English
"An offense of wrong-doing" means that if one sets fire in a dry place, or without distinguishing a dry place as "not dry," it is an offense of wrong-doing. The same applies to the intention of playing; the intention of playing should be understood from the sound of crackling and so on. The opposing fire is called "paṭaggi." "Making a protection" means making a safeguard. "Arising by itself" means arising from the mutual friction of bamboos and so on, stirred by the wind. "Without fuel" means without kindling. However, in the Vimativinodaniya (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.190), it is said, "Even with the intention of playing, it is an offense of wrong-doing" refers to making fire in dry grass and so on. But in wet places, even if one does it with the intention of playing, it is an offense of expiation. The opposing fire, or a fire going against it, is called "paṭaggi"; giving it even in wet grass and so on is allowed. When giving it, one should see a forest fire approaching from afar, and without doing it all at once around the monastery, one should start from one side and slowly burn around the monastery, so that even a large fire cannot reach the monastery. In this way, one should make an open space around the monastery and give the paṭaggi. That fire goes against the forest fire, becomes one with it, and extinguishes with it. "Making a protection" means making a safeguard by cutting down trees and grass all around, digging trenches, and so on. Therefore, it is said, "clearing the ground around grass huts," and so on. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 190), however, it is only said, "Protection means safeguarding; to show that, 'clearing the ground all around' and so on was said." Story of Families with Wrong Views 17. In the story of Families with Wrong Views, "there is no faith in these" means they are faithless, stingy, in those faithless ones. Families associated with wrong views are "families with wrong views," a middle-elision third-case tatpurisa compound. "There is no giving" means Families connected with wrong view, ten-fold, arisen from the root of danger. In them. "Having obtained in families of wrong view" is the connection. For those who do not act respectfully, by acting respectfully towards them. For those who give inferior things, by giving excellent things to them. There must be a reason here. Having thoroughly examined the reason, it is proper to eat. Therefore, he said: "Without examining, one should not eat oneself, nor should it be given to others." To show the reason why it should be, "even if mixed with poison" and so on was said. Not only almsfood, he said, "whatever also" and so on. There he stated the reason: "even in an uncovered object" and so on. From that, he also shows something else, "smeared with perfume, turmeric, etc." and so on. There also, to show the reason, he said, "places of disease in the body" and so on. The Story of the Keeper's Gift 18. In the Story of the Keeper's Gift, one who keeps, protects others' property is a keeper. His gift is the keeper's gift. It is a gift to be given to monks by garden keepers and so on. There, "having put up a document" means: "Only so much should be taken from only so many trees." Having put up a document, it is said, "having written." "Having made a sign" means having made an agreement. "Children" means their sons, grandsons, and so on, are children. Others also, whoever are keepers, all of them are mentioned. Everywhere also, in the householders' keeper's gift, as much as the keepers give, so much should be taken. But in a gift to the Sangha, only according to the specified measure should be taken. Because this is shown, "one in meaning" is said. In the Vimativinodanī also (V.V.Ṭī. 1.156): "Having put up a document" means having put up a document saying, "Having protected so many trees, so much should be taken from them." "Having made a sign" means having made an agreement. "Children" means their sons, grandsons, and so on, whoever keeps, all of them are here called "children." But in the Vajirabuddhi Tīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 156): "Garden keepers" means it should be taken in a trusted manner. "Having known the intention" means here that the owners do not protect the monk receiving the gift, or the share. that they do not punish, it is permissible to take that gift without refusing it— this is the conclusion here, and that too is said to be ‘not permissible for the Sangha’s property’. Where: in which monastery. Absence of others: absence of other visiting monks. There: in such a monastery. Dividing and eating: the intention is that they divide and eat even for the visiting monks who have arrived. Rightly apply to the four requisites: having sold mangoes and other fruits, they rightly apply the proceeds to the four requisites such as robes. Given with the stipulation for robes: given with such a stipulation as, “The fruits of these trees are to be sold and applied only to robes, they are not to be divided and eaten.” Even in these, visitors have no authority: because they were given with the stipulation for the use of the requisites, they have no authority to divide and eat them. Not in those… (etc.)