English
he accepts salutation according to seniority corresponding to the years he has shown. "Counting the years of a monk," etc. By this, it is not only a single act, etc., that is called cohabitation here. shows. 138. “King…etc…by fear” – here the word “fear” should be connected individually: “by fear of the king, by fear of famine,” and so on. “Does not accept cohabitation, as long as he is pure-minded” – this means, as long as he has taken the mark due to fear of the king, etc., he is pure-minded, as long as he does not accept cohabitation. For one who, without fear of the king, etc., merely takes the mark with the desire to deceive monks and cohabit with them, is called a thief-cohabitant by the very act of taking the mark due to his impure mind. But this one, because there is no desire to deceive monks with such an impure mind, as long as he does not accept cohabitation, he is not called a thief-cohabitant. Therefore, it is stated in all three commentaries: “Even if there is a deceptive thought among those who have taken the mark due to fear of the king, etc., ‘Let laypeople know me as a monk,’ because there is no desire to deceive monks, no fault arises.” Some, however, say: “Here, pure-mindedness is the cessation of fear.” And if that is the case, the meaning understood is: as long as he whose fear has ceased does not accept cohabitation, he is not a thief-cohabitant. And if this meaning is understood, it would follow that even if one whose fear has not ceased accepts cohabitation, he would not be a thief-cohabitant. But the commentary does not show that one whose fear has not ceased is not a thief-cohabitant even if he accepts cohabitation. “Eating the meals of all sects” – this indicates that even one whose fear has not ceased must not accept cohabitation. Therefore, it is stated in all three commentaries: “Since it is difficult to avoid cohabitation for one who comes to the monastery and takes what belongs to the Sangha, ‘eating the meals of all sects’ was said.” Therefore, it should be understood that pure-mindedness here is due to having taken the mark because of fear of the king, etc. “Meals of all sects” – these are meals to be given by making them common to all religious groups, placed in street intersections, etc. “To be carried by the body” – to be carried by the body. “They approach” – they go towards. “Work and activity” by not doing work like farming and cattle-rearing. Taking that bowl and robe he goes to the monastery, meaning, taking the robes as lower and upper garments, and hanging the bowl on his shoulder, he goes to the monastery. Nor does he himself know, meaning, he does not know “whoever thus goes forth is called a thief-dweller,” or “it is not allowed to do this,” or “one thus gone forth is not called a recluse.” “Whoever thus goes forth is called a thief-dweller” is merely an example. “While still unordained” indicates that if he hears it after ordination, and even if he does not declare it, he is not a thief-dweller. “Without renouncing the training… …is not a thief-dweller.” It is said that this is not a matter of the mark because the mark given by the bhikkhus has not been abandoned, nor is it a matter of dwelling because the dwelling appropriate to the mark has been accepted. “One bhikkhu, with enthusiasm for the saffron robe, wore white garments.” Here too, the same reason should be understood. Later, in the rules stated for a novice, such as “a novice remaining in his own mark,” the same method applies to the non-thief-dwelling side. The same meaning, “the same method applies to a bhikkhuni,” is explained here by “she too, desiring the state of a laywoman,” and so on. “If someone, an elder renunciant,” is said with reference to a novice. “In large baskets, etc.” this indicates lay property. “In the sequence of novices… …is not a thief-dweller.” Here, although he is not a thief-dweller, he still incurs a pārājika offense. The rest here is clear, as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. However, in the Vimativinodanī, it is said that even merely taking the mark for the purpose of theft is dwelling here, thus “three thief-dwellers.” “Not saluting according to seniority,” meaning, he does not accept the salutation of bhikkhus or novices. “Saluting according to seniority,” meaning, he accepts the salutation of bhikkhus according to the number of years he has falsely presented through lying. Younger ones… A novice, however, who accepts salutations from elder novices, or a young monk who accepts them from elders, is not a thief-dweller. In this, "there is" means in the sense of dwelling. "Years as a monk" - this is said in the sense of dwelling, according to the text; but even if one ordains oneself and counts years as a novice, one is still in both senses. Not only a man, but a woman also, if she acts thus among bhikkhunīs, is a thief-dweller. Even those who commit the first offense are not exempt here. The first offenders are spoken of in relation to offenses prescribed for the fully ordained; therefore, even a first offender here is not exempt. In "by fear of the king... (etc.)