ it is permissible to open up, because it is said, ‘Since he stands on the side of the sick, it is not a case for an offense.’ For beyond death there is neither sickness nor a state of being not a case for an offense. Even when just this much is said, ‘We will break down the door and take it,’ it is indeed permissible to open up. ‘One should have companions’: this means it is said that they too, having sought by means of the almsround and so on, should give whatever little they themselves own. This is the proper conduct; this is the duty for those dwelling in the storehouse. A ‘fickle elder’ means an elder who is slow, utterly deluded, of confused behavior, or always intent on play.

56. Itarehīti tasmiṃyeva gabbhe vasantehi bhikkhūhi. Vihārarakkhaṇavāre niyutto vihāravāriko, vuḍḍhapaṭipāṭiyā attano vāre vihārarakkhaṇako. Nivāpanti bhattavetanaṃ. Corānaṃ paṭipathaṃ gatesūti corānaṃ āgamanaṃ ñatvā ‘‘paṭhamataraṃyeva gantvā saddaṃ karissāmā’’ti corānaṃ abhimukhaṃ gatesu. ‘‘Corehi haṭabhaṇḍaṃ āharissāmā’’ti tesaṃ anupathaṃ gatesupi eseva nayo. Nibaddhaṃ katvāti ‘‘asukakule yāgubhattaṃ vihāravārikānaṃyevā’’ti evaṃ niyamanaṃ katvā. Dve tisso yāgusalākā ca cattāri pañca salākabhattāni ca labhamānovāti idaṃ nidassanamattaṃ, tato ūnaṃ vā hotu adhikaṃ vā, attano ca veyyāvaccakarassa ca yāpanamattaṃ labhanameva pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ. Nissitake jaggāpentīti attano attano nissitake bhikkhācariyāya posentā nissitakehi vihāraṃ jaggāpenti. Asahāyassāti sahāyarahitassa. ‘‘Asahāyassa adutiyassā’’ti pāṭho yutto. Pacchimaṃ purimasseva vevacanaṃ. Asahāyassa vā attadutiyassa vāti [Pg.115] imasmiṃ pana pāṭhe ekena ānītaṃ dvinnaṃ nappahotīti attadutiyassapi vāro nivāritoti vadanti, taṃ ‘‘yassa sabhāgo bhikkhu bhattaṃ ānetvā dātā natthī’’ti iminā na sameti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.112) pana ‘‘attadutiyassāti appicchassa. Attāsarīrameva dutiyo, na aññoti hi attadutiyo, tadubhayassapi atthassa vibhāvanaṃ ‘yassā’tiādi. Etena sabbena ekekassa vāro na pāpetabboti dassetī’’ti vuttaṃ.

56. ‘By others’ means by the monks dwelling in that very same chamber. A `vihāravārika` is one appointed for a turn of guarding the monastery; a `vihārarakkhaṇaka` is one who guards the monastery on his own turn according to the order of seniority. ‘They provide’ means a food-wage. ‘When they have gone on the path of the thieves’ means, having learned of the thieves’ arrival and thinking, ‘We will go first and make a sound,’ they have gone to face the thieves. The same principle applies when they have gone in pursuit of them, thinking, ‘We will bring back the goods stolen by the thieves.’ ‘Having made it a fixed arrangement’ means having made a rule thus: ‘Gruel and rice from such-and-such a family are for the monastery-keepers only.’ ‘Receiving two or three ticket-portions of gruel and four or five ticket-meals’ is just an illustration; it should be understood that whether it is less or more than that, the measure is just what is sufficient to support oneself and one’s attendant. ‘They have their dependents guard’ means that, while supporting their own dependents by means of the almsround, they have the dependents guard the monastery. ‘Of one without a companion’ means of one who is without an associate. The reading ‘of one without a companion, without a second’ is correct. The latter is a synonym of the former. But in the reading ‘of one without a companion or with only oneself as a second,’ some say that since what is brought by one is not sufficient for two, the turn is denied even for one who has only himself as a second. This does not agree with the statement, ‘for whom there is no participating bhikkhu to bring and give him food,’ and should be investigated. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: ‘“With only oneself as a second” means of one with few wishes. For one’s own body is the second, not another; hence “with oneself as a second.” The clarification of the meaning of both these is the phrase beginning “for whom….” By all this it is shown that a turn should not be assigned to each one individually.’

Pākavattatthāyāti niccaṃ pacitabbayāgubhattasaṅkhātavattatthāya. Ṭhapentīti dāyakā ṭhapenti. Taṃ gahetvāti taṃ ārāmikādīhi dīyamānaṃ bhāgaṃ gahetvā. Upajīvantena ṭhātabbanti abbhokāsikarukkhamūlikenapi pākavattaṃ upanissāya jīvantena attano pattacīvararakkhaṇatthāya vihāravāre sampatte ṭhātabbaṃ. Na gāhāpetabboti ettha yassa abbhokāsikassapi attano adhikaparikkhāro ce ṭhapito atthi, cīvarādisaṅghikabhāgepi ālayo atthi, sopi gāhāpetabbo. Paripucchanti pucchitapañhavissajjanaṃ, aṭṭhakathaṃ vā. Diguṇanti aññehi labbhamānato dviguṇaṃ. Pakkhavārenāti aḍḍhamāsavārena.

‘For the sake of the cooking duty’ means for the sake of the duty designated as the constant cooking of gruel and rice. ‘They set it aside’ means the donors set it aside. ‘Having taken that’ means having taken the share given by monastery attendants and others. ‘One who lives in dependence on it should stay’: even one who dwells in the open or at the foot of a tree, who lives in dependence on the cooking duty, should stay when his turn for the monastery arrives, in order to protect his own bowl and robes. ‘He should not be made to take his turn’: here, if even an open-air dweller has his own extra requisites set aside and also has an attachment to the Sangha’s share of robes and so on, he too should be made to take his turn. ‘They ask questions’ refers to the answering of questions asked, or the commentary. ‘Double’ means twice what is received by others. ‘By a fortnightly turn’ means by a half-monthly turn.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

the Ornament of the Discourse on the Judgment concerning the Concealment of Goods,

Dasamo paricchedo.

the Tenth Chapter.

11. Kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayakathā

11. Discussion on the Judgment Concerning Engaging in Buying and Selling

57. Evaṃ bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni kayavikkayavinicchayaṃ kathento ‘‘kayavikkayasamāpattī’’tiādimāha. Tattha kayanaṃ kayo, parabhaṇḍassa gahaṇaṃ, vikkayanaṃ [Pg.116] vikkayo, sakabhaṇḍassa dānaṃ, kayo ca vikkayo ca kayavikkayaṃ. Samāpajjanaṃ samāpatti, tassa duvidhassa kiriyassa karaṇaṃ. Tassarūpaṃ dasseti ‘‘iminā’’tiādinā.

57. Having thus explained the judgment concerning the concealment of goods, now, explaining the judgment concerning buying and selling, he says what begins with 'engaging in buying and selling.' Therein, buying is the acquisition of another's goods; selling is the giving of one's own goods. Buying and selling together are 'buying-and-selling.' Undertaking is the performance of this twofold activity. He shows its nature with 'by this,' and so on.

Sesañātakesu saddhādeyyavinipātasambhavato tadabhāvaṭṭhānampi dassetuṃ ‘‘mātaraṃ vā pana pitaraṃ vā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Tena viññattisaddhādeyyavinipātanañca na hoti ‘‘iminā idaṃ dehī’’ti vadantoti dasseti, kayavikkayaṃ pana āpajjati ‘‘iminā idaṃ dehī’’ti vadantoti dasseti. Iminā ca upari aññātakantyādinā ca sesañātakaṃ ‘‘imaṃ dehī’’ti vadato viññatti na hoti, ‘‘imaṃ gaṇhāhī’’ti pana dadato saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ, ‘‘iminā imaṃ dehī’’ti kayavikkayaṃ āpajjato nissaggiyanti ayampi attho dassito hoti migapadavalañjananyāyena. Tasmāiccādikepi ‘‘mātāpitūhi saddhiṃ kayavikkayaṃ, sesañātakehi saddhiṃ dve āpattiyo, aññātakehi saddhiṃ tisso āpattiyo’’ti vattabbe teneva nyāyena ñātuṃ sakkāti katvā na vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ, aññathā abyāpitadoso siyā.

To show, in regard to other relatives, the possibility of destroying a gift of faith and also the case where this is absent, what begins with 'or to one's mother or father' is said. By this he shows that when one says, 'Give this for this,' there is no offense of requesting nor destruction of a gift of faith, but one does fall into an offense of buying and selling. And by this, and by what is said above beginning with 'an unrelated woman,' when one says to another relative, 'Give this,' there is no offense of requesting; but when one gives saying, 'Take this,' there is destruction of a gift of faith. For one who engages in buying and selling by saying, 'Give this for this,' it becomes an offense entailing forfeiture. This meaning is also shown by the analogy of tracing the deer's track. Therefore, it should be understood that although it should be stated, 'With parents, only buying and selling; with other relatives, two offenses; with unrelated persons, three offenses,' it is not stated because it can be known by that same method; otherwise, there would be the fault of non-inclusiveness.

‘‘Idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjitvā idaṃ karothā’’ti vutte pubbāparasambandhāya kiriyāya vuttattā ‘‘iminā idaṃ dehī’’ti vuttasadisaṃ hoti. Idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñja, idaṃ nāma karohī’’ti vā, ‘‘idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuttosi, idaṃ nāma karohi, idaṃ bhattaṃ bhuñjissasi, idaṃ nāma karohī’’ti pana vutte asambandhāya kiriyāya vuttattā kayavikkayo na hoti. Vighāsādānaṃ bhattadāne ca anapekkhattā saddhādeyyavinipātanaṃ na hoti, kārāpane hatthakammamattattā viññatti na hoti, tasmā vaṭṭati. ‘‘Ettha cā’’tiādinā asatipi nissaggiyavatthumhi pācittiyaṃ desetabbanti dasseti.

When it is said, 'Having eaten this food, do this,' since it is said with the actions connected before and after, it is similar to saying, 'Give this for this.' But when it is said, 'Eat this food, do such-and-such work,' or, 'You have eaten this food, do such-and-such work; you will eat this food, do such-and-such work,' since it is said with the actions unconnected, there is no buying and selling. Because the taking of leftovers and the giving of food are without mutual expectation, there is no destruction of what is given in faith. Since causing it to be done is merely a matter of manual labor, there is no offense of requesting; thus it is allowable. By 'And here…' and so on, he shows that even when there is no object entailing forfeiture, a pācittiya offense should be confessed.

Agghaṃ pucchituṃ vaṭṭati, ettāvatā kayavikkayo na hotīti attho. Gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭatīti ‘‘iminā idaṃ dehī’’ti avuttattā [Pg.117] kayavikkayo na hoti, mūlassa atthitāya viññattipi na hoti. Patto na gahetabbo parabhaṇḍassa mahagghatāya. Evaṃ sati kathaṃ kātabboti āha ‘‘mama vatthu appagghanti ācikkhitabba’’nti. Bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā kāretabbataṃ āpajjati theyyāvahārasambhavato, ūnamāsakaṃ ce agghati, dukkaṭaṃ. Māsakato paṭṭhāya yāva ūnapañcamāsakaṃ ce agghati, thullaccayaṃ. Pañcamāsakaṃ ce agghati, pārājikanti vuttaṃ hoti. Deti, vaṭṭati puññatthāya dinnattā adhikassa. Kappiyakārakassa pana…pe… vaṭṭati ubhato kappiyabhaṇḍattā. Ekato ubhato vā ce akappiyabhaṇḍaṃ hoti, na vaṭṭati. ‘‘Mā gaṇhāhī’’ti vattabbo, kasmā? Kappiyakārakassa achekattā.

It is allowable to ask the price; the meaning is that by just this much, there is no buying and selling. It is allowable to take it: because 'Give this for this' is not said, there is no buying and selling; and because there is a price, there is also no offense of requesting. A bowl should not be taken because the other person's goods are of high value. This being so, what should be done? He said: 'One should declare, "My item is of little value."' Having had the goods valued, one incurs an offense that must be dealt with because of the possibility of theft: if it is worth less than a māsaka, it is a dukkaṭa offense; if it is worth from a māsaka up to less than five māsakas, it is a thullaccaya offense; if it is worth five māsakas, it is said to be a pārājika offense. He gives it; this is allowable because it is given for the sake of merit, even if it is in excess. But for a steward… it is allowable because the goods on both sides are allowable. If the goods on one or both sides are unallowable, it is not allowable. One should say, 'Do not take it.' Why? Because the steward is unskilled.

Aññena appaṭiggahitena attho, kasmā? Sattāhakālikattā telassa. Paṭiggahitatelaṃ sattāhaparamaṃ eva ṭhapetabbaṃ, tasmā tato paraṃ ṭhapitukāmassa appaṭiggahitatelena attho hoti. Appaṭiggahitaṃ dūseyya, aniyamitakālaṃ appaṭiggahitatelaṃ nāḷiyaṃ avasiṭṭhapaṭiggahitatelaṃ attano kālaṃ vattāpeyya.

There is a need for other, unaccepted oil. Why? Because oil is a seven-day tonic. Accepted oil should be kept for a maximum of seven days; therefore, one who wishes to keep it beyond that has a need for unaccepted oil. The unaccepted oil would be corrupted, since the accepted oil remaining in the container would cause the unaccepted oil, which has no time limit, to take on its own time limit.

58. Idaṃ pattacatukkaṃ veditabbanti akappiyapattacatukkaṃ vuttaṃ, pañcamo pana kappiyo. Tena vakkhati ‘‘ayaṃ patto sabbakappiyo buddhānampi paribhogāraho’’ti. Ayaṃ patto mahāakappiyo nāma, kasmā? Rūpiyaṃ uggaṇhitvā ayabījaṃ samuṭṭhāpetvā tena lohena pattassa kāritattā, evaṃ bījato paṭṭhāya dūsitattā. Yathā ca tatiyapārājikavisaye thāvarapayogesu pāsasūlādīsu mūlato paṭṭhāya kāritesu kismiñci daṇḍamatte vā vākamatte vā avasiṭṭhe sati na muccati, sabbasmiṃ naṭṭheyeva muccati, evamidhāpi bījato [Pg.118] paṭṭhāya katattā tasmiṃ patte kismiñci patte avasiṭṭhepi kappiyo bhavituṃ na sakkā. Tathā ca vakkhati ‘‘sacepi taṃ vināsetvā thālakaṃ kāreti, tampi akappiya’’ntyādi. Evaṃ santepi dutiyapatte viya mūle ca mūlassāmikānaṃ, patte ca pattassāmikānaṃ dinne kappiyo kātuṃ sakkā bhaveyya nu khoti āsaṅkāyamāha ‘‘na sakkā kenaci upāyena kappiyo kātu’’nti. Tassattho – dutiyapattaṃ rūpiyaṃ paṭiggaṇhitvā gihīhi pariniṭṭhāpitameva kiṇāti, na bījato paṭṭhāya dūseti, tasmā dutiyapatto kappiyo kātuṃ sakkā, idha pana bījato paṭṭhāya dūsitattā tena bhikkhunā taṃ pattaṃ puna ayapāsāṇabījaṃ kātuṃ asakkuṇeyyattā, paṭiggahitarūpiyassa ca vaḷañjitattā puna sāmikānaṃ dātuṃ asakkuṇeyyattā na sakkā kenaci upāyena kappiyo kātunti.

58. This set of four bowls should be known; the set of four unallowable bowls is spoken of, but the fifth is allowable. Therefore, it will be said: 'This bowl is entirely allowable and fit for use even by the Buddhas.' This bowl is called the 'greatly unallowable' one. Why? Because, having accepted money, one has iron ore produced and has the bowl made from that metal. Thus, it is spoiled from its very origin. Just as in the case of the third pārājika offense, with regard to fixed contraptions like snare-poles or stakes made from the beginning, if even only a piece of the stick or a strip of the bark remains, one is not freed from the offense; only when the whole thing is destroyed is one freed. So too here, since it was made from its very origin, even if any part of that bowl remains, it cannot become allowable. And it will be said further: 'Even if one destroys it and has a plate made from it, that too is unallowable,' and so on. Even so, one might wonder: 'As with the second bowl, could it perhaps be made allowable if the price were given to the owners of the price and the bowl to the owners of the bowl?' Doubting this, it is said: 'It cannot be made allowable by any means.' The meaning is this: In the case of the second bowl, one buys a bowl that has already been finished by laypeople; one does not spoil it from its origin. Therefore, the second bowl can be made allowable. But here, because it is spoiled from its origin, and because the bhikkhu is unable to turn that bowl back into iron ore, and because he is unable to return the accepted money to its owners since it has been spent, it cannot be made allowable by any means.

Idāni taṃ asakkuṇeyyattaṃ aññena pakārena vitthāretuṃ ‘‘sacepī’’tiādimāha. Iminā kiñcipi ayavatthumhi avasiṭṭhe sati akappiyova hotīti dasseti. Tena vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.591) ‘‘rūpiyaṃ uggaṇhitvāti idaṃ ukkaṭṭhavasena vuttaṃ, muttādidukkaṭavatthumpi uggaṇhitvā kāritampi pañcannaṃ na vaṭṭati eva. Samuṭṭhāpetīti sayaṃ gantvā vā ‘imaṃ kahāpaṇādiṃ kammakārānaṃ datvā bījaṃ samuṭṭhāpehī’ti aññaṃ āṇāpetvā vā samuṭṭhāpeti. Mahāakappiyoti attanāva bījato paṭṭhāya dūsitattā aññassa mūlassāmikassa abhāvato vuttaṃ. So hi corehi acchinnopi puna laddho jānantassa kassacīpi na vaṭṭati. Yadi hi vaṭṭeyya, taḷākādīsu viya ‘acchinno vaṭṭatī’ti ācariyā vadeyyuṃ. Na sakkā kenaci upāyenāti saṅghassa vissajjanena corādiacchindanenapi kappiyo kātuṃ na sakkā, idañca tena rūpena [Pg.119] ṭhitaṃ tammūlakena vatthamuttādirūpena ṭhitañca sandhāya vuttaṃ. Dukkaṭavatthumpi hi tammūlakakappiyavatthu ca na sakkā kenaci tena rūpena kappiyaṃ kātuṃ. Yadi pana so bhikkhu tena kappiyavatthunā, dukkaṭavatthunā vā puna rūpiyaṃ cetāpeyya, taṃ rūpiyaṃ nissajjāpetvā aññesaṃ kappiyaṃ kātumpi sakkā bhaveyyāti daṭṭhabba’’nti. Yaṃ pana sāratthadīpaniyaṃ papañcitaṃ, yañca tameva gahetvā porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ papañcitaṃ, taṃ vitthāretvā vuccamānaṃ ativitthāritañca bhavissati, sotūnañca dubbiññeyyaṃ, tasmā ettakameva vadimha, atthikehi pana tesu tesu pakaraṇesu oloketvā gahetabbanti.

Now, to elaborate on that impossibility in another way, it is said what begins with 'Even if…' By this it is shown that if any part of the iron object remains, it is still unallowable. Therefore, it is stated in the Vimativinodanī: ''Having accepted money'—this is said as the most serious case. Even if one accepts an item entailing a dukkaṭa offense, such as a pearl, and has something made, it is not allowable for the five fellow practitioners. 'Causes to produce' means one either goes oneself or commands another, saying, 'Give these kahāpaṇas, etc., to the workers and have the raw material produced.' 'Greatly unallowable' is said because it is spoiled from the very seed by oneself, and because there is no other owner of the price. For even if it is stolen by thieves and later recovered, it is not allowable for anyone who knows its origin. If it were allowable, the teachers would say, 'If stolen, it is allowable,' as in the case of ponds, etc. 'Cannot be made allowable by any means' means it cannot be made allowable even by relinquishment to the Sangha or by being stolen by thieves, etc. And this is said with reference both to what remains in that form and to what is rooted in it remaining in the form of cloth, pearls, etc. For an item entailing a dukkaṭa offense and an allowable item rooted in it cannot be made allowable by any means while remaining in that form. However, it should be understood that if that bhikkhu should have that allowable item or that item entailing a dukkaṭa offense exchanged again for money, that money should be forfeited, and it might then be possible to make it allowable for others.' As for what is elaborated in the Sāratthadīpanī, and what is further elaborated in the ancient subcommentary by taking up that same point, to explain it by expanding on it would become excessively long and difficult for listeners to understand. Therefore, we have said only this much. Those who are interested should look into those respective treatises and grasp it from there.

Dutiyapatte pañcannampi sahadhammikānaṃ na kappatīti rūpiyassa paṭiggahitattā, kayavikkayassa ca katattā. Sakkā pana kappiyo kātunti gihīhi pariniṭṭhāpitapattasseva kiṇitattā, bījato paṭṭhāya adūsitattā, mūlamūlassāmikānañca pattapattassāmikānañca vijjamānattā. Yathā pana sakkā hoti, taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘mūle’’tiādimāha.

Regarding the second bowl, it is not allowable for any of the five fellow practitioners because money was accepted and a purchase and sale was made. However, it can be made allowable because a bowl already finished by laypeople was purchased, because it was not spoiled from its origin, and because the price, the owners of the price, the bowl, and the owners of the bowl exist. To show how it can be made allowable, it is said what begins with 'The price…,' etc.

Tatiyapatte sadisoyevāti ‘‘pañcannampi sahadhammikānaṃ na vaṭṭati, sakkā pana kappiyo kātu’’nti imaṃ nayaṃ niddisati. Nanu tatiyapatto kappiyavohārena gahito, atha kasmā akappiyoti codanaṃ sandhāyāha ‘‘kappiyavohārena gahitopi dutiyapattasadisoyeva, mūlassa sampaṭicchitattā akappiyo’’ti. Dutiyacodanaṃ pana sayameva vadati. Ettha ca ‘‘dutiyapattasadisoyevā’’ti vuttattā mūle ca mūlassāmikānaṃ, patte ca pattassāmikānaṃ dinne kappiyo hoti, kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ datvā gahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbo. Mūlassa anissaṭṭhattāti yena uggahitamūlena patto kīto, tassa mūlassa saṅghamajjhe anissaṭṭhattā. Etena rūpiyameva nissajjitabbaṃ, na tammūlakaṃ arūpiyanti [Pg.120] dasseti. Yadi hi tena sampaṭicchitamūlaṃ saṅghamajjhe nissaṭṭhaṃ siyā, tena kappiyena kammena ārāmikādīhi gahetvā dinnapatto rūpiyapaṭiggāhakaṃ ṭhapetvā sesānaṃ vaṭṭeyya.

‘Regarding the third bowl, it is just like the second.’ This indicates the principle that ‘it is not allowable for any of the five fellow practitioners, but it is possible to make it allowable.’ Now, was the third bowl not acquired through an allowable transaction? Then why is it unallowable? Addressing this objection, it is said: ‘Even though acquired through an allowable transaction, it is still just like the second bowl; because the price was accepted, it is unallowable.’ But the second objection is stated by himself. And here, because it is said, ‘it is just like the second bowl,’ it becomes allowable if the price is given to the owners of the price and the bowl is given to the owners of the bowl. It should be understood that it is permissible to use it after having given an allowable item and received it. ‘Because the price was not surrendered’ means: because that price with which the bowl was bought was not surrendered in the midst of the Sangha. This shows that only the money must be surrendered, not the non-monetary item acquired with it. For if that accepted price had been surrendered in the midst of the Sangha, the bowl, having been acquired and given by monastery attendants and others through that allowable transaction, would be allowable for the others, excluding the one who accepted the money.

Catutthapatte dubbicāritattāti ‘‘ime kahāpaṇe datvā idaṃ dehī’’ti gahitattā gihisantakānaṃ kahāpaṇānaṃ duṭṭhuvicāritattā etassa vicāraṇakassa bhikkhuno eva na vaṭṭatīti attho. Mūlassa asampaṭicchitattāti etena mūlassa gihisantakattaṃ dasseti, teneva pattassa rūpiyasaṃvohārena anuppannatañca dasseti, tena ca tassa pattassa nissajjiyābhāvaṃ, bhikkhussa ca pācittiyābhāvaṃ dīpeti, tena ca dubbicāritamattena dukkaṭamattabhāvaṃ pakāseti. Nissajjīti idañca dānavasena vuttaṃ, na vinayakammavasena. Teneva ca ‘‘sappissa pūrāpetvā’’ti vuttaṃ.

Regarding the fourth bowl, ‘because of improper conduct’ means: because it was acquired by saying, ‘Having given these kahāpaṇas, give me this,’ the laypersons’ kahāpaṇas were badly handled; therefore, it is not allowable for this bhikkhu who handled them. ‘Because the price was not accepted’: this shows that the price belonged to the laypersons. Thereby it also shows that the bowl did not arise from a transaction involving money, and by that it clarifies that the bowl is not to be forfeited and that there is no pācittiya offense for the bhikkhu. And by that it reveals that there is only a dukkaṭa offense on account of the mere improper conduct. ‘He should give it up’: this is said in the sense of giving, not in the sense of a formal Vinaya act. For that same reason it is said, ‘having had it filled with ghee.’

Pañcamapatte sabbakappiyoti attano ca pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānañca buddhapaccekabuddhānañca kappiyo. Tenāha ‘‘buddhānampi paribhogāraho’’ti.

Regarding the fifth bowl, ‘entirely allowable’ means it is allowable for oneself, for the five fellow practitioners, and for Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas. Therefore it is said: ‘It is fit for use even by Buddhas.’

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament Named the Exposition on the Determination of Cases of Purchase and Sale.

Ekādasamo paricchedo.

The Eleventh Chapter.

12. Rūpiyādipaṭiggahaṇavinicchayakathā

12. Exposition on the Determination of Accepting Silver and the Like

59. Evaṃ kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni rūpiyādipaṭiggahaṇavinicchayaṃ kathento ‘‘rūpiyādipaṭiggaho’’tiādimāha. Tattha saññāṇatthāya kataṃ rūpaṃ ettha atthīti [Pg.121] rūpiyaṃ, yaṃ kiñci vohārūpagaṃ dhanaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-584) ‘‘idha pana yaṃ kiñci vohāragamanīyaṃ kahāpaṇādi adhippeta’’nti. Paṭhamaṃ ādīyatītiādi, kiṃ taṃ? Rūpiyaṃ, rūpiyaṃ ādi yesaṃ teti rūpiyādayo, dāsidāsakhettavatthuādayo, paṭiggahaṇaṃ paṭiggaho, sampaṭicchananti attho. Rūpiyādīnaṃ paṭiggaho rūpiyādipaṭiggaho. Jātasamaye uppannaṃ rūpameva rūpaṃ assa bhavati, na vikāramāpajjatīti jātarūpaṃ, suvaṇṇaṃ. Dhavalasabhāvatāya sattehi rañjiyateti rajataṃ, sajjhu. Jātarūpena kato māsako jātarūpamāsako. Rajatena kato māsako rajatamāsakoti idaṃ catubbidhameva nissaggiyavatthu hoti, na lohamāsakādayoti āha ‘‘tambalohādīhi…pe… saṅgahito’’ti. Tambalohādīhīti ādi-saddena kaṃsalohavaṭṭalohatipusīsādīhi katopi lohamāsakoyevāti dasseti. Kiṃ idameva nissaggiyavatthu hoti, udāhu muttādayopīti āha ‘‘muttā…pe… dukkaṭavatthū’’ti. Imesaṃ dvinnaṃ vatthūnaṃ ko visesoti āha ‘‘tattha nissaggiyavatthuṃ…pe… dukkaṭamevā’’ti. Tattha nissaggiyavatthu attano atthāya nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ, sesānaṃ atthāya dukkaṭaṃ, dukkaṭavatthu sabbesaṃ atthāya dukkaṭamevāti yojanā.

59. Having thus spoken on the determination of transactions of purchase and sale, now, speaking on the determination of accepting silver and the like, he begins with ‘the acceptance of silver and the like.’ Herein, rūpiya is so called because there is in it a form (rūpa) made for the purpose of recognition; it is any wealth that has come into conventional use. Hence it is said in the Samantapāsādikā: ‘Here, however, whatever is conventionally current, such as a kahāpaṇa, is intended.’ Ādi means that which is taken first. What is that? Silver. Those things of which silver is the first (ādi) are ‘silver and the like’ (rūpiyādayo), such as male and female slaves, fields, land, and so on. ‘Acceptance’ (paṭiggahaṇa or paṭiggaho) means receiving. The acceptance of silver and the like is rūpiyādipaṭiggaho. At the moment of its arising, its form is just as it has arisen; it does not undergo alteration, hence it is jātarūpa, that is, gold. Because it delights beings on account of its brilliant nature, it is rajata, that is, silver. A māsaka made of gold is a gold māsaka. A māsaka made of silver is a silver māsaka. Only these four kinds are items entailing forfeiture, not copper māsakas and the like. Thus he says: ‘Made of copper, base metal, etc. … is included.’ ‘Made of copper, base metal, etc.’: by the word ‘etc.’ he shows that a māsaka made of bronze, iron, tin, lead, etc., is also just a base-metal māsaka. Are these alone items entailing forfeiture, or are pearls and the like also included? He says: ‘Pearls … are items entailing an offense of wrong conduct.’ What is the difference between these two kinds of items? He says: ‘Therein, an item entailing forfeiture … is only an offense of wrong conduct.’ The explanation is: Therein, an item entailing forfeiture involves a pācittiya offense with forfeiture if for one’s own sake, and an offense of wrong conduct if for the sake of others. An item entailing an offense of wrong conduct involves only an offense of wrong conduct for anyone’s sake.

Idāni tesu vatthūsu kappiyākappiyavinicchayaṃ vitthārato dassetuṃ āha ‘‘tatrāyaṃ vinicchayo’’ti. Tattha sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭati, kasmā? ‘‘Idaṃ saṅghassa dammī’’ti akappiyavohārena dinnattā. Datvā pakkamati, vaṭṭati, kasmā? Saṅghassa hatthe adatvā vaḍḍhakīādīnaṃ hatthe dinnattā. Evampi vaṭṭati gihīnaṃ hatthe ṭhapitattā. Paṭikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭati saṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ anāmasitattā. ‘‘Na vaṭṭatī’’ti paṭikkhipitabbaṃ ‘‘tumhe gahetvā [Pg.122] ṭhapethā’’ti vuttattā. Paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi āpattīti ‘‘saṅghassa dammī’’ti vuttattā paṭiggahaṇe pācittiyaṃ, paribhoge dukkaṭaṃ. Sveva sāpattikoti dukkaṭāpattiṃ sandhāya vadati. Vadati, vaṭṭati ‘‘tumhe paccaye paribhuñjathā’’ti kappiyavohārena vuttattā. Cīvaratthāya dinnaṃ cīvareyeva upanetabbaṃ, kasmā? Yathā dāyakā vadanti, tathā paṭipajjitabbattā. Senāsanapaccayassa itarapaccayattayato visesaṃ dassento ‘‘senāsanatthāyā’’tiādimāha. Iminā avissajjiyaavebhaṅgiyabhāvaṃ dasseti. Evaṃ santepi āpadāsu kattabbavidhiṃ dassento ‘‘sace panā’’tiādimāha.

Now, to show in detail the determination of what is allowable and unallowable regarding these items, he says: ‘Herein is the determination.’ In this case, it is not allowable to accept. Why? Because it was given with the unallowable expression, ‘I give this to the Sangha.’ He gives it and departs; this is allowable. Why? Because it was not given into the hands of the Sangha but into the hands of carpenters and others. It is also allowable in this way because it was placed in the hands of laypersons. It is not allowable to refuse it, since it has not been handled by the Sangha, a group, or an individual. It should be refused with the words, ‘This is not allowable,’ because of the instruction, ‘You all take it and keep it.’ There is an offense in both accepting and using it. Because it was said, ‘I give this to the Sangha,’ there is a pācittiya offense for accepting it and an offense of wrong conduct for using it. ‘He himself is with an offense’: this is said with reference to the offense of wrong conduct. He speaks, and it is allowable, because it was said with the allowable expression, ‘You may use the requisites.’ What is given for the purpose of robes should be applied only to robes. Why? Because one must act in accordance with what the donors say. To show the distinction between the requisite of lodgings and the other three requisites, he says, ‘For the purpose of lodgings,’ etc. By this, he indicates that it is not to be given away and is indivisible. Even so, to show the procedure to be followed in times of calamity, he says, ‘But if,’ etc.

60. Evaṃ nissaggiyavatthūsu kattabbavidhiṃ dassetvā idāni dukkaṭavatthūsu kattabbavidhiṃ dassento ‘‘sace koci mayha’’ntyādimāha. Ettha pana paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi āpattīti dukkaṭameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Taḷākassapi khettasaṅgahitattā tassa paṭiggahaṇepi āpatti vuttā. ‘‘Cattāro paccaye paribhuñjathāti detīti ettha ‘bhikkhusaṅghassa cattāro paccaye paribhuñjituṃ taḷākaṃ dammī’ti vā ‘catupaccayaparibhogatthaṃ taḷākaṃ dammī’ti vā vadati, vaṭṭatiyeva. ‘Ito taḷākato uppanne paccaye dammī’ti vutte pana vattabbameva natthī’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) tatheva vatvā ‘‘idañca saṅghassa dīyamānaññeva sandhāya vuttaṃ, puggalassa pana evampi dinnaṃ taḷākakhettādi na vaṭṭati. Suddhacittassa pana udakaparibhogatthaṃ kūpapokkharaṇiādayo vaṭṭanti. ‘Saṅghassa taḷākaṃ atthi, taṃ katha’nti hi ādinā sabbattha saṅghavaseneva vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Hatthe bhavissatīti vase bhavissati.

60. Having thus shown the procedure to be followed regarding items entailing forfeiture, now, showing the procedure to be followed regarding items entailing an offense of wrong conduct, he says, ‘If anyone for me,’ etc. Here, however, ‘an offense in both accepting and using’ is said with reference only to an offense of wrong conduct. Regarding a reservoir, since it is included under ‘field,’ an offense is stated even for accepting it. When one gives saying, ‘Enjoy the four requisites,’ if one says, ‘I give this reservoir to the Sangha of bhikkhus to enjoy the four requisites,’ or ‘I give this reservoir for the purpose of enjoying the four requisites,’ it is indeed allowable. But if it is said, ‘I give the requisites that arise from this reservoir,’ then there is nothing to be said. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. The Vimativinodanī, too, states the same and says: ‘This is said with reference only to what is being given to the Sangha. For an individual, however, a reservoir, field, etc., given even in this way is not allowable. However, for one with a pure mind, wells, lotus ponds, etc., for the purpose of using the water are allowable. For it is said: “The statement beginning, ‘The Sangha has a reservoir, how is that?’ refers everywhere only to what is under the Sangha’s control.”’ ‘It will be in hand’ means it will be under one’s control.

Kappiyakārakaṃ ṭhapethāti vutteti sāmīcivasena vuttaṃ, avuttepi ṭhapentassa na doso atthi. Tenāha ‘‘udakaṃ vāretuṃ [Pg.123] labbhatī’’ti. Yasmā parasantakaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ nāsetuṃ na vaṭṭati, tasmā ‘‘na sassakāle’’ti vuttaṃ. Sassakālepi tāsetvā muñcituṃ vaṭṭati, amuñcato pana bhaṇḍadeyyaṃ. Janapadassa sāmikoti imināva yo taṃ janapadaṃ vicāreti, tenapi acchinditvā dinnaṃ vaṭṭatiyevāti vadanti. Puna detīti acchinditvā puna deti, evampi vaṭṭatīti sambandho. Iminā yena kenaci issarena ‘‘pariccattamidaṃ bhikkhūhi assāmika’’nti saññāya attano gahetvā dinnaṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Udakavāhakanti udakamātikaṃ. Kappiyavohārepi vinicchayaṃ vakkhāmīti pāṭhaseso. Udakavasenāti udakaparibhogatthaṃ. Suddhacittānanti udakaparibhogatthameva. Idaṃ sahatthena ca akappiyavohārena ca karonte sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Sassasampādanattha’’nti evaṃ asuddhacittānampi pana sayaṃ akatvā kappiyavohārena āṇāpetuṃ vaṭṭati eva. Kappiyakārakaṃ ṭhapetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti idaṃ sahatthādinā katataḷākattā assāruppanti vuttaṃ. Ṭhapentassa pana taṃ paccayaṃ paribhuñjantassa vā saṅghassa āpatti na paññāyati, aṭṭhakathāpamāṇena vā ettha āpatti gahetabbā. Alajjinā kārāpite vattabbameva natthīti āha ‘‘lajjibhikkhunā’’ti, mattikuddharaṇādīsu kārāpitesūti adhippāyo.

The statement, 'One should appoint a steward,' is said by way of propriety. Even if it is not stated, there is no fault for one who appoints one. Hence it is said, 'It is allowable to dam up water.' Since it is not allowable for bhikkhus to destroy the property of others, it is therefore said, 'not during the harvest season.' Even during the harvest season, it is allowable to scare them away and release it; but for one who does not release it, it becomes an article for which compensation is to be given. 'The owner of the district'—by this it is said that it is indeed allowable for one who administers that district to give it without having confiscated it. 'He gives again' means he gives again without having confiscated it; thus it is allowable—this is the connection. By this it is shown that it is allowable for any ruler, perceiving 'This has been relinquished by the bhikkhus; it is ownerless,' to take it for himself and give it. 'A water channel' means a water course. 'In the matter of allowable transactions, I will explain the decision'—this is the rest of the text. 'For the sake of water' means for the purpose of using water. 'Of those with pure minds' means solely for the purpose of using water. This is said in reference to those who do it with their own hands and by means of an unallowable transaction. But even for those with impure minds, for the purpose of 'producing a crop,' it is indeed allowable to have it done by means of an allowable transaction without doing it oneself. 'It is not allowable to appoint a steward'—this is said because a reservoir made by one's own hand, etc., is unsuitable. However, for one who appoints, or for the Sangha that uses that requisite, no offense is apparent; or an offense should be understood here in accordance with the standard of the commentary. Regarding something had done by a shameless one, there is nothing to be said; therefore he said, 'by a scrupulous bhikkhu'—the intention is, when having things like the removal of soil done.

61. Navasasseti akatapubbe kedāre. Kahāpaṇeti iminā dhaññuṭṭhāpane tasseva akappiyanti dasseti. Aparicchinnabhāgeti ‘‘ettake bhūmibhāge ettako bhāgo dātabbo’’ti evaṃ aparicchinnabhāge. Dhaññuṭṭhāpane kasati, payogepi dukkaṭameva, na kahāpaṇuṭṭhāpane viya. ‘‘Kasatha vapathā’’ti vacanena sabbesampi akappiyaṃ siyāti āha ‘‘avatvā’’ti. Ettako nāma bhāgoti ettha ettako kahāpaṇoti idampi sandhāya vadati. Tathāvuttepi hi tadā kahāpaṇānaṃ avijjamānattā āyatiṃ uppajjamānaṃ aññesaṃ vaṭṭati [Pg.124] eva. Tenāha ‘‘tasseva taṃ akappiya’’nti. Tassa pana sabbapayogesu paribhoge ca dukkaṭaṃ. Keci pana dhaññaparibhoge eva āpatti, na pubbabhāgeti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ, yena minanarakkhaṇādinā payogena pacchā dhaññaparibhoge āpatti hoti tassa payogassa karaṇe anāpattiyā ayuttattā. Pariyāyakathāya pana sabbattha anāpatti. Teneva ‘‘ettakehi vīhīhi idañcidañca āharathā’’ti niyamavacane akappiyaṃ vuttaṃ. Kahāpaṇavicāraṇepi eseva nayo. ‘‘Vatthu ca evarūpaṃ nāma saṃvijjati, kappiyakārako natthīti vattabba’’ntiādivacanañcettha sādhakaṃ. Rajjuyā vā daṇḍena vāti ettha ‘‘pādehipi minituṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Khale vā ṭhatvā rakkhatīti ettha pana thenetvā gaṇhante disvā ‘‘mā gaṇhathā’’ti nivārento rakkhati nāma, sace pana avicāretvā kevalaṃ tuṇhībhūtova rakkhaṇatthāya olokento tiṭṭhati, vaṭṭati. ‘‘Sacepi tasmiṃ tuṇhībhūte corikāya haranti, ‘mayaṃ bhikkhusaṅghassa ārocessāmā’ti evaṃ vattumpi vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Nīharāpeti paṭisāmetīti etthāpi ‘‘sace pariyāyena vadati, vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Apubbassa anuppāditattā aññesaṃ vaṭṭatīti āha ‘‘tassevetaṃ akappiya’’nti.

61. 'With a new crop' means in a field not previously cultivated. 'With a kahāpaṇa': by this it is shown that in the production of grain, it is unallowable for him. 'In an unspecified share' means in a share that is not specified thus: 'From such a portion of land, such a share is to be given.' When one plows for the production of grain, even in the effort there is an offense of wrong-doing, unlike in the production of kahāpaṇas. Lest by the words 'Plow, sow!' it should be unallowable for everyone, he said 'without speaking.' Here, when he says 'such is the share,' he says this also in reference to 'so many kahāpaṇas.' For even when it is said thus, since kahāpaṇas are not available then, what arises in the future is indeed allowable for others. Hence he said, 'It is unallowable only for him.' But for him, there is an offense of wrong-doing in all efforts and in the use. Some, however, say that the offense is only in the use of the grain, not in the preliminary stage, but that is not correct; for since an offense occurs in the later use of the grain because of an effort such as measuring and guarding, it is illogical for there to be no offense in making that effort. But with indirect speech, there is no offense in any case. For that very reason, in the specific instruction, 'With so much paddy, bring such and such,' it is said to be unallowable. This same principle applies also to the management of kahāpaṇas. And the statement beginning, 'Such a material basis exists, but it should be said that there is no steward,' is evidence here. Here, regarding 'with a rope or a stick,' they say, 'It is not allowable to measure even with the feet.' Here, regarding 'or he stands on the threshing floor and guards': seeing those who are taking it by theft, he guards by preventing them, saying, 'Do not take.' But if, without managing it, he just stands silently looking on for the sake of guarding, it is allowable. They say: 'Even if, while he is silent, they carry it off by theft, it is allowable to say, "We will inform the Sangha of bhikkhus."' Here too, regarding 'he has it taken out, he has it stored,' they say: 'If he speaks indirectly, it is allowable.' Because what was not previously produced has not been produced by him, it is allowable for others; thus he said, 'This is unallowable only for him.'

Sabbesaṃ akappiyaṃ, kasmā? Kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattāti ettha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539) evaṃ vicāraṇā katā – nanu ca dubbicāritamattena tassevetaṃ akappiyaṃ, na sabbesaṃ rūpiyasaṃvohāre catutthapatto viya. Vuttañhi tattha (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.589) ‘‘yo pana rūpiyaṃ asampaṭicchitvā ‘therassa pattaṃ kiṇitvā dehī’ti pahitakappiyakārakena saddhiṃ kammārakulaṃ gantvā pattaṃ disvā ‘ime kahāpaṇe gahetvā imaṃ dehī’ti kahāpaṇe dāpetvā gahito, ayaṃ patto etasseva bhikkhuno na vaṭṭati [Pg.125] dubbicāritattā, aññesaṃ pana vaṭṭati mūlassa asampaṭicchitattā’’ti, tasmā yaṃ te āharanti, sabbesaṃ akappiyaṃ. Kasmā? Kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattāti idaṃ kasmā vuttanti? Ettha keci vadanti ‘‘kahāpaṇe sādiyitvā vicāritaṃ sandhāya evaṃ vutta’’nti, saṅghikattā ca nissajjituṃ na sakkā, tasmā sabbesaṃ na kappatīti tesaṃ adhippāyo. Keci pana ‘‘asādiyitvāpi kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattā rūpiyasaṃvohāro kato hoti, saṅghikattā ca nissajjituṃ na sakkā, tasmā sabbesaṃ na kappatī’’ti vadanti. Gaṇṭhipadesu pana tīsupi idaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘catutthapatto gihisantakānaṃyeva kahāpaṇānaṃ vicāritattā aññesaṃ kappati, idha pana saṅghikānaṃ vicāritattā sabbesaṃ na kappatī’’ti. Sabbesampi vādo tena tena pariyāyena yuttoyevāti.

It is unallowable for all. Why? Because the kahāpaṇas were managed. Here, in the Sāratthadīpanī, the following analysis is made: Is it not the case that it is unallowable only for him merely because of the improper management, not for all, like the fourth bowl in a transaction involving money? For it is stated there: 'But as for one who, without accepting money, goes with a steward who was sent with the instruction, "Buy a bowl for the elder and give it," to a smith's workshop, and having seen a bowl, has the kahāpaṇas given, saying, "Taking these kahāpaṇas, give this one," and it is acquired—this bowl is not allowable for this very bhikkhu because of the improper management, but it is allowable for others because the capital was not accepted.' Therefore, what they bring is unallowable for all. Why? Because the kahāpaṇas were managed. Why was this said? Here, some say, 'This was said in reference to their being managed after having consented to the kahāpaṇas,' and their intention is that because it is communal property, it cannot be forfeited; therefore it is not allowable for all. Others, however, say, 'Even without having consented, because the kahāpaṇas were managed, a transaction involving money has been made, and because it is communal property, it cannot be forfeited; therefore it is not allowable for all.' But in all three Gaṇṭhipadas this is said: 'The fourth bowl is allowable for others because the kahāpaṇas belonging to householders were managed, but here, since those belonging to the Sangha were managed, it is not allowable for all.' The arguments of all are indeed reasonable in their respective ways.

62. Catusāladvāreti bhojanasālaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

62. 'At the gate of the four-gabled hall': this is said in reference to the dining hall.

63. ‘‘Vanaṃ dammi, araññaṃ dammī’’ti vutte pana vaṭṭatīti ettha nivāsaṭṭhānattā puggalassapi suddhacittena gahetuṃ vaṭṭati. Sīmaṃ demāti vihārasīmādisādhāraṇavacanena vuttattā ‘‘vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Pariyāyena kathitattāti ‘‘gaṇhāhī’’ti avatvā ‘‘sīmā gatā’’ti pariyāyena kathitattā. Pakatibhūmikaraṇatthaṃ ‘‘heṭṭhā gahitaṃ paṃsu’’ntiādi vuttaṃ. Dāsaṃ dammīti ettha ‘‘manussaṃ dammīti vutte vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Veyyāvaccakarantiādinā vutte puggalassapi dāsaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave ārāmika’’nti visesetvā anuññātattā. Tañca kho pilindavacchena gahitaparibhuttakkamena, na gahaṭṭhānaṃ dāsaparibhogakkamena. Khettādayo pana sabbe saṅghasseva vaṭṭanti pāḷiyaṃ puggalikavasena gahetuṃ ananuññātattāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kukkuṭasūkare…pe… vaṭṭatīti ettha kukkuṭasūkaresu dīyamānesu ‘‘imehi amhākaṃ attho natthi, sukhaṃ jīvantu, araññe vissajjethā’’ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati[Pg.126]. Vihārassa demāti saṅghikavihāraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Khettavatthupaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato hotī’’tiādinā (dī. ni. 1.10, 194) suttantesu āgatapaṭikkhepo bhagavatā āpattiyāpi hetubhāvena katoti bhagavato adhippāyaṃ jānantehi saṅgītikārakamahātherehi khettapaṭiggahaṇādinissito ayaṃ sabbopi pāḷimuttavinicchayo vuttoti gahetabbo.

63. But when it is said, 'I give a forest, I give a wilderness,' it is allowable. Here, because it is a dwelling place, it is allowable for an individual to accept it with a pure mind. 'We give a boundary': it is said to be 'allowable' because it is stated with a general term such as 'monastery boundary.' Because it was stated indirectly: because it was stated indirectly as 'the boundary is gone,' without saying 'accept it.' For the purpose of making it natural ground, the passage beginning 'the soil taken from below' was stated. Regarding 'I give a slave,' here they say, 'If it is said, "I give a person," it is allowable.' When it is said in terms such as 'an attendant,' it is allowable for an individual to accept a slave because it was specifically permitted thus: 'I allow, bhikkhus, a monastery attendant.' And that, indeed, is in the manner of acceptance and use by Pilindavaccha, not in the manner of a householder's use of a slave. But fields and so on are all allowable only for the Sangha; it should be seen that in the Pāli it is not permitted to accept them on an individual basis. Regarding 'chickens, pigs... it is allowable': here, when chickens and pigs are being given, it is allowable to say, 'We have no use for these. Let them live in comfort. Release them in the wilderness.' 'We give to the monastery': this is said in reference to a monastery belonging to the Sangha. The prohibition found in the suttas, such as 'he abstains from accepting fields and land,' was laid down by the Blessed One also as a cause for an offense. This should be understood: knowing the Blessed One's intention, the great elders who were the compilers of the canon have stated this entire decision, which is external to the Pāli and is based on the acceptance of fields and so on.

64. Cīvaracetāpannanti cīvaramūlaṃ. Pahiṇeyyāti peseyya. Cetāpetvāti parivattetvā. Acchādehīti vohāravacanametaṃ, itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dehīti ayaṃ panettha attho. Ābhatanti ānītaṃ.

64. 'What is to be obtained for a robe' means the price of a robe. 'One should send' means he would send. 'Having had it acquired' means having exchanged it. 'Clothe him': this is a term of common usage; the meaning here is 'give to the bhikkhu of such a name.' 'Brought' means brought.

Imasmiṃ ṭhāne sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.528-531) evaṃ vicāraṇā katā – ettha ca yaṃ vuttaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘iminā cīvaracetāpannena cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarena acchādehīti idaṃ āgamanasuddhiṃ dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Sace hi ‘idaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dehī’ti peseyya, āgamanassa asuddhattā akappiyavatthuṃ ārabbha bhikkhunā kappiyakārakopi niddisitabbo na bhaveyyā’’ti, tattha āgamanassa suddhiyā vā asuddhiyā vā visesappayojanaṃ na dissati. Satipi hi āgamanassa asuddhabhāve dūto attano kusalatāya kappiyavohārena vadati, kappiyakārako na niddisitabboti idaṃ natthi, na ca dūtena kappiyavohāravasena vutte dāyakena ‘‘idaṃ kathaṃ pesita’’nti īdisī vicāraṇā upalabbhati, avicāretvā ca taṃ na sakkā jānituṃ. Yadi pana āgamanassa asuddhattā kappiyakārako niddisitabbo na bhaveyya, cīvarānaṃ atthāya dūtassa hatthe akappiyavatthumhi pesite sabbattha dāyakena kathaṃ pesitanti pucchitvāva kappiyakārako niddisitabbo bhaveyya, tasmā asatipi [Pg.127] āgamanasuddhiyaṃ sace so dūto attano kusalatāya kappiyavohāravasena vadati, dūtasseva vacanaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Yadi hi āgamanasuddhiyevettha pamāṇaṃ, mūlassāmikena kappiyavohāravasena pesitassa dūtassa akappiyavohāravasena vadatopi kappiyakārako niddisitabbo bhaveyya, tasmā sabbattha dūtavacanameva pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ. Iminā cīvaracetāpannenātiādinā pana imamatthaṃ dasseti ‘‘kappiyavasena ābhatampi cīvaramūlaṃ īdisena dūtavacanena akappiyaṃ hoti, tasmā taṃ paṭikkhipitabba’’nti. Tenevāha ‘‘tena bhikkhunā so dūto evamassa vacanīyotiādī’’ti.

In this context, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.528-531) provides the following analysis: Here, what is stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā)—'By means of this robe-fund, having procured a robe, clothe such-and-such a monk with the robe'—this is said to indicate the purity of the origin. For if one were to send it saying, 'Give this to such-and-such a monk,' due to the impurity of the origin, a steward should not be designated by the monk for an unallowable item. Here, no specific purpose is seen regarding the purity or impurity of the origin. For even if the origin is impure, if the messenger speaks with allowable terms out of his own skill, it is not the case that a steward should not be designated. Nor is such an inquiry found where the donor, upon the messenger speaking with allowable terms, asks, 'How was this sent?' And without inquiring, it cannot be known. But if, due to the impurity of the origin, a steward should not be designated, then when an unallowable item is sent by the hand of a messenger for the sake of robes, a steward should be designated everywhere only after asking the donor, 'How was this sent?' Therefore, even if the origin is impure, if that messenger speaks with allowable terms out of his own skill, the messenger’s words alone should be accepted. For if the purity of the origin were the sole standard here, then even when the original owner sent it using allowable terms, if the messenger speaks using unallowable terms, a steward would still have to be designated. Hence, in all cases, the messenger’s words alone should be taken as the standard. The phrase 'by means of this robe-fund,' etc., however, conveys this meaning: 'Even if the robe-fund is brought in an allowable manner, it becomes unallowable due to such words from a messenger; therefore, it should be rejected.' For this reason, it is said, 'That monk should say to the messenger thus…' and so on.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) pana evaṃ vuttaṃ – yaṃ vuttaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘iminā cīvaracetāpannena cīvaraṃ cetāpetvā itthannāmaṃ bhikkhuṃ cīvarena acchādehīti idaṃ āgamanasuddhiṃ dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Sace hi ‘idaṃ itthannāmassa bhikkhuno dehī’ti peseyya, āgamanassa asuddhattā akappiyavatthuṃ ārabbha bhikkhunā kappiyakārakopi niddisitabbo na bhaveyyā’’ti, taṃ nissaggiyavatthudukkaṭavatthubhūtaṃ akappiyacīvaracetāpannaṃ ‘‘asukassa bhikkhuno dehī’’ti evaṃ āgamanasuddhiyā asati, sikkhāpade āgatanayena dūtavacane ca asuddhe sabbathā paṭikkhepoyeva kātuṃ vaṭṭati, na pana ‘‘cīvarañca kho mayaṃ paṭiggaṇhāmā’’ti vattuṃ, tadanusārena veyyāvaccakarañca niddisituṃ āgamanadūtavacanānaṃ ubhinnaṃ asuddhattā, pāḷiyaṃ āgatanayena pana āgamanasuddhiyā sati dūtavacane asuddhepi sikkhāpade āgatanayena sabbaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tena ca yathā dūtavacanāsuddhiyampi āgamane suddhe veyyāvaccakaraṃ niddisituṃ vaṭṭati, evaṃ āgamanāsuddhiyampi dūtavacane suddhe vaṭṭati evāti ayamattho atthato [Pg.128] siddhova hoti. Ubhayasuddhiyaṃ vattabbameva natthīti ubhayāsuddhipakkhameva sandhāya mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘kappiyakārakopi niddisitabbo na bhaveyyā’’ti vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539), however, it is stated thus: What was said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā)—'The phrase, “With this robe-fund, procure a robe and clothe such-and-such a monk,” is stated to show the purity of the origin. For if one were to send it saying, “Give this to such-and-such a monk,” due to the impurity of the origin, a steward should not be appointed by the monk for an unallowable item'—that refers to an unallowable robe-fund, which is an item for forfeiture and an item of wrong-doing. When the purity of the origin is absent, as in saying, 'Give this to such-and-such a monk,' and the messenger's words are also impure according to the method presented in the training rule, it is proper to reject it entirely. It is not proper to say, 'We accept the robe-cloth,' nor, accordingly, to designate a steward, because both the origin and the messenger's words are impure. But this is stated to show that when the origin is pure, even if the messenger's words are impure, it is proper to do everything according to the method presented in the Pāḷi text of the training rule. And by this, the meaning that just as it is proper to designate a steward when the messenger's words are impure but the origin is pure, so too it is proper when the origin is impure but the messenger's words are pure, is indeed established in substance. When both are pure, there is nothing to be said. The statement in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā)—'a steward should not be appointed'—should be understood as referring only to the case where both are impure.

Yaṃ panettha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.237-539) ‘‘āgamanassa suddhiyā vā asuddhiyā vā visesappayojanaṃ na dissatī’’tiādi vuttaṃ, taṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāvacanassa adhippāyaṃ asallakkhetvā vuttaṃ yathāvuttanayena āgamanasuddhiādinā sappayojanattā. Yo panettha ‘‘mūlassāmikena kappiyavohāravasena, pesitadūtassa akappiyavohārena vadatopi kappiyakārako niddisitabbo bhaveyyā’’ti aniṭṭhappasaṅgo vutto, so aniṭṭhappasaṅgo eva na hoti abhimatattā. Tathā hi sikkhāpade eva ‘‘paṭiggaṇhatu āyasmā cīvaracetāpanna’’nti akappiyavohārena vadato dūtassa kappiyena kammena veyyāvaccakaro niddisitabbo vutto āgamanassa suddhattā, āgamanassapi asuddhiyaṃ pana kappiyenapi kammena veyyāvaccakaro na niddisitabbovāti attheva āgamanassa suddhiasuddhiyā payojanaṃ. Kathaṃ pana dūtavacanena āgamanasuddhi viññāyatīti? Nāyaṃ bhāro. Dūtena hi akappiyavohārena vutte eva āgamanasuddhi gavesitabbā, na itarattha. Tattha ca tassa vacanakkamena pucchitvā ca yuttiādīhi ca sakkā viññātuṃ. Idhāpi hi sikkhāpade ‘‘cīvaracetāpannaṃ ābhata’’nti dūtavacaneneva cīvaraṃ kiṇitvā dātuṃ pesitabhāvo viññāyati. Yadi hi sabbathā āgamanasuddhi na viññāyati, paṭikkhepo eva kattabboti.

As for what is stated here in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.237-539)—'No specific purpose is seen for the purity or impurity of the origin,' etc.—that was said without grasping the intention of the Mātikāṭṭhakathā's statement, because, according to the method already stated, there is a purpose in the purity of the origin and so on. As for the undesirable consequence stated therein—'Even when a messenger is sent by the original owner with allowable terms, if that messenger speaks with unallowable terms, a steward would still have to be designated'—that is not an undesirable consequence at all, because it is the intended position. For in the training rule itself, it is stated that when a messenger speaks with unallowable terms, saying, 'Venerable, please accept this robe-fund,' a steward should be designated by means of an allowable action, due to the purity of the origin. But if the origin is also impure, then a steward should not be designated even by means of an allowable action. Thus, there is indeed a purpose in the purity or impurity of the origin. But how is the purity of the origin to be known through the messenger's words? This is no great burden. For it is only when the messenger speaks with unallowable terms that the purity of the origin must be investigated, not otherwise. And in that case, it can be understood by questioning him about the sequence of his words, and by reasoning, and so on. Here too, in the training rule, from the messenger's words alone, 'The robe-fund has been brought,' the fact that it was sent for a robe to be bought and given is understood. If, however, the purity of the origin cannot be understood at all, then it should simply be rejected.

Suvaṇṇaṃ rajataṃ kahāpaṇo māsakoti imāni hi cattāri nissaggiyavatthūni, muttā maṇi veḷuriyo saṅkho [Pg.129] silā pavāḷaṃ lohitaṅko masāragallaṃ satta dhaññāni dāsidāsaṃ khettaṃ vatthu pupphārāmaphalārāmādayoti imāni dukkaṭavatthūni ca attano vā cetiyasaṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ vā atthāya sampaṭicchituṃ na vaṭṭanti, tasmā taṃ sādituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘na kho mayaṃ āvuso cīvaracetāpannaṃ paṭiggaṇhāmā’’ti vuttaṃ. Cīvarañca kho mayaṃ paṭiggaṇhāmā’’tiādi dūtavacanassa akappiyattepi āgamanasuddhiyā paṭipajjanavidhidassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Kālena kappiyanti yuttapattakālena yadā no attho hoti, tadā kappiyaṃ cīvaraṃ paṭiggaṇhāmāti attho. Veyyāvaccakaroti kiccakaro, kappiyakārakoti attho. ‘‘Veyyāvaccakaro niddisitabbo’’ti idaṃ ‘‘atthi panāyasmato koci veyyāvaccakaro’’ti kappiyavacanena vuttattā anuññātaṃ. Sace pana dūto ‘‘ko imaṃ gaṇhāti, kassa vā demī’’ti vadati, na niddisitabbo. Ārāmiko vā upāsako vāti idaṃ sāruppatāya vuttaṃ, ṭhapetvā pana pañca sahadhammike yo koci kappiyakārako vaṭṭati. Eso kho āvuso bhikkhūnaṃ veyyāvaccakaroti idaṃ dūtena ‘‘atthi panāyasmato koci veyyāvaccakaro’’ti pucchitattā pucchāsabhāgena bhikkhussa kappiyavacanadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Evameva hi bhikkhunā vattabbaṃ, na vattabbaṃ ‘‘tassa dehī’’tiādi. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘na vattabbo tassa dehī’’tiādimāha. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) pana ‘‘eso kho…pe… na vattabbo tassa dehītiādi akappiyavatthusādiyanaparimocanatthaṃ vutta’’nti vuttaṃ.

Gold, silver, kahāpaṇa coins, māsaka coins—these are the four grounds for offenses entailing forfeiture. Pearls, gems, lapis lazuli, conch shells, crystal, coral, rubies, cat’s-eye gems, the seven grains, male and female slaves, fields, land, flower gardens, fruit orchards, and so on—these are grounds for offenses of wrong-doing. They are not to be accepted for one’s own sake or for the sake of a shrine, the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual. Therefore, they should not be enjoyed. To illustrate this, it was said, “Friend, we do not accept money for robes, but we do accept robes,” and so on. This was stated to show the purity of the origin and to show the procedure for acting, even when the messenger’s words are unallowable. “At the proper time, what is allowable”—this means that when there is a need at the suitable and appropriate time, we accept an allowable robe. “A steward”—one who performs duties, that is, one who makes things allowable. “A steward should be appointed”—this is permitted because it was said with the allowable phrase, “Does the venerable have any steward?” But if the messenger asks, “Who will take this? To whom should I give it?” then no one should be appointed. “A monastery worker or a lay follower”—this is said for suitability. However, apart from the five who share the Dhamma, anyone who can act as a steward is suitable. “This, friend, is the steward for the monks”—this was said to show the monk’s allowable words in response to the messenger’s question, “Does the venerable have any steward?” In the same way, the monk should speak, but he should not say, “Give it to him,” and so on. For this reason, the Pāli text states, “He should not say, ‘Give it to him,’” and so on. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538–539), it is said, “‘This is the…’ and so on, up to ‘He should not say, “Give it to him,”’ was stated to prevent the enjoyment of unallowable items.

Āṇatto so mayāti yathā tumhākaṃ cīvarena atthe sati cīvaraṃ dassati, evaṃ vuttoti attho. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana ‘‘saññattotiādi evaṃ dūtena puna vutte [Pg.130] eva codetuṃ vaṭṭati, na itarathāti dassanatthaṃ vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Ettha pana pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘saññatto so mayā’’ti āgatattā evaṃ vutto, purimavākye pana vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 64) ‘‘āṇatto so mayā’’ti pariyāyavacanena parivattitvā ṭhapitattā tathā vutto, tena ca kappiyakārakassa saññāpitabhāve dūtena bhikkhussa puna ārocite eva bhikkhunā kappiyakārako codetabbo hoti, na anārociteti dasseti.

“He was instructed by me” means he was told, “When you have need of a robe, he will give a robe.” In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is stated: “The phrase ‘he was persuaded,’ and so on, is said to show that it is proper to remind him only when the messenger has spoken thus again, and not otherwise.” Here, however, in the Pāli text, because the phrase “he was persuaded by me” occurs, it is stated thus. But in the earlier passage in the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 64), it is stated thus because the phrase “he was instructed by me” was established there, having been substituted as a synonymous expression. And thereby it is shown that the monk should remind the steward only when the messenger has informed the monk again that the steward has been persuaded, but not if he has not been informed.

Attho me āvuso cīvarenāti codanālakkhaṇanidassanametaṃ. Idaṃ vā hi vacanaṃ vattabbaṃ, tassa vā attho yāya kāyaci bhāsāya vattabbo. Dehi me cīvarantiādīni pana na vattabbākāradassanatthaṃ vuttāni. Etāni hi vacanāni, etesaṃ vā attho yāya kāyaci bhāsāya na vattabbo. ‘‘Evaṃ vadanto ca paṭikkhittattā vattabhede dukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, codanā pana hotiyevā’’ti mahāgaṇṭhipade majjhimagaṇṭhipade ca vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) pana ‘‘na vattabbo ‘dehi me cīvaraṃ…pe… cetāpehi me cīvara’nti idaṃ dūtenābhatarūpiyaṃ paṭiggahetuṃ attanā niddiṭṭhakappiyakārakattāva ‘dehi me cīvaraṃ…pe… cetāpehi me cīvara’nti vadanto rūpiyassa pakatattā tena rūpiyena parivattetvā ‘dehi cetāpehī’ti rūpiyasaṃvohāraṃ samāpajjanto nāma hotīti taṃ dosaṃ dūrato parivajjetuṃ vuttaṃ rūpiyapaṭiggāhakena saṅghamajjhe nissaṭṭharūpiye viya. Vuttañhi tattha ‘na vattabbo imaṃ vā imaṃ vā āharā’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.583-584), tasmā na idaṃ viññattidose parivajjetuṃ vuttanti veditabbaṃ ‘attho me āvuso cīvarenā’tipi avattabbatāppasaṅgato. Teneva dūtaniddiṭṭhesu rūpiyasaṃvohārasaṅkābhāvato aññaṃ kappiyakārakaṃ [Pg.131] ṭhapetvāpi āharāpetabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Tatthāpi ‘‘dūtena ṭhapitarūpiyena cetāpetvā cīvaraṃ āharāpehī’’ti avatvā kevalaṃ ‘‘cīvaraṃ āharāpehī’’ti evaṃ āharāpetabbanti adhippāyo gahetabboti vuttaṃ.

'Friend, I have need of a robe' is an example illustrating the characteristic of a reminder. This statement should be made, or its meaning conveyed, in any language. However, phrases like 'Give me a robe,' and so on, are mentioned to illustrate the kind of speech that should not be used. These statements, or their meaning, should not be conveyed in any language. It is said in the Mahāgaṇṭhipada and the Majjhimagaṇṭhipada: 'One who speaks thus, having been rebuked for the improper expression, incurs an offense of wrong-doing, but the reminder itself is still valid.' But in the Vimativinodanī it is said: ‘One should not say, “Give me a robe… have a robe procured for me.” This is because one who says, “Give me a robe… have a robe procured for me,” precisely because he is the suitable attendant designated by oneself to receive the money brought by the messenger, is said to be engaging in a monetary transaction by saying “give, have it procured,” since it concerns money and he is exchanging with that money. This was said to avoid that fault from afar, just as with money relinquished in the midst of the Saṅgha by one who accepts money. For it is stated there: “One should not say, ‘Bring this or that.’” Therefore, it should be understood that this is not said to avoid the fault of an improper request, since that would lead to the problem of even “Friend, I have need of a robe” being something that should not be said. For that very reason, in the case of stewards designated by the messenger, since there is no suspicion of a monetary transaction, it is said that one may have it brought even after appointing another suitable attendant.’ Even there, it is said that the intention to be understood is that one should have it brought by simply saying, “Have the robe brought,” without saying, “Having had a robe procured with the money left by the messenger, have it brought.”

Iccetaṃ kusalanti evaṃ yāvatatiyaṃ codento taṃ cīvaraṃ abhinipphādetuṃ sakkoti attano paṭilābhavasena, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ sādhu suṭṭhu sundaraṃ. Catukkhattuṃ pañcakkhattuṃ chakkhattuparamaṃ tuṇhībhūtena uddissa ṭhātabbanti ṭhānalakkhaṇanidassanametaṃ. Chakkhattuparamanti ca bhāvanapuṃsakavacanametaṃ. Chakkhattuparamanti etena cīvaraṃ uddissa tuṇhībhūteneva ṭhātabbaṃ, na aññaṃ kiñci kātabbanti idaṃ ṭhānalakkhaṇaṃ. Teneva ‘‘na āsanetiādī’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ. Saddasatthe pana –

'This is skillful.' Thus, by reminding up to the third time, he is able to obtain that robe by means of his own acquisition. 'This is skillful, good, excellent, beautiful.' 'One should stand in silence, with it as one's object, four times, five times, up to a maximum of six times'—this is an example illustrating the characteristic of standing. The phrase 'up to a maximum of six times' is a neuter verbal noun. By this 'up to a maximum of six times,' this is the characteristic of standing: one should just stand in silence with the robe as one's object, and nothing else should be done. For that reason, it is said in the commentary: 'Not by a seat, etc.' But in grammar—

‘‘Kiriyāvisesanaṃ satthe, vuttaṃ dhātuvisesanaṃ;

Bhāvanapuṃsakantyeva, sāsane samudīrita’’nti. –

'What in the grammatical treatises is called a modifier of action, a modifier of a verbal root, is proclaimed in the Dispensation as a neuter verbal noun.'

Vacanato kiriyāvisesanameva sāsanavohārena bhāvanapuṃsakaṃ nāma jātaṃ;

‘‘Muduṃ pacatiiccatra, pacanaṃ bhavatīti ca;

Sukhaṃ sayatiiccatra, karoti sayananti cā’’ti. –

By this statement, the modifier of action itself has come to be called a 'neuter verbal noun' in the parlance of the Dispensation. 'He cooks softly'—here it means 'the cooking is soft.' 'He sleeps comfortably'—here it means 'he performs the sleeping comfortably.'

Vacanato kiriyāvisesanapadena tulyādhikaraṇabhūtaṃ kiriyāvisesyapadaṃ akammakampi sakammakampi bhūdhātukaradhātūhi sambandhitabbaṃ hotīti iminā ñāyena chakkhattuparamaṃ ṭhānaṃ bhavitabbaṃ, chakkhattuparamaṃ ṭhānaṃ kātabbanti attho. Etena chakkhattuparamaṃ evaṃ ṭhānaṃ bhavitabbaṃ, na tato adhikaṃ, chakkhattuparamaṃ eva ṭhānaṃ kātabbaṃ, na tato uddhanti imamatthaṃ dasseti. Na āsane nisīditabbanti ‘‘idha bhante nisīdathā’’ti vuttepi na nisīditabbaṃ. Na āmisaṃ paṭiggahetabbanti ‘‘yāgukhajjakādibhedaṃ kiñci āmisaṃ gaṇhatha bhante’’ti yāciyamānenapi na gaṇhitabbaṃ. Na dhammo bhāsitabboti ‘‘maṅgalaṃ vā anumodanaṃ [Pg.132] vā bhāsathā’’ti yāciyamānenapi kiñci na bhāsitabbaṃ, kevalaṃ ‘‘kiṃkāraṇā āgatosī’’ti pucchiyamānena ‘‘jānāhi āvuso’’ti vattabbo.

According to the statement, by this principle, the word for the action being modified, being in the same case as the word that modifies the action—whether intransitive or transitive—must be connected with the verbal roots bhū (to be) and kara (to do). Thus the meaning is: 'the standing should be for a maximum of six times,' or 'the standing should be done for a maximum of six times.' By this, it shows this meaning: the standing should be for a maximum of six times, not more than that; the standing should be done for a maximum of six times, not beyond that. 'One should not sit on a seat': even if told, 'Venerable sir, sit here,' one should not sit. 'One should not accept a material offering': even if requested, 'Venerable sir, take some material offering of the kind such as rice gruel or solid food,' one should not take it. 'The Dhamma should not be spoken': even if requested, 'Speak a blessing or words of appreciation,' one should not say anything. Only when asked, 'For what reason have you come?' one should say, 'You should know, friend.'

Ṭhānaṃ bhañjatīti āgatakāraṇaṃ bhañjati kopeti. Ṭhānanti ṭhitiyā ca kāraṇassa ca nāmaṃ, tasmā āsane nisīdanena ṭhānaṃ kuppati, āgatakāraṇampi, āmisapaṭiggahaṇādīsu pana āgatakāraṇameva bhañjati, na ṭhānaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘āgatakāraṇaṃ bhañjatī’’ti. Keci pana ‘‘āmisapaṭiggahaṇādinā ṭhānampi bhañjatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sameti, ṭīkāyampi nānāvāde dassetvā ṭhānabhañjanaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanena asaṃsandanato ganthagarubhayena na vadimha. Idāni yā tisso codanā, cha ca ṭhānāni vuttāni, tattha vuddhihāniṃ dassento ‘‘sace catukkhattuṃ codetī’’tiādimāha. Yasmā ca ekacodanāvuddhiyā dvinnaṃ ṭhānānaṃ hāni vuttā, tasmā codanā dviguṇaṃ ṭhānanti lakkhaṇaṃ dassitaṃ hoti. Iti iminā lakkhaṇena tikkhattuṃ codetvā chakkhattuṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, dvikkhattuṃ codetvā aṭṭhakkhattuṃ ṭhātabbaṃ, sakiṃ codetvā dasakkhattuṃ ṭhātabbaṃ.

'He breaks the standing' means he breaks, he spoils, the reason for coming. 'Standing' (ṭhāna) is a name for both the act of standing (ṭhiti) and the reason (kāraṇa). Therefore, by sitting on a seat, the standing is spoiled, and also the reason for coming. But in the case of accepting a material offering and so on, only the reason for coming is broken, not the standing. Therefore he said, 'he breaks the reason for coming.' Some, however, say that 'by accepting a material offering and so on, the standing is also broken,' but this does not agree with the commentary. In the sub-commentary, too, after showing various views, the breaking of the standing is mentioned, but we have not stated it due to its inconsistency with the words of the commentary and out of fear of making the text cumbersome. Now, concerning the three reminders and six standings that were mentioned, showing the increase and decrease, he said, 'If he reminds four times…,' and so on. And since a decrease of two standings is stated for an increase of one reminder, the principle is thereby shown that a reminder is worth two standings. Thus, by this principle, having reminded three times, one should stand for six times; having reminded twice, one should stand for eight times; having reminded once, one should stand for ten times.

Tatra tatra ṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti idaṃ codakassa ṭhitaṭṭhānato apakkamma tatra tatra uddissa ṭhānaṃyeva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ko pana vādo nānādivasesūti nānādivasesu evaṃ karontassa ko pana vādo, vattabbameva natthīti adhippāyo. ‘‘Sāmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ, dūto vā pāhetabboti idaṃ sabhāvato codetuṃ anicchantenapi kātabbamevā’’ti vadanti. Na taṃ tassa bhikkhuno kiñci atthaṃ anubhotīti taṃ cīvaracetāpannaṃ assa bhikkhuno kiñci appamattakampi kammaṃ na nipphādeti. Yuñjantāyasmanto sakanti āyasmanto attano santakaṃ dhanaṃ pāpuṇantu. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.538-539) pana ‘‘yatassa [Pg.133] cīvaracetāpannantiādi yena attanā veyyāvaccakaro niddiṭṭho, cīvarañca anipphāditaṃ, tassa kattabbadassanaṃ. Evaṃ bhikkhunā vatthusāmikānaṃ vutte codetvā denti, vaṭṭati ‘sāmikā codetvā dentī’ti (pārā. 541) anāpattiyaṃ vuttattā. Teneva so sayaṃ acodetvā upāsakādīhi pariyāyena vatvā codāpeti, tesu satakkhattumpi codetvā cīvaraṃ dāpentesu tassa anāpatti siddhā hoti sikkhāpadassa anāṇattikattā’’ti vuttaṃ.

'He stands in this or that place': this is said with reference to standing in this or that designated place, having moved away from the place where the one who reminds stood. 'What to say of on different days?': the meaning is, for one who does so on different days, what is there to say? There is nothing to be said. They say: ''One should go oneself or a messenger should be sent'—this must be done even by one who by nature does not wish to remind.' 'That brings no benefit whatsoever to that bhikkhu' means that the funds intended for the robe do not accomplish even the slightest task for that bhikkhu. 'May the venerables strive for their own' means may the venerables obtain their own property. But in the Vimativinodanī it is said: 'The passage beginning, "The funds intended for the robe of one who is restrained," shows the duty of one by whom a steward has been appointed for himself and for whom the robe has not yet been produced. When the bhikkhu has spoken thus to the owners of the goods, they remind and give. This is permissible, because it is stated in the 'no offense' section: "The owners remind and give." For that very reason, without reminding them himself, he speaks indirectly to lay supporters and so on and has them remind. When they, having reminded even a hundred times, have the robe given, his 'no offense' is established because the training rule is not a command.'

65. Kenaci aniddiṭṭho attano mukheneva byāvaṭabhāvaṃ veyyāvaccakarattaṃ patto mukhavevaṭiko, avicāretukāmatāyāti iminā vijjamānampi dātuṃ anicchantā ariyāpi vañcanādhippāyaṃ vinā vohārato natthīti vadantīti dasseti. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.537-539) pana ‘‘avicāretukāmatāyāti imasmiṃ pakkhe ‘natthamhākaṃ kappiyakārako’ti idaṃ tādisaṃ karonto kappiyakārako natthīti iminā adhippāyena vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Bhesajjakkhandhake meṇḍakaseṭṭhivatthumhi (mahāva. 299) vuttaṃ ‘‘santi bhikkhave’’tiādivacanameva meṇḍakasikkhāpadaṃ nāma. Tattha hi meṇḍakena nāma seṭṭhinā ‘‘santi hi bhante maggā kantārā appodakā appabhakkhā na sukarā apātheyyena gantuṃ, sādhu bhante bhagavā bhikkhūnaṃ pātheyyaṃ anujānātū’’ti yācitena bhagavatā ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave pātheyyaṃ pariyesituṃ. Taṇḍulo taṇḍulatthikena, muggo muggatthikena, māso māsatthikena, loṇaṃ loṇatthikena, guḷo guḷatthikena, telaṃ telatthikena, sappi sappitthikenā’’ti vatvā idaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘santi, bhikkhave, manussā saddhā pasannā, te kappiyakārakānaṃ hatthe hiraññaṃ upanikkhipanti ‘iminā yaṃ ayyassa kappiyaṃ, taṃ dethā’ti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, yaṃ tato kappiyaṃ, taṃ sādituṃ, na tvevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kenaci [Pg.134] pariyāyena jātarūparajataṃ sāditabbaṃ pariyesitabbanti vadāmī’’ti. ‘‘Kappiyakārakānaṃ hatthe hiraññaṃ nikkhipantī’’ti etthāpi bhikkhussa ārocanaṃ atthiyeva, aññathā aniddiṭṭhakappiyakārakapakkhaṃ bhajatīti na codetabbo siyā, idaṃ pana dūtena niddiṭṭhakappiyakārake sandhāya vuttaṃ, na pana bhikkhunā niddiṭṭhe vā aniddiṭṭhe vā. Tenevāha ‘‘ettha codanāya parimāṇaṃ natthī’’tiādi. Yadi mūlaṃ sandhāya codeti, taṃ sāditameva siyāti āha ‘‘mūlaṃ asādiyantenā’’ti.

65. One who, though not appointed by anyone, has become a steward by his own speech is a `mukhavevaṭika`. This shows that by the phrase 'due to unwillingness to consider,' it is meant that even noble ones, not wishing to give something even when it is available, say 'there is none' as a matter of convention, without deceptive intent. The Sāratthadīpanī, however, says: 'In this case, the phrase "due to unwillingness to consider" is said with the intention that when one says, "We have no allowable attendant," it means there is no one acting as such an allowable attendant.' In the Bhesajjakkhandhaka, in the story of the great merchant Meṇḍaka, the statement beginning 'There are, monks...' is called the Meṇḍaka training rule. There, the great merchant Meṇḍaka requested the Blessed One: 'Venerable sir, there are roads that are wilderness tracts, with little water and little food, difficult to travel without provisions. It would be good, venerable sir, if the Blessed One would allow the monks provisions for the journey.' The Blessed One then said: 'I allow you, monks, to seek provisions for the journey: rice for one who needs rice, beans for one who needs beans, lentils for one who needs lentils, salt for one who needs salt, molasses for one who needs molasses, oil for one who needs oil, and ghee for one who needs ghee.' Then he said this: 'Monks, there are faithful, confident people who deposit gold in the hands of allowable attendants, saying, "With this, give the venerable ones what is allowable." I allow you, monks, to consent to what is allowable from that. But I do not say, monks, that in any way at all gold and silver should be sought or consented to.' The phrase 'they deposit gold in the hands of allowable attendants' implies that the monk is informed; otherwise, he could not be accused of favoring an unappointed allowable attendant. This, however, is said with reference to an allowable attendant appointed by a messenger, not one appointed or unappointed by a monk. Therefore, it is said: 'Here, there is no limit on reminding,' and so on. If one reminds with reference to the principal amount, that would be tantamount to consenting to it—hence it is said, 'by one not consenting to the principal.'

Aññātakaappavāritesu viya paṭipajjitabbanti idaṃ attanā codanāṭṭhānañca na kātabbanti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Piṇḍapātādīnaṃ atthāyāti iminā cīvaratthāyeva na hotīti dasseti. Eseva nayoti iminā vatthusāminā niddiṭṭhakappiyakārakesupi piṇḍapātādīnampi atthāya dinne ca ṭhānacodanādisabbaṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva kātabbanti dasseti.

'One should act as if among strangers or the uninvited'—this is said to show that one should not create a ground for accusation against oneself. 'For the sake of almsfood and so forth'—this indicates that it is not solely for the purpose of robes. 'This is the same method'—this shows that even when allowable attendants designated by the owner of the property give for the sake of almsfood and so forth, everything, such as reminding about the standing, should be done according to the method stated above.

66. Upanikkhittasādiyane panātiādīsu ‘‘idaṃ ayyassa hotū’’ti evaṃ sammukhā vā ‘‘amukasmiṃ nāma ṭhāne mama hiraññasuvaṇṇaṃ atthi, taṃ tuyhaṃ hotū’’ti evaṃ parammukhā vā ṭhitassa kevalaṃ vācāya vā hatthamuddāya vā ‘‘tuyha’’nti vatvā pariccattassa kāyavācāhi appaṭikkhipitvā cittena sādiyanaṃ upanikkhittasādiyanaṃ nāma. Sādiyatīti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti ‘‘gaṇhitukāmo hotī’’ti.

66. Regarding 'consenting to what is deposited' (`upanikkhittasādiyana`) and so on: when something is relinquished—either face-to-face, saying, 'May this be for the venerable one,' or in one's absence, saying, 'In such and such a place I have gold; let that be yours'—by mere words or by a hand gesture, saying 'It is yours,' consenting to it with the mind without rejecting it by body or speech is called 'consenting to what is deposited.' The meaning of 'consents' (`sādiyati`) is clarified as 'he wishes to take it.'

Idaṃ guttaṭṭhānanti ācikkhitabbanti paccayaparibhogaṃyeva sandhāya ācikkhitabbaṃ. ‘‘Idha nikkhipā’’ti vutte ‘‘uggaṇhāpeyya vā’’ti vuttalakkhaṇena nissaggiyaṃ hotīti āha ‘‘idha nikkhipāhīti na vattabba’’nti. Atha vā ‘‘idaṃ guttaṭṭhāna’’nti ācikkhanto ṭhānassa guttabhāvameva dasseti, na vatthuṃ parāmasati, tasmā ācikkhitabbaṃ. ‘‘Idha nikkhipāhī’’ti pana vadanto [Pg.135] nikkhipitabbaṃ vatthuṃ nikkhipāhīti vatthuṃ parāmasati nāma, tasmā na vattabbaṃ. Parato idaṃ gaṇhāti etthāpi eseva nayo. Kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitaṃ hotīti yasmā tato uppannapaccayaparibhogo kappati, tasmā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ, yasmā pana dubbicāraṇāya tato uppannapaccayaparibhogo na kappati, tasmā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitanti veditabbaṃ. Atha vā idaṃ dhanaṃ yasmā ‘‘nayidaṃ kappatī’’ti paṭikkhittaṃ, tasmā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ, yasmā pana sabbaso avissajjitaṃ, tasmā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ. Atha vā taṃ dhanaṃ yasmā pacchā suṭṭhuvicāraṇāya satiyā kappiyaṃ bhavissati, dubbicāraṇāya satiyā akappiyaṃ bhavissati, tasmā kappiyañca akappiyañca nissāya ṭhitaṃ hotīti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana ‘‘eko sataṃ vā sahassaṃ vātiādi rūpiye heṭṭhimakoṭiyā pavattanākāraṃ dassetuṃ vutta’’nti ca ‘‘na pana evaṃ paṭipajjitabbamevāti dassetuṃ, ‘idha nikkhipāhī’ti vutte uggaṇhāpanaṃ hotīti āha ‘idha nikkhipāhī’ti na vattabba’’nti ca ‘‘kappiyañca…pe… hotīti yasmā asāditattā tato uppannapaccayā vaṭṭanti, tasmā kappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitaṃ, yasmā pana dubbicāraṇāya sati tato uppannaṃ na kappati, tasmā akappiyaṃ nissāya ṭhitanti veditabba’’nti ca vuttaṃ.

'This should be declared as a guarded place'—this should be declared with reference only to the use of requisites. When it is said, 'Place it here,' it becomes an item to be forfeited in accordance with the characteristic described as 'or one might have it taken up.' Therefore, it is said, 'Do not say, "Place it here."' Alternatively, when declaring, 'This is a guarded place,' one indicates only the guarded nature of the place, not referring to the object itself. Hence, it should be declared. But when saying, 'Place it here,' one is instructing to place the object, which constitutes referring to the object. Therefore, it should not be said. The same method applies when one takes this from another. It is established depending on what is allowable and what is unallowable: because the use of requisites arising from it is permissible, it is established depending on what is allowable; but because the use of requisites arising from it through improper management is not permissible, it is established depending on what is unallowable, it should be understood. Alternatively, because this wealth has been rejected with the words, 'This is not allowable,' it is established depending on what is allowable; but because it has not been entirely relinquished, it is established depending on what is unallowable. Or, because that wealth may later become allowable when there is proper management or unallowable when there is improper management, it is established depending on both what is allowable and unallowable. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: 'The phrase "one hundred or one thousand" and so on is stated to illustrate the manner of transaction with money at the lowest limit.' And: 'To show that one should not act in this way, since when one says, "Place it here," causing it to be taken up occurs, it is said, "Do not say, 'Place it here.'"' And: 'It is established depending on what is allowable... and so on... because requisites arising from it are valid since it has not been consented to, it is established depending on what is allowable; but because what arises from it when there is improper management is not permissible, it is established depending on what is unallowable, it should be understood.'

67. Saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabbanti yasmā rūpiyaṃ nāma akappiyaṃ, tasmā saṅghassa vā gaṇassa vā puggalassa vā nissajjitabbanti na vuttaṃ. Yasmā pana taṃ paṭiggahitamattameva hoti, na tena kiñci kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ cetāpitaṃ, tasmā upāyena paribhogadassanatthaṃ ‘‘saṅghamajjhe nissajjitabba’’nti (pārā. 584) vuttaṃ. Na tena kiñci kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ cetāpitanti iminā cetāpitañce, natthi paribhogūpāyo uggahetvā anissaṭṭharūpiyena cetāpitattā. Īdisañhi saṅghamajjhe nissajjanaṃ katvāva [Pg.136] chaḍḍetvā pācittiyaṃ desāpetabbanti dasseti. Keci pana ‘‘yasmā nissaggiyavatthuṃ paṭiggahetvāpi cetāpitaṃ kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ saṅghe nissaṭṭhaṃ kappiyakārakehi nissaṭṭharūpiyena parivattetvā ānītakappiyabhaṇḍasadisaṃ hoti, tasmā vināva upāyaṃ bhājetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ pattacatukkādikathāya na sameti. Tattha hi rūpiyena parivattitapattassa aparibhogova dassito, na nissajjanavicāroti. Kappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbanti pabbajitānaṃ sappi vā telaṃ vā vaṭṭati upāsakāti evaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ.

67. 'It should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha'—because money is unallowable, it is not said that it should be relinquished to the Sangha, to a group, or to an individual. However, since it has only been received and no allowable goods have been procured with it, the instruction 'it should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha' is given to show a means for its use. By the words 'no allowable goods have been procured with it,' it is indicated that if they have been procured, there is no means for their use, because they were procured with money that had been accepted but not relinquished. This shows that after making such a relinquishment in the midst of the Sangha, one should discard it and have the offense of expiation confessed. Some, however, say: 'Because an allowable item that was procured even after receiving an item to be forfeited becomes, when the latter is relinquished in the Sangha, like an allowable item brought after being exchanged by allowable attendants for the relinquished money, it is therefore permissible to divide and use it without any special means.' But this does not accord with the discussion on the set of four bowls, etc. For there, only the non-use of a bowl exchanged for money is shown; there is no investigation into relinquishment. 'What is allowable should be declared'—it should be declared thus: 'Lay follower, for the renunciants, ghee or oil is allowable.'

Ārāmikānaṃ vā pattabhāganti idaṃ gihīnaṃ hatthagatopi soyeva bhāgoti katvā vuttaṃ. Sace pana tena aññaṃ parivattetvā ārāmikā denti, paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti majjhimagaṇṭhipade cūḷagaṇṭhipade ca vuttaṃ. Tato haritvāti aññesaṃ pattabhāgato haritvā. Kasiṇaparikammanti ālokakasiṇaparikammaṃ. Mañcapīṭhādīni vāti ettha tato gahitamañcapīṭhādīni parivattetvā aññaṃ ce gahitaṃ, vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Chāyāpīti bhojanasālādīnaṃ chāyāpi. Paricchedātikkantāti gehaparicchedaṃ atikkantā, chāyāya gatagataṭṭhānaṃ gehaṃ na hotīti adhippāyo. Maggenapīti ettha sace añño maggo natthi, maggaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Kītāyāti tena vatthunā kītāya. Upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjatīti sace upāsako ‘‘atibahu etaṃ hiraññaṃ, idaṃ bhante ajjeva na vināsetabba’’nti vatvā sayaṃ upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapeti, aññena vā ṭhapāpeti, evaṃ upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā tato uppannapaccayaṃ paribhuñjanto saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjati, tena vatthunā gahitattā ‘‘akappiya’’nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.583-584) pana ‘‘upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvāti kappiyakārakehi [Pg.137] vaḍḍhiyā payojanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Akappiyanti tena vatthunā gahitattā vutta’’nti vuttaṃ.

'Or the share that has come for the monastery attendants'—this is said on the basis that even what has come into the hands of householders is the very same share. However, if the monastery attendants exchange it for something else and give that, it is permissible to use it; so it is said in the Majjhimagaṇṭhipada and the Cūḷagaṇṭhipada. 'Having taken it from there' means having taken it from the share that has come for others. 'Preparation of a kasina' refers to the preparation of the light kasina. 'Or beds, chairs, etc.'—here they say that if items like beds and chairs taken from there are exchanged and another is acquired, it is permissible. 'Even the shade' means even the shade of dining halls and so on. 'Having crossed the boundary' means having crossed the boundary of the house; the intention is that a place where the shade has gone is not the house. 'Even by the path'—here they say that if there is no other path, it is permissible to go after having determined the path. 'Purchased' means purchased with that item. 'Having set aside a deposit, the Sangha uses the requisites'—if a lay follower says, 'Venerable sir, this gold is too much; it should not be disposed of today,' and he himself sets aside a deposit or has another set it aside, in this way, the Sangha, using the requisites that have arisen from it, uses the requisites. It is called 'unallowable' because it was acquired by means of that item. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is stated: ''Having set aside a deposit' is said with reference to the purpose of gaining interest through allowable attendants. It is called 'unallowable' because it was acquired by means of that item.'

Sace so chaḍḍetīti yattha katthaci khipati, athāpi na chaḍḍeti, sayaṃ gahetvā gacchati, na vāretabbo. No ce chaḍḍetīti atha neva gahetvā gacchati, na chaḍḍeti, ‘‘kiṃ mayhaṃ iminā byāpārenā’’ti yenakāmaṃ pakkamati, tato yathāvuttalakkhaṇo rūpiyachaḍḍako samannitabbo. Yo na chandāgatintiādīsu lobhavasena taṃ vatthuṃ attano vā karonto attānaṃ vā ukkaṃsento chandāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Dosavasena ‘‘nevāyaṃ mātikaṃ jānāti, na vinaya’’nti paraṃ apasādento dosāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Mohavasena pamuṭṭho pamuṭṭhassatibhāvaṃ āpajjanto mohāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Rūpiyapaṭiggāhakassa bhayena chaḍḍetuṃ avisahanto bhayāgatiṃ nāma gacchati. Evaṃ akaronto na chandāgatiṃ gacchati, na dosāgatiṃ gacchati, na mohāgatiṃ gacchati, na bhayāgatiṃ gacchati nāmāti veditabbo.

If he discards it, meaning he throws it away anywhere; or even if he does not discard it, but takes it himself and leaves, he should not be stopped. If he does not discard it, meaning he neither takes it and leaves nor discards it, but thinking, "What concern is this business of mine?" he departs as he pleases, then a discarder of money with the aforementioned characteristics should be sought. In the passage beginning 'One who does not fall into bias due to desire,' one who, under the sway of greed, either appropriates that item for himself or exalts himself, falls into what is called 'bias due to desire.' One who, under the sway of hatred, disparages another, saying, "This person knows neither the matrix nor the discipline," falls into what is called 'bias due to hatred.' One who, under the sway of delusion, is confused and falls into a state of forgetfulness, falls into what is called 'bias due to delusion.' One who, out of fear of the recipient of the money, is unable to discard it, falls into what is called 'bias due to fear.' Thus, one who does not act in these ways should be understood as not falling into bias due to desire, not falling into bias due to hatred, not falling into bias due to delusion, and not falling into bias due to fear.

68. Patitokāsaṃ asamannārahantena chaḍḍetabbanti idaṃ nirapekkhabhāvadassanaparanti veditabbaṃ, tasmā patitaṭṭhāne ñātepi tassa gūthaṃ chaḍḍentassa viya nirapekkhabhāvoyevettha pamāṇanti veditabbaṃ. Asantasambhāvanāyāti attani avijjamānauttarimanussadhammārocanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Theyyaparibhogo nāma anarahassa paribhogo. Bhagavatā hi attano sāsane sīlavato paccayā anuññātā, na dussīlassa. Dāyakānampi sīlavato eva pariccāgo, na dussīlassa attano kārānaṃ mahapphalabhāvassa paccāsīsanato. Iti satthārā ananuññātattā dāyakehi ca apariccattattā dussīlassa paribhogo theyyaparibhogo. Iṇavasena paribhogo iṇaparibhogo, paṭiggāhakato dakkhiṇāvisuddhiyā [Pg.138] abhāvato iṇaṃ gahetvā paribhogo viyāti attho. Tasmāti ‘‘sīlavato’’tiādinā vuttamevatthaṃ kāraṇabhāvena paccāmasati. Cīvaraṃ paribhoge paribhogeti kāyato mocetvā paribhoge paribhoge. Purebhatta…pe… pacchimayāmesu paccavekkhitabbanti sambandho. Tathā asakkontena yathāvuttakālavisesavasena ekasmiṃ divase catukkhattuṃ tikkhattuṃ dvikkhattuṃ sakiṃyeva vā paccavekkhitabbaṃ.

68. The statement, 'it should be discarded in a place unsuitable for an Arahant,' is to be understood as showing a state of non-attachment. Therefore, even if the place where it has fallen is known, just as one discards excrement, non-attachment is indeed the standard here. The phrase 'by not esteeming what is not present' is said with reference to announcing superhuman states that one does not possess. 'Use as theft' means use by one who is unworthy. For the Blessed One has permitted requisites in his dispensation for the virtuous, not for the immoral. Likewise, donors give only to the virtuous, not to the immoral, hoping for the great fruitfulness of their own actions. Thus, because it is not permitted by the Teacher and not relinquished by the donors, use by the immoral is 'use as theft.' 'Use as a debt' means use in the manner of a debt; because of the absence of purity of the offering on the part of the recipient, the meaning is that it is like using something after taking on a debt. 'Therefore' refers back to this very meaning stated by 'for the virtuous,' etc., as the reason. 'Regarding the robe, in each use' means in each and every use, after removing it from the body. The connection is: 'should be reviewed before the meal... in the last watches of the night.' Similarly, one who is unable to do so should review it four times, three times, twice, or even just once a day, according to the specific times mentioned.

Sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti ettha hiyyo yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhuttaṃ, taṃ yāvadeva sītassa paṭighātāya…pe… hirikopinapaṭicchādanatthaṃ. Hiyyo yo mayā piṇḍapāto paribhutto, so neva davāyātiādinā sace atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇaṃ na kareyya, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti vadanti, taṃ vīmaṃsitabbaṃ. Senāsanampi paribhoge paribhogeti pavese pavese. Evaṃ pana asakkontena purebhattādīsu paccavekkhitabbaṃ, taṃ heṭṭhā vuttanayeneva sakkā viññātunti idha visuṃ na vuttaṃ. Satipaccayatāti satiyā paccayabhāvo. Paṭiggahaṇassa paribhogassa ca paccavekkhaṇasatiyā paccayabhāvo yujjati, paccavekkhitvāva paṭiggahetabbaṃ paribhuñjitabbañcāti attho. Tenevāha ‘‘satiṃ katvā’’tiādi. Evaṃ santepīti yadipi dvīsupi ṭhānesu paccavekkhaṇā yuttā, evaṃ santepi. Apare panāhu ‘‘satipaccayatāti sati bhesajjaparibhogassa paccayabhāve, paccayeti attho. Evaṃ santepīti paccaye satipī’’ti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ. Tathā hi paccayasannissitasīlaṃ paccavekkhaṇāya visujjhati, na paccayasabbhāvamattena.

If dawn rises for one while one has not reflected, one stands in the position of using as a debt. Here, if one does not reflect on past use—(thinking,) 'The robe I used yesterday was merely for warding off cold… and for the purpose of concealing the private parts. The almsfood I consumed yesterday was not for indulgence,' etc.—they say that one stands in the position of using as a debt; this should be investigated. Regarding the lodging as well, 'in each use' means at each and every entry. However, one who is unable to do so should reflect before the meal, etc. Since this can be understood by the method stated above, it is not stated separately here. 'Mindfulness as a condition' means the state of mindfulness being a condition. It is fitting for the mindfulness of reflection to be a condition for both receiving and using; the meaning is that one should receive and use only after having reflected. Therefore, he said, 'having established mindfulness,' etc. 'Even so' means: although reflection is proper in both instances, even so. Others, however, say: ''Mindfulness as a condition' means mindfulness is a condition for the use of medicine; 'condition' is the meaning. 'Even so' means 'even when the condition is present.'' That is merely their opinion. For virtue dependent on requisites is purified by reflection, not merely by the existence of the requisites.

Nanu ca ‘‘paribhoge karontassa anāpattī’’ti iminā pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā paccayasannissitasīlassa pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlassa [Pg.139] ca ko visesoti? Vuccate – purimesu tāva tīsu paccayesu viseso pākaṭoyeva, gilānapaccaye pana yathā vatiṃ katvā rukkhamūle gopite tassa phalānipi rakkhitāneva honti, evameva paccavekkhaṇāya paccayasannissitasīle rakkhite tappaṭibaddhaṃ pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlampi nipphannaṃ nāma hoti. Gilānapaccayaṃ appaccavekkhitvā paribhuñjantassa sīlaṃ bhijjamānaṃ pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlameva bhijjati, paccayasannissitasīlaṃ pana pacchābhattapurimayāmādīsu yāva aruṇuggamanā appaccavekkhantasseva bhijjati. Purebhattañhi appaccavekkhitvāpi gilānapaccayaṃ paribhuñjantassa anāpatti, idametesaṃ nānākaraṇanti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585) āgataṃ.

But is it not so that by the statement, 'There is no offense for one who is using,' the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint is stated? Therefore, what is the difference between virtue dependent on the requisites and the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint? It is said: To begin with, in the case of the first three requisites, the difference is quite clear. But regarding the requisite of medicine for the sick, just as when a tree is protected at its root by making a fence, its fruits are also protected, in the same way, when virtue dependent on the requisites is protected by reflection, the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint connected with it also becomes accomplished. For one who uses the requisite of medicine for the sick without reflecting, it is the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint itself that is broken; but virtue dependent on the requisites is broken only for one who fails to reflect after the meal, in the first watches of the night, and so on, up until the rising of the dawn. Indeed, for one who uses the requisite of medicine for the sick even without reflecting before the meal, there is no offense. This is the distinction between them, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha-ṭīkā 2.585).

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) pana ‘‘theyyaparibhogoti paccayassāminā bhagavatā ananuññātattā vuttaṃ. Iṇaparibhogoti bhagavatā anuññātampi kattabbaṃ akatvā paribhuñjanato vuttaṃ. Tena ca paccayasannissitasīlaṃ vipajjatīti dasseti. Paribhoge paribhogeti kāyato mocetvā mocetvā paribhoge. Pacchimayāmesu paccavekkhitabbanti yojanā. Iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti ettha ‘hiyyo yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhutta’ntiādināpi atītapaccavekkhaṇā vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Paribhoge paribhogeti udakapatanaṭṭhānato antopavesanesu nisīdanasayanesu ca. Satipaccayatā vaṭṭatīti paccavekkhaṇasatiyā paccayattaṃ laddhuṃ vaṭṭati. Paṭiggahaṇe ca paribhoge ca paccavekkhaṇāsati avassaṃ laddhabbāti dasseti. Tenāha ‘satiṃ katvā’tiādi. Keci pana ‘satipaccayatā paccaye sati bhesajjaparibhogassa kāraṇe satī’ti evampi atthaṃ vadanti, tesampi paccaye satīti paccayasabbhāvasallakkhaṇe satīti evamattho gahetabbo [Pg.140] paccayasabbhāvamattena sīlassa asujjhanato. Paribhoge akarontasseva āpattīti iminā pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlassa bhedo dassito, na paccayasannissitasīlassa tassa atītapaccavekkhaṇāya visujjhanato. Etasmiṃ pana sesapaccayesu ca iṇaparibhogādivacanena paccayasannissitasīlasseva bhedoti evamimesaṃ nānākaraṇaṃ veditabba’’nti āgataṃ.

In the Vimativinodanī (Vimati.ṭī. 1.585), it is stated: ''Use as theft' is so called because it was not permitted by the Blessed One, the owner of the requisites. 'Use as a debt' is so called because one uses them without doing what should be done, even though permitted by the Blessed One. And by this, it is shown that the virtue dependent on requisites is ruined. 'In each use' means in each use, after repeatedly removing it from the body. The construction is: 'should be reflected upon in the last watches of the night.' Regarding 'one stands in the position of using as a debt,' they say that here reflection on the past, such as 'the robe that I used yesterday,' etc., is also permissible. 'In each use' refers to places where water falls, to entering inside, and to sitting and lying down. 'It is proper for there to be mindfulness as a condition' means it is proper for the mindfulness of reflection to serve as a condition. It shows that mindfulness of reflection must certainly be obtained both when receiving and when using. Hence, it is said, 'having established mindfulness,' etc. Some, however, also state the meaning thus: ''Mindfulness as a condition' means when there is a condition, a reason, for the use of medicine.' For them too, the meaning of 'when the condition is present' should be taken as 'when there is a perception of the existence of the requisite,' because virtue is not purified by the mere existence of the requisite. By 'an offense occurs only for one who is not using (properly),' a breach of the Pātimokkha restraint is shown, not of the virtue dependent on requisites, since the latter is purified by reflection on the past. In this case, and regarding the remaining requisites, terms like 'use as a debt' refer only to a breach of virtue dependent on requisites. Thus, this distinction between them should be understood.

Etesu dvīsu pakaraṇesu ‘‘iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī’’ti ettha hiyyo yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhuttanti…pe… vadantīti āgataṃ. Imaṃ pana nayaṃ nissāya idāni ekacce paṇḍitā ‘‘ajjapāto paribhuttaṃ sāyaṃ paccavekkhantena ajja yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhuttantiādinā atītavasena paccavekkhaṇā kātabbā’’ti vadanti. Keci ‘‘hiyyo paribhuttameva atītavasena paccavekkhaṇā kātabbā, na ajja paribhuttaṃ, taṃ pana paccuppannavasena paccavekkhaṇāyevā’’ti vadanti. Tattha mūlavacane evaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā. Kathaṃ? Idaṃ hiyyotyādivacanaṃ suttaṃ vā suttānulomaṃ vā ācariyavādo vā attanomati vāti. Tattha na tāva suttaṃ hoti ‘‘suttaṃ nāma sakale vinayapiṭake pāḷī’’ti vuttattā imassa ca vacanassa na pāḷibhūtattā. Na ca suttānulomaṃ ‘‘suttānulomaṃ nāma cattāro mahāpadesā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) vuttattā imassa ca mahāpadesabhāvābhāvato. Na ca ācariyavādo ‘‘ācariyavādo nāma dhammasaṅgāhakehi pañcahi arahantasatehi ṭhapitā pāḷivinimuttā okkantavinicchayappavattā aṭṭhakathātantī’’ti vacanato imassa ca aṭṭhakathāpāṭhabhāvābhāvato. Na ca attanomati ‘‘attanomati nāma suttasuttānulomaācariyavāde muñcitvā anumānena attano buddhiyā nayaggāhena upaṭṭhitākārakathanaṃ, apica suttantābhidhammavinayaṭṭhakathāsu āgato sabbopi [Pg.141] theravādo attanomati nāmā’’ti vuttattā imassa ca aṭṭhakathāsu āgatattheravādabhāvābhāvato.

In these two sections, regarding the phrase 'one stands in the position of using something as a debt,' the statement 'the robe that I used yesterday...' and so on, is cited. Relying on this method, some learned ones now say: 'What was used this morning should be reflected upon in the evening in the past tense, thus: "The robe that I used today..." and so on.' Some say: 'Only what was used yesterday should be reflected upon in the past tense, not what was used today; that, however, should be reflected upon in the present tense.' Herein, the original statement should be investigated thus: How? Is this statement 'yesterday...' and so on a sutta, or in conformity with a sutta, or a teacher's doctrine, or a personal opinion? In this regard, it is not a sutta, for it is said, 'A sutta is the Pāḷi in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka,' and this statement is not Pāḷi. Nor is it in conformity with a sutta, for it is said, 'In conformity with a sutta means the four great standards,' and this statement is not one of the great standards. Nor is it a teacher's doctrine, for it is said, 'A teacher's doctrine is the commentarial tradition established by the five hundred arahants, the compilers of the Dhamma, which is apart from the Pāḷi and proceeds by way of settled decisions,' and this statement is not a passage from the commentary. Nor is it a personal opinion, for it is said, 'A personal opinion is a statement of a form presented by grasping a method with one's own intelligence through inference, apart from the suttas, what conforms to the suttas, and the teachers' doctrines; moreover, the entire Theravāda teaching found in the commentaries on the Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Vinaya is also called a personal opinion,' and this statement is not a Theravāda teaching found in the commentaries.

Iti –

Thus –

‘‘Catubbidhañhi vinayaṃ, mahātherā mahiddhikā;

Nīharitvā pakāsesuṃ, dhammasaṅgāhakā purā’’ti. (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) –

For the great elders of great power, the compilers of the Dhamma in the past, having extracted the fourfold Vinaya, proclaimed it.

Vuttesu catubbidhavinayesu anantogadhattā idaṃ vacanaṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585) ṭīkācariyena ‘‘taṃ vīmaṃsitabba’’nti. Atha vā ‘‘nayaggāhena upaṭṭhitākārakathana’’nti iminā lakkhaṇena tesaṃ tesaṃ ācariyānaṃ upaṭṭhitākāravasena kathanaṃ attanomati siyā, evampi vicāretabbameva. ‘‘Attanomati ācariyavāde otāretabbā. Sace tattha otarati ceva sameti ca, gahetabbā. Sace neva otarati na sameti, na gahetabbā. Ayañhi attanomati nāma sabbadubbalā’’ti (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) vacanato imassa ca vacanassa aṭṭhakathāvacane anotaraṇato appavisanato. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī’’ti.

Since this statement is not included in the fourfold Vinaya that has been mentioned, it should be investigated. Therefore it was said by the subcommentary teacher in the Sāratthadīpanī: 'It should be investigated.' Alternatively, a statement made by various teachers according to the form that has occurred to them, characterized as 'a statement of a form presented by grasping a method,' might be a personal opinion; even so, it must still be investigated. 'A personal opinion should be tested against the teachers' doctrine. If it fits and agrees, it should be accepted. If it neither fits nor agrees, it should not be accepted. For this so-called "personal opinion" is the weakest of all.' And this is because this statement does not fit with or enter into the word of the commentary. For it is said in the commentary: 'If dawn arises while it has not been reflected upon by him, he stands in the position of using it as a debt.'

Aparo nayo – kiṃ idaṃ vacanaṃ pāḷivacanaṃ vā aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ vā ṭīkāvacanaṃ vā ganthantaravacanaṃ vāti. Tattha na tāva pāḷivacanaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ, na ganthantaravacanaṃ, atha kho ṭīkāvacananti. Hotu ṭīkāvacanaṃ, sakavacanaṃ vā paravacanaṃ vā adhippetavacanaṃ vā anadhippetavacanaṃ vāti. Tattha na sakavacanaṃ hoti, atha kho paravacanaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘vadantī’’ti. Na ṭīkācariyena adhippetavacanaṃ hoti, atha kho anadhippetavacanaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘taṃ vīmaṃsitabba’’nti. Tehi pana ācariyehi atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇāti idaṃ [Pg.142] atītapaabhogavasena paccavekkhaṇā atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇāti parikappetvā atītavācakena saddena yojetvā kataṃ bhaveyya. Atīte paribhogo atītaparibhogo, atītaparibhogassa paccavekkhaṇā atītaparibhogapaccavekkhaṇāti evaṃ pana kate atītaparibhogassa paccuppannasamīpattā paccuppannavācakena saddena kathanaṃ hoti yathā taṃ nagarato āgantvā nisinnaṃ purisaṃ ‘‘kuto āgacchasī’’ti vutte ‘‘nagarato āgacchāmī’’ti paccuppannavācakasaddena kathanaṃ.

Another method: Is this statement a Pāḷi statement, a commentarial statement, a sub-commentarial statement, or a statement from another book? Here, it is not a Pāḷi statement, nor a commentarial statement, nor a statement from another book, but rather a sub-commentarial statement. Granted it is a sub-commentarial statement, is it the author's own statement, another's statement, an endorsed statement, or an unendorsed statement? Here, it is not the author's own statement, but another's statement. Therefore it says, 'they say.' It is not a statement endorsed by the sub-commentary teacher, but rather an unendorsed statement. Therefore it says, 'that should be investigated.' However, by those teachers, this 'reflection on past use' might have been formulated by connecting it with a word indicating the past, having conceived it as 'reflection by way of past use is reflection on past use.' Use in the past is 'past use'; reflection on past use is 'reflection on past use.' But when it is done thus, because the past use is near to the present, the statement is made with a word indicating the present, just as when a man who has come from the city and is sitting is asked, 'From where are you coming?' and he replies, 'I am coming from the city,' speaking with a word indicating the present.

Vinayasuttantavisuddhimaggādīsu (ma. ni. 1.23; visuddhi. 1.18) ca ‘‘paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevatī’’ti vattamānavacaneneva pāṭho hoti, na atītavacanena, atītaparibhogoti ca imasmiṃyeva divase pacchābhattādikālaṃ upādāya purebhattādīsu paribhogo icchitabbo, na hiyyo paribhogo. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? Aṭṭhakathāpamāṇena. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585) ‘‘piṇḍapāto ālope ālope, tathā asakkontena purebhattapacchābhattapurimayāmapacchimayāmesu. Sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī’’ti. Etena piṇḍapātaṃ ālope ālope paccavekkhanto bhojanakiriyāya apariniṭṭhitattā mukhyato paccuppannapaccavekkhaṇā hoti, purebhattādīsu catūsu koṭṭhāsesu paccavekkhanto bhojanakiriyāya pariniṭṭhitattā atītapaccavekkhaṇā hotīti dasseti. Sā pana paccuppannasamīpattā vattamānavacanena vidhīyati. Yadi hi hiyyo paribhuttāni atītapaccavekkhaṇena paccavekkhitabbāni siyuṃ, atītadutiyadivasatatiyadivasādimāsasaṃvaccharādiparibhuttānipi paccavekkhitabbāni siyuṃ, evañca sati yathāvuttaaṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā, tasmā aṭṭhakathāvacanameva pamāṇaṃ kātabbaṃ. Yathāha –

In the Vinaya, the Suttas, the Visuddhimagga, and other texts, the reading is with a present-tense expression, not a past-tense one: 'Reflecting wisely, one uses the robe.' And 'past use' here should be understood as use on this very day—such as before the meal and after the meal—not use from the previous day. How is this known? By the authority of the commentary. For it is stated in the commentary: 'Almsfood is to be reflected upon with each mouthful; for one who is unable to do so, it should be done during the periods before the meal, after the meal, in the first watch of the night, and in the last watch of the night. If dawn arises without it having been reflected upon, one stands in the position of using it as a debt.' By this it is shown that reflecting on almsfood with each mouthful is primarily a reflection on the present because the act of eating is not yet completed, whereas reflecting during the four periods—before the meal, etc.—is a reflection on the past because the act of eating is completed. That reflection, however, is prescribed with a present-tense expression because of its nearness to the present. For if things used the previous day were to be reflected upon with a reflection on the past, then those used two days ago, three days ago, months, or even years ago would also have to be reflected upon. If this were so, the aforesaid statement of the commentary would be meaningless. Therefore, the statement of the commentary alone should be taken as the authority. As it is said:

‘‘Buddhena [Pg.143] dhammo vinayo ca vutto;

Yo tassa puttehi tatheva ñāto;

So yehi tesaṃ matimaccajantā;

Yasmā pure aṭṭhakathā akaṃsu.

The Dhamma and Vinaya spoken by the Buddha, was known in just that way by His sons; by whom, not transgressing their understanding, the commentaries were composed in the past.

‘‘Tasmā hi yaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ;

Taṃ vajjayitvāna pamādalekhaṃ;

Sabbampi sikkhāsu sagāravānaṃ;

Yasmā pamāṇaṃ idha paṇḍitāna’’nti. (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.ganthārambhakathā);

Therefore, what is said in the commentaries, excluding any scribal error, is entirely the authority here for the wise who respect the trainings.

Yasmā ca sabbāsavasuttādīsu (ma. ni. 1.23) bhagavatā desitakāle bhikkhukattukattā nāmayogattā vattamānapaṭhamapurisavasena ‘‘paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevatī’’ti desitā, tadanukaraṇena bhikkhūnaṃ paccavekkhaṇakāle attakattukattā amhayogattā vattamānauttamapurisavasena ‘‘paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevāmī’’ti paccavekkhitabbā hoti, ‘‘sītassa paṭighātāyā’’tiādīni tadatthasampadānapadāni ca ‘‘paṭisevati, paṭisevāmī’’ti vuttapaṭisevanakiriyāyameva sambandhitabbāni honti, tāni ca kiriyāpadāni paccuppannavasena vā paccuppannasamīpaatītavasena vā vattamānavibhattiyuttāni honti, tasmā paccuppannaparibhuttānaṃ vā atītaparibhuttānaṃ vā paccayānaṃ paccavekkhaṇakāle ‘‘paṭisevāmī’’ti vacanaṃ bhagavato vacanassa anugatattā upapannamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

And since in the Sabbāsava Sutta and others, when the Blessed One taught, it was taught in the present tense, third person—'reflecting wisely, one uses the robe'—because the monk is the agent and the construction is third-person. In imitation of that, when monks reflect, it should be reflected upon in the present tense, first person—'reflecting wisely, I use the robe'—because oneself is the agent and the construction is first-person. The phrases expressing purpose in the dative case, such as 'for warding off cold,' are to be connected only with the action of using expressed as 'one uses' or 'I use.' And those verbal forms, using a present tense inflection, can signify either the present or the past that is near to the present. Therefore, it should be understood that when reflecting on requisites being used in the present or that were used in the past, the expression 'I use' is indeed fitting because it accords with the Blessed One's utterance.

Anuvacanepi evaṃ vicāraṇā kātabbā – ‘‘ajja pāto paribhuttaṃ sāyaṃ paccavekkhantena ajja yaṃ mayā cīvaraṃ paribhuttantiādinā atītavasena paccavekkhaṇā kātabbā’’ti ye vadanti, te evaṃ pucchitabbā – kiṃ bhavanto bhagavatā atītaparibhuttesu atītavasena paccavekkhaṇā desitāti? Na desitā. Kathaṃ desitāti? ‘‘Paccavekkhatī’’ti paccuppannavaseneva [Pg.144] desitāti. Kiṃ bhonto bhagavato kāle atītaparibhuttesu paccavekkhaṇā natthīti? Atthi. Atha kasmā bhagavatā paccuppannavaseneva paccavekkhaṇā desitāti? Paccuppannasamīpavasena vā sāmaññavasena vā desitāti. Evaṃ sante bhagavato anukaraṇena idānipi atītaparibhuttānaṃ paccayānaṃ paccuppannavasena paccavekkhaṇā kātabbāti. Ye pana evaṃ vadanti ‘‘hiyyo paribhuttānameva atītapaccavekkhaṇā kātabbā, na ajja paribhuttānaṃ, tesaṃ pana paccuppannapaccavekkhaṇāyevā’’ti, te evaṃ vattabbā – kiṃ bhonto yathā tumhe vadanti, evaṃ pāḷiyaṃ atthīti? Natthi. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ atthīti? Natthi. Evaṃ sante sāṭṭhakathesu tepiṭakesu buddhavacanesu asaṃvijjamānaṃ tumhākaṃ vacanaṃ kathaṃ paccetabbanti? Ācariyaparamparāvasena. Hotu tumhākaṃ ācariyaladdhivasena kathanaṃ, kālo nāma tividho atīto anāgato paccuppannoti. Tattha pariniṭṭhitakiriyā atīto nāma, abhimukhakiriyā anāgato nāma, āraddhaaniṭṭhitakiriyā paccuppanno nāma. Tenāhu porāṇā –

In the recitation, this investigation should be made: Those who say, “What was used this morning should be reviewed in the evening by reflecting on it in terms of the past, with the thought, ‘Today, the robe that I used…,’ and so on,” should be asked: “Venerables, did the Blessed One teach that reflection on things used in the past should be done in terms of the past?” He did not. “How did he teach it?” He taught it in terms of the present, saying, “One reflects.” “Venerables, was there no reflection on things used in the past during the Blessed One’s time?” There was. “Then why did the Blessed One teach reflection in terms of the present?” It was taught either by way of proximity to the present or by way of generality. This being so, in imitation of the Blessed One, even now reflection on requisites used in the past should be done in terms of the present. But those who say, “Reflection in terms of the past should be done only for what was used yesterday, not for what was used today; for the latter, there is only reflection in terms of the present,” should be told: “Venerables, is what you say found in the Pāli canon?” It is not. “Is it found in the commentaries?” It is not. “This being so, since your statement is not found in the words of the Buddha in the Tipiṭaka with its commentaries, how can it be accepted?” “Through the lineage of teachers.” Let your statement be on the grounds of what you have received from your teachers. Time is threefold: past, future, and present. Therein, a completed action is called past; an impending action is called future; and an action that has been started but not completed is called present. Thus the ancients have said:

‘‘Āraddhāniṭṭhito bhāvo, paccuppanno suniṭṭhito;

Atītānāgatuppāda-mappattābhimukhā kiriyā’’ti.

“A state that has been started but is unfinished is the present; one that is well-finished is the past; an action that is impending but has not yet reached its arising is the future.”

Tattha ajja vā hotu hiyyo vā tato pubbe vā, paribhuttapaccayo supariniṭṭhitabhuñjanakiriyattā atīto nāma. Tattha hiyyo vā tato pubbe vā paribhuttapaccayo atikkantaaruṇuggamanattā na paccavekkhaṇāraho, paccavekkhitopi appaccavekkhitoyeva hoti, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhati. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī’’ti. Ajjeva pana cīvarañca senāsanañca paribhoge paribhoge, piṇḍapātaṃ ālope ālope, bhesajjaṃ paṭiggahaṇe paribhoge ca [Pg.145] paccavekkhato apariniṭṭhitabhuñjanakiriyattā paccuppannaparibhuttapaccavekkhaṇā nāma hoti. Pure paribhuttaṃ tato pacchā catūsu koṭṭhāsesu paccavekkhato supariniṭṭhitabhuñjanakiriyattā atītaparibhuttapaccavekkhaṇā nāma hoti. Ettakaṃ paccavekkhaṇāya khettaṃ, na tato pubbe pacchā vā. Yathāha aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sīlavato appaccavekkhitaparibhogo iṇaparibhogo nāma. Tasmā cīvaraṃ paribhoge paribhoge…pe… bhesajjassa paṭiggahaṇepi paribhogepi satipaccayatā vaṭṭatī’’ti, tasmā hiyyo paribhuttassa iṇaparibhogattā taṃ anāmasitvā ajja paribhuttesu atītapaccuppannesu bhagavato vacanassa anukaraṇena vattamānavibhattiyuttena ‘‘paṭisevāmī’’ti kiriyāpadena paccavekkhaṇā sūpapannā hotīti daṭṭhabbā. Īdisapaccavekkhaṇameva sandhāya vimativinodaniyādīsu (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) ‘‘paccayasannissitasīlassa atītapaccavekkhaṇāya visujjhanato’’ti vuttaṃ.

Therein, whether today, yesterday, or before, a requisite that has been used is called ‘past’ because the act of using it is fully completed. In this regard, a requisite used yesterday or before is not a proper object for reflection because dawn has already passed; even if reflected upon, it is as if not reflected upon, and it remains in the state of a use in debt. For it is said in the commentary: “If dawn rises while it is still unreflected upon, it remains in the state of a use in debt.” But when one reflects today on the robe and lodging at each use, on almsfood with each morsel, and on medicine at its reception and use, because the act of using is not yet completed, this is called reflection on requisites used in the present. When one reflects in the four periods on what was previously used, because the act of using is well-completed, this is called reflection on requisites used in the past. This is the extent of the field for reflection, not before or after. As the commentary says: “For one who is virtuous, unreflected use is called use in debt. Therefore, for the robe at each use… and for medicine at its reception and use, mindfulness regarding the requisites is proper.” Therefore, it should be understood that since what was used yesterday is a use in debt, one should not advert to it but should reflect on what was used today—both past and present uses—in imitation of the Blessed One’s words, with the verb “I use” (paṭisevāmi), which has a present tense ending. Such reflection is well-founded. It is with reference to this kind of reflection that it is said in the Vimativinodanī and other texts: “because of the purification of the virtue dependent on requisites through reflection on the past.”

Evaṃ paccayasannissitasīlassa suddhiṃ dassetvā idāni teneva pasaṅgena sabbāpi suddhiyo dassetuṃ ‘‘catubbidhā hi suddhī’’tiādimāha. Tattha sujjhati etāyāti suddhi, yathādhammaṃ desanāva suddhi desanāsuddhi. Vuṭṭhānassapi cettha desanāya eva saṅgaho daṭṭhabbo. Chinnamūlāpattīnaṃ pana abhikkhutāpaṭiññāyeva desanā. Adhiṭṭhānavisiṭṭho saṃvarova suddhi saṃvarasuddhi. Dhammena samena paccayānaṃ pariyeṭṭhi eva suddhi pariyeṭṭhisuddhi. Catūsu paccayesu vuttavidhinā paccavekkhaṇāva suddhi paccavekkhaṇasuddhi. Esa tāva suddhīsu samāsanayo. Suddhimantesu sīlesu pana desanā suddhi etassāti desanāsuddhi. Sesesupi eseva nayo. Na punevaṃ karissāmīti ettha evanti saṃvarabhedaṃ sandhāyāha. Pahāyāti [Pg.146] vajjetvā, akatvāti attho. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana ‘‘sujjhati desanādīhi, sodhīyatīti vā suddhi, catubbidhasīlaṃ. Tenāha ‘desanāya sujjhanato’tiādi. Ettha desanāggahaṇena vuṭṭhānampi chinnamūlānaṃ abhikkhutāpaṭiññāpi saṅgahitā. Chinnamūlāpattīnampi hi pārājikāpattivuṭṭhānena heṭṭhāparirakkhitaṃ bhikkhusīlaṃ visuddhaṃ nāma hoti. Tena tesaṃ maggapaṭilābhopi sampajjatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

Having thus shown the purity of the virtue dependent on requisites, he now says, “For purity is fourfold,” etc., in order to show all the purities in the same connection. Herein, purity (suddhi) is that by which one is purified. A confession in accordance with the Dhamma is itself purity; this is purity of confession (desanāsuddhi). Herein, emergence from an offense should also be understood as included under confession. But for offenses with cut-off roots, the confession is simply the declaration of no longer being a bhikkhu. Restraint distinguished by determination is itself purity; this is purity of restraint (saṃvarasuddhi). The search for requisites righteously and peacefully is itself purity; this is purity of search (pariyeṭṭhisuddhi). Reflection on the four requisites in the way described is itself purity; this is purity of reflection (paccavekkhaṇasuddhi). This is the summary analysis of the purities. But with regard to the virtues that possess purity, the compound `desanāsuddhi` means: the virtue for which confession is its purity. The same method applies to the others. In the phrase, “I will not do so again,” the word “so” refers to the breach of restraint. “Having abandoned” means having avoided, that is, not having done. But in the Vimativinodanī it is said: “Purity (suddhi) is that which is purified or cleansed by confession, etc.; this is the fourfold virtue. Thus he says, ‘by purification through confession,’ etc. Here, the term ‘confession’ also includes emergence from an offense and the declaration of no longer being a bhikkhu for those with cut-off roots. For in the case of offenses with cut-off roots, the bhikkhu’s virtue that was guarded up to that point is called purified by emergence from a pārājika offense. Thereby they can even attain the path.”

Tattha desīyati uccārīyatīti desanā, disī uccāraṇeti dhātu, desīyati ñāpīyati etāyāti vā desanā, disa pekkhaneti dhātu. Ubhayathāpi viratipadhānakusalacittasamuṭṭhito desanāvacībhedasaddo. Saṃvaraṇaṃ saṃvaro, saṃ-pubba vara saṃvaraṇeti dhātu, satipadhāno cittuppādo. Pariyesanā pariyeṭṭhi, pari-pubba isa pariyesaneti dhātu, vīriyapadhāno cittuppādo. Paṭi punappunaṃ ogāhetvā ikkhanā paccavekkhaṇā, paṭi-pubba ava-pubba ikkha dassanaṅkesūti dhātu, paññāpadhāno cittuppādo. Tesu desanāya vacībhedasaddabhāvato vacībhedaṃ kātuṃ asakkontassa ca dutiyakaṃ alabhantassa ca na sampajjati, sesā pana cittuppādamattabhāvato vacībhedaṃ kātuṃ asakkontassapi dutiyakaṃ alabhantassapi sampajjanti eva, tasmā gilānādikālesu paccavekkhaṇāpāṭhaṃ paṭhitumasakkontenapi atthaṃ manasi katvā citteneva paccavekkhaṇā kātabbāti.

Herein, confession (desanā) is so called because it is pointed out or uttered; the root is `dis` in the sense of uttering. Or, it is that by which something is made known; the root is `dis` in the sense of seeing. In either case, confession is the sound of verbal expression that arises from a wholesome state of mind in which abstinence is prominent. Restraint (saṃvaro) is a restraining; the root is `var` with the prefix `saṃ-` in the sense of restraining; it is a state of mind in which mindfulness is prominent. Search (pariyeṭṭhi) is a searching; the root is `is` with the prefix `pari-` in the sense of searching; it is a state of mind in which energy is prominent. Reflection (paccavekkhaṇā) is seeing after repeatedly plunging into something; the root is `ikkh` with the prefixes `paṭi-` and `ava-` in the sense of seeing and marking; it is a state of mind in which wisdom is prominent. Among these, since confession consists of the sound of verbal expression, it cannot be accomplished by one who is unable to produce verbal expression or who cannot find a second person. But the others, being merely mental processes, can be accomplished even by one who is unable to produce verbal expression or who cannot find a second person. Therefore, at times of sickness and so on, even one who is unable to recite the text for reflection should reflect with the mind alone, having attended to the meaning.

Dātabbaṭṭhena dāyaṃ, taṃ ādiyantīti dāyādā, ananuññātesu sabbena sabbaṃ paribhogābhāvato anuññātesuyeva ca paribhogasabbhāvabhāvato bhikkhūhi paribhuñjitabbapaccayā bhagavato santakā. Dhammadāyādasuttañcettha sādhakanti ‘‘dhammadāyādā me, bhikkhave, bhavatha, mā āmisadāyādā, atthi me tumhesu anukampā, kinti me sāvakā dhammadāyādā bhaveyyuṃ, no āmisadāyādā’’ti evaṃ pavattaṃ dhammadāyādasuttañca [Pg.147] (ma. ni. 1.29) ettha etasmiṃ atthe sādhakaṃ. Avītarāgānaṃ taṇhāvasīkatāya paccayaparibhoge sāmibhāvo natthi, tadabhāvena vītarāgānaṃ tattha sāmibhāvo yathāruci paribhogasabbhāvato. Tathā hi te paṭikūlampi appaṭikūlākārena appaṭikūlampi paṭikūlākārena tadubhayampi vajjetvā ajjhupekkhaṇākārena paccaye paribhuñjanti, dāyakānañca manorathaṃ paripūrenti. Tenāha ‘‘te hi taṇhāya dāsabyaṃ atītattā sāmino hutvā paribhuñjantī’’ti. Yo panāyaṃ sīlavato puthujjanassa paccavekkhitaparibhogo, so iṇaparibhogassa paccanīkattā ānaṇyaparibhogo nāma hoti. Yathā pana iṇāyiko attano ruciyā icchitaṃ desaṃ gantuṃ na labhati, evaṃ iṇaparibhogayutto lokato nissarituṃ na labhatīti tappaṭipakkhattā sīlavato paccavekkhitaparibhogo ānaṇyaparibhogoti vuccati, tasmā nippariyāyato catuparibhogavinimutto visuṃyevāyaṃ paribhogoti veditabbo, so idha visuṃ na vutto, dāyajjaparibhogeyeva vā saṅgahaṃ gacchatīti. Sīlavāpi hi imāya sikkhāya samannāgatattā sekkhotveva vuccati.

An inheritance (dāya) is so called in the sense that it is to be given. Those who take it are heirs (dāyādā). The requisites to be used by the bhikkhus belong to the Blessed One, because there is absolutely no use of what is unpermitted, and because the very possibility of use exists only for what is permitted. The Dhammadāyāda Sutta is also evidence for this point, where it is said: “Bhikkhus, be my heirs in the Dhamma, not my heirs in material things. I have compassion for you and think: ‘How can my disciples be my heirs in the Dhamma, not my heirs in material things?’” (MN 3). For those who are not free from lust, there is no ownership in the use of requisites because they are under the control of craving. Because of the absence of that, those who are free from lust have ownership, since for them there is the possibility of using things as they wish. For they use requisites by treating the repulsive as if it were unrepulsive, the unrepulsive as if it were repulsive, or by avoiding both and using them with equanimity. They also fulfill the aspirations of the donors. Thus it is said: “For they, having transcended slavery to craving, use them as masters.” Now, this reflected use by a virtuous worldling is called use without debt because it is the opposite of use as a debt. Just as a debtor is not able to go to any country he wishes, so one who makes use of things as a debt is not able to escape from the world. Since it is the opposite of that, the reflected use by a virtuous one is called use without debt. Therefore, it should be understood that this use is, in an absolute sense, quite distinct from the four kinds of use. It is not mentioned separately here, or it is included under the use as an inheritance. For even a virtuous person, being endowed with this training, is called a trainee (sekha).

Sabbesanti ariyānaṃ puthujjanānañca. Kathaṃ puthujjanānaṃ ime paribhogā sambhavantīti? Upacāravasena. Yo hi puthujjanassapi sallekhapaṭipattiyaṃ ṭhitassa paccayagedhaṃ pahāya tattha anupalittena cittena paribhogo, so sāmiparibhogo viya hoti. Sīlavato pana paccavekkhitaparibhogo dāyajjaparibhogo viya hoti dāyakānaṃ manorathassāvirādhanato. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘dāyajjaparibhogeyeva vā saṅgahaṃ gacchatī’’ti. Kalyāṇaputhujjanassa paribhoge vattabbameva natthi [Pg.148] tassa sekkhasaṅgahato. Sekkhasutta ñhetassa (a. ni. 3.86) atthassa sādhakaṃ.

“For all” means for both noble ones and worldlings. How are these kinds of use possible for worldlings? By way of approximation. For when even a worldling who is established in the practice of effacement, having abandoned greed for the requisites, makes use of them with an undefiled mind, that use is like a master's use. But for a virtuous person, use accompanied by reflection is like the use of an inheritance, because it does not frustrate the aspiration of the donors. Therefore it is said: “Or it is included under the use of an inheritance.” Concerning the use by a virtuous worldling, there is nothing to be said, since he is included among the trainees. The Sekkha Sutta (AN 3.86) is proof of this meaning.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) pana ‘‘dātabbaṭṭhena dāyaṃ, taṃ ādiyantīti dāyādā. Sattannaṃ sekkhānanti ettha kalyāṇaputhujjanāpi saṅgahitā tesaṃ ānaṇyaparibhogassa dāyajjaparibhoge saṅgahitattāti veditabbaṃ. Dhammadāyādasuttanti ‘‘dhammadāyādā me, bhikkhave, bhavatha, mā āmisadāyādā’’tiādinā pavattaṃ suttaṃ (ma. ni. 1.29). Tattha ‘‘mā me āmisadāyādāti evaṃ me-saddaṃ ānetvā attho veditabbo. Evañhi yathāvuttatthasādhakaṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tattha me mama āmisadāyādā catupaccayabhuñjakāti bhagavato sambandhabhūtassa sambandhībhūtā paccayā vuttā, tasmā dāyakehi dinnāpi paccayā bhagavatā anuññātattā bhagavato paccayāyeva hontīti etassa atthassa dhammadāyādasuttaṃ sādhakaṃ hotīti atthoti vuttaṃ.

But in the Vimativinodanī (Vmv-ṭ 1:585) it is said: '“Dāya” means “what is to be given”; those who take it are “dāyādā” (heirs). In the phrase “of the seven trainees,” it should be understood that virtuous worldlings are also included, because their use free from debt is included in the use of an inheritance.' The Dhammadāyāda Sutta is the discourse that begins: 'Bhikkhus, be my heirs in the Dhamma, not my heirs in material things' (MN 3). There it is said: 'The meaning should be understood by supplying the word “me” (my), thus: “do not be my heirs in material things.” For in this way it becomes proof for the aforesaid meaning.' There, 'my heirs in material things' means those who use the four requisites. The requisites are spoken of as belonging to the Blessed One, as being his property. Therefore, even requisites given by donors, since they are permitted by the Blessed One, are indeed the Blessed One's requisites. Thus it is said that the Dhammadāyāda Sutta is proof for this meaning.

Lajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogo nāma lajjissa santakaṃ gahetvā paribhogo. Alajjinā saddhinti etthāpi eseva nayo. Ādito paṭṭhāya hi alajjī nāma natthīti iminā diṭṭhadiṭṭhesuyeva āsaṅkā na kātabbāti dasseti. Attano bhārabhūtā saddhivihārikādayo. Tepi nivāretabbāti yo passati, tena nivāretabbāti pāṭho. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘yopi attano bhārabhūtena alajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogaṃ karoti, sopi nivāretabbo’’ti pāṭho dissati, tathāpi atthato ubhayathāpi yujjati. Attano saddhivihārikādayopi alajjibhāvato nivāretabbā. Alajjīhi saddhivihārikādīhi ekasambhogaṃ karontā aññepi nivāretabbāva. Sace na [Pg.149] oramati, ayampi alajjīyeva hotīti ettha evaṃ nivārito so puggalo alajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogato oramati viramati, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce oramati, ayampi alajjīyeva hoti, tena saddhiṃ paribhogaṃ karonto sopi alajjīyeva hotīti attho. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘evaṃ eko alajjī alajjisatampi karotī’’ti. Adhammiyoti anesanādīhi uppanno. Dhammiyoti bhikkhācariyādīhi uppanno. Saṅghasseva detīti bhattaṃ aggahetvā attanā laddhasalākaṃyeva deti.

Use with a conscientious person means taking what belongs to a conscientious person and using it. The same principle applies to “with a shameless person.” This shows that since from the outset there is no one called “shameless,” one should not entertain suspicion merely on the basis of what is seen. One's own co-residents and others who are a burden. The reading is: “They too should be restrained. He who sees this should restrain them.” In the commentary, however, the reading found is: “One who makes use of things together with a shameless person who is a burden to oneself should also be restrained.” Nevertheless, in terms of meaning, both are tenable. One's own co-residents and others should be restrained from their shamelessness. Others who engage in communal use with shameless co-residents and others should also be restrained. If he does not desist, he too becomes shameless. Here the meaning is this: when a person so restrained desists and refrains from use with a shameless person, this is skillful. If he does not desist, he too becomes shameless. The meaning is that one who makes use of things with him also becomes shameless. Hence it is said: “Thus one shameless person makes a hundred shameless.” “Unrighteously acquired” means arisen from improper seeking and so on. “Righteously acquired” means arisen from the alms round and so on. “He gives only to the Sangha” means that without taking the meal himself, he gives the ticket-food he has received.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana ‘‘lajjinā saddhiṃ paribhogoti dhammāmisavasena missībhāvo. Alajjinā saddhinti etthāpi eseva nayo. Ādito paṭṭhāya hi alajjī nāma natthīti iminā diṭṭhadiṭṭhesu āsaṅkā nāma na kātabbā, diṭṭhasutādikāraṇe sati eva kātabbāti dasseti. Attano bhārabhūtā saddhivihārikādayo. Sace na oramatīti agatigamanavasena dhammāmisaparibhogato na oramati. Āpatti nāma natthīti idaṃ alajjīnaṃ dhammenuppannapaccayaṃ dhammakammañca sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tesampi hi kuladūsanādisamuppannaṃ paccayaṃ paribhuñjantānaṃ vaggakammādīni karontānañca āpatti eva. ‘Dhammiyādhammiyaparibhogo paccayavaseneva veditabbo’ti vuttattā heṭṭhā lajjiparibhogālajjiparibhogā paccayavasena ekakammādivasena ca vuttā evāti veditabbaṃ. Teneva duṭṭhadosasikkhāpadaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-386) codakacuditakabhāve ṭhitā dve alajjino dhammaparibhogampi sandhāya ‘ekasambhogaparibhogā hutvā jīvathā’ti vuttā tesaṃ aññamaññaṃ dhammāmisāparibhoge virodhābhāvā. Lajjīnameva hi alajjinā saha tadubhayaparibhogo na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

But in the Vimativinodanī it is said: '“Use with a conscientious person” means mingling by way of the Dhamma and material things. The same principle applies to “use with a shameless person.” This shows that since from the outset there is no one called “shameless,” one should not entertain suspicion about things seen; it should be entertained only when there is a reason, such as something seen or heard.' One's own co-residents, etc., who are a burden. 'If he does not desist' means he does not desist from the use of the Dhamma and material things by way of going on a wrong course. 'There is no offense': this is said with reference to a shameless person's requisites arisen righteously and a formal act of the Dhamma. For even for them there is indeed an offense when they use requisites obtained by corrupting families and so on, and when they perform incomplete formal acts and so on. Because it is said, 'The use of what is righteously and unrighteously acquired should be understood only by way of the requisites,' it should be understood that the use with a conscientious person and the use with a shameless person mentioned below are spoken of by way of requisites and by way of a single formal act, etc. For that reason, in the commentary on the training rule on a malicious fault (Pārā-aṭṭha 2:385–386), with reference also to the use of the Dhamma, it is said of two shameless persons standing in the position of accuser and accused: 'Live, having communal use and partaking.' For them there is no conflict in the mutual use of the Dhamma and material things. For it is said: 'For a conscientious person, the use of both of these together with a shameless person is not allowable.'

Sace [Pg.150] pana lajjī alajjiṃ paggaṇhāti…pe… antaradhāpetīti ettha kevalaṃ paggaṇhitukāmatāya evaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, dhammassa pana sāsanassa sotūnañca anuggahatthāya vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Purimanayena ‘‘so āpattiyā kāretabbo’’ti vuttattā imassa āpattiyevāti vadanti. Uddesaggahaṇādinā dhammassa paribhogo dhammaparibhogo. Dhammānuggahena gaṇhantassa āpattiyā abhāvepi thero tassa alajjibhāvaṃyeva sandhāya ‘‘pāpo kirāya’’ntiādimāha. Tassa pana santiketi mahārakkhitattherassa santike.

But if a conscientious person supports a shameless one...pe... causes the teaching to disappear: here it should be understood that it is not allowable to do so merely from a desire to support him, but it is allowable for the sake of benefiting the Dhamma, the teaching, and the listeners. Because it was said in the previous method, 'He should be dealt with according to the offense,' some say this is an offense for him. The use of the Dhamma by way of recitation, learning, etc., is the use of the Dhamma. Although there is no offense for one who accepts him out of concern for the Dhamma, the elder spoke thus, 'Indeed, this one is evil,' etc., referring to his shameless nature. 'In his presence' means in the presence of the Elder Mahārakkhita.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585) pana imasmiṃ ṭhāne vitthārato vinicchitaṃ. Kathaṃ? Dhammaparibhogoti ‘‘ekakammaṃ ekuddeso’’tiādinā vuttasaṃvāso ceva nissayaggahaṇādiko sabbo nirāmisaparibhogo ca veditabbo. ‘‘Na so āpattiyā kāretabbo’’ti vuttattā lajjino alajjipaggahe āpattīti veditabbaṃ. Itaropīti lajjīpi. Tassāpi attānaṃ paggaṇhantassa alajjino, iminā ca lajjino vaṇṇabhaṇanādilābhaṃ paṭicca āmisagarukatāya vā gehassitapemena vā taṃ alajjiṃ paggaṇhanto lajjī sāsanaṃ antaradhāpeti nāmāti dasseti. Evaṃ gahaṭṭhādīsu upatthambhito alajjī balaṃ labhitvā pesale abhibhavitvā na cirasseva sāsanaṃ uddhammaṃ ubbinayaṃ karotīti.

But in the Vimativinodanī (Vmv-ṭ 1:585) this point is decided in detail. How? 'Use of the Dhamma' should be understood as both the communion spoken of as 'a single formal act, a single recitation,' etc., and all non-material use, such as the taking of dependence. Because it is said, 'He should not be dealt with according to the offense,' it should be understood that there is an offense for a conscientious person in supporting a shameless one. 'The other one too' means the conscientious one too. This shows that when a conscientious person supports that shameless one—who in turn supports him—on account of gain, such as praise, or because of being weighted down by material things, or through affection for householders, that conscientious person is causing the teaching to disappear. Thus a shameless person, being supported by householders and others, gains power, and having overpowered the virtuous, before long makes the teaching non-Dhamma and non-Vinaya.

Dhammaparibhogopi tattha vaṭṭatīti iminā āmisaparibhogato dhammaparibhogova garuko, tasmā ativiya alajjīvivekena kātabboti dasseti. ‘‘Dhammānuggahena uggaṇhituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttattā alajjussannatāyasāsane osakkante, lajjīsu ca appahontesu alajjiṃ pakatattaṃ gaṇapūrakaṃ gahetvā upasampadādikaraṇena ceva keci alajjino dhammāmisaparibhogena [Pg.151] saṅgahetvā sesālajjigaṇassa niggahena ca sāsanaṃ paggaṇhitumpi vaṭṭati eva.

'The use of the Dhamma is also allowable there': by this it shows that the use of the Dhamma is weightier than the use of material things; therefore, one must act with extreme discrimination from the shameless. Because it is said, 'It is allowable to support them out of concern for the Dhamma,' when the teaching is declining due to an abundance of shameless ones and the conscientious are not able, it is indeed allowable to support the teaching by taking a shameless person in his natural state to make up the quorum and performing ordination, etc., and by winning over some shameless ones through the use of the Dhamma and material things, and by restraining the remaining group of shameless ones.

Keci pana ‘‘koṭiyaṃ ṭhito ganthoti vuttattā ganthapariyāpuṇanameva dhammaparibhogo, na ekakammādi, tasmā alajjīhi saddhiṃ uposathādikaṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, āpatti natthī’’ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ, ekakammādīsu bahūsu dhammaparibhogesu alajjināpi saddhiṃ kattabbāvatthāyattaṃ dhammaparibhogaṃ dassetuṃ idha nidassanavasena ganthasseva samuddhaṭattā. Na hi ekakammādiko vidhi dhammaparibhogo na hotīti sakkā vattuṃ anāmisattā dhammāmisesu apariyāpannassa ca kassaci abhāvā. Teneva aṭṭhasāliniyaṃ dhammapaṭisanthārakathāyaṃ (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 1351) ‘‘kammaṭṭhānaṃ kathetabbaṃ, dhammo vācetabbo…pe… abbhānavuṭṭhānamānattaparivāsā dātabbā, pabbajjāraho pabbājetabbo, upasampadāraho upasampādetabbo…pe… ayaṃ dhammapaṭisanthāro nāmā’’ti evaṃ saṅghakammādipi dhammakoṭṭhāse dassitaṃ. Tesu pana dhammakoṭṭhāsesu yaṃ gaṇapūrakādivasena alajjino apekkhitvā uposathādi vā tesaṃ santikā dhammuggahaṇanissayaggahaṇādi vā karīyati, taṃ dhammo ceva paribhogo cāti dhammaparibhogoti vuccati, etaṃ tathārūpapaccayaṃ vinā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, karontassa alajjiparibhogo ca hoti dukkaṭañca. Yaṃ pana alajjisataṃ anapekkhitvā tajjanīyādiniggahakammaṃ vā parivāsādiupakārakammaṃ vā uggahaparipucchādānādi vā karīyati, taṃ dhammo eva, no paribhogo, etaṃ anurūpānaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, āmisadāne viya āpatti natthi. Nissayadānampi terasasammutidānādi ca vattapaṭipattisādiyanādiparibhogassapi hetuttā na vaṭṭati.

Some, however, argue: "Since it is said, 'The text is at the limit,' the use of the Dhamma is only the mastery of the text, not a single act, etc. Therefore, it is permissible to perform acts such as the Uposatha with the shameless, and there is no offense." This is not correct. For here the text has been singled out only as an example to show the use of the Dhamma that depends on the necessity of performing it even with a shameless person, among the many uses of the Dhamma such as a single act. It cannot be said that the procedure of a single act, etc., is not a use of the Dhamma, since it is non-material and because there is nothing that is not included in the categories of Dhamma and material things. Therefore, in the Aṭṭhasālinī, in the discussion on Dhamma hospitality, it is stated: "The meditation subject should be taught, the Dhamma should be recited… abbhāna, mānatta, and parivāsa should be given; one worthy of going forth should be given the going forth, one worthy of full admission should be fully admitted… this is called Dhamma hospitality." Thus, even Saṅgha acts are shown to be included in the category of the Dhamma. Among these categories of the Dhamma, when one performs the Uposatha, etc., relying on shameless individuals to complete the quorum, or when one learns the Dhamma or takes dependence from them, this is called 'use of the Dhamma' because it is both Dhamma and use. It is not permissible to do this without a suitable reason; for one who does so, it is both a use of the shameless and a dukkaṭa offense. But when, without regard for a hundred shameless ones, an act of censure such as tajjaniya is performed, or a helpful act such as for parivāsa, or learning, questioning, giving, etc., is done, that is only Dhamma, not a use. It is permissible for suitable persons to do this; just as in the giving of material things, there is no offense. Also, the giving of dependence, the giving of the thirteen authorizations, and so on, are not permissible because they are a cause for the use consisting of the practice of duties and observances.

Yo pana mahāalajjī uddhammaṃ ubbinayaṃ satthusāsanaṃ karoti, tassa saddhivihārikādīnaṃ upasampadādi upakārakammampi uggahaparipucchādānādi [Pg.152] ca kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, āpatti eva hoti, niggahakammameva kātabbaṃ. Teneva alajjipaggahopi paṭikkhitto. Dhammāmisaparibhogavivajjanenapi hi dummaṅkūnaṃ puggalānaṃ niggahova adhippeto, so ca pesalānaṃ phāsuvihārasaddhammaṭṭhitivinayānuggahādiatthāya etadatthattā sikkhāpadapaññattiyā, tasmā yaṃ yaṃ dummaṅkūnaṃ upatthambhāya, pesalānaṃ aphāsuvihārāya, saddhammaparihānādiatthāya hoti, taṃ sabbampi paribhogo vā hotu aparibhogo vā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, evaṃ karontā sāsanaṃ antaradhāpenti, āpattiñca āpajjanti, dhammāmisaparibhogesu cettha alajjīhi ekakammādidhammaparibhogo eva pesalānaṃ aphāsuvihārāya saddhammaparihānādiatthāya hoti, na tathā āmisaparibhogo. Na hi alajjīnaṃ paccayaparibhogamattena pesalānaṃ aphāsuvihārādi hoti, yathāvuttadhammaparibhogena pana hoti. Tapparivajjanena ca phāsuvihārādayo. Tathā hi katasikkhāpadavītikkamā alajjipuggalā uposathādīsu paviṭṭhā ‘‘tumhe kāyadvāre ceva vacīdvāre ca vītikkamaṃ karothā’’tiādinā bhikkhūhi vattabbā honti. Yathā vinayañca atiṭṭhantā saṅghato bahikaraṇādivasena suṭṭhu niggahetabbā, tathā akatvā tehi saha saṃvasantāpi alajjinova honti ‘‘ekopi alajjī alajjisatampi karotī’’tiādivacanato (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585). Yadi hi te evaṃ aniggahitā siyuṃ, saṅghe kalahādiṃ vaḍḍhetvā uposathādisāmaggikammapaṭibāhanādinā pesalānaṃ aphāsuṃ katvā kamena te devadattavajjiputtakādayo viya parisaṃ vaḍḍhetvā attano vippaṭipattiṃ dhammato vinayato dīpentā saṅghabhedādimpi katvā na cirasseva sāsanaṃ antaradhāpeyyuṃ. Tesu pana saṅghato bahikaraṇādivasena niggahitesu sabbopi ayaṃ upaddavo [Pg.153] na hoti. Vuttañhi ‘‘dussīlapuggale nissāya uposatho na tiṭṭhati, pavāraṇā na tiṭṭhati, saṅghakammāni na pavattanti, sāmaggī na hoti…pe… dussīlesu pana niggahitesu sabbopi ayaṃ upaddavo na hoti, tato pesalā bhikkhū phāsu viharantī’’ti, tasmā ekakammādidhammaparibhogova āmisaparibhogatopi ativiya alajjīvivekena kātabbo, āpattikaro ca saddhammaparihānihetuttāti veditabbaṃ.

