English
is "kodhābhisaṅga" (a binding of anger), which is difficult to release. "To strike back at the accuser" means to stand in opposition to the accuser. "To dismiss the accuser" means to verbally assault. "To accuse in return" means to accuse the accuser of an offense, saying "You too are guilty of an offense." "To cover up" means to conceal. "By one's own conduct" means by one's own behavior. "Not to make known" means, when asked about one's conduct in a manner such as "What were you doing at that time, when you, the accuser, say 'I saw him commit this offense'? What was he doing? Where were you? Where was he?", not to explain it. "Whoever might have an offense" (Mahāva. 134) – by this introductory phrase, all offenses are included, thus it says "whoever might have," etc. The factors here, regarding the first schism in the Sangha... similar they are, but this is the distinction: there, an effort to divide, here, making one unmentionable, so it should be seen. The explanation of the rule on being difficult to admonish is finished. 13. The explanation of the rule on defiling families. 431. In the thirteenth. Kīṭāgiri is the name of that market town. Referring to that, later it was said: "Monks Assaji and Punabbasu should not dwell in Kīṭāgiri." And the expulsion is from the village-market town, not from the district. But by that connection, the district also came to be called "Kīṭāgiri." Therefore it says: "in a district of such a name." "There" means in Sāvatthī. "At the foremost place" means at the front place, near the Jetavana gate, that is the meaning. "By two clouds" means by two clouds: the rainy season cloud and the winter cloud. "More than" is said because it is six more than the group of teachers. "Of water" means of unallowable water. Because "sprinkling allowable water" will be stated separately. And because it will be stated: "even in unallowable activities like planting trees for a park, etc., sprinkling allowable water, etc., is permissible." Here too, having made a distinction, sprinkling allowable water, etc., is shown separately. Just as physical actions like pounding and digging are included in unallowable activities. So too, in allowable activities like straightening a border, etc. Therefore it says: "straightening a dry border." Here, removing old leaves, etc., is also included. The view of the Mahāpaccariya, being authoritative, is stated later. To show that some things are permissible even in unallowable activities, it says: "and not only the rest," etc. "Any border" means dry or not dry. "There" means in planting trees for a park, etc. "Thus" refers to having it bound by means of allowable activities, etc. And by this, it shows that having it bound for the purpose of gaining family support, etc., is also not permissible. Questioning why binding it oneself for the purpose of worshipping a relic is not permissible, (the text) says: "but surely," etc. Just as it is permissible to plant oneself in allowable ground for a park, etc., so too, why is binding it oneself for the purpose of worshipping a relic not permissible? the intention of the questioner. The refutation is "it is said" and so on. Then, why does he say, "but not in the Great Commentary"? For what is said in the Great Paccari and so on is also authoritative, so there is no contradiction here. It is said in order to establish as authoritative, through the method of showing a comparison, that what is not said in the Great Commentary, namely, one's own planting, is authoritative when combined with the watering mentioned therein. The word "you might think" should be connected with "how is that?" Here is the intention: Although one's own planting is not mentioned in the Great Commentary, one's own watering of permissible water is mentioned. Therefore, just as it is permissible to water permissible water oneself for the sake of parks and so on, why would it not be permissible to string flowers for the sake of offering to a shrine? That too is not contradictory. That which is said, rejecting stringing and so on even for the sake of offering to a shrine, but allowing one's own planting and watering for the sake of parks and so on, that too, when compared with the Pāli, is not contradictory in its sequence. How is that not contradictory? He says, "for there," and so on. "There" means in the context of planting and watering. When there is a possibility of gathering families with flowers and so on, because it is specified as "flower-plants," it is understood that planting is intended only for the purpose of gathering families. So he says, "when he says 'flower-plants'," and so on. This is said: "They plant flower-plants and have them planted, they water them and have them watered." This is said. But elsewhere, in the planting of flower-plants and so on for the sake of parks and so on, "method" means the method, the usage, consisting of doing oneself and having it done, there is a special meaning, the meaning is that it