...", the word "fear" should be applied to each individually. "As long as he is pure-minded" means he is pure-minded due to the absence of an impure thought like, "I will deceive monks with this guise and live with them." Therefore, if one takes the guise with an impure mind, whether one lives with monks afterwards or not, one is a "guise-dweller." Even if one lives with them afterwards, one lives as an unworthy person; therefore, it should be understood that even a "both-senses-dweller" falls under the "guise-dweller." But if one, out of fear of the king or others, takes the guise with a pure mind and wanders, and later develops an impure thought, "I will count years as a monk and live," one is not a thief-dweller merely by the arising of that thought, because the guise was taken with a pure mind. If, however, one goes to the monks and performs acts like counting years as a novice, then one is a "dwelling-sense-dweller" or a "both-senses-dweller," it should be understood. What is said later, "This one too is a thief-dweller with the laying down of the burden," that is said referring to the laying down of the burden in the sense of agreeing to dwell together with monks. Therefore, it is said, "As long as one does not agree to dwell," the connection should be understood that such a one is not called a thief-dweller. And here, even without fear of thieves or others, if one takes the guise with the intention of playing, and shows the appearance of an ordained person even to monks, and does not accept salutations, one is "good... "Is this indeed my renunciant's emblem?" Even if one takes it with a pure mind, as stated, one is not a thief-dweller. "Meals for all sectarians" means meals arranged to be common to all sectarians. This is said because if bhikkhus alone were to take regulated meals, dwelling together might be possible. But if one does not approve of dwelling together, and eats monastery meals in non-bhikkhu monasteries and so on, one is not a thief-dweller. "By not engaging in work" means by not doing farming and other work. "Taking bowl and robe" means wearing them on the body in the manner of a bhikkhu. "Whoever thus renounces, is called a thief-dweller." This is merely an example. But even if one does not know the name "thief-dweller," if one knows, "It is not proper to do this," or "One who does this is not a recluse," or "If I report it, they will expel me," or "Renunciation in any way does not suit me," one is a thief-dweller. But if one, who at first was conscious, "My renunciation was taken thus," merely being ashamed to reveal one's own fault of wearing white clothes and so on in between, does not speak, one is not a thief-dweller. "Only in the state of not being fully ordained" Here, by emphasis, it is shown that if one knows the characteristic of a thief-dweller in the state of being fully ordained, and does not report it even by deception, one is not a thief-dweller. For such a one, having taken the emblem with a pure mind, is not an emblem-thief. Having received full ordination, and having approved of dwelling together in accordance with that, one is not a dwelling-thief either. But one who is not fully ordained is an emblem-thief, because the emblem worthy of dwelling together has been taken, and by merely approving of dwelling together, one is a dwelling-thief. "Established in one's own emblem" means established in the state of one's own emblem. "Is not a thief-dweller" means one is not an emblem-thief because the emblem given by bhikkhus has not been abandoned. One is not a dwelling-thief because the bhikkhu's declaration has not been abandoned. However, in the commentary on the mātikā (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇ (anā) The reason given, “Because he delights in association according to his status, he is not one who is in association,” was stated with this very reason in mind. Otherwise, even for a novice, association according to his status is delighted in regarding the counting of years as a bhikkhu, etc., so he would not be “one who is in association,” because the status given by bhikkhus is common to both. Just as a bhikkhu here, so too a novice, having fallen into a pārājika, is not “one who is in association” because he has not abandoned the novice’s profession; this should be understood. “He delights” means “having accepted,” having laid aside the burden of wearing the saffron robe, having accepted the state of a layman. “If someone is an elder renunciant” is said with reference to a novice. “In large baskets, etc.” refers to special food containers placed at house doors made of wicker, etc. By this, it is said, he shows that he does not count years, etc., with bhikkhus in the monastery. 139. In the story of the apostate to other sects, it is said that as soon as he adopts their insignia, he becomes an apostate to other sects, meaning that