English
this is called the origin of the sheep's wool (offense). It originates from the body and from body-and-mind. It is an action, not a perception-release, without mind, a transgression by rule, a bodily action, with three kinds of consciousness, with three kinds of feeling. Sheep's wool. The explanation of the rule concerning hair-cloth is finished. 7. The explanation of the rule concerning the washing of sheep's wool 576. "At that time" refers to the rule concerning the washing of sheep's wool. Here, "they reject" means they cast off, they discard, they are unable to use them, so it is said. The rest here is in the same manner as stated in the rule concerning old robes, including its origin and so forth. The explanation of the rule concerning the washing of sheep's wool is finished. 8. The explanation of the rule concerning money 582. "At that time" refers to the rule concerning money. Here, "portion" means a share. 583-4. "Gold and silver": here, "gold" is a name for gold. Since it resembles the color of the Tathāgata, it is said in the word-analysis, "it is called the Teacher's color." Its meaning is: "whatever special metal is the Teacher's color, that is called gold." As for silver, "conch, stone, coral, silver, gold," and so on, money is mentioned. Here, however, whatever is usable in transactions, such as kahāpaṇas, is intended. Therefore, in its word-analysis, "kahāpaṇa, copper coin," and so on, are stated. Here, a kahāpaṇa is one made of gold, or silver, or an ordinary one. A copper coin is a coin made of copper or other metals. A wooden coin is a coin made by cutting a shape from hard wood or a bamboo strip, or even a palm leaf. A lac coin is a coin made by forming a shape from lac or resin. By the phrase "which are used in transactions," whatever is used in transactions in whatever country, at whatever time, even if made of bone, or leather, or tree fruits and seeds, whether shaped or unshaped, all are included. Thus, all of this—silver, gold, gold coin, and all the aforementioned types of silver coins—constitutes four kinds of items subject to forfeiture. Pearls, gems, lapis lazuli, conch, stone, coral, ruby, cat's eye, seven kinds of grains, male and female slaves, fields, land, flowers, pleasure gardens, fruit orchards, and so on—these are subject to a dukkata offense. So be it. Thread, needle, cloth, cotton, various kinds of grains, ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar, and other medicines— these are allowable things. Therein, a nissaggiya object is not proper to accept for oneself, or for the Sangha, a group, a person, or a cetiya. For one who accepts for oneself, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. For the sake of others, it is a dukkaṭa. For one who accepts a dukkaṭa object for the sake of all, it is a dukkaṭa only. In the case of an allowable object, there is no offense. If one accepts anything through the head of the storekeeper for the purpose of depositing, it is a pācittiya, as stated in the Jewel Precept above. "Should take" means "should accept." But because one who accepts incurs an offense, therefore in the word division it is said: "If he takes it himself, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya." This is the method in the remaining sections as well. Therein, regarding gold, silver, and money, and kahāpaṇas and māskas, if one takes or causes to be taken one, it is one offense. Even if one takes or causes to be taken a thousand at once, the offenses are counted by the number of objects. However, in the Mahāpaccariya and Kurundi, if it is in a loosely tied bag or in a loosely filled vessel, the offense is counted by the number of pieces. But if it is tightly tied or tightly filled, it is said to be only one offense. In the case of accepting what has been placed, if it is said, "This is for the venerable one," even if one assents in mind, and wishes to take it, but rejects it with body or speech, saying, "This is not proper," there is no offense. Even without rejecting it with body or speech, if one is pure in mind and does not assent, thinking, "This is not proper for us," there is no offense. For in the three doors, what is rejected by any one is indeed rejected. But if, without rejecting it with body or speech, one assents in mind, because the rejection that should be done by body and speech is not done, an offense arises in the body door and speech door, which are generated by inaction. But in the mind door, there is no offense. One places a hundred or a thousand at the foot, saying, "This is for you." The bhikkhu says, "This is not proper." "No," he refuses. The lay follower, thinking "I have given it to you," departs. Another person comes there and asks, "What is this, venerable sir?" What was said by him himself should be explained. If he says, "I will guard it, venerable sir, show me a safe place," even ascending a seven-storied palace, "This is a safe place," should be explained. "Deposit it here," should not be said. Thus