English
it should be understood that the fault lies in one's own causing it to fall, and that it brings trouble upon those who have fallen. The explanation of the training rule concerning digging the earth is finished. The first section, the chapter on false speech, is completed in the order of explanation. 2. The Chapter on Living Plants 1. The Explanation of the Training Rule on Living Plants 89. "Being unable to restrain the axe" makes known the shown meaning. "Why did he raise the axe?" "For humans," and so on, is its explanation. "Because it is said, 'he struck, he cut,' the hands of tree deities are cut, and they are not unseverable like those of the Four Great Kings," they say. 90-92. "They are, they were" – the word 'bhūta' (being) is of two tenses. If a seed produced from a seed is indicated, that is what is existing, that is this. "That very rooster is smeared with meat" – this is indeed the explanation. In the commentaries too, it is written, "a seed in a seed." That which is called a seed-plant, in that seed, by combining "seed-plant seed." Because it is rootless, it is said, it is not a complete living plant. "Only a plant with roots is called a living plant," they give as the reason. "Because it is rootless of a living plant" means not produced from a living plant, or because the living plant is rootless. "For no other living plant arises from it," it is written in both ways. Piyangu is a tree with yellow wood, with edible fruit, "pītasāla" it is also called. It is included in rootless living plants – this is for the coconut. Because it grows on the back of a pot, and because it is in line with seed-plants, it is an offense of wrong-doing. "It should not be cultivated because it is wrongly practiced," it is written. "Since it is said, 'the branches of which trees grow,' it is established that for those whose branches do not grow, there is no need for making the branch allowable," it is said. "Muddatiṇa" is its name. "Muñjatiṇa is the reading," it is written. "By monastic customs" means by monastic usages. Therefore, the bhikkhu should say, "Make it allowable." It is established that even a novice, acting on his command, must say "allowable" before making it fire-protected. Like those burnt by fire, etc., because they are allowable, even seeds produced without seeds are included here under "five allowable things for ascetics" (Cūḷava. 250), or the word "allowable for ascetics" should be taken as it is obtained. It is said that "if one wishing to say 'kappiya' says 'kappa', they mean 'it is allowable'." They say that the word "kappiya" is allowable even in one's own language. Since it is said "having said 'kappiya'", a bhikkhu should say "kappiya" itself. But they say "by others, in any language whatsoever." This should be investigated. From the saying "I will make the sugarcane allowable" (and then) pierces wood, it is said that he errs with reference to what is to be made allowable. But the teachers say, "With reference to what is to be made allowable, he makes rice-grains etc. allowable, and it is allowable." Stating the reason for this, they say that even if it is done erroneously, it becomes allowable due to the nature of being allowable to do. If it were not allowable, it would not be allowable when rice-grains etc. are made. This should be examined. It is allowable to place a pot with growing moss in the sun. It is like a dukkata being appropriate if there is an intention to destroy. They say, "It is a receptacle for flower-strings, therefore it is not allowable. But if a bunch of flowers is tied in a tube, it is allowable even if done in the tube, because the flowers are present in it." In the ancient commentary, it is said, "The plant kingdom is shown by the seed kingdom for the purpose of complete inclusion." The commentary on the training rule concerning the plant kingdom is concluded. 2. Commentary on the training rule concerning one who speaks otherwise. One who speaks otherwise is an aññavādaka. It is written, "he should make a statement." The reading is, "This is the name of one who is silent." "Wishing to expose" means "wishing to confuse," or "wishing to cause an obstacle," say the ancients. They say that in cases like "Well seen, venerable sir, but this is not a kahāpaṇa," if it is not imputed, there is a dukkata for false speech. If it is imputed, there are two pācittiyas. This should be investigated. Here, regarding "or to one not worthy of a kamma, by unrighteousness or by faction," (it means) "if I am spoken of, the Sangha, by unrighteousness or by faction, (performs) a kamma against me or another, in a faction..." or he will not do work, or it is not for me, who is worthy of work, or he will do work for another,” one should not say, it is to be connected. The commentary on the Aññavādaka training rule is finished. 