English
even sitting in the midst of the Sangha and consuming, is called "use as a thief." The unreflected use by a virtuous person is called "use as a debt." Therefore, the robe should be reflected upon with each use, the almsfood with each mouthful. If one is unable to do so, then before the meal, after the meal, in the first watch of the night, or in the last watch of the night. If, without reflecting, dawn breaks, one stands in the position of using as a debt. The dwelling too, should be reflected upon with each use. Even in receiving and using medicine, mindfulness is appropriate; even so, having made mindfulness in receiving, not making it in use... To him alone is the offense. But not having made mindfulness at the reception, to him who uses it, there is no offense. Indeed, there are four kinds of purity: purity by declaration, purity by restraint, purity by seeking, purity by reflection. Among these, purity by declaration is the morality of Pātimokkha restraint. For it is called "purity by declaration" because it is purified by declaration. Purity by restraint is the morality of sense-faculty restraint. For it is called "purity by restraint" because it is purified by the mental resolve of restraint, "I will not do this again." Purity by seeking is the morality of pure livelihood. For it is called "purity by seeking" because, having abandoned improper seeking, one who obtains requisites righteously and fairly is pure by his seeking. Purity by reflection is the morality associated with the use of requisites. For it is called "purity by reflection" because it is purified by reflection, as stated in the way of "reflecting wisely, he uses robes" and so on. Therefore it was said: "But not having made mindfulness at the reception, to him who uses it, there is no offense." The use of requisites by the seven trainees is called "heir's use." For they are the Buddha's sons. Therefore, becoming heirs to their father's possessions, they use those requisites. Do they use the Buddha's requisites, or householders' requisites? Even though given by householders, they belong to the Buddha because they are permitted by the Buddha. Therefore, it should be understood that they use the Buddha's requisites. The Dhammadāyāda Sutta is also a proof here. The use by those whose defilements are destroyed is called "owner's use." For they, having gone beyond the slavery of craving, use them as owners. Among these uses, owner's use and heir's use are permissible for all. Debt-use is not permissible. Of theft-use, there is no mention at all. There are also four other uses: use by the conscientious, use by the shameless, righteous use, unrighteous use. consumption. Therein, consumption with a shameless one is permissible for a conscientious one; he should not be made to incur an offense. For a conscientious one, consumption with a shameless one is permissible as long as he does not know. For from the very beginning, there is no such thing as a shameless one. Therefore, when he knows his shamelessness, he should be told: "You commit transgressions through the door of body and the door of speech. That is improper. Do not do so!" If he disregards it and continues to do so, if one consumes with him, he too becomes shameless. And whoever consumes with a shameless one who is his burden, he too should be restrained. If he does not desist, this one too is shameless. Thus, one shameless one makes a hundred shameless ones. But for a shameless one, there is no offense in consuming with a shameless one. The consumption of a conscientious one with a conscientious one is like the meal of two Khattiya princes in a golden bowl. Rightful and unrightful consumption should be understood in terms of requisites. Therein, if the person is shameless and the almsfood is unrightful, both are reprehensible. If the person is shameless and the almsfood is rightful, having shunned the person, the almsfood should not be accepted. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said: "A wicked person, having received designation-meals and the like from the Sangha, gives them to the Sangha itself. These are permissible because they have gone as they were received." If the person is conscientious and the almsfood is unrightful, the almsfood is reprehensible; it should not be accepted. If the person is conscientious and the almsfood is also rightful, it is permissible. There are two other supports; and two consumptions: support for the conscientious, support for the shameless; consumption of Dhamma, consumption of material things. Therein, it is permissible for a shameless one to support a conscientious one; he should not be made to incur an offense. But if a conscientious one supports a shameless one, invites him for approval, invites him for a Dhamma talk, supports him in families, and the other one speaks his praise in the assembly, saying: "Our teacher is such and such," this one should be understood as causing the Dispensation to decline and disappear. Regarding the consumption of Dhamma and the