English
It is indeed appropriate. But it should be understood thus: not taking the bases of all three offenses, here only the sitting is mentioned according to the training rule. For even if that is taken, the offense is understood. or it is. And the word 'or' here, 'or that monk should be made to do it,' should be construed. And that is for an option. Therefore, the meaning is: 'he should be made to do it if he admits, or he should not be made to do it if he does not admit.' Thus it is said, 'or if he admits,' and so on. Since the offense due to sitting is stated in the rule concerning sitting in a secluded place, in the remaining cases too, the offense should be understood according to the respective rules. Since it is said that 'the origins, etc., are similar to the first pārājika,' it should be understood that indecent speech is not intended here. The explanation of the First Aniyata Rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Second Aniyata Rule By 'saṅghādisesa' is meant indecent speech involving bodily contact. Therefore, this section on bodily contact is also stated in the Pāli text. It is written: 'Not blind, not deaf' means 'the not-blind sees bodily contact, the not-deaf hears indecent speech, therefore it is said to be similar to taking what is not given.' And here, how is the origin from body, speech, and mind? Indeed, one who engages in bodily contact also speaks indecently; speaking indecently, he also sits down, this is possible, or it is said with reference to indecent speech itself. For that has the origin of taking what is not given. He who, like the All-Knower, teaches; With various methods, forms, and diverse distinctions; A mindful mind to know the means; Does not do that merit for the sake of gain. The explanation of the Second Aniyata Rule is finished. The explanation of the Aniyata section is finished. The Nissaggiya Section 1. The Robe Chapter 1. Explanation of the Kathina Rule In the Nissaggiya section, the three Kathina rules, and the rules concerning the rain-cloak, the extra robe, and the doubtful robe, should be understood as a collection of offenses of that kind, by means of a single explanation – Kathina, of which there are four, born together, two periods; And of the six rules, a single explanation. There, 'kathina' means 'by the approval of the Sangha, by the approval of the group, by the spreading of an individual, the kathina is spread for the Sangha' (Pari. 414) – by this statement, the approval of these very ones... The collection of primary principles is called Kathina. As it is said: “One should know Kathina,” meaning “a collection, an assemblage, a name, a naming-action of those very principles,” and so on (Pari. 412). Therefore, this “Kathina” is merely a name for many principles, not a single principle in the ultimate sense. What then is its spreading? It is like a stream of milk, a part of it. And as it is said: “The spreading is collected by one principle through a difference in words.” The co-arising are eight main topics, two impediments, and five benefits— these are the fifteen principles. The two periods are the period of spreading the Kathina, and the period of the robe. Therein, the period of spreading the Kathina is the last month of the rainy season. The robe period, when the Kathina is not spread, is this month of Kattika; when it is spread, it is the four winter months— thus five months. Therein, the eight main topics are “ending by departure” and so on. All of them arise together with the spreading. When the spreading exists, due to its existence, the removal is possible. Therein, the “internal removal” and “co-removal” are co-arising and co-ceasing with the Kathina spreading. The remaining Kathina removals are co-arising, but cease differently. Therein, “co-ceasing” means ceasing together with the spreading; the meaning is that the non-removal of internal removal and co-removal occurs at one moment. The rest cease differently. For even when they have reached the state of removal, the spreading still remains— this is the explanation of meaning in the commentary. If, when the Kathina is spread, a monk, still attached, departs from that dwelling, and the Sangha performs an “internal removal,” for that monk, even if the impediment of the robe was not yet completed in the original dwelling, when there is internal removal, the impediment is cut off, even with attachment, because of the effort. In this way, the Kathina removal “ending by departure” is co-arising with the spreading but ceases differently. Similarly, when there is internal removal, even for one who hears, as long as the completion of the robe is not reached, because the possibility of loss exists, it is “ending by completion.” As long as the decision is not reached, because the possibility of loss exists, it is “ending by decision.” As long as it does not perish, as long as there is a possibility of protection, it is not nearing perishing. As long as one does not