English
it is just a dukkaṭa." By this also, the dukkaṭa is due to the blow. It is established that the throwing up is just as it happened, it should be thoroughly investigated. They say, "Even for one who throws up having seen the defilement of animals and so on and become angry, the intention is indeed for release." The explanation of the training rule on the hand-missile is finished. 6. The explanation of the training rule on groundless accusation "Thinking an ordained person is unordained, with a groundless Saṅghādisesa" It should be understood as the basis for a Saṅghādisesa offense, such as emission of semen, bodily contact, and so on. For there is no such thing as a Saṅghādisesa offense for an unordained person. The explanation of the training rule on groundless accusation is finished. 7. The explanation of the training rule on intentional accusation "One who is under twenty years old, thinks" Here, by one's own perception, not thinking so. Knowing, for the purpose of causing remorse, saying "I think", should he be made to commit a falsehood? No, not by the fulfillment of the factors, nor by merely "I think" does the fulfillment of factors necessarily occur. In some cases, it is established in the ultimate sense. In cases like "I think the water is burning", whether another causes remorse or not, that is not a measure. In the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Sañciccasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), "causing remorse" is said according to his intention. The explanation of the Sañcicca training rule is finished. 8. The explanation of the Upassuti training rule 473. In "having heard these", "word" is the remaining part of the text. They are of one division, in this way: "it might be an action, it might be a non-action". Here, although the offense due to speaking otherwise is an action, and the offense due to causing harm is a non-action, considering both as one training rule, that training rule, called "speaking otherwise", should be understood in this sense: it might be an action according to the first (case), it might be a non-action according to the second (case). The explanation of the Upassuti training rule is finished. 9. The explanation of the Kammapaṭibāhana training rule 474. According to the saying "for righteous deeds" (Pāci. 475), some bhikkhus give their consent for righteous deeds, saying "I give my consent". That is merely their opinion, not a practice. If it is rejected based on unrighteousness, or if he revokes it, is there no offense? No, because it is stated in the section on non-offenses that if it was not done that way at the time of giving consent, but later rejected due to unrighteous action, etc. If it is said that it is no different from making an offense free due to an unrighteous act, or a faction, or an act done by one not worthy of the act? No, because there was no approval for doing an unrighteous act at the time of giving consent, and because the fault falls only on the doer. If it is said that it is a dukkaṭa for the group? They are givers of consent for purification, not the group, because they have not reached the act. Even in the Parivāra (Pari. 482 onwards), those who give consent for an act, having reached the act, are mentioned separately in the section on acts. Even so, of an unrighteous act... Consent should not be given; when giving it, there is a wrong-doing of approving what is not allowable. For there indeed, they are not freed from the wrong-doing of arranging, thus our teacher argues. The commentary on the training rule concerning obstructing a formal act is finished. 10. The commentary on the training rule concerning going without giving consent 481. If one does not come to the assembly and does not give consent, there is no offense, say some. It is a wrong-doing, say others, because of the intention to obstruct a formal act of Dhamma. Some say one may give consent in the midst of the Saṅgha. If, having given consent, one enters the midst of the Saṅgha and then goes away again, should the consent not be withdrawn? It is withdrawn. Why? Because it contradicts [statements] like "one who is not within arm's reach is worthy of consent." But in the Pāḷi, some say it is said with reference to one who, desiring to give, goes beyond arm's reach. The commentary on the training rule concerning going without giving consent is finished. 11. The commentary on the training rule concerning the weak 484-5. "He gave" means he announced and gave. Here, regarding "monks," those of the group of six, avoiding themselves, did not say "Saṅgha" but said "monks." "They divert" means they lead away. There, "gain" is the extraction of a word, here, even though it is not intended, for the purpose of indicating gain by way of extracting the meaning of anything whatsoever. For indeed, only robes are intended here; therefore it is said, "if another requisite is given, it is wasted, there is an offense of wrong-doing." And "given" and "requisite" are words used in the locative sense. The commentary on the training rule concerning the weak is finished. 