English
in the state of shame, as in "Whoever has an offense, let him reveal it... (etc.)... it is well" (Mahāva. 134), is stated. And in the Uposatha of purity, by "Are you pure here?... (etc.)... Venerables, you are pure here" (Pārā. 442, 458, 662; Pāci. 551, 575, 655), And by "I am pure, venerable sir, hold me as pure" (Mahāva. 168), the purity of those performing Uposatha in this way is declared. And the method of suspending Uposatha and Pavāraṇā for those who do not desist by mere words is stated. And the prohibition of giving and receiving reliance due to the impropriety of association with those who in no way enter the state of shame, And the performance of acts of rebuke and so on, and the method of making the shameless one, who is followed by an assembly, not to be associated with, by performing the act of suspension, are stated. Therefore, according to the aforementioned Sutta methods and Aṭṭhakathā statements, association in common acts and so on is not proper with any shameless ones, whether they have committed an offense or not. For those who do so, there is an offense, for all training rules are laid down precisely for the purpose of restraining unruly individuals; this conclusion is to be reached here. For this very reason, at the Second Council, the shameless Vajjiputtaka monks, though having committed offenses, were separated from the Saṅgha by the great effort of Elder Yasa and others. Indeed, among them, there were no offenders of pārājika and other non-associable offenses, because the ten points (Cūḷava. 452) expounded by them pertained to minor offenses. "In his presence" means in the presence of Elder Mahārakkhita. Khara. They fall into what is called harsh, a counterfeit gold object. When donors, through inattention, give silver, and they (the monks) take it again with their own perception, it is not proper to give it back, nor to say, "Take this object of relinquishment," nor to give it, he says, "Look at your rag." Even having said this, even if there is no object to relinquish, as if it were a lost object, the offense must be confessed. For even through inattention, if that object is taken by hand, like cloth, and given, saying, "I give this," then, due to the nature of relinquishment, it is indeed a gift, like giving something expensive, saying, "I will give something cheap." And even if the recipient knows it is given through inattention, it is not taking what is not given, because it was given by the donors. Therefore, the silver is indeed an object of relinquishment. But some say, "There is no such thing, that is why it is said here, 'Look at your rag'." That is not acceptable; it should be investigated. 586. "Now, a single determination" is said with reference to the possibility of action and the possibility of non-action. The state of gold and silver, the intention for oneself, and the state of being one of the acts of taking, etc. These are the three factors here. The explanation of the training rule concerning silver is finished. 9. Explanation of the training rule concerning silver transactions. 587. In the ninth (rule), the four kinds of objects of relinquishment, beginning with gold, are understood here simply by "taking silver," he says, "exchange of gold and silver." "Exchange of what is received" means the exchange of silver received through proper transactions or improper transactions. 589. In the Pāli, "solid" means bricks, etc. Although in phrases like "silver, that is, coin," etc., only silver is not taken, nevertheless, it should be understood that it is taken by the word "silver" itself. It should be supplied that only pure silver transactions are spoken of. The rest of the text is: "We will explain the decision in 'perceiving silver as silver,' etc." 591. In the Pāli, "perceiving silver as silver" is said with reference to one's own property being given by oneself. "Causes silver to be acquired" refers to another's property. This method applies to the rest as well. There, by the word "non-silver," an object of wrong-doing is also included. in the last triad, “perceiving non-silver as silver, he causes non-silver to be exchanged, an offense of dukkaṭa,” in this manner, the application should be understood everywhere. And in this triad, by the word “non-silver,” only permissible items are taken, not impermissible items like pearls, etc., because at the end it is said, “with five, there is no offense.” Even though impermissible items are not taken, nevertheless, for one who exchanges an impermissible item for an impermissible item, or a permissible item for an impermissible item, a dukkaṭa offense arises; it is established by inference. And this arises for one who exchanges an impermissible item, whether with that perception, or with a different perception, or with doubt, because this training rule is without intention. “With five” means with five fellow monks. Now, to show that the meaning stated by “or an impermissible item with a nissaggiya