English
should be done in the manner stated below. There is an offense in both acceptance and use: a pācittiya in acceptance, a dukkaṭa in use. "He himself is liable to an offense" refers to the dukkaṭa offense. And this should be understood according to the authority of the commentary. "To show the blamelessness of another, it is said that he himself is liable to an offense, is blameworthy," some also say. "But because 'he urges' is stated, taking it as 'he urges to an offense,' it is proper to say that 'he himself is liable to an offense' refers only to the dukkaṭa," this is stated in all three glosses. "There is an offense in both acceptance and use" refers only to the dukkaṭa. Because a pond is included in a field, an offense is stated even in its acceptance. When giving, saying, "May the Sangha use the four requisites," if one says, "May the community of monks use the four requisites, I give the pond," or "I give the pond for the use of the four requisites," it is proper. "And from what arises from this pond, and... When it is said, "I give four requisites," there is nothing to be said. When it is said, "Appoint one of our stewards," it is said with this in mind. But even if fields and ponds are not mentioned when accepted according to the steward's custom, it is permissible to appoint a steward. Since it is not proper for bhikkhus to destroy others' property, it is said, "not in the harvest season." They say, "By 'owner of the district,' it is permissible even if given by one who manages that district, without seizing it." "Water-carrier" means a water-channel. In "in the steward's custom," the remaining part of the text is "we will explain the rule." "By means of water" means for the use of water. "Of pure-hearted ones" means solely for the use of water. There is nothing to be said if caused to be made by shameless ones, so it says, "by a conscientious bhikkhu." The "usual share" in this country is four measures of ambana. "New grain not previously cultivated" means new grain. "In an undefined share" means in a share not defined as, "so much share is to be given in so much land." In "by a rope or a stick," they say, "it is not proper to measure with feet." In "or stands and guards in the threshing floor," it means guarding by seeing those who are stealing and taking, and preventing them, saying, "do not take." But if one stands merely silent, without considering, just looking to guard, it is permissible. Even if they steal while he is silent, they say it is permissible to say, "we will report this to the bhikkhu Saṅgha." In "causes to be removed or put away," they also say, "if he speaks indirectly, it is permissible." Since it was not produced anew, it is permissible for others, so it says, "that is improper for him alone." Is it not that it is improper for him alone merely by having been ill-considered, not for all, like the fourth offense in money transactions? For it is said there (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.589), "But if one, without accepting money, sends a steward, saying, 'buy a bowl for the elder and give it,' " Having gone with someone to the smith's house, having seen a bowl, and having had it taken by giving coins, saying, "Take these coins and give this," it was acquired. This bowl is not allowable for that monk himself due to his improper conduct, but it is allowable for others, because the root (money) was not accepted by them. Therefore, what they bring is unallowable for all. Why? Why is it said, "because coins were dealt with"? Here some say, "This was said with reference to dealing with coins after accepting them." And because it belongs to the Saṅgha, it cannot be relinquished, therefore, it is not allowable for all – that is their opinion. But some say, "Even without accepting them, because coins were dealt with, a transaction of money has occurred, and because it belongs to the Saṅgha, it cannot be relinquished, therefore, it is not allowable for all." However, in all three Gaṇṭhipadas, it is said, "The fourth bowl is allowable for others, because it was dealt with using coins belonging only to laypeople. But here, because it was dealt with using coins belonging to the Saṅgha, it is not allowable for all." Indeed, the argument of all is valid in its own way. "At the door of the four-hall" refers to the refectory. "Because it was said indirectly" means because it was said indirectly, "the boundary has been reached," instead of saying "take it." To make it a natural ground, it was said, "earth taken from below," and so on. Regarding "I give a slave," they say, "It is allowable if it is said, 'I give a person.'" Regarding "chickens, pigs... it is allowable," when chickens and pigs are given, it is allowable to say, "We have no use for these; may they live happily; release them in the forest." From the saying, "He abstains from accepting fields and land," and so on, all this determination regarding the acceptance of fields and so forth has been stated. The designation by the monk to the one who makes it allowable, the presentation by a messenger, the subsequent effort, and the acquisition through that effort – these are the four factors here. The commentary on the King's training rule is finished. The first chapter on robes is finished. 