English
in "the goods that must be taken" and so on (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.118). In the Pāli, "that signal, before or after," means before or after that signal. The same method applies to "that sign, before or after." Description of the Discourse on the Act of Marking 120. In the discourse on the act of marking, the act of marking, such as winking, is light and for a short time. Therefore, it is not possible to take that item at that very moment. It is said that one takes it by that mark because one begins to take it immediately after the act of marking. If so, does the argument that this is a "before-meal application" become valid? It does not. For the act of marking is not time-delimited like the act of signaling (Pārā. 119). The act of signaling is spoken of in terms of time, the act of marking in terms of action; this is their difference. "That mark, before or after, one takes that item; the owner is not guilty." This is said in reference to one who takes before making the mark, and to one who, even after the act of marking is done, does not begin to take it, but takes it himself later. Description of the Discourse on Command 121. In the discourse on command, "for the sake of clarity" means: Because one who performs acts of signaling and marking does not merely make a time-signal like "before-meal" or an act of marking like winking, but rather, "take an item of such and such color and shape," and also sets a rule for the item, and commands by a sequence of persons, saying, "You tell so-and-so, and he tells another," and so on. Therefore, when commanded in terms of time like "forenoon," in terms of actions like winking, and in terms of a sequence of items and persons, in these acts of signaling and marking Among mothers, being confused, in the state of confusion, delusion arises. For its removal, for non-delusion. That which was said by the commander, having made a sign-perception, for the purpose of taking in the forenoon, etc., or by winking the eye, etc. By the one commanding, "take that which has such a color, shape, etc." Having made a sign-knowledge that is a mark for such a taking, that which was said about the goods. This reasoning is everywhere, in all cases of command, both those mentioned below and those to be mentioned above. The disciplinary reasoning, which is the existence of pārājika, etc., at the very moment of command. And because there is no intention of theft in the commander's action at the moment of the commanded person's completion of the act, that only one offense occurs at the moment of command. Because it proceeds by such a logical explanation, it is called "reasoning." Because it was said, "a grave offense for the principal," even if accepted by Saṅgharakkhita, it is only a dukkaṭa for Buddharakkhita and Dhammarakkhita. Why then is it a grave offense for the teacher here? He says, "because the great multitude," etc. And "great multitude" was said referring to Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, and Saṅgharakkhita. Only a dukkaṭa for the principal, a dukkaṭa for Buddharakkhita. And this, for showing the absence of a grave offense for the principal, was said referring to a dukkaṭa at the first moment of command, not referring to the possibility of another dukkaṭa due to Saṅgharakkhita's acceptance. For he does not incur two dukkaṭas by one action. But some say, "Because of confusion, the Pāli, not saying 'for the principal,' but 'he accepts, an offense of dukkaṭa' having been said generally, this was said referring to Saṅgharakkhita's dukkaṭa." Although that does not agree with the commentary, it seems appropriate according to the Pāli. For indeed, he is not free from offense in the act of acceptance. By this very (reasoning), even in the cases mentioned below, a dukkaṭa for those who accept should be understood. "On a leaf, or on stones, etc., having written 'theft should be done' and placed it, it is only a pārājika," some say. But that, "the goods in so-and-so's house" thus specified... It fits when written, not when written without regulation, so it should be investigated. "Like the fruit immediately following the path"— by this, it shows that just as for noble persons, when the fruit immediately following the path arises, the task of development, culminating in the calming of defilements, is accomplished; so too, when this intention that accomplishes the purpose arises, the task of commanding is accomplished. Therefore, it is said, "Therefore, this one is defeated at the very moment of the command," meaning, one is defeated at the very moment of the intention that gives rise to the use of the command-word. The method of explaining the discourse on command is finished. Explanation of the types of offenses 122. "Here and there" means on the ground, on a platform, and so forth. In the Pāli, "taken by another" is said with reference to what is taken by a human. By these three terms—"touches," "causes to tremble," "moves from its place"— the fifth factor of taking, together with the preceding act, is stated; and "moves from its place" is merely an indication. It should be understood that all acts, such as commanding, and the act of abandoning responsibility, are to be included here. 125. "Moving from its place" is said in accordance with the Pāli, because it also includes the abandoning of responsibility. This method applies everywhere above as well. For there, by "not perceiving it as one's own," the state of being taken by another is stated; and by "not taking it trustingly," and "not taking it temporarily," the perception of it as taken by another is stated. Or, by these three, both the state of being taken by another and the perception of it as taken by another are stated, so it should be understood. "Not appropriated" means what is not appropriated in the sense of "this is mine," such as wood, grass, leaves, etc., in the forest. "Abandoned" means anything that was first taken and then abandoned as being useless. "Root-severed" means something lost, which, after searching, has had its root, i.e., attachment, severed, thus being root-severed. "Ownerless" refers to an ownerless object shown in three ways: not appropriated, etc. "Both" means ownerless and one's own property. Explanation of the types of non-offenses 131. "Born in that very existence" means born as a ghost in that very dead body. A robe caught on trees, etc. If it is not guarded by humans, it is said that it may be taken. But if it is guarded and protected by men appointed to temples, shrines, or trees, it should not be taken. When a little is eaten... ...it is permissible to take, this is said with reference to the absence of taking what is not given. To snatch away meat being eaten by a hungry creature and eat it oneself is indeed improper, due to the loss of compassion and to greed. For this reason, the noble ones do not drive away dogs and the like, even when they are eating food from their bowls. Just as giving meat to animals is skillful, so too, snatching their meat away is unskillful; this should be understood. Therefore, it will be said: "And it should not be taken out of compassion for others." Miscellaneous Explanations When many people together lift a heavy object, such as wood, the phrase "sāhatthikāṇattika" is used to refer to a situation where there is both a verbal command "Take it, lift it!" and a physical action. However, in a case of theft where one says, "You take this item, I'll take another," what one takes oneself is sāhatthika, and what one causes another to take is āṇattika. Therefore, even if the combined value of both reaches five māsa, it does not constitute a pārājika offense; it only results in a thullaccaya or similar offense, based on the value of each individual item. For it is said: "Sāhatthika is not a component of āṇattika," and so on. But one who, not wishing to return a deposited item or a debt, keeps saying, "I will give it, I will give it," and by remaining silent or by various physical gestures or actions, causes the other person to give up their claim, is said to have committed "an offense arising from action." The method of explaining the word-division is finished. Explanation of Vinīta-vatthu 135. In the Vinīta-vatthus, "niruttipatha" means the path of language, because language is the means of grasping the meaning of various things. Therefore, it is said: "merely in the usage of words." "Gone according to kamma" indicates the state of being dead, from having become a ghost. "Abbhuṇheti" indicates the body's warmth due to approaching death. Therefore, it is said: "wet..." in a body. Even if it has become a corpse, it is still broken, because it is broken due to its wetness. By "in a different kind of body" means in a woman's body. What is said about the head and so on, in the lower part, in the region of the raised knee-cap, is said with reference to the arising of mental defilement, where it is well done by not touching it anywhere. They say that even a dead body, if one intentionally touches it in any way, it is an offense of not touching, and that is correct. For the offense that arises in the mind and other forms of women, which are not the basis for defeat, does not cease in the dead body of a woman, which is the basis for defeat. The Story of the Kusasaṅkāmana Incident 138. By "by force" means by strength. "It will be a cloth, I will take it" is a future tense statement, said to show the thought that arose before taking the bag. But at the moment of taking, "If it is a cloth, I will take it," he takes the bag—this is the intention to be understood here, not that he will take it after taking it out and knowing it to be a cloth. Therefore, it is said, "The defeat is in the very taking out.