English
crosses the threshold of the sleeping chamber with the first foot, there is a dukkaṭa; with the second (foot), a pācittiya. It was laid down in Sāvatthī, concerning Venerable Ānanda, regarding the incident of entering the king's harem. It is a non-general precept, without authorization, a triple pācittiya. For one who perceives it as not known when it is known, and for one who is in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who perceives it as known, or if it is not a khattiya, or not one anointed with the khattiya anointing, or if both (king and queen) are out, or if either of the two is out, for one entering a sleeping chamber, or in a non-sleeping chamber, and for the insane and so on, there is no offense. Being a khattiya, being anointed, both not having gone out from the sleeping chamber, not being made known, and crossing the threshold-post – these are the five factors here. The origins and so on are similar to the first Kathina (rule), but this one is (about) action and non-action. The Explanation of the Precept concerning the Royal Harem is finished. 2. The Explanation of the Jewel Precept In the second (rule), 'jewel' means the ten kinds, such as pearls. 'Considered a jewel' means whatever is for the use and enjoyment of humans. 'Within the monastery' means, for an enclosed (monastery), within its enclosure; for an unenclosed (monastery), within two clod-throws. 'He dwells within' means, for an enclosed (monastery), within its enclosure; for an unenclosed (monastery), within the range of a pestle-throw. Here is the decision: for one who takes or causes to be taken gold and silver for his own use, there is a nissaggiya pācittiya. For the Sangha, a group, an individual, a cetiya, or new construction, for oneself... For loss, a wrongdoing. For all other jewels, like pearls, for their loss, it is also a wrongdoing. For putting away a permissible item or an impermissible item, even one belonging to one's mother, in the capacity of a storekeeper, there is a pācittiya offense. But it is permissible to put away such an item after making it one's own. If told, "Put this away," one should refuse, saying, "It is not permissible." If, being angry, they throw it down and leave, it becomes a hindrance, it should be put away. If carpenters and others, or royal favorites, working in the monastery, say, "Put away and give us any tool or bedding," it should not be done, neither from desire nor from fear. But it is permissible to show a safe place. Even within the monastery or dwelling, in a place where the suspicion arises, "This might be taken by monks or novices," in such a place, it should be picked up or caused to be picked up, marked, and put away. And it should be announced, "Whoever has lost an item, let him come." Then, whoever comes should be asked, "What kind of item have you lost?" If he matches it by the mark, it should be given. If not, he should be told, "Search for it." One departing from that dwelling should deposit it in the hands of suitable monks, or if there are none, in the hands of suitable householders, and then depart. But if one neither departs nor sees the owner, a permanent dwelling, or a shrine, or a pond should be built with it. If, after a long time, the owner comes, he should be shown it and told, "Rejoice in it." If he does not rejoice, but demands, "Give me my money," it should be made good and given. This was laid down in Savatthi concerning a certain monk, regarding the matter of picking up jewels. Here, "except within the monastery or dwelling" is a twofold supplementary rule. It is a general rule, with a specific instruction. For one who picks up carelessly in an authorized place and does not put it away, there is a wrongdoing. In an authorized place... For one who takes and puts down, whatever is a consumable considered a jewel, for one who takes it by trust or temporarily, for one who takes it with the perception of a rag, and for mad persons etc., there is no offense. The act of doing without permission, belonging to another, the absence of taking by trust or the perception of a rag, and taking or causing to take – these are the four factors here. Its origin etc. are similar to the precept on acting as a go-between. The explanation of the Jewel Precept is finished. 