English
And the cutting off of the triple offense occurs only by the mātikā-pada, not by another. And even there, by one only, not by the second and so on— this is the rule of the Vinaya that should be known. The explanation of the training rule concerning asking from non-relatives is finished. 7. Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning What Is Beyond That “Or a spreading hall” means a place for spreading robes. “Spreading a robe that is to be spread in a hall, having held it up with the hand” is the accusation. “Only by one with three robes” means by one who has three robes according to the Vinaya. For he, even when there are requisites like cloths set aside by determination, is allowed to ask for and take a robe, up to the inner and outer robes, if his three robes are not torn. “Otherwise also” (some say) means, “one who uses three robes of the standard measure, having determined them as requisite cloths, is allowed to take many even if that is lost, not only up to the inner and outer robes.” And therefore, “that division” means “that division is for one with three robes, not for one with requisite cloths.” But the teacher says only this much: “‘By another’ means by one with extra robes; ‘otherwise’ means by another way than the limit of acceptance stated here.” But some say that “otherwise” means: if all three are lost, one should take up to the inner and outer robes; if two or one are lost, that is said to show “otherwise also.” There is no deliberation in the Gaṇṭhipada, therefore it should be taken after careful examination. Naturally, one goes with an inner and outer robe, or according to the sāsaṅka training rule, or by that permission, or by not obtaining a third. “Only the standard measure is permissible” is said to show austerity. That is wrong. Having taken from relatives' places, if one takes more than that, is there an offense? That does not accord with the Pāli, for the Pāli says: "No offense for relatives who have invited." And here, "invited" means invited before the time of cutting off, not at the time of cutting off. For it is said: "One should invite by bringing." Therefore, whoever invites for the time of cutting off, both should be understood as not having invited. For they give, it is said, because of the reason of cutting off, because of the reason of loss. Moreover, just as at a later time, having remembered, for one who obtains a rain-cloth from the place of invited relatives, there is a Nissaggiya offense by that training rule; so too here, even from the place of invited relatives, it is not permissible because of the reason of cutting off or loss. Therefore, Dhammasiri Thera said: "Only what is stated in the commentaries is authoritative" - this very statement is authoritative. That is not right. Why? Because this training rule was laid down for one who makes known (his need) for more than that. And in its summary, the Pāli is: "an unknown householder or householder's wife." And in the analysis, the Pāli is: "an unknown (person) means unrelated by mother... ...unconnected." And in the no-offense section, the Pāli is: "for relatives who have invited." Therefore, it is indeed not right that it does not accord with the Pāli in all three ways. Therefore, others say it was stated merely with a view to austerity. Further on, in the Kāṇamātā training rule, however, in the commentaries, it is said: "It is permissible because it is prepared for their provisions and gifts." But it is not said: "It does not accord with the Pāli." No difference is perceived there and here. Therefore, the elder's view seems beautiful to me. It should be investigated. But because this training rule was laid down only in the context of making known (one's need) for another's sake, therefore, "for another's sake" is not stated here. The reading is: "The rest is for clear understanding." "For another's sake" is not stated due to conflict with the origin. Nevertheless, it is obtained by the method stated immediately before, so says the teacher. In such training rules connected with householders, although "a householder means anyone who..." dwells in a house,” even so, apart from the five co-dhamma followers, the rest are to be understood as one who has renounced the training, and a heretic. The explanation of the subsequent training rule is finished. 8. The Explanation of the First Upakkhaṭa Training Rule 527-8. “Api hoti cittaṃ” means “mind exists.” “Meyya” means “for me.” “Na ime sukarā” or “na imesaṃ sukarā” is the reading. It is written: “It means it is not easy for them to cover.” Because of the saying “not invited before,” even if invited at that moment, it is as if not invited. The explanation of the first Upakkhaṭa training rule is finished. 