English
This method stated in the giving of flowers is extended to the giving of fruits. Therefore, fruits too are allowable to give to parents by carrying, having carried, etc., and to other relatives only by having invited. Now, showing this method stated in the giving of flowers, "whoever carries or has carried... (etc.)... giving with authority incurs a grave offense," (Parajika Atthakatha 2.436-437) abbreviated for the giving of fruits, he says, "but for the purpose of supporting the family," and so on. "Those whose expenses are exhausted" is said with reference to visitors. By specifying the fruits: "so many fruits should be given," thus by specifying the fruits. Or by specifying the trees: "from these trees they should be given," thus by specifying the trees. But even when trees are specified, by saying "the fruits here are good, take from here," family support is considered to have been done, so he says, "but it should not be said thus." "Tree bark" means tree skin; that is called "divisible property." In the manner stated, it shows that family support occurs in the manner stated for flowers, fruits, etc. 36. For various laypeople, carrying messages and counter-messages between villages, between countries, etc., is "running errands." Therefore, he says, "the messenger's duty for laypeople is the act of carrying messages." The work of a messenger is messenger's duty. "Even without first taking the message... (etc.)... a dukkaṭa at every step" is said with reference to going with the intention, "I will announce his message." But if, having rejected his message, one oneself, standing in compassion, goes and announces a suitable message of one's own, there is no offense. And it is allowable to carry a suitable message for laypeople. the bond. And by these eight acts that defile families: giving flowers, giving fruits, giving powders, giving clay, giving tooth-sticks, giving bamboo, giving leaves, and massaging the legs—by these as stated. One who has committed the act of expulsion: one who has committed the act of expulsion on account of defiling families. 37. In the realm of the trainee: by this, it also includes the realm of jhāna. Of the three solitudes: of the three solitudes, which are the solitude of body, mind, and attachments. It is said, "until the end of the meal," because going for alms ends with the meal. It should be understood that even for one who returns after eating, if he makes resolutions and arranges his robes again in the manner stated, it is still a dukkata offense. Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha, The Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Family Inclusion, The Fifth Chapter. 6. The Discourse on the Determination of Fish and Meat 38. Having thus explained the determination of family inclusion, now, in order to explain the determination of fish and meat, it is said, "And regarding fish and meat," and so on. There, "fish" is that which dies as soon as it is placed on land, or is killed by fishermen and so on. "Macchaṃ" is that which belongs to fish. "Maṃsaṃ" is that which is crushed or handled. Fish and meat are "macchamaṃsāni," and regarding these. The construction is: "And regarding fish and meat, the determination should be understood thus." In "by the taking of fish," no determination should be made here. The word "pana" (and) has the meaning of an alternative; the meaning is that, apart from the determination regarding sleeping during the day and so on, another determination regarding fish and meat should be understood. "Gahaṇaṃ" is that by which something is taken. What is that? The word. The taking of "maccha" is "macchaggahaṇaṃ," by that taking of fish, meaning by the word "fish." And regarding meats... and so on... "unsuitable": here, human flesh is prohibited because it is the flesh of one's own kind. The flesh of elephants and horses is prohibited because they are royal animals; the flesh of dogs and snakes because of their disgusting nature; and the flesh of other wild animals is prohibited to free monks from attachment. Pure in three aspects: by the three aspects, by the three modes, which are seen, heard, and suspected. is pure for these reasons, is the meaning of 'released'. Therein, 'unseen and unheard' are to be known as not being objects of eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness. But how is 'unsuspected' to be known? He says, "But 'unsuspected'..." meaning, knowing the three kinds of suspicion, 'unsuspected' is to be known as their opposite. Now, to show in detail those three kinds of suspicion, the procedure to be followed by monks when there is such suspicion, and the procedure to be followed when there is no suspicion by that method, he says, "How...?" Therein, suspicion after seeing is called 'seen suspicion'. Suspicion after hearing is called 'heard suspicion'. Suspicion without seeing or hearing, by conjecture or inference, is called 'suspicion apart from both'. That threefold suspicion, by the generality of suspicion, is one category. What is free from that is called 'unsuspected'. Thus, meat and fish that are unseen, unheard, and unsuspected are pure in three respects. 