English
"One word" refers to a verse-line. "By counting words" means by counting verse-lines. "Without reaching" means without speaking together. In "ruṃ" (dropping), the nasal sound is mentioned by way of addition; it should be understood that the preceding vowel of a conjunct consonant is shortened. Therefore it is said: "Only the sound 'rū'." And here, if, when told "Say 'form is impermanent', novice," one says "ru" by shortening the "rū" sound, without saying the "rū" sound, it is called saying something else, therefore there is no offense. And having done so, it should be understood that even in "feeling is impermanent," an offense occurs by merely saying the word "impermanent." This method means stopping after saying just one letter. For instance, when told "Mind precedes all phenomena," one stops after saying just the letter "ma." If, when made to recite a sutta beginning "Thus have I heard," one stops after saying the letter "e," there is an offense by a subsequent letter, or by a consonant if one stops after saying an incomplete word. Among the words, if one misses the first word, there is an offense by the subsequent word. The Anaṅgaṇa Sutta (M.N. 1.57 onwards), the Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta (M.N. 1.89 onwards), and the Mahāvedalla (M.N. 1.449 onwards) were spoken by the Dhamma General; the Anumāna Sutta (M.N. 1.181 onwards) by the Elder Mahāmoggallāna; the Cūḷavedalla Sutta (M.N. 1.460 onwards) by the Elderess Dhammadinnā. Even what is spoken by a Paccekabuddha is included in what is spoken by the Buddha. "Based on the commentaries" refers to the commentary that was previously spoken in the Magadhan language and included in the Dhammasaṅgaha. Even now, "Just as a leopard, having hidden itself, seizes deer" (Mil. Pa. 6.1.5) and so on... They say that the commentary statement is to be taken as having been carried up. "Pāḷinissita" means it came in the Pāḷi itself, as in "the monkey and the Vajjians" (Pārā. 66) and so on. "Vivaṭṭūpanissita" means dependent on Nibbāna. But "vivaṭṭanissita" is to be taken generally, he says, "although..." and so on. "Of the Elder" means of the Elder Nāgasena. The treatises are "Discourses on the Path" and so on. Where it should be said, "He teaches by letter, for each letter there is an offense of pācittiya," it is said in the Pāḷi, "He teaches by letter, for each letter there is an offense of pācittiya." 48. "No offense for one who receives with an unordained person" means no offense is stated for one who sits with an unordained person and receives a lesson. Here, "a young monk sitting... and speaking, no offense" means that even if both are standing or sitting, for the ordained person who says, "I will speak," there is no offense. "Having left the precincts" means having left twelve cubits from the edge of the assembly. Even for one who says, "I will teach while sitting," there is no offense because he sits having left the precincts. But if, having distinctly intended, he says, "I will teach even if he is sitting far away," there is an offense. "One line does not come" means it does not come to one who was previously skilled but later does not remember; for one who says, "Say it thus," there is no offense. "Opāteti" means he speaks together. The rest here is clear. Being unordained, teaching the described Dhamma word by word, and speaking together— these are the three factors here. The commentary on the training rule of teaching Dhamma word by word is finished. 5. Commentary on the training rule of sleeping together 49-50. In the fifth, "vikūjamānā" means groaning. "Kākacchamānā" means weeping. Or this is an illustration of the story there. "Did he fall?" - because it was said in the manner of a question, there is no false speech. But some say, "A statement made out of doubt is not false speech, therefore it was said thus." "Without going near" means without going, with the intention that "what is not allowable for these is also not allowable for them." 51. Two nights, three nights... Here, it should be understood that the mention of "two nights" is merely due to the closeness of the words. For when "three nights" is obtained in cohabitation, there is nothing at all to say about "two nights," so the mention of "two nights" is not separately applied. Therefore, it is said, "The Blessed One granted the exemption of three nights for the sake of supporting the novices, saying 'more than two nights, three nights'." Or, the mention of "two nights" was made to show continuous three nights. For if only "three nights" were mentioned, it might include three nights with an interval of dwelling elsewhere; but when "three nights" qualified by "two nights" is spoken of, it indicates continuous three nights. Sayana is seyyā, one lies down there, thus it is also seyyā, so it is said "that which is called stretching out the body" and so on. "Therefore" means because both are included, therefore. "With five coverings" means with five coverings, namely