Loading...

Paliverse

Search Ask PaliVerse Signin

The PaliVerse Project

A Universe of Wisdom
100%
Font family
Theme
Navigation & Search

Hello ,How can i help you ?

Homage to the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-awakened One

In the Canon of Monastic Discipline

Commentary on the Expulsion

Introductory Discussion on the Undertaking of the Work

He who, for immeasurable aeons of world-cycles,

Performing exceedingly difficult deeds,

The Protector who endured hardship for the welfare of the world -

Homage to that Great Compassionate One.

That which, not understood, though frequented by Buddhas,

The world of living beings traverses from existence to existence -

Homage to that excellent Dhamma which

Destroys the net of defilements beginning with ignorance.

He who is endowed with virtues such as morality, concentration, wisdom,

Liberation, knowledge, and so forth;

The field for people who desire what is wholesome -

To that Noble Saṅgha I bow my head in reverence.

Thus paying homage to the Triple Gem

Which is supremely worthy of veneration,

I obtained an abundant flood of merit;

By the power of that, may obstacles be destroyed.

When the Vinaya stands firm, the dispensation of the Well-established One

Stands established;

That Vinaya, unadulterated, I shall expound,

Relying upon the authority of the ancient teachers.

Indeed, by the foremost among the ancient teachers,

Whose stains and taints were washed away by the waters of knowledge,

Who possessed pure knowledge and analytical insights,

Who were skilled in the exposition of the true Dhamma,

By those austere ones, not easy to find equals for,

Who were like banners of the Great Monastery -

This Vinaya was expounded through methods

Various, in accordance with the Supreme Fully Enlightened One.

This exposition, however, being composed

In the language of the island of Sīhaḷa,

Does not achieve any purpose;

For the community of monks in the island.

Therefore, in accordance with the method of the text,

I shall now undertake this commentary,

Duly recollecting the request

Of the elder named Buddhasiri.

And in undertaking that commentary,

Making the body of the Great Commentary,

And likewise the Mahāpaccarī,

And those well-known in the Kurundī and others.

The determination stated in the commentaries,

Without abandoning the meaning that is fitting,

And the Theravāda doctrine contained therein -

I shall properly undertake the commentary.

Let the elders and monks, junior and middle,

Listen to it with confident minds,

Respectfully honouring the Dhamma

Of the Tathāgata, the lamp of the Dhamma.

The Dhamma and Discipline declared by the Buddha,

Which was known in the same way by his sons;

Because those who, not abandoning their understanding,

Made commentaries in ancient times.

Therefore, what was stated in the commentaries,

Setting aside errors of carelessness,

All of it, for those who are respectful towards the training rules,

It is authoritative here for the wise.

And having set aside merely the other language,

And condensing the method of elaboration,

Including all the determinations without remainder,

Without deviating at all from the sequence of the text.

The meaning of the words of the discourse specialists,

Elucidating in accordance with the discourses -

Since this commentary too will be thus,

Therefore it should be carefully studied.

Discussion on the External Introduction

Therein, since it was said "I shall explain the Vinaya," the Vinaya should first be determined. Therefore this is said - "What is called Vinaya here means the entire Vinaya Piṭaka." And for its detailed explanation, this is the outline -

By whom it was spoken, when, and why; by whom it was preserved and brought;

Where it was established - having stated this, then the method.

Showing the meaning of the passage beginning with "At that time," in various ways,

I shall compose the explanation of the meaning of the Vinaya.

Therein, "by whom it was spoken, when, and why" - this statement was said with reference to the passage beginning thus: "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Verañjā." For this is not a statement spoken by the Buddha, the Blessed One, from his own direct knowledge; therefore this should be asked: "By whom was this statement spoken, when was it spoken, and why was it spoken?" It was spoken by the Venerable Elder Upāli, and that was at the time of the First Great Council.

Account of the First Great Council

And although this First Great Council is described in the Pañcasatikakkhandhaka, for the purpose of skill in the introduction, it should be understood here too in this manner. For when the Blessed One, the Protector of the World, having completed the Buddha's task - beginning with the Turning of the Wheel of the Dhamma up to the disciplining of the wanderer Subhadda - had attained final Nibbāna through the Nibbāna element without residue, at Kusinārā, at Upavattana, in the Sāla grove of the Mallas, between the twin Sāla trees, on the full-moon day of Visākha, at the time of dawn; the Elder Venerable Mahākassapa, the senior of the Saṅgha among the seven hundred thousand monks who had assembled at the Blessed One's Parinibbāna, when the Blessed One had been finally passed away for seven days, recalling the words spoken by Subhadda, one who had gone forth in old age: "Enough, friends, do not grieve, do not lament! We are well rid of that Great Recluse; we were oppressed - 'This is allowable for you, this is not allowable for you!' But now we shall do whatever we wish, and what we do not wish, that we shall not do" - reflecting thus: "There is indeed the possibility that wicked monks, thinking the Teacher's word to be that of a past teacher, having gained a faction, might before long cause the true Dhamma to disappear; but as long as the Dhamma and Vinaya endure, the Teacher's word is not that of a past teacher. For this was said by the Blessed One -

'The Teaching and the monastic discipline that have been taught and laid down by me for you, Ānanda, they will be your Teacher after my passing.'
"What if I were to hold a communal recitation of the Dhamma and Vinaya, so that this dispensation may be long-lasting and enduring.

And since I was favoured by the Blessed One -

having said 'Will you, Kassapa, wear my worn-out hempen rag-robes?' - with the shared use of the robe,
'I, monks, whenever I wish, secluded from sensual pleasures... etc. enter upon and dwell in the first jhāna; Kassapa too, monks, whenever he wishes, secluded from sensual pleasures... etc. enters upon and dwells in the first jhāna' -

and by placing me as equal to himself in this manner in the superhuman states classified as the nine successive dwellings and the six direct knowledges, I was favoured; what other repayment of debt could there be for him? Did not the Blessed One, like a king establishing his own son as the upholder of the family lineage by bestowing his own armour and sovereignty, thinking 'This one will be the upholder of the lineage of the true Dhamma for me,' favour me with this extraordinary favour?" - reflecting thus, he aroused enthusiasm among the monks for the purpose of holding a communal recitation of the Dhamma and Vinaya. As he said -

"Then the Venerable Mahākassapa addressed the monks - "Once, friends, I was travelling along the highway from Pāvā to Kusinārā together with a great community of monks, about five hundred monks" - the entire Subhadda section should be understood in detail.

Then further he said -

"Come, friends, let us recite the Dhamma and the Vinaya. Before what is not the Teaching shines forth, the Teaching is obstructed; non-Vinaya will shine forth and Vinaya will be obstructed. Before long, those who speak non-Dhamma will be strong and those who speak Dhamma will be weak; those who speak what is not the monastic discipline become powerful, those who speak what is the monastic discipline become weak."

The monks said - "If so, venerable sir, let the elder monk select the monks." The Elder, setting aside many hundreds and many thousands of monks who were bearers of the complete ninefold teaching of the Master - ordinary persons, stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, bare-insight arahants - selected exactly four hundred and ninety-nine arahant monks who were bearers of the entire learning classified as the three Piṭakas, who had attained the analytical knowledges, who were of great power, and who were for the most part declared foremost by the Blessed One, classified as those with the three knowledges and so forth. With reference to whom this was said - "Then the Venerable Mahākassapa selected four hundred and ninety-nine arahants."

But why did the elder monk make it one less? For the purpose of making room for the Venerable Ānanda. For the Dhamma recitation could not be carried out either with or without that venerable one; for that venerable one was a learner with work still to be done, therefore it could not be done with him; but since there was nothing taught by the Possessor of the Ten Powers - suttas, mixed prose and verse, and so forth - that he had not received in the presence of the Blessed One, therefore it could not be done without him either. If so, even though he was a learner, he should have been selected by the Elder because of his great usefulness for the Dhamma recitation. Then why was he not selected? In order to avoid censuring by others. For the Elder was exceedingly familiar with the Venerable Ānanda; so much so that even when grey hairs had appeared on his head, he admonished him with the address "young man," saying "This young man does not know his own measure." And this venerable one was born of the Sakyan clan and was the Tathāgata's cousin, the son of his father's younger brother. For monks there, thinking it was like going by favouritism, might criticise thus: "Setting aside many arahant monks who have attained the analytical knowledges, the Elder selected Ānanda, a learner who has attained the analytical knowledges." Avoiding that criticism from others, thinking "The recitation cannot be carried out without Ānanda; I shall accept him only with the approval of the monks," he did not select him.

Then the monks themselves requested the elder monk for the sake of Ānanda. As he said -

"The monks said this to the Venerable Mahākassapa - 'Venerable Sir, this Venerable Ānanda, although a learner, is incapable of going to a wrong course through desire, hatred, delusion, or fear, and he has learnt much Dhamma and Vinaya in the presence of the Blessed One; therefore, Venerable Sir, let the Elder select the Venerable Ānanda as well.' Then the Venerable Mahākassapa selected the Venerable Ānanda as well."

Thus, together with that venerable one selected with the approval of the monks, there were five hundred elders.

Then this occurred to the elder monks - "Where indeed should we recite together the Teaching and the monastic discipline?" Then this occurred to the elder monks - "Rājagaha indeed has a large food resort and abundant lodgings. What if we, dwelling at Rājagaha for the rains retreat, were to recite together the Teaching and the monastic discipline. Other monks should not enter the rains retreat at Rājagaha." But why did this occur to them? "This is our lasting work; some person of a different faction, having entered into the midst of the Community, might reopen a settled case." Then the Venerable Mahākassapa made a proclamation by a motion with one announcement; that should be understood in the manner stated in the Saṅgītikkhandhaka.

Then, after the final Nibbāna of the Tathāgata, when seven days of sacred festivities and seven days of relic veneration and so on had passed, having considered "A fortnight has passed; now a month and a half of summer remains; the entering of the rains retreat is approaching," the Elder Mahākassapa, saying "Let us go to Rājagaha, friends," taking half the community of monks, went by one road. The Elder Anuruddha also, taking the other half, went by another road. The Elder Ānanda, however, taking the Blessed One's bowl and robes, surrounded by a community of monks, wishing to go to Sāvatthī and then to Rājagaha, set out wandering towards Sāvatthī. At every place the Elder Ānanda went, there was great lamentation: "Venerable Ānanda, where have you come from, leaving the Teacher?" When the Elder gradually arrived at Sāvatthī, there was great lamentation as on the day of the Blessed One's parinibbāna.

There the Venerable Ānanda, having convinced that great multitude with a talk on the Teaching connected with impermanence and so on, having entered Jeta's Grove, having opened the door of the perfumed chamber where the One of Ten Powers had dwelt, having taken out the beds and chairs, having shaken them out, having swept the perfumed chamber, having thrown away the withered garlands and rubbish, having brought back the beds and chairs, having placed them again in their proper places, he performed all the duties that were to be done during the time the Blessed One was present. Then the Elder, whose body was full of the water element from predominantly standing and sitting since the Blessed One's parinibbāna, on the second day drank a milk purgative and sat in the monastery itself to restore his body. With reference to which he said this to the young man sent by the young brahmin Subha -

"It is not the right time, young man, today I have taken a dose of medicine. Perhaps tomorrow we might approach."

On the second day, having gone with the Elder Cetaka as his attendant monk, when questioned by the young brahmin Subha, he spoke the tenth sutta named the Subha Sutta in the Dīgha Nikāya.

Then the Elder, having had the repairs of what was broken and dilapidated carried out at the Jetavana monastery, went to Rājagaha when the rains-entry was approaching. Likewise the Elder Mahākassapa and the Elder Anuruddha, taking the entire community of monks, also went to Rājagaha.

Now at that time there were eighteen great monasteries in Rājagaha. All of them were abandoned, fallen into disrepair, and soiled. For at the final Nibbāna of the Blessed One, all the monks, having taken their own bowls and robes, having abandoned the monasteries and residential cells, departed. There, the elders, for the purpose of honouring the Blessed One's word and for the purpose of freeing themselves from the accusations of the sectarians, thought "Let us carry out the repair of broken and shattered portions during the first month." For the sectarians might say thus - "The disciples of the ascetic Gotama looked after the monasteries only while the Teacher was present; when he attained parinibbāna, they abandoned them." And it is said that they thought for the purpose of freeing themselves from their accusations. For this too was said -

"Then this occurred to the elder monks - 'Friends, the repair of what is broken and dilapidated has been praised by the Blessed One. Come, friends, let us spend the first month carrying out repairs of what is broken and dilapidated; in the middle month, having assembled, we shall recite the Dhamma and the Vinaya.'"

They, on the second day, having gone, stood at the king's gate. King Ajātasattu came, paid homage, and asked about the duty to be done by himself, saying: "For what purpose have you come, venerable sirs?" The elders announced the need for manual labour for the purpose of restoring the eighteen great monasteries. "Excellent, venerable sirs," the king gave men who were manual labourers. The elders, having had all the monasteries restored during the first month, informed the king - "The restoration of the monasteries is completed, great king. Now we shall undertake the compilation of the Dhamma and Vinaya." "Very well, venerable sirs, carry it out with confidence. Let the wheel of authority be mine, and the wheel of the Dhamma be yours. Command me, venerable sirs, what should I do?" "A place of assembly for the monks who are making the compilation, great king." "Where shall I make it, venerable sir?" "It is fitting to make it at the entrance of the Sattapaṇṇi Cave on the side of Mount Vebhāra, great king." "Very well, venerable sirs," King Ajātasattu had a pavilion constructed, resembling one created by Vissakamma, with well-proportioned walls, pillars, and stairs, adorned with various garlands, lotus designs, and creeper patterns, as if surpassing the splendour of a royal palace, as if carrying away the glory of a celestial mansion, as if the abode of majesty itself, as if a single gathering place for the eye-birds of gods and humans, as if the world's delight condensed together, a circle of all that is worth seeing; and having decorated it with canopies of various flower garlands, hangings, and beautiful streaming pennants, and with a floor adorned with gem-studded jewelled pavements, like a ground inlaid with precious stones, completed and embellished with offerings of various flowers, resembling a Brahmā's mansion; and in that great pavilion, having had five hundred invaluable allowable coverings spread for the five hundred monks, having had the elder's seat arranged on the southern side facing north, and in the middle of the pavilion a Dhamma seat facing east, worthy of a seat for the Blessed One, the Buddha, and having placed there an ivory-studded fan, he had the community of monks informed: "My duty is completed, venerable sirs."

Now at that time, certain monks, referring to the Venerable Ānanda, said thus: "In this community of monks, one monk goes about emitting a smell of raw flesh." The elder, having heard that, was stirred with a sense of urgency, thinking: "In this community of monks there is no other monk who goes about exuding the smell of raw flesh; surely they say this referring to me." Certain monks said to the Venerable Ānanda: "Tomorrow, friend, is the assembly, and you are a learner with work still to be done; therefore it is not fitting for you to go to the assembly. Be heedful."

Then the Venerable Ānanda thought: "Tomorrow is the assembly, and it is not proper for me to go to the assembly while still being a learner" - having spent much of the night practising mindfulness directed to the body, towards the break of dawn, having descended from the walking path and entered the dwelling, he inclined his body thinking "I shall lie down." His two feet were released from the ground, and his head had not yet reached the pillow - in this interval, his mind was liberated from the mental corruptions by non-clinging. For this venerable one, having spent the time outside by walking meditation, being unable to produce a distinction, thought - "Did not the Blessed One say this to me - 'You are one who has made merit, Ānanda; devote yourself to striving; quickly you will be one without taints.' And there is no fault in the words of Buddhas. My energy is too strained, therefore my mind tends towards restlessness. Let me now apply the balancing of energy" - having descended from the walking path, standing at the foot-washing place, having washed his feet, having entered the dwelling, having sat down on the bed, he inclined his body on the bed thinking "I shall rest a little." His two feet were released from the ground, and his head had not reached the pillow. In that interval, his mind was liberated from the taints without clinging; the elder's arahantship was apart from the four postures. Therefore, in this dispensation, when it is asked "Which monk attained arahantship while neither lying down, nor sitting, nor standing, nor walking?" it is fitting to say "The Elder Ānanda."

Then the elder monks, on the second day, having completed their meal duties and put away their bowls and robes, assembled in the Dhamma hall. But the Elder Ānanda, wishing to make known his attainment of arahantship, did not go together with the monks. The monks, sitting down on their own seats according to seniority, sat down having left the Elder Ānanda's seat. Therein, when some asked "Whose is this seat?", they replied "The Elder Ānanda's." "But where has Ānanda gone?" At that time the Elder thought - "Now is the time for me to go." Then, showing his own power, having dived into the earth, he showed himself right at his own seat. Some say he came through the sky and sat down.

When that venerable one had thus sat down, the Elder Mahākassapa addressed the monks - "Friends, what shall we recite together first, the Teaching or the monastic discipline?" The monks said - "Venerable Mahākassapa, the Vinaya is indeed the life of the Buddha's dispensation; when the Vinaya stands, the dispensation stands. Therefore let us recite the Vinaya first." "Making whom the leader?" "The Venerable Upāli." "Is Ānanda not able?" "It is not that he is not capable; however, the Perfectly Enlightened One, while still living, placed the Venerable Upāli in the foremost position with regard to mastery of the Vinaya - 'This is the foremost, monks, among my disciples who are monks learned in the Vinaya, that is, Upāli.' Therefore let us recite the Vinaya by questioning the Elder Upāli." Then the Elder authorised himself by himself for the purpose of asking about the monastic discipline. The Elder Upāli also authorised himself for the purpose of answering. Herein this is the canonical text -

"Then the Venerable Mahākassapa informed the Saṅgha -

"Let the Community hear me, friends. If it is agreeable to the Saṅgha, I would question Upāli on the Vinaya.'

"The Venerable Upāli also informed the Saṅgha -

"Let the Community hear me, venerable sir. If it is the proper time for the Community, I, when asked by the Venerable Mahākassapa about monastic discipline, would answer."

Having thus appointed himself by himself, the Venerable Upāli, rising from his seat, having arranged his robe over one shoulder, having paid respect to the elder monks, sat upon the Dhamma seat, having taken the ivory-inlaid fan. Then the Venerable Mahākassapa, having sat upon the elder's seat, questioned the Venerable Upāli on the Vinaya - "Friend Upāli, where was the first expulsion laid down?" "At Vesālī, venerable sir." "Referring to whom?" "Referring to Sudinna the Kalanda's son." "In what case?" "In the case of sexual intercourse."

Then the Venerable Mahākassapa questioned the Venerable Upāli about the subject matter of the first pārājika, questioned about the origin story, questioned about the individual, questioned about the rule, questioned about the supplementary rule, questioned about the offence, questioned about the non-offence; and just as with the first, so with the second, so with the third, so with the fourth pārājika, he questioned about the subject matter etc. He questioned about the non-offence too. The Elder Upāli answered each question as it was asked. Then they compiled these four pārājikas, establishing them as "this is the pārājika section." The thirteen offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community they established as "the Thirteen." The two training rules they established as "the Undetermined." They established the thirty training rules as "the nissaggiya pācittiyas." The ninety-two training rules they established as "the Expiations." The four training rules they established as "the Acknowledgements." The seventy-five training rules they established as "the Training Rules." The seven principles they established as "the Settlements of Legal Cases."

Thus, having compiled the Mahāvibhaṅga, in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga they established the eight training rules as "this is the pārājika section." The seventeen training rules they established as "the Seventeen." They established the thirty training rules as "the nissaggiya pācittiyas." The one hundred and sixty-six training rules they established as "the Expiations." The eight training rules they established as "the Acknowledgements." The seventy-five training rules they established as "the Training Rules." The seven principles they established as "the Settlements of Legal Cases." Thus, having compiled the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, by the same method they compiled the Khandhakas and the Parivāra as well. Thus this entire Vinaya Piṭaka, comprising the Ubhatovibhaṅga, the Khandhakas and the Parivāra, having been compiled, the Elder Mahākassapa questioned it all, and the Elder Upāli answered. At the conclusion of the questioning and answering, the five hundred arahants performed a group recitation in the same manner as it had been compiled. At the conclusion of the compilation of the Vinaya, the Elder Upāli, having set down the ivory-inlaid fan, having descended from the Dhamma seat, having paid respect to the senior monks, sat upon his own appointed seat.

Having recited together the monastic discipline, the Venerable Mahākassapa, wishing to recite together the Teaching, asked the monks - "When reciting together the Teaching, making which person the leader, should the Teaching be recited together?" The monks said: "Making the Elder Ānanda the leader."

Then the Venerable Mahākassapa informed the Community -

"Let the Community hear me, friends. If it is the proper time for the Community, I would question Ānanda about the Teaching."

Then the Venerable Ānanda informed the Community -

"Let the Saṅgha hear me, venerable sirs. If the Saṅgha is ready, I, being questioned regarding the Dhamma by the Venerable Mahākassapa, would answer."

Then the Venerable Ānanda, having risen from his seat, having arranged his robe on one shoulder, having paid homage to the elder monks, sat down on the pulpit, having taken the ivory-inlaid fan. Then the Elder Mahākassapa asked the Elder Ānanda about the Teaching - "The Brahmajāla, friend Ānanda, where was it spoken?" "Between Rājagaha and Nāḷanda, venerable sir, at the royal rest-house at Ambalaṭṭhikā." "Referring to whom?" "The wandering ascetic Suppiya and the young man Brahmadatta." "In what case?" "In praise and blame." Then the Venerable Mahākassapa asked the Venerable Ānanda about the origin of the Brahmajāla, and asked about the person, and asked about the case. "But the Sāmaññaphala, friend Ānanda, where was it spoken?" "At Rājagaha, venerable sir, in Jīvaka's mango grove." "Together with whom?" "Together with Ajātasattu Vedehiputta." Then the Venerable Mahākassapa asked the Venerable Ānanda about the origin of the Sāmaññaphala and asked about the person. In this same manner he questioned about the five Nikāyas.

The five Nikāyas are - the Dīgha Nikāya, the Majjhima Nikāya, the Saṃyutta Nikāya, the Aṅguttara Nikāya, and the Khuddaka Nikāya. Therein, the Khuddaka Nikāya is - setting aside the four Nikāyas, the remaining word of the Buddha. Therein, the Vinaya was answered by the Elder Upāli, the remaining Khuddaka Nikāya and the four Nikāyas by the Elder Ānanda. All of this word of the Buddha is of one kind by way of essence, of two kinds by way of Dhamma and Vinaya, of three kinds by way of the first, middle, and last; likewise, it should be understood as of three kinds by way of Piṭaka, of five kinds by way of Nikāya, of nine kinds by way of factors, and of eighty-four thousand kinds by way of units of Dhamma.

How is it of one kind by way of flavour? For whatever was spoken by the Blessed One - from the time of his fully awakening to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment until he attained final nibbāna in the nibbāna element without residue remaining, during the intervening forty-five years - whether instructing devas, humans, nāgas, yakkhas and others, or reviewing, all of that is of one flavour, namely the flavour of liberation alone. Thus it is of one kind by way of flavour.

How is it twofold by way of the Teaching and monastic discipline? For all this is reckoned as the Teaching and the monastic discipline. Therein, the Vinaya Piṭaka is the Vinaya; the remaining word of the Buddha is the Dhamma. therefore he said - "Come, friends, let us recite the Dhamma and the Vinaya." "I shall question Upāli on the Vinaya, and question Ānanda on the Dhamma." Thus it is twofold by way of Dhamma and Vinaya.

How is it threefold by way of first, middle, and last? For all this is of three divisions: the first word of the Buddha, the middle word of the Buddha, and the last word of the Buddha. Therein -

Through the round of many births I wandered, not finding;

Seeking the house-builder, painful is birth again and again.

"House-builder, you have been seen, you will not build a house again;

All your ribs are broken, the peak of the house is demolished;

The mind has gone to the unconditioned, it has reached the elimination of cravings."

This is the first teaching of the Buddha.

Some say it is the inspired utterance verse in the Khandhaka beginning with "When indeed dhammas become manifest." But that should be understood as an inspired utterance verse that arose on the first day of the lunar fortnight for one who had attained omniscience, while reviewing the mode of dependent conditions with knowledge consisting of pleasure.

But what he spoke at the time of final Nibbāna - "Come now, monks, I address you: all activities have the nature of fall; strive with diligence." This is the last teaching of the Buddha.

Whatever was spoken in between those two is the middle word of the Buddha. Thus it is threefold by way of first, middle and last.

How is it threefold by way of the Canon? For all of this is of three divisions only: the Vinaya Piṭaka, the Suttanta Piṭaka, and the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. Therein, at the First Council, combining together both what was recited and what was not recited, the two Pātimokkhas, the two Vibhaṅgas, the twenty-two Khandhakas, and the sixteen Parivāras - this is called the Vinaya Piṭaka.

The Dīgha Nikāya, a collection of thirty-four suttas beginning with the Brahmajāla; the Majjhima Nikāya, a collection of one hundred and fifty-two suttas beginning with the Mūlapariyāya Sutta; the Saṃyutta Nikāya, a collection of seven thousand seven hundred and sixty-two suttas beginning with the Oghataraṇa Sutta; the Aṅguttara Nikāya, a collection of nine thousand five hundred and fifty-seven suttas beginning with the Cittapariyādāna Sutta; and the Khuddaka Nikāya with its fifteen divisions comprising the Khuddakapāṭha, Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Suttanipāta, Vimānavatthu, Petavatthu, Theragāthā, Therīgāthā, Jātaka, Niddesa, Paṭisambhidā, Apadāna, Buddhavaṃsa, and Cariyāpiṭaka - this is called the Suttanta Piṭaka.

The Dhammasaṅgaṇī, Vibhaṅga, Dhātukathā, Puggalapaññatti, Kathāvatthu, Yamaka, and Paṭṭhāna - this is called the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. Therein -

Because of its various special methods, and because of the disciplining of bodily and verbal conduct,

This is declared as "Vinaya" by those skilled in the meaning of Vinaya.

For herein the various methods are the fivefold Pātimokkha recitation, the matrix of the seven classes of offences beginning with Pārājika, and the classifications beginning with the Vibhaṅga; and the distinctive methods are the supplementary rules serving the purpose of strengthening and relaxing; and since this restrains bodily and verbal misconduct, it disciplines the body and speech. Therefore, because of its various methods, its distinctive methods, and its disciplining of body and speech, it is designated as "Vinaya." Therefore, for the purpose of proficiency in the meaning of the word, this was said -

"Because of its various and distinguished methods, and because of the removal of bodily and verbal conduct;

By those skilled in the meaning of monastic discipline, this is declared as 'monastic discipline'."

But as for the other -

Because of indicating meanings, because of being well spoken, because of generating, and because of yielding;

And from being similar to a thread, it is declared a 'discourse' (suttanta).

For it indicates meanings classified as one's own welfare, others' welfare, and so forth; and the meanings herein are well spoken, being spoken in conformity with the dispositions of those to be trained. And it generates meanings, meaning it produces fruit like a seed. And it yields, like a cow yields milk, meaning it flows forth. And it well protects and guards them, is what is meant. And it is similar to a thread; for just as a thread is the standard for carpenters, So too is this for the wise. And just as flowers strung on a thread are not scattered and not destroyed, So too are the meanings collected by this. Therefore, for the purpose of proficiency in the meaning of the word, this was said -

"Because of indicating meanings, because of being well spoken, because of flowing forth, and because of yielding;

And from being similar to a thread, it is declared a 'discourse'."

The other, however -

Herein, those dhammas that possess growth, that have characteristics, that are honoured, that are defined,

And that are superior - therefore it is designated as "Abhidhamma."

For this prefix "abhi" is seen in the senses of growth, characteristic, venerated, defined, and superior. For accordingly it - In passages such as "Friend, severe painful feelings are increasing in me, not decreasing," it has come in the sense of growth. In passages such as "Those nights that are well known, well characterised," it is in the sense of characteristic. In the sense of venerated in such passages as "a king of kings, a lord of men." In the sense of defined in such passages as "competent to instruct in the higher teaching and higher discipline." What is meant is the Teaching and the monastic discipline that are free from mutual mixing. In the sense of superior in such passages as "with surpassing beauty."

And herein, dhammas possessing growth are spoken of in the manner of "One develops the path for rebirth in the form realm, one dwells pervading one direction with a mind accompanied by loving-kindness," and so forth. By the method of "having a visual object or having a sound as object," because of being characterisable by object and so on, they also have their own characteristics. In the manner of "Dhammas of one in training, dhammas of one beyond training, supramundane dhammas," and so forth, they are also honoured, meaning worthy of honour. In the manner of "There is contact, there is feeling," and so forth, because they are defined by their own nature, they are also defined. In the manner of "Exalted dhammas, immeasurable dhammas, unsurpassed dhammas," and so forth, dhammas that are superior are also spoken of. Therefore, for the purpose of proficiency in the meaning of the word, this was said -

"Because herein the phenomena spoken of possess growth, have their own characteristics, are venerated, are defined,

And are superior, therefore it is declared 'higher teaching'."

But what here is not distinguished, that -

Those who understand the meaning of 'piṭaka' say it is so called in the sense of learning and containing;

Therefore, combining with that, the three beginning with Vinaya should also be understood.

For the Scriptures too are called "Canon" in passages beginning with "not by the handing over of the Canon." In such passages as "Then a man would come carrying a hoe and a basket," any container whatsoever is also meant. Therefore, those who understand the meaning of 'piṭaka' say it is so called in the sense of learning and containing.

Now, combining with that, the three beginning with Vinaya should also be understood. Thus, by forming a compound with the word 'piṭaka' having this twofold meaning - it is Vinaya and it is a piṭaka because of being learning and because of containing each respective meaning, thus 'Vinayapiṭaka'; in the same manner as stated, it is Suttanta and it is a piṭaka, thus 'Suttantapiṭaka'; it is Abhidhamma and it is a piṭaka, thus 'Abhidhammapiṭaka' - in this way these three beginning with Vinaya should also be understood.

And having understood thus, for the purpose of skill in various aspects regarding those very piṭakas once again -

One should elucidate the classification of teaching, instruction, and discourse in those as appropriate,

And the training, abandoning, and profundity.

Whatever accomplishment and failure a bhikkhu

Attains wherever in the classification of learning - all that too one should make clear.

Herein, this is the elucidation and clarification: for these three piṭakas are respectively called the teaching by command, convention, and ultimate meaning; the instructions according to offence, according to disposition, and according to dhamma; and the discourse on restraint and non-restraint, the disentangling of views, and the definition of mind-and-matter.

For here, the Canon of monastic discipline is called the teaching by command, because it was taught by the Blessed One who is worthy of command, with an abundance of commands; the Canon of discourses is called the teaching by conventional expression, because it was taught by the Blessed One who is skilled in conventional expression, with an abundance of conventional expressions; the Canon of the higher teaching is called the teaching of ultimate reality, because it was taught by the Blessed One who is skilled in ultimate reality, with an abundance of ultimate realities.

Likewise, the first is called instruction according to offence because those beings who have many offences are herein instructed according to their offences; the second is called instruction according to disposition because beings of diverse inclinations, latent tendencies, conduct, and temperaments are herein instructed according to their dispositions; the third is called instruction according to dhamma because beings who perceive 'I' and 'mine' in what is merely a mass of dhammas are herein instructed according to dhamma.

Likewise, the first is called the discourse on restraint and non-restraint because restraint and non-restraint, which are opposed to misconduct, are discussed herein; the second is called the discourse on the disentangling of views because the disentangling of views, which is opposed to the sixty-two views, is discussed herein; the third is called the discourse on the definition of mind-and-matter because the definition of mind-and-matter, which is opposed to lust and the like, is discussed herein.

And in each of these three, the three trainings, the three kinds of abandoning, and the fourfold nature of profundity should be understood. For thus - In the Vinayapiṭaka, the training in higher virtue is especially stated; in the Suttantapiṭaka, the training in higher mind; in the Abhidhammapiṭaka, the training in higher wisdom.

And in the Vinayapiṭaka there is the abandoning of transgression of defilements, because virtue is opposed to transgression. In the Canon of discourses there is the abandoning of prepossession, because concentration is the opponent of prepossession. In the Abhidhammapiṭaka there is the abandoning of latent tendencies, because wisdom is opposed to latent tendencies.

And in the first there is the abandoning of defilements by substitution of opposites; in the others, the abandoning by suppression and by eradication. And in the first there is the abandoning of the defilement of misconduct; in the others, the abandoning of the defilements of craving and views.

And herein, in each one, the fourfold nature of profundity as dhamma, meaning, teaching, and penetration should be understood. Therein, 'dhamma' means the text. 'Meaning' means the meaning of that very text. 'Teaching' means the teaching of that text as established in the mind. 'Penetration' means the realisation as it really is of the text and the meaning of the text. And in each of these three, these profundities of dhamma, meaning, teaching, and penetration are profound because, like the great ocean for those with small fins, they are difficult to fathom and impossible to find a footing in for those of dull wisdom. Thus, in each one here, the fourfold profundity should be known.

Another method - "dhamma" means cause. For this was said - "Knowledge regarding the cause is analytical knowledge of phenomena." "Attha" means the fruit of the cause. For this was said - "Knowledge regarding the fruit of the cause is analytical knowledge of meaning." "Desanā" means designation; the intention is the verbal expression of principles in accordance with the Dhamma. "Paṭivedha" means penetration; and that is both mundane and supramundane, being the comprehension - through non-confusion regarding the domain - of principles in accordance with meaning, of meaning in accordance with principles, and of designations in accordance with the modes of designation.

Now, since in these Piṭakas, whatever class of principles or class of meanings there may be, and whatever teaching that illuminates their meaning in whatever way the meaning to be communicated faces the knowledge of the listeners, and whatever penetration here that is reckoned as undistorted comprehension - all of this is, for those of poor wisdom who have not accumulated the requisites of wholesome merit, like the great ocean which is difficult to fathom and in which no footing can be gained, just as for the timid; therefore it is profound. In this way too, in each one here, the fourfold profundity should be known.

And to this extent -

"The teaching, the discourse on the dispensation, the classification therein as appropriate;

And the nature of profundity regarding the training and abandonment - this should be elucidated."

This verse has its meaning fully explained.

"The distinction of scriptural learning, the success, and also the failure, whatever and wherever;

A bhikkhu attains - all that too should be made clear."

Here, however, in the three Canons, a threefold distinction of scriptural learning should be seen. For there are three kinds of scriptural learning: The snake-simile learning, the learning for the purpose of escape, and the storekeeper's learning.

Therein, that which is wrongly grasped and learnt for the purpose of criticism and the like, this is the water-snake simile. With reference to which it was said - "Suppose, bhikkhus, a man desiring a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering about in search of a water-snake, were to see a large water-snake. He might grasp it by the coils or by the tail. That snake, having turned back, might bite him on the hand or on the arm or on some other limb. He might thereby meet with death or with suffering close to death. What is the reason for this? Because of the misapprehension of the snake, monks. Just so, bhikkhus, here some foolish persons learn the Dhamma - the suttas, etc. catechism. They, having learnt that Teaching thoroughly, do not investigate the meaning of those teachings with wisdom. For them, not investigating the meaning with wisdom, those teachings do not yield to pondering. They learn the Teaching thoroughly for the benefit of reproaching others and for the benefit of freeing themselves from such criticism. And they do not experience the purpose for which they learn the Dhamma. Those teachings, misapprehended by them, lead to their harm and suffering for a long time. What is the reason for this? Because of the misapprehension of the teachings, monks."

That which, however, being well-grasped, is learnt by one aspiring only for the fulfilment of the aggregate of virtue and so forth, not for the purpose of criticism and the like - this is for the purpose of deliverance. With reference to which it was said - "Those teachings, rightly taken by them, lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time. What is the reason for this? Because of the teachings being rightly taken, monks."

That which one whose aggregates are fully understood, whose defilements are abandoned, whose path is developed, whose unshakeable is penetrated, whose cessation is realised, one with taints destroyed, learns purely for the purpose of maintaining the tradition, for the purpose of preserving the lineage - this is the treasurer's undertaking.

A monk who is well-practised in the Vinaya, depending on the accomplishment of virtue, attains the three knowledges, and because of the detailed exposition of those therein. One practising well in the Discourses, in dependence on accomplishment in concentration, attains the six direct knowledges, and because of the statement of their varieties therein. One well-practised in the Abhidhamma, depending on the accomplishment of wisdom, attains the four analytical knowledges, and because of the detailed exposition of those therein. Thus one well-practised in these, in due order, attains this accomplishment classified as the three knowledges, the six direct knowledges, and the four analytical knowledges.

One who is ill-practised in the Vinaya, however, due to the similarity between the contact of permitted pleasant touch of bedding, clothing and the like, and the contact of taken-up things and so forth that are prohibited, perceives them as blameless. For this too was said - "I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One in such a way that those things called obstructive by the Blessed One are not sufficient to cause obstruction for one who indulges in them." Thereby he reaches the state of being immoral. One ill-practised in the Suttas, not understanding the intention in such passages as "These four persons, monks, are found existing," grasps them wrongly. With reference to which it was said - "By his own wrong grasp, he misrepresents us, and digs up himself, and generates much demerit." Thereby he reaches the state of wrong view. One ill-practised in the Abhidhamma, overrunning the reflection on Dhamma, thinks even about the unthinkable, and thereby reaches mental derangement. For this was said - "There are, monks, these four unthinkable things that should not be thought about, which if one were to think about, one would become a partaker of madness and distress." Thus one ill-practised in these, in due order, reaches this misfortune classified as the state of being immoral, the state of wrong view, and mental derangement.

And to this extent -

"The classification of learning, the accomplishment, and also the misfortune, wherever and in what;

A bhikkhu attains - all that too should be made clear."

This verse too has its meaning already stated. Thus, having known the Canons in various ways, by their classification this word of the Buddha should be known as threefold.

How is it fivefold by way of collection? All of this is of fivefold division: the Long Collection, the Middle Collection, the Connected Collection, the Numerical Collection, and the Minor Collection. Therein, which is the Long Collection? The thirty-four discourses beginning with the Brahmajāla, comprised in three chapters.

Thirty-four suttas indeed, whose compilation is in three sections;

"This is the Dīgha Nikāya" - this is the first conforming statement.

But why is this called the Dīgha Nikāya? Because of the collection and abode of discourses of long measure, for collections and abodes are called nikāyas. "I do not see, monks, any other single collection so diverse; that is to say, monks, beings gone to the animal realm; the poṇika collection, the cikkhalli collection" - such and similar passages from both the teaching and the world serve as supporting evidence here. Thus the meaning of the word in the sense of being a nikāya should be understood for the remaining ones as well.

Which is the Majjhima Nikāya? The discourses of middle measure, classified in fifteen groups, beginning with the Mūlapariyāya Sutta, one hundred and fifty-two discourses.

One hundred and fifty discourses, and two discourses wherein;

The Majjhima Nikāya comprises fifteen sections.

Which is the Saṃyutta Nikāya? Arranged according to the Devatā Saṃyutta and so forth, beginning with the Oghataraṇa and others, there are seven thousand, seven hundred and sixty-two discourses.

Seven thousand discourses, and seven hundred discourses;

And sixty-two discourses - this is the compilation of the Saṃyutta.

Which is the Aṅguttara Nikāya? Arranged according to the principle of increasing by one factor, beginning with the Cittapariyādāna and others, there are nine thousand, five hundred and fifty-seven discourses.

Nine thousand discourses, and five hundred discourses;

And fifty-seven discourses - this is the enumeration in the Aṅguttara.

Which is the Khuddaka Nikāya? The entire Vinaya Piṭaka, the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, and the fifteen divisions beginning with the Khuddakapāṭha as previously indicated - setting aside the four Nikāyas, the remainder is the word of the Buddha.

Setting aside these four Nikāyas, beginning with the Dīgha;

The rest of the word of the Buddha is considered the Khuddaka Nikāya.

Thus it is fivefold by way of nikāyas.

How is it ninefold by way of factors? For all of this is of nine divisions: discourse, mixed prose and verse, explanation, verse, inspired utterance, thus-it-is-said, birth story, wonderful phenomena, and catechism. Therein, the Ubhatovibhaṅga, Niddesa, Khandhaka, and Parivāra, the Maṅgala Sutta, Ratana Sutta, Nālaka Sutta, and Tuvaṭṭaka Sutta in the Suttanipāta, and whatever other word of the Tathāgata bearing the name "sutta" should be understood as sutta. All discourses containing verses should be understood as "mixed prose and verse." In particular, the entire Sagāthāvagga in the Saṃyutta, the entire Abhidhamma Piṭaka, discourses without verses, and whatever other word of the Buddha not included in the eight factors - that should be understood as veyyākaraṇa. The Dhammapada, the Theragāthā, the Therīgāthā, and the pure verses in the Suttanipāta not named as suttas should be understood as "verse." The eighty-two discourses connected with verses inspired by joyful knowledge should be understood as udāna. The one hundred and ten discourses proceeding in the manner beginning with "This was said by the Blessed One" should be understood as "thus-it-is-said." The five hundred and fifty birth stories beginning with the Apaṇṇaka Jātaka should be understood as jātaka. All discourses connected with wonderful and marvellous qualities, proceeding in the manner beginning with "There are, monks, these four wonderful and marvellous qualities in Ānanda" should be understood as abbhutadhamma. The Cūḷavedalla, Mahāvedalla, Sammādiṭṭhi, Sakkapañha, Saṅkhārabhājaniya, Mahāpuṇṇama Sutta and so on - all discourses asked about having gained inspiration and satisfaction again and again should be understood as "catechism." Thus it is ninefold by way of factors.

How is it eighty-four thousand-fold by way of portions of the Teaching? All this indeed is the teaching of the Buddha -

"Eighty-two thousand I received from the Buddha, two thousand from monks;

Eighty-four thousand teachings are occurring for me."

Thus, by way of the portions of the Teaching as elucidated, there are eighty-four thousand divisions. Therein, a discourse with a single theme is one portion of the Teaching. That which has multiple themes - therein the reckoning of aggregates of Dhamma is by way of themes. In verse compositions, the asking of a question is one portion of the Teaching, the answer is one. In the Abhidhamma, each analysis of triads and dyads, and each analysis of the mind-series section, is one aggregate of Dhamma. In the Vinaya, there is the case, there is the matrix, there is the word-analysis, there is the intermediate offence, there is the offence, there is the non-offence, and there is the determination; therein, each section should be understood as one aggregate of Dhamma. Thus it is eighty-four thousand-fold by way of portions of the Teaching.

Thus this word of the Buddha, which without division is of one kind by way of flavour, and with division is of twofold and other classifications by way of Dhamma and Vinaya and so forth, was recited by the company of masters headed by Mahākassapa, who carried out the communal recitation, having determined this classification thus: "This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya; this is the first word of the Buddha, this is the middle word of the Buddha, this is the last word of the Buddha; this is the Vinaya Piṭaka, this is the Suttanta Piṭaka, this is the Abhidhamma Piṭaka; this is the Dīgha Nikāya, etc. this is the Khuddaka Nikāya; these are the nine divisions beginning with discourses, these are the eighty-four thousand aggregates of Dhamma" - having determined this classification, it was recited. And not only this much, but also the many kinds of classification of collections visible in the three Piṭakas - such as the collection of summaries, the collection of sections, the collection of abridgements, the collection of chapters such as the Book of Ones, the Book of Twos and so forth, the collection of connected discourses, and the collection of fifties - having determined these, it was recited in seven months. And at the conclusion of the communal recitation - this great earth, bounded by water, quaked, shook, trembled greatly, and shuddered in many ways, as if giving applause, with joy arisen thus: "By the Elder Mahākassapa, the Dispensation of the Possessor of the Ten Powers has been made capable of enduring for a period of five thousand years" - and many marvellous things appeared. This is called the First Great Communal Recitation. Which in the world -

Was carried out by five hundred, therefore it is called "of the Five Hundred";

And because it was carried out by the Elders themselves, it is called "the Elders'."

Now, when this First Great Communal Recitation was being conducted, at the conclusion of such words as "First, friend Upāli, where was the first Pārājika laid down?" spoken by the Venerable Mahākassapa who was asking about the Vinaya - when in the passage "he asked about the case, he asked about the origin, he asked about the person" the origin was asked about, all that was to be said, namely "At that time the Blessed One, the Buddha, was dwelling at Verañjā," was spoken by the Venerable Elder Upāli, who wished to explain in detail that origin from the beginning, and by whom it was laid down, and for what reason it was laid down. Thus this was spoken by the Venerable Elder Upāli, and that should be understood as "spoken at the time of the First Great Communal Recitation." And with this much, the meaning of these terms - "by whom was this statement spoken, and when was it spoken" - has been made clear.

Now, as to "why was it spoken," it is said here: since this Venerable One was asked about the origin by the Venerable Elder Mahākassapa, therefore it was spoken by him in order to explain that origin in detail from the beginning. Thus this should be understood as having been spoken for this reason, even when it was being spoken by the Venerable Elder Upāli at the time of the First Great Communal Recitation. And with this much that has been said, the meaning of these matrix terms - "by whom, when, and for what reason" - has been made clear.

Now, having stated "by whom it was preserved, by whom it was brought, where it was established, and the method therein," this is said for the purpose of elucidating the meaning of these. But this Vinaya Piṭaka, adorned with the introductory words beginning with "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Verañjā" - by whom was it preserved, by whom was it brought, and where was it established? It is said - First, from the beginning, this was preserved in the presence of the Blessed One by the Elder Upāli; from his presence, while the Tathāgata had not yet attained final Nibbāna, by many thousands of monks distinguished by the six direct knowledges and other attainments; after the Tathāgata's final Nibbāna, by the elders who compiled the Dhamma, headed by Mahākassapa. By whom was it brought? In Jambudīpa, first, beginning with the Elder Upāli, it was brought through the succession of teachers up to the Third Council. Herein, this is the succession of teachers -

Upāli and Dāsaka, Soṇaka and Siggava likewise;

Tissa Moggaliputta too - these five were victorious ones.

The Vinaya, in succession, in the island called Jambusiri,

They brought down unbroken, up to the Third Compilation.

For the Venerable Upāli, this Vinaya lineage, Vinaya tradition, Vinaya succession of the Blessed One

Having learnt it in his presence, he established it in the hearts of many monks. Having learnt the Vinaya lineage in the presence of that venerable one, among those persons who had attained mastery in the Vinaya, the ordinary persons, stream-enterers, once-returners, and non-returners were beyond reckoning, and there were one thousand of those with taints destroyed. The Elder Dāsaka was also his co-resident; having learnt in the presence of the Elder Upāli, he likewise recited the Vinaya. Having learnt in the presence of that venerable one too, those beginning with ordinary persons who had attained mastery in the Vinaya were beyond reckoning, and there were a thousand of those with taints destroyed. The Elder Soṇaka was also the co-resident of the Elder Dāsaka; he too, having learnt in the presence of his preceptor the Elder Dāsaka, likewise recited the Vinaya. Having learnt in the presence of that venerable one too, those beginning with ordinary persons who had attained mastery in the Vinaya were beyond reckoning, and there were a thousand of those with taints destroyed. The Elder Siggava was also the co-resident of the Elder Soṇaka; he too, having learnt the Vinaya in the presence of his preceptor the Elder Soṇaka, was the chief bearer among a thousand arahants. Having learnt in the presence of that venerable one, those who had attained mastery in the Vinaya - ordinary persons, stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, and those with taints destroyed - were indeterminate as to whether they numbered so many hundreds or so many thousands. At that time, it is said, there was an exceedingly great assembly of monks in Jambudīpa. The authority of the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa, however, will become evident at the Third Council. Thus it should be understood that this Vinaya Piṭaka was brought in Jambudīpa through this succession of teachers up to the Third Council.

The account of the First Great Council is concluded.

Discussion on the Second Council

For the purpose of understanding the Second Council, however, this sequence should be understood. For when -

Having compiled the True Dhamma and having illuminated it everywhere,

Those five hundred too, standing until the end of their lives,

The elders beginning with Kassapa, with taints destroyed, resplendent,

Were extinguished without attachment, like lamps with fuel exhausted.

Then, as nights and days passed in succession, a hundred years after the Blessed One's final Nibbāna, the Vajjiputtaka monks of Vesālī proclaimed in Vesālī these ten points: "The horn-salt practice is allowable, the two-finger practice is allowable, the village-vicinity practice is allowable, the dwelling practice is allowable, the consent practice is allowable, the customary practice is allowable, the unchurned practice is allowable, to drink unfermented toddy is allowable, a borderless sitting-cloth is allowable, gold and silver are allowable." The king named Kāḷāsoka, son of Susunāga, was their supporter.

Now at that time, the Venerable Yasa Kākaṇḍakaputta, while wandering on a tour in the Vajjian territory, having heard that "the Vajjiputtaka monks of Vesālī are, it seems, proclaiming ten points in Vesālī," thought: "It is not fitting that I, having heard of the decline of the teaching of the One of Ten Powers, should remain indifferent. Come, let me suppress those who speak against the Dhamma and illuminate the Dhamma," and so he arrived at Vesālī. There the Venerable Yasa Kākaṇḍakaputta stayed at Vesālī in the Great Wood in the Pinnacled Hall.

Now at that time the Vesālian Vajjiputtaka monks, on the Observance day, having filled a bronze bowl with water, having placed it in the midst of the community of monks, said thus to the Vesālian lay followers as they came and went - "Give, friends, a kahāpaṇa or a half or a quarter or a māsaka-coin to the Saṅgha; the Saṅgha will have need of requisites." All this should be stated up to "Now in this Vinaya recital there were seven hundred monks, neither fewer nor more; therefore this second recital is called the 'Recital of the Seven Hundred.'"

Thus at that assembly, twelve hundred thousand monks assembled, urged on by the Venerable Yasa. In their midst, those ten points were adjudicated by the Elder Sabbakāmī, who, being questioned by the Venerable Revata, resolved the Vinaya, and the legal issue was settled. Then the elders, thinking "Let us recite the Dhamma and Vinaya again," selected seven hundred monks who were bearers of the Three Piṭakas and who had attained the analytical knowledges, and having assembled at the Vālikārāma in Vesālī, having purified the entire teaching of its impurities just as had been done in the recital by the Elder Mahākassapa, they recited again all the Dhamma and Vinaya according to the Piṭakas, according to the Nikāyas, according to the divisions, and according to the aggregates of Dhamma. This recital was completed in eight months. Which in the world -

Was performed by seven hundred, hence it is called "of the Seven Hundred";

And with reference to the one performed before, it is called "the Second."

Now this -

By whichever elders it was recited, the recital is renowned among them;

Sabbakāmī and Sāḷha, Revata and Khujjasobhita,

And Yasa born of Sāṇa - these were co-residents

Of the Elder Ānanda, who had seen the Tathāgata.

Sumana and Vāsabhagāmī should be known as co-residents,

These two of Anuruddha, who had seen the Tathāgata.

The second recital, by whichever elders the compilation was made,

All of them had laid down the burden, had done what was to be done, and were free from taints.

This is the Second Recital.

Having thus recited this Second Recital, the elders, examining whether "Will such a crisis arise for the teaching in the future as well?" saw this: "More than a hundred years hence, in the eighteenth year, a king named Dhammāsoka will arise in Pāṭaliputta and will exercise sovereignty over the entire Jambudīpa. He, having gained confidence in the Buddha's teaching, will bring about great gain and honour. Then the sectarians, desiring gain and honour, will go forth in the teaching and will proclaim each their own views. Thus a great crisis will arise in the teaching." Then this occurred to them - "When this crisis arises, shall we be present or shall we not?" Then all of them, knowing that they would not be present at that time, thinking "Who will be capable of settling that legal issue?" and surveying the entire human world and the six sensual heavenly realms, not seeing anyone, they saw in the Brahma world a great Brahmā named Tissa, of limited lifespan, who had developed the path for rebirth in the higher Brahma world. Having seen this, the following occurred to them - "If we were to make an effort for this Brahmā's rebirth in the human world, surely he would take rebirth in the household of the brahmin Moggali. And then, enticed by the sacred hymns, he would go forth and take ordination. Having thus gone forth, having learned the entire word of the Buddha, having attained the analytical knowledges, having crushed the sectarians, having adjudicated that legal issue, he will uphold the teaching."

They, having gone to the Brahma world, said this to Tissa the Great Brahmā - "In the eighteenth year beyond a hundred years from now, a great dispute will arise in the dispensation. And we, surveying the entire human world and the six sensual heavenly realms, not seeing anyone capable of upholding the dispensation, searching the Brahma world, saw you yourself. Good sir, please give your promise to be reborn in the human world and uphold the dispensation of the One of Ten Powers."

When this was said, the Great Brahmā, delighted and elated, thinking "I shall indeed be capable of purifying the dispute that has arisen in the dispensation and upholding the dispensation," replied "Very well" and gave his promise. The elders, having accomplished that task in the Brahma world, returned again.

Now at that time, both the Elder Siggava and the Elder Caṇḍavajji were junior young monks, bearers of the three Piṭakas, who had attained the analytical knowledges, and were ones with taints destroyed; they did not participate in that legal case. The elders said: "Friends, you were not our helpers in this legal case; therefore let this be your penalty - 'The brahmā named Tissa will take rebirth in the household of the brahmin Moggali. Let one of you bring him forth and give him the going forth, and let the other have him learn the word of the Buddha.'" Having said this, they all remained for their full lifespan -

Those elders of great power, who had attained all their wishes,

Like masses of fire in the world, having blazed, attained final nibbāna.

Having conducted the second council, having purified the dispensation,

And having made the cause for the purity of the true Dhamma in the future as well,

Those elders, with taints destroyed, having attained mastery, with penetrated analytical knowledges,

Even they came under the power of impermanence.

Thus, having known impermanence in this wretched world, so difficult to overcome,

The wise one should strive to attain that which is permanent, the deathless state.

Thus in every respect the description of the Second Council is concluded.

The account of the Second Council is concluded.

Discussion on the Third Council

And that Tissa the Great Brahmā, having passed away from the Brahma world, took rebirth in the household of the brahmin Moggali. The Elder Siggava, from the time of his taking rebirth, entered the brahmin's house for alms for seven years. Not even on a single day did he receive so much as a ladleful of gruel or a spoonful of rice. But at the end of seven years, on one day he received merely the words "Please come in, venerable sir." On that very day, the brahmin too, having done some business outside, while coming back, seeing the elder on the road, said: "Good recluse, did you go to our house?" "Yes, brahmin, we went." "Did you receive anything?" "Yes, brahmin, we obtained." He went home and asked - "Did you give anything to that recluse?" "We gave nothing." The brahmin sat at the doorway of the house the next day, thinking "Today I shall rebuke the recluse for speaking falsehood." The elder, on the second day, arrived at the brahmin's house door. The brahmin, upon seeing the elder, said thus - "Yesterday, not having received anything at our house, you said 'We received.' Is it proper for you to speak falsehood?" The elder said - "Brahmin, for seven years at your house, not having received even so much as the words 'Please come in,' yesterday we received the words 'Please come in'; and it was with reference to that hospitable greeting that we spoke thus."

The brahmin thought - "These ones, having received even a mere friendly greeting, praise it saying 'we have gained'; having received some other food to eat and to chew, why would they not praise it?" Being pleased, he had a ladleful of almsfood given from the meal prepared for his own use, together with a suitable curry, and said: "You will receive this almsfood at all times." From the following day onwards, having seen the composure of the elder who came to visit, he was even more pleased and invited the elder to take his meal regularly at his own house. The elder, having consented, day after day, having finished his meal, would speak a little of the Buddha's word before departing. That young man, being only sixteen years of age, had already mastered the three Vedas. On the seat or bed of one who was a pure being come from the Brahmā world, no other person would sit or lie down. When he went to the teacher's house, they would cover his couch and seat with white cloth, hang it up, and set it in place. The Elder thought - "Now is the time to ordain the young man; for a long time I have been coming here, yet no conversation has arisen with the young man. Come now, by this means a conversation will arise concerning the couch." Having gone to the house, he resolved by determination that no other seat could be seen in that house apart from the young man's couch. The household people of the brahmin, seeing the elder and not seeing any other seat, spread the young man's couch and offered it to the elder. The elder sat on the couch. The young man, having come from the teacher's house at that very moment, seeing the elder seated on his own couch, angry and displeased, said: "Who spread my couch for the ascetic?"

The elder, having finished his meal, when the young man's anger had subsided, spoke thus: "But do you, young man, know any sacred text?" The young man said: "Venerable renunciant, when I do not know the sacred texts, who else will know them?" and asked the elder: "But do you know any sacred text?" "Ask, young man; by asking it is possible to know." Then the young man asked the elder about whatever knotty points there were in the three Vedas together with their glossaries and indices, with their analysis of syllables, with history as the fifth, the method of which neither he himself could see nor had his teacher seen. The elder, being by nature one who had mastered the three Vedas, and now having attained the analytical knowledges, for whom there was no difficulty in answering those questions, answered those questions right then and there, and said to the young man: "Young man, I have been asked much by you; now I too shall ask you one question - will you answer me?" "Yes, venerable renunciant, ask and I shall answer." The elder asked this question from the Cittayamaka:

"For one whose consciousness arises but does not cease, will that one's consciousness cease but not arise; or for one whose consciousness will cease but not arise, does that one's consciousness arise but not cease?"

The young man, being unable to take it up or down, said: "What is this called, venerable renunciant?" "This is called the Buddha's sacred text, young man." "But is it possible, venerable sir, to give this to me as well?" "It is possible, young man, to give it to one who takes the going forth taken by us." Then the young man, having approached his mother and father, said: "This renunciant knows what is called the Buddha's sacred text, but he does not give it to one who has not gone forth in his presence. I shall go forth in his presence and learn the sacred text."

Then his mother and father, thinking "Even after going forth, our son will learn the mantras, and having learned them, he will return again," gave permission saying "Learn, son." The elder, having given the boy the going forth, first taught him the meditation subject of the thirty-two aspects of the body. He, practising the preliminary work therein, before long became established in the fruit of stream-entry. Then the Elder thought - "The novice is established in the fruit of stream-entry; he is now incapable of turning back from the dispensation. If, however, I were to develop and teach him the meditation subject further, he might attain arahantship and become disinclined to learn the word of the Buddha. It is now time to send him to the Elder Caṇḍavajji." Then he said: "Come, novice, go to the elder and learn the word of the Buddha. In my name, ask him about his health; and say this - 'My preceptor, venerable sir, has sent me to you.' And when he asks 'What is your preceptor's name?' you should say 'He is named the Elder Siggava, venerable sir.' When he asks 'Who am I by name?' you should say thus: 'My preceptor, venerable sir, knows your name.'"

"Yes, venerable sir," the novice Tissa, having paid homage to the elder and circumambulated him, gradually made his way to the Elder Caṇḍavajji, paid respects, and stood to one side. The elder asked the novice: "Where have you come from?" "My preceptor, venerable sir, has sent me to you." "What is your preceptor's name?" "He is named the Elder Siggava, venerable sir." "Who am I by name?" "My preceptor, venerable sir, knows your name." "Now put away your bowl and robe." "Very well, venerable sir," the novice put away his bowl and robe, and the next day swept the courtyard and prepared water and a tooth-stick. The elder swept again the place he had swept. He threw away that water and brought other water. And he removed that tooth-stick and took another tooth-stick. Having done thus for seven days, on the seventh day he asked again. The novice again spoke just as he had spoken before. The elder, recognising "This is indeed that brahmin," said "For what purpose have you come?" "For the purpose of learning the word of the Buddha, venerable sir." The elder, having said "Learn now, novice," from the following day onwards commenced the word of the Buddha. While still a novice, Tissa learned all the word of the Buddha together with the commentary, except for the Vinaya Piṭaka. And at the time of his full ordination, while still in his first rains, he was a bearer of the three piṭakas. The teachers and preceptors, having established the entire word of the Buddha in the hands of the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa, remained for their full lifespan and attained final nibbāna. The Elder Moggaliputta Tissa also, at a later time, having developed the meditation subject further and attained arahantship, taught the Dhamma and Vinaya to many.

Now at that time King Bindusāra had one hundred and one sons. Asoka had all of them killed, except for Prince Tissa, who was of the same mother as himself. And while killing them, having ruled the kingdom for four years without being consecrated, at the end of four years, in the eighteenth year after two hundred years from the Tathāgata's parinibbāna, he attained the consecration as sole sovereign over the whole of Jambudīpa. And by the power of his consecration, these royal powers came to him - His command extended to a depth of one yojana beneath the great earth; likewise above in the sky, deities brought each day sixteen water-pots from Lake Anotatta by means of eight poles, and from the time he became one of faith in the Dispensation, he gave eight pots to the community of monks, two pots to approximately sixty monks who were bearers of the Tipiṭaka, two pots to the chief queen Asandhimittā, and four pots he used himself; deities themselves brought each day from the Himālaya a tooth-stick called nāgalatā, which was smooth, soft, and flavoursome, by which the daily tooth-cleaning of the king, the queen, sixteen thousand dancing women, and approximately sixty thousand monks was accomplished. Each day deities brought him medicinal myrobalan, medicinal chebulic myrobalan, and ripe mangoes of golden colour endowed with fragrance and flavour. Likewise from Lake Chaddanta they brought robes and cloaks of five colours, yellow-coloured hand-towels, and divine beverages. Each day the nāga kings brought from the nāga realm bathing perfume, anointing perfume, a garment of sumana flowers not made of thread for wearing, and costly collyrium. Each day parrots brought nine thousand measures of rice grown from Lake Chaddanta itself. Mice removed the husks; not a single broken grain remained. This very rice was used in all the king's establishments. Honey-bees made honey. In the smithies, bears struck the hammers. Karavīka birds came and, singing sweetly, performed service to the king.

The king, endowed with these powers, one day sent a golden chain and had brought the nāga king named Kāḷa, who had seen the form of four Buddhas and was of an aeon's lifespan, and having seated him on a costly couch beneath the white parasol, having made offerings with flowers of many hundred colours, both aquatic and terrestrial, and with golden flowers, having surrounded him on all sides with sixteen thousand dancing women adorned with all ornaments, and having said "First show to the range of my eyes the form of the Fully Enlightened One, the supreme sovereign of the true Dhamma, of infinite knowledge," he performed for seven days what is called the eye-festival, beholding the form of the Buddha created by that nāga - adorned with the eighty minor marks arisen from the splendour of merit radiating from the entire body, made resplendent with the thirty-two marks of a great man, like a water surface adorned with blossoming lotuses, blue lotuses, and white lotuses; like the firmament blazing with the brilliance of the radiant net of rays of the host of stars; graced by the encircling fathom-aura interwoven with rays of various colours such as blue, yellow, and red, like a golden mountain peak surrounded by the glow of a moving sun, a rainbow, and a streak of lightning; with a beautiful crown resplendent with various pure and stainless garlands of banners - a feast for the eyes of Brahmā, devas, humans, nāgas, and hosts of yakkhas.

It is said that the king, having attained the consecration, patronised the external heretical sects for only three years. In the fourth year he gained faith in the Buddha's Dispensation. It is said that his father Bindusāra was a devotee of the brahmins, and he established a permanent food-offering for approximately sixty thousand brahmins and heretical sectarians of brahmin birth, such as the white-clad wanderers. Asoka too, giving in his own inner palace the same donation established by his father, one day, standing at the lattice window, saw them eating with conduct far removed from tranquillity, with unrestrained faculties and undisciplined deportment, and thought - "It is fitting to examine such giving and give it where it is appropriate." Having thought thus, he said to his ministers - "Go, sirs, bring to the inner palace those ascetics and brahmins whom each of you considers virtuous; we shall give a donation." The ministers, having assented to the king saying "Very well, Your Majesty," brought various white-clad wanderers, Ājīvakas, Nigaṇṭhas, and others, and said "These, great king, are our worthy ones."

Then the king, having had various high and low seats prepared in the inner palace, said "Let them come," and to those who came he said - "Sit each on a seat befitting yourselves." Among them, some sat on fine chairs, and some sat on plank seats. Seeing them, the king, knowing "There is no inner substance in them," gave them suitable food, both hard and soft, and dismissed them.

As time passed thus, one day the king, standing at the lattice window, saw the novice Nigrodha walking through the royal courtyard - restrained, guarded, with calm faculties, and possessed of proper deportment. But who was this one named Nigrodha? He was the son of Prince Sumana, the eldest son of King Bindusāra.

Herein this is the progressive discourse -

It is said that while King Bindusāra was still feeble, Prince Asoka, having relinquished the kingdom of Ujjenī that he had received, came and brought the entire city under his control and seized Prince Sumana. On that very day, the queen named Sumanā, wife of Prince Sumana, was with a full-term pregnancy. She, having departed in the guise of an unknown person, while making her way towards a certain caṇḍāla village not far away, heard the voice of a deity dwelling in a certain banyan tree not far from the house of the chief caṇḍāla, saying "Come here, Sumanā," and went to her. The deity, by her own power, created a hall and gave it saying "Dwell here." She entered that hall. On the very day she arrived, she gave birth to a son. Because he was taken under the protection of that banyan-tree deity, she gave him the name "Nigrodha." The chief caṇḍāla, from the day he first saw her, regarding her as his own master's daughter, established regular provisions for her. The princess dwelt there for seven years. Prince Nigrodha also reached the age of seven. At that time, a certain arahant named the Elder Mahāvaruṇa, having seen the boy's maturity of conditions, protecting him and dwelling there, thought "The boy is now seven years old; it is time to ordain him," and having informed the princess, he ordained Prince Nigrodha. The prince attained arahantship at the very touch of the razor. One day, having attended to his body early in the morning, having performed the duties towards his teacher and preceptor, taking his bowl and robe, he set out thinking "I shall go to the door of the house of my mother, the lay devotee." The place where his mother dwelt was to be reached by entering the city through the southern gate, going through the middle of the city, and leaving through the eastern gate.

At that time, Asoka the righteous king was walking back and forth on the balcony facing the eastern direction. At that very moment, Nigrodha arrived at the royal courtyard, with senses calmed, with mind at peace, looking ahead only a yoke's length. Therefore it was said - "One day, the king, standing on the balcony, saw the novice Nigrodha going through the royal courtyard, tamed, guarded, with senses calmed, endowed with deportment." Having seen him, this thought arose in him - "All these people are of distracted mind, resembling startled deer. But this boy is of undistracted mind, and his looking here and there, his bending and stretching, are exceedingly graceful. Surely, within him there must be a supramundane quality." At the very sight of the novice, the king's mind became confident and affection was established. Why? For it is said that formerly, in the time of making merit, this one was the king's elder brother, a merchant. For this too was said -

"Through former association, or through present benefit;

Thus does affection arise, as a lotus in water."

Then the king, with affection arisen and with great respect, sent ministers saying "Summon that novice." Thinking "They are taking too long," he sent two or three more - "Let him come quickly." The novice came at his own natural pace. The king, knowing a suitable seat, said "Please be seated." He, having looked here and there, thinking "There are no other monks now," approached the royal couch with its raised white parasol and indicated to the king his intention to receive the bowl. The king, seeing him approaching the couch, thought - "Today itself this novice will become the master of this house." The novice, having placed the bowl in the king's hands, climbed onto the couch and sat down. The king offered all the gruel, hard food, and rice dishes that had been prepared for himself. The novice accepted only as much as was sufficient for his sustenance. At the conclusion of the meal, the king said - "Do you know the instruction given by the Teacher to you?" "I know it, great king, in part." "Dear one, please recite it to me as well." "Very well, great king," and for the purpose of giving a blessing, he recited the Chapter on Heedfulness from the Dhammapada, suitable for the king.

The king, however, upon hearing "Heedfulness is the path to the deathless, heedlessness is the path to death," said: "It is understood, dear one, bring it to a conclusion." And at the end of the thanksgiving, he said: "I give you eight permanent meals, dear one." The novice said: "I give these to my preceptor, great king." "Who is this preceptor, dear one?" "One who, having seen what is blameworthy and blameless, admonishes and reminds, great king." "I give you another eight as well, dear one." "I give these to my teacher, great king." "Who is this teacher, dear one?" "One who establishes one in the things to be trained in within this dispensation, great king." "Very well, dear one, I give you another eight as well." "I give these too to the community of monks, great king." "Who is this community of monks, dear one?" "That depending on which, great king, our teachers and preceptors and I have both the going forth and the full ordination." The king, with a mind even more delighted, said: "I give you another eight as well, dear one." The novice, having accepted saying "Very well," on the following day took thirty-two monks, entered the king's inner palace, and performed the meal duty. The king, saying "Let another thirty-two monks also accept alms-food with you tomorrow," increasing in this very manner day by day, cut off the meals of sixty thousand brahmins, wanderers and others, and established a permanent meal offering for sixty thousand monks within the inner palace, through the very same confidence inspired by the Elder Nigrodha. The Elder Nigrodha also established the king together with his retinue in the Three Refuges and the Five Precepts, and having made unshakeable confidence from the ordinary person's confidence in the Buddha's dispensation, he established them firmly. Again the king had a great monastery called the Asoka Park built and established a permanent meal offering for sixty thousand monks. Throughout the whole of Jambudīpa, in eighty-four thousand cities, he had eighty-four thousand monasteries built, adorned with eighty-four thousand shrines, by righteous means alone, not by unrighteous means.

One day, it is said, the king, having given a great offering at the Asoka Park, sitting in the midst of the community of sixty thousand monks, having invited the community with the four requisites, asked this question: "Venerable sir, how much is the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One?" "In terms of divisions, great king, there are nine divisions; in terms of aggregates, eighty-four thousand aggregates of Dhamma." The king, having gained confidence in the Dhamma, thinking "I shall honour each aggregate of Dhamma with a single monastery," disbursed ninety-six crores of wealth in a single day and commanded his ministers: "Come, sirs, having a single monastery built in each city, have eighty-four thousand monasteries built in eighty-four thousand cities." And he himself commenced the work for the great Asoka Monastery at the Asoka Park. The Saṅgha appointed the Elder named Indagutta, one of great psychic power, great might, and a destroyer of the taints, as the overseer of the new construction. Whatever was not completed, the Elder had it completed through his own power. Even so, he completed the monastery construction in three years. On a single day, letters arrived from all the cities.

The ministers informed the king - "The eighty-four thousand monasteries are completed, Your Majesty." The king had a drum beaten in the city - "After the passing of seven days from now, there shall be a great monastery festival. Let all undertake the eight precepts and prepare the great monastery festival both within and outside the city." Then, after the passing of seven days, surrounded by a fourfold army numbering many hundreds of thousands, adorned with all ornaments, traversing the city which had been decorated and prepared by the great multitude of people, filled with enthusiasm, wishing to make the city surpass in splendour even the splendour of the royal capital Amaravatī in the world of the devas, he went to the monastery and stood in the midst of the community of monks.

And at that moment, eighty koṭis of monks had assembled, and ninety-six hundred thousand nuns. Among them, those who were monks with taints destroyed alone numbered a hundred thousand. This occurred to them - "If the king were to see his meritorious work in its entirety, he would gain exceedingly great confidence in the Buddha's dispensation." Then they performed the miracle called the opening up of the world. The king, standing right there in the Asoka park, looking around in the four directions, saw the island of Jambudīpa bounded on all sides by the ocean, and the eighty-four thousand monasteries resplendent with the magnificent worship of the great monastery festival. Seeing that splendour, endowed with great joy and gladness, thinking "Has such joy and gladness ever arisen in anyone else before?", he asked the community of monks - "Venerable sirs, in the dispensation of our Protector of the World, the one endowed with the ten powers, who made a great sacrifice? Whose sacrifice was the greatest?" The community of monks placed the burden upon the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa. The elder said - "Great king, in the dispensation of the one endowed with the ten powers, there was no one equal to you as a donor of requisites, even while the Tathāgata was still living. Your sacrifice alone is the greatest." The king, having heard the Elder's words, his body being continuously suffused with great joy and gladness, thought - "There is, it seems, no donor of requisites equal to me. My sacrifice, it seems, is the greatest. I, it seems, support the dispensation through gifts. But being so, am I an heir of the dispensation, or am I not?" Then he asked the community of monks - "Am I, venerable sirs, an heir of the dispensation?"

Then the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa, having heard this word of the king, perceiving the maturity of supporting conditions of the king's son Mahinda, thinking "If this prince goes forth, there will be exceedingly great growth of the dispensation," said this to the king - "No indeed, great king, one does not become an heir of the dispensation by this much alone; rather, one is reckoned as a donor of requisites or as a supporter. For even if, great king, one were to give a heap of requisites measuring from the earth up to the Brahma world, one would not be reckoned as 'an heir in the dispensation.'" "Then how, venerable sir, does one become an heir of the dispensation?" "Whoever, great king, whether wealthy or poor, lets his own son go forth - he, great king, is called an heir of the dispensation."

When this was said, King Asoka, thinking "Even after making such a great offering, I have not attained the status of an heir to the Dispensation," desiring the status of an heir to the Dispensation, looked here and there and saw Prince Mahinda standing nearby. Having seen him, this occurred to him: "Although I have wished to establish this prince as viceroy ever since the time of Prince Tissa's going forth, yet the going forth is indeed superior to the viceroyalty." Then he said to the prince: "Are you able, dear son, to go forth?" The prince, who by nature had wished to go forth ever since the time of Prince Tissa's going forth, upon hearing the king's words, became exceedingly joyful and said: "I shall go forth, Your Majesty. Having me go forth, may you become an heir to the Dispensation."

And at that time the king's daughter Saṅghamittā was also standing in that very place. Her husband, a prince named Aggibrahmā, had gone forth together with the crown prince, Prince Tissa. The king, seeing her, said: "Are you also able to go forth, dear daughter?" "Very well, father, I am able." The king, having gained the consent of his children, with a delighted mind, said this to the community of monks: "Venerable sirs, having these children go forth, make me an heir in the Dispensation." The Saṅgha, having accepted the king's words, gave the prince the going forth with the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa as preceptor and the Elder Mahādeva as teacher. He was given the higher ordination with the Elder Majjhantika as teacher. At that time, it is said, the prince was exactly twenty years of age. He attained arahantship together with the analytical knowledges in that very ordination boundary. For the king's daughter Saṅghamittā, the teacher was the Elder Nun named Āyupālī, and the preceptor was the Elder Nun named Dhammapālī. At that time Saṅghamittā was eighteen years old. Having just gone forth, they established her in the training in that very boundary. At the time of the going forth of both, the king was in the sixth year of his consecration.

Then the Elder Mahinda, from the time of his higher ordination, studying the Dhamma and the Vinaya in the presence of his own preceptor, within three years mastered the entire Theravāda doctrine included in the Tipiṭaka together with its commentary, which had been established through both councils, and became the foremost among about a thousand monks who were pupils of his own preceptor. At that time, King Asoka, the righteous king, was in the ninth year of his consecration. In the eighth year of the king's consecration, the Elder Kontaputta Tissa, while wandering on his alms round for the purpose of remedying his illness, not obtaining even a handful of ghee, with his life-span exhausted through the force of illness, admonished the community of monks with heedfulness, sat cross-legged in the air, entered the fire element, and attained final nibbāna. The king, hearing of that event, having honoured the elder, thinking "While I am ruling the kingdom, requisites are so difficult to obtain for monks," had pools made at the four gates of the city, had them filled with medicine, and had them offered.

At that time, it is said, at the four gates of Pāṭaliputta, four hundred thousand each, and at the assembly hall one hundred thousand - thus five hundred thousand arose daily for the king. Then the king sent one hundred thousand daily to the Elder Nigrodha. One hundred thousand for the purpose of honouring the Buddha's shrine with perfumes, garlands, and the like. One hundred thousand for the Dhamma; that was brought for the purpose of the four requisites for the bearers of the Dhamma, the learned ones. One hundred thousand for the Saṅgha; one hundred thousand for the purpose of medicine at the four gates. Thus abundant gain and honour arose in the Dispensation.

The sectarians, having lost their gains and honour, not obtaining even food and clothing, desiring gains and honour, went forth in the dispensation and expounded their own various views as "This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya." Even those who did not obtain the going forth, having shaved themselves and donned yellow robes, wandering about in the monasteries, entered into the Uposatha, the Pavāraṇā, the acts of the Saṅgha, and the acts of a group. The monks did not perform the Uposatha together with them. Then the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa thought: "This dispute has now arisen; before long it will become severe. It is not possible to settle this while dwelling in the midst of these people." Having entrusted his group to the Elder Mahinda, wishing to dwell in comfort by himself, he went to the Ahogaṅga mountain. Those sectarians too, though being censured by the community of monks through the Dhamma, through the Vinaya, and through the Teacher's dispensation, not being established in practice conforming to the Dhamma and Vinaya, raised up manifold tumours, impurities, and thorns for the dispensation. Some tended the fire, some scorched themselves with the five-fold heat, some revolved following the sun, and some undertook to split the Dhamma and the Vinaya. Then the community of monks did not perform the Uposatha or the Pavāraṇā together with them. In the Asoka monastery, the Uposatha was interrupted for seven years. They reported this matter to the king as well. The king commanded a minister: "Go to the monastery, settle the dispute, and have the Uposatha performed." The minister, not daring to question the king further, approached other ministers and said: "The king has sent me saying 'Go to the monastery, settle the dispute, and have the Uposatha performed.' How indeed is a dispute settled?" They said - "We understand it thus: 'Just as those who pacify a border region kill the bandits, so the king must wish to have those who do not perform the Uposatha killed.'" Then that minister went to the monastery, assembled the community of monks, and said: "I have been sent by the king saying 'Have the Uposatha performed.' Please perform the Uposatha now, venerable sirs." The monks said: "We do not perform the Uposatha together with the sectarians." Then the minister, beginning from the senior seat, started to cut off heads with a sword.

The Elder Tissa saw that minister thus acting wrongly. The Elder Tissa was no ordinary person; he was the king's half-brother, a prince named Tissa. It is said that the king, after his consecration, appointed him as viceroy. One day, having gone on a forest excursion, he saw a great herd of deer playing in sport. Having seen him, this occurred to him: "If even these grass-eating deer play thus, then surely those monks, having eaten fine foods in the royal household and sleeping on soft beds, what sport would they not play!" Having come from there, he reported this thought of his to the king. The king said: "The prince has worried about something groundless! Come, I shall make him understand thus." One day, pretending to be angry for some reason, he threatened him with the fear of death saying "Come, accept the kingship for seven days, after that I shall have you killed," and made him understand the matter. It is said that the prince, thinking "He will have me killed on the seventh day," did not bathe properly, did not eat, did not sleep, and became extremely emaciated. Then the king asked him: "Why have you become like this?" "Through fear of death, Your Majesty." "Indeed! You, seeing death that is limited in time, are not at ease and do not play? How would monks play, who see death bound to each in-breath and out-breath!" From that time onwards, the prince gained confidence in the dispensation.

Then one day, having gone out to the deer park and wandering about in the forest, he saw the Elder Yonaka Mahādhammarakkhita seated being fanned with a sāla branch held by a certain bull elephant. Having seen this, filled with delight, he thought: "When indeed might I too go forth like this great elder! Would that such a day might come!" The elder, knowing his disposition, while he was watching, rose up into the sky, and standing on the surface of the water of the pond in the Asoka park, having hung his robe and upper garment in the sky, began to bathe.

The prince, having seen the elder's spiritual power, being exceedingly pleased, thinking "I shall go forth this very day," turned back and informed the king: "I shall go forth, Your Majesty." The king, though entreating him in many ways, being unable to dissuade him, had the road leading to the Asoka park decorated, had the prince dressed in festive attire, had him surrounded by an adorned army, and led him to the monastery. Having heard "The crown prince, it seems, will go forth," many monks prepared their bowls and robes. The prince, having gone to the hall of exertion, went forth in the presence of the Elder Mahādhammarakkhita himself, together with one hundred thousand men. But of those who went forth following the prince, there was no limit to their number. The prince went forth at the time of the king's fourth year of consecration. Now there was also another nephew of the king, the husband of Saṅghamittā, a prince named Aggibrahmā. Saṅghamittā bore just one son by him. He too, having heard "The crown prince has gone forth," approached the king and - "I too, Your Majesty, wish to go forth," he requested. "Go forth, dear one," and being permitted by the king, he went forth that very day.

Thus he went forth following, together with the noble warrior people of great wealth;

The king's younger brother should be known as the Elder Tissa.

He, having seen that minister so wrongly acting, thought: "The king would not send to have the elders killed; surely this must be the minister's own wrong grasp," and going, he himself sat down on a seat near him. He, recognising the elder, being unable to strike him with the weapon, went and informed the king: "I, Your Majesty, cut off the heads of so many monks who were unwilling to perform the Uposatha; then the turn of the Venerable Elder Tissa arrived - what should I do?" The king, upon hearing this - "Wretch! What then, were you sent by me to kill monks?" and immediately a burning arose in his body, and going to the monastery, he asked the elder monks: "Venerable sirs, this minister did this without being commanded by me - to whom does this evil deed belong?" Some elders said, "He did this by your word; this evil is yours." Some said, "This evil belongs to both of you." Some said thus - "But, great king, did you have the intention 'Let him go and have the monks killed'?" "No, venerable sirs, I sent him with a wholesome intention: 'Let the united community of monks perform the Uposatha.'" "If you had a wholesome intention, there is no evil for you; this evil belongs to the minister alone." The king, being in doubt, said: "Is there, venerable sirs, any monk capable of cutting through this doubt of mine and upholding the dispensation?" "There is, great king, the Elder named Moggaliputta Tissa; he is capable of cutting through this doubt of yours and upholding the dispensation." The king that very day sent four Dhamma preachers, each attended by a thousand monks, and four ministers, each attended by a thousand men, saying "Bring the elder back." They went and said, "The king summons you." The elder did not come. For a second time the king sent eight Dhamma preachers and eight ministers, each attended by a thousand, saying: "Having said 'The king, venerable sir, summons you,' bring him back." They said the same thing. For a second time the elder did not come. The king asked the elders: "Venerable sirs, I have sent twice; why does the elder not come?" "Because it was said 'The king summons you,' great king, he does not come. But if it were said thus, he would come: 'The dispensation, venerable sir, is sinking; be our helper in upholding the dispensation.'" Then the king, having said thus, sent sixteen Dhamma preachers and sixteen ministers, each attended by a thousand. And he asked the monks: "Is the elder old, venerable sirs, or young?" "He is old, great king." "Will he board a carriage or a palanquin, venerable sirs?" "He will not board one, great king." "Where, venerable sirs, does the elder dwell?" "Up the Ganges, great king." The king said - "Then, good sirs, having tied together a chain of boats, having seated the elder there, and having arranged a guard on both banks, bring the elder." The monks and ministers, having gone to the elder's presence, conveyed the king's message.

The Elder, having heard, thought: "I went forth thinking 'I shall uphold the dispensation from its very foundation.' Now that time has arrived for me," and taking his leather mat, he rose up. Then, during the night, the king saw a dream that "the Elder will arrive at Pāṭaliputta tomorrow." Then, during the night, the king saw a dream that "the Elder will arrive at Pāṭaliputta tomorrow." The dream was of such a form - "An all-white elephant came and, touching the king from the head, seized him by the right hand." The next day the king asked the dream interpreters - "I saw such a dream; what will happen to me?" One of them said: "Great king, a recluse-elephant will seize you by the right hand." Then the king, having heard right then that "the Elder has arrived," went to the bank of the Ganges, descended into the river, and going forward met the Elder in knee-deep water, and offered his hand to the Elder as he was descending from the boat. The Elder seized the king by the right hand. Seeing that, the sword-bearers drew their swords from their scabbards, thinking "We shall strike off the Elder's head." Why? For this, it is said, was the custom in royal families - "Whoever seizes the king by the hand, his head should be struck off with a sword." The king, seeing just the shadow, said - "Even before, I have found no satisfaction due to offences committed against monks; do not offend against the Elder." But why did the Elder seize the king by the hand? Because he had been summoned by the king for the purpose of asking questions, therefore thinking "This one is my pupil," he seized him.

The king led the Elder to his own garden, had it surrounded three times from the outside, posted a guard, and himself washed the Elder's feet, anointed them with oil, sat down near the Elder, and in order to test whether "the Elder is indeed capable of cutting through my doubt, settling the dispute that has arisen, and upholding the dispensation," he said: "Venerable sir, I wish to see a miracle." "Which miracle do you wish to see, great king?" "An earthquake, venerable sir." "Do you wish to see an earthquake of the entire earth, great king, or an earthquake of a portion of the earth?" "But which of these, venerable sir, is more difficult?" "What do you think, great king - is it more difficult to make all the water in a bronze bowl full of water shake, or half of it?" "Or half?" "Half, venerable sir." "Just so, great king, an earthquake of a portion of the earth is more difficult." "Then, venerable sir, I shall witness an earthquake of a portion of the earth." "Then, great king, in the eastern direction, at a distance of a yojana all around, let a chariot stand with one wheel crossing the boundary; in the southern direction, let a horse stand with two feet crossing the boundary; in the southern direction, let a horse stand with two feet crossing the boundary; in the western direction, let a man stand with one foot crossing the boundary; in the northern direction, let a water bowl stand with half of it crossing the boundary." The king had it done so. The Elder attained the fourth jhāna, which is the basis for direct knowledge, and having emerged from it, resolved upon an earthquake extending one yojana, thinking "Let the king see." In the eastern direction, only the foot of the chariot standing within the boundary shook; the other did not shake. Likewise, in the southern and western directions, only the feet of the horse and the man standing within the boundary shook, and half of their bodies as well. In the northern direction, in the water bowl too, only the water that was within the boundary, the half portion, shook; the remainder remained motionless. The king, having seen that miracle, came to the conclusion that "the Elder is indeed capable of upholding the dispensation," and asked about his own remorse - "Venerable sir, I sent a minister saying 'Go to the monastery, settle the dispute, and have the Uposatha performed.' He went to the monastery and deprived so many monks of life. To whom does that evil belong?"

"But, great king, did you have the intention 'Let this one go to the monastery and kill the monks'?" "There is not, venerable sir." "If, great king, you did not have such an intention, there is no evil for you." Then the Elder convinced the king of this matter by means of this sutta: "It is volition, monks, that I call kamma. Having willed, one performs action - by body, by speech, by mind."

To illustrate that very matter, he brought up the Tittira Jātaka: "In the past, great king, a decoy partridge asked an ascetic:

'A kinsman of ours sits here, and many people come;

Dependent on this, kamma is experienced; about that my mind is troubled.'

The hermit said - 'But do you have the intention that by my call and by seeing my form, these birds having come should be trapped or killed?' 'No, venerable sir,' the partridge said. Then the ascetic convinced him: 'If you do not have the intention, there is no evil; For evil touches only one who intends, not one who does not intend.

'Dependent on this, kamma is not experienced, if the mind is not corrupted;

For one who is unconcerned and virtuous, evil does not cling.'"

Thus the Elder, having convinced the king, dwelling right there in the royal garden for seven days, made the king learn the doctrine. On the seventh day, the king, having assembled the community of monks at the Asoka monastery, having had a screen-wall erected around them, seated within the screen-wall, having had the monks who held one and the same view brought together in separate groups, and having summoned each group of monks, asked: "What is the doctrine of the Perfectly Enlightened One?" Thereupon the eternalists said "He is an eternalist." The partial-eternalists etc. The extensionists and non-extensionists etc. The eel-wrigglers etc. The fortuitous-originationists etc. The percipient-doctrinists etc. The non-percipient-doctrinists etc. The neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient-doctrinists etc. The annihilationists etc. The present-life-nibbāna-doctrinists said "He is a present-life-nibbāna-doctrinalist." The king, having already learned the doctrine beforehand, knowing "These are not monks, these are adherents of other sects," gave them white garments and expelled them from the Order. They were altogether sixty thousand.

Then, having summoned other monks, he asked - "What doctrine does the Perfectly Enlightened One hold, venerable sir?" "The Perfectly Enlightened One is an analyst, great king." When this was said, the king asked the elder - "Is the Perfectly Enlightened One an analyst, venerable sir?" "Yes, great king." Then the king said: "Now, venerable sir, the dispensation is purified; let the community of monks perform the Uposatha." Having assigned a guard, he entered the city.

The united Saṅgha, having assembled together, performed the Uposatha. At that assembly there were sixty thousand monks. At that gathering, the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa, crushing the doctrines of others, expounded the Kathāvatthu treatise. Then, having selected from among the sixty hundred thousand monks, taking one thousand monks who were bearers of the learning of the three Piṭakas, who had attained analytical knowledge, and who possessed the threefold knowledge and other distinctions, just as the Elder Mahākassapa and Yasatthera the son of Kākaṇḍaka rehearsed the Dhamma and the Vinaya; even so, rehearsing the Dhamma and the Vinaya, having purified all the impurities of the dispensation, he conducted the Third Council. At the conclusion of the Council, the earth trembled in various ways. This Council was completed in nine months. Which in the world -

Was performed by a thousand monks, therefore it is called "of the thousand";

Taking the two preceding ones, it is called "the third."

This is the Third Council.

And to this extent, for the purpose of answering the question "By whom was it brought?", what we have stated - "In Jambudīpa, first, beginning with the Elder Upāli, it was brought down through the succession of teachers up to the Third Council. Herein, this is the succession of teachers -

"Upāli, Dāsaka, and Soṇaka, likewise Siggava;

Tissa Moggaliputta too - these five were victorious ones.

"Through succession they brought the Vinaya, unbroken, to the island called Jambusiri,

up to the third rehearsal."

The meaning of that has already been made clear.

But after the Third Council, it was brought to this island by Mahinda and others. Having learned it from Mahinda, for some time it was brought down by the Elder Ariṭṭha and others. From then until the present day, it should be understood as having been brought down through the succession of teachers who were the successive pupils of those very ones. As the ancients have said -

"Then Mahinda, Iṭṭhiya, Uttiya, Sambala likewise;

And the wise one named Bhadda.

"These great beings of great wisdom, having come here from Jambudīpa;

They taught the monastic discipline, the Canon in Tambapaṇṇi.

"They taught the five Nikāyas, and the seven treatises as well;

Then Ariṭṭha the wise, and Tissadatta the learned.

"The confident Kāḷasumana, and the elder named Dīgha;

And Dīghasumana the learned.

"Again Kāḷasumana, and the elder Nāga, and Buddharakkhita;

The Elder Tissa the wise, and the Elder Deva the learned.

"Again the wise Sumana, confident in the Vinaya;

Very learned Cūḷanāga, like an elephant, difficult to assail.

"And the one named Dhammapālita, well honoured in Rohaṇa;

His pupil of great wisdom, named Khema, master of the three Canons.

"Like the king of stars on the island, he outshone others by his wisdom;

And Upatissa the wise, Phussadeva the great speaker.

"Again the wise Sumana, and the learned one named Puppha;

The great speaker Mahāsiva, skilled everywhere in the Canon.

"Again the wise Upāli, confident in the Vinaya;

Mahānāga of great wisdom, skilled in the lineage of the Good Teaching.

"Again the wise Abhaya, skilled in all the Piṭakas;

And the Elder Tissa the wise, and confident in the monastic discipline.

"His pupil of great wisdom, named Puppha, of great learning;

Guarding the Dispensation, established in Jambudīpa.

"And the wise Cūḷābhaya, confident in the Vinaya;

The Elder Tissa the wise, skilled in the lineage of the Good Teaching.

"And the wise Cūḷadeva, confident in the Vinaya;

And the wise Elder Siva, skilled everywhere in the monastic discipline.

"These great beings of great wisdom, knowers of the Vinaya, skilled in the path;

They made known the Vinaya on the island, the Piṭaka, in Tambapaṇṇi."

Herein this is the progressive discourse - The Elder Moggaliputta Tissa, it is said, having conducted this Third Council of the Dhamma, reflected thus - "Where indeed might the dispensation become well-established in the future?" Then, upon investigation, this occurred to him - "It will become well-established in the outlying regions." He assigned the task to various monks and sent those monks to various places. He sent the Elder Majjhantika to the Kasmīra-Gandhāra region - "You, having gone to that region, establish the dispensation there." Having spoken likewise to the Elder Mahādeva, he sent him to the Mahiṃsaka territory. The Elder Rakkhita to Vanavāsi. The Elder Yonaka Dhammarakkhita to Aparantaka. The Elder Mahādhammarakkhita to Mahāraṭṭha. The Elder Mahārakkhita to the Yonaka land. The Elder Majjhima to the Himalayan region. The Elder Soṇa and the Elder Uttara to Suvaṇṇabhūmi. He sent his own pupil, the Elder Mahinda, together with the Elder Iṭṭhiya, the Elder Uttiya, the Elder Sambala, and the Elder Bhaddasāla, to the island of Tambapaṇṇi - "You, having gone to the island of Tambapaṇṇi, establish the dispensation there." All of them, going to their respective regions, went as groups of five, considering that "in the outlying regions a group of five is sufficient for the act of higher ordination."

Now at that time, in the Kasmīra-Gandhāra region, during the season of crop ripening, a nāga king named Aravāḷa, having caused a shower of hail to fall, would have the crops carried away into the great ocean. The Elder Majjhantika, having risen into the air from Pāṭaliputta, descended over Lake Aravāḷa in the Himalayas, and on the surface of Lake Aravāḷa he walked back and forth, stood, sat down, and lay down. The young nāgas, having seen him, reported to the nāga king Aravāḷa - "Great king, a shaven-headed one wearing torn and tattered robes, clad in saffron, is polluting our water." The nāga king, immediately overcome with anger, came out and, having seen the Elder, unable to bear the insult, created many terrifying apparitions in the sky. From all directions fierce winds blew, trees were broken, mountain peaks fell, clouds thundered, lightning flashed, thunderbolts crashed, and water poured down as if the vault of the sky were split open. Fearsome nāga youths assembled. He himself smoked, blazed, and released showers of weapons. He threatened the Elder with harsh words such as "Who is this shaveling wearing torn and tattered robes?" He commanded the nāga forces: "Come, seize, strike, drive out this recluse!" The Elder, having warded off all those terrors by the power of his own supernormal abilities, said to the nāga king -

"Even if the whole world with its devas were to come and try to frighten me;

He would not be able to arouse fear and dread in me.

"Even if you were to lift up the entire earth, together with its oceans and mountains,

O great nāga, and hurl it upon me,

"You would not be able to arouse fear and dread in me;

Rather, it would only be to your own detriment, O lord of serpents."

When this was said, the nāga king, his power defeated and his efforts fruitless, became sorrowful and dejected. The elder, having instructed, exhorted, inspired, and gladdened him with a Dhamma talk appropriate to that occasion, established him in the Three Refuges and the Five Precepts, together with eighty-four thousand nāgas. Many other yakkhas, gandhabbas, and kumbhaṇḍas dwelling in the Himavanta, having heard the elder's Dhamma talk, also became established in the Refuges and the Precepts. The yakkha Pañcaka, together with his wife the yakkhini and five hundred sons, became established in the first fruit. Then the Venerable Elder Majjhantika, having addressed all the nāgas, yakkhas, and rakkhasas, spoke thus:

"Do not henceforth generate anger as before;

Do not destroy crops, for beings desire happiness;

Practise loving-kindness towards beings, so that people may dwell in happiness."

All of them, having replied to the elder "Very well, Venerable Sir," practised as instructed. On that very day was the time of offering to the nāga king. Then the nāga king had his own jewelled couch brought and prepared it for the elder. The elder sat on the couch. The nāga king, fanning the elder, stood nearby. At that moment, the inhabitants of the Kasmīra-Gandhāra country, having come and seen the elder, thinking "The elder is of greater supernatural power than our nāga king," paid homage to the elder himself and sat down. The elder taught them the Āsīvisopama Sutta. At the conclusion of the sutta, eighty thousand beings attained penetration of the Dhamma, and a hundred thousand families went forth. From that time onwards, Kasmīra-Gandhāra, even to this day, is resplendent with saffron robes and filled with the winds of sages.

Having gone to Kasmīra-Gandhāra, the sage Majjhantika at that time,

Having inspired the hostile nāga, released many from bondage.

The Elder Mahādeva, having gone to the Mahiṃsaka territory, taught the Devadūta Sutta. At the conclusion of the sutta, forty thousand beings obtained the eye of the Dhamma, and forty thousand beings went forth.

Having gone to the Mahiṃsa country, Mahādeva of great supernatural power,

Having stirred them with the messengers of death, released many from bondage.

The Elder Rakkhita, having gone to Vanavāsi, standing in the sky, inspired the people of Vanavāsi with a discourse on the incalculable beginning. At the conclusion of the discourse, sixty thousand attained penetration of the Dhamma. About thirty-seven thousand went forth, and five hundred monasteries were established. Thus he established the dispensation there.

The Elder Rakkhita, having gone to Vanavāsi, the one of great psychic power;

Standing in mid-air there, taught the discourse on the beginningless.

The Elder Yonaka Dhammarakkhita, having gone to Aparantaka, having inspired the people of Aparantaka through the discourse on the Simile of the Mass of Fire, gave the deathless nectar of the Dhamma to seventy thousand beings to drink. A thousand men from the warrior-noble families alone went forth, and more than six thousand women. Thus he established the dispensation there.

Having plunged into Aparantaka, Yonaka Dhammarakkhita;

With the Simile of the Mass of Fire, inspired many people there.

The Elder Mahādhammarakkhita, having gone to Mahāraṭṭha, having inspired the people of Mahāraṭṭha through the discourse on the Mahānārada Kassapa Jātaka, established eighty-four thousand beings in the paths and fruits. Thirteen thousand went forth. Thus he established the dispensation there.

The sage Mahādhammarakkhita, having gone to Mahāraṭṭha;

Having told the Jātaka, inspired the great multitude.

The Elder Mahārakkhita, having gone to the Yonaka country, having inspired the Yonaka people through the discourse on the Kāḷakārāma Sutta, bestowed the adornment of the paths and fruits upon one hundred and seventy thousand beings. And in his presence ten thousand went forth. Thus he too established the dispensation there.

Having gone then to the Yona country, the sage Mahārakkhita;

With the Kāḷakārāma Sutta inspired those Yonakas.

The Elder Majjhima, together with the Elder Kassapagotta, the Elder Aḷakadeva, the Elder Dundubhissara, and the Elder Mahādeva, having gone to the Himalayan region, having inspired that region through the discourse on the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, caused eighty million beings to attain the jewels of the paths and fruits. And the five elders inspired five countries. In the presence of each one, about a hundred thousand went forth. Thus they established the dispensation there.

The Elder Majjhima, having gone, inspired the Himalayan region;

Proclaiming the army of yakkhas, through the Turning of the Wheel of the Dhamma.

The Elder Soṇa, together with the Elder Uttara, went to Suvaṇṇabhūmi. And at that time, there a demoness, having emerged from the sea, devoured each child born in the royal family. And on that very day a boy was born in the royal family. The people, having seen the elder, thinking "This one is an ally of the demons," took up weapons and came wishing to strike the elder. The elder said: "Why do you come with weapons in hand?" They said - "Demons devour each child born in the royal family, and you are their allies." The elder said: "We are not allies of the demons. We are recluses, abstaining from the taking of life, etc. abstaining from intoxicating drinks, eating one meal a day, virtuous, of wholesome qualities." And at that very moment, that demoness with her retinue emerged from the sea, thinking "A boy has been born in the royal family; I shall devour him." The people, seeing her, cried out in fear: "Venerable sir, that demoness is coming!" The elder, having created double the number of spirit-forms as the demons, surrounded that demoness together with her retinue on both sides, enclosing them in the middle with those spirit-forms. This occurred to her together with her retinue: "Surely this place must have been taken by these ones. We shall become their prey." All the demons fled in haste out of fear. The elder, having driven them away until they were out of sight, established a guard around the island. And at that time, having inspired the assembled great multitude through the discourse on the Brahmajāla Sutta, he established them in the refuges and the precepts. And here sixty thousand attained the penetration of the Dhamma. Three and a half thousand sons of good families went forth, and one and a half thousand daughters of good families. Thus he established the dispensation there. From that time onwards, they gave the name Soṇuttara to boys born in the royal family.

Having gone to Suvaṇṇabhūmi, Soṇa and Uttara, of great psychic power,

Having driven out the demons, taught the Brahmajāla.

The Elder Mahinda, however, being requested by his preceptor and the community of monks to "go to the island of Tambapaṇṇi and establish the dispensation," reflected - "Is it the time for me to go to the island of Tambapaṇṇi or not?" Then, as he investigated, it occurred to him: "It is not yet the time." But what did he see that this occurred to him? The old age of King Muṭasiva. Then he thought - "This king is old; it is not possible to take hold of him and promote the dispensation. Now his son Devānaṃpiyatissa will exercise kingship. Taking hold of him, it will be possible to promote the dispensation. Come, until that time arrives, let us look after our relatives. Whether we shall come to this country again or not." Having reflected thus, he paid homage to his preceptor and the community of monks, departed from the Asoka monastery, and together with those four elders - Iṭṭhiya and the others - with Saṅghamittā's son, the novice Sumana, and the lay follower Bhaṇḍuka, wandering on tour through the Dakkhiṇāgiri country around the city of Rājagaha, looking after his relatives, he spent six months. Then gradually he arrived at a city called Vedisa, the place of his mother's residence. It is said that Asoka, having received the province in his youth, while going to Ujjenī, arrived at the city of Vedisa and took the daughter of the chief of Vedisa as his wife. She, having conceived on that very day, gave birth to Prince Mahinda in Ujjenī. When the prince was fourteen years old, the king received the consecration. His mother at that time was living in her relatives' house. Therefore it was said - "Then gradually he arrived at a city called Vedisa, the place of his mother's residence."

And having seen the Elder who had arrived, the Elder's mother, the queen, paid homage with her head at his feet, gave alms-food, and led the Elder up to the great monastery she had built, called Vedisagiri. The Elder, seated in that monastery, reflected - "Our task to be done here is completed; is it now the time to go to the island of Laṅkā?" Then he thought - "Let Devānaṃpiyatissa first receive the consecration sent by my father, and let him hear the virtues of the Triple Gem, and let him go out from the city for the festival purpose and ascend Missaka mountain; then we shall see him there." Then he spent a further one month dwelling right there. And with the passing of the month, on the full-moon day of the month of Jeṭṭhamūla, on the Uposatha day, all having assembled - "Is it the time for us to go to the island of Tambapaṇṇi, or not?" they deliberated. Therefore the ancients said:

"Mahinda was his name, and he was the elder of the Saṅgha at that time;

The elders Iṭṭhiya, Uttiya, Bhaddasāla, and Sambala.

"And the novice Sumana, possessing the six higher knowledges and great psychic power;

Bhaṇḍuka was the seventh among them, a lay follower who had seen the truth;

Thus these great beings deliberated in private."

Then Sakka, the lord of the devas, approached the Elder Mahinda and said this: "Venerable sir, King Muṭasiva has passed away; now the great King Devānampiyatissa rules the kingdom. And you were designated by the Perfectly Enlightened One: 'In the future, a monk named Mahinda will inspire confidence in the island of Tambapaṇṇi.' Therefore, venerable sir, it is the time for you to go to the excellent island; I too shall be your companion." But why did Sakka say this? For the Blessed One, it is said, having surveyed the world with the Buddha-eye while still at the foot of the Bodhi tree, having seen the future prosperity of this island, declared this matter to him, and instructed him: "At that time you too should be a companion." Therefore he spoke thus. The Elder, having accepted his words, together with six companions, rose into the sky from Mount Veṭisaka and alighted on Missakapabbata to the east of Anurādhapura. Which is now also known as "Cetiyapabbata." Therefore the ancients said:

"Having dwelt at Rājagaha on Mount Veṭisa for thirty nights;

'It is the time for departure' - let us go to the excellent island.

"Having departed from Jambudīpa, like royal swans in the sky;

Thus having risen up, the elders descended upon the excellent mountain.

"Before the foremost of cities, upon the mountain resembling a cloud;

They alighted on Sīlakūṭa, like swans upon a mountain peak."

Thus, having come together with Iṭṭhiya and the others and alighting, the Venerable Elder Mahinda should be understood as having established himself on this island in the thirty-sixth year after two hundred years from the parinibbāna of the Perfectly Enlightened One. For the Perfectly Enlightened One attained parinibbāna in the eighth year of Ajātasattu. In that very year, Prince Vijaya, the son of Prince Sīha, the first king of the island of Tambapaṇṇi, came to this island and established human habitation. In the fourteenth year of Udayabhadda in Jambudīpa, Vijaya passed away here. In the fifteenth year of Udayabhadda, one named Paṇḍuvāsudeva attained kingship on this island. Therein, in the twentieth year of King Nāgadāsa, Paṇḍuvāsudeva passed away here. And in that very year, a prince named Abhaya attained kingship on this island. Therein, in the seventeenth year of King Susunāga, twenty years of King Abhaya were completed here. Then, in the twentieth year of Abhaya, a rebel named Paṇḍukābhaya seized the kingdom. Therein, in the sixteenth year of Kāḷāsoka, seventeen years of Paṇḍuka were completed here. Those, together with one year below, make eighteen. Therein, in the fourteenth year of Candagutta, Paṇḍukābhaya passed away here. King Muṭasiva attained kingship. Therein, in the seventeenth year of King Asoka the Righteous, King Muṭasiva passed away here. Devānampiyatissa attained kingship. And after the Perfectly Enlightened One attained parinibbāna, Ajātasattu ruled the kingdom for twenty-four years. Udayabhadda sixteen, Anuruddha and Muṇḍa eight, Nāgadāsaka twenty-four, Susunāga eighteen, his own son Kāḷāsoka twenty-eight, then his sons, ten brother-kings, ruled the kingdom for twenty-two years. After them, the nine Nandas twenty-two likewise, Candagutta twenty-four, Bindusāra twenty-eight. At the end of his reign, Asoka attained kingship. Four years before his consecration, and in the eighteenth year after his consecration, the Elder Mahinda was established on this island. Thus, by following this royal lineage, this should be understood: "In the thirty-sixth year after two hundred years from the parinibbāna of the Perfectly Enlightened One, he was established on this island."

And on that day, in the island of Tambapaṇṇi, there was a festival called the Jeṭṭhamūla-nakkhatta. The king, having proclaimed the festival and having commanded the ministers "Celebrate the festival," departed from the city surrounded by forty thousand men and set out towards Missaka Mountain, wishing to enjoy the hunt. Then a deity dwelling on that mountain, thinking "I shall show the elders to the king," assumed the form of a rohita deer and wandered about nearby as if eating grass and leaves. The king, seeing it, thought "It is not proper to shoot at it while it is off guard," and twanged his bowstring. The deer took the path to Ambatthala and began to flee. The king, following closely behind, ascended to Ambatthala itself. The deer also vanished not far from the elders. The Elder Mahinda, seeing the king approaching nearby, resolved "Let the king see only me, not the others," and said "Tissa, Tissa, come here." The king, having heard, thought - "There is no one born in this island who is able to address me by the name 'Tissa.' But this one, wearing torn and tattered robes, shaven-headed, clad in ochre, addresses me by name - who could this be, whether human or non-human?" The elder said -

"We are recluses, great king, disciples of the King of the Dhamma;

Out of compassion for you, we have come here from Jambudīpa."

And at that time, the great king Devānampiyatissa and the Dhamma-king Asoka were unseen friends. And through the power of merit of the great king Devānampiyatissa, at the foot of Chāta Mountain, in a single bamboo grove, three bamboo staves the size of chariot poles arose - one called the creeper-staff, one called the flower-staff, and one called the bird-staff. Among these, the creeper-staff was of silver colour, and when adorned, the creepers that arose upon it appeared of golden colour. On the flower-staff, flowers of blue, yellow, red, white, and black colours appeared with well-formed stalks, petals, and filaments. On the bird-staff, swans, cocks, jīvajīvaka birds and other birds, and various quadrupeds appeared as if alive. And this too was stated in the Dīpavaṃsa -

"At the foot of Chāta Mountain, there were three bamboo staves;

White like a silver staff, the creepers resembling gold.

"Whatever flowers such as blue and others, such were on the flower-staff;

Birds on the bird-staff, standing in their own forms."

From the ocean too, manifold treasures arose for him, such as pearls, gems, beryl, and others. And in Tambapaṇṇi, eight kinds of pearls arose - horse-pearl, elephant-pearl, chariot-pearl, myrobalan-pearl, bangle-pearl, ring-pearl, kakudha-fruit-pearl, and natural pearl. He sent those staves and those pearls and much other treasure to the Dhamma-king Asoka as a gift. Asoka, being pleased, sent him the five royal insignia - the parasol, the yak-tail fan, the sword, the crown, and the jewelled slippers, and various other gifts for the consecration; as follows - a conch, Ganges water, a vaḍḍhamāna ornament, a garland, a golden pitcher, a nandiyāvaṭṭa, a palanquin, a maiden, a ladle, a pair of garments from the lower loom, a hand-towel, yellow sandalwood, dawn-coloured clay, collyrium, chebulic myrobalan, and emblic myrobalan. And this too was stated in the Dīpavaṃsa -

"A yak-tail fan, a turban, a parasol, a sword, and sandals;

A head-wrapping, an auspicious thread, a golden pitcher, and a festive garland.

"A palanquin, a conch, a wreath, a lower garment, and a cloth border;

A golden bowl, a ladle, and a costly hand-towel.

"Water from Lake Anotatta, a maiden, the finest yellow sandalwood;

Dawn-coloured clay, and collyrium brought by nāgas.

"Myrobalan, emblic myrobalan, a costly immortal medicine;

A hundred and sixty cartloads of rice, fragrant and brought by parrots;

Produced by meritorious deeds - the one named Asoka sent these."

And he sent not only this material gift, but also this gift of Dhamma:

"I have gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha;

I declared the state of a lay follower in the dispensation of the son of the Sakyans.

"In these three objects, in the supreme dispensation of the Conqueror,

You too should inspire confidence in your mind; with faith, go to the refuge."

That king, on that day, was consecrated with a consecration sent by King Asoka, having been consecrated for one month.

For they performed his consecration on the full-moon day of Vesākha. He, having heard not long before - recollecting that propagation of the dispensation, upon hearing the Elder's words "We are recluses, great king, disciples of the King of Dhamma," thinking "Have the venerable ones come?" he immediately laid down his weapons, sat down on one side, and engaged in courteous conversation. As he said -

"Having laid down his weapons, he sat down on one side;

Seated, the king exchanged greetings, with much that was connected with meaning."

While they were engaged in courteous conversation, those forty thousand men also came and surrounded them. Then the Elder showed the other six persons as well. The king, having seen them, said: "When did these arrive?" "Together with me, great king." "But are there now other such recluses in Jambudīpa?" "There are, great king; at present Jambudīpa is resplendent with saffron robes and stirred by the breeze of seers. Therein:

"Possessors of the threefold true knowledge, attainers of supernormal power, skilled in the ways of others' minds;

Arahants with taints destroyed - many are the disciples of the Buddha."

"Venerable sir, by what means have you come?" "Neither by water nor by land, great king." The king understood that they had come through the sky. The elder, wishing to test whether the king possessed the acumen of wisdom, asked a question concerning a nearby mango tree - "What is the name of this tree, great king?" "It is called a mango tree, venerable sir." "But, great king, apart from this mango, are there other mangoes or not?" "There are, venerable sir, many other mango trees as well." "Apart from this mango and those mangoes, are there, great king, other trees?" "There are, venerable sir, but those are not mango trees." "Apart from the other mangoes and the non-mangoes, is there yet another tree?" "This very mango tree itself, venerable sir." "Excellent, great king, you are wise. But, great king, do you have relatives?" "There are, venerable sir, many people." "Apart from them, are there any others who are not relatives, great king?" "Those who are not relatives, venerable sir, are more numerous than the relatives." "Apart from your relatives and non-relatives, is there anyone else, great king?" "Just myself, who am neither a relative nor a non-relative." Then the elder, thinking "The king is wise; he will be able to understand the Dhamma," expounded the Cūḷahatthipadopama Sutta. At the conclusion of the discourse, the king, together with forty thousand beings, took refuge in the Three Refuges.

At that very moment, food was brought for the king. And the king, while listening to the discourse, had already understood - "Food is not allowable for these ones at this time." Thinking "But it would be improper to eat without asking," he asked, "Will you eat, venerable sir?" "No, great king, food is not allowable for us at this time." "At what time, venerable sir, is it allowable?" "From the rising of dawn until the time of midday, great king." "Shall we go to the city, venerable sir?" "It is not necessary, great king, we shall dwell right here." "If, venerable sir, you are staying, let this boy come." "Great king, this boy has attained the fruit, has comprehended the teaching, and desires the going forth; he will now go forth." The king said, "Then, venerable sir, tomorrow I shall send a chariot; mounting it, please come." Having said this, he paid homage and departed.

The Elder, when the king had recently departed, addressed the novice Sumana - "Come, Sumana, announce the time for hearing the Dhamma." "Venerable sir, over how great an area shall I make the announcement?" "The whole island of Tambapaṇṇi." "Very well, venerable sir," the novice, having attained the fourth jhāna which is the basis for direct knowledge, and having emerged from it and made a determination, with a concentrated mind, announcing throughout the whole island of Tambapaṇṇi, proclaimed the time for hearing the Dhamma three times. The king, having heard that sound, sent a message to the elders - "Venerable sirs, is there any danger?" "There is no danger for us; we had the time for hearing the Dhamma announced, as we wish to teach the word of the Buddha." And having heard the sound of the novice, the earth-bound deities relayed the sound. By this means the sound ascended as far as the Brahma world. By that sound there was a great assembly of deities. The Elder, seeing the great assembly of deities, taught the Samacitta Sutta. At the conclusion of the discourse, there was the penetration of the Dhamma by innumerable deities. Many nāgas and supaṇṇas took refuge in the three refuges. Just as there was an assembly of deities when the Elder Sāriputta taught this sutta, so too there was one for the Elder Mahinda. Then, at the passing of that night, the king sent a chariot for the elders. The charioteer, having placed the chariot to one side, informed the elders - "The chariot has arrived, venerable sirs; please mount, we shall go." The elders said: "We do not mount a chariot; you go, we shall come afterwards," and having risen into the air, they descended at the site of the Paṭhamaka Cetiya to the east of Anurādhapura. For that cetiya is called "Paṭhamaka Cetiya" precisely because it was built at the place where the elders first descended.

The king, having sent the charioteer, commanded the ministers: "Prepare a pavilion within the inner palace." Immediately, all of them, delighted and pleased, prepared an exceedingly beautiful pavilion. Again the king thought - "Yesterday the Elder, while teaching the chapter on morality, said 'the use of high and luxurious beds is not allowable'; will the venerable ones sit on seats or will they not sit?" While he was thus thinking, that charioteer arrived at the city gate. Then he saw the elders, having come earlier, tying their waist-bands and putting on their robes. Having seen them, with an exceedingly gladdened mind, he came and informed the king - "The elders have arrived, Your Majesty." The king asked: "Did they mount the chariot?" "They did not mount it, Your Majesty; moreover, having departed after me, they came earlier and are standing at the eastern gate." The king, having heard "they did not even mount the chariot," thinking "the venerable ones will surely not accept high and luxurious beds," said "then, good man, prepare seats for the elders with simple ground coverings," and went forth to meet them. The ministers spread a mat on the ground and arranged decorated coverings such as blankets on top. The interpreters of omens, having seen this, declared: "Now these ones have taken possession of the earth; they will become the lords of the island of Tambapaṇṇi." The king too, having gone and paid homage to the elders, taking the bowl from the hand of the Elder Mahinda, with great honour and reverence, led the elders into the city and into the inner palace. The Elder, seeing the arrangement of seats, thinking "our dispensation will be established, spread like the earth over the whole island of Laṅkā, and immovable," sat down. The king, having served and satisfied the elders with his own hands with excellent hard and soft food, had five hundred women headed by Queen Anulā summoned to pay homage and make offerings and show reverence to the elders, and sat down to one side. The Elder, at the conclusion of the meal, raining the shower of the jewel of the Dhamma upon the king together with his retinue, taught the Petavatthu, the Vimānavatthu, and the Saccasaṃyutta. Having heard that Dhamma teaching of the Elder, those five hundred women realised the fruit of stream-entry.

Those people who had seen the elders at Missakapabbata on the previous day spoke of the virtues of the elders in various places. Having heard them, a great multitude of people assembled in the royal courtyard and made a great noise. The king asked: "What is that noise?" "The citizens, Your Majesty, are crying out: 'We cannot get to see the elders.'" The king, thinking: "If they enter here, there will not be enough space," said: "Go, fellows, prepare the elephant hall, spread sand, scatter flowers of five colours, tie up a canopy of cloth, and arrange seats for the elders at the place of the state elephant." The ministers did so. The elder went there, sat down, and delivered the Devadūta Sutta. At the conclusion of the discourse, a thousand beings were established in the fruit of stream-entry. Then, thinking: "The elephant hall is too crowded," they arranged seats at the Nandana garden park at the southern gate. The elder sat down there and delivered the Āsīvisopama Sutta. Having heard that too, a thousand beings attained the fruit of stream-entry.

Thus, on the second day from the day of arrival, there was the penetration of the Dhamma by two thousand five hundred. While the elder was exchanging friendly greetings in the Nandana garden with ladies of good families, daughters-in-law of good families, and maidens of good families who came again and again, the evening time arrived. The elder, noting the time, rose up saying: "Let us now go to Missakapabbata." The ministers - "Where are you going, Venerable Sir?" "To our place of residence." They informed the king and, with the king's permission, said: "It is not the right time, Venerable Sir, to go there now; let this very Nandana garden park be the place of dwelling for the noble ones." "Enough, let us go." Again, by the king's word, they said: "The king, Venerable Sir, says: 'This park called Meghavana, belonging to my father, neither too far from nor too near to the city, suitable for coming and going - let the elders take up residence there.'" The elders dwelt in the Meghavana park.

And the king, after the passing of that night, went to the elder's presence, asked whether he had slept well, and then asked: "Is a monastery allowable, Venerable Sir, for the community of monks?" The elder, having said: "It is allowable, great king," cited this sutta: "I allow, monks, a park." The king, delighted, took a golden water vessel, poured water onto the elder's hands, and gave the great Meghavana park. With the pouring of the water, the earth quaked. This was the first earthquake at the Great Monastery. The king, frightened, asked the elder: "Why, Venerable Sir, does the earth quake?" "Do not fear, great king, the dispensation of the Possessor of the Ten Powers will be established on this island; and this will be the first monastery site - this is its foretoken." The king was even more greatly pleased. On the following day too, the elder, having eaten at the royal palace itself, delivered discourses on the beginningless nature of saṃsāra in the Nandana garden. On the next day, he delivered the Aggikkhandhopama Sutta. In this very manner, he delivered discourses for seven days. At the conclusion of the teaching, there was the penetration of the Dhamma by eight thousand five hundred beings. From then on, the Nandana garden, being regarded as the place of the shining forth of the dispensation, received the name "Jotivana." On the seventh day, the elders, having delivered the Appamāda Sutta in the inner palace to the king, went to Cetiyagiri itself.

Then the king asked his ministers - "The elder admonishes us with stern admonition; might he depart?" The ministers said: "The elder, Your Majesty, came of his own accord uninvited by you; therefore he might even depart without taking leave." Then the king, having mounted his chariot and having placed the two queens upon it, went to Cetiyagiri with great royal splendour. Having gone there, he sent the queens aside to one place, and approaching the elders by himself, he approached appearing exceedingly weary. Then the elder said to him: "Why, great king, have you come in such a weary state?" "To know whether you, Bhante, having given me stern admonition, now wish to depart." "We do not wish to depart, great king; however, great king, this is the time for entering the rains residence, and therein it is proper for a recluse to know the place for the rains residence." On that very day, a minister named Ariṭṭha, standing near the king together with fifty-five elder and younger brothers, said - "I wish, Your Majesty, to go forth in the presence of the elders." The king, having given permission saying "Very well, dear fellow, go forth," had the elder accept him. The elder gave him the going forth on that very day. All of them attained arahantship at the very stroke of the razor.

The king, at that very moment, having enclosed the cetiya courtyard with a fence, having commenced work on sixty-two caves, went back to the city. Those elders too, having inspired confidence in the royal family crowded with the ten brothers, and admonishing the great multitude, spent the rains residence at Cetiyagiri. At that time too, there were sixty-two arahants who had entered the first rains residence at Cetiyagiri. Then the Venerable Mahāmahinda, having completed the rains residence and having performed the pavāraṇā, on the full moon day of Kattika, the uposatha day, said this to the king - "Great king, it has been long since we have seen the Perfectly Enlightened One; we have been dwelling without a refuge. We wish to go to Jambudīpa." The king said - "Bhante, I attend upon you with the four requisites, and this great multitude, relying upon you, has been established in the three refuges. Why are you discontented?" "It has been long, great king, since we have seen the Perfectly Enlightened One; there is no place for paying homage, rising up, making añjali, and performing proper reverence. For that reason we are discontented." "But, Bhante, did you not say - 'The Perfectly Enlightened One has attained final nibbāna'?" "Although, great king, he has attained final nibbāna; yet his bodily relics remain." "It is understood, Bhante, that you desire the establishment of a stūpa. I shall build a stūpa, Bhante; now select a site for it; "I shall build a stūpa, venerable sir; now select a site." but, Bhante, from where shall we obtain the relics?" "Consult with Sumana, great king."

"Very well, venerable sir," the king approached Sumana and asked - "From where, venerable sir, shall we now obtain the relics?" Sumana said - "Be unconcerned, great king. Have the streets cleaned, have them decorated with flags, banners, full pots and the like, observe the uposatha together with your retinue, have all the musicians attend, have the auspicious elephant adorned with all ornaments, raise a white parasol above it, and in the evening proceed towards the Mahānāga park. You will certainly obtain relics at that place." The king received it saying "Good!" The elders went to Cetiyagiri itself. There the Venerable Elder Mahinda said to the novice Sumana - "Go, novice, approach your grandfather, the Dhamma King Asoka, in Jambudīpa, and speak thus in my name - 'Your friend, great king, Devānampiyatissa, having faith in the Buddha's dispensation, wishes to establish a stūpa. It is said that there are relics in your hands; give them to me.' Having taken them, approach Sakka, the king of the devas, and speak thus - 'It is said, great king, that there are two relics in your hands - the right canine tooth and the right collarbone; of these, you may venerate the right canine tooth, but give me the right collarbone.' And speak to him thus - 'Why, great king, having sent us to the island of Tambapaṇṇi, are you being negligent?'"

"Very well, venerable sir," Sumana, having accepted the elder's word, immediately took his bowl and robe, rose up into the sky, descended at the gate of Pāṭaliputta, went into the king's presence, and announced this matter. The king, delighted, took the bowl from the novice's hand, rubbed it with perfumes, filled it with relics resembling the finest pearls, and gave it. He took it and approached Sakka, the king of the devas. Sakka, the king of the devas, upon seeing the novice, said, "What is it, Venerable Sumana, are you wandering about?" "You, great king, having sent us to the island of Tambapaṇṇi, why are you being negligent?" "I am not being negligent, venerable sir. Tell me - 'What shall I do?'" "It is said that there are two relics in your hands - the right canine tooth and the right collarbone; of these, you may venerate the right canine tooth, but give me the right collarbone." "Very well, venerable sir," Sakka, the lord of the devas, opened the jewelled stūpa measuring one yojana, brought out the right collarbone relic, and gave it to Sumana. He took it and alighted at Cetiyagiri itself.

Then all those great elders headed by Mahinda, having deposited the relics given by the Dhamma King Asoka at Cetiyagiri itself, took the right collarbone and went to the Mahānāga park in the shadow of the vaḍḍhamānaka. The king too, having made offerings and honours in the manner described by Sumana, seated upon the back of the finest elephant, himself holding the white parasol on the head of the auspicious elephant, arrived at the Mahānāga park. Then this occurred to him - "If this is a relic of the Perfectly Enlightened One, let the parasol descend, let the auspicious elephant kneel upon the ground, and let the relic casket settle upon my head." With the arising of the king's thought, the parasol descended, the elephant knelt down, and the relic casket settled upon the king's head. The king, as if his body were anointed with the deathless, endowed with supreme joy and gladness, asked - "What shall we do with the relic, venerable sir?" "For now, great king, place it upon the elephant's frontal globe." The king took the relic casket and placed it upon the elephant's frontal globe. The delighted elephant trumpeted a joyful cry. A great cloud arose and rained down a shower of lotus petals. There was a great earthquake reaching to the waters' boundary. "Even in the borderlands the relics of the Perfectly Enlightened One will be established!" - devas and humans rejoiced. Thus, generating joy in devas and humans through the splendour of supernatural power -

On this full moon day, the Great Hero, at the four-monthly occasion, here;

Having come from the celestial realm, was established upon the elephant's frontal globe.

Then that elephant, surrounded by attendants bearing numerous cymbals, being honoured with exceedingly magnificent worship and reverence, facing the western direction, withdrew and went as far as the eastern gate of the city, entered the city through the eastern gate, and while magnificent worship was being performed by the entire city, departed through the southern gate, and went to a place called the Mahejavaṭṭhu in the western quarter of Thūpārāma, and there turned back again facing towards Thūpārāma itself. At that time, at Thūpārāma there was the site of the relics-of-use shrine of the three previous Perfectly Enlightened Ones.

In the past, it is said, this island was called Ojadīpa, the king was named Abhaya, the city was named Abhayapura, Cetiyapabbata was called Devakūṭapabbata, and Thūpārāma was called Paṭiyārāma. At that time, the Blessed One Kakusandha had arisen in the world. His disciple, the elder named Mahādeva, established himself at Devakūṭa together with a thousand monks, just as the Elder Mahinda did at Cetiyapabbata. At that time, beings on Ojadīpa were falling into calamity and misfortune through plague. The Blessed One Kakusandha, surveying the world with the Buddha-eye, saw those beings falling into calamity and misfortune. Having seen this, he came attended by forty thousand monks. Through his power, the plague was immediately quelled. When the disease was quelled, the Blessed One taught the Dhamma. There was the penetration of the Dhamma by eighty-four thousand living beings. The Blessed One gave a water-strainer and departed. Having placed it inside, they built a shrine at Paṭiyārāma. Mahādeva dwelt governing the island.

In the time of the Blessed One Koṇāgamana, this island was called Varadīpa, the king was named Sameṇḍī, the city was named Vaḍḍhamāna, and the mountain was called Suvaṇṇakūṭa. At that time, there was drought on Varadīpa, famine and crop failure. Beings were falling into calamity and misfortune through the disease of hunger. The Blessed One Koṇāgamana, surveying the world with the Buddha-eye, saw those beings falling into calamity and misfortune. Having seen this, he came attended by thirty thousand monks. Through the power of the Buddha, the sky poured down proper rain. There was abundance of food. The Blessed One taught the Dhamma. There was the penetration of the Dhamma by eighty-four thousand living beings. The Blessed One, having established on the island the elder named Mahāsumana attended by a thousand monks, gave a girdle and departed. Having placed it inside, they built a shrine.

In the time of the Blessed One Kassapa, this island was called Maṇḍadīpa, the king was named Jayanta, the city was named Visāla, and the mountain was called Subhakūṭa. At that time, there was a great dispute on Maṇḍadīpa. Many beings, having fallen into quarrel and conflict, were falling into calamity and misfortune. The Blessed One Kassapa, surveying the world with the Buddha-eye, saw those beings falling into calamity and misfortune. Having seen this, he came attended by twenty thousand monks, settled the dispute, and taught the Dhamma. There was the penetration of the Dhamma by eighty-four thousand living beings. The Blessed One, having established on the island the elder named Sabbananda attended by a thousand monks, gave a water-cloth and departed. Having placed it inside, they built a shrine. Thus at Thūpārāma, the shrines of the three previous Buddhas were established. Those disappeared with the disappearance of the dispensation; only the site remained. Therefore it is said: "At that time, at Thūpārāma there was the site of the relics-of-use shrine of the three previous Perfectly Enlightened Ones." When those shrines had been destroyed, through the power of the deities, the site stood surrounded by various bushes with thorn-covered branches - "Let no one defile it with leftover food, impurities, filth, or refuse."

Then the king's men, going ahead of the elephant, cut down all the bushes and cleared the ground, making it smooth as the palm of a hand. The elephant went and, placing that spot before him, stood at the site of the Bodhi tree on the western side of it. Then they began to bring down the relic from his head. The elephant would not allow them to bring it down. The king asked the elder - "Why, venerable sir, does the elephant not allow the relic to be brought down?" "It is not proper, great king, to bring down what has been placed above." At that time the water of the Abhaya tank had been cut off. All around the ground was cracked, and the lumps of clay were easy to dig up. Then the great multitude, bringing clay very quickly, made a platform the size of an elephant's frontal globe. And at that very time they began to make bricks for the construction of the stūpa. Until the bricks were completed, the elephant for several days stood during the day at the Bodhi tree site in the elephant stable, and at night he walked around the ground where the stūpa was to be established. Then, having had the platform built up, the king asked the elder - "What kind of stūpa, venerable sir, should be made?" "Like a heap of paddy, great king."

"Very well, venerable sir," the king had a stūpa built up to the height of a leg and made a great offering for the enshrining of the relic. The entire city and the countryside assembled for the great viewing of the relic. When that great multitude had assembled, the relic of the One of Ten Powers rose up from the elephant's frontal globe to the height of seven palm trees into the sky and displayed the Twin Marvel. From those various parts of the relic, streams of water of six colours and masses of fire issued forth; the marvel was just like the marvel displayed by the Blessed One at the foot of the Kaṇḍamba tree in Sāvatthī. And that was neither by the power of the elder, nor by the power of the deities; rather, it was solely by the power of the Buddha. For the Blessed One, while still living, had made the determination - "When I have attained final nibbāna, on the day of the enshrining of my right collarbone relic at the site of the shrine used by the three previous Buddhas, in the southern quarter of Anurādhapura on the island of Tambapaṇṇi, let the Twin Marvel occur."

"Thus the Buddhas are inconceivable, the teachings of the Buddhas are inconceivable;

For those who have faith in the inconceivable, the result is inconceivable.

The Perfectly Enlightened One, it is said, came to this island three times even during his lifetime. The first time - coming alone for the purpose of subduing the yakkhas, having subdued the yakkhas, and establishing protection over the island of Tambapaṇṇi, thinking "After my final nibbāna, the dispensation will be established on this island," he traversed the island three times. The second time - coming alone for the purpose of subduing the nāga kings who were uncle and nephew, having subdued them, he departed. The third time - coming attended by five hundred monks, he sat down having attained the attainment of cessation at the site of the Great Shrine, at the site of the Thūpārāma shrine, at the site where the Great Bodhi tree was established, at the site of the Mahiyaṅgaṇa shrine, at the site of the Mutiyaṅgaṇa shrine, at the site of the Dīghavāpi shrine, and at the site of the Kalyāṇī shrine. This was his fourth coming, by means of his bodily relics.

And from his relic body, the water drops that issued forth left no spot untouched on the entire surface of Tambapaṇṇi. Thus his relic body, having allayed the heat of the surface of Tambapaṇṇi with the water drops, and having displayed a marvel to the great multitude, descended and settled upon the king's head. The king, considering the attainment of human birth to be fruitful, made a great offering and enshrined the relic. Simultaneously with the enshrinement of the relic, a great earthquake occurred. And having gladdened his mind at that miracle of the relic, the king's brother, a prince named Abhaya, went forth together with a thousand men. From the village of Cetaraṭṭha, five hundred youths went forth, and likewise from the villages of Dvāramaṇḍala and others, groups of five hundred youths each came forth, and all those who went forth from within the city and outside the city numbered thirty thousand monks. When the stūpa was completed, the king, the king's brothers, and the queens made offerings individually, each one marvellous even to devas, nāgas, and yakkhas. When the relic veneration was completed and the noble relic was enshrined, the Elder Mahinda went to the Meghavana park itself and took up residence there.

At that time, Queen Anulā, wishing to go forth, informed the king. The king, having heard her words, said this to the elder: "Venerable sir, Queen Anulā wishes to go forth. Please give her the going forth." "Great king, it is not proper for us to give the going forth to a woman. But in Pāṭaliputta there is my sister, the Elder Nun Saṅghamittā. Send for her. And moreover, great king, on this island the Bodhi trees of the three previous Fully Enlightened Ones were established. The Bodhi tree of our Blessed One too, which radiates a network of golden rays, should be established here. Therefore, you should send a message so that Saṅghamittā may come bringing the Bodhi tree."

"Very well, venerable sir." The king, having accepted the elder's words, consulting with his ministers, said to his nephew named Ariṭṭha: "Will you be able, dear, to go to Pāṭaliputta and bring the Noble Elder Nun Saṅghamittā together with the Great Bodhi tree?" "I will be able, sire, if you will grant me the going forth." "Go, dear, bring the elder nun and then go forth." He, having taken the message of the king and the elder, by the power of the elder's determination, went in a single day to the port of Jambukola, boarded a ship, crossed the sea, and went to Pāṭaliputta itself. Queen Anulā too, together with five hundred maidens and five hundred women of the inner palace, undertook the ten precepts, clothed herself in saffron robes, had a dwelling place built in one part of the city, and took up residence there. Ariṭṭha, on that very day, delivered the king's message, and spoke thus: "Your son, sire, the Elder Mahinda, speaks thus: 'It is said that the wife of the brother of your companion King Devānampiyatissa, a queen named Anulā, wishes to go forth. Send the Noble Elder Nun Saṅghamittā to give her the going forth, and together with the noble nun, the Great Bodhi tree.'" Having conveyed the elder's message, he approached the Elder Nun Saṅghamittā and spoke thus: "Noble lady, your brother the Elder Mahinda has sent me to your presence. The wife of the brother of King Devānampiyatissa, a queen named Anulā, together with five hundred maidens and five hundred women of the inner palace, wishes to go forth. It is said that you should come and give her the going forth." She, immediately and in great haste, went to the king's presence and spoke thus: "Great king, my brother the Elder Mahinda has sent this message: 'It is said that the wife of the king's brother, a queen named Anulā, together with five hundred maidens and five hundred women of the inner palace, wishes to go forth and awaits my coming.' I shall go, great king, to the island of Tambapaṇṇi."

The king said - "Dear daughter, my son the Elder Mahinda and my grandson the novice Sumana have gone to the island of Tambapaṇṇi, leaving me as though with severed hands. The grief that arose in me not seeing them is allayed when I see your face! Enough, dear daughter, do not go." "Weighty for me, great king, is my brother's word; and Anulā too, a noble lady, surrounded by a thousand women, with the going forth as her aim, awaits me; I shall go, great king." "Then, dear daughter, go taking the Great Bodhi tree." Whence did the king have the Great Bodhi tree? It is said that the king, even before that, wishing to send the Great Bodhi tree to the island of Laṅkā when Sumana would come in the future for the purpose of obtaining relics, not seeing a means as to how he could send the Great Bodhi tree which was not to be harmed by cutting, asked a minister named Mahādeva. He said - "There are, sire, many learned monks." Having heard that, the king prepared a meal for the community of monks, and at the conclusion of the meal, asked the community: "Venerable sirs, should the Blessed One's Great Bodhi tree go to the island of Laṅkā or not?" The community placed the responsibility upon the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa.

The Elder, having said "The Great Bodhi Tree must go to the island of Laṅkā, great king," related the five great resolutions of the Blessed One. Which five? It is said that the Blessed One, lying upon the couch of his great final nibbāna, made a resolution for the establishment of the Great Bodhi Tree in the island of Laṅkā: "When King Asoka the Great goes to take the Great Bodhi Tree, let the southern branch of the Great Bodhi Tree sever itself of its own accord and become established in a golden vessel" - this was the first resolution.

And at the time of its establishment therein: "Let the Great Bodhi Tree enter into the interior of a frost-cloud and become established" - he resolved - this was the second resolution.

"On the seventh day, descending from the interior of the frost-cloud and becoming established in the golden vessel, let it emit rays of six colours from its leaves and fruits" - he resolved - this was the third resolution.

"On the day of establishment at the Thūpārāma in the shrine of the right collarbone relic, let it perform the Twin Miracle" - he resolved - this was the fourth resolution.

"When my relics measuring a doṇa are established in the Great Shrine in the island of Laṅkā itself, let them assume the appearance of the Buddha, rise up into the sky, and perform the Twin Miracle" - he resolved - this was the fifth resolution.

The king, having heard these five great resolutions, with a gladdened mind, had the road prepared from Pāṭaliputta all the way to the Great Bodhi Tree, and had much gold brought out for the purpose of the golden vessel. At that very moment, the divine son Vissakamma, knowing the king's mind, created the appearance of a smith and stood before him. The king, seeing him, said: "Dear sir, take this gold and make a vessel." "Do you know the dimensions, Your Majesty?" "You yourself determine them and make it, dear sir." "Very well, Your Majesty, I shall make it," and taking the gold, by his own power he fashioned it by stroking it with his hand, creating a golden vessel nine hands in circumference, five hands in depth, three hands in diameter, eight finger-breadths in thickness, with a rim the size of an elephant's trunk. Then the king, departing from Pāṭaliputta with a great army seven yojanas in length and three yojanas in breadth, taking the noble Saṅgha, went to the vicinity of the Great Bodhi Tree. The army, with raised banners and flags, adorned with various gems, decorated with manifold ornaments, strewn with various kinds of flowers, resounding with numerous musical instruments, surrounded the Great Bodhi Tree. The king, taking about a thousand senior elders who were leaders of groups, accompanied by a thousand kings who had been consecrated throughout the whole of Jambudīpa, together with himself, and having the Great Bodhi Tree attended upon, stood at the foot of the Great Bodhi Tree and looked up at it. Except for the trunk of the Great Bodhi Tree and a space of four hands' measure on the great southern branch, the remainder disappeared from sight.

The king, seeing that miracle, filled with joy and delight, said to the community of monks: "Venerable sirs, having seen this miracle, I am pleased and I honour the Great Bodhi Tree with the sovereignty of the whole of Jambudīpa," and he gave the consecration. Then, having made offerings of flowers, perfumes and the like, having circumambulated three times, having paid homage at eight places, rising up and standing with hands raised in añjali, wishing to take the Bodhi Tree by an act of truth, he had the golden vessel placed upon a pedestal made entirely of gems, which had been set up to a height from the ground reaching up to the southern branch of the Great Bodhi Tree, and climbing the gem pedestal, taking a golden brush, making a line with red arsenic, he made an act of truth: "If the Great Bodhi Tree is to be established in the island of Laṅkā, and if I am to be unwavering in the Buddha's dispensation, let the Great Bodhi Tree descend of its own accord and become established in this golden vessel." Together with the act of truth, the Bodhi branch severed itself at the place marked by the red arsenic and stood upon the golden vessel filled with fragrant soil. Its trunk was ten hands in height, and the five great branches were four hands long, adorned with just five fruits, and there were a thousand small branches. Then the king marked another line at a place three finger-breadths above the original line. Thereupon, immediately forming blisters, ten great roots emerged. Again, at intervals of three finger-breadths above, he marked another nine lines. From those too, forming ten blisters each, ninety roots emerged. The first ten great roots emerged to a length of four finger-breadths. The others also emerged interweaving like a lattice window. The king, standing right upon the top of the gem pedestal, seeing this much of the miracle, raised his hands in añjali and let out a great cry. Many thousands of monks uttered acclamations of approval. The entire royal army was jubilant. Hundreds of thousands of cloth-wavings took place. Beginning with the earth-bound devas up to the Brahmakāyika devas, they uttered acclamations of approval. As the king watched this miracle, his body being pervaded with joy without interruption, standing with hands raised in añjali, the Great Bodhi Tree became established in the golden vessel with its hundred roots. The ten great roots struck the bottom of the golden vessel and stood firm. The remaining ninety small roots, growing gradually, descended into the fragrant soil and stood firm.

Thus, as soon as the Great Bodhi Tree was placed in the golden vessel, the great earth quaked. Divine drums resounded in the sky. With the dancing of the mountains, the acclamations of the devas, the shouts of approval of the yakkhas, the hymns of praise of the asuras, the applause of the brahmās, the thundering of the clouds, the cries of the quadrupeds, the calls of the birds, and the respective responses of all the inhabitants of the various realms, from the surface of the earth up to the Brahmā world, there was one uproar, one resounding noise. From the five branches, rays of six colours issued forth from fruit to fruit and, as if enveloping the entire world-sphere with a canopy of jewelled rafters, they ascended up to the Brahmā world. From that very moment onwards, for seven days the Great Bodhi Tree entered into the interior of a mass of snow-clouds and stood there. No one could see the Great Bodhi Tree. The king descended from the jewelled throne and for seven days had the worship of the Great Bodhi Tree performed. On the seventh day, the snow and the rays of six colours from all directions returned and entered into the Great Bodhi Tree itself. When the snow-clouds had departed and the interior of the world-sphere was clear, the Great Bodhi Tree, with its trunk, branches and sub-branches fully developed, adorned with five kinds of fruit, was seen standing in the golden vessel. The king, having seen the Great Bodhi Tree, filled with joy and delight on account of those miracles, thinking "I shall worship the young Great Bodhi Tree with the sovereignty of the entire Jambudīpa," gave the consecration and remained at the site of the Great Bodhi Tree for seven days.

The Great Bodhi Tree was first placed in the golden vessel on the evening of the day of the pavāraṇā in the earlier Kattika month. Then, having passed the seven days within the snow and the seven days of the consecration, on the uposatha day of the dark fortnight, the king entered Pāṭaliputta in a single day, and on the first day of the bright fortnight of Kattika, he placed the Great Bodhi Tree at the foot of the great sāla tree to the east. On the seventeenth day from the day it was placed in the golden vessel, fresh shoots of the Great Bodhi Tree appeared. Having seen them, the king, pleased, again worshipping the Great Bodhi Tree with the sovereignty, gave the consecration of the entire Jambudīpa. At that time, the novice Sumana, who had gone to collect relics on the full-moon day of Kattika, saw the Kattika festival worship of the Great Bodhi Tree. Thus, referring to the Great Bodhi Tree that was brought from the Mahābodhi precinct and placed at Pāṭaliputta, he said - "Well then, mother, take the Great Bodhi Tree and go." She accepted, saying "Very well."

The king, for the protection of the Great Bodhi Tree, gave eighteen families of deities, eight families of ministers, eight families of brahmins, eight families of householders, eight families of cowherds, eight families of hyena-clan members, and eight families of Kāliṅgas, and for the purpose of watering, gave eight golden pitchers and eight silver pitchers, and with this retinue, having placed the Great Bodhi Tree on a boat on the Ganges, he himself also departed from the city, crossed the Vijjhā forest, and in due course arrived at Tāmalitti in seven days. Along the way, devas, nāgas and humans performed a splendid worship of the Great Bodhi Tree. The king too, having placed the Great Bodhi Tree on the seashore for seven days, gave the great sovereignty of the entire Jambudīpa. This was the third giving of the sovereignty of Jambudīpa to it.

Having thus worshipped with the great sovereignty, on the first day of the month of Māgasira, King Asoka the Righteous, having lifted up the Great Bodhi Tree, descended into the neck-deep water, placed it on the boat, and having also embarked the Elder Nun Saṅghamittā with her retinue on the boat, said this to the minister Ariṭṭha - "Dear friend, I have worshipped the Great Bodhi Tree three times with the sovereignty of the entire Jambudīpa, descended into the neck-deep water, and sent it to my companion. Let him too worship the Great Bodhi Tree in the same manner." Having thus given the message for his companion, saying "The Great Bodhi Tree, releasing a net of golden rays, is departing indeed," he paid homage, raised his joined palms, and stood there shedding tears. The boat on which the Great Bodhi Tree had been embarked entered the great ocean while the great king watched and watched. In the great ocean too, the waves subsided for a yojana all around. Lotuses of five colours blossomed. Divine musical instruments played in the sky. In the sky, an exceedingly splendid worship was performed by the deities dwelling in water-plants, land-plants, trees and the like. The Elder Nun Saṅghamittā, in the form of a supaṇṇa, frightened the nāga clans in the great ocean. Those frightened nāgas, having come and seen that splendour, requested the elder nun, carried the Great Bodhi Tree to the nāga abode, worshipped it for seven days with the nāga sovereignty, and then placed it back on the boat. On that very day, the boat went to the port of Jambukola. King Asoka too, grieving at the separation from the Great Bodhi Tree, having wept and cried, looked on as far as the range of sight and turned back.

The great king Devānampiyatissa too, at the word of the novice Sumana, from the first day of the first fortnight of the month of Māgasira, having had the road cleaned and decorated from the northern gate as far as the port of Jambukola, on the day of departure from the city, standing near the northern gate at the site of the Samuddasāla, with that splendour, having seen by the power of the elder the Great Bodhi Tree coming across the great ocean, with a gladdened heart, he went forth and, having the entire road strewn with flowers of five colours, placing flower offerings at intervals, went to the port of Jambukola in a single day, and surrounded by all the drummers and dancers, worshipping with flowers, incense, perfumes, and unguents, descending into the water up to his neck, with a confident heart thinking "It has come indeed, the Great Bodhi Tree that releases the net of rays from the lake of the Ten-Powered One," he lifted up the Great Bodhi Tree and placed it upon his head, and together with the sixteen families of noble birth who had come escorting the Great Bodhi Tree, he ascended from the ocean, placed the Great Bodhi Tree on the ocean shore, and for three days worshipped it with the sovereignty of the entire island of Tambapaṇṇi, and distributed sovereignty to the sixteen families of noble birth. Then on the fourth day, taking the Great Bodhi Tree and making a grand offering, he gradually arrived at Anurādhapura. Having made a great honour in Anurādhapura too, on the fourteenth day, he brought the Great Bodhi Tree in through the northern gate under the shade of the Vaḍḍhamānaka, carrying it through the middle of the city, and going out through the southern gate, at a place five hundred bow-lengths from the southern gate, where our Perfectly Enlightened One sat having attained the attainment of cessation, and where the three former Perfectly Enlightened Ones sat having entered the attainment, where the great Sirīsa Bodhi Tree of the Blessed One Kakusandha, the Udumbara Bodhi Tree of the Blessed One Konāgamana, and the Nigrodha Bodhi Tree of the Perfectly Enlightened One Kassapa were established - in that place, the ornament of the Mahāmeghavana park, where the ground had been prepared beforehand at the word of the novice Sumana, at the site of the gateway tower of the royal domain, he established the Great Bodhi Tree.

How? It is said that those sixteen families of noble birth who had come escorting the Bodhi Tree assumed royal attire. The king assumed the attire of a doorkeeper. The sixteen families took the Great Bodhi Tree and lowered it. The Great Bodhi Tree, immediately upon being released from their hands, rose up into the sky to a height of eighty cubits and emitted rays of six colours. The rays spread over the entire island, reached up to the Brahma world, and remained. Having seen the miracle of the Great Bodhi Tree, ten thousand men in whom faith had arisen, having progressively established insight, attained arahantship and went forth. Until sunset the Great Bodhi Tree remained in the sky. When the sun had set, it was established on the earth under the constellation Rohiṇī. Simultaneously with the establishment of the Bodhi Tree, the great earth quaked to the water boundary. Having been established, the Great Bodhi Tree remained enveloped in a mass of mist for seven days. It became invisible to the world. On the seventh day the sky was free of clouds. Rays of six colours blazing and flashing issued forth. The trunk, branches, leaves, and five fruits of the Great Bodhi Tree became visible. The elder Mahinda, the elder nun Saṅghamittā, and the king with their retinues went to the very place of the Great Bodhi Tree. And for the most part all the inhabitants of the island assembled. While they were watching, one fruit from the northern branch ripened and fell from the branch. The elder extended his hand. The fruit settled in the elder's hand. The elder gave it to the king saying "Plant it, great king." The king, having taken it, filled a golden bowl with sweet soil, filled it with fragrant paste, planted it, and placed it near the Great Bodhi Tree. While all were watching, eight young Bodhi trees of four cubits in height arose. The king, having seen that marvel, worshipped the eight young Bodhi trees with a white parasol and gave them consecration. Then they planted one Bodhi tree at the port of Jambukola, the place where the Great Bodhi Tree was first established at the time of its arrival; one at the gate of the village of the brahmin Tavakka; one at the Thūpārāma; one at the Issaranimmāna monastery; one at the site of the first cetiya; one at Cetiyapabbata; one at the village of Kājara in the Rohaṇa district; and one at the village of Candana in the Rohaṇa district itself. From the seeds of the other four fruits, they established thirty-two young Bodhi trees in suitable monasteries.

Thus, when the Great Bodhi Tree, the banner of the Dhamma of the Ten-Powered One, was established through the succession of sons and grandsons all around for the welfare and happiness of the inhabitants of the island, Queen Anulā, together with five hundred maidens and five hundred women of the inner palace - a thousand women in all - went forth in the presence of the elder nun Saṅghamittā, and before long, together with her retinue, was established in arahantship. Ariṭṭha too, the king's nephew, together with five hundred men, went forth in the presence of the elder, and before long, together with his retinue, was established in arahantship.

Then one day the king, having venerated the Great Bodhi Tree, went with the elder to the Thūpārāma. When he had arrived at the site of the Lohapāsāda, men brought flowers to him. The king gave the flowers to the elder. The elder made an offering of flowers at the site of the Lohapāsāda. As soon as the flowers fell upon the ground, a great earthquake occurred. The king asked: "Why, venerable sir, did the earth quake?" "In this place, great king, there will be an uposatha hall for the Saṅgha in the future; this is a foretoken of that."

The king, going on again with the elder, arrived at the site of the mango grove. There a mango fruit of excellent colour and fragrance and exceedingly sweet taste was brought to him. The king gave it to the elder for his use. The elder, having eaten it right there, said: "Plant this seed right here." The king took the mango stone, planted it right there, and poured water over it. As soon as the mango seed was planted, the earth quaked. The king asked: "Why, venerable sir, did the earth quake?" "In this place, great king, there will be an assembly place for the Saṅgha in the future called 'the Mango Grove'; this is a foretoken of that."

The king, having scattered eight handfuls of flowers there and having venerated, going on again with the elder, arrived at the site of the Great Cetiya. There men brought campaka flowers to him. The king gave those to the elder. The elder, having made an offering of flowers at the site of the Great Cetiya, venerated it. At that very moment the great earth quaked. The king asked: "Why, venerable sir, did the earth quake?" "In this place, great king, there will be a great stūpa without equal for the Buddha, the Blessed One, in the future; this is a foretoken of that." "I myself shall build it, venerable sir." "Enough, great king, you have much other work to do; but your grandson named Duṭṭhagāmaṇī Abhaya will have it built." Then the king, saying "If, venerable sir, my grandson will build it, it is as good as built by me," had a stone pillar twelve cubits high brought, had the letters inscribed "Let the grandson of King Devānampiyatissa named Duṭṭhagāmaṇī Abhaya build a stūpa in this place," had it set up, venerated it, and asked the elder: "Is the dispensation established, venerable sir, in the island of Tambapaṇṇi?" "The dispensation is established, great king; but its roots have not yet gone down." "When, venerable sir, will the roots be said to have gone down?" "When, great king, a boy born in the island of Tambapaṇṇi to parents who are natives of the island of Tambapaṇṇi, having gone forth in the island of Tambapaṇṇi and having learnt the Vinaya in the island of Tambapaṇṇi itself, will teach it in the island of Tambapaṇṇi - then the roots of the dispensation will be said to have gone down." "Is there, venerable sir, such a bhikkhu?" "There is, great king; the bhikkhu Mahāariṭṭha is capable of this task." "What should be done here by me, venerable sir?" "It is fitting, great king, to have a pavilion built." "Very well, venerable sir," said the king, and had a pavilion built by royal authority in the manner of the pavilion built by King Ajātasattu at the time of the Great Council at the site of the residence of the minister Meghavaṇṇābhaya, and having engaged all the craftsmen in their respective crafts, surrounded by many thousands of men, thinking "I shall see the roots of the dispensation going down," he arrived at the Thūpārāma.

Now at that time, sixty-eight thousand monks assembled at the Thūpārāma. A seat was prepared for the Great Elder Mahinda facing south. A Dhamma seat was prepared for the Great Elder Mahāariṭṭha facing north. Then the Great Elder Mahāariṭṭha, invited by the Elder Mahinda, sat upon the Dhamma seat in due order of seniority befitting himself. The sixty-eight great elders headed by the Elder Mahinda sat surrounding the Dhamma seat. The king's younger brother, the elder named Mattābhaya, thinking "I shall take up the responsibility and learn the Vinaya," sat surrounding the Dhamma seat of the Great Elder Mahāariṭṭha together with five hundred monks. The remaining monks and the assembly including the king sat upon their respective appointed seats.

Then the Venerable Great Elder Mahāariṭṭha recited the introduction to the Vinaya thus: "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Verañjā at the root of the Naḷeru's Pucimanda tree." And when the Venerable Elder Ariṭṭha had recited the introduction to the Vinaya, the sky resounded with a great roar. Untimely flashes of lightning appeared. The deities gave shouts of approval. The great earth, bounded by the waters, trembled. Thus, while numerous miracles were occurring, the Venerable Elder Ariṭṭha, surrounded by the sixty-eight individual group leaders, the great elders who were destroyers of the taints, headed by the Great Mahinda, and by the other sixty-eight thousand monks, on the day of the first Kattika Pavāraṇā, in the midst of the Thūpārāma monastery, expounded the Vinaya Piṭaka, which illuminates the quality of compassion of the Teacher and which disciplines the bodily and verbal misconduct of those who follow the Blessed One's instructions. And having expounded it, remaining for the duration of his life, having taught it to many and having established it in the hearts of many, he attained final Nibbāna in the Nibbāna element without residue. And those great elders headed by the Great Mahinda, at that assembly -

"Sixty-eight great elders, bearers of responsibility, assembled;

All individual group leaders, disciples of the King of Dhamma.

"Destroyers of the taints, attainers of mastery, possessors of the three knowledges, skilled in psychic powers;

Having realised the supreme goal, they instructed the kings.

"Having shown the light, having illuminated this earth;

Having blazed like masses of fire, those great sages were extinguished."

After their passing away, in the subsequent period, other pupils of those elders - Tissadatta, Kāḷasumana, Dīghasumana and others - and the pupils of the Great Elder Mahāariṭṭha, and the pupils of those pupils - thus the lineage of teachers as described before brought this Vinaya Piṭaka down to the present day. Therefore it was said -

"After the Third Council, this was brought to this island by Mahinda and others; having learned it from Mahinda, it was carried for some time by the Elder Ariṭṭha and others; thereafter, down to the present day, it was carried by the lineage of teachers who were the successive pupils of those very ones."

Where is it established? It should be understood as established in persons in whom it continues undiminished both in text and meaning, who do not let even a little seep out like oil placed in a jewelled vessel, in such persons who possess supreme mindfulness, understanding, resolution and deliberation, who are conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing the Vinaya, having considered the benefits of Vinaya study, the Vinaya should be learned by a monk who is desirous of training.

Herein, this is the benefit of Vinaya study - For a person skilled in Vinaya study is one who delights the parents of sons of good family who have gained faith in the dispensation, for their going forth, their full ordination, the practice of duties and observances, and skill in conduct and resort depend upon him. Moreover, depending on his Vinaya study, his own aggregate of virtue is well guarded and well protected; He is a refuge for monks troubled by scruples; He speaks confidently in the midst of the Saṅgha; He restrains opponents with a well-founded restraint in accordance with the Dhamma; He is one who practises for the stability of the true Dhamma. Therefore the Blessed One said - "Monks, there are these five benefits in a person who bears the Vinaya; his own aggregate of virtue is well guarded and well protected; etc. he is one who practises for the stability of the true Dhamma."

And those wholesome states based on restraint that were spoken of by the Blessed One - the person who bears the Vinaya is the heir to those; because those states have the Vinaya as their root. For this too was said by the Blessed One - "The Vinaya is for the purpose of restraint, restraint is for the purpose of freedom from remorse, freedom from remorse is for the purpose of gladness, gladness is for the purpose of rapture, rapture is for the purpose of tranquillity, tranquillity is for the purpose of happiness, happiness is for the purpose of concentration, concentration is for the purpose of knowledge and vision of things as they really are, knowledge and vision of things as they really are is for the purpose of disenchantment, disenchantment is for the purpose of dispassion, dispassion is for the purpose of liberation, liberation is for the purpose of knowledge and vision of liberation, knowledge and vision of liberation is for the purpose of final nibbāna without clinging. For this purpose is discussion, for this purpose is consultation, for this purpose is the proximate cause, for this purpose is the giving ear - that is, the liberation of the mind without clinging." Therefore, effort should be made in the study of the Vinaya.

And to this extent, the outline that was established for the purpose of elucidating the Vinaya, therein -

"By whom it was spoken, when, and for what reason; by whom it was borne and brought;

Where it was established - and this, having stated the method thereafter."

The meaning of this verse, to begin with, has been made clear, and the description of the external origin of the Vinaya has been elucidated according to its intended purpose.

The account of the Third Council is concluded.

The account of the external introduction is concluded.

Exposition on the Verañja Section

1. Now,

"Showing the meaning of the passage beginning with 'At that time' in various ways,

I shall compose the commentary on the meaning of the Vinaya."

Because this was stated, I shall compose the commentary on the meaning of "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" and so forth. That is: "tena" is a word of indeterminate indication. Even though its correlative "yena" is not stated in its own form, the detailed exposition should be made by means of this word "yena," which is established in meaning at a later point. For at a later point, the reflection of the Venerable Sāriputta, which was the cause for the request for the laying down of the Vinaya rules, is established. Therefore, the connection here should be understood thus: at the time when that reflection arose, at that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Verañjā. For this is the proper method throughout the entire Vinaya, namely that wherever "tena" is said, there the detailed exposition should be made by means of this word "yena," which is established in meaning either before or after.

Here is a mere introductory illustration of this - "Well then, monks, I shall lay down a training rule for the monks, because Sudinna engaged in sexual intercourse; because he engaged in it, therefore I shall lay it down" - this is what is stated. Thus, firstly, the detailed exposition by means of this word "yena," established in meaning beforehand, is fitting. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Rājagaha, at the time when Dhaniya the potter's son took the king's timber without permission" - thus the detailed exposition by means of this word "yena," established in meaning afterwards, is fitting - this is the stated meaning of the word "tena." As for "samayena," here the word "samaya" firstly -

Is seen in the senses of conjunction, occasion, time, assembly, cause, view,

Attainment, abandoning, and penetration."

For thus indeed - In passages such as "perhaps we might visit him tomorrow, having regard to the proper time and occasion," the meaning is conjunction. In such passages as "There is just one, monks, opportune moment and right time for abiding by the holy life," it means moment. In such passages as "The hot season, the feverish season," it means time. In such passages as "A great assembly in the wilds," it means multitude. In passages such as "This reason too, Bhaddāli, was not penetrated by you - 'The Blessed One is dwelling at Sāvatthī, the Blessed One too will know me - the monk named Bhaddāli is one who does not fulfil the training in the Teacher's dispensation' - this reason too, Bhaddāli, was not penetrated by you," in such passages it means cause. In passages such as "Now at that time the wanderer Uggahamāna, the son of Samaṇamuṇḍikā, was residing in the debating hall at the Tindukācīra, in the single-halled park of Mallikā," it means view.

"Whatever benefit there is in the present life, and whatever benefit pertaining to the future life;

Through the attainment of benefit, the wise one is called 'a wise person'."

In such passages and so on, it means attainment. In such passages as "Through the complete full realization of conceit, he made an end of suffering," it means abandoning. In such passages as "The meaning of suffering is the meaning of affliction, the meaning of being conditioned, the meaning of burning, the meaning of change, the meaning of full understanding," the meaning is penetration. Here, however, its meaning is time. Therefore, the meaning here should be understood thus: "at the time when the reflection that was the cause for the request for the laying down of the Vinaya arose in the Venerable Sāriputta, at that time."

Here one asks - "Then why, just as in the Suttas the description was made with the accusative case as 'on one occasion,' and in the Abhidhamma with the locative case as 'on the occasion when sense-sphere,' was it not done likewise here, but instead the description was made with the instrumental case as 'at that time'?" Because there in those cases and here the meaning is different. How? In the Suttas, firstly, the meaning of absolute conjunction is possible. For whatever occasion the Blessed One taught the Brahmajāla and other discourses, he dwelt absolutely throughout that entire occasion with a dwelling in compassion; therefore, for the purpose of illuminating that meaning, the accusative description was made there. And in the Abhidhamma, the meaning of a basis and the meaning of the characteristic of existence through existence are possible. For the occasion, which has the meaning of time and the meaning of a group, is the basis, and the existence of those contact and other states mentioned therein is discerned through the existence of the occasion reckoned as the moment, conjunction, and cause. Therefore, for the purpose of illuminating that meaning, the description was made there with the locative case. Here, however, the meaning of cause and the meaning of instrument are possible. For that occasion of the laying down of training rules, which was difficult to understand even for Sāriputta and others, the Blessed One dwelt here and there, laying down training rules by means of that occasion which was both the cause and the instrument, and looking to the cause for the laying down of training rules; therefore, it should be understood that the description was made here with the instrumental case for the purpose of illuminating that meaning. And here there is this verse -

"With the accusative and locative, looking to this and that meaning;

Elsewhere 'occasion' is stated, but here only with the instrumental."

But the ancients explain - "Whether 'on one occasion' or 'on the occasion when' or 'at that time,' this is merely a difference of expression; everywhere the meaning is simply the locative." Therefore, according to their view, even though "at that time" is said, the meaning should be understood as "on that occasion."

We shall explain the meaning of the words "the Buddha, the Blessed One" further on. Regarding "was dwelling at Verañjā," here "Verañjā" is a designation for a certain city; in that Verañjā; the locative case is used in the sense of proximity. "Was dwelling" is, in a general sense, an indication of being endowed with one or another of the dwellings among the posture-dwelling, the divine dwelling, the Brahmā dwelling, and the noble dwelling; here, however, it is an indication of being engaged in one or another of the postures classified as standing, walking, sitting, and lying down. Therefore, it should be understood that the Blessed One "dwells" whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down. For he cuts off the discomfort of one posture with another posture and carries on, maintains, his individual existence without letting it fall; therefore he is said to "dwell."

Regarding "at the root of the Naḷeru's Pucimanda tree," here "Naḷeru" is the name of a yakkha, "pucimanda" is a neem tree, and "root" means vicinity. For this word "root" is seen in its primary sense of root in such passages as "One should pull up the roots, even down to a mere usīra fibre" etc. In such passages as "Greed is a root of the unwholesome," it is used in the sense of an exclusive cause. In such passages as "as far as the shade pervades at midday time, and leaves fall in a windless place, to that extent it is the tree-root," it is used in the sense of proximity. Here, however, the sense of vicinity is intended; therefore the meaning here should be understood thus: "in the vicinity of the pucimanda tree occupied by the yakkha Naḷeru." That pucimanda tree, it is said, was delightful and pleasing, as if exercising sovereignty over many trees, and it stood in a place not far from that city, well-frequented by those coming and going. Then the Blessed One, having gone to Verañjā and dwelling in a suitable place, dwelt in the area beneath that tree, in its vicinity. Therefore it was said - "He was dwelling at Verañjā at the root of the Naḷeru's Pucimanda tree."

Herein, one might ask: if the Blessed One is dwelling at Verañjā, then "at the root of the Naḷeru's Pucimanda tree" should not be stated; if he is dwelling there, then "at Verañjā" should not be stated, for it is not possible to dwell in both places at the very same time, neither before nor after? But this should not be seen thus; did we not say "this is a locative expression used in the sense of proximity"? Therefore, just as herds of cattle roaming near the Ganges, Yamunā, and so forth are said to be "roaming at the Ganges, roaming at the Yamunā"; so too here, the root of the Naḷeru's Pucimanda tree being in the vicinity of Verañjā, one dwelling there is said to be "dwelling at Verañjā at the root of the Naḷeru's Pucimanda tree." For the mention of Verañjā is for the purpose of indicating the alms-resort village. The mention of the root of the Naḷeru's Pucimanda tree is for the purpose of indicating a dwelling place suitable for one gone forth.

Therein, by mentioning Verañjā, the Venerable Elder Upāli shows the Blessed One's assistance to householders; by mentioning the root of the Naḷeru's Pucimanda tree, his assistance to those gone forth. Likewise, by the former, through the acceptance of requisites, the avoidance of the practice of self-mortification; by the latter, through the abandoning of sense-object desires, the showing of the means for avoiding the practice of devotion to sensual pleasure. By the former, devotion to teaching the Dhamma; by the latter, inclination towards seclusion. By the former, approaching through compassion; by the latter, withdrawing through wisdom. By the former, the inclination towards accomplishing the welfare and happiness of beings; by the latter, non-attachment in bringing about the welfare and happiness of others. By the former, comfortable dwelling on account of not abandoning righteous happiness; by the latter, on account of devotion to states beyond the ordinary human condition. By the former, being of much benefit to humans; by the latter, to deities. By the former, the state of having been nurtured in the world of one born in the world; by the latter, non-attachment to the world. By the former, from the statement "One person, monks, arising in the world, arises for the welfare of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans. Which one person? The Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-awakened One" - the accomplishment of the purpose for which the Blessed One arose; by the latter, a dwelling befitting the place where he arose. For the Blessed One was born in a forest - first in the Lumbinī grove, second at the seat of enlightenment - through both worldly and supramundane birth, he was born in a forest indeed; therefore it shows his dwelling in a forest indeed. By this method and others, the interpretation of meaning herein should be understood.

Regarding "together with a large Community of monks," herein "large" means large by greatness of qualities as well; and large by greatness of number. For that Community of monks was great in qualities too, since the last among them was a stream-enterer; and great in number, being five hundred in count. A Community of monks means a community consisting of monks; the meaning is: a group of ascetics united by the bond of unity in view and virtue. "Together" means as one. "About five hundred monks" - "five is the measure of these" thus "about five". "Measure" is said to mean quantity. Therefore, just as when it is said "one who knows moderation in food," the meaning is: one who knows the measure in food, who knows the quantity; so too here, the meaning should be understood thus: five is the measure, the quantity, of those hundreds of monks. Hundreds of monks are "hundreds of monks"; with those about five hundred monks. By this, what was stated - "together with a large Community of monks" - herein the greatness in number of that large Community of monks has been shown. But further on, by the statement "For the Community of monks, Sāriputta, is without blemish, without affliction, free from corruption, pure, established in the essence. For, Sāriputta, among these five hundred monks, the last one is a stream-enterer" - the greatness in qualities will become evident.

"The brahmin Verañja heard": "heard" means he listened, perceived; he understood by following the sound of speech that had arrived at the ear-door. "Kho" is a particle used in the sense of mere sentence-completion or in the sense of emphasis. Therein, in the sense of emphasis, the meaning to be understood is: he heard indeed; there was no obstacle to his hearing. With the sentence-completion sense, however, it is merely for the smoothness of the phrasing. Born in Verañjā, living in Verañjā, or Verañjā being his dwelling - thus "Verañja." But by the name given by his mother and father, he is called "Udaya." One who recites the sacred texts (brahmaṃ aṇati) is a brahmin; the meaning is one who studies the sacred hymns. This indeed is the etymological expression for brahmins by birth. The Noble Ones, however, are called "brahmins" because they have warded off evil.

Now, making known the matter that the brahmin Verañja heard, he said beginning with "the ascetic, indeed, my dear, Gotama" etc. Therein, he should be understood as "ascetic" because of having calmed evil. For this was said - "One who has warded off evil is a brahmin; because of having stilled evil, one is called an ascetic." And the Blessed One has stilled evil through the unsurpassed Noble Path; therefore this name, namely "ascetic," is one acquired through qualities as they truly are. "Khalu" is an indeclinable particle in the sense of oral tradition. "Bho" is merely a form of address originating from the birth of those of the brahmin caste. For this too was said -

"One who uses 'bho' is so known by name, if he is one with attachments." "Gotama" designates the Blessed One by clan; therefore in "the ascetic, indeed, my dear, Gotama," the meaning should be understood thus: the ascetic, my dear, is of the Gotama clan. "A Sakyan son" - this, however, is an illustration of the Blessed One's noble clan. "Gone forth from the Sakyan clan" is a declaration of his having gone forth through faith; not overcome by any decline, with that clan still undiminished, he abandoned that clan and went forth through faith - this is what is meant. Beyond that, the meaning has already been stated. "That" is an accusative expression used in the sense of the itthambhūta predication; the meaning is "of that Master Gotama." "Kalyāṇa" means endowed with excellent qualities; it means "supreme" - this is what is said. "Kittisadda" means fame itself, or a sound of praise.

In "thus indeed is the Blessed One" etc., the syntactical connection is as follows: That Blessed One is thus indeed the Worthy One, thus indeed the Perfectly Self-awakened One, etc. thus indeed the Blessed One - for this reason and for that reason - this is what is meant.

Now, for the purpose of skill in the method of the Suttas among those who bear the Vinaya in mind, and for the purpose of gladdening the mind through a Dhamma talk connected with the qualities of the Buddha at the beginning of the Vinaya commentary, I shall give a detailed explanation of these terms. Therefore, regarding what was said: "That Blessed One is thus indeed a Worthy One" etc.; therein, because of being far removed, because of having destroyed the enemies and the spokes, because of being worthy of requisites and the like, and because of the absence of secrecy in doing evil - by these reasons first, that Blessed One should be understood as "Worthy One." For he stands far, very far away from all defilements; because of having destroyed the defilements together with their residual tendencies through the Path - thus because of being far removed, he is a Worthy One. And those enemy-defilements were destroyed by him through the Path - thus because of having destroyed the enemies, he is also a Worthy One. And this wheel of saṃsāra, which has a hub made of ignorance and craving for existence, spokes consisting of merit and other formations, a rim of ageing and death, pierced through with an axle made of the arising of taints, yoked to the chariot of the three realms of existence, and rolling on since beginningless time - its spokes were all destroyed by him at the seat of enlightenment, having established himself on the ground of virtue with the feet of energy, and having grasped with the hand of faith the axe of knowledge that destroys kamma; thus because of having destroyed the spokes, he is also a Worthy One.

Alternatively, the wheel of saṃsāra is called the round of saṃsāra without discoverable beginning. And ignorance is its hub, because it is the root; ageing-and-death is the rim, because it is the conclusion; the remaining ten states are the spokes, because they have ignorance as root and ageing-and-death as their limit. Therein, ignorance is not-knowing regarding suffering and so on. And ignorance in the sense-sphere existence is a condition for volitional formations in the sense-sphere existence. Ignorance in the fine-material existence is a condition for volitional formations in the fine-material existence. Ignorance in the immaterial existence is a condition for volitional formations in the immaterial existence. Volitional formations in the sense-sphere existence are conditions for relinking consciousness in the sense-sphere existence. This same method applies to the others. Relinking consciousness in the sense-sphere existence is a condition for name-and-form in the sense-sphere existence, likewise in the fine-material existence. In the immaterial existence it is a condition for name only. Name-and-form in the sense-sphere existence is a condition for the six sense bases in the sense-sphere existence. Name-and-form in the fine-material existence is a condition for three sense bases in the fine-material existence. Name in the immaterial existence is a condition for one sense base in the immaterial existence. The six sense bases in the sense-sphere existence are a condition for sixfold contact in the sense-sphere existence. Three sense bases in the fine-material existence are conditions for three kinds of contact in the fine-material existence; one sense base in the immaterial existence is a condition for one kind of contact in the immaterial existence. Six kinds of contact in the sense-sphere existence are conditions for six kinds of feeling in the sense-sphere existence. Three in the fine-material existence are conditions for three kinds therein; one in the immaterial existence is a condition for one kind of feeling therein. Six kinds of feeling in the sense-sphere existence are conditions for six groups of craving in the sense-sphere existence. Three in the fine-material existence are conditions for three kinds therein; one feeling in the immaterial existence is a condition for one group of craving in the immaterial existence. In each case, that particular craving is a condition for that particular clinging; clinging and so on are conditions for existence and so on.

How? Here a certain person, thinking "I shall enjoy sensual pleasures," through the condition of clinging to sensual pleasures, engages in bodily misconduct, engages in verbal and mental misconduct; through the fulfilment of misconduct, he is reborn in a state of misery. Therein, the kamma that is the cause of his rebirth is kamma-existence, the aggregates produced by kamma are rebirth-existence, the arising of the aggregates is birth, their maturing is ageing, their breaking up is death.

Another, thinking "I shall experience heavenly prosperity," likewise engages in good conduct; through the fulfilment of good conduct, he is reborn in heaven. Therein, the kamma that is the cause of his rebirth is kamma-existence - the same method applies.

Another person, thinking "I shall experience the splendour of the Brahma world," develops loving-kindness based on the condition of clinging to sensual pleasures, develops compassion... altruistic joy... develops equanimity, and through the fulfilment of development is reborn in the Brahma world. Therein, the kamma that is the cause of his rebirth is kamma-existence - the same method applies here.

Another person, thinking "I shall experience the splendour of the formless realm," likewise develops the attainments of the base of infinite space and so forth, and through the fulfilment of development is reborn there. Therein, the kamma that is the cause of his rebirth is kamma-existence, the aggregates produced by kamma are rebirth-existence, the arising of the aggregates is birth, their maturing is ageing, their breaking up is death. This same method applies also in the analyses rooted in the remaining kinds of clinging.

Thus, "this ignorance is the cause, formations are arisen from a cause, both of these are arisen from a cause" - the wisdom in the discernment of conditions is the knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma; regarding the past period too, regarding the future period too; "ignorance is the cause, formations are arisen from a cause, both of these are arisen from a cause" - the wisdom in the discernment of conditions is the knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma. By this method all the terms should be elaborated. Therein, ignorance and formations are one summary, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense bases, contact, and feeling are one, craving, clinging, and existence are one, birth, ageing-and-death are one. Here the first summary is the past period, the two middle ones are the present, birth and ageing-and-death are the future. Here, by the inclusion of ignorance and formations, craving, clinging, and existence are also included - thus these five dhammas are the kamma-round in the past; the five dhammas beginning with consciousness are the result-round in the present. By the inclusion of craving, clinging, and existence, ignorance and formations are also included - thus these five dhammas are the kamma-round in the present; since consciousness and the rest are indicated by the designation of birth, ageing-and-death, these five dhammas are the result-round in the future. They are twenty-fold in terms of their aspects. Here between formations and consciousness there is one junction, between feeling and craving there is one, between existence and birth there is one. Thus the Blessed One knows, sees, directly knows, and penetrates in every way this dependent origination with its four summaries, three periods, twenty aspects, and three junctions. That is knowledge in the meaning of knowing, wisdom in the meaning of understanding. Therefore it is said - "the wisdom in the discernment of conditions is the knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma." By this knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, the Blessed One, having known those dhammas as they really are, growing weary of them, becoming dispassionate, being liberated, destroyed, demolished, and shattered the spokes of this wheel of saṃsāra as described. Thus too, because of the destruction of the spokes, he is the Worthy One.

And because of being the supreme recipient of offerings, he is worthy of the requisites of robes and so forth, and of special veneration; and for that very reason, when the Tathāgata has arisen, whatever powerful gods and humans there are, they do not make offerings elsewhere. For thus Brahmā Sahampati venerated the Tathāgata with a jewelled garland the size of Sineru, and according to their ability, other gods and humans too, such as King Bimbisāra and the King of Kosala. And even after the Blessed One's final passing away, having spent ninety-six koṭis of wealth, King Asoka the Great established eighty-four thousand monasteries throughout the whole of Jambudīpa. What need then to speak of other special offerings! Thus, because of being worthy of requisites and the rest too, he is the Worthy One. And just as in the world some fools who fancy themselves wise commit evil in secret out of fear of ill-repute; he never does so - thus because of the absence of secrecy in the doing of evil too, he is the Worthy One. And here there is this verse -

"Because of being far from, and because of having destroyed the enemies that are mental defilements, that sage;

With the spokes of the wheel of the round of rebirths destroyed, and worthy of requisites and so on;

He does not do evil deeds in secret; therefore he is called the Worthy One."

Because of having awakened to all phenomena rightly and by himself, he is the Perfectly Self-awakened One. For thus he has awakened to all phenomena rightly and by himself: he has awakened to phenomena that should be directly known as things to be directly known, to phenomena that should be fully understood as things to be fully understood, to phenomena that should be abandoned as things to be abandoned, to phenomena that should be realised as things to be realised, to phenomena that should be developed as things to be developed. And for that very reason he said:

"What should be directly known has been directly known, what should be developed has been developed;

What should be abandoned has been abandoned by me, therefore I am the Buddha, brahmins."

Furthermore, the eye is the truth of suffering; the prior craving that gives rise to it, being its root cause, is the truth of the origin; the non-occurrence of both is the truth of cessation; the practice that is the understanding of cessation is the truth of the path - thus, even by the extraction of each single item, he has awakened to all phenomena rightly and by himself. The same method applies to the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind as well. And by this very method, the six sense bases beginning with visible form, the six classes of consciousness beginning with eye-consciousness, the six contacts beginning with eye-contact, the six feelings beginning with feeling born of eye-contact, the six perceptions beginning with perception of visible form, the six volitions beginning with volition regarding visible form, the six classes of craving beginning with craving for visible form, the six applied thoughts beginning with applied thought regarding visible form, the six sustained thoughts beginning with sustained thought regarding visible form, the five aggregates beginning with the aggregate of material form, the ten kasiṇas, the ten recollections, the ten perceptions by way of the perception of the bloated and so on, the thirty-two aspects beginning with head hairs, the twelve sense bases, the eighteen elements, the nine existences beginning with sensual existence, the four meditative absorptions beginning with the first, the four boundless states beginning with the development of friendliness, the four immaterial attainments, in reverse order ageing and death and so on, in forward order ignorance and so on - the factors of dependent origination should also be connected.

Herein this is the single-term connection - "Ageing-and-death is the truth of suffering, birth is the truth of the origin, the escape from both is the truth of cessation, the practice that is the understanding of cessation is the truth of the path." Thus, by the extraction of each single item, he has awakened to, comprehended, and penetrated all phenomena rightly and by himself. Therefore it was said - Because of having awakened to all phenomena rightly and by himself, he is the Perfectly Self-awakened One.

Because of being accomplished in true knowledge and conduct, he is accomplished in true knowledge and conduct. Therein, "true knowledge" refers to either the three knowledges or the eight knowledges. The three knowledges should be understood in the manner stated in the Bhayabherava Sutta, and the eight knowledges in the Ambaṭṭha Sutta. For therein, together with insight knowledge and mind-made supernormal power, having included the six direct knowledges, the eight true knowledges are stated. "Conduct" means restraint by virtue, guarding of the sense doors, moderation in eating, devotion to wakefulness, the seven good qualities, and the four fine-material jhānas - these fifteen qualities should be understood. For these very fifteen qualities are called "conduct" because by means of them the noble disciple walks, goes towards the deathless quarter. As he said - "Here, Mahānāma, a noble disciple is virtuous" - and so on in detail. The Blessed One is endowed with these true knowledges and this conduct, therefore he is called accomplished in true knowledge and conduct. Therein, the accomplishment in true knowledge stands having fulfilled the Blessed One's omniscience, and the accomplishment in conduct his great compassion. He, through omniscience, having known the benefit and harm of all beings, through great compassion, having avoided what is harmful, urges them towards what is beneficial, as befits one accomplished in true knowledge and conduct. Therefore his disciples are well practised, not badly practised; for the disciples of those deficient in true knowledge and conduct are like self-tormentors and the like.

Because of his going being beautiful, because of having gone to a beautiful place, because of having gone rightly, and because of having spoken rightly - he is the Fortunate One. For even going is called "gone," and that of the Blessed One is beautiful, pure, and blameless. But what is that? The noble path. For by that conduct he has gone to the secure direction without clinging - thus because of beautiful conduct he is the Fortunate One. And he has gone to a beautiful place, the deathless Nibbāna - therefore, because of having gone to a beautiful place too, he is the Fortunate One. And he has gone rightly, not returning again to the mental defilements abandoned by each respective path. And this was said - "The defilements abandoned by the path of stream-entry - he does not go back to those defilements, does not return, does not come back - therefore he is the Fortunate One. Etc. Whatever mental defilements have been abandoned by the path of arahantship, he does not come again to those mental defilements, does not fall back, does not return - thus he is the Fortunate One." Or he has come rightly, from the foot of Dīpaṅkara onwards up to the seat of enlightenment, through the right practice filled with the thirty perfections, bringing about only the welfare and happiness of the entire world, and not approaching these extremes of eternalism, annihilationism, sensual indulgence, and self-mortification - because of having come rightly too, he is the Fortunate One. And he speaks rightly, speaking only fitting words in fitting places - because of having spoken rightly too, he is the Fortunate One.

Herein this is the supporting discourse - "Whatever speech the Tathāgata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and not connected with benefit, and that is also displeasing and disagreeable to others, the Tathāgata does not speak that speech. Whatever speech too the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true, but not connected with benefit, and that is unpleasant and disagreeable to others, that speech too the Tathāgata does not speak. But whatever speech the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true, connected with benefit, and that is unpleasant and disagreeable to others, there the Tathāgata knows the proper time for the explanation of that speech. Whatever speech the Tathāgata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and not connected with benefit, and that is also pleasing and agreeable to others, the Tathāgata does not speak that speech. Whatever speech too the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true, but not connected with benefit, and that is pleasant and agreeable to others, that speech too the Tathāgata does not speak. But whatever speech the Tathāgata knows to be factual, true, connected with benefit, and that is pleasant and agreeable to others, there the Tathāgata knows the proper time for the explanation of that speech." Thus because of having spoken rightly too he should be understood as the Fortunate One.

Because of having known the world in every way, he is the knower of the world. For that Blessed One knew, understood, and penetrated the world in every way - by intrinsic nature, by origin, by cessation, and by the means of cessation. As he said - "Where, friend, there is no being born, no growing old, no dying, no passing away, no being reborn - I do not say that the end of the world could be known, seen, or reached by travelling; yet, friend, I do not say that without reaching the end of the world there is a making an end of suffering. Rather, friend, it is in this very fathom-long body with its perception and mind that I declare the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the practice leading to the cessation of the world.

"By travelling the end of the world can never be reached;

And without reaching the end of the world, there is no release from suffering.

"Therefore, indeed, the wise one, the knower of the world,

Gone to the end of the world, the holy life fulfilled;

Having known the end of the world, being at peace,

Does not long for this world or the next."

Moreover, there are three worlds - the world of formations, the world of beings, and the spatial world; therein, "One world - all beings subsist on nutriment" - in the passage where this occurs, the world of formations should be understood. In the passage where it says "the world is eternal" or "the world is non-eternal," the world of beings.

"As far as the moon and sun revolve, shining and illuminating the directions;

Over a thousandfold world, there your authority extends."

In the passage where this occurs, the spatial world; that too the Blessed One knew in every way. For thus indeed - "One world - all beings are sustained by nutriment. Two worlds - mentality and materiality. Three worlds - the three feelings. Four worlds - the four nutriments. Five worlds - the five aggregates of clinging. Six worlds - the six internal sense bases. Seven worlds - the seven stations of consciousness. Eight worlds - the eight worldly adversities. Nine worlds - the nine abodes of beings. Ten worlds - the ten sense bases. Twelve worlds - the twelve sense bases. Eighteen worlds - eighteen elements." This world of formations too was known in every way.

Because he knows the disposition of all beings, knows their underlying tendencies, knows their character, knows their inclination, knows beings with little dust, with much dust, with keen faculties, with dull faculties, of good conduct, of bad conduct, easy to instruct, difficult to instruct, capable, incapable - therefore the world of beings is also fully known to him in every way. And just as the world of beings, so too the spatial world. For one world-system is twelve hundred thousand, three thousand, four hundred and fifty leagues in length and breadth. In circumference -

All in all, thirty-six hundred thousand in circumference;

And ten thousand, and three and a half hundred.

Therein -

Two hundred thousand and four myriads;

This much in thickness is this earth reckoned.

The connecting link of that very -

Four hundred thousand and eight myriads;

This much in thickness is the water established upon wind.

The support of that too -

Nine hundred thousand, the wind risen into the sky;

And sixty thousand - this is the structure of the world.

And in what is thus structured, in yojanas -

Eighty-four thousand, plunged into the great ocean;

Risen up just as much, the supreme Mount Sineru.

From that, by successive halves, in measure, in succession;

Plunged and risen, divine, variegated with various jewels.

Yugandhara, Īsadhara, Karavīka, Sudassana;

Nemindhara, Vinataka, Assakaṇṇa - lofty mountains.

These seven great rocks, all around Sineru;

The residences of the great kings, frequented by gods and demons.

Five hundred yojanas high, the Himalaya mountain;

Three thousand leagues in length and breadth;

Adorned with eighty-four thousand peaks.

Fifteen leagues the trunk circumference, called a tree;

Fifty leagues the trunk and branch span all around.

A hundred yojanas wide and risen up just as much;

The rose-apple tree, by whose power Jambudīpa is made known.

Eighty-two thousand, submerged in the great ocean;

Risen up just as much, the world-circle rock wall;

Having encircled all that, it stands as the world-element.

Therein, the disc of the moon is forty-nine leagues, the disc of the sun is fifty leagues, the abode of the Tāvatiṃsa gods is ten thousand leagues; likewise the abode of the asuras, the Avīci great hell, and Jambudīpa. Aparagoyāna is seven thousand leagues; likewise Pubbavideha. Uttarakuru is eight thousand leagues, and here each great continent is surrounded by five hundred small islands; all of that is one world-sphere, one world-system, and in the intervals between them are the inter-world hells. Thus the Blessed One knew, understood, and penetrated the infinite world-spheres and infinite world-systems with his infinite Buddha-knowledge. Thus the world of space was also known to him in every way. Thus also, because of having known the world in every way, he is the knower of the world.

Because there is no one superior to him in qualities, there is none higher than him - thus he is unsurpassed. For he surpasses the entire world even by his quality of virtue, by concentration, etc. wisdom... by liberation... and even by the quality of the knowledge and vision of liberation; even by the quality of virtue he is without equal, equal to those without equal, without counterpart, without comparison, without parallel, etc. even by the quality of the knowledge and vision of liberation. As he said - "I do not see, monks, in the world with its gods, with its Māras, etc. with its gods and humans, anyone more accomplished in morality than myself" - in detail.

Thus the Aggappasāda Sutta and other discourses, and verses beginning with "There is no teacher of mine," should be elaborated.

He drives persons to be tamed - thus the trainer of persons to be tamed; he tames, he trains - this is what is said. Therein, "persons to be tamed" means those untamed who are fit to be tamed - animal persons, human persons, and non-human persons. For thus by the Blessed One even animal-persons such as Apalāla the nāga king, Cūḷodara, Mahodara, Aggisikha, Dhūmasikha, and the elephant Dhanapālaka were tamed, rendered harmless, and established in the refuges and the precepts. Human-persons too, such as Saccaka the son of the Nigaṇṭhas, the young brahmin Ambaṭṭha, Pokkharasāti, Soṇadaṇḍa, Kūṭadanta, and others. Non-human-persons too, such as the yakkhas Āḷavaka, Sūciloma, and Kharaloma, Sakka the king of the gods, and others, were tamed and disciplined by various skilful means of training. "I, Kesi, train a person to be tamed gently, I train roughly, and I train both gently and roughly" - this sutta should be elaborated here. Or alternatively, by teaching those of purified virtue the first jhāna and so forth, and by teaching stream-enterers and others the practice of the higher path, he tames even those already tamed.

Or alternatively, "the unsurpassed trainer of persons to be tamed" is just one single term of meaning. For the Blessed One so drives persons to be tamed that, seated in a single cross-legged posture, they run unhindered through the eight directions. Therefore he is called "the unsurpassed trainer of persons to be tamed." "When an elephant-tamer, monks, drives a tamed elephant, it runs in only one direction" - this sutta should be elaborated here.

He instructs as is fitting through benefits pertaining to the present life, the future life, and the highest good - thus the Teacher. Furthermore, he is the Teacher because he is like a caravan leader; the Blessed One is a caravan leader. "Just as a caravan leader leads the caravan across the wilderness, leads it across a wilderness infested with robbers, leads it across a wilderness infested with wild beasts, leads it across a wilderness of famine, leads it across a waterless wilderness, leads them over, leads them out, leads them through, and brings them to a place of safety; so too the Blessed One, the Teacher, the caravan leader, leads beings across the wilderness, leads them across the wilderness of birth, etc." - the meaning here should be understood according to this method of exposition.

"Of gods and humans" - this is said by way of distinguishing the most eminent, and by way of distinguishing those capable of attainment. However, the Blessed One is indeed the Teacher even of those born in the animal realm, through giving them instruction. For they too, having attained the supporting condition through hearing the Dhamma of the Blessed One, by that very supporting condition become partakers of the path and fruit in the second or third existence. The frog deity and others are examples of this here. It is said that when the Blessed One was teaching the Dhamma to the inhabitants of the city of Campā on the bank of the Gaggarā lotus pond, a frog took hold of a sign in the Blessed One's voice. A cowherd boy, standing there leaning on his stick, pressed it down upon the frog's head. That frog, having died right there and then, was reborn in a golden mansion twelve leagues in extent in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven. And there, as if awakened from sleep, seeing himself surrounded by a company of celestial nymphs, he thought: "Oh, I too have been reborn here! What deed did I do?" Reflecting thus, he saw nothing else except the taking of a sign in the Blessed One's voice. He came immediately together with his mansion and paid homage with his head at the Blessed One's feet. The Blessed One, though already knowing, asked:

"Who pays respect to my feet, blazing with supernormal power and fame;

With surpassing beauty, illuminating all directions?"

"I was formerly a frog, living in water, a water-dweller;

While I was listening to your Dhamma, a cowherd boy killed me."

The Blessed One taught him the Dhamma. At the conclusion of the teaching, there was the full realization of the teaching by eighty-four thousand living beings. The young deity too, having been established in the fruit of stream-entry, smiled and departed.

Moreover, because whatever there is that is knowable, he has awakened to all of it, he is the Enlightened One by virtue of the knowledge pertaining to final liberation. Or because he himself awakened to the four truths and also awakened other beings to them, therefore, for these and other reasons too, he is the Enlightened One. For the purpose of making this meaning understood, the entire method of exposition in the Niddesa or the method of the Paṭisambhidā beginning with "He is the Enlightened One because he has awakened to the truths; he is the Enlightened One because he awakens the people" should be elaborated.

"Blessed One" - this is a term of reverence for him who is the supreme being distinguished by virtues, worthy of veneration. Therefore the ancients said:

"'Blessed One' is the foremost word, 'Blessed One' is the highest word;

He is venerable, endowed with respect, therefore he is called 'Blessed One.'"

For names are of four kinds - circumstantial, indicative, causal, and spontaneously arisen. "Fortuitously arisen" is said in mundane conventional expression to mean "by mere chance." Therein, "calf, bullock, ox" and so forth is circumstantial. "Staff-bearer, umbrella-bearer, crested one, elephant-keeper" and so forth is indicative. "Possessor of the three knowledges, possessor of the six direct knowledges" and so forth is causal. "Sirivaḍḍhaka, Dhanavaḍḍhaka" and so forth, which occurs without regard to the meaning of the word, is spontaneously arisen. But this name "Blessed One" is causal; it was not made by Mahāmāyā, nor by King Suddhodana, nor by the eighty thousand kinsmen, nor by the distinguished deities such as Sakka, Santusita, and others. For this was said by the General of the Teaching - "'Blessed One' - this name was not made by the mother, etc. This is a designation realised at the liberation of the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, at the foot of the Bodhi tree, together with the attainment of omniscient knowledge, that is, 'Blessed One.'"

And since this name is caused by those qualities, for the purpose of making those qualities known, they recite this verse -

"He who has portions, who resorted to, who shares, who has analysed, thus;

He has destroyed - thus venerable - thus fortunate;

By many methods, one whose self is well-developed;

He who has gone to the end of existence is called 'Blessed One.'"

And here the meaning of each of those terms should be understood in the very manner stated in the Niddesa.

But this is another method -

"He is fortunate, he has destroyed, he is endowed, he has distributed the portions;

He has been devoted, he has renounced going in existences, therefore he is the Blessed One."

Therein, taking the grammatical principle of letter addition and letter transposition, or taking the principle of inclusion in the class of words such as "pisodara" and the like according to the method of word-formation, since there exists in him the fortune that has reached the perfection of giving, virtue, and so forth, which produces worldly and supramundane happiness, therefore where one should say "bhāgyavā," it should be known that "bhagavā" is said. And since he shattered greed, hatred, delusion, wrong attention, shamelessness and fearlessness of wrongdoing, anger and resentment, contempt and rivalry, envy and miserliness, deceit and fraud, obstinacy and impetuosity, conceit and overweening conceit, intoxication and heedlessness, craving and ignorance, the three unwholesome roots, misconduct, defilements, stains, the crooked, perceptions, thoughts, proliferations, the fourfold perversions, taints, bonds, floods, yokes, wrong courses, arising of craving, clinging, the five mental barrennesses, the five mental bondages, hindrances, delighting, the six roots of disputes, groups of craving, the seven underlying tendencies, the eightfold wrongness, the ninefold rooted in craving, the tenfold unwholesome courses of action, views, the hundred and eight varieties of craving proliferation, all distress, burning, and the hundreds of thousands of defilements - or in brief, he shattered the five Māras: defilement, formations, aggregates, death, and the divine son - therefore, where one should say "bhaggavā" because of the shattering of these dangers, "bhagavā" is said. And here it is said -

"With lust destroyed, with hate destroyed, with delusion destroyed, without mental corruptions;

His evil mental states are destroyed, therefore he is called 'Blessed One.'"

And through his state of being endowed with fortune, the accomplishment of his form-body is indicated for him who bears the marks born of hundreds of meritorious deeds; through his state of having shattered faults, the accomplishment of his Dhamma-body. Likewise, the esteem of worldly examiners, the approachability by householders and renunciants, the ability to remove bodily and mental suffering of those who have approached, helpfulness through material gifts and gifts of Dhamma, and the capability of connecting beings with worldly and supramundane happiness are indicated.

And since in the world the word "bhaga" applies to six things - sovereignty, dhamma, fame, glory, desire, and endeavour - and there exists in him supreme sovereignty over his own mind, or the worldly-acknowledged powers such as the power of minuteness, lightness, and so forth, complete in every respect; likewise the supramundane Dhamma; fame pervading the three worlds, attained through qualities as they truly are, exceedingly pure; glory of all limbs and minor limbs, complete in every respect, capable of producing serene confidence in the eyes of people engaged in viewing his form-body; whatever was wished and aspired to by him, whether for his own welfare or the welfare of others, all of that was accomplished exactly so - the desire that is reckoned as fulfilment therein; and the endeavour reckoned as right effort, which is the cause of attaining the state of being revered by the whole world, exists in him; therefore, because he is endowed with these portions, "portions exist in him" - in this sense he is called "Blessed One."

And since he has analysed all phenomena by divisions such as wholesome and the like, or wholesome and other phenomena by aggregates, sense bases, elements, truths, faculties, dependent origination, and so forth, or the noble truth of suffering in the sense of affliction, being conditioned, burning, and change; the origin in the sense of accumulation, source, conjunction, and impediment; cessation in the sense of escape, seclusion, the unconditioned, and the deathless; the path in the sense of leading out, cause, seeing, and predominance - he is one who has analysed, having divided, opened up, and taught - this is what is meant. Therefore, where one should say "vibhattavā," "bhagavā" is said.

And because he frequented, practised, and cultivated extensively the divine, sublime, and noble abidings, the bodily, mental, and substrate seclusions, the void, signless, and desireless liberations, and other superhuman states both mundane and supramundane, therefore where one should say "bhattavā" (one who has frequented), he is called "bhagavā."

And because in the three realms of existence, the wandering designated as craving has been vomited by him, therefore where one should say "bhavesu vantagamano" (one who has vomited the wandering in existences), taking the syllable "bha" from the word "bhava," the syllable "ga" from the word "gamana," and the syllable "vā" lengthened from the word "vanta," he is called "bhagavā." Just as in common usage, where one should say "mehanassa khassa mālā" (garland of the waist region), one says "mekhalā" (girdle).

"He this world" means he, the Blessed One, this world. He points out what is now to be spoken. "With its gods" means together with the gods, with its gods; likewise, together with Māra, with its Māras; together with Brahmā, with its Brahmās; together with ascetics and brahmins, with its ascetics and brahmins; because they are born, they are a generation; that generation; together with gods and humans, with its gods and humans. Therein, by the expression "with its gods," the inclusion of the five sense-sphere heavenly realms should be understood; by the expression "with its Māras," the inclusion of the sixth sense-sphere heavenly realm; by the expression "with its Brahmās," the inclusion of the Brahmā-world beings beginning with the Brahmakāyika gods; by the expression "with its ascetics and brahmins," the inclusion of ascetics and brahmins who are adversaries and opponents of the Dispensation, as well as the inclusion of ascetics and brahmins who have stilled evil and warded off evil; by the expression "generation," the inclusion of the world of beings; by the expression "with its gods and humans," the inclusion of conventional gods and the remaining humans. Thus here it should be understood that by three terms, the world of space, and by two, by way of generation, the world of beings is included.

Another method - By the inclusion of "with its gods," the formless heavenly world is included; by the inclusion of "with its Māras," the six sense-sphere heavenly worlds; by the inclusion of "with its Brahmās," the form-realm Brahmā world; by the inclusion of "with its ascetics and brahmins and so forth," the human world together with conventional gods by way of the four assemblies, or the remaining world of all beings.

Furthermore, here by the expression "with its gods," establishing the state of having been realised with respect to the entire world by way of the highest distinction, the good reputation of that Blessed One has arisen. Then for those who might think - "Māra is of great power, the sovereign lord of the six sense-sphere heavens, the one who wields control; has he too been realised by him?" Dispelling their doubt, it has arisen as "with its Māras." And for those who might think - "Brahmā is of great power; with one finger he pervades a thousand world-systems with light, with two etc. with ten fingers he pervades ten thousand world-systems with light, and he experiences the unsurpassed bliss of jhāna attainment; has he too been realised?" Dispelling their doubt, it has arisen as "with its Brahmās." Then for those who might think - "The many ascetics and brahmins are adversaries of the Dispensation; have they too been realised?" Dispelling their doubt, it has arisen as "with its ascetics and brahmins, the generation." Having thus made known the state of having been realised with respect to the most eminent among the eminent, then, taking the conventional gods and the remaining humans, making known the state of having been realised with respect to the remaining world of beings by way of the highest distinction, it has arisen as "with its gods and humans." This is the sequence of connection here.

In the phrase "having realised by direct knowledge himself, he proclaims," here "himself" means on his own, having become one who is not led by another; "by direct knowledge" means through direct knowledge, meaning having known with superior knowledge. "Having realised" means having made evident; by this, the rejecting of inference and so on is made. "Proclaims" means awakens, informs, makes known. "He teaches the Teaching, good in the beginning, etc. good in the end" - that Blessed One, dependent on compassion for beings, even having relinquished the unsurpassed happiness of seclusion, teaches the Teaching. And whether teaching little or much, he teaches in the manner of good in the beginning and so on only.

How? For even a single verse, because of the all-round excellence of the Teaching, is good in the beginning through its first line, good in the middle through its second and third lines, and good in the end through its last line. A discourse with a single theme is good in the beginning by the introduction, good in the end by the conclusion, and good in the middle by the remainder. A discourse with multiple themes is good in the beginning by the first theme, good in the end by the last, and good in the middle by the remaining ones. The entire teaching of the Dispensation also is good in the beginning by morality, which is its own essential purpose, good in the middle by serenity, insight, path, and fruition, and good in the end by Nibbāna. Or good in the beginning by morality and concentration, good in the middle by insight and the paths, and good in the end by fruition and Nibbāna. Or good in the beginning by the Buddha being well awakened, good in the middle by the Teaching being good Teaching, and good in the end by the Community being well practising. Or good in the beginning by the full enlightenment to be attained by one who, having heard it, practises towards the truth, good in the middle by individual enlightenment, and good in the end by the enlightenment of a disciple. And when being heard, it brings only what is good even through hearing, because of the suppression of the hindrances - thus it is good in the beginning; when being practised, it brings only what is good even through practice, because of bringing the happiness of calm and insight - thus it is good in the middle; and when one has thus practised and the fruit of practice is completed, it brings only what is good even through the fruit of practice, because of bringing the state of imperturbability - thus it is good in the end. And because of having the Protector as its source, it is good in the beginning by purity of source, good in the middle by purity of meaning, and good in the end by purity of function. Therefore this Blessed One, whether teaching little or much, should be understood as teaching only in the manner of being good in the beginning and so forth.

Regarding "with meaning, with phrasing" and so forth: since in teaching this Dhamma he reveals the holy life of the Dispensation and the holy life of the path, and elucidates them in various ways; and that, as appropriate, is with meaning through the excellence of meaning, and with phrasing through the excellence of phrasing. It is with meaning through the combination of the aspects of meaning - namely, illustration, elucidation, explanation, analysis, making clear, and designation; it is with phrasing through the excellence of syllables, words, phrases, modes, etymology, and exposition. It is with meaning through profundity of meaning and profundity of penetration; it is with phrasing through profundity of the Teaching and profundity of instruction. It is with meaning from the domain of the analytical knowledge of meaning and discernment; with phrasing from the domain of the analytical knowledge of the Teaching and language. It is with meaning because it is to be experienced by the wise and inspires confidence in those who investigate; with phrasing because it is trustworthy and inspires confidence in worldly people. It is with meaning because of its profound intention; with phrasing because of its clear terms. It is complete in its entirety through the completeness of the whole, owing to the absence of anything to be added; it is pure through its faultless nature, owing to the absence of anything to be removed; it is the holy life because it is to be practised by the supreme, the best, and because of their practising it, being encompassed by the three trainings. Therefore "with meaning, with phrasing, etc. he reveals the holy life" - thus it is said.

Furthermore, since teaching with an introduction and with a background, he teaches what is good in the beginning; what is good in the middle through suitability for those to be guided, through the correctness of the meaning, and through being furnished with reasons and illustrations; and what is good in the end through the listeners' gaining of faith and through the conclusion. And thus teaching, he reveals the holy life. And that is with meaning through the manifestation of attainment by way of practice, with phrasing through the manifestation of learning by way of study, complete in its entirety through being endowed with the five aggregates of Dhamma beginning with virtue, pure through being free from corruptions, through proceeding for the purpose of crossing over, and through being free from concern with worldly gains; and it is called "the holy life" because of the practice of the Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and disciples of the Buddha, who are supreme in the sense of being the best. Therefore too it is said: "He teaches the Teaching, good in the beginning, etc. he reveals the holy life" - thus it is said.

"Good indeed" means: it is good, beneficial, and conducive to happiness - this is what is meant. "Of such Worthy Ones" means: of those who, being of such a nature as that Master Gotama, have gained the reputation in the world as Worthy Ones through the attainment of qualities as they really are. "The seeing" means: opening one's eyes, which are serene with confidence, and having formed the intention "even the mere seeing would be good," then the brahmin Verañja approached the Blessed One.

2. "Yena" is an instrumental expression used in the locative sense. Therefore, the meaning here should be understood thus: "He approached to where the Blessed One was." Or by whatever reason the Blessed One should be approached by gods and humans, by that reason he approached - thus the meaning here should be understood. And for what reason should the Blessed One be approached? With the intention of attaining various kinds of distinguished qualities, like a great tree that is always bearing fruit approached by flocks of birds with the intention of enjoying its sweet fruit. "Approached" (upasaṅkami) means he went - this is what is said. "Having approached" (upasaṅkamitvā) is an indication of the completion of the approaching. Or alternatively, having thus gone, having gone from there to a nearer place reckoned as the proximity of the Blessed One - this too is what is said.

"Exchanged friendly greetings with the Blessed One" (bhagavatā saddhiṃ sammodi): just as the Blessed One, asking him about his health and so on, had equally arisen joy with him, so too he had equally arisen joy with the Blessed One - like cool water mixed with hot water, they came to oneness. And the talk with which he exchanged greetings, namely "I trust, Master Gotama, that you are well; I trust that you are keeping well, I trust that for Master Gotama and his disciples there is freedom from illness, freedom from affliction, lightness of body, strength, and comfortable living" - and so forth - because it generates that delight which is reckoned as joy and gladness, and because it is fitting to exchange such greetings, it is called "pleasant." Because of the sweetness of both meaning and expression, it is worthy of being continued for a long time, worthy of being carried on without interruption, and because of its nature of being worthy of recollection, it is "memorable"; or it is "pleasant" because of the pleasure in hearing it, and "memorable" because of the pleasure in recollecting it. Likewise, it is "pleasant" because of the purity of expression, and "memorable" because of the purity of meaning. Thus, having concluded, completed, and finished the pleasant and memorable talk in many ways, wishing to ask about the matter for which he had come, he sat down to one side.

"To one side" (ekamantaṃ) is a neuter expression denoting a state, as in such passages as "the moon and sun revolve unevenly." Therefore, the meaning here should be understood thus: he sat down in such a way that one who is seated is seated to one side. Or this is an accusative expression used in the locative sense. "Sat down" (nisīdi) means he took a seat. For wise men, having approached one worthy of respect, sit down to one side through skill in seating. And this one was one of them; therefore he sat down to one side.

But how is one who is seated, seated to one side? By avoiding the six faults of sitting. That is: too far, too near, upwind, on a raised place, too directly in front, and too far behind. For one seated too far away, if he wishes to speak, he must speak in a loud voice. One seated too near causes physical contact. One seated upwind afflicts with bodily odour. One seated on a raised place displays disrespect. One seated too directly in front, if he wishes to look, has to look eye to eye. One seated too far behind, if he wishes to look, must stretch his neck to look. Therefore this one too, having avoided these six faults of sitting, sat down. Therefore it was said - "He sat down to one side."

"Seated to one side, the brahmin Verañja said this to the Blessed One" - here "this" (etaṃ) indicates the matter now to be stated. The letter "da" serves as a word-connector. "Said" (avoca) means "spoke" (abhāsi). "I have heard this" (sutaṃ metaṃ) means "this has been heard by me" (sutaṃ me etaṃ, etaṃ mayā sutaṃ) - it indicates the matter now to be stated. "Master Gotama" (bho gotama) - he addresses the Blessed One by his clan name.

Now, showing what he had heard - he said beginning with "the ascetic Gotama does not" and so forth. Herein this is the explanation of obscure terms - "Brahmins" means brahmins by birth. "Old" (jiṇṇa) means decrepit, brought to the state of broken teeth and the like through ageing. "Aged" (vuḍḍha) means having reached the limit of growth of their limbs and members. "Elderly" (mahallaka) means endowed with elderliness by birth; it is said to mean "born long ago." "Who have traversed the span of life" (addhagata) means having traversed a long period; the meaning intended is having passed through two or three successions of kings. "Who have reached advanced years" (vayoanuppatta) means having reached the final stage of life; the final stage of life is the last third of a century.

Furthermore - "Old" (jiṇṇa) means ancient; it is said to mean of a lineage continuing for a long time. "Aged" (vuḍḍha) means endowed with growth in virtues such as moral conduct and good behaviour. "Elderly" (mahallaka) means endowed with greatness of wealth, of great riches and great possessions. "Who have traversed the span of life" (addhagata) means one who has entered upon the path, one who conducts himself without transgressing the observances such as vow-practices of brahmins. "Who have reached advanced years" (vayoanuppatta) means having reached the state of seniority by birth, having reached the final stage of life - thus the construction here should be understood.

Now, "pays respect" and so forth should be understood in meaning by connecting them with the negative particle stated in "the ascetic Gotama does not" - "He does not pay homage, nor does he rise from his seat, nor does he invite with a seat thus: 'Let the venerable ones sit here.'" Here the word "or" (vā) is used in the sense of specification, as in "form is permanent or impermanent" and so forth. Having said thus, then seeing the Blessed One not performing paying respect and so on towards himself, he said - "This, Master Gotama, is indeed so." What was heard by me - that is indeed so; what I heard and what I have seen agree and concur, they become one in meaning. "For indeed the Venerable Gotama" etc. "or invite with a seat" - thus, having confirmed what he had heard by what he had seen, censuring, he said - "This, Master Gotama, is not proper" - that non-performance of paying respect and the like is not proper at all.

Then the Blessed One, without resorting to the fault of self-praise and disparagement of others, wishing to dispel that ignorance with a heart cooled by compassion and to show the propriety of his conduct, said - "I do not see anyone, brahmin, etc. even his head would split apart." Therein this is the meaning in brief - "I, brahmin, even looking with the unobstructed eye of omniscient knowledge, do not see that person in this world with its various divisions including gods, to whom I should pay respect or rise up for or invite with a seat. And this is no wonder, that I, having today attained omniscience, do not see a person worthy of such homage. Moreover, even when I, just newly born, walked seven steps facing northward and surveyed the entire ten-thousandfold world system; even then in this world with its various divisions including gods, I did not see that person to whom I should pay respect or rise up for or invite with a seat. Then even the Great Brahmā, destroyer of the taints, whose lifespan is sixteen thousand aeons, raising his joined palms, joyfully honoured me, saying: 'You are the great person in the world, you are the foremost, the eldest, and the best of the world with its gods; there is none superior to you'; even then I, not seeing anyone superior to myself, uttered the lordly utterance - "I am the foremost in the world, I am the eldest in the world, I am the best in the world." Thus even when I was just newly born there was no person worthy of my respect and so forth; how then, now that I have attained omniscience, should I pay respect to or etc. or invite with a seat? Therefore, brahmin, do not expect such homage from the Tathāgata. For if, brahmin, the Tathāgata were to pay respect or, etc. or invite with a seat, even the head of that person, like a palm fruit whose bond has been loosened by ripening and fallen from its stalk, would, at the end of the night, be severed from his neck and would suddenly fall to the ground."

3. Even when this was said, the brahmin, through lack of wisdom, not perceiving the Tathāgata's seniority in the world, being simply unable to bear that statement, said - "The Venerable Gotama is without taste." This, it is said, was his intention - that which in the world is called "the taste of harmony," namely salutation, rising up, reverential salutation with joined palms, and proper conduct, that does not exist for the Venerable Gotama; therefore the Venerable Gotama is without taste, one born without taste, one whose nature is without taste. Then the Blessed One, for the purpose of generating softness of mind in him, avoiding direct opposition, showing the meaning of his statement in a different way as applying to himself, said beginning with "There is indeed, brahmin, a method."

Therein, "method" means reason; for this word "method" is used in the senses of teaching, turn, and reason. In passages such as "Remember it as 'The Honey-ball Method,'" it is used in the sense of teaching. In such passages as "Whose turn is it today, Ānanda, to exhort the nuns" and so on, it is used in the sense of turn. In passages such as "It would be good, Bhante, if the Blessed One would explain another reason, so that this community of monks might become established through final knowledge," it is used in the sense of reason. Here it is used in the sense of reason. Therefore the meaning here should be understood thus - there is indeed, brahmin, this reason; by which reason a person saying of me "The Venerable Gotama is without taste" would be speaking rightly, would be reckoned as one who speaks the truth. But which was it? Those tastes of forms, brahmin, etc. tastes of tangible objects - these have been abandoned by the Tathāgata. What is meant? Those tastes of forms, sounds, odours, and tangible objects, reckoned as the relishing of sensual pleasure, which arise in worldlings - even those considered eminent - whether by birth or by rebirth, who savour, delight in, and are attached to form-objects and the like, which drag this world along as if bound by the neck, and which are called "tastes of harmony" because they arise through the conjunction of base, object, and so forth - all these have been abandoned by the Tathāgata. Even though he could say "abandoned by me," he teaches the Dhamma without exalting himself through the sense of "mine." Or this is the Blessed One's graceful manner of teaching.

Therein, "abandoned" means departed from the mental continuum, or relinquished. But in this meaning, the genitive case should be seen as used in the instrumental sense. "With their root cut off" means their root, consisting of craving and ignorance, has been cut off by the weapon of the noble path. Their site has been made like a palm stump - thus "made like a palm stump." For just as when a palm tree has been uprooted together with its roots and only its bare site remains in that place, no further growth of that palm is seen; so, having uprooted the tastes of forms and the like together with their roots by the weapon of the noble path, when only the bare site remains in the mental continuum through their having formerly arisen, all of them are said to be "made like a palm stump." Or, because of their nature of non-growth, they have been made like a palm tree cut at the crown - thus "made like a palm stump." And since, being thus made like a palm stump, they are brought to obliteration, they have been made such that their subsequent existence does not occur; therefore he said - "brought to obliteration." Here the word-analysis is this - "anu-abhāvaṃ katā" becomes "anabhāvaṃkatā." "Anabhāvaṃ gatā" is also a reading, and its meaning is "anu-abhāvaṃ gatā." Therein the word-analysis is "anu-abhāvaṃ gatā" becomes "anabhāvaṃ gatā," just as "anu-acchariyā" becomes "anacchariyā." "Subject to non-arising in the future" means having the intrinsic nature of not arising in the future. For those which have gone to obliteration, how could they arise again? Therefore he said - "gone to obliteration, subject to non-arising in the future."

"This, brahmin, is the method" means: this, brahmin, is the reason by which one speaking rightly would say "the ascetic Gotama is without taste." "But not with reference to what you say" means but what you say with reference to, that method does not apply. But why did the Blessed One say thus? Is it not the case that, when spoken thus, the taste of harmony spoken of by the brahmin is acknowledged as existing in himself? It is said: it is not so. For one who, being capable of producing that taste of harmony, does not produce it - he could be called "without taste" due to its absence. But the Blessed One is simply incapable of doing this, and therefore, making known his incapability of doing it, he said - "but not with reference to what you say." The method with reference to which you call me "one without taste" is indeed not to be spoken of regarding us.

4. Thus the brahmin, being unable to attribute the tastelessness he himself intended, then said "The Venerable Gotama is without enjoyment" and so forth. And in all the methods here, having understood the procedure of construal in the manner already stated, what is spoken with reference to should be understood thus. The brahmin, considering that very act of paying homage to elders and so forth as communal enjoyment in the world, said that the Blessed One is without enjoyment due to the absence of that. But the Blessed One, seeing in himself the absence of that enjoyment through desire and lust that beings have towards forms and so forth, accepts yet another method as well.

5. Furthermore, the brahmin, seeing the non-doing of the customary family conduct such as paying homage to elders in the world that worldly people perform, said of the Blessed One that he is a proponent of the inefficacy of action. The Blessed One, however, since he teaches the non-doing of bodily misconduct and so forth, seeing that doctrine of non-doing as applicable to himself, also accepts another method. Therein, bodily misconduct should be understood as the volition of killing living beings, taking what is not given, and sexual misconduct. Verbal misconduct should be understood as the volition of false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech, and idle chatter. "Mental misconduct" should be understood as covetousness, anger, and wrong view. Setting aside those mental states, the remaining unwholesome mental states should be understood as "various evil unwholesome mental states."

6. Again, the brahmin, not seeing that same act of paying homage and so forth towards the Blessed One, thinking "On account of this, this tradition of the world, the lineage of the world, is cut off," said of the Blessed One that he is an annihilationist. But the Blessed One, because he teaches the annihilation by the path of non-returning of lust for the five strands of sensual pleasure in the eight consciousness states accompanied by greed, and of hatred arising in the two unwholesome consciousness states. And he teaches the annihilation by the path of arahantship of delusion without remainder, which is the source of all unwholesome states. Setting aside those three, he teaches the annihilation of the remaining evil unwholesome mental states by the four paths as appropriate; therefore, seeing that annihilationist doctrine in himself, he approves of yet another method.

7. Furthermore, the brahmin, thinking "The ascetic Gotama detests, it seems, this act of social courtesy such as paying homage to elders and so forth, therefore he does not do it," addressed the Blessed One as "one who detests." But since the Blessed One detests bodily misconduct and so forth; What is meant? Whatever threefold bodily misconduct there is, whatever fourfold verbal misconduct there is, whatever threefold mental misconduct there is, and whatever attainment, undertaking, or possession of the remaining states that are evil in the sense of being inferior, setting aside those forms of misconduct, and unwholesome in the sense of being born of ignorance - all of that, just as a man of cleanly nature is disgusted by and shrinks from excrement, he detests and is ashamed of; therefore, seeing that quality of detesting in himself, he also approves of another method. Therein, "by bodily misconduct" - the instrumental case should be understood as being used in the sense of the accusative.

8. Again, the brahmin, not seeing that same act of salutation and so forth towards the Blessed One, thinking "This one removes and destroys this act due to the elders of the world, or else because he does not perform this act of proper conduct, therefore this one should be disciplined and restrained," addressed the Blessed One as "one who removes." Herein this is the meaning of the terms - "He removes" thus "removal"; the meaning is "he destroys." "Removal itself is one who removes" (venayika), or "he deserves removal" is "one who removes" (venayika); it means "he deserves restraint." But the Blessed One, because he teaches the Teaching for the removal and calming of lust and so forth, is therefore "one who removes." And this indeed is the meaning of the terms here - "He teaches the Teaching for removal" thus "one who removes." For the secondary derivative formation is varied! He, seeing in himself that quality of being one who removes, accepts yet another method as well.

9. Again, the brahmin, since those who perform acts of proper conduct such as respectful salutation and so forth please and delight the elders, while those who do not perform them distress, harass, and arouse displeasure in them, and the Blessed One does not perform those acts; therefore, thinking "this one distresses the elders," or thinking "this is a wretched person" due to the absence of the conduct of a good person, he addressed the Blessed One as "an austere ascetic." Herein this is the meaning of the terms - "he distresses" is "distress" (tapo), it is said to mean "he angers, he harasses"; this is the designation for not performing acts of proper conduct. "Austere asceticism exists in him" - thus "an austere ascetic." In the second interpretation of meaning, without analysing the word-forms, in the world a wretched person is called "an austere ascetic" (tapassī). But the Blessed One, since those unwholesome mental states which are called "causing remorse" (tapanīya) because they torment the world have been abandoned by him, and since he has thereby come to the designation "austere ascetic" (tapassī), therefore, seeing that quality of being an austere ascetic in himself, he accepts yet another method. Herein this is the meaning of the terms - "They burn" (tapanti) is "burning" (tapā); this is a designation for unwholesome mental states. For this too was said - "Here one is tormented, after death one is tormented." Likewise, "he cast out, rejected, abandoned, destroyed those torments" - thus "an austere ascetic" (tapassī).

10. Again, the brahmin, imagining that the action of paying respect and so on leads to the achievement of a womb in the heavenly world, to the attainment of conception in the heavenly world, and having seen its absence in the Blessed One, called the Blessed One "one without a womb." Or through the influence of wrath, even showing a fault in the Blessed One's taking of conception in the mother's womb, he spoke thus. Herein this is the meaning of the terms - "Departed from the womb" is "one without a womb"; the intention is: incapable of attaining rebirth in the heavenly world. Or "one without a womb" means one whose womb is inferior; because of being excluded from the celestial womb, one who is destined to obtain an inferior womb in the future; or the intended meaning is that his dwelling in the womb in the mother's womb was inferior. However, since for the Blessed One lying in a womb in the future has departed, he, seeing that state of being without a womb in himself, also accepts another method. And therein, the meaning of the terms "for whom, brahmin, lying in a womb in the future, the production of rebirth, has been abandoned" should be understood thus: Brahmin, for whatever person lying in a womb in the future and the production of rebirth have been abandoned because the cause has been destroyed by the unsurpassed path. And here, by the mention of lying in a womb, the womb-born mode of generation is taken. By the mention of the production of rebirth, the other three as well.