But as for one who is greatly shameless and makes the Teacher's Dispensation into non-Dhamma and non-Vinaya, it is not permissible to perform for him helpful acts such as ordination for his pupils and others, nor to undertake learning, questioning, giving, etc. An offense is indeed incurred, and only an act of censure should be performed. For this reason, supporting the shameless is also rejected. Indeed, the avoidance of the use of the Dhamma and material things is intended as a censure for ill-behaved individuals. And this is for the sake of the comfortable abiding of the virtuous, the stability of the good Dhamma, and the support of the Vinaya, this being the purpose for laying down the training rules. Therefore, whatever is for the support of the ill-behaved, for the uncomfortable abiding of the virtuous, or for the decline of the good Dhamma, etc.—whether it is a use or not a use—it is not permissible to do any of it. Those who act thus cause the Dispensation to disappear and also incur an offense. In this matter, among the uses of Dhamma and material things, it is the use of the Dhamma in a single act, etc., with the shameless that is for the uncomfortable abiding of the virtuous and for the decline of the good Dhamma, not so the use of material things. For the mere use of requisites by the shameless does not cause uncomfortable abiding for the virtuous, etc., but the aforementioned use of the Dhamma does. And by avoiding that, a comfortable abiding, etc., is achieved. For indeed, shameless individuals who have transgressed the training rules and have entered the Uposatha assembly, etc., should be told by the bhikkhus: "You are transgressing by way of body and speech," and so on. Not abiding by the Vinaya, they should be thoroughly censured by the Saṅgha by means of expulsion, etc. Without doing so, those who live together with them also become shameless, according to the saying: "One shameless person makes even a hundred shameless." If they are not censured in this way, they will increase quarrels, etc., in the Saṅgha, and by obstructing communal acts such as the Uposatha, they will cause discomfort for the virtuous. Gradually, like Devadatta and the Vajjiputtakas, they will increase their following, and by presenting their wrong practice as Dhamma and Vinaya, they will even cause a schism in the Saṅgha and before long cause the Dispensation to disappear. But when they are censured by the Saṅgha by means of expulsion, etc., none of this calamity occurs. For it is said: "Relying on an immoral person, the Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, Saṅgha acts do not proceed, harmony is not achieved… But when the immoral are censured, none of this calamity occurs, and then the virtuous bhikkhus dwell in comfort." Therefore, it should be understood that the use of the Dhamma in a single act, etc., must be undertaken with great discrimination regarding the shameless, even more so than the use of material things, as it incurs an offense and is a cause for the decline of the good Dhamma.

Apica ‘‘uposatho na tiṭṭhati, pavāraṇā na tiṭṭhati, saṅghakammāni na pavattantī’’ti evaṃ alajjīhi saddhiṃ saṅghakammākaraṇassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pakāsitattāpi cetaṃ sijjhati. Tathā parivattaliṅgassa bhikkhuno bhikkhunupassayaṃ gacchantassa paṭipattikathāyaṃ ‘‘ārādhikā ca honti saṅgāhikā lajjiniyo, tā kopetvā aññattha na gantabbaṃ. Gacchati ce, gāmantaranadīpārarattivippavāsagaṇamhā ohīyanāpattīhi na muccati…pe… alajjiniyo honti, saṅgahaṃ pana karonti, tāpi pariccajitvā aññattha gantuṃ labhatī’’ti evaṃ alajjinīsu dutiyikāgahaṇādīsu saṃvāsāpattiparihārāya nadīpārāgamanādigarukāpattiṭṭhānānaṃ anuññātattā tatopi alajjisaṃvāsāpatti eva saddhammaparihāniyā hetubhūto garukatarāti viññāyati. Na hi lahukāpattiṭṭhānaṃ vā anāpattiṭṭhānaṃ vā pariharituṃ garukāpattiṭṭhānavītikkamaṃ ācariyā anujānanti. Tathā asaṃvāsapadassa aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sabbehipi lajjipuggalehi samaṃ sikkhitabbabhāvato samasikkhātā nāma. Ettha yasmā sabbepi lajjino etesu kammādīsu saha vasanti, na ekopi tato bahiddhā sandissati, tasmā tāni sabbānipi gahetvā eso saṃvāso nāmā’’ti evaṃ lajjīheva ekakammādisaṃvāso vaṭṭatīti pakāsito.

Moreover, this point is established because it is explained in the commentary that Saṅgha acts are not to be performed with the shameless, thus: "The Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, Saṅgha acts do not proceed." Likewise, in the discussion on the practice for a bhikkhu whose sex has changed who is going to a bhikkhunī's residence, it is said: "If the bhikkhunīs are pleasing, helpful, and conscientious, one should not anger them and go elsewhere. If one does go, one is not freed from the offenses of going to another village, crossing a river, spending the night apart, and being left behind by the group… If they are shameless but are helpful, one is allowed to abandon them and go elsewhere." Thus, because in cases involving shameless bhikkhunīs, such as taking a companion, the grounds for grave offenses like crossing a river have been allowed in order to avoid the offense of co-residence, from this it is understood that the offense of co-residence with the shameless is an even graver cause for the decline of the good Dhamma. For the teachers do not allow the transgression of a ground for a grave offense in order to avoid a ground for a light offense or a ground for no offense. Similarly, in the commentary on the term 'non-co-residence,' it is said: "It is called ‘equal in training’ because one should train equally with all conscientious persons. Here, since all conscientious ones live together in these acts, etc., and not a single one is found outside of them, therefore, taking all these together, this is called 'co-residence'." Thus it is explained that co-residence in a single act, etc., is permissible only with the conscientious.

Yadi [Pg.154] evaṃ kasmā asaṃvāsikesu alajjī na gahitoti? Nāyaṃ virodho, ye gaṇapūrake katvā kataṃ kammaṃ kuppati, tesaṃ pārājikādiapakatattānaññeva asaṃvāsikattena gahitattā. Alajjino pana pakatattabhūtāpi santi, te ce gaṇapūrakā hutvā kammaṃ sādhenti, kevalaṃ katvā agatigamanena karontānaṃ āpattikarā honti sabhāgāpattiāpannā viya aññamaññaṃ. Yasmā alajjitañca lajjitañca puthujjanānaṃ cittakkhaṇapaṭibaddhaṃ, na sabbakālikaṃ. Sañcicca hi vītikkamacitte uppanne alajjino ‘‘na puna īdisaṃ karissāmī’’ti cittena lajjino honti.

If so, why is a shameless person not included among those subject to non-co-residence? There is no contradiction. This is because only those who are not in a normal state due to a pārājika offense or the like, and on account of whom an act becomes invalid when they complete the quorum, are included as being subject to non-co-residence. But shameless persons can also be in a normal state. If they complete the quorum and carry out an act, they simply cause an offense for those who act with them by proceeding through partiality, just like those who have incurred a common offense among themselves. For among worldlings, shamelessness and conscientiousness are bound to a moment of consciousness, not perpetual. When a thought of intentional transgression has arisen, a shameless person can become conscientious with the thought, "I will not do such a thing again."

Tesu ca ye pesalehi ovadiyamānāpi na oramanti, punappunaṃ karonti, te eva asaṃvasitabbā, na itare lajjidhamme okkantattā, tasmāpi alajjino asaṃvāsikesu agaṇetvā tapparivajjanatthaṃ sodhetvāva uposathādikaraṇaṃ anaññātaṃ. Tathā hi ‘‘pārisuddhiṃ āyasmanto ārocetha, pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmī’’tiādinā (mahāva. 134) aparisuddhāya parisāya uposathakaraṇassa ayuttatā pakāsitā, ‘‘yassa siyā āpatti, so āvikareyya…pe… phāsu hotī’’ti (mahāva. 134) evaṃ alajjimpi lajjidhamme patiṭṭhāpetvā uposathakaraṇappakāro ca vutto, ‘‘kaccittha parisuddhā…pe… parisuddhetthāyasmanto’’ti (pārā. 233) ca pārisuddhiuposathe ‘‘parisuddho ahaṃ, bhante, parisuddhoti maṃ dhārethā’’ti (mahāva. 168) ca evaṃ uposathaṃ karontānaṃ parisuddhatā ca pakāsitā, vacanamattena anoramantānañca uposathapavāraṇaṭṭhapanavidhi ca vutto, sabbathā lajjidhammaṃ anokkamantehi saṃvāsassa ayuttatāya nissayadānaggahaṇapaṭikkhepo, tajjanīyādiniggahakammakaraṇaukkhepanīyakammakaraṇena sānuvattakaparisassa alajjissa asaṃvāsikattapāpanavidhi [Pg.155] ca vutto, tasmā yathāvuttehi suttantanayehi, aṭṭhakathāvacanehi ca pakatattehipi apakatattehipi sabbehi alajjīhi ekakammādisaṃvāso na vaṭṭati, karontānaṃ āpatti eva dummaṅkūnaṃ puggalānaṃ niggahatthāyeva sabbasikkhāpadānaṃ paññattattāti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ. Teneva dutiyasaṅgītiyaṃ pakatattāpi alajjino vajjiputtakā yasattherādīhi mahantena vāyāmena saṅghato viyojitā. Na hi tesu pārājikādiasaṃvāsikāpatti atthi, tehi dīpitānaṃ dasannaṃ vatthūnaṃ lahukāpattivisayattāti vuttaṃ.

And among them, those who, even when admonished by the virtuous, do not desist but act repeatedly—they indeed are not to be lived with in communion, but not the others, for they have entered into the state of the conscientious. Therefore, not counting the shameless among those unfit for communion, the performance of the Uposatha and other acts, after having purified the assembly for the purpose of avoiding them, is not unauthorized. For it has been shown that performing the Uposatha in an impure assembly is improper, as stated: 'Venerables, declare your purity; I shall recite the Pātimokkha.' And it is said: 'If anyone has an offense, he should reveal it… so that it may be well.' Thus, the method of performing the Uposatha by establishing even the shameless in the state of the conscientious is also stated. Furthermore, in the Pārisuddhi Uposatha, it is declared: 'Are you pure here?… You are pure here, Venerables,' and also: 'I am pure, venerable sir; consider me pure.' In this way, the purity of those performing the Uposatha is made clear. Moreover, the procedure for suspending the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā for those who do not desist by mere verbal admonishment is also stated. In all cases, because communion is improper with those who do not enter into the state of the conscientious, the refusal to grant or accept dependence is stated, as is the procedure for making a shameless one with a following unfit for communion by performing an act of censure (tajjanīya) and other disciplinary acts, and by performing an act of suspension (ukkhepanīya). Therefore, according to the methods of the Suttas and the words of the commentaries as stated, communion, such as performing a single formal act together, is not proper with any of the shameless, whether they are in a normal state or not. For those who do so, there is indeed an offense, as all the training rules were laid down precisely for the purpose of restraining unruly individuals. Thus, this conclusion must be reached here. For this very reason, at the Second Council, the shameless Vajjiputtakas, although they were in a normal state, were separated from the Saṅgha by the Elder Yasa and others with great effort. For there was no offense among them, such as a pārājika, that would make them unfit for communion; rather, it is said that the ten points they advocated pertained to minor offenses.

Tassa santiketi mahārakkhitattherassa santike.

'In his presence' (tassa santike) means in the presence of the Elder Mahārakkhita.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Rūpiyādipaṭiggahaṇavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament Named 'Discourse on the Determination Regarding the Acceptance of Silver and So Forth'.

Dvādasamo paricchedo.

The Twelfth Chapter.

13. Dānalakkhaṇādivinicchayakathā

13. Discourse on the Determination of the Characteristics of Giving and So Forth.

69. Evaṃ rūpiyādipaṭiggahaṇavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni dānavissāsaggāhalābhapariṇāmanavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘dānavissāsaggāhehī’’tiādimāha. Tattha dīyate dānaṃ, cīvarādivatthuṃ ārammaṇaṃ katvā pavatto alobhappadhāno kāmāvacarakusalakiriyacittuppādo. Sasanaṃ sāso, sasu hiṃsāyanti dhātu, hiṃsananti attho, vigato sāso etasmā gāhāti vissāso. Gahaṇaṃ gāho, vissāsena gāho vissāsaggāho. Visesane cettha karaṇavacanaṃ, vissāsavasena gāho, na theyyacittavasenāti attho. Lacchateti lābho, cīvarādivatthu, tassa lābhassa. Pariṇamiyate pariṇāmanaṃ, aññesaṃ atthāya pariṇatassa [Pg.156] attano, aññassa vā pariṇāmanaṃ, dāpananti attho. Dānavissāsaggāhehi lābhassa pariṇāmananti ettha uddese samabhiniviṭṭhassa ‘‘dāna’’nti padassa atthavinicchayo tāva paṭhamaṃ evaṃ veditabboti yojanā. Attano santakassa cīvarādiparikkhārassa dānanti sambandho. Yassa kassacīti sampadānaniddeso, yassa kassaci paṭiggāhakassāti attho.

69. Having thus explained the judgment regarding the acceptance of silver and so forth, now, in order to explain the judgment concerning giving, taking with trust, gain, and transfer, it begins with the phrase 'through giving and taking with trust.' Herein, dāna is that which is given; it is the arising of a wholesome or functional sense-sphere consciousness, predominantly non-greedy, which occurs having taken a material object such as a robe as its object. Sāsa is harming; the root 'sas' is in the sense of 'to harm', meaning 'harming'. Vissāsa is that taking from which sāsa (harm) has departed. Gahaṇa means taking, and taking with trust is vissāsaggāha. Here, in the qualifier, it is the instrumental case, meaning taking by way of trust, not by way of a thieving mind. Lābha is that which is obtained, a material object such as a robe; it refers to that gain. Pariṇāmana is that which is transferred; it means the transfer of one's own [property] that has been designated for the benefit of others, or the transfer to another, meaning causing to be given. In the phrase 'the transfer of gain through giving and taking with trust' in the heading, the determination of the meaning of the word 'dāna', which is included, should first be understood in this way. The connection is that 'dāna' refers to the giving of one's own belongings, such as robes and other requisites. The phrase 'to anyone whatsoever' is an indication of the recipient, meaning to any recipient whatsoever.

Yadidaṃ ‘‘dāna’’nti vuttaṃ, tattha kiṃ lakkhaṇanti āha ‘‘tatridaṃ dānalakkhaṇa’’nti. ‘‘Idaṃ tuyhaṃ demī’’ti vadatīti idaṃ tivaṅgasampannaṃ dānalakkhaṇaṃ hotīti yojanā. Tattha idanti deyyadhammanidassanaṃ. Tuyhanti paṭiggāhakanidassanaṃ. Demīti dāyakanidassanaṃ. Dadāmītiādīni pana pariyāyavacanāni. Vuttañhi ‘‘deyyadāyakapaṭiggāhakā viya dānassā’’ti, ‘‘tiṇṇaṃ sammukhībhāvā kusalaṃ hotī’’ti ca. ‘‘Vatthupariccāgalakkhaṇattā dānassā’’ti idaṃ pana ekadesalakkhaṇakathanameva, kiṃ evaṃ dīyamānaṃ sammukhāyeva dinnaṃ hoti, udāhu parammukhāpīti āha ‘‘sammukhāpi parammukhāpi dinnaṃyeva hotī’’ti. Tuyhaṃ gaṇhāhītiādīsu ayamattho – ‘‘gaṇhāhī’’ti vutte ‘‘demī’’ti vuttasadisaṃ hoti, tasmā mukhyato dinnattā sudinnaṃ hoti, ‘‘gaṇhāmī’’ti ca vutte mukhyato gahaṇaṃ hoti, tasmā suggahitaṃ hoti. ‘‘Tuyhaṃ mayha’’nti imāni pana paṭiggāhakapaṭibandhatākaraṇe vacanāni. Tava santakaṃ karohītiādīni pana pariyāyato dānaggahaṇāni, tasmā dudinnaṃ duggahitañca hoti. Loke hi apariccajitukāmāpi puna gaṇhitukāmāpi ‘‘tava santakaṃ hotū’’ti niyyātenti yathā taṃ kusarañño mātu rajjaniyyātanaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘neva dātā dātuṃ jānāti, na itaro gahetu’’nti. Sace panātiādīsu pana dāyakena paññattiyaṃ akovidatāya pariyāyavacane vuttepi paṭiggāhako [Pg.157] attano paññattiyaṃ kovidatāya mukhyavacanena gaṇhāti, tasmā ‘‘suggahita’’nti vuttaṃ.

Regarding that which is called 'giving' (dāna), what is its characteristic? It is said: 'Herein, this is the characteristic of giving.' The connection is that the statement 'This I give to you' is the characteristic of giving endowed with three factors. Here, 'this' indicates the object to be given; 'to you' indicates the recipient; 'I give' indicates the giver. Expressions like 'Dadāmi' are, however, synonymous expressions. For it is said: 'The object to be given, the giver, and the recipient are the components of giving,' and 'When the three are present, it is wholesome.' But this statement, 'The characteristic of giving is the relinquishment of the object,' is only a statement of a partial characteristic. Is something given in this way considered given only when presented face-to-face, or also when not face-to-face? It is said: 'Whether given face-to-face or not face-to-face, it is indeed given.' In phrases like 'Take this for yourself,' this is the meaning: when 'Take it' is said, it is equivalent to saying 'I give,' and thus, because it is given principally, it is well-given; and when 'I take' is said, it is principally a taking, and thus it is well-received. Phrases like 'Yours and mine,' however, are expressions that create an impediment for the recipient. Expressions like 'Make it your property' are, however, indirect giving and taking, and thus it is both poorly given and poorly received. For in the world, even those unwilling to relinquish or those wishing to take again hand things over saying, 'Let it be your property,' just as in the handing over of the kingdom by the mother of King Kusa. Therefore, it is said: 'Neither does the giver know how to give, nor does the other know how to receive.' But in cases where the giver, being unskilled in the formal expression, uses a synonymous phrase, yet the recipient, being skilled in the formal expression, takes it with the principal words—then it is called 'well-received.'

Sace pana ekotiādīsu pana dāyako mukhyavacanena deti, paṭiggāhakopi mukhyavacanena paṭikkhipati, tasmā dāyakassa pubbe adhiṭṭhitampi cīvaraṃ dānavasena adhiṭṭhānaṃ vijahati, pariccattattā attano asantakattā atirekacīvarampi na hoti, tasmā dasāhātikkamepi āpatti na hoti. Paṭiggāhakassapi na paṭikkhipitattā attano santakaṃ na hoti, tasmā atirekacīvaraṃ na hotīti dasāhātikkamepi āpatti natthi. Yassa pana ruccatīti ettha pana imassa cīvarassa assāmikattā paṃsukūlaṭṭhāne ṭhitattā yassa ruccati, tena paṃsukūlabhāvena gahetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ, paribhuñjantena pana dāyakena pubbaadhiṭṭhitampi dānavasena adhiṭṭhānassa vijahitattā puna adhiṭṭhahitvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ itarena pubbe anadhiṭṭhitattāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

But if, in cases such as 'If one...', the giver gives with the principal words, and the recipient also refuses with the principal words, then the robe previously determined by the giver loses its determination by way of the giving. Because it is relinquished and is not his own, it is not an extra robe. Therefore, even if ten days pass, there is no offense. For the recipient also, because it has been refused, it does not become his possession. Hence, it is not an extra robe, and thus there is no offense even if ten days pass. But here, regarding 'to whomsoever it is agreeable', since this robe is ownerless and stands in the place of a dust-heap rag, it should be taken as a dust-heap rag by whoever finds it agreeable and used. When the giver uses it, however, since even the previous determination was abandoned by way of the giving, it should be determined again and then used. It should be understood that by the other it was not previously determined.

Itthannāmassa dehītiādīsu pana āṇatyatthe pavattāya pañcamīvibhattiyā vuttattā āṇattena paṭiggāhakassa dinnakāleyeva paṭiggāhakassa santakaṃ hoti, na tato pubbe, pubbe pana āṇāpakasseva, tasmā ‘‘yo pahiṇati, tasseva santaka’’nti vuttaṃ. Itthannāmassa dammīti pana paccuppannatthe pavattāya vattamānavibhattiyā vuttattā tato paṭṭhāya paṭiggāhakasseva santakaṃ hoti, tasmā ‘‘yassa pahīyati, tassa santaka’’nti vuttaṃ. Tasmāti iminā āyasmatā revatattherena āyasmato sāriputtassa cīvarapesanavatthusmiṃ bhagavatā desitesu adhiṭṭhānesu idha vuttalakkhaṇena asammohato jānitabbanti dasseti.

In phrases such as 'Give to so-and-so' (itthannāmassa dehi), since it is expressed by the fifth case ending, which is used in the sense of a command, it becomes the property of the recipient only at the moment of giving by the one commanded, not before that; before that, it belongs to the one who issued the command. Hence, it is said, 'It belongs to the one who sends.' But in phrases such as 'I am giving to so-and-so' (itthannāmassa dammi), since it is expressed by the present tense ending, which is used in a present sense, from that moment onward, it becomes the property of the recipient. Hence, it is said, 'It belongs to the one to whom it is sent.' Therefore, by this, the Venerable Elder Revata shows that, regarding the incident of sending a robe to the Venerable Sāriputta, one should understand without confusion the determinations taught by the Blessed One, according to the characteristics stated here.

Tattha dvādhiṭṭhitaṃ, svādhiṭṭhitanti ca na ticīvarādhiṭṭhānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, atha kho sāmike jīvante vissāsaggāhacīvarabhāvena ca sāmike mate matakacīvarabhāvena ca gahaṇaṃ sandhāya [Pg.158] vuttaṃ, tato pana dasāhe anatikkanteyeva ticīvarādhiṭṭhānaṃ vā parikkhāracoḷādhiṭṭhānaṃ vā vikappanaṃ vā kātabbaṃ. Yo pahiṇatīti dāyakaṃ sandhāyāha, yassa pahīyatīti paṭiggāhakaṃ.

Here, the terms 'twice determined' (dvādhiṭṭhitaṃ) and 'self-determined' (svādhiṭṭhitaṃ) are not stated in reference to the determination of the three robes, but rather are stated in reference to the taking of robes either as a robe accepted on trust while the owner is alive, or as a robe of the deceased when the owner has died. After that, however, within ten days, one must perform either the determination of the three robes, the determination of an accessory cloth, or the allocation. The phrase 'who sends' (yo pahiṇati) refers to the donor, and 'to whom it is sent' (yassa pahīyati) refers to the recipient.

Pariccajitvā…pe… na labhati, āharāpento bhaṇḍagghena kāretabboti attho. Attanā…pe… nissaggiyanti iminā parasantakabhūtattaṃ jānanto theyyapasayhavasena acchindanto pārājiko hotīti dasseti. Porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ pana ‘‘sakasaññāya vinā gaṇhanto bhaṇḍaṃ agghāpetvā āpattiyā kāretabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Sakasaññāya vināpi tāvakālikapaṃsukūlasaññādivasena gaṇhanto āpattiyā na kāretabbo. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana pasayhākāraṃ sandhāya vadati. Tenāha ‘‘acchindato nissaggiya’’nti. Sace pana…pe… vaṭṭatīti tuṭṭhadānaṃ āha, atha panātiādinā kupitadānaṃ. Ubhayathāpi sayaṃ dinnattā vaṭṭati, gahaṇe āpatti natthīti attho.

Having relinquished… and so on… he does not get it; the meaning is that one who causes it to be brought back should be made to pay the value of the goods. By oneself… and so on… it is to be forfeited—this shows that one who, knowing it belongs to another, seizes it by way of theft and force, commits a pārājika offense. In the Old Subcommentary, however, it is said: 'One who takes goods without the perception that they are his own should be made to incur an offense after having the goods valued.' Even without the perception that it is one's own, if one takes it with the perception of it being a temporary dust-heap rag and so on, one should not be made to incur an offense. The Commentary, however, speaks with reference to forcible seizure. Therefore, it says: 'For one who seizes, it is to be forfeited.' But if… and so on… it is allowable—this refers to a gift given with satisfaction. Then, with 'but if…' and so on, it refers to a gift given in anger. In both cases, since it is given by oneself, it is allowable; the meaning is that there is no offense in taking it.

Mama santike…pe… evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti vatthupariccāgalakkhaṇattā dānassa evaṃ dadanto apariccajitvā dinnattā dānaṃ na hotīti na vaṭṭati, tato eva dukkaṭaṃ hoti. Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatīti pubbe ‘‘akarontassa na demī’’ti vuttattā yathāvuttaupajjhāyaggahaṇādīni akaronte ācariyasseva santakaṃ hotīti katvā vuttaṃ. Karonte pana antevāsikassa santakaṃ bhaveyya sabbaso apariccajitvā dinnattā. Sakasaññāya vijjamānattā ‘‘āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ siyā. Ṭīkāyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.635) pana ‘‘evaṃ dinnaṃ bhatisadisattā āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Bhatisadise satipi kamme kate bhati laddhabbā hoti, tasmā āropetuṃ na vaṭṭeyya. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.635) pana ‘‘āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭatīti kamme akate bhatisadisattā [Pg.159] vutta’’nti vuttaṃ, tena kamme kate āharāpetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Upajjhaṃ gaṇhissatīti sāmaṇerassa dānaṃ dīpeti, tena ca sāmaṇerakāle datvā upasampannakāle acchindatopi pācittiyaṃ dīpeti. Ayaṃ tāva dāne vinicchayoti iminā dānavinicchayādīnaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vinicchayānaṃ ekaparicchedakatabhāvaṃ dīpeti.

In my presence… and so on… but it is not allowable to give in this way. Because giving has the characteristic of relinquishing the object, when one gives in this way, since it is given without being relinquished, it is not a gift and thus not allowable; for that very reason, it is an offense of wrong doing. But it is allowable to have it brought back. This is said because it was previously stated, 'If he does not do it, I will not give,' so when he does not perform the prescribed duties of taking a preceptor, etc., it is considered to be the teacher’s property. But when he does them, it would become the resident pupil's property, even though it was given without being completely relinquished. Because the perception of it as his own exists for the teacher, it might be said: 'It is allowable to have it brought back.' In the Subcommentary, however, it is said: 'Since what is given in this way is like wages, it is allowable to have it brought back.' Even though it is like wages, when the work is done, the wages must be received; therefore, it would not be allowable to take it back. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: '“It is allowable to have it brought back”—this is said because it is like wages when the work is not done.' By this, it is established that when the work is done, it is not allowable to have it brought back. 'He will take a preceptor'—this indicates a gift to a novice, and by this, it also indicates a pācittiya offense for one who, having given it during the novice period, seizes it after higher ordination. This, for now, is the determination on giving—by this it shows that the three determinations, on giving and so on, form a single chapter.

Vissāsaggāhalakkhaṇavinicchayakathā

The Discourse on the Determination of the Characteristics of Taking on Trust

70. Anuṭṭhānaseyyā nāma yāya seyyāya sayito yāva jīvitindriyupacchedaṃ na pāpuṇāti, tāva vuccati. Dadamānena ca matakadhanaṃ tāva ye tassa dhane issarā gahaṭṭhā vā pabbajitā vā, tesaṃ dātabbanti ettha ke gahaṭṭhā ke pabbajitā kena kāraṇena tassa dhane issarāti? Gahaṭṭhā tāva gilānupaṭṭhākabhūtā tena kāraṇena gilānupaṭṭhākabhāgabhūte tassa dhane issarā, yesañca vāṇijānaṃ hatthato kappiyakārakena pattādiparikkhāro gāhāpito, tesaṃ yaṃ dātabbamūlaṃ, te ca tassa dhane issarā, yesañca mātāpitūnaṃ atthāya paricchinditvā vatthāni ṭhapitāni, tepi tassa dhanassa issarā. Evamādinā yena yena kāraṇena yaṃ yaṃ parikkhāradhanaṃ yehi yehi gahaṭṭhehi labhitabbaṃ hoti, tena tena kāraṇena te te gahaṭṭhā tassa tassa dhanassa issarā.

70. The 'bed of non-rising' is the name for that bed from which one who has lain down does not get up before he reaches the cutting off of the life faculty. And when giving the wealth of the deceased, it should be given to those who are masters over that wealth, whether householders or renunciants. Herein, who are the householders, who are the renunciants, and for what reason are they masters over that wealth? As for the householders, those who were attendants of the sick are, for that reason, masters over that portion of the wealth that is the share for attending the sick. Also, those merchants from whom requisites such as a bowl were caused to be taken by a steward—they too are masters over that wealth which is the principal to be given to them. And those parents for whose benefit cloths were set aside—they too are masters of that wealth. In this way, for whatever reason any requisite or wealth is to be received by any householders, for that very reason those householders are masters of that particular wealth.

Pabbajitā pana bāhirakā tatheva sati kāraṇe issarā. Pañcasu pana sahadhammikesu bhikkhū sāmaṇerā ca matānaṃ bhikkhusāmaṇerānaṃ dhanaṃ vināpi kāraṇena dāyādabhāvena labhanti, na itarā. Bhikkhunīsikkhamānasāmaṇerīnampi dhanaṃ tāyeva labhanti, na itare. Taṃ pana matakadhanabhājanaṃ catupaccayabhājanavinicchaye āvi bhavissati, bahū pana vinayadharattherā ‘‘ye tassa dhanassa issarā gahaṭṭhā vā pabbajitā vā’’ti [Pg.160] pāṭhaṃ nissāya ‘‘matabhikkhussa dhanaṃ gahaṭṭhabhūtā ñātakā labhantī’’ti vinicchinanti, tampi vinicchayaṃ tassa ca yuttāyuttabhāvaṃ tattheva vakkhāma.

External renunciants, however, are masters in the same way when there is a reason. But among the five kinds of co-religionists, monks and male novices receive the wealth of deceased monks and male novices even without a reason, by way of inheritance; the others do not. Nuns, female probationers, and female novices also receive the wealth of their deceased counterparts; they alone receive it, not the others. But that division of the wealth of the deceased will become clear in the Determination on the Division of the Four Requisites. Many elder Vinaya-experts, however, relying on the reading 'those who are masters of that wealth, whether householders or renunciants,' determine that 'the householder relatives of a deceased monk receive his wealth.' We will discuss that determination and its rightness or wrongness in that very place.

Anattamanassa santakanti ‘‘duṭṭhu kataṃ tayā mayā adinnaṃ mama santakaṃ gaṇhantenā’’ti vacībhedena vā cittuppādamattena vā domanassappattassa santakaṃ. Yo pana paṭhamaṃyeva ‘‘suṭṭhu kataṃ tayā mama santakaṃ gaṇhantenā’’ti vacībhedena vā cittuppādamattena vā anumoditvā pacchā kenaci kāraṇena kupito, paccāharāpetuṃ na labhati. Yopi adātukāmo, cittena pana adhivāseti, na kiñci vadatīti ettha tu porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.131) ‘‘cittena pana adhivāsetīti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāvetuṃ ‘na kiñci vadatī’ti vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ sati ‘‘cittenā’’ti idaṃ adhivāsanakiriyāya karaṇaṃ hoti. Adātukāmoti etthāpi tameva karaṇaṃ siyā, tato ‘‘cittena adātukāmo, cittena adhivāsetī’’tivacanaṃ ocityasamposakaṃ na bhaveyya. Taṃ ṭhapetvā ‘‘adātukāmo’’ti ettha kāyenāti vā vācāyāti vā aññaṃ karaṇampi na sambhavati, tadasambhave sati visesatthavācako pana-saddopi niratthako. Na kiñci vadatīti ettha tu vadanakiriyāya karaṇaṃ ‘‘vācāyā’’ti padaṃ icchitabbaṃ, tathā ca sati aññaṃ adhivāsanakiriyāya karaṇaṃ, aññaṃ vadanakiriyāya karaṇaṃ, aññā adhivāsanakiriyā, aññā vadanakiriyā, tasmā ‘‘vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāvetu’’nti vattuṃ na arahati, tasmā yopi cittena adātukāmo hoti, pana tathāpi vācāya adhivāseti, na kiñci vadatīti yojanaṃ katvā pana ‘‘adhivāsetīti vuttamevatthaṃ pakāsetuṃ na kiñci vadatīti vutta’’nti vattumarahati. Ettha tu pana-saddo arucilakkhaṇasūcanattho. ‘‘Cittenā’’ti idaṃ adātukāmakiriyāya karaṇaṃ, ‘‘vācāyā’’ti [Pg.161] adhivāsanakiriyāya avadanakiriyāya ca karaṇaṃ. Adhivāsanakiriyā ca avadanakiriyāyeva. ‘‘Adhivāsetī’’ti vutte avadanakiriyāya apākaṭabhāvato taṃ pakāsetuṃ ‘‘na kiñci vadatī’’ti vuttaṃ, evaṃ gayhamāne pubbāparavacanattho ocityasamposako siyā, tasmā ettakavivarehi vicāretvā gahetabboti.

'Property of one who is displeased' means the property of one who has become distressed either through an utterance or by the mere arising of a thought, thus: 'You have done wrong in taking my property, which was not given by me.' But one who at the very first approves, either through an utterance or by the mere arising of a thought, saying, 'You have done well in taking my property,' but later becomes angry for some reason, is not able to have it brought back. As for 'One who is unwilling to give, but consents by mind, and says nothing,' here the Old Subcommentary says: 'Regarding “but consents by mind,” to clarify this very meaning, it is said, “says nothing.”' This being so, 'by mind' becomes the instrument for the act of consenting. In 'unwilling to give,' too, the same instrument would apply; hence the statement 'unwilling to give by mind, consents by mind' would not be conducive to propriety. Setting that aside, in 'unwilling to give,' no other instrument such as 'by body' or 'by speech' is possible. In the absence of that, the particle 'pana,' which indicates a special meaning, would also be meaningless. But in 'says nothing,' the word 'by speech' should be desired as the instrument for the act of speaking. That being so, there is one instrument for the act of consenting and another for the act of not speaking; the act of consenting is one thing, the act of not speaking another. Therefore, it is not right to say, 'to clarify this very meaning.' Therefore, having construed it as 'one who is unwilling to give by mind, but nevertheless consents by speech, saying nothing,' it is right to say, 'Regarding “consents,” to reveal this very meaning, it is said, “says nothing.”' Here, the particle 'pana' serves to indicate the characteristic of displeasure. 'By mind' is the instrument for the act of being unwilling to give; 'by speech' is the instrument for the act of consenting and the act of not speaking. And the act of consenting is just the act of not speaking. Since the act of not speaking is not evident when 'consents' is said, 'says nothing' is said to reveal it. When it is understood in this way, the meaning of the preceding and following statements would be conducive to propriety. Therefore, it should be understood after investigating with these distinctions.

Lābhapariṇāmanavinicchayakathā

The Discussion on the Determination of the Transformation of Gains

71. Lābhapariṇāmanavinicchaye tumhākaṃ sappiādīni ābhatānīti tumhākaṃ atthāya ābhatāni sappiādīni. Pariṇatabhāvaṃ jānitvāpi vuttavidhinā viññāpentena tesaṃ santakameva viññāpitaṃ nāma hotīti āha ‘‘mayhampi dethāti vadati, vaṭṭatī’’ti.

71. In the determination of the transformation of gains, 'ghee and other items were brought for you' means they were brought for your benefit. Even knowing their transformed state, when one informs them according to the method described, it is said to be informing them of what is their own property. Thus it is said: “He says, ‘Give some to me too,’ it is allowable.”

‘‘Pupphampi āropetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti idaṃ pariṇataṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, sace pana ekasmiṃ cetiye pūjitaṃ pupphaṃ gahetvā aññasmiṃ cetiye pūjeti, vaṭṭatī’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.660) vuttaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.660) pana niyametvā ‘‘aññassa cetiyassa atthāya ropitamālāvacchato’’ti vuttattā na kevalaṃ pariṇatabhāvoyeva kathito, atha kho niyametvā ropitabhāvopi. Pupphampīti pi-saddena kuto mālāvacchanti dasseti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.660) pana ‘‘ropitamālāvacchatoti kenaci niyametvā ropitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, anocitaṃ milāyamānaṃ ocinitvā yattha katthaci pūjetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Ṭhitaṃ disvāti sesakaṃ gahetvā ṭhitaṃ disvā. Imassa sunakhassa mā dehi, etassa dehīti idaṃ pariṇateyeva, tiracchānagatassa pariccajitvā dinne pana taṃ palāpetvā aññaṃ bhuñjāpetuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā ‘‘kattha demātiādinā ekenākārena anāpatti dassitā. Evaṃ pana apucchitepi [Pg.162] ‘apariṇataṃ ida’nti jānantena attano ruciyā yattha icchati, tattha dāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Yattha icchatha, tattha dethāti etthāpi ‘‘tumhākaṃ ruciyā’’ti vuttattā yattha icchati, tattha dāpetuṃ labhati.

“It is not permissible to offer even a flower”—this is said with reference to what has been designated. However, if one takes a flower offered at one shrine and offers it at another shrine, it is permissible, so it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. In the commentary, however, it is specified: “from a garland-shrub planted for the sake of another shrine.” Thus, not only the state of having been designated is discussed, but also the state of having been planted with a specific designation. The particle ‘pi’ in ‘pupphampi’ indicates ‘from a garland-shrub.’ In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is stated: “The phrase ‘from a planted garland-shrub’ is said with reference to what is planted with a specific designation by someone; it is permissible to pick unsuitable, wilting flowers and offer them anywhere one wishes.” ‘Having seen what is standing’ means having taken the remainder and seen what is standing. “Do not give to this dog, give to that one”—this refers only to what has been designated. However, regarding something given to an animal after ownership has been relinquished, it is permissible to drive that animal away and cause another to eat. Therefore, with “Where shall we give?” and so on, one way of there being no offense is shown. Moreover, even if not asked, one who knows “this is undesignated” may have it given wherever one wishes according to one’s own liking—so it is stated in all three Gaṇṭhipadas. In “Give wherever you wish,” here too, because it is said “according to your preference,” one is able to have it given wherever one desires.

Parivāre (pari. aṭṭha. 329) pana nava adhammikāni dānānīti saṅghassa pariṇataṃ aññasaṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā puggalassa vā pariṇāmeti, cetiyassa pariṇataṃ aññacetiyassa vā saṅghassa vā puggalassa vā pariṇāmeti, puggalassa pariṇataṃ aññapuggalassa vā saṅghassa vā cetiyassa vā pariṇāmetīti evaṃ vuttāni. Nava paṭiggahā paribhogā cāti etesaṃyeva dānānaṃ paṭiggahā ca paribhogā ca. Tīṇi dhammikāni dānānīti saṅghassa ninnaṃ saṅghasseva deti, cetiyassa ninnaṃ cetiyasseva deti, puggalassa ninnaṃ puggalasseva detīti imāni tīṇi. Paṭiggahapaṭibhogāpi tesaṃyeva paṭiggahā ca paribhogā cāti āgataṃ.

In the Parivāra, however, nine unrighteous gifts are stated thus: one diverts what is designated for the Sangha to another Sangha, a shrine, or an individual; one diverts what is designated for a shrine to another shrine, the Sangha, or an individual; one diverts what is designated for an individual to another individual, the Sangha, or a shrine. Nine acceptances and uses are the acceptances and uses of these same gifts. Three righteous gifts are these three: what is intended for the Sangha, one gives only to the Sangha; what is intended for a shrine, one gives only to the shrine; what is intended for an individual, one gives only to that individual. The acceptances and uses are also the acceptances and uses of these same gifts—thus it is handed down.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an elucidation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Dānalakkhaṇādivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

Named the Ornament of the Discussion on the Determination of the Characteristics of Giving and so forth,

Terasamo paricchedo.

The Thirteenth Chapter.

14. Pathavīkhaṇanavinicchayakathā

14. The Discussion on the Determination Regarding the Digging of Earth

72. Evaṃ dānavissāsaggāhalābhapariṇāmanavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni pathavīvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘pathavī’’tyādimāha. Tattha pattharatīti pathavī, pa-pubba thara santharaṇeti dhātu, ra-kārassa va-kāro, sasambhārapathavī. Tappabhedamāha ‘‘dve pathavī, jātā ca pathavī ajātā ca pathavī’’ti. Tāsaṃ [Pg.163] visesaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘tattha jātā nāma pathavī’’tyādimāha. Tattha suddhapaṃsukā…pe… yebhuyyenamattikāpathavī jātā nāma pathavī hoti. Na kevalaṃ sāyeva, adaḍḍhā pathavīpi ‘‘jātā pathavī’’ti vuccati. Na kevalaṃ imā dveyeva, yopi paṃsupuñjo vā…pe… cātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭho, sopi ‘‘jātā pathavī’’ti vuccatīti yojanā. Itaratrapi eseva nayo.

72. Having thus explained the determination regarding giving, taking with trust, and the transformation of gains, now, to explain the determination regarding earth, he begins with “earth.” Therein, ‘pathavī’ is so called because it spreads out (pattharati). The root is ‘pa’ as a prefix and ‘thara’ in the sense of spreading; the sound ‘ra’ becomes ‘va,’ meaning ‘earth with its constituent elements.’ He states its classification: “There are two kinds of earth: born earth and unborn earth.” To show their distinction, he begins with: “Therein, born earth is…” Therein, pure dust… earth that is mostly clay is called “born earth.” Not only that, but unburnt earth is also called “born earth.” Not just these two, but also a heap of dust… that has been rained on for four months—that too is called “born earth.” This is the construction. The same method applies in the other case as well.

Tattha suddhā paṃsukāyeva ettha pathaviyā atthi, na pāsāṇādayoti suddhapaṃsukā. Tathā suddhamattikā. Appā pāsāṇā etthāti appapāsāṇā. Itaresupi eseva nayo. Yebhuyyena paṃsukā etthāti yebhuyyenapaṃsukā, aluttasamāsoyaṃ, tathā yebhuyyenamattikā. Tattha muṭṭhippamāṇato upari pāsāṇā. Muṭṭhippamāṇā sakkharā. Kathalāti kapālakhaṇḍādi. Marumpāti kaṭasakkharā. Vālukā vālukāyeva. Yebhuyyenapaṃsukāti ettha tīsu koṭṭhāsesu dve koṭṭhāsā paṃsu, eko pāsāṇādīsu aññatarakoṭṭhāso. Adaḍḍhāpīti uddhanapattapacanakumbhakārātapādivasena tathā tathā adaḍḍhā, sā pana visuṃ natthi, suddhapaṃsuādīsu aññatarāvāti veditabbā. Yebhuyyenasakkharāti bahutarasakkharā. Hatthikucchiyaṃ kira ekaṃ pacchipūraṃ āharāpetvā doṇiyaṃ dhovitvā pathaviyā yebhuyyenasakkharabhāvaṃ ñatvā sayaṃ bhikkhū pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇiṃsūti. Yāni pana majjhe ‘‘appapaṃsuappamattikā’’ti dve padāni, tāni yebhuyyenapāsāṇādipañcakameva pavisanti. Tesaññeva hi dvinnaṃ pabhedavacanametaṃ, yadidaṃ suddhapāsāṇādiādi.

Here, on the ground, there is only pure dust, not stones and the like; thus, 'pure dust'. Similarly, 'pure clay'. 'Few stones are here'; thus, 'few stones'. The same method applies to the others. 'Mostly dust is here'; thus, 'mostly dust'; this is an unelided compound. Likewise, 'mostly clay'. Therein, stones are larger than the size of a fist. Gravel is fist-sized. 'Kathalā' means a potsherd and the like. 'Marumpā' means hard gravel. Sand is just sand. 'Mostly dust' here means that out of three parts, two parts are dust, and one part is one of stones or the like. 'Unburnt' means not burnt in various ways, such as by an oven, a boiling pot, a potter's kiln, the sun's heat, and so on. However, it does not exist separately; it should be understood as one among pure dust and the like. 'Mostly gravel' means much gravel. It is said that at Hatthikucchi, having had a full basketful brought and washed in a trough, and having known the ground to be mostly gravel, the monks themselves dug a pond. As for the two terms in the middle, 'little dust' and 'little clay', they are included in the five beginning with 'mostly stones'. For this is a statement of a subdivision of those two, namely, that which begins with 'pure stones' and so on.

Ettha ca kiñcāpi yebhuyyenapaṃsuṃ appapaṃsuñca pathaviṃ vatvā upaḍḍhapaṃsukāpathavī na vuttā, tathāpi paṇṇattivajjasikkhāpadesu sāvasesapaññattiyāpi sambhavato upaḍḍhapaṃsukāyapi pathaviyā [Pg.164] pācittiyamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘sabbacchannādīsu upaḍḍhacchanne dukkaṭassa vuttattā idhāpi dukkaṭaṃ yujjatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ pācittiyavatthukañca anāpattivatthukañca duvidhaṃ pathaviṃ ṭhapetvā aññissā dukkaṭavatthukāya tatiyāya pathaviyā abhāvato. Dveyeva hi pathaviyo vuttā ‘‘jātā ca pathavī ajātā ca pathavī’’ti, tasmā dvīsu aññatarāya pathaviyā bhavitabbaṃ. Vinayavinicchaye ca sampatte garukalahukesu garukeyeva ṭhātabbattā na sakkā ettha anāpattiyā bhavituṃ. Sabbacchannādīsu pana upaḍḍhe dukkaṭaṃ yuttaṃ tattha tādisassa dukkaṭavatthuno sambhavato. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.86) ‘‘appapaṃsumattikāya pathaviyā anāpattivatthubhāvena vuttattā upaḍḍhapaṃsumattikāyapi pācittiyamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Na hetaṃ dukkaṭavatthūti sakkā vattuṃ jātājātavinimuttāya tatiyāya pathaviyā abhāvato’’ti vuttaṃ.

Here, although earth that is mostly dust and earth that has little dust are mentioned, half-dusty earth is not. Nevertheless, because in the training rules concerning offenses by designation, a designation with a remainder is also possible, it should be understood that for half-dusty earth as well, there is a pācittiya offense. Some, however, say, 'Since in cases such as a fully covered area, a dukkaṭa offense is stated for a half-covered area, a dukkaṭa is also appropriate here.' That is not correct, because apart from the two kinds of earth—that which is a basis for a pācittiya offense and that which is a basis for no offense—there is no third kind of earth that is a basis for a dukkaṭa offense. Indeed, only two kinds of earth have been stated: 'produced earth and unproduced earth.' Therefore, it must be one of these two kinds of earth. And when it comes to a decision in the Vinaya, between a grave and a light matter, one must stand with the grave one; thus it is not possible for there to be no offense here. In cases such as a fully covered area, however, a dukkaṭa for a half-covered area is appropriate, because a basis for such a dukkaṭa offense is possible there. In the Vimativinodanī as well it is said: 'Since earth with little dust and clay is stated as a basis for no offense, it should be understood that for earth with half dust and clay, there is a pācittiya offense. It cannot be said that this is a basis for a dukkaṭa offense, because there is no third kind of earth apart from produced and unproduced earth.'

Khaṇantassa khaṇāpentassa vāti antamaso pādaṅguṭṭhakenapi sammajjanisalākāyapi sayaṃ vā khaṇantassa aññena vā khaṇāpentassa. ‘‘Pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇā’’ti vadati, vaṭṭatīti ‘‘imasmiṃ okāse’’ti aniyametvā vuttattā vaṭṭati. ‘‘Imaṃ valliṃ khaṇā’’ti vuttepi pathavikhaṇanaṃ sandhāya pavattavohārattā imināva sikkhāpadena pācittiyaṃ, na bhūtagāmasikkhāpadena, ubhayampi sandhāya vutte pana dvepi pācittiyāni honti.

'Of one who digs or causes to dig' means of one who digs oneself, even with just a big toe or with a broomstick, or causes another to dig. If one says, 'Dig a pond,' it is allowable; because it is said without specifying 'in this spot,' it is allowable. When one says, 'Dig up this vine,' because the conventional expression proceeds with reference to digging the earth, there is a pācittiya offense under this very training rule, not under the training rule concerning plant life. If, however, it is said with reference to both, there are two pācittiya offenses.

73. Kuṭehīti ghaṭehi. Tanukakaddamoti udakamissakakaddamo, so ca udakagatikattā vaṭṭati. Udakapappaṭakoti udake antobhūmiyaṃ paviṭṭhe tassa uparibhāgaṃ chādetvā tanukapaṃsu vā mattikā vā paṭalaṃ hutvā palavamānā uṭṭhāti, tasmiṃ udake sukkhepi taṃ paṭalaṃ vātena calamānaṃ tiṭṭhati, taṃ udakapappaṭako nāma. Omakacātumāsanti [Pg.165] ūnacātumāsaṃ. Ovaṭṭhanti devena ovaṭṭhaṃ. Akatapabbhāreti avalañjanaṭṭhānadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tādise hi vammikassa sabbhāvoti. Mūsikukkuraṃ nāma mūsikāhi khaṇitvā bahi katapaṃsurāsi.

73. 'With kuṭas' means with pots. 'Thin mud' is mud mixed with water; and that is allowable because it has the nature of water. 'Water-crust' is when water has entered the ground, a thin layer of dust or clay, having formed a film, rises up, covering its upper surface and floating. Even when that water dries up, that film remains, moving with the wind; this is called a water-crust. 'For less than four months' means for an incomplete four months. 'Rained upon' means rained upon by the sky. 'On an unmade slope' is said for the purpose of showing a place of support. For in such a place there is the existence of an anthill. 'Mouse-leavings' is the name for a pile of dust dug up by mice and put outside.

Eseva nayoti omakacātumāsaṃ ovaṭṭhoyeva vaṭṭatīti attho. Ekadivasampi na vaṭṭatīti ovaṭṭhacātumāsato ekadivasātikkantopi vikopetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Heṭṭhabhūmisambandhepi ca gokaṇṭake bhūmito chinditvā chinditvā uggatattā accuggataṃ matthakato chindituṃ gahetuñca vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Sakaṭṭhāne atiṭṭhamānaṃ katvā pādehi madditvā āloḷitakaddamampi gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.

'This is the same method' means it is allowable only if it has been rained upon for less than four months. 'Not allowable even for a single day' means that even if one day has passed beyond the four months of being rained upon, it is not allowable to disturb it. And concerning the connection with the ground below, they say that in the case of a cow-thorn, because it has grown up by being repeatedly cut from the ground, it is indeed allowable to cut what has grown very high from the top and to take it. It is also allowable to take mud that has been stirred up, having been made not to stand in its own place and trampled by the feet.

Acchadanantiādinā vuttattā ujukaṃ ākāsato patitavassodakena ovaṭṭhameva jātapathavī hoti, na chadanādīsu patitvā tato pavattaudakena tintanti veditabbaṃ. Tatoti purāṇasenāsanato. Iṭṭhakaṃ gaṇhāmītiādi suddhacittaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Udakenāti ujukaṃ ākāsatoyeva patitaudakena. Sace pana aññattha paharitvā patitena udakena temitaṃ hoti, vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Maṇḍapatthambhanti sākhāmaṇḍapatthambhaṃ.

Because it is said 'without a roof', etc., it should be understood that produced earth is only that which has been rained upon by rainwater falling directly from the sky, not that which is moistened by water that has fallen on a roof, etc., and then flowed from there. 'From there' means from an old lodging. 'I will take a brick,' etc., was said with reference to a pure intention. 'By water' means by water fallen directly from the sky. But if it is moistened by water that has fallen after striking somewhere else, 'it is allowable,' they say. 'Pillar of a pavilion' means a pillar of a branch-pavilion.

74. Uccāletvāti ukkhipitvā. Tena apadesenāti tena lesena. Avisayattā anāpattīti ettha sacepi nibbāpetuṃ sakkā hoti, paṭhamaṃ suddhacittena dinnattā dahatūti sallakkhetvāpi tiṭṭhati, anāpatti. Mahāmattikanti bhittilepanaṃ.

74. 'Having dislodged' means having lifted up. 'By that pretext' means by that excuse. 'No offense because it is not its domain': here, even if it is possible to extinguish it, because it was first given with a pure intention, one stands by, reflecting, 'Let it burn'; there is no offense. 'A great quantity of clay' means wall plaster.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the explanation of the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Pathavīkhaṇanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament Named the Discourse on the Analysis of Digging the Earth

Cuddasamo paricchedo.

The Fourteenth Chapter.

15. Bhūtagāmavinicchayakathā

15. The Discourse on the Analysis of Plant Life.

75. Evaṃ [Pg.166] pathavivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni bhūtagāmavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘bhūtagāmo’’tiādimāha. Tattha bhavanti ahuvuñcāti bhūtā, jāyanti vaḍḍhanti jātā vaḍḍhitā cāti attho. Gāmoti rāsi, bhūtānaṃ gāmoti bhūtagāmo, bhūtā eva vā gāmo bhūtagāmo, patiṭṭhitaharitatiṇarukkhādīnametaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Tattha ‘‘bhavantī’’ti imassa vivaraṇaṃ ‘‘jāyanti vaḍḍhantī’’ti, ‘‘ahuvu’’nti imassa ‘‘jātā vaḍḍhitā’’ti. Evaṃ bhūta-saddo paccuppannātītavisayo hoti. Tenāha vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.90) ‘‘bhavantīti vaḍḍhanti, ahuvunti babhuvū’’ti. Idāni taṃ bhūtagāmaṃ dassento ‘‘bhūtagāmoti pañcahi bījehi jātānaṃ rukkhalatādīnametaṃ adhivacana’’nti āha. Latādīnanti ādi-saddena osadhigacchādayo veditabbā.

75. Having thus spoken on the analysis of earth, now, to speak on the analysis of plant life, he said what begins with 'plant life'. Therein, 'beings' (bhūtā) are those that 'exist' (bhavanti) and 'have existed' (ahuvu); the meaning is 'they are born and grow' and 'they have been born and have grown'. 'Group' (gāmo) means a mass; 'a group of beings' is bhūtagāmo; or, beings themselves are a group, bhūtagāmo. This is a designation for established green things, grass, trees, and so on. Therein, the explanation of 'they exist' is 'they are born and grow'; of 'they have existed' is 'they have been born and have grown'. Thus, the word bhūta has the domain of the present and the past. Therefore, the Vimativinodanī says: ''Bhavanti' means they grow, 'ahuvu' means they have become.' Now, showing that plant life, he said: ''Bhūtagāmo' is a designation for trees, creepers, etc., born from the five kinds of seeds.' In 'creepers, etc.', by the word 'etc.', medicinal herbs, shrubs, and so on should be understood.

Idāni tāni bījāni sarūpato dassento ‘‘tatrimāni pañca bījānī’’tiādimāha. Tattha mūlameva bījaṃ mūlabījaṃ. Evaṃ sesesupi. Atha vā mūlaṃ bījaṃ etassāti mūlabījaṃ, mūlabījato vā nibbattaṃ mūlabījaṃ. Evaṃ sesesupi. Tattha paṭhamena viggahena bījagāmo eva labbhati, dutiyatatiyehi bhūtagāmo. Idāni te bhūtagāme sarūpato dassento ‘‘tattha mūlabījaṃ nāmā’’tyādimāha. Tattha tesu pañcasu mūlabījādīsu haliddi…pe… bhaddamuttakaṃ mūlabījaṃ nāma. Na kevalaṃ imāniyeva mūlabījāni, atha kho ito aññānipi yāni vā pana bhūtagāmajātāni atthi santi, mūle jāyanti, mūle sañjāyanti, etaṃ bhūtagāmajātaṃ mūlabījaṃ nāma hotīti yojanā. Sesesupi eseva nayo. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 91) ‘‘idāni taṃ bhūtagāmaṃ vibhajitvā dassento ‘bhūtagāmo nāma pañca bījajātānī’tiādimāhā’’ti. Tattha [Pg.167] bhūtagāmo nāmāti bhūtagāmaṃ uddharitvā yasmiṃ sati bhūtagāmo hoti, taṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘pañca bījajātānīti āhā’’ti aṭṭhakathāsu vuttaṃ. Evaṃ santepi ‘‘yāni vā panaññānipi atthi, mūle jāyantī’’tiādīni na samenti. Na hi mūlabījādīni mūlādīsu jāyanti. Mūlādīsu jāyamānāni pana tāni bījajātāni, tasmā evamatthavaṇṇanā veditabbā – bhūtagāmo nāmāti vibhajitabbapadaṃ. Pañcāti tassa vibhāgaparicchedo. Bījajātānīti paricchinnadhammanidassanaṃ, yato bījehi jātāni bījajātāni, rukkhādīnaṃ etaṃ adhivacananti ca. Yathā ‘‘sālīnaṃ cepi odanaṃ bhuñjatī’’tiādīsu (ma. ni. 1.76) sālitaṇḍulānaṃ odano sāliodanoti vuccati, evaṃ bījato sambhūto bhūtagāmo ‘‘bīja’’nti vuttoti veditabboti ca.

Now, showing those seeds in their true form, he says, 'Herein, these five kinds of seeds,' and so on. Therein, the root itself is the seed, a root-seed. The same applies to the rest. Alternatively, 'the root is the seed of this,' hence a root-seed; or 'what is produced from the root-seed is a root-seed.' The same applies to the rest. Therein, by the first analysis, only the seed-group is obtained; by the second and third, the plant-group. Now, showing those plant-groups in their true form, he says, 'Therein, what is called a root-seed,' and so on. Therein, among those five, beginning with the root-seed, turmeric... and so on... bhaddamuttaka are called root-seeds. Not only these are root-seeds, but also any other plant-species that exist, which are born from the root, originate from the root—this kind of plant-species is called a root-seed: this is the connection. The same method applies to the rest. For it is said in the commentary (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 91): 'Now, having classified that plant-group, he says, "The plant-group is five kinds of seeds,"' and so on. Therein, 'what is called a plant-group' means having taken up 'plant-group' to show what constitutes it, hence the commentaries state, 'he says, "five kinds of seeds."' Even so, phrases like 'any others that exist, which are born from the root,' and so on, do not fit. For root-seeds and so on are not born from roots and so on. Rather, it is those things born from seeds that are born from roots and so on. Therefore, the explanation of the meaning should be understood thus: 'what is called a plant-group' is the term to be analyzed. 'Five' is the definition of its classification. 'Kinds of seeds' is an indication of the classified phenomena, since they are born from seeds—hence 'kinds of seeds,' which is a designation for trees, and so on. Just as in phrases like 'if he eats cooked rice of sālī grains,' and so on (M.N. 1.76), the cooked rice from sālī grains is called 'sālī-rice,' so too the plant-group born from seeds is called 'seed.' This should be understood.

Phaḷubījanti pabbabījaṃ. Paccayantarasamavāye sadisaphaluppattiyā visesakāraṇabhāvato viruhaṇasamatthe sāraphale niruḷho bīja-saddo tadatthasaṃsiddhiyā mūlādīsupi kesuci pavattatīti mūlādito nivattanatthaṃ ekena bījasaddena visesetvā vuttaṃ ‘‘bīja’’nti ‘‘rūparūpaṃ, dukkhadukkha’’nti ca yathā. Niddese ‘‘yāni vā panaññānipi atthi, mūle jāyanti mūle sañjāyantī’’ti ettha bījato nibbattena bījaṃ dassitaṃ, tasmā evamettha attho daṭṭhabbo – yāni vā panaññānipi atthi, āluvakaserukamalanīluppalapuṇḍarīkakuvalayakundapāṭalimūlādibhede mūle gacchavallirukkhādīni jāyanti sañjāyanti, tāni, yamhi mūle jāyanti ceva sañjāyanti ca, tañca pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 91) vuttahaliddādi ca, sabbampi etaṃ mūlabījaṃ nāma, etena kāriyopacārena kāraṇaṃ dassitanti dasseti. Esa nayo khandhabījādīsu. Yevāpanakakhandhabījesu panettha ambāṭakaindasālanuhipālibhaddakakaṇikārādīni khandhabījāni[Pg.168]. Ambilāvallicaturassavallikaṇaverādīni phaḷubījāni. Makacimallikāsumanajayasumanādīni aggabījāni. Ambajambupanasaṭṭhiādīni bījabījānīti daṭṭhabbāni. Bhūtagāme bhūtagāmasaññī chindati vā chedāpeti vāti satthakāni gahetvā sayaṃ vā chindati, aññena vā chedāpeti. Bhindati vā bhedāpeti vāti pāsāṇādīni gahetvā sayaṃ vā bhindati, aññena vā bhedāpeti. Pacati vā pacāpeti vāti aggiṃ upasaṃharitvā sayaṃ vā pacati, aññena vā pacāpeti, pācittiyaṃ hotīti sambandho. Tattha āpattibhedaṃ dassento ‘‘bhūtagāmañhī’’tiādimāha. Tattha bhūtagāmaparimocitanti bhūtagāmato viyojitaṃ.

'Phaḷubīja' means a joint-seed. The word 'bīja' (seed) is established in the sense of a fertile fruit capable of sprouting, because it is a special cause for the production of a similar fruit when other conditions are present. For the fulfillment of that meaning, it is also applied in some cases to roots and so on. Therefore, to distinguish it from roots and so on, it is specified by the word 'bīja' itself, as in 'bīja-bīja', just like 'rūpa-rūpa' and 'dukkha-dukkha'. In the exposition, where it is said, 'Whatever else exists, is born from the root, originates from the root,' the seed is indicated by that which is produced from the seed. Therefore, the meaning here should be understood thus: 'Whatever else exists—such as yams, lotus roots, blue lotuses, white lotuses, water lilies, kunda flowers, pāṭali roots, and other types of roots—where plants, creepers, and trees are born and originate, those, and also what is stated in the Pāḷi (Pāci. 91) like turmeric, etc., all this is called a root-seed.' By this, he shows that the cause is indicated by a figurative usage of the effect. The same method applies to stem-seeds, and so on. For instance, among the stem-seeds here, ambāṭaka, indasāla, nuhi, pālibhaddaka, kaṇikāra, and so on are stem-seeds. Ambilāvalli, caturassavalli, kaṇavera, and so on are joint-seeds. Makaci, mallikā, sumana, jayasumana, and so on are top-seeds. The seeds of mango, rose apple, jackfruit, and so on are to be understood as seed-seeds. One who perceives a plant-group as a plant-group, cuts or causes it to be cut—taking tools, one either cuts it oneself or has another cut it. One breaks or causes it to be broken—taking stones, etc., one either breaks it oneself or has another break it. One cooks or causes it to be cooked—bringing fire, one either cooks it oneself or has another cook it. A pācittiya offense is incurred: this is the connection. Here, explaining the types of offenses, he says, 'For the plant-group...,' and so on. Therein, 'separated from the plant-group' means disjoined from the plant-group.

76. Sañcicca ukkhipituṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha ‘‘sañciccā’’ti vuttattā sarīre laggabhāvaṃ ñatvāpi uṭṭhahati, ‘‘taṃ uddharissāmī’’ti saññāya abhāvato vaṭṭati. Anantakaggahaṇena sāsapamattikā gahitā. Nāmañhetaṃ tassā sevālajātiyā. Mūlapaṇṇānaṃ abhāvena ‘‘asampuṇṇabhūtagāmo nāmā’’ti vuttaṃ. Abhūtagāmamūlattāti ettha bhūtagāmo mūlaṃ kāraṇaṃ etassāti bhūtagāmamūlo, bhūtagāmassa vā mūlaṃ kāraṇanti bhūtagāmamūlaṃ. Bījagāmo hi nāma bhūtagāmato sambhavati, bhūtagāmassa ca kāraṇaṃ hoti. Ayaṃ pana tādiso na hotīti ‘‘abhūtagāmamūlattā’’ti vuttaṃ.

76. It is not permissible to intentionally lift it up. Here, because 'intentionally' is stated, even if one rises knowing it is clinging to the body, it is permissible due to the absence of the intention 'I will remove it.' By the term 'anantaka', a mustard seed's amount is taken. This is indeed the name of that species of algae. Due to the absence of roots and leaves, it is called 'an incomplete plant-group.' 'Because it is not the root of a plant-group': here, 'bhūtagāmamūla' means 'a plant-group is its root or cause,' or 'the root or cause of a plant-group.' For a seed-group indeed arises from a plant-group and is the cause of a plant-group. But this is not of that kind, hence it is said 'because it is not the root of a plant-group'.

Kiñcāpi hi tālanāḷikerādīnaṃ khāṇu uddhaṃ avaḍḍhanato bhūtagāmassa kāraṇaṃ na hoti, tathāpi bhūtagāmasaṅkhyūpagatanibbattapaṇṇamūlabījato sambhūtattā bhūtagāmato uppanno nāma hotīti bījagāmena saṅgahaṃ gacchati. So bījagāmena saṅgahitoti avaḍḍhamānepi bhūtagāmamūlattā vuttaṃ.

Although the stump of a palm or coconut tree, etc., is not a cause of a plant-group since it does not grow upwards, it is nevertheless said to have arisen from a plant-group because it has arisen from leaves, roots, or seeds that are produced and included in the category of a plant-group. Thus, it is included in the seed-group. It is said to be so included because it is the root of a plant-group, even though it is not growing.

‘‘Aṅkure harite’’ti vatvā tamevatthaṃ vibhāveti ‘‘nīlavaṇṇe jāte’’ti, nīlapaṇṇassa vaṇṇasadise paṇṇe jāteti [Pg.169] attho, ‘‘nīlavaṇṇe jāte’’ti vā pāṭho gahetabbo. Amūlakabhūtagāme saṅgahaṃ gacchatīti idaṃ nāḷikerassa āveṇikaṃ katvā vadati. ‘‘Pānīyaghaṭādīnaṃ bahi sevālo udake aṭṭhitattā bījagāmānulomattā ca dukkaṭavatthū’’ti vadanti. Kaṇṇakampi abbohārikamevāti nīlavaṇṇampi abbohārikameva.

Having said 'in a green shoot,' he explains that very meaning: 'when it has become blue-colored,' meaning when leaves have arisen with a color similar to that of a blue leaf, or the reading 'when it has become blue-colored' should be taken. He speaks of this as a unique characteristic of the coconut, saying, 'It is included in the rootless plant-group.' They say: 'Moss on the outside of water pots, etc., because it is not established in water and is in accordance with the seed-group, is a ground for a dukkaṭa offense.' Even the 'kaṇṇaka' is merely a conventional term, and thus even the blue color is merely a conventional term.

77. Seleyyakaṃ nāma silāya sambhūtā ekā gandhajāti. Pupphitakālato paṭṭhāyāti vikasitakālato pabhuti. Ahicchattakaṃ gaṇhantoti vikasitaṃ gaṇhanto. Makuḷaṃ pana rukkhattacaṃ akopentenapi gahetuṃ na vaṭṭati. ‘‘Rukkhattacaṃ vikopetīti vuttattā rukkhe jātaṃ yaṃ kiñci ahicchattakaṃ rukkhattacaṃ avikopetvā matthakato chinditvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, tadayuttaṃ ‘‘ahicchattakaṃ yāva makuḷaṃ hoti, tāva dukkaṭavatthū’’ti vuttattā. Rukkhato muccitvāti ettha ‘‘yadipi kiñcimattaṃ rukkhe allīnā hutvā tiṭṭhati, rukkhato gayhamānā pana rukkhacchaviṃ na vikopeti, vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Allarukkhato na vaṭṭatīti etthāpi rukkhattacaṃ avikopetvā matthakato tacchetvā gahetuṃ vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Hatthakukkuccenāti hatthacāpallena. Pānīyaṃ na vāsetabbanti idaṃ attano atthāya nāmitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kevalaṃ anupasampannassa atthāya nāmite pana pacchā tato labhitvā na vāsetabbanti natthi. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.92) pana ‘‘pānīyaṃ na vāsetabbanti idaṃ attano pivanapānīyaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, aññesaṃ pana vaṭṭati anuggahitattā. Tenāha attanā khāditukāmenā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā ruhatīti vuttattā yesaṃ sākhā na ruhati, tattha kappiyakaraṇakiccaṃ natthī’’ti vadanti. Vimativinodaniyampi ‘‘yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā [Pg.170] ruhatīti mūlaṃ anotāretvā paṇṇamattaniggamanamattenāpi vaḍḍhati, tattha kappiyampi akaronto chinnanāḷikeraveḷudaṇḍādayo kopetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Caṅkamitaṭṭhānaṃ dassessāmī’’ti vuttattā kevalaṃ caṅkamanādhippāyena vā maggagamanādhippāyena vā akkamantassa, tiṇānaṃ upari nisīdanādhippāyena nisīdantassa ca doso natthi.

77. Seleyyaka is a type of fragrant substance produced from stone. It is collected from the time it blooms, meaning from when it blossoms. Ahicchattaka is collected when it is in bloom. However, it is not permissible to take a bud, even without damaging the tree bark. Since it is said that 'it damages the tree bark,' some say that any ahicchattaka growing on a tree can be taken by cutting it from the top without damaging the bark. This is not appropriate because it is stated that 'ahicchattaka is a ground for a dukkaṭa offense as long as it remains a bud.' 'Freed from the tree'—here, some say that even if a small part remains attached to the tree, as long as taking it does not damage the bark, it is permissible. 'Not from a fresh tree'—here too, it should be understood that it is permissible to take it by cutting or scraping from the top without damaging the bark. 'Due to scrupulousness with the hand'—this refers to fidgeting with the hand. 'Drinking water should not be perfumed'—this is said with reference to water drawn for one’s own use. However, if it is drawn for the sake of someone not yet fully ordained, there is no prohibition against perfuming it after receiving it from them. In the Vimativinodani (Vin. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.92), it is stated: '‘Drinking water should not be perfumed’—this refers to water for one’s own drinking. For others, it is permissible because it is a favor. Therefore, it is said, ‘by one who wishes to consume it oneself.’' 'Because it is said, “of trees whose branches grow,” some say that where branches do not grow, there is no need to make it allowable.' The Vimativinodani also states: '‘Of trees whose branches grow’—that which grows even without putting down a root, merely by the emergence of a leaf, it is permissible for one who does not make it allowable to damage things like cut coconut fronds or bamboo sticks.' '“I will show the walking place”'—because this is said, there is no fault for one who steps on it solely for the purpose of walking meditation or moving along a path, or for one who sits on grass with the intention of sitting.

78. Samaṇakappehīti samaṇānaṃ kappiyavohārehi. Kiñcāpi bījādīnaṃ agginā phuṭṭhamattena, nakhādīhi vilikhanamattena ca aviruḷhidhammatā na hoti, tathāpi evaṃ kateyeva samaṇānaṃ kappatīti aggiparijitādayo samaṇavohārā nāma jātā, tasmā tehi samaṇavohārehi karaṇabhūtehi phalaṃ paribhuñjituṃ anujānāmīti adhippāyo. Abījanibbaṭṭabījānipi samaṇānaṃ kappantīti paññattapaṇṇattibhāvato samaṇavohārāicceva saṅkhaṃ gatāni. Atha vā aggiparijitādīnaṃ pañcannaṃ kappiyabhāvatoyeva pañcahi samaṇakappiyabhāvasaṅkhātehi kāraṇehi phalaṃ paribhuñjituṃ anujānāmīti evamettha adhippāyo veditabbo. Aggiparijitantiādīsu ‘‘paricita’’ntipi paṭhanti. Abījaṃ nāma taruṇaambaphalādi. Nibbaṭṭabījaṃ nāma ambapanasādi, yaṃ bījaṃ nibbaṭṭetvā visuṃ katvā paribhuñjituṃ sakkā hoti. Nibbaṭṭetabbaṃ viyojetabbaṃ bījaṃ yasmiṃ, taṃ panasādi nibbaṭṭabījaṃ nāma. ‘‘Kappiya’’nti vatvāva kātabbanti yo kappiyaṃ karoti, tena kattabbapakārasseva vuttattā bhikkhunā avuttepi kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti na gahetabbaṃ. Puna ‘‘kappiyaṃ kāretabba’’nti kārāpanassa paṭhamameva kathitattā bhikkhunā ‘‘kappiyaṃ karohī’’ti vutteyeva anupasampannena ‘‘kappiya’’nti vatvā aggiparijitādi kātabbanti gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Kappiyanti vacanaṃ pana yāya kāyaci bhāsāya vattuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Kappiyanti vatvāva kātabba’’nti vacanato paṭhamaṃ [Pg.171] ‘‘kappiya’’nti vatvā pacchā aggiādinā phusanādi kātabbanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Paṭhamaṃ aggimhi nikkhipitvā, nakhādinā vā vijjhitvā taṃ anuddharitvāva kappiyanti vattuṃ vaṭṭatī’’tipi vadanti.

78. 'Samaṇakappehī' means 'with practices allowable for ascetics.' Although seeds and such do not become incapable of sprouting merely by being touched by fire or scraped by nails, etc., still, when treated in this way, they become allowable for ascetics. Thus, practices like 'damaged by fire' and others are called allowable ascetic practices. Therefore, the meaning here is that I permit the fruit to be consumed when these allowable ascetic practices have been performed as the instrumental cause. Even seedless fruits and those with removed seeds are considered allowable for ascetics because they are designated as such by convention and thus have come to be known as allowable ascetic practices. Alternatively, the meaning here should be understood as permitting the fruit to be consumed based on the five factors which are known as the state of being allowable for ascetics, due to the very allowability of the five things, such as 'damaged by fire.' In the terms 'damaged by fire' and so on, some also read 'paricita' (well-known). 'Seedless' refers to tender fruits like young mangoes. 'With removed seeds' refers to fruits like mangoes and jackfruit, where the seeds can be extracted and separated before eating. That which has seeds that must be removed or separated, like jackfruit, is called 'nibbaṭṭabīja' (fruit with removed seeds). It must be done after saying 'allowable.' Since it is stated that this is the manner of performance for one who makes it allowable, it should not be understood that it is permissible to act even if uninstructed by a bhikkhu. Furthermore, since the instruction 'have it made allowable' was given first, it should be understood that when a bhikkhu says, 'make it allowable,' a non-ordained person must say 'allowable' and then perform the act of damaging by fire, etc. Some say that the word 'allowable' can be spoken in any language. From the instruction 'It must be done only after saying “allowable”', it should be understood that one must first say 'allowable' and then perform the act of touching with fire, etc. Others say that it is permissible to first place it in the fire or pierce it with a nail, etc., and then, without removing it, say 'allowable.'

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.92) pana ‘‘kappiyanti vatvāvāti pubbakālakiriyāvasena vuttepi vacanakkhaṇeva aggisatthādinā bījagāme vaṇaṃ kātabbanti vacanato pana pubbe kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, tañca dvidhā akatvā chedanabhedanameva dassetabbaṃ. Karontena ca bhikkhunā ‘kappiyaṃ karohī’ti yāya kāyaci bhāsāya vutteyeva kātabbaṃ. Bījagāmaparimocanatthaṃ puna kappiyaṃ kāretabbanti kārāpanassa paṭhamameva adhikatattā’’ti vuttaṃ.

In the Vimativinodani (Vin. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.92), it is stated: 'Although “having said ‘allowable’” is spoken in the sense of a prior action, since it is stated that a wound should be made on the seed-plant with fire, a weapon, etc., at the very moment of speaking, it is not permissible to do it beforehand; and this should be shown only by cutting or splitting, not by making it a two-fold action. And it should be done only when the bhikkhu has said, “make it allowable,” in any language. Furthermore, for the purpose of releasing it from the category of seed-plant, it must be made allowable, because the act of causing it to be done was authorized in the first place.'

Ekasmiṃ bīje vātiādīsu ‘‘ekaṃyeva kāremīti adhippāye satipi ekābaddhattā sabbaṃ katameva hotī’’ti vadanti. Dāruṃ vijjhatīti ettha ‘‘jānitvāpi vijjhati vā vijjhāpeti vā, vaṭṭatiyevā’’ti vadanti. Bhattasitthe vijjhatīti etthāpi eseva nayo. ‘‘Taṃ vijjhati, na vaṭṭatīti rajjuādīnaṃ bhājanagatikattā’’ti vadanti. Marīcapakkādīhi ca missetvāti ettha bhattasitthasambandhavasena ekābaddhatā veditabbā, na phalānaṃyeva aññamaññasambandhavasena. ‘‘Kaṭāhepi kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttattā kaṭāhato nīhaṭāya miñjāya vā bīje vā yattha katthaci vijjhituṃ vaṭṭati eva. Bhindāpetvā kappiyaṃ kārāpetabbanti bījato muttassa kaṭāhassa bhājanagatikattā vuttaṃ.

In the case of a single seed, etc., they say: 'Even with the intention, “I will make just one allowable,” due to being bound as one, everything is considered to have been made allowable.' Regarding piercing wood, they say: 'Even knowing, one pierces or has it pierced—it is permissible.' The same principle applies to piercing a lump of cooked rice. They say: 'He pierces it; it is not permissible, because ropes and so on are considered containers.' And when mixed with peppercorns, etc., here the unity should be understood due to the connection with the lump of cooked rice, not merely due to the mutual connection of the fruits themselves. Since it is said, 'It is permissible even to do it in a pot,' it is indeed permissible to pierce it anywhere, whether in the kernel taken from a pot or in a seed. 'Having had it split, one should have it made allowable'—this is said because the pot, freed from the seed, is considered a container.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Bhūtagāmavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Adornment of the Discourse on the Investigation of Plant Life.

Pannarasamo paricchedo.

Fifteenth Chapter.

16. Sahaseyyavinicchayakathā

16. The Discourse on the Investigation of Sharing a Sleeping Place.

79. Evaṃ [Pg.172] bhūtagāmavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni sahaseyyavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘duvidhaṃ sahaseyyaka’’ntiādimāha. Tattha dve vidhā pakārā yassa sahaseyyakassa taṃ duvidhaṃ, saha sayanaṃ, saha vā sayati etthāti sahaseyyā, sahaseyyā eva sahaseyyakaṃ sakatthe ka-paccayavasena. Taṃ pana anupasampannenasahaseyyāmātugāmenasahaseyyāvasena duvidhaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘duvidhaṃ sahaseyyaka’’nti. Dirattatirattanti ettha vacanasiliṭṭhatāmattena dirattaggahaṇaṃ katanti veditabbaṃ. Tirattañhi sahavāse labbhamāne diratte vattabbameva natthīti dirattaggahaṇaṃ visuṃ na payojeti. Tenevāha ‘‘uttaridirattatirattanti bhagavā sāmaṇerānaṃ saṅgahakaraṇatthāya tirattaparihāraṃ adāsī’’ti. Nirantaraṃ tirattaggahaṇatthaṃ vā dirattaggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Kevalañhi ‘‘tiratta’’nti vutte aññattha vāsena antarikampi tirattaṃ gaṇheyya. Dirattavisiṭṭhaṃ pana tirattaṃ vuccamānaṃ tena anantarikameva tirattaṃ dīpeti. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) ‘‘dirattaggahaṇaṃ vacanālaṅkāratthaṃ. Nirantaraṃ tissova rattiyo sayitvā catutthadivasādīsu sayantasseva āpatti, na ekantarikādivasena sayantassāti dassanatthampīti daṭṭhabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Sahaseyyaṃ ekato seyyaṃ. Seyyanti cettha kāyappasāraṇasaṅkhātaṃ sayanampi vuccati, yasmiṃ senāsane sayanti, tampi, tasmā seyyaṃ kappeyyāti ettha senāsanasaṅkhātaṃ seyyaṃ pavisitvā kāyappasāraṇasaṅkhātaṃ seyyaṃ kappeyya sampādeyyāti attho. Diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhenāti ettha diyaḍḍhahattho vaḍḍhakihatthena gahetabbo. Pañcahi chadanehīti iṭṭhakāsilāsudhātiṇapaṇṇasaṅkhātehi pañcahi chadanehi. Vācuggatavasenāti paguṇavasena.

79. Having thus explained the determination concerning living beings, now the determination concerning shared sleeping is to be explained, beginning with the words, “Shared sleeping is of two kinds.” Here, `duvidhaṃ` (twofold) means that which has two kinds or categories of shared sleeping. `Sahaseyyā` is lying down together, or a place where one lies down together. `Sahaseyyakaṃ` is simply `sahaseyyā` with the suffix `-ka` added in its own sense. This is twofold: sharing a sleeping place with an unordained person, and sharing a sleeping place with a woman. Therefore, it is said, “Shared sleeping is of two kinds.” Regarding “two or three nights,” it should be understood that the mention of “two nights” is made merely for verbal elegance. For when cohabitation for three nights is established, there is nothing to be said about two nights; thus, the mention of two nights serves no separate purpose. Hence, it is said, “The Blessed One granted the novices a dispensation for three nights, that is, more than two nights, for the sake of supporting them.” Alternatively, the mention of “two nights” is made for the sake of establishing an uninterrupted period of three nights. For if only “three nights” were said, one might count even three nights with an interval of dwelling elsewhere. But when three nights are spoken of as qualified by two nights, it thereby indicates an uninterrupted three nights. The Vimativinodanī also states (Vin. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.50-51): “The mention of ‘two nights’ is for verbal adornment. It should also be understood that it is for showing that an offense is incurred only by one who lies down for three uninterrupted nights and on the fourth day and onwards, not by one who lies down with an interval of a day or more.” `Sahaseyyaṃ` means `ekato seyyaṃ`, sleeping together. Herein, `seyyaṃ` (sleeping) refers both to lying down, which is the stretching out of the body, and to the lodging in which one lies down. Therefore, in the phrase `seyyaṃ kappeyya` (one should prepare a sleeping place), the meaning is that one should enter the lodging, which is the sleeping place, and perform the act of lying down, which is the stretching out of the body. Regarding “one and a half cubits high,” here “one and a half cubits” should be taken as a carpenter's cubit. Regarding “by five coverings,” this refers to the five kinds of roofing: tiles, stones, plaster, grass, and leaves. “By way of recitation” means by way of proficiency.

Ekūpacāroti [Pg.173] vaḷañjanadvārassa ekattaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) pana ‘‘ekūpacāro ekena maggena pavisitvā abbhokāsaṃ anokkamitvā sabbattha anuparigamanayoggo, etaṃ bahudvārampi ekūpacārova. Yattha pana kuṭṭādīhi rundhitvā visuṃ dvāraṃ yojenti, nānūpacāro hoti. Sace pana rundhati eva, visuṃ dvāraṃ na yojenti, etampi ekūpacārameva mattikādīhi pihitadvāro viya gabbhoti gahetabbaṃ. Aññathā gabbhe pavisitvā pamukhādīsu nipannānupasampannehi sahaseyyāparimuttiyā gabbhadvāraṃ mattikādīhi pidahāpetvā uṭṭhite aruṇe vivarāpentassapi anāpatti bhaveyyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Catusālaṃ ekūpacāraṃ hotīti sambandho. Tesaṃ payoge payoge bhikkhussa āpattīti ettha keci ‘‘anuṭṭhahanena akiriyasamuṭṭhānā āpatti vuttā, tasmiṃ khaṇe niddāyantassa kiriyābhāvā. Idañhi sikkhāpadaṃ siyā kiriyāya, siyā akiriyāya samuṭṭhāti. Kiriyāya samuṭṭhānatā cassa tabbahulavasena vuttā’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Yathā cetaṃ, evaṃ divāsayanampi. Anuṭṭhahanena, hi dvārāsaṃvaraṇena cetaṃ akiriyasamuṭṭhānampi hotī’’ti vadanti, idañca yuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.

`Ekūpacāro` (a single approach) is said with reference to the singleness of the door used for entry and exit. In the Vimativinodanī (Vin. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.50-51), however, it is stated: “An `ekūpacāro` is a place suitable for traversing everywhere by entering through one path without stepping out into the open; even if it has many doors, this is still a single approach. However, where they block it with walls and so on and construct separate doors, it becomes a multiple approach (`nānūpacāro`). But if they merely block it and do not construct a separate door, this too should be taken as a single approach, like a room whose door is sealed with clay and so on. Otherwise, if, having entered a room and lain down with unordained persons in the porch and so on, for the sake of being exempt from the rule on shared sleeping, one had the room door sealed with clay and so on and opened it at dawn, there would be no offense.” A four-sided hall is a single approach—this is the connection. Regarding “an offense for a monk in each instance of its application,” some say: “An offense is stated to arise from inaction, by not rising up, due to the absence of action at that moment when one is asleep. For this training rule arises either from action or from inaction. Its arising from action is stated as being the prevalent case.” They say: “Just as this is so, so too is daytime sleeping. For by not rising up and by not securing the doors, this also arises from inaction.” This seems reasonable and should be accepted after careful reflection.

80. Uparimatalena saddhiṃ asambaddhabhittikassāti idaṃ sambaddhabhittike vattabbameva natthīti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Uparimatale sayitassa saṅkā eva natthīti ‘‘heṭṭhāpāsāde’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Nānūpacāreti yattha bahi nisseṇiṃ katvā uparimatalaṃ ārohanti, tādisaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ ‘‘uparimatalepī’’ti. Ākāsaṅgaṇe nipajjantassa āpattiabhāvato ‘‘chadanabbhantare’’ti vuttaṃ. Sabhāsaṅkhepenāti sabhākārena. Aḍḍhakuṭṭake senāsaneti ettha ‘‘aḍḍhakuṭṭakaṃ nāma yattha upaḍḍhaṃ muñcitvā tīsu passesu bhittiyo baddhā honti[Pg.174], yattha vā ekasmiṃ passe bhittiṃ uṭṭhāpetvā ubhosu passesu upaḍḍhaṃ upaḍḍhaṃ katvā bhittiyo uṭṭhāpenti, tādisaṃ senāsana’’nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ, gaṇṭhipade pana ‘‘aḍḍhakuṭṭaketi chadanaṃ aḍḍhena asampattakuṭṭake’’ti vuttaṃ, tampi no na yuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana ‘‘sabhāsaṅkhepenāti vuttasseva aḍḍhakuṭṭaketi iminā saṇṭhānaṃ dasseti. Yattha tīsu, dvīsu vā passesu bhittiyo baddhā, chadanaṃ vā asampattā aḍḍhabhitti, idaṃ aḍḍhakuṭṭakaṃ nāmā’’ti vuttaṃ. Vāḷasaṅghāṭo nāma parikkhepassa anto thambhādīnaṃ upari vāḷarūpehi katasaṅghāṭo.

80. The phrase “for one whose walls are not connected to the upper story” is stated to show that there is nothing to be said about one whose walls are connected. Since there is no suspicion of an offense for one sleeping on an upper story, the phrase “in a lower palace,” and so on, is stated. Regarding “multiple approach,” the phrase “even on an upper story” is said with reference to a place where one ascends to the upper story by means of an external staircase. Since there is no offense for one lying down in an open courtyard, the phrase “under a roofed enclosure” is stated. “In the manner of an assembly hall” means in the form of an assembly hall. Regarding “a half-walled dwelling,” here it is said in all three glosses: “A half-walled dwelling is a dwelling where, leaving half open, walls are built on three sides, or where, having erected a wall on one side, they erect half-walls on both sides.” In a gloss, however, it is said: “A half-walled dwelling is one where the roof does not reach the half-wall,” and this too is not unsuitable. But in the Vimativinodanī it is said: “The word `aḍḍhakuṭṭaka` (half-walled) indicates the form of what was called `sabhāsaṅkhepa` (in the manner of an assembly hall). Where walls are built on three or two sides, or there is a half-wall that does not reach the roof, this is called a half-walled dwelling.” A `vāḷasaṅghāṭa` is a framework constructed with decorative balusters on top of pillars and so on, within an enclosure.

Parikkhepassa bahi gateti ettha yattha yasmiṃ passe parikkhepo natthi, tatthāpi parikkhepārahapadesato bahi gate anāpattiyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51) pana ‘‘parikkhepassa bahi gateti ettha yasmiṃ passe parikkhepo natthi, tattha sace bhūmito vatthu uccaṃ hoti, ubhato uccavatthuto heṭṭhā bhūmiyaṃ nibbakosabbhantarepi anāpatti eva tattha senāsanavohārābhāvato. Atha vatthu nīcaṃ bhūmisamameva senāsanassa heṭṭhimatale tiṭṭhati, tattha parikkheparahitadisāya nibbakosabbhantare sabbattha āpatti hoti, paricchedābhāvato parikkhepassa bahi eva anāpattīti daṭṭhabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Aparicchinnagabbhūpacāreti ettha majjhe vivaṭaṅgaṇavantāsu mahācatusālāsu yathā ākāsaṅgaṇaṃ anotaritvā pamukheneva gantvā sabbagabbhe pavisituṃ na sakkā hoti, evaṃ ekekagabbhassa dvīsu passesu kuṭṭaṃ nīharitvā kataṃ paricchinnagabbhūpacāraṃ nāma, idaṃ pana tādisaṃ na hotīti ‘‘aparicchinnagabbhūpacāre’’ti vuttaṃ. Sabbagabbhepi pavisantīti gabbhūpacārassa aparicchinnattā ākāsaṅgaṇaṃ anotaritvāpi [Pg.175] pamukheneva gantvā taṃ taṃ gabbhaṃ pavisanti. Atha kuto tassa parikkhepoyeva sabbaparicchinnattāti vuttanti āha ‘‘gabbhaparikkhepoyeva hissa parikkhepo’’ti, idañca samantā gabbhabhittiyo sandhāya vuttaṃ. Catusālavasena hi sanniviṭṭhe senāsane gabbhapamukhaṃ visuṃ aparikkhittampi samantā ṭhitaṃ gabbhabhittīnaṃ vasena parikkhittaṃ nāma hoti.

Regarding “gone outside the boundary,” here it should be understood that even on a side where there is no boundary, if one goes outside the area suitable for a boundary, there is no offense. However, the Vimativinodanī (Vin. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.50-51) states: “Regarding ‘outside the boundary’—here, on a side where there is no boundary, if the foundation is raised from the ground, there is no offense even within the space below the raised foundation down to the ground within a yoke’s span, because it is not designated as a dwelling. But if the foundation is low, level with the ground, standing on the lower floor of the dwelling, then in the direction where there is no boundary, an offense is incurred everywhere within a yoke’s span, due to the lack of a partition. It should be understood that there is no offense only outside the boundary.” Regarding “in a place with an unpartitioned room-approach,” here, in large four-sided halls with an open courtyard in the middle, just as it is not possible to enter all the rooms by going only through the entrance hall without descending into the open courtyard, so too a place with a partitioned room-approach is one made by extending a wall on two sides of each room. But since this dwelling is not like that, it is called “with an unpartitioned room-approach.” “They enter all the rooms” means that because the room-approach is unpartitioned, they enter each respective room by going only through the entrance hall, even without descending into the open courtyard. Then how is its boundary said to be completely enclosed? It is said: “For its boundary is simply the enclosure of the rooms.” This is said with reference to the surrounding walls of the rooms. For in a dwelling arranged as a four-sided hall, even if the entrance hall of a room is not separately enclosed, it is considered enclosed by means of the surrounding walls of the rooms.

81. Ekadisāya ujukameva dīghaṃ katvā sannivesito pāsādo ekasālasanniveso. Dvīsu tīsu catūsu vā disāsu siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānādivasena katā dvisālādisannivesā veditabbā. Sālappabhedadīpanameva cettha purimato visesoti. Aṭṭha pācittiyānīti upaḍḍhacchannaṃ upaḍḍhaparicchannaṃ senāsanaṃ dukkaṭavatthussa ādiṃ katvā pāḷiyaṃ dassitattā tato adhikaṃ sabbacchannaupaḍḍhaparicchannādikampi sabbaṃ pāḷiyaṃ avuttampi pācittiyasseva vatthubhāvena dassitaṃ sikkhāpadassa paṇṇattivajjattā, garuke ṭhātabbato cāti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Satta pācittiyānī’’ti pāḷiyaṃ vuttapācittiyadvayaṃ sāmaññato ekattena gahetvā vuttaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 54) ‘‘tatiyāya rattiyā purāruṇā nikkhamitvā puna sayatī’’ti idaṃ ukkaṭṭhavasena vuttaṃ, anikkhamitvā purāruṇā uṭṭhahitvā antochadane nisinnassāpi puna divase sahaseyyena anāpatti eva. Ettha catubhāgo cūḷakaṃ, dvebhāgā upaḍḍhaṃ, tīsu bhāgesu dve bhāgā yebhuyyanti iminā lakkhaṇena cūḷakacchannaparicchannādīni veditabbāni. Idāni dutiyasikkhāpadepi yathāvuttanayaṃ atidisanto ‘‘mātugāmena…pe… ayameva vinicchayo’’ti āha. ‘‘Matitthiyā pārājikavatthubhūtāyapi anupādinnapakkhe ṭhitattā sahaseyyāpattiṃ na janetī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Atthaṅgate sūriye mātugāme nipanne nipajjati, āpatti [Pg.176] pācittiyassā’’ti (pāci. 57) vacanato divā tassa sayantassa sahaseyyāpatti na hotiyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

81. A building constructed long and straight in one direction is a single-hall structure. Structures made in the shape of a crossroads or similar in two, three, or four directions are to be understood as two-hall structures and so on. Here, the exposition of the types of halls is merely a further distinction from what was previously stated. Eight pācittiya offenses: Since the Pāli text indicates a half-roofed, half-enclosed dwelling as the initial basis for an offense of wrong-doing, it should be understood that anything beyond that—even if fully roofed, half-enclosed, etc., and not explicitly mentioned in the Pāli—is still shown as a basis for a pācittiya offense, because the training rule is unspecific and because it is a serious matter to be maintained. The phrase 'seven pācittiya offenses' refers to two pācittiya offenses mentioned in the Pāli, taken together generically as one. In the Pāli (Pāc. 54), 'having left before dawn on the third night and then lying down again' is stated as the severest case. However, if one does not leave but rises before dawn and sits inside the roofed area, there is no offense in lying down again during the day with shared lodging. Here, one-fourth is considered minimal, two parts are half, and two parts out of three are the majority. By this measure, minimal roofings, partial enclosures, and the like should be understood. Now, extending the previously stated method to the second training rule, it is said: 'With a woman... this is the judgment.' Some say that even a woman who could be the basis for a pārājika offense, if she is in the category of not being taken up, does not incur a sahaseyya offense. From the statement, 'If, after sunset, a woman lies down and one lies down with her, there is a pācittiya offense' (Pāc. 57), it should be understood that if she is lying down during the day, lying down together does not incur an offense.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Sahaseyyavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament Called 'The Discourse on the Adjudication of Shared Lodging'.

Soḷasamo paricchedo.

The Sixteenth Chapter.

17. Mañcapīṭhādisaṅghikasenāsanesupaṭipajjitabbavinicchayakathā

17. The Discourse on the Adjudication Regarding What Should Be Practiced in Communal Lodgings, such as Beds and Chairs.

82. Evaṃ sahaseyyavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni saṅghike vihāre seyyāsu kattabbavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘vihāre saṅghike seyya’’ntyādimāha. Tattha samaggaṃ kammaṃ samupagacchatīti saṅgho, ayameva vacanattho sabbasaṅghasādhāraṇo. Saṅghassa dinno saṅghiko, viharati etthāti vihāro, tasmiṃ. Sayanti etthāti seyyā, taṃ. Asantharīti santharitvāna. Pakkamanaṃ pakkamo, gamananti attho. ‘‘Vihāre saṅghike seyyaṃ, santharitvāna pakkamo’’ti imassa uddesapāṭhassa saṅghike vihāre…pe… pakkamananti attho daṭṭhabboti yojanā. Tatrāti tasmiṃ pakkamane ayaṃ īdiso mayā vuccamāno vinicchayo veditabboti attho. Katamo so vinicchayoti āha ‘‘saṅghike…pe… pācittiya’’nti. Aparikkhittassa upacāro nāma senāsanato dve leḍḍupātā. Pācittiyanti paṭhamaṃ pādaṃ atikkāmentassa dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyātikkame pācittiyaṃ. Kathaṃ viññāyaticcāha ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu…pe… vacanato’’ti.

82. Having thus explained the adjudication regarding shared lodging, now, to explain the adjudication regarding what should be done with beds in a Saṅgha monastery, he begins with 'in a Saṅgha monastery, a bed.' Here, Saṅgha means that which undertakes a task in harmony—this meaning is common to all things of the Saṅgha. Saṅghika means given to the Saṅgha; vihāra is where one dwells; in that. Seyyā is where one lies down; that. Asantharīti means having spread. Pakkamanaṃ is pakkamo, meaning going. The meaning of this recitation passage, 'in a Saṅgha monastery, a bed, having spread, departure,' should be understood as '...departure from a Saṅgha monastery.' Here, in that departure, this adjudication being spoken by me should be understood. What is that adjudication? He says, 'regarding a Saṅgha... up to a Pācittiya.' The boundary of an unenclosed area is two clod-throws from the lodging. Pācittiya means that for one crossing the first step, there is a dukkaṭa; for crossing the second, a pācittiya. How is this to be understood? He says, 'Whatever bhikkhu... according to the Pāli.'

Tattha [Pg.177] saṅghiko vihāro pākaṭo, seyyā apākaṭā, sā katividhāiccāha ‘‘seyyā nāma…pe… dasavidhā’’ti. Tatthāpi katamā bhisi, katamā cimilikādayoti āha ‘‘tattha bhisīti…pe… esa nayo paṇṇasanthāre’’ti. Tattha mañce attharitabbāti mañcakabhisi, evaṃ itaratra, vaṇṇānurakkhaṇatthaṃ katāti paṭakhaṇḍādīhi sibbitvā katā. Bhūmiyaṃ attharitabbāti cimilikāya sati tassā upari, asati suddhabhūmiyaṃ attharitabbā. Sīhadhammādīnaṃ pariharaṇe eva paṭikkhepoti iminā mañcapīṭhādīsu attharitvā puna saṃharitvā ṭhapanādivasena attano atthāya pariharaṇameva na vaṭṭati, bhūmattharaṇādivasena paribhogo pana attano pariharaṇaṃ na hotīti dasseti. Khandhake hi ‘‘antopi mañce paññattāni honti, bahipi mañce paññattāni hontī’’ti evaṃ attano atthāya mañcādīsu paññapetvā pariharaṇavatthusmiṃ ‘‘na, bhikkhave, mahācammāni dhāretabbāni sīhacammaṃ byagghacammaṃ dīpicammaṃ, yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 255) paṭikkhepo kato, tasmā vuttanayenevettha adhippāyo daṭṭhabbo. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.112) pana ‘‘yadi evaṃ ‘pariharaṇeyeva paṭikkhepo’ti idaṃ kasmā vuttanti codanaṃ katvā ‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ pāsādaparibhoga’nti (cūḷava. 320) vacanato puggalikepi senāsane senāsanaparibhogavasena niyamitaṃ suvaṇṇaghaṭādikaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭamānampi kevalaṃ attano santakaṃ katvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati. Evamidaṃ bhūmattharaṇavasena paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭamānampi attano santakaṃ katvā taṃ taṃ vihāraṃ haritvā paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ pariharaṇeyeva paṭikkhepo veditabbo’’ti vuttaṃ.

Here, the Saṅgha monastery is evident, but the bedding is not evident. How many kinds are there? It is said, 'Bedding is... of ten kinds.' Among these, what is a bhisi, and what are things like a cimilikā? It is said, 'Here, a bhisi is... and this is the method for a leaf mat.' There, what is to be spread on a bed is a bed-mattress; similarly elsewhere. What is made by sewing with pieces of cloth, etc., is for maintaining the appearance. What is to be spread on the ground: if there is a cimilikā, it is spread on top of that; if there is not, it is spread directly on the bare ground. The prohibition applies only to the personal retention of lion skins, etc. By this, it is shown that spreading bedding on a bed or bench and then gathering it up again and putting it away for one's own benefit is not permissible, but using it as a ground covering, etc., does not constitute personal retention. Indeed, in the Khandhaka, it is said, 'Things are laid out on beds inside, and things are laid out on beds outside.' Thus, regarding the matter of laying out beds, etc., for one's own benefit and then retaining them, the prohibition is made: 'Bhikkhus, large hides—lion hides, tiger hides, leopard hides—should not be kept. Whoever keeps them commits an offense of wrong conduct' (Mahāva. 255). Therefore, the meaning here should be understood in the way stated. In the Sāratthadīpanī, however, it is said: 'If that is so, why is it said, "The prohibition applies only to personal retention"?' After raising this objection, it is explained: 'According to the words, "I allow, bhikkhus, all use of the building's furnishings" (Cūḷava. 320), even in a personal lodging, while it is permissible to use items like golden pots that are designated for the general use of the lodging, it is not permissible to use them by making them one's own property. Similarly, even though this may be used as a ground covering, it is not permissible to make it one's own and carry it from one monastery to another for use. To show this, the prohibition should be understood as applying only to personal retention.'

Pāvāro kojavoti paccattharaṇatthāyeva ṭhapitā uggatalomā attharaṇavisesā. Ettakameva vuttanti aṭṭhakathāsu [Pg.178] (pāci. aṭṭha. 116) vuttaṃ. ‘‘Idaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu tathāvuttabhāvadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, aññampi tādisaṃ mañcapīṭhesu attharitabbaṃ attharaṇamevā’’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) pana ‘‘paccattharaṇaṃ nāma pāvāro kojavo’’ti niyametvā vuttaṃ, tasmā gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ iminā na sameti, ‘‘vīmaṃsitvā gahetabba’’nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.116) vuttaṃ. Vīmaṃsite pana evamadhippāyo paññāyati – mātikāṭṭhakathāpi aṭṭhakathāyeva, tasmā mahāaṭṭhakathādīsu vuttanayena ‘‘pāvāro kojavo’’ti niyametvā vuttaṃ, evaṃ niyamane satipi yathā ‘‘laddhātapatto rājakumāro’’ti ātapattassa laddhabhāveyeva niyametvā vuttepi nidassananayavasena rājakakudhabhaṇḍasāmaññena samānā vālabījanādayopi vuttāyeva honti, evaṃ ‘‘pāvāro kojavo’’ti niyametvā vuttepi nidassananayavasena tehi mañcapīṭhesu attharitabbabhāvasāmaññena samānā aññe attharaṇāpi vuttāyeva honti, tasmā gaṇṭhipadesu vuttavacanaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanassa paṭilomaṃ na hoti, anulomamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

A pāvāra-kojava is a special kind of spread with raised fleece, placed specifically for the purpose of a covering. This much is stated in the commentaries. 'This is said to show what is stated in the commentaries; any other such thing to be spread on beds and benches is also just a spread,' as mentioned in all three Gaṇṭhipadas. However, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, it is definitively stated: 'A covering is a pāvāra-kojava.' Therefore, what is said in the Gaṇṭhipadas does not align with this. The Sāratthadīpanī advises, 'It should be carefully considered.' Upon examination, however, the following intention becomes clear: The Mātikāṭṭhakathā is also a commentary; therefore, like the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā and others, it definitively states 'pāvāra-kojava.' Even with such a definition, just as when it is said, 'The prince obtained a sunshade,' the obtaining of the sunshade is specified, yet by way of example, other items similar in being royal regalia, such as fly-whisks, are also indeed mentioned. Similarly, when 'pāvāra-kojava' is definitively stated, by way of example, other spreads that are similar in being things to be spread on beds and benches are also indeed included. Therefore, the statement in the Gaṇṭhipadas does not contradict the statement of the commentary; rather, it should be seen as consistent.

Imasmiṃ pana ṭhāne ‘‘yena vihāro kārito, so vihārassāmiko’’ti pāṭhaṃ nissāya ekacce vinayadharā ‘‘saṅghikavihārassa vā puggalikavihārassa vā vihāradāyakoyeva sāmiko, soyeva issaro, tassa ruciyā eva vasituṃ labhati, na saṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ ruciyā’’ti vinicchayaṃ karonti, so vīmaṃsitabbo, kathaṃ ayaṃ pāṭho kimatthaṃ sādheti issaratthaṃ vā āpucchitabbatthaṃ vāti? Evaṃ vīmaṃsite ‘‘bhikkhumhi sati bhikkhu āpucchitabbo’’tiādivacanato āpucchitabbatthameva sādheti, na issaratthanti viññāyati.

In this context, based on the passage 'the one who had the monastery built is the owner of the monastery,' some Vinaya experts, relying on this reading, conclude: 'Whether the monastery is communal or personal, only the donor of the monastery is the owner, only he has authority, and one may dwell there only according to his wish—not according to the wish of the Saṅgha, a group, or individuals.' This should be examined: what does this passage establish—the matter of authority or the matter of seeking permission? Upon examination, it is understood that from statements such as 'when a bhikkhu is present, the bhikkhu should be asked,' it establishes only the matter of seeking permission, not the matter of authority.

Atha [Pg.179] siyā ‘‘āpucchitabbatthe siddhe issarattho siddhoyeva hoti. Issarabhāvatoyeva hi so āpucchitabbo’’ti. Tatthevaṃ vattabbaṃ – ‘‘āpucchantena ca bhikkhumhi sati bhikkhu āpucchitabbo, tasmiṃ asati sāmaṇero, tasmiṃ asati ārāmiko’’tiādivacanato āyasmantānaṃ matena bhikkhupi sāmaṇeropi ārāmikopi vihārakārakopi tassa kule yo koci puggalopi issaroti āpajjeyya, evaṃ viññāyamānepi bhikkhumhi vā sāmaṇere vā ārāmike vā sati teyeva issarā, na vihārakārako. Tesu ekasmimpi asatiyeva vihārakārako issaro siyāti. Imasmiṃ pana adhikāre saṅghikaṃ senāsanaṃ rakkhaṇatthāya āpucchitabbaṃyeva vadati, na issarabhāvato āpucchitabbaṃ. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 116) ‘‘anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyyāti ettha bhikkhumhi sati bhikkhu āpucchitabbo’’tiādi.

Then it might be said: "If seeking permission is established, then authority is already established. For it is precisely because one has authority that one must be asked." In response, it should be said: "Because of statements such as, 'When a monk is present, a monk should be asked for permission; if he is not present, a novice; if he is not present, a monastery attendant,' according to the view of the venerable ones, even a monk, a novice, a monastery attendant, a builder of the monastery, or any person whatsoever in that family could become the authority." Even understanding it this way, when a monk, novice, or monastery attendant is present, they alone are the authorities, not the builder of the monastery. Only when even one of them is not present could the builder of the monastery become the authority. However, in this matter, one speaks of permission being sought only for the purpose of protecting the communal monastic dwelling, not because of authority. For it was said in the commentary (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 116): "‘Or one may go without asking’—here, if a monk is present, a monk should be asked," and so on.

Athāpi evaṃ vadeyya ‘‘na sakalassa vākyapāṭhassa adhippāyatthaṃ sandhāya amhehi vuttaṃ, atha kho ‘vihārassāmiko’ti etassa padatthaṃyeva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ? Saṃ etassa atthīti sāmiko, vihārassa sāmiko vihārassāmiko. ‘Ko vihārassāmiko nāmā’ti vutte ‘yena vihāro kārito, so vihārassāmiko nāmā’ti vattabbo, tasmā vihārakārako dāyako vihārassāmiko nāmāti viññāyati, evaṃ viññāyamāne sati sāmiko nāma sassa dhanassa issaro, tassa ruciyā eva aññe labhanti, tasmā vihārassāmikabhūtassa dāyakassa ruciyā eva bhikkhū vasituṃ labhanti, na saṅghagaṇapuggalānaṃ ruciyāti imamatthaṃ sandhāya vutta’’nti. Te evaṃ vattabbā – mā āyasmanto evaṃ avacuttha, yathā [Pg.180] nāma ‘‘ghaṭikāro brahmā’’ti vutto so brahmā idāni ghaṭaṃ na karoti, purimattabhāve pana karoti, tasmā ‘‘ghaṭaṃ karotī’’ti vacanatthena ‘‘ghaṭikāro’’ti nāmaṃ labhati. Iti pubbe laddhanāmattā pubbavohāravasena brahmabhūtopi ‘‘ghaṭikāro’’icceva vuccati, evaṃ so vihārakārako bhikkhūnaṃ pariccattakālato paṭṭhāya vihārassāmiko na hoti vatthupariccāgalakkhaṇattā dānassa, pubbe pana apariccattakāle vihārassa kārakattā vihārassāmiko nāma hoti, so evaṃ pubbe laddhanāmattā pubbavohāravasena ‘‘vihārassāmiko’’ti vuccati, na, pariccattassa vihārassa issarabhāvato. Teneva sammāsambuddhena ‘‘vihāradāyakānaṃ ruciyā bhikkhū vasantū’’ti avatvā senāsanapaññāpako anuññātoti daṭṭhabbo. Tathā hi vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295) ‘‘tesaṃ gehānīti ettha bhikkhūnaṃ vāsatthāya katampi yāva na denti, tāva tesaṃ santakaṃyeva bhavissatīti daṭṭhabba’’nti, tena dinnakālato paṭṭhāya tesaṃ santakāni na hontīti dasseti. Ayaṃ pana kathā pāṭhassa sammukhībhūtattā imasmiṃ ṭhāne kathitā. Vihāravinicchayo pana catupaccayabhājanavinicchaye (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 194 ādayo) āvi bhavissati. Yo kocīti ñātako vā aññātako vā yo koci. Yena mañcaṃ pīṭhaṃ vā vinanti, taṃ mañcapīṭhakavānaṃ.

And if someone were to say thus: "We did not speak with reference to the intended meaning of the entire passage, but rather only with reference to the meaning of the word 'vihārassāmiko' (owner of the monastery). How so? 'Sāmiko' means 'he to whom it belongs'; 'vihārassāmiko' means 'the owner of the monastery.' When asked, 'Who is called the owner of the monastery?' one should answer, 'The one who had the monastery built is called the owner of the monastery.' Therefore, it is understood that the donor who constructed the monastery is called the owner of the monastery. When this is understood, 'owner' refers to the master of his own property. Others obtain it only by his consent. Thus, the monks obtain the right to dwell only by the consent of the donor who is the owner of the monastery, not by the consent of the Sangha, the group, or individuals," they should be told thus: "Venerable ones, do not speak thus. Just as it is said 'Ghaṭikāra Brahmā'—that Brahmā does not now make pots, but in a previous state he did, therefore, because of the act of making pots, he is called 'Ghaṭikāra.' Thus, because he previously acquired that name, even after becoming a Brahmā, he is still called 'Ghaṭikāra' by convention. Similarly, that monastery builder is not the owner of the monastery from the time he donates it to the monks, because the characteristic of a gift is relinquishment of the object. But before the time of donation, because he was the builder of the monastery, he was called the owner of the monastery. Thus, because he previously acquired that name, he is called 'vihārassāmiko' by convention, not because he has ownership over the donated monastery. Therefore, it should be seen that the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One did not say, 'Let the monks dwell by the consent of the donors of the monastery,' but rather that the one who assigns lodging is authorized. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.295): 'Their houses—here, even if a dwelling is built for monks to live in, as long as they have not given it, it should be regarded as still belonging to them.' This shows that from the time it is given, it no longer belongs to them. This discussion, being directly relevant to the passage, is explained here. The detailed analysis of monasteries, however, will be clearly presented in the section on the distribution of the four requisites (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 194 ff.). 'Whoever'—whether a relative or a stranger, whoever. 'By which one weaves a bed or chair'—that is the weaver of beds and chairs.

83. Siluccayaleṇanti siluccaye leṇaṃ, pabbataguhāti attho. ‘‘Senāsanaṃ upacikāhi khāyita’’nti imasmiṃ vatthusmiṃ paññattattā vatthuanurūpavasena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ upacikāsaṅkāya abhāvena anāpatti vuttā. Vattakkhandhake (cūḷava. 360 ādayo) gamikavattaṃ paññāpentena ‘‘senāsanaṃ āpucchitabba’’nti vuttattā kevalaṃ itikattabbatāmattadassanatthaṃ ‘‘āpucchanaṃ pana vatta’’nti vuttaṃ[Pg.181], na pana vattabhede dukkaṭanti dassanatthaṃ, teneva andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘senāsanaṃ āpucchitabba’’nti ettha ‘‘yaṃ pāsāṇapiṭṭhiyaṃ vā pāsāṇatthambhesu vā katasenāsanaṃ yattha upacikā nārohanti, taṃ anāpucchantassapi anāpattī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tasmā yaṃ vuttaṃ gaṇṭhipade ‘‘tādise senāsane anāpucchā gacchantassa pācittiyaṃ natthi, gamikavatte senāsanaṃ anāpucchā gacchanto vattabhedo hoti, tasmā dukkaṭaṃ āpajjatī’’ti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ.

83. "A shelter in a rock pile" means a shelter in a rock pile, that is, a mountain cave. In the case of "a dwelling eaten by termites," because it was laid down in this story, the commentary states there is no offense due to the absence of suspicion of termites, in accordance with the situation. In the section on the Vattakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 360 ff.), when laying down the rules for travelers, it was said, "one should ask leave for the dwelling." This was stated merely to show the nature of the duty, saying, "but asking leave is a duty," not to indicate that a breach of this duty incurs a dukkaṭa. Therefore, in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, regarding the statement, "one should ask leave for the dwelling," it is said, "a dwelling made on a stone slab or on stone pillars where termites do not climb—there is no offense even for one who does not ask leave." Therefore, what is said in the Gaṇṭhipada—"there is no pācittiya for one who leaves such a dwelling without asking leave, but a traveler who leaves the dwelling without asking leave commits a breach of duty and thus incurs a dukkaṭa"—should not be accepted.

Pacchimassa ābhogena mutti natthīti tassa pacchato gacchantassa aññassa abhāvato vuttaṃ. Ekaṃ vā pesetvā āpucchitabbanti ettha gamanacittassa uppannaṭṭhānato anāpucchitvā gacchante dutiyapāduddhāre pācittiyaṃ. Maṇḍape vāti sākhāmaṇḍape vā padaramaṇḍape vā. Rukkhamūleti yassa kassaci rukkhassa heṭṭhā. Palujjatīti vinassati.

"There is no release by means of a later thought" means it was said because there is no one else following behind him. "Or, having sent one beforehand, one should ask permission"—here, if one departs without asking permission from the place where the intention to depart arose, a pācittiya is incurred at the lifting of the second foot. "In a pavilion" means either a branch pavilion or a leaf pavilion. "At the foot of a tree" means beneath any tree. "It is ruined" means it is destroyed.

84. Majjhe saṃkhittaṃ paṇavasaṇṭhānaṃ katvā baddhanti erakapattādīhi veṇiṃ katvā tāya veṇiyā ubhosu passesu vitthataṭṭhāne bahuṃ veṭhetvā tato paṭṭhāya yāva majjhaṭṭhānaṃ, tāva antoākaḍḍhanavasena veṭhetvā majjhe saṃkhipitvā tattha tattha bandhitvā kataṃ. Yattha kākā vā kulalā vā na ūhadantīti yattha dhuvanivāsena kulāvake katvā vasamānā ete kākakulalā, aññe vā sakuṇā taṃ senāsanaṃ na ūhadanti, tādise rukkhamūle nikkhipituṃ anujānāmīti attho.

84. "Having made it compact in the middle in the shape of a drum and tied it" means it is made by making a braid with eraka leaves or the like, wrapping that braid extensively around the spread-out parts on both sides, then from there up to the middle wrapping it by drawing it inward, compressing it in the middle, and tying it in various places. "Where crows or hawks do not soil it" means where these crows, hawks, or other birds, living in nests made as their permanent residence, do not soil that dwelling. The meaning is, "I allow it to be placed at the foot of such a tree."

85. Navavāyimoti adhunā suttena vītakacchena paliveṭhitamañco. Onaddhoti kappiyacammena onaddho, sova onaddhako sakatthe ka-paccayavasena. Tena hi vassena sīghaṃ na nassati. Ukkaṭṭhaabbhokāsikoti idaṃ tassa sukhapaṭipattidassanamattaṃ[Pg.182], ukkaṭṭhassāpi pana cīvarakuṭi vaṭṭateva. Kāyānugatikattāti bhikkhuno tattheva nisinnabhāvaṃ dīpeti, tena ca vassabhayena sayaṃ aññattha gacchantassa āpattiṃ dasseti. Abbhokāsikānaṃ atemanatthāya niyametvā dāyakehi dinnampi attānaṃ rakkhantena rakkhitabbameva. ‘‘Yasmā pana dāyakehi dānakāleyeva satasahassagghanakampi kambalaṃ ‘pādapuñchaniṃ katvā paribhuñjathā’ti dinnaṃ tatheva paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, tasmā idampi mañcapīṭhādisenāsanaṃ ‘ajjhokāsepi yathāsukhaṃ paribhuñjathā’ti dāyakehi dinnaṃ ce, sabbasmimpi kāle ajjhokāse nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti vadantī’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.108-110) vuttaṃ. Pesetvā gantabbanti ettha ‘‘yo bhikkhu imaṃ ṭhānaṃ āgantvā vasati, tassa dethā’’ti vatvā pesetabbaṃ.

85. Navavāyimo means a couch recently wrapped with newly woven cloth. Onaddho means covered with a permissible hide; thus, it is called 'onaddhaka' with the affix 'ka' in the sense of its own use. Therefore, it will not quickly deteriorate in the rain. Ukkaṭṭhaabbhokāsiko is merely an indication of the ease of practice; even for the strict, a hut for the robe is still suitable. Kāyānugatikattā indicates the monk's state of sitting right there, and thereby shows the offense for one who goes elsewhere out of fear of the rain. Even if given by donors with the stipulation for those who dwell in the open air so that they do not get wet, it must still be protected by one protecting oneself. "However, since even a woolen blanket worth a hundred thousand, given by donors at the time of offering with the words, 'Use it after making it into a foot-wiping cloth,' can be used as such, therefore even this bed, bench, or dwelling, if given by donors with the words, 'Use it comfortably even in the open air,' can be placed in the open air at all times," as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.108-110). Pesetvā gantabbaṃ here means that having said, "Give this to whichever monk comes to stay in this place," it should be sent.

Valāhakānaṃ anuṭṭhitabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvāti iminā gimhānepi meghe uṭṭhite abbhokāse nikkhipituṃ na vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Tatra tatrāti cetiyaṅgaṇādike tasmiṃ tasmiṃ abbhokāse niyametvā nikkhittā. Majjhato paṭṭhāya pādaṭṭhānābhimukhāti yattha samantato sammajjitvā aṅgaṇamajjhe sabbadā kacavarassa saṅkaḍḍhanena majjhe vālikā sañcitā hoti, tattha kattabbavidhidassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, uccavatthupādaṭṭhānābhimukhaṃ, bhittipādaṭṭhānābhimukhaṃ vā vālikā haritabbāti attho. ‘‘Yattha vā pana koṇesu vālikā sañcitā, tattha tato paṭṭhāya aparadisābhimukhā haritabbā’’ti keci atthaṃ vadanti. Keci pana ‘‘sammaṭṭhaṭṭhānassa padavalañjena avikopanatthāya sayaṃ asammaṭṭhaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā attano pādābhimukhaṃ vālikā haritabbāti vutta’’nti vadanti. Tattha ‘‘majjhato paṭṭhāyā’’ti vacanassa payojanaṃ na dissati. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ pana ‘‘pādaṭṭhānābhimukhāti nisīdantānaṃ pādaṭṭhānābhimukhanti keci, sammajjantassa [Pg.183] pādaṭṭhānābhimukhanti apare, bahivālikāya agamananimittaṃ pādaṭṭhānābhimukhā haritabbāti vuttanti eke’’ti vuttaṃ. Kacavaraṃ hatthehi gahetvā bahi chaḍḍetabbanti iminā ‘‘kacavaraṃ chaḍḍessāmī’’ti vālikā na chaḍḍetabbāti dīpeti.

Having observed the absence of clouds, it is explained by this that even in summer, when clouds arise, it is not proper to leave things in the open. Here and there—in the shrine courtyard and similar places—having designated that particular open space, they are to be placed. 'Starting from the middle, towards the base'—this is stated to show the method of doing it where the courtyard is always swept all around, and in the middle, sand is accumulated due to repeatedly dragging the refuse, meaning, the sand should be carried towards the base of a high object or towards the base of a wall. Some explain the meaning as, "Wherever sand is piled up in the corners, from there, it should be carried facing the opposite direction." Others say, "To avoid disturbing the swept area with footprints, one should stand where it has not been swept and carry the sand facing one’s own feet—this is what is meant." Here, the purpose of the phrase "starting from the middle" is not apparent. However, the Sāratthadīpanī explains: "‘Towards the base’—some say it means towards the base of the feet of those sitting; others say it means towards the base of the feet of the one sweeping; while some say it means the sand should be carried towards the base as a sign of not going onto the outer sand." "Taking the refuse with the hands and discarding it outside"—this indicates that one should not discard the sand thinking, "I will discard the refuse."

86. Kappaṃ labhitvāti ‘‘gacchā’’ti vuttavacanena kappaṃ labhitvā. Therassa hi āṇattiyā gacchantassa anāpatti. Purimanayenevāti ‘‘nisīditvā sayaṃ gacchanto’’tiādinā pubbe vuttanayeneva.

86. Having obtained permission means having obtained permission by the utterance 'Go.' For one going by the command of a Thera, there is no offense. 'By the previous method' means by the way previously stated, such as 'having sat down, then going by oneself,' and so on.

Aññattha gacchatīti taṃ maggaṃ atikkamitvā aññattha gacchati. Leḍḍupātupacārato bahi ṭhitattā ‘‘pāduddhārena kāretabbo’’ti vuttaṃ, aññattha gacchantassa paṭhamapāduddhāre dukkaṭaṃ, dutiyapāduddhāre pācittiyanti attho. Pākatikaṃ akatvāti apaṭisāmetvā. Antarasannipāteti antarantarā sannipāte.

He goes elsewhere means having left that path, he goes elsewhere. Because he stands outside the range of a clod's throw, it is said, "he should be made to lift his foot." For one going elsewhere, there is a dukkaṭa offense at the first lifting of the foot, and a pācittiya offense at the second lifting of the foot—this is the meaning. Not having made it as it was means not having put it away. Between assemblies means in the intervals between assemblies.

87. Āvāsikānaṃyeva palibodhoti ettha āgantukesu āgantvā kiñci avatvā tattha nisinnesupi nisīditvā ‘‘āvāsikāyeva uddharissantī’’ti gatesupi āvāsikānameva palibodho. Mahāpaccarivāde pana ‘‘idaṃ amhāka’’nti vatvāpi avatvāpi nisinnānamevāti adhippāyo. Mahāaṭṭhakathāvāde ‘‘āpattī’’ti pācittiyameva vuttaṃ. Mahāpaccariyaṃ pana santharāpane pācittiyena bhavitabbanti anāṇattiyā paññattattā dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Ussārakoti sarabhāṇako. So hi uddhaṃuddhaṃ pāḷipāṭhaṃ sāreti pavattetīti ‘‘ussārako’’ti vuccati. ‘‘Idaṃ ussārakassa, idaṃ dhammakathikassā’’ti visuṃ paññattattā anāṇattiyā paññattepi pācittiyeneva bhavitabbanti adhippāyena ‘‘tasmiṃ āgantvā nisinne tassa palibodho’’ti vuttaṃ. Keci pana vadanti ‘‘anāṇattiyā paññattepi dhammakathikassa anuṭṭhāpanīyattā pācittiyena [Pg.184] bhavitabbaṃ, āgantukassa pana pacchā āgatehi vuḍḍhatarehi uṭṭhāpanīyattā dukkaṭaṃ vutta’’nti.

87. The responsibility applies only to the resident monks. Here, even if visiting monks arrive, say nothing, and sit there, or having sat down, leave thinking, "The residents will take care of it," the responsibility still applies only to the resident monks. However, according to the Mahāpaccarivāda, the meaning is that whether they say, "This is ours," or not, the responsibility applies only to those who are seated. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, a pācittiya offense is stated. But in the Mahāpaccariya, a dukkaṭa offense is stated, because it was laid down without an announcement that there should be a pācittiya for spreading it. Ussāraka means a reciter. He is called 'ussāraka' because he causes the Pāli text to proceed higher and higher. Since separate rules were established for the reciter and the Dhamma preacher, the meaning is that even though it was laid down without an announcement, it should result in a pācittiya offense. Therefore, it is said, "When he arrives and sits there, the responsibility is his." Some, however, say that even though it was laid down without an announcement, it should be a pācittiya for the Dhamma preacher because he is not to be made to get up, but a dukkaṭa is stated for a visitor because he can be made to get up by more senior monks who arrive later.

88. Pādapuñchanī nāma rajjukehi vā pilotikāya vā pādapuñchanatthaṃ katā. Phalakapīṭhaṃ nāma phalakamayaṃ pīṭhaṃ. Atha vā phalakañceva dārumayapīṭhañca. Dārumayapīṭhanti ca phalakamayameva pīṭhaṃ veditabbaṃ. Pādakaṭhalikanti adhotapādaṭṭhāpanakaṃ. Ajjhokāse rajanaṃ pacitvā …pe… paṭisāmetabbanti ettha theve asati rajanakamme niṭṭhite paṭisāmetabbaṃ. ‘‘Bhikkhu vā sāmaṇero vā ārāmiko vā lajjī hotīti vuttattā alajjiṃ āpucchitvā gantuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Otāpento…pe… gacchatīti ettha ‘‘kiñcāpi ‘ettakaṃ dūraṃ gantabba’nti paricchedo natthi, tathāpi leḍḍupātaṃ atikkamma nātidūraṃ gantabba’’nti vadanti.

88. A foot-wiper is made of strings or rags for the purpose of wiping the feet. A plank seat is a seat made of planks. Or, it could be a plank and a wooden seat. A wooden seat should be understood as a seat made of planks. A foot-rest is for placing unwashed feet. Having dyed cloth in the open air… it should be put away… Here, in the absence of theft, it should be put away once the dyeing work is finished. They say, "Since it is stated that a monk, novice, or monastery attendant may be conscientious, it is not proper to leave without asking permission from one who is shameless." While drying in the sun… going—here, they say, "although there is no specified distance to be travelled, still, one should not go too far, beyond a clod's throw."

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Mañcapīṭhādisaṅghikasenāsanesupaṭipajjitabba-

Regarding What Should Be Practiced Concerning Communal Lodgings such as Beds and Benches

Vinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

is called the Ornament of the Discourse on Determinations.

Sattarasamo paricchedo.

The Seventeenth Chapter.

18. Kālikavinicchayakathā

18. The Discourse on the Determination of Allowable Periods

89. Evaṃ saṅghikasenāsanesu kattabbavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni catukālikavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘kālikānipi cattārī’’tiādimāha. Tattha karaṇaṃ kāro, kiriyā. Kāro eva kālo ra-kārassa la-kāro yathā ‘‘mahāsālo’’ti. Kāloti cettha paccuppannādikiriyā. Vuttañhi –

89. Having thus explained the determination of what is to be done concerning communal lodgings, now, in order to explain the determination of the four allowable periods, he begins with the statement: “There are four allowable periods.” Here, karaṇa means kāra, an action or activity. Kāla (time) is simply kāra with the letter ‘r’ changed to ‘l’, as in mahāsāla. Here, kāla means action, such as that in the present. For it was said:

‘‘Āraddhāniṭṭhito [Pg.185] bhāvo, paccuppanno suniṭṭhito;

Atītānāgatuppāda-mappattābhimukhā kiriyā’’ti.

“A state begun but not finished is the present; a well-finished state is the past; the future is an action whose arising has not been reached and is approaching.”

Ettha pana tassa tassa kiriyāsaṅkhātassa kālassa pabhedabhūto purebhattaekaahorattasattāhajīvikapariyantasaṅkhāto kālaviseso adhippeto. Kāle tasmiṃ tasmiṃ kālavisese paribhuñjitabbānīti kālikāni. Pi-saddo samuccayattho, tena kappiyā catubhūmiyoti samucceti. Cattārīti saṅkhyāniddeso, tena kālikāni nāma cattāri eva honti, na tīṇi na pañcāti dasseti, idaṃ mātikāpadassa atthavivaraṇaṃ. Tattha uddese yaṃ mātikāyaṃ (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā) ‘‘kālikānipi cattārī’’ti evaṃ vuttaṃ, ettha etasmiṃ mātikāpade cattāri kālikāni veditabbānīti yojanā. Katamāni tānīti āha ‘‘yāvakālika’’ntiādi. Yāvakālikaṃ…pe… yāvajīvikaṃ iti imāni vatthūni cattāri kālikāni nāmāti attho.

Here, however, the intended meaning refers to specific time periods, which are divisions of time designated by their function, such as before a meal, a day and night, a week, or the limit of one’s life. The term 'kālikāni' means 'to be used during those specific times.' The particle 'pi' has the sense of inclusion; thus, it includes them with 'the four permissible grounds' (kappiyā catubhūmiyo). The word 'cattāri' (four) specifies the number, indicating that there are exactly four kālikas, not three or five—this explains the meaning of the heading. In the summary, as stated in the heading (Vinaya Saṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā, beginning of the text), 'There are also four kālikas,' here in this heading, the four kālikas should be understood. What are they? It is said: 'yāvakālika,' and so on. Yāvakālika… up to yāvajīvika—these four things are called kālikas. This is the meaning.

Idāni tesaṃ vatthuñca visesanañca nāmalābhahetuñca dassento ‘‘tattha purebhatta’’ntiādimāha. Tattha tesu catūsu kālikesu yaṃ kiñci khādanīyaṃ bhojanīyaṃ yāvakālikaṃ, aṭṭhavidhapānaṃ yāmakālikaṃ, sappiādipañcavidhabhesajjaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ, sabbampi paṭiggahitaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ iti vuccatīti sambandho. Yaṃ kiñci khādanīyabhojanīyanti ettha atibyāpitaṃ pariharituṃ visesanamāha ‘‘purebhatta’’ntyādi. Purebhattaṃ paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjitabbameva yāvakālikaṃ, na aññaṃ khādanīyaṃ bhojanīyantyattho. Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbatoti nāmalābhahetuṃ, etena yāva kālo assāti yāvakālikanti vacanatthaṃ dasseti. Aṭṭhavidhaṃ pānanti ettha abyāpitaṃ pariharitumāha ‘‘saddhiṃ anulomapānehī’’ti. Yāva…pe… tabbatoti nāmalābhahetuṃ, etena yāmo kālo [Pg.186] assāti yāmakālikanti vacanatthaṃ dasseti. Sattāhaṃ nidhetabbatoti nāmalābhahetuṃ, etena sattāho kālo assāti sattāhakālikanti vacanatthaṃ dasseti. Sabbampi paṭiggahitanti ettha atibyāpitaṃ pariharituṃ ‘‘ṭhapetvā udaka’’ntyāha. Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbatoti nāmalābhahetuṃ, tena yāvajīvaṃ kālo assāti yāvajīvikanti vacanatthaṃ dasseti.

Now, to show their object, qualification, and the reason for their names, he begins with 'therein, before the meal,' and so on. Therein, among these four kālikas, whatever food—hard or soft—is yāvakālika; the eight kinds of drinks are yāmakālika; the five kinds of medicines, such as ghee, are sattāhakālika; and all that is received is yāvajīvika—this is the connection. Regarding 'whatever hard or soft food,' to avoid being too broad, he specifies with 'before the meal,' and so on. Only that which is to be consumed after being received before the meal is yāvakālika; no other hard or soft food is meant. 'Until… it should be consumed'—this is the reason for the name, and by this it shows the verbal meaning of yāvakālika as 'that for which there is a time limit.' Regarding 'the eight kinds of drinks,' to avoid being too narrow, he specifies 'along with suitable drinks.' 'Until… it should be consumed'—this is the reason for the name, and by this it shows the verbal meaning of yāmakālika as 'that for which the time is a watch.' 'It should be kept for seven days'—this is the reason for the name, and by this it shows the verbal meaning of sattāhakālika as 'that for which the time is seven days.' Regarding 'all that is received,' to avoid being too broad, he states 'except water.' 'Until… it should be consumed'—this is the reason for the name, and by this it shows the verbal meaning of yāvajīvika as 'that for which the time is as long as life.'

Etthāha – ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu adinnaṃ mukhadvāraṃ āhāraṃ āhareyya aññatra udakadantaponā, pācittiya’’nti (pāci. 265) vacanato nanu udakaṃ appaṭiggahitabbaṃ, atha kasmā ‘‘ṭhapetvā udakaṃ avasesaṃ sabbampi paṭiggahita’’nti vuttanti? Saccaṃ, parisuddhaudakaṃ appaṭiggahitabbaṃ, kaddamādisahitaṃ pana paṭiggahetabbaṃ hoti, tasmā paṭiggahitesu antogadhabhāvato ‘‘ṭhapetvā udaka’’nti vuttanti. Evamapi ‘‘sabbampi paṭiggahita’’nti imināva siddhaṃ paṭiggahetabbassa udakassapi gahaṇatoti? Saccaṃ, tathāpi udakabhāvena sāmaññato ‘‘sabbampi paṭiggahita’’nti ettake vutte ekaccassa udakassa paṭiggahetabbabhāvato udakampi yāvajīvikaṃ nāmāti ñāyeyya, na pana udakaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ suddhassa paṭiggahetabbābhāvato, tasmā idaṃ vuttaṃ hoti – ekaccassa udakassa paṭiggahetabbabhāve satipi suddhassa appaṭiggahitabbattā taṃ udakaṃ ṭhapetvā sabbampi paṭiggahitaṃ yāvajīvikanti vuccatīti.

Here it is said: 'Whatever bhikkhu should take ungiven food through the mouth, other than water and a tooth-cleaner, it is a pācittiya offense.' (Pāc. 265) According to this, should not water be unreceivable? Then why is it said, 'excluding water, all the rest that is received'? It is true, pure water is not to be received, but water mixed with mud and so on is to be received. Therefore, because it is included among things that are received, it is said, 'excluding water.' Even so, is not the inclusion of receivable water established by this very phrase, 'all that is received'? It is true. Nevertheless, if only 'all that is received' were said, then due to the generality of 'water,' it might be understood that water, too, is a yāvajīvika, because some water is receivable. But water is not a yāvajīvika, because pure water is not receivable. Therefore, this is said: even though some water is receivable, because pure water is not receivable, that water is excluded, and it is said that 'all that is received' is yāvajīvika.

90. Mūlakamūlādīni upadesatoyeva veditabbāni, tāni pariyāyato vuccamānānipi na sakkā viññātuṃ. Pariyāyantarena hi vuccamāne taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ ajānantānaṃ sammohoyeva siyā, tasmā tattha na kiñci vakkhāma. Khādanīye khādanīyatthanti pūvādikhādanīye vijjamānaṃ khādanīyakiccaṃ khādanīyehi kātabbaṃ jighacchāharaṇasaṅkhātaṃ atthaṃ payojanaṃ [Pg.187] neva pharanti na nipphādenti. Ekasmiṃ dese āhārakiccaṃ sādhentaṃ vā asādhentaṃ vā aparasmiṃ dese uṭṭhitabhūmirasādibhedena āhārajighacchāharaṇakiccaṃ asādhentampi vā sambhaveyyāti āha ‘‘tesu tesu janapadesū’’tiādi. Keci pana ‘‘ekasmiṃ janapade āhārakiccaṃ sādhentaṃ sesajanapadesupi vikāle na kappati evāti dassanatthaṃ idaṃ vutta’’ntipi vadanti. Pakatiāhāravasenāti aññehi yāvakālikehi ayojitaṃ attano pakatiyāva āhārakiccakaraṇavasena. Sammohoyeva hotīti anekatthānaṃ nāmānaṃ appasiddhānañca sambhavato sammoho eva siyā. Tenevettha mayampi mūlakamūlādīnaṃ pariyāyantaradassane ādaraṃ na karimha upadesatova gahetabbato.

90. Roots that are staple foods, and so on, should be understood solely through instruction, for even when explained through synonyms, they cannot be fully comprehended. If explained through alternative expressions, confusion would surely arise for those unfamiliar with the specific names. Therefore, we will say nothing on this matter. They do not fulfill the purpose of an edible, that is, the function to be performed by edibles, present in edibles like cakes, designated as the removal of hunger; they do not accomplish or achieve it. It is possible that in one region something may or may not accomplish the function of food, while in another region, due to differences in the taste of the soil from which it has grown, and so on, it may not accomplish the function of removing hunger; hence it is said, 'in those various regions,' and so on. Some, however, say that this is said to show that something that accomplishes the function of food in one region is not allowable in the wrong time in other regions as well. 'By its nature as food' means by performing the function of food by its own nature, not combined with other yāvakālikas. 'Confusion would surely arise' means that due to the existence of names with many meanings and of obscure terms, confusion would surely arise. For this very reason, we too have not made an effort to show alternative expressions for roots that are staple foods, and so on, as they are to be grasped from instruction alone.

Yanti vaṭṭakandaṃ.

'Yanti' is vaṭṭakanda.

Muḷālanti thūlataruṇamūlameva.

Muḷāla is simply the thick, young root.

Rukkhavalliādīnanti heṭṭhā vuttameva sampiṇḍetvā vuttaṃ.

Regarding 'of trees, vines, and so on,' this is stated by summarizing what was said below.

Antopathavīgatoti sālakalyāṇikkhandhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

'Gone inside the earth' is said with reference to the trunk of a fine sāla tree.

Sabbakappiyānīti mūlatacapattādīnaṃ vasena sabbaso kappiyāni, tesampi nāmavasena na sakkā pariyantaṃ dassetunti sambandho.

'All are permissible' means they are permissible in every way, by way of roots, bark, leaves, and so on. It is not possible to show the limit even of these by way of name—this is the connection.

Acchivādīnaṃ aparipakkāneva phalāni yāvajīvikānīti dassetuṃ ‘‘aparipakkānī’’ti vuttaṃ.

'Unripe' is stated to show that only the unripe fruits of the acchi tree, and so on, are yāvajīvika.

Harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnīti ettha miñjaṃ paṭicchādetvā ṭhitāni kapālāni yāvajīvikānīti ācariyā. Miñjampi yāvajīvikanti eke. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.248-249) pana ‘‘harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnīti ettha [Pg.188] ‘miñjaṃ yāvakālika’nti keci vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ avuttattā’’ti vuttaṃ.

Here, regarding 'the pits of harītakā, and so on,' the teachers say that the shells that cover the kernel are yāvajīvika. Some say the kernel, too, is yāvajīvika. In the Vimativinodanī (Vin. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.248-249), however, it is said: 'Here, regarding "the pits of harītakā, and so on," some say, "the kernel is yāvakālika," but that is not right, because it is not stated in the commentary.'

Hiṅgūti hiṅgurukkhato paggharitaniyyāso. Hiṅgujatuādayopi hiṅguvikatiyo eva. Tattha hiṅgujatu nāma hiṅgurukkhassa daṇḍapattāni pacitvā kataniyyāso. Hiṅgusipāṭikaṃ nāma hiṅgupattāni pacitvā kataniyyāso. ‘‘Aññena missetvā kato’’tipi vadanti. Takanti aggakoṭiyā nikkhantasileso. Takapattīti pattato nikkhantasileso. Takapaṇṇīti palāse bhajjitvā katasileso. ‘‘Daṇḍato nikkhantasileso’’tipi vadanti.

'Hiṅgu' is the sap that flows from the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgujatu and so on are also just products of hiṅgu. Among these, hiṅgujatu is the sap made by boiling the stems and leaves of the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgusipāṭika is the sap made by boiling the leaves of the hiṅgu tree. Some also say, 'It is made by mixing it with something else.' 'Taka' is the gum that exudes from the tip. 'Takapattī' is the gum that exudes from a leaf. 'Takapaṇṇī' is the gum made by roasting it in palāsa leaves. Some also say, 'It is the gum that exudes from a stem.'

91. Yāmakālikesu panāti ettha kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ khādanīyabhojanīyapadehi yāvakālikameva saṅgahitaṃ, na yāmakālikaṃ, tathāpi ‘‘anāpatti yāmakālikaṃ yāme nidahitvā bhuñjatī’’ti idha ceva ‘‘yāmakālikena bhikkhave sattāhakālikaṃ…pe… yāvajīvikaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ yāme kappati, yāmātikkante na kappatī’’ti aññattha (mahāva. 305) ca vuttattā ‘‘yāmakālika’’ntivacanasāmatthiyato ca bhagavato adhippāyaññūhi aṭṭhakathācariyehi yāmakālikaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ pācittiyavatthumeva vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

91. Regarding “yāmakālika,” although in the Pāḷi text the terms khādanīya and bhojanīya include only what is yāvakālika and not yāmakālika, still, it should be understood that because it is said here, “There is no offense if one, having stored a yāmakālika, consumes it within the watch,” and elsewhere (Mahāva. 305), “Bhikkhus, a yāmakālika, a sattāhakālika… a yāvajīvika, received on that day is permissible within the watch, but not permissible beyond the watch,” and also due to the force of the term “yāmakālika” itself, the commentary masters, who know the Blessed One’s intention, have stated that a yāmakālika that causes storing is precisely the basis for a pācittiya offense.

Ṭhapetvā dhaññaphalarasanti ettha ‘‘taṇḍuladhovanodakampi dhaññaphalarasoyevā’’ti vadanti.

Regarding “except for grain-fruit juice,” some say that even rice-washing water is included as grain-fruit juice.

92. Sattāhakālike pañca bhesajjānīti bhesajjakiccaṃ karontu vā mā vā, evaṃladdhavohārāni pañca. ‘‘Gosappī’’tiādinā loke pākaṭaṃ dassetvā ‘‘yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī’’ti iminā aññesampi rohitamigādīnaṃ sappiṃ gahetvā dasseti. Yesañhi khīraṃ atthi, sappimpi tesaṃ atthiyeva, taṃ pana sulabhaṃ vā dullabhaṃ vā asammohatthaṃ vuttaṃ[Pg.189]. Evaṃ navanītampi. ‘‘Yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī’’ti ca idaṃ nissaggiyavatthudassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na pana yesaṃ maṃsaṃ na kappati, tesaṃ sappiādi na kappatīti dassanatthaṃ. Manussakhīrādīnipi hi no na kappanti.

92. Regarding the five seven-day medicines: whether they perform the function of medicine or not, these five are so designated by common usage. By showing what is well-known in the world, beginning with “cow’s ghee,” and then by stating “of those whose meat is allowable,” it indicates that ghee from other animals, such as red deer, may also be taken. For those that have milk, they also have ghee; this is stated to avoid confusion, whether it is easily obtained or hard to find. The same applies to fresh butter. And this phrase, “of those whose meat is allowable,” is stated to indicate the items for forfeiture, not to imply that ghee and the like are unallowable for those whose meat is unallowable. For even human milk and the like are not unallowable for us.

93. Yāva kālo nātikkamati, tāva paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti ettha kāloti bhikkhūnaṃ bhojanakālo adhippeto, so ca sabbantimena paricchedena ṭhitamajjhanhiko. Ṭhitamajjhanhikopi hi kālasaṅgahaṃ gacchati, tato paṭṭhāya pana khādituṃ vā bhuñjituṃ vā na sakkā, sahasā pivituṃ sakkā bhaveyya, kukkuccakena pana na kattabbaṃ. Kālaparicchedajānanatthañca kālatthambho yojetabbo. Kālantare vā bhattakiccaṃ kātabbaṃ. Paṭiggahaṇeti gahaṇameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Paṭiggahitameva hi taṃ, sannihitaṃ na kappatīti puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi, teneva ‘‘ajjhoharitukāmatāya gaṇhantassa paṭiggahaṇe’’ti vuttaṃ. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) pana ‘‘ajjhoharissāmīti gaṇhantassa gahaṇe’’icceva vuttaṃ.

93. “As long as the time has not passed, it is allowable to consume it.” Here, “time” is intended as the monks’ mealtime, which, by its final limit, is the exact midday. Even the exact midday falls within the scope of time. However, from that point on, eating or consuming is not permitted, though drinking hastily might be possible. But this should not be done by one who is scrupulous. To know the limit of time, a time-pillar should be used. Alternatively, the meal should be taken within the proper time. “Receiving” is said in reference to the mere act of taking. For it is indeed already received; since what is stored is not allowable, there is no further task of receiving. Therefore, it is said, “at the receiving by one who takes with the desire to consume.” In the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, however, it is simply stated, “at the taking by one who thinks, ‘I will consume it.’”

Yanti yaṃ pattaṃ. Sandissatīti yāguyā upari sandissati. Telavaṇṇe patte satipi nisnehabhāve aṅguliyā ghaṃsantassa vaṇṇavaseneva lekhā paññāyati, tasmā tattha anāpattīti dassanatthaṃ ‘‘sā abbohārikā’’ti vuttaṃ. Sayaṃ paṭiggahetvā apariccattameva hi dutiyadivase na vaṭṭatīti ettha paṭiggahaṇe anapekkhavissajjanena, anupasampannassa nirapekkhadānena vā vijahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ pariccattameva hotīti ‘‘apariccatta’’nti iminā ubhayathāpi avijahitapaṭiggahaṇameva vuttaṃ, tasmā yaṃ parassa pariccajitvā adinnampi sace paṭiggahaṇe nirapekkhavissajjanena vijahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ hoti, tampi dutiyadivase vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘patto duddhoto hotī’’tiādīsu kasmā āpatti vuttāti? ‘‘Paṭiggahaṇaṃ avissajjetvāva [Pg.190] sayaṃ vā aññena vā tucchaṃ katvā na sammā dhovitvā niṭṭhāpite patte laggampi avijahitapaṭiggahaṇameva hotīti tattha āpattī’’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘sāmaṇerānaṃ pariccajantīti imasmiṃ adhikāre ṭhatvā ‘apariccattamevā’ti vuttattā anupasampannassa pariccattameva vaṭṭati, apariccattaṃ na vaṭṭatīti āpannaṃ, tasmā nirālayabhāvena paṭiggahaṇe vijahitepi anupasampannassa apariccattaṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti. Taṃ yuttaṃ viya na dissati. Yadaggena hi paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati, tadaggena sannidhimpi na karoti vijahitapaṭiggahaṇassa appaṭiggahitasadisattā. Paṭiggahetvā nidahiteyeva ca sannidhipaccayā āpatti vuttā.

Yanti: whichever bowl. Sandissati: it appears on top of the gruel. Even if a bowl has an oily color, if there is no greasiness, when one rubs it with a finger, a mark appears merely due to the influence of the color. Therefore, to show that there is no offense in such a case, it is stated, “That is insignificant.” Regarding the statement, “What is received by oneself and not relinquished is not allowable on the second day”: here, the act of receiving is considered “relinquished” when it is abandoned either by relinquishing it without attachment or by giving it to an unordained person without attachment. By this word “unrelinquished,” it is meant that the act of receiving has not been abandoned in either of these two ways. Therefore, it should be understood that if something, having been relinquished to another but not given, has its receiving abandoned by relinquishing it without attachment, that too is allowable on the second day. If so, why is an offense stated in cases like “the bowl is poorly washed”? It is stated in all three knotty points: “Without having abandoned the act of receiving, if the bowl is made empty by oneself or another and, not being properly washed, is put away, even what clings to it has its receiving unabandoned; hence, there is an offense.” Some, however, argue: “Standing in the section, ‘They relinquish to novices,’ because it is said ‘only what is not relinquished,’ it follows that for an unordained person, only what is relinquished is allowable; what is not relinquished is not allowable. Therefore, even if the act of receiving is abandoned through non-attachment, what is not relinquished to an unordained person is not allowable.” This does not seem correct. For at the point when one abandons the act of receiving, at that point one also does not engage in storing, since an abandoned act of receiving is like not having received. Moreover, the offense is stated on account of storing only when one has received and stored something.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.252-253) pana ‘‘apariccattamevāti nirapekkhatāya anupasampannassa adinnaṃ apariccattañca yāvakālikādivatthumeva sandhāya vadati, na pana taggatapaṭiggahaṇaṃ. Na hi vatthuṃ apariccajitvā tatthagatapaṭiggahaṇaṃ pariccajituṃ sakkā, na ca tādisaṃ vacanaṃ atthi, yadi bhaveyya, ‘sace patto duddhoto hoti…pe… bhuñjantassa pācittiya’nti vacanaṃ virujjheyya. Na hi dhovanena āmisaṃ apanetuṃ vāyamantassa paṭiggahaṇe apekkhā vattati. Yena punadivase bhuñjato pācittiyaṃ janeyya, patte pana vattamānā apekkhā taggatike āmisepi vattati eva nāmāti āmise anapekkhatā ettha na labbhati, tato āmise avijahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ punadivase pācittiyaṃ janetīti idaṃ vuttaṃ. Atha mataṃ ‘yadaggenettha āmisānapekkhatā na labbhati, tadaggena paṭiggahaṇānapekkhatāpi na labbhatī’ti. Tathā sati yattha āmisāpekkhā atthi, tattha paṭiggahaṇāpekkhāpi na vigacchatīti āpannaṃ, evañca paṭiggahaṇe anapekkhavissajjanaṃ visuṃ na vattabbaṃ siyā, aṭṭhakathāyañcetampi paṭiggahaṇavijahanaṃ kāraṇattena abhimataṃ siyā. Idaṃ suṭṭhutaraṃ katvā visuṃ [Pg.191] vattabbaṃ cīvarāpekkhāya vattamānāyapi paccuddhārena adhiṭṭhānavijahanaṃ viya. Etasmiñca upāye sati gaṇṭhikāhatapattesu avaṭṭanatā nāma na siyāti vuttovāyamattho, tasmā yaṃ vuttaṃ sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.252-253) ‘yaṃ parassa pariccajitvā adinnampi sace paṭiggahaṇe nirapekkhavissajjanena vijahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ hoti, tampi dutiyadivase vaṭṭatī’tiādi, taṃ na sārato paccetabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said: “The term ‘only what is not relinquished’ refers to a yāvakālika item and the like that is not given to an unordained person and not relinquished due to non-attachment; it does not refer to the act of receiving that item. For it is not possible to relinquish the receiving of an item without relinquishing the item itself, nor is there any such statement. If there were, the statement, ‘If the bowl is poorly washed… eating from it incurs a pācittiya,’ would be contradicted. For one who is trying to remove food-remains by washing has no attachment to the receiving of them, which would cause a pācittiya if eaten the next day. However, the attachment that exists for the bowl also applies to the food-remains connected with it. Thus, non-attachment to the food-remains is not found here. Therefore, it is said that the unabandoned receiving regarding the food-remains produces a pācittiya on the next day. Now, if it is thought: ‘At the point where non-attachment to the food-remains is not found, at that point non-attachment to the receiving is also not found,’ then it would follow that wherever there is attachment to the food-remains, attachment to the receiving also does not disappear. And in that case, ‘relinquishing without attachment to the receiving’ would not need to be stated separately. This should be stated separately and very clearly, like the abandoning of the determination of a robe by withdrawal, even while attachment to the robe exists. With this method, there would be no such thing as non-allowability in the case of bowls affected by knots—this is the intended meaning. Therefore, what is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī—‘Even if something belonging to another is relinquished but not given, if the act of receiving is abandoned by relinquishing it without dependence, it is allowable the next day’—should not be accepted as the essential meaning.”

Pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 255) ‘‘sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ āhāratthāya paṭiggaṇhāti, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’tiādinā sannihitesu sattāhakālikayāvajīvikesu purebhattampi āhāratthāya ajjhoharaṇepi dukkaṭassa vuttattā yāmakālikepi ajjhohāre visuṃ dukkaṭena bhavitabbanti āha ‘‘āhāratthāya ajjhoharato dukkaṭena saddhiṃ pācittiya’’nti. Pakatiāmiseti odanādikappiyāmise. Dveti purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ yāmakālikaṃ purebhattaṃ sāmisena mukhena bhuñjato sannidhipaccayā ekaṃ, yāvakālikasaṃsaṭṭhatāya yāvakālikattabhajanena anatirittapaccayā ekanti dve pācittiyāni. Vikappadvayeti sāmisanirāmisapakkhadvaye. Thullaccayaṃ dukkaṭañca vaḍḍhatīti manussamaṃse thullaccayaṃ, sesaakappiyamaṃse dukkaṭaṃ vaḍḍhati.

In the Pāḷi (Pāci. 255), it is stated, 'If one accepts a seven-day item or a lifetime item for the purpose of food, there is an offense of wrong-doing,' and so on. Since it is stated that a wrong-doing is incurred even when consuming stored seven-day and lifetime items before the meal for the purpose of food, it is said that when consuming a yāmakālika item, a separate wrong-doing is also incurred: 'When consuming for the purpose of food, there is a wrong-doing together with a pācittiya offense.' 'Ordinary food' means permissible food such as cooked rice. 'Two' means: when one consumes a yāmakālika item received before the meal, before the meal, with a mouth containing food, there are two pācittiya offenses. One is due to the condition of storage, and the other is due to the condition of not being left over, as it takes on the nature of a yāvakālika item by being mixed with one. 'In the two alternatives' means in the two cases of with food and without food. 'A grave offense and a wrong-doing are added' means a grave offense is added in the case of human flesh, and a wrong-doing is added in the case of other impermissible flesh.

Paṭiggahaṇapaccayā tāva dukkaṭanti ettha sannihitattā purebhattampi dukkaṭameva. Sati paccaye pana sannihitampi sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikañca bhesajjatthāya gaṇhantassa paribhuñjantassa ca anāpattiyeva.

'Due to the condition of accepting, there is a wrong-doing.' Here, because it has been stored, even before the meal it is a wrong-doing. However, when there is a valid reason, even if it has been stored, there is no offense for one who takes and consumes a seven-day item or a lifetime item for medicinal purposes.

