English
"By the method stated here" means by the method stated in this Sikkhāpada Vibhaṅga. By the phrase "by a request," it should be practiced by one who makes, and by the phrase "causes others to complete," by one who causes to be made. Both of these are doers and causers-to-do. The wording would be inverted, for indeed the wording "by one who causes to be made" is inverted when "by one who makes" is said, because it is not for that meaning. For one who causes to be made is not called a maker. "By the method stated here" means by the method of the specified object and measure. If it is said that, in that case, by the phrase "by one who makes or by one who causes to be made," even by one who makes, it should be done by others, then to clarify that meaning, it is stated in the sub-commentary, "If indeed..." and so forth. It is said by way of the phrase "making a hut by request." Without saying "both in length and in width," because the word "or" (vā) is taken for the meaning of option, an offense arises even if increased in one part. Indeed, a bed of proper measure is nine spans. It is said that "by the phrase 'four cubits in width,' the phrase 'or three cubits across' also fits, because the concluding statement 'where it is of proper measure' and so forth is not possible." Even less than the measure, meaning four or five cubits in width, without exceeding in length, the stated measure is the specified object. Indeed, an offense arises for one who makes an unspecified object. Because it is said that "a hut exceeding the measure, one should make a hut exceeding the measure." The reading is "pillar-beam." Regarding "by the method of announcement," they say, "It is also permissible in the Tamil language." 353. Cārabhūmi is gocarabhūmi. "Not taken" means not prevented. In the Aṭṭhakathā: "A prison for a reason, a place of non-action..." or a perfumer, or one who cuts off hands and feet, a perfumer,” it is written. “With two oxen”—it is said that it cannot be inferred from what is stated at the lower end, because it is cut off at the root; it should be understood that it is stated to clarify the meaning of the conclusion. “Eastern” means the object, the foundation. “For that purpose” means for the purpose of cutting. “Even a leaf-hut” means a hut plastered and smeared, covered with leaves. Therefore it is said, “with walls and a roof”; it is said that everything unplastered is permissible. A little was kept before, then increased. “Therein” means placed in a doorframe or in a window. “Immediately”—here, Elder Dhammasiri says it means at the time of receiving. Elder Upatissa says it means at the time of placing. Because the former did not apply plaster, and the latter made it with a second roof-ridge, both are not liable to an offense. If it was done by someone ordered, according to the saying “does or causes to be done,” both are liable to an offense if it is for their own purpose, otherwise only the original owner. If the lower limit is possible, one who makes an all-clay hut is liable to a dukkata offense, a sanghadisesa offense—this is the teacher’s conjecture. 354. The thirty-six quads are: the quad of an undesignated object, the quad of a designated object, the quad exceeding the measure, the quad within the measure, the quad of an undesignated object exceeding the measure, and the quad of a designated object within the measure— these are six quads. Thus, in the five cases of “commanding” and so on, there are thirty-six. “For showing the distinction of offenses”—here, because in the mātikā it is stated without distinction, “If, bhikkhu, in an object with disturbance, without circumspection… …a sanghadisesa offense,” to avoid the wrong view that a sanghadisesa offense occurs even with disturbance and without circumspection, the distinction of offenses is shown. Therefore, it is the intention that they are stated. If it is asked why the dukkata object is stated in the mātikā without saying so in the Vibhaṅga? Bhikkhus should be led to designate an object. Those bhikkhus should designate an object. What kind? Without disturbance, with circumspection, not otherwise. In the other case, “If, bhikkhu, in an object with disturbance, without circumspection…” is said because it comes in the sense of a benefit. Since a site can be of many kinds— some with disturbance, some without disturbance, some with movement, some without movement, some with disturbance and movement, some with disturbance and no movement, some without disturbance and with movement, some without disturbance and no movement— it is said that a site to be pointed out should be without disturbance and with movement, not otherwise. If it is asked, "For what purpose is this teaching?" It is for the purpose of avoiding the means that lead to the declaration of a serious offense. For by the teaching of a site, the disturbance that causes the declaration of a serious offense, the unannounced request, and the generation of suffering for laypeople, which leads to one's own suffering and others' suffering, are avoided by this method of teaching a site. For a bhikkhu does not point out a site with disturbance for the purpose of making an improper hut or for causing distress to laypeople. It has already been established that they point out a site for the purpose of making a hut. "Mixed offenses" means offenses mixed with dukkaṭa and saṅghādisesa. 