English
this miscellaneous point should be understood: There is a Sangha-act that only the Sangha performs, not a group, not an individual. That, excluding a part of the characteristic of an announcement-act, should be understood as the other four kinds of acts. There is a Sangha-act that the Sangha performs, and a group performs, and an individual performs. What is it? That which was previously established. For this is said in the Parivāra Commentary: “In a monastery where two or three people dwell, even what is done by them sitting together is like what is done by the Sangha. But in a monastery where there is one bhikkhu, even what is done by that bhikkhu, having performed the preliminary duties and preliminary actions on the Uposatha day, and having sat down, that agreement is like what is done by the Sangha.” Again it is said: “But in a monastery with one bhikkhu, even if announced by one, the previous agreement is indeed revoked.” There is a group-act that the Sangha performs, a group performs, an individual performs. That should be understood in terms of the three purifications and Uposathas that are performed in the presence of others. There is a group-act that only a group performs, not the Sangha, not an individual. That should be understood in terms of the Uposatha of purification performed by mutual announcement. There is an individual-act that only an individual performs, not the Sangha, not a group. That should be understood in terms of the Uposatha of determination. There is a group-act that only some groups perform, and some do not. He does. There, without a motion, two only do, not three. With a motion, three only do, not fewer or more than that. Therefore it is said: "Indeed, three, having established the motion, perform the group act, not fewer or more than that, due to invalidity." Therefore, three are sufficient by way of the Vinaya. It should be understood that not more than that. However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: "Although three perform the characteristic act, yet what is done by them is like what is done by the Saṅgha. Therefore, in one sense, three persons are also the Saṅgha by way of the Vinaya." This is said with reference to all Vinaya acts. But with reference to gain, even one, even an unordained person, is counted as "Saṅgha," it seems. Immediately after the dawn of the Pavāraṇā day, they are called "those who have spent the Rains." By way of extension, it is said "starting from the first day of the month," and thus it is said "they have performed Pavāraṇā at the great Pavāraṇā." Otherwise, those who have not performed Pavāraṇā due to an obstacle would not be called "those who have spent the Rains." Pillars and so on should be understood as carpentry work. Some, having put a thin wooden pillar inside, make a clay pillar. But this one did not do so. Therefore it is said: "having made a hut entirely of clay." With copper-colored clay mixed with oil. 85. "Lest later generations fall into the fault of destroying life" — by this supplementary training rule, it is shown that where there is a known risk of destroying life in activities like brick-baking, bowl-baking, hut-making, monastery-building, new-work-doing, repairing broken things, sweeping the monastery, giving fire to a heap, digging wells and ponds, etc., a monk, knowing this, should not even utter a permissible word. Therefore, without stating the reason, in the cases of non-offence for those training rules, it is said: "No offence if unintentional, if unknowing." "Training rule concerning an intermediate offence" is also its name. "Go, monks, break down that hut" — even for those who, having received what was made by this, dwell there, it is a dukkaṭa offence. and it is established. Otherwise, the Blessed One would not have caused it to be broken. This is the method in "breaking, cutting, tearing," etc., it is also a breaking of offenses. For this very reason, in the training rules concerning breaking, etc., it is not said, "having received what was made by another and used it, there is an offense of wrong-doing," thus, it is also established that if one acts for the sake of another, or acts for the sake of stupas, etc., it is only a wrong-doing. Otherwise, in the training rules concerning hut-making, etc., he would have said, "except for setting aside a dwelling for another, in all other cases, there is no offense," he would not have caused it to be broken. However, having exempted it from being entirely made of clay, and having mixed it with wood, stone, etc., and used it, there is no offense. For thus, in the training rules concerning cutting, etc., the method was given by the Blessed One, "having received what was made by another and exceeded the measure, having cut it and used it," and so on. Some say, "by 'even for wages,' it is meant that even if it was made by giving money, it is not permissible if it was made by another, and this is established." That is not good. Why? Because even for one who