English
everywhere in the locative case, it should be understood as one's own property for what is possessed, and another's property for what is for use. Here it is said: Elder Upatissa stated that the previous training rule prohibited the acceptance of silver. By this pure tradition, what is proper in the hands of the proper-maker is to be relinquished. by which the transaction was prevented while standing. 589. With a nissaggiya object, a nissaggiya object… and so on… in the repeated exchange, “by this,” here, in one and the same object, an offense is stated as one due to two training rules, but that must be relinquished according to the latter. Some say, “By this, one incurs an offense even if one has already incurred a nissaggiya offense.” The acceptance of money by another is an exchange, and since it does not exist when money is not accepted, the offense is by this alone, not by the former, like an insult. For even one who speaks falsely incurs an offense by an insult. With a nissaggiya object, a dukkaṭa… and so on… “this is the method,” he says, showing the justification for this, “for this is what is meant.” Regarding “one who employs interest,” if one takes this and says, “Give so much” at the end of a month or a year, it is a money transaction. For one who says, “Let there be so much interest, take so much” without a proper agent, it is a dukkaṭa due to the absence of the characteristic of buying and selling. “To the owners of the principal” and so on is stated to show the method of making it allowable, not merely that it is relinquished and not used; when done this way again, it is permissible to use it. If there is no method of making the principal allowable for its use, it must be declared allowable, as in the Pāli, and here the method of making it allowable is also in the third leaf, and it is said, “just as there is such a method for what is taken for one’s own benefit, so too is it for what is taken for the benefit of the Sangha and so on.” These first and second leaves, as long as a layperson exchanges them, there is no method of making them allowable; it is said in the commentary that “even for many generations of people, they are not allowable.” But in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said, “Even kahāpaṇas obtained by selling allowable goods belonging to the Sangha must be accepted only after releasing the acceptance. Therefore, if a proper agent says, ‘These are those kahāpaṇas,’ it is not permissible at all; it must be rejected, not considered. If one considers it? It is not allowable for anyone. If one considers them after they have been accepted by releasing the acceptance, then only for him…” it is not permitted" this was often said. The explanation of the training rule concerning transactions involving silver is finished. 10. The explanation of the training rule concerning buying and selling 593. "Of rags and patches" means "with rags and patches." "If he transgresses, there is an offense of wrong-doing" - this should be understood in the previous training rule as well. From the opposite of these words, "it is bought and it is sold," it is said "one's own goods," and so on. Why? According to the statement "this with this." Here, the destruction of gifts of faith should be understood by way of the terms for what is not proper. The explanation of the training rule concerning buying and selling is finished. The second chapter, the Kosiyavagga, is finished. 3. The Pattavagga (Chapter on Bowls) 1. The explanation of the training rule concerning bowls 598. "They accumulate many bowls": here, "they accumulate" is an abstract noun, or the meaning is "they will accumulate by taking many bowls." It is written, "taking twelve and a half *pala* masses." Here – "A *kuḍuva* is four *pala*s, Four times a *kuḍuva* (is a *pattha*); A *pattha* is four times, A *māsa* - they say it is four times in order." Some elaborate, showing the common usage from the beginning. 602. "Eating" means edible food, such as curries. Since it is said in the commentary to the Brahmāyu Sutta (M.N.A. 2.387) that "the measure of a condiment is the fourth part of the rice," it should be understood that the condiment is appropriate as a fourth part of the mouthful. It is said that "since the accumulation of bowls is prohibited for a bhikkhunī, by analogy, a second (bowl) is also prohibited for bhikkhus." That is not appropriate, for in the Pāḷi it is said, "he should accumulate" (referring to a bowl) "if it is not determined, not designated" (Pāci. 735). Indeed, in the Kathina Khandhaka (Mahāva. 