English
For there is no such thing as buying and selling other than giving and taking. And the rule on buying and selling is stated with reference to the exchange of proper things for proper things. And that, indeed, except with fellow Dhamma-farers. This training rule (concerns) causing exchange of money for money or non-money, and causing exchange of non-money for money. But causing exchange of a dukkaṭa-thing for a dukkaṭa-thing is neither stated here nor there in the Pāḷi, nor should there be no offense here. Therefore, just as in the taking of a dukkaṭa-thing there is a dukkaṭa, so too in causing its exchange or exchange by it, a dukkaṭa is proper, so it is said by those who know the Buddha's intention. But for one causing exchange of a proper thing for a nissaggiya-thing, at the initial taking, by the previous rule, there is no offense. Afterwards, in the exchange, by this (rule) it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. For it is said: "If one, perceiving a non-money thing as a non-money thing, causes money to be exchanged, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya." Therefore, for one causing exchange of a proper thing for a dukkaṭa-thing, at the initial taking, there is no offense. Afterwards, in the exchange, by this (rule) it is a dukkaṭa. Why? Because an improper thing was caused to be exchanged. But for one causing exchange of a proper thing for a proper thing, except with fellow Dhamma-farers, at the initial taking, by the previous rule, there is no offense. Afterwards, in the exchange, by the higher rule on buying and selling, it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. For one taking, having released the buying and selling, even by the higher rule, there is no offense. For one applying interest, a dukkaṭa. And this (rule) indicating the gravity of money transactions, this set of four bowls should be understood. For whoever, having taken money, causes a metal seed to arise with it, having caused it to be beaten, causes a bowl to be made with that metal... Indeed, this bowl is called greatly unallowable. It cannot be made allowable by any means. If, having destroyed it, one makes a plate, that too is unallowable. If one makes a chisel, a tooth-stick cut by it is also unallowable. If one makes a fish-hook, fish killed by it are also unallowable. If one heats water or milk by heating the chisel-blade, that too is unallowable. But whoever takes money and buys a bowl with it, this bowl is also unallowable. "It is not allowable for any of the five co-religionists," it is said in the Mahāpaccari. But it can be made allowable, for when the original owner's property is given to the original owner, and the bowl to the bowl's owner, it becomes allowable. It is permissible to give allowable goods, take it, and use it. And whoever, having caused money to be taken, goes with an allowable-agent to a blacksmith's house, sees a bowl, and says, "This pleases me." And the allowable-agent gives that money and makes the blacksmith agree, this bowl, even though taken by allowable means, is just like the second type of bowl, being unallowable because the principal was accepted. Why is it not allowable for others? Because the principal was not relinquished. But whoever, not having accepted money, goes with an allowable-agent sent with the instruction, "Buy a bowl for the elder and give it," to a blacksmith's house, sees a bowl, and causes the coins to be given, saying, "Take these coins and give this," and then takes it, this bowl is not permissible for that bhikkhu himself due to his improper conduct, but it is permissible for others, because the principal was not accepted. It is said that the preceptor of Elder Mahāsumma was named Elder Anuruddha. He filled such a bowl of his own with ghee and relinquished it to the Saṅgha. And the co-residents of Elder Tipiṭakacūḷanāga also had such a bowl. That elder also had it filled with ghee and caused it to be relinquished to the Saṅgha. This is the quartet of unallowable bowls. But if, not having accepted money, one goes with an allowable-agent sent with the instruction, "Buy a bowl for the elder and give it," to a blacksmith's house, and... having seen the coin, says, "This pleases me," or "I will take this," and the steward, having given that money, makes an agreement with the smith, this bowl is entirely allowable and fit for use even by the Buddhas. 591. "Perceiving money in what is not money" means perceiving gold, etc., in rough bowls, etc. "An offense of dukkata" means if he causes what is not money to be bought with it, there is an offense of dukkata. The same method applies to one who is doubtful. But for one who perceives what is not money, even if he engages in buying and selling with five co-religionists, saying, "Take this and give that," there is no offense. The rest is clear. It arises from six sources, is an action, not a release by perception, non-mental, an offense by enactment, a bodily action and a verbal action, with three minds, with three feelings. The explanation of the training rule concerning money transactions is finished. 