Furthermore, the meaning here should be understood thus: lying in a womb is the lying of the womb; the production of rebirth is production that is itself renewed existence. And just as when "station of consciousness" is stated, there is no station other than consciousness, so here too it should be understood that there is no lying other than the womb. And since production exists both as pertaining to renewed existence and as not pertaining to renewed existence, and here what pertains to renewed existence is intended. Therefore it is said: "Rebirth itself is production - the production of rebirth."

11. Thus, from the time of his arrival, the Blessed One - the Lord of the Dhamma, the King of the Dhamma, the Master of the Dhamma, the Tathāgata - looking with a cool eye of compassion upon the brahmin who was reviling him with the eight grounds of abuse such as being without taste, without form, and so on, having penetrated that dhamma-element through which he attained the grace of teaching, and because of having well penetrated that dhamma-element, like the full moon risen evenly in a cloudless sky, and like the sun in the autumn season, dispelling the darkness of the brahmin's heart, having shown those very grounds of abuse to be otherwise by various methods, and further making manifest the spreading of his own compassion, the quality of steadfastness characterised by imperturbability in the face of the eight worldly conditions, the equanimity of mind equal to the earth, and the nature of being unshakeable, he thought: "This brahmin merely recognises his own old age by his grey hair, broken teeth, wrinkled skin, and so on, but he does not know that he himself is followed by birth, enveloped by ageing, overcome by illness, struck down by death, become a post in the round of existence, and that having died today, he is liable to return again to the state of an infant lying on its back. However, he has come to my presence with great enthusiasm; may his coming be fruitful" - and thinking thus, showing his own state of being first-born, which is without equal in this world, he increased the Dhamma teaching for the brahmin by the method beginning with "Just as, brahmin" and so on.

Therein, "seyyathā" is a particle in the sense of a simile; "pi" is in the sense of supposition; by both together it shows "just as, brahmin." Regarding "a hen's eggs, eight or ten or twelve" - here, although a hen may have eggs fewer or more than the stated number, it should be understood that it was said thus for the smoothness of expression. For thus in the world the expression is smooth. "Tānassu" means "tāni assu," meaning "they would be." "Properly sat upon by the hen" means properly sat upon by that mother hen, having spread her wings and lying on top of them. "Properly warmed" means well heated all around by her causing them to receive temperature from time to time; it means "made warm." "Properly incubated" means well permeated all around from time to time; it means "made to absorb the scent of the hen."

Now, because those eggs, being tended by that hen in these three ways, do not become rotten. Whatever moisture they have, that becomes exhausted. The shell becomes thin, the tips of the claws and the beak become hard, the chicks reach maturity, and because of the thinness of the shell, light from outside becomes visible within. Then those chicks, thinking "For a long time indeed we have lain cramped with folded wings and feet in this confined space, and this light is seen outside; here now there will be comfortable dwelling for us," desiring to come out, they strike the shell with their feet and stretch their necks. Then that shell breaks in two, and the chicks, shaking their wings, crying out in a manner befitting the moment, come forth. And among those coming forth thus, whichever one comes out first is called "the eldest." Therefore the Blessed One, wishing to establish his own state of being the eldest by that simile, asked the brahmin - "Whichever of those chicks" etc. "how should that one be called?" Therein, "chicks" means the young of a hen. "Kinti svassa vacanīyo" means how should that one be called, how should it be said - the eldest or the youngest? The remainder is of clear meaning.

Then the brahmin said - "That one, Master Gotama, should be called the eldest." Master Gotama, that one should be called the eldest. If one asks why? For he is the eldest among them; therefore he is the more senior among them - this is the meaning. Then the Blessed One, connecting the simile, said - "Just so indeed I, brahmin" and so on. Just as that chick is reckoned as the eldest; so too am I, for the generation gone to ignorance. "Avijjāgatāya" - ignorance is called not-knowing; gone into that. "Pajāya" - this is a designation for beings. Therefore here the meaning should be seen thus: among beings who have entered within the egg-shell of ignorance. "Aṇḍabhūtāya" means become like an egg, born, arisen. For just as certain beings born in eggs are called "egg-born"; so too all this generation, having arisen within the egg-shell of ignorance, is called "egg-born." "Enveloped" means by that egg-sheath of ignorance, covered all around, bound, wrapped. "Having broken through the shell of ignorance" means having broken that egg-shell made of ignorance. "Alone in the world" means in the entire world community, I myself alone, without a companion. "The unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, fully awakened" - "unsurpassed" means devoid of anything superior, the most excellent of all. "Sammāsambodhiṃ" means rightly and by oneself, enlightenment; or alternatively, praised and beautiful enlightenment; "bodhi" is said of the tree, the path, omniscient knowledge, and also nibbāna. In the passages where it occurs as "first fully awakened at the foot of the Bodhi tree" and "between Gayā and between Bodhi," the tree is called "bodhi." In the passage where it says "enlightenment is called the knowledge of the four paths," it means the path. In the passage where it says "he attains enlightenment, one of excellent, abundant wisdom," it means the knowledge of omniscience. In the passage where it says "having attained enlightenment, the Deathless, the unconditioned," it means Nibbāna. But here, the knowledge of the path of arahantship of the Blessed One is intended. Some also say it is omniscient knowledge. Is the path of arahantship of others the unsurpassed enlightenment or not? It is not. Why? Because it does not bestow all qualities. For the path of arahantship gives to some only the fruition of arahantship, to some the three true knowledges, to some the six direct knowledges, to some the four analytical knowledges, to some the knowledge of the perfections of a disciple. Even for the Individually Enlightened Ones, it gives only the knowledge of individual enlightenment. But for the Buddhas, it gives the attainment of all qualities, just as a consecration gives a king sovereignty over the entire world. Therefore, the unsurpassed enlightenment does not exist for anyone else whatsoever. "Abhisambuddho" means I directly knew, I penetrated; it means "I have attained, I have reached."

Now, the illustration of the simile stated by the Blessed One in the manner beginning with "Just so indeed, brahmin" should be understood by comparing it with its meaning as follows. Just as that hen's performing of the threefold action beginning with sitting upon her own eggs; so too is the Blessed One, who was a bodhisatta seated on the seat of enlightenment, performing the threefold contemplation as impermanent, suffering, and not-self upon his own mental continuum. Just as the non-putrefaction of the eggs through the hen's accomplishment of the threefold action, so is the non-decline of insight knowledge through the accomplishment of the threefold observation by the Blessed One who was a Bodhisatta. Just as the exhaustion of the moist cohesion of the eggs through the hen's performing of the threefold action, so is the exhaustion of the cohesion of attachment following the three kinds of existence through the accomplishment of the threefold observation by the Blessed One who was a Bodhisatta. Just as by the hen's performing of the threefold action the egg shells become thin, so too by the Blessed One as a bodhisatta's accomplishment of the threefold contemplation the shell of ignorance becomes thin. Just as by the hen's performing of the threefold action the claw-tips and beak of the chick become hard and firm, so too by the Blessed One as a bodhisatta's accomplishment of the threefold contemplation the insight knowledge becomes sharp, firm, clear, and bold. Just as by the hen's performing of the threefold action the time of the chick's maturation comes, so too by the Blessed One as a bodhisatta's accomplishment of the threefold contemplation, the time of maturation of insight knowledge, the time of growth, the time of conception should be understood.

Then, just as by the hen's performing of the threefold action the time comes for the chick to break through the egg shell with the tips of its claws or with its beak, spread its wings, and safely hatch out, so too by the Blessed One as a bodhisatta's accomplishment of the threefold contemplation, having brought insight knowledge to conception, having broken through the shell of ignorance by the path of arahantship attained in due order, having spread the wings of direct knowledge, the time of safely realising all the qualities of a Buddha should be understood.

"So I, brahmin, am the eldest, the foremost in the world" means: So I, brahmin, just as among those chicks the one that first breaks through the egg shell and hatches out is the eldest; so too, having broken through that shell of ignorance for the generation gone to ignorance, because of being first born by the noble birth, he has come to be reckoned as the eldest, the most senior. And because of being without equal in all qualities, he is the foremost.

Having thus made known to the brahmin his own unsurpassed status as eldest and foremost, now, in order to show the practice by which he attained it, beginning from its preliminary stage, he said "My energy, brahmin, was aroused" and so forth. Or else, having heard of this unsurpassed status of the Blessed One as eldest and foremost, the following thought arose in the brahmin's mind: "By what practice has he attained this?" Knowing his thought, showing "By this practice I have attained this unsurpassed status as eldest and foremost," he spoke thus. Therein, "My energy, brahmin, was aroused" means: Brahmin, this unsurpassed status as eldest and foremost was not attained by me through being lazy, with confused mindfulness, with an agitated body, with a distracted mind; rather, for the attainment of that, my energy was aroused. Seated at the seat of enlightenment, energy endowed with four factors was aroused by me; it was upheld, proceeding without slackness - this is what is meant. And precisely because of being aroused, this was unsluggish for me. And not only energy alone; my mindfulness too was established by being directed towards the object. And precisely because of being established, it was unconfused. "The body was calm and not excited" means: by means of tranquillity of body and mind, my body too was calm. Therein, since when the mental body is calm, the material body too is indeed calm, therefore without distinguishing between the mental body and the material body, it was said "the body was calm." "Not excited" means that it was indeed not excited precisely because of being calm; what is meant is that disturbance had departed. "The mind was concentrated and fully focused" means: my mind too was properly placed, well established, as if fixed; and precisely because of being concentrated, it was fully focused, unshaking, without trembling. To this extent, the preliminary practice of meditative absorption has been spoken of.

Treatise on the First Meditative Absorption

Now, showing the distinction beginning with the first meditative absorption attained through this practice and ending with the three knowledges, he said "So I" and so forth. Therein, regarding "quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome mental states" and so forth, although "Therein, what are sensual pleasures? Desire is a sensual pleasure, lust is a sensual pleasure, desire-and-lust is a sensual pleasure; intention is a sensual pleasure, lust is a sensual pleasure, intention-and-lust is a sensual pleasure - these are called sensual pleasures. Therein, what are unwholesome mental states? Sensual desire etc. doubt - these are called unwholesome mental states. Thus, secluded from these sensual pleasures and secluded from these unwholesome mental states, one is secluded and withdrawn; therefore it is said - 'quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome mental states'" - in this manner the meaning has been stated in the Vibhaṅga itself. Nevertheless, since it is not well clarified without the method of the commentary, we shall elucidate it by the method of the commentary itself.

That is: "Quite secluded from sensual pleasures" means having become secluded from sensual pleasures, having become without them, having withdrawn from them. The particle "eva" here should be understood as having the meaning of delimitation. And because it has the meaning of restriction, it indicates the opposition of that first meditative absorption to sensual pleasures even when they are not present at the time of entering and dwelling in that first meditative absorption, and that its attainment is through the relinquishment of sensual pleasures alone. How? For when the restriction is made thus "quite secluded from sensual pleasures," this becomes apparent: "Surely sensual pleasures are the opponents of this meditative absorption, in the presence of which it does not occur, just as a lamp in the presence of darkness; and its attainment is through the relinquishment of those alone, just as the further shore is reached through the relinquishment of the near shore - therefore the restriction is made."

Therein one might ask - "Why is this stated only in the first clause and not in the second clause? Could one enter and dwell in the meditative absorption without being secluded from unwholesome mental states?" But this should not be seen thus. For this is stated only in the first clause because it is the escape from those. Because this meditative absorption transcends the sensual element and is the opponent of sensual lust, it is the escape from sensual pleasures only. As he said - "This is the escape from sensual pleasures, namely renunciation." But in the second clause too, just as in "Here alone, monks, is the first ascetic, here is the second ascetic," the particle "eva" should be brought in and stated thus. For it is not possible to enter and dwell in meditative absorption without being secluded from other unwholesome mental states too, reckoned as mental hindrances. Therefore, "quite secluded from sensual pleasures, quite secluded from unwholesome mental states" - thus this should be seen in both terms as well. And although in both clauses, by this common expression "secluded," all kinds of seclusion including seclusion by substitution of opposites and bodily seclusion etc. are included, nevertheless, only these three should be seen here: bodily seclusion, mental seclusion, and seclusion by suppression. By this word "from sensual pleasures," both the objective sensual pleasures stated in the exposition by the method beginning with "What are objective sensual pleasures? Agreeable forms," and the defilement-sensual pleasures stated in the same place in the analysis by the method beginning with "Desire is a sensual pleasure" - all of these should be seen as included. For when it is so, the meaning "quite secluded from objective sensual pleasures too" in "quite secluded from sensual pleasures" is fitting. By that, seclusion of the body is stated.

"Secluded from unwholesome mental states" - the meaning "secluded from defilement-sensual pleasures or from all unwholesome mental states" is fitting. By that, seclusion of the mind is stated. Here, by the first, through the very statement of seclusion from objective sensual pleasures, the relinquishment of sensual pleasure is indicated; by the second, through the statement of seclusion from defilement-sensual pleasures, the acquisition of the pleasure of renunciation is indicated. Thus, through the very statement of seclusion from objective sensual pleasures and defilement-sensual pleasures, by the first the abandoning of the basis of defilement, by the second the abandoning of defilement itself; by the first the relinquishment of the cause of fickleness, by the second that of foolishness; and by the first the purification of practice, by the second the nourishment of disposition is indicated - this should be understood. This, then, is the method regarding the side of objective sensual pleasures among the sensual pleasures stated here in "from sensual pleasures."

On the side of defilement-sensual pleasures, however, it is sensual desire itself, having many divisions such as "desire" and "lust" etc., that is intended as "sensual pleasure." And although it is included among unwholesome states, it is stated separately in the analysis by the method beginning with "Therein, what is sensual desire as a sensual pleasure?" because it is the opponent of the meditative absorption. Or it is stated in the first term because of being a defilement sensual pleasure, and in the second term because of being included in the unwholesome. And because of its many varieties, instead of saying "from sensual pleasure" in the singular, "from sensual pleasures" in the plural is stated. And although other mental states also have the nature of being unwholesome, only the hindrances are stated in the analysis by the method beginning with "Therein, what are unwholesome mental states? Sensual desire," because of showing their nature as opponents and counterparts of the meditative absorption factors stated above. For the hindrances are the adversaries of the meditative absorption factors, and the meditative absorption factors alone are their counterparts, their destroyers - this is what is stated. For thus it is stated in the Peṭaka: "Concentration is the opponent of sensual desire, rapture of anger, applied thought of sloth and torpor, happiness of restlessness and remorse, sustained thought of sceptical doubt."

Thus here, by "quite secluded from sensual pleasures," seclusion by suppression of sensual desire is stated. By "secluded from unwholesome mental states," of all five mental hindrances. But by the taking up of what was not taken up, by the first, of sensual desire; by the second, of the remaining mental hindrances. Likewise, by the first, among the three unwholesome roots, of greed whose object is the fivefold types of sensual pleasure; by the second, of hate and delusion whose objects are the grounds of resentment and so on. Or, among the states such as floods and so forth, by the first, that of the flood of sensuality, the yoke of sensuality, the taint of sensuality, the clinging to sensuality, the bodily knot of covetousness, and the fetter of sensual lust; by the second, that of the remaining floods, yokes, taints, clingings, knots, and fetters. And by the first, of craving and those associated with it; by the second, of ignorance and those associated with it. Furthermore, by the first, seclusion by suppression of the eight types of arising of consciousness associated with greed is stated; by the second, of the remaining four types of arising of unwholesome consciousness - this should be understood. This, then, is the clarification of meaning regarding the phrase "quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome mental states."

Having thus shown the abandonment factor of the first meditative absorption, now showing the association factor, he said "accompanied by applied thought and sustained thought" and so forth. Therein, the act of thinking is applied thought (vitakka); it is said to mean lifting up (ūhana). This has the characteristic of fixing consciousness upon the object, and the function of striking and repeatedly striking. For thus it is said: "By that, the practitioner makes the object struck by applied thought, repeatedly struck by applied thought." Its manifestation is the bringing of the mind to the object. Moving about is sustained thought (vicāro); it means following along. This has the characteristic of continued rubbing of the object, with the function of sustained application of co-arisen states therein, and its manifestation is the sustained connection of the mind. Even though they are in some cases inseparable, in the sense of being coarse, applied thought is like the sound of striking a bell - the first impact upon the mind; in the sense of being subtle, sustained thought is like the reverberation - the continued connection. Here, applied thought is diffusive - the state of agitation of the mind, like the flapping of wings of a bird wishing to fly up into the sky, or like the descent towards a lotus of a bee whose mind follows the scent. Sustained thought is of tranquil operation - the state of non-excessive agitation of the mind, like the spreading of wings of a bird that has flown up into the sky, or like the circling of a bee that has descended towards a lotus over the upper surface of the lotus. That distinction between them becomes evident in the first and second meditative absorptions. Thus, this meditative absorption occurs together with this applied thought and this sustained thought, like a tree with its flowers and fruits - therefore this meditative absorption is called "with applied thought and sustained thought." In the Vibhaṅga, however, the teaching is given based on the person, by the method: "One is endowed, fully endowed with this applied thought and this sustained thought" and so forth. But the meaning should be understood there in just the same way.

"Born of seclusion" - here separation is seclusion; the meaning is the departure of the mental hindrances. Or "secluded" is seclusion; the meaning is the mass of mental states associated with the meditative absorption, secluded from the mental hindrances. Therefore, born from seclusion, or born in that seclusion - thus "born of seclusion." Regarding "rapture and happiness" - here, that which refreshes is rapture (pīti); it has the characteristic of endearment, with the function of pervading body and mind with joy, or the function of suffusion, and its manifestation is elation. That which makes happy is happiness (sukha), or that which thoroughly devours and digs up bodily and mental affliction is happiness; it has the characteristic of being agreeable, with the function of intensifying the associated states, and its manifestation is assistance. Even though they are in some cases inseparable, rapture is the contentment at obtaining a desirable object; happiness is the actual experiencing of the flavour of what has been obtained. Where there is rapture, there is happiness; but where there is happiness, there is not necessarily rapture. Rapture is included in the aggregate of mental activities; happiness is included in the aggregate of feeling. Rapture is like the seeing and hearing of water at the edge of a forest for one exhausted in a wilderness; happiness is like entering the shade of the forest and partaking of the water. It should be understood that this was said because of their becoming obvious at each respective time. This rapture and this happiness belong to this meditative absorption, or exist in this meditative absorption - thus this meditative absorption is called "with rapture and happiness."

Alternatively, rapture and happiness together constitute "rapture-and-happiness," like "the Dhamma and Discipline" and so forth. "Born of seclusion" rapture-and-happiness belongs to this meditative absorption, or exists in this meditative absorption - thus also "born-of-seclusion-rapture-and-happiness." For just as the meditative absorption itself, so too rapture-and-happiness herein is itself born of seclusion, and that belongs to it; therefore it is fitting to express it even with a single term as "born-of-seclusion-rapture-and-happiness." In the Vibhaṅga, however, this is stated by the method beginning with "this happiness is accompanied by this rapture." But the meaning should be understood there in just the same way.

"First" means first by numerical sequence; it is also first because this is the first to be attained. It is called "meditative absorption" (jhāna) because it burns up (jhāpeti) opposing states; by this, practitioners meditate (jhāyanti) - this too is meditative absorption; the meaning is that they burn up opposing states or contemplate their object. Or it itself meditates upon, closely observes that - thus it is meditative absorption; hence it is said to have the characteristic of close observation (upanijjhāyana). That same close observation is twofold: close observation of the object and close observation of characteristics. Therein, "close observation of the object" refers to the eight attainments together with access concentration. Why? Because of closely observing objects such as kasiṇas. "Close observation of characteristics" refers to insight, path, and fruition. Why? Because of closely observing characteristics. For herein, insight closely observes the characteristics of impermanence and so forth, but the task of close observation by insight is accomplished by the path - thus the path is called "close observation of characteristics." Fruition, however, closely observes the characteristic of suchness of cessation - thus it is called "close observation of characteristics." In this context, however, what is intended by "meditative absorption" is only close observation of the object.

Here one asks - "What then is that meditative absorption which is with applied thought and sustained thought, etc. with rapture-and-happiness - that thus deserves such designation?" It is said - Just as in such expressions as "one with wealth" and "one with a retinue," setting aside the wealth and the retinue, another person deserves the designation, so setting aside the states such as applied thought, there is nothing else that deserves the designation. But just as when it is said "an army with chariots and infantry," the convention of "army" applies to the constituents of the army themselves, so here the convention of "meditative absorption" should be understood as applying to the five factors themselves. In which five? These: applied thought, sustained thought, rapture, happiness, and one-pointedness of mind. For these very states have been stated as factors by the method beginning with "with applied thought, with sustained thought." If one objects that one-pointedness is not a factor because it is not stated, that is not so. Why? Because it has indeed been stated. For it too has been stated in the Vibhaṅga thus: "Meditative absorption means applied thought, sustained thought, rapture, happiness, one-pointedness of mind." Therefore, just as "with applied thought, with sustained thought," so too even though "with one-pointedness of mind" is not stated here, by this statement in the Vibhaṅga, one-pointedness of mind too should be understood as indeed a factor. For the intention with which the summary was made by the Blessed One is the very same that was elucidated by him in the Vibhaṅga as well.

"Having attained" means having approached, having reached - this is what is said. Or having produced, having accomplished - this is what is said. In the Vibhaṅga, however, it is stated: "'Entered upon' means the gaining, obtaining, attaining, acquisition, touching, realising, making manifest, and reaching of the first meditative absorption." The meaning of that too should be understood in the same way. "Dwelt" means that, being endowed with the meditative absorption of the kind described, through the mode of dwelling in the sitting posture at the seat of enlightenment, he brought about the movement, conduct, maintenance, sustenance, carrying on, deportment, and dwelling of his person - this is the meaning. For this was said in the Vibhaṅga - "'Dwells' means he moves, conducts himself, maintains, sustains, carries on, deports himself, dwells; therefore it is said 'dwells.'"

But what did the Blessed One do to enter upon and dwell in this meditative absorption? He developed a meditation subject. Which one? The meditation subject of mindfulness of breathing. What should another person who desires that do? Another person too should develop either this meditation subject or one among the earth kasiṇa and others. The method of developing those should be understood in the way stated in the Visuddhimagga. But if it were explained here, the introduction to the Vinaya would become excessively lengthy; therefore we shall only clarify the meaning of the text.

The account of the first jhāna is concluded.

Treatise on the Second Meditative Absorption

"With the subsiding of applied thought and sustained thought" means the subsiding, the surmounting, of these two, namely applied thought and sustained thought; it is stated to mean their non-appearance at the moment of the second meditative absorption. Therein, although in the second meditative absorption none of the mental states of the first meditative absorption exist - for the contact and other states in the first meditative absorption are one set, and those here are another - it should be understood that "with the subsiding of applied thought and sustained thought" is stated thus for the purpose of showing that through the surmounting of each successively grosser factor, the attainment of the second meditative absorption and so on beyond the first meditative absorption comes about. "Internally" here means what is one's own internal. In the Vibhaṅga, however, only this much is stated: "'Internally' means personal." But since what is one's own internal is intended, the meaning here is: arisen in oneself, produced in one's own continuity.

"Confidence" - confidence is called faith. Through the connection with confidence, the meditative absorption too is confidence, just as a cloth is called blue through the connection with blue colour. Or because that meditative absorption, being endowed with confidence, brings confidence to the mind through the subsiding of the disturbance of applied thought and sustained thought, for that reason too it is called "confidence." And in this alternative meaning, the connection of terms should be understood thus: "confidence of the mind." But in the former alternative meaning, "of the mind" should be connected with "unification." Herein, this is the interpretation of meaning - "One rises" - thus "ekodi"; the meaning is: because of not being overwhelmed by applied and sustained thought, being the highest, the foremost, it rises. For even in the world, the foremost is called "the one." Or it is fitting to say: because of being devoid of applied thought and sustained thought, being one, without a companion. Or alternatively, it raises up the associated mental states - thus "udi"; the meaning is: it causes them to rise. In the sense of foremost, it is one, and it is that which rises - thus "ekodi"; this is a designation for concentration. Thus, it develops, increases this unification - therefore this second meditative absorption is "unification." But this unification is of the mind, not of a being, not of a soul; therefore it is said "unification of the mind."

But is not this faith present even in the first meditative absorption, and is not this concentration called "unification"? Then why is only this called "confidence" and "unification of mind"? It is said - Because that first meditative absorption, due to the agitation of applied and sustained thought, like water turbulent with waves and ripples, is not very clear; therefore, even though faith is present, it was not said to be confidence. Because of not being very clear, here concentration too is not well manifest; therefore it was not said to be unification of mind either. In this meditative absorption, however, due to the absence of the hindrance of applied thought and sustained thought, faith has gained opportunity and become strong, and through obtaining the companionship of strong faith, concentration too becomes manifest. Therefore it should be understood that only this is spoken of in this way. In the Vibhaṅga, however, it is stated only this much: "Confidence means that faith, believing, trusting, serene confidence; unification of mind means that stability of mind, etc. right concentration." It should be understood that this explanation of meaning does not conflict with what is stated there, but rather accords and agrees with it.

"Without applied thought, without sustained thought" - because it has been abandoned through development, applied thought does not exist in this or for this, thus it is "without applied thought." By this very method, without sustained thought. In the Vibhaṅga too it is stated: "Thus this applied thought and this sustained thought are stilled, calmed, tranquillised, ceased, utterly ceased, allayed, thoroughly allayed, dried up, thoroughly dried up, brought to an end; therefore it is called 'without applied thought, without sustained thought.'"

Here one asks - Is not this meaning already established by "with the subsiding of applied thought and sustained thought"? Then why is "without applied thought, without sustained thought" stated again? It is said - True, this meaning is established in that way, but that expression does not convey this particular meaning. Did we not say: "'With the subsiding of applied thought and sustained thought' was stated for the purpose of showing that through the transcending of each successively grosser factor, the attainment of the second meditative absorption and so on beyond the first meditative absorption occurs."

Furthermore, through the subsiding of applied thought and sustained thought there is this confidence, not through the subsiding of defilement-impurity. And through the subsiding of applied thought and sustained thought there is unification - not through the abandoning of hindrances as in access absorption, nor through the manifestation of factors as in the first meditative absorption. Thus this statement fully illuminates the cause of confidence and unification. Likewise, through the subsiding of applied thought and sustained thought this is without applied thought and without sustained thought - not through mere absence as in the third and fourth meditative absorptions or as in eye-consciousness and so forth. Thus it fully illuminates the cause of the state of being without applied thought and without sustained thought, and does not merely illuminate the bare absence of applied thought and sustained thought. But the statement "without applied thought, without sustained thought" merely illuminates the bare absence of applied thought and sustained thought; therefore, even having stated the former, it must still be stated again.

"Born of concentration" means born from the concentration of the first meditative absorption or from the associated concentration - this is the meaning. Therein, although the first too is born from associated concentration, this alone deserves to be called "concentration" because of its extreme steadiness and well-clarified nature due to the absence of the disturbance of applied thought and sustained thought. Therefore, for the purpose of praising this, only this was said as "born of concentration." "Rapture and happiness" - this is the same as the method already stated.

"Second" - second by numerical sequence; it is also second because this is entered upon as the second. As for "meditative absorption" here, just as the first meditative absorption is fivefold with applied thought and so forth, so this should be understood as "fourfold" with confidence and so forth. As he said - "Meditative absorption means confidence, rapture, happiness, and one-pointedness of mind." But this is only by way of convention. Setting aside confidence, however, in the absolute sense this is only threefold. As he said - "What is the threefold meditative absorption on that occasion? Rapture, happiness, and one-pointedness of mind." The remainder is just by the method already stated.

The account of the second jhāna is concluded.

Treatise on the Third Meditative Absorption

In "with the fading away of rapture" (pītiyā ca virāgā), here rapture (pīti) is of the meaning already stated. "Fading away" (virāga) means either disgust towards it or transcending it. The word "and" (ca) between the two is for the purpose of combining; for it combines either with subsiding or with the subsiding of applied and sustained thought. Therein, when it combines the subsiding itself, then the explanation should be understood thus: through dispassion for rapture, and what is more, through subsiding as well. And in this construction, "fading away" (virāga) has the meaning of disgust. Therefore, the meaning should be seen thus: "with disgust towards rapture and with subsiding." But when it combines the subsiding of applied and sustained thought, then the explanation should be understood thus: through dispassion for rapture, and what is more, through the subsiding of applied and sustained thought as well. And in this construction, "fading away" (virāga) has the meaning of transcending. Therefore, the meaning should be seen thus: "with the transcending of rapture, and with the subsiding of applied and sustained thought."

Although these applied and sustained thought were indeed subsided in the second meditative absorption itself, this is stated for the purpose of illustrating the path of this meditative absorption and for the purpose of commendation. For when it is said "with the subsiding of applied and sustained thought," this becomes apparent: "Surely the subsiding of applied and sustained thought is the path to this meditative absorption." And just as in the third noble path, even though wrong view of personality and the like have not been abandoned, when the abandoning is spoken of thus "with the abandoning of the five lower fetters," this statement of abandoning serves as commendation, generating enthusiasm in those who are eager for its attainment; just so here, the subsiding of applied and sustained thought, even though they have not been subsided, being spoken of serves as commendation. Therefore this meaning is stated: "With the transcending of rapture, and with the subsiding of applied and sustained thought."

In "and dwelt equanimous" (upekkhako ca vihāsi), here equanimity (upekkhā) means looking on impartially (upapattito ikkhati); it sees evenly, the meaning is that it sees without taking sides. Because of being endowed with that which is clear, extensive, and having reached strength, one who possesses the third meditative absorption is called "equanimous." Equanimity, however, is tenfold - Six-factored equanimity, divine-abiding equanimity, enlightenment-factor equanimity, energy equanimity, equanimity regarding formations, feeling equanimity, insight equanimity, specific neutrality equanimity, meditative-absorption equanimity, and purity equanimity. These ten kinds of equanimity should be understood according to the method stated in the Atthasālinī, the commentary on the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, in terms of the method as it has come in each context, in terms of plane, person, consciousness, and object, and in brief by way of aggregate-inclusion, single-moment, and the wholesome triad. But explaining them here would make the Vinaya introduction excessively lengthy, so they are not stated. However, in terms of characteristic and so forth, the equanimity intended here has the characteristic of neutrality, the function of non-inclination, the manifestation of non-interference, and the proximate cause of the fading away of rapture.

Here one asks - Is it not the case that this is in meaning just specific neutrality equanimity (tatramajjhattupekkhā), and that exists also in the first and second meditative absorptions, therefore it should have been stated there too as "and dwelt equanimous" - why was it not stated? Because its function was not manifest. For its function there was not manifest, because of being overpowered by applied thought and so on. But here, because of not being overpowered by applied thought, sustained thought, and rapture, it has become as if with raised head, with manifest function; therefore it was stated.

Completed is the explanation of the meaning of "and dwelt equanimous" in every respect.

Now in "mindful and fully aware" (sato ca sampajāno), here "one who remembers" (sarati) is "mindful" (sato), "one who fully knows" (sampajānāti) is "fully aware" (sampajāno). By way of the person, mindfulness and full awareness are stated. Therein, mindfulness has the characteristic of remembering, the function of not forgetting, and the manifestation of guarding; full awareness has the characteristic of non-delusion, the function of investigating, and the manifestation of scrutiny. Therein, although this mindfulness and full awareness exist also in the previous meditative absorptions - for one who has lost mindfulness and lacks full awareness does not succeed even in access absorption, let alone full absorption - yet because of the coarseness of those meditative absorptions, the mind's progress is easy like a person's on the ground, and the function of mindfulness and full awareness there is not evident. But because of the subtlety of this meditative absorption due to the abandoning of coarse factors, the mind's progress should be taken up only when accompanied by the function of mindfulness and full awareness, like a person on a razor's edge - therefore it is stated only here. And what is more? Just as a calf that suckles, when removed from the cow and not guarded, approaches the cow again; so too this happiness of the third meditative absorption, even though removed from rapture, if not guarded by the protection of mindfulness and full awareness, would approach rapture again and would become associated with rapture. Moreover, beings delight in happiness, and this is exceedingly sweet happiness, since beyond it there is no happiness. But through the power of mindfulness and full awareness, there is non-attachment to happiness here, and not otherwise - it should be understood that this particular meaning too was stated only here in order to show it.

Now, regarding "and experienced happiness with the body" here, although the one possessed of the third meditative absorption has no intentional adverting towards the experience of happiness, even so, because his happiness is associated with the mental body, or because that happiness associated with the mental body - because his material body is pervaded by an exceedingly refined materiality arisen from that, and because of being pervaded by it he would experience happiness even after emerging from the meditative absorption - therefore, showing this meaning, he said "and experienced happiness with the body."

Now, regarding "that which the noble ones declare: 'one who is equanimous and mindful, one who dwells in happiness'" - here, on account of which meditative absorption, for the reason of which meditative absorption, the noble ones such as the Buddha and others tell, teach, make known, establish, open up, analyse, make clear, and explain that person endowed with the third meditative absorption - the intention is that they praise him. How? "One who is equanimous and mindful, one who dwells in happiness." "He entered and dwelt in that third meditative absorption" - thus should the construction here be understood.

But why do they praise him thus? Because he is worthy of praise. For since he is equanimous in the third meditative absorption, even though it has attained the summit of happiness with its exceedingly sweet happiness, he is not drawn by attachment to that happiness, and rapture does not arise; thus, through the state of having established mindfulness, he is mindful. And because he experiences with the mental body happiness that is dear to the noble ones, frequented by noble persons alone, and undefiled, therefore he is worthy of praise. Thus, because he is worthy of praise, those noble ones, revealing the qualities that are the basis for praise, praise him thus: "One who is equanimous and mindful, one who dwells in happiness" - this should be understood.

"Third" means the third by numerical sequence. It is also the third because one enters this as the third. Regarding "meditative absorption" here, just as the second is four-factored with internal confidence and so forth; so this is five-factored with equanimity and so forth. As he said - "Meditative absorption means equanimity, mindfulness, clear comprehension, happiness, and one-pointedness of mind." But this is only by way of convention. However, setting aside equanimity, mindfulness, and clear comprehension, in the absolute sense this is only two-factored. As he said - "What is the two-factored meditative absorption on that occasion? Happiness and one-pointedness of mind." The remainder is just by the method already stated.

The account of the third jhāna is concluded.

Treatise on the Fourth Meditative Absorption

"With the abandoning of pleasure and with the abandoning of pain" means with the abandoning of bodily pleasure and bodily pain. "Previously" means that indeed previously, not at the moment of the fourth meditative absorption. "With the disappearance of joy and displeasure" means that what is stated is precisely the previous disappearance, the abandoning, of these two as well - mental happiness and mental pain. But when does their abandoning occur? At the access moment of the four meditative absorptions. For joy is abandoned at the access moment of the fourth meditative absorption itself, while pain, displeasure, and pleasure are abandoned at the access moments of the first, second, and third respectively. Thus, although these are not stated in the order of their abandoning, the abandoning of pleasure, pain, joy, and displeasure should be understood as stated here too in the order of the listing of the faculties in the Analysis of the Faculties.

But if these are abandoned at the very access moment of each respective meditative absorption, then why is it said: "Where does the pain faculty that has arisen cease without remainder? Here, monks, a monk, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, etc. enters and dwells in the first meditative absorption; herein the pain faculty that has arisen ceases without remainder. Where does the arisen faculty of displeasure... the faculty of pleasantness... the pleasure faculty cease without remainder? Here, monks, a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure, etc. enters and dwells in the fourth meditative absorption; herein the joy faculty that has arisen ceases without remainder" - thus cessation is stated as occurring in the meditative absorptions themselves? Because of surpassing cessation. For the surpassing cessation of these occurs in the first meditative absorption and so forth, not mere cessation; mere cessation, however, occurs at the access moment, not surpassing cessation. For thus, at the access to the first meditative absorption with varied adverting, even though the faculty of pain has ceased, there could be arising through the contact of gadflies, mosquitoes, and so on, or through the distress of an uncomfortable seat; but not within absorption itself. Or even though it has ceased at the access stage, it has not been well ceased; because it has not been struck down by its counterpart. But within full absorption, through the pervading of rapture, the entire body becomes suffused with happiness. And for one whose body is suffused with happiness, the pain faculty is well ceased; because it has been struck down by its counterpart. And in the access to the second meditative absorption with varied adverting, although the displeasure faculty has been abandoned, since it arises when there is bodily fatigue and mental distress conditioned by applied thought and sustained thought, it does not arise in the absence of applied thought and sustained thought. But where it arises, there applied thought and sustained thought are present. And since applied thought and sustained thought have not been abandoned at the access to the second meditative absorption, there could be an arising of it there; because its condition has not been abandoned. But not in the second meditative absorption; because its condition has been abandoned. Likewise, even though the faculty of pleasantness has been abandoned at the access to the third meditative absorption, there could be arising for one whose body is pervaded by sublime matter originating from rapture; but not in the third meditative absorption itself. For in the third meditative absorption, rapture, which is the condition for happiness, has completely ceased. Likewise, at the access to the fourth meditative absorption, even though the joy faculty has been abandoned, because of its nearness, because of the absence of equanimity that has not reached full absorption, and because it has not been properly transcended, there could be an arising of it, but not in the fourth meditative absorption. Therefore indeed the phrase "without remainder" was included in each case in "here the arisen faculty of pain ceases without remainder."

Here one asks - "If these feelings have been abandoned at the access of each respective meditative absorption, why were they brought together here?" For the purpose of easy comprehension. For this neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling stated here as "neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant" is subtle, extremely difficult to discern, and cannot be easily grasped. Therefore, just as a cowherd, in order to catch a vicious bull that cannot be caught by approaching it in any way, gathers all the cattle into one pen, and then removing them one by one, when that one comes in turn, he has it caught, saying "This is the one, catch it"; just so the Blessed One brought all these together for the purpose of apprehending the neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling. For having thus brought these together and shown them, saying "That which is neither pleasant nor painful, neither joyful nor displeasurable - this is the neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling," it becomes possible to make it apprehended.

Furthermore, it should be understood that these were stated also for the purpose of showing the conditions for the neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant liberation of mind. For the abandoning of pleasure and so forth are conditions for that. As he said - "There are, friends, four conditions for the attainment of the neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant liberation of mind. Here, friend, a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure, etc. having attained the fourth meditative absorption, dwells. These, friends, are the four conditions for the attainment of the neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant liberation of mind." Or just as elsewhere, identity view and so forth, though already abandoned, are stated as abandoned therein for the purpose of praising the third path; so too it should be understood that these are stated here also for the purpose of praising this meditative absorption. Or it should be understood that these were stated here to show the extreme remoteness of lust and hate through the destruction of their conditions. For among these, happiness is a condition for pleasure, pleasure for lust, suffering for displeasure, displeasure for hate. And through the destruction of happiness and so on, lust and hate together with their conditions are destroyed, thus they become extremely remote.

"Neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant" means not unpleasant through the absence of suffering, not pleasant through the absence of happiness. By this, herein it explains the third feeling that is the opposite of suffering and happiness, not merely the absence of suffering and happiness. The third feeling is called - neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, and is also called equanimity. It should be understood as having the characteristic of experiencing what is contrary to the desirable and undesirable, the function of neutrality, the manifestation of an obscure object, and the proximate cause of the cessation of happiness. "Purity of mindfulness due to equanimity" means purity of mindfulness produced by equanimity. For in this meditative absorption, mindfulness is well purified. And that purity of mindfulness is brought about by equanimity, not by anything else; therefore this is called "purity of mindfulness due to equanimity." In the Vibhaṅga too it is said - "This mindfulness, through this equanimity, is clear, purified, and bright; therefore it is called - 'purity of mindfulness due to equanimity.'" And the equanimity by which there is purity of mindfulness here should be understood as being, in meaning, specific neutrality (tatramajjhattatā). And it is not only mindfulness that is purified here by that, but rather all associated mental states as well; however, the teaching is stated with mindfulness as the chief.

Therein, although this equanimity exists in the three lower meditative absorptions as well, just as the crescent moon, though existing during the day, is impure and not bright due to being overpowered by the radiance of the sun and due to not obtaining the night which is congenial to it through its gentle nature or through being its helper; so too this crescent moon of specific neutrality equanimity, though existing in the divisions of the first and other meditative absorptions, is impure due to being overpowered by the brilliance of opposing states such as applied thought and sustained thought, and due to not obtaining the night of equanimous feeling which is congenial to it. And when that is impure, just as the light of the impure crescent moon during the day, the co-arisen mindfulness and other states too are impure; therefore in none of those is it called "purity of mindfulness due to equanimity." Here, however, due to the absence of being overpowered by the brilliance of opposing states such as applied thought and so forth, and due to obtaining the night of equanimous feeling which is congenial to it, this crescent moon of specific neutrality equanimity is exceedingly pure; and because of its purity, just as the light of the pure crescent moon, the co-arisen mindfulness and other states too are purified and bright; therefore it should be understood that only this is called "purity of mindfulness due to equanimity."

"Fourth" - it is the fourth by numerical sequence. It is also the fourth because one enters this fourth. As for "meditative absorption" here, just as the third has five factors beginning with equanimity; so this has three factors beginning with equanimity. As he said - "Meditative absorption means equanimity, mindfulness, and one-pointedness of mind." And this is by way of convention. But setting aside mindfulness, and taking only equanimity and one-pointedness, in the absolute sense this has just two factors. As he said - "What is the two-factored meditative absorption on that occasion? Equanimity and one-pointedness of mind." The remainder is just by the method already stated.

The account of the fourth jhāna is concluded.

Discussion on the Recollection of Past Lives

12. Thus these four jhānas serve for some the purpose of one-pointedness of mind, for some they are the basis for insight, for some the basis for direct knowledges, for some the basis for cessation, and for some they serve the purpose of entering into existence. Therein, for those with taints destroyed, they serve the purpose of one-pointedness of mind, for having attained them, thinking "With one-pointed minds we shall dwell happily for the day," they perform the preliminary work on the kasiṇa and produce the eight attainments. For trainees and ordinary persons who produce them thinking "Having emerged from the attainment, we shall practise insight with a concentrated mind," they are the basis for insight. But for those who, having produced the eight attainments and having entered upon the jhāna that is the basis for direct knowledges, and having emerged from the attainment, produce them while aspiring to direct knowledges in the manner stated as "having been one, he becomes many," for them they are the basis for direct knowledges. But for those who, having produced the eight attainments, produce them thinking "Having entered the attainment of cessation and having become without consciousness for seven days, having attained cessation-nibbāna in this very life, we shall dwell happily," for them they are the basis for cessation. But for those who, having produced the eight attainments, produce them thinking "Having jhānas that are not lost, we shall be reborn in the Brahma world," for them they serve the purpose of entering into existence.

But this fourth jhāna was produced by the Blessed One at the foot of the Bodhi tree, and it should be understood that it was for him the basis for insight, the basis for direct knowledges, the basis for cessation, the accomplisher of all tasks, and the bestower of all mundane and supramundane qualities. Showing a portion of those qualities of which it was the bestower, he said beginning with "When the mind was thus concentrated."

Therein, "he" means he, I. "Thus" is an indication of the procedure of the fourth jhāna. It is stated that "having attained the fourth jhāna by this procedure." "Concentrated" means concentrated by this concentration of the fourth meditative absorption. But regarding "pure" and so on, pure through the state of purity of equanimity and mindfulness. Bright precisely because of being pure; it is said to mean luminous. Without blemish because of the state of having destroyed blemishes such as lust and so on through the elimination of conditions such as pleasure and so on. And free from impurities precisely because of being without blemish; for through blemish the mind becomes impure. Supple because of being well developed; it is said to mean having attained mastery. For the mind that is functioning under control is called supple. And wieldy precisely because of suppleness; it is said to mean enduring work, fit for work. For a supple mind is wieldy, like well-refined gold, and both of these are precisely because of being well developed. As he said - "Monks, I do not see any other single thing that, when developed and cultivated, is so supple and wieldy as this, monks - the mind."

Stable because of being established in these states beginning with purity. Having attained imperturbability precisely because of being stable - it is stated that it means "unshakeable, free from disturbance." Or, stable because of being established under one's control through the state of suppleness and wieldiness; having attained imperturbability because of being sustained by faith and the rest. For the mind sustained by faith does not waver through faithlessness, that sustained by energy does not waver through idleness, that sustained by mindfulness does not waver through negligence, that sustained by concentration does not waver through restlessness, that sustained by wisdom does not waver through ignorance, that gone to light does not waver through the darkness of mental defilements. Sustained by these six qualities, the mind has attained imperturbability. Thus the mind endowed with eight factors is capable of being directed towards the realisation by direct knowledge of those things that are to be realised by direct knowledge.

Another method - Concentrated by the concentration of the fourth meditative absorption. Pure by the removal of the mental hindrances. Bright by the transcendence of applied thought and so on. Without blemish through the absence of evil desires rooted in the conditions for attaining jhāna. Free from impurities by the disappearance of the mental impurities beginning with covetousness. Both of these should be understood in accordance with the Anaṅgaṇa Sutta and the Vattha Sutta. Supple by the attainment of mastery. Wieldy through approaching the state of being a basis for spiritual power. Stable and having attained imperturbability through approaching a sublime state by the fulfilment of development. In the way that it has attained imperturbability, so it is stable - this is the meaning. Thus too, the mind endowed with eight factors is capable of being directed towards the direct realisation of states to be realised by direct knowledge; the meaning is that it is a foundation and a proximate cause.

"For the knowledge of recollecting past lives" means: when this mind has thus become a basis for direct knowledge, for the purpose of that knowledge which is in the recollection of past lives. Therein, "past lives" means the aggregates that were dwelt in during former past existences. "Dwelt in" means inhabited, experienced, having arisen in one's own continuity and ceased; or dwelt in as things that were dwelt in, dwelt in by way of dwelling in the range of experience, cognised and discerned by one's own consciousness, or also cognised by others' consciousness, as in the recollection of those whose round has been cut off, and so forth. "Recollection of past lives" means that mindfulness by which one recollects past lives - that is the recollection of past lives. "Knowledge" means the knowledge associated with that mindfulness. Thus, for the purpose of this knowledge of recollecting past lives, "for the knowledge of recollecting past lives" means for the attainment and reaching of this knowledge - so it is stated. "I directed and inclined" means I directed forth.

"So" means he, I. "Manifold" means of many kinds, or the meaning is described and set forth in many ways. "Past lives" means the continuity dwelt in here and there, beginning with the immediately preceding past existence. "I recollect" indicates: I remember by following and following the sequence of births thus - "one birth, two births"; or I remember following along; or I remember at the mere moment of directing the mind. For great beings who have fulfilled the perfections, there is no need for preparatory work; therefore they remember merely by directing the mind. But sons of good family who are beginners remember only after doing preparatory work; therefore the preparatory work might be stated in terms of them. But stating that would make the introduction to the Vinaya excessively burdensome; therefore we do not state it. However, those who are interested should take it up in the manner stated in the Visuddhimagga. Here, however, we shall explain only the canonical text.

"As follows" is an indeclinable particle for the purpose of showing the manner of what has been begun. By that very word, showing the variety of manner of this past life that has been begun, he said beginning with "even one birth." Therein, "even one birth" means even one continuity of aggregates included in one existence, having conception as its root and death as its conclusion. This same method applies in "even two births" and so on. But in "many cosmic cycles of universe-contraction" and so on, a cosmic cycle that is declining is a cosmic cycle of universe-contraction; one that is expanding should be known as a cosmic cycle of universe-expansion. And therein, by contraction, the period of remaining contracted is included, because it has that as its basis. And by the universe-expansion, the period of remaining expanded. For when this is so, those four incalculables stated as "There are, monks, these four incalculables of a cosmic cycle. What are the four? Contraction, the period of remaining contracted, expansion, the period of remaining expanded" - all of those are included.

Therein, there are three universe-contractions - the universe-contraction by fire, the universe-contraction by water, and the universe-contraction by air. There are three boundaries of universe-contraction - the Radiant gods, the gods of Streaming Radiance, and the gods of Great Fruit. When the cosmic cycle contracts by fire, everything below the Radiant gods is burnt by fire. When it contracts by water, everything below the gods of Streaming Radiance is dissolved by water. When it contracts by wind, everything below the gods of Great Fruit is destroyed by wind. In detail, however, always one Buddha-field is destroyed.

A Buddha-field is threefold - the birth-field, the field of authority, and the domain-field. Therein, the field of birth extends to ten thousand world-systems, which trembles at the Tathāgata's conception and so forth. The field of authority extends to a hundred thousand koṭis of world-systems. Where the power of these protective discourses operates - the Ratana Paritta, the Khandha Paritta, the Dhajagga Paritta, the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta, and the Mora Paritta. The field of scope, however, is infinite and immeasurable; as it is said "or as far as he might wish," where whatever he wishes, that he recollects. Thus, among these three Buddha-fields, one field of authority is destroyed. When that is being destroyed, the field of birth too is already destroyed. And what is being destroyed is destroyed all at once, and what is being re-established is re-established all at once. Its destruction and re-establishment are stated in the Visuddhimagga. Those who are interested should learn it from there.

Now, regarding these cosmic cycles of contraction and expansion that have been mentioned, among these the Blessed One, seated at the seat of enlightenment for the purpose of attaining perfect enlightenment, recollected many cosmic cycles of contraction, many cosmic cycles of expansion, and many cosmic cycles of contraction and expansion. How? By the method beginning with "There I was." Therein, "There I was" means: in such a cosmic cycle of contraction, I was in such a state of existence, or in such a mode of birth, or in such a destiny, or in such a station of consciousness, or in such an abode of beings, or in such a class of beings. "Having such a name" means: Vessantara or Jotipāla. "Having such a clan" means Bhaggava or Gotama. "Having such beauty" means white or brown. "Having such food" means one whose food was rice with meat, or one feeding on fallen fruits. "Experiencing such pleasure and pain" means one who experiences in manifold ways bodily and mental pleasures and pains of various kinds such as material and non-material and so on. "With such a life span" means with a life span having a maximum of a hundred years, or with a life span having a maximum of eighty-four thousand cosmic cycles.

"Passing away from there, I arose there" means: I, having passed away from that state of existence, from that mode of birth, from that destiny, from that station of consciousness, from that abode of beings, or from that class of beings, arose again in such and such a state of existence, in such a mode of birth, in such a destiny, in such a station of consciousness, in such an abode of beings, or in such a class of beings. "There too I was" means then there too, in that existence, or mode of generation, or destination, or station of consciousness, or abode of beings, or order of beings, I was again. "Having such a name" and so on is by the same method as already stated.

Alternatively, since "there I was" is the recollection of one ascending progressively as far as one wishes. "Passing away from there" is the reviewing of one who is turning back. Therefore, "I arose here" should be understood as referring to the Tusita abode, meaning "I arose there" immediately prior to this arising here. "There too I was, having such a name" means there too, in the Tusita abode, I was a young god named Setaketu. "Having such a clan" means of one clan together with those deities. "Having such beauty" means golden-coloured. "Having such food" means having divine ambrosia as food. "Experiencing such pleasure and pain" means thus experiencing divine pleasure. But the pain was merely the suffering due to activities. "With such a life span" means with a life span of fifty-seven koṭis and sixty hundred thousand years. "Passing away from there" means I, passing away from there, from the Tusita abode. "I arose here" means here I was born in the womb of Queen Mahāmāyā.

"Iti" means "thus." "With aspects and terms" means with terms by way of name and clan, and with aspects by way of beauty and so on. For a being is designated by name and clan as "Datta, Tissa, Gotama"; by complexion and so forth one is known in diversity as "fair" or "dark"; therefore name and clan are the terms, the others are the aspects. But do only Buddhas recollect past lives? It is said - Not only Buddhas, but also paccekabuddhas, disciples of the Buddha, and adherents of other sects - but not without distinction. For adherents of other sects recollect only forty aeons, not beyond that. Why? Because of the weakness of their wisdom. For their wisdom is weak due to the absence of the discernment of name-and-form. Among the disciples, however, the eighty great disciples recollect a hundred thousand aeons; the two chief disciples, one incalculable and a hundred thousand. The paccekabuddhas, two incalculables and a hundred thousand. For such is their resolution. But for the Buddhas there is no limit; they recollect as far as they wish. And adherents of other sects recollect only by the sequence of aggregates. They cannot recollect by releasing the sequence and going by way of death and rebirth-linking. For, like the blind, they have no ability to step into a desired place. Disciples recollect in both ways; likewise paccekabuddhas. But Buddhas, whether by the sequence of aggregates, by way of death and rebirth-linking, or by way of the lion's leap, in many koṭis of aeons, whether below or above, whatever place they wish, they recollect all of that indeed.

In "This, brahmin, was my" and so on, "my" means by me. "True knowledge" means true knowledge in the meaning of making known. What does it make known? Past lives. "Ignorance" refers to the delusion that conceals those very past lives, in the sense of making them unknown. "Darkness" - that very delusion is called "darkness" in the sense of concealing them. "Light" - that very true knowledge is called "light" in the sense of making illumination. And here the meaning is "true knowledge was attained"; the remainder is a word of praise. The explanation here, however, is: This true knowledge was attained by me; for me who had attained true knowledge, ignorance was destroyed - the meaning is, it perished. Why? Because true knowledge had arisen. This same method applies to the other pair of terms as well.

In "as happens for one," here "as" is in the sense of comparison. "Taṃ" is an indeclinable particle. "Diligent" means through the continuous presence of mindfulness. "Ardent" means with the ardour of energy. "Resolute" means one who has disregard for body and life, one whose mind is directed - this is the meaning. This is what is meant - Just as for one dwelling diligent, ardent, and resolute, ignorance would be destroyed and true knowledge would arise, darkness would be destroyed and light would arise; even so my ignorance was destroyed, true knowledge arose, darkness was destroyed, light arose. A fruit befitting this pursuit of striving has been obtained by me.

"This, brahmin, was my first breaking forth, like a chick from the egg-shell" means: this, brahmin, was my first breaking forth, my first emergence, my first noble birth, having broken through the egg-shell of ignorance that concealed the aggregates dwelt in formerly, by means of the beak of the knowledge of recollecting past lives - just as a chick's breaking forth, its emergence into the species of fowl, having broken through the egg-shell by means of its beak or the tip of its claws, from that egg-shell.

The account of the recollection of past lives is concluded.

Discussion on the Knowledge of the Divine Eye

13. "When thus" etc. "Towards the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth" means for the knowledge of passing away and of rebirth; the meaning stated is: for the purpose of that knowledge by which the passing away and rebirth of beings is known. "I directed and inclined the mind" means I brought forth the preliminary mind. "With the divine" etc. "I see" - here, however, for great beings who have fulfilled the perfections, there is no need for preliminary practice. For they see beings with the divine eye merely upon inclining the mind, whereas sons of good family who are beginners do so after performing the preliminary practice. Therefore, the preliminary practice should be stated in accordance with their case. However, stating that would make the Vinaya origin excessively burdensome; therefore we do not state it. But those who are interested should learn it in the manner stated in the Visuddhimagga. Here, however, we shall explain only the canonical text.

"So" means he, I. In "with the divine" and so on, it is divine because of being similar to the divine. For deities have a divine sensitive eye that is produced by meritorious action, unobstructed by bile, phlegm, blood and the like, and capable of receiving objects even at a distance due to being free from impurities. This knowledge-eye too, produced by the power of the development of energy, is just like that - hence it is divine because of being similar to the divine; it is divine because of being obtained by means of divine abiding and because of being itself dependent upon divine abiding; it is divine because of its great luminosity through the comprehension of light; and it is divine because of its great range through seeing forms that have gone beyond walls and the like. All that should be understood in accordance with the science of grammar. It is an eye in the meaning of seeing. It is also an eye because, by performing the function of an eye, it is as if possessing an eye. Pure because of being a cause for purification of view through the seeing of passing away and rebirth. For whoever sees only the passing away but not the rebirth, he grasps the annihilationist view. Whoever sees only the rebirth but not the passing away, he grasps the view of the manifestation of a new being. But one who sees both of these, since he transcends both kinds of wrong view, therefore that seeing of his becomes a cause for purification of view. And the Blessed One saw both of these. Therefore this was said - "Pure because of being a cause for purification of view through the seeing of passing away and rebirth."

Or pure because of the absence of the eleven impurities. For the Blessed One's divine eye is free from the eleven impurities. As he said - "Having known thus, Anuruddha, 'doubt is an impurity of the mind,' I abandoned doubt, the impurity of the mind. Inattention etc. sloth and torpor... trepidation... elation... inertia... excessive energy... deficient energy... intense praying... perception of diversity... Having known thus 'excessive contemplation of forms is an impurity of the mind,' I abandoned excessive contemplation of forms, the impurity of the mind. Dwelling diligent, ardent, and resolute, Anuruddha, I perceive light but do not see forms. I see forms but do not perceive light" - thus and so forth. Thus it is pure because of being free from the eleven impurities.

"Surpassing the human" means surpassing the human by seeing forms beyond the range of human experience; or it should be understood as "surpassing the human" because it surpasses the human fleshly eye. With that divine eye, which is pure and surpasses the human.

"I see beings" means, just as with the human fleshly eye, I see beings, I behold them, I observe them. "Passing away and arising" - here, at the actual moment of death or the actual moment of rebirth, it is not possible to see with the divine eye; but those who are near death and will presently pass away are "passing away." And those who have taken conception or have just been reborn - they are intended as "arising." He shows that "I see such ones passing away and arising." "Inferior" means, because of being connected with the result of delusion, despised, looked down upon, disregarded, and disdained on account of inferior birth, family, wealth, and so forth. "Superior" means the opposite of that, because of being connected with the outcome of non-delusion. "Beautiful" means endowed with desirable, pleasant, and agreeable beauty, because of being connected with the outcome of non-hate. "Ugly" means, because of being connected with the result of hatred, endowed with undesirable, unlovely, and disagreeable appearance; the meaning is also "comely and uncomely." "Fortunate" means gone to a fortunate world, or because of being connected with the outcome of non-greed, rich and of great wealth. "Unfortunate" means gone to an unfortunate realm, or because of being connected with the outcome of greed, poor, with little food and drink. "Faring according to their actions" means having arrived at destinations according to whatever actions they have accumulated. Therein, by the preceding terms "passing away" and so forth, the function of the divine eye is stated; but by this term, the function of the knowledge of faring according to one's actions is stated.

And this is the order of arising of that knowledge - he extends the light downward towards hell and sees the beings in hell experiencing great suffering; that seeing is indeed the function of the divine eye. He then reflects thus - "Having done what action are these beings experiencing this suffering?" Then the knowledge arises in him with that action as its object, thinking "Having done such and such." Likewise, extending the light upward towards the celestial realm, he sees beings in Nandana Grove, Missakavana, Phārusakavana, and other such places experiencing great prosperity. That seeing too is solely the function of the divine eye. He then reflects thus - "Having done what action are these beings experiencing this prosperity?" Then the knowledge arises in him with that action as its object, thinking "Having done such and such." This is called the knowledge of rebirth according to beings' actions. For this there is no separate preliminary work. Just as for this, so too for the knowledge of future events. For these, having the divine eye as their foundation, succeed together with the divine eye itself.

In the phrase "with bodily misconduct" and so forth, misconduct is conduct that is wicked, or conduct that is corrupt, because of being putrid with defilements; Misconduct by body, or misconduct arisen from the body - thus it is bodily misconduct. Verbal and mental misconduct should be understood in the same way. "Endowed with" means possessed of. "Revilers of the noble ones" means those who, being desirous of harm towards the noble ones - the Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and disciples of the Buddha - even down to lay stream-enterers, revile them either by the ultimate charge or by the disparagement of their virtues; the meaning stated is: abusers, blamers. Therein, one saying "There is no ascetic practice in them, they are not ascetics" blames by the final case. One who says "These have no jhāna, or liberation, or path, or fruit" should be understood as reviling by the disparagement of their virtues. Whether he blames knowingly or unknowingly, in both ways it is just reviling of the noble ones. It is a weighty action, an obstruction to heaven and an obstruction to the path, but it is remediable. For the purpose of making this manifest, they cite this account -

"In a certain village, it is said, an elder and a young monk were walking for alms. At the very first house they received a ladle-full of hot rice gruel. The elder had a stomach ailment. He thought - 'This gruel is suitable for me; let me drink it while it is still not cold.' He sat down on a log of wood brought by people for the purpose of building a threshold, and drank it. The other despised him - 'This old one is exceedingly greedy; he has done something shameful for us.' The elder, having walked through the village, went to the monastery and said to the young monk - 'Have you, friend, an established footing in this dispensation?' 'Yes, venerable sir, I am a stream-enterer.' 'Then, friend, do not make effort for the higher path, for one whose taints are destroyed has been reviled by you.' He asked his forgiveness. Thereby that action became ineffective for him." Therefore, whoever else reviles a noble one, he should go to him and, if the noble one is senior to himself, should ask forgiveness thus: "I said such and such to the venerable one, may you forgive me for that." If the noble one is junior, having paid homage, having sat down on his haunches, having raised his hands in añjali, he should ask forgiveness thus: "Venerable sir, I said such and such to you, may you forgive me for that." If he does not forgive, or has departed to another region, one should go to the monks dwelling in that monastery, and if they are senior to oneself, just while standing, if they are junior, having sat down on one's haunches and having raised one's hands in añjali, one should ask forgiveness by saying thus: "Venerable sir, I said such and such to the venerable one of such a name, may that venerable one forgive me." If he has passed away, one should go to the place of the funeral couch of the deceased, and even going as far as the charnel ground, one should ask forgiveness. When this is done, there is no obstruction to heaven nor obstruction to the path; it becomes merely an ordinary action.

"Holding wrong views" means having distorted vision. "Undertaking actions based on wrong views" means those who have undertaken various actions through the power of wrong view, and who also instigate others in bodily actions and so on that are rooted in wrong view. Therein, it should be understood that although reviling of the noble ones is already included by the inclusion of verbal misconduct, and wrong view is already included by the inclusion of mental misconduct, the repeated mention of these two is for the purpose of showing their greatly blameworthy nature. For reviling of noble ones is greatly blameworthy, similar to the heinous offences of immediate retribution. As he said - "Just as, Sāriputta, a monk endowed with virtue, endowed with concentration, endowed with wisdom might attain final knowledge in this very life; even so certain is this, Sāriputta, I say that without abandoning that speech, without abandoning that thought, without relinquishing that view, he is deposited as if carried there, thus in hell."

And there is nothing else more blameworthy than wrong view. As he said - "I do not see, monks, any single thing so greatly blameworthy as this, namely, wrong view. Wrong view is paramount, monks, among faults."

"Upon the body's collapse" means by the relinquishment of the clung-to aggregates. "After death" means at the taking up of the aggregates that are reborn immediately after that. Or alternatively, "upon the body's collapse" means through the cutting off of the life faculty. "After death" means beyond the death consciousness. "A realm of misery" and so forth - all these are synonyms for hell. For hell is a realm of misery because of being devoid of income reckoned as merit, which is the cause of heaven and liberation, or because of the absence of income of happiness. "Unfortunate realm" means the destination and shelter of suffering; or an unfortunate realm is a destination produced by corrupt action due to the prevalence of hatred. "A nether world" means a place where those who have done evil fall helplessly; or a nether world is where those who are being destroyed fall with their limbs and minor limbs being broken apart. "Hell" because there is no income associated with gratification therein.

Or alternatively, by the term "realm of misery" he explains the animal realm. For the animal realm is a realm of misery, because it is devoid of a fortunate destination; but it is not an unfortunate realm, because of the existence of powerful beings such as nāga kings and the like. By the term "unfortunate realm" he explains the sphere of ghosts. For that is both a realm of misery and an unfortunate realm, because it is devoid of a fortunate destination and because it is a destination of suffering; but it is not a nether world, because, like the asuras, they have not fallen down. For even for ghosts with great supernormal power, mansions arise. By the term "nether world" he explains the class of titans. For that is both a realm of misery and an unfortunate realm in the sense already stated, and because they have fallen from all accumulations of prosperity, it is called a nether world. By the inclusion of "hell," it indicates hell itself of many kinds beginning with Avīci. "Arisen" means approached; the intention is that they were reborn there. The bright side should be understood by the reverse of what has been stated.

But this is the distinction - here, by the term "fortunate realm," the human realm is also included. By the term "heaven," the destination of gods only. Therein, a beautiful destination is a fortunate destination. "Excelling well in the objects of form and so forth" is heaven. All that too is called "world" in the sense of crumbling and disintegrating - this is the meaning of the word. "True knowledge" means the true knowledge of the divine eye knowledge. "Ignorance" means the ignorance that conceals the passing away and conception of beings. The remainder is according to the method already stated. Here, this alone is the distinction - just as in the discussion of the recollection of past lives it was said: "having broken through the egg-shell of ignorance that conceals the aggregates dwelt in previously, with the beak of the knowledge of recollection of past lives"; so here it should be stated: "having broken through the egg-shell of ignorance that conceals passing away and rebirth, with the beak of the knowledge of passing away and rebirth."

The account of the knowledge of the divine eye is concluded.

Treatise on the Knowledge of the Elimination of Mental Corruptions

14. "When the mind is thus concentrated" - here the consciousness of the fourth meditative absorption that serves as the foundation for insight should be understood. "Towards the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions" means for the purpose of the knowledge of the path of arahantship. For the path of arahantship is called "the elimination of mental corruptions" because it destroys the mental corruptions. And this knowledge is therein because it is included within that. "I directed and inclined the mind" means I directed the insight consciousness. In "This is suffering" and so on, "this much is suffering, there is no more beyond this" - I directly knew, knew, and penetrated as it really is the entire truth of suffering through the penetration of its own characteristic. The meaning should be understood thus: the craving that produces that suffering as "this is the origin of suffering"; the state upon reaching which both of those cease, that non-occurrence of them, nibbāna, as "this is the cessation of suffering"; and the noble path that leads to that as "this is the practice leading to the cessation of suffering" - I directly knew, understood, and penetrated as it really is through the penetration of their own characteristics.

Having thus shown the truths in their own nature, now showing them by way of exposition through mental defilements, he said beginning with "these are the mental corruptions." "For me knowing thus, seeing thus" means for me knowing thus, seeing thus - he speaks of the path that has reached its culmination together with insight. "From the mental corruption of sensuality" means from the mental corruption of sensuality. "Was liberated" - by this he shows the fruition moment. For at the moment of the path the mind becomes liberated; at the moment of fruition it is liberated. "When liberated, there was the knowledge: 'Liberated'" - by this he shows reviewing knowledge. By "birth is eliminated" and so on, its plane. For reviewing with that knowledge, the Blessed One directly knew "birth is eliminated" and so forth. But which birth of the Blessed One is eliminated, and how did he directly know it? It is said - Not his past birth was eliminated, because it was already eliminated previously; Not the future, because there is no effort regarding what is future; Not the present, because it is existing. But whatever birth, differentiated as one-aggregate, four-aggregate, or five-aggregate existence in one-constituent, four-constituent, or five-constituent realms of existence, would arise due to the path not having been developed - that was eliminated through the path having been developed, by reaching the state of non-arising. He directly knew that by reviewing the defilements abandoned through the development of the path, knowing "in the absence of defilements, even existing kamma does not produce relinking in the future."

"Lived" means dwelt, lived through completely; done, practised, completed - this is the meaning. "The holy life" means the holy life of the path; for together with the virtuous worldling, the seven trainees are said to dwell the dwelling of the holy life; one whose corruptions are eliminated has completed the dwelling. Therefore the Blessed One, reviewing his own dwelling of the holy life, directly knew "the holy life has been lived." "What was to be done has been done" means the sixteenfold function has been accomplished by way of full understanding, abandoning, realisation, and meditative development through the four paths in regard to the four truths - this is the meaning. For the virtuous worldling and others perform this task; one whose corruptions are eliminated has done what was to be done. Therefore the Blessed One, reviewing his own task to be done, directly knew "what was to be done has been done." "There is no more of this state of being" means I directly knew that there is now no further task of path development for the purpose of such a state, for the purpose of such sixteen-fold task, or for the destruction of defilements.

Now, showing to the brahmin that attainment of the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions, which was accompanied by reviewing knowledge, he said "This, brahmin, was for me" and so forth. Therein, "true knowledge" means the true knowledge of the knowledge of the path of arahantship. "Ignorance" means the ignorance that conceals the four truths. The remainder is according to the method already stated. But this is the distinction - In the passage "This, brahmin, was my third breaking forth," this means: "This, brahmin, was for me the third breaking forth, the third emergence, the third noble birth, having split open the egg-shell of ignorance that conceals the four truths with the beak of the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions - just as for a chick, having split open the egg-shell with its beak or with the tip of its claw, there is a breaking forth, an emergence, a rebirth into the chicken species, from that egg-shell."

What does he show by this? That chick, brahmin, having split open the egg-shell

and emerging from it, is born only once; but I, having broken open the egg-shell of ignorance that conceals the aggregates inhabited in the past, was first born through the true knowledge of the knowledge of recollection of past lives; then, having split open the egg-shell of ignorance that conceals the passing away and rebirth of beings, was born a second time through the true knowledge of the divine eye; and again, having split open the egg-shell of ignorance that conceals the four truths, was born a third time through the true knowledge of the knowledge of the elimination of mental corruptions. Thus, through the three true knowledges, he was born three times. He showed this: "And that birth of mine was noble and thoroughly pure." And showing thus, having made manifest all the qualities of omniscience through the three true knowledges - namely, knowledge of the past through the knowledge of recollection of past lives, knowledge of the present and future through the divine eye, and all mundane and supramundane qualities through the elimination of mental corruptions - he showed to the brahmin his state of being the eldest and foremost by virtue of his noble birth.

The account of the knowledge of the destruction of the taints is concluded.

Discussion on the Rejoicing in the Teaching

15. "When this was said, the brahmin Verañja": When the Blessed One, who has compassion for the world, out of compassion for the brahmin, had spoken the teaching on the Dhamma that illuminates the three knowledges - which reveals the state of being elder and foremost by his own noble birth, even though it should have been kept concealed - the brahmin Verañja, whose body and mind were filled with the suffusion of rapture, having understood that state of being elder and foremost by the Blessed One's noble birth, reproached himself thus: "I who said of such a one as this, who is the elder and foremost in all the world, endowed with all virtues, the Omniscient One, that 'he does not perform the act of paying respect and so forth to others' - 'Shame on you, O ignorance!'" Having reproached himself thus, and having reached the conclusion: "This one is now the elder in the world by virtue of being born before others through noble birth, and the foremost by virtue of being unequalled in all virtues," he said this to the Blessed One - "Master Gotama is the elder, Master Gotama is the foremost." And having spoken thus, further rejoicing in that teaching on the Dhamma by the Blessed One, he said beginning with "Excellent, Master Gotama, excellent, Master Gotama."

Therein, this word "abhikkanta" is seen in the senses of passing away, beautiful, handsome, and appreciation. "The night has passed, venerable sir; the first watch has elapsed, the Community of monks has been sitting long" - in such passages it is seen in the sense of passing away. In such passages as "This person I prefer, of these four persons as more brilliant and more sublime," in the sense of beautiful.

"Who pays respect to my feet, blazing with supernormal power and fame;

With surpassing beauty, illuminating all directions?"

In such passages and so on, in the sense of handsome. In such passages as "Excellent, venerable sir," in the sense of appreciation. Here too it is just in the sense of appreciation. And because it is in the sense of rejoicing, it should be understood that it means "Well said, well said, Master Gotama."

"In fear, in wrath, in praise, in haste, in curiosity and wonder;

In laughter, in sorrow, and in confidence, the wise one makes repetition."

And by this characteristic, it should be understood that here it is said twice on account of confidence and on account of praise.

Alternatively, "abhikkanta" means "exceedingly pleasing, exceedingly agreeable, exceedingly beautiful." Therein, with one word "excellent" he extols the teaching, and with the other his own confidence. For this is the intention here - "Excellent, Master Gotama, is this - namely, Master Gotama's teaching of the Dhamma; excellent is this - namely, my confidence that has arisen on account of Master Gotama's teaching of the Dhamma." Or alternatively, he extols the word of the Blessed One itself with reference to two meanings each time: Master Gotama's words are excellent because of destroying faults, excellent because of attaining virtues; likewise because of generating faith and because of generating wisdom; because of being meaningful and because of being well-phrased; because of being clear in expression and because of being profound in meaning; because of being pleasant to the ear and because of reaching the heart; because of not exalting oneself and because of not disparaging others; because of being cool with compassion and because of being pure with wisdom; because of being delightful at first encounter and because of being able to withstand scrutiny; because of being pleasant when heard and because of being beneficial when examined - it should be connected with such pairs as these.

Furthermore, he extols the teaching itself with four similes. Therein, "overturned" means placed face down, or naturally turned face down. "Would set upright" means would make the face upward. "Concealed" means covered with grass, leaves, and so forth. "Would reveal" means would uncover. "Of one who was lost" means of one who has lost his bearings. "Would point out the path" means taking him by the hand, would say "this is the path." "In the darkness" means in a fourfold darkness consisting of the fourteenth day of the dark fortnight, midnight, a dense forest thicket, and a mass of clouds. This is the meaning of the non-obvious terms for now. But this is the connection of the intention: Just as someone might set upright what had been overturned, so by raising me up from wrong teaching - me who was turned away from the true Dhamma and established in wrong teaching; Just as one might reveal what had been concealed, so by revealing the Dispensation that had been concealed by the thicket of wrong views ever since the disappearance of the Dispensation of the Blessed One Kassapa; Just as one might point out the path to one who was lost, so by pointing out to me - who had entered upon a wrong path, a false path - the path to heaven and liberation; Just as one might hold up an oil lamp in the darkness, so by holding up the lamp of teaching that dispels the darkness of delusion which conceals them - for me who was submerged in the darkness of delusion and unable to see the forms of the Triple Gem beginning with the Buddha - because it has been made clear to me by Master Gotama through these methods, the Dhamma has been made clear in many ways.

The account of the rejoicing in the teaching is concluded.

Discussion on the Expression of Confidence

Having thus praised the teaching, with a mind of confidence in the Triple Gem through this teaching, expressing the manner of one who has confidence, he said "I" etc. Therein, "I" means "this I." "I go for refuge to Master Gotama" means "I go to Master Gotama as refuge"; with the intention that "Master Gotama is my refuge, my resort, protector from misery, and provider of welfare," I go to Master Gotama, I resort to him, I attend upon him, I wait upon him, or thus I know, I understand. For those verbal roots which have the meaning of "going" also have the meaning of "knowing"; therefore, for this word "I go," the meaning "I know, I understand" is also stated. As for "and the Dhamma and the Community of monks" - here, that which sustains one who has attained the path, who has realised cessation, who practises as instructed, and who does not fall into the four lower realms, is the Dhamma; that, in meaning, is both the noble path and nibbāna. For this was said - "As far as there are conditioned phenomena, monks, the noble eightfold path is declared the foremost among them" - in detail. And not only the noble path and nibbāna, but also the learning texts together with the noble fruits. For this too has been said in the Chattamāṇavaka Mansion -

"Dispassion from lust, without longing, without sorrow, the teaching unconditioned, not repulsive;

Sweet is this, well-practised, well-divided, go to this Teaching for the purpose of refuge."

For here, "dispassion from lust" refers to the path. "Without longing, without sorrow" refers to the fruit. "The Teaching unconditioned" refers to Nibbāna. "Not repulsive, sweet is this, well-practised, well-divided" refers to all the aggregates of the Teaching classified by the three Canons. "United by the combination of view and virtue" is the Saṅgha; that, in meaning, is the assembly of the eight noble persons. For this has been said in that same Mansion -

"And where a gift is said to be of great fruit, in the four pure pairs of persons;

And the eight individuals who see the Teaching, go to this Community for the purpose of refuge."

The community of monks is the community of monks. And by this much the brahmin declared the three goings for refuge.

The account of the expression of confidence is concluded.

Treatise on Going for Refuge

Now, for the purpose of skill in those very three goings for refuge: the refuge, the going for refuge, one who goes for refuge,

The classification of going for refuge, the fruit of going for refuge, the defilement, and the breaking - this procedure should be understood. But that has not been stated here because explaining it would make the introduction to the Vinaya excessively lengthy. However, those who wish should learn it from the commentary on the Bhayabherava Sutta in the Papañcasūdanī, the commentary on the Majjhima Nikāya, or from the explanation of refuge in the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, the commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya.

The account of going for refuge is concluded.

Discussion on the Declaration of Lay Discipleship

"May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower" means: may Master Gotama remember me thus - "this one is a lay follower." Now, for the purpose of proficiency in the method regarding lay followers, this miscellaneous matter should be understood: who is a lay follower, why is one called a lay follower, what is his morality, what is his livelihood, what is his failure, what is his success. That has not been analysed here because it would make this excessively lengthy, but those who wish should understand it according to the method stated in the Papañcasūdanī, the commentary on the Majjhima Nikāya. "From this day forth" (ajjatagge): here this word "agga" is seen in the senses of beginning, point, portion, and foremost. For in such passages as "From this day forth, my dear doorkeeper, I close the door to the Jains and female Jains" and so on, it is seen in the sense of beginning. In such passages as "One might touch that fingertip by that very fingertip, the top of sugarcane, the tip of bamboo" and so on, in the sense of point. In such passages as "I allow a sour portion, or a sweet portion, or a bitter portion; monks, let him distribute by dwelling-portion or by residence-portion," it is seen in the sense of portion. "As far as there are beings, monks, whether footless or two-footed" etc. The Tathāgata is declared the foremost among them" and so on, in the sense of foremost. But here it should be seen in the sense of beginning. Therefore "from this day forth" (ajjatagge) means "having made today the beginning" - thus the meaning here should be understood. "Ajjatan" means "the state of being today." Or the reading is simply "ajjadagge," where the letter "d" is a euphonic connector, and it means "having made today the foremost." "For life" means endowed with life; as long as my life continues, so long endowed, having no other teacher, gone for refuge through the three goings for refuge - may Master Gotama remember me, may he know me; for even if they were to cut off my head with a sharp sword, I would never say of the Buddha "he is not the Buddha," or of the Dhamma "it is not the Dhamma," or of the Saṅgha "it is not the Saṅgha." And here it should be understood that the brahmin, by again speaking of going for refuge for life, declares the surrender of himself.

Having thus surrendered himself, wishing to attend upon the Blessed One together with his retinue, he said - "May Master Gotama consent to the rains residence at Verañjā together with the Community of monks." What is meant? May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower, and may he consent to the rains residence at Verañjā, and may he accept a stay of three months in dependence on Verañjā for the purpose of assisting me. "The Blessed One consented by silence" means that then, having heard his words, the Blessed One, without moving any bodily limb or vocal expression, exercising patience inwardly alone, consented by silence; the meaning is that he accepted mentally alone for the purpose of assisting the brahmin.

"Then the brahmin Verañja, having learned of the Blessed One's acceptance" means that the brahmin Verañja thought: "If the ascetic Gotama had not consented, he would have refused by body or by speech. But since, without refusing, he maintained patience inwardly, therefore he consented to me mentally alone" - thus, having learned of the Blessed One's acceptance through skill in discerning outward signs, having risen from the seat where he had been sitting, having respectfully paid homage to the Blessed One in the four directions, having circumambulated him three times keeping him on his right, even though he had earlier criticised him saying that he does not perform salutations and the like to brahmins who are elder by birth, now, having come to know the qualities of the Buddha, even though paying homage many times by body, speech and mind, remaining still unsatisfied, raising his hands in añjali resplendent with the joining of his ten fingernails, placing them upon his head, departing while facing the Blessed One as far as the range of sight, and having paid homage at the place where the range of sight was lost, he departed.

The account of the declaration of lay-follower status is concluded.

Discussion on the Famine

16. "Now at that time Verañjā was afflicted by famine" means at the time when the Blessed One was invited by the brahmin of Verañjā to spend the rains residence in dependence upon Verañjā, at that time Verañjā was afflicted by famine. "Afflicted by famine" means where almsfood was difficult to obtain; and that difficulty of obtaining almsfood occurs where people are without faith and without confidence - even in a time of good harvest, even when early and late crops are extremely cheap. But since in Verañjā it was not so, but rather it was due to crop failure and the defect of famine, therefore showing that meaning he said "with difficult livelihood" and so forth. Therein, "with difficult livelihood" means with livelihood proceeding in two ways. "Livelihood" means activity proceeding in two ways - mental activity, mental striving. "Shall we obtain anything here while begging, or shall we not obtain?" and "Shall we be able to survive or not?" - this is the meaning here.

Alternatively, "with difficult livelihood" means with difficult sustenance; the words "livelihood," "striving," "activity," "proceeding," and "living" are synonymous. Therefore the word meaning here is: "with difficult livelihood" means where livelihood proceeds with difficulty. "With white bones scattered about" means where there are white bones, thus "with white bones scattered about." What is meant is that the bones of destitute people who died without obtaining anything even after begging for a whole day are scattered here and there, resembling the colour of snake hoods. "Setaṭṭikā" is also a reading. Its meaning is - where there is white affliction, thus "setaṭṭikā." "Aṭṭi" means distress, disease, illness. And therein, at the time when the crops are forming grain, being afflicted by the white disease, the rice ears or barley and wheat ears emerge with their sap cut off, without having formed grain, very pale and white; therefore it is called "setaṭṭikā."

"Subsisting by means of food tickets" means that even though at sowing time the crop was sown after thorough preparation, there only food tickets result; or because there they sustain life by means of food tickets, thus "subsisting by means of food tickets." What is meant? There, it is said, when buyers went to the grain sellers, strong people, overpowering the weak people, bought the grain and went away. The weak people, not obtaining any, made a great outcry. The grain sellers, thinking "We shall look after everyone," had a grain measurer seated at the place where grain was kept, and had an assessor of money seated on one side. Those needing grain go to the assessor. He, taking the money in order of arrival, writes a ticket saying "Such and such an amount is to be given to so-and-so" and gives it; they, taking that, go to the grain measurer and receive grain in the order given. Thus, because there they sustain life by means of food tickets, it is called "subsisting by means of food tickets."

"Not easy to sustain oneself by gleaning and exertion" means the gleaning that is done with the bowl, by that it was not easy to sustain oneself. What is meant is that taking the bowl, the gleaning that the noble ones do, walking for almsfood - by that gleaning it was not easy to sustain oneself. At that time, it is said, even after walking for almsfood through seven or eight villages, they did not obtain even enough to sustain themselves for a single day.

"Now at that time horse-dealers from the northern region" etc. "The Blessed One heard the sound of the mortar" - "At that time" means at the time when the Blessed One had entered upon the rains residence near Verañjā, at that time. Residents of the northern region, or because they had come from the northern region, thus being known by that designation, the horse-dealers, having taken five hundred horses from the place where horses are bred in the northern region, wishing for double or triple profit, travelling to another country, had come to Verañjā for the rains residence with those approximately five hundred horses which were their merchandise for sale. Why? For it is not possible to travel on a journey during the four months of the rainy season in that country. And as they were arriving, outside the city, in a place not flooded by water, having had dwelling houses built for themselves and a stable for the horses, they enclosed them with a fence. Those dwelling places of theirs became known as "horse enclosures." Therefore he said - "By them, in the horse enclosures, a measure of husked grain was laid down for the monks." "A measure of husked grain" means a measure of husked grain amounting to one pattha for each individual monk. A pattha is the equivalent of one nāḷi measure, sufficient for the sustenance of one person. For this too was said - "A pattha of rice is not enough for two of us in distress." "Husked grain" refers to barley grains that have been winnowed and sifted. For if they have husks, insects bore into them, and they do not keep for a long journey. Therefore those dealers, having prepared them to be durable for the journey, took the barley grains and set out on the journey, thinking: "Wherever edible grass for the horses will be hard to find, there this will serve as horse-feed."

But why was that laid down by them for the monks? It is said - "They were not faithless and without confidence like the people of the southern region; rather, they were faithful and confident, devoted to the Buddha, devoted to the Dhamma, devoted to the Saṅgha. Entering the city in the earlier part of the day on some business, for two or three days they saw seven or eight monks, well-dressed, well-robed, accomplished in deportment, having walked for almsfood throughout the entire city, not obtaining anything. Having seen this, the following occurred to them - 'The venerable ones have entered upon the rains residence near this city; and a famine prevails, and they do not obtain anything, and they are exceedingly fatigued. We too are visitors, and we are unable to provide them with daily gruel and rice. But our horses receive food twice, in the evening and in the morning. What if we were to give from the morning meal of each horse a measure of husked grain to each monk? In this way the venerable ones will not be fatigued, and the horses too will manage.' They went to the monks, reported this matter, and having requested: 'Venerable sirs, please accept the measure of husked grain and having prepared it in whatever way, consume it,' they laid down a daily measure of husked grain. Therefore it was said - "By them, in the horse enclosures, a measure of husked grain was laid down for the monks."

"Laid down" means established in the manner of a regular meal allowance. Now, regarding "the monks, having dressed in the earlier period of the day" and so forth: "in the earlier period of the day" means the time of the first part of the day; the meaning is "in the forenoon period." Or "a time in the forenoon" is "the forenoon period"; what is said is "a single moment in the forenoon." Thus the accusative case is obtained in the sense of absolute connection. "Having dressed" means having put on; this should be understood by way of changing the monastery inner robe. For they were not unclothed before that. "Taking bowl and robe" means having taken the bowl with the hands and the robe with the body, having covered oneself, having worn it - that is the meaning. For those who take in whatever manner are simply said to be "taking," just as in "he departs having taken up." "Not obtaining almsfood" means having walked through the whole of Verañjā, let alone almsfood, not even obtaining so much as the words "please pass by."

"Having brought the measure of husked grain to the monastery" means having taken each measure of husked grain obtained at each place visited and having brought it to the monastery. "Having pounded it again and again in a mortar, they consumed it" - there was no attendant who could make things allowable for the elders, who could take that and cook gruel or rice for them. Cooking by oneself is also not befitting for a recluse, nor is it allowable. They, thinking "In this way we shall have frugal living and also freedom from cooking by ourselves," in groups of eight or ten, having come together, having pounded it again and again in a mortar, moistened each one's own portion with water and consumed it. Having consumed it thus, being unconcerned with other matters, they practised the recluse's duty. But those horse-dealers gave the Blessed One husked grain and also ghee, honey, and sugar suitable for it. The Venerable Ānanda brought that and ground it on a stone. What is done by a meritorious and wise person is indeed agreeable. Then, having ground it, having properly mixed it with ghee and the rest, he offered it to the Blessed One. And therein deities infused divine nutriment. The Blessed One consumed that. Having consumed it, he spent the time in fruition attainment. From that point on, he did not go for alms.

But was the Elder Ānanda the Blessed One's attendant at that time? He was, but he had not yet obtained the position of attendant. For during the first twenty years after the Blessed One's enlightenment, there was no regular attendant. Sometimes the Elder Nāgasamāla attended upon the Blessed One, sometimes the Elder Nāgita, sometimes the Elder Meghiya, sometimes the Elder Upavāṇa, sometimes the Elder Sāgata, sometimes Sunakkhatta the Licchavi prince. They, having attended according to their own inclination, departed whenever they wished. The Elder Ānanda, while those various ones were attending, remained unconcerned; when they departed, he himself carried out the duties and practice. The Blessed One too consented, thinking "Although my foremost kinsman does not yet obtain the position of attendant, in situations such as these, he alone is suitable." Therefore it was said - "But the Venerable Ānanda, having ground the husked grain on a stone, offered it to the Blessed One. The Blessed One consumed that."

Is it not the case that people in times of famine, being exceedingly filled with enthusiasm, perform meritorious deeds, and even without eating themselves, consider that something should be given to monks? Why then did they not give even a ladle-full of almsfood at that time? And this Verañja brahmin invited the Blessed One for the rains residence with great enthusiasm - why did he not even know of the Blessed One's presence? It is said - Because of Māra's influence. For as soon as the Verañja brahmin had departed from the Blessed One's presence, Māra, having influenced and deluded the entire city and the surrounding area of about one yojana - wherever it was possible to walk for almsfood before the meal and return - having caused a state of unawareness in all of them, departed. Therefore no one considered that even a gesture of respect should be performed.

But did the Blessed One enter the rains residence there without knowing of Māra's influence? Not without knowing. Then why did he not enter the rains residence at one of such places as Campā, Sāvatthī, or Rājagaha? Let Campā, Sāvatthī, Rājagaha and the rest be set aside - even if the Blessed One had gone to Uttarakuru or the city of the Thirty-three gods and entered the rains residence in that year, Māra would have influenced even that. It is said that in that year his mind was exceedingly overcome with hostility. But here the Blessed One saw this additional reason: "The horse-dealers will provide support for the monks." Therefore he entered the rains residence at Verañjā itself.

But was Māra not able to influence the dealers? It is not that he was not able; however, they arrived after the period of influence had ended. Why did he not influence them after they had returned? Because of his inability. For he is not able to create an obstruction to almsfood brought to the Tathāgata, or to a regular offering, or to requisites that have been dedicated. For it is not possible to create an obstruction to four things. Which four? It is not possible for anyone to create an obstruction to almsfood brought to the Tathāgata, or by way of a regular offering, or by way of dedicated requisites - to the four requisites that have been relinquished, no one can create an obstruction. It is not possible for anyone to create an obstruction to the life of Buddhas. It is not possible for anyone to create an obstruction to the eighty minor marks or to the fathom-wide radiance. For even the radiance of the moon, the sun, the devas, and the Brahmās, upon reaching the area of the Tathāgata's radiance of the minor marks and the fathom-wide aura, becomes devoid of power. It is not possible for anyone to create an obstruction to the omniscient knowledge of Buddhas - it is not possible for anyone to create an obstruction to these four. Therefore it should be understood that the Blessed One together with the community of disciples consumed almsfood to which Māra had created no obstruction at that time.

Thus consuming, one day the Blessed One heard the sound of the mortar - the Blessed One heard the sound of the mortar produced by the striking of pestles of the monks who were pounding the measure of husked grain. After that, the passage beginning with "Even knowing, Tathāgatas" etc. was stated in order to show the justification for what he subsequently asked: "What is that sound of the mortar, Ānanda?" Herein this is the brief explanation - Tathāgatas, even though knowing, if there is such a reason for asking, they ask. But if there is no such reason for asking, even though knowing, they do not ask. Since for Buddhas there is no such thing as not knowing, therefore "even not knowing" was not stated. "Having understood the time, they ask" means: if it is the right time for that question, thus having understood that time, they ask; if it is not, even so, having understood the time, they do not ask. Even when asking thus, Tathāgatas ask what is connected with benefit; what is grounded in purpose and grounded in reason, that alone they ask, not what is unconnected with benefit. Why? Because regarding what is unconnected with benefit, there is destruction of the bridge for Tathāgatas. "Bridge" means path; by the path itself there is the destruction of such speech, meaning its complete cutting off.

Now, showing what beneficial speech the Tathāgatas ask about, with regard to "connected with benefit" here, he said beginning with "for two reasons." Therein, "reasons" means causes. "We will teach the Dhamma" means we will speak a discourse connected with the arising of a particular occasion, or a Jātaka connected with a cause relating to past conduct. "Or we will lay down a training rule for disciples" means, or having made the transgression evident through that question, we will lay down a weighty or a light training rule for disciples, we will establish a command.

Then the Blessed One, etc. "reported this matter" - here there is nothing to be said. For it is said "he reported this matter" because he was reporting what was already stated above - the monks' obtaining of the measure of husked grain, their frugal living, and their freedom from cooking by themselves. "Good, good, Ānanda" - this the Blessed One said encouraging the Venerable Ānanda. Having given his approval, and taking up one of the two reasons, he said while teaching the Dhamma: "By you good persons, Ānanda, it has been conquered; future generations will despise rice with meat." Herein, this is the intention - By you good persons, Ānanda, in such a time of famine when almsfood is difficult to obtain, it has been conquered through this frugal living and through this austerity. What has been conquered? Famine has been conquered, greed has been conquered, conduct based on desire has been conquered. How? "This Verañjā is afflicted by famine, but the surrounding neighbouring villages and towns have abundant food with crops bending under the weight of fruit, and almsfood is easily obtained. Even so, the Blessed One keeps us restrained right here" - not even a single monk had such worry or distress. Thus, for now, famine has been conquered, overcome, brought under one's own control.

How has greed been conquered? "This Verañjā is afflicted by famine, but the surrounding neighbouring villages and towns have abundant food with crops bending under the weight of fruit, and almsfood is easily obtained. Come, let us go there and eat" - not even a single monk, driven by greed, made a break of night, or a break of the rains residence saying "let us go there and enter the rains residence for the latter period." Thus greed has been conquered.

How has conduct based on desire been conquered? This Verañjā is afflicted by famine, and these people, even though we have been dwelling here for two or three months, do not regard us with esteem in any way. Come now, let us engage in trading on our virtues, saying "such and such a monk is an attainer of the first jhāna" etc. "such and such a monk possesses the six direct knowledges," thus making known to people about one another, and having looked after our bellies, we shall afterwards undertake virtue again - not even a single monk aroused such a desire. Thus conduct based on desire has been conquered, overcome, brought under one's own control.

But in the future, later generations, sitting in monasteries, having obtained food with little difficulty, will despise rice with meat in such ways as "What is this? The rice is unpolished, overcooked, unsalted, too salty, not sour enough, too sour - what use is this?" - they will treat it with contempt and disdain. Or alternatively, a country is not afflicted by famine at all times. Sometimes there is famine, sometimes there is abundance. When this country will be abundant, then people, pleased by this practice of you good persons, will think that various kinds of rice preparations and rice with meat of many sorts, such as gruel and hard food and so forth, should be given to the monks. That honour arisen on account of you - future generations reckoned as your fellow practitioners in the holy life, sitting in your midst and enjoying it, will despise it, and on account of that will display both conceit and contempt. How? "Why has only this much been cooked? Do you not have vessels in which you could put your own provisions and store them?"

The account of the famine is concluded.

Discussion on Mahāmoggallāna's Lion's Roar

17. In the passage beginning with "Then the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna," the term "venerable" is a word of affection, a term of respect, reverence and deference. "Mahāmoggallāna" - he is "mahā" (great) by the greatness of his virtues, and "Moggallāna" by clan, thus "Mahāmoggallāna." "Said this" means he said this. Now it shows the words to be spoken beginning with "now, venerable sir." Why did he say it? It is said that the Elder, having gone forth, on the seventh day reached the summit of the knowledge of the perfection of a disciple, and was declared by the Teacher as foremost in psychic power. He, relying on that great psychic power of his, thought - "This Verañjā is afflicted by famine, and the monks are suffering. What if I were to turn over the earth and feed the monks with the nutritive essence of the earth's crust?" Then this occurred to him - "If, while dwelling in the presence of the Blessed One, I were to do this without requesting the Blessed One, that would not be fitting for me; it would be as if I had placed myself on equal footing with the Blessed One." Therefore, wishing to make a request, he came and said this to the Blessed One.

"The lower surface is accomplished" - it is said that on the lower surface of the earth there is the earth's essence, the earth's nutriment, the earth's crust; he speaks referring to that. Therein, "accomplished" means sweet, of pleasant flavour - this is the meaning. For just as in "there is a tree with accomplished fruit and abundant fruit," the meaning is "with sweet fruit"; so too here, "accomplished" should be understood as sweet, of pleasant flavour. "Just as pure bee's honey" - this is stated for the purpose of illustrating by simile its sweetness. "Bee's honey" means honey made by small bees. "Pure" means free from bees, free from bee larvae, purified. It is said that this honey is the highest, the most excellent, the finest in flavour, and the most nourishing of all honeys. Therefore he said - "just as pure bee's honey, such is its sweetness."

"It would be good, venerable sir" means "it would be good for me, venerable sir." Here "it would be good" is a word of request. For the Elder said this to the Blessed One while requesting the turning over of the earth. "I would turn over" means I would turn it upside down, I would make the lower surface the upper one. Why? Because if it were done thus, the monks would easily consume the nutritive essence of the earth's crust, the earth's essence. Then the Blessed One, although not wishing to give permission, asked in order to make the Elder roar his lion's roar - "But those living beings dependent on the earth, Moggallāna, what will you do with them?" Those living beings dependent on the earth in villages, towns and so forth, when the earth is being turned over, being unable to remain in the air, what will you do with them, where will you place them? Then the Elder, manifesting his psychic power in accordance with his having been declared foremost by the Blessed One, said beginning with "I will create one hand, venerable sir." Its meaning is - I, venerable sir, will create one hand just as this great earth, I will make it similar to the earth. Having done so, those living beings dependent on the earth, just as one transferring beings standing on one palm to a second palm, I will transfer them there.

Then the Blessed One, rejecting his request, said "Enough, Moggallāna" and so forth. Therein, "enough" (alaṃ) is a word of rejection. "Beings might acquire illusion" means beings might arrive at a distorted grasp. How? "Is this indeed the earth, or is it not?" Or else, "Is this indeed our village, or does it belong to others?" Likewise regarding towns, districts, fields, parks, and so forth. Or else this is not an illusion, for the sphere of psychic power of one possessing psychic power is inconceivable. But they might acquire illusion in this way - this thing called famine does not occur only now, it will occur in the future as well. At that time, where will monks find such a fellow in the holy life possessing psychic power? Even though they may be stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, dry-insight practitioners, attainers of jhāna, those who have attained the analytical knowledges, or those with taints destroyed, due to the absence of the power of psychic ability, they will approach other families for almsfood. Then people will think thus - "In the time of the Buddha, monks were ones who fulfilled the trainings. Having developed those virtues, in the time of famine they turned over the earth and consumed the nutritive essence of the earth's crust. But now there are none who fulfil the training. If there were, they would do likewise. They would not give us anything cooked or raw to eat." Thus, regarding those very noble persons, they might acquire this illusion that "there are no noble persons." And through the power of illusion, blaming and reproaching the noble ones, they would become destined for the lower realms. Therefore, do not find delight in turning over the earth.

Then the Elder, not obtaining this request, making another request, said "It would be good, venerable sir" and so forth. The Blessed One, rejecting that too, said "Enough, Moggallāna" and so forth. Therein, although "beings might acquire illusion" was not stated, it should nevertheless be understood in the same manner as previously stated; and its meaning too should be understood as similar to what was stated. But if the Blessed One had given permission, what would the Elder have done? Having determined the great ocean, which is to be crossed in a single stride, to be merely the size of a small canal, and having made a path from Naḷeru-Pucimanda facing towards Uttarakuru, he would have made Uttarakuru a place accessible for going and coming, so that monks could enter and leave at ease for almsfood as if going to a village for alms-gathering.

The discourse on Mahāmoggallāna's lion's roar is finished.

Exposition on the Discussion of the Request for the Laying Down of the Vinaya

18. Now, the Venerable Upāli, in order to show the origin from the very beginning of the laying down of the Vinaya, showing the arising of reflection in the Elder Sāriputta connected with the training rules, said "Then the Venerable Sāriputta" and so forth. Therein, "had gone to a private place" means having gone to a secret place. "In seclusion" means having withdrawn, having gone into solitude. "For which" means for which among the Buddhas of the past, beginning with Vipassī. "Its duration would be long" or "its duration would be long" means long-lasting. The rest here is clear in meaning.

But was the Elder not able to determine this reflection of his by himself? It is said - He was both able and not able. For he was able to determine this much: that the dispensation of these Buddhas was not long-lasting, and that of those was long-lasting. But he was not able to determine this: that for this reason it was not long-lasting, and for that reason it was long-lasting. But the Elder Mahāpaduma said - "Even this would not be difficult for the chief disciple who had reached the summit of the sixteen kinds of wisdom, but for one dwelling in the same place with the Perfectly Enlightened One, making a determination by himself would be like weighing by hand having cast aside the scales - therefore he approached the Blessed One himself and asked." Then the Blessed One, answering that question, said "For the Blessed One Vipassī, Sāriputta" and so forth. That is of manifest meaning.

19. Again, the Elder, asking the reason, said "What, venerable sir, is the cause" and so forth. Therein, "What, venerable sir" is a question about the reason; its meaning is "which, venerable sir." "Cause" and "condition" - both of these are designations for reason; for since by that reason its fruit proceeds and occurs, therefore it is called "cause" (hetu). Since depending on that it goes and occurs, therefore it is called "condition" (paccaya). Thus, though one in meaning, both are used here and there by way of convention and for elegance of expression. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

Now, in order to show that cause and condition, he said "The Blessed One Vipassī, Sāriputta" and so forth. Therein, "were weary" means not weary through laziness, for Buddhas have neither laziness nor diminished energy. For Buddhas, whether teaching the Dhamma to one or two or to an entire world-system, teach the Dhamma with the very same enthusiasm; they do not become diminished in energy upon seeing the smallness of the assembly, nor do they become increased in energy upon seeing its greatness. Just as a lion, the king of beasts, having gone out for food after seven days, runs with the very same speed whether after small or large creatures. What is the reason for this? "Let my speed not decline." So too, Buddhas teach the Dhamma with the very same enthusiasm whether to a small or large assembly. What is the reason for this? "Let our reverence for the Dhamma not decline." For Buddhas are reverers of the Dhamma, having reverence for the Dhamma.

However, just as our Blessed One taught the Dhamma in detail as if filling the great ocean, they did not teach thus. Why? Because of the little dust in the eyes of beings. In their time, it is said, beings were long-lived and had little dust in their eyes. Having heard even a single verse connected with the four truths, they penetrated the Dhamma; therefore they did not teach the Dhamma in detail. For that very reason, they had little discourse, etc. catechism. Therein, the diversity of discourse and so forth has already been stated in the commentary on the First Council.

"No training rule was laid down for disciples" means that because of the faultlessness of the disciples, the prescriptive training rule by way of the seven classes of offences, which should be laid down in accordance with faults, was not laid down. "The Pātimokkha was not recited" means the prescriptive Pātimokkha was not recited fortnightly. They recited only the exhortation Pātimokkha; and even that was not fortnightly. For thus the Blessed One Vipassī recited the exhortation Pātimokkha once every six years; and that he did by himself alone. His disciples, however, did not recite it in their own respective dwelling places. In the whole of Jambudīpa, the entire community of monks performed the Uposatha in just one place, in the Deer Park at Khema in the royal capital of Bandhumatī, the dwelling place of the Blessed One Vipassī. And that was only a Saṅgha Uposatha; not a group Uposatha, not an individual Uposatha, not a purity Uposatha, not a determination Uposatha.

At that time, it is said, there were eighty-four thousand monasteries in Jambudīpa. In each monastery, ten thousand or even twenty thousand monks dwelt without intermingling, and even more dwelt there. The deities who announce the Uposatha went here and there and announced - "Sirs, one year has passed, two, three, four, five years have passed, this is the sixth year, on the coming full-moon day one should go for the purpose of seeing the Buddha and for the purpose of performing the Uposatha! The time for the assembly has arrived for you." Then the monks possessing supernormal power went by their own supernormal power, the others by the power of the deities. How? It is said that those monks, standing at the eastern ocean shore or at the western, northern, or southern ocean shore, having fulfilled the duties of a traveller, taking their bowl and robe, generated the thought "Let us go"; simultaneously with the arising of that thought, they had already arrived at the Uposatha hall. They paid homage to Vipassī, the Perfectly Self-awakened One, and sat down. The Blessed One then recited this exhortation Pātimokkha to the assembled congregation.

"Patience is the supreme austerity, forbearance;

The Buddhas declare Nibbāna to be supreme;

For he is not one gone forth who harms another;

One who vexes others is not an ascetic.

"The non-performance of all evil, the acquisition of the wholesome;

The purification of one's own mind - this is the instruction of the Buddhas.

"Not reviling, not harming, and restraint in the Pātimokkha;

Moderation in food, and secluded lodgings;

And devotion to higher consciousness - this is the instruction of the Buddhas."

By this same method, the recitation of the Pātimokkha of the other Buddhas as well should be understood. For all Buddhas have these same three exhortation Pātimokkha verses. For the long-lived Buddhas, they come to be recited up to the end of the dispensation; for the short-lived Buddhas, only during the first enlightenment period. But from the time of the laying down of training rules onwards, only the disciplinary Pātimokkha is recited. And that, indeed, the monks themselves recite, not the Buddhas. Therefore, our Blessed One too recited this exhortation Pātimokkha only for a period of twenty years during the first enlightenment period. Then one day, seated at the Pubbārāma in Migāramātu's mansion, he addressed the monks - "From now on, monks, I shall no longer perform the Uposatha or recite the Pātimokkha. You yourselves, monks, from now on should perform the Uposatha and recite the Pātimokkha. It is impossible, monks, there is no occasion for the Tathāgata to perform the Uposatha or recite the Pātimokkha in an impure assembly." From then on, the monks recite the disciplinary Pātimokkha. This disciplinary Pātimokkha was not recited for those Buddhas. Therefore it was said - "The Pātimokkha was not recited."

"Of those Buddhas" means of those three Buddhas beginning with Vipassī. "With the disappearance" means with the disappearance of the aggregates; it is said to mean with the final passing away. "Of the disciples who had awakened after those Buddhas" means those who were direct disciples who had awakened after those Buddhas, and with the disappearance of their aggregates. "Those later disciples" means those later disciples who had gone forth in the presence of those direct disciples. "With various names" means having diverse names by way of names such as "Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita" and so on. "With various clans" means having diverse clans by way of clans such as "Gotama, Moggallāna" and so on. "With various births" means of various births by way of birth such as "warrior, brahmin" and so on. "Gone forth from various families" means having left and gone forth from diverse families by way of warrior families and so on, or by way of families of high and low status, or of abundant and more abundant wealth, and so on.

"They that holy life" means those later disciples - since those who had gone forth with the same name, the same clan, the same birth, the same family, making it their own responsibility thinking "this is our teaching, this is the tradition," guard the holy life and preserve the learning for a long time. But these were not like that. Therefore, troubling one another, acting contrarily, being lax thinking "such and such an elder will know, such and such an elder will know," they quickly caused that holy life to disappear; they did not preserve it by compiling it. "Just as" is an illustration by simile of that meaning. "Scatters" means disperses. "Disperses" means carries to another place. "Destroys" means removes from its established place. "Because they were not strung together with thread" means just as because of not being strung together with thread, not being tied, not being bound, it scatters in this way - just as those not strung together with thread are scattered, so it scatters - this is what is said. "Just so indeed" is the application of the simile. "They caused to disappear" means not compiling by way of chapter collections, fifty collections and so on, taking only whatever pleased them, they destroyed the rest and caused it to vanish.

"And those Blessed Ones were untiring in exhorting disciples, having encompassed their minds with their own mind" means moreover, Sāriputta, those Buddhas were untiring in exhorting, having encompassed and discerned the minds of disciples with their own mind; having known the minds of others, they did not regard instruction as a burden or as a proliferation. "Once upon a time, Sāriputta" and so on is said for the purpose of making known their untiring nature. "Frightful" means fearsome, fear-producing. "Think in this way" means think the three thoughts beginning with the thought of renunciation. "Do not think in that way" means do not think the three unwholesome thoughts beginning with the thought of sensual desire. "Attend to the mind in this way" means attend to the mind thus: "impermanent, suffering, not-self, unattractive." "Do not attend to the mind in that way" means do not attend to the mind thus: "permanent, pleasant, self, attractive." "Abandon this" means abandon the unwholesome. "Enter upon and dwell in this" means having entered upon, having obtained, having accomplished the wholesome, dwell therein.

"Their minds were liberated from the mental corruptions by non-clinging" means they were liberated without grasping. For their minds were liberated from those mental corruptions, but those did not liberate them by grasping them. Rather, ceasing through the cessation of non-arising, they were liberated without grasping. Therefore it was said - "Their minds were liberated from the mental corruptions by non-clinging." All of them, having attained arahantship, were of expanded minds, like a lotus grove touched by the rays of the sun. "There, Sāriputta, regarding the frightfulness of that frightful jungle thicket, this is what happens" - herein "there" refers back to the previous statement; "su" is a mere particle for completing the word; "Sāriputta" is a form of address. Here, however, this is the interpretation of meaning - "There" means what was said as "in a certain frightful jungle thicket" - there, that jungle thicket which was called frightful, regarding the frightfulness of that frightful jungle thicket, this is what happens; the meaning is: it happens by the act of frightening. What happens? This happens: whoever not free from lust etc. his hairs stand on end.

Or alternatively, "there" (tatra) is a locative used in the sense of the genitive. "Su" is a particle; as in "kiṃ su nāma te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā" and so forth. "This" (idaṃ) is a word of showing, as if making the intended meaning evident. "Suidaṃ" is "sudaṃ"; the elision of the vowel "i" should be understood as due to sandhi. As in "cakkhundriyaṃ, itthindriyaṃ, anaññātaññassāmītindriyaṃ," "kiṃ sūdha vittaṃ" and so forth. Here, however, this is the interpretation of meaning - "Of that frightful jungle thicket, Sāriputta, regarding its frightfulness, this happens." "Regarding the frightfulness" (bhiṃsanakatasmiṃ) means "in the state of being frightful" - this is the meaning. The elision of one letter "ta" should be seen. Or the reading is simply "bhiṃsanakattasmiṃ." Or where "bhiṃsanakatāya" should have been said, a change of gender has been made. And this is a locative in the sense of cause; therefore the connection should be understood thus: "In the state of being frightful this happens" means "on account of the state of being frightful, by reason of the state of being frightful, due to the condition of the state of being frightful, this happens." "Whoever not free from lust enters that jungle thicket, for the most part his hairs stand on end" means the greater number of hairs stand on end, standing upright with their tips like needles and like thorns, while a few do not stand on end. Or the hairs of the greater number of beings stand on end. They do not stand on end for the few who are exceedingly brave men.

