English
Regarding "Ussāhaṃ paṭippassambhetvā vihāraṃ gacchantā" (having relaxed their energy, going to the monastery), this is said with reference to those who have gone out of the village precincts and entered the precincts of an inner monastery or the like. However, for those whose energy is relaxed within the village precincts, if they wish to enter the same village again or another village, there is no need for asking permission. But "Kulaghare vā…pe… gantabbaṃ" (or to a family house…pe… should go) is said regarding the need to ask permission for entering a village in the wrong time (vikāla) if it has become the wrong time for those who entered before mealtime. "Adinnādāne vuttanayena" (in the manner stated in the case of taking what is not given) is said with reference to the second throwing of the clod. 515. Regarding "Antarārāmaṃ" and so on, some say that on festival days and the like, when people are circumambulating the village, or when they wish to worship a Buddha image, or when bhikkhus are requested by people for the purpose of alleviating illness and the like, it is permissible to circumambulate the village right through the middle of the street without having performed the procedure of being well-covered and so on. This should not be accepted because it is not stated in the section on non-offenses, and because it is prohibited by "maggā anokkamitvā…pe… pācittiyaṃ" (without deviating from the path…pe… an offense of expiation) (Kṅkhā. aṭṭha. vikālagāmappavesanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā). Even the Elder Ānanda, when circumambulating Vesālī and performing the protective chant, did so without violating the rule of being well-covered and so on. And, it should be understood as done in a precept not yet laid down. Some, however, say, "It is permissible for those staying between monasteries, etc., and villages, to enter the village street for the purpose of going forth to meet or accompany venerable persons, etc." But even that is not permissible to do towards one entering a house. However, it seems permissible to do it towards one going with the intention of reaching a suitable place like between monasteries, etc.; it should be investigated. Not asking a resident monk, entering the village at the wrong time for an unauthorized reason— these are the two factors. The explanation of the training rule concerning entering a village at the wrong time is finished. 4. Explanation of the training rule concerning the needle-case. 520. In the fourth Pāli text, `vāsijaṭa` means a handle for a razor. Being a needle-case made of bone, etc., and its acquisition by oneself through making or having it made, etc.— these are the two factors. The explanation of the training rule concerning the needle-case is finished. 5. Explanation of the training rule concerning beds and chairs. 521. In the fifth Pāli text, "From his intention, monks, the foolish person is to be known" means: "This is a worthless person due to his base intention," is to be understood. "The worthlessness of a person is to be known by his greed for base requisites," is the meaning. In this training rule, and in the next five, the offense of *pācittiya* occurs only upon acquiring something made by oneself. However, for its use, and for others, it is merely a *dukkaṭa* offense. Being a bed or chair exceeding the prescribed measure, and its acquisition by oneself through making or having it made— these are the two factors. The explanation of the training rule concerning beds and chairs is finished. 6. Explanation of the training rule concerning stuffed cushions. 526. In the sixth, `poṭakitūla` means stuffing from grass-like plants. The rest is in the same manner as stated. The explanation of the training rule concerning stuffed cushions is finished. 7. Explanation of the training rule concerning sitting cloths. 531-536. In the seventh, the sitting cloth exceeding the prescribed measure, and its acquisition by oneself through making, etc.— these are the two factors. The explanation of the training rule concerning sitting cloths is finished. 537-547. In this manner, the factors in the eighth, ninth, and tenth (rules) are also to be understood. The rest is easily comprehensible everywhere. The ninth chapter, the Royal Section, is finished. The method of minor explanations is finished. 6. The Section on Confession. 1. Description of the First Pāṭidesanīya Training Rule 553. In the Pāṭidesanīyas, the first is the showing of the manner in which it should be confessed. Thus, it is the showing of the manner in which the offense should be confessed in the presence of a novice. By this characteristic, the manner in which many offenses should be confessed in the presence of an elder can also be understood. Herein, this is the method: “I have committed, friend, a blameworthy deed, an unsuitable, confessable offense,” thus for many offenses. But in the presence of an elder, the phrasing should be understood as: “I have committed, venerable sir, a blameworthy deed… …venerable sir, blameworthy deeds.” Therein, “unsuitable” means that which obstructs heaven and liberation. Taking a temporary food item with one’s own hand from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī standing within a house, and consuming it— these are the two factors. The description of the first Pāṭidesanīya training rule is finished. 