English
by the term 'receiving money,' it says, 'exchanging gold and silver.' 'Exchanging what was received' means exchanging money that was accepted, or exchanging money that was received without accepting it, through a proper means. 589. Having changed 'ga' to 'ka', it is written as 'sīsūpaka'. In the word division, 'ghanakata' means 'made into a lump'. In 'Satthuvaṇṇa' and so on, it is thus everywhere: 'Satthuvaṇṇa and kahāpaṇa... (etc.)... and those that are in circulation'. a collection should be understood. "He perceives silver as silver" means he speaks of his own. "He causes silver to be bought" means he speaks of another's. "Why is this said: 'The same rule applies even if one causes to be bought a dukkata object or a kappiya object with a nissaggiya object'?" It is said, "Because..." and so on, for it is not stated in the Pāli "If he perceives silver as silver and causes non-silver to be bought, it is nissaggiya pācittiya," and so on. Regarding "because it is in accordance with that," this is the intention: The transaction of silver is not merely the exchange of silver for silver, but because it is said "If he perceives non-silver as silver and causes silver to be bought," the causing of silver to be bought with non-silver is also a transaction of silver. In this case too, if there is silver, it is a transaction of silver. This meaning is understood even if not explicitly stated. Non-silver refers to dukkata objects and kappiya objects. "Exclusively on the side of silver" means "on one side, the side of silver." This meaning should be taken. Or the reading should be understood as "on one side, the side of silver." Some also read "on the side of one silver," but there too, the meaning "on one side, the side of silver" should be taken. "Why is it that even in the buying and selling of a kappiya object with a kappiya object it is nissaggiya, but in the buying and selling of a dukkata object with a dukkata object it is not?" This is the intention of the Andhaka Commentary. This training rule... (etc.) ... is stated with reference to the causing of silver to be bought with non-silver. "Here" means in this training rule concerning silver transactions. "There" means in the training rule concerning buying and selling. "By that very means" means by a kappiya object itself. Because it cannot be made kappiya again, it is called "greatly non-kappiya." "It cannot be made kappiya by any means" is said with reference to the exchange among the five co-dhamma followers. But if laypeople take it, make it their own, and give it, it is permissible for all, they say. However, by "it cannot be made kappiya by any means," it is understood that silver received and not relinquished, and then used to buy something, Even allowable requisites dedicated to the Sangha are not permissible to use. This is established. But those who say, "Even without relinquishing the accepted money, allowable requisites exchanged with it, dedicated to the Sangha, are permissible to use," for them, "it is not possible to make it allowable by any means" this is not consistent. They say this here: "Because the object to be relinquished was not relinquished, but repeatedly something else was made, therefore, due to the lack of distinction, without saying to relinquish here, it was said, 'it is not possible to make it allowable by any means.' And precisely due to the lack of distinction, it was not said, 'when given to the original owners for the root, and to the owners of the leaves for the leaves, it becomes allowable.'" If even allowable requisites bought without relinquishing accepted money are permissible to use when dedicated to the Sangha, this being the case, why here, taking the final object, is it not permissible when dedicated to the Sangha? By this (statement) "whoever accepts money... and when given to the owners of the leaves for the leaves, it becomes allowable," it is established that even allowable requisites bought without relinquishing accepted money are not permissible to use when dedicated to the Sangha. If it were permissible to use when dedicated, it would not say, "when given to the original owners for the root, and to the owners of the leaves for the leaves, it becomes allowable." Others say this here: "If it is dedicated to the Sangha, it is not permissible for the money-accepter. Therefore, to show how it is permissible for him too, 'when given to the original owners for the root,' etc., was said." "It is just like the second leaf" by this, it shows that it is not allowable for any of the five co-dhamma followers. There, it states the reason: "because the root was accepted." Now, because the root was accepted, let it be unallowable for the money-accepter. But thinking, "why is it not allowable for the others?", he asks: "Why is it not allowable for the others?" It states the reason: "because the root was not relinquished." Even though the bowl is allowable, because the price received, which should have