'Net' is for catching fish. 'Snare' is for catching deer. 'Is allowable' means if doubt ceases by their word, it is allowable; that word should not be made into a pretext. Therefore, he will say, "Whatever he is free from doubt about, all that is allowable." 'Current meat' means meat available in shops, etc., or meat for sale, or dead meat. 'For auspicious occasions, etc.' The word 'etc.' includes offerings, hospitality, etc. 'Not made for the sake of monks alone' – here, the word 'alone' is used in an inappropriate place; it should be connected as 'not made for the sake of monks alone'. Therefore, it should be understood that even if it is made by mixing for monks and for auspicious occasions, etc., it is not allowable. Some, however, say, "It is allowable by taking the emphasis as it stands," but that is not good. 'Whatever he is free from doubt about' means the complete absence of suspicion, even if it is made for the sake of monks. 39. To clarify that very meaning, "If, however..." is said. 'It is allowable for others' means it is allowable for those who do not know; for one who knows, there is an offense here. i. "Teyeva" means those for whom it was intended, they alone. To show the distinction between consuming meat intended for oneself and consuming unsuitable meat, it is said, "But unsuitable meat..." In the former, there is an offense with intention; in the latter, without intention. Therefore, it is said, "Even one who eats unsuitable meat unknowingly still commits an offense." According to the saying, "One should ask at the time of consumption, or having taken it, one should ask and then consume it" (Vinaya Sangaha Atthakatha 39), it is established that there is no offense for one who accepts unsuitable meat unknowingly. For it is only said that there is an offense for one who consumes it unknowingly. By saying "vattanti vadanti" (they say, they speak), it is shown that there is no offense. Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha, The Ornament of the Discourse on the Determination of Fish and Meat, The Sixth Chapter. 7. The Discourse on the Determination of What is Not to Be Touched 40. Having thus explained the determination of fish and meat, now, to explain the determination of what is not to be touched, it begins with "anāmāsaṃ" (not to be touched). There, "āmasiyati" means to be touched, so "āmāsaṃ" is what is to be touched. "Na āmāsaṃ" is "anāmāsaṃ," meaning it should not be touched. "Pāripanthikā" means those who cause trouble, those who cause obstacles. The statement "one's mother being carried away by the river current" is said to show the highest limit. However, they say there is no fault for one who acts towards other women with compassion, in the same way as described for one's mother. There are also those who say that because "mother" is mentioned, it is not permissible for others. Here, "do not say 'take it'" is said with reference to an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) for touching with householder-like affection, bound to the body. But for one who, out of compassion, says "take it" to someone unable to take an object, etc., or for one who, seeing their mother drowning in water, out of compassion, without thinking "this is not to be touched," quickly grabs her by the hair, etc., with the intention of saving her, there is no offense. For it is not proper to neglect one's dying mother. The same applies to an unrelated woman. The word "mother" is used to show that even for one's own mother, who is of the highest degree, touching is not permissible. For him to do Even if one makes it for other women, there is no offense, as there is no difference in its being untouchable. "Grass-bundle" means a coil made of hirivera roots and so on, for adorning the hair. "Palm-leaf ring" means a finger-ring made of palm leaves. Thus, it is established that all such things made of palm leaves, like waist-bands and ear-ornaments, are not permissible. "Having transformed" means having removed it from being one's own lower garment or upper garment, it is said to be dedicated for robes. "Places it at the foot for robes" is merely an example. It is permissible even for cushions, canopies, and so on. It is permissible to touch it even temporarily for offerings and so on. "Head-ornament and tooth-stick" refers to two or three things: the head-ornament made of cloth strips for adorning the head, and the tooth-stick and so on. It shows the meaning that the head-ornament should be taken for the purpose of a hair-pin, and the tooth-stick for the purpose of a needle. Or, the interpretation should be made thus: the needle made for tying a lock of hair and inserting it crosswise there, which is itself the head-ornament and tooth-stick, is one and the same, and it is the needle to be carried