English
'Even when disposing of from the inferior onwards, having set aside one or two excellent dwellings, the dwelling grounds should not be disposed of — this meaning is stated.' That too is appropriate, because this meaning must necessarily be stated. Otherwise, some might think that it should be disposed of along with the property itself. In the Vajirabuddhi Commentary (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 153): "Here" means in this monastery, fear from foreign armies, etc., has arisen. "Cutting off the root of the property" means: by the statement 'these are masters of all dwellings', from this... is shown to be free. This bhikkhu is the master, wherever he wishes, he obtains a reason for self-knowledge, this is the meaning, it is said, and they say 'young'. 'With the ground' means 'with the land'. On the Request for Righteous Protection 19. In the Request for Righteous Protection, "only the neck" means due to the absence of a command. "Due to their wishing harm" means thinking, "Having heard my words, 'thief', some will punish him, they will take his life." By this, it is shown that even if one is punished for hastily calling someone a 'thief' merely out of fear or to seize property, there is no offense. For royal officials, the neck is involved only when they are directly told, "This is a thief." But for bhikkhus, if someone says in front of attendants or others, "So-and-so is a thief, he did this," and based on these words, the attendants or others tell the royal officials and have the person punished, the bhikkhu does not incur the 'neck' offense, because he did not tell the royal officials, and those who were told did not themselves punish the thief. Even if one is commanded, "You seize his property," if he has another seize it, the one who commanded does not incur an offense due to the command being disconnected. "His own obedient ones" is said in the sense of propriety. Even for royal officials who are not obedient to the word, if one says specifically, "Have the property seized by him brought back, and do not punish him," and a punishment is inflicted, there is no 'neck' offense, because the taking of punishment was forbidden, just as when one commands, "Steal such-and-such goods," and then, remorse arising, one retracts the command (Parā. 121). Just as in the case of accepting slaves and so on, making an agreement for that purpose is a dukkata for bhikkhus, so it is said, "It is called a proper agreement, it is not allowable." However, if a bhikkhu goes to traders for the purpose of a field or other property and makes an agreement, the acceptance of that field or property is not unallowable for everyone, as it belonged to the Sangha from before. But for the bhikkhu himself, offenses arise due to his action. But when asked by a trader to request protection for slaves and so on, It is not proper to speak of a proper procedure that has arisen for the Sangha, nor is it proper to have a half-share made by monastery attendants and others. But it is proper for a bhikkhu to make even a half-share of a monastery site or other proper things himself. This is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.679). In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pācittiya 681), it is said: "Gīvā (neck/collar) is merely a gīvā, not a pārājika (defeat). Regarding 'having it made and given,' if it is a weapon, its blade should not be made; it should be marked in another way." The Discourse on Disposing of Excrement and the Like 20. In the Discourse on Disposing of Excrement and the Like, concerning the eighth disposal of excrement and the like, "the nature of excrement and the like, not asking permission, a place of use, being beyond a wall or fence, and disposing or having it disposed of – these are the five factors here. In the ninth, regarding disposing on greenery, 'for all' means for bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs. Here, field-keepers and guardians of monasteries and the like are indeed the owners." This much is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pācittiya 3.830). But in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.830), it is said: "In the eighth, being beyond a wall or the like where it is used, and disposing of excrement and the like without asking permission – these are two factors. In the ninth, because it is said 'even a coconut with its top cut off,' only disposing on greenery is prohibited. Therefore, it says 'on those where seeds have not been cast,' and so on. And where it is proper to dispose of it, there it is also proper to make excrement and the like on greenery. 