… should stand: here, the intention is that visitors should divide and eat in the manner stated below. They should abide by their agreement: whether it be, “It should not be divided and eaten,” or, “We will take fruits from so many trees,” or, “We will take so many fruits,” or, “We will take them within so many days,” or, “We will not take anything”— visitors should abide by such an agreement made by the resident monks. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, the meaning indicated by the word “anissarā” (have no authority) is explained in detail in the Mahāpaccariya with the phrase “of the four requisites,” and so on. Only for consumption: here, the word “eva” (only) is used inappropriately; it should be construed as “dividing that very thing for consumption.” Here: in this monastery, or in the country. Lodging requisites: lodging and what is set aside for that purpose. From the lowest quality: starting with the lowest, it means from the lowest quality lodging. Even for lodging, grass and so on should be given from the lowest quality, and lodging accessories should also be given from the lowest quality. But what is meant by, “It should not be applied by destroying the original substance”? In the three Also, in the knotty passages, this is said: "All dwellings should not be given up" is said. Even if one gives up the worst kind, the dwelling-lands should not be given up – this meaning is said, but it is not our view. Having investigated, what is pleasing should be taken. To make an offering to the Buddha with what belongs to the Dhamma, or to make an offering to the Dhamma with what belongs to the Buddha – is it proper or not proper? "Indeed, Vāseṭṭha, this is an appellation for the Tathāgata: 'Dhamma-body'," and "Indeed, Vakkali, whoever sees the Dhamma sees me" (Saṃ. Ni. 3.87) – because of these sayings, they say it is proper. But some say: "If that is so, 'Monks, whoever would attend on me, should attend on the sick' (Mahāva. 365) – thus, it would follow that it is proper to make medicine for the sick with what belongs to the Buddha. Therefore, it is not proper." That is not a valid reason. For by "Monks, whoever would attend on me, should attend on the sick" (Mahāva. 365), the sameness of oneself and the sick person, or the equal fruit of attending on them, is not stated. The meaning here is this: "Whoever would attend on me by following my advice and instruction, should attend on the sick; by one who follows my advice, the sick person should be attended to" (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 365). The meaning here should not be taken as: "Attending on the Blessed One and on the sick is the same." Therefore, "Ananda, the Dhamma and Vinaya taught and laid down by me, that will be your Teacher after my passing" (Dī. Ni. 2.216) – and because it is said: "Now I alone advise and instruct, but after my Parinibbāna, these eighty-four thousand Buddhas will advise and instruct you" (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 2.216) – and because, in praising a learned monk, it is said: "Whoever is learned, he is not merely your disciple, Cunda, he is a Buddha" – and because of the Tathāgata's reverence for the Dhamma, the former method is more commendable – this is our view. Doubt. For clarification: "Where" means in which dwelling. "For others" means for other visitors. Even those visitors are not masters. Because it has been designated by donors, or by bhikkhus, for the robes of those who constantly reside in the dwelling, they are not masters to divide and consume it. Even by visitors who wish, having entered that monastery during the Rains retreat, etc., it should be taken for robes. "They should abide by their agreement" means: not dividing all fruits and produce, 'We will divide and consume the fruits from these many trees,' or 'with other fruits and produce we will maintain the dwellings,' or 'we will provide requisites like almsfood,' or 'we will not divide anything but offer it only for the four requisites.' In such a way, visitors should abide by the agreement of the residents who properly offer them. In the Great Commentary, the meaning is indeed clarified by the word 'not masters'. In the Mahāpaccarī, it is shown in detail with 'for the four requisites', etc. "Only in terms of consumption": Here the word 'eva' (only) is used inappropriately. It should be construed as 'dividing that for consumption'. "Here" means in this monastery, or in the country. "Requisites for dwellings" means dwellings and what has been designated and set aside for that purpose. The very meaning stated as 'having set aside one or two excellent dwellings' is again shown by way of negation with 'but one should not offer by cutting off the root of the property'. The meaning is that one should not dispose of all dwellings by cutting off the root of the property, which is the dwellings. Some here say: