English
But from the statement of relinquished giving, there is no fault in taking; and in using it, if it is unraveled and made in an allowable way, there is no fault. The explanation of the training rule concerning the sitting-spread is finished. 6. The explanation of the training rule concerning sheep's wool. 572. In the sixth Pāli, "for one who is on a long journey" is stated by way of the story. Even if obtained at the dwelling place, it is not permissible to carry it beyond three leagues. It is said "when there is no carrier" in an appropriate way. Even if there is a carrier, there is no fault in carrying it. There is an offense, because it was carried without permission. The reason for both sides is stated as "due to effort," meaning "due to the desire for uninterrupted travel." The reason for the pure-minded side is stated as "due to no intention." It does not fit. It is "No offense, he causes another to carry it," because only this much is stated for carrying. "When they are coming," means when they are standing. "Below," means on the ground. 575. "To one carrying it," means to one carrying it beyond three yojanas from the place of first acquisition. For to one carrying it thus, it is permissible to carry it three yojanas from the place where it was given back after being seized by thieves. Some say, "Since 'first acquisition' is stated among the factors in the Mātikā-aṭṭhakathā, there is no offense even if it exceeds three yojanas from the place of second acquisition." That is not appropriate, just as in the case of going again from a place of residence, even a second acquisition enters the category of an acquisition. "Of a waistband and so on," means something placed inside a double-layered waistband and so on, is like something placed in a pouch; it is said to be "not a made article," and similarly, "a place of deposit." Not being a made article, first acquisition, exceeding three yojanas, bringing and bringing back, and not with the intention of residing— these are the five factors here. The commentary on the training rule concerning sheep's wool is finished. 7. Commentary on the training rule concerning causing sheep's wool to be washed 581. In the seventh, in the Pāḷi, in the non-offense section, "causes an unused made article to be washed"— here, causing a used made article like a blanket to be washed causes an offense according to the training rule concerning washing old robes. To prevent that, "an unused made article" is stated. The rest here is self-evident. The commentary on the training rule concerning causing sheep's wool to be washed is finished. 8. Commentary on the training rule concerning silver 583-4. In the eighth, "a kahāpaṇa made of gold"— a kahāpaṇa is also included in silver, so it says, "whether made of gold." "Or made of silver," is a kahāpaṇa made by forming a shape with silver. "A natural one," is what is now a natural kahāpaṇa. "All this," indicates all that is stated by the training rule and by the analysis. Its connection is with "the four kinds of things to be relinquished," not with the immediately preceding word "silver." Now, those four kinds of things to be relinquished Hum, showing it in its true form, he says, "silver," and so on. Although below, only silver was mentioned, not just silver, yet in the training rule, it is said by the word "gold and silver," so to show that too, "silver" is stated separately. In the word analysis, however, since it is accomplished by the matrix word itself, without saying that, to show what is included with it, "silver means a kahāpaṇa," and so on, is said, so it should be understood. "Gold" means a gold kahāpaṇa. "Of the kind mentioned" means of the kind mentioned by "made of silver or natural," and so on. "Paṭa" is "paṭaka," cloth. "Only a dukkaṭa" means a dukkaṭa for the receiver due to the act of receiving; but regarding consumption, for those who consume the proceeds arising from grains, pearls, etc., received by five co-dharmic persons, it is a dukkaṭa for all. Some, however, say, "Even grain received by five co-dharmic persons, like pearls, fields, etc., is not proper for all to consume; only regarding the management of grain arising from monastic land through proper transactions, is it said, 'that is improper for him'." "One hundred or a thousand," and so on, is said to show the way silver operates at the lowest level, not to show that "it must be practiced this way." When it is said, "deposit it here," it means causing to take up, so he says, "one should not say, 'deposit it here'." "Proper and...pe...is" means since it is not appreciated, the proceeds arising from it are proper; therefore, it is based on what is proper. But since, if there is improper management, even what arises from it is not proper, it should be understood that it is based on what is improper. "No proper article was purchased with it" means if it was purchased, there is no way to consume it, because it was purchased with unreleased silver that was