English
" And here the factors are similar to those of the first schism in the Sangha. But this is the distinction – just as there it is striving for schism, so here it should be understood as making oneself unadmonishable. The commentary on the training rule concerning being difficult to admonish is finished. 13. Commentary on the training rule concerning a family-corrupter. 431. In the thirteenth, Kīṭāgiri is the name of that market town. Indeed, referring to that, it is said later, "Monks Assaji and Punabbasu should not reside in Kīṭāgiri." But by that connection, that district also came to be called "Kīṭāgiri." Thus he says, "in a district of such a name." Those appointed to a residence are residents, permanent residents. They make unmade lodgings, repair dilapidated ones, and are masters over those that are made. Therefore it is said, "he is dependent on whom... etc.... they are the residents." "Those who merely have residence are temporary residents." Thus he says, "but those who merely," and so on. Those are Assaji and Punabbasu. Six people are: Paṇḍuka, Lohitaka, Metti who was born on earth, who was reborn— these six people. "Sammā" is a word of address. "Āyamukhabhūtā" means being the face of income. "Dhuraṭṭhāne" means in a place not far from Sāvatthī. "In the rainy season and in winter," it is said, "by two clouds" in two seasons. Because the six group-teachers were more than one and a half thousand monks, it is called "samadhika" (more than), meaning "sādhika" (exceeding). The letter 'ma' comes by way of euphonic conjunction. "Akatavatthu" means an unprecedented, new matter. Kaṇikāra and other flowering trees, Jātisumanā and other flowering shrubs. "Koṭṭana" means cutting oneself. "Koṭṭāpana" means having others cut, saying "cut this, break this." "Binding an āḷi" means binding all around so that water stands at the root of the plant. "Of water" means of unallowable water. "Sprinkling allowable water" should be understood to include having it sprinkled. But can't "sprinkling water, having it sprinkled" generally include sprinkling allowable and unallowable water? So why is sprinkling allowable water mentioned separately? Because it will be said that "even in unallowable actions for plants grown for the sake of a monastery, etc., sprinkling allowable water is permissible," here too, making a distinction, sprinkling allowable water is shown separately. "Sprinkling water for washing hands, face, feet, and bathing" also shows allowable water sprinkling in another way. How does "unallowable action" include doing it oneself, such as cutting and digging? "Akappiyavohāro" means "that which is called unallowable," thus all unallowable actions, such as doing and having done, are included, not merely unallowable speech, it should be understood. The same method applies to allowable actions. "Straightening the dry soil" should be understood to include removing old leaves, etc. "Obhāso" (shining/appearance) is said because taking hoes, etc., from their place on the ground by hand and putting them back in their place is more obvious. Desiring to establish in the Great Paccari commentary, afterwards... says. Some read "vatatthāya" for "vanatthāya," meaning "for the sake of the vow." To show that some things are permissible even in improper speech, it says, "not only the rest," and so on. "Whatever is a mātikā" means a dry mātikā or a wet mātikā. By "sprinkling with permissible water," it shows that "it is permissible to say, 'sprinkle with permissible water.'" By "it is permissible to plant oneself," it is also established that "it is permissible to say, 'plant!'" "Or for another purpose" means for the purpose of worshipping the object, and so on. "Why is there no offense?" means why is there no offense in making garlands, and so on, for the purpose of worshipping the object. Having given the answer, "there is no offense," now, to show that very non-offense, it says, "just as," and so on. There, it means in planting trees for the purpose of parks, and so on. Similarly, "there is no offense for the purpose of worshipping the object" means there is no offense in having garlands made by means of permissible speech, and so on, for the purpose of worshipping the Triple Gem. For although it is said generally, "similarly, for the purpose of worshipping the object," because it is said, "just as there, by means of permissible speech, and by means of substitutes, and so on," it is understood that there is no offense only in having garlands made by means of permissible speech, and so on, not in making garlands oneself. Therefore, the other person, asking why it is not permissible to make garlands oneself, says, "but is it not?" and so on. The questioner's intention is: Just as it is permissible to plant oneself in permissible ground for the purpose of parks, and so on, why is it not permissible to make garlands oneself for the purpose of worshipping the object? "It is said," and so on, is the teacher's refutation. Then, why