English
for one who thinks it is less than half a month, or for one who is doubtful, a dukkaṭa. For one who thinks it is more (than half a month), or for one bathing at the proper time, or for one who, going to the other side of the river, digs up sand and bathes even in the pits made, for him, for all in the border regions, in emergencies, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The Middle Country, bathing less than half a month, or the absence of proper times, or going to the other side of the river, or emergencies - these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are like the wool of a ram. The commentary on the training rule concerning bathing is concluded. 8. Commentary on the training rule concerning discolouring In the eighth (rule), "alabhī" means gain; gain is indeed gain. What was gained? A robe. What kind? New. Thus, where it should have been said "navacīvaralābhena" (by gaining a new robe), without eliding the nasal, it is said "navaṃcīvaralābhena" (by gaining a new robe). The meaning is "by having obtained a new robe." The word "pana" standing in the middle of the two words is merely a particle. "By a bhikkhu" is an indication of the one who obtained it. The rest is clear from the word meaning. This is the decision here: having obtained a robe suitable for wearing as an undergarment or outer robe, and when its dyeing is finished, in any place whatsoever, with bronze-blue, or leaf-blue, or mud, or any black substance, taking a "kappa-bindu" (a mark of permission) of the size of a peacock's eye or a finger-joint, that robe should be used. For one who uses it without taking (such a mark), there is a pācittiya. which. Regarding many bhikkhus in Sāvatthī, concerning the matter of not knowing one's robe, it is laid down as a common rule, not an order, a pācittiya of three, for one who, when it is taken, perceives it as not taken, or for one who is doubtful, a dukkaṭa. For one who perceives it as taken, when the kappaka is destroyed, when the kappaka's place is worn out, when the kappaka's non-kappaka is mixed up, when the bolts, crossbars, and coverings are later put on, for one who uses that covering, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The non-kappaka state of the robe of the kind mentioned, not its being a lost robe and so forth, whether it is an undergarment or an outer garment—these are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are like sheep's wool, but this is an action or non-action. The description of the training rule concerning disfigurement is finished. 9. Description of the Training Rule Concerning Vikappana In the ninth, concerning "having made a vikappana," there are two kinds of vikappana: vikappana in the presence and vikappana in the absence. How does vikappana in the presence occur? Knowing whether the robes are one or many, and whether they are near or far, one should say "this robe" or "these robes" or "this robe" or "these robes," and then say "I make a vikappana for you." This is one kind of vikappana in the presence. By this much, it is permissible to put it away, but it is not permissible to use it, give it away, or determine it. However, when it is said, "It is mine, they are mine, use them or give them away or do with them as you please" (Pāci. 374), then it is called a "return," and from then on, usage and so forth are permissible. Another method: in the same way, knowing whether the robes are one or many, and whether they are near or far, in the presence of that bhikkhu himself, one should say "this robe" or "these robes" or "this robe" or "these robes," and taking the name of any one of the five co-dhamma practitioners whom one prefers, one should say "I make a vikappana for Bhikkhu Tissa" or "for Bhikkhunī Tissā, for a female trainee, for a novice, for a female novice Tissā." to be said. This is another direct designation. By this much, it is proper to store it; not one of the uses, etc., is proper. But when that bhikkhu says, "Tissa the bhikkhu's property... ...or Tissa the female novice's property, use it, or dispose of it, or do as you please with it," then it is called a re-designation. From then on, uses, etc., are also proper. How is an indirect designation made? Knowing the single or multiple nature of the robes, and whether they are present or not, one should say, "This robe," or "These robes," or "That robe," or "Those robes," and say, "I give it for your designation." Then he should be asked, "Who is your friend or acquaintance?" Then the other should say, in the former manner, "Tissa the bhikkhu," or... ... "Tissa the female novice." Again, that bhikkhu should say, "I give it to Tissa the bhikkhu," or... ... "I give it to Tissa the female novice." This is an indirect designation. By this much, it is proper to store it; not one of the uses, etc., is proper. But when that bhikkhu says, in the manner stated for the second direct designation, "So-and-so's property, use it, or dispose of it, or do as you please with it," then it is called a