3. Explanation of the Precept on Entering a Village at the Wrong Time In the third (precept), "without asking a bhikkhu who is present" – this is just as stated in the conduct (rules). "Wrong time" is from the passing of midday until dawn. Within this period, without asking, saying "I ask permission to enter the village at the wrong time" or "I will enter the village," if there is no such urgent matter to be done, for one who crosses the boundary of a walled village, or for one who enters the vicinity of an unwalled village, on the first step, a dukkaṭa, on the second step, a pācittiya. Even if many (bhikkhus) enter a village for some purpose, all must ask one another. For those going to another village because "that task is not accomplished in that village," there is no need to ask again. But if, having given up their endeavor, they are returning to the monastery and wish to enter another village along the way, they must ask. Having performed the meal duty in a family house or a sitting hall, if one wishes to wander for oil alms or ghee alms, and if there is a bhikkhu present, he must be asked; if not present, one may go, thinking 'there is none'. But having descended into the street, even if one sees a bhikkhu, there is no need to ask. But if there is a path through the middle of the village, if, while going along it, the thought arises "I will wander for oil etc.," then if one sees a bhikkhu, he must be asked. But for one who wanders without leaving the path, there is no need to ask; for one who leaves (the path), there is a pācittiya as stated. In Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six bhikkhus, regarding the matter of entering a village at the wrong time, (the precept was laid down)... Here, "a monk who is present," and "without asking," and "except for such an urgent matter"— these are the three supplementary regulations. It is a non-general regulation, without authorization, a pācittiya offense for one who perceives the time as wrong, and a dukkaṭa for one who is in doubt. But for one who perceives the time as right, and one who has an urgent matter, or having asked a monk who is present, or having entered without asking a monk who is not present, or goes to one of the following: inside the monastery, a nunnery, a hermitage, a place where wanderers stay, or a place for retreat— for him, if there is a path through the village, and he goes by that path, in times of danger, and for the insane and so on, there is no offense. Not asking a monk who is present, absence of an authorized reason, and entering a village at the wrong time— these are the three factors here. The origins and so on are just like the Kathina. But this is both an action and a non-action. The explanation of the training rule concerning entering a village at the wrong time is finished. 4. The explanation of the training rule concerning the needle-case In the fourth, breaking itself is the breaking. That which has it is a breaking. Therefore, in making or causing to be made such a needle-case, there is a dukkaṭa. But upon receiving it, having broken it, a pācittiya should be confessed. It was laid down concerning many monks in Sakya, on the occasion of requesting many needle-cases. It is a general regulation, with authorization. For one who receives it, having completed it, whether made by oneself or by others, or made by others and completed by oneself or by others, there is a fourfold pācittiya. In making or causing to be made for the sake of another, and in receiving and using what was made by another, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who makes any of these from bone and so on: a knot-case, a fire-stick case, a sheath, an eye-ointment container, an eye-ointment stick, a chisel-handle, a water-strainer, and for the insane and so on, there is no offense. Being a needle-case, being made of bone and so on, and making or causing to be made for oneself, or receiving it— these are the three factors here. The origins and so on are like those of the messenger rule. The explanation of the training rule concerning the needle-case is finished. 5. The explanation of the training rule concerning beds and chairs In the fifth, "bed" means one of the following: a masāraka and so on. And "chair" also... It is similar. But it is too long like a bed, and it is not evenly square like a chair. The cutting is similar to the breaking. It was laid down in Savatthi concerning Upananda, regarding the matter of sleeping on a high bed. For one making it to the proper measure, having obtained one exceeding the measure, and cut it, so that only the proper measure appears above, by burying it, or by laying it flat, or by tying it to a frame and using it, there is no offense for the insane and so forth. The bed or chair exceeding the measure, and making it or having it made for oneself, or obtaining it— these are the two factors here. All the rest is similar to the rule concerning the needle-case. The explanation of the training rule concerning beds and chairs is finished. 6. Explanation of the training rule concerning stuffed articles In the sixth, 'tūlonaddha' means 'stuffed with cotton'. It is said to mean spreading a cover, putting cotton inside, and then covering it with another cover. The unraveling is similar to the breaking. It was laid down in Savatthi concerning the group of six monks, regarding the matter of having stuffed articles made. For a bandage, a waist-band, a shoulder-strap, a bowl-bag, a water-strainer, a pillow, for one who obtains a stuffed article made by another, unravels it, and uses it, there is no offense for the insane and so forth. Here, a pillow is allowed only up to the head-measure.