English
it is always a dukkaṭa (wrongdoing). That should be understood as written through carelessness, and should be taken according to the present reasoning. There, where it should simply be said, "All Sangha-kamma, except for ordination and invitation and rehabilitation, may be performed by a group of four," it is understood that they write, "ordination, invitation, kathina, rehabilitation, etc." The teachers explain that as "a careless writing." Therefore, it is said, "written through carelessness." It is stated that for every word that is false, there is a pācittiya (expiable offense). Since there is no purpose in stating dukkaṭa, it is said, "in the preliminary application of taking what is not given." For others too, in the place of a preliminary application, it is a pācittiya. If "written through carelessness" here is taken to mean what is intended in the commentary, it seems to fit. But the teachers, having said, "pācittiya in the place of pācittiya," and since dukkaṭa should be stated separately, they say "a careless writing" because it is stated generally as "true or false." Since it is said, "there is no offense in going with a wholesome mind," there is no offense in the statement, "I will give a gift." One is not freed from dukkaṭa in the place of pācittiya; thus, one incurs dukkaṭa along with pācittiya. Wishing that there be many offenses, one incurs ten offenses for each of the ten acts of digging, clearing, and removing. Among these, one is freed by confessing ten pācittiyas for removing. In the Kurundi, it is stated that "one is freed by confessing only one" by way of kind, thus it agrees with the former. Since it is stated "dukkaṭa" in the combined application shown, it indicates many dukkaṭas of similar application. Many in digging, being of similar application, it does not subside. By the authority of the commentary teachers, Just as here, so too in other similar cases, statements found in the commentaries, having come down from the Councils, are to be accepted; this is the meaning. "Here, it should be taken in the second pārājika, not in others," so indeed said Thera Dhammasiri. But in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said, "the previous digging ceases upon reaching the last, and thus by explaining only one, one is freed," and it is also said, "or the previous ceases upon reaching a dissimilar action." Thus, concerning a pot standing in one place, its displacement here is to be understood in six ways; this is the connection. "Kumbhiyā" is a locative case word. Lifting it upwards, if even a hair's breadth is detached from the ground, in this case of pārājika, when the part touched by the mouth-rim is detached from the base, it agrees with "its displacement here is to be understood in six ways." Not saying that, they strongly assert, "when it is detached from the ground, even if it exceeds a hair's breadth, it is called detached from the ground." It should be accepted after careful examination. Here, some explain the meaning thus: "By digging previously, the remaining parts were separated; when that is released, it is pārājika." The statement mentioned in Saṅkhepamahāpaccariya and others, its nature as a careless writing, is indicated by the statement "or makes it enter one's own vessel, or breaks off a handful." As for what is said, "pārājika upon merely drinking," that, just as now, the phrase "the five consciousnesses have arisen with a basis, have arisen with an object," the commentary statement "by 'having arisen with a basis,' the future is excluded," expecting the statement "having an unmixed basis, having an unmixed object, having a pre-arisen basis, having a pre-arisen object," is transformed into "exclusion of past and future," similarly, it should be understood as transformed by such (statements). For the commentary teachers do not speak in contradiction to earlier or later statements. As for what the teachers, having removed and rejected it as "this is a careless writing," recite and teach at the time of exposition, that very thing is also rejected by this teacher as "a careless writing." And what is well... Showing that, they reject. And by showing that very thing, it is rejected by this. Therefore it is said, "But that is right there," and so on. Only "no offense" is stated. The difference is only in the expression, not in the meaning, to show that neither "taking away" nor "neck" is "no offense." If it is asked, "By whom was that carelessly written?" By those previously mentioned, or by scribes; this method applies everywhere. "For the same thing, being a *pārājika* in many places, does not become something else in some places," all this is stated in the sub-commentary. Or he places what is corrupted. Here, because it is done with reference to moving it from its place, from where it will flow out, it is a *pārājika*. But whether one takes it or not, it should be understood from the statement "breaks" and so on, right there. "And it should be understood from