English
this understanding seems more appropriate. Therefore, here, the explanation of non-offense, such as "unintentionally, thinking 'I will wear it hanging down in front or behind,' thus unintentionally," is made based on not knowing the object, not based on the mind that knows the precept. Furthermore, this is also accomplished by the defining statement: "for whom, in the intentional aspect, the mind is only unwholesome, that is a worldly offense" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. First Pārājika Commentary). Here, "in the intentional aspect" is said based on the mind that knows the object. Otherwise, if based on the mind that knows the precept, due to the rule that the mind in the intentional aspect is unwholesome for all training rules, there would be a consequence of all being worldly offenses, and there would be no precept offenses. And this statement would be meaningless, due to the absence of a training rule to be excluded by this statement. And there is no rule in the sekhiya rules that the mind in the intentional aspect, by the mind that knows the object, is only unwholesome, as in the case of killing and so on, by which worldliness would arise here. And this Pāli statement "due to disrespect" is said having known the object, making the transgression with three types of consciousness as disrespect, it should not be taken as transgressing only with unwholesome consciousness, having known the precept. Otherwise, from the Khandhaka Pāli, a... That there is a contradiction between earlier and later statements in the commentary, that is our patience. Or, how it is not contradictory, so here the intention should be sought. Disrespect, absence of a cause for no offense, improper wearing of robes— these are the three factors here. As it is here, so it is everywhere. Only the specific application of the third factor by doing the opposite of what is stated here and there is the distinction. 577. In the second and so on, "covered by laypeople" means covered with white cloth, etc. "Even in the monastery" is said with reference to the time of the Sangha's assembly or attending upon the Buddha, etc. 578. "Having tied a knot," etc. is a demonstration of the covering method. Since it is said, "having covered the neck," etc., there is an offense for one who intentionally does not cover the neck and the wrist. Here too, because the training rule on proper wearing is general, one should wear the robe properly, letting it hang down about four finger-breadths below the knee-cap, without letting it dangle. 579. "To sit uncovered" is said with reference to wearing the robe over one shoulder, as in the monastery. Since it is said, "for one who has come to stay," without the intention of staying, even if one sits for a long time for the purpose of teaching Dhamma or reciting protective verses, etc., one must sit fulfilling all the inner-dwelling duties. And only in the training rules related to sitting, since "for one who has come to stay" is mentioned as a non-offense, even one who goes into the inner dwelling with the intention of staying must go without violating the rules of being well-covered, etc. For it is said, "for one who has come to stay," not "for one who is going." Some say, "After one has first gone to each place and taken up residence, then it is permissible for others to go as they please." Others say, "When householders have given, saying, 'We give you this house as long as you will reside,' then it is permissible for others, without the intention of staying, to go and sit as they please, as in an inner park." All that should not be accepted because there is no such statement, no characteristic of a gift, and because it does not amount to a monastery for that duration. "As long as you will sit, so "I give you this house," even if he gives, he gives it only temporarily, for giving is characterized by the relinquishing of the object. 582. "Of four cubits in measure" they say is said with reference to the carpenter's cubit. 584. "Having lifted up the robe" is said with reference to lifting it up only to show the waist-band and so on from the waist upwards, for taking the bowl and so on while going for alms is permitted. Therefore, "when seated, the fan," and so on, is said. For when seated, when one takes out the fan from the bowl-bag hanging on the shoulder, it is seen from the waist upwards; the intention is that it should be taken out without showing it thus. Even when one sits on a seat, one should sit without lifting up the robe somewhat and without lifting up the outer robe with the calves of the legs. However, since "for one who has entered the dwelling" is said in this very training rule, and it is not said in the sixth and eighth rules related to sitting, one who has entered the dwelling should also sit well-restrained with downcast eyes. Therefore, in the Commentary on the Mātikā, without stating their distinction, it is said here: "But for one who has entered the dwelling, there is no offense." The explanation of the Chapter on Circularity is finished. 