English
one who makes a request to a relative who has not been invited, as stated, one who takes it with one's own money, and the insane, etc., are not guilty. Excessive desire for a robe, a request to a stranger, and obtaining it thereby— these are the three factors here. The origin, etc., are similar to the fourth. The explanation of the Upakkhaṭa training rule is finished. 9. Explanation of the Second Upakkhaṭa Training Rule In the ninth, the meaning should be understood in the same way. This is like a supplementary rule to the former, only there, one person was troubled, here, two; this is the difference here, all the rest is the same as the former. And just as for two, so also for taking by troubling many, the offense should be understood. And in the method of relinquishment, the difference in wording should be known by the phrase: "This robe of mine, venerable sir, which I obtained by approaching an uninvited stranger householder and falling into a choice, is to be relinquished." The explanation of the Second Upakkhaṭa training rule is finished. 10. Explanation of the Rāja Training Rule In the tenth, "rājabhoggo" means that which is to be enjoyed by the king, that which is to be consumed by the king. "Rājabhogo" is also a reading, meaning that which is enjoyed by the king. "Cīvaracetāpannaṃ" means gold, silver, etc., which are not allowable. "Pahiṇeyya" means should send. "Iminā" etc. is said to show the purity of arrival. For if one were to send saying, "Give this to such and such a bhikkhu," due to the impurity of arrival, the bhikkhu would not have to designate a kappiya-kāraka regarding an unallowable item. "Ābhataṃ" means brought. "Na kho mayaṃ" etc. is said to show that even robe-money brought in an allowable way becomes unallowable by such a messenger's statement, therefore it should be rejected. Gold, silver, kahāpaṇa O Māsakoti, these four objects of relinquishment, pearl, gem, lapis lazuli, conch, stone, coral, ruby, cat's eye, the seven grains, female and male slaves, fields, land, flowers, parks, fruit orchards, and so forth— these objects of wrong-doing should not be accepted for oneself or for a stupa, Sangha, group, or individual. Therefore, to show that it should not be enjoyed, "We do not..." and so on was said. "But we accept robes," this, however, since it was brought for oneself, it is proper to say, therefore it was said. "At the proper time" means at the suitable time for receiving, when we have a need, then we accept a permissible robe, this is the meaning. "A steward" means one who makes things permissible. "Should be designated," this, since it was said with the permissible phrase, "Does the venerable one have any steward?" is allowed. But if the messenger says, "Who accepts this?" or "To whom shall I give it?" he should not be designated. "A park-keeper or a lay follower," this was said for suitability, but apart from the five co-dhamma followers, anyone who is a maker of things permissible is acceptable. "This, friend," this was said to show the permissible speech of a bhikkhu, indeed, it should be said like this, "Give it to him," and so on, should not be said. "He has been instructed by me" means he has been commanded by me, meaning, he has been told that when you have a need for a robe, he will give a robe. Indeed, only when the messenger has reported thus, is it proper to prompt him, not merely because it was given into his hand and he left. But if "This is the steward" has been designated in person, and the messenger, in person, gives the money into his hand and says, "Buy a robe for the elder and give it," and leaves, then even if "He has been instructed by me" is not said, it is proper to prompt him. But if the messenger, as he goes, says to the bhikkhu, "I will give it into his hand, you should accept the robe," or sends another to report, in such a case, it is proper to prompt the other as well. This is merely a teaching. This is "by a messenger." Even if one brings it oneself and acts thus, this is the same characteristic for that. "I have need, friend, of a robe" – this is an example of the characteristic of asking. If one asks by speech, this word, or a word with this meaning in any language, should be spoken. But it is not proper to say "give me, bring me" and so on. "May he accomplish it" – having made such a verbal distinction, asking three times, he may achieve it by way of acquisition. This is skillful, this is good. "Up to six times" – this is a neuter word of expression. Indeed, up to six times, for the sake of that robe, one should stand silently, not sit, not accept food, not teach the Dhamma. But when asked, "For what reason have you come?", only "Know, friend" should be said. If one sits or does other things, one breaks the standing, one destroys the reason for coming. This is said to show the characteristic of asking by body. And here, by the highest limit, since three requests and six standings are allowed, twice the standing is allowed for a