English
which are individually arranged and have a single roof. And what is said there: "without a raised platform on the ground," is neither in the commentaries nor consistent with the Pāli text. Indeed, even a raised platform ten cubits high does not count as an enclosure. Therefore, what is said there in the second training rule, stating the measure of a raised platform and saying, "This is called a single-precinct enclosure," that should not be accepted. Even in great mansions with one-hall, two-hall, three-hall, or four-hall arrangements, where one can go everywhere after washing one's feet in one place upon entering, one is not freed from the offense of sleeping together. If they are made by enclosing the precinct in each respective place, the offense occurs only in the single-precinct place. They make a wall in the middle of a plaster-roofed pavilion with two doors. Having entered through one door, an unordained person lies in one section, and a bhikkhu in another. There is no offense. If there is even a hole in the wall, just enough for lizards and the like to enter, and lizards lie in one section, there is no offense. a. A house with a hole is not called a single precinct. If they make a door by cutting through the middle of a wall, there is an offense due to being a single precinct. If they close that door with a panel and sleep, there is still an offense. For closing a door does not make a house a multiple precinct, whether it is a door or not a door. A panel is made for convenient use by opening and closing, not for cutting off use. But if they close that door again with bricks, it becomes not a door, and remains in its former state of being a multiple precinct. There is a shrine house with a long porch. One panel inside, one outside. Between the two panels, if an unordained person sleeps inside the shrine house, it causes an offense, due to being a single precinct. Regarding this, if someone thinks: "This single precinct/multiple precinct was mentioned in the 'dwelling' training rule, but here it is only said: 'a sleeping place is completely covered, completely enclosed, mostly covered, mostly enclosed.' And a chamber with a closed door is completely enclosed. Therefore, there is an offense only with one sleeping inside, no offense with one sleeping outside." Such a person should be told: "But why is there an offense with one sleeping outside when the door is not closed?" Because the porch is completely covered with the chamber. "But when the chamber is closed, is the covering destroyed?" It is not destroyed, but the complete enclosure of the porch with the chamber does not exist. "Is the enclosure destroyed?" Surely he will say: "It is not destroyed, the precinct is enclosed by the panel." Thus, even going far, he will return again to the single precinct/multiple precinct. Moreover, if the meaning were easily understood from the mere words, then according to the saying "completely covered," the sleeping place would be covered by one of the five coverings, and not by another. And if this were so, there would be no offense in places covered with planks, etc. Then the very meaning for which the training rule was laid down would be lost. Whether it is lost or not, how can what is not stated be taken? or who says, "what is not stated should be taken"? This has been stated in the Aniyatas: "A concealed seat is one that is concealed by a wall, or a door, or a mat, or a screen, or a tree, or a pillar, or a sack, or by anything whatsoever." Therefore, just as there, whatever is concealed by anything is indeed concealed, so too here it should be understood. Therefore, whether the lodging be small or large, connected with another or unconnected, long or round or square, single-storied or multi-storied, whatever is of one precinct, everywhere, by any kind of concealment, if it is completely covered, completely enclosed, or mostly covered, or mostly enclosed, there is an offense of co-sleeping. 53. "If half-covered, half-enclosed, there is an offense of wrong-doing." Here, even in cases like "completely covered, half-enclosed," the Mahāpaccari says it is only a wrong-doing. But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā it is said: "If completely covered, mostly enclosed, there is a pācittiya offense; if completely covered, half-enclosed, there is a pācittiya offense; if mostly covered, half-enclosed, there is a pācittiya offense; if completely enclosed, mostly covered, there is a pācittiya offense; if completely enclosed, half-covered, there is a pācittiya offense; if mostly enclosed, half-covered, there is a pācittiya offense. Together with the pācittiya stated in the Pāḷi, there are seven pācittiya offenses." "If completely covered, slightly enclosed, there is a wrong-doing; if mostly covered, slightly enclosed, there is a wrong-doing; if completely enclosed, slightly covered, there is a wrong-doing; if mostly enclosed, slightly covered, there is a wrong-doing. Together with the wrong-doing in the Pāḷi, there are five wrong-doings." "If half-covered, slightly enclosed, there is no offense; if half-enclosed, slightly covered, there is no offense; if slightly covered, slightly enclosed, there is no offense. And in the case of 'completely covered, completely unenclosed,' it is like a pavilion of mango trees." By this, it should also be understood that – "just as... until the world does not go to the end of its circumference. The rest is clear in meaning. Origin of the sheep's wool: It arises from the body, and from the body-mind. It is an action, not a release of perception. It is mindless, an offence by designation, a bodily action, with three thoughts, with three feelings. The fifth rule of training concerning sleeping together. 