English
A division (anīka) is, by the characteristic of "a twelve-man elephant, a three-man horse, a four-man chariot" (Pāci. 314), three elephants forming the rear elephant division; the same method applies to horse divisions and chariot divisions. And four armed men form the rear infantry division. For one who goes to see any of these, there is an offense of wrong-doing at every step. Standing within sight and looking, there is an offense of expiation. But having left the vicinity and looking again and again, there is an offense of expiation for each attempt. The rest should be understood in the same way as stated in the training rule concerning an army on active service. And there is no difference in the type of offense here. The explanation of the training rule concerning battlefields is finished. The chapter on the Naked Ascetics is the fifth. 6. The chapter on Drinking Alcohol 1. The explanation of the training rule concerning drinking alcohol In the first (rule) of the chapter on drinking alcohol, concerning "drinking surā and meraya": alcohol made from flour, etc., is surā. Fermented liquor made from flowers, etc., is meraya. For one who drinks both of these, even from a seed (small amount) or with the tip of a kusa grass blade, there is an offense of expiation for each attempt. It was laid down in Kosambī concerning the story of Thera Sāgata drinking alcohol. It is a general injunction. It is without specific instruction. It is a triple expiation offense. For one who perceives alcohol in non-alcohol, or is doubtful, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For one who perceives non-alcohol, drinking non-alcohol that has the color, smell, and taste of alcohol, or salt-sour gruel, or vinegar, (or) for the purpose of removing a bad smell, they cook soups, etc., having put a little alcohol in them; in those soups... In fermented fruit juices, etc., with emblic myrobalan juice, etc., they make a non-intoxicant similar to an intoxicant, a fermented liquor. For one who drinks that, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The state of being an intoxicant, and the drinking of it – these are the two factors here. Its origins, etc., are like the sheep's wool (offense). But this is a worldly fault, with unwholesome consciousness, and of three kinds (of feeling). The explanation of the training rule on drinking intoxicants is finished. 2. Explanation of the training rule on poking with a finger In the second (rule), "poking with a finger" means scratching the armpit, etc., with fingers. Moreover, with any bodily limb, with the intention of jest, for one who touches an ordained person, there is an offense of expiation. In Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six, it was laid down in the matter of jesting by poking with a finger. It is a common injunction. Not by command. A pācittiya of three kinds. For an unordained person, a dukkaṭa of three kinds. But here, a bhikkhunī to a bhikkhu, and a bhikkhu to a bhikkhunī, is just an unordained person. In all cases related to the body, etc., it is only a dukkaṭa. Not with the intention of jest, for one who touches when there is a need to do so, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The intention of jest, and the touching of an ordained person's body with one's body – these are the two factors here. Its origins, etc., are just like the first pārājika. The explanation of the training rule on poking with a finger is finished. 3. Explanation of the training rule on jesting in water In the third (rule), "jesting in water" means playing in water. Therefore, if a bhikkhu, going in water above the ankles, with the intention of jest, dives or emerges, for one descending for the purpose of diving, etc., at each movement of hands and feet, there is a dukkaṭa. In diving and emerging, for each attempt, there is a pācittiya. For one who, having dived, goes under the water, at each movement of hands and feet, or for one swimming, with whatever limb one swims, for each attempt of that, there is a pācittiya. In Sāvatthī, concerning the group of seventeen bhikkhus, it was laid down in the matter of playing in water. It is a common injunction. Not by command. A pācittiya of three kinds. For one who perceives jesting in water when it is not jesting in water, or for one who is in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa. Similarly, for one who plays in a boat... Who with hand or with foot or with stick or with clod strikes water, or plays a throwing game with water in a vessel or gruel etc. or mud, an offense of wrong-doing. But it is allowable to cut off a letter that illuminates the meaning. Not for one whose intention is not to joke, for one who descends and performs immersion etc. when there is something to be done, for one going to the other side, in dangers, and for mad persons etc. there is no offense. Being above the ankles, playing with the intention of joking— these are the two factors here. The origins etc. are similar to the first pārājika. The explanation of the training rule concerning joking is finished. 