'For all' means for bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs." But in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pācittiya 832), it is said: "The phrase 'disposes only after asking permission from the owner' is not in some books, but it is in others. Its presence is better, due to the active/inactive nature of the training rule. Here, field-keepers and guardians of monasteries and the like are indeed the owners. If there is no agreement that 'one should not dispose of rubbish in the Sangha's fields and monasteries,' then it is proper for a bhikkhu to dispose of it, because it belongs to the Sangha, but not for bhikkhunīs. For them too, in what belongs to the Bhikkhunī Sangha... it is for the sake of the lay followers, not for the monk. Even so, it is said it should be done only in a suitable manner. However, in the Bhikkhuvibhaṅga, in the commentary on the Sekhiyas (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 651), it is said: “‘Without intention’ means when going to a secluded place, feces or urine suddenly comes out; this is done without intention, there is no offense. Regarding ‘not on greenery,’ whatever root of a living tree is visible on the ground, or a branch that touches the ground, all of it is considered greenery. It is permissible to sit on a log and drop it in a non-green place. If it suddenly comes out while looking for a non-green place, or if one is in a sick condition, it is permissible. ‘Done in a non-green place’ means if one cannot find a non-green place, and places a bundle of grass or a bundle of straw and does it, even if greenery later covers it, it is still permissible. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya: ‘Here, phlegm also includes snot.’ Regarding ‘not in water,’ this is said with reference to water used for consumption. However, in non-consumable waters like those in latrines or the ocean, there is no offense. When it rains, there is a flood of water all around; if it comes out while looking for a non-watery place, it is permissible. It is said in the Mahāpaccariya: ‘In such a time, if one cannot find a non-watery place, it is permissible to do it.’” In that commentary, and in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.652), it is said: “Regarding ‘Here, phlegm also includes snot,’ it should be understood that it is permissible to take a mouthful of water and spit out sugarcane pulp, etc., or to spit it into water.” At this point, the wise should consider: “In non-consumable waters like those in latrines or the ocean, there is no offense,” is stated in the commentary. If so, is there an offense or no offense in rivers, lakes, and ponds? If it is said that in “ocean, etc.,” rivers, lakes, and ponds are also included by the word “etc.,” and therefore there is no offense? It should not be understood that way. For if in “ocean, etc.,” rivers, lakes, and ponds are also included by the word “etc.,” then If the Tīkā teachers were to say so, but they do not say so. And in the Aṭṭhakathā, it would only say “in the waters of latrines, oceans, etc.” But not having said so, the qualifying word with a reason, “in unused waters,” has been taken. Thereby it is known: “By the word ‘etcetera,’ only unused waters like those in gutters, etc., are taken, not used waters like those in rivers, natural lakes, etc.” And thereby, waters of latrines, oceans, etc., being unused, do not cause an offense; but waters of rivers, natural lakes, etc., being used, do cause an offense. How then is it to be known that the word “in unused waters” is a word with a reason? From reasoning and from tradition. How from reasoning? Because it is not invariable that “waters of latrines, oceans, etc., are both used and unused.” For only if there were a possibility of variability, would the qualification be meaningful. How from tradition? For it has been said by the Elder Acariya Buddhadatta in the Vinayavinicchaya: “because they are unused.” Therefore, by the word ‘etcetera,’ only unused waters are taken, not used waters. It has been said in the Vinayavinicchayaṭīkā: “In ‘in the waters of latrines, oceans, etc.,’ by the word ‘etcetera,’ all unused water is included; for that very reason, it states that their being unused is the cause.” Therefore, it should be known that it is not permissible to urinate or defecate, etc., in waters used by humans, such as rivers, natural lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. “When it rains, there is a flood of water all around. It is permissible to go out while looking for a dry place. It is stated in the Mahāpaccariya that in such a time, if one cannot find a dry place, it is permissible to do so.” Since this is found in the Aṭṭhakathā, it is understood in accordance with the Aṭṭhakathā that when traveling by boat, etc., in large rivers, natural lakes, etc., if there is such a reason, and one says, “Bring it to the shore,” but in a place where it cannot be brought to the shore, it is permissible to do it even in the water, there is no offense. This should be taken after careful examination. Rubbing oneself with bathing trees, etc. thā 21. In "rubbing against trees and so on during bathing," "in the manner of an eight-footed board" means in the manner of an eight-footed plank, it is said to be like a dice board. "In the manner of a spittoon base" means in the manner of a spittoon base. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Cūḷavagga 2.243), it is said: "'In the manner of an eight-footed board' means in the manner of eight rows of compartments on a dice board.