re-designation. From then on, uses, etc., are also proper. The same method applies to bowl designation. Thus, in these two designations, if one designates a robe to any of the five co-religionists by any designation, and uses it without the re-designation made in the stated manner, or without taking it with the trust of the one by whom the Vinaya act was performed, there is an offense of pācittiya. In Sāvatthī, concerning Upananda, it was laid down regarding the matter of using without re-designation. It is a general regulation, not by command, a pācittiya offense of three kinds. But for one who determines it or disposes of it, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. Likewise, for one who has the perception of non-re-designation or is in doubt about re-designation. One who has the perception of re-designation but for one who uses it with trust, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Not taking back what was designated by oneself, the robe being suitable for designation, and its use— these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are just like the first Kathina. But this is an act and a non-act. The explanation of the Designation training rule is finished. 10. Explanation of the Concealment training rule In the tenth, "bowl" means one suitable for determination. "Robe" means one suitable for designation. "Sitting cloth" is called a mat. "Needle case" means with a needle or without a needle. "Body-band" means a strip or a belt. "Should conceal" means should remove and hide. "With intent to joke" means with the intention of joking. "Pācittiya" means Pācittiya for one who conceals it himself, Dukkata for commanding another, and Pācittiya for the other when it is concealed by him. It was laid down in Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six monks, in the matter of concealment. It is a general regulation, with command, a triple Pācittiya, and a triple Dukkata for the unordained. But apart from the aforementioned bowls, etc., for concealing other requisites, belonging to an ordained or unordained person, there is only a Dukkata. For one who puts away something badly placed, for one who puts it away saying, "I will give it back after a Dhamma talk," and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. The concealment of bowls, etc., belonging to an ordained person, and the intention to harm or the intention to joke— these are the two factors here. The origins, etc., are like those of taking what is not given. The explanation of the Concealment training rule is finished. The chapter on Drinking Alcohol, the sixth. 7. The chapter on Living Beings 1. Explanation of the Intentional Killing training rule In the first (rule) of the chapter on Living Beings, "living being" means an animal being. For killing it, whether small or large, there is only a Pācittiya. But for a large one, the demerit is great due to the greatness of the effort. It was laid down in Sāvatthī, concerning Elder Udāyi, in the matter of depriving a living being of life. It is a general regulation, with command, for one who is doubtful about a living being, for one who is doubtful about a non-living being... for one who perceives it as living, or for one who is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa. For one who perceives it as not living, for one who did not intend, for one who did not know, for one who had no intention to kill, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The rest is to be understood in the same way as stated in the section on human figures. The explanation of the Sañcicca training rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Sappāṇaka training rule In the second, "with living creatures" means with those living creatures that die by consumption. For one who knowingly consumes such, there is a pācittiya for each act of consumption. It was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks who knowingly consumed water with living creatures. The rest here is to be understood in the same way as stated in the Siñcana training rule. The explanation of the Sappāṇaka training rule is finished. 3. Explanation of the Ukkoṭana training rule In the third, "according to the Dhamma" means by that Dhamma which was stated for the settlement of that particular case. "A settled case" means a case that has been settled by the Dhamma stated by the Teacher in the section on settlements (Cūḷava. 185 onwards). We will show the method of its settlement in the section on settlements of cases. "Should overturn for a new action" means going to that monk or that monk and saying "the action is not done" and so forth (Pāci. 394), he should stir it up for a new action. He should not allow it to remain in its settled state. For one who does this, there is a pācittiya. But a case that has been settled by the Dhamma is indeed well-settled. If one objects to an action that has been carried out, it should be done after making him understand. Otherwise, the action is spoiled, and the doers incur an offense.