94. Uggahitakaṃ katvā nikkhittanti apaṭiggahitaṃ sayameva gahetvā nikkhittaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.622) ‘‘uggahitakanti paribhogatthāya sayaṃ gahita’’nti vuttaṃ. Sayaṃ karotīti [Pg.192] pacitvā karoti. Purebhattanti tadahupurebhattameva vaṭṭati savatthukapaṭiggahitattā. Sayaṃkatanti navanītaṃ pacitvā kataṃ. Nirāmisamevāti tadahupurebhattaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

94. 'Having taken it up and put it down' means it was not formally accepted but taken up and put down by oneself. In the Vimativinodanī, it is stated: 'Uggahitaka means taken up by oneself for the purpose of use.' 'He does it himself' means he prepares it by cooking. 'Before the meal' means it is suitable only for that day's before-meal period, because it was accepted together with its substance. 'Prepared by oneself' means fresh butter that was cooked and made. 'Only without substance' refers specifically to that day's before-meal period.

95. Ajja sayaṃkataṃ nirāmisameva bhuñjantassa kasmā sāmaṃpāko na hotīti āha ‘‘navanītaṃ tāpentassā’’tiādi. Pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitakehīti khīradadhīni sandhāya vuttaṃ. Uggahitakehi kataṃ abbhañjanādīsu upanetabbanti yojanā. Ubhayesampīti pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitakhīradadhīhi ca purebhattaṃ uggahitakehi ca katānaṃ. Esa nayoti nissaggiyaṃ na hotīti attho. Akappiyamaṃsasappimhīti hatthiādīnaṃ sappimhi. Kāraṇapatirūpakaṃ vatvāti ‘‘sajātikānaṃ sappibhāvato’’ti kāraṇapatirūpakaṃ vatvā. Sappinayena veditabbanti nirāmisameva sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. Etthāti navanīte. Dhotaṃ vaṭṭatīti adhotañce, savatthukapaṭiggahitaṃ hoti, tasmā dhotaṃ paṭiggahetvā sattāhaṃ nikkhipituṃ vaṭṭatīti therānaṃ adhippāyo.

95. Why is there no fault of self-cooking for one who today eats only food without substance prepared by himself? It is said, 'For one warming fresh butter,' and so on. 'From what has been received after the meal' is said in reference to milk and curds. 'Made from what was taken up by oneself should be used for ointments and so on'—this is the connection. 'Of both' means of things made from both milk and curds received after the meal, and from items taken up by oneself before the meal. 'This is the principle' means it is not an item for forfeiture. 'In ghee from impermissible flesh' means in ghee from elephants and the like. 'Having stated a seemingly valid reason' means having stated a seemingly valid reason such as, 'because it is ghee of their own kind.' 'It should be understood according to the principle for ghee' means that what is without substance is permissible for seven days. 'Here' refers to fresh butter. 'Washed is permissible'—if it is unwashed, it is considered received together with its substance. Therefore, the elders' intention is that it is permissible to receive it washed and keep it for seven days.

Mahāsīvattherassa pana vatthuno viyojitattā dadhiguḷikādīhi yuttatāmattena savatthukapaṭiggahitaṃ nāma na hoti, tasmā takkato uddhaṭamattameva paṭiggahetvā dhovitvā, pacitvā vā nirāmisameva katvā bhuñjiṃsūti adhippāyo, na pana dadhiguḷikādīhi saha vikāle bhuñjiṃsūti. Tenāha ‘‘tasmā navanītaṃ paribhuñjantena…pe… savatthukapaṭiggahaṃ nāma na hotī’’ti. Tattha adhotaṃ paṭiggahetvāpi taṃ navanītaṃ paribhuñjantena dadhiādīni apanetvā paribhuñjitabbanti attho. Keci pana ‘‘takkato uddhaṭamattameva khādiṃsū’’ti vacanassa adhippāyaṃ ajānantā ‘‘takkato uddhaṭamattaṃ adhotampi dadhiguḷikādisahitaṃ [Pg.193] vikāle paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi dadhiguḷikādiāmisena saṃsaṭṭharasaṃ navanītaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti sakkā vattuṃ. Navanītaṃ paribhuñjantenāti adhovitvā paṭiggahitanavanītaṃ paribhuñjantena. Dadhi eva dadhigataṃ yathā ‘‘gūthagataṃ muttagata’’nti (ma. ni. 2.119; a. ni. 9.11). ‘‘Khayaṃ gamissatī’’ti vacanato khīraṃ pakkhipitvā pakkasappiādipi vikāle kappatīti veditabbaṃ. Khayaṃ gamissatīti nirāmisaṃ hoti, tasmā vikālepi vaṭṭatīti attho. Ettāvatāti navanīte laggamattena visuṃ dadhiādivohāraṃ aladdhena appamattena dadhiādināti attho, etena visuṃ paṭiggahitadadhiādīhi saha pakkaṃ savatthukapaṭiggahitasaṅkhameva gacchatīti dasseti. Tasmimpīti nirāmisabhūtepi. Kukkuccakānaṃ pana ayaṃ adhippāyo – paṭiggahaṇe tāva dadhiādīhi asambhinnarasattā bhattena sahitaguḷapiṇḍādi viya savatthukapaṭiggahitaṃ nāma hoti. Taṃ pana pacantena dhovitvāva pacitabbaṃ. Itarathā pacanakkhaṇe paccamānadadhiguḷikādīhi sambhinnarasatāya sāmaṃpakkaṃ jātaṃ, tesu khīṇesupi sāmaṃpakkameva hoti, tasmā nirāmisameva pacitabbanti. Teneva ‘‘āmisena saddhiṃ pakkattā’’ti kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ.

However, in the case of the Elder Mahāsīva, because the substance was separated, it is not called 'received with its substance' merely by being joined with curd-balls and so on. Therefore, the intention is that they received only what was skimmed from the buttermilk, and having washed it or cooked it, they made it free from substance and then consumed it; not that they consumed it together with curd-balls and so on at the wrong time. Hence it is said: 'Therefore, when consuming fresh butter... it is not called "received with its substance."' Here, the meaning is that even having received it unwashed, one consuming that fresh butter should consume it after removing the curd and so on. Some, however, not understanding the intention of the statement 'they ate only what was skimmed from the buttermilk,' say, 'It is permissible to consume at the wrong time even unwashed fresh butter skimmed from buttermilk, together with curd-balls and so on.' That should not be accepted. For it cannot be said that it is permissible to consume fresh butter whose taste is mixed with the substance of curd-balls and so on. 'When consuming fresh butter' means when consuming fresh butter that was received unwashed. 'Contained in curd' is curd itself, just as in 'contained in dung' and 'contained in urine.' From the statement 'it will be destroyed,' it should be understood that ghee, etc., cooked by adding milk is also permissible at the wrong time. 'It will be destroyed' means it becomes free from substance; therefore, it is permissible even at the wrong time. By 'that much' is meant by a small amount of curd and so on that has merely adhered to the fresh butter and has not received a separate designation as 'curd.' By this, it is shown that when cooked together with separately received curd and so on, it falls into the category of 'received with its substance.' 'Even in that' means even when it has become free from substance. However, this is the intention of the scrupulous: at the time of receiving, because its taste is not mixed with the curd and so on, it is called 'received with its substance,' like a lump of jaggery together with rice. But one who is cooking it should cook it only after washing it. Otherwise, at the moment of cooking, because its taste becomes mixed with the melting curd-balls and so on, it becomes self-cooked. Even when those are consumed, it remains self-cooked. Therefore, it should be cooked only when free from substance. For this very reason, the cause was stated: 'because it was cooked together with substance.'

Ettha cāyaṃ vicāraṇā – savatthukapaṭiggahitattābhāve āmisena saha bhikkhunā pakkassa sayaṃpākadoso vā parisaṅkīyati, yāvakālikatā vā. Tattha na tāva sayaṃpākadoso ettha sambhavati sattāhakālikattā. Yañhi tattha dadhiādi āmisagataṃ, taṃ parikkhīṇanti. Atha paṭiggahitadadhiguḷikādinā saha attanā pakkattā savatthukapakkaṃ viya bhaveyyāti parisaṅkīyati, tadā ‘‘āmisena saha paṭiggahitattā’’ti kāraṇaṃ vattabbaṃ, na pana ‘‘pakkattā’’ti, tathā ca upaḍḍhattherānaṃ matameva aṅgīkataṃ siyā. Tattha ca sāmaṇerādīhi [Pg.194] pakkampi yāvakālikameva siyā paṭiggahitakhīrādiṃ pacitvā anupasampannehi katasappiādi viya, na ca taṃ yuttaṃ bhikkhācārena laddhanavanītādīnaṃ takkādiāmisasaṃsaṭṭhasambhavena aparibhuñjitabbattāppasaṅgato. Na hi gahaṭṭhā dhovitvā, sodhetvā vā patte ākirantīti niyamo atthi.

And here this is the investigation: in the absence of it having been received with its substance, it is suspected that for what is cooked by a bhikkhu together with substance, there is either the fault of self-cooking or it becomes a yāvakālika item. In this case, the fault of self-cooking does not arise in the first place, because it is a seven-day item. For whatever substance of curd and so on is in it, that is destroyed. Now, if it is suspected that because it was cooked by oneself together with received curd-balls and so on, it would be like something cooked with its substance, then the reason should be stated as 'because it was received together with substance,' not 'because it was cooked.' And so, the view of the Upaḍḍha Elders would be accepted. In that case, even what is cooked by novices and so on would be only a yāvakālika item, like ghee and so on made by non-ordained persons after cooking received milk and so on. And that is not right, because it would lead to the unacceptable consequence that fresh butter and so on, obtained on alms-round, could not be consumed due to the possibility of it being mixed with a substance like buttermilk. For there is no rule that householders wash or purify the bowl before they place food in it.

Aṭṭhakathāyañca ‘‘yathā tattha patitataṇḍulakaṇādayo na paccanti, evaṃ…pe… puna pacitvā deti, purimanayeneva sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti iminā vacanenapetaṃ virujjhati, tasmā idha kukkuccakānaṃ kukkuccuppattiyā nimittameva na dissati. Yathā cettha, evaṃ ‘‘lajjī sāmaṇero yathā tattha taṇḍulakaṇādayo na paccanti, evaṃ aggimhi vilīyāpetvā…pe… detī’’ti vacanassāpi nimittaṃ na dissati. Yadi hi etaṃ yāvakālikasaṃsaggaparihārāya vuttaṃ siyā. Attanāpi tathā kātabbaṃ bhaveyya. Gahaṭṭhehi dinnasappiādīsu ca āmisasaṃsaggasaṅkā na vigaccheyya. Na hi gahaṭṭhā evaṃ vilīyāpetvā parissāvetvā kaṇataṇḍulādiṃ apanetvā puna pacanti. Apica bhesajjehi saddhiṃ khīrādiṃ pakkhipitvā yathā khīrādi khayaṃ gacchati, evaṃ parehi pakkabhesajjatelādipi yāvakālikameva siyā, na ca tampi yuttaṃ dadhiādikhayakaraṇatthaṃ ‘‘puna pacitvā detī’’ti vuttattā, tasmā mahāsīvattheravāde kukkuccaṃ akatvā adhotampi navanītaṃ tadahupi punadivasādīsupi pacituṃ, taṇḍulādimissaṃ sappiādiṃ attanāpi aggimhi vilīyāpetvā puna takkādikhayatthaṃ pacituñca vaṭṭati.

And in the Commentary, this is contradicted by the statement: 'Just as the fallen grains of rice and so forth are not cooked therein, so... having cooked it again, one gives it; by the previous method, it is allowable for seven days.' Therefore, in this case, for those prone to scruples, no cause for the arising of scruples is seen. Just as here, so too for the statement, 'A conscientious novice, just as the fallen grains of rice and so forth are not cooked therein, so having melted it in the fire... gives it,' no cause is seen. For if this were said for the sake of avoiding contact with a yāvakālika item, one would have to act in that way oneself. And the suspicion of contact with a food-substance in ghee and so forth given by householders would not be dispelled. For householders do not melt, strain, remove broken rice and rice grains, and so forth, and then cook it again in this manner. Moreover, when milk and so forth are added to medicines, just as the milk and so forth are consumed, so too medicinal oil and so forth cooked by others would be only a yāvakālika item. And that too is not proper, because it is said, 'having cooked it again, one gives it,' for the purpose of removing the curds and so forth. Therefore, according to the view of the Elder Mahāsīva, without having scruples, it is allowable to cook even unwashed fresh butter on that day or on subsequent days, and it is allowable for one to melt ghee and so forth mixed with rice grains and so forth in the fire oneself and cook it again for the purpose of removing the buttermilk and so forth.

Tattha vijjamānassāpi paccamānakkhaṇe sambhinnarasassa yāvakālikassa abbohārikattena savatthukapaṭiggahitapurepaṭiggahitakānampi abbohārikatoti niṭṭhamettha gantabbanti. Teneva ‘‘ettāvatā hi savatthukapaṭiggahitaṃ nāma [Pg.195] na hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Visuṃ paṭiggahitena pana khīrādinā āmisena navanītādiṃ missetvā bhikkhunā vā aññehi vā pakkatelādibhesajjaṃ savatthukapaṭiggahitasaṅkhameva gacchati tattha paviṭṭhayāvakālikassa abbohārikattābhāvā. Yaṃ pana purepaṭiggahitabhesajjehi saddhiṃ appaṭiggahitaṃ khīrādiṃ pakkhipitvā pakkatelādikaṃ anupasampanneheva pakkampi savatthukapaṭiggahitampi sannidhipi na hoti tattha pakkhittakhīrādimissāpi tasmiṃ khaṇe sambhinnarasatāya purepaṭiggahitattāpattito, sace pana appaṭiggahiteheva, aññehi vā pakkatelādīsupi āmisaraso paññāyati, taṃ yāvakālikaṃva hotīti veditabbaṃ. Ayaṃ kathāmaggo vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.622) āgato. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.622) pana ‘‘kukkuccāyanti kukkuccakāti iminā attanopi tattha kukkuccasabbhāvampi dīpeti. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘nibbaṭṭitasappi vā navanītaṃ vā pacituṃ vaṭṭatī’ti vutta’’nti ettakameva āgato.

Herein, the conclusion should be reached that because a yāvakālika item, even if present, is non-consumable at the moment of cooking when its flavor is mixed, then even things received with their substance or received beforehand are non-consumable. For that reason, it was said: 'To that extent, it is indeed not called “received with its substance.”' However, medicinal oil and so forth, prepared by a bhikkhu or by others by mixing fresh butter and so forth with a separately received food-substance like milk, is counted as 'received with its substance,' because the yāvakālika item that has entered it is not non-consumable. But as for cooked oil and so forth which is prepared even by those not fully ordained by adding unreceived milk and so forth to medicines received beforehand, it is neither 'received with its substance' nor is it stored, because at that moment, due to the intermingling of flavors, even what is mixed with the added milk and so forth attains the state of having been received beforehand. If, however, in cooked oils and so forth prepared by those who have not received them, or by others, the flavor of a food-substance is discernible, it should be understood that it is simply a yāvakālika item. This line of reasoning comes from the Vimativinodanī. In the Sāratthadīpanī, however, only this much is found: 'By “the scrupulous are scrupulous,” he indicates the existence of his own scruples in that matter. For that reason, in the Mātikā Commentary it is said: “It is allowable to cook processed ghee or fresh butter.”'

Uggahetvāti sayameva gahetvā. Tāni paṭiggahetvāti tāni khīradadhīni paṭiggahetvā. Gahitanti taṇḍulādivigamatthaṃ puna pacitvā gahitanti attho. Paṭiggahetvā ca ṭhapitabhesajjehīti atirekasattāhapaṭiggahitehi yāvajīvikabhesajjehi, etena tehi yuttampi sappiādi atirekasattāhapaṭiggahitaṃ na hotīti dasseti. Vaddalisamayeti vassakālasamaye, anātapakāleti attho. Vuttanayena yathā taṇḍulādīni na paccanti, tathā lajjīyeva sampādetvā detīti lajjisāmaṇeraggahaṇaṃ. Apica alajjinā ajjhoharitabbaṃ yaṃ kiñci abhisaṅkharāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati, tasmāpi evamāha.

'Having taken up' means having taken it oneself. 'Having received those' means having received that milk and curd. 'Taken' means taken after having cooked it again for the purpose of removing the rice grains and so forth. 'With medicines received and kept' means with lifelong medicines received for more than seven days; by this he shows that ghee and so forth, even when mixed with them, is not considered as having been received for more than seven days. 'In the Vaddali season' means in the rainy season, that is, a time without intense sun. 'The mention of a conscientious novice' is because, in the manner stated, just as the rice grains and so forth are not cooked, so a conscientious one prepares and gives it. Moreover, it is not allowable to have anything prepared that is to be consumed by a shameless person; therefore, he also said thus.

96. Tile [Pg.196] paṭiggahetvā katatelanti attanā bhajjādīni akatvā katatelaṃ. Teneva ‘‘sāmisampi vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Nibbaṭṭītattāti yāvakālikato vivecitattā, etena elāabhāvato yāvakālikattābhāvaṃ, bhikkhuno savatthukapaṭiggahaṇena yāvakālikattupagamanañca dasseti. Ubhayampīti attanā aññehi ca kataṃ.

96. 'Oil made after receiving sesame seeds' means oil made without oneself doing the frying and so forth. For that reason, it was said, 'It is allowable even with substance.' 'Because it has been processed' means because it has been separated from what is a yāvakālika item. By this, he shows the absence of its being a yāvakālika item due to the absence of the raw material, and its becoming a yāvakālika item through a bhikkhu's receiving it with its substance. 'Both' means made by oneself and by others.

Yāva aruṇuggamanā tiṭṭhati, nissaggiyanti sattame divase katatelaṃ sace yāva aruṇuggamanā tiṭṭhati, nissaggiyaṃ.

'It is to be forfeited if it remains until dawn' means: if oil made on the seventh day remains until the rising of the dawn, it is to be forfeited.

Acchavasanti dukkaṭavatthuno vasāya anuññātattā taṃsadisānaṃ dukkaṭavatthūnaṃyeva akappiyamaṃsasattānaṃ vasā anuññātā, na thullaccayavatthu manussānaṃ vasāti āha ‘‘ṭhapetvā manussavasa’’nti. Saṃsaṭṭhanti parissāvitaṃ. Tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭānanti ajjhohāre ajjhohāre tīṇi dukkaṭāni sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpi paribhogatthāya vikāle paṭiggahaṇapacanaparissāvanādīsu pubbapayogesu pāḷiyaṃ, aṭṭhakathāyañca āpatti na vuttā, tathāpi ettha āpattiyā eva bhavitabbaṃ paṭikkhittassa karaṇato āhāratthāya vikāle yāmakālikādīnaṃ paṭiggahaṇe viya. ‘‘Kāle paṭiggahitaṃ vikāle anupasampannenāpi nipakkaṃ saṃsaṭṭhañca paribhuñjantassa dvepi dukkaṭāni hontiyevā’’ti vadanti.

'Bear fat': because the fat of an animal that is an object of a dukkaṭa offense is permitted, the fat of similar beings whose flesh is unallowable, which are objects of a dukkaṭa offense, is permitted; but not the fat of humans, which is an object of a thullaccaya offense. Thus he said, 'except for human fat.' 'Mixed' means strained. 'Of three dukkaṭa offenses' is said with reference to three dukkaṭa offenses for each act of swallowing. Although in the Pāḷi and in the Commentary no offense is stated for preliminary acts such as receiving, cooking, and straining at the wrong time for the purpose of consumption, nevertheless an offense must be incurred here for performing a prohibited act, just as in the case of receiving yāmakālika items and so forth at the wrong time for the purpose of food. They say: 'For one who consumes at the wrong time that which was received at the right time, even if it was cooked and mixed by one not fully ordained, two dukkaṭa offenses are indeed incurred.'

Yasmā khīrādīni pakkhipitvā pakkabhesajjatele kasaṭaṃ āmisagatikaṃ, tena saha telaṃ paṭiggahetuṃ, pacituṃ vā bhikkhuno na vaṭṭati, tasmā vuttaṃ ‘‘pakkatelakasaṭe viya kukkuccāyatī’’ti. ‘‘Sace vasāya saha pakkattā na vaṭṭati, idaṃ kasmā vaṭṭatī’’ti pucchantā ‘‘bhante…pe… vaṭṭatī’’ti āhaṃsu, thero atikukkuccakatāya ‘‘etampi āvuso na vaṭṭatī’’ti [Pg.197] āha, roganiggahatthāya eva vasāya anuññātattaṃ sallakkhetvā pacchā ‘‘sādhū’’ti sampaṭicchi.

Because the sediment in medicinal oil cooked with milk and so forth added to it is categorized as a food-substance, it is not allowable for a bhikkhu to receive or cook the oil together with it. Therefore, it was said, 'He is scrupulous as with the sediment of cooked oil.' Asking, 'If it is not allowable because it is cooked with fat, why is this allowable?' they said, 'Venerable sir... it is allowable.' The elder, due to his extreme scrupulousness, said, 'This too, friends, is not allowable.' But having later reflected that fat was permitted for the very purpose of suppressing illness, he accepted it, saying, 'Good.'

97. ‘‘Madhukarīhi madhumakkhikāhīti idaṃ khuddakabhamarānaṃ dvinnaṃ eva visesana’’nti keci vadanti. Aññe pana ‘‘daṇḍakesu madhukārikā madhukarimakkhikā nāma, tāhi saha tisso madhumakkhikajātiyo’’ti vadanti. Bhamaramakkhikāti mahāpaṭalakārikā. Silesasadisanti sukkhatāya vā pakkatāya vā ghanībhūtaṃ. Itaranti tanukamadhu. Madhupaṭalanti madhurahitaṃ kevalaṃ madhupaṭalaṃ. ‘‘Sace madhusahitaṃ paṭalaṃ paṭiggahetvā nikkhipanti. Paṭalassa bhājanaṭṭhāniyattā madhuno vasena sattāhātikkame nissaggiyaṃ hotī’’ti vadanti, ‘‘madhumakkhitaṃ pana madhugatikamevā’’ti iminā taṃ sameti.

97. Some say: '“By madhukarī and madhumakkhikā” is a specification for only two kinds of small bees.' Others, however, say: 'Among the stick-bees, there are those named madhukārikā and madhukarimakkhikā; together with them, there are three species of honeybees.' 'Bhamaramakkhikā' are makers of large combs. 'Like phlegm' means solidified either through dryness or through being cooked. 'The other' means thin honey. 'Honeycomb' means just the honeycomb, devoid of honey. They say: 'If they receive a honeycomb together with honey and set it aside, because the comb is in the position of a container, it becomes an item to be forfeited on exceeding seven days on account of the honey.' This agrees with the statement: 'But a honey-smeared comb is in the same category as honey.'

98. ‘‘Phāṇitaṃ nāma ucchumhā nibbatta’’nti pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 260) avisesena vuttattā, aṭṭhakathāyañca ‘‘ucchurasaṃ upādāya…pe… avatthukā ucchuvikati ‘phāṇita’nti veditabbā’’ti vacanato ucchurasopi nikkasaṭo sattāhakālikoti veditabbaṃ. Kenaci pana ‘‘madhumhi cattāro kālikā yathāsambhavaṃ yojetabbā, ucchumhi cā’’ti vatvā ‘‘samakkhikaṇḍaṃ selakaṃ madhu yāvakālikaṃ, anelakaṃ udakasambhinnaṃ yāmakālikaṃ, asambhinnaṃ sattāhakālikaṃ, madhusitthaṃ parisuddhaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ, tathā ucchuraso sakasaṭo yāvakāliko, nikkasaṭo udakasambhinno yāmakāliko, asambhinno sattāhakāliko, suddhakasaṭaṃ yāvajīvika’’nti ca vatvā uttaripi bahudhā papañcitaṃ. Tattha ‘‘udakasambhinnaṃ madhu vā ucchuraso vā sakasaṭo yāvakāliko, nikkasaṭo udakasambhinno yāmakāliko’’ti idaṃ neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ dissati, ‘‘yāvakālikaṃ samānaṃ garutarampi muddikājātirasaṃ attanā [Pg.198] saṃsaṭṭhaṃ lahukaṃ yāmakālikabhāvaṃ upanentaṃ udakaṃ lahutaraṃ sattāhakālikaṃ attanā saṃsaṭṭhaṃ garutaraṃ yāmakālikabhāvaṃ upanetī’’ti ettha kāraṇaṃ soyeva pucchitabbo. Sabbattha pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāyañca udakasambhinnena garutarassāpi lahubhāvopagamanaṃyeva dassitaṃ. Pāḷiyampi (mahāva. 284) hi ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gilānassa guḷaṃ, agilānassa guḷodaka’’nti vadantena agilānena paribhuñjituṃ ayuttopi guḷo udakasambhinno agilānassapi vaṭṭatīti anuññāto.

98. 'Phāṇita is produced from sugarcane,' as stated generally in the Pāḷi (Pāc. 260); and the commentary further explains, 'Sugarcane juice having been taken... sugarcane products without substance are known as "phāṇita."' Thus, even pure sugarcane juice should be understood as sattāhakālika (allowable for seven days). However, some say, 'In honey, four time periods should be applied as appropriate, and likewise in sugarcane juice,' and elaborate further: 'Honey with wax and comb is yāvakālika (allowable for a day); pure honey mixed with water is yāmakālika (allowable for a watch); unmixed honey is sattāhakālika (allowable for seven days); purified beeswax is yāvajīvika (allowable for life). Similarly, sugarcane juice with sediment is yāvakālika (allowable for a day); pure juice mixed with water is yāmakālika (allowable for a watch); unmixed juice is sattāhakālika (allowable for seven days); and pure sediment is yāvajīvika (allowable for life).' Here, the statements 'Honey or sugarcane juice mixed with water—with sediment is yāvakālika, and pure but mixed with water is yāmakālika'—are found neither in the Pāḷi nor in the commentaries. The reasoning here—that water, which when mixed with a heavier yāvakālika substance like grape juice leads it to the lighter state of yāmakālika, would when mixed with a lighter sattāhakālika substance lead it to the heavier state of yāmakālika—should be questioned of the one who proposed it. In all cases, both the Pāḷi and the commentaries indicate that when mixed with water, even a heavier substance assumes a lighter state. For instance, the Pāḷi (Mahāva. 284) states, 'I allow, bhikkhus, jaggery for the sick and jaggery-water for the healthy.' Here, even though jaggery is unsuitable for the healthy, jaggery mixed with water is permitted even for them.

Yampi ca ‘‘ucchu ce, yāvakāliko, ucchuraso ce, yāmakāliko, phāṇitaṃ ce, sattāhakālikaṃ, taco ce, yāvajīviko’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ dassetvā ‘‘ucchuraso udakasambhinno yāmakāliko’’ti aññena kenaci vuttaṃ, tampi tathāvidhassa aṭṭhakathāvacanassa samantapāsādikāya vinayaṭṭhakathāya abhāvato na sārato paccetabbaṃ, tatoyeva ca ‘‘ucchuraso udakasambhinnopi asambhinnopi sattāhakālikoyevā’’ti keci ācariyā vadanti. Bhesajjakkhandhake ca ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ucchurasa’’nti ettha tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu avisesena vuttaṃ ‘‘ucchuraso sattāhakāliko’’ti. Sayaṃkataṃ nirāmisameva vaṭṭatīti ettha aparissāvitaṃ paṭiggahitampi karaṇasamaye parissāvetvā, kasaṭaṃ apanetvā ca attanā katanti veditabbaṃ, ayaṃ sāratthadīpanīpāṭho (sārattha. ṭī. 2.623).

And as for the statement in the commentary: 'If it is sugarcane, it is yāvakālika (allowable for a day); if it is sugarcane juice, it is yāmakālika (allowable for a watch); if it is phāṇita, it is sattāhakālika (allowable for seven days); if it is bark, it is yāvajīvika (allowable for life),' having shown this, and another statement elsewhere: 'Sugarcane juice mixed with water is yāmakālika,' that too should not be accepted as authoritative because such a commentary statement is not found in the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya commentary. For that very reason, some teachers say: 'Sugarcane juice, whether mixed with water or not, is only sattāhakālika.' And in the Bhesajjakkhandhaka, it is said: 'I allow, bhikkhus, sugarcane juice.' Here, in all three sub-commentaries, it is stated without distinction: 'Sugarcane juice is sattāhakālika.' Concerning the statement, 'Only a `nirāmisa` item made by oneself is allowable,' it should be understood here that even what is received unstrained is considered 'made by oneself' after it is strained and the sediment removed at the time of preparation. This is the passage from the Sāratthadīpanī.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.623) pana ucchurasaṃ upādāyāti nikkasaṭarasassāpi sattāhakālikattaṃ dasseti ‘‘ucchumhā nibbatta’’nti pāḷiyaṃ sāmaññato vuttattā. Yaṃ pana suttantaṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘ucchu ce, yāvakāliko, ucchuraso ce, yāmakāliko, phāṇitaṃ ce, sattāhakālikaṃ, taco ce, yāvajīviko’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ ambaphalarasādimissatāya yāmakālikattaṃ [Pg.199] sandhāya vuttanti gahetabbaṃ, avinayavacanattā taṃ appamāṇanti. Teneva ‘‘purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitena aparissāvitaucchurasenā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Nirāmisameva vaṭṭati tattha paviṭṭhayāvakālikassa abbohārikattāti idaṃ guḷe kate tattha vijjamānampi kasaṭaṃ pākena sukkhatāya yāvajīvikattaṃ bhajatīti vuttaṃ. Tassa yāvakālikatte hi sāmaṃpākena purebhattepi anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ siyāti. ‘‘Savatthukapaṭiggahitattā’’ti idaṃ ucchurase cuṇṇavicuṇṇaṃ hutvā ṭhitakasaṭaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tena ca ‘‘aparissāvitena appaṭiggahitena anupasampannehi kataṃ sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatīti dassetī’’ti vuttaṃ.

In the Vimativinodanī, however, the phrase 'taking the juice of sugarcane' indicates that even the pure juice is sattāhakālika, because the Pāḷi text states 'produced from sugarcane' in a general sense. However, what is mentioned in the Suttanta commentary—'if sugarcane, it is yāvakālika; if sugarcane juice, it is yāmakālika; if phāṇita, it is sattāhakālika; if bark, it is yāvajīvika'—should be understood as referring to its yāmakālika nature due to being mixed with mango juice and other fruit juices; and since it is not a Vinaya statement, it is not authoritative. For that same reason, it is said, 'with unstrained sugarcane juice received before the meal,' etc. Only a `nirāmisa` item is allowable, because a yāvakālika substance that has entered it is not to be used. This means that even the sediment present in jaggery, when made, becomes yāvajīvika due to being dried by cooking. For if it were yāvakālika, it would not be fit for consumption even before noon, even if self-prepared. The phrase 'because it is received with the substance' refers to the sediment that remains in the sugarcane juice, having become finely crushed. And by this, it is shown that 'what is made by those not fully ordained, with unstrained and unreceived juice, is allowable for seven days.'

Jhāmaucchuphāṇitanti aggimhi ucchuṃ tāpetvā kataṃ. Koṭṭitaucchuphāṇitanti khuddānukhuddakaṃ chinditvā koṭṭetvā nippīḷetvā pakkaṃ. Taṃ tattha vijjamānampi kasaṭaṃ pakkakāle yāvakālikattaṃ vijahatīti āha ‘‘taṃ yutta’’nti. Sītodakena katanti madhukapupphāni sītodakena madditvā parissāvetvā pacitvā kataṃ. ‘‘Aparissāvetvā kata’’nti keci, tattha kāraṇaṃ na dissati. Khīraṃ pakkhipitvā kataṃ madhukaphāṇitaṃ yāvakālikanti ettha khīraṃ pakkhipitvā pakkatelaṃ kasmā vikāle vaṭṭatīti ce? Tele pakkhittaṃ khīraṃ telameva hoti, aññaṃ pana khīraṃ pakkhipitvā kataṃ khīrabhāvaṃ gaṇhātīti idamettha kāraṇaṃ. Yadi evaṃ khaṇḍasakkharampi khīraṃ pakkhipitvā karonti, taṃ kasmā vaṭṭatīti āha ‘‘khaṇḍasakkharaṃ panā’’tiādi. Tattha khīrajallikanti khīrapheṇaṃ.

Jhāmaucchuphāṇita means that which is made by heating sugarcane in fire. Koṭṭitaucchuphāṇita means that which is made by cutting sugarcane into small pieces, pounding, pressing, and cooking it. He says, 'That is suitable,' because even the sediment present in it loses its yāvakālika nature at the time of cooking. 'Made with cold water' means that which is made by crushing madhuka flowers with cold water, straining, and cooking. Some say, 'It is made without straining,' but no reason for that is seen there. If madhuka jaggery made by adding milk is yāvakālika, then why is cooked oil with milk added allowable at an improper time? Milk added to oil becomes oil itself, but anything else made by adding milk takes on the nature of milk. This is the reason here. If so, lump sugar is also made by adding milk; why is that allowable? He says, 'But lump sugar,' etc. Here, khīrajallikā means milk foam.

99. ‘‘Madhukapupphaṃ panā’’tiādi yāvakālikarūpena ṭhitassāpi avaṭṭanakaṃ merayabījavatthuṃ dassetuṃ āraddhaṃ. Āhārakiccaṃ karontāni etāni kasmā evaṃ paribhuñjitabbānīti codanāparihārāya bhesajjodissaṃ dassentena tappasaṅgena [Pg.200] sabbānipi odissakāni ekato dassetuṃ ‘‘sattavidhañhī’’tiādi vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.623). Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇe pana taṃ na vuttaṃ, ‘‘pacchābhattato paṭṭhāya sati paccayeti vuttattā paṭiggahitabhesajjāni dutiyadivasato paṭṭhāya purebhattampi sati paccayeva paribhuñjitabbāni, na āhāratthāya bhesajjatthāya paṭiggahitattā’’ti vadanti. Dvāravātapānakavāṭesūti mahādvārassa vātapānānañca kavāṭaphalakesu. Kasāve pakkhittāni tāni attano sabhāvaṃ pariccajantīti ‘‘kasāve…pe… makkhetabbānī’’ti vuttaṃ, ghuṇapāṇakādiparihāratthaṃ makkhetabbānīti attho. Adhiṭṭhetīti ‘‘idāni mayhaṃ ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ na bhavissati, bāhiraparibhogatthāya bhavissatī’’ti cittaṃ uppādetīti attho. Tenevāha ‘‘sappiñca telañca vasañca muddhani telaṃ vā abbhañjanaṃ vā’’tiādi, evaṃ paribhoge anapekkhatāya paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahatīti adhippāyo. Evaṃ aññesupi kālikesu anajjhoharitukāmatāya suddhacittena bāhiraparibhogatthāya niyamepi paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahatīti idampi visuṃ ekaṃ paṭiggahaṇavijahananti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

99. The passage beginning 'But the madhuka flower...' is begun to show that a substance that is a seed of liquor does not become one, even when it exists in the form of a yāvakālika. 'Why should these, while performing the function of food, be consumed thus?' To avoid this criticism, and showing the medicinal purpose, in that connection all the specified items are shown together where it is said 'seven kinds,' etc., in the Samantapāsādikā. In the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa, however, that is not stated; they say, 'because it is stated "starting after the meal, if there is a condition," the received medicines from the second day onward should be consumed even before the meal only if there is a condition, not for the purpose of food, because they were received for medicinal purposes.' 'In the doorways, windows, and door panels' means on the door leaves of the main door and windows. Those put into dye abandon their own nature, hence it is said, 'in dye... should be smeared'; the meaning is they should be smeared for the purpose of warding off insects like weevils, etc. 'Determines' means, 'Now this will not be for my consumption, it will be for external use,' thus arousing the thought. Therefore, he says, 'ghee, oil, or fat on the head, or oil or ointment,' etc. The intention is that by not having an expectation of use, one relinquishes the acceptance. Similarly, in other time-limited cases, even when one determines an item for external use with a pure mind due to the desire not to consume it, the acceptance is relinquished. This too should be seen as a separate instance of relinquishing acceptance.

Aññena bhikkhunā vattabboti ettha suddhacittena dinnattā sayampi āharāpetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Dvinnampi anāpattīti yathā aññassa santakaṃ ekena paṭiggahitaṃ sattāhātikkamepi nissaggiyaṃ na hoti parasantakabhāvato, evamidampi avibhattattā ubhayasādhāraṇampi vinibbhogābhāvato nissaggiyaṃ na hotīti adhippāyo. Paribhuñjituṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti bhikkhunā paṭiggahitattā sattāhātikkame yassa kassaci bhikkhuno paribhuñjituṃ na vaṭṭati paṭiggahitasappiādīnaṃ paribhogassa sattāheneva paricchinnattā. ‘‘Tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbānī’’ti (pārā. 623) hi vuttaṃ.

As for 'it should be spoken of by another monk,' here, since it was given with a pure mind, it is indeed permissible for him to have it brought and use it himself. For both, there is no offense. Just as when something belonging to another is received by one monk, even if kept beyond seven days, it does not become an item for forfeiture because it is another's property—so too here, since it is undivided and common to both, it does not become an item for forfeiture due to the absence of apportionment. This is the meaning. However, it is not permissible to use it; because it was received by a monk, upon exceeding seven days it is not permissible for any monk to use it, since the use of received ghee and so forth is limited to seven days. For it is said: 'Having received them, they are to be stored and used for a maximum of seven days' (Pārā. 623).

‘‘Āvuso [Pg.201] imaṃ telaṃ sattāhamattaṃ paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti iminā yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tena antosattāheyeva parassa vissajjitabhāvaṃ dasseti. Kassa āpattīti ‘‘paṭhamaṃ tāva ubhinnaṃ sādhāraṇattā anāpatti vuttā, idāni pana ekena itarassa vissaṭṭhabhāvato ubhayasādhāraṇatā natthīti vibhattasadisaṃ hutvā ṭhitaṃ, tasmā ettha paṭiggahitassa sattāhātikkame ekassa āpattiyā bhavitabba’’nti maññamāno ‘‘kiṃ paṭiggahaṇapaccayā paṭiggāhakassa āpatti, udāhu yassa santakaṃ jātaṃ, tassā’’ti pucchati. Nissaṭṭhabhāvatoyeva ca idha ‘‘avibhattabhāvato’’ti kāraṇaṃ avatvā ‘‘yena pariggahitaṃ, tena vissajjitattā’’ti vuttaṃ, idañca vissaṭṭhābhāvato ubhayasādhāraṇataṃ pahāya ekassa santakaṃ hontampi yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tato aññassa santakaṃ jātaṃ, tasmā parasantakapaṭiggahaṇe viya paṭiggāhakassa paṭiggahaṇapaccayā natthi āpattīti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ, na pana ‘‘yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tena vissajjitattā’’ti vacanato avissajjite sati avibhattepi sattāhātikkame āpattīti dassanatthaṃ avissajjite avibhattabhāvatoyeva anāpattiyā siddhattā. Sace pana itaro yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tasseva antosattāhe attano bhāgampi vissajjeti, sattāhātikkame siyā āpatti yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tasseva santakabhāvamāpannattā. ‘‘Itarassa appaṭiggahitattā’’ti iminā tassa santakabhāvepi aññehi paṭiggahitasakasantake viya tena appaṭiggahitabhāvato anāpattīti dīpeti, imaṃ pana adhippāyaṃ ajānitvā ito aññathā gaṇṭhipadakārādīhi papañcitaṃ, na taṃ sārato paccetabbaṃ, idaṃ sāratthadīpanīvacanaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625).

By the statement, 'Friend, this oil is suitable to be used for about a week,' it is shown that it was relinquished to another within a week by the one who received it. Whose offense is it? Thinking, 'First, since it was common to both, no offense was stated. But now, because one has relinquished it to the other, their common ownership no longer exists. Thus, it stands as if divided, so when the receiver exceeds the week, an offense should arise for one,' and wondering, 'Is the offense on account of the receiving for the receiver, or is it for the one whose property it has become?' he asks. And here, precisely because it has been relinquished, the reason 'because it was undivided' is not stated; rather, it is said, 'because it was relinquished by the one who received it.' This is said to show that, by being relinquished, the common ownership is abandoned, and although it becomes the property of one, it has become the property of someone other than the one who received it. Therefore, just as when receiving another's property, there is no offense for the receiver on account of receiving. This is not said, however, to show that an offense arises upon exceeding seven days even if it is not relinquished and remains undivided, for when it is not relinquished, the absence of an offense is already established precisely because it is undivided. But if the other, within the week, relinquishes his own share to the one who received it, then upon exceeding the week, an offense would arise for the one who received it, since it has become his property alone. By 'Because the other did not receive it,' it is indicated that even though it is his property, just as with one's own property received by others, there is no offense for him because he has not received it himself. Not understanding this intention, it has been elaborated upon otherwise by the authors of glossaries and so on; that should not be accepted as the essence. This is a saying from the Sāratthadīpanī.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.625) pana – sace dvinnaṃ…pe… na vaṭṭatīti ettha pāṭho gaḷito, evaṃ panettha pāṭho veditabbo – sace dvinnaṃ [Pg.202] santakaṃ ekena paṭiggahitaṃ avibhattaṃ hoti, sattāhātikkame dvinnampi anāpatti, paribhuñjituṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti. Aññathā pana saddappayogopi na saṅgahaṃ gacchati, ‘‘gaṇṭhipadepi ca ayameva pāṭho dassito’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625) vuttaṃ. ‘‘Dvinnampi anāpattī’’ti avibhattattā vuttaṃ. ‘‘Paribhuñjituṃ pana na vaṭṭatī’’ti idaṃ ‘‘sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabba’’nti (pārā. 623) vacanato vuttaṃ. ‘‘Yena paṭiggahitaṃ, tena vissajjitattā’’ti iminā upasampannassa dānampi sandhāya ‘‘vissajjetī’’ti idaṃ vuttanti dasseti. Upasampannassa nirapekkhadinnavatthumhi paṭiggahaṇassa avigatattepi sakasantakatā vigatāva hoti, tena nissaggiyaṃ na hoti. ‘‘Attanāva paṭiggahitattaṃ sakasantakattañcā’’ti imehi dvīhi kāraṇeheva nissaggiyaṃ hoti, na ekena. Anupasampannassa nirapekkhadāne pana tadubhayampi vijahati, paribhogopettha vaṭṭati, na sāpekkhadāne dānalakkhaṇābhāvato. ‘‘Vissajjatī’’ti etasmiñca pāḷipade kassaci adatvā anapekkhatāya chaḍḍanampi saṅgahitanti veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Anapekkhā datvā’’ti idañca paṭiggahaṇavijahanavidhidassanatthameva vuttaṃ. Paṭiggahaṇe hi vijahite puna paṭiggahetvā paribhogo sayameva vaṭṭissati, tabbijahanañca vatthuno sakasantakatāpariccāgena hotīti. Etena ca vatthumhi ajjhoharaṇāpekkhāya sati paṭiggahaṇavissajjanaṃ nāma visuṃ na labbhatīti sijjhati. Itarathā hi ‘‘paṭiggahaṇe anapekkhova paṭiggahaṇaṃ vissajjetvā puna paṭiggahetvā bhuñjatī’’ti vattabbaṃ siyā, ‘‘appaṭiggahitattā’’ti iminā ekassa santakaṃ aññena paṭiggahitampi nissaggiyaṃ hotīti dasseti. Evanti ‘‘puna gahessāmī’’ti apekkhaṃ akatvā suddhacittena paricattataṃ parāmasati. Paribhuñjantassa anāpattidassanatthanti [Pg.203] nissaggiyamūlikāhi pācittiyādiāpattīhi anāpattidassanatthanti adhippāyo. Paribhoge anāpattidassanatthanti ettha pana nissaṭṭhapaṭilābhassa kāyikaparibhogādīsu yā dukkaṭāpatti vuttā, tāya anāpattidassanatthanti adhippāyo.

In the Vimativinodanī, however—'if of two… and so on… it is not allowable'—here the reading is corrupt; the reading should be understood as follows: 'If what belongs to two is received by one and remains undivided, after seven days have passed, there is no offense for either, but it is not allowable to use it.' Otherwise, the grammatical usage does not cohere, and in the Sāratthadīpanī it is said, 'This very reading is shown even in the Gaṇṭhipada.' 'There is no offense for both' is said because it remains undivided. 'But it is not allowable to use it'—this is stated based on the rule, 'Having received them, they are to be stored and used for a maximum of seven days' (Pārā. 623). By 'Because it was relinquished by the one who received it,' it is shown that the statement 'he relinquishes it' is made with reference to giving by an ordained person. For an ordained person, regarding an item given without expectation, even though the act of receiving has not ceased, one's own ownership has indeed ceased; therefore, it does not become an item for forfeiture. It becomes an item for forfeiture for these two reasons alone: 'because it was received by oneself and because it is one’s own property,' not for one reason only. However, in the case of a gift given without expectation to an unordained person, both these conditions are abandoned, and its use is allowable; but not in the case of a gift given with expectation, because the characteristic of giving is absent. In this Pāli phrase 'relinquishes it,' it should be understood that even abandoning it without giving it to anyone, due to lack of attachment, is included. And this 'having given without expectation' is stated solely to show the method of abandoning the act of receiving. For if the act of receiving is abandoned, then by receiving it again, its use will be permissible on its own, and that abandonment occurs through the relinquishment of one's own ownership of the item. By this, it is established that when there is an expectation of consuming the item, the so-called relinquishment of receiving is not obtained separately. Otherwise, it would have to be said, 'Being without expectation in the act of receiving, he relinquishes the receiving, then receives it again and uses it.' By 'Because it was not received by the owner,' it is shown that even if what belongs to one is received by another, it does not become an item for forfeiture for the owner. Thus, it refers to that which has been completely relinquished with a pure mind, without forming the expectation, 'I will take it again.' 'To show the absence of offense for one who uses it'—the intention is to show the absence of the pācittiya and other offenses that are rooted in an item for forfeiture. 'To show the absence of offense in use'—here, the intention is to show the absence of the dukkaṭa offense stated for the bodily use, etc., of what has been relinquished and reacquired.

100. Evaṃ catukālikapaccayaṃ dassetvā idāni tesu visesalakkhaṇaṃ dassento ‘‘imesu panā’’tiādimāha. Tattha akappiyabhūmiyaṃ sahaseyyāpahonake gehe vuttaṃ saṅghikaṃ vā puggalikaṃ vā bhikkhussa, bhikkhuniyā vā santakaṃ yāvakālikaṃ yāmakālikañca ekarattampi ṭhapitaṃ antovutthaṃ nāma hoti, tattha pakkañca antopakkaṃ nāma hoti. Sattāhakālikaṃ pana yāvajīvikañca vaṭṭati. Paṭiggahetvā ekarattaṃ vītināmitaṃ pana yaṃ kiñci yāvakālikaṃ vā yāmakālikaṃ vā ajjhoharitukāmatāya gaṇhantassa pariggahaṇe tāva dukkaṭaṃ, ajjhoharato pana ekamekasmiṃ ajjhohāre sannidhipaccayā pācittiyaṃ hotīti attho. Idāni aññampi visesalakkhaṇaṃ dassento ‘‘yāvakālikaṃ panā’’tiādimāha. Tattha sambhinnarasānīti saṃsaṭṭharasāni. Dīghakālāni vatthūni rassakālena saṃsaṭṭhāni rassakālameva anuvattantīti āha ‘‘yāvakālikaṃ pana…pe… tīṇipi yāmakālikādīnī’’ti. Itaresupi eseva nayo. Tasmātiādīsu tadahupurebhattameva vaṭṭati, na tadahupacchābhattaṃ, na rattiyaṃ, na dutiyadivasādīsūti attho.

100. Having thus shown the fourfold temporal requisites, he now explains their distinctive characteristics, beginning with 'Now, among these...' Herein, any Sangha property or individual property belonging to a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, whether yāvakālika or yāmakālika, if kept for even a single night in a dwelling suitable for co-residence in an unallowable area, is called 'antovuttha' (kept inside). What is cooked there is called 'antopakka' (cooked inside). The seven-day and lifetime requisites, however, are allowable. If one takes anything, whether yāvakālika or yāmakālika, with the intention to consume it after a night has passed since it was received, there is a dukkaṭa offense at the moment of taking; and for each act of consuming, due to the condition of storing, it becomes a pācittiya offense. This is the meaning. Now, to explain another distinctive characteristic, he begins with 'As for yāvakālika...' Herein, 'sambhinnarasāni' means 'mixed flavors'. He says that long-term items, when mixed with short-term ones, conform to the short-term period. Hence it is said, 'yāvakālika... and the three, yāmakālika and so forth.' The same principle applies to the rest. Therefore, in such cases, it is allowable only before the meal on that day, not after the meal on that day, not at night, nor on the second day and so forth. This is the meaning.

Kasmāti ce? Tadahupaṭiggahitena yāvakālikena saṃsaṭṭhattāti. Ettha ca ‘‘yāvakālikena saṃsaṭṭhattā’’ti ettakameva avatvā ‘‘tadahupaṭiggahitenā’’ti visesanassa vuttattā purepaṭiggahitayāvakālikena saṃsaṭṭhe sati tadahupurebhattampi na vaṭṭati, anajjhoharaṇīyaṃ hotīti viññāyati. ‘‘Sambhinnarasa’’nti iminā sacepi saṃsaṭṭhaṃ, asambhinnarasaṃ sesakālikattayaṃ attano attano kāle vaṭṭatīti dasseti[Pg.204]. Yāmakālikenāti ettha ‘‘tadahupaṭiggahitenā’’ti tatiyantavisesanapadaṃ ajjhāharitabbaṃ, pubbavākyato vā anuvattetabbaṃ. Tassa phalaṃ vuttanayameva.

Why is that? Because it is mixed with a yāvakālika item received that same day. Here, because the specification 'received that same day' is stated, instead of just saying 'mixed with a yāvakālika item,' it is to be understood that if mixed with a yāvakālika item received earlier, it is not allowable even before the meal on that day, becoming unfit to consume. The phrase 'of mixed taste' indicates that even if mixed, if the taste is not mixed, the remaining three temporal requisites are allowable at their respective times. Regarding 'by yāmakālika,' here the qualifying term 'received that same day' in the instrumental case should be supplied, or it should be inferred from the previous sentence. Its result is as explained.

Potthakesu pana ‘‘yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita’’nti dissati, taṃ na sundaraṃ. Yattha natthi, tameva sundaraṃ, kasmā? Dutiyantañhi visesanapadaṃ itaradvayaṃ viseseti. Tato tadahupaṭiggahitameva sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikañca yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhe sati yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭati, na purepaṭiggahitānīti attho bhaveyya, so na yutto. Kasmā? Sattāhakālikayāvajīvikānaṃ asannidhijanakattā, ‘‘dīghakālikāni rassakālikaṃ anuvattantī’’ti iminā lakkhaṇena viruddhattā ca, tasmā tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā hotu purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā, sattāhakālikaṃ yāvajīvikañca tadahupaṭiggahitena yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhattā yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭatīti attho yutto, evañca upari vakkhamānena ‘‘sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitena saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappatī’’ti vacanena samaṃ bhaveyya.

However, in some texts, it appears: 'The other two, received that same day, are mixed with the yāmakālika item.' That is not well-stated. Where that statement is absent, that alone is well-stated. Why? Because the qualifying term in the accusative case qualifies 'the other two'. Thus, the meaning would be that only the seven-day and lifetime allowances received that same day, when mixed with the yāmakālika item, are allowable until dawn, and not those received earlier. That is not appropriate. Why? Because seven-day and lifetime allowances do not generate storing, and because it contradicts the principle expressed as, 'Long-term items conform to short-term ones.' Therefore, whether received that same day or received earlier, the seven-day and lifetime allowances, when mixed with the yāmakālika item received that same day, are allowable until dawn—this meaning is proper. And thus, it would be consistent with the statement to be made later: 'However, the lifetime allowance, whether received that same day or received earlier, when mixed with the seven-day allowance received that same day, is allowable for seven days.'

Apica ‘‘yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahu yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭatī’’ti pubbapāṭhena bhavitabbaṃ, taṃ lekhakehi aññesu pāṭhesu ‘‘tadahupaṭiggahita’’nti vijjamānaṃ disvā, idha tadahupadato paṭiggahitapadaṃ gaḷitanti maññamānehi pakkhipitvā likhitaṃ bhaveyya, ‘‘tadahū’’ti idaṃ pana ‘‘yāva aruṇuggamanā’’ti padaṃ viseseti, tena yāva tadahuaruṇuggamanā vaṭṭati, na dutiyāhādiaruṇuggamanāti atthaṃ dasseti. Teneva uparipāṭhepi ‘‘sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitenā’’ti rassakālikatthapadena tulyādhikaraṇaṃ visesanapadaṃ tameva viseseti, na dīghakālikatthaṃ yāvajīvikapadaṃ[Pg.205], tasmā ‘‘tadahupaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

Moreover, the earlier reading should be 'yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahu yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭatī' (the other two, when mixed with the yāmakālika item, are allowable until dawn of that day). Scribes, seeing 'tadahupaṭiggahita' in other readings, may have mistakenly thought that the word 'paṭiggahita' was omitted after 'tadahu' here and inserted it. However, 'tadahu' here qualifies the phrase 'yāva aruṇuggamanā,' indicating that it is allowable until dawn of that day only, not until dawn of the second day and so forth. Likewise, in the passage above, in 'sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitenā', the qualifying term is in apposition with the word for the shorter-term item and qualifies it alone, not the word 'yāvajīvika' for the longer-term item. Therefore, it is said, 'The lifetime allowance, whether received that day or received earlier, when mixed with the seven-day allowance received that same day, is allowable for seven days.'

Dvīhapaṭiggahitenātiādīsupi ‘‘dvīhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ chāhaṃ vaṭṭati, tīhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ pañcāhaṃ vaṭṭati, catūhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ caturāhaṃ vaṭṭati, pañcāhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ tīhaṃ vaṭṭati, chāhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ dvīhaṃ vaṭṭati, sattāhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ tadaheva vaṭṭatī’’ti evaṃ sattāhakālikasseva atītadivasaṃ parihāpetvā sesadivasavasena yojetabbaṃ, na yāvajīvikassa. Na hi yāvajīvikassa hāpetabbo atītadivaso nāma atthi sati paccaye yāvajīvaṃ paribhuñjitabbato. Tenāha ‘‘sattāhakālikampi attanā saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ attano sabhāvaññeva upanetī’’ti. Kesuci potthakesu ‘‘yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita’’nti likhitaṃ pāṭhaṃ nissāya imasmimpi pāṭhe ‘‘tadahupaṭiggahitanti idameva icchitabba’nti maññamānā ‘‘purepaṭiggahita’’nti pāṭhaṃ paṭikkhipanti. Kesuci ‘‘purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ vā’’ti likhanti, taṃ sabbaṃ yathāvuttanayaṃ amanasikarontā vibbhantacittā evaṃ karontīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

In phrases beginning with 'received two days ago,' it is explained: 'The lifetime allowance, whether received that day or received previously, when mixed with the seven-day allowance received two days ago, is allowable for six days; when mixed with the seven-day allowance received three days ago, it is allowable for five days; when mixed with the seven-day allowance received four days ago, it is allowable for four days; when mixed with the seven-day allowance received five days ago, it is allowable for three days; when mixed with the seven-day allowance received six days ago, it is allowable for two days; when mixed with the seven-day allowance received seven days ago, it is allowable only that day.' Thus, the reckoning should be applied to the seven-day allowance only, by deducting the past days and counting the remaining days, not to the lifetime allowance. For there is no past day to deduct for the lifetime allowance, as it can be consumed for life as long as conditions permit. Hence, it is said, 'The seven-day item brings even the lifetime item mixed with it to its own nature.' In some texts, relying on the reading 'yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahita' (the other two, when mixed with the yāmakālika item, are received that day), some, thinking that 'received that day' is what is intended in this passage too, reject the reading 'received previously.' Some write, 'or received before the meal.' All this should be seen as the work of those whose minds are confused, not considering the proper method as explained.

Imesu [Pg.206] catūsu kālikesu yāvakālikaṃ majjhanhikakālātikkame, yāmakālikaṃ pacchimayāmātikkame, sattāhakālikaṃ sattāhātikkame paribhuñjantassa āpattīti vuttaṃ. Katarasikkhāpadena āpatti hotīti pucchāyamāha ‘‘kālayāma’’iccādi. Tassattho – yāvakālikaṃ kālātikkame paribhuñjantassa ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu vikāle khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiya’’nti iminā vikālebhojanasikkhāpadena (pāci. 248) āpatti hoti. Yāmakālikaṃ yāmātikkame paribhuñjantassa ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu sannidhikārakaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiya’’nti iminā sannidhisikkhāpadena (pāci. 253) āpatti hoti. Sattāhakālikaṃ sattāhātikkame paribhuñjantassa ‘‘yāni kho pana tāni gilānānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ paṭisāyanīyāni bhesajjāni, seyyathidaṃ, sappi navanītaṃ telaṃ madhu phāṇitaṃ, tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiya’’nti iminā bhesajjasikkhāpadena (pārā. 622) āpatti hotīti.

Regarding these four temporal requisites, it is said that an offense occurs for one who consumes a yāvakālika item beyond the midday period, a yāmakālika item beyond the last watch, or a sattāhakālika item beyond seven days. When asked, 'By which training rule does an offense occur?', he says, 'kālayāma,' and so on. The meaning of that is: for one who consumes a yāvakālika item beyond the allowable time, an offense occurs under the training rule on eating at the wrong time: 'Should any bhikkhu eat or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is an offense to be confessed' (Pācittiya 248). For one who consumes a yāmakālika item beyond the watch period, an offense occurs under the training rule on storing: 'Should any bhikkhu eat or consume staple or non-staple food that has been stored, it is an offense to be confessed' (Pācittiya 253). For one who consumes a sattāhakālika item beyond seven days, an offense occurs under the training rule on medicines: 'Now, those tonics allowable for sick bhikkhus—that is, ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, and molasses—having received them, may be stored and used for a maximum of seven days. To exceed that is an offense entailing forfeiture and confession' (Pārājika 622).

Imāni cattāri kālikāni ekato saṃsaṭṭhāni sambhinnarasāni purimapurimakālikassa kālavasena paribhuñjitabbānīti vuttaṃ. Asambhinnarasāni ce honti, kathaṃ paribhuñjitabbānīti āha ‘‘sace panā’’tiādi. Tassattho suviññeyyova.

It is said that these four temporal items, when mixed together such that their tastes are blended, are to be consumed according to the time limit of the earliest temporal item. If their tastes are not blended, how should they be consumed? He says, 'But if...' and so on. Its meaning is very easily understood.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Catukālikavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament Named the 'Discourse on the Determination of the Four Temporal Items'

Aṭṭhārasamo paricchedo.

The Eighteenth Chapter.

19. Kappiyabhūmivinicchayakathā

19. The Discourse on the Determination of Allowable Ground.

101. Evaṃ [Pg.207] catukālikavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni kappiyakuṭivinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘kappiyā catubhūmiyo’’tiādimāha. Tattha kappantīti kappiyā, kappa sāmatthiyeti dhātu. Bhavanti etāsu antovutthaantopakkānīti bhūmiyo, catasso bhūmiyo catubhūmiyo, catasso kappiyakuṭiyoti attho. Katamā tāti āha ‘‘ussāvanantikā…pe… veditabbā’’ti. Kathaṃ viññāyaticcāha ‘‘anujānāmi…pe… vacanato’’ti. Idaṃ bhesajjakkhandhakapāḷiṃ (mahāva. 295) sandhāyāha. Tattha uddhaṃ sāvanā ussāvanā, ussāvanā anto yassā kappiyabhūmiyāti ussāvanantikā. Gāvo nisīdanti etthāti gonisādikā, go-saddūpapada ni-pubbasada visaraṇagatyāvasānesūti dhātu. Gahapatīhi dinnāti gahapati, uttarapadalopatatiyātappurisoyaṃ. Kammavācāya sammannitabbāti sammutīti evamimāsaṃ viggaho kātabbo. Tatthāti kappiyakuṭivinicchaye. Taṃ pana avatvāpīti andhakaṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttanayaṃ avatvāpi. Pi-saddena tathāvacanampi anujānāti. Aṭṭhakathāsu vuttanayena vutteti sesaaṭṭhakathāsu vuttanayena ‘‘kappiyakuṭiṃ karomā’’ti vā ‘‘kappiyakuṭī’’ti vā vutte. Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇanti sabbaaṭṭhakathānaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ ussāvanantikakuṭikaraṇalakkhaṇaṃ. Cayanti adhiṭṭhānaṃ uccavatthuṃ. Yato paṭṭhāyāti yato iṭṭhakato silato mattikāpiṇḍato vā paṭṭhāya. Paṭhamiṭṭhakādīnaṃ heṭṭhā na vaṭṭantīti paṭhamiṭṭhakādīnaṃ heṭṭhābhūmiyaṃ patiṭṭhāpiyamānā iṭṭhakādayo bhūmigatikattā ‘‘kappiyakuṭiṃ karomā’’ti vatvā patiṭṭhāpetuṃ na vaṭṭanti. Yadi evaṃ bhūmiyaṃ nikhaṇitvā ṭhapiyamānā thambhā kasmā tathā vatvā patiṭṭhāpetuṃ vaṭṭantīti āha ‘‘thambhā pana…pe… vaṭṭantī’’ti.

101. Having thus explained the determination of the four temporal items, now, to explain the determination of the allowable hut, he begins with, 'There are four allowable grounds.' Herein, `kappiyā` means they are suitable; the root is `kappa` in the sense of 'capability.' They are called `bhūmiyo` (grounds) because in them things dwelt in and things cooked in become allowable. The four grounds means the four allowable huts. Which are they? It is said: 'The one near the announcement... should be understood.' How is this to be understood? It is said: 'I allow... according to the statement.' This is said in reference to the Pāli of the Medicine Chapter (Mahāvagga 295). Here, `ussāvanantikā` is the allowable ground within which is the announcement (`uddhaṃ sāvanā`). `Gonisādikā` is where cattle rest; it is formed with the word `go` as a prefix to the root `sad` preceded by `ni`, in the sense of moving, going, and ending. `Gahapati` means given by householders; this is a third-case tatpuruṣa compound where the latter word is elided. `Sammuti` means to be appointed by a formal act. The analysis of these terms should be done thus. Herein, means in the determination of the allowable hut. 'Even without stating that' means even without stating the method mentioned in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. By the word `pi`, he also allows such a statement. 'When it is said according to the method stated in the commentaries' means when it is said, 'We will make an allowable hut' or 'an allowable hut,' according to the method stated in the other commentaries. 'The common characteristic' means the characteristic of making an `ussāvanantikā` hut that is common to all commentaries. `Caya` means a foundation, an elevated base. 'From where one begins' means starting from a brick, a stone, or a lump of clay. 'It is not allowable below the first bricks, etc.' means that bricks and so on, being established on the ground below the first bricks, are not allowable to be established after saying, 'We will make an allowable hut,' because they are considered part of the ground. If so, why is it allowable to establish posts that are set by digging into the ground after saying thus? He says, 'But posts... are allowable.'

Saṅghasantakamevāti [Pg.208] vāsatthāya kataṃ saṅghikasenāsanaṃ sandhāya vadati. Bhikkhusantakanti vāsatthāya eva kataṃ bhikkhussa puggalikasenāsanaṃ.

'Belonging only to the Saṅgha' refers to a lodging of the Saṅgha made for the purpose of dwelling. 'Belonging to a bhikkhu' means a bhikkhu's personal lodging, also made for the purpose of dwelling.

102. Mukhasannidhīti iminā antovutthadukkaṭameva dīpeti.

102. By 'proximity to the mouth,' he indicates only the `dukkaṭa` offense for dwelling inside.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295) pana evaṃ vuttaṃ – taṃ pana avatvāpīti pi-saddena tathāvacanampi anujānāti. Aṭṭhakathāsūti andhakaṭṭhakathāvirahitāsu sesaṭṭhakathāsu. Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇanti andhakaṭṭhakathāya saha sabbaṭṭhakathānaṃ samānaṃ. Cayanti adhiṭṭhānaṃ uccavatthuṃ. Yato paṭṭhāyāti yato iṭṭhakādito paṭṭhāya cayaṃ ādiṃ katvā bhittiṃ uṭṭhāpetukāmāti attho. ‘‘Thambhā pana upari uggacchanti, tasmā vaṭṭantī’’ti etena iṭṭhakapāsāṇā heṭṭhā patiṭṭhāpiyamānāpi yadi cayato, bhūmito vā ekaṅgulamattampi uggatā tiṭṭhanti, vaṭṭantīti siddhaṃ hoti.

However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.295), it is stated thus: 'Even without saying it'—the particle `pi` also permits such a statement. `Aṭṭhakathāsu` refers to the remaining commentaries, excluding the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. `Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇa` means a characteristic common to all the commentaries, including the Andhakaṭṭhakathā. `Caya` means the foundation, or elevated base. `Yato paṭṭhāya` means from the point when, starting with bricks and so forth, one intends to raise the wall after first establishing the foundation. By this statement, 'Pillars, however, rise upward, hence they are allowable,' it is established that even if bricks or stones are being placed below, if they stand having risen even a single fingerbreadth from the foundation or the ground, they are allowable.

Ārāmoti upacārasīmāparicchinno sakalo vihāro. Senāsanānīti vihārassa anto tiṇakuṭiādikāni saṅghassa nivāsagehāni. Vihāragonisādikā nāmāti senāsanagonisādikā nāma. Senāsanāni hi sayaṃ parikkhittānipi ārāmaparikkhepābhāvena ‘‘gonisādikā’’ti vuttā. ‘‘Upaḍḍhaparikkhittopī’’ti iminā tato ūnaparikkhitto yebhuyyena aparikkhitto nāma, tasmā aparikkhittasaṅkhameva gacchatīti dasseti. Etthāti upaḍḍhādiparikkhitte. Kappiyakuṭi laddhuṃ vaṭṭatīti gonisādikāya abhāvena sesakappiyakuṭīsu tīsu yā kāci kappiyakuṭi kātabbāti attho.

An `ārāma` is the entire `vihāra` delimited by a boundary of proximity (`upacārasīmā`). `Senāsanāni` are the dwelling houses for the Saṅgha within the `vihāra`, such as grass huts and so on. What is named `vihāragonisādikā` is `senāsanagonisādikā`. For lodgings, even if enclosed themselves, are called `gonisādikā` due to the absence of an `ārāma` enclosure. By 'even if half-enclosed,' it is shown that what is enclosed less than that is generally considered unenclosed, and thus it is counted as unenclosed. Herein, means in a half-enclosed or similarly enclosed area. 'It is permissible to obtain an allowable hut' means that in the absence of a `gonisādikā`, any allowable hut from the remaining three may be constructed.

Tesaṃ gehānīti ettha bhikkhūnaṃ vāsatthāya katampi yāva na denti, tāva tesaṃ santakaṃyeva bhavissatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vihāraṃ [Pg.209] ṭhapetvāti upasampannānaṃ vāsatthāya kataṃ gehaṃ ṭhapetvāti attho. Gehanti nivāsagehaṃ. Tadaññaṃ pana uposathāgārādi sabbaṃ anivāsagehaṃ catukappiyabhūmivimuttā pañcamī kappiyabhūmi. Saṅghasantakepi hi etādise gehe suṭṭhu parikkhittārāmaṭṭhepi abbhokāse viya antovutthādidoso natthi. Yena kenaci channe paricchanne ca sahaseyyappahonake bhikkhussa, saṅghassa vā nivāsagehe antovutthādidoso, na aññattha. Tenāha ‘‘yaṃ panā’’tiādi. Tattha ‘‘saṅghikaṃ vā puggalikaṃ vā’’ti idaṃ kiñcāpi bhikkhubhikkhunīnaṃ sāmaññato vuttaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pana saṅghikaṃ puggalikañca bhikkhunīnaṃ, tāsaṃ saṅghikaṃ puggalikañca bhikkhūnaṃ gihisantakaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti veditabbaṃ.

Here, regarding 'their houses,' it should be understood that even if a house is made for bhikkhus to dwell in, as long as it has not been given, it will still belong to them. 'Excluding the `vihāra`' means excluding a house made for the residence of the fully ordained. 'House' means a dwelling house. But anything other than that, such as an Uposatha hall, is a non-dwelling house; it is a fifth allowable ground, exempt from the four allowable grounds. Indeed, even in such a house belonging to the Saṅgha, and even in a well-enclosed `ārāma`, there is no fault of dwelling inside and so on, just as in the open air. The fault of dwelling inside and so on occurs in a dwelling house of a bhikkhu or the Saṅgha that is roofed, enclosed, and suitable for sleeping together, but not elsewhere. Therefore, he said, 'But whatever...' and so on. Herein, although the phrase 'whether belonging to the Saṅgha or to an individual' is spoken generally of bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs, it should be understood that what belongs to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus or to an individual bhikkhu stands in the position of lay property for bhikkhunīs, and what belongs to the Saṅgha of bhikkhunīs or to an individual bhikkhunī stands in the position of lay property for bhikkhus.

Mukhasannidhīti antosannihitadoso hi mukhappavesananimittaṃ āpattiṃ karoti, nāññathā, tasmā ‘‘mukhasannidhī’’ti (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295) vuttoti.

'Proximity to the mouth': for the fault of storing inside indeed causes an offense on account of its entering the mouth, and not otherwise. Therefore, it is said, 'proximity to the mouth' (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.295).

Tattha tattha khaṇḍā hontīti upaḍḍhato adhikaṃ khaṇḍā honti. Sabbasmiṃ chadane vinaṭṭheti tiṇapaṇṇādivassaparittāyake chadane vinaṭṭhe. Gopānasīnaṃ pana upari vallīhi baddhadaṇḍesu ṭhitesupi jahitavatthukā honti eva. Pakkhapāsakamaṇḍalanti ekasmiṃ passe tiṇṇaṃ gopānasīnaṃ upari ṭhitatiṇapaṇṇādichadanaṃ vuccati.

'Here and there, they are broken' means that more than half are broken. 'When every covering is destroyed' means that the grass, leaves, and other coverings that provide protection from rain are destroyed. But as for the rafters, even if the poles bound with vines remain standing upon them, they are indeed considered abandoned. 'Pakkhapāsakamaṇḍala' means the covering of grass, leaves, and so on, placed above three rafters on one side.

103. ‘‘Anupasampannassa datvā tassā’’tiādinā akappiyakuṭiyaṃ vutthampi anupasampannassa dinne kappiyaṃ hoti, sāpekkhadānañcettha vaṭṭati, paṭiggahaṇaṃ viya na hotīti dasseti. Antopakkasāmaṃpakkesu pana ‘‘na, bhikkhave, antovutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ paribhuñjitabbaṃ, yo paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ [Pg.210] sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, anāpattī’’ti (mahāva. 274) vacanato ekaṃ tirāpattikaṃ, tīṇi durāpattikāni, tīṇi ekāpattikāni, ekaṃ anāpattikanti aṭṭha honti. Tattha antovutthanti akappiyakuṭiyaṃ vutthaṃ. Antopakkepi eseva nayo. Sāmaṃpakkanti yaṃ kiñci āmisaṃ bhikkhussa pacituṃ na vaṭṭati. Tattha yaṃ vattabbaṃ, taṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttameva.

103. By 'having given to one not fully ordained,' etc., it is shown that even if one has dwelt in an unallowable hut, if it is given to one not fully ordained, it becomes allowable; and giving with expectation is permissible here, unlike receiving. Regarding things cooked inside and by oneself: 'Monks, what has been dwelt with inside, cooked inside, or cooked by oneself should not be consumed. Whoever consumes it, commits an offense of wrong-doing. If, monks, it has been dwelt with inside, cooked inside, and cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of three wrong-doings. If, monks, it has been dwelt with inside and cooked inside, but cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is an offense of two wrong-doings. If, monks, it has been dwelt with inside and cooked outside, but cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of two wrong-doings. If, monks, it has been dwelt with outside and cooked inside, but cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of two wrong-doings. If, monks, it has been dwelt with inside and cooked outside, and cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, monks, it has been dwelt with outside and cooked inside, and cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, monks, it has been dwelt with outside and cooked outside, but cooked by oneself, and one consumes it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If, monks, it has been dwelt with outside, cooked outside, and cooked by others, and one consumes it, there is no offense.' (Mahāvagga 274) According to this, there are eight cases: one with three offenses, three with two offenses, three with one offense, and one with no offense. Here, 'dwelt with inside' refers to dwelling in an unallowable hut. The same method applies to 'cooked inside.' 'Cooked by oneself' refers to any foodstuff that a monk is not allowed to cook. What needs to be said regarding this has already been stated in the commentary.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is an exposition of the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Kappiyabhūmivinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament Called the 'Discourse on the Determination of Allowable Ground'.

Ekūnavīsatimo paricchedo.

The Nineteenth Chapter.

20. Paṭiggahaṇavinicchayakathā

20. The Discourse on the Determination of Acceptance

104. Evaṃ kappiyabhūmivinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni paṭiggahaṇavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘khādanīyādipaṭiggāho’’tiādimāha. Tattha khādiyateti khādanīyaṃ, ṭhapetvā pañca bhojanāni sabbassa ajjhoharitabbassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Ādisaddena bhojanīyaṃ [Pg.211] saṅgaṇhāti. Paṭiggahaṇaṃ sampaṭicchanaṃ paṭiggāho, khādanīyādīnaṃ paṭiggāho khādanīyādipaṭiggāho. Tenāha ‘‘ajjhoharitabbassa yassa kassaci khādanīyassa vā bhojanīyassa vā paṭiggahaṇa’’nti. Pañcasu aṅgesu uccāraṇamattanti ukkhipanamattaṃ, iminā paṭiggahitabbabhārassa pamāṇaṃ dasseti. Teneva tādisena purisena anukkhipanīyavatthusmiṃ paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhatīti dīpeti. ‘‘Hatthapāso’’ti iminā āsannabhāvaṃ. Teneva ca dūre ṭhatvā abhiharantassa paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhatīti dīpeti. Abhihāroti pariṇāmitabhāvo, tena ca tatraṭṭhakādīsu na ruhatīti dīpeti. ‘‘Devo vā’’tiādinā dāyakato payogattayaṃ dasseti. ‘‘Tañce’’tiādinā paṭiggāhakato payogadvayaṃ dasseti.

104. Having thus spoken on the determination of allowable grounds, now, to speak on the determination of acceptance, he said, “The acceptance of edibles, etc.” Here, what is chewed is an 'edible'; excluding the five staple foods, this is a term for anything that can be swallowed. By the word “etc.,” staple food is included. Acceptance is receiving, a taking hold; the acceptance of edibles, etc., is 'khādanīyādipaṭiggāho.' Therefore, he said, “the acceptance of any edible or staple food whatsoever that can be swallowed.” Among the five factors, 'mere lifting' means just lifting up; by this, he shows the measure of the weight that can be accepted. By this, he indicates that acceptance is not valid in regard to an item that cannot be lifted by such a person. By 'hand-reach,' he indicates nearness. And by this, he indicates that acceptance is not valid for one offering while standing far away. 'Bringing forward' means the state of being presented; and by this, he indicates that it is not valid in regard to things already standing in that place, etc. By “a deity, or…” he shows the three kinds of action on the part of the giver. By “If that…” he shows the two kinds of action on the part of the receiver.

Idāni tesu pañcasu aṅgesu hatthapāsassa durājānatāya taṃ dassetumāha ‘‘tatthi’’ccādi. Tattha aḍḍhateyyahattho hatthapāso nāmāti yojanā. ‘‘Tassa orimantenā’’ti iminā ākāse ujuṃ ṭhatvā parena ukkhittaṃ gaṇhantassāpi āsannaṅgabhūtapādatalato paṭṭhāya hatthapāso paricchinditabbo, na sīsato paṭṭhāyāti dasseti. Tattha ‘‘orimantenā’’ti imassa heṭṭhimantenāti attho gahetabbo.

Now, because the hand-reach is difficult to know among these five factors, to show this, he said, “Therein,” etc. Here, the explanation is that two and a half cubits is what is called the hand-reach. By “with its near end,” he shows that even for one standing upright in the air and taking something lifted up by another, the hand-reach should be measured starting from the sole of the foot, which is the nearest part of the body, and not from the head. Here, the meaning of “with its near end” should be taken as “with its lower end.”

Ettha ca pavāraṇasikkhāpadaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-239) ‘‘sace pana bhikkhu nisinno hoti, āsannassa pacchimantato paṭṭhāyā’’tiādinā paṭiggāhakānaṃ āsannaṅgassa pārimantato paṭṭhāya paricchedassa dassitattā idhāpi ākāse ṭhitassa paṭiggāhakassa āsannaṅgabhūtapādatalassa pārimantabhūtato paṇhipariyantassa heṭṭhimatalato paṭṭhāya, dāyakassa pana orimantabhūtato pādaṅgulassa heṭṭhimapariyantato paṭṭhāya hatthapāso [Pg.212] paricchinditabboti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Imināva nayena bhūmiyaṃ nipajjitvā ussīsake nisinnassa hatthato paṭiggaṇhantassāpi āsannasīsaṅgassa pārimantabhūtato gīvantato paṭṭhāyeva hatthapāso minitabbo, na pādatalato paṭṭhāya. Evaṃ nipajjitvā dānepi yathānurūpaṃ veditabbaṃ. ‘‘Yaṃ āsannataraṃ aṅga’’nti (pāci. aṭṭha. 238-239) hi vuttaṃ. Akallakoti gilāno sahatthā paribhuñjituṃ asakkonto mukhena paṭiggaṇhāti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265) pana ‘‘akallakoti gilāno gahetuṃ vā’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ, etena akallakoti gilāno vā atha vā gahetuṃ akallako asamatthoti attho dassito. Tenāha ‘‘sacepi natthukaraṇiyaṃ dīyamānaṃ nāsāpuṭena akallako vā mukhena paṭiggaṇhātī’’ti.

Here, in the commentary on the Pavāraṇā training rule (Pāc. Aṭṭha. 238-239), since it is shown by the passage beginning, “If a monk is seated, from the farthest limit of the nearest part…,” that the measurement for recipients starts from the farthest limit of the nearest part of the body, so too here, it should be understood that for a recipient standing in the air, the hand's reach is to be measured starting from the bottom surface of the heel, which is the farthest limit of the sole of the foot, the nearest part; and for the donor, starting from the bottom edge of the toes, which is the nearest limit. By this same method, for one lying down and receiving from the hand of one seated at their head, the hand's reach should be measured starting from the neck, which is the farthest limit of the nearest part, the head, and not from the sole of the foot. Thus, when giving while lying down, it should be understood appropriately. For it is said, “Whichever part is nearest” (Pāc. Aṭṭha. 238-239). An 'akallaka' is a sick person who, being unable to partake with their own hand, receives with their mouth. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.265), however, only this much is said: “An 'akallaka' is a sick person or one unable to take.” By this, the meaning is shown that an 'akallaka' is a sick person or one who is incapable, unable to take. Therefore, it is said: “Even if, when nasal medicine is being given, an unable person receives it with the nostrils or with the mouth.”

105. Ekadesenāpīti aṅguliyā phuṭṭhamattena.

105. 'Even by a part' means by the mere touch of a finger.

Tañce paṭiggaṇhāti, sabbaṃ paṭiggahitamevāti veṇukoṭiyaṃ bandhitvā ṭhapitattā. Sace bhūmiyaṃ ṭhitameva ghaṭaṃ dāyakena hatthapāse ṭhatvā ‘‘ghaṭaṃ dassāmī’’ti dinnaṃ veṇukoṭiyā gahaṇavasena paṭiggaṇhāti, ubhayakoṭibaddhaṃ sabbampi paṭiggahitameva hoti. Bhikkhussa hatthe apīḷetvā pakatiyā pīḷiyamānaṃ ucchurasaṃ sandhāya ‘‘gaṇhathā’’ti vuttattā ‘‘abhihāro na paññāyatī’’ti vuttaṃ, hatthapāse ṭhitassa pana bhikkhussa atthāya pīḷiyamānaṃ ucchuto paggharantaṃ rasaṃ gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Doṇikāya sayaṃ paggharantaṃ ucchurasaṃ majjhe āvaritvā vissajjitampi gaṇhituṃ vaṭṭati. Paṭiggahaṇasaññāyāti ‘‘mañcādinā paṭiggahessāmī’’ti uppāditasaññāya, iminā ‘‘paṭiggaṇhāmī’’ti vācāya vattabbakiccaṃ natthīti dasseti.

If he accepts it, all of it is considered accepted, because it has been tied and placed on a bamboo strip. If a pot standing on the ground is given by a donor standing within arm’s reach, who says, “I give this pot,” and the monk accepts it by taking hold of the bamboo strip, all of it is considered accepted since it is bound at both ends. With reference to sugarcane juice being squeezed naturally, not by the monk's hand, it was said, “no offering is apparent,” because it was said, “Take it.” However, it is allowable for a monk standing within arm’s reach to take the juice flowing from sugarcane being squeezed for his benefit. It is also allowable to take sugarcane juice flowing naturally into a trough, even if it is blocked in the middle and then released. “With the perception of receiving” means with the perception that has arisen, “I will receive it with a bed, etc.” By this it is shown that there is no need to say verbally, “I receive.”

Yattha [Pg.213] katthaci aṭṭhakathāsu, padesesu vā. Asaṃhārime phalaketi thāmamajjhimena asaṃhāriye. ‘‘Tintiṇikādipaṇṇesūti vacanato sākhāsu paṭiggahaṇaṃ ruhatīti daṭṭhabba’’nti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.265) vuttaṃ. Porāṇaṭīkāyampi tatheva vuttaṃ, tadetaṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyañhi ‘‘bhūmiyaṃ atthatesu sukhumesu tintiṇikādipaṇṇesu paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Taṃ tintiṇikādipaṇṇānaṃ sukhumattā tattha ṭhapitaāmisassa asaṇṭhahanato bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapitasadisattā ‘‘na ruhatī’’ti vuttaṃ, tintiṇikādisākhāsu ṭhapitepi evameva siyā, tasmā ‘‘sākhāsu paṭiggahaṇaṃ ruhatī’’ti vacanaṃ ayuttaṃ viya dissati. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘na ruhatī’’ti kiriyāpadassa ‘‘kasmā’’ti hetupariyesane sati na aññaṃ pariyesitabbaṃ, ‘‘sukhumesū’’ti vuttaṃ visesanapadaṃyeva hetumantavisesanaṃ bhavati, tasmā tintiṇikapaṇṇādīsu paṭiggahaṇaṃ na ruhati, kasmā? Tesaṃ sukhumattā. Aññesu pana paduminīpaṇṇādīsu ruhati, kasmā? Tesaṃ oḷārikattāti hetuphalasambandho icchitabboti dissati, tasmā ‘‘tadetaṃ vicāretabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘na hi tāni sandhāretuṃ samatthānīti mahantesu pana paduminīpaṇṇādīsu ruhatī’’ti.

Wherever in the commentaries or in certain regions, 'on an immovable plank' means on that which is unmovable by a person of moderate strength. Because of the statement 'on tintiṇikā leaves, etc.', it should be understood that acceptance is allowable on branches, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.265). The ancient commentary also states the same, and this should be examined. For the commentary says, 'Acceptance is not allowable on fine tintiṇikā leaves, etc., spread on the ground.' This is said because, due to the fineness of tintiṇikā leaves, the food placed there is not stable, being similar to placing it on the ground—hence, it is said, 'it is not allowable.' Even if placed on the branches of tintiṇikā trees, etc., the same would apply. Therefore, the statement 'acceptance is allowable on branches' seems inappropriate. In the commentary, when investigating the reason for the verb 'is not allowable,' no other reason should be sought; the qualifying phrase 'on fine' itself serves as an adjective indicating the reason. Thus, acceptance is not allowable on tintiṇikā leaves, etc. Why? Because of their fineness. But on others, like lotus leaves, it is allowable. Why? Because of their coarseness. It appears that the cause-and-effect relationship should be understood in this way. Therefore, it is said, 'this should be examined.' Thus, the commentary states: 'Indeed, they are incapable of supporting it, but on larger ones like lotus leaves, it is allowable.'

106. Puñchitvā paṭiggahetvāti puñchitepi rajanacuṇṇāsaṅkāya sati paṭiggahaṇatthāya vuttaṃ, nāsati. Taṃ panāti patitarajaṃ appaṭiggahetvā upari gahitapiṇḍapātaṃ. Anāpattīti durūpaciṇṇādidoso natthi. Pubbābhogassa anurūpavasena ‘‘anupasampannassa datvā…pe… vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Yasmā pana taṃ ‘‘aññassa dassāmī’’ti cittuppādamattena parasantakaṃ na hoti, tasmā tassa adatvāpi paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati. ‘‘Anupasampannassa dassāmī’’tiādipi vinayadukkaṭassa parihārāya [Pg.214] vuttaṃ, tathā akatvā gahitepi paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjato anāpattiyeva. Bhikkhussa detīti aññassa bhikkhussa deti. Kañjikanti khīrarasādiṃ yaṃ kiñci dravaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Hatthato mocetvā puna gaṇhāti, uggahitakaṃ hotīti āha ‘‘hatthato amocentenevā’’ti. Āluḷentānanti āloḷentānaṃ, ayameva vā pāṭho. Āharitvā bhūmiyaṃ ṭhapitattā abhihāro natthīti āha ‘‘patto paṭiggahetabbo’’ti.

106. 'Having wiped and received' means that even when wiping, if there is a suspicion of dye powder, this is said for the purpose of receiving, but not if there is none. 'That indeed' refers to the almsfood taken from above, without receiving the dust that has fallen. 'There is no offense' means there is no fault such as misconduct. In accordance with the previous intention, it is said, 'Having given to one who is not fully ordained... it is allowable.' However, because it does not become the property of another merely by the arising of the thought, 'I will give it to another,' it is therefore allowable to receive and consume it even without giving it to him. The phrase 'I will give it to one who is not fully ordained,' etc., is stated to avoid a Vinaya offense of wrong-doing. Even if one takes it without doing so, for one who receives and consumes it, there is still no offense. 'Gives to a monk' means he gives to another monk. 'Gruel' is said with reference to any liquid, such as milk-whey or the like. If one releases it from the hand and takes it again, it becomes 'taken up.' Therefore, he said, 'without releasing it from the hand.' 'Of those stirring' means of those who are stirring; or this itself is the reading. Because it has been brought and placed on the ground, there is no formal presentation; thus he said, 'the bowl should be received.'

107. Paṭhamataraṃ uḷuṅkato thevā patte patantīti ettha ‘‘yathā paṭhamataraṃ patitatheve doso natthi, tathā ākiritvā apanentānaṃ pacchā patitathevepi abhihaṭattā nevatthi doso’’ti vadanti. Carukenāti khuddakabhājanena. ‘‘Abhihaṭattāti dīyamānakkhaṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Datvā apanayanakāle pana chārikā vā bindūni vā patanti, puna paṭiggahetabbaṃ abhihārassa vigatattā’’ti vadanti, taṃ yathā na patati, tathā apanessāmīti paṭiharante yujjati, pakatisaññāya apanente abhihāro na chijjati, supatitaṃ. Paṭiggahitameva hi taṃ hoti. Mukhavaṭṭiyāpi gahetuṃ vaṭṭatīti abhihariyamānassa pattassa mukhavaṭṭiyā uparibhāge hatthaṃ pasāretvā phusituṃ vaṭṭati. Pādena pelletvāti pādena ‘‘paṭiggahessāmī’’ti saññāya akkamitvā. Kecīti abhayagirivāsino. Vacanamattamevāti paṭibaddhaṃ paṭibaddhapaṭibaddhanti saddamattameva nānaṃ, kāyapaṭibaddhameva hoti, tasmā tesaṃ vacanaṃ na gahetabbanti adhippāyo. Esa nayoti ‘‘paṭibaddhapaṭibaddhampi kāyapaṭibaddhamevā’’ti ayaṃ nayo. Tathā ca tattha kāyapaṭibaddhe tappaṭibaddhe ca thullaccayameva vuttaṃ.

107. Where it is said that drops fall into the bowl from the ladle first, they say: 'Just as there is no fault in the drops that fall first, so too for those who are taking it away after pouring, even if drops fall afterwards, there is no fault because it has been formally presented.' 'With a caruka' means with a small vessel. 'Because it has been formally presented' is said with reference to the moment of giving. But they say that when taking it away after giving, if ashes or drops fall, it should be received again because the formal presentation has ceased. This is proper for one who removes it thinking, 'I will remove it so that it does not fall.' If one removes it with ordinary perception, the formal presentation is not broken; it is well-fallen. Indeed, it is considered as received. 'It is also permissible to take it by the rim of the bowl' means that while the bowl is being formally presented, it is permissible to extend a hand and touch the upper part of its rim. 'Having pressed with the foot' means having stepped on it with the foot with the perception, 'I will receive it.' 'Some' means the residents of the Abhayagiri monastery. 'It is merely a word' means that 'connected' and 'connected to the connected' are merely sounds and nothing else; it is only that which is connected to the body. Therefore, the meaning is that their statement should not be accepted. 'This is the principle' means this is the principle that 'even that which is connected to the connected is only that which is connected to the body.' And so, in that case, for that which is connected to the body and that which is connected to it, only a grave offense is stated.

Tena āharāpetunti yassa bhikkhuno santikaṃ gataṃ, taṃ ‘‘idha naṃ ānehī’’ti āṇāpetvā tena āharāpetuṃ itarassa vaṭṭatīti attho. Tasmāti yasmā mūlaṭṭhasseva [Pg.215] paribhogo anuññāto, tasmā. Taṃ divasaṃ hatthena gahetvā dutiyadivase paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa uggahitakapaṭiggahitaṃ hotīti āha ‘‘anāmasitvā’’ti. Appaṭiggahitattā ‘‘sannidhipaccayā anāpattī’’ti vuttaṃ. Appaṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa adinnamukhadvārāpatti hotīti āha ‘‘paṭiggahetvā pana paribhuñjitabba’’nti. ‘‘Na tato paranti tadaheva sāmaṃ appaṭiggahitaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, tadaheva paṭiggahitaṃ pana punadivasādīsu appaṭiggahetvāpi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti.

'To have it brought by him' means it is permissible for the other monk to have it brought by the monk to whom it was sent, by ordering him, 'Bring it here.' 'Therefore' means: since use is permitted only for the original recipient, therefore... For one who takes it by hand on that day and consumes it after receiving it on the second day, it becomes a case of receiving what has been taken up; therefore, he said, 'without touching.' Because it has not been received, it is stated, 'There is no offense on account of storing.' For one who consumes it without receiving it, there is an offense of taking what is not given through the mouth-door; therefore, he said, 'But it should be consumed after receiving.' They say: '“Not beyond that” is said with reference to something not received by oneself on that very day. However, what is received on that very day is permissible to consume on subsequent days even without receiving it again.'

108. Khīyantīti khayaṃ gacchanti, tesaṃ cuṇṇehi thullaccayaappaṭiggahaṇāpattiyo na hontīti adhippāyo. Satthakenāti paṭiggahitasatthakena. Navasamuṭṭhitanti eteneva ucchuādīsu abhinavalaggattā abbohārikaṃ na hotīti dasseti. Eseva nayoti sannidhidosādiṃ sandhāya vadati. Tenāha ‘‘na hī’’tiādi. Kasmā panettha uggahitapaccayā, sannidhipaccayā vā doso na siyāti āha ‘‘na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī’’ti. Iminā ca bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ sāmaṃ gahetvā vā anupasampannena dinnaṃ vā pariharituṃ vaṭṭatīti dīpeti, tasmā pattasammakkhanādiatthaṃ sāmaṃ gahetvā pariharitatelādiṃ sace paribhuñjitukāmo hoti, paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa anāpatti. Abbhantaraparibhogatthaṃ pana sāmaṃ gahitaṃ paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa uggahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ hoti, appaṭiggahetvā paribhuñjantassa adinnamukhadvārāpatti hoti. Abbhantaraparibhogatthameva anupasampannena dinnaṃ gahetvā pariharantassa siṅgīloṇakappo viya sannidhipaccayā āpatti hoti. Keci pana ‘‘thāmamajjhimassa purisassa uccāraṇamattaṃ hotītiādinā vuttapañcaṅgasampattiyā paṭiggahaṇassa ruhaṇato bāhiraparibhogatthampi sace anupasampannehi dinnaṃ gaṇhāti, paṭiggahitamevā’’ti [Pg.216] vadanti. Evaṃ sati idha bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ anupasampannena dinnaṃ gahetvā pariharantassa sannidhipaccayā āpatti vattabbā siyā. ‘‘Na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī’’ti ca na vattabbaṃ, tasmā bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ gahitaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ nāma na hotīti veditabbaṃ.

108. 'They are depleted' means they go to destruction. The meaning is that from their powders, offenses of grave offense and of non-receiving do not arise. 'With a knife' means with a formally received knife. 'Newly arisen': by this he shows that because of the fresh stickiness in sugarcane, etc., it is not considered unusable. 'This is the same principle': he says this with reference to the fault of storing, etc. Hence, he says, 'For it is not...,' etc. Why would there be no fault here on account of being taken up or on account of storing? He says: 'For they do not carry it around for the purpose of consumption.' By this, he clarifies that it is permissible to carry around for external use what one has taken oneself or what has been given by one who is not fully ordained. Therefore, if one wishes to consume oil, etc., that has been taken by oneself for the purpose of smearing a bowl, there is no offense for one who receives it and consumes it. However, for one who takes something by oneself for internal consumption and consumes it after receiving it, it is a case of receiving what has been taken up. For one who consumes it without receiving it, there is an offense of taking what is not given through the mouth-door. For one who carries around for internal consumption what has been given by one who is not fully ordained, there is an offense on account of storing, like the allowance for salt in a horn. Some, however, say: 'Because receiving is established by the fivefold completeness stated in the passage beginning, “It is the amount a man of medium strength can lift,” even if one takes for external use what has been given by those not fully ordained, it is considered received.' If this were so, then in this case, an offense on account of storing would have to be stated for one who carries around for external use what has been given by one who is not fully ordained. And the statement, 'For they do not carry it around for the purpose of consumption,' should not be said. Therefore, it should be understood that what is taken for external use is not considered as received.

Yadi evaṃ pañcasu paṭiggahaṇaṅgesu ‘‘paribhogatthāyā’’ti visesanaṃ vattabbanti? Na vattabbaṃ. Paṭiggahaṇañhi paribhogatthameva hotīti ‘‘paribhogatthāyā’’ti visuṃ avatvā ‘‘tañce bhikkhu kāyena vā kāyapaṭibaddhena vā paṭiggaṇhātī’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Apare pana ‘‘satipi paṭiggahaṇe ‘na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī’ti idha aparibhogatthāya pariharaṇe anāpatti vuttā’’ti vadanti. Tena ca paṭiggahaṇaṅgesu pañcasu samiddhesu ajjhoharitukāmatāya gahitameva paṭiggahitaṃ nāma hoti ajjhoharitabbesuyeva paṭiggahaṇassa anuññātattāti dasseti. Tathā bāhiraparibhogatthāya gahetvā ṭhapitatelādiṃ ajjhoharitukāmatāya sati paṭiggahetvā paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Udukkhalamusalādīni khīyantīti ettha udukkhalamusalānaṃ khayena pisitakoṭṭitabhesajjesu sace āgantukavaṇṇo paññāyati, na vaṭṭati. Suddhaṃ udakaṃ hotīti rukkhasākhādīhi gaḷitvā patanaudakaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

If so, should the qualification 'for the purpose of use' be stated in the five factors of receiving? It should not be stated. For receiving is solely for the purpose of use. Therefore, without separately stating 'for the purpose of use,' only this much is said: 'If a monk receives it with the body or with what is connected to the body.' Others, however, say, 'Even though there is receiving, here it is stated that there is no offense when carrying it around not for the purpose of use, as in 'For they do not carry it around for the purpose of use'.' Thus, when all five factors of receiving are complete, it shows that only what is taken with the intention to consume is called 'received,' because receiving is permitted only for what is to be consumed. Similarly, it is shown that if oil, etc., taken for external use is set aside, and later one has the intention to consume it, it is permissible to receive it and consume it. Regarding the mortar and pestle wearing out—here, if an adventitious color appears in ground or pounded medicines due to the wear of the mortar and pestle, it is not permissible. 'Pure water' refers to water that has fallen by dripping from tree branches, etc., and is said with reference to it.

109. Patto vāssa paṭiggahetabboti etthāpi pattagataṃ chupitvā dentassa hatthe laggena āmisena dosābhāvatthaṃ pattapaṭiggahaṇanti abbhantaraparibhogatthameva pattapaṭiggahaṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Yaṃ sāmaṇerassa patte patati…pe… paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahatīti ettha punappunaṃ gaṇhantassa attano patte pakkhittameva attano santakanti sanniṭṭhānakaraṇato hatthagataṃ paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahati. Paricchinditvā dinnaṃ pana gaṇhantassa gahaṇasamayeyeva attano santakanti sanniṭṭhānassa katattā [Pg.217] hatthagataṃ paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati. Kesañci atthāya bhattaṃ pakkhipatīti ettha anupasampannassa atthāya pakkhipantepi āgantvā gaṇhissatīti sayameva pakkhipitvā ṭhapanato paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahati. Anupasampannassa hatthe pakkhittaṃ pana anupasampanneneva ṭhapitaṃ nāma hotīti paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati pariccattabhāvato. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘sāmaṇera…pe… pariccattattā’’ti. Kesañcītiādīsu anupasampannānaṃ atthāya katthaci ṭhapiyamānampi hatthato muttamatte eva paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahati, atha kho bhājane patitameva paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahati. Bhājanañca bhikkhunā punadivasatthāya apekkhitamevāti taggatampi āmisaṃ duddhotapattagataṃ viya paṭiggahaṇaṃ vijahatīti saṅkāya ‘‘sāmaṇerassa hatthe pakkhipitabba’’nti vuttanti veditabbaṃ. Īdisesu hi yutti na gavesitabbā, vuttanayeneva paṭipajjitabbaṃ.

109. 'Or it should be received by his bowl'—here too, the receiving by bowl is to be understood as being only for internal use, so that there is no fault on account of the food that adheres to the hand of the giver when he touches what is in the bowl. Where it is said, 'What falls into a novice's bowl... the act of receiving is not abandoned,' for one who takes repeatedly, the act of receiving by hand is not abandoned because what is placed in one's own bowl is determined to be one's own property. However, when something is given after being clearly designated, the act of receiving by hand is abandoned because the determination that it is one's own property is made at the moment of taking. Where it is said, 'Food is placed for the sake of certain others,' even if placed for the sake of an unordained person, the act of receiving is not abandoned because it is set aside by oneself with the intention that they will come and take it. But if placed in the hand of an unordained person, it is considered as having been placed by the unordained person; thus, the act of receiving is abandoned due to the state of relinquishment. Therefore, it is said, 'A novice... because it has been relinquished.' In cases like 'for certain others,' even if placed somewhere for the sake of unordained persons, the act of receiving is not abandoned merely by being released from the hand; however, if it falls into a vessel, the act of receiving is abandoned. And since a monk intends to use a vessel again the next day, it is to be understood that due to the doubt that the receiving of the food that has gone into it is abandoned, just as it is for that which has gone into an unwashed bowl, it is said, 'It should be placed in the novice's hand.' In such cases, one should not seek further reasoning but proceed according to the stated method.

110. Pattagatā yāgūti iminā pattamukhavaṭṭiyā phuṭṭhepi kuṭe yāgu paṭiggahitā, uggahitā vā na hoti bhikkhuno anicchāya phuṭṭhattāti dasseti. Āropetīti hatthaṃ phusāpeti. Paṭiggahaṇūpagaṃ bhāraṃ nāma thāmamajjhimassa purisassa ukkhepārahaṃ. Kiñcāpi avissajjetvāva aññena hatthena pidahantassa doso natthi, tathāpi na pidahitabbanti aṭṭhakathāpamāṇeneva gahetabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265) pana ‘‘na pidahitabbanti hatthato muttaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, hatthagataṃ pana itarena hatthena pidahato, hatthato muttampi vā aphusitvā upari pidhānaṃ pātentassa na doso’’ti vuttaṃ.

110. 'Gruel in a bowl'—by this, it shows that even if the pot is touched by the rim of the bowl, the gruel is not received or taken up, because it was touched without the monk's wish. 'Causes to lift' means causes the hand to touch. A load suitable for receiving is what a man of average strength can lift. Although there is no offense in covering it with the other hand without releasing it, still 'it should not be covered' is to be understood according to the authority of the commentary. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vin. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.265), it is said: ''It should not be covered'—this refers to something released from the hand. But if what is in the hand is covered by the other hand, or if a cover is dropped over what has been released from the hand without touching it, there is no offense.'

111. Paṭiggaṇhātīti chāyatthāya upari dhāriyamānā mahāsākhā yena kenaci chijjeyya, tattha laggarajaṃ mukhe pāteyya vāti kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggaṇhāti.

111. 'Receives' means: a large branch being held above for shade might be broken by some means, and dust adhering to it might fall into the mouth; therefore, having had it made allowable, one receives it.

Macchikavāraṇatthanti [Pg.218] ettha ‘‘sacepi sākhāya laggarajaṃ patte patati, sukhena paribhuñjituṃ sakkāti sākhāya paṭiggahitattā abbhantaraparibhogatthamevidha paṭiggahaṇanti mūlapaṭiggahaṇameva vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Apare pana ‘‘macchikavāraṇatthanti vacanamattaṃ gahetvā bāhiraparibhogatthaṃ gahita’’nti vadanti. Kuṇḍaketi mahāghaṭe. Tasmimpīti cāṭighaṭepi. Anupasampannaṃ gāhāpetvāti tameva ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ anupasampannena gāhāpetvā.

“To prevent flies”—here, it is stated: “Even if dust clinging to a branch falls into the bowl, it can still be comfortably consumed because the branch was received; this receiving here is for internal use, therefore only the root receiving is valid.” But others say, “Taking only the words ‘to prevent flies,’ it is received for external use.” “Kuṇḍaka” means a large pot. “Tasmimpi” means even in that small pot or jar. “Having an unordained person take it” means having that very consumable item taken by an unordained person.

Therassa pattaṃ dutiyattherassāti ‘‘therassa pattaṃ mayhaṃ dethā’’ti tena attano pariccajāpetvā dutiyattherassa deti. Tuyhaṃ yāguṃ mayhaṃ dehīti ettha evaṃ vatvā sāmaṇerassa pattaṃ gahetvā attanopi pattaṃ tassa deti. Ettha panāti ‘‘paṇḍito sāmaṇero’’tiādipattaparivattanakathāyaṃ. Kāraṇaṃ upaparikkhitabbanti yathā mātuādīnaṃ telādīni haranto tathārūpe kicce anupasampannena aparivattetvāva paribhuñjituṃ labhati, evamidha pattaparivattanaṃ akatvā paribhuñjituṃ kasmā na labhatīti kāraṇaṃ vīmaṃsitabbanti attho. Ettha pana ‘‘sāmaṇerehi gahitataṇḍulesu parikkhīṇesu avassaṃ amhākaṃ sāmaṇerā saṅgahaṃ karontīti cittuppatti sambhavati, tasmā taṃ parivattetvāva paribhuñjitabbaṃ. Mātāpitūnaṃ atthāya pana chāyatthāya vā gahaṇe paribhogāsā natthi, tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti kāraṇaṃ vadanti. Teneva ācariyabuddhadattattherenapi vuttaṃ –

'The bowl of the elder to the second elder' means, saying, 'Give the elder’s bowl to me,' he has it relinquished by him and then gives it to the second elder. 'Give your gruel to me'—here, having said so, he takes the novice’s bowl and also gives his own bowl to him. 'Here, however' refers to the discussion on exchanging bowls, such as 'the wise novice,' etc. 'The reason should be investigated' means: the reason should be examined as to why, just as when one brings oil, etc., for one’s mother or others, in such a task one is permitted to consume it without exchanging with an unordained person, so here it is not permissible to consume without exchanging bowls. Here, however, they say the reason is: 'When the rice taken by novices runs out, the thought may arise, ‘Surely our novices are helping us.’ Therefore, it should be consumed only after exchanging. But when taking for the sake of one’s parents or for shade, there is no expectation of personal use, so that is permissible.' For this very reason, the Elder Ācariya Buddhādatta also said—

‘‘Mātāpitūnamatthāya, telādiṃ haratopi ca;

Sākhaṃ chāyādiatthāya, imassa na visesatā.

“For one who brings oil and the like for the sake of his parents, or a branch for the sake of shade and so on, for this one there is no distinction.

‘‘Tasmā hissa visesassa, cintetabbaṃ tu kāraṇaṃ;

Tassa sālayabhāvaṃ tu, visesaṃ takkayāmaha’’nti.

“Therefore, the reason for his distinction should be considered; we conjecture that the distinction is his state of being attached.”

Idamevettha [Pg.219] yuttataraṃ avassaṃ tathāvidhavitakkuppattiyā sambhavato. Na hi sakkā ettha vitakkaṃ sodhetunti. Mātādīnaṃ atthāya haraṇe pana nāvassaṃ tathāvidhavitakkuppattīti sakkā vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ. Yattha hi vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ sakkā, tattha nevatthi doso. Teneva vakkhati ‘‘sace pana sakkoti vitakkaṃ sodhetuṃ, tato laddhaṃ khāditumpi vaṭṭatī’’ti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265) pana ‘‘ettha panāti pattaparivattane. Kāraṇanti ettha yathā sāmaṇerā ito amhākampi dentīti vitakko uppajjati, na tathā aññatthāti kāraṇaṃ vadanti, tañca yuttaṃ. Yassa pana tādiso vitakko natthi, tena aparivattetvāpi bhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

This is more fitting here because the arising of such a thought is certainly possible. Indeed, it is not possible to purify the thought in this case. However, when bringing something for the sake of one’s mother and others, the arising of such a thought is not certain, so it is possible to purify the thought. Wherever it is possible to purify the thought, there is no fault. Therefore, it will be said: “But if one is able to purify the thought, then it is permissible to eat what is obtained.” In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.265), however, it is stated: “'Here, however' refers to the exchange of bowls. 'Reason'—here, the reason they give is that the thought arises, 'The novices give to us also from this,' which is not so elsewhere, and that is fitting. But for one for whom such a thought does not arise, it is permissible to eat without exchanging.”

112. Niccāletunti cāletvā pāsāṇasakkharādiapanayanaṃ kātuṃ. Uddhanaṃ āropetabbanti anaggikaṃ uddhanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Uddhane paccamānassa āluḷane upari apakkataṇḍulā heṭṭhā pavisitvā paccantīti āha ‘‘sāmaṃpākañceva hotī’’ti.

112. “Niccāletun”ti means to shake and remove stones, gravel, and so forth. “Uddhanaṃ āropetabban”ti is said with reference to a hearth without fire. When something is being cooked in the hearth, during the stirring, the uncooked rice grains on top enter below and get cooked—hence it is said, “And it cooks by itself.”

113. Ādhārake patto ṭhapitoti appaṭiggahitāmiso patto puna paṭiggahaṇatthāya ṭhapito. Cāletīti vinā kāraṇaṃ cāleti, satipi kāraṇe bhikkhūnaṃ paribhogārahaṃ cāletuṃ na vaṭṭati. Kiñcāpi ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, amanussikābādhe āmakamaṃsaṃ āmakalohita’’nti (mahāva. 264) tādise ābādhe attano atthāya āmakamaṃsapaṭiggahaṇaṃ anuññātaṃ, ‘‘āmakamaṃsapaṭiggahaṇā paṭivirato hotī’’ti (dī. ni. 1.10, 194) ca sāmaññato paṭikkhittaṃ, tathāpi attano, aññassa vā bhikkhuno atthāya aggahitattā ‘‘sīhavighāsādiṃ…pe… vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sakkoti vitakkaṃ sodhetunti ‘‘mayhampi detī’’ti vitakkassa anuppannabhāvaṃ sallakkhetuṃ sakkoti[Pg.220], ‘‘sāmaṇerassa dassāmī’’ti suddhacittena mayā gahitanti vā sallakkhetuṃ sakkoti. Sace pana mūlepi paṭiggahitaṃ hotīti ettha ‘‘gahetvā gate mayhampi dadeyyunti saññāya sace paṭiggahitaṃ hotī’’ti vadanti.

113. The bowl placed on a stand means the bowl with unaccepted food is placed for the purpose of being received again. To shake it means to shake it without reason; even with a reason, it is not permissible to shake what is fit for the monks’ use. Although it is permitted to receive raw meat and raw blood for one’s own benefit in cases of afflictions caused by non-humans, as stated in the Mahāvagga (264), and though receiving raw meat is generally prohibited, as in the Dīgha Nikāya (1.10, 194), here, since it is not taken for oneself or another monk’s benefit, it is said, “Lion’s leavings, etc., are permissible.” One can purify the thought means one can recognize the non-arisen state of the thought, “He will give to me too,” or one can discern with a pure mind, “I have taken it to give to the novice.” But if it was received even at the beginning, they say, “If it was received with the perception, ‘When he who has taken it has gone, he might give to me too.’”

114. Koṭṭhāse karotīti ‘‘bhikkhū sāmaṇerā ca attano attano abhirucitaṃ koṭṭhāsaṃ gaṇhantū’’ti sabbesaṃ samake koṭṭhāse karoti. Gahitāvasesanti sāmaṇerehi gahitakoṭṭhāsato avasesaṃ. Gaṇhitvāti ‘‘mayhaṃ idaṃ gaṇhissāmī’’ti gahetvā. Idha gahitāvasesaṃ nāma tena gaṇhitvā puna ṭhapitaṃ.

114. “Koṭṭhāse karotī”ti means making portions, that is, “Let the monks and novices each take their preferred portion,” thus making equal portions for all. “Gahitāvasesan”ti refers to what remains from the portions taken by the novices. “Gaṇhitvā”ti means having taken, thinking, “I will take this for myself.” Here, “gahitāvasesaṃ” means what was taken by him and then put back again.

Paṭiggahetvāti tadahu paṭiggahetvā. Teneva ‘‘yāvakālikena yāvajīvikasaṃsagge doso natthī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sace pana purimadivase paṭiggahetvā ṭhapitā hoti, sāmisena mukhena tassā vaṭṭiyā dhūmaṃ pivituṃ na vaṭṭati. Samuddodakenāti appaṭiggahitasamuddodakena.

Having received means having received it that day. Therefore, it is said, “There is no offense in mixing a short-term allowable with a life-long allowable.” But if it was received and set aside the previous day, it is not proper to drink the smoke from that wick with a mouth that has food. “With seawater” means with unreceived seawater.

Himakarakā nāma kadāci vassodakena saha patanakā pāsāṇalekhā viya ghanībhūtā udakavisesā, tesu paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ natthi. Tenāha ‘‘udakagatikā evā’’ti. Yasmā katakaṭṭhi udakaṃ pasādetvā visuṃ tiṭṭhati, tasmā ‘‘abbohārika’’nti vuttaṃ. Iminā appaṭiggahitāpattīhi abbohārikaṃ, vikālabhojanāpattīhipi abbohārikanti dasseti. Laggatīti sukkhe mukhe ca hatthe ca mattikāvaṇṇaṃ dassentaṃ laggati. Bahalanti hatthamukhesu alagganakampi paṭiggahetabbaṃ.

Hailstones, sometimes falling with rainwater, are a special kind of water, solidified like lines on a stone. There is no obligation to accept them. Therefore, it is said, “They are of the nature of water.” Because kataka powder, having clarified the water, remains separate, it is called “not a consumable item.” By this, he shows that it is not considered a consumable with regard to the offense of not receiving, nor with regard to the offense of eating at the wrong time. “Clings” means it clings, showing a clay color on a dry mouth or hand. “Thick” means even if it does not cling to the hands or mouth, it should be accepted.

Vāsamattanti reṇukhīrābhāvaṃ dasseti. Pānīyaṃ gahetvāti attanoyeva atthāya gahetvā. Sace pana pītāvasesakaṃ tattheva ākirissāmīti gaṇhāti, puna paṭiggahaṇakiccaṃ [Pg.221] natthi. Ākirati, paṭiggahetabbanti puppharasassa paññāyanato vuttaṃ. Vikkhambhetvāti viyūhitvā, apanetvāti attho.

“Just for scent” indicates the absence of pollen and milk-sap. “Having taken drinking water” means taking it for one’s own purpose. But if one takes it thinking, “I will scatter the leftover drink right there,” there is no need for a further act of receiving. “He scatters” and “it should be received” are said because flower juice is discernible. “Having dispersed” means having pushed away or removed—this is the meaning.

115. Mahābhūtesūti pāṇasarīrasannissitesu pathavīādimahābhūtesu. Sabbaṃ vaṭṭatīti attano paresañca sarīrasannissitaṃ sabbaṃ vaṭṭati, akappiyamaṃsānulomatāya thullaccayādiṃ na janetīti adhippāyo. Patatīti attano sarīrato chijjitvā patati. ‘‘Rukkhato chinditvā’’ti vuttattā mattikatthāya pathaviṃ khaṇituṃ, aññampi yaṃ kiñci mūlapaṇṇādivisabhesajjaṃ chinditvā chārikaṃ akatvāpi appaṭiggahitampi paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

115. “In the great elements” means in the great elements beginning with earth that are connected with the bodies of living beings. “All is allowable” means everything connected with one’s own body or the bodies of others is allowable; the intention is that it does not give rise to a grave offense and so on, by being similar to unallowable meat. “Falls” means it falls, having been severed from one’s own body. Because it is said, “Having cut from a tree,” it should be understood that it is allowable to dig earth for clay, and also to use any other root, leaf, or specific medicinal substance, having cut it, even if not made into ash and even if not received.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Paṭiggahaṇavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

Named ‘The Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Acceptance’

Vīsatimo paricchedo.

The Twentieth Chapter.

21. Pavāraṇāvinicchayakathā

21. The Discourse on the Determination of Pavāraṇā

116. Evaṃ paṭiggahaṇavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni pavāraṇāvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘paṭikkhepapavāraṇā’’tiādimāha. Tattha paṭikkhipanaṃ paṭikkhepo, asampaṭicchananti attho. Pavāriyate pavāraṇā, paṭisedhanantyattho. Paṭikkhepasaṅkhātā pavāraṇā paṭikkhepapavāraṇā. Atha vā paṭikkhepavasena pavāraṇā paṭikkhepapavāraṇā. Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataraṃ bhuñjantassa aññasmiṃ bhojane abhihaṭe paṭikkhepasaṅkhātā pavāraṇāti sambandho.

116. Having thus discussed the determination concerning acceptance, now, in order to discuss the determination concerning pavāraṇā, he begins with 'the refusal-pavāraṇā,' and so forth. Herein, 'paṭikkhepa' is the act of refusing, meaning non-acceptance. From 'pavāriyate' (one is invited) comes 'pavāraṇā'; the meaning is rejection. The pavāraṇā known as refusal is the refusal-pavāraṇā. Or alternatively, the pavāraṇā by way of refusal is the refusal-pavāraṇā. The connection is that for one eating any of the five kinds of food, if another food is brought, the pavāraṇā known as refusal applies.

117. Yaṃ asnātīti yaṃ bhuñjati. Ambilapāyāsādīsūti ādi-saddena khīrapāyāsādiṃ saṅgaṇhāti. Tattha ambilapāyāsaggahaṇena [Pg.222] takkādiambilasaṃyuttā ghanayāgu vuttā. Khīrapāyāsaggahaṇena khīrasaṃyuttā yāgu saṅgayhati. Pavāraṇaṃ janetīti anatirittabhojanāpattinibandhanaṃ paṭikkhepaṃ sādheti. Katopi paṭikkhepo anatirittabhojanāpattinibandhano na hoti, akataṭṭhāneyeva tiṭṭhatīti āha ‘‘pavāraṇaṃ na janetī’’ti.

117. “What one eats” means what one consumes. “In sour rice-porridge, etc.”—by the word 'etc.,' milk rice-porridge and the like are included. There, by the mention of sour rice-porridge, thick gruel mixed with buttermilk and the like is meant. By the mention of milk rice-porridge, gruel mixed with milk is included. “It produces pavāraṇā” means it accomplishes the refusal that is the cause for the offense of eating what is not a leftover. Even when a refusal is made, it is not the cause for the offense of eating what is not a leftover; it remains as if not done. Hence, it is said, “it does not produce pavāraṇā.”

‘‘Yāgu-saddassa pavāraṇajanakayāguyāpi sādhāraṇattā ‘yāguṃ gaṇhathā’ti vuttepi pavāraṇā hotīti pavāraṇaṃ janetiyevāti vutta’’nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Taṃ parato tattheva ‘‘bhattamissakaṃ yāguṃ āharitvā’’ti ettha vuttakāraṇena na sameti. Vuttañhi tattha – heṭṭhā ayāguke nimantane udakakañjikakhīrādīhi saddhiṃ madditaṃ bhattameva sandhāya ‘‘yāguṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vuttattā pavāraṇā hoti. ‘‘Bhattamissakaṃ yāguṃ āharitvā’’ti ettha pana visuṃ yāguyā vijjamānattā pavāraṇā na hotīti. Tasmā tattha vuttanayeneva khīrādīhi saddhiṃ madditaṃ bhattameva sandhāya ‘‘yāguṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vuttattā yāguyāva tattha abhāvato pavāraṇā hotīti evamettha kāraṇaṃ vattabbaṃ. Evañhi sati parato ‘‘yenāpucchito, tassa atthitāyā’’ti aṭṭhakathāya vuttakāraṇenapi saṃsandati, aññathā gaṇṭhipadesuyeva pubbāparavirodho āpajjati, aṭṭhakathāya ca na sametīti. Sace…pe… paññāyatīti iminā vuttappamāṇassa macchamaṃsakhaṇḍassa nahāruno vā sabbhāvamattaṃ dasseti. Tāhīti puthukāhi.

“Since the term 'yāgu' is also common to the congee that generates pavāraṇā, even when it is said 'take the congee', pavāraṇā occurs, thus it is said 'it certainly generates pavāraṇā'—this is what is stated in all three subcommentaries.” This does not agree with the reason stated later in the same text, in the phrase “having brought congee mixed with rice.” For it is explained there that in a previous invitation without congee, because “take the congee” is said with reference to rice itself mixed with water, rice-water, milk, etc., a pavāraṇā occurs. But in the phrase “having brought congee mixed with rice,” since the congee exists separately here, a pavāraṇā does not arise. Therefore, the reason should be stated here thus: in that case, by the same method, because “take the congee” is said with reference to rice itself mixed with milk, etc., and because congee itself is absent there, a pavāraṇā occurs. If this is so, it also agrees with the reason stated later in the commentary: “by whom it was asked, because of its existence.” Otherwise, a contradiction between earlier and later statements arises in the subcommentaries themselves, and it does not agree with the commentary. If... as is evident... by this, he indicates the mere presence of the stated amount of a piece of fish or meat, or of a tendon. “Tāhī”ti means by flattened rice.

Sālivīhiyavehi katasattūti yebhuyyanayena vuttaṃ, satta dhaññāni pana bhajjitvā katopi sattuyeva. Tenevāha ‘‘kaṅguvaraka…pe… sattusaṅgahameva gacchatī’’ti. Sattumodakoti sattuyo piṇḍetvā kato apakko sattuguḷo[Pg.223]. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239) pana ‘‘sattumodakoti sattuṃ temetvā kato apakko, sattuṃ pana pisitvā piṭṭhaṃ katvā temetvā pūvaṃ katvā pacanti, taṃ na pavāretī’’ti vuttaṃ.

“Sattu made from rice and barley” is said as a general rule, but even when made by roasting seven kinds of grain, it is still sattu. Hence it is said, “millet, panic seeds... it is included in the category of sattu.” “Sattumodaka” refers to an uncooked ball of sattu made by kneading sattu together. However, the Vimativinodanī (Vmv. 2.238-239) states, “Sattumodaka is sattu moistened and made uncooked. But if sattu is ground, made into flour, moistened, made into a cake, and cooked, that does not cause pavāraṇā.”

Pañcannaṃ bhojanānaṃ aññataravasena vippakatabhojanabhāvassa upacchinnattā ‘‘mukhe sāsapamattampi…pe… na pavāretī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Akappiyamaṃsaṃ paṭikkhipati, na pavāretī’’ti vacanato sace saṅghikaṃ lābhaṃ attano apāpuṇantaṃ jānitvā vā ajānitvā vā paṭikkhipati, na pavāreti paṭikkhipitabbasseva paṭikkhittattā, alajjisantakaṃ paṭikkhipantopi na pavāreti. Avatthutāyāti anatirittāpattisādhikāya pavāraṇāya avatthubhāvato. Etena paṭikkhipitabbasseva paṭikkhittabhāvaṃ dīpeti. Yañhi paṭikkhipitabbaṃ hoti, tassa paṭikkhepo āpattiyā aṅgaṃ na hotīti taṃ pavāraṇāya avatthūti vuccati.

Because the state of the food being considered 'improperly handled' is precluded by means of any one of the five kinds of food, it is said, 'even a mustard seed's worth in the mouth... does not constitute a refusal.' From the statement, 'He refuses meat that is unlawful; this does not constitute a refusal,' it follows that if one refuses a gain belonging to the Sangha that has not reached oneself, whether knowingly or unknowingly, it does not constitute a refusal, because what ought to be refused has been refused. One who refuses what belongs to a shameless person also does not make a valid refusal. 'Because of being without basis' means because of being without a basis for a refusal that would establish an offense concerning food that is not a leftover. By this, he shows that what ought to be refused has been refused. For that which ought to be refused, its refusal is not a factor in an offense; thus, it is said to be without basis for a refusal.

118. Āsannataraṃ aṅganti hatthapāsato bahi ṭhatvā onamitvā dentassa sīsaṃ āsannataraṃ hoti, tassa orimantena paricchinditabbaṃ.

118. `The nearer part` means that when one stands outside arm's reach and bends down to give something, the head becomes nearer; the boundary should be determined by its nearer side.

Upanāmetīti iminā kāyābhihāraṃ dasseti. Apanāmetvāti abhimukhaṃ haritvā. Idaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhāti vadatīti kiñci apanāmetvā vadati. Kevalaṃ vācābhihārassa anadhippetattā gaṇhathāti gahetuṃ āraddhaṃ. Hatthapāsato bahi ṭhitassa satipi dātukāmatābhihāre paṭikkhipantassa dūrabhāveneva pavāraṇāya abhāvato therassapi dūrabhāvamattaṃ gahetvā pavāraṇāya abhāvaṃ dassento ‘‘therassa dūrabhāvato’’tiādimāha, na pana therassa abhihārasambhavato. Sacepi gahetvā gato hatthapāse ṭhito [Pg.224] hoti, kiñci pana avatvā ādhāraṭṭhāne ṭhitattā abhihāro nāma na hotīti ‘‘dūtassa ca anabhiharaṇato’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Gahetvā āgatena ‘bhattaṃ gaṇhathā’ti vutte abhihāro nāma hotīti ‘sace pana gahetvā āgato bhikkhu…pe… pavāraṇā hotī’ti vutta’’nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘pattaṃ kiñcipi upanāmetvā ‘imaṃ bhattaṃ gaṇhathā’ti vuttanti gahetabba’’nti vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ viya dissati vācābhihārassa idha anadhippetattā.

`Upanāmeti` indicates a physical presentation. `Apanāmetvā` means having brought it forward. Saying, 'Take this food,' means one says it after having brought something forward. Because a merely verbal presentation is not intended, 'take' means it has begun to be taken. For one standing outside arm's reach, even if there is an intention to give and a presentation, when one refuses, there is no valid refusal due to the distance. To show the absence of a valid refusal by considering merely the elder's distance, he says, 'due to the elder's distance,' and so forth, and not because a presentation to the elder is possible. Even if, having taken it, one comes and stands within arm's reach, if one stands silently in the serving place without saying anything, it is not considered a presentation; hence, it is said, 'and due to the messenger not presenting it.' 'When one who has taken it and come says, "Take this food," it is a presentation; thus it is said, "if, however, a monk who has taken it and come... a valid refusal occurs"'—this is stated in all three glosses. Some, however, say, 'It should be understood as said after having presented the bowl even slightly, "Take this food."' This seems reasonable, as a merely verbal presentation is not intended here.

Parivesanāyāti bhattagge. Abhihaṭāva hotīti parivesakeneva abhihaṭā hoti. Tato dātukāmatāya gaṇhantaṃ paṭikkhipantassa pavāraṇā hotīti ettha aggaṇhantampi paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hotiyeva. Kasmā? Dātukāmatāya abhihaṭattā, ‘‘tasmā sā abhihaṭāva hotī’’ti hi vuttaṃ. Teneva tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu ‘‘dātukāmābhihāre sati kevalaṃ ‘dassāmī’ti gahaṇameva abhihāro na hoti, ‘dassāmī’ti gaṇhantepi agaṇhantepi dātukāmatābhihārova abhihāro hoti, tasmā gahaṇasamaye vā aggahaṇasamaye vā taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Idāni tassa asati dātukāmatābhihāre gahaṇasamayepi paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā na hotīti dassetuṃ ‘‘sace panā’’tiādi vuttaṃ. Kaṭacchunā anukkhittampi pubbe eva abhihaṭattā pavāraṇā hotīti ‘‘abhihaṭāva hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Uddhaṭamatteti bhājanato viyojitamatte. Dvinnaṃ samabhārepīti parivesakassa ca aññassa ca bhattapacchibhāraggahaṇe sambhūtepīti attho.

`For serving` means in the dining hall. `It is already presented` means it has already been presented by the server. Therefore, for one who refuses something being taken with the intention to give, a valid refusal occurs. Here, even for one who refuses without taking, a valid refusal certainly occurs. Why? Because it has been presented with the intention to give; for it is said, 'Therefore, it is already presented.' For this reason, in all three glosses, it is said: 'When there is a presentation with the intention to give, the mere act of taking, thinking "I will give," is not the presentation. Whether one takes it thinking "I will give" or does not take it, the presentation with the intention to give is itself the presentation. Therefore, refusing it, whether at the time of taking or at the time of not taking, constitutes a valid refusal.' Now, to show that if there is no presentation with the intention to give, refusing it even at the time of taking does not constitute a valid refusal, 'But if...' and so forth is said. Even if it has not been taken out with a ladle, because it was already presented beforehand, a valid refusal occurs; hence, it is said, 'It is already presented.' `Just lifted` means merely separated from the container. `Even when the shares are equal` means when the taking hold of the load of the remaining rice container occurs for both the server and another person equally.

119. Rasaṃ gaṇhathāti ettha kevalaṃ maṃsarasassa apavāraṇājanakassa nāmena vuttattā paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā na [Pg.225] hoti. Maccharasantiādīsu maccho ca rasañcāti atthasambhavato, vatthunopi tādisattā pavāraṇā hoti. ‘‘Idaṃ gaṇhathā’’tipi avatvā tuṇhībhūtena abhihaṭaṃ paṭikkhipatopi hoti eva.

119. Regarding 'Take some broth,' since this is said using merely the name for meat broth, which does not occasion a valid refusal, for one who refuses, a valid refusal does not occur. In cases such as 'fish broth,' because the meaning 'fish and broth' is possible, and because the substance is also of that nature, a valid refusal occurs. Even for one who refuses what is presented by a person who is silent, without saying 'Take this,' a valid refusal still occurs.

Karambakoti missakādhivacanametaṃ. Yañhi bahūhi missetvā karonti, so ‘‘karambako’’ti vuccati, so sacepi maṃsena missetvā kato hoti, ‘‘karambakaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti apavāraṇārahassa nāmena vuttattā paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā na hoti. ‘‘Maṃsakarambakaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vutte pana ‘‘maṃsamissakaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vuttaṃ hoti, tasmā pavāraṇāva hoti.

`Karambaka` is a term for a mixture. Whatever is made by mixing many things is called a `karambaka`. Even if it is made mixed with meat, when it is said, 'Take the karambaka,' since it is spoken of by a name for something not subject to a valid refusal, for one who refuses, a valid refusal does not occur. But when it is said, 'Take the meat-karambaka,' it is as if 'Take the meat-mixture' has been said; therefore, a valid refusal does occur.

120. ‘‘Uddissakata’’nti maññamānoti ettha ‘‘vatthuno kappiyattā akappiyasaññāya paṭikkhepatopi acittakattā imassa sikkhāpadassa pavāraṇā hotī’’ti vadanti. ‘‘Heṭṭhā ayāguke nimantane udakakañjikakhīrādīhi saddhiṃ madditaṃ bhattameva sandhāya ‘yāguṃ gaṇhathā’ti vuttattā pavāraṇā hoti, ‘bhattamissakaṃ yāguṃ āharitvā’ti ettha pana visuṃ yāguyā vijjamānattā pavāraṇā na hotī’’ti vadanti. Ayamettha adhippāyoti ‘‘yenāpucchito’’tiādinā vuttamevatthaṃ sandhāya vadati. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasanti ettha eke tāva vadanti ‘‘yasmā yāgumissakaṃ nāma bhattameva na hoti, khīrādikampi hotiyeva, tasmā karambake viya pavāraṇāya na bhavitabbaṃ, evañca sati ‘yāgu bahutarā vā hoti samasamā vā, na pavāreti, yāgu mandā, bhattaṃ bahutaraṃ, pavāretī’ti ettha kāraṇaṃ duddasa’’nti. Keci pana vadanti ‘‘yāgumissakaṃ nāma bhattaṃ, tasmā taṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇāya eva bhavitabbaṃ, evañca sati ‘idha pavāraṇā hoti, na hotī’ti ettha kāraṇaṃ duddasa’’nti.

120. Here, regarding 'perceiving it as specifically intended,' they say: 'Because the object is allowable, even when one refuses it with the perception that it is unallowable, since this is unintentional, a valid refusal occurs under this training rule.' They say: 'In the case of an invitation that is not for gruel, when it is said, "Take the gruel," referring to rice itself mashed with water, rice-scum, milk, and so on, a valid refusal occurs. But in the case of "having brought gruel mixed with rice," since the gruel exists separately, a valid refusal does not occur.' This is the intended meaning here; he speaks referring to the meaning stated in 'by whom he was asked,' and so on. The reason here is difficult to discern. On this, some say: 'Because what is called "gruel-mixed" is not just rice, but can also be milk and so on, therefore, as in the case of a `karambaka`, there should not be a valid refusal. This being so, in the case of "if the gruel is more abundant or equal, one does not make a valid refusal; if the gruel is less and the rice is more abundant, one makes a valid refusal," the reason is difficult to discern.' But others say: 'What is called "gruel-mixed" is rice; therefore, for one who refuses it, there should indeed be a valid refusal. This being so, in the case of "here a valid refusal occurs, here it does not," the reason is difficult to discern.'

Yathā [Pg.226] cettha kāraṇaṃ duddasaṃ, evaṃ parato ‘‘missakaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti etthāpi kāraṇaṃ duddasamevāti veditabbaṃ. Na hi pavāraṇappahonakassa appabahubhāvo pavāraṇāya bhāvābhāvanimittaṃ, kiñcarahi pavāraṇājanakassa nāma gahaṇamevettha pamāṇaṃ, tasmā ‘‘idañca karambakena na samānetabba’’ntiādinā yampi kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, tampi pubbe vuttena saṃsandiyamānaṃ na sameti. Yadi hi missakanti bhattamissakeyeva ruḷhaṃ siyā, evaṃ sati yathā ‘‘bhattamissakaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vutte bhattaṃ bahutaraṃ vā samaṃ vā appataraṃ vā hoti, pavāretiyeva, evaṃ ‘‘missakaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vuttepi appatarepi bhatte pavāraṇāya bhavitabbaṃ ‘‘missaka’’nti bhattamissakeyeva ruḷhattā. Tathā hi ‘‘missakanti bhattamissakeyeva ruḷhavohārattā idaṃ pana bhattamissakamevāti vutta’’nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Atha missakanti bhattamissake ruḷhaṃ na hoti, missakabhattaṃ pana sandhāya ‘‘missakaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vuttanti. Evampi yathā ayāguke nimantane khīrādīhi sammadditaṃ bhattameva sandhāya ‘‘yāguṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vutte pavāraṇā hoti, evamidhāpi missakabhattameva sandhāya ‘‘missakaṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vutte bhattaṃ appaṃ vā hotu, bahu vā, pavāraṇā eva siyā, tasmā missakanti bhattamissake ruḷhaṃ vā hotu, missakaṃ sandhāya bhāsitaṃ vā, ubhayathāpi pubbenāparaṃ na sametīti kimettha kāraṇacintāya. Īdisesu pana ṭhānesu aṭṭhakathāpamāṇeneva gantabbanti ayaṃ amhākaṃ khanti.

Just as the reason here is difficult to discern, so it should be understood that in the case of 'Take the mixed,' the reason is equally difficult to discern. For the scarcity or abundance of what is suitable for refusal is not the cause for the presence or absence of refusal. What then is the standard here? It is only the taking of the name of that which generates a refusal. Therefore, the reason stated—'This should not be equated with a mixed dish (karambaka)'—also, when compared with what was previously said, does not accord. If 'mixed' were established to refer only to mixed rice, then just as when it is said, 'Take the mixed rice,' whether the rice is more, equal, or less, one indeed refuses; so too when it is said, 'Take the mixed,' even if the rice is less, there should be a refusal, since 'mixed' is established to mean only mixed rice. Thus, it is said in all three knot-passages: 'Because 'mixed' is established in common usage to mean mixed rice, this refers only to mixed rice.' But if 'mixed' is not established to refer to mixed rice, and it is mixed rice that is intended when it is said, 'Take the mixed,' then just as in an invitation for non-gruel, when it is said, 'Take the gruel,' referring to rice mixed with milk and so on, there is a refusal; so too here, when it is said, 'Take the mixed,' referring to mixed rice, whether the rice is little or much, there would indeed be a refusal. Therefore, whether 'mixed' is established to mean mixed rice or the word is spoken with reference to something mixed, in both cases, the earlier and later statements do not accord. So what is the use of considering the reason here? In such cases, one should proceed only according to the authority of the Commentary—this is our acceptance.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239) pana ‘‘uddissakatanti maññamānoti ettha vatthuno kappiyattā ‘pavāritova hotī’ti vuttaṃ. Tañce uddissakatameva hoti, paṭikkhepo natthi. Ayametthādhippāyoti ‘yenāpucchito’tiādinā vuttamevatthaṃ sandhāya vadati. Kāraṇaṃ panettha duddasanti bhattassa bahutarabhāve [Pg.227] pavāraṇāya sambhavakāraṇaṃ duddasaṃ, aññathā karambakepi macchādibahubhāve pavāraṇā bhaveyyāti adhippāyo. Yathā cettha kāraṇaṃ duddasaṃ, evaṃ parato ‘missakaṃ gaṇhathā’ti etthāpi kāraṇaṃ duddasamevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yañca ‘idaṃ pana bhattamissakamevā’tiādi kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, tampi ‘appataraṃ na pavāretī’ti vacanena na sametī’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ.

In the Vimativinodanī it is said: 'Here, regarding “thinking it is designated food,” due to the suitability of the item, it is stated, “he has indeed made a refusal.” If it is simply designated food, there is no refusal. This is the intended meaning here,’ he says, referring to the meaning stated in the passage beginning with “by whom he was asked.” ‘The reason here is difficult to discern’ means the reason for the possibility of refusal when the rice is more abundant is difficult to discern; otherwise, even in a mixed dish with an abundance of fish and so on, a refusal might occur—this is the intended meaning. ‘Just as the reason here is difficult to discern, so too it should be seen that in the following case of “Take the mixed,” the reason is equally difficult to discern.’ ‘And the reason that was stated, beginning with “this is indeed mixed rice,” also does not accord with the statement “one does not refuse a smaller amount”’—only this much is stated.

‘‘Visuṃ katvā detīti bhattassa upari ṭhitaṃ rasādiṃ visuṃ gahetvā detī’’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Kehici pana ‘‘yathā bhattasitthaṃ na patati, tathā gāḷhaṃ hatthena pīḷetvā parissāvetvā detī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tatthāpi kāraṇaṃ na dissati. Yathā hi bhattamissakaṃ yāguṃ āharitvā ‘‘yāguṃ gaṇhathā’’ti vatvā yāgumissakaṃ bhattampi dentaṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā na hoti, evamidhāpi bahukhīrarasādīsu bhattesu ‘‘khīraṃ gaṇhathā’’tiādīni vatvā dinnāni khīrādīni vā detu khīrādimissakaṃ bhattaṃ vā, ubhayathāpi pavāraṇāya na bhavitabbaṃ, tasmā ‘‘visuṃ katvā detī’’ti tenākārena dentaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, na pana bhattamissakaṃ katvā dīyamānaṃ paṭikkhipato pavāraṇā hotīti dassanatthanti gahetabbaṃ. Yadi pana bhattamissakaṃ katvā dīyamāne pavāraṇā hotīti adhippāyena aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘visuṃ katvā detī’’ti vuttaṃ, evaṃ sati aṭṭhakathāyevettha pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ, na pana kāraṇantaraṃ gavesitabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.238-239) pana ‘‘visuṃ katvā detīti ‘rasaṃ gaṇhathā’tiādinā vācāya visuṃ katvā detīti attho gahetabbo, na pana kāyena rasādiṃ viyojetvāti tathā aviyojitepi paṭikkhipato pavāraṇāya asambhavato apavāraṇāpahonakassa nāmena vuttattā bhattamissakayāguṃ āharitvā ‘yāguṃ [Pg.228] gaṇhathā’ti vuttaṭṭhānādīsu viya, aññathā ettha yathā pubbāparaṃ na virujjhati, tathā adhippāyo gahetabbo’’ti vuttaṃ.

'Giving separately' means taking the sauce and so on situated on the rice, and giving it separately—this is stated in all three knot-passages. However, some say, 'One gives by pressing firmly with the hand and straining it so that rice grains do not fall.' Even there, a reason is not seen. For just as when one brings rice mixed with gruel and says, 'Take the gruel,' there is no refusal for one who rejects even the rice mixed with gruel that is being given; similarly, here too, in cases of rice with abundant milk, sauces, and so on, whether one gives the milk and so on after saying, 'Take the milk,' and so on, or gives rice mixed with milk and so on, in both cases, there should be no refusal. Therefore, it should be understood that 'giving separately' was said with reference to giving in that manner, not for the purpose of showing that a refusal occurs when one rejects something given mixed with rice. However, if 'giving separately' was said in the Commentary with the intention that a refusal occurs when something is given mixed with rice, then in that case, the Commentary itself should be taken as the authority, and no other reason should be sought. But in the Vimativinodanī it is said: '“Giving separately”: the meaning to be understood is giving separately by speech, by saying, “Take the sauce,” and so on, not by physically separating the sauce and so on. This is because a refusal is impossible for one who rejects it even when it is not so separated, as it has been stated by the name of something not sufficient for a refusal, as in the cases of bringing rice mixed with gruel and saying, “Take the gruel,” and so on. Otherwise, the intention here should be understood in such a way that the preceding and following are not contradicted.'

Nāvā vā setu vātiādimhi nāvādiabhiruhanādikkhaṇe kiñci ṭhatvāpi abhiruhanādikātabbattepi gamanatapparatāya ṭhānaṃ nāma na hoti, janasammaddena pana anokāsādibhāvena ṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Acāletvāti vuttaṭṭhānato aññasmiṃ pīṭhappadese vā uddhaṃ vā apelletvā, tasmiṃ eva pana ṭhāne parivattetuṃ labhati. Tenāha ‘‘yena passenā’’tiādi. Sace ukkuṭikaṃ nisinno pāde amuñcitvāpi bhūmiyaṃ nisīdati, iriyāpathaṃ vikopento nāma hotīti ukkuṭikāsanaṃ avikopetvā sukhena nisīdituṃ ‘‘tassa pana heṭṭhā…pe… nisīdanakaṃ dātabba’’nti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Āsanaṃ acāletvāti pīṭhe phuṭṭhokāsato ānisadamaṃsaṃ amocetvā anuṭṭhahitvāti vuttaṃ hoti. Adinnādāne viya ṭhānācāvanaṃ na gahetabba’’nti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ.

In the passage beginning 'a boat or a bridge,' even if one stands for a moment at the time of boarding a boat and so on, since the act of boarding must still be done, it is not considered 'standing' due to being intent on going. However, due to a crowd of people, lack of space, and so on, it is not proper to stand. 'Without moving' means not moving away from the stated position to another spot on the seat or upwards; but one is allowed to turn around in that same spot. Therefore, it is said, 'with whichever side,' and so on. If one sitting in a squatting position sits on the ground, even without releasing the feet, one is said to be disrupting the posture. Therefore, in order to sit comfortably without disrupting the squatting posture, it is stated, 'below that... a sitting mat should be given.' ''Without moving the seat' means not detaching the flesh of the buttocks from the place it touches on the seat, and not rising. It should not be taken as dislodging from a place, as in the case of stealing.' This is stated in all three knot-passages.

121. Akappiyakatanti ettha akappiyakatasseva anatirittabhāvato kappiyaṃ akārāpetvā tasmiṃ patte pakkhittaṃ mūlaphalādiyeva atirittaṃ na hoti, akappiyabhojanaṃ vā kuladūsanādinā uppannaṃ. Sesaṃ pana pattapariyāpannaṃ atirittameva hoti, paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭati, taṃ pana mūlaphalādiṃ paribhuñjitukāmena tato nīharitvā kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā aññasmiṃ bhājane ṭhapetvā atirittaṃ kārāpetvā paribhuñjitabbaṃ.

121. Here, regarding 'made improper': because that which has been made improper is itself not a valid leftover, roots, fruits, and so on placed in that bowl without having been made proper are not a valid leftover; or food that is improper because it arose from corrupting families and so on. But the rest of what is contained in the bowl is indeed a valid leftover, and it is permissible to consume it. However, if one wishes to consume those roots, fruits, and so on, they should be taken out from there, have them made proper, be placed in another vessel, have them made into a valid leftover, and then be consumed.

122. So puna kātuṃ na labhatīti tasmiṃyeva bhājane kariyamānaṃ paṭhamaṃ katena saddhiṃ kataṃ hotīti puna soyeva kātuṃ na labhati, añño labhati. Aññasmiṃ pana bhājane tena vā aññena vā kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Tenāha [Pg.229] ‘‘yena akataṃ, tena kātabbaṃ, yañca akataṃ, taṃ kātabba’’nti. Tenāpīti ettha pi-saddo na kevalaṃ aññenevāti imamatthaṃ dīpeti. Evaṃ katanti aññasmiṃ bhājane kataṃ.

122. 'He cannot do it again' means that because when it is being done in the same vessel, it is considered done together with what was first done, he himself cannot do it again; another can. However, it is permissible for him or for another to do it in a different vessel. Therefore, it is said: 'It should be done by one by whom it was not done, and that which was not done should be done.' Here, the particle 'pi' in 'tenāpi' indicates this meaning: 'not only by another.' 'Done in this way' means done in a different vessel.

Pesetvāti anupasampannassa hatthe pesetvā. Imassa vinayakammabhāvato ‘‘anupasampannassa hatthe ṭhitaṃ na kātabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

'Having sent' means having sent it by the hand of one who is not fully ordained. Because this is a formal act of the Vinaya, it is said, 'It should not be done while it is in the hand of one who is not fully ordained.'

Sace pana āmisasaṃsaṭṭhānīti ettha sace mukhagatenāpi anatirittena āmisena saṃsaṭṭhāni honti, pācittiyamevāti veditabbaṃ, tasmā pavāritena bhojanaṃ atirittaṃ kārāpetvā bhuñjantenapi yathā akatena missaṃ na hoti, evaṃ mukhañca hatthañca suddhaṃ katvā bhuñjitabbaṃ. Kiñcāpi apavāritassa purebhattaṃ yāmakālikādīni āhāratthāya paribhuñjatopi anāpatti, pavāritassa pana pavāraṇamūlakaṃ dukkaṭaṃ hotiyevāti ‘‘yāmakālikaṃ…pe… ajjhohāre ajjhohāre āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti pāḷiyaṃ (pāci. 240) vuttaṃ.

However, regarding the phrase 'if they are mixed with food,' it should be understood that if they are mixed even with non-leftover food that has entered the mouth, it is indeed a pācittiya offense. Therefore, even when one who has indicated satisfaction eats food that has been made leftover, one should eat after having cleaned one's mouth and hands, so that it is not mixed with what has not been made leftover. And although there is no offense for one who has not yet indicated satisfaction when consuming, for the sake of nourishment before the meal, items permissible for a watch and so on, for one who has indicated satisfaction, a dukkaṭa offense certainly arises on account of that indication of satisfaction, as it is said in the Pāli text (Pāc. 240): 'For an item permissible for a watch… and so on… for every mouthful one consumes, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.'

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Paṭikkhepapavāraṇāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

Named the Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Rejection and Formal Invitation.

Ekavīsatimo paricchedo.

The Twenty-first Chapter.

22. Pabbajjāvinicchayakathā

22. The Discourse on the Determination of the Going Forth

123. Evaṃ paṭikkhepapavāraṇāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni pabbajjāvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘pabbajjāti ettha panā’’tyādimāha. Tattha paṭhamaṃ vajitabbāti pabbajjā, upasampadāto paṭhamaṃ upagacchitabbāti [Pg.230] attho. Pa-pubba vaja gatimhīti dhātu. Kulaputtanti ācārakulaputtaṃ sandhāya vadati. Ye puggalā paṭikkhittā, te vajjetvāti sambandho. Pabbajjādosavirahitoti pabbajjāya antarāyakarehi pañcābādhādidosehi virahito. Nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇanti ettha kaniṭṭhaṅgulinakhapiṭṭhi adhippetā. ‘‘Tañce nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇampi vaḍḍhanapakkhe ṭhitaṃ hoti, na pabbājetabboti iminā sāmaññalakkhaṇaṃ dassitaṃ, tasmā yattha katthaci sarīrāvayavesu nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ vaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ ce, na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Evañca sati nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇampi avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ ce, sabbattha vaṭṭatīti āpannaṃ, tañca na sāmaññato adhippetanti padesaviseseyeva niyametvā dassento ‘sace panā’tiādimāha. Sace hi avisesena nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ vaṭṭeyya, ‘nivāsanapārupanehi pakatipaṭicchannaṭṭhāne’ti padesaniyamaṃ na kareyya, tasmā nivāsanapārupanehi pakatipaṭicchannaṭṭhānato aññattha nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitampi na vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇato khuddakataraṃ pana avaḍḍhanakapakkhe vā vaḍḍhanakapakkhe vā ṭhitaṃ hotu, vaṭṭati nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇato khuddakatarassa vaḍḍhanakapakkhe avaḍḍhanakapakkhe vā ṭhitassa mukhādīsuyeva paṭikkhittattā’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.88) vuttaṃ.

123. Having thus explained the determination of rejection and formal invitation, now, to explain the determination of the going forth, he begins with 'Now, in this case of the going forth...'. Here, pabbajjā (going forth) means 'that which should be gone forth into first'; the meaning is that it should be undertaken before the higher ordination. The root is vaja, preceded by pa, in the sense of 'to go'. 'Son of a good family' is said with reference to a son of a family with good conduct. The connection is: 'having avoided those persons who are rejected'. 'Free from faults regarding the going forth' means free from the five diseases and other faults that are obstacles to the going forth. 'The size of the back of a nail' here refers to the back of the little finger's nail. By the statement, 'If it is the size of the back of a nail and is in a state of growth, he should not be given the going forth,' a general characteristic is shown. Therefore, it is established that if a growth the size of the back of a nail is situated anywhere on the limbs of the body and is in a state of growth, it is not allowable. This being so, it would follow that if a growth the size of the back of a nail is in a state of non-growth, it is allowable everywhere. But this is not intended generally, so to define it by specifying a particular location, he says, 'But if...'. For if, without distinction, a growth the size of the back of a nail in a state of non-growth were allowable, he would not have made the specific rule about location: 'in a place naturally covered by the lower and upper robes'. Therefore, it is established that outside of a place naturally covered by the lower and upper robes, a growth the size of the back of a nail, even if it is in a state of non-growth, is not allowable. However, one that is smaller than the size of the back of a nail, whether it is in a state of growth or non-growth, is allowable, because one smaller than the size of the back of a nail, whether growing or not growing, is rejected only on the face and so on, as is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.88).

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 88-89) pana ‘‘paṭicchannaṭṭhāne nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇaṃ avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ hoti, vaṭṭatīti vuttattā appaṭicchannaṭṭhāne tādisampi na vaṭṭati, paṭicchannaṭṭhānepi ca vaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitaṃ na vaṭṭatīti siddhameva hoti. Pākaṭaṭṭhānepi pana nakhapiṭṭhippamāṇato ūnataraṃ avaḍḍhanakaṃ vaṭṭatīti ye gaṇheyyuṃ, tesaṃ taṃ gahaṇaṃ paṭisedhetuṃ ‘mukhe panā’tiādi vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Godhā…pe… na vaṭṭatīti iminā tādisopi rogo kuṭṭheyeva [Pg.231] antogadhoti dasseti. Gaṇḍepi iminā nayena vinicchayo veditabbo. Tattha pana mukhādīsu kolaṭṭhimattato khuddakataropi gaṇḍo na vaṭṭatīti visuṃ na dassito. ‘‘Appaṭicchannaṭṭhāne avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitepi na vaṭṭatī’’ti ettakameva hi tattha vuttaṃ, tathāpi kuṭṭhe vuttanayena mukhādīsu kolaṭṭhippamāṇato khuddakataropi gaṇḍo na vaṭṭatīti viññāyati, tasmā avaḍḍhanakapakkhe ṭhitepīti ettha pi-saddo avuttasampiṇḍanattho, tena kolaṭṭhimattato khuddakataropi na vaṭṭatīti ayamattho dassitoyevāti amhākaṃ khanti. Pakativaṇṇe jāteti rogahetukassa vikāravaṇṇassa abhāvaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 88-89), however, it is said: 'Because it is said that in a concealed place, one the size of the back of a nail in a state of non-growth is allowable, it is not allowable even in such a state in an unconcealed place; and it is already established that one in a state of growth is not allowable even in a concealed place. However, to refute the view of those who might hold that in an exposed place, one smaller than the size of the back of a nail that is not growing is allowable, the phrase beginning "But on the face..." was stated.' By the phrase 'Iguana-skin disease... and so on... is not allowable,' it is shown that such a disease is also included within leprosy. A boil should also be determined by this method. In that case, however, it is not separately shown that a boil smaller than the size of a jujube stone on the face and so on is not allowable. For only this much is stated there: 'Even if it is in a state of non-growth in an unconcealed place, it is not allowable.' Nevertheless, by the method stated for leprosy, it is understood that on the face and so on, a boil even smaller than the size of a jujube stone is not allowable. Therefore, in the phrase 'even if it is in a state of non-growth,' the particle pi has the meaning of including what is unstated. By this, the meaning 'even one smaller than the size of a jujube stone is not allowable' is indeed shown—this is our view. 'Arisen with its natural color' is said with reference to the absence of discoloration caused by disease.