355. Here, instead of saying "by two saṅghādisesas," it is said "by the saṅghādisesa of two" by a change in case ending and a change in number. "An offense of two saṅghādisesas" is also a reading. 364. It does not fit due to the absence of a roof covering and plastering; there is no offense. This will be established later. It is said that "plastered and smeared" refers only to the roof covering. It is said, "Having said that a chicken coop is permissible, and then showing it again by the method of 'a roof covering with sticks,' etc., only a hut with a grass or leaf roof covering is meant." Here, it is appropriate that "plastered, etc." refers only to the roof covering, which is made by binding sticks like a net, lengthwise and crosswise, and then covering it with grass or leaves. Therefore, it is written: "If one builds up a clay wall and then makes it plastered or smeared, or both, attached to the wall above, there is an offense even without plastering the wall." "'And that refers only to the roof covering' is said in the primary sense, not the lower part." "Thrown away," they say, it should be investigated. Here means in a grass hut. "As instructed" means of the aforementioned kind, is the intention. In "an offense for the workers of three dukkaṭas" and so on, the sixfold "he hears" is also taken. Since it was instructed in both ways, there is no offense for the one who ordered. For the one who was ordered, if he does not do it as instructed by the one who ordered, there is a dukkaṭa. If he also makes it for himself, saying "I too will dwell here," it is a Saṅghādisesa. But in a place where "make a hut" is said without distinction, there is a Saṅghādisesa even for the one who ordered, because the precept is not about intention. In "I too will dwell," since there is no one else designated, there is an offense, as it is specified "or for one who makes," no offense if not divided. And it is written, "Here, merely knowing the enactment is the intention." But in the Anugaṇṭhipada, regarding "I too will dwell," if one desires, "it will be my dwelling place," there is an offense for him. But if one desires an Uposatha hall, there is no offense for him. Therefore, saying "both are included," and by the saying "in a Vinaya decision, one should stand by the weighty," should the other be said after the Mahāpaccarivāda? No, because of its strength. By the saying, "Except for a dwelling place, in all other cases, no offense," because this was made for dining halls and so on, confusions arise. Just as – two or three make it saying "we will dwell together," it protects for now, like here. Even if it is made by dividing, "this place will be a dwelling place, this an Uposatha hall," there is still an offense. Between the two, the Mahāpaccarivāda is stronger, therefore it is greatly elaborated with "said later" and so on. What is the use of that? By the method of "one completes what one has begun, by oneself and by others," other fourfold cases should be shown, combining them as appropriate. Even though there is no offense of Saṅghādisesa in caves and so on, if there is no declaration made, there is an offense due to that. The explanation of the precept concerning making a hut is finished. 7. The precept concerning making a monastery... Explanation 366. The word ‘vā’ in the seventh case should be understood as having the meaning of emphasis. The explanation of the training rule concerning the builder of a monastery is finished. 8. Explanation of the First Training Rule on Malicious Defamation 380. “Attained by a disciple” is said with reference to an ordinary disciple, not a chief disciple. “Three knowledges” and so on are said according to the disposition and the individual. It should be understood that for some disciple, three knowledges; for some, four analytical knowledges; for some, six supernormal powers; for some, only the nine supramundane states—thus it is said individually, as is possible. 382. From the statement “Those monks who are Suttanta-reciters” and so on, it is established that even while the Buddha was alive, there was a division into the three Pitakas. “Dhammakathikas” (Dhamma-preachers) means those who delight in Abhidhamma. “They will delight” and so on, seems like the Venerable Dabba’s assignment of delight in trivial talk to them, but it should not be seen that way.