English
For this is the nature of created beings: "When one speaks, All the created ones speak; When one sits silent, All of them become silent." But in a monastery where couches, chairs, and so on are not sufficient, he makes them sufficient by his own power. Therefore, of the created ones... there is no object word. Having arranged the lodging, he returns to Veḷuvana again, and does not sit conversing about worldly matters with them, but returns to his own dwelling place. 383. Mettiyabhūmajaka means Mettiya and Bhūmajaka, these are the chief men of the group of six. And poor meals means that it is not surprising that the lodgings fall to the lot of the new monks as poor. But as for the meals, they put the tickets into a basket or a cloth bag, stir them up, and then draw them out one by one and assign them. And these too, due to their lack of merit, fall to them as poor, always the very last. Even if it is a meal for a single wanderer, it is either poor on the day it is due to them, or seeing them, people do not give excellent food, but only poor food. Abhisaṅkhārika means prepared with various ingredients, well-arranged, well-prepared. Kaṇājaka means a meal with husks. Bilaṅgadutiya means accompanied by gruel. Kalyāṇabhattika means one who has excellent, beautiful, very fine food, hence kalyāṇabhattika, known by his food because he is a giver of fine food. Gives a four-fold meal means gives four meals, but it is called "catukkabhatta" by taddhita usage. Stands by and serves means having dismissed all other tasks, having performed great veneration and honor, he stands nearby and serves. They ask with rice means they approach with rice in hand and ask, "Sir, shall we give rice?" The instrumental case is used here in the sense of action. This is the method for curries and so on. For tomorrow means that which is to be for tomorrow's meal, for tomorrow's sake, it means for the sake of the meal to be eaten tomorrow. It is assigned means it is given to be received. "Mettiyabhūmajaka, householder" - the elder said this without paying attention. So powerful indeed was their lack of merit, that even when they had attained great abundance, there was no attention paid. "Ye jeti" - here "jeti" addresses a female servant. Yesterday "Oh, friends, ours," deliberating at night, referring to the past part of the day, they say "yesterday." "Not according to their wish" means not according to their mind; as before, they sleep as much as they wish, they did not sleep thus; it is said that they slept only a little. "At the outer gatehouse of the monastery" means at the outer gatehouse of the Veḷuvana monastery. "With slumped shoulders" means with fallen shoulders, sitting with their shoulder bones bent. "Pondering" means smoldering (with thought). "Where it was windless, there was wind" means where it was windless, where there was not even a little wind, there a great wind arose, this is the intention. "Water, I think, is burning" means burning like water. 384. "Do you remember, Dabba, having done such a thing?" means "You, Dabba, remember having done such a thing." Or else, the meaning here should be understood by connecting it thus: "Do you remember, Dabba, such a thing as this bhikkhunī says? You have done such a thing as this bhikkhunī says." But for those who read "katvā" (having done), it is straightforward. "As the Blessed One, venerable sir, knows me" – what does the elder show? "The Blessed One, venerable sir, is omniscient, and I am one whose defilements are destroyed. There is no indulgence in sensual objects for me. The Blessed One knows me thus. What shall I say about that? As the Blessed One knows me, so should I be seen." "Indeed, Dabba, the wise do not explain thus" – here, "Indeed, Dabba, the wise do not explain thus" means: the wise do not explain by relying on others, as you do; but rather, they explain by what is known by themselves – this is the meaning to be understood. "If it was done by you, it was done" – what does this show? Indeed, it is not possible by the power of an assembly or by the support of a faction to make a non-doer a doer, or a doer a non-doer. Therefore, it shows that only what is done or not done by oneself should be stated. But why did the Blessed One, even though knowing, not say: "I know, you are one whose defilements are destroyed; there is no fault in you, this bhikkhunī is a liar"? Out of compassion for others. For if the Blessed One were to say whatever he knows, then by another pārājika... If, when questioned by one who had fallen, it were said, "I know you are defeated," then that person would conceive resentment, thinking: "This one formerly made Dabba the Mallaputta pure, and now makes me impure; to whom now shall I say what? When even the Teacher goes by partiality among his disciples; whence then his omniscience?" And so, would go to a state of woe. Therefore, the Blessed One, out of this compassion for others, though knowing, did not say it. Furthermore, he did not