2. Explanation of the Chapter on Loud Laughter 586. In the second chapter, in the rules on loud laughter and soft speech, and also in those related to sitting, no offense for one who has entered the dwelling is not stated; it is stated only in those concerning swaying the body and so on. However, in some Pāli texts, this is not well understood due to confusion with the peyyāla (abbreviation). And it should be understood that there is no offense even if one teaches the Dhamma or recites the Pātimokkha in a loud voice so that the assembly hears it within the dwelling, because it was practiced thus by Elder Ānanda, Elder Mahinda, and others. The explanation of the Chapter on Loud Laughter is finished. 3. Explanation of the Chapter on Leaning 603. "Having made a perception of the bowl" is said to show this meaning: "He has the perception of taking the bowl," thus, "one who perceives the bowl." 604. "Oloṇī" is a type of consonant change. Some say it is the juice of rice gruel, curds, and so on. "shoulder-meat and so on" – by the word "etcetera," all other changes in the dishes are included. 605. "Samabharita" means arranged. "It sinks down" means that because there is space all around, when it is made even with the hand, it falls down. Cakes placed on top of the bowl, because they are arranged like a garland, are called "cake-garlands." But some say, "There is an offense if one receives alms-food that has been piled up into a heap after taking the bowl and arranging it, when it is being given. But if it is given into a bowl already in hand, it is permissible to receive even if it is piled up." That should not be accepted, because "samatittika" (filled to the brim) is stated in a general sense, as an abstract noun. The commentary on the Khambhakatavagga is finished. 4. The commentary on the Sakkaccavagga 608. In the fourth chapter and so on, regarding "sapadāna" (in sequence): here, "dāna" means interruption; "apadāna" is that which is free from interruption; "sapadāna" is with "apadāna." It means without interruption, in due order. Therefore it is said, "without making a break here and there," and so on. 611. "Viññatti" refers to the training rule concerning requesting curries and rice. "There is nothing to be said" – this shows that everything is understood from the Pāli text itself. There, in the Pāli text, regarding "unintentionally" and so on: for one who incurs an offense by eating, knowing only the basic facts, and then, knowing the rule, wishes to spit out what is in the mouth, that which entered unwillingly is called "entered unintentionally." In that case, there is no offense. That same thing again, when eaten either due to distraction or with the perception that "this is not requested," is called "due to lack of mindfulness." 613. "For the sake of another" – because this training rule was laid down specifically for one who requests for his own sake and then eats it himself, it is said with reference to there being no offense by this training rule. But for the sake of five fellow Dhamma-farers, one who makes a request in an unknown and uninvited place, at the moment of requesting, is not freed from the dukkata (wrongdoing) of an unmade request, as stated in the commentaries in accordance with the suttas. At the moment of intentionally eating, both oneself and others should be understood as not being freed from wrong livelihood. "A hen's egg is too small" - this was said in the sense of impropriety. It should be understood that an offense occurs only with very large ones. However, for one eating, due to fear of thieves and the like, making it large and unrounded, eating quickly, in this way, is an emergency. Similarly, in other cases, it should be understood accordingly. The commentary on the Sakkacca Chapter is finished. 5. Commentary on the Kabaḷa Chapter However, regarding opening the mouth when the morsel has not been brought, since there is no purpose, it was not said "in emergencies." Similarly, in other such cases. "The whole hand" means the fingers, a part of the hand, as in "hand gesture" and so on. Therefore, it is not proper to put even one finger into the mouth. The commentary on the Kabaḷa Chapter is finished. 6. Commentary on the Surusuru Chapter In the Pāli, "sītīkato" means afflicted by cold. "Silakabuddho" is a word of ridicule. For when people see something foolish, they say "this is a fool." By "it is proper to eat by putting the fingers into the mouth," it shows that there is no offense in this rule by licking the fingers that have been put in, even for the rule about putting the whole hand inside the mouth. This is the method: in the case of thick gruel and the like, it extends to licking the bowl with the hand, and the lips with the tongue, as being proper. Therefore, it is not proper to lick without thick gruel and the like. "A bamboo-strip umbrella" means made of bamboo splints. "Bound in a circle" means