English
But there is no offence even if it is equal, meaning there is no offence if it is of the same value that he wishes to give, because there is no offence of increasing the original value and making an excessive arrangement. And here, "I wish to give" (dātukāmomhī) is one's own Even if the three are not mentioned, having heard the desire to give, whatever is of value he desires to give, it is permissible to have that value brought. For this training rule is 'price-increasing'. Here, 'price-increasing' means it has an increase in price. The meaning is that this training rule was laid down with reference to increasing the price. "Give a robe!" He speaks referring to any kind of robe, among the outer robe and so on. Excessive desire for a robe, asking from an unknown person, and obtaining by that— these are the three factors here. The commentary on the first Upakkhaṭa training rule is finished. 532. There is nothing to be said about the second Upakkhaṭa. 10. Commentary on the Rāja training rule. 537-539. However, in the Rāja training rule, in the reading "ajjaṇho", they also read "ajjuṇho". "Bhogoti" means "to be enjoyed". What was said in the Mātika commentary: "Having purchased a robe with this robe-money, clothe such-and-such a bhikkhu with a robe." This was said to show the purity of the coming. For if one were to send (a message) saying, "Give this to such-and-such a bhikkhu," due to the impurity of the coming, concerning an unallowable object, the bhikkhu should not even designate a proper-maker." There, no special purpose is seen in the purity or impurity of the coming. For even if there is impurity in the coming, if the messenger, by his own skill, speaks in a proper manner, there is no (rule) that "a proper-maker should not be designated." And when the messenger speaks in a proper manner, such an investigation as "how was this sent by the donor?" is not found. And without investigating, it cannot be known. But if, due to the impurity of the coming, a proper-maker should not be designated, when an unallowable object is sent into the messenger's hand for robes, everywhere, only after asking "how was this sent by the donor?" should a proper-maker be designated. Therefore, even if there is no purity in the coming, if that messenger, by his own skill, speaks in a proper manner, only the messenger's word should be taken. For if... Here, the purity of the sending is the standard. Even if an envoy, sent by the original owner in a permissible manner, speaks in an impermissible manner, a permissible agent should be indicated. Therefore, in all cases, the envoy's word should be taken as the standard. However, by "with this robe-price," and so on, this meaning is shown: even a robe-price that has come in a permissible manner becomes impermissible by such a word from the envoy. Therefore, it should be rejected. For that reason, it is said: "That monk should say to that envoy thus," and so on. Gold, silver, kahāpaṇa, māsaka – these are indeed the four items of relinquishment. Pearls, gems, lapis lazuli, conch, coral, ruby, musāragalla, the seven grains, male and female slaves, fields, land, flower gardens, fruit orchards, and so on – these are items of wrong-doing. It is not permissible to accept them for oneself, or for a cetiya, the Sangha, a group, or an individual. Therefore, to show that it is not permissible to enjoy them, it is said: "Indeed, friend, we do not accept robe-price." However, "we do accept robes" is permissible to say because it is brought for oneself; therefore, it is said. "A permissible agent should be indicated" – this is allowed because it is said with the permissible phrase: "Does the venerable one have any permissible agent?" But if the envoy says, "Who accepts this?" or "To whom shall I give it?" an agent should not be indicated. "Either a monastery attendant or a lay follower" – this is said for suitability. But apart from the five co-religionists, anyone else is a suitable agent. "Indeed, friend, this is the monks' permissible agent" – this is said to show the monk's permissible speech. Indeed, it should be said just so. "Give it to him," and so on, should not be said. Here, in "or he will cause it to be bought," one "or" is a filler word. But "he has been informed by me," and so on – it is permissible to urge him only when the envoy has reported thus, and not merely because it was given into his hand and he left. It was said for showing. Indeed, these words... and so on... where it is said "should not be spoken," there it was said in the Great Commentary and in the Middle Commentary: "One who speaks thus, because of having done what was forbidden, incurs a dukkaṭa in the category of speech, but the accusation certainly stands." Having shown the limit of the accusation that was pointed out, having shown by "a second time also, he should be spoken to" and so on. Here, in "being questioned," he said that the meaning should be taken as "by one being