English
it arises from the body. This method applies to the other two as well. "They are worthy of speech" means a woman or a man, or both, having abandoned desire in the state of wifehood and husbandhood, being completely separated, for the purpose of reuniting with each other again, are worthy of being spoken to with words like "Do not do this," hence "worthy of speech." Or, they are worthy of making a conciliatory speech between these men and women, hence "worthy of speech." The meaning is that without the words of conciliation, they are considered completely abandoned, unable to come together. "But knowing the declaration" – here, it should be said, "or the state of being worthy of speech." Therefore, in the Mātikā-Aṭṭhakathā, "but knowing both" and so on is stated. Without informing the bhikkhu, if one writes one's intention on a leaf and gives it, saying, "Give this leaf to so-and-so," for the one who carries it, there is no "sañcaritta" (carrying messages). Indeed, this training rule is "without intention" only by not knowing the declaration or the state of being worthy of speech, not by not knowing the state of carrying messages altogether. In the Pāli text and the Aṭṭhakathā, only the act of informing is shown. Therefore, it should be understood that an offense occurs only for one who, knowing for the purpose of showing, informs by means of showing a leaf, or by body, or by speech. 341. "In whatever ways, in whatever countries" – this shows the specific method customary in those regions for making a declaration of abandonment, such as giving a leaf, or informing relatives, or authorities, and so on. And this is said with reference to a woman taken as a permanent wife. However, for women who have come together by their own will, and for men for a short time, the fading of affection in the mind itself should be understood as the reason for being worthy of speech. "Even in cases of gross misconduct and so on" – the word "and so on" includes messages for one's own pleasure. Here, however, in the Pāli text, although... ‘‘A woman is a human woman, not a yakkhi,’’ etc., human women and men are not specified; nevertheless, since ‘‘ten women protected by their mothers,’’ etc., only human women are specified, and men also should be understood in accordance with that, human women and men are intended here. Therefore, for whom the act of going together applies, their human nature (is implied), not being fit to be spoken to, receiving, investigating, and bringing back – these are the five factors here. The explanation of the Sañcaritta training rule is finished. 6. Explanation of the Kuṭikāra training rule 342. In the sixth (rule), ‘‘by so much’’ means by so much wood, etc. ‘‘Of unmeasured size’’ means of unmeasured size of wood, etc. ‘‘By uprooting’’ means by freeing it from being another’s property and making it one’s own property; this is the meaning. Thus, for one who begs, there is an offense of improper request and an offense of receiving a slave, because it is prohibited in the commentaries based on the statement ‘‘he abstains from receiving male and female slaves’’ (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194). ‘‘One’s own work’’ means the work of killing living beings. And this (offense) is stated as a dukkaṭa to avoid the fault of taking life, not to avoid the fault of requesting. ‘‘Even without specifying, one should not beg’’ is stated to show what is proper; however, for one who requests manual labor with a pure mind, there is no offense. ‘‘It is permissible to have it done as one wishes’’ means it is permissible even without requesting, saying ‘‘I ask for manual labor, give it.’’ Even for one who has it done in this way, being engaged in one’s own affairs, there is no (fault of) requesting; however, it is stated separately to show what is proper. ‘‘To show its complete permissibility’’ means to show its complete permissibility. ‘‘It is permissible to say ‘give the price’’’ means, since it was first said ‘‘we will give the price,’’ even if the word ‘‘request’’ or ‘‘price’’ is a general term for permissible and impermissible things, it is said because giving completed wages does not constitute accepting an impermissible thing. ‘‘Unoccupied’’ means unappropriated. A bed…etc…. among ‘‘even by one who wishes to have robes, etc., made,’’ one who wishes to have a robe made… Even if there is no dukkaṭa from a request for causing weaving by unknown, uninvited weavers, by way of requesting handiwork, it should be known that pācittiya and dukkaṭa offenses arise as appropriate by the training rule on causing robes to be woven. Unallowable coins and the like should not be given. Even if received through allowable means, it is said that giving by saying, "Give this coin to him for the purpose of doing handiwork," is not permissible. In giving for work done previously, although no fault is seen, yet they say it is indeed unsuitable. Even for work done, and even for work to be done, for one who causes wages