English
But if it is done with the thought: "When such help is rendered, they will be pleased, knowing the virtue of the Dispensation, or they will be helpful to the Saṅgha," then there is no fault. Some say: "Without expectation, it is permissible to give to visitors and so on, even to prohibited individuals." That is not appropriate, because it would lead to the absurdity of making the distinction between what should and should not be done meaningless, as it would only need to be said: "Without expectation, it is permissible to give and do for everyone." And not expecting anything is the fault of wrong livelihood, defiling the family, and so on. It was said only for the sake of not prohibiting. For the sake of being freed from this intermediate offense, which consists of making medicine, it should be understood that one is freed from that offense only by giving to authorized visitors, thieves, etc. Therefore, to show the place where it should not be done, even by one who does not expect anything, it was said, "a family of faith," etc. By "they ask," it shows that it is improper to go about speaking even indirectly to those who are seen to be sick. But they say that even indirect speech is not permissible for one who is asked and expects something. "He raised the conversation" means that one who expected nothing thus started a conversation with another. "The role of a teacher" means the role of a physician-teacher by prescribing medicine without violating the Vinaya conduct. He said that money received for flower offerings is indeed subject to relinquishment by being appropriated as one's own, by "having it received in a permissible manner." The meaning is, having refused with "money is not permissible for us, flowers are permissible for flower offerings," etc., then having it received by a permissible act. If, when told "Perform a protection chant," they do so, it becomes like making medicine, like a layperson's work, so it was said "it should not be done." But when told "Recite a protection chant," since it is an invitation to the Dhamma, the Dhamma should be recited even by one not invited, how much more so by one who is invited, so it was said "it should be done." "Having moved the thread and wiped it" - this was said because if done with the thought "I will introduce protection here," then protection is indeed introduced there. "From the monastery... etc.... an offense of wrong-doing" - they say this was said with reference to unknown householders. "Having sprinkled water on the feet" - this was said according to the custom in that region. For it was said: "There, for the purpose of alleviating illness, etc., on the feet of monks seated in a row, they sprinkle water, perform a protection chant, place a thread, say 'Recite a protection chant,' and then leave. If, when this is done, they remove their feet, people consider it inauspicious, or the illness will not be alleviated." Therefore, he said, "Do not remove the feet." to be led. Just as at the sight of a dead body, so too at the mere sight of a charnel ground, the perception of death arises, thinking, "This is the place of decay for beings who have been born." Thus it is said: "At the sight of a charnel ground... ...one should go with the intention of obtaining mindfulness of death as a meditation subject." Even without making a specific intention, if one is invited with a pure mind, saying, "Come for the purpose of attendance," one should go. "Un-touched almsfood" means the untouched portion, that which has not been consumed. "It is worth a kahāpaṇa" indicates that the donors have prepared it carefully with many dishes. "In a bowl" refers to a communal bowl made of bronze or similar material; a personal bowl is also included here. "It is not proper" indicates a dukkaṭa offense. "To a rebellious thief" means a notorious thief who aspires to the kingdom. The connection is that even if not given, they become angry, thinking, "They don't give." "Reconciliation" (paṭisanthāra) is the covering or closing of the gap or fissure that arises between oneself and others due to the lack of material things and Dhamma. This reconciliation is twofold: that of Dhamma and that of material things. Here, referring to material reconciliation, it is asked, "To whom should it be given, and to whom should it not be given?" To clarify the meaning briefly stated as, "To a guest... ...it should certainly be given," it is said, "First, to a guest," and so on. "Whose provisions are exhausted" shows their helplessness and their deserving of compassion. From this, it is understood that it is not proper to give to those who are not in such a state, such as wealthy donors, even if they are guests. When rice and other things are to be given, it is said, "At an unseasonable time... ...it should not be spoken." After saying, "By one who does not expect," it is said, "People, indeed," and so on, to show the manner of expectation. However, it is not proper to give to those who are not permitted, even by one who does not expect, because it leads to the ruin of faith-offerings. But if there is expectation, it also leads to the defilement of families. "Having driven away" means having made the people who were plundering within three yojanas flee in all directions. "A beautiful painted cloth" means a cloth adorned with various excellent images of men and women. Spreading. 