English
Just as for something inside a pot, the entire pot is not the 'place'. For one drinking anything like ghee etc., a pārājika offense occurs as soon as it is drunk in one attempt – so it is stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. But in the Mahāpaccariya and others, this distinction is shown: "For one drinking, drawing in without removing the mouth, if what has gone down the throat is not worth a quarter, but is worth it together with what is in the mouth, it is still protected. But only at the moment it is separated by the throat does a pārājika offense occur. Even if, separating with the lips, he closes his lips, it is still a pārājika. Even for one drinking with a lotus stalk, bamboo pipe, reed pipe, etc., if only what has gone down the throat is worth a quarter, it is a pārājika. If it is worth it together with what is in the mouth, it is not yet a pārājika. Breaking the unified state with what is in the lotus stalk etc., a pārājika occurs as soon as it is separated by the lips. If it is worth it together with what is in the lotus stalk etc., a pārājika occurs as soon as the bottom of the lotus stalk etc. is closed even with a finger. When the amount worth a quarter has not entered the throat, and even an amount worth more than a quarter in the lotus stalk etc. and in the mouth, remains as one unified mass, it is still protected." All of that, because (it is based on) "he makes it his own vessel, or he breaks the fist (grip)..." adopts this method, therefore it is well shown. This is the method for a single continuous flow. If, however, one takes it with the hand, or with a bowl, or with a plate or any other vessel, and drinks it, in that act where the value of a foot-measure is completed, therein the pārājika occurs. If it is very valuable, even with a single act of a spoon, it is possible to take the value of a foot-measure, with a single scoop, the pārājika occurs. But for one who immerses the vessel and takes it, as long as it is a single continuous flow, it is protected. By the measure of the lip of the mouth, or by the scoop, the pārājika occurs. But when one tilts a pot of ghee or oil, or clear honey or treacle similar to oil, and pours it into one's own vessel, then because of their clarity, there is no single continuous flow, so the pārājika occurs as soon as the value of a foot-measure slips from the lip of the mouth. But honey or treacle that has been cooked and kept, is sticky like glue, capable of being stretched and pulled, when a doubt arises, it can be pulled back as a single continuous flow. This, even if it has left the lip of the mouth and entered the vessel, is protected because it is continuous with the outside. But as soon as it is cut from the lip of the mouth, the pārājika occurs. And whoever, with a thieving mind, places in another's pot of ghee or oil, of the value of a foot-measure, any un-drinkable item, such as a silk cloth, or a piece of leather or any other such thing, the pārājika occurs as soon as it leaves the hand. In an empty pot, knowing "now oil will be poured in," if one, with a thieving mind, places any item, and if, when oil is poured into it, that item drinks up the value of five māsa, the pārājika occurs as soon as it is drunk up, so it is stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. But that contradicts the determination of straightening in the same place, regarding a dry pond and a dry watercourse, and the characteristic of taking away is not evident here, therefore it should not be accepted. But in the Mahāpaccariyā and other texts, the pārājika is stated for its removal, which is appropriate. Having placed an item in another's empty pot for safekeeping, when oil is poured into it, thinking "if this person "It will stick, it will cling to me," frightened, he takes out the oil-soaked goods, with a thieving mind, it is a pārājika. He takes it out with a pure mind, if others make him take it, it is a giving of goods. Giving of goods means that which was lost by another, its value or the same goods must be given, this is the meaning. If he does not give, when the owner abandons his claim, it is a pārājika. If another pours ghee or oil into another's pot, and this one, with a thieving mind, puts in the oil-soaked goods, it is a pārājika in the manner stated. Knowing that another's ghee or oil has been poured into his empty pot, he puts in the goods with a thieving mind, it is a pārājika upon removal, in the manner stated before. If he puts it in with a pure mind, and later removes it with a thieving mind, it is indeed a pārājika. If he removes it with a pure mind, it is neither an appropriation nor a neck-offense; but in the Mahāpaccariya, only non-offense is stated. "Being angry, 'Why do you pour oil into my pot?' he takes out his own goods and throws them away, it is not a giving of goods," this is stated in the Kurundi. With a thieving mind, he grasps the mouth of the pot and shakes it, wishing the oil to flow out, when a