English
this eleventh should be, in order as it is possible. Indeed, this was not stated due to the absence of an origin story, but it should be understood in meaning. Here, however, in the case of the Sangha, group, and individual who have been invited, and in the case of a relative of an individual, a shadow of non-offence is seen. All this is stated according to our conjecture, and thus should not be taken as essential. Having considered, and having seen a firm reason, or what those skilled in the Vinaya course approve, that alone should be taken. In the ancient commentary, however, it is stated: "Even in times of danger, only another heavy item should be caused to be acquired; other things are not permissible. But for a bhikkhu, it is permissible." The commentary on the tenth Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is finished. 11. Commentary on the Eleventh Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule 784. Instead of saying "in the first of the second section," here it is said "in the eleventh." Why? Because in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, having reached the section of thirty, the order of sections is not stated. Since a solicitation in the case of one who has been invited should not be prohibited, therefore the Blessed One, in the case of an unknown person who has not been invited, would speak by way of an invitation to the Dhamma, "what is needed." It should be understood that he shows the limit, "up to four parts should be solicited." Otherwise, "the training rule does not agree with the origin story, and the non-offence clause with the training rule," and "up to four parts should be solicited without a solicitation being made" would lead to an undesirable conclusion. Therefore, in the Mātikaṭṭhakathā, having set aside "caused to be acquired," and in the case of fellow Dhamma-farers and invited relatives, by some other quality, and by one who is pleased, the meaning of "what is needed" spoken of as "should be solicited" should be understood. In the ancient commentary, however, it is stated: "This is said with reference to a limited invitation. But the non-offence for invited relatives is a constant, occurring in all ways." It was said with reference to the invitation. The constant invitation is: "When there is a need for something, then you should speak of it." It was said that for those who give, "Here, a cold-weather covering," it is permissible to take even more than four extra. The same method applies to the tenth. The explanation of the eleventh Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is finished. The explanation of the thirty [rules] in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga is finished. The explanation of the Nissaggiya Section is finished. 4. Explanation of the Pācittiya Section 1. The Garlic Chapter 1. Explanation of the First Garlic Training Rule 793-7. In "I with garlic," the omitted part is "I invite." It is said that a badarasāḷava is a food preparation to be made by drying and powdering jujube fruits. The explanation of the first garlic training rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Second Training Rule 800. "He should have it collected" — the division of the word "he collects or he has it collected" should be understood. Although the distinction of offenses is not shown here, nevertheless, in the preliminary actions of seeking and sharpening razors, tongs, scissors, etc., an offense of wrong-doing is incurred. Just as here, so too in the case of striking the ground, etc., the distinction of offenses is not stated in the Pāli. However, an offense of wrong-doing can arise in the preliminary actions as appropriate. Thus, for a bhikkhu here and in the case of garlic, there is an offense of wrong-doing. The ancients called this "action-inaction." There, "action-inaction" was not stated. The explanation of the second training rule is finished. 802-6. The third and fourth training rules are of obvious meaning. 5. Explanation of the Fifth Training Rule 812. In the fifth, even with the condition of water purity, in the touching and enjoying, there is no offense within the stated limits. There, "two joints" means: "When two fingers are inserted together, making each finger one joint, there are two joints. When one finger is inserted, it is not permissible beyond two joints above it." This is what should be understood. The same method is shown in the Mahāpaccariya. The explanation of the fifth training rule is finished. 815. The sixth training rule is of obvious meaning. 7. Explanation of the Seventh Training Rule 820-822 "Nagaraṃ atiharantī" is the reading. "Nagaradvāre atiharantī" is in some places, there the meaning is "by the gate". Or this very reading. That it is contradictory to what precedes and follows refers to the statement "it is said again," not to the statement made there before that. Here it is written "it contradicts the statement 'having informed even the mother'", that is badly written, for this was not said with reference to that contradiction. If there is a pācittiya for doing, there must also be a pācittiya for causing to do. If there is a dukkaṭa for causing to do, there must also be a dukkaṭa for doing. For there is no difference in doing or causing to do when an offense is incurred, this is the intention. 