10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Buying and Selling 593. "At that time" refers to the training rule on buying and selling. There, "kati hipi tyāyanti" means "how many are these for you?" The particle "hi" here is a filler, and "pi" is for censure. The meaning is, "How many days will this poor robe last for you?" Alternatively, the reading is "katihampi tyāyanti." There, "katihanti" means "how many days," or "how many days" is said. The rest is as stated. "Katihipi myāyanti" should also be understood in the same way. In "Gihīpi naṃ gihissa," "naṃ" is a particle in the sense of "name." It means, "A layperson is for a layperson." 594. "Of various kinds" means many kinds in terms of allowable requisites such as robes. Therefore, in its word division, starting with robes and ending with thread for fringes, only allowable requisites are shown. For the exchange of unallowable requisites does not fall under the category of buying and selling. "Buying and selling" means both buying and selling. By the method of "Give this for this," etc., one who takes another's allowable requisite engages in buying, and one who gives one's own allowable requisite engages in selling. 595. "Transgresses" means acts by overpowering, meaning speaks words of transgression. "When it is bought and sold" means when it is bought And that is another's goods made one's own possession, and one's own goods sold made another's possession. But in the text, according to the saying "this for this," etc., first one's own goods are shown. "Should be given up" means that suitable goods taken from another's hand by way of purchase should be given up. For this buying and selling is not allowable with laypeople and monastics, even with parents, except for the five co-dhamma-followers. Herein is the decision: Whether it be cloth for cloth, or food for food, whatever is suitable, if one says, "Give this for this," it is a dukkaṭa offense. Having said this, if one gives one's own goods even to one's mother, it is a dukkaṭa offense. If, being told "Give this for this," or having said "Give this, I will give you this," one takes goods oneself even from one's mother, it is a dukkaṭa offense. When one's own goods reach another's hand, and another's goods reach one's own hand, it is nissaggiya. But to one's mother or father, saying "Give this," is not a request. Saying "Take this," is not a squandering of faith-offerings. To a stranger, saying "Give this," is a request. Saying "Take this," is a squandering of faith-offerings. One who engages in buying and selling by saying "Give this for this" incurs nissaggiya. Therefore, when exchanging suitable goods, even with parents, and with strangers, one should exchange them avoiding the three offenses. Herein is the method of exchange: A bhikkhu has travel-rice. He sees a man with food on the way and says, "We have rice, but we have no use for these, but we have use for food." The man takes the rice and gives food; it is allowable. The three offenses do not occur. Not even a mere sign-making occurs. Why? Because there is a basis (for the exchange). And it is said later, "This we have, and we have use for this and this." But whoever thus He does not do it, but exchanges it saying, "Give this for this." It is just as the object is. Seeing a scavenger, he says, "Having eaten this rice, bring dye or firewood." By the count of dye-chips and the count of firewood, they become *nissaggiya*. Saying, "Having eaten this rice, do this," he has artisans like ivory carvers make various requisites like bellows, or has washermen wash clothes. It is just as the object is. He has a barber cut hair, has laborers do new construction. It is just as the object is. But if he does not say, "Having eaten this food, do this," but says, "Eat this food, you have eaten, you will eat, do this," it is permissible. And here, although in washing clothes, or cutting hair, or new construction like clearing land, there is no other's property to be relinquished into one's own hand. However, because it is strongly stated in the Great Commentary, it cannot be rejected. Therefore, just as one confesses a *pācittiya* when a *nissaggiya* object is used or lost, so too should it be confessed here. 596. In "buying and selling, perceiving it as buying and selling," and so on: Whoever engages in buying and selling, whether he perceives it as buying and selling, or is doubtful, or does not perceive it as buying and selling, it is always a *nissaggiya pācittiya*. In the *Cūḷattika*, in two instances, it is only a *dukkata*. This is how the meaning should be understood. 597. "Asks the price" means he asks, "What is the price of your bowl?" But if, when "this much" is said, his permissible article is expensive, he replies to him thus: "Lay follower, my article is expensive, give your bowl to another." Hearing that, if the other says, "I will give another plate too," it is permissible to accept.