English
(we say) No, because an offense is possible for one who receives it not for the purpose of food, just as for one who receives the other for the purpose of food. Therefore, only what has been stated here as the conclusion conforms to the Pāli text and to reasoning. "Purity of declaration" - here, declaration is indeed an act of discipline. By that, even rising up (from an offense) is indeed called a declaration. Because it is said "uses/consumes," not "receives," for one who, in receiving, does not pay attention, but does so in consuming, there is no offense. Those whose defilements are destroyed, because their task is done, are like those who have divided their inheritance. By that, for them, consumption as owner is permissible. Otherwise, because the state of being for a certain time is not transcended, it contradicts. Consumption as a debt is not permissible. In medicine, because of an offense. In other cases, because of improper consumption, like a debt, it is not permitted. because it was eaten by a relative. "From the very beginning, there is no such thing as shamelessness, therefore, no one should be suspected," it is written. Saddhivihārikas and others are a burden. Here, regarding "taken as given," it is said: "If one gives with one's own hand, it is not permissible," and "having taken an extra share, and on the next day, having had the share set aside for oneself given there, it is permissible." One gives an exchange; if it is lawful, it is permissible. Not if it is unlawful. "It is permissible to acquire it with the support of the Dhamma," it is said. If it is asked, "By what method?" "When unity is unobtainable, there is no offense in sharing and cohabitation" (Mahāva. 130) by this method of the Upasampadakkhandhaka statement. 586. Here, regarding "given by one who is not a relative," it is said: "What is given by one who is not a relative is not relinquished. Therefore, if donors, having regained mindfulness, take back the kahāpaṇas and so on tied to a cloth, it must be confessed as nissaggiya. If those donors, with that unallowable item, buy ghee and so on and give it to the Sangha, it is permissible for that bhikkhu too, because it belongs to the donors themselves. For the bhikkhu took it with the perception of cloth, saying 'I will take cloth,' not with the perception of money. And this training rule is stated with reference to taking for oneself, and by him, it was not taken for himself or for others. If those donors do not come and take it, and if, having asked the donors, it is relinquished for oneself, having relinquished it to the Sangha, the offense must be confessed. If not, the offense itself must be confessed." This is contradictory, earlier and later. For if the confession of an offense is made, it is established that money was received. If that is established, then "what arises from it is permissible for him" is not appropriate. If it is asked, "Is it permissible?" No. It is not appropriate to confess an offense without relinquishing the object. If it is asked, "Is it appropriate because the training rule is without intention?" No. Because everywhere it is said, "He receives money." For "He receives money" is stated; otherwise, the word "money" would be meaningless everywhere. it is without that, since the purpose is achieved. And by this, cloth is received, and by the donor, cloth itself is given. If one takes the money in the cloth with a thieving mind, he should be made to act by steps. And in the commentary, it is said, “One who perceives non-money as money” means “one who perceives gold, etc., as hard leaves, etc.,” in the sense of the saying, “He receives money.” But “Moreover, those desirous of merit,” etc., is said to show another rule. For by that, it is said, “It should be noted that this was received in this house.” Otherwise, if there is doubt in noting, and if there is doubt, it is indeed Nissaggiya, as in the saying, “He is doubtful about money,” etc. This rule would become meaningless, and it is not meaningless. Why? Because the kahāpaṇa, etc., tied in the cloth, given by mistake, and received with the perception of cloth, is therefore neither money given nor received. In this case, there is no need to declare an offense. But that should be returned to the donors. And the permissible goods arising from that are permissible for all. Thus, to show this other rule, “Moreover, those desirous of merit,” etc., is not our inference, says the teacher. The explanation of the money training rule is finished. 