taken up. Indeed, it shows that such a thing, after making a relinquishment in the midst of the Sangha, should be discarded and the pācittiya confessed. Some, however, say, "Since it is a relinquishment..." Even having received (money), suitable requisites bought and given to the Saṅgha, are like suitable requisites brought by the stewards, having exchanged the money given (to them). Therefore, they say, "It is permissible to divide and consume without any stratagem." That does not agree with the story of the four bowls (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.589). There, the non-use of a bowl exchanged for money is shown, not a method of giving up. "Having set aside a deposit" is said with reference to the stewards' intention for profit. "Unsuitable" is said because it was acquired with that object. 585. "Not attending to the fallen opportunity" This should be understood as showing a state of indifference. "By improbable supposition" is said with reference to reporting what is not, by way of inference and so on. "Consumption by theft" is said because it was not permitted by the Lord, the owner of the requisites. "Consumption as a debt" is said because one consumes without doing what should be done, even though permitted by the Lord; and thereby it shows that the virtue dependent on requisites is violated. "Consumption upon consumption" means consumption by removing from the body again and again. The connection is: "It should be reflected upon in the last watches." Regarding "It stands in the place of consumption as a debt," they say that reflection on the past is also permissible, such as "The robe I used yesterday..." "Consumption upon consumption" means in entering places where water falls, and in sitting and lying down. "Mindfulness as a condition is permissible" means it is permissible to obtain the condition of mindfulness of reflection. It shows that mindfulness of reflection must necessarily be obtained both in receiving and in consuming. Therefore, it says, "Having made mindfulness," and so on. Some, however, say the meaning thus: "Mindfulness as a condition, when there is a condition, when there is a reason for consuming medicine." For them too, "when there is a condition" means "when there is a discernment of the existence of the condition," this meaning should be taken, because virtue is not purified by the mere existence of the condition. "An offense arises only for one who does not consume" By this, the breach of the virtue of the Pātimokkha restraint is shown, not the condition... for the virtue based on requisites, by its purification through past reflection. In this, and in the remaining requisites, by the statement of 'using like a debt' and so on, it is indeed a distinction of the virtue based on requisites; thus, their difference should be understood. Having thus shown the purity of the virtue based on requisites, and by that very connection, to show all purities, it is said, "Purity is indeed fourfold," and so on. Therein, it is purified by teaching and so forth, or it is purified, thus purity, the fourfold virtue. Therefore, it is said, "by purification through teaching," and so on. Here, by the inclusion of 'teaching', even the rising up of those whose roots are cut, and the declaration of not being a bhikkhu, are included. For even for those whose roots are cut, by rising up from a pārājika offense, the bhikkhu-virtue preserved below is called pure, and thereby, even their attainment of the path is accomplished. That which is to be given is 'dāya' (gift), those who take it are 'dāyādā' (heirs). Here, in "of the seven trainees," even noble ordinary people are included, because their debt-free use is included in the use of inheritance; thus it should be understood. The Dhammadāyāda Sutta (Heirs of the Dhamma Sutta) is the sutta that begins, "Be my heirs of the Dhamma, monks, not heirs of material things" (MN 1.29). Therein, the meaning should be taken by bringing in the word 'me' (my), as in "do not be my heirs of material things." For thus it becomes supportive of the meaning stated. "Use with the conscientious" means a mixing by way of Dhamma and material things. In "with the shameless" too, the method is the same. "For from the very beginning, there is no such thing as a shameless one" – by this, it shows that suspicion should not be made regarding those seen and perceived, but only when there is a reason seen or heard, etc., should it be made. Those who are a burden to oneself are co-residents and so forth. "If he does not desist" – he does not desist from using Dhamma and material things by going astray. "There is no offense" – this is said with reference to requisites arisen righteously for the shameless, and righteous actions. For even for them, if they consume requisites arisen from defiling families and so forth, and perform factional acts and so forth, there is indeed an offense. "The use of requisites, whether righteous or unrighteous..." Because it is said