English
What is meant by "how to invite"? They say: "If all have departed, and it is not possible to gather them, it is permissible to gather some and invite them." Why? Because there is no Sangha-act to be performed after establishing a motion, it is not a schism, they say. Here, however, even if some have gone, even if all have gone, all should be gathered, and without establishing a motion, one should simply invite. It is not permissible to gather some and invite, because of the saying: "We invite the Sangha, venerable sir." For all who are gathered later become reporters of what was seen, heard, or suspected. It is as if the invitation is made in the presence of some, even knowing of the existence of those who have not come. The invitation is not like the relinquishing of robes, etc., which are to be relinquished when one has fallen into a nissaggiya offense, by gathering four who are present, because it depends on all. The saying "the invitation of those who are in harmony is prescribed" is also a proof here. Elder Upatissa says: "Otherwise, it is not permissible, as it is not allowed in the commentaries." It is said: "They should be invited in the presence of fewer, without establishing a motion." Newcomers are those who have come from the ninth month onwards, or those who have spent the rains in boats or ships. 237. It is written: "There is a wrong view of ten kinds, such as 'the Tathāgata'..." It is said: "There is no gift, etc." 239. It is written: "We will know after examining, so one should invite with him." The commentary on the Invitation Chapter is finished. 5. Commentary on the Chapter on Leather Commentary on the story of Soṇa Koḷivisa 242. "Eighty... makes them" is the causal statement for "having gathered eighty thousand villagers." Here, instead of saying "in eighty thousands of villages," it is said "in eighty thousands of villages." The village chiefs are the villagers, their thousands. "Made to be mindful of their actions" is said metaphorically. For their dark color arises from action, condition, and season. Instead of saying "for some reason or other," it is said "for some reason or other." Here, the word "evaṃ" (thus)... It occurs in the simile. Thus, in the simile acknowledged as instruction, question, and ascertainment by comparison. "Of those looking ahead" is the genitive case in the sense of disregard. Then, having seen the door of the Blessed One's Perfumed Chamber well-secured, he went by psychic power, skilled in desired forms, entered the chamber, and announced it. "In the shadow of the monastery" means in the increasing shadow of the monastery. "Oh, indeed!" is written as "Oh, great!". The Blessed One's wandering with many was for the encouragement of those whose energy had not been aroused, by the example of Venerable Soṇa's exertion, and to show that sandals are permitted for the protection of the feet of such delicate ones. Explanation of Soṇa's Going Forth Story 243. And there, "Take a sign!" means observe the characteristics of their faculties. 244. "Is intent on" means having penetrated, having made it direct, he stands. By "intent on renunciation" and so on, Nibbāna and Arahantship are spoken of. "For it, having gone forth from all defilements, is called 'renunciation'; and being secluded from the house, is called 'seclusion'; and due to the absence of affliction, is called 'non-affliction'; Arahantship, having arisen at the end of the destruction of clinging, is called 'destruction of clinging'; and having arisen at the end of the destruction of craving, is called 'destruction of craving'; and due to the absence of delusion, is called 'non-delusion'—thus it is said." Some say Arahantship is spoken of by all. "It might indeed be so" means sometimes it might be so, or it might be so for the venerable one. "Returning" means knowing. "Of what is to be done by oneself" means of oneself. Or that is the reading. In "intent on renunciation" itself, Arahantship is spoken of. Some say Nibbāna in the rest. In "intent on non-delusion" itself, Nibbāna. Some say Arahantship in the rest. They say "both in all of these". "And of seclusion of mind", "of one intent on", and "of the destruction of clinging" are genitive cases in the sense of application. Having seen the arising and passing away of the sense bases. Explanation of the Story of the Rejection of All Blue, etc. 246. The reading is "having wiped with a dyed cloth". Because it is said "having removed the scabs, etc.", two the argument of those who say that it is proper to use them after making three holes should not be accepted. Description of the Discourse on the Rejection of Vehicles, etc. 254. Because it is said "more than four finger-breadths," some say that less than four finger-breadths is proper. In "cushions red on both sides," it is written: "saffron-colored is proper, but that dyed with kusumbha, etc., is not proper." Description of the Discourse on the Rejection of All Skins, etc. 255. "Kissa tyāyanti" means "whose is this?" 