English
to parents who have become sectarians. "Pitucchā" means father's sister. Even if they do not ask, thinking "it is difficult to ask," or being unable to speak thus themselves. Or having made the thought, "When they will have need." "According to the saying, 'Or it is not medical work,' up to seven It is a family custom, It is proper to make medicine," they say. "In all places" means For chief mothers, For young mothers, and so on. Having sought in the manner stated, That is, "by novices or" and so on. "Not without a request," they say. "If he expects, it is a dukkata," they say. In a permissible way, That is, "bring flowers" and so on. "Because it was said, 'he made an offering,' It is not proper to take it oneself," they say. But when it is said, "Speak," It should be done. For it is proper to speak the Dhamma. If they do not know, The feet should not be removed. For they consider it inauspicious. For Coranāga, If given touched, he will be angry. If not touched, it is not proper. So, taking a little rice Between his fingers, He gave all the rice in the bowl. He was pleased by that. "Varapotthakacittattharaṇa" Means a beautiful embroidered mat, A variation of a mat To be made by sewing. King Pita, defeated by the Damila, Lived in Rohana for sixteen years. Surrounded by friends and ministers, He came, saying, "I will take the kingdom." On the way, for a small reason, He had one minister killed. The rest, fleeing in fear, Were plundered by robbers In the forest on the way. They went to Hambugallaka Vihāra. There, the Elder Cātunikāyika Tissa Helped them, Brought them back, And showed them to the king. Having taken the kingdom with them, The king made Abhayagiri Vihāra For the Elder Hambugallaka Tissa. The others also, it is said, Had one vihāra each built. 187. Sending someone near a thief Is like "sending him to a demon-haunted monastery." Why? Because of the intention to kill. Sending a fisherman to a pond and so on, Under a false pretext, Saying "go to the pond's edge" For catching fish and so on, Must involve the destruction of life. It is like "he sent him to a demon-haunted monastery." Why? In accordance with the saying "Because of the intention to kill," And because it is said in the commentary, "Thus also to a demon." 189. "Cutting that which is there" - The word "that" is not in some texts. In others, the meaning is One incurs a pārājika or a thullaccaya. "Having cut this..." Having gone quickly, "I will give the bowl and robe to the Sangha," even with such a wholesome mind, it is not permissible to cut, because it is not permitted. But for another bhikkhu, it is permissible, because it is permitted. 190. How so? For the protection of a hut, indeed, the Blessed One permitted things like giving a new roof, for a hut, indeed, is for the benefit of bhikkhus. Therefore, it is said, "There is nothing to be said here that 'for the protection of a bhikkhu, it is permissible for another bhikkhu.'" If so, for covering the nakedness of one whose robe has been stolen, the Blessed One permitted the felling of plants. And for the protection of life in the case of a snakebite, it was permitted. Therefore, "even life should be sacrificed, and a tree should not be cut," etc., should not be said. Therefore, that example is not authoritative. The commentary master is the authority here. But here is the teacher's reasoning: Even in the case of noble persons, beings, seeing nakedness, might become displeased and go to hell. And likewise, snakes, having bitten, for the release of their evil, the felling of plants was permitted. For the protection of the donors' minds, things like giving a new roof (were permitted). Otherwise, there would be an obstacle to merit for the world, and an obstacle to gain for the Sangha. But for the killer, there is no benefit to the mind. But seeing that non-transgression, or the sacrifice of life, one might gain only admiration, thinking, "Oh, what a difficult thing has been done!" Therefore, it is not permissible for oneself, but it is permissible for another. Otherwise, it would be the success of false doctrines for other sects. But in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is written: "For one cutting a tree for the sake of life, because of cutting out of self-attachment, it is unwholesome, so it is not permissible. For another, it is permissible." When many are covered by a tree, or have fallen into a pit, it is permissible for one to perform tree-cutting etc. for the sake of another. Why? Because of the intention to protect others. "Paritta" means protection. To show that, "clearing the ground all around," etc., was said. 191. But when killed by three, it is doubtful. Here, even if killed by one of the three, "because he entered the field, it is a pārājika." Because it was said, if all three, having become one, kill, it is an offense. Therefore it was said: "or within the boundary, without doubt." But because it was said: "beyond the boundary, there is doubt everywhere," if a third person, having taken the strength of two, kills, it seems to be an offense; it should be investigated. When it is said: "let two kill," if killed by one or by two, it is a pārājika. They say: "if there is death from two blows, then it is called 'killed by two'; if not, it is only one; therefore it should be known." The explanation of the third pārājika is finished. 