English
a filter cloth is even smaller than a ladle strainer. The method for a filter cloth has already been mentioned in the discourse on requisites below. "Monks are doing new construction, the water strainer is not sufficient." When they reported this matter to the Blessed One, it was said, "Monks, I allow a stick strainer" (Cv. 259). From this, it is understood that a stick strainer is larger than a regular water strainer. "The stick strainer is not sufficient." When they reported this matter to the Blessed One, it was said, "Monks, I allow a covering strainer" (Cv. 259). From this, it is understood that a covering strainer is larger than a stick strainer. The methods for both of these strainers are given in the commentary (Cv.A. 259). Discourse on Nakedness 31. In the discourse on nakedness, "a naked person should not be greeted by a naked person." This means a naked junior monk A naked elder monk should not be greeted, should not be saluted. Why? "Monks, by a naked person a naked person should not be greeted. Whoever greets, there is an offense of wrong-doing." (Cūḷava. 261) By this saying of the Blessed One, it is explained that he should not be greeted. Here, for the root 'vad' (in the sense of greeting and praising), because it belongs to the 'curādi' group, the 'ṇe' suffix occurs, not for a causal meaning. "From intransitive roots, participles occur in the impersonal sense; from transitive roots, in the objective sense, indicating 'worthy' or 'possible'." From this saying, the 'tabba' suffix should be understood in the objective sense. But in "It should not be greeted by a naked person," the explanation is just "It should not be greeted by a naked monk." But indeed, sir – "Participles from intransitive roots are always in the impersonal sense, in the neuter gender; those ending in them, from transitive roots, are usually in the objective sense, in three genders." From this saying, and because this root is transitive, an object should be supplied, and the gender should be set according to the object. So why is the explanation made only thus far? Because there is no desire to express the object. For it has been said – "When there is no desire to express the object, even from transitive verbal suffixes, it is in the impersonal sense, just as 'it is cooked by Devadatta in the house'." Just as verbal suffixes, though coming from transitive roots, when there is no desire to express the object, speak only of the impersonal sense without stating the object; so too participles, though coming from transitive roots, because of the absence of a desire to express the object, speak only of the impersonal sense without stating the object. Therefore, the object is not supplied, and the gender is not set according to the object; it should be understood that it is set only according to the impersonal sense. For here, without thinking "this particular person should be greeted," but taking the agent in general, it should be understood that it is set. But in "A naked person should not be made to greet by a naked person," the explanation is that a younger naked monk should not be made to greet, should not be made to salute, by an elder naked monk. For here, because the causative participle is seen, and the root is transitive... A younger monk is the agent of the root verb, an older monk is the object of the root verb. Again, in the causative relation, an older monk is the agent of the causative verb, a younger monk is the object of the causative verb. For it has been said – ‘‘Because of being related to the causative action, it is considered the object; because the causative action is primary, otherwise it would not be fitting.’’ But in "One should not cause a naked person to salute," the meaning is that a naked older monk should not be caused to salute, nor should he be caused to bow. Here too, because there is no desire for a passive voice, it should be understood that the *kicca* suffix is in the impersonal sense, as stated. But if there is one who causes to bow, then one who is caused to bow is certainly found. So why is it said "because there is no desire for a passive voice"? According to the saying "Speech follows the speaker's intention," it is not said because there is no intention of the speaker. This has been said by former teachers – ‘‘The speaker's intention may not exist even if it exists, or it may exist even if it does not exist; for example, "a girl without a belly," and "the ocean is a pot."’’ The others are also easily understood. "They cover the limbs with these," therefore "coverings." Discourse on Perfume and Flowers 32. In the discourse on perfume and flowers, according to the saying "it is permissible to take perfume and apply five fingers to the door," it is established that when perfume is given, it is permissible to accept it, but not to anoint oneself. But nowadays, after people have fed the monks and finished washing their hands, they offer perfumed ointment for the fragrance of the hands. Some monks, having accepted it, anoint only their hands. Some anoint their bodies and faces. Saying "Oh, how fragrant!" and so on, they act with delight and joy. Is that permissible, or not permissible? Because only the fumigation of the monastery door by applying five fingers to it is mentioned in "it is permissible to apply five fingers to the door," and the fumigation of the body is not mentioned, and because it is in accordance with the saying "abstinence from wearing garlands, perfumes, ointments, adornments, and embellishments," it appears that it is not permissible. It should be examined and understood. According to the saying "to take a flower and place it aside in the monastery," When flowers are given, it is permissible to take them, but not to make them into garlands and so forth. This is established. Now, when monks receive fragrant flowers, they say, "Oh, what a fragrant flower this is!" and so forth, and making a delighted gesture, they smell them. Is that permissible or not? Since it is stated that they should be placed aside in the monastery, and it is not stated that they should be smelled or anything similar, and also in accordance with the passage on garlands and perfumes, it seems that it is not permissible. It should be taken after investigation. However, by the power of the phrase "to put aside," it is understood that it is permissible to make offerings to stupas, images, and so forth. Discourse on the Poured-in Cushion 33. In the discourse on the "āsittakūpadhāna" (poured-in cushion), with reference to the human custom of filling, it is said "with copper or with silver." But by the word "vā" (or), in the sense of option, it includes "with gold or with refined gold," and so forth. "Because it is prohibited" means because the Blessed One generally prohibited the "āsittakūpadhāna." Not only a jewel casket is not permissible, but also one made of wood. Here, the word "pi" (also) has the meaning of inclusion; it includes those made of bamboo, palm leaves, rattan, and so forth. Discourse on the Bowl-stand 34. In the discourse on the "maḷorikā" (bowl-stand), when it is said, "Monks, I allow the maḷorikā," it is because a sick monk, while eating, cannot hold the bowl with his hand. Therefore, it is permitted. Previously, a stand was allowed for keeping the bowl; now, it is for eating. "It is called a stick-stand" means a stick-stand is primarily called a maḷorikā. Sticks... and so forth... even stools and the like are included here under the general term "stand." There are stands that are pierced with a hole, and there are those that are not pierced. Which of these is permissible? It says, "Because of the brevity of the stand... it is permissible." Discourse on Eating from One Bowl, etc. 35. In the discourse on "eating from one bowl," "eating together" means eating together in one bowl at the same time, not in separate bowls. And not at different times even in one bowl, it says "but if..." and so forth. When that one has gone, because of his having gone, it is permissible for the other, the remaining one, to eat. By this, it shows the state of not eating at the same moment. In "for the other too," etc., "for the other too" is a statement of mutual reference, meaning, "for the other, from the other who eats the remainder." Therefore, it refers to the monk who first took and went. When that is exhausted, because of its being exhausted, because the thing first taken is exhausted, it is permissible to take again. By this, it shows the state of not eating together. One should not lie down on the same couch, even if there are different coverings, because of the saying: "One should not lie down on the same couch. Whoever lies down, there is an offense of dukkata." One should not lie down on the same covering, even if there are different couches, because of the saying: "One should not lie down on the same covering." How much more so when both are one, is the meaning. If so, when there are no different couches and no different coverings, how could there be no offense? Thinking this, he says, "But the distinction," etc. In "with one covering and one wrap," this word "one covering and one wrap" is not a dvandva compound, but rather a bahuvrīhi compound, so he says, "Those for whom there is one covering and one wrap are 'one covering and one wrap.'" This is a bahuvrīhi compound with three terms in apposition. Whose designation is this? He says, "This is the designation for those who lie down having spread one end and wrapped themselves in one end." The intention is that this term "one covering and one wrap" is a designation for monks who lie down in this way. Whose end, then? He says, "Of those who carry," etc. Story of the cloth-mat 36. In the story of the cloth-mat, "cloth-mat" means a cloth spread. What, then, was the reason for the Buddha's enacting the training rule? "It is said that Prince Bodhi spread a cloth-mat with this intention: 'If I obtain a son,