English
Or by what is not allowable, such as a bed made of gold or silver. An allowable bed should be accepted, thus "Sangha..." "We give it to the monastery" - this refers to what was given. But when they say "We give it to the monastery," even inappropriate couches made of gold, silver, etc., should be accepted. And "arañjara" means a large water container. And "if the monastery attendants, etc., put it away and then present it for use by the Sangha, it is permissible to use it." And because it is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 321) that "even a bowl of bronze, iron, etc., given to the Sangha is not permissible for personal use," it is not allowed to take it with one's own hand and put it away. And they say "vedhaka" is for the body-band. And the reading is "asafoetida, cinnabar, orpiment, realgar, collyrium." And the reading is "a wooden box... or even a footless box." And "wooden gourd" means a wooden water-gourd. And it is written "in pillars, beams, stairs, planks, etc." The explanation of the Dubbala training rule is finished. 12. Explanation of the Pariṇāmana training rule A certain bhikkhu desires to give to an expelled bhikkhu. If he prevents that gift and causes it to be given to another, there is no offense. Likewise, if he causes it to be given to one who would waste a gift of faith. His dependents ask, desiring to give a bowl to a certain person. He says, "That one is unsuitable, give it to a suitable one." There is no offense, because it is his responsibility. But if he causes that desired gift to be given to another, there is an offense. In all cases, having been asked, one may dispose of the desired gift as one pleases. The explanation of the Pariṇāmana training rule is finished. The chapter on Fellow Dhamma-farers is the eighth. 9. The chapter on Jewels 1. Explanation of the Antepura training rule It refers to the enclosed area outside, such as at the foot of trees, where one does not lie down. The teacher says, "If he is only a khattiya, not consecrated, or consecrated, but not a khattiya, he protects," because "being a khattiya, being consecrated" is stated as a component of the offense. The origins, etc., are similar to the first Kathina rule, but this is the reading "action-inaction." The explanation of the Antepura training rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Ratana training rule All the discourse having rejected depositing and guarding with the chief storekeeper, proceeded. The explanation of the precept concerning jewels is finished. 3. The explanation of the precept concerning entering a village at the wrong time. "Peaceful monk" and "without asking" and "such an emergency"— these three are the reading here. The origins and so on are like the kathina. But this is an act or non-act, so is the reading. The explanation of the precept concerning entering a village at the wrong time is finished. 4. The explanation of the precept concerning the needle-case. "That means" (Taṃassāti) that breaking is for the pācittiya, because after first breaking it, it must be confessed afterwards. This method applies to others too. "Vāsijaṭa" means in the handle of an adze. The explanation of the precept concerning the needle-case is finished. 5. The explanation of the precept concerning beds and chairs. "Having legs eight finger-breadths long" is a neuter noun of state. On a balance beam placing it is the act of making it difficult. The explanation of the precept concerning beds and chairs is finished. 6. The explanation of the precept concerning stuffed cushions. Although it seems like a pācittiya just upon acquisition, however, the offense should be seen only upon use. "That which is made by another, having acquired it, one uses it, there is an offense of dukkaṭa" (pāci. 529)— this statement is the proof here. The explanation of the precept concerning stuffed cushions is finished. 7. The explanation of the precept concerning sitting cloths. Although the type of sitting cloth is not seen here, nevertheless, because it is allowed in the chapter on robes, and because it is included in "nine robes are to be determined," here also, because it is included, it should be understood that its type is indeed the robe-type. "When acquired, it is ten by six, when not acquired, even less than ten is permissible," say some. That is not proper, because "a sitting cloth is called ten by six" (pāci. 531-532) defines its specific size. The explanation of the precept concerning sitting cloths is finished. The chapter on jewels is the ninth. The explanation of the pure pācittiya offenses is finished. The section on Pāṭidesanīya offenses. 1. The explanation of the first Pāṭidesanīya precept. In the case of yāmakālika (food for a watch) and so on, only for the purpose of food is there a dukkaṭa offense. Even that if the taste is not mixed with meat. But if mixed, in one taste, it is a pāṭidesanīya offense. just so. The explanation of the first Pāṭidesanīya training rule is finished. 