English
let the Arahants wash their feet." That was his utterance of faith, arising from his character of faith, encouraged by the power of his own faith. Therefore, the Blessed One said: "Monks, there is no offense in an utterance of faith." However, a bhikkhu, when thus addressed, should not merely enjoy the requisites with joy and delight, but should make an effort thus: "I will fulfill the path leading to the attainment of Arahantship." The matters of declaring other attainments are similar to the matters of fetters. In the matter of disrespect, that bhikkhu, being uninterested in lay life, and unconcerned, said: "Friend, one like me is incapable," not with the intention of boasting. Therefore, he committed no offense. 227. In the matter of desires being shut off, that bhikkhu was unconcerned with material desires and defiling desires, by seeing their worldly danger. Therefore, he said: "Friend, my desires are shut off." Therefore, he committed no offense. Here, "shut off" means hindered, prevented, rejected. In the matter of delight, that bhikkhu, being not weary of the Dispensation, and being delighted in recitation, questioning, and so on, said: "Friend, I delight with the highest delight," not with the intention of boasting. Therefore, he committed no offense. There is no offense. Regarding the matter of departure, if a monk, having made an agreement, delimiting a dwelling, or a pavilion, or a boundary, or any place, saying: “Whoever departs first from this dwelling will be known as an Arahant,” and then, wishing “Let them know me as an Arahant,” departs first from that place, he incurs a pārājika offense. But if he goes beyond that place for the purpose of his teachers or preceptors, or for some duty of his parents, or for alms-round, or for asking questions and receiving instructions, or for any other such duty, there is no offense. Even if, having gone in this way, the desire later arises in him, “Now I will not go back there, they will consider me an Arahant in this way,” there is still no offense. If, for some reason, having arrived at that place, he becomes preoccupied with recitation or mental attention, or is pursued by thieves or the like, or seeing a cloud rising, wishes to enter a shelter from the rain, and goes beyond that place, there is no offense. Even if he goes by vehicle or by psychic power, he does not incur a pārājika offense; he incurs it only by going on foot. And even then, if he goes neither before nor after those with whom the agreement was made, he does not incur an offense. For when they go in this way, all of them protect each other. Even if an agreement is made by delimiting some place in a pavilion or at the foot of a tree, etc., saying: “Whoever sits or walks here, we will know him as an Arahant,” or by placing flowers, saying: “Whoever takes these and makes an offering, we will know him as an Arahant,” and so on, in that case too, if he acts in that way out of a desire to be an Arahant, it is a pārājika offense. Even if a lay follower has built a monastery on the road, or placed robes, etc., saying: “May those who are Arahants dwell in this monastery and take the robes, etc.” In that case too, if he dwells or takes the robes, etc., out of a desire to be an Arahant, it is a pārājika offense. But this is an unrighteous agreement, therefore it should not be made, nor any other such agreement as: “During these three months, let all be forest-dwellers, or those who observe the remaining ascetic practices like the alms-eater, or may all of them be those whose defilements are destroyed.” Such things. For monks from various regions gather. Among them, some are weak, without strength, and cannot maintain such a practice. Therefore, such a practice should not be done. “During these three months, no one should give ordination, no one should ask questions, no one should give higher ordination, the vow of silence should be undertaken, the Sangha's gain should be given even to those outside the boundary”— such things should not be done at all. 228. In the section connected with Lakkhana, the venerable one who is Lakkhana, is called Lakkhana Thera. He is to be known as one great disciple who, among a thousand ascetics, was ordained with the "Come, monk" ordination, and attained arahantship at the end of the Discourse on Burning. Since he was endowed with a body perfect in all respects, complete with auspicious marks, equal to Brahma, he was known as Lakkhana. Maha Moggallana Thera, however, attained arahantship on the seventh day from the day of his ordination, and was the second chief disciple. "He revealed a smile" means he revealed a gentle smile, he showed it, he displayed it. What did the elder see that he revealed a smile? Seeing a skeleton of bones, a being born in the realm of ghosts, which was mentioned in the Pali above. And he saw it with the divine eye, not with the eye of flesh. For such beings do not come into the range of the eye of flesh. But seeing