to be given indirectly by allowable expression, there is no fault. The custom prevails. The meaning is there is no offense. "Having caused it to be made allowable, it should be received." This is said for the protection of seed-life when cutting leaves and the like with a branch-fly-whisk, and for the protection of what is not received, such as dust clinging there. When there is no doubt about both, there is no fault in not doing so. Because water in rivers and the like is not received (owned), it is said that "it is permissible to say, 'Bring it!'" "One should not consume what is brought." Even after confessing the dukkaṭa incurred by the request, for one who consumes that item, in consuming it again, it is still a dukkaṭa. It is not permissible for any of the five fellow Dhamma-practitioners. "Handiwork should not be caused to be done by shameless monks or novices." Because this is said generally, it is not permissible to cause any handiwork to be done for oneself. But if a shameless one, even when prevented, does fanning and the like, there is no fault in that. But it is permissible to cause them to do work for stupas and the like. And here, because it is said, "by shameless novices," the characteristic of a shameless one, "intentionally commits an offense" and so on (Pari. 359), is stated as a distinguishing mark with reference to an ordained person in a superior sense. Therefore, for novices and the like who lack that characteristic, even for those who are immoral, who profess to be monks, ending with those who are merely by outward sign, by name, or by clan, the characteristic of shamelessness in a general sense is "intentionally in the prescribed practice..." should be taken as "not standing." For one who causes to be brought, there is a dukkaṭa (offence) at the moment of intimation, due to the intimation, and at the moment of acquisition, due to the approval of the oxen. For oxen, even if acquired without intimation for one's own use, it is not allowable to approve, as it is said: "He refrains from accepting elephants, cattle, horses, and mares." Therefore, it is said: "Even from a place where relatives have invited, it is not allowable to beg for the purpose of uprooting." And here, even in the absence of an intimation dukkaṭa, there is a dukkaṭa for begging for an unallowable item or for accepting it. "Having protected" means having protected from dangers like thieves. "Having nourished" means having nourished with grass, etc. But in a place where relatives have invited, it is allowable, as a cart is to be accepted, it is allowable to beg for the purpose of uprooting. "It is allowable for that time" means it is allowable in both cases. He says that personal items like axes are also allowable: "This is the method for axes," etc. And for creepers, etc., and for those belonging to others, the same method should be applied. "Only for heavy items" this is said with reference to intimation. But in the case of taking what is not given, if one takes a blade of grass or anything belonging to another with a thieving mind, it is an act of theft, and one should be made to pay the value of the item. In "creepers, etc.," the word "etc." includes bamboos, etc., mentioned in the Pāli text. There, in a region where even a small amount of haritāla (orpiment) or hiṅgula (cinnabar) is valuable, even if it is smaller than a palm fruit, it is considered a heavy item, and it is not allowable to intimate for it. "Sā" is intimation. Among preliminary talks, etc., "preliminary talk" is speaking indirectly, as in "the dwelling is crowded," etc. "Obhāsa" is speaking directly, without circumlocution, so that the intention is clear, as in "is it not allowable for monks to have a palace?" etc. "Nimittakamma" (sign-making) is making a sign to produce requisites by doing ground work, etc., for the sake of a dwelling, etc. "Ukkamanti" means they depart. 344. "Maṇikaṇṭho" means "a jewel is on his neck." De they praise the state of deities. 345. "I have need of a bowl" (Pārā. 345) The Blessed One made the bhikkhu say this, even though he had no need of a bowl, in the manner of a mantra-verse of good fortune. And that bhikkhu said, "I speak the word commanded by the Blessed One," therefore it was not a lie for him. Or, "I have need of a bowl" should be understood as having the same meaning as "Let them give me a bowl." This is also the method in "I have need of a jewel." Therefore, it should be understood that there is no fault in speech for one who says such things to others, or causes them to be said. 349. "Ullittā" means plastered upwards. Those who plaster the inside of a roof mostly plaster upwards. Therefore it says "antolittā" (plastered inside). "Avalittā" means plastered downwards. Those who plaster the outside mostly plaster downwards. Therefore it says "bahilittā" (plastered outside). "The expression might be contradictory." Because the word "karontena" (doing) is not a synonym for the word "kārayamānena" (causing to be done),