English
Therefore, it is said: "Only there was one person oppressed, here two; this is the distinction here." By this special meaning, what further additional meaning is shown? In the old glosses, it was said: "It is not proper to oppress even two persons in one matter; this additional meaning is shown." By this, it is indicated: "The counting of offenses is not merely by the number of robes received, but also by the number of persons oppressed, which is considered the 'matter'." Here are these: Even by counting the matters, there may be many offenses; And to show this, the second [rule] is brought forth here. How is this, as in the analysis of the training rule on physical contact? Even with one woman, there are many offenses due to the application [of the rule]. Moreover, this training rule should be understood as serving the purpose of showing the determination to be adopted in all training rules of that kind. And it is said: By the many and mixed non-relatives, there are also many and mixed offenses; To show the possibility of such methods, the Teacher declared this second [rule]. This is a brief consideration, preceded by the intention: If a bhikkhu has one old robe washed by two or many bhikkhunis, the counting of offenses (pācittiya) is by the number of bhikkhunis. Similarly, for two or many common He receives one single robe, Not for exchange. Here too, similarly, For two or for many, He requests one in common; The count of offenses Is by the count of persons requested. Similarly, in other Such training rules, The method should be applied. This, then, Is the method for many. But for a mixed group, Of a relative and a non-relative, He has one washed; If completed together, One Pācittiya offense. Then if the relative First washes a little and stops, Then the non-relative Makes it well-washed, It is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya. Then if the non-relative First washes, Afterwards the relative Makes it well-washed, Due to the non-relative's effort, For the bhikkhu it is only a Dukkata. From a non-relative and a relative, Perceiving as non-relative, Or doubtful, Or perceiving as relative, He has it washed; The count of offenses, Such as Nissaggiya and Dukkata, Should be understood According to the method stated. Similarly, a robe Belonging to a non-relative and a relative, If given by both together, He receives, It is a Nissaggiya offense. Then if he receives it Only from the hand of the non-relative, It is a Nissaggiya offense. Then if he receives it From the hand of the relative, There is no offense. Then regarding both, Perceiving as non-relative, etc., The count of offenses, Such as Nissaggiya and Dukkata, Should be understood According to the stated method. Similarly, in requests From non-relatives, etc., The method should be applied As appropriate. This is the method For mixed cases. But by the word 'etc.', Many non-relatives are requested, By the count of persons requested, A Dukkata. One gives, One does not give, It is a Nissaggiya. Then if an unrequested person gives, It is not a Nissaggiya. Then if a requested person Gives something in common For requested and unrequested persons, It is a Nissaggiya. If both give, It is a Nissaggiya offense. If an unrequested person gives, There is no offense by Nissaggiya. By the word of the requested person, If an unrequested person gives, There is no offense. Similarly, in prepared things, etc., The method should be applied As appropriate. Thus far, in brief, The verse beginning with 'from a non-relative' Has its meaning stated. And here, that The training rule about a bhikkhuni Sitting in private Was mentioned as an example Of being useless, Its specific purpose in that... will indeed manifest.” In the same way, in other places too, by the statement, and by the arising of special meaning, the special purpose to be known in the training rules. The explanation of the second Upakkhaṭa training rule is finished. 10. Explanation of the Rāja training rule “He breaks the ground, he destroys the purpose of his coming,” because it is said, some say he does not receive a further accusation. Some say his coming is not fruitful, he will not receive a robe because a reception was made. Some say it was said considering that it is not a characteristic of accusation. Upatissa Thera says, “‘A reception should not be made with the intention of teaching Dhamma, etc.’ He breaks the grounds for accusation, ‘he destroys the purpose of his coming,’ one who wishes to accuse did what should not be done, because of that, a dukkaṭa in the category of conduct.” Dhammasiri Thera, however, says, “If he sits on a seat, with one sitting he breaks two grounds. If he accepts an offering, with one acceptance he breaks two grounds. If he speaks Dhamma, with one speech he breaks two grounds for the period mentioned in the Dhamma teaching training rule. Referring to that, it is said, ‘he destroys the purpose of his coming.’” As the four were designated by the bhikkhu: one is designated by “This one,” the second by “This is a steward… (etc.)