Kolaṭṭhimattakoti badaraṭṭhippamāṇo. ‘‘Sañjātachaviṃ kāretvā’’ti pāṭho, vijjamānachaviṃ kāretvāti attho. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.88-89) pana ‘‘sacchaviṃ kāretvāti vijjamānachaviṃ kāretvāti attho, sañchavinti vā pāṭho, sañjātachaanti attho. Gaṇḍādīsu vūpasantesupi taṃ ṭhānaṃ vivaṇṇampi hoti, taṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

'The size of a jujube stone' means the size of a badara fruit stone. The reading is 'having caused skin to grow over it,' which means making skin be present. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.88-89), however, it is said: ''Having made it skinned' means making skin be present; or the reading is sañchaviṃ, meaning 'with skin grown over it'. Even when boils and so on have subsided, that place may be discolored, and that is allowable.'

Padumapuṇḍarīkapattavaṇṇanti rattapadumasetapadumapupphadalavaṇṇaṃ. Kuṭṭhe vuttanayenevāti ‘‘paṭicchannaṭṭhāne avaḍḍhanakaṃ vaṭṭati, aññattha na kiñci vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttanayaṃ dasseti. Sosabyādhīti khayarogo. Yakkhummādoti kadāci āgantvā bhūmiyaṃ pātetvā hatthamukhādikaṃ avayavaṃ bhūmiyaṃ ghaṃsanako yakkhova rogo.

'The color of the petals of a paduma or puṇḍarīka lotus' means the color of the petals of a red lotus or a white lotus flower. 'By the same method as stated for leprosy' indicates the method mentioned: 'In a concealed place, a non-growing one is allowable; elsewhere, nothing is allowable.' 'Consumption' is the wasting disease. 'Madness from a yakkha' is a disease where a yakkha, coming from time to time, fells one to the ground and causes one to rub one's limbs, such as hands and face, on the ground.

124. Mahāmattoti mahatiyā issariyamattāya samannāgato. ‘‘Na dānāhaṃ devassa bhaṭo’’ti āpucchatīti raññā eva dinnaṃ ṭhānantaraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Yo pana rājakammikehi [Pg.232] amaccādīhi ṭhapito, amaccādīnaṃ eva vā bhaṭo hoti, tena taṃ taṃ amaccādimpi āpucchituṃ vaṭṭatīti.

124. 'A great minister' means one endowed with a great measure of authority. The statement 'Now I am not the king's servant' when taking leave is said with reference to a position given by the king himself. But as for one who is appointed by royal officials such as ministers, or who is a servant of those very ministers, it is proper for him to take leave of those respective ministers.

125. ‘‘Dhajabandho’’ti vuttattā apākaṭacoro pabbājetabboti viññāyati. Tena vakkhati ‘‘ye pana ambalabujādicorakā’’tiādi. Evaṃ jānantīti ‘‘sīlavā jāto’’ti jānanti.

125. Because it is said 'a captured bandit,' it is understood that a thief who is not well-known may be given the going forth. For that reason, it will be said, 'But those thieves such as Ambalabuja...'. 'Thus knowing' means they know, 'He has become virtuous.'

126. Bhinditvāti andubandhanaṃ bhinditvā. Chinditvāti saṅkhalikabandhanaṃ chinditvā. Muñcitvāti rajjubandhanaṃ muñcitvā. Vivaritvāti gāmabandhanādīsu gāmadvārādīni vivaritvā. Apassamānānaṃ vā palāyatīti purisaguttiyaṃ purisānaṃ gopakānaṃ apassamānānaṃ palāyati.

126. 'Having broken' means having broken a fetter. 'Having cut' means having cut a chain. 'Having untied' means having untied a rope-bond. 'Having opened' means having opened village gates and so on in village enclosures and so on. 'Or escapes while they are not watching' means that while under the guard of men, he escapes when the men guarding him are not watching.

129. Purimanayenevāti ‘‘kasāhato katadaṇḍakammo’’ti ettha vuttanayeneva.

129. 'By the previous method' means by the method stated in the phrase 'flogged with a whip, one who has undergone punishment.'

130. Palātopīti iṇassāmikānaṃ āgamanaṃ ñatvā bhayena palātopi iṇāyiko. Gīvā hoti iṇāyikabhāvaṃ ñatvā anādarena iṇamuttake bhikkhubhāve pavesitattā.

130. 'Even one who has fled': even one who has fled out of fear, knowing of the arrival of his creditors, is a debtor. One becomes liable because of having disrespectfully admitted him into the state of a monk—which is free from debt—while knowing his status as a debtor.

Upaḍḍhupaḍḍhanti thokaṃ thokaṃ. Dātabbamevāti iṇāyikena dhanaṃ sampajjatu vā, mā vā, dāne saussāheneva bhavitabbaṃ, aññehi ca bhikkhūhi ‘‘mā dhuraṃ nikkhipāhī’’ti vatvā sahāyakehi bhavitabbanti dasseti. Dhuranikkhepena hissa bhaṇḍagghena kāretabbatā siyāti.

'By half and half' means little by little. 'It must indeed be given': whether wealth comes to the debtor or not, he should be zealous in giving. And it is shown that other bhikkhus should be helpers, saying, 'Do not lay down the yoke.' For by his laying down of the yoke, he might have to pay the value of the goods.

131. Dāsacārittaṃ āropetvā kītoti iminā dāsabhāvaparimocanatthāya kītaṃ nivatteti. Tādiso hi dhanakkītopi adāso eva. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 97) pana ‘‘desacārittanti [Pg.233] sāvanapaṇṇāropanādikaṃ taṃ taṃ desacāritta’’nti vuttaṃ. Tattha tattha cārittavasenāti tasmiṃ tasmiṃ janapade dāsapaṇṇajjhāpanādinā adāsakaraṇaniyāmena. Abhisekādīsu sabbabandhanāni mocāpenti, taṃ sandhāya ‘‘sabbasādhāraṇenā’’ti vuttaṃ.

131. The phrase 'bought with the custom of slavery imposed' means that this negates a purchase made for the purpose of release from the state of slavery. For such a one, even if bought with money, is indeed not a slave. In the Vajirabuddhi commentary (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 97), however, it is said: 'Desacāritta refers to the specific customs of that region, such as proclamation and assigning documents.' 'By the custom of the region' means in each country, according to the rule of making one not a slave through means such as assigning slave documents. In consecrations and so on, they release all bonds. Referring to this, it is said: 'By means of what is common to all.'

Sace sayameva paṇṇaṃ āropenti, na vaṭṭatīti tā bhujissitthiyo ‘‘mayampi vaṇṇadāsiyo homā’’ti attano rakkhaṇatthāya sayameva rājūnaṃ dāsipaṇṇe attano nāmaṃ likhāpenti, tāsaṃ puttāpi rājadāsāva honti, tasmā te pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Tehi adinnā na pabbājetabbāti yattakā tesaṃ sāmino, tesu ekena adinnepi na pabbājetabbā. Bhujisse katvā pana pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatīti yassa vihārassa te ārāmikā dinnā, tasmiṃ vihāre saṅghaṃ ñāpetvā phātikammena dhanādiṃ katvā bhujisse katvā pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭati. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 97) pana ‘‘devadāsiputte vaṭṭatīti likhitaṃ. ‘Ārāmikañce pabbājetukāmo, aññamekaṃ datvā pabbājetabba’nti vuttaṃ. Mahāpaccarivādassa ayamidha adhippāyo, ‘bhikkhusaṅghassa ārāmike demā’ti dinnattā na te tesaṃ dāsā, ‘ārāmiko ca neva dāso na bhujisso’ti vattabbato na dāsoti likhitaṃ. Takkāsiñcanaṃ sīhaḷadīpe cārittaṃ, te ca pabbājetabbā saṅghassārāmikattā. Nissāmikaṃ dāsaṃ attanāpi bhujissaṃ kātuṃ labhatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

If they themselves impose the document, it is not permissible. Thus, those free women, thinking, 'We too shall be royal slave-women,' for their own protection, themselves have their names written on the king's slave-register. Their sons also become royal slaves; therefore, it is not permissible to ordain them. They should not be ordained if not given permission by their owners. That is, however many owners they have, they should not be ordained even if one of them has not given permission. However, it is permissible to ordain them after making them free. That is, if they are given as monastery workers to a certain monastery, then in that monastery, after informing the Sangha and making a transaction with wealth and so on, it is permissible to ordain them after making them free. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, however, it is written: 'It is permissible for the sons of temple slaves. It is said: "If one wishes to ordain a monastery worker, another should be given, and then he may be ordained." This is the intention of the Mahāpaccarivāda here: since they are given with the words, "We give monastery workers to the community of monks," they are not their slaves. Because it should be said, "A monastery worker is neither a slave nor a free person," it is written that he is not a slave. The sprinkling with whey is a custom on the island of Sri Lanka, and they are to be ordained because they are monastery workers of the Sangha. One may also make a masterless slave free by oneself.'

Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97) pana ‘‘takkaṃ sīse āsittakasadisāva hontīti yathā adāse karontā takkena sīsaṃ dhovitvā adāsaṃ karonti, evaṃ ārāmikavacanena dinnattā adāsāva teti adhippāyo. ‘Takkāsiñcanaṃ pana sīhaḷadīpe cāritta’nti vadanti. Neva pabbājetabboti vuttanti kappiyavacanena dinnepi [Pg.234] saṅghassa ārāmikadāsattā evaṃ vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.97) ‘‘takkaṃ sīse āsittakasadisāva hontīti kesuci janapadesu adāse karontā takkaṃ sīse āsiñcanti, tena kira te adāsā honti, evamidampi ārāmikavacanena dinnampīti adhippāyo. Tathā dinnepi saṅghassa ārāmikadāso evāti ‘neva pabbājetabbo’ti vuttaṃ. ‘Tāvakāliko nāma’ti vuttattā kālaparicchedaṃ katvā vā pacchāpi gahetukāmatāya vā dinnaṃ sabbaṃ tāvakālikamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Nissāmikadāso nāma yassa sāmikulaṃ aññātikaṃ maraṇena parikkhīṇaṃ, na koci tassa dāyādo, so pana samānajātikehi vā nivāsagāmavāsīhi vā issarehi vā bhujisso katova pabbājetabbo. Devadāsāpi dāsā eva. Te hi katthaci dese rājadāsā honti, katthaci vihāradāsā vā, tasmā pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ.

In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.97), however, it is stated: 'They are like one on whose head whey has been sprinkled—just as those who make someone not a slave wash their head with whey to make them not a slave, so too, because they were given with the words "monastery worker," the meaning is that they are not slaves. They say, "However, the sprinkling with whey is a custom on the island of Sri Lanka." It is said "He should not be ordained" because, even though given with a suitable expression, he is a monastery slave of the Sangha; thus it is said.' In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.97) as well, it is stated: 'They are like one on whose head whey has been sprinkled—in some regions, those who make someone not a slave sprinkle whey on their heads, and by that, it is said, they become not slaves. Thus, this is also the meaning even if given with the words "monastery worker." Even if given in this way, since he is a monastery slave of the Sangha, it is said, "He should not be ordained." Because it is called "temporary," one should understand that everything given with a time limit or given with the intention of taking it back later is only temporary. A slave without an owner is one whose master’s family, being without kin, has perished by death, and there is no heir for him; but he should be ordained only after being made free by those of the same caste, or by village residents, or by rulers. Even temple slaves are still slaves. For in some regions, they are royal slaves, and in others, they are monastery slaves; therefore, it is not permissible to ordain them.'

Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.97) pana ‘‘nissāmikadāso nāma yassa sāmikā saputtadārā matā honti, na koci tassa pariggāhako, sopi pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭati, taṃ pana attanāpi bhujissaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ye vā pana tasmiṃ raṭṭhe sāmino, tehipi kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭati, ‘devadāsiputtaṃ pabbājetuṃ vaṭṭatī’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. ‘Dāsassa pabbajitvā attano sāmike disvā palāyantassa āpatti natthī’ti vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ pana ‘‘dāsampi pabbājetvā sāmike disvā paṭicchādanatthaṃ apanento padavārena adinnādānāpattiyā kāretabbo, dāsassa pana palāyato anāpattī’’ti vuttaṃ.

In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.97), however, it is stated: 'A slave without an owner is one whose owners, along with their sons and wives, have died, and there is no one to take possession of him. Even he is not permitted to be ordained, but it is permissible to make him free oneself. Alternatively, it is permissible to have him made free by those who are the lords in that kingdom. It is said in all three Ganthipadas, "It is permissible to ordain the son of a temple slave." They say, "There is no offense for a slave who, having been ordained, sees his masters and flees."' In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is stated: 'Even having ordained a slave, one who leads him away for the purpose of concealment upon seeing his masters should be charged with the offense of theft according to the law. For the fleeing slave, however, there is no offense.'

132. Hatthacchinnakādivatthūsu kaṇṇamūleti sakalassa kaṇṇassa chedaṃ sandhāyāha. Kaṇṇasakkhalikāyāti kaṇṇacūḷikāya[Pg.235]. Yassa pana kaṇṇāvaṭṭeti heṭṭhā kuṇḍalādiṭhapanachiddaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. ‘‘Tañhi saṅghaṭṭanakkhamaṃ. Ajapadaketi ajapadanāsikaṭṭhikoṭiyaṃ. Tato hi uddhaṃ na vicchindituṃ sakkā hoti. Sandhetunti avirūpasaṇṭhānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, virūpaṃ pana parisadūsakaṃ āpādeti.

132. Regarding the cases of those with severed hands and so on, 'at the root of the ear' refers to the cutting off of the entire ear. 'With a piece of the ear' means with the earlobe. But 'one whose ear is pierced' refers to the hole made below for wearing earrings and such. 'For that is resistant to friction.' 'Like a goat's foot' refers to the tip of the nasal bone, which is shaped like a goat's foot. For it is not possible to sever it above that point. 'To join' refers to joining to an undistorted shape, for a distorted one would corrupt the assembly.

Khujjasarīroti vaṅkasarīro. Brahmuno viya ujukaṃ gattaṃ sarīraṃ yassa so brahmujugatto, bhagavā. Avaseso sattoti iminā lakkhaṇena rahitasatto. Etena ṭhapetvā mahāpurisaṃ cakkavattiñca itare sattā khujjapakkhikāti dasseti. Yebhuyyena hi sattā khandhe kaṭiyaṃ jāṇūsūti tīsu ṭhānesu namanti, te kaṭiyaṃ namantā pacchato namanti, dvīsu ṭhānesu namantā purato namanti, dīghasarīrā pana ekena passena vaṅkā honti, eke mukhaṃ unnāmetvā nakkhattāni gaṇayantā viya caranti, eke appamaṃsalohitā sūlasadisā honti, eke purato pabbhārā honti, pavedhamānā gacchanti. Parivaṭumoti samantato vaṭṭakāyo. Etena evarūpā eva vāmanakā na vaṭṭantīti dasseti.

'A hunchbacked body' means a crooked body. 'One whose limbs are straight like Brahmā's' refers to one whose body and limbs are straight like Brahmā's—the Blessed One. 'The remaining being' refers to a being lacking this characteristic. By this, it is shown that, excluding the Great Man and the wheel-turning monarch, other beings are of the crooked kind. For the most part, beings bend at three places: the shoulders, waist, and knees. Those who bend at the waist bend backward; those who bend at two places bend forward. But those with long bodies are crooked on one side. Some walk with their faces raised as if counting the stars. Some have little flesh and blood and are like stakes. Some are stooped forward and walk trembling. 'Parivaṭumo' means one with a body that is rounded all over. This shows that dwarfs of such a kind are not permissible for ordination.

133. Aṭṭhisirācammasarīroti aṭṭhisirācammamattasarīro. Kūṭakūṭasīsoti anekesu ṭhānesu piṇḍitamaṃsataṃ dassetuṃ āmeḍitaṃ kataṃ. Tenāha ‘‘tālaphalapiṇḍisadisenā’’ti. Tālaphalānaṃ mañjarī piṇḍi nāma. Anupubbatanukena sīsenāti cetiyathūpikā viya kamena kisena sīsena. Mahāveḷupabbaṃ viya ādito paṭṭhāya yāva pariyosānā avisamathūlena sīsena samannāgato nāḷisīso nāma. Kappasīsoti gajamatthakaṃ viya dvidhā bhinnasīso. ‘‘Kaṇṇikakeso vā’’ti imassa vivaraṇaṃ ‘‘pāṇakehī’’tiādi. Makkaṭasseva nalāṭepi kesānaṃ uṭṭhitabhāvaṃ sandhāyāha ‘‘sīsalomehī’’tiādi.

133. 'A body of bones, sinews, and skin' means a body consisting only of bones, sinews, and skin. 'A head of peak upon peak' is a repetition made to describe flesh gathered into lumps in many places. Therefore, it is said, 'like a cluster of palm fruit.' A cluster of palm fruits is called a 'piṇḍi'. 'With a gradually tapering head' means with a head that narrows in sequence like the pinnacle of a cetiya. One endowed with a head of uniform thickness from beginning to end, like a large bamboo joint, is called a 'tube-head'. 'A skull-head' means a head split in two like an elephant's head. The explanation of 'or with hair like a pericarp' is 'with living creatures,' and so on. Referring to the way hair stands up even on the forehead, just like a monkey's, it is said, 'with head-hairs,' and so on.

Makkaṭabhamukoti [Pg.236] nalāṭalomehi avibhattalomabhamuko. Akkhicakkehīti akkhimaṇḍalehi. Kekaroti tiriyaṃ passanako. Udakatārakāti olokentānaṃ udake paṭibimbikacchāyā. Udakabubbuḷanti keci. Akkhitārakāti abhimukhe ṭhitānaṃ chāyā. Akkhibhaṇḍakātipi vadanti. Atipiṅgalakkhi majjārakkhi. Madhupiṅgalanti madhuvaṇṇapiṅgalaṃ. Nippakhumakkhīti ettha pakhuma-saddo akkhidalalomesu niruḷho, tadabhāvā nippakhumakkhi. Akkhipākenāti akkhidalapariyantesu pūtitāpajjanarogena.

'One with monkey-like eyebrows' means one whose eyebrow hair is indistinguishable from the hair on the forehead. 'With eye-circles' means with eye-orbs. 'Cross-eyed' means one who looks askance. 'Water-pupil' refers to the reflected image in the water of those looking. Some say 'water-bubble.' 'Eye-pupil' refers to the shadow of someone standing directly in front. They also say 'eye-vessels.' 'Extremely tawny-eyed' means having eyes like marrow. 'Honey-tawny' means honey-colored and tawny. 'Without eyelashes' means here the term 'eyelash' refers to the fine hairs on the eyelids; their absence makes one without eyelashes. 'By eye-soreness' means by a disease that causes putrefaction at the edges of the eyelids.

Cipiṭanāsikoti anunnatanāsiko. Paṭaṅgamaṇḍūko nāma mahāmukhamaṇḍūko. Bhinnamukhoti upakkamukhapariyosāno, sabbadā vivaṭamukho vā. Vaṅkamukhoti ekapasse apakkamma ṭhitaheṭṭhimahanukaṭṭhiko. Oṭṭhacchinnakoti ubhosu oṭṭhesu yattha katthaci jātiyā vā pacchā vā satthādinā apanītamaṃsena oṭṭhena samannāgato. Eḷamukhoti niccapaggharitalālāmukho.

'Flat-nosed' means one with a nose that is not raised. 'Frog-mouthed' refers to a large-mouthed frog. 'Split-mouthed' means one whose mouth is split from beginning to end, or who always has an open mouth. 'Crooked-mouthed' means one whose lower jawbone is displaced to one side. 'Cut-lipped' means one who has flesh removed from either or both lips, either from birth or later by a knife or the like. 'Slobbering-mouthed' means one whose mouth constantly drips with saliva.

Bhinnagaloti avanatagalo. Bhinnauroti atininnauramajjho. Evaṃ bhinnapiṭṭhīti. Sabbañcetanti ‘‘kacchugatto’’tiādiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ettha ca vinicchayo kuṭṭhādīsu vutto evāti āha ‘‘vinicchayo’’tiādi.

'Broken-necked' means one with a stooped neck. 'Broken-chested' means one with an excessively sunken chest. Similarly, 'broken-backed.' All this is stated with reference to 'one with a body like a tortoise' and the like. And here, the judgment is as stated in the section on leprosy and so forth; hence it is said, 'the judgment,' etc.

Vātaṇḍikoti aṇḍakesu vuddhirogena samannāgato, aṇḍavātarogena uddhutabījaṇḍakosena samannāgato vā. Yassa nivāsanena paṭicchannampi uṇṇataṃ pakāsati, sova na pabbājetabbo. Vikaṭoti tiriyaṃ gamanapādehi samannāgato, yassa caṅkamato jāṇukā bahi nigacchanti. Saṅghaṭṭoti gacchato parivattanapādehi samannāgato, yassa caṅkamato jāṇukā anto pavisanti. Mahājaṅghoti thūlajaṅgho. Mahāpādoti mahantena pādatalena [Pg.237] yutto. Pādavemajjheti piṭṭhipādavemajjhe. Etena aggapādo ca paṇhi ca sadisāvāti dasseti.

'One with a hydrocele' means one afflicted with a disease causing enlargement of the testicles, or one afflicted with a wind-disease of the testicles, having a swollen scrotum. He whose protuberance is visible even when covered by his lower robe is not to be ordained. 'Bow-legged' means one endowed with feet that move sideways, or one whose knees jut outward when walking. 'Knock-kneed' means one endowed with feet that turn inward when walking, or one whose knees go inward when walking. 'Large-calved' means one with thick calves. 'Large-footed' means one endowed with a large sole. 'The middle of the foot' means the middle of the top of the foot. By this it is shown that the forefoot and the heel are similar.

134. Majjhe saṃkuṭitapādattāti kuṇṭhapādatāya kāraṇaṃ dasseti, agge saṃkuṭitapādattāti kuṇṭhapādatāya. Kuṇṭhapādasseva caṅkamanavibhāvanaṃ ‘‘piṭṭhipādaggena caṅkamanto’’ti. ‘‘Pādassa bāhirantenā’’ti ca ‘‘abbhantarantenā’’ti ca idaṃ pādatalassa ubhohi pariyantehi caṅkamanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

134. 'Having feet contracted in the middle' shows the reason for being club-footed; 'having feet contracted at the front' is also a reason for being club-footed. The description of the walking of a club-footed person is 'walking on the top of the foot.' 'With the outer edge of the foot' and 'with the inner edge' is said with reference to walking on both edges of the sole of the foot.

Mammananti khalitavacanaṃ, yo ekamevakkharaṃ catupañcakkhattuṃ vadati, tassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ, ṭhānakaraṇavisuddhiyā abhāvena aphuṭṭhakkharavacanaṃ. Vacanānukaraṇena hi so ‘‘mammano’’ti vutto. Yo ca karaṇasampannopi ekamevakkharaṃ hikkārabahuso vadati, sopi idheva saṅgayhati. Yo vā pana taṃ niggahetvāpi anāmeḍitakkharameva sithilaṃ siliṭṭhavacanaṃ vattuṃ samattho, so pabbājetabbo. Āpattito na muccantīti ñatvā karontāva na muccanti. Jīvitantarāyādiāpadāsu aruciyā kāyasāmaggiṃ dentassa anāpatti.

'Stammering' is faulty speech; it is a designation for one who utters a single syllable four or five times, speech with indistinct syllables due to the lack of purity in the place and means of articulation. Indeed, he is called a 'stammerer' in imitation of his speech. And one who, though endowed with the organs of speech, utters a single syllable with many hiccups, he too is included here. But one who, having restrained it, is able to speak loosely and smoothly without repeating syllables, he is to be ordained. Knowing, 'We are not freed from the offense,' those who act are not freed. There is no offense for one who gives bodily compliance out of dislike during life-threatening dangers and other misfortunes.

135. Abhabbapuggalakathāsu ‘‘yo kāḷapakkhe itthī hoti, juṇhapakkhe puriso, ayaṃ pakkhapaṇḍako’’ti keci vadanti. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ pana ‘‘kāḷapakkhe paṇḍako hoti, juṇhapakkhe panassa pariḷāho vūpasammatī’’ti apaṇḍakapakkhe pariḷāhavūpasamasseva vuttattā paṇḍakapakkhe ussannapariḷāhatā paṇḍakabhāvāpattīti viññāyatīti vīmaṃsitvā yuttataraṃ gahetabbaṃ. Itthibhāvo pumbhāvo vā natthi etassāti abhāvako. ‘‘Tasmiṃyevassa pakkhe pabbajjā vāritāti ettha apaṇḍakapakkhe pabbājetvā paṇḍakapakkhe nāsetabbo’’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘apaṇḍakapakkhe [Pg.238] pabbajito sace kilesakkhayaṃ pāpuṇāti, na nāsetabbo’’ti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ. Paṇḍakassa hi kilesakkhayāsambhavato, khīṇakilesassa ca paṇḍakabhāvānāpattito. Ahetukapaṭisandhikathāyañhi avisesena paṇḍakassa ahetukapaṭisandhitā vuttā, āsittausūyapakkhapaṇḍakānañca paṭisandhito paṭṭhāyeva paṇḍakabhāvo, na pavattiyaṃyevāti vadanti. Teneva ahetukapaṭisandhiniddese jaccandhabadhirādayo viya paṇḍako jātisaddena visesetvā na niddiṭṭho. Catutthapārājikasaṃvaṇṇanāyañca (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.233) abhabbapuggale dassentena paṇḍakatiracchānagataubhatobyañjanakā tayo vatthuvipannā ahetukapaṭisandhikā, tesaṃ saggo avārito, maggo pana vāritoti avisesato vuttanti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.109) āgataṃ.

135. In the discussions on incapable persons, some say: 'One who is a woman during the dark fortnight and a man during the bright fortnight, this is a fortnight-paṇḍaka.' In the commentary, however, it is said: 'During the dark fortnight he is a paṇḍaka, but during the bright fortnight his feverish passion subsides.' Since it is stated that in the non-paṇḍaka fortnight his feverish passion subsides, it is to be understood that in the paṇḍaka fortnight, due to heightened feverish passion, he attains the state of a paṇḍaka. Having considered this, the more suitable interpretation should be accepted. 'There is neither a female state nor a male state in him,' thus he is 'one without such a state' (abhāvako). 'Ordination is prohibited for him in that very fortnight; thus, having ordained him in the non-paṇḍaka fortnight, he should be expelled in the paṇḍaka fortnight'—this is stated in all three gaṇṭhipadas. Some, however, say: 'If one ordained in the non-paṇḍaka fortnight attains the destruction of defilements, he should not be expelled.' That is merely their opinion, for the destruction of defilements is impossible for a paṇḍaka, and one whose defilements are destroyed does not fall into the state of being a paṇḍaka. In the discussion on rootless rebirth-linking, it is generally stated that a paṇḍaka has a rootless rebirth-linking. And they say that for the āsitta-, usūya-, and pakkha-paṇḍakas, their paṇḍaka state exists from rebirth-linking onwards, and not only in the course of life. For this reason, in the exposition on rootless rebirth-linking, the paṇḍaka is not specified with the word 'by birth,' like the congenitally blind and deaf. And in the exposition on the fourth pārājika, when describing incapable persons, it is stated without distinction that the paṇḍaka, the animal, and the hermaphrodite—these three, defective in their basis—have a rootless rebirth-linking. For them, heaven is not barred, but the path is barred. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī.

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.109) pana paṇḍakavatthusmiṃ āsittausūyapakkhapaṇḍakā tayopi purisabhāvaliṅgādiyuttā ahetukapaṭisandhikā, te ca kilesapariyuṭṭhānassa balavatāya napuṃsakapaṇḍakasadisattā ‘‘paṇḍakā’’ti vuttā, tesu āsittausūyapaṇḍakānaṃ dvinnaṃ kilesapariyuṭṭhānaṃ yonisomanasikārādīhi vītikkamato nivāretumpi sakkā, tena te pabbājetabbāti vuttā. Pakkhapaṇḍakassa pana kāḷapakkhe ummādo viya kilesapariḷāho avattharanto āgacchati, vītikkamaṃ patvā eva ca nivattati, tasmā tasmiṃ pakkhe so na pabbājetabboti vutto, tadetaṃ vibhāgaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘yassa paresa’’nti vuttaṃ. Tattha āsittassāti mukhe āsittassa attanopi asucimuccanena pariḷāho vūpasammati. Usūyāya uppannāyāti usūyāya vasena attano sevetukāmatārāge uppanne asucimuttiyā pariḷāho vūpasammati.

In the Vimativinodanī, however, regarding the subject of paṇḍakas, all three—the āsitta-, usūya-, and pakkha-paṇḍakas—are endowed with male nature, signs, and so on, and have a rootless rebirth-linking. Because of the strength of the overwhelming of defilements, they are similar to neuter paṇḍakas, and thus are called 'paṇḍakas.' Among them, the overwhelming of defilements in the two, the āsitta- and usūya-paṇḍakas, can be prevented from transgression by means of proper attention and so on; therefore, it is said they are to be ordained. For the pakkha-paṇḍaka, however, the feverish passion of defilements comes overwhelming him like madness during the dark fortnight, and it ceases only after transgression has occurred. Therefore, it is said that he is not to be ordained in that fortnight. To show this distinction, it is said, 'for whom by others…'. Here, 'for the āsitta' means: for one into whose mouth semen has been poured, the feverish passion subsides with the emission of his own impurity. 'When envy has arisen' means: when a desire for sexual enjoyment has arisen in him due to envy, the feverish passion subsides with the emission of impurity.

‘‘Bījāni [Pg.239] apanītānī’’ti vuttattā bījesu ṭhitesu nimittamatte apanīte paṇḍako na hoti. Bhikkhunopi anābādhapaccayā tadapanayane thullaccayameva, na paṇḍakattaṃ. Bījesu pana apanītesu aṅgajātampi rāgena kammaniyaṃ na hoti, pumabhāvo vigacchati, massuādipurisaliṅgampi upasampadāpi vigacchati, kilesapariḷāhopi dunnivāravītikkamo hoti napuṃsakapaṇḍakassa viya, tasmā īdiso upasampannopi nāsetabboti vadanti. Yadi evaṃ kasmā bījuddharaṇe pārājikaṃ na paññattanti? Ettha tāva keci vadanti ‘‘paññattamevetaṃ bhagavatā ‘paṇḍako bhikkhave anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo, upasampanno nāsetabbo’ti vuttattā’’ti. Keci pana ‘‘yasmā bījuddharaṇakkhaṇe paṇḍako na hoti, tasmā tasmiṃ khaṇe pārājikaṃ na paññattaṃ. Yasmā pana so uddhaṭabījo bhikkhu aparena samayena vuttanayena paṇḍakattaṃ āpajjati, abhāvako hoti, upasampadāya avatthu, tato eva cassa upasampadā vigacchati, tasmā esa paṇḍakattupagamanakālato paṭṭhāya jātiyā napuṃsakapaṇḍakena saddhiṃ yojetvā ‘upasampanno nāsetabbo’ti abhabboti vutto, na tato pubbe. Ayañca kiñcāpi sahetuko, bhāvakkhayena panassa ahetukasadisatāya maggopi na uppajjatī’’ti vadanti. Apare pana ‘‘pabbajjato pubbe upakkamena paṇḍakabhāvamāpannaṃ sandhāya ‘upasampanno nāsetabbo’ti vuttaṃ, upasampannassa pana pacchā upakkamena upasampadāpi na vigacchatī’’ti, taṃ na yuttaṃ. Yadaggena hi pabbajjato pubbe upakkamena abhabbo hoti, tadaggena pacchāpi hotīti vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.

Because it is said, 'The seeds have been removed,' when the seeds remain but only the external sign is removed, one does not become a eunuch. Even for a bhikkhu, if this removal is done for a reason other than illness, it is only a thullaccaya offense, not eunuchhood. However, when the seeds are removed, even the male organ does not become workable with lust, masculinity vanishes, and signs of manhood like a beard, etc., and even the higher ordination, vanish, and the torment of defileles becomes an uncontrollable transgression like that of a neuter eunuch. Therefore, they say, such an ordained one should be expelled. If this is so, why was a pārājika offense not laid down for the removal of the seeds? Here, some say, 'It was indeed laid down by the Blessed One: "A eunuch, monks, should not be ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled," because it was stated thus.' Others, however, argue, 'Because at the moment of removing the seeds, one is not yet a eunuch, no pārājika was laid down for that moment. But later, when that monk, having had his seeds removed, becomes a eunuch in the manner described, he becomes one without the male state, an unsuitable basis for higher ordination, and thus his higher ordination vanishes. Therefore, from the time he becomes a eunuch, he is grouped with naturally neuter eunuchs and declared "to be expelled" as he is incapable, but not before. Although this one has a cause, due to the destruction of his male state, and because of his similarity to one without roots, even the path does not arise in him,' they say. Still others say, 'The statement "if ordained, he should be expelled" refers to one who became a eunuch through an undertaking before ordination. But for one already ordained, the higher ordination is not lost even if an undertaking is made afterward.' That is not correct. For by whatever reason one is incapable through an undertaking before ordination, by that same reason one is also incapable afterward—this should be understood after due consideration.

Itthattādi bhāvo natthi etassāti abhāvako. Pabbajjā na vāritāti ettha pabbajjāggahaṇeneva upasampadāpi gahitā. Tenāha ‘‘yassa cettha pabbajjā vāritā’’tiādi. Tasmiṃ [Pg.240] yevassa pakkhe pabbajjā vāritāti ettha pana apaṇḍakapakkhepi pabbajjāmattameva labhati, upasampadā pana tadāpi na vaṭṭati, paṇḍakapakkhe pana āgato liṅganāsanāya nāsetabboti veditabbanti vuttaṃ.

There is no state such as femaleness, etc., in him, hence he is 'abhāvako' (one without a state). Where it is said 'going forth is not forbidden,' by the taking of 'going forth,' higher ordination is also included. Therefore, it is said: 'For whom the going forth is forbidden here,' etc. However, where it is said 'in that very fortnight, his going forth is forbidden,' it should be understood that even in the non-eunuch fortnight, he obtains only the going forth, but higher ordination is not allowable even then. In the eunuch fortnight, however, one who has come is to be expelled by the destruction of the sign (of a monk), as it has been said.

136. Ubhatobyañjanamassa atthīti ubhatobyañjanakoti iminā asamānādhikaraṇavisayo bāhiratthasamāsoyaṃ, purimapade ca vibhattialopoti dasseti. Byañjananti cettha purisanimittaṃ itthinimittañca adhippetaṃ. Atha ubhatobyañjanakassa ekameva indriyaṃ hoti, udāhu dveti? Ekameva hoti, na dve. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Yassa itthindriyaṃ uppajjati, tassa purisindriyaṃ uppajjatīti, no. Yassa vā pana purisindriyaṃ uppajjati, tassa itthindriyaṃ uppajjatīti, no’’ti (yama. 3.indriyayamaka.188) ekasmiṃ santāne indriyabhūtabhāvadvayassa uppattiyā abhidhamme paṭisedhitattā, tañca kho itthiubhatobyañjanakassa itthindriyaṃ, purisaubhatobyañjanakassa purisindriyanti. Yadi evaṃ dutiyabyañjanassa abhāvo āpajjati indriyañhi byañjanassa kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, tañca tassa natthīti? Vuccate – na tassa indriyaṃ dutiyabyañjanakāraṇaṃ. Kasmā? Sadā abhāvato. Itthiubhatobyañjanakassa hi yadā itthiyā rāgacittaṃ uppajjati, tadā purisabyañjanaṃ pākaṭaṃ hoti, itthibyañjanaṃ paṭicchannaṃ guḷhaṃ hoti, tathā itarassa itaraṃ. Yadi ca tesaṃ indriyaṃ dutiyabyañjanakāraṇaṃ bhaveyya, sadāpi byañjanadvayaṃ tiṭṭheyya, na pana tiṭṭhati, tasmā veditabbametaṃ ‘‘na tassa taṃ byañjanakāraṇaṃ, kammasahāyaṃ pana rāgacittamevettha kāraṇa’’nti. Yasmā cassa ekameva indriyaṃ hoti, tasmā itthiubhatobyañjanako sayampi gabbhaṃ gaṇhāti, parampi gaṇhāpeti. Purisaubhatobyañjanako paraṃ gaṇhāpeti, sayaṃ pana na gaṇhātīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.116) āgataṃ.

136. One who has both characteristics is called 'ubhatobyañjanaka.' This is an external-meaning compound (bāhiratthasamāso) with a non-co-referential scope, and it shows the non-elision of the case ending in the first word. Here, 'byañjana' refers to both male and female characteristics. Now, does an ubhatobyañjanaka have one faculty or two? Only one, not two. How is this known? If it is asked, 'When the female faculty arises, does the male faculty arise? No. Or when the male faculty arises, does the female faculty arise? No.' (Yamaka 3, Indriyayamaka 188). This is because in the Abhidhamma, the arising of two states that are faculties in a single continuum is denied. And for a female ubhatobyañjanaka, it is the female faculty; for a male ubhatobyañjanaka, it is the male faculty. If so, would the absence of the second characteristic result, for the faculty is said to be the cause of the characteristic, and that is not present for it? It is said: The faculty is not the cause of the second characteristic. Why? Because of its constant absence. For when a lustful mind arises in a female ubhatobyañjanaka, the male characteristic becomes apparent, while the female characteristic remains concealed and hidden; similarly for the other. If the faculty were the cause of the second characteristic, both characteristics would always be present. But they are not, so it should be understood thus: 'That is not the cause of that characteristic; rather, the lustful mind, aided by kamma, is the cause here.' And because they have only one faculty, a female ubhatobyañjanaka can both conceive herself and cause another to conceive. A male ubhatobyañjanaka can cause another to conceive but cannot conceive himself—as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sāratthadīpanī Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 3.116).

Vimativinodaniyaṃ [Pg.241] (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.116) pana – itthiubhatobyañjanakoti itthindriyayutto, itaro pana purisindriyayutto. Ekassa hi bhāvadvayaṃ saha na uppajjati yamake (yama. 3.indriyayamaka.188) paṭikkhittattā. Dutiyabyañjanaṃ pana kammasahāyena akusalacitteneva bhāvarahitaṃ uppajjati. Pakatitthipurisānampi kammameva byañjanaliṅgānaṃ kāraṇaṃ, na bhāvo tassa kenaci paccayena paccayattassa paṭṭhāne avuttattā. Kevalaṃ bhāvasahitānaṃyeva byañjanaliṅgānaṃ pavattadassanatthaṃ aṭṭhakathāsu (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 632-633) ‘‘itthindriyaṃ paṭicca itthiliṅgādīnī’’tiādinā indriyassa byañjanakāraṇattena vuttaṃ. Idha pana akusalabalena indriyaṃ vināpi byañjanaṃ uppajjatīti veditabbaṃ. Ubhinnampi ce tesaṃ ubhatobyañjanakānaṃ. Yadā itthiyā rāgo uppajjati, tadā purisabyañjanaṃ pākaṭaṃ hoti, itaraṃ paṭicchannaṃ. Yadā purise rāgo uppajjati, tadā itthibyañjanaṃ pākaṭaṃ hoti, itaraṃ paṭicchannanti āgataṃ.

In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.116), however, it is stated: A female person with both sexual characteristics is one endowed with the female faculty; the other is endowed with the male faculty. For in one individual, two gender states do not arise simultaneously, as this is rejected in the Yamaka (Yama. 3. Indriyayamaka.188). The second sexual characteristic, however, arises devoid of the corresponding gender state, with the support of kamma through an unwholesome mind. Even in the case of ordinary men and women, kamma alone is the cause of their sexual characteristics and signs, not the gender state, since its being a condition through any specific condition is not stated in the Paṭṭhāna. Merely to illustrate the manifestation of sexual characteristics and signs accompanied by their respective gender states, it is stated in the commentaries (Dha. Sa. Aṭṭha. 632-633), 'Depending on the female faculty, female characteristics, etc.,' indicating that the faculty is the cause of the characteristics. Here, however, it should be understood that a characteristic can arise even without the faculty, due to the power of unwholesome kamma. And for both of these persons with both sexual characteristics: when lust for a woman arises, the male characteristic becomes prominent, while the other remains concealed. When lust for a man arises, the female characteristic becomes prominent, while the other remains concealed—so it is stated.

137. Theyyāya saṃvāso etassāti theyyasaṃvāsako. So ca na saṃvāsamattasseva thenako idhādhippeto, atha kho liṅgassa tadubhayassa ca thenakopīti āha ‘‘tayo theyyasaṃvāsakā’’tiādi. Na yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyatīti yathāvuḍḍhaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vā sāmaṇerānaṃ vā vandanaṃ na sādiyati. Yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyatīti attanā musāvādaṃ katvā dassitavassānurūpaṃ yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyati. Bhikkhuvassagaṇanādikoti iminā na ekakammādikova idha saṃvāso nāmāti dasseti.

137. His dwelling is by theft, thus he is a 'theyyasaṃvāsaka.' Here, this does not refer merely to one who is a thief of co-residence, but also to one who is a thief of the guise and a thief of both—hence it is said, 'There are three theyyasaṃvāsakas,' etc. 'He does not consent to veneration according to seniority' means he does not consent to veneration from monks or novices according to seniority. 'He consents to veneration according to seniority' means, having told a lie himself, he consents to veneration according to seniority in conformity with the number of years he has declared. By the phrase 'counting the years of monkhood, etc.,' it is shown that here, communion is not defined by a single formal act, etc.

138. Rāja…pe… bhayenāti ettha bhaya-saddo paccekaṃ yojetabbo ‘‘rājabhayena dubbhikkhabhayenā’’tiādinā. Saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, yāva so suddhamānasoti rājabhayādīhi [Pg.242] gahitaliṅgatāya so suddhamānaso yāva saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāsetīti attho. Yo hi rājabhayādiṃ vinā kevalaṃ bhikkhū vañcetvā tehi saddhiṃ saṃvasitukāmatāya liṅgaṃ gaṇhāti, so asuddhacittatāya liṅgaggahaṇeneva theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hoti. Ayaṃ pana tādisena asuddhacittena bhikkhū vañcetukāmatāya abhāvato yāva saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, tāva theyyasaṃvāsako nāma na hoti. Teneva ‘‘rājabhayādīhi gahitaliṅgānaṃ ‘gihī maṃ samaṇoti jānantū’ti vañcanacitte satipi bhikkhūnaṃ vañcetukāmatāya abhāvā doso na jāto’’ti tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘vūpasantabhayatā idha suddhacittatā’’ti vadanti, evañca sati so vūpasantabhayo yāva saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, tāva theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti ayamattho viññāyati. Imasmiñca atthe viññāyamāne avūpasantabhayassa saṃvāsasādiyanepi theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti āpajjeyya, na ca aṭṭhakathāyaṃ avūpasantabhayassa saṃvāsasādiyanepi atheyyasaṃvāsakatā dassitā. Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattāni bhuñjantoti ca iminā avūpasantabhayenapi saṃvāsaṃ asādiyanteneva bhavitabbanti dīpeti. Teneva tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ ‘‘yasmā vihāraṃ āgantvā saṅghikaṃ gaṇhantassa saṃvāsaṃ pariharituṃ dukkaraṃ, tasmā ‘sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattāni bhuñjanto’ti idaṃ vutta’’nti. Tasmā rājabhayādīhi gahitaliṅgatāyevettha suddhacittatāti gahetabbaṃ.

138. The word 'bhaya' here should be applied individually, as in 'fear of the king, fear of famine,' and so on. 'He does not consent to dwelling as long as his mind is pure'—this means that because his guise was taken due to fear of the king, etc., he is pure-minded as long as he does not consent to dwelling. For one who, without any fear of the king or such, takes the guise solely out of a desire to deceive the monks and dwell with them, is called a 'thief-dweller' from the very taking of the guise due to his impure mind. This one, however, lacking any desire to deceive the monks with such an impure mind, is not called a 'thief-dweller' as long as he does not consent to dwelling. Therefore, it is stated in all three Gaṇṭhipadas: 'For those whose guise is taken up due to fear of the king, etc., even with the deceptive thought, "Let householders know me as an ascetic," there is no fault due to the absence of an intention to deceive the monks.' Some, however, say, 'Here, purity of mind means the allaying of fear.' If so, then it is understood that as long as he, with his fear allayed, does not consent to dwelling, he is not a 'thief-dweller.' When this meaning is understood, it would follow that even one whose fear has not been allayed but consents to dwelling would not be a 'thief-dweller.' Yet, the commentary does not show that one whose fear has not been allayed is not a 'thief-dweller' even when consenting to dwelling. The phrase 'he eats the food of all sectarians' indicates that even one whose fear has not been allayed must be one who does not consent to dwelling. Therefore, it is stated in all three Gaṇṭhipadas: 'Because it is difficult for one who comes to the monastery and takes what belongs to the Sangha to avoid dwelling, therefore, "he eats the food of all sectarians" was said.' Thus, in this case, purity of mind should be understood as the very state of having taken the guise due to fear of the king, etc.

Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattānīti sabbasāmayikānaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ katvā vīthicatukkādīsu ṭhapetvā dātabbabhattāni. Kāyaparihāriyānīti kāyena pariharitabbāni. Abbhuggacchantīti abhimukhaṃ gacchanti. Kammantānuṭṭhānenāti kasigorakkhādikammākaraṇena. Tadeva pattacīvaraṃ ādāya vihāraṃ gacchatīti [Pg.243] cīvarāni nivāsanapārupanavasena ādāya, pattañca aṃsakūṭe laggetvā vihāraṃ gacchati.

'Meals for all sectarians' means meals to be given, having been made common to all sectarians and placed at crossroads and the like. 'For the maintenance of the body' means things to be used by the body. 'Abbhuggacchanti' means they go towards. 'By not undertaking work' means by not doing work such as farming and cattle-herding. 'Taking that very bowl and robes, he goes to the monastery' means taking the robes as lower and upper garments and, having hung the bowl on his shoulder, he goes to the monastery.

Nāpi sayaṃ jānātīti ‘‘yo evaṃ pabbajati, so theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hotī’’ti vā ‘‘evaṃ kātuṃ na labhatī’’ti vā ‘‘evaṃ pabbajito samaṇo nāma na hotī’’ti vā na jānāti. Yo evaṃ pabbajati, so theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hotīti idaṃ pana nidassanamattaṃ. Anupasampannakāleyevāti iminā upasampannakāle sutvā sacepi nāroceti, theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti dīpeti.

'Nor does he himself know' means he does not know, 'One who goes forth in this way is called a 'thief-dweller',' or 'It is not permissible to do this,' or 'One who has gone forth in this way is not called an ascetic.' But the statement 'One who goes forth in this way is called a 'thief-dweller'' is merely an illustration. By 'at the very time of being unordained,' it is shown that even if, upon hearing it at the time of ordination, he does not confess, he is not a 'thief-dweller'.

Sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya…pe… theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti idaṃ bhikkhūhi dinnaliṅgassa apariccattattā na liṅgatthenako hoti, liṅgānurūpassa saṃvāsassa sāditattā nāpi saṃvāsatthenako hotīti vuttaṃ. Eko bhikkhu kāsāye saussāhova odātaṃ nivāsetvāti etthāpi idameva kāraṇaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Parato ‘‘sāmaṇero saliṅge ṭhito’’tiādinā sāmaṇerassa vuttavidhānesupi atheyyasaṃvāsapakkhe ayameva nayo. ‘‘Bhikkhuniyāpi eseva nayo’’ti vuttamevatthaṃ ‘‘sāpi gihibhāvaṃ patthayamānā’’tiādinā vibhāveti.

'Without renouncing the training…pe…he is not a thief-dweller'—this is said because the guise given by the monks is not abandoned, so he is not a thief of the guise; and because he accepts dwelling befitting the guise, he is also not a thief of dwelling. In the case of 'A single monk, though zealous for the saffron robe, having worn white clothes,' here too the same reason should be seen. Furthermore, regarding statements such as 'a novice abiding in his own guise,' in the prescribed rules for a novice too, this same principle applies in the case of not being a thief-dweller. The statement 'it is the same for a nun too' clarifies the meaning with 'she too, desiring the state of a householder,' and so on.

Sace koci vuḍḍhapabbajitoti sāmaṇeraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Mahāpeḷādīsūti etena gihisantakaṃ dassitaṃ. Sāmaṇerapaṭipāṭiyā…pe… theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti ettha kiñcāpi theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti, pārājikaṃ pana āpajjatiyeva. Sesamettha uttānamevāti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.110) vuttaṃ.

'If someone is one who has gone forth in old age'—this is said with reference to a novice. 'In the Mahāpeḷā, etc.'—by this, property belonging to householders is shown. In the passage 'in the order of novices…pe…he is not a thief-dweller,' here, although he is not a thief-dweller, he nevertheless incurs a pārājika offense. 'The rest here is self-evident'—this is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.110).

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.110) pana – theyyāya liṅgaggahaṇamattampi idha saṃvāso evāti āha ‘‘tayo theyyasaṃvāsakā’’ti. Na [Pg.244] yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandananti bhikkhūnaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ vā vandanaṃ na sādiyati. Yathāvuḍḍhaṃ vandananti attanā musāvādena dassitavassakkamena bhikkhūnaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyati. Daharasāmaṇero pana vuḍḍhasāmaṇerānaṃ, daharabhikkhū ca vuḍḍhānaṃ vandanaṃ sādiyantopi theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti. Imasmiṃ attheti saṃvāsatthenakatthe. Bhikkhuvassānīti idaṃ saṃvāsatthenake vuttapāṭhavasena vuttaṃ, sayameva pana pabbajitvā sāmaṇeravassāni gaṇentopi ubhayatthenako eva. Na kevalañca purisova, itthīpi bhikkhūnīsu evaṃ paṭipajjati, theyyasaṃvāsikāva. Ādikammikāpi cettha na muccanti. Upasampannesu eva paññattāpattiṃ paṭicca ādikammikā vuttā, tenevettha ādikammikopi na mutto.

In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.110), however, it is said: 'Here, even the mere taking of the guise for the purpose of theft is itself dwelling; hence it is stated, "There are three thief-dwellers."' 'He does not accept veneration according to seniority' means he does not accept veneration from monks or novices. 'He accepts veneration according to seniority' means, having spoken falsely himself, he accepts veneration from monks in accordance with the order of years he has presented. However, a junior novice accepting veneration from senior novices, or a junior monk from seniors, does not become a thief-dweller. 'In this meaning' refers to the meaning of 'thief of dwelling.' The phrase 'monk's years' is stated here according to the wording in the section on the 'thief of dwelling'; however, one who ordains oneself and counts the years as a novice is still a thief in both ways. Not only men, but if women also behave similarly among nuns, they are indeed thief-dwellers. Even first-time offenders are not exempt here. First-time offenders are mentioned with regard to offenses prescribed for those who are fully ordained, and therefore even a first-time offender is not exempt here.

Rāja…pe… bhayenāti ettha bhaya-saddo paccekaṃ yojetabbo. Yāva so suddhamānasoti ‘‘iminā liṅgena bhikkhū vañcetvā tehi saṃvasissāmī’’ti asuddhacittābhāvena suddhacitto. Tena hi asuddhacittena liṅge gahitamatte pacchā bhikkhūhi saha saṃvasatu vā mā vā, liṅgatthenako hoti. Pacchā saṃvasantopi abhabbo hutvā saṃvasati, tasmā ubhayatthenakopi liṅgatthenake eva pavisatīti veditabbaṃ. Yo pana rājādibhayena suddhacittova liṅgaṃ gahetvā vicaranto pacchā ‘‘bhikkhuvassāni gaṇetvā jīvassāmī’’ti asuddhacittaṃ uppādeti, so cittuppādamattena theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti suddhacittena gahitaliṅgattā. Sace pana so bhikkhūnaṃ santikaṃ gantvā sāmaṇeravassagaṇanādiṃ karoti, tadā saṃvāsatthenako, ubhayatthenako vā hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yaṃ pana parato ‘‘saha dhuranikkhepena ayampi theyyasaṃvāsakovā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ bhikkhūhi saṅgamma saṃvāsādhivāsanavasena dhuranikkhepaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘saṃvāsaṃ nādhivāseti, yāvā’’ti[Pg.245], tassa tāva theyyasaṃvāsako nāma na vuccatīti sambandho daṭṭhabbo. Ettha ca corādibhayaṃ vināpi kīḷādhippāyena liṅgaṃ gahetvā bhikkhūnampi santike pabbajitālayaṃ dassetvā vandanādiṃ asādiyantopi ‘‘sobhati nu kho me pabbajitaliṅga’’ntiādinā suddhacittena gaṇhantopi theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

'The king…pe… out of fear': here the word 'fear' should be applied individually. 'As long as his mind is pure': he is pure-minded due to the absence of an impure thought such as, 'By means of this guise, I will deceive the monks and dwell with them.' Therefore, for an impure-minded person, from the moment he takes up the guise, whether or not he later dwells with the monks, he is a 'thief of the guise.' Even if he later dwells with them, he dwells as one who is incapable; thus it should be understood that one who is a thief in both ways is included under the category of 'thief of the guise.' However, one who, out of fear of the king or others, takes up the guise with a pure mind and wanders, but later gives rise to an impure mind, thinking, 'I will count the years as a monk and make a living,' does not become a 'thief-dweller' merely by that arising of thought, because the guise was taken up with a pure mind. But if he then approaches the monks and performs actions such as counting the years as a novice, then he becomes a 'thief of dwelling,' or a thief in both ways; this should be understood. As for what was said further on—'Along with the laying down of the yoke, this one too is a thief-dweller'—that was said with reference to laying down the yoke by way of consenting to co-residence after meeting with the monks. Therefore, it was said, 'He does not consent to dwelling, as long as…'; the connection should be understood that up to that point, he is not called a 'thief-dweller.' And here it should be understood that even without fear of thieves or others, one who takes the guise with the intention of play, and, while showing an affection for the ordained state in the presence of monks, does not accept veneration and so on, taking it up with a pure mind, merely thinking, 'Does this monastic guise suit me?', is not a 'thief-dweller'.

Sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattānīti sabbasāmayikānaṃ sādhāraṇaṃ katvā paññattāni bhattāni. Idañca bhikkhūnaññeva niyamitabhattaggahaṇe saṃvāsopi sambhaveyyāti sabbasādhāraṇabhattaṃ vuttaṃ. Saṃvāsaṃ pana asādiyitvā abhikkhukavihārādīsu vihārabhattādīni bhuñjantopi theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti eva. Kammantānuṭṭhānenāti kasiādikammākaraṇena. Pattacīvaraṃ ādāyāti bhikkhuliṅgavasena sarīrena dhāretvā.

'Meals for all sectarians' (sabbapāsaṇḍiyabhattāni) refers to meals designated as common to all contemporary groups. This common meal is mentioned because, if monks were to accept meals designated only for them, communal living might also occur. However, one who does not approve of communal living but eats residence meals, etc., in non-monastic dwellings, etc., is certainly not a 'theyyasaṃvāsaka' (one who steals communal living). 'By not engaging in work' (kammantānuṭṭhānena) means by not doing agricultural work, etc. 'Taking bowl and robe' (pattacīvaraṃ ādāya) means carrying them on the body, appearing as a monk.

Yo evaṃ pabbajati, so theyyasaṃvāsako nāma hotīti idaṃ nidassanamattaṃ. ‘‘Theyyasaṃvāsako’’ti pana nāmaṃ ajānantopi ‘‘evaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vā ‘‘karonto samaṇo nāma na hotī’’ti vā ‘‘yadi ārocessāmi, chaḍḍayissanti ma’’nti vā ‘‘yena kenaci pabbajjā me na ruhatī’’ti jānāti, theyyasaṃvāsako hoti. Yo pana paṭhamaṃ ‘‘pabbajjā evaṃ me gahitā’’ti saññī kevalaṃ antarā attano setavatthanivāsanādivippakāraṃ pakāsetuṃ lajjanto na katheti, so theyyasaṃvāsako na hoti. Anupasampannakāleyevāti ettha avadhāraṇena upasampannakāle theyyasaṃvāsakalakkhaṇaṃ ñatvā vañcanāyapi nāroceti, theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti dīpeti. So hi suddhacittena gahitaliṅgattā liṅgatthenako na hoti, laddhūpasampadattā tadanuguṇasseva saṃvāsassa sāditattā saṃvāsatthenakopi [Pg.246] na hoti. Anupasampanno pana liṅgatthenako hoti, saṃvāsārahassa liṅgassa gahitattā saṃvāsasādiyanamattena saṃvāsatthenako hoti.

One who goes forth thus is called a 'theyyasaṃvāsaka' (one who steals communal living)—this is merely an illustration. But even without knowing the term 'theyyasaṃvāsaka,' if one understands, 'This should not be done,' or 'By doing so, one is not truly an ascetic,' or 'If I confess, they will expel me,' or 'By some means, my going forth is not valid,' then one is a theyyasaṃvāsaka. However, one who is initially aware, 'My going forth was undertaken in this way,' but out of shame does not speak up merely to reveal a discrepancy such as his wearing of lay clothes, is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. 'Only while not yet fully ordained' (anupasampannakāleyeva): here, by this specification, it is shown that even if one knows the characteristics of a theyyasaṃvāsaka at the time of full ordination but does not confess due to deceit, he is not a theyyasaṃvāsaka. For he, having taken the insignia with a pure mind, is not a 'liṅgatthenaka' (one who steals the insignia); and having obtained full ordination, because he enjoys the communal living appropriate to it, he is not a 'saṃvāsatthenaka' (one who steals communal living). But one who is not fully ordained is a liṅgatthenaka, because he has taken the insignia which qualifies one for communal living. He is a saṃvāsatthenaka merely by enjoying the communal living.

Saliṅge ṭhitoti saliṅgabhāve ṭhito. Theyyasaṃvāsako na hotīti bhikkhūhi dinnaliṅgassa apariccattattā liṅgatthenako na hoti. Bhikkhupaṭiññāya apariccattattā saṃvāsatthenako na hoti. Yaṃ pana mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā) ‘‘liṅgānurūpassa saṃvāsassa sāditattā nāpi saṃvāsatthenako’’ti kāraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, tampi idameva kāraṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Itarathā sāmaṇerassāpi bhikkhuvassagaṇanādīsu liṅgānurūpasaṃvāso eva sāditoti saṃvāsatthenakatā na siyā bhikkhūhi dinnaliṅgassa ubhinnampi sādhāraṇattā. Yathā cettha bhikkhu, evaṃ sāmaṇeropi pārājikaṃ samāpanno sāmaṇerapaṭiññāya apariccattattā saṃvāsatthenako na hotīti veditabbo. Sobhatīti sampaṭicchitvāti kāsāvadhāraṇe dhuraṃ nikkhipitvā gihibhāvaṃ sampaṭicchitvā.

'Standing in his own insignia' (saliṅge ṭhito) means remaining in the state of his own insignia. He is not a 'theyyasaṃvāsaka' (one who steals communal living) because, since the insignia given by the monks have not been relinquished, he is not a 'liṅgatthenaka' (one who steals the insignia). Nor is he a 'saṃvāsatthenaka' (one who steals communal living) because the acknowledgment of being a monk has not been relinquished. However, the reason stated in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, Aṭṭhakathā on the first Pārājika)—'Because he enjoys a communal living that conforms to the insignia, he is also not a saṃvāsatthenaka'—is also said with reference to this very reason. Otherwise, for a novice too, who enjoys a communal living that conforms to the insignia in matters such as counting the rains-residence like a bhikkhu, there would be no state of being a saṃvāsatthenaka, because the insignia given by the monks is common to both. Just as in this case a monk, so too a novice who has committed a pārājika does not qualify as a saṃvāsatthenaka because the acknowledgment of being a novice has not been relinquished—this should be understood. 'He looks proper' (sobhati) means having accepted—having laid down the burden in regard to the wearing of the ochre robe, he has accepted the state of a householder.

Sace koci vuḍḍhapabbajitoti sāmaṇeraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Mahāpeḷādīsūti vilīvādimayesu gharadvāresu ṭhapitesu bhattabhājanavisesesu. Etena vihāre bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vassagaṇanādīnaṃ akaraṇaṃ dassetīti vuttaṃ.

'If someone calls an old renunciant' (sace koci vuḍḍhapabbajito): this is said with reference to a novice (sāmaṇera). 'In great baskets, etc.' (mahāpeḷādīsu) refers to special food containers made of bamboo strips, etc., placed at house doors. By this, it is said, it is shown that he did not engage with the monks in the monastery in activities such as calculating the years of rains-residence.

139. Titthiyapakkantakakathāyaṃ tesaṃ liṅge ādinnamatte titthiyapakkantako hotīti ‘‘titthiyo bhavissāmī’’ti gatassa liṅgaggahaṇeneva tesaṃ laddhipi gahitāyeva hotīti katvā vuttaṃ. Kenaci pana ‘‘tesaṃ liṅge ādinnamatte laddhiyā gahitāyapi aggahitāyapi titthiyapakkantako hotī’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi ‘‘titthiyo bhavissāmī’’ti gatassa liṅgasampaṭicchanato aññaṃ laddhiggahaṇaṃ [Pg.247] nāma atthi. Liṅgasampaṭicchaneneva hi so gahitaladdhiko hoti. Teneva ‘‘vīmaṃsanatthaṃ kusacīrādīni…pe… yāva na sampaṭicchati, tāva taṃ laddhi rakkhati, sampaṭicchitamatte titthiyapakkantako hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Naggova ājīvakānaṃ upassayaṃ gacchati, padavāre padavāre dukkaṭanti ‘‘ājīvako bhavissa’’nti asuddhacittena gamanapaccayā dukkaṭaṃ vuttaṃ. Naggena hutvā gamanapaccayāpi padavāre dukkaṭā na muccatiyevāti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.110) vuttaṃ.

139. In the discussion on those who have gone over to the sectarians (titthiyapakkantaka), it is said that one becomes a sectarian apostate as soon as the sectarian insignia are adopted. This is because, for one who goes with the intention, 'I will become a sectarian,' the mere act of taking up the insignia itself constitutes the taking up of their creed. However, some say, 'Whether the creed is taken up or not, one becomes a sectarian apostate as soon as the sectarian insignia are adopted.' This should not be accepted. For there is no other act of taking up a creed apart from accepting the insignia by one who goes with the intention, 'I will become a sectarian.' Indeed, by accepting the insignia alone, one has taken up the creed. Therefore, it is said, 'For the purpose of investigation, if one wears a grass garment, etc., ... as long as one does not accept it, one retains one's own creed. But as soon as one accepts it, one becomes a sectarian apostate.' 'A naked person who goes to the residence of the Ājīvikas incurs a dukkaṭa at every step': the dukkaṭa (minor offense) is stated because of going with an impure mind, thinking, 'I will become an Ājīvaka.' Even by going naked, one is certainly not freed from the dukkaṭa offense at every step. This is explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.110).

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.110) pana – titthiyapakkantakādikathāsu tesaṃ liṅge ādinnamatteti vīmaṃsādiadhippāyaṃ vinā ‘‘titthiyo bhavissāmī’’ti sanniṭṭhānavasena liṅge kāyena dhāritamatte. Sayamevāti titthiyānaṃ santikaṃ agantvā sayameva saṅghārāmepi kusacīrādīni nivāseti. Ājīvako bhavissanti…pe… gacchatīti ājīvakānaṃ santike tesaṃ pabbajanavidhinā ‘‘ājīvako bhavissāmī’’ti gacchati. Tassa hi titthiyabhāvūpagamanaṃ pati sanniṭṭhāne vijjamānepi ‘‘gantvā bhavissāmī’’ti parikappitattā padavāre dukkaṭameva vuttaṃ. Dukkaṭanti pāḷiyā avuttepi methunādīsu vuttapubbapayogadukkaṭānulomato vuttaṃ. Etena ca sanniṭṭhānavasena liṅge sampaṭicchite pārājikaṃ, tato purimapayoge thullaccayañca vattabbameva. Thullaccayakkhaṇe nivattantopi āpattiṃ desāpetvā muccati evāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yathā cettha, evaṃ saṅghabhedepi lohituppādepi bhikkhūnaṃ pubbapayogādīsu dukkaṭathullaccayapārājikāhi muccanasīmā ca veditabbā. Sāsanaviruddhatāyettha ādikammikānampi anāpatti na vuttā. Pabbajjāyapi abhabbatādassanatthaṃ panete aññe ca pārājikakaṇḍe visuṃ [Pg.248] sikkhāpadena pārājikādiṃ adassetvā idha abhabbesu eva vuttāti veditabbaṃ.

In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.110), however—regarding the discussion of those who have gone over to the sectarians (titthiyapakkantaka), etc.—the phrase 'merely taken the insignia' (liṅge ādinnamatta) refers to the mere bearing of their insignia on the body with the resolution, 'I will become a sectarian,' without any intention of investigation, etc. 'By himself' (sayameva) means that without going to the sectarians, he himself puts on grass garments, etc., even in the monastery. 'He will become an Ājīvaka… he goes' (ājīvako bhavissanti…pe… gacchati) means he goes to the Ājīvikas according to their method of renunciation with the thought, 'I will become an Ājīvaka.' For him, even though a resolution to adopt the sectarian state exists, because it is conceived as 'I will go and become one,' a 'dukkaṭa' (minor offense) is stated for every step. 'Dukkaṭa'—though not mentioned explicitly in the Pāli—is stated here in accordance with the previously stated dukkaṭa for preliminary acts in cases like sexual intercourse. And by this, if the insignia is accepted with resolution, it is a 'pārājika' (defeat offense); before that, in the preliminary act, a 'thullaccaya' (gross offense) should also be stated. Even if one turns back at the moment of thullaccaya, after confessing the offense, one is certainly freed—this should be understood. Just as here, so too in cases of schism in the Saṅgha and shedding blood, the boundaries for release from dukkaṭa, thullaccaya, and pārājika offenses in the preliminary acts, etc., of the monks should be understood. Here, because it is contrary to the Dispensation, no exemption is stated even for first offenders. Moreover, it should be understood that, in order to show their unfitness even for ordination, these and other cases in the Pārājika section are mentioned here only among those who are unfit, without showing them to be pārājika, etc., by a separate training rule.

Taṃ laddhīti titthiyavese seṭṭhabhāvaggahaṇameva sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tesañhi titthiyānaṃ sassatādiggāhaṃ gaṇhantopi liṅge asampaṭicchite titthiyapakkantako na hoti, taṃ laddhiṃ aggahetvāpi ‘‘etesaṃ vatacariyā sundarā’’ti liṅgaṃ sampaṭicchanto titthiyapakkantako hoti eva. Laddhiyā abhāvenāti bhikkhubhāve sālayatāya titthiyabhāvūpagamanaladdhiyā abhāvena. Etena ca āpadāsu kusacīrādiṃ pārupantassapi naggassa viya anāpattīti dasseti. Upasampannabhikkhunā kathitoti ettha saṅghabhedakopi upasampannabhikkhunāva kathito, mātughātakādayo pana anupasampannenātipi daṭṭhabbanti āgataṃ.

'That creed' (taṃ laddhi) is said with reference to the very adoption of the state of being foremost in the guise of a sectarian. For one who holds the views of those sectarians, such as eternalism, does not become a sectarian apostate as long as he does not accept the insignia; but one who accepts the insignia, even without adopting that view, thinking, 'Their way of practice is beautiful,' certainly does become a sectarian apostate. 'By the absence of a creed' (laddhiyā abhāvena) means, due to attachment to the state of a monk, the absence of the creed of entering the state of a sectarian. And by this, it is shown that even in emergencies, for one wearing a grass garment or the like, there is no offense, like one who is naked. 'Spoken by an ordained monk' (upasampannabhikkhunā kathito): here, a schismatic in the Saṅgha is also spoken of as being an ordained monk. But it is stated that matricides and the like should be understood as such even if they are not ordained.

140. Tiracchānakathāyaṃ ‘‘yo koci amanussajātiyo, sabbova imasmiṃ atthe tiracchānagatoti veditabbo’’ti etena eso manussajātiyo eva bhagavato sāsane pabbajituṃ vā upasampajjituṃ vā labhati, na tato aññeti dīpeti. Tenāha bhagavā ‘‘tumhe khottha nāgā aviruḷhidhammā imasmiṃ dhammavinaye’’ti (mahāva. 111).

140. Regarding animal talk, "Whatever being is of non-human birth, all are to be understood in this context as 'gone to the animal realm.'" By this, it is shown that only a being of human birth in the Blessed One's dispensation has the opportunity to go forth or receive full ordination, and not another. Therefore, the Blessed One said, "You are nāgas who are of undeveloped nature in this Dhamma-Vinaya" (Mahāvagga 111).

141. Ānantariyakathāyaṃ tiracchānādiamanussajātito manussajātikānaññeva puttesu mettādayopi tikkhavisadā honti lokuttaraguṇā viyāti āha ‘‘manussitthibhūtā janikā mātā’’ti. Yathā manussānaññeva kusalapavatti tikkhavisadā, evaṃ akusalapavattipīti āha ‘‘sayampi manussajātikenevā’’tiādi. Atha vā yathā samānajātiyassa vikopane kammaṃ garutaraṃ, na tathā vijātiyassāti āha ‘‘manussitthibhūtā’’ti. Puttasambandhena mātupitusamaññā[Pg.249], dattakittimādivasenapi puttavohāro loke dissati, so ca kho pariyāyatoti nippariyāyasiddhataṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘janikā mātā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yathā manussattabhāve ṭhitasseva kusaladhammānaṃ tikkhavisadasūrabhāvāpatti yathā taṃ tiṇṇampi bodhisattānaṃ bodhittayanibbattiyaṃ, evaṃ manussattabhāve ṭhitasseva akusaladhammānampi tikkhavisadasūrabhāvāpattīti āha ‘‘sayampi manussajātikenevā’’ti. Ānantariyenāti ettha cutianantaraṃ niraye paṭisandhiphalaṃ anantaraṃ nāma, tasmiṃ anantare janakattena niyuttaṃ ānantariyaṃ, tena. Atha vā cutianantaraṃ phalaṃ anantaraṃ nāma, tasmiṃ anantare niyuttaṃ, tannibbattanena anantarakaraṇasīlaṃ, anantarappayojanaṃ vā ānantariyaṃ, tena ānantariyena mātughātakakammena. Pitughātakepi ‘‘yena manussabhūto janako pitā sayampi manussajātikeneva satā sañcicca jīvitā voropito, ayaṃ ānantariyena pitughātakakammena pitughātako’’tiādinā sabbaṃ veditabbanti āha ‘‘pitughātakepi eseva nayo’’ti.

141. In the discussion on Ānantariya, it is said that for the children of human beings, loving-kindness and other virtues become sharp and clear, unlike for those born as animals or other non-humans, just as transcendent qualities do. Hence, it is stated: 'The mother who gave birth was a human woman.' Just as virtuous conduct is sharp and clear only among humans, so too is unwholesome conduct—thus it is said: 'Even he himself, being of human birth...' Alternatively, just as the kamma of harming someone of the same birth is heavier than harming someone of a different birth, it is stated: 'The mother who gave birth was a human woman.' The terms 'mother' and 'father' arise due to the relationship with a child. Even in the world, terms like 'adopted son' or 'foster child' are used, but these are only figurative expressions. To clarify the non-figurative, established meaning, it is said: 'The birth-giver is the mother.' Just as wholesome qualities become sharp, clear, and courageous when one exists in the human state—as seen in the attainment of the three kinds of enlightenment by the three Bodhisattas—so too can unwholesome qualities become sharp, clear, and courageous when one exists in the human state. Thus, it is said: 'Even he himself, being of human birth...' Here, 'by immediate retribution (ānantariya)' means that the fruit is rebirth in hell immediately after death, which is called 'immediate' (anantara); being connected to generating that immediate result is ānantariya. Alternatively, the fruit immediately following death is called 'immediate' (anantara), and that which is connected to it, whose nature is to cause an immediate result, or whose purpose is immediate, is ānantariya. Thus, by the ānantariya kamma of matricide. In the case of patricide, it should all be understood in this way: 'He by whom a human father, his birth-giver, was intentionally deprived of life, he himself being of human birth, is a patricide by the ānantariya kamma of patricide.' Thus it is said: 'The same method applies to patricide.'

Parivattitaliṅgampi mātaraṃ vā pitaraṃ vā jīvitā voropentassa ānantariyakammaṃ hotiyeva. Satipi hi liṅgaparivatte so eva ekakammanibbatto bhavaṅgappabandho jīvitappabandho, na aññoti. Yo pana sayaṃ manusso tiracchānabhūtaṃ pitaraṃ vā mātaraṃ vā, sayaṃ vā tiracchānabhūto manussabhūtaṃ, tiracchānoyeva vā tiracchānabhūtaṃ jīvitā voropeti, tassa kammaṃ ānantariyaṃ na hoti, bhāriyaṃ pana hoti, ānantariyaṃ āhacceva tiṭṭhati. Eḷakacatukkaṃ saṅgāmacatukkaṃ coracatukkañcettha kathetabbaṃ. ‘‘Eḷakaṃ māremī’’ti abhisandhināpi hi eḷakaṭṭhāne ṭhitaṃ manusso manussabhūtaṃ mātaraṃ vā pitaraṃ vā mārento ānantariyaṃ [Pg.250] phusati maraṇādhippāyeneva ānantariyavatthuno vikopitattā. Eḷakābhisandhinā, pana mātāpitiabhisandhinā vā eḷakaṃ mārento ānantariyaṃ na phusati ānantariyavatthuno abhāvato. Mātāpitiabhisandhinā mātāpitaro mārento phussateva. Esa nayo itarasmimpi catukkadvaye. Yathā ca mātāpitūsu, evaṃ arahantesu etāni catukkāni veditabbāni. Sabbattha hi purimaṃ abhisandhicittaṃ appamāṇaṃ, vadhakacittaṃ, pana tadārammaṇajīvitindriyañca pamāṇaṃ. Katānantariyakammo ca ‘‘tassa kammassa vipākaṃ paṭibāhessāmī’’ti sakalacakkavāḷaṃ mahācetiyappamāṇehi kañcanathūpehi pūretvāpi sakalacakkavāḷaṃ pūretvā nisinnassa bhikkhusaṅghassa mahādānaṃ datvāpi buddhassa bhagavato saṅghāṭikaṇṇaṃ amuñcanto vicaritvāpi kāyassa bhedā nirayameva upapajjati, pabbajjañca na labhati. Pitughātake vesiyā puttoti upalakkhaṇamattaṃ, kulitthiyā aticāriniyā puttopi attano pitaraṃ ajānitvā ghāntentopi pitughātakova hoti.

Even if their gender has changed, for one who kills their mother or father it is still an ānantariya kamma. For even when the gender changes, that same continuum of the life-continuum consciousness, that continuum of life produced by a single kamma, is the same being, not another. But if a human kills a parent who has become an animal, or an animal kills a parent who has become a human, or an animal kills a parent who has become an animal, that action is not an ānantariya, though it is still weighty; it borders on an ānantariya. Here, the fourfold cases of the goat, the battle, and the thief should be related. For even with the intention, "I will kill a goat," if a human kills a human mother or father who is standing in the place of a goat, one incurs an ānantariya because the object of an ānantariya has been violated with the intention to kill. But if one kills a goat with the intention of killing a goat, or if, with the intention of killing one's parents, one kills a goat, one does not incur an ānantariya due to the absence of the object for it. If, with the intention of killing one's parents, one kills one's parents, one does incur it. The same method applies to the other two fourfold cases. And just as with parents, so too with arahants—these fourfold cases should be understood. For in all cases, the prior intention is not the standard; rather, the thought at the time of killing and the life-faculty which is its object are the standard. One who has committed an ānantariya kamma cannot ward off its result, even if they fill the entire cakkavāḷa with golden stūpas the size of the Mahācetiya, offer a great gift to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus seated filling the entire cakkavāḷa, or wander about without letting go of the corner of the Blessed Buddha's outer robe—at the breakup of the body, they are reborn in hell and do not receive ordination. In the case of a patricide, 'the son of a prostitute' is just an example. Even the son of an adulterous high-class woman who kills his own father without knowing him is still a patricide.

Arahantaghātakakamme avasesanti anāgāmiādikaṃ. Ayamettha saṅkhepo, vitthāro pana tatiyapārājikavaṇṇanāto gahetabbo.

Regarding the act of killing an Arahant, the remaining cases are those of the non-returner and so on. This is the summary here; the detailed exposition, however, should be taken from the commentary on the third pārājika.

‘‘Duṭṭhacittenā’’ti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti ‘‘vadhakacittenā’’ti. Vadhakacetanāya hi dūsitaṃ cittaṃ idha duṭṭhacittaṃ nāma. Lohitaṃ uppādetīti ettha tathāgatassa abhejjakāyatāya parūpakkamena cammacchedaṃ katvā lohitapaggharaṇaṃ nāma natthi, sarīrassa pana antoyeva ekasmiṃ ṭhāne lohitaṃ samosarati, āghātena pakuppamānaṃ sañcitaṃ hoti. Devadattena paviddhasilato bhijjitvā gatā sakkhalikāpi tathāgatassa pādantaṃ pahari, pharasunā pahaṭo viya [Pg.251] pādo antolohitoyeva ahosi. Jīvako pana tathāgatassa ruciyā satthakena cammaṃ chinditvā tamhā ṭhānā duṭṭhalohitaṃ nīharitvā phāsumakāsi, tenassa puññakammameva ahosi. Tenāha ‘‘jīvako viyā’’tiādi.

The meaning of the phrase 'with a malicious mind' is clarified by 'with a mind to kill.' For a mind corrupted by the intention to kill is here called a 'malicious mind.' Regarding 'drawing blood,' here, because the Tathāgata's body is inviolable, there is no such thing as cutting the skin by another's attack and causing blood to flow. However, inside the body, blood gathers in one place; being disturbed by the impact, it accumulates. Even a splinter that broke off from the rock hurled by Devadatta struck the Tathāgata's foot, and the foot became internally bloodied, as if struck by an axe. But Jīvaka, with the Tathāgata's consent, cut the skin with a scalpel and drew out the bad blood from that spot, making him comfortable—for him, this was only an act of merit. Hence it is said, 'like Jīvaka,' and so on.

Atha ye parinibbute tathāgate cetiyaṃ bhindanti, bodhiṃ chindanti, dhātumhi upakkamanti, tesaṃ kiṃ hotīti? Bhāriyaṃ kammaṃ hoti ānantariyasadisaṃ. Sadhātukaṃ pana thūpaṃ vā paṭimaṃ vā bādhamānaṃ bodhisākhaṃ chindituṃ vaṭṭati. Sacepi tattha nilīnā sakuṇā cetiye vaccaṃ pātenti, chindituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Paribhogacetiyato hi sarīracetiyaṃ garutaraṃ. Cetiyavatthuṃ bhinditvā gacchante bodhimūlepi chinditvā harituṃ vaṭṭati. Yā pana bodhisākhā bodhigharaṃ bādhati, taṃ geharakkhaṇatthaṃ chindituṃ na labhati. Bodhiatthāya hi gehaṃ, na gehatthāya bodhi. Āsanagharepi eseva nayo. Yasmiṃ pana āsanaghare dhātu nihitā hoti, tassa rakkhaṇatthāya taṃ sākhaṃ chindituṃ vaṭṭati. Bodhijagganatthaṃ ojoharaṇasākhaṃ vā pūtiṭṭhānaṃ vā chindituṃ vaṭṭatiyeva, satthu rūpakāyapaṭijaggane viya puññampi hoti.

Then, for those who, after the Tathāgata has attained Parinibbāna, destroy a cetiya, cut down a Bodhi tree, or attack a relic, what is the result? It is a weighty kamma, similar to an ānantariya. However, it is permissible to cut a Bodhi branch that is obstructing a stūpa or image containing relics. Even if birds perched there drop excrement on the cetiya, it is still permissible to cut it. For a cetiya of bodily relics is more important than a cetiya of use. If invaders, having destroyed the cetiya's foundation, are leaving, it is permissible to cut the Bodhi tree at its root and carry it away. But a branch of the Bodhi tree that obstructs a Bodhi-house may not be cut for the sake of protecting the building. For the building is for the sake of the Bodhi, not the Bodhi for the sake of the building. The same principle applies to a hall with a throne. However, in a hall with a throne where a relic is enshrined, it is permissible to cut that branch for its protection. For the sake of tending the Bodhi tree, it is permissible to cut a branch that is drawing away the sap or a rotten part; just as in tending the Master's physical body, there is also merit.

Saṅghabhede catunnaṃ kammānanti apalokanādīnaṃ catunnaṃ kammānaṃ. Ayaṃ saṅghabhedakoti pakatattaṃ bhikkhuṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Pubbe eva pārājikaṃ samāpanno vā vatthādidosena vipannupasampado vā saṅghaṃ bhindantopi ānantariyaṃ na phusati, saṅgho pana bhinnova hoti, pabbajjā cassa na vāritāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

In schism of the Saṅgha, 'of the four acts' means of the four acts beginning with proclamation. 'This is a schismatic' is said with reference to a monk of normal status. One who has previously committed a pārājika offense, or one whose higher ordination is invalid due to a flaw in the candidate, etc., even when splitting the Saṅgha, does not incur an ānantariya. However, the Saṅgha is indeed split, and his going forth is not barred, it should be understood.

Bhikkhunīdūsane icchamānanti odātavatthavasanaṃ icchamānaṃ. Tenevāha ‘‘gihibhāve sampaṭicchitamatteyevā’’ti. Neva pabbajjā [Pg.252] atthīti yojanā. Yo ca paṭikkhitte abhabbe ca puggale ñatvā pabbājeti, upasampādeti vā, dukkaṭaṃ. Ajānantassa sabbattha anāpattīti veditabbaṃ.

In the context of defiling a bhikkhunī, 'desiring' refers to one who desires to wear white clothes. Therefore, it is said: "Merely upon accepting the householder life." The explanation is that there is no going forth. Whoever, knowing a rejected and incapable person, gives them the going forth or the full ordination, commits a wrong-doing. It should be understood that there is no offense for one who does not know in all cases.

142. Gabbhamāsehi saddhiṃ vīsati vassāni assāti gabbhavīso. Hāyanavaḍḍhananti gabbhamāsesu adhikesu uttari hāyanaṃ, ūnesu vaḍḍhananti veditabbaṃ. Ekūnavīsativassanti dvādasa māse mātukucchismiṃ vasitvā mahāpavāraṇāya jātakālato paṭṭhāya ekūnavīsativassaṃ. Pāṭipadadivaseti pacchimikāya vassūpagamanadivase. ‘‘Tiṃsarattidivo māso’’ti (a. ni. 3.71; 8.43; vibha. 1023) vacanato ‘‘cattāro māsā parihāyantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhantīti vassaṃ uddhaṃ kaḍḍhanti, tatiyasaṃvacchare ekamāsassa adhikattā māsapariccajanavasena vassaṃ uddhaṃ kaḍḍhantīti attho, tasmā tatiyo saṃvaccharo terasamāsiko hoti. Saṃvaccharassa pana dvādasamāsikattā aṭṭhārasasu vassesu adhikamāse visuṃ gahetvā ‘‘cha māsā vaḍḍhantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tatoti chamāsato. Nikkaṅkhā hutvāti adhikamāsehi saddhiṃ paripuṇṇavīsativassattā nibbematikā hutvā. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu ‘‘aṭṭhārasannaṃyeva vassānaṃ adhikamāse gahetvā gaṇitattā sesavassadvayassapi adhikadivasāni honti, tāni adhikadivasāni sandhāya ‘nikkaṅkhā hutvā’ti vutta’’nti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi dvīsu vassesu adhikadivasāni nāma visuṃ upalabbhanti tatiye vasse vassukkaḍḍhanavasena adhikamāse pariccatteyeva atirekamāsasambhavato, tasmā dvīsu vassesu atirekadivasāni visuṃ na sambhavanti.

142. Gabbhavīso means one who is twenty years old including the months in the womb. Hāyanavaḍḍhana should be understood as follows: when the months in the womb are in excess, there is a decrease in the year; when they are fewer, there is an increase. Ekūnavīsativassa refers to nineteen years from the time of birth at the Great Pavāraṇā, after having spent twelve months in the mother's womb. Pāṭipadadivase means on the day of entering the later rains-residence. According to the statement, "Thirty days and nights make a month," it is said, "Four months decrease." Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhanti means they draw the year upwards; the meaning is that in the third year, due to an extra month, they draw the year upwards by means of releasing a month. Therefore, the third year has thirteen months. Since a year consists of twelve months, in eighteen years, the extra months are taken separately, and it is said, "Six months increase." Tato means from those six months. Nikkaṅkhā hutvā means becoming free from doubt because the full twenty years, including the extra months, is complete. However, what was said in the three commentarial notes—"Because the extra months in eighteen years are taken and calculated, the remaining two years also have extra days, and it was said with reference to those extra days, 'being free from doubt'"—should not be accepted. For extra days are not found separately in two years, since the possibility of an extra month arises only in the third year by drawing the year upwards by means of releasing a month. Therefore, extra days do not arise separately in two years.

‘‘Te dve māse gahetvā vīsati vassāni paripuṇṇāni hontī’’ti kasmā vuttaṃ, ekūnavīsativassamhi ca puna aparasmiṃ [Pg.253] vasse pakkhitte vīsati vassāni paripuṇṇāni hontīti āha ‘‘ettha pana…pe… vutta’’nti. Anekatthattā nipātānaṃ pana-saddo hisaddattho, ettha hīti vuttaṃ hoti. Idañhi vuttassevatthassa samatthanavasena vuttaṃ. Iminā ca imaṃ dīpeti – yaṃ vuttaṃ ‘‘ekūnavīsativassaṃ sāmaṇeraṃ nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsiṃ atikkamma pāṭipadadivase upasampādentī’’ti, tattha gabbhamāsepi gahetvā dvīhi māsehi aparipuṇṇavīsativassaṃ sandhāya ‘‘ekūnavīsativassa’’nti vuttaṃ, tasmā adhikamāsesu dvīsu gahitesu eva vīsati vassāni paripuṇṇāni nāma hontīti. Tasmāti yasmā gabbhamāsāpi gaṇanūpagā honti, tasmā. Ekavīsativasso hotīti jātadivasato paṭṭhāya vīsativasso samāno gabbhamāsehi saddhiṃ ekavīsativasso hoti. Aññaṃ upasampādetīti upajjhāyo, kammavācācariyo vā hutvā upasampādetīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.406) āgataṃ.

Why is it said, 'Taking those two months, twenty years are completed'? And when another year is added to the nineteenth, twenty years are completed. To this, it is said, 'Here, however...'. Since particles have multiple meanings, the word 'pana' here has the meaning of 'hi' (indeed); thus, it is said as 'ettha hi'. This is stated in order to support the meaning already stated. And by this, it is explained: What was said, 'They give the higher ordination to a novice who is nineteen years old on the day after the departing full moon,' refers to someone whose twenty years are incomplete by two months, even including the months in the womb; thus, it is called 'nineteen years.' Therefore, only when those two additional months are taken into account do twenty years become complete. The word 'Therefore' is used because the months of gestation are also included in the reckoning. 'One is twenty-one years old' means that being twenty years old from the day of birth, one is twenty-one years old together with the months of gestation. 'Ordains another' means one ordains by becoming a preceptor or a teacher who recites the Kammavācā. This comes from the Sāratthadīpanī.

Gabbhe sayitakālena saddhiṃ vīsatimaṃ vassaṃ paripuṇṇamassāti gabbhavīso. Nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsīti sāvaṇamāsassa puṇṇamiyā āsāḷhīpuṇṇamiyā anantarapuṇṇamī. Pāṭipadadivaseti pacchimikāya vassūpanāyikāya, dvādasa māse mātukucchismiṃ vasitvā mahāpavāraṇāya jātaṃ upasampādentīti attho. ‘‘Tiṃsarattidivo māso, dvādasamāsiko saṃvaccharo’’ti vacanato ‘‘cattāro māsā parihāyantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhantīti vassaṃ uddhaṃ kaḍḍhanti, ‘‘ekamāsaṃ adhikamāso’’ti chaḍḍetvā vassaṃ upagacchantīti attho, tasmā tatiyo tatiyo saṃvaccharo terasamāsiko hoti. Te dve māse gahetvāti nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsato yāva jātadivasabhūtā mahāpavāraṇā, tāva ye dve māsā anāgatā, tesaṃ atthāya [Pg.254] adhikamāsato laddhe dve māse gahetvā. Tenāha ‘‘yo pavāretvā vīsativasso bhavissatī’’tiādi. ‘‘Nikkaṅkhā hutvā’’ti idaṃ aṭṭhārasannaṃ vassānaṃ eva adhikamāse gahetvā tato vīsatiyā vassesupi cātuddasīnaṃ atthāya catunnaṃ māsānaṃ parihāpanena sabbathā paripuṇṇavīsativassataṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ.

Gabbhavīso means one whose twentieth year is complete together with the time spent lying in the womb. Nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsī refers to the full moon of the month of Sāvaṇa, which is the full moon immediately following the full moon of Āsāḷhī. Pāṭipadadivase means on the day of the later rains-residence; the meaning is that they give the higher ordination to one who was born at the Great Pavāraṇā after having stayed twelve months in the mother's womb. According to the saying, "Thirty days and nights make a month, twelve months make a year," it is stated, "Four months decrease." Vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhanti means they draw the year upwards; the meaning is that they enter the rains-residence having designated one month as an extra month. Therefore, every third year has thirteen months. 'Taking those two months' means taking the two months obtained from the intercalary month for the sake of those two months that are yet to come, from the departing full moon until the Great Pavāraṇā, which is the day of birth. Hence it is said, "Whoever, after the Pavāraṇā, will be twenty years old," and so on. 'Being free from doubt' is said with reference to being completely twenty years old in every way, by taking the extra months for eighteen years and then, for the sake of the fourteenth days even in the twenty years, by omitting four months.

Pavāretvā vīsativasso bhavissatīti mahāpavāraṇādivase atikkante gabbhavassena saha vīsativasso bhavissatīti attho. Tasmāti yasmā gabbhamāsāpi gaṇanūpagā honti, tasmā. Ekavīsativassoti jātiyā vīsativassaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Aññaṃ upasampādetīti upajjhāyo, ācariyo vā hutvā upasampādeti. Sopīti upasampādentopi anupasampannoti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.406) āgataṃ.

'After the Pavāraṇā, he will be twenty years old' means that after the day of the Great Pavāraṇā has passed, he will be twenty years old together with the year in the womb. The word 'Therefore' is used because the months of gestation are also included in the reckoning. 'Twenty-one years old' is said with reference to being twenty years old from birth. 'Ordains another' means one ordains by becoming a preceptor or a teacher. 'He also' means that even the one who ordains is not fully ordained. This comes from the Vimativinodanī.

Ettha siyā – aṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ‘‘aṭṭhārasasu vassesu cha māsā vaḍḍhantī’’ti vuttaṃ, idāni pana ‘‘ekūnavīsatiyā vassesu satta māsā adhikā’’ti vadanti, kathamettha viññātabbanti? Vuccate – aṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu sāsanavohārena lokiyagatiṃ anupagamma tīsu tīsu saṃvaccharesu māsachaḍḍanaṃ gahetvā ‘‘aṭṭhārasasu vassesu cha māsā vaḍḍhantī’’ti vuttaṃ, idāni pana vedavohārena candasūriyagatisaṅkhātaṃ tithiṃ gahetvā gaṇento ‘‘ekūnavīsatiyā vassesu satta māsā adhikā’’ti vadantīti, taṃ vassūpanāyikakathāyaṃ āvi bhavissati.

Here it might be said: In the commentaries and sub-commentaries it is stated, "In eighteen years, six months increase." But now they say, "In nineteen years, seven months are extra." How should this be understood? It is said: In the commentaries and sub-commentaries, using the convention of the Teaching and not adopting the worldly method, it is stated, 'In eighteen years, six months increase,' by taking into account the discarding of a month every three years. But now, using the Vedic convention, by reckoning according to the lunar day calculated based on the movements of the moon and sun, they say, 'In nineteen years, seven months are extra.' This will become clear in the discourse on the rains-residence.

143. Mātā vā matā hotīti sambandho. Soyevāti pabbajjāpekkho eva.

143. 'Or the mother is dead' is the connection. 'He himself' means only the one seeking the going-forth.

144. ‘‘Ekasīmāyañca [Pg.255] aññepi bhikkhū atthīti iminā ekasīmāyaṃ bhikkhumhi asati bhaṇḍukammārocanakiccaṃ natthīti dasseti. Khaṇḍasīmāya vā ṭhatvā nadīsamuddādīni vā gantvā pabbājetabboti etena sabbe sīmaṭṭhakabhikkhū āpucchitabbā, anāpucchā pabbājetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dīpeti.

144. By the phrase, 'And there are other bhikkhus within a single boundary,' it is shown that if there is no bhikkhu within that single boundary, there is no duty of announcing the bhaṇḍukamma. By the phrase, 'Having stood in a broken boundary, or having gone to a river, sea, etc., one should be given the going-forth,' it is shown that all bhikkhus residing within the boundary must be consulted; it is not proper to give the going-forth without having consulted them.

145. Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapātanti aggahitaaggaṃ piṇḍapātaṃ. Sāmaṇerabhāgasamako āmisabhāgoti ettha kiñcāpi sāmaṇerānaṃ āmisabhāgassa samakameva dīyamānattā visuṃ sāmaṇerabhāgo nāma natthi, heṭṭhā gacchantaṃ pana bhattaṃ kadāci mandaṃ bhaveyya, tasmā upari aggahetvā sāmaṇerapāḷiyāva gahetvā dātabboti adhippāyo. Niyatapabbajjasseva cāyaṃ bhāgo dīyati. Teneva ‘‘apakkaṃ patta’’ntiādi vuttaṃ. Aññe vā bhikkhū dātukāmā hontīti sambandho.

145. Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapāta means almsfood from which the best part has not been taken. Here, regarding 'a material share equal to a novice's share,' although there is no separate share specifically called the 'novice's share' since an equal material share is given to novices, the food lower down might sometimes be scarce. Therefore, the intention is that one should give by taking from the novice's row, without taking the best part from the top. And this share is given only to one with a fixed going-forth. For that reason, it is said, 'an unbaked bowl,' and so on. The connection is with the phrase, 'Or other bhikkhus may wish to give'.

146. Sayaṃ pabbājetabboti kesacchedanādīni sayaṃ karontena pabbājetabbo. Kesacchedanaṃ kāsāyacchādanaṃ saraṇadānanti hi imāni tīṇi karonto ‘‘pabbājetī’’ti vuccati, tesu ekaṃ dve vāpi karonto tathā voharīyatiyeva, tasmā etaṃ pabbājehīti kesacchedanaṃ kāsāyacchādanañca sandhāya vuttaṃ. Upajjhāyaṃ uddissa pabbājetīti etthāpi eseva nayo. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvāti bhaṇḍukammārocanapariharaṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Tena sabhikkhuke vihāre aññampi ‘‘etassa kese chindā’’ti vattuṃ na vaṭṭati. Pabbājetvāti kesacchedanaṃ sandhāya vadati. Bhikkhuto añño pabbājetuṃ na labhatīti saraṇadānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tenevāha ‘‘sāmaṇero panā’’tiādīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34) āgataṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34) pana – sayaṃ pabbājetabboti [Pg.256] ettha ‘‘kesamassuṃ ohāretvā’’tiādivacanato kesacchedanakāsāyacchādanasaraṇadānāni pabbajanaṃ nāma, tesu pacchimadvayaṃ bhikkhūhi eva kātabbaṃ, kāretabbaṃ vā. Pabbājehīti idaṃ tividhampi sandhāya vuttaṃ. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvāti bhaṇḍukammārocanapariharaṇatthaṃ. Bhikkhūnañhi anārocetvā ekasīmāya ‘‘etassa kese chindā’’ti aññaṃ āṇāpetumpi na vaṭṭati. Pabbājetvāti kesādicchedanameva sandhāya vuttaṃ ‘‘kāsāyāni acchādetvā’’ti visuṃ vuttattā. Pabbājetuṃ na labhatīti saraṇadānaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Anupasampannena bhikkhuāṇattiyā dinnampi saraṇaṃ na ruhatīti vuttaṃ.

146. “One should be given the going-forth by oneself” means that one should be given the going-forth by oneself performing the shaving of the hair and other acts. For shaving the hair, donning the saffron robe, and giving the refuges—these three acts are called “giving the going-forth.” Even if one performs one or two of these, it is still referred to in the same way. Therefore, “Give him the going-forth” is said with reference to shaving the hair and donning the saffron robe. The same applies when giving the going-forth by designating a preceptor. “Taking him to a defective boundary” is said to avoid the announcement of the act of shaving. Thus, in a monastery where monks are present, it is not permissible for another to say, “Shave his hair.” “Having given the going-forth” refers to the shaving of the hair. “No one other than a monk may give the going-forth” refers to giving the refuges. Hence, it is said, “But a novice,” etc., as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 3.34). However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vimativinodanī Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.34), it is stated: “‘One should be given the going-forth by oneself’—here, from the phrase ‘having shaved the hair and beard,’ etc., the going-forth consists of shaving the hair, donning the saffron robe, and giving the refuges. The latter two must be done by monks or caused to be done by them. ‘Give him the going-forth’ is said with reference to all three. ‘Taking him to a defective boundary’ is to avoid the announcement of the act of shaving. For without informing the monks, even within a single boundary, it is not permissible to command another to shave his hair. ‘Having given the going-forth’ refers only to shaving the hair, etc., since ‘having donned the saffron robes’ is mentioned separately. ‘No one other than a monk may give the going-forth’ refers to giving the refuges. It is said that even if the refuges are given by the command of a monk, they are not valid if given by one who is not fully ordained.

Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira ṭī. mahāvagga 34) – khaṇḍasīmaṃ netvāti bhaṇḍukammārocanapariharaṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ, tena sabhikkhuke vihāre aññampi ‘‘etassa kese chindā’’ti vattuṃ na vaṭṭati. ‘‘Pabbājetvā’’ti imassa adhippāyapakāsanatthaṃ ‘‘kāsāyāni acchādetvā ehī’’ti vuttaṃ. Upajjhāyo ce kesamassuoropanādīni akatvā pabbajjatthaṃ saraṇāni deti, na ruhati pabbajjā. Kammavācāya sāvetvā upasampādeti, ruhati upasampadā. Apattacīvarānaṃ upasampadāsiddhidassanato, kammavipattiyā abhāvato cetaṃ yujjatevāti eke. Hoti cettha –

In the Vajirabuddhi Ṭīkā (Vajira Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 34), it is stated: “Taking to a defective boundary” is said for the purpose of avoiding the announcement of the act of shaving. Therefore, in a monastery with monks, it is not permissible for another to say, “Shave his hair.” To clarify the meaning of “Having given the going-forth,” it is said, “Having donned the saffron robes, come.” If the preceptor gives the refuges for the purpose of the going-forth without performing the shaving of hair and beard, etc., the going-forth is not valid. If he confers the higher ordination after announcing it with the formal act statement, the higher ordination is valid. Some argue that this is justified because the success of the higher ordination is seen even for those without bowl and robes, and because there is no failure in the formal act. Herein, it is said:

‘‘Saliṅgasseva pabbajjā, viliṅgassāpi cetarā;

Apetapubbavesassa, taṃdvayā iti cāpare’’ti.

“The going-forth is for one with the mark, and also for the other, one without the mark; for one who has abandoned their former guise, it is for both of these, so say others.”

Bhikkhunā hi sahatthena vā āṇattiyā vā dinnameva kāsāvaṃ vaṭṭati, adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti pana santesveva kāsāvesu, nāsantesu asambhavatoti tesaṃ adhippāyoti āgato.

For a monk, a saffron robe given by his own hand or by his instruction is allowable; what is not given is not allowable. However, this applies only when saffron robes are available; if there are none, it is impossible. This is their intention, as has come down.

Bhabbarūpoti [Pg.257] bhabbasabhāvo. Tamevatthaṃ pariyāyantarena vibhāveti ‘‘sahetuko’’ti. Ñātoti pākaṭo. Yasassīti parivārasampattiyā samannāgato.

‘Bhabbarūpo’ means having a capable nature. That same meaning is clarified by another term: ‘sahetuko’ (having a cause). ‘Ñāto’ means well-known. ‘Yasassī’ means endowed with a retinue.

Vaṇṇasaṇṭhānagandhāsayokāsavasena asucijegucchapaṭikūlabhāvaṃ pākaṭaṃ karontenāti sambandho. Tattha kesā nāmete vaṇṇatopi paṭikūlā, saṇṭhānatopi gandhatopi āsayatopi okāsatopi paṭikūlā. Manuññepi hi yāgupatte vā bhattapatte vā kesavaṇṇaṃ kiñci disvā ‘‘kesamissakamidaṃ, haratha na’’nti jigucchanti, evaṃ kesā vaṇṇato paṭikūlā. Rattiṃ bhuñjantāpi kesasaṇṭhānaṃ akkavākaṃ vā makacivākaṃ vā chupitvā tatheva jigucchanti, evaṃ saṇṭhānatopi paṭikūlā. Telamakkhanapupphadhūmādisaṅkhāravirahitānañca kesānaṃ gandho paramajeguccho hoti. Tato jegucchataro aggimhi pakkhittānaṃ. Kesā hi vaṇṇasaṇṭhānato appaṭikūlāpi siyuṃ, gandhena pana paṭikūlāyeva. Yathā hi daharassa kumārakassa vaccaṃ vaṇṇato haliddivaṇṇaṃ, saṇṭhānato haliddipiṇḍisaṇṭhānaṃ. Saṅkaraṭṭhāne chaḍḍitañca uddhumātakakāḷasunakhasarīraṃ vaṇṇato tālapakkavaṇṇaṃ, saṇṭhānato vaṭṭetvā vissaṭṭhamudiṅgasaṇṭhānaṃ, dāṭhāpissa sumanamakuḷasadisā, taṃ ubhayampi vaṇṇasaṇṭhānato siyā appaṭikūlaṃ, gandhena pana paṭikūlameva, evaṃ kesāpi siyuṃ vaṇṇasaṇṭhānato appaṭikūlā, gandhena pana paṭikūlāyevāti.

By means of color, shape, smell, origin, and location, it makes the impurity, loathsomeness, and repulsiveness evident—thus is the connection. Here, hair is repulsive in terms of color, shape, smell, origin, and location. Even in a pleasant bowl of porridge or rice, when people see something the color of hair, they exclaim with disgust, “This is mixed with hair, take it away!”—thus, hair is repulsive in color. Even while eating at night, if they touch something with the shape of hair—whether like a crow’s beak or a scorpion’s tail—they feel disgusted just the same—thus, hair is repulsive in shape. The smell of hair, devoid of preparations like oil, flowers, or incense, is extremely loathsome. Even more loathsome is the smell of hair thrown into a fire. Hair might not be repulsive in color or shape, but it is certainly repulsive in smell. For example, a young child’s excrement may resemble turmeric in color and a lump of turmeric in shape. And a black dog’s bloated corpse, discarded in a refuse heap, may resemble a ripe palm fruit in color and a rolled-up, discarded mudiṅga drum in shape. Its teeth, too, may resemble jasmine buds. Both might not be repulsive in color or shape, but they are certainly repulsive in smell. Similarly, hair might not be repulsive in color or shape, but it is undoubtedly repulsive in smell.

Yathā pana asuciṭṭhāne gāmanissandena jātāni sūpeyyapaṇṇāni nāgarikamanussānaṃ jegucchāni honti aparibhogāni, evaṃ kesāpi pubbalohitamuttakarīsapittasemhādinissandena jātattā paramajegucchāti. Evaṃ āsayatopi paṭikūlā. Ime ca kesā nāma gūtharāsimhi uṭṭhitakaṇṇakā viya ekatiṃsakoṭṭhāsarāsimhi jātā, te susānasaṅkāraṭṭhānādīsu [Pg.258] jātasākaṃ viya, parikhādīsu jātakamalakuvalayādipupphaṃ viya ca asuciṭṭhāne jātattā paramajegucchāti evaṃ okāsato paṭikūlātiādinā nayena tacapañcakassa vaṇṇādivasena paṭikūlabhāvaṃ pakāsentenāti attho.

Just as leafy vegetables growing in a filthy place from the drainage of a village are repulsive and unfit for consumption by city dwellers, so too are hairs, born from the flow of pus, blood, urine, feces, bile, and phlegm, extremely loathsome. Thus, they are repulsive by origin. These hairs, like mushrooms growing on a heap of dung, are born in the heap of the thirty-one bodily parts. Like greens growing in a charnel ground or on a refuse heap, or like lotus and water lily flowers blooming in a moat, they are extremely loathsome because they arise in a filthy place. Thus, they are repulsive by location. In this way, by means of color and so on, the repulsive nature of the pentad ending in skin is made clear. This is the meaning.

Nijjīvanissattabhāvaṃ vā pākaṭaṃ karontenāti ime kesā nāma sīsakaṭāhapaliveṭhanacamme jātā, tattha yathā vammikamatthake jātesu kuṇṭhatiṇesu na vammikamatthako jānāti ‘‘mayi kuṇṭhatiṇāni jātānī’’ti, nāpi kuṇṭhatiṇāni jānanti ‘‘mayaṃ vammikamatthake jātānī’’ti. Evameva na sīsakaṭāhapaliveṭhanacammaṃ jānāti ‘‘mayi kesā jātā’’ti, nāpi kesā jānanti ‘‘mayaṃ sīsakaṭāhapaliveṭhanacamme jātā’’ti, aññamaññaṃ ābhogapaccavekkhaṇarahitā ete dhammā. Iti ‘‘kesā nāma imasmiṃ sarīre pāṭiyekko koṭṭhāso acetano abyākato suñño nissatto thaddho pathavīdhātū’’tiādinā nayena nijjīvanissattabhāvaṃ pakāsentena. Pubbeti purimabuddhānaṃ santike. Madditasaṅkhāroti nāmarūpavavatthānena ceva paccayapariggahavasena ca ñāṇena parimadditasaṅkhāro. Bhāvitabhāvanoti kalāpasammasanādinā sabbaso kusalabhāvanāya pūraṇena bhāvitabhāvano. Adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha ‘‘pabbajjā na ruhatīti vadantī’’ti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34) vuttaṃ.

Or, to make their lifeless and insentient nature evident: these hairs are born on the skin covering the skull. Just as when coarse grass grows on the top of an anthill, the anthill does not know, ‘Coarse grass has grown on me,’ nor does the coarse grass know, ‘We have grown on the top of an anthill.’ In the same way, the skin covering the skull does not know, ‘Hairs have grown on me,’ nor do the hairs know, ‘We have grown on the skin covering the skull.’ These phenomena are devoid of mutual attention or reflection. Thus, by the method of stating, ‘Hairs are a distinct part in this body, non-mental, indeterminate, empty, insentient, rigid, the earth element,’ their lifeless and insentient nature is made clear. ‘Formerly’ means in the presence of former Buddhas. ‘One who has crushed the formations’ means one who has thoroughly crushed the formations with the knowledge that consists of the determination of name-and-form and the comprehension of conditions. ‘One who has developed the development’ means one who has developed the development by completely fulfilling the wholesome development through means such as the comprehension of groups. Regarding ‘What is not given is not allowable,’ here it is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 3.34), ‘They say that the going-forth is not valid.’

Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34) pana – yasassīti parivārasampanno. Nijjīvanissattabhāvanti ‘‘kesā nāma imasmiṃ sarīre pāṭiyekko koṭṭhāso acetano abyākato suñño nissatto thaddho pathavīdhātū’’tiādinayaṃ saṅgaṇhāti, sabbaṃ visuddhimagge (visuddhi. 1.311) āgatanayena gahetabbaṃ. Pubbeti pubbabuddhuppādesu[Pg.259]. Madditasaṅkhāroti vipassanāvasena vuttaṃ. Bhāvitabhāvanoti samathavasenapi.

In the Vimativinodanī (Vimativinodanī Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.34), it is stated: ‘Yasassī’ means endowed with a retinue. ‘Nijjīvanissattabhāva’ encompasses the idea that ‘hair in this body is a distinct part, inanimate, indeterminate, empty, lifeless, rigid, and is the earth element,’ and so on—all this should be understood according to the method presented in the Visuddhimagga (Visuddhi. 1.311). ‘Pubbe’ refers to the arising of former Buddhas. ‘Madditasaṅkhāra’ is stated with reference to insight meditation. ‘Bhāvitabhāvana’ is stated also with reference to serenity meditation.

Kāsāyāni tikkhattuṃ vā…pe… paṭiggāhāpetabboti ettha ‘‘sabbadukkhanissaraṇatthāya imaṃ kāsāvaṃ gahetvā’’ti vā ‘‘taṃ kāsāvaṃ datvā’’ti vā vatvā ‘‘pabbājetha maṃ, bhante, anukampaṃ upādāyā’’ti evaṃ yācanapubbakaṃ cīvaraṃ paṭicchāpeti. Athāpītiādi tikkhattuṃ paṭiggāhāpanato paraṃ kattabbavidhidassanaṃ, athāpīti tato parampīti attho. Keci pana ‘‘cīvaraṃ appaṭiggāhāpetvā pabbājanappakārabhedadassanatthaṃ ‘athāpī’ti vuttaṃ. Athāpīti atha vāti attho’’ti vadanti. Adinnaṃ na vaṭṭatīti iminā pabbajjā na ruhatīti dasseti.

Regarding the phrase ‘the saffron robes should be made to be received three times, etc.,’ here, having said, ‘Take this saffron robe for the sake of liberation from all suffering,’ or ‘Giving that saffron robe,’ one has the robe accepted, which is preceded by the request: ‘Venerable, please ordain me out of compassion.’ And ‘athāpīti’ and so on show the procedure to be done after the threefold reception. ‘Athāpīti’ means ‘after that’ or ‘furthermore.’ However, some say, ‘Athāpīti is stated to show a different kind of ordination procedure without having the robe received. Athāpīti means ‘or else.’’ ‘What is not given is not valid’—this indicates that the ordination does not prosper.

147. Pāde vandāpetvāti pādābhimukhaṃ namāpetvā. Dūre vandantopi hi pāde vandatīti vuccatīti. Upajjhāyena vāti ettha yassa santike upajjhaṃ gaṇhāti, ayaṃ upajjhāyo. Yaṃ ābhisamācārikesu vinayanatthāya ācariyaṃ katvā niyyātenti, ayaṃ ācariyo. Sace pana upajjhāyo sayameva sabbaṃ sikkhāpeti, aññampi na niyyāteti, upajjhāyovassa ācariyopi hoti. Yathā upasampadākāle sayameva kammavācaṃ vācento upajjhāyova kammavācācariyopi hotīti vuttaṃ.

147. ‘Having made him pay homage at the feet’ means having him bow down facing the feet. For even one who pays homage from afar is said to pay homage at the feet. ‘By the preceptor or…’—here, the one in whose presence one takes a preceptor is the preceptor. The one whom they appoint as a teacher for the purpose of training in the disciplinary practices is the teacher. But if the preceptor himself teaches everything and does not entrust him to another, then the preceptor is also his teacher. Just as at the time of ordination, the preceptor himself reciting the kammavācā is also the kammavācā teacher, so it is said.

Anuññātaupasampadāti ñatticatutthakammena anuññātaupasampadā. Ṭhānakaraṇasampadanti ettha uraādīni ṭhānāni, saṃvutādīni karaṇānīti veditabbāni. Anunāsikantaṃ katvā dānakāle antarāvicchedaṃ akatvā dātabbānīti dassetuṃ ‘‘ekasambandhānī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vicchinditvāti ma-kārantaṃ katvā dānasamaye vicchedaṃ katvā.

‘Approved ordination’ means ordination approved by a motion and three announcements. ‘The attainment of the proper place and action’—here, the chest and so forth are the places; restraint and so forth are the actions to be understood. To show that they should be given without interruption at the time of giving, having made them end with a nasal sound, it is said, ‘connected as one’. ‘Having cut off’ means having made them end with the letter ‘m’ and having made a break at the time of giving.

148. Sabbamassa [Pg.260] kappiyākappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbanti dasasikkhāpadavinimuttaṃ parāmāsāparāmāsādibhedaṃ kappiyākappiyaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabboti iminā ‘‘sekhiyaupajjhāyavattādiābhisamācārikasīlamanena pūretabbaṃ. Tattha ca kattabbassa akaraṇe, akattabbassa ca karaṇe daṇḍakammāraho hotīti dīpetīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.34) vuttaṃ. Anunāsikantaṃ katvā dānakāle antarāvicchedo na kātabboti āha ‘‘ekasambandhānī’’ti. Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabboti iminā sekhiyavattākkhandhakavattesu, aññesu ca sukkavissaṭṭhiādilokavajjasikkhāpadesu ca sāmaṇerehi vattitabbaṃ, tattha avattamāno alajjī daṇḍakammāraho ca hotīti dassetīti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.34).

148. ‘All that is allowable and unallowable should be explained to him’—the allowable and unallowable, distinguished by divisions such as touching and not touching, and apart from the ten training rules, should be explained. ‘He should be trained in the disciplinary practices’—by this, it is shown that the disciplinary practices such as the Sekhiya rules and duties toward the preceptor should be fulfilled by this person. There, in not doing what should be done and doing what should not be done, he becomes deserving of punishment—this is explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sāratthadīpanī Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 3.34). ‘Having made them end with a nasal sound, no interruption should be made at the time of giving’—thus it is said, ‘connected as one’. ‘He should be trained in the disciplinary practices’—by this, it is shown that novices should conduct themselves according to the Sekhiya duties, the Khandhaka duties, and other training rules concerning worldly blame such as emission of semen. There, one who does not conduct himself thus is shameless and deserving of punishment—this is explained in the Vimativinodanī (Vimativinodanī Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.34).

Urādīni ṭhānāni nāma, saṃvutādīni karaṇāni nāma. Anunāsikantaṃ katvā ekasambandhaṃ katvā dānakāle antarā aṭṭhatvā vattabbaṃ, vicchinditvā dānakālepi yathāvuttaṭṭhāne eva vicchedo, aññatra na vaṭṭatīti likhitaṃ, anunāsikante dīyamāne khalitvā ‘‘buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī’’ti ma-kārena missībhūte khette otiṇṇattā vaṭṭatīti upatissatthero. Missaṃ katvā vattuṃ vaṭṭati, vacanakāle pana anunāsikaṭṭhāne vicchedaṃ akatvā vattabbanti dhammasiritthero. ‘‘Evaṃ kammavācāyampī’’ti vuttaṃ. Ubhatosuddhiyāva vaṭṭatīti ettha mahāthero patitadantādikāraṇatāya acaturassaṃ katvā vadati, byattasāmaṇero samīpe ṭhito pabbajjāpekkhaṃ byattaṃ vadāpeti, mahātherena avuttaṃ vadāpetīti na vaṭṭati. Kammavācāya itaro bhikkhu ce vadati, vaṭṭatīti. Saṅgho hi kammaṃ karoti, na puggaloti. Na, nānāsīmapavattakammavācāsāmaññanayena paṭikkhipitabbattā. Atha therena caturassaṃ vuttaṃ [Pg.261] pabbajjāpekkhaṃ vattuṃ asakkontaṃ sāmaṇero sayaṃ vatvā vadāpeti, ubhatosuddhi eva hoti therena vuttasseva vuttattā. ‘‘Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchanto asādhāraṇe buddhaguṇaṃ, dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchanto nibbānaṃ, saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchanto sekkhadhammaṃ asekkhadhammañca saraṇaṃ gacchatī’’ti aggahitaggahaṇavasena yojanā kātabbā. Aññathā saraṇattayasaṅkaradoso. Sabbamassa kappiyākappiyanti dasasikkhāpadavinimuttaṃ parāmāsāparāmāsādibhedaṃ. ‘‘Ābhisamācārikesu vinetabbo’’ti vacanato sekhiyaupajjhāyavattādiābhisamācārikasīlamanena pūretabbaṃ. Tattha cārittassa akaraṇe, vārittassa karaṇe daṇḍakammāraho hotī’’ti dīpetīti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 34) āgato.

‘Chest’ and so forth are called the positions; ‘restraint’ and so forth are called the actions. Having made them end with a nasal sound and established a single connection, at the time of giving, one should speak without pausing in between. When giving with a break, the break should be only at the aforementioned place; it is not allowed elsewhere, so it is written. When the nasal ending is being uttered, if one stumbles and it mixes with the sound ‘m’ in ‘buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi,’ it is permissible because the sound has entered that field, as stated by the elder Upatissa. It is acceptable to speak by mixing, but at the time of recitation, one should speak without making a break at the position of the nasal ending, as explained by the elder Dhammasiri. ‘It is also said thus in the kammavācā (formal act).’ ‘It is permissible by means of purity on both sides’—here, the great elder speaks unclearly due to reasons such as a fallen tooth, while a skilled novice standing nearby makes a competent candidate for ordination speak. It is not permissible for the great elder to make him speak what he himself has not spoken. If another monk speaks during the kammavācā, it is permissible, for the Saṅgha performs the act, not an individual. No, it should be rejected based on the principle of commonality in formal acts occurring in different boundaries. Then, regarding what was spoken clearly by the elder, if the ordination-candidate is unable to speak it, the novice speaks it himself and has the candidate speak; this is complete purity on both sides, since what was spoken by the elder is itself spoken. ‘Taking refuge in the Buddha, one takes refuge in the unique qualities of the Buddha. Taking refuge in the Dhamma, one takes refuge in Nibbāna. Taking refuge in the Saṅgha, one takes refuge in the qualities of the trainees and the non-trainees.’ The connection should be made by way of grasping what has not been grasped. Otherwise, there is the fault of confusing the three refuges. ‘All that is allowable or unallowable for him’ refers to what is allowable and unallowable apart from the ten training rules, distinguished by divisions such as touching and not touching. ‘One should be trained in the disciplinary practices’—from this statement, the sekhiya, the duties toward the preceptor, and other disciplinary codes pertaining to good conduct should be fulfilled. There, failing to do what is prescribed or doing what is prohibited makes one deserving of disciplinary action—as explained in the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 34).

Anujānāmi bhikkhave sāmaṇerānaṃ dasa sikkhāpadānītiādīsu sikkhitabbāni padāni sikkhāpadāni, sikkhākoṭṭhāsāti attho. Sikkhāya vā padāni sikkhāpadāni, adhisīlaadhicittaadhipaññāsikkhānaṃ adhigamupāyoti attho. Atthato pana kāmāvacarakusalacittasampayuttā viratiyo, taṃsampayuttadhammā panettha taggahaṇeneva gahetabbā. Pāṇoti paramatthato jīvitindriyaṃ, tassa atipātanaṃ pabandhavasena pavattituṃ adatvā satthādīhi atikkamma abhibhavitvā pātanaṃ pāṇātipāto, pāṇavadhoti attho. So pana atthato pāṇe pāṇasaññino jīvitindriyupacchedakaupakkamasamuṭṭhāpikā vadhakacetanāva, tasmā pāṇātipātā veramaṇi, verahetutāya verasaṅkhātaṃ pāṇātipātādipāpadhammaṃ maṇati nīharatīti virati ‘‘veramaṇī’’ti vuccati. Viramati etāyāti vā ‘‘viramatī’’ti vattabbe niruttinayena ‘‘veramaṇī’’ti samādānavirati vuttā. Esa nayo sesesupi.

‘I allow, monks, the ten training rules for novices,’ and so on—these are the bases to be trained in, the training rules; the meaning is the sections of training. Or, the bases of training are the training rules; the meaning is the means to attain the higher training in virtue, higher training in mind, and higher training in wisdom. In essence, the abstinences associated with wholesome consciousness pertaining to the sense sphere are meant here; the associated phenomena should be understood by the inclusion of the former. ‘Living being’ ultimately means the life faculty. The destruction of life is the striking down of that life faculty—not allowing it to proceed in its continuity—by attacking and overpowering it with weapons and so forth; the meaning is the killing of a living being. In essence, it is the intention to kill, arising from an effort to sever the life faculty, directed toward a living being who is perceived as such. Therefore, abstinence from the destruction of life. Because it removes the evil qualities such as the destruction of life, which are termed ‘hostility’ (vera) due to being causes of hostility, abstinence (virati) is called ‘veramaṇī’. Alternatively, ‘one abstains by means of this’—though it should be said as ‘viramati’ (one abstains), by rule of grammar, it is called ‘veramaṇī’ where the abstinence of undertaking is spoken of. The same method applies to the rest.

Adinnassa [Pg.262] ādānaṃ adinnādānaṃ, theyyacetanā. Abramhacariyanti aseṭṭhacariyaṃ, maggenamaggapaṭipattisamuṭṭhāpikā methunacetanā. Musāti abhūtavatthu, tassa vādo abhūtaṃ ñatvāva bhūtato viññāpanacetanā musāvādo. Piṭṭhapūvādinibbattā surā ceva pupphāsavādibhedaṃ merayañca surāmerayaṃ. Tadeva madanīyaṭṭhena majjañceva pamādakāraṇaṭṭhena pamādaṭṭhānañca, taṃ yāya cetanāya pivati, tassā evaṃ adhivacanaṃ.

Taking what is not given is theft, which is the intention to steal. Unchastity is ignoble conduct, which is the intention for sexual intercourse arising from the practice of a wrong path. A lie is an untrue matter; the speaking of it, which is the intention to communicate as true what one knows to be untrue, is false speech. Liquor brewed from flour and cakes, and intoxicants of various kinds such as those from flower essences, are liquor and intoxicants. That very thing, in the sense of being intoxicating, is an intoxicant, and in the sense of being a cause for negligence, is a basis for negligence. The intention by which one drinks it is a designation for that.

Aruṇuggamanato paṭṭhāya yāva majjhanhikā, ayaṃ ariyānaṃ bhojanassa kālo nāma, tadañño vikālo. Bhuñjitabbaṭṭhena bhojananti idha sabbaṃ yāvakālikaṃ vuccati, tassa ajjhoharaṇaṃ idha uttarapadalopena bhojananti adhippetaṃ. Vikāle bhojanaṃ ajjhoharaṇaṃ vikālabhojanaṃ, vikāle vāyāvakālikassa bhojanaṃ ajjhoharaṇaṃ vikālabhojanantipi attho gahetabbo, taṃ atthato vikāle yāvakālikaajjhoharaṇacetanāva.

From sunrise until midday is called the proper time for the meal of the noble ones; any other time is an improper time. Here, by ‘meal’ (bhojana) is meant all that is allowable for a specific time (yāvakālika), in the sense that it is to be eaten. The act of consuming it is here intended by the word ‘bhojana,’ through the elision of the latter part of the compound. Consuming a meal at an improper time is ‘eating at an improper time’ (vikālabhojana). Alternatively, the meaning can be taken as the consuming of what is allowable for a specific time at an improper time; this too is ‘eating at an improper time.’ In essence, it is the very intention of consuming at an improper time that which is allowable for a specific time.

Sāsanassa ananulomattā visūkaṃ paṭāṇībhūtaṃ dassanaṃ ‘‘visūkadassanaṃ, naccagītādidassanasavanānañceva vaṭṭakayuddhajūtakīḷādisabbakīḷānañca nāmaṃ. Dassananti cettha pañcannampi viññāṇānaṃ yathāsakaṃ visayassa ālocanasabhāvatāya dassanasaddena saṅgahetabbattā savanampi saṅgahitaṃ. Naccagītavāditasaddehi cettha attano naccanagāyanādīnipi saṅgahitānīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Due to being contrary to the Teaching, a disparate and opposing sight is called ‘disparate sight,’ a term for watching and listening to dancing, singing, and the like, as well as all kinds of games such as quail-fights and gambling. Here, hearing is also included under the term 'sight,' because the nature of the five types of consciousness is to perceive their respective objects. It should be understood that here, by the terms 'dancing, singing, and instrumental music,' one’s own acts of dancing, singing, and so on are also included.

Mālāti baddhamabaddhaṃ vā pupphaṃ, antamaso suttādimayampi alaṅkāratthāya piḷandhiyamānaṃ mālātveva vuccati. Gandhanti vāsacuṇṇādivilepanato aññaṃ yaṃ kiñci gandhajātaṃ. Vilepananti pisitvā gahitaṃ chavirāgakaraṇañceva gandhajātañca. Dhāraṇaṃ nāma piḷandhanaṃ. Maṇḍanaṃ nāma ūnaṭṭhānapūraṇaṃ. Gandhavasena, chavirāgavasena vā sādiyanaṃ vibhūsanaṃ nāma, mālādīsu [Pg.263] vā dhāraṇādīni yathākkamaṃ yojetabbāni. Tesaṃ dhāraṇādīnaṃ ṭhānaṃ kāraṇaṃ vītikkamacetanā.

A garland is a flower, whether bound or unbound; even one made of thread or the like, when worn for adornment, is called a garland. ‘Perfume’ refers to any kind of fragrant substance other than scented powders and ointments. ‘Ointment’ refers to what is ground and taken, both for coloring the skin and as a fragrant substance. ‘Wearing’ means putting on. ‘Adornment’ means filling a deficient place. ‘Embellishment’ means applying something on account of its fragrance or for coloring the skin. Alternatively, wearing and so on should be applied to garlands and the like in due order. The intention to transgress is the basis and cause for these acts of wearing and so on.

Uccāti ucca-saddena samānattho nipāto. Uccāsayanaṃ vuccati pamāṇātikkantaṃ āsandādi. Mahāsayanaṃ akappiyattharaṇehi atthataṃ salohitavitānañca. Etesu hi āsanaṃ sayanañca uccāsayanamahāsayanasaddehi gahitāni uttarapadalopena. Jātarūparajatapaṭiggahaṇāti ettha rajatasaddena dārumāsakādi sabbaṃ rūpiyaṃ saṅgahitaṃ. Muttāmaṇiādayopettha dhaññakkhettavatthādayo ca saṅgahitāti daṭṭhabbā. Paṭiggahaṇa-saddena pana paṭiggāhāpanasādiyanānipi saṅgahitāni.

‘High’ (uccā) is a particle with the same meaning as the word ‘ucca’. A ‘high seat’ (uccāsayana) refers to a chair or similar item that exceeds the standard measure. A ‘large seat’ (mahāsayana) is one spread with unsuitable coverings and with a red canopy. In these terms, both ‘seat’ (āsana) and ‘couch’ (sayana) are included under the words ‘high seat’ and ‘large seat’ through the elision of the latter word. Regarding ‘accepting gold and silver,’ here, the word ‘silver’ includes all forms of currency, such as wooden māsaka coins and the like. It should be understood that pearls, gems, and so forth, as well as grain, fields, property, and so on are also included here. The word ‘accepting,’ however, also includes causing to accept and consenting.

149. Senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhantīti iminā vassacchedaṃ dasseti. Upasampannānampi pārājikasamāpattiyā saraṇagamanādisāmaṇerabhāvassapi vinassanato senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhati, saṅghalābhampi te na labhantīti veditabbaṃ. Purimikāya puna saraṇāni gahitānīti saraṇagahaṇena saha tadahevassa vassūpagamanampi dasseti. Pacchimikāya vassāvāsikanti vassāvāsikalābhaggahaṇadassanamattamevetaṃ, tato purepi vā pacchāpi vā vassāvāsikañca cīvaramāsesu saṅghe uppannakālacīvarañca purimikāya upagantvā avipannasīlo sāmaṇero labhati eva. Sace pacchimikāya gahitānīti pacchimikāya vassūpagamanañca chinnavassatañca dasseti. Tassa hi kālacīvaralābho na pāpuṇāti, tasmā ‘‘apaloketvā lābho dātabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Vassāvāsikalābho pana yadi senāsanassāmikā dāyakā senāsanaguttatthāya pacchimikāya upagantvā vattaṃ katvā attano senāsane vasantassapi vassāvāsikaṃ dātabbanti vadanti, anapaloketvāpi dātabbova. Yaṃ pana sāratthadīpaniyaṃ [Pg.264] (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.108) ‘‘pacchimikāya vassāvāsikaṃ lacchatīti pacchimikāya puna vassaṃ upagatattā lacchatī’’ti vuttaṃ, tampi vassāvāsike dāyakānaṃ imaṃ adhippāyaṃ nissāya vuttañce, sundaraṃ, saṅghikaṃ, kālacīvarampi sandhāya vuttañce, na yujjatīti veditabbaṃ.

149. By the phrase "the claim to lodging ceases," it indicates the breaking of the rains-residence. Even for the fully ordained, upon committing a pārājika offense, their claim to lodging ceases due to the destruction of even their status as a novice, which begins with going for refuge. It should be understood that they do not receive the gains of the Saṅgha. The statement "refuges were again taken in the earlier period" shows that, along with taking refuge, their entering the rains-residence also occurs on that very day. The mention of 'the rains-residence benefit in the latter period' is merely to show the receiving of the rains-residence benefit, for a novice of unbroken virtue who entered the rains in the earlier period certainly receives both the rains-residence benefit and the seasonal robe that has arisen for the Saṅgha during the robe-months. If it is said "taken in the latter period," it shows both entering the rains-residence in the latter period and a broken rains-residence. For such a one, the gain of the seasonal robe is not obtained. Therefore, it is said, "the gain should be given after informing the Saṅgha." However, regarding the rains-residence benefit, if the donors who own the lodging say that the rains-residence benefit should be given even to one who enters in the latter period and, for the sake of protecting the lodging, performs the duties and dwells in their lodging, it should be given even without informing the Saṅgha. As for what is said in the Sāratthadīpanī: "'He obtains the rains-residence benefit in the latter period' means he obtains it because he has again undertaken the rains-residence in the latter period." If this is said relying on this intention of the donors regarding the rains-residence benefit, it is acceptable. But if it is said concerning the Saṅgha's seasonal robe, it should be understood that it is not correct.

Na ajānitvāti ‘‘surā’’ti ajānitvā pivato pāṇātipātāveramaṇiādisabbasīlabhedaṃ saraṇabhedañca na āpajjati. Akusalaṃ pana surāpānāveramaṇisīlabhedo ca hoti mālādidhāraṇādīsu viyāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Itarānīti vikālabhojanāveramaṇiādīni. Tānipi hi sañcicca vītikkamantassa taṃ taṃ bhijjati eva, itarītaresaṃ pana abhijjanena nāsanaṅgāni na honti. Teneva ‘‘etesu bhinnesū’’ti bhedavacanaṃ vuttaṃ.

By "not knowing," it means that one who drinks not knowing it to be "alcohol" does not incur the breach of all precepts, such as abstaining from killing living beings, nor the breaking of the refuges. However, there is unwholesomeness and a breach of the precept of abstaining from drinking alcohol, which should be understood to be similar to wearing garlands and so on. "The others" refers to abstaining from eating at an improper time and so on. For one who intentionally transgresses these, that particular precept is indeed broken. However, since the other precepts are not broken, these transgressions do not become causes for ruin. For that reason, the word "broken" is used in the phrase "when these are broken."

Accayaṃ desāpetabboti ‘‘accayo maṃ bhante accāgamā’’tiādinā saṅghamajjhe desāpetvā saraṇasīlaṃ dātabbanti adhippāyo pārājikattā tesaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbo’’ti. Ayameva hi nāsanā idhādhippetāti liṅganāsanākāraṇehi pāṇātipātādīhi avaṇṇabhāsanādīnaṃ saha patitattā vuttaṃ. Nanu ca kaṇṭakasāmaṇeropi micchādiṭṭhiko eva, tassa ca heṭṭhā daṇḍakammanāsanāva vuttā, idha pana micchādiṭṭhikassa liṅganāsanā vuccati, ko imesaṃ bhedoti codanaṃ manasi nidhāyāha ‘‘sassatucchedānañhi aññataradiṭṭhiko’’ti. Ettha cāyaṃ adhippāyo – yo hi ‘‘attā issaro’’ti vā ‘‘nicco dhuvo’’tiādinā vā ‘‘attā ucchijjissati vinassissatī’’tiādinā vā titthiyaparikappitaṃ yaṃ kiñci sassatucchedadiṭṭhiṃ daḷhaṃ gahetvā voharati, tassa sā pārājikaṭṭhānaṃ hoti, so ca liṅganāsanāya nāsetabbo. Yo pana īdisaṃ [Pg.265] diṭṭhiṃ aggahetvā sāsanikova hutvā kevalaṃ buddhavacanādhippāyaṃ viparītato gahetvā bhikkhūhi ovadiyamānopi appaṭinissajjitvā voharati, tassa sā diṭṭhi pārājikaṃ na hoti, so pana kaṇṭakanāsanāya eva nāsetabboti vimativinodaniyaṃ. Imasmiṃ ṭhāne sāratthadīpaniyaṃ dasasikkhāpadato paṭṭhāya vitthārato vaṇṇanā āgatā, sā porāṇaṭīkāyaṃ sabbaso potthakaṃ āruḷhā, tasmā idha na vitthārayimha.

Regarding 'an offense should be confessed,' the intention is that one should be made to confess in the midst of the Saṅgha, saying, "Venerable sir, an offense has overcome me," and so on, after which the refuges and precepts should be given; this is because these offenses are of the pārājika-level. Hence, it is said, "He should be expelled by the destruction of his outward sign (liṅga)." This indeed is the expulsion intended here, and it is stated because it falls together with the causes for the destruction of the outward sign, such as killing living beings and disparaging speech. Now, one might object: "But the novice Kaṇṭaka was also one of wrong view, and for him, expulsion by punishment (daṇḍakamma) was mentioned previously. Here, however, the destruction of the outward sign is spoken of for one of wrong view. What is the distinction between these?" Considering this objection, it is said: "For one who holds either an eternalist or an annihilationist view." Here, the intention is this: Whoever firmly grasps and asserts any eternalist or annihilationist view conceived by heretics—such as "The self is the lord," "It is permanent, stable," or "The self will be annihilated, destroyed"—for him, that is grounds for a pārājika offense, and he should be expelled by the destruction of his outward sign. But for one who does not hold such a view and is a follower of the Teaching, yet misinterprets the Buddha’s words and, despite being admonished by the monks, does not relinquish it and continues to assert it—for him, that view is not grounds for a pārājika offense. However, he should be expelled by the expulsion of Kaṇṭaka. This is from the Vimativinodanī. In this place, a detailed explanation starting from the ten training rules is found in the Sāratthadīpanī. It is fully included in the ancient subcommentary, therefore we have not elaborated on it here.

150. ‘‘Attano pariveṇanti idaṃ puggalikaṃ sandhāya vutta’’nti gaṇṭhipadesu vuttaṃ. Ayaṃ panettha gaṇṭhipadakārānaṃ adhippāyo – vassaggena pattasenāsananti iminā tassa vassaggena pattaṃ saṅghikasenāsanaṃ vuttaṃ. Attano pariveṇanti imināpi tasseva puggalikasenāsanaṃ vuttanti. Ayaṃ panettha amhākaṃ khanti – yattha vā vasatīti iminā saṅghikaṃ vā hotu puggalikaṃ vā, tassa nibaddhavasanakasenāsanaṃ vuttaṃ. Yattha vā paṭikkamatīti iminā pana yaṃ ācariyupajjhāyassa vasanaṭṭhānaṃ upaṭṭhānādinimittaṃ nibaddhaṃ pavisati, taṃ ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ pavisanaṭṭhānaṃ vuttaṃ, tasmā tadubhayaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘ubhayenapi attano pariveṇañca vassaggena pattasenāsanañca vutta’’nti āha. Tattha attano pariveṇanti iminā ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ nivāsanaṭṭhānaṃ dassitaṃ, vassaggena pattasenāsananti iminā pana tassa vasanaṭṭhānaṃ, tasmā tadubhayampi saṅghikaṃ vā hotu puggalikaṃ vā, āvaraṇaṃ kātabbamevāti. Mukhadvārikanti mukhadvārena bhuñjitabbaṃ. Daṇḍakammaṃ katvāti daṇḍakammaṃ yojetvā. Daṇḍenti vinenti etenāti daṇḍo, soyeva kattabbattā kammanti daṇḍakammaṃ, āvaraṇādi. Daṇḍakammamassa karothāti assa daṇḍakammaṃ yojetha āṇāpetha. Daṇḍakammanti vā niggahakammaṃ, tasmā niggahamassa karothāti [Pg.266] vuttaṃ hoti. Esa nayo sabbattha īdisesu ṭhānesu.

150. In the glosses it is said: 'The phrase “one's own dwelling” is stated with reference to a personal dwelling.' Herein, this is the intention of the authors of the glosses: by the phrase 'a lodging obtained by seniority,' a lodging belonging to the Saṅgha obtained by him through seniority is meant. And by the phrase 'one's own dwelling,' his personal lodging is meant. Herein, this is our opinion: by the phrase 'where one lives,' his regular dwelling place is meant, whether it belongs to the Saṅgha or is personal. But by the phrase 'where one resorts,' the dwelling place of his teacher or preceptor, which he regularly enters for the purpose of attendance and so forth, is meant. Therefore, to indicate both, it was said: 'By both phrases, both one's own dwelling and the lodging obtained by seniority are stated.' Therein, 'one's own dwelling' indicates the residence of the teacher or preceptor, while 'the lodging obtained by seniority' indicates his own dwelling place. Thus, both—whether belonging to the Saṅgha or personal—must indeed be enclosed. 'Through the door of the mouth' means it should be eaten through the mouth. 'Having performed a disciplinary action' means having imposed a disciplinary action. That by which they punish (daṇḍeti) and discipline (vineti) is a 'punishment' (daṇḍa); as it is an action to be done, it is a 'disciplinary action' (daṇḍakamma), such as enclosure. 'Perform a disciplinary action on him' means impose a disciplinary action on him, command him. Or, 'disciplinary action' is a corrective action; therefore, it means 'perform a corrective action on him.' This is the method in all such cases.

Senāsanaggāho ca paṭippassambhantīti iminā chinnavasso hotīti dīpeti. Sace ākiṇṇadosova hoti, āyatiṃ saṃvare na tiṭṭhati, nikkaḍḍhitabboti ettha sace yāvatatiyaṃ vuccamāno na oramati, saṅghaṃ apaloketvā nāsetabbo, puna pabbajjaṃ yācamānopi apaloketvā pabbājetabboti vadanti. Pacchimikāya vassāvāsikaṃ lacchatīti pacchimikāya puna vassaṃ upagatattā lacchati. Apaloketvā lābho dātabboti chinnavassatāya vuttaṃ. Itarāni pañca sikkhāpadānīti vikālabhojanādīni pañca. Accayaṃ desāpetabboti ‘‘accayo maṃ bhante accāgamā’’tiādinā nayena desāpetabboti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.108) vuttaṃ.

By the phrase 'and the claim to lodging ceases,' it is shown that his rains residence is broken. If he is full of faults and does not abide in future restraint, he should be expelled. Herein, if, when admonished 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 only after informing the Saṅgha, they say. 'He obtains the rains-residence benefit in the latter period' means he obtains it because he has again undertaken the rains residence in the latter period. 'The gain should be given after informing the Saṅgha' is said on account of his rains residence being broken. 'The other five training rules' are the five beginning with eating at the wrong time. 'He should be made to confess the transgression' means the transgression should be confessed according to the method beginning, 'Venerable sir, a transgression has overcome me,' as is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.108).

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Pabbajjāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

Named the Adornment of the Discussion on the Determination of the Going Forth.

Dvāvīsatimo paricchedo.

The Twenty-second Chapter.

Upasampadāvinicchayakathā

The Discussion on the Determination of Higher Ordination.

Evaṃ pabbajjāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā tadanantaraṃ upasampadāvinicchayo kathetabbo, evaṃ santepi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ upasampadāvinicchayakathā pāḷivaṇṇanāvaseneva āgatā, no pāḷimuttakavinicchayavasena, imassa pana pakaraṇassa pāḷimuttakavinicchayakathābhūtattā tamakathetvā nissayavinicchayo eva ācariyena kathito, mayaṃ pana upasampadāvinicchayassa atisukhumattā atigambhīrattā sudullabhattā sāsanānuggahatthaṃ ācariyena [Pg.267] avuttampi samantapāsādikato nīharitvā vimativinodanīādippakaraṇesu āgatavinicchayena alaṅkaritvā taṃ vinicchayaṃ kathayissāma.

Having thus explained the determination of the going forth, the determination of higher ordination should be explained next. Even so, in the Commentary, the discussion on the determination of higher ordination comes only by way of explaining the Pāli, not by way of a determination independent of the Pāli. However, since this treatise is a discussion of determinations independent of the Pāli, the teacher, without discussing that, explained only the determination of dependence. But we, because the determination of higher ordination is extremely subtle, profound, and very difficult to obtain, for the sake of supporting the Dispensation, will extract even what was not stated by the teacher from the Samantapāsādikā, and adorning it with the determinations found in treatises such as the Vimativinodanī, will explain that determination.

Tena kho pana samayenāti yena samayena bhagavatā ‘‘na bhikkhave anupajjhāyako’’tiādisikkhāpadaṃ apaññattaṃ hoti, tena samayena. Anupajjhāyakanti upajjhaṃ agāhāpetvā sabbena sabbaṃ upajjhāyavirahitaṃ, evaṃ upasampannā neva dhammato na āmisato saṅgahaṃ labhanti, te parihāyantiyeva, na vaḍḍhanti. Na bhikkhave anupajjhāyakoti upajjhaṃ agāhāpetvā nirupajjhāyako na upasampādetabbo, yo upasampādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassāti sikkhāpadapaññattito paṭṭhāya evaṃ upasampādentassa āpatti hoti, kammaṃ pana na kuppati. Keci ‘‘kuppatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Saṅghena upajjhāyenā’’tiādīsupi ubhatobyañjanakupajjhāyapariyosānesu eseva nayo.

'At that time' means at the time when the Blessed One had not yet laid down the training rule beginning, 'Monks, one without a preceptor…' 'One without a preceptor' means one for whom a preceptor has not been appointed, one who is entirely without a preceptor. Those ordained thus receive no support, either in the Dhamma or in material things; they only decline, they do not grow. 'Monks, one without a preceptor should not be ordained' means one without a preceptor, for whom a preceptor has not been appointed, should not be given higher ordination. Whoever should give higher ordination incurs an offense of wrong-doing. From the laying down of this training rule, one who gives higher ordination in this way incurs an offense, but the formal act is not invalid. Some say it is invalid, but that should not be accepted. This same method applies also in cases such as 'by the Saṅgha, by a preceptor,' and so on, ending with the case of a preceptor who is of indeterminate sex.

Apattakā hatthesu piṇḍāya carantīti yo hatthesu piṇḍo labbhati, tadatthāya caranti. Seyyathāpi titthiyāti yathā ājīvakanāmakā titthiyā. Sūpabyañjanehi missetvā hatthesu ṭhapitapiṇḍameva hi te bhuñjanti. Āpatti dukkaṭassāti evaṃ upasampādentasseva āpatti hoti, kammaṃ pana na kuppati, acīvarakādivatthūsupi eseva nayo.

'Those without a bowl who wander for alms in their hands' means they wander for the sake of the alms food that is received in their hands. 'Just like the sectarians' means like the sectarians called Ājīvakas. For they eat only alms food mixed with curries and condiments placed in their hands. 'An offense of wrong-doing is incurred' means an offense is incurred only by the one who gives higher ordination in this way, but the formal act is not invalid. This same method applies also in cases concerning one without a robe, and so on.

Yācitakenāti ‘‘yāva upasampadaṃ karoma, tāva dethā’’ti yācitvā gahitena, tāvakālikenāti attho. Īdisena hi pattena vā cīvarena vā pattacīvarena vā upasampādentasseva āpatti hoti, kammaṃ pana na kuppati, tasmā paripuṇṇapattacīvarova upasampādetabbo. Sace tassa natthi, ācariyupajjhāyā cassa dātukāmā honti[Pg.268], aññe vā bhikkhū, nirapekkhehi vissajjetvā adhiṭṭhānūpagaṃ pattacīvaraṃ dātabbaṃ.

'With a borrowed item' means with something taken after requesting it thus: 'Give it for as long as it takes to perform the higher ordination.' The meaning is 'with something temporary.' Indeed, if one gives higher ordination with such a bowl, or a robe, or a bowl and robe, an offense is incurred only by the one giving the higher ordination, but the formal act is not invalid. Therefore, one should be given higher ordination only when one has a complete bowl and robe. If one does not have them, and one's teacher and preceptor, or other monks, are willing to give them, they should be given after having been relinquished without expectation, as a bowl and robe suitable for formal determination.

Gottenapi anussāvetunti ‘‘mahākassapassa upasampadāpekkho’’ti evaṃ gottaṃ vatvā anussāvetuṃ anujānāmīti attho. Dve ekānussāvaneti dve ekato anussāvane, ekena ekassa, aññena itarassāti evaṃ dvīhi vā ācariyehi ekena vā ekakkhaṇe kammavācaṃ anussāventehi upasampādetuṃ anujānāmīti attho. Dve tayo ekānussāvane kātuṃ, tañca kho ekena upajjhāyenāti dve vā tayo vā jane purimanayeneva ekato anussāvane kātuṃ anujānāmi, tañca kho anussāvanakiriyaṃ ekena upajjhāyena anujānāmīti attho. Tasmā ekena ācariyena dve vā tayo vā anussāvetabbā. Dvīhi vā tīhi vā ācariyehi visuṃ visuṃ ekena ekassāti evaṃ ekappahāreneva dve tisso vā kammavācā kātabbā. Sace pana nānācariyā nānupajjhāyā honti, tissatthero sumanattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ, sumanatthero tissattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ anussāveti, aññamaññañca gaṇapūrakā honti, vaṭṭati. Sace nānupajjhāyā honti, eko ācariyo hoti, ‘‘na tveva nānupajjhāyenā’’ti paṭikkhittattā na vaṭṭati. Idaṃ sandhāya hi esa paṭikkhepo.

'To announce also by clan name' means: I allow the announcement to be made by stating the clan name thus, 'He is a candidate for higher ordination of Mahākassapa.' 'Two in one announcement' means two announcements together: one for one person, another for the other. The meaning is: I allow higher ordination to be conferred by two teachers announcing the formal act, or by one teacher announcing it at the same moment. 'To make two or three in one announcement, and that with one preceptor' means: I allow two or three persons to be announced together in the former manner, and I allow that act of announcement with one preceptor. Therefore, two or three candidates should be announced by one teacher. Or, two or three formal acts should be performed in a single instance by two or three teachers, each one separately for each candidate. If, however, there are different teachers and different preceptors—for instance, the Elder Tissa announces for the co-resident of the Elder Sumana, and the Elder Sumana announces for the co-resident of the Elder Tissa, and they are quorum-completers for each other—it is allowable. If there are different preceptors but one teacher, it is not allowable, because it is rejected by the statement, 'But not with different preceptors.' This rejection refers to this case.

Paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabboti ettha vajjāvajjaṃ upanijjhāyatīti upajjhā, taṃ upajjhaṃ ‘‘upajjhāyo me, bhante, hohī’’ti evaṃ vadāpetvā gāhāpetabbo. Vitthāyantīti vitthaddhagattā honti. Yaṃ jātanti yaṃ tava sarīre jātaṃ nibbattaṃ vijjamānaṃ, taṃ saṅghamajjhe pucchante santaṃ atthīti vattabbantiādi. Ullumpatu manti uddharatu maṃ.

'First, one should have a preceptor requested': Here, 'upajjhā' means one who closely examines what is allowable and what is not. That preceptor should be requested by having one say, 'Venerable sir, be my preceptor.' 'Vitthāyanti': This means they have paralyzed limbs. 'Yaṃ jātaṃ': This refers to whatever has arisen, been produced, or exists in your body; when asked in the midst of the Sangha, one should say, 'It exists,' and so on. 'Ullumpatu maṃ': This means 'may he raise me up.'

Tāvadevāti [Pg.269] upasampannasamanantarameva. Chāyā metabbāti ekaporisā vā dviporisā vāti chāyā metabbā. Utuppamāṇaṃ ācikkhitabbanti ‘‘vassāno hemanto gimho’’ti utuppamāṇaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Ettha ca utuyeva utuppamāṇaṃ. Sace vassānādayo aparipuṇṇā honti, yattakehi divasehi yassa yo utu aparipuṇṇo, te divase sallakkhetvā so divasabhāgo ācikkhitabbo. Atha vā ‘‘ayaṃ nāma utu, so ca kho paripuṇṇo aparipuṇṇo vā’’ti evaṃ utuppamāṇaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ, ‘‘pubbaṇho vā sāyanho vā’’ti evaṃ divasabhāgo ācikkhitabbo. Saṅgītīti idameva sabbaṃ ekato katvā ‘‘tvaṃ kiṃ labhasi, kā te chāyā, kiṃ utuppamāṇaṃ, ko divasabhāgo’’ti puṭṭho ‘‘idaṃ nāma labhāmi vassaṃ vā hemantaṃ vā gimhaṃ vā, ayaṃ me chāyā, idaṃ utuppamāṇaṃ, ayaṃ divasabhāgoti vadeyyāsī’’ti evaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ.

'Immediately': This means immediately after receiving higher ordination. 'One should measure the shadow': This means the shadow should be measured as being one or two persons' length. 'The measure of the season should be stated': This means the measure of the season should be stated as 'the rainy season, the cold season, or the hot season.' Here, the season itself is the measure of the season. If the rainy season or others are incomplete, one should note the number of days by which a particular season is incomplete, and that portion of days should be stated. Alternatively, one may state the measure of the season by saying, 'This is such-and-such a season, whether complete or incomplete,' and the portion of the day by stating, 'It is forenoon or afternoon.' 'Recitation': This means gathering all of this together. When asked, 'What do you receive? What is your shadow's length? What is the measure of the season? What is the portion of the day?' one should reply, 'I receive such-and-such—whether the rainy season, the cold season, or the hot season. This is my shadow's length, this is the measure of the season, and this is the portion of the day.' Thus, it should be stated.

Ohāyāti chaḍḍetvā. Dutiyaṃ dātunti upasampadamāḷakato pariveṇaṃ gacchantassa dutiyakaṃ dātuṃ anujānāmi, cattāri ca akaraṇīyāni ācikkhitunti attho. Paṇḍupalāsoti paṇḍuvaṇṇo patto. Bandhanā pavuttoti vaṇṭato patito. Abhabbo haritatthāyāti puna harito bhavituṃ abhabbo. Puthusilāti mahāsilā. Ayaṃ samantapāsādikato nīharitvā ābhato upasampadāvinicchayo.

'Ohāya': This means 'having abandoned.' 'To give a second': This means, 'I allow giving a second robe to one going from the higher ordination hall to the dwelling, and to declare the four things not to be done.' This is the meaning. 'Paṇḍupalāsa': This means 'a leaf of yellow color.' 'Fallen from the stalk': This means 'fallen from the stalk.' 'Unable to become green again': This means 'incapable of becoming green again.' 'Puthusilā': This means 'a great rock.' This is the determination of higher ordination brought forth from the Samantapāsādikā.

Anupajjhāyādivatthūsu sikkhāpadaṃ apaññattanti ‘‘na anupajjhāyako upasampādetabbo’’ti (mahāva. 117) idheva paññāpiyamānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Kammaṃ pana na kuppatīti idaṃ upajjhāyābhāvepi ‘‘itthannāmassa upasampadāpekkhā itthannāmena upajjhāyenā’’ti [Pg.270] matassa vā vibbhantassa vā purāṇaupajjhāyassa, aññassa vā yassa kassaci avijjamānassapi nāmena sabbattha upajjhāyakittanassa katattā vuttaṃ. Yadi hi upajjhāyakittanaṃ na kareyya, ‘‘puggalaṃ na parāmasatī’’ti vuttakammavipatti eva siyā. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 117) ‘‘anupajjhāyaka’’nti vuttaṃ, aṭṭhakathāyampi (mahāva. aṭṭha. 117) assa ‘‘upajjhāyaṃ akittetvā’’ti avatvā ‘‘upajjhāyaṃ agāhāpetvā sabbena sabbaṃ upajjhāyavirahitaṃ’’ icceva attho vutto. Pāḷiyaṃ saṅghena upajjhāyenāti ‘‘ayaṃ itthannāmo saṅghassa upasampadāpekkho, itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācati saṅghena upajjhāyenā’’ti evaṃ kammavācāya saṅghameva upajjhāyaṃ kittetvāti attho. Evaṃ gaṇena upajjhāyenāti etthāpi ‘‘ayaṃ itthannāmo gaṇassa upasampadāpekkho’’tiādinā yojanā veditabbā. Evaṃ vuttepi kammaṃ na kuppati eva dukkaṭasseva vuttattā, aññathā ‘‘so ca puggalo anupasampanno’’ti vadeyya. Tenāha ‘‘saṅghenā’’tiādi. Tattha paṇḍakādiupajjhāyehi kariyamānesu kammesu paṇḍakādike vināva yadi pañcavaggādigaṇo pūrati, kammaṃ na kuppati, itarathā kuppatīti veditabbaṃ.

