English
as they are accessories for a dwelling." "Rājavallabhā" means those close to the royal family. "Sīmā" here refers to the intended land, and also a consecrated boundary. It is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada: "The boundary belongs to those to whom it belongs, others should not act there." "The land and the boundary belong to those to whom they belong, they alone should prevent (others). But for those for whom a boundary is made on the land of others," They are not able to prevent them, they say. "Because they are causes of schism in the Sangha and so on, 'Do not do it!' they should certainly be forbidden," it is said in the Andhaka commentary, it seems. 86-7. To make a wooden hut, and 'to make' (kattunti) is also there. 'Khaṇḍākhaṇḍika' should be seen like various kinds of things. The word 'Āṇāpehi' (command) is said only in undesirable situations, therefore he commanded the binding. 'Issariyamattāya' (by the measure of power) indicates that the word 'matta' (measure) is in the sense of prosperity. 88. And the reading is: "having spoken such a word." "You are freed by your hair, do not do such a thing again." Is this a statement indicating ill-will, or even indicating a mass of greed regarding the wood, suitable for that king who was a stream-enterer? Should he not, having invited (the monks) with: "What was done before, well done, venerable sirs, please speak again what is needed," have produced great joy and delight? This is true. Being a stream-enterer, he was extremely devoted to the Buddha, devoted to the Dhamma, and devoted to the Sangha. Therefore, being unable to tolerate what was improper for the bhikkhus, and wishing to create an opportunity for the laying down of a training rule, even though he was pleased in mind, saying "My wood is well-used," he spoke thus. This should be understood. In such places as these. In the Gaṇṭhipada (glossary), it is said: "According to the words that come, or with other words, or with fewer words than these, when they come, a suitable interpretation should be made." In the Anugaṇṭhipada (sub-glossary), it is said: "Not only in this training rule, but also in others they occur, therefore, in each case, an interpretation according to the words that come should be understood." The meaning of 'complaining' is due to the non-given not being given; they complained. The Rudradāmaka (coin) was produced by Rudradāmaka and others. In cities like Bārāṇasī, by various kings, blue kahāpaṇas endowed with marks according to ancient scriptures were produced. It seems the Rudradāmaka was worth one-third of those (kahāpaṇas), therefore its quarter (pāda) is a matter for a serious offense. But here, a māsaka is of no measure. A kahāpaṇa is sometimes less than twenty māsakas, and sometimes more than twenty māsakas. Therefore, a fourth part of that kahāpaṇa, like five māsakas, or more than five... A quarter-māsaka, or less than five māsakas, is to be known as a pāda. To illustrate this meaning, it is said, "At that time in Rājagaha, a kahāpaṇa was twenty māsakas," and so on. There, a kahāpaṇa can be made of silver, gold, or copper. Where a pāda, like in Suvaṇṇabhūmi, is made only of copper, that is a pāda, say the teachers. Since a pāda is worth one nīlakahāpaṇa, some say that a fourth part of that pāda would be a pāda. This is not appropriate. For then, a fourth part of the goods worthy of a pāda would be liable to a pārājika offense. If goods worthy of a pāda are the object of a pārājika, then it is established that "that is the pāda, the ultimate object of a pārājika." For not everywhere do they take goods and value them by the price of a nīlakahāpaṇa. Since they value them by the price of that particular kahāpaṇa, it is established that the pāda of that particular country is the pāda, and that which is worth that much is pāda-worthy. "And that is in terms of the ancient nīlakahāpaṇa, not others, and only where nīlakahāpaṇas are in circulation," some say. This should be taken after examination. Explanation of the Division of Terms 92. "From a village or from a forest" is stated at the beginning of the first enactment because it is a characteristic-based enactment. From wherever one has departed, that is called a non-human. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said, "It is permissible to enter a non-human village without opening it, and without asking permission to enter." Some say, "It is not permissible to enter a village in this way if one has departed from that village with the intention of returning." But some say, "Even a place possessed by yakkhas, if visible with shops and so on, is counted as a 'village'; if not visible, there is no offense in entering." Some say, "If taken as a karmadhāraya compound, 'the vicinity of a village is a village-vicinity' (gāmūpacāra), then what is stated in the Kurundaṭṭhakathā and other texts is well-stated." This rejects the statement, "His house-vicinity becomes a village." "The vicinity of a village and a village is a village-vicinity." they say, that contradicts, no. "In the Great Commentary, concerning the marks in these gains and so forth, it is said 'house, house precinct,' and so forth; we do not reject that," they also say. "A defined boundary is the precinct all around a house," is written in the Gaṇṭhipada. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, however, it is said, "Whatever commentary statement or elder's statement is spoken later, this is said with reference to the future, not the past. If it were said with reference to the past, then the statement of the Great Paduma Elder would become the standard, so the teachers say it is said with reference to the future only." "And the rest" means the mark of the village precinct as well. Herein is the method: this is the method for understanding that village precinct. In "entering the village at an improper time" and so forth, it is said in the Gaṇṭhipada, "entering the village should be asked permission for outside." "That does not agree with the Commentary," they say. "It agrees if understood as said with reference to the precinct called a village," is my conjecture. "From the word 'and so forth,' sharing of gains given to those in the house," is said in the Gaṇṭhipada. "Pārājika for those who intentionally do not give due gains to those in the village precinct," is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada. Although it should not be called a "mistake in writing" because it is said in accordance with the words stated in the Pāḷi in the Kurundi and so forth, the decision stated in the Great Commentary has come down from the Saṅgīti. "And this in the Great Commentary" and so forth, is called "the method of decision" by the commentary teachers in Sri Lanka. "To be delimited by a clod-throw" refers to the place suitable for a boundary, not the precinct. For that is delimited by a clod-throw beyond that. In this training rule of taking what is not given, it is said by meaning that it is definitely otherwise elsewhere. Or by that rule, the meaning is applicable here even according to the literal sense. In the Abhidhamma, however, by "and so forth," it shows that it is established by implication otherwise as well. Even if one does not know "this is mine" when the relinquishment and so forth have not been made, just as property of sons is considered to belong to the father after his death, so too, if it is not given away in reality, it is included (in the theft). This is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada. "The act of a thief is theft, goods to be taken by a thief. It is called theft because it is reckoned as theft." This is stated in the ancient Gaṇṭhipada. Since that theft is the act of a thief, and since he is intent on stealing, intent on taking away, therefore, to extract the word "theyyasaṅkhāta" and to analyze it as "theyyacitto avaharaṇacitto" is also appropriate for those ancients. Nevertheless, it should be understood in the way stated in the commentary. "The thought that arises in the initial stage, 'I will take it away,' and the thought that arises in the middle, which facilitates going, etc., or touching, etc., and the thought that facilitates the act of moving it from its place— among these, only this last part of the thought is intended here by 'the thief,' say others." This is stated in the Anugaṇṭhipada. Regarding the thoughts of taking away in cases of less than a māsa, or a quarter māsa, etc., it is said, "The teachers say it is one part of the thought." Description of the Twenty-Five Kinds of Taking Away The twenty-five kinds of taking away are distinguished only by verbal differences, but in meaning, they are not different. They are confusing and difficult to understand for those who have not fully grasped the decisions from the mouths of the teachers. They are confusing and difficult to understand, like the Dukatikapaṭṭhāna Pāḷi (Paṭṭhāna 5.1.1 onwards, Dukatikapaṭṭhāna Pāḷi). It is also said, "Others say it is like the Paṭṭhāna Pāḷi," because the teachers explain it without contradicting earlier and later parts, and without destroying the method that has come down since the Saṅgīti. The ancients are the Saṅgīti teachers. This is the proper course here: if one does not give, there is no offense. However, out of fear of pārājika, just as one who desires to learn gives, so it must be given. The stories here were inserted into the commentaries by the teachers in Sri Lanka with the permission of the Saṅgha, etc., "for the benefit of future brahmacārīs, even after the time of being written into books." A command, a command Even if it is taken quickly, it accomplishes the purpose in due course. It refers to a future time. This is the difference among them. "Bhaṭṭheti" means having gone away. "Antarasamudde aturumuhude" means in the midst of the sea, in the midst of the deep. "Pharati" means it accomplishes. "Navadhototi" means newly made. "Pāsāṇasakkharanti" means stones and gravel. Commentary on the Earth-Dwelling, etc. 94. In the Great Commentary, however, it is stated that whether true or false,