bricks, stones, plaster, grass, and leaves. "By way of being on the tongue" means by way of being fluent. One and a half cubits high should be taken by the carpenter's cubit. "Having one entrance" is said with reference to the singleness of the entrance door. The connection is that a hundred-roomed or four-sided building has one entrance. "For one whose walls are not connected to the upper floor" - this is said to show that when there is no offense in a dwelling where the walls are not connected to the upper floor, even if it is possible to lie down inside a balance, then exit through the same hole, and enter the lower floor through the space between the walls, there is nothing to say about a dwelling where the walls are connected, making it impossible to enter in such a way. It is not said to show that there is an offense in a dwelling with connected walls. "No offense for a monk lying on the lower palace" - this too is said to prevent the possibility of an offense only for one lying on the lower floor in such a dwelling, not to show an offense for one lying on the upper floor. "Having various entrances" refers to a place where one climbs to the upper floor by making an external staircase. "Within the covering" is said because there is no offense for one lying in the open space even on the upper floor. "Aṅkhepena" means in a fitting way. Here, regarding a dwelling with a half-wall, it is said in all three glossaries that "aḍḍhakuṭṭaka" is a dwelling where, leaving one side open, walls are built on three sides; or where, having raised a wall on one side, they raise walls on both sides, making them half-height. But in the glossary, it is said that "aḍḍhakuṭṭaka" means a roof that does not reach the wall by half. That too is not unsuitable. They say that "Vāḷasaṅghāṭa" is a crossbeam made with lion figures above the pillars. Here, regarding "outside the enclosure," it should be understood that where there is no enclosure on that side, there is no offense even if it is outside the area suitable for an enclosure. Here, regarding "with an unpartitioned inner court," in large four-sided halls with an open courtyard in the middle, just as it is not possible to enter all the inner rooms by going directly through the entrance without entering the open courtyard, similarly, when a wall is extended on two sides of each inner room, that is called a partitioned inner court. But this is not such, therefore it is called "with an unpartitioned inner court." They enter all the inner rooms. Because the inner court is unpartitioned, they enter those respective inner rooms by going directly through the entrance without entering the open courtyard. Then, why is it said that its enclosure alone is entirely enclosed? It says, "Its enclosure is indeed the enclosure of the inner room." And this is said with reference to the inner room walls all around. Even in a dwelling arranged like a four-sided hall, even if the entrance to the inner room is not separately enclosed, it is considered enclosed by virtue of the inner room walls standing all around. "Now, is it not said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā without distinction that 'there is no offense in an unenclosed entrance'? Therefore, even in a dwelling arranged like a four-sided hall, there is no offense in a separately unenclosed entrance," if someone were to say this, to refute that argument, this is said: "But that which... (etc.)... individual arrangements." "it was said with reference to a single-roofed apartment." This is what was said: "What was said, 'no offense in an unclosed entrance,' that was not said with reference to apartments arranged like a four-sided hall, but rather with reference to a single apartment arranged separately. For in such an apartment, there is no offense in an unclosed entrance, not in one arranged like a four-sided hall." And in a single apartment, the entrance is considered closed even by merely raising small walls on both sides, delimiting the space of that apartment. But in apartments arranged like a four-sided hall, the entrance is considered closed even by means of the apartment walls on both sides. Therefore, where the entrance is closed by this characteristic, there is an offense; otherwise, there is no offense— this is the conclusion here. Now, having said, "no offense in an unclosed entrance," and then, to clarify the meaning of that very statement, what was said, "it was spoken with reference to an entrance on the ground without a platform," the passage beginning "and what there" was started to show the unsuitability of that. For the meaning of this statement, "it was spoken with reference to an entrance on the ground without a platform," is this: "What was said, 'no offense in an unclosed entrance,' that was spoken with reference to the entrance of a house built on the ground without a raised foundation. But if the entrance has a high foundation, it does not count as closed." Therefore, it was said, "for even a platform ten cubits high