English
Whatever they bring, all is impermissible for everyone. Why? Because kahāpaṇas have been dealt with." However, with this statement, what is said in the Mātika Commentary regarding the precept on silver transactions, "without instruction," does not agree. And not only with this, it does not agree with the Pāli either. For in the Pāli, it is said, after having avoided silver transactions, regarding causing park-keepers and so forth to exchange ghee and so forth with deposited silver: "He should be told, 'Friend, know this.' If he says, 'What should be brought with this?' He should not be told, 'Bring this or that.' What is permissible should be pointed out, 'Ghee, or...'" One who asks, "What should be brought with this silver?" even if told, "Bring this," is, by implication, instructed by the bhikkhus, "Bring this with this silver." Therefore, to avoid that silver transaction, it is prohibited: "He should not be told, 'Bring this or that.'" When it is done, even in the section on non-offenses, it is not said, "he informs the one who makes it allowable." But in the rule on buying and selling (Pārā. 595), it is said thus. Therefore, this buying and selling with instruction should be understood as buying and selling without instruction. Because the principal was not relinquished: Because that principal, by which the bowl was bought, was not relinquished in the midst of the Saṅgha, by this, it shows that only the silver should be relinquished, not the non-silver based on it. If indeed, with that silver, one were to cause other silver to be bought, that should be caused to be relinquished in the manner stated in the rule on silver transactions, and the remainder should be used. By 'because the principal was not accepted,' it shows that the principal belongs to the layperson, and thereby, that the transaction of silver for the bowl did not arise. Indeed, the fault of silver transaction arises only with what belongs to the five co-residents. And there, for what belongs to oneself, it is a pācittiya; for other things, it is a dukkaṭa. 'Relinquished' is said in the sense of giving, not in the sense of a Vinaya act. Therefore, it is said, 'having filled it with ghee.' What one exchanges with one's own wealth, or the silver nature of that wealth, and one of the two states: exchanging or causing to exchange – these are the two factors here. The commentary on the rule concerning silver transactions is concluded. 10. Commentary on the rule concerning buying and selling. 593-5. In the tenth Pāli text, 'understand' means 'consider it right now, it cannot be discarded later.' 'By this' refers to what is given by the bhikkhu. 'This' refers to what is given back by another. To show the absence of that (loss of faith-offering) where there is a possibility of loss of faith-offering among other relatives, it is said, 'but to mother or father.' In 'it cannot be rejected,' some say that just as there is a pācittiya when one gives silver to laborers and takes goods from those who dig for wages to extract iron ore from ownerless land, so too here. That is not appropriate. For indeed, the iron ore extracted by digging ownerless land belongs to the laborers, for that purpose and for one giving them money, it is a money transaction by an unallowable transaction, like buying and selling in bringing dyes, bark, and so on. Such a thing as another's property is not here in washing clothes, etc. Therefore, here, the pācittiya should be understood according to the commentary's standard. 597. Here, regarding "he gives, thinking 'it will be merit'," if a bhikkhu, even knowing his own goods are of little value, without saying so, says, "Examine it now and take it, lest you regret it later," and the other person, not knowing the high value of what he is giving, gives it, saying, "Whether less or more, it is yours," and goes away, there is no offense for the bhikkhu, just as in Upananda's case of taking the wanderer's robe. If the one who regretted it returns with his own understanding, what was taken in excess should be given back. For those who exchange something, these are the three factors here: the allowability of the object for both, the non-conformity with the Dhamma, and the incurring of buying and selling. The explanation of the training rule concerning buying and selling is finished. The second chapter, the Kosiyavagga, is finished. 