hear, as long as there is a possibility of protection, it is not nearing hearing. As long as the robe-hope is not cut off, as long as there is a possibility of protection, it is not a cutting off of hope. As long as one does not transgress the boundary, as long as there is a possibility of protection, it is not a transgression of the boundary. By meaning, one arising, various cessations, this should be understood. Therein, the two, internal raising and joint raising, occur only within the boundary, not outside the boundary. Departing, hearing, and boundary transgression occur only outside the boundary, not within the boundary. Completion, non-completion, and cutting off of hope occur both within the boundary and outside the boundary. Internal raising is dependent on the Sangha. Departing, completion, non-completion, and boundary transgression are dependent on the individual. The rest are contrary to both. Therein, by "when the robe is completed," it indicates only the absence of the robe impediment, not the absence of the dwelling impediment. By "when the Kathina is raised," it indicates the absence of both impediments. Therefore, if it is said that the same should be stated to indicate the absence of both impediments? No, because of the distinction. How so? Although, therefore, "when the Kathina is raised" is due to the various cessations of certain Kathina raisings, and due to dependence or non-dependence on the Sangha or individuals, and due to regularity or irregularity in both inner and outer boundaries, when the Kathina is raised, it is raised for the Sangha, not for the individual. Nevertheless, "when the Kathina is raised" is a general statement. Therefore, by "when the robe is completed," it is specified. What is meant is this: When the Kathina is raised by the Sangha's internal raising, a monk whose robe impediment is not cut off, who has gone outside the boundary, and later returns to his own boundary, and whose robe is not completed, receives the benefit. It should be understood that it is for this reason that "when the robe is completed" is stated. Therein, the dwelling impediment means either one dwells in that dwelling, or one departs with attachment. The robe impediment means the robe is not made or is unfinished, or the hope for a robe is not cut off. By the opposite of this, the absence of impediment should be understood. Therein, for Kathinas that are not beneficial, the robe... In the proper season, four benefits are certainly obtained. The non-taking-up practice is uncertain. Therefore, the rule of doubt is stated. How are the four certain, you ask? "The robe-season is the last month of the rainy season when the kathina is not spread." (Pārā. 649) By this saying, for those without the kathina spread, in that month, robes as much as desired are established. And in the third kathina training rule (Pārā. 497 ff.), if the untimely robe, starting from the time of the back, having received it, is to be obtained from the Saṅgha, it should be put aside, divided, and taken until the robe-season. If it is personal, from the fifth day of the sixth fortnight of the rainy season, until the robe-season, it is permissible undetermined and unresolved, because it is allowed by the emergency robe training rule, not beyond that. Then, because the arisen robe is forbidden by the first kathina. There, the method stated in the commentary referring to that which belongs to the Saṅgha, and it should be understood that it is also in the ancient glosses. In the first kathina (Pārā. 459 ff.), by the first promulgation, or without distinction, on the eleventh day, there is an offense. Indeed, to prevent within the rainy season, it is stated in the commentary: "When the robe is finished, and the kathina is lifted by the bhikkhu." (Pārā. 462 ff.) This is the same method in the second and third. Therefore, a robe arisen before or within the robe-season does not obtain an exemption even for one day beyond the robe-season. If it were to obtain, it would be a contradiction of the emergency robe training rule. "It should be put aside until the robe-season. If one puts it aside beyond that, it is an offense entailing relinquishment." (Pārā. 648) Indeed, it is stated there. An offense occurs only when one allows an emergency robe, which has become one's own property by having resided during the rains and obtained from the Saṅgha, to pass beyond the robe-season. Not when one allows it to pass beyond the emergency robe season. "Arisen in the eleventh month when the kathina is not spread." (Pārā. 500) By this saying, whatever robe arises there, that will be theirs, it is established, an In the training rule concerning invited wandering groups and meals, because "except at the proper time" (Pāci. 222 onwards) is stated, the other two are already established. Therefore, by the statement "even if given at the proper time, if it is designated, this is an untimely robe" (Pārā. 500), a designated robe that is given