English
because it occurs in the context of robes being without owner. In the times of the 'making known to an unknown person' training rule, the Buddha stated that when robes are without owner, one should make known to unknown persons. The 'more robes' training rule states that the robes given by them should be taken in moderation. Therefore, it is indeed a context of robes being without owner. Discourse on the Decision of Taking Robes Without Owner From now on, we will explain the decision on taking robes without owner in the general sense of taking without owner. There, "what I gave to you" and "what I gave to him." He, it is said, gave them, saying, "He will travel with me, carrying my bowl, robes, sandals, and bedding." Thus he said, "He will travel with me on a journey through the country." He took them by force, but since he took them with the perception of ownership, there is no Pārājika for him. An offence was laid down because he took them by causing distress. He takes them himself, Nissaggiya Pācittiya. For one who takes one robe, or many bound together, there is one offence. For one who takes many not bound together, standing separately, or for one who causes them to be taken, saying, "Bring the double robe, bring the upper robe," there are offences according to the number of items. Even for one who says, "Bring all that I gave," there are many offences with a single utterance. He orders another, an offence of Dukkata. He orders, "Take the robe," one Dukkata. The one ordered takes many, one Pācittiya. For one who says, "Take the double robe, take the upper robe," By a teacher's word, a wrong-doing. To one who says, "Take all that I have given," many offenses by a single word. Other requisites: excluding the last robe that is subject to a declaration, whatever it may be, down to a needle. Even for needles wrapped and placed, wrong-doings according to the number of cloths. If loosely wrapped, so it is. But if tightly bound, only one wrong-doing, it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. The same method applies to those placed in a needle-case. The same method applies to medicines like the three pungents, placed in a pouch, whether loosely or tightly bound. Or he gives: "Venerable sir, this is suitable for you," thus he gives. Or else, when told by such words as, "Friend, we gave you a robe thinking you would practice the observances, take an preceptor from us, and learn the Dhamma. But now you do not practice the observances, do not take an preceptor, and do not learn the Dhamma," he says, "Venerable sir, I suppose you speak for the robe, here is your robe," thus he also gives. Or if one tells a young monk who has gone to another direction, "Turn back!" but he does not turn back. If he turns back when told, "Take the robe and detain him," that is good. If he says, "I suppose you speak for the bowl and robe, take them!" thus he gives, then he himself gives. Or seeing one who has gone astray, he says, "We gave you the bowl and robe thinking you would practice the observances, but now you wander astray." The other says, "Take your bowl and robe," thus he also gives. But it is not proper to give thus: "I will give it only to one who takes an preceptor from me, not to one who takes it elsewhere. I will give it only to one who practices the observances, not to one who does not. I will give it only to one who learns the Dhamma, not to one who does not learn it. I will give it only to one who does not go astray, not to one who goes astray." If one gives thus, there is a wrong-doing. But it is proper to have it brought back. Taking back what was given up, seizing it, he is a robber. By whom should it be done? The rest here is clear. This is a decision extracted from the Samantapāsādikā. And what they say "yanti" here is a word indicating a reason. Therefore, the connection here should be understood thus: "Because you will go on a district tour with me, for that reason, friend, I gave you a robe, but you are not doing that," thus, angry and displeased, he snatched it away. Or "yanti" refers to the robe. In that case, it should be connected thus: "Because you will go on a district tour with me, that robe which I gave you, I will take that robe," thus, angry and displeased, he snatched it away. If, being commanded, he takes many, it is one pācittiya. Because the command "Take the robe" refers to a single robe, there is only one pācittiya. "For each word, a dukkaṭa" - here, there are pācittiyas according to the number of items snatched. "By one word, many offenses" - this is said with reference to the pācittiya offense to be incurred according to the number of items snatched. But the dukkaṭa to be incurred by the command is only one. "Thus" refers to "dukkata offenses according to the number of items." "The same method" indicates the multiplicity and singularity of offenses committed loosely and firmly. Even if it is said "Friend, I..." and so on, with the intention of taking it back, since it was given by him, there is no offense. "He will take an upajjha from us" - this indicates a gift even to a novice. Therefore, although it is said in the Pāli, "having given a robe to a bhikkhu himself," it should be understood that even if one gives it when the recipient is not fully ordained, and then snatches it back when he is fully ordained, it is still a pācittiya. The fact of being fully ordained at the time of snatching is the measure here. "He gives" means he gives whether pleased or angry. "You are hindered" means "prevent." "But it is not proper to give thus" - here, it should be understood that what is given thus should not be used without first determining it as "his property." "But it is proper to have it brought" - what is given thus is like wages, so it is proper to have it brought. Having given up, given... Not having given in the stated manner, having become unconcerned, it was given to him. He should be made to pay the price of the goods; if taking without his own knowledge, having valued the goods, he should be made to incur an offense. Being the last robe subject to determination, being given by oneself, being known to oneself, being an ordained monk, snatching back or causing to be snatched back due to anger – these are the five factors here. This is the text from Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.635). But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.631), regarding "whatever... (etc.)... snatched back," it should be supplied and construed thus: "The robe that I gave to you, I gave it with the understanding that 'it would go with me,' not otherwise," and being angry, he snatched it back. Regarding "one dukkaṭa": if, being ordered, he certainly snatches it back, at the moment of the order itself, there is a pācittiya. If he does not snatch it back, then only a dukkaṭa should be understood. Regarding "many offenses with one utterance": if, being ordered, he snatches it back without interruption, at the moment of the order itself, there are pācittiya offenses according to the number of objects, because the offense is incurred at the moment of the act of application; but the robe becomes nissaggiya only when snatched. If he does not snatch it back, at the moment of the order, only one dukkaṭa should be understood. In the same way, elsewhere also, the method should be known in such cases. The phrase "He will take the preceptor" indicates giving to a novice, and by that, it indicates a pācittiya even if, having given during the novice period, one snatches it back during the ordained period. The phrase "Having given a robe to a bhikkhu oneself" is stated in the highest sense. But it is permissible to cause it to be brought back; this is said because it is like wages when the work is not done. "Being the last robe subject to determination, being given by oneself, being known to oneself, being an ordained monk, snatching back or causing to be snatched back due to anger – these are the five factors here," it is said. Discourse on the Mind of Ready Wit 6. In the Discourse on the Mind of Ready Wit, it is easily understood in the manner stated in the commentary, so nothing is said in the Sāratthadīpanī. But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.299), it begins with "It is not permissible to say 'Do it!'" Because it is forbidden by the motion itself, it is permissible to speak to the doorkeeper in a way such as 'What are you not doing?' By 'Jātaka collection' is meant any form connected with Jātakas, such as men and women. Because it is said 'to have others make it', it is said that one may not make a Buddha image oneself. The story of the unfinished meal. 7. Also in the story of the unfinished meal, nothing is said in the Sāratthadīpanī, Vimativinodanī, or Vajirabuddhiṭīkā. What is done first is 'pakata' (done). 'vi' (not) finished 'pakata' (done) is 'vippakata' (unfinished). He by whom the meal is unfinished is 'vippakatabhojana' (one with an unfinished meal), a bhikkhu who has eaten first but whose meal-task is unfinished. The connection is that the mentioned bhikkhu should enter. Here he states the reason why it is not permissible to make even an empty-handed person rise: "for he is indeed one with an unfinished meal." Even if gruel, snacks, etc., have been drunk or eaten, because the main meal has not been eaten, his meal-task is unfinished. He is invited, therefore he should be spoken to. The meaning is that if there is no water near him, he should be spoken to by one who has been invited, has risen from his seat, and is unable to eat. The rest is easily understood. The story of reciting and having recited. 8. In the story of reciting and having recited, by 'uddisantena' is meant by one giving the recitation, the meaning is by one reciting the Pāli. By 'uddisāpentena' is meant by one receiving the recitation, the meaning is by one having the Pāli recited. Even on a higher seat, the particle 'pi' includes an equal seat. Even on a lower seat, the same method applies here.