Now "This, Sāriputta, is the cause" and so forth is the conclusion. And whatever has not been stated here in between, that is of plain meaning. Therefore it should be understood simply by the sequence of the text. But what was stated as "was not long-lasting" should be understood as stated in terms of generations of men. For by counting of years, the lifespan of the Blessed One Vipassī was eighty thousand years, and that of his direct disciples was the same. Thus, combining with his very last disciple, the holy life lasted for one hundred and sixty thousand years approximately. But in terms of generations of men, coming through a succession of generations, it lasted only two generations of men. Therefore it is said "was not long-lasting." But the lifespan of the Blessed One Sikhī was seventy thousand years. And that of his direct disciples was the same. The lifespan of the Blessed One Vessabhū was sixty thousand years. And that of his direct disciples was the same. Thus, combining with their very last disciples, the holy life lasted for upwards of one hundred thousand years - approximately forty thousand and approximately twenty thousand years respectively. But in terms of generations of men, coming through a succession of generations, it lasted only two generations of men in each case. Therefore it is said "was not long-lasting."

20. Thus, having heard the reason for the non-longevity of the holy life of three Buddhas, the Venerable Sāriputta, wishing to hear the reason for the longevity of the holy life of the other three, again asked the Blessed One in the manner beginning with "But what, venerable sir, is the cause." The Blessed One too answered him. All of that should be understood as the opposite of what was stated. And here, regarding the state of longevity too, the longevity of those Buddhas' holy life should be understood in both ways - in terms of the measure of lifespan and in terms of pairs of eminent disciples. For the lifespan of the Blessed One Kakusandha was forty thousand years, of the Blessed One Koṇāgamana thirty thousand years, and of the Blessed One Kassapa twenty thousand years; and for their direct disciples too, it was just the same. And their many pairs of disciples maintained the holy life in succession. Thus, in both ways - in terms of the measure of lifespan and in terms of pairs of disciples - the holy life was long-lasting for them.

Now, our Blessed One should have arisen at the time when the lifespan was ten thousand years, which is half the lifespan-period of the Blessed One Kassapa. Not being able to attain that, he should have arisen at the time when the lifespan was five thousand years, or one thousand years, or even five hundred years. But since, while he was seeking and searching for the qualities that produce Buddhahood, while maturing his knowledge, while causing the embryo of knowledge to be conceived, his knowledge reached maturity at the time when the lifespan was one hundred years. Therefore, he arose at a time of extremely short lifespan. Hence, it is fitting to say that although his holy life is long-lasting by way of the succession of disciples, in terms of the measure of lifespan, by count of years, it is indeed not long-lasting.

21. "Then the Venerable Sāriputta" - what is the connection? Having thus heard the reason for the long endurance of the holy life of the three Buddhas, having reached the conclusion that the laying down of training rules is indeed the cause for long endurance, the Venerable Sāriputta, wishing for the long endurance of the Blessed One's holy life as well, requested the Blessed One for the laying down of training rules. To show the manner of that request, this was stated - "Then the Venerable Sāriputta, having risen from his seat" etc. "may last long." Therein, "addhaniyaṃ" means enduring through time; it is said to mean "lasting for a long period." The remainder is of clear meaning.

Then the Blessed One, making known that "this is not yet the time for laying down training rules," said beginning with "Wait, Sāriputta." Therein, "wait" means "hold on for now"; it is said to mean "be patient for now." It is stated twice here for the purpose of emphasis. By this, the Blessed One, having rejected the domain of disciples regarding the laying down of training rules, making manifest that "the laying down of training rules is solely the domain of the Buddha," said beginning with "the Tathāgata himself." And here, "tattha" is a locative expression referring to the request for the laying down of training rules. Herein this is the construction - what was said as "should lay down a training rule," therein, the Tathāgata himself will know the time for that laying down of training rules. Having spoken thus, to show that it is not yet the time, he said beginning with "not yet, Sāriputta."

Therein, "āsavaṭṭhānīyā" means "in which the taints stand." The meaning is: in which the taints - both the painful taints and the defilement-taints pertaining to this life and the next, such as blame by others, remorse, punishment, imprisonment and so forth, as well as those that are particular forms of suffering in the lower realms - indeed stand, because those are their cause. The explanation here is: as long as those corrupting conditions, which are transgression-prone phenomena, do not appear in the monastic community, the Teacher does not lay down a training rule for disciples. For if he were to lay down rules, he would not be free from blame by others, reproach by others, and the fault of censure.

How? For in laying down rules, everything beginning with "whatever monk should engage in sexual intercourse" would have to be laid down. Without having seen the fault of transgression, knowing this regulation, others would engage in criticism, reproach, and censure thus - "How is it that the ascetic Gotama - the community of monks follows me and does as I say - will bind them with so many training rules, will lay down rules of defeat? Have not these sons of good families gone forth having abandoned great masses of wealth, great circles of relatives, and even kingdoms that were in their hands, content with the utmost of food and clothing, with keen respect for the training, dwelling without concern for body and life? Among them, who indeed would engage in sexual intercourse which is a worldly bait, or steal another's property, or cut off another's dear, beloved, exceedingly sweet life, or make a living by speaking of qualities one does not possess! Is this not already made known even without a rule of defeat being laid down, by the mere summary of the going forth?" And beings would not know the strength and power of the Tathāgata. Even a training rule that was laid down would be unstable and would not remain in its proper place. Just as an unskilled physician, having summoned a man in whom no boil has arisen, having said "Come, good man, in this part of your body a great boil will arise and bring you to ruin and misfortune; have it treated beforehand," and being told "Very well, teacher, you yourself treat it," having cut open that healthy part of the body, having drawn out blood, having made that area healed with ointments, bandages, washings and so forth, would say to that man - "A great disease has been treated by me for you; give me a gift." That man would say to him "What is this foolish physician saying? Which disease of mine has been treated by him? Does he not cause me suffering and bring me to loss of blood?" - thus he would criticise, reproach, and censure him, and would not recognise his merit. In exactly the same way, if the Teacher were to lay down a training rule for disciples when the fault of transgression has not arisen, he would not be free from blame by others and so forth, beings would not know his strength or power, and even a training rule that was laid down would be unstable and would not remain in its proper place. Therefore it is said: "The Teacher does not, Sāriputta, for disciples" etc. "appear."

Having thus shown the wrong time, in order to show the right time again, he said "But when, Sāriputta" and so forth. Therein, "yato" means "when"; it means "at which time." The remainder should be understood in accordance with what has already been stated. Or alternatively, here is the concise meaning - at whatever time the faults of transgression that have come to be reckoned as "corrupting conditions" appear in the monastic community, then the Teacher lays down a training rule for disciples, recites the Pātimokkha. Why? For the warding off of those very faults of transgression that have come to be reckoned as "corrupting conditions." In laying down rules thus, just as a skilled physician, treating a boil that has arisen by lancing, applying ointment, bandaging, washing and so forth, having allayed the disease and restored the skin, is not deserving of reproach and the like, and having become one whose power is recognised in his own medical profession, receives honour; so too he is not deserving of reproach and the like, and having become one whose power is recognised in his own domain of omniscience, receives honour. And that training rule of his is unshakeable and remains in its proper place.

Having thus stated that the non-arising of corrupting conditions is the wrong time for laying down training rules, and their arising is the right time, now in order to show the time of non-arising and the time of arising of those conditions, he said "Certain corrupting conditions do not appear here, Sāriputta" and so forth. Therein, the words with obvious meaning should be understood according to the canonical text itself. But this is the explanation of the words that are not obvious - "They know the nights" thus "rattaññū" (those of long standing); starting from the day of one's own going forth, they know many nights; it means "long gone forth." Greatness through those of long standing is "rattaññumahattaṃ" (greatness of long standing); the meaning is greatness through those long gone forth. Therein, it should be understood that when the monastic community had attained greatness of long standing, a training rule was laid down in connection with Upasena Vaṅgantaputta. For that venerable one, having seen monks giving full ordination to those with less than ten rains retreats, himself with one rains retreat gave full ordination to a co-resident pupil. Then the Blessed One laid down a training rule: "One should not, monks, give full ordination to one with less than ten rains retreats. Whoever should give full ordination, there is an offence of wrong-doing." When this training rule had been laid down thus, monks who were foolish and incompetent again gave full ordination saying "We are of ten years' standing, we are of ten years' standing." Then the Blessed One laid down a further training rule - "One should not be given full ordination by one who is foolish and inexperienced. Whoever should give full ordination, there is an offence of wrong-doing. I allow, monks, that a competent, capable monk of ten years' standing or more than ten years' standing may give full ordination." Thus two training rules were laid down at the time when greatness of long standing had been attained.

"Greatness of expansion" means greatness through abundance. For as long as the monastic community has not attained greatness of expansion in terms of elders, juniors and those of middle standing, the lodgings are sufficient. Certain corrupting conditions do not arise in the dispensation. But when greatness of expansion has been attained, those arise. Then the Teacher lays down a training rule for disciples. Therein, the training rules laid down when the monastic community had attained greatness of expansion are: "Whatever monk should share a sleeping place with one who has not received full ordination for more than two or three nights, it is a pācittiya offence"; "Whatever nun should give full ordination every year, it is a pācittiya offence"; "Whatever nun should give full ordination to two in one year, it is a pācittiya offence" - they should be understood in this manner.

"Greatness of the highest gain" means the highest greatness of gain; the meaning is that it has attained that which is the highest, the supreme, the great state of gain. Or it can also mean the highest greatness through gain; the meaning is that it has attained pre-eminence and greatness through gain. For as long as the monastic community has not attained greatness of the highest gain, corrupting conditions do not arise on account of gain. But when it has been attained, they arise, and then the Teacher lays down a training rule for disciples - "Whatever monk should give with his own hand hard food or soft food to a naked ascetic, or a male wanderer, or a female wanderer, it is a pācittiya offence." For this training rule was laid down when the monastic community had attained greatness of the highest gain.

"Greatness of great learning" means the great state of great learning. For as long as the monastic community has not attained greatness of great learning, corrupting conditions do not arise. But when greatness of great learning has been attained, because having learnt even one collection, or two, etc. even five collections, persons emerging unsystematically, comparing one essence with another, expound the Teacher's instruction as contrary to the Dhamma and contrary to the Vinaya. Then the Teacher lays down a training rule by the method beginning with "Whatever monk should speak thus - 'I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One thus' etc. even a novice should speak thus" and so forth.

Thus, having shown the time of non-arising and the time of arising of corrupting conditions, the Blessed One, showing the complete absence of those at that time, said beginning with "For, Sāriputta, free from trouble." Therein, "free from trouble" means devoid of trouble; troubles are called thieves; the meaning is "free from thieves." And "thieves" in this context means those of bad conduct are intended. For they, being indeed non-recluses, steal the requisites of others through their claim of being recluses. Therefore "free from trouble" means free from thieves, free from those of bad conduct, is what is said. "Free from danger" means free from misfortune, free from affliction; it means free from the danger of bad conduct. "Stainless" means those of bad conduct are called stains; for they, even though of golden complexion, should be understood as stains indeed because of their association with dark qualities. Due to the absence of those, it is stainless. There is also the reading "with stains removed." "Pure" means pure precisely because of being stainless, bright and radiant. "Established in the core" means the core is called the qualities of virtue, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation; because of being established in that core, it is established in the core.

Having thus stated the state of being established in the core, showing that this state of being established in the core should be understood thus, he said beginning with "For, Sāriputta, of these." Herein this is the brief explanation - these five hundred monks who have entered the rains residence at Verañjā, among them the monk who is last in terms of qualities, of the most limited qualities, is a stream-enterer. "Stream-enterer" means one who has entered the stream; and "stream" is a designation for the path. "Stream-enterer" refers to the person endowed with that. As he said -

"'The stream, the stream' - thus, Sāriputta, this is said; what then, Sāriputta, is the stream?" "It is, Venerable Sir, this very Noble Eightfold Path, that is to say - right view, etc. right concentration." "'A stream-enterer, a stream-enterer' - thus, Sāriputta, this is said; what then, Sāriputta, is a stream-enterer?" "He who, Venerable Sir, is endowed with this Noble Eightfold Path, he is called - a stream-enterer. He is this venerable one of such a name and such a clan." Here, however, the name of the fruit has been given by means of the path. Therefore, one established in the fruit should be understood as "a stream-enterer."

As to "one not subject to fall into lower realms" (avinipātadhammo): "it causes to fall" means "falling down" (vinipāto); "falling down is not his nature" means "one not subject to fall into lower realms" (avinipātadhammo); it is said to mean "one whose nature is not to cast oneself down into the lower realms." Why? Because of the complete destruction of those states that lead to the lower realms. Or, "falling down" (vinipatanaṃ) is "a fall" (vinipāto); "falling down is not his nature" means "one not subject to fall into lower realms" (avinipātadhammo); it is said to mean "the nature of falling into the lower realms does not exist for him." "Fixed in destiny" (niyato) because of being determined by the path that is the assurance of rightness (sammattaniyāma). "Heading for the highest enlightenment" (sambodhiparāyaṇo) means "one for whom enlightenment (sambodhi) is the further destination, the ultimate goal." The meaning is: one who will certainly reach the three higher paths. Why? Because of having attained the first path.

The discourse on the request for the laying down of the Vinaya is finished.

Discussion on the Practice of the Buddhas

22. Having thus convinced the General of the Dhamma, having spent that rains residence at Verañjā, having completed the rains retreat and having performed the invitation on the great invitation day, the Blessed One then addressed the Venerable Ānanda. "Addressed" means he spoke to, he said, he aroused their attention. How? "But this is habitual" and so forth. "Habitual" means practised, customary conduct, conformity with the Teaching. That habitual practice is of two kinds - the habitual practice of Buddhas and the habitual practice of disciples. What is the habitual practice of Buddhas? This, to begin with, is one - those by whom they are invited to reside for the rains retreat, they do not depart on a journey through the country without taking leave, without asking permission. Disciples, however, whether having taken leave or without having taken leave, depart as they please.

There is yet another habitual practice of Buddhas - having completed the rains retreat and having performed the invitation, they invariably depart on a journey through the country for the purpose of benefiting the people. And when journeying through the country, they travel in one of these three circuits: the great circuit, the middle circuit, and the final circuit. Therein, the great circle is nine hundred yojanas, the middle circle is six hundred yojanas, the final circle is three hundred yojanas. When they wish to travel the great circuit, having performed the invitation on the great invitation day, on the first day of the new fortnight, they set out accompanied by a great community of monks, and supporting the great multitude in villages, towns, and so forth by accepting material offerings, and increasing their wholesome merit dependent on turning away from the round of existence through the gift of the Dhamma, they complete the journey through the country in nine months. But if during the rains retreat the monks' calm and insight are still immature, without performing the invitation on the great invitation day, having given the collective invitation, having performed the invitation on the full moon day of Kattika, on the first day of Māgasira, they set out accompanied by a great community of monks and, in the same manner as described, complete the journey in the middle circuit in eight months. But if there are beings to be guided whose faculties are not yet matured after they have completed the rains retreat, waiting for the maturation of their faculties, having dwelt there even through the month of Māgasira, on the first day of the month of Phussa, they set out accompanied by a great community of monks and, in the same manner as described, complete the journey in the final circuit in seven months. And while travelling anywhere in those circuits, separating those various beings from their defilements and connecting them with the fruit of stream-entry and so forth, they travel solely for the sake of those to be guided, as if gathering flowers of various colours.

There is yet another habitual practice of Buddhas - daily at the time before dawn, making the peaceful and pleasant nibbāna as object, entering the attainment of fruition; having emerged from the fruition attainment, daily entering the attainment of great compassion; having emerged from that, surveying the beings to be awakened in the ten-thousand world systems.

There is yet another habitual practice of Buddhas - first making friendly reception with visitors, teaching the Dhamma according to the arising of occasions, and laying down training rules when an offence has been committed - this is the habitual practice of Buddhas.

What is the habitual practice of disciples? In the time of the Blessed One, the Buddha, there was an assembly twice: before the rains entry for the purpose of taking a meditation subject, and after completing the rains retreat for the purpose of announcing the qualities attained and for the purpose of taking a further meditation subject. This is the habitual practice of disciples. Here, however, showing the habitual practice of Buddhas, he said - "But this is habitual, Ānanda, for Tathāgatas."

"Come" means come, let us go. "Let us take leave" means let us ask permission for the purpose of going on a journey. "Yes" is a particle in the sense of acceptance. "Venerable sir" is a term of respect; it is also fitting as a reply to the Teacher. "Assented to the Blessed One" means he listened to the word of the Blessed One, having turned towards him, he heard and accepted. "Yes" - by this word it is said that he accepted.

"Then the Blessed One, having dressed" - here neither "in the morning" nor "in the evening" is stated. Even so, the Blessed One, having completed his meal duties and having spent the midday period, making the Venerable Ānanda his attendant monk, starting from the city gate, illuminating the city streets with rays golden like streams of liquid gold, approached the dwelling of the brahmin Verañja. His attendants, seeing the Blessed One just as he stood at the house door, informed him. The brahmin, recovering his mindfulness, filled with a sense of urgency, rising up hastily, having prepared a costly seat, going forth to meet the Blessed One, said: "Come this way, Blessed One." The Blessed One, having approached, sat down on the prepared seat. Then the brahmin Verañja, wishing to sit near the Blessed One, approached the Blessed One from the place where he was standing. From here onwards the meaning is plain.

But as for what the brahmin said - "But the gift that should be given was not given." Herein, this is the intention - Whatever gift should have been given to you who were invited by me and who completed the rains retreat - day by day for three months, gruel and hard food in the morning, solid and soft food at midday, various kinds of beverages in the evening, along with offerings and honours of perfumes, flowers and the like - that was not given. "And that was because we did not have it" - here a change of grammatical gender should be understood. "That gift was not available to us" - this is the meaning here. Or alternatively, "whatever object of giving we would give to you, that was not available to us" - thus the meaning here should be understood.

"Not because of unwillingness to give" means unwillingness to give also does not exist in us, as it does in the case of miserly people who have abundant wealth and resources. "How could it be obtained here when household life has many duties" - herein this is the interpretation - Because household life has many duties, therefore even when there is a gift to give and willingness to give, how could it be obtained, how could it be possible to obtain that which we would give to you as a gift - thus he spoke blaming household life. He indeed did not know that he had been turned around by Māra; he thought "forgetfulness arose in me due to the hindrance of household life," therefore he spoke thus. Furthermore - "How could it be obtained here" means within this period of three months, that which I would give to you, how could it be obtained? "For household life has many duties" - thus the interpretation here should be understood.

Then the brahmin, having thought "Let me now give in one day all that which should have been given by me over three months," said "May Master Gotama consent" and so forth. Therein, "for tomorrow" means for the sake of the merit and the joy and gladness that will arise for me tomorrow when making an offering to you. Then the Tathāgata, thinking "If I were not to consent, the brahmin and the inhabitants of Verañja would criticise thus: 'This one, having received nothing for three months, is apparently angry; therefore, even when being asked by me, he does not accept even a single meal; there is no patience of forbearance in this one; this one is not omniscient' - and thus they would generate much demerit; may that not happen to them" - out of compassion for them, the Blessed One consented by silence.

Having consented, then the Blessed One, having made the brahmin Verañja understand "Enough of thinking about the hindrances of household life," having shown him the benefit pertaining to the present life and the life hereafter through a talk on the Teaching appropriate to that occasion, having exhorted him in wholesome states, having made him take them up, having encouraged him therein, having made him zealous, having gladdened him through that zealousness and through other virtues present in him, having showered the rain of the jewel of the Teaching, rose from his seat and departed. When the Blessed One had departed, the brahmin Verañja addressed his sons and wife - "Dear ones, having invited the Blessed One for three months, we did not give even a single meal for one day. Come now, prepare a gift in such a way that even the gift due for three months can be given in a single day tomorrow." Then, having had a superior gift prepared, on the day the Blessed One was invited, after that night had passed, having had the seating area decorated, having had costly seats prepared, having arranged a great offering adorned with perfumes, incense, fragrant powder, and flowers, he had the time announced to the Blessed One. Therefore it was said - "Then the brahmin Verañja, after that night had passed, etc. the meal is ready."

23. The Blessed One, surrounded by the Community of monks, went there. Therefore it was said - "Then the Blessed One etc. sat down together with the Community of monks." "The Community of monks headed by the Buddha" - "headed by the Buddha" means having the Buddha as leader; it means that they sat down having made the Buddha the elder of the Community. "Superior" means highest. "With own hand" means with his own hand. "Having satisfied" means having well satiated, having made fully replete, content, and as much as desired. "Having served" means having thoroughly invited them to take more, having made them decline by a hand gesture, a facial gesture, or by verbal expression saying 'enough.' "Bhuttāviṃ" means one who has finished eating. "Had removed his hand from the bowl" means one whose hand has been removed from the bowl; it means one whose hand has been taken away. "Clothed him with the three robes" means he gave the three robes to the Blessed One. This, however, is merely a conventional expression, "clothed him with the three robes," and in those three robes each cloth was worth a thousand. Thus the brahmin gave to the Blessed One a set of three robes worth three thousand, supreme, comparable to Kāsi cloth. "Each and every monk with a suit of garments" means with a pair of garments each. Therein each cloth was worth five hundred. Thus he gave garments worth five hundred thousand to five hundred monks. The brahmin, even having given that much, was not satisfied, and further, tearing up multi-coloured blankets and silk and cotton cloths worth seven or eight thousand, he gave them for the purpose of shoulder straps, body bands, strainers, and so forth. And having filled vessels with medicinal oils cooked a hundred times and a thousand times, he gave oil worth a thousand for the anointing of each and every monk. In short, among the four requisites there was no article for the use of recluses that was not given. In the canonical text, however, only robes are mentioned.

Having thus offered a great sacrifice, to the brahmin who, together with his sons and wife, had paid homage and was seated, the Blessed One, raining the ambrosia of the Dhamma in a single day upon the brahmin Verañja who had been deprived of the enjoyment of the ambrosial taste of hearing the Dhamma for three months due to Māra's interference, fulfilling his aspiration, having instructed with a talk on the Dhamma etc. rose from his seat and departed. The brahmin too, together with his sons and wife, having paid homage to the Blessed One and the Community of monks, saying such things as "Venerable sir, please show us favour again," following after them, shedding tears, turned back.

"Then the Blessed One, having dwelt at Verañjā as long as he liked" means having dwelt according to his inclination and preference, having departed from Verañjā, abandoning the Buddha's usual route to be taken when wandering on a great circuit tour, wishing to go taking the Community of monks, wearied by the hardship of famine, by a direct route, without going to Soreyya and the other places, he went to Payāgapatiṭṭhāna, and there, having crossed the river Ganges, he arrived at Bārāṇasī. "By that he arrived" explains "he arrived there." There too, having dwelt according to his inclination, he went to Vesālī. Therefore it was said - "Without going to Soreyya etc. he dwells at Vesālī in the Great Wood in the Pinnacled Hall."

The discourse on the Buddha's customary practice is finished.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya,

the commentary on the Verañja section is finished.

Herein, in the Samantapāsādikā, regarding the quality of being pleasing on all sides -

Because of the lineage of teachers, because of the elucidation of the classification of the introduction and the subject matter;

Because of the rejection of other doctrines, and because of the purification of one's own doctrine.

Because of the refinement of the letter, because of the meaning of the words, because of the order of connecting the text;

Because of the determination of the training rules, because of the showing of the different methods of analysis.

For those who examine, nothing uninspiring is seen herein;

Therefore, for the wise, this is indeed entirely inspiring.

The commentary has proceeded regarding the Discipline, by one skilled in taming those to be tamed;

Spoken by the Lord of the World, who had compassion for the world.

the commentary on the Verañja section is finished.

1.

The Section on Expulsion

1.

The First Expulsion

Exposition on the Recitation Section of Sudinna

24. Hereafter, "Now at that time, not far from Vesālī" and so forth is for the most part clear in meaning. Therefore, setting aside a word-by-word explanation, we shall explain only whatever needs to be commented upon. "Kalandagāma": kalandakā are called squirrels; the village obtained its name on account of them. "Kalandaputta": the son of the merchant Kalanda, who obtained his name on account of the village, who was approved by the king, and who had a fortune of four hundred million. Since, however, there were also other people named Kalanda in that village, therefore, having said "Kalandaputta," it was further stated "merchant's son." "With many" means with numerous. "Sahāyakehi": those who come together sharing happiness and suffering are sahāyā (friends); sahāyā themselves are sahāyakā; with those friends. "Together" means as one. "Kenacideva karaṇīyena" means on some business such as the disposal of merchandise, collection, or reminding; some say it was on the business of the Kattika star festival. For the Blessed One arrived at Vesālī during the bright fortnight of Kattika. And the Kattika star festival there is a grand occasion. It should be understood that he went for that purpose.

"Addasa kho": how did he see? It is said that he saw a great crowd of people coming out from the city, having eaten their morning meal, wearing clean upper garments, with garlands, perfumes, and ointments in hand, going for the purpose of seeing the Buddha and hearing the Teaching, and he asked: "Where are you going?" "For the purpose of seeing the Buddha and hearing the Teaching." Then, saying "I too shall go," he went and saw the Blessed One, surrounded by the fourfold assembly, teaching the Teaching with a divine voice. Therefore it was said - "Sudinna the Kalanda's son saw" etc. "teaching." "Disvānassa" means disvāna assa (having seen him). "Etadahosi": this occurred to a capable young man of good family who was being urged by the merit he had previously made. What occurred? "What if I too were to listen to the Teaching." Therein, "yaṃnūna" is an indication of deliberation. Thus, it is said, this deliberation arose in him: "This assembly listens to the Teaching with one-pointed mind; oh, would that I too might listen to it."

"Then Sudinna the Kalanda's son approached that assembly": here, if one asks why it was said "towards that assembly" rather than "towards the Blessed One": For a great assembly of distinguished people was seated surrounding the Blessed One, and it was not possible for this one, having come later, to approach the Blessed One and sit down. But it was possible at a certain place in the assembly, so he was approaching that very assembly. Therefore it was said - "Then Sudinna the Kalanda's son approached that assembly." "To Sudinna the Kalanda's son seated to one side, this occurred": it did not occur to him merely upon sitting down, but rather after hearing a brief discourse on the Teaching connected with the three trainings from the Blessed One; but since that occurred to him while he was seated to one side. Therefore it was said - "To Sudinna the Kalanda's son seated to one side, this occurred." What occurred? "In whatever way indeed" and so on.

Herein this is the meaning in brief - In whatever way I understand the Teaching taught by the Blessed One, when I examine it in each of those ways, it occurs to me thus: this holy life pertaining to the three trainings should be lived as completely perfect, by making it unbroken even for a single day so as to reach the final moment of consciousness, and completely pure, by making it unstained by the defilement of mental impurities even for a single day so as to reach the final moment of consciousness. It should be lived as polished like a conch shell - resembling a polished conch, comparable to a washed conch. This is not easy for one dwelling in a house, for one living in the midst of a house, completely perfect, etc. to live. "What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, and having put on and dressed in ochre robes - which are suitable garments for those living the holy life because of being dyed with astringent dye - having gone out from the house, I should go forth into homelessness." And here, since the work of farming, trading, and the like, which is beneficial for the household, is called "household life," and that does not exist in the going forth; therefore the going forth should be understood as "homelessness." That homelessness is the going forth. "I should go forth" means "I should wander forth."

25. "When the assembly had recently risen, he approached the Blessed One" - Sudinna did not ask the Blessed One for the going forth while the assembly had not yet risen. Why? There were many of his relatives and blood-relations, friends and companions, who might have seized him even by the arm and dragged him away, saying 'You are the only son of your mother and father, it is not possible for you to go forth,' and thereby there would have been an obstacle to the going forth. Therefore, having risen together with the assembly and gone a short distance, he turned back on the pretext of some bodily necessity, approached the Blessed One, and asked for the going forth. Therefore it was said - "Then Sudinna the Kalanda's son, when the assembly had recently risen, etc. May the Blessed One give me the going forth."

But since the Blessed One, from the time of Prince Rāhula's going forth onwards, does not give the going forth to a son who has not been permitted by his mother and father, therefore he asked him - "But have you, Sudinna, been permitted by your mother and father, etc. for the going forth?"

26. Henceforth, proceeding according to the sequence of the text, the meaning here of "having finished that business" should be understood thus: "having completed that business by simply discharging the duty"; for the mind of one with intense desire for the going forth does not incline towards the preparation of goods, settling of disputes, reminding, and so forth, or towards festival celebrations. Regarding "mother and father" here, "amma" is an address to the mother; "tāta" is to the father. "Tvaṃ khosi" means "you indeed are." "Ekaputtako" means "the only son"; you have no other, whether elder or younger. And here, where "ekaputto" could have been said, "ekaputtako" was said out of compassion. "Piyo" means one who generates joy. "Agreeable" means one who increases the mind. "Sukhedhito" means nurtured in comfort; the meaning is "raised in happiness." "Sukhaparihato" means brought up in comfort; from the time of birth onwards, being carried from lap to lap by nurses, playing with children's toys such as toy horses and chariots, being fed food of delicious flavour - brought up in comfort.

"Na tvaṃ, tāta sudinna, kiñci dukkhassa jānāsi" means "you, dear Sudinna, do not know even a small fraction of suffering"; or alternatively, the meaning is "you have not experienced anything through suffering." The genitive case is used in the instrumental sense, and "knowing" is used in the sense of experiencing; or alternatively, the meaning is "you do not remember any suffering." The genitive case is used in the accusative sense, and "knowing" is used in the sense of remembering. In both alternatives, the elision of the case ending of the first word, being the same as that of the latter word, should be noted. All of that should be understood according to the science of grammar. "Maraṇenapi mayaṃ te akāmakā vinā bhavissāma" means: even if death were to occur to you while we are still living, even by that death of yours, we, unwillingly, not desiring, not by our own wish, would be separated; the meaning is "we would reach separation from you." "Kiṃ pana mayaṃ taṃ" means: this being so, what then is that reason by which we would allow you while living to go forth; or alternatively, "kiṃ pana mayaṃ taṃ" - the meaning here should be understood thus: "for what reason then would we allow you while living to go forth?"

27. "Right there" means in the very place where his mother and father did not allow him as he stood. "On the bare ground" means on ground not covered with any covering.

28. "Amuse yourself" means having arranged musicians, dancers, actors and the like, therein together with friends, direct and move the sense faculties about as one pleases; it is said to mean "bring them here and there." Alternatively, "amuse yourself" means having arranged musicians, dancers, actors and the like, therein together with friends, sport, dally, delight, play - this too is what is said. "Enjoying sensual pleasures" means enjoying wealth together with one's own children and wife. "Performing meritorious deeds" means performing wholesome deeds such as giving and bestowing gifts and so forth, which purify the path to a good destination, with reference to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saṅgha. "Remained silent" means he was without talk or conversation for the purpose of cutting off the continuation of the discussion. Then his mother and father, having spoken thrice and not obtaining even a reply, having summoned his friends, said "This friend of yours wishes to go forth; prevent him." They too, having approached him, spoke thrice; to them also he remained silent. Therefore it was said - "Then the friends of Sudinna the Kalanda's son, etc. remained silent."

29. Then this occurred to his friends - "If this one dies without obtaining the going forth, there will be no benefit whatsoever. But when he has gone forth, his mother and father too will see him from time to time. We too will see him. And indeed this going forth is burdensome - day after day one must take a clay bowl and wander for alms food. Sleeping alone, eating one meal, living the holy life - it is exceedingly difficult to do. And this one is delicate, of city birth; being unable to practise that, he will come back right here again. Come, let us have his mother and father give permission." They did so. The mother and father too gave him permission. Therefore it was said - "Then the friends of Sudinna the Kalanda's son approached the mother and father of Sudinna the Kalanda's son... etc. you have been permitted by your mother and father for the going forth from home into homelessness."

30. "Joyful" means satisfied. "Elated" means with body and mind uplifted through rapture. "A few days" means several days. "Having gained strength" means eating suitable foods, and looking after the body with anointing, bathing and so forth, having generated bodily strength, having paid respect to his mother and father, having left behind the tearful-faced circle of relatives, he approached the Blessed One etc. "May the Blessed One give me the going forth, venerable sir." The Blessed One addressed a certain almsfood-collecting monk standing nearby - "Well then, monk, give Sudinna both the going forth and the full ordination." "Very well, venerable sir," that monk, having assented to the Blessed One, having obtained Sudinna the Kalanda's son as a pupil under Jinadattī, gave him both the going forth and the full ordination. Therefore it was said - "Sudinna the Kalanda's son received the going forth in the presence of the Blessed One, he received full ordination."

Standing at this point, the going forth and the full ordination have been discussed in all the commentaries. We, however, shall discuss them in the Khandhaka according to the sequence of the canonical text itself. And not only this, but whatever else should be discussed in the Khandhaka or the Parivāra that has been discussed by the commentary teachers in the Vibhaṅga, all of that we shall discuss in those respective places. For when it is discussed in this way, the explanation is made following the sequence of the canonical text itself. Thereby, for those who need this or that determination, by looking at this Vinaya commentary following the sequence of the canonical text itself, each determination will be easily understood.

"Not long after being fully ordained" means having been fully ordained not long before; the meaning stated is "not long after the full ordination." "Such" means of such a kind, of such a nature. "Virtues of ascetic practice" means virtues that shake off defilements. "Lives having undertaken" means having undertaken and taken up, he lives, conducts himself, and dwells. "He is a forest-dweller" means having rejected a lodging at the edge of a village, he is a forest-dweller by the power of the forest-dweller's ascetic practice. "An almsfood eater" means by rejecting extra gains, having rejected the fourteen kinds of meals, he is an almsfood eater by the power of the almsfood eater's ascetic practice. "A wearer of rag-robes" means having rejected householder-given robes, he is a wearer of rag-robes by the power of the rag-robe wearer's ascetic practice. "A successive house-to-house alms goer" means having rejected wandering about with greed, he is a successive house-to-house alms goer by the power of the successive house-to-house alms goer's ascetic practice; he enters for alms following the sequence of houses. "A Vajjian village" means a village of the Vajjians, or a village among the Vajjians.

Regarding "wealthy, of great riches" and so forth: "wealthy" is due to the greatness of the equipment for enjoyment and use; for their enjoyments and the equipment for enjoyment are great, abundant, and substantial - this is what is stated. "Of great riches" is due to the greatness of wealth stored away and deposited. "Of great possessions" means of great possessions due to the greatness of possessions reckoned as daily expenditure. "With abundant gold and silver" is due to the abundance of gold and silver apart from other enjoyable goods. "With abundant wealth and provisions" is due to the abundance of wealth-provisions that serve as ornaments and that produce joy and gladness. "With abundant riches and grain" should be understood as due to the abundance of riches and grain that circulate by way of commerce.

"Having set in order his lodging" means having put away his lodging; the meaning is having properly stored it so that it would not be damaged. "About sixty dishes of boiled rice" means sixty dishes of boiled rice by way of numerical determination. And here each single dish of boiled rice holds the meal for ten monks. All of that amounts to the meal for six hundred monks. In "brought a food offering," here, "that which is brought" is an "offering." What is brought? Food. The offering that is food itself is a "food offering"; that food offering. "They brought" means they carried it towards him. The meaning is they took it and came into his presence. What is the measure of this? Sixty dishes of boiled rice. Therefore it was said - "They brought about sixty dishes of boiled rice as a food offering." "Having given up to the monks" means being himself one who practises the superior ascetic practice of almsfood eating, wishing to walk on successive alms round, he relinquished and gave them for the monks' use. For this venerable one had come precisely for this purpose: "Monks will obtain material gain, and I will not be troubled about almsfood." Therefore, acting in accordance with the purpose of his coming, having given up the food to the monks, he himself entered for almsfood.

31. "Female slave of relatives" means a female slave of the relatives. "From the previous evening" means kept overnight, having passed one night, become putrid. Herein this is the meaning of the terms - That which is overcome by the fault of staleness is "abhidosa"; "abhidosa" itself is "ābhidosika"; or this is the designation for that which has passed one night, namely "ābhidosika"; that is "ābhidosikaṃ." "Kummāsa" means barley food made with flour. "Was about to throw away" means because it was not fit for consumption even by slaves and labourers or even by cattle, she was about to throw it away outside like rubbish. "Saceta" means "if that." "Sister" - he addresses the female slave of his relatives using the noble form of address. "Having the nature of being thrown away" means having the intrinsic nature of what should be discarded. This is what is meant - "Sister, if that is to be thrown away outside, an abandoned possession, pour it here into my bowl."

But can it be proper to speak thus - does it not constitute a request or a prompted speech? It is not. Why? Because of its being relinquished of possession. For whatever is to be thrown away, an abandoned possession, in which the owners have no attachment, all of that it is proper to say "give, bring, pour it here." For thus the Venerable Raṭṭhapāla too, the foremost practiser of the noble lineage, said "Pour the porridge that is to be thrown away here into my bowl." Therefore, whatever is of such a nature to be thrown away, or other unowned things such as forest roots, fruits, medicines and the like, all of that may be had brought and consumed as one pleases; one should not have scruples about it. "Of the hands" means of both hands from the wrists onwards, as he held out the bowl for the purpose of receiving almsfood. "Of the feet" means of both feet beginning from the edge of the inner robe. "Of the voice" means and of the voice as he uttered the words "If that, sister." "Recognised the sign" means she grasped, recognised, and discerned the appearance previously observed during his lay life. For Sudinna went forth in the twelfth year of the Blessed One and entered the relatives' household for alms in the twentieth year, being himself eight years in the going forth; therefore that female slave of his relatives did not recognise him merely by seeing him, but she recognised the sign.

"Said this to Sudinna's mother" - being unable to speak such words as "Are you, venerable sir, the master's son Sudinna?" to the master's son who had gone forth, being greatly revered, she quickly entered the house and said this to Sudinna's mother. "Yagghe" is an indeclinable particle used in the sense of announcement. In "sace je saccan," here "je" is an indeclinable particle used in the vocative. For thus in that region they address slave women, therefore the meaning here should be understood as "You, good slave woman, if you speak the truth."

32. "Leaning against a certain wall" - in that region, it is said, in the houses of donors there are halls, and seats are prepared there, and water and rice gruel are provided; there, those who have gone forth, having walked for alms, sit down and eat. If they wish, they take even the property of the masters of giving. Therefore that too should be understood as "a certain wall" in such a hall of a certain family. For those gone forth do not sit down and eat in an unsuitable place like destitute human beings.

In "Is it really so, dear" - here "atthi" is in the sense of existing; "nāma" is a particle in the sense of questioning and in the sense of supposing. For this is what is meant - "Is there really, dear Sudinna, our wealth - are we not to be called destitute - that you, our son, sitting in such a place, will eat food made with flour from the previous evening?" Likewise, "Is there really, dear Sudinna, our life - are we not to be called dead - that you, our son, sitting in such a place, will eat food made with flour from the previous evening?" Likewise, "There is, I suppose, dear Sudinna, within you a quality of a recluse obtained through dependence on the teaching, that you, though nourished on the taste of fine food, will eat this disgusting food made with flour from the previous evening, unmoved, as if it were the deathless."

But that householder, being overwhelmed by grief, unable to express this meaning in full, said only this much: "Is it really so, dear Sudinna, that you will eat food made with flour from the previous evening!" The grammarians here state this characteristic - by reason of disbelief and indignation, with the words "atthi nāma" as the subordinate clause, the future tense "paribhuñjissasī" is used. The meaning of that is as follows - "Is it really so" etc. "you will eat - even though I see this before my eyes, I do not believe it, I cannot bear it." "This food made with flour from the previous evening is from there" means "this food made with flour from the previous evening was obtained from there, from your house." "Tatoyaṃ" is also a reading. Some also read "tadāyaṃ"; that is not good. "To his own father's dwelling" means "to his own father's, to one's own father's dwelling" is the meaning; the Elder, being obedient through affection for his father, went. "He consented" - the Elder, although being one who practises the strict form of alms-food eating, consented out of compassion for his relatives, thinking "if I do not accept even one meal, their grief will be excessive."

33. "Opuñjāpetvā" means having had it smeared. "Ekaṃ hiraññassa" - here "hirañña" should be understood as kahāpaṇa coins. "Puriso" should be understood as neither too tall nor too short, of medium stature. "Tirokaraṇīyaṃ" - the locative is used in the sense of the instrumental; the meaning is having surrounded it with a screen-wall. Alternatively, that by which they conceal is a tirokaraṇīya, having surrounded that; the meaning is having set it up all around. "Tena hi" means because Sudinna will come today, for that reason. "Hi" is a particle used merely as an expletive. "Tena" - or this too is simply a particle used in the sense of urging.

34. "In the earlier period of the day" - here, although the announcement of the time is not stated in the canonical text, it should be understood that he went at the time when it had indeed been announced. "This, dear" - he said this while showing the two heaps. "Mother's" means of the mother. "Maternal" means coming from the mother; the meaning is: this is the wealth given by your maternal grandmother when she came to this house of your mother. "A woman's wealth for a woman" - he said this disparagingly. How much could the wealth obtained by a woman solely for the purpose of bathing powder and such items for a woman's use amount to? Just look at the measure of even that. Alternatively, it is said thus: "This, dear Sudinna, is your mother's wealth, and that is maternal, not given by me, it belongs to your mother alone." Moreover, this was not produced by farming or by trade, but rather it is a woman's wealth for a woman. The meaning here should be understood thus: the woman's wealth that is to be received by a woman going from her relatives' family to her husband's family for the purpose of bathing powder and such items - that much is just this amount.

"Another is paternal, another is from the grandfather" - but that which belongs to your father and grandfathers, that is yet another. Both stored and invested, it is exceedingly great; and here "pitāmahaṃ" should be understood as having been formed by dropping the taddhita suffix. Or the reading is "petāmahaṃ." "It is possible, dear Sudinna, having returned to the lower life" - dear Sudinna, having abandoned the supreme noble banner, the mark of one gone forth, and having returned to the lower state of household life, it is possible to enjoy wealth; it is not impossible to enjoy it; you did not go forth out of fear of the king, nor were you obstructed by creditors. "Father, I am not able" - here, however, the word "father" he said out of affection rooted in household life, not out of the authority of a recluse. "I am not able" means I am not able. "I am not capable" means I am not competent, I am not able.

"I would tell you, householder" - but this statement he said with the authority of a recluse. "Would not pull too hard" - the affection that is established in you towards me, you should not pull that too hard through the force of anger; it is said to mean: if you would not become angry. Then the banker, elated in mind, thinking "My son wishes to make a reconciliation, I suppose," said - "Speak, dear Sudinna." "If so" - this is an indeclinable particle resembling a case ending, used in the sense of urging on. "On that account" - "tatonidānaṃ" means "taṃnidānaṃ," "having that as cause"; the replacement of the accusative case ending with "to" should be understood; and in the compound, there is no elision of it. "Fear or" - this refers to fear of kings and so forth, stated in the manner of "lest kings should take away my wealth" and so on; the meaning is mental terror. "Trepidation" means the trembling of the body, the shaking of the body, the quivering of the heart-flesh, of one who is being subjected to punishment by kings or thieves demanding "Give your wealth." "Terror" means the bristling of the body hair, the state of standing on end, when fear has arisen. "Safeguarding" means guarding within and without, by night and by day.

35. "If so, daughter-in-law" - the wealthy householder, having shown his wealth and being unable himself to entice his son towards the household life, thinking "there is now no bond for men like a woman," addressed his former wife - "If so, daughter-in-law." "Former wife" means the former companion, the companion during the earlier household life, the partner in the enjoyment of happiness based on the home, meaning the wife of the past. "If so" means for the reason that there is no bond like a woman. "Having taken hold at the feet" means having taken hold of the feet; the locative case is used in the accusative sense, or having taken hold of him at the feet. "What are they like, master's son, those nymphs" - why did she say this? At that time, it is said, seeing many warrior princes, brahmin youths, and merchants' sons going forth having abandoned great fortunes, those not understanding the virtues of the going forth raised a discussion - "Why do these go forth?" Then others said - "For the sake of celestial nymphs and celestial dancers." That talk became widespread. Taking that up, she spoke thus. The Elder, rejecting that, said "I do not, sister." "Addresses" means speaks, says. "Fainted and fell down right there" - seeing him addressing her with the term "sister," thinking "this one now has no need of me, who regards me, though being his wife, as if a girl who had lain in the same mother's womb with him," having arisen strong grief, she fainted and fell down in that very spot; the meaning is "she fell."

"Do not harass us" means do not harass us by showing wealth and sending a woman; for this is harassment of those gone forth. "If so, dear Sudinna, give at least a seed" - here "if so" urges him in his delight. If you are delighted and live the holy life, having practised, sit in the sky and attain final nibbāna, but give us one son as a seed for the family lineage. "Do not let the Licchavis have our heirless property conveyed away" - for we live in the realm of the Licchavi republican kings; upon your father's passing, they would have this property, this great wealth of ours, heirless, bereft of a son to guard the family wealth, conveyed away to their own royal inner quarters; do not let them have it conveyed away, let them not have it conveyed away.

"This indeed, mother, I am able to do" - why did he say this? It is said that he thought - "I alone am the owner of their property, there is no other. They will constantly follow me for the purpose of guarding the property; therefore I shall not be able to practise the ascetic's duty without concern, but having obtained a son they will desist, and then I shall practise the ascetic's duty at my ease" - seeing this reasoning, he spoke thus.

36. "Menstrual flux" is the name for the blood that arises at the time of the menstrual season. For at the time of the menstrual season, blood-coloured pustules form at the place where the embryo is established in a woman, and having grown for seven days they burst, then blood flows; this is its name, "menstrual flux." However, as long as it is strong and flows abundantly, even if relinking is given, it does not remain, but flows away together with the impurity; but when the impurity has flowed away and the base is pure, relinking that is given quickly becomes established. "Her menstrual flux arose" means the menstrual flux of hers arose; the junction is by elision of the vowel. "Having taken his former wife by the arm" means the arm which belonged to his former wife, having taken her there - this is the meaning.

"When the training rule had not been laid down" means when the first pārājika training rule had not yet been established. For it is said that during the first twenty years after the Blessed One's enlightenment, the monks pleased his mind and did not commit such a transgression. Referring to that very thing, this sutta states - "Monks, the monks at one time indeed pleased my mind." Then the Blessed One, not seeing any transgression, did not lay down either a pārājika or a saṅghādisesa rule. But in each and every case, he laid down only the remaining five minor offence categories. Therefore it was said - "When the training rule had not been laid down."

"Not seeing the danger" means not seeing the danger that the Blessed One would now show when laying down the training rule, he had the perception of blamelessness. For if he had known "this should not be done" or "this leads to cutting off at the root," a clansman gone forth out of faith would not have done it even if it meant the loss of his life on that account. But here, not seeing the danger, he had the perception of faultlessness. Therefore it was said - "Not seeing the danger." "With his former wife" is in the locative case. "He engaged in" means he performed; for even performing is called "making known" because it proceeds by way of bodily intimation. And it should be understood that he engaged three times for the purpose of ascertaining the formation of the embryo.

"She conceived an embryo by him" means she conceived an embryo by that very act of sexual intercourse, not otherwise. But does conception also occur otherwise? It does. How? By bodily contact, by grasping a cloth, by drinking semen, by touching the navel, by seeing a form, by sound, by smell. For certain women at the time of the menstrual season, dyed with desire and lust, conceive an embryo even while consenting to men's grasping of hands, grasping of braids, and touching of various limbs. Thus conception occurs by bodily contact.

Now the former wife of the Elder Udāyī, a bhikkhunī, took one portion of that semen into her mouth, and inserted another portion together with a cloth into her genital organ. She conceived an embryo by him. Thus conception occurs through taking up with a cloth.

The mother of the ascetic Migasiṅga, a doe, having come to the ascetic's urinating place during her fertile season, drank the urine containing seminal fluid. She, having conceived an embryo by that, gave birth to Migasiṅga. Thus conception occurs through drinking of semen.

Now, Sakka, knowing of the deterioration of eyesight of the parents of the Bodhisatta Sāma, wishing to give them a son, said to the wise Dukūla - "Is sexual intercourse suitable for you?" "We have no desire for that; we have gone forth into the going forth of seers." "Then, during her fertile season, you should touch her navel with your thumb." He did so. She, having conceived an embryo by that, gave birth to Sāma, the ascetic boy. Thus conception occurs through touching the navel. By this same method, the cases of Maṇḍabya and Caṇḍapajjota should be understood.

How does it occur through seeing a form? Here a certain woman, during her fertile season, not obtaining association with a man, under the power of desire and lust, while still within the house, gazes upon a man, like a royal consort; she conceives an embryo by that. Thus conception occurs through seeing a form.

Among cranes, however, there is no male; they, having heard the sound of thunder during their fertile season, conceive an embryo. Hens too sometimes, having heard the sound of a single cock, even many of them conceive an embryo. Likewise a cow, of a bull. Thus conception occurs through sound.

Cows too sometimes conceive an embryo through the scent of a bull. Thus conception occurs through scent.

But here, she conceived an embryo through sexual transgression. With reference to which it was said - "The mother and father come together, and the mother is menstruating, and the being to be reborn is present; thus through the conjunction of these three, there is the descent into the womb."

"The terrestrial gods proclaimed" - because there is no such thing in the world as secrecy for one committing an evil deed. First of all, he himself knows that evil deed, then the guardian deities, and then also other deities who know the minds of others. Therefore the terrestrial gods who know the minds of others, dwelling throughout the entire forest grove, having seen that transgression, proclaimed it aloud. They uttered it in such a way that other gods too could hear. How? "Free from trouble indeed, sirs, etc. danger has been produced." The meaning of that should be understood in the same way as stated in the Verañja Section.

"Having heard the sound of the terrestrial gods, the gods ruled by the four great kings" - here, however, the space-dwelling deities heard the sound of the terrestrial gods; from the space-dwelling deities, the gods ruled by the four great kings - this sequence should be understood. "The gods of Brahmā's company" - excluding the non-percipient beings and the formless-realm beings, all the Brahmās heard; and having heard, they proclaimed the sound - this should be understood. "Thus in that moment" means thus in that moment of Sudinna's transgression. "In that instant" means in the very instant of the transgression. "As far as the Brahma world" means as far as the Akaniṭṭha Brahma world. "Rose up" means it ascended, it arose, there was one great uproar.

"Gave birth to a son" means she bore a being in his final existence, resembling a golden image. "They gave the name 'Bījaka'" means they did not give any other name; because it was well known that the grandmother had said "give at least a seed," thinking "let 'Bījaka' indeed be his name," they gave the name "Bījaka." And based on the son's name, they also gave names to his mother and father. "At a later time, both of them" - this is said referring to Bījaka and Bījaka's mother. When Bījaka was about seven or eight years old, it is said, his mother went forth among the bhikkhunīs and he went forth among the bhikkhus, and relying on good friends, they became established in arahantship. Therefore it was said - "Both of them, having gone forth from home into homelessness, realised arahantship."

37. Thus the going forth of mother and son was fruitful. But the father lived overwhelmed by regret. Therefore it was said - "Then for the Venerable Sudinna there was indeed remorse" etc. Therein, "ahudeva" means "ahu eva"; the letter "d" is a euphonic conjunction. The meaning is "there was indeed." "Remorse" means subsequent regret caused by transgression. "Regret" is also a name for that very same thing. For that is called remorse by the wise because of the state of being a despicable action that ought not to have been done. It is called regret because, due to the inability to reverse the transgression that was committed, there is, on account of that, a state of distressing recollection. "It is a loss for me indeed" means indeed it is a loss for me; the meaning is: those which are called non-attainments of qualities such as jhāna and so forth, those are mine, not another's. "It is not a gain for me indeed" means even those qualities of going forth, taking refuge, and undertaking the training that I had obtained are not gains for me, because of being defiled by transgression. "It is ill-gained for me indeed" means even though this dispensation was obtained by me, it is ill-gained. "It is not well-gained for me indeed" means it is not well-gained for me as it is for other sons of good families. Why? "That I, in such a well-proclaimed Teaching and Discipline" etc. "to live the holy life." "Holy life" means the holy life of the path, comprised in the three trainings. "He became lean" means being unable to chew or eat, he became thin, with little flesh and blood. "Become quite pale" means having become of a quite pale complexion, resembling a withered leaf. "With veins showing all over the body" means having his body covered as if with a network of veins, due to the exhaustion of flesh and blood. "Inwardly minded" means his mind remained turned inward by way of grieving. However, by way of occurring dependent upon the heart-base, all minds are indeed inwardly minded. "With shrunk mind" means one whose mind was shrunk and contracted, having abandoned his duties in recitation, questioning, meditation practice, higher virtue, higher mind, higher wisdom, and the fulfilment of duties and practice, being inactive, being nothing but sluggish through indolence - thus he was one with shrunk mind. "Afflicted" means afflicted by mental suffering. "Unhappy" means one whose mind is corrupted by aversion, or one whose mind is distressed due to being overcome by displeasure. "He brooded" means by way of regret, like a donkey with a broken back, he pondered upon this and that.

38. "Monks who were friends" means those monks who were his trusted ones, comfortable in conversation, having seen him in such a state, spending his time with the impediment of socialising in groups, said this to him. "With full faculties" means with complete faculties of the eye and so forth, due to the fullness of the basis for clarity. In "so dāni tvaṃ," here "dāni" is a particle; the meaning expressed is "so pana tvaṃ" (but you now). "Kaccino tvaṃ" means "kacci nu tvaṃ" (are you perhaps). "Without delight" means discontented; the meaning is desiring the state of a householder. Therefore, rejecting that very discontent, he said: "No indeed, friends, I am not without delight." Rather, I am delighted in the cultivation of higher wholesome states. "There is an evil deed done by me" means there is, there exists, there is found one evil deed done by me; it stands as though constantly facing me. Then, making it known, he said beginning with "with my former wife."

"Indeed it is fitting for you, friend Sudinna, to have remorse" means friend Sudinna, this evil deed of yours is fitting, sufficient for remorse; the meaning expressed is that it is capable of producing remorse. In the beginning with "yaṃ tvaṃ," the connection should be understood thus: by which evil deed you will not be able to live the holy life, that evil deed of yours is fitting for remorse. Then, admonishing him, they said beginning with "has not, friend, the Blessed One." Therein, "nanu" is a particle in the sense of seeking agreement. "In many ways" means for many reasons. "For dispassion" means for the purpose of dispassion. "Not for lust" means not for the purpose of being lustful through lust. The intention is that the Blessed One taught the Dhamma for this purpose: "Having heard this Dhamma of mine, beings will become dispassionate towards all existential enjoyments, they will not become lustful." This same method applies in all terms. But here this is merely a statement by way of explanation. "For separation from bondage" means for the purpose of being released from defilements. "Not for bondage" means not for the purpose of being bound. "For non-clinging" means for the purpose of not grasping. "Not for clinging" means not for the purpose of holding on.

"Therein indeed you" means in that, indeed, you. "You will intend for lust" means you will intend, you will plan, you will devise for sexual intercourse which occurs with lust; the meaning is you will strive for that purpose. This same method applies everywhere. Furthermore, the nine terms beginning with "dispassion towards lust" are spoken with reference to the produced supramundane Nibbāna itself. Therefore, even when it is said "for dispassion towards lust" or "for the subduing of intoxication," the meaning should be understood simply as "for the purpose of Nibbāna." For since, having arrived at, having undertaken, having depended upon that Nibbāna, lust fades away and ceases to exist, therefore it is called "dispassion towards lust." And since, having arrived at that, the intoxications such as the intoxication of conceit, the intoxication of manhood and so forth become subdued, become free from intoxication, and are destroyed, therefore it is called "the subduing of intoxication." And since, having arrived at that, all thirst for sensual pleasures goes to removal and disappearance, therefore it is called "the removal of thirst." And since, having arrived at that, the attachments to the five strands of sensual pleasure go to uprooting, therefore it is called "the uprooting of attachment." And since, having arrived at that, the round of the three planes of existence is cut off, therefore it is called "the cutting off of the round." And since, having arrived at that, craving in every way goes to exhaustion, fades away, and ceases, therefore it is called "the elimination of craving, dispassion, cessation." And since this is departed from, released from, disjoined from craving - which has obtained the designation "weaving" because of its weaving, binding, and stitching together for the purpose of renewed existence in the four modes of birth, the five destinations, the seven stations of consciousness, and the nine abodes of beings - therefore it is called "Nibbāna."

"The abandoning of sensual pleasures has been declared" means the abandoning of sensual pleasures as objects and sensual pleasures as defilements has been stated. "The full understanding of perceptions of sensuality" means the threefold full understanding of all perceptions of sensuality by way of the known, the scrutinised, and the abandoned has been declared. "Of thirst for sensuality" means of the desire to drink in sensual pleasures, or of the wish to drink in sensuality. "Of sensual thoughts" means of thoughts connected with sensuality. "Of the fever of sensuality" means of the burning within, the fever arisen by the power of lust for the five strands of sensual pleasure. In these five instances, only the supramundane path that brings about the destruction of defilements has been spoken of. But in the first three instances, it should be understood that a path mixed of mundane and supramundane has been spoken of.

"This, friend" means "not this, friend" - your evil deed is not for the confidence of those without confidence, nor for the purpose of confidence of such people. "Atha khvetaṃ" means "atha kho etaṃ" (rather, this). "Atha kho tan" is also a reading. "For the alteration" means it is for the alteration of confidence, for regret. For those whose faith has not arrived by the path, it produces regret - "We are indeed confident in such a Teaching and Discipline, where there are monks who practise wrongly." But for those whose faith has arrived by the path, their confidence is unshakeable by such matters or even more terrible ones, like Sineru by the winds. Therefore it was said - "For the alteration of some."

39. "They reported this matter to the Blessed One" means they told, they made known this matter to the Blessed One. And in reporting, they did not report out of desire for his affection, nor with the intention of causing a rift, nor for the purpose of making known the disrepute of that venerable one, nor for the purpose of laying a charge of wrongdoing, nor thinking "Having heard this, the Blessed One will not give him a footing in the dispensation, he will have him expelled." Rather, they reported thinking "Having known this tumour arisen in the dispensation, the Blessed One will lay down a training rule, he will establish a boundary, a limit, a command."

"On this occasion, in this connection" - here it should be understood that Sudinna's transgression of misconduct is said to be both the occasion and the connection, because it is the cause for the laying down of the training rule. For since a cause sends forth its own result as if showing "Take it," and initiates it, begins to produce it, or simply produces it; therefore it is called both the occasion and the connection. "The Buddha, the Blessed One, rebuked" means the Buddha, the Blessed One, rebuked, censured; as is fitting for the foremost person among those who speak praise and blame to those deserving of praise and blame. For in the Blessed One, upon seeing a person who has transgressed virtue, the thought does not arise "This person is known and famous by birth, or by clan, or by noble family, or by learning, or by ascetic practices - it is fitting to protect such a person"; nor upon seeing a well-behaved and virtuous person does the thought arise to conceal his virtues. Rather, he simply rebukes what is to be rebuked, and praises what is to be praised, and this one was to be rebuked; therefore, established in the characteristic of steadfastness, with an unwavering mind, the Buddha, the Blessed One, rebuked him with words beginning with "unsuitable."

Herein is the explanation of the meaning - This deed done by you, foolish man, worthless man, is not suitable for the qualities that make one a recluse, nor for the path, fruition, Nibbāna, and the dispensation; it does not follow their lustre, their radiance, their beauty, nor does it conform to them; rather, it is far removed from those qualities. And precisely because it is unsuitable, it is not becoming; it does not conform to them; rather, it is contrary, standing in opposition. And precisely because it is not becoming, it is not proper; it is not similar, not comparable; rather, it is dissimilar, without comparison. And precisely because it is not proper, it is unbecoming of a recluse; it is not the deed of recluses. Because it is unbecoming of a recluse, it is not allowable. For what is not the deed of recluses is not allowable for them. Because it is not allowable, it is not to be done. For recluses do not do what is not allowable. Yet this was done by you; therefore, what was done by you, foolish man, is unsuitable, etc. not to be done. "How indeed" means for what reason, what reason does one see - this is what is meant. Then, showing the absence of any reason, he said further "Have I not, foolish man" and so forth. All that is self-evident in meaning.

Now, since the evil deed done by him, when ripening, has exceedingly painful results, therefore, in order to show him that result, like compassionate parents rebuking with a caring mind a son who has committed an offence, he rebuked Sudinna saying "Better for you, foolish man" and so forth. Herein, "venomous snake" (āsīvisa) means one whose poison comes quickly (āsu sīghaṃ). "Terrible poison" (ghoravisa) means its poison is fierce and deadly; of that venomous snake with terrible poison. The word "put into" is connected with the word "better." It would be better to have one's genitals put into the mouth of such a venomous snake with terrible poison; if they were to be put in, it would be better; the meaning is: it would be good, proper, well. "Not rather" (na tveva) means not better, not good, not proper, not well. This same method applies everywhere. "Of a black snake" (kaṇhasappassa) means of a dark serpent. "In a charcoal pit" (aṅgārakāsuya) means in a pit filled with charcoal, or in a heap of charcoal. "Blazing" (ādittāya) means burning, having taken on the appearance of fire. "In flames" (sampajjalitāya) means blazing all around, emitting flames. "Aglow" (sajotibhūtāya) means radiant. It is meant that it has become a single mass of radiance through the flames risen up all around.

"What is the reason for this?" means: that which was said by me as "better" - what is the reason for that, by which cause? "One might undergo death" means: whoever would put his genitals therein, he might undergo death or suffering equal to death. "But on this account" etc. "Would be reborn" means: this putting of genitals into the genitals of a woman - on this account, the person who does it would be reborn in hell; thus seeing the great blameworthiness of the deed, he rebuked him, not wishing suffering to come upon him. "Yet there, you" means: in such a deed, even though it is so greatly blameworthy, you. "That you" - here "yaṃ" is a particle in the sense of contempt. "Tvaṃ" is a synonym of the word "taṃ"; by both "yaṃ" or "taṃ," what is said is that he is despised and scorned. "What is not the Good Teaching" means: the practice of bad and low people; the meaning is: to be practised by them. The meaning is: to be practised by them. "The practice of villagers" means: the practice of villages; what is said is: the practice of people dwelling in villages. What is said is: the practice of people dwelling in villages. "The practice of outcasts" means: those in whom evil qualities flow and drip are outcasts; the practice of those outcasts, those low persons; or a practice that causes the dripping of defilements. "Inertia" means: corrupted, defiled by defilements, and gross, not subtle; what is said is: not refined. "Ending in water" means: that which has the water-act as its end, its conclusion, is "ending in water"; that is "ending in water." "Secret" means: occurring in private, arising in a concealed place. For this practice, because of its loathsomeness, cannot be done openly within the range of others' sight; therefore it is said: "secret." "The attainment of two by two" means: to be engaged in by two and two; "dvayaṃ dvayaṃ samāpattiṃ" is also a reading. Some also read "dayaṃ dayaṃ samāpattiṃ"; that is not correct. "You will engage in" - this should be connected with the word "nāma" stated in "yet there, you" thus: "you will indeed engage in." "Of many" etc.

"The forerunner, the first doer" - he speaks with reference to the Dispensation. In this Dispensation, you are the first doer of many unwholesome mental states for many persons, because of doing it first of all; the forerunner, because of being the very first to follow this path; what is said is: the opener of the door, the shower of the way. For having obtained this pretext, many persons following your example will perform various kinds of unwholesome mental states such as the practice of sexual intercourse like a monkey - this is the intention here. "In many ways" means: by the many reasons stated in the manner beginning with "unsuitable."

"Being difficult to support" etc. "Having spoken dispraise of idleness" means: having spoken dispraise, blame, and censure of non-restraint, which is the basis of being difficult to support and so forth. Because for a person established in non-restraint, oneself becomes difficult to support and difficult to maintain, therefore non-restraint is also called "being difficult to support, being difficult to maintain." Because for one established in non-restraint, oneself incurs great desire regarding the four requisites and discontent even when obtaining requisites the size of Mount Sineru, therefore non-restraint is also called "great desire, discontent." Because for one established in non-restraint, oneself tends towards socialising with groups and socialising with defilements, and being given to idleness tends towards the fulfilment of the eight bases of laziness, therefore non-restraint is called "company and idleness." And since the mind of one standing in non-restraint tends towards association with groups and association with defilements, and is given to indolence, tending towards the fulfilment of the eight bases of laziness, therefore non-restraint is called "company and idleness."

"Easy to support etc. having spoken praise of the arousal of energy" means having spoken praise of restraint, which is the basis of easy supportability and so forth. This is the meaning. Because when one has abandoned non-restraint and is established in restraint, oneself becomes easy to support and easy to maintain, and in the four requisites one attains fewness of wishes, the state of being free from craving, and in each requisite it leads to contentment of three kinds according to what is obtained, according to one's strength, and according to what is suitable - therefore restraint is called "easy to support, easy to maintain, having few wishes, and contented."

Because when one has abandoned non-restraint and is established in restraint, oneself leads to the effacement of defilements and to the shaking off of defilements - therefore restraint is called "detachment and austerity."

Because when one has abandoned non-restraint and is established in restraint, oneself, without resorting to bodily and verbal misconduct that is unpleasing, uninspiring, unwholesome, and unsuitable for body and speech, and without resorting to the triad of unwholesome thoughts that is unpleasing, uninspiring, unwholesome, and unsuitable for the mind, leads to the fulfilment of the opposite - namely, good conduct of body and speech and the triad of wholesome thoughts that is pleasing, inspiring, wholesome, and suitable - therefore restraint is called "gracious."

Because when one has abandoned non-restraint and is established in restraint, oneself leads to the unmaking that consists in the diminishing of all defilements, to the turning away from the round of rebirths, and to the fulfilment of the eight bases for the arousal of energy - therefore restraint is called "unmaking and arousal of energy."

"Suitable and appropriate for the monks" means suitable and appropriate for the monks assembled there, in relation to the training rule that he will now lay down. Or it means having given a teaching on the Dhamma that is suitable and appropriate for the restraint spoken of by means of easy supportability and so forth, connected with restraint and abandoning, not bound to the discourses, free from the canonical texts, and penetrative. This is the meaning. It is said that the Blessed One, on such occasions, as if making a garland of five-coloured flowers, as if arranging a string of jewels, threatening with the fear of the round of rebirths in future lives those who are intent on rejection and who delight in non-restraint, showing dangers of many kinds, establishing some of those who are desirous of training and established in restraint in arahantship, and establishing some in the path to heaven even when lacking the supporting conditions for the fruits of non-returning, once-returning, and stream-entry, gives a teaching on the Dhamma equal in extent to the Long Collection or equal in extent to the Middle Collection. With reference to that, this was said - "having given a suitable and appropriate talk on the Dhamma to the monks."

"If so" means by that transgression of Sudinna, which was the cause. "Training rule" - herein, what is to be trained in is the training; that by which one proceeds is the step; the step of the training is the training rule; the means of attaining the training is the meaning. Or alternatively, it means a root, a support, a foundation. This is a designation for the restraint from sexual intercourse, the restraint regarding sexual intercourse. For the restraint regarding sexual intercourse, being the foundation in the sense stated for the other qualities reckoned as training - namely, virtue, insight, absorption, and path - is here intended as "training rule." And this meaning should be understood according to the method stated in the analysis of the training rule. Moreover, even the word that illuminates that meaning should be understood as "training rule." And this too was said - "'Training rule' means whatever group of names, group of words, group of expressions, and group of syllables there are therein." Or just as when it is said "non-covetousness is a dhamma-portion," the meaning is that non-covetousness is one portion of dhammas, so too here "training rule" should be understood as meaning a portion of training, one part of the training.

"Dependent on ten reasons" means dependent on, relying on, with reference to ten special reasons that are the causes for the laying down of the training rule and that are attainable special benefits; it is said to mean seeing the accomplishment of the ten special benefits. Now, showing those ten reasons, he said "for the excellence of the Community" and so forth. Therein, "excellence of the Community" means the state of excellence of the Community, the state of accepting the word saying "Excellent, Venerable Sir," just as in the passage where "Excellent, O devas" occurs. And whoever accepts the word of the Tathāgata, for him that is for his welfare and happiness for a long time; therefore, "I will lay down for the Community's acceptance of my word saying 'Excellent, Venerable Sir,' having shown the danger in non-acceptance and the benefit in acceptance, not by overpowering with force" - making this meaning clear, he said - "for the excellence of the Community." "For the comfort of the Community" means for the state of comfort of the Community; for the purpose of comfortable living in communal life. This is the meaning.

"For the refutation of obstinate persons" - obstinate persons means persons of bad conduct; those who, even when being brought to a state of humiliation, arrive at it with difficulty, or who, while committing or having committed a transgression, are not ashamed - for the purpose of their refutation; for indeed, in the absence of a training rule, they will harass the Community saying "What have you seen? What have you heard? What have we done? On what ground, having charged us with what offence, do you refute us?" But when there is a training rule, the Community, having pointed out the training rule, will refute them by the Dhamma, by the Discipline, and by the Teacher's instruction. Therefore it was said - "For the refutation of obstinate persons."

"For the comfortable abiding of well-behaved monks" means for the purpose of comfortable abiding of well-behaved monks who are of amiable disposition. For monks of amiable disposition, not knowing what should be done and what should not be done, what is blameworthy and what is blameless, the boundary and the limit, become weary while striving for the fulfilment of the threefold training, and become troubled when doubts arise. But knowing what should be done and what should not be done, what is blameworthy and what is blameless, the boundary and the limit, while striving for the fulfilment of the threefold training, they do not become weary, and when doubts arise, they are not troubled. Therefore, the laying down of the training rule for them conduces to comfortable abiding. Or alternatively, the refutation of obstinate persons is itself the comfortable abiding of these monks. For depending on persons of bad conduct, the Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, Community acts do not proceed, harmony does not exist, and monks, being distracted, are unable to pursue recitation, questioning, meditation subjects, and so forth. But when those of bad conduct are refuted, all this trouble does not arise. Thereupon, well-behaved monks abide comfortably. Thus, the meaning of "for the comfortable abiding of well-behaved monks" should be understood in two ways.

"For the restraint of mental corruptions pertaining to the present life" means: mental corruptions pertaining to the present life are particular kinds of suffering to be experienced in that very existence by one who stands in non-restraint, such as blows by hand, blows by stick, cutting off of hands, cutting off of feet, disrepute, dishonour, remorse, and so forth. Thus, the meaning is: for the restraint, for the closing off, for the blocking of the path of approach of these mental corruptions pertaining to the present life.

"For the warding off of mental corruptions pertaining to the future life" means: mental corruptions pertaining to the future life are particular kinds of suffering to be experienced in hell and other realms in the future life, rooted in evil deeds done by one who stands in non-restraint; it is said: for the purpose of warding them off, for the purpose of calming them, for the purpose of stilling them.

"For the confidence of those without confidence" means: when there is the laying down of the training rule, having learnt of the laying down of the training rule, or having seen monks practising in accordance with what has been laid down, even wise people who are without confidence gain confidence, thinking: "Indeed, those things in the world that are occasions for the great multitude to be attracted, to be repelled, and to be deluded - from these, these recluses, sons of the Sakyans, dwell far removed and abstaining. Indeed, they do what is difficult to do; indeed, they do what is burdensome" - like the brahmin of wrong view who knew the three Vedas upon seeing a book of the Vinaya Piṭaka. Therefore it was said - "For the confidence of those without confidence."

"For the increase of those with confidence" means: even those sons of good families who have confidence in the Dispensation, having learnt of the laying down of the training rule, or having seen monks practising in accordance with what has been laid down, gain ever more confidence, thinking: "Oh, the venerable ones do what is difficult to do, who for as long as life lasts maintain the one meal, the holy life, and the discipline of restraint." Therefore it was said - "For the increase of those with confidence."

"For the duration of the Good Teaching" means: the Good Teaching is threefold - the Good Teaching of learning, the Good Teaching of practice, and the Good Teaching of realisation. Therein, all the word of the Buddha included in the three Piṭakas is called "the Good Teaching of learning." The thirteen ascetic qualities, the fourteen Khandhaka duties, the eighty-two great duties, and morality, concentration, and insight - this is called "the Good Teaching of practice." The four noble paths, the four fruits of recluseship, and Nibbāna - this is called "the Good Teaching of realisation." Since all of that, when there is the laying down of the training rule, monks learn the training rule, its analysis, and other words of the Buddha for the purpose of elucidating its meaning, and practising in accordance with what has been laid down, having fulfilled the practice, they attain the supramundane states to be attained through practice, therefore through the laying down of the training rule it becomes long-lasting. Therefore it was said - "For the duration of the Good Teaching."

"For the support of the monastic discipline" means: when there is the laying down of the training rule, the fourfold discipline - the discipline of restraint, the discipline of abandoning, the discipline of settlement, and the discipline of regulation - is supported, upheld, and well upheld. Therefore it was said - "For the support of the monastic discipline."

All these terms should be connected with the statement "I will lay down a training rule." Herein, this is the connection of the first and last terms: "For the excellence of the Community I will lay down a training rule; for the support of the monastic discipline I will lay down a training rule."

Moreover, here, "what is for the excellence of the Community is for the comfort of the Community, what is for the comfort of the Community is for the refutation of obstinate persons" - thus is the chain method; "what is for the excellence of the Community is for the comfort of the Community, what is for the excellence of the Community is for the refutation of obstinate persons" - and thus, having made a connection ten times with each single term as the root, what was stated in the Parivāra -

"A hundred meanings, a hundred teachings, and two hundred expressions;

Four hundred knowledges, regarding the reasons in the subject matter."

All of that should be understood. But since that will become evident in the Parivāra itself, it is not explained here.

Having thus shown the benefit of laying down the training rule, indicating the duty to be performed by monks regarding that training rule, he said: "And thus, monks, you should recite this training rule." What is meant? "Monks, you should recite this training rule whose benefit has been thus demonstrated by me in the Pātimokkha recitation, and you should learn it, and you should retain it, and you should teach it to others." For here the word "and" has the purpose of bringing in additional meaning, and by it this meaning has been brought in.

Now, showing what was stated as "this training rule," he said: "Whatever monk should engage in sexual intercourse, he is expelled, not in communion." Having thus made it firm by way of cutting off at the root, when the first pārājika had been laid down, the incident of the female monkey arose for the purpose of further supplementary laying down. This was stated for the purpose of illustrating the arising of that: "And thus this training rule was laid down by the Blessed One for the monks." Its meaning is - This training rule was laid down thus by the Blessed One for the monks, and another matter arose.

The discourse on the first laying down is finished.

The recitation section on Sudinna is finished.

Discussion on the Story of the Female Monkey

40. Now, in order to show that other case which had arisen, he said "Now at that time" and so forth. Herein this is the explanation of obscure terms - "A female monkey with food" means: in the Great Wood, through the power of the monks' virtues such as patience and loving-kindness, many animals such as deer, peacocks, fowl, monkeys and so forth, with minds free from apprehension, wander about in the places of the meditation dwellings. Therein, having enticed one female monkey with food such as gruel, rice, hard food and so forth - this is said to mean "having won her over." "Tassā" is in the locative case. "Engages in" means he is one who engages frequently; for the present tense is used in the sense of frequency. "That monk" means that monk who engages in sexual intercourse. "Wandering on a lodging tour" means those monks were visitors who had come to see the Buddha, and having received the visitors' meals early in the morning and having completed their meal duties, they wandered about thinking "We shall inspect the dwelling places of the monks." Therefore it was said - "Wandering on a lodging tour." "She approached those monks" means: animals, having become familiar with one monk, generate the same kind of attitude towards others as well. Therefore that female monkey approached those monks; and having approached, she displayed to them the same behaviour as to her own familiar monk.

"Tail" means the tail. "Presented" means she placed it facing towards them. "Made a sign" means: by whatever manner, by whatever action they would know her intention for sexual intercourse - that she did; this is the meaning. "That monk" means the one whose dwelling this was. "They hid themselves to one side" means they remained concealed in one place.

41. "True, friend": like a thief caught red-handed with the goods, having been confronted after being seen directly, being unable to say such things as "what have I done?", he said "True, friend." "Is it not, friend, just the same in that case": friend, just as with a human woman, does not that training rule apply in the same way also with an animal female? For even with a human woman, looking, grasping, touching, making contact, and pressing against are all indeed gross offences. With an animal female too, all of that is indeed a gross offence. What difference is there in this? You have cast a pretext where there is no ground for a pretext.

42. "Even with an animal, he is expelled, not in communion" means that even having engaged in sexual intercourse with an animal, he is indeed expelled - thus he made the training rule firmer. For the training rule is of two kinds - a worldly offence and an offence by regulation. Therein, that whose consciousness on the side of intentionality is solely unwholesome, that is called a worldly offence. The remainder is an offence by regulation. Therein, in the case of a worldly offence, a supplementary rule arising arises obstructing, closing the door, cutting off the stream, making it firmer; but "except for one with over-estimation" and "except for one who is dreaming" - this, however, was stated because of the absence of transgression and because of being negligible. In the case of an offence by regulation, arising when transgression has not been committed, it arises making it looser, releasing, giving a door, making non-offence again and again, like the supplementary rules regarding group meals, successive meals, and so forth. "Even with one for a moment" - but such a one, having arisen when transgression has been committed, simply follows the original enactment. But since this first training rule is a worldly offence, not an offence by regulation, therefore this supplementary rule arose obstructing, closing the door, cutting off the stream, making it firmer.

Thus, having combined both cases and having made it firmer by way of cutting off at the root, when the first expulsion offence had been laid down, the case of the Vajjiputtaka arose for the purpose of a further supplementary enactment. For the purpose of showing its arising, this was stated - "And thus this training rule was laid down by the Blessed One for the monks." Its meaning is - this training rule was thus laid down by the Blessed One for the monks, and another case also arose.

The discourse on the story of the female monkey is finished.

The Rug Recitation Section

Commentary on the Account of the Vajjiputtaka

43-44. Now, in order to show that other incident which had arisen, he said "Now at that time" and so forth. Herein too, this is the explanation of obscure terms - "Vesālian" means residents of Vesālī. "Vajjiputtaka" means sons of families in Vesālī in the Vajji country. Indeed, whatever calamity, danger, or tumour arose in the Dispensation, all of that was on account of the Vajjiputtakas. For thus, even Devadatta, having gained the Vajjiputtakas as his faction, split the Community. And it was the Vajjiputtakas themselves who, when the Blessed One had attained final Nibbāna a hundred years earlier, proclaimed the Teacher's Dispensation as contrary to the Teaching and contrary to the Discipline. These too were certain ones among them who, even when the training rule had been thus laid down, ate as much as they liked, etc. they engaged in sexual intercourse.

"By disaster of relatives too" - herein, loss, disaster, scattering, destruction, and ruin all have the same meaning. The disaster of relatives is disaster-of-relatives; by that disaster of relatives - the meaning is: by the ruin of relatives occasioned by royal punishment, disease, death, or separation. This same method applies to the second term as well. But in the third term, it is illness itself, the destroyer of health, that is disaster of illness. For it destroys, scatters, and ruins health - thus it is disaster. Illness itself is disaster, thus disaster of illness; by that disaster of illness. "Touched" means afflicted, overcome, beset - this is the meaning.

"We, Venerable Ānanda, are not blamers of the Buddha" means: Venerable Ānanda, we do not blame the Buddha, we do not find fault with the Buddha. Not blamers of the Teaching, not blamers of the Community. "We are blamers of ourselves" means: we blame only ourselves, we find fault with ourselves. "Unlucky" means unfortunate. "Of little merit" means of slight merit. "Gifted with introspection regarding wholesome mental states" means those wholesome mental states that are classified among the thirty-eight objects of meditation, gifted with introspection regarding those; the meaning is: having emerged from each of those objects of meditation, practising insight into those very mental states. "In the first and last watches of the night" means: the first part of the night is the first watch, the latter part of the night is the last watch; what is stated is the first watch and the last watch. "Conducive to enlightenment" means being on the side of enlightenment; the meaning is: being supportive of the knowledge of the path of Arahantship. "Pursuit of meditation" means pursuit of development. "Would dwell devoted" means: having abandoned the hindrance of household life and the hindrance of dwelling, we would dwell properly engaged and occupied with no other duties in secluded lodgings.

"Yes, friends" - the Elder, not knowing their disposition, having heard this great declaration of theirs, thinking "If they will be like this, it is good," accepted saying "Yes, friends." "This is impossible, there is no chance" - both of these are words rejecting the reason. For since a result stands in dependence upon a cause by being dependent upon it. And since that is an occasion for it by being dependent upon it, therefore it is called "a ground and an occasion"; rejecting that, he said - "This is impossible, Ānanda, there is no chance." There is neither this ground nor occasion. "That a Tathāgata" means that by which a Tathāgata, on account of the Vajjis or etc. should abolish - the meaning is: that reason does not exist. For if the Blessed One were to grant full ordination to those who request saying "May we receive full ordination," that being so, he would abolish what was laid down as "He is defeated, he is not in communion." But since he does not abolish this, therefore he said "This is impossible" and so forth.

"He, having come back, should not be given full ordination" means: "If one who has come back thus were to receive full ordination, he would become disrespectful towards the dispensation. But standing on the level of a novice, he will be respectful and will accomplish his own welfare" - knowing this, the Blessed One, out of compassion, said - "He, having come back, should not be given full ordination." "He, having come back, should be given full ordination" means: one who has come back thus, standing in the state of a monk, through his unimpaired virtue, will be respectful towards the dispensation; knowing that he, when the supporting condition exists, will before long attain the highest goal - he said "should be given full ordination."

Thus, having shown who should not be given full ordination and who should be given full ordination among those who have come back after engaging in sexual intercourse, wishing to lay down the training rule by combining all three cases and making it complete, having said "And thus, monks, you should recite this training rule," "Whatever monk etc. is not in communion" - he laid down the complete training rule.

The commentary on the story of the Vajjiputtaka is finished.

Discussion on the Fourfold Vinaya

45. Now, analysing its meaning, he said "whoever" means "whoever, of whatever kind" and so forth. However, by one who desires proficiency in that training rule, in the analysis of the training rule, and in the entire adjudication of the Vinaya, the fourfold Vinaya should be known -

For the fourfold Vinaya, the great elders of great power,

Having extracted it, made it known - the compilers of the Dhamma of old.

What is the fourfold? The text, conformity with the text, the teachers' doctrine, and one's own judgement. With reference to which it was said - "By the direct statement, by the essence, by the lineage of teachers, and by the intention." Herein, "by the direct statement" means the text is intended, "by the essence" means conformity with the text, "by the lineage of teachers" means the teachers' doctrine, "by the intention" means one's own judgement.

Therein, "the text" means the canonical text in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka.

"Conformity with the text" means the four great authorities; which were thus spoken by the Blessed One - "Whatever, monks, has not been rejected by me saying 'this is not allowable,' if that conforms with what is not allowable, and excludes what is allowable, that is not allowable for you. Whatever, monks, has not been rejected by me saying 'this is not allowable,' if that conforms with what is allowable, and excludes what is not allowable, that is allowable for you. Whatever, monks, has not been permitted by me saying 'this is allowable,' if that conforms with what is not allowable, and excludes what is allowable, that is not allowable for you. Whatever, monks, has not been permitted by me saying 'this is allowable,' if that conforms with what is allowable, and excludes what is not allowable, that is allowable for you."

"The teachers' doctrine" means the commentaries that were established by the five hundred arahants who were the compilers of the Dhamma, that are separate from the canonical text, and that proceed with adjudication of cases that have arisen.

"One's own judgement" means, setting aside the text, conformity with the text, and the teachers' doctrine, a statement of what appears through inference, by one's own understanding, and by grasping the method.

Furthermore, all the doctrine of the Elders that has come down in the commentaries on the Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Vinaya is called "one's own judgement." However, one who takes up that personal judgement and speaks should not speak holding it with a firm grip. Having examined the reason, one should speak by comparing the meaning with the canonical text and the canonical text with the meaning. One's own judgement should be brought down into the teachers' doctrine. If it fits therein and agrees, it should be accepted. If it neither fits nor agrees, it should not be accepted. For this personal judgement is the weakest of all. The teachers' doctrine is stronger than one's own judgement.

The teachers' tradition should also be tested against what is in conformity with the discourses. Therein, only what fits and accords should be accepted; the other should not be accepted. For what is in conformity with the discourses is stronger than the teachers' tradition.

What is in conformity with the discourses should also be tested against the discourses. Therein, only what fits and accords should be accepted; the other should not be accepted. For the discourse itself is stronger than what is in conformity with the discourses. For the discourse is irrefutable, like the community that performed the recitation, like the time when the Buddhas were still present. Therefore, when two monks discuss, one advocate takes up the discourse and speaks, the other advocate takes up what is in conformity with the discourses. Without either of them making contempt or reproach towards each other, what is in conformity with the discourses should be tested against the discourse. If it fits and accords, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted; one should stand by the discourse itself. Then this one speaks taking up the discourse, the other takes up the teachers' tradition. Without either of them making contempt or reproach towards each other, the teachers' tradition should be tested against the discourse. If it fits and accords, it should be accepted. If it does not fit and does not accord, the blameworthy teachers' tradition should not be accepted; one should stand by the discourse itself.

Then this one speaks taking up the discourse, the other takes up personal opinion. Without either of them making contempt or reproach towards each other, the personal opinion should be tested against the discourse. If it fits and accords, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted. One should stand by the discourse itself.

Then this one speaks taking up what is in conformity with the discourses, the other takes up the discourse. The discourse should be tested against what is in conformity with the discourses. If it fits and accords, and it is recognised as having been included in the three councils and as having come in the canonical text, it should be accepted. If it is not so recognised, does not fit and does not accord, or it is an external discourse, or a verse, or another blameworthy discourse coming from one or another of the Hidden Vessantara, Hidden Vinaya, Vedalla, and so forth, it should not be accepted. One should stand by what is in conformity with the discourses itself.

Then this one speaks taking up what is in conformity with the discourses, the other takes up the teachers' tradition. The teachers' tradition should be tested against what is in conformity with the discourses. If it fits and accords, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted. One should stand by what is in conformity with the discourses itself.

Then this one, taking what is in conformity with the texts, argues, and the other takes personal opinion. The personal opinion should be subsumed under what is in conformity with the texts. If it fits and accords, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted. One should stand by what is in conformity with the discourses itself.

Then this one, taking the teachers' tradition, argues, and the other takes the text. The text should be subsumed under the teachers' tradition. If it fits and accords, it should be accepted. The other, being a blameworthy text, should not be accepted. One should stand by the teachers' tradition alone.

Then this one, taking the teachers' tradition, argues, and the other takes what is in conformity with the texts. What is in conformity with the texts should be subsumed under the teachers' tradition. Only what fits and accords should be accepted; the other should not be accepted. One should stand by the teachers' tradition alone.

Then this one, taking the teachers' tradition, argues, and the other takes personal opinion. One's own judgement should be brought down into the teachers' doctrine. If it fits and accords, it should be accepted. If not, it should not be accepted. One should stand by the teachers' tradition alone.

Then this one, taking personal opinion, argues, and the other takes the text. The text should be subsumed under the personal opinion. If it fits and accords, it should be accepted. The other, being a blameworthy text, should not be accepted. One should stand by the personal opinion alone.

Then this one, taking personal opinion, argues, and the other takes what is in conformity with the texts. What is in conformity with the texts should be subsumed under the personal opinion. Only what fits and accords should be accepted; the other should not be accepted. One should stand by the personal opinion alone.

Then this one, taking personal opinion, argues, and the other takes the teachers' tradition. The teachers' tradition should be subsumed under the personal opinion. If it fits and accords, it should be accepted; the other, being a blameworthy teachers' tradition, should not be accepted. One should stand by the personal opinion alone. One's own position should be made strong. And in all cases, neither dismissal nor reproach should be made.

But then this one takes up "allowable" and argues, while the other says "not allowable". It should be tested against the discourse and what is in conformity with the discourse. If it is allowable, one should stand by the allowable. If it is not allowable, one should stand by the not allowable.

Then if this one shows from the discourse many reasons and judgements establishing its allowable nature, and the other finds no reason - One should stand by the allowable alone. Then if the other shows from the discourse many reasons and judgements establishing its not allowable nature, this one should not make it his own position and stand firmly holding on to it. Having accepted with "Good", one should stand by the not allowable alone. Then if the semblance of reason appears for both, the state of being prohibited alone is good; one should stand by the not allowable. For having reached the Vinaya and come to the investigation of allowable and not allowable, it should be blocked, it should be made firm, the stream should be cut off, and one should stand by the weighty state alone.

But then this one takes up "not allowable" and argues, while the other says "allowable". It should be tested against the discourse and what is in conformity with the discourse. If it is allowable, one should stand by the allowable. If it is not allowable, one should stand by the not allowable.

Then if this one shows the not allowable nature with many reasons of discourse-judgement, and the other finds no reason, one should stand by the not allowable. Then if the other shows the allowable nature with many reasons of discourse-judgement, and this one finds no reason, one should stand by the allowable. Then if the semblance of reason appears for both, one's own position should not be relinquished. And just as this judgement has been stated regarding allowable-not allowable and not allowable-allowable; so too should the judgement be understood regarding the claim of non-offence-offence and the claim of offence-non-offence, and regarding the claim of light-heavy offence and the claim of heavy-light offence as well. For herein the difference is merely in name; there is no difference in the method of application, therefore it has not been elaborated.

Thus, when a judgement regarding allowable-not allowable and so forth has arisen, whoever obtains the superior reason among the discourse, what is in conformity with the discourse, the teachers' tradition, and one's own opinion - one should stand by his position. But one who obtains no reason or judgement at all should not abandon the discourse; one should stand by the discourse alone. Thus, by one desiring skill in that training rule, in the analysis of the training rule, and in the entire Vinaya judgement, this fourfold Vinaya should be known.

Moreover, even having known this fourfold Vinaya, a person who upholds the Vinaya should be endowed with the three characteristics. For three characteristics of one who upholds the Vinaya should be desired. What three? "The discourse is well-learnt by him, well-practised, well-determined from the discourse and from the detailed exposition" - this is the first characteristic. "He stands firm in the Vinaya, unshakeable" - this is the second. "The succession of teachers has been well-grasped by him, well-attended to, well-considered" - this is the third.

Therein, "discourse" means the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. "It is well-learnt by him" means well-acquired. "Well-practised" means well-exercised, mastered, learnt by heart, well-determined. "From the discourse and from the detailed exposition" means it is well-determined from the canonical text, from the oral tradition, and from the commentary; it has been learnt having cut through doubt.

"He stands firm in the Discipline" means he is established in the Discipline through conscientiousness. For one who is shameless, even though learned, out of regard for gain, misrepresents the canonical text and expounds what is contrary to the Dhamma and contrary to the Vinaya as the Teacher's instruction, causing great danger to the dispensation. He even brings about a schism in the Saṅgha or a dispute in the Saṅgha. But one who is conscientious, scrupulous, and desirous of training, even for the sake of his life does not misrepresent the canonical text, but expounds only the Dhamma and only the Vinaya, treating the Teacher's instruction with respect and upholding it. For thus in the past the great elders uttered this declaration three times: "In the future the conscientious one will protect it, the conscientious one will protect it, the conscientious one will protect it." Thus one who is conscientious, not abandoning the Vinaya, not deviating from it, stands firm in the Discipline through conscientiousness - this is what "well established" means. "Unshakeable" means: one who is "shakeable" is one who, when questioned on the canonical text or the commentary, from below or from above, or in the sequence of words, falters, wavers, and is unable to stand firm; whatever is said by another, he assents to each and every point; he abandons his own position and adopts the position of another. But one who, when questioned on the canonical text or the commentary, from below or above, or in the sequence of words, does not falter, does not waver, but like one pulling out hairs one by one with tweezers, answers: "Thus do we say; thus do our teachers say"; in whom the canonical text and the determination of the canonical text, like lion's fat placed in a golden vessel, stand without diminishing or being exhausted - this one is called "unshakeable".

"The lineage of teachers has been well learnt by him" means the succession of elders and the lineage succession have been well learnt by him. "Well attended to" means thoroughly attended to; it is like a lamp that is lit at the mere moment of adverting. "Well retained" means thoroughly retained, retained with regard to the connection of what precedes and follows, with regard to the meaning and with regard to the reasoning; abandoning his own opinion, he speaks according to the purity of the teachers, saying "My teacher learnt in the presence of such-and-such a teacher, and he from such-and-such," thus bringing the entire lineage of teachers, the component of the Elders' Doctrine, tracing it back until the Elder Upāli learnt in the presence of the Perfectly Enlightened One. And bringing it from there too: the Elder Upāli learnt in the presence of the Perfectly Enlightened One, the Elder Dāsaka from his preceptor the Elder Upāli, the Elder Soṇaka from his preceptor the Elder Dāsaka, the Elder Siggava from his preceptor the Elder Soṇaka, the Elder Moggaliputta Tissa from his preceptors the Elder Siggava and the Elder Caṇḍavajji. Thus, having brought the entire lineage of teachers, the component of the Elders' Doctrine, he traces it back to his own teacher and establishes it. For the lineage of teachers learnt in this way is well learnt. But one who is unable to do so must at least learn two or three rounds of succession. For at the very least, it is fitting to know how one's teacher and one's teacher's teacher state the canonical text and the explanatory discussions.

Moreover, a bearer of the Vinaya endowed with these three characteristics, when the Saṅgha has assembled for the purpose of deciding a case, when a case has arisen, when the accuser and the accused have spoken what is to be spoken, should not hastily make a decision but should examine six grounds. What are the six? The subject matter should be examined, the matrix should be examined, the word analysis should be examined, the classification by triads should be examined, the intermediate offence should be examined, and the non-offence should be examined.

For even when examining the subject matter, he sees a certain offence thus: "One should come having covered oneself with grass or leaves, but one should certainly not come naked; whoever should come thus, there is an offence of wrong-doing." He, having brought that canonical text, will settle that legal issue.

Even when examining the matrix, he sees one or another of the five offences by the method beginning with "for deliberate lying, an offence entailing expiation"; he, having brought that canonical text, will settle that legal issue.

When examining the word-analysis too, he sees one or another of the seven offences according to the method: "When the body is not destroyed, he engages in sexual intercourse, there is an offence of defeat. When the body is mostly destroyed, he engages in sexual intercourse, there is an offence of grave transgression" - and so forth. He brings the rule from the word-analysis and settles that legal issue.

When examining the classification of triads too, he sees in the classification of triads either a triad-saṅghādisesa, or a triad-pācittiya, or a triad-dukkaṭa, or one or another offence. He brings the rule from there and settles that legal issue.

When examining the intermediate offence too, he sees whatever intermediate offence there is between training rules, thus: "He lifts up what has been received, there is an offence of wrong-doing." He brings that rule and settles that legal issue.

When examining non-offence too, he sees the non-offence indicated in each respective training rule, thus: "There is no offence for a monk who does not consent, who has no intention to steal, who has no intention of killing, who has the intention of admonishing, who has no intention of releasing, who acts unintentionally, who acts without mindfulness, who does not know." He brings that rule and settles that legal issue.

For whatever monk, skilled in the fourfold Vinaya, endowed with the three characteristics, having examined these six grounds, settles a legal issue, his judgement is irreversible, and is like one adjudicated by the Buddha himself sitting in person. If any monk who has committed a transgression of a training rule were to approach that monk skilled in judgement and ask about his own scruple; having carefully considered, if there is no offence, he should say "there is no offence." But if there is an offence, he should say "there is an offence." If it is one remediable by confession, he should say "it is remediable by confession." If it is one remediable by rehabilitation, he should say "it is remediable by rehabilitation." But if the semblance of a defeat appears to him, he should not yet say "it is a defeat offence." Why? For the transgression regarding sexual intercourse and the transgression regarding claims of superhuman states are gross. But transgressions regarding taking what is not given and regarding the destruction of a human being are subtle and light as thought. One commits them subtly and guards against them subtly; therefore, when being asked about a scruple based on such a matter, without saying "it is an offence," if his teacher is available, that monk should be sent to him with the words "go and ask our teacher." If he comes back again and says "your teacher, having examined it according to the rule and the method, told me 'there is a remedy,'" then he should be told by him "good, very well, do what the teacher says." But if he has no teacher, yet there is an elder who studied together with him, he should be sent to his presence - "The elder who studied together with us is a leader of the group; go to him and ask." When he too has determined "there is a remedy," he should be told "good, very well, do as he says." But if there is no elder who studied together with him either, yet there is a wise pupil, he should be sent to his presence - "Go to such-and-such a junior and ask." When he too has determined "there is a remedy," he should be told "good, very well, do as he says." But if even for the junior the semblance of a defeat appears, even by him it should not be said "you are defeated." For the arising of a Buddha is rare, and rarer still are the going forth and the full ordination. Rather, he should be told thus - "Having swept a secluded place, having sat down for the day's abiding, having purified your morality, attend for now to the thirty-two aspects." If his morality is sound and the meditation subject engages him, formations become manifest and present themselves, the mind too becomes unified as if having attained access or absorption, and he does not even know that the day has passed. When he comes to attend upon him after the day has passed, he should be told thus - "What was the course of your mind like?" When the course of the mind has been reported, he should be told - "The going forth is for the purpose of purification of mind; be diligent and practise the ascetic's duty."

But for one whose morality is broken, the meditation subject does not succeed; his mind wavers like one struck by a goad, he is burnt by the fire of remorse, and he rises up immediately like one seated on a heated stone. When he comes, he should be asked: "What is the course of your mind?" When the course of his mind has been reported, he should be told: "There is no such thing as secrecy in the world for one who commits evil deeds. For first of all, one committing evil knows it himself, then his guardian deities, recluses and brahmins who know others' minds, and other deities know it. Now you yourself should seek your own welfare."

The discourse on the fourfold Vinaya is finished,

and the discourse on the characteristics and so forth of one who bears the Vinaya.

Commentary on the Word-Analysis for Monks

Now we shall explain the meaning of the analysis of the training rule. What was stated as "whoever" means "whoever, of whatever kind" and so on. Herein, "whoever" is the term to be analysed; "whoever, of whatever kind" and so on are the terms of its analysis. And herein, since "pana" is merely a particle; "yo" is the term of meaning; and since it indicates a person in an indefinite way, therefore, showing its meaning, he stated just the word "yo" which indicates a person indefinitely. Therefore here the meaning should be understood thus: "whoever" means "whoever, anyone at all" is what is stated. Since whoever is anyone at all, he is necessarily recognised by one or another aspect among physical characteristics, engagement, birth, name, clan, morality, dwelling, resort, and age, therefore, in order to make that known accordingly, revealing that classification, he said "of whatever kind" and so on. Therein, "of whatever kind" means of whatever kind or of such a kind by way of physical characteristics, let him be; the meaning is: whether tall or short, dark or fair, of golden complexion, thin or stout. "However engaged" means by way of engagement, let him be engaged in this or that; the meaning is: whether engaged in building work, engaged in recitation, or engaged in the duty of dwelling. "Of whatever birth" means by way of birth, let him be of this birth or that birth; the meaning is: whether a noble warrior, a brahmin, a merchant, or a worker. "Of whatever name" means by way of name, let him be of this name or that name; the meaning is: whether Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, or Saṅgharakkhita. "Of whatever clan" means by way of clan, let him be of this clan or that clan, or of whatever clan; the meaning is: whether Kaccāyana, Vāsiṭṭha, or Kosiya. "Of whatever morality" means among practices, let him be of this morality or that morality; the meaning is: whether of the practice of building work, the practice of recitation, or the practice of the duty of dwelling. "Of whatever dwelling" means among dwellings too, let him be of this dwelling or that dwelling; the meaning is: whether dwelling in building work, dwelling in recitation, or dwelling in the duty of dwelling. "Of whatever resort" means among resorts too, let him be of this resort or that resort; the meaning is: whether resorting to building work, resorting to recitation, or resorting to the duty of dwelling. In "whether an elder" and so on, among those advanced in age and so on, let him be whoever he may be; the meaning is: whether an elder by having completed ten rains, or newly ordained by having less than five rains, or of middle standing by having more than five rains. Then indeed, every such one in this meaning is called "whoever".

In the explanation of "monk", "he begs" means he is a beggar; the meaning is that whether receiving or not receiving, he asks by means of the noble way of asking. Because he has entered upon the practice of going for alms that was undertaken by the Buddha and others, he is called "one who has entered upon the practice of going for alms". For whoever, having abandoned a small or great mass of wealth, has gone forth from the household life into homelessness, having given up making a livelihood by farming, cattle-herding, and so forth, by merely taking on the outward appearance, has entered upon the practice of going for alms - thus he is a monk. Or because his livelihood is dependent on others, even though eating food brought by attendants within the monastery, he has entered upon the practice of going for alms - thus he is a monk; or because enthusiasm for the going forth arose on account of the eating of almsfood, he has entered upon the practice of going for alms - thus he is a monk. "One who wears torn robes" means one who wears cloth that is broken by the breaking of its value, touch, and colour. Therein, the breaking of value should be understood as cutting with a blade. For even cloth worth a thousand, when cut into pieces with a blade, becomes broken in value. It is not worth even half of its former value. The breaking of touch should be understood as the stitching together with thread. For even cloth that is pleasant to touch, when stitched together with threads, becomes broken in touch. It reaches a state of rough touch. The breaking of colour should be understood as being due to needle-stains and the like. For even very clean cloth, starting from the needlework, becomes broken in colour through needle-stains, through the dirt of hand-sweat and grime, and at the end through dyeing and making allowable; it loses its natural colour. Thus, because of wearing cloth broken in these three ways, he is called "one who wears torn robes" - thus he is a monk. Or merely by wearing ochre robes that are dissimilar to the clothes of householders, he is called "one who wears torn robes" - thus he is a monk.

"By convention" means the meaning is: by the designation of common usage. For by convention alone a certain person is known as "a monk". For thus, when monks are being counted for an invitation and so forth, even novices are included and they say "a hundred monks" or "a thousand monks". "By acknowledgment" means by one's own declaration; for by acknowledgment too a certain person is known as "a monk". The occurrence of this should be seen in such instances as "Who is there?" "I, friend, am a monk." This, however, is the rightful acknowledgment spoken by the Elder Ānanda. But at night-time, even those of bad conduct, coming along the road, when asked "Who is there?", by an unrightful acknowledgment, an untrue one, say "We are monks."

"A 'come monk'" means a "come monk" is one who attained the state of monkhood, the "come monk" full ordination, merely by the Blessed One's words "Come, monk." For the Blessed One, having seen a person endowed with the supporting conditions for the "come monk" status, extending his golden-hued right hand from within the dyed rag-robes, uttering the sublime voice, says: "Come, monk, live the holy life for the complete ending of suffering." Simultaneously with the Blessed One's words, his household appearance disappears, and the going forth and full ordination take effect. He becomes shaven-headed and clothed in ochre robes. Having put on one as a lower garment, having wrapped one as an upper garment, having placed one on the shoulder, with a bowl the colour of a blue lotus hanging from the left shoulder-joint -

"The three robes and a bowl, an adze, a needle, and a waistband;

With a water strainer these are eight, for a monk devoted to exertion."

Thus, equipped with the eight requisites as described, appearing on his body as if attached, he stands like an elder of sixty years, complete in deportment, with the Buddha as his teacher, with the Buddha as his preceptor, paying homage to the Perfectly Enlightened One. For the Blessed One, during the first period after his enlightenment, at one time conferred full ordination only through the "Come, monk" ordination. And those thus fully ordained numbered three hundred and forty-one above a thousand; as follows - the five elders of the group of five, Yasa the clansman, his retinue of fifty-four companions, the thirty of the fortunate group, the thousand former matted-hair ascetics, two hundred and fifty wanderers together with the two chief disciples, and the one Elder Aṅgulimāla. For this was said in the commentary -

"Three hundred and a thousand, and forty more besides;

And one wise elder - all of them were 'Come, monk' ordained."

And not only these alone, there are many others as well. That is: the brahmin Sela with a retinue of three hundred, Mahākappina with a retinue of a thousand, ten thousand clansmen dwelling in Kapilavatthu, sixteen thousand brahmins of the Pārāyana - and so forth. But they were not mentioned because they are not indicated in the Pāḷi text of the Vinaya Piṭaka. These were mentioned because they are indicated therein.

"Twenty-seven thousand, and just three hundred too;

All these are reckoned, all of them were 'Come, monk' ordained."

"One fully ordained by the three goings for refuge" means one fully ordained by the three goings for refuge spoken by uttering the words three times in the manner beginning with "I go to the Buddha for refuge." For this full ordination is of eight kinds - the "Come, monk" ordination, the going for refuge ordination, the ordination by acceptance of exhortation, the ordination by answering questions, the ordination by acceptance of the weighty rules, the ordination by messenger, the ordination by eight proclamations, and the ordination by a legal act with a motion and three proclamations. Therein, the "Come, monk" ordination and the going for refuge ordination have already been described.

The ordination by acceptance of exhortation is as follows: "Therefore, Kassapa, you should train thus - 'Strong moral shame and moral dread will be established in me towards elders, newly ordained, and those of middle standing.' Thus indeed, Kassapa, should you train. Therefore, Kassapa, you should train thus: 'Whatever teaching I shall hear that is connected with the wholesome, all that I shall attend to with earnestness, bear in mind, gather together with my whole heart, and listen to the teaching with attentive ear.' Thus indeed, Kassapa, you should train. Therefore, Kassapa, you should train thus: "Mindfulness of the body accompanied by comfort will not be abandoned by me." Thus indeed, Kassapa, you should train." By this acceptance of exhortation was the permitted ordination of the Elder Mahākassapa.

The full ordination by answering questions is the ordination granted to Sopāka. It is said that the Blessed One asked the novice Sopāka, who was walking up and down at the Eastern Monastery, ten questions based on the foul: "Sopāka, are these states - 'perception of a bloated corpse' and 'perception of form' - different in meaning and different in expression, or are they one in meaning, differing only in expression?" He answered them. The Blessed One, having given him approval, asked: "How many years old are you, Sopāka?" "I am seven years old, Blessed One." "Sopāka, you have answered the questions in accordance with my omniscient knowledge" - and with a pleased mind, he granted the full ordination. This is the full ordination by answering questions.

The full ordination by acceptance of the weighty rules is the ordination granted to Mahāpajāpatī through her acceptance of the eight weighty rules.

The full ordination by messenger is the ordination granted to the courtesan of Aḍḍhakāsī.

The full ordination by eight proclamations is the full ordination through these two acts: a motion followed by three proclamations from the bhikkhunī community and a motion followed by three proclamations from the bhikkhu community.

The full ordination by a motion followed by three proclamations is the present-day full ordination of monks. Among these eight kinds of full ordination, "Monks, whatever full ordination was granted by me through the three goings for refuge, that I reject from this day forth. I allow, monks, that one should be fully ordained by a motion followed by three proclamations" - thus it is said that one is fully ordained through this ordination so granted.

"Good" means not evil. For from virtuous ordinary persons up to arahants, because they are endowed with good morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation, they are reckoned as "a good monk." "Substantial" should be understood as being like a cloth that is blue through being endowed with blue colour, so too because of being endowed with the substance of morality and so forth, he should be understood as "a substantial monk." Or because of the absence of the sapwood of defilements, only one with taints destroyed should be understood as "substantial." "A trainee": together with a virtuous ordinary person, seven noble ones train in the three trainings, thus they are trainees. Among them, any one should be understood as "a trainee monk." "One who does not train" is one beyond training. Having surpassed the states of a trainee and being established in the highest fruit, because there is nothing further to be trained in, one with taints destroyed is called "one beyond training." "By a complete community" means by one that has attained the state of unanimity in a single act, in the last resort, in an act requiring a group of five, as many monks as are eligible for the act having come, the consent of those eligible for consent having been brought, and those present not objecting. "By a motion followed by three proclamations" means by one that is to be performed with three proclamations and one motion. "By an act" means by a lawful act of the Vinaya. "Unshakable" means one that has attained the state of being unable to be overturned and unable to be objected to, because of being complete in the validity of the basis, the motion, the proclamations, the boundary, and the assembly. "Worthy of standing" means worthy of reason, worthy of the Teacher's instruction. "Fully ordained" means one who has attained the higher state; the meaning is "one who has reached it." For the state of a monk is the higher state, and because he has attained that through the act as described, he is called "fully ordained." Here, only the motion followed by three proclamations has been mentioned. But it is stated in all the commentaries that, standing at this point, the four acts of the community should be drawn out and explained in detail. And those have been explained by setting them out in order as "the act by announcement, the act with one motion, the act with a motion followed by one proclamation, the act with a motion followed by three proclamations," and by bringing in the canonical text in detail from the Khandhakas and from the Analysis of Acts at the end of the Parivāra. We shall explain those in the Analysis of Acts at the end of the Parivāra itself. For in this way, the commentary on the first defeat will not be burdensome; and the commentary following the canonical text as it stands will be easy to understand. And those sections will not be empty; therefore we shall proceed with the word-by-word commentary only.

"Therein" means among those monks spoken of by way of "one who begs" and so forth. "Whatever monk" means whatever this monk. "By a complete community" etc. "Fully ordained" means fully ordained by a legal act with a motion and three proclamations alone, among the eight kinds of full ordination. "This monk is intended in this meaning" means this one is intended as "monk" in the meaning "one who has engaged in sexual intercourse becomes defeated." The others, however, beginning with "one who begs," are stated by way of extracting the meaning. Among those, those beginning with "one who begs" are stated by way of etymology, the two "a monk by convention, a monk by acknowledgment" are stated by way of designation, "come monk" is stated by way of full ordination received with the Buddha as preceptor. The monk by going for refuge is stated by way of full ordination when the formal act of ordination had not yet arisen, and those beginning with "good" should be understood as stated by way of qualities.

The word-analysis concerning monks is finished.