12. The commentary on the training rule concerning diversion 491. Even if a relative desires to give to another, if one causes it to be given to someone else, there is an offense. In all cases, having asked, one may dispose of what one wishes to give as one pleases. The commentary on the training rule concerning diversion is finished. Finished, in the order of commentary, the eighth chapter on fellow Dhamma-farers. 9. The Chapter on Jewels 1. The commentary on the training rule concerning the inner palace 494-7. Just as one attends upon the Blessed One, in that manner, this person is not worthy to be evil, meaning he is not evil, or it is for the sake of a reason. "That" is merely a particle, or it means "wherefore." "Crowd of elephants" means a crowd of robes, (incomplete) Going means it is crushed. 498. Ratana means the chief queen. Yet here, even other women of royal lineage are not protected, because in the non-offence cases, there is no statement "she is not a chief queen." If she is only a khattiya, she is not consecrated. If she is only consecrated, she is not a khattiya, so says the teacher. In the non-offence cases, since it is stated as a component in the Mātika commentary, the state of being consecrated is the measure. The rest is an excellent distinction, say some. 500-501. The three-part division "not in a sleeping-place, with the perception of a sleeping-place" is also accepted here. A non-sleeping-place means the root of a tree that is not enclosed, and so on. The explanation of the training rule concerning the inner palace is finished. 2. The explanation of the training rule concerning valuables. 504. And "May the householders consent to the meal." And "my householders" - this is present. 506. By the statement of Kurundi, if monks suspect even in a house, it is said that they should stay there and declare it. "Suitable" means "the taking of rag-robes considered as valuables, or going without concern for valuables" - this is written. They say, "Even temporarily, one should not receive it without touching." "Having caused to undertake" means "having requested" in the manner stated: "The noble ones stand for the purpose, this is the request of the noble ones" (Jā. 1.7.59). The explanation of the training rule concerning valuables is finished. 3. The explanation of the training rule concerning entering a village at the wrong time. 511-2. In the case of being bitten by a snake, that monk went without asking a present monk, and remorse arose in him. "In the manner stated in 'taking what is not given'" - this is said with reference to "a village is the village precinct." The explanation of the training rule concerning entering a village at the wrong time is finished. 4. The explanation of the training rule concerning the needle-case. 517. This is a breaking. Because, having first made a breaking of the pācittiya, it should be declared afterwards. This method applies to others as well. 520. Vāsijaṭa means in the handle of an adze. The explanation of the training rule concerning the needle-case is finished. 5. The explanation of the training rule concerning beds. 521-2. And "on a high bed" and "high beds" are found in some places. "Extended" means "wide." "Having eight-finger-high legs" is a neuter noun of state, eight... a footstool the size of a finger. The explanation of the training rule concerning couches is finished. 6. The explanation of the training rule concerning stuffed with cotton 528. "Poṭakitūla" means any kind of grass-cotton. In "having undone (it) after receiving (it), one should confess a pācittiya," although it seems that a pācittiya is incurred merely by receiving it, the offense should be understood to occur only upon use. The statement "having received something made by another, one uses it, an offense of dukkata" is a supporting factor here. The explanation of the training rule concerning stuffed with cotton is finished. 7. The explanation of the training rule concerning sitting cloths 531. Although the origin of a sitting cloth is not mentioned here, since it is allowed in the chapter on robes, and is included in "nine robes are to be determined," its origin should be understood to be of the robe category. "Having spread it out like a mat, it is 'sadasa'" refers to the previously mentioned spreading of a sitting cloth, comparing it. Some say that "sadasa" is permissible when available, and "adasa" (not like) is permissible when not available, but that is not appropriate, because "a sitting cloth is called 'sadasa'" defines its form. The explanation of the training rule concerning sitting cloths is finished. 8. The explanation of the training rule concerning itch-covering cloths 539. If an itch-covering cloth is intended to be a covering for itch-sores, etc.