'The training rule was not established regarding matters such as the absence of a preceptor': This is said with reference to the training rule being laid down right here: 'One without a preceptor should not be given higher ordination' (Mahāva. 117). 'However, the act is not invalidated': This is said because even in the absence of a preceptor—such as a former preceptor who has died or gone astray, or any other preceptor who is not present—the naming of a preceptor is done everywhere by name for 'so-and-so seeking higher ordination with so-and-so as preceptor.' For if one did not name a preceptor, it would indeed be a procedural fault stated as 'not specifying the individual.' For this reason, the Pali text (Mahāva. 117) states 'without a preceptor,' and the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 117) explains its meaning not as 'without having declared a preceptor,' but as 'having not accepted a preceptor, being entirely without a preceptor.' In the Pali text, 'with the Sangha as preceptor': This means that in the formal act, the Sangha itself is declared as the preceptor, thus: 'This so-and-so is seeking higher ordination from the Sangha; so-and-so requests higher ordination from the Sangha with the Sangha as preceptor.' Similarly, in 'with the group as preceptor,' the explanation should be understood beginning with 'This so-and-so is seeking higher ordination from the group.' Even when said in this way, the act is not invalidated, as only a dukkaṭa offense is stated as incurred. Otherwise, he would have said, 'That person is not properly ordained.' Hence it is stated, 'with the Sangha,' etc. In cases where acts are performed with preceptors who are eunuchs, etc., if the group of five or more is complete even without the eunuchs, etc., the act is not invalidated. Otherwise, it is invalidated—this should be understood.

Apattacīvaravatthūsupi pattacīvarānaṃ abhāvepi ‘‘paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’’nti kammavācāya sāvitattā kammakopaṃ avatvā dukkaṭameva vuttaṃ. Itarathā sāvanāya hāpanato kammakopo eva siyā. Keci pana ‘‘paṭhamaṃ anuññātakammavācāyaṃ upasampannā viya idānipi ‘paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’nti avatvā kammavācāya upasampannāpi sūpasampannā evā’’ti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ. Anuññātakālato paṭṭhāya hi aparāmasanaṃ sāvanāya hāpanavipatti eva hoti ‘‘itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācatī’’ti padassa hāpane viya[Pg.271]. Tampi hi pacchā anuññātaṃ, ‘‘saṅghaṃ, bhante, upasampadaṃ yācāmī’’tiādivākyena ayācetvā tampi upasampādento ‘‘ayaṃ itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācatī’’ti vatvāva yadi kammavācaṃ karoti, kammaṃ sukatameva hoti. No ce, vipannaṃ. Sabbapacchā hi anuññātakammavācato kiñcipi parihāpetuṃ na vaṭṭati, sāvanāya hāpanameva hoti, aññe vā bhikkhū dātukāmā hontīti sambandho, ayamettha vimativinodaniyā (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.117) ābhato vinicchayo. Sāratthadīpanīvinicchayo pana idheva antogadhā hoti appatarattā avisesattā ca.

Even in cases concerning those without a bowl and robes, even when a bowl and robes are absent, because of the declaration in the formal act, ‘for one whose bowl and robes are complete,’ it is said that the act is not invalidated, but only a dukkaṭa offense is incurred. Otherwise, due to the omission in the announcement, the act would indeed be invalidated. Some, however, say that just as those ordained by the initially authorized formal act are properly ordained, so too are those ordained by the formal act properly ordained even now without saying ‘for one whose bowl and robes are complete.’ This is not appropriate. For from the time of authorization onwards, not referring to it is indeed a defect of omission in the announcement, just like omitting the phrase ‘so-and-so requests ordination from the Saṅgha.’ For even if that was later authorized, if one ordains him without his having requested with the statement ‘Venerable sir, I request ordination from the Saṅgha,’ etc., but performs the formal act only after saying ‘this person, so-and-so, requests ordination from the Saṅgha,’ the act is properly done. If not, it is invalid. Indeed, from the formal act authorized last of all, nothing at all should be omitted; it would be an omission in the announcement. Or, the connection is that other bhikkhus wish to give them. This is the decision brought here from the Vimativinodanī (Vin. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.117). The decision of the Sāratthadīpanī, being more concise and not different, is incorporated right here.

Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 117) pana ‘‘keci kuppatīti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabba’’nti yaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ ‘‘pañcavaggakaraṇīyañce, bhikkhave, kammaṃ, bhikkhunipañcamo kammaṃ kareyya, akammaṃ na ca karaṇīya’’ntiādinā (mahāva. 390) nayena vuttattā paṇḍakānaṃ gaṇapūraṇabhāve eva kammaṃ kuppati, na sabbanti katvā suvuttaṃ, itarathā ‘‘paṇḍakupajjhāyena kammaṃ kareyya, akammaṃ na ca karaṇīya’’ntiādikāya pāḷiyā bhavitabbaṃ siyā. Yathā aparipuṇṇapattacīvarassa upasampādanakāle kammavācāyaṃ ‘‘paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’’nti asantaṃ vatthuṃ kittetvā upasampadāya katāya tasmiṃ asantepi upasampadā ruhati, evaṃ ‘‘ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassa upasampadāpekkho’’ti avatthuṃ paṇḍakupajjhāyādiṃ, asantaṃ vā vatthuṃ kittetvā katāyapi gaṇapūrakānamatthitāya upasampadā ruhateva. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, paṇḍakupajjhāyena upasampādetabbo, yo upasampādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa, so ca puggalo anupasampanno’’tiādivacanassa abhāvā ayamattho siddhova hoti. Na hi buddhā vattabbayuttaṃ na vadanti. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu jānaṃ ūnavīsativassaṃ [Pg.272]…pe… so ca puggalo anupasampanno’’tiādi (pāci. 403). Tathā ‘‘byattena bhikkhunā paṭibalena saṅgho ñāpetabbo’’ti (mahāva. 71) vacanato theyyasaṃvāsakādiācariyehi anussāvanāya katāya upasampadā na ruhati tesaṃ abhikkhuttāti vacanampi na gahetabbaṃ.

As for what is said in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 117), ‘Some say it is invalidated, but that should not be accepted,’ this is well said, taking into account that the act is invalidated only when eunuchs complete the quorum, not in all cases, as stated in the passage beginning ‘If, bhikkhus, an act is to be done by a group of five, and a bhikkhunī performs the act as the fifth, it is not an act and should not be done’ (Mahāva. 390). Otherwise, the Pāli text would have to be like ‘If one performs an act with a eunuch as preceptor, it is not an act and should not be done,’ etc. Just as, at the time of ordaining one whose bowl and robes are incomplete, if the kammavācā is performed by declaring a non-existent fact, ‘for one whose bowl and robes are complete,’ the ordination takes effect even if that is non-existent; similarly, even if a non-existent fact—such as ‘This Buddharakkhita is seeking ordination from Venerable Dhammarakkhita’—or a eunuch preceptor, etc., is declared, the ordination still takes effect if those who complete the quorum are present. The absence of a statement like ‘Bhikkhus, one should not ordain with a eunuch as preceptor; whoever ordains, incurs an offense of wrongdoing, and that person is not ordained,’ etc., confirms this meaning. For the Buddhas do not fail to speak what is proper to be spoken. Therefore, it is said, ‘Whatever bhikkhu knowingly ordains one under twenty years of age… that person is not ordained,’ etc. (Pāci. 403). Similarly, the statement that ordination performed by teachers such as those living in theft-communion, etc., through an announcement, does not take effect on account of their not being bhikkhus, should also not be accepted, in accordance with the statement ‘The Saṅgha should be informed by a competent and capable bhikkhu’ (Mahāva. 71).

Kiñca bhiyyo – ‘‘imāni cattāri kammāni pañcahākārehi vipajjantī’’tiādinā (pari. 482) nayena kammānaṃ sampattivipattiyā kathiyamānāya ‘‘sattahi ākārehi kammāni vipajjanti vatthuto vā ñattito vā anussāvanato vā sīmato vā parisato vā upajjhāyato vā ācariyato vā’’ti akathitattā na gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Parisato vā’’ti vacanena ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ vā saṅgaho katoti ce? Na, ‘‘dvādasahi ākārehi parisato kammāni vipajjantī’’ti etassa vibhaṅge tesamanāmaṭṭhattā, ayamattho yasmā tattha tattha sarūpena vuttapāḷivaseneva sakkā jānituṃ, tasmā nayamukhaṃ dassetvā saṃkhittoti ayamassa yuttigavesanāti vuttaṃ.

Furthermore, the invalidation of an act due to the preceptor or teacher should not be accepted, because when the success and failure of acts are discussed according to the method beginning, ‘These four acts are invalidated in five ways,’ etc. (Pari. 482), it is not stated that ‘acts are invalidated in seven ways: due to the substance, or the motion, or the announcement, or the boundary, or the assembly, or the preceptor, or the teacher.’ If it is said that the teachers and preceptors are included by the phrase ‘or the assembly,’ this is not so, because in the analysis of ‘acts are invalidated in twelve ways due to the assembly,’ they are not mentioned. Since this meaning can be understood in each case simply from the Pāli text stated in its own form, therefore, having shown the method, it is abbreviated; this, it is said, is the investigation of its rationale.

Tatridaṃ vicāretabbaṃ – anupajjhāyakaṃ upasampādentā te bhikkhū yathāvuttanayena abhūtaṃ vatthuṃ kittayiṃsu, udāhu musāvādabhayā tāneva padāni na sāvesunti. Kiñcettha – yadi tāva upajjhāyābhāvato na sāvesuṃ, ‘‘puggalaṃ na parāmasatī’’ti vuttavipattippasaṅgo hoti, atha sāvesuṃ, musāvādo nesaṃ bhavatīti? Vuccate – sāvesuṃyeva yathāvuttavipattippasaṅgabhayā, ‘‘kammaṃ pana na kuppatī’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā ca. Na, musāvādassa asambhavato, musāvādenapi kammasambhavato ca. Na hi sakkā musāvādena kammavipattisampattiṃ kātunti. Tasmā ‘‘anupajjhāyakaṃ upasampādentī’’ti vacanassa ca ubhayadosavinimutto attho pariyesitabbo.

Here, this should be considered: Did those bhikkhus who ordained without a preceptor declare a non-existent fact in the manner stated, or did they not announce those very words for fear of false speech? What then? If they did not announce it due to the absence of a preceptor, the consequence of invalidation, as stated, ‘it does not refer to an individual,’ arises. But if they did announce it, would that not be false speech for them? It is said: They did indeed announce it, for fear of the aforementioned consequence of invalidation, and because it is stated in the commentary that ‘the act, however, is not invalidated.’ No, because false speech is impossible, and because the act is possible even with false speech. For it is not possible to cause the failure or success of an act through false speech. Therefore, a meaning free from both faults should be sought for the statement ‘they ordain without a preceptor.’

Ayañcettha [Pg.273] yutti – yathā pubbe pabbajjupasampadupajjhāyesu vijjamānesupi upajjhāyaggahaṇakkamena aggahitattā ‘‘tena kho pana samayena bhikkhū anupajjhāyaka’’ntiādi vuttaṃ, tathā idhāpi upajjhāyassa vijjamānasseva sato aggahitattā ‘‘anupajjhāyakaṃ upasampādentī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kammavācācariyena pana ‘‘gahito tena upajjhāyo’’ti saññāya upajjhāyaṃ kittetvā kammavācaṃ sāvetabbaṃ. Kenaci vā kāraṇena kāyasāmaggiṃ adentassa upajjhāyassa chandaṃ gahetvā kammavācaṃ sāveti, upajjhāyo vā upasampadāpekkhassa upajjhaṃ datvā pacchā upasampanne tasmiṃ tādise vatthusmiṃ samanuyuñjiyamāno vā asamanuyuñjiyamāno vā upajjhāyadānato pubbe eva sāmaṇero paṭijānāti, sikkhāpaccakkhātako vā antimavatthuajjhāpannako vā paṭijānāti, chandahārakādayo viya upajjhāyo vā aññasīmāgato hoti. Kammavācā ruhatīti vatvā ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave paccantimesu janapadesu vinayadharapañcamena gaṇena upasampada’’nti vuttattā. Keci ‘‘vinayadharapañcamena upajjhāyena sannihiteneva bhavitabba’’nti vadantīti porāṇagaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. So ca pāṭho appamāṇo majjhimesu janapadesu tassa vacanassābhāvato. Asannihitepi upajjhāye kammavācā ruhatīti āpajjatīti ce? Na. Kasmā? Kammasampattiyaṃ ‘‘puggalaṃ parāmasatī’’ti vuttapāṭhova no pamāṇaṃ. Na hi tattha asannihito upajjhāyasaṅkhāto puggalo parāmasanaṃ arahati, tasmā tattha saṅghaparāmasanaṃ viya puggalaparāmasanaṃ veditabbaṃ. Saṅghena gaṇena upajjhāyena upasampādenti tesaṃ atthato puggalattā, paṇḍakādiupajjhāyena upasampādenti upasampādanakāle aviditattāti porāṇā.

Here is the reasoning in this matter: just as previously, even though preceptors were present for going forth and higher ordination, it was said, ‘At that time, bhikkhus were without a preceptor,’ etc., because they were not taken according to the procedure for taking a preceptor; similarly, here too, it is said ‘they ordain without a preceptor’ because, even though a preceptor is present, he is not taken. However, the kammavācā teacher, perceiving ‘the preceptor has been taken by him,’ should announce the kammavācā after declaring the preceptor. Or, for some reason, one announces the kammavācā after obtaining the consent of a preceptor who does not give physical presence. Or, a preceptor gives preceptorship to one seeking higher ordination, and later, when that person has been ordained, whether questioned about such a matter or not, it is revealed that even before the granting of preceptorship the novice had confessed to being one who has given up the training or one who has committed a final offense. Or, the preceptor has gone to another territory, like the consent-bearers. The kammavācā is valid, because it was said, ‘I allow, bhikkhus, higher ordination by a group of five, including one expert in the Vinaya, in the border regions.’ Some say, ‘There must be a preceptor present among the five including the Vinaya-holder,’ as stated in the ancient glosses. But that reading is not authoritative, due to the absence of such a statement in the middle regions. If it is said that the kammavācā takes effect even if the preceptor is not present, no. Why? Because the passage stated regarding the validity of the act, ‘it refers to an individual,’ is our authority. For there, an individual designated as a preceptor who is not present is not worthy of being referred to. Therefore, referring to an individual should be understood like referring to the Saṅgha there. The ancients say that they ordain by the Saṅgha, by the group, by the preceptor, because they are individuals in essence; they ordain with a eunuch, etc., as preceptor because it was not known at the time of ordination.

Apattacīvaraṃ [Pg.274] upasampādentīti kammavācācariyo ‘‘paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’’nti saññāya, kevalaṃ atthasampattiṃ anapekkhitvā santapadanīhārena vā ‘‘paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’’nti kammavācaṃ sāveti. Yathā etarahi matavippavuttamātāpitikopi ‘‘anuññātosi mātāpitūhī’’ti puṭṭho ‘‘āma bhante’’ti vadati, kiṃ bahunā? Ayaṃ panettha sāro – ‘‘tasmiṃ samaye cattāri kammāni pañcahākārehi vipajjantī’’ti lakkhaṇassa na tāva paññattattā anupajjhāyakādiṃ upasampādenti. Vajjanīyapuggalānaṃ avuttattā paṇḍakupajjhāyādiṃ upasampādenti, terasantarāyapucchāya adassanattā apattacīvarakaṃ upasampādenti, ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave ñatticatutthena kammena upasampādetu’’nti (mahāva. 69) evaṃ sabbapaṭhamaṃ anuññātāya kammavācāya ‘‘paripuṇṇassa pattacīvara’’nti avacanamettha sādhakanti veditabbaṃ. Tañhi vacanaṃ anukkamenānuññātanti.

When ordaining one without bowl and robes, the kammavācā teacher, perceiving ‘with a complete bowl and robes,’ or merely for the sake of preserving the expression, without considering the actual fulfillment of the meaning, announces the kammavācā ‘with a complete bowl and robes.’ Just as nowadays, even one whose parents are dead and gone, when asked ‘Have you been permitted by your parents?’ replies ‘Yes, venerable sir,’ what more need be said? Here, however, is the essence: at that time, they ordained one without a preceptor, etc., because the characteristic of ‘these four acts are invalidated in five ways’ had not yet been laid down. They ordained a eunuch, etc., as preceptor because the prohibited individuals were not stated. They ordained one without bowl and robes because the asking of the thirteen obstacles was not seen. And it should be understood that the non-recitation of ‘with a complete bowl and robes’ in the kammavācā first authorized as ‘I allow, bhikkhus, to ordain by a motion followed by three announcements’ (Mahāva. 69) is the proof here. For that statement was authorized in sequence.

Idaṃ tāva sabbathā hotu, ‘‘mūgaṃ pabbājenti badhiraṃ pabbājentī’’ti idaṃ kathaṃ sambhavitumarahati ādito paṭṭhāya ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave imehi tīhi saraṇagamanehi pabbajja’’ntiādinā anuññātattāti? Vuccate – ‘‘evañca pana, bhikkhave, pabbājetabboti, evaṃ vadehīti vattabbo…pe… tatiyampi saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī’’ti ettha ‘‘evaṃ vadehīti vattabbo’’ti imassa vacanassa micchā atthaṃ gahetvā mūgaṃ pabbājesuṃ. ‘‘Evaṃ vadehī’’ti taṃ pabbajjāpekkhaṃ āṇāpetvā sayaṃ upajjhāyena vattabbo ‘‘tatiyampi saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī’’ti, so pabbajjāpekkhā tathā āṇatto upajjhāyavacanassa anu anu vadatu vā mā vā, tattha tattha bhagavā ‘‘kāyena viññāpeti, vācāya viññāpeti, kāyena vācāya viññāpeti, gahito hoti upajjhāyo. Dinno hoti chando, dinnā hoti pārisuddhi, dinnā hoti pavāraṇā’’ti vadati[Pg.275]. Tadanumānena vā kāyena tena pabbajjāpekkhena viññattaṃ hoti saraṇagamananti vā lokepi kāyena viññāpento evaṃ vadatīti vuccati, taṃ pariyāyaṃ gahetvā mūgaṃ pabbājentīti veditabbaṃ. Porāṇagaṇṭhipade ‘‘mūgaṃ kathaṃ pabbājentīti pucchaṃ katvā tassa kāyapasādasambhavato kāyena pahāraṃ datvā hatthamuddāya viññāpetvā pabbājesu’’nti vuttaṃ. Kiṃ bahunā?

First, let it be entirely so. How can this statement, “They give the going forth to a mute, they give the going forth to a deaf person,” be possible from the beginning, since it was allowed by the words, “I allow, monks, the going forth by means of these three goings for refuge,” and so on? It is said: In the passage, “And thus, monks, one should be given the going forth. One should say thus…” up to “…For the third time, I go to the Sangha for refuge,” they gave the going forth to a mute by taking the wrong meaning of the phrase “One should say thus.” The meaning is: having instructed the one seeking the going forth, “Say thus,” it should be said by the preceptor himself, “…For the third time, I go to the Sangha for refuge.” Whether that one seeking the going forth, thus instructed, repeats the preceptor’s words or not, in various places the Blessed One says, “He makes it known by body, he makes it known by speech, he makes it known by body and speech. The preceptor is accepted. Consent is given, a declaration of purity is given, an invitation is given.” By that inference, the going for refuge is made known by body by that one seeking the going forth; or, as in the world one who makes something known by body is said to ‘speak’ thus, taking this reasoning, it should be understood that they give the going forth to a mute. In the ancient glosses, it is said: “How do they give the going forth to a mute?” Having asked the question, since there is the possibility of his bodily sensitivity, they would give a blow to his body, have him make it known by a hand gesture, and then give him the going forth. What more is there to say?

Ayaṃ panettha sāro – yathā pubbe pabbajjādhikāre vattamāne pabbajjābhilāpaṃ upacchinditvā ‘‘paṇḍako, bhikkhave, anupasampanno na upasampādetabbo’’tiādinā (mahāva. 109) nayena upasampadavaseneva abhilāpo kato. Theyyasaṃvāsakapade asambhavato kiñcāpi so na kato, pabbajjāva tattha katā, sabbattha pana upasampadābhilāpena adhippetā tadanubhāvato upasampadāya, pabbajjāya vāritāya upasampadā vāritā hotīti katvā, tathā idha upasampadādhikāre vattamāne upasampadābhilāpaṃ upacchinditvā upasampadameva sandhāya pabbajjābhilāpo katoti veditabbo. Kāmaṃ so na kattabbo, mūgapade asambhavato tassa vasena ādito paṭṭhāya upasampadābhilāpova kattabbo viya dissati, tathāpi tasseva mūgapadassa vasena ādito paṭṭhāya pabbajjābhilāpova kato micchāgahaṇanivāraṇatthaṃ. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Mūgo, bhikkhave, apatto osāraṇaṃ, tañce saṅgho osāreti, sosārito’’ti (mahāva. 396) vacanato hi mūgo upasampanno hotīti siddhaṃ, so kevalaṃ upasampannova hoti, na pana pabbajito tassa pabbajjāya asambhavatoti micchāgāho hoti, taṃ parivajjāpetvā yo upasampanno, so pabbajitova hoti. Pabbajito pana [Pg.276] atthi koci upasampanno, atthi koci anupasampannoti imaṃ sammāgāhaṃ uppādeti bhagavāti veditabbaṃ.

Herein lies the essence: Just as in the earlier section on the going forth, the discussion about the going forth was cut off, and by the method beginning, “A eunuch, monks, not yet fully ordained, should not be fully ordained,” and so on (Mahāvagga 109), the discussion was framed in terms of full ordination. Although in the case of the thief living with the monks, such a discussion was not made due to its impossibility, only the going forth was addressed there, in all other cases, the discussion of full ordination is what is intended. By its influence, when the going forth is prohibited, full ordination is also prohibited. Similarly, here, in the section on full ordination, having cut off the discussion about full ordination, the discussion about the going forth is framed solely with reference to full ordination; it should be understood thus. Granted, it might seem that such a discussion should not be made, and that from the beginning, due to the impossibility in the case of the mute, the discussion should be framed solely in terms of full ordination. Nevertheless, precisely because of that case of the mute, the discussion about the going forth is made from the very beginning in order to prevent a wrong apprehension. How so? From the statement, “A mute, monks, is unfit for reinstatement; if the Sangha reinstates him, he is reinstated” (Mahāvagga 396), it is established that the mute is fully ordained. A wrong apprehension would arise that he is merely fully ordained, but not gone forth, since the going forth is impossible for him. To avoid this, the Blessed One generates this correct apprehension: whoever is fully ordained is also gone forth; however, among those gone forth, some are fully ordained, and some are not fully ordained. It should be understood thus.

Apica tesaṃ hatthacchinnādīnaṃ pabbajitānaṃ supabbajitabhāvadīpanatthaṃ, pabbajjābhāvasaṅkānivāraṇatthañcettha pabbajjābhilāpo kato. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, hatthacchinno pabbājetabbo’’tiādinā (mahāva. 119) paṭikkhepena, ‘‘pabbajitā supabbajitā’’ti vuttaṭṭhānābhāvena ca tesaṃ pabbajjābhāvasaṅkā bhaveyya, yathā pasaṅkā bhave, tathā pasaṅkaṃ ṭhapeyya. Khandhake upasampadaṃ sandhāya ‘‘hatthacchinno, bhikkhave, apatto osāraṇaṃ, tañce saṅgho osāreti, sosārito’’tiādinā (mahāva. 396) nayena bhagavā nivāreti. Teneva nayena pabbajitā panete sabbepi supabbajitā evāti dīpeti. Aññathā sabbepete upasampannāva honti, na pabbajitāti ayamaniṭṭhappasaṅgo āpajjati. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Hatthacchinno, bhikkhave, na pabbājetabbo, pabbajito nāsetabbo’’ti vā ‘‘na, bhikkhave, hatthacchinno pabbājetabbo, yo pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa, so ca apabbajito’’ti (mahāva. 119) vā tantiyā ṭhapitāya campeyyakkhandhake ‘‘sosārito’’ti vuttattā kevalaṃ ‘‘ime hatthacchinnādayo upasampannāva honti, na pabbajitā’’ti vā ‘‘upasampannāpi ce pabbajitā, nāsetabbā’’ti vā aniṭṭhakoṭṭhāso āpajjatīti adhippāyo.

Furthermore, the discourse on the going forth is made here in order to demonstrate that those who have gone forth, such as those with severed hands, are truly gone forth, and to dispel any doubt about their status of having gone forth. How so? By the prohibition, “Monks, one whose hand is severed should not be given the going forth,” and so on (Mahāvagga 119), and because there is no place where it is said, “they have gone forth, they are well gone forth,” a doubt about their status of having gone forth might arise, and this would establish such a doubt. In the Khandhaka, with reference to full ordination, the Blessed One prohibits it by the method beginning, “Monks, one whose hand is severed is unfit for reinstatement. If the Sangha reinstates him, he is reinstated” (Mahāvagga 396). By that same method, it is demonstrated that all these who have gone forth are indeed well gone forth. Otherwise, the undesirable consequence would arise that all these would be merely fully ordained, but not gone forth. How so? The intended meaning is that if the text were established as, “Monks, one whose hand is severed should not be given the going forth; one who has gone forth should be expelled,” or “Monks, one whose hand is severed should not be given the going forth. Whoever gives him the going forth incurs an offense of wrongdoing, and he has not gone forth” (Mahāvagga 119), and in the Campeyya Khandhaka it were said “he is reinstated,” then the undesirable alternative would arise that “these with severed hands, and so on, are merely fully ordained, but not gone forth,” or “even if fully ordained, if they have gone forth, they should be expelled.”

Idaṃ panettha vicāretabbaṃ – ‘‘so ca apabbajito’’ti vacanābhāvato mūgassa pabbajjāsiddhipasaṅgato pabbajjāpi ekatosuddhiyā hotīti ayamaniṭṭhakoṭṭhāso kathaṃ nāpajjatīti? Pabbajjābhilāpena upasampadā idhādhippetāti sammāgāhena nāpajjatīti, aññathā yathābyañjanaṃ atthe gahite yathāpaññattadukkaṭābhāvasaṅkhāto aparo aniṭṭhakoṭṭhāso āpajjati. Kathaṃ? ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, mūgo pabbājetabbo, yo [Pg.277] pabbājeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttadukkaṭaṃ pabbajjāpariyosāne hoti, na tassāvippakatāya. Pubbapayogadukkaṭameva hi paṭhamaṃ āpajjati, tasmā mūgassa pabbajjāpariyosānasseva abhāvato imassa dukkaṭassa okāso ca na sabbakālaṃ sambhaveyya, upasampadāvasena pana atthe gahite sambhavati kammanibbattito. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘na, bhikkhave, paṇḍako upasampādetabbo, yo upasampādeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti dukkaṭaṃ na paññattaṃ. Apaññattattā pubbapayogadukkaṭameva cettha sambhavati, netaraṃ. Ettāvatā siddhametaṃ pabbajjābhilāpena upasampadāva tattha adhippetā, na pabbajjāti. Etthāha sāmaṇerapabbajjā na kāyapayogato hotīti kathaṃ paññāyatīti? Vuccate – kāyena viññāpetītiādittikā dassanatoti āgato.

Herein, this should be considered: How is this undesirable alternative not incurred: that since there is no statement “and he has not gone forth,” it would follow that the going forth of a mute is accomplished, and that the going forth would be valid on one side? It is not incurred because, with correct apprehension, it is understood that full ordination is intended here by the discourse on the going forth. Otherwise, if the meaning is taken literally, another undesirable alternative arises, namely the absence of the prescribed offense of wrongdoing. How so? The stated offense of wrongdoing, “Monks, a mute should not be given the going forth. Whoever gives one the going forth incurs an offense of wrongdoing,” is incurred at the completion of the going forth, not while it is incomplete. For the offense of wrongdoing for the preliminary effort is incurred first. Therefore, since the going forth of a mute does not reach completion, the occasion for this offense of wrongdoing would not always be possible. However, when the meaning is taken in terms of full ordination, it is possible, since it is produced by the formal act. For this very reason, in the Pāli text, an offense of wrongdoing for the completed act is not laid down in the case of the eunuch, which would state: “Monks, a eunuch should not be fully ordained. Whoever gives one full ordination incurs an offense of wrongdoing.” Since it is not laid down, only the offense of wrongdoing for the preliminary effort is possible here, not the other. By this much, it is established that by the discourse on the going forth, full ordination is intended there, not the going forth. Here one might ask: “How is it known that the going forth of a novice does not occur by bodily action?” It is said: It is known from the showing of the triad beginning with, ‘he makes it known by body.’”

‘‘Gottenapi anussāvetu’’nti (mahāva. 122) vacanato yena vohārena voharati, tena vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ, tasmā ‘‘ko nāmo te upajjhāyo’’ti puṭṭhenapi gottameva nāmaṃ katvā vattabbanti siddhaṃ hoti, tasmā catubbidhesu nāmesu yena kenaci nāmena anussāvanā kātabbāti vadanti. Ekassa bahūni nāmāni honti, tattha ekaṃ nāmaṃ ñattiyā, ekaṃ anussāvanāya kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, atthato byañjanato ca abhinnāhi anussāvanāhi bhavitabbanti. Kiñcāpi ‘‘itthannāmo itthannāmassa āyasmato’’ti pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘āyasmato’’ti padaṃ pacchā vuttaṃ, kammavācāpāḷiyaṃ pana ‘‘ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassā’’ti paṭhamaṃ likhanti, taṃ uppaṭipāṭiyā vuttanti na paccetabbaṃ. Pāḷiyañhi ‘‘itthannāmo itthannāmassā’’ti atthamattaṃ dassitaṃ, tasmā pāḷiyaṃ avuttopi ‘‘ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassā’’ti kammavācāpāḷiyaṃ payogo dassito. ‘‘Na me [Pg.278] diṭṭho ito pubbe iccāyasmā sāriputto’’ti ca ‘‘āyasmā sāriputto atthakusalo’’ti ca paṭhamaṃ ‘‘āyasmā’’ti payogassa dassanatoti vadanti. Katthaci ‘‘āyasmato buddharakkhitassā’’ti vatvā katthaci kevalaṃ ‘‘buddharakkhitassā’’ti sāveti, sāvanaṃ hāpetīti na vuccati nāmassa ahāpitattāti eke. Sace katthaci ‘‘āyasmato buddharakkhitassā’’ti vatvā katthaci ‘‘buddharakkhitassāyasmato’’ti sāveti, pāṭhānurūpattā khettameva otiṇṇantipi eke. Byañjanabhedappasaṅgato anussāvanānaṃ taṃ na vaṭṭatīti vadanti. Sace pana sabbaṭṭhānepi ekeneva pakārena vadati, vaṭṭati.

From the statement, “Let him announce even by clan name” (Mahāva. 122), it is established that it is permissible by whatever usage one uses. Therefore, even when asked, “What is the name of your preceptor?” it is established that one should respond by giving the clan name as the name. Thus, they say that the announcement should be made using any of the four kinds of names. One person may have many names. In such cases, using one name for the motion and another for the announcement is not permissible. The announcements should be identical in meaning and wording. Although in the Pāḷi text, in “the candidate so-and-so of the venerable so-and-so,” the word “venerable” is placed afterward, in the formal recitation text, they write “This Buddharakkhita of Venerable Dhammarakkhita,” with “venerable” first. This should not be taken as being in reverse order. For in the Pāḷi, only the meaning is shown as “the candidate so-and-so of so-and-so.” Therefore, even though not explicitly stated in the Pāḷi, the application “This Buddharakkhita of Venerable Dhammarakkhita” is shown in the formal recitation text. They say that examples like, “Never before have I seen, thus said Venerable Sāriputta,” and “Venerable Sāriputta is skilled in meaning,” demonstrate the use of “venerable” first. Some say that if in some places one says “of Venerable Buddharakkhita,” while in others, simply “of Buddharakkhita” is announced, it is not called an omission of the announcement, as the name itself is not omitted. If in some places one says “of Venerable Buddharakkhita” and in others “of Buddharakkhita the venerable,” some hold that this follows the textual order and is permissible. However, they say that due to the possibility of variation in wording, it is not permissible for the announcements. But if one consistently uses the same form in all instances, it is permissible.

Ekānussāvaneti ettha ekato anussāvanaṃ etesanti ekānussāvanāti asamānādhikaraṇavisayo bāhiratthasamāsoti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tenevāha ‘‘dve ekato anussāvane’’ti. Tattha ekatoti ekakkhaṇeti attho, vibhattialopena cāyaṃ niddeso. Purimanayeneva ekato anussāvane kātunti ‘‘ekena ekassa, aññena itarassā’’tiādinā pubbe vuttanayena dvīhi vā tīhi vā ācariyehi ekena vā ekato anussāvane kātuṃ. Vajjāvajjaṃ upanijjhāyatīti upajjhāti iminā upajjhāyasaddasamānattho upajjhāsaddopīti atthaṃ dassetīti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.123).

Here, 'ekānussāvana' means that the announcement is made for them together. It should be understood as an external determinative compound (bāhiratthasamāsa) with differing subjects (asamānādhikaraṇavisayo). Hence, it is said, 'Two announcements are made together.' In this context, 'ekato' means 'at a single moment,' and this is an indication by elision of the case ending (vibhattialopa). As previously explained, the announcement is to be made together—whether by one for one, and by another for the other, or by two or three teachers, or by one. The phrase 'Vajjāvajjaṃ upanijjhāyatīti upajjhāti' (He who scrutinizes what is proper and improper is a preceptor) shows that the word 'upajjhā' is synonymous with the word 'upajjhāya' (preceptor), as explained in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.123).

Gottenāpīti ‘‘āyasmato pippalissa upasampadāpekkho’’ti evaṃ nāmaṃ avatvā gottanāmenapīti attho, tena ‘‘ko nāmo te upajjhāyo’’ti puṭṭhena gottanāmena ‘‘āyasmā kassapo’’ti vattabbanti siddhaṃ hoti. Tasmā aññampi yaṃ kiñci tassa nāmaṃ pasiddhaṃ, tasmiṃ vā khaṇe sukhaggahaṇatthaṃ nāmaṃ paññāpitaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ gahetvāpi anussāvanā kātabbā. Yathā upajjhāyassa, evaṃ upasampadāpekkhassāpi gottādināmena [Pg.279] taṅkhaṇikanāmena ca anussāvanaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, tasmimpi khaṇe ‘‘ayaṃ tisso’’ti vā ‘‘nāgo’’ti vā nāmaṃ karontehi anusāsakasammutito paṭhamameva kātabbaṃ. Evaṃ akatvāpi antarāyikadhammānusāsanapucchanakālesu ‘‘kinnāmosi, ahaṃ bhante nāgo nāma, ko nāmo te upajjhāyo, upajjhāyo me bhante tisso nāmā’’tiādinā viññāpentena ubhinnampi citte ‘‘mametaṃ nāma’’nti yathā saññaṃ uppajjati, evaṃ viññāpetabbaṃ. Sace pana tasmiṃ khaṇe pakatināmena vatvā pacchā ‘‘tisso nāmā’’ti apubbanāmena anussāveti, na vaṭṭati.

‘Even by clan name’ means that without stating the personal name, one can use the clan name, as in ‘the ordination candidate of the venerable Pippali.’ Therefore, when asked, ‘What is the name of your preceptor?’ it is established that one should answer with the clan name, ‘The venerable Kassapa.’ Thus, the announcement may be made using any other name of his that is well-known, or a name given at that moment for ease of comprehension. Just as with the preceptor, so too for the one seeking ordination, it is proper to make the announcement using a clan name or a temporary name given at that moment. At that time, when giving a name like ‘This one is Tissa’ or ‘Nāga,’ it should be done first with the consent of the instructors. If this is not done, during the questioning about the obstructing conditions and the instruction, one should make it known by saying, ‘What is your name? I, venerable sir, am named Nāga. What is the name of your preceptor? My preceptor, venerable sir, is named Tissa,’ and so on, so that in the minds of both the perception arises, ‘This is my name.’ However, if at that moment one speaks with the original name and later announces with a new name like ‘Tissa,’ it is not permissible.

Tattha ca kiñcāpi upajjhāyasseva nāmaṃ aggahetvā yena kenaci nāmena ‘‘tissassa upasampadāpekkho’’tiādināpi puggale parāmaṭṭhe kammaṃ sukatameva hoti anupajjhāyakādīnaṃ upasampadākammaṃ viya upajjhāyassa abhāvepi abhabbattepi kammavācāya puggale parāmaṭṭhe kammassa sijjhanato. Upasampadāpekkhassa pana yathāsakaṃ nāmaṃ vinā aññena nāmena anussāvite kammaṃ kuppati, so anupasampannova hoti. Tattha ṭhito añño anupasampanno viya gahitanāmassa vatthupuggalassa tattha abhāvā, etassa ca nāmassa anussāvanāya avuttattā. Tasmā upasampadāpekkhassa pakatināmaṃ parivattetvā apubbena nāgādināmena anussāvitukāmena paṭikacceva ‘‘tvaṃ nāgo’’tiādinā viññāpetvā anusāsanaantarāyikadhammāpucchanakkhaṇesupi tassa ca saṅghassa ca yathā pākaṭaṃ hoti, tathā pakāsetvāva nāgādināmena anussāvetabbaṃ. Ekassa bahūni nāmāni honti, tesu ekaṃ gahetuṃ vaṭṭati.

Here, even if the preceptor's name is not specifically taken, but the candidate is referred to by any name, as in 'the one seeking ordination of Tissa,' the act is still well-performed—just like the ordination act for those without a preceptor, etc. Even in the absence or disqualification of a preceptor, the act succeeds when the person is referred to in the recitation of the Kamma. However, if the one seeking higher ordination is announced by a name other than his own proper name, the act is invalid, and he remains unordained. He remains unordained, like any other unordained person standing there, because the actual person whose name was taken is absent, and because this candidate's own name was not stated in the announcement. Therefore, if one wishes to announce the seeker of higher ordination with a new name like 'Nāga' instead of his original name, he should first inform him by saying, 'You are Nāga,' etc. Then, during the inquiry about obstructive conditions and the instruction, it should be declared so that it is clear to the candidate and the Saṅgha, and only then should the name 'Nāga' or similar be announced. A single person may have many names, and it is permissible to use any one of them.

Yaṃ pana upasampadāpekkhaupajjhāyānaṃ ekattha gahitaṃ nāmaṃ tadeva ñattiyā, sabbattha anussāvanāsu ca gahetabbaṃ. Gahitato hi aññasmiṃ gahite byañjanaṃ bhinnaṃ nāma hoti, kammaṃ [Pg.280] vipajjati. Atthato hi byañjanato ca abhinnā eva ñatti anussāvanā ca vaṭṭanti. Upajjhāyanāmassa pana purato ‘‘āyasmato tissassā’’tiādinā āyasmantapadaṃ sabbattha yojetvāpi anussāveti. Tathā ayojitepi doso natthi.

Whatever name is taken for the candidate and the preceptor in one place, that same name should be taken in the motion and in all the announcements. For if a different name is taken from the one initially taken, the phrasing becomes different, and the act is invalid. The motion and announcements are valid only when they are unbroken in meaning and phrasing. However, for the preceptor's name, one may also make the announcement in all instances by adding the term 'venerable' before it, as in 'of the venerable Tissa,' and so on. Even if it is not so added, there is no fault.

Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 126) pana kiñcāpi ‘‘itthannāmassa āyasmato’’ti pacchato ‘‘āyasmato’’ti padaṃ vuttaṃ, tathāpi ‘‘āyasmā sāriputto atthakusalo’’tiādinā nāmassa purato ‘āyasmantapada’yogassa dassanato puratova payogo yuttataro, tañca ekattha yojetvā aññattha ayojitepi ekattha purato yojetvā aññattha pacchato yojanepi sāvanāya hāpanaṃ nāma na hoti nāmassa ahāpitattā. Teneva pāḷiyampi ‘‘itthannāmassa āyasmato’’ti ekattha yojetvā ‘‘itthannāmena upajjhāyenā’’tiādīsu ‘‘āyasmato’’ti na yojitanti vadanti. Tañca kiñcāpi evaṃ, tathāpi sabbaṭṭhānepi ekeneva pakārena yojetvā eva vā ayojetvā vā anussāvanaṃ pasatthataranti gahetabbaṃ.

In the Pāḷi (Mahāva. 126), although the word 'āyasmato' (venerable) is stated after the name in the phrase 'of so-and-so, the venerable,' still, the application before the name is more appropriate because the use of the term 'venerable' is seen before the name in instances such as 'the venerable Sāriputta, skilled in meaning.' And even when it is used in one place but not used in another, or when it is used before the name in one place but after the name in another, this is not called an omission of the announcement because the name is not omitted. For this reason, they say that even in the Pāḷi, though 'of so-and-so, the venerable' is used in one place, 'venerable' is not used in instances such as 'by the preceptor so-and-so.' Though this is the case, it should be understood that the announcement is more praiseworthy when it is made consistently in all instances, either by always including the term or by always omitting it.

Ekato saheva ekasmiṃ khaṇe anussāvanaṃ etesanti ekānussāvanā, upasampadāpekkhā, ete ekānussāvane kātuṃ. Tenāha ‘‘ekatoanusāvane’’ti. Idañca ekaṃ padaṃ vibhattialopena daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ekena vāti dvinnampi ekasmiṃ khaṇe ekāya eva kammavācāya anussāvane ekena ācariyenāti attho. ‘‘Ayaṃ buddharakkhito ca ayaṃ dhammarakkhito ca āyasmato saṅgharakkhitassa upasampadāpekkho’’tiādinā nayena ekena ācariyena dvinnamekasmiṃ khaṇe anussāvananayo daṭṭhabbo, imināva nayena tiṇṇampi ekena ācariyena ekakkhaṇe anussāvanaṃ veditabbaṃ.

Because the announcement is for them together, at one moment, they are ekānussāvanā (those with a single announcement). Those desiring ordination are to perform this single announcement. Therefore, it is said, 'ekatoanusāvane.' And this single word should be understood with the elision of the case ending. 'Or by one' means that for two people, at one moment, the announcement is by a single formal recitation by one teacher—this is the meaning. The method of announcement for two people at one moment by one teacher should be seen in this way: 'This is Buddharakkhita, and this is Dhammarakkhita, both desiring ordination from Venerable Saṅgharakkhita,' and so forth. In this very way, the announcement for three people by one teacher in a single moment should be understood.

Purimanayeneva [Pg.281] ekato anussāvane kātunti ‘‘ekena ekassa, aññena itarassā’’tiādinā pubbe vuttanayena dvinnaṃ dvīhi vā tiṇṇaṃ tīhi vā ācariyehi, ekena vā ācariyena tayopi ekatoanussāvane kātunti attho. ‘‘Tañca kho ekena upajjhāyena, na tveva nānupajjhāyenā’’ti idaṃ ekena ācariyena dvīhi vā tīhi vā upajjhāyehi dve vā tayo vā upasampadāpekkhe ekakkhaṇe ekāya anussāvanāya ekānussāvane kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti paṭikkhepapadaṃ, na pana nānācariyehi nānupajjhāyehi tayo ekānussāvane kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti āha ‘‘sace pana nānācariyā nānupajjhāyā…pe… vaṭṭatī’’ti. Yañcettha ‘‘tissatthero sumanattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ, sumanatthero tissattherassa saddhivihārika’’nti evaṃ upajjhāyehi aññamaññaṃ saddhivihārikānaṃ anussāvanakaraṇaṃ vuttaṃ, taṃ upalakkhaṇamattaṃ. Tasmā sace tissatthero sumanattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ, sumanatthero nandattherassa saddhivihārikaṃ anussāveti, aññamaññañca gaṇapūrakā honti, vaṭṭati eva. Sace pana upajjhāyo sayameva attano saddhivihārikaṃ anussāveti, ettha vattabbameva natthi, kammaṃ sukatameva hoti, anupajjhāyakassapi yena kenaci anussāvite upasampadā hoti, kimaṅgaṃ pana saupajjhāyakassa upajjhāyeneva anussāvaneti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Teneva navaṭṭanapakkhaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘sace panā’’tiādimāha.

In the previous manner, the announcement is to be made together. The meaning is that for two candidates, it is done by two teachers, or for three candidates by three teachers, or by one teacher for all three, to make the announcement together. The phrase, 'And that by one preceptor, not by different preceptors,' is a prohibitory statement, meaning it is not permissible for one teacher to perform a single announcement for two or three candidates at one moment with two or three preceptors. It does not, however, say that it is not permissible for three candidates to have a single announcement with different teachers and different preceptors, as it is said, 'But if there are different teachers and different preceptors... it is permissible.' Herein, the statement, 'Elder Tissa announces for Elder Sumana’s pupil, and Elder Sumana announces for Elder Tissa’s pupil,' where preceptors make announcements for each other’s pupils, is merely illustrative. Therefore, if Elder Tissa announces for Elder Sumana’s pupil, and Elder Sumana announces for Elder Nanda’s pupil, and they themselves complete the quorum, it is permissible. If, however, a preceptor himself announces for his own pupil, there is nothing more to be said; the formal act is well done. Ordination is valid even for one without a preceptor if the announcement is made by anyone; how much more so for one with a preceptor when the announcement is made by the preceptor himself. Therefore, to show the impermissible case, it is stated, 'But if…' and so forth.

Upajjhāti upajjhāyasaddasamānattho ākāranto upajjhāsaddoti dasseti. Upajjhāya-saddo eva vā upajjhā, upayogapaccattavacanesu ya-kāra lopaṃ katvā evaṃ vutto karaṇavacanādīsu upajjhāsaddassa payogābhāvāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ attanāva attānaṃ sammannitabbanti attanāva kattubhūtena karaṇabhūtena attānameva kammabhūtaṃ [Pg.282] pati sammannanakiccaṃ kātabbaṃ, attānanti vā paccatte upayogavacanaṃ, attanāva attā sammannitabboti attho. Na kevalañca ettheva, aññatrāpi terasasammutiādīsu imināva lakkhaṇena attanāva attā sammannitabbova. Apica sayaṃ kammārahattā attānaṃ muñcitvā catuvaggādiko gaṇo sabbattha icchitabbo.

The term 'upajjhā' shows that the word upajjhā, ending in -ā, is equivalent in meaning to the word upajjhāya. Or, the word upajjhāya itself becomes upajjhā by eliding the letter 'ya' in words indicating application or the dative/accusative sense. It should be understood that the word upajjhā is not used in the instrumental or other such senses. In the Pāli, 'one should authorize oneself by oneself' means that the act of authorization must be done by oneself as the agent and the instrument, directed towards oneself as the object. Or, 'attānaṃ' is a word used in the dative/accusative sense; the meaning is: one should be authorized by oneself. And not only here, but also elsewhere in the thirteen authorizations and so on, one must authorize oneself in this same way. Moreover, since one is worthy of the formal act, having excluded oneself, a group of four or more is to be sought everywhere.

Saccakāloti ‘‘nigūhissāmī’’ti vañcanaṃ pahāya saccasseva te icchitabbakālo. Bhūtakāloti vañcanāya abhāvepi manussattādivatthuno bhūtatāya avassaṃ icchitabbakālo, itarathā kammakopādiantarāyo hotīti adhippāyo. Maṅkūti adhomukho. Uddharatūti anupasampannabhāvato upasampattiyaṃ patiṭṭhapetūti attho.

'The time for truth' is the time when, having abandoned deception with the thought, 'I will conceal,' only truth is to be desired. 'The time for what is factual' is the time when, even in the absence of deception, the reality of one's human state and so forth must necessarily be desired; otherwise, there is an obstacle such as the spoiling of the formal act—this is the intention. 'Maṅkū' means with face cast down. 'Let him raise up' means let him establish him in higher ordination from the state of not being ordained—this is the meaning.

Sabbakammavācāsu atthakosallatthaṃ panettha upasampadakammavācāya evamattho daṭṭhabbo – suṇātūti savanāṇattiyaṃ paṭhamapurisekavacanaṃ. Tañca kiñcāpi yo so saṅgho savanakiriyāyaṃ niyojīyati, tassa sammukhattā ‘‘suṇāhī’’ti majjhimapurisavacanena vattabbaṃ, tathāpi yasmā saṅghasaddasannidhāne paṭhamapurisappayogova saddavidūhi samāciṇṇo bhavantabhagavantaāyasmādisaddasannidhānesu viya ‘‘adhivāsetu me bhavaṃ gotamo (pārā. 22), etassa sugata kālo, yaṃ bhagavā sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapeyya (pārā. 21), pakkamatāyasmā (pārā. 436), suṇantu me āyasmanto’’tiādīsu (mahāva. 168). Tasmā idha paṭhamapurisappayogo kato. Atha vā gāravavasenetaṃ vuttaṃ. Garuṭṭhāniyesu hi gāravavasena majjhimapurisapayoguppattiyampi paṭhamapurisappayogaṃ payujjanti ‘‘desetu sugato dhamma’’ntiādīsu (dī. ni. 2.66; ma. ni. 2.338; mahāva. 8) viyāti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Keci pana [Pg.283] ‘‘bhante āvusoti pade apekkhitvā idha paṭhamapurisappayogo’’ti vadanti, taṃ na sundaraṃ ‘‘ācariyo me, bhante, hohi (mahāva. 77), iṅghāvuso upāli, imaṃ pabbajitaṃ anuyuñjāhī’’tiādīsu (pārā. 517) tappayogepi majjhimapurisappayogasseva dassanato.

For the sake of proficiency in meaning in all formal recitations, herein, regarding the formal recitation for ordination, the meaning should be understood thus: ‘Suṇātu’ (Let him hear) is a third-person singular imperative expressing a command to hear. And although, because the Saṅgha which is being enjoined to the act of hearing is present, it should be spoken with the second-person ‘suṇāhi,’ nevertheless, the use of the third person is customary among grammarians in the presence of words like ‘bhavaṃ’ (Venerable Sir), ‘bhagavā’ (Blessed One), and ‘āyasmā’ (Venerable), just as in phrases like ‘May the Venerable Gotama consent to me,’ ‘Now is the time, Sugata, for the Blessed One to lay down a training rule for the disciples,’ ‘Venerable, depart,’ and ‘Let the Venerables hear me.’ Therefore, the third person is used here. Alternatively, this is said out of respect. For in matters requiring reverence, even when a second-person usage would arise, they employ a third-person usage out of respect, as seen in ‘May the Sugata teach the Dhamma,’ and so forth. Some, however, say that the third person is used here in anticipation of the words ‘bhante’ or ‘āvuso,’ but that is not sound, since even when those words are used, the use of the second person is seen, as in ‘Venerable, be my teacher,’ and ‘Come, friend Upāli, question this renunciant.’

Meti yo sāveti, tassa attaniddese sāmivacanaṃ. Bhanteti ālapanatthe vuḍḍhesu sagāravavacanaṃ, ‘‘āvuso’’ti padaṃ pana navakesu. Tadubhayampi nipāto ‘‘tumhe bhante tumhe āvuso’’ti bahūsupi samānarūpattā. Saṅghoti avisesato catuvaggādike pakatattapuggalasamūhe vattati. Idha pana paccantimesu janapadesu pañcavaggato paṭṭhāya, majjhimesu janapadesu dasavaggato paṭṭhāya saṅghoti gahetabbo. Tatrāyaṃ piṇḍattho – bhante, saṅgho mama vacanaṃ suṇātūti. Idañca navakatarena vattabbavacanaṃ. Sace pana anussāvako sabbehi bhikkhūhi vuḍḍhataro hoti, ‘‘suṇātu me, āvuso saṅgho’’ti vattabbaṃ. Sopi ce ‘‘bhante’’ti vadeyya, navakataro vā ‘‘āvuso’’ti, kammakopo natthi. Keci pana ‘‘ekattha ‘āvuso’ti vatvā aññattha ‘bhante’ti vuttepi natthi doso ubhayenapi ālapanassa sijjhanato’’ti vadanti.

'Me' is the genitive case used by the announcer in referring to himself. 'Bhante' is a respectful term of address for elders, used in the vocative sense, while the word 'āvuso' is for juniors. Both of these are indeclinable words, because they retain the same form even when addressing many, as in 'you, Venerables' and 'you, friends.' 'Saṅgha' generally refers to a group of ordinary individuals of four or more, without distinction. Here, however, in border regions, 'Saṅgha' is to be understood as beginning with a group of five, while in central regions, it begins with a group of ten. Herein, the summary meaning is: 'Venerable Sirs, may the Saṅgha hear my word.' And this is a statement to be made by a more junior monk. If, however, the announcer is more senior than all the other bhikkhus, he should say, 'Friends, may the Saṅgha hear me.' If he were to say 'Bhante,' or a more junior monk were to say 'Āvuso,' there is no spoiling of the formal act. Some, however, say, 'Even if “āvuso” is said in one place and “bhante” in another, there is no fault, since the address is accomplished by both.'

Idāni yamatthaṃ ñāpetukāmo ‘‘suṇātū’’ti saṅghaṃ savane niyojeti, taṃ ñāpento ‘‘ayaṃ itthannāmo’’tiādimāha. Tattha ayanti upasampadāpekkhassa hatthapāse sannihitabhāvadassanaṃ, tena ca hatthapāse ṭhitasseva upasampadā ruhatīti sijjhati hatthapāsato bahi ṭhitassa ‘‘aya’’nti na vattabbato. Teneva anusāsakasammutiyaṃ so hatthapāsato bahi ṭhitattā ‘‘aya’’nti na vutto, tasmā [Pg.284] upasampadāpekkho anupasampanno hatthapāse ṭhapetabbo. Ayaṃ itthannāmoti ayaṃ-saddo ca avassaṃ payujjitabbo, so ca imasmiṃ paṭhamanāmapayoge evāti gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Itthannāmo’’ti idaṃ aniyamato tassa nāmadassanaṃ, ubhayenapi ayaṃ buddharakkhitotiādināmaṃ dasseti. ‘‘Upasampadāpekkho’’ti bhinnādhikaraṇavisaye bahubbīhisamāso, upasampadaṃ me saṅgho apekkhamānoti attho. Tassa ca upajjhāyataṃ samaṅgibhāvena dassetuṃ ‘‘itthannāmassa āyasmato’’ti vuttaṃ. Etena ‘‘ayaṃ buddharakkhito āyasmato dhammarakkhitassa saddhivihārikabhūto upasampadāpekkho’’ti evamādinā nayena nāmayojanāya saha attho dassito. Ettha ca ‘‘āyasmato’’ti padaṃ avatvāpi ‘‘ayaṃ buddharakkhito dhammarakkhitassa upasampadāpekkho’’ti vattuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘itthannāmena upajjhāyenā’’ti ettha ‘‘āyasmato’’ti padaṃ na vuttaṃ. Yañcettha vattabbaṃ, taṃ heṭṭhā vuttameva.

Now, wishing to make known the matter for which he directs the Sangha to listen with the word ‘Suṇātu,’ he says, ‘This one, so-and-so,’ and so on. Here, the word ‘this’ indicates that the one desiring ordination is present within arm’s reach, and thereby it is established that ordination is valid only for one standing within arm’s reach, since ‘this’ cannot be said of someone standing outside that range. For the same reason, in the appointment of the instructor, the word ‘this’ is not used for someone standing outside arm’s reach. Therefore, the candidate for higher ordination, being not yet ordained, must be placed within arm’s reach. The word ‘ayaṃ’ (this) must certainly be used, and it should be understood that it is used only in this first mention of the name. ‘Itthannāmo’ (so-and-so) is an unspecified designation of that person’s name; both together indicate the name, such as ‘This Buddharakkhita,’ and so on. ‘Upasampadāpekkho’ (a candidate for higher ordination) is a bahubbīhi compound with a different referent, meaning ‘the Sangha is considering higher ordination for me.’ And to show his proper connection to his preceptor, it is said, ‘of the Venerable so-and-so.’ By this, the meaning is conveyed along with the proper way of connecting the names, as in: ‘This Buddharakkhita, the student of the Venerable Dhammarakkhita, is a candidate for higher ordination,’ and so on. Here, even without the word ‘āyasmato’ (Venerable), it is permissible to say, ‘This Buddharakkhita, the student of Dhammarakkhita, is a candidate for higher ordination.’ For this reason, in the Pali text, the phrase ‘by the preceptor so-and-so’ does not include the word ‘āyasmato’ (Venerable). Whatever needs to be said here has already been stated above.

Nanu cettha upajjhāyopi upasampadāpekkho viya hatthapāse ṭhito eva icchitabbo, atha kasmā ‘‘ayaṃ itthannāmo imassa itthannāmassa upasampadāpekkho’’ti evaṃ upajjhāyassa nāmaparāmasanepi idaṃ-saddappayogo na katoti? Nāyaṃ virodho upajjhāyassa abhāvepi kammakopābhāvato. Kevalañhi kammanibbattiyā santapadavasena avijjamānassapi upajjhāyassa nāmakittanaṃ anupajjhāyassa upasampadādīsupi karīyati, tasmā upajjhāyassa asannihitāyapi tapparāmasanamatteneva kammasiddhito ‘‘imassā’’ti niddisituṃ na vaṭṭatīti.

But should not the preceptor also be desired to be standing within arm’s reach, like the candidate for higher ordination? Then why is the word ‘this’ not used when referring to the preceptor’s name, as in ‘This so-and-so is a candidate for higher ordination from this so-and-so’? This is not a contradiction, because even in the absence of a preceptor, there is no invalidity of the act. For merely for the accomplishment of the act, the naming of even a non-existent preceptor is done, as if by way of an established term, even in ordinations without a preceptor. Therefore, even when the preceptor is not present, the act is accomplished simply by referring to him, and thus it is not proper to designate him as ‘of this one.’

Parisuddho antarāyikehi dhammehīti abhabbattādikehi upasampadāya avatthukarehi ceva pañcābādhahatthacchinnādīhi āpattikarehi ca antarāyikasabhāvehi parimutto. Evaṃ vutte [Pg.285] eva āpattimattakarehi pañcābādhādīhi aparimuttassapi upasampadā ruhati, nāññathā. Paripuṇṇassa pattacīvaranti paripuṇṇamassa upasampadāpekkhassa pattacīvaraṃ. Evaṃ vutte eva apattacīvarassapi upasampadā ruhati, nāññathā. Upasampadaṃ yācatīti ‘‘saṅghaṃ, bhante, upasampadaṃ yācāmī’’tiādinā (mahāva. 126) yācāpitabhāvaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Evaṃ tena saṅghe ayācitepi ‘‘itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācatī’’ti vutte eva kammaṃ avipannaṃ hoti, nāññathā. Upajjhāyenāti upajjhāyena karaṇabhūtena, itthannāmaṃ upajjhāyaṃ katvā kammabhūtaṃ upasampadaṃ dātuṃ nipphādetuṃ kattubhūtaṃ saṅghaṃ yācatīti attho. Yācadhātuno pana dvikammakattā ‘‘saṅghaṃ upasampada’’nti dve kammapadāni vuttāni.

‘Purified from obstructive qualities’ means being free from qualities of an obstructive nature, namely those that invalidate the basis for ordination, such as being an unfit person, and those that cause an offense, such as the five diseases, having a severed hand, and so on. When this is stated, higher ordination is valid even for one not free from those things that merely cause an offense, such as the five diseases; it cannot be otherwise. ‘His bowl and robes are complete’ means the bowl and robes of this candidate for higher ordination are complete. When this is stated, higher ordination is valid even for one without a bowl and robes; it cannot be otherwise. ‘He requests higher ordination’ is said with reference to his having been made to request it with the words, ‘Venerable sirs, I request higher ordination from the Sangha,’ and so on (Mahāvagga 126). Thus, even if he has not requested it from the Sangha, when it is said, ‘So-and-so requests higher ordination from the Sangha,’ the formal act is not spoiled; it cannot be otherwise. ‘By a preceptor’ means by the preceptor as the instrument; the meaning is that, having taken so-and-so as his preceptor, he requests the Sangha, the agent, to bestow and accomplish the higher ordination, the object. And since the root ‘yāc’ (to request) takes two objects, the two object-terms, ‘the Sangha’ and ‘higher ordination,’ are stated.

Yadi saṅghassa pattakallanti ettha patto kālo imassa kammassāti pattakālaṃ, apalokanādicatubbidhaṃ saṅghagaṇakammaṃ, tadeva sakatthe ya-paccayena ‘‘pattakalla’’nti vuccati. Idha pana ñatticatutthaupasampadākammaṃ adhippetaṃ, taṃ kātuṃ saṅghassa pattakallaṃ jātaṃ. Yadīti anumatigahaṇavasena kammassa pattakallataṃ ñāpeti, yo hi koci tattha apattakallataṃ maññissati, so vakkhati. Imameva hi atthaṃ sandhāya anussāvanāsu ‘‘yassāyasmato khamati…pe… so bhāseyyā’’ti (mahāva. 127) vuttaṃ. Tadetaṃ pattakallaṃ vatthusampadā, antarāyikehi dhammehi cassa parisuddhatā, sīmāsampadā, parisāsampadā, pubbakiccaniṭṭhānanti imehi pañcahi aṅgehi saṅgahitaṃ.

Regarding the phrase ‘Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ’ (If it is timely for the Sangha), here ‘pattakālaṃ’ means ‘the time for this act has come.’ The fourfold act of the Sangha or a group, beginning with proclamation, is itself called ‘pattakallaṃ’ with the suffix ‘-ya’ in its own sense. Here, however, the act of higher ordination by a motion and three announcements is intended; it has become timely for the Sangha to perform it. The word ‘yadi’ (if) indicates the timeliness of the act by way of seeking consent, for whoever there thinks it is not timely will speak up. Indeed, with this meaning in mind, it is said in the proclamations: ‘To whichever venerable one it is agreeable… he should speak’ (Mahāvagga 127). This timeliness is comprised of five factors: completeness of the basis, purity from obstructive conditions, completeness of the boundary, completeness of the assembly, and the completion of preliminary duties.

Tattha vatthusampadā nāma yathāvuttehi ekādasaabhabbapuggalehi ceva antimavatthuajjhāpannehi ca añño paripuṇṇavīsativasso anupasampannabhūto manussapuriso. Etasmiñhi puggale [Pg.286] sati eva idaṃ saṅghassa upasampadākammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati, katañca kuppameva hoti.

In this context, ‘completeness of the basis’ (vatthusampadā) means a human male who is not yet ordained, has completed twenty years of age, and is other than the eleven types of unfit individuals as previously described, and those who have committed a terminal offense. For only when such a person exists is this act of ordination by the Sangha called ‘timely’; if he does not exist, the act, even if performed, is invalid.

Antarāyikehi dhammehi cassa parisuddhatā nāma yathāvuttasseva upasampadāvatthubhūtassa puggalassa ye ime bhagavatā paṭikkhittā pañcābādhaphuṭṭhatādayo mātāpitūhi ananuññātatāpaayosānā ceva hatthacchinnādayo ca dosadhammā kārakasaṅghassa āpattādiantarāyahetutāya ‘‘antarāyikā’’ti vuccanti, tehi antarāyikehi dosadhammehi parimuttatā, imissā ca sati eva idaṃ kammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati, kataṃ pana kammaṃ sukatameva hoti ṭhapetvā ūnavīsativassaṃ puggalaṃ.

‘Purity from obstructive conditions’ means the freedom of the individual who is the basis for higher ordination, as described, from those faulty conditions rejected by the Blessed One—such as being afflicted with the five diseases, lacking parental consent, and so on, up to being a runaway slave, and having severed limbs—which are called ‘obstructive’ because they are causes of offenses and other obstacles for the performing Sangha. And only when this purity exists is this act called ‘timely’; if it does not exist, the act, though performed, is nevertheless considered valid, except in the case of a person under twenty years of age.

Sīmāsampadā pana uposathakkhandhake (mahāva. 138 ādayo) vakkhamānanayena sabbadosarahitāya baddhābaddhavaseneva duvidhāya sīmāya vasena veditabbā. Tādisāya hi sīmāya sati eva idaṃ kammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati, katañca kammaṃ vipajjati.

The completeness of the boundary (sīmāsampadā), however, should be understood by way of the two kinds of boundary, bounded and unbounded, which are free from all faults, according to the method to be explained in the Uposatha Khandhaka (Mahāvagga 138 ff.). For only when such a boundary exists is this act called ‘timely’; if it does not exist, the act, even if performed, is invalid.

Parisāsampadā pana ye ime upasampadākammassa sabbantimena paricchedena kammappattā dasahi vā pañcahi vā anūnāpārājikaṃ anāpannā anukkhittā ca samānasaṃvāsakā bhikkhū, tesaṃ ekasīmāya hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ṭhānaṃ, chandārahānañca chandassa ānayanaṃ, sammukhībhūtānañca appaṭikosanaṃ, upasampadāpekkharahitānaṃ uposathakkhandhake paṭikkhittānaṃ gahaṭṭhādianupasampannānañceva pārājikukkhittakanānāsaṃvāsakabhikkhunīnañca vajjanīyapuggalānaṃ saṅghassa hatthapāse abhāvo cāti imehi catūhi aṅgehi saṅgahitā. Evarūpāya ca parisāsampadāya sati eva idaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati. Tattha purimānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ aṅgānaṃ aññatarassapi abhāve kataṃ kammaṃ vipajjati, na pacchimassa.

The completeness of the assembly (parisāsampadā), however, is comprised of these four factors: (1) the presence of bhikkhus who are qualified for the act by the final determination—being not less than ten or five, not having committed a pārājika offense, not being under suspension, and being of the same communion—standing within a single boundary without leaving arm’s reach; (2) the conveying of consent from those who are entitled to give it; (3) the non-objection of those who are present; and (4) the absence within the Sangha’s arm’s reach of individuals to be avoided—such as those rejected in the Uposatha Khandhaka who are unfit for higher ordination, laypeople and other unordained persons, bhikkhunīs, those suspended for a pārājika offense, and those of a different communion. And only when such completeness of the assembly exists is this act called ‘timely’; if it does not, it is not. Among these, if any one of the first three factors is absent, the act, even if performed, is invalid; but this is not so in the case of the last factor.

Pubbakiccaniṭṭhānaṃ [Pg.287] nāma yānimāni ‘‘paṭhamaṃ upajjhaṃ gāhāpetabbo’’tiādinā pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 126) vuttāni ‘‘upajjhāgāhāpanaṃ, pattacīvarācikkhaṇaṃ, tato taṃ hatthapāsato bahi pesetvā anusāsakasammutikammakaraṇaṃ, sammatena ca gantvā anusāsanaṃ, tena ca paṭhamataraṃ āgantvā saṅghassa ñattiṃ ñāpetvā upasampadāpekkhaṃ ‘āgacchāhī’ti hatthapāse eva abbhānaṃ, tena bhikkhūnaṃ pāde vandāpetvā upasampadāyācāpanaṃ, tato antarāyikadhammapucchakasammutikammakaraṇaṃ, sammatena ca pucchana’’nti imāni aṭṭha pubbakiccāni, tesaṃ sabbesaṃ yāthāvato karaṇena niṭṭhānaṃ. Etasmiñca pubbakiccaniṭṭhāpane sati eva idaṃ saṅghassa upasampadākammaṃ pattakallaṃ nāma hoti, nāsati. Etesu pana pubbakammesu akatesupi kataṃ kammaṃ yathāvuttesu vatthusampattiādīsu vijjamānesu akuppameva hoti. Tadevamettha pattakallaṃ imehi pañcahi aṅgehi saṅgahitanti veditabbaṃ. Imināva nayena heṭṭhā vuttesu, vakkhamānesu ca sabbesu kammesu pattakallatā yathārahaṃ yojetvā ñātabbā.

The completion of preliminary duties (pubbakiccaniṭṭhānaṃ) refers to the proper performance of all these eight preliminary duties mentioned in the Pāli text (Mahāvagga 126), beginning with 'first, a preceptor should be appointed': 1. the appointment of a preceptor; 2. the showing of the bowl and robes; 3. then, sending him outside arm's reach and performing the act to appoint an instructor; 4. going to the appointed one and receiving instruction; 5. by that one (the instructor), having returned first, informing the Saṅgha of the motion, and calling the ordination candidate, who is within arm's reach, with 'Come here'; 6. having him pay respects at the feet of the bhikkhus and requesting higher ordination; 7. then performing the act to appoint one to question about obstructive factors; and 8. the questioning by the appointed one. Only when this completion of preliminary duties is present is this act of higher ordination by the Saṅgha called 'properly prepared'; otherwise, it is not. However, even if these preliminary actions are not performed, if the act is done while the conditions for the basis, etc., as stated, are present, the act remains inviolable. Thus, it should be understood that 'properly prepared' here is encompassed by these five factors. In this same way, the proper preparation for all the acts mentioned before and those to be explained hereafter should be applied and understood as is fitting.

Itthannāmaṃ upasampādeyyāti upasampadānipphādanena taṃsamaṅgiṃ kareyya karotūti patthanāyaṃ, vidhimhi vā idaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yathā hi ‘‘devadattaṃ sukhāpeyyā’’ti vutte sukhamassa nipphādetvā taṃ sukhasamaṅginaṃ kareyyāti attho hoti, evamidhāpi upasampadamassa nipphādetvā taṃ upasampadāsamaṅginaṃ kareyyāti attho. Payojakabyāpāre cetaṃ. Yathā sukhayantaṃ kiñci suddhakattāraṃ koci hetukattā sukhahetunipphādanena sukhāpeyyāti vuccati, evamidhāpi upasampajjantaṃ suddhakattāraṃ puggalaṃ hetukattubhūto saṅgho upasampadāhetunipphādanena upasampādeyyāti vutto. Etena ca sukhaṃ viya sukhadāyakena saṅghena puggalassa dīyamānā tathāpavattaparamatthadhamme [Pg.288] upādāya ariyajanapaññattā upasampadā nāma sammutisaccatā atthīti samatthitaṃ hoti. Ettha ca ‘‘itthannāmo saṅghaṃ upasampadaṃ yācatī’’ti (mahāva. 127) vuttattā parivāsādīsu viya yācanānuguṇaṃ ‘‘itthannāmassa upasampadaṃ dadeyyā’’ti avatvā ‘‘itthannāmaṃ upasampādeyyā’’ti vuttattā idaṃ upasampadākammaṃ dāne asaṅgahetvā kammalakkhaṇe eva saṅgahitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Iminā nayena ‘‘itthannāmaṃ upasampādeti, upasampanno saṅghenā’’ti etthāpi attho veditabbo. Kevalañhi tattha vattamānakālaatītakālavasena, idha pana anāmaṭṭhakālavasenāti ettakameva viseso.

'May he grant the higher ordination to so-and-so'—this should be understood as an expression of desire, meaning 'may he accomplish the higher ordination and make him endowed with it,' or alternatively, as a rule in the procedure. Just as when it is said, 'May he make Devadatta happy,' the meaning is that by producing happiness for him, he would make him endowed with happiness—so too here, by accomplishing the higher ordination for him, the meaning is that he would make him endowed with the higher ordination. This pertains to the function of the agent. Just as someone who is an agent is said to 'make happy' by producing the cause of happiness for another who is an agent, so too here, the Saṅgha, being the instigating agent, is said to 'grant the higher ordination' to the person undergoing ordination, who is the agent, by producing the cause of the higher ordination. And by this, it is established that, just as happiness is given to a person by a giver of happiness, so too there exists the higher ordination as a conventional truth, given to a person by the Saṅgha, designated by the noble ones in dependence on ultimate realities that have so arisen. Here, because it is said, 'So-and-so requests the Saṅgha for the higher ordination' (Mahāvagga 127), and because, unlike in the case of probation, etc., the phrase corresponding to the request, 'May the Saṅgha grant the higher ordination to so-and-so,' is not used, but rather 'May he grant the higher ordination to so-and-so,' it should be understood that this act of higher ordination is not included under giving but is included under the characteristic of an act. By this method, the meaning should also be understood in the phrases 'He grants the higher ordination to so-and-so,' and 'He is ordained by the Saṅgha.' The only difference is that there, the distinction is made by way of present and past tenses, whereas here it is by way of the general tense.

Esā ñattīti ‘‘saṅgho ñāpetabbo’’ti vuttañāpanā esā. Idañca anussāvanānampi sabbhāvasūcanatthaṃ vuccati. Avassañcetaṃ vattabbameva. Ñattikamme eva taṃ na vattabbaṃ. Tattha pana yya-kāre vuttamatte eva ñattikammaṃ niṭṭhitaṃ hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Khamatīti ruccati. Upasampadāti saṅghena dīyamānā nipphādiyamānā upasampadā, yassa khamati, so tuṇhassāti yojanā. Tuṇhīti ca akathanatthe nipāto, akathanako assa bhaveyyāti attho. Khamati saṅghassa itthannāmassa upasampadāti pakatena sambandho. Tattha kāraṇamāha ‘‘tasmā tuṇhī’’ti. Tattha ‘‘āsī’’ti seso. Yasmā ‘‘yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyyā’’ti tikkhattuṃ vuccamānopi saṅgho tuṇhī niravo ahosi, tasmā khamati saṅghassāti attho. Evanti iminā pakārena. Tuṇhībhāvenevetaṃ saṅghassa ruccanabhāvaṃ dhārayāmi, bujjhāmi jānāmīti attho. Iti-saddo parisamāpanatthe kato, so ca kammavācāya anaṅgaṃ, tasmā anussāvakena ‘‘dhārayāmī’’ti ettha mi-kārapariyosānameva vatvā niṭṭhapetabbaṃ, iti-saddo na payujjitabboti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Iminā nayena sabbakammavācānamattho veditabbo.

'This is the motion'—this is the informing spoken of as 'The Saṅgha should be informed.' And this is said to indicate the true nature of the proclamations as well. And this must certainly be stated. It should not, however, be stated in the motion-act itself. There, it should be understood that the motion-act is completed as soon as the syllable '-yya' is uttered. 'Khamati' means 'it is agreeable.' 'Upasampadā' is the higher ordination being given and accomplished by the Saṅgha. The construction is: 'He to whom it is agreeable, let him be silent.' 'Tuṇhī' is a particle in the sense of not speaking; the meaning is 'he should be one who does not speak.' The connection with the original text is: 'The higher ordination of so-and-so is agreeable to the Saṅgha.' Therein, he states the reason: 'Therefore, silent.' There, 'was' (āsī) is to be supplied. Because, although it was said three times, 'He to whom it is not agreeable, let him speak,' the Saṅgha was silent and soundless, therefore the meaning is: 'It is agreeable to the Saṅgha.' 'Evaṃ' means 'in this manner.' The meaning is: 'By this very silence, I hold, understand, and know this agreement of the Saṅgha.' The word 'iti' is used for conclusion, and it is not a part of the formal announcement of the act. Therefore, it should be understood that the proclaimer should finish by stating only up to the final syllable 'mi' in 'dhārayāmi,' and the word 'iti' should not be used. In this way, the meaning of all formal act announcements should be understood.

Ekaporisā [Pg.289] vātiādi sattānaṃ sarīrachāyaṃ pādehi minitvā jānanappakāradassanaṃ. Chasattapadaparimitā hi chāyā ‘‘porisā’’ti vuccati, idañca utuppamāṇācikkhaṇādi ca āgantukehi saddhiṃ vīmaṃsitvā vuḍḍhanavabhāvaṃ ñatvā vandanavandāpanādikaraṇatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Eti āgacchati, gacchati cāti utu, sova pamīyate anena saṃvaccharanti pamāṇanti āha ‘‘utuyeva utuppamāṇa’’nti. Aparipuṇṇāti upasampadādivasena aparipuṇṇā. Yadi utuvemajjhe upasampādito, tadā tasmiṃ utumhi avasiṭṭhadivasācikkhaṇaṃ divasabhāgācikkhaṇanti dasseti. Tenāha ‘‘yattakehi divasehi yassa yo utu aparipuṇṇo, te divase’’ti. Tattha yassa taṅkhaṇaṃ laddhūpasampadassa puggalassa sambandhī yo utu yattakehi divasehi aparipuṇṇo, te divaseti yojanā.

The phrase 'one person's height' and so on demonstrates the method of knowing the body-shadow of beings by measuring it with the feet. For a shadow limited to six or seven feet is called a 'porisā.' This, along with indicating the measure of the seasons and so on, is stated for the purpose of examining it together with newcomers, knowing their seniority or juniority, and performing acts like paying respects and causing others to pay respects. 'It comes (eti) and it goes (gacchati),' thus it is a season (utu). And that by which the year is measured is a 'measure' (pamāṇa); thus, he says, 'the season itself is the measure of the season.' 'Incomplete' means incomplete with respect to ordination and so on. If someone is ordained in the middle of a season, then he shows that the indication of the remaining days in that season is the indication of the part of the day. Therefore, it is said, 'for however many days a season is incomplete for someone, those days.' There, the construction is: for the individual who has received ordination at that moment, for however many days a season related to him is incomplete, those are the days.

Chāyādikameva sabbaṃ saṅgahetvā gāyitabbato kathetabbato saṅgītīti āha ‘‘idamevā’’tiādi. Tattha ekato katvā ācikkhitabbaṃ. Tvaṃ kiṃ labhasīti tvaṃ upasampādanakāle kataravassaṃ, katarautuñca labhasi, katarasmiṃ te upasampadā laddhāti attho. Vassanti vassānautu, idañca saṃvaccharācikkhaṇaṃ vinā vuttampi na viññāyatīti iminā utuācikkhaṇeneva sāsanavassesu vā kaliyugavassādīsu vā sahassime vā satime vā asukautuṃ labhāmīti dassitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Chāyāti idaṃ pāḷiyaṃ āgatapaṭipāṭiṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, vattabbakammato pana kaliyugavassādīsu sabbadesapasiddhesu asukavasse asukautumhi asukamāse asukakaṇhe vā sukke vā pakkhe asuke tithivāravisesayutte pubbaṇhādidivasabhāge ettake chāyāpamāṇe, nāḍikāpamāṇe vā mayā upasampadā laddhāti vadeyyāsīti evaṃ ācikkhitabbaṃ. Idaṃ suṭṭhu uggahetvā āgantukehi [Pg.290] vuḍḍhapaṭipāṭiṃ ñatvā paṭipajjāhīti vattabbaṃ. Iti ettako kathāmaggo vimativinodaniyaṃ āgato. Vajirabuddhiṭīkānayo pana ekacco idheva saṅgahaṃ gato, ekacco asanniṭṭhānavinicchayattā saṃsayahetuko hoti, tasmā idha na gahitoti.

Because everything, including the shadow and so on, should be gathered and recited or spoken, it is called 'Saṅgīti' (recital); thus he says, 'this very thing,' etc. There, it should be explained collectively. 'What do you obtain?'—this means, at the time of ordination, which year (vassa), which season do you obtain, in which was your ordination obtained? 'Vassa' means the rainy season, and this, without an indication of the year, is not understood even if stated. Thus, it should be understood that by this very indication of the season, it is shown: 'I obtain such-and-such a season in the thousandth or hundredth year of the Dispensation, or of the Kaliyuga years, etc.' 'Shadow'—this is said with reference to the order that has come down in the Pāli text. However, from the point of view of the act of speaking, in the Kaliyuga years, etc., which are well-known in all countries, it should be explained thus: 'You should say: "In such-and-such a year, in such-and-such a season, in such-and-such a month, in the dark or bright fortnight, on a particular lunar day and weekday, in a part of the day such as the forenoon, when the measure of the shadow was such-and-such, or the measure of the water-clock was such-and-such, I obtained ordination."' It should be said: 'Having learned this well, and knowing the order of seniority with newcomers, you should practice accordingly.' Thus, this much of the path of discussion has come in the Vimativinodanī. As for the method of the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, one part is included here, another part, due to its undecided nature, is a cause for doubt; therefore, it is not included here.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Upasampadāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro.

The Adornment of the Discourse on the Determination of Higher Ordination.

23. Nissayavinicchayakathā

23. The Discourse on the Determination of Dependence.

151. Evaṃ upasampadāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni nissayavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘nissayoti ettha panā’’tiādimāha. Tattha nissayanaṃ nissayo, sevanaṃ bhajanantyattho. Nipubbasi sevāyanti dhātu bhāvasādhano, na ‘‘nissāya naṃ vasatīti nissayo’’ti idha viya avuttakammasādhano. Tattha hi sevitabbo puggalo labbhati, idha pana sevanakiriyāti. Idāni taṃ nissayaṃ pucchāpubbaṅgamāya vissajjanāya vitthārato ṭhapetuṃ ‘‘kena dātabbo’’tiādimāha. Tattha kena dātabbo, kena na dātabboti nissayadāyakaṃ kattāraṃ pucchati, kassa dātabbo, kassa na dātabboti nissayapaṭiggāhakaṃ sampadānaṃ, kathaṃ gahito hoti, kathaṃ paṭippassambhatīti kāraṇaṃ, nissāya kena vasitabbaṃ, kena na vasitabbanti nissayapaṭipannakaṃ. Tato pucchānukkamena vissajjetuṃ ‘‘tattha’’tyādimāha. Na kevalaṃ ettheva, atha kho nissayamuccanaṅgepi ‘‘byattenā’’ti āgato.

151. Having explained the determination of higher ordination, now, to explain the determination of dependence, it is stated, beginning with 'Here, concerning dependence (nissayo)...' In this context, 'nissaya' means relying on; it has the meaning of service and association. The root 'si' preceded by 'ni', meaning 'to serve', forms a noun denoting an action (bhāvasādhano), not, as in the phrase 'nissāya naṃ vasatīti nissayo' ('one lives depending on him'), a noun denoting the object of the action. For in that case, a person to be served is obtained, but here it refers to the act of serving itself. Now, to set forth that dependence in detail by way of answers preceded by questions, it is stated, beginning with 'By whom should it be given?' Here, 'By whom should it be given, by whom should it not be given?' asks about the giver of dependence. 'To whom should it be given, to whom should it not be given?' asks about the recipient of dependence. 'How is it undertaken, how is it relinquished?' concerns the manner. 'Depending on whom should one live, depending on whom should one not live?' pertains to the one who has undertaken dependence. Then, to answer in the order of the questions, it is stated, beginning with 'In this case.' Not only here, but also in the section on the factors of release from dependence, the term 'by a competent one' appears.

Tattha [Pg.291] ettha ca ko visesoti āha ‘‘ettha ca ‘byatto’ti iminā parisupaṭṭhāpako bahussuto veditabbo’’ti. Idāni parisupaṭṭhāpakalakkhaṇaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘parisupaṭṭhāpakena hī’’tiādimāha. Tattha abhivinayeti sakale vinayapiṭake. Vinetunti sikkhāpetuṃ. Dve vibhaṅgā paguṇā vācuggatā kātabbāti idaṃ paripucchāvasena uggaṇhanaṃ sandhāya vuttanti vadanti. Ekassa pamuṭṭhaṃ, itaresaṃ paguṇaṃ bhaveyyāti āha ‘‘tīhi janehi saddhiṃ parivattanakkhamā kātabbā’’ti. Abhidhammeti nāmarūpaparicchede. Heṭṭhimā vā tayo vaggāti mahāvaggato heṭṭhā sagāthāvaggo nidānavaggo khandhavaggoti ime tayo vaggā. ‘‘Dhammapadampi saha vatthunā uggahetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti mahāpaccariyaṃ vuttattā jātakabhāṇakena sāṭṭhakathaṃ jātakaṃ uggahetvāpi dhammapadaṃ saha vatthunā uggahetabbameva.

What is the distinction between that context and this? It is said: 'Here, by this term "competent," a learned attendant of the assembly should be understood.' Now, to show the characteristics of one who attends to the assembly, it is stated, beginning with 'For by one who attends to the assembly...' In this context, 'in the higher Vinaya' means in the whole Vinaya Piṭaka. 'To train' means to instruct. 'The two Vibhaṅgas should be well-mastered and committed to memory'—this is said with reference to learning by way of questioning, they say. Should it be forgotten by one, it would be well-mastered by the others; thus it is said: 'They should be made capable of reciting in turn with three people.' 'In the higher Dhamma' means in the discrimination of name and form. 'Or the lower three sections' means the three sections below the Mahāvagga: the Sagāthāvagga, the Nidānavagga, and the Khandhavagga. 'It is proper to learn the Dhammapada along with its stories'—since this is stated in the Mahāpaccariya, even if a Jātaka reciter has learned the Jātaka with its commentary, the Dhammapada should still be learned along with its stories.

Pañcahi bhikkhave aṅgehi samannāgatenātiādīsu na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabboti upajjhāyena hutvā sāmaṇero na upaṭṭhāpetabbo. Asekkhena sīlakkhandhenāti asekkhassa sīlakkhandhopi asekkho sīlakkhandho nāma. Asekkhassa ayanti hi asekkho, sīlakkhandho. Evaṃ sabbattha. Evañca katvā vimuttiñāṇadassanasaṅkhātassa paccavekkhaṇañāṇassapi vasena apekkhitvā uppannā ayaṃ kathā. Asekkhasīlanti ca na aggaphalasīlameva adhippetaṃ, atha kho yaṃ kiñci asekkhasantāne pavattasīlaṃ lokiyalokuttaramissakassa sīlassa idhādhippetattā. Samādhikkhandhādīsupi vimuttikkhandhapariyosānesu ayameva nayo, tasmā yathā sīlasamādhipaññākkhandhā lokiyamissakā kathitā, evaṃ vimuttikkhandhopīti tadaṅgavimuttiādayopi veditabbā, na paṭippassaddhivimutti eva. Vimuttiñāṇadassanaṃ pana lokiyameva. Teneva saṃyuttanikāyaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (saṃ.ni. aṭṭha. 1.1.135) vuttaṃ ‘‘purimehi [Pg.292] catūhi padehi lokiyalokuttarasīlasamādhipaññāvimuttiyo kathitā, vimuttiñāṇadassanaṃ paccavekkhaṇañāṇaṃ hoti, taṃ lokiyamevā’’ti.

In passages such as 'by one endowed with five qualities, O monks...', it means that a novice should not be caused to attend; that is, having become a preceptor, one should not allow a novice to attend upon oneself. 'By the aggregate of virtue of a non-learner' means that the aggregate of virtue of a non-learner is indeed called the aggregate of virtue of a non-learner. For this is the aggregate of virtue of a non-learner. Thus it is in all cases. And so, this discussion arises having been considered also in terms of the knowledge of reviewing, which is reckoned as the knowledge and vision of liberation. And 'the virtue of a non-learner' does not refer solely to the virtue of the highest fruition, but rather any virtue occurring in the continuum of a non-learner, because here, virtue that is a mixture of mundane and supramundane is intended. This same method applies to the aggregates of concentration and so on, up to the aggregate of liberation. Therefore, just as the aggregates of virtue, concentration, and wisdom are spoken of as mixed with the mundane, so too should the aggregate of liberation—including liberation by substitution of opposites and so on—be understood, and not only liberation by tranquillization. The knowledge and vision of liberation, however, is purely mundane. Thus, it is stated in the commentary to the Saṃyutta Nikāya (Saṃ. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1.1.135): 'By the first four terms, the virtues, concentrations, wisdoms, and liberations, both mundane and supramundane, are spoken of. The knowledge and vision of liberation is the knowledge of reviewing, and that is purely mundane.'

Assaddhotiādīsu tīsu vatthūsu saddhā etassa natthīti assaddho. Natthi etassa hirīti ahiriko, akusalasamāpattiyā ajigucchamānassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Na ottappatīti anottappī, akusalasamāpattiyā na bhāyatīti vuttaṃ hoti. Kucchitaṃ sīdatīti kusīto, hīnavīriyassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Āraddhaṃ vīriyaṃ etassāti āraddhavīriyo, sammappadhānayuttassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Muṭṭhā sati etassāti muṭṭhassatī, naṭṭhassatīti vuttaṃ hoti. Upaṭṭhitā sati etassāti upaṭṭhitassatī, niccaṃ ārammaṇābhimukhapavattasatissetaṃ adhivacanaṃ.

In the three instances of 'faithless' and so on: 'He has no faith' (saddhā etassa natthi), thus he is 'faithless' (assaddho). 'He has no shame' (natthi etassa hirī), thus he is 'shameless' (ahiriko); this is a term for one who does not feel disgust at the attainment of unwholesome states. 'He has no moral dread' (na ottappati), thus he is 'without moral dread' (anottappī); this means he does not fear the attainment of unwholesome states. 'He sinks in a blameworthy way' (kucchitaṃ sīdati), thus he is 'lazy' (kusīto); this is a term for one of weak energy. 'His energy is aroused' (āraddhaṃ vīriyaṃ etassa), thus he is 'energetic' (āraddhavīriyo); this is a term for one endowed with right exertion. 'His mindfulness is forgotten' (muṭṭhā sati etassa), thus he is 'unmindful' (muṭṭhassatī); this means his mindfulness is lost. 'His mindfulness is established' (upaṭṭhitā sati etassa), thus he is 'established in mindfulness' (upaṭṭhitassatī); this is a term for one whose mindfulness constantly proceeds directed towards its object.

Adhisīle sīlavipanno ca ajjhācāre ācāravipanno ca āpajjitvā avuṭṭhito adhippeto. Sassatucchedasaṅkhātaṃ antaṃ gaṇhāti, gāhayatīti vā antaggāhikā, micchādiṭṭhi. Purimāni dve padānīti ‘‘na paṭibalo hoti antevāsiṃ vā saddhivihāriṃ vā gilānaṃ upaṭṭhātuṃ vā upaṭṭhāpetuṃ vā, anabhirataṃ vūpakāsetuṃ vā vūpakāsāpetuṃ vā’’ti imāni dve padāni.

One who is corrupt in virtue with regard to higher morality, and corrupt in conduct with regard to proper conduct, having fallen into an offense and not having risen from it, is intended. 'It grasps the extreme reckoned as eternalism and annihilation,' or 'causes others to grasp it,' hence it is 'a grasper of extremes' (antaggāhikā); this is wrong view. The first two phrases are: 'He is not capable of attending to a sick pupil or co-resident, nor of arranging for their care; nor of reassuring one who is discontented, nor of arranging for them to be reassured'—these are the two phrases.

Abhi visiṭṭho uttamo samācāro abhisamācāro, abhisamācārova ābhisamācārikoti ca sikkhitabbato sikkhāti ca ābhisamācārikasikkhā. Abhisamācāraṃ vā ārabbha paññattā sikkhā ābhisamācārikasikkhā, khandhakavattapariyāpannasikkhāyetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Maggabrahmacariyassa ādibhūtāti ādibrahmacariyakā, ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannasikkhāyetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Teneva ‘‘ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannaṃ [Pg.293] vā ādibrahmacariyakaṃ, khandhakavattapariyāpannaṃ ābhisamācārika’’nti visuddhimagge (visuddhi. 1.11) vuttaṃ, tasmā sekkhapaṇṇattiyanti ettha sikkhitabbato sekkhā, bhagavatā paññattattā paṇṇatti, sabbāpi ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannā sikkhāpadapaṇṇatti ‘‘sekkhapaṇṇattī’’ti vuttāti gahetabbaṃ. Teneva gaṇṭhipadepi vuttaṃ ‘‘sekkhapaṇṇattiyanti pārājikamādiṃ katvā sikkhitabbasikkhāpadapaññattiya’’nti. Sesamettha uttānatthamevāti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.84).

'Exceedingly distinguished, supreme conduct' is abhisamācāra. Abhisamācāra itself is ābhisamācārika; and because it is to be trained in (sikkhitabbato), it is a training (sikkhā); thus it is ābhisamācārikasikkhā. Or, the training prescribed concerning abhisamācāra is ābhisamācārikasikkhā; this is a term for the training included in the duties of the Khandhakas. 'Because it is the beginning of the holy life of the path,' it is ādibrahmacariyakā; this is a term for the training included in both Vibhaṅgas. Thus, in the Visuddhimagga (Visuddhi. 1.11), it is said: 'What is included in both Vibhaṅgas is ādibrahmacariyakaṃ; what is included in the duties of the Khandhakas is ābhisamācārikaṃ.' Therefore, regarding 'sekkhapaṇṇatti,' 'sekkhā' is so called because it is to be trained in, and 'paṇṇatti' because it has been prescribed by the Blessed One. It should be understood that all the prescribed training rules included in both Vibhaṅgas are called 'sekkhapaṇṇatti.' Thus, it is also stated in the Gaṇṭhipada: 'Sekkhapaṇṇatti means the prescribed training rules that are to be trained in, beginning with the pārājikas.' The rest here is of clear meaning—so it is in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.84).

Upajjhāyācariyakathāyaṃ na sāmaṇero upaṭṭhāpetabboti upajjhāyena hutvā na pabbājetabbo. Asekkhassa ayanti asekkho, lokiyalokuttaro sīlakkhandho. Antaggāhikāyāti sassatucchedakoṭṭhāsaggāhikāya. Pacchimāni dveti appassuto hoti, duppañño hotīti imāni dve aṅgāni. Pacchimāni tīṇīti na paṭibalo uppannaṃ kukkuccaṃ dhammato vinodetuṃ, āpattiṃ na jānāti, āpattivuṭṭhānaṃ na jānātīti imāni tīṇi. Kukkuccassa hi pāḷiaṭṭhakathānayasaṅkhātadhammato vinodetuṃ appaṭibalatā nāma abyattattā eva hotīti sāpi āpattiaṅgameva vuttā.

In the discussion of preceptors and teachers, 'a novice should not be caused to attend' means that having become a preceptor, one should not give the going forth to a novice. 'Of the non-learner' means the non-learner's aggregate of virtue, which is mundane and supramundane. 'By a grasper of extremes' means by one who grasps the positions of eternalism and annihilation. 'The last two' refers to these two factors: he is unlearned, and he is unwise. 'The last three' refers to these three: he is not capable of dispelling arisen remorse according to the Dhamma; he does not know an offense; and he does not know how to rise from an offense. For the inability to dispel remorse according to the Dhamma—reckoned as the method of the Pāli and its commentaries—is indeed due to incompetence; thus, that too is spoken of as a factor relating to offense.

Abhi visiṭṭho uttamo samācāro abhisamācāro, vattappaṭipattisīlaṃ, taṃ ārabbha paññattā khandhakasikkhāpadasaṅkhātā sikkhā ābhisamācārikā. Sikkhāpadampi hi tadatthaparipūraṇatthikehi uggahaṇādivasena sikkhitabbato sikkhāti vuccati. Maggabrahmacariyassa ādibhūtā kāraṇabhūtā ādibrahmacariyakā, ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannasikkhāpadaṃ. Tenevettha visuddhimaggepi (visuddhi. 1.11) ‘‘ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ ādibrahmacariyakaṃ, khandhakavattapariyāpannaṃ ābhisamācārika’’nti vuttaṃ, tasmā sekkhapaṇṇattiyanti ettha sikkhitabbato sekkhā, bhagavatāva [Pg.294] paññattattā paññatti. Sabbāpi ubhatovibhaṅgapariyāpannā sikkhāpadapaṇṇatti ‘‘sekkhapaṇṇattī’’ti vuttāti gahetabbaṃ. Nāmarūpaparicchedeti ettha kusalattikādīhi vuttaṃ jātibhūmipuggalasampayogavatthārammaṇakammadvāralakkhaṇarasādibhedehi vedanākkhandhādicatubbidhaṃ sanibbānaṃ nāmaṃ, bhūtopādāyabhedaṃ rūpañca paricchinditvā jānanapaññā, tappakāsako ca gantho nāmarūpaparicchedo nāma. Iminā abhidhammatthakusalena bhavitabbanti dasseti. Sikkhāpetunti uggaṇhāpetunti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.84) vuttaṃ.

'Exceedingly distinguished, supreme conduct' is abhisamācāra, which is the morality of duties and practices. The training prescribed concerning that, reckoned as the Khandhaka training rules, is ābhisamācārikā. Indeed, a training precept (sikkhāpada) is called 'training' (sikkhā) because it must be learned through study and other means by those desirous of fulfilling its purpose. The initial cause and foundation of the holy life of the path is ādibrahmacariya, which is the training precept included in both Vibhaṅgas. Therefore, in the Visuddhimagga (Visuddhi. 1.11), it is said: 'The training precept included in both Vibhaṅgas is ādibrahmacariya, while that pertaining to the Khandhakas and duties is ābhisamācārika.' Thus, in the term 'sekkhapaṇṇatti', 'sekkhā' refers to that which is to be trained in, and 'paññatti' refers to that which has been laid down, because it was laid down by the Blessed One. It should be understood that all the prescribed training precepts included in both Vibhaṅgas are called 'sekkhapaṇṇatti'. The 'discrimination of name and form' (nāmarūpapariccheda) here refers to the wisdom that distinguishes name (nāma)—the fourfold classification, such as the feeling aggregate, etc., that are explained in terms of the wholesome triad, etc., according to differences of birth, plane, person, association, base, object, action, door, characteristic, function, etc., including Nibbāna—and form (rūpa)—distinguishing between the primary elements and derived form. The wisdom that discerns this, and the text that explains it, are called the 'discrimination of name and form.' This shows that one should become skilled in the meaning of the Abhidhamma. 'To train' (sikkhāpeti) means 'to cause to learn' (uggaṇhāpeti), as is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.84).

153. Āyasmato nissāya vacchāmīti ettha āyasmatoti upayogatthe sāmivacanaṃ, āyasmantaṃ nissāya vasissāmīti attho. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 76) ‘‘byatto…pe… vuttalakkhaṇoyevā’’ti, taṃ parisūpaṭṭhākabahussutaṃ sandhāya vadati. Pabbajjāupasampadadhammantevāsikehi pana…pe… tāva vattaṃ kātabbanti pabbajjācariyaupasampadācariyadhammācariyānaṃ etehi yathāvuttavattaṃ kātabbaṃ. Tattha yena sikkhāpadāni dinnāni, ayaṃ pabbajjācariyo. Yena upasampadakammavācā vuttā, ayaṃ upasampadācariyo. Yo uddesaṃ vā paripucchaṃ vā deti, ayaṃ dhammācariyoti veditabbaṃ. Sesamettha uttānatthameva.

153. In the phrase 'Āyasmato nissāya vacchāmi,' the word 'āyasmato' is a genitive used in the sense of relation, meaning 'Āyasmantaṃ nissāya vasissāmi' (I will dwell relying on the Venerable One). As for what is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 76), 'byatto…pe… vuttalakkhaṇoyevā,' this is said with reference to a learned monk who attends upon the assembly. Regarding novices, the fully ordained, and students of the Dhamma… the duty should be performed for the preceptor of the going forth (pabbajjācariya), the preceptor of the higher ordination (upasampadācariya), and the Dhamma teacher (dhammācariya), in accordance with what has been stated. Here, the one by whom the training precepts are given is the preceptor of the going forth. The one by whom the formal act of ordination is recited is the preceptor of the higher ordination. The one who gives instruction or asks questions is to be understood as the Dhamma teacher. The rest here is clear in meaning.

154. Nissayapaṭippassaddhikathāyaṃ disaṃ gatoti puna āgantukāmo, anāgantukāmo vā hutvā vāsatthāya kañci disaṃ gato. Bhikkhussa sabhāgatanti pesalabhāvaṃ. Oloketvāti upaparikkhitvā. Vibbhante…pe… tattha gantabbanti ettha ‘‘sace kenaci karaṇīyena tadaheva gantuṃ asakkonto ‘katipāhena gamissāmī’ti gamane saussāho hoti, rakkhatī’’ti vadanti. Mā idha paṭikkamīti mā [Pg.295] idha pavisi. Tatreva vasitabbanti tattheva nissayaṃ gahetvā vasitabbaṃ. Taṃyeva vihāraṃ…pe… vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti ettha upajjhāyena pariccattattā upajjhāyasamodhānaparihāro natthi, tasmā upajjhāyasamodhānagatassapi ācariyassa santike gahitanissayo na paṭippassambhati.

154. In the discussion on the relinquishment of dependence, 'gone to a region' means having gone to some region for the sake of dwelling, with or without the intention to return. 'Congeniality with the monk' refers to amiability. 'Having looked around' means having investigated. Regarding 'Having dispersed… should go there,' here it is said: 'If, due to some duty, one is unable to go on that very day, but is resolved to go, thinking, “I will go in a few days,” the dependence is protected.' 'Do not retreat here' means do not enter here. 'One should dwell right there' means one should take dependence and dwell right there. Regarding 'it is proper to dwell in that very monastery…,' here, because one has been abandoned by the preceptor, the possibility of reconciliation with the preceptor is not precluded. Therefore, even for one who has gone to reconcile with the preceptor, the dependence taken in the teacher’s presence is not relinquished.

Ācariyamhā nissayapaṭippassaddhīsu ācariyo pakkanto vā hotīti ettha ‘‘pakkantoti disaṃ gato’’tiādinā upajjhāyassa pakkamane yo vinicchayo vutto, so tattha vuttanayeneva idhāpi sakkā viññātunti taṃ avatvā ‘‘koci ācariyo āpucchitvā pakkamatī’’tiādinā aññoyeva nayo āraddho. Ayañca nayo upajjhāyapakkamanepi veditabboyeva. Īdisesu hi ṭhānesu ekatthavuttalakkhaṇaṃ aññatthāpi daṭṭhabbaṃ. Sace dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā nivattati, paṭippassaddho hotīti ettha ettāvatā disāpakkanto nāma hotīti antevāsike anikkhittadhurepi nissayo paṭippassambhati. Ācariyupajjhāyā dve leḍḍupāte atikkamma aññasmiṃ vihāre vasantīti bahiupacārasīmāyaṃ antevāsikasaddhivihārikānaṃ vasanaṭṭhānato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamma aññasmiṃ senāsane vasanti, antoupacārasīmāyaṃ pana dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvāpi vasato nissayo na paṭippassambhati. ‘‘Sacepi ācariyo muñcitukāmova hutvā nissayapaṇāmanāya paṇāmetī’’tiādi sabbaṃ upajjhāyassa āṇattiyampi veditabbanti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.83) vuttaṃ.

Regarding the cessation of dependence on a teacher: Concerning 'the teacher has departed,' the determination stated for a preceptor's departure—'departed means gone to a region,' etc.—can be understood to apply here by the same method. Without stating that, a different method is introduced: 'a certain teacher departs after taking leave,' etc. This method should also be understood in the case of a preceptor's departure, for in such cases, a principle stated in one place should be seen to apply elsewhere. Regarding 'If he goes beyond two clod-throws and returns, it is relinquished,' here, by that much he is considered to have 'departed to a region,' so that even if the student has not relinquished his duties, the dependence is relinquished. 'The teacher and preceptor, having gone beyond two clod-throws, reside in another monastery' means that, being outside the outer precinct, they reside in another lodging beyond two clod-throws from the dwelling place of the student or co-resident. Within the inner precinct, however, even if one resides beyond two clod-throws, dependence is not relinquished. 'Even if the teacher, wishing to release him, dismisses him by a formal act of relinquishing dependence,' etc.—all this should be understood to apply also to the preceptor's instruction, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha-ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 3.83).

153. Sāhūti sādhu sundaraṃ. Lahūti agaru, subharatāti attho. Opāyikanti upāyapaṭisaṃyuttaṃ, evaṃ paṭipajjanaṃ nittharaṇupāyoti attho. Patirūpanti sāmīcikammamidanti attho[Pg.296]. Pāsādikenāti pasādāvahena, kāyavacīpayogena sampādehīti attho. Kāyenāti etadatthaviññāpakaṃ hatthamuddādiṃ dassento kāyena viññāpeti. ‘‘Sādhū’’ti sampaṭicchanaṃ sandhāyāti upajjhāyena ‘‘sāhū’’tiādīsu vuttesu saddhivihārikassa ‘‘sādhū’’ti sampaṭicchanavacanaṃ sandhāya ‘‘kāyena viññāpetī’’tiādi vuttanti adhippāyo. Āyācanadānamattenāti saddhivihārikassa paṭhamaṃ āyācanamattena, tato upajjhāyassa ca ‘‘sāhū’’tiādinā vacanamattenāti attho. Ācariyassa santike nissayaggahaṇe āyasmato nissāya vacchāmīti āyasmantaṃ nissāya vasissāmīti attho.

153. 'Sāhu' means good, beautiful. 'Lahu' means not heavy; the meaning is 'easy to bear'. 'Opāyika' means connected with a means; the meaning is that such practice is a means of liberation. 'Patirūpa' means 'this is a proper action'. 'Pāsādikena' means 'in a manner that inspires confidence'; the meaning is 'accomplish it through bodily and verbal effort'. 'Kāyena' means that one makes something known by the body, by showing a hand gesture or the like that conveys the meaning. The statement 'he makes known by the body,' etc., is said with reference to the saddhivihārika's word of acceptance, 'Sādhu,' which is uttered in response to the preceptor saying 'Sāhu,' etc.; this is the intention. 'By the mere act of requesting and giving' means: first, by the mere request from the saddhivihārika, and then by the mere utterance of 'Sādhu,' etc., by the preceptor. In the context of taking dependence on a teacher, the phrase 'Āyasmato nissāya vacchāmi' means 'Āyasmantaṃ nissāya vasissāmi' (I will dwell relying on the venerable one).

154. Nissayapaṭippassaddhikathāyaṃ yo vā ekasambhogaparibhogo, tassa santike nissayo gahetabboti iminā lajjīsu eva nissayaggahaṇaṃ niyojeti alajjīsu paṭikkhittattā. Ettha ca paribhogasaddena ekakammādiko saṃvāso gahito paccayaparibhogassa sambhogasaddena gahitattā. Etena ca sambhogasaṃvāsānaṃ alajjīhi saddhiṃ na kattabbataṃ dasseti. Parihāro natthīti āpattiparihāro natthi. Tādisoti yattha nissayo gahitapubbo, yo ca ekasambhogaparibhogo, tādiso. Tathā vuttanti ‘‘lahuṃ āgamissatī’’ti vuttañceti attho. Cattāri pañca divasānīti idaṃ upalakkhaṇamattaṃ. Yadi ekāhadvīhena sabhāgatā paññāyati, ñātadivase gahetabbova. Athāpi catupañcāhenapi na paññāyati, yattakehi divasehi paññāyati, tattakāni atikkāmetabbāni. Sabhāgataṃ olokemīti pana leso na kātabbo. Daharā suṇantīti ettha asutvāpi ‘‘āgamissati, kenaci antarāyena cirāyantī’’ti saññāya satipi labbhateva parihāro[Pg.297]. Tenāha ‘‘idhevāhaṃ vasissāmīti pahiṇati, parihāro natthī’’ti. Ekadivasampi parihāro natthīti gamane nirussāhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ, saussāhassa pana senāsanapaṭisāmanādivasena katipāhe gatepi na doso.

154. In the discussion on the withdrawal of dependence, it is said that dependence should be taken from one who has common communion and common use. By this, it is enjoined that the taking of dependence should be only from the conscientious, as it is prohibited from the shameless. Here, by the word 'paribhoga' (use), co-residence for a single formal act and so forth is meant, since the use of requisites is encompassed by the word 'sambhoga' (communion). And by this, it is shown that communion and co-residence with the shameless should not be undertaken. 'There is no exemption' means there is no exemption from the offense. 'Such a one' means one from whom dependence has been taken before, and who has common communion and common use. 'As stated' means it was said, 'He will return soon.' 'Four or five days' is merely an indication. If suitability is ascertained in one or two days, dependence should be taken on the day it is known. But if suitability is not ascertained even in four or five days, one should wait for as many days as it takes for it to be ascertained. However, one should not make the excuse, 'I am examining for suitability.' Regarding 'the young ones hear,' even without having heard, if there is the perception, 'He will return; he is delayed by some obstacle,' an exemption is indeed available. Therefore, it is said: 'If he sends word, "I will stay right here," there is no exemption.' 'There is no exemption even for a single day' is said with reference to one who is unenthusiastic about going. For one who is enthusiastic, however, there is no fault even if a few days pass due to arranging lodging and so on.

Tatreva vasitabbanti tatra sabhāgaṭṭhāne eva nissayaṃ gahetvā vasitabbaṃ. Taṃyeva vihāraṃ…pe… vasituṃ vaṭṭatīti iminā upajjhāye saṅgaṇhanteyeva taṃsamodhāne nissayapaṭippassaddhi vuttā, tasmiṃ pana kodhena vā gaṇanirapekkhatāya vā asaṅgaṇhante aññesu gahito nissayo na paṭippassambhatīti dasseti.

'One should dwell right there' means one should dwell having taken dependence in that very suitable place. By 'It is proper to dwell in that very monastery…,' it is said that the withdrawal of dependence is declared in that assembly only when the preceptor is accommodating. But it is shown that when he is not accommodating, due to anger or disregard for the group, the dependence taken from others does not cease.

Ācariyamhā nissayapaṭippassaddhiyaṃ vutto ‘‘koci ācariyo’’tiādiko nayo upajjhāyapakkamanādīsupi netvā tattha ca vutto idhāpi netvā yathārahaṃ yojetabbo. Dve leḍḍupāte atikkamma aññasmiṃ vihāre vasantīti upacārasīmato bahi aññasmiṃ vihāre antevāsikādīnaṃ vasanaṭṭhānato dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā vasanti. Tena bahiupacārepi antevāsikādīnaṃ vasanaṭṭhānato dvinnaṃ leḍḍupātānaṃ antare āsanne padese vasati, nissayo na paṭippassambhatīti dasseti. Antoupacārasīmāyaṃ pana dve leḍḍupāte atikkamitvā vasato nissayo na paṭippassambhatevāti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.83) vuttaṃ.

In the section on the withdrawal of dependence from a teacher, the method stated, beginning with 'any teacher,' should be applied to cases such as the departure of a preceptor, and what is stated there should also be applied here as is appropriate. 'Dwelling in another monastery after crossing two clod-throws' means they dwell in another monastery outside the precincts' boundary, having crossed two clod-throws from the dwelling place of the pupils and others. By this it is shown that even in the outer precincts, if one dwells in a nearby place within two clod-throws of the dwelling place of the pupils and others, the dependence does not cease. However, in the Vimativinodanī it is said that for one dwelling within the precincts' boundary after crossing two clod-throws, the dependence certainly does not cease.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, the commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Nissayavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament Called the Discussion on the Determination of Dependence.

Tevīsatimo paricchedo.

The Twenty-Third Chapter.

24. Sīmāvinicchayakathā

24. The Discussion on the Determination of Boundaries

156. Evaṃ [Pg.298] nissayavinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni sīmāvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘sīmāti ettha’’tyādimāha. Tattha sīmāti sinīyate samaggena saṅghena kammavācāya bandhīyateti sīmā. Si bandhaneti dhātu, ma-paccayo, kiyādigaṇoyaṃ. Vibhāgavantānaṃ sabhāvavibhāvanaṃ vibhāgena vinā na hotīti āha ‘‘sīmā nāmesā…pe… hotī’’ti. Tattha baddhasīmaṃ tāva dassetuṃ ‘‘tattha ekādasa’’tyādimāha.

156. Having thus explained the determination of dependence, now, to explain the determination of boundaries, he begins, 'Herein, sīmā…' Herein, it is a 'sīmā' because it is bound (sinīyate), tied by the united Saṅgha with a formal act. The root is 'si,' meaning 'to bind,' with the suffix 'ma'; it belongs to the kiyādi group. Because the manifestation of the nature of things that have divisions does not occur without division, he says, 'This, namely a boundary… exists.' Therein, to first show a bound boundary, he begins, 'Therein, eleven…'

Vīsativaggakaraṇīyaparamattā saṅghakammassa heṭṭhimantato yattha kammārahena saddhiṃ ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ sakkonti, tattake padese sīmaṃ bandhituṃ vaṭṭati, na tato oranti āha ‘‘atikhuddakā nāma yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ na sakkontī’’ti. Puratthimāya disāyāti idaṃ nidassanamattaṃ, tassaṃ pana disāyaṃ nimitte asati yattha atthi, tato paṭṭhāya paṭhamaṃ ‘‘puratthimāya anudisāya, dakkhiṇāya disāyā’’tiādinā samantā vijjamānaṭṭhānesu nimittāni kittetvā puna ‘‘puratthimāya anudisāyā’’ti paṭhamakittitaṃ paṭikittetuṃ vaṭṭati tīhi nimittehi siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāyapi sīmāya sammannitabbato. Tikkhattuṃ sīmamaṇḍalaṃ sambandhantenāti vinayadharena sayaṃ ekasmiṃyeva ṭhāne ṭhatvā kevalaṃ nimittakittanavacaneneva sīmamaṇḍalaṃ samantā nimittena nimittaṃ bandhantenāti attho. Taṃtaṃnimittaṭṭhānaṃ agantvāpi hi kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Tiyojanaparamāyapi sīmāya samantato tikkhattuṃ anuparigamanassa ekadivasena dukkarattā vinayadharena sayaṃ adiṭṭhampi pubbe bhikkhūhi yathāvavatthitaṃ nimittaṃ ‘‘pāsāṇo bhante’’tiādinā kenaci vuttānusārena sallakkhetvā ‘‘eso pāsāṇo nimitta’’ntiādinā kittetumpi vaṭṭati eva.

Since the minimum for a Saṅgha act is that which has a maximum to be done by a chapter of twenty, it is proper to bind a boundary in a place where twenty-one bhikkhus, including one fit for the formal act, are able to sit; not less than that. He says: 'That which is too small is where twenty-one bhikkhus are not able to sit.' 'In the eastern direction' is just an example. If there is no landmark in that direction, one may start from where there is one, first announcing the landmarks in the existing places all around, beginning with 'in the southeastern intermediate direction, in the southern direction,' and then it is proper to re-announce the first-announced one, 'in the southeastern intermediate direction,' because a boundary can be established with three landmarks in a triangular shape. 'By one who connects the boundary circle three times' means: by a Vinaya expert who, while standing in one single place, connects the boundary circle all around, from landmark to landmark, merely by the recitation announcing the landmarks. For it is proper to announce them even without going to the location of each landmark. Since it is difficult to circumambulate a boundary with a maximum of three yojanas three times in a single day, it is indeed proper for a Vinaya expert to announce, 'This rock is the landmark,' having noted a landmark previously established by bhikkhus, even one he has not seen himself, in accordance with what is said by someone, such as, 'Venerable sir, it is a rock.'

Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti [Pg.299] iminā aññamaññassa āsannataṃ dīpeti. Baddhā hotīti pacchimadisābhāge sīmaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ekaratanamattā suviññeyyatarā hotīti katvā vuttaṃ ‘‘pacchimakoṭiyā hatthamattā sīmantarikā ṭhapetabbā’’ti. Ekaṅgulimattāpi sīmantarikā vaṭṭatiyeva. Tattakenapi hi sīmā asambhinnāva hoti. Dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hotīti nimittassa sīmato bāhirattā sīmasambhedo na hotīti vuttaṃ. Sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotīti vaḍḍhitvā sīmappadesaṃ paviṭṭhe dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ gataṭṭhānassa duviññeyyattā vuttaṃ, na, pana tattha kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ. Na hi sīmā tattakena asīmā hoti, dve pana sīmā pacchā vaḍḍhitarukkhena ajjhotthaṭattā ekābaddhā honti, tasmā ekattha ṭhatvā kammaṃ karontehi itaraṃ sodhetvā kātabbaṃ. Tassā padesanti yattha ṭhatvā bhikkhūhi kammaṃ kātuṃ sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ padesaṃ, yattha pana ṭhitehi kammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ padesaṃ antokaritvā bandhantā sīmāya sīmaṃ saṃbhindanti nāma. Na kammavācaṃ vaggaṃ karontīti kammavācaṃ na bhindanti, kammaṃ na kopentīti adhippāyo.

'With intertwined branches'—by this, he indicates their closeness to one another. 'It is bound' is said with reference to the boundary in the western part. Because about a cubit is more easily discernible, it is said: 'At the western end, a boundary-interval of a hand's breadth should be established.' Even a boundary-interval of a finger's breadth is indeed proper. For even by that much, the boundary remains unmixed. 'It is a landmark for two boundaries'—it is said that because the landmark is outside the boundary, there is no mixing of boundaries. 'It creates a confusion of boundaries' is said because, when it has grown and entered the boundary area, the place where the two boundaries went is difficult to discern; it is not, however, for the purpose of showing that a formal act cannot be performed there. For a boundary does not become a non-boundary by that much, but the two boundaries, having been later overgrown by a grown tree, become bound as one. Therefore, those performing a formal act while standing in one place should do so after clearing the other. 'Its area' means an area of such a kind where bhikkhus are able to stand and perform a formal act. But those who bind a boundary including an area of such a kind where those standing are not able to perform a formal act are said to mix a boundary with a boundary. 'They do not make the formal announcement divided' means they do not break the formal announcement, they do not spoil the formal act—this is the intention.

158. Suddhapaṃsupabbatoti na kenaci kato sayaṃjātova vutto. Tathā sesāpi. Itaropīti suddhapaṃsupabbatādiko pabbatopi. Hatthippamāṇoti ettha bhūmito uggatapadesena hatthippamāṇaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) pana vajirabuddhiṭīkāyañca (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) ‘‘hatthippamāṇo nāma pabbato heṭṭhimakoṭiyā aḍḍhaṭṭhamaratanubbedho’’ti vuttaṃ. Catūhi vā tīhi vāti sīmabhūmiyaṃ catūsu, tīsu vā disāsu ṭhitehi, ekissā eva pana disāya ṭhitehi tato bahūhipi sammannituṃ na vaṭṭati, dvīhi pana dvīsu disāsu ṭhitehipi na vaṭṭati. Tasmāti yasmā [Pg.300] ekena na vaṭṭati, tasmā. Taṃ bahiddhā katvāti kittitanimittassa asīmattā antosīmāya karaṇaṃ ayuttanti vuttaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘sace’’tiādi.

158. The term 'Suddhapaṃsupabbato' (Pure Dust Mountain) is said to be not made by anyone, but naturally arisen. The same applies to the others. 'Itaropi' means other mountains such as the Suddhapaṃsupabbato. 'Hatthippamāṇo' (elephant's height): Here, the elephant's height should be taken as the measurement from the ground upwards. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138) and the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), it is stated: 'A mountain of elephant's height means a mountain with a thickness of seven and a half ratanas at its base.' 'Catūhi vā tīhi vā' (by four or three): In the boundary area, by those standing in four or three directions; however, it is not valid to designate it by many standing in just one direction, nor is it valid by two standing in two directions. 'Tasmā' (therefore): Since it is not valid by one, therefore. 'Taṃ bahiddhā katvā' (excluding that): Since the designated mark is itself unbounded, it is said to be inappropriate to place it within the boundary. Hence, it is said: 'If,' etc.

Dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇatā saṇṭhānato gahetabbā, na tulagaṇanāvasena, bhārato palaparimāṇañca magadhatulāya gahetabbaṃ, sā ca lokiyatulāya dviguṇāti vadanti. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) pana ‘‘dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇatā tulatāya gahetabbā, na tulagaṇanāyā’’ti vuttaṃ. Atimahantopīti bhūmito hatthippamāṇaṃ anugantvā heṭṭhābhūmiyaṃ otiṇṇaghanato anekayojanappamāṇopi. Sace hi tato hatthippamāṇaṃ kūṭaṃ uggacchati, pabbatasaṅkhameva gacchati. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) – sace ekābaddho hoti, na kātabboti ettha catūsu disāsu catunnaṃ pabbatakūṭānaṃ heṭṭhā piṭṭhipāsāṇasadise pāsāṇe ṭhitattā ekābaddhabhāve satipi pathavito uddhaṃ tesaṃ sambandhe asati heṭṭhā pathavīgatasambandhamatte abbohārikaṃ katvā kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Teneva ‘‘piṭṭhipāsāṇo atimahantopi pāsāṇasaṅkhyameva gacchatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Pathavito heṭṭhā tassa mahantabhāve gayhamāne pabbatameva hotīti anugaṇṭhipade vuttaṃ. Cinitvā katapaṃsupuñje tiṇagumbarukkhā ce jāyanti, pabbato hotīti dhammasiritthero, nevāti upatissattheroti vuttaṃ. Pāsāṇoti sudhāmayapāsāṇopi vaṭṭatīti vadanti, vīmaṃsitabbaṃ iṭṭhakāya paṭikkhittattā. Sopīti khāṇuko viya uṭṭhitapāsāṇopi. Catupañcarukkhanimittamattampīti ekaccesu nimittasaddo natthīti vuttaṃ.

The size of a thirty-two-pala lump of molasses should be taken by its form, not by way of weighing and counting. The measure of a pala by weight should be taken according to the Magadha scale, and they say it is double the ordinary weight. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138), it is stated: 'The size of the thirty-two-pala lump of molasses should be taken by weight, not by weighing and counting.' Even if it is extremely large: meaning, even if it is a solid mass of many yojanas in size, sunk into the ground below, which has risen to an elephant's height from the ground. For if a peak of an elephant's height rises from it, it is counted as a mountain. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138): 'If it is a single connected mass, it should not be done.' Here, even if it is a single connected mass, since four mountain peaks in the four directions rest on a rock like a backrest rock below, and there is no connection between them above the ground, it is permissible to declare it by making its connection below, which has gone into the earth, non-transactional. For this reason it is said: 'Even a very large backrest rock is still counted merely as a rock.' It is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada that if its great size below the ground is taken into account, it becomes a mountain. 'If grass, shrubs, and trees grow on a heap of piled-up dust, it becomes a mountain,' says the elder Dhammasiri; 'It does not,' says the elder Upatissa. Rock: they say that even a rock made of plaster is valid, but this should be investigated, as bricks are rejected. That also: meaning, even a rock that has risen up like a stump. Even just four or five trees as a landmark: it is said that in some cases the word 'landmark' is not present.

Antosārānanti tasmiṃ khaṇe taruṇatāya sāre avijjamānepi pariṇāmena bhavissamānasārepi sandhāya vuttaṃ[Pg.301]. Tādisānañhi sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇapariṇāhānaṃ catupañcamattānampi vanaṃ vaṭṭati. Antosāramissakānanti antosārehi rukkhehi sammissānaṃ. Etena tacasārarukkhamissakānampi vanaṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Catupañcarukkhamattampīti sārarukkhe sandhāya vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) pana ‘‘ettha tayo ce sārarukkhā honti, dve asārā, sārarukkhānaṃ bahuttaṃ icchitabbaṃ. Susānampi idha vanamevāti saṅkhyaṃ gacchati sayaṃjātattāti vuttaṃ. Keci pana ‘catūsu dve antosārā ce, vaṭṭati, antosārā adhikā, samā vā, vaṭṭati, tasmā bahūsupi dve ce antosārā atthi, vaṭṭatī’ti vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vanamajjhe vihāraṃ karontīti rukkhaghaṭāya antare rukkhe acchinditvā vatiādīhi vihāraparicchedaṃ katvāva antorukkhantaresu eva pariveṇapaṇṇasālādīnaṃ karaṇavasena yathā antovihārampi vanameva hoti, evaṃ vihāraṃ karontīti attho. Yadi hi sabbaṃ rukkhaṃ chinditvā vihāraṃ kareyyuṃ, vihārassa avanattā taṃ parikkhipitvā ṭhitavanaṃ ekattha kittetabbaṃ siyā, idha pana antopi vanattā ‘‘vanaṃ na kittetabba’’nti vuttaṃ. Sace hi taṃ kittenti, ‘‘nimittassa upari vihāro hotī’’tiādinā anantare vuttadoso āpajjati. Ekadesanti vanekadesaṃ, rukkhavirahitaṭṭhāne katavihārassa ekapasse ṭhitavanassa ekadesanti attho.

'Antosārānanti' (having core-wood) means that even though the core-wood is not present in the tree at that moment due to its youth, it is spoken with reference to the potential core-wood that will develop through maturation. For trees of such a size—with a circumference the measure of a needle-handle—even four or five of them constitute a forest. 'Antosāramissakānanti' (mixed with core-wood) refers to those mixed with core-wood trees. By this it is shown that a forest mixed with trees that have bark-wood is also valid. 'Catupañcarukkhamattampi' (just four or five trees) is said with reference to core-wood trees. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138), however, it is said: 'Here, if there are three core-wood trees and two are without core-wood, a majority of core-wood trees is to be desired. A charnel ground is also counted as a forest here because it is naturally arisen. Some, however, say: “If among four, two have core-wood, it is valid; if those with core-wood are in the majority, or are equal, it is valid; therefore, even among many, if there are two with core-wood, it is valid.”' 'They make a monastery in the middle of a forest' means: they make a monastery in such a way that the inside of the monastery is also a forest, by way of making an enclosure for the monastery with fences and so on, without cutting the trees in the thicket, and making cells, leaf-huts, and so on right among the trees inside. For if they were to make a monastery by cutting down all the trees, since the monastery would not be a forest, the surrounding forest would have to be designated in one place. But here, since the inside is also a forest, it is said, 'The forest should not be designated.' For if they designate it, the fault mentioned immediately after, beginning with 'the monastery is on top of the landmark,' would be incurred. 'Ekadesanti' (a part) means a part of the forest; the meaning is a part of the forest standing on one side of a monastery that was made in a place devoid of trees.

Sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇoti vaṃsadaṇḍappamāṇo. ‘‘Lekhanidaṇḍappamāṇo’’ti keci. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dubbalasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) pana avebhaṅgiyavinicchaye ‘‘yo koci aṭṭhaṅgulasūcidaṇḍamattopi veḷu…pe… garubhaṇḍa’’nti vuttattā tanutaro veḷudaṇḍoti ca sūcidaṇḍoti ca gahetabbaṃ. Vaṃsanaḷakasarāvādīsūti veḷupabbe vā naḷapabbe vā kapallakādimattikabhājanesu vāti attho. Taṅkhaṇampīti [Pg.302] taruṇapotake amilāyitvā viruhanajātike sandhāya vuttaṃ. Ye pana pariṇatā samūlaṃ uddharitvā ropitāpi chinnasākhā viya milāyitvā cirena navamūlaṅkuruppattiyā jīvanti, miyantiyeva vā, tādise kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati. Etanti navamūlasākhāniggamanaṃ. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) pana ‘‘sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇoti sīhaḷadīpe lekhanidaṇḍappamāṇoti vadanti, so ca kaniṭṭhaṅguliparimāṇoti daṭṭhabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

'Sūcidaṇḍakappamāṇo' (the measure of a needle-handle) means the measure of a bamboo stick. Some say it is the measure of a writing stick. However, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā, commentary on the Dubbalasikkhāpada), in the Avebhaṅgiyavinicchaya, since it is stated: 'any bamboo... or heavy goods, of the measure of a needle-handle eight finger-breadths long,' it should be understood as a rather thin bamboo stick and as a needle-handle. 'Vaṃsanaḷakasarāvādīsū' (in bamboo, reeds, bowls, etc.) means in bamboo joints or reed joints or in earthenware vessels such as potsherds. 'Taṅkhaṇampi' (at that moment) is said with reference to young saplings of a type that grow without withering. However, it is not proper to designate those that are mature, which, though uprooted and replanted, wither like cut branches and live only after a long time through the arising of new roots and shoots, or which simply die. 'Etanti' (this) means the emergence of new roots and branches. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138), however, it is said: '“The measure of a needle-handle”: in the island of Sri Lanka, they say it is the measure of a writing stick, and that should be seen as the size of the little finger.'

Majjheti sīmāya mahādisānaṃ anto. Koṇanti sīmāya catūsu koṇesu dvinnaṃ dvinnaṃ maggānaṃ sambandhaṭṭhānaṃ. Parabhāge kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti tesaṃ catunnaṃ koṇānaṃ bahi nikkhamitvā ṭhitesu aṭṭhasu maggesu ekissā disāya ekaṃ, aññissā disāya cāparanti evaṃ cattāropi maggā catūsu disāsu kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. Evaṃ pana kittitamattena kathaṃ ekābaddhatā vigacchatīti viññāyati. Parato gataṭṭhānepi ete eva te cattāro maggā. ‘‘Cattāro maggā catūsu disāsu gacchantī’’ti hi vuttaṃ, tasmā ettha kāraṇaṃ vicinitabbanti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) vuttaṃ. Vicinanto pana evaṃ kāraṇaṃ paññāyati – pubbavākyepi ‘‘vihāraṃ parikkhipitvā cattāro maggā’’ti, paravākyepi ‘‘vihāramajjhena nibbijjhitvā gatamaggopī’’ti vihārameva sandhāya vutto, tasmā idhāpi ‘‘koṇaṃ nibbijjhitvā gataṃ panā’’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā ete maggā vihārassa koṇameva nibbijjhiṃsu, na aññamaññaṃ missiṃsu, tasmā ekābaddhabhāvābhāvā catunnaṃ maggānaṃ catūsu ṭhānesu kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ pana ‘‘parabhāge kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti bahi nikkhamitvā ṭhitesu aṭṭhasu maggesu ekissā disāya ekaṃ, aparāya ekanti evaṃ catūsu ṭhānesu kittetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti ettakameva vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) pana ‘‘parabhāgeti [Pg.303] ettha etehi baddhaṭṭhānato gatattā vaṭṭati, tathā dīghamaggepi gahitaṭṭhānato gataṭṭhānassa aññattāti vadantī’’ti vuttaṃ. Tampi ekābaddhanimittattā vicāretabbaṃ.

The middle is the interior within the main directions of the boundary. A corner is the point where two paths meet at each of the four corners of the boundary. 'In the outer part, it is fitting to announce' means that, having gone outside those four corners and being on the eight paths situated there, one path in one direction and another in another direction—thus, the intention is that it is fitting to announce all four paths in the four directions. But how is it to be understood that by merely announcing in this way, the state of being a single connected entity is lost? For these same four paths are also in the places reached beyond. It was said, 'Four paths go in four directions.' Therefore, the reason here should be investigated, as stated in the Vimativinodanī Ṭīkā (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138). Upon investigating, the reason appears thus: in the earlier statement, 'Having encircled the monastery, four paths,' and in the later statement, 'A path that has gone piercing through the middle of the monastery,' it was said referring to the monastery itself. Therefore, here also, because it was stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138), 'a path that has gone piercing the corner,' these paths pierced only the corners of the monastery and did not mix with one another. Therefore, because of the absence of a state of being a single connected entity, it is fitting to announce the four paths in four places. In the Sāratthadīpanī Ṭīkā, however, only this much is stated: 'In the outer part, it is fitting to announce, means that, having gone outside and being on the eight paths situated there, one in one direction and one in another—thus, it is fitting to announce them in four places.' In the Vajirabuddhi Ṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), however, it is said: 'In "the outer part" here, because they have gone from the place of connection, it is fitting. Similarly, even on a long path, they say that the place reached is different from the place taken.' That too should be investigated because it is a sign of a single connected entity.

Uttarantiyā bhikkhuniyāti idañca pāḷiyaṃ bhikkhunīnaṃ nadīpāragamane nadīlakkhaṇassa āgatattā vuttaṃ, bhikkhūnaṃ antaravāsakatemanamattampi vaṭṭatiyeva. Sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) ‘‘bhikkhuniyā eva gahaṇañcettha bhikkhunīvibhaṅge bhikkhunīvasena nadīlakkhaṇassa pāḷiyaṃ āgatattā teneva nayena dassanatthaṃ kataṃ. Sīmaṃ bandhantānaṃ nimittaṃ hotīti ayaṃ vuttalakkhaṇā nadī samuddaṃ vā pavisatu taḷākaṃ vā, pabhavato paṭṭhāya nimittaṃ hotī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) pana ‘‘antaravāsako temiyatīti vuttattā tattakappamāṇaudakeyeva kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti keci. ‘Temiyatī’ti iminā heṭṭhimakoṭiyā nadīlakkhaṇaṃ vuttaṃ, evarūpāya nadiyā yasmiṃ ṭhāne cattāro māse appaṃ vā bahuṃ vā udakaṃ ajjhottharitvā pavattati, tasmiṃ ṭhāne appodakepi ṭhatvā kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti eke’’ti vuttaṃ.

Regarding a nun crossing a river: this is stated in the Pāli because the characteristic of a river has been mentioned in the context of nuns crossing a river; for monks, even merely the wetting of the lower robe is allowable. In the Sāratthadīpanī Ṭīkā (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138), it is also stated: "Here, the mention of a nun is made because the characteristic of a river is given in the Pāli of the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga in relation to nuns, and it is done to show it in the same way. This river, with the characteristic described, becomes a mark for those establishing a boundary; whether it enters the ocean or a lake, it is a mark from its source onwards." In the Vajirabuddhi Ṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), however, it is said: "Since it is stated that 'the lower robe gets wet,' some say that it is allowable to establish it only with that amount of water. By 'gets wet,' the characteristic of a river at its lower limit is stated. For such a river, in whatever place water flows, having overflowed, for four months, whether a little or a lot, it is allowable to establish it while standing even in a small amount of water in that place, according to some."

Nadīcatukkepi eseva nayoti iminā ekattha kittetvā aññattha parato gataṭṭhānepi kittetuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Teneva ca ‘‘asammissā nadiyo pana catassopi kittetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti asammissaggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Ajjhottharitvā āvaraṇaṃ pavattatiyevāti āvaraṇaṃ ajjhottharitvā sandatiyeva. Apavattamānāti asandamānudakā. Āvaraṇañhi patvā nadiyā yattake padese udakaṃ asandamānaṃ santiṭṭhati, tattha nadīnimittaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, upari sandamānaṭṭhāneyeva vaṭṭati. Asandamānaṭṭhāne pana udakanimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ṭhitameva hi udakaṃ udakanimitte vaṭṭati, na sandamānaṃ. Tenevāha ‘‘pavattanaṭṭhāne nadīnimittaṃ, apavattanaṭṭhāne udakanimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti. ‘‘Pavattanaṭṭhāne [Pg.304] nadīnimittanti vuttattā setuto parato tattakaṃ udakaṃ yadi pavattati, nadī evāti vadanti. Jātassarādīsu ṭhitodakaṃ jātassarādipadesena antarikampi nimittaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati nadīpārasīmāya nimittaṃ viya. Sace so padeso kālantarena gāmakhettabhāvaṃ pāpuṇāti, tattha aññaṃ sīmaṃ sammannituṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) vuttaṃ. Mūleti ādikāle. Nadiṃ bhinditvāti yathā udakaṃ anicchantehi kassakehi mahoghe nivaṭṭetuṃ na sakkā, evaṃ kūlaṃ bhinditvā. Nadiṃ bhinditvāti vā mātikāmukhadvārena nadīkūlaṃ bhinditvā.

Even in the case of the four rivers, this is the same principle. By this, it shows that having announced it in one place, it is not allowable to announce it elsewhere in a place reached beyond. For that very reason, the specification 'unmixed rivers, however, even all four, are allowable to be announced' is made. 'It flows only by overflowing the obstruction' means it flows only by overflowing the barrier. 'Not flowing' means water that does not flow. Indeed, in whatever area of a river the water, having reached an obstruction, stands still without flowing, it is not allowable to make a river-mark there; it is allowable only in the place where it flows above. In a place where it does not flow, however, it is allowable to make a water-mark. For only still water is allowable for a water-mark, not flowing water. Therefore, it is said: 'In a place of flowing, a river-mark; in a place of non-flowing, it is allowable to make a water-mark.' Because it is said, 'In a place of flowing, a river-mark,' if that much water flows beyond a bridge, they say it is indeed a river. In natural lakes and so forth, where there is still water, it is allowable to make even an intervening mark by means of the region of the natural lake, etc., like a mark for a boundary on the far side of a river. If that region, in the course of time, becomes a village or a field, it is allowable to establish another boundary there, as stated in the Vajirabuddhi Ṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138). 'At the root' means at the initial time. 'Having broken the river' means having broken the bank, just as a great flood cannot be turned back by farmers who do not want the water. Alternatively, 'having broken the river' means having broken the riverbank through the opening of a water channel.

Ukkhepimanti dīgharajjunā kūṭehi ussiñcanīyaṃ. Ukkhepimanti vā kūpato viya ukkhipitvā gahetabbaṃ. Ukkhepimanti vā uddharitvā gahetabbakaṃ.

"Ukkhepima" means that which is to be drawn up with pots by means of a long rope. Alternatively, "ukkhepima" means that which is to be lifted up and taken, as from a well. Alternatively, "ukkhepima" means that which is to be drawn out and taken.

Asammissehīti sabbadisāsu ṭhitapabbatehi eva vā pāsāṇādīsu aññatarehi vā nimittantarābyavahitehi. Sammissehīti ekattha pabbato, aññattha pāsāṇoti evaṃ ṭhitehi aṭṭhahi. Nimittānaṃ satenāpīti iminā ekissāyeva disāya bahūnipi nimittāni ‘‘puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ, pabbato, bhante. Puna puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ, pāsāṇo, bhante’’tiādinā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) kittetuṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāti tikoṇā. Siṅghāṭakasaṇṭhānāti vā tikoṇaracchāsaṇṭhānā. Caturassāti samacaturassā. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānā pana āyatacaturassā, ekakoṭiyaṃ saṅkocitā, tadaññāya vitthiṇṇā vā hoti. Mudiṅgasaṇṭhānāti vā mudiṅgabherī viya majjhe vitthatā ubhosu koṭīsu saṅkocitā hoti.

"By unmixed" means by mountains standing in all directions, or by any of rocks and so forth, uninterrupted by other marks. "By mixed" means by eight marks situated thus: a mountain in one place, a rock in another. "Even with a hundred marks" indicates that it is allowable to announce many marks in a single direction, such as: "What is the mark in the eastern direction, venerable sir? A mountain, venerable sir. Again, what is the mark in the eastern direction, venerable sir? A rock, venerable sir," and so on (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138). "Siṅghāṭaka-shaped" means triangular. Alternatively, "siṅghāṭaka-shaped" means shaped like a triangular road junction. "Square" means a perfect square. "Mudiṅga-shaped," however, is oblong, being narrowed at one end or widened at the other. Alternatively, "mudiṅga-shaped" is like a mudiṅga drum, broad in the middle and narrowed at both ends.

159. Evaṃ baddhasīmāya nimittasampattiyuttataṃ dassetvā idāni parisasampattiyuttataṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘parisasampattiyuttā nāmā’’tiādimāha[Pg.305]. Tattha sabbantimena paricchedenāti sabbaheṭṭhimena gaṇanaparicchedena, appataro ce gaṇo hotīti adhippāyo. Imassa pana sīmāsammutikammassa catuvaggakaraṇīyattā ‘‘catūhi bhikkhūhī’’ti vuttaṃ. Sannipatitāti samaggā hutvā aññamaññassa hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā sannipatitā. Iminā ‘‘catuvaggakaraṇīye kamme cattāro bhikkhū pakatattā kammappattā, te āgatā hontī’’ti vuttaṃ paṭhamasampattilakkhaṇaṃ dasseti. Yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakkhetteti yasmiṃ padese sīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, tasmiṃ ekassa gāmabhojakassa āyuppattiṭṭhānabhūte gāmakkhette ṭhitā bhikkhūti sambandho. Baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvāti etena etā baddhasīmādayo gāmasīmato sīmantarabhūtā, na tāsu ṭhitā gāmasīmāya kammaṃ karontānaṃ vaggaṃ karonti, tasmā na tesaṃ chando āharitabboti dasseti. Te sabbe hatthapāse vā katvāti vaggakammapariharaṇatthaṃ sannipatituṃ samatthe te gāmakkhettaṭṭhe sabbe bhikkhū saṅghassa hatthapāse katvāti attho. Chandaṃ vā āharitvāti sannipatituṃ asamatthānaṃ chandaṃ āharitvā. Tasmiṃ gāmakkhette yadipi sahassabhikkhū honti, tesu cattāroyeva kammappattā, avasesā chandārahā, tasmā anāgatānaṃ chando āharitabboti attho, iminā ‘‘chandārahānaṃ chando āhaṭo hotī’’ti vuttaṃ dutiyasampattilakkhaṇamāha. ‘‘Sammukhībhūtā na paṭikkosantī’’ti vuttaṃ tatiyasampattilakkhaṇaṃ pana imesaṃ sāmatthiyena vuttaṃ hoti.

159. Having thus shown the suitability endowed by the accomplishment of the markers, he now begins with 'suitable in terms of assembly' to show the suitability endowed by the accomplishment of the assembly. Herein, 'by the final reckoning' means by the lowest count, the intention being that the group is quite small. Moreover, because this act of establishing a boundary is to be done by a group of four, it is said 'by four bhikkhus.' 'Assembled' means having come together in harmony without abandoning each other's arm's reach. By this, it shows the first characteristic of accomplishment: that 'in an act requiring a group of four, four bhikkhus who are qualified and entitled to participate have arrived.' 'Those within that village area' refers to the bhikkhus standing in the village area where the boundary is to be established, which serves as the source of income for a single village headman. 'Without entering an established boundary, river, sea, or natural lake' indicates that these established boundaries, etc., are boundaries separate from the village boundary; those standing in them do not invalidate the act for those performing it within the village boundary, and therefore, it shows that their consent need not be brought. 'All of them having come within arm's reach' means that all the bhikkhus standing in the village area who are capable of assembling are brought within the Sangha's arm's reach for the purpose of avoiding an invalid act. 'Or having brought consent' means that for those unable to assemble, their consent should be brought. Even if there are a thousand bhikkhus in that village area, only four are entitled to perform the act, while the rest are eligible to give consent; therefore, the consent of those who have not come should be brought. This is the meaning. By this, it states 'the consent of those who are eligible to give consent has been brought,' which is the second characteristic of accomplishment. The third characteristic of accomplishment, 'being present and not objecting,' is stated by means of their capacity.

160. Evaṃ baddhasīmāya parisasampattiyuttataṃ dassetvā idāni kammavācāsampattiyuttataṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘kammavācāsampattiyuttā nāmā’’tiādimāha. Tattha ‘‘suṇātu me’’tiādīnaṃ attho heṭṭhā upasampadakammavācāvaṇṇanāyaṃ vuttova[Pg.306]. Evaṃ vuttāyāti evaṃ iminā anukkamena uposathakkhandhake (mahāva. 138-139) bhagavatā vuttāya. Parisuddhāyāti ñattidosaanaussāvanadosehi parisamantato suddhāya. Ñattidutiyakammavācāyāti ekāya ñattiyā ekāya anussāvanāya kariyamānattā ñatti eva dutiyā imissā kammavācāyāti ñattidutiyakammavācā, tāya. Nimittānaṃ anto sīmā hoti, nimittāni sīmato bahi honti nimittāni bahi katvā heṭṭhā pathavīsandhāraudakaṃ pariyantaṃ katvā sīmāya gatattā.

160. Having thus shown the suitability of the assembly with respect to the established boundary, he now begins with 'What is called "suitability of the formal act"?' to show the suitability of the formal act. Herein, the meaning of 'May the Sangha hear me' and so forth has already been explained in the commentary on the formal act of higher ordination. 'Thus stated' means stated by the Blessed One in this sequence in the Uposatha Khandhaka (Mahāvagga 138-139). 'Purified' means entirely purified from the faults of the motion and the faults of the proclamation. By 'a formal act with a motion as its second part' (ñattidutiyakammavācā), it is meant that since it is done with one motion and one proclamation, the motion itself is the second part of this formal act; by that act. The boundary is within the markers, and the markers are outside the boundary; this is because the boundary is established with the markers placed outside and with the earth, sand, and water below as its limit.

161. Evaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmāsammutiyā kammavācāsampattiṃ dassetvā idāni adhiṭṭhitatecīvarikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cīvare sukhaparibhogatthaṃ bhagavatā paññattaṃ avippavāsasīmāsammutikammavācāsampattiṃ dassento ‘‘evaṃ baddhāya ca’’tyādimāha. Tattha ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyyāti yathā adhiṭṭhitatecīvariko bhikkhu antosīmāyaṃ ticīvarena vippavasantopi avippavāsoyeva hoti, dutiyakathinasikkhāpadena (pārā. 471 ādayo) āpatti na hoti, evaṃ taṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyyāti attho. Ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañcāti yadi tissā samānasaṃvāsakasīmāya anto gāmo atthi, taṃ gāmañca gāmūpacārañca ṭhapetvā tato vinimuttaṃ taṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyyāti attho.

161. Having thus shown the suitability of the formal act for the establishment of a boundary for common communion, he now begins with 'And when a boundary has been thus established, etc.' in order to show the suitability of the formal act for establishing a boundary of non-separation, which was laid down by the Blessed One for the comfortable use of robes by bhikkhus who have determined their three robes. Here, 'they should agree on non-separation from the three robes' means that just as a bhikkhu who has determined his three robes, even if dwelling apart from his three robes within the boundary, is indeed not dwelling apart, and there is no offense according to the second Kathina training rule (Pārā. 471 ff.), so they should agree on that boundary for common communion as a boundary of non-separation from the three robes—this is the meaning. 'Excepting the village and its precincts' means that if there is a village within that boundary for common communion, they should agree on that boundary for common communion, excepting that village and its precincts and being released from them, as a boundary of non-separation from the three robes—this is the meaning.

Sīmasaṅkhyaṃyeva gacchatīti avippavāsasīmasaṅkhyaṃyeva gacchati. Ekampi kulaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ vāti abhinavakatagehesu sabbapaṭhamaṃ ekampi kulaṃ paviṭṭhaṃ atthi. Agataṃ vāti porāṇakagāme aññesu kulesu gehāni chaḍḍetvā gatesupi ekampi kulaṃ agataṃ atthīti attho.

'It is reckoned only as a boundary' means it is reckoned only as a boundary of non-separation. 'Or even one family has entered' means that in newly built houses, there is even one family that has entered first of all. 'Or has not gone' means that in an old village, even when other families have abandoned their houses and gone, there is one family that has not gone—this is the meaning.

162. Evaṃ [Pg.307] saṅkhepena sīmāsammutiṃ dassetvā puna vitthārena dassento ‘‘ayamettha saṅkhepo, ayaṃ pana vitthāro’’tiādimāha. Sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvāti āyatiṃ bandhitabbāya sīmāya nesaṃ vihārānaṃ paricchedato bahi sīmantarikappahonakaṃ upacāraṃ ṭhapetvā. Baddhā sīmāyesu vihāresu, te baddhasīmā. Pāṭiyekkanti paccekaṃ. Baddhasīmāsadisānīti yathā baddhasīmāsu ṭhitā aññamaññaṃ chandādiṃ anapekkhitvā paccekaṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ labhanti, evaṃ gāmasīmāsu ṭhitāpīti dasseti. Antonimittagatehi panāti ekassa gāmassa upaḍḍhaṃ antokattukāmatāya sati sabbesaṃ āgamane payojanaṃ natthīti katvā vuttaṃ. Āgantabbanti ca sāmīcivasena vuttaṃ, nāyaṃ niyamo ‘‘āgantabbamevā’’ti. Tenevāha ‘‘āgamanampi anāgamanampi vaṭṭatī’’ti. Abaddhāya hi sīmāya nānāgāmakkhettānaṃ nānāsīmasabhāvattā tesaṃ anāgamanepi vaggakammaṃ na hoti, tasmā anāgamanampi vaṭṭati. Baddhāya pana sīmāya ekasīmabhāvato puna aññasmiṃ kamme kariyamāne antosīmagatehi āgantabbamevāti āha ‘‘avippavāsasīmā…pe… āgantabba’’nti. Nimittakittanakāle asodhitāyapi sīmāya nevatthi doso nimittakittanassa apalokanādīsu aññatarābhāvato.

162. Having thus briefly shown the agreement on boundaries, he then explains in detail, saying, 'This is the summary here, and this is the detailed explanation.' 'Having set aside the proximity for the boundary' means having set aside a proximity outside the demarcation of those monasteries, sufficient for an intervening boundary space for a boundary to be established in the future. `Baddhasīmā` means those monasteries in which a boundary has been established. 'Individually' means separately. 'Similar to established boundaries' indicates that just as those within established boundaries can perform separate acts without regard for each other's consent, etc., so too can those within village boundaries. 'But by those who have gone inside the markers' is said because, when there is a desire to include half of a village, there is no purpose in all of them coming. And 'they should come' is said as a matter of propriety; this is not a rule that 'they must come.' For that reason, he said, 'coming or not coming is permissible.' For an unestablished boundary, due to the diverse nature of different village territories as different boundaries, the act is not rendered invalid even if they do not come; thus, not coming is permissible. But for an established boundary, because it is a single boundary, when another act is being performed, those within the boundary must come. Hence, he said, 'a boundary of non-separation… they should come.' At the time of announcing the markers, even if the boundary is not purified, there is no fault, because the announcement of the marks is not one of the formal acts such as seeking approval (`apalokana`).

Bherisaññaṃ vāti sammannanapariyosānaṃ karomāti vatvāti likhitaṃ. Tena tādise kāle taṃ kappatīti siddhaṃ hoti. Bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vāti pana tesaṃ saddaṃ sutvā idāni saṅgho sīmaṃ bandhatīti ñatvā āgantukabhikkhūnaṃ taṃ gāmakkhettaṃ appavesanatthaṃ, ārāmikādīnañca tesaṃ nivāraṇatthaṃ kammavācāraddhakāleyeva saññā karīyati, evaṃ sati taṃ karaṇaṃ sappayojanaṃ hoti. Teneva ‘‘bherisaṅkhasaddaṃ katvā’’ti avatvā ‘‘bherisaṅkhasaññaṃ katvā’’ti saññāggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. ‘‘Saññaṃ katvā’’ti ca pubbakālakiriyaṃ [Pg.308] vatvā ‘‘kammavācāya sīmā bandhitabbā’’ti aparakālakiriyaṃ vadati, pariyosānakāle pana sabbatūriyātālikasaṅghuṭṭhaṃ katvā devamanussānaṃ anumodanaṃ kāretabbaṃ hotīti veditabbaṃ.

It is written that 'a drum signal' is made by saying, 'We make the conclusion of the agreement.' By this, it is established that it is permissible at such a time. However, regarding 'a drum signal or a conch signal,' the signal is made at the very time the formal act is begun so that, upon hearing those sounds and knowing that 'now the Sangha is establishing the boundary,' incoming bhikkhus are prevented from entering that village territory and monastery workers and others are restrained. When this is done, the action serves a purpose. For that reason, instead of saying, 'having made the sound of a drum or conch,' the word 'signal' is used, saying, 'having made the signal of a drum or conch.' And by saying, 'having made the signal,' he speaks of the prior action, and by 'the boundary should be established by the formal act,' he speaks of the subsequent action. It should be understood, however, that at the time of conclusion, the rejoicing of gods and humans should be caused by making a great noise with all musical instruments and shouts.