6. Explanation of the second rule of training concerning sleeping together. 55. In the second rule of training concerning sleeping together: "Lodging house" means a dwelling for visitors. "It is established" means it is made and set up out of a desire for merit. "That woman approached there" means having heard from people, "A lodging house is established in such and such a place," she approached. "Fragrant with perfume" means the scent of agarwood, saffron, and so forth is a fragrant scent, and she has that, so she is fragrant with perfume. "Having put down her outer garment" means she did this thinking, "Perhaps, seeing even this impropriety, lust might arise in him." "Having thrown down" means having cast down. "Offence" means transgression. "It overcame me" means it proceeded by overcoming and overpowering me. The rest should be understood in the way stated in the first rule of training. Indeed, this is the difference: in the first rule of training, the offence is on the fourth day; here, it is even on the first day. With visible-bodied yakkhis and petis, and with a female animal who is an object of sexual intercourse, there is only a dukkata offence. With others, there is no offence. The origins and so forth are the same as the first. The sixth is the second rule of training concerning sleeping together. 7. Explanation of the rule of training concerning teaching the Dhamma. 60. In the seventh rule of training: "Householder's wife" means the mistress of the house. "At the dwelling door" means at the main door of the dwelling. "House daughter-in-law" means the daughter-in-law in that house. "At the room door" means at the door of the private room. "With a clear voice" means with a well-emitted voice. "Clearly" means very clearly, openly, not concealed. "Dhamma should be taught" means this Dhamma, distinguished by refuge and precepts, should be spoken. "To understand" means to know. "By a discerning human form" means by a discerning person, by one standing having taken a human form, not by a yakkha, not by a peta, not by an animal. 66. "No offense with a discerning man's presence" means there is no offense for one teaching much Dhamma to a woman standing with a discerning man. "With six or five words" means for one who teaches with six or five words, there is also no offense. There, one verse-line is one word (vācā). Thus, the measure of words should be understood everywhere. If one wishes to relate an commentary, a Dhammapada story, or a Jātaka-like tale, it is permissible to relate only six or five words. When speaking with the Pāḷi, one word from the Pāḷi, and five from the commentary— thus, it should be spoken without exceeding six words. Indeed, all the classifications of Dhamma mentioned in the "word by word Dhamma" are Dhamma here too. "Teaches in that" means teaches at that moment. Or this locative case is in the sense of giving. The meaning is: "teaches to her." "To another woman" means having taught to one, and then to another who comes again and again— thus, sitting on one seat, one may teach to hundreds of thousands of women. In the Mahāpaccariya commentary it is said: To women sitting together, if one teaches, "I will teach each of you one verse, listen to it," there is no offense. It is permissible to make a mental note first, "I will tell each of you one verse," and then make it known and speak, but not afterwards. "Asks a question, being asked a question, he speaks" means a woman asks, "Venerable sir, for what purpose does the Dīgha Nikāya illuminate?" If a monk, thus asked a question, relates even the entire Dīgha Nikāya, there is no offense. The rest here is of obvious meaning. Origin of the "word by word Dhamma": It arises from speech and from the mind of speech. It is active and inactive. It is not release by perception. It is without mind. It is an offense by designation. It is a verbal action. It is of three minds. It is of three feelings. The training rule on teaching Dhamma is the seventh. 8. Explanation of the training rule on declaring what is real. 67. In the eighth training rule— whatever should be said concerning the story of the origin, all of that is just as stated in the explanation of the fourth Pārājika. Indeed, this is the only difference: