English
And that means the state of being plastered and so on. It is said with reference to the roof itself, meaning it is said with reference to plastering both the inside and outside of the roof. Even without plastering the wall of a mud-plastered hut, since an offense can arise merely by the plastering of the roof being joined with the wall, it should be understood that the plastering of the roof is primary. Although it is so, yet from such statements as, "He makes a stone wall below just to prevent termites, and if he does not plaster it but plasters above, the plastering is not considered joined, there is no offense," it is necessary that the plastering of the entire wall is desired for the plastering of the roof to be joined, because if even a part of it is not plastered, the plastering of the roof is not joined. Therefore, it is said, "the plastering is not joined." Here means in a grass hut. And not only in a grass hut, but also in caves and grottoes, there is no offense due to the absence of beginning and the absence of circumambulation. And by this method, it is shown in essence that there is no offense for one who makes a hut for another, even due to the absence of beginning and so on. There, to avoid contradiction with the Pāli, "but what is said" and so on, is stated. This is the intention here: For one who makes it for another, such as an upajjhāya, there is no offense even due to the absence of beginning and so on. But what is said in the Pāli, "an offense of three dukkata for the builders," and so on, that is said for one who makes it for another, not to show an offense due to the absence of beginning and so on. What then? It is to show an offense due to not making the hut as instructed. There, "as instructed" means "A bhikkhu instructs and departs, 'Make a hut for me,' he instructs, and let it be one whose site is shown, and let it be without beginning, and with circumambulation." Thus, it means due to making it without deviating from the order of the one who caused it to be made. In some books, however, after the passage "even for one who makes a hut that meets the criteria of a hut for another...etc...there is no offense," the passage "but what is an offense for the builders" and so on, is seen, and that is more appropriate. For if it is so, There, the intention is clear. Saying 'no offense' means saying 'no offense' because it is not fixed for the purpose of a dwelling place. Doing without having it shown means doing even what is within the measure. Unintentional means unintentional with a mind not knowing the regulation. Being one of the plastered, etc., Possibility of being below the measure, Having the object not shown, Exceeding the measure, Intending for oneself, Being a dwelling place, And the plastering – These are seven, or six factors among the factors within the measure, etc. The explanation of the training rule concerning hut-building is finished. 7. Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning Vihāra-Building 365. In the seventh, because the possessive case is also desired for the agent in the use of the word 'pūjā', it is said 'honored by the village'. Referring to what exists in the sense faculties of form, it is said that 'one faculty' is spoken of, thus he says 'referring to the body faculty'. For they desire the mind faculty even for living beings. 366. The absence of arising from action means that without non-action, which is called not showing the object, there is not merely an arising from action. For this arises from action and non-action. In this training rule, 'bhikkhus or should not be led' – here the word 'vā' (or) has the meaning of 'and', therefore it combines both action and non-action: 'he should build a large vihāra, and the bhikkhus should not be led'. The explanation of the training rule concerning vihāra-building is finished. 8. Explanation of the First Training Rule Concerning Malicious Slander 380. In the eighth, the connection is 'enclosed by a wall'. Regarding 'provided with a gate-tower and watch-tower', here, a special shelter made in a crooked shape with holes for shooting arrows, constructed on the walls for battle, is called an 'aṭṭālaka' (watch-tower). Of the sixteen kinds means of the sixteen kinds, which are called full understanding, abandoning, realization, and development, to be done in each of the four truths by each of the four paths. By respect means by respect, by shame, when those weary bhikkhus show their weary bodies before the bhikkhus assembled at the place for food distribution, in having it distributed. Thirteen means the food distributor, the lodging assigner, the storekeeper, the robe receiver, the robe distributor, the gruel... thirteen by way of those who divide the fruits, those who divide the food, those who distribute small portions, those who take the robes, those who take the bowls, those who send the monastery attendants, those who send the novices, and those who are appointed. In