163. Bhaṇḍukammāpucchanaṃ sandhāya pabbajjāggahaṇaṃ. Sukhakaraṇatthanti sabbesaṃ sannipātanaparissamaṃ pahāya appatarehi sukhakaraṇatthaṃ. Ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhātīti vīsativaggakaraṇīyaparamattā saṅghakammassa kammārahena saddhiṃ ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhāti. Idañca nisinnānaṃ vasena vuttaṃ. Heṭṭhimantato hi yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ sakkonti, tattake padese sīmaṃ bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Idañca kammārahena saha abbhānakārakānampi pahonakatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Nimittupagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti idaṃ yathārucitaṭṭhāne rukkhanimittādīnaṃ dullabhatāya vaḍḍhitvā ubhinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ saṅkarakaraṇato ca pāsāṇanimittassa ca tadabhāvato yattha katthaci ānetvā ṭhapetuṃ sukaratāya ca vuttaṃ. Tathā sīmantarikapāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti etthāpi. Caturaṅgulappamāṇāpīti yathā khaṇḍasīmaparicchedato bahi nimittapāsāṇaṃ caturaṅgulamattaṃ ṭhānaṃ samantā nigacchati, avasesaṃ ṭhānaṃ antokhaṇḍasīmāyaṃ hotiyeva, evaṃ tesu ṭhapitesu caturaṅgulamattā sīmantarikā hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

163. Regarding the acceptance of ordination, it refers to taking ordination after inquiring about the requisites for the tonsure. 'For the purpose of creating ease' means for the sake of creating ease with fewer people, abandoning all the trouble of assembling a large group. 'He takes twenty-one monks'—this means that since the maximum requirement for a Sangha act is a group of twenty, he takes twenty-one monks, including the one suitable for the act. This is said with reference to those who are seated. For, from the lowest limit, wherever twenty-one monks can sit, it is permissible to establish a boundary in that area. This is also stated for the purpose of being sufficient for the one suitable for the act and those who perform the rehabilitation. 'Stones suitable as boundary markers should be placed'—this is said because of the difficulty in finding tree markers and the like in a desired location, and because of the confusion that arises between two established boundaries, a defect which a stone marker lacks, and because it is easy to bring and place them anywhere. Similarly, this also applies in the case of 'intermediate boundary stones should also be placed'. 'Even if they are only four finger-widths'—this should be understood as follows: outside the demarcation of the fragmented boundary, the marker stone occupies a space of four finger-widths all around, while the remaining space is indeed within the fragmented boundary. Thus, when these are placed, the intermediate boundary is only four finger-widths wide.

Sīmantarikapāsāṇāti sīmantarikāya ṭhapitanimittapāsāṇā. Te pana kittentena dakkhiṇato anupariyāyanteneva kittetabbā. Kathaṃ? Khaṇḍasīmato hi pacchimāya disāya puratthimābhimukhena ṭhatvā ‘‘puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta’’nti tattha sabbāni nimittāni anukkamena kittetvā, tathā uttarāya disāya dakkhiṇābhimukhena ṭhatvā ‘‘dakkhiṇāya disāya kiṃ nimitta’’nti anukkamena kittetvā, tathā puratthimāya disāya pacchimābhimukhena ṭhatvā ‘‘pacchimāya disāya [Pg.309] kiṃ nimitta’’nti anukkamena kittetvā, tathā dakkhiṇāya disāya uttarābhimukhena ṭhatvā ‘‘uttarāya disāya kiṃ nimitta’’nti tattha sabbāni nimittāni anukkamena kittetvā puna pacchimāya disāya puratthimābhimukhena ṭhatvā purimakittitaṃ vuttanayena puna kittetabbaṃ. Evaṃ bahūnampi khaṇḍasīmānaṃ sīmantarikapāsāṇā paccekaṃ kittetabbā. Tatoti pacchā. Avasesanimittānīti mahāsīmāya bāhirantaresu avasesanimittāni. Na sakkhissantīti avippavāsasīmāya baddhabhāvaṃ asallakkhetvā ‘‘samānasaṃvāsakasīmameva samūhanissāmā’’ti vāyamantā na sakkhissanti. Baddhāya hi avippavāsasīmāya taṃ samūhanitvā ‘‘samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ samūhanissāmā’’ti katāyapi kammavācāya asamūhatāva hoti sīmā. Paṭhamañhi avippavāsaṃ samūhanitvā pacchā sīmā samūhanitabbā. Khaṇḍasīmato paṭṭhāya bandhanaṃ āciṇṇaṃ, āciṇṇakaraṇeneva ca sammoho na hotīti āha ‘‘khaṇḍasīmatova paṭṭhāya bandhitabbā’’ti. Ubhinnampi na kopentīti ubhinnampi kammaṃ na kopenti. Evaṃ baddhāsu pana…pe… sīmantarikā hi gāmakkhettaṃ bhajatīti na āvāsavasena sāmaggiparicchedo, kintu sīmāvasenevāti dassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ.

'Boundary stones between sections' are the marker stones placed at the boundary interval. They should be announced by one going around them, always keeping the right side towards them. How? Standing at the western side of a fragmented boundary, facing east, one should announce, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?” There, all markers should be announced in sequence. Similarly, standing at the northern side, facing south, one should announce, “What is the marker in the southern direction?” and announce all markers in sequence. Likewise, standing at the eastern side, facing west, one should announce, “What is the marker in the western direction?” and announce all markers in sequence. Then, standing at the southern side, facing north, one should announce, “What is the marker in the northern direction?” and announce all markers in sequence. After that, standing again at the western side, facing east, one should repeat the announcement in the manner previously stated. Thus, for many fragmented boundaries, the boundary stones between sections should each be announced individually. 'After that' means afterwards. 'The remaining markers' are those remaining markers within and without the great boundary. 'They will not be able to' means that, failing to perceive that the avippavāsa boundary has been established, they strive to abolish only the samānasaṃvāsaka boundary, but they will not be able to succeed. For if the avippavāsa boundary is established, even if a formal act is performed with the words, “We will abolish the samānasaṃvāsaka boundary,” without having first abolished that avippavāsa boundary, the boundary remains unabolished. Indeed, first the avippavāsa must be abolished, and afterward, the boundary must be abolished. The establishment has been practiced starting from the fragmented boundary, and by following the customary practice, there is no confusion. Therefore, it is said, “It should be established starting from the fragmented boundary.” 'They do not invalidate either' means they do not invalidate either act. Thus, when boundaries are established [...], the boundary between sections indeed pertains to the village area. This is said to show that the demarcation of unity is not by way of the residence, but rather by the boundary itself.

Kuṭigeheti bhūmiyaṃ katatiṇakuṭiyaṃ. Udukkhalanti udukkhalāvāṭasadisakhuddakāvāṭaṃ. Nimittaṃ na kātabbanti rāji vā udukkhalaṃ vā nimittaṃ na kātabbaṃ. Idañca yathāvuttesu aṭṭhasu nimittesu anāgatattena na vaṭṭatīti siddhampi ‘‘avinassakasaññāṇamida’’nti saññāya koci mohena nimittaṃ kareyyāti dūrato vipattiparihāratthaṃ vuttaṃ. Nimittupagapāsāṇe ṭhapetvāti sañcārimanimittassa kampanatāya vuttaṃ. Evaṃ upari ‘‘bhittiṃ akittetvā’’tiādīsupi siddhamevatthaṃ punappunaṃ kathane kāraṇaṃ veditabbaṃ. Sīmāvipatti hi upasampadādisabbakammavipattimūlanti [Pg.310] tassa dvāraṃ sabbathāpi pidahanavasena vattabbaṃ. Sabbaṃ vatvāva idha ācariyā vinicchayaṃ kathesunti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

'In a hut' means in a grass hut made on the ground. 'A mortar' means a small pit resembling a mortar pit. 'A marker should not be made' means neither a line nor a mortar should be made a marker. And this is stated to ward off failure from afar, lest someone, out of delusion, should make a marker with the perception, “this is an imperishable sign,” even though it is already established that this is not permissible as it is not included among the eight aforesaid markers. 'Having placed stones suitable as markers' is said because of the instability of a movable marker. Similarly, in the above cases like 'without announcing the wall,' the reason for repeatedly stating a meaning that is already established should be understood. For a failure of the boundary is the root of the failure of all formal acts such as ordination; therefore, its door must be closed in every way. It should be understood that the teachers state their decision here only after having said everything.

Bhittinti iṭṭhakadārumattikāmayaṃ. Silāmayāya pana bhittiyā nimittupagaṃ ekaṃ pāsāṇaṃ taṃtaṃdisāya kittetuṃ vaṭṭati. Anekasilāhi cinitaṃ sakalaṃ bhittiṃ kittetuṃ na vaṭṭati ‘‘eso pāsāṇo nimitta’’nti ekavacanena vattabbato. Antokuṭṭamevāti ettha antokuṭṭepi nimittānaṃ ṭhitokāsato anto eva sīmāti gahetabbaṃ. Pamukhe nimittapāsāṇe ṭhapetvāti gabbhābhimukhepi bahipamukhe gabbhavitthārappamāṇe ṭhāne pāsāṇe ṭhapetvā sammannitabbā. Evañhi gabbhapamukhānaṃ antare ṭhitakuṭṭampi upādāya anto ca bahi ca caturassasaṇṭhānāva sīmā hoti. Bahīti sakalassa kuṭileṇassa samantato bahi.

'A wall' means one made of bricks, wood, or clay. However, for a stone wall, it is permissible to announce a single stone suitable as a marker in each respective direction. It is not permissible to announce an entire wall built with many stones, because it must be stated in the singular: “this stone is the marker.” Regarding 'within the wall,' here the boundary should be understood as being inside from the place where the markers are located, even when within the wall. Regarding 'having placed marker stones at the entrance,' this means that stones should be placed and agreed upon in a place the size of the chamber's width, at the outer entrance also facing the chamber. In this way, including also the wall situated between the chamber and the entrance, the boundary will have a square shape both inside and outside. 'Outside' means outside, all around the entire curved cave.

Anto ca bahi ca sīmā hotīti majjhe ṭhitabhittiyā saha caturassasīmā hoti. Uparipāsādeyeva hotī’’ti iminā gabbhassa ca pamukhassa ca antarā ṭhitabhittiyā ekattā tattha ca ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāsābhāvena heṭṭhā na otarati, uparibhitti pana sīmaṭṭhāva hotīti dasseti. Heṭṭhā na otaratīti bhittito oraṃ nimittāni ṭhapetvā kittitattā heṭṭhā ākāsappadesaṃ na otarati, upari kate pāsādeti attho. Heṭṭhimatale kuṭṭoti heṭṭhimatale catūsu disāsu ṭhitakuṭṭo. Sace hi dvīsu, tīsu eva vā disāsu kuṭṭo tiṭṭheyya, heṭṭhā na otarati. Heṭṭhāpi otaratīti sace heṭṭhā antobhittiyaṃ ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāso hoti, otarati. Otaramānā ca na uparisīmappamāṇena otarati, samantā bhittippamāṇena otarati. Catunnaṃ pana bhittīnaṃ bāhirantaparicchedena heṭṭhābhūmibhāge udakapariyantaṃ [Pg.311] katvā otarati, na pana bhittīnaṃ bahi kesaggamattampi ṭhānaṃ. Pāsādabhittitoti uparimatale bhittito. Otaraṇānotaraṇaṃ vuttanayeneva veditabbanti sace heṭṭhā ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ okāso hoti, otarati, no ce, na otaratīti adhippāyoti sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) pana ‘‘uparisīmappamāṇassa antogadhānaṃ heṭṭhimatale catūsu disāsu kuṭṭānaṃ tulārukkhehi ekasambandhataṃ, tadanto pacchimasīmappamāṇatādiñca sandhāya vutta’’nti vuttaṃ. Kiñcāpettha niyyūhakādayo nimittānaṃ ṭhitokāsatāya bajjhamānakkhaṇe sīmā na honti, baddhāya pana sīmāya sīmaṭṭhāva hontīti daṭṭhabbā.

“Inside and outside, the boundary” means the boundary is four-sided together with the wall standing in the middle. The statement “it exists only in the upper mansion” shows that because the wall situated between the chamber and the front part is considered as one, and because there is no space there for twenty-one monks, it does not descend below; however, it shows that the upper wall itself is the boundary. “Does not descend below” means that because markers are placed and designated on this side of the wall, it does not descend to the space below; the meaning is that it is established in the upper mansion. “The lower floor’s walls” refers to walls standing on the lower floor in all four directions. If a wall exists in only two or three directions, it does not descend below. “Descends below” means that if there is space below within the inner wall for twenty-one monks, it descends. And when descending, it does not descend to the extent of the upper boundary but descends to the extent of the surrounding walls. Regarding the four walls, it descends below by defining the outer and inner limits, going to the water boundary on the lower ground, but not even a hair’s breadth beyond the walls. “The mansion’s walls” refers to the walls on the upper floor. The matter of descending or not descending should be understood in the way stated: if there is space below for twenty-one monks, it descends; otherwise, it does not—this is the intended meaning, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138), however, states: “The inclusion within the measure of the upper boundary, the single connection of the walls on the lower floor in all four directions by beams and pillars, and its being within the measure of the minimum boundary, etc., are stated with this in mind.” Furthermore, here, corner posts and so forth are not the boundary at the moment of being bound because of the location where the markers are placed; however, once the boundary is established, they should be seen as being within the boundary.

Pariyantathambhānanti nimittagatapāsāṇatthambhe sandhāya vuttaṃ. Uparimatalena sambaddho hotīti idaṃ kuṭṭānaṃ antarā sīmaṭṭhānaṃ thambhānaṃ abhāvato vuttaṃ. Yadi hi bhaveyyuṃ, kuṭṭe uparimatalena asambandhepi sīmaṭṭhathambhānaṃ upari ṭhito pāsādo sīmaṭṭhova hoti. Sace pana bahūnaṃ thambhapantīnaṃ upari katapāsādassa heṭṭhāpathaviyaṃ sabbabāhirāya thambhapantiyā anto nimittapāsāṇe ṭhapetvā sīmā baddhā hoti, ettha kathanti? Etthāpi ‘‘yaṃ tāva sīmaṭṭhathambheheva dhāriyamānānaṃ tulānaṃ uparimatalaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ sīmaṭṭhameva, ettha vivādo natthi, yaṃ pana sīmaṭṭhathambhapantiyā, asīmaṭṭhāya bāhirathambhapantiyā ca samadhuraṃ dhārayamānānaṃ tulānaṃ uparimatalaṃ, tattha upaḍḍhaṃ sīmā’’ti keci vadanti. ‘‘Sakalampi gāmasīmā’’ti apare. ‘‘Baddhasīmā evā’’ti aññe. Tasmā kammaṃ karontehi garūhi nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā sabbaṃ taṃ āsaṅkaṭṭhānaṃ sodhetvāva kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, sanniṭṭhānakāraṇaṃ vā gavesitvā tadanuguṇaṃ kātabbaṃ.

“Pariyantathambhānanti” (boundary pillars) refers to the stone pillars that serve as markers. “It is connected to the upper floor”—this is said because there are no pillars within the walls that are within the boundary. If there were, even if the upper floor were not connected to the walls, a building standing above the pillars that are within the boundary would still be considered within the boundary. But if a building constructed above many rows of pillars has its boundary bound on the ground below, inside the outermost row of pillars, by placing boundary stones, what then? Here, some say: “Whatever part of the upper floor is supported solely by the pillars that are within the boundary is entirely within the boundary—there is no dispute about that. However, the part of the upper floor equally supported by both the row of pillars that is within the boundary and the outer row of pillars that is not within the boundary is half within the boundary.” Others say: “The entire area is the village boundary.” Still others say: “It is only the bound boundary.” Therefore, when performing formal acts, the venerable ones should stand in a place free from doubt, clear away all that is a cause for uncertainty, and then proceed with the act. Alternatively, they should seek a conclusive reason and act accordingly.

Tālamūlakapabbateti [Pg.312] tālakkhandhamūlasadise heṭṭhā thūlo hutvā kamena kiso hutvā uggato hintālamūlasadiso nāma hoti. Vitānasaṇṭhānoti ahicchattakasaṇṭhāno. Paṇavasaṇṭhānoti majjhe tanuko, heṭṭhā ca upari ca vitthiṇṇo. Heṭṭhā vā majjhe vāti mudiṅgasaṇṭhānassa heṭṭhā, paṇavasaṇṭhānassa majjhe. Sappaphaṇasadiso pabbatoti sappaphaṇo viya khujjo, mūlaṭṭhānato aññattha avanatasīso. Ākāsapabbhāranti bhittiyā aparikkhittapabbhāraṃ. Sīmappamāṇoti anto ākāsena saddhiṃ pacchimasīmappamāṇo. So ca pāsāṇo sīmaṭṭhoti iminā īdisehi susirapāsāṇaleṇakuṭṭādīhi paricchinne bhūmibhāge eva sīmā patiṭṭhāti, na aparicchinne. Te pana sīmaṭṭhattā sīmā honti, na sarūpena sīmaṭṭhamañcādi viyāti dasseti. Sace pana so susirapāsāṇo bhūmiṃ anāhacca ākāsagato olambati, sīmā na otarati. Susirapāsāṇo pana sayaṃ sīmāpaṭibaddhattā sīmā hoti, kathaṃ pana pacchimappamāṇarahitehi etehi susirapāsāṇādīhi sīmā na otaratīti idaṃ saddhātabbanti? Aṭṭhakathāpamāṇato.

“Tālamūlakapabbata” (a mountain like the base of a palm tree) means one that is thick at the bottom like the base of a palm tree trunk, and gradually tapers as it rises, resembling the base of a date palm tree. “Vitānasaṇṭhāna” (canopy-like formation) is like the shape of a mushroom. “Paṇavasaṇṭhāna” (drum-like formation) is thin in the middle and broad at the top and bottom. “Below or in the middle” refers to the bottom of a mṛdaṅga drum or the middle of a paṇava drum. “A mountain resembling a snake’s hood” is curved like a snake’s hood, with its head bent downward away from the base. “Ākāsapabbhāra” (sky-facing hollow) is a hollow not enclosed by a wall. “Sīmappamāṇa” (boundary measurement) is the measure of the minimum boundary, together with the space within. “That stone is within the boundary”—this shows that the boundary is established only on a defined area of land marked by such features as perforated stones, caves, small walls, etc., not on an undefined area. These, by being within the boundary, constitute the boundary, showing that they are not like a bed, etc., which, though within the boundary, is not the boundary by its own nature. However, if that perforated stone hangs in the air without touching the ground, the boundary does not descend. Yet, the perforated stone itself, being connected to the boundary, constitutes the boundary. But how is it that the boundary does not descend to these perforated stones and other features that lack the minimum measurement? This should be accepted on the authority of the commentary.

Apicettha susirapāsāṇabhittianusārena mūsikādīnaṃ viya sīmāya heṭṭhimatale otaraṇakiccaṃ natthi, heṭṭhā pana pacchimasīmappamāṇe ākāse dvaṅgulamattabahalehi pāsāṇabhittiādīhipi uparimatalaṃ āhacca ṭhitehi sabbaso, yebhuyyena vā paricchinne sati upari bajjhamānā sīmā tehi pāsāṇādīhi antaritāya tapparicchinnāya heṭṭhābhūmiyāpi uparimatalena saddhiṃ ekakkhaṇe patiṭṭhāti, nadīpārasīmā viya nadīantaritesu ubhosu tīresu leṇādīsu apanītesupi heṭṭhā otiṇṇasīmā yāva sāsanantaradhānā na [Pg.313] vigacchati, paṭhamaṃ pana upari sīmāya baddhāya pacchā leṇādikatesupi heṭṭhābhūmiyaṃ sīmā otarati eva, keci taṃ na icchanti, evaṃ ubhayattha patiṭṭhitā ca sā sīmā ekāva hoti gottādijāti viya byattibhedesūti gahetabbaṃ. Sabbā eva hi baddhasīmā abaddhasīmā ca attano attano pakatinissayake gāmāraññādike khette yathāparicchedaṃ sabbattha sākalyena ekasmiṃ khaṇe byāpinī paramatthato avijjamānampi te te nissayabhūte paramatthadhamme, taṃ taṃ kiriyāvisesampi vā upādāya lokiyehi sāsanikehi ca yathārahaṃ ekattena paññattattā sanissayekarūpā eva. Tathā hi eko gāmo araññaṃ nadī jātassaro samuddoti evaṃ loke, ‘‘sammatā sā sīmā saṅghena, agāmake ce, bhikkhave, araññe samantā sattabbhantarā, ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā’’tiādinā sāsane ca ekavohāro dissati, na paramatthato. Ekassa anekadhammesu byāpanamatthi kasiṇekadesādivikappāsamānatāya ekattahānitoti ayaṃ no mati.

Furthermore, in this case, following the course of a perforated stone wall, there is no need for the boundary to descend to the lower level, as mice, etc., might. However, below, in the space of the measure of the minimum boundary, when it is completely or mostly enclosed by stone walls, etc., about two fingers thick, that stand touching the upper level, the boundary being bound above is, being separated by those stones, etc., and defined by them, established on the ground below at the same moment as with the upper level. This is like a boundary across a river being established on both banks separated by the river. Even when the caves, etc., are removed, the boundary that has descended below does not disappear until the disappearance of the Dispensation. However, if the boundary is first bound above, and caves, etc., are made later on the ground below, the boundary still descends; some, however, do not accept this. Thus, it should be understood that such a boundary, established in both places, is indeed one, like a lineage or caste despite distinctions in individuals. Indeed, all bound and unbound boundaries, in their respective natural supports such as villages, forests, etc., are, according to their defined limits, entirely pervasive everywhere in a single moment. Although ultimately non-existent, being designated as one as appropriate by worldly and monastic people by depending on those ultimate realities that are their supports, or on those specific actions, they are of a single form together with their supports. Thus, in the world, a village, forest, river, natural lake, or ocean is spoken of as one. In the Dispensation, it is said, “Monks, if a boundary is agreed upon by the Saṅgha in a wilderness without villages, extending seven abbhantaras all around, this is a place of common residence and a single Uposatha,” and so on. Such a single designation is seen, but not in an ultimate sense. While one thing may pervade many phenomena, due to the dissimilarity with conceptual divisions, such as a part of a kasiṇa, its unity is lost. This is our opinion.

Assa heṭṭhāti sappaphaṇapabbatassa heṭṭhā ākāsapabbhāre. Leṇassāti leṇaṃ ce kataṃ, tassa leṇassāti attho. Tameva puna leṇaṃ pañcahi pakārehi vikappetvā otaraṇānotaraṇavinicchayaṃ dassetuṃ āha ‘‘sace pana heṭṭhā’’tiādi. Tattha ‘‘heṭṭhā’’ti imassa ‘‘leṇaṃ hotī’’ti iminā sambandho. Heṭṭhā leṇañca ekasmiṃ padeseti āha ‘‘anto’’ti, pabbatassa anto, pabbatamūleti attho. Tameva antosaddaṃ sīmāparicchedena visesetuṃ ‘‘uparimassa sīmāparicchedassa pārato’’ti vuttaṃ. Pabbatapādaṃ pana apekkhitvā ‘‘orato’’ti vattabbepi sīmānissayaṃ pabbataggaṃ sandhāya ‘‘pārato’’ti vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Teneva ‘‘bahi leṇa’’nti ettha bahisaddaṃ visesento ‘‘uparimassa [Pg.314] sīmāparicchedassa orato’’ti āha. Bahisīmā na otaratīti ettha bahīti pabbatapāde leṇaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Leṇassa ca bahibhūte uparisīmāparicchedassa heṭṭhābhāge sīmā na otaratīti attho. Anto sīmāti leṇassa ca pabbatapādassa ca anto attano otaraṇārahaṭṭhāne na otaratīti attho. ‘‘Bahi sīmā na otarati, anto sīmā na otaratī’’ti cettha attano otaraṇārahaṭṭhāne leṇābhāvena sīmāya sabbathā anotaraṇameva dassitanti gahetabbaṃ. Tattha hi anotarantī upari eva hotīti ayaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) āgato vinicchayo.

‘Below it’ means beneath the Sappaphaṇapabbata mountain, in the hollow of the sky. ‘Of the dwelling’ means if a dwelling is made, it means ‘of that dwelling’. Again, having distinguished that same dwelling in five ways, to show the determination of descending and not descending, he says, ‘But if below,’ etc. Here, ‘below’ is connected with ‘there is a dwelling’. He says ‘inside’ to mean that the dwelling below is in one place, that is, inside the mountain, at the foot of the mountain. To specify that very word ‘inside’ by the boundary definition, it is said, ‘beyond the definition of the upper boundary’. However, although ‘on this side’ should be said with respect to the mountain’s base, it should be understood that ‘beyond’ is said with reference to the mountain peak, which is the basis for the boundary. Therefore, specifying the word ‘outside’ in ‘dwelling outside,’ he says, ‘on this side of the definition of the upper boundary’. In the phrase ‘The outer boundary does not descend,’ ‘outside’ is said with reference to the dwelling at the foot of the mountain. And the meaning is that the boundary does not descend into the lower part of the upper boundary definition, which is outside the dwelling. ‘The inner boundary does not descend’ means that it does not descend into its own proper place for descending, which is inside the dwelling and at the foot of the mountain. Here, in ‘the outer boundary does not descend, the inner boundary does not descend,’ it should be understood that the boundary’s not descending at all is shown due to the absence of a dwelling in its proper place for descending. For in that case, not descending, it remains above—this is the determination found in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138).

Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) pana ‘‘antoleṇaṃ hotīti pabbatassa antoleṇaṃ hotī’’ti ettakameva āgato. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) na ‘‘antoleṇanti pabbatassa antoleṇaṃ. Dvāraṃ pana sandhāya ‘pārato orato’ti vuttaṃ, sabbathāpi sīmato bahileṇena otaratīti adhippāyo’’ti āgato. Ayaṃ pana antoleṇabahileṇavinicchayo gambhīro duddaso duranubodhoti ācariyā vadanti, tathāpi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) āgataṃ nayaṃ nissāya suṭṭhu vinicchitabbo viññūhīti. Bahi patitaṃ asīmātiādinā uparipāsādādīsu athiranissayesu ṭhitā sīmāpi tesaṃ vināsena vinassatīti dassitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138), however, only this much is stated: ‘“An inner dwelling means it is an inner dwelling of the mountain.”’ In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), it is stated: ‘“An inner dwelling means an inner dwelling of the mountain. But with reference to the door, ‘beyond’ and ‘on this side’ are said. The intention is that in any case, it descends by means of a dwelling outside the boundary.”’ However, the teachers say that this determination of inner and outer dwellings is profound, difficult to see, and hard to understand. Nevertheless, the wise should carefully discern it based on the method found in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138). It should be understood that by the phrase ‘a boundary that has fallen outside is not a boundary,’ etc., it is shown that a boundary established on unstable supports, such as upper stories of buildings, also perishes with their destruction.

Pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇanti, sīmāyevāti ettha sace heṭṭhā umaṅganadī sīmappamāṇato anūnā paṭhamameva pavattā hoti, sīmā ca pacchā baddhā nadito upari eva hoti, nadiṃ āhacca pokkharaṇiyā ca khatāya sīmā vinassatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Heṭṭhāpathavītaleti anantarā bhūmivivare.

In the phrase ‘They dig a pond, thinking, “This is the boundary,”’ if an underground river below, not less than the extent of the boundary, was already flowing beforehand, and the boundary is later established just above the river, then it should be understood that the boundary is destroyed when the river is reached and the pond is dug. ‘Below the ground level’ means in an adjacent opening in the earth.

Sīmamāḷaketi [Pg.315] khaṇḍasīmaṅgaṇe. Vaṭarukkhoti idaṃ pārohopatthambhena atidūrampi gantuṃ samatthasākhāsamaṅgitāya vuttaṃ. Sabbarukkhalatādīnampi sambandho na vaṭṭati eva. Teneva nāvārajjusetusambandhopi paṭikkhitto. Tatoti tato sākhato. Mahāsīmāya pathavītalanti ettha āsannatarampi gāmasīmaṃ aggahetvā baddhasīmāya eva gahitattā gāmasīmabaddhasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandhepi sambhedadoso natthi aññamaññaṃ nissayanissitabhāvena pavattitoti gahetabbaṃ. Yadi hi tāsampi sambandhadoso bhaveyya, kathaṃ gāmasīmāya baddhasīmā sammannitabbā bhaveyya? Yassā hi sīmāya yāya sīmāya saddhiṃ sambandhe doso bhaveyya, sā tattha bandhitumeva na vaṭṭati baddhasīmaudakukkhepasīmāsu baddhasīmā viya, attano anissayabhūtagāmasīmādīsu udakukkhepasīmā viya ca, teneva ‘‘sace pana rukkhassa sākhā vātato nikkhantapāroho vā bahinadītīre vihārasīmāya vā gāmasīmāya vā patiṭṭhito’’tiādinā udakukkhepasīmāya attano anissayabhūtagāmasīmādīhi eva sambandhadoso dassito, na nadīsīmāya, evamidhāpīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Ayañcattho upari pākaṭo bhavissati. Āhaccāti phusitvā.

‘Sīmamāḷaka’ means in the courtyard of a segmented boundary. ‘Banyan tree’ is said because it is endowed with branches capable of extending very far by means of supporting aerial roots. Indeed, connection with all other trees, creepers, and so forth, is not permissible. For that very reason, connection by boat ropes and bridges is also prohibited. ‘From there’ means from that branch. Regarding ‘the ground level of the great boundary,’ here, since the established boundary is taken without taking even the closer village boundary, it should be understood that there is no fault of intermingling even if village boundaries and established boundaries are connected by trees and so forth, because they proceed in a state of mutual support and dependence. If there were indeed a fault of connection even for them, how could an established boundary be designated within a village boundary? For any boundary where a fault arises due to a connection with another boundary, it cannot be established there—just as an established boundary is not permissible to be fixed within another established boundary or a water-drawing boundary, and a water-drawing boundary is not permissible in village boundaries and so forth, which are not its supports. Therefore, by the text beginning, ‘But if a branch of a tree, or an aerial root that has emerged from the wind, is established on the far bank of a river, or within a monastery boundary, or a village boundary,’ the fault of connection is shown only with respect to the water-drawing boundary and its non-supports, such as village boundaries, not with the river boundary. It should be understood that the same applies here. And this meaning will become clear below. ‘Touching’ means having touched.

Mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti mahāsīmagatānaṃ sabbesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ hatthapāsānayanachandāharaṇādivasena sakalaṃ mahāsīmaṃ sodhetvā. Etena sabbavipattiyo mocetvā pubbe suṭṭhu baddhānampi dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ pacchā rukkhādisambandhena uppajjanato īdiso pāḷimuttako sambandhadoso atthīti dasseti, so ca ‘‘na, bhikkhave, sīmāya sīmā sambhinditabbā’’tiādinā baddhasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ sambhedajjhottharaṇaṃ paṭikkhipitvā ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave sīmaṃ sammannantena sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvā sīmaṃ sammannitu’’nti (mahāva. 148) ubhinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ antarā sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvā bandhituṃ [Pg.316] anujānanena sambhedajjhottharaṇe viya tāsaṃ aññamaññaṃ phusitvā tiṭṭhanavasena bandhanampi na vaṭṭatīti siddhattā baddhānampi tāsaṃ pacchā aññamaññaṃ ekarukkhādīhi phusitvā ṭhānampi na vaṭṭatīti bhagavato adhippāyaññūhi saṅgītikārakehi niddhārito bandhanakāle paṭikkhittassa sambandhadosassa anulomena akappiyānulomattā. Ayaṃ pana sambandhadoso pubbe suṭṭhu baddhānaṃ pacchā sañjātattā bajjhamānakkhaṇe viya asīmattaṃ kātuṃ na sakkoti, tasmā rukkhādisambandhe apanītamatte tā sīmā pākatikā honti. Yathā cāyaṃ pacchā na vaṭṭati, evaṃ bajjhamānakkhaṇepi tāsaṃ rukkhādisambandhe sati tā bandhituṃ na vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

‘Or having purified the great boundary’ means having purified the entire great boundary for all the monks within the great boundary by means of bringing them within hand’s reach, taking a vote, and so forth. By this, he shows that there exists such a fault of connection, which is outside the Pāḷi, arising later through connection by trees and so forth for two established boundaries, even though they were well-established before. And that fault, by the text beginning ‘Monks, one boundary should not be intermingled with another boundary,’ which prohibits the intermingling and overlapping of established boundaries with one another, and by the allowance, ‘I allow, monks, when establishing a boundary, to establish it by leaving a boundary-interval between them’ (Mahāva. 148), which permits establishing two established boundaries by leaving a boundary-interval between them, it is established that just as intermingling and overlapping are not permissible, so too is it not permissible to establish them in such a way that they touch each other. Thus, even for those previously established, their later standing by touching each other through a single tree and so forth is also not permissible. This was determined by the compilers of the texts, who understood the Blessed One’s intention, due to its being in accordance with the impropriety that follows from the defect of connection prohibited at the time of establishment. However, since this defect of connection arises later for those previously well-established, it cannot render them non-boundaries as it would at the moment of establishment. Therefore, as soon as the connection by trees and so forth is removed, those boundaries become normal. And just as this is not permissible afterward, so too it should be understood that at the moment of establishment, if there is a connection by trees and so forth, it is not permissible to establish them.

Keci pana mahāsīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti ettha ‘‘mahāsīmagatā bhikkhū yathā taṃ sākhaṃ vā pārohaṃ vā kāyakāyapaṭibaddhehi na phusanti, evaṃ sodhanameva idhādhippetaṃ, na sakalasīmāsodhana’’nti vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāya virujjhanato. Tathā hi ‘‘mahāsīmāya pathavītalaṃ vā tatthajātakarukkhādīni vā āhacca tiṭṭhatī’’ti evaṃ sākhāpārohānaṃ mahāsīmaṃ phusitvā ṭhānameva sambandhadose kāraṇattena vuttaṃ, na pana tattha ṭhitabhikkhūhi sākhādīnaṃ phusanaṃ. Yadi hi bhikkhūnaṃ sākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhānameva kāraṇaṃ siyā, ‘‘tassa sākhaṃ vā tato niggatapārohaṃ vā mahāsīmāya paviṭṭhaṃ tatraṭṭho koci bhikkhu phusitvā tiṭṭhatī’’ti bhikkhuphusanameva vattabbaṃ siyā. Yañhi tattha mahāsīmāsodhane kāraṇaṃ, tadeva tasmiṃ vākye padhānato dassetabbaṃ. Na hi āhaccaṭṭhitameva sākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhito bhikkhu sodhetabbo ākāsaṭṭhasākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhitabhikkhussapi sodhetabbato, kiṃ niratthakena āhaccaṭṭhānavacanena, ākāsaṭṭhasākhāsu ca bhikkhuphusanameva kāraṇattena vuttaṃ[Pg.317], sodhanañca tasseva bhikkhussa hatthapāsānayanādivasena sodhanaṃ vuttaṃ. Idha pana ‘‘mahāsīmaṃ sodhetvā’’ti sakalasīmāsādhāraṇavacanena sodhanaṃ vuttaṃ, api ca sākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhitabhikkhumattasodhane abhimate ‘‘mahāsīmāya pathavītala’’nti visesasīmopādānaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā yattha katthaci antamaso ākāsepi ṭhatvā sākhādiṃ phusitvā ṭhitassa sodhetabbato.

However, regarding the phrase 'or having cleared a great boundary,' some say: 'The clearing intended here is only that monks within the great boundary do not touch branches or offshoots connected to the main trunk; it is not the clearing of the entire boundary.' This is not correct, as it contradicts the commentary. For indeed, it is stated thus: 'It stands touching the ground of the great boundary or the trees and so forth that have grown there.' In this way, the very standing of branches and offshoots touching the great boundary is stated as the cause for the fault of connection, not the touching of branches and so forth by the monks standing there. For if the very standing of monks touching branches and so forth were the cause, it should have been stated: 'Some monk standing there touches its branch or an offshoot that has grown from it and entered the great boundary,' thus mentioning only the monk's touching. For whatever is the cause for clearing the great boundary, that very thing should be shown as primary in that statement. It is not that only a monk standing and touching a branch that is resting on something must be cleared, for a monk standing and touching a branch in the air must also be cleared. What is the use of the statement about 'resting on,' which is without purpose? And regarding branches in the air, the monk's touching itself is stated as the cause, and the clearing is stated as the clearing of that very monk by means of bringing him out of hand's reach and so forth. Here, however, the clearing is stated with the general expression 'having cleared the great boundary,' which is common to the entire boundary. Moreover, if the clearing of only the monk standing and touching a branch were intended, the specific inclusion of 'the ground of the great boundary' would be pointless, since one standing anywhere—even in the air—and touching a branch would have to be cleared.

Chinditvā bahiṭṭhakā kātabbāti tattha patiṭṭhitabhāvaviyojanavacanato ca visabhāgasīmānaṃ phusaneneva sakalasīmāsodhanahetuko aṭṭhakathāsiddhoyaṃ eko sambandhadoso atthevāti gahetabbo. Teneva udakukkhepasīmākathāyampi (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) ‘‘vihārasīmāya vā gāmasīmāya vā patiṭṭhito’’ti ca ‘‘nadītīre pana khāṇukaṃ koṭṭetvā tattha baddhanāvāya vā na vaṭṭatī’’ti ca ‘‘sace pana setu vā setupādā vā bahitīre patiṭṭhitā, kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti ca evaṃ visabhāgāsu gāmasīmāsu sākhādīnaṃ phusanameva saṅkaradosakāraṇattena vuttaṃ, na bhikkhuphusanaṃ. Tathā hi ‘‘antonadiyaṃ jātarukkhe bandhitvā kammaṃ kātabba’’nti nadiyaṃ nāvābandhanaṃ anuññātaṃ udakukkhepanissayattena nadīsīmāya sabhāgattā. Yadi hi bhikkhūnaṃ phusanameva paṭicca sabbattha sambandhadoso vutto siyā, nadiyampi bandhanaṃ paṭikkhipitabbaṃ bhaveyya. Tatthāpi hi bhikkhuphusanaṃ kammakopakāraṇaṃ hoti, tasmā sabhāgasīmāsu pavisitvā bhūmiādiṃ phusitvā, aphusitvā vā sākhādimhi ṭhite taṃ sākhādiṃ phusantova bhikkhu sodhetabbo. Visabhāgasīmāsu pana sākhādimhi phusitvā ṭhite taṃ sākhādiṃ aphusantāpi sabbe bhikkhū sodhetabbā, aphusitvā ṭhite pana taṃ sākhādiṃ phusantāva bhikkhū sodhetabbāti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ.

And from the statement there, 'Having cut them, they should be made external,' which is about disjoining their established state, it should be understood that this one fault of connection—which is the cause for clearing the entire boundary and is established in the commentary—indeed exists simply from the touching of dissimilar boundaries. For this very reason, in the discussion on the water-throwing boundary as well, it is said: '…established in the monastery boundary or the village boundary…'; and, 'But on the riverbank, having driven in a stake and tied a boat there, it is not allowable'; and, 'But if a bridge or the supports of a bridge are established on the other bank, it is not allowable to perform a formal act.' Thus, in the case of dissimilar boundaries, the touching by branches and so forth is stated as the cause for the fault of commingling, not the touching by a monk. Indeed, it is said: 'A formal act should be done by tying the boat to a tree that has grown in the river.' Tying a boat in the river is allowed because the river boundary is of a similar nature, being dependent on the water-throwing. For if the fault of connection were stated everywhere with reference to a monk's touching, then tying in the river would also have to be prohibited. There too, a monk's touching is a cause for spoiling the formal act. Therefore, in the case of similar boundaries, when a branch or the like is standing, having entered and touched the ground or not, only the monk who touches that branch or the like must be cleared. But in the case of dissimilar boundaries, when a branch or the like is standing touching them, all the monks must be cleared, even those not touching that branch. When it is standing without touching, however, only the monks who touch that branch or the like must be cleared. This is the conclusion to be reached here.

Yaṃ [Pg.318] panettha keci ‘‘baddhasīmānaṃ dvinnaṃ aññamaññaṃ viya baddhasīmagāmasīmānampi tadaññāsampi sabbāsaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandhe sati tadubhayampi ekasīmaṃ viya sodhetvā ekattheva kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, aññathā kataṃ kammaṃ vipajjati, natthettha sabhāgavisabhāgabhedo’’ti vadanti, taṃ tesaṃ matimattaṃ sabhāgasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ sambandhadosābhāvassa visabhāgasīmānameva tabbhāvassa suttasuttānulomādivinayanayehi siddhattā. Tathā hi ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sīmaṃ sammannitu’’nti (mahāva. 138) gāmasīmāyameva baddhasīmaṃ sammannituṃ anuññātattā tāsaṃ nissayanissitabhāvena sabhāgatā, sambhedajjhottharaṇadosābhāvo ca suttatova siddho. Bandhanakāle pana anuññātassa sambandhassa anulomato pacchā sañjātarukkhādisambandhopi tāsaṃ vaṭṭati eva. ‘‘Yaṃ, bhikkhave…pe… kappiyaṃ anulometi, akappiyaṃ paṭibāhati, taṃ vo kappatī’’ti (mahāva. 305) vuttattā evaṃ tāva gāmabaddhasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ sabhāgatā, sambhedādidosābhāvo ca suttasuttānulomato siddho, iminā eva nayena araññasīmasattabbhantarasīmānaṃ nadīādisīmaudakukkhepasīmānañca suttasuttānulomato aññamaññaṃ sabhāgatā, sambhedādidosābhāvo ca siddhoti veditabbo.

Herein, some say: 'Just as with two consecrated boundaries, so too with a consecrated boundary and a village boundary, and with all other boundaries of common residence: if there is a mutual connection by trees or the like, both should be cleared as if they were one boundary, and the formal act should be performed in one place. Otherwise, the act performed is invalid. There is no distinction here between similar and dissimilar boundaries.' This, however, is merely their opinion, for the absence of a fault of mutual connection for similar boundaries and its presence for dissimilar boundaries is established by the methods of the Vinaya, such as those in conformity with the Suttas. For instance, because it is allowed to consecrate a boundary only within a village boundary, as stated, 'I allow, monks, to agree upon a boundary,' their similarity by way of being the support and the supported, and the absence of the faults of commingling and overlapping, are established by the Sutta itself. Furthermore, in conformity with the connection allowed at the time of consecration, a connection by trees or the like that arises later is also allowable for them. For it is said: 'Whatever, monks… conforms to what is allowable, and rejects what is not allowable, that is permissible for you.' Thus, the mutual similarity of village and consecrated boundaries, and the absence of faults such as commingling, are established from the Sutta and what conforms to the Sutta. By this same method, it should be understood that the mutual similarity of wilderness boundaries, seven-abbhantara boundaries, river boundaries and the like, and water-throwing boundaries, and the absence of faults such as commingling, are also established from the Sutta and what conforms to the Sutta.

Baddhasīmāya pana aññāya baddhasīmāya nadīādisīmāsu ca bandhituṃ paṭikkhepasiddhito ceva udakukkhepasattabbhantarasīmānaṃ nadīādīsu eva kātuṃ niyamanasuttasāmatthiyena baddhasīmagāmasīmāsu karaṇapaṭikkhepasiddho ca tāsaṃ aññamaññasabhāgatā uppattikkhaṇe pacchā ca rukkhādīhi sambhedādidosasambhavo ca vuttanayena suttasuttānulomatova sijjhanti. Teneva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ visabhāgasīmānameva vaṭarukkhādivacanehi [Pg.319] sambandhadosaṃ dassetvā sabhāgānaṃ baddhasīmagāmasīmādīnaṃ sambandhadoso na dassito. Na kevalañca na dassito, atha kho tāsaṃ sabhāgasīmānaṃ rukkhādisambandhepi dosābhāvopi pāḷiaṭṭhakathāsu ñāpito eva. Tathā hi pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 138) ‘‘pabbatanimittaṃ pāsāṇanimittaṃ vananimittaṃ rukkhanimitta’’ntiādinā vaḍḍhanakanimittāni anuññātāni, tena nesaṃ rukkhādinimittānaṃ vaḍḍhane baddhasīmagāmasīmānaṃ saṅkaradosābhāvo ñāpitova hoti, dvinnaṃ pana baddhasīmānaṃ īdiso sambandho na vaṭṭati. Vuttañhi ‘‘ekarukkhopi dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hoti, so pana vaḍḍhanto sīmasaṅkaraṃ karoti, tasmā na kātabbo’’ti. ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tiyojanaparamaṃ sīmaṃ bandhitu’’nti (mahāva. 140) vacanatopi cāyaṃ ñāpito. Tiyojanaparamāya hi sīmāya samantā pariyantesu rukkhalatāgumbādīhi baddhagāmasīmānaṃ niyamena aññamaññaṃ sambandhassa sambhavato ‘‘īdisaṃ sambandhaṃ vināsetvāva sīmā sammannitabbā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyampi na vuttaṃ.

However, because it is established that it is prohibited to consecrate a boundary within another consecrated boundary or in boundaries such as rivers, and because the prohibition of making water-throwing and seven-abbhantara boundaries in consecrated and village boundaries is established by the force of the Sutta that stipulates they be made only in rivers and so forth—for these reasons, their mutual dissimilarity, and the possibility of faults such as commingling by means of trees and so forth at the moment of their origin and later, are established by the aforesaid method, from the Sutta and what conforms to the Sutta. For that very reason, the commentary, using expressions about banyan trees and so forth, shows the fault of connection only for dissimilar boundaries, while the fault of connection for similar boundaries, such as consecrated and village boundaries, is not shown. And not only is it not shown, but the absence of fault even in the case of a connection by trees and so forth for those similar boundaries is indeed indicated in the Pāḷi and the commentaries. For instance, in the Pāḷi, growing markers are allowed by the passage beginning, 'a mountain as a marker, a rock as a marker, a forest as a marker, a tree as a marker.' By this, the absence of the fault of commingling for consecrated and village boundaries when these tree-markers and so forth grow is indeed indicated. For two consecrated boundaries, however, such a connection is not allowable. For it is said: 'Even a single tree may be a marker for two boundaries, but as it grows it creates a commingling of boundaries; therefore, it should not be made.' This is also indicated by the statement: 'I allow, monks, to consecrate a boundary with a maximum of three yojanas.' For, with a boundary of a three-yojana maximum, since a mutual connection of consecrated and village boundaries by trees, vines, bushes, and so forth at the surrounding edges is inevitable, it is not stated even in the commentary that 'a boundary should be agreed upon only after having destroyed such a connection.'

Yadi cettha rukkhādisambandhena kammavipatti bhaveyya, avassameva vattabbaṃ siyā. Vipattiparihāratthañhi ācariyā nirāsaṅkaṭṭhānesupi ‘‘bhittiṃ akittetvā’’tiādinā siddhamevatthaṃ punappunaṃ avocuṃ, idha pana ‘‘vanamajjhe vihāraṃ karonti, vanaṃ na kittetabba’’ntiādinā rukkhalatādīhi nirantare vanamajjhepi sīmābandhanamavocuṃ. Tathā thambhānaṃ upari katapāsādādīsu heṭṭhā thambhādīhi ekābaddhesu uparimatalādīsu sīmābandhanaṃ bahudhā vuttaṃ, tasmā baddhasīmagāmasīmānaṃ rukkhādisambandho tehi mukhatova vihito, apica gāmasīmānampi pāṭekkaṃ baddhasīmāsadisatāya ekāya gāmasīmāya kammaṃ karontehi dabbatiṇamattenapi sambandhā gāmantaraparamparā araññanadīsamuddā ca sodhetabbāti sakalaṃ dīpaṃ [Pg.320] sodhetvāva kātabbaṃ siyā. Evaṃ pana asodhetvā paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikālato pabhuti katānaṃ upasampadādikammānaṃ sīmāsammutīnañca vipajjanato sabbesampi bhikkhūnaṃ anupasampannasaṅkāpasaṅgo ca dunnivāro hoti, na cetaṃ yuttaṃ, tasmā vuttanayena visabhāgasīmānameva rukkhādisambandhadoso, na baddhasīmagāmasīmādīnaṃ sabhāgasīmānanti gahetabbaṃ.

If there were any defect in the act due to connection with trees and such, it would certainly have to be stated. For the purpose of avoiding defects, the teachers repeatedly declared the established meaning even in places free from doubt, saying, 'without marking the wall,' and so on. Here, however, they spoke of fixing a boundary even in the middle of a forest dense with trees, creepers, and the like, saying, 'they build a monastery in the middle of the forest, the forest should not be marked,' and so on. Similarly, it has been stated in many ways that boundaries can be fixed on upper levels and so forth in multi-storied buildings built upon pillars, where the upper levels are connected as one with the lower pillars. Therefore, connection with trees and such in fixed boundaries and village boundaries has been directly permitted by them. Moreover, if, when performing an act within a single village boundary—since each village boundary is similar to a fixed boundary—connections, even as slight as a blade of dabba grass, with successive neighboring villages, forests, rivers, and oceans had to be purified, then the entire island would have to be purified before the act could be performed. However, not having purified in this way from the time of the first great council onward would lead to the failure of ordination acts and boundary agreements, and the unavoidable consequence of doubt about the ordination status of all bhikkhus would arise. This is not proper. Therefore, it should be understood that the defect of connection with trees and such applies only to boundaries of different categories, as stated, not to fixed boundaries, village boundaries, or other boundaries of the same category.

Mahāsīmāsodhanassa dukkaratāya khaṇḍasīmāyameva yebhuyyena saṅghakammakaraṇanti āha ‘‘sīmamāḷake’’tiādi. Mahāsaṅghasannipātesu pana khaṇḍasīmāya appahonakatāya mahāsīmāya kamme kariyamānepi ayaṃ nayo gahetabbova. Ukkhipāpetvāti iminā kāyapaṭibaddhena sīmaṃ phusantopi sīmaṭṭhova hotīti dasseti. Purimanayepīti khaṇḍasīmato mahāsīmaṃ paviṭṭhasākhānayepi. Sīmaṭṭharukkhasākhāya nisinno sīmaṭṭhova hotīti āha ‘hatthapāsameva ānetabbo’’ti. Ettha ca ‘‘rukkhasākhādīhi aññamaññasambandhāsu etāsu khaṇḍasīmāya tayo bhikkhū, mahāsīmāya dveti evaṃ dvīsu sīmāsu sīmantarikaṃ aphusitvā, hatthapāsañca avijahitvā ṭhitehi pañcahi bhikkhūhi upasampadādi kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti keci vadanti, taṃ na yuttaṃ ‘‘nānāsīmāyaṃ ṭhitacatuttho kammaṃ kareyya, akammaṃ na ca karaṇīya’’ntiādivacanato (mahāva. 389). Tenevetthāpi mahāsīmaṃ sodhetvā māḷakasīmāyameva kammakaraṇaṃ vihitaṃ. Aññathā bhinnasīmaṭṭhatāya tatraṭṭhassa gaṇapūrakattābhāvā kammakopova hotīti.

Because of the difficulty in purifying a great boundary, Saṅgha acts are mostly performed within a partial boundary, as stated in 'in a boundary-pavilion' and so on. However, even when an act is performed in a great boundary because a partial boundary is insufficient for large Saṅgha gatherings, this method should still be adopted. By 'having it lifted up,' it is shown that even one touching the boundary with something connected to the body is considered to be within the boundary. This also applies to the previous case, that of a branch extending from a partial boundary into a great boundary. It is stated that one sitting on a tree branch that is within the boundary is himself considered to be within the boundary, hence the statement, 'he should be brought only within arm's reach.' Here, some say that when tree branches or similar connections exist between these partial boundaries and great boundaries, three bhikkhus in the partial boundary and two in the great boundary—thus five bhikkhus in total—can perform ordination and other acts without touching the boundary line between the two boundaries or going beyond arm's reach; however, this is not appropriate, as it contradicts statements such as, 'If a fourth stands in a different boundary and performs the act, it is an invalid act and should not be done' (Mahāva. 389). Therefore, in this case also, having purified the great boundary, the performance of the act is prescribed only within the pavilion-boundary. Otherwise, due to being in a separate boundary, the one standing there would not complete the quorum, and the act would be invalidated.

Yadi evaṃ kathaṃ chandapārisuddhiāharaṇavasena mahāsīmāsodhananti? Tampi vinayaññū na icchanti, hatthapāsānayanabahisīmakaraṇavasena panettha sodhanaṃ icchanti, dinnassapi chandassa [Pg.321] anāgamanena mahāsīmaṭṭho kammaṃ kopetīti. Yadi cassa chandādi nāgacchati, kathaṃ so kammaṃ kopessatīti? Dvinnaṃ visabhāgasīmānaṃ sambandhadosato, so ca sambandhadoso aṭṭhakathāvacanappamāṇato. Na hi vinaye sabbattha yutti sakkā ñātuṃ buddhagocarattāti veditabbaṃ. Keci pana ‘‘sace dvepi sīmāyo pūretvā nirantaraṃ ṭhitesu bhikkhūsu kammaṃ karontesu ekāya eva sīmāya gaṇo ca upasampadāpekkho ca anussāvako ca ekato tiṭṭhati, kammaṃ sukatameva hoti. Sace pana kammāraho vā anussāvako vā sīmantaraṭṭho hoti, kammaṃ vipajjatī’’ti vadanti, tañca baddhasīmagāmasīmādisabhāgasīmāsu eva yujjati. Yāsu aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandhesupi doso natthi, yāsu pana atthi, na tāsu, visabhāgasīmāsu rukkhādisambandhe sati ekattha ṭhito itaraṭṭhānaṃ kammaṃ kopeti eva aṭṭhakathāya sāmaññato sodhanassa vuttattāti amhākaṃ khanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.

If so, how is the purification of the great boundary accomplished by bringing the purity of consent? Even the experts in Vinaya do not approve of that. Instead, they prefer purification here by bringing within arm's reach and establishing an outer boundary, for even if consent has been given, if it does not arrive, the one within the great boundary invalidates the act. But if his consent and so forth do not arrive, how will he invalidate that act? It is due to the fault of connection between two dissimilar boundaries, and that fault of connection is established by the authority of the commentary's statement. Indeed, in the Vinaya, it is not always possible to discern the reason, because it is the domain of the Buddha; this should be understood. However, some say: 'If, while the bhikkhus stand filling both boundaries without interruption and perform the act, the Saṅgha, the candidate for ordination, and the one reciting the motion all remain within one boundary, the act is perfectly valid. But if the one qualified for the act or the one reciting the motion stands in another boundary, the act fails.' This applies only to similar boundaries, such as fixed boundaries, village boundaries, and the like, in which there is no fault even in mutual connections by trees and so forth. But it does not apply to those in which there is such a fault. In dissimilar boundaries, if there is a connection by trees and so forth, one standing in one place invariably invalidates the act of those in the other place, because purification has been stated generally in the commentary. This is our view; it should be accepted after careful investigation.

Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.138) ‘‘ukkhipāpetvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti khaṇḍasīmāya anto ṭhitattā rukkhassa tattha ṭhito hatthapāsameva ānetabboti ukkhipāpetvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 138) pana ‘‘ukkhipāpetvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati, kasmā? Anto ṭhitattā. Rukkhassa hi heṭṭhā pathavīgataṃ mūlaṃ khaṇḍasīmāyeva hoti. Abbohārikaṃ vāti apare. ‘Majjhe pana chinne mahāsīmāya ṭhitaṃ mūlaṃ mahāsīmameva bhajati, khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhitaṃ khaṇḍasīmameva bhajati tadāyattapathavīādīhi anuggahitattā’ti ca vuttaṃ. ‘Sīmāya pacchā uṭṭhitarukkhe nisīditvā kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati pacchā sīmāyaṃ katagehe viyā’ti vatvā ‘bandhanakāle ṭhite rukkhe nisīditvā kātuṃ na vaṭṭati uparisīmāya agamanato’ti kāraṇaṃ vadanti. Evaṃ sati bandhanakāle [Pg.322] puna ārohaṇaṃ nāma natthi, bandhitakāle eva ārohatīti āpajjati pacchā uṭṭhitarukkho pana tappaṭibaddhattā sīmāsaṅkhameva gato. Evaṃ pubbe uṭṭhitarukkhopīti gahetabbaṃ. ‘‘Yaṃ kiñcī’’ti vacanato tiṇādipi saṅgahitaṃ, mahātherāpi tiṇaṃ sodhetvāva karontī’’ti vuttaṃ.

In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.138), it is stated: 'It is not permissible to perform the act after having it lifted up; because the tree stands within the partial boundary, one standing there should be brought only within arm's reach; thus it is not permissible to perform the act after having it lifted up.' In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 138), however, it is said: 'It is not permissible to perform the act after having it lifted up. Why? Because it stands within. For the root of the tree below, which is in the ground, belongs only to the partial boundary. Others say it is invalid. But when the middle is cut, the root standing within the great boundary belongs to the great boundary, and the root standing within the partial boundary belongs to the partial boundary, because it is supported by the ground, etc., which is dependent on it.' It is also said: 'It is permissible to perform the act while seated on a tree that arose after the boundary was established, just as in a house built later within the boundary.' But they state the reason: 'It is not permissible to perform the act while seated on a tree that was standing at the time of the boundary marking, because it does not enter the upper boundary.' This being the case, at the time of binding the boundary, there is no such thing as a further ascent; it follows that one ascends only at the time it was bound. But a tree that arose later, being connected to it, is included within the boundary's designation. It should be understood that a tree that arose earlier is also thus. By the phrase 'whatever,' even grass and so forth is included; it is said that the great elders also perform the act only after clearing the grass.

Na otaratīti paṇavasaṇṭhānapabbatādīsu heṭṭhā pamāṇarahitaṃ ṭhānaṃ na otarati. Kiñcāpi panettha bajjhamānakkhaṇe uddhampi pamāṇarahitapabbatādi nārohati, tathāpi taṃ pacchā sīmaṭṭhatāya sīmā hoti. Heṭṭhā paṇavasaṇṭhānādi pana upari baddhāyapi sīmāya sīmasaṅkhaṃ na gacchati, tasseva vasena ‘‘na otaratī’’ti vuttaṃ, itarathā orohaṇārohaṇānaṃ sādhāraṇavasena ‘‘na otaratī’’tiādinā vattabbato. Jātaṃ yaṃ kiñcīti niṭṭhitasīmāya upari jātaṃ vijjamānaṃ pubbe ṭhitaṃ pacchā sañjātaṃ paviṭṭhañca yaṃ kiñci saviññāṇakāviññāṇakaṃ sabbampīti attho. Antosīmāya hi hatthikkhandhādisaviññāṇakesu nisinnopi bhikkhu sīmaṭṭhova hoti. Baddhāya sīmāyāti idañca pakaraṇavasena upalakkhaṇato vuttaṃ. Abaddhasīmāsupi sabbāsu ṭhitaṃ taṃ sīmāsaṅkhameva gacchati. Ekasambandhena gatanti rukkhalatāditatrajātamevasandhāya vuttaṃ. Tādisañhi ‘‘ito gata’’nti vattabbataṃ arahati.

'It does not descend' means it does not descend into a place beneath a drum-shaped mountain or similar formation that lacks a defined limit. Although at the moment of being established, the boundary does not ascend above a mountain or similar formation that lacks a defined limit, nevertheless, that place later becomes the boundary by virtue of being within the boundary. However, what lies beneath a drum-shaped formation or similar, even if a boundary is established above it, is not counted as part of the boundary. It is with reference to this that it is said, 'it does not descend'; otherwise, due to the commonality of descending and ascending, it would have to be stated as 'it does not descend and ascend,' etc. 'Whatever has arisen' means whatever exists above a completed boundary—whether previously existing, later arisen, or entered—anything at all, sentient or insentient. For even a bhikkhu seated on an elephant’s back or other sentient beings within the boundary is considered to be within the boundary. 'Of an established boundary'—this is said by way of indication according to the context. In all unestablished boundaries as well, whatever is situated therein is counted as the boundary. 'Gone by a single connection'—this is said with reference to trees, vines, and other things born there. For such a thing deserves to be called 'gone from here.'

Yaṃ pana ‘‘ito gata’’nti vā ‘‘tato āgata’’nti vā vattuṃ asakkuṇeyyaṃ ubhosu baddhasīmagāmasīmāsu udakukkhepanadīādīsu ca tiriyaṃ patitarajjudaṇḍādi, tattha kiṃ kātabbanti? Ettha pana ‘‘baddhasīmāya patiṭṭhitabhāgo baddhasīmā, gāmasīmāya patiṭṭhitabhāgo gāmasīmā tadubhayasīmaṭṭhapabbatādi viya, baddhasīmato uṭṭhitavaṭarukkhassa pārohe, gāmasīmāya gāmasīmato uṭṭhitavaṭarukkhassa pārohe ca baddhasīmāya [Pg.323] patiṭṭhitepi eseva nayo. Mūle patiṭṭhitakālato paṭṭhāya hi ‘ito gataṃ, tato āgata’nti vattuṃ asakkuṇeyyato so bhāgo yathāpaviṭṭhasīmaṭṭhasaṅkhameva gacchati. Tesaṃ rukkhapārohānaṃ antarā pana ākāsaṭṭhasākhā bhūmiyaṃ sīmāparicchedappamāṇena tadubhayasīmā hotī’’ti keci vadanti. Yasmā panassā sākhāya pāroho paviṭṭhasīmāya pathaviyaṃ mūlehi patiṭṭhahitvāpi yāva sākhaṃ vinā ṭhātuṃ na sakkoti, tāva mūlasīmaṭṭhataṃ na vijahati. Yadā pana saṇṭhātuṃ sakkoti, tadāpi pārohamattameva paviṭṭhasīmataṃ samupeti, tasmā sabbopi ākāsaṭṭhasākhābhāgo purimasīmaṭṭhataṃ na vijahati tato āgatabhāgassa avijahitattāti amhākaṃ khanti. Udakukkhepanadīādīsupi eseva nayo. Tattha ca visabhāgasīmāya eva paviṭṭhe sakalasīmāsodhanaṃ, sabhāgāya paviṭṭhe phusitvā ṭhitamattabhikkhusodhanañca sabbaṃ pubbe vuttanayameva.

However, regarding that which cannot be said to be 'gone from here' or 'come from there' in both established boundaries and village boundaries, such as water-lifts, rivers, and so on, and horizontally fallen ropes, sticks, and the like—what should be done in such cases? Here, some say: 'The part established within the established boundary is the established boundary; the part established within the village boundary is the village boundary, just like a mountain or the like standing on the boundary between both. The same principle applies to a sprout of a banyan tree that has grown from an established boundary and become established in a village boundary, and to one that has grown from a village boundary and become established in an established boundary. From the time it takes root, since one cannot say "gone from here" or "come from there," that part is counted as belonging to the boundary it has entered. However, the aerial branch between those tree sprouts, according to the measure of the boundary demarcation on the ground, is considered to be both boundaries.' However, it is our view that because the sprout of that branch, even if rooted in the ground of the entered boundary, does not abandon its original boundary status so long as it cannot stand without the main branch. Even when it can stand independently, only the sprout itself attains the status of the entered boundary. Therefore, the entire portion of the aerial branch does not abandon its former boundary status, as the part that came from there has not been abandoned. The same principle applies to water-lifts, rivers, and so on. There, if it has entered a boundary of a different kind, the purification of the entire boundary is required. If it has entered a boundary of the same kind, the purification of a bhikkhu by merely touching and standing is sufficient—all as previously explained.

164. Ettha ca nadīpārasīmākathāya pārayatīti ajjhottharati. Nadiyā ubhosu tīresu patiṭṭhahamānā sīmā nadīajjhottharā nāma hotīti āha ‘‘nadiṃ ajjhottharamāna’’nti. Antonadiyañhi sīmā na otarati. Nadīlakkhaṇe pana asati otarati. Sā ca tadā nadīpārasīmā na hotīti āha ‘‘nadiyā lakkhaṇaṃ nadīnimitte vuttanayamevā’’ti. Assāti bhaveyya. Avassaṃ labbhaneyyā pana dhuvanāvāva hotīti sambandho. Na nāvāyāti iminā nāvaṃ vināpi sīmā baddhā subaddhā eva hoti, āpattiparihāratthā nāvāti dasseti.

164. Here, in the discussion of a boundary on the far shore of a river, 'pārayati' means 'it spreads over,' which is 'ajjhottharati.' A boundary that is established on both banks of the river is called 'nadīajjhottharā' (river-spanning); hence it is said, 'spanning the river.' Indeed, the boundary does not descend into the river itself. However, when the characteristics of a river are absent, it does descend. At that time, it is not a boundary on the far shore of a river; hence it is said, 'the characteristics of a river are in the manner stated in the section on the signs of a river.' 'Assā' means 'it should be.' 'Avassaṃ labbhaneyyā' (should certainly be obtainable) is connected to 'it is a permanent boat.' By the phrase 'not by boat,' it is shown that even without a boat, a boundary that has been established is well-established, and that the boat is mentioned for the purpose of avoiding offenses.

Rukkhasaṅghāṭamayoti anekarukkhe ekato ghaṭetvā katasetu. Rukkhaṃ chinditvā katoti pāṭhaseso. ‘‘Sabbanimittānaṃ anto ṭhitabhikkhū hatthapāse katvāti idaṃ ubhinnaṃ tīrānaṃ ekagāmakhettabhāvaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Pabbatasaṇṭhānāti [Pg.324] ekato uggatadīpasikharattā samantapāsādikāyaṃ vuttaṃ.

'Rukkhasaṅghāṭamaya' means a bridge made by joining many trees together. The rest of the reading is 'made by cutting down a tree.' The phrase 'having brought the bhikkhus standing within all the signs into arm's reach' is said with reference to both banks being a single village-field. 'Having the shape of a mountain' is said because it has a single peak like an island that has risen up as one, as stated in the Samantapāsādikā.

165. Sīmāsamūhanakathāyaṃ soti bhikkhunisaṅgho. Dvepīti dve samānasaṃvāsaavippavāsasīmāyo. Avippavāsasīmāti mahāsīmaṃ sandhāya vadati. Tattheva yebhuyyena avippavāsāti. Avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpīti idaṃ mahāsīmāya vijjamānāvijjamānattaṃ, tassā bāhiraparicchedañca ajānantānaṃ vasena vuttaṃ. Evaṃ ajānantehipi antosīmāya ṭhatvā kammavācāya katāya sā sīmā samūhatāva hotīti āha ‘‘samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī’’ti. Nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāneti khaṇḍasīmārahitaṭṭhāne. Idañca mahāsīmāya vijjamānāyapi kammakaraṇasukhatthaṃ khaṇḍasīmā icchitāti taṃ cetiyaṅgaṇādibahusannipātaṭṭhāne na bandhatīti vuttaṃ. Tatthāpi sā baddhā subaddhā eva mahāsīmā viya. Paṭibandhituṃ pana na sakkhissantevāti idaṃ khaṇḍasīmāya asamūhatattā, tassā avijjamānattassa ajānanato ca mahāsīmābandhanaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Khaṇḍasīmā pana nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne bandhituṃ sakkhissanteva. Sīmāsambhedaṃ katvāti khaṇḍasīmāya vijjamānapakkhe sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharaṇasambhedaṃ katvā avijjamānapakkhepi sambhedasaṅkāya anivattanena sambhedasaṅkaṃ katvā. Avihāraṃ kareyyunti saṅghakammānārahaṃ kareyyuṃ. Pubbe hi cetiyaṅgaṇādinirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne kammaṃ kātuṃ sakkā, idāni tampi vināsitanti adhippāyo. Na samūhanitabbāti khaṇḍasīmaṃ ajānantehi na samūhanitabbā. Ubhopi na jānantīti ubhinnaṃ padesaniyamaṃ vā tāsaṃ dvinnampi vā aññatarāya vā vijjamānataṃ vā avijjamānataṃ vā na jānanti, sabbattha saṅkā eva hoti. Neva samūhanituṃ, na bandhituṃ sakkhissantīti idaṃ nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā samūhanituṃ sakkontāpi mahāsīmaṃ paṭibandhituṃ na sakkhissantīti imamatthaṃ sandhāya [Pg.325] vuttaṃ. Na ca sakkā…pe… kammavācā kātunti idaṃ sīmābandhanakammavācaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tasmāti yasmā bandhituṃ na sakkā, tasmā na samūhanitabbāti attho.

165. In the discussion on dismantling a boundary, 'so' refers to the community of nuns. 'Two' refers to two boundaries: those of common residence and non-separation. 'Non-separation boundary' refers to the great boundary. There, for the most part, it is a non-separation boundary. 'Even if they do not know the non-separation boundary' is said with regard to those not knowing the existence or non-existence of the great boundary, and also its external limits. Even if they do not know, if they stand within the boundary and perform the formal act, that boundary is indeed dismantled; therefore it is said, 'they will be able to dismantle and establish a boundary.' 'Place free from doubt' refers to a place devoid of a sectional boundary. And this is said: because a sectional boundary is desired for the ease of performing acts even when a great boundary exists, one does not establish it in places of much gathering like shrine courtyards. Even there, if it is established, it is well-established like the great boundary. But 'they will not be able to re-establish it'—this refers to the establishment of a great boundary, because the sectional boundary is undismantled, and because of not knowing its absence. However, in a place free from doubt, they will indeed be able to establish a sectional boundary. 'Having caused the intermingling of boundaries' means, in the case where a sectional boundary exists, causing confusion by overlapping one boundary with another; and even in the case where it does not exist, by not refraining due to the suspicion of intermingling, thereby creating the suspicion of intermingling. 'They would make it unfit for monastic residence' means they would make it unfit for Sangha acts. Previously, it was possible to perform acts in places free from doubt like shrine courtyards, but now even that is destroyed—this is the meaning. 'The boundary should not be dismantled' means that a sectional boundary should not be dismantled by those who do not know it. 'Neither knows' means they do not know the regional designation of both, or the existence or non-existence of either of the two; there is doubt in all cases. 'They will not be able to dismantle or establish' refers to the fact that even if they can dismantle while standing in a place free from doubt, they will not be able to re-establish the great boundary; thus it is said. 'It is not possible... to perform the formal act' refers to the formal act of establishing a boundary. 'Therefore' means: because it cannot be established, therefore it should not be dismantled—this is the meaning.

Keci pana ‘‘īdisesupi vihāresu chapañcamatte bhikkhū gahetvā vihārakoṭito paṭṭhāya vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca bahi ca samantā leḍḍupāte sabbattha mañcappamāṇe okāse nirantaraṃ ṭhatvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmaṃ, tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmañca samūhananavasena sīmāya samugghāte kate tasmiṃ vihāre khaṇḍasīmāya, mahāsīmāya vā ṭhitavijjamānatte sati avassaṃ ekasmiṃ mañcaṭṭhāne tāsaṃ majjhagatā te bhikkhū tā samūhaneyyuṃ, tato gāmasīmā eva avasisseyya. Na hettha sīmāya, tapparicchedassa vā jānanaṃ aṅgaṃ. Sīmāya pana antoṭhānaṃ ‘samūhanissāmā’ti kammavācākaraṇañcettha aṅgaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī’ti evaṃ mahāsīmāya paricchedassa ajānanepi samūhananassa vuttattā gāmasīmāya eva ca avasiṭṭhāya tattha yathāruci duvidhampi sīmaṃ bandhituñceva upasampadādikammaṃ kātuñca vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbanti vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) āgato vinicchayo. Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.144) pana ‘‘avippavāsasīmā na samūhantabbāti mahāsīmaṃ sandhāya vadati. Nirāsaṅkaṭṭhānesu ṭhatvāti cetiyaṅgaṇādīnaṃ khaṇḍasīmāya anokāsattā vuttaṃ. Khaṇḍasīmañhi bandhantā tādisaṃ ṭhānaṃ pahāya aññasmiṃ vivitte okāse bandhanti. Appeva nāma samūhanituṃ sakkhissantīti avippavāsasīmaṃyeva samūhanituṃ sakkhissanti, na khaṇḍasīmaṃ. Paṭibandhituṃ pana na sakkhissantevāti khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ aññātattā na sakkhissanti. Na samūhanitabbāti khaṇḍasīmaṃ ajānantehi na samūhanitabbā’’ti vuttaṃ.

However, some say: “Even in such monasteries, taking five or six monks and starting from a corner of the monastery, they should stand continuously in every bed-sized space within a clod’s throw, both inside and outside the monastery perimeter. First, the non-separation boundary, and then the common-residence boundary, are to be abolished by the method of removal. When the boundary has been thus uprooted, if a sectional boundary or a great boundary exists in that monastery, those monks, standing in their midst within a single bed-sized space, must abolish them. Then, only the village boundary would remain. Here, knowledge of the boundary or its delimitation is not a factor; rather, the factors are standing inside the boundary and performing the formal act, stating, ‘We will abolish it.’ In the commentary, it is said: ‘Those who know the sectional boundary but do not know the non-separation boundary can still abolish and establish it.’ Thus, since the abolition is mentioned even when the delimitation of the great boundary is not known, and since only the village boundary remains, it is permissible to establish either type of boundary there as desired and to perform formal acts such as ordination.” This seems reasonable and should be accepted after careful consideration—this is the decision that has come down in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144). However, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.144) states: “The statement ‘the non-separation boundary should not be abolished’ is said with reference to the great boundary. ‘Standing in places free from doubt’ is said because there is no room for a sectional boundary in places like shrine courtyards. For when establishing a sectional boundary, they avoid such a place and establish it in another secluded space. ‘It is possible that they will be able to abolish’ means they will be able to abolish only the non-separation boundary, not the sectional boundary. ‘But they will not be able to re-establish it’ means they will not be able to, because the sectional boundary is unknown to them. ‘It should not be abolished’ means it should not be abolished by those who do not know the sectional boundary.”

166. Evaṃ [Pg.326] baddhasīmāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni abaddhasīmāvinicchayaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘abaddhasīmā panā’’ti āha. Sā katividhāti āha ‘‘gāmasīmā sattabbhantarasīmā udakukkhepasīmāti tividhā’’ti. Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 147) ‘‘asammatāya, bhikkhave, sīmāyā’’tiādinā gāmasīmā eva baddhasīmāya khettaṃ araññanadīādayo viya sattabbhantaraudakukkhepādīnaṃ, sā ca gāmasīmā baddhasīmāya rahitaṭṭhāne sayameva samānasaṃvāsā hotīti dasseti. ‘‘Yā tassa gāmassa gāmasīmā’’ti ettha gāmaparikkhepassa anto ca bahi ca khettavatthuaraññapabbatādikaṃ sabbaṃ gāmakkhettaṃ sandhāya ‘‘gāmassā’’ti vuttaṃ, na antaragharameva, tasmā tassa sakalassa gāmakkhettassa sambandhanīyā gāmasīmāti evamattho gahetabbo. Yo hi so antaragharakhettādīsu anekesu bhūmibhāgesu ‘‘gāmo’’ti ekattena lokajanehi paññatto gāmavohāro, sova idha ‘‘gāmasīmā’’tipi vuccatīti adhippāyo. Gāmo eva hi gāmasīmā. Imināva nayena upari araññaṃ nadī samuddo jātassaroti, evaṃ tesu tesu bhūmippadesesu ekattena lokajanapaññattānameva araññādīnaṃ araññasīmādibhāvo veditabbo, loke pana gāmasīmādivohāro gāmādīnaṃ mariyādāyameva vattuṃ vaṭṭati, na gāmakkhettādīsu sabbattha. Sāsane pana te gāmādayo itaranivattiatthena sayameva attano mariyādāti katvā gāmo eva gāmasīmā, araññameva araññasīmā, samuddo eva samuddasīmāti sīmāvohārena vuttāti veditabbo. Pāḷiyaṃ nigamassa vāti idaṃ gāmasīmappabhedaṃ upalakkhaṇavasena dassetuṃ vuttaṃ. Tenāha ‘‘nagarampi gahitamevā’’ti.

166. Having thus explained the determination of a bounded boundary, to now explain the determination of an unbounded boundary, it is said: “As for an unbounded boundary…” It is said: “It is of three kinds: the village boundary, the seven-abbhantara boundary, and the water-splash boundary.” In the Pāli (Mahāvagga 147), with the phrase “Monks, in an unconsecrated boundary…,” it is shown that the village boundary itself is the domain for a bounded boundary, just as forests, rivers, and so on are for the seven-abbhantara and water-splash boundaries; and that this village boundary, in a place free from a bounded boundary, itself becomes one of common residence. In the phrase “the village boundary of that village,” the term “of the village” is used with reference to the entire village territory—including fields, grounds, forests, mountains, and so on, both inside and outside the village enclosure—not just the area between houses. Therefore, the meaning to be understood is that the village boundary pertains to the entire village territory. For that which is designated by worldly people with the single term “village” across various divisions of land, such as the area between houses and the fields, is here also called the “village boundary”—this is the intention. Indeed, the village itself is the village boundary. By this same method, with regard to the forest, river, ocean, or natural lake mentioned further on, it should be understood that the state of being a forest boundary, and so on, belongs to those very forests, etc., which are designated as single entities by worldly people. In the world, however, the term “village boundary” and so on may properly be used only for the limits of villages, etc., not for all village territories everywhere. But in the Dispensation, since those villages, etc., are their own limits by virtue of excluding others, it should be understood that they are spoken of with the term “boundary” as: the village itself is the village boundary, the forest itself is the forest boundary, the ocean itself is the ocean boundary. In the Pāli, the phrase “or of a market town” is stated to show the classification of village boundaries by way of illustration. Hence it is said: “A city is also included.”

Baliṃ labhantīti idaṃ yebhuyyavasena vuttaṃ. ‘‘Ayaṃ gāmo ettako karīsabhāgo’’tiādinā pana rājapaṇṇesu āropitesu [Pg.327] bhūmibhāgesu yasmiṃ yasmiṃ taḷākamātikāsusānapabbatādike padese baliṃ na gaṇhanti, sopi gāmasīmā eva. Rājādīhi paricchinnabhūmibhāgo hi sabbova ṭhapetvā nadīloṇijātassare gāmasīmāti veditabbā. Tenāha ‘‘paricchinditvā rājā kassaci detī’’ti. Sace pana tattha rājā kañci padesaṃ gāmantarena yojeti, so paviṭṭhagāmasīmataṃ eva bhajati. Nadījātassare vināsetvā taḷākādibhāvaṃ vā pūretvā khettādibhāvaṃ vā pāpitesupi eseva nayo.

The statement, “They receive tribute,” is said as a general rule. But in the case of portions of land assigned in royal decrees, such as, “This village has so many karīsas of land,” even in those places where tribute is not collected—such as ponds, canals, charnel grounds, and mountains—that too is the village boundary. For any portion of land demarcated by a king and others is to be understood as the village boundary, with the exception of rivers, salt-water areas, and natural lakes. Hence it is said: “A king demarcates it and gives it to someone.” If, however, a king joins a certain place to another village, it becomes part of the boundary of the village it has entered. This same principle applies even if rivers or natural lakes are destroyed and made into ponds, or filled in and made into fields.

Ye pana gāmā rājacorādibhayapīḷitehi manussehi chaḍḍitā cirampi nimmanussā tiṭṭhanti, samantā pana gāmā santi, tepi pāṭekkaṃ gāmasīmāva. Tesu hi rājāno samantagāmavāsīhi kasāpetvā vā yehi kehici kasitaṭṭhānaṃ likhitvā vā baliṃ gaṇhanti, aññena vā gāmena ekībhāvaṃ upanenti, ye pana gāmā rājūhipi pariccattā gāmakhettānantarikā mahāaraññena ekībhūtā, te agāmakāraññasīmataṃ pāpuṇanti, purimā gāmasīmā vinassati, rājāno pana ekasmiṃ araññādipadese mahantaṃ gāmaṃ katvā anekasahassāni kulāni vāsāpetvā tattha vāsīnaṃ bhogagāmāti samantā bhūtagāme paricchinditvā denti, purāṇanāmaṃ pana paricchedañca na vināsenti, tepi paccekaṃ gāmasīmā eva, ettāvatā purimagāmasīmataṃ na vijahanti. Sā ca itarā cātiādi ‘‘samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā’’ti pāḷipadassa (mahāva. 143) adhippāyavivaraṇaṃ. Tattha hi sā ca rājicchāvasena parivattetvā samuppannā abhinavā, itarā ca aparivattā pakatigāmasīmā yathā baddhasīmāya sabbaṃ saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, evametāpi sabbakammārahatāsadisena baddhasīmāsadisā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathāti adhippāyo[Pg.328]. Sāmaññato ‘‘baddhasīmāsadisā’’ti vutte ticīvarāvippavāsasīmaṃ baddhasīmaṃ eva maññantīti taṃsadisatānivattanamukhena uparisattabbhantarasīmāya taṃsadisatāpi atthīti dassananayassa idheva pasaṅgaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘kevala’’ntiādi vuttaṃ.

As for those villages that have been abandoned by people oppressed by fear of kings, thieves, and so on, and remain uninhabited for a long time, if there are other villages surrounding them, they each constitute a separate village boundary. For in such cases, kings collect tribute either by having the residents of the surrounding villages cultivate the land, or by recording the cultivated areas, or they unify them with another village. However, those villages that have been relinquished even by kings, their fields being contiguous with a great wilderness and merged with it, attain the status of a non-village forest boundary; the former village boundary ceases to exist. But when kings establish a large village in a forest region, settling thousands of families there, and demarcate the surrounding inhabited lands and grant them as a revenue village for those residents, they do not abolish the old names or boundaries. These too are each a village boundary; by this much, they do not abandon their former status as a village boundary. The phrase “both that one and the other” and so on is an explanation of the meaning of the Pāli phrase “of common residence, with a single Uposatha” (Mahāvagga 143). Therein, “that one” (sā) is the new boundary that has arisen through alteration by the king’s will, and “the other” (itarā) is the unaltered, natural village boundary. The meaning is that just as it is permissible to perform all formal acts of the Sangha within a bounded boundary, so too are these boundaries, being similar to a bounded boundary in their suitability for all formal acts, of “common residence, with a single Uposatha.” When it is said generally that they are “like a bounded boundary,” some might think that a bounded boundary is only the boundary for not being separated from the three robes. To show that the similarity also exists with the seven-abbhantara boundary mentioned further on, and to refute that limited understanding, the word “only” (kevalaṃ) and so on is stated here to indicate the relevance of this method of explanation.

Viñjhāṭavisadise araññeti yattha ‘‘asukagāmassa idaṃ khetta’’nti gāmavohāro natthi, yattha ca neva kasanti na vapanti, tādise araññe. Macchabandhānaṃ agamanapathā nimmanussāvāsā samuddantaradīpakāpi ettheva saṅgayhanti. Yaṃ yañhi agāmakkhettabhūtaṃ nadīsamuddajātassaravirahitapadesaṃ, taṃ sabbaṃ araññasīmāti veditabbaṃ. Sā ca sattabbhantarasīmaṃ vinā sayameva samānasaṃvāsā baddhasīmāsadisā, nadīādisīmāsu viya sabbamettha saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Nadīsamuddajātassarānaṃ tāva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘attano sabhāveneva baddhasīmāsadisā’’tiādinā vuttattā sīmatā siddhā. Araññassa pana sīmatā kathanti? Sattabbhantarasīmānujānanasuttādisāmatthiyato. Yathā hi gāmasīmāya vaggakammaparihāratthaṃ bahū baddhasīmāyo anuññātā, tāsañca dvinnaṃ antarā aññamaññaṃ asambhedatthaṃ sīmantarikā anuññātā, evamidha araññepi sattabbhantarasīmā. Tāsañca dvinnaṃ antarāpi sīmantarikāya pāḷiaṭṭhakathāsu vidhānasāmatthiyato araññassapi sabhāveneva nadīādīnaṃ viya sīmabhāvo tattha vaggakammaparihāratthameva sattabbhantarasīmāya anuññātattāva siddhoti veditabbaṃ. Tattha sīmāyameva hi ṭhitā sīmaṭṭhānaṃ vaggakammaṃ karonti, na asīmāyaṃ ākāse ṭhitā viya ākāsaṭṭhānaṃ. Evameva hi sāmatthiyaṃ gahetvā ‘‘sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā’’tiādinā (mahāva. 147) paṭikkhittabaddhasīmānampi nadīsamuddajātassarānaṃ attano sabhāveneva sīmabhāvo aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) vuttoti gahetabbo.

A forest is a place similar to the Viñjhāṭavī forest, where there is no village designation such as, 'This is the field of such-and-such village,' and where they neither plow nor sow—in such a forest. Paths not frequented by fishermen, uninhabited dwellings, and islands in the middle of the sea are also included herein. Indeed, any place that is not village-land or a field, and is devoid of rivers, seas, or natural lakes, should be understood as a forest boundary. And that boundary, apart from a seven-abbhantara boundary, is by its very nature like a fixed boundary for those of common residence; just as all Sangha acts are permissible within river boundaries and the like, so too is it proper to perform all Sangha acts here. As for rivers, seas, and natural lakes, their status as a boundary is established in the commentary, which states: 'By their very nature, they are like fixed boundaries,' and so forth. But how is the boundary of a forest established? By the authority of the suttas that permit a seven-abbhantara boundary, and so on. For just as many fixed boundaries are permitted within a village boundary to avoid a factional act, and an intermediate boundary is permitted between two of them to prevent their overlapping, so too in a forest there is a seven-abbhantara boundary. And from the authority of the provisions in the Pāli and the commentaries for an intermediate boundary between two of these, it should be understood that a forest, too, by its very nature, has the status of a boundary, like rivers and so on, precisely because the seven-abbhantara boundary is permitted there for the purpose of avoiding a factional act. For it is those standing within the boundary itself who perform the Sangha act for the boundary-place, not like those standing in an unbounded place, as if in the sky, performing an act for the sky-place. It is by grasping this same principle that it should be understood that although a fixed boundary is rejected for rivers, seas, and natural lakes in the passage beginning, 'All rivers, O monks, are without a boundary,' their status as a boundary by their very nature is stated in the commentary.

Athassa [Pg.329] ṭhitokāsatoti tassa bhikkhussa ṭhitokāsato. Sacepi hi bhikkhusahassaṃ tiṭṭhati, tassa ṭhitokāsassa bāhirantato paṭṭhāya bhikkhūnaṃ vaggakammaparihāratthaṃ sīmāpekkhāya uppannāya tāya saha sayameva uppannā sattabbhantarasīmā samānasaṃvāsakāti adhippāyo. Yattha pana khuddake araññe mahantehi bhikkhūhi paripuṇṇatāya vaggakammasaṅkābhāvena sattabbhantarasīmāpekkhā natthi, tattha sattabbhantarasīmā na uppajjati. Kevalāraññasīmāyameva, tattha saṅghena kammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Nadīādīsupi eseva nayo. Vakkhati hi ‘‘sace nadī nātidīghā hoti, pabhavato paṭṭhāya yāva mukhadvārā sabbattha saṅgho nisīdati, udakukkhepasīmāya kammaṃ natthī’’tiādi (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 167), iminā eva ca vacanena vaggakammaparihāratthaṃ sīmāpekkhāya sati eva udakukkhepasattabbhantarasīmā uppajjanti, nāsatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

And 'from his standing-place' means from the standing-place of that monk. Even if a thousand monks are standing, starting from the outer edge of their standing-place, for the purpose of avoiding a factional act among the monks, when the need for a boundary arises, a seven-abbhantara boundary arises by itself together with it for those of common residence—this is the meaning. However, in a small forest where, due to being filled with many monks, there is no suspicion of a factional act and thus no need for a seven-abbhantara boundary, a seven-abbhantara boundary does not arise there. The Sangha should perform the act within the simple forest boundary alone. The same principle applies to rivers and the like. For it will be said: 'If a river is not too long, and the Sangha sits everywhere from its source to its mouth, there is no act involving a water-throwing boundary,' and so forth. And by this very statement, it should be seen that a water-throwing boundary or a seven-abbhantara boundary arises only when there is a need for a boundary to avoid a factional act, and not when there is no such need.

Keci pana ‘‘samantā abbhantaraṃ minitvā paricchedakaraṇeneva sīmā sañjāyati, na sayamevā’’ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Yadi hi abbhantaraparicchedakaraṇappakārena sīmā uppajjeyya, abaddhasīmāva na siyā bhikkhūnaṃ kiriyāpakārasiddhito. Apica vaḍḍhakihatthānaṃ pakatihatthānañca loke anekavidhattā, vinaye ‘‘īdisaṃ hatthapamāṇa’’nti avuttattā ca ‘‘yena kenaci minite bhagavatā anuññātena nu kho hatthena minitaṃ, na nu kho’’ti sīmāya vipattisaṅkā bhaveyya, minantehi ca anumattampi ūnamadhikamakatvā minituṃ asakkuṇeyyatāya vipatti eva siyā, parisavasena cāyaṃ vaḍḍhamānā tesaṃ minanena vaḍḍhati, hāyati vā. Saṅghe ca kammaṃ katvā gate ayaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ payogena samuppannā sīmā tesaṃ payogena vigacchati na vigacchati ca, kathaṃ baddhasīmā viya yāva sāsanantaradhānā na tiṭṭheyya, ṭhitiyā ca purāṇavihāresu [Pg.330] viya sakalepi visuṃ araññe katasīmā sambhedasaṅkā na bhaveyya, tasmā sīmāpekkhāya eva samuppajjati, tabbigamena vigacchatīti gahetabbaṃ. Yathā cettha, evaṃ udakukkhepasīmāyampi nadīādīsupi.

Some, however, say, 'The boundary is established only by measuring the interior all around and making a delimitation; it does not arise by itself.' This should not be accepted. For if a boundary were to arise by the method of delimiting the interior, it would not be an unfixed boundary at all, since its establishment would be due to the monks' procedural action. Moreover, since carpenters' cubits and ordinary cubits are of many kinds in the world, and since the Vinaya does not state, 'This is the measure of a cubit,' a doubt about the invalidity of the boundary would arise: 'Was it measured with a cubit authorized by the Blessed One, or not?' And because those measuring would be unable to measure without making it even slightly deficient or excessive, there would surely be an invalidity. Also, depending on the assembly, this boundary increases or decreases by their measurement. And when the Sangha, having performed an act, has departed, does this boundary that arose through the monks' effort disappear through their effort, or does it not? How could it not remain until the disappearance of the Dispensation, like a fixed boundary? And how, as in ancient monasteries, could there not be a risk of confusion with all the separately made boundaries in the forest? Therefore, it should be understood that the boundary arises only in dependence on the need for it and disappears when that need ceases. As it is here, so it is also for the water-throwing boundary in rivers and so on.

Tatthāpi hi majjhimapuriso na paññāyati, tathā sabbathāmena khipanaṃ, ubhayatthapi ca yassaṃ disāyaṃ sattabbhantarassa, udakukkhepassa vā okāso nappahoti, tattha kathaṃ minanaṃ, khipanaṃ vā bhaveyya, gāmakkhettādīsu pavisanato akhette sīmā paviṭṭhā kinnāma sīmā na vipajjeyya. Apekkhāya sīmuppattiyaṃ pana yato pahoti, tattha sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmā sayameva paripuṇṇā jāyanti. Yato pana nappahoti, tattha attano khettappamāṇeneva jāyanti, na bahi. Yaṃ panettha abbhantaraminanappamāṇassa vālukādikhipanakammassa ca dassanaṃ, taṃ sayaṃjātasīmānaṃ ṭhitaṭṭhānassa paricchedanatthaṃ kataṃ gāmūpacāragharūpacārajānanatthaṃ leḍḍusuppādikhipanavidhānadassanaṃ viya. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. ūnavīsativassasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) ‘‘sīmaṃ vā sammannati, udakukkhepaṃ vā paricchindatī’’ti vuttaṃ. Evaṃ katepi tassa paricchedassa yāthāvato ñātuṃ asakkuṇeyyattena puthulato ñatvā anto tiṭṭhantehi nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne ṭhātabbaṃ, aññaṃ bahi karontehi atidūre nirāsaṅkaṭṭhāne pesetabbaṃ.

For in that case too, a man of medium build is not specified, and likewise for throwing with all one's strength. And in both cases, in whatever direction there is not enough space for a seven-abbhantara or a water-throwing boundary, how could measuring or throwing occur there? By entering village fields and so on, the boundary would enter a non-field; how could such a boundary not be invalid? However, in the case of a boundary arising in dependence on need, wherever there is sufficient space, the seven-abbhantara and water-throwing boundaries arise complete by themselves. But where there is not sufficient space, they arise only to the extent of their own area, not beyond it. The demonstration here of measuring the interior or the act of throwing sand and so forth is done for the purpose of delimiting the location of the self-arisen boundaries, just like showing the method of throwing a clod of earth to determine the vicinity of a village or a house. For this reason, it is said in the Mātikā Commentary: 'One either authorizes a boundary or delimits a water-throwing boundary.' Even when this is done, because it is impossible to know that delimitation with exactness, those standing inside should, after knowing it approximately, stand in a place free from doubt. Those putting another person outside should send him to a place very far away that is free from doubt.

Apare pana ‘‘sīmāpekkhāya kiccaṃ natthi, maggagamananahānādiatthehi ekabhikkhusmimpi araññe vā nadīādīsu vā paviṭṭhe taṃ parikkhipitvā sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmā sayameva pabhā viya padīpassa samuppajjati. Gāmakkhettādīsu tasmiṃ otiṇṇamatte vigacchati. Tenevettha dvinnaṃ saṅghānaṃ visuṃ kammaṃ karontānaṃ sīmādvayassa antarā sīmantarikaṃ aññaṃ sattabbhantaraṃ udakukkhepañca ṭhapetuṃ anuññātaṃ. Sīmāpariyante hi kenaci kammena [Pg.331] pesitassa bhikkhuno samantā sañjātā sīmā itaresaṃ sīmāya phusitvā sīmāsambhedaṃ kareyya, so mā hotūti vā, itarathā hatthacaturaṅgulamattāyapettha sīmantarikāya anujānitabbato. Apica sīmantarikāya ṭhitassa ubhayattha kammakopavacanatopi cetaṃ sijjhati tampi parikkhipitvā sayameva sañjātāya sīmāya ubhinnampi sīmānaṃ, ekāya eva vā saṅkarato. Itarathā tassa kammakopavacanaṃ na yujjeyya. Vuttañhi mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘paricchedabbhantare hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhitopi paricchedato bahi aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopetī’ti. Kiñca agāmakāraññe ṭhitassa kammakaraṇicchāvirahitassapi bhikkhuno sattabbhantaraparicchinne abbhokāse cīvaravippavāso bhagavatā anuññāto, so ca paricchedo sīmā, evaṃ apekkhaṃ vinā samuppannā. Tenevettha ‘ayaṃ sīmā cīvaravippavāsaparihārampi labhatī’ti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) vuttaṃ, tasmā kammakaraṇicchaṃ vināpi vuttanayena samuppatti gahetabbā’’ti vadanti. Taṃ na yuttaṃ padīpapabhā viya sabbapuggalānampi paccekaṃ sīmāsambhavena saṅghe, gaṇe vā kammaṃ karonte tattha ṭhitānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ samantā paccekaṃ samuppannānaṃ anekasīmānaṃ aññamaññaṃ saṅkaradosappasaṅgato. Parisavasena cassā vaḍḍhi hāni ca sambhavati, pacchā āgatānaṃ abhinavasīmantaruppatti eva, gatānaṃ samantā ṭhitasīmāvināso ca bhaveyya.

Others, however, say: 'There is no need for an intention regarding a sīmā. When a single monk enters a forest or rivers, etc., for the purpose of walking, bathing, and so on, a seven-abbhantara water-throwing boundary arises of its own accord, encompassing him, like the light of a lamp. As soon as he enters villages or fields, it disappears. Therefore, when two separate Saṅghas perform distinct acts, it is permitted to establish an intermediate space (sīmantarikā) of another seven abbhantaras and a water-throwing distance between their two sīmās. If a monk sent for any act stands at the edge of a sīmā, the sīmā that arises around him might touch the sīmā of the others, causing a mingling of sīmās. This is to prevent that from happening; otherwise, an intermediate space of merely four finger-widths would have to be permitted here. Moreover, this is also established from the declaration that an act is invalidated in both cases for one standing in a sīmantarikā, because the sīmā that has arisen of its own accord encompassing him would cause a mingling of both sīmās, or of one with the other. Otherwise, the declaration that he invalidates the act would not be logical. For it is said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, Nidānavannanā): ‘Even if one stands within the boundary, having gone beyond hand’s reach, or stands outside the boundary without having crossed another equivalent boundary, one invalidates the act.’ Furthermore, for a monk in a non-village wilderness who has no intention to perform an act, the Blessed One has permitted the leaving of robes unattended in an open space demarcated by seven abbhantaras, and that demarcation is a sīmā, thus arising without intention. Hence, it is said: ‘This sīmā also obtains the exemption for leaving robes.’ Therefore, they say, its arising should be understood as described, even without the intention to perform an act.' This is not proper, however, because of the consequence of the fault of many sīmās mingling with one another, which would arise individually around each monk standing there when the Saṅgha or a group performs an act, due to the arising of a sīmā for each and every person, like the light of a lamp. And its expansion and contraction would be possible according to the assembly; for those who arrive later, there would be the arising of a new intermediate sīmā, and for those who depart, the destruction of the sīmā standing around them.

Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 147) pana ‘‘samantā sattabbhantarā, ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā’’tiādinā ekā eva sattabbhantarā udakukkhepā ca anuññātā, na cesā sīmā sabhāvena, kāraṇasāmatthiyena vā pabhā viya padīpassa uppajjati, kintu [Pg.332] bhagavato anujānaneneva. Bhagavā ca imā anujānanto bhikkhūnaṃ vaggakammaparihārena kammakaraṇasukhatthameva anuññāsīti kathaṃ nahānādikiccena paviṭṭhānampi samantā tāsaṃ sīmānaṃ samuppatti payojanābhāvā, payojane ca ekaṃ eva payojananti kathaṃ paccekaṃ bhikkhugaṇanāya anekasīmāsamuppatti. ‘‘Ekasīmāya hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā ṭhitā’’ti (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) hi vuttaṃ. Yaṃ pana dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ antarā tattakaparicchedeneva sīmantarikāṭhapanavacanaṃ, tattha ṭhitānaṃ kammakopavacanañca, tampi imāsaṃ sīmānaṃ paricchedassa dubbodhatāya sīmāya sambhedasaṅkaṃ kammakopasaṅkañca dūrato pariharituṃ vuttaṃ.

In the Pāḷi (Mahāva. 147), however, it is stated: 'Within seven abbhantaras all around, this is the same residence there,' and so on, thus only one seven-abbhantara and water-throwing boundary is permitted. Yet this sīmā does not arise inherently, or by the power of causes, like the light of a lamp, but arises solely by the permission of the Blessed One. And the Blessed One, in permitting this, did so solely for the ease of performing monastic acts by avoiding incomplete acts. So how, then, can the arising of such sīmās all around them be purposeful for those engaged in bathing and other duties, given that there is no purpose? And if there is a purpose, and that purpose is a single one, how could multiple sīmās arise according to the number of individual monks? For it is said (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavanṇanā): 'Standing without having left hand’s reach within a single sīmā.' However, the statement about establishing a sīmantarikā defined by that much intervening space between two sīmās, and the declaration of invalidation of an act for those standing there, was stated to prevent from afar any doubt regarding the difficulty in discerning the limits of these sīmās, the doubt of sīmā mingling, and the doubt of invalidation of an act.

Yo ca cīvaravippavāsatthaṃ bhagavatā abbhokāse dassito sattabbhantaraparicchedo, so sīmā eva na hoti, khettataḷākādiparicchedo viya ayamettha eko paricchedova. Tattha ca bahūsu bhikkhūsu ekato ṭhitesu tesaṃ visuṃ visuṃ attano ṭhitaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya samantā sattabbhantaraparicchedabbhantare eva cīvaraṃ ṭhapetabbaṃ, na parisapariyantato. Parisapariyantato paṭṭhāya hi abbhantare gayhamāne sattabbhantarapariyosāne ṭhapitacīvaraṃ majjhe ṭhitassa sattabbhantarato bahi hotīti taṃ aruṇuggamane nissaggiyaṃ siyā. Sīmā pana parisapariyantatova gahetabbā. Cīvaravippavāsaparihāropettha ajjhokāsaparicchedassa vijjamānattā vutto, na pana yāva sīmāparicchedaṃ labbhamānattā mahāsīmāya avippavāsasīmāvohāro viya. Mahāsīmāyampi hi gāmagāmūpacāresu cīvaraṃ nissaggiyaṃ hoti, idhāpi majjhe ṭhitassa sīmāpariyante nissaggiyaṃ hoti, tasmā yathāvuttasīmāpekkhāvaseneva tāsaṃ sattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmānaṃ uppatti, tabbigamena vināso ca gahetabboti [Pg.333] amhākaṃ khanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Añño vā pakāro ito yuttataro gavesitabbo.

And the seven-abbhantara demarcation shown by the Blessed One in the open space for the purpose of leaving robes is not a sīmā at all; it is merely a demarcation here, like the demarcation of fields or ponds. There, when many monks stand together, each should place his robe starting from his own standing position within the seven-abbhantara demarcation, not from the edge of the assembly. For if taken from the edge of the assembly, when the seven-abbhantara limit is reached, the robe placed at the limit would be outside the seven-abbhantara range for someone standing in the middle—thus, it would be liable to forfeiture at dawn. A sīmā, however, should be taken from the edge of the assembly itself. Here, the exemption for leaving robes is stated because the demarcation of the open space exists, but not because it is obtainable up to the sīmā demarcation, as is the designation 'non-separation sīmā' for a great sīmā. For even in a great sīmā, a robe is liable to forfeiture in the precincts of villages or hamlets. Here too, for someone standing in the middle, a robe is liable to forfeiture at the sīmā’s edge. Therefore, the arising of these seven-abbhantara and water-throwing sīmās should be understood to occur only by means of the aforesaid intention for a sīmā, and their destruction by his departure—this is our view. It should be examined carefully before accepting it. Alternatively, another more fitting method should be sought.

Idha pana ‘‘araññe samantā sattabbhantarā’’ti evaṃ pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 147), ‘‘viñjhāṭavisadise araññe samantā sattabbhantarā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyañca (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) rukkhādinirantarepi araññe sattabbhantarasīmāya vihitattā attano nissayabhūtāya araññasīmāya saha etissā rukkhādisambandhe dosābhāvo, pageva agāmake rukkheti nissitepi padese cīvaravippavāsassa rukkhaparihāraṃ vināva ajjhokāsaparihāro ca anumatoti siddhoti veditabbaṃ.

Here, in the Pāḷi (Mahāva. 147), it is stated: 'In the wilderness, within seven abbhantaras all around,' and in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 147): 'In a wilderness similar to the Viñjhāṭavi forest, within seven abbhantaras all around.' Even in a wilderness dense with trees and so on, since a seven-abbhantara sīmā is prescribed, it should be understood that there is no fault in the connection of trees and so on with this sīmā, which is a wilderness sīmā serving as one's support. How much more so is it established that even in a place relied upon as a tree in a non-village area, the exemption for leaving robes in the open space is permitted even without avoiding trees.

Upacāratthāyāti sīmantarikatthāya. Sattabbhantarato adhikaṃ vaṭṭati, ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭati eva sattabbhantaraparicchedassa dubbijānattā. Tasmā saṅghaṃ vinā ekenapi bhikkhunā bahi tiṭṭhantena aññaṃ sattabbhantaraṃ atikkamitvā dūre eva ṭhātabbaṃ. Itarathā kammakopasaṅkarato. Udakukkhepepi eseva nayo. Teneva vakkhati ‘‘ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatī’’ti (vi. saṅga.aṭṭha. 167). Idañcettha sīmantarikāvidhānaṃ dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ sīmantarikānujānanasuttānulomato siddhanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Kiñcāpi hi bhagavatā nidānavasena ekagāmanissitānaṃ ekasabhāgānañca dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānameva aññamaññaṃ sambhedaajjhottharaṇadosaparihārāya sīmantarikā anuññātā, tathāpi tadanulomato ekaṃ araññasīmaṃ nadīādisīmañca nissitānaṃ ekasabhāgānaṃ dvinnaṃ sattabbhantarasīmānampi udakukkhepasīmānampi aññamaññaṃ sambhedajjhottharaṇaṃ, sīmantarikaṃ vinā abyavadhānena ṭhānañca bhagavatā anabhimatamevāti ñatvā aṭṭhakathācariyā idhāpi sīmantarikāvidhānamakaṃsu. Visabhāgasīmānampi hi ekasīmānissitattaṃ ekasabhāgattañcāti dvīhaṅgehi samannāgame sati [Pg.334] eva sīmantarikaṃ vinā ṭhānaṃ sambhedāya hoti, nāsatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Sīmantarikavidhānasāmatthiyeneva cetāsaṃ rukkhādisambandhopi baddhasīmā viya aññamaññaṃ na vaṭṭatīti ayampi nayato dassitovāti gahetabbaṃ.

For the purpose of proximity means for the sake of a sīmantarikā. More than seven abbhantaras is permissible, but less is not permissible, because the seven-abbhantara demarcation is difficult to discern. Therefore, even a single monk standing outside, without the Sangha, must stand far away, having crossed another seven abbhantaras. Otherwise, there is invalidation of the act and mingling. The same principle applies to the water-throwing boundary. Thus it will be said: “But less is not permissible” (Vin. Sangha. Aṭṭha. 167). Here, this rule of sīmantarikā should be understood as established in accordance with the sutta permitting a sīmantarikā between two bounded sīmās. For although the Blessed One, based on the origin story, permitted a sīmantarikā only between two bounded sīmās dependent on a single village and of the same kind—to prevent the faults of mingling and overlapping—nevertheless, by the same reasoning, knowing that the mingling and overlapping of two seven-abbhantara sīmās and water-throwing sīmās, even those dependent on a forest sīmā or a river sīmā, if they are of the same kind, and standing without an intervening sīmantarikā, is not approved by the Blessed One, the commentary masters prescribed the rule of sīmantarikā here as well. For even with dissimilar sīmās, when endowed with the two factors of dependence on a single sīmā and being of the same kind, standing without a sīmantarikā results in mingling; otherwise, it does not. By the very power of the sīmantarikā rule, their connection to trees and so forth is not permissible with one another, just as with bounded sīmās; this too should be understood as shown by way of principle.

167. Sabhāvenevāti iminā gāmasīmā viya abaddhasīmāti dasseti. Sabbamettha saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathāti dasseti. Yena kenacīti antamaso sūkarādinā sattena. Mahoghena pana uṇṇataṭṭhānato ninnaṭṭhāne patantena khato khuddako vā mahanto vā lakkhaṇayutto ‘‘jātassaro’’tveva vuccati. Etthapi khuddake udakukkhepakiccaṃ natthi. Samudde pana sabbattha udakukkhepasīmāyameva kammaṃ kātabbaṃ sodhetuṃ dukkarattā. Puna tatthāti lokavohārasiddhīsu eva tāsu nadīādīsu tīsu abaddhasīmāsu puna vaggakammaparihāratthaṃ sāsanavohārasiddhāya abaddhasīmāya paricchedaṃ dassentoti adhippāyo. Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 147) ‘‘yaṃ majjhimassa purisassā’’tiādīsu udakaṃ ukkhipitvā khipīyati etthāti udakukkhepo, udakassa patanokāso, tasmā udakukkhepā, ayañhettha padasambandhavasena attho – parisapariyantato paṭṭhāya samantā yāva majjhimassa purisassa udakukkhepo udakassa patanaṭṭhānaṃ, tāva yaṃ taṃ paricchinnaṭṭhānaṃ, ayaṃ tattha nadīādīsu aparā samānasaṃvāsā udakukkhepasīmāti.

167. “By its very nature”—this indicates that it is an unbounded boundary, like a village boundary. “All Sangha acts can be performed here”—this indicates that they have a common residence and a single Uposatha. “By any means”—even by an animal such as a pig. When a great flood, falling from a high place to a low place, creates a channel, whether small or large, that is endowed with the proper characteristics, it is called a “natural lake.” Here, even in a small one, the act of water-throwing is not necessary. In the ocean, however, the act must be performed everywhere within the water-throwing boundary, because it is difficult to clear. Again, “in those places”—the meaning is that in those three unbounded boundaries, such as rivers, established by worldly convention, he shows the demarcation of an unbounded boundary established by the convention of the Dispensation in order to prevent again an invalid act by an incomplete group. In the Pāḷi (Mahāvagga 147), in passages such as “of a man of middle stature,” etc., ‘water is thrown up and cast here,’ thus it is a udakukkhepa, the place where water falls. Therefore, it is a udakukkhepā (water-throwing boundary). Here, this is the meaning based on the connection of the words: starting from the edge of the assembly, all around, as far as the water-throw of a man of middle stature—that is, the place where the water falls—that defined area is another water-throwing boundary of common residence in rivers and so forth.

Tassa antoti tassa udakukkhepaparicchinnassa ṭhānassa anto. Na kevalañca tasseva anto, tato bahipi, ‘‘ekassa udakukkhepassa anto ṭhātuṃ na vaṭṭatī’’ti vacanaṃ udakukkhepaparicchedassa dubbijānato kammakopasaṅkā hotīti[Pg.335]. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘paricchedabbhantare hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhitopi paricchedato bahi aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopeti, idaṃ sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu sanniṭṭhāna’’nti vuttaṃ. Yaṃ panettha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147) ‘‘tassa antohatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhito kammaṃ kopetīti iminā paricchedato bahi yattha katthaci ṭhito kammaṃ na kopetī’’ti vatvā mātikāṭṭhakathāvacanampi paṭikkhipitvā ‘‘neva pāḷiyaṃ na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ upalabbhatī’’tiādi bahu papañcitaṃ, taṃ na sundaraṃ idha aṭṭhakathāvacanena mātikāṭṭhakathāvacanassa nayato saṃsandanato saṅghaṭanato. Tathā hi dvinnaṃ udakukkhepapaacchedānamantarā vidatthicaturaṅgulamattampi sīmantarikaṃ aṭhapetvā ‘‘añño udakukkhepo sīmantarikāya ṭhapetabbo, ‘‘tato adhikaṃ vaṭṭati eva, ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatī’’ti evaṃ idheva vuttena iminā aṭṭhakathāvacanena sīmantarikopacāre udakukkhepato ūnake ṭhapite sīmāya sīmāsambhedato kammakopopi vutto eva. Yadaggena ca evaṃ vutto, tadaggena ca tattha ekabhikkhuno pavesepi sati tassa sīmaṭṭhabhāvato kammakopo vutto eva hoti. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatī’’ti kathanañcetaṃ udakukkhepaparicchedassa dubbijānantenapi sīmāsambhedasaṅkāparihāratthaṃ vuttaṃ. Sattabbhantarasīmānamantarā tattakaparicchedeneva sīmantarikavidhānavacanatopi etāsaṃ dubbijānaparicchedatā, tattha ca ṭhitānaṃ kammakopasaṅkā sijjhati. Kammakopasaṅkaṭṭhānampi ācariyā dūrato parihāratthaṃ ‘‘kammakopaṭṭhāna’’nti vatvāva ṭhapesunti gahetabbaṃ.

“Its interior” means the interior of that area delimited by water-throwing. And not only its interior, but also outside it; for due to the difficulty in discerning the water-throwing demarcation, the statement “it is not permissible to stand within a single water-throwing boundary” gives rise to the suspicion of invalidating the act. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā), it is said: “Even if one stands having left a hand’s reach within the demarcated area, or stands outside the demarcation without transgressing another demarcation of the same extent, one still invalidates the act; this is the settled conclusion in all the commentaries.” However, what is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147)—“by this saying, ‘one who stands having left a hand’s reach within it invalidates the act,’ it implies that one standing anywhere outside the demarcation does not invalidate the act”—and thereby rejecting the statement of the Mātikāṭṭhakathā and elaborating at length, saying, “This is not found in the Pāḷi or the commentaries,” is not commendable here, since the commentary’s statement, according to the principle, coincides with and reinforces the Mātikāṭṭhakathā’s statement. For indeed, by this statement of the commentary spoken right here—(leaving aside an interval of a mere span and four fingerbreadths between two water-throwing demarcations)—namely, “another water-throwing distance should be established for the boundary interval; more than that is indeed permissible, but less is not,” it is stated that if less than a water-throwing distance is established in the proximity of the boundary interval, the act is invalidated due to the mingling of boundaries. And since it is stated in this way, it follows that if even a single bhikkhu enters there, because he is standing on the boundary, the invalidation of the act is also stated. And this statement in the commentary, “but less is not permissible,” is said in order to avoid the suspicion of boundary mingling, even for one who finds the water-throwing demarcation difficult to discern. From the statement prescribing a boundary interval of the same extent between seven-abbhantara boundaries, the difficulty in discerning these demarcations is established, and for those standing there, the suspicion of invalidating the act is established. It should be understood that the teachers, in order to prevent it from afar, established a place of suspicion of invalidating the act, calling it a “basis for invalidating the act.”

Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147) pana – aparicchinnāyāti baddhasīmāvasena akataparicchedāya. Yena kenaci khaṇitvā akatoti antamaso [Pg.336] tiracchānenapi khaṇitvā akato. Tassa antohatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhito kammaṃ kopetīti iminā paricchedato bahi yattha katthaci ṭhito kammaṃ na kopetīti dīpeti. Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ mātikāṭṭhakathāyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘paricchedabbhantare hatthapāsaṃ vijahitvā ṭhitopi paricchedato bahi aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopeti, idaṃ sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu sanniṭṭhāna’’nti. Tattha aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedaṃ anatikkamitvā ṭhitopi kammaṃ kopetīti idaṃ neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ upalabbhati, yadi cetaṃ dvinnaṃ saṅghānaṃ visuṃ uposathādikammakaraṇādhikāre vuttattā udakukkhepato bahi aññaṃ udakukkhepaṃ anatikkamitvā uposathādikaraṇatthaṃ ṭhito saṅgho sīmāsambhedasambhavato kammaṃ kopetīti iminā adhippāyena vuttaṃ siyā, evampi yujjeyya. Teneva mātikāṭṭhakathāya līnatthappakāsaniyaṃ (kaṅkhā. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā) vuttaṃ ‘‘aññaṃ tattakaṃyeva paricchedanti dutiyaṃ udakukkhepaṃ anatikkantopi kopeti. Kasmā? Attano udakukkhepasīmāya paresaṃ udakukkhepasīmāya ajjhotthaṭattā sīmāsambhedo hoti, tasmā kopetī’’ti. ‘‘Idaṃ sabbaaṭṭhakathāsu sanniṭṭhāna’’nti ca imināva adhippāyena vuttanti gahetabbaṃ sabbāsupi aṭṭhakathāsu sīmāsambhedassa anicchitattā. Teneva hi ‘‘attano ca aññesañca udakukkhepaparicchedassa antarā añño udakukkhepo sīmantarikatthāya ṭhapetabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Aññe panettha aññathāpi papañcenti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ.

In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.147), however, it is stated: “Aparicchinnāya” means not demarcated by way of a fixed boundary. “Yena kenaci khaṇitvā akato” means not dug by anyone whatsoever, not even by an animal. By the phrase “one who stands having left a hand’s reach within it invalidates the formal act,” it is shown that one standing anywhere outside the demarcation does not invalidate the formal act. As for what was said in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): “One who stands having left a hand’s reach within the demarcation, or one who stands outside the demarcation without transgressing another demarcation of the same extent, invalidates the formal act; this is the settled conclusion in all commentaries.” Herein, the statement “one who stands outside the demarcation without transgressing another demarcation of the same extent invalidates the formal act” is found neither in the Pāli Canon nor in the commentaries. If this were said with the intention that, in the section on two separate Sanghas performing formal acts such as the Uposatha, a Sangha standing outside the water-throwing boundary for the purpose of performing the Uposatha, etc., without transgressing another water-throwing boundary, would invalidate the formal act due to the possibility of boundary mingling, even so it would be acceptable. For that reason, it is said in the Līnatthappakāsanī, the sub-commentary to the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Ṭī. Nidānavaṇṇanā): “‘Another demarcation of the same extent’ means that one invalidates it even without transgressing a second water-throwing boundary. Why? Because one’s own water-throwing boundary overlaps with the water-throwing boundary of others, a mingling of boundaries occurs; therefore, one invalidates it.” And the statement “This is the settled conclusion in all commentaries” should be understood as having been said with this very intention, as the mingling of boundaries is not desired in any of the commentaries. For this very reason, it was said: “Between one’s own and others’ water-throwing demarcations, another water-throwing should be established for the purpose of a boundary interval.” Others, however, elaborate differently on this, but that should not be accepted.

Sabbattha saṅgho nisīdatīti hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā nisīdati. Udakukkhepasīmāya kammaṃ natthīti yasmā sabbopi nadīpadeso bhikkhūhi ajjhotthaṭo, tasmā samantato nadiyā [Pg.337] abhāvā udakukkhepappayojanaṃ natthi. Udakukkhepappamāṇā sīmantarikā suviññeyyatarā hoti, sīmāsambhedasaṅkā ca na siyāti sāmīcidassanatthaṃ ‘‘añño udakukkhepo sīmantarikatthāya ṭhapetabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Yattakena pana sīmāsambhedo na hoti, tattakaṃ ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatiyeva. Tenevāhu porāṇā ‘‘yattakena sīmāsambhedo na hoti, tattakampi ṭhapetuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti. Ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti idampi udakukkhepasīmāya parisavasena vaḍḍhanato sīmāsambhedasaṅkā siyāti tannivāraṇatthameva vuttanti vuttaṃ.

“The Sangha sits everywhere” means it sits without leaving a hand’s reach. “There is no formal act for a water-throwing boundary” means that since the entire river region is occupied by the bhikkhus, there is therefore no purpose for a water-throwing, due to the absence of a surrounding river. A boundary interval of the measure of a water-throwing becomes easier to discern, and there would be no suspicion of boundary mingling. To show what is proper, it was said, “Another water-throwing should be established for the purpose of a boundary interval.” However much is established whereby there is no boundary mingling, that much is indeed permissible to establish. Therefore the ancients said, “However much is established whereby there is no boundary mingling, that much is also permissible to establish.” As for “But a lesser amount is not permissible,” this too was said only to prevent any suspicion of boundary mingling, which might occur due to the expansion of the water-throwing boundary by way of the assembly.

Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyampi (vajira. ṭī. mahāvagga 147) – yaṃ majjhimassa purisassa samantā udakukkhepāti pana etissā nadiyā catuvaggādīnaṃ saṅghānaṃ visuṃ catuvaggakaraṇīyādikammakaraṇakāle sīmāparicchedadassanatthaṃ vuttaṃ ticīvarena vippavāsāvippavāsaparicchedadassanatthampi sattabbhantarasīmāya paricchedadassanaṃ viyāti ācariyā, tasmā udakukkhepaparicchedābhāvepi antonadiyaṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ. Ayaṃ pana viseso – tattha nāvāgato ce, nāvāyaṃ vuttanayena, satthagato ce, satthe vuttanayena. So ce atirekacātumāsanivuttho ce, gāme vuttanayena ticīvarāvippavāso veditabbo. Tatthāpi ayaṃ viseso – sace sattho udakukkhepassa anto hoti, udakukkhepasīmā pamāṇanti eke. Satthova pamāṇanti ācariyā. Sace panettha bahū bhikkhūtiādimhi keci adhiṭṭhānuposathaṃ, keci gaṇuposathaṃ, keci saṅghuposathanti vattukāmatāya ‘‘bahū saṅghā’’ti avatvā ‘‘bhikkhū’’ti vuttaṃ. Ūnakaṃ pana na vaṭṭatīti ettha sīmāsambhedasambhavatoti upatissatthero. Ṭhapente hi ūnakaṃ na ṭhapetabbaṃ, ‘‘aṭṭhapetumpi vaṭṭati evā’’ti vuttanti vuttaṃ.

In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 147) as well: The statement “the water-throwing all around a man of average height” is said to show the boundary demarcation on this river for Sanghas of four, etc., at the time of performing separate formal acts requiring a quorum of four, etc. The teachers say it is also to show the demarcation of separation and non-separation from the three robes, just as the demarcation of the seven-abbhantara boundary is shown. Therefore, it is established that even in the absence of a water-throwing demarcation, it is permissible to perform a formal act within the river. There is, however, this distinction: if one arrives by boat, the method stated for a boat applies; if by caravan, the method stated for a caravan applies. If one has resided for more than four months, the non-separation from the three robes should be understood according to the method stated for a village. Therein, there is also this distinction: if the caravan is within the water-throwing boundary, some say the water-throwing boundary is the measure. The teachers say the caravan itself is the measure. Further, in the phrase “if there are many bhikkhus here,” etc., the word “bhikkhus” is used instead of “Sanghas” because of the wish to speak of some performing an individual Uposatha, some a group Uposatha, and some a Sangha Uposatha. Regarding “But a lesser amount is not permissible,” here the Elder Upatissa says this is because of the possibility of boundary mingling. For when establishing it, a lesser amount should not be established; it is said, “It is permissible even not to establish it at all”—thus it is stated.

Tanti [Pg.338] sīmaṃ. Sīghameva atikkamatīti iminā taṃ anatikkamitvā anto eva parivattamānāya kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Etadatthameva hi vālikādīhi sīmāparicchindanaṃ, itarathā bahi parivattā nu kho, no vāti kammakopasaṅkā bhaveyyāti. Aññissā anussāvanāti kevalāya nadīsīmāya anussāvanā. Antonadiyaṃ jātarukkhe vāti udakukkhepaparicchedassa bahi ṭhite rukkhe vā. Bahinadītīrameva hi visabhāgasīmattā abandhitabbaṭṭhānaṃ, na antonadī nissayattena sabhāgattā. Teneva ‘‘bahinadītīre vihārasīmāya vā’’tiādinā tīrameva abandhitabbaṭṭhānattena dassitaṃ, na pana nadī. Jātarukkhepi ṭhitehīti idaṃ antoudakukkhepaṭṭhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Na hi bahiudakukkhepe bhikkhūnaṃ ṭhātuṃ vaṭṭati.

A thread boundary. By the phrase “it transgresses quickly,” it is shown that it is permissible to perform the act by turning around within it without transgressing it. For this very purpose, the boundary is demarcated with sand and the like; otherwise, a suspicion might arise that the formal act is invalidated, wondering, “Have they turned around outside or not?” “The announcement for another” means the announcement for a river boundary alone. “Inside the river or at a tree that has grown there” means at a tree standing outside the water-throwing demarcation. For the riverbank outside the river is indeed the place not to be bound, due to its being a dissimilar boundary, not the inside of the river, due to its being similar in terms of its support. For that reason, by the phrase “at the riverbank outside the river or at the monastery boundary,” etc., the riverbank itself is shown as the place not to be bound, not the river. The phrase “by those standing even at a tree that has grown there” is said with reference to a place within the water-throwing boundary. For it is not permissible for bhikkhus to stand outside the water-throwing boundary.

Rukkhassāti tasseva antoudakukkhepaṭṭhassa rukkhassa. Sīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti yathāvuttaṃ vihāre baddhasīmaṃ gāmasīmañca tattha ṭhitabhikkhūnaṃ hatthapāsānayanabahisīmakaraṇavaseneva sodhetvā. Yathā ca udakukkhepasīmāyaṃ kammaṃ karontehi, evaṃ baddhasīmāyaṃ vā gāmasīmāyaṃ vā kammaṃ karontehipi udakukkhepasīmaṭṭhe sodhetvāva kātabbaṃ. Eteneva sattabbhantaraaraññasīmāhipi saddhiṃ udakukkhepasīmāya, imāya ca saddhiṃ tāsaṃ rukkhādisambandhadosopi nayato dassitova hoti. Imināva nayena sattabbhantarasīmāya baddhasīmagāmasīmāhipi saddhiṃ, etāsañca sattabbhantarasīmāya saddhiṃ sambandhadoso ñātabbo. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ panetaṃ sabbaṃ vuttanayatova sakkā viññātunti aññamaññāsannānamevettha dassitaṃ.

“Of the tree” means of that very tree standing within the water-throwing boundary. “Or having cleared the boundary” means having cleared the fixed boundary in a monastery as stated, and the village boundary, by way of making an outer boundary by removing the hand’s reach of the bhikkhus standing there. And just as those performing a formal act within a water-throwing boundary must do, so too must those performing a formal act within a fixed boundary or a village boundary do so only after clearing those standing within the water-throwing boundary. By this very method, the fault of association with trees, etc., of the water-throwing boundary with the wilderness boundaries of seven abbhantaras, and of those with this, is also shown by implication. In the same way, the fault of association of the seven-abbhantara boundary with the fixed and village boundaries, and of these with the seven-abbhantara boundary, should be understood. In the commentary, however, all this can be understood according to the method stated, and only the mutual proximity of these is shown here.

Tatridaṃ suttānulomato nayaggahaṇamukhaṃ – yathā hi baddhasīmāyaṃ sammatā baddhasīmā vipattisīmā hotīti tāsaṃ aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandho na vaṭṭati, evaṃ nadīādīsu sammatāpi baddhasīmā vipattisīmāva hotīti tāhipi saddhiṃ tassā rukkhādisambandho [Pg.339] na vaṭṭatīti sijjhati. Iminā nayena sattabbhantarasīmāya gāmanadīādīhi saddhiṃ, udakukkhepasīmāya ca araññādīhi saddhiṃ rukkhādisambandhassanavaṭṭanakabhāvo ñātabbo, evametā bhagavatā anuññātā baddhasīmasattabbhantaraudakukkhepasīmā aññamaññañceva attano nissayavirahitāhi itarītarāsaṃ nissayasīmāhi ca rukkhādisambandhe sati sambhedadosamāpajjatīti suttānulomanayo ñātabbova.

Herein is the introduction to the method according to the Suttas: Just as a fixed boundary, when established within another fixed boundary, becomes an invalid boundary, and thus their mutual connection by trees and so forth is not permissible, so too, a fixed boundary established in rivers and so forth becomes an invalid boundary, and thus its connection with them by means of trees and so forth is not permissible; this is established. By this method, it should be understood that the connection by trees and so forth is not permissible for a seven-abbhantara boundary with a village, river, and so on, nor for a water-tossing boundary with a forest and so on. Thus, these fixed boundaries, seven-abbhantara boundaries, and water-tossing boundaries, permitted by the Blessed One, incur the fault of being mixed if there is a connection by trees and so forth with one another, or with other boundaries that are devoid of their own support, or with the respective supporting boundaries of one another. This is how the method conforming to the Suttas should be understood.

Attano attano pana nissayabhūtagāmādīhi saddhiṃ baddhasīmādīnaṃ tissannaṃ uppattikāle bhagavatā anuññātassa sambhedajjhottharaṇassa anulomanato rukkhādisambandhopi anuññātova hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ udakukkhepabaddhasīmādīnaṃ antarā kasmā sīmantarikā na vihitāti? Nissayabhedasabhāvabhedehi sayameva bhinnattā. Ekanissayaekasabhāvānameva hi sīmantarikāya vināsaṃ karotīti vuttovāyamattho. Eteneva nadīnimittaṃ katvā baddhāya sīmāya saṅghe kammaṃ karonte nadiyampi yāva gāmakkhettaṃ āhacca ṭhitāya udakukkhepasīmāya aññesaṃ kammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti siddhaṃ hoti. Yā panetā lokavohārasiddhā gāmāraññanadīsamuddajātassarasīmā pañca, tā aññamaññaṃ rukkhādisambandhepi sambhedadosaṃ nāpajjati tathā lokavohārābhāvato. Na hi gāmādayo gāmantarādīhi nadīādīhi ca rukkhādisambandhamattena sambhinnāti loke voharanti. Lokavohārasiddhānañca lokavohāratova sambhedo vā asambhedo vā gahetabbo, na aññathā. Teneva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ tāsaṃ aññamaññaṃ katthacipi sambhedanayo na dassito, sāsanavohārasiddho eva dassitoti.

However, it should be understood that a connection by trees and so forth is also permitted for these three types of boundaries—such as fixed boundaries—with their respective supporting villages and so on, in accordance with the mixing and overlapping permitted by the Blessed One at the time of their establishment. If this is so, why is an intermediate boundary not prescribed between a water-tossing boundary, a fixed boundary, and so on? Because they are distinct in themselves due to differences in their support and differences in their nature. For this meaning has been stated: an intermediate boundary causes the invalidation only of those that have a single support and a single nature. By this same reasoning, it is established that when the Sangha performs an act within a boundary fixed with a river as its marker, it is also permissible for others to perform an act in the river up to the village fields where the water-tossing boundary stands. Furthermore, the five types of boundaries established by worldly convention—village, wilderness, river, sea, and natural lake—do not incur the fault of being mixed even if connected by trees and so forth, due to the absence of such a worldly convention. For people in the world do not consider villages and so on to be mixed with other villages and so on, or with rivers and so on, merely by their connection to trees and so forth. For boundaries established by worldly convention, whether they are mixed or unmixed must be determined according to worldly usage itself, and not otherwise. Therefore, the commentaries do not present any method of mixing between them anywhere, showing only what is established by the conventions of the Dispensation.

Ettha pana baddhasīmāya tāva ‘‘heṭṭhā pathavīsandhārakaṃ udakaṃ pariyantaṃ katvā sīmā gatā hotī’’tiādinā adhobhāgaparicchedo [Pg.340] aṭṭhakathāyaṃ sabbathā dassito, gāmasīmādīnaṃ pana na dassito. Kathamayaṃ jānitabboti? Keci tāvettha ‘‘gāmasīmādayopi baddhasīmā viya pathavīsandhārakaṃ udakaṃ āhacca tiṭṭhatī’’ti vadanti.

Here, regarding the fixed boundary, the delimitation of its lower part is fully shown in the commentary with such phrases as, 'The boundary extends downward, making the water that supports the earth its limit.' For village boundaries and so on, however, it is not shown. How should this be understood? Some say in this regard, 'Village boundaries and so on, like fixed boundaries, also extend downward until they reach the water that supports the earth.'

Keci pana taṃ paṭikkhipitvā ‘‘nadīsamuddajātassarasīmā, tāva tannissitaudakukkhepasīmā ca pathaviyā uparitale heṭṭhā ca udakena ajjhottharaṇappadese eva tiṭṭhanti, na tato heṭṭhā udakassa ajjhottharaṇābhāvā. Sace pana udakoghādinā yojanappamāṇampi ninnaṭṭhānaṃ hoti, nadīsīmādayova honti, na tato heṭṭhā. Tasmā nadīādīnaṃ heṭṭhā bahitīramukhena umaṅgena, iddhiyā vā paviṭṭho bhikkhu nadiyaṃ ṭhitānaṃ kammaṃ na kopeti, so pana āsannagāme bhikkhūnaṃ kammaṃ kopeti. Sace pana so ubhinnaṃ tīragāmānaṃ majjhe nisinno hoti, ubhayagāmaṭṭhānaṃ kammaṃ kopeti. Sace pana tīraṃ gāmakkhettaṃ na hoti, agāmakāraññameva. Tattha pana tīradvayepi sattabbhantarasīmaṃ vinā kevalāya khuddakāraññasīmāyameva kammaṃ kopeti. Sace sattabbhantarasīmāya karonti, tadā yadi tesaṃ sattabbhantarasīmāya paricchedo etassa nisinnokāsassa parato ekaṃ sattabbhantaraṃ atikkamitvā ṭhito na kammakopo. No ce, kammakopo. Gāmasīmāyaṃ pana antoumaṅge vā bile vā khaṇitvā vā yattha pavisituṃ sakkā, yattha vā suvaṇṇamaṇiādiṃ khaṇitvā gaṇhanti, gahetuṃ sakkāti vā sambhāvanā hoti, tattakaṃ heṭṭhāpi gāmasīmā, tattha iddhiyā anto nisinnopi kammaṃ kopeti. Yattha pana pakatimanussānaṃ pavesasambhāvanāpi natthi, taṃ sabbaṃ yāva pathavīsandhārakaudakā araññasīmāva, na gāmasīmā. Araññasīmāyampi eseva nayo. Tatthapi hi yattake padese pavesasambhāvanā, tattakameva uparitale araññasīmā pavattati. Tato pana heṭṭhā na araññasīmā tattha uparitalena [Pg.341] saha ekāraññavohārābhāvato. Na hi tattha paviṭṭhaṃ araññaṃ paviṭṭhoti voharanti, tasmā tatraṭṭho upari araññaṭṭhānaṃ kammaṃ na kopeti umaṅganadiyaṃ ṭhito viya uparinadiyaṃ ṭhitānaṃ. Ekasmiñhi cakkavāḷe gāmanadīsamuddajātassare muñcitvā tadavasesaṃ amanussāvāsaṃ devabrahmalokaṃ upādāya sabbaṃ araññameva. ‘Gāmā vā araññā vā’ti vuttattā hi nadīsamuddajātassarādipi araññameva. Idha pana nadīādīnaṃ visuṃ sīmābhāvena gahitattā tadavasesameva araññaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Tattha ca yattake padese ekaṃ araññanti voharanti, ayamekā araññasīmā. Indapurañhi sabbaṃ ekāraññasīmā, tathā asurayakkhapurādi. Ākāsaṭṭhadevabrahmavimānāni pana samantā ākāsaparicchinnāni paccekaṃ araññasīmā samuddamajjhe pabbatadīpakā viya. Tattha sabbattha sattabbhantarasīmāyaṃ, araññasīmāyameva vā kammaṃ kātabbaṃ, tasmā idhāpi upariaraññatalena saddhiṃ heṭṭhāpathaviyā ekāraññavohārābhāvā visuṃ araññasīmāti gahetabbaṃ. Tenevettha gāmanadīādisīmākathāya aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ‘iddhimā bhikkhu heṭṭhāpathavitale ṭhito kammaṃ kopetī’ti baddhasīmāyaṃ dassitanayo na dassito’’ti vadanti.

Others, however, reject that and say: 'Boundaries of rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, as well as the water-tossing boundary dependent on them, exist only on the surface of the earth and below in the area saturated by water, not further below that, due to the absence of water saturation. If, however, there is a low-lying place even a league deep due to a flood or the like, it is still a river boundary and so on, but not below that. Therefore, a monk who enters below a river or the like through a tunnel with an opening outside the bank, or by means of psychic power, does not invalidate the formal act of those standing in the river. That monk, however, does invalidate the formal act of the monks in a nearby village. If he sits in the middle between two villages on opposite banks, he invalidates the formal acts of those in both villages. But if a bank is not village territory but is merely a non-village wilderness, then on both banks he invalidates a formal act only within a mere small wilderness boundary, apart from a seven-abbhantara boundary. If they perform the act within a seven-abbhantara boundary, then if the limit of that seven-abbhantara boundary extends beyond the place where he is sitting by one seven-abbhantara measure, there is no invalidation of the act. If not, there is invalidation. In the case of a village boundary, however, wherever one can enter—whether through a tunnel, a pit, or by digging—or wherever one can retrieve things like gold or gems by digging, or where there is a possibility of retrieval, the village boundary extends that far below as well. There, even a monk sitting inside by means of psychic power invalidates the formal act. But where there is no possibility of ordinary humans entering, all such places down to the water that supports the earth are a wilderness boundary, not a village boundary. This same principle applies to a wilderness boundary. For there too, the wilderness boundary on the surface extends only as far as there is a possibility of entry. Below that, it is not a wilderness boundary, because there is no unified designation of 'wilderness' for the area on the surface and the area below. For people do not say that one who has entered such a place below has 'entered the wilderness.' Therefore, one who is situated there does not invalidate the formal act of those in the wilderness above, just as one situated in a tunnel under a river does not invalidate the act of those in the river above. Indeed, in a single world-system, excluding villages, rivers, oceans, and natural lakes, all the rest—including the abodes of non-humans, devas, and brahmās—is wilderness. For since it is said, 'whether in a village or in a wilderness,' rivers, oceans, natural lakes, and so on are also wilderness. Here, however, since rivers and so on are taken as separate boundaries, only what remains should be taken as wilderness. And in that area, whatever region is designated as 'one wilderness' is a single wilderness boundary. For instance, all of Indapura is one wilderness boundary, as are the cities of asuras, yakkhas, and so on. The celestial and brahmic mansions situated in the sky, however, being delimited on all sides by space, are each a separate wilderness boundary, like mountainous islands in the middle of the ocean. In all those cases, a formal act should be performed either within a seven-abbhantara boundary or within a wilderness boundary alone. Therefore, here too, since there is no unified designation of 'wilderness' between the wilderness on the surface and the earth below, it should be taken as a separate wilderness. For this reason, here in the commentary's discussion of the boundaries of villages, rivers, and so on (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138), the principle shown for a fixed boundary—that 'a monk with psychic power standing below the surface of the earth invalidates the act'—is not shown for these other boundaries.' Thus they say.

Idañcetāsaṃ gāmasīmādīnaṃ heṭṭhāpamāṇadassanaṃ suttādivirodhābhāvā yuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ. Evaṃ gahaṇe ca gāmasīmāyaṃ sammatā baddhasīmā uparigāmasīmaṃ, heṭṭhā udakapariyantaṃ araññasīmañca avattharatīti tassā araññasīmāpi khettanti sijjhati. Bhagavatā ca ‘‘sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā’’tiādinā (mahāva. 147) nadīsamuddajātassarā baddhasīmāya akhettabhāvena vuttā, na pana araññaṃ, tasmā araññampi baddhasīmāya khettamevāti gahetabbaṃ. Yadi evaṃ kasmā [Pg.342] tattha sā na bajjhatīti? Payojanābhāvā. Sīmāpekkhānantarameva hi sattabbhantarasīmāya sambhavato, tassā ca upari sammatāya baddhasīmāya sambhedajjhottharaṇānulomato vipattisīmā eva siyā. Gāmakkhette pana ṭhatvā agāmakāraññekadesampi antokaritvā sammatā kiñcāpi susammatā agāmakāraññe bhagavatā vihitāya sattabbhantarasīmāyapi anivattanato, tattha pana kammaṃ kātuṃ paviṭṭhānampi tato bahi kevalāraññe karontānampi antarā tīṇi sattabbhantarāni ṭhapetabbāni. Aññathā vipatti eva siyāti sabbathā niratthakameva agāmake araññe baddhasīmākaraṇanti veditabbaṃ.

This consideration of the lower boundary of village limits and so forth seems appropriate, as there is no contradiction with the suttas and so forth; however, it should be examined and accepted. If accepted in this way, the established fixed boundary within the village limit would extend above to the village boundary, below to the water's edge, and also encompass the forest boundary. Thus, it is established that its forest boundary is also a field. The Blessed One has stated, "Monks, all rivers are without boundaries," and so forth (Mahāvagga 147), indicating that rivers, seas, and natural lakes are spoken of as not being fields for a fixed boundary. However, the forest is not mentioned; therefore, the forest should indeed be regarded as a field for a fixed boundary. If this is so, why is a boundary not established there? Because there is no purpose. For, immediately after the consideration of a boundary, a seven-abbhantara boundary is possible, and due to the consequence of mixing and overlapping with a fixed boundary established over it, it would only be a defective boundary. However, when standing in the village-field, even if a portion of the uninhabited forest is included and established—although it may be well-established—since the seven-abbhantara boundary prescribed by the Blessed One in an uninhabited forest is not revoked, three seven-abbhantara intervals must be established between those who have entered there to perform a formal act and those performing one outside of that in the mere forest. Otherwise, a defect would surely result. Thus, it should be understood that establishing a fixed boundary in an uninhabited forest is entirely pointless.

Antonadiyaṃ paviṭṭhasākhāyāti nadiyā pathavītalaṃ āhacca ṭhitāya sākhāyapi, pageva anāhacca ṭhitāya. Pārohepi eseva nayo. Etena sabhāganadīsīmaṃ phusitvā ṭhitena visabhāgasīmāsambandhasākhādinā udakukkhepasīmāya sambandho na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Eteneva mahāsīmaṃ gāmasīmañca phusitvā ṭhitena sākhādinā māḷakasīmāya sambandho na vaṭṭatīti ñāpitoti daṭṭhabbo. Antonadiyaṃyevāti setupādānaṃ tīraṭṭhitattaṃ nivatteti. Tena udakukkhepaparicchedato bahinadiyaṃ patiṭṭhitattepi sambhedābhāvaṃ dasseti. Tenāha ‘‘bahitīre patiṭṭhitā’’tiādi. Yadi hi udakukkhepato bahi antonadiyampi patiṭṭhitatte sambhedo bhaveyya, tampi paṭikkhipitabbaṃ bhaveyya kammakopassa samānattā, na ca paṭikkhittaṃ, tasmā sabbattha attano nissayasīmāya sambhedadoso natthevāti gahetabbaṃ.

Regarding "the branch that has entered the river": this refers even to a branch that touches the riverbed and remains there, all the more so to one that does not touch it. The same principle applies to shoots. By this, it is shown that when a branch, etc., touching the boundary of a river of the same kind remains there, connection with the water-throwing boundary of a dissimilar boundary is not valid. Similarly, it should be understood that when a branch, etc., touching the great boundary or village boundary remains there, connection with the māḷaka boundary is not valid. The phrase "only within the river" excludes the mention of a bridge and being on the bank. Thus, it indicates there is no mixing even if it is established outside the river beyond the limit of water-throwing. Therefore, it is said, "established on the outer bank," and so forth. For if mixing were to occur when established even within the river but outside the water-throwing limit, that too would have to be rejected because the invalidation of the formal act would be the same. But since it is not rejected, it should be understood that in all cases, there is indeed no fault of mixing with one's own dependent boundary.

Āvaraṇena vāti dāruādīni khaṇitvā udakanivāraṇena. Koṭṭakabandhanena vāti mattikādīhi pūretvā katasetubandhanena vā, ubhayenāpi āvaraṇameva dasseti. ‘‘Nadiṃ vināsetvā’’ti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti ‘‘heṭṭhā pāḷi [Pg.343] baddhā’’ti, heṭṭhā nadiṃ āvaritvā pāḷi baddhāti attho. Chaḍḍitodakanti atirittodakaṃ. Nadiṃ otaritvā sandanaṭṭhānatoti iminā taḷākanadīnaṃ antarā pavattanaṭṭhāne na vaṭṭatīti dasseti. Uppatitvāti tīrādibhindanavasena vipulā hutvā. Vihārasīmanti baddhasīmaṃ.

Regarding "by means of a barrier": this refers to preventing water by driving in wood and so forth. Regarding "by means of a dam": this refers to constructing a dam by filling with clay and so forth, or by constructing a bridge; both indicate a barrier. The phrase "having destroyed the river" clarifies the meaning of what was said, "a barrier is built below," meaning that a barrier is constructed below, having obstructed the river. "Discarded water" means excess water. Regarding "having descended into the river, from the place of flowing": by this, it shows that it is not allowable in the place of passage between lakes and rivers. Regarding "having surged": this means becoming extensive by way of breaking through the bank and so forth. "Monastery boundary" means a fixed boundary.

Agamanapatheti tadaheva gantvā nivattituṃ asakkuṇeyye. Araññasīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchatīti lokavohārasiddhaṃ agāmakāraññasīmaṃ sandhāya vadati. Tatthāti pakatiyā macchabandhānaṃ gamanapathesu dīpakesu.

Regarding "on a path of no return": this refers to a place where it would be impossible to go and return on the same day. Regarding "it goes only as far as the wilderness boundary": this is said with reference to the boundary of the uninhabited wilderness, which is established by common usage. Regarding "there": this refers to those islands on the paths regularly traveled by fishermen.

Taṃ ṭhānanti tesaṃ āvāṭādīnaṃ kataṭṭhānameva, na akatanti attho. Loṇīti samuddodakassa uppattiveganinno mātikākārena pavattanako.

Regarding "that place": this means the established location of those pits and so forth, not an unestablished one; this is the meaning. Regarding "Loṇī": this means a low-lying area where seawater flows in the manner of a channel due to the force of its welling up.

Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.147) pana – gacchantiyā pana nāvāya kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha udakukkhepamanatikkamitvā parivattamānāya kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti veditabbaṃ. Sīmaṃ vā sodhetvāti ettha sīmāsodhanaṃ nāma gāmasīmādīsu ṭhitānaṃ hatthapāsānayanādi. ‘‘Nadiṃ vināsetvā taḷākaṃ karontī’’ti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāveti ‘‘heṭṭhā pāḷi baddhā’’ti, heṭṭhā nadiṃ āvaritvā pāḷi baddhāti attho. Chaḍḍitodakanti taḷākarakkhaṇatthaṃ ekamantena chaḍḍitamudakaṃ. Deve avassanteti dubbuṭṭhikāle vassānepi deve avassante. Uppatitvāti uttaritvā. Gāmanigamasīmaṃ ottharitvā pavattatīti vuttappakāre vassakāle cattāro māse abbocchinnā pavattati. Vihārasīmanti baddhasīmaṃ sandhāya vadati.

In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.147), however, regarding "it is not allowed to perform it on a moving boat": here, it should be understood that it is permissible to perform it while the boat is turning around without exceeding the water-throwing limit. Regarding "or having purified the boundary": here, purifying the boundary means bringing things that are located within village boundaries and so forth into hand's reach. The phrase "having destroyed the river and making a pond" clarifies the meaning of "a barrier is built below," meaning that a barrier is built below, blocking the river. "Discarded water" refers to water discarded to one side for the purpose of protecting the pond. Regarding "when the deva does not send rain": this means when the deva does not send rain, even during the rainy season in a time of drought. Regarding "having surged": this means having crossed over. Regarding "having flooded village and town boundaries, it flows": in the manner described, it flows uninterrupted for four months during the rainy season. "Monastery boundary" is said with reference to a fixed boundary.

Agamanapatheti yattha tadaheva gantvā paccāgantuṃ na sakkoti, tādise padese. Araññasīmāsaṅkhyameva gacchatīti sattabbhantarasīmaṃ sandhāya vadati. Tesanti macchabandhānaṃ. Gamanapariyantassa [Pg.344] oratoti gamanapariyantassa orimabhāge dīpakaṃ pabbatañca sandhāya vuttaṃ, na samuddappadesanti vuttaṃ.

Regarding "a path of no return": this refers to a place where one cannot go and return on the same day. Regarding "it goes only as far as the wilderness boundary": this is said with reference to a seven-abbhantara boundary. Regarding "their": this refers to fishermen. Regarding "on the near side of the travel limit": this is said with reference to an island and a mountain on the near side of the travel limit; it is said that this is not a region of the ocean.

Sambhindantīti yattha catūhi bhikkhūhi nisīdituṃ na sakkā, tattha tato paṭṭhāya yāva kesaggamattampi attano sīmāya karontā sambhindanti, catunnampi bhikkhūnaṃ pahonakato paṭṭhāya yāva sakalampi antokarontā ajjhottharantīti veditabbaṃ. Saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti aññamaññaṃ sibbitvā ṭhitamahāsākhamūlā, etena aññamaññassa atiāsannataṃ dīpeti. Sākhāya sākhaṃ phusantāpi hi dūraṭṭhāpi siyuṃ, tato ekaṃsato sambhedalakkhaṇaṃ na dassitaṃ siyāti taṃ dassetuṃ viṭapaggahaṇaṃ kataṃ. Evañhi bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdituṃ appahonakaṭṭhānaṃ attano sīmāya antosīmaṭṭhaṃ karitvā purāṇavihāraṃ karontā sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindanti nāma, na tato paranti dassitameva hoti. Baddhā hotīti porāṇakavihārasīmaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Taṃ ambanti aparena samayena purāṇavihāraparikkhepādīnaṃ vinaṭṭhattā ajānantānaṃ taṃ purāṇavihārasīmāya nimittabhūtaṃ ambaṃ. Attano sīmāya antosīmaṭṭhaṃ karitvā purāṇavihārasīmaṭṭhaṃ jambuṃ kittetvā ambajambūnaṃ antare yaṃ ṭhānaṃ, taṃ attano sīmāya pavesetvā baddhāti attho. Ettha ca purāṇasīmāya nimittabhūtassa gāmaṭṭhassa ambarukkhassa antosīmaṭṭhāya jambuyā saha saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapattepi sīmāya bandhanakāle vipatti vā pacchā gāmasīmāya saha sambhedo vā kammavipatti vā nāhosīti mukhatova vuttanti veditabbaṃ.

Regarding "they mix": this means that where four monks cannot sit, from that point onward, by making even a hair's tip measure part of their own boundary, they mix. It should be understood that starting from the point where it is sufficient for four monks, by including the whole of it, they overlap. Regarding "intertwined branches": this refers to the roots and great branches standing as if stitched to one another; by this, their extreme closeness to each other is indicated. For even if their branches touch, they might still be far apart; therefore, the characteristic of mixing would not be definitely shown. To show this, the term "branches" is used. Thus, when monks, by making a place that is not sufficient for monks to sit an internal part of their own boundary, establish an old monastery, they are said to "mix boundary with boundary," and it is shown that this does not apply beyond that. Regarding "it is bound": this is said with reference to the old monastery's boundary. Regarding "that mango tree": this refers to a mango tree that serves as a boundary marker of the old monastery’s boundary for those who, at a later time, do not know of it because the old monastery’s enclosure and other markers have been destroyed. The meaning of "bound" is that having made that mango tree an internal part of their own boundary, and having proclaimed the rose-apple tree that is within the old monastery's boundary, they established the boundary by including the space between the mango and rose-apple trees within their own boundary. Here, it should be understood as stated directly that even if the village mango tree, which served as a marker of the old boundary, and the rose-apple tree within the boundary have intertwined branches, at the time of establishing the boundary there was no defect, nor was there any later mixing with the village boundary, nor any defect in the formal act.

Padesanti saṅghassa nisīdanappahonakaṃ padesaṃ. Sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvātiādinā sambhedajjhottharaṇaṃ katvā baddhasīmāpi aññamaññaṃ phusāpetvā abyavadhānena baddhasīmāpi asīmā evāti dasseti, tasmā ekadvaṅgulamattāpi sīmantarikā vaṭṭati eva. Sā pana dubbodhāti aṭṭhakathāsu caturaṅgulādikā vuttāti [Pg.345] daṭṭhabbaṃ. Dvinnaṃ sīmānanti dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ. Nimittaṃ hotīti nimittassa sīmato bāhirattā bandhanakāle tāva sambhedadoso natthīti adhippāyo. Na kevalañca nimittakato eva saṅkaraṃ karoti, atha kho sīmantarikāya ṭhito aññopi rukkho karoti eva, tasmā appamattikāya sīmantarikāya vaḍḍhanakarukkhādayo na vaṭṭanti eva. Ettha ca upari dissamānakhandhasākhādipavesesu eva saṅkaradosassa sabbattha dassitattā adissamānānaṃ mūlānaṃ pavesepi bhūmigatikattā doso natthīti sijjhati. Sace pana mūlānipi dissamānāni neva pavisanti, saṅkarova, pabbatapāsāṇā pana dissamānāpi bhūmigatikāyeva. Yadi pana bandhanakāle eva eko thūlarukkho ubhayampi sīmaṃ āhacca tiṭṭhati, pacchā baddhā asīmā hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Regarding 'area': this refers to an area sufficient for the Sangha to sit. Regarding 'by leaving a boundary interval,' and so forth: by making a connection or overlap, and by causing bounded boundaries to touch each other without an interval, it is shown that even a bounded boundary becomes an unbounded one. Therefore, a boundary interval of even one or two fingerbreadths is allowable. But since this is difficult to discern, it should be noted that in the commentaries, a boundary interval of four fingerbreadths and so forth is mentioned. Regarding 'of two boundaries': this refers to two bounded boundaries. Regarding 'it serves as a marker': because the marker lies outside the boundary, at the time of binding, there is no fault of confusion; this is the meaning. Not only does a thing made into a marker cause confusion, but also another tree standing in the boundary interval causes it. Therefore, in a small boundary interval, trees that grow, and so forth, are not allowable. And here, since the fault of confusion is shown everywhere only in cases of the entry of visible trunks, branches, and so forth above, it is established that even if unseen roots enter, there is no fault, because they are part of the ground. But if the roots are visible and they do enter, there is confusion. Mountains and rocks, however, even if visible, are part of the ground. If, however, at the time of binding the boundary, a single large tree stands touching both boundaries, it should be understood that the boundary bound later becomes an unbounded one.