823. "It is permissible to accept" means it is permissible to say "good" without rejecting, this is the intention. Indeed, it is not permissible to receive. Because it is not touchable, it is said, "raw grain is not permissible even in a place where relatives have invited." However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said, "A bhikkhuni who roasts and eats grain received permissibly incurs a dukkaṭa. The same method applies to other grains," and "by the statement 'no offense due to illness,' it is established that the seven kinds of grain are also not touchable, and for that reason, in the dukkaṭa story below in the commentary, the seven kinds of grain are also taken as not touchable." If they were touchable and permissible items, just as it is said without distinction, referring to relatives' invitation, "informs about other grains," so it should be said, "no offense for relatives who have invited, for the purpose of another, for a madwoman, for the first offender." Since it is a dukkaṭa matter and not touchable, it is not permissible to inform even one's mother about the seven kinds of grain, therefore, to clarify that meaning, referring to the seven kinds of grain, it is said, "no offense due to illness," just as it is permissible for a bhikkhuni due to illness, so too for a bhikkhu. Or, just as it is not permissible for a bhikkhuni to cause roasting and so on, so too for a bhikkhu. This is also said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: "a certain A foolish monk, not knowing what is allowable, said this: ‘It is not allowable for monks to receive raw grain. Having roasted, pounded, and cooked this grain, give gruel, snacks, and rice.’ The monk who ordered incurs an offense; for all others, there is no offense. Therefore, it is not allowable to say to the monastery attendants, ‘‘Pound grain for the turn-taking monks.’’ But it is allowable to say things like, ‘‘Take daily expenses, prepare rice, you take this much, you take that much.’’ As for what was said, ‘‘It is allowable to receive for new construction what is obtained without solicitation,’’ that too is well said, having been stated with reference to the method mentioned below: ‘‘When it is said, ‘We give this pond, field, land to the monastery,’ it is allowable to receive it.’’ When it is said, ‘‘We give grain for new construction,’’ one should say, ‘‘Good.’’ As for what was said below, ‘‘There, it is not allowable to receive an article entailing relinquishment for oneself or for the Sangha, a group, an individual, or a cetiya… (etc.)… for one who receives an article entailing a dukkaṭa offense for anyone, it is indeed a dukkaṭa offense,’’ that too is well said. Why? Because it is not allowable to accept when it is said, ‘‘I wish to give grain for the cetiya, venerable sirs, please accept it for that purpose.’’ And it was said, ‘‘This is not of that kind.’’ This is indeed the view of Thera Upatissa, by all means. But Thera Dhammasiri said this: ‘‘Even formerly, acceptance for new construction was not prohibited; even what is accepted for the Sangha is unallowable for the acceptor himself.’’ The explanation of the Seventh Training Rule is finished. 8. Explanation of the Eighth Training Rule 824. The ancients read ‘‘nibbiṭṭharājabhaṭo.’’ Its meaning is a royal servant whose food and wages have been stopped. They say the meaning of ‘‘that very bhaṭapatha’’ is ‘‘that very food and wages.’’ Ummuka means a firebrand. 826. Here, 'thrown away' is an action. 'Not looking' is a non-action. The explanation of the Eighth Training Rule is finished. 9. Ninth Explanation of the Ninth Training Rule 832. "Discarding without informing the owner" is not in some books, in some it is. Its existence is better, due to the rule being about action or inaction. Here, field-keepers, and garden-keepers, etc., are the owners. "If there is no agreement not to discard rubbish in the Sangha's fields or gardens, it is permissible for a bhikkhu to discard it, as it belongs to the Sangha, but not for bhikkhunis. For them (bhikkhunis), it is permissible in the manner stated for what belongs to the Bhikkhuni Sangha, but not for a bhikkhu there. Even so, it should be done in a suitable manner," it is said. The explanation of the ninth training rule is finished. 10. Explanation of the Tenth Training Rule 833. Here, even a common song, such as a song of good sport, is not permissible to listen to. "However, it is permissible to listen to Dhamma accompanied by song," it is said in the Dīgha Nikāya commentary. But in the ancient commentaries, having said "even Dhamma songs are not permissible," it is said, "if it is said, 'Let us sing or play for the Buddha,' it is not permissible to accept, it is a dukkata offense." And it is said, "if it is said, 'Let us make an offering,