4. Explanation of the Training Rule on Disrespect In the fourth, "disrespect" means showing disrespect to a person or to the Dhamma. Therefore, any bhikkhu who, being spoken to by an ordained bhikkhu concerning a precept, out of unwillingness to do his word, or out of unwillingness to learn that Dhamma, shows disrespect, for him, in that disrespect, there is an offense of expiation. It was laid down in Kosambi concerning the Elder Channa regarding an act of disrespect; it is a general precept; it is not a command; it is a triple expiation offense; for an unordained person, it is a triple wrong-doing offense; even for disrespect shown when spoken to by an ordained or unordained person in a non-preceptual way, such as "This does not lead to purification," it is merely a wrong-doing offense. But for one who, having taken up a traditional understanding, says, "Thus is the understanding and inquiry of our teachers" (Pāci. 344), and for mad persons etc., there is no offense. Being spoken to by an ordained person concerning a precept, and showing disrespect— these are the two factors here. The origins etc. are similar to taking what is not given; but this is painful feeling. The explanation of the training rule on disrespect is finished. 5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Frightening In the fifth, "should frighten" means one should present forms etc. for the purpose of frightening, or one should tell a frightening story. But whether he is frightened or not, for the other, there is an offense of expiation. It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the group of six bhikkhus regarding an act of frightening; it is a general precept; it is not a command; it is a triple It is an offense entailing expiation. For one not fully ordained, a triple wrong-doing. No offense for one not intending to frighten when acting thus, nor for the insane and so forth. Being fully ordained, and making an effort with the intention to frighten within his sight or hearing— these are the two factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the immediately preceding training rule. The explanation of the training rule concerning frightening is concluded. 6. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Fire In the sixth, "intending to warm oneself" means intending to get warm. "Should light" means should ignite. "Except for such a reason" means without such a reason as lighting a lamp or making a fire for cooking food and so forth. Herein, this is the determination: For one who lights it himself, from the setting up of the fire-stick until the flame arises, there is a wrong-doing for all efforts. When the flame arises, it is an offense entailing expiation. For one who causes it to be lit, there is a wrong-doing for the command. If much is lit by one who has been commanded once, there is only one offense entailing expiation. This was laid down concerning the act of lighting a fire to warm many bhikkhus who were shivering. "Not sick, except for such a reason"— these are the two supplementary rules here. A general rule, with a command, a triple offense entailing expiation. A wrong-doing for a sick person who perceives himself as not sick, or for one who is in doubt. Also for one who takes up a fire that has been extinguished, and for one who takes it up unextinguished and puts it back in its place. But for one who lights an extinguished fire, it is an offense entailing expiation. No offense for a sick person who perceives himself as sick, or for one who warms himself with a fire made by another or with glowing embers, or for such a reason in a lamp-lit bathhouse and so forth, or in times of danger, or for the insane and so forth. Not being sick, absence of an authorized reason, intention to warm oneself, lighting it— these are the four factors here. The origin and so forth should be understood in the manner stated in the rule concerning sending a message. The explanation of the training rule concerning fire is concluded. 7. The Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Bathing In the seventh, "should bathe" means: If a bhikkhu in the Middle Country, before half a month has passed from the bathing day, except at the proper time, thinking "I will bathe," prepares powder or clay For him, from that point on, in all uses, a dukkaṭa, at the completion of bathing, a pācittiya. Among the occasions, even merely sweeping the monastery precinct is a time for work; for one wishing to go half a yojana, for one going, or for one who has gone, it is a time for a journey; for one covered by a dusty wind, when two or three drops of water fall on the body, it should be understood as a time of wind-rain. The rest is clear. Concerning many bhikkhus in Rājagaha, not knowing the measure, it was laid down regarding the matter of bathing. "Except at the proper time" - this is the sixfold supplementary injunction here: a general injunction, not an order, a pācittiya for three (types of offenses);