is available, the intention is that it is not for the purpose of gathering families. Thus, when the word "method" here is taken in the sense of doing and having it done, the stringing and having strung, which is rejected in the Pāli "they string and have strung," is set aside, and the having strung which is mentioned later with permissible words like "know thus, it would be beautiful if done thus," in that case, the absence of fault is established, for "having strung" is only having it done by the command "string!" i. It is intended. There, knowing the indirect method here and the absence of the indirect method: there, in phrases like "planting a flower plant," due to the presence of the qualifier "flower plant," which indicates the purpose of gaining favor for families, there is an indirect method involving doing and causing to be done. Here, in phrases like "stringing," due to the absence of such a qualifying word, there is an absence of that indirect method. The connection is to understand that it is well said. Everything is to be understood in the manner stated. Everything, such as planting and causing to be strung, is to be understood in the manner found in the commentaries. It concludes by saying that no doubt should be made here. In carrying, etc.: in carrying, etc., for the purpose of offering to a shrine. Carrying for the sake of women of good families, etc.: the intention is that carrying for women of good families, etc., is specifically prohibited. Therefore, it says, "in the section on carrying," etc. A mañjarī is a cluster of flowers. A vaṭaṃsaka is a flower ornament made to be worn above the ear, and it is also called a "vaṭaṃsa." A kaṇṇikā is the name for many flowers or garlands bound together; it is also called an "ear ornament." Like a hāra means like a pearl necklace. With what is allowable: with allowable water. For those two alone: for the two, corrupting families and personal use. A dukkaṭa: a dukkaṭa for watering oneself for the purpose of gaining favor for families, and for causing to water, whether with allowable or unallowable speech. But for watering oneself for personal use, and for causing to water with unallowable speech, it is a dukkaṭa. Due to the abundance of application: due to the abundance of physical application in doing it oneself, and verbal application in causing it to be done. A string made by stringing is a ganthima. The same method applies to the rest. It is not allowable: it is not allowable even for the purpose of offering to a shrine; the meaning is a dukkaṭa. It is allowable: it is allowable for the purpose of offering to a shrine. But for causing it to be done with allowable speech for the purpose of gaining favor for families, it is still a dukkaṭa. Nīpapuppha is the kadamba flower. In the former manner: in the manner stated by "for a bhikkhu," etc. In the trunk of a banana tree, etc. Referring to all that has been said, it is stated, "that is very coarse," meaning that in doing it everywhere, and in causing it to be done with improper words, it is indeed a dukkata. Because "It is not permissible to tie a thorn even for piercing flowers" is an example, some say that tying ropes for hanging flower garlands and the like is also not permissible. But others say that because "a thorn for piercing flowers" is specified, it is not permissible to tie *only* a thorn for that purpose, and that is according to the authority of the commentaries. It should be taken after investigation. A flower receptacle is a flower holder made with sticks and the like. This, even a nagadanta, should be taken as perforated. "Asokapindiya" means a cluster of Asoka branches or flowers. "Dhammarajju" is a rope tied for the purpose of inserting flowers between stupas and the like, having encircled them with the rope. Some also say, "It is tied loosely, or in such a way that flowers can be inserted between the twists of the rope." "Matthakadāma" means a hanging garland for the top of a Dhamma-seat and the like. "Of those very ones" means of lotuses and the like. "With a fiber or with a stick" means with a fiber that remains attached to the flower after splitting the flower stalk, or with a stick by a single tie. By this, the flower does not fall into the category of seeds, because it is not included among the five kinds of seeds, like a leaf. Therefore, there is no fault in plucking it even without having made it permissible. And the blooming of a bud, even if it is cut, that too is not a sign of growth because it is not too young. But for a mature bud, when the moisture in its petals is exhausted, the separation (of petals) is indeed blooming. For this reason, the blooming of a cut bud is inferior to the blooming of an uncut bud, or it appears withered. And the becoming unwithered of a withered (flower) upon contact with water, that too is not a sign of growth, as it is similar in betel leaves and the like. And in the Pāli texts and commentaries, the making of flowers permissible