Sīmasaṅkaranti sīmasambhedaṃ. Yaṃ panettha sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.148) vuttaṃ ‘‘sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotīti vaḍḍhitvā sīmappadesaṃ paviṭṭhe dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ gataṭṭhānassa dubbiññeyyattā vutta’’nti, taṃ na yuttaṃ gāmasīmāyapi saha saṅkaraṃ karotīti vattabbato. Tatthāpi hi nimitte vaḍḍhite gāmasīmabaddhasīmānaṃ gataṭṭhānaṃ dubbiññeyyameva hoti. Tattha pana avatvā dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānameva saṅkarassa vuttattā yathāvuttasambandhadosova saṅkarasaddena vuttoti gahetabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 148) pana nidānavasena ‘‘yesaṃ, bhikkhave, sīmā pacchā sammatā, tesaṃ taṃ kammaṃ adhammika’’ntiādinā pacchā sammatāya asīmatte vuttepi dvīsu gāmasīmāsu ṭhatvā dvīhi saṅghehi sambhedaṃ vā ajjhottharaṇaṃ vā katvā sīmantarikaṃ aṭṭhapetvā vā rukkhapārohādisambandhaṃ aviyojetvā vā ekasmiṃ khaṇe kammavācāniṭṭhāpanavasena ekato sammatānaṃ dvinnampi sīmānaṃ asīmatā pakāsitāti veditabbaṃ.

'Confusion of boundaries' means the conjoining of boundaries. What is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī: 'It is said that one creates boundary confusion because when a marker has grown and entered the boundary area, the place where the two boundaries have gone becomes difficult to discern,' is not correct, because it would have to be said that it causes confusion even with a village boundary. For there too, if the markers have grown, the place where the village boundary and the bounded boundary have gone becomes equally difficult to discern. However, since this is not stated there, and only the confusion between two bounded boundaries is mentioned, it should be understood that the fault of connection as previously stated is what is meant by the word 'confusion.' In the Pāli text, however, by way of introduction, it is said: 'Bhikkhus, for those whose boundary is agreed upon afterward, that act is unlawful,' and so forth. Even though it is stated that a boundary agreed upon afterward is an unbounded one, it should be understood that if two Sanghas, standing within two village boundaries, either conjoin or overlap them, or do so without establishing a boundary interval, or without severing connections such as the shoots of trees, and agree upon both boundaries together at the same moment by completing the formal act, the invalidity of both boundaries is declared.

Sāratthadīpaniyaṃ [Pg.346] (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.148) ‘‘saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapāti iminā aññamaññassa āsannataṃ dīpeti. Baddhā hotīti pacchimadisābhāge sīmaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Tassā padesanti yattha ṭhatvā bhikkhūhi kammaṃ kātuṃ sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ padesaṃ. Yattha pana ṭhitehi kammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ padesaṃ anto karitvā bandhantā sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindanti nāma. Dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ nimittaṃ hotīti nimittassa sīmato bāhirattā sīmasambhedo na hotīti vuttaṃ. Sīmasaṅkaraṃ karotīti vaḍḍhitvā sīmappadesaṃ paviṭṭhe dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ gataṭṭhānassa duviññeyyattā vuttaṃ, na ca pana tattha kammaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭatīti dassanatthaṃ. Na hi sīmā tattakena asīmā hoti, dve pana sīmā pacchā vaḍḍhitena rukkhena ajjhotthaṭā ekābaddhā honti, tasmā ekattha ṭhatvā kammaṃ karontehi itaraṃ sodhetvā kātabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

In the Sāratthadīpanī it is stated: 'By "with intertwined branches," it indicates their proximity to each other. "Is bounded" is said with reference to the boundary in the western direction. "Its area" means such an area where bhikkhus, having stood, are able to perform a formal act. But where it is not possible to perform a formal act while standing, by including such an area within when binding the boundary, they are said to breach a boundary with a boundary. Regarding "it is a marker for two boundaries," it is said that there is no conjoining of boundaries because the marker is outside the boundary. "It causes confusion of boundaries" is said because, when a marker has grown and entered the boundary area, the place where the two boundaries have gone becomes difficult to ascertain, not to show that it is not allowable to perform a formal act there. For a boundary does not become an unbounded one by that much. But when two boundaries are later overlapped by a growing tree, they become bound as one. Therefore, those performing a formal act while standing in one place should do so after clearing the other.'

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Sīmāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

named the Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Boundaries,

Catuvīsatimo paricchedo.

the twenty-fourth chapter.

Sīmābandhanavinicchayakathā

Discourse on the Determination of Establishing a Boundary

Evaṃ sīmāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā pāḷiyaṃ sīmakathāya uposathakkhandhakapariyāpannattā uposathakkhandhakānantarañca pavāraṇakkhandhakassa āgatattā tadanukkamena sīmāvinicchayato uposathapavāraṇavinicchayaṃ kathetumāraddhepi sāsanavuddhikaraṇatthaṃ upasampadādivinayakammakaraṇaṭṭhānabhūtaṃ sīmaṃ bandhitukāmānaṃ lajjipesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhikkhūnaṃ paññāsativīriyajananatthaṃ sīmābandhanakathā amhehi ārabhīyate[Pg.347]. Tattha apalokanādicatubbidhakammakaraṇaṭṭhānabhūtā sīmā nāma baddhaabaddhavasena duvidhā hoti. Tatthāpi baddhasīmā khaṇḍasīmā, samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, avippavāsasīmāti tibbidhā hoti, tathā abaddhasīmāpi gāmasīmā, udakukkhepasīmā, sattabbhantarasīmāti. Vuttañhetaṃ ācariyabuddhadattattherena vinayavinicchaye –

Having thus explained the determination of boundaries, and since in the Pāli the discourse on boundaries is included in the Uposathakkhandhaka, and since the Pavāraṇakkhandhaka comes after the Uposathakkhandhaka, even though we had begun to explain the determination of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā in that sequence after the determination of boundaries, the discourse on establishing a boundary is now commenced by us for the sake of the growth of the Dispensation and to generate wisdom, mindfulness, and energy in those bhikkhus who are modest, amiable, learned, and desirous of training, and who wish to bind a boundary—the place for performing Vinaya acts such as higher ordination. Therein, a boundary, which is the place for performing the four kinds of acts beginning with announcement, is of two kinds: bounded and unbounded. Among these, a bounded boundary is of three types: a separate boundary (khaṇḍasīmā), a boundary of common communion (samānasaṃvāsakasīmā), and a boundary of non-separation (avippavāsasīmā). Similarly, an unbounded boundary is also of three types: a village boundary (gāmasīmā), a boundary of the splash of water (udakukkhepasīmā), and a seven-abbhantara boundary (sattabbhantarasīmā). This has been stated by the Elder Ācariya Buddhadatta in the Vinayavinicchaya:

‘‘Khaṇḍasamānasaṃvāsā-vippavāsāti bhedato;

Iti baddhā tidhā vuttā, abaddhāpi tidhā matā.

“By the distinction of separate, common communion, and non-separation; thus the bounded are said to be threefold, and the unbounded are also considered threefold.

‘‘Gāmato udakukkhepā, sattabbhantaratopi ca;

Tattha gāmaparicchedo, gāmasīmāti vuccatī’’ti.

“From the village, from the splash of water, and also from the seven-abbhantara; therein, the demarcation of a village is called the village boundary.”

Tattha baddhasīmaṃ bandhitukāmena atikhuddikā, atimahatī, khaṇḍanimittā, chāyānimittā, animittā, bahisīme ṭhitasammatā, nadiyā sammatā, samudde sammatā, jātassare sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatāti vuttā imā ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā nimittasampatti, parisasampatti, kammavācāsampattīti vuttāya tividhasampattiyā yuttaṃ katvā paṭhamaṃ kittitanimittena sabbapacchimakittitanimittaṃ sambandhaṃ katvā bandhitabbā. Vuttañhetaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyena kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘tattha ekādasa vipattisīmāyo atikkamitvā tividhasampattiyuttā nimittena nimittaṃ sambandhitvā sammatā sīmā baddhasīmā nāmā’’ti. Etena etesu ekādasasu vipattīsu ekāyapi yuttāya, tividhasampattīsu ekāyapi ayuttāya, nimittena nimittaṃ asambandhaṃ katvā sammatāya ca sati sīmā na hotīti dasseti.

Therein, one who wishes to bind a bounded boundary should do so by avoiding these eleven defective boundaries—namely, one that is too small, too large, has fragmented markers, has shadow markers, has no markers, is agreed upon by those standing outside the boundary, is agreed upon in a river, is agreed upon in the ocean, is agreed upon in a natural lake, is agreed upon by one who is breaching a boundary with a boundary, and is agreed upon by one who is overlapping a boundary with a boundary. It should be bound having endowed it with the threefold completeness called completeness of markers, completeness of the assembly, and completeness of the formal act, by connecting the first-mentioned marker with the very last-mentioned marker. This is stated by the commentary teacher in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī: 'Therein, a boundary agreed upon by avoiding the eleven defective boundaries, being endowed with the threefold completeness, and by connecting marker to marker, is called a bounded boundary.' By this it is shown that if it is endowed with even one of these eleven defects, or is not endowed with even one of the threefold completeness, or is agreed upon without connecting marker to marker, it is not a boundary.

Evaṃ sīmaṃ bandhitukāmena bhikkhunā sabbalakkhaṇaparipūratthaṃ mahanto ussāho karaṇīyo hoti, tasmā sīmābandhanakāle [Pg.348] tīsu sampattīsu parisasampattisiddhiyā paṭhamaṃ tāva gāmasīmā upaparikkhitabbā. Etthāha ‘‘nanu baddhasīmā vā bandhitabbā, atha kasmā gāmasīmā upaparikkhitabbā’’ti? Gāmasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā baddhasīmāya bandhitabbato. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā ‘‘asammatāya, bhikkhave, sīmāya aṭṭhapitāya yaṃ gāmaṃ vā nigamaṃ vā upanissāya viharati, yā tassa vā gāmassa gāmasīmā, nigamassa vā nigamasīmā, ayaṃ tattha samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā’’ti (mahāva. 147). Idha pāḷiyaṃ sarūpena anāgatampi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) ‘‘gāmaggahaṇena cettha nagarampi gahitameva hotī’’ti vuttattā nagarasīmāpi gahitā hoti, tasmā yasmiṃ abaddhasīmavihāre bhikkhū yaṃ gāmaṃ upanissāya viharanti, tassa gāmassa paricchedo gāmasīmā nāma. Yaṃ nigamaṃ upanissāya viharanti, tassa nigamassa paricchedo nigamasīmā nāma. Yaṃ nagaraṃ upanissāya viharanti, tassa nagarassa paricchedo nagarasīmā nāma. Tā sabbāpi gāmasīmāti vuccanti. Tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathabaddhasīmā viya ekato uposathādisaṅghakammakaraṇārahā honti, īdiseyeva ca padese sīmaṃ bandhitumarahati, na uposathādisaṅghakammānarahe padeseti vuttaṃ hoti.

Thus, a monk who wishes to establish a boundary must make a great effort to ensure the completeness of all characteristics. Therefore, at the time of establishing the boundary, for the accomplishment of the completeness of the assembly among the three kinds of completeness, the village boundary must first be examined. Here, one might ask, “Is it not the boundary to be bound that is to be bound? Why then must the village boundary be examined?” Because the boundary to be bound must be bound while standing within the village boundary. For this, the Blessed One has said: “Monks, when a boundary has not been formally agreed upon and established, whatever village or town one dwells relying on, whatever is the village boundary of that village, or the town boundary of that town, that is the common residence and single Uposatha there” (Mahāvagga 147). Here, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Pāli text, the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 147) states, “Here, by the taking up of ‘village,’ a city is also included.” Thus, the city boundary is also included. Therefore, in a monastery where no boundary has been established, if monks dwell relying on a village, the delimited area of that village is called the village boundary. If they dwell relying on a town, the delimited area of that town is called the town boundary. If they dwell relying on a city, the delimited area of that city is called the city boundary. All of these are referred to as village boundaries. For these monks, they become suitable for performing Saṅgha acts such as the Uposatha together, like a bound boundary of common residence and single Uposatha; and it is said that it is proper to establish a boundary only in such a place, not in a place unsuitable for Saṅgha acts such as the Uposatha.

Tattha ‘‘yattake padese tassa tassa gāmassa gāmabhojakā baliṃ labhanti, so padeso appo vā hotu mahanto vā, gāmasīmātveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchatī’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vacanato gāmādibhojakānaṃ balilabhanaṭṭhānaṃ gāmasīmā hoti, idañca yebhuyyavasena vuttaṃ. Baliṃ alabhantopi rājapaṇṇe āropitapadese tassa gāmassa gāmasīmāyeva. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.147) ‘‘baliṃ labhantīti idaṃ yebhuyyavasena vuttaṃ. ‘Ayaṃ gāmo ettako [Pg.349] karīsabhāgo’tiādinā pana rājapaṇṇesu āropitesu bhūmibhāgesu yasmiṃ yasmiṃ taḷākamātikāsusānapabbatādike padese baliṃ na gaṇhanti, sopi gāmasīmā eva. Rājādīhi paricchinnabhūmibhāgo hi sabbova ṭhapetvā nadīloṇijātassare gāmasīmāti veditabbo’’ti. Ayaṃ pakatigāmasīmā nāma. ‘‘Yampi ekasmiṃyeva gāmakkhette ekaṃ padesaṃ, ‘ayaṃ visuṃgāmo hotū’ti paricchinditvā rājā kassaci deti, sopi visuṃgāmasīmā hotiyevā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 147) vacanato rājā ‘‘pakatigāmakkhetteyeva pakatigāmato visuṃ pakatigāmena asammisso gāmo hotū’’ti yaṃ padesaṃ deti, so padeso visuṃgāmasīmā nāma. Iti pakatigāmasīmā ca rājūnaṃ icchāvasena pavattā visuṃgāmasīmā ca baddhasīmā viya sabbakammārahā, tasmā abhinavabaddhasīmaṃ bandhitukāmehi pakatigāmasīmaṃ vā visuṃgāmasīmaṃ vā sodhetvā kattabbaṃ hoti. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘tasmā sā ca itarā ca pakatigāmanagaranigamasīmā baddhasīmāsadisāyeva hontī’’ti. Vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.147) ‘‘tattha hi sā ca rājicchāvasena parivattitvā samuppannā abhinavā ca itarā ca aparivattā pakatigāmasīmā, yathā baddhasīmāyaṃ sabbaṃ saṅghakammaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati, evametāpi sabbakammārahatāsadisena baddhasīmāsadisā, sā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathāti adhippāyo’’ti vuttaṃ.

Here, according to the commentary, 'Whatever area—whether small or large—from which the village headmen of such and such a village receive taxes, that area is considered the village boundary.' This is generally stated. Even if they do not receive taxes, the area designated in the royal records for that village is still considered the village boundary. As stated in the Vimativinodanīṭīkā (Mahāvagga 2.147): 'The phrase “they receive taxes” is generally stated. But when certain plots of land—such as ponds, canals, burial grounds, mountains, and so forth—are recorded in the royal records as “this village has such and such a share of land,” even if no taxes are taken there, those areas are still considered village boundaries. Any land demarcated by the king or others, except for rivers, salt lands, and natural lakes, should be understood as the village boundary.' This is called the natural village boundary. Furthermore, the commentary states (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 147): 'Even if, within a single village field, the king designates a separate area, saying, “Let this be a distinct village,” that area becomes a separate village boundary.' Thus, when the king grants a portion of a natural village field as a distinct village, unconnected to the original village, that portion is called a separate village boundary. Both the natural village boundary and the separate village boundary, as determined by the king's will, are like bound boundaries and are suitable for all Saṅgha acts. Therefore, those wishing to establish a new bound boundary should first ascertain either the natural village boundary or the separate village boundary. As stated in the commentary: 'Therefore, both that one and the other—the natural boundaries of villages, cities, and towns—are just like bound boundaries.' And the Vimativinodanīṭīkā (Mahāvagga 2.147) explains: 'Here, both the boundary newly established by the king's will and the unchanged natural village boundary are like bound boundaries in that all Saṅgha acts can be performed within them. They are similar in their suitability for all acts, just like a bound boundary, meaning they are of common residence and single Uposatha observance.'

Keci pana ācariyā ‘‘mayaṃ sīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, tasmā ettako bhūmiparicchedo visuṃ khettaṃ hotū’’ti rājānaṃ āpucchitvā tena okāse kate ‘‘idaṃ ṭhānaṃ visuṃgāmakkhettaṃ hotī’’ti manasi katvā tatraṭṭheyeva bhikkhū [Pg.350] ca hatthapāsānayanādinā sodhetvā sīmāsamūhanasīmābandhanādīni karonti, taṃ karaṇaṃ ‘‘ayaṃ visuṃgāmo hotūti paricchinditvā rājā kassaci detī’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanena, ‘‘sā ca rājicchāvasena parivattitvā samuppannā abhinavā cā’’ti āgatena vimativinodanīṭīkāvacanena ca samentaṃ viya na dissati. Kathaṃ? Aṭṭhakathāvacane tāva ‘‘ayaṃ visuṃgāmo hotū’’ti iminā na kevalaṃ purimagāmoyeva gāmo hotu, atha kho idāni paricchinnapadesopi visuṃyeva gāmo hotūti ekaṃyeva gāmakkhettaṃ dve gāme karotīti dasseti. ‘‘Rājā kassaci detī’’ti iminā gāmabhojakassa dinnabhāvaṃ pakāseti, idha pana neva dve gāme karoti, na ca gāmabhojakassa deti, kevalaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ anumatiyā yāvakālikavaseneva okāsaṃ karoti, evaṃ aṭṭhakathāvacanenapi samentaṃ viya na dissati. Vimativinodanīṭīkāvacanenapi ‘‘rājicchāvasena parivattitvā’’ti iminā agāmabhūtaṃ khettaṃ rājicchāvasena parivattitvā gāmo hotīti dasseti. ‘‘Abhinavā cā’’ti iminā purāṇagāmasīmā ca abhinavagāmasīmā cāti purimagāmena amissaṃ visuṃgāmalakkhaṇaṃ dasseti. Idha pana rājicchāvasena parivattitvā khettassa visuṃgāmabhūtabhāvo ca abhinavabhāvena visuṃgāmalakkhaṇañca na dissati, evaṃ ṭīkāvacanenapi samentaṃ viya na dissati.

However, some teachers, wishing to establish a boundary, after asking the king, saying, 'We wish to establish a boundary; therefore, let this much land be a separate field,' and with his permission, they consider, 'This place is a separate village field.' Then, right there, after clearing the area of monks by making them go beyond arm's reach and so forth, they perform the acts of revoking a boundary, establishing a boundary, and so on. This procedure does not seem to align with the commentary's statement: 'Having demarcated this as a separate village, the king gives it to someone,' nor with the statement in the Vimativinodanīṭīkā that 'It arises anew, having been transformed by the king's will.' How so? First, in the commentary, the phrase 'Let this be a separate village' indicates that not only does the former village remain a village, but the newly demarcated area also becomes a separate village—thus showing that it makes two villages out of one village field. The phrase 'the king gives it to someone' indicates that it is given to a village headman. Here, however, he neither creates two villages nor gives it to a village headman; he merely grants permission for temporary use for the monks. Thus, it does not seem to align even with the commentary. Similarly, in the Vimativinodanīṭīkā, the phrase 'having been transformed by the king's will' suggests that a non-village field is transformed into a village by the king's will. The phrase 'and anew' indicates the characteristic of a separate village, unmixed with the former village, namely, the old village boundary and the new village boundary. Here, however, there is no transformation of the field into a separate village state by the king's will, nor does the characteristic of a separate village appear as something new. Thus, it does not seem to align even with the subcommentary.

Vinayavinicchayaṭīkāyañca ‘‘gāmaparicchedoti sabbadisāsu sammā paricchinditvā ‘imassa padesassa ettako karo’ti evaṃ karena niyamito gāmappadeso’’ti evaṃ āyavaseneva paricchindanaṃ vuttaṃ, na anumatikaraṇamattena, tasmā visuṃgāmalakkhaṇaṃ appattatāya pakatigāmena saṅkaro hoti, na tattha uposathādisaṅghakammaṃ kātumarahati, uposathādisaṅghakammakaraṇārahapadeseyeva [Pg.351] sīmāsamūhananasīmābandhanakammampi karaṇārahaṃ hoti ñattidutiyakammattā tesaṃ kammānaṃ, tasmā tesaṃ ācariyānaṃ taṃ karaṇaṃ aññe ācariyā na icchanti. Aññe pana ācariyā ‘‘taṃ paricchinnappadesaṃ ‘visuṃgāmo hotū’ti rājā kassaci deti, gāmabhojako ca tato baliṃ paṭiggaṇhāti, tadā visuṃgāmo hoti, na tato pubbe’’ti vadanti. Tesaṃ taṃ vacanaṃ ‘‘evaṃ karena niyamito padeso’’ti vinicchayaṭīkāvacanañca ‘‘gāmādīnaṃ karaggāhaparicchinno samantato padeso gāmasīmā’’ti sīmālaṅkāragaṇṭhivacanañca sandhāya vuttaṃ siyā, tesu pana ‘‘imassa padesassa ettako karo’’ti evaṃ karaparicchindanaṃ vuttaṃ, na gāmabhojakassa baliggahaṇaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyañca ‘‘rājā kassaci detī’’ti dānameva vadati, na ‘‘gāmabhojako ca baliṃ gaṇhātī’’ti paṭiggahaṇaṃ, tasmā tampi vacanaṃ aññe paṇḍitā na sampaṭicchanti, tasmā pathavissaro rājā ‘‘imasmiṃ gāmakkhette ettakakarīsamatto padeso purimagāmato visuṃgāmo hotū’’ti paricchinditvā deti, ettāvatā so padeso baliṃ paṭiggahito vā hotu appaṭiggahito vā, visuṃgāmo nāma hotīti daṭṭhabbo.

id

Evaṃ pakatigāmalakkhaṇañca visuṃgāmalakkhaṇañca tathato ñatvā baddhasīmaṃ bandhitukāmo yadi pakatigāmasīmā nātivitthārā hoti sukharakkhitā, tameva pakatigāmasīmaṃ suṭṭhu rakkhāpetvā suṭṭhu sodhetvā sīmāsamūhananasīmāsammutikammāni kātabbāni. Yadi pana pakatigāmasīmā ativitthārā hoti, nigamasīmā, nagarasīmā vā honti, bahūnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ nisinnaṭṭhānasañcaraṇaṭṭhānattā sodhetuṃ vā rakkhituṃ vā na sakkonti, evañca sati pathavissararājūhi paricchinnāya visuṃgāmasīmāya suṭṭhu sodhetvā surakkhitaṃ katvā sīmāsamūhananasīmāsammutikammaṃ kātabbaṃ. Kathaṃ pana suṭṭhu sodhanañca [Pg.352] suṭṭhu rakkhaṇañca kātabbaṃ? Sīmaṃ bandhitukāmena hi sāmantavihāresu bhikkhū tassa tassa vihārassa sīmāparicchedaṃ pucchitvā baddhasīmavihārānaṃ sīmāya sīmantarikaṃ, abaddhasīmavihārānaṃ sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvā disācārikabhikkhūnaṃ nissañcārasamaye sace ekasmiṃ gāmakkhette sīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, ye tattha baddhasīmavihārā, tesu bhikkhūnaṃ ‘‘mayaṃ ajja sīmaṃ bandhissāma, tumhe sakasakasīmāya paricchedato mā nikkhamathā’’ti pesetabbaṃ. Ye abaddhasīmavihārā, tesu bhikkhū ekajjhaṃ sannipātetabbā, chandārahānaṃ chando āharāpetabbo. Evaṃ sannipatitesu pana bhikkhūsu chandārahānaṃ chande āhaṭe tesu tesu maggesu ca nadītitthagāmadvārādīsu ca āgantukabhikkhūnaṃ sīghaṃ sīghaṃ hatthapāsānayanatthañca bahisīmakaraṇatthañca ārāmike ceva samaṇuddese ca ṭhapetvā bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vā katvā sīmā samūhanitabbāti.

id

Nanu ca idaṃ sodhanaṃ rakkhaṇañca sīmāsammutikāleyeva aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttaṃ, atha kasmā idha sīmāsamūhanane vuttanti? Imassapi sīmāsamūhananakammassa ñattidutiyakammattā parisasampattijananatthaṃ vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ santepi idaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ nāma yadi porāṇā baddhasīmā atthi, tadaṭṭhakasaṅghe hatthapāsagate aññesu bhikkhūsu gāmasīmaṃ paviṭṭhesupi kammabhedo natthi. Yadi porāṇā baddhasīmā natthi, evampi sati kevalaṃ gāmasīmābhūtattā sīmāsamūhananakamme asampajjantepi doso natthi, atha kasmā sodhanā vuttāti? Saccaṃ, tathāpi samūhanitabbā porāṇasīmāparicchedassa duviññeyyattā. Sace hi mahatiyā porāṇabaddhasīmāya ekasmiṃ padese sīmaṃ samūhanissāmāti saṅghe sannipatite tassāyeva sīmāya aññasmiṃ padese bhikkhumhi paviṭṭhe ajānantassapi kammaṃ vipajjati, tasmā mahussāhena sodhetabbāvāti [Pg.353] daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ gāmasīmasodhanaṃ ‘‘parisasampattiyā yuttā nāma sabbantimena paricchedena catūhi bhikkhūhi sannipatitvā yāvatikā tasmiṃ gāmakkhette baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvā ṭhitā bhikkhū, te sabbe hatthapāse vā katvā chandaṃ vā āharitvā sammatā’’ti kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) āgatattā parisasampattikāraṇaṃ hotīti viññāyati. Tato ‘‘sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā’’ti vuttehi dvīhi vipattidosehi muccanatthaṃ sīmasamūhananakammaṃ kātabbaṃ.

id

Sīmāya asamūhatāya sati kathaṃ vipattidvayaṃ āpajjeyyāti, tathā sodhitāyapi gāmasīmāya. Yadi porāṇabaddhasīmā vijjamānā bhaveyya, tassā vijjamānabhāvaṃ ajānantā navaṃ baddhasīmaṃ bandheyyuṃ. Porāṇasīmāya hi nimittaṃ anto katvā tassa samīpe porāṇasīmāya anto ṭhitaṃ aññaṃ nimittaṃ katvā navaṃ baddhasīmaṃ bandheyyuṃ, sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā nāma hoti. Tena vuttaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā nāma attano sīmāya paresaṃ sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā. Sace hi porāṇakassa vihārassa puratthimāya disāya ambo ceva jambū cāti dve rukkhā aññamaññaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaviṭapā honti, tesu ambassa pacchimadisābhāge jambū. Vihārasīmā ca jambuṃ anto katvā ambaṃ kittetvā baddhā hoti, atha pacchā tassa vihārassa puratthimadisāyaṃ vihāre kate sīmaṃ bandhantā bhikkhū ambaṃ anto katvā jambuṃ kittetvā bandhanti, sīmāya sīmā sambhinnā nāma hotī’’ti. Porāṇasīmāya ca ekadesaṃ vā sakalaporāṇasīmaṃ vā anto karitvā navaṃ sīmaṃ bandheyyuṃ, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā nāma[Pg.354]. Vuttañhetaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā nāma attano sīmāya paresaṃ sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā. Sace hi paresaṃ baddhasīmaṃ sakalaṃ vā tassā padesaṃ vā anto katvā attano sīmaṃ sammannanti, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharitā nāma hotī’’ti.

If a boundary has not been removed, how could the twofold failure occur? This is so even with a well-purified village boundary. If an anciently established boundary were to exist, and those unaware of its existence were to establish a new boundary; if they were to establish a new boundary by including a marker of the ancient boundary and, near it, establishing another marker situated within the ancient boundary, this is called 'agreed upon by intermingling a boundary with a boundary.' Therefore, it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): 'Agreed upon by intermingling a boundary with a boundary means agreed upon by intermingling one's own boundary with the boundary of others. For if, in the eastern direction of an ancient monastery, there are two trees, a mango and a rose-apple, with intertwined branches, and the rose-apple is to the west of the mango; and the monastery boundary was established by including the rose-apple and naming the mango as a marker; then later, monks establishing a monastery in the eastern direction of that monastery, when establishing the boundary, include the mango and name the rose-apple as a marker, the boundaries are said to be intermingled.' And if they were to establish a new boundary by including either a part of the ancient boundary or the entire ancient boundary, it is called 'agreed upon by overlapping a boundary with a boundary.' This is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): 'Agreed upon by overlapping a boundary with a boundary means agreed upon by overlapping one's own boundary with the boundary of others. For if they agree upon their own boundary by including the whole of another's established boundary or a part of it, it is called overlapping a boundary with a boundary.'

Yasmiṃ padese cattāro bhikkhū nisīditvā kammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkonti, tattha tato paṭṭhāya yāva kesaggamattampi aññesaṃ porāṇabaddhasīmappadesaṃ attano sīmāya anto karonto sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindati nāma. Catunnaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdituṃ pahonakaṭṭhānato paṭṭhāya yāva sakalampi aññesaṃ porāṇabaddhasīmāpadesaṃ attano sīmāya anto karonto sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharati nāma. Vuttañhetaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyā līnatthapakāsaniyaṃ (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘tassā padesanti tassā ekadesaṃ, yattha ṭhatvā catūhi bhikkhūhi kammaṃ kātuṃ sakkā hoti, tādisaṃ ekadesanti vuttaṃ hoti. Yattha pana ṭhitehi kammaṃ kātuṃ na sakkā, tādisaṃ padesaṃ anto karitvā sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindanti nāma, na tu ajjhottharanti nāmāti gahetabba’’nti. Vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.148) ‘‘yattha catūhi bhikkhūhi nisīdituṃ na sakkā, tattakato paṭṭhāya yāva kesaggamattampi attano sīmāya karontā sambhindanti, catunnampi bhikkhūnaṃ pahonakato paṭṭhāya yāva sakalampi anto karontā ajjhottharantīti veditabba’’nti vuttaṃ.

In a place so small that four monks cannot sit to perform a formal act, if one includes within one's own boundary even a hair's breadth of another's previously established boundary area, starting from that point, this is called 'intermingling a boundary with a boundary.' From a place sufficient for four monks to sit, if one includes up to the entire area of another's previously established boundary within one's own boundary, this is called 'overlapping a boundary.' For it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Līnatthapakāsanī (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Nidānavaṇṇanā): '“A part of that” means a part of it, a part of such a kind where four monks are able to stand and perform a formal act. But where, while standing, they are not able to perform a formal act, including such a place is called “intermingling a boundary with a boundary,” and not “overlapping a boundary”; this should be understood.' And in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.148), it is said: 'Where four monks are not able to sit, starting from that much, if they include even a hair's breadth within their own boundary, they are intermingling. Starting from a place sufficient for four monks, if they include up to the entire area, they are overlapping; this should be understood.'

Evaṃ hotu, tasmiṃ gāmasīmaparicchede porāṇakasīmāya vijjamānāya vipattidvayamocanatthaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ sātthakaṃ, avijjamānāya kathaṃ sātthakaṃ bhaveyyāti saṅkānivattanatthaṃ [Pg.355] sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ akatvā abhinavasīmāya bajjhamānāya saṅkā uppajjeyya, bhagavato dharamānakālato paṭṭhāya yāvajjatanā gaṇanapathaṃ vītikkantā bhikkhū upasampadādikammakaraṇatthaṃ tasmiṃ tasmiṃ padese sīmaṃ bandhanti. Sā sīmā ettha atthi, ettha natthīti na sakkā jānituṃ, tasmā ‘‘amhākaṃ sīmābandhanaṭṭhāne porāṇakasīmā bhaveyya nu kho’’ti saṅkā bhaveyya, evaṃ sati sā abhinavasīmā ca āsaṅkanīyā hotīti sīmāyaṃ kataṃ upasampadādikammampi āsaṅkanīyaṃ hoti, tasmā saṅkānivattanatthaṃ abhinavasīmaṃ bandhitukāmehi yatipuṅgavehi avassaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ kātabbaṃ hoti. Samūhanantehi pana ‘‘sīmaṃ, bhikkhave, samūhanantena paṭhamaṃ ticīvarena avippavāso samūhantabbo, pacchā sīmā samūhantabbā’’ti (mahāva. 144) vacanato paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmā samūhanitabbā, tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmā samūhanitabbā. Tasmiṃ samūhananakāle ca ‘‘khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvā avippavāsasīmā na samūhantabbā, tathā avippavāsasīmāya ṭhatvā khaṇḍasīmāpi. Khaṇḍasīmāya pana ṭhitena khaṇḍasīmāva samūhanitabbā, tathā itarāya ṭhitena itarā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) vacanato khaṇḍasīmāyaṃ ṭhatvāva khaṇḍasīmā samūhanitabbā, mahāsīmāyameva ṭhatvā mahāsīmā samūhanitabbā, aññissā sīmāya ṭhatvā aññā sīmā na samūhanitabbā. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ avippavāsasīmāti mahāsīmaṃ vadati tattheva yebhuyyena cīvarena vippavasanato.

So be it. Within that village boundary, if an ancient boundary exists, the formal act of removing the boundary is meaningful for avoiding the twofold failure. If it does not exist, how could it be meaningful? To dispel this doubt: if the formal act of removing the boundary is not performed, a doubt could arise concerning the new boundary being established. From the time the Blessed One was living until the present day, countless monks have established boundaries in various places for the purpose of performing formal acts such as ordination. It is not possible to know whether such a boundary exists here or does not exist here. Therefore, the doubt could arise: ‘Might an ancient boundary exist in the place where we are establishing our boundary?’ This being the case, the new boundary becomes subject to doubt, and any formal act such as ordination performed within that boundary also becomes subject to doubt. Therefore, to dispel doubt, eminent monks who wish to establish a new boundary must certainly perform the formal act of removing the boundary. But by those removing it, according to the statement, ‘Monks, by one removing a boundary, first the boundary for non-separation from the three robes must be removed, and afterwards the boundary itself must be removed’ (Mahāvagga 144), first the non-separation boundary must be removed, then the boundary for common residence must be removed. And at the time of removal, according to the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 144), ‘Standing in a partial boundary, the non-separation boundary should not be removed; likewise, standing in the non-separation boundary, the partial boundary should not be removed. But standing in a partial boundary, only the partial boundary should be removed; likewise, standing in the other, only the other should be removed.’ Thus, standing in a partial boundary, only the partial boundary should be removed; standing in the great boundary, only the great boundary should be removed. Standing in one boundary, another boundary should not be removed. In the commentary, the non-separation boundary is called the ‘great boundary’ because it is mostly there that separation from the robes occurs.

‘‘Tattha sace khaṇḍasīmañca avippavāsasīmañca jānanti, samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissanti. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissanti. Khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana ajānantā avippavāsaṃyeva jānantā cetiyaṅgaṇabodhiyaṅgaṇauposathāgārādīsu nirāsaṅkaṭṭhānesu ṭhatvā [Pg.356] appeva nāma samūhanituṃ sakkhissanti, paṭibandhituṃ pana na sakkhissanteva. Sace bandheyyuṃ, sīmāsambhedaṃ katvā vihāraṃ avihāraṃ kareyyuṃ, tasmā na samūhanitabbā. Ye pana ubhopi na jānanti, teneva samūhanituṃ na bandhituṃ sakkhissanti. Ayañhi sīmā nāma kammavācāya vā asīmā hoti sāsanantaradhānena vā, na ca sakkā sīmaṃ ajānantehi kammavācā kātuṃ, tasmā na samūhanitabbā, sādhukaṃ pana ñatvāyeva samūhanitabbā ca bandhitabbā cā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) vacanato ‘‘idāni sīmaṃ samūhanissāmā’’ti paricchinnāya gāmasīmāya anto khaṇḍasīmamahāsīmānaṃ atthibhāvaṃ vā natthibhāvaṃ vā tāsaṃ sīmānaṃ paricchedañca na jānanti, evaṃ ajānantā bhikkhū tā porāṇasīmāyo samūhanituṃ na sakkuṇeyyuṃ, porāṇasīmaṃ samūhanituṃ asakkontā ca kathaṃ abhinavasīmaṃ bandhituṃ sakkuṇissantīti paramparehi ācariyehi sammā vinicchitaṃ anulomanayaṃ nissāya mahantaṃ ussāhaṃ karitvā aṅgaṃ aparihāpetvā sammā vihitanayena porāṇasīmaṃ samūhanituṃ sakkhissanti.

There, if they know both the partial boundary and the boundary of non-separation, they will be able to both remove and bind it. However, if they know the partial boundary but do not know the boundary of non-separation, they will still be able to both remove and bind it. But if they do not know the partial boundary and only know the boundary of non-separation, standing in places free from danger—such as shrine courtyards, Bodhi tree courtyards, or Uposatha halls—they might be able to remove it, but they certainly will not be able to bind it. If they were to bind it, they would create a boundary disruption and make the monastery a non-monastery. Therefore, it should not be removed. Those who know neither will not be able to remove or bind it. For this boundary becomes a non-boundary either by a formal act or by the disappearance of the Dispensation. Moreover, those who do not know the boundary cannot perform a formal act. Thus, it should not be removed, but only after having thoroughly known it should it be removed and bound." According to the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144), the statement "Now we will remove the boundary" refers to a delimited village boundary. Within it, whether partial boundaries or great boundaries exist or not, and the delimitation of those boundaries, are unknown. Not knowing this, the bhikkhus would be unable to remove those old boundaries. If they cannot remove the old boundaries, how could they bind a new one? Therefore, relying on the proper method correctly determined by successive teachers, having made great effort without neglecting any factor, and by the properly arranged method, they will be able to remove the old boundaries.

Kathaṃ? Tasmiṃ sīmāsamūhananakāle yadi pakatigāmasīmāyaṃ āraddhaṃ, taṃ pakatigāmaparicchedaṃ, yadi visuṃgāmasīmāyaṃ āraddhaṃ, taṃ visuṃgāmaparicchedaṃ aññesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ appavisanatthāya samantato susaṃvihitārakkhaṃ kārāpetvā kammavācaṃ sāvetuṃ samatthena byattibalasampannena vinayadharena saha samānasaṃvāsake lajjipesale imassa kammassa catuvaggakaraṇīyattā cattāro bhikkhū kammappatte bhikkhūnaṃ pakatattabhāvassa dubbiññeyyattā vā tato adhikappamāṇe bhikkhū gahetvā idāni bandhitabbāya sīmāya nimittānaṃ vihāraparikkhepassa ca anto ca sabbattha bahi ca samantā leḍḍupātamatte padese sabbattha mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe ṭhāne hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā [Pg.357] tiṭṭhantā, nisīdantā vā hutvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ, tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ sāvetvā sīmāya samugghāte kate porāṇasīmāsu vijjamānāsupi pacchimantena ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdanārahattā sīmāya mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe ṭhāne tiṭṭhantā bhikkhū avassaṃ tāsu sīmāsu tiṭṭhantā bhaveyyuṃ, tasmā sīmaṭṭhā hutvā sīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ vatvā tā sīmā samūhaneyyuṃ. Tato porāṇabaddhasīmānaṃ samūhatattā gāmasīmāyeva avasiṭṭhā bhaveyyāti. Vuttañhetaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) ‘‘keci pana īdisesu vihāresu chapañcamatte bhikkhū gahetvā vihārakoṭito paṭṭhāya vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca bahi ca samantā leḍḍupāte sabbattha mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe okāse nirantaraṃ ṭhatvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmaṃ, tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmañca samūhananavasena sīmāya samugghāte kate tasmiṃ vihāre khaṇḍasīmāya mahāsīmāya ca vijjamānatte satipi avassaṃ ekasmiṃ mañcaṭṭhāne tāsaṃ majjhagatā te bhikkhū tā samūhaneyyuṃ, tato gāmasīmā eva avasisseyyā’’ti.

How? At the time of removing the boundary, if it was begun within the ordinary village boundary, it is delimited by that ordinary village boundary. If it was begun within a separate village boundary, it is delimited by that separate village boundary. To prevent other bhikkhus from entering, having arranged well-secured protection all around, a Vinaya-holder endowed with competence and strength, together with fellow residents who are modest and conscientious, should announce the formal act. Since this act requires a quorum of four, and because the actual state of the bhikkhus fit for the act is difficult to ascertain, they should take four bhikkhus or more than that number. Then, within the markers of the boundary now to be bound and the monastery enclosure, and everywhere inside and outside all around at a stone’s throw distance, standing or sitting at every seat-sized place without abandoning arm’s reach, they should first announce the formal act of removing the boundary of non-separation, and then the formal act of removing the boundary of common residence. Once the boundary has been uprooted, even if the old boundaries still exist, the bhikkhus standing at every seat-sized place of the boundary must necessarily be standing within those boundaries (since the boundary is fit for the sitting of twenty-one bhikkhus at its far end). Therefore, having stood within the boundary, they should recite the formal act of removing the boundary and remove those boundaries. Then, because the old bound boundaries have been removed, only the village boundary would remain. As it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144): “Some, however, in such monasteries, take about five or six bhikkhus and, beginning from the edge of the monastery, stand continuously at every seat-sized place everywhere, both inside and outside the monastery enclosure, at a stone’s throw distance all around. First, by way of removing the boundary of non-separation, and then the boundary of common residence, when the boundary has been uprooted, even if a partial boundary and a great boundary still exist in that monastery, those bhikkhus, necessarily being in the midst of them at one seat-sized place, would remove them. After that, only the village boundary will remain.”

‘‘Sādhukaṃ pana ñatvāyeva samūhanitabbā ceva bandhitabbā cā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) vacanato sīmaṃ jānantāyeva samūhanituṃ sakkhissanti, kathaṃ ajānantāti. Imasmiṃ sīmāsamūhananādhikāre sīmaṃ vā sīmāparicchedaṃ vā jānanabhāvo aṅgaṃ na hoti, antosīmāyaṃ ṭhitabhāvo, ‘‘sīmaṃ samūhanissāmā’’ti kammavācākaraṇanti idameva dvayaṃ aṅgaṃ hoti, tasmā iminā aṅgadvayena sampanne sati imaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituṃ sakkontīti. Iminā aṅgadvayena sampanne sati sīmaṃ ajānantānaṃ samūhanituṃ samatthabhāvo kathaṃ viññātabboti? Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi [Pg.358] samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī’’ti evaṃ mahāsīmāya paricchedaṃ ajānanaṭṭhānepi samūhananassa vuttattā vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) ‘‘na hettha sīmāya, tapparicchedassa vā jānanaṃ aṅgaṃ, sīmāya pana antoṭhānaṃ, ‘samūhanissāmā’ti kammavācākaraṇañca aṅgaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) ‘khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī’ti evaṃ mahāsīmāya paricchedassa ajānanepi samūhananassa vuttattā’’ti vuttaṃ. Tato porāṇabaddhasīmānaṃ samūhatattā gāmasīmāyeva avasiṭṭhā bhaveyyāti tasmiṃ avasiṭṭhāya tato paraṃ kiṃ kātabbanti. Gāmasīmāya avasiṭṭhāya sati taṃ gāmasīmaṃ pubbe vuttanayena sodhanaṃ rakkhaṇañca katvā tissaṃ gāmasīmāyaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ mahāsīmañca yathāruci bandhituṃ labhati, sīmaṃ abandhitvāva kevalāya gāmasīmāya upasampadādisaṅghakammañca kātumpi labhati.

"However, only after having thoroughly known it should it be removed and bound," according to the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144). Because of this statement, those who know the boundary will be able to remove it; but how can those who do not know it? In this context of removing a boundary, the state of knowing the boundary or its delimitation is not a factor. The state of standing within the boundary, and the performance of the formal act 'We will remove the boundary'—these two alone are factors. Therefore, when these two factors are fulfilled, even those who do not know it can remove it. When these two factors are fulfilled, how is the ability of those who do not know the boundary to remove it to be understood? In the commentary it is stated: "However, those who know the partial boundary but do not know the boundary of non-separation will be able to both remove and bind it." Thus, it is stated that removal is possible even in the case of not knowing the delimitation of a great boundary. And in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) it is said: "Here, knowing the boundary or its delimitation is not a factor; but standing within the boundary, and performing the formal act 'We will remove it,' are factors." In the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144) it is said: "However, those who know the partial boundary but do not know the boundary of non-separation will be able to both remove and bind it." Thus, it is stated that removal is possible even without knowing the delimitation of a great boundary. Then, because the old bound boundaries have been removed, only the village boundary would remain. When that remains, what should be done after that? When the village boundary remains, having purified and protected that village boundary by the method stated previously, one may bind a partial boundary and a great boundary within that village boundary as desired. Or, even without binding a boundary, one may perform ordination and other Saṅgha acts using only the village boundary.

Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) – ‘‘gāmasīmāya eva ca avasiṭṭhāya tattha yathāruci duvidhampi sīmaṃ bandhituñceva upasampadādikammaṃ kātuñca vaṭṭatīti vadanti, taṃ yuttaṃ viya dissati, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabba’’nti. Tasmā yadi saṭṭhihatthāyāmaṃ cattālīsahatthavitthāraṃ khaṇḍasīmameva kattukāmā honti, ettake padese mañcaṭṭhānaṃ gaṇhanto pamāṇayuttako mañcoti sabbapacchimappamāṇayutto mañco. So hi pakatividatthiyā navavidatthiko, aṭṭhavidatthiko vā hoti. Tato khuddako mañco sīsupadhānaṃ ṭhapetvā pādaṃ pasāretvā nipajjituṃ nappahotīti sabbapacchimamañcassa āyāmappamāṇassa samantapāsādikāyaṃ vuttattā tato adhikāyāmopi hotiyeva. Mañcassa vitthāro pana āyāmassa upaḍḍho hoti, tasmā mañcappamāṇaṭṭhānaṃ āyāmato pañcahatthaṃ, vitthārato pañcavidatthikanti gahetvā tena [Pg.359] pamāṇena gaṇhanto saṭṭhihatthāyāmaṃ sīmaṭṭhānaṃ catuvīsatimañcakaṃ hoti, cattālīsahatthavitthāraṃ aṭṭhamañcakaṃ hoti. Evaṃ gaṇhanto dakkhiṇuttarāyāmo mañco hoti, saṭṭhihatthāyāmaṃ sīmaṭṭhānaṃ dvādasamañcakaṃ hoti, cattālīsahatthavitthāraṃ soḷasamañcakaṃ hoti. Evaṃ gaṇhanto pācīnapacchimāyāmo mañco hoti. Duvidhepi āyāmaṃ vitthārena guṇitaṃ karonto sakalaṃ antosīmaṭṭhānaṃ dvānahuttarasatamañcakaṃ hoti, bahisīmaṭṭhānampi samantato ekamañcakaṃ vā dvitimañcakaṃ vā gahetabbaṃ. Tena saha gaṇanaṃ vaḍḍhetabbaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) pana ‘‘samantā leḍḍupāto’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ pana mahāsīmābandhanakāle vihāraparikkhepassa bahiupacāraṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ siyā. Khaṇḍasīmāyapi dūrato samūhanane doso natthi, dukkarattā pana kārakānaṃ pamāṇaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Kalyāṇiyaṃ nāma sīmāyaṃ pana āyāmato ca vitthārato ca pañcahatthappamāṇaṃ ṭhānaṃ ekakoṭṭhāsaṃ katvā samūhanati. Tampi pacchimamañcappamāṇato adhikamevāti katvā kataṃ. Idāni amheti vuttaṭṭhānaṃ pana pakaraṇanayena saṃsandanattā yuttataranti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

It is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144): 'Regarding the remaining area of the village boundary, it is said that one may establish either type of boundary there as desired and perform acts such as ordination. This seems reasonable and should be accepted after careful consideration.' Therefore, if they wish to establish a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) measuring sixty hands in length and forty hands in width, then within such an area, a bed of suitable measure is a bed of the smallest permissible measure. For, by the standard span, it is either nine spans or eight spans long. A bed smaller than that is not sufficient for one to lie down with legs outstretched, having placed a headrest. Since the length of the bed of the smallest permissible measure is mentioned in the Samantapāsādikā, it may even exceed that. The width of the bed, however, is half its length. Therefore, taking the space occupied by a bed as five hands in length and five spans in width, and calculating with this measure: when the bed is oriented with its length from east to west, a boundary area sixty hands in length becomes twenty-four bed-units, and forty hands in width becomes eight bed-units. When the bed is oriented with its length from south to north, the sixty-hand-long boundary space becomes twelve bed-units, and the forty-hand-wide space becomes sixteen bed-units. In both cases, when multiplying the length by the width, the entire inner boundary space amounts to one hundred and ninety-two bed-units. The outer boundary space should also be taken as one or two bed-units all around. The count should be increased along with this. However, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) mentions 'a clod's throw all around,' which may have been said in reference to the outer vicinity of the monastery enclosure when establishing a major boundary (mahāsīmā). For a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā), there is no fault in clearing the ground from a distance, but since it is difficult, the workers should know the proper measurements. In the case of the Kalyāṇī boundary, however, they clear an area measuring five hands in both length and width as a single section. This too is done on the grounds that it exceeds the measurement of the smallest permissible bed. Now, what has been stated by us should be seen as more appropriate, due to its correspondence with the method of the treatise.

Samūhananākāro pana evaṃ veditabbo – idāni bandhitabbāya sīmāya nimittānaṃ anto ca bahi ca yathāvuttanayena samūhanitabbasīmaṭṭhānaṃ ādāsatalaṃ viya samaṃ suddhaṃ vimalaṃ katvā yathāvuttamañcappamāṇaṃ mañcappamāṇaṃ ṭhānaṃ aṭṭhapadakalekhaṃ viya rajjunā vā daṇḍena vā lekhaṃ kārāpetvā lekhānusārena tambamattikacuṇṇena vā setamattikacuṇṇena vā vaṇṇavisesaṃ kārāpetvā panti panti koṭṭhāsaṃ koṭṭhāsaṃ kārāpetvā pubbe vuttanayena ārakkhaṃ sodhanañca kārāpetvā ‘‘idāni sīmaṃ samūhanissāmā’’ti cattāro [Pg.360] vā taduttari vā samānasaṃvāsakabhikkhū gahetvā paṭhamapantiyaṃ paṭhamakoṭṭhāse mañcaṭṭhāne ṭhatvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ, tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmāsamūhananakammavācaṃ sāvetvā tasmiṃ koṭṭhāseyeva aññamaññassa ṭhitaṭṭhānaṃ parivattetvā parivattetvā tikkhattuṃ vā sattakkhattuṃ vā samūhanitvā tato nikkhamitvā paṭhamapantiyaṃyeva dutiyakoṭṭhāse ṭhatvā tatheva katvā tato paṭhamapantiyaṃyeva anulomanayena yāva antimakoṭṭhāsā ekekasmiṃ koṭṭhāse tatheva katvā paṭhamapantiyā parikkhīṇāya dutiyapantiyā antimakoṭṭhāse ṭhatvā tatheva katvā tato paṭṭhāya dutiyapantiyaṃyeva paṭilomanayena yāva ādikoṭṭhāsā tatheva katvā evaṃ tatiyapantiādīsupi ekadā anulomato ekadā paṭilomato gantvā sabbāsu pantīsu sabbasmiṃ koṭṭhāse parikkhīṇe idaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammaṃ niṭṭhitaṃ nāma hoti. ‘‘Cattāro taduttari vā’’ti idaṃ pana imassa kammassa catuvaggakaraṇīyattā vuttaṃ. Vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) pana bhikkhūnaṃ pakatattabhāvassa duviññeyyattā lajjīpesalabhikkhūnañca dullabhattā ‘‘chapañcamatte’’ti vuttaṃ.

The method of removing the boundary should be understood as follows: Now, the boundary area to be removed, both inside and outside the markers of the boundary to be established, should be made level, clean, and spotless like the surface of a mirror, following the method described. Then, a space the size of a bed, as previously mentioned, should be marked with lines like a gameboard, using a string or a stick. Following these lines, a distinct color should be applied with powder of red or white clay, having it made into rows and sections. Afterwards, as previously instructed, arrangements for protection and cleaning should be made. Then, declaring, 'Now we will remove the boundary,' four or more monks of the same communion should be assembled. Standing in the first section of the first row at the bed-space, they should first have the formal act for removing the non-separation boundary announced, followed by the formal act for removing the common-residence boundary. In that same section, they should exchange their standing places with one another and perform the removal three or seven times. Then, leaving there, they should stand in the second section of the first row and do likewise. Proceeding in forward order through the first row up to the last section, they should do likewise in each section. When the first row is finished, they should stand in the last section of the second row and do likewise. Then, starting from there, they should proceed in reverse order through the second row back to the first section, doing likewise. In this way, going once in forward order and once in reverse order for the third row and beyond, when all rows and all sections are finished, this act of removing the boundary is considered complete. The phrase 'four or more' is stated because this act is to be performed by a chapter of four. However, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) states 'about five or six,' since the fitness of the monks is difficult to ascertain, and conscientious and virtuous monks are rare.

Kalyāṇīsīmāyaṃ pana sīhaḷadīpato abhinavasikkhaṃ gahetvā nivattantehi garahavivādamattampi alabhantehi dhammacetiyaraññā vicinitvā gahitehi cuddasahi bhikkhūhi katanti pāsāṇalekhāyaṃ āgataṃ. Ratanapūranagare pana sirīsudhammarājādhipatināmakassa cūḷaaggarājino kāle mahāsīhaḷappattoti vissuto sirīsaddhammakittināmako mahātheravaro attano vasanaṭṭhānassa avidūre pabbatamatthake sīmaṃ bandhanto attano nissitake aggahetvā attanā [Pg.361] abhirucite lajjipesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūte aññe mahāthere gahetvā attacatutthova hutvā kammaṃ karotīti vadanti. Taṃ imassa kammassa catuvaggakaraṇīyattā tesañca therānaṃ pakatattabhāve nirāsaṅkattā kataṃ bhaveyya, evaṃ santepi bhikkhūnaṃ pakatattabhāvassa dubbiññeyyattā catuvaggakaraṇīyakammassa atirekacatuvaggena karaṇe dosābhāvato atirekabhikkhūhi katabhāvo pasatthataro hoti. Teneva ca kāraṇena vimativinodanīnāmikāyaṃ vinayaṭīkāyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) ‘‘chapañcamatte bhikkhū gahetvā’’ti vuttaṃ, kalyāṇīsīmāyañca cuddasahi bhikkhūhi katanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Evaṃ niṭṭhitepi pana sīmāsamūhananakamme nānāvādānaṃ nānācariyānaṃ nānānikāyānaṃ nānādesavāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cittārādhanatthaṃ garahavivādamocanatthañca punappunaṃ tehipi bhikkhūhi tatheva kārāpetabbaṃ. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (pari. aṭṭha. 482-483; vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 251) ‘‘punappunaṃ pana kātabbaṃ. Tañhi kuppassa kammassa kammaṃ hutvā tiṭṭhati, akuppassa thirakammabhāvāya hotī’’ti. Teneva ca kāraṇena haṃsāvatīnagare anekapaṇḍarahatthisāmimahādhammarājā sahapuññakammabhūtato mahācetiyato catūsu disāsu sīmāsamūhananakāle rāmaññadesavāsīhi mahātherehi ca marammadesavāsīhi mahātherehi ca visuṃ visuṃ kārāpesīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

In the Kalyāṇī boundary, it is recorded in the stone inscription that it was established by fourteen monks—who had returned after receiving the new training from the island of Sri Lanka without incurring even the slightest blame or dispute, and who had been chosen after investigation by King Dhammacetiya. In the city of Ratanapūra, during the reign of King Sirīsudhammarājādhipati, also known as Cūḷaaggarāja, the renowned elder named Sirīsaddhammakitti, also called Mahāsīhaḷappatta, is said to have demarcated a boundary on a mountain peak not far from his own dwelling. Without taking his own disciples, he selected other elders who were modest, virtuous, learned, and desirous of training, agreeable to himself, and performed the act with himself as the fourth member. This was done, it is said, because this act required a quorum of four and because there was no doubt as to the fitness of those elders. Even so, due to the difficulty in ascertaining the fitness of monks, performing an act requiring a quorum of four with more than the required quorum is considered more commendable, as there is no fault in it. For this very reason, the Vinaya sub-commentary named Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144) states, 'taking about five or six monks,' and it should be understood that in the Kalyāṇī boundary, it was done by fourteen monks. Even when this act of removing the boundary is completed, to please the minds of monks of different views, different teachers, different fraternities, and different regions, and to avert blame and disputes, it should be caused to be done again and again by those monks. For it is stated in the commentary (Pari. Aṭṭha. 482–483; Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 251): 'It should be done again and again. For a potentially invalid act, it serves to validate it; for a valid act, it serves to make it firm.' For this very reason, it should be understood that in the city of Haṃsāvatī, the great righteous king, the Lord of Many White Elephants, during the removal of the boundary in the four directions from the Great Cetiya, which was a joint meritorious deed, had it done separately by the senior monks residing in the Rāmañña country and by the senior monks residing in the Maramma country.

Yadi pana mahāsīmaṃ bandhitukāmo hoti, tadā usabhamattaṃ vā dviusabhamattaṃ vā taduttari vā padesaṃ sallakkhetvā ‘‘ettake ṭhāne vihāraṃ karissāmā’’ti parikkhepaṃ kārāpetvā tassa vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca sabbattha bahi ca samantā leḍḍupātaṭṭhāne mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe [Pg.362] okāse heṭṭhā vuttanayena pantikoṭṭhāse katvā kammappattehi bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ nirantaraṃ ṭhatvā paṭhamaṃ avippavāsasīmā tato samānasaṃvāsakasīmā ca samūhanitabbā. Evaṃ sīmāya samugghāte kate tasmiṃ vihāre khaṇḍasīmāya mahāsīmāya ca vijjamānatte sati avassaṃ ekasmiṃ mañcaṭṭhāne tāsaṃ majjhagatā te bhikkhū tā samūhaneyyuṃ, tato gāmasīmā eva avasisseyya, tassaṃ gāmasīmāyaṃ khaṇḍasīmāmahāsīmāvasena duvidhā sīmā yathāruci bandhitabbā. Bandhanākāraṃ pana upari vakkhāma.

If one wishes to establish a great boundary (mahāsīmā), then, after assessing an area of one usabha-measure, two usabha-measures, or more, and having an enclosure marked out with the intention, 'We will build the monastery within this space,' then inside that monastery enclosure and all around it, within a clod's throw, in spaces the size of a bed, rows and sections should be made in the manner previously described. Then, together with the monks who are eligible for the formal act, standing without interruption, they should first remove the non-separation boundary (avippavāsasīmā), and then the common-residence boundary (samānasaṃvāsakasīmā). When the boundary has been removed in this way, if both a partial boundary (khaṇḍasīmā) and a great boundary (mahāsīmā) exist within that monastery, the monks, having entered the space between them, must necessarily remove those boundaries from a single bed-space. After that, only the village boundary (gāmasīmā) will remain. Within that village boundary, a twofold boundary—either a partial boundary or a great boundary—may be established as one prefers. The method of establishing the boundary will be explained later.

Kasmā pana nimittānaṃ bahipi sīmāsamūhananaṃ kataṃ, nanu nimittānaṃ antoyeva abhinavasīmā icchitabbāti tattheva sambhedajjhottharaṇavimocanatthaṃ porāṇakasīmāya samūhananaṃ kātabbanti? Saccaṃ, duviññeyyattā pana evaṃ katanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Duviññeyyo hi porāṇakasīmāya vijjamānāvijjamānabhāvo, tasmā yadi nimittānaṃ antoyeva sīmāsamūhananaṃ kareyya, tato bahi porāṇakasīmā tiṭṭheyya, tato appamattakaṃ ṭhānaṃ anto paviseyya, taṃ ṭhānaṃ kammavācāpāṭhakena saha sīmāsamūhananakārakasaṅghassa patiṭṭhahanappahonakaṃ na bhaveyya, evaṃ sante sā porāṇakasīmā asamūhatāva bhaveyya. Taṃ samūhatasaññāya sīmāsammannanakāle antonimittaṭṭhānaṃ sammanneyyuṃ, taṃ asamūhataporāṇasīmākoṭipaviṭṭhattā sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhedadoso, yadi pana taṃ ṭhānaṃ catunnaṃ nisinnappahonakaṃ bhaveyya, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharaṇadoso, yadipi anto na pavisati, nirantaraṃ phuṭṭhamattaṃ hoti, evampi sīmāsaṅkaradosoti imasmā dosattayā vimocanatthaṃ nimittānaṃ bahipi sīmāsamūhananaṃ kataṃ. Teneva vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) ‘‘bahi ca samantā leḍḍupāte’’tiādi vuttanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

But why was the removal of the boundary performed even outside the markers? Should not the new boundary be desired only within the markers, and the old boundary be removed right there to be free from infringement and overlapping? True, but it should be understood that this was done because of the difficulty of knowing. For the existence or non-existence of the old boundary is difficult to ascertain. Therefore, if the removal of the boundary were done only within the markers, the old boundary might remain outside. Then, a small portion might extend inside, and that space would not be sufficient for the Saṅgha performing the boundary removal, together with the reciter of the formal announcement, to stand. In that case, the old boundary would remain unremoved. If, under the impression that it had been removed, they were to establish the boundary within the area of the markers, there would be the fault of a boundary infringing upon a boundary, due to being entered by the edge of the unremoved old boundary. If, however, that space were sufficient for four monks to be seated, the fault of a boundary overlapping a boundary would arise. Even if it does not extend inside but is merely touched continuously, the fault of boundary confusion would still occur. To be free from these three faults, the removal of the boundary was performed even outside the markers. For this reason, it is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144), 'and outside, all around, at a clod's throw,' and so on—this should be understood.

Keci [Pg.363] pana ācariyā samantā nimittānaṃ anto rajjupasāraṇaṃ katvā anto ṭhatvā rajjuyā heṭṭhā pāde pavesetvā rajjuto bahi kiñcimattaṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamitvā sīmāsamūhananaṃ karonti, tadetaṃ vicāretabbaṃ. Pādaggaṭṭhapanamattena porāṇasīmāsamugghāto na hoti, atha kho kammavācāpāṭhakena saha kammapattasaṅghassa patiṭṭhānena kammavācāya pāṭhanena ca samugghāto hoti. Vuttañhi vimativinodanippakaraṇe (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) ‘‘sīmāya pana antoṭhānaṃ, ‘samūhanissāmā’ti kammavācāya karaṇañcettha aṅga’’nti, tasmā ekadesena antopaviṭṭhāya ca ekasambandhena ṭhitāya porāṇakabaddhasīmāya samugghāte akate vuttanayena dosattayato na mucceyya, tasmā nimittato bahipi ṭhatvā samūhananakaraṇabhāvova pāsaṃsataro hoti. Aññe pana ācariyā kammakārakabhikkhūnaṃ padavalañjasambandhaṃ katvā samūhananti, taṃ garukaraṇavasena katanti gayhamāne doso natthi. Ekacce pana therā ‘‘kārakasaṅghassa akkantaṭṭhāneyeva sīmā samūhatā, na anakkantaṭṭhāneti saññāya paṭhamataraṃ sālaṃ karitvā pacchā sīmāya samūhatāya thambhaṭṭhāne akkamituṃ na labhati, tasmā asamūhatā sīmā’’ti vadanti.

Some teachers, however, having stretched a cord around the markers and standing inside, place their feet under the cord and step slightly beyond it to perform the removal of the boundary. This should be examined. The removal of the ancient boundary does not occur by the mere placing of the tips of the feet; rather, the removal occurs through the standing of the Saṅgha qualified for the formal act, together with the reciter of the formal announcement, and by the recitation of the formal announcement. As stated in the Vimativinodanīppakaraṇa (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144): 'For a boundary, standing inside and performing the formal announcement, "we will remove," is an essential factor.' Therefore, if an ancient boundary, which stands as a single connected area and is partially entered, is not removed, one would not be free from the three faults as described above. Hence, standing even outside the markers and performing the removal is more commendable. Other teachers perform the removal by making a connection of the footprints of the monks performing the act. If this is understood as being done out of great care, there is no fault in accepting it. Yet, some elders say: 'The boundary is removed only where the acting Saṅgha has stepped, not where they have not stepped. If one first erects a hall and later the boundary is removed, one cannot step on the location of the pillars; therefore, the boundary is unremoved.'

Pubbepi sirīkhettanagare mahāsattadhammarājassa kāle tena raññā katassa nandanavihārassa purato tassa rañño aggamahesiyā sīmāya patiṭṭhāpitāya paṭhamaṃ jetavanasālaṃ katvā pacchā sīmaṃ samūhaniṃsu, tadā tasmiṃ nagare mahārukkhamūliko nāma eko gaṇapāmokkhatthero ‘‘sace thambhaṃ vijjhitvā pāde ṭhapetuṃ sakkhissāmi, evaṃ sante ahaṃ āgacchissāmī’’ti vatvā nāgacchati. Sabbe therā ‘‘na thambhamattena porāṇasīmā tiṭṭhati, thambhassa samantato ṭhatvā [Pg.364] kammavācāya katāya sīmā samūhatā hotī’’ti vatvā tassa vacanaṃ aggahetvā samūhaniṃsu ceva bandhiṃsu ca. Haṃsāvatīnagare dhammacetiyarañño kalyāṇiyasīmābandhanakālepi paṭhamaṃ sālaṃ karitvāva pacchā samūhaniṃsu, na ca pāḷiaṭṭhakathāṭīkādīsu ‘‘padavalañjasambandhaṃ katvā sīmā samūhanitabbā’’ti pāṭho atthi, ‘‘mañcappamāṇe mañcappamāṇe ṭhāne’’ti (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) pana atthi. Porāṇasīmāya anto ṭhatvā ekasmiṃ ṭhāne sīmāsamūhananakammavācāya katāya sakalāpi sīmā samūhatāva hoti, tasmā ‘‘padavalañjasambandhaṃ katvā samūhanitabba’’nti vacanaṃ paṇḍitā na sampaṭicchanti. Īdisaṃ pana vacanaṃ garukaraṇavasena vuttanti gayhamāne kiñcāpi doso natthi, tathāpi sissānusissānaṃ diṭṭhānugatiāpajjanakāraṇaṃ hoti. Te hi ‘‘amhākaṃ ācariyā evaṃ kathenti, evaṃ karontī’’ti daḷhīkammavasena gahetvā tathā akate sīmā samūhatā na hotīti maññanti, tasmā pakaraṇāgatanayavaseneva karaṇaṃ varaṃ pasatthaṃ hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Previously, in the city of Sirīkhetta, during the time of King Mahāsattadhammarāja, when a boundary had been established by that king's chief queen in front of the Nandanavihāra built by that king, they first built a Jetavana hall and only afterward removed the boundary. At that time, in that city, a certain leading elder of a group named Mahārukkhamūlika said, 'If I can pierce the pillar and place my foot there, then I will come,' but he did not come. All the elders said, 'The ancient boundary does not remain merely because of a pillar. When the formal announcement is made while standing all around the pillar, the boundary is removed.' Disregarding his words, they both removed and established the boundary. Also in the city of Haṃsāvatī, at the time of King Dhammacetiya's establishment of the Kalyāṇī boundary, they first built a hall and only afterward removed the boundary. And there is no text in the Pāḷi, commentaries, or sub-commentaries stating, 'The boundary must be removed by making a connection of footprints.' However, there is the passage, 'in a space the size of a bed, in a space the size of a bed' (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.144). When the formal announcement for removing the boundary is performed in one place while standing within the ancient boundary, the entire boundary is indeed removed. Therefore, the learned do not accept the statement, 'It must be removed by making a connection of footprints.' Yet, if such a statement is taken as being spoken out of great care, there is no fault, although it can become a cause for disciples and their successors to fall into the imitation of a view. For they might think, 'Our teachers say and do it this way,' and, holding firmly to this, believe that unless it is done so, the boundary is not removed. Therefore, it should be understood that acting according to the method found in the treatises is better and more commendable.

Aparampi imasmiṃ sīmāsamūhananādhikāre dhammagāravehi vinayadharehi cintetabbaṃ gambhīraṃ duddasaṃ ṭhānaṃ atthi, taṃ katamanti ce? ‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tiyojanaparamaṃ sīmaṃ sammannitu’’nti (mahāva. 140) vacanato nānāgāmakkhettāni avattharitvā sammatā tiyojanikādikāyo mahāsīmāyo bhagavatā anuññātā atthi, atha ekaṃ gāmakkhettaṃ sodhetvā ārakkhaṃ datvā sīmāya samūhatāya yadi tato aññesu gāmakkhettesu bhikkhū santi, na gāmasīmā baddhasīmaṃ paricchindituṃ sakkoti, tasmā te bhikkhū tasmiṃ kamme vaggaṃ kareyyuṃ, evaṃ sati sīmā samūhatā na bhaveyya, tāya asamūhatāya sati abhinavasīmā sammannitabbā na bhaveyya, iti idaṃ ṭhānaṃ dujjānaṃ duddasaṃ, tasmā pāsāṇacchattaṃ viya bhagavato [Pg.365] āṇaṃ garuṃ karontehi lajjipesalabahussutasikkhākāmabhūtehi vinayavidūhi suṭṭhu cintetabbanti.

Furthermore, in this matter of removing a boundary, there is a profound and hard-to-see point to be considered by those who have reverence for the Dhamma and are upholders of the Vinaya. What is it? According to the saying, 'I allow, O monks, to establish a boundary of three yojanas at most' (Mahāvagga 140), great boundaries of three yojanas and so on, established encompassing various village areas, have been allowed by the Blessed One. But if, after purifying one village area and assigning protection, a boundary is removed, and if there are monks in other village areas, the village boundary cannot demarcate an established boundary. Therefore, those monks would render that act incomplete. In such a case, the boundary would not be removed. Since it remains unremoved, a new boundary should not be established. Thus, this point is difficult to know and hard to see. Therefore, it should be well considered by those knowers of the Vinaya who, holding the Buddha’s command as weighty as a stone parasol, are conscientious, amiable, learned, and desirous of the training.

Imasmiṃ adhikāre cintento gavesanto vicinanto idaṃ kāraṇaṃ dissati – tiyojanikādimahāsīmāyo iddhimantānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ dharamānakāle sannipatituṃ vā visodhetuṃ vā sakkuṇeyyabhāvato tamārabbha bhagavatā anujānitā bhaveyyuṃ. Sabbasmiṃ kāle sabbasmiṃ padese sabbe bhikkhū tādisaṃ mahāsīmaṃ sodhetuṃ vā sannipatituṃ vā na sakkā, na ca bhagavā asakkuṇeyyaṃ alabbhaneyyaṃ kāraṇaṃ vadeyya. Bhagavato dharamānakāle rājagahanagare aṭṭhārasa mahāvihārā ekasīmāva dhammasenāpatisāriputtattherena sammatāti. Sīhaḷadīpe mahāvihārasīmā anurādhapuraṃ antokatvā pavattā mahāmahindattherena sammatāti ca pakaraṇesu dissati, na tathā imasmiṃ nāma dese dviyojanikā vā tiyojanikā vā sīmā asukena bhikkhunā sammatāti dissati. Imasmiñca marammadese tādisānaṃ sīmānaṃ natthibhāvo upaparikkhitvā jānitabbo. Tathā hi anekasataanekasahassavassakālato uppannā baddhasīmā pāsāṇathambhanimittena saha tasmiṃ tasmiṃ padese dissanti. Arimaddanapure ca anuruddhamahārājena sammannāpitā dvāsaṭṭhayādhikasatahatthāyāmā sattacattālīsādhikasatahatthavitthārā mahāsīmā nimittena saha dissati. Ratanapūranagare ca narapatijeyyasūramahārājakāle aṭṭhasattatādhikacatusatakaliyuge sammannitā sīmā pāsāṇalekhāya saddhiṃ dissati. Yadi tiyojanaparamādimahāsīmāyo atthi, porāṇācariyā navaṃ navaṃ baddhasīmaṃ na bandheyyuṃ, atha ca pana bandhanti, tāsu ca navasīmāsu upasampadādisaṅghakammaṃ karonti, tato eva ca gaṇanapathamatikkantā bhikkhū paramparato vaḍḍhentā yāvajjatanā [Pg.366] sāsanaṃ patiṭṭhapenti. Iminā ca kāraṇena imasmiṃ padese tiyojanā sīmāyo natthīti viññāyati.

In considering this matter, investigating and examining, this reason is seen: the great boundaries of three yojanas and more might have been permitted by the Blessed One because, during his time, monks possessing psychic powers could gather within or purify them. At all times and in all places, it is not possible for all monks to purify or gather within such a great boundary, nor would the Blessed One prescribe something impossible or unattainable. During the Blessed One's time, in the city of Rājagaha, eighteen great monasteries had a single boundary approved by the Elder Sāriputta, the General of the Dhamma. In the island of Sri Lanka, the great boundary of the Mahāvihāra, encompassing Anurādhapura, was approved by the Elder Mahinda, as seen in the treatises. But in this country, it is not seen that a boundary of two or three yojanas was approved by any particular monk by name. In this Maramma country, the absence of such boundaries should be understood upon investigation. Indeed, boundaries established many hundreds and thousands of years ago, marked with stone pillars, are seen in various places. In the city of Arimaddana, a great boundary measuring 162 hatthas in length and 147 hatthas in width, approved by King Anuruddha, is seen along with its markers. In the city of Ratanapūra, a boundary approved during the reign of King Narapatijeyyasūra in the year 478 of the Kaliyuga is seen together with a stone inscription. If there were great boundaries extending up to three yojanas, the ancient teachers would not repeatedly establish new boundaries. Yet they do establish them, and in these new boundaries, they perform ordination and other Saṅgha acts. From that very reason, monks beyond counting have continued to increase in succession, establishing the Dispensation up to the present day. For this reason, it is understood that in this country, boundaries of three yojanas do not exist.

Atha vā ‘‘vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca bahi ca samantā leḍḍupāte’’ti vihāraparikkhepassa anto ca vihārūpacārabhūte bahi leḍḍupāte ca ṭhāneyeva sīmāsamūhananassa vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.144) vuttattāpi tādisā mahāsīmāyo natthīti viññāyati. Yadi atthi, sīmāsamūhananaṃ pakaraṇācariyā na katheyyuṃ. Kathentāpi samantā tiyojanaṃ ṭhānaṃ sodhetvā sīmāsamūhananaṃ kareyyuṃ, tathā pana akathetvā vihāravihārūpacāresuyeva sīmāsamūhananassa kathitattā tiyojanikādayo mahāsīmāyo natthīti viññāyati.

Alternatively, it is understood that such great boundaries do not exist, because it is also stated in the Vimativinodanī Ṭīkā (on Mahāvagga 2.144) that the removal of a boundary applies only to the area 'within the monastery enclosure and outside, all around within a clod's throw,' which constitutes the monastery's precincts. If such boundaries did exist, the authors of the treatises would not have discussed the removal of a boundary. Even if they had discussed it, they would have instructed to purify an area of three yojanas all around and then perform the removal of the boundary. But since they did not discuss it in that way, and only mentioned the removal of the boundary within the monastery and its precincts, it is understood that great boundaries of three yojanas and so forth do not exist.

Atha vā ‘‘khaṇḍasīmaṃ pana jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi samūhanituñceva bandhituñca sakkhissantī’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 144) vacanatopi tesu tesu janapadesu tiyojanikādikāyo mahāsīmāyo natthīti viññāyati. Kathaṃ? Yadi tādisā sīmāyo atthi, sakalampi taṃ sīmaṃ asodhetvā sīmāsamūhananaṃ aṭṭhakathācariyā na katheyyuṃ, atha ca pana khaṇḍasīmaṃ jānantā avippavāsaṃ ajānantāpi sīmaṃ samūhanituṃ bandhituñca samatthabhāvaṃ kathenti, sā kathā khandhasīmāya sīmantarikantaritamattā hutvā tasmiṃ gāmakkhette avippavāsasīmā bhaveyya, tasmā tasmiṃ ṭhāne ṭhatvā samūhanituṃ samatthabhāvena aṭṭhakathācariyehi kathīyati, na nānāgāmakkhettāni avattharitvā sammatāya tiyojanikādibhedāya sīmāya aññesu gāmakkhettesu aññesu bhikkhūsu santesupi samūhanituṃ samatthabhāvena, tena ñāyati ‘‘na [Pg.367] sabbesu ṭhānesu tiyojanikādibhedāyo mahāsīmāyo na santī’’ti. Īdisāni kāraṇāni bhagavato āṇaṃ garuṃ karontehi vinayatthavidūhi vinayadharehi punappunaṃ cintetabbāni upaparikkhitabbāni, ito aññānipi kāraṇāni gavesitabbānīti.

Alternatively, it is understood that in those various regions, great boundaries of three yojanas and so forth do not exist, based on the statement in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 144): “Even those who know a fragmentary boundary but do not know the boundary of non-absence will be able to remove and establish a boundary.” How so? If such boundaries existed, the commentary teachers would not have discussed the removal of a boundary without purifying that entire boundary. Yet, they explain that even those who know a fragmentary boundary but do not know the boundary of non-absence are capable of removing and establishing a boundary. That statement implies that it would be a boundary of non-absence in that village territory, being merely a fragmentary boundary separated by an intervening boundary. Therefore, the commentary teachers speak of the ability to remove a boundary while standing in that place, not of the ability to remove a boundary that extends over various village territories—a boundary designated as being of the three-yojana type, etc.—even when other monks are present in those other village territories. Thus, it is known that great boundaries of the three-yojana type and so forth are not present in all places. Such reasons should be repeatedly reflected upon and examined by those who revere the Buddha’s authority, by experts in the Vinaya and bearers of the Vinaya. Other reasons should also be sought beyond these.

Ito parampi ‘‘sace aññānipi gāmakkhettāni antokātukāmā, tesu gāmesu ye bhikkhū vasanti, tehipi āgantabba’’ntiādivacanato (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ekasmiṃyeva gāmakkhette sīmaṃ na bandhanti, atha kho aññānipi gāmakkhettāni antokaritvāpi bandhanti, tasmā idāni sammannitabbāya sīmāya nissayabhūtaṃ pakatigāmakkhettaṃ vā visuṃgāmakkhettaṃ vā sodhitanti manasi na kātabbaṃ. Kaṅkhacchedanatthaṃ sīmāsamūhananakammavācābhaṇanasamaye tena gāmakkhettena sambandhesu aññesu gāmakkhettesu vasante bhikkhūpi yācitvā tato gāmakkhettato bahi dūre vāsāpetabbā. Evañhi karonte aññāni gāmakkhettāni antokaritvā porāṇasīmāya vijjamānāyapi te vaggaṃ kātuṃ na sakkonti. Tato sīmāsamūhananakammavācā sampajjati, tasmā evarūpo sukhumo nipuṇo attho vinayadharehi cintetabbo. Evaṃ sīmāsamūhananavidhānena sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatāti vuttehi dvīhi vipattidosehi muttā hoti.

Furthermore, from the statement “If one wishes to include other village territories as well, the monks residing in those villages should also come,” (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138) it is clear that they do not establish a boundary within just one village territory. Instead, they also include other village territories and then establish the boundary. Therefore, one should not consider that the natural village territory or a separate village territory, which serves as the basis for the boundary now to be designated, has been purified. For the purpose of dispelling doubt, at the time of reciting the formal act for the removal of the boundary, the monks residing in other village territories connected to that village territory should also be requested, and then made to dwell far outside that village territory. By doing so, even if an old boundary that includes other village territories still exists, they cannot form a faction. Thus, the formal act for the removal of the boundary succeeds. Therefore, such a subtle and refined point should be carefully considered by Vinaya experts. In this way, by following the procedure for the removal of the boundary, it is freed from the two faults of invalidation mentioned: “designated by breaking a boundary with a boundary” and “designated by overrunning a boundary with a boundary.”

Tato ‘‘atikhuddikā atimahantī’’ti (pari. 486) vuttehi vipattidosehi vimuccanatthaṃ sīmāya pamāṇaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Kathaṃ? Sīmā nāma ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdituṃ appahonte sati atikhuddikā nāma hoti, sammatāpi sīmā na hoti. Tiyojanato paraṃ kesaggamattampi ṭhānaṃ anto karonte sati atimahatī nāma hoti, sammatāpi sīmā na hoti[Pg.368], tasmā ekavīsatiyā bhikkhūnaṃ nisīdanappahonakato paṭṭhāya tiyojanaṃ anatikkamitvā yattha yaṃ pamāṇaṃ saṅgho icchati, tattha taṃ pamāṇaṃ katvā sīmā sammannitabbā. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti ce? ‘‘Tattha atikhuddikā nāma yattha ekavīsati bhikkhū nisīdituṃ na sakkonti. Atimahantī nāma antamaso kesaggamattenapi tiyojanaṃ atikkamitvā sammatā’’ti kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) vacanato viññāyati. Evaṃ sīmāya pamāṇaggahaṇena ‘‘atikhuddikā atimahantī’’ti vuttehi dvīhi dosehi muttā hoti.

Then, to be freed from the faults of invalidation mentioned as “too small” or “too large” (Pari. 486), the proper size of the boundary should be known. How? A boundary is called “too small” when it is insufficient for twenty-one monks to sit; even if designated, it is not a boundary. When it includes even a hair’s breadth of space beyond three yojanas, it is called “too large”; even if designated, it is not a boundary. Therefore, starting from being sufficient for twenty-one monks to sit, and not exceeding three yojanas, the Saṅgha should designate the boundary at whatever size they wish. How is this understood? It is understood from the statement in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā (Nidāna-vaṇṇanā): “Therein, ‘too small’ means where twenty-one monks cannot sit. ‘Too large’ means when it is designated having exceeded three yojanas, even by a mere hair’s breadth.” Thus, by determining the proper size of the boundary, it is freed from the two faults mentioned as “too small” or “too large.”

Tato ‘‘khaṇḍanimittā chāyānimittā animittā’’ti (pari. 486) vuttehi tīhi vipattidosehi vimuccanatthaṃ nimittakittanaṃ kātabbaṃ, tattha asambandhakittanena nimittā sīmā khaṇḍanimittā nāma. Kathaṃ? Sīmāya catūsu disāsu ṭhapitanimittesu puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ kittetvā anukkamena dakkhiṇapacchimauttaradisāsu nimittāni kittetvā puna puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ kittetabbaṃ, evaṃ kate akhaṇḍanimittā nāma hoti. Yadi pana puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ kittetvā anukkamena dakkhiṇapacchimauttaradisāsu nimittāni kittetvā ṭhapeti, puna puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ na kitteti, evaṃ khaṇḍanimittā nāma hoti. Aparāpi khaṇḍanimittā nāma yā animittupagapāsāṇaṃ vā bahisārarukkhaṃ vā khāṇukaṃ vā paṃsupuñjaṃ vā antarā ekaṃ nimittaṃ katvā sammatā. Pabbatacchāyādīsu yaṃ kiñci chāyaṃ nimittaṃ katvā sammatā chāyānimittā nāma. Sabbaso nimittaṃ akittetvā sammatā animittā nāma. Imehi tīhi dosehi vimuccanatthāya nimittakittanaṃ kātabbaṃ.

Then, to be freed from the three faults of invalidation mentioned as “broken-marker,” “shadow-marker,” and “markerless” (Pari. 486), the declaration of the markers should be made. Among these, a boundary designated with markers declared without connection is called a “broken-marker” boundary. How so? When the markers are established in the four directions of a boundary, after declaring the marker in the eastern direction, one should successively declare the markers in the southern, western, and northern directions, and then the marker in the eastern direction should be declared again. Done thus, it is called an “unbroken-marker” boundary. But if, after declaring the marker in the eastern direction and successively declaring the markers in the southern, western, and northern directions, one stops without again declaring the marker in the eastern direction, then it is called a “broken-marker” boundary. Another type of “broken-marker” boundary is that which is designated by making a single marker in between, such as a rock unsuitable as a marker, a tree without heartwood, a stump, or a pile of earth. A boundary designated by making any shadow, such as the shadow of a mountain, a marker, is called a “shadow-marker” boundary. A boundary designated without declaring any marker at all is called a “markerless” boundary. The declaration of the markers should be made to be freed from these three faults.

Kathaṃ? Kammavācāya porāṇasīmāsamūhananaṃ katvā parisuddhāya kevalāya gāmasīmāya saṅghena yathājjhāsayaṃ gahitappamāṇassa [Pg.369] sīmamaṇḍalassa catūsu vā disāsu aṭṭhasu vā disāsu nimittupage heṭṭhimaparicchedena dvattiṃsapalaguḷapiṇḍappamāṇe, ukkaṭṭhaparicchedena hatthippamāṇato ūnappamāṇe pāsāṇe ṭhapetvā nimittānaṃ anto ṭhitena kammavācāpāṭhakena vinayadharena ‘‘puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta’’nti pucchitabbaṃ. Aññena ‘‘pāsāṇo, bhante’’ti vattabbaṃ. Puna vinayadharena ‘‘eso pāsāṇo nimitta’’nti vatvā kittetabbaṃ. Iminā nayena sīmamaṇḍalaṃ padakkhiṇaṃ karontena ‘‘puratthimāya anudisāya, dakkhiṇāya disāya, dakkhiṇāya anudisāya, pacchimāya disāya, pacchimāya anudisāya, uttarāya disāya, uttarāya anudisāya kiṃ nimittaṃ? Pāsāṇo, bhante. Eso pāsāṇo nimitta’’nti kittetvā puna ‘‘puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimittaṃ? Pāsāṇo, bhante. Eso pāsāṇo nimitta’’nti kittetvā niṭṭhapetabbaṃ. Vuttañhi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘khaṇḍanimittā nāma aghaṭitanimittā vuccatī’’tiādi. Evaṃ nimittakittanena ‘‘khaṇḍanimittā chāyānimittā animittā’’ti vuttehi tīhi vipattidosehi vimuttā hoti.

How? Having performed the removal of the old boundary with a formal act, within the entirely pure village boundary, the Sangha should determine according to their wish the extent of the boundary circle. In the four or the eight directions, stones that serve as markers should be placed, with the minimum limit being the size of a lump of thirty-two palas, and with the maximum limit being a size less than that of an elephant. The Vinaya-holder who recites the formal act, standing inside the markers, should ask, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?” Another should reply, “A stone, Venerable Sir.” Then the Vinaya-holder should declare, “This stone is the marker.” Proceeding clockwise around the boundary circle in this manner, he should ask concerning the eastern sub-direction, the southern direction, the southern sub-direction, the western direction, the western sub-direction, the northern direction, and the northern sub-direction, “What is the marker?” and upon receiving the reply, “A stone, Venerable Sir,” he should declare, “This stone is the marker.” Finally, he should return to the eastern direction and ask again, “What is the marker in the eastern direction?” and upon receiving the reply, “A stone, Venerable Sir,” he should declare, “This stone is the marker,” and thus conclude. For it was said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī Aṭṭhakathā (Nidāna-vaṇṇanā): “A ‘broken-marker’ is called an unconnected marker,” and so on. By this declaration of the markers, it is freed from the three faults of invalidation mentioned as “broken-marker,” “shadow-marker,” and “markerless.”

Tato paraṃ ‘‘bahisīme ṭhitasammatā’’ti (pari. 486) vuttavipattidosato vimuccanatthaṃ sīmāsammutikammavācāpāṭhakāle saṅghassa ṭhitaṭṭhānaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Kathaṃ? Yadi nimittāni kittetvā saṅgho nimittānaṃ bahi ṭhatvā kammavācāya sīmaṃ sammannati, bahisīme ṭhitasammatā nāma hoti, sīmā na hoti, tasmā nimittāni kittetvā saṅghena nimittānaṃ anto ṭhatvā kammavācāya sīmā sammannitabbā. Vuttañhetaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ ‘‘bahisīme ṭhitasammatā nāma nimittāni kittetvā nimittānaṃ bahi ṭhitena sammatā’’ti. Evaṃ sīmāsammannanaṭṭhānaniyamena ‘‘bahisīme ṭhitasammatā’’ti (pari. 486) vuttavipattidosato muttā hoti.

Then, to be freed from the fault of invalidation mentioned as “designated while standing outside the boundary” (Pari. 486), the location of the Sangha should be known at the time of reciting the formal act for the designation of the boundary. How? If, after declaring the markers, the Sangha stands outside the markers and designates the boundary through the formal act, it is called “designated while standing outside the boundary”; it is not a boundary. Therefore, after declaring the markers, the Sangha should stand inside the markers and designate the boundary through the formal act. And this is stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī: “‘Designated while standing outside the boundary’ means designated by one who, after declaring the markers, is standing outside the markers.” Thus, by the rule concerning the place of boundary designation, it is freed from the fault of invalidation mentioned as “designated while standing outside the boundary” (Pari. 486).

Tato [Pg.370] paraṃ ‘‘nadiyaṃ sammatā, samudde sammatā, jātassare sammatā’’ti (pari. 486) vuttehi tīhi vipattidosehi ca vimuccanatthaṃ evaṃ manasi kātabbaṃ – ‘‘sabbā, bhikkhave, nadī asīmā, sabbo samuddo asīmo, sabbo jātassaro asīmo’’ti (mahāva. 147) bhagavatā vacanato nadīsamuddajātassaresu sammatā sīmā na hoti, porāṇasīmavigatāya suddhāya gāmasīmāya sammatā eva sīmā hoti, tasmā gāmasīmāyameva baddhasīmā sammannitabbā, na nadīādīsūti. Vuttañhi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘nadiyā samudde jātassare sammatā nāma etesu nadīādīsu sammatā’’tiādi. Ettāvatā ‘‘ayaṃ sīmā atikhuddikā, atimahantī, khaṇḍanimittā, chāyānimittā, animittā, bahisīme ṭhitasammatā, nadiyaṃ sammatā, samudde sammatā, jātassare sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ sambhindantena sammatā, sīmāya sīmaṃ ajjhottharantena sammatā’’ti (pari. 486) vuttehi ekādasahi dosehi vimuttā hutvā ‘‘abbhā mahikā dhūmo rajo rāhū’’ti vuttehi pañcahi upakkilesehi muttaṃ candamaṇḍalaṃ viya, sūriyamaṇḍalaṃ viya ca suparisuddhā hoti.

Then, to be freed from the three faults of invalidation mentioned as 'designated in a river, in the ocean, or in a natural lake' (Pari. 486), one should reflect thus: 'All rivers, monks, are boundless; all oceans are boundless; all natural lakes are boundless' (Mahāva. 147). Due to the Blessed One's statement, a boundary designated in rivers, oceans, or natural lakes is not a boundary. Only a boundary designated within a pure village boundary, free from ancient boundaries, is a boundary. Therefore, a fixed boundary should be designated only within the village boundary, not in rivers and so forth. As stated in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): 'Designated in a river, ocean, or natural lake means one designated in these places,' and so on. To this extent, having become free from the eleven faults mentioned as 'this boundary is too small, too large, a broken-marker boundary, a shadow-marker boundary, a markerless boundary, designated while standing outside the boundary, designated in a river, designated in the ocean, designated in a natural lake, designated by splitting a boundary with another, and designated by overlapping a boundary' (Pari. 486), and being free from the five defilements mentioned as 'clouds, mist, smoke, dust, and eclipses,' it becomes perfectly pure, like the disc of the moon or the disc of the sun.

Tividhasampatti nāma nimittasampattiparisasampattikammavācāsampattiyo. Tāsu ‘‘pabbatanimittaṃ pāsāṇanimittaṃ vananimittaṃ rukkhanimittaṃ magganimittaṃ vammikanimittaṃ nadīnimittaṃ udakanimitta’’nti (mahāva. 138) vuttesu aṭṭhasu nimittesu tassaṃ tassaṃ disāyaṃ yathāladdhāni nimittāni kittetvā sammannitabbā. Vuttañhi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘puratthimāya disāya kiṃnimittaṃ? Pāsāṇo, bhante. Eso pāsāṇo nimittantiādinā nayena kittetvā sammatā’’ti. Tesu ca aṭṭhasu nimittesu rukkhanimittādīnaṃ yathājjhāsayaṭṭhānesu dullabhabhāvato vaḍḍhitvā dvinnaṃ baddhasīmānaṃ saṅkarakaraṇato ca pāsāṇanimittassa pana tathā [Pg.371] saṅkarakaraṇābhāvato yathicchitaṭṭhānaṃ āharitvā ṭhapetuṃ sukarabhāvato ca sīmaṃ bandhantehi bhikkhūhi sīmamaṇḍalassa samantā nimittūpagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā. Tena vuttaṃ mahāvaggaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ‘‘taṃ bandhantehi samantā nimittūpagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā’’ti. Vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) ‘‘nimittūpagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbāti idaṃ yathārucitaṭṭhāne rukkhanimittādīnaṃ dullabhatāyā’’tiādi. Ettāvatā nimittasampattisaṅkhātaṃ paṭhamaṅgaṃ sūpapannaṃ hoti.

The threefold success is: success of the markers, success of the assembly, and success of the formal act. Among these, concerning the eight markers mentioned—'a mountain marker, a rock marker, a forest marker, a tree marker, a road marker, an anthill marker, a river marker, a water marker' (Mahāvagga 138)—the markers obtained in each direction should be declared and designated. For it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): 'Designated after having declared in this manner: “What is the marker in the eastern direction? A rock, venerable sir. This rock is the marker,”' and so on. Among these eight markers, because tree markers and others are difficult to obtain in desired locations, and because by growing they can cause a confusion of the boundaries of two fixed areas, whereas a rock marker does not cause such confusion, and because it is easy to bring and place a rock in any desired location, monks establishing a boundary should place rocks to serve as markers around the boundary circle. Thus, it is said in the Mahāvagga Commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 138): 'Those establishing it should place rocks to serve as markers all around.' And in the Vimativinodanī (Vinaya Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.138): '“Rocks to serve as markers should be placed”—this is because tree markers and others are hard to find in suitable places,' and so on. Thus far, the first factor, called success of the markers, is well accomplished.

Tato sīmāsammutikaraṇatthaṃ sabbantimena paricchedena cattāro bhikkhū sannipatitvā yāvatā tasmiṃ gāme baddhasīmaṃ vā nadīsamuddajātassare vā anokkamitvā ṭhitā bhikkhū santi, sabbe te hatthapāse vā katvā chandaṃ vā āharitvā yā sīmā sammatā, sā parisasampattiyuttā nāma hoti. Tena vuttaṃ kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘parisasampattiyuttā nāma sabbantimena paricchedena catūhi bhikkhūhi sannipatitvā’’tiādi. Atha taṃ sīmaṃ bandhantā bhikkhū sāmantavihāresu vasante bhikkhū tassa tassa vihārassa sīmāparicchedaṃ pucchitvā ye baddhasīmavihārā, tesaṃ sīmāya sīmantarikaṃ ṭhapetvā, ye abaddhasīmavihārā, tesaṃ sīmāya upacāraṃ ṭhapetvā disācārikabhikkhūnaṃ nissañcārasamaye yadi ekasmiṃyeva gāmakkhette sīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, tasmiṃ ye bhikkhū baddhasīmavihārā, tesaṃ pesetabbaṃ ‘‘ajja mayaṃ sīmaṃ bandhissāma, tumhe sakasakasīmāparicchedato mā nikkhamathā’’ti. Ye abaddhasīmavihārā, te sabbe ekajjhaṃ sannipātāpetabbā, chandārahānaṃ chando āharitabbo.

Then, for the purpose of establishing a boundary, with a minimum complement of four monks assembled, and with as many monks as are present in that village—who are standing without having entered an established boundary or a river, ocean, or natural lake—all brought within hand's reach or their consent obtained, the boundary thus established is called one endowed with a complete assembly. Thus it was said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Nidānavaṇṇanā): 'Endowed with a complete assembly means by a final complement of four monks having assembled,' and so on. Then, monks establishing that boundary should inquire from the monks residing in neighboring monasteries about the boundary limit of each respective monastery. For those monasteries with established boundaries, an interval between boundaries should be left. For those without established boundaries, an approach-area should be left at their boundary. If, at a time when wandering monks are not travelling, they wish to establish the boundary within a single village-field, a message should be sent to those monks in monasteries with established boundaries: 'Today we will establish the boundary—do not go out from your respective boundary limits.' Those from monasteries without established boundaries should all be made to assemble together, and the consent of those eligible to give consent should be brought.

Yadi aññaṃ gāmakkhettampi antokattukāmā, tattha nivāsino bhikkhū samānasaṃvāsakasīmāsammannanakāle āgantumpi [Pg.372] anāgantumpi vaṭṭanti. Avippavāsasīmāsammannanakāle pana antonimittagatehi bhikkhūhi āgantabbaṃ, anāgacchantānaṃ chando āharitabbo. Vuttañhetaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ‘‘taṃ bandhitukāmehi sāmantavihāresu bhikkhū’’tiādi. Evaṃ bhikkhūsu sannipatitesu chandārahānaṃ chande āhaṭe tesu tesu maggesu nadītitthagāmadvārādīsu ca āgantukabhikkhūnaṃ sīghaṃ sīghaṃ hatthapāsānayanatthañca bahisīmakaraṇatthañca ārāmikasāmaṇere ṭhapetvā bherisaññaṃ vā saṅkhasaññaṃ vā kārāpetvā nimittakittanānantaraṃ vuttāya ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho’’tiādikāya (mahāva. 139) kammavācāya sīmā bandhitabbā. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ‘‘evaṃ sannipatitesu pana bhikkhūsū’’tiādi. Ettāvatā parisasampattisaṅkhātaṃ dutiyaṅgaṃ sūpapannaṃ hoti.

If they wish to include another village-field within the boundary, the resident monks are permitted to be either present or absent at the time of establishing the common-residence boundary. However, at the time of establishing the non-separation boundary, monks who have gone within the markers must come, and for those who do not come, their consent must be brought. This is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138): 'By those who wish to establish it, monks in neighboring monasteries...' and so on. Thus, when the monks have assembled and the consent of those eligible to give consent has been brought, having stationed monastery attendants and novices on the various paths, at river crossings, village gates, and so on, for the purpose of quickly bringing incoming monks within hand's reach or for keeping them outside the boundary, and having caused a drum signal or a conch signal to be made, immediately after the announcement of the markers, the boundary should be established by means of the formal act beginning with 'Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha hear me,' etc. (Mahāva. 139). For it is stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138): 'When the monks have thus assembled,' and so on. By this much, the second factor, known as the completeness of the assembly, becomes well-established.

Tato paraṃ kammavācāpāṭhasamaye ‘‘sīmaṃ, bhikkhave, sammannantena paṭhamaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmā sammannitabbā, pacchā ticīvarena avippavāso sammannitabbo’’ti (mahāva. 144) vacanato paṭhamaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmā sammannitabbā, pacchā avippavāsasīmā sammannitabbā, samānasaṃvāsakakammavācāpariyosāneyeva nimittāni bahi katvā nimittānaṃ antopamāṇeneva samānasaṃvāsakasīmā catunahutādhikadvilakkhayojanaputhulaṃ mahāpathaviṃ vinivijjhitvā pathavīsandhārakaudakaṃ pariyantaṃ katvā gatā. Tena vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ ‘‘kammavācāpariyosāneyeva…pe… gatā hotī’’ti. Avippavāsakammavācāpariyosāne avippavāsasīmā yadi antosīmāya gāmo atthi, gāmañca gāmūpacārañca muñcitvā samānasaṃvāsakasīmāya gataparicchedeneva gatā. Iti ticīvarena avippavāsasīmā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca na avattharati, samānasaṃvāsakasīmāva avattharati, samānasaṃvāsakasīmā attano dhammatāya [Pg.373] gacchati. Avippavāsasīmā pana yattha samānasaṃvāsakasīmā, tattheva gacchati. Tena vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ ‘‘iti bhikkhūnaṃ avippavāsasīmā…pe… gacchatī’’ti. Tasmā –

Thereafter, at the time of reciting the formal act, according to the saying (Mahāvagga 144): 'Monks, by one establishing a boundary, first the sīmā of common residence should be established, and afterward the non-separation with the three robes should be established.' Therefore, first the sīmā of common residence should be established, and afterward the non-separation sīmā should be established. At the very conclusion of the formal act for common residence, the markers having been made external, the sīmā of common residence, by the very measure within the markers, extends, piercing through the great earth, two hundred and forty thousand yojanas wide, having made the earth-supporting water its limit. Thus it is said in the Samantapāsādikā: 'At the very conclusion of the formal act... it has extended.' At the conclusion of the formal act for non-separation, if there is a village within the sīmā, the non-separation sīmā, excluding the village and the village-precincts, extends only by the same limit reached by the sīmā of common residence. Thus, the non-separation sīmā with the three robes does not encompass the village and its precincts; only the sīmā of common residence encompasses them. The sīmā of common residence extends according to its own nature. The non-separation sīmā, however, extends only where the sīmā of common residence extends. Thus it is said in the Samantapāsādikā: 'Thus, the non-separation sīmā of the monks... extends.' Therefore—

‘‘Suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho, yāvatā samantā nimittā kittitā. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho etehi nimittehi sīmaṃ sammanneyya samānasaṃvāsaṃ ekūposathaṃ, esā ñatti.

Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha hear me. Insofar as the markers have been announced all around, if it is the proper time for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should, with these markers, establish a boundary for common residence and a single Uposatha. This is the motion.

‘‘Suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho, yāvatā samantā nimittā kittitā, saṅgho etehi nimittehi sīmaṃ sammannati samānasaṃvāsaṃ ekūposathaṃ. Yassāyasmato khamati etehi nimittehi sīmāya sammuti samānasaṃvāsāya ekūposathāya, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya. Sammatā sā sīmā saṅghena etehi nimittehi samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī. Evametaṃ dhārayāmī’’ti (mahāva. 139).

Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha hear me. Insofar as the markers have been announced all around, the Saṅgha establishes a boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. To whichever venerable one the establishment of the boundary with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha is agreeable, he should be silent. To whom it is not agreeable, he should speak. This boundary has been established by the Saṅgha with these markers for common residence and a single Uposatha. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. Thus do I hold this.

Esā samānasaṃvāsakakammavācā,

This is the formal act for common residence.

‘‘Suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho, yā sā saṅghena sīmā sammatā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā. Yadi saṅghassa pattakallaṃ, saṅgho taṃ sīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammanneyya ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, esā ñatti.

Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha hear me. That boundary which has been established by the Saṅgha for common residence and a single Uposatha—if it is the proper time for the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha should establish that boundary as a non-separation for the three robes, excluding the village and the village-precincts. This is the motion.

‘‘Suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho, yā sā saṅghena sīmā sammatā samānasaṃvāsā ekūposathā. Saṅgho taṃ sīmaṃ ticīvarena avippavāsaṃ sammannati ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca. Yassāyasmato khamati etissā sīmāya ticīvarena avippavāsasammuti ṭhapetvā [Pg.374] gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, so tuṇhassa. Yassa nakkhamati, so bhāseyya. Sammatā sā sīmā saṅghena ticīvarena avippavāsā ṭhapetvā gāmañca gāmūpacārañca, khamati saṅghassa, tasmā tuṇhī. Evametaṃ dhārayāmī’’ti (mahāva. 144).

Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha hear me. That boundary which has been established by the Saṅgha for common residence and a single Uposatha—the Saṅgha establishes that boundary as a non-separation for the three robes, excluding the village and the village-precincts. To whichever venerable one the establishment of this boundary as a non-separation for the three robes, excluding the village and the village-precincts, is agreeable, he should be silent. To whom it is not agreeable, he should speak. This boundary has been established by the Saṅgha as a non-separation for the three robes, excluding the village and the village-precincts. It is agreeable to the Saṅgha, therefore it is silent. Thus do I hold this.

Esā avippavāsakammavācā ñattidosaanussāvanādose anuṭṭhapetvā suṭṭhu bhaṇitabbā. Ettāvatā kammavācāsampattisaṅkhātaṃ tatiyaṅgaṃ sūpapannaṃ hoti.

This formal act of non-separation should be well-recited, without giving rise to faults in the motion or faults in the proclamation. By this much, the third factor, known as the perfection of the formal act, becomes well-established.

Evamayaṃ sīmā anto maṇivimānaṃ bahi rajataparikkhittaṃ vimānasāmikadevaputtoti imehi tīhi aṅgehi sampannaṃ candamaṇḍalaṃ viya, anto kanakavimānaṃ bahi phalikaparikkhittaṃ vimānasāmikadevaputtoti imehi tīhi aṅgehi sampannaṃ sūriyamaṇḍalaṃ viya ca nimittasampattiparisasampattikammavācāsampattisaṅkhātehi tīhi aṅgehi sampannā hutvā ativiya sobhati virocati, jinasāsanassa ciraṭṭhitikāraṇabhūtā hutvā tiṭṭhatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ uposathakkhandhakapāḷiyaṃ ‘‘sīmaṃ, bhikkhave, sammannantena paṭhamaṃ samānasaṃvāsakasīmā sammannitabbā’’tiādi.

Thus this sīmā, like the moon-disc, complete with these three factors—a jeweled mansion within, a silver perimeter without, and the deity who is lord of the mansion—and like the sun-disc, complete with these three factors—a golden mansion within, a crystal perimeter without, and the deity who is lord of the mansion—having become complete with the three factors known as the perfection of the markers, the perfection of the assembly, and the perfection of the formal act, shines and glows exceedingly, and it should be understood that it stands, having become a cause for the long duration of the Conqueror's Dispensation. For this was said in the Uposathakkhandhaka Pāḷi: 'Monks, by one establishing a boundary, first a sīmā of common residence should be established,' and so on.

‘‘Nimittena nimittaṃ sambandhitvā’’ti ettha pana pubbe vuttanayeneva puratthimadisato paṭṭhāya padakkhiṇaṃ katvā sabbanimittāni kittetvā uttarānudisaṃ patvā tattheva aṭṭhapetvā pubbe kittitaṃ puratthimadisāya nimittaṃ puna kittetvā sammatāti attho. Evaṃ sammatā ayaṃ sīmā ekādasahi vipattīhi muttā, tīhi sampattīhi samannāgatā hutvā sabbākārasampannā pañcavassasahassaparimāṇakālaṃ aparimāṇaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ apalokanādicatubbidhakammakaraṇaṭṭhānabhūtā baddhasīmā hotīti daṭṭhabbā.

"Connecting landmark to landmark"—here, following the method previously described, beginning from the eastern direction, one should proceed clockwise, reciting all the landmarks, and upon reaching the northern intermediate direction, concluding there, one should recite again the landmark of the eastern direction that was previously recited; this is the meaning of 'agreed upon.' In this way, this boundary, being free from eleven defects and endowed with three perfections, complete in every way, should be regarded as an established boundary, lasting for a period of five thousand years, serving as the place for performing the four kinds of monastic acts, such as proclamation and others, for an immeasurable number of monks.

Yadi [Pg.375] pana sakhaṇḍasīmaṃ mahāsīmaṃ bandhitukāmā, pubbe vuttanayena suṭṭhu sodhetvā samūhanitaporāṇasīmāya kevalāya pakatigāmasīmāya vā visuṃgāmasīmāya vā bandhitabbā, tāsu ca dvīsu sīmāsupabbajjupasampadādīnaṃ saṅghakammānaṃ sukhakaraṇatthaṃ sīmā paṭhamaṃ bandhitabbā, taṃ pana bandhantehi vattaṃ jānitabbaṃ. Sace hi bodhicetiyabhattasālādīni sabbavatthūni patiṭṭhāpetvā katavihāre bandhanti, vihāramajjhe bahūnaṃ samosaraṇaṭṭhāne abandhitvā vihārapaccante vivittokāse bandhitabbā. Akatavihāre bandhantehi bodhicetiyādīnaṃ sabbavatthūnaṃ patiṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā yathā patiṭṭhitesu vatthūsu vihārapaccante vivittokāse hoti, evaṃ bandhitabbā. Tathā hi vuttaṃ samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ‘‘imaṃ pana samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ sammannantehī’’tiādi.

If they wish to establish a great boundary with a sectional boundary, having first thoroughly cleaned it as previously described and removed the old boundary, it should be established on what is only a natural village boundary or on a separate village boundary. And within those boundaries, a boundary should first be established for the convenient performance of Sangha acts such as ordination and higher ordination; when establishing it, the proper procedure should be known. If they establish the boundary in a constructed monastery, having already established all structures such as the Bodhi tree, cetiya, and dining hall, they should not establish it in the middle of the monastery where many gather, but rather in a secluded area at the monastery’s edge. If they establish the boundary in an unconstructed monastery, they should carefully consider the placement of all structures like the Bodhi tree and cetiya, and establish the boundary so that when the structures are established, it will be in a secluded area at the monastery’s edge. As stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138): "When authorizing this boundary of common residence..." and so on.

Kittakappamāṇā pana khaṇḍasīmā bandhitabbāti? Heṭṭhimaparicchedena sace ekavīsati bhikkhū gaṇhāti, vaṭṭati, tato oraṃ na vaṭṭati. Paraṃ bhikkhusahassaṃ gaṇhantīpi vaṭṭati. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. 138) ‘‘sā heṭṭhimaparicchedenā’’tiādi. Ekavīsati bhikkhūti ca nisinne sandhāya vuttaṃ, idañca abbhānakaraṇakāle kammārahabhikkhunā saddhiṃ vīsatigaṇassa saṅghassa nisīdanappahonakatthaṃ vuttaṃ. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) ‘‘ekavīsati bhikkhū’’tiādi. Taṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ bandhantehi bhikkhūhi sīmamāḷakassa samantā nimittūpagā pāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā. Antokhaṇḍasīmāyameva ṭhatvā khaṇḍasīmā bandhitabbā. ‘‘Eso pāsāṇo nimitta’’nti evaṃ nimittāni kittetvā kammavācāya sīmā bandhitabbā, tassāyeva sīmāya daḷhīkammatthaṃ avippavāsakammavācā kātabbā. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ‘‘taṃ bandhantehī’’tiādi. Evaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ sammannitvā bahi sīmantarikapāsāṇā ṭhapetabbā. Sīmantarikā pacchimakoṭiyā ekaratanappamāṇā [Pg.376] vaṭṭati, vidatthippamāṇāpi caturaṅgulappamāṇāpi vaṭṭati. Sace pana vihāro mahā hoti, dvepi tissopi tatuttaripi khaṇḍasīmāyo bandhitabbā. Vuttañhi aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘sīmaṃ sammannitvā’’tiādi.

How large should a khaṇḍasīmā (a sectional boundary) be established? According to the lower limit, if it accommodates twenty-one monks, it is valid; less than that is not valid. Even if it accommodates a thousand monks, it is still valid. As stated in the commentary (Mahāva. 138): "By the lower limit," etc. The phrase "twenty-one monks" refers to those seated, and this is said for the purpose of allowing the Sangha of twenty monks, along with the monk fit for the act, to sit without obstruction during the act of rehabilitation. As clarified in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138): "Twenty-one monks," etc. When monks establish this khaṇḍasīmā, marker stones should be placed around the sīmamāḷaka (boundary enclosure). Standing within the khaṇḍasīmā itself, the khaṇḍasīmā should be established. After reciting the markers, such as, "This stone is a marker," the sīmā should be formally established through a motion (kammavācā). To reinforce this sīmā, a non-separation motion (avippavāsakammavācā) should also be performed. As stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138): "When establishing it," etc. Having thus authorized the khaṇḍasīmā, intermediate boundary stones (sīmantarika) should be placed outside. The intermediate space, at a minimum, may be the size of one ratana; a vidatthi or even four fingerbreadths is also acceptable. However, if the monastery is large, two, three, or even more khaṇḍasīmās may be established. As stated in the commentary: "Having authorized the sīmā," etc.

Evaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ sammannitvā mahāsīmāsammutikāle khaṇḍasīmato nikkhamitvā mahāsīmāya ṭhatvā samantā anupariyāyantehi sīmantarikapāsāṇā kittetabbā, tato avasesanimittāni kittetvā hatthapāsaṃ avijahantehi kammavācāya samānasaṃvāsakasīmaṃ sammannitvā tassa daḷhīkammatthaṃ avippavāsakammavācāpi kātabbā. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ‘‘evaṃ khaṇḍasīmaṃ sammannitvā’’tiādi.

Having authorized the sectional boundary in this way, at the time of authorizing the great boundary, one should exit the sectional boundary, stand within the great boundary, and those going around on all sides should recite the intermediate boundary stones. Then, having recited the remaining boundary markers, while not moving beyond arm's reach, one should authorize the boundary of common dwelling with a formal motion, and for the purpose of strengthening it, a formal motion for non-separation should also be performed. As it was said in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138): "Having authorized the sectional boundary in this way," etc.

‘‘Samantā anupariyāyantehi sīmantarikapāsāṇā kittetabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Kathaṃ kittetabbāti? Dakkhiṇato anupariyāyanteneva kittetabbā. Tathā hi khaṇḍasīmato pacchimāya disāya puratthābhimukhena ṭhatvā ‘‘puratthimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta’’nti tattha sabbāni nimittāni anukkamena kittetvā tathā uttarāya disāya dakkhiṇābhimukhena ṭhatvā ‘‘dakkhiṇāya disāya kiṃ nimitta’’nti anukkamena kittetvā tathā puratthimāya disāya pacchimābhimukhena ṭhatvā ‘‘pacchimāya disāya kiṃ nimitta’’nti anukkamena kittetvā tathā dakkhiṇāya disāya uttarābhimukhena ṭhatvā ‘‘uttarāya disāya kiṃ nimitta’’nti tattha sabbāni nimittāni anukkamena kittetvā puna pacchimāya disāya puratthābhimukhena ṭhatvā purimaṃ kittitaṃ vuttanayeneva puna kittetabbaṃ. Evaṃ bahūnampi khaṇḍasīmānaṃ sīmantarikapāsāṇā paccekaṃ kittetabbā, tato pacchā avasesanimittānīti mahāsīmāya bāhirabandhanesu nimittāni. Evaṃ sīmantarikapāsāṇā mahāsīmāya anto nimittāni honti dvinnaṃ sīmānaṃ [Pg.377] saṅkaradosāpagamanatthaṃ sīmantarikapāsāṇānaṃ ṭhapetabbattā. Evaṃ samantā anupariyāyantena sīmantarikapāsāṇā kittetabbā. Tathāhi vuttaṃ vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.138) ‘‘sīmantarikapāsāṇāti sīmantarikāya ṭhapitanimittapāsāṇā, te pana kittentena padakkhiṇato anupariyāyanteneva kittetabbā’’tiādi.

"It has been said that the intermediate boundary stones should be recited while going around on all sides." How should they be recited? They should be recited while going around to the right (clockwise). For instance, standing facing east on the western side of a sectional boundary, one should ask, "What is the marker in the eastern direction?" and then recite all the markers there in order. Similarly, standing facing south on the northern side, one should ask, "What is the marker in the southern direction?" and recite them in order. Likewise, standing facing west on the eastern side, one should ask, "What is the marker in the western direction?" and recite them in order. Then, standing facing north on the southern side, one should ask, "What is the marker in the northern direction?" and recite all the markers there in order. After that, standing again facing east on the western side, one should recite again the first marker in the manner previously described. In this way, the intermediate boundary stones of multiple sectional boundaries should each be recited individually, and after that, the remaining markers—the markers in the outer enclosure of the great boundary. Thus, the intermediate boundary stones serve as inner markers within the great boundary, being placed to eliminate the fault of confusion between the two boundaries. This is how the intermediate boundary stones should be recited while going around on all sides. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.138): "Intermediate boundary stones are the marker stones placed in the intermediate space. When reciting them, one should do so while going around to the right (clockwise)," and so on.

Kiṃ iminā anukkameneva sīmā sammannitabbā, udāhu aññenapi anukkamena sammannitabbāti? Sace pana khaṇḍasīmāya nimittāni kittetvā tato sīmantarikāya nimittāni kittetvā mahāsīmāya nimittāni kittenti, evaṃ tīsu ṭhānesu nimittāni kittetvā yaṃ sīmaṃ icchanti, taṃ paṭhamaṃ bandhituṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ santepi yathāvuttanayena khaṇḍasīmatova paṭṭhāya bandhitabbā. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 138) ‘‘sace pana khaṇḍasīmāya nimittānī’’tiādi. Evaṃ khaṇḍasīmamahāsīmabandhanena bhikkhūnaṃ ko guṇoti ce? Evaṃ baddhāsu pana sīmāsu khaṇḍasīmāya ṭhitā bhikkhū mahāsīmāyaṃ kammaṃ karontānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ kammaṃ na kopenti, mahāsīmāya vā ṭhitā khaṇḍasīmāya kammaṃ karontānaṃ, sīmantarikāya pana ṭhitā ubhinnampi na kopenti. Gāmakkhette ṭhatvā kammaṃ karontānaṃ pana sīmantarikāya ṭhitā kopenti. Sīmantarikā hi gāmakkhettaṃ bhajati. Tathā hi vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘‘evaṃ baddhāsu pana sīmāsū’’tiādi, evaṃ baddhasīmavihāresu vasantā bhikkhū ticīvarādhiṭṭhānena adhiṭṭhitehi ticīvarehi vinā yathāruci vasituṃ labhanti. Sace pana gāmo atthi, gāmagāmūpacāresu na labhatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Should the boundary be established in this sequential manner, or should it be established in another sequence? If, after marking the boundary signs for a partial boundary, then marking the boundary signs for the intermediate boundary, and finally marking the boundary signs for the major boundary, they wish to establish a specific boundary, it is proper to bind that one first. Even so, it should be bound starting from the partial boundary in the manner stated. As stated in the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 138): "If, however, the boundary signs for a partial boundary..." and so on. What is the benefit for the monks in binding the partial boundary and major boundary in this way? When boundaries are established in this manner, monks standing within the partial boundary do not invalidate the acts of monks performing a formal act within the major boundary, nor do monks standing within the major boundary invalidate acts performed within the partial boundary. Those standing in the intermediate boundary do not invalidate acts in either. But if monks perform an act while standing in a village territory, those in the intermediate boundary do invalidate it, for the intermediate boundary belongs to the village territory. As the commentary states: "When boundaries are bound in this way..." and so on, monks residing in such boundary-delineated monasteries are able to dwell as they please without having formally determined the three robes. However, if there is a village, it should be understood that they are not permitted to do so in the village or its vicinity.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Sīmābandhanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro.

The Ornament of the Discourse on the Ascertainment of Boundary Establishment.

25. Uposathapavāraṇāvinicchayakathā

25. A Discourse on the Ascertainment of the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā

168. Evaṃ [Pg.378] sīmāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni uposathapavāraṇāvinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘uposathapavāraṇāti ettha’’tyādimāha. Tattha uposathasaddo tāva –

168. Having thus discussed the ascertainment of boundaries, now, in order to discuss the ascertainment of the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, he states, 'Here, regarding Uposatha and Pavāraṇā,' and so on. Therein, first, the word 'Uposatha'...

‘‘Uddese pātimokkhassa, paṇṇattiyamuposatho;

Upavāse ca aṭṭhaṅge, uposathadine siyā’’ti. –

"The word 'Uposatha' applies to the recitation of the Pātimokkha, to designation, to fasting, to the eight-factored observance, and to the Uposatha day."

Vacanato pātimokkhuddese paṇṇattiyaṃ upavāse aṭṭhaṅgasīle uposathadine ca vattati. Tathā hesa ‘‘āyāmāvuso kappina uposathaṃ gamissāmā’’tiādīsu (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.150; ma. ni. aṭṭha. 3.85) pātimokkhuddese āgato, ‘‘uposatho nāma nāgarājā’’tiādīsu (dī. ni. 2.246) paṇṇattiyaṃ, ‘‘suddhassa ve sadā pheggu, suddhassa uposatho sadā’’tiādīsu (ma. ni. 1.79) upavāse, ‘‘evaṃ aṭṭhaṅgasamannāgato kho, visākhe, uposatho upavuttho’’tiādīsu (a. ni. 8.43) aṭṭhaṅgasīle. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, uposathe sabhikkhukāāvāsā abhikkhuko āvāso’’tiādīsu (pāci. 1048) uposathadine vattati. ‘‘Pārisuddhiuposatho adhiṭṭhānuposatho’’tiādīsu pārisuddhiadhiṭṭhānesupi vattati. Te pana pātimokkhuddese antogadhāti katvā visuṃ na vuttā. Idha pana pātimokkhuddese uposathadine ca vattati. Tattha pātimokkhuddese upavasanaṃ uposatho, sīlena upetā hutvā vasanantyattho. Uposathadine upavasanti etthāti uposatho, etasmiṃ divase sīlena upetā hutvā vasantītyattho.

According to the statement, the term "uposatha" is used for the recitation of the Pātimokkha, for designation, for fasting, for the eight-factored precepts, and for the Uposatha day. Thus, for example, it appears in the context of the recitation of the Pātimokkha in phrases like, "Come, friend Kappina, let us go to the Uposatha" (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1.150; Ma. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.85). In the context of designation, it is found in statements such as, "Uposatha is the name of a nāga king" (Dī. Ni. 2.246). In the context of fasting, it appears in lines like, "For the pure one, it is always the Phagguna festival; for the pure one, it is always the Uposatha" (Ma. Ni. 1.79). In the context of the eight-factored precepts, it is mentioned in phrases such as, "Thus, Visākha, the Uposatha observed is endowed with eight factors" (A. Ni. 8.43). In the context of the Uposatha day, it is stated, "Monks, on the Uposatha day, a residence with monks should not become a residence without monks" (Pāci. 1048). It is also used regarding the purification Uposatha and the determination Uposatha, as in "the purification Uposatha, the determination Uposatha." However, these are included within the Pātimokkha recitation and are not separately mentioned. Here, however, it applies to the recitation of the Pātimokkha and to the Uposatha day. Therein, in the context of the recitation of the Pātimokkha, 'upavasanaṃ' is 'uposatha,' with the meaning of 'dwelling endowed with virtue.' On the Uposatha day, 'upavasanti ettha' (they dwell here) is 'uposatha,' with the meaning of 'on this day they dwell endowed with virtue.'

Pavāraṇā-saddo pana ‘‘pavāraṇā paṭikkhepe, kathitājjhesanāya cā’’ti abhidhānappadīpikāyaṃ vacanato paṭikkhepe ajjhesane ca vattati. Tattha ‘‘yo pana bhikkhu bhuttāvī pavārito anatirittaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā [Pg.379] khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiya’’ntiādīsu (pāci. 238) paṭikkhepe, ‘‘saṅgho pavāreyyā’’tiādīsu (mahāva. 210) ajjhesane, ‘‘ajjapavāraṇā cātuddasī’’tiādīsu (mahāva. aṭṭha. 212) pavāraṇādivase. So pana ajjhesanadivasoyevāti visuṃ na vutto. Idha pana ajjhesane vattati, tasmā pavārīyate pavāraṇā, pakārena icchīyatetyattho. Pa-pubba varadhātu curādigaṇikāyaṃ.

The term "pavāraṇā," according to the Abhidhānappadīpikā, applies to refusal and invitation, as in "pavāraṇā is refusal, and it is also spoken of as invitation." In the context of refusal, it appears in phrases like, "Whatever monk, having finished eating and having refused more food, should eat or consume additional hard or soft food, it is an offense of expiation" (Pāci. 238). In the context of invitation, it is found in statements such as, "The Saṅgha should perform the Pavāraṇā" (Mahāva. 210). In the context of the Pavāraṇā day, it appears in phrases like, "Today is the Pavāraṇā, the fourteenth" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 212). However, that is simply the day of invitation, so it is not mentioned separately. Here, however, it applies in the context of invitation; therefore, 'pavārīyate' is 'pavāraṇā,' with the meaning 'it is requested in a special way.' The root "var" with the prefix "pa-" is from the cur-class of verbal roots.

Ettha ca kiñcāpi pāḷiyaṃ uposathakkhandhakānantaraṃ vassūpanāyikakkhandhako, tadanantaraṃ pavāraṇakkhandhako saṅgīto, tathāpi uposathapavāraṇakammānaṃ yebhuyyena samānattā yamakamiva bhūtattā missetvā kathento suviññeyyo hoti sallahukagantho cāti mantvā khandhakadvayasaṅgahitaṃ atthaṃ ekeneva paricchedena dasseti ācariyo. Tattha cātuddasiko pannarasiko sāmaggīuposathoti divasavasena tayo uposathā hontīti sambandho. Catuddasiyaṃ niyutto cātuddasiko, evaṃ pannarasiko. Sāmaggīuposatho nāma saṅghasāmaggikadivase kātabbauposatho. Hemantagimhavassānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ utūnanti ettha hemantautu nāma aparakattikakāḷapakkhassa pāṭipadato paṭṭhāya phaggunapuṇṇamapariyosānā cattāro māsā. Gimhautu nāma phaggunassa kāḷapakkhapāṭipadato paṭṭhāya āsāḷhipuṇṇamapariyosānā cattāro māsā. Vassānautu nāma āsāḷhassa kāḷapakkhapāṭipadato paṭṭhāya aparakattikapuṇṇamapariyosānā cattāro māsā. Tatiyasattamapakkhesu dve dve katvā cha cātuddasikāti hemantassa utuno tatiye ca sattame ca pakkhe dve cātuddasikā, migasiramāsassa kāḷapakkhe, māghamāsassa kāḷapakkhe cāti attho. Evaṃ gimhassa utuno tatiye cittamāsassa kāḷapakkhe sattame jeṭṭhamāsassa [Pg.380] kāḷapakkhe ca, vassānassa utuno tatiye sāvaṇassa kāḷapakkhe ca sattame assayujamāsassa kāḷapakkhe cāti attho. Sesā pannarasikāti sesā aṭṭhārasa pannarasikā.

Here, although in the Pāḷi the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka follows the Uposathakkhandhaka, and the Pavāraṇakkhandhaka is recited after that, nevertheless, because the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā acts are for the most part similar and like a pair, discussing them together makes them easily understandable and the text concise. Considering this, the teacher presents the meaning contained in both Khandhakas in a single chapter. Therein, the fourteenth-day (cātuddasika), the fifteenth-day (pannarasika), and the harmony-Uposatha (sāmaggīuposatha) are the three Uposathas based on the days—this is the connection. That which is appointed on the fourteenth is the cātuddasika, and similarly, the pannarasika. The harmony-Uposatha is the Uposatha to be performed on a day of Saṅgha harmony. "Of the three seasons—winter, summer, and the rains"—here, the winter season (hemantautu) refers to the four months starting from the first day of the waning fortnight of the later Kattika until the full moon of Phagguna. The summer season (gimhautu) refers to the four months starting from the first day of the waning fortnight of Phagguna until the full moon of Āsāḷha. The rainy season (vassānautu) refers to the four months starting from the first day of the waning fortnight of Āsāḷha until the full moon of the later Kattika. "In the third and seventh fortnights, two each, making six fourteenth-day Uposathas"—this means that in the winter season, in the third and seventh fortnights, there are two fourteenth-day Uposathas: in the dark fortnight of the month of Migasira and the dark fortnight of the month of Māgha—this is the meaning. Similarly, for the summer season: in the dark fortnight of the month of Citta (the third) and the dark fortnight of the month of Jeṭṭha (the seventh); and for the rainy season: in the dark fortnight of the month of Sāvaṇa (the third) and the dark fortnight of the month of Assayuja (the seventh)—this is the meaning. "The rest are fifteenth-day Uposathas"—the remaining eighteen are fifteenth-day Uposathas.

Hoti cettha –

And on this matter, there is the following:

‘‘Kattikassa ca kāḷamhā;

Yāva phaggunapuṇṇamā;

Hemantakāloti viññeyyo;

Aṭṭha honti uposathā.

"From the dark fortnight of Kattika, up to the full moon of Phagguna, should be known as the winter season; there are eight Uposathas.

‘‘Phaggunassa ca kāḷamhā;

Yāva āsāḷhipuṇṇamā;

Gimhakāloti viññeyyo;

Aṭṭha honti uposathā.

"From the dark fortnight of Phagguna, up to the full moon of Āsāḷha, should be known as the summer season; there are eight Uposathas.

‘‘Āsāḷhassa ca kāḷamhā;

Yāva kattikapuṇṇamā;

Vassakāloti viññeyyo;

Aṭṭha honti uposathā.

"From the dark fortnight of Āsāḷha, up to the full moon of Kattika, should be known as the rainy season; there are eight Uposathas.

‘‘Utūnaṃ pana tiṇṇannaṃ, pakkhe tatiyasattame;

Catuddasoti pātimokkhaṃ, uddisanti nayaññuno’’ti. (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā);

"Then, in the third and seventh fortnights of the three seasons, the wise recite the Pātimokkha on the fourteenth." (Kaṅkhā. Abhi. Ṭī. Nidānavaṇṇanā);

Evaṃ ekasaṃvacchare catuvīsati uposathāti evaṃ iminā vuttanayena hemantādīnaṃ tiṇṇaṃ utūnaṃ ekekasmiṃ utumhi paccekaṃ aṭṭhaaṭṭhauposathattā ututtayasamodhānabhūte ekasmiṃ saṃvacchare catuvīsati uposathā hontīti attho. Idaṃ tāva pakaticārittanti idaṃ ekasmiṃ saṃvacchare chacātuddasikaaṭṭhārasapannarasikauposathakaraṇaṃ tāva paṭhamaṃ pakatiyā sabhāvena cārittaṃ kātabbaṃ kammaṃ hoti, na bahutarāvāsikādinā kāraṇena kātabbanti attho.

Thus, in one year, there are twenty-four Uposatha days. In this way, according to the method stated here, since there are eight Uposatha days in each of the three seasons—winter and so on—the meaning is that there are twenty-four Uposatha days in one year, which is the combination of the three seasons. This, first of all, is the normal practice. The meaning is that the performance of six fourteenth-day and eighteen fifteenth-day Uposathas in one year is, first of all, an act to be done by its very nature, and not for reasons such as having many resident monks.

Tathārūpapaccaye [Pg.381] sati aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti ‘‘sakiṃ pakkhassa cātuddase vā pannarase vā pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu’’nti (mahāva. 136) vacanato ‘‘yo pana āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabba’’ntiādivacanato (mahāva. 178) ca tathārūpapaccaye sati aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭatīti attho. Tattha sakinti ekavāraṃ. Āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbanti āvāsikehi ‘‘ajjuposatho cātuddaso’’ti pubbakicce kariyamāne anuvattitabbaṃ, na paṭikkositabbaṃ. Ādi-saddena ‘‘āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ anuvattitabba’’nti vacanaṃ, ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tehi bhikkhūhi dve tayo uposathe cātuddasike kātuṃ, kathaṃ mayaṃ tehi bhikkhūhi paṭhamataraṃ pavāreyyāmā’’ti (mahāva. 240) vacanañca saṅgaṇhāti. Ettha ca paṭhamasuttassa ekekassa utuno tatiyasattamapakkhassa cātuddase vā avasesassa pannarase vā sakiṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbanti. Pakaticārittavasenapi atthasambhavato ‘‘āgantukehī’’tiādīni suttāni dassitānīti veditabbaṃ. Tathārūpapaccaye satīti aññasmimpi cātuddase uposathaṃ kātuṃ anurūpe āvāsikā bahutarā hontīti evamādike paccaye sati. Aññasmimpi cātuddaseti tiṇṇaṃ utūnaṃ tatiyasattamapakkhacātuddasato aññasmiṃ cātuddase.

When such a condition exists, it is permissible to observe the Uposatha on another fourteenth day as well. The meaning is that, according to the statement, 'The Pātimokkha should be recited once a fortnight, either on the fourteenth or the fifteenth' (Mahāva. 136), and from the statement beginning with, 'Visiting monks should comply with resident monks' (Mahāva. 178), when such a condition exists, it is permissible to perform the Uposatha on another fourteenth day as well. Here, 'once' means a single time. 'One should comply with the resident monks' means that when resident monks perform the preliminary duties by saying, 'Today is the fourteenth-day Uposatha,' one should comply and not object. The word 'etc.' includes the statement, 'Resident monks should comply with visiting monks,' and the statement, 'I allow, monks, those monks to observe two or three Uposathas on the fourteenth day, thinking, “How can we conclude the Pavāraṇā earlier than those monks?”' (Mahāva. 240). And here, regarding the first rule, the Pātimokkha should be recited once on the fourteenth day of the third and seventh fortnight of each season, or on the fifteenth for the remaining ones. It should be understood that the suttas beginning with 'by visiting monks,' etc., are shown because the meaning is possible even by way of customary practice. 'When such a condition exists' means when a condition suitable for observing the Uposatha on another fourteenth day exists, such as the resident monks being more numerous. 'On another fourteenth day' means on a fourteenth day other than the fourteenth day of the third and seventh fortnight of the three seasons.

Tatrāyaṃ pāḷi (mahāva. 178) –

Herein is the Pali passage (Mahāva. 178).

‘‘Idha pana, bhikkhave, āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cātuddaso hoti, āgantukānaṃ pannaraso. Sace āvāsikā bahutarā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ. Sace samasamā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ. Sace āgantukā [Pg.382] bahutarā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ.

"Here, monks, for the resident monks it is the fourteenth, and for the visiting monks it is the fifteenth. If the resident monks are more numerous, the visiting monks should conform to the residents. If they are equal in number, the visiting monks should conform to the residents. If the visiting monks are more numerous, the resident monks should conform to the visiting ones."

‘‘Idha pana, bhikkhave, āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pannaraso hoti, āgantukānaṃ cātuddaso. Sace āvāsikā bahutarā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ. Sace samasamā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ. Sace āgantukā bahutarā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ anuvattitabbaṃ.

"Here, monks, for resident monks it is the fifteenth, and for visiting monks the fourteenth. If the resident monks are more numerous, the visiting monks should follow the resident monks. If they are equal in number, the visiting monks should follow the resident monks. If the visiting monks are more numerous, the resident monks should follow the visiting monks."

‘‘Idha pana, bhikkhave, āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pāṭipado hoti, āgantukānaṃ pannaraso. Sace āvāsikā bahutarā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ nākāmā dātabbā sāmaggī, āgantukehi nissīmaṃ gantvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace samasamā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ nākāmā dātabbā sāmaggī, āgantukehi nissīmaṃ gantvā uposatho kātabbo. Sace āgantukā bahutarā honti, āvāsikehi āgantukānaṃ sāmaggī vā dātabbā, nissīmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ.

"Here, monks, for the resident monks it is the first day of the lunar fortnight, and for the visiting monks, the fifteenth. If the resident monks are more numerous, the resident monks should not give agreement to the visiting monks against their will for communal performance; the visiting monks should go outside the boundary and observe the Uposatha. If they are equal in number, the resident monks should not give agreement to the visiting monks against their will for communal performance; the visiting monks should go outside the boundary and observe the Uposatha. If the visiting monks are more numerous, the resident monks should either give agreement to the visiting monks for communal performance, or go outside the boundary."

‘‘Idha pana, bhikkhave, āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ pannaraso hoti, āgantukānaṃ pāṭipado. Sace āvāsikā bahutarā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ sāmaggī vā dātabbā, nissīmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ. Sace samasamā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ sāmaggī vā dātabbā, nissīmaṃ vā gantabbaṃ. Sace āgantukā bahutarā honti, āgantukehi āvāsikānaṃ nākāmā dātabbā sāmaggī, āvāsikehi nissīmaṃ gantvā uposatho kātabbo’’ti.

"Here, monks, it is the fifteenth for the resident monks, and the first day of the lunar fortnight for the visiting monks. If the resident monks are more numerous, the visiting monks should either give their agreement to the resident monks or go outside the boundary. If they are equal in number, the visiting monks should either give their agreement to the resident monks or go outside the boundary. If the visiting monks are more numerous, the visiting monks should not give their agreement unwillingly to the resident monks; the resident monks should go outside the boundary and perform the Uposatha."

Tatrāyaṃ [Pg.383] aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 178) –

Herein is the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 178).

Āvāsikānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ cātuddaso hoti, āgantukānaṃ pannarasoti ettha yesaṃ pannaraso, te tiroraṭṭhato vā āgatā, atītaṃ vā uposathaṃ cātuddasikaṃ akaṃsūti veditabbā. Āvāsikānaṃ anuvattitabbanti āvāsikehi ‘‘ajjuposatho cātuddaso’’ti pubbakicce kariyamāne anuvattitabbaṃ, na paṭikkositabbaṃ. Nākāmā dātabbāti na anicchāya dātabbāti.

The fourteenth is for resident monks, the fifteenth for visiting monks—here, those for whom it is the fifteenth should be understood as having come from another region or as having observed a fourteenth-day Uposatha in the past. 'One should comply with the resident monks' means that when the resident monks, doing their preliminary duties, say, 'Today is the fourteenth,' they should be followed, not opposed. 'It should not be given unwillingly' means it should not be given against one's will.

‘‘Anujānāmi bhikkhave’’tiādimhi ayaṃ pavāraṇakkhandhakāgatā pāḷi (mahāva. 240) – idha pana, bhikkhave, sambahulā sandiṭṭhā sambhattā bhikkhū aññatarasmiṃ āvāse vassaṃ upagacchanti, tesaṃ sāmantā aññe bhikkhū bhaṇḍanakārakā kalahakārakā vivādakārakā bhassakārakā saṅghe adhikaraṇakārakā vassaṃ upagacchanti ‘‘mayaṃ tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ vassaṃvutthānaṃ pavāraṇāya pavāraṇaṃ ṭhapessāmā’’ti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tehi bhikkhūhi dve tayo uposathe cātuddasike kātuṃ, kathaṃ mayaṃ tehi bhikkhūhi paṭhamataraṃ pavāreyyāmāti.

In the passage beginning with “I allow, monks,” is this Pāḷi text from the Pavāraṇākkhandhaka (Mahāvagga 240): Here, monks, many monks who are friends and companions enter the rains residence in a certain dwelling. Nearby, other monks—makers of quarrels, makers of disputes, makers of contentions, makers of brawls, makers of legal issues in the Sangha—also enter the rains residence, thinking, “We will obstruct the Pavāraṇā of those monks who have completed the rains.” I allow, monks, those monks to observe two or three Uposathas on the fourteenth, thinking, “How can we make the Pavāraṇā earlier than those monks?”

Tatrāyaṃ aṭṭhakathā (mahāva. aṭṭha. 240) – dve tayo uposathe cātuddasike kātunti ettha catutthapañcamā dve, tatiyo pana pakatiyāpi cātuddasikoyevāti, tasmā tatiyacatutthā vā tatiyacatutthapañcamā vā dve tayo cātuddasikā kātabbā. Atha catutthe kate suṇanti, pañcamo cātuddasiko kātabbo, evampi dve cātuddasikā honti. Evaṃ karontā bhaṇḍanakārakānaṃ terase vā cātuddase vā ime pannarasīpavāraṇaṃ pavāressantīti.

Herein is the commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 240): Regarding 'to observe two or three Uposatha days on the fourteenth': here, the fourth and fifth are two; but the third is naturally also a fourteenth. Therefore, either the third and fourth, or the third, fourth, and fifth—two or three fourteenths should be observed. Then, when the fourth is done, they hear, and the fifth should be observed as a fourteenth. Even so, there are two fourteenths. By doing so, these monks will perform the fifteenth-day Pavāraṇā on what is the thirteenth or fourteenth day for the quarrel-makers.

Tattha [Pg.384] ayaṃ sāratthadīpanīpāṭho (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.240) – catutthe kate suṇantīti catutthe pannarasikuposathe kate amhākaṃ pavāraṇaṃ ṭhapessantīti suṇanti. Evampi dve cātuddasikā hontīti tatiyena saddhiṃ dve cātuddasikā hontīti.

Herein is the Sāratthadīpanī passage (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.240): 'When the fourth is done, they hear' means when the fourth fifteenth-day Uposatha is done, they hear that 'they will obstruct our Pavāraṇā.' 'Even so, two fourteenths occur' means two fourteenths occur along with the third.

Tatrāyaṃ vimativinodanīpāṭho (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.240) – dve cātuddasikā hontīti tatiyapakkhe cātuddasiyā saddhiṃ dve cātuddasikā honti. Bhaṇḍanakārakānaṃ terase vā cātuddase vā ime pannarasīpavāraṇaṃ pavāressantīti iminā yathāsakaṃ uposathakaraṇadivasato paṭṭhāya bhikkhūnaṃ cātuddasīpannarasīvohāro, na candagatisiddhiyā tithiyā vasenāti dasseti. Kiñcāpi evaṃ ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rājūnaṃ anuvattitu’’nti (mahāva. 186) vacanato panettha lokiyānaṃ tithiṃ anuvattantehipi attano uposathakkamena cātuddasiṃ pannarasiṃ vā pannarasiṃ cātuddasiṃ vā karonteheva anuvattitabbaṃ, na pana soḷasamadivasaṃ vā terasamadivasaṃ vā uposathadivasaṃ karontehi. Teneva pāḷiyampi (mahāva. 240) ‘‘dve tayo uposathe cātuddasike kātu’’nti vuttaṃ. Aññathā ‘‘dvādasiyaṃ, terasiyaṃ vā uposatho kātabbo’’ti vattabbato. ‘‘Sakiṃ pakkhassa cātuddase vā pannarase vā’’tiādivacanampi (mahāva. 136) upavuttakkameneva vuttaṃ, na tithikkamenāti gahetabbanti.

Herein is the Vimativinodanī passage (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.240): 'Two fourteenths occur'—meaning that in the third fortnight, two fourteenths occur along with the fourteenth day. 'The quarrelers will declare the Pavāraṇā of the fifteenth day on the thirteenth or fourteenth'—this shows that the monks’ observance of the fourteenth or fifteenth is based on their own Uposatha observance day, not on the established lunar date. Although it is said, 'I allow, monks, to follow the kings' (Mahāva. 186), here, even those who follow the worldly dates must still observe the fourteenth or fifteenth, or the fifteenth or fourteenth, according to their own Uposatha sequence; they should not observe the sixteenth or thirteenth day as the Uposatha day. Therefore, even in the Pāli (Mahāva. 240), it is said, 'to perform two or three Uposathas on the fourteenth.' Otherwise, it would have to be said, 'The Uposatha should be observed on the twelfth or thirteenth.' The statement, 'Once in a fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth' (Mahāva. 136), is also spoken according to the aforementioned sequence, not according to the sequence of lunar dates—this should be understood.

Na kevalaṃ uposathadivasāyeva tayo honti, atha kho pavāraṇādivasāpīti āha ‘‘purimavassaṃvutthānaṃ panā’’tiādi. Māiti cando vuccati tassa gatiyā divasassa minitabbato, so ettha sabbakalāpapāripūriyā puṇṇoti puṇṇamā. Pubbakattikāya puṇṇamā pubbakattikapuṇṇamā, assayujapuṇṇamā. Sā hi pacchimakattikaṃ nivattetuṃ evaṃ vuttā. Tesaṃyevāti [Pg.385] purimavassaṃvutthānaṃyeva. Bhaṇḍanakārakehīti kalahakārakehi. Paccukkaḍḍhantīti ukkaḍḍhanti, bhaṇḍanakārake anuvādavasena assayujapuṇṇamādiṃ pariccajantā pavāraṇaṃ kāḷapakkhaṃ juṇhapakkhanti uddhaṃ kaḍḍhantīti attho, ‘‘suṇantu me, āyasmanto āvāsikā, yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakallaṃ, idāni uposathaṃ kareyyāma, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyāma, āgame kāḷe pavāreyyāmā’’ti, ‘‘suṇantu me, āyasmanto āvāsikā, yadāyasmantānaṃ pattakallaṃ, idāni uposathaṃ kareyyāma, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyāma, āgame juṇhe pavāreyyāmā’’ti (mahāva. 240) ca evaṃ ñattiyā pavāraṇaṃ uddhaṃ kaḍḍhantīti vuttaṃ hoti.

Not only are there three Uposatha days, but also Pavāraṇā days, as it is said: 'But for those who entered the rains earlier,' etc. The moon is called 'mā' because the day is measured by its movement. Here, it is 'puṇṇa' (full) due to the completion of all its phases, thus 'puṇṇamā'. The full moon of the earlier Kattikā is Pubbakattikāpuṇṇamā, that is, the Assayujapuṇṇamā. This is said in order to distinguish it from the later Kattikā. 'Of those very ones' means only of those who entered the rains earlier. 'By quarrel-makers' means by those who cause disputes. 'They postpone' means they delay; abandoning the Pavāraṇā on the Assayujapuṇṇamā, etc., on account of accusations by the quarrel-makers, they postpone the Pavāraṇā to the dark or bright fortnight. The meaning is: 'Venerable resident monks, listen to me. If it seems appropriate to the venerable ones, we should now perform the Uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and hold the Pavāraṇā in the coming dark fortnight.' 'Venerable resident monks, listen to me. If it seems appropriate to the venerable ones, we should now perform the Uposatha, recite the Pātimokkha, and hold the Pavāraṇā in the coming bright fortnight.' Thus, it is said that they postpone the Pavāraṇā by such a formal motion.

Athāti anantaratthe nipāto. Catuddasannaṃ pūraṇo cātuddaso, divaso. Yaṃ sandhāya ‘‘āgame kāḷe pavāreyyāmā’’ti ñattiṃ ṭhapayiṃsu. Pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā vāti komudicātumāsinipuṇṇamadivaso vā. Yaṃ sandhāya ‘‘āgame juṇhe pavāreyyāmā’’ti ñattiṃ ṭhapayiṃsu. Tasmiṃ pana āgame juṇhe komudiyā cātumāsiniyā avassaṃ pavāretabbaṃ. Na hi taṃ atikkamitvā pavāretuṃ labbhati. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘te ce, bhikkhave, bhikkhū bhaṇḍanakārakā kalahakārakā vivādakārakā bhassakārakā saṅghe adhikaraṇakārakā tampi juṇhaṃ anuvaseyyuṃ. Tehi, bhikkhave, bhikkhūhi sabbeheva āgame juṇhe komudiyā cātumāsiniyā akāmā pavāretabba’’nti (mahāva. 240). Tenevāha ‘‘pacchimavassaṃvutthānañca pacchimakattikapuṇṇamā eva vā’’ti. Yadi hi taṃ atikkamitvā pavāreyya, dukkaṭāpattiṃ āpajjeyyuṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘na ca, bhikkhave, apavāraṇāya pavāretabbaṃ aññatra saṅghasāmaggiyā’’ti (mahāva. 233). Visuddhipavāraṇāyogato pavāraṇādivasā. Pi-saddena na kevalaṃ pavāraṇādivasāva[Pg.386], atha kho tadaññe uposathadivasāpi hontīti dasseti. Idampīti pavāraṇattayampi. Tathārūpapaccayeti bahutarāvāsikādipaccaye. Dvinnaṃ kattikapuṇṇamānanti pubbakattikapacchimakattikasaṅkhātānaṃ dvinnaṃ assayujakomudipuṇṇamānaṃ.

'Athāti' is a particle in the sense of 'then' or 'next'. 'The fourteenth day' is the completion of fourteen days. Regarding which they laid down the formal motion: 'We will hold the Pavāraṇā in the coming dark fortnight.' 'Or the full moon day of the latter Kattika' means the full moon day of the Komudī Cātumāsī. Regarding which they laid down the formal motion: 'We will hold the Pavāraṇā in the coming bright fortnight.' However, on that coming bright fortnight, on the Komudī Cātumāsī, the Pavāraṇā must certainly be held. For it is not permissible to hold it by overstepping that. For it has been said: 'If, bhikkhus, those bhikkhus are quarrelsome, contentious, disputatious, creating arguments and legal issues in the Sangha, they should still reside through that bright fortnight. By all those bhikkhus, bhikkhus, the Pavāraṇā must be held in the coming bright fortnight, on the Komudī Cātumāsī, even if unwillingly' (Mahāvagga 240). Therefore, it is said: 'And for those who have completed the latter rains residence, it is indeed the latter Kattika full moon day.' If indeed they were to hold the Pavāraṇā by overstepping that, they would incur an offense of wrong-doing. For it has been said: 'And, bhikkhus, the Pavāraṇā should not be held on a non-Pavāraṇā day, except for the sake of Sangha harmony' (Mahāvagga 233). The Pavāraṇā days are due to the connection with the Pavāraṇā of purity. By the word 'pi' (also), it shows that not only are there Pavāraṇā days, but also other Uposatha days. 'Idampi' refers to the threefold Pavāraṇā also. 'Tathārūpapaccayeti' means in the case of such conditions as a large number of resident monks, etc. 'Dvinnaṃ kattikapuṇṇamānanti' refers to the two Kattika full moon days, namely, the former Kattika and the latter Kattika, which are the two Assayuja and Komudī full moon days.

Idāni yo so sāmaggiuposathadivaso vutto, tañca tappasaṅgena sāmaggipavāraṇādivasañca dassento ‘‘yadā panā’’tiādimāha. Tattha osārite tasmiṃ bhikkhusminti ukkhittake bhikkhusmiṃ osārite, taṃ gahetvā sīmaṃ gantvā āpattiṃ desāpetvā kammavācāya kammapaṭippassaddhivasena pavesiteti vuttaṃ hoti. Tassa vatthussāti tassa adhikaraṇassa. Tadā ṭhapetvā cuddasapannarase añño yo koci divaso uposathadivaso nāma hotīti sambandho. Kasmāti āha ‘‘tāvadeva uposatho kātabbo. ‘Pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba’nti vacanato’’ti. Tattha tāvadevāti taṃ divasameva. Vacanatoti kosambakakkhandhake (mahāva. 475) vuttattā. Yatra pana pattacīvarādīnaṃ atthāya appamattakena kāraṇena vivadantā uposathaṃ vā pavāraṇaṃ vā ṭhapenti, tattha tasmiṃ adhikaraṇe vinicchite ‘‘samaggā jātamhā’’ti antarā sāmaggiuposathaṃ kātuṃ na labhanti, karontehi anuposathe uposatho kato nāma hoti.

Now, showing that day of harmony-Uposatha which was mentioned, and also the day of harmony-Pavāraṇā in connection with it, he begins with 'But when...' There, 'when that bhikkhu is reinstated' means when the bhikkhu who was suspended is reinstated, that is, having taken him, gone to the boundary, made him confess the offense, and then readmitted him by means of a formal act for the revocation of the act. 'Regarding that matter' means regarding that legal issue. Then, apart from the fourteenth and fifteenth, any other day is called an Uposatha day—this is the connection. Why? He says: 'The Uposatha must be performed on that very day. The Pātimokkha must be recited,' because of this statement. Therein, 'on that very day' means on that same day. 'By the statement' means because it is said in the Kosambaka Khandhaka (Mahāva. 475). But where they, disputing over some trivial matter for the sake of a bowl, robe, etc., suspend the Uposatha or Pavāraṇā, there, when that legal issue is settled, they are not permitted to perform a harmony-Uposatha in the interim, saying, 'We have become united.' If they do so, it is called performing the Uposatha on a non-Uposatha day.

Kattikamāsabbhantareti ettha kattikamāso nāma pubbakattikamāsassa kāḷapakkhapāṭipadato paṭṭhāya yāva aparakattikapuṇṇamā, tāva ekūnatiṃsarattidivā, tassa abbhantare. Tato pure vā pana pacchā vā vaṭṭati. Ayamevāti yo koci divasoyeva. Idhāpi kosambakakkhandhake sāmaggiyā sadisāva sāmaggī veditabbā. Ye pana kismiñcideva appamattake [Pg.387] pavāraṇaṃ ṭhapetvā samaggā honti, tehi pavāraṇāyameva pavāraṇā kātabbā, tāvadeva na kātabbā, karontehi apavāraṇāya pavāraṇā katā nāma hoti, ‘‘na kātabbāyevā’’ti niyamena yadi karoti, dukkaṭanti dasseti. Tattha hi uposathakaraṇe dukkaṭaṃ. Vuttañhetaṃ ‘‘na, bhikkhave, anuposathe uposatho kātabbo aññatra saṅghasāmaggiyā’’ti (mahāva. 183).

