English
For by doing so, one incurs a pācittiya offence, breaks the Buddha's command, and does not observe the precept until the end of life. Therefore, even life should be sacrificed, and having embraced the precept, it should not be done in this way. But for another bhikkhu, it is permissible to cut the tree or dig the earth and remove him. If the tree has to be rolled away and removed with a pestle-lever, Mahāsumatthera said that the tree itself should be cut to get the pestle. Mahāpadumatthera said that it is permissible to cut another (tree) to get it. The same method applies to one who has fallen into a pit or similar, by tying a ladder and pulling him out. One should not cut plants to make a ladder oneself. But it is permissible for others to make one and pull him out. 190. In the stories of smearing the forest – they smeared the forest, meaning they set fire to the forest. Here, according to whether it is intended or unintended, the stories of pārājika, anantariya, thullaccaya, and pācittiya offences are appropriate. Therefore, the *pārājika* and other offenses, their nature as a heap of unwholesome actions, should be understood in the manner stated before. For one who sets fire, saying, "Let wet grass, trees, bushes, etc., burn," there is a *pācittiya* offense. For one who sets fire, saying, "Let tools and implements be destroyed," there is a *dukkaṭa* offense. Even with the intention of play, it is a *dukkaṭa*, as stated in the concise commentary. For one who sets fire, saying, "Let whatever is wet or dry, sentient or non-sentient, burn," *pārājika*, *thullaccaya*, *pācittiya*, and *dukkaṭa* offenses should be understood according to the object. However, giving a counter-fire and making a protective measure have been permitted by the Blessed One. Therefore, seeing a fire coming in the forest, given by forest workers or arisen by itself, it is permissible to give a counter-fire to that fire, saying, "Let not the grass huts be destroyed," so that the approaching fire, becoming one with it, is extinguished without fuel. It is also permissible to make a protective measure, such as clearing the ground around the grass huts or digging a trench, so that the approaching fire, not finding fuel, is extinguished. All this is permissible to do only when the fire has arisen. If it has not arisen, it should be caused to be done by unordained persons with permissible speech. However, those extinguishing with water should sprinkle only water without living beings. 191. In the matter of killing – just as in the statement of one blow; so too in statements like "with two blows," a *pārājika* offense should be understood. And when "with two" is said, even if killed with one blow, it is a *pārājika* because it falls within the scope. But if killed with three, it is a deviation. Thus, within the specified limit or within the range of the limit, there is no deviation. But if the limit is exceeded, there is deviation everywhere; the one who commanded is freed, the fault is only the killer's. And just as with blows; so too with persons: if "let one kill" is said, and killed by one, it is *pārājika*. If killed by two, it is a deviation. If "let two kill" is said, and killed by one or by two, it is *pārājika*. If killed by three, it is a deviation, this should be understood. One in battle cuts off the head of a man running swiftly with a sword. The headless trunk runs, and that... having hit and made fall. When asked, "For whom is the pārājika?" half the elders said, "For the one who cut off the movement." The elder Godatta, the Abhidhammika, said, "For the one who cut off the head." Such stories should also be told to illuminate the meaning of this story. 192. In the story of buttermilk – if, without specifying, it is said, "Give buttermilk to drink," and by giving any kind of buttermilk, one is killed, it is a pārājika. But if specified, "cow's buttermilk, buffalo's buttermilk, goat's buttermilk," or "cold, hot, smoked, unsmoked," and by giving something other than what was specified, one is killed, it is a doubtful case. In the story of Loṇasovīraka – Loṇasovīraka is a medicine compounded with all tastes. Indeed, when making it, they put in astringents like emblic myrobalan, belleric myrobalan, and chebulic myrobalan; all grains, all pulses, rice from all seven grains, all fruits like plantains, all shoots like rattan, screwpine, and date palm shoots; pieces of fish and meat; and many medicines like honey, jaggery, rock salt, and pungent spices. They seal the mouth of a pot and keep it for one, two, or three years. When it is fully matured, it becomes the color of rose-apple juice. There is no such medicine for wind, cough, leprosy, jaundice, fistula, etc., or as a post-meal drink for those who have eaten oily food, or as a digestive medicine. This is permissible for monks even after a meal; for the sick, it is normal; but for the healthy, it is to be consumed mixed with water as a drink. From the Samantapāsādikā, a commentary on the Vinaya. The explanation of the Third Pārājika is concluded. 