Commentary on the Word-Analysis of the Training and Livelihood

Now, without analysing the word "of monks" since it has no special meaning, showing that because he has entered upon the training and the way of life, he is one who has entered upon the training and way of life of monks, he said "training" and so forth. Therein, "what should be trained in" is training. "Three" is a delimitation by counting. "Training in higher morality" means: that which is superior and supreme morality is higher morality; and that higher morality, because it is to be trained in, is also a training - thus it is the training in higher morality. The same method applies to the training in higher consciousness and the training in higher wisdom.

But what here is morality, what is higher morality, what is consciousness, what is higher consciousness, what is wisdom, what is higher wisdom? It is said - The five-factored and ten-factored morality is, to begin with, merely morality. For that is practised in the world whether a Buddha has arisen or has not arisen. When a Buddha has arisen, both Buddhas and disciples encourage the great multitude in that morality. When no Buddha has arisen, paccekabuddhas, those who hold the doctrine of kamma, righteous recluses and brahmins, wheel-turning monarchs, great kings, and great bodhisattas encourage it. Wise recluses and brahmins also undertake it themselves. They, having fulfilled that wholesome mental state, experience success among gods and human beings. But the morality of Pātimokkha restraint is called "higher morality," for like the sun among lights, like Sineru among mountains, it is both superior to and supreme among all worldly moralities, and it exists only with the arising of a Buddha, not without the arising of a Buddha. For no other being is able to extract that regulation and establish it; only Buddhas, having completely cut off the stream of transgression through the doors of body and speech, lay down that moral restraint appropriate to each and every transgression. And even beyond the morality of Pātimokkha restraint, only the morality associated with the path and fruit is higher morality, but that is not intended here. For a monk who has attained that does not engage in sexual intercourse.

But the eight sense-sphere wholesome consciousnesses and the eight mundane attainment consciousnesses, taken together, should be understood as just consciousness. And its occurrence whether a Buddha has arisen or not, the encouraging and the undertaking, should be understood by the very method stated regarding morality. But the consciousness of the eight attainments that serves as the foundation for insight is called "higher consciousness." For that, like higher morality among moralities, is both superior to and supreme among all mundane consciousnesses, and it exists only with the arising of a Buddha, not without the arising of a Buddha. And even beyond that, only the consciousness of the path and fruit is higher consciousness, but that is not intended here. For a monk who has attained that does not engage in sexual intercourse.

The wisdom that operates in the manner beginning with "there is what is given, there is what is offered" is the knowledge of the ownership of one's actions. For that operates in the world whether a Buddha has arisen or not. When a Buddha has arisen, both Buddhas and disciples of Buddhas encourage the great multitude in that wisdom. When no Buddha has arisen, paccekabuddhas, those who hold the doctrine of kamma, righteous recluses and brahmins, wheel-turning monarchs, great kings, and great bodhisattas encourage it. Wise beings also undertake it themselves. For thus Aṅkura gave a great gift for ten thousand years. Velāma, Vessantara, and many other wise men gave great offerings. They, having fulfilled that wholesome mental state, experienced success among gods and human beings. However, insight knowledge that delimits the aspects of the three characteristics is called "higher wisdom." For, just like higher morality and higher consciousness in relation to morality and consciousness, it is both superior to and higher than all worldly wisdom, and it does not operate in the world without the arising of a Buddha. And even beyond that, only the wisdom associated with the path and fruit is higher wisdom, but that is not intended here. For a monk who has attained that does not engage in sexual intercourse.

"Therein" means in those three trainings. "Whatever is this training in higher morality" means whatever is this training in higher morality reckoned as the Pātimokkha morality. "This is called the way of life" means this is every training rule established by the Blessed One in the Vinaya. Since herein monks of different countries, births, clans, and other distinctions live together, having one livelihood, a shared livelihood, and a shared way of conduct, therefore it is called "way of life". "He trains in that" means he trains by making that training rule the basis for his mind, examining with his mind thus: "Am I training in accordance with the training rule or am I not training?" And not only does he train in this training rule reckoned as the way of life, he also trains in the training. However, "he trains in that" is stated by virtue of the immediately following phrase "this is called the way of life". Although it is stated thus, yet the meaning here should be understood as follows: He trains by fulfilling the training in that training, and he trains by not transgressing that training rule. Therefore it is said "one who has entered upon the way of life" - this too is stated by virtue of the immediately following phrase "way of life". But since he has also entered upon the training, he should be understood in meaning as "one who has entered upon the training" as well. For when it is so, the word-analysis of the phrase "one who has entered upon the training and the way of life" is also complete.

The word-analysis concerning the training and livelihood is finished.

Commentary on the Analysis of Renunciation of the Training

"Without rejecting the training, without declaring weakness" means without repudiating the training and without making known the state of weakness. And because even when weakness has been declared, the training remains unrejected, but when the training has been rejected, weakness has indeed been declared. Therefore, by this phrase "without declaring weakness", no distinct meaning is obtained. Just as when it is said "should share a sleeping place for two or three nights", no distinct meaning is obtained by the expression "two nights" - it is said merely for the smoothness of expression and common usage in worldly parlance. Likewise, this too should be understood as said for the smoothness of expression and common usage in parlance.

Or because the Blessed One teaches the Dhamma with both meaning and phrasing, therefore by "without rejecting the training" he accomplishes the meaning, and by "without declaring weakness" he accomplishes the phrasing. For a single meaning-word stated without an accompanying word does not shine, like a king without a retinue, or like a man without garments and ornaments; but together with an accompanying word that follows the meaning, it shines.

Or because a certain declaration of weakness is the meaning of the rejection of the training, therefore, with reference to that, while elucidating the meaning of the phrase "without rejecting the training", he said "without declaring weakness".

Therein, one might say: since not all declaration of weakness is a rejection of the training, therefore one should first say "without declaring weakness" and then, for the purpose of delimiting its meaning, say "without rejecting the training" - but that is not so; Why? Because of the absence of a sequence of meaning. For since it has been said "one who has entered upon the training and the way of life," when it is said "without rejecting" that training which one has entered upon, the meaning is stated in proper sequence, not otherwise. Therefore this itself was stated first.

Moreover, the meaning here should also be understood in reverse order. How? In "one who has entered upon the training and the way of life," without rejecting that training which one has entered upon, and without declaring weakness in that way of life which one has entered upon.

Now, showing the distinction and non-distinction between rejection of the training and declaration of weakness, and the characteristic of rejection of the training, he said "there is, monks" and so forth. Therein, "there is, monks" and so forth are two matrix terms; analysing them, he said "and how, monks" and so forth. Herein this is the explanation of obscure terms - "How" means in what manner. "And a declaration of weakness" means and a making manifest of weakness. "Here" means in this Dispensation. "Dissatisfied" means one who has come to a state of difficult livelihood through lack of delight in this dispensation. Or alternatively, it means one who dwells with neck craned upward, thinking "today I shall go, tomorrow I shall go, from here I shall go, there I shall go" - distracted and without concentration. "Without delight" means devoid of delight in the dispensation.

"Wishing to fall away from asceticism" means wishing to depart from the state of a recluse. "Monkhood" means by monkhood. The accusative case is used in the sense of the instrumental. But in such passages as "would be troubled by something hanging around the neck," it is expressed by the instrumental case in its proper characteristic. "Troubled" means conducting oneself as though one were afflicted, oppressed, and suffering; or the meaning is: being afflicted and oppressed by that state of monkhood. "Being ashamed" means being abashed. "Disgusted" means loathing it as though it were something impure. "Desiring the state of a householder" and so forth are clear in meaning. In "what if I were to reject the Buddha," herein "what if" is a particle indicating deliberation. This is what is meant - "If I were to reject the Buddha, that would indeed be good for me." "Says and intimates" means he speaks by making a verbal utterance with these or other expressions, and he intimates to, that is, makes known to, the one to whom he speaks. "Thus also" - the particle "pi" is for the purpose of summarising the meaning stated above. Thus also there is both a declaration of weakness and the training not rejected, and in other ways too.

Now, showing that declaration of weakness and non-rejection of the training in another way as well, he said "or else" and so forth. All of that is clear in meaning. However, regarding the words, from the beginning here, these fourteen terms - "I would reject the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, the training, the discipline, the Pātimokkha, the recitation, the preceptor, the teacher, the co-resident pupil, the pupil, one with the same preceptor, one with the same teacher, a fellow in the holy life - I would reject" - are stated in the manner of rejection.

"I would be a householder" and so forth - these eight terms, "a householder, a lay follower, a monastery attendant, a novice, a heretical teacher, a disciple of a heretical teacher, not a recluse, not a disciple of the son of the Sakyan - I would be" - are stated in the manner of an alternative state of being by means of "I would be". Thus there are twenty-two terms connected with "what if I".

46. And just as these, so too connected with each one of "if I were to," "let me," "come, let me," "it occurs to me" - there are twenty-two each, thus altogether there are one hundred and ten terms.

47. Next, there are seventeen terms beginning with "I remember my mother," which proceed by way of showing the objects to be remembered. Therein, "field" means a rice field and so forth. "Site" means a place where grass, leaves, vegetables, fruits, and non-fruits grow. "Craft" means the craft of pottery, weaving, and so forth.

48. Thereafter, the nine phrases beginning with "I have a mother, she must be supported by me" are set forth by way of showing the state of having possessions and having impediments.

49. Next, the sixteen terms beginning with "I have a mother, she will support me" are set forth by way of showing the state of having support and having an established basis.

50. Thereafter, the eight terms beginning with "difficult to do" are set forth by way of showing the difficult nature of eating one meal, sleeping alone, and celibacy.

Therein, "difficult to do" shows the difficulty in the practice of eating one meal and so forth. "Not easy to do" rejects the state of being easy to do. Similarly here with "difficult to practise" and "not easy to practise." "I do not endeavour" shows the absence of endeavour therein and the inability to do so. "I cannot endure" shows the state of being unbearable. "I do not delight" shows the absence of delight. "I do not find pleasure" shows the absence of pleasure. Thus it should be understood that these fifty terms and the previous one hundred and ten, making one hundred and sixty terms, are stated in the section on the declaration of weakness.

51. In the section on the rejection of the training also, everything beginning with "And how, monks" is clear in meaning. With regard to the terms here also, these fourteen terms - "I reject the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha, the training, the discipline, the Pātimokkha, the recitation, the preceptor, the teacher, the co-resident pupil, the pupil, one with the same preceptor, one with the same teacher, the fellow in the holy life - I reject" - occur in connection with the statement of rejection of the training. And in all the terms, the meaning of the statement "says and intimates" is this: Having made a verbal declaration, he says; and the one to whom he says, by that very verbal declaration he intimates, announces, and makes known that "this one wishes to abandon the dispensation, wishes to be released from the dispensation, wishes to relinquish monkhood, and makes this verbal declaration."

If, however, this one, wishing to say "I reject the Buddha," were to reverse the word order and say "reject I the Buddha." Or were to say that meaning in one of the non-Aryan languages. Wishing to say "I reject the Buddha," were to say out of sequence "I reject the Dhamma" or "I reject the fellow in the holy life" - just as in the analysis of the superhuman states, one wishing to say "I attain the first jhāna" says "the second jhāna" - if the one to whom he says knows even this much, that "this one wishes to relinquish monkhood and says this meaning," there is no failure; The field itself has been entered, and the training is indeed rejected. Just as a being who has passed away from the state of Sakka or from the state of Brahmā has indeed passed away, so too he has indeed fallen away from the dispensation.

If, however, he says with expressions referring to the past or future or conditional, such as "I rejected the Buddha," or "I shall reject the Buddha," or "one should reject the Buddha," or sends a messenger, or sends a letter, or carves letters, or communicates that meaning by hand gestures, the training is not rejected. However, the declaration of superhuman states reaches completion even through hand gestures. The rejection of the training reaches completion only for one who makes a verbal declaration accompanied by intention in the presence of a being of human birth. Even when intimating by making a verbal declaration, if he specifies one person, saying "let this one alone know," and announces it, and that very person knows it, the training is rejected. But if that person does not know, and another standing nearby knows, the training is not rejected. But if, at a place where two are standing, having specified both of them, he says "I announce to these," whether one of them knows or both of them know, the training is indeed rejected. The same should be understood in the case of many persons also.

If, however, being oppressed by discontent, while walking among fellow monks, calling out loudly "let anyone know," he says "I reject the Buddha," and a construction worker standing not far away or another person knowledgeable of conventions, having heard, knows that "this recluse is dissatisfied and desires the state of a householder, he has fallen away from the dispensation," the training is indeed rejected. But at that very moment, neither before nor after, it is difficult to discern; if he knows at the time of adverting - Just as ordinarily in the world people know upon hearing a statement, the training is rejected. But if at a later time, doubting "what was said by this one," he knows after a long time, the training is not rejected. For this rejection of the training and the training rules above concerning false declaration, coarse speech, self-praise and disparagement of others, and declaration of truth are of one category. They reach completion only when known at the time of adverting; when known after a long time by one who doubts "what is this one saying," they do not reach completion. And just as this has been stated in the determination regarding the term "I reject the Buddha," So it should be understood in regard to all the terms.

And because when the training is rejected, even without having said such things as "let me reject the Buddha," the weakness is already made manifest; Therefore at the end of all the terms it is said: "Thus also, monks, there is both a declaration of weakness and the training rejected."

Next, regarding "remember me as a layman" - here, even if he says "I shall be a layman," or "I am a layman," or "I have become a layman," or "I am a layman," the training is not rejected. But if he says "from today onwards, remember me as a layman," or "know me," or "recognise me," or "bear me in mind," whether he says it in the Aryan language or in a non-Aryan language; When this meaning is thus stated, if the one to whom he says knows it, the training is rejected. This same method applies to the remaining seven terms beginning with "a lay follower." Thus these eight and the previous fourteen make twenty-two terms.

52. Hereafter, the same previous fourteen terms, combined with these four - "enough for me," "what use is it to me," "I have no need," "I am well released" - amount to fifty-six. Therein, "alaṃ" means "let it be, it is sufficient" - this is the meaning. "Kiṃ nu me" means "what is my duty, what is to be done, what is to be accomplished" - this is the meaning. "Na mamattho" means "there is no need for me." "Sumuttāhaṃ" means "I am well released." The remainder here is the same as the method already stated. Thus these fifty-six and the previous twenty-two make seventy-eight terms stated in their own form.

53. Since, however, the rejection of the training also occurs through synonyms for these, he therefore stated "or whatever other there are" and so forth. Therein, "or whatever other there are" means whatever others there are apart from the terms such as "Buddha" and so forth that have come in the canonical text. "Or synonyms for the Buddha" means alternative names for the Buddha, etc. or for one who is not a disciple of the son of the Sakyan. Therein, the thousand names that have come in the Vaṇṇapaṭṭhāna, the hundred names in the Upāli Verses, and other names obtainable through qualities should be understood as "synonyms for the Buddha." All names for the Dhamma should also be understood as "synonyms for the Dhamma." This same method applies everywhere.

Now here this is the connection - "I reject the Buddha" - the rejection is not by a synonym; it is just as stated. "I reject the Perfectly Enlightened One, the One of Boundless Wisdom, the One of Excellent Wisdom, the One Whose Mark is Enlightenment, the Wise One, the One Free from Delusion, the One Who Has Broken Through the Impediment, the One Who Has Won the Victory" - thus by such synonyms for the Buddha there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the Dhamma" - the rejection is not by a synonym; it is just as stated. "I reject the well-expounded Dhamma, the directly visible, the timeless, the inviting one to come and see, the leading onward, the Dhamma to be personally known by the wise. I reject the unconditioned Dhamma; I reject the Dhamma of dispassion, of cessation, the deathless Dhamma; I reject the Dīgha Nikāya, the Brahmajāla, the Majjhima Nikāya, the Mūlapariyāya, the Saṃyutta Nikāya, the Oghataraṇa, the Aṅguttara Nikāya, the Cittapariyādāna, the Khuddaka Nikāya, the Jātaka, the Abhidhamma, wholesome dhamma, unwholesome dhamma, indeterminate dhamma, the foundations of mindfulness, the right strivings, the bases of spiritual power, the faculties, the powers, the factors of enlightenment, the path, the fruit, nibbāna" - even the name of a single aggregate of Dhamma among the eighty-four thousand aggregates of Dhamma is itself a synonym for the Dhamma. Thus, through a synonym for the Dhamma, there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the Saṅgha" - the rejection is not by a synonym. "I reject the Saṅgha that has practised well, that has practised uprightly, that has practised correctly, that has practised properly; the Saṅgha of the four pairs of persons, the Saṅgha of the eight types of individuals, the Saṅgha worthy of offerings, worthy of hospitality, worthy of gifts, worthy of reverential salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit" - thus through a synonym for the Saṅgha there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the training" - the rejection is not by a synonym. "I reject the monks' training, the nuns' training, the training in higher virtue, the training in higher mind, the training in higher wisdom" - thus through a synonym for the training there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the monastic discipline" - the rejection is not by a synonym. "I reject the monks' monastic discipline, the nuns' monastic discipline, the first pārājika, the second, the third, the fourth pārājika, the saṅghādisesa, the thullaccaya, the pācittiya, the pāṭidesanīya, the dukkaṭa, the dubbhāsita" - thus through such synonyms for the monastic discipline there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the Pātimokkha" - the rejection is not by a synonym. "I reject the monks' Pātimokkha, the nuns' Pātimokkha" - thus through a synonym for the Pātimokkha there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the recitation" - the rejection is not by a synonym. "I reject the recitation of the monks' Pātimokkha, the recitation of the nuns' Pātimokkha, the first recitation of the Pātimokkha, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth recitation of the Pātimokkha, the recitation of the Perfectly Enlightened One, the recitation of the One of Boundless Wisdom, the recitation of the One of Excellent Wisdom, the recitation of the One Whose Mark is Enlightenment, the recitation of the Wise One, the recitation of the One Free from Delusion, the recitation of the One Who Has Broken Through the Impediment, the recitation of the One Who Has Won the Victory" - thus through such synonyms for the recitation there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the preceptor" - the rejection is not by a synonym. "He who gave me the going forth, he who gave me the full ordination, he by whose authority I went forth, he by whose authority I was fully ordained, she whose authority was the basis for my going forth, she whose authority was the basis for my full ordination - that one I reject" - thus through a synonym for the preceptor there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the teacher" - the rejection is not by a synonym. "He who gave me the going forth, he who made the announcement for me, he in dependence on whom I dwell, he from whom I have texts recited, he whom I question, he who recites texts for me, he who makes me answer questions - that one I reject" - thus through a synonym for the teacher there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the co-resident pupil" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "The one whom I gave the going forth to, the one whom I gave the full ordination to, the one who went forth under me, the one who received full ordination under me, the one whose going forth has me as its basis, the one whose full ordination has me as its basis - him I reject." Thus, by a synonym for the co-resident pupil, there is rejection of the training.

"I reject the pupil" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "The one whom I gave the going forth to, the one whom I proclaimed, the one who dwells depending on me, the one who has me recite to him, the one who questions me, the one to whom I recite, the one whom I have questioned - him I reject." Thus, by a synonym for the pupil, there is rejection of the training.

"I reject one with the same preceptor" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "The one whom my preceptor gave the going forth to, the one whom he gave the full ordination to, the one who went forth under him, the one who received full ordination under him, the one whose going forth has him as its basis, the one whose full ordination has him as its basis - him I reject." Thus, by a synonym for one with the same preceptor, there is rejection of the training.

"I reject one with the same teacher" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "The one whom my teacher gave the going forth to, the one whom he proclaimed, the one who dwells depending on him, the one who has him recite to him and questions him, the one to whom my teacher recites, the one whom he has questioned - him I reject." Thus, by a synonym for one with the same teacher, there is rejection of the training.

"I reject a fellow in the holy life" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "The one with whom I train in the higher virtue, the one with whom I train in the higher mind and higher wisdom - him I reject." Thus, by a synonym for a fellow in the holy life, there is rejection of the training.

"Consider me a layman" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "Consider me a householder, a farmer, a merchant, a cowherd, a destitute person, one with a topknot, one devoted to sensual pleasures." Thus, by a synonym for a layman, there is rejection of the training.

"Consider me a lay follower" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "Consider me a two-word lay follower, a three-word lay follower, one who goes for refuge to the Buddha, one who goes for refuge to the Dhamma and the Saṅgha, a lay follower who observes the five precepts, a lay follower who observes the ten precepts." Thus, by a synonym for a lay follower, there is rejection of the training.

"Consider me a monastery attendant" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "Consider me one who makes things allowable, one who renders services, one who tends the greens, one who distributes gruel, one who distributes fruit, one who distributes hard food." Thus, by a synonym for a monastery attendant, there is rejection of the training.

"Consider me a novice" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "Consider me a boy, a young lad, a servant boy, a topknot youth, a candidate for the recluse's life." Thus, by a synonym for a novice, there is rejection of the training.

"Consider me a heretical teacher" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "Consider me a Nigaṇṭha, an Ājīvaka, an ascetic, a wanderer, a white-clad ascetic." Thus, by a synonym for a heretical teacher, there is rejection of the training.

"Consider me a follower of a heretical teacher" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "Consider me a follower of the Nigaṇṭhas, a follower of the Ājīvakas, a follower of the ascetics, a follower of the wanderers, a follower of the white-clad ascetics." Thus, by a synonym for a follower of a heretical teacher, there is rejection of the training.

"Consider me not a recluse" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "Consider me one of bad virtue, one of evil nature, one of impure and suspect conduct, one of concealed actions, not a recluse though claiming to be a recluse, not living the holy life though claiming to live the holy life, inwardly rotten, oozing with defilements, one born of rubbish, a hollow one." Thus, by a synonym for not a recluse, there is rejection of the training.

"Consider me not a disciple of the son of the Sakyan" - the rejection is not by the synonym itself. "Consider me not a son of the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, not a son of the one of boundless wisdom, not a son of the one of supreme wisdom, not a son of the one whose mark is enlightenment, not a son of the wise one, not a son of the one free from delusion, not a son of the one who has broken through the stake, not a son of the one who has conquered in victory." Thus, by such synonyms for not a disciple of the son of the Sakyan, there is rejection of the training.

"By those characteristics, by those signs, by those marks" means by those synonyms for the Buddha and so forth, stated in the manner beginning with "synonyms for the Buddha." For the synonyms are called "characteristics" because they are the reason for the rejection of the training; they are called "signs" because they indicate the nature of the Buddha and so forth, or because they constitute the nature of the rejection of the training; and they are called "marks" because they are the cause of recognising the rejection of the training, just as moles and the like are marks for people. "Thus, monks" - he spoke this as a delimitation because there is no other reason for the rejection of the training beyond this. For the meaning here is this: in just this way there is both a declaration of weakness and a rejection of the training; there is no reason beyond this.

54. Having thus shown the characteristic of rejection of the training, for the purpose of avoiding confusion regarding non-rejection, and for the purpose of showing the failure of that very characteristic of rejection of the training by way of persons and so forth, he stated "And how, monks, is the training not rejected" etc. Therein, "by whatever characteristics" etc. is according to the method already stated. "A mad man" means one maddened by a yakkha, or one maddened by bile, or anyone with distorted perception; if he rejects, the training is not rejected. "Of a mad man" means of just such a mad man. For if in the presence of such a one, a person of normal mind rejects the training, the mad man does not understand, and the training is simply not rejected. "One who is mentally deranged" refers to one maddened by a yakkha. But in the former term, by the general designation "mad man," both "one maddened by a yakkha and one maddened by bile" were stated. The distinction between the two will become evident in the section on non-offence. Thus, one who is mentally deranged rejects the training, it is simply not rejected. Even when rejected in his presence, since he does not understand, it is simply not rejected.

"One afflicted by pain" means one struck by intense painful feeling, overcome by fainting. Even when rejected by him while delirious, it is simply not rejected. Even when rejected in his presence, since he does not understand, it is not rejected.

"In the presence of a deity" means even when rejected in the presence of any deity from an earth-bound deity up to a deity of the Akaniṭṭha realm, it is simply not rejected. "Of an animal" means even when rejected in the presence of a nāga youth, or a supaṇṇa youth, or any among kinnara, elephants, monkeys and the like, it is simply not rejected. In that regard, he stated that in the presence of mad men and the like, it is not rejected because of their inability to understand. In the presence of a deity, because of their ability to understand too quickly. Deities are of great wisdom, having taken rebirth with three root causes, and they understand too quickly, and this mind is indeed of rapid change. Therefore, for a person whose mind is swift, considering that "let there not be destruction too quickly" merely by the mind's inclination, the rejection of the training in the presence of a deity was disallowed.

But among human beings there is no fixed rule. When rejected in the presence of any intelligent person, whether of the same kind or of a different kind, whether a householder or one gone forth, it is indeed rejected. But if he does not understand, it is simply not rejected - showing this meaning, he stated "in the noble language" etc. Therein, "the noble language" means the noble mode of expression, the Māgadhī language. "Barbarian language" means any non-noble language such as that of the Andhra-Dravidians and the like. "And he does not understand" means that due to unfamiliarity with a different language, or due to being unskilled in the conventions of the Buddha's time, he does not understand "this is the meaning that he is speaking." "In jest" means that, wishing to say something else hastily, he hastily says "I reject the Buddha." "In fun" means by mistaken utterance, saying something else while intending "I shall say something else." If one asks, what is the difference from the former? The former is the saying of something else even by a wise person due to haste. But this is the saying of something else by one who stumbles due to dullness, due to confusion, due to lack of skill, while intending "I shall say something else."

"Not wishing to announce, he announces" means he recites the text of this training rule, inquires about it, learns it, chants it, or praises it - this is called "not wishing to announce, he announces." "Wishing to announce, he does not announce" means that while rejecting the training by making his weakness known, he does not make a verbal utterance - this is called "wishing to announce, he does not announce." "He announces to one who is not intelligent" means he announces to one who is elderly and resembling a clay figure, or to one of heavy intellect who is not skilled in the matter, or to village children who have not reached the age of discernment. "He does not announce to one who is intelligent" means he does not announce to a wise person who is capable of understanding. "Or else at all" means that by whatever manner the training is rejected through such expressions as "I reject the Buddha," he does not announce by making even a single verbal utterance from among them. "Thus" defines the characteristic of non-rejection. For here the meaning is this: "In just this way the training is not rejected, and not for any other reason."

The analysis of the renunciation of the training is finished.

Commentary on the Original Enactment

55. Now, in order to show the meaning of "should engage in sexual intercourse" and so forth, he said "sexual intercourse means" and so forth. Therein, "sexual intercourse means" - this is the heading term for the sexual intercourse that is to be explained. "Bad teaching" means the practice of the bad, of low people. "Village practice" means the practice indulged in by those who dwell in villages. "Outcast practice" means the practice of outcasts; or because of the raining down of defilements, it is itself an outcast practice, thus "outcast practice". "Gross" means it is corrupt because of being corrupted by defilements, and coarse because of being unrefined, thus "gross". And from this point onwards, in the three terms, "yo so" should be converted and made into "yaṃ taṃ" and construed thus - "that which is gross, that which ends in water, that which is secret." And here, since even the seeing, the grasping, the touching, the contact, and the rubbing that are accessories of that act are gross, therefore that act too is gross. That which is gross - that is sexual intercourse. "Water is taken at its end for the purpose of cleansing" - thus "ending in water"; ending in water itself is "that which ends in water"; that which ends in water - that is sexual intercourse. "Secret" because it is to be done in a concealed, hidden place. That which is secret - that is sexual intercourse. Thus the construction should be understood.

Because it is to be entered upon by two with two, it is the attainment of two by two. Therein the explanation is - "that which is the attainment of two by two - that is sexual intercourse." But here, concluding all that together, he said "this is sexual intercourse." For what reason is it called sexual intercourse? Because it is the practice of both who are lustful, deeply attached, oozing with desire, and obsessed - of both who are alike - for that reason it is called sexual intercourse.

"Engages in means" - this is the matrix term for the purpose of showing the manner in which it is said "should engage in" - in what manner one engages. In "whoever inserts genitals into genitals" and so forth - whatever monk inserts his own genitals into the genitals of a woman, his own organ into the organ of a woman, even to the smallest extent of a single sesame seed, into a moist space untouched by wind, he engages in; by this much he reaches a breach of virtue and is expelled.

And here, in the female genital, there are four sides and the middle - thus five positions are obtained. In the male genital, there are four sides, the middle, and the upper part - thus six. Therefore, one who inserts from below into the female genital is also expelled. One who inserts from above, one who inserts from both sides, and one who inserts through the middle having released the four positions - he is also expelled. But one who inserts the male genital touching the lower part is also expelled. One who inserts touching the upper part, one who inserts touching both sides, one who inserts touching just the middle, and one who inserts touching the upper part having contracted it like a bent finger at the back of the middle joint - he is also expelled. Therein, for one inserting it straight like a balance beam, there are four sides and the middle - thus five positions; for one inserting it having contracted it, there are four sides, and the upper part and the middle - thus five positions - thus in all, there are ten positions in the male genital.

If one inserts into the genital a skin-callus or a blister that has arisen there but whose bodily sensitivity is not destroyed, there is an offence of expulsion. If one inserts dead skin or a dried blister whose bodily sensitivity is destroyed, there is an offence of wrong-doing. Even for one who inserts hair or fingers, toes, seeds and so forth with the enjoyment of sexual intercourse, it is only an offence of wrong-doing. And since this discussion of sexual intercourse is a gross discussion, an improper discussion, therefore one who discusses this or any other such matter in the Vinaya should do so having established attention to repulsiveness, the perception of being a recluse, and moral shame and moral dread, having aroused reverence towards the Perfectly Enlightened One, and having reflected upon the quality of compassion of the Protector of the World whose compassion is unequalled. For that Blessed One, even though he himself had entirely turned away from sensual pleasures, out of sympathy for beings, out of compassion for the world, on account of his compassion towards beings, spoke such a discussion for the purpose of laying down training rules. One should discuss it having reflected upon the quality of compassion of the Protector of the World thus: "Oh, the quality of compassion of the Teacher!"

Moreover, if the Blessed One were not to speak such a discourse in every respect, who would know "in so many

In such cases there is expulsion, in so many cases a grave offence, in so many cases a wrong-doing. Therefore, neither one who listens nor one who discusses should sit laughing with teeth bared, covering the mouth with a fan. Having reflected that "Even the Perfectly Enlightened One discussed such matters," one should discuss it being bold, endowed with moral shame and moral dread, and being like the Teacher.

The original laying down is finished.

In the section on supplementary rules - "Even to the extent of" means by the very lowest limit. "Even with an animal" means even with one gone to the animal realm by way of rebirth-linking. "How much more with a human woman" means first and foremost with a woman of human birth. And here, only those animal females that constitute a basis for expulsion should be understood as "animal females," not all of them. Herein, this is the delimitation -

Among the footless, the snake and the fish; among the two-footed, the hen;

Among the four-footed, the cat - these are the bases for this expulsion.

Therein, by the mention of the snake, all long-bodied species such as pythons, rat-snakes and the like are included. Therefore, among the long-bodied species, wherever it is possible to insert even to the extent of a sesame seed into any one of the three passages, that is a basis for expulsion. The remainder should be understood as a basis for wrong-doing. By the mention of the fish, all aquatic species such as fish, turtles, frogs and the like are included. Therein too, among the long-bodied species, the basis for expulsion and the basis for wrong-doing should be understood in the same manner as stated. But this is the distinction - There are frogs called moth-mouthed frogs; their mouth formation is large, but the opening is small, and insertion there is not possible; However, the mouth formation falls under the category of a wound, therefore that should be understood as a basis for a grave offence. By the mention of the hen, all winged species such as crows, pigeons and the like are included. Therein too, the basis for expulsion and the basis for wrong-doing should be understood in the same manner as stated. By the mention of the cat, all four-footed species such as tree-dogs, mongooses, monitor lizards and the like are included. Therein too, the basis for expulsion and the basis for wrong-doing should be understood in the same manner as stated.

"Expelled" means defeated, having incurred defeat. For this word "expelled" applies to training rules, offences, and persons. Therein, it should be understood as applying to a training rule thus: "It is impossible, Ānanda, it cannot happen that the Tathāgata would abolish a training rule of expulsion laid down for disciples on account of the Vajjians or the sons of the Vajjians." "You, monk, have committed an offence of expulsion" - thus it applies to an offence. "We are not expelled; he who stole is the one who is expelled" - thus it should be understood as applying to a person. But in passages such as "one should accuse with an offence of expulsion," they say it applies to a dhamma. But since therein "dhamma" is intended in some places as an offence and in some places as a training rule itself, therefore it should not be stated separately. Therein, the training rule defeats whoever transgresses it, therefore it is called "expulsion." But the offence defeats whoever commits it, therefore it is called "expulsion." A person, since he is defeated, having incurred defeat, therefore is called "expelled." For it is with reference to this very meaning that in the Parivāra too -

"That which is called 'expelled', hear it as it truly is;

Fallen, defeated, and dropped, indeed repudiated from the Good Teaching;

Communion too therein exists not, therefore it is thus said" - this was stated.

For the meaning here is this: "The person who transgresses that training rule and has incurred the offence is fallen - all should be connected thus. 'Therefore it is said' means for the reason that he is not a recluse, not a disciple of the son of the Sakyan, fallen away, cut off, defeated from the dispensation, therefore it is said. How? 'He is expelled.'

'They dwell together herein' is communion; to show that, having said 'communion means', he stated 'common legal act' and so forth. Therein, this is the explanation together with the syntactical construction: The fourfold act of the Saṅgha, because it is to be performed together by monks of regular standing within the boundary delimited by the sīmā, is called common legal act. Likewise, the fivefold recitation of the Pātimokkha, because it is to be recited together, is called common recitation. The training rule that has been laid down, because it is to be trained in equally by all conscientious persons, is called same training. Herein, since all conscientious persons dwell together in these acts and so forth, and not a single one is seen outside of them, therefore, taking all of these together, he said 'this is communion'. And that communion of the aforesaid kind does not exist together with that person; for that reason that expelled person is said to be 'not in communion'.

56. Having thus analysed the training rule as stated in the order of its terms, now, in order to show the manner in which it is said "should engage in" in the phrase "should engage in," the matrix term "one is said to engage in" was established, and then "with the sexual organ into the sexual organ, with the genital into the genital" was stated. Therein, since it is not merely the sexual organ of a woman alone that constitutes the basis for a defeat offence, nor only that of a human woman, and since the sexual organs of women made of gold, silver, and the like do not constitute a basis at all; therefore, in order to show whatever constitutes a basis, by the method beginning with "three women," having stated the beings whose sexual organs constitute bases, he stated those bases by the method beginning with "with a human woman in three passages."

Therein, three women, three hermaphrodites, three eunuchs, and three men - there are twelve beings as the supports of the sexual organs that constitute the bases for defeat offences. Among these, women and men are well known. The classification of eunuchs and hermaphrodites will be made clear in the commentary on the Ordination Chapter.

In the phrase "for one engaging in sexual intercourse with a human woman in three passages," the meaning should be understood as "in three passages of a human woman." Thus everywhere. All these together are: three passages of a human woman, three of a non-human woman, and three of an animal woman - making nine; nine for human hermaphrodites and the rest; two each for human eunuchs and the rest, making six; likewise for human men and the rest - there are thirty passages in all. In any one of these, which are reckoned as sexual organs, one who inserts one's own genital even to the extent of a sesame seed and engages in sexual intercourse commits a defeat offence.

Commentary on the First Tetrad Discussion

57. However, one who commits an offence does so only with the intention for intercourse, not without it; therefore, showing that characteristic, the Blessed One stated beginning with "when a monk has the intention for intercourse present." Therein, "of a monk" means of a monk who engages in sexual intercourse. "The intention for intercourse present" is a nominative case used in the locative sense; the meaning is "when the intention for intercourse has arisen." "For one inserting his genitals into the anus" means for one inserting into that passage through which excrement passes, one's own genitals, the male organ, even to the extent of a sesame fruit. "There is an offence entailing defeat" means the meaning is that there is an offence of defeat for him. Alternatively, "offence" means there is a committing of an offence. "Entailing defeat" means of a matter entailing defeat. This same method applies everywhere.

58. Having thus shown the offence for one who enters with the intention of sexual intercourse itself, now, because that entering is not only by one's own initiative, but also occurs by the initiative of others. And therein too, the offence is only for one who consents, one who possesses the intention of sexual intercourse, not for the other. Therefore, for the protection of those sons of good families who have gone forth out of faith, who are rightly practising, and who do not consent even when there is entering by the initiative of others, he stated the passage beginning with "enemies of a monk, a human woman."

Therein, "enemies" means those who seek, who desire the opposite side; enemies who are monks themselves are "enemies of a monk"; this is a designation for hostile monks who are of dissimilar conduct. "Having brought a human woman near the monk" means: overcome by jealousy, wishing to destroy that monk, having enticed her with material gifts or through the bond of friendship, having said "do this task for us," having brought some human woman during the night-time to the dwelling place of that monk. "They sit down on his genitals with the anus" means: having seized that monk firmly by the hands, feet, head and so forth, holding him motionless, they sit down with the woman's anus upon that monk's genitals; the meaning is "they join together."

In the passage beginning with "if he": if that monk consents to, acquiesces in, the entering of his own genitals inside the anus, at that moment he gives rise to the intention of sexual intercourse. "Consents to the entered" means he acquiesces; at the time of having entered, he gives rise to the intention of sexual intercourse. "Consents to the remaining" means he acquiesces; at the time of reaching the state of remaining, at the time of the emission of semen, he gives rise to the intention of sexual intercourse. "Consents to the withdrawal" means he acquiesces; at the time of removal, he gives rise to the intention of re-engaging in sexual intercourse. Thus, one who consents at these four stages is not able to say "this was done by my enemy ascetics," and he incurs precisely an offence entailing defeat. And just as one who consents to these four incurs the offence; so too, one who does not consent to the first one but consents to the remaining three, or one who does not consent to the first two but consents to the remaining two, or one who does not consent to the first three but consents to the remaining one, also incurs the offence. But one who does not consent at all, regarding the entered genitals as though entered into the mouth of a venomous serpent or into a pit of burning coals, does not incur an offence. Therefore it was said - "He does not consent to the entering, etc. he does not consent to the withdrawal, there is no offence." For, protecting such a person who has undertaken insight meditation, who has no regard for body or life, who sees all sense bases as blazing with the eleven fires, and who sees the five strands of sensual pleasure as executioners with raised swords, and frustrating the desires of his enemies, the Blessed One extracted and established this set of four beginning with "he does not consent to the entering."

The discourse on the first group of four is finished.

Discussion on the Sixty-Nine and Two Hundred Tetrads

59-60. Having thus shown the first set of four, now because enemies of a monk, having brought a woman, sit down not only with the anus, but also with the urinary passage and with the mouth. And having brought a woman, some bring one who is awake, some one who is asleep, some one who is intoxicated, some one who is mad, some one who is heedless - the meaning is one who is otherwise engaged, with a distracted mind. Some bring one who is dead and not eaten - the meaning is one whose orifice has not been eaten by dogs, jackals and the like. Some bring one who is dead and mostly not eaten - "mostly not eaten" means one in whose orifice, whether the anus, the urinary passage, or the mouth, the greater portion has not been eaten. Some bring one who is dead and mostly eaten - "mostly eaten" means one in whose orifice such as the anus and so forth, much has been eaten and little has not been eaten. And they bring not only a human woman, but also a non-human woman and an animal woman. And they bring not only a woman of the aforementioned kind, but also a hermaphrodite, a eunuch, and a man. Therefore, showing further sets of four by way of these, he said beginning with "enemies of a monk, a human woman who is awake."

Therein, for the purpose of avoiding confusion regarding the text, the stated sets of four should be understood by enumeration thus: In the case of a human woman, by way of the three passages, there are three plain sets of four, three awake-sets of four, three asleep-sets of four, three intoxicated-sets of four, three mad-sets of four, three heedless-sets of four, three dead-and-not-eaten-sets of four, three mostly-not-eaten-sets of four, and three mostly-eaten-sets of four - thus twenty-seven sets of four. Likewise for a non-human woman; likewise for an animal woman - thus in the woman section there are eighty-one sets of four. And just as in the woman section, so too in the hermaphrodite section. But in the eunuch and man sections, by way of two passages, there are fifty-four each. Thus altogether there are two hundred and seventy sets of four, and they are clear in meaning.

But here in all the sections, regarding the passage "dead and mostly not eaten, eaten," this is the determination: In the island of Tambapaṇṇi, it is said, there were two elders who were bearers of the Vinaya and had the same teacher - the Elder Upatissa and the Elder Phussadeva. When the great peril arose, they preserved and protected the Vinaya Piṭaka. Of them, the Elder Upatissa was the more learned. He too had two pupils - the Elder Mahāpaduma and the Elder Mahāsuma. Of them, the Elder Mahāsuma heard the Vinaya Piṭaka nine times, and the Elder Mahāpaduma heard it nine times together with him, and separately nine times alone - thus eighteen times; he was the more learned of them. Of them, the Elder Mahāsuma, having heard the Vinaya Piṭaka nine times, left his teacher and went to the far side of the Ganges. Then the Elder Mahāpaduma said: "Bold indeed is this bearer of the Vinaya who thinks he should go and dwell elsewhere, leaving his teacher while he is still alive. Is it not the case that while the teacher is alive, even having learnt the Vinaya Piṭaka and the Commentary many times, one should not let them go, but should listen constantly and recite them year after year?"

At the time of such monks who held the Vinaya in high regard, one day the Elder Upatissa was seated expounding this passage in the first Pārājika training rule to five hundred pupils headed by the Elder Mahāpaduma. His pupils asked him - "Venerable sir, when mostly not eaten there is an offence entailing defeat, when mostly eaten there is a grave offence - when half eaten, what should it be?" The elder said - "Friends, when Buddhas lay down an offence entailing defeat, they do not lay it down leaving a remainder; rather, making it without remainder, encompassing everything, cutting off the stream, they lay down an offence entailing defeat only for a matter entailing defeat. For this training rule concerns what is blameworthy in the world, not what is blameworthy by regulation. Therefore, if there were an offence entailing defeat when half eaten, the Perfectly Enlightened One would have laid it down. But here no semblance of an offence entailing defeat is seen; only a grave offence is seen."

Furthermore, when laying down the offence entailing defeat regarding a dead body, the Blessed One established it at "mostly not eaten" to show that "beyond that there is no offence entailing defeat." When laying down the grave offence, he established it at "mostly eaten" to show that "beyond that there is no grave offence" - this should be understood thus. And this matter of "eaten" and "not eaten" should be understood only in regard to a dead body, not in regard to a living one. For in the case of a living body, even if there remains only a fingernail's breadth of skin and flesh or a sinew, it is still an offence entailing defeat. Even if the organ has been entirely eaten and there is no skin or hide, if the shape of the organ is discernible and penetration occurs, it is still an offence entailing defeat. But when the shape of the organ has been completely removed, the entire organ cut away, pared all around and torn off, there is a grave offence on account of the wound. For one who makes an attempt upon a piece of flesh that has fallen from the organ, there is an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of a dead body, however, even if the entire body has been eaten, even if it has not been eaten, but the three passages have not been eaten, for one who makes an attempt upon them, there is an offence entailing defeat. When mostly not eaten, it is still an offence entailing defeat. When half-eaten and when mostly eaten, there is a grave offence.

In the case of a living body of humans, for one who inserts even a sesame-seed's worth of his genital into wounds made by knives and such in the eyes, nose, ear-holes, or bladder sheaths, with lust for sexual intercourse, there is only a grave offence. In the rest of the body, in the armpits and such, there is an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of a dead body that is still fresh, in a field of defeat there is an offence entailing defeat, in a field of grave offence there is a grave offence, in a field of wrong-doing there is an offence of wrong-doing. But when the body has become bloated, putrid, swarming with blue flies, infested with colonies of worms, and impossible to approach due to the state of a corpse with pus oozing from the nine wound-openings, then it relinquishes the basis for an offence entailing defeat and the basis for a grave offence; in such a body, for any attempt anywhere, there is only an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of animals - elephants, horses, bulls, donkeys, camels, buffaloes and such - in the nostril, there is a grave offence. In the bladder sheath, there is only a grave offence. For all animals, in wounds of the eyes and ears, there is an offence of wrong-doing, and in the rest of the body too, there is only an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of dead ones, in a fresh body, in a field of defeat there is an offence entailing defeat, in a field of grave offence there is a grave offence, in a field of wrong-doing there is an offence of wrong-doing.

But in a putrid corpse, in the manner stated above, everywhere there is an offence of wrong-doing. With lust for bodily contact or with lust for sexual intercourse, without inserting into the bladder sheath of a living man, one touches organ with organ - there is an offence of wrong-doing. With lust for sexual intercourse, without inserting into a woman, one touches organ with organ - there is a grave offence. But in the Great Commentary it is stated: "One who touches a woman's organ with lust for sexual intercourse with the mouth - there is a grave offence." In the Leather Chapter, based on the originating incident that "the group-of-six monks, in the river Aciravatī, seized cows that were crossing by the horns, seized them by the ears, seized them by the neck, seized them by the tail, mounted their backs, and with lustful minds touched their genitals," it was stated without distinction: "Monks, one should not touch the genitals with a lustful mind. Whoever should touch them, there is a grave offence." All of that should be reconciled and understood in a way that is not contradictory. And how is it not contradictory? As for what is stated in the Great Commentary: "One touches with lust for sexual intercourse with the mouth." Therein, "mouth" is intended to mean the mouth of the organ. And because it is stated "with lust for sexual intercourse," this very meaning should be understood as the intention there. For there is no attempt at sexual intercourse upon a woman's organ with the ordinary mouth. In the Chapter too, it should be understood that the grave offence was stated with reference to those who, mounting the backs, touched organ with organ with lust for sexual intercourse. For otherwise it would be an offence of wrong-doing. But some say: "In the Chapter too, the grave offence was stated with reference to touching with the mouth, because of the grossness of the act. In the Commentary too, it was stated 'one who touches a woman's organ with lust for sexual intercourse with the mouth - there is a grave offence,' having taken it as spoken with reference to that." Therefore, having carefully considered, whichever of the two judgements is more fitting should be adopted. But those who know the Vinaya commend the former. However, for one who touches a woman's organ with the ordinary mouth or with the mouth of the organ, with lust for bodily contact, there is an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Saṅgha. For one who touches the vagina of an animal female with the mouth of the organ, in the manner stated, there is a grave offence. With lust for bodily contact, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

The discourse on the sixty-nine and two hundred groups of four is finished.

Discussion on the Classification of the Stuffed Tetrad

61-62. Thus the Blessed One, having extracted the seven hundred and twenty-four sets of four for the purpose of protecting a monk who is practising, seeing that "now in the future, evil monks who will deliberately raise the pretext 'this is covered, nothing sentient touches the sentient, what fault is there in this?' - for them there will be no foothold in the dispensation," and dividing each set of four among those seven hundred and twenty-four sets of four by the four distinctions beginning with covered, etc., showing this, he spoke beginning with "Enemies of a monk, having brought a human woman near the monk, with the anus, with the vagina, with the mouth, sit down on his genitals - of one covered on one uncovered."

Therein, in the passages beginning with "of one covered on one uncovered," the construction should be understood in this manner: "of a covered woman, with the anus, with the vagina, with the mouth, they sit down on the genitals of an uncovered monk." Therein, "covered" means one whose any passage among the three passages is concealed by wrapping around or by inserting inside, with any cloth, or leaf, or bark strip, or leather, or a strip of lead, etc. "Covered" means one whose genitals are concealed by any of those same cloths, etc. Therein, whether the sentient touches the non-sentient, or the non-sentient touches the sentient, or the non-sentient touches the non-sentient, or the sentient touches the sentient, if it has been stated that there is an offence entailing defeat when a certain amount has entered, and that much enters, in all cases for one who consents, in the domain of an offence entailing defeat there is an offence entailing defeat; in the domain of a grave offence there is a grave offence, and in the domain of a wrong-doing there is only a wrong-doing. If the female organ is made into a stump and covered, for one who touches the stump there is a wrong-doing. If the male organ is made into a stump and covered, for one who inserts into the stump there is a wrong-doing. If both are made into stumps and covered, for one who touches a stump with a stump there is a wrong-doing. If something such as a bamboo joint or the like has been inserted into the female organ, and one touching its lower part inserts even to the extent of a sesame fruit, there is an offence entailing defeat. Even if touching the upper part, or on both sides, or even on one side, one inserts, there is an offence entailing defeat. Even if without touching all four sides, having inserted, one touches even its base, there is an offence entailing defeat. But if without touching the sides or the base, having inserted by making it go only through space, one withdraws, there is a wrong-doing. If one touches the stump on the outside, there is only a wrong-doing. And as has been stated regarding the female organ, so should the characteristic be understood everywhere.

The discourse on the classification of the group of four concerning stuffed articles is finished.

Commentary on the Classification of the Tetrad Concerning a Monk's Adversary

63-64. Having thus stated the classification of the sets of four regarding the one who is spread out, now, because they not only bring human women and so forth near the monk himself, but also bring the monk near them, therefore, showing that classification, he set forth all those sets of four once again by the method beginning with "enemies of a monk, having brought a monk near a human woman." The determination regarding those should be understood in the manner already stated.

The commentary on the classification of the group of four in terms of the monk's adversary is finished.

Discussion on the Classification of the Tetrad Concerning a King's Adversary and Others

65. However, since it is not only enemies of a monk who act thus, but enemies of a king and so forth also act thus, therefore, showing that classification as well, he stated "enemies of a king" and so forth. Therein, kings themselves being enemies means enemies of a king. And it should be understood that they bring whether bringing themselves or having others bring. Thieves themselves being enemies means enemies of a thief. "Cheats" means urbane, deceitful men devoted to amusements connected with sexual intercourse, or those addicted to women, those addicted to liquor, and so forth; cheats themselves being enemies means enemies of a cheat. "Gandha" means the heart is referred to; those who extract it are "heart-extractors" (uppalagandhā); heart-extractors themselves being enemies means enemies of heart-extractors. These, it is said, do not live by farming, trade, and so forth, but support their wives and children by committing highway robbery, village raids, and the like. They, aspiring for the success of their undertaking, having invoked the deities, extract the hearts of humans for the purpose of making offerings to them. And at all times humans are difficult to obtain. But monks dwelling in the forest are easy to obtain. They, having seized a virtuous monk, thinking "the killing of a virtuous one is indeed a serious matter," bring human women and the like for the purpose of destroying his virtue; or they lead him there. This here is the distinction. The remainder should be understood by the method already stated. And in these four cases as well, the sets of four should be understood in the manner stated in the case of enemies of a monk. But in the canonical text they are stated in brief.

The discourse on the classification of the group of four in every respect is finished.

Commentary on the Section on Offences and Non-Offences

66. Now, regarding what was stated as "for one who engages in sexual intercourse through the three passages of a human woman" and so forth, for the purpose of removing confusion, he stated "a passage into a passage" and so forth. Therein, "a passage into a passage" means he inserts his male organ into one of the three passages of a woman, or alternatively, when two passages are conjoined, he inserts through the urinary passage into the excretory passage, or through the excretory passage into the urinary passage. "A passage into a non-passage" means having inserted through the urinary passage and so forth, he withdraws through a wound adjacent to it. "A non-passage into a passage" means having inserted through a wound adjacent to a passage, he withdraws through the passage. "A non-passage into a non-passage" means having inserted through one of two conjoined wounds, he withdraws through the second. In accordance with this discourse, wherever wounds are summarised, a grave offence should be understood.

Now, regarding what will be stated further on as "there is no offence for one who does not know, for one who does not consent," for the purpose of removing confusion, he stated "a monk against a sleeping monk" and so forth. Therein this is the intention - One who, having awakened, consents - he is not freed by saying "he transgressed against me while I was asleep; I did not know." "Both should be removed" means here that both should be removed by the removal of their status. In that case, there is no need for a formal admission from the defiler; the one defiled should be questioned and removed upon his admission. If he does not consent, he should not be removed. This same method applies also in the case of novices.

Having thus shown the respective offences and non-offences in each case, now showing only the non-offence, he stated "there is no offence for one who does not know" and so forth. Therein, "one who does not know" means one who has fallen into deep sleep and does not know even the attempt made by another, like the monk who had gone for his day's abiding in the Great Wood at Vesālī. For one of such nature, there is no offence. And this too was said - "I did not know, Blessed One." "There is no offence, monk, for one who does not know." "One who does not consent" means one who, even though knowing, does not consent, like the monk who immediately rose up right there. And this too was said - "I did not consent, Blessed One." "There is no offence, monk, for one who does not consent."

"A mad man" means one maddened by bile. For bile is of two kinds: Bound bile and unbound bile. Therein, unbound bile pervades the entire body like blood; when it is disturbed, beings experience itching, scabies, trembling of the body, and so forth. These subside through medical treatment. Bound bile, however, is situated in the bile sac. When it is disturbed, beings become mad, with distorted perception; having abandoned moral shame and moral dread, they engage in improper conduct. Even while transgressing minor and major training rules, they do not know it. They are incurable even through medical treatment. For a mad man of such nature, there is no offence.

"Mentally deranged" means one whose mind is unhinged, and is called one maddened by spirits. Spirits, it is said, by showing terrifying objects, or by inserting their hand through the mouth and crushing the heart-materiality, make beings mentally deranged and with distorted perception. For one of such a nature who is mentally deranged, there is no offence. However, the distinction between these two is as follows: One maddened by bile is perpetually mad and does not regain normal perception. One maddened by spirits regains normal perception from time to time. But here, whether one is maddened by bile or maddened by spirits, whoever has entirely lost mindfulness and knows nothing, who goes about trampling fire, gold, excrement, and sandalwood alike - for one of such a nature, there is no offence. But for one who, having regained perception from time to time, acts knowingly, there is indeed an offence.

"One afflicted by pain" means one who, being afflicted by intense painful feeling, knows nothing; for one of such a nature, there is no offence.

"The first offender" means one who is the first in each respective act. But here the Elder Sudinna is the first offender; for him there is no offence. For the remaining cases involving the female monkey, the novice, the Vajjian sons, etc., there is indeed an offence.

The commentary on the word-analysis is finished.

Miscellaneous Discussion

For the purpose of skill in this training rule, this miscellaneous section should be understood:

"Origin and action, then perception and with consciousness;

Worldly wrong and deed, wholesome and with feeling."

Therein, "origin" means, in the sense of including all, the six origins of training rules. These will become clear in the Parivāra. In brief, a training rule: there is one with six origins, there is one with four origins, there is one with three origins, there is one with the kathina-origin, there is one with the sheep's wool-origin, there is one with the setting aside of responsibility-origin, etc.

Therein also, some arise from action, some arise from non-action, some arise from action and non-action, some may arise from action or may arise from non-action, some may arise from action or may arise from action and non-action.

Therein also, there is release through perception, and there is no release through perception. Therein, that which invariably obtains the mind-factor, that has release through perception; the other has no release through perception.

Again, there is that which is with consciousness, and there is that which is without consciousness. That which one commits only together with consciousness, that is with consciousness; that which one commits even without consciousness, that is without consciousness. All of that is twofold: worldly wrong and conventional wrong. Their characteristic has already been stated.

Also here, in terms of deed, wholesome, and feeling, there is a training rule that is bodily action, and there is verbal action. Therein, that which is through the body-door, that is bodily action; that which is through the verbal-door, that is verbal action - so it should be understood. Moreover, there is a training rule that is wholesome, there is one that is unwholesome, and there is one that is indeterminate. For there are exactly thirty-two consciousness-states that give rise to offences: eight sense-sphere wholesome, twelve unwholesome, ten sense-sphere functional consciousness-states, and two super-knowledge consciousness-states from the wholesome and the functional. Among these, that which one commits with wholesome consciousness, that is wholesome; with the others, the other. And there is a training rule with three feelings, there is one with two feelings, and there is one with one feeling. Therein, that which one commits while being possessed of any one of the three feelings, that has three feelings; that which one commits while being possessed of either pleasant feeling or equanimous feeling, that has two feelings; that which one commits while being possessed only of painful feeling, that has one feeling - so it should be understood. Thus:

"Origin and action, then perception and with consciousness;

Worldly wrong and deed, wholesome and with feeling."

Having understood this miscellaneous section, among those origins and so forth, this training rule, in terms of origin, has a single origin. In terms of factors, it has a dual origin; it arises from body and mind. It is an origin through action, for one commits this offence only by doing it. It is releasable through perception, because one is released through the absence of sensual perception connected with sexual intercourse. For it has been said: "There is no offence for one who does not know, for one who does not consent." One commits it only with a mind intent on sexual intercourse, not without consciousness - thus it is with consciousness. Because it is committed only through the power of lust, it is a worldly wrong. Because it arises only through the body-door, it is bodily action. However, consciousness here is merely a factor; the nature of the deed is not determined by its power. Because it is committed with a mind of greed, it is unwholesome consciousness. One commits it either accompanied by pleasant feeling or accompanied by equanimous feeling - thus it should be understood as having two feelings. All of this applies to the offence. However, the exposition in all the commentaries has been set forth under the heading of the training rule; therefore it has been stated thus.

The miscellaneous talk is completed.

Commentary on the Precedent Cases

The female monkey and the Vajjian sons, etc. The one gone forth in old age, and the deer - what is this? These are called the summary verses of the various cases that were adjudicated by the Blessed One himself. Those cases were established by the elders who compiled the Dhamma, thinking: "The bearers of the Vinaya will learn them easily." The case verses, however, were established by the Elder Upāli while the Blessed One was still living, thinking: "By these characteristics, the bearers of the Vinaya will adjudicate the Vinaya in the future." Therefore, having carefully examined the characteristics stated herein, the first training rule should be adjudicated. And the second and so forth should be adjudicated by the characteristics stated in the adjudicated cases of the second and so forth. For the adjudicated cases are for the bearers of the Vinaya like model patterns for craftsmen.

67. Therein, the first two cases have their meaning stated in the supplementary rule itself. In the third case, "in the guise of a householder" means having become one dressed in white clothes, in the appearance of a householder. In the fourth, there is nothing to be said. In the seven cases following that, "a garment of kusa-grass" means a garment made by tying together kusa-grass. "A bark garment" is the bark-cloth of ascetics. "A garment of wooden strips" means a garment made by sewing together strips shaped like planks. "A blanket of human hair" means a blanket made by weaving threads from human hair. "A blanket of horse-hair" means a blanket made by weaving from the tail-hair of the yak. "A garment of owl's feathers" means a lower garment made from the feathers of the owl bird. "A cheetah-hide cloak" means the skin of a cheetah-deer, with its fur and hooves intact. In the twelfth case, "filled with lust" means filled with lust for bodily contact; knowing that lust, the Blessed One said: "There is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community."

68. In the thirteenth case, "Uppalavaṇṇā" refers to that elder nun who was a merchant's daughter in Sāvatthī, one who had fulfilled her aspiration over a hundred thousand aeons. Her bodily complexion was naturally exceedingly beautiful, the colour of a blue lotus, and it shone forth exceedingly due to the absence of the burning of defilements within. She received the name "Uppalavaṇṇā" on account of that very beauty of complexion. "Enamoured" means one whose mind was infatuated from the time of lay life onwards; he was, it is said, a young man related to her. "Then" is a particle used in the sense of immediately following; what is meant is "immediately after she had sat down on the small bed." For when one comes from outside during the day and sits down having closed the door, at first there is darkness. The meaning is that he did so just while that darkness had not yet disappeared for her. "Violated" means defiled. The elder nun, however, being blameless, having established the perception of her being a recluse, sat not consenting - though touched with the intention of sexual misconduct, she was like a mass of fire, a stone pillar, or a heartwood stake of acacia. He too, having fulfilled his desire, departed. Even as he was leaving the sight of that elder nun, this great earth, though capable of supporting Mount Sineru, as if unable to support that evil man's body of a mere fathom, split open and gave way. At that very moment he became fuel for the flames of Avīci. The Blessed One, having heard this, having said "There is no offence, monks, for one who does not consent," spoke this verse in the Dhammapada with reference to the elder nun:

Like water on a lotus leaf, like a mustard seed on a needle's tip;

Whoever does not cling to sensual pleasures, him I call a brahmin."

69. In the fourteenth case, "the female organ became manifest" means that while he had fallen asleep during the night, the male form - beard, moustache, and all the rest - disappeared, and the female form arose. "That very same preceptor, that very same full ordination" means I allow that very same preceptor taken previously, that very same full ordination performed previously. A preceptor need not be taken again; the meaning is that full ordination need not be performed again. "Those very same rains retreats" means I allow that very same counting of rains retreats, from the time of full ordination as a monk up to however many rains retreats have been counted. The meaning is that the counting of rains retreats need not be made anew from this point onwards. "To associate with nuns" means the meaning is I allow her to associate with nuns, to join together with them, to be united with them. This is what is meant - it is not proper for her to dwell in the midst of monks; having gone to the nuns' quarters, let her dwell together with nuns. "Whatever offences are common to monks with nuns" means whatever offences requiring confession or requiring rehabilitation are common to monks together with nuns. "Those offences are to be emerged from in the presence of nuns" means the meaning is I allow her to emerge from those offences, all of them, by performing the disciplinary procedure that should be done by nuns, in the presence of nuns. "For those offences there is no offence" means whatever offences such as emission of semen and so forth that are not common to monks with nuns, for those there is no offence. Through the change of sex, those offences are already emerged from. Even if the original sex should arise again, for those offences there is still no offence for that person - this is the determination according to the canonical text here.

But this is the determination beyond the canonical text, based on investigation: of these two sexes, the male sex is superior, the female sex is inferior; therefore the male sex disappears through powerful unwholesome kamma. The female sex becomes established through weak wholesome kamma. But the female sex, when it disappears, disappears through weak unwholesome kamma. The male sex becomes established through powerful wholesome kamma. Thus both disappear through unwholesome kamma and are regained through wholesome kamma.

Therein, if two monks, having done recitation or discussion of the Dhamma together, lie down in one room and fall asleep, and the female organ becomes manifest in one of them, there is an offence of sleeping together for both of them. If that one, having awakened and seen that transformation in himself, being distressed and disheartened, should inform the other during the night itself, the other should console him: "Let it be, do not worry. This is merely a fault of the round of existence. The door has been opened by the Perfectly Enlightened One; whether one be a monk or a nun, the Dhamma is unobstructed, the path to heaven is unbarred." And having consoled, one should say thus: "It is fitting for you to go to the nuns' quarters. Are there any nuns who are acquainted with you?" If she has such nuns, she should say "there are"; if she does not have them, she should say "there are not," and that monk should be told: "Please look after me; now take me first to the nuns' quarters." That monk, having taken her, should go to the presence of nuns who are either acquainted with her or acquainted with himself. And when going, one should not go alone. Together with four or five monks, having taken a torch and a walking stick, having avoided making an arrangement, one should go saying "we are going to such and such a place." If the monastery is far outside the village, there is no offence regarding the offences of travelling between villages, crossing a river, spending the night away, and falling behind the group on the way. Having gone to the nuns' quarters, those nuns should be told: "Do you know the monk named so-and-so?" "Yes, sirs." "The female organ has become manifest in him; please look after her." If they say "Very well, venerable sir, now we too shall recite, we shall listen to the Dhamma, you may go," and they look after her, and they are agreeable, supportive, and conscientious, one should not leave them and go elsewhere. If one does go, one is not freed from the offences of travelling between villages, crossing a river, spending the night away, and falling behind the group. But if they are conscientious but not supportive, it is permissible to go elsewhere. Even if they are unconscientious but do provide support, it is permissible to leave them and go elsewhere. If they are conscientious and supportive but are not relatives, and in a nearby village there are other relatives who can attend to her, they say it is fitting to go to the presence of those as well. Having gone, if she was still under dependence even as a monk, dependence should be taken in the presence of a suitable nun. If the mātikā or the Vinaya has been learned and well learned, there is no need to learn it again. If as a monk he was one who served the community, those fully ordained in his presence are well ordained. Dependence should be taken in the presence of another. Even those who previously dwelt in dependence on him should take dependence in the presence of another. Even a novice who has completed the required rains retreats should take a preceptor in the presence of another.

Whatever triple robe and bowl had been determined by him during his state as a monk, that determination lapses; it must be determined again. A bodice and a bathing cloth must be obtained. Whatever extra robe or extra bowl had been kept after performing a disciplinary act, all that disciplinary act lapses; it must be done again. Even the acceptance of received oil, honey, sugar and so forth lapses. If the sex changes on the seventh day from the acceptance, after accepting again, it is allowable for seven days. But whatever belonging of another monk was accepted during the time as a monk, that acceptance does not lapse. Whatever was kept undivided as common to both, the one whose sex has not changed guards that. But whatever was divided and belongs to that very one, that acceptance lapses. And this has been stated in the Parivāra:

"Oil, honey, sugar and also ghee;

Having taken it oneself, one might deposit it;

When seven days have not passed;

For one who uses when there is a reason, there is an offence;

This is a question considered by the skilful."

For this was stated with reference to the change of sex. Acceptance lapses through change of sex, through death, through renouncing the training, through reverting to the lower life, through giving to one who is not fully ordained, through relinquishing without concern, and through seizing by force. Therefore, even if just a piece of myrobalan has been accepted and kept, all his acceptance lapses. But whatever of hers has been kept in the monks' monastery, whether accepted or not accepted, she herself is the owner of all of it; it should be fetched and taken. But whatever immovable property here belongs to her, whether lodgings or trees planted by her, those should be given to whomever she wishes. Among the thirteen appointments, whatever appointment was obtained during the time as a monk, all of that ceases. The allocation of lodgings by the former ceases. If the sex changes when lodgings have been allocated by the latter, and the community of nuns wishes to give her the gain that has arisen, it should be given after making an announcement. If the sex changes for one who is undergoing probation for a concealed offence common to nuns, only the half-month penance should be given. If it changes for one who is undergoing penance, only the half-month penance should be given again. If it changes for one who has completed penance, the act of rehabilitation should be performed by the nuns. If, when the unwholesome result is exhausted, the sex changes again during the period of the half-month penance, only the six-day penance should be given. If it changes when the half-month penance has been completed, the act of rehabilitation should be performed by the monks.

In the immediately following case of the change of sex of a nun, the entire adjudication should be understood in the same manner as stated here. But this is the distinction - Even if an offence of acting as a go-between committed during the time as a nun is concealed, there is no giving of probation; only the six-day penance should be given. If the sex changes for one who is undergoing the half-month penance, there is no need for that; only the six-day penance should be given. If it changes for one who has completed penance, he should be rehabilitated by the monks without giving penance again. Then if, when penance has not been given by the monks, the sex changes again, only the half-month penance should be given by the nuns. Then if it changes again for one who is undergoing the six-day penance, only the half-month penance should be given. But when a change of sex has occurred for one who has completed penance, the act of rehabilitation should be performed by the nuns. And when the sex changes again, even for one established in the state of a nun, whatever offences were previously settled, those are well settled indeed.

70. The four cases beginning with "engaged in sexual intercourse with his mother" and so on that follow from here are clear in meaning.

71. In the case of the one with a soft back, that monk was formerly a dancer, it is said. His back was supple, having been trained for the purpose of skill in his craft. Therefore he was able to do thus.

In the case of the well-endowed one, that monk's genitals were long and hung down; therefore he was called "the well-endowed one."

The two cases involving wounds that follow from here are self-evident. In the case of the plastered picture, a plastered picture means a figure made by the art of painting.

In the case of the wooden doll, a wooden doll means a figure made of wood. And just as in these two cases, so too with other non-attached female figures such as those made of ivory, those made of cloth, those made of metal, and so forth - for one who makes an attempt upon the sign with lust for sexual intercourse, whether or not impurity is released, it is only an offence of wrong-doing. For one who makes an attempt with lust for bodily contact also, likewise it is only an offence of wrong-doing. But for one who makes an attempt with lust for release, if released it is a saṅghādisesa offence, and if not released it is a grave offence.

72. In the case of Sundara, this Sundara was a young man of good family in Rājagaha who went forth out of faith; he received the name "Sundara" because of the beauty of his person. Having seen him going along the road, that woman, in whom desire and lust had arisen, committed this misdeed. The elder, however, was a non-returner. Therefore he did not consent. But this is beyond the scope of others.

In the four cases that follow from here, those monks, being foolish and unwise, having accepted the word of the woman and having acted accordingly, afterwards had remorse.

73. The three cases beginning with "not eaten" are clear in meaning. In the two cases of the severed head, this is the determination: When inserting the genitals into the rounded, open mouth, if he inserts it touching below or above or on both sides, it is an offence involving expulsion. Even if he inserts it without touching on all four sides, if it touches the palate inside, it is indeed an offence involving expulsion. If without touching the four sides and the palate, he inserts and withdraws it keeping it only in open space, it is an offence of wrong-doing. But if the teeth are tightly closed, there is no space inside the mouth, and the teeth are covered externally by the flesh of the lips, for one inserting even as much as a sesame seed into the moist space not touched by air there, it is indeed an offence involving expulsion. But when the lip flesh has been torn away, for one making an attempt upon the teeth themselves, it is a grave offence. Also a tooth that protrudes outward and stands forth cannot be closed by the lips. For one making an attempt there, or for one making an attempt upon a tongue protruding outward, it is only a grave offence. Even in the case of a living body, for a tongue protruding outward, it is only a grave offence. But if, having wrapped around the protruding tongue, he inserts it into the mouth, it is indeed an offence involving expulsion. Even for a severed head from the upper neck, for one who inserts the genitals from the lower part and touches the palate, it is indeed an offence involving expulsion.

In the case of the bones, even for one going to the cemetery, it is an offence of wrong-doing. Even for one collecting the bones, even for one making an attempt upon the sign with lust for sexual intercourse, even for one making an attempt with lust for bodily contact, whether there is emission or not, it is only an offence of wrong-doing. But for one making an attempt with lust for emission, if there is emission it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community; if there is no emission, it is only a grave offence.

In the case of the female nāga, whether it be a young female nāga or any one among female kinnarīs and the like, in all cases it is an offence involving expulsion.

In the case of the female yakkha, all deities are indeed female yakkhas.

In the case of the female ghost, ghosts such as those consumed by thirst cannot even be clung to. But there are mansion ghosts; for whom unwholesome results ripen during the dark fortnight, and during the bright fortnight they enjoy prosperity like deities. In the case of such a female ghost or female yakkha, if seeing, grasping, touching, contact, and pressing are discernible, it is an offence involving expulsion. Even if there is no seeing, if the others are discernible, it is indeed an offence involving expulsion. But if seeing and grasping are not discernible, while touching, contact, and pressing are discernible, she renders that person unconscious, fulfils her own desire, and departs - this is called "beyond the scope." Therefore here, because it is beyond the scope, there is no offence. The case of the eunuch is well known.

In the case of impaired faculties, "one with impaired faculties" means one whose bodily sensitivity is impaired, who, like a stump or a thorn, does not feel either pleasure or pain. Even for one who does not feel, there is an offence by reason of the intention to engage in sexual intercourse.

In the case of mere touching, one who, thinking "I will engage in sexual intercourse," takes hold of a woman and then becomes disenchanted with sexual intercourse and becomes remorseful, for him there is only an offence of wrong-doing. For the preliminary efforts of sexual intercourse, such as grasping by the hand and so forth, as long as they do not reach the culmination, they remain at the level of wrong-doing. When the culmination is reached, it is an offence involving expulsion. For the first offence involving expulsion, indeed only wrong-doing is proximate. For the other three, it is a grave offence. But this monk should be understood as having become disenchanted with sexual intercourse and then consenting to bodily contact. Therefore the Blessed One said - "There is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community."

74. In the case of Bhaddiya, that city is called Bhaddiya. The Jātiyā grove is so named because of the abundance of jasmine flower bushes; that grove is in the vicinity of that city. He, lying down there, fell into a deep sleep due to that stiffening by wind. Only the life-continuum flows as a single stream. "Having seen the wetness" means having seen it soiled with impurity.

75. The five cases hereafter - the four cases connected with consenting, and the case of not knowing - are clear in meaning.

76. Regarding the two cases of not consenting, "suddenly rose up" means he rose up quickly, as if bitten by a venomous snake or as if burnt by fire. "Having stepped on her, rolled her off" means the diligent monk, who had undertaken insight meditation and established mindfulness, rising up quickly, having stepped on her, rolling, turning over, and pushing her down to the ground, he threw her off. For a virtuous worldling, the mind should be guarded in such situations. And this monk was one of those warriors at the forefront of battle.

77. Regarding the matter of one lying down having opened the door: "by one going into seclusion during the day" means by one lying down during the day. "To go into seclusion having closed the door" means to lie down having shut the door. And here, although in the canonical text no offence as such is stated, yet since, when the matter arose through the fault of lying down with the door open, it was said "I allow, monks, for one going into seclusion during the day, to go into seclusion having closed the door," a wrong-doing is stated for one who goes into seclusion without closing the door. For the commentary was established by the Elder Upāli and others, having understood the Blessed One's intention. And this is also established by the statement "there is an offence during the day, not at night."

But what kind of door should be closed, and what kind need not be closed? A revolving door made by fashioning a door-panel from any material such as wooden planks, bamboo planks, reed mats, leaves, and the like, and inserting it below into a socket and above into an upper pivot - only such a door should be closed. Other types of doors need not be closed: a wooden-peg-and-thorn door such as those in cattle pens; a village-bolt wheel-fitted door; a sliding-panel door made by fitting two or three wheels to planks or panels; a lifting-panel door such as those made in shops; a bolt-handle door made in leaf huts by tying bamboo rods at two or three places; and a cloth-screen door - doors of such kinds need not be closed. However, in the case of pushing aside a door-panel with the palm of the hand, only a cloth-screen door does not constitute an offence; pushing aside the others constitutes an offence. But for one going into seclusion during the day, only a revolving door constitutes an offence; for the remaining types, whether closed or not closed, there is no offence for one lying down. However, one should lie down having closed the door; this is the proper practice.

But to what extent is a revolving door considered closed? When the bolt and latch and so forth are fastened, it is indeed closed. Moreover, even when just the bolt is fastened, it is permissible. Even when just the latch is fastened, it is permissible. Even when it is merely shut by touching the door-post, it is permissible. Even when it is slightly not touching, it is permissible. By the most minimal method, even when not touching to the extent that a head cannot enter, it is permissible. If it is a place frequented by many, having said to a monk or a novice "Friend, please watch the door," it is permissible to lie down. Then if monks are sitting doing robe-work or some other task, having given attention thinking "these will watch the door," it is also permissible to lie down. In the Kurundi Commentary, however, it is said: "Having asked even a lay follower, or having given attention thinking 'he will watch,' it is permissible to lie down. Only it is not permissible to ask a bhikkhunī or a woman." Then if the socket or the upper pivot of the door is broken or displaced, and it cannot be closed; or if a heap of bricks or a pile of clay and the like has been placed inside the doorway for building work, or scaffolding is being erected, such that it cannot be closed - when such an obstacle exists, it is permissible to lie down even without closing the door. If, however, there is no door-panel, it is simply allowable. One sleeping upstairs should lie down having pulled up the ladder. If there is a cover at the top of the ladder, one should lie down having covered it. For one lying down in an inner room, it is permissible to lie down having closed either the room door or the front door - whichever one. If in a single-walled house they use doors made on two sides, both doors should be watched.

Even in a three-storeyed mansion, the door must be watched over. If many monks, having returned from the alms round, enter a mansion similar to the Brazen Palace for the purpose of day residence, the senior monk of the community should either tell the door-keeper "Watch over the door, friend," or, having given attention thus "Watching over the door is this one's responsibility," enter and lie down. Even the most junior monk of the community should do likewise. It is also allowable for those entering first to give attention thus "Watching over the door is indeed the responsibility of those who come after." For those who lie down inside the room or outside with the door unclosed, without having asked or without having given attention, there is an offence. Even when lying down either inside the room or outside, it is indeed allowable to lie down having given attention thus "Watching over the door at the main entrance is indeed the responsibility of the door-keeper." Even for one lying down on the open terrace in the Brazen Palace and such places, the door must indeed be closed.

For here this is the summary - This rule about daytime seclusion is stated regarding a place enclosed by whatever means and having a door-fastening. Therefore, whether in the open air, at the foot of a tree, in a pavilion, or wherever there is a door-fastening, one lying down should lie down only having closed the door. If there is a large compound, similar to the courtyard of the Great Bodhi Tree or the courtyard of the Brazen Palace, a place where many people come and go, where even a closed door does not remain in the closed position, and where people, not finding the door, climb over the wall and move about, there is no duty of closing. If one lies down at night having opened the door and rises when dawn has arisen, there is no offence. If, having awakened, one sleeps again, there is an offence. But whoever, having determined "I shall rise when dawn has arisen," lies down at night without closing the door, and does not rise according to that determination, for him there is indeed an offence. In the Mahāpaccarī, however, it is said "One lying down in this way is not freed even from the offence of wrong-doing due to disrespect."

But whoever, having stayed awake for much of the night or having gone on a journey, being weary during the day, while sitting on a bed, without lifting his feet from the ground, lies down through the force of drowsiness, for him there is no offence. If, having fallen into sleep, even unknowingly he lifts his feet onto the bed, there is indeed an offence. For one who, having sat down, sleeps leaning against a support, there is no offence. And also for one who, while walking up and down thinking "I shall dispel drowsiness," falls and immediately gets up, for him too there is no offence. But whoever, having fallen, lies right there and does not get up, for him there is an offence.

Who is freed, who is not freed? In the Mahāpaccarī, firstly, it is said "Only one who has lain down by bending one side is freed. But one who has lain down having lifted his feet from the ground, even if seized by a yakkha or having become unconscious, is not freed." In the Kurundī Commentary, however, it is said "Only one who has been tied up and made to lie down is freed." In the Great Commentary, however, "For one who, while walking up and down, having fainted and fallen, sleeps right there, because it is outside his control, no offence is seen. The teachers, however, do not say so. Therefore, it is indeed an offence" - this was said by the Elder Mahāpaduma. "But two persons are indeed freed from the offence: one who is seized by a yakkha and one who has been tied up and made to lie down."

78. In the case of the Bhārukaccha incident, "there is no offence in a dream" - since in a dream this is so because it is not within one's domain, therefore the Elder Upāli adjudicated this case by inference, even though it had not been previously adjudicated by the Blessed One. And the Blessed One, having heard, said: "Well spoken, monks, by Upāli; as if making a footstep where there is no footstep, as if showing a footstep in the sky, Upāli has expounded this question," and established the Elder in the foremost position - "This is the foremost, monks, of my disciples who are monks who are experts in monastic discipline, namely Upāli." The cases beginning with Supabbā and so forth that follow from here are of clear meaning.

80. In the sections beginning with the coupling with a nun, those Licchavi youths, being devoted to amusement, did thus through their own misconduct. And from that point onwards, only destruction arose for the Licchavis.

82. In the case of the one who went forth in old age, "went to see" means out of compassion, thinking "I shall see her," he went to the house. Then she described to him the state of helplessness of herself and the children in various ways. And knowing him to be indifferent, she became angry and forcibly grabbed him, saying "Come, let us leave the monastic life." He, stepping back to free himself, fell down on his back due to the weakness of old age. Then she fulfilled her own desire. But that monk was a non-returner with sensual desire completely cut off, therefore he did not consent.

83. The account of the young deer is clear in meaning.

The decided case is finished.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya,

the commentary on the first Pārājika is finished.

Herein, in the Samantapāsādikā, regarding the quality of being pleasing on all sides -

Because of the lineage of teachers, because of the elucidation of the classification of the introduction and the subject matter;

Because of the rejection of other doctrines, and because of the purification of one's own doctrine.

Because of the refinement of the letter, because of the meaning of the words, because of the order of connecting the text;

Because of the determination of the training rules, because of the showing of the different methods of analysis.

For those who examine, nothing uninspiring is seen herein;

Therefore, for the wise, this is indeed entirely inspiring.

The commentary has proceeded regarding the Discipline, by one skilled in taming those to be tamed;

Spoken by the Lord of the World, who had compassion for the world.

the commentary on the first Pārājika is finished.

2.

The Second Expulsion

The second Pārājika, which was made known by the Conqueror who is without a second;

The order of commentary on that has now been reached.

Since therefore what has been explained before is easy to understand;

Having set aside all of that, this commentary proceeds.

Commentary on the Account of Dhaniya

84. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Rājagaha on the Vulture's Peak mountain": herein, "at Rājagaha" means in the city of that name, for it is called "Rājagaha" because it was possessed by Mandhātu, Mahāgovinda, and others. Others too explain various derivations here. What need of those! This is the name of that city. Now this becomes a city in the time of a Buddha and in the time of a wheel-turning monarch. At other times it is empty, possessed by yakkhas, and remains as a pleasure grove for them. Having thus indicated the resort village, he stated the place of dwelling - "on the Vulture's Peak mountain." And that is because vultures dwelt on its peaks, or because its peaks resemble vultures; therefore it should be understood that it is called "Vulture's Peak."

"Several" means: according to the Vinaya method, three persons are called "several," and beyond that is a Saṅgha. According to the Suttanta method, three are just three, and from that number onwards they are "several." Here, however, they should be understood as "several" according to the Suttanta method. "Acquaintances" means not very intimate, not firm friends; for because they had been seen by meeting here and there, they are called "acquaintances." "Companions" means very intimate, firm friends; for because they were well associated, keeping company, sharing the same enjoyments and requisites, they are called "companions." "On the slope of Isigili" means: there is a mountain called Isigili, on its slope. Formerly, it is said, about five hundred paccekabuddhas, having wandered for almsfood in the countries of Kāsi, Kosala, and others, would assemble on that mountain after the meal and pass the time in attainment. People saw them only entering but not coming out. Thereupon they said: "This mountain swallows these seers." From that arose the designation "Isigili" for it; "on its slope" means at the foot of the mountain.

"Having built grass huts" means having made huts with grass roofing and with proper door-frames. For even one who is practising the Nālaka practice, when entering the rains retreat, should enter upon a dwelling that is roofed with one of the five types of roofing and has a proper door-frame. For this was said: "Monks, one who is without a dwelling should not enter the rains retreat. Should one enter, there is an offence of wrong-doing." Therefore, during the rainy season, if one obtains a dwelling, that is good; if one does not obtain one, it should be made even after seeking manual labour. By one who cannot obtain manual labour, it should be made even by oneself. But one should certainly not enter the rains retreat without a dwelling. This is the conformity with the Teaching. Therefore those monks, having built grass huts, having designated the night quarters, day quarters, and so forth, having undertaken the agreed observances and the chapter observances, training in the three trainings, entered the rains retreat.

"The Venerable Dhaniya also" means that not only those elders but the Venerable Dhaniya too is the originator of this training rule. "The potter's son" means the son of a potter; for his name was Dhaniya, his father was a potter, therefore it is said - "Dhaniya the potter's son." "Entered the rains retreat" means having built a grass hut in the very same place together with those elders, he entered the rains retreat. "Having completed the rains retreat" means those who entered the earlier rains retreat, having performed the pavāraṇā at the great pavāraṇā, are called "those who have completed the rains retreat" from the first day of the following fortnight onwards. Having thus completed the rains retreat.

"Having dismantled the grass huts" means not having crushed them to pieces with sticks and hammers and the like, but rather having removed the grass and wooden creepers and so forth in an orderly manner - this is the meaning. For one who has built a hut on the outskirts of a monastery, if there are resident monks, they should be consulted. Having said "If anyone is willing to look after this hut and dwell in it, give it to him," one should depart. One who has built it in the forest, or who does not find a caretaker, should store it away thinking "It will be for the use of others too" and then go. But those monks, having built huts in the forest and not finding a caretaker, stored away and preserved the grass and wood - this is the meaning. Having placed it in such a way that what is stored is not eaten by termites and is not exposed to rain, and having fulfilled the duty of departure thinking "This place will be of benefit to fellow practitioners in the holy life who come wishing to dwell here."

"Set out on a journey through the country" means they went to the countryside agreeable to each one's own mind. "But the Venerable Dhaniya the potter's son dwelt right there for the rains" etc. is clear in meaning. "Up to the third time" means up to the third occasion. "Anavaya" means anu + avaya, with the elision of the vowel 'u' by sandhi. Anu anu avaya means whatever work is to be done by potters, in all of it he was without deficiency, one of complete skill - this is the meaning. "One's own" means in what belongs to oneself. "In the teacher's doctrine" means in the teacher's craft. "In the potter's craft" means in the craft of potters; the work to be done by potters - this is the meaning. By this, his own teacher's doctrine is shown in its true nature. "With purified skill" means one of pure skill. Even though being complete, it is said that his skill was unlike that of others.

"Entirely of clay" means except for the door-frame, door-panel, bolt, latch, and window-shutter, all the remaining building materials comprising walls, roofing, bricks, pillars and so forth were made entirely of clay - this is the meaning. "Having collected grass and wood and cow-dung, he fired that hut" means having made it entirely of clay, having smoothed it with a trowel, having dried it, having polished it with oil-mixed red clay, having filled it inside and outside with grass and the like, he fired it so that it was well-fired. And thus fired was that hut. "Lovely" means of beautiful form. "Pleasing" means inspiring confidence. "Red" means of red colour. "The sound of small bells" means the sound of a network of small bells. Just as there is a sound of a network of small bells made of various gems, so there was a sound of that hut when struck by wind entering through the windows and gaps. By this, the state of being well-fired both inside and outside is shown. But in the Great Commentary, "kiṅkaṇikā" means a bronze vessel, therefore it is said "just as the sound of a bronze vessel when struck, so was the sound of that hut when struck by the wind."

85. "What is this, monks" - here the Blessed One, though already knowing, asked for the purpose of initiating a discussion. "They reported this matter to the Blessed One" means they reported to the Blessed One from the beginning the fact of making a hut entirely of clay. "How indeed could that foolish man, monks" etc. "will make a hut" - this is a future tense expression used for a past meaning; it means "he made." The characteristic of this should be sought from the science of grammar. "Indeed, monks, that foolish man will have no sympathy, no compassion, no non-harming towards living beings" - here "sympathy" means protection; by this he shows the preliminary stage of loving-kindness. "Compassion" means the trembling of the mind due to the suffering of others. "Non-harming" means non-injury; by these he shows the preliminary stage of compassion. This is what is meant - "Monks, that foolish man, in digging the earth, kneading the clay, and offering fire, afflicting and destroying many small and minute living beings - indeed there will be no sympathy, no compassion, no non-harming towards those living beings, not even the slightest measure of the preliminary stage of loving-kindness and compassion, indeed there will not be even the smallest amount." "Let not future generations commit to gulping down living beings" means let not the later community of people engage in the state of gulping down living beings. This is what is meant - "Even in the time of the Buddha, monks did thus; for those committing the destruction of living beings in such situations, there is no fault" - thinking thus, future generations following the example of this one should not think thus regarding living beings that are to be gulped down and crushed.

Having thus rebuked Dhaniya, "And, monks, a hut entirely of clay should not be made" - he prohibited the making of such a hut in the future; and having prohibited it, "Whoever should make one, there is an offence of wrong-doing" - he established an offence for making a hut entirely of clay. Therefore, even one who makes such a hut without committing to gulping down living beings through digging the earth and so forth, he too commits an offence of wrong-doing. But one who, through digging the earth and so forth, commits to gulping down living beings, whatever rule he transgresses, in each case he commits the very offence stated therein. For the Elder Dhaniya, there is no offence because he was the original doer. For the rest, even for those who make one transgressing the training rule, and even for those who, having obtained one already made, dwell therein, it is an offence of wrong-doing. But one mixed with timber materials, however it may be mixed, is allowable. Only one made entirely of clay is not allowable. Even that, if made with bricks in the manner of a brick dwelling, is allowable. "Yes, venerable sir" etc. "they broke down that hut" means having accepted the Blessed One's word, they broke down that hut by demolishing it with sticks and stones.

In the passage beginning with "Then the Venerable Dhaniya," this is the summary meaning - Dhaniya, who was sitting on one side for his daytime rest, having come upon hearing that sound, asked those monks "Why, friends, are you breaking down my hut?" and having heard "The Blessed One is having it broken down," he accepted it through being easy to speak to.

But why did the Blessed One have the hut, which was made for his own dwelling, broken down with such great effort - does it not have some expenditure of labour involved? Although there is, nevertheless the Blessed One had it broken down because it was not allowable, and had it broken down because it was a banner of sectarians. This is the determination here. But in the Commentary, other reasons too are stated - for sympathy towards beings, for the purpose of protecting bowl and robes, for the prevention of excess of dwellings, and so forth. Therefore, even now, if a monk who is learned and knowledgeable in the Vinaya, seeing another monk going about having taken an unallowable requisite, should have it cut or broken, he is blameless; he should neither be charged nor reminded; it is not possible to say "My requisite was destroyed by you, give it to me."

Determination Beyond the Canonical Text

Herein, this is the determination regarding allowable and non-allowable requisites that is not found in the canonical text - Some, when sewing a palmyra-leaf parasol, inside or outside, with five-coloured thread, make it decorative; that is not allowable. However, to sew inside or outside with thread of a single colour, whether blue or yellow or any other, or to bind the rod-holder frame of the parasol handle, is allowable. And that is for the purpose of making it firm, not for the purpose of decoration. To cut a saw-tooth pattern or a half-moon pattern on the parasol leaves is not allowable. On the parasol handle, a knob or an animal figure, as on house pillars, is not allowable. Even if an engraved line has been made everywhere with a pointed instrument, that too is not allowable. Both the knob and the animal figure should be broken off and then it may be used. The engraved lines too should be removed by rubbing, or the handle should be wrapped with thread. However, at the base of the handle, a cobra-hood shape is allowable. For the purpose of preventing movement by wind-blows, they fasten the small inner circle of the parasol with cords and bind it to the handle; at that binding place they raise up a ring-like marking and place a line - that is allowable.

For the purpose of adorning the robe, sewing with multi-coloured threads a centipede-like pattern, they place an additional strip, and make any other kind of needlework variation, whether a braid or a chain-pattern at the edge of the strip or at the border - all such things are not allowable; only plain needlework is allowable. They make the button-strip and the loop-strip with eight corners or even sixteen corners; therein they display shrine-shapes, club-shapes, mace-shapes and the like, and raise up crab-eye patterns - all this is not allowable; only four-cornered is allowable. Corner-thread knots in a form difficult to recognise are allowable on a dyed robe. To immerse a robe in rice-gruel, flour-paste, oil-cake residue and the like is not allowable. However, at the time of robe-making, for the purpose of washing off hand-dirt, needle-dirt and the like, and at the time when it is soiled, for the purpose of washing, it is allowable. To add fragrance, lac, or oil to the dye is not allowable.

After dyeing a robe, it should not be rubbed with a conch-shell, a gem-stone, or anything whatsoever. Kneeling on the ground, holding it with the hands, it should not be rubbed even in a trough. However, placing it in a trough or on a board, having someone hold the ends, it is allowable to beat it with the hands; but even that should not be done with the fist. The elders of old, however, did not even place it in a trough. One person holds it; another, having spread it on the hands, beats it with the hand. A corner-thread on the robe is not allowable; at the time of dyeing it should be cut off. However, that which has been permitted thus: "I allow, monks, a corner-thread" - that should be made into a loop and tied to the secondary border for the purpose of fastening at the time of dyeing. Even on buttons, lines or knots for the purpose of beautification are not allowable; they should be removed and then used.

They make engraved lines on bowls or dishes with a pointed instrument, whether inside or outside - that is not allowable. They place the bowl on a lathe, polish it, and fire it - saying "We shall make it gem-coloured" - that is not allowable; however, an oil-colour is allowable. On the bowl-stand, painted decoration is not allowable, but a saw-tooth pattern is allowable.

On the top or bottom of the water-strainer's umbrella, or on the belly of the water-strainer, lines are not allowable, but on the circular rim of the umbrella's opening, lines are allowable.

For the purpose of beautifying the waist-belt, they beat the thread double here and there, and raise up crab-eye patterns - this is not allowable. However, at both ends, beating double for the purpose of making the fringe-edge firm is allowable. But at the fringe-edge, making a knob, or a crocodile-mouth shape, or a water-serpent's head, or any decorative form whatsoever is not allowable. Displaying elephant-eye patterns here and there, or making garland-work, creeper-work, and the like on a beaten waist-belt is also not allowable. However, making it straight only - in a fish-bone pattern, or a date-palm leaf pattern, or a smooth strip pattern - and beating it is allowable. One fringe on the waist-belt is allowable; two, three, or even four are allowable; beyond that, they are not allowable. A cord waist-belt of a single strand only is allowable. However, even a single one in the shape of a five-strand braid is not allowable. But a fringe in the shape of a five-strand braid is allowable. Bringing together many cords and winding them continuously with one cord - this should not be called "many-corded"; it is allowable.

On the waist-belt buckle, any decorative form whatsoever such as the eight auspicious symbols and the like is not allowable; only a mere dividing line is allowable. They make a knob at both ends of the buckle for the purpose of making it firm; this too is allowable.

On the collyrium box, forms of women, men, quadrupeds, or birds, or decorative forms of the types such as garland-work, creeper-work, crocodile-tooth pattern, cow-urine pattern, half-moon pattern, and the like are not allowable. It should be used after rubbing off or cutting off, or wrapping with thread in such a way that it is not visible. However, only a straight collyrium box - four-sided, or eight-sided, or sixteen-sided - is allowable. At its bottom, two or three circular lines are allowable. At its neck, one circular line for the purpose of fastening the lid is allowable.

On the collyrium stick also, decorative beautification work is not allowable. On the collyrium box lid also, any decorative beautification work with multi-coloured thread is not allowable. The same principle applies to the key-case as well. Decorative beautification work on the key is not allowable; likewise on the razor-case. However, in this case, sewing with any single-coloured thread is allowable.

On the awl also, a round bead or any other decorative beautification is not allowable. But at the neck, a dividing line is allowable. On the pepper-corn container also, raising up any bead, or blister, or anything whatsoever is not allowable. But on the handle, a dividing line is allowable. They make the nail-cutter only in a curved form; therefore that is allowable. On the upper fire-stick, or the lower fire-stick, or the fire-stick bow, or the upper turning stick, any decorative beautification whatsoever such as garland-work and the like is not allowable; but in the middle of the turning stick there is a disc, and there only a mere dividing line is allowable. They make a needle-clamp, with which they grip and rub the needle; therein any decorative beautification whatsoever such as a crocodile-mouth shape and the like is not allowable; but there is just an opening for the purpose of gripping the needle, and that is allowable.

Any decorative work on a tooth-stick cutting knife is not allowable, but it is allowable to bind it straight with allowable metal on both sides, or in a four-cornered or eight-cornered manner. Any decorative work on a walking stick is also not allowable, but one or two circular lines at the bottom and a mere snake-hood bud at the top are allowable.

Regarding oil vessels - whether made of horn, or of bamboo tube, or of gourd, or of emblic myrobalan wood - apart from the figures of women and men, all other decorative work is allowable.

On beds and chairs, pillows and cushions, floor coverings, foot-wipers, walking-path coverings, brooms, rubbish receptacles, dyeing troughs, drinking-water strainers, drinking-water pots, foot-washing boards, plank seats, ring-stands, staff-stands, bowl covers, palm-leaf fans, and fans - on all of these, all decorative work such as garland-work and the like is allowable. Regarding dwellings, on door panels, window shutters, and the like, decorative work even made of all kinds of precious materials is allowable.

There is nothing to be prohibited regarding dwellings, except for hostile dwellings. A hostile dwelling is said to be a dwelling built by royal favourites within the boundary of others; therefore, those who build such a dwelling should be told - "Do not build a dwelling within our boundary." If they disregard this and continue building, they should be told again - "Do not do this, do not create an obstacle to our observance and invitation ceremonies, do not break the harmony; your dwelling, even though built, will not stand in the place where it was built." If they continue building by force, when their conscientious assembly has become predominant and a rightful decision can be obtained, then a message should be sent to them - "Remove your dwelling." If they remove it when sent up to a third time, that is good; if they do not remove it, except for the Bodhi tree and the shrine, the remaining dwellings should be broken down - but not by those who would render them unusable; rather, by removing in order the roofing, rafters, bricks, and the like, a message should be sent to them - "Remove your building materials." If they remove them, that is good; if they do not remove them, then when those building materials become rotten through snow, rain, wind, sun, and the like, or are carried off by thieves, or are burnt by fire, the monks who own the boundary are blameless; it is not possible to accuse them saying "You have destroyed our building materials" or "It is upon your necks." Whatever, however, has been done by the monks who own the boundary, that is indeed well done.

The determination independent of the canonical text is concluded.

86. Now, in order to show Dhaniya's reflection when the hut was thus broken up, and his effort to make a hut again, "Then the Venerable" and so forth was stated. Therein, "accountant at the timber storehouse" means the timber keeper at the king's timber storehouse. "Timber belonging to the king" means timber taken by the king. The meaning is timber that had become the king's possession. "For the repair of the city" means materials for the restoration of the city. "Stored for times of emergency" - the destruction of gate-towers, watchtowers, the inner palace, elephant stables and so forth, whether by fire, by decay, or by siege of a rival king and so forth, is called an emergency. It is said that they were stored for that purpose. "Having had it cut into fragments" means having determined the measurements for his own hut, he had it cut into pieces, some at the top, some in the middle, some at the base.

87. "Vassakāra" is the name of that brahmin. "The chief minister of Magadha" means a chief minister in the kingdom of Magadha, endowed with a great degree of authority, or the chief minister of the king of Magadha; it is said to mean "the great minister." "Inspecting" means going here and there and examining. "My good man" is the form of address used by those in authority towards men of lower rank. "Ordered to be bound" - the brahmin was by nature already disposed to jealousy towards him. Having heard the king's words "have him summoned," since the king did not say "have him called," he therefore ordered him to be bound, thinking "I shall have him bound hand and foot and then summoned." "The Venerable Dhaniya saw" - how did he see? It is said that he, having known by his own inference that the timbers had been taken, thinking "Without doubt, this one will receive punishment or imprisonment from the royal court on account of the timbers; at that time I myself shall free him," went about constantly listening for news of him. Therefore, having gone at that very moment, he saw him. Therefore it was said - "The Venerable Dhaniya saw." "Because of the timbers" means on account of the timbers. "Before I am killed" means "I shall be killed before long"; the meaning is "you should come while I have not yet been killed."

88. In "Come now, venerable sir, remind me," here "iṅgha" is a particle used in the sense of urging. "When first consecrated" means having been consecrated, at the very first. "Having spoken such words" means "Let ascetics and brahmins consume only what is given - grass, wood, and water" - this is the meaning of what is stated: having been consecrated, at the very first, that which you yourself spoke, having spoken it yourself, do you now remember or do you not remember? It is said that kings, as soon as they are consecrated, have the drum of righteousness sounded - "Let ascetics and brahmins consume only what is given - grass, wood, and water" - with reference to that, he speaks. "It was said by me with reference to them" means: with reference to the taking of grass, wood, and water by those ascetics and brahmins who feel remorse even over a trifle, who have calmed and removed evil, this was said by me; not with reference to those like you - this is the intended meaning. "And that which is unclaimed in the forest" means that grass, wood, and water which is unclaimed in the forest; he clarifies that "it was said by me with reference to that."

In "You are released by a hair's breadth," here "hair" is like a hair, but what is it? The mark of going forth. What is meant? Just as rogues, thinking "We shall eat meat," might seize a ram with expensive wool. Another wise man, seeing it, thinking "The meat of this ram is worth only a kahāpaṇa. But the wool, at each shearing, is worth many kahāpaṇas," might give two woolless rams and take it. Thus that ram, having encountered a wise man, would be released on account of its wool. In the same way, you, because of having done this deed, are deserving of execution or imprisonment. But since the banner of an arahant is not to be struck by the virtuous, and since you, having gone forth in the dispensation, bear the banner of an arahant which constitutes the mark of going forth. Therefore you, by this wool which is the mark of going forth, like a ram having encountered a wise man, are released.

"People grumbled" means: having heard, both in the presence and in the absence of the king speaking in his assembly, people here and there grumbled, looked down upon, looking down upon him they brooded over, looked at, or thought of him as inferior - this is the meaning. "Criticised" means they spoke of and made known his faults. "Complained" means they made it widely known, they spread it everywhere; and this meaning should be understood according to the science of grammar. Now here this is the connection - Thinking such things as "These ascetics, disciples of the Sakyan, are shameless," they grumbled. Saying such things as "There is no asceticism in them," they criticised. Elaborating here and there such things as "They have departed from asceticism," they complained. By this method, the construal of these terms should be understood hereafter as well, in accordance with the terms occurring in each place. "Practitioners of the holy life" means those of the highest conduct. "Asceticism" means the state of being an ascetic. "Commitment to holy life" means the state of being supreme. The remainder is of clear meaning.

In the passage beginning with "the king's timbers," the meaning of the grumbling is "he will take what is not given." But to show what was not given that he took, "the king's timbers" was stated. Thus the meaning should be understood by those who are not confused by the variation in grammatical number. "A former judge who was a chief minister" means a great minister who came to be designated as "judge" because in his former lay life, prior to his state as a monk, he was appointed to the administration of judicial proceedings.

"Then the Blessed One said this to that monk" - the Blessed One himself knows worldly conventions and also knows the enactments of past Buddhas - "Past Buddhas too enacted a pārājika offence for this much, a grave offence for this much, a wrongdoing for this much." Even this being so, if without consulting with others who are experts in worldly conventions he were to enact a pārājika offence for merely a pāda, there would be those who would say: "The restraint of virtue is indeed immeasurable and incalculable even for a single monk, exceedingly vast like the great earth, the ocean, and space - how indeed could the Blessed One destroy one for a mere pāda!" Then, not knowing the power of the Tathāgata's knowledge, they would undermine the training rule, and even the enacted training rule would not remain in its proper place. But when enacted after consulting with those who are experts in worldly conventions, that reproach does not arise. Rather, those who speak say thus - "Even householders, for a mere pāda, execute, imprison, or banish a thief. Why would the Blessed One not expel one gone forth, so that not even as much as a blade of grass belonging to another should be taken!" And they will know the power of the Tathāgata's knowledge. And the enacted training rule will be unshakeable, it will remain in its proper place. Therefore, wishing to enact it after consulting with those who are experts in worldly conventions, surveying the entire assembly, then the Blessed One, seeing that monk seated not far away, said this to him: "For how much, monk, does King Seniya Bimbisāra of Magadha, having seized a thief, execute or imprison or banish him?"

Therein, "of Magadha" means the lord of the Magadhans. "Seniya" means endowed with an army. "Bimbisāra" is his name. "Or banishes" means he expels from the realm. The remainder here is clear in meaning. "A pāda is five māsakas" - at that time in Rājagaha a kahāpaṇa was twenty māsakas, therefore a pāda is five māsakas. By this characteristic, in all regions a quarter of a kahāpaṇa should be understood as a "pāda." And that is reckoned according to the ancient nīla-kahāpaṇa, not according to other coins such as the rudradāmaka and so forth. For by that very pāda, past Buddhas too enacted the pārājika offence, and future Buddhas too will enact it. For among all Buddhas there is no difference either in the basis for pārājika or in the pārājika offence itself. There are just these four bases for pārājika. There are just these four pārājika offences. There is neither fewer nor more than these. Therefore the Blessed One too, having rebuked Dhaniya, enacting the second pārājika offence based on a pāda, said "Whatever monk takes what is not given, reckoned as theft" and so forth.

When the second pārājika had been laid down, made firm by way of cutting off at the root, the incident of the washerman's bundle arose for the purpose of further supplementary laying down, and this was stated for the purpose of illustrating its arising - "And thus this training rule was laid down by the Blessed One for the monks." Its meaning and the connection with the supplementary laying down should be understood in the same manner as stated in the commentary on the first pārājika. And just as here, so too in all the training rules hereafter. Whatever has been stated previously, omitting all of that, we shall comment only on what is new, progressively. For if we were to comment again on whatever has already been explained, when would we reach the end of the commentary! Therefore, whatever has been stated previously, having carefully noted all of that, the meaning and the construction should be understood in each respective place. However, whatever is new and of unclear meaning, all of that we ourselves shall comment upon.

The description of the story of Dhaniya is concluded.

90. "Having gone to the washerman's spreading place" means having gone to the washerman's ford; for since washermen spread out cloths there, therefore it is called "the washerman's spreading place." "The washerman's bundle" means the bundle of the washermen; washermen, entering the city in the evening time, tie up many cloths into individual bundles. The meaning is: having stolen one bundle from among those, taking it while they were not watching due to their negligence.

Commentary on the Word-Analysis

92. "Village means" and so forth is stated for the purpose of showing the distinction between the village and the forest mentioned in the passage "from a village or from a forest." Therein, a village in which there is just one hut, one dwelling, as for example in the Malaya country; this is called a village with one hut. The others should be understood by this method. "With non-humans" means one that has become the possession of yakkhas due to the complete absence of humans; or from which humans have departed for some reason, yet wishing to return again. "Fenced" means fenced beginning with a brick wall, and even at the least fenced with thorny branches. "Settled in the manner of cows sitting down" means without being settled in the manner of a street arrangement and so forth, just as cows sit down here and there in twos and threes, so it is settled with two or three houses built here and there. "Caravan" means any among foot caravans, cart caravans, and so forth. And it should be understood that in this training rule, a market town and a city too are included by the term "village."

"Precincts of the village" and so forth is stated for the purpose of showing the delimitation of the forest. "Standing at the gate" means for a village that has two gateposts just like Anurādhapura, standing at the inner gatepost; for the outer gatepost of that village falls within the category of forest according to the Abhidhamma method. But for one that has a single gatepost, standing in the middle of the village gate-posts. For even where there is no gatepost, the middle of the village gate-posts is called the "gatepost." Therefore it was said - "standing in the middle of the village gate-posts." "Of a middling man" means of middling strength, not of middling size, neither of little strength nor of great strength; the meaning is of middling strength. "A stone's throw" means not throwing as a woman chasing away crows throws a clod by raising the hand straight up, and not throwing as one throws water in splashing water, but the place where a clod falls when thrown as young men, displaying their strength, throw a clod by extending the arm. But where it falls and rolls to, that should not be taken into account.

Regarding "a stone's throw of a middling man standing in the precincts of a house of an unfenced village" - here, the throw of a winnowing fan or the throw of a pestle of a middling man standing at the place where water falls from the eaves is called the precincts of a house. In the Kurundī Commentary it is stated that a stone's throw of one standing in those precincts of a house is the precincts of the village. The Mahāpaccarī is likewise. But in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, having set down the matrix as "house, precincts of a house, village, precincts of the village," the area within the place where water falls from the eaves is called a house. And the place where the water for washing vessels falls when a woman standing at the door discards it, and the place where a winnowing fan or a broom falls when naturally thrown outward by a woman standing inside the house, and the enclosure made by connecting the two corners in front of the house and placing a wooden-spike gate in the middle for the purpose of preventing the entry of cattle - all of this is called the precincts of a house. Within a stone's throw of a middling man standing in those precincts of a house is called a village. It is stated that within another stone's throw from there is called the precincts of the village. This is the measure here. And just as here, so everywhere, whatever commentary statement or Elder's statement is stated later should be regarded as the standard.

Now, what was stated in the Great Commentary appears to be contradictory to the canonical text. For in the canonical text - only this much was stated: "a stone's throw of a middling man standing in the precincts of a house." But in the Commentary, that stone's throw was made the boundary of the village, and beyond that was stated to be the precincts of the village? It is said - what was stated in the canonical text is indeed true, but the intention here should be understood. And that is known only to the commentators. Therefore, just as in the phrase "standing in the precincts of a house," the characteristic of the precincts of a house, though not stated in the canonical text, was accepted as stated in the Commentary. In the same way, the remainder too should be accepted.

Herein this is the method - here, a village is of two kinds - fenced and unfenced. In the case of a fenced village, the fence itself is the boundary. Therefore, without stating its boundary separately, it was stated in the canonical text: "the precincts of the village means a stone's throw of a middling man standing at the gate of a fenced village." But for an unfenced village, the boundary of the village needs to be stated. Therefore, to show the boundary of that village, it was stated: "a stone's throw of a middling man standing in the precincts of a house of an unfenced village." And since, when the boundary of the village has been shown, the characteristic of the precincts of the village can be known by the method previously stated, it was not again stated: "a stone's throw of a middling man standing there." But whoever says that the stone's throw of one standing in the precincts of a house is itself "the precincts of the village," for him the precincts of a house becomes the village. Consequently, the division into house, precincts of a house, village, and precincts of a village becomes confused. And here the determination should be understood without confusion in matters such as entering a village at the wrong time. Therefore, by comparing the canonical text and the Commentary, the village and the precincts of the village here should be understood in the manner stated. And even a village that was formerly large but later became small when families perished, its boundary should be determined by a stone's throw from the precincts of a house alone. But its former boundary, whether fenced or unfenced, is of no account.

"Forest means setting aside the village and the precincts of the village" - setting aside the village and the precincts of the village as characterised above, the remainder in this training rule on taking what is not given should be understood as "forest." But in the Abhidhamma it is stated: "forest means having gone out beyond the gate, all of that is forest." In the training rule on forest-dwelling, it is stated: "a forest dwelling means one that is five hundred bow-lengths distant." That should be understood as five hundred bow-lengths measured from the gate by the teacher's bow. Thus, by the Blessed One, in analysing the meaning of "from a village or from a forest," five divisions were shown - "house, precincts of a house, village, precincts of a village, forest" - for the purpose of preventing any loophole for evil monks. Therefore, it should be understood that for one who carries away property belonging to an owner, worth a pāda or more, whether in a house, in the precincts of a house, in a village, in the precincts of a village, or in a forest, it is indeed an offence of expulsion.