foot-worth of oil flows out, it is a pārājika. With a thieving mind, he makes it leaky, thinking "it will seep out and go," when a foot-worth has seeped out and gone, it is a pārājika. With a thieving mind, he makes a hole, either downward-facing, upward-facing, or straight-through; but this is a point of confusion; therefore, it must be thoroughly investigated. This is the determination here: Downward-facing means a hole facing downwards; Upward-facing means a hole facing upwards; Straight-through means a hole straight like a ladle. There, for a downward-facing hole, made starting from the outside, when a foot-worth of oil flows out from the inside, even if it has not exited outside, it is a pārājika. Why? Because as soon as it has flowed from there, it is considered to have gone outside, it does not count as being inside the pot. For a hole made starting from the inside, when a foot-worth flows out from the outer end, it is a pārājika. For an upward-facing hole, where when it has been done in such a way that the oil from the outer edge of the foot-rest has flowed out, it is a pārājika. For as long as it has not flowed out from the outer edge, it is still within the pot. It is stated in the commentaries that "it should be done in such a way that it flows out from the middle of the pot's opening for a crooked one." This is consistent with a breach in the boundary of a pond, where a hole is made by starting from inside and outside, and meeting in the middle. However, if it is made starting from inside, it should be done from the outer edge; if made starting from outside, it should be done from the inner edge. This is appropriate here. But if one, with a thieving mind, removes the stand or the supporting bricks of the pot, thinking "it will roll away," it is a pārājika when it has rolled away. If one, knowing the oil-leaking condition, or the dilapidated state of an empty pot, or having made holes, the value of the goods is to be paid according to the amount of oil that later came out. However, in some commentaries, it is also written as a pārājika, which is a mistake. If, with a thieving mind, one places a stone or a rock on top of a full pot, thinking "it will fall and break, and then the oil will flow out," and makes it loosely bound, or places it badly, it is a pārājika at the moment of doing it, if it is certain to fall. If one does it on an empty pot, and it later falls and breaks when the pot is full, the value of the goods is to be paid. For in such cases, since the act was done when the goods were not present, it is not a pārājika from the outset. However, since the means for the destruction of the goods has been created, the value of the goods is to be paid. If, when being made to bring it, one does not give it, it is a pārājika by the owners' relinquishment of claim. If, with a thieving mind, one straightens a channel, thinking "it will roll away, or it will overflow the bank," whether it rolls away or overflows the bank, it is a pārājika at the time of straightening. Such actions are included in the category of prior actions of removal. If, by straightening a dry channel, water later comes, and it rolls away or overflows the bank, the value of the goods is to be paid. Why? Because there is no act of moving it from its place. Its characteristic will be revealed in the section on boats. will be destroyed. In the commentary on "breaks or throws away," etc., it is said: "Breaks or throws away" means breaks by striking with a club. "Throws away" means pours out water or sand and causes it to be removed. "Burns" means brings firewood and burns it. "Or renders it unusable" means renders it unfit to be eaten or drunk; if one drops excrement, urine, poison, leftovers, or a corpse, it is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) because there is no removal from its place; this is a Buddha-domain. Although it is a wrong-doing, for one who causes it to be brought, it is a fine." Here, the first two do not fit. For they are of the same characteristic as breaking a pot into pieces and straightening a boundary line. But the latter two can be done even without removing from the place. Therefore, here they state the decision thus: "It is said that in the commentary, 'it is a wrong-doing because there is no removal from its place,' this refers to the latter two. For one can burn or render unusable with the intention to destroy, or with a thieving mind, even without removing it from its place. But in the case of the first two, as stated, for one who breaks or throws away, there is removal from its place; therefore, for one who does so with the intention to destroy, it is a fine, and with a thieving mind, it is a pārājika." If it is said that "wrong-doing" is mentioned in the Pāli, is it inappropriate? No; because it is to be understood differently. For in the Pāli, regarding the intention to steal, some say: "'Breaks or throws away' means mixes with water, 'throws away' means vomits or excretes there."