187. Among the seventeen groups, because one was killed earlier by a finger-prick, it is said that "the remaining fifteen people" are left, excluding one who had climbed onto the stomach and was sitting among the remaining sixteen. Like immovable stones: like stones placed on an immovable object. With the intention of action: with the intention of performing actions like pointing with the forefinger. Having invited: having caused to enter. Making an image and cutting off its hands and feet: having invited a non-human being into that image made of a back, etc., they cut off its hands and feet. "He might kill Sakka, the king of devas": this is said in terms of possibility. For such powerful yakkhas are not worthy of being killed by weapons, as they do not die from weapon-blows even in battles between devas and asuras. 188. "A blow should not be given" is the connection. For one who strikes a non-human with an angry mind, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For one who strikes with the intention of treatment, it should be understood as not an offense. Palm leaves... etc. ... should be tied: this is said because non-human beings flee when palm leaves are tied, and this should not be done by laypeople in the manner of medical practice. 189. What needs to be said regarding "whoever does not die even if covered by a tree," etc., the Commentary on the Bhūtagāma training rule will state it itself; that should be taken from there. 190. Tools made of wood: this is said referring to those that have been cut by someone and placed, and are owned. In that case, a dukkaṭa offense is stated for the intention of destruction due to the absence of moving it from its place. "A dukkaṭa offense even with the intention of play" is said referring to setting fire to dry grass, etc. But for one who does it with the intention of play in the case of wet things, it is a pācittiya offense. An opposing fire, or a fire going against it, is a counter-fire. Giving it even to wet grass, etc., is permitted. One who gives it, seeing a forest fire approaching from afar, should not give it all at once around the monastery. Instead, starting from one part, he should slowly burn it around the monastery, so that even a large fire cannot reach the monastery. Thus, a counter-fire should be given by making an open space around the monastery. He, going against the forest fire, becoming one with it, is extinguished with it. By 'making a small protection' is meant making a protection by cutting trees and grass all around, digging a moat, and so on. Therefore, it is said, "clearing the ground around the grass huts," and so on. 191. Because of entering the field itself, it is a pārājika. Because even one of the two is included, if even one enters the field mentioned as "by two," it is a pārājika. But if it is stipulated, "kill by two only, not by one," and it is killed by one, they say there is no pārājika. Similarly, in cases like "two men only," and so on. No other application causing the cutting off of the life-faculty is found apart from the previously made application of beheading. Because his life-faculty is cut off by the first application, it is said "of the beheader." But the reason given in the Sāratthadīpanī, "because the life-faculty is non-existent," that is not the reason. Because movement, occurring by way of lifting, stopping, etc., is impossible without a continuous stream of consciousness supported by the life-faculty. For the body does not move like leaves or rags by the force of wind. Nor can it be said that mind-born volitions, etc., which occur in lifting, are also the cause of putting down, etc., because they occur interruptedly. Indeed, some reptile species, even if no momentum was previously applied, when cut in two, by the mere cutting, go in two directions for a few moments with the two parts. And there, in the part where the heart-base is located, the five-door adverting consciousness, located there, arises taking as its object the tangible object that has struck the body-sensitivity in both parts. Then, taking that same object, body-consciousness arises appropriately, in one part at one time, in the other at another time, in such a sequence. Then, in the heart-base itself, the receiving-consciousness and other process-consciousnesses, interrupted by bhavaṅga, and mind-door process-consciousnesses which generate volitions, arise. These are what make both parts go, or move, or throb. But due to the swift change of consciousness, both parts appear as if moving simultaneously in one moment. , just as it appears that a being whose entire body