item,” etc., even if not explicitly present in the Pāli text, is obtainable by inference, “for this which” etc., is stated. And here, since non-silver exchanged for silver, even if relinquished, is not a nissaggiya item because it is impermissible for everyone, and only that which is to be enjoyed after relinquishing is to be relinquished, but this should simply be discarded, and the exchanger should confess only a pācittiya offense, therefore, the triad “perceiving silver as silver, he causes non-silver to be exchanged, a nissaggiya pācittiya,” etc., was not stated by the Blessed One, because in all three cases, it is non-silver that is being exchanged, and thus the term nissaggiya is inappropriate, as only silver is to be relinquished. Indeed, the method for householders, etc., to deal with relinquished silver is shown in the Pāli, not for non-silver. Therefore, to show only the possibility of a pācittiya offense here, it is stated in the commentary, “even though unstated, this… etc. … triad should be understood,” not to show the nissaggiyatā of that item. For this reason, in the fourfold rule concerning bowls, it is stated, “it cannot be made permissible by any means,” etc. This is our acceptance. And to support the way the third triad is established in accordance with the second triad, “or by oneself,” etc., is stated. That. Here is the intention: Just as when one causes another to exchange silver with one's own non-silver, since silver is involved at one end, it is said that "a silver transaction has indeed been made," and thus the second category is stated. Similarly, when one causes another to exchange non-silver with one's own silver, a third category should be stated. However, it is not mentioned in the Pāli text because it is accomplished together with the second category, due to the commonality of the silver aspect. There, "ekantena rūpiyapakkhe" means "at one end, the silver aspect," or the reading is "ekato rūpiyapakkhe" (together, the silver aspect). Now, to show the difference in offense when exchanging silver, etc., with a dukkaṭa-object among the dukkaṭa-objects and kappiya-objects that are the meaning of the word "arūpiya" in the second category, "dukkaṭavatthunā" and so on is begun. "Dukkaṭavatthunā dukkaṭavatthuṃ" and so on, is stated to show that even an unstated meaning in the Pāli text can be obtained by method when there is an occasion for exchanging with a dukkaṭa-object. There, "by this" refers to the training rule concerning silver transactions, and by that, it also shows that the dukkaṭa is not intentional. "Except for those with the same Dhamma" is stated according to the saying, "no offense for five with the same Dhamma." By that, it only establishes the dependence of the buying and selling training rule on kappiya-objects. "Referring to this... and the causing of silver exchange" is connected to the main text. "Here" means in this training rule. "There" means in the buying and selling training rule (Pārā. 593). Having thus shown the difference in offense when exchanging silver, etc., with a dukkaṭa-object, now, to show it also with a kappiya-object, "kappiyavatthunā pana" and so on is begun. There, "by that very thing" means by the kappiya-object itself. "Having received silver" is stated in the highest sense. Even having received dukkaṭa-objects like pearls, etc., and caused it to be made, it is not permissible for any of the five. "Causes to arise" means going oneself, or causing another to do so by commanding, "Give this kahāpaṇa, etc., to the workers and cause the seed to arise." "Greatly improper" means that it is corrupted by oneself from the seed onwards, for another's. It is said due to the absence of the original owner. For even if it is seized by thieves and then recovered, it is not permissible for anyone who knows. If it were permissible, teachers would say, "It is permissible even if not seized," as in the case of ponds and so forth. "It cannot be made permissible by any means" means that it cannot be made permissible by depositing it in the Sangha, or by its being seized by thieves and so forth, and this refers to something that remains in that form, and also to something that remains in the form of a jewel or pearl whose root is that. For even a dukkata object and a permissible object whose root is that cannot be made permissible in that form by any means. However, if that bhikkhu were to cause silver to be exchanged again for that permissible object or dukkata object, it should be understood that it would be possible to make that silver permissible for others after having it deposited. Here, in "buys a bowl," it should be understood that causing it to be bought by park-keepers and so forth with the words, "Go and buy a bowl from the smith's family with this kahāpaṇa and so forth," is also included. Therefore, in the commentary on the King's Precept, it is said, "He says, 'Bring cloths for so many kahāpaṇas, prepare gruel and so forth for so many.'