questioned," (stating) "the nominative case for the instrumental meaning." "He breaks the reason that has come" means he destroys the reason that has come. Here some say: "The 'reason that has come' is the taking of a robe. Because it is said 'he breaks it,' it is not proper to take that robe again in any way whatsoever." But some others say: "The 'reason that has come' is the accusation by body and speech. Because it is said 'he breaks it,' it is not possible to accuse him again in any way whatsoever. If he himself gives it, or the original owner causes it to be given, it is proper to take it." Still others say: "The 'reason that has come' is a 'standing.' Because it is said 'he breaks it,' just as by one accusation, 'Friend, I have need of a robe,' two 'standings' are broken, so here too, if he sits on a seat, by one sitting, two 'standings' are broken. If he receives an offering, by one receiving, two 'standings' are broken. If he speaks Dhamma, by one speech, for the limit stated in the training rule on Dhamma teaching, two 'standings' are broken." But having rejected the view of all of these as "improper," this was said in all three commentaries: "The 'reason that has come' is indeed a 'standing.' Therefore, because of having done what was forbidden as 'should not be done,' when the six 'standings' such as sitting and so on are done, one 'standing' is broken." "He stands in various places" - this was said with reference to the specific place in various places, having departed from the place where the accuser stood. They say that "One should go oneself, or a messenger should be sent" - this must be done even by one who does not wish to accuse by nature. Having opened the mouth, oneself "He has become a suitable-maker" means a suitable-maker who speaks out. "Because of not wishing to investigate" – in this case, "We have no suitable-maker" means "There is no suitable-maker who does such a thing." This is the intended meaning. Having said, "One should act in the manner stated in the Meṇḍaka training rule," now, showing that Meṇḍaka training rule, he says, "For this has been said," and so on. Indeed, this very saying, "Monks, there are faithful, confident people," and so on, is called the "Meṇḍaka training rule" because it was stated in the story of Meṇḍaka in the chapter on medicines (Mahāvagga 299). There, by a rich man named Meṇḍaka – "Venerable sir, there are paths, deserts, with little water, little food, not easy to travel without provisions. It would be good, Venerable sir, if the Blessed One would allow provisions for the bhikkhus." By the Blessed One, being requested – "Monks, I allow you to seek provisions. Rice by one who desires rice, mung beans by one who desires mung beans, black gram by one who desires black gram, salt by one who desires salt, jaggery by one who desires jaggery, oil by one who desires oil, ghee by one who desires ghee." Having said that, this was said – "Monks, there are people who are faithful and confident. They deposit gold (or money) into the hands of suitable-makers, saying, 'With this, give to the venerable one whatever is suitable.' Monks, I allow you to partake of whatever is suitable from that. But I do not say, monks, that gold and silver should be partaken of or sought by any means." Even here, "They deposit gold (or money)," it should be understood that there is a notification to the bhikkhu. Otherwise, he would not be reproached for resorting to an unspecified suitable-maker. If he is reproached with reference to the principal, that would mean it has been partaken of. Therefore, he says, "by not partaking of the principal." "One should act as if among unknown and uninvited people." This was said to show that one should not make it a place for self-reproach. However, by sending another suitable-maker, and inquiring according to worldly custom, a suitable item... "It is proper to have it brought, because what is set aside for oneself is one's own property," some say. But in the commentary, "One should act as with unknown, uninvited persons. If they themselves bring the robe and give it, it should be taken. If not, nothing should be said," since this is stated firmly, our view is that it should not be taken. For it is not proper to have an unknown, uninvited person informed by another without oneself informing them. Nor can it be argued that where it is proper to send another and have it brought, one should not go oneself and have it brought. And if here it is proper to have it brought by another, then the saying "one should act as with unknown, uninvited persons" would be meaningless. It shows the deviation of "by a messenger" with "even having brought it oneself." The connection is with "to those who give." And with "for the purpose of alms-food etc." it shows the deviation of "money for robes." Because "the same method" is stated, even when given for the purpose of alms-food etc., all matters like location, urging, and so on,