English
he lives for his full lifespan and dies by his own nature, there is no offense. If he relates it intending, “Having heard this, he will perform meritorious deeds,” and the other, being devoted, passes away, there is no offense. 179. To declare When exhorting, being asked, he speaks thus: "Venerable sir, how does one, having died, obtain wealth or reappear in heaven?" Being asked thus, he speaks. Exhortation: Not being asked, being unasked thus, he speaks on his own. Actions of signaling, actions of indicating, should be understood in the manner stated in the discourse on taking what is not given. Having thus shown the various kinds of offenses, now, showing the kinds of non-offenses, he says, "No offense for one who did not intend," and so on. There, "did not intend" means not thinking, "By this means, I will kill this one." For thus, even if others die by a means done without intending, there is no offense. And it will be said, "No offense for a bhikkhu who did not intend." "For one who does not know" means even if others die by a means done by one who does not know, "By this, this one will die," there is no offense. And it will be said in the story of the poisoned alms-food, "No offense for a bhikkhu who does not know." "For one without the intention to kill" means for one not wishing for death. For by whatever means another dies, even if that one is killed by that means, there is no offense for one without the intention to kill. And it will be said, "No offense for a bhikkhu without the intention to kill." The insane and so on are as stated before. Here, however, the first offenders are bhikkhus who deprived each other of life. For them, there is no offense. For the rest, such as praising death and so on, there is indeed an offense. The commentary on the analysis of words is finished. Regarding the origins and so on: This training rule has three origins; it originates from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech, and mind. It is an action, a release with perception, with intention, blameworthy by the world, a bodily action, a verbal action, with unwholesome thought, with painful feeling. For even if a king, ascended to a royal couch, experiencing the bliss of royal prosperity, when it is said, "O king, a thief has been brought," says, "Go, kill him!" while laughing, it should be understood that he speaks with a mind of displeasure. But because it is mixed with pleasure and there is no continuous connection, this is difficult for ordinary people to understand. Commentary on the stories of discipline 180. In the stories of discipline, in the first story. – with compassion. Those monks, seeing his great suffering from illness, aroused compassion and said, “You are virtuous, you have done good deeds, why do you fear dying? Is not heaven for the virtuous bound up with death itself?” Thus, though they were wishing for death, not knowing their wish for death, they praised death. That monk, by their praise, stopped eating and died in between. Therefore, they incurred an offense. But it was said in common usage, “They praised death with compassion.” Therefore, even now, a wise monk should not praise death in this way to a sick monk. For if, hearing his praise, the sick monk, by an expedient like stopping food, dies in between, even with an lifespan remaining for one moment of impulsion, he is considered killed by this. But instruction should be given in this way: “For a virtuous person, the arising of paths and fruits is not extraordinary. Therefore, without attachment to monasteries and so on, establish mindfulness regarding the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, and the body, and be diligent in attention.” And even if death is praised, if the person, without undertaking any expedient due to that praise, dies by his own nature, according to his lifespan, and according to his rebirth-linking, the praiser is not to be charged with an offense on that account. In the second case – “And, monks, without examining,” here, what kind of seat should be examined, and what kind should not be examined? That which is just a pure seat, without a covering, and that which is spread out in the sight of those who have come and are standing, that should not be examined; it is permissible to sit on it. And that which people themselves touch with their hand and offer, saying, “Please sit here, venerable sir,” it is permissible to sit on that. Even if those who first came and sat down later move up or down, there is no need for examination. And that which is covered with a thin cloth so that the surface is visible, there is no need for examination for that. That But if it is already spread with a rug or a mat, that should be touched with the hand, perceived, and then sat upon. But in the Mahāpaccariya it is said: "If it is spread with a thick cloth, and no fold is visible, it should not be examined." In the story of the pestle: "Unintentionally" means he had a destructive intention, his effort was misguided. Therefore he said, "I was unintentional." The story of the mortar is clear. In the first story of the old monk: he expelled him, saying, "Do not cause an obstruction to the community of monks." In the second story: being called "son of the old elder" in the midst of the Sangha and in the midst of the group, and being annoyed by that remark, he expelled him, saying, "May this one die." In the third story: by causing him suffering, a grave offense. 