say it to avoid reproach. For if the Blessed One were to say thus, there would be such a reproach: "The rising up of Dabba the Mallaputta was indeed difficult, but he rose up having obtained the Fully Self-Awakened One as a witness." And thinking this to be the mark of rising up, evil monks would destroy even shame, saying: "Even in the time of the Buddha, purity or impurity is by a witness, we know, this person is impure." Moreover, in the future, monks, having accused and reminded others concerning a matter they had fallen into, would perform the act, having taken the confession of the conscientious, saying, "If it was done by you, say 'it was done'." Thus, establishing a rule in the Vinaya, he said, "If it was done by you, say 'it was done'," without saying, "I know." "I do not know that I have engaged in sexual intercourse even in a dream." It is said: "I do not know that I have engaged in sexual intercourse even in a dream, I have not engaged in it." Or it is said: "Having engaged in it, I do not know of sexual intercourse even in a dream." But for those who read "having engaged in it," it is straightforward. "How much more when awake!" means that when awake, one does not know it in the first place. "Therefore, monks, expel Mettiya the bhikkhuni." Because the statement of Dabba and her (Mettiya's) does not fit together, therefore it is said: "Expel Mettiya the bhikkhuni." There are three kinds of expulsion: expulsion by the mark, expulsion from communion, expulsion by penal action. Among these, "The defiler is to be expelled" (Pārā. 66) is "expulsion by the mark." In the non-seeing of an offense, or non-confession... or if they do not renounce a wrong view, they perform the act of suspension, this is "suspension by association". They perform the punishment, "Go, friend, perish!" (Pac. 429), this is "suspension by punishment". Here, however, referring to suspension by defrocking, it is said: "Let the bhikkhuni Mettiyā be suspended." "And these bhikkhus, question them!" By this, it is revealed: "This bhikkhuni, she did not act according to her own nature, she was certainly incited by others. Therefore, those by whom she was incited, these bhikkhus, question them, seek them out, know them!" But was the bhikkhuni Mettiyā suspended by the Blessed One after her confession, or without her confession? And what is the point here? If she was suspended after her confession, the elder is an agent, at fault. If without her confession, the elder is not an agent, blameless. Even in the time of King Bhātiya, there was a dispute on this very point between the elders of the Mahāvihāra and those of Abhayagiri. The Abhayagiri residents, stating their own sutta, said: "In your view, the elder is an agent." The Mahāvihāra residents, stating their own sutta, said: "In your view, the elder is an agent." The problem was not resolved. The king, hearing this, assembled the elders and commanded an minister of the Brāhmaṇa caste, named Dīghakārāyana, "Listen to the elders' discussion!" The minister, it is said, was learned and skilled in languages. He said: "Let the elders first state the sutta." Then the Abhayagiri elders stated their sutta: "Therefore, bhikkhus, let the bhikkhuni Mettiyā be suspended by her own confession." The minister said: "Venerables, in your view, the elder is an agent, at fault." The Mahāvihāra residents also stated their sutta: "Therefore, bhikkhus, let the bhikkhuni Mettiyā be suspended." The minister said: "Venerables, in your view, the elder is not an agent, blameless." What is appropriate here? What was said later, this has been examined by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers: If a bhikkhu slanders a bhikkhu with a baseless ultimate offense, it is a Saṅghādisesa. If a bhikkhuni he disparages, it is a dukkaṭa. But in the Kurundi it is said, “For intentional lying, a pācittiya.” Herein is this consideration: In the former method, since the intention is to disparage, only a dukkaṭa is appropriate. Just as, even with intentional lying, if a bhikkhu disparages another bhikkhu with a baseless charge of a saṅghādisesa, it is a saṅghādisesa; and even with intentional lying, if one speaks to a pure-sighted person with the intention of reviling, it is a pācittiya for abusive speech, not for intentional lying; similarly here, since the intention is to disparage, a pācittiya for intentional lying is not appropriate, only a dukkaṭa is appropriate. In the latter method too, since it is intentional lying, only a pācittiya is appropriate. For by the measure of the words, if a bhikkhu disparages another bhikkhu with the intention of a saṅghādisesa, it is a saṅghādisesa. And for one with the intention of reviling, it is abusive speech. But there is no statement of a dukkaṭa for a bhikkhu to a bhikkhunī, there is a statement of a pācittiya for intentional lying. Therefore, only a pācittiya is appropriate. But here this should be examined: “If there is no intention to disparage, it is a pācittiya.