4. The Fourth Pārājika The Teacher, knower of the Four Noble Truths, that which he proclaimed as the fourth Pārājika, now the turn for its explanation has come. Therefore, it should be well understood, that which was proclaimed before; avoiding that, even for this (pārājika), this explanation is given. Explanation of the story of the monk from Vaggumudātīra 193. At that time, the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling in Vesālī... (and so on)... "We will supervise the work of householders," in the fields and gardens of householders... And we undertake the duties to be done in the beginning; "This should be done, this should not be done" we declare and we instruct, so it is said. "Dūteyya" means the work of a messenger. "Of a superhuman state" means of a state transcending human beings; having surpassed human beings, either to the Brahma-world or to Nibbāna of a state leading to, this is the meaning. Or of the state of superhuman beings, of excellent persons, of meditators and noble ones. In phrases like "Such and such a monk," having thus deliberated among themselves, afterwards speaking to laypeople, "The monk named Buddharakkhita is an obtainer of the first jhāna, Dhammarakkhita of the second," they spoke praise simply by name, so it should be understood. In that regard, "This, friends, is indeed better" (refers to) undertaking tasks and carrying messages, which involves much danger, great exertion, and is not suitable for a recluse. But from both of these, that is indeed better, more praiseworthy, more beautiful, which among us, to laypeople, the praise of a superhuman state was spoken by one to another. What is said (by this)? Having composed their deportment, whether sitting or walking, to laypeople, whether asking or not asking, "This monk named so-and-so is an obtainer of the first jhāna," in this manner and so on, which among us, by one to another, the praise of a superhuman state will be spoken, that indeed is better. But if there is no connection to the future, since it is not appropriate that it was spoken by them at that moment, therefore, making a connection to the future, "whoever will speak thus, that is better," this meaning should be understood here. The grammatical form, however, should be sought from grammar texts. 194. "They became beautiful" means a different, new bodily complexion arose for them, and by that complexion, they became beautiful. "With plump faculties" means due to the five sense faculties, the occupied space being full, and the six faculties of the mind being un-withered, they had plump faculties. "With clear facial complexion" means although they were beautiful in general, their facial complexion was more (beautiful) than their bodily complexion. "Pasanno" means clear; the meaning is pure, undisturbed, perfectly clean. "Vippasannachavivaṇṇā" (with very clear skin complexion) means that with a complexion like a great kanikāra flower, they had such a color. Such a color exists for other people too. But just as theirs, so not theirs was the skin complexion very clear. Therefore it was said – "with very clear skin complexion." And so these monks did not engage in instruction, nor questioning, nor meditation. But rather, through deceit, through praising non-existent qualities, having obtained delicious food, they ate it. And indulging in the pleasure of sleep and the pleasure of company, they attained this bodily splendor, just like foolish, well-fed deer. "Vaggumudātīriyā" means residents of Vaggumudā's bank. "Is it bearable, monks?" means, monks, is this body-machine, with its four wheels and nine doors, bearable? Is it possible to bear it, endure it, maintain it, without causing any suffering? "Is it maintainable?" means, is it possible to carry on, to go on with all activities, without showing any hindrance? 'Kucchi parikanto' (stomach cut open) means it would be better than a cut-open stomach. The reading 'parikatto' (cut off) is also suitable. Thus, having reproached the Vaggumudātīriyā in many ways, now, since the action they had done was an act of theft, therefore, so that others in the future might not do such an action, the Blessed One then addressed the monks. 195. And having addressed them, he said, "Monks, these five great thieves..." and so on. There, 'santo saṃvijjamānā' (existing, present) means it is said that they exist and are found. 'Idha' (here) means in this world of beings. 'Evaṃ hoti' (thus it is) means thus a desire arises in the beginning. 'Kudāssu nāmāhaṃ' (when indeed I) – here 'su' is a particle; the meaning is 'when indeed'. 'So aparena samayena' (he at a later time) means he, having thought thus in the beginning, gradually increasing his retinue, performing acts like waylaying travelers and plundering border villages, having become a large retinue, acting in villages and non-villages, in districts and non-districts, striking, killing, and...