‘Within the month of Kattika’—here, the month of Kattika means from the first day of the dark fortnight of the former Kattika month up to the full moon of the latter Kattika, a total of twenty-nine days and nights; ‘within’ means within that period. It is allowable either before or after that. ‘This very day’ means just any day. Here too, the harmony should be understood as being of the same kind as that in the Kosambaka Khandhaka. But for those who, having suspended the Pavāraṇā over some trivial matter, become harmonious, the Pavāraṇā should be performed only on the Pavāraṇā day itself, and not at that very time. If they do so, it is called having performed the Pavāraṇā on a non-Pavāraṇā day. It shows that if one performs it, despite the rule that 'it should certainly not be done,' it is an offense of wrong-doing. For in that case, performing the Uposatha incurs an offense of wrong-doing. For it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day, except for the harmony of the Saṅgha’ (Mahāvagga 183).

169. Saṅghe uposatho nāma ekasīmāyaṃ sannipatitena catuvaggādisaṅghena kattabbo uposatho, so ca pātimokkhuddesoyeva. Gaṇe uposatho nāma ekasīmāyaṃ sannipatitehi dvīhi, tīhi vā bhikkhūhi kattabbo uposatho, so ca pārisuddhiuposathoyeva. Puggale uposatho nāma ekasīmāyaṃ nisinnena ekena bhikkhunā kattabbo uposatho, so ca adhiṭṭhānuposathoyeva. Tenāha ‘‘kārakavasena aparepi tayo uposathā’’ti. Kattabbākāravasena vuttesu tīsu uposathesu suttuddeso nāma pātimokkhuddeso. So duvidho ovādapātimokkhuddeso ca āṇāpātimokkhuddeso ca. Tatra ovādova pātimokkhaṃ, tassa uddeso sarūpena kathanaṃ ovādapātimokkhuddeso. ‘‘Imasmiṃ vītikkame ayaṃ nāma āpattī’’ti evaṃ āpattivasena āṇāpanaṃ paññāpanaṃ āṇā. Sesaṃ anantarasadisameva.

169. The Uposatha in the Saṅgha is the Uposatha to be performed by a Saṅgha of four or more bhikkhus gathered within a single boundary, and that is simply the recitation of the Pātimokkha. The Uposatha in a group is the Uposatha to be performed by two or three bhikkhus gathered within a single boundary, and that is simply the purity-Uposatha. The Uposatha for an individual is the Uposatha to be performed by a single bhikkhu seated within a single boundary, and that is simply the determination-Uposatha. Therefore it is said: ‘There are also three other Uposathas by way of the performers.’ Among the three Uposathas mentioned by way of the manner of performance, ‘recitation of the Sutta’ means the recitation of the Pātimokkha. This is of two kinds: the recitation of the Admonitory Pātimokkha and the recitation of the Authoritative Pātimokkha. Herein, the admonition itself is the Pātimokkha; its recitation, the verbal explanation of its nature, is the recitation of the Admonitory Pātimokkha. The authoritative declaration (āṇā) is the commanding and making known of offenses in the form: ‘In this transgression, such and such an offense occurs.’ The rest is similar to what was said immediately before.

Tattha ovādapātimokkhuddeso nāma –

Herein, the recitation of the Admonitory Pātimokkha is as follows:

‘‘Khanti paramaṃ tapo titikkhā;

Nibbānaṃ paramaṃ vadanti buddhā;

Na hi pabbajito parūpaghātī;

Na samaṇo hoti paraṃ viheṭhayanto.

‘Patience, forbearance, is the highest austerity; the Buddhas declare Nibbāna as supreme. One who harms another is not a renunciate; one who harasses another is not an ascetic.’

‘‘Sabbapāpassa [Pg.388] akaraṇaṃ, kusalassa upasampadā;

Sacittapariyodapanaṃ, etaṃ buddhāna sāsanaṃ.

‘The non-doing of all evil, the undertaking of what is wholesome, the purification of one’s own mind—this is the teaching of the Buddhas.’

‘‘Anupavādo anupaghāto, pātimokkhe ca saṃvaro;

Mattaññutā ca bhattasmiṃ, pantañca sayanāsanaṃ;

Adhicitte ca āyogo, etaṃ buddhāna sāsana’’nti. (dī. ni. 2.90;

dha. pa. 183-185) –

‘Non-reviling, non-harming, and restraint in the Pātimokkha; moderation in food, and a secluded lodging; commitment to the higher mind—this is the teaching of the Buddhas.’

Imā tisso gāthā.

These are the three stanzas.

Tattha khanti paramaṃ tapoti adhivāsanakhanti nāma paramaṃ tapo. Titikkhāti khantiyā eva vevacanaṃ, titikkhāsaṅkhātā adhivāsanakhanti uttamaṃ tapoti attho. Nibbānaṃ paramaṃ vadantīti sabbākārena pana nibbānaṃ paramanti vadanti buddhā. Na hi pabbajito parūpaghātīti yo adhivāsanakhantivirahitattā paraṃ upaghāteti bādhati vihiṃsati, so pabbajito nāma na hoti. Catutthapādo pana tasseva vevacanaṃ. ‘‘Na hi pabbajito’’ti etassa hi na samaṇo hotīti vevacanaṃ. ‘‘Parūpaghātī’’ti etassa paraṃ viheṭhayantoti vevacanaṃ. Atha vā parūpaghātīti sīlūpaghātī. Sīlañhi uttamaṭṭhena paranti vuccati. Yo ca samaṇo paraṃ yaṃ kañci sattaṃ viheṭhayanto parūpaghātī hoti attano sīlavināsako, so pabbajito nāma na hotīti attho. Atha vā yo adhivāsanakhantiyā abhāvā parūpaghātī hoti, paraṃ antamaso ḍaṃsamakasampi sañcicca jīvitā voropeti, so na hi pabbajito. Kiṃ kāraṇā? Malassa apabbajitattā. ‘‘Pabbājayamattano malaṃ, tasmā ‘pabbajito’ti vuccatī’’ti (dha. pa. 388) idañhi pabbajitalakkhaṇaṃ. Yopi na heva kho upaghāteti na māreti, apica daṇḍādīhi viheṭheti, sopi paraṃ viheṭhayanto na samaṇo hoti. Kiṃkāraṇā? Vihesāya asamitattā. ‘‘Samitattā hi pāpānaṃ, samaṇoti pavuccatī’’ti (dha. pa. 265) idañhi samaṇalakkhaṇaṃ.

Herein, ‘patience is the highest austerity’ means that patient forbearance is the highest austerity. ‘Endurance’ is simply a synonym for patience; the meaning is that patient forbearance, known as endurance, is the supreme austerity. ‘The Buddhas declare Nibbāna as supreme’ means that the Buddhas declare Nibbāna to be supreme in every way. ‘A renunciate does not harm others’ means that one who, being devoid of patient forbearance, harms, oppresses, or injures others, is not a renunciate. The fourth line is simply a synonym for that. For ‘a renunciate does not’ is a synonym for ‘is not an ascetic.’ And ‘harming others’ is a synonym for ‘harassing others.’ Alternatively, ‘harming others’ means harming one’s virtue. For virtue is called ‘supreme’ (para) in the ultimate sense. And the meaning is that any ascetic who, by harassing any being, becomes a harmer of others and a destroyer of his own virtue, is not called a renunciate. Or, one who, due to the absence of patient forbearance, harms others—even intentionally depriving a mosquito or gnat of life—is not a renunciate. Why? Because his defilement has not been expelled. For this is the characteristic of a renunciate: ‘Because he has expelled his own defilements, he is therefore called a “renunciate”’ (Dhp 388). Even one who does not actually harm or kill, but torments others with sticks or the like, thus harassing them, is not an ascetic. Why? Because he is not calmed with regard to harassment. For this is the mark of an ascetic: ‘Because of the calming of evils, one is called an “ascetic”’ (Dhp 265).

Dutiyagāthāya [Pg.389] sabbapāpassāti sabbākusalassa. Akaraṇanti anuppādanaṃ. Kusalassāti catubhūmakakusalassa. Upasampadāti upasampādanaṃ paṭilābho. Sacittapariyodapananti attano cittassa vodāpanaṃ pabhassarabhāvakaraṇaṃ sabbaso parisodhanaṃ, taṃ pana arahattena hoti, iti sīlasaṃvarena sabbapāpaṃ pahāya lokiyalokuttarāhi samathavipassanāhi kusalaṃ sampādetvā arahattaphalena cittaṃ pariyodapetabbanti etaṃ buddhāna sāsanaṃ ovādo anusiṭṭhi.

In the second stanza, ‘of all evil’ means of all that is unwholesome. ‘Non-doing’ means not producing. ‘Of what is wholesome’ means of the wholesome in the four planes. ‘Undertaking’ means the undertaking, the acquisition. ‘The purification of one’s own mind’ means the cleansing of one’s own mind, making it radiant, completely purifying it. This, however, is achieved through arahantship. Thus, by abandoning all evil through moral restraint, accomplishing what is wholesome through mundane and supramundane serenity and insight, and purifying the mind with the fruit of arahantship—this is the teaching, the advice, and the instruction of the Buddhas.

Tatiyagāthāya anupavādoti vācāya kassaci anupavadanaṃ. Anupaghātoti kāyena kassaci upaghātākaraṇaṃ. Pātimokkheti yaṃ taṃ pātimokkhaṃ paatimokkhaṃ atipamokkhaṃ uttamasīlaṃ. Pāti vā agativisesehi mokkheti duggatibhayehi, yo vā naṃ pāti, taṃ mokkhetīti pātimokkhanti vuccati, tasmiṃ pātimokkhe ca. Saṃvaroti sattannaṃ āpattikkhandhānaṃ avītikkamalakkhaṇo saṃvaro. Mattaññutāti paṭiggahaṇaparibhogavasena pamāṇaññutā. Pantañca sayanāsananti janasaṅghaṭṭanavirahitaṃ nijjanasambādhaṃ vivittaṃ senāsanañca. Ettha ca dvīhiyeva paccayehi catupaccayasantoso dīpitoti veditabbo paccayasantosasāmaññena itaradvayassapi lakkhaṇahāranayena jotitattā. Adhicitte ca āyogoti vipassanāpādakaṃ aṭṭhasamāpatticittaṃ adhicittaṃ, tatopi maggaphalacittameva adhicittaṃ, tasmiṃ yathāvutte adhicitte āyogo ca anuyogo cāti attho. Etaṃ buddhāna sāsananti etaṃ parassa anupavadanaṃ, anupaghātanaṃ, pātimokkhasaṃvaro, paṭiggahaṇaparibhogesu mattaññutā[Pg.390], aṭṭhasamāpattivasibhāvāya vivittasenāsanasevanañca buddhānaṃ sāsanaṃ ovādo anusiṭṭhīti. Imā pana tisso gāthāyo sabbabuddhānaṃ pātimokkhuddesagāthā hontīti veditabbā, taṃ buddhā eva uddisanti, na sāvakā. ‘‘Suṇātu me bhante saṅgho’’tiādinā (mahāva. 134) nayena vuttaṃ āṇāpātimokkhaṃ nāma, taṃ sāvakā eva uddisanti, na buddhā. Idameva ca imasmiṃ atthe pātimokkhanti adhippetaṃ.

In the third stanza, 'anupavādo' means not reviling anyone by speech. 'Anupaghāto' means not harming anyone with the body. 'Pātimokkha' is that which is the Pātimokkha, the foremost liberation, the supreme morality. It is called Pātimokkha because it protects (pāti) from the dangers of the lower realms through special causes of non-regression, or because he who protects (pāti) it, is liberated (mokkheti) by it. And 'saṃvaro' in that Pātimokkha means restraint, which has the characteristic of not transgressing the seven categories of offenses. 'Mattaññutā' means knowing the proper measure in receiving and consuming. 'Pantañca sayanāsanaṃ' refers to a lodging free from the press of people, a solitary, quiet, and secluded dwelling place. Herein, contentment with the four requisites is indicated by these two factors alone, as the other two are also illuminated by way of implying their characteristics through the generality of contentment with requisites. 'Adhicitte ca āyogo' refers to the mind of the eight attainments, which is the basis for insight, as the higher mind; even more so, the path and fruition consciousness itself is the higher mind. In that higher mind, as described, 'āyogo' means both effort and constant application. This—not reviling others, not harming others, restraint in the Pātimokkha, moderation in receiving and consuming, and dwelling in secluded abodes for the attainment of mastery over the eight attainments—is the instruction and admonition of the Buddhas. These three stanzas, however, are to be understood as the Pātimokkha recitation stanzas of all Buddhas. Only Buddhas recite them, not disciples. The Authoritative Pātimokkha, which is recited in the manner beginning with 'Venerable sirs, let the Saṅgha listen to me…', is recited only by disciples, not by the Buddhas. And it is this latter which, in this context, is meant by 'Pātimokkha'.

Anupagato nāma tattheva upasampanno, asatiyā purimikāya anupagato vā. Cātumāsiniyanti catumāsiyaṃ. Sā hi catunnaṃ māsānaṃ pāripūribhūtāti cātumāsī, sā eva ‘‘cātumāsinī’’ti vuccati, tassaṃ cātumāsiniyaṃ, pacchimakattikapuṇṇamāsiyanti attho. Kāyasāmagginti kāyena samaggabhāvaṃ, hatthapāsūpagamananti vuttaṃ hoti.

'Anupagato' means one who was ordained in that very place; or, one who has not come from a prior ordination, there being none. 'Cātumāsiniyanti' means ‘in the four-month period.’ That which completes four months is called cātumāsī, and that itself is called cātumāsinī. ‘On that cātumāsinī’ means on the last full-moon day of Kattika. 'Kāyasāmagginti' means ‘unity in body,’ that is, being united in body, which is said to be ‘approaching within arm’s reach.’

Ayaṃ panettha vinicchayo – sace purimikāya pañca bhikkhū vassaṃ upagatā pacchimikāyapi pañca, purimehi ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavārite pacchimehi tesaṃ santike pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo, na ekasmiṃ uposathagge dve ñattiyo ṭhapetabbā. Sace pacchimikāya upagatā cattāro tayo dve eko vā hoti, eseva nayo. Atha purimikāya cattāro, pacchimikāyapi cattāro tayo dve eko vā, eseva nayo. Atha purimikāya tayo, pacchimikāya tayo dve eko vā, eseva nayo. Idañhettha lakkhaṇaṃ – sace purimikāya upagatehi pacchimikāya upagatā thokatarā ceva honti samasamā ca, saṅghapavāraṇāya ca gaṇaṃ pūrenti, saṅghapavāraṇāvasena ñatti ṭhapetabbā. Sace pana [Pg.391] pacchimikāya eko hoti, tena saddhiṃ te cattāro honti, catunnaṃ saṅghañattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavāretuṃ na vaṭṭati. Gaṇañattiyā pana so gaṇapūrako hoti, tasmā gaṇavasena ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā purimehi pavāretabbaṃ. Itarena tesaṃ santike pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Sace purimikāya dve, pacchimikāya dve vā eko vā, etthāpi eseva nayo. Sace purimikāyapi eko, pacchimikāyapi eko, ekena ekassa santike pavāretabbaṃ, ekena pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Sace purimehi vassūpagatehi pacchā vassūpagatā ekenapi adhikatarā honti, paṭhamaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitvā pacchā thokatarehi tesaṃ santike pavāretabbaṃ. Kattikacātumāsinipavāraṇāya pana sace paṭhamavassūpagatehi mahāpavāraṇāya pavāritehi pacchā upagatā adhikatarā vā samasamā vā honti, pavāraṇāñattiṃ ṭhapetvā pavāretabbaṃ, tehi pavārite pacchā itarehi pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Atha mahāpavāraṇāya pavāritā bahū honti, pacchā vassūpagatā thokā vā eko vā, pātimokkhe uddiṭṭhe pacchā tesaṃ santike tena pavāretabbanti.

Here is the determination in this matter: If five monks entered the rains earlier and five entered later, after the earlier ones have proposed the motion and performed the Pavāraṇā, the later ones should perform the Purity Uposatha in their presence. Two motions should not be proposed in a single Uposatha hall. If those who entered later are four, three, two, or one, this same method applies. If those who entered earlier are four, and those who entered later are four, three, two, or one, this same method applies. If those who entered earlier are three, and those who entered later are three, two, or one, this same method applies. This is the principle here: If those who entered later are fewer than or equal in number to those who entered earlier, and they complete the quorum for the Saṅgha Pavāraṇā, the motion should be proposed by way of a Saṅgha Pavāraṇā. If, however, there is only one who entered later, and with him they are four, it is not proper for the four to propose a Saṅgha motion and perform the Pavāraṇā. But for a group motion, he completes the group. Therefore, the earlier ones should propose the motion by way of a group and perform the Pavāraṇā. The other one should perform the Purity Uposatha in their presence. If those who entered earlier are two, and those who entered later are two or one, this same method applies here also. If there is one who entered earlier and one who entered later, one should perform the Pavāraṇā in the presence of the other, and that one should perform the Purity Uposatha. If those who entered the rains later are more numerous than those who entered earlier by even one, first the Pātimokkha should be recited, and afterwards the fewer ones should perform the Pavāraṇā in their presence. For the Pavāraṇā of the Kattika four-month period, however, if after the Great Pavāraṇā has been performed by those who entered the rains first, those who entered later are more numerous or equal in number, the motion for the Pavāraṇā should be proposed and they should perform the Pavāraṇā; after they have performed the Pavāraṇā, the others should perform the Purity Uposatha. If those who performed the Great Pavāraṇā are many, and those who entered the rains later are few or only one, after the Pātimokkha has been recited, the latter should then perform the Pavāraṇā in their presence.

Ṭhapetvā pana pavāraṇādivasaṃ aññasmiṃ kāleti aññasmiṃ uposathadivase. Uddiṭṭhamatte pātimokkheti ‘‘pariyositamatte uddissamāne’’ti apariyosite āgate sati avasesassa pātimokkhassa sotabbattā pārisuddhiuposathaṃ kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. Avuṭṭhitāyātiādīnipi pātimokkhassa niṭṭhitakālameva parisāya visesetvā vadati. Samasamā vāti purimehi samaparimāṇā. Thokatarā vāti purimehi thokataraparimāṇā. Etena bahutaresu āgatesu puna pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ, na pārisuddhiuposatho kātabboti dasseti.

‘Except for the Pavāraṇā day’ means at another time, that is, on another Uposatha day. ‘When the Pātimokkha has been recited’ means while it is being recited but is not yet finished. If someone arrives when it is unfinished, because the remainder of the Pātimokkha must be heard, it is not proper to perform the Purity Uposatha. The words beginning with ‘Avuṭṭhitāya’ also refer to the time when the Pātimokkha has been completed, specifying this for the assembly. ‘Equal in number’ means of the same number as the earlier ones. ‘Fewer in number’ means of a smaller number than the earlier ones. This shows that if more numerous ones arrive, the Pātimokkha should be recited again, and the Purity Uposatha should not be performed.

Ekaṃsaṃ [Pg.392] uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvāti ekasmiṃ aṃse sādhukaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvāti attho. Suttanipātaṭṭhakathāyaṃ (su. ni. aṭṭha. 2.345) pana ‘‘ekaṃsaṃ cīvaraṃ katvāti ettha pana puna saṇṭhāpanena evaṃ vuttaṃ. Ekaṃsanti ca vāmaṃsaṃ pārupitvā ṭhitassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ. Yato yathā vāmaṃsaṃ pārupitvā ṭhitaṃ hoti, tathā cīvaraṃ katvāti evamassa attho veditabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Añjaliṃ paggahetvāti dasanakhasamodhānasamujjalaṃ añjaliṃ ukkhipitvā. Sace pana tattha pārivāsikopi atthi, saṅghanavakaṭṭhāne nisīditvā tattheva nisinnena attano pāḷiyā pārisuddhiuposatho kātabbo. Pātimokkhe pana uddisiyamāne pāḷiyā anisīditvā pāḷiṃ vihāya hatthapāsaṃ amuñcantena nisīditabbaṃ. Pavāraṇāyapi eseva nayo.

‘Having arranged the upper robe on one shoulder’ means having properly arranged the upper robe on one shoulder. In the commentary to the Suttanipāta, however, it is said: ‘Regarding “having arranged the robe on one shoulder,” it is stated thus by way of re-establishing the meaning. “On one shoulder” is a designation for one who stands with the left shoulder covered. Therefore, its meaning should be understood as “having arranged the robe in such a way that the left shoulder is covered.”’ ‘Having raised the hands in añjali’ means having lifted up the añjali gesture, resplendent with the joining of the ten fingernails. If, however, a monk on probation is also present, he should sit in the place of the most junior monk in the Saṅgha, and while seated right there, he should perform the Purity Uposatha according to his own recitation. But while the Pātimokkha is being recited, he should not sit in the line of monks; leaving the line, he should sit without going beyond arm’s reach. This same method also applies for the Pavāraṇā.

Sabbaṃ pubbakaraṇīyanti sammajjanādinavavidhaṃ pubbakiccaṃ. Iminā bahūnaṃ vasanaṭṭhāneyeva uposathadivase pubbakiccaṃ kātabbaṃ na hoti, atha kho ekassa vasanaṭṭhānepi kātabbaṃyevāti dasseti. Yathā ca sabbo saṅgho sabhāgāpattiṃ āpajjitvā ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante saṅgho…pe… paṭikarissatī’’ti (mahāva. 171) ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ labhati, evametthāpi tīhi ‘‘suṇantu me, āyasmantā, ime bhikkhū sabhāgaṃ āpattiṃ āpannā, yadā aññaṃ bhikkhuṃ suddhaṃ anāpattikaṃ passissanti, tadā tassa santike taṃ āpattiṃ paṭikarissantī’’ti gaṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā, dvīhipi ‘‘aññaṃ suddhaṃ passitvā paṭikarissāmā’’ti vatvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ekenapi ‘‘parisuddhaṃ labhitvā paṭikarissāmī’’ti ābhogaṃ katvā kātuṃ vaṭṭati.

‘All the preliminary duties’ refers to the nine kinds of preparatory duties, such as sweeping. This shows that it is not that the preliminary duties on the Uposatha day are to be performed only in the dwelling place of many monks, but rather they should be performed even in the dwelling place of a single monk. And just as the entire Saṅgha, having committed a common offense, is able to perform the Uposatha after proposing the motion, ‘Venerable sirs, may the Saṅgha hear me... they will make amends,’ so too here, it is permissible for three monks to perform the Uposatha after proposing a group motion with the words, ‘Venerable sirs, may you hear me. These monks have committed a common offense. When they see another monk who is pure and without offense, they will then make amends for that offense in his presence.’ It is also permissible for two monks to perform it by saying, ‘Having seen another who is pure, we will make amends.’ It is also permissible for a single monk to perform it after making the resolution, ‘Having found a pure one, I will make amends.’

Tadahūti tasmiṃ ahu, tasmiṃ divaseti attho. Nānāsaṃvāsakehīti laddhinānāsaṃvāsakehi. Anāvāso nāma navakammasālādiko yo koci padeso[Pg.393]. Aññatra saṅghenāti saṅghappahonakehi bhikkhūhi vinā. Aññatra antarāyāti pubbe vuttaṃ dasavidhamantarāyaṃ vinā. Sabbantimena pana paricchedena attacatutthe vā antarāye vā sati gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Yathā ca āvāsādayo na gantabbā, evaṃ sace vihāre uposathaṃ karonti, uposathādhiṭṭhānatthaṃ sīmāpi nadīpi na gantabbā. Sace panettha koci bhikkhu hoti, tassa santikaṃ gantuṃ vaṭṭati, vissaṭṭhauposathāpi āvāsā gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Evaṃ gato adhiṭṭhātumpi labhati. Āraññakenapi bhikkhunā uposathadivase gāme piṇḍāya caritvā attano vihārameva āgantabbaṃ. Sace aññaṃ vihāraṃ okkamati, tattha uposathaṃ katvāva āgantabbaṃ, akatvā āgantuṃ na vaṭṭati, yaṃ jaññā ‘‘ajjeva tattha gantuṃ sakkomī’’ti evarūpo pana āvāso gantabbo. Tattha bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ uposathaṃ karontenapi hi iminā neva uposathantarāyo kato bhavissatīti.

‘Tadahū’ means on that day. ‘Nānāsaṃvāsakehi’ means with those of different communion due to differing views. ‘Anāvāso’ (a non-residence) means any place such as a hall for new work. ‘Aññatra saṅghena’ means without monks sufficient to form a Saṅgha. ‘Aññatra antarāya’ means without the ten kinds of obstacles previously mentioned. However, according to the final and conclusive definition, it is permissible to go if one is needed as the fourth person or if there is an obstacle. And just as one should not go to residences and so on, likewise, if they are performing the Uposatha in a monastery, one should not go to the boundary or to a river for the purpose of determining the Uposatha. If there is some monk there, it is permissible to go to his presence, and it is permissible to go to residences where the Uposatha has been dispatched. One who has gone thus is also able to determine it. A forest-dwelling monk, after going for alms in a village on the Uposatha day, should return to his own monastery. If he enters another monastery, he must perform the Uposatha there before returning; it is not permissible to return without having done so. However, one should go to such a residence if one knows, ‘I am able to go there today itself.’ For by performing the Uposatha with the monks there, no obstacle to the Uposatha will have been created by him.

170. Bahi uposathaṃ katvā āgatenāti nadiyā vā sīmāya vā yattha katthaci uposathaṃ katvā āgatena chando dātabbo, ‘‘kato mayā uposatho’’ti acchituṃ na labhatīti adhippāyo. Kiccapasuto vāti gilānupaṭṭhānādikiccapasuto vā. Saṅgho nappahotīti dvinnaṃ dvinnaṃ antarā hatthapāsaṃ avijahitvā paṭipāṭiyā ṭhātuṃ nappahoti.

170. ‘By one who has performed the Uposatha outside and returned’ means that by one who has performed the Uposatha somewhere, by a river or at a boundary, and has returned, consent must be given. The intention is that one is not allowed to just sit, saying, ‘I have performed the Uposatha.’ ‘Or one engaged in duties’ means one occupied with duties such as attending to the sick. ‘The Saṅgha is not sufficient’ means it is not sufficient to stand in succession without leaving a hand’s reach between each pair of monks.

‘‘Adhammena vagga’’nti ettha ekasīmāya catūsu bhikkhūsu vijjamānesu pātimokkhuddesova anuññāto, tīsu dvīsu ca pārisuddhiuposathova, idha pana tathā akatattā ‘‘adhammenā’’ti vuttaṃ. Yasmā pana chandapārisuddhi saṅghe eva āgacchati, na gaṇe na puggale, tasmā ‘‘vagga’’nti vuttaṃ. Sace pana dve saṅghā ekasīmāyaṃ aññamaññaṃ chandaṃ āharitvā ekasmiṃ khaṇe visuṃ saṅghakammaṃ karonti, ettha kathanti? Keci pana ‘‘taṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ vaggakammattā. Vaggakammaṃ karontānañhi chandapārisuddhi [Pg.394] aññattha na gacchati tathā vacanābhāvā, visuṃ visuṃ kammakaraṇatthameva sīmāya anuññātattā cāti gahetabbaṃ. Vihārasīmāya pana saṅghe vijjamānepi kenaci paccayena khaṇḍasīmāya tīsu, dvīsu vā pārisuddhiuposathaṃ karontesu kammaṃ dhammena samaggameva bhinnasīmaṭṭhattāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

“By unlawful means, a faction”—here, when there are four bhikkhus present within a single boundary, only the recitation of the Pātimokkha is permitted; for three or two, only the purity-Uposatha. But here, since it was not done accordingly, it is called “by unlawful means.” However, since consent and purification pertain to the Sangha alone, not to a group or an individual, it is therefore called “a faction.” But if two Sanghas within one boundary, having brought consent from each other, perform separate Sangha acts at the same time—what of this? Some say, “That is valid,” but this should not be accepted because it is a factional act. For the consent and purification of those performing a factional act does not extend elsewhere, because there is no such statement, and because the boundary was permitted precisely for the purpose of performing acts separately. However, even when the Sangha is present within the boundary of a monastery, if for some reason three or two are performing the purity-Uposatha in a sub-boundary, the act should be regarded as lawful and harmonious, since they are situated in a separate boundary.

‘‘Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, tadahuposathe pārisuddhiṃ dentena chandampi dātuṃ, santi saṅghassa karaṇīya’’nti (mahāva. 165) vuttattā bhagavato āṇaṃ karontena ‘‘chandaṃ dammī’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Chandahārako ce, bhikkhave, dinne chande tattheva pakkamati, aññassa dātabbo chando’’tiādivacanato (mahāva. 165) puna attano chandadānaparissamavinodanatthaṃ ‘‘chandaṃ me harā’’ti vuttaṃ. ‘‘Chandahārako ce, bhikkhave, dinne chande saṅghappatto sañcicca nāroceti, āhaṭo hoti chando, chandahārakassa āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti vuttattā dukkaṭato taṃ mocetuṃ ‘‘chandaṃ me ārocehī’’ti vuttaṃ. Kāyena vā vācāya vā ubhayena vā viññāpetabboti manasāva acintetvā kāyappayogaṃ karontena yena kenaci aṅgapaccaṅgena vā, vācaṃ pana nicchāretuṃ sakkontena tatheva vācāya vā, ubhayathāpi sakkontena kāyavācāhi vā viññāpetabbo, jānāpetabboti attho. ‘‘Ayamattho’’tivacanato pana yāya kāyacipi bhāsāya viññāpetuṃ vaṭṭati.

“I permit, bhikkhus, on the Uposatha day, when giving purification, to also give consent, as there are duties for the Sangha,” thus it was said (Mahāva. 165). Therefore, acting upon the Blessed One’s command, one says, “I give consent.” From the statement (Mahāva. 165), “If the consent-bearer, bhikkhus, having received the consent, departs from that very spot, consent should be given to another,” and so on, it is said, “Convey my consent,” in order to avoid the trouble of giving one’s consent again. Since it is said, “If the consent-bearer, bhikkhus, having received the consent, arrives at the Sangha but intentionally does not announce it, the consent is considered conveyed, but the consent-bearer incurs an offense of wrong-doing,” one says, “Announce my consent,” in order to free him from that offense of wrong-doing. It should be communicated by body, by speech, or by both. This means that, not merely thinking it in the mind, one should make a bodily exertion with some limb or part of the body; or, being able to utter speech, with speech itself; or, being able to do both, it should be communicated by body and speech. ‘It should be made known’ is the meaning. From the statement, “This is the meaning,” it is fitting to communicate by any bodily gesture or language.

Pārisuddhidānepi chandadāne vuttasadisova vinicchayo, taṃ pana dentena paṭhamaṃ santī āpatti desetabbā. Na hi sāpattiko samāno ‘‘pārisuddhiṃ dammi, pārisuddhiṃ me hara, pārisuddhiṃ me ārocehī’’ti vattumarahati. ‘‘Santi saṅghassa karaṇīyānī’’ti vattabbe vacanavipallāsena ‘‘santi saṅghassa karaṇīya’’nti vuttaṃ. Tesañca attano ca chandapārisuddhiṃ detīti ettha chando [Pg.395] ca pārisuddhi ca chandapārisuddhi ca chandapārisuddhi, taṃ detīti sarūpekasesena attho daṭṭhabbo. Itarāti aññesaṃ chandapārisuddhi. Biḷālasaṅkhalikā chandapārisuddhīti ettha biḷālasaṅkhalikā nāma biḷālabandhanaṃ. Tattha hi saṅkhalikāya paṭhamavalayaṃ dutiyavalayaṃyeva pāpuṇāti, na tatiyaṃ, evamayampi chandapārisuddhi dāyakena yassa dinnā, tato aññattha na gacchati, tasmā sā biḷālasaṅkhalikasadisattā ‘‘biḷālasaṅkhalikā’’ti vuttā. Biḷālasaṅkhalikāggahaṇañcettha yāsaṃ kāsañci saṅkhalikānaṃ upalakkhaṇamattanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

In the giving of purification, the ruling is similar to that stated for the giving of consent. However, one who gives it must first confess any existing offense. For one who has an offense is not fit to say, “I give purification; convey my purification; announce my purification.” When it should be said, “Santi saṅghassa karaṇīyāni” (There are duties for the Sangha), it was said with an alteration of the word as “santi saṅghassa karaṇīya.” And here, regarding the phrase “gives their and one’s own consent-and-purification,” the meaning should be understood by way of a coordinative compound with ellipsis of one member (sarūpekasesa), where ‘consent-and-purification’ (chandapārisuddhi) comprises both ‘consent’ (chando) and ‘purification’ (pārisuddhi). “Of the others” means the consent-and-purification of others. Regarding “consent-and-purification is like a cat’s chain (biḷālasaṅkhalikā),” here, biḷālasaṅkhalikā means a cat’s tether. For in that chain, the first link reaches only the second link, not the third. Similarly, this consent-and-purification, when given by the giver to someone, does not go to another. Therefore, because it is similar to a cat’s chain, it is called biḷālasaṅkhalikā. And it should be understood that the mention of a cat’s chain here is merely illustrative of any kind of chain.

173. Pavāraṇādānepi eseva nayo. Ayaṃ pana viseso – tattha ‘‘chandaṃ me ārocehī’’ti, idha pana ‘‘mamatthāya pavārehī’’ti. Tattha chandahārake saṅghassa hatthaṃ upagatamatteyeva āgatā hoti. Idha pana evaṃ dinnāya pavāraṇāya pavāraṇāhārakena saṅghaṃ upasaṅkamitvā evaṃ pavāretabbaṃ ‘‘tisso, bhante, bhikkhu…pe… paṭikarissāmī’’ti. Vimativinodaniyaṃ ‘‘evametaṃ dhārayāmi, sutā kho panāyasmantehīti ettha ‘evametaṃ dhārayāmī’ti vatvā uddiṭṭhaṃ kho āyasmanto nidānaṃ, sutā kho panāyasmantehi cattāro pārājikā dhammā’’tiādinā vattabbaṃ. Mātikāṭṭhakathāyañhi evameva vuttaṃ. Sutenāti sutapadena.

173. For the giving of Pavāraṇā, this is the same method. This, however, is the difference: there, it is said, “Announce my consent,” but here, “Perform Pavāraṇā on my behalf.” There, the consent is considered to have arrived as soon as the consent-bearer has come into the presence of the Sangha. Here, however, when the Pavāraṇā has been given in this way, the Pavāraṇā-bearer should approach the Sangha and perform the Pavāraṇā thus: “Venerable sirs, the bhikkhu… and so on… I will make amends.” In the Vimativinodanī, regarding the phrase “Thus I hold it. But have the venerable ones heard?”, it is said that after saying, “Thus I hold it,” one should continue: “The introduction has been recited, venerable sirs. The four Pārājika rules have been heard by the venerable ones,” and so on. For in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā, it is stated in this very way. “Sutena” means by the word “suta” (heard).

174. Nidānuddese aniṭṭhite pātimokkhaṃ niddiṭṭhaṃ nāma na hotīti āha ‘‘dutiyādīsu uddesesū’’tiādi.

174. When the recitation of the Nidāna is unfinished, the Pātimokkha is not considered to have been recited. Hence it is said, “In the second and subsequent recitations,” and so on.

175. Tīhipi vidhīhīti osāraṇakathanasarabhaññehi. Ettha ca atthaṃ bhaṇitukāmatāya vā bhaṇāpetukāmatāya vā suttassa otāraṇaṃ osāraṇaṃ nāma. Tasseva atthappakāsanā kathanaṃ nāma. Kevalaṃ pāṭhasseva sarena bhaṇanaṃ [Pg.396] sarabhaññaṃ nāma. Sajjhāyaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvāti ‘‘sajjhāyaṃ karomī’’ti cittaṃ uppādetvā. Osāretvā pana kathentenāti sayameva pāṭhaṃ vatvā pacchā atthaṃ kathentena. Navavidhanti saṅghagaṇapuggalesu tayo, suttuddesapārisuddhiadhiṭṭhānavasena tayo, cātuddasīpannarasīsāmaggivasena tayoti navavidhaṃ. Catubbidhanti adhammenavaggādi catubbidhaṃ. Duvidhanti bhikkhubhikkhunīnaṃ pātimokkhavasena duvidhaṃ pātimokkhaṃ. Navavidhanti bhikkhūnaṃ pañca, bhikkhunīnaṃ cattāroti navavidhaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ. Katimīti katisaddāpekkhaṃ itthiliṅgaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ.

175. “By three methods” means by presenting (osāraṇa), explaining (kathana), and intoning (sarabhañña). Here, presenting a sutta with the desire to explain its meaning oneself, or to have it explained, is called ‘presenting.’ The clarification of its meaning is called ‘explaining.’ Merely chanting the text with a melodious voice is called ‘intoning.’ “Having resolved upon the recitation” means having generated the thought, “I will perform the recitation.” “By one who presents and then explains” means by one who first recites the text and afterward explains the meaning. “Ninefold” refers to: three concerning the Sangha, a group, and an individual; three by way of recitation of the rules, declaration of purity, and a resolution Uposatha; and three by way of the fourteenth day, the fifteenth day, and the day of harmony—thus it is ninefold. “Fourfold” refers to the four types beginning with ‘unlawful and factional.’ “Twofold” refers to the two kinds of Pātimokkha, for bhikkhus and for bhikkhunīs. “Ninefold” refers to the nine kinds of Pātimokkha recitation: five for bhikkhus and four for bhikkhunīs. “Katimi” (How many?): this should be understood as being in the feminine gender in anticipation of its noun.

Utuvasseyevāti hemantagimhesuyeva. Viññāpetīti ettha manasā cintetvā kāyavikārakaraṇameva viññāpananti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ aññassa dātabbā pārisuddhīti pārisuddhidāyakena puna aññassa bhikkhuno santike dātabbā. ‘‘Bhūtaṃ eva sāmaṇerabhāvaṃ ārocetī’’ti vuttattā ūnavīsativassakāle upasampannassa, antimavatthuajjhāpannasikkhāpaccakkhātakādīnaṃ vā yāva bhikkhupaṭiññā vaṭṭati, tāva tehi āhaṭāpi chandapārisuddhi āgacchati. Yadā pana te attano sāmaṇerādibhāvaṃ paṭijānanti, tato paṭṭhāya nāgacchatīti dassitanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pāḷiyampi (mahāva. 164) hi ‘‘dinnāya pārisuddhiyā saṅghappatto vibbhamati…pe… paṇḍako paṭijānāti, tiracchānagato paṭijānāti, ubhatobyañjanako paṭijānāti, āhaṭā hoti pārisuddhī’’ti vuttattā paṇḍakādīnaṃ bhikkhupaṭiññāya vattamānakālesu pana chandapārisuddhiyāva āgamanaṃ siddhameva. Tenāha ‘‘esa nayo sabbatthā’’ti. Ummattakakhittacittavedanāṭṭānaṃ pana pakatattā antarāmagge ummattakādibhāve paṭiññātepi tesaṃ saṅghappattamatteneva chandādi āgacchatīti dasseti.

“Only in the season of residence” means only in the winter and summer seasons. “He makes known” (viññāpeti): here, making known should be understood as the making of a bodily gesture after having intended it mentally. In the Pāḷi, the phrase “purification should be given to another” means that it should be given again by the giver of purification in the presence of another bhikkhu. Because it is said, “He announces his actual state as a novice,” for one ordained when under twenty years of age, or for those who have committed a final offense, renounced the training, and so on, as long as their claim to the status of a bhikkhu is valid, the consent and purification conveyed by them is accepted. It should be understood that this shows that from the point when they acknowledge their status as a novice or the like, it is no longer accepted. For in the Pāḷi (Mahāva. 164) it is also said: “Purification having been given, the one who reaches the Sangha disrobes… and so on… a eunuch acknowledges his state, one of animal birth acknowledges his state, a hermaphrodite acknowledges his state; the purification is considered conveyed.” Thus, for eunuchs and others, during the time their claim to the status of a bhikkhu is valid, the arrival of their consent and purification is indeed established. Therefore, it is said: “This is the method in all cases.” However, for the insane, the mentally deranged, and those afflicted by pain, because they were of sound mind at the outset, even if they acknowledge their state of insanity or the like along the way, it is shown that their consent and so forth are accepted merely by their arrival at the Sangha.

Bhikkhūnaṃ [Pg.397] hatthapāsanti iminā gaṇapuggalesu chandapārisuddhiyā anāgamanaṃ dasseti. ‘‘Saṅghappatto’’ti hi pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 165) vuttaṃ. Saṅghasannipātato paṭhamaṃ kātabbaṃ pubbakaraṇaṃ saṅghasannipāte kātabbaṃ pubbakiccanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘no ce adhiṭṭhaheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti ettha asañcicca assatiyā anāpatti. Yathā cettha, evaṃ uparipi, yattha pana acittakāpatti atthi, tattha vakkhāma. Paññattaṃ hotīti iminā na sāpattikena uposatho kātabboti visuṃ paṭikkhepābhāvepi yathāvuttasuttasāmatthiyato paññattamevāti dasseti. Iminā eva nayena ‘‘aṭṭhānametaṃ, bhikkhave, anavakāso, yaṃ tathāgato aparisuddhāya parisāya uposathaṃ kareyya, pātimokkhaṃ uddiseyyā’’tiādisuttanayatova (a. ni. 8.20; udā. 45; cūḷava. 386) alajjīhi saddhiṃ uposathakaraṇampi paṭikkhittameva alajjīniggahatthattā sabbasikkhāpadānanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Pārisuddhidānapaññāpanenāti iminā sāpattikena pārisuddhipi na dātabbāti dīpitaṃ hoti.

By 'within a hand's reach of the bhikkhus,' it indicates the non-arrival of consent and purity among the group and individuals. For it is stated in the Pāli text (Mahāvagga 165): 'He has reached the Saṅgha.' The preliminary action (pubbakaraṇa) to be performed before the Saṅgha assembly should be understood as the preliminary duty (pubbakicca) to be performed at the Saṅgha assembly. In the Pāli text, where it is said, 'If he does not make a determination, there is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa),' here, there is no offense if it is unintentional or due to forgetfulness. As it is here, so it is in what follows; however, where there is an unintentional offense, we will explain it. By 'it is established,' it is shown that the Uposatha should not be performed by one who has an offense, and even in the absence of a separate prohibition, it is indeed established by the force of the aforementioned sutta. By this same method, it should be understood that performing the Uposatha with shameless individuals is also prohibited, based on the principle of suttas such as: 'It is impossible, bhikkhus, it cannot happen, that the Tathāgata would perform the Uposatha or recite the Pātimokkha in an impure assembly' (Aṅguttara Nikāya 8.20; Udāna 45; Cūḷavagga 386), because all training rules are for the purpose of restraining the shameless. By 'the establishment of the giving of purity,' it is indicated that purity also should not be given by one who has an offense.

176. Ubhopi dukkaṭanti ettha sabhāgāpattibhāvaṃ ajānitvā kevalaṃ āpattināmeneva desentassa paṭiggaṇhantassa ca acittakameva dukkaṭaṃ hotīti vadanti. Yathā saṅgho sabhāgāpattiṃ āpannoti ñattiṃ ṭhapetvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ labhati, evaṃ tayopi ‘‘suṇantu me, āyasmantā, ime bhikkhū sabhāgaṃ āpattiṃ āpannā’’tiādinā vuttanayānusāreneva gaṇañattiṃ ṭhapetvā dvīhi aññamaññaṃ ārocetvā uposathaṃ kātuṃ vaṭṭati. Ekena pana sāpattikena dūraṃ gantvāpi paṭikātumeva vaṭṭati, asampāpuṇantena ‘‘bhikkhū labhitvā paṭikarissāmī’’ti uposatho kātabbo, paṭikaritvā ca puna uposatho kātabbo[Pg.398]. Kenaci karaṇīyena gantvāti sīmāparicchedato bahibhūtaṃ gāmaṃ vā araññaṃ vā gantvāti attho. Eteneva uposathañattiyā ṭhapanakāle samaggā eva te ñattiṃ ṭhapesunti siddhaṃ. Teneva pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 172) ‘‘uddiṭṭhaṃ suuddiṭṭha’’nti sabbapannarasakesupi vuttaṃ.

176. Regarding 'Both are offenses of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa),' here they say that for both the one who confesses and the one who receives the confession, not knowing it to be a shared offense but confessing it merely by the name of the offense, it is only an unintentional wrong-doing. Just as the Saṅgha, having incurred a shared offense, is permitted to establish a motion and perform the Uposatha, so too, it is proper for three bhikkhus to establish a group motion according to the stated method, such as, 'Venerables, listen to me, these bhikkhus have incurred a shared offense,' and so on; and for two to inform each other, and then perform the Uposatha. However, one who has an offense, even having gone far away, should indeed make amends. If unable to reach them, he should perform the Uposatha with the thought, 'I will make amends upon finding bhikkhus,' and after making amends, he should perform the Uposatha again. By 'going due to some duty' is meant going to a village or a forest that is outside the defined boundary. By this it is established that at the time of establishing the Uposatha motion, they indeed established the motion while in harmony. Therefore, in the Pāli text (Mahāvagga 172), it is said, 'Well-recited, very well-recited,' even in all the fifteenth-day observances.

Sace pana vuḍḍhataro hotīti pavāraṇadāyako bhikkhu vuḍḍhataro hoti. Evañhi tena tassatthāya pavāritaṃ hotīti ettha evaṃ tena appavāritepi tassa saṅghappattamattena saṅghassa pavāraṇākammaṃ samaggakammameva hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tena ca bhikkhunāti pavāraṇadāyakena bhikkhunā. Bahūpi samānavassikā ekato pavāretuṃ labhantīti ekasmiṃ saṃvacchare laddhupasampadatāya samānupasampadavassā sabbe ekato pavāretuṃ labhantīti attho.

'If, however, he is the elder' means the bhikkhu giving the Pavāraṇā is the elder. Regarding 'For in this way, the Pavāraṇā is made for his sake,' here it should be understood that even if he has not performed the Pavāraṇā, by the mere fact of his having reached the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha's act of Pavāraṇā is indeed a harmonious act. 'And by that bhikkhu' means by the bhikkhu who gives the Pavāraṇā. 'Even many of the same seniority may perform the Pavāraṇā together' means that all those who received ordination in the same year, being of equal ordination-year, are permitted to perform the Pavāraṇā together.

Ettha pana paṇḍitehi cintetabbaṃ vicāretabbaṃ kāraṇaṃ atthi, kiṃ pana tanti? Idāni pātimokkhuddesakāle –

Here, however, there is a matter to be considered and investigated by the wise. What is that, then? Now, at the time of the Pātimokkha recitation:

‘‘Sammajjanī padīpo ca, udakaṃ āsanena ca;

Uposathassa etāni, pubbakaraṇanti vuccati.

"Sweeping, a lamp, water, and a seat; these are called the preliminary actions (pubbakaraṇa) for the Uposatha."

‘‘Chandapārisuddhiutukkhānaṃ, bhikkhugaṇanā ca ovādo;

Uposathassa etāni, pubbakiccanti vuccati.

"Conveying of consent and purity, the announcement of the season, the counting of bhikkhus, and the exhortation; these are called the preliminary duties (pubbakicca) for the Uposatha."

‘‘Uposatho yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā;

Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjanti;

Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na honti;

Pattakallanti vuccatī’’ti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168) –

"The Uposatha, and as many bhikkhus as are eligible for the act; and there are no shared offenses; and there are no individuals to be excluded present; it is said to be 'ready' (pattakalla)." (Mahāvagga, Commentary, 168).

Imā gāthāyo dhammajjhesakena pāṭhaṃyeva bhaṇāpetvā pātimokkhuddesako atthaṃ katheti. Tato pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā ‘‘desitāpattikassa samaggassa [Pg.399] bhikkhusaṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ ārādhanaṃ karomā’’ti imaṃ vākyaṃ pāṭhameva ajjhesakena bhaṇāpetvā atthaṃ avatvāva ‘‘sādhū’’ti vatvā pātimokkhaṃ uddisati. Pavāraṇāyapi eseva nayo. ‘‘Pavāraṇāya etānī’’ti ca ‘‘pavāraṇaṃ kātu’’nti ca imāni padāniyeva visiṭṭhāni.

The Pātimokkha reciter has these verses recited by the one who requests the Dhamma, and then explains their meaning. Then, having properly completed the preliminary actions and duties, the Pātimokkha reciter has the one who requests the Dhamma recite just the text of the statement, 'With the consent of the harmonious Saṅgha of bhikkhus who have confessed their offenses, we make a request to recite the Pātimokkha,' and without explaining its meaning, simply says 'Sādhu,' and then recites the Pātimokkha. This same method applies to the Pavāraṇā as well. Only the phrases 'These are for the Pavāraṇā' and 'to perform the Pavāraṇā' are distinctive.

Kiṃ imāni dhammajjhesakassa vacanāni, udāhu pātimokkhuddesakassāti? Kiñcettha – yadi dhammajjhesakassa vacanāni, evaṃ sati gāthāttayaṃ vatvā tāsaṃ atthampi so eva kathetvā etāni pubbakaraṇāni ca etāni pubbakiccāni ca saṅghena katāni, idañca saṅghassa pattakallaṃ samānītaṃ, tasmā ‘‘uddisatu, bhante, pātimokkha’’nti teneva vattabbaṃ siyā. Atha pātimokkhuddesakassa vacanāni, evañca sati ‘‘saṅgho, bhante, theraṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ ajjhesati, uddisatu, bhante, thero pātimokkha’’nti dhammajjhesakena yāvatatiyaṃ ajjhosāpetvā ‘‘sammajjanī…pe… vuccatī’’ti gāthaṃ vatvā iti ‘‘aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni etāni pubbakaraṇāni katānī’’ti pucchitvā dhammajjhesakena ‘‘āma, bhante’’ti vutte ‘‘chandapārisuddhi …pe… vuccatī’’ti gāthaṃ vatvā iti ‘‘aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni etāni pubbakiccāni katānī’’ti pucchitvā ‘‘āma, bhante’’ti vutte ‘‘uposatho…pe… vuccatī’’ti gāthaṃ vatvā iti ‘‘aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttaṃ idaṃ pattakallaṃ samānīta’’nti pucchitvā ‘‘āma bhante’’ti vutte ‘‘pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā pattakalle samānīte samaggassa bhikkhusaṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ ārādhanaṃ mayaṃ karomā’’ti pātimokkhuddesakena vattabbaṃ siyā, evaṃ sati ajjhesakaajjhesitabbānaṃ vacanaṃ asaṅkarato jānitabbaṃ bhaveyyāti.

Are these the words of the one who requests the Dhamma, or of the Pātimokkha reciter? In this regard: if they are the words of the one who requests the Dhamma, then after reciting the three verses and explaining their meaning, he himself should say: 'These preliminary actions and these preliminary duties have been performed by the Saṅgha, and this has been brought to a state of readiness (pattakalla) for the Saṅgha. Therefore, Venerable sir, please recite the Pātimokkha.' But if they are the words of the Pātimokkha reciter, then, after the one who requests the Dhamma has made the request up to the third time, saying, 'Venerable sir, the Saṅgha requests the elder to recite the Pātimokkha. Venerable sir, may the elder recite the Pātimokkha,' the Pātimokkha reciter should recite the verse 'Sammajjanī…pe… vuccatī' and ask, 'Have these preliminary actions, as stated by the commentary teachers, been performed?' When the one who requests the Dhamma says, 'Yes, venerable sir,' he should recite the verse 'Chandapārisuddhi …pe… vuccatī' and ask, 'Have these preliminary duties, as stated by the commentary teachers, been performed?' When the reply is, 'Yes, venerable sir,' he should recite the verse 'Uposatho…pe… vuccatī' and ask, 'Has this, as stated by the commentary teachers, been brought to a state of readiness?' When the reply is, 'Yes, venerable sir,' the Pātimokkha reciter should say: 'Having properly completed the preliminary actions and duties, and having brought things to a state of readiness, with the consent of the harmonious Saṅgha of bhikkhus, we make a request to recite the Pātimokkha.' In this way, the words of the one requesting and the one being requested would be known without confusion.

Ettha [Pg.400] ca gāthāttayassa aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttabhāvo aṭṭhakathāyameva āgato. Pacchimavākyaṃ pana neva pāḷiyaṃ, na aṭṭhakathāyaṃ, na ṭīkādīsu dissati. Khuddasikkhāpakaraṇepi –

Here, the fact that the three verses were stated by the commentary teachers is found in the commentary itself. However, the final statement is seen neither in the Pāli Canon, nor in the commentary, nor in the sub-commentaries and so forth. Even in the Khuddasikkhā treatise:

‘‘Pubbakicce ca karaṇe;

Pattakalle samānite;

Suttaṃ uddisati saṅgho;

Pañcadhā so vibhāvito’’ti ca.

"And when the preliminary duty is performed, and when it is brought to a state of readiness, the Saṅgha recites the Sutta; it is analyzed in five ways."

‘‘Pubbakicce ca karaṇe;

Pattakalle samānite;

Ñattiṃ vatvāna saṅghena;

Kattabbevaṃ pavāraṇā’’ti ca. –

"And when the preliminary duty is performed, when it is brought to a state of readiness, having stated the motion by the Saṅgha, the Pavāraṇā should be performed thus."

Vuttaṃ, na vuttaṃ tathā. Mūlasikkhāpakaraṇeyeva tathā vuttaṃ, tasmā ācariyānaṃ attanomati bhaveyya.

It is said, but not said thus. It is said thus only in the Mūlasikkhāpakaraṇa. Therefore, it might be the teachers' own opinion.

Tattha ‘‘pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā’’ti iminā purimagāthādvayassa atthameva kathetvā tatiyagāthāya attho na kathito. ‘‘Desitāpattikassā’’ti iminā ca āpattiyā desitabhāvoyeva kathito, na sabbaṃ pattakallaṃ. Āpattiyā desitabhāve ca sabhāgāpattiyā desitabhāvoyeva pattakallasmiṃ antogadho, na itaro. Vuttañhi kaṅkhāvitaraṇiyaṃ (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘etāsu hi sabhāgāpattīsu avijjamānāsu, visabhāgāpattīsu vijjamānāsupi pattakallaṃ hotiyevā’’ti. ‘‘Pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā desitāpattikassa samaggassa bhikkhusaṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ ārādhanaṃ karomā’’ti ettakeyeva vutte avasesāni tīṇi pattakallaṅgāni. Seyyathidaṃ – uposatho, yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā, vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na hontīti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168). Tesu asantesupi uposatho [Pg.401] kātabboti āpajjati, na pana kātabbo. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘na, bhikkhave, anuposathe uposatho kātabbo, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 183) ca, ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, catunnaṃ pātimokkhaṃ uddisitu’’nti (mahāva. 168) ca, ‘‘na, bhikkhave, sagahaṭṭhāya parisāya pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabba’’ntiādi (mahāva. 154) ca, tasmā uposathadivasesu saṅghe sannipatite sace pubbeva sammato dhammajjhesako atthi, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce, ekaṃ byattaṃ paṭibalaṃ bhikkhuṃ saṅghena sammannāpetvā tena dhammajjhesakena pātimokkhuddesakaṃ upasaṅkamitvā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā ukkuṭikaṃ nisīditvā añjaliṃ paggahetvā evamassa vacanīyo – saṅgho, bhante, theraṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ ajjhesati, uddisatu thero pātimokkhaṃ. Dutiyampi, bhante, saṅgho…pe… tatiyampi, bhante, saṅgho…pe… uddisatu thero pātimokkhanti tikkhattuṃ yācāpetvā tato pātimokkhuddesakena –

Here, by the phrase 'having properly completed the preliminary duties and preliminary tasks,' only the meaning of the first two verses is explained, but the meaning of the third verse is not explained. And by the phrase 'for one whose offenses have been declared,' only the fact of the offense having been declared is stated, not that everything is proper. And regarding the fact of the offense having been declared, only the declaration of similar offenses is included within what is proper, not the other. For it was said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī: 'For even if similar offenses are absent, but dissimilar offenses are present, it is still proper.' When only this much is said: 'Having properly completed the preliminary duties and preliminary tasks, for one whose offenses have been declared, with the consent of the united Sangha of bhikkhus, we make the invitation to recite the Pātimokkha,' the remaining three factors of propriety are not mentioned. These are: the Uposatha day, that as many bhikkhus as are qualified for the act are present, and that those who should be excluded are not present there. If these are absent, it would follow that the Uposatha should be performed, but it should not be performed. Therefore, it is said: 'Monks, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day. Whoever should perform it, there is an offense of wrong-doing'; and 'Monks, I allow the recitation of the Pātimokkha for four bhikkhus'; and 'Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in an assembly that includes householders,' and so on. Therefore, on Uposatha days, when the Sangha has assembled, if a Dhamma-inquirer previously appointed is present, this is skillful. If not, the Sangha should appoint one competent and able bhikkhu. That bhikkhu, the Dhamma-inquirer, should approach the Pātimokkha reciter, arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, sit squatting, raise his joined palms in salutation, and say to him thus: 'Venerable sir, the Sangha requests the Elder to recite the Pātimokkha. May the Elder recite the Pātimokkha.' A second time, venerable sir, the Sangha... and so on... a third time, venerable sir, the Sangha... and so on... 'May the Elder recite the Pātimokkha.' After having been requested three times, then the Pātimokkha reciter—

‘‘Sammajjanī padīpo ca, udakaṃ āsanena ca;

Uposathassa etāni, pubbakaraṇanti vuccatīti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168;

kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) –

'The broom and lamp, water and a seat; these are called the preliminary duties of the Uposatha.'

Aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni cattāri pubbakaraṇāni, kiṃ tāni katānī’’ti pucchite dhammajjhesakena ‘‘āma, bhante’’ti vutte puna pātimokkhuddesakena –

When the Pātimokkha reciter asked, 'Are these four preliminary duties mentioned by the commentary teachers done?' and the Dhamma-inquirer replied, 'Yes, venerable sir,' then the Pātimokkha reciter asked again—

‘‘Chandapārisuddhiutukkhānaṃ, bhikkhugaṇanā ca ovādo;

Uposathassa etāni, pubbakiccanti vuccatīti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168;

kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) –

'Consent, purity, declaration of the season, counting of the bhikkhus, and the exhortation; these are called the preliminary tasks of the Uposatha.'

Aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni pañca pubbakiccāni, kiṃ tāni katānī’’ti pucchite dhammajjhesakena ‘‘āma bhante’’ti vutte puna pātimokkhuddesakena –

When the Pātimokkha reciter asked, 'Are these five preliminary tasks mentioned by the commentary teachers done?' and the Dhamma-inquirer replied, 'Yes, venerable sir,' then the Pātimokkha reciter asked again—

‘‘Uposatho [Pg.402] yāvatikā ca bhikkhū kammappattā;

Sabhāgāpattiyo ca na vijjanti;

Vajjanīyā ca puggalā tasmiṃ na honti;

Pattakallanti vuccatīti. (mahāva. aṭṭha. 168;

kaṅkhā aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) –

'The Uposatha, and as many bhikkhus as are qualified for the act; and there are no similar offenses; and there are no individuals to be excluded present; this is said to be proper.'

Aṭṭhakathācariyehi vuttāni cattāri pattakallaṅgāni, kiṃ tāni samānītānī’’ti pucchite dhammajjhesakena ‘‘āma, bhante’’ti vutte puna pātimokkhuddesako ‘‘pubbakaraṇapubbakiccāni sammā niṭṭhāpetvā pattakallaṅge samānīte saṅghassa anumatiyā pātimokkhaṃ uddisissāmā’’ti vatvā ‘‘sādhu sādhū’’ti bhikkhusaṅghena sampaṭicchite ‘‘suṇātu me, bhante, saṅgho’’tiādinā pātimokkhuddesako pātimokkhaṃ uddisatīti ayamamhākaṃ khanti.

When the Pātimokkha reciter asked, 'Have these four factors of propriety mentioned by the commentary teachers been brought together?' and the Dhamma-inquirer replied, 'Yes, venerable sir,' then the Pātimokkha reciter, having said, 'Having properly completed the preliminary duties and preliminary tasks, with the factors of propriety brought together, with the consent of the Sangha, we will recite the Pātimokkha,' and the Sangha of bhikkhus having accepted it with 'Excellent, excellent,' the Pātimokkha reciter recites the Pātimokkha beginning with 'May the Sangha listen to me, venerable sirs.' This is our opinion.

Ettha ca ‘‘dhammajjhesakena…pe… evamassa vacanīyo’’ti vuttaṃ, so dhammajjhesakena vacanīyabhāvo kathaṃ veditabboti? ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, saṅghamajjhe anajjhiṭṭhena pātimokkhaṃ uddisitabbaṃ, yo uddiseyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 154) vacanatoti. ‘‘Saṅghena sammannāpetvā’’ti vuttaṃ, taṃ kathanti? ‘‘Ajjhesanā cettha saṅghena sammatadhammajjhesakāyattā vā saṅghattherāyattā vā’’ti aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vuttattā. ‘‘Saṅgho, bhante, theraṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ ajjhesati, uddisatu, bhante, thero pātimokkha’’nti ayaṃ ajjhesanākāro kuto labbhatīti? Pāḷito. Pāḷiyañhi (mahāva. 155) ‘‘te theraṃ ajjhesanti, uddisatu, bhante, thero pātimokkha’’nti āgato.

Here, it is said, 'By the Dhamma-inquirer... and so on... thus he should be spoken to.' But how is this requirement that he be addressed by the Dhamma-inquirer to be understood? It is from the statement: 'Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited in the midst of the Sangha by one who has not been requested. If one should recite it, there is an offense of wrong-doing.' It is said, 'Having been appointed by the Sangha.' But how is that? Because in the commentary, it is said that 'the requesting here depends on either the Dhamma-inquirer appointed by the Sangha or on the Sangha Elder.' Whence is this form of request, 'Venerable sir, the Sangha requests the Elder to recite the Pātimokkha. May the Elder recite the Pātimokkha,' obtained? From the Pāli. For in the Pāli it is found: 'They request the Elder: “May the Elder recite the Pātimokkha.”'

Sace pana dhammajjhesako vuḍḍhataro, pātimokkhuddesako navako, ‘‘saṅgho, āvuso, āyasmantaṃ pātimokkhuddesaṃ ajjhesati, uddisatu āyasmā pātimokkha’’nti vattabbaṃ. Taṃ kuto labbhati? Pāḷitoyeva. Pāḷiyañhi [Pg.403] (mahāva. 155) ‘‘eteneva upāyena yāva saṅghanavakaṃ ajjhesanti uddisatu āyasmā pātimokkha’’nti āgato. Tato ‘‘pātimokkhuddesakena sammajjanī…pe… pucchite dhammajjhesakena ‘āma, bhante’ti vutte’’ti idaṃ kuto labbhatīti? Pāḷito aṭṭhakathāto ca. Nidānapāḷiyampi hi ‘‘kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakicca’’nti āgataṃ, aṭṭhakathāyampi (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nidānavaṇṇanā) ‘‘kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakiccanti saṅgho uposathaṃ kareyyāti…pe… evaṃ dvīhi nāmehi navavidhaṃ pubbakiccaṃ dassitaṃ, kiṃ taṃ katanti pucchatī’’ti āgatanti.

But if the Dhamma-inquirer is more senior, and the Pātimokkha reciter is junior, it should be said: 'Friend, the Sangha requests the Venerable to recite the Pātimokkha. May the Venerable recite the Pātimokkha.' Whence is this obtained? From the Pāli itself. For in the Pāli it is found: 'In this very way, they request even the most junior bhikkhu of the Sangha: “May the Venerable recite the Pātimokkha.”' Then, whence is this obtained: 'When the Pātimokkha reciter asked about the sweeping... and so on... and the Dhamma-inquirer replied, “Yes, venerable sir”'? From the Pāli and the commentary. For in the Nidāna Pāli, it is found: 'What is the preliminary task of the Sangha?' And in the commentary, it is found: '“What is the preliminary task of the Sangha?” means “Should the Sangha perform the Uposatha?”... Thus, by these two terms, nine kinds of preliminary tasks are shown; “Has that been done?” he asks.'

Nanu cetaṃ antonidāneyeva āgataṃ, atha kasmā pātimokkhuddesakena pubbabhāge vattabbanti? Saccaṃ, tathāpi tadanulomato jānitabbato vattabbaṃ. Aṭṭhakathāyañhi imā gāthāyo sammajjanādīnaṃ pubbakaraṇādibhāvañāpakabhāveneva vuttā, na pātimokkhārambhakāle bhaṇitabbabhāvena. Atha ca pana idāni bhaṇanti, evaṃ sante kimatthaṃ bhaṇantīti cintāyaṃ antonidāne ‘‘kiṃ saṅghassa pubbakicca’’nti vuttapucchānulomena pubbakaraṇādīnaṃ niṭṭhabhāvapucchanatthaṃ bhaṇantīti jānitabbaṃ. Vuttañhi ‘‘evaṃ vuttaṃ catubbidhaṃ pubbakaraṇaṃ katvāva uposatho kātabbo’’ti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 177), tasmā pāḷiaṭṭhakathānulomato iminā anukkamena kate sati dhammajjhesako paññāyati, tassa ajjhesanākāro paññāyati, pātimokkhuddesako paññāyati, tassa pubbakaraṇādīnaṃ niṭṭhabhāvapucchanaṃ paññāyati, dhammajjhesakassa vissajjanaṃ paññāyati, tāni niṭṭhāpetvā pātimokkhuddesakassa pātimokkhaṃ uddisituṃ paṭiññā paññāyati, evaṃ imesaṃ gāthāvākyānaṃ vacane payojanaṃ paññāyatīti katvā paṇḍitehi vinayaññūhi cirapaṭicchanno ayaṃ kathāmaggo paṭipajjitabboti. Pavāraṇāyapi eseva nayo.

But if this has indeed come from the introductory section, then why is it said by the Pātimokkha reciter in the preliminary part? True, yet it should be spoken so that it may be understood in accordance with that. For in the commentary, these verses are spoken only to indicate the status of being preliminary duties, such as sweeping, not as something to be recited at the start of the Pātimokkha. But now they are recited. In that case, for what purpose are they recited? Upon reflection, it should be understood that they are recited to inquire about the completion of the preliminary duties and so forth, in accordance with the question asked in the introductory section: 'What is the preliminary duty of the Sangha?' For it is said: 'Having performed the fourfold preliminary duty spoken of in this way, the Uposatha should be observed' (Vinayasaṅgaha-aṭṭhakathā 177). Therefore, when this sequence is followed in accordance with the Pāḷi and the commentary, the following become apparent: the one who requests the Dhamma and his manner of requesting; the Pātimokkha reciter and his inquiry about the completion of the preliminary duties; the reply of the one who requests the Dhamma; and, after completing those, the Pātimokkha reciter's declaration to recite the Pātimokkha. Thus, the purpose in the speaking of these verses and sentences becomes apparent, and therefore this long-concealed path of discourse should be followed by the wise who are experts in the Vinaya. This same method applies to the Pavāraṇā as well.

Pāḷiyaṭṭhakathādīnañhi[Pg.404], anurūpaṃ imaṃ nayaṃ;

Punappunaṃ cintayantu, paṇḍitā vinayaññuno.

Let the wise, the experts in the Vinaya, reflect again and again upon this method, which is in accordance with the Pāḷi, the commentaries, and so forth.

Punappunaṃ cintayitvā, yuttaṃ ce dhārayantu taṃ;

No ce yuttaṃ chaḍḍayantu, sammāsambuddhasāvakāti.

Having reflected again and again, if it is fitting, let them uphold it; if it is not fitting, let them discard it—such are the disciples of the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One.

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Uposathapavāraṇāvinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

Named the Ornament of the Discourse on the Ascertainment of the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā,

Pañcavīsatimo paricchedo.

The Twenty-fifth Chapter.

26. Vassūpanāyikavinicchayakathā

26. The Discourse on the Ascertainment of the Rains Residence

179. Evaṃ uposathapavāraṇāvinicchayaṃ kathetvā idāni vassūpanāyikavinicchayaṃ kathetuṃ ‘‘vassūpanāyikāti ettha’’tyādimāha. Tattha vasanaṃ vassaṃ. Kiṃ taṃ? Vasanakiriyā bhāvatthe ṇya-paccayavasena. Upanayanaṃ upanayo. Ko so? Upagamanakiriyā, vassassa upanayo vassūpanayo, so etissā paññattiyā atthi, tasmiṃ vā vijjatīti vassūpanāyikā. Kā sā? Vassūpanāyikapaññatti. Atha vā upanayati etāyāti upanāyikā majjhe dīghavasena. Vassassa upanāyikā vassūpanāyikā, sā eva pure bhavā purimā bhavatthe ima-paccayavasena, sā eva purimikā sakatthe ka-paccayavasena, tasmiṃ pare itthiliṅge a-kārassa i-kārādeso. Pacchā bhavā pacchimā, sāva pacchimikā.

179. Having thus explained the ascertainment of the Uposatha and Pavāraṇā, now, to explain the ascertainment of the Rains Residence, the author begins with 'As to vassūpanāyikā...'. Herein, vassaṃ is from vasanaṃ (dwelling). What is that? It is the act of dwelling, by way of the suffix ṇya in the sense of an abstract state. Upanayo is from upanayanaṃ (approaching). What is that? It is the act of going near. The approach (upanayo) of the rains (vassa) is vassūpanayo. Because this pertains to or is found in this rule (paññatti), it is called vassūpanāyikā. What is that? The rule concerning the Rains Residence. Alternatively, upanāyikā is from upanayati (one approaches), with a long vowel in the middle. The approach to the rains is vassūpanāyikā. That which occurs before (pure bhavā) is purimā (the earlier), by way of the suffix ima in the sense of 'occurring'. That same thing is purimikā, by way of the suffix ka in its own sense; when this follows, the vowel 'a' is substituted with 'i' in the feminine gender. That which occurs after (pacchā bhavā) is pacchimā (the later), and that same thing is pacchimikā.

Assatiyā pana vassaṃ na upetīti ‘‘imasmiṃ vihāre imaṃ temāsaṃ vassaṃ upemī’’ti vacībhedaṃ katvā na upeti. ‘‘Na, bhikkhave, asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabbaṃ, yo upagaccheyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 204) vacībhedaṃ katvā vassūpagamanaṃ sandhāya paṭikkhepo, na ālayakaraṇavasena upagamanaṃ [Pg.405] sandhāyāti vadanti. Pāḷiyaṃ pana avisesena vuttattā aṭṭhakathāyañca dutiyapārājikasaṃvaṇṇanāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.84) ‘‘vassaṃ upagacchantena hi nālakapaṭipadaṃ paṭipannenapi pañcannaṃ chadanānaṃ aññatarena channeyeva sadvārabandhe senāsane upagantabbaṃ, tasmā vassakāle sace senāsanaṃ labhati, iccetaṃ kusalaṃ. No ce labhati, hatthakammaṃ pariyesitvāpi kātabbaṃ. Hatthakammaṃ alabhantena sāmampi kātabbaṃ, na tveva asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabba’’nti (mahāva. 204) daḷhaṃ katvā vuttattā asenāsanikassa nāvādiṃ vinā aññattha ālayamattena upagantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti amhākaṃ khanti. Nāvāsatthavajesuyeva hi ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, nāvāya vassaṃ upagantu’’ntiādinā (mahāva. 203) sati, asati vā senāsane vassūpagamanassa visuṃ anuññātattā ‘‘na, bhikkhave, asenāsanikena vassaṃ upagantabba’’nti (mahāva. 204) ayaṃ paṭikkhepo. Tattha na labhatīti asati senāsane ālayavasenapi nāvādīsu upagamanaṃ vuttaṃ. Catūsu hi senāsanesu vihārasenāsanaṃ idhādhippetaṃ, na itarattayaṃ.

However, for one without a dwelling, the rains residence is not undertaken; that is, one does not undertake it even by making the verbal declaration, 'I will undertake the rains residence in this monastery for these three months.' Some say that the prohibition, 'Bhikkhus, the rains residence is not to be undertaken by one without a dwelling. Whoever should undertake it, there is an offense of wrong-doing' (Mahāvagga 204), refers to undertaking the rains residence by making a verbal declaration, not to undertaking it by way of making a shelter. However, since it is stated without distinction in the Pāḷi, and since it is firmly stated in the commentary on the second Pārājika (Pārājika-aṭṭhakathā 1.84): 'For one undertaking the rains residence, even if one has undertaken the Nālaka practice, it must be undertaken in a dwelling with a door and frame, covered by one of the five kinds of roofing. Therefore, during the rains-season, if one obtains a dwelling, this is excellent. If one does not obtain one, one should seek out workers and have one made. If one cannot get workers, one should make it oneself. But one must not undertake the rains residence without a dwelling' (Mahāvagga 204); because this is firmly stated, our view is that for one without a dwelling, it is not permissible to undertake the rains residence elsewhere merely by making a shelter, except in a boat or the like. For it is only in the case of a boat, a caravan, or a cattle-pen that undertaking the rains residence is separately permitted, whether a dwelling is available or not, by the text beginning, 'I allow, bhikkhus, undertaking the rains residence on a boat' (Mahāvagga 203). This prohibition, 'Bhikkhus, the rains residence is not to be undertaken by one without a dwelling' (Mahāvagga 204), does not apply there. In that context, 'if one does not obtain one' means that when a dwelling is not available, undertaking the rains residence in a boat or the like by way of making a shelter is spoken of. For among the four kinds of dwellings, a dwelling in a monastery is intended here, not the other three.

Ṭaṅkitamañcādibhedā kuṭīti ettha ṭaṅkitamañco nāma dīghe mañcapāde majjhe vijjhitvā aṭaniyo pavesetvā kato mañco, tassa idaṃ upari, idaṃ heṭṭhāti natthi. Parivattetvā atthatopi tādisova hoti, taṃ susāne devaṭṭhāne ca ṭhapenti, catunnaṃ pāsāṇānaṃ upari pāsāṇaṃ attharitvā kataṃ gehampi ‘‘ṭaṅkitamañco’’ti vuccati.

Here, regarding a hut of the type called a ṭaṅkitamañca and so forth: a ṭaṅkitamañca is a bed made by piercing long bed-legs in the middle and inserting rails. For it, there is no 'this is the top' or 'this is the bottom'. Even when turned over for use, it is just the same. They place it in charnel grounds and at shrines. A structure made by spreading a stone slab on top of four stones is also called a ṭaṅkitamañca.

‘‘Idha vassaṃ upemī’’ti tikkhattuṃ vattabbanti satthassa avihārattā ‘‘imasmiṃ vihāre’’ti avatvā ‘‘idha vassaṃ upemī’’ti ettakameva vattabbaṃ. Satthe pana vassaṃ upagantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti kuṭikādīnaṃ abhāvena ‘‘idha vassaṃ upemī’’ti vacībhedaṃ katvā upagantuṃ na vaṭṭati, ālayakaraṇamatteneva vaṭṭatīti adhippāyo. Vippakiratīti visuṃ visuṃ gacchati. Tīsu [Pg.406] ṭhānesu natthi vassacchede āpattīti tehi saddhiṃ gacchantasseva natthi āpatti, tehi viyujjitvā gamane pana āpattiyeva, pavāretuñca na labhati.

The phrase 'I undertake the rains residence here' should be spoken three times. Because a caravan is not a monastery, one should not say 'in this monastery,' but should say only, 'I undertake the rains residence here.' However, in a caravan, it is not permissible to undertake the rains residence by making the verbal declaration, 'I undertake the rains residence here,' due to the absence of huts and so forth. The intention is that it is permissible only by the mere act of making a shelter. Vippakirati means 'it scatters'; that is, they go separately. 'There is no offense of breaking the rains residence in the three situations' means that there is no offense only for one who goes together with them. But if one goes after separating from them, there is indeed an offense, and one does not get to perform the Pavāraṇā.

Pavisanadvāraṃ yojetvāti sakavāṭabaddhameva yojetvā. Purimikāya…pe… na pakkamitabbāti iminā āsāḷhīpuṇṇamāya anantare pāṭipadadivase purimavassaṃ upagantvā vassānautuno catūsu māsesu sabbapacchimamāsaṃ ṭhapetvā purimaṃ temāsaṃ vasitabbaṃ. Sāvaṇapuṇṇamiyā anantare pāṭipadadivase pacchimavassaṃ upagantvā sabbapaṭhamamāsaṃ ṭhapetvā pacchimaṃ temāsaṃ vasitabbaṃ. Evaṃ avasitvā purimikāya vassaṃ upagatena bhikkhunā mahāpavāraṇāya anto aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā pacchimikāya upagatena cātumāsinipavāraṇāya anto aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā antarā cārikaṃ pakkameyya, upacārasīmātikkameyeva tassa bhikkhuno dukkaṭāpatti hotīti dasseti. Imamatthaṃ pāḷiyā samatthetuṃ ‘‘na bhikkhave…pe… vacanato’’ti vuttaṃ. Yadi evaṃ vassaṃ upagantvā sati karaṇīye pakkamantassa sabbathāpi āpattiyeva siyāti codanaṃ sandhāyāha ‘‘vassaṃ upagantvā panā’’tiādi. Evaṃ sante tadaheva sattāhakaraṇīyena pakkamantasseva anāpatti siyā, na dvīhatīhaṃ vasitvā pakkamantassāti āha ‘‘ko pana vādo’’tiādi.

“Fixing the entrance door” means securing it with its own bolt. Regarding the earlier rains... one should not depart. By this, it is meant that having entered the earlier rains on the day after the full moon of Āsāḷhī, one must reside for the first three months, excluding the last month of the four-month rains-residence period. Having entered the later rains on the day after the full moon of Sāvaṇa, one must reside for the last three months, excluding the first month. Thus, it shows that if a monk, having entered the earlier rains, departs on a journey without having performed the Mahāpavāraṇā before dawn, or if one, having entered the later rains, departs without having performed the Cātumāsinī Pavāraṇā before dawn, and crosses the boundary of proximity, that monk incurs an offense of wrongdoing. To support this meaning with the Pāḷi, it is said, “Monks, it is not... and so on.” If that is so, considering the objection that after entering the rains, if one departs for some business, there would always be an offense, he says, “But having entered the rains...” and so on. In that case, there would be no offense only for one departing on that very day for a seven-day necessity, not for one departing after staying for two or three days. Regarding this, he says, “What then is there to say?” and so on.

180. Idāni sattāhakaraṇīyalakkhaṇaṃ vitthārato dassetuṃ ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave’’tiādimāha. Tattha ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sattannaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena pahite gantuṃ, na tveva appahite, bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā sikkhamānāya sāmaṇerassa sāmaṇeriyā upāsakassa upāsikāyā’’ti (mahāva. 187) ekaṃ, ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sattannaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena appahitepi gantuṃ, pageva pahite, bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā [Pg.407] sikkhamānāya sāmaṇerassa sāmaṇeriyā mātuyā ca pitussa cā’’ti (mahāva. 198) ekaṃ, ‘‘sace pana bhikkhuno bhātā vā añño vā ñātako gilāno hotī’’ti ekaṃ, ‘‘ekasmiṃ vihāre bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vasanto bhikkhubhattiko’’ti ekaṃ, ‘‘sace bhikkhussa…pe… anabhirati vā kukkuccaṃ vā diṭṭhigataṃ vā uppannaṃ hotī’’ti ekaṃ, ‘‘koci bhikkhu garudhammaṃ ajjhāpanno hoti parivāsāraho’’ti ekaṃ, ‘‘bhikkhuniyāpi mānattārahāyā’’ti ekaṃ, ‘‘sāmaṇero upasampajjitukāmo…pe… sikkhamānā vā…pe… sāmaṇerī vā’’ti ekaṃ, ‘‘bhikkhussa bhikkhuniyā vā saṅgho kammaṃ kattukāmo tajjanīyaṃ vā’’ti ekaṃ, ‘‘sacepi kataṃyeva hoti kamma’’nti ekaṃ, ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, saṅghakaraṇīyena gantu’’nti (mahāva. 199) ekanti ekādasa ṭhānāni honti. Tattha paṭhamatatiyacatutthavasena tīsu ṭhānesu pahite eva gantabbaṃ, no appahite. Sesesu aṭṭhasu appahitepi gantabbaṃ, pageva pahite. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.199) ‘‘gantabbanti saṅghakaraṇīyena appahitepi gantabba’’nti. Ettha ca anupāsakehipi sāsanabhāvaṃ ñātukāmehi pahite tesaṃ pasādavaḍḍhisampattehipi sattāhakaraṇīyena gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti gahetabbaṃ. Bhikkhubhattikoti bhikkhunissitako. So pana yasmā bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vasati, tasmā vuttaṃ ‘‘bhikkhūhi saddhiṃ vasanto’’ti.

180. Now, to explain in detail the characteristics of the seven-day business, it begins with, “I allow, monks.” Herein: “I allow, monks, for a monk, a nun, a female probationer, a male novice, a female novice, a male lay follower, and a female lay follower to go, when sent for a seven-day business, but not when not sent” (Mahāvagga 187) is one instance. “I allow, monks, for a monk, a nun, a female probationer, a male novice, a female novice, one’s mother and father to go, even when not sent for a seven-day business, and all the more so when sent” (Mahāvagga 198) is another. “If a monk’s brother or another relative is sick” is another. “A monk living in the same monastery with other monks and being supported by the monks with food” is another. “If a monk... discontent, remorse, or a wrong view arises” is another. “If a monk has committed a serious offense and is liable to parivāsa” is another. “Or if a nun is deserving of mānatta” is another. “A novice wishing to receive higher ordination... or a female probationer... or a female novice” is another. “If the Saṅgha wishes to perform an act against a monk or a nun, such as a tajjanīya-kamma” is another. “Even if the act has already been performed” is another. “I allow, monks, to go for Saṅgha business” (Mahāvagga 199) is another—thus, there are eleven cases. Herein, in the first, third, and fourth cases, one should go only when sent, not when not sent. In the remaining eight cases, one may go even when not sent, and all the more so when sent. As stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vimativinodanī Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.199): “It is permissible to go even when not sent for Saṅgha business.” Moreover, it should be understood that it is permissible to go for a seven-day business when sent by non-lay followers who wish to know the nature of the Dispensation, or by those who have attained an increase of faith. “Bhikkhubhattiko” means one dependent on monks. Since he lives together with monks, it is said, “living together with monks.”

181. Apicetthāti apica etthāti chedo, ettha etasmiṃ sattāhakaraṇīyavinicchaye apica aparo ayaṃ īdiso pāḷimuttakanayo vassūpanāyikakkhandhakapāḷito mutto nayo veditabboti yojanā. Samantapāsādikāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 199) pana ‘‘pāḷimuttakaratticchedavinicchayo’’ti dissati. Tathā [Pg.408] hi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.199) ‘‘ratticchedavinicchayoti sattāhakaraṇīyena gantvā bahiddhā aruṇuṭṭhāpanasaṅkhātassa ratticchedassa vinicchayo’’ti. Sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.199) ‘‘sattāhakaraṇīyena gantvā bahiddhā aruṇuṭṭhāpanaṃ ratticchedo’’ti. Animantitena gantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti ettha animantitattā sattāhakiccaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā gacchantassapi vassacchedo ceva dukkaṭañca hotīti veditabbaṃ. Yathāvuttañhi ratticchedakāraṇaṃ vinā tirovihāre vasitvā āgamissāmīti gacchato vassacchedaṃ vadanti. Gantuṃ vaṭṭatīti antoupacārasīmāyaṃ ṭhiteneva sattāhakaraṇīyanimittaṃ sallakkhetvā iminā nimittena gantvā ‘‘sattāhabbhantare āgacchissāmī’’ti ābhogaṃ katvā gantuṃ vaṭṭati. Purimakkhaṇe ābhogaṃ katvā gamanakkhaṇe visaritvā gatepi doso natthi, ‘‘sakaraṇīyo pakkamatī’’ti (mahāva. 207) vuttattā sabbathā ābhogaṃ akatvā gatassa vassacchedoti vadanti. Yo pana sattāhakaraṇīyanimittābhāvepi ‘‘sattāhabbhantare āgamissāmī’’ti ābhogaṃ katvā gantvā sattāhabbhantare āgacchati, tassa āpattiyeva, vassacchedo natthi sattāhassa sannivattattāti vadanti, vīmaṃsitvā gahetabbaṃ.

181. “Apicetthāti” is a word division of “apica ettha.” Here, in this decision concerning the seven-day business, another such non-canonical method, released from the Pāḷi of the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka, should be understood. In the Samantapāsādikā, however, it is seen as “the decision concerning the breaking of the night that is outside the Pāḷi.” Indeed, the Vimativinodanī states: “The decision concerning the breaking of the night means the decision regarding the breaking of the night, which is termed ‘establishing the dawn outside’ after going out for a seven-day business.” Similarly, the Sāratthadīpanī says: “After going out for a seven-day business, establishing the dawn outside is the breaking of the night.” Regarding the rule “it is not permissible to go uninvited,” it should be understood here that because of being uninvited, even for one who goes having determined a seven-day task, there is both a breaking of the rains-residence and a wrongdoing. For, without a stated reason for breaking the night, if one goes thinking, “I will stay in a neighboring monastery and return,” they say it is a breaking of the rains-residence. “It is permissible to go” means that while staying within the boundary of the monastery, one considers the reason for the seven-day business and, having noted this reason, it is permissible to go after making the determination, “I will return within seven days.” If one forgets at the moment of going after having made the determination earlier, there is no fault, because it is said, “He departs with a valid reason.” But if one goes entirely without making any determination, they say it is a breaking of the rains-residence. However, if someone goes even without a reason for the seven-day business but with the determination, “I will return within seven days,” and returns within seven days, they say there is only an offense, not a breaking of the rains-residence, because he has returned within the seven-day period. This should be carefully considered and understood.

Bhaṇḍakanti cīvarabhaṇḍaṃ. Pahiṇantīti cīvaradhovanādikammena pahiṇanti. Sampāpuṇituṃ na sakkoti, vaṭṭatīti ettha ‘‘ajjeva āgamissāmī’’ti sāmantavihāraṃ gantvā puna āgacchantassa antarāmagge sace aruṇuggamanaṃ hoti, vassacchedopi na hoti, ratticchedadukkaṭañca natthīti vadanti, tadaheva āgamane saussāhattā vassacchedo vā āpatti vā na hotīti adhippāyo. Ācariyaṃ passissāmīti pana gantuṃ labhatīti ‘‘agilānampi ācariyaṃ, upajjhāyaṃ vā passissāmī’’ti sattāhakaraṇīyena gantuṃ labhati, nissayācariyaṃ dhammācariyañca, pageva [Pg.409] upasampadācariyaupajjhāye. Sace naṃ ācariyo ‘‘ajja mā gacchā’’ti vadati, vaṭṭatīti evaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyena āgatānaṃ antosattāheyeva puna āgacchantaṃ sace ācariyo, upajjhāyo vā ‘‘ajja mā gacchā’’ti vadati, vaṭṭati, sattāhātikkamepi anāpattīti adhippāyo. Vassacchedo pana hotiyevāti daṭṭhabbaṃ sattāhassa bahiddhā vītināmitattā.

“Bhaṇḍaka” means a bundle of robes. “Pahiṇanti” means they send for the work of washing robes and so forth. Regarding “If one is unable to arrive, it is allowable”: here, if one goes to a neighboring monastery intending, “I will return today,” and while returning, dawn arises on the way, they say there is no breaking of the rains-residence, nor is there an offense of breaking the night. The meaning is that because of the effort to return on the same day, there is no breaking of the rains-residence or any offense. Moreover, one is permitted to go to see the teacher—thus, one is permitted to go for a seven-day business to see one’s teacher or preceptor even if they are not ill, which includes the dependence teacher and the Dhamma teacher, and all the more so the ordination teacher and preceptor. Regarding “If the teacher says, ‘Do not go today,’ it is allowed”: thus, for one who has come for a seven-day business and is returning within the seven days, if his teacher or preceptor says, “Do not go today,” it is allowed. The meaning is that even if the seven-day period is exceeded, there is no offense. However, it should be understood that the rains-residence is indeed broken, because the seven-day period was spent outside.

Sace dūraṃ gato sattāhavārena aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabboti iminā vassacchedakāraṇe sati sattāhakaraṇīyena gantumpi vaṭṭatīti dīpeti. Ettha cha divasāni bahiddhā vītināmetvā sattame divase purāruṇā eva antoupacārasīmāyaṃ pavisitvā aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetvā punadivase sattāhaṃ adhiṭṭhāya gantabbanti adhippāyo. Keci pana ‘‘sattame divase āgantvā aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā tadaheva divasabhāgepi gantuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti vadanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ ‘‘aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo’’ti vuttattā. Sattame divase tattha aruṇuṭṭhāpanameva hi sandhāya pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 199) ‘‘sattāhaṃ sannivatto kātabbo’’ti vuttaṃ. Aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gacchanto ca anto appavisitvā bahiddhāva sattāhaṃ vītināmento ca samucchinnavasso eva bhavissati aruṇassa bahi eva uṭṭhāpitattā. Itarathā ‘‘aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo’’ti vacanaṃ niratthakaṃ siyā. ‘‘Sattāhavārena antovihāre pavisitvā aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gantabba’’nti vattabbato aññesu ca ṭhānesu aruṇuṭṭhāpanameva vuccati. Vakkhati hi cīvarakkhandhake (mahāva. aṭṭha. 364) ‘‘ekasmiṃ vihāre vasanto itarasmiṃ sattāhavārena aruṇameva uṭṭhāpetī’’ti.

If one has gone far away, by the statement 'the dawn must be made to arise within a seven-day period,' it is shown that even when there is a reason for breaking the rains-residence, it is permissible to go on a seven-day undertaking. Here, the meaning is that after spending six days outside, on the seventh day, one must enter the inner boundary before dawn, make the dawn arise, and then, having undertaken a seven-day period on the following day, one may depart. However, some say, 'On the seventh day, one may return and, without making the dawn arise, depart again during the daytime on that very day.' This should not be accepted, because it is stated, 'the dawn must be made to arise.' Indeed, it is with reference to making the dawn arise there on the seventh day that it is said in the Pāḷi (Mahāvagga 199), 'A return must be made within seven days.' One who departs without making the dawn arise, or who spends the seven days outside without entering within, will have his rains-residence cut off, because the dawn was made to arise outside. Otherwise, the statement 'the dawn must be made to arise' would be meaningless. For it would have to be said, 'One should enter the monastery within the seven-day period and depart without making the dawn arise,' and in other places, only the making of the dawn arise is mentioned. For it will be stated in the Cīvarakkhandhaka (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 364): 'While dwelling in one monastery, within a seven-day period, one makes only the dawn arise in the other.'

Athāpi [Pg.410] yaṃ te vadeyyuṃ ‘‘sattame divase yadā kadāci paviṭṭhena taṃdivasanissito atītāruṇo uṭṭhāpito nāma hotīti imamatthaṃ sandhāya aṭṭhakathāyaṃ vutta’’nti, taṃ saddagatiyāpi na sameti. Na hi uṭṭhite aruṇe pacchā paviṭṭho tassa payojako uṭṭhāpako bhavitumarahati. Yadi bhaveyya, ‘‘vassaṃ upagantvā pana aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā tadaheva sattāhakaraṇīyena pakkamantassā’’pīti (mahāva. aṭṭha. 207) ettha ‘‘aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā’’ti vacanaṃ virujjheyya. Tenapi taṃdivasanissitassa aruṇassa uṭṭhāpitattā āraññakassapi bhikkhuno sāyanhasamaye aṅgayuttaṃ araññaṃ gantvā tadā eva nivattantassa aruṇo uṭṭhāpito dhutaṅgañca visodhitaṃ siyā, na cetaṃ yuttaṃ aruṇuggamanakāle eva aruṇuṭṭhāpanassa vuttattā. Vuttañhi ‘‘kālasseva pana nikkhamitvā aṅgayutte ṭhāne aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpetabbaṃ. Sace aruṇuṭṭhānavelāyaṃ tesaṃ ābādho vaḍḍhati, tesaṃ eva kiccaṃ kātabbaṃ, na dhutaṅgavisuddhikena bhavitabba’’nti (visuddhi. 1.31). Tathā pārivāsikādīnampi aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā vattaṃ nikkhipantānaṃ ratticchedo vutto. ‘‘Uggate aruṇe nikkhipitabba’’nti (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97) hi vuttaṃ. Sahaseyyasikkhāpadepi anupasampannehi saha nivutthabhāvaparimocanatthaṃ ‘‘purāruṇā nikkhamitvā’’tiādi (pāci. 54) vuttaṃ. Evaṃ cīvaravippavāsādīsu ca sabbattha rattipariyosāne āgāmiaruṇavaseneva aruṇuṭṭhānaṃ dassitaṃ, na atītāruṇavasena, tasmā vuttanayenevettha aruṇuṭṭhāpanaṃ veditabbaṃ aññathā vassacchedattā.

Moreover, should they say, 'When one has entered at any time on the seventh day, the past dawn dependent on that day is said to have been made to arise—this is the meaning referred to in the commentary,' this does not accord with sound reasoning. For when the dawn has already arisen, one who enters afterward cannot be its agent or the one who makes it arise. If it were so, the phrase 'without making the dawn arise' in the statement, 'of one who, having undertaken the rains-residence, departs on that very day for a seven-day undertaking without making the dawn arise' (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 207), would be contradicted. For the dawn dependent on that day would have been made to arise even by him. And for a forest-dwelling monk who goes to a suitable forest in the evening and returns at that very time, the dawn would have been made to arise and his ascetic practice purified. But this is not proper, because the making of the dawn arise is stated to occur at the very time of the dawn's appearance. For it is said: 'Having gone out at the proper time, the dawn should be made to arise in a suitable place. If their illness worsens at the time of making the dawn arise, their own duty should be done; one should not be concerned with the purification of the ascetic practice' (Visuddhimagga 1.31). Similarly, for those undergoing probation and so on, a break in the nights is declared if they abandon their duties without making the dawn arise. For it is said: 'It should be abandoned when the dawn has arisen' (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 97). Even in the training rule on sleeping together, to be free from the state of having dwelt with an unordained person, it is said: 'Having departed before dawn...' (Pācittiya 54). Thus, in cases of being away from one's robe and so on, everywhere the making of the dawn arise is shown to be in relation to the coming dawn at the end of the night, not in relation to the past dawn. Therefore, the making of the dawn arise should be understood here in the manner stated; otherwise, it is a breaking of the rains-residence.

Yaṃ pana vassaṃ upagatassa tadaheva aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā sakaraṇīyassa pakkamanavacanaṃ, taṃ vassaṃ upagatakālato paṭṭhāya yadā kadāci nimitte sati gamanassa anuññātattā yuttaṃ, na pana sattāhavārena gatassa aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā tadahevagamanaṃ [Pg.411] ‘‘aruṇo uṭṭhāpetabbo’’ti vuttattā. Yathā vā ‘‘sattāhānāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamati, āgaccheyya vā so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu taṃ āvāsaṃ na vā āgaccheyyā’’tiādinā (mahāva. 207) pacchimasattāhe anāgamane anuññātepi aññasattāhesu taṃ na vaṭṭati. Evaṃ paṭhamasattāhe aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gamane anuññātepi tato paresu sattāhesu āgatassa aruṇaṃ anuṭṭhāpetvā gamanaṃ na vaṭṭati evāti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ.

However, the statement about the departure of one with an undertaking on the very day he has entered the rains-residence, without making the dawn arise, is proper, because departure is permitted whenever an occasion arises, starting from the time of entering the rains-residence. But for one who has returned from a seven-day journey, to depart again on that same day without making the dawn arise is not proper, because it is stated, 'The dawn must be made to arise.' Just as, although non-return is permitted in the final seven-day period, as stated in 'A monk with an undertaking departs when the Pavāraṇā is seven days away; that monk, O bhikkhus, may or may not return to that residence...' (Mahāvagga 207), this is not permissible in other seven-day periods. Similarly, although departure without making the dawn arise is permitted on the initial occasion, for one who has returned after subsequent seven-day periods, departure without making the dawn arise is not permissible. Thus should this conclusion be reached.

Sace pavāritakāle vassāvāsikaṃ dentītiādinā vassāvāsikacīvarampi kathinacīvaraṃ viya vassaṃvutthavihārapaṭibaddhanti viññāyati. ‘‘Yadi sattāhavārena aruṇaṃ uṭṭhāpayiṃsu, gahetabba’’nti pana vuttattā sattāhakaraṇīyena gantvā sattāhabbhantare āgatā labhanti. Kathinānisaṃsacīvaraṃ pana saṅghaṃ anāpucchā te na labhanti. Vakkhati hi ‘‘sattāhakaraṇīyena gatāpi bhājanīyabhaṇḍaṃ labhantūti vā evarūpaṃ adhammikavattaṃ na kātabba’’nti (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 182). Idha āhaṭanti vihārato bahi āgataṭṭhāne ānītaṃ.

By the phrase, 'If, at the time of Pavāraṇā, they give a rains-residence robe...,' it is understood that the rains-residence robe, like the Kathina robe, is connected to the monastery where the rains were spent. However, because it is said, 'If they made the dawn arise within a seven-day period, it should be taken,' those who go on a seven-day undertaking and return within seven days do receive it. But they do not receive a Kathina-privilege robe without asking the Sangha. For it will be stated: 'Even though they went on a seven-day undertaking, an unrighteous practice such as, "Let them receive shareable goods," should not be performed' (Vinayasaṅgaha Aṭṭhakathā 182). Here, 'brought' means brought to the place one has come to outside the monastery.

Vāḷehi ubbāḷhā honti, gaṇhantipi paripātentipīti ettha gaṇhantīti gahetvā khādanti. Paripātentīti palāpenti, anubandhantīti attho. Imesu ‘‘gāḷehi ubbāḷhā hontī’’tiādīsu saṅghabhedapariyantesu vatthūsu kevalaṃ anāpatti hoti, pavāretuṃ pana na labhatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Sace panātiādīsu yasmā nānāsīmāyaṃ dvīsu āvāsesu vassaṃ upagacchantassa ‘‘dutiye vasissāmī’’ti upacārato nikkhantamatte paṭhamo senāsanaggāho paṭippassambhati, tasmā pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 207) ‘‘tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca na paññāyatī’’ti paṭhamaṃ senāsanaggāhaṃ sandhāya vuttaṃ. Dutiyasenāsanaggāhe pana purimikā paññāyateva, tattheva temāsaṃ vasanto [Pg.412] purimavassaṃvuttho eva hoti. Tato vā pana dutiyadivasādīsu ‘‘paṭhamasenāsane vasissāmī’’ti upacārātikkame purimikāpi na paññāyatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

They are harassed by beasts of prey; they seize and they cause them to fall away. Here, 'they seize' means they seize and devour. 'They cause them to fall away' means they make them flee; the meaning is, they pursue. In these cases, from 'they are harassed by beasts of prey' up to the matters ending with schism in the Sangha, there is only no offense, but it should be understood that one does not get to perform the Pavāraṇā. However, in cases such as 'If...', because for one entering the rains-residence in two dwellings with different boundaries, the first taking of a lodging ceases merely upon departing from the vicinity with the intention, 'I will dwell in the second,' therefore in the Pāḷi (Mahāvagga 207) it is said, 'For that bhikkhu, O bhikkhus, the former is not reckoned,' with reference to the first taking of a lodging. But in the second taking of a lodging, the former is indeed reckoned; dwelling there for the three months, he is one who has spent the first rains-residence. Alternatively, if on the second day or thereafter he transgresses the vicinity with the intention, 'I will dwell in the first lodging,' it should be understood that the former is also not reckoned.

Paṭissavassa visaṃvādanapaccayā hontampi dukkaṭaṃ satiyeva paṭissave hotīti āha ‘‘tassa tassa paṭissavassa visaṃvāde dukkaṭa’’nti. Tenevāha ‘‘tañca kho…pe… visaṃvādanapaccayā’’ti. Pāḷiyaṃ (mahāva. 207) ‘‘so sattāhānāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamatī’’ti vuttattā pavāraṇādivasepi sattāhakaraṇīyaṃ vinā gantuṃ na vaṭṭatīti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Imasmiṃ ṭhāne ‘‘navamito paṭṭhāya gantuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacanaṃ kacci uposathadivasato upanidhāya navamī icchitabbā, udāhu lokiyatithivasenāti āsaṅkanti. Tatrevaṃ vinicchitabbaṃ – purimabhaddapadamāsakāḷapakkhauposathadivasaṃ upanidhāya icchitabbā, na lokiyatithivasena. Bhaddapadamāsassa hi kāḷapakkhauposathadivasaṃ mariyādaṃ katvā tadanantarapāṭipadadivasato paṭṭhāya gaṇiyamāne sati yo divaso navamo hoti, tato paṭṭhāyāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tithipekkhāya pana itthiliṅgavohāro, tato navamito paṭṭhāya anāgatasattāhe pavāraṇā hoti.

For breaking a promise, there is a dukkaṭa offense if the promise was made knowingly—thus it is said: 'For breaking any such promise, there is a dukkaṭa.' Therefore, it is also stated: 'But only… due to the breaking of the promise.' In the Pāli text (Mahāvagga 207), it is said: 'He, having a duty, may depart when the Pavāraṇā is seven days away.' Hence, it should be understood that even on the day of Pavāraṇā, it is not permissible to leave without a seven-day reason. In this context, the commentary states: 'It is permissible to depart from the ninth day onward.' Here, one might wonder whether the ninth day should be counted in relation to the Uposatha day or according to the worldly lunar day. This should be resolved as follows: The ninth day should be counted in relation to the Uposatha day of the dark fortnight of the first Bhaddapada month, not according to the worldly lunar day. For, having made the Uposatha day of the dark fortnight of the Bhaddapada month the boundary, when one counts from the first day immediately following it, whichever day is the ninth, it is said to be from that day onward. With reference to the lunar day, however, the feminine gender is used, and from the ninth day onward, the Pavāraṇā is in the coming week.

Sattāhaṃ anāgatāya assāti sattāhānāgatā. Kā sā? Pavāraṇā. Assayujamāsassa sukkapakkhanavamiyaṃ sattāhakaraṇīyaṃ adhiṭṭhāya gacchanto bhikkhu antovassassa sattāhamattāvasiṭṭhattā sattamaaruṇe uggatamatte vutthavasso hoti, dasamiyaṃ chāhamattaṃ, ekādasamiyaṃ pañcāhamattaṃ, dvādasiyaṃ caturāhamattaṃ, terasiyaṃ tīhamattaṃ, cuddasiyaṃ dvīhamattaṃ, pannarasiyaṃ ekāhamattaṃ avasiṭṭhaṃ hoti, tasmā pavāraṇādivasassa pariyosānabhūtaaruṇasmiṃ uggate vutthavasso hoti, tasmā tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ kukkuccavinodanatthaṃ [Pg.413] bhagavā dhammassāmī ‘‘so sattāhānāgatāya pavāraṇāya sakaraṇīyo pakkamati, āgaccheyya vā so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu taṃ āvāsaṃ na vā āgaccheyya, tassa, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno purimikā ca paññāyati, paṭissave ca anāpattī’’ti (mahāva. 207) āha. Sattāhānāgatāya komudiyā cātumāsiniyāti etthāpi eseva nayo. Tattha komudiyā cātumāsiniyāti pacchimakattikapuṇṇamāyaṃ. Sā hi kumudānaṃ atthitāya komudī, catunnaṃ vassikamāsānaṃ pariyosānattā cātumāsinīti vuccati. Tadā hi kumudāni supupphitāni honti, tasmā kumudā ettha pupphantīti komudīti vuccati, kumudavatīti vuttaṃ hoti.

That for which seven days have not yet come is 'sattāhānāgatā.' What is that? The Pavāraṇā. A monk who departs, having undertaken a seven-day duty on the ninth day of the bright fortnight of the Assayuja month, becomes one who has completed the rains-residence at the very rising of the dawn on the seventh day, as only seven days of the rains-residence remain. On the tenth day, six days remain; on the eleventh, five days; on the twelfth, four days; on the thirteenth, three days; on the fourteenth, two days; and on the fifteenth, one day remains. Therefore, when the dawn that concludes the Pavāraṇā day has risen, he has completed the rains-residence. Thus, to dispel the anxiety of those monks, the Blessed One, the Master of the Dhamma, said: 'A monk with a duty may depart when the Pavāraṇā is seven days away. Whether that monk, O bhikkhus, returns to that residence or does not return, for that monk, O bhikkhus, the first rains-residence is reckoned, and there is no offense in his promise.' (Mahāvagga 207) This same method applies here to 'when the Komudī Cātumāsinī is seven days away.' Therein, 'Komudī Cātumāsinī' refers to the full moon of the later Kattika month. It is called 'Komudī' due to the presence of white water lilies (kumuda), and 'Cātumāsinī' because it is the end of the four rainy months. At that time, the white water lilies are in full bloom; therefore, because the water lilies bloom there, it is called 'Komudī,' meaning 'possessing water lilies' (kumudavatī), it is said.

182. Antovassavattakathāyaṃ nibaddhavattaṃ ṭhapetvāti sajjhāyamanasikārādīsu nirantarakaraṇīyesu kattabbaṃ katikavattaṃ katvā. Kasāvaparibhaṇḍanti kasāvehi bhūmiparikammaṃ. Vattanti katikavattaṃ.

182. In the discourse on the duties during the rains-residence, 'having established the regular duties' means: having made a stipulated agreement regarding continuous duties to be performed, such as recitation, reflection, and so on. 'Kasāvaparibhaṇḍa' means preparing the ground with ochre-colored clay. 'Vatta' means the stipulated agreement.

Evarūpaṃ adhammikavattaṃ na kātabbanti nānāverajjakā hi bhikkhū sannipatanti, tattha keci dubbalā appathāmā evarūpaṃ vattaṃ anupāletuṃ na sakkonti, tasmā idha āgatañca catutthapārājikavaṇṇanāyaṃ (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.227) āgataṃ āvāsaṃ vā maṇḍapaṃ vā sīmaṃ vā yaṃ kiñci ṭhānaṃ paricchinditvā ‘‘yo imamhā āvāsā paṭhamaṃ pakkamissati, taṃ ‘arahā’ti jānissāmā’’ti katāya katikāya yo ‘‘maṃ ‘arahā’ti jānantū’’ti tamhā ṭhānā paṭhamaṃ pakkamati, pārājiko hoti. Yo pana ācariyupajjhāyānaṃ vā kiccena mātāpitūnaṃ vā kenacideva karaṇīyena bhikkhācāravattaṃ vā uddesaparipucchādīnaṃ atthāya aññena vā tādisena karaṇīyena taṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamitvā gacchati, anāpatti. Sacepissa evaṃ gatassa pacchā icchācāro uppajjati [Pg.414] ‘‘na dānāhaṃ tattha gamissāmi, evaṃ maṃ arahāti sambhāvessantī’’ti, anāpattiyeva.

Such an unrighteous practice should not be undertaken, for monks from various regions gather, and some among them, being weak and lacking in strength, are unable to maintain such a practice. Therefore, as stated here and in the commentary on the fourth Pārājika offense (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.227), when a residence, a pavilion, a boundary, or any such place is demarcated, and an agreement is made, saying, 'Whoever departs from this residence first, we will recognize as an Arahant,' then whoever, thinking, 'Let them recognize me as an Arahant,' departs from that place first, commits a Pārājika offense. However, if one goes, having crossed that boundary, due to a duty for one's teachers or preceptors, or for one's parents, or for some necessary reason, or for the sake of the alms-round practice, or for purposes such as recitation and questioning, or for any other such necessary reason, there is no offense. And if, after having gone in this way, the wish to act on his own desire later arises, thinking, 'Now I will not go back there; in this way they will esteem me as an Arahant,' there is still no offense.

Yopi kenacideva karaṇīyena taṃ ṭhānaṃ patvā sajjhāyamanasikārādivasena aññavihito vā hutvā corādīhi vā anubaddho meghaṃ vā uṭṭhitaṃ disvā anovassakaṃ pavisitukāmo taṃ ṭhānaṃ atikkamati, anāpatti, yānena vā iddhiyā vā gacchantopi pārājikaṃ nāpajjati, padagamaneneva āpajjati. Tampi yehi saha katikā katā, tehi saddhiṃ apubbaṃ acarimaṃ gacchanto nāpajjati. Evaṃ gacchantā hi sabbepi aññamaññaṃ rakkhanti. Sacepi maṇḍaparukkhamūlādīsu kiñci ṭhānaṃ paricchindanti ‘‘yo ettha nisīdati vā caṅkamati vā, taṃ ‘arahā’ti jānissāma’’, pupphāni vā ṭhapetvā, ‘‘yo imāni gahetvā pūjaṃ karissati, taṃ ‘arahā’ti jānissāmā’’tiādinā nayena katikā katā hoti, tatrāpi icchācāravasena tathā karontassa pārājikameva. Sacepi upāsakena antarāmagge vihāro vā kato hoti, cīvarādīni vā ṭhapitāni honti ‘‘ye arahanto, te imasmiṃ vihāre vasantu, cīvarādīni vā gaṇhantū’’ti, tatrāpi icchācāravasena vasantassa vā tāni vā gaṇhantassa pārājikameva, etaṃ pana adhammikakatikavattaṃ, tasmā na kātabbaṃ, aññaṃ vā evarūpaṃ ‘‘imasmiṃ temāsabbhantare sabbeva āraññakā hontu piṇḍapātikadhutaṅgādiavasesadhutaṅgadharā vā, atha vā sabbeva khīṇāsavā hontū’’ti evamādi. Nānāverajjakā hi bhikkhū sannipatanti. Tattha keci dubbalā appathāmā evarūpaṃ vattaṃ anupāletuṃ na sakkonti, tasmā evarūpampi vattaṃ na kātabbaṃ. ‘‘Imaṃ temāsaṃ sabbeheva na uddisitabbaṃ, na paripucchitabbaṃ, na pabbājetabbaṃ, mūgabbataṃ gaṇhitabbaṃ, bahisīmaṭṭhassapi saṅghalābho dātabbo’’ti evamādikampi na kattabbameva.

Moreover, if one, having arrived at that place for some necessary reason, crosses that boundary because one is preoccupied with recitation, reflection, and so on, or is pursued by thieves and others, or, seeing that a cloud has arisen, wishes to enter a place sheltered from the rain, there is no offense. Even one going by vehicle or by psychic power does not fall into a Pārājika offense; one falls into it only by going on foot. Furthermore, one who goes neither first nor last with those with whom the agreement was made does not fall into an offense. For, going in this way, they all protect one another. Even if they demarcate a place in a pavilion, at the foot of a tree, or the like, and an agreement is made in this way: 'Whoever sits or walks here, we will recognize as an Arahant,' or, having placed flowers, 'Whoever takes these and makes an offering, we will recognize as an Arahant,' and so on—even in that case, for one who does so according to his own wish, it is a Pārājika offense. Even if a lay follower has built a monastery along the road or has placed robes and other requisites there, thinking, 'Let the Arahants dwell in this monastery, or take these robes and so on,' in that case too, for one who dwells there or takes them according to his own wish, it is a Pārājika offense. This, however, is an unrighteous, stipulated practice; therefore, it should not be done. Nor should other such agreements be made, like: 'Within this three-month period, let all be forest-dwellers, or observers of the ascetic practice of eating only alms-food and the remaining ascetic practices, or let all be destroyers of the corruptions,' and so on. For monks from various regions gather, and some among them, being weak and lacking in strength, are unable to maintain such a practice. Therefore, such a practice should not be established either. Agreements such as, 'For these three months, no one shall recite, no one shall question, no one shall give the going forth, the vow of silence shall be undertaken, a gain accruing to the Sangha shall be given even to one standing outside the boundary,' and so on, should also not be made.

Tividhampīti [Pg.415] pariyattipaṭipattipaṭivedhavasena tividhampi. Sodhetvā pabbājethāti bhabbe ācārakulaputte upaparikkhitvā pabbājetha. Bhasse mattaṃ jānitvāti vacane pamāṇaṃ ñatvā. Dasakathāvatthu nāma appicchākathā santuṭṭhikathā pavivekakathā asaṃsaggakathā vīriyārambhakathā sīlakathā samādhikathā paññākathā vimuttikathā vimuttiñāṇadassanakathāti.

'Threefold' means threefold by way of learning, practice, and realization. 'Sodhetvā pabbājetha' (Having investigated, you should give the going forth) means: after examining suitable sons of good families with good conduct, you should give them the going forth. 'Bhasse mattaṃ jānitvā' (Knowing the measure in speech) means: knowing the proper limit in speaking. The ten topics for discussion are: talk on fewness of desires, talk on contentment, talk on seclusion, talk on non-association, talk on arousing energy, talk on virtue, talk on concentration, talk on wisdom, talk on liberation, and talk on the knowledge and vision of liberation.

Viggahasaṃvattanikaṃ vacanaṃ viggāhikaṃ. Caturārakkhaṃ ahāpentāti buddhānussati mettā asubhaṃ maraṇānussatīti imaṃ caturārakkhaṃ ahāpentā. Dantakaṭṭhakhādanavattaṃ ācikkhitabbanti ettha idaṃ dantakaṭṭhakhādanavattaṃ – yo devasikaṃ saṅghamajjhe osarati, tena sāmaṇerādīhi āharitvā bhikkhūnaṃ yathāsukhaṃ bhuñjanatthāya dantakaṭṭhamāḷake nikkhittesu dantakaṭṭhesu divase divase ekameva dantakaṭṭhaṃ gahetabbaṃ. Yo pana devasikaṃ na osarati, padhānaghare vasitvā dhammassavane vā uposathagge vā dissati, tena pamāṇaṃ sallakkhetvā cattāri pañca dantakaṭṭhāni attano vasanaṭṭhāne ṭhapetvā khāditabbāni. Tesu khīṇesu sace punapi dantakaṭṭhamāḷake bahūni hontiyeva, punapi āharitvā khāditabbāni. Yadi pana pamāṇaṃ asallakkhetvā āharati, tesu akhīṇesuyeva māḷake khīyati, tato keci therā ‘‘yehi gahitāni, te paṭiharantū’’ti vadeyyuṃ, keci ‘‘khādantu, puna sāmaṇerā āharissantī’’ti, tasmā vivādaparihāratthaṃ pamāṇaṃ sallakkhetabbaṃ, gahaṇe pana doso natthi. Maggaṃ gacchantenapi ekaṃ vā dve vā thavikāya pakkhipitvā gantabbanti. Bhikkhācāravattaṃ piṇḍapātikavatte āvibhavissati.

Speech that leads to quarrels is quarrelsome. One should not abandon the four protections: recollection of the Buddha, loving-kindness, contemplation of the unattractive, and recollection of death. The practice of chewing toothwood is to be explained. Here, this is the practice of chewing toothwood: Whoever enters the midst of the Saṅgha daily should take only one piece of toothwood each day from the toothwood placed in the toothwood stand by novices and others for the monks to use at their convenience. But if one does not enter the Saṅgha daily—if one dwells in a meditation dwelling, listens to the Dhamma, or is seen in the Uposatha hall—one should assess the quantity and keep four or five pieces of toothwood in one’s dwelling to chew. When these are used up, if there are still many in the toothwood stand, more may be brought and chewed. However, if one takes toothwood without assessing the quantity and the stand runs out before they are used up, some elders may say, "Let those who took them return them," while others may say, "Let them chew; the novices will bring more." Therefore, to avoid disputes, the quantity should be assessed, but there is no fault in taking it. Even when traveling, one or two pieces should be put in a bag and carried. The practice of almsround will be made clear in the section on the mendicant's duties.

Antogāme…pe… na kathetabbāti ettha catūsu paccayesu cīvare ca piṇḍapāte ca viññattipi na vaṭṭati nimittobhāsaparikathāpi. Senāsane viññattimeva na vaṭṭati, sesāni tīṇi [Pg.416] vaṭṭanti. Gilānapaccaye sabbampi vaṭṭati. Evaṃ santepi ājīvaṃ sodhentehi bhikkhūhi suṭṭhu rakkhitabbāti. Iminā ājīvapārisuddhisīlaṃ dassitaṃ. Rakkhitindriyehi bhavitabbanti indriyasaṃvarasīlaṃ. Khandhakavattañca sekhiyavattañca pūretabbanti pātimokkhasaṃvarasīlaṃ. Paccayasannissitasīlaṃ pana tīhipi sāmatthiyato dassitaṃ. Iti catupārisuddhisīlapaṭisaṃyuttā evarūpā niyyānikakathā bahukāpi vattabbāti adhippāyo.

In the inner village… and so on… it should not be spoken. Here, regarding the four requisites, for robes and almsfood, neither requesting nor hinting and allusive talk is permissible. For lodging, only requesting is not permissible; the other three are permissible. For medicinal requisites, all are permissible. Even so, it must be well guarded by monks who purify their livelihood. Thus, the virtue of purity of livelihood is shown. One must be with guarded senses—this is the virtue of sense restraint. The disciplinary practices of the Khandhaka and the Sekhiya must be fulfilled—this is the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint. The virtue connected with the requisites, however, is shown by the capacity in these three cases. Thus, the intention is that many such discourses leading to liberation, connected with the fourfold purity of virtue, should be spoken.

Imasmiṃ vassūpanāyikavisaye tesu tesu nagaresu tasmiṃ tasmiṃ rājakāle apariyantā vivādakathā hoti. Kathaṃ? Vassūpanāyikakkhandhake (mahāva. 186) ‘‘tena kho pana samayena rājā māgadho seniyo bimbisāro vassaṃ ukkaḍḍhitukāmo bhikkhūnaṃ santike dūtaṃ pāhesi ‘yadi panāyyā āgame juṇhe vassaṃ upagaccheyyu’nti. Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ, ‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rājūnaṃ anuvattitu’’’nti vacanaṃ nissāya bhagavatā adhimāsaṃ paññattanti maññamānā vedasamayena saṃsanditvā gayhamānā anekavihitaṃ vivādaṃ karonti. Vedasamaye kira dve adhimāsāni yācādhimāsañca pattādhimāsañca. Tattha kaliyugagaṇane ekūnavīsatigaṇanena bhājite dvepañcaṭṭhadasaterasasoḷasaṭṭhārasavasena sattadhā seso hoti, tesaṃ vasena cammādhimāsa pañcādhimāsa pasvādhimāsa dasādhimāsa terasādhimāsa soḷasādhimāsa aṭṭhārasādhimāsāti voharanti. Aṭṭhārasādhimāsaṃ pana avasānādhimāsantipi voharanti. Tesu pasusoḷasāni apatteyeva adhimāsapatanakaliyuge saṃvaccharamāsādivisamabhayena yācitvā māsassa ākaḍḍhitabbato yācādhimāsanti voharanti, sesāni pana pañcamatteyeva adhimāsapatanakaliyuge māsassa ākaḍḍhitabbato pattādhimāsanti. Tatretaṃ yācādhimāsalakkhaṇaṃ – tathato [Pg.417] ajānantā pāḷiyā saṃsanditvā bimbisāraraññā bhagavato yācitādhimāsattā yācādhimāsaṃ nāma bhavati, tasmā dvīsu eva yācādhimāsesu divasena saha māso ākaḍḍhitabbo, na itaresūti vadanti, aññe pana pañcasu pattādhimāsesu eva saha divasena māso ākaḍḍhitabbo, na yācādhimāsesūti.

In this matter of entering the rainy season, in various cities and during different reigns, endless disputes arise. How so? In the Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 186), it is said: "At that time, King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, wishing to postpone the rains, sent a messenger to the monks, saying, ‘Would that the venerable ones enter the rains retreat in the coming bright fortnight.’ They reported this matter to the Blessed One, who said, ‘I allow, monks, to comply with kings.’" Taking this statement as authority, some, thinking that the Blessed One prescribed an intercalary month, determine such months by comparing with the Vedic system, and getting attached to their views, they engage in various kinds of disputes. It is said that in the Vedic period there were two kinds of intercalary months: the requested intercalary month (yācādhimāsa) and the obtained intercalary month (pattādhimāsa). In the Kaliyuga reckoning, when the year number is divided by nineteen, the remainder is sevenfold—two, five, eight, ten, thirteen, sixteen, and eighteen. Based on these, they are called: the camma intercalary month, the five intercalary month, the pasu intercalary month, the ten intercalary month, the thirteen intercalary month, the sixteen intercalary month, and the eighteen intercalary month. The eighteen intercalary month is also called the final intercalary month. Among these, the pasu and sixteen cases are called the requested intercalary month because, due to the fear of discrepancies in the year, months, etc., in the Kaliyuga when an intercalary month is due, the extension of the month is requested before it is reached. The remaining five, however, are called the obtained intercalary month because the extension of the month is made only when the time for the intercalary month in the Kaliyuga is reached. Here is the characteristic of the requested intercalary month: Those who do not understand the reality, relying on the Pāḷi texts, say that because King Bimbisāra requested an intercalary month from the Blessed One, it is called the requested intercalary month. Therefore, they say, in these two requested intercalary months, the month must be extended along with the day, but not in the others. Others, however, say that in the five obtained intercalary months, the month must be extended along with the day, but not in the requested intercalary months.

Apare pana – ‘‘dvemā, bhikkhave, vassūpanāyikā purimikā pacchimikāti, aparajjugatāya āsāḷhiyā purimikā upagantabbā, māsagatāya āsāḷhiyā pacchimikā upagantabbā’’ti tasmiṃyeva vassūpanāyikakkhandhake (mahāva. 184) āgatāya pāḷiyā atthaṃ ayoniso gahetvā tithinakkhattayoge eva vassūpagamanaṃ bhagavatā anuññātaṃ, tasmā āsāḷhipuṇṇamāya anantarabhūto pāṭipadadivaso puṇṇātithiyā ca yutto hotu, pubbāsāḷhauttarāsāḷhasaṅkhātesu dvīsu nakkhattesu ekekena yutto ca, evaṃbhūto kālo yadi vinā divasena māsakaḍḍhane sampajjati, tathā ca sati māsamattākaḍḍhanameva kātabbaṃ, yadi na sampajjati, saha divasena māsākaḍḍhanaṃ, ayaṃ piṭakena ca vedena ca anulomo vinicchayoti vadanti.

Furthermore, others, misunderstanding the meaning of the Pāḷi text in the same Vassūpanāyikakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 184)—which states: "Monks, there are two periods for entering the rains retreat: the earlier and the later. The earlier retreat should be entered on the day after the Āsāḷha full moon has passed, and the later retreat should be entered on the day after the Āsāḷha full moon a month later has passed"—claim that the Blessed One allowed entering the rains retreat based solely on the conjunction of lunar day and asterism. Therefore, they say, the first day of the lunar fortnight immediately following the full moon of Āsāḷha should be connected with a full lunar day and with one of the two asterisms known as Pubbāsāḷhā and Uttarāsāḷhā. If such a time occurs without extending the month by a day, then only the month's extension should be made. If it does not occur, the month's extension should be made together with a day. This, they say, is a decision that aligns with both the Piṭaka and the Vedas.

Tatrāpyeke vadanti – ‘‘mā iti cando vuccati tassa gatiyā divasassa minitabbato, so ettha sabbakalāpāripūriyā puṇṇoti puṇṇamā’’tiādinā vinayatthamañjūsādīsu (kaṅkhā. abhi. ṭī. nidānavaṇṇanā) āgamanato puṇṇātithiyogopi puṇṇamiyā eva icchitabbo, na pāṭipade, tathā nakkhattayogopi āsāḷhisukkapakkhassa pannarase uposathe ‘‘uttarāsāḷhanakkhatte, evaṃ dhātu patiṭṭhitā’’ti mahāvaṃse vacanatoti. Tattha purimā vadanti – evaṃ sante uposathadivaseyeva candaggāho ca sūriyaggāho [Pg.418] ca bhaveyya, idāni pana kāḷapakkhapāṭipadādīsuyeva candaggāho, sukkapakkhapāṭipadādīsuyeva sūriyaggāho paññāyati, tasmā pāṭipadeyeva tithinakkhattayogo icchitabboti. Pacchimāpi vadanti – tumhādisānaṃ vādīnaṃ vacanena pubbe ākaḍḍhitabbadivasānaṃ anākaḍḍhitattā divasapuñjabhāvena evaṃ hoti, saccato pana uposathadivaseyeva candaggāho sūriyaggāho ca icchitabboti. Hotu, yathā icchatha, tathā vadatha, evaṃ bhūtapubbo sāṭṭhakathe tepiṭake buddhavacane atthīti? Atthi. Gandhārajātake (jā. aṭṭha. 3.7.75 gandhārajātakavaṇṇanā) hi uposathadivase candaggāho dvikkhattuṃ āgato. Tañhi jātakaṃ tīsu piṭakesu suttapariyāpannaṃ, pañcasu nikāyesu khuddakanikāyapariyāpannaṃ, navasu sāsanaṅgesu jātakapariyāpannanti. Evaṃ vutte purimakā paṭivacanaṃ dātuṃ na sakkuṇeyyunti.

Here, some say: "The moon is called 'mā' because days are measured by its movement, and it is full here by the completion of all its phases; hence, 'puṇṇamā'," as stated in texts such as the Vinayatthamañjūsā. Therefore, they say, the conjunction with the full lunar day should be considered on the full moon day itself, not on the first day of the lunar fortnight. Similarly, the conjunction with the constellation should be on the fifteenth day of the bright fortnight of Āsāḷha, the Uposatha day, as stated in the Mahāvaṃsa: "On the Uttarāsāḷha constellation, thus the relics were established." Regarding this, the former group argues: "If it were so, then both lunar and solar eclipses would occur only on the observance day. But now, lunar eclipses are observed only on the first day of the dark fortnight and so on, while solar eclipses occur only on the first day of the bright fortnight and so on. Therefore, the conjunction of the lunar day and constellation should be considered on the first day of the lunar fortnight itself." The latter group counters: "According to the argument of debaters such as yourselves, because the days that should have been extended in the past were not, this accumulation of days results in this way. But in truth, both lunar and solar eclipses should be considered on the observance day itself." "Very well, speak as you wish. But has such a thing ever occurred in the past, as recorded in the Tipiṭaka with its commentaries, the word of the Buddha?" "Yes. In the Gandhāra Jātaka, a lunar eclipse occurred twice on the observance day. That Jātaka is included in the three Piṭakas as part of the Sutta collection, among the five Nikāyas as part of the Khuddaka Nikāya, and among the nine divisions of the teachings as part of the Jātaka collection." When this is pointed out, the former group would be unable to offer a rebuttal.

Athekacce ‘‘piṭakattaye adhikamāsāyeva santi, na adhikadivasā sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.404) ‘yaṃ pana vuttaṃ tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu aṭṭhārasannaṃyeva vassānaṃ adhikamāse gahetvā gaṇitattā sesavassadvayassapi adhikāni divasāni honteva, tāni adhikadivasāni sandhāya nikkaṅkhā hutvāti vuttanti, taṃ na gahetabbaṃ. Na hi dvīsu vassesu adhikadivasā nāma visuṃ upalabbhanti tatiye vasse vassukkaḍḍhanavasena adhikamāse pariccatteyeva adhikamāsasambhavato, tasmā dvīsu vassesu atirekadivasā nāma visuṃ na sambhavantī’ti vacanato’’ti vadanti. Athaññe vadanti – piṭakattaye adhikadivasāti āgatā atthi vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ (vajira. ṭī. pācittiya 404) ‘‘avasesānaṃ dvinnaṃ vassānaṃ adhikadivasāni honteva, tasmā nikkaṅkhā hutvā upasampādentī’’ti vacanatoti. Ito parampi vividhena ākārena kathenti. Suddhavedikāpi [Pg.419] evaṃ vadanti, vinayadharā bhikkhū vinayasamayavasena vadanti. Amhākaṃ pana vedasamaye hatthagatagaṇanavaseneva jānitabbanti alamatipapañcena. Atthikehi tivassādhikasahassakaliyuge dhammarājena pucchitattā kataṃ adhimāsapakaraṇaṃ oloketvā jānitabbaṃ.

Some, however, say: "In the three Piṭakas, only intercalary months exist, not intercalary days." For the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.404) states: "As for what has been said—that in the three Gaṇṭhipadas, only eighteen years are counted by taking intercalary months, and the remaining two years also have extra days, and that one should be free from doubt concerning those extra days—that should not be accepted. For in two years, intercalary days are not found to exist separately. Only in the third year, when an intercalary month arises through the extension of the year, do intercalary months arise. Therefore, in two years, extra days do not separately exist." Others, however, say: "Intercalary days are mentioned in the three Piṭakas. The Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pācittiya 404) states: 'The remaining two years do indeed have intercalary days. Therefore, one should ordain without doubt.'" Furthermore, they explain in various ways. The Suddhavedikā also speak thus, while Vinaya-holding bhikkhus speak according to the Vinaya tradition. For us, however, in the Vedic reckoning, it should be understood by the method of hand-counting alone—enough of excessive elaboration. For those interested, the Adhimāsapakaraṇa, which was composed because the Dhamma King asked about it when the Kali Yuga was a thousand and three years old, should be examined to understand.

Idha pana adhippetavinicchayameva kathayāma. Paṭhamadutiyavādesu na bimbisārarājā bhagavantaṃ adhimāsapaññāpanaṃ yācati, na ca bhagavā paññapeti, na ‘‘tasmiṃ vasse idaṃ nāma adhimāsaṃ hotī’’ti vā ‘‘māsamattaṃ vā sahadivasaṃ vā ākaḍḍhitabba’’nti vā pāḷiyaṃ aṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ca atthi, rājā pana upakaṭṭhāya vassūpanāyikāya vedasamaye vassukkaḍḍhanasambhavato bhikkhūnaṃ paṭhamaāsāḷhamāse vassaṃ anupagantvā dutiyaāsāḷhamāse upagamanatthaṃ ‘‘yadi panāyyā āgame juṇhe vassaṃ upagaccheyyu’’nti dūtaṃ pāhesi. Yadi pana upagaccheyyuṃ, sādhu vatāti sambandhitabbaṃ. Bhikkhū pana rañño pahitasāsanaṃ bhagavato ārocesuṃ. Bhagavā pana vassukkaḍḍhane bhikkhūnaṃ guṇaparihāniyā abhāvato ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rājūnaṃ anuvattitu’’nti (mahāva. 186) avoca. Tena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 185) ‘‘anujānāmi bhikkhave rājūnaṃ anuvattitunti ettha vassukkaḍḍhanabhikkhūnaṃ kāci parihāni nāma natthītianuvattituṃ anuññāta’’nti. Vimativinodaniyañca (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.185) vuttaṃ ‘‘parihānīti guṇaparihānī’’ti, tasmā yācādhimāso vā hotu pattādhimāso vā, yasmiṃ yasmiṃ kāle anuvattanena bhikkhūnaṃ sīlādiguṇampi parihāni natthi, tasmiṃ tasmiṃ kāle anuvattitabbaṃ.

Here, however, we shall explain only the intended determination. In the first and second accounts, King Bimbisāra did not request the Blessed One to decree an intercalary month, nor did the Blessed One decree one. Nor is there any mention in the Pāli texts, commentaries, or sub-commentaries of 'in such a year, this is called an intercalary month' or 'a month or even a day should be extended.' However, the king, with the rains-residence approaching, because of the possibility of extending the rains-residence period in the Vedic reckoning, sent a messenger so that the bhikkhus, not entering the rains-residence in the first month of Āsāḷha, would enter it in the second month of Āsāḷha, with the message: 'If only the venerable ones would enter the rains-residence in the coming month.' If they were to enter, it would be good—this is how it should be connected. The bhikkhus then reported the king's message to the Blessed One. The Blessed One, seeing no decline in qualities for the bhikkhus in extending the rains-residence, said: 'I allow, bhikkhus, to follow the kings' (Mahāvagga 186). Therefore, the commentary states (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 185): 'Regarding the statement "I allow, bhikkhus, to follow the kings," here there is no loss for the bhikkhus in extending the rains-residence, hence it is permitted to follow.' And the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.185) states: '“Decline” means decline in qualities.' Therefore, whether it is an intercalary month requested or obtained, whenever following it causes no decline in qualities such as morality for the bhikkhus, it should be followed at that time.

Kathaṃ pana anuvattitabbaṃ, kathaṃ na anuvattitabbaṃ? Yadi anuvattante pubbe upavutthadivasato idāni upavasitabbauposathadivaso cātuddaso vā pannaraso vā hoti, tathā [Pg.420] sati anuvattitabbaṃ. Yadi pana terasamo vā soḷasamo vā hoti, na anuvattitabbaṃ. Anuvattanto hi anuposathe uposathakato hoti, tato ‘‘na, bhikkhave, anuposathe uposatho kātabbo, yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā’’ti (mahāva. 183) vuttadukkaṭaṃ āpajjati, tasmā sīlaguṇaparihānisambhavato na anuvattitabbaṃ. Vuttañhi vimativinodaniyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.240) ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, rājūnaṃ anuvattitunti vacanato panettha lokiyānaṃ tithiṃ anuvattantehipi attano uposathakkamena cātuddasiṃ pannarasiṃ vā, pannarasiṃ cātuddasiṃ vā karonteheva anuvattitabbaṃ, na pana soḷasamadivasaṃ vā terasamadivasaṃ vā uposathadivasaṃ karontehī’’ti.

But how should it be followed, and how should it not be followed? If, in following, the Uposatha day to be observed now is the fourteenth or fifteenth day since the one previously observed, then it should be followed. However, if it is the thirteenth or the sixteenth, it should not be followed. For one who follows would have performed the Uposatha on a non-Uposatha day, and thus would incur the offense of wrong-doing as stated (Mahāvagga 183): 'Bhikkhus, the Uposatha should not be performed on a non-Uposatha day. Whoever should do so, incurs an offense of wrong-doing.' Therefore, since there is a possibility of decline in moral virtue, it should not be followed. For it was said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.240): 'Regarding the phrase "I allow, bhikkhus, to follow the kings," here, even when following the lunar day reckoning of the laity, one should follow only by treating the fourteenth day as the fifteenth, or the fifteenth as the fourteenth, according to one's own Uposatha sequence, but not by making the sixteenth or thirteenth day the Uposatha day.'

Tatiyacatutthavādepi ‘‘kati vassūpanāyikā’’ti saṃsayantānaṃ saṃsayavinodanatthaṃ ‘‘dvemā, bhikkhave, vassūpanāyikā purimikā pacchimikā’’ti (mahāva. 184) bhagavā avoca. Tato tāsaṃ dvinnaṃ vassūpanāyikānaṃ upagamanakālaṃ dassetuṃ ‘‘aparajjugatāya āsāḷhiyā purimikā upagantabbā, māsagatāya āsāḷhiyā pacchimikā upagantabbā’’ti vuttaṃ. Tatrāyaṃ piṇḍattho – āsāḷhipuṇṇamiyā anantare pāṭipadadivase purimikā upagantabbā, sāvaṇapuṇṇamiyā anantare pāṭipadadivase pacchimikā upagantabbāti. Tena vuttaṃ aṭṭhakathāyaṃ (mahāva. aṭṭha. 184) ‘‘tasmā āsāḷhipuṇṇamāya anantare pāṭipadadivase, āsāḷhipuṇṇamito vā aparāya puṇṇamāya anantare pāṭipadadivaseyeva vihāraṃ paṭijaggitvā pānīyaṃ paribhojanīyaṃ upaṭṭhāpetvā sabbaṃ cetiyavandanādisāmīcikammaṃ niṭṭhāpetvā ‘imasmiṃ vihāre imaṃ temāsaṃ vassaṃ upemī’ti sakiṃ vā dvattikkhattuṃ vā vācaṃ nicchāretvā vassaṃ upagantabba’’nti[Pg.421], sāratthadīpaniyampi (sārattha. ṭī. mahāvagga 3.184) ‘‘aparajjūti āsāḷhito aparaṃ dinaṃ, pāṭipadanti attho’’ti, vimativinodaniyampi (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.184) ‘‘aparasmiṃ divaseti dutiye pāṭipadadivase’’ti evaṃ pāḷiaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu pāṭipadadivaseyeva vassūpagamanaṃ vuttaṃ, na vuttaṃ ‘‘amukatithiyoge’’ti vā ‘‘amukanakkhattayoge’’ti vā, tasmā pāṭipadadivase pāto aruṇuggamanato paṭṭhāya sakaladivasaṃ sakalaratti yāva dutiyaaruṇuggamanā yathārucite kāle vassaṃ upagantabbanti daṭṭhabbaṃ. Tato eva vassūpanāyikakāle puṇṇātithiyā yogo, uttarāsāḷhanakkhattena yogo hotūti vadantānaṃ vacanaṃ vinayaviruddhaṃ hoti, taṃ vacanaṃ gahetvā puṇṇātithiyogaṃ uttarāsāḷhanakkhattayogañca āgametvā vassaṃ upagantvāpi tathāgatena apaññattaṃ paññapeti nāmāti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

In the third and fourth accounts, to resolve the doubt of those who wondered, 'How many rains-residence entry times are there?' the Blessed One said: 'Bhikkhus, there are these two rains-residence entry times: the earlier and the later' (Mahāvagga 184). Then, to indicate the time for entering these two rains-residence periods, it was said: 'The earlier should be entered on the day following the Āsāḷha full moon, and the later should be entered a month after the Āsāḷha full moon.' Herein, the condensed meaning is this: the earlier should be entered on the day following the Āsāḷha full moon, and the later should be entered on the day following the Sāvaṇa full moon. Therefore, it is stated in the commentary (Mahāvagga Aṭṭhakathā 184): 'Thus, on the day following the Āsāḷha full moon, or on the day following the next full moon after the Āsāḷha full moon, having prepared the monastery, set out drinking water and water for use, completed all customary duties such as homage to cetiyas, and then having declared once, twice, or thrice, "I will observe the rains-residence in this monastery for these three months," the rains-residence should be entered.' Similarly, the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 3.184) states: '“The day following” means the day after Āsāḷha, that is, the first day of the lunar fortnight.' And the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭīkā, Mahāvagga 2.184) explains: '“On the following day” means on the next day, the first day of the lunar fortnight.' Thus, in the Pāli texts, commentaries, and sub-commentaries, it is stated that the rains-residence is entered on the first day of the lunar fortnight, not 'on such-and-such a conjunction of lunar days' or 'on such-and-such a conjunction of constellations.' Therefore, it should be understood that the rains-residence is to be entered at any suitable time on the first day of the lunar fortnight, from dawn until the next dawn, throughout the entire day and night. Consequently, the statement of those who say, 'The conjunction of the full moon day or the conjunction of the Uttarāsāḷha constellation should be the time for entering the rains-residence,' is contrary to the Vinaya. It should be understood that by taking such statements and waiting for the conjunction of the full moon day or the Uttarāsāḷha constellation to enter the rains-residence, one is prescribing what was not prescribed by the Tathāgata.

Evaṃ pāḷiaṭṭhakathāṭīkāsu ca puṇṇātithiyoge eva vassaṃ upagantabbaṃ, na ekāya tithiyā yutteti vā uttarāsāḷhanakkhattayogeyeva, na sāvaṇanakkhattayogeti vā anāgatameva chāyaṃ gahetvā tathāgatena paññattaṃ viya potthakesu likhitvā kehici ṭhapitattā sakalaṃ vinayapiṭakaṃ apassantā vedasāmayikā taṃ vacanaṃ saddahitvā vassūpagamanakāle puṇṇātithiuttarāsāḷhayogameva gavesantā māsadivasena saha ākaḍḍhitabbakālepi māsamattameva ākaḍḍhanti, māsamattameva ākaḍḍhitabbakālepi saha divasena ākaḍḍhanti, tasmā evaṃvādino bhikkhū ‘‘apaññattaṃ tathāgatena paññattaṃ tathāgatenāti dīpetī’’ti vattabbataṃ āpajjanti, tasmā bhagavati gāravasahitā lajjino paṇḍitā evaṃ na gaṇhantīti. Tithinakkhattayogo pana uposathadivaseyeva bahudhā piṭakattaye āgato, porāṇavedaganthesu [Pg.422] ca pasaṃsito, kadāci pana vohārakālo tithiyā nakkhattena ca visamo hoti, tasmā taṃ sametuṃ adhimāsapatanakāle māsampi divasampi ākaḍḍhanti, tasmā aññasmiṃ kāle visamepi ākaḍḍhanakāle samāpetabbaṃ. Evaṃ sati māsautusaṃvaccharānaṃ samabhāvo hotīti daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Thus, in the Pāli, the commentaries, and the sub-commentaries, it is stated that the rains-residence should be entered only on the conjunction of the full moon day, and not that it is connected to a single lunar day, or only to the Uttarāsāḷha constellation and not the Sāvaṇa constellation. This is because some, taking a mere shadow of the future as if it were prescribed by the Tathāgata, have written it in books and established it. Without seeing the entire Vinaya Piṭaka, those who follow the Vedic tradition believe such statements. When entering the rains-residence, they seek only the conjunction of the full moon day and the Uttarāsāḷha constellation. Even when a month and a day should be adjusted together, they adjust only the month; and even when only a month should be adjusted, they adjust it along with a day. Therefore, bhikkhus who speak thus incur the liability of being told, 'He represents what was not prescribed by the Tathāgata as prescribed by the Tathāgata.' Therefore, those who revere the Blessed One, are modest, and wise do not accept this. However, the conjunction of the lunar day and constellation on the Uposatha day is frequently mentioned in the Three Piṭakas and praised in ancient Vedic texts. Occasionally, however, the conventional time is inconsistent with the lunar day and constellation. Therefore, to reconcile this, they adjust both the month and the day during the time of an intercalary month's occurrence. Thus, at other times, even when there is a discrepancy, it should be reconciled at the time of adjustment. When this is done, it should be understood that there is an equilibrium of months, seasons, and years.

Pañcamachaṭṭhavādesu adhimāsoti aṭṭhārasavassato adhikamāsaṃ gahetvā vutto, tasmā ‘‘adhiko māso adhimāso’’ti kammadhārayasamāsattā pulliṅgaṃ katvā vutto. Pubbe pana māsapuñjato adhikaghaṭiyo gahetvā vutto, tasmā ‘‘māsato adhikaṃ adhimāsa’’nti abyayībhāvasamāsattā napuṃsakaliṅgaṃ katvā vuttaṃ. Idha pana ‘‘porāṇakattherā ekūnavīsativassaṃ sāmaṇeraṃ nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsiṃ atikkamma pāṭipadadivase upasampādenti, taṃ kasmāti? Vuccate – ekasmiṃ vasse cha cātuddasikauposathadivasā honti, iti vīsatiyā vassesu cattāro māsā parihāyanti, rājāno tatiye tatiye vasse vassaṃ upakaḍḍhanti, iti aṭṭhārasasu vassesu cha māsā vaḍḍhanti, tato uposathavasena parihīne cattāro māse apanetvā dve māsā avasesā honti, te dve māse gahetvā vīsati vassāni paripuṇṇāni hontīti nikkaṅkhā hutvā nikkhamanīyapuṇṇamāsiṃ atikkamma pāṭipade upasampādentī’’ti aṭṭhakathāvacane (pāci. aṭṭha. 404) ‘‘nikkaṅkhā hutvāti adhikamāsehi saddhiṃ paripuṇṇavīsativassattā nibbematikā hutvā’’ti attho sāratthadīpaniyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.404) vutto.

In the fifth and sixth sections, the term 'adhimāsa' is explained as an extra month taken after eighteen years; hence, it is referred to as 'adhiko māso adhimāso' ('the extra month is an intercalary month') and is treated as masculine due to being a kammadhāraya compound. Previously, however, it was explained as extra ghaṭis taken from a collection of months; hence, it was called 'māsato adhikaṃ adhimāsaṃ' ('what is extra from the months is an intercalary month') and was treated as neuter due to being an abyayībhāva compound. Here, however, it is said: 'The ancient elders ordain a novice who is nineteen years old on the first day of the fortnight, after he has passed the full moon day of departure. Why is that? It is explained: In one year, there are six Cātuddasika Uposatha days. Thus, in twenty years, four months are lost. Kings intercalate the year every third year, so in eighteen years, six months are added. Then, after removing the four months lost on account of the Uposatha, two months remain. Taking these two months, the twenty years become complete. Thus, being free from doubt, they ordain him on the first day of the fortnight after he has passed the full moon day of departure.' In the commentary (Pācittiya Aṭṭhakathā 404), the meaning of 'being free from doubt' is given in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha-ṭīkā, Pācittiya 3.404) as 'being certain that the twenty years are complete together with the intercalary months.'

Tatra nanu ca ‘‘tīsupi gaṇṭhipadesu aṭṭhārasannaṃ…pe… vutta’’nti vuttaṃ, taṃ kathanti codanaṃ sandhāya ‘‘yaṃ pana vuttaṃ…pe… taṃ na gahetabba’’nti kiñcāpi vuttaṃ, tathāpi taṃ gaṇṭhipadesu vuttavacanaṃ na [Pg.423] gahetabbanti attho, kasmā na gahetabbanti āha ‘‘na hī’’tiādi. Hi yasmā na upalabbhanti, tasmā na gahetabbanti yojanā. Kathaṃ viññāyatīti āha ‘‘tatiye’’tiādi. Pariccatteyeva sambhavato, apariccatte asambhavato na upalabbhantīti byatirekavasena hetuphalayojanā. Tasmātiādi laddhaguṇaṃ.

Regarding that, it was said, 'In the three knot-passages, of the eighteen... etc... it is said.' Concerning the objection, 'How is that?', although it was said, 'But what was said... etc... that should not be taken,' nevertheless the meaning is that the statement made in the knot-passages should not be taken. To the question 'Why should it not be taken?', he said, 'For not...' and so on. 'Hi' means 'since'. Since they are not found, therefore they should not be taken—this is the connection. To the question 'How is this understood?', he said, 'In the third...' and so on. Because they arise only when analyzed, and do not arise when unanalyzed, they are not found—this is the connection of cause and effect by way of exclusion. 'Therefore...' and so on is the benefit obtained.

Vajirabuddhiṭīkāyaṃ pana gaṇṭhipadesu vuttameva gahetvā vadati. Etāni vacanāni sāmaṇerānaṃ vīsativassaparipuṇṇabhāvasādhakāniyeva honti, na adhimāsapatanavāresu sadivasamāsākaḍḍhanabhāvasādhakāni, tasmā imāni āharitvā taṃ adhikaraṇaṃ vinicchituṃ na sakkonti. Bhikkhū pana bahūnaṃ sannipāte kiñci pāṭhaṃ āharitvā kathetuṃ samattho sobhatīti katvā īdisaṃ pāṭhaṃ āharanti. Sutasannicayapaṇḍitā pana icchitatthassa asādhakattā evarūpaṃ na āharanti. Suddhavedikānampi vacane vinayadharā vinayameva jānanti, na bāhirasamayaṃ. Ayaṃ pana kathā bāhirasamaye pavattā, tasmā vinayadharānaṃ avisayoti maññantā vadanti.

In the Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā, however, it speaks by taking only what is stated in the knot-passages. These statements serve only to establish the completion of twenty years for novices, not to establish the fact of adjusting a month together with a day on occasions of intercalary months. Therefore, by bringing these up, they cannot settle that dispute. But monks, in a large gathering, bring some passage to speak, thinking that one who is capable of reciting it shines. Thus, they bring such a passage. The wise who are learned, however, do not bring up such things because they do not accomplish the desired purpose. Regarding the words of the pure Vedikas, the Vinaya masters know only the Vinaya, not external doctrines. But this discussion pertains to external doctrines, so they speak, thinking it is beyond the scope of the Vinaya masters.

Vinayadharā pana ekacce vinayameva jānanti, ekacce sakalaṃ piṭakattayaṃ jānanti, ekacce sabāhirasamayaṃ piṭakattayaṃ jānanti, tasmā kathetuṃ samatthabhāvoyeva pamāṇaṃ. Vedikānampi vacanaṃ vedappakaraṇāgatameva pamāṇaṃ. Na yaṃ kiñci hatthagatagaṇanamattaṃ, tasmā yadā pathavissaro rājā sadivasaṃ māsaṃ ākaḍḍhitukāmo ‘‘jeṭṭhamāsakāḷapakkhauposathaṃ pannarasiyaṃ karontū’’ti yācissati, tadā ‘‘sakiṃ pakkhassa cātuddase vā pannarase vā’’ti vacanato pannarasiyaṃ uposathakaraṇe doso natthi, yadā suddhamāsameva ākaḍḍhitukāmo ‘‘cātuddasiyaṃ karontū’’ti yācissati, evaṃ sati pakatiyāpi jeṭṭhamāsakāḷapakkhuposatho cātuddasoyevāti katvā doso natthi, ubhayathāpi uposatho [Pg.424] sukatoyeva hoti, tasmā anuvattitabbo. Tato paraṃ paṭhamāsāḷhamāsassa juṇhapakkhepi kāḷapakkhepi dutiyāsāḷhamāsassa juṇhapakkhepi pannarasīuposathaṃ katvā pāṭipadadivase tithiyogaṃ vā nakkhattayogaṃ vā anoloketvā pāto aruṇuggamanānantarato paṭṭhāya yāva puna aruṇuggamanā sakaladivasarattiyaṃ yathājjhāsayaṃ vassaṃ upagacchanto sūpagatova hoti, natthi koci dosoti daṭṭhabbo. Bhavatvevaṃ, pātova vassaṃ upagacchanto atthīti? Atthi. Vuttañhetaṃ senāsanakkhandhakavaṇṇanāyaṃ (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 318) ‘‘sace pātova gāhite senāsane añño vitakkacāriko bhikkhu āgantvā senāsanaṃ yācati, ‘gahitaṃ, bhante, senāsanaṃ, vassūpagato saṅgho, ramaṇīyo vihāro, rukkhamūlādīsu yattha icchatha, tattha vasathā’ti vattabbo’’ti.

Some Vinaya experts know only the Vinaya, some know the entire Tipiṭaka, and some know the Tipiṭaka along with external doctrines. Therefore, the ability to explain is the true measure. The statements of those versed in the Vedas are authoritative only when they come from a Vedic treatise, not just any calculation that comes to hand. Thus, when the sovereign king wishes to adjust the month together with a day and requests, 'Let them observe the Uposatha on the fifteenth day of the dark fortnight of Jeṭṭhamāsa,' then, according to the statement, 'Once in a fortnight, on the fourteenth or fifteenth,' there is no fault in observing the Uposatha on the fifteenth. When he wishes to adjust only the regular month and requests, 'Let them observe it on the fourteenth,' then, since the Uposatha of the dark fortnight of Jeṭṭhamāsa is by nature on the fourteenth, there is no fault. In both cases, the Uposatha is well performed; therefore, it should be followed. After that, having observed the fifteenth-day Uposatha in the bright and dark fortnights of the first Āsāḷha month, and in the bright fortnight of the second Āsāḷha month, then on the following first day, without regard for the conjunction of the lunar day or the constellation, one who enters the rains-residence according to his inclination, from the moment after dawn until the next dawn, throughout the entire day and night, is indeed properly entered. It should be understood that there is no fault whatsoever. Be that as it may, is there one who enters the rains-residence in the morning? There is. For it is said in the commentary to the Senāsanakkhandhaka (Cūḷavagga Aṭṭhakathā 318): 'If, in the morning, after a lodging has been taken, another wandering bhikkhu arrives and requests lodging, he should be told: “Venerable, the lodging is taken. The Saṅgha has entered the rains-residence. The monastery is pleasant. Dwell wherever you wish, at the foot of a tree or elsewhere.”'

Iti vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanābhūte vinayālaṅkāre

Thus in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha.

Vassūpanāyikavinicchayakathālaṅkāro nāma

The Ornament of the Discussion on the Determination of Entering the Rains-Residence

Chabbīsatimo paricchedo.

The Twenty-Sixth Chapter.

Paṭhamo bhāgo niṭṭhito.

The First Part is Finished.