256. "Gihivikatanti" means "made for the use of householders." It is written: "The meaning is, 'I allow you to sit anywhere.'" Although in the Dīgha Nikāya Commentary it is said: "Except for a mattress, all other rugs, etc., embroidered with jewels, are proper," yet, when it comes to the Vinaya tradition, because one must be strict, the meaning here should be understood according to the method stated here. It is said: "Others say that in the Suttanta teaching, because it is stated for the sake of householders, etc., it seems to have been said 'except for a mattress...etc...are proper' to include them." 259. "Migamātukoti" is its name. "Vātamigoti" is also its name. It is written: "A black lion, a black-faced monkey." "Cammaṃ na vaṭṭatīti" (skin is not proper). The way in which skin will be proper will become clear later. It is said: "Personal use is prohibited." When it is established by "Monks, no skin should be worn," the statement "Monks, not ox-hide" should be understood as having been said later due to the fear of permission in "Monks, I allow skins as coverings in all border regions." The Description of the Chapter on Skins is finished. 6. Description of the Chapter on Medicines Description of the Discourse on the Five Medicines, etc. 260. Because a contradiction is seen later in "by both of these, how do they become more?" with "whatever medicine it may be," it should be understood that it was stated according to what was obtained, without regard to the cause. If it is asked, "Why was it not stated according to the cause?" (The answer is) because of the intention to refer to something else. Even in the time of the Buddha, ghee and the like were expected to be for seven days. Such was the intention of the Blessed One by that statement. Therefore, it was said: "It should spread for food, but no coarse food should be evident." Thus, having received it at the proper time, and consumed it at the proper time, here, no time limit was made. How then can it be obtained that the Blessed One's intention was to expect something else? That those root medicines and the like, having been received, are for a lifetime, as a time limit. But the statement: "I allow, monks, those five medicines, to be received at the proper time and consumed at the proper time," that should be understood as said with the intention: "I allow you to store them and consume them at the proper time on subsequent days." Otherwise, due to the absence of excessiveness, the thought "whatever is medicine" and so on, would not arise. If it is said that they were stated with the expectation of suitability according to illness, due to the well-known permission for choice food? That is also not the case, because it is seen that one becomes emaciated and so on to a greater extent. Just as it is said: "molasses, depending on sugarcane juice," so, if it is said: "ghee, depending on fresh butter," then fresh butter should not be mentioned separately? No, because of the intention to show a distinction. Just as, even though it is established by the mention of molasses, later, sugarcane juice was separately permitted, with the intention of placing it in the category of jaggery-water, due to its general nature as sugarcane. Similarly, it should be understood that fresh butter was separately permitted, with the intention of showing a special rule for fresh butter. And its special rule should be understood, according to the commentary on the medicine training rule. For it is said there: "One who wishes to cook and make ghee to consume it, it is permissible to cook even if it is unwashed." (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.622) There, ghee is always cooked, not uncooked. So too is molasses. Fresh butter is always uncooked. Here it is said: "Should sugarcane juice also be mentioned in the seven-day rule, like fresh butter?" It should not be mentioned. Why? If sugarcane juice were mentioned in the seven-day rule, then, just as molasses is forbidden for one who is not sick, by way of jaggery, so too... he falls into the category of a juice. But if not stated, like a lump of jaggery, it does not become a molasses. Here, by not stating it now and stating it later, it is placed in the category of jaggery-water. For that very reason, it is mentioned in the context of afternoon drinks and tonics. Therefore, is it a yāmakālika (permissible until dawn)? No, because it contradicts the commentaries. If it is said that "upādāya" means "nissaya" (dependent on)? What is meant is: "It should be understood that molasses, a product of sugarcane, is dependent on sugarcane juice" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.623), in this commentary statement on Nissaggiya, the meaning of "upādāya" is "by relying on, by making a condition." No, because no subsequent action is seen later. Just as in "dependent on the eye and forms" and so on (Ma. Ni. 1.204, 400; 3.421, 425; Saṃ. Ni. 2.43), the subsequent action "arises" is seen for the word "paṭicca" (dependent on),