English
and established himself in Devadatta’s teaching.” Therefore, the Blessed One, including such persons, rejected Devadatta’s view. By this same method, the decision should be understood in the matter of the alms-food eater, in the matter of the rag-robe wearer, and in the matter of the tree-root dweller for eight months. But the tree-root dwelling for four months is entirely rejected. In the matter of fish and meat, “tikoṭiparisuddhaṃ” means pure in three respects, that is, free from impurity by seeing, etc. Therefore, it is said: “unseen, unheard, unsuspected.” Therein, “unseen” means not seen when wild animals and fish are killed and taken for the sake of bhikkhus. “Unheard” means not heard that wild animals and fish were killed and taken for the sake of bhikkhus. “Unsuspected” means the impurity of seeing Seen-suspected, Heard-suspected, And that free from both, but suspected— Having known these, It should be understood From their opposites. How? Here monks see People with nets, snares, in hand, Leaving the village Or wandering in the forest. And on the second day, For them who have entered that village for alms, They offer alms-food with fish and meat. They, by what is seen, suspect, "Surely it was made for the monks' sake!" This is called 'seen-suspected'. It is not allowable to accept this. What is thus unsuspicious, that is allowable. But if those people, Having asked, "Why, venerable sirs, do you not accept?" And having heard the reason, say, "Venerable sirs, this was not made for the monks' sake, But by us for our own sake, Or for the sake of royal officials, etc.," It is allowable. Monks do not see; But they hear, "People, it is said, with nets, snares, in hand, Leave the village, Or wander in the forest." And on the second day, For them who have entered that village for alms, (They suspect) "Surely it was made for the monks' sake!" This is called 'heard-suspected'. It is not allowable to accept this. What is thus unsuspicious, that is allowable. But if those people, Having asked, "Why, venerable sirs, do you not accept?" And having heard the reason, say, "Venerable sirs, this was not made for the monks' sake, But by us for our own sake, Or for the sake of royal officials, etc.," It is allowable. Monks do not see, Nor do they hear; But for them who have entered that village for alms, Taking their bowl, They prepare and offer alms-food with fish and meat. They suspect, "Surely it was made for the monks' sake!" This is called 'free from both, but suspected'. It is not allowable to accept this. What is thus unsuspicious, that is allowable. But if those people, Having asked, "Why, venerable sirs, do you not accept?" And having heard the reason, say, "Venerable sirs, this was not made for the monks' sake, But by us for our own sake, Or for the sake of royal officials, etc.," It is allowable. or for the sake of royal officials, etc., or if it is said, "This meat, which has been prepared or is being prepared, was obtained permissibly and made ready for the bhikkhus," it is permissible. The same applies to that made for the sake of funeral rites for the deceased, or for auspicious ceremonies, etc. For whatever is not made specifically for the bhikkhus, and about which there is no doubt, all that is permissible. However, if in a certain monastery, it is made for the bhikkhus, and they do not know it was made for their sake, but others know. Those who know, for them it is not allowable; for the others, it is allowable. If others do not know, but only they know, for them it is not allowable; for others, it is allowable. If they also know, "This was made for our sake," and others also know, "This was made for their sake," then for all it is not allowable. If all do not know, then for all it is allowable. For among the five co-religionists, if it is made specifically for any one of them, it is not permissible for all. However, if someone kills an animal specifically for one bhikkhu, fills his bowl with it, and gives it to him, and he, knowing it was made for his sake, takes it and gives it to another bhikkhu, and that one consumes it with faith, whose is the offense? There is no offense for either. For the one for whom it was made, there is no offense because he did not consume it. For the other, because he did not know. Indeed, there is no offense in receiving permissible meat. If one consumes meat made specifically for someone, without knowing, and later comes to know, there is no duty to declare an offense. However, if one consumes impermissible meat without knowing, even if one later knows, the offense must be declared. For one incurs an offense only by consuming what was made specifically, knowing it. Even if one consumes impermissible meat without knowing, it is still an offense. Therefore, one who fears offense should, even when observing the appearance, ask before accepting meat. Or, one should ask before consuming it at the time of consumption, or having taken it, one should