been relinquished, was not relinquished, the bowl taken by him is not allowable for others either. If indeed the price received by him had been relinquished in the midst of the Saṅgha, the bowl taken by the monastery attendants, etc., through that allowable action, and given, would be allowable for others, excluding the one who received money. But others say, "Even if the bowl was taken after receiving the price, if it is relinquished to the Saṅgha, it is allowable for others." If this is so, it should not be said, "because the price was not relinquished," but rather, "because it was not relinquished to the Saṅgha." By "because of ill-conduct," it is shown that a money transaction was made by him. But it is allowable for others because only a money transaction was made by him, and the price was not received. Therefore, from the time it is relinquished to the Saṅgha according to a Vinaya act, it is allowable for others. And showing evidence for this very meaning, he said, "It is said that for Elder Mahāsumma," and so on. But others say, "By 'because of ill-conduct,' only the ill-conduct of remaining as lay property is stated, not the committing of a money transaction. Therefore, because there was no money transaction, that bowl cannot be relinquished, and so it is not allowable for him. But even if not relinquished, it is allowable for others. And to show the allowability for others even when not relinquished, stories like 'It is said that for Elder Mahāsumma' were cited. And this statement, 'He relinquished to the Saṅgha,' referring to its allowability for others, is said with reference to it merely being given up to the Saṅgha, not to its being relinquished to the Saṅgha according to a Vinaya act. And the statement, 'having filled it with ghee,' is proof of this meaning," they say. Regarding the receiving of money and money transactions, by whom only one of these was done, by him it should be relinquished in the manner stated in each place. But by whom a transaction was made with the very money received, by him how should it be relinquished? This is not difficult. "Venerable sir, I have made various kinds of money transactions..." should be laid down thus. In this training rule, it is stated in all three knot-points that "if one perceives a non-coin as a coin, there is an offense of wrong-doing" and so on, that "since non-offense is stated in the concluding phrase of the triad, this triad is stated only in terms of permissible objects." Some, however, say, "the term 'non-coin' includes both permissible objects and objects of wrong-doing, so the first two phrases are stated in terms of permissible objects and objects of wrong-doing, and only the concluding phrase is stated in terms of permissible objects." This is not appropriate, because in the concluding triad, which includes non-offense, there is no difference in object except for the difference in perception. The statement that the instigation of an object of wrong-doing by an object of wrong-doing is not mentioned here, nor in the Pāli, is a supporting argument for this. There are two factors here: the coin-nature of that which is exchanged with one's own money, or of the money itself, and the act of exchange. The explanation of the training rule concerning the exchange of coins is concluded. 10. Explanation of the Training Rule on Buying and Selling 593. In the training rule on buying and selling, in the Pāli, "jānāhi" here means "understand," "grasp it well by understanding," and "this is not pleasing" means "you will not be able to give it back." 594-595. Buying is the taking of another's goods. Selling is the giving of one's own goods. Therefore, it is said, "give this for that," and so on. Since "bought" means taken from another's hand, and "sold" means given into another's hand, it is said, "it is bought by making another's goods come into one's own hand, and it is sold by making one's own goods come into another's hand." If so, why does the Pāli, after saying "it is bought and sold" from another, then say "one's own goods into another's hand, another's goods into one's own hand"? It is said, "in accordance with the words 'this for that,' and so on." For "this" refers to one's own possession. In accordance with that, the Pāli first presents one's own goods, not in accordance with the terms "buying and selling." For that is the opposite. is established by prioritizing the taking of what belongs to others, unrighteously. Even if to other relatives, saying "give this" is not a request, but to show the absence of the falling away of a gift of faith, he says, "but to a mother or father." "It is not a request" is said with reference to a separate notification. Saying this without saying anything else, he is said to be notifying a stranger— "a request to a stranger saying 'give this'." Without saying anything else, what is given saying "take this" is said to be given to a stranger, which is called "the falling away of a gift of faith."