181. The next three stories are clear in meaning. In the story of the poisoned alms-food: that monk, fulfilling the amiable duties, eats only after giving the best portion of alms-food to his fellow practitioners. Therefore it is said, "He gave the best portion." "Aggakārika" means the act of giving the best; the meaning is the first alms-food received, or the very best, or the most excellent alms-food. But the act of giving the best, which is his donation, cannot be given; for he gave the alms-food starting from the elder's seat. "Those monks" means those monks who consumed the alms-food starting from the elder's seat; it is said that all of them passed away. The rest here is clear. But in families that are faithless and hold wrong views, having respectfully received excellent food, one should not consume it oneself without examination, nor should it be given to others. Whatever food or snack one receives from them that is from the previous day, that too should not be consumed. For those families give things that are uncovered, covered by snakes, scorpions, etc., which are fit to be discarded. Even alms-food smeared with perfumes, turmeric, etc., should not be accepted from them. For they think that even food wiped from diseased parts of the body should be given. In the story of the investigation. – examining, he examines two things – ‘‘Can he kill this one or not?’’ He examines the poison, or ‘‘Will this person die after eating this poison or not?’’ He examines the person. In either case, if given with the intention of examination, whether he dies or not, it is a grave offense. But if given with the thought, ‘‘This poison will kill him,’’ or ‘‘This person will die after eating this poison,’’ and if he dies, it is a pārājika; if not, it is a grave offense. 182-3. The next three cases concerning stones and the three cases concerning bricks, axes, and rafters are straightforward. And not only in the case of stones and so forth does this distinction of offenses and non-offenses arise, but also in the case of sticks, clubs, digging tools, and spears. Therefore, even what is not mentioned in the Pāli should be understood in the same way as what is mentioned. In the cases of the scaffold – Aṭṭaka is called a high platform, which they erect for the purpose of whitewashing, garland work, creeper work, and so forth. There, he says, ‘‘Friend, stand here and tie it,’’ with the intention of killing, where, if he falls, he might be impaled by a stake, or die in a pit or from a precipice. He refers to such a place. And here, some specify an upper place, ‘‘He will die by falling from here,’’ some a lower place, ‘‘He will die by falling here,’’ and some both, ‘‘He will die by falling from here to here.’’ There, if he does not fall from the specified upper place but falls from another, or does not fall in the specified lower place but falls elsewhere, or in the case of both specifications, if he misses one of them and falls, and if he dies, there is no offense due to the uncertainty. The same method applies to the case of covering a monastery. In the case of discontent – That bhikkhu, seeing the arising of sensual thoughts and so forth, and being unable to suppress them, became discontent with the Dispensation and inclined towards the lay life. Then he thought, ‘‘I will die before I break my precepts.’’ So, climbing that mountain, as he fell from the precipice, he fell upon a certain bamboo worker and killed him. Vilīvakāra means a bamboo worker. And, monks, one should not cause oneself to fall. The self should not be killed. This is said by way of grammatical irregularity. And here, not only should it not be killed, but by any other means whatsoever, even by cutting off food, it should not be killed. Indeed, even if a sick person, with medicine and attendants available, wishing to die, cuts off food, it is a minor offense. But if one has a great, long-standing affliction, and the bhikkhus attending him are weary, disgusted, and distressed, thinking, "When shall we be free from this sick person?" If such a one, thinking, "This existence, even if cared for, does not last, and the bhikkhus are weary," cuts off food and does not take medicine, it is permissible. But if one, thinking, "This illness is severe, the life-formations do not endure, and this special attainment seems as if it is within my grasp," cuts off food, it is indeed permissible. Even for one who is not sick, but has arisen a sense of urgency, thinking, "Seeking food is a proliferation,