request. Therefore, if one only asks, and does not stand, six requests are obtained. If one only stands, and does not ask, twelve standings are obtained. If one does both, for one request, two standings must be forfeited. There, whoever goes repeatedly on the same day and asks six times, or goes once and says "I have need, friend, of a robe" six times; likewise, whoever goes repeatedly on the same day and stands twelve times, or goes once and stands in various places – he also breaks all requests and all standings. What then to say of one who does so on different days? This is the decision here. But for those who are proper attendants, if the donor himself goes and sits, it is permissible to ask them even a hundred times. But whoever is not designated by either, and is a 'mouth-opening' proper attendant, and is 'behind the back' proper attendant... and the steward, he should not say anything. Thus here ten stewards are shown. "Beyond that" means beyond the limit of the place of accusation mentioned. "Nissaggiya" means for one who strives beyond, there is a dukkata in all attempts; it becomes nissaggiya upon acquisition. And here, the method of relinquishment should be understood by this method: "Venerable sir, this robe of mine, which has been made beyond three accusations, beyond six places, is nissaggiya" (Pārā. 539). "From where the robe-price for him was brought" means from which king or royal official the robe-price for that bhikkhu was brought. "Yatvassā" is also a reading, the meaning is the same. "There" means to that king or royal official; this locative case is used in the sense of proximity. "That does not benefit that bhikkhu in any way" means that robe-price does not accomplish even a small task for that bhikkhu. "Venerable sirs, obtain your own" means venerable sirs, obtain your own property. "May your own not be lost" means may your own property not be lost. "This is the proper course there" means this is the proper conduct there, in accordance with the supramundane Dhamma, meaning it is the proper practice. Therefore, one who acts otherwise incurs a dukkata in a breach of practice. Regarding Upānanda in Sāvatthī, when he was told, "Venerable sir, come early," (Pārā. 537) he did not come. It was laid down concerning that matter, a general precept, without an order, a tikapācittiya. For one who has an excessive perception in fewer places of accusation, or for one who is doubtful, there is a dukkata. There is no offense for what is obtained without accusation, for what is given by owners after being accused, and for the insane and so forth. The specified status of the steward bhikkhu, not being given by a messenger, striving beyond that, and acquisition through that striving— these are the four factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the fourth. The commentary on the precept concerning kings is finished. The Chapter on Robes, the First. 2. The Chapter on Sheep's Wool 1. The commentary on the precept concerning Kosīya Of the Chapter on Sheep's Wool As for the first, "mixed with goat's hair" means it is mixed even with one goat's hair, even if it falls by wind at the place of its making. "A rug" means the characteristic of what is to be made by spreading goat's hairs one upon another on a level ground, and sprinkling with rice gruel, etc. "Should cause to be made, entailing relinquishment" means a dukkaṭa offence in the efforts of making or causing to be made. It becomes subject to relinquishment upon acquisition. And here, the procedure for relinquishment should be understood in this way: "Venerable sir, this rug of mine, mixed with goat's hair, which I caused to be made, is subject to relinquishment." (Pārā. 544) Following this very statement, all rugs from now on should be understood. For it is possible to know by this much, so we will not show it further from now on. In Āḷavī, concerning the group of six monks, this rule was laid down regarding the matter of causing a rug mixed with goat's hair to be made. It is a specific enactment. It is with intention, by way of causing it to be made for oneself. A fourfold pācittiya offence by the method of causing an incomplete thing to be completed by oneself. In making or causing to be made for another, and in acquiring and using what was made by another, it is a dukkaṭa. In making canopies, etc., and for mad persons, etc., there is no offence. The state of being mixed with goat's hair, the making or causing to be made of a rug for oneself, and the acquisition— these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are in the same way as stated in the rule concerning causing to be washed. The explanation of the rule concerning goat's hair is finished. 2. The explanation of the rule concerning pure black (wool) In the second, "pure black" means pure black (wool), unmixed with others. In Vesālī, concerning the group of six monks, this rule was laid down regarding the matter of making such a rug. The rest is just like the first.