English
breaks that standing; if he does one, or even three, it is only one, because of the singular word." Some say he breaks three standings. Venerable Upatissa says, "He does not break the accusation etc.; one who desires to accuse did what should not be done, therefore there is a dukkaṭa for breaking the proper conduct." But Venerable Dhammasiri says, "If he sits on a seat, by one sitting he breaks two standings. If he accepts material things, by one acceptance he breaks two standings. If he teaches Dhamma, by one word, for the limit mentioned in the rule on teaching Dhamma, he breaks two standings; it was said with that in mind." When "where" is said, it is as if it is said that one should go to one's own presence. Therefore it is said, "But the meaning does not fit." Upā by their own order. Not accepting the root, means not accepting it when the root is not allowable. And that is with the mind, not with the mouth. If, when it is said thus, he shows what is not allowable, and so, while wishing for what is not allowable in his mind, he indicates what is allowable with his mouth, saying, "Give me a robe," it is not permissible. Upon acquisition, there is an offense by the training rule of accepting money. Herein, this is the consideration: Even if one accepts it with the mind, if one speaks with an allowable expression with the mouth, saying, "Bring this and that with an allowable item worth a kahāpaṇa or worth a pāda." Even though he speaks referring to money, it is permissible. Why? Because of the saying, "Referring to some well-established piece of land, they say, 'We give the boundary,' it is permissible." And because of the saying, "When it is said, 'We give it to the monastery,' it is not permissible to refuse." However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada it is said: "Given to the Saṅgha, referring to the monastery, 'We give it to the monastery,' is not a heavy item. It is permissible to accept the water of dedication, and to say 'Sādhu,' and to rejoice. Why? Because the Saṅgha does not have the name 'monastery,' just as a field does not have the name 'boundary.' The object made by the mind is immeasurable; the allowable expression is the measure. Since only what is allowable is taught, it does not contradict the saying, 'I do not say, monks, that gold and silver should be accepted or sought by any means whatsoever' (Mahāva. 299). Because of the allowable speech, the donor himself will know what is proper to do. With this intention, when the donor, knowing this intention, places it in the hands of the one who makes things allowable, it belongs to the monk." All this is improper. Why? Because the words 'boundary' and 'monastery' are the words of the donor. And here, the monk's word is the measure. Therefore, it is said: "Even if it is said, 'I give my pond or lotus pond to the Saṅgha,' it is permissible to say, 'Good, lay follower, the Saṅgha will drink water,' and so on, and to use it." Otherwise, referring to a field, the monk's field- Words that are bound by boundary words are admissible. And for a monk without a dwelling, if silver is shown to him and it is said, "This I give to the dwelling," even if he knows it is given for his own use, he should not refuse it. Similarly, regarding kahāpaṇas and the like, knowing them to be improper articles, or knowing them to be kahāpaṇas and the like, one who speaks of them thus does not incur an offense. "I, monks, by no means whatsoever" is stated without qualification, so it is not possible to make an exception. This is not the argument, but it should be considered and taken. "If he does not wish, he should not speak," by this saying, it shows that there is no offense of dukkata if the aforementioned propriety is not done. "One should act as with unknown, uninvited persons," by this saying, if one accomplishes it without even doing the aforementioned propriety, it shows that it should be done according to the training rule of unknown invitation. The proper-makers themselves exhort and give; it is allowable. And they say, "Doing it oneself is forbidden." Regarding almsfood and the like... and so on, in this context, they say "dukkata," which is not good, because it is included by the word "api" (even) in "even when giving," it is a nissaggiya pācittiya. They also distinguish gold and silver, saying "dukkata if accepted for the Sangha." It shows that since it is not stated as a distinction, it is a pācittiya. They say, "It might be a nissaggiya in the training rules on 'yevāpanaka'," which should be examined. "For anyone else whatsoever... and so on, stated in the Mahāpaccariya," by this saying, it shows that for the sake of unordained persons, even one's parents, accepting it is only a dukkata. Accepting everywhere means that which is characterized as "he might take, or cause to be taken, or might accept what is deposited." Even so, in some cases it should be refused, in some cases it should not be refused, in some cases it is allowable to accept what is refused, in some cases something unrefused is allowable. To show all this, the elaboration "if however" is begun. There, by the statement "for the cetiya... (etc.)