ask before consuming it. Why? Because it is difficult to discern. For raw meat resembles pork; leopard meat, etc., resembles deer meat, etc. Therefore, one should ask. They just speak of seizing. Joyful and elated, meaning having become pleased and with an uplifted mind. He, it is said, showing Kokālika his gesture and manner, as if thinking, "The Blessed One does not allow these five things; now I will be able to cause a schism in the Sangha," just as a person wishing to die, having eaten poison, or having hanged himself with a rope, or having drawn a knife, obtains one of these poisons, etc., and does not know the imminent suffering of death due to that, and is joyful and elated; just so, not knowing the imminent suffering to be experienced by being reborn in Avīci due to the schism in the Sangha, thinking, "Now I have found the means to cause a schism in the Sangha," joyful and elated, he and his retinue rose from their seats, and with that same joyfulness, saluted the Blessed One, circumambulated him, and departed. "We, by these five things, live in harmony." Here, although it should have been said, "these five things," he said, "we, by these five things," in accordance with his frequent thought, without noticing the change in case ending, due to his frequent thought, "We will make the people understand by these five things," just like one whose mind is distracted. "Of austere and purifying practice," meaning, that practice which shakes off defilements, they are "austere" because they are endowed with it. And that which purifies defilements, that is their practice, thus "of purifying practice." "Given to abundance," meaning, the abundance of requisites like robes is "abundance." He has that abundance, or he is engaged in that abundance, thus "given to abundance." "He intends for abundance," meaning, he plans, devises, arranges for abundance. The meaning is, "How can there be an abundance of requisites like robes for me and my disciples?" Thus he is zealous. "For breaking the wheel," meaning, for breaking the command. "Having spoken a Dhamma talk," in the manner stated in the Khandhaka: "Enough, Devadatta, may you not delight in a schism in the Sangha. Grave, indeed, Devadatta, is a schism in the Sangha. Whoever, Devadatta, breaks up a united Sangha, endures for an eon..." produces evil, ripens in hell for an eon. But whoever, Devadatta, makes a divided Sangha united, produces immense merit, rejoices in heaven for an eon." (Cūḷavagga 343) Having given a discourse on Dhamma, suitable and appropriate in many such ways, for Devadatta and the bhikkhus. 411. Regarding 'united': the meaning is 'joined, not separated in mind and body'. Indeed, this very meaning is shown in the word-division. For by saying 'one who dwells in the same communion', non-separation in mind is shown. By saying 'one who stands within the same boundary', non-separation in body (is shown). How? For one who dwells in the same communion, being free from dwelling in different views or dwelling in different actions, is not separated in mind due to having an equal mind. One who stands within the same boundary is not separated in body due to giving bodily unity. Or 'a cause leading to division' means a cause leading to division, for the purpose of the Sangha's division. For in this context, 'cause' is intended as 'case', as in "due to desire, based on desire, a case of desire" and so on (M.N. 1.168). And since that is of eighteen kinds, therefore in the word-division it is said, "eighteen divisive matters." But these are found in the Khandhaka, in the manner of "Here, Upāli, a bhikkhu declares what is not Dhamma to be Dhamma" and so on (Cūḷavagga 352), therefore we will explain their meaning there. And also, that division of the Sangha occurs due to five other reasons, relying on these matters: by action, by declaration, by usage, by proclamation, by taking a vote — that too we will explain in its proper place. But in brief, regarding "taking up a cause leading to division," here the meaning should be understood as "taking up a cause that leads to the division of the Sangha, capable of bringing about the division of the Sangha." 'Paggayha' means having taken up, having raised, having made manifest. 'Tiṭṭheyya' means he should persist, having made it as it was taken up and as it was raised. But since thus taking up... By holding it, it is both made clear and not given up. Therefore, in the word-analysis, "should make clear" and "should not give up" are said. "By the bhikkhus, it should be said thus" means by other conscientious bhikkhus, it should be spoken thus. And in the word-analysis, "those who see" means those who see him holding it directly. "Those who hear" means those who hear, "In such and such a monastery, bhikkhus, having taken up a dispute conducive to schism, are holding it." "Venerable one, be united with the Saṅgha" means, "Venerable one, unite with the Saṅgha, come together, be of one view." For what reason?