9. The Explanation of the Second Upakkhaṭa Training Rule 532. What is the purpose of the second Upakkhaṭa? There is none; it was merely laid down due to an origin, like the training rule for a bhikkhunī sitting in private. If this is so, then it should not be included in the canon, for its purpose is achieved without it, due to not being independent, and due to being permitted not to include it. For it was said: “If the Saṅgha wishes, Ānanda… …they may abolish them.” All this is without reason. For the Buddhas do not utter useless words, much less a training rule. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: “For this is like a supplementary regulation for this.” And a supplementary regulation is not without purpose, and this is similar to it, it is shown that it is not without purpose. If this is so, what is the distinction here? Therefore, it says: “In the first training rule, one person was harmed; in the second, two. This is the distinction here.” By this distinction in meaning, what other additional meaning is shown? In the ancient glosses, it is said: “This additional meaning is shown: that it is permissible to harm two persons even in one matter.” By this, it clarifies: “The counting of offenses is not merely by the number of robes received, but also by the counting of the matters, which are the harmed individuals.” Here there are: “Even by the counting of the matter, there may be multiple offenses; and to show this, the second Upakkhaṭa is here. “The training rule concerning physical contact…” Thus, as in the Vibhaṅga, what is this? Even by one woman, there is multiplicity, Due to the commission of offenses. Moreover, this training rule should be understood as having the purpose of showing the method for the determination to be taken in all training rules of that kind. And it is said: "By the many unrelated, and by the mixed, There is also much offense and mixed offense; For the purpose of showing the possibility of such methods and so on, The Teacher spoke this second [rule] as prepared." Of this, this is a brief analysis, preceded by the intention: If a bhikkhu causes one old robe to be washed by two or many bhikkhunīs, the count of offenses is by the count of bhikkhunīs. Similarly, if he receives one robe common to two or many, not as an exchange; here too, similarly, if he requests one [robe] common to two or many, the count of offenses is by the count of persons requested. Similarly, the method should be applied in other such training rules. This is the method for 'many'. As for 'mixed': If he causes one [robe] to be washed by a relative and an unrelated woman, if completed together, one pācittiya. Then, if the relative first washes a little and stops, and then the unrelated woman makes it well-washed, it is nissaggiya. Then, if the unrelated woman washes first, and afterwards the relative makes it well-washed, due to the action of the unrelated woman, for the bhikkhu it is only a dukkaṭa. If he causes it to be washed by an unrelated woman and a relative, perceiving her as unrelated, or being in doubt, or perceiving her as a relative, the count of offenses, such as nissaggiya and dukkaṭa, should be understood according to the method stated. Similarly, if he receives a robe belonging to an unrelated woman and a relative, given by both together, or if he receives it from the hand of the unrelated woman alone, it is nissaggiya. Then, if from the relative, there is no offense. Then, in both cases, if he perceives her as unrelated and so on, the count of offenses, such as nissaggiya and dukkaṭa, should be understood according to the method stated. Similarly, in training rules concerning requesting from unrelated persons, the method should be applied as appropriate. This is the method for 'mixed'. Moreover, by the word 'and so on', many unrelated persons, requested or unrequested... For counting by estimation, a dukkaṭa. One gives, one does not give, it is nissaggiya. But if one not informed gives, it is not nissaggiya. But if one informed gives for both informed and uninformed, it is nissaggiya. If both give, it is nissaggiya. If one not informed gives, there is no offense of forfeiture. By the word of one informed, if one not informed gives, there is no offense. Similarly, in the case of prepared (food) etc., the method should be applied as appropriate. The explanation of the second rule concerning prepared (food) is finished. 10. The explanation of the rule concerning kings. 537. "Indeed, friends, we do not accept money for robes... and so on... proper in due time" was said because the rule concerning the acceptance of money was already laid down before this. Otherwise, how would Venerable Upananda, accepting even one kahāpaṇa by hand as money for meat, not accept a much larger sum as money for robes? Even so, because it is connected with robes, they included it in the robe section. 538-9. Since it is said, "He breaks the reason for coming," some say, "Surely he cannot accuse again?" Some say, "The coming is not fruitful; he will not get a robe because a welcome has been made." Some say it was said considering that it is not a characteristic of accusation. Some say, "He who came saying, 'I will stand and accuse,'