far, it stands relying on what is allowable and what is not allowable. One should dwell guarding it, having closed the door. If any salable item, a bowl or a robe, comes, when it is said, "Take this, venerable sir," "Lay follower, we have a need for this, and such an item exists, but there is no one to make it allowable," should be said. If he says, "I will be the one to make it allowable, open the door and give it," having opened the door, "It is placed in this spot," should be said. "Take this," should not be said. Even so, it stands relying on what is allowable and what is not allowable. If he takes it and gives him an allowable item for it, it is permissible. If he takes more, "We do not take your item, "Depart!" should be said. Regarding "It should be laid down in the midst of the Sangha," since money is not allowable, it is not said, "It should be laid down for the Sangha, or for the group, or for an individual." But since it was merely received and no allowable item was purchased with it, therefore, to show its use by means of a stratagem, "It should be laid down in the midst of the Sangha" is said. "An allowable item, such as ghee, should be explained," "Ghee or oil is allowable for renunciants, lay followers," thus it should be explained. "All should partake, except the receiver of money," all should divide and partake. The receiver of money should not take a share. Even having received the share due to other monks or monastery attendants, one may partake. is not allowable, even a rag-robe taken by monkeys and the like and placed in the forest, or fallen from their hands, or taken by animals, is not allowable. Even fumigating the dwelling with molasses brought from it is not allowable. Making a lamp with ghee or oil, to lie down in the light of the lamp, to do kasiṇa meditation, or to read a book, is not allowable. But to anoint a wound on the body with oil, honey, or molasses is not allowable. If they take beds and chairs with that object, or make a Uposatha hall or a refectory, it is not allowable to use them. Even the shade that stands within the confines of the house is not allowable; that which goes beyond the confines, being adventitious, is allowable. To go by a path, or by a bridge, or by a boat, or by a raft, made by abandoning that object, is not allowable. To drink or use the water that springs forth from a pond dug with that object is not allowable. But if there is no water inside, and other adventitious water or rainwater has entered, it is allowable. If bought, the adventitious water with which it was bought is not allowable. If the Sangha uses requisites by depositing that object as a pledge, those requisites are not allowable for him. If a monastery has been acquired, it is also not allowable to use it. If both the land and the seeds are unallowable, neither the land nor the fruit is allowable to use. If only the land is bought and other seeds are planted, the fruit is allowable. But if seeds are bought and planted in allowable land, the fruit is not allowable. To sit or lie down on the land is allowable. If he discards it, meaning he throws it anywhere, or if he does not discard it, but takes it himself and goes, he should not be restrained. If he does not discard it, meaning he neither takes it and goes nor discards it, thinking, "What concern is this of mine?" and goes wherever he wishes, then a silver-discarder of the aforementioned characteristics should be appointed. In "Yona chandāgati" and so on, due to greed, that... Doing for oneself, or exalting oneself, one goes by the path of desire. By way of hatred, disparaging another, saying: "This one does not know the matrix, nor the discipline," one goes by the path of hatred. By way of delusion, falling into a state of lost mindfulness, one goes by the path of delusion. By fear of the receiver of money, unable to discard it, one goes by the path of fear. Not doing thus, one does not go by the path of desire, does not go by the path of hatred, does not go by the path of delusion, does not go by the path of fear, thus it should be understood. 585. "Having made it signless" means not making a sign, closing the eyes, and dropping it into a river, or a precipice, or a dense forest, like excrement, without attachment, not paying attention to the place where it falls, it means it should be dropped. Even in such detestable money, the Blessed One, by implication, taught the bhikkhus its use. But for the receiver of money, by any means, the use of requisites arisen from it is not allowable. Just as this is not allowable for him, so too, requisites arisen by way of unwholesome expectations, or by actions that corrupt families, or by trickery and so on, are not allowable for him nor for others. Even those arisen by righteous and proper means are not allowable to be used without reflection. Indeed, there are four kinds of use: use as a thief, use as a debt, use as an inheritance, use as an owner. Among these, the use by an immoral person,