Pāli, "api su" is a particle with the same meaning as "api ca". Thus, it should be understood that in all places, such as seats and other common furnishings, and at times of entering and exiting the agreement, he causes them to speak by specifically determining each one. For this is the nature of the created beings, and it is said regarding the created beings without restriction. But if one restricts them by making a preliminary arrangement, saying, "So many should speak this and that, so many should be silent, they should adopt various postures and actions, and they should have various colors, shapes, ages, and restrictions," and then enters into absorption, rises, and determines them, they will be of various kinds, even dissimilar to each other, as desired. "Avatthuka vacana" means meaningless speech. 383. "Ekacārika bhatta" means food that is to be delivered to a separate station for the benefit of all who are extremely pleased. By the taddhita idiom, "cattāri pamāṇamassa catukkaṃ" (four is its measure, fourfold), thus by the taddhita idiom. "Bhavo" means what is to be. "Atītaṃ divasabhāgaṃ" is said with reference to the time of giving the tickets on that very day. "Hiyyo" means today. Therefore, they said, "Tomorrow we," and so on. "Padhūpāyantā" means fuming repeatedly with anger that arises again and again. In Pāli, "kissa maṃ" means "for what reason me?" 384. To show that "sarasi tvaṃ" is one sentence, and "kattā" is a word ending in the rit suffix in the agentive case, forming one sentence with the implied word "asi," and that "evarūpaṃ" and "yathāyaṃ bhikkhunī āhā" should be connected to each of the two sentences, he says, "atha vā," and so on. "Ujukameva" means that the initial understanding of the meaning is straightforward when it is in the tvā-suffix form. The second word "dabba" means "paṇḍitādivacana" (speech of the wise, etc.), so he says, "na kho dabba dabbā paṇḍitā" (indeed, the wise are not foolish). "Nibbeṭhenti" means they free from fault. Establishing the tradition in the matter of the rule for determining the Vinaya, according to the meaning of the rule. In Pāli, in "since I" and so on, the meaning to be understood is: "At the time I was born, from then onwards, even in a dream, I have not known sexual conduct, nor was I a partaker of that sexual conduct." Therefore it is said, "even in a dream," and so on. Now, to show the connection by way of a single sentence, "or else," and so on, is said. "It does not fit," because her statement does not accord with the statement of an Arahant. And that non-fitting was due to extreme immorality, which was already known among the bhikkhus. Therefore, the intention is, "Destroy the bhikkhuni Mettiyā." "Go, friend" means: go, depart, friend, away, you who are not mine. "Perish!" means: go to disappearance. "Not the doer" means: not the doer by a baseless accusation. "He is the doer" means: if she was destroyed by this declaration, "I have been defiled by the venerable one," then the elder, having been proven to be the defiler of the bhikkhuni, would be the doer of that fault. "He is not the doer" means: not considering the declaration made by her, because it was generally said by the Blessed One, "Destroy the bhikkhuni Mettiyā," he is not the doer. If indeed the elder were the doer, it should certainly have been said, "Destroy the bhikkhuni Mettiyā for this reason," pointing out that very fault. Since it was not said thus, and not saying, "interrogate the matter," but saying, "interrogate these bhikkhus," it is implied that the bhikkhuni Mettiyā was worthy of destruction for another fault, and that the accusation was baseless, and that the elder was not the doer; this is the intention. "His own sutta" means a false sutta, accompanied by this interpolated phrase, "by her own declaration." Here, the meaning of "the elder is not the doer" is this: Not saying "by her own declaration," but generally, "destroy the bhikkhuni Mettiyā," her destruction was enjoined in the matter that had arisen. In your view, the elder is the doer. But if "by her own declaration" is said, then it is already proven from before... a Pārājika offense by her own declaration is destroyed, so our argument the Elder is not the doer. But for the Mahāvihāra residents, when it is said, "by her own declaration," the destruction of it is prescribed only in a case that has arisen, not generally, this is the intention. Here, in these two arguments, or in the suttas. What was said later, what was said by the Mahāvihāra residents, that is correct, this is the meaning. For this has been considered, that this correctness of the latter has been considered, "there, a Saṅghādisesa leads to rehabilitation... ...he destroyed it only due to impurity," it is determined in the manner to be stated, this is the meaning. "For disparaging a bhikkhunī, a Dukkata," by this, the Mahāaṭṭhakathā argument is shown. There, in those Dukkata and Pācittiya offenses. Dukkata,