English
"'Making it into pieces'" means making it into small and large pieces. 87. "'Mahāmatta' (great minister) is one for whom the measure or extent of family, enjoyment, and power is great." Therefore, it is said: "endowed with a great measure of power." 88. "'They find fault' means they look down upon, or they think (ill of)." Therefore, it is said: "not knowing" etc. "Or they think of it as inferior" means they think of it as low. "'They say' means 'What is this? What is this?' they say to each other." "How here does the plural 'dārūni' (woods) come to be connected with the singular 'adinna' (what is not given)?" It says: "This is the meaning of finding fault: 'He will take what is not given'" etc. Since the finding fault concerns taking what is not given, taking what is not given is said to be the meaning of finding fault. Even though the wood was given by the cowherd, because it was taken indirectly, not straightforwardly, the Elder should be understood to have "taken what was not given." In the difference of number: of singular and plural... in breaking. The entire assembly, that is, the assembly with all its members, such as monks and nuns. All the people, reckoned as the four assemblies, are present here, thus it is the entire assembly. One who has an army is a soldier, a soldier is indeed a commander. His name is Bimbisāra; here, "bimbī" means gold, therefore he is said to be Bimbisāra because his complexion is like pure gold. The fourth part is known as a quarter; by this, it is understood that the twentieth part of a kahāpaṇa in all countries is called a māsa, and this has already been stated. It should be understood that blue kahāpaṇas were produced, possessing auspicious marks in accordance with ancient treatises. The Rudradāmaka was produced by Rudradāma. It is said to be worth three parts of a blue kahāpaṇa. They say that in places where blue kahāpaṇas are not available, even in places where blue kahāpaṇas are used and not used, one should take goods that are current at an equal value and determine their value in terms of blue kahāpaṇas. The description of the Dhaniya story is finished. Its meaning... and so on... should be understood in the manner stated; by this, its meaning should be understood in the manner stated in the description of the first Pārājika (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.39): "The Blessed One thus laid down this training rule for the bhikkhus, and another incident arose." And the connection to the subsequent enactment should also be understood there in the manner stated, as it says: "Now, to show that other incident which arose, he said, 'At that time,' and so on." 90-91. Where washermen spread clothes is a washerman's spreading place; a washerman's spreading place is called a washerman's ford, thus it says "having gone to the washerman's ford." Explaining the meaning already stated, it says "for that" and so on. Description of the Word Analysis 92. They say, "A newly settled village, consisting of one hut or more, does not count as a village until people enter and settle there." Therefore, there is no need for asking permission to enter the village or similar actions there. Possessed by a yakkha, that is, with an affliction. spoken as dwelling, or it includes a city of yakkhas. Even a city of yakkhas, when visible in shops and so on, is counted as a village; when not visible, it is not. Therefore, when entering a city of yakkhas, if visible in shops and so on, all the duties of entering a village should be performed; if not visible, they should not be performed, so they say. Again, "desiring to come," by this, it shows their attachment there. But since they depart without attachment, that is not counted as a village; therefore, there is no asking permission or other duties for entering a village there. Now, in the mātikā, only "from a village or from a forest" is stated. Therefore, after showing the characteristic of a village, only the forest should be shown. But why is "what is called the village precinct" and so on stated? He says: "The village precinct and so on is stated to show the demarcation of the forest." For when the village precinct is shown, excluding the village and the village precinct, the remainder is called the forest; thus, the demarcation of the forest can be shown. And this is stated to show the non-mixing of the village and the village precinct. But in the mātikā, by the mention of "village," the village precinct is also included, it should be understood. For the village precinct is counted as a village in the world. And having done so, the inclusion of all places of removal in the mātikā is established. Indakhīla means the threshold. "Goes into the category of forest" because it is stated in the Abhidhamma: "Having gone out beyond the threshold, all of this is forest" (Vibh. 529). "The middle part itself is called the indakhīla" means that even in the absence of an indakhīla, the middle part is so called due to its being in the position of