3. The Bowl Chapter 1. The explanation of the training rule concerning the bowl. 602. In the first of the third chapter, "thirteen and a half palas" is said with reference to taking thirteen and a half palas of water according to the Magadhan measure. And some say it refers to taking a similar measure of barley, beans, etc. However, by the Elder Acariya Dhammapāla, it was said: "A normal kuduva is four handfuls, a nāḷi is four kuduvas, a doṇa is sixteen nāḷis by that nāḷi; but they say it is twelve nāḷis by the Magadhan nāḷi." "Damiḷanāḷi" is said with reference to the old nāḷi. And that is eight kuduvas of four handfuls each. By that nāḷi, two nāḷis make one Magadhan nāḷi. But the ancients say, "A Sinhala nāḷi takes three nāḷis." According to their view, the Magadhan nāḷi is four nāḷis of the currently used Damiḷanāḷi of four kuduvas. And half of that Magadhan nāḷi is called a pattha, which is reckoned as the old Damiḷanāḷi. And by this, "the lowest" The Pāli saying, “He takes a measure of cooked rice,” is consistent, and among the common people it is said: “The common and the Magadhan, Are two measures declared; The common is sixteen pala, The Magadhan is considered double.” Thus, it is shown in the world that the Magadhan measure is double the ordinary measure, and if taken this way, it is also established that the smaller bowl holds just enough rice for sustenance. For it is not possible to sustain oneself by seeking alms, a lump of food piled up, with a bowl that holds less than eight measures. Therefore, in the commentary on the Verañja section, it is said, “A measure is a nāḷi, enough for one person’s sustenance. It is also said, ‘A measure of rice is not enough for two.’” (Jā. 2.21.192) And it is insisted that “it is sufficient for one, two, or three,” therefore, it should be understood according to the method stated here. Regarding “suitable for the morsel,” since it is stated in the commentary on the Brahmāyu Sutta (Ma. Ni. Aṭṭha. 2.387) that “the amount of curry is one-fourth of the rice,” it should be understood that one-fourth of the morsel is suitable for the curry. “Only rice-goers” means they tend to enter only the rice, not seeking their own space. “Mere name” refers to mere names like “the middle bowl is medium-sized.” 607-8. “Thus in every application, in every application” means in every application of taking the final morsel and swallowing it, in every morsel. “Having made” means having completed the cooking. “I will cook and keep” is said with reference to cooking until it turns black. “Hole” refers to a hole two finger-breadths below the rim of the mouth. The rest is the same as the method stated in the first Kathina. The explanation of the training rule concerning the bowl is finished. 2. Explanation of the Training Rule Concerning the Bowl with Fewer Than Five Bindings 609-613. In the second Pāli text, the remainder is, “I will satisfy those bhikkhus with a bowl.” By “without a bowl,” it also shows the abandonment of the determination. Even with a bowl with five bindings, if the bowl is not fully cooked, the determination does not arise, just as with an uncooked bowl. Since it is said, “or with a tin plate,” it means to cover the hole of an iron bowl with suitable metals like copper or bronze. is proper. Therefore, it is said, "with a metal circle." In this training rule, it should be understood that there is an offense even for one who makes known a proper bowl that is not black. The four factors here are: the bowl not being subject to adhiṭṭhāna, its having less than five bands, its not being made known, and its being obtained thereby. The commentary on the training rule concerning less than five bands is finished. 3. Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Medicines 618-621. In the third Pāli text, after the Elder Pilindavaccha first rejected it by saying, "Indeed, great king, the Blessed One has not permitted an āramika," it is understood that even after the Blessed One permitted the taking of individuals as āramikas by saying, "Monks, I permit an āramika," and āramikas were taken, it is not proper to take fields, lands, etc., even with proper terms, for individuals, because it was not permitted. For when the taking of one of those things rejected by "He refrains from taking fields and lands," etc., is permitted for an individual, it is already established that others should not be taken in that way. And the Elder Pilindavaccha's creation of a grass-bundle in the form of a golden garland for the daughter of a donor family should be understood as having been done because it is not a family-gathering, etc., according to the saying, "There is no offense, monks, for one with psychic power in the sphere of psychic power." Some, however, say, "Since those whose defilements are destroyed have no desire for gain, there is no corruption of livelihood even in family-gathering," but that is not proper, because even those whose defilements are destroyed must avoid things that cause a corruption of livelihood, such as almsfood. For it was said by the General of the Dhamma, "I would not corrupt my livelihood, even if I were to give up my life." And the Blessed One said, "What is sung in verses is not to be eaten by me," etc. 622. "Uggahitaka" means taken by oneself for consumption. "Sayaṃ karoti" means cooks it oneself. "Purebhattaṃ" means it is proper only on that day before noon, because it was received with a basis. "Sayaṃkataṃ" means milk and butter cooked by oneself. was made. It is said that it was unmixed, referring to the meal before noon on that day.