4. The Fourth Pārājika The explanation of the story of the monk from the Vaggumudā riverbank 193. In the fourth (pārājika), "it is beautiful and it delights beings" - thus Vaggumudā. "Vaggumadā" is also a reading. Its meaning is "it is beautiful and delicate due to its abundance of clear, pure waves," like in "the beauty of life, the meaning of life" and "blue lotus," etc. And the etymology of "Madassā" should be known as "a river abundant with many foods, drinks, etc., on festive days." Indeed, the meaning is "beautiful, pure, approved by people." "will be spoken" is the remainder of the text. 194-5. "Vaṇṇavā" (beautiful), "vaṇṇavanto" (beautiful ones), "vaṇṇavantāni" (beautiful things) are also formed, it seems, in the plural. Because there is no deficiency or fullness of the faculties, therefore it is said: "due to the completeness of the established space." The established space of the sixth (sense) is the heart-base. In the cycle of the four postures, the natural faculties. "It burns itself" means "it burns by itself." The intention is "having penetrated by itself, it reveals." "Santanti" (are) is present tense. "Gotrabhū" means "merely a name" because it experiences merely the lineage. The explanation of the rule with its analysis 197. In the word-analysis, because "the three knowledges" was said, are the formless attainments rejected? No, because right there it was said, specifying with the word "dassana" (vision/insight): "what is knowledge, that is vision; what is vision, that is knowledge." Therefore, in the commentary itself, it is said: "the word-analysis was stated with 'knowledge' as the head." "Having made it the front" means "having made it primary." A. Explanation of the Word Analysis 199. Because they are the cause of future arising lust and so forth, lust and so forth are called the sign. And if, referring to any one of the three knowledges, he says, "I am a possessor of knowledges," it is a pārājika offense. It is not said that only the destruction of defilements from knowledge of objects and so forth is meant, because at that moment the superior human state does not arise, you say? No, because it clarifies the path's function. Therefore, it is said, "Without the path, there is nothing," and so forth. "Mind" means the mind's freedom from hindrances. They say: "If one says, 'As long as knowledge has not arisen, I am a possessor of insight knowledge,' and if he refers to the supramundane, and he also knows it to be so, it is a pārājika offense, because the supramundane also bears that name." "It is said that even one speaking without distinction commits a pārājika offense, so it is appropriate to say 'pārājika' for one speaking with reference to the supramundane. Just as, in the statement, 'Even one who says, "I am a possessor of knowledges," commits a pārājika offense,' even if knowledge of objects and so forth are possible, they are not intended, so it is a pārājika offense; likewise here." "It is not possible to make another standard," others say, "It is not possible to make it a standard that one who wishes to declare his own qualities, speaking of the analysis of meaning mixed with the worldly, commits a pārājika offense; otherwise, it would be so." It is written: "That is contradictory to what precedes and follows. Therefore, the illustration of knowledge here is not an illustration, because in the Dispensation, there is no provision for knowledge of objects and so forth. Or, because the Buddha did not mention those figurative expressions in the classified sections, it is not possible to make another standard." They say: "If one says, 'I am a possessor of analytical knowledges,' because it is spoken figuratively, a grave offense is appropriate." This should be investigated. It should be understood after investigation, because by comparing it with "whoever dwells in your monastery," and so forth, it is a figurative expression, and thus a grave offense is stated. The statement, "Even if one says, 'I attain the cessation attainment,' or 'I am a possessor of it'," and the statement, "If it is so for him," and so forth, are essentially the same, for he too speaks only to declare his own distinction. In phrases like "Whoever dwells in your monastery" and so on, since there is no "I" word, a figurative meaning is appropriate. But here, one refers to oneself as "I am a recipient of that," therefore, they say, it seems appropriate to incur a pārājika offense. "The statement of the Mahāpaccari and others is not one of the superhuman states, therefore, they say, since it is stated figuratively, it is not (a pārājika)."