… it is permissible to accuse even if not told,” and if the messenger, while going, says, “I will give it into his hand,” etc., that is the third, and “or sends another to inform,” that is the fourth; in the same way, four are designated by the messenger. It is written that one should act towards the mouth-servant and the absent-servant as if they were unknown and uninvited. The explanation of the Rāja training rule is finished. The Robe Chapter, the first. 2. The Sheep's Wool Chapter 1. Explanation of the Kosiya training rule “Should have made” is said, taking both one's own and another's kosiya together, or it should be understood as meaning that both make it together. If it is made by oneself, “when renouncing, made by oneself is to be declared forfeit. If done by both, it is just as in the Pāli. The commentary on the Kosiya training rule is finished. 2. Commentary on the Suddhakāḷaka training rule Just as in the first [rule] it was said, "even with one Kosiya thread" (Kankha. Atth. Kosiyasikkhapadavannana), so here, due to the absence of the phrase "unmixed with even one other [thread]", even if there is a mixture with others, but its form is not discernible, they say it is called "pure black". The commentary on the Suddhakāḷaka training rule is finished. 3. Commentary on the Dvebhāga training rule By the phrase "having weighed", just as the black [threads] should not be more for holding the balance, so two parts of black [threads] should be taken, by the highest measure. The teacher says: "The statement 'it is forfeit if even one black hair is in excess' although it does not fit with holding the balance, yet, because the training rule is without intention, if even one hair from those previously weighed and placed on the balance should fall there, the meaning is 'it is forfeit'; this is not our reasoning." Not taking by the stated measure is non-action. Making the rug is action. The commentary on the Dvebhāga training rule is finished. 4. Commentary on the Chabbassa training rule Because it is said "within six years", it is permissible to make it when six years are complete. Therefore, the period of six years should be understood from the day of completion. Whatever [rugs] are made here, whether by way of exceeding six years or by way of permission, all of them are permissible to use together. And for a sick person, if one is not enough, many are permissible. Some say that from the time one is able to take the rug and go, due to the mildness of the illness, from that time onwards, neither permission nor illness protects. Moreover, the training rule regarding six years, pure and clear, is profound to consider. Therefore, the action is done in six years. The commentary on the Chabbassa training rule is finished. 5. Commentary on the Nisīdana training rule Why here, without laying down the training rule "but by a bhikkhu, a rug", [is it said] "a sitting rug"... is designated, “Isn’t there a reason for this?” There is a reason. It is said that the Blessed One designated it thus to show their non-robe status, as they were discarded due to being considered robes. Therefore, those bhikkhus, fearing a breach of the three-robe ascetic practice, discarded the blankets, considering them a fourth robe, and undertook the thirteen ascetic practices. And the Blessed One permitted them the blankets. Then it occurred to those bhikkhus, “This sitting blanket, which has the form of a sitting cloth, was not permitted by the Blessed One as a fourth robe, much less a made blanket.” Therefore, the intention is that the Blessed One, so that they would not consider blankets as robes, designated it “sitting blanket” instead of just “blanket.” Among these five blankets, the first three are not suitable for use even if obtained by performing a Vinaya act, because they are not allowable. The last two are allowable, as written in the Vajiraṭṭhīkā (Pārājika 566-567). If it is asked, “How is this known?” It should be understood from the statement, “There is no offense if one obtains and uses one made by another” (Pārā. 570). The explanation of the Sitting Blanket training rule is finished. 6. Explanation of the Sheep’s Wool training rule “For one who is on a journey” indicates that even if sheep’s wool arises for one who is naturally on a long journey, it should be carried only up to three yojanas, much less for one who is not on a journey. If one is on a journey, “journey” indicates a journey like that of a bhikkhuni who has completed the rains retreat unwillingly, as shown by her journey. Or the connection is, “for one who is on a journey, it is to be relinquished.” Therefore, it is established that there is no offense for one who is considered “not on a journey” due to the cessation of the intention to stay and the encouragement to go.