English
“Monks, a sick attendant endowed with five qualities is fit to attend to a sick person. He is able to prepare medicines. He knows what is suitable and unsuitable. He removes what is unsuitable, and provides what is suitable. He attends to the sick person with a mind of loving-kindness, not with a mind of gain. He is not disgusted to remove excrement, urine, spit, or vomit. He is able to instruct, to rouse, to encourage, to gladden the sick person with a talk on Dhamma from time to time.” (Mahāvagga 366) One should be endowed with these five qualities thus stated. 12. When giving a talk on Dhamma (Mahāvagga Commentary 2.180), one should not praise death to a sick monk, saying: “You are virtuous and have done good deeds. Why do you fear dying? For a virtuous person, heaven is surely connected with death itself.” For if, having heard such praise, he dies prematurely by some means, such as cutting off food, even when only one thought-moment of his life remains, he is killed by this. But a wise monk should give instruction in this way: “For a virtuous person, the attainment of the path and fruits is not uncommon. Therefore, without attachment to monasteries and so on, establish mindfulness regarding the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, and the body, and be diligent in attention.” If death is praised, and he dies naturally, according to his lifespan and his rebirth-linking, without resorting to any means due to that praise, the praiser is not liable for an offense. 13. “And, monks, one should not kill oneself. Whoever kills himself, there is an offense of wrong-doing.” (Pārājika 183) According to this saying, a sick monk (Pārājika Commentary 2.182-183) should not kill himself by any means, not even by cutting off food. is not allowed. And if a sick person, with medicine and attendants available, wishes to die and cuts off food, it is a dukkaṭa offense. But if one has a great illness, long-lasting, and the bhikkhus attending are weary, disgusted, and complain, "When will we be free from this sick person?" If that person, thinking, "This body, even if cared for, will not last, and the bhikkhus are weary," cuts off food, does not take medicine, it is permissible. And if one, thinking, "This disease is severe, the life-span will not last, and this special attainment seems to be within my grasp," cuts off food, it is permissible. Even for one who is not sick, but has arisen in urgency, thinking, "Seeking food is a proliferation, I will devote myself to meditation," if one cuts off food on account of meditation, it is permissible. If one declares a special attainment and then cuts off food, it is not permissible. For it is permissible to speak to like-minded, conscientious bhikkhus. 14. "And, bhikkhus, one should not sit on a seat without examining it. Whoever sits, there is an offense of dukkaṭa," according to this saying, one should not sit on a seat without examining it. What kind of seat should be examined, and what kind should not be examined? That which is a clean seat itself, without a covering, and that which is spread out in front of those who have come and are standing, that should not be examined; it is permissible to sit. And that which people themselves step on with their hands and offer, saying, "Bhante, please sit here," it is permissible to sit on that. Even if one has already come and sat down, and afterwards moves up or down, there is no need for examination. And that which is covered with a thin cloth so that the surface is visible, there is no need for examination on that either. But that which is covered beforehand with a cloak or rug, etc., that should be touched with the hand, observed, and then sat upon. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said: "Even if covered with a thick cloth, if there is no fold..." it should not be looked into." 15. "Monks, a stone should not be thrown for sport. Whoever throws it incurs an offense of wrong-doing," (Pārā. 183) means that a stone should not be thrown with an intention of amusement. And not only (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.182-183) a stone, but also any piece of wood or piece of brick should not be thrown with the hand or with a machine. For the purpose of stupas and so on, stones are thrown, hurled, and lifted by those who are laughing, and it is permissible "when it is time for work." And doing other such new work, or washing clothes, or lifting a washing stick for a tree and throwing it, is permissible. At times of food distribution and so on, throwing a stick or a potsherd at crows or dogs to drive them away is permissible. 16. "Monks, a forest should not be set on fire. Whoever sets it on fire incurs an offense of wrong-doing," (Cūḷava. 