2. The Chapter on Kosiyas 1. Kosiyasi Description of the Kosiya Training Rule 542. In Pāli, regarding “kosiyakārake,” “kosakāraka” refers to creatures known for making cocoons, from which “kosiya” (silk) is produced. Those who make this are “kosiyakārakā,” meaning weavers. “Saṃhananaṃ” is a collection, a mass, meaning destruction. “Kosiyamissakaṃ” means mixed with silk threads. Since it is said “avāyimaṃ” (not woven), if they weave it, there is no offense. No offense is stated for making canopies, etc., for the purpose of canopies, etc., as in “vitānaṃ vāti,” nor for using them in that manner. Even if it is made by mixing, if it is brought by wind and falls, since it is unintentional, it shows that there is still an offense. Being mixed with silk, making or having made a mat for oneself, and obtaining it— these are the three factors here. The description of the Kosiya training rule is finished. 547. The Suddhakāḷaka training rule is straightforward. 3. Description of the Dvebhāga Training Rule 552. In the Dvebhāga training rule, “dve bhāgā” (two parts) is the maximum limit, because the training rule was laid down to prohibit taking an excess of black wool. “The third part for white, the fourth for goat hair”— this is the minimum limit, because there is no prohibition against taking an excess of these. Therefore, more than two parts of black wool is not allowed, but more than the stated amount of other types is allowed. They say, “Since only the taking of excess black wool is prohibited, it is permissible to make it by taking half black wool and half white or goat hair.” This is consistent with “no offense if one takes more white wool, more goat hair, and makes it; if one takes pure white wool, pure goat hair, and makes it.” They say, “Apart from black and white, the rest are included in goat hair.” However, regarding “dvekoṭṭhāsā kāḷakānaṃ” (two portions for black wool), it is stated in the Mātikaṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Dvebhāgasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) that “if there is even one extra black hair, it is nissaggiya.” This is to be understood as “holding two scales to take.” "Abbā" (or that reason) is not suitable for weighing. For weighing is not done by counting hairs; If it should be measured by counting, What is the use of weighing? Therefore, this meaning would be appropriate here: Because the training rule is about the object (unintentional), If even one hair falls there among those previously weighed and placed, It is to be forfeited. Otherwise, because of its difficulty to discern, Two weighings should not be taken; Only the lesser one should be taken. The commentary on the two-parts training rule is finished. 4. Commentary on the six-years training rule 557. In the six-years training rule, however, The connection of these Pāli words should be understood thus: "Whose mats children defecate upon or urinate upon, Whose mats are gnawed by mice." "Hada" means to excrete feces, "Miha" means to urinate; Referring to this meaning, it is said: "They make feces and urine." Having made a mat on the days of Pavāraṇā, Uposatha, and the first day of the month, Again, when the sixth year is complete, Making it on the days of Pavāraṇā, Uposatha, and the first day of the month, Is called "making it for six years." If one makes it starting from the second day, however, It is called "making it for more than six years." The commentary on the six-years training rule is finished. 5. Commentary on the sitting-mat training rule 565-6. In the sitting-mat training rule, however, "It will be known" means: If that agreement is agreeable, The community of bhikkhus will appear agreeable. If it is disagreeable, It will appear disagreeable; That is the meaning. The three factors like the forest-dweller's practice (āraññakaṅga) Are stated in the Pāli text as principal factors; It should be understood that they adopted the remaining ones as well. Therefore it is said: "On the mat, with the perception of a fourth robe." "Ujjhitvā" (having discarded) means "having given up." 567. Because it is a sitting-mat, There is no function of wearing or covering; Thus it is said: "once one has sat or lain down." "A span in length" refers to the Sugata's span. And this is stated for showing the lower limit. "If made only for the purpose of canopies, etc.," Because it is stated that there is no offense, If for the purpose of lying down... they do, it is an offense,” so it is said in all three knot-passages. But because it is not allowable, it is said, “it is not proper to use.” And this sitting-mat is indeed a sitting-robe, not anything else, so they say. And in the sitting-rule, a sitting-mat is said to be a saddle-cloth, and in the commentary, because of the saying,