such a being, when compassion should be shown, why did he reveal a smile? From recollecting his own attainment and the Buddha's knowledge. For seeing that, the elder thought: "I am freed from such beings that are to be attained by a person who has not realized the truth. Indeed, it is a gain for me, indeed, it is well-obtained for me." Thus, recollecting his own attainment, and then thinking: "Oh, the attainment of knowledge of the Buddha, the Blessed One, who taught: 'The result of kamma, monks, is inconceivable; it should not be thought about.' Indeed, the Buddhas teach by direct experience, the Buddhas have thoroughly penetrated the nature of phenomena." thinking "Oh!" and remembering the Buddha's perfect knowledge, he smiled. Since those with defilements destroyed do not smile without reason, Elder Lakkhaṇa asked him, "What, friend Moggallāna, is the cause, what is the reason for your smile?" But since the Elder knew that those who had not seen this birth themselves would be hard to convince, making the Blessed One his witness, and wishing to explain, he said, "It is not the time, friend," and so on. Then, being asked in the presence of the Blessed One, he explained, "Here, friend, I saw," and so on. Therein, "a skeleton" means a heap of bones, white, without flesh or blood. "Vultures, crows, and kites" should be understood as demon-vultures, demon-crows, and demon-kites. For such a form does not come within the range of ordinary vultures and so on. "Pursuing again and again" means following again and again. "They pierce through" means they go piercing through. Or the reading is "they peck," meaning they pierce with sharp iron beaks like sword blades. "She made a mournful sound" here "sudaṃ" is a particle. It means that skeleton made a mournful, distressed sound. It is said that bodies of such a kind, even a league in size, are born for experiencing the results of unwholesome deeds, and they are full of pus, like festering boils. Therefore, that skeleton, afflicted by strong pain, made such a sound. Having said this, Venerable Mahāmoggallāna again, showing the spiritual urgency arising from compassion for beings, thinking, "Beings caught in the cycle of existence are not freed from such bodies," said, "Then, friend, this thought occurred to me: 'How wonderful, sirs!'" and so on. "The monks murmured" means those who had not directly seen that birth as a hungry ghost murmured. But the Blessed One, revealing the Elder's power, said, "Indeed, monks, the disciples dwell as those with eyes," and so on. Therein, "those with eyes" means those for whom an eye has come to be, has arisen. They are those with an arisen eye. having the eye of knowledge, having produced the eye, they dwell, this is the meaning. In the second phrase, the method is the same. Here, in 'yatra hi nāma', 'yatra' is a word indicating cause. Here is the explanation of the meaning: Because indeed a disciple will know or see or bear witness to such a thing, therefore we said: "Indeed, monks, the disciples dwell as the eye, indeed, monks, the disciples dwell as knowledge." "Monks, that being was seen by me before" – this is what is said by me, who, at the Bodhi-mandala, by penetrating the knowledge of omniscience, made manifest in countless world-systems, in countless groups of beings, in their states of existence, destinations, origins, and abodes, that "that being was seen by me before." A cattle-butcher is a being who, having repeatedly killed cows, removed the flesh from the bones, and sold it, made a living. "By the remaining result of that very karma" refers to that karma, repeatedly accumulated by various volitions. For indeed, when the result of the volition that generated rebirth in hell is exhausted, then, taking the remaining karma or a karma-sign as an object, rebirth arises again among petas and so on. Therefore, that rebirth is called "the remaining result of that very karma" due to its similarity to the karma or its similarity to the object. And this being was reborn thus. Therefore it is said: "by the remaining result of that very karma." Indeed, at the time of his passing from hell, a heap of bones of fleshless cows became his sign. He, making that hidden karma as if manifest to the discerning, was reborn as a skeleton-chain peta. 229. In the case of the flesh-slice, the cattle-butcher, having made slices of beef, dried them, and by selling dried meat, made a living for many years. Therefore, at the time of his passing from hell, a flesh-slice became his sign. He was reborn as a flesh-slice peta. In the case of the lump of flesh, that fowler, when catching and selling birds, made them into mere lumps of flesh, skinless and featherless, and selling them, made a living. Therefore, at the time of his passing from hell, a lump of flesh became his sign. it was. He became a ghost with a lump of flesh. In the story of the skinless one, for that sheep-butcher, who killed sheep and made them skinless, earning his living,