... is not allowable," it is established that what is given to the monastery, not forbidden, is allowable to use. Likewise, even if the elder says "we give to the mother," etc., in accepting, there is an offense, a pācittiya. Here, when it is said "he is guilty of an offense," with what offense is he guilty? Some say, "with an offense of wrong-doing (dukkata)." Not with any [offense], but merely because he reproaches in the wrong place, it is said "he is guilty of an offense." How is that? Here, when it is said, "Monks, a co-resident endowed with five qualities should be expelled... (etc.)... expelling, he is not at fault" (Mahāvagga 68), a dukkata is stated for one who does not expel him who does not behave properly. As it is said: "And, monks, one who does not behave properly should not be not expelled; whoever does not expel him, there is an offense of dukkata" (Mahāvagga 68). Therefore, even in the absence of excessive affection, etc., no offense is seen for one who does not expel. Moreover, it is said, "he is at fault." This should be understood in this context. If it is said that it is not proper because the Commentary states, "he is at fault means he is blameworthy, he incurs an offense" (Mahāvagga Commentary 68)? No, it is immediately thereafter for the purpose of refuting that wrong grasp. Therefore, because it is said "one who does not behave properly should be expelled," it is made without offense. The teacher says there is an offense of dukkata; it should be investigated. It is said, "Even allowable goods are unallowable," and "milk products obtained by exchanging grain produced from a pond are also not allowable." We will explain the rule even in the case of allowable usage, such as "by means of water," etc. This "it becomes difficult to dispose of" is dissimilar to "it is unallowable for him. Why? Because the grain has been dealt with" later on. Therefore, it is well said. This indeed mixes with what has arisen from the beginning by way of the monk's use. New grain is that which has not been done before. If he protects it by standing in the threshing floor and saying, "Do not take this or that much, this is allowed to be taken," or "Remove this from here, make a pile here," etc., that is unallowable. dear. “If it is said, ‘If it is protected when not asked, it is protected,’ or seeing someone taking it, ‘What are you doing?’ and speaks, it is allowable,” that is correct. For in the rule on accepting money, it is said, “One should dwell protecting it by closing the door.” That is unallowable for that very person. Why? Because nothing new has been produced. Below, it is not allowable to say, “Make the crops and bring them.” The same method applies to leaves. It is said, “Because it generates enthusiasm for those who naturally do it themselves.” Why? From the saying, “Because kahāpaṇas have been circulated,” it is established that it was already set in motion. If the donors or people who have taken the village, field, or monastery land of the Sangha on lease, or householders there, say, “These kahāpaṇas have been brought for the Sangha,” only this much should be said: “It is not allowable.” If the stewards themselves say, “Kahāpaṇas are not allowable for the Sangha, but ghee and so on are allowable,” then it should be said, “Tell the stewards of the Sangha or the protected place.” And what is prepared by them, which no one should do, is circulated by saying, “Bring ghee with this,” and completed. For others, it is allowable, like the fourth bowl in the four bowls that follow. For it is said there, “Having taken these kahāpaṇas, ‘Give this,’ and having caused the kahāpaṇas to be given and taken, this bowl is not allowable for that very bhikkhu, because it was wrongly circulated. But for others, it is allowable, because the principal was not accepted.” If so, it is unallowable for everyone. Why? Because kahāpaṇas were circulated. If this is badly said? No, because this was said referring to the place where the principal was accepted, like the second and third bowls in the four bowls. Therefore, in the section on self-doers, it is said, “Only this much should be said: ‘It is not allowable.’” After that, it is called accepting the principal. Because it is a rule of great scope, this is a royal rule; like a king, it is difficult to understand, even from the intention of the mind. The explanation of the royal rule is finished. The chapter on robes, the first, is finished. Mo. 2. The Kosiyavagga 1. Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Kosiyas 542. "Kosiyakāraka" here, "Kosiya" is that which is produced from the cocoon of creatures known as "kosakāra" (cocoon-makers), because they make cocoons. If it is made by oneself? At the time of relinquishing, it should be said: "This is made by myself, to be relinquished."