Now, in order to show the meaning of "should take what is not given, reckoned a theft" etc., he stated "not given means" etc. Therein, "not given" - in the training rule on tooth-wood, even what belongs to oneself, if not formally received, is called allowable food to be consumed. But here, whatever property belonging to another that has an owner - that which has not been given by those owners either by body or by speech is "not given." "Not relinquished" means not released from one's own hand or from its established place. "Not abandoned" means even though standing in its place, not given up due to indifference. "Guarded" means guarded by the arrangement of protection. "Protected" means protected by being placed in chests and the like. "Cherished" means cherished through the possessiveness of craving, thinking "this is mine." "Belonging to another" means possessed by those others, the owners of the goods, through those acts of non-abandonment, guarding, and protecting. This is called not given.

"Reckoned a theft" - herein, "thena" means thief; the state of being a thief is "thievery" (theyyaṃ); this is a designation for the intention to carry away. "Saṅkhā" and "saṅkhāta" are one in meaning; this is a designation for a category, as in "for proliferations have their source in perception" and so forth. "Theft and that reckoned" is "reckoned a theft"; the meaning is one mental portion reckoned as the consciousness of theft. And this is a nominative case used in the instrumental sense; therefore it should be seen in meaning as "by what is reckoned a theft." And since one who takes by means of what is reckoned a theft has thieving intention, it should be understood that, without adhering to the letter, in order to show just the meaning, its word-analysis has been stated thus: "with thieving intention, with intention to carry away."

"Should take, should carry, should carry away, should disturb the posture, should dislodge from position, should pass beyond the rendezvous" - herein, the first term is stated in terms of a legal claim, the second term in terms of one going while carrying another's goods, the third term in terms of deposited goods, the fourth in terms of sentient beings, the fifth in terms of what is placed on dry land and so forth, and the sixth is stated in terms of a pre-arrangement or in terms of a toll-station - thus it should be understood. The application herein is both in terms of a single type of goods and in terms of different types of goods. In terms of a single type of goods, it is obtained only with a sentient being; in terms of different types of goods, with a mixture of sentient and non-sentient things.

Therein, in terms of different types of goods, it should first be understood thus - "Should take" means he makes a legal claim to a monastery; there is an offence of wrong-doing. He arouses doubt in the owner, there is a grave offence. The owner gives up responsibility thinking "it will not be mine"; there is an offence of expulsion.

"Should carry" means while carrying another's goods, with thieving intention he touches the load on his head; there is an offence of wrong-doing. He causes it to shake, there is a grave offence. He lowers it to the shoulder, there is an offence entailing defeat.

"Should carry away" means when told "give me the deposited goods," he says "I did not take them"; there is an offence of wrong-doing. He arouses doubt in the owner, there is a grave offence. The owner gives up responsibility thinking "he will not give it to me"; there is an offence of expulsion.

"Should disturb the posture" means thinking "I shall lead away the one carrying the goods together with the goods," he moves the first foot; there is an offence of grave transgression. He moves the second foot, there is an offence entailing defeat.

"Should dislodge from position" means with thieving intention he touches goods placed on dry land; there is an offence of wrong-doing. He causes it to shake, there is a grave offence. He dislodges it from its position, there is an offence entailing defeat.

"Should pass beyond the rendezvous" means he passes the pre-arranged place with the first foot; there is an offence of grave transgression. He moves the second foot past, there is an offence entailing defeat. Or alternatively, he passes the toll-station with the first foot; there is an offence of grave transgression. He passes with the second foot; there is an offence of expulsion - this is the application herein in terms of different types of goods.

However, in terms of a single item, one takes, or carries, or carries away, or disturbs the posture, or dislodges from position, or passes beyond the boundary, an owned slave or animal by the method of legal claim and so forth as stated above - this is the application in terms of a single item here.

Discussion on the Twenty-Five Modes of Removal

Furthermore, one explaining these six terms should show twenty-five modes of taking by combining five sets of five. For when explained thus, this pārājika of taking what is not given is well explained. And in this matter, all the commentaries are confused, muddled, and difficult to determine. For in all the commentaries, those factors of taking that are stated in the canonical text by the method beginning with "for one taking what is not given in five ways, there is an offence of pārājika, and it belongs to another," having taken those, in some places one set of five is shown, and in some places two sets of five are shown together with those that come as "in six ways." But these are not proper sets of five. For where a mode of taking is accomplished by each single term, that is called a set of five. But here, by all the terms together there is only one mode of taking. And even those sets of five that are shown there as obtainable, the meaning of all of them is not made clear. Thus in this matter, all the commentaries are confused, muddled, and difficult to determine. Therefore, these twenty-five modes of taking, shown by combining five sets of five, should be carefully examined.

The five sets of five are: the set of five for diverse items, the set of five for a single item, the set of five for personal action, the set of five for prior effort, and the set of five for modes of theft. Therein, the set of five for diverse items and the set of five for a single item are obtained by means of the terms "should take, should carry, should carry away, should disturb the posture, should dislodge from position." These should be understood in the manner already applied and shown above. But that sixth term "should pass beyond the rendezvous" is common to both the mode of taking by design and the mode of taking by relinquishing. Therefore, it should be applied by means of the obtainable term in the third and fifth sets of five. The set of five for diverse items and the set of five for a single item have been stated.

What is the set of five for personal action? Five types of carrying away - personal action, commanding, relinquishing, accomplishing the purpose, and abandoning responsibility. Therein, personal action means one carries away another's property with one's own hand. Commanding means one commands another thus: "Carry away such-and-such a person's property." Relinquishing means one standing within the customs boundary causes it to fall beyond the customs boundary - there is an offence of pārājika - and together with this, the term "should pass beyond the rendezvous" obtains its application. Accomplishing the purpose means one commands thus: "Such-and-such property, whenever you are able, carry it away." Therein, if the other, being without obstacle, carries it away, the one who commanded becomes defeated at the very moment of commanding, but the one who carries it away at the time of carrying away. This is accomplishing the purpose. Abandoning responsibility, however, should be understood in terms of deposited property. This is the set of five for personal action.

What is the pentad of prior effort? There are another five kinds of taking - prior effort, concurrent effort, taking by collusion, act of appointment, and act of signalling. Therein, prior effort should be understood by way of command. Concurrent effort by way of dislodging from position. But the other three should be understood in the manner as they come in the canonical text. This is the pentad of prior effort.

What is the pentad of taking by theft? There are another five kinds of taking - taking by theft, taking by force, taking by scheming, taking by concealment, and taking by lot. We shall explain all five of these in the case of the lot-transferring incident: "A certain monk, when the Saṅgha's robes were being distributed, with thieving intention transferred a lot and seized a robe." This is the pentad of taking by theft. Thus, combining these five pentads, these twenty-five kinds of taking should be understood.

And in these five pentads, a skilled bearer of the Vinaya, without hastily adjudicating a case that has arisen, should examine five points. Referring to which the ancients said -

"The object, the time, and the place, the value, with use as the fifth;

Having weighed these five points, the discerning one should determine the matter."

Therein, "object" means the article; for even when the one who took says "I took this particular thing," without imposing an offence, that article should be examined as to whether it has an owner or is ownerless. Even when it has an owner, it should be examined whether the owners have attachment or non-attachment. If it was taken at a time when they had attachment, the article should be valued and the offence should be determined. If at a time of non-attachment, he should not be made to incur an offence of expulsion. But when the owners of the article demand the return of the article, the article should be given back. This is the proper procedure herein.

For the illustration of this meaning, there is this case - During the reign of King Bhātiya, it is said, for the great cetiya festival, a monk from the southern direction, having placed a seven-cubit pale-yellow robe on his shoulder, entered the cetiya courtyard; and at that very moment the king too had come for the purpose of worshipping the cetiya. There, while the ceremony was taking place, there was a great crush of people. Then that monk, pressed by the crush of people, went out without even seeing the robe falling from his shoulder; and having gone out, not seeing the robe, thinking "Who will find a robe in such a crush of people? It is no longer mine," he abandoned his claim and departed. Then another monk, coming afterwards, seeing that robe, took it with thieving intention, but then becoming remorseful, even though the thought arose "I am now not a recluse, I shall disrobe," he thought "I shall find out by asking those who bear the Vinaya."

At that time, an elder named Cūḷasumana, a master of the entire textual tradition and the foremost teacher of the Vinaya, was residing at the Mahāvihāra. That monk approached the elder, paid homage, asked for permission, and inquired about his own scruple. The elder, knowing that he had taken it after the crowd of people had departed, considered "there is now an opportunity here" and said: "If you could bring the monk who owns the robe-cloth, it would be possible to establish your standing." "How shall I find him, venerable sir?" "Go here and there and look." He searched all five great monasteries but did not find him. Then the elder asked him: "From which direction do many monks come?" "From the southern direction, venerable sir." "Then measure the robe-cloth in length and width and set it aside. Having set it aside, search monastery by monastery in the southern direction and bring that monk." He did so, and having found that monk, brought him to the elder's presence. The elder asked: "Is this your robe-cloth?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Where was it dropped from you?" He explained everything. The elder, having heard about the abandonment of responsibility made by him, asked the other one: "Where did you see this and take it?" He too reported everything. Then the elder said to him: "If you had taken it with a pure mind, there would have been no offence for you. But because it was taken with thieving intention, you have committed an offence of wrong-doing. Confess that and become free of offence. And having made this robe-cloth your own property, give it to this very monk." That monk was as if sprinkled with the deathless and attained the highest relief. Thus should the matter be examined.

"Time" means the time of the theft. For that same article is sometimes of little value and sometimes of great value. Therefore, the offence should be determined according to the value of that article at the very time when it was stolen. Thus should the time be examined.

"Place" means the place of the theft. For whatever goods were stolen in whatever place, the offence should be determined by the value of those goods in that very place. For in the place where the goods originate, the goods are of low value, but elsewhere they are of high value.

And to illustrate this meaning, there is this case - In an island in the ocean, it is said, a certain monk obtained a well-shaped coconut, mounted it on a lathe, made it into a beautiful drinking bowl resembling a conch-shell dish, left it there, and went to Cetiyagiri. Then another monk, having gone to the island in the ocean and residing in that monastery, saw that bowl, took it with thieving intent, and came to Cetiyagiri itself. When the owner of the bowl saw that bowl as the other monk was drinking gruel there, the monk who owned the bowl said - "Where did you get this?" "I brought it from the island in the ocean." He dragged him into the midst of the Saṅgha, saying "This is not your property, it was taken by you through theft." And not obtaining a judgement there, they went to the Mahāvihāra. There, having had the drum beaten, they held an assembly near the Great Cetiya and began the adjudication. The elder experts in the Vinaya acknowledged the theft.

And at that assembly there was an elder named Ābhidhammika Godatta who was skilled in the Vinaya. He speaks thus: "Where was this bowl stolen by this monk?" "It was stolen on the island in the ocean." "What is it worth there?" "It is not worth anything. For there they split open coconuts, eat the kernel, and throw away the shell, though it serves the purpose of firewood." "What is this monk's handiwork worth here?" "A māsaka or less than a māsaka." "But has a pārājika offence been laid down anywhere by the Perfectly Enlightened One for a māsaka or less than a māsaka?" When this was said, "Excellent! Excellent! Well spoken, well adjudicated" - there was a single cry of approval. And at that time, King Bhātiya too, coming out from the city to pay homage to the cetiya, hearing that sound, asking "What is this?" and hearing everything in order, had a drum beaten throughout the city - "While I am present, any legal case of monks, nuns, or laypeople adjudicated by the Elder Ābhidhammika Godatta is well adjudicated; whoever does not abide by his adjudication, I place under the king's authority." Thus the place should be examined.

"Value" means the value of the goods. For whatever value new goods have, that diminishes afterwards; just as a newly washed bowl is worth eight or ten, but afterwards when broken or cracked or struck at the pin-joint, it becomes of little value; therefore goods should not always be assessed at their original value. Thus the value should be examined.

"Use" means the use of the goods. For through use too, the value of goods such as an axe diminishes. Therefore it should be examined thus: if someone carries away another's axe worth a pāda, the owner of the axe should be asked - "For how much was this axe bought by you?" "For a pāda, venerable sir." "But was it just bought and kept by you, or did you use it?" If he says "For one day I cut a tooth-stick or dyeing bark or firewood for cooking almsfood, or it was sharpened by grinding." Then it should be understood that its original value has fallen. And just as with an axe, so too with a collyrium box or a collyrium stick or a key or with straw or with husks or with brick powder, even by merely washing after rubbing once, the value falls. Even by cutting with a crocodile-tooth file a tin disc or by merely polishing it, even by wearing and wrapping a water-cloth once, even by merely placing a head-rest on the shoulder or on the head, even by winnowing rice and the like or by removing one or two grains from it, even by merely picking up and discarding a single stone pebble, even by pouring ghee and oil and the like from one vessel into another, even by merely picking up and discarding a fly or an ant from it, even by merely piercing a lump of jaggery with a fingernail and taking a tiny amount to ascertain its sweetness - the value falls. Therefore whatever is worth a pāda that has been reduced in value through use by the owners in the manner stated, the monk who carried it away should not be dealt with under the offence of expulsion. Thus use should be examined. Thus, having weighed these five grounds, the discerning one should determine an offence or non-offence, or a grave or a light offence, placing it in its proper place.

The section on "should take" etc. "should pass beyond the rendezvous" is concluded.

The determination of these terms.

Now, in analysing "in such a taking of what is not given" and so forth, "of such a kind" and so forth was stated. Therein, "of such a kind" means of such a nature. But since that begins from a pāda, therefore he said "a pāda or the value of a pāda or more than a pāda." Therein, by "a pāda" he indicates only impermissible goods worth a quarter of a kahāpaṇa. By "the value of a pāda," permissible goods worth a pāda. By "more than a pāda," both kinds. By this much, the basis for incurring the second offence of expulsion has been shown in every respect.

"King of the earth" means a king of the entire earth, a universal monarch of an island, like Asoka, or any other king of a single island, like the king of Sīhaḷa. "Regional king" means a lord of a region of a single island, like Bimbisāra, Pasenadi, and others. "Feudal lords" means those who enjoy one district each even within a region of an island. "Those with intermediate revenues" means those who own several villages between two kings. "Judges" means those who adjudicate according to the law; they sit in the hall of justice and instruct the cutting off of hands and feet and the like of thieves in accordance with their offences. But when ministers or princes who have attained positions commit offences, they report to the king; they do not themselves adjudicate serious matters. "Chief ministers" means great ministers who have attained positions; they too sit here and there in villages or market towns and carry out the king's business. "Or whoever" means also any others who, being dependent on the royal family or dependent on their own authority, instruct in cutting and breaking punishments - all of them are indicated as "kings" in this context.

"Would execute" means they would both strike and cut. "Would banish" means they would expel. "You are a thief" - having said such things as these, they would revile; therefore he said - "this is abuse." "With reference to the former" means with reference to the person who, having engaged in sexual intercourse, has incurred an offence of expulsion. The remainder is evident owing to the method having been stated before and owing to the meaning of the words being clear.

93. Having thus analysed the training rule as stated in the order of its terms, and now having shown the taking in brief by means of the six terms beginning with "should take," and having shown in brief the article to be taken as "a quarter or the value of a quarter or more than a quarter" - in order to show in detail wherever that article is situated and in whatever manner the taking occurs, for the purpose of blocking any pretext or opportunity for corrupt monks in the future, he laid down the matrix by the method beginning with "situated on the ground, situated on land," and stated its analysis by the method beginning with "what is called 'situated on the ground' means an article deposited on the ground."

The discussion on the twenty-five types of theft is concluded.

Discussion on What is on the Ground

94. Herein is the discussion of judgement together with the explanation of terms that are not clear. "Buried" means dug into the ground and placed there. "Concealed" means covered with soil, bricks, and so forth. "Goods situated on the ground" etc. "Or goes, there is an offence of wrong-doing" - whatever monk, having come to know by whatever means about goods situated on the ground because they were thus buried or concealed and placed there, with thieving intention thinking "I shall take it," rises up during the night and goes, even without reaching the place of the goods, he commits an offence of wrong-doing in respect of all bodily and verbal actions. How? For as he rises up for the purpose of taking it, whatever limb or minor limb he moves, in every case it is a wrong-doing. He arranges his lower and upper robes - with each movement of the hand, a wrong-doing. Thinking "The great treasure cannot be taken by one person alone, I shall seek a companion," wishing to go to the presence of some companion, he opens the door - with each step and each movement of the hand, a wrong-doing. But in closing the door, or in any other action that does not assist the going, there is no offence. Having gone to the place where he is lying down, he calls out "So-and-so," informs him of the matter and says "Come, let us go" - with each utterance, a wrong-doing. That one rises at his word - for him too, a wrong-doing. Having risen, wishing to go to his presence, he arranges his lower and upper robes, opens the door and goes to his vicinity - in all movements of hand and step, a wrong-doing. He asks him "Where are so-and-so and so-and-so? Call so-and-so and so-and-so" - with each utterance, a wrong-doing. Seeing all assembled, he says "I have discovered such a treasure in such-and-such a place; let us go, take it, perform meritorious deeds, and live happily" - with each utterance, just a wrong-doing.

Having thus obtained companions, he seeks a spade. If he has his own spade, going to fetch it, taking it, and bringing it - everywhere in movements of hand and step, he commits a wrong-doing. If he does not have one, he goes to another monk or a householder and asks; and if while asking he asks without speaking falsely, saying "Give me a spade, I have need of a spade, there is something to be done, having done it I shall return it" - with each utterance, a wrong-doing. If he also speaks falsely, saying "There is an irrigation channel to be cleaned, there is ground-work to be done at the monastery" - whatever utterance is false, in each case a pācittiya offence. In the Great Commentary, however, it is stated that whether truthful or false, it is only a wrong-doing; that should be understood as written through carelessness. For in the preliminary effort of taking what is not given, there is no such thing as a wrong-doing where a pācittiya offence applies. If, however, the spade has no handle, thinking "I shall make a handle," he borrows an adze or an axe, goes for that purpose, and having gone, cuts dry wood, planes it, and shapes it - everywhere in movements of hand and step, a wrong-doing. He cuts a living tree - a pācittiya offence. Thereafter, in all efforts, a wrong-doing. In the Abridged Commentary and the Great Rejoinder, it is stated that even for those seeking an adze or an axe for the purpose of cutting wood and creepers that have grown over it, there is a wrong-doing. If, however, they think thus: "Asking for adzes, axes, and spades, we shall become suspected; let us smelt iron and make them." Then, having gone to the forest, they dig the earth for iron ore - for those digging unsuitable earth, there are pācittiya offences together with wrong-doings, so it is stated in the Great Rejoinder. And just as here, so everywhere one is not freed from wrong-doing where a pācittiya offence applies. For those digging suitable earth, there are only wrong-doings. But having taken the ore, thereafter in all activities, with each effort, a wrong-doing.

In seeking a basket too, there is a wrong-doing at each movement of the hand and each step, in the manner already stated. In false speech, there is a pācittiya offence. In cutting creepers out of desire to make a basket, there is a pācittiya offence - all this should be understood in the manner already stated. "Or goes, there is an offence of wrong-doing" means: thus, having sought a companion, a spade and a basket, he goes to the place of the treasure; at each step there is a wrong-doing. But if while going he generates wholesome intention thinking "Having obtained this treasure, I shall make an offering to the Buddha, or an offering to the Dhamma, or a meal for the Saṅgha," there is no offence in going with a wholesome mind. Why? "With thieving intention, a companion or etc. or goes, there is an offence of wrong-doing" - because this has been stated. And just as here, so everywhere there is no offence for one without thieving intention. Having turned off the road, while making a path for the purpose of going to the place of the treasure, he cuts plant life - there is a pācittiya offence. He cuts dry wood - there is a wrong-doing.

"Grown over it" means what has grown over a pot that has been deposited for a long time. "Wood or creepers" means not merely wood and creepers alone; for one who cuts anything whether fresh or dry - grass, trees, creepers and so forth - because it is a concurrent effort, there is only a wrong-doing.

For this eightfold wrong-doing has been shown by the Elders by bringing together in this context - wrong-doing of preliminary effort, wrong-doing of concurrent effort, wrong-doing of not-to-be-touched, wrong-doing of wrong conduct, wrong-doing of Vinaya, wrong-doing of what is known, wrong-doing of motion, and wrong-doing of promise. Therein, "with thieving intention he seeks a companion or a spade or a basket or goes, there is an offence of wrong-doing" - this is called wrong-doing of preliminary effort. Here indeed, in a case for wrong-doing there is a wrong-doing, and in a case for pācittiya there is indeed a pācittiya offence. "He cuts wood or creepers that have grown over it, there is an offence of wrong-doing" - this is called wrong-doing of concurrent effort. Here, however, both the basis for pācittiya and the basis for wrong-doing remain only at the level of wrong-doing. Why? Because it is a concurrent effort of the theft. That which is stated as a wrong-doing for one who touches the ten kinds of precious things, the seven kinds of grain, and all weapons and such goods - this is called wrong-doing of not-to-be-touched. That which is stated as a wrong-doing for one who touches the fruits grown on plantains, coconut palms and such - this is called wrong-doing of wrong conduct. That which is stated as a wrong-doing for one going on alms-round who, when dust has fallen on his bowl, receives almsfood therein without having received the bowl properly or without having washed it - this is called wrong-doing of Vinaya. "Having heard, they do not speak, there is an offence of wrong-doing" - this is called wrong-doing of what is known. That which is stated in the eleven formal admonitions as "wrong-doing at the motion" - this is called wrong-doing of motion. "For that monk, monks, the former one is not apparent, and in the promise there is an offence of wrong-doing" - this is called wrong-doing of promise. This, however, is wrong-doing of concurrent effort. Therefore it was said - "For one who cuts anything whether fresh or dry - grass, trees, creepers and so forth - because it is a concurrent effort, there is only a wrong-doing."

If, however, when the growth upon it - grass, trees, creepers, and so forth - has been cut, a sense of moral shame arises in him and restraint comes about, he is freed by confessing the wrong-doing on account of the cutting. But if, without abandoning the endeavour, he digs the soil with the same zeal, the wrong-doing for cutting subsides and he stands in the wrong-doing for digging. For even one who digs unsuitable earth here incurs only a wrong-doing, because it is a concurrent effort. If, however, even after digging on all sides and reaching the base of the pot, a sense of moral shame arises in him, he is freed by confessing the wrong-doing on account of the digging.

"Or heaps up" means: but if with the same zeal he heaps up the soil, making a pile on one side, the wrong-doing for digging subsides and he stands in the wrong-doing for heaping up. And as he makes that soil into heaps here and there, he incurs a wrong-doing with each effort. If, however, even after making a heap, he abandons the endeavour and a sense of moral shame arises in him, he is freed by confessing the wrong-doing for heaping up. "Or removes" means: but if with the same zeal he lifts up the soil and throws it outside, the wrong-doing for heaping up subsides and he stands in the wrong-doing for removing. As he throws the soil here and there with a spade or with his hands or with a basket, he incurs a wrong-doing with each effort. If, however, even after removing all the soil and exposing the pot on dry ground, a sense of moral shame arises in him, he is freed by confessing the wrong-doing for removing. But if with the same zeal he touches the pot, the wrong-doing for removing subsides and he stands in the wrong-doing for touching. And even after touching, if a sense of moral shame arises in him, he is freed by confessing the wrong-doing for touching. But if with the same zeal he causes the pot to shake, the wrong-doing for touching subsides and he stands in the grave offence stated as "he causes it to shake, there is a grave offence."

Herein is the meaning of the words for both wrong-doing and grave offence: First, herein, "wrongly done" - done having failed in the duty prescribed by the Teacher - thus it is a wrong-doing. Or alternatively, "badly done" - that action is unseemly, it does not look well among the actions of monks - thus too it is a wrong-doing. And this was said -

"What has been called a wrong-doing, listen to that as it truly is;

What is failed and missed, stumbled and wrong-doing.

"Whatever evil a person does, whether openly or in secret;

They declare it a wrong-doing, therefore it is so called."

The other, however, is a grave offence because of its grossness and because of its being a transgression. And herein the compounding should be understood as in "and misfortune in the hereafter," "what has bitter fruit," and so forth. For among transgressions that are to be confessed in the presence of one person, there is no gross transgression equal to that. Therefore it is said "because of its grossness and because of its being a transgression, it is a grave offence." And this was said -

"What has been called a grave offence, listen to that as it truly is;

He who confesses at the foot of one person, and he who receives it -

There is no transgression equal to that, therefore it is so called."

And for one who causes it to shake, there is a grave offence with each effort. And even after causing it to shake, one in whom a sense of moral shame has arisen is freed by confessing the grave offence. And herein, beginning from the concurrent effort, each preceding offence subsides. But one in whom a sense of moral shame has arisen without having performed the concurrent effort must confess all those wrong-doings and pācittiyas incurred in the preliminary effort. And in the concurrent effort, even many wrong-doings for cutting the growth upon it subside upon reaching the digging of the soil. There is only one wrong-doing for digging. Even many wrong-doings in digging subside upon reaching the heaping up; even many in heaping up subside upon reaching the removing; even many in removing subside upon reaching the touching; even many in touching subside upon reaching the shaking. And it is said in the Kurundi Commentary: "Even if there are many offences arising when a sense of moral shame occurs during the digging of soil and so forth, one is freed by confessing just one." And this subsiding of the preceding offence has come only in the proclamation suttas thus: "By the motion, the wrong-doing subsides; by the two announcements of the formal act, the grave offences subside." But here, in the second pārājika, it should be accepted on the authority of the commentators.

"He dislodges it from its position, there is an offence entailing defeat" means that one who, even after causing it to shake, without a sense of shame arising, dislodges that pot from its position even by as little as a hair-tip, commits an offence entailing defeat - this is the meaning. And here, dislodging from its position should be understood in six ways. How? Having grasped the pot at the rim and pulling it towards oneself, with the far end one passes even by as little as a hair-tip beyond the place touched by this end - it is an offence entailing defeat. Having grasped it in the same way and pushing it away, with this end one passes even by as little as a hair-tip beyond the place touched by the far end - it is an offence entailing defeat. Tilting it to the left or to the right, with the right end one passes even by as little as a hair-tip beyond the place touched by the left end - it is an offence entailing defeat. Or with the left end one passes even by as little as a hair-tip beyond the place touched by the right end - it is an offence entailing defeat. Lifting it upwards, one releases it from the ground even by as little as a hair-tip - it is an offence entailing defeat. Having dug underneath and pushing it downwards, with the rim one passes even by as little as a hair-tip beyond the place touched by the bottom - it is an offence entailing defeat. Thus for a pot standing in one position. If, however, having made a loop at the rim of the pot, they drive an iron stake or a heartwood stake of acacia and the like into the ground and bind it there with a chain, when bound with one chain in one direction, two positions are obtained; when bound with four chains in two, three, or four directions, five positions are obtained.

Therein, for a pot bound to a single stake, one first pulls up the stake or cuts the chain - it is a grave offence. Then one dislodges the pot from its position even by as little as a hair-tip in the manner stated above - it is an offence entailing defeat. Or first one lifts up the pot - it is a grave offence. Then one dislodges the stake from its position even by as little as a hair-tip, or cuts the chain - it is an offence entailing defeat. By this method, even for a pot bound to two, three, or four stakes, at the last dislodging from position it is an offence entailing defeat. In the remaining cases, it should be understood as a grave offence.

If there is no stake, and a ring has been made at the end of the chain and inserted into a root that has grown there, one first lifts up the pot and afterwards cuts the root and removes the ring - it is an offence entailing defeat. But if without cutting the root one slides the ring this way and that, it is held in reserve. If, however, without removing it from the root, one grasps it with the hand and lifts it into the air - it is an offence entailing defeat. This here is the distinction. The remainder is according to the method already stated.

Some, however, for the purpose of concealment, plant banyan trees and the like on top of the pot, and the roots stand binding the pot. For one cutting them thinking "I shall cut the roots and take the pot," at each effort there is a wrong-doing. Having cut them and made space, one dislodges the pot from its position even by as little as a hair-tip - it is an offence entailing defeat. While cutting the roots, the pot rolls and goes to a lower place - it is held in reserve for the time being. One lifts it from the place where it has gone - it is an offence entailing defeat. If, when the roots have been cut, the pot stands by just one root, and he cuts it knowing "when this root is cut, it will fall" - at the very moment of cutting, it is an offence entailing defeat. If, however, it stands held by just one root like a pig tied to a post, and there is nothing else supporting it, at the very moment of cutting that root too, it is an offence entailing defeat. If a large stone has been placed on top of the pot, one wishing to lift it with a lever and remove it cuts a tree that has grown on top of the pot - it is a wrong-doing. One cuts vegetation that has grown near it and brings it - since it is not vegetation that has grown over the treasure, cutting it is an offence of expiation.

"His own vessel" means if, being unable to lift up the pot, for the purpose of taking the goods inside the pot, having inserted his own vessel, with thieving intention he touches something inside the pot worth five māsakas or more than five māsakas - there is an offence of wrong-doing. And here the specification is stated for the purpose of determining the offence entailing defeat. However, even one who touches something worth less than five māsakas with thieving intention commits a wrong-doing indeed.

"He causes it to shake" - here, as long as he makes it into one mass and inserts his own vessel, it is called "he causes it to shake." Moreover, even one who separates it this way and that way is indeed causing it to shake; he commits a grave offence. But when the state of being one mass is severed, what is in the pot remains in the pot alone, and what is in the vessel remains in the vessel alone - then it is called "gone into his own vessel." Having done so, even though the vessel has not been removed from the pot, he commits an offence entailing defeat.

"Or he closes his fist" - here, just as coins that have come out between the fingers do not touch the coins inside the pot, so one making a fist is called "closing the fist." He too commits an offence entailing defeat.

"Mounted on a string" means placed upon a string. This is a designation for what is wound with string as well as what is made of string. Waist-bands and the like may be made of gold, made of silver, or made of string; pearl necklaces and the like are also included here. "Turban" means a cloth for wrapping the head. Among these, whatever one with thieving intention touches - a wrong-doing. He causes it to shake - a grave offence. Having grasped waist-bands and the like by the end, he lifts them up without making them airborne - a grave offence.

"Rubbing, he takes it out" - here, however, whether it is placed on top of a full pot making it level with the pot, or placed with one end at the bottom and one end at the rim - for one rubbing and taking it out, a grave offence. For one releasing it from the mouth of the pot - an offence entailing defeat. But whatever is placed in a half-full pot or an empty pot, its position is only the place it itself touches, not the entire pot; therefore, even for one rubbing and taking it out, when it is released even a hair-tip from its resting place - an offence entailing defeat itself. Whether the pot is full or not full, for one lifting it straight up, the very moment it is released from the resting place of its lower end - an offence entailing defeat. For one moving any goods placed inside the pot that are sufficient for an offence entailing defeat around the entire pot, and for one rubbing and taking out waist-bands and the like, as long as it does not pass beyond the rim - only a grave offence. For the entire pot is its position - thus it is stated in the Saṅkhepa and Mahāpaccarī and other commentaries. But in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā it is stated: "Only the place where it is placed is its position, not the entire pot. Therefore, for one releasing it even a hair-tip from the place where it stands - an offence entailing defeat itself." That is authoritative. The other view, however, was stated according to the principle of a robe-wrapping placed on a robe-stand, without making it airborne; that should not be accepted. For in a Vinaya adjudication, one should stand by the weightier authority; this is the nature of the Vinaya. Moreover, this can also be understood from the statement "he makes it go into his own vessel or he closes his fist." Just as for something standing inside the pot, the entire pot is not its position.

Regarding ghee and the like, whatever one drinks, at the very moment it is drunk with one effort - an offence entailing defeat; thus it is stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. But in the Mahāpaccarī and other commentaries, this distinction is shown: "For one who drinks by drawing it in without removing the mouth, if what has gone past the throat is not worth a pāda, but together with what is in the mouth it is worth a pāda, it is protected for the time being. But at the very moment it is cut off by the throat - an offence entailing defeat. Even if one cuts it off by closing the lips - an offence entailing defeat itself. Even for one drinking through a lotus stalk, a bamboo tube, a reed tube, and the like, if what has gone past the throat alone is worth a pāda - an offence entailing defeat. If together with what is in the mouth it is worth a pāda, it is not yet an offence entailing defeat. Having disrupted the state of being one mass together with what is in the lotus stalk and the like, at the very moment it is cut off by the lips - an offence entailing defeat. If together with what is in the lotus stalk and the like it is worth a pāda, at the very moment the bottom of the lotus stalk and the like is blocked even with a finger - an offence entailing defeat. When what is worth a pāda has not entered past the throat, and even more than a pāda's worth remains as one mass in the lotus stalk and the like and in the mouth, it is still protected." All of that, since it follows this principle - "he makes it go into his own vessel or he closes his fist" - is therefore well demonstrated. This, then, is the principle regarding what is one mass.

If, however, he takes it by hand, or by bowl, or by any vessel such as a dish, etc., and drinks, at whichever effort he fills up the amount worth a pāda, when that effort is completed, it is an offence entailing defeat. If, however, it is of great value, and even with a small shell one can take the amount worth a pāda with a single effort, it is an offence entailing defeat at the very first extraction. But for one who takes by submerging a vessel, as long as it remains as one connected mass, it is held in reserve. It is an offence entailing defeat either by the delimitation of the rim or by extraction. But when one draws out ghee, or oil, or clear honey-molasses resembling oil, from the pot and transfers it into one's own vessel, then because of their clarity there is no state of being one connected mass, so it is an offence entailing defeat as soon as the amount worth a pāda has flowed from the rim.

But honey-molasses that has been cooked and stored is sticky like mucus, suitable for pulling back and forth, and when remorse arises, being one connected mass, it can be returned. Even though this has exited the rim and entered the vessel, because of being one connected mass with what is outside, it is held in reserve; but when it is severed from the rim, it is an offence entailing defeat. Also, whoever with thieving intention inserts into another's pot any fine cloth or one of the pieces of leather, etc., that can absorb ghee or oil worth a pāda, it is an offence entailing defeat as soon as it is released from the hand.

Knowing that "now they will pour oil" into an empty pot, one with thieving intention inserts any article; if, when oil has been poured there, one drinks the amount worth five māsakas, it is an offence entailing defeat as soon as it is drunk - so it is stated in the Great Commentary. But that conflicts with the adjudication concerning straightening a dry channel at a dry reservoir in that very place, and the characteristic of theft is not apparent here; therefore it should not be accepted. But in the Mahāpaccarī and others, an offence entailing defeat is stated for the extraction of that, and that is correct.

Having placed an article in another's empty pot for the purpose of concealment, when oil has been poured there, being afraid that "if he finds out, he will obstruct me," one with thieving intention removes the article that has absorbed oil worth a pāda - it is an offence entailing defeat. If one removes it with a pure intention, when the others demand compensation, there is liability for goods-compensation. Goods-compensation means that whatever has been lost to another, either its value or that very article must be given - that is the meaning. If one does not give, when the owner abandons the pursuit, it is an offence entailing defeat. If another pours ghee or oil into another's pot, and this one with thieving intention inserts an article that absorbs oil, it is an offence entailing defeat in the manner already stated. Knowing that another's ghee or oil will be poured into one's own empty pot, one with thieving intention deposits an article; it is an offence entailing defeat upon extraction in the manner previously stated. Having deposited it with a pure intention, one afterwards removes it with thieving intention - it is indeed an offence entailing defeat. If one removes it with a pure intention only, it is neither theft nor a case for censure; but in the Mahāpaccarī, only the absence of an offence is stated. "Angry, saying 'Why did you pour oil into my pot?', he removes his own article and discards it - there is no goods-compensation" - so it is stated in the Kurundī. With thieving intention, grasping the rim, one tilts the pot wishing to make the oil flow out; when the amount worth a pāda has flowed out, it is an offence entailing defeat. With thieving intention itself, one makes it dilapidated, thinking "it will flow out and go"; when the amount worth a pāda has flowed out and gone, it is an offence entailing defeat. With thieving intention itself, one makes a hole - downward-facing, or upward-facing, or horizontal - but this is a point of confusion; therefore it should be carefully examined. Here is the adjudication on this: "Downward-facing" means a hole facing downwards; "upward-facing" means a hole facing upwards; "horizontal" means a straight-through hole like that of a ladle. In the case of a downward-facing hole made starting from the outside, when oil worth a pāda has flowed to the inner side, even though it has not come out on the outside, it is an offence entailing defeat. Why? Because as soon as it has flowed from there, it is reckoned as having gone outside; it does not retain the designation of being within the pot. In the case of one made starting from the inside, when the amount worth a pāda has flowed to the outer side, it is an offence entailing defeat. In the case of an upward-facing hole, however it is made, when the amount worth a pāda has flowed to the outer side, it is an offence entailing defeat. For as long as it has not flowed to the outer side, it remains reckoned as being within the pot. "In the case of a horizontal hole, it should be determined by the flow from the middle of the potsherd" - so it is stated in the commentaries. But that accords with the breaching of the embankment of a reservoir in the case of a hole made by leaving a portion in the middle, starting from both inside and outside. But in the case of one made starting from the inside, it should be determined by the outer side; in the case of one made starting from the outside, it should be determined by the inner side - this is what is correct here. But whoever with thieving intention removes the support or the propping stones from the pot, thinking "it will roll away," when it has rolled away, it is an offence entailing defeat. But having known that oil would be poured, when deterioration or holes have been made in the empty pot, there is liability for goods-compensation in proportion to the oil that subsequently leaked out. But in some commentaries, "an offence entailing defeat" is also written; that was written through carelessness.

On top of a full pot, with thieving intention, he loosely fastens a slab or a stone thinking "It will fall and break it, and then the oil will flow out," or he places it in a faulty position - for one who makes it such that it will inevitably fall, at the moment it is done, there is an offence entailing defeat. He does this on top of an empty pot, and later when it is full, it falls and breaks it - there is liability for compensation for the goods. For in such cases, since the effort was made at a time when the goods did not exist, there is no offence entailing defeat from the outset. But since the means for the destruction of goods has been created, there is liability for compensation for the goods. When those demanding restitution are not given it, through the owners' abandonment of the claim, there is an offence entailing defeat.

With thieving intention, he straightens a channel thinking "It will either roll away or overflow the embankment." Whether it rolls away or overflows the embankment, at the time of straightening, there is an offence entailing defeat. For such efforts are included under preliminary-effort theft. When a dry channel has been straightened and water comes afterwards, whether it rolls away or overflows the embankment, there is liability for compensation for the goods. Why? Because of the absence of an effort to dislodge from its position. The characteristic of this will become evident in the section on boats.

Regarding "Right there he breaks" etc., in the Commentary it is stated thus: "'He breaks' means he strikes with a mallet and breaks it. 'He throws away' means he pours in water or sand and causes it to overflow. 'He burns' means he brings firewood and burns it. 'He makes unfit for use' means he makes it unfit to be eaten or unfit to be drunk; he drops in faeces or urine or poison or leftovers or a corpse - there is an offence of wrong-doing: because there is no dislodging from its position, it is a wrong-doing; this is the domain of the Buddha. Although it is a wrong-doing, when restitution is demanded, there is liability for compensation for the goods." Therein, the first pair does not accord. For that has the same characteristic as making the pot fragile and straightening the channel. But the latter pair can be done even without dislodging from its position. Therefore, here they state the judgement thus: "In the Commentary, it seems that the statement 'a wrong-doing because there is no dislodging from its position' was said with reference to the latter pair. For even without dislodging from its position, one might burn it with thieving intention or with the desire to destroy, or might make it unfit for use. But in the case of the first pair, for one who breaks or throws away in the manner stated, there is dislodging from its position; therefore, for one who does so with the desire to destroy, there is liability for compensation for the goods; with thieving intention, there is an offence entailing defeat." If one objects that this is improper because "wrong-doing" is stated in the canonical text? No; because the meaning should be understood differently. For in the canonical text, regarding the case of thieving intention, some say thus: "'He breaks' means he breaks it up with water; 'he throws away' means he vomits there or drops urine there."

But here the essence is this - Like the grass-burner in the Vinīta case, one who wishes to dislodge it from its position merely breaks it, but because of the breaking, oil and so forth come out; or whatever therein is solid, that remains as one mass. And without wishing to throw it away, one merely pours water, sand, and so forth into it, but because of the pouring in, the oil is displaced. Therefore, by way of common usage, it is said "he breaks or throws away." Thus the meaning of these terms should be understood. But in the case of one wishing to destroy, it is fitting in the other way as well. For when explained thus, the canonical text and the commentary are spoken in agreement with what precedes and what follows. And even with this much, one should not be satisfied, but should attend upon teachers and ascertain the decision.

The discussion on what is on the ground is concluded.

Discussion on What is on Dry Land

95. Regarding "situated on land, placed on land": whether placed on the ground surface, or on rock surfaces, mountain surfaces, and so forth, wherever, whether covered or uncovered, it should be understood as "situated on land." If that is heaped up, it should be adjudicated by the determination concerning placing inside a pot, putting into a vessel, and cutting off a handful. If it is bound together, such as resin, gum, and so forth, it should be adjudicated by the determination concerning ripe honey and molasses. If it is heavy, bound as a load, such as a lump of metal, a ball of raw sugar, a pot of oil or honey, and so forth, it should be adjudicated by the determination concerning dislodging from its position in a pot. And for what is bound by a chain, the breaking of position should be observed. However, when something spread out and placed, such as a cloak, a rug, a cloth, and so forth, is taken hold of straight and dragged, when the far end passes beyond the area touched by the near end, it is an offence entailing defeat. Thus it should be observed in all directions. If one rolls it up and lifts it, when one causes even a hair-tip's measure to go into the air, it is an offence entailing defeat. The remainder is just by the method already stated.

The discussion on what is on dry land is concluded.

Discussion on What is in the Air

96. Regarding a peacock situated in space, the delimitation of its position should be understood by six aspects - in front by the tip of its beak, behind by the end of its tail-fan, on both sides by the edges of its wings, below by the tips of its toe-nails, and above by the tip of its crest. A monk, thinking "I shall seize an owned peacock situated in space," stands in front or extends his hand; the peacock, while still in space, moves its wings, catches the wind, interrupts its movement, and remains stationary. For that monk, there is an offence of wrong-doing. Without causing it to shake, he touches it with his hand - it is just an offence of wrong-doing. Without dislodging it from its position, he causes it to shake - a grave offence. However, having seized it with his hand or without seizing it, he makes the end of the tail-fan pass beyond the space touched by the tip of the beak, or makes the tip of the beak pass beyond the space touched by the end of the tail-fan - an offence entailing defeat. Likewise, he makes the edge of the right wing pass beyond the space touched by the edge of the left wing, or makes the edge of the left wing pass beyond the space touched by the edge of the right wing - an offence entailing defeat. Likewise, he makes the tip of the crest pass beyond the space touched by the tips of the toe-nails, or makes the tips of the toe-nails pass beyond the space touched by the tip of the crest - an offence entailing defeat.

When a peacock going through space alights on whichever limb such as the head, that is its position. Therefore, even moving it here and there when it has alighted on the hand is merely causing it to shake; but if he seizes it with the other hand and dislodges it from its position - an offence entailing defeat. He brings the other hand near, and the peacock of its own accord flies up and alights there - there is no offence. Knowing that it has alighted on a limb, with thieving intention he takes one step - a grave offence. At the second step - an offence entailing defeat.

A peacock standing on the ground obtains three positions by virtue of its two feet and its tail-fan. For one lifting it up, as long as even one position still touches the ground - a grave offence. As soon as it is freed from the ground even by the amount of a hair-tip - an offence entailing defeat. He lifts up one standing in a cage together with the cage - an offence entailing defeat. But if it is not worth a pāda, everywhere the determination should be made according to value. Leading a peacock roaming within the premises outside the premises on foot with thieving intention, he passes beyond the boundary of the door - an offence entailing defeat. For just as an enclosure is the position of a tethered sacrificial animal standing in an enclosure, so the premises within is its position. But for one who, having seized it with the hand, makes it go into space even within the premises - it is indeed an offence entailing defeat. Even for one roaming within the village, for one who makes it pass beyond the village boundary - an offence entailing defeat. But if it has gone out of its own accord and is roaming in the vicinity of the village or the vicinity of the premises, one with thieving intention frightens it with a stick or a clod and turns it towards the forest; the peacock flies up and alights within the village or within the premises or on a rooftop - it is protected. But if it flies up towards the forest or goes, in the absence of the plan "I shall drive it into the forest and seize it," as soon as it has flown up even by the amount of a hair-tip from the ground, or at the second step - an offence entailing defeat. Why? Because for one that has left the village, the very place where it stands is its position. The same determination applies also for francolins and so forth.

"Or a cloth" - a cloth tied in a bundle, lifted up by the force of the wind, going through space as if spread out and placed on the surface of the ground, coming towards him - he seizes it with his hand at one end; without disturbing its position here and there, in interrupting its movement - an offence of wrong-doing. Without dislodging it from its position, he shakes it; in causing it to shake - a grave offence. He dislodges it from its position - an offence entailing defeat. And the delimitation of its position should be understood by six aspects just as for the peacock.

However, an unbound cloth, as soon as it is grasped at one end, falls by the other end and rests on the ground; it has two positions - the hand and the ground. He moves it, just as grasped, first from the place where it was grasped, there is a grave offence. Afterwards he lifts it from the ground with the other hand or with the foot, there is an offence entailing defeat. Or first he lifts it from the ground, there is a grave offence. Afterwards he dislodges it from the place where it was grasped, there is an offence entailing defeat. Or without releasing his grip, he bends his hand straight down, brings it to the ground, and lifts it up with that same hand, there is an offence entailing defeat. The same determination applies to a turban as well.

"Unwrought gold or gold being cut" means an ornament such as a necklace of people who are adorning themselves, or a piece of gold of goldsmiths who are cutting a gold rod, being cut, falls. If a monk, with thieving intention, grasps it with his hand as it comes through the air, the grasping itself is the position. He moves his hand away from the place where it was grasped, there is an offence entailing defeat. He lifts up with his hand what has fallen on his robe, there is an offence entailing defeat. Without lifting it up he simply walks away, at the second step there is an offence entailing defeat. The same method applies when it has fallen into the bowl. He grasps with his hand what has settled on his head, or face, or foot, there is an offence entailing defeat. Without grasping it he simply walks away, at the second step there is an offence entailing defeat. Wherever it falls, the place where it has fallen is its position, not the whole of one's limbs and minor limbs, nor the bowl or robe.

The discussion on what is in the sky is concluded.

Discussion on What is in Mid-Air

97. Regarding goods situated in the sky, whether goods placed on beds, chairs and so forth are touchable or untouchable, for one who touches them with thieving intention, there is an offence of wrong-doing. However, here regarding goods placed on beds and chairs, the determination should be understood in the manner stated for goods situated on the ground. But this is the distinction - if a cloth tied at the edges is spread over a bed or a chair and its middle does not touch the surface of the bed but touches only the legs of the bed, the position should be understood by reference to those legs. For merely by passing beyond the area touched above the legs, there is an offence entailing defeat in that case. But for one carrying it away together with the bed or chair, the position should be understood by reference to the place where the legs of the bed or chair are established.

"Or on a bamboo pole for robes" means on a bamboo pole or a wooden stick that has been tied and set up for the purpose of placing robes. Therein, for a robe that has been folded and placed with the far end and the near side forming a bend, the position is only the area touched by the place where it rests, not the entire robe-pole. Therefore, for one who, with thieving intention, grasps it at the bend and pulls it, causing the area where it rests on the pole on the far side and the area where the robe touches the pole on the near side to be passed beyond, there is an offence entailing defeat by pulling merely one or two finger-breadths. The same method applies also for one who grasps it at the end and pulls. But for one who, right there on the robe-pole, slides it to the left or to the right, when the left end passes beyond the position of the right end, or the right end passes beyond the position of the left end, there is an offence entailing defeat by sliding merely ten or twelve finger-breadths. For one lifting it upwards, there is an offence entailing defeat by lifting even a hair-tip's measure. For one who loosens a robe that has been tied with a cord and placed, whether touching the robe-pole or not touching it, there is a grave offence; when it is loosened, there is an offence entailing defeat. For as soon as it is loosened, it is reckoned as "dislodged from its position." For one unwinding what has been wound around the pole and placed there, there is a grave offence; as soon as it is unwound, there is an offence entailing defeat. When it has been placed by making a loop, if one cuts the loop, or loosens it, or releases one end of the pole and removes it, there is a grave offence. As soon as it is cut, as soon as it is loosened, or as soon as it is removed, there is an offence entailing defeat. Without doing any of that, if one slides it here and there on the robe-pole, it is still protected for the time being. For in the case of a loop, the entire robe-pole is the position. Why? Because of the nature of being able to slide about therein. But when one grasps it with the hand and makes it gone into the sky, there is an offence entailing defeat. For one that has been spread out and placed, the position is only the area touched by the place where it rests. Therein, when it has been folded and placed, the determination should be understood in the manner stated. But when it stands touching the ground at one end, there are two positions for it - by reference to the place where it rests on the robe-pole and on the ground. Therein, for a cloth not tied that rests on the ground at one end, the determination should be understood in the very manner stated. The same determination applies also to the robe-cord.

Now, regarding goods hung on a hook and placed there, such as a medicine pot or a medicine bag, if it is placed without touching the wall or the ground, for one who rubs against the hanging device and removes it, as soon as it has come out from the tip of the hook, there is an offence entailing defeat. If the hanging device is tied, for one who lifts it up by the base and makes it gone into the sky, even though it has not come out from the tip of the hook, there is an offence entailing defeat. If it rests against the wall, and one first removes it from the tip of the hook, there is a grave offence. Afterwards, when one detaches it from the wall, there is an offence entailing defeat. The same method applies also for one who first detaches it from the wall and afterwards removes it from the hook. But if, being unable to remove the heavy goods, one oneself makes it rest against the wall and removes it from the hook, even without detaching it from the wall again, as soon as it is removed from the hook, there is an offence entailing defeat. For a position made by oneself is not a position. But for one that stands touching the ground, there are just two positions. Therein, the determination is as already stated. But whatever has been hung by inserting it on a peg, for one who removes it from the peg, or for one who removes it from the hook together with the peg, there is an offence entailing defeat. And here the distinction of positions should be understood by reference to resting against the wall or the ground.

"Wall peg" means one that is made straight and hammered into a wall, or one that has grown there naturally; an ivory peg, however, is curved and only hammered in. Goods hung and placed on these should be adjudicated in the same manner as stated for hooks. However, when placed upon two or three standing in a row, if one grasps a spear or a javelin by the tip or by the base and pulls it, when it passes beyond the space touched by each one, there is an offence entailing defeat. For only the space touched by each is their position, not all the pegs or ivory pegs. Standing facing the wall and grasping it in the middle and pulling, when the far end passes beyond the space touched by the near end, there is an offence entailing defeat. The same method applies also to one pushing it from the far side. Grasping it with the hand and lifting it straight up, even making it go into the air by as much as a hair-tip, there is an offence entailing defeat. When placed leaning against a wall, one pulls it rubbing against the wall - for one who causes the base to pass beyond the space touched by the tip, or the tip to pass beyond the space touched by the base, there is an offence entailing defeat. Standing facing the wall and pulling, one causes the other end to pass beyond the space touched by one end, there is an offence entailing defeat. Lifting it straight up, one makes even a hair-tip amount go into the air, there is an offence entailing defeat.

"Or hung on a tree" means the adjudication should be understood in the manner stated for hooks etc., regarding items placed upon and hung on palmyra trees and the like. However, for one shaking a cluster of fruit grown there naturally, there is a grave offence. When the fruit in which the matter for defeat is fulfilled becomes freed from its bond, at the very moment of being freed, there is an offence entailing defeat. One cuts the cluster, there is an offence entailing defeat. Fruit placed by being set up amongst the leaves at the top obtains two positions - the position where it is placed and the position of the stalk; therein the adjudication should be understood in the manner stated. But one who, out of fear that "when cut it would make a sound while falling," himself places it up amongst the leaves at the top and then cuts it, at the very moment of cutting there is an offence entailing defeat. For a position made by oneself is not a position. By this method, the adjudication regarding the flowers and fruits of all trees should be understood.

"Even on a prop for bowls" - here, whether it be a tree-stand, or a ring-stand, or a stick-stand, whatever bowl-holder it may be, even a basket, it is reckoned as a prop for bowls. Therein, the position of a bowl placed there is only the space touched by the bowl. Therein, on a tree-stand, the delimitation of position occurs in five ways. Therein, grasping a bowl standing there by the rim and pulling it from any direction among the four directions, one causes the other end to pass beyond the space touched by one end, there is an offence entailing defeat. Lifting it upwards by even a hair-tip amount, there is an offence entailing defeat. The same method applies also to one carrying it together with the stand.

The discussion on what is in mid-air is concluded.

Discussion on What is in Water

98. Regarding "situated in water" - "placed in water" means that those who are frightened by fear of kings and so forth, having well concealed them in copper vessels and the like, which are things that are not destroyed by water, placed them in still water in ponds and so forth. Its position is only the place where it is established, not the entire water. "Or he goes, there is an offence of wrong-doing" means for one going on foot in shallow water, there is a wrong-doing at each step. For one making an effort with hands or feet in deep water, there is a wrong-doing at each effort, whether by strokes of the hands or strokes of the feet. The same method applies to diving and emerging for the purpose of seizing the pot. But if in the meantime, having seen a water snake or a fierce fish, he flees in fear, there is no offence. Regarding touching and so forth, the determination should be understood in the same manner as stated for a pot situated on the ground. But this is the distinction - there one digs the ground and pulls it out, here one pushes it into the mud. Thus the determination of position is by six modes.

Regarding water lilies and the like, whichever flower fulfils the basis, when that is merely cut, there is an offence entailing defeat. And here, for those of the water lily species, as long as the bark on even one side is not cut through, it still protects. But for those of the lotus species, when the stalk is cut, even if the thread inside is uncut, it does not protect. There are water lilies and the like that have been cut and placed by the owners; whichever fulfils the basis, when that is lifted, there is an offence entailing defeat. There are those tied in bunches; whichever bunch fulfils the basis, when that is lifted, there is an offence entailing defeat. There are those tied in loads; for one dislodging that load from its position by any one of the six modes, there is an offence entailing defeat in the manner stated for a pot situated on the ground. There are water lilies and the like with long stalks; having made a braid with the flowers or the stalks, they either place or tie them on the surface of the water, having spread grass on ropes. The determination of dislodging from position should be understood by the six modes: lengthwise by the tip of the flower and the end of the stalk, crosswise by the edges, below by the place where it is established, above by the surface of what stands on top.

Even one who, by stirring the water and raising a wave, dislodges a bunch of flowers placed on the surface of the water from its established position by even a hair's tip, commits an offence entailing defeat. But if he plans "I shall take it when it has gone there," it still protects; but when he lifts it at the place where it has gone, there is an offence entailing defeat. For a flower rising above the water, the entire water is its position; for one uprooting it and pulling it straight up, when the end of the stalk has passed beyond the water by even a hair's tip, there is an offence entailing defeat. Having grasped the flower and bent it aside, he pulls it out and uproots it - the water is not its position; at the mere moment of uprooting, there is an offence entailing defeat. Flowers tied in bunches are tied and placed at a water location, or on a tree, or on a bush. For one moving them here and there without releasing the binding, there is a grave offence; at the mere moment the binding is released, there is an offence entailing defeat. First releasing the binding and afterwards carrying it away - here the determination of position is by the six modes. Both of these are stated in the Mahāpaccarī and other texts. For one wishing to take flowers together with the lotus plant, the determination of position should be understood both upwards and crosswise, by way of the water touched by the flower stalks and the leaf stalks. But for one pulling the flowers or leaves towards oneself without uprooting that lotus plant, there is a grave offence. At the mere moment of uprooting, there is an offence entailing defeat.

Even without dislodging the flower and leaf stalks from their position, for one first uprooting the lotus plant, there is a grave offence. Afterwards, when the flower and leaf stalks are dislodged from their position, there is an offence entailing defeat. But one who takes a flower from an uprooted lotus plant should be made to pay after the goods have been assessed. The same method applies also to flowers placed outside, whether heaped, tied in bunches, or tied in loads. For one uprooting a lotus root or a fibrous root by which the basis is fulfilled, there is an offence entailing defeat. And here the position should be determined by way of the area touched by the mud. For one uprooting them, as long as even a fine root remains uncut, it still protects. A leaf or a flower that has grown on a lotus root joint also protects - this is stated in the Great Commentary itself. But on a lotus root knot there is a thorn, like the facial pimples of those who have reached youth; this, because of its lack of length, does not protect. The remainder is in the same manner as stated regarding water lilies and the like.

For fish and tortoises that have owners, the entire water in reservoirs and so forth is their position. Therefore, one who catches an owned fish at a tending place with a hook, a net, a trap, or by hand - when the fish by which the matter is fulfilled is lifted even by a hair's tip from the water, there is an offence entailing defeat. If a fish being caught runs here and there, or leaps into the air, or falls on the bank, even taking it while situated in the air or fallen on the bank is still an offence entailing defeat. The same method applies also to a tortoise that has gone outside for foraging and is caught. However, for one situated in water, releasing it from the water is an offence entailing defeat.

In various districts, depending on the sluice gate of a great lake that is common to all, they dig a water channel resembling a small river that is also common to all. From that, having drawn off small canals, at the end of the canals they dig pits for their own respective use. When they have need of water, they clear the pits, the small canals, and the water channel, and open the sluice gate. Then fish come out together with the water and gradually reach the pits and dwell there. There, they do not prevent those catching fish in the lake and in the water channels. However, in their own respective small canals and water pits, they do not allow others to catch the fish that have entered, they prevent them; therein, one who catches fish in the lake, the sluice gate, or the water channel should not be penalised for theft. However, one who catches fish that have entered the small canals or the pits should be penalised according to the value of what was taken. If a fish being caught leaps into the air or falls on the bank, for one who takes it situated in the air or on the bank, freed from the water, there is no theft. Why? Because the owners are owners only of what remains in their own area of possession. For such is the agreement there. The same method applies also to tortoises.

If, however, a fish being caught climbs from the pit into the small canal, even catching it there is still theft. But for one who catches it having climbed from the small canal into the water channel, and from there into the lake, there is no theft. One who lures fish from the pit with rice grains, causes them to ascend into the canal, and catches them - that is indeed theft. But for one who lures them from there and causes them to ascend into the water channel and catches them, there is no theft. Some, however, having brought fish from some common place and thrown them into water pits in the rear part of their property, rear them and kill two or three daily for the purpose of extra provisions. For one who takes such a fish situated anywhere - in water, in the air, or on the bank - it is indeed theft. The same method applies also to tortoises.

In the dry season, however, when the flow of a river is cut off, water remains in some low-lying place; there people throw in intoxicating fruits and such substances for the destruction of fish and go away; the fish, eating those, die and float belly-up in the water. One who goes there and takes them thinking "I shall take these fish before the owners come" should be penalised according to their value. For one who takes them with the perception of discarded property, there is no theft; but if he has them brought, the goods are to be given back. The people who threw in the fish poison, having brought vessels, filled them, and gone away - as long as they have the intention "we shall come again," those fish are still owned. But when they depart without attachment thinking "that is enough for us," from that point onwards, for one who takes them with thieving intention, there is an offence of wrong-doing. For one with the perception of discarded property, there is no offence. And just as with fish and tortoises, so should the determination be understood for all aquatic species.

The discussion on what is in water is concluded.

Discussion on What is on a Boat

99. Regarding goods situated on a boat - First, showing the boat, he said: "A boat means that by which one crosses." Therefore, here even a dye-trough or a bundle of bamboo should be understood as a "boat." However, in the designation of a boundary, a permanent boat made by hollowing out the inside or by fastening with planks, at the very minimum limit, is suitable only if it has a capacity of three cartloads. But here, even one with a capacity of a single cartload is called a "boat." "Placed on a boat" means anything whether attached to a living being or not attached to a living being; the characteristic of its stealing should be understood in the same manner as stated for goods situated on land. And regarding "I will steal the boat" and so forth, seeking a companion, going, touching, and causing to shake are in the same manner as stated. Regarding "he releases the mooring," here, for a boat that does not move from its position merely when the mooring is released, as long as the mooring has not been released, there is an offence of wrong-doing. But when it is released, there is either a grave offence or an offence entailing defeat; that will become clear later. The remainder is according to the method already stated. This is the explanation of the canonical text.

Now here is the determination beyond the canonical text - For a boat moored and placed in a swift current, the mooring alone is its one position; when that is merely released, there is an offence entailing defeat. The reasoning therein has been stated previously. But for a lost boat, whatever area of water it has spread over and remains in, that is its position. Therefore, for one raising it upwards, or sinking it downwards, or moving it past the contacted area in the four directions, at the mere moment of passing beyond, there is an offence entailing defeat. For one dragging a boat that is unmoored and standing by its own nature in still water, forwards or backwards or to the left or right side, at the mere moment when one end passes beyond the contacted area while the other end remains established in the water, there is an offence entailing defeat. When lifted upwards from the water even as little as a hair-tip, at the mere moment when the bottom of the boat passes beyond the rim of the contacted area below, there is an offence entailing defeat. For a boat moored to the bank and placed in still water, there are two positions: the mooring and the place where it stands. If one first releases it from the mooring, there is a grave offence. Afterwards, if one dislodges it from its position by any one of the six modes, there is an offence entailing defeat. If one first dislodges it from its position and afterwards releases the mooring, the same method applies. For a boat hauled up on dry land and placed upright, the contacted area alone is its position. The delimitation of its position should be understood by the five modes.

But for a boat placed upside down, the contacted area of the rim alone is its position; having known the delimitation of its position also by the five modes, it should be understood that at the mere moment of passing beyond the contacted area from any direction and upwards even as little as a hair-tip, there is an offence entailing defeat. But for a boat hauled up on dry land and placed upon two wooden supports, the contacted area of the wooden supports alone is its position; therefore, the determination there should be understood in the manner stated for a cloth spread and tied on the tops of bed-legs and for a water-pot placed on wall-pegs.

But in the case of a boat fastened with a rope, without unfastening the rope measuring sixty or seventy fathoms, having dragged it away -

For a boat placed on dry land together with a rope attached to the ground, the position is not merely the contacted area alone. Rather, it should be understood that the position is, in length, from the end of the rope up to the far end of the area where the boat rests on the ground, and across, the measure of the extent where both the boat and the rope rest on the ground. For one dragging it lengthwise or across, at the mere moment when one end passes beyond the contacted area while the other end remains established on the ground, or when lifted upwards even as little as a hair-tip together with the rope from the ground, there is an offence entailing defeat. But one who, having boarded a boat standing at a landing, with thieving intention propels it with a rudder or an oar, there is an offence entailing defeat. But if, having extended an umbrella or having stepped on a robe with the feet and lifted it up with the hands making it like a sail to catch the wind, and a strong wind comes and carries the boat away, it is carried away by the wind alone; there is no stealing on the part of the person. There is an effort, but that effort is not an effort to dislodge from its position. But if one interrupts the natural course of that boat going thus and takes it to another direction, there is an offence entailing defeat. If it arrives of its own accord at some village landing and one sells it without dislodging it from its position and goes away, there is no stealing at all. But there is liability for the goods.

The discussion on boats is concluded.

Discussion on What is on a Vehicle

100. Regarding what is situated on a vehicle - First showing the vehicle, he said beginning with "a vehicle means a litter." Therein, a litter is one made by covering it with a canopy-like structure above, covered with cloth, or fully enclosed on all sides. A palanquin is one made in the manner of a garuḷa's wings, with rafters made of gold, silver, and such materials placed on both sides. A chariot and a cart are well known. Among these, wherever goods - whether sentient or non-sentient - placed in a heap or otherwise, are dislodged from their position with thieving intention, the offence entailing defeat should be understood in the same manner as stated for what is situated on a boat and what is situated on land.

But this is the distinction - When one takes goods situated on a vehicle, such as rice and the like, with a basket, even though the basket has not been lifted up, if by removing the basket the unified state of the rice and the like is disrupted, it is an offence entailing defeat. This method applies also to what is situated on land and so forth. In the case beginning with "with the intention to steal a vehicle," seeking a companion and so forth are in the same manner as stated. Regarding "he dislodges it from its position," here, for a vehicle yoked with a pair, there are ten positions: eight feet of the two oxen and two wheels. For one with thieving intention who sits on the yoke and drives it, when the oxen lift their feet, it is a grave offence. But when the wheels have passed beyond the spot where they rested on the ground by even a hair's tip, it is an offence entailing defeat. But if the oxen, knowing "this is not our master," abandon the yoke and stand pulling back or struggle, it is still guarded for the time being. When one straightens the oxen again, places them at the yoke, fastens them firmly, strikes them with a goad and drives them, when their feet are lifted, it is a grave offence in the same manner as stated. When the wheels pass beyond, it is an offence entailing defeat.

Even if on a muddy road one wheel is stuck in the mud, and the oxen turning cause the second wheel to roll, because one wheel remains stationary, there is no taking for the time being. But when one straightens the oxen again and drives them, when the stationary wheel passes beyond the spot it touched by even a hair's tip, it is an offence entailing defeat. For one yoked with four, there are eighteen positions; for one yoked with eight, thirty-four - by this method, the distinction of positions for a yoked vehicle should be understood.

But for one that is unyoked, propped up with one support at the front and two supports at the back, there are five positions by way of the three supports and the wheels. If the support at the front has been fashioned with a split at the lower part, there are six positions. But for one propped up only at the front without being propped up at the back, there are three or four positions by way of the supports. For one placed upon a plank or a piece of timber by means of the yoke-pole, there are three positions. Likewise for one placed on the ground. For one who dislodges it from its position by pulling the yoke-pole or by lifting it, either forwards or backwards, it is a grave offence. When the wheels have passed beyond the spot where they rested by even a hair's tip, it is an offence entailing defeat. For one placed upon pieces of timber by the two axle-heads with the wheels removed, there are two positions. When one pulling or lifting it causes it to pass beyond the spot it touched, it is an offence entailing defeat. For one placed on the ground, there are five positions by way of the yoke-pole and the four axle-projections resting on the ground. When one grasps the yoke-pole and pulls, when the rear ends of the axle-projections pass beyond the front ends, it is an offence entailing defeat. When one grasps the axle-projections and pulls, when the front ends of the axle-projections pass beyond the rear ends, it is an offence entailing defeat. When one grasps the side and pulls, it is an offence entailing defeat by the axle-projections passing laterally beyond the spot where they rested. When one grasps the middle and lifts, when it is released from the ground by even a hair's tip, it is an offence entailing defeat. Now, if there are no axle-projection pegs, and the axle-heads have been inserted by making the shaft level and piercing through the middle, the lower surface of that rests touching the ground all around. Therein, the offence entailing defeat should be understood by way of passing beyond the spot touched in the four directions and upwards. For a wheel placed on the ground on its hub, there is just one position, and its delimitation is in five ways. For one standing touching the ground by the side of the rim and the hub, there are two positions. When one steps on the raised part of the rim with the foot, making it touch the ground, and then grasps the spokes or the rim and lifts it, the position created by oneself does not count as a position; therefore, even though that position remains, when the remaining position is passed beyond by even the slightest amount, it is an offence entailing defeat.

A wheel placed leaning against a wall also has two positions. Therein, for one first dislodging it from the wall, there is a grave offence. Afterwards, when it is lifted from the ground by even a hair's breadth, there is an offence entailing defeat. However, for one first dislodging it from the ground, if the position established against the wall is not disturbed, the same method applies. Then, for one grasping the spokes and pulling downwards, when the upper end of the area that was touching the wall passes beyond the lower end, there is an offence entailing defeat. When a vehicle has set out on the road and the owner of the vehicle has dismounted for some task and gone off the road, then another monk coming from the opposite direction, seeing it unguarded, mounts it thinking "I shall steal the vehicle" - if without any effort on his part the oxen take off and depart, there is no theft. The remainder is similar to what was stated regarding a boat.

The discussion on vehicles is concluded.

Discussion on What is a Burden

101. Hereafter, the burden itself is the subject of the burden section. It is shown in four ways by means of head-burden and so forth. Therein, for the purpose of avoiding confusion regarding head-burdens and so forth, the delimitation of the head and so forth should be understood. Therein, as for the head first: at the front of the neck is the throat-hollow; at the back of the neck, at the ends of the hair, there is a whorl; on both sides of the neck itself, some hairs grow downwards, which are called sideburns; and below these - this is the lower boundary; above that is the head. A burden resting within this area is called a head-burden.

On both sides, from the sideburns downwards, from the elbows upwards, from the whorl at the back of the neck and from the throat-hollow downwards, and from the whorl at the middle of the back and from the heart-hollow at the middle of the chest boundary upwards - this is the shoulder. A burden resting within this area is called a shoulder-burden.

From the whorl at the middle of the back and from the heart-hollow downwards as far as the tips of the toenails - this is the hip delimitation. A burden resting within this area all around the body is called a hip-burden.

From the elbows downwards as far as the tips of the fingernails - this is the hanging-burden delimitation. A burden resting within this area is called a hanging burden.

Now, regarding "with thieving intention he touches a burden on the head" and so forth, this is the unprecedented determination: If a monk, not commanded by the owners saying "take this and go there," himself says "give me such-and-such, I will carry your goods," and while going with their goods on his head, touches those goods with thieving intention, it is an offence of wrong-doing. While not exceeding the aforesaid head-boundary, rubbing here and there, whether he moves it forward or moves it backward, it is a grave offence. As soon as he lowers it to the shoulder, even though the owners have the thought "let him carry it," because he was not commanded by them, it is an offence entailing defeat. Even without lowering it to the shoulder, for one who dislodges it from the head even by a hair-tip, it is an offence entailing defeat. In the case of a double burden, however, one burden rests on the head and one on the back; therein, the determination should be understood by way of the two positions. But this teaching has been undertaken only by way of pure head-burdens and so forth. And the determination that has been stated regarding the head-burden applies equally to shoulder-burdens and so forth.

Regarding "a burden in the hand" - here, because it is held by the hand, a hanging load is called "a burden in the hand."

Whether it was first taken from the ground or with pure intention by the head and so forth, it is reckoned simply as "a burden in the hand." For one who, with thieving intention, seeing a suitable place to seize it, puts it down on the ground or on a cart and so forth, as soon as it is released from the hand, it is an offence entailing defeat. Regarding "with thieving intention he takes it from the ground," herein, for one who, having put down any of those burdens on the ground with pure intention for the purpose of breakfast and so forth, then lifts it up again with thieving intention even by a hair-tip, it is an offence entailing defeat.

The discussion on burdens is concluded.

Discussion on What is in a Monastery Garden

102. Regarding goods situated in a park - First, showing the park, he said: "A park means a flower park or a fruit park." Among these, a flower park is one where jasmine and such plants flower. A fruit park is one where mango fruits and such bear fruit. The determination regarding what is placed in a park in four positions follows the same method as stated for goods situated on the ground, etc.

However, regarding what has grown there, "root" means any root such as usīra grass, hirivera and so forth; for one who uproots it or takes what has been uprooted, when the root by which the value is fulfilled is taken, there is an offence entailing defeat. A tuber is also included under root. And here, for one who is uprooting, even when a small amount is cut off, it is only a grave offence. The determination therein should be understood in the same manner as stated regarding lotus roots. "Bark" means any tree bark that is suitable for use as medicine or as dye; for one who strips it off or takes what has been stripped off, there is an offence entailing defeat in the same manner as stated regarding roots. "Flower" means any flower such as jasmine, mallika and so forth; for one who picks it or takes what has been picked, there is an offence entailing defeat in the same manner as stated regarding water lilies and lotuses. For even regarding flowers, an uncut stalk or attachment point protects. However, in the interior of the stalk of some, there is a needle-like part; that does not protect. "Fruit" means any such as mango fruit, palm fruit and so forth; the determination for one who takes it from a tree is stated in the discussion of what is attached to a tree. What has been removed and placed is included under goods situated on the ground, etc.

"He lays claim to a park" means he falsely says of what belongs to another "This belongs to me" and lays claim to it; because it is an attempt at taking what is not given, it is an offence of wrong-doing. "He arouses doubt in the owner" means through skill in legal proceedings or through being supported by a powerful person and so forth, he generates uncertainty in the park owner. How? For seeing him thus engaged in legal proceedings, the owner thinks: "Will I be able to keep this park as my own, or will I not be able to?" Thus the doubt arising in him has been aroused by that person; therefore he commits a grave offence.

"He gives up the responsibility" means when the owner gives up the responsibility thinking "This person is obstinate and harsh; he might even create an obstacle to my life and holy life; enough now for me with this park," the claimant commits an offence entailing defeat. If he himself has also given up the responsibility, but even when the owner has given up the responsibility, the claimant, without giving up the responsibility, is zealous about giving it away thinking "Having thoroughly oppressed this person and having shown the exercise of my authority and having placed him in a state of obedient servitude, I shall give it," it still protects. Furthermore, if the claimant gives up the responsibility thinking "Having seized it, I shall not now give it to him," but the owner does not give up the responsibility, seeks allies, bides his time, thinking "Let me first obtain a sympathetic assembly, I shall deal with it afterwards," and is still zealous about recovering it, it still protects. But when he too thinks "I shall not give it," and the owner too thinks "I shall not obtain it" - thus when both give up the responsibility, then there is an offence entailing defeat for the claimant. But if, having laid claim and conducting the legal proceedings, while the proceedings are unfinished and the owner has not given up the responsibility, knowing himself to be a non-owner, he takes from there some flower or fruit, he should be made to pay the value of the goods.

"Pursuing the case" means conducting legal proceedings either in the community of monks or in the royal court. "He defeats the owner" means he gives a bribe to the judges and brings in false witnesses and defeats the park owner - this is the meaning. "There is an offence entailing defeat" means not only for him alone, but for all those who deliberately act to accomplish his purpose - the fraudulent judges and the false witnesses too - there is an offence entailing defeat. And here, the defeat of the owner should be understood only by way of his giving up the responsibility. For one who has not given up the responsibility is indeed undefeated. "Pursuing the case, he is defeated" means even if, because the proceedings are conducted according to the Dhamma, the Vinaya and the Teacher's instruction, he himself reaches defeat; even so, because of causing distress to the owners through false speech, he commits a grave offence.

The discussion on parks is concluded.

Discussion on What is in a Dwelling

103. Regarding goods situated in a monastery - placed in four positions is according to the method already stated. And here, regarding a claim, when one lays claim to a monastery, whether large or small, or a precinct, or a dwelling given to monks dedicated to the Saṅgha of the four directions, the claim does not succeed. One is also unable to seize it by forceful appropriation. Why? Because there is no giving up of responsibility by all. For here, not all monks of the four directions give up responsibility. However, when one lays claim to and takes the property of a group of the various kinds such as the long-reciter group, or of a single individual, one is able to make them give up responsibility. Therefore, in that case, the adjudication should be understood according to the method stated regarding a monastery.

The discussion on monasteries is concluded.

Discussion on Fields

104. Regarding goods situated in a field - First, showing what a field is, he said: "A field means where early crops or late crops are produced." Therein, early crops means the seven grains such as rice and so forth; late crops means mung beans, black beans and so forth; sugarcane fields and the like are also included here. Here too, the method stated regarding goods placed in four positions is the same. However, regarding crops that have grown there, for one who takes them by grasping rice heads and the like, or by cutting them one by one with the hand alone, or by reaping with a sickle, or by uprooting many together - whichever seed, or head, or fistful, or fruit of mung beans and the like completes the requisite value, at the mere moment of releasing it from its bond, there is an offence entailing defeat. However, the uncut stalk, or bark, or skin, even a small amount, protects.

Even though the rice stalk is long, as long as the stem of the rice head does not emerge from within the stalk, it protects. When even a hair-tip's measure of the lower surface of the stem emerges from the stalk, he should be dealt with according to the value of the goods. However, for one who takes by reaping with a sickle, even though those in the fistful are cut below, if the heads are entangled, they still protect. But having disentangled them, if when lifting up even a hair-tip's measure the requisite value is completed, there is an offence entailing defeat. However, for one who takes what has been reaped and set aside by the owners, whether with chaff or without chaff, by whichever the requisite value is completed, when that is taken there is an offence entailing defeat. If he plans: "I shall thresh this and winnow it and take only the essence," it still protects. Even for one who dislodges it from its position during threshing and winnowing, there is no offence entailing defeat; afterwards, at the mere moment of placing it into a container, there is an offence entailing defeat. The method for laying claim here is the same as already stated.

Regarding the moving of stakes and so forth, land is priceless. Therefore, if by means of a single stake one makes one's own even a hair-tip's measure of a portion of land from here, whether the owners are watching or not watching, at the mere moment of moving that stake - whether having cut the name or without cutting it - there is an offence entailing defeat for him and for all who share the same intention with him. But if it is to be taken by means of two stakes, at the first stake there is a grave offence; at the second, an offence entailing defeat. If it is to be taken by means of three, at the first there is an offence of wrong-doing, at the second a grave offence, at the third an offence entailing defeat. Thus even with many, setting aside the last two, for the earlier ones there is an offence of wrong-doing; of the last two, for one there is a grave offence, for the other an offence entailing defeat - this should be understood. And that is by the owners' giving up of responsibility. Thus everywhere.

"Or a rope" means wishing to make known "this is my own," he stretches out a rope or lays down a measuring rod - an offence of wrong-doing. "I shall now make it my own by two efforts" - of those, at the first there is a grave offence, at the second an offence entailing defeat.

"Or a fence" means wishing to make another's field one's own by means of enclosure, he plants posts; at each effort there is an offence of wrong-doing. When one has not arrived, there is a grave offence; when that has arrived, there is an offence entailing defeat. If being unable with just that much, he is able to make it his own by means of branches alone as an enclosure, the same method applies to the laying of branches as well. Thus by whatever means one is able to make it one's own by enclosing, in each case for the earlier efforts there is an offence of wrong-doing. Of the last two, for one there is a grave offence, for the other an offence entailing defeat - this should be understood.

"Or the boundary" - here, one who wishes to make known "this is mine" regarding another's field, the boundary of one's own field -

He moves the field boundary so that it encroaches upon another's field, or by adding earth and clay and so forth he makes it extended, or he establishes one that was not previously made - for the preceding efforts, there is an offence of wrong-doing. Of the last two, by one there is a grave offence, by the other there is an offence entailing defeat.

The discussion on fields is concluded.

Discussion on Sites

105. Regarding what is situated on a site - First, showing the site, he said: "Site means a park site, a monastery site." Therein, without planting seeds or seedlings, merely by clearing the ground and enclosing it with any of the three walls or without enclosing it, a portion of land set aside for the purpose of flower gardens and the like is called a park site. By this same method, a portion of land set aside for the purpose of a single monastery, a compound, or a dwelling is called a monastery site. Even that which was formerly a park or a monastery but later fell into ruin and remains as mere ground, no longer serving the function of a park or monastery, is also included under the classification of park site and monastery site. The determination here, however, is similar to what was stated regarding what is situated on a field.

The discussion on building sites is concluded.

106. Regarding goods situated in a village, what should be said has already been said.

Discussion on Forests

107. Regarding "situated in the forest" - First showing what "forest" means, he said: "Whatever is owned by human beings, that is forest." Therein, since what is called "forest" includes both that which is owned by human beings and that which is not owned; but here what is intended is that which is owned and guarded, from which firewood, creepers and the like cannot be taken without payment. Therefore, having said "whatever is owned by human beings," the word "forest" is stated again. By this he shows this meaning: "The state of being owned is not the defining characteristic of a forest. But whatever is a forest by its own characteristic of being a forest and is also owned by human beings, that is 'forest' in this context." Therein, the determination is similar to what was stated regarding goods situated in a park and so forth.

Regarding things that have grown there, even when a single valuable tree is cut, there is an offence entailing defeat. With regard to "or creepers," here both cane and creepers are indeed creepers; therein, whichever cane or creeper is long and has gone through or wound around large trees and bushes, even if cut at the root it does not constitute theft, even if cut at the top; but when it is cut at both the top and the root, then it constitutes theft. But if it stands wound around, when wound around and standing, merely being released from the tree constitutes theft.

With regard to "or grass," whether it be grass or leaves, all is included by the term "grass"; one who takes it, whether cut by others or cut by oneself for the purpose of roofing houses and the like, should be made to pay the value of the goods. And not only grass and leaves, but also any bark and the like, wherever the owners have an interest, one who takes it should be made to pay the value of the goods. A tree that has been hewn and left, even if a long time has passed, should not be taken. But one that has been cut at both the top and the root, whose branches have become rotten and whose bark has fallen off, may be taken thinking "this has been abandoned by the owners." Even in the case of one that has been cut with a mark, when the mark has been covered over by bark, then it is permissible to take it. When trees have been cut for the purpose of building houses and the like, and when those houses have been built and inhabited, and the remaining timber in the forest is decaying from rain and sun, even seeing such timber, it is permissible to take it thinking "these have been abandoned." Why? Because the forest owners have no authority over them. Those who cut them after giving the due payment to the forest owners are the ones with authority, and they have abandoned them, having become indifferent towards them.

A monk who first gives the due payment to the forest wardens and then enters the forest and has trees taken as he wishes, it is permissible for him to go by whatever path he wishes even without going to their guard station. Also, if one enters without giving, thinking "I shall give when leaving," and has trees taken, and when leaving gives them what is due and goes, it is indeed permissible. Also, if one goes having made a mental note, when told "give," one says "I shall give"; when told "give," one must indeed give. If someone gives his own wealth and says "allow the monk to pass," it is fully permissible, and it is permissible to go. But if some person of authority, without giving wealth, forbids them saying "do not take a share from monks," and the forest wardens say "if we do not take a share from monks and ascetics, from where shall we obtain it? Please give, venerable sir," then one must indeed give.

But one who comes when the forest wardens are sleeping, or absorbed in play, or have gone somewhere, and having called out "where are the forest wardens?" and not seeing them, goes on - the value of the goods is due. Even one who, having reached the guard station, passes by through forgetfulness while attending to meditation subjects and the like or being otherwise occupied - the value of the goods is still due. Even for one who, having reached that place, is confronted by a thief, an elephant, a wild beast, or a great storm, and who hastily passes that place out of desire to escape from that danger - he is protected for the time being, but the value of the goods is due. This guard station in the forest is indeed more serious than evading customs duty. For one who avoids the customs boundary without entering it, going around from a distance, incurs only an offence of wrong-doing. But one who avoids this with thieving intention, even if going through the air, incurs an offence entailing defeat. Therefore, one should be heedful in this matter.

The discussion on forests is concluded.

Discussion on Water

108. Regarding water, however - "In a vessel" means stored and kept in vessels such as water-pots during times when water is scarce; the judgement should be understood according to the method stated for ghee and oil, for one who takes it by tipping over or making a hole in whatever vessel it has been placed in, and also for one who takes it by inserting one's own vessel into ponds and lakes there.

Regarding the breaking of a boundary, however, there is a wrong-doing for one who breaks the boundary even together with plants that have grown there, because it constitutes an effort of taking what is not given. And that occurs with each blow. One who stands inside and cuts facing outward should be dealt with according to the outer edge. One who stands outside and cuts facing inward should be dealt with according to the inner edge. One who cuts both inside and outside and then, standing in the middle, cuts that, should be dealt with according to the middle. Having weakened the boundary, he calls cows, or has village boys call them; they come and break the boundary with their hooves - it is broken by that very means. Having weakened the boundary, he drives cows into the water, or has village boys drive them in; the waves raised by them break the boundary and go forth. Or he says to village boys "Play in the water," or he frightens those who are playing; the waves raised by them also break the boundary and go forth. He cuts a tree growing in the water, or has another cut it; by the waves raised by that falling tree also, the boundary is broken and they go forth - it is broken by that very means. Having weakened the boundary, for the purpose of protecting the lake, he blocks the overflow water from the lake or the drainage channel, or he builds an embankment so that water going elsewhere enters here, or he straightens a canal, or he breaches his own lake situated in the upper region of that; the overflowing water carries away the boundary - it is broken by that very means. In all cases, he should be dealt with according to the theft proportionate to the value of the water that has gone out.

The same method applies also for one who removes water by opening the drainage pipe. But if, after the boundary has been weakened by him, cows coming of their own accord or driven by village boys who were not commanded break the boundary with their hooves, or waves are raised by cows entering the water of their own accord or driven by village boys who were not commanded, or village boys themselves enter and raise waves while playing, or a tree in the water being cut by another falls and raises waves, and the raised waves break the boundary; or even if, having weakened the boundary, he blocks the water-outlet or the water-drainage channel of a dry lake, or builds an embankment on a path where water goes elsewhere, or straightens a dry canal, and afterwards when it rains, water comes and breaks the boundary - in all cases, there is liability for compensation.

But whoever, in the hot season, cuts the boundary of a dry reservoir down to the bottom, and afterwards when it rains, the water that comes flows away - there is liability for compensation. Whatever crop arises on account of that, one who does not give even a quarter's worth from it becomes a non-ascetic through abandonment of duty towards the owners.

But whatever lake is common to all; all people are masters of the water in the lake. Below it, however, they cultivate crops; for the purpose of protecting the crops, a main canal goes out from the lake and runs through the middle of the fields, and that too is common to all during the time of constant flow. But from that, having drawn out minor canals, they channel water into their own respective paddy fields. They do not allow others to take that. In the hot season itself, when the water has become scarce, they give water by turns; whoever does not obtain it when his water-turn arrives, his crops wither; therefore, another cannot take during others' turns. Therein, whatever monk, with thieving intention, channels water from others' minor canals or paddy fields into his own or another's canal or paddy field, or diverts it towards the forest, there is a theft for him.

Even one who thinks "my turn for water will come only after a long time, and this crop is withering," into others' paddy fields -

Blocking the entry path of water that is entering and channelling it into his own paddy field is indeed a theft. But if, when the water has not yet left the lake and has not yet reached others' canal-mouths, he builds embankments here and there along a dry canal so that the approaching water enters only his own paddy field without entering others' paddy fields. If built when the water has not yet left, it is well-built; if built when the water has left, there is liability for compensation. Even for one who goes to the lake and himself opens the drainage pipe and channels water into his own paddy field, there is no theft. Why? Because the field was made in dependence on the lake. But in the Kurundī and other texts, it is said "there is a theft." That does not accord with the criterion "the object, the time, and the place." Therefore, what is stated in the Great Commentary alone is proper.

The discussion on water is concluded.

Discussion on Tooth-cleaning Sticks

109. A tooth-stick container should be adjudicated according to the adjudication of monastery attendants. But this is the distinction - One who, being hired by the Saṅgha for wages, brings tooth-sticks daily or at fortnightly or monthly intervals - having brought and even cut them, as long as he has not made the community of monks accept them, they remain his own. Therefore, one who takes them with thieving intention should be dealt with according to the value of the goods. But what grows there is heavy property; one who takes that too, which is guarded and protected by the community of monks, should be dealt with according to the value of the goods. The same method applies also to what belongs to a group, an individual, or lay people, whether cut or uncut. Novices who bring tooth-sticks in turn for the community of monks from what grows in the monastery and garden grounds also bring them for their teachers and preceptors; as long as they have not cut them and made the Saṅgha accept them, all of it remains theirs. Therefore, one who takes that too with thieving intention should be dealt with according to the value of the goods. But when they have cut them and made the Saṅgha accept them and placed them in the tooth-stick shed, saying "Let the community of monks use them as they please"; from that point onwards there is no theft, but the proper practice should be known. For one who enters the midst of the Saṅgha daily should take only one tooth-stick each day. But one who does not enter daily, who stays in the meditation hall and is seen at the Dhamma hearing or at the Uposatha hall, should take four or five tooth-sticks after considering the appropriate amount, keep them at his dwelling place, and chew them. When those are used up, if there are still many in the tooth-stick shed, he may again bring and chew them. But if he brings them without considering the appropriate amount, and while those are not yet used up the shed becomes depleted, then some elders might say "Those who took them should bring them back," while others might say "Let them chew them, the novices will bring more again." Therefore, to avoid disputes, the appropriate amount should be considered. But there is no fault in taking them. Even one going on a journey should put one or two into a bag and go.

The discussion on tooth-sticks is concluded.

Discussion on Trees

110. "Lord of the forest" (vanappati) means the lord (pati) of the forest (vana); this is a designation for the chief tree of the forest. Here, however, every tree owned by human beings is intended, such as mango, breadfruit, jackfruit, and so forth. Where, moreover, pepper vines and the like are grown upon it, if when being cut it falls to the ground while still connected by even a single strip of bark, or fibre, or splinter, or sapwood, it is still protected.

But one which, even though cut, remains standing upright because it is held up by creepers or by branches of neighbouring trees, or which while falling does not reach the ground, there is no exemption in that case; it is simply a taking away. Even one which, cut with a saw, remains standing just as if uncut, the same principle applies in that case too.

But one who, having weakened a tree, afterwards shakes it and fells it, or has another shake it; or cuts down another tree near it and crushes it, or has another crush it; or drives monkeys away and places them upon it, or has another place them upon it; or places bats upon it, or has another place them upon it; they fell that tree - it is his taking away alone.

But if, when he has weakened the tree, another person, without being instructed, shakes it and makes it fall -

Or he crushes it with a tree, or monkeys or bats climb upon it of their own nature, or another places them without being instructed, or he himself clears the wind-path, and a strong wind comes and fells the tree; in all cases the goods must be returned. However, clearing the wind-path here corresponds to straightening a dry channel and the like when the wind has not yet arrived, not otherwise. Having pierced a tree, he strikes it with a blade, or sets fire to it, or drives in a frog-thorn or poison, by which it dies - in all cases the goods must indeed be returned.

The discussion on trees is concluded.

Discussion on Removable Property

111. Regarding movable property - "With thieving intention he touches goods being carried by another": having seen another person going along carrying goods by means of a head-load and so forth, thinking "I will take this," he goes quickly and touches it; to that extent there is a wrong-doing for him. "He causes it to shake": he pulls it back and forth; the owner does not let go; therefore there is a grave offence for him. "He dislodges it from its position": having pulled it, he frees it from the owner's hand; therefore there is an offence entailing defeat for him. But if the owner of the goods, having risen up and struck him, causes him to release that goods and takes it back, the monk is defeated by the first taking itself. For one who takes an ornament by cutting or removing it from the head, ear, neck, or hand, at the mere moment of freeing it from the head and so forth, there is an offence entailing defeat. But if, without removing a bangle or bracelet from the hand, while rubbing along the forearm he pushes it back and forth, or causes it to go into the air, it is still guarded. Like a bangle at the foot of a tree or on a robe-pole, it does not produce an offence entailing defeat. Why? Because it is on a sentient being. For as long as it has not been removed from the portion belonging to a sentient being, it remains right there. The same method applies to finger rings, ankle bracelets, waist chains, and ornamental bands.

But one who snatches the cloth worn by another, and the other out of shame does not suddenly let go, the thief pulls from one end, the other from the other end - it is still guarded. At the mere moment of release from the other's hand, there is an offence entailing defeat. And if, while he is pulling it, it tears and a portion comes into his hand, and that is worth a pāda, it is an offence entailing defeat itself. "Together with the goods-carrier": having thought "I will lead the goods together with the goods-carrier," he threatens the goods-carrier saying "Go from here!" The latter, frightened, facing the direction intended by the thief, moves one foot; for the thief there is a grave offence. at the second, an offence entailing defeat. "He causes it to fall": and further, the thief, seeing a weapon in the hand of the goods-carrier, becoming apprehensive, wishing to take it after causing it to fall, stepping aside and threatening, causes it to fall; at the mere moment of release from the other's hand, there is an offence entailing defeat.

"He causes it to fall, there is an offence of wrong-doing" and so forth, however, is stated by way of planning. For one who, having caused the goods to fall, plans "I will take whatever pleases me" and causes it to fall, for him there is a wrong-doing in the causing to fall and in the touching, a grave offence in the causing to shake. In dislodging from its position that which is worth a pāda, there is an offence entailing defeat. For one who afterwards has it restored to him, even if he relinquishes it, there is no state of recluseship whatsoever. Also one who, seeing the goods-carrier passing by, following him and saying "Stop, stop, put down the goods!" causes him to put it down - for him too, at the mere moment of release from the other's hand, there is an offence entailing defeat.

But one who says "Stop, stop!" but does not say "Put it down!" And the other, looking at him, thinking "If he catches me, he might even kill me," becoming anxious, places the goods in a thicket and departs thinking "I will return and take it again" - there is no offence entailing defeat on account of the causing to fall. But for one who comes back and takes it with thieving intention, at the lifting up there is an offence entailing defeat. But then it occurs to him thus: "By my very act of causing it to fall, this has been made my own property" - and he takes it from there with the perception that it is his own. In the taking, it is still guarded; but there is liability for the goods. When told "Give it back," for one who does not give, when the owners abandon their claim, there is an offence entailing defeat. "He discarded this and went away; this is now ownerless" - even for one who takes it with the perception of it being a rag, the same method applies. But if the owner, merely upon hearing "Stop, stop!" looking around and seeing him, thinking "This is no longer mine," abandoning his claim, discards it without attachment and flees - for one who takes that with thieving intention, at the lifting up there is a wrong-doing. If asked to bring it back, it should be given; for one who does not give, there is an offence entailing defeat. Why? Because it was discarded through his effort - so it is stated in the Great Commentary. But in the other texts there is no discussion at all. Even for one who takes it with the perception of it being one's own or with the perception of it being a rag, by the former method itself, this is the determination.

The discussion on removable goods is concluded.

Discussion on Deposits

112. Regarding the pledge - Even though it is deliberate lying when he says "I did not take it," it is a wrong-doing because it is an effort towards taking what is not given. "What are you saying? This is not befitting for me, nor for you" - even for one saying such things, it is merely a wrong-doing. "I placed it in his hands in private, no one else knows, 'will he give it to me or not?'" - the owner arouses doubt; for the monk, it is a grave offence. Having seen his harsh behaviour and so forth, the owner gives up the responsibility thinking "He will not give it to me." Therein, if this monk is zealous about giving, thinking "I shall trouble him and then give it," he is still safeguarded. Even if he is without zeal for giving, but the owner of the goods is zealous about recovering them, he is still safeguarded. But if he is without zeal for giving and the owner of the goods also gives up the responsibility thinking "He will not give it to me," thus by both giving up the responsibility, it is an offence entailing defeat for the monk. Even if he says with his mouth "I shall give it," but in his mind does not wish to give, even so, when the owner gives up the responsibility, it is an offence entailing defeat. Now, that pledge means goods placed in one's hands by others for safekeeping. There is no offence for one who carries them from an unguarded place, having removed them from their location, for the purpose of placing them in a guarded place. Even for one who removes them from their location with thieving intent, there is no taking away. Why? Because they were deposited in his own hands; however, there is liability for the goods. The same principle applies even for one who uses them with thieving intent. The same applies even for temporary taking. "Pursuing the case" and so forth is as already explained. This is the explanation of the canonical text.

The determination beyond the canonical text is here stated by way of the bowl tetrad and so forth as follows - A certain monk, it is said, having aroused greed for another's expensive bowl and wishing to steal it, having carefully noted the place where it was kept, placed his own bowl near that very spot. He came at the time before dawn, had the Dhamma recited, and then said to the elder who was dozing - "I pay respects, venerable sir." "Who is this?" "I, venerable sir, am a visiting monk. I wish to leave early. My bowl has been placed in such-and-such a place, with such-and-such a shoulder strap and such-and-such a bowl bag. It would be good, venerable sir, if I could obtain it." The elder went in and took it. At the very lifting up, it is an offence entailing defeat for the thief. If, having come, he is told "Who are you, coming at an improper time?" and runs away frightened, he runs away having already incurred the offence entailing defeat. But for the elder, because of his pure intention, there is no offence. The elder, intending to take that one, took a different one - the same principle applies. But this applies when he takes another one of the same kind, as in the case of an object similar to the one commanded regarding a human form. In the Kurundī, however, it is said "he should be dealt with by tracking," and that applies when he takes one that is not of the same kind.

Thinking it to be that, he took his own bowl and gave it; for the thief there is no offence entailing defeat because it was given by the owner, but there is a wrong-doing because it was taken with an impure mind. Thinking it to be that, he took the thief's own bowl and gave it; here too there is no offence entailing defeat for the thief because it was his own property, but there is merely a wrong-doing because it was taken with an impure mind. In all cases there is no offence for the elder.

Another, thinking "I shall steal the bowl," likewise paid respects to the elder who was sleeping. When asked "Who is this?" he said: "I, venerable sir, am a sick monk. Please give me a bowl for now; I shall go to the village entrance and bring back medicine." The elder, having considered "There is no sick person here; this must be a thief," thinking "Let him take this," brought out and gave the bowl of a monk who was his enemy. For both of them there is an offence entailing defeat at the very lifting up. Even when lifting up another's bowl with the perception that it is "the enemy monk's bowl," the same method applies. But if, with the perception that it is "the enemy's," he lifts up and gives the thief's own bowl, there is an offence entailing defeat for the elder in the manner stated, and a wrong-doing for the thief. Then, thinking it to be "the enemy's," he gives his own bowl; in the manner stated there is a wrong-doing for both.

A great elder said to his attendant, a junior monk: "Take the bowl and robe; we shall go to such-and-such a village and walk for alms." The junior, having taken them and walking behind the elder, arouses an intention to steal; if he shifts the load on his head to his shoulder, there is no offence entailing defeat. Why? Because it was taken under command. But if he turns off the path and enters the forest, he should be dealt with by tracking his footsteps. Then, having turned back and fled towards the monastery, entering the monastery and going on, there is an offence entailing defeat upon passing beyond the precincts. And also if he flees towards the village from the place where the great elder changed his lower robe, there is an offence entailing defeat upon passing beyond the village precincts. But if both of them, having walked for alms, depart having either eaten or taken food, and the elder again says to him: "Take the bowl and robe; we shall go to the monastery." If therein he, in the same manner as before, with an intention to steal shifts the load on his head to his shoulder, it is still guarded for the time being. He enters the forest, he should be dealt with by tracking his footsteps. Having turned back, he flees towards the village itself; upon passing beyond the village precincts there is an offence entailing defeat. Fleeing forward towards the monastery, having arrived at the monastery without stopping, without sitting down, with the intention to steal still unsubsided, he goes on; upon passing beyond the precincts there is an offence entailing defeat. But one who takes without being commanded, for him there is an offence entailing defeat even in shifting the load on his head to his shoulder and so forth. The remainder is just as before.

But one who, having been told "Go to such-and-such a monastery, wash the robe or dye it, and come back," takes it saying "Very well" and goes; for him too, having aroused an intention to steal along the way, there is no offence entailing defeat in shifting the load on his head to his shoulder and so forth. In turning off the path, he should be dealt with by tracking his footsteps. Having gone to that monastery and dwelling right there, using it with an intention to steal until it wears out, or thieves carry it away from him - there is no taking away, but there is liability for the goods. Even when departing from there and coming back, the same method applies.

But one who, not commanded, when the elder has made a hint or having himself noticed that it is soiled, says "Give me the robe, venerable sir; I shall go to such-and-such a village, dye it and bring it back," and having taken it, goes; for him, having aroused an intention to steal along the way, there is an offence entailing defeat in shifting the load on his head to his shoulder and so forth. Why? Because it was taken without being commanded. Whether turning off the path, or turning back and coming to that very monastery and passing beyond the monastery boundary, there is an offence entailing defeat in the manner stated. Even when, having gone there and dyed it, he comes back, if an intention to steal arises, the same method applies. But if, wherever he went, whether there or at a monastery along the way, or having come back to that very monastery, or on one side of it, dwelling without passing beyond the precinct boundary, using it with an intention to steal until it wears out, or thieves carry it away from him, or it is destroyed in whatever way, there is liability for the goods. But upon passing beyond the precinct boundary, there is an offence entailing defeat.

But when the elder is making a hint, one says "Give it, venerable sir, I shall dye it and bring it back," and then asks "Where shall I go to dye it, venerable sir?" And the elder tells him "Go wherever you wish and dye it" - this is called a "freely dispatched messenger." Even if he flees with thievish intent, he should not be dealt with as having committed theft. But even if he flees with thievish intent, or destroys it through use or otherwise, it is merely an obligation to return the goods. A monk sends some requisite by the hand of another monk - "Give it to such-and-such a monk at such-and-such a monastery." If thievish intent arises in him, the judgement in all cases is similar to that stated in the case of "Go to such-and-such a monastery and wash or dye the robe and come back."

Another, wishing to send something by a monk, makes a hint - "Who will take this and go?" And if one says - "Give it, venerable sir, I shall take it and go," and takes it and goes, if thievish intent arises in him, the judgement in all cases is similar to that stated in the case of "Give me the robe, venerable sir, I shall go to such-and-such a village and dye it and bring it back." Cloth obtained by the elder for the purpose of making a robe has been deposited at the family of his attendant. Then his pupil, wishing to take the cloth, goes there and speaks as if sent by the elder, saying "Please give that cloth." Believing his word, if a laywoman gives out what was deposited by a layman, or a layman gives out what was deposited by a laywoman, or anyone else takes it out and gives it, there is an offence entailing defeat for him at the very lifting up. But if the elder's attendants have deposited their own cloth thinking "We shall give this to the elder." Then his pupil, wishing to take it, goes there and says "You apparently wish to give cloth to the elder; give it." And they, believing him, give it saying "We deposited it intending to give it after offering a meal, venerable sir; here, take it." Because it was given by the owners, there is no offence entailing defeat, but because it was taken with impure intent, there is an offence of wrong-doing, and there is an obligation to return the goods.

A monk tells another monk and goes to the village: "So-and-so will give my rains-residence gift; take it and keep it." "Very well," that monk, having placed the expensive cloth given by him together with the cheap cloth obtained by himself, when the other comes back, whether knowing or not knowing that his expensive cloth has been received, being told "Give me my rains-residence gift," says "Your coarse cloth has been received, but my cloth is expensive; both are placed in such-and-such a place; go in and take it." When he enters and takes the coarse cloth, for the other who takes the other one, there is an offence entailing defeat at the lifting up. And also if he writes the other's name on his own cloth and his own name on the other's cloth and says "Go, read the name and take it," the same principle applies there too. But if one places the cloths obtained by himself and by the other together and says to him thus - "The two cloths obtained by you and by me are both placed inside the room; go, select whichever you wish and take it." And if out of modesty he takes only the coarse cloth obtained by the resident monk, then for the resident monk who takes the remaining other one after selecting, there is no offence. A visiting monk places his bowl and robe near the resident monks who are doing robe-work, and thinking "They will look after these," goes to bathe or elsewhere. If the resident monks look after it, that is well and good. If not, when it is lost there is no liability. Even if he says "Please keep this, venerable sirs" and goes, and the others do not know because they are occupied with their own tasks, the same principle applies. And also if they, when told "Please keep this, venerable sirs," refuse saying "We are busy," and the other disregards this and goes thinking "They will surely keep it," the same principle applies. But if, whether asked by him or unasked, they say "We shall keep it; you go" - that must be looked after. If they do not look after it, when it is lost there is liability. Why? Because they accepted the responsibility.

A monk who, being the storekeeper, early at the time before dawn brings down the monks' bowls and robes to the lower storey of the building, closes the door, and without even informing them goes far away on alms-round; if thieves carry those away, the liability is his alone. But one who, when told by the monks "Please bring down the bowls and robes, venerable sir; it is time for taking meal-tickets," asks "Have you all assembled?" and when told "Yes, we have assembled," takes out and sets down the bowls and robes, fastens the storeroom door, and saying "You should take your bowls and robes, look after the door of the lower storey of the building, and then go," goes away. There, one lazy-natured monk, after the other monks have gone, gets up later rubbing his eyes and goes to the water place for washing his face; seeing that moment, thieves carry away his bowl and robe - that is well taken. There is no liability for the storekeeper.

If anyone, without even informing the storekeeper, places his own requisite in the storeroom, even if that is lost, there is no liability for the storekeeper. But if the storekeeper, seeing that, takes it up thinking "It has been placed in an improper place" and places it elsewhere, if it is lost, the liability is his. If, when told by the monk who placed it "Venerable sir, I have placed such and such a requisite here, please take note of it," he accepts saying "Very well," or thinking it improperly placed, places it in another location, the liability is his alone. But for one who refuses saying "I do not know about it," there is no liability. Even one who places it while the storekeeper is watching but does not make the storekeeper accept responsibility, if it is lost, it is simply well lost. If the storekeeper places it elsewhere, if it is lost, the liability is his. If the storeroom is well secured, and all the requisites of the Saṅgha and the shrine are placed right there, but the storekeeper, being foolish and incompetent, opens the door and goes somewhere to listen to a Dhamma talk or to do something else, and seeing that moment, whatever thieves carry away, all of it is his liability. Whether he has come out of the storeroom and is walking outside, or has opened the door to air his body, or is sitting right there engaged in the practice of the ascetic's duties, or is sitting right there occupied with some task, or even when pressed by the need for defecation or urination, if there is a latrine within the vicinity but he goes outside, or through any other manner is negligent - whether thieves open the door, or enter through an already open door, or break through a wall, whatever they carry away on account of his negligence, all of it is his liability alone. But in hot weather, they say it is permissible to open the window and lie down. However, for one pressed by the need for defecation, when there is no latrine within the vicinity, going elsewhere falls under the category of illness, and is beyond his control; therefore there is no liability.

But one who, oppressed by heat inside, secures the door well and goes outside, and thieves seize him and say "Open the door" - he should not open it up to the third demand. But if those thieves raise axes and the like, saying "If you do not open it, we shall kill you and break down the door and carry away the requisites." Thinking "If I die and the Saṅgha's dwelling is destroyed, there is no benefit," it is permissible to open it. Here too, they say there is no liability because it is beyond his control. If any visitor gives the key or opens the door, whatever thieves carry away, all of it is that person's liability. If the Saṅgha has provided a needle-mechanism lock and a key-seal for the protection of the storeroom, and the storekeeper merely puts on the bolt and lies down, and thieves open it and carry away the requisites, the liability is his alone. But if, having fitted both the needle-mechanism lock and the key-seal, he lies down, and thieves come and say "Open up," one should act in the same manner as before. But if, having secured it thus and lying down, they break through the wall or the roof or enter through a tunnel and carry things away, there is no liability for him. If other senior monks also dwell in the storeroom, and when the door is open they take their own requisites and go, and the storekeeper does not watch the door after they have gone, if anything is stolen there, because of the storekeeper's authority, the liability is the storekeeper's alone. But the senior monks should be cooperative. This is the proper conduct in that matter.

If the storekeeper says "You should stand outside and take your requisites, do not enter," but one of them, a meddlesome senior monk, enters the storeroom together with novices and attendants and sits down and lies down, whatever goods are lost, all of it is his liability. But the storekeeper and the remaining senior monks should be cooperative. Then if the storekeeper himself, taking meddlesome novices and attendants, sits down and lies down in the storeroom, whatever is lost there, all of it is his liability alone. Therefore only the storekeeper should dwell there. The others should dwell even at the foot of a tree rather than in the storeroom.

However, those who store requisites in the dwelling rooms of their fellow monks, when the requisites are lost, the liability falls upon those by whom they were stored. But the others should be cooperative. If, however, the Saṅgha provides gruel and rice to the storekeeper at the monastery itself, and he goes to the village for the purpose of alms-round, the liability for what is lost falls upon him. Even for the monastery watchman appointed for the purpose of guarding the extra robes of those going on alms-round, if while receiving gruel and rice or provisions he goes on alms-round, the liability for whatever is lost there falls entirely upon him. And not only this much; just as with the storekeeper, whatever is lost through his negligence, the liability for all of it falls upon him.

If the monastery is large, and while he goes to guard one area, what was placed in another area is taken, there is no liability because it is outside his domain. However, in such a monastery, one should sit in the middle, at a place accessible to all, having placed the requisites there. Or two or three monastery watchmen should be appointed. If, while they are diligent and guarding here and there, something is lost, there is no liability. Even if thieves tie up the monastery watchmen and take the goods, and even if they take goods by another route when the watchmen have gone to confront the thieves, there is no liability for them. If there is no gruel and rice or provisions to be given to the monastery watchmen at the monastery, it is proper to set aside two or three extra gruel tickets from what is obtainable, and sufficient meal tickets for them. However, they should not be set aside permanently, for people become regretful, thinking "The monastery watchmen alone are eating our food." Therefore, they should be set aside on a rotating basis. If their fellow monks bring and give them ticket-meals, that is good; if they do not give, the meals should be obtained by having them take a turn and brought out. If the monastery watchman, while receiving two or three gruel tickets and four or five ticket-meals, goes on alms-round, just as with the storekeeper, the liability for all that is lost falls upon him. If there is no food or provisions to be given by the Saṅgha to the monastery guardians, the monks take the monastery watch duty and look after their own dependants; they are not permitted to refuse the duty when their turn comes, and it should be done just as other monks do it. However, for one who has no companion, or who is only with one other, or for whom there is no fellow monk to bring and give food, the turn should not be assigned to such a person.

Whatever is stored at the monastery for the purpose of cooking provisions, the duty should be undertaken by one who subsists on that. One who does not subsist on that should not be made to take the turn. They also appoint a monk at the monastery for the purpose of fruits and produce; having watched over and protected them, they divide them by turns of fruit-shares and eat them. The duty should be undertaken by one who eats those. One who does not subsist on them should not be made to take the turn. They also appoint someone for the purpose of guarding lodgings, beds, chairs, and spreads; the duty should be undertaken by one dwelling in the residence. However, one who dwells in the open or at the foot of a tree should not be made to take the turn.

There is one who is junior, but being learned, he teaches the Dhamma to many, gives answers to questions, explains the texts, delivers Dhamma talks, and bears the burden of the Saṅgha; such a one, even though enjoying gains and dwelling in the residence, should not be made to take the turn. They say: "A distinguished person should be recognised."