2. The explanation of the second Pāṭidesanīya training rule “The origins and so forth are like the kathina; but this is an action or non-action,” is the reading. The explanation of the second Pāṭidesanīya training rule is finished. 4. The explanation of the fourth Pāṭidesanīya training rule “Having received it in the monastery or in the vicinity of the monastery and eaten it” means having received it in the monastery or in the vicinity of the monastery and eaten it in the monastery or in the vicinity of the monastery. There is no offense for one who receives it outside the monastery and eats it inside the monastery. And in the sections, it should be understood as “receiving it inside the monastery or in the vicinity of the monastery.” For when the inside of the monastery is shown, the vicinity of the monastery is also shown. “The origins and so forth are like the kathina; but this is an action or non-action,” is the reading. The explanation of the fourth Pāṭidesanīya training rule is finished. The explanation of the Pāṭidesanīya rules is finished. The Sekhiya Section In the Sekhiya rules, even when there is a transgression, the agent is not mentioned to show that the offense belongs only to one who is heedless. For this is a characteristic of the Vinaya, namely, the mention of the agent when there is heedlessness, and that is a rule in the prescribed regulations, and also a locative case. It is permissible to wear it lowered more than eight finger-breadths. It is said in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā that there is a dukkaṭa for one who lowers it beyond that. “In the monastery” means at the time of attending the Buddha and so forth. “To wear” is said in the sense of the duty of the upper robe. Here, in “having stood,” it is written (Vajira. ṭī. Pācittiya 582) that even one who is going is permitted to look for the absence of danger. Just as it is permissible for one who has taken up residence to sit with the body uncovered within the inner dwelling, so too, for one who wishes to go to him, it is permissible to go as one pleases without tying the waist-band, without wearing the outer robe, and without announcing one’s entry into the village. Therefore, if, during a journey, one bhikkhu, having fulfilled the duty of entering the village, enters the village, reaches a lodging house situated directly in front, places his requisites, and has taken up residence, then the others, to him, as they please It is permissible to go to the sky. What then to speak of going to the presence of bhikkhus who have resided for four or five days, having resolved to stay, and going to the presence of those who have undertaken residence? It is also permissible to go for Buddha-worship as one wishes. And this is also stated in the commentary: "There is no offense if one looks here and there on account of a reason." There, it is written that "reason" should be understood as material offering. The explanation of the twenty-six proper behaviors is finished. Since the statement "almsfood should be received to the brim" (Pāci. 602-603) indicates that almsfood should be received full to the brim, it is therefore shown that even if the almsfood given into one's own hand-held bowl is heaped up, it is permissible. In the case of asking for curry and rice, if, after putting it in the mouth, regret arises, and even if one wishes to spit it out again, if it enters suddenly, here it is called "eating unintentionally." If one takes and eats what was asked for and what was not asked for, placed in one place, without suddenly examining it, it is called "eating unmindfully." Having oneself gone into a vehicle, as for one who is in a vehicle; a thing is sufficient, or not sufficient, for one with an umbrella, or one holding an umbrella. The text states: "The training rule concerning asking for curry and rice arises from a weapon of theft, is an action, a release by perception, intentional, blameworthy by the world, a bodily action, a verbal action, an unwholesome mind, painful feeling." The explanation of the Sekhiya rules is finished. The explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha is finished. Homage to that Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One. Explanation of the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha The Pārājika Section Here, regarding "mere address," there are two kinds of address: "Bhante" for the young and "āvuso" for the elder. But here, for both elder and young, it is only "ayyā." Here, regarding "in the manner stated for bodily contact," the arising from action is stated in the sense of being frequent. However, because it is said "should consent" instead of "should engage in bodily contact," it should be understood that it can also arise from inaction. As it is here, so below "a human woman... When it is said, "If he engages in sexual intercourse in the three paths of a woman, he incurs an offense of defeat," and so on, in this manner, the origin from action is stated. Immediately after that, when it is said,