consumption of material things, But where the use of material things is permissible, there the use of Dhamma is also permissible. And as for the text that stands at the pinnacle, which will perish with the passing of that person, it is said that it is permissible to learn it with the help of the Dhamma. Herein is this story – It is said that during a great danger, only one bhikkhu had mastered the Mahāniddesa. Then the preceptor of the Thera Catunikāyika Tissa, named Mahātipiṭaka Thera, said to Mahārakkhita Thera – “Friend Mahārakkhita, learn the Mahāniddesa from him.” “He is indeed evil, Venerable Sir, I will not learn.” “Learn, friend, I will sit near you.” “Very well, Venerable Sir, I will learn while you are seated,” he agreed, and learning continuously day and night, on the last day, seeing a woman under the bed, he said, “Venerable Sir, I heard this before. If I had known this, I would not have learned the Dhamma from such a person.” But many great Theras learned from him and established the Mahāniddesa. 586. In "perceiving silver as silver," here it should be understood that all gold and silver falls into the category of silver. "Doubtful about silver" means being in doubt, saying "Is it gold, or is it a dry leaf?" and so on. "Perceiving silver as not silver" means perceiving gold and so on as dry leaves and so on. Moreover, those desiring merit, such as royal attendants, put money and gold into rice, snacks, perfume balls, and so on, and give them. When giving to those going for alms for cloth, they give cloths along with tied kahāpaṇas and so on. The bhikkhus receive them with the perception of food or the perception of cloth. Thus, it should be understood that one who perceives silver as not silver receives silver. However, the one receiving should note, "This was received in this house." For if it was given by one who was unmindful, that person, regaining mindfulness, will come again. Then it should be said to him – "Look at your cloth." The rest here is clear in meaning. Among the origins and so on, there are six origins, it is said... This is incurred by acceptance, or it might be non-action due to not doing the prohibition. Indeed, the three training rules concerning silver, speaking otherwise, and eavesdropping are of one section, not released by perception, without intention, an offense by regulation, a bodily action and a verbal action, with three intentions, with three feelings. The explanation of the training rule concerning silver is finished. 9. The explanation of the training rule concerning silver transactions 587. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning silver transactions. Therein, "of various kinds" means manifold, such as done and not done. "Silver transaction" means the exchange of gold and silver. "They engage in" means, since only acceptance is prohibited, they do not see fault in exchanging what has been accepted. 589. In "sīsūpagaṃ" and so on, "sīsūpagaṃ" means that which goes to the head, but in books, it is written as "sīsūpakaṃ". This is a designation for any head ornament. This method applies everywhere. In "done with done" and so on, it is purely a silver transaction. In the case of "perceiving silver as silver" and so on, regarding the matters stated in the previous training rule, for one who causes a nissaggiya object to be bought with a nissaggiya object, at the initial acceptance, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya by the previous training rule, and in subsequent exchanges, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya by this rule. The same method applies to one who causes a dukkaṭa object or a permissible object to be bought with a nissaggiya object. Indeed, the second triad mentioned, "perceiving non-silver as silver, one causes silver to be bought," and so on, by analogy, even though not stated, this other triad, "perceiving silver as silver, one causes non-silver to be bought," and so on, should be understood. For one might cause another's silver to be bought with one's own non-silver, or another's non-silver with one's own silver, in both cases, a silver transaction is indeed made, therefore, in the Pāli, only one triad is stated, specifically on the side of silver. However, for one who causes a nissaggiya object to be bought with a dukkaṭa object, at the initial acceptance, there is a dukkaṭa by the previous training rule, and in subsequent exchanges, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya by this rule, because a serious object was caused to be bought. With a dukkaṭa object, only a dukkaṭa object, or a permissible one For one causing exchange (for an improper thing), at the initial taking, by the previous rule, a dukkaṭa. Afterwards, even in the exchange, by this (rule) it is just a dukkaṭa. Why? Because it was caused to be exchanged with an improper thing. But in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said: "If one engages in buying and selling, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya." That is ill-spoken. Why?