However, for the caretaker of the uposatha hall and the image house, double gruel and rice, a daily measure of rice, the three robes annually, and allowable goods worth ten or twenty should be given. If, however, while he is receiving that, something is lost there through his negligence, the liability for all of it falls upon him. But if it is seized by force after being tied up, there is no liability. Therein, it is proper to have the property of the shrine guarded with what belongs to either the shrine or the Saṅgha. It is not proper to have the property of the Saṅgha guarded with what belongs to the shrine. However, when the property of the Saṅgha has been stored together with the property of the shrine, when the shrine's property is guarded, that too is thereby guarded; thus it is proper. Even for one who guards the uposatha hall and so forth on a fortnightly turn, what is lost through negligence is indeed his liability.

The discussion on deposits is concluded.

Discussion on Toll Evasion

113. "They destroy (hananti) the toll (suṅkaṃ) from there (tato)" means a customs post (suṅkaghātaṃ); this is a designation for the toll station. For since those who remove goods liable to toll from there without paying the toll destroy and eliminate the king's toll, therefore it is called a customs post (suṅkaghāta). "Having entered there" means having entered the toll station established by the king, having demarcated a boundary at a mountain pass and so forth. "Goods belonging to the king (rājaggaṃ bhaṇḍaṃ)" means goods due to the king; the meaning is: goods from which a toll worth five māsakas or more than five māsakas must be given to the king. There is also the reading "rājakaṃ"; the meaning is the same. "With thieving intention" means having aroused the thieving intention "I shall not give the king's toll from this," he touches those goods - a wrong-doing. Having taken them from the place where they were set down, he puts them into a bag, or binds them together with his thigh in a concealed place - a grave offence. Because it is delimited by the toll station, there is no displacement from the base. He moves the second foot past the boundary of the toll station - an offence entailing defeat.

"He throws it outside the customs post" means having seen that the king's men are occupied elsewhere, while standing inside he throws it for the purpose of falling outside. If that will certainly fall outside, at the mere moment of release from the hand - an offence entailing defeat. If that, having struck a tree or a stump, or having been thrown back by the force of a strong wind, falls back inside again, he is absolved. If he picks it up again and throws it, it is an offence entailing defeat in the same manner as stated before. If, having fallen on the ground and rolling, it enters inside again - it is still an offence entailing defeat. But in the Kurundī and Saṅkhepāṭṭhakathā it is said: "If, having fallen outside and come to a stop, it then rolls back inside - an offence entailing defeat. If, without having come to a stop, it rolls back and enters inside, he is absolved."

Standing inside, he rolls it with his hand, foot, or stick, or has another roll it - if, without having come to a stop, it goes rolling, it is an offence entailing defeat. Standing inside, that which goes outside absolves him; thinking "it will roll and go" or "another will roll it," what was placed inside afterwards goes outside either rolling by itself or rolled by another - he is absolved indeed. But when it was placed with a pure intention and goes thus, there is nothing whatsoever to be said. He ties two packages together and places them on the boundary line of the toll station; even though the outside package is worth a quarter in toll, because of being tied together with it, the inside package absolves him. But if, having reversed them, he places the inner one outside - an offence entailing defeat. The same method applies when placed tied together on a carrying pole. But if, without tying them, it is merely placed on the end of the carrying pole - an offence entailing defeat.

He places it on a moving vehicle or on the back of a horse and so forth, thinking "it will be taken outside" - even when taken out, there is no theft, nor is there any goods-liability. Why? Because it was said "Let them collect the toll from one who has entered here," and this stood outside the toll station, and it was not carried by him; therefore there is neither goods-liability nor an offence entailing defeat.

When placed on stationary vehicles and so forth, if they move without his effort, even though there is thieving intention, there is no theft. But if, having placed it, he drives the vehicles and so forth past, or because of familiarity gained through elephant training and so forth, standing in front he calls out "Come, hey!" - at the crossing of the boundary, an offence entailing defeat. In the training rule concerning goats' wool, in this situation, having another carry it - no offence; here, an offence entailing defeat. There, having placed it in another's vehicle or goods without his knowledge and passing beyond three yojanas, because they become forfeitable - an offence of expiation. Here, no offence.

It is proper to go at the customs post only after having paid the toll. One goes having made the intention: "If they say 'Pay the toll,' I shall pay; if they do not say so, I shall go." Seeing him, one toll collector says "That monk is going, collect the toll from him," another says "Why should a renunciant pay toll? Let him go" - it is allowable, he should go. But when it is said "It is not proper for monks to go without paying the toll, collect it, lay follower," yet if it is said "Those who collect toll from a monk would have to take his bowl and robe - what is the use of that? Let him go," it is still allowable. Even if the toll collectors are sleeping, or playing dice, or have gone somewhere, and he, having called out "Where are the toll collectors?" does not see them, it is still allowable. Even if, having reached the customs post, he is absent-minded, or thinking about something, or reciting, or engaged in attention, or suddenly pursued by robbers, elephants, lions, tigers and the like having risen up, or having seen a great storm cloud arisen and wishing to enter a hall ahead, he passes that place, it is still allowable.

Regarding "evades the tax" - here, although one evades it by entering the vicinity, it is still theft -

This is stated in the Kurundi Commentary. But in the Great Commentary it is stated: "Having shown merely the danger that 'the king's men harass one who evades the toll,' for one who evades having entered the vicinity, there is an offence of wrong-doing; for one who evades without entering the vicinity, there is no offence." This accords with the canonical text. Here, the vicinity should be determined by two stone-throws.

The discussion on tax evasion is concluded.

Discussion on Living Beings

114. Showing the living being that definitely suffices for theft in what follows, he said "a human being." Even so, there is no theft for one who takes away a free person. Even a free person who has been placed by his mother or father, or who has taken upon himself fifty or sixty, there is no theft for one who takes him away; but the money increases at the place where it has gone. However, there is theft only for one who takes away a slave of the types: born in the household, bought with money, or brought by force. For it is with reference to that very thing that this was said - "A living being means a human being is called." Herein, one born in the womb of a household slave-woman from a slave is one born in the household; one bought with money is one bought with wealth; one brought from a foreign land by striking and reducing to slavery is one brought by force - thus it should be understood. He touches such a living being thinking "I will take it away" - an offence of wrong-doing. Seizing by the hand or foot and lifting up, he causes it to shake - a grave offence. Having lifted up, wishing to flee, he moves even a hair-tip's measure from the standing place - an offence entailing defeat. Seizing by the hair or hands and dragging - the foot-step method should be applied.

Thinking "I will lead on foot," whether threatening or striking, he says "Go from here" - when that person goes in the direction indicated, at the second foot-step there is an offence entailing defeat. Those who are of one intention with him, for all of them there is an offence entailing defeat at the same moment. A monk, having seen a slave, whether having asked about his welfare or not, says "Go, flee and live happily" - if he flees, at the second foot-step there is an offence entailing defeat. When that one comes near him, another says "Flee" - if a hundred monks in succession say it as he comes near each one, there is an offence entailing defeat for all of them. But one who says to one already fleeing swiftly "Flee, before your masters catch you" - there is no offence entailing defeat. But if he says it to one going slowly, and that one goes quickly because of his words - an offence entailing defeat. Having fled, seeing him gone to another village or region, for one who makes him flee from there too - it is an offence entailing defeat indeed.

Taking what is not given is released by indirect speech. For one who speaks thus - "What are you doing here?

Is it not fitting for you to flee? Or is it not fitting to go somewhere and live happily? Or slave men and women, having fled, go to such and such a region and live happily" - and if he, having heard those words, flees, there is no theft. Also one who, having said "We are going to such and such a region, those who have gone there live happily, and for those going with us there is no hardship even on the way with provisions and such," takes the one coming happily along with him and goes by way of travelling the road, not with thieving intention - there is no theft. And when robbers arise on the way, even for one who says "Hey! Robbers have arisen, flee quickly, come, go!" - because it was said for the purpose of freeing from the danger of robbers, they do not call it theft.

The discussion on living beings is concluded.

Discussion on Footless Creatures

Regarding footless creatures, a snake means a snake with an owner, caught by snake-charmers and the like; which, while making it perform,

They obtain half a pāda, a pāda, or a kahāpaṇa, and even when releasing them, they release them only after receiving silver or gold. They go to a place where a certain monk is sitting, place the snake basket down, and either fall asleep or go somewhere. If that monk, with thieving intention, touches that basket, it is a wrong-doing. He causes it to shake - a grave offence. He dislodges it from its position - an offence entailing defeat. If, however, he opens the basket and grasps the snake by the neck, it is a wrong-doing. He lifts it up, it is a grave offence. When one straightens it and lifts it up, at the moment the snake's tail-tip is released from the bottom of the basket by even a hair's breadth, it is an offence entailing defeat. When one rubs and pulls it out, at the moment the tail-tip is released from the rim of the opening, it is an offence entailing defeat. If he slightly opens the mouth of the basket and either strikes it or calls it by name saying "Come, fellow" and makes it come out, it is an offence entailing defeat. Likewise, having opened it, he makes the sound of a frog or the sound of a mouse or scatters puffed rice, and calls it by name or snaps his fingers - even if it comes out in this way, it is an offence entailing defeat. Even without opening the mouth, when this is done, a hungry snake strikes the lid of the basket with its head, makes an opening, and escapes - it is indeed an offence entailing defeat. If, however, when the mouth is open, the snake itself comes out and escapes of its own accord, the goods must be returned. Furthermore, whether having opened the mouth or not, he merely makes the sound of a frog or mouse or merely scatters puffed rice, does not call it by name, does not snap his fingers, and the snake, being hungry, thinking "I shall eat frogs and such," comes out and escapes - it is merely a case where the goods must be returned. Fish is included here merely by the designation of footless creatures. Whatever should be said here has already been stated in the section on water.

The discussion on footless creatures is finished.

Discussion on Two-footed Creatures

115. Regarding two-footed creatures - Showing those that can be stolen, he said "human beings, winged creatures." Deities, however, cannot be stolen. "Winged creatures" means those for whom wings have arisen. They are of three kinds: feather-winged, skin-winged, and bone-winged. Therein, peacocks, fowl, and the like should be understood as feather-winged; bats and the like as skin-winged; beetles and the like as bone-winged. All of these - both human beings and winged creatures - are included here simply by the term "two-footed." Whatever should be said here, that follows the same method as stated regarding creatures in the sky and living beings.

The discussion on two-footed creatures is finished.

Discussion on Four-footed Creatures

116. Regarding quadrupeds - "Livestock" should be understood as all species of quadrupeds remaining beyond those mentioned in the canonical text. Elephants and so forth are well known indeed. Therein, for one who touches an elephant with thieving intention, there is an offence of wrong-doing; for one who causes it to shake, a grave offence. But if a very strong person, intoxicated by strength, lifting a young elephant calf by the head at the base of the navel and seizing it, releases the four feet and the trunk from the ground even by a hair's breadth, it is an offence entailing defeat. Now, a certain elephant is kept tied up in an elephant stable, a certain one stands unbound, a certain one stands within the premises, a certain one stands in the royal courtyard. Therein, for one kept tied by the neck in the elephant stable, there are five positions: the neck-binding and the four feet. For one bound by the neck and by one foot with an iron chain, there are six positions. For one bound by the neck and by two feet, there are seven positions. According to these, the causing to shake and the dislodging from position should be understood. For one unbound, the entire elephant stable is the position. Upon passing beyond that, it is an offence entailing defeat. For one standing within the premises, the entire premises itself is the position. Upon its passing beyond the gate of the premises, it is an offence entailing defeat. For one standing in the royal courtyard, the entire city is the position. Upon its passing beyond the city gate, it is an offence entailing defeat. For one standing outside the city, the very place where it stands is the position. When leading it away, it should be reckoned by footsteps. For one lying down, there is only one position. For one who raises it up with thieving intention, as soon as it has risen, it is an offence entailing defeat. For a horse too, this same adjudication applies. But if it is bound at all four feet, eight positions should be understood. This same method applies to camels as well.

A certain ox too is kept tied up in a house. A certain one stands unbound, a certain one however is kept tied up in a pen, a certain one stands unbound. Therein, for one kept tied up in a house, there are five positions: the four feet and the binding. For one unbound, the entire house is the position. For one bound in a pen too, there are five positions. For one unbound, the entire pen is the position. If one makes it pass beyond the gate of the pen, it is an offence entailing defeat. If one, having broken the pen, leads it away and makes it pass beyond the broken opening, it is an offence entailing defeat. If one, having either opened the gate or broken the pen, standing outside, calls it by name and makes it come out, it is an offence entailing defeat. For one who calls it by showing a broken branch too, this same method applies. If, without opening the gate and without breaking the pen, one waves a broken branch and calls, and the ox, out of hunger, leaps over the pen and comes out, it is indeed an offence entailing defeat. But if, when the gate has been opened or the pen has been broken, it comes out by itself, it is to be returned as goods. Whether having opened the gate or not, whether having broken the pen or not, if one merely waves a broken branch and does not call, and the ox, out of hunger, comes out on foot or by leaping, it is merely to be returned as goods. One ox stands tied up in the middle of a village, one is lying down. For a standing ox there are five positions, for one lying down there are two positions. According to these, the causing to shake and the dislodging from position should be understood.

But one who, without making a lying one stand up, slaughters it right there, it is to be made good. But in a well-enclosed village fitted with gates, the entire village is the position of a standing ox. For one standing or wandering in an unenclosed area, the very place trodden by its feet is its position. This same judgement applies also to donkeys and livestock.

The discussion on four-footed creatures is finished.

Discussion on Many-footed Creatures

117. Regarding many-footed creatures - If the basis is fulfilled by a single centipede, for one leading it on foot, there are ninety-nine grave offences and one offence entailing defeat. The remainder is just by the method already stated.

The discussion on many-footed creatures is finished.

Discussion on Reconnoitring

118. "One who investigates" means an informant; what is meant is that he enters inside here and there. "Having investigated" means having observed, having ascertained - this is the meaning. "Tells" means he informs another who is capable of committing theft about goods placed in other families' houses or in monasteries and such places that are unguarded. "There is an offence entailing defeat for both" means when the goods are inevitably to be taken, for the informant at the moment of commanding, and for the other at the dislodging from its position - thus there is an offence entailing defeat for both. But whoever speaks in an indirect manner thus: "There is no man in the house, the goods are placed in such and such a place, unguarded, the door is not secured, one could take them merely by going there, is there really no one who lives by manly deeds who would go and take them?" - and having heard that, another goes and takes them thinking "I shall now take them," for him there is an offence entailing defeat at the dislodging from its position, but for the other there is no offence. For through indirect speech one is freed from taking what is not given.

The discussion on spying is finished.

Discussion on Guarding the Booty

"One who guards a deposit" means a deposit-guardian. One who, when goods brought by another to one's own dwelling place - "Please,

Venerable sir, look after this for a moment until I return after doing such and such a task" - being thus asked, guards them; this is the designation for that person. Therefore he said - "A deposit-guardian means one who is guarding brought goods." Therein, the deposit-guardian generally, without unfastening goods that have been tied up and hung, cuts open a bag or a wrapper from below, takes a small amount, and restores the stitching and so forth to its original state. For one who touches and so forth thinking "I shall take in this way," the corresponding offences should be understood.

The discussion on concealment is finished.

Discussion on Prearranged Theft

Theft by arrangement is stealing having arranged together; what is meant is theft done by mutual agreement. "Having arranged together" means having consulted with one desire and one intention - this is the meaning. Herein this is the determination - Several monks, having arranged together saying "Let us go to such and such a house, and having broken through the roof or having cut through the wall, let us steal the goods," they go. Among them, one steals the goods. At his lifting it up, there is an offence entailing defeat for all. And this is stated in the Parivāra too -

"Four persons, having arranged together, stole heavy goods;

Three are defeated, one is not defeated;

This is a question considered by the skilful."

This is the meaning of that - Four persons, a teacher and pupils, wished to take heavy goods worth six māsakas. Therein the teacher said: "You take one māsaka, you take one, you take one, I shall take three." But the first among the pupils said: "You, venerable sir, take three, you take one, you take one, I shall take one." The other two also said the same. Therein, for each of the pupils, one māsaka each is done by one's own hand, therefore there are offences of wrong-doing for them; Five are by command, through those there is an offence entailing defeat for all three. But for the teacher, three are done by his own hand, through those there is a grave offence for him. Three are by command, through those too there is only a grave offence. For in this training rule on taking what is not given, what is done by one's own hand does not become a factor for what is by command, nor does what is by command become a factor for what is done by one's own hand. Rather, what is done by one's own hand must be fulfilled only by what is done by one's own hand, and what is by command only by what is by command. Therefore it was said - "Four persons, having arranged together, etc. This question was considered by the skilled."

Furthermore, for the purpose of avoiding confusion regarding theft by arrangement, this fourfold classification should be considered in terms of meaning: "one goods in one place, one goods in different places; different goods in one place, different goods in different places." Therein, "one goods in one place" means having seen goods worth five māsakas placed carelessly on the shop-counter of one family, several monks command one: "Go and bring those," upon his removing them, there is an offence entailing defeat for all. "One goods in different places" means having seen one māsaka each placed carelessly on five shop-counters of one family, several command one: "Go and bring those," upon the removal of the fifth māsaka, there is an offence entailing defeat for all. "Different goods in one place" means having seen goods belonging to many people, worth five māsakas or more than five māsakas, placed carelessly in one place, several command one: "Go and bring those," upon his removing them, there is an offence entailing defeat for all. "Different goods in different places" means having seen one māsaka each placed carelessly on five shop-counters of five families, several command one: "Go and bring those," upon the removal of the fifth māsaka, there is an offence entailing defeat for all.

The discussion on conveying by arrangement is finished.

Discussion on Acting by Appointment

119. "Making a rendezvous" means the act of making an arrangement; the meaning is making an agreement by way of delimiting a time. Here, when it is said "steal before the meal," whether he steals before the meal today, or tomorrow, or in a future year, there is no breach of the rendezvous; for both, there is an offence entailing defeat in the same manner as stated regarding the spy. But if, when it is said "steal before the meal today," he steals before the meal tomorrow, it has been stolen afterwards, having exceeded that rendezvous which was fixed as "today." If, when it is said "steal before the meal tomorrow," he steals before the meal today, it has been stolen before, without reaching that rendezvous which was fixed as "tomorrow"; for the one who steals in this way, there is an offence entailing defeat only for the one who steals, and there is no offence for the instigator. When it is said "before the meal tomorrow," even one who steals on that very day or after the meal tomorrow should be understood as stealing before and after that rendezvous. This same method applies also to after the meal, night, and day. And here, the state of keeping or breaching the rendezvous should be understood also by way of the first watch, the middle watch, the last watch, the dark fortnight, the bright fortnight, the month, the season, the year, and so forth. When it is said "steal before the meal," and for one striving thinking "I shall steal before the meal itself," it becomes after the meal; what is said here? The Elder Mahāsuma first said: "This is merely an effort made before the meal, therefore the instigator is not freed." But the Elder Mahāpaduma said - "Because the time delimitation has been exceeded, it is a breach of the rendezvous, therefore the instigator is freed."

The discussion on acting by appointment is finished.

Discussion on Acting by Gesture

120. "Making a sign" means making a sign to someone for the purpose of arousing a perception; this has been stated in three ways by the method beginning with "I will bury my eyes." However, here many other kinds should also be included, such as waving the hand, striking with the palm, snapping the fingers, stretching the neck, clearing the throat, and so forth. The remainder here follows the same method as stated in the case of making an arrangement.

The discussion on acting by gesture is finished.

Discussion on Commanding

121. Now, for the purpose of non-confusion regarding these very acts of signalling and acts of hinting, he stated beginning with "a monk commands a monk." Therein, "he, imagining that to be that" means that the one who steals, imagining "this is that" which was indicated by the one who commands through making a sign, steals that very thing - there is an offence entailing defeat for both. "He, imagining that to be that, steals another" means imagining "this is that" which was indicated to be stolen, he steals another thing placed in that very same place - there is no offence for the instigator. "Imagining another to be that" means the goods indicated by the one who commands through making a sign are of little value, and imagining "this other thing placed near it is valuable goods," thus imagining it to be another, he steals that very thing - there is an offence entailing defeat for both. "Imagining another to be another" means by the same method as before, he imagines "this other thing placed near it is valuable goods," and if that is indeed another thing, there is an offence entailing defeat for him alone.

In the passages beginning with "tell such and such a person," one teacher and three pupils named Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, and Saṅgharakkhita should be understood. Therein, "a monk commands a monk" means the teacher, having identified some goods somewhere, commands Buddharakkhita for the purpose of stealing them. "Tell such and such a person" means: go, Buddharakkhita, and tell this matter to Dhammarakkhita. "Let such and such a person tell such and such a person" means let Dhammarakkhita also tell Saṅgharakkhita. "Let such and such a person steal such and such goods" means let Saṅgharakkhita, thus commanded by Dhammarakkhita who was commanded by you, steal such and such goods, for he is a bold one among us, capable of this task. "There is an offence of wrong-doing" means for the teacher who thus commands, there is firstly a wrong-doing. But if that command proceeds according to intention, what is stated later as a grave offence occurs at the very moment of commanding. Then if those goods will certainly be stolen, what is stated later as "there is an offence entailing defeat for all" - from that, there is an offence entailing defeat for him at that very moment. This principle should be understood everywhere.

"He informs the other" means Buddharakkhita informs Dhammarakkhita, and Dhammarakkhita informs Saṅgharakkhita: "Our teacher says thus - 'Steal such and such goods, indeed you are a brave man among us'" - thus he informs, and for them too there is a wrong-doing. "The one who steals accepts" means Saṅgharakkhita accepts saying "Good, I shall steal it." "There is a grave offence for the instigator" means at the mere acceptance by Saṅgharakkhita, there is a grave offence for the teacher, for a great number of people have been engaged by him in evil. "He steals those goods" means if Saṅgharakkhita steals those goods, there is an offence entailing defeat for all four persons. And not only for four; by this method, without breaking the arrangement, whether it be a hundred or a thousand ascetics commanding in succession, there is an offence entailing defeat for all.

In the second case - "He commands another" means Buddharakkhita, commanded by the teacher, not having seen Dhammarakkhita or not wishing to tell him, approaches Saṅgharakkhita himself and says: "Our teacher says thus - 'Steal such and such goods'" - thus he commands. "There is an offence of wrong-doing" means by the command, there is firstly a wrong-doing for Buddharakkhita. "He accepts, there is an offence of wrong-doing" means when Saṅgharakkhita accepts, it should be understood that there is a wrong-doing for the instigator alone. But if he steals those goods, there is an offence entailing defeat for both - for Buddharakkhita as the one who commands and for Saṅgharakkhita as the one who steals. But for the instigator, the teacher, because of the breaking of the arrangement, there is no offence entailing defeat. For Dhammarakkhita, because of not knowing, there is no offence whatsoever. But Buddharakkhita, having secured the safety of two, is himself ruined.

In the first of the four remaining cases of commanding: "he, having gone, returns again" means having gone to the place where the goods are and seeing guards both inside and outside, being unable to steal, he comes back. "When you are able, then" means must it be stolen today itself? Go, when you are able, then steal it. "There is an offence of wrong-doing" means thus even by commanding again, there is only a wrong-doing. But if those goods will certainly be stolen, the intention that accomplishes the purpose is like the fruit immediately following the path, therefore he incurs defeat at the very moment of commanding. Even if the one who steals takes those goods after the lapse of sixty years, and the one who commands dies in the meantime or reverts to the lower life; he will have died or will have reverted to the lower life as one who is already not an ascetic, but for the one who steals, there is an offence entailing defeat at the very moment of stealing.

In the second case - because, either speaking it softly or due to the other's deafness, he does not make heard the words "Do not steal,"

therefore the instigator is not freed. In the third case - however, he is freed because he made it heard. In the fourth case - because he made it heard, and because the other, having accepted saying "Good," desisted, both are freed.

The discussion on command is finished.

Classification of Offences

122. Now, showing the factors of taking what is not given - which was stated by way of dislodging from its position in various places - and the classification of offences according to the classification of objects, he said beginning with "in five ways." Therein, "in five ways" means by five reasons; it is said to mean "by five factors." Therein this is the meaning in brief - for one taking what is not given, there is an offence entailing defeat by the five ways stated in the manner beginning with "it belongs to another," and not by fewer than that. Therein, these are the five ways - belonging to another, perceiving it as belonging to another, the heaviness of the requisite, intention to steal, and dislodging from its position. But in the two following sections, a grave offence and a wrong-doing are shown according to the classification of objects in the case of a light requisite.

125. In the three cases stated by the method beginning with "in six ways," the six aspects should be understood thus: not perceiving it as one's own, not taking on trust, not being temporary, the requisite being heavy, intention to steal, and dislodging from its position. Here too, according to the distinction of the object, in the first case there is an offence entailing defeat. In the second and third cases, grave offences and offences of wrong-doing are stated. However, in the remaining three cases, even though there is a distinction of the object, only an offence of wrong-doing is stated because the object is not possessed by others. Therein, what is stated as "not possessed by another" - whether it be an unoccupied thing, a discarded thing, a thing whose trace is lost, an ownerless object, or one's own property - both are reckoned as "not possessed by another." But since here there is the perception of it being possessed by another, and it is taken with intention to steal, therefore non-offence is not stated.

The classification of offences is finished.

Classification of Non-offences

131. Having thus shown the classification of offences by way of the object and by way of intention, now showing the classification of non-offences, he said beginning with "there is no offence for one who perceives it as one's own." Therein, "for one who perceives it as one's own" means for one with the perception that it is one's own; there is no offence in taking even another's goods for one who takes them with the perception "this article belongs to me," but what has been taken must be given back. If, when told by the owners "give it back," he does not give it back, upon their laying down the charge, it is a pārājika offence.

"For taking on trust" means there is no offence even in taking on trust. However, the characteristic of taking on trust should be understood by this sutta: "I allow, monks, one endowed with five factors to take on trust - one is personally known, one is intimate, one has been invited, one is alive, and one is pleased when it is taken." Therein, "personally known" means a friend by mere acquaintance; "intimate" means a close friend; "invited" means one who has been told "whatever of my belongings you wish, you may take; there is no need to ask before taking." "Is alive" means even though lying on a bed from which he will not rise, he has not yet reached the cutting off of the life faculty. "Pleased when it is taken" means he is of a contented mind when it is taken; it is proper for one who knows "he will be pleased when I take it" to take the belongings of such a person. And these five factors are stated by way of exhaustive inclusion. However, taking on trust is established with three factors: personally known, alive, pleased when it is taken; intimate, alive, pleased when it is taken; invited, alive, pleased when it is taken.

But one who is not alive, and is not pleased when it is taken; even what has been taken from his belongings by taking on trust must be given back. And when giving back, first, regarding the property of the deceased, it should be given to those who have authority over his property, whether householders or those gone forth. The belongings of one who is displeased should be given back to that very person. But one who at first approved either by verbal expression or by mere arising of thought, saying "well done by you in taking my belongings," and later became angry for some reason, is not entitled to have it returned. Even one who does not wish to give but endures it mentally and says nothing, he too is not entitled to have it returned again. But one who, when told "I have taken or used your belongings," says "whether it was taken or used, but I had set that aside for some purpose, it is proper to restore it to its original state." This person is entitled to have it returned.

"For temporary taking" means there is no offence even in temporary taking for one who takes saying "I shall return it, I shall replace it." But if the owner of the goods, whether an individual or a group, permits saying "let this be yours," that is well and good. If they do not permit, it must be given back when they request its return. However, what belongs to the Community is proper only to return.

"For possession of ghosts" - here, even those reborn in the realm of the departed, even those who, having died, are reborn in that very same existence, even devas such as those of the Cātumahārājika realm and others, all are reckoned as "departed beings"; there is no offence regarding their possessions. Even if Sakka, the king of the devas, were sitting having spread out a shop, and a monk with the divine eye, knowing this, were to take even a cloth worth a hundred thousand for the purpose of his own robe and go away, even while that one says "do not take it, do not take it," it is permissible. However, regarding cloths hung on trees and the like by those making offerings dedicated to deities, there is nothing to be said.

"For possession of animals" means there is no offence even in taking the possessions of animals. Even if a nāga king or a supaṇṇa youth spreads out a shop in human form, and some monk takes what belongs to him and goes away in the same manner as before, it is allowable. A lion or a tiger or deer, buffalo and the like, when afflicted by hunger, killing and eating, should not be driven away from the very beginning. For it might cause harm. But if, after it has eaten a little, one is able to drive it away, it is allowable to drive it away and take it. It is also allowable to make hawks and the like drop what they have taken and are carrying away, and to take it.

"For one perceiving them as rag-robes" means there is no offence in taking even for one who perceives an ownerless thing thus: "This is a rag-robe." But if that has an owner, it should be given back when the owner demands its return. "For a mad man" means there is no offence even for a mad man of the kind previously described. "For the first offender" means here Dhaniya is the first offender; there is no offence for him. But for the rest - the thieves such as the washerman's bundle thieves, the group of six and others - there is indeed an offence.

The classification of non-offences is finished.

The commentary on the word-analysis is finished.

Miscellaneous Discussion

Origin and action, then perception and with consciousness;

Worldly wrong and deed, wholesome and with feeling.

In this miscellaneous section, this training rule has three origins - done by oneself, it originates from body and mind; done by command, it originates from speech and mind; done by oneself and by command, it originates from body, speech and mind. And it is of action-origin, for one commits this only by doing, not by not doing. It is freed by perception because one is released through the absence of the perception "I am taking what is not given"; it is with consciousness; it is worldly wrong; it is bodily action; it is verbal action; it is unwholesome consciousness; whether pleased or frightened or neutral one commits it, thus it is of three feelings - all this should be understood in the same manner as stated in the first training rule.

The miscellaneous talk is completed.

Commentary on the Precedent Cases

132. In the discussions of the decided cases, the case of the group of six has already been stated under the supplementary rule.

Regarding the second case - The mind of ordinary persons, having abandoned its natural state through the influence of lust and so forth, runs, runs on, and runs about in various ways. If the Blessed One were to lay down an offence merely by the arising of a thought, without any breach through the door of body or speech, who would be able to make oneself free from offence! Therefore he said - "There is no offence, monk, in the arising of a thought." However, one should not be under the control of the mind; the mind should indeed be restrained by the power of wise reflection.

133-134. The cases of touching, causing to move, and dislodging from position are clear in meaning. And those that follow conclude with the case "with thieving intention he took it from the ground."

135. In the case concerning a figure of speech, "he took it" means he seized it, and "you are a thief" means he accused him. The other, however, when asked "by whom was it taken away?" gave an admission in conformity with the question, saying "it was taken away by me." For if the other had said "by whom was it seized, by whom was it removed, by whom was it placed?" then this one too would have said "it was seized by me, removed by me, placed by me." The mouth is made for the purpose of eating and for the purpose of speaking, but without a thievish intention there is no taking away. Therefore the Blessed One said - "There is no offence, monk, in a figure of speech." The meaning is: there is no offence in a mere conventional expression. From that point onwards, everything up to the end of the turban case is of clear meaning.

137. "Was dwelling in the unbroken body" means he was reborn in that very body due to craving for the cloth. "Paying no heed" means not accepting his words, or not showing regard. "That body, having risen up" means the ghost, by his own power, caused that body to rise up. Therefore it is said - Therefore it was said - "that body, having risen up." "Closed the door" means the monk's monastery was right near the cemetery, therefore the monk, being of a timid nature, quickly entered there and closed the door. "Fell down right there" means when the door was closed, the ghost, having no further attachment to the cloth, abandoned that body and departed according to his kamma; therefore that body fell down right there - it is said that it fell.

"From an unbroken body" means a rag-robe should not be taken from a fresh, moist body; for one who takes it, such dangers arise, and one commits an offence of wrong-doing. But it is permissible to take from a broken body. But to what extent is it considered broken? Even by being slightly split by the beak or fangs of crows, hawks, dogs, jackals, and the like. But if, through abrasion from falling, only the outer skin is cut while the inner skin is uncut, this is still unbroken; but when the inner skin is cut, it is broken. Also, if even while still alive there were burst boils, leprosy sores, or wounds, this too is broken. From the third day onwards, having reached the state of a corpse through bloating and so forth, this too is indeed broken. In all cases, however, even from an unbroken body, it is permissible to have it taken by cemetery keepers or other people. If one cannot obtain another person, one should make a wound with a knife or something else and then take it. But in the case of a body of the opposite sex, having established mindfulness and arousing the perception of a recluse, it is permissible to make a wound on the head or on the back of the hands and feet and then take it.

Discussion on the Case of Passing over Grass

138. In the immediately following case, "having moved a lot, took a robe" means that among the theft by stealth, theft by force, theft by scheming, theft by concealment, and theft by lot-switching - which were shown only by name in the earlier explanation of the meaning of the word "should take" - he took by theft by lot-switching. This is the meaning.

The diversity of these types of taking should be understood thus - Whoever takes another's property during the night or during the day, having broken through walls and so forth, unseen, or whoever takes it by deceiving with false measures, counterfeit coins, and the like - the taking of one who takes in such a way should be understood as "theft by stealth."

But whoever, having overpowered others by force, having subdued them, or else having threatened them and shown them danger, takes their belongings - like rebel bandits who carry out highway robbery, village raids, and the like, or like those who, under the influence of anger, plunder others' houses, or like kings, royal ministers, and the like who take by force beyond their rightful power; the taking of one who takes in such a way should be understood as "theft by force."

But the taking of one who takes by scheming is called "theft by scheming," and it is twofold by way of scheming about the article and scheming about the location. Herein, this is scheming about the article - Here a certain person desiring a cloth, having entered an inner room, schemes: "If it is a cloth, I shall take it; if it is thread, I shall not take it," and in the darkness takes a bag. If there is a cloth therein, it is an offence involving expulsion at the very moment of lifting. If it is thread, he is not defeated. Having taken it outside and opened it, knowing "it is thread," he brings it back and places it in its original place - he is not defeated. Even knowing "it is thread," if he goes thinking "whatever is obtained, that should be taken," he should be dealt with according to the step-by-step procedure. He places it on the ground and takes it up - at the lifting, it is an offence involving expulsion. Surrounded by the owners crying "Thief, thief!" he drops it and flees - he is not defeated. The owners see it and take it back - this is fortunate. If someone else takes it, there is liability for the article. Then, when the owners have turned back, he himself sees it and takes it thinking "This was already taken out by me, it is now my own" - he is not defeated; but there is liability for the article. "If it is thread, I shall take it; if it is a cloth, I shall not take it. If it is ghee, I shall take it; if it is oil, I shall not take it" - the same method applies to one who takes by scheming in this and similar ways.

But in the Mahāpaccarī and other texts it is said: "Even one desiring a cloth, having taken just the bag of cloth and gone out, standing outside and opening it, seeing 'this is a cloth' and going, should be dealt with by the step-by-step lifting procedure alone." But here, because he schemed "if it is a cloth, I shall take it," the scheming is evident; but because he saw it and was pleased, the theft by scheming is not evident. But in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, the taking is stated for one who lifts what was schemed about while it remains unseen and still in the state of being schemed about; therefore, theft by scheming is evident therein. And it accords with the canonical text "thinking it to be that, he took that." Therein, the scheming that occurred in the manner "if it is a cloth, I shall take it" and so forth - this is called "scheming about the article."

But scheming about the location should be understood thus - Here a certain greedy monk, having entered another's dwelling, or a lay family's house, or a workshop in the forest, and sitting there engaged in conversation, looks at some desirable requisite; and looking, having seen it, having determined a boundary by way of the doorway, the area in front, the lower storey, the monastery dwelling, the gatehouse, the foot of a tree, and so forth, he schemes: "If they see me within this area, I shall show it to them as if I were walking about having taken it out of desire to look at it; if they do not see me, I shall take it away." For him, as soon as he passes beyond the determined boundary having taken it, it is an offence involving expulsion. If he determines the vicinity boundary, and while going towards it, attending to meditation subjects and the like, or being otherwise engaged, he heedlessly crosses the vicinity boundary - there is liability for the article. And if, when he has reached that place, a thief, or an elephant, or a wild beast, or a great storm arises, and he hastily crosses that place out of desire to escape from that danger - it is merely liability for the article. But some say here: "Since it was taken from the very beginning with thieving intention, therefore he is not absolved; it is indeed a taking." This, then, is the method of the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. But in the Mahāpaccarī it is said: "Even if he, within the determined boundary, mounts an elephant or a horse, he neither drives it nor causes it to be driven; even when the boundary has been crossed, there is no offence involving expulsion; it is merely liability for the article." Therein, the scheming that occurred thus: "If they see me within this area, I shall show it to them as if I were walking about having taken it out of desire to look at it" - this is called "scheming about the location."

Thus, the taking away by one who takes having planned by means of both these two kinds of planning should be understood as "taking away by planning."

But taking away by concealing is "concealed taking away." That should be understood thus - Whatever monk, having seen ornamental goods removed and placed aside by people playing in parks and the like, or by those entering, thinking "If I bend down and take it, they might recognise me thinking 'What is the ascetic taking?' and harass me," covers it with dust or a leaf - thinking "I shall take it later" - for him, to that extent there is no lifting up, so there is no taking away yet. But when those people, wishing to enter the village, even searching for that article but not seeing it, thinking "It is dark now, we shall find out tomorrow," have gone to their hall. Then, when he lifts it up, at the lifting up there is an offence involving expulsion. But for one who takes it with the perception of ownership thinking "At the time of concealing itself, that became mine," or with the perception of a discarded article thinking "They have gone now, this is a discarded article" - there is an offence requiring restitution of the article. Even when those people, having come on the second day, having searched and not seen it, having given up the effort and gone - what was taken is still only an offence requiring restitution of the article. Why? Because through his effort it was not seen by them. But whoever, having seen such an article standing in its very place, without concealing it, with thieving intention, treading on it with his foot, pushes it into mud or sand - for him, at the very moment of pushing it in, there is an offence involving expulsion.

But taking away by moving a lot is called "taking away by lot." That too should be understood thus - Whatever monk, having cast a lot, when robes are being distributed, wishing to take another's share standing near his own share - whether of lesser value, greater value, or equal value - lifts up the lot-stick fallen on his own share wishing to drop it on another's share, it is protected for the time being. He drops it on another's share - it is still protected. But when, after that has fallen, he lifts up another's lot-stick from another's share, at the very moment of lifting up he becomes one who has committed an offence involving expulsion. If he first lifts up the lot-stick from the other's share with the desire to drop it on his own share - at the lifting up it is protected, at the dropping it is protected. But when he lifts up his own lot-stick from his own share, at the very lifting up it is protected. Having lifted that up, for one dropping it on another's share, at the very moment it is released from the hand, there is an offence involving expulsion.

But if he makes the sticks fallen on both shares disappear, then when the remaining monks have gone, the other says: "Venerable sir, my stick is not apparent." "Mine too, friend, is not apparent." "But which, venerable sir, is my share?" "This is your share" - he shows his own share. Whether the other, having disputed or not disputed, having taken that and gone, the former lifts up his share - at the lifting up there is an offence involving expulsion. Even if the other has said "I do not give my share to you, but you, knowing your own share, take it" - even though knowing "This is not mine," he takes that very one's share - at the lifting up there is an offence involving expulsion. But if the other, thinking "This is your share, this is my share - what is the point of this dispute?" says "Whether it falls to me or to you, whichever is the better share, you take that" - what is taken is taken as given, there is no taking away here. Even if that monk, fearful of dispute, told "Take whatever pleases you," leaving aside the better share that had come to him, takes only the inferior one and goes - then for the other too, taking what remains after the selection, there is no taking away at all.

But in the commentaries it is said - "In this place, only one matter concerning the distribution of robes has come by way of moving the lot, but the arising and distribution of all four requisites should be drawn out and shown." And having said thus, in the Robe Section: "May the Blessed One accept from me, venerable sir, a pair of Siveyyaka cloths; and may he allow householder-robes for the Community of monks" - beginning with this account of Jīvaka, the discussion on robes that have arisen; in the Lodgings Section: "Now at that time there was a famine in Rājagaha, people were unable to provide a meal for the Community, they wished to provide a designated meal, an invitation, a meal by ticket, a fortnightly meal, an Uposatha meal, a meal on the first of the fortnight" - beginning with this passage, the discussion on almsfood; in the Lodgings Section itself: "Now at that time the group of seventeen monks were repairing a certain great monastery on the border - "Here we shall reside for the rains retreat." The group of six monks saw the group of seventeen monks repairing the monastery" - beginning with this account of the group of six, the discussion on lodgings that have arisen, and at the end of that, the discussion on medicines such as ghee and the like was spoken of in detail. But we shall speak of all that in each place as it comes; the reason for speaking thus has already been stated.

The discussion on the case of passing over grass is finished.

139. Hereafter, the account of the sweat room is clear in meaning.

140. Regarding the five cases of scraps, those monks, having had them made allowable by an unordained person, consumed them. However, one taking scraps should take what has been eaten and left behind, discarded. If one is able to have them drop it while they are eating and then take it, this too is permissible. However, for the purpose of self-protection and out of compassion for others, it should not be taken.

141. In the cases of distribution of cooked rice, solid food, cake, sugar-cane, and timbarūsaka fruit, "give the share to another" refers to a non-existent person. "Took on an unfounded charge" means he took it thus while the owners were giving. "There is no offence, monk, of expulsion" means he took what was given by the owners; therefore no offence was stated for him. "There is an offence of expiation for conscious lying" means that regarding the conscious lying stated by him, he declares an expiation for that; as in the case of the tekaṭula gruel matter later on. However, regarding the taking, this is the determination: When what belongs to the Community is being given by one who is authorised or by those commanded or by monastery attendants and the like, and when what belongs to laypeople is being given by the owner or by one commanded, for one who takes it saying "give the share to another," it is to be forfeited. When it is being given by someone else, one who takes it should be made to pay the value of the goods. When it is being given by one who is not authorised or by one who is not commanded, one who takes it by saying "give a share to another as well" or by counting fraudulent years, should be made to pay the value of the goods as a deduction from his share, as in the case of the bowl group of four. When it is being given by the others, for one who takes it thus, it is to be forfeited. However, what is caused to be given by the owner saying "give to this one," or what is given by himself, is well-given - this is the essence here according to the determination of all the commentaries.

142-143. Regarding the cases of cooked rice houses and so forth - A cooked rice house means a house where food is cooked for sale. A slaughter house means a house where meat is cooked for sale. A cake house means a house where edible delicacies are cooked for sale. The remainder here, and in the cases concerning requisites, is evident.

144. In the case of the chair - that monk, having planned "I shall take this thing when it has arrived at the intended place," moved it. Therefore, in his moving it, there is no theft. But having moved it, in the taking from the planned place, an offence involving expulsion is stated. And if, while carrying in this way, there is no thieving intention regarding the chair, the bag should be valued and he should be dealt with accordingly. But if there is also regarding the chair, both should be valued and he should be dealt with accordingly. The three cases beginning with the mattress are self-evident.

146. There is no offence in taking in the three cases beginning with taking on trust; the goods should be given back when they are not pleased. The share of one who has entered for almsfood is proper to be taken only while he is standing within the precincts boundary. But if the donors say "Venerable sirs, take the share even for those at a place outside the precincts; they will come and consume it," then it is proper to take it even for those at a place within the village. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

148-149. In the seven cases beginning with the mango thieves, there is no offence in taking with the perception of rag-robes; when they are brought, there is liability for the goods; in consuming with intent to steal, there is an offence involving expulsion. Herein this is the determination - When the owners too have a base and the thieves too have a base, for one eating with the perception of rag-robes there is liability for the goods; for one taking with intent to steal, the theft is by removal itself, and he should be dealt with after having the goods assessed in value. When the owners have a base and the thieves have no base, the same method applies. When the owners have no base and the thieves have a base; having thrown them down at some place of concealment and gone, thinking "We shall take them again," the same method applies. When both have no base, there is no offence for one eating with the perception of rag-robes; with intent to steal, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

Regarding mangoes and so forth belonging to the Community, whether grown in a monastery of the Community or brought and given, for one who steals what is worth five māsakas or more than five māsakas, there is an offence involving expulsion. In the border regions, when villagers are departing due to the danger of thieves, monks too, abandoning the monastery, go with the intention of returning, thinking "We shall come back when the countryside is inhabited again." Monks, having arrived at such a monastery, consume ripe mangoes and so forth with the perception of rag-robes, thinking "These are discarded" - there is no offence; for one consuming with intent to steal, there is theft, and he should be dealt with after having the goods assessed in value.

However, in the Mahāpaccarī and in the Abridged Commentary, it is stated without distinction: "For one consuming fruits and non-fruits with intent to steal in an abandoned monastery, there is an offence involving expulsion. Why? Because they are the property of those who have come and those yet to come." However, regarding what belongs to a group and what is personal, only the mere intention to return is the criterion. But if from that one gives ripe mangoes and so forth for the purpose of ingratiating families, there is an offence of wrong-doing for corrupting families. One giving with intent to steal should be dealt with according to the value. The same method applies even in the case of what belongs to the monastic community. For one giving what is designated for the purpose of lodgings for the purpose of ingratiating families, there is an offence of wrong-doing; by acting as an owner, a grave offence; with intent to steal, an offence involving expulsion. If the object is not sufficient, he should be dealt with according to the value. For one sitting outside the boundary of the precincts and consuming by acting as an owner, there is a grave offence. Having struck the bell and announced the time, what is eaten thinking "It falls to me" is well eaten. Without striking the bell but announcing the time, or striking the bell but not announcing the time, or neither striking the bell nor announcing the time, having known the absence of others, what is eaten thinking "It falls to me" is also well eaten. The two cases concerning the Flower Park are well known.

150. In the three cases concerning speaking as instructed, "I will speak as instructed" means having been instructed by you, "I speak by your word" - this is the meaning. "There is no offence, monk, of expulsion" means there is no offence because it was given by the owners. "And, monks, one should not say 'I will speak as instructed'" means another monk should not say to another monk thus: "Having been instructed by you, I speak by your word" - this is the meaning. However, having made a specification, it is allowable to say "I will take such-and-such by your word." "Speak as instructed" means having been instructed by me, speak by my word - this is the meaning. The remainder is according to the method already stated. And in these two cases also, it is allowable to speak having made a specification. For by this much one is freed from reproach.

151-152. In the middle case of the three cases concerning the jewel - "I am not ill" means "I am not sick." The remainder is well-known.

153. In the two cases concerning the pig - although for the first monk there is no offence because he released it out of compassion, having seen its state of hunger. However, when the owners do not accept this, compensation is due; either a dead pig of equal size should be brought and given, or goods of equivalent value. If he does not see the owners of the snare anywhere, he should place a cloth, a robe, or a bowl of equivalent value near the snare in such a place where they, upon coming, would see it, and only then should he go. But for one who releases it with intent to steal, it is an offence involving expulsion. And here, a certain pig, having dragged the snare with its foot, when the snare is merely broken, stands in its place by the nature of standing where it was displaced from its position, like a boat fastened in a swift current. A certain one stands by its own nature, a certain one lies down, and a certain one is bound by a hooked snare. A hooked snare is one at the end of which a small bow, a hook, or some other stick is fastened, which, catching here and there on trees and the like, prevents the pig from going. Therein, for one standing having dragged the snare, there is only one base - the binding of the snare; for it runs away as soon as the snare is released or broken. For one standing by its own nature, there are five bases - the binding and the four feet. For one lying down, there are two bases - the binding and the lying position. For one bound by a hooked snare, wherever it goes, that very place is its base. Therefore, monks who release it from here and there - even ten, even twenty, even a hundred - commit an offence involving expulsion. It is like seeing a single slave who has arrived here and there and causing him to flee.

However, for the first three, the agitation and displacement from bases should be understood according to the method stated in the discussion on quadrupeds. Even for one who causes the release of a pig seized by a dog, with an intention of compassion, compensation is due; with intent to steal, it is an offence involving expulsion. However, for one who, having gone by a different path that has not reached the vicinity of the dog or the place of the snare, causes it to flee beforehand, there is no taking. Also, one who, having given food and water to the bound pig and having made it gain strength, makes a shout - "It will flee in fright" - if it flees, it is an offence involving expulsion. The same method applies also for one who, having weakened the snare, causes it to flee by the sound of a shout.

But one who, having given food and water, goes away, thinking "Having gained strength, it will flee" - if it flees, compensation is due. The same method applies also for one who, having weakened the snare, goes away. He places a knife or fire near the snare, thinking "When it is cut or burnt, it will flee." The pig, shaking the snare, when it is cut or burnt, flees - compensation only is due. He knocks down the snare together with the stake; afterwards the pig, trampling over it, goes away - compensation is due. A pig is weighed down by a heavy stone; for one wishing to cause it to flee, if he lifts the heavy stone out of compassion, compensation is due; with intent to steal, it is an offence involving expulsion. If, as soon as it is lifted, it does not go but goes away afterwards, compensation only is due. He knocks down the heavy stone that was lifted and placed; afterwards the pig, trampling over it, goes away - compensation is due. Even for one who lifts out a pig that has fallen into a pit, out of compassion, compensation is due; with intent to steal, it is an offence involving expulsion. He fills up the pit and drives it away; afterwards the pig, trampling over it, goes away - compensation is due. One who lifts out one impaled on a stake, out of compassion - compensation is due; with intent to steal, it is an offence involving expulsion. He pulls out the stake and discards it - compensation is due.

However, those who set snares or deadfall stones on monastery grounds should be prevented - "This is a place of refuge for animals, do not do such things here." If they say "Have them removed, venerable sir," it is proper to have them removed. If they remove them themselves, that is excellent. If they neither remove them nor allow them to be removed, it is proper to request protection and have them removed. People, during the time of crop protection, set snares and deadfall stones and such in their fields - "By eating the flesh, we shall protect the crops." When the crop season has passed and those people have departed without attachment, it is proper to release whatever is caught or fallen there.

In the two cases concerning deer as well, the judgement is similar to that stated in the cases concerning pigs.

In the two cases concerning fish as well, the same method applies. But this is the distinction - for one who, having opened the mouth of the fish-trap, or having released the rear pouch, or having made a hole in the side, drives out the fish from the fish-trap and causes them to flee, it is an offence involving expulsion. For one who, having shown rice grains and thus causes them to flee, it is also an offence involving expulsion. For one who lifts them up together with the fish-trap, it is also an offence involving expulsion. If one merely opens the mouth of the fish-trap, releases the rear pouch, or makes a hole, but the fish flee of their own nature, it is compensation. Having done thus, one shows rice grains, and the fish, having come out seeking food, flee - it is only compensation. Without opening the mouth, without releasing the rear pouch, without making a hole in the side, one merely shows rice grains, but the fish, being afflicted by hunger, strike with their heads and make an opening and come out seeking food and flee - it is only compensation. If one opens the mouth of an empty fish-trap, or releases the rear pouch, or makes a hole, and fish that come along, having reached the entrance, flee through the holes in the pouch - it is only compensation. If one takes an empty fish-trap and throws it into a thicket - it is only compensation. The goods on a vehicle are similar to those on a bench or in a bag.

In the case concerning the slice of flesh - if one takes it in the air, the place where it was taken is itself the base. That should be understood as removal from the base by delimiting it in six directions. The remainder here should be judged according to the method stated in the cases concerning timber, the cowherd, the washerman's cloth, and in the cases concerning the mango thief and so forth.

155. In the case of the pot - One who, having taken ghee, oil, and such things not amounting to the value of a pāda, having established himself in restraint thinking "I shall not do thus again," and when the desire arises again on the second day and so forth, having likewise relinquished the responsibility and consuming it, even if he consumes all of it, there is no offence of expulsion. He commits either a wrong-doing or a grave offence, but there is liability for the goods. This monk too did exactly thus. Therefore it was said - "There is no offence, monk, of expulsion." However, for one who, without relinquishing the responsibility, consumes little by little thinking "I shall consume day after day," on whichever day the value of a pāda is fulfilled, on that day there is expulsion.

The cases of theft by arrangement should be understood according to the method of adjudication stated in the case of theft by arrangement; the cases of the handful should be understood according to that stated in the cases of the rice-cooking house and so forth; and the two cases of leftover food should be understood according to that stated in the cases of the mango thief and so forth. The two cases of grass are self-evident in meaning.

156. In the cases concerning the distribution of mangoes and so forth, those monks went to a certain village monastery with a limited number of monks. There, although the monks were consuming fruits and other produce, when those monks arrived, they did not say to the attendants who make things allowable: "Give fruits to the elders." Then those monks, thinking "Does what belongs to the Community not reach us?", struck the bell, had it distributed, gave a share to those monks too according to seniority of rains, and consumed it themselves as well. Therefore the Blessed One said to them: "There is no offence, monks, for the purpose of use." Therefore even now, wherever resident monks do not give to visiting monks, and when the fruit season has arrived, seeing the presence of others, they eat by themselves as if by stealth, there it is proper for visiting monks to strike the bell, distribute, and consume.

But where resident monks, having tended the trees, when the fruit season has arrived, distribute and eat, and properly apply them to the four requisites, visiting monks have no authority there. Even regarding trees given having been designated for the purpose of robes, visiting monks have no authority over those either. The same method applies also to those given having been designated for the purpose of the remaining requisites.

But those that are not so designated, and the resident monks, having guarded and protected them, consume them as if by stealth - one should not abide by the agreement of the resident monks regarding those. Those given for the purpose of consuming the fruits, even if the resident monks guard and protect them and properly apply them - regarding those very ones, one should abide by their agreement. But in the Mahāpaccarī it is said: "One who consumes with thieving intention what has been given having been designated for the four requisites should be made to pay after having the goods assessed. For one who distributes and consumes that merely for the purpose of use, there is liability for the goods. But whatever here has been designated for the purpose of lodgings, for one who distributes and consumes that merely for the purpose of use, there is both a grave offence and liability for the goods."

What has been given having been specifically designated for the purpose of robes should be applied to robes only. If there is a famine, and monks are struggling with almsfood, but robes are easily obtainable, having performed an act of announcement for the well-being of the Community, it is proper to apply it to almsfood as well. When they are struggling with lodgings or medicine for the sick, having performed an act of announcement for the well-being of the Community, it is proper to apply it for that purpose as well. The same method applies also to what has been given specifically designated for the purpose of almsfood and for the purpose of medicine for the sick. But what has been given specifically designated for the purpose of lodgings is heavy property; that should be guarded and protected and applied for that very purpose only. But if there is a famine, and monks cannot sustain themselves with almsfood - here, when those going elsewhere due to dangers from kings, disease, thieves and so forth, the monasteries fall into ruin, they destroy the palms, coconuts and the like, but it is possible to sustain oneself depending on the lodging requisite. At such a time, even having disposed of lodgings, use for the purpose of maintaining the lodgings has been permitted by the Blessed One. Therefore, having set aside one or two excellent lodgings, it is proper to dispose of the others, beginning with the inferior ones, for the purpose of almsfood. But having made a complete destruction of the foundation, one should not apply it.

But whatever monastery has been given having been designated for the purpose of the four requisites, an act of announcement should not be performed there. But whichever requisite is deficient, it is proper to apply it for that purpose. The monastery should be maintained; it is proper to have it maintained even by giving wages. But those who, having received wages, build a house in the monastery itself and live there guarding it - if they give coconuts or palm nuts to monks who have come, whatever has been permitted to them by the Community - "Each day you may eat this much" - they are entitled to give only that; it is not proper to accept from them even if they give more than that.

But whoever, having taken a monastery on lease, gives only allowable goods to the Community for the purpose of the four requisites, he is permitted to give even much. A monastery given for the purpose of lamps for a shrine or for the purpose of repairing what is broken and dilapidated should also be maintained; it should be maintained even by giving wages. And here it is proper to give wages from what belongs to the shrine as well as from what belongs to the Community. Regarding this monastery too, the giving of fruits produced therein by those who live there and guard it for wages, and by those who give allowable goods having taken it on lease, should be understood in the manner already stated.

In the cases beginning with the mango-keepers - "There is no offence, monks, in a gift from a guardian" - here, which gift from a guardian is proper and which is not proper? The Elder Mahāsuma first said: "What has been given after apportioning to the guardian - 'Take this much day by day' - only that is proper; beyond that it is not proper." But the Elder Mahāpaduma said - "Is there anything given to guardians by written document or by making a sign as agreement? These are masters over what has been entrusted into their hands; therefore whatever they give, even much, is proper." But in the Kurundi Commentary it is said - "Children guard a monastery or other fruits belonging to people; what is given by them is proper. But one should not accept what has been brought by request. But regarding what belongs to the Community and what belongs to a shrine, only the gift of one who guards having taken it on lease is proper. For one who guards for wages, only one's own share is proper." But in the Mahāpaccarī: "What the monastery guardians of laypeople give to monks, that is proper. But what the monastery guardians of the Community of monks give, having broken off from their own wages, that is proper. Even one who guards having received wages for half the monastery or for certain trees only, it is proper for him to give only from the trees allotted to him. But for one who guards having taken it on lease, even all is proper" - thus it is said. But all this is different only in wording, in meaning it is one and the same; therefore it should be understood by knowing the intention.

In the case of wood - "It was temporary, Blessed One" was said by one wishing to say "my intention was temporary, Blessed One"; "with temporary intention" means it is said "my intention was thus: 'I shall bring it back and return it.'" The Blessed One said: "There is no offence for temporary taking."

Now here is the determination beyond the canonical text - if the Community is carrying out a communal work, an uposatha hall or a dining hall, one should ask permission from that and take it temporarily. But whatever communal building material is unprotected, gets wet when it rains, and dries out in the sun, it is proper to take all of it and use it for one's own dwelling. When the Community requests it back, one should be compensated with other building materials or with money. If it is not possible to compensate, one should say: "Venerable sir, it was made with communal property; use it as communal property." But this very monk is the master of the dwelling. Even if a stone pillar or a wooden pillar or a door panel or a window is lacking, it is proper to take communal property temporarily and make it permanent. This same method applies to other building materials as well.

In the case concerning water - when water is difficult to obtain, it is brought from a yojana or half a yojana away; in such a case, stealing appropriated water constitutes theft. Even from water that is being brought or standing in lotus ponds and the like, from which they merely prepare gruel and rice and use for drinking, and do not make other great use of it, for one who takes even that with thieving intention, it constitutes theft. However, where one may take one or two pots to wash seats, to water Bodhi trees, to make water offerings, or to cook dye, in that case one should act only according to the agreement of the Community. One who takes in excess, or who with thieving intention throws in clay and the like, should be made to pay after having the goods assessed.

If the resident monks make the agreement strict, not allowing others to wash or dye their belongings, but themselves take it when others are not looking and do everything, their agreement need not be observed. However much they wash, that much may be washed. If the Community has two or three lotus ponds or water cisterns, and an agreement has been made: "One should bathe here, drinking water should be taken from here, all use should be made here." Everything should be done according to the agreement alone. Where there is no agreement, all use is permissible.

In the case concerning clay - where clay is difficult to obtain, or various coloured clays have been brought and stored, even a small amount there is worth five māsakas; therefore it is an offence involving expulsion. However, when Community work or shrine work has been completed, it is permissible to take it after asking the Community or as a temporary loan. The same method applies to plaster and to paints for decorative work.

In the cases concerning grass - in the case of burned grass, because there is no removal from its place, it is a wrong-doing, but compensation for the goods is due. The Community, having tended the grass plot, thatches the Community dwelling; if at some time it is unable to tend it again, and another single monk tends it out of pure faith, it still belongs to the Community. If he does not tend it, one monk should be told by the Community: "Tend it and give it." If he wishes for a share, he should be made to tend it even by giving a share. If he increases the share, it should indeed be given. If he keeps increasing it, he should be told: "Go, tend it, take all of it, and thatch your own dwelling." Why? When it is lost, there is no benefit. However, those giving should not give it together with the land, as it is heavy property; but the grass alone should be given. If, while he is tending it and thatching his own dwelling, the Community is again able to tend it, he should be told: "You should not tend it; the Community will tend it."

The seven cases beginning with beds are well known. Even though not mentioned in the canonical text, for one who carries away a stone pillar or a wooden pillar or anything else of equivalent value, it is indeed an offence involving expulsion. The same method applies also to one who breaks the walls or enclosure walls of abandoned and fallen residences and the like in meditation halls and such places, and carries away bricks and the like. Why? What belongs to the Community is sometimes inhabited and sometimes not inhabited. The same method applies also to one who carries away any requisite from abandoned monasteries and the like when people depart from the border regions due to fear of bandits. However, those who take from there temporarily, and when the monasteries are inhabited again the monks request them to return it, it should be given back. Even if a dwelling has been made from what was brought from there, that or its equivalent value should indeed be given back. Having cut off attachment thinking "We shall inhabit it again," when people have departed from the regions, what belongs to a group or to an individual may have been taken; if they give consent, there is no need for restitution. However, what belongs to the Community is heavy property; therefore restitution must indeed be made.

157. The matter concerning the use of dwelling requisites is clear in meaning.

Regarding "I allow, monks, to take temporarily": here, if a monk, having temporarily taken a bed or chair belonging to the Saṅgha, uses it for the Saṅgha's use at a place comfortable for himself for even one or two months, gives it to more senior monks who come from time to time, and does not refuse them, then even if it is lost, worn out, or carried off by thieves, there is no liability for him. However, when departing after having stayed, it should be placed back in its original place. But whoever uses it for personal use and does not give it to more senior monks who come from time to time, if it is lost, there is liability for him. However, if one who has taken it to another dwelling and is using it there is made to vacate by a more senior monk who arrives, he should say: "I brought this from such-and-such a dwelling; I shall go and restore it to its original place." If that monk says "I will restore it to its original place," it is proper to go even after making it his responsibility - thus it is stated in the Abridged Commentary.

In the Campā matter: "Rice-gruel containing the three pungent ingredients" means gruel made with three ingredients by adding any one kind of pulse together with sesame and rice - either sesame, rice, and mung beans, or sesame, rice, and black beans, or sesame, rice, and horse gram. They make this, it is said, by combining these three with milk mixed with one-quarter water, together with ghee, honey, sugar, and so forth.

In the Rājagaha matter: "Honey-ball" means an excessively sweet cake; they also call it "honey-head." The remainder here in both these matters should be understood in the same way as stated in the matter concerning the sharing of rice.

158. In the case of Ajjuka - "Said this" means he said it after becoming ill. "The Venerable Upāli was on the Venerable Ajjuka's side" - he was not on his side by way of partiality, but rather the Elder should be understood as being on his side through recognising it as a non-offence, through supporting one who is conscientious, and through supporting the Vinaya. The remainder here is clear in itself.

159. In the Bārāṇasī account - "Troubled by thieves" means plundered by thieves. "Having brought by supernormal power, placed them in the mansion" means that the Elder, it is said, having seen that family afflicted by the dart of sorrow, turning this way and that, out of compassion for that family, for the purpose of preserving their confidence, through the support of the Dhamma, by his own supernormal power, resolved thus: "Let their very mansion be near the boys." The boys, recognising "This is our mansion," climbed up into it. Then the Elder withdrew the supernormal power, and the mansion stood in its own place again. However, it was stated in conventional terms: "Having brought those boys by supernormal power, he placed them in the mansion." "In the extent of supernormal power" means there is no offence with such supernormal power of resolution. However, the supernormal power of transformation is not permissible.

160-161. The two cases at the end have a clear meaning.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya,

the commentary on the second Pārājika is finished.

Herein is this instruction -

The second Pārājika, which was made known by the Conqueror who is without a second;

By him whose defilements are conquered - this is the pārājika here.

A training rule equal to that, no other whatsoever is found;

Interspersed with manifold methods, with a determination of profound meaning.

Therefore, when a case has arisen, by a monk who knows the Vinaya,

Making a determination herein with the support of the Vinaya,

Having plunged into the canonical text and the commentary together with their intention completely,

The determination should be made by one who is heedful.

Eagerness to see an offence should never be exercised;

One should make up one's mind thus: "I shall see non-offence."

And even having seen an offence, without declaring it, again and again

Having investigated and then having compared it with the wise, one should state it.

Even in an allowable matter, due to the fickleness of the mind,

Ordinary persons here fall away from the qualities of recluseship.

Therefore, regarding another's requisites, seeing them as a venomous serpent,

And as fire, the wise one should not lie down with them.

Of the commentary on the Pārājika section,

The first part is concluded.

Homage to the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Self-awakened One

3.

The Third Expulsion

The third pārājika, which was elucidated by the Buddha who is pure in three ways,

The order of commentary on that has now been reached.

Since therefore what has been explained before is easy to understand;

Setting that aside, this commentary too is given.

Explanation of the Origin of the First Laying Down

162. Here, in "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Vesālī in the Great Wood in the Pinnacled Hall," "at Vesālī" means in the city so named, the conventional usage of which operates by way of the feminine gender. For that city is called "Vesālī" because it became extensive (visālībhūtattā) through the expansion of its wall-enclosure three times. And it should be understood that this city too reached full prosperity in every respect only when the Perfectly Enlightened One attained omniscience. Having thus indicated the resort village, he stated the place of dwelling - "in the Great Wood in the Pinnacled Hall." Therein, the Great Wood is a naturally grown, unplanted, bounded, great forest. But in the vicinity of Kapilavatthu, the Great Wood, connected as one with the Himalayas, being without boundary, stood reaching the great ocean. This one is not like that; a bounded great forest is the Great Wood. The Pinnacled Hall should be understood as the perfumed chamber of the Buddha, the Blessed One, complete in every respect, made with a peaked-roof covering in the style of a swan-circle, having a pinnacled structure within, in the monastery built in dependence on the Great Wood.

"Speaks in many ways about the talk on foulness" means he speaks a talk that produces disenchantment with the body, proceeding by way of displaying the aspect of foulness through many reasons. That is: "There are in this body head hairs, body hairs, etc. ... urine.'" What is meant? Monks, searching in every way in this fathom-long carcass, no one sees any pearl, or gem, or beryl, or aloe-wood, or sandalwood, or saffron, or camphor, or fragrant powders and the like, or even the slightest state of purity. Rather, one sees only impurity of various kinds such as head hairs, body hairs, and so forth, which is extremely foul-smelling, disgusting, and unsightly in appearance. Therefore, neither desire nor lust should be generated here. For even the head hairs that grow on the head, the highest limb, are foul, impure, and repulsive. And their state of being foul, impure, and repulsive should be understood through five reasons: by way of colour, by way of shape, by way of smell, by way of origin, and by way of location. So too for body hairs and the rest. This is the summary here; the detailed account should be understood according to the method stated in the Visuddhimagga. Thus the Blessed One speaks the talk on foulness in many ways, with a fivefold analysis in each and every portion.

"Praises foulness" means having set down the matrix of foulness by way of the bloated and so forth, he praises foulness by analysing it through the method of word-analysis, describing and extolling it. "Praises the development of foulness" means that which is the meditation, the growth, the increase of consciousness that proceeds having taken the aspect of foulness in internal and external objects such as head hairs and so on or the bloated and so on - showing the benefit of that development of foulness, he praises it, he extols its virtue. That is: "A monk devoted to the development of foulness, monks, in objects such as head hairs and so forth or the bloated and so forth, attains the first jhāna, which is abandoned in five factors, possessed of five factors, threefold good, and endowed with ten characteristics. He, in dependence on that casket of consciousness called the first meditative absorption, having developed insight, attains the highest good, arahantship."

Therein, these are the ten characteristics of the first jhāna - purification of mind from obstacles, the practice of the middle sign of concentration, the mind's leaping forward therein, looking on with equanimity at the purified mind, looking on with equanimity at what has entered upon tranquillity, looking on with equanimity at the state of singleness, elation in the sense of the non-exceeding of states arisen therein, elation in the sense of the single flavour of the faculties, in the sense of conveying the energy appropriate thereto, and in the sense of repeated practice.

Herein this is the canonical text - "What is the beginning of the first jhāna, what is the middle, what is the conclusion? Purification of practice is the beginning of the first meditative absorption, development of equanimity is the middle, gladdening is the end. The purification of the practice is the beginning of the first jhāna; how many characteristics does the beginning have? The beginning has three characteristics - whatever is its obstacle, from that the mind is purified; because of being purified, the mind enters upon the middle sign of tranquillity; because of having entered upon it, the mind springs forward therein. And that the mind becomes pure from the obstacle, and that because of purity the mind proceeds to the middle sign of serenity, and that because of having proceeded the mind springs forward there. Purification of practice is the beginning of the first meditative absorption; these are the three characteristics of the beginning. Therefore it is said - 'The first jhāna is beautiful in the beginning and endowed with three characteristics.'

"The strengthening of equanimity is the middle of the first jhāna; how many characteristics does the middle have? The middle has three characteristics - one looks on with equanimity at the purified mind, one looks on with equanimity at what has entered upon tranquillity, one looks on with equanimity at what is established in singleness. That one looks on with equanimity at the purified mind, that one looks on with equanimity at what has entered upon tranquillity, and that one looks on with equanimity at what is established in singleness. The development of equanimity of the first meditative absorption is the middle; these are the three characteristics of the middle. Therefore it is said - 'The first jhāna is beautiful in the middle and endowed with three characteristics.'

"Exhilaration is the conclusion of the first jhāna; how many characteristics does the conclusion have? The end has four characteristics - exhilaration in the sense of the non-exceeding of states arisen therein, exhilaration in the sense of the faculties having one flavour, exhilaration in the sense of conveying the appropriate energy, exhilaration in the sense of repeated practice. The gladdening of the first meditative absorption is the end; these are the four characteristics of the end. Therefore it is said - 'The first jhāna is beautiful in the conclusion and endowed with four characteristics.' "Thus the mind that has gone to the threefold state is threefold in beauty, endowed with ten characteristics, endowed with applied thought, endowed with sustained thought, endowed with rapture, endowed with happiness, endowed with the resolution of mind, endowed with faith, endowed with energy, endowed with mindfulness, endowed with concentration, and endowed with wisdom."

"Repeatedly praising the attainment of foulness" means: having made the determination again and again as "in this way and in that way," pointing out, he praises the attainment of foulness, speaks of its benefits, and proclaims its virtues. That is: "Monks, for a monk who dwells frequently with a mind cultivated by the perception of foulness, the mind shrinks back, draws back, turns away from the engagement in sexual intercourse, and does not extend towards it; either equanimity or repulsiveness is established. Just as, monks, a cock's feather or a strip of sinew thrown into a fire shrinks back, draws back, turns away, and does not extend; just so, monks, for a monk who dwells frequently with a mind cultivated by the perception of foulness, the mind shrinks back, draws back, turns away from the engagement in sexual intercourse, and does not extend towards it."

"I wish, monks, to go into seclusion for a fortnight" means: I wish, monks, to go into seclusion for one fortnight, to withdraw, to dwell alone - this is the meaning. "I should not be approached by anyone except for one bringing almsfood" means: except for one monk who, without himself making any soliciting speech, brings out almsfood prepared in faithful families for my sake and offers it to me - except for that one monk who brings almsfood, I should not be approached by any other monk or householder.

But why did he say thus? In the past, it is said, five hundred deer hunters, having surrounded the forest with great stakes and nets, delighted and pleased, making their livelihood solely by the killing of deer and birds for their entire lives, were reborn in hell; having been tormented there, by some wholesome kamma done previously, they were reborn among humans, and by the force of a wholesome supporting condition, they all obtained the going forth and the full ordination in the presence of the Blessed One; from that root unwholesome kamma, the volitions whose results had not yet ripened, one after another, created the opportunity for the cutting off of life by self-infliction and by the infliction of others within that fortnight - this the Blessed One saw. The result of action indeed cannot be prevented by anyone. And among those monks there were both ordinary persons and stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners, and those with taints destroyed. Therein, those with taints destroyed are without renewed existence; the other noble disciples have a fixed destination with a happy realm as their goal; but the destination of ordinary persons is unfixed. Then the Blessed One thought - "These, frightened by the fear of death through desire and lust for their individual existence, will not be able to purify their destination. Come, let me speak to them the talk on foulness for the abandoning of desire and lust. Having heard that, through the absence of desire and lust for their individual existence, having purified their destination, they will take rebirth in heaven. Thus their going forth in my presence will be fruitful."

Thereupon, for their assistance, he spoke the talk on foulness with the meditation subject as the lead, not with the intention of praising and extolling death. And having spoken, this occurred to him - "If the monks see me during this fortnight, they will come again and again and report, 'Today one monk has died, today two,' etc. 'Today ten,' coming again and again they will report. And this result of kamma cannot be warded off by me or by anyone else. What shall I do even upon hearing that? What use is it for me to hear of such purposeless misfortune and calamity? Come, let me resort to not seeing the monks." Therefore he spoke thus - "I wish, monks, to go into seclusion for a fortnight; I should not be approached by anyone except for one bringing almsfood."

Others, however, say - "He spoke thus and went into seclusion for the purpose of avoiding censure by others." Others, it is said, would blame the Blessed One - "This one, who claims 'I am omniscient, I am the supreme sovereign of the true Dhamma,' is unable to prevent even his own disciples from killing one another. What else will he be able to do?" Therein, the wise would say: "The Blessed One was devoted to seclusion and did not know of this occurrence; there was no one to report it to him either. If he had known, he would certainly have prevented it." But this is merely a wish; the first is indeed the reason here. Regarding "nāssudhā," herein "assudhā" is a particle used merely as a sentence filler or in the sense of emphasis; the meaning is: no one at all approached the Blessed One.

Because there is a manifestation through many causes such as colour, shape, and so forth, it is "of manifold manifestation" (anekākāravokāro); it means "of manifold variety, mixed with many causes." What is that? The pursuit of the development of foulness; "dwelling engaged in the pursuit of the development of foulness of manifold manifestation" means they dwell devoted and engaged. "They were troubled" means they are distressed and afflicted by their own bodies. "They were ashamed" means they are embarrassed. "They were disgusted" means disgust has arisen in them. "Young" means of tender age. "Youthful" means endowed with youth. "Fond of adornment" means one whose nature is to adorn. "Having bathed the head" means having bathed together with the head. Here, by the words "young, youthful," the word "young" indicates the state of early youth. For in early youth, beings are especially fond of adornment. "Having bathed the head" - by this, the time of engagement in adornment is indicated. For even a youthful person, having done some work, with a soiled body, is not engaged in adornment; but having bathed the head, he engages in nothing but adornment. He does not even wish to see snake carcasses and the like. Just as at that moment he would be troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by a snake carcass or a dog carcass or a human carcass hung around his neck, brought by some enemy and tied and fastened around his neck; just so those monks, being troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by their own bodies, like that man wishing to abandon that carcass, wishing to abandon their own bodies through the absence of desire and lust, taking a weapon, deprived themselves of life. "You deprive me of life; I will deprive you" - thus they also deprived one another of life.

"Migalaṇḍika the fake ascetic" - "Migalaṇḍika" is his name; "fake ascetic" means one who wears the guise of an ascetic. He, it is said, leaving just a topknot, having shaved his head, having donned one ochre robe as a lower garment and having put one over his shoulder, lived depending on the monastery itself, subsisting on leftovers. Having approached that very Migalaṇḍika the fake ascetic, they spoke thus. "Good!" is an indeclinable particle in the sense of a request. "Us" is the accusative plural; it means "Good, friend, deprive us of life." Here, the noble ones neither committed the taking of life, nor incited others to do so, nor approved of it. But the worldlings did all of it. "Blood-stained" means smeared with blood. "The river Vaggumudā" - the Vaggumatā is a river regarded by the world as meritorious. He too, it is said, went with the perception "I shall wash away that evil there"; but by the power of the river, not even the slightest evil is abandoned.

163. "There was indeed remorse": among those monks, it is said, no bodily misconduct or verbal misconduct had been committed by any of them; they all lay down on their right side, mindful and clearly comprehending. As he recollected that, remorse indeed arose in him. "There was regret": this is stated for the purpose of defining the inherent nature of that very remorse. It was the remorse of regret, not the remorse concerning Vinaya. "It is a loss for me indeed" etc. is stated for the purpose of showing the manner in which the remorse occurred. Therein, "it is a loss for me indeed" means he laments thus: "Henceforth there is now no gain of benefit and happiness for me." But by "it is not a gain for me indeed" he makes that very meaning firm. For this is the intention here: even if someone were to say "it is a gain for you," that would be wrong; it is not a gain for me indeed. "It is ill-gained for me indeed" means: even this human existence obtained through the power of wholesome deeds is ill-gained for me indeed. But by "it is not well-gained for me indeed" he makes that very meaning firm. For this is the intention here: even if someone were to say "it is well-gained for you," that would be wrong; it is not well-gained for me indeed. "Demerit has been produced" means demerit has been accumulated or generated. If one asks why? "That I, monks" etc. "deprived of life." Its meaning is - that I deprived of life monks who were virtuous - by that very virtue being of good character, of supreme character, of excellent character.

"A certain deity belonging to Māra's retinue" means: a certain earth deity, unknown by name, holding wrong view, on Māra's side, following Māra, having thought "thus this one will not go beyond Māra's domain, Māra's realm," having adorned herself with all ornaments, displaying her own power, came as if walking on the surface of the earth upon the unbroken water, and said this to Migalaṇḍika the fake ascetic. "Good, good" is a particle used in the sense of encouragement; therefore the double expression is made. "You help those who have not crossed over to cross over" means: those who have not crossed over from saṃsāra, you help to cross over, you liberate them, by this deprivation of life. This, it is said, was the view of this foolish, unwise deity: "Those who have not died are not freed from saṃsāra. Those who have died are freed." Therefore, like a barbarian who liberates from saṃsāra, holding such a view, she encouraged him in that, and spoke thus. Then Migalaṇḍika the fake ascetic, although such intense regret had arisen, having seen that power of the deity, thought "this deity speaks thus - surely in this matter it must be just so," and having reached that conclusion, proclaiming "it is a gain for me, it is said" and so forth. "Having approached from dwelling to dwelling, from residential cell to residential cell, said thus" means: having approached each dwelling and residential cell, having opened the door, having entered inside, he said thus to the monks - "Who has not crossed over, whom shall I help to cross over?"

"There was indeed fear" means there is mental terror on account of death. "There was trepidation" means there is bodily trembling starting with the heart-flesh; some say it means rigidity of the body due to extreme fear, for "thambhitatta" (rigidity) is called "chambhitatta" (trepidation). "Terror" means the standing up of body hair. However, those with taints destroyed, because of having well seen the emptiness of beings, do not see any being subject to death at all; therefore it should be understood that none of this occurred for them. "Even one monk, even two" etc. "deprived even sixty monks of life in one day" means thus by way of counting he deprived all those five hundred monks of life.

164. "Having emerged from seclusion" means having known that those five hundred monks had reached the destruction of life, he emerged from solitude, and though knowing, as if not knowing, in order to initiate a discussion, he addressed the Venerable Ānanda. "Why indeed, Ānanda, does the Community of monks seem to have become diminished" means: Ānanda, previously many monks used to come together for attendance, take up recitation and questioning, and engage in chanting, and the monastery appeared as if ablaze with a single light; but now, by the elapse of merely a fortnight, the Community of monks seems to have become diminished - thin, feeble, few, and sparse. What indeed is the reason? Have the monks departed to the various directions?

Then the Venerable Ānanda, not perceiving that their reaching the destruction of life was due to the result of kamma, but perceiving it as being due to the practice of the meditation subject on foulness, having said "Because indeed, venerable sir, the Blessed One" and so forth, and requesting another meditation subject for the monks' attainment of arahantship, said "It would be good, venerable sir, if the Blessed One" and so forth. Its meaning is - It would be good, venerable sir, if the Blessed One would explain another method by which the Community of monks might become established in arahantship; for just as there are landing places for descending into the great ocean, so too there are many meditation subjects for descending into nibbāna, classified as the ten recollections, the ten kasiṇas, the determination of the four elements, the divine abidings, and mindfulness of breathing. The intention is: among these, may the Blessed One, having encouraged the monks, explain a certain meditation subject.

Then the Blessed One, wishing to do so, urging the Elder on, said "Then, Ānanda" and so forth. Therein, "dwelling in dependence on Vesālī" means: assemble all the monks who are dwelling in dependence on Vesālī, all around, whether within a gāvuta or half a yojana - that is the meaning. "Having assembled all of them in the assembly hall" means: having himself gone to the places appropriate for him to go, and having sent junior monks elsewhere, in just a moment, having gathered all the monks without remainder in the assembly hall. "Now let the Blessed One do as he thinks fit, venerable sir" - herein the intention is this: Blessed One, the Community of monks has assembled; this is the time to give a Dhamma talk to the monks, to give instruction; now whatever you know to be timely, that should be done.

Discussion on the Concentration of Mindfulness of Breathing

165. Then the Blessed One, etc. addressed the monks - Having addressed them with "This too, monks," and then, teaching a different method from the meditation subject on the foul (asubha) previously taught to the monks for the attainment of arahantship, he said "the concentration of mindfulness of breathing."

Now, since this passage was spoken by the Blessed One precisely for the purpose of showing the monks a peaceful and sublime meditation subject, I shall therefore give the commentary here without omitting the sequence of meaning-explanation. Therein, the explanation of this passage "This too, monks" is as follows - Monks, it is not only the development of the foul that leads to the abandoning of defilements, but this too, the concentration of mindfulness of breathing... etc. appeases them.

Now here this is the explanation of the meaning - "Mindfulness of breathing" (ānāpānassati) means mindfulness that comprehends the in-breath and out-breath. For this was said in the Paṭisambhidā -

"'Āna' means the in-breath, not the out-breath. "Apāna" means out-breath, not in-breath. Mindfulness is the establishing by means of in-breath; mindfulness is the establishing by means of out-breath. For one who breathes in, it is established for him; for one who breathes out, it is established for him."

"Concentration" (samādhi) means one-pointedness of mind arisen together with that mindfulness which comprehends the in-breathing and out-breathing; and this teaching is given under the heading of concentration, not under the heading of mindfulness. Therefore the meaning here should be understood thus: concentration conjoined with mindfulness of breathing is the concentration of mindfulness of breathing, or concentration in mindfulness of breathing is the concentration of mindfulness of breathing. "Developed" (bhāvito) means produced and increased. "Cultivated" means done again and again. "Peaceful and sublime" (santo ceva paṇīto ca) means peaceful and indeed sublime; in both instances the restriction should be understood by the word "indeed" (eva). What is meant? Whereas the meditation subject on the foul is peaceful and sublime merely by way of penetration, yet because of having a gross object and a repulsive object, it is by way of the object neither peaceful nor sublime, this is not so - it is not by any method unpeaceful or unsublime; rather, it is peaceful, stilled, and quenched also by the peacefulness of its object, and sublime also by the sublimity of the factors reckoned as penetration, also by the sublimity of the object, producing satisfaction, and also by the sublimity of the factors. Therefore it was said - "peaceful and sublime."

"An unadulterated pleasant dwelling" (asecanako ca sukho ca vihāro): here, "there is no seasoning for it" means unadulterated, unmixed, unblended, distinctive, unique; there is no peacefulness here through preliminary work or access - from the initial attention onwards, it is by its own nature peaceful and sublime - this is the meaning. Some, however, say that "unadulterated" means unmixed, full of essence, sweet by its very nature. Thus this should be understood as unadulterated and as a pleasant dwelling because at each and every moment of attainment it leads to the acquisition of bodily and mental happiness.

"Arisen, arisen" (uppannuppanne) means unsuppressed, unsuppressed. "Evil" means inferior. "Unwholesome mental states" means mental states arisen from lack of skilfulness. "Causes to disappear with reason and cause" means causes to disappear in a moment, suppresses. "Appeases" (vūpasameti) means thoroughly calms; or, because of being of the nature that leads to penetration, it gradually, having grown to the noble path, cuts off utterly and tranquillises - this too is the meaning.

"Just as" - this is an illustration by way of simile. "In the last month of summer" means in the month of Āsāḷha. "The dust and dirt that has been raised up" means the dust and grit that has been struck up, raised up, and arisen in the sky from the earth that has been dried by wind and sun for a fortnight and broken up by the trampling of cows, buffaloes, and other such animals. "A great untimely rain cloud" means a rain cloud that has arisen covering the entire sky during the bright fortnight of Āsāḷha for the whole fortnight. For it is called an "untimely cloud" here because it has arisen when the rainy season has not yet arrived. "Causes to disappear with reason and cause, and appeases" means it instantly leads to disappearance and causes it to settle down upon the earth. "Just so" - this is the application of the simile. What follows is just the method already stated.

Now, in "And how, monks, is the concentration of mindfulness of breathing developed," here "how" is a question expressing the desire to elaborate in various ways the development of the concentration of mindfulness of breathing. "The concentration of mindfulness of breathing, monks, when developed" is an indication of the teaching that is asked about with the desire to elaborate in various ways. This same method applies to the second term as well. Now here this is the meaning in brief - Monks, in what manner, in what way, by what method is the concentration of mindfulness of breathing developed, in what manner is it cultivated so that it is peaceful and etc. appeases them.

Now, elaborating that meaning, he said "Here, monks" and so forth. Therein, "here, monks, a monk" means monks, a monk in this dispensation. For here the word "here" illuminates the dispensation as the support of the person who produces the concentration of mindfulness of breathing in all its aspects, and it negates such a state in other dispensations. For this was said: "Here only, monks, is an ascetic, etc. The other doctrines are empty of other ascetics." Therefore it was said - "a monk in this dispensation."

"Having gone to the forest" etc. "or having gone to an empty house" - this is an elucidation of the adoption of a dwelling suitable for the development of the concentration of mindfulness of breathing. For this monk's mind, which has long been dispersed among sense objects such as visible forms, does not wish to ascend to the object of the concentration of mindfulness of breathing. Like a chariot yoked to an unruly ox, it runs only off the path. Therefore, just as a cowherd, wishing to tame an untamed calf that has grown up having drunk all the milk of an untamed cow, having removed it from the cow, having planted a large post to one side, would tie it there with a string. Then that calf, having struggled here and there and being unable to run away, would sit down or lie down beside that very post; just so, this monk too, wishing to tame the unruly mind that has long been nourished by drinking the flavour of sense objects such as visible forms, having removed it from objects such as visible forms, having led it into the forest or etc. or into an empty house, should tie it there to the post of in-breathing and out-breathing with the rope of mindfulness. Thus his mind, even though having struggled here and there, not obtaining the object formerly habitually practised, being unable to cut the string of mindfulness and run away, sits close to and lies down close to that very object by way of access and absorption. Therefore the ancients said:

"Just as a man here would tie an untamed calf to a post,

So one should bind one's own mind firmly to the object with mindfulness."

Thus this lodging is suitable for development. Therefore it was said - "This is the elucidation of the adoption of a dwelling place suitable for the development of the concentration of mindfulness of breathing."

Or alternatively, since this meditation subject of mindfulness of breathing, which is the foremost among the varieties of meditation subjects, and which is the foundation for the attainment of distinction and the pleasant dwelling in this very life for omniscient Buddhas, paccekabuddhas, and disciples of the Buddha, is not easy to accomplish without abandoning the vicinity of a village crowded with the sounds of women, men, elephants, horses, and so forth, because sound is a thorn to jhāna. But in an uninhabited forest it is easy for a meditator to take up this meditation subject, produce the fourth jhāna of mindfulness of breathing, and using that as a basis, comprehend formations and reach the supreme fruit of arahantship. Therefore, showing a suitable dwelling for him, the Blessed One said "having gone to the forest" and so forth.

For the Blessed One is like a teacher of the science of site-selection. Just as a teacher of the science of site-selection, having seen a site for a city and having thoroughly examined it, advises "Build a city here," and when the city is safely completed, receives great honour from the royal family; just so, having examined a suitable dwelling for the meditator, he advises "Here one should devote oneself to the meditation subject." Then, when the yogī devoted to the meditation subject there gradually attains arahantship, he receives great honour thus: "Truly that Blessed One is a Perfectly Enlightened One." But this monk is said to be "like a panther." For just as a great leopard king, relying on a grass thicket, a forest thicket, or a mountain thicket in the wilderness, lurks in hiding and catches wild animals such as wild buffalo, gayal, and boar; just so, this monk, devoting himself to the meditation subject in the forest and so forth, should be understood as progressively attaining the paths of stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, and arahantship, as well as the noble fruits. Therefore the ancients said:

"Just as a panther, having hidden, catches deer;

Just so this son of the Buddha, engaged in exertion, gifted with introspection;

Having entered the forest, takes the highest fruit."

Therefore, showing the forest lodging as the ground suitable for the training born of effort, the Blessed One said beginning with "having gone to the forest, or."

Therein, "having gone to the forest": "forest" means having gone to any forest conducive to the happiness of seclusion, among forests defined thus: "Having gone out beyond the boundary post, all that is forest" and "A forest dwelling is one that is at least five hundred bow-lengths distant." "Having gone to the root of a tree" means having gone to the vicinity of a tree. "Having gone to an empty house" means having gone to an empty, secluded place. And here, apart from the forest and the root of a tree, even one who has gone to any of the remaining seven kinds of dwellings may be said to have "gone to an empty house." Thus, having indicated a dwelling suitable for the development of mindfulness of breathing, in accordance with the three seasons and in accordance with the elements and temperaments, he said "sits down," indicating a peaceful posture that is neither inclined to sluggishness nor to restlessness. Then, showing the firmness of the sitting posture, the ease of the functioning of the in-breaths and out-breaths, and the means of apprehending the object, he said "folding the legs crosswise" and so forth.

Therein, "cross-legged" means a seat with the thighs bound all around. "Having folded" means having bound. "Directing his body upright" means having placed the upper body upright, having arranged the eighteen vertebrae of the spine tip to tip. For indeed, for one seated thus, the skin, flesh, and sinews do not bend. Then those feelings that would arise moment by moment due to the bending down of those do not arise. When those do not arise, the mind becomes unified. The meditation subject does not decline. It reaches growth and increase.

"Having established mindfulness in front of him" means having placed mindfulness facing the meditation subject. Alternatively, "pari" has the meaning of comprehension; "mukha" has the meaning of outlet; "sati" has the meaning of presence; therefore it is said - "having established mindfulness in front of him". Thus the meaning here should be understood according to the method stated in the Paṭisambhidā. Therein this is the summary - "Having made mindfulness that possesses deliverance." "He, mindful, breathes in" means that monk, having sat down thus and having established mindfulness thus, not abandoning that mindfulness, breathes in mindfully, breathes out mindfully, becomes one who acts with mindfulness - this is what is said.

Now, showing the modes by which he becomes one who acts with mindfulness, he said "breathing in long" and so forth. For this was said in the Paṭisambhidā - in the analysis of "he, mindful, breathes in; mindful, he breathes out" itself -

"By thirty-two modes he becomes one who acts with mindfulness. For one who understands unified focus of mind and non-distraction by means of long in-breath, mindfulness is established. By that mindfulness, by that knowledge, he becomes one who acts with mindfulness. By means of long out-breath, etc. For one who understands unified focus of mind and non-distraction while observing relinquishment by means of in-breath and observing relinquishment by means of out-breath, mindfulness is established. By that mindfulness, by that knowledge, he becomes one who acts with mindfulness."

Therein, "breathing in long" means producing a long in-breath. "In-breath" is the wind going out. "Out-breath" is the wind entering within. However, in the Suttanta commentaries it has come in reverse order.

Therein, for all womb-born beings, at the time of emerging from the mother's womb, first the internal wind goes out. Afterwards, the external wind, carrying fine dust, entering within, strikes the palate and ceases. Thus far the in-breath and out-breath should be understood. But their longness and shortness should be understood by means of duration. Just as water or sand that has spread over and remains in a spatial extent is called "long water, long sand, short water, short sand." So too, the in-breaths and out-breaths, though broken into fragments, in the bodies of elephants and snakes, slowly filling the long duration reckoned as their bodily form and slowly going out, are therefore called "long." For dogs, hares, and the like, quickly filling the short duration reckoned as their bodily form and quickly going out, they are therefore called "short." Among humans, however, some breathe in and breathe out long in terms of time-duration, like elephants and snakes. Some short, like dogs and hares. Therefore, those going out and entering over a long duration of time are long. Those going out and entering over a brief duration should be understood as "short." Herein, this monk, breathing in and breathing out long in nine modes, understands "I breathe in long, I breathe out long." And it should be understood that for one who understands thus, the development of the foundation of mindfulness consisting in contemplation of the body succeeds in one mode. As it is said in the Paṭisambhidā -

"How does one breathing in long understand 'I breathe in long,' breathing out long understand 'I breathe out long'? One breathes in a long in-breath reckoned as a duration, one breathes out a long out-breath reckoned as a duration, one breathes in and breathes out a long in-breath and out-breath reckoned as a duration. As he breathes in and breathes out a long in-and-out-breath reckoned as a long duration, desire arises; by the power of desire, he breathes in a long in-breath subtler than that reckoned as a long duration, by the power of desire he breathes out a long out-breath subtler than that reckoned as a long duration, by the power of desire he breathes in and breathes out a long in-and-out-breath subtler than that reckoned as a long duration. As he breathes in and breathes out a long in-and-out-breath subtler than that reckoned as a long duration by the power of desire, gladness arises; by the power of gladness, he breathes in a long in-breath subtler than that reckoned as a long duration, by the power of gladness a long out-breath subtler than that etc. a long in-and-out-breath reckoned as a long duration he breathes in and breathes out. As he breathes in and breathes out a long in-and-out-breath subtler than that reckoned as a long duration by the power of gladness, the mind turns away from the long in-and-out-breaths, and equanimity is established. By these nine modes, the long in-and-out-breaths are the body; the establishment is mindfulness; the contemplation is knowledge; the body is the establishment, not mindfulness; mindfulness is both the establishing and mindfulness. By that mindfulness, by that knowledge, one observes that body. Therefore it is said - "Development of the establishment of mindfulness through observation of the body in the body."

The same method applies also to the short passage. But this is the distinction - "Just as here it is said 'a long in-breath reckoned as a long duration'; so here it comes as 'a short in-breath reckoned as a brief duration, he breathes in.'" Therefore, by its authority, it should be construed up to "therefore it is said 'the development of the foundation of mindfulness consisting in contemplation of the body in the body.'" Thus this one, understanding the in-and-out-breaths by these modes in terms of long duration and brief duration, breathing in long, understands 'I breathe in long' etc. or breathing out short, understands 'I breathe out short' - this is how it should be understood.

And for one who understands thus -

"Long and short is the in-breath;

And the out-breath is likewise;

Four aspects occur

At the nose-tip of the monk."

'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in' etc. 'I shall breathe out,' he trains - making known, making manifest the beginning, middle and end of the entire in-breath body, he trains thus: 'I shall breathe in.' Making known, making manifest the beginning, middle and end of the entire out-breath body, he trains thus: 'I shall breathe out.' Thus making known, making manifest, he breathes in and breathes out with a mind associated with knowledge; therefore it is said 'he trains: I shall breathe in, I shall breathe out.' For one monk, in the in-breath body or out-breath body that is scattered into fragments, the beginning is manifest, but not the middle and end. He is able to discern only the beginning; he is wearied at the middle and end. For another, the middle is obvious, not the beginning and end. He is able to discern only the middle; he is wearied at the beginning and end. For another, the end is obvious, not the beginning and middle. He is able to discern only the end; he is wearied at the beginning and middle. For another, all is manifest; he is able to discern all, and does not struggle anywhere. Showing that one should be such a one, he said - 'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in' etc. 'I shall breathe out,' he trains."

Therein, "he trains" means thus he strives, he endeavours. Whatever restraint there is for one in such a state - this is the training in higher virtue here. Whatever concentration there is for one in such a state - this is the training in higher consciousness. Whatever wisdom there is for one in such a state - this is the training in higher wisdom. These three trainings, with regard to that object, by means of that mindfulness and that attention, he trains in, cultivates, develops, and frequently practises - thus should the meaning here be understood. Therein, since in the former method one need only breathe in and breathe out, and nothing else need be done; but from this point onwards, effort must be applied to the arousing of knowledge and so forth. Therefore, having stated the text there in the present tense as "he understands: 'I breathe in,' he understands: 'I breathe out,'" from this point onwards, in order to show the manner of the knowledge to be aroused and so forth that is to be accomplished, the text has been set forth in the future tense by the method beginning with "experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in" - thus it should be understood.

"Calming the bodily activity, I shall breathe in" etc. "I shall breathe out," he trains - means: calming, tranquillising, ceasing, and quieting the gross bodily activity, he trains thus: "I shall breathe in, I shall breathe out."

Therein, the grossness and subtlety and the tranquillity should be understood thus. For when this monk has not yet undertaken the practice, his body and mind are agitated. When the grossness of the body and mind has not been tranquillised, the in-breaths and out-breaths too are gross; they occur forcefully, the nostrils are not sufficient, and he remains breathing in and out through the mouth. But when his body and mind have been discerned, then they are peaceful and calmed. When they are tranquil, the in-breaths and out-breaths become subtle in their occurrence, reaching a state where one must investigate whether they exist or not. Just as for a person who has been running, or having descended from a mountain, or having lowered a great burden from his head, standing there, the in-breaths and out-breaths are gross, the nose is not sufficient, and he stands breathing in and breathing out through the mouth. But when he has dispelled that fatigue, and having bathed and drunk, and having placed a wet cloth on his chest, lies down in a cool shade, then his in-breaths and out-breaths become subtle, reaching a state where one must investigate whether they exist or not. Just so, when this monk has not yet undertaken the practice, his body and mind etc. reach a state where one must investigate whether they exist or not. What is the reason for this? For previously, when he had not yet undertaken the practice, there was no adverting, bringing to mind, attention, and reviewing thus: "I am calming the grosser and grosser bodily activities"; but when the practice has been undertaken, there is. Therefore, compared to the time when it has not been discerned, at the time when it has been discerned, the bodily activity is subtle. Therefore the ancients said:

"When body and mind are passionate, it proceeds excessively;

When the body is not excited, it proceeds subtly."

At the stage of comprehension it is gross; at the access to the first jhāna it is subtle. At that stage too it is gross; in the first jhāna it is subtle. In the first meditative absorption and at the access to the second meditative absorption it is gross; in the second meditative absorption it is subtle. In the second meditative absorption and at the access to the third meditative absorption it is gross; in the third meditative absorption it is subtle. In the third meditative absorption and at the access to the fourth meditative absorption it is gross; in the fourth meditative absorption it is extremely subtle and reaches non-occurrence itself. This, for now, is the view of the reciters of the Long Collection and the reciters of the Connected Collection.

But the reciters of the Middle Collection wish that "in the first meditative absorption it is gross, at the access to the second meditative absorption it is subtle" - thus from each lower and lower meditative absorption, at the access to each higher and higher meditative absorption too, it becomes more subtle. But according to the view of all, the bodily activity occurring at the time when it has not been discerned is allayed at the time when it has been discerned; the bodily activity occurring at the time when it has been discerned, at the access to the first meditative absorption, etc. The bodily activity occurring at the access to the fourth meditative absorption is allayed in the fourth meditative absorption. This, for now, is the method in serenity.

In insight, however, the bodily activity occurring before comprehension is coarse, and subtle during the comprehension of the great elements. That too is gross; at the discernment of derivative materiality it is subtle. That too is gross; at the discernment of the entirety of materiality it is subtle. That too is gross; at the discernment of the immaterial it is subtle. That too is gross; at the discernment of materiality and the immaterial it is subtle. That too is gross; at the discernment of conditions it is subtle. That too is coarse, and subtle during the comprehension of mentality-materiality together with its conditions. That too is coarse, and subtle during insight that takes characteristics as its object. That too, at weak insight, is gross; at powerful insight it is subtle. Therein, the tranquillisation of each preceding stage by each succeeding stage should be understood in the same way as stated before. Thus the coarseness and subtlety and the tranquillisation herein should be understood.

In the Paṭisambhidā, however, the meaning of this is stated together with challenges and resolutions as follows: "How does he train: 'Calming the bodily activity, I shall breathe in,' etc. 'I shall breathe out'? What are the bodily activities? Long in-breaths are bodily, these states are bound up with the body, they are bodily activities; calming, ceasing, and appeasing those bodily activities, he trains. Long out-breaths are bodily, these states, etc. Short in-breaths, etc. Short out-breaths... Experiencing the whole body, in-breaths... Experiencing the whole body, out-breaths are bodily, these states are bound up with the body, they are bodily activities; calming, ceasing, and appeasing those bodily activities, he trains.

By whatever kind of bodily activities there is bending forward, bending aside, bending together, bending down, shaking, trembling, moving, and quaking of the body - he trains: 'Calming the bodily activity, I shall breathe in'; he trains: 'Calming the bodily activity, I shall breathe out.'

By whatever kind of bodily activities there is no bending forward, no bending aside, no bending together, no bending down, no shaking, no trembling, no moving, no quaking of the body - peaceful, subtle, he trains: 'Calming the bodily activity, I shall breathe in'; he trains: 'Calming the bodily activity, I shall breathe out.'

If indeed he trains: 'Calming the bodily activity, I shall breathe in'; he trains: 'Calming the bodily activity, I shall breathe out.' That being so, there is no production of the perception of wind, no production of in-breaths and out-breaths, no production of mindfulness of breathing, no production of the concentration of mindfulness of breathing, and the wise neither enter into nor emerge from that attainment.

If indeed he trains: 'Calming the bodily activity, I shall breathe in,' etc. 'I shall breathe out.' That being so, there is production of the perception of wind, there is production of in-breaths and out-breaths, there is production of mindfulness of breathing, there is production of the concentration of mindfulness of breathing, and the wise both enter into and emerge from that attainment.

In what way? Just as when a bronze vessel is struck, at first coarse sounds occur, and because the sign of the coarse sounds has been well apprehended, well attended to, and well retained, even when the coarse sound has ceased, afterwards subtle sounds occur, and because the sign of the subtle sounds has been well apprehended, well attended to, and well retained, even when the subtle sound has ceased, afterwards the mind continues with the subtle-sound-sign as its object; just so, at first coarse in-breaths and out-breaths occur, and because the sign of the coarse in-breaths and out-breaths has been well apprehended, well attended to, and well retained, even when the coarse in-breaths and out-breaths have ceased, afterwards subtle in-breaths and out-breaths occur, and because the sign of the subtle in-breaths and out-breaths has been well apprehended, well attended to, and well retained, even when the subtle in-breaths and out-breaths have ceased, afterwards the mind does not go to distraction even with the subtle-in-breath-and-out-breath-sign as its object.

That being so, there is production of the perception of wind, there is production of in-breaths and out-breaths, there is production of mindfulness of breathing, there is production of the concentration of mindfulness of breathing, and the wise both enter into and emerge from that attainment.

"Calming the bodily activity" means: the in-breaths and out-breaths are the body, the establishment is mindfulness, the contemplation is knowledge. The body is the foundation, not mindfulness; mindfulness is both the foundation and mindfulness; with that mindfulness and with that knowledge one contemplates that body. Therefore it is said - "Contemplation of the body in the body as a foundation of mindfulness - development."

This, for now, is the progressive word-by-word explanation of the first tetrad stated by way of observation of the body.

Since, however, this very tetrad is spoken of as the meditation subject for the beginner, while the other three tetrads are spoken of in terms of contemplation of feeling, mind, and mental objects for one who has attained jhāna herein, therefore all that is to be done by a son of the Buddha who wishes to develop this meditation subject and attain arahantship together with the discriminations through insight that has as its proximate cause the fourth jhāna of mindfulness of breathing - all that should be understood here first in terms of a beginner, a clansman, from the very beginning as follows. First, the fourfold virtue should be purified. Therein, the purification is threefold: non-transgression, rehabilitation from transgression, and non-oppression by defilements. For the development succeeds for one whose virtue is thus purified. That which is called the duty regarding the shrine terrace, the duty regarding the Bodhi-tree terrace, the duty towards the preceptor, the duty towards the teacher, the duty regarding the bath house, the duty regarding the uposatha hall, the eighty-two chapter duties, and the fourteen kinds of great duties - by means of these what is called the code of proper conduct virtue is spoken of, and that too should be properly fulfilled. For whoever should say "I guard my virtue, what have I to do with the code of proper conduct?" - that his virtue will be fulfilled, this is not possible. But when the code of proper conduct duties is fulfilled, virtue is fulfilled; when virtue is fulfilled, concentration takes conception. For this was said by the Blessed One - "That, monks, a monk without having fulfilled the code of proper conduct will fulfil the virtues - this is not possible." This should be elaborated. Therefore, that which is called the code of proper conduct virtue, such as the duty regarding the shrine terrace and so on, that too should be properly fulfilled by him. Thereupon -

"Dwelling and family, gain, community, and work as the fifth;

Travel, relatives, illness, study, and psychic power - these are the ten."

Among the ten impediments thus stated, whichever impediment exists, that should be cut off.

Having thus cut off the impediments, the meditation subject should be taken up. That too is of two kinds: the universal meditation subject and the specific meditation subject. Therein, the universal meditation subject means loving-kindness towards the community of monks and others, mindfulness of death, and perception of foulness - so say some. For the monk engaged in meditation should first develop loving-kindness towards the community of monks within the boundary, having delimited them; then towards the deities within the boundary, then towards the leading people in the alms-resort village, then taking the people there as the starting point, towards all beings. For through loving-kindness towards the community of monks, he generates soft-heartedness in those who dwell together with him, and then there is pleasant communal living for him. Through loving-kindness towards the deities within the boundary, he is well provided with protection through the righteous protection of the deities whose minds have been softened. Through loving-kindness towards the leading people in the alms-resort village, he is well protected in his requisites through the righteous protection of the leaders whose mental continuities have been softened. Through loving-kindness towards the people there, he moves about unscorned by those whose minds have been inspired with confidence. Through loving-kindness towards all beings, he has unobstructed movement everywhere.

Through mindfulness of death, however, reflecting "Death is certain," he abandons wrong livelihood and, with ever-increasing sense of urgency, becomes one of unrelenting effort. Through the perception of foulness, craving does not arise even towards heavenly objects. Therefore, because these three are of such great benefit, having determined "They should be employed everywhere and desired," and because they serve as the foundation for the intended work of meditative practice, they are called "universal meditation subjects."

Among the thirty-eight objects, however, whichever is suitable to the temperament of each person, because that must be constantly maintained by him, it is also called "the specific meditation subject" in the manner already stated. Here, however, this very mindfulness of breathing meditation subject is called "the specific meditation subject." This is the summary here. The detail, however, should be obtained from the Visuddhimagga by one who wishes for the discussion on purification of virtue and the discussion on cutting off impediments.

By one of thus purified virtue and with impediments cut off, who is learning this meditation subject, it should be learned in the presence of a son of the Buddha who has attained arahantship by developing the fourth jhāna through this very meditation subject and cultivating insight. If such a one is not available, it should be learned in the presence of a non-returner; if even such a one is not available, in the presence of a once-returner; if even such a one is not available, in the presence of a stream-enterer; if even such a one is not available, in the presence of one who has attained the fourth jhāna of mindfulness of breathing; if even such a one is not available, it should be learned in the presence of a teacher of judgement who is unconfused in the texts and commentaries. For arahants and others teach only the path they themselves have realised. But this one, like one clearing a great elephant path through a dense place, being unconfused everywhere, discriminates what is suitable and unsuitable and teaches accordingly.

Herein this is the progressive discourse - That monk, being of light living and accomplished in discipline and conduct, having approached a teacher of the aforesaid kind, should learn the meditation subject with five stages in the presence of that one whose mind has been gladdened through the practice of duties. Therein these are the five stages: Learning, inquiry, manifestation, absorption, and characteristic. Therein, "learning" means the learning of the meditation subject; "inquiry" means the questioning about the meditation subject; "manifestation" means the manifestation of the meditation subject; "absorption" means the absorption of the meditation subject; "characteristic" means the characteristic of the meditation subject. "This meditation subject has such a characteristic" - this means the ascertainment of the intrinsic nature of the meditation subject.

One who learns the meditation subject with five stages in this way neither wearies himself nor troubles the teacher; Therefore, having had a little taught and having recited it for a long time, having thus learned the meditation subject with five stages, if there is suitability there, one should dwell right there. If there is no suitability there, having taken leave of the teacher, if of slow wisdom having gone at most a yojana's distance, if of keen wisdom having gone even far, having approached a dwelling free from the eighteen faults of a dwelling and endowed with the five factors of a dwelling, dwelling there, with minor impediments cut off, having completed the meal duty, having dispelled the drowsiness from the meal, having gladdened the mind by recollecting the qualities of the Triple Gem, not forgetting even a single point from what was learned from the teacher, this mindfulness of breathing meditation subject should be attended to. This is the summary here. The detail, however, should be obtained from the Visuddhimagga by one who wishes for this line of discussion.

As for what was said "This mindfulness of breathing meditation subject should be attended to," herein this is the method of attention:

"Counting, following, touching, placing, discerning,

Turning away, purification, and reviewing of these."

"Counting" means counting itself. "Following" means pursuing. "Touching" means the place of contact. "Fixing" means absorption. "Observing" means insight. "Turning away" means the path. "Purification" means the fruit. "And reviewing of these" means reviewing. Therein, by this beginner clansman, this meditation subject should first be attended to by counting. And when counting, one should not stop below five, should not go above ten, and should not show a break in between. For when one stops below five, the arising of mind becomes agitated in the cramped space, like a herd of cattle confined in a cramped pen. When one goes above ten, the arising of mind becomes dependent on the counting alone. When one shows a break in between, the mind wavers thinking "Has my meditation subject reached its peak or not?" Therefore, avoiding these faults, one should count.

And when counting, one should first count by slow counting, by the counting of a grain measurer. For a grain measurer, having filled a measure, says "one" and pours it out. Filling again, seeing some rubbish, discarding it, he says "one, one." This is the method in "two, two" and so forth. Just so, this one too, taking whichever of the in-breaths and out-breaths presents itself, beginning with "one, one," should count by observing each one as it occurs up to "ten, ten." As he counts thus, the out-going and in-coming breaths become clear to him.

