English
, should not be taken, because it is Theravāda and lacks justification, for in the original text, such things are not is the intention to accomplish the purpose. Only in the case of a command is there the intention to accomplish the purpose. It is said, "The rest agrees with the meaning stated in the Mahāpaccariya." In the case of transferring grass, if the other person knows, "This does not belong to me," then as soon as it is released from the hand of the other, there is an offense of pārājika, as in the case of transferring a stake. Some say, "If one knows it belongs to oneself, it is not an offense." If this is so, then five kinds of confusion would arise, so this should be examined. 140. Regarding "out of compassion for others," if it is asked why the Buddha, who had reached the pinnacle of compassion for others, said, "There is no offense in taking what belongs to ghosts, or what belongs to animals" (Pārā. 131), it was indeed out of compassion for others. For if, when taking certain requisites, kings were not to seize and kill the thief, then the general public, thinking that the ascetic Gotama would declare a pārājika offense and make a monk no longer a monk even for such a thing, would lose faith in the Buddha and go to states of woe. And trees, etc., not owned by anyone, are rare and cannot be known for certain. If, out of fear of evil from trees, etc., the lay followers, who are afraid of evil, were not to build image houses, cetiya houses, bodhi houses, and monasteries, etc., they would lose a great mass of merit. And the dependencies mentioned, "The going forth depends on a dwelling at the foot of a tree and a robe made of rags" (Mahāva. 128), would become non-dependencies. For monks who perceive things as belonging to others would not accept dwellings at the foot of trees or rag-robes, and the going forth would not be possible. In case of a snakebite, they might die without taking a tree for ash. In times when robes are not cut, they might go about naked, without taking branches, etc., making the doctrine of the naked ascetics appear as the true doctrine. Then the world would place faith only in the naked ascetics, fall into wrong views, and become a stump in saṃsāra. Therefore, it should be understood that the Buddha, out of compassion for others, said, "There is no offense in taking what belongs to ghosts," and so on. 141. Regarding "Give me another share," it is written, "Since what is taken is like a request, it is neither a gift of goods nor a pārājika offense." This applies to ordinary people. "If But the master, or one commanded by him, gives a share to another companion monk, or asks for it, that other share given, they call it "bhaṇḍadeyya." 148-9. "Bhaṇḍadeyya" to one who eats, whether given to a thief or a master who has arrived, it is indeed well given. "Without distinction" means it is stated without saying "or to those who are zealous," for it is not that the Sangha's property, or non-Sangha's property, becomes non-Sangha's due to the lack of zeal of a few. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā too, it is said, "If they go with zeal, there is an offense for one who consumes with a thievish mind," so both are one. In abandoned monasteries, it is not possible to know the measure of the precinct boundary. But this monk, standing outside the precinct boundary, strikes a bell and so on, and consumes and eats. The meaning is that such eating is well eaten. It is said, "In other monasteries, one should proceed according to the prescribed method there." It is written, "Well eaten because it is within the monastery." "Belonging to those who have come and those who have not come," is said because it was given saying, "I give this to the Sangha of the four directions." Even if it is given saying "to the Sangha" without saying this, it is the same. Thus, it should be understood that one standing outside does not receive a gain, according to the word of the Blessed One. 153. According to the saying "dead pig," it is not permissible to give that very living pig as "bhaṇḍadeyya." It is implied that it is permissible to kill. "He goes trampling," in "bhaṇḍadeyya" here, how much is "bhaṇḍadeyya"? For it is not possible to know "so many pigs have been trampled and gone, or will go." Whatever amount given to the owners makes them pleased, saying "my property has been given," that much should be given. If they are not pleased, after giving the value of the trampled pigs, should a pit be dug and given? It should not be given. Then, if one is accused, does it become a pārājika due to the abandonment of both burdens? It does not. The owner should only be appeased by giving suitable requisites. This is the method in other such cases, so the teacher does not speculate. "He goes trampling on that very day or on the second day." it was said. He throws it into a bush, meaning it must be given as a gift, referring to one who is sure to enter. Here, fear of an enemy army, etc., arose in one monastery. "Cutting off the root property" means that since "they are the masters of all beds and seats," it is shown that others are not masters. 