makes it himself after buying the materials, wages can arise. Or what is the method of the commentary when there is a clear Pāli text? "A hut made briefly with bricks, like a 'giñjakāvasatha,' is permissible." Here, a dwelling to be built by laying natural bricks is called a 'giñjakāvasatha.' That is not called "made of clay," but is called "a brick hut." Therefore, "made of clay mixed with husk, cow dung, grass, and straw, or made of unbaked bricks, is called 'entirely made of clay'," this is not acceptable to the teacher. For ashes, etc., are taken only for the sake of the clay's firmness. And a hut made of unbaked bricks does not fall into the category of a 'giñjakāvasatha.' And Venerable Dhaniya did not finish that hut like a potter making a pot in one go. But he finished it gradually, drying it again and again, by building it with lumps of clay. A hut made of unbaked bricks, like an entirely clay hut, is a single, continuous structure. A hut made of baked bricks is not like that. Therefore, some say that it is permissible. If one lives inside a hut made entirely of clay, having made a grass hut or the like outside, it is a dukkaṭa (minor offense). If one makes holes here and there, binds them, and makes it into one integrated structure, it is permissible. If one makes a grass hut or the like inside and lives inside, it is permissible. If the maker himself lives there, a dukkaṭa arises due to the act of making, not due to the act of living. If one plasters it with plaster, either inside or outside or both, it is permissible. Because a hut made entirely of clay is easy to break, therefore bowls, robes, and the like placed there are unprotected; they can be stolen by thieves and others. Therefore it was said: "for the protection of bowls and robes." Explanation of Decisions Outside the Pāli Canon At that time, the group of six bhikkhus were using bowls of various kinds, using bowl-stands of various kinds (Cūḷava. 253). Relying on such matters, it was laid down that "Bhikkhus, bowls of various kinds should not be used. Whoever uses them incurs a dukkaṭa" and so on, and a dukkaṭa was prescribed for unsuitable requisites. Why? Because it is in accordance with that. Even where it is not prescribed, a dukkaṭa can arise in the manner of "Bhikkhus, umbrellas of various kinds should not be used. Whoever uses them incurs a dukkaṭa" and so on (Cūḷava. 269-270). Therefore, starting with "Herein is what is outside the Pāli Canon," it should be understood that by showing that one who makes any requisite polished or altered incurs a dukkaṭa, it was said "it is not permissible." Here it is said: "Bhikkhus, I allow all metalware except weapons; all woodenware except chairs, couches, wooden bowls, wooden sandals; all earthenware except the filter and the potter's tools" (Cūḷava. 293). Because this was said, is it permissible without distinction to have all other items, polished or altered, except those specified? It is said: That is not appropriate, because it contradicts the Pāli shown. Therefore, this Pāli, "except weapons," was stated in a general sense, that The Pāli is shown as proceeding by way of prohibiting modifications like coloring and polishing, thus both are not contradictory, therefore, it is just as stated. By the point of the awl, by the digging point, as stated in "like a mustard seed on the point of an awl" (M.N. 2.458; Dhp. 401; S.N. 630), by the point of the awl. "At the mouth of the band" means at the edge of the band. "At the edge" means at the edge of the robe. Veṇiuhumuniyupeññāma. "Agghiya" means a shrine. "Gayamuggara" means a balance-beam-like shape, a needle is at the head of the balance, the mouth-cover is a ladle. "Ukkiranti" means they take out, they remove, they make, they place. "Corner-thread-knots" are thread-knots at the corners of bands and such. Whatever robe or bowl is said here to "not be permissible," it should be understood that the determination (adhiṭṭhāna) applies there, and the sharing (vikappanā) also applies. "Deḍḍubha" means a water snake. "Acchī" means an elephant's eye. "Gomuttaka" means lines shaped like cow's urine. Since a key is an accessory for a dwelling, the implication is that even one made of gold or silver is permissible, but because it is said, "coloring and polishing work is not permissible for a key," only keys made of other permissible metals are suitable, as they are accessories to be carried. An "ārakaṇṭaka" is a type of knife used for making books and such. They say that "āmaṇḍakasāraka" is made of āmalaka fruit. Regarding palm-leaf fans and so on, it is said that "coloring and polishing work is permissible." Although these are to be carried like keys, it is said because there is no prohibition "various things should not be carried." Indeed, these are mentioned in "I allow, monks, a fan and a palm-leaf fan" and so on (Cūḷavagga 269). However, in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said "coloring and polishing work is permissible for oil containers,