English
who were disagreeable to the teacher, they, having asked the reason for coming, and having spoken ill of the teacher, might cause regret, saying, "You are ruined if you have come to him," by which he might turn back from there. Therefore, having asked the teacher's dwelling place, one should go straight there. If the teacher is younger, one should not accept his bowl and robes, etc. If he is older, one should go, salute the teacher, and stand. When he says, "Put down your bowl and robes, friend," one should put them down. When he says, "Drink water," if one wishes, one should drink. When he says, "Wash your feet," one should not wash one's feet immediately. For if the water had been brought by the teacher, it would not be proper. But when he says, "Wash, friend, it was not brought by me, but by others," then in a place where the teacher does not see, or in such a hidden place, or in the open air, or to one side of the monastery, one should sit and wash one's feet. If the teacher brings an oil flask, one should rise and respectfully take it with both hands. For if one did not take it, the teacher might think, "This monk is breaking off communion from this very moment." But having taken it, one should not anoint one's feet first. For if it were oil for the teacher's own body, it would not be proper. Therefore, having anointed the head, one should anoint the shoulders, etc. But when he says, "This is oil for general use, friend, anoint your feet too," then, having put a little on the head, and anointed the feet, one should say, "I will put this oil flask down, venerable sir," and give it to the teacher when he takes it. From the day of arrival, one should not say, "Please teach me a meditation subject, venerable sir." But from the second day onwards, if the teacher... There is a regular attendant for the elder, one should ask him to perform the duties. If, even when asked, he does not give, it should be done when an opportunity is found. While doing so, three tooth-sticks, small, medium, and large, should be offered. Cold and hot, two kinds of mouth-washing water, and bathing water should be prepared. Then, whatever the teacher uses for three days, the same should always be offered. For one who uses whatever without a rule, whatever is found should be offered. What more is there to say? Whatever the Blessed One taught in the Khandhaka, beginning with: “Monks, an apprentice should behave properly towards his teacher. And this is proper behavior: getting up early, taking off his sandals, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, he should give the tooth-stick, he should give the mouth-water, he should arrange the seat. If there is gruel, having washed the bowl, the gruel should be offered” (Mahāvagga 78), all that proper conduct should be performed. Having thus pleased the guru with the perfection of duties, one should go after being dismissed with "go" after bowing in the evening. When he asks, "Why have you come?" then the reason for coming should be told. If he does not ask, but approves of the duties, after ten days or half a month has passed, even if dismissed for one day, without going, one should make an opportunity and announce the reason for coming. Or, having gone at an improper time, when asked, "Why have you come?" one should announce it. If he says, "Come in the morning," one should go in the morning. However, if at that time his stomach burns with a bile disorder, or food does not digest due to weak digestion, or some other illness afflicts him, having revealed that as it is, and announced one's suitable time, one should approach at that time. For, even if a meditation subject is taught at an unsuitable time, it is not possible to pay attention to it. This is the elaboration on "approaching the good friend who gives the meditation subject." Description of Conduct 43. Now, in accordance with one's own conduct, Here, "conduct" means six kinds of conduct: conduct of lust, conduct of hatred, conduct of delusion, conduct of faith, conduct of wisdom, conduct of discursive thought. Some, however, due to the mixing and combination of lust and the rest, desire four others, and likewise for faith and the rest, making fourteen with these eight. But if such distinctions are spoken of, by mixing lust and the rest with faith and the rest, there would be many kinds of conduct. Therefore, in brief, only six kinds of conduct should be known. Conduct, nature, predominance are one in meaning. According to these, there are six types of individuals: one of lustful conduct, one of hateful conduct, one of deluded conduct, one of faithful conduct, one of wise conduct, one of discursive thought conduct. Therein, because for one of lustful conduct, at the time of wholesome activity, faith is strong, due to its proximity in quality to lust. Just as in the unwholesome aspect, lust is smooth, not too rough, so too in the wholesome aspect, faith is. Just as lust seeks after sensual objects, so too faith seeks after virtues like morality. Just as lust does not abandon what is unbeneficial, so too faith does not abandon what is beneficial. Therefore, one of lustful conduct is akin to one of faithful conduct. But because for one of hateful conduct, at the time of wholesome activity, wisdom is strong, due to its proximity in quality to hatred. Just as in the unwholesome aspect, hatred is devoid of smoothness, not clinging to the object, so too in the wholesome aspect, wisdom is. And just as hatred seeks fault even where there is none, so too wisdom seeks fault where it truly exists. Just as hatred operates by avoiding beings, so too wisdom operates by avoiding formations. Therefore, one of hateful conduct is akin to one of wise conduct. But because for one of deluded conduct, when striving for the arising of unarisen wholesome states, mostly obstructive discursive thoughts arise, due to the proximity of its characteristic to delusion. Just as delusion is unsettled by confusion, so too discursive thought is by various kinds of thinking. And just as delusion is restless due to not comprehending, so too discursive thought is by quick conceptualization. Therefore, one of deluded conduct is akin to one of discursive thought conduct. Others [speak of] craving, conceit By way of views, they speak of three other temperaments. Therein, craving is just lust, and conceit is associated with it; both do not exceed the lust-temperament. And because views are rooted in delusion, the view-temperament just falls into the delusion-temperament. 44. But these temperaments, what are their roots? And how is it to be known: 'This person is of lust-temperament, this person is of one of the others like hatred-temperament'? For a person of what temperament, what is suitable? Therein, some say the former three temperaments have roots in past practice, and roots in elemental imbalances. Indeed, in the past, one abundant in pleasant practices and wholesome deeds becomes of lust-temperament, or having fallen from a heaven, is reborn here. In the past, one abundant in cutting, killing, binding, and hostile deeds becomes of hatred-temperament, or having fallen from hell or a nāga realm, is reborn here. In the past, one abundant in drinking intoxicants and devoid of learning and inquiry becomes of delusion-temperament, or having fallen from an animal realm, is reborn here. Thus, they say these have roots in past practice. But due to the excess of two elements, a person becomes of delusion-temperament, namely, the earth element and the water element. Due to the excess of the other two, one becomes of hatred-temperament. But due to the balance of all, one becomes of lust-temperament. And among the humors, one with excess phlegm becomes of lust-temperament. One with excess wind becomes of delusion-temperament. Or one with excess phlegm becomes of delusion-temperament. One with excess wind becomes of lust-temperament. Thus, they say these have roots in elemental imbalances. Therein, since not all who were abundant in pleasant practices and wholesome deeds in the past, or reborn here after falling from heaven, are of lust-temperament, nor are the others of hatred- or delusion-temperament. And similarly, for the elements, in the manner just stated, there is no such rule of excess. And in the rule of humors, only the pair of lust and delusion is mentioned, and that too is contradictory, earlier and later. And for faith-temperament and others, the root of even one is not mentioned at all. Therefore, all of this is an unestablished statement. This here is the determination according to the opinion of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, for it is said in the enumeration of excesses (Dhammasangaṇī Aṭṭhakathā 498): 'These beings, by the rule of past causes, are of excessive greed, of excessive hatred, of excessive delusion.' Prevalent are non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. Indeed, for whom at the moment of karma accumulation, greed is strong, non-greed is weak, non-hatred and non-delusion are strong, hatred and delusion are weak, his weak non-greed is not able to overcome greed. But strong non-hatred and non-delusion are able to overcome hatred and delusion. Therefore, he, born by way of receiving rebirth through that karma, is greedy, of pleasant disposition, non-angry, wise, with knowledge like a diamond. But for whom at the moment of karma accumulation, greed and hatred are strong, non-greed and non-hatred are weak, non-delusion is strong, delusion is weak, he, in the same way as before, is greedy and hateful. But he is wise, with knowledge like a diamond, like Elder Dattābhayatthera. For whom at the moment of karma accumulation, greed, hatred, and delusion are strong, the others are weak, he, in the same way as before, is greedy and dull. But he is virtuous, non-angry, (like Elder Bākula). Likewise, for whom at the moment of karma accumulation, all three, greed, hatred, and delusion, are strong, non-greed and so on are weak,