12.

The Section on the (Recitation with) Seven Hundred Monks

The Account of the Ten Points

446. In the Section on the Seven Hundred - "Bhikkhaggenā" means by the number of monks; the meaning is that having counted the monks, they set aside that many shares. "Mahiyā" means snow-clouds at the time of snowfall.

447. "Hindered by ignorance" means concealed by ignorance. "Persons" means men. "Delighting in what is pleasing" means those who delight in and desire what is pleasing. "The foolish" means those who do not know. "Dusty" means with the dust of lust. "Like beasts" means beasts. "Led by craving" means together with craving. "They increase the cemetery" means they increase the ground by repeatedly depositing corpses. Thus increasing, they take up the terrible renewal of existence.

454. "An evil thing was done by us, friend" means "friend, an evil thing was done by us" - this is the meaning.

455. "With which abiding do you, dear one" - here "dear one" is a term of affection. It seems that the Venerable Sabbakāmī, wishing to speak affectionately, addresses junior monks thus. "In a shallow abiding" means in a superficial abiding.

457. "At Sāvatthī, in the rule analysis" - how was it rejected in the rule analysis? For therein, having stated "storing means what is received today and kept for the next day," it was rejected by the one who then declared the offence thus: "If one who perceives what is stored as not stored eats or consumes hard food or soft food, there is an offence of expiation." Therein some think: "But it was said 'whatever monk stores hard food or soft food,' and this salt, being a lifetime allowable, does not come to the state of being stored." "Even the unsalted food that one receives and consumes together with that is received on that very day; therefore, from the statement 'what is lifetime allowable mixed with what is allowable for the day, received on that day, is allowable at the proper time but not allowable at the improper time,' there should be a wrong-doing here." They should be told - "According to your view, there should not even be a wrong-doing, for here the lifetime allowable was not received on that day; only the allowable-for-the-day was received on that day, and that was not consumed at the improper time. If, moreover, by the statement 'it is not allowable at the improper time' you think there is a wrong-doing, then for one eating at the improper time what is allowable for the day mixed with what is lifetime allowable, there would be no expiation for eating at the improper time. Therefore, one should not grasp merely the letter; the meaning should be examined.

For the meaning here is this: If what is lifetime allowable received on that day has its flavour mixed with what is allowable for the day, it follows the course of what is allowable for the day. Therefore, by this training rule 'whatever monk at the improper time eats hard food or soft food,' it is allowable at the proper time but not allowable at the improper time. Here, a wrong-doing does not arise merely by the statement 'it is not allowable.' Just as what is lifetime allowable received on that day, having its flavour mixed with what is allowable for the day, is not allowable at the improper time and brings about an expiation for eating at the improper time, so too what is received today, having its flavour mixed with what is allowable for the day on the following day, is not allowable and brings about an expiation for eating stored food. Even one who does not know 'this is stored' is not freed from that. For this was said: "If one who perceives what is stored as not stored eats or consumes hard food or soft food, there is an offence of expiation." Therefore, to the question "Where was it rejected?" the answer is "This declaration is pure - at Sāvatthī, in the rule analysis."

"At Rājagaha, in the section connected with the Observance" - this was said with reference to "Monks, two Observance halls should not be designated in one residence; whoever should designate them, there is an offence of wrong-doing." "A wrong-doing for transgressing the Discipline" means a wrong-doing for transgressing this discipline that "Monks, two Observance halls should not be designated in one residence." "In the Campā section, in the subject matter of the discipline" - this was said with reference to the subject matter of the discipline that came in the Campā chapter, beginning with "If, monks, a factional act is done against the Teaching, it is not a valid act and should not be carried out."

"In some cases allowable" - this was said with reference to what is customary that is in accordance with the Teaching. "For requiring cutting off, there is an expiation" - for in the rule analysis it is stated "a sitting cloth means one with a border," therefore beyond two Sugata spans, only a span's measure of border is obtainable. For one who makes that measurement without a border, this applies - "For one who exceeds that, there is an expiation requiring cutting off." Therefore, when asked "What offence does one commit?" he said "For requiring cutting off, there is an expiation." The meaning is: one commits the expiation stated in the training rule concerning cutting off. The remainder is clear everywhere.

The discussion on the ten points is finished.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya,

the commentary on the Chapter on the Seven Hundred is finished.

The commentary on the Cūḷavagga is finished.