558. In the second, the dismissal of a fully ordained bhikkhunī without permission, and consuming food without preventing her— these are the two factors. 563. In the third, being considered a trainee, being uninvited in the vicinity of a house, and consuming food after taking a regular meal, etc., from a sick person— these are the three factors. 570. In the fourth, a dwelling place being suspicious and unknown, and a non-sick person consuming a temporary food item received within the monastery without permission and without informing— these are the two factors. The rest is clear. The method of describing the Pāṭidesanīyas is finished. 7. The Sekhiya Section 1. Description of the Parimaṇḍala Vagga 576. Among the Sekhiyas, since the observances mentioned in the Khandhaka on Observances (Cūḷavagga 356 onwards) are also Sekhiyas because they must be trained in, therefore, unlike in the Pārājikas, etc., no division is made in the Pāli here. And to show the method of conduct, instead of saying, “If a bhikkhu wears the lower robe hanging down, there is an offense of wrong-doing,” the Pāli is everywhere phrased as “a training should be undertaken.” However, in the word analysis, since it is stated, “there is an offense of wrong-doing,” it should be understood that there is an offense of wrong-doing for disrespecting it everywhere. “About eight finger-breadths” —by the word “about,” it includes something a little more or less than that. Therefore, even about four finger-breadths when seated, It is said. For it is not possible to determine that for one sitting, it is four finger-breadths, and for one standing, it is eight finger-breadths, as there can be more or less. Therefore, it should be understood that the lower robe itself is intended to be in accordance with eight finger-breadths, as is appropriate. For this reason, it will be said: "But if a monk has dry shanks," and so on. In the Kurundi, it is said, "There is no offense for one who does not know," with emphasis placed on not knowing, even for one who is learning. By this, the practice of wearing the lower and upper robes continuously should be trained, one untrained is simply disrespectful. By the term "well-rounded," it is also forbidden to lift up the lower robe and wear it, as it says, "by lifting up or letting down." "With intention" means with the intention of knowing the object. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī, following the view of Thera Upatissa, taking into account what is blameworthy in the world, it is said, "with intention of knowing the object, and with intention of knowing the precept, it is with intention." And there, knowing the object should not be stated separately. For knowing the precept includes that as well; one who knows that there is an offense for transgressing this object in this way is said to know the precept. And in the view of Thera Upatissa here, it is held that there is no offense at all in all Sekhiyas for one who, not knowing the precept, only knows the object of wearing the robe not well-rounded, and so on, due to the absence of disrespect for transgressing the precept. But that is not appropriate, because in the Kosambakkhandhaka, an offense is stated for one who leaves a remnant of water in the latrine, even without knowing the precept. For it is said there: "At that time, a certain monk had committed an offense... ...Later, he had the view of no offense for that offense," and so on. And in the Commentary on this, it says: "Do you not know the state of offense here?" "Yes, I do not know." "Let it be, friend, there is an offense here." "If there is, I will confess it." "But if, friend, it was done unintentionally, without mindfulness, there is no offense." He had the view of no offense for that offense. "was a woman," (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 451) it is said, and also, "an unrighteous speaker, one of those who follow the suspended," (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 457-458) it is said. For the Khandhaka observances are sekhiya rules, the method stated there applies to these, and what is stated here is common to those. Therefore, the rule of offense stated here as: "done unintentionally, without mindfulness, there is no offense," is also shown there. Therefore, standing in the view of Thera Phussadeva, all sekhiya rules are with intention (sacittaka) by the mind that knows the object, not by the mind that knows the precept. The two training rules of "desiring more," "covering the private parts," and "being censorious," are worldly offenses, unwholesome states of mind. The remaining ones are precept offenses, with three types of consciousness, and three types of feeling;