283) means that fire should not be given to a forest. If (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.190) however, one gives fire with the thought, "Let any creature here die," then depending on the nature of the offenses of defeat, immediately following grave offenses, and offenses entailing expiation, there are offenses of defeat and so on, and it is a mass of unwholesome deeds. For one who gives fire with the thought, "Let the wet grass and plants burn," there is an offense entailing expiation. For one who gives fire with the thought, "Let the utensils be destroyed," there is an offense of wrong-doing. "Even with an intention of sport, there is an offense of wrong-doing," is stated in the short commentary. For one who gives fire with the thought, "Let anything, wet or dry, animate or inanimate, burn," offenses of defeat, grave offenses, offenses entailing expiation, and offenses of wrong-doing should be understood according to the object. However, giving a counter-fire and making a firebreak are permitted by the Blessed One. Therefore, seeing a fire coming, given by forest workers in the wilderness or arisen by itself, it is permissible to give a counter-fire to that fire with the thought, "Let the grass huts not be destroyed," so that the approaching fire, joining with it, becomes without fuel and is extinguished. "It is also permissible to make a firebreak" around the grass huts. Clearing the ground or digging a ditch, just as a fire that has come, not finding fuel, is extinguished, all this, when fire has arisen, if there are no unordained persons, it is permissible to do it oneself. But if it has not arisen, it should be caused to be done by unordained persons in a permissible manner, and those extinguishing with water should sprinkle only water free from living creatures. 17. In families without faith, holding wrong views, having received choice food respectfully, without examining it, it should neither be consumed by oneself, nor given to others. For those families give alms-food even mixed with poison. And whatever food or snack is received from them that has been defiled, that too should not be consumed. For those families give even uncovered things that have been lain upon by snakes, scorpions, etc., which are fit to be discarded. Even alms-food smeared with perfumes, turmeric, etc., should not be taken from them. For they think that even food that has been wiped on diseased parts of the body should be given. 18. It is said, "There is no offense, monks, in the gift of a herdsman." (Pārā. 156) Therein (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.156), what kind of herdsman's gift is permissible, and what is not? First, Mahāsumatthera said: "That which is given to the herdsman having been delimited, 'Take this much day by day,' only that is permissible; beyond that is not permissible." But Mahāpadumatthera said: "Is there anything given to herdsmen by placing a leaf or making a sign? They are masters of what is entrusted to their hands, therefore, whatever they give, even if it is much, is permissible." But in the Kurunda Commentary it is said: "Children protect the gardens of people or other fruits and produce; what is given by them is permissible, but it should not be taken after causing it to be brought. But for one who protects the property of the Sangha or of a cetiya, having taken it for a price, only his own share is permissible if he protects for wages." But in the Mahāpaccariya it is said: "Whatever the lay garden-keepers give to the monks, that too..." is allowable. What the monastery caretakers, for the Sangha of bhikkhus, cut and give from their own wages, that is allowable. And whoever, having received wages, guards half the monastery or some trees, for him too, it is allowable to give from the trees that have come into his possession. But for one who guards them for a share, all is allowable, it is said. All this, however, differs in expression, but is one in meaning; therefore, it should be understood by grasping the intention. Moreover, this determination should also be known here (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.156): Where residents do not give to visitors, and when the fruit season arrives, seeing the absence of others, they themselves eat them by stealth, there, it is allowable for visitors to strike the bell, divide, and consume them. But where residents guard the trees and, when the fruit season arrives, divide and eat them, and properly provide the four requisites, there, visitors have no authority. And even over trees designated and given for robes, visitors have no authority. This is the rule for those designated and given for the remaining requisites. But if, not having designated them thus, the residents guard and protect them and consume them by stealth, their agreement should not be upheld regarding these. If they are given for the enjoyment of fruit, and the residents guard and protect them and properly provide them, only in these cases should their agreement be upheld. In the Mahāpaccariya, however, it is said: "One who consumes with a thieving mind what is designated for the four requisites should be made to pay for the goods, having them valued. For one who consumes by dividing for use, there is a debt for the goods. And what is designated for lodging here, for one who consumes it by dividing for use, there is a grave offense