an indakhīla. But where there are no doorposts, there, on both sides, the middle part of the fence or the wall should be taken as "indakhīla" due to its being in the position of an indakhīla. Uḍḍāpento means causing to flee. Luṭhitvā means having rolled over. "Of a middle-sized man" means of a man of middle strength. By this statement, it should be understood that even the falling of a good pestle is done by way of showing strength. In the Kurundi Aṭṭhakathā, Mahāpacc And the noble (meaning) that the house-vicinity is a village, with this intention, it is said: "The throw of a clod by one standing in the house-vicinity is the village-vicinity." "Dvāra" (door) refers to the inside from the place where water falls from the eaves. And "antogeha" (inside the house) refers only to the inside of the porch. By "kataparikkhepa" (having made an enclosure), it is said that such a boundary around the house is called the house-vicinity. But where a house has an enclosure made around it with walls and so on, to prevent cattle from entering, there that enclosure itself is the house-vicinity. And the boundary of a clod-throw and so on should be understood as referring to an unenclosed house. This is the standard here, because the distinction between village and village-vicinity must be known for non-confusion in entering a village at improper times and so on. For if, according to the method stated in the Kurundī and so on, the house-vicinity is included as a village, there would be confusion of house, house-vicinity, village, and village-vicinity. "Thus everywhere" shows that even before this, the latter view is the standard. But some say, "It refers to the view to be stated from now on." That should not be accepted. "And the rest" refers to the characteristic of the village-vicinity. "Therein" means in that acceptance of the village-vicinity. "For showing the boundary of that village" means to show the boundary of that unbounded village. If so, why is it not said, removing the phrase "what is called a village," "the throw of a clod by a middle-aged man standing in the house-vicinity of an unenclosed village"? They say, "Even though 'what is called a village' is not stated here, it is certainly obtained by way of context." Others, however, say, "By 'what is called the village-vicinity' alone, the inclusion of both the village and the village-vicinity should be understood. How so? When the analysis is made thus: 'The vicinity of the village is the village-vicinity,' by this: 'the throw of a clod by a middle-aged man standing at the village post of an enclosed village,' the characteristic of the village-vicinity of an enclosed village is shown." Indeed, if it is taken thus: 'the precinct called village is the village precinct,' by this: 'the throw of a clod by a middle-sized man standing in the house precinct of an un-enclosed village,' the boundary of an un-enclosed village is shown, it can be understood. By 'the throw of a clod by a middle-sized man standing in the house precinct,' even for an enclosed village, if the enclosure is far from the clod-throw, the clod-throw itself should be taken as the village boundary, they say. By the method stated before, by the method stated for an enclosed village. It is mixed up, it is mingled. Here, in house, house precinct, village, and village precinct. 'For entering a village at the wrong time, one who crosses the enclosure of an enclosed village incurs an offense of pācittiya, one who enters the precinct of an un-enclosed village incurs an offense of pācittiya' (Pāci. 513) - since this is stated, the non-mixing of village and village precinct is desired, therefore it says: 'Here, the distinction should be understood as non-mixed in cases like entering a village at the wrong time.' And here, some say: 'for one who crosses the enclosure of an enclosed village, or the place worthy of enclosure for an un-enclosed village, there is an offense of entering a village at the wrong time,' that should not be taken, for in the word-analysis it is stated: 'for one who crosses the enclosure of an enclosed village, there is an offense of pācittiya; for one who enters the precinct of an un-enclosed village, there is an offense of pācittiya' (Pāci. 513). For an un-enclosed village, starting from the house precinct, an offense should be understood upon entering the village precinct, which is reckoned as the second clod-throw. Therefore, in the commentary on the training rule concerning entering a village at the wrong time (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 512), it is said: 'the precinct of an un-enclosed village should be understood by the method stated in the case of taking what is not given.' And in the Mātikā Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. commentary on the second Pārājika) it is said: 'Whatever precinct of an un-enclosed village is shown, by means of that, an offense in cases like entering a village at the wrong time...' should be cut off." If so, does it contradict