9. Explanation of the Money Transaction Training Rule 587. “Exchanging gold and silver” is stated with the highest definition. Similarly, the Pāli saying, “Money means a kahāpaṇa of the Buddha’s time,” etc. From the three-part saying, “One who perceives non-money as money, causes money to be exchanged,” etc., and from the commentary’s saying, “But for one who causes a Nissaggiya object to be exchanged with a Dukkata object… …Nissaggiya Pācittiya, because it was caused to be exchanged for a serious object,” it is established that a non-highest definition is also found here. A kahāpaṇa of the Buddha’s time and a kahāpaṇa, and whatever others are used in transactions— thus, a collection should be understood here. But in this training rule, “various kinds, namely, made, unmade, and made-and-unmade,” five three-part categories are stated based on the three types of money and non-money that are distinguished here. By the commentary teachers, accordingly, one triad is shown, so all become six. Here it is said: In another training rule, even when one triad division is shown, if possible, others are not shown. Why are they shown only here? Because "of various kinds" was stated in the mātikā, it is for showing the various kinds only here. If it is said: "Would it not also be applicable in the training rule on buying and selling?" No, because the method is shown here. And furthermore, in the analysis of money, because "those which are in circulation" was stated at the end, it is established that coins, gold, etc., are indeed for use. From that, it follows that gold and silver not fit for use are not subject to relinquishment through transaction. Therefore, to show that they are subject to it, the triads like "causes to be made what is made" were stated. If it is said: "If that is the case, in the analysis of money, 'and those which are in circulation' should not be stated. If that phrase is not stated, those not fit for use would also be included. Then there would be no purpose for stating the three triads beginning with 'made'." No, because there would be the implication that exchanging permissible goods for permissible goods is also a money transaction. If it is said: "Even with the statement 'those which are in circulation,' there would still be the implication that exchanging betel nuts, areca nuts, bronze bowls, robes, etc., is also a money transaction." No, because by the statement beginning with "made," it is indicated that only impermissible items like gold, etc., are intended. Therefore, by both (statements), that which is ordinary money of the made and unmade kind, and that which is in the form of kahāpaṇas and māsa coins, and that which is used in transactions like kahāpaṇas, both of these here and in the immediately preceding training rule are called "money" (rūpiya) and this intended meaning is achieved, not rice, etc., because transactions of the "made" kind are not possible there. Thus far, the purpose of the three triads beginning with "made" has been stated. Now, the remaining triads are stated. Here, indeed, the relinquishment item of the aforementioned kind is called "money" (rūpiya). The rest, whether an offense item or a permissible item, is not money, and so is called "not money" (arūpiya). Having made this distinction, "Regarding what is not money, one who perceives it as not money, for five fellow practitioners... "there is no offense" this is not absolute, because an offense of wrong-doing arises in a matter of wrong-doing. Here, by the measure of the statement, anything other than a matter of relinquishment, even urine and the like, is indeed called non-silver. If it is said that "there is no offense for the five co-religionists" there? No, because it contradicts the royal training rule. For there it is stated: "pearls or gems," therefore, pearls and the like are improper, and a matter of wrong-doing is established, due to their absence in matters of relinquishment. Thus, "in non-silver, perceiving non-silver, there is no offense for the five co-religionists" is said with reference to pure proper goods, not all non-silver. Elsewhere, however, in the tikas of wrong-doing like "in non-silver, perceiving silver," and in the tikas shown in the commentary, all non-silver is to be understood. Therefore, the second tika is stated to illustrate the state of non-silver. For that very purpose, one tika is shown in the commentary. If it is asked why it is not stated in the Pāli? Because there is no need for a formal declaration of discarding silver for non-silver that has been acquired. For if that tika were stated, it would imply that even for proper goods, a formal declaration of discarding non-silver should be given. Should it not be said that there is no formal declaration of discarding silver on account of that? No, because it would lead to the consequence of there being no formal declaration even for silver. Therefore, perceiving silver in silver, one acquires a proper item, like the third bowl in the four bowls. That should be relinquished to the Sangha and others. But what is relinquished is proper for others, like the third bowl. Then, if it is acquired with received silver, like the second bowl, any bhikkhu who discards it, even without a formal declaration, it is permissible. Thereafter, "if an attendant or anyone else comes there," one should proceed in the manner stated. There, "in silver" or "in non-silver,"