the commentary's statement 'breaks' that 'right there' means merely desiring to move it from its place, without actually moving it from its place." This is stated in a certain sub-commentary. Similarly, "It is possible to take the soaked earth from what has flowed out, put it in water, cook it, and take it; therefore, it is said with reference to the taking itself." Others say. It is said, "He places it on an empty pot, it is an offering of goods." That contradicts the command. "When you are able, then take that item" - the one who fulfills the purpose incurs a *pārājika* at the time of the command itself. Moreover, fixed applications like pits, etc., are also relevant here. "There are no *pārājika* cases involving applications done at a specific time, therefore it should be investigated" - some say. Wherever "others" or "some" is said, there, having thoroughly investigated, what is suitable should be taken, the rest should be discarded. "They say" means the teachers say. No, it is said for the preservation of the Pāli, meaning it should be understood otherwise. "Some say thus" - that should not be taken. Why? Because "he discards urine" and "he makes it unusable" are one in meaning, and because the commentary states, "he smashes it with a club and breaks it." But this is the essence here, and so on, with the statement, "the word of our teacher," and so on. Elder Mmasiri said. "It is the view of the Compilers," say some. Even those previously mentioned are the same, therefore, by way of common usage, even one who does not wish to discard it, but does so, is called "one who discards." Thus the meaning of these words should be understood. When this is so, it greatly accords with the commentary's statement: "There is a dukkata due to the absence of removal from its place." Therein, due to the absence of the intention to remove from its place, even that which has fallen from its place is not called "fallen from its place." This meaning should be taken. Otherwise too, due to the absence of thievish intent, a dukkata is appropriate even for one who intends to remove it from its place. 96. For one who moves it here and there, like a peacock that has fallen by itself, there is a grave offense. In the determination of what is in the air, in connection with that, it is said that this should be understood so as not to be confused, even when it has gone into the air, etc. "Thus elsewhere too, with bait," is stated in the commentary. By the saying, "He moves it without removing it from its place," it is said that there is no grave offense in removing it from its place. Some say that even without causing it to shake, there are dukkata and thullaccaya in removing it from its place. "They should be refuted by showing this commentary statement: 'He does not remove it from its place'," say some. It should be investigated. 97. Cutting, loosening, etc., are said with reference to the upper part. He certainly makes it go into the air from its place. Here, some say, "It refers to making it go into the air when it is placed on a bamboo with one end pulled out." But they should be refuted by showing the commentary's statement: "Having cut the root, he moves the ring here and there, he protects it. But if, without pulling it out from the root, he takes it with his hand and makes it go into the air, it is a pārājika." "Leaning against a wall" is said by some with reference to something supported by a wall. "Placed leaning against a wall" is said with reference to something placed on elephant tusks, etc. "Just cut" is said with reference to something that has grown up and stands above. 98. "On the back of what is placed above" here refers to lowering it. For one who lowers it, it has passed the space occupied by the lower one on the back of the upper one. A pārājika offense immediately, for one who lifts it up, as soon as it is released from the water. They say, "This agrees with what is said about taking it from the ground." Indeed, the place where dead fish are is considered their place. For one who kills with a thieving intent and takes it, if it's worth less than a quarter-value, it's a dukkata. Some say there is no pācittiya because of the simultaneous act. Here, regarding "madanaphala-vasādi," the Sinhala word "vasa" means poison, or it is applied in the form of a garuḷa. 99. It is said just as in the simile of the pig caught in a snare before. The reading is, "Only the space not touched by a boat placed on land." They say, "Since 'the wind comes,' if the action is done when there is no wind, there is no theft; but if it is done when there is wind, it is theft." "But to whom should the goods be given?" "Either to those from whose hands the coins were taken, or to the owner of the boat if the boat was not taken by the boat owner," it is said in the sub-commentary. 104. Having climbed up. "Or he establishes what was not done" means "or he establishes something new." 106. Or in the village area, "what is called a village" is not stated,