3. The commentary on the Ujjhāpanaka training rule 103. “By desire” is said with a gender inversion, like “by letter by letter” and so on, or the meaning is “for the purpose of desire.” The intention is that there is desire in oneself for those for whom one arranges lodgings. 106. In “anupasampanna” (unordained) and so on, the instrumental meaning should be taken. “Another unordained” means “by another unordained.” “Of him” means “of the unordained.” It is said, “At the time of formal declaration, those lacking the five factors and so on are called unapproved,” and “one who has received approval by an ordained monk is ruined by renouncing the training.” “By the Sangha” means one on whom a burden has been merely imposed, having been announced by the entire Sangha with a kammavācā (formal act) saying, “This burden is yours,” without having been announced by a kammavācā. The word “merely” here indicates only the state of not having been announced by a kammavācā. “By himself” means with the permission of the other monks. If it is asked, “How is there no offense for the original offender who complains falsely?” It is by this training rule. It seems that two pācittiyas are stated for false speech, as in the previous applications like cutting trees and so on; it should be considered. The commentary on the Ujjhāpanaka training rule is finished. 4. The commentary on the Paṭhamasenāsana training rule 110. From the saying, “Thus, this training rule was laid down by the Blessed One for the monks,” and from the saying in the Parivāra, “There is one enactment, one supplementary enactment” (Pari. 226), it is established that there is a supplementary enactment here. Although it is established, the place of the enactment is not apparent from “And thus, monks, you should recite this training rule” and so on; only “I allow, monks, for eight months… and so on… to put away” is said. If it is asked why that is, it is not stated because it is to be said in the same way as stated in the first enactment, there being no difference. If so, what is the supplementary enactment here? “In the open air.” If it is asked whether this supplementary enactment is also in the enactment? A This indicates only a place, the second indicates time, counted as four months. Since both, making one time-place together, are said as "in the open air," the Blessed One, showing this, said, "I allow, monks… …to put down," this should be understood. Therefore, in the Mātikaṭṭhakathā, it is said, "Where and when it is not proper to spread, all that here is to be understood as included in 'open air'." Since the winter season is a time of no offense, this rule is independent of its origin, this is established. Thus, by the power of the word "open air," this distinction is made: In the rainy season, in a place exposed to rain, in the open air, and in a pavilion, etc., it is not proper. In the winter season, in the natural open air, it is not proper, but here, even in a place exposed to rain, and in a pavilion, etc., it is proper, and that is where the bedding is not soaked by snow or rain. In the hot season, even in the natural open air, it is proper, and that is only when there is no unseasonal rain. This distinction is also established by the power of these two words: "for eight months" and "in a sign of no rain." What more? It is a distinction shown in the commentary. That which is covered with leather, etc., or newly woven, does not quickly perish. "Being body-following" means where the body is, there it has gone. Dhammasiri Thera says it is not proper to dwell allowing the body to touch a communal bed, etc. According to the saying in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, "If donors give a communal bed, saying, 'Venerable sirs, use it in the open air as you please,' in such a case, there is no offense," and since there is no prohibition here, it is proper. "And other such things," others say. "Facing the foot-place" is written as "facing the place where the feet fall for one who is sitting." The teacher's conjecture is "facing the foot-place for one who is sweeping." 111. "By lifting the feet" is written as "because it is outside the precinct." They go, an offense of wrong-doing, like for a Dhamma speaker. why is there no offense? Because it should be taken after being raised by those who came later and are older. But for a Dhamma speaker, it should not be raised. It is said, "Even in a rule without a command, the burden is his." 112. In "for keeping," Elder Dhammasiri says, "taking and investigating." Elder Upatissa says, "making it one's own." "Bījanīpattakaṃ" is a square fan. 113. They say, "Because it is said, 'Whatever monk or novice... if he is conscientious,' it is not proper to go after asking an unconscientious person." In the text, "is obstructed by someone," and in the commentary, "obstructed" is said with reference to the lodging itself. Therefore, it should be understood that it is also so. The reading is "or without asking." The explanation of the first lodging rule is finished. 5. Explanation of the Second Lodging Rule 116-7.