156. "Garden keepers" should be understood in a general sense. "Knowing the intention" means that if the owners do not protect or punish the bhikkhu who accepts the gift or share, it is permissible to accept the gift without concealing it. This is the conclusion here. It was also said, "It is not permissible for the Sangha." "This bhikkhu is the master" means that wherever he wishes, he obtains it for his own relatives, it seems. Also, they say "young." "With the property" means with the land. It was said, "It is heavy property," and then, "Even a blade of grass should not be given." What then is heavy property? It refers to that which is in an unprotected, unguarded, or perishable state. Even in what is permissible, or without saying so, if there is a thought of theft regarding the property of one's mother, etc., which is suitable for taking. This rule, however, was laid down at a time when there was great gain and great abundance, as stated by "The king is pleased with them" (Pārā. 86). The explanation of the second Pārājika is finished. 3. The Third Pārājika Explanation of the Cause of the First Enactment 162. "Pure with three" - here, "with three" is either an ablative case or an instrumental case. In the ablative sense, it means pure from the doors of body, speech, and mind. Similarly, it should be connected with "pure from all defilements" in the sense of "from the stains of misconduct, from the unevenness, from the proliferations," etc., at the Bodhi-maṇḍa itself. In the instrumental sense, "with three" means pure by means of the doors of body, speech, and mind. Similarly, it should be connected with "pure with all sets of three qualities" such as "with the three good conducts, with the three liberations, with the three developments, with the three of morality, concentration, and wisdom." "Made clear" means expanded by teaching, or made manifest, or enacted, or laid down. "Explanation" means A word in the present tense, near the present. Not only Rājagaha, this too is a city. "Sapariccheda" means "sapariyanta." Some say "saparikkhepa." It is written: "by a covering like a swan's circle" means "by a swan-enclosure-shape." "A discourse that cuts off the body" means he preaches a Dhamma discourse that causes the abandonment of desire and lust, that causes the cutting off, in one's own existence or in another's existence. It is unlovely, because it is devoid of lovely aspects. It is unclean, and because it is the source of the outflow of defilements. It is repulsive, and because it is loathsome from its abode in bile, phlegm, and so on. "A description of the unlovely" means he speaks an elaboration of the unlovely aspect, or of the unlovely meditation object. Indeed, this is a dative case word in the sense of ownership. "Asubhaṃ" means he speaks a description, reckoned as an elaborate discourse, for the manifestation and appearance of the unlovely sign. The jhana consciousness, endowed with ten characteristics of beginning, middle, and end, and because it cannot be overcome by the defilement-thieves, is called a casket. Here is the summary meaning of "Therein these": In the moment when the first jhana, lasting for one mind-moment, arises, taking that entire javana-series— differentiated as adaptation, preliminary work, access, change-of-lineage, and absorption— in the sense of oneness as "the first jhana," and taking the accomplishment of the function of that first jhana, attained by higher knowledge differentiated as swift, etc., leading to absorption, in the manner of coming, the purity of practice is to be understood as the beginning, and so on. There, the cultivation of equanimity is to be understood as the middle, in the sense of the accomplishment of the function of equanimity. The gladdening is to be understood as the end, in the sense of the accomplishment of the function of the purifying knowledge. There, starting from the initial thought up to the moment of the arising of the first jhana, in this interval, the purity of practice is to be understood. In the moments of arising and remaining, the cultivation of equanimity; in the moments of remaining and dissolution, the gladdening is to be understood. Having made "it is marked by this" as "characteristic," the earlier part is marked by "in the penetration of the purity of practice," and so on, tiv By this equanimity, the middle is discerned. By the fourfold delight, the end is discerned. Therefore it is said: "Ten characteristics." As for "from obstruction": because of its purity from the obstruction called hindrances, the preliminary impulsion consciousness ending in gotrabhu is called "purity of mind." Likewise, because of its purity, that mind, approaching the middle concentration, called the sign of concentration, for that purpose, transforming it into a single continuum, is said to practice.