306 ff.), even one (bowl) kept for another day, like a store or accumulation, is called "accumulation." However, in the immediately preceding training rule, they say, "the second (bowl) is prohibited" means the determination is fixed, therefore one cannot determine two bowls. If one determines them together, both are not determined. If one determines them separately, the second is not determined. But one may designate many. Now, (the explanation of the) rule... Referring to that, it is said: "There is a distinction only in name." There, the names are: middling, somewhat middling, superior middling, and so on. 608. If it is said: "Due to the incompleteness of the cooking, it does not attain the count of a bowl." Does even a consecrated bowl, due to being hard-baked and white, abandon its consecration? No, because it is not included in the nine cases of abandoning consecration. Therefore, only due to the incompleteness of the first cooking, it does not attain the count of a bowl. When that is the case, it is not proper to request another. For it is said: "with less than five fastenings." If there is a hole or a crack, it abandons its consecration by these; when abandoned, this is not a prohibition. Therefore, even by taking it back, or by making an alternative, one cannot request another. Thus, "the bowl-maker having received the cost" here means from the day it was cooked and set aside. "Being desirous of giving" here means ten days should be understood from the day it was given, or from the day it was heard of. However, with a change of gender, if ten days are exceeded for a bhikkhu who owns a bowl, or if a night is exceeded for a bhikkhunī, it is subject to forfeiture. The explanation of the Bowl Training Rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Training Rule on Less Than Five Fastenings 612-3. "Requesting many bowls" means many bhikkhus requesting many bowls, requesting one by one, or many bhikkhus requesting bowls. Is this training rule: "Monks, a bowl is not to be requested; whoever requests one incurs an offense of wrong-doing," superseded by the rule on less than five fastenings, or not? Some say it is not, taking that very rule, because it is stated: "requests, an offense of wrong-doing in the attempt." That wrong-doing is stated even when the acquisition is completed; therefore, it is superseded by this: "it becomes subject to forfeiture upon acquisition." Otherwise, a forfeiture with wrong-doing would be incurred, and there would be a contradiction with the non-offense clause. Any unmade request at an unauthorized time is indeed an offense of wrong-doing. "When broken" is in the sense of a characteristic of such a state, or "by breaking," the instrumental case being used in the sense of cause. The explanation of the Training Rule on Less Than Five Fastenings is finished. 3. Medicine Explanation of the Precepts 620. The saying, "That was a golden garland," means that, apart from fellow practitioners, it is permissible to give money to others as they wish, and to have them learn it, and to engage in business. The teacher says, "You should investigate this, as it is within the scope of his power." 622. The saying, "For whom meat is permissible," means that for whom meat is not permissible, clarified butter and so forth are also not permissible, but it should be understood that they are not items of relinquishment. Similarly, they are not items of choice food. "Having taken it up and put it down" means put down for the purpose of eating. Otherwise, it is permissible to receive and eat it. "Of both" refers to those made by those who received it after noon, and by those who received it before noon. "Because meat is not permissible" means having stated a reason that resembles the actual reason. "They ate" means, "The elder's intention is that one who wishes to eat only fresh butter in the wrong time should remove what is mixed with curds and whey; for one who wishes to cook, it is not self-cooked," as it is said. The saying, "It will be consumed," proves that clarified butter cooked by adding milk is permissible in the wrong time. "With medicines" refers to lifelong medicines. "Oil made before noon" means only that which is made without cooking. "With hot water" — some say this indicates the act of heating, but that is not good. "Because it is extracted" means from oil-cake and so forth. The saying, "Received for oil... and so forth... is only an offense of wrong-doing," implies that oil made from things received not for oil, even after seven days have passed, is permissible for seven days from the day it was made. Some say karamanda is the essence of a tree. 623. Since milk and other things are added to oil-cake to cook oil, the oil-cake is not permissible, only the oil is permissible. Therefore, it is said, "He feels remorse as if it were cooked oil-cake." If you say, "Because it is cooked with fat, it is not permissible," then, venerable sirs, the connection is like "curd-balls in fresh butter" and so forth. In honey, the four temporal categories should be applied as appropriate, and in sugarcane as well. How? Honey with bees, or honey from a beehive, is for as long as it lasts. Water without impurities Broken, for a watch. Unbroken, for seven days. Pure honey-comb, for life. Likewise, sugarcane or juice, with its pulp, for a lifetime. Without pulp, mixed with water, for a watch. Unmixed, for seven days.