does it say, "but not in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā"? For what is said in the Mahāpaccari, and so on, is also authoritative, so this is not a contradiction, because it is said to establish as authoritative even what is not said in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā by comparing it with what is said there. "How would you consider that?" is the connection. And sprinkling with permissible water is mentioned in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā; how is that? This is the intention here. Although in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, in permissible ground for the purpose of parks, and so on, Self-planting is not stated. But for proper water, self-sprinkling is indeed stated. Therefore, just as for a park, etc., it is permissible to sprinkle proper water oneself, so why is it not permissible to string (flowers) oneself for the purpose of offering to a shrine? That too is not contradictory. What is said about self-planting and sprinkling proper water for a park, etc., that too is not contradictory. How is that not contradictory? It says, "In that case..." and so on. This is said: whether planting flower-plants oneself or having them planted, whether sprinkling oneself or having them sprinkled. This is said. But elsewhere there is an alternative meaning. Because "planting flower-plants oneself or having them planted, sprinkling oneself or having them sprinkled" is said with reference to planting and sprinkling for the purpose of supporting a family, therefore, elsewhere, for a park, etc., in planting flower-plants, there is an alternative meaning. Knowing the alternative meaning there and the absence of an alternative meaning here. There, in "planting flower-plants" and so on, because of the specific word "flower-plants," there is an alternative meaning. And here, in "stringing" and so on, because of the absence of such a specific word, there is no alternative meaning. Now, just as because "stringing" is said generally, an alternative meaning is not obtained, so self-stringing for any purpose is not permissible. In the same way, because "having strung" is said generally, it would follow that having strung by means of an alternative is also not permissible. And if that is the case, then what is said later, "Know this, if done this way it would be beautiful, do it so that these flowers do not scatter," and so on, that it is permissible to have it done with proper words, would this be contradictory? It is not contradictory. For having something done by means of an alternative is not stringing itself. Therefore, having something done by means of an alternative, in the manner stated, is permissible. Everything should be understood in the manner stated. This briefly concludes the determination stated earlier. Why is there no offense in carrying, etc.? Why is there no offense in carrying, etc., for the purpose of offering to a shrine? Because it is for the purpose of noble women, etc., carrying. Because the carrying by noble women, etc., is stated there. is the meaning. Therefore, it is said, "in the matter of carrying," and so on. "Māla" means a flower garland. "Like a mañjarī" means like a cluster of flowers. "Like a hāra" means like a pearl necklace. "Both a pācittiya and a dukkaṭa": a pācittiya due to digging the earth, a dukkaṭa due to supporting families. "By an improper expression" means by an improper expression such as "dig this, plant this." "Only a dukkaṭa" means a dukkaṭa due to supporting families. "In both places" means in earth that is proper and improper. "Everywhere" means planted for the purpose of supporting families, for use, for monasteries, and so on. "Also a dukkaṭa" means not only a pācittiya. "By proper means" means with proper water. "Of those two" means of corrupting families and for use. "A dukkaṭa" means: a dukkaṭa for watering oneself for the purpose of supporting families, and for having it watered by a proper or improper expression; but for watering oneself for the purpose of use, and for having it watered by an improper expression, it is a dukkaṭa. "The frequency of offenses should be understood": here, when watering oneself, the number of offenses should be understood by counting the breaks in the stream. But when having it watered, there is an offense for each word of the one who repeatedly commands; even if many water at one command, there is only one offense. "Dukkaṭa and pācittiya": a dukkaṭa due to supporting families, a pācittiya due to harming living beings. "Elsewhere" means for the purpose of offering to a shrine, and so on, when picking. "Once commanded" means commanded by an improper expression. "Only a pācittiya" means a pācittiya because it was commanded by an improper word. But for one who has it picked for the purpose of offering to a shrine, and so on, by a proper word, there is no offense. "Gantima" is that which is produced by stringing. This is the method in the rest as well.