English
The state of being an additional robe, the reason of being not cut off and so forth, soliciting from an unknown person, and obtaining it thereby—these are the four factors here. The explanation of the training rule concerning additional robes is finished. 8. The explanation of the first training rule concerning prepared robes 528-531. In the eighth, "yo kattā" refers to the donor. "Paṭako" is simply a cloth. "Appagghaṃ cetāpetī" refers to the nissaggiya pācittiya. This is said with reference to blamelessness, but on account of a request, it is a dukkata. For in the Sutta, in “Previously uninvited,” the cause of a request is stated. And in the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā, “Desire for more robes, a request to an unknown person, and obtaining it thereby— these are the three factors here,” thus the state of requesting an unknown person is declared. But some say, “Even if the donor has not said, ‘I wish to give,’ in his presence, it is permissible to have brought what the donor wishes to give, of that value.” This does not agree even with the Rāja-sikkhāpada-aṭṭhakathā, because there it is forbidden to have it brought from the mouth-servants, kappiyakārakas, etc., even when it has been announced by a messenger or a donor, “Robe-money has been brought for the Venerable One.” For it is said there: “These are called two unspecified kappiyakārakas; one should act towards them as towards unknown, uninvited persons… …nothing should be said. And this is merely a declaration, ‘He should send robe-money by a messenger’; the same rule applies even to those who bring it themselves and give it for the purpose of alms-food, etc.” For the mouth-servants, kappiyakārakas, etc., even when the object has been given by the donor, it is said, “nothing should be said,” because it was not specified, “Take the robe or alms-food, etc., from so-and-so,” not because that object belonged to the mouth-servants, etc. Therefore, here too, for one who speaks when uninvited by the donor or messenger, “Say what you wish,” it is a dukkata. “Agghavaḍḍhanaka” (increasing in value) This training rule arose concerning an increase in the value of a robe, not concerning alms-food, etc., because an increase in their value is merely a dukkata, and for choice alms-food, it is a pure pācittiya. This should be understood. Therefore, the factor “desire for more robes” was stated. The explanation of the First Upakkhaṭa Training Rule is finished. 9. The Explanation of the Second Upakkhaṭa Training Rule 533. In the ninth Pāḷi, “paccekacīvaracetāpanna” means having specified individually, robe-money. a cloth-price, each one separately determined, is the meaning of the cloth-price. "Being both as one" means being both together, being both united. The description of the second Upakkhaṭa training rule is finished. 10. Description of the Rāja training rule 537. In the tenth, "ajjaṇho" is said by adding the letter 'ha' and changing the letter 'na' to 'ṇa' when it should be "ajja no", so it says "today, one day for us". 538-9. What is said in the Mātikaṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rāja training rule description): "Having acquired a robe with this robe-price, clothe such-and-such a bhikkhu with the robe. This is said to show the purity of the arrival. For if one were to send it saying, 'Give this to such-and-such a bhikkhu,' due to the impurity of the arrival, even a suitable agent would not need to be designated by the bhikkhu regarding an unsuitable object." That unsuitable robe-price, which is an object of nissaggiya and dukkaṭa, when there is no purity of arrival by saying "give to such-and-such a bhikkhu" in the manner stated in the training rule, and when the messenger's words are also impure, it is always proper to make a complete refusal. It is not proper to say, "But we accept the robe," and accordingly, not to designate a suitable agent, due to the impurity of both the arrival and the messenger's words. However, what is said in the Pāḷi is to show that when there is purity of arrival, even if the messenger's words are impure, everything can be done in the manner stated in the training rule. And thereby, just as it is proper to designate a suitable agent even with impure messenger's words if the arrival is pure, so too it is proper if the arrival is impure but the messenger's words are pure. This meaning is thus established by implication. There is nothing to be said when both are pure. Therefore, it should be understood that the Mātikaṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rāja training rule description) says "even a suitable agent would not need to be designated" referring to the case where both are impure. What is here in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.53 "There is no special purpose seen in the purity or impurity of the coming," and so on, it is said. That was said without discerning the meaning of the Mātika commentary's statement, because, in the manner stated, there is a purpose in the purity of the coming and so forth. Here, that which is stated as an undesirable consequence: "Even if the original owner speaks in a permissible manner of speech, and the sent messenger speaks in an impermissible manner of speech, a permissible agent should be designated," that undesirable consequence is not undesirable at all, because it is desired. Thus, in the training rule itself, "Let the venerable one accept the price of the robe," to the messenger speaking in an impermissible manner of speech, a permissible agent should be designated by a permissible act, it is said, because the coming is pure. But if the coming is impure, then a permissible agent should not be designated even by a permissible act. Thus there is indeed a purpose in the purity and impurity of the coming. But how is the purity of the coming understood by the messenger's statement? This is not a burden. For, only when the messenger speaks in an impermissible manner of speech, should the purity of the coming be sought, not otherwise. And there, by questioning him according to his statement, and by reasoning and so forth, it can be understood. Here too, in the training rule, "The price of the robe has been brought," by this very statement of the messenger, the fact of being sent to buy and give a robe is understood. For if the purity of the coming is not understood at all, then a refusal should simply be made. And in the Pāli text, "Indeed, we accept the robe," and so on, even though the messenger's statement is impermissible, it is said to show the method of practice when there is purity of the coming. "This, indeed... (etc.)... should not be said, 'Give it to him,'" and so on, it is said to avoid the acceptance of impermissible things. "He is instructed," and so on, it is said to show that "only when the messenger has thus spoken again, is it permissible to urge, not otherwise." "Should not be said, 'Give me a robe... (etc.)... buy me a robe,'" this is to accept the money brought by the messenger, because one has designated a permissible agent oneself, "Give me a robe... (etc.)... buy me..." saying, "My robe!" because of being accustomed to money, exchanging it for that money, saying, "Give it, buy it!" he would be engaging in a money transaction. To avoid that fault from afar, it is said, "by accepting money," as with money discarded in the midst of the Sangha. For it is said there, "One should not say, 'Bring this or this!'" Therefore, it should be understood that this is not said to avoid the fault of solicitation, as it would also lead to the implication of not being able to say, "I need a robe, friend." For this very reason, since there is no suspicion of a money transaction in those designated by a messenger, it is said that one should have it brought by appointing another suitable person. Even there, the intention should be taken that one should not say, "Have the robe bought with the money deposited by the messenger and brought," but simply, "Have the robe brought." In "breaks the standing," "standing" means both stability and reason. Therefore, by sitting on a seat, the standing is disturbed, and their reason for coming is not understood. But without disturbing the established, it breaks only the reason for coming in accepting alms and so on, not the standing. Therefore, it is said, "breaks the reason for coming." Some, however, say, "Even the standing is broken by accepting alms and so on," but that does not accord with the commentary. "When his robe-money is not produced," and so on: This is to show the procedure to be followed by one who has designated a steward, but the robe has not been produced. When the bhikkhu speaks thus to the owners of the object, they urge and give it. It is permissible, as it is said in the section on non-offense, "when the owners urge and give." Thus, if one does not urge oneself, but indirectly speaks to lay followers and others, and has them urge, even if they urge seven times and have the robe given, his non-offense is established, because the training rule is not an injunction. One who is not designated by anyone, but has attained the state of a steward by his own mouth, is a "mouth-steward." "Out of unwillingness to consider": By this, even if they have something to give, they are unwilling to give. Even Noble Ones, without any intention of deception, are not, in terms of conventional usage. "Thus saying" is shown. In the Chapter on Medicines, in the story of Meṇḍaka the treasurer (Mahāva. 299), the saying beginning "There are, monks" (Mahāva. 299) is indeed called the Meṇḍaka training rule. "Into the hands of suitable agents" refers to suitable agents designated by a messenger, not those designated by a monk, nor those not designated. Therefore it is said, "And here there is no measure for the accusation," and so on. The connection is: "when they themselves bring and give." By "for the purpose of almsfood and so on," it is shown that it is not only for the purpose of robes. By "The same method,"