Then by him, having abandoned that slow counting, the grain-measurer's counting, one should count by the quick counting, the cowherd's counting. For a skilled cowherd, having taken pebbles in his lap, with rope and stick in hand, goes to the cow-pen early in the morning, strikes the cows on the back, and sitting on the top of the gate-bar post, counts each cow as it reaches the gate, throwing a pebble for each, "one, two." The herd of cattle, having dwelt uncomfortably in the cramped space through the three watches of the night, comes out pressing against one another, rushing out in clusters with great speed. He counts rapidly, "three, four, five, ten." Just so, when this one too counts in the former manner, the in-breaths and out-breaths become clear and move back and forth rapidly again and again. Thereupon, having known "they are moving about again and again," by him, without grasping the wind inside and outside, having grasped only each one that has reached the door, "one, two, three, four, five; one, two, three, four, five, six; one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, etc. eight, nine... ten" - one should count rapidly. For when the meditation subject is bound to counting, the mind becomes one-pointed through the power of counting alone, just as steadying a boat in a swift current by means of a rudder.

As he counts thus rapidly, the meditation subject presents itself as though occurring without interruption. Then, having known "it proceeds continuously," without grasping the wind inside and outside, one should count by the former method itself with speed. For when one sends the mind in together with the inwardly entering wind, the interior seems as though struck by wind and filled with fat; when one takes the mind out together with the outwardly going wind, the mind is scattered among the variety of external objects. But the development succeeds only for one who places mindfulness at the place of contact and develops it. Therefore it was said - "Without grasping the wind inside and outside, one should count by the former method itself with speed."

But for how long should one count? Until, without counting, mindfulness becomes settled on the object of the in-breath and out-breath. For counting is only for the purpose of cutting off externally scattered thoughts and establishing mindfulness on the object of the in-breaths and out-breaths.

Having thus attended by counting, one should attend by following. Following means, having withdrawn counting, the continuous pursuit of the in-breaths and out-breaths with mindfulness; and that is not by way of following the beginning, middle, and end. For the outwardly going wind has the navel as its beginning, the heart as its middle, and the nose-tip as its end. The inwardly entering wind has the nose-tip as its beginning, the heart as its middle, and the navel as its end. And for one who follows them thus, the mind that has gone to distraction becomes agitated and restless. As he said -

"When one follows with mindfulness the beginning, middle, and end of the in-breath, with the mind gone to distraction internally, both body and mind become agitated, disturbed, and trembling. When one follows with mindfulness the beginning, middle, and end of the out-breath, with the mind gone to distraction externally, both body and mind become agitated, disturbed, and trembling."

Therefore, when attending by way of following, one should not attend by way of the beginning, middle, and end. Rather, one should attend by way of touching and by way of fixing. For, just as with counting and following, there is no separate attention by way of touching and fixing. However, counting at the very place where they are touched, one attends by way of counting and by way of touching. Having withdrawn counting right there, following them with mindfulness and fixing the mind by way of absorption, one is said to "attend by way of following, by way of touching, and by way of fixing." This meaning should be understood by means of the similes of the lame man and the gatekeeper given in the Commentary, and the simile of the saw given in the Paṭisambhidā.

Herein this is the simile of the cripple - "Just as a lame man, having pushed the swing for a mother and son playing on a swing, sitting right there at the base of the swing-post, sees both ends and the middle of the swing-plank as it comes and goes, yet is not occupied with seeing both ends and the middle. Just so, this monk, standing at the base of the post of binding by means of mindfulness, having pushed the swing of in-breathing and out-breathing, sitting right there on the sign with mindfulness, following with mindfulness the beginning, middle, and end of the in-breaths and out-breaths at the place where they are touched as they come and go, and fixing the mind there, he sees, yet is not occupied with seeing them. This is the simile of the cripple.

And this is the simile of the doorkeeper - "Just as a gatekeeper does not examine people inside and outside the city, asking 'Who are you, where have you come from, where are you going, what is in your hands?' - for they are not his concern. He examines only those who have arrived at the gate. Just so, for this monk, the winds that have entered inside and the winds that have gone out are not his concern; only those that have arrived at the gate are his concern." This is the simile of the gatekeeper.

The simile of the saw, however, should be understood from the beginning as follows. For this was said:

"The sign, the in-breaths and out-breaths, are not the object of a single mind;

Not knowing these three things, development is not obtained.

"The sign, the in-breaths and out-breaths, are not the object of a single mind;

Knowing these three things, development is obtained."

How are these three things not the object of a single mind, yet these three things are not unknown, and the mind does not go to distraction, and effort becomes manifest, and the endeavour succeeds, and one attains distinction? Just as a tree is placed on a level piece of ground, and a man would cut it with a saw, the man's mindfulness is established by means of the saw-teeth touching the tree; he does not attend to the saw-teeth as they come or go, yet the saw-teeth as they come or go are not unknown; and effort becomes manifest, and the endeavour succeeds.

Just as the tree is placed on a level piece of ground; so is the sign of binding. Just as the saw-teeth; so are the in-breaths and out-breaths. Just as the man's mindfulness is established by means of the saw-teeth touching the tree, and he does not attend to the saw-teeth as they come or go, yet the saw-teeth as they come or go are not unknown, and effort becomes manifest, and the endeavour succeeds; just so, a monk, having established mindfulness at the tip of the nose or at the sign of the mouth, sits; he does not attend to the in-breaths and out-breaths as they come or go, yet the in-breaths and out-breaths as they come or go are not unknown, and effort becomes manifest, and the endeavour succeeds, and he attains distinction.

"Endeavour" - what is that endeavour? For one with aroused energy, both body and mind become workable - this is striving. What is practice? For one who has aroused energy, the corruptions are abandoned, the thoughts are stilled - this is practice. What is distinction? For one who has aroused energy, the fetters are abandoned, the underlying tendencies come to an end - this is the distinction. Thus these three phenomena are not objects of one consciousness, and yet these three phenomena are not unknown, and the mind does not go to distraction, and striving becomes evident, and one accomplishes the practice, and attains distinction.

"Whose mindfulness of breathing is complete, well developed;

Gradually practised, as taught by the Buddha;

He illuminates this world, like the moon freed from a cloud."

This is the simile of the saw. But here, it should be understood that its purpose is merely the non-attention by way of what has come and gone. For one practising this meditation subject, before long the sign arises, and the fixing, which is called absorption, adorned with the remaining jhāna factors, succeeds. But for some, from the very time of attending by way of counting, progressively, when bodily distress has subsided through the cessation of gross in-breaths and out-breaths, both body and mind become light, and the body becomes as if it has reached the state of leaping into the air. Just as when one whose body is agitated sits on a bed or chair, the bed or chair bends down, creaks, and the bedspread becomes wrinkled. But when one whose body is not agitated sits down, the bed or chair neither bends down, nor creaks, nor does the bedspread become wrinkled; the bed or chair is as if filled with cotton wool. Why? Because a body that is not agitated is light; just so, from the very time of attending by way of counting, progressively, when bodily distress has subsided through the cessation of gross in-breaths and out-breaths, both body and mind become light, and the body becomes as if it has reached the state of leaping into the air.

When his gross in-breaths and out-breaths have ceased, the mind occurs with the sign of subtle in-breaths and out-breaths as its object; when that too has ceased, it occurs again and again with a successively subtler and subtlest sign as its object. How? Just as a man might strike a bronze gong with a large iron rod, and with a single blow a loud sound would arise, and his mind would occur with the gross sound as its object; when the gross sound has ceased, then afterwards the mind would occur with the sign of the subtle sound as its object; when that too has ceased, again and again the mind occurs with the sign of a successively subtler and subtlest sound as its object; thus it should be understood. And this too was said - "just as when a bronze gong is struck" etc. in detail.

For just as other meditation subjects become clear as one progresses higher and higher, this one is not so. Rather, this one, as one develops it higher and higher, becomes subtler, and it does not even come to manifestation. But when it does not manifest thus, that monk should not rise from his seat, dust off his leather mat, and go away. What should be done? One should not get up thinking "I shall ask the teacher" or "My meditation subject is now lost," for when one goes disturbing one's posture, the meditation subject becomes entirely new again. Therefore, it should be brought back from that place while remaining seated just as one is.

Herein, this is the method of retrieval. That monk, having known the state of non-appearance of the meditation subject, should reflect thus: "Where do these in-breaths and out-breaths exist, where do they not exist, for whom do they exist, and for whom do they not exist?" Then, reflecting thus, having known that "these do not exist inside the mother's womb, they do not exist for those submerged in water, likewise for those who have become non-percipient, for the dead, for those attained to the fourth jhāna, for those possessed of fine-material and immaterial existence, and for those attained to the cessation attainment," one should admonish oneself by oneself thus: "Surely you, wise one, have neither gone into the mother's womb, nor are submerged in water, nor have become non-percipient, nor are dead, nor are attained to the fourth jhāna, nor are possessed of fine-material and immaterial existence, nor are attained to the cessation attainment; your in-breaths and out-breaths certainly exist, but due to dullness of wisdom you are unable to discern them." Then one should place the mind on the spot naturally touched and set the attention in motion. For these occur striking the nose-tip in the case of one with a long nose, and the upper lip in the case of one with a short nose. Therefore one should establish the sign thus: "They strike this particular spot." For it is with reference to this very reason that it was said by the Blessed One - "I do not, monks, speak of the development of mindfulness of breathing for one who is unmindful and not fully aware." Although indeed whatever meditation subject succeeds only for one who is mindful and fully aware, for one attending to another it becomes obvious. But this mindfulness-of-breathing meditation subject is weighty, of weighty development, a field of attention only for great persons such as Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and sons of the Buddha; it is neither trivial nor practised by trivial beings. In whatever way it is attended to, in that way it becomes both peaceful and subtle. Therefore, here powerful mindfulness and wisdom should be desired.

Just as when sewing a fine cloth, a fine needle is to be desired, and the threading of the needle's eye even finer than that; just so, at the time of developing this meditation subject, which is like a fine cloth, mindfulness comparable to the needle and the wisdom associated with it, comparable to the threading of the needle's eye, should also be strong and desired. But by a monk endowed with that mindfulness and wisdom, those in-breaths and out-breaths should not be sought elsewhere than the place naturally touched.

Just as a farmer, having ploughed, might release his oxen, turn them towards the pasture, and sit down resting in the shade, and then those oxen might quickly enter the forest. A skilled farmer, wishing to take them again and yoke them, does not follow in their tracks and wander about in the forest. Rather, taking the rein and the goad, he goes straight to their watering ford and sits down or lies down. Then, seeing those oxen having roamed about for part of the day, having descended to the watering ford, having bathed and drunk and come back out, standing there, he binds them with the rein and, prodding them with the goad, brings them back, yokes them, and resumes his work. Just so, those in-breaths and out-breaths should not be sought by that monk elsewhere than at the spot naturally touched. Rather, having taken the rein of mindfulness and the goad of wisdom, having placed the mind at the place naturally touched, attention should be set going. For when he attends thus, before long they appear, like oxen at the watering ford. Then, binding them with the rein of mindfulness at that very spot, yoking them, and prodding with the goad of wisdom, the meditation subject should be pursued again. For one thus pursuing it, before long the sign appears. But that is not the same for everyone. Rather, some say it appears for some producing a pleasant touch, like cotton wool, like cotton, or like a current of air.

But this is the determination of the commentary: For some it appears like the form of a star, like a gem, or like a pearl; for some, having a rough touch, like a cotton seed, or like a needle of heartwood; for some, like a long string of a garland, like a wreath of flowers, or like a flame of smoke; for some, like an extended spider's web, like a film of cloud, like a lotus flower, like a chariot wheel, like the disc of the moon, or like the disc of the sun. And that is just as when several monks, having recited a discourse and sat down, one monk says "In what form does this discourse appear to you?" and one says "To me it appears like a great mountain river." Another says "To me like a row of forest trees." Another says "To me, like a tree with cool shade, full of branches, laden with the weight of fruit." For to them that one and the same discourse presents itself differently due to the diversity of perception. Thus one and the same meditation subject presents itself differently due to the diversity of perception. For this is born of perception, has perception as its origin, has perception as its source; therefore, due to the diversity of perceptions, it appears differently - thus should it be understood.

Here, the mind with the in-breath as object is one thing, that with the out-breath as object is another, and that with the sign as object is yet another. For one who does not have these three things, his meditation subject reaches neither absorption nor access. But for one who has these three things, his meditation subject reaches both absorption and access. For this was said:

"The sign, the in-breaths and out-breaths, are not the object of a single mind;

Not knowing these three things, development is not obtained.

"The sign, the in-breaths and out-breaths, are not the object of a single mind;

Knowing these three things, development is obtained."

When the sign has thus appeared, that monk should go to the teacher's presence and inform him: "Such and such has appeared to me, venerable sir." The teacher, however, should not say either "this is the sign" or "this is not the sign." Rather, having said "it is so, friend," he should say "attend to it again and again." For if told "it is the sign," he might become complacent; if told "it is not the sign," he might become despondent and lose hope. Therefore, without saying either of those, he should be directed only to attend to it. Thus say the Long Discourse reciters. But the Middle Discourse reciters say: "He should be told: 'This is the sign, friend; attend to the meditation subject again and again, good man.'" Then by him the mind should be placed upon the sign itself. Thus for him, from this point onwards, the development is by way of fixing. For this was said by the ancients:

"Placing the mind upon the sign, discerning the various aspects,

The wise one binds his own mind to the in-breath and out-breath."

From the appearance of the sign onwards, the hindrances are indeed suppressed, the defilements are indeed settled, mindfulness is indeed established, and the mind is indeed concentrated. For the mind becomes concentrated in two ways: either by the abandoning of the hindrances on the access level, or by the manifestation of the factors on the attainment level. Therein, "access level" means access concentration; "attainment level" means absorption concentration. What is the difference between them? Access concentration, having run its course in the wholesome cognitive process, falls into the life-continuum; absorption concentration, having been absorbed for a day-portion by one sitting, runs even for a day-portion in the wholesome cognitive process and does not fall into the life-continuum. Of these two concentrations, through the manifestation of the sign, the mind becomes concentrated by access concentration. Then he should neither attend to that sign by way of its colour, nor review it by way of its characteristic. Rather, it should be guarded with diligence, just as a queen guards the embryo of a universal monarch, or as a farmer guards the embryo of rice grain; for when guarded, it bears fruit.

"For one who guards the sign, what has been gained does not decline;

When guarding is absent, what has been gained, again and again, is lost."

Herein, this is the method of guarding: That monk, having avoided these seven unsuitable things - dwelling, resort, talk, person, food, climate, and posture - and resorting to those same seven suitable things, should attend again and again to that sign.

Having thus made the sign firm by resorting to what is suitable, and having brought it to growth and increase, one should practise the endeavour without abandoning these ten skills in absorption: making the basis clear, balancing the faculties, skill in the sign, uplifting the mind on the occasion when the mind should be uplifted, restraining the mind on the occasion when the mind should be restrained, gladdening the mind on the occasion when the mind should be gladdened, looking on with equanimity at the mind on the occasion when the mind should be looked on with equanimity, avoidance of unconcentrated persons, association with concentrated persons, and being resolved upon that.

For one dwelling thus devoted, thinking "Now absorption will arise," the life-continuum is interrupted and mind-door adverting with the sign as object arises. When that has ceased, taking that same object, four or five impulsions arise, of which the first is preliminary work, the second is access, the third is conformity, the fourth is change-of-lineage, and the fifth is the absorption consciousness. Or the first is both preliminary work and access, the second is conformity, the third is change-of-lineage, and the fourth is called the absorption consciousness. For it is only the fourth or the fifth that attains absorption, not the sixth or seventh, because of the nearness of falling into the life-continuum.

But the Abhidhammika Elder Godatta said: "By the repetition condition, wholesome states become powerful; therefore the sixth or seventh attains absorption." That was rejected in the commentaries. Therein, the preliminary-stage consciousnesses are of the sense sphere, but the absorption consciousness is of the fine-material sphere. Thus by him the first jhāna has been attained, which is abandoned in five factors, possessed of five factors, endowed with ten characteristics, and threefold in excellence. He, having stilled applied thought and the rest in that same object, reaches the second, third, and fourth jhānas. And to this extent he has reached the culmination of development by way of fixing. This is the summary account here. But one who wishes for the detailed account should take it from the Visuddhimagga.

Now, the monk here who has attained the fourth jhāna, wishing to reach purification by developing the meditation subject by way of observation and turning away, having made that same jhāna well-practised and mastered in the five ways known as adverting, attaining, resolving, emerging, and reviewing, discerns mind-and-matter, having discerned either matter preceded by the immaterial, or the immaterial preceded by matter, and sets up insight. How? For he, having emerged from the jhāna, having discerned the jhāna factors, sees their support - the heart-base, and the great elements that are the support of that, and the entire material body that is their support. Then he defines mind-and-matter thus: "The jhāna factors are immaterial; the base and so on are material."

Or, having emerged from the attainment, having discerned in the parts beginning with head hairs the four great elements by way of the earth element and so on, and the matter dependent on them, he sees consciousness together with its associated states, having as object the matter as discerned, or having as object the material base and door as discerned. Then he defines thus: "The great elements and so on are material; consciousness together with its associated states is immaterial."

Or, having emerged from the attainment, he sees that the origin of the in-breaths and out-breaths is the material body and the mind. For just as when a blacksmith's bellows are being blown, the wind moves dependent on the bellows and the man's appropriate effort; just so, dependent on the body and the mind, there are in-breaths and out-breaths. Then he defines thus: "The in-breaths and out-breaths and the body are material; the mind and its associated states are immaterial."

Having thus defined mind-and-matter, he searches for its conditions, and searching, having seen them, he crosses over doubt regarding the occurrence of mind-and-matter in all three periods. Having crossed over doubt, by applying the three characteristics through comprehension by groups, having abandoned the ten imperfections of insight beginning with illumination that arose in the preliminary stage of the contemplation of rise and fall, having defined the practice-knowledge free from imperfections as "the path," having abandoned the rise and reached the contemplation of dissolution, through uninterrupted contemplation of dissolution, when all formations appear as fearful, becoming disenchanted, becoming dispassionate, becoming liberated, having reached in due order the four noble paths, having become established in the fruit of arahantship, having reached the limit of the reviewing knowledge of nineteen kinds, he becomes the supreme field of merit for the world with its devas. And to this extent, his development of the concentration of mindfulness of breathing, beginning with counting and ending with insight, is complete.

This is the explanation of the first set of four in every respect.

However, in the remaining three tetrads, since there is no separate method of meditation subject development, therefore their meaning should be understood by the method of word-by-word commentary. "Experiencing rapture" means: making rapture experienced, making it manifest, he trains: "I shall breathe in, I shall breathe out." Therein, rapture is experienced in two ways - by way of object and by way of non-delusion.

How is joy experienced by way of object? One attains the two meditative absorptions with rapture; at the moment of that attainment, through the attainment of meditative absorption, joy is experienced by way of object, because the object is experienced.

How by way of non-delusion? Having attained the two jhānas that possess rapture and having emerged, he contemplates the rapture associated with the jhāna in terms of destruction and fall; at the moment of his insight, through the penetration of characteristics, rapture is experienced by way of non-delusion. For this was said in the Paṭisambhidā -

"By way of the long in-breath, for one who understands the unification of mind, the non-distraction, mindfulness is established. Through that mindfulness, through that knowledge, that rapture is experienced. By means of long out-breath, etc. by means of short in-breath... by means of short out-breath... experiencing the whole body, by way of the in-breath... experiencing the whole body, by way of the out-breath... calming bodily activity by means of in-breath... calming the bodily activity, by way of the out-breath, for one who understands the unification of mind, the non-distraction, mindfulness is established; through that mindfulness, through that knowledge, that rapture is experienced. Through adverting, that rapture is experienced; through knowing... for one seeing... for one reviewing... for one resolving the mind... for one resolving through faith... for one arousing energy... for one establishing mindfulness... for one concentrating the mind... for one understanding with wisdom... for one directly knowing what should be directly known... for one fully understanding what should be fully understood... for one abandoning what should be abandoned... for one developing what should be developed... through realising what is to be realised, that rapture is experienced. Thus that rapture is experienced."

By this very method, the remaining terms too should be understood in meaning. But here only the distinctive point is this. The experiencing of happiness should be understood by way of three jhānas, and the experiencing of mental activity should be understood by way of all four. "Mental activity" means the two aggregates beginning with feeling. And here, in the term "experiencing happiness," for the purpose of showing the ground of insight, in the Paṭisambhidā it is said: "Happiness means two kinds of happiness - bodily happiness and mental happiness." "Calming mental activity" means calming, making cease each gross mental activity - this is the meaning. That should be understood in detail by the same method as stated for the bodily activity. Furthermore, here in the term concerning rapture, feeling is stated under the heading of rapture. In the term concerning happiness, feeling is stated in its own nature. In the two terms concerning mental activity, because of the statement "perception and feeling are mental, these states are bound to the mind, they are mental activities," it means feeling associated with perception. Thus it should be understood that this tetrad is spoken by way of contemplation of feeling.

In the third tetrad too, the experiencing of the mind should be understood by way of the four jhānas. "Gladdening the mind" means rejoicing, delighting, making glad, making very glad the mind, he trains: "I shall breathe in; I shall breathe out." Therein, gladdening occurs in two ways - by way of concentration and by way of insight.

How by means of concentration? One attains the two meditative absorptions with rapture; at the moment of attainment, he gladdens and delights the mind with the associated rapture. How by means of insight? Having attained the two jhānas that possess rapture and having emerged, he contemplates the rapture associated with the jhāna in terms of dissolution and passing away; thus at the moment of insight, having made the rapture associated with the jhāna his object, he delights and rejoices the mind. One thus practising is said to train: "Gladdening the mind, I shall breathe in; I shall breathe out."

"Concentrating the mind" means placing the mind evenly, establishing it evenly upon the object by way of the first jhāna and so on; or else, having attained those jhānas and emerged, when one contemplates the mind associated with the jhāna in terms of dissolution and passing away, at the moment of insight there arises momentary one-pointedness of mind through the penetration of characteristics; thus, by the power of the arisen momentary one-pointedness of mind too, placing the mind evenly, establishing it evenly upon the object, one is said to "train: 'Concentrating the mind, I shall breathe in, I shall breathe out.'"

"Releasing the mind" means releasing and freeing the mind from the hindrances by the first jhāna, from applied thought and sustained thought by the second, from rapture by the third, from pleasure and pain by the fourth. Or else, having attained those jhānas and emerged, he contemplates the mind associated with the jhāna in terms of dissolution and passing away. At the moment of insight, releasing, freeing the mind from the perception of permanence through the observation of impermanence, from the perception of pleasure through the observation of suffering, from the perception of self through the observation of non-self, from delight through the observation of disenchantment, from lust through the observation of dispassion, from origin through the observation of cessation, from grasping through the observation of relinquishment, releasing, freeing the mind, one breathes in and breathes out. Therefore it was said - "Releasing the mind, I shall breathe in; I shall breathe out - thus one trains." Thus it should be known that this set of four is spoken of by way of the observation of mind.

In the fourth set of four, "observing impermanence" - here first impermanence should be known, impermanence should be known, observation of impermanence should be known, and the observer of impermanence should be known. Therein, "impermanent" means the five aggregates. Why? Because of the nature of arising, passing away, and alteration. "Impermanence" means the arising, passing away, and change of those very same, or the meaning is: the breaking up through momentary dissolution of those that have come into being, not persisting in that same mode. "Contemplation of impermanence" means the contemplation as "impermanent" regarding form and so forth by way of that impermanence. "One who contemplates impermanence" means one endowed with that contemplation. Therefore, one who is thus constituted, while breathing in and breathing out, should be understood here as "he trains: 'Observing impermanence, I shall breathe in; I shall breathe out.'"

Regarding "observing dispassion" - here there are two kinds of dispassion: dispassion as destruction and absolute dispassion. Therein, "dispassion as destruction" means the momentary dissolution of formations. "Absolute dispassion" means Nibbāna. "Contemplation of dispassion" means insight and the path that occur by way of seeing both of those. Having been possessed of that twofold observation, breathing in and breathing out, one should be understood as "he trains: 'Observing dispassion, I shall breathe in; I shall breathe out.'" In the term "observing cessation" too, the same method applies.

Regarding "observing relinquishment" - here too there are two kinds of relinquishment: relinquishment by giving up and relinquishment by springing forward. Relinquishment itself as contemplation is the contemplation of relinquishment. This is a designation for insight and the path. For insight, by way of substitution of opposites, relinquishes defilements together with aggregate-formations, and by seeing the faults in the conditioned, it enters into Nibbāna, which is the opposite of that, through its inclination towards it - thus it is called both relinquishment as giving up and relinquishment as entering into. The path, by way of eradication, relinquishes defilements together with aggregate-formations, and by making it an object, it enters into Nibbāna - thus it is called both relinquishment as giving up and relinquishment as entering into. But both are called observation because of observing again and again in accordance with each preceding knowledge. Being endowed with that twofold contemplation of relinquishment, while breathing in and breathing out, one should be understood as "he trains: 'Observing relinquishment, I shall breathe in; I shall breathe out.'" "Thus developed" means thus developed in sixteen modes. The remainder is according to the method already stated.

The discussion on the concentration of mindfulness of breathing is finished.

167. Now, in the passage beginning with "Then the Blessed One," the summary meaning is as follows. Thus, the Blessed One, having comforted the monks with the discourse on the concentration of mindfulness of breathing, then - regarding that which had arisen as the origin and the incident for the laying down of the third pārājika, namely the monks' depriving one another of life - having assembled the community of monks on account of that origin and that incident, having questioned them and having reproved them, since therein the depriving of oneself of life and the causing of deprivation of life by Migalaṇḍika were not grounds for pārājika; therefore, setting that aside, taking only the mutual depriving of one another of life as constituting the ground for pārājika, laying down the pārājika, he spoke the passage beginning with "Whatever monk should intentionally deprive a human being of life." However, here, because noble persons were mixed in, instead of saying "foolish men," it was said "those monks."

Having thus made it firm by way of cutting off the root, when the third pārājika had been laid down, for the purpose of further supplementary laying down, the incident of praising death arose, and for the purpose of illustrating its origin, the passage beginning with "And thus this by the Blessed One" was stated.

168. Therein, "enamoured of" means with minds bound by desire and lust; the meaning is "infatuated, having longing." "Let us praise death" means having shown the danger in life, let us praise the virtues of death; let us show the benefits. In "have done good" and so forth, this is the word meaning: "Good, pure action has been done by you" - thus you are one who has done good. Likewise, "wholesome, blameless action has been done by you" - thus one who has done what is wholesome. The fearfulness reckoned as fear that arises in beings when the time of death arrives - the act of protection, the sheltering action from that, has been done by you - thus one who has made a shelter for the fearful. Evil, wretched action has not been done by you - thus one who has not done evil. Cruel, harsh, immoral action has not been done by you - thus one who has not done what is cruel. Wrong, reckless action overflowing with defilements such as greed has not been done by you - thus one who has not done what is wrong. Why is this said? Because good of every kind has been done by you, evil has not been done by you; therefore we say to you: "What use is this wretched, evil, miserable life to you, overcome as you are by illness?" "Death is better for you than life" means your death is more excellent than life. Why? Because "having passed away from here" means having reached the appointed time, having made an end, having died - this is the meaning. "Upon the body's collapse" etc. "you will arise." "Having thus arisen, there, endowed and furnished with the five divine types of sensual pleasure arisen in the heavenly world, with the five portions of objective sensual pleasure consisting of agreeable forms and so forth, you will indulge yourself" means being conjoined, having come into union, you will move about here and there, you will wander about, you will delight - this is the meaning.

169. "Unsuitable" means unhealthy, not conducive to growth, which quickly bring about the destruction of life.

Commentary on the Word-Analysis

172. "Intentionally" - this is the extraction of the word "intentionally" stated in the matrix as "intentionally a human being". Therein, "saṃ" is a prefix, and together with it, this is an expression of endeavour, "sañcicca"; its meaning is "having intended, having thoroughly intended". But since one who intentionally deprives, he is one who knows and perceives, and that deprivation of his is a transgression done deliberately and having considered. Therefore, without paying attention to the letter but in order to show the meaning itself, the word-analysis was stated thus: "knowing, perceiving, deliberately, having considered, a transgression." Therein, "knowing" means knowing "it is a living being". "Perceiving" means perceiving "I am depriving of life"; the meaning is knowing together with that very mode of knowing it is a living being. "Deliberately" means having intended by way of murderous volition, having determined. "Having considered" means crushing by way of an attack, having dispatched a mind free from hesitation. "Transgression" means whatever transgression of one who has thus proceeded - this is said to be the meaning that has reached the peak of the word "intentionally".

Now, in order to show from the beginning the state of being a human being stated in "should deprive a human being of life", he said "what is called a human being" and so forth. Therein, "in the mother's womb" was stated for the purpose of showing the subtlest form of individual existence by way of womb-born beings. "First consciousness" means the rebirth-linking consciousness. "Arisen" means born. "The first consciousness has become manifest" - this is a synonym of that very same thing. And here, by the expression "the first consciousness in the mother's womb", the entire five-constituent rebirth-linking is shown. Therefore, that first consciousness, the three immaterial aggregates associated with it, and the embryonic matter produced together with it - this is the very first human being. Therein, "embryonic matter" means for women and men, over thirty material phenomena by way of the body-decad, the base-decad, and the sex-decad; for those of indeterminate sex, twenty by way of the body-decad and the base-decad. Therein, the embryonic matter of women and men is the size of a drop of oil lifted by a single fibre of birth-wool, clear and limpid. And this was stated in the commentary:

"Just as a drop of sesame oil, the cream of ghee, undisturbed;

Of such colour and likeness, it is called 'kalala'."

Having taken as the starting point such a minute substance, the individual existence that has gradually reached maturity from then until the time of death, for a being whose natural lifespan is two thousand years - this is called a human being.

"Should deprive of life" means even at the embryonic stage, by heating and pressing, or by administering medicine, or even beyond that by a suitable attack, one would separate from life - this is the meaning. But since depriving of life in reality is nothing but the cutting off of the life faculty, therefore in the word-analysis of this it was stated: "he cuts off the life faculty, obstructs it, destroys the continuity." Therein, one who cuts off and obstructs the sequential connection of the life faculty is said to "cut off the life faculty, obstruct it". This meaning is shown by the phrase "destroys the continuity". "Destroys" means separates.

Therein, the life faculty is twofold - the material life faculty and the immaterial life faculty. Among these, there is no assault upon the immaterial life faculty; it is not possible to deprive one of it. But there is upon the material life faculty; it is possible to deprive one of it. However, in depriving one of that, one also deprives one of the immaterial life faculty. For together with that indeed it ceases, since its existence is dependent upon it. But in depriving one of it, does one deprive of the past, the future, or the present? Neither the past nor the future, for among these one has ceased and one has not yet arisen, thus both are non-existent; because of their non-existence there is no assault; because of the absence of assault, it is not possible to deprive one of either. And this too was said -

"In the past mind-moment one lived, one does not live; one will not live. In the future mind-moment one will live, one did not live; one does not live. In the present mind-moment one lives, one did not live; one will not live."

Therefore, where one lives, there the assault is fitting, thus one deprives of the present.

And this present is threefold: momentary present, continuity present, and period present. Therein, the "momentary present" is that which possesses arising, ageing, and dissolution; it is not possible to deprive one of it. Why? Because it ceases of its own accord. The "continuity present" is that which, having proceeded for merely seven or eight javana-cycles by way of a homogeneous continuity, ceases; or for one who, having come from the heat and entered a room and sat down, it is dark; or for one who, having come from the cold and sat down in a room, until the previous temperature does not subside through the appearance of a dissimilar temperature - in between here, it is called "continuity present." But from rebirth-linking up to death, this is called "period present." It is possible to deprive one of both of these. How? For when that assault is made, the life-nonad that has received the assault, while ceasing, becomes a condition for a weak continuity of diminished force. Then the continuity present or the period present ceases in between, without reaching its determined time. Thus it is possible to deprive one of both of these; therefore it should be understood that it is with reference to that very thing that this is stated: "destroys the continuity."

For the clarification of this meaning, a living being should be understood, the destruction of life should be understood, the destroyer of life should be understood, and the effort in the destruction of life should be understood. Therein, "a living being" is, in conventional terms, a being; in the ultimate sense, the life faculty. For in striking down the life faculty, one is said to "strike down a living being" - that is of the manner already stated. "Destruction of life" means that volition by which one initiates an effort that cuts off the life faculty - that killing volition is called "destruction of life." "Destroyer of life" should be seen as the person who possesses the aforementioned volition. "The effort in the destruction of life" means there are six efforts in the destruction of life - by one's own hand, by command, by throwing, by a fixed device, by magical knowledge, and by supernormal power.

Therein, "by one's own hand" means the striking by one who is killing himself, with the body or with something connected to the body. "By command" means the commanding of another by one who commands thus: "Kill him by piercing or by striking." "By throwing" means the releasing of arrows, spears, devices, stones, and so forth, by one who wishes to kill someone standing at a distance, with the body or with something connected to the body. "Stationary" means the setting up of a pit-trap or a leaning-trap, or the preparation of medicine, by one who wishes to kill by means of a non-moving instrument. All four of these will become clear in detail in the explanation of the text further on.

However, those made by knowledge and those made by psychic power have not come in the text. They should be understood thus. In brief, the recitation of spells for the purpose of killing is the effort made by knowledge. But in the commentaries: "Which is the effort made by knowledge? Practitioners of the Athabbaṇa employ the Athabbaṇa; when a city is besieged or when a battle is at hand, against the opposing army, against adversaries, against enemies, they produce calamity, they produce disaster, they produce disease, they produce irregular fever, they cause needle-pain, they cause cholera, they cause dysentery. Thus practitioners of the Atharva Veda employ the Atharva Veda. Spell-bearers, having applied their spells, when a city is besieged, etc. they cause dysentery" - thus, having shown the effort made by knowledge, many cases of those killed by Athabbaṇa practitioners and spell-bearers have been stated - what is the use of those! Here the characteristic is this: the recitation of spells for the purpose of killing is the effort made by knowledge.

The employment of psychic power born of the result of kamma is the effort made by psychic power. And this psychic power born of the result of kamma is of many kinds: the nāga-power of nāgas, the supaṇṇa-power of supaṇṇas, the yakkha-power of yakkhas, the deva-power of devas, and the royal power of kings. Therein, in the case of nāgas whose poison works by sight, by bite, and by touch, the causing of harm to others by seeing, biting, and touching should be understood as "nāga-power." In the case of supaṇṇas, the lifting up of nāgas measuring two or three hundred fathoms from the great ocean should be understood as "supaṇṇa-power." But yakkhas are seen neither coming nor striking, yet beings struck by them die in that very place; therein their "yakkha-power" should be recognised. In the case of the death of kumbhaṇḍas looked upon with the eye-weapon by Vessavaṇa before the time of his becoming a stream-enterer, and in the case of the psychic might of other devas each according to their own power, "deva-power" should be understood. In the case of the wheel-turning king together with his retinue travelling through the sky and so forth, in the case of Asoka's exercise of command over a distance of a yojana below and above, and in the case of the death of the householder Cūḷasumana by the gnashing of teeth of his father the king, the lord of Sīhaḷa, "royal power" should be recognised.

But some, having cited such suttas as "Furthermore, monks, a recluse or a brahmin who is powerful and has attained mastery of mind, observes with an evil mind the embryo gone into the womb of another woman, thinking: 'Oh, may this embryo gone into the womb not come forth safely.' Thus too, monks, there is destruction of the family" - and so forth, assert that even through psychic power produced by meditation, the act of harming others is possible; and they maintain that together with the act of harming others, there is also the destruction of the psychic power, just as there is the breaking of a water-pot thrown upon a burning house; that is merely their wish. Why? Because it does not accord with the wholesome triad, the feeling triad, the thought triad, and the limited triad. How? For this psychic power produced by meditation is, in the wholesome triad, wholesome and indeterminate, whereas the destruction of life is unwholesome. In the feeling triad, it is associated with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, whereas the destruction of life is associated with painful feeling. In the thought triad, it is without initial application and without sustained application, whereas the destruction of life is with initial application and with sustained application. In the limited triad, it is exalted, whereas the destruction of life is limited.

"Or should seek one who would take his life with a knife" - here, "one who takes" means "a taker." What does it take? Life. Alternatively, "that which is to be taken" means "a taker"; the meaning is "that which is to be placed nearby." "A knife and that taker" means "one who would take his life with a knife." "His" means of the human being. "Should seek" means he should do whatever he can obtain; the meaning is "he should place nearby." By this, he indicates the stationary method of effort. For otherwise, one would become defeated by merely seeking; and this is not fitting. However, in the canonical text, disregarding all the wording, in order to show precisely the knife that is included under the stationary method of effort here, the word-analysis was stated as "a sword or etc. or a rope."

Therein, "knife" should be understood as anything sharp that remains beyond what has been stated. And the inclusion of cudgel, stone, poison and rope under "knife" should be understood because of their capacity to destroy life. "Or should praise death" - here, because even one who shows the danger in life by such a method as "What use is this wretched, miserable life to you, since you cannot obtain fine food to eat," and also one who speaks praise of death by such a method as "You, lay follower, have done meritorious deeds, etc. you have done no evil, death is better for you than life, having passed away from here you will be attended upon, surrounded by celestial nymphs, dwelling in happiness in the Nandana grove" - even such a one praises death itself. Therefore, having divided it in two, the word-analysis was stated: "He shows the danger in life, he speaks praise of death."

"Or should instigate to death" means he should cause one to adopt the means for the purpose of death. In "bring a knife" and so forth, whatever was not stated such as "throw yourself into a pit or a chasm or a precipice" and so on, all that should be understood as having been stated in meaning, since it is stated by the method given later. For it is not possible to state everything in its own form.

"Thus mind and mental" means "thus-minded, thus-mental"; the meaning is "having death as the mind-state, having death as the mental-state" as stated here in "death is better for you than life." Since here "mind" was stated for the purpose of elucidating the meaning of the word "consciousness," and since in meaning both are indeed one and the same, therefore, in order to show their non-difference in meaning, it was stated "whatever is consciousness, that is mind; whatever is mind, that is consciousness." However, even having extracted the word "thus," the meaning has not yet been stated. In the term "mental thought," the word "thus" should be brought in by way of governance. For this should be understood: although it is not stated as "thus-mental-thought," it is as good as stated by way of governance. Accordingly, showing that very meaning, he said "perceiving death" and so forth. And since here "thought" is not a name for initial application. Rather, this is a designation for mere arranging. And that arranging, in this context, is included under perception, volition and purpose. Therefore, the meaning should be seen thus: "mental thought" means thought that is of various kinds as to consciousness. Accordingly, its word-analysis too was stated by way of perception, volition and purpose. And here, "purpose" should be understood as initial application.

"By various methods" means by great and small means. Therein, in praising death, firstly, the inferior method should be understood as showing the danger in life, and the superior method as speaking praise of death. However, in instigation, the superior method should be understood as instigating to death by means of shaking fists, slapping knees, and so forth; the inferior method should be understood as instigating to death and so forth by placing poison on the fingernails while eating together.

"Into a pit or a chasm or a precipice" - here, a pit is a deep hole with banks cut away on all sides. A chasm is a great cavern naturally formed in the earth that splits open here and there, into which even elephants fall, and where robbers stand hidden. A precipice is cut away on one side, whether in the midst of mountains or on level ground. "With reference to the former" means with reference to a person who has committed a defeat offence by engaging in sexual intercourse and by taking what is not given. The remainder is evident because it has been stated by the method explained before and because its meaning is plain.

174. Having thus analysed the training rule as stated, word by word in sequence, now since below in the word-analysis the defeat concerning a human form was shown only in brief, the text was established without attributing the offence in detail. When the matter is shown in brief, monks are unable to grasp the method in all its aspects, and in the future there would be opportunity for evil persons too; therefore, for the purpose of monks grasping the method in all its aspects and for the purpose of preventing opportunity for evil persons in the future, having again set up the matrix by the method beginning with "oneself, having determined," showing the defeat concerning a human form in detail, he said beginning with "'Oneself' means he kills himself."

Herein is the discussion of judgement together with the explanation of terms that are not clear - "With the body" means with the hand, or with the foot, or with the fist, or with the knee, or with any limb or minor limb. "With something connected to the body" means with a weapon such as a sword, etc., not released from the body. "With something thrown" means with an arrow, spear, etc., released from the body or from something connected to the body. Thus far, two modes of effort have been stated: by one's own hand and by throwing.

Therein, each one is twofold by the distinction of designated and undesignated. Therein, in the case of a designated target, one is bound by the kamma through the death of the very one at whom one strikes. In the case of an undesignated target, thinking "Let anyone die," one is bound by the kamma through the death of anyone whatsoever as a result of the blow. In both cases, whether one dies at the very moment of being struck or later from that very affliction, one is bound by the kamma at the very moment of striking. And having given a blow with the intention to kill, if that person does not die, and then a blow is given with a different intention, if later he dies from the first blow alone, then one is bound by the kamma. But if he dies from the second blow, there is no destruction of life. Even if he dies from both, one is bound by the kamma through the first blow alone. If he does not die from both, there is no destruction of life. This same method applies when many blows are given to one person. For therein too, through whichever blow he dies, one is bound by the kamma of that very one.

Here the fourfold case of the ram should also be understood for the purpose of making clear the distinction of kamma and offence. For one who observes a ram lying down in a certain place and thinks "I shall come at night and kill it." And in the place where the ram was lying, his mother, or father, or an arahant, having put on a dull-coloured robe, is lying down. He comes during the night and thinking "I am killing the ram," kills his mother, or father, or an arahant. Because of the existence of the intention "I am killing this object," he becomes a killer, and he incurs an immediately effective kamma, and he commits a defeat offence. Some other visitor is lying down; thinking "I am killing the ram," he kills that person - he becomes a killer and commits a defeat offence, but does not incur an immediately effective kamma. A yakkha or a departed spirit is lying down; thinking "I am killing the ram," he kills that one - he merely becomes a killer, does not incur an immediately effective kamma, and does not commit a defeat offence, but there is a grave offence. No one else is lying down, it is just the ram - he kills it, becomes a killer, and commits an offence of expiation. Thinking "I shall kill one of the mother, father, or arahant," he kills one of those very ones - he becomes a killer, incurs an immediately effective kamma, and commits a defeat offence. Thinking "I shall kill one of them," he kills another visitor, or kills a yakkha or a departed spirit, or kills a ram - this should be understood by the method stated above. But here the intention is cruel.

Other cases involving a heap of straw and similar objects should also be understood here. For one who, thinking "I shall thrust in a blood-stained sword or spear," while entering a heap of straw, kills a mother, or father, or an arahant, or a visiting man, or a yakkha, or a departed spirit, or an animal lying there - he is called "a killer" by convention, but because of the absence of murderous intention, he neither incurs the kamma nor commits an offence. But one who, while thus entering, having noticed bodily contact, thinks "A being has apparently gone inside - let him die," and having entered, kills - for him, the binding by kamma and the offence should be understood in accordance with those respective objects. This same method applies also to one entering there for the purpose of storing, and also to one throwing into forest thickets and the like.

Also, one who kills his father who is going about in the guise of a robber, thinking "I am killing a robber," commits an act of immediate retribution and becomes defeated. But one who, seeing an enemy army and another warrior and his own father engaged in battle, shoots an arrow at the warrior, thinking "Having pierced this one, it will pierce my father" - when it goes according to his intention, he becomes a parricide. If he shoots thinking "When the warrior is pierced, my father will flee," and the arrow goes contrary to his intention and kills his father, he is called a "parricide" in conventional terms; but there is no act of immediate retribution.

"Having determined" means having stood nearby. "He commands" means he commands either specifying or without specifying. Therein, when an enemy army has presented itself, if he commands without specifying thus: "Pierce thus, strike thus, kill thus," however many the one commanded kills, that many are the acts of taking life for both. If among those are the mother or father of the one who commands, he also commits an act of immediate retribution. If they are the mother or father of the one commanded, he alone commits an act of immediate retribution. If one of them is an arahant, both commit an act of immediate retribution. But if, having specified, he commands thus: "Pierce, strike, kill that tall one, that short one, the one in a red tunic, the one in a blue tunic, the one seated on the elephant's shoulder, the one seated in the middle," and if he kills that very one, there is an act of taking life for both; and in the case of a subject of immediate retribution, there is an act of immediate retribution. If he kills another, there is no act of taking life for the one who commands. By this, the effort by commanding has been stated. Therein -

The subject, the time, and the place, the weapon, and the posture;

having weighed these five factors, the wise one should bear them in mind.

Another method -

The subject, the time, and the place, the weapon, the posture,

and the specific action - these are the six determinants of a command.

Therein, "subject" means the being to be killed. "Time" means the time such as forenoon or afternoon, and the time such as youth or old age. "Place" means a village, or a forest, or a house doorway, or the middle of a house, or a street, or a crossroads, and so forth. "Weapon" means a sword, or an arrow, or a spear, and so forth. "Posture" means the walking or sitting of the one to be killed, and so forth. "Specific action" means piercing, or cutting, or breaking, or the conch-shaving torture, and so forth.

If indeed, having deviated from the subject, the one commanded to "kill whomever" kills another instead, or the one commanded "kill by striking from the front" kills by striking from behind, or from the side, or at another spot. There is no binding by kamma for the one who commands; the binding by kamma is only for the one commanded. But if, without deviating from the subject, he kills according to the command, there is binding by kamma for both - for the one who commands at the moment of commanding, and for the one commanded at the moment of killing. And herein, according to the particular subject, there is a particular kamma and a particular offence. Thus, for now, the accordance and discordance regarding the subject should be understood.

Regarding time, however, one who is commanded "Kill in the forenoon" without specifying "today or tomorrow," and kills at any time in the forenoon - there is no deviation from the agreement. But one who is told "today in the forenoon" and kills at midday, or in the evening, or the next day in the forenoon - there is a deviation from the agreement, and there is no binding of the deed for the one who commands. Even when one striving to kill in the forenoon accomplishes it at midday, the same principle applies. By this principle, the accordance and deviation from the agreement should be understood in all distinctions of time.

Regarding place also, one who is commanded without specifying "Kill him standing in the village" and kills him wherever he may be - there is no deviation from the agreement. But one who is commanded with the specification "in the village only" and kills in the forest, likewise one commanded "in the forest" and kills in the village - one commanded "at the inner house door" and kills in the middle of the house - there is a deviation from the agreement. By this principle, the accordance and deviation from the agreement should be understood in all distinctions of place.

Regarding weapons also, one who is commanded "Kill with a weapon" without specifying "with a sword or with an arrow" and kills with whatever weapon - there is no deviation from the agreement. But one who is told "with a sword" and kills with an arrow, or one told "with this sword" and kills with another sword - or one told regarding that very sword "Kill with this edge" and kills with the other edge, or with the flat, or with the point, or with the hilt - there is a deviation from the agreement. By this principle, the accordance and deviation from the agreement should be understood in all distinctions of weapons.

Regarding posture, however, one who says "Kill him while walking," and the one commanded kills him while walking - there is no deviation from the agreement. But one who is told "Kill him only while walking" and kills him while seated - or one told "Kill him only while seated" and kills him while walking - there is a deviation from the agreement. By this principle, the accordance and deviation from the agreement should be understood in all distinctions of posture.

Regarding the type of action also, one who is told "Kill by piercing" and kills by piercing - there is no deviation from the agreement. But one who is told "Kill by piercing" and kills by cutting - there is a deviation from the agreement. By this principle, the accordance and deviation from the agreement should be understood in all distinctions of the type of action.

But one who commands without specifying, by characteristic, "Kill the tall one, the short one, the dark one, the fair one, the thin one, the fat one," and the one commanded kills any such person - there is no deviation from the agreement, and there is an offence entailing defeat for both. But if he commands referring to himself, and the one commanded, thinking "This is indeed such a person," kills the one who commanded - there is an offence of wrong-doing for the one who commands, and an offence entailing defeat for the killer. The one who commands refers to himself when commanding, and the other kills another such person - the one who commands is released, and there is an offence entailing defeat only for the killer. Why? Because the place was not specified. But if one who commands referring to himself also specifies the place, saying "Kill one of such appearance seated in such and such a night-resting place, or day-resting place, or elder's seat, or junior's seat, or middle seat" - and another is seated there, if the one commanded kills him, neither the killer is released nor the one who commands. Why? Because the place was specified. But if he kills at a place other than the specified place, the one who commands is released - this principle was stated firmly and well established in the Great Commentary. Therefore, no disregard should be shown in this matter.

The discussion on the effort by command by way of the matrix beginning with "having determined" is finished.

Now, in order to show the exposition of this matrix term "by means of a messenger," four cases beginning with "a monk commands a monk" are stated. Among these, "he, imagining that one to be that one" means: the one commanded, who was indicated by the commander as "such and such a person," imagining that one to be that one, deprives that very person of life - there is an offence entailing defeat for both. "Imagining that one to be that one, another" means: the one told "deprive him of life," imagining that one to be that one, deprives another similar person of life - there is no offence for the instigator. "Imagining another to be that one" means: having seen a powerful companion of the one indicated by the commander standing nearby, thinking "this one roars because of his strength, let me first deprive this one of life," while striking, the other one having moved and stood in that place, imagining him to be "the companion," he deprives him of life - there is an offence entailing defeat for both. "Imagining another to be another" means: in the same manner as before, thinking "let me first deprive his companion of life," he deprives the companion itself - there is an offence entailing defeat for him alone.

In the exposition section of the term "chain of messengers," beginning with "tell such and such a person," one teacher and three pupils named Buddharakkhita, Dhammarakkhita, and Saṅgharakkhita should be understood. Therein, "a monk commands a monk" means: the teacher, wishing to have a certain person killed, having explained the matter, commands Buddharakkhita. "Tell such and such a person" means: go, Buddharakkhita, and tell this matter to Dhammarakkhita. "Let such and such a person tell such and such a person" means let Dhammarakkhita also tell Saṅgharakkhita. "Let such and such a person deprive such and such a person of life" means: thus let Saṅgharakkhita, commanded by Dhammarakkhita who was commanded by you, deprive such and such a person of life; for he is a hero among us, capable of this task. "There is an offence of wrong-doing" means for the teacher who thus commands, there is firstly a wrong-doing. "He informs the other" means Buddharakkhita informs Dhammarakkhita, and Dhammarakkhita informs Saṅgharakkhita: "Our teacher says thus - 'It seems you should deprive such and such a person of life.' You, it seems, are the brave man among us," he informs; thus for them too there is a wrong-doing. "The murderer accepts" means: Saṅgharakkhita agrees, saying "Very well, I shall deprive him." "There is a grave offence for the instigator" means: at the mere moment of acceptance by Saṅgharakkhita, there is a grave offence for the teacher. For a great number of people have been engaged in evil by him. "He, that one" means: if Saṅgharakkhita deprives that person of life, there is an offence entailing defeat for all four persons. And not only for four; by this method, without breaking the agreement, whether it be a hundred or a thousand monks commanding in succession, there is an offence entailing defeat for all.

In the exposition of the term "deviant messenger," "he commands another" means: Buddharakkhita, commanded by the teacher, not having seen Dhammarakkhita or not wishing to speak to him, having approached Saṅgharakkhita himself, commands him, making a deviation, saying "Our teacher says thus - 'It seems you should deprive such and such a person of life,'" making a deviation. For it is precisely because of making a deviation that this is called "a deviant messenger." "There is an offence of wrong-doing" means by the command, there is firstly a wrong-doing for Buddharakkhita. "He accepts, there is an offence of wrong-doing" means: when Saṅgharakkhita accepts, it should be understood as a wrong-doing for the instigator alone. If that were so, there would be no offence at all for the acceptance; but since there is an offence even in the acceptance of go-between activity and in rejoicing at death, how could there not be one in the acceptance of killing? Therefore this wrong-doing is for the one who accepts alone. For that very reason, "for the instigator" is not stated here. And in the previous case too, this should be understood as belonging to the one who accepts; but it was not stated due to lack of opportunity. Therefore, whoever accepts, for each of them there is indeed an offence on account of that - this is our view on this matter. And just as here, so also in the case of taking what is not given.

But if he deprives that one of life, there is an offence entailing defeat for both - for the one who commands, Buddharakkhita, and for the killer, Saṅgharakkhita. But for the instigator, the teacher, because of the breaking of the arrangement, there is no offence entailing defeat. For Dhammarakkhita, because of not knowing, there is no offence whatsoever. But Buddharakkhita, having secured the safety of two others, is himself destroyed.

In the exposition of the messenger who went and returned - "He, having gone, returns again" means having gone near the one who was to be deprived of life, being unable to deprive him of life because of well-arranged protection, he comes back. "When you are able, then" means: is it that only one killed today is considered killed? Go, whenever you are able, then deprive him of life. "There is an offence of wrong-doing" means thus even by commanding again, there is only a wrong-doing. But if that one is certainly to be deprived of life, the intention that accomplishes the purpose is like the fruit immediately following the path, therefore this one is defeated at the very moment of commanding. Even if the killer kills him after the lapse of sixty years, and the one who commands dies in the meantime, or reverts to the lower life, he will have become a non-recluse and will die, or will revert to the lower life. If the one who commands, while still a layman, having commanded thus with reference to his mother, father, or an arahant, goes forth, and after his going forth the one commanded kills that person, the one who commands becomes a matricide, patricide, or killer of an arahant while still a layman; therefore neither his going forth nor his full ordination takes effect. Even if the person to be killed is an ordinary person at the moment of commanding, but when the one commanded kills him he is then an arahant, or having received a blow from the one commanded, practising insight relying on faith rooted in suffering, attains arahantship and dies from that very affliction, the one who commands is a killer of an arahant at the very moment of commanding. But the killer incurs defeat at the very moment of making the attempt in every case.

Now, for the purpose of showing the appointed and the non-appointed in all these matrix terms stated by way of messenger,

Three cases have been stated; among them, in the first case - because, either speaking softly or because of the other's deafness, he does not make heard the words "Do not kill," therefore the instigator is not freed. In the second case - he is freed because he made it heard. But in the third case, because he made it heard and because the other, having accepted saying "Very well," desisted, both are freed.

The discussion on the messenger is finished.

175. In the expositions beginning with "one who is not in a secret place perceiving a secret place," "not in a secret place" means in his presence. "In a secret place" means out of his presence. Therein, one who, at the time of attendance, having come together with the monks while the hostile monk is seated right in front, not knowing of his arrival due to the defect of darkness, extols such words as "Oh, may such and such a person be destroyed! Even robbers do not kill him, nor does a snake bite him, nor does he take a weapon or poison," thus rejoicing in his death - this is called "one who is not in a secret place perceiving a secret place extols." The meaning is: perceiving as out of his presence one who is right in his presence. But one who, having seen him seated in front, when that person has gone together with the monks who left after paying attendance, yet perceiving "he is still seated right here," extols in the same manner as before - this is called "one in a secret place perceiving one not in a secret place extols." By this same method, "one who is not in a secret place perceiving one not in a secret place" and "one in a secret place perceiving a secret place" should be understood. And it should be understood that for all four of these, for each and every utterance there is a wrong-doing.

Now, in the five expositions of the categories beginning with praising by body, stated for the purpose of showing the classification of the praise of death - "He makes a gesture with the body" means he shows by hand gestures and so forth in such a way that the person understands: "Whoever dies by taking a weapon, or by eating poison, or by hanging with a rope, or by falling into a precipice and so forth, he indeed obtains wealth, or obtains fame, or goes to heaven - this is the meaning conveyed by this." "He speaks with speech" means he speaks that same meaning by making it into verbal expression. The third section is stated in terms of both. In every case, for each and every effort of praising, there is a wrong-doing. When suffering arises in that person, there is a grave offence for the one who praises. When the person with reference to whom the praise was made dies, at the very moment of praising there is an offence entailing defeat for the one who praises. He does not know of it; another, having learned of it, thinking "Indeed I have found a means to a happy rebirth," dies because of that praise - there is no offence. When praise is made with reference to two persons, one having learned of it dies - there is an offence entailing defeat. If both die, there is an offence entailing defeat and also a mass of unwholesome results. This same method applies in the case of many. One who goes about praising death without reference to a specific person - whoever, having learned of that praise, dies, all are killed by him.

In the case of praising through a messenger, merely upon informing the message "Go to such and such a house or village and praise the beauty of death thus to such and such a person," there is a wrong-doing. When suffering arises in the person for whose sake the messenger was sent, there is a grave offence for the principal; upon death, there is an offence entailing defeat. If the messenger, thinking "Now this path to heaven is known," without informing that person, informs his own relative or blood relation, and that one dies, there is a deviation from the arrangement, and the principal is released. If the messenger, having thought likewise, himself acts upon what was said as praise and dies, it is merely a deviation from the arrangement. But when the message is given without reference to a specific person, however many die because of the messenger's praising, that many are the takings of life. If mother or father dies, there is also an offence of immediate retribution.

176. In the explanation of praising by a letter - "He composes a letter" means he writes characters on a leaf or in a book - "Whoever dies by bringing a weapon, or by falling from a precipice, or by other means such as entering fire, entering water, and so forth, obtains this and that" or "it is his rightful due." Here too, the offences of wrong-doing and grave offence should be understood in the manner already stated. However, when written with reference to a specific person, there is an offence entailing defeat only through the death of the one with reference to whom it was written. When written with reference to many, as many as die, that many are acts of destruction of life. Through the death of one's mother or father, there is an offence of immediate retribution. Even when written without reference to a specific person, the same method applies. When remorse arises thinking "Many are dying," one is freed by burning that book or by making it such that the characters are no longer discernible. If it is another's book, whether written with reference to a specific person or without reference to a specific person, one is freed by placing it back where it was obtained. If it was purchased for a price, one is freed by returning the book to the owners of the book, and by giving back the price to those from whose hands the price was received. If several, being of one intention thinking "We shall write in praise of death," and one climbs a palmyra tree and cuts a leaf, one brings it, one makes a book, one writes, one - if it is an etching with a stylus - applies ink, and having applied ink and prepared that book, they all place it in an assembly hall or in a shop or wherever many who are curious to see the letter gather together. Having read that, even if one person dies, there is an offence entailing defeat for all of them. If many die, the method is the same as already stated. However, when remorse arises, even if they hide that book in a chest, and another seeing it takes it out and shows it again to many, they are not freed. Let alone the chest - even if they throw that book into a river or the sea, or wash it, or cut it into pieces, or burn it in a fire, as long as the characters are still discernible even when rubbed, or poorly washed, or poorly burnt, they are not freed. But when it is done such that the characters are no longer discernible, they are freed.

Now, in the descriptions of the categories beginning with pitfalls, stated for the purpose of showing the classification of stationary effort, "he digs a pitfall with reference to a human being" means having designated a certain human being thinking "So-and-so will fall in and die," he digs a pit where that person walks alone. As for the one digging, even if he digs in natural ground, because it is an effort towards destruction of life, for each effort there is an offence of wrong-doing. For the one with reference to whom he digs, there is a grave offence through the arising of suffering, and an offence entailing defeat through death. When another falls in and dies, there is no offence. If it has been dug without reference to a specific person, thinking "Whoever will die," as many as fall in and die, that many are acts of destruction of life. And in cases involving offences of immediate retribution, there is an offence of immediate retribution; in cases involving grave offences and offences requiring expiation, there are grave offences and offences requiring expiation.

There are many intentions therein; by which one is there an offence entailing defeat? In the Great Commentary it is stated thus - "For one who, having dug the pit in depth and in length and breadth, having set it to the right measure, having trimmed it, having swept it, and removing the last basket of earth, the completing intention that accomplishes the purpose is like the fruit immediately following the path. Even if after the passage of a hundred years a being who will certainly die falls in, the offence entailing defeat is by that very completing intention." But in the Mahāpaccarī and in the Abridged Commentary - "Thinking 'Having fallen into this pit, he will die,' even with a single stroke of the spade given, if anyone stumbles and falls in there and dies, it is an offence entailing defeat itself. The Suttantika elders, however, take the completing intention" - thus it is stated.

One commands another: "Having dug a pitfall, bring so-and-so here, cast him in and kill him." That one casts him in and kills him - there is an offence entailing defeat for both. He casts in and kills a different person, or he himself falls in and dies, or another falls in and dies by his own nature - in all cases there is no connection, and the instigator is freed. Even when it is dug with the thought "So-and-so will bring such-and-such here and kill him," the same method applies. He digs with the thought "Those wishing to die will die here" - upon the death of one, there is an offence entailing defeat. Upon the death of many, there is a mass of unwholesome action; upon the death of mother or father, there is an offence of immediate retribution; in cases involving grave offences or offences requiring expiation, there are grave offences or offences requiring expiation respectively.

He digs with the thought "Whoever wishes to kill, they will cast them in here and kill them." They cast them in there and kill them - when one dies, there is an offence entailing defeat; when many die, there is a mass of unwholesome action; in cases involving offences of immediate retribution and so forth, there are offences of immediate retribution and so forth. Here even arahants are included. But in the former method, "There is no falling in due to their wish to die," therefore they are not included. In both methods, when one who falls in by his own nature dies, there is no connection. He digs with the thought "Whoever will cast their enemies in here and kill them." And there enemies cast enemies in and kill them - when one is killed, there is an offence entailing defeat; when many are killed, there is a mass of unwholesome action; when mother or father or an arahant is brought there by enemies and killed there, there is an offence of immediate retribution. When those who fall in by their own nature die, there is no connection.

But whoever digs entirely without specification, thinking "Whether those wishing to die or not wishing to die, whether those wishing to kill or not wishing to kill, whoever falls in or is cast in here will die." Whoever dies, by the death of each one, he experiences the corresponding action and incurs the corresponding offence. If a pregnant woman falls in and dies together with the foetus, there are two acts of taking life. If only the foetus perishes, there is one. If the foetus does not perish but the mother dies, there is only one. If one being pursued by bandits falls in and dies, there is an offence entailing defeat for the digger of the pitfall alone. If bandits cast someone in there and kill him, it is an offence entailing defeat. If they take out one who has fallen in there and kill him outside, it is an offence entailing defeat. Why? Because he was seized through the effort of falling into the pitfall. If he comes out of the pitfall and dies from that very affliction, it is an offence entailing defeat. If after many years have passed, that very affliction flares up again and he dies from it, it is an offence entailing defeat. If, for one who is already ill with a disease arisen on account of falling into the pitfall, another disease arises, and the pitfall-disease is the stronger, even if he dies from that, the digger of the pitfall is not freed. If the later-arisen disease is the stronger, and he dies from that, he is freed. If he dies from both, he is not freed. If a spontaneously-born human being arises in the pitfall and, being unable to climb out, dies, it is an offence entailing defeat. When the pitfall is dug with reference to a human being, if demons and the like fall in and die, there is no offence. When the pitfall is dug with reference to demons and the like, if human beings and the like die, the same method applies. But for one who digs with reference to demons and the like, even in the digging and even in the arising of suffering for them, it is only an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of death, depending on the basis, it is either a grave offence or an offence requiring expiation. In a pitfall dug without specification, one falls in the form of a demon or in the form of a ghost, and dies in the form of an animal - the Elder Upatissa says: "The form at falling is the standard, therefore it is a grave offence." The Elder Phussadeva says: "The form at death is the standard, therefore it is an offence requiring expiation." Even when one falls in the form of an animal and dies in the form of a demon or ghost, the same method applies.

The digger of the pitfall sells the pitfall to another or gives it freely; whoever falls in and dies, on account of that, the offence and the bond of kamma belong to him alone. The one who received it is blameless. But if he too, thinking "Those who have fallen in thus, being unable to climb out, will perish, or will not be easily rescued," makes that pitfall deeper or shallower or longer or shorter or wider or narrower, there is both an offence and a bond of kamma for both of them. When remorse arises, thinking "Many are dying," he fills the pitfall with earth; if anyone falls into the earth and dies, even though he has filled it, the original perpetrator is not freed. Even when it rains and mud forms, and someone gets stuck there and dies. Or a falling tree, or wind, or rainwater carries away the earth, or those digging the ground for roots and tubers create a pit there. If anyone gets stuck or falls in there and dies, the original perpetrator is not freed. However, if in that place he has a large lake or lotus pond constructed, or establishes a shrine, or plants a Bodhi tree, or builds a dwelling or a cart road, he is freed. Even when the filled pitfall has been made firm and the roots of trees and such have become intertwined with roots, and natural ground has formed, even then he is freed. Even if a river comes and carries away the pitfall, in this way too he is freed. This, for now, is the discussion on pitfalls.

Now, regarding snares and such which are analogous to pitfalls, one who sets a snare thinking "Beings will be caught here and die" - in respect of beings that will certainly be caught, as soon as it is released from the hand, offences entailing defeat, offences of immediate retribution, grave offences, and offences requiring expiation should be understood. When made with reference to a specific person, if the one for whom it was set is caught, there is no offence for the binding of others. Even when the snare is given for a price or freely, the bond of kamma belongs to the original perpetrator alone. If the one who received it resets a dislodged snare, or seeing someone passing by makes a fence and drives them in front of it, or sets up a stiffer snare-stick, or ties a stronger snare-rope, or drives in a firmer stake, neither of them is freed. If, when remorse has arisen, he dislodges the snare and goes away, and others seeing it reset it, and those caught one after another die, the original perpetrator is not freed.

But if the snare-stick was not made by him, he is freed by placing it back where it was taken from. He is freed by cutting down a stick that grew there naturally. But even by storing away a stick made by himself, he is not freed. For if another takes it and sets up a snare, when beings die on account of that, the original perpetrator is not freed. If he burns it and makes it into a firebrand and discards it, even when beings die from being struck by that firebrand, he is not freed. But by completely burning or destroying it, he is freed; and even the snare-rope, if twisted by others, he is freed by placing it back where it was taken from. Having obtained small ropes and untwisted what was twisted by himself, or having obtained bark fibres and twisted them, he is freed by unravelling them strand by strand. But even by storing away what was twisted from bark fibres brought by himself from the forest, he is not freed. But by completely burning or destroying it, he is freed.

One preparing a deadfall trap places the deadfall frame on four legs and loads stones upon it; for each effort there is an offence of wrong-doing. When all preparations are complete, as soon as it is released from the hand, in respect of beings that will certainly be crushed, offences entailing defeat and so forth should be understood in accordance with whether it is directed at a specific person or not. Even when the deadfall is given for a price or freely, the bond of kamma belongs to the original perpetrator alone. If the one who received it raises up what has fallen, or loads additional stones making it heavier, or seeing someone passing by makes a fence and drives them into the deadfall, neither of them is freed. Even if, when remorse has arisen, he knocks down the deadfall and goes away, and another seeing it resets it, the original perpetrator is not freed. But by placing the stones back where they were taken from, and by either placing the deadfall legs back where they were taken from in the manner stated for the snare-stick, or by burning them, he is freed.

Also for one planting a stake, when all preparations have been made and at the moment it is released from the hand, offences of defeat and so forth should be understood according to whether it is directed or undirected, in respect of beings who, having fallen upon the point of the stake, will certainly die. Even when the stake is given for a price or freely, only the original instigator is bound by the kamma. If the one who obtained it makes it sharper, thinking "They will die with a single blow," or makes it blunter, thinking "They will die painfully," or, having observed "It is high," replants it lower, or having observed "It is low," replants it higher, or straightens one that is crooked, or makes one that is too straight slightly inclined, neither of them is freed. But if, thinking "It is placed in the wrong spot," he places it in another spot, and if that was made having been sought out from the beginning for the purpose of killing, the original instigator is not freed. But when one that was made without being sought out is obtained and planted, the original instigator is freed. When remorse arises, he is freed by placing it at the place where it was obtained, in the manner stated regarding the snare-stick, or by burning it.

177. "Or a knife on a support" - here, "support" means a bed or a chair that is regularly used, or a backrest board, or a post for leaning against when sitting in a daytime resting place, or a tree growing there, or a tree for holding onto when standing leaning on the walking path, or a board for holding onto - all of this is called "support" in the sense of something to lean against. On that support, he arranges one of the weapons such as an adze, an axe-blade, a spear, a saw, thorns, etc., in such a way that it pierces or cuts the one leaning against it - there is an offence of wrong-doing. When one who is unsuspecting sits down, lies down, or leans against a place of regular use, and painful feeling arises through contact with the weapon, there is a grave offence; through death, an offence entailing defeat. If another monk who is his enemy, while going about the monastery, sees it and goes away approving, thinking "This was surely placed here for his death - good, let him die well," there is an offence of wrong-doing. But if he too does some action there, thinking "If done thus, it will be well done," by making it sharper, etc., for him too there is an offence entailing defeat. But if, thinking "It is placed in the wrong spot," he removes it and places it in another spot, having placed it for that very purpose of killing, the original perpetrator is not freed. If he obtains the original item and places it back, he is freed. If he removes that and places another sharper one, the original perpetrator is indeed freed.

Regarding smearing with poison too, the same method applies up to the offence of wrong-doing for approving of death. But if he too, having observed that the poison patch is small, makes it larger, or thinking "It is excessive," makes a large one small, or makes a thin one thick, or makes a thick one thin, or heats it with fire and spreads it underneath or on top, for him too there is an offence entailing defeat. Thinking "This is placed in the wrong spot," he scrapes off and wipes away all of it and places it in another spot - if he himself prepares it with medicines and places it, the original perpetrator is not freed; if he himself does not prepare it, he is freed. But if he, thinking "This poison is too little," brings more and adds it, whichever one's poison causes death, for that one there is an offence entailing defeat. If he dies from the poison belonging to both, for both there is an offence entailing defeat. Thinking "This poison is ineffective," he removes it and places his own poison instead - for him alone there is an offence entailing defeat, and the original perpetrator is freed.

"Or makes it weak" means he cuts the lower part of the frame of a bed or chair, or cuts the strips or cords with which it is bound, leaving only a little remaining, and places a weapon underneath, thinking "Falling here, he will die." He also cuts the outer part of the ends of the support boards, etc., and the holding trees and boards on the walking path, and places a weapon underneath; or at pits, etc., he brings and places a bed or a chair or a backrest board so that merely by sitting or merely by leaning against it one falls; or there is a bridge for crossing over pits, etc., and he makes it weak. For one doing thus, in the doing there is an offence of wrong-doing. When painful feeling arises for the other, there is a grave offence; upon death, an offence entailing defeat. He brings a monk and places him at the edge of a pit, etc., thinking "Seeing it, trembling with fear, he will fall and die" - there is an offence of wrong-doing. He falls right there - when painful feeling arises, there is a grave offence; upon death, an offence entailing defeat. Whether he himself pushes him, or causes another to push him, or another uninstructed pushes him by his own nature, or a non-human pushes him, or he falls by a gust of wind, or he falls by his own nature - in all cases, upon death there is an offence entailing defeat. Why? Because he was standing at the edge of the pit, etc., through that one's effort.

"Depositing near" means placing nearby. Therein, having praised the glory of death by such a method as "Whoever dies by this sword obtains wealth," or having said "Let those wishing to die, die by this; let those wishing to kill, kill by this," he deposits a sword nearby - in that depositing there is an offence of wrong-doing. Whether one wishing to die strikes himself with it, or one wishing to kill strikes another, in both cases, when painful feeling arises for another, for the depositor there is a grave offence; upon death, an offence entailing defeat. When it is deposited without specifying anyone, upon the death of many, there is a heap of unwholesome karma. In matters involving defeat, etc., there are offences entailing defeat, etc. When remorse arises, he places the sword back in the place from which it was taken, and is freed. If it was obtained by purchase, the sword belonging to the sword's owners - to those from whose hands the price was taken, having given back the price to them, he is freed. If, having taken a lump of iron, a ploughshare, or a hoe, he had a sword made, whatever article was taken to have it made, having restored that very thing, he is freed. If, having taken a hoe and had it made into a sword, he destroys it and makes a ploughshare, even if people die from being struck by the ploughshare, he is not freed from the destruction of life. But if, having smelted iron, it was made solely for the purpose of depositing nearby, having ground it with a whetstone and reduced it to fine powder and scattered it, he is freed. If, like a book of praise, it was made by many with a single intention, the determination of the bond of the action should be understood in the same way as stated regarding the book. This same method applies to spears and slings. Regarding a cudgel, the determination is similar to that for a snare-stick. Likewise regarding a stone. Regarding a knife, it is just the same as for a sword. "Or poison" - for one depositing poison nearby, offences entailing defeat, etc., in matters involving defeat, etc., should be understood according to whether it is specified or unspecified, based on the case. When it is placed after purchasing, having restored it to its original state by the former method, he is freed. When it is prepared by oneself with medicines, having rendered it non-poisonous, he is freed. Regarding a rope, the determination is similar to that for a snare-rope.

Regarding medicine - whatever monk, when a rival monk has a fever or a disease of harmful nature arisen, gives ghee and so forth which are unsuitable as though they were suitable, with the intention of death, or gives any other bulb, root, or fruit - for such giving of medicine, there is an offence of wrong-doing. When painful feeling arises in the other, and upon death, there are grave offence and defeat respectively; in the case of a matter involving an immediate result, it should be understood as an immediate result.

178. Regarding the gift of material form - "Brings forward" means either he places an unpleasant form near the other person, or he himself stands having assumed the guise of a yakkha, a peta, and so forth; merely by that act of bringing forward, there is a wrong-doing offence. When the other person, having seen that form, experiences the arising of fear, there is a grave offence; upon death, there is an offence entailing defeat. But if that very same form is pleasant to someone, and he withers through loss and dies, there is no offence. The same method applies also in the case of what is pleasant. Therein, however, specifically, the male form is pleasant to women and the female form is pleasant to men; one adorns it and brings it forward, allows only a mere glimpse, and does not allow even prolonged viewing; the other withers through loss and dies - there is an offence entailing defeat. If he dies from being frightened, there is no offence. But if, without considering whether it was through fright or through loss, one brings it forward thinking "He will die merely from seeing it," whether he dies from fright or from withering, it is indeed an offence entailing defeat. By this same method, the gift of sound and the rest should also be understood. Herein, however, sounds of non-human beings and the like, which generate terror, are unpleasant sounds; for men, the sounds of women's voices, sweet musical sounds, and the like, which produce delight in the mind, are pleasant sounds. In the Himālaya, the odours of roots and so forth of poisonous trees, and the odours of carcasses, are unpleasant odours; the odours of roots of dark sandalwood and the like are pleasant odours. Flavours of repulsive roots and the like are unpleasant flavours; flavours of non-repulsive roots and the like are pleasant flavours. The touch of poison, the touch of severe itching, and the like are unpleasant tangible objects; the touch of Chinese silk, the touch of swan-feather down cushions, and the like are pleasant tangible objects - thus it should be understood.

Regarding the gift of mental objects - "Mental object" should be understood as the Dhamma of teaching. Or, by way of teaching, the mental object itself is the distinction between misfortune in hell and fortune in heaven. "To one doomed to hell" means one speaks a talk on hell, including the five kinds of bonds and punishments and so forth, to a being whose restraint is broken, who has done evil, and who deserves to be reborn in hell. If, having heard that, he becomes frightened and dies, there is an offence entailing defeat for the speaker. But if, even having heard that, he dies by his own natural course, there is no offence. If one speaks a talk on hell thinking "Having heard this, he will not do such evil, he will desist, he will refrain," and having heard that, the other becomes frightened and dies, there is no offence. "Talk on heaven" means a talk on the fortune of divine entertainments and the like, and of the Nandana grove and the like; having heard that, the other, being intent upon heaven, desiring to quickly attain that fortune, produces suffering by means of taking up a weapon, consuming poison, cutting off food, suppressing breathing, and the like - there is a grave offence for the speaker; if he dies, there is an offence entailing defeat. But if, even having heard that, he remains for the duration of his lifespan and dies by his own natural course, there is no offence. If one speaks thinking "Having heard this, he will perform meritorious deeds," and having heard that, the other, being intent upon it, passes away, there is no offence.

179. Regarding declaring - "When asked he speaks" means when asked thus: "Venerable sir, how does one who has died obtain wealth or be reborn in heaven?" he speaks.

Regarding instruction - "Without being asked" means without being asked thus, he speaks of his own accord.

Making a rendezvous and making a sign should be understood in the same manner as stated in the discussion on taking what is not given.

Having thus shown the classification of offences in various ways, now showing the classification of non-offences, he said "there is no offence for one who acts unintentionally" etc. Therein, "unintentionally" means without having intended: "By this effort I am killing this one." For indeed, when another dies through an effort made without such intention, there is no offence; and it will be stated: "There is no offence for a monk who acts unintentionally." "For one who does not know" means when another dies through an effort made by one who does not know "by this means this one will die," there is no offence; and it will be stated in the case of the poisoned almsfood: "There is no offence for a monk who does not know." "For one not intending death" means for one not wishing for death. For indeed, even when one is killed by the very effort through which another dies, there is no offence for one not intending death. And it will be stated: "There is no offence for a monk not intending death." The mad one and the rest are according to the manner already stated. Here, however, the first offenders are monks who have deprived each other of life; for them there is no offence. For the remaining ones, such as those who praise death, etc., there is indeed an offence.

The commentary on the word-analysis is finished.

Regarding the origins and so forth - This training rule has three origins; It originates from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech and mind. It is action, exempt from perception, with consciousness, worldly wrong, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome consciousness, painful feeling. For even if a king, having ascended his royal bed and enjoying the happiness of royal prosperity, upon being told "A thief has been brought, Your Majesty," speaks while laughing "Go and kill him," it should be understood that he speaks with a mind of displeasure. But because it is pervaded by pleasure and because of the absence of continuity, this is difficult for ordinary persons to discern.

Commentary on the Precedent Cases

180. In the discussions of the Vinīta cases, regarding the first case - "Out of compassion" means those monks, having seen his great suffering from illness, aroused compassion and, having actually become those who desire death yet not knowing their own state of desiring death, praised death thus: "You are virtuous, one who has made merit; why do you fear while dying? Is not heaven for the virtuous merely dependent on death itself?" That monk too, through their praising, having cut off food, died prematurely. Therefore they committed an offence. However, it was stated in conventional terms that "out of compassion they praised death." Therefore, even now, a wise monk should not praise death in such a way to a sick monk. For if, having heard that praising, he dies prematurely through the effort of cutting off food and so forth, even when there remains but a single javana moment of lifespan, he is killed by this very person. Rather, instruction should be given in this manner - "For one who is virtuous, the arising of path and fruit is not surprising; therefore, without forming attachment to dwellings and the like, having established mindfulness directed towards the Buddha, directed towards the Dhamma, directed towards the Saṅgha, and directed towards the body, diligence in attention should be practised." Even when death has been praised, whoever, without making any effort on account of that praising, dies naturally according to his own lifespan and according to his own continuity, on that account the one who praised should not be made to incur an offence.

Regarding the second case - "And, monks, without having examined" - here, what kind of seat should be examined, and what kind need not be examined? That which is simply a bare seat without any covering spread over it, and that which is spread out in the very sight of those who have come and are standing - that need not be examined; it is allowable to sit down. Also that which people themselves press down with their hand and offer saying "Please sit here, venerable sir" - on that too it is allowable. Even if those who came first and sat down afterwards move up or down, there is no duty to examine. Also that which is covered with a thin cloth such that the surface is visible - on that too there is no duty to examine. But that which has been spread beforehand with cloaks, blankets and the like - that should be touched with the hand, examined, and then sat upon. However, in the Mahāpaccarī it is said: "Even when spread with a thick cloth, if no fold is apparent in it, that need not be examined."

Regarding the pestle case - "Unintentionally" means he was one without the intention to kill, whose effort went astray. Therefore he said "It was unintentional, Blessed One." The mortar case is self-evident. In the cases of those who went forth when elderly, in the first case, he pushed him away thinking "Do not cause an obstruction to the community of monks." Regarding the second case - Being called "the son of the senior elder" both in the midst of the Saṅgha and in the midst of the group, being distressed by that expression, he pushed him away thinking "Let this one die." In the third case - Through causing him suffering, it is a grave offence.

181. The three cases following that are clear in meaning. In the case of the almsfood containing poison - that monk, being one who fulfils the qualities conducive to harmony, eats only after giving the first portion of almsfood to his fellow monks in the holy life. Therefore it is said "he gave the first portion." "The first portion" means the first offering; the meaning is the almsfood first obtained, or the very best, the most excellent almsfood. But the first offering, which is reckoned as his giving, cannot itself be given, for he gave the almsfood starting from the senior seat onwards. "Those monks" means those monks who consumed the almsfood starting from the senior seat onwards; it is said that all of them died. The remainder here is clear in itself. However, having obtained fine food carefully prepared from faithless families holding wrong views, one should not consume it oneself without examining it, nor should one give it to others. Whatever food or hard food prepared the previous evening one obtains from them, that too should not be consumed. For those families give even uncovered food that has been lain upon by snakes, scorpions and the like, which is fit to be discarded. Even almsfood smeared with turmeric-scented substances and the like should not be accepted from them. For those families think that even food placed after wiping diseased areas of the body is fit to be given.

In the case of testing - one who is testing tests two things - either he tests the poison, thinking "Can this kill him or not?", or he tests the person, thinking "Would this person die after eating this poison or not?" In both cases, when given with the intention of testing, whether the person dies or not, it is a grave offence. But when given thinking "Let this poison kill him" or "Let this person die after eating this poison," if the person dies, it is an offence involving expulsion; if not, it is a grave offence.

182-183. The three stone cases and the three brick, adze, and rafter cases that follow from here are self-evident in meaning. And this distinction between offence and non-offence applies not only in respect of stones and so forth, but also in respect of sticks, clubs, chisels, shuttles, and so forth; therefore, what has not come in the canonical text should be understood by the same method as what has come.

Regarding the scaffold cases - "Scaffold" (aṭṭaka) refers to an aerial platform; which they construct for the purpose of whitewashing, garland-work, creeper-work, and so forth. Therein, "friend, standing here, tie it" means with the intention of causing death; he said this referring to such a place where, having fallen from where one stood, one might be broken by a stump, or might die in a pit, a precipice, and so forth. And here, someone specifies the upper place, thinking "he will fall from here and die"; someone specifies the place below, thinking "he will fall here and die"; someone specifies both, thinking "he will fall from here to here and die." In that case, one who, without falling from the specified upper place, falls elsewhere; or without falling at the specified lower place, falls somewhere else; or in the case of both being specified, fails in either one and falls - if that person dies, there is no offence because of the deviation from the arrangement. The same method applies also in the case of roofing the monastery.

Regarding the case of discontentment - that monk, it is said, having seen the arising of sensual thoughts and so forth, being unable to prevent them, became discontented with the dispensation and inclined towards the lay life. Then he thought - "Before I reach the breaking of my virtue, I shall die." Then, having climbed that mountain, while falling down the precipice, he fell upon a certain bamboo-worker and killed him. "Bamboo-worker" (vilīvakāra) means a worker in bamboo (veṇukāra). "And, monks, one should not throw oneself down" means one should not throw oneself down. But this was stated with a change of grammatical case. And here, not only should one not throw oneself down, but one should not kill oneself by any other means whatsoever, even by the cutting off of food. For even one who is ill, when medicine and attendants are available, if wishing to die he cuts off food, it is an offence of wrong-doing. But for one who has a serious illness that has persisted for a long time, and the monks attending him become weary, feel disgust, and are distressed thinking "when shall we be freed from this sick person" - if he, thinking "this body does not endure even when being looked after, and the monks are becoming weary," cuts off food and does not take medicine, it is allowable. But one who, thinking "this disease is severe, the life-formations do not endure, and my attainment of distinction appears as if within reach," cuts off food, it is indeed allowable. Even for one who is not ill, if spiritual urgency has arisen, thinking "the search for food is indeed an impediment, I shall devote myself only to the meditation subject," for one who cuts off food with the meditation subject as the priority, it is allowable. If one declares the attainment of distinction and then cuts off food, it is not allowable. For it is allowable to speak to fellow conscientious monks.

Regarding the stone case - "For fun" (davāya) means with fun, with laughter; the meaning is "for play." "Stone" (silā) means a rock; and not only a rock, but it is not allowable to hurl any piece of wood or piece of brick whatsoever, whether by hand or by a device. For the purpose of shrines and so forth, rolling, throwing, or lifting up stones and so forth while laughing and laughing during the time of work, it is allowable. Also when doing other such new construction work, or when washing requisites, if they lift up and throw a tree or a washing stick, it is allowable. At meal-distribution times and so forth, if one drives away crows or dogs by throwing a stick or a potsherd, it is allowable.

184. The cases concerning steam treatment and so forth are all clear in meaning. Here, "I have remorse" does not mean that care for the sick should not be undertaken; rather, out of desire for the sick person's welfare, everything should be done after having ascertained the sick person's strength and weakness, preferences, and what is suitable and unsuitable.

185. In the case of the woman pregnant by a lover - "One whose husband has gone away" means one whose husband has gone abroad. "An abortifacient" means a medicine such that when consumed the embryo falls; such a medicine. The two cases concerning the husband are clear in meaning. In the case of crushing the embryo - When told "crush it and make it fall," she has another person crush it and makes it fall; this is a discrepancy. Even when told "have it crushed and make it be expelled," she herself crushes it and makes it fall; this too is a discrepancy. In the case of a human form, there is no alternative. Therefore, when it is said "an embryo falls when crushed," whether she crushes it herself or has another person crush it and make it fall, there is no discrepancy; it is an offence of expulsion. The same method applies in the case of heating as well.

In the case of the barren woman - A barren woman is one who does not conceive an embryo. There is no woman who does not conceive at all, but one in whom even a conceived embryo does not become established - it is said with reference to her. At the fertile time, it is said, all women conceive. But she who is called "barren" - for the beings arisen in her womb, the result of unwholesome kamma reaches them. Those who have taken rebirth-linking through the result of slight wholesome kamma are overcome by the result of unwholesome kamma and perish. For at the very time of fresh rebirth-linking, through the power of kamma, the embryo does not become established in two ways - either through wind or through organisms. Wind dries it up and makes it disappear; organisms consume it and make it disappear. But if medicine were prepared to counteract that wind or those organisms, the embryo could become established; that monk, without doing that, gave a different harsh medicine. Because of that, she died. The Blessed One laid down an offence of wrongdoing because of having prepared the medicine.

The same method applies in the second case as well. Therefore, medicine should not be prepared for any and every outsider who comes; one who does so commits an offence of wrongdoing. But it should be prepared for the five co-religionists: a monk, a nun, a female probationer, a male novice, and a female novice. For it is not allowable to not prepare medicine for those of equal virtue, faith, and wisdom who are engaged in the three trainings; and when preparing it, if they have their own, one should take what belongs to them, compound it, and give it. If they do not have any, one should prepare it from one's own supplies. If one does not have any either, it should be sought by means of the alms-round practice or from a place where relatives have given an invitation. If one cannot obtain it, it should be brought and prepared for the benefit of the sick person even without having made a specific request.

It is also proper to prepare medicine for another five persons - for one's mother, father, those who attend upon them, one's own attendant, and a yellow-leaf aspirant. A yellow-leaf aspirant is one who, aspiring to go forth, dwells in the monastery while preparing his bowl and robes. Among these, if the parents are wealthy and one does not expect anything in return, it is proper not to prepare medicine. But if, even though established in kingship, they expect something in return, it is not proper to refrain from preparing medicine. Medicine should be given to those who expect medicine; for those who do not know how to prepare it, it should be prepared and given. For the benefit of all of them, one should seek in the same manner as stated regarding those sharing the same Dhamma. But if one brings one's mother to the monastery and looks after her, all the nursing duties should be done without touching her. Hard food and soft food should be given with one's own hand. But one's father should be attended to with one's own hand by bathing, massaging, and so forth, just as one would a novice. And for those who attend upon and look after one's parents, the same should be done for them as well. An attendant is one who, having received wages, cuts firewood in the forest or does any other work; when illness arises for him, medicine should be prepared until his relatives come to see him. But for one who, being dependent on a monk, performs all duties, medicine should certainly be prepared. Regarding a yellow-leaf aspirant too, one should act as one would towards a novice.

It is also proper to prepare medicine for another ten persons - for an elder brother, a younger brother, an elder sister, a younger sister, a younger maternal aunt, an elder maternal aunt, a younger paternal uncle, an elder paternal uncle, a paternal aunt, and a maternal uncle. But when preparing medicine for any of them, one should take their own medicine, merely prepare it, and give it to them. But if they are unable to manage and request, "Please give us yours, Venerable Sir, we shall repay you," one should give it temporarily. Even if they do not request, one should give it either by saying, "We have medicine, take it for now," or by reflecting, "When they have the means, they will repay," and then giving it. If they repay, it should be accepted; if they do not give, they should not be pressed. Apart from these ten relatives, medicine should not be prepared for others.

However, through the succession of their children, up to the seventh generation of family lineage, for one who has the four requisites brought, there is neither an offence of making an uninvited request, nor of practising medicine, nor an offence of corrupting families. If a brother's wife or a sister's husband is ill, if they are relatives, it is proper for them too. If they are not relatives, one should prepare it and give it to the brother or sister, saying, "Give it to them in the place where you look after them." Or one should prepare it and give it to their children, saying, "Give it to your parents." By this method, the decision should be understood in all cases.

And when having novices bring medicine from the forest for their benefit, one should have it brought by novices who are relatives. Or one should have it brought for one's own benefit and then give it. By them too, it should be brought under the heading of duty, saying, "Let us bring it for the preceptor." When the preceptor's parents come to the monastery ill and the preceptor has departed to another region, the co-resident should give the preceptor's own medicine. If there is none, one should relinquish one's own medicine to the preceptor and give it. If one has none oneself either, one should seek it in the manner stated and, having made it the preceptor's own, give it. The preceptor too should act in the same way regarding the co-resident's parents. This same method applies also to teachers and their pupils. Moreover, anyone else - whether a visitor, a robber, a ruler defeated in battle, a destitute person abandoned by relatives, or a traveller - who enters the monastery having fallen ill, medicine should be prepared for all of them without expecting anything in return.

There is a faithful family that supports the community of monks with the four requisites and stands in the place of mother and father. If someone there is sick, and they say out of familiarity "Venerable sir, please prepare and give medicine," neither should it be given nor should it be prepared. But if, knowing what is allowable, they ask thus - "Venerable sir, what medicine do they prepare for such-and-such a disease?" It is proper to say "They prepare it by taking this and that." But when asked thus "Venerable sir, my mother is sick, please tell us the medicine," it should not be told. However, a conversation should be held among one another - "Friend, what medicine did they prepare for such-and-such a monk in this disease?" "This and that, venerable sir." Having heard that, the other person prepares medicine for his mother; that is proper indeed.

The Elder Mahāpaduma too, it is said, when a disease arose in King Vasabha's queen and a woman came and asked him, without saying "I do not know," conversed in just this way with the monks. Having heard that, they prepared medicine for her. And when the disease had subsided, having filled a medicine chest together with the three robes and three hundred kahāpaṇas, they brought it and placed it at the elder's feet, saying "Venerable sir, please make a flower offering." The elder, saying "This is indeed the teacher's share," had it accepted in an allowable manner and made a flower offering. Thus should one conduct oneself regarding medicine.

Regarding protective recitation, however, when it is said "Venerable sir, please perform a protective recitation for the sick person," it should not be done; but when it is said "Please recite," it should be done. If he thinks thus "People do not know; if it is not done, they will feel remorse," it should be done. But when it is said "Please give protective water and a protective thread," their own water should be stirred with the hand and the thread should be rubbed, and then given. If he gives water from the monastery or thread belonging to himself, it is an offence of wrong-doing. When people bring water and thread, sit down, and say "Please recite the protective verses," it should be done. If they do not know, they should be instructed. When people pour water on the feet of seated monks and place a thread and leave, saying "Please perform the protection, please recite the protection," the feet should not be withdrawn. For people would feel remorse. When they send to the monastery for the sake of a sick person within the village, one should say "Let them recite the protective verses." When disease or calamity arises in the royal palace and such places within the village, and they invite and have them recite, the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta and such should be recited. "Come and give the training rules to the sick person, and teach the Dhamma. Come to the royal inner palace or the minister's house and give the training rules, and teach the Dhamma" - even when sent thus, one should go and give the training rules, and the Dhamma should be taught. When they invite saying "Come for the purpose of attending upon the dead," one should not go. But for viewing the charnel ground and viewing the foul, thinking "I shall gain mindfulness of death," it is proper to go on the basis of a meditation subject. Thus should one conduct oneself regarding protective recitation.

Regarding almsfood, however - To whom should untouched almsfood be given, and to whom should it not be given? First, it should be given to one's mother and father. Even if it is worth a kahāpaṇa, there is no squandering of what is given in faith. It should also be given to those who attend upon one's mother and father, to one's attendant, and to the yellow-leaf - to these as well. Therein, it is proper to give to the yellow-leaf even by placing it in a bowl. Apart from those, it is not proper even for one's mother and father among other householders. For what is used by one gone forth is like a shrine for householders. Furthermore, untouched almsfood should be given even to a rebel bandit or a ruler who has arrived. Why? For even when it is not given, they become angry, having touched it, saying "They do not give"; and even when it is given, they become angry saying "They give leftovers." When angry, they may even deprive one of life, and they create obstacles for the dispensation. The story of the bandit Nāga who was wandering about aspiring to kingship should be told here. Thus should one conduct oneself regarding almsfood.

But for whom should hospitality be shown, and for whom should it not be shown? Hospitality should indeed be shown to anyone who has arrived at the monastery, whether a visitor, a poor person, a robber, or a ruler. How? First, upon seeing a visitor who has arrived at the monastery with exhausted provisions, drinking water should be given, oil for anointing the feet should be given. For one who has arrived at the proper time, gruel and rice; for one who has arrived at the wrong time, if there is uncooked rice; uncooked rice should be given. One who has arrived at an unseasonable hour should not be told "Go away." A sleeping place should be given. All this should be done without any expectation of return. The thought should not be aroused: "People who are givers of the four requisites, when hospitality is shown to them in this way, will be pleased again and again and will render assistance." Even communal property should be given to robbers.

For the purpose of illustrating the benefits of hospitality, the story of the robber Nāga, the story of the great Nāga king who went to Jambudīpa with his brother, the story of the four ministers in the reign of his father the king, and the story of the robber Abhaya - many such stories are told in detail in the Great Commentary.

Herein is the illustration of one story - In the island of Sīhaḷa, it is said, a robber named Abhaya, with a retinue of five hundred, having set up a camp at a certain place, dwelt having laid waste the surrounding area for three yojanas. The inhabitants of Anurādhapura did not cross the Kadamba river, and the movement of people on the road to Cetiyagiri was cut off. Then one day the robber went forth thinking "I shall plunder Cetiyagiri." The monastery attendants, seeing this, reported it to the Elder Abhaya, the Long Reciter. The Elder asked "Are there ghee, sugar and such things?" "There is, venerable sir." "Give them to the robbers. Are there uncooked rice?" "There are, venerable sir - uncooked rice, leaf-vegetables, and dairy products brought for the use of the Saṅgha." "Prepare a meal and give it to the robbers." The monastery attendants did so. The robbers, having eaten the meal, asked "By whom was this hospitality shown?" "By our master, the Elder Abhaya." The robbers went to the Elder's presence, paid homage, and said - "We came to seize and take away the property of the Saṅgha and the shrine, but we are pleased by this hospitality of yours. From today onwards, let the rightful protection of the monastery be dependent upon us. Let the townspeople come and give gifts, let them pay homage at the shrine." From then on, when the townspeople came to give gifts, they went out to meet them at the river bank itself, and escorting them protectively, led them to the monastery, and even at the monastery they stood providing protection for those giving gifts. And they too gave the leftovers of the monks' meals to the robbers. Even at the time of departure, those robbers escorted them to the river bank and then turned back.

Then one day a complaint arose among the community of monks: "The elder, acting on his own authority, gave what belonged to the Saṅgha to the bandits." The elder had an assembly convened and said: "The bandits came saying 'We shall seize and take away the regular supplies of the Saṅgha and what belongs to the shrine.' Then, thinking 'In this way they will not carry it off,' I made this much hospitality for them. Now calculate the value of all that together. For that reason, calculate the value of the unplundered goods all together." Thereupon, all that was given by the elder did not equal the value of a single fine cloth spread with painted designs in the shrine house. Thereupon they said: "The hospitality made by the elder was well done; it is not possible to reprove or admonish him; there is neither a charge nor a case against him." Thus, recognising that hospitality is of great benefit, it should be practised by a wise monk.

187. In the case of nudging with fingers - "Exhausted" means becoming weary. "Unable to breathe" means without breath. However, in this case, the offence that should apply has been "indicated among the minor rules" and is therefore not stated here.

In the next case - "Having crushed" means having trampled upon. It is said that he fell down while being dragged by them. One climbed upon his belly and sat down. The remaining fifteen persons, having pressed him down on the ground, killed him like an animal with stones placed on a threshing floor. But since their intention was to carry out an act, not to cause death, therefore an offence involving expulsion was not stated.

In the case of the exorcist - "He killed the demon" means that the reciters of exorcism spells, wishing to release one possessed by a demon, having summoned the demon, say "Release him." If it does not release, they make an image out of flour or clay and cut off the hands, feet and so forth; whatever part of it is cut, that same part of the demon is indeed cut. When the head is cut off, the demon also dies. Thus he too killed; therefore a grave offence was stated. And not only in the case of a demon; even one who were to kill Sakka, the king of the gods, would also commit only a grave offence.

In the case of the fierce demon - "A monastery with a fierce demon" means the monastery in which a fierce, violent demon dwells, that monastery. For one who, not knowing of such a monastery, sends merely for the purpose of dwelling, there is no offence. One who sends with the intention of causing death commits an offence involving expulsion if the other dies, and a grave offence if he does not die. And just as in the case of a monastery with a fierce demon, so too, wherever fierce lions, tigers and other wild beasts, or pythons, black snakes and other long-bodied creatures dwell, the distinction between offence and non-offence should be understood for one who sends to such a dangerous monastery. This is a principle not found in the canonical text. And just as for one who sends a monk to a monastery with a fierce demon, so too, the distinction between offence and non-offence should be understood for one who sends a fierce demon to the presence of a monk. The same method applies also in the cases of a wilderness of wild beasts and so forth. Herein, simply, a wilderness in which there are wild beasts or long-bodied creatures is a wilderness of wild beasts. A wilderness in which there are thieves is a wilderness of thieves - thus the difference is merely in the meaning of the words. And this offence involving expulsion concerning a human form is subtle and cannot be escaped through indirect speech. Therefore, one who were to say "In such and such a place a thief is sitting; whoever cuts off his head and brings it receives a special honour from the king." And if, having heard this statement, someone goes and kills him, this one commits an offence involving expulsion.

188. In the passage beginning with "imagining that one to be that one," it is said that that monk, wishing to kill his enemy monk, thought: "It would not be easy for me to get away safely if I were to kill him during the day; I shall kill him at night." Having considered thus, when night came, at the place where many were sleeping, imagining that one to be that one, he deprived that very one of life. Another, imagining that one to be that one, deprived another of life; another, imagining another to be that one's companion, deprived that one of life; another, imagining another to be that one's companion, deprived another who was indeed that one's companion of life. For all of them, it is an offence involving expulsion.

In the cases concerning one seized by a spirit, in the first case, he gave a blow thinking "I shall drive away the spirit," while the other thought "This one is not able to miss; I shall kill him, shall I not?" And here it is stated that there is no offence for one not intending death. One should not give a blow to one seized by a spirit merely on this account; rather, a palm leaf or a protective discourse should be tied to the hand or foot, protective discourses such as the Ratana Sutta should be recited, and a Dhamma talk should be given saying "Do not harass a virtuous monk." The talks on heaven and so forth are clear in meaning. Whatever should be said here has already been said.

189. The case of cutting down a tree is similar to the case of binding to a post. But this is the distinction - One who, even though crushed by a tree, does not die, and it is possible to escape by cutting the tree on one side or by digging the earth, and there is an adze or axe in his hand - even so, he should give up his life, but should neither cut the tree nor dig the earth. Why? For one doing so commits an offence of expiation, breaks the Buddha's command, and does not maintain his virtue to the end of his life. Therefore, having resolved "Even life should be given up, but not virtue," one should not act thus. However, it is allowable for another monk to extract him by cutting the tree or digging the earth. If he has to be extracted by rolling the tree with a mortar-device, the Elder Mahāsuma said that the very same tree should be cut to make the mortar. The Elder Mahāpaduma said that it is allowable to cut another tree and make it. The same principle applies in the case of rescuing one who has fallen into a pit and the like, by constructing a ladder. One should not make a ladder by cutting plant life oneself; it is allowable for others to make it and lift him out.

190. In the cases concerning setting fire to a grove - "Set fire to a grove" means they gave fire to the forest. Here, however, according to the manner of specifying and not specifying, the offences of expulsion and so forth, and the state of being an unwholesome group, should be understood in accordance with the cases of expulsion, offences bordering on expulsion, grave offences, and offences of expiation, as explained previously. For one who sets fire thinking "Let green grass, forest thickets, and so forth be burnt," there is an offence of expiation. For one who sets fire thinking "Let timber and equipment be destroyed," there is an offence of wrong-doing. It is stated in the Abridged Commentary that even with the intention of play, there is an offence of wrong-doing. For one who sets fire thinking "Let whatever is green or dry, with or without life faculty, be burnt," offences of expulsion, grave offences, offences of expiation, and offences of wrong-doing should be understood according to the basis.

However, giving a counter-fire and making a protection were permitted by the Blessed One; therefore, having seen in the forest a fire approaching that was given by forest workers or that arose by itself, it is proper to give a counter-fire to that fire thinking "Let the grass huts not be destroyed," whereby the approaching fire, meeting together with it, becomes without fuel and is extinguished. It is also proper to make a protection by clearing the ground all around the grass huts or digging a trench, so that the approaching fire, not obtaining fuel, is extinguished. And all of this is proper to do only when the fire has already arisen. When it has not arisen, it should be done by those who are not fully ordained, using allowable expressions. However, for those extinguishing with water, only water without living beings should be poured.

191. In the case of the place of execution - just as in the statement of a single blow; so also in statements beginning with "with two blows," etc., an offence involving expulsion should be understood. And when "with two" is stated, even if killed with one blow, it is an offence involving expulsion because one has entered the very field; but if killed with three, it is a deviation from the agreement. Thus, whether within the specified limit or within the bounds of the specification, there is no deviation from the agreement; but when the specification is exceeded, everywhere there is deviation from the agreement, the one who commands is released, and the fault belongs only to the killer. And just as with blows; so also with persons, when it is said "let one kill," if killed by one alone, it is an offence involving expulsion; if killed by two, it is a deviation from the agreement. When it is said "let two kill," if killed by one or by two, it is an offence involving expulsion; if killed by three, it should be understood as a deviation from the agreement. One person cuts off with a sword the head of a man running swiftly in battle, the headless trunk continues running, another strikes it and brings it down - when it is asked whose is the offence involving expulsion, half the elders said "it belongs to the one who interrupted the movement." The Elder Godatta, the Abhidhamma specialist, said "it belongs to the one who cut off the head." Such cases too should be discussed in the elucidation of the meaning of this case.

192. In the case of buttermilk - when it is said without specifying "give him buttermilk to drink," if he is killed by giving him any kind of buttermilk whatsoever, it is an offence involving expulsion. But when it is specified and said "cow's buttermilk, buffalo's buttermilk, goat's buttermilk," or "cold, hot, smoked, unsmoked," if he is killed by giving him something other than what was stated, it is a deviation from the agreement.

In the case of sour gruel - sour gruel is a single medicine prepared with all flavours. Those who make it, it is said, put in decoctions of chebulic myrobalan, emblic myrobalan, and beleric myrobalan, all grains, all pulses, cooked rice of all seven grains, all fruits such as plantain fruits and so on, all young shoots such as cane shoots, screw-pine shoots, date-palm shoots and so on, pieces of fish and meat, and numerous medicines such as honey, sugar, rock salt, alkaline salts and so on, then seal the mouth of the jar and store it for one, two, or three years; when it has fully matured, it becomes the colour of rose-apple juice. There is no medicine like it for diseases such as wind disorders, coughs, leprosy, jaundice, and fistula, and as an after-drink for those who have eaten rich food, and as a medicine for digesting food. Moreover, this is allowable for monks even after the meal; for the sick it is in its natural form, but for the healthy it should be mixed with water and used as a beverage.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya,

The Commentary on the Third Pārājika is finished.

4.

The Fourth Expulsion

The Teacher who knows the four truths, that which he proclaimed as the fourth;

The order of commentary on that has now been reached.

Since therefore what has been explained before is easy to understand;

Setting that aside, this commentary too is given.

Commentary on the Account of the Monks on the Bank of the Vaggumudā

193. At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Vesālī... etc. "Let us undertake work for the laypeople" means we undertake the tasks to be done in the laypeople's fields and gardens and so forth; it is said that we instruct and advise them thus: "This should be done, this should not be done." "Messages" means the work of a messenger. "Of super-human achievement" means of a state that has transcended human beings; the meaning is of a state that, having surpassed human beings, leads to the Brahma state or to Nibbāna. Or of the achievement of those superior to human beings, of the excellent persons, of meditators and of Noble Ones. Regarding "such and such a monk" and so forth, it should be understood that having deliberated thus among themselves, afterwards when speaking to the laypeople, they praised by name thus: "The monk named Buddharakkhita is an obtainer of the first meditative absorption, Dhammarakkhita of the second." Therein, "this indeed, friends, is better" means that undertaking work and carrying messages involves many adversaries and great commotion and is not befitting for recluses. But compared to both of those, this indeed is better, more praiseworthy, more excellent - that we have praised to the laypeople each other's super-human achievements. What is meant? Having composed their deportment, whether sitting or walking, whether to laypeople who ask or who do not ask, by such a method as "this monk named so-and-so is an obtainer of the first meditative absorption," that which will have been praised by one of us regarding another's super-human achievement - this indeed is better. However, in the absence of a future connection, since it is not fitting that it was spoken by them at that very moment, therefore by making a future connection, the meaning here should be understood thus: "That which will have been thus spoken, that indeed is better." But the grammatical rule should be sought from the science of grammar.

194. "Became of good complexion" means a completely new bodily complexion arose in them, and by that complexion they became of good complexion. "With full faculties" means that because of the completeness of the place occupied by the five sense faculties, the faculties including mind as the sixth were unfaded, thus they were with full faculties. "With a bright facial complexion" means although they were generally of good complexion in terms of bodily complexion, their facial complexion was even more exceedingly bright; the meaning is clear, unclouded, and pure. "With a very clear skin complexion" means that the complexion by which they were of good complexion, resembling the great kaṇikāra flower and so forth, such a complexion exists in other people too. But as in the case of these monks; the skin complexion of those others was not so very clear. Therefore it was said - "with a very clear skin complexion." Thus those monks were not pursuing neither recitation, nor questioning, nor meditation subjects. Rather, having eaten the excellent foods obtained through deceit and false praise of non-existent qualities, and indulging at their pleasure in the delight of sleep and the delight of socialising, they attained this bodily beauty, as is the way of fools comparable to bewildered deer.

"Dwelling on the bank of the Vaggumudā" means those living on the bank of the Vaggumudā. "Is it bearable, monks" means monks, is this bodily mechanism of yours with four wheels and nine doors bearable - is it possible to bear it, to endure it, to maintain it, does it not produce any suffering? "Is it endurable" means is it possible to carry on and proceed in all duties, does it not present any obstacle? "The belly be cut open" means it would be better if the belly were cut open; the reading "parikatto" is also fitting. Having thus rebuked the monks dwelling on the bank of the Vaggumudā in many ways, now because the deed done by them constitutes an act of theft, therefore for the purpose of preventing others too from doing such a deed in the future, the Blessed One then addressed the monks.

195. And having addressed them, he spoke beginning with "Monks, there are these five great thieves." Therein, "existing and found" means it is said that they both exist and are discernible. "Here" means in this world of beings. "It occurs thus" means thus in the initial stage a desire arises. In "when indeed shall I," "su" is a particle; the meaning is "when indeed." The meaning is "when indeed." "He, at a later time" means he, having thus thought in the initial stage, gradually increasing his following, having done such things as highway robbery and plundering of border villages, having become one with a following that has reached abundance, making villages into non-villages and inhabited regions into uninhabited regions, killing, slaying, cutting, causing to cut, torturing, causing to torture.

Having thus shown the external great thief, in order to show the five great thieves in the Dispensation who are similar to him, he spoke beginning with "just so." Therein, "evil monk" - in other contexts, one who is cut off at the root, having committed a pārājika offence, is called an "evil monk." But here, one who has not committed a pārājika offence, who stands in the conduct of desire, who goes about trampling upon the lesser and minor training rules, is intended as an "evil monk." For him too, just as for the external thief, in the initial stage it occurs thus - "When indeed shall I" etc. requisites." Therein, "honoured" means one who has attained honour. "Respected" means one who has attained respect. "Revered" means one who is held dear in the mind. "Venerated" means one who is venerated by the veneration of offering the four requisites. "Esteemed" means one who has attained esteem. Therein, one to whom they give the four requisites having honoured them, having well prepared and made them excellent and choice, he is "honoured." One to whom they give having shown an attitude of respect, he is "respected." Whom they hold dear with the mind, he is revered. For whomever they do all this, he is venerated. One for whom they show the highest deference by way of salutation, rising up, placing palms together, and so forth, he is "esteemed." And for this one who desires all this worldly gain, it occurs thus.

"He, at a later time" means he, having thus thought in the initial stage, gradually gathering evil monks who are excessively disrespectful of the training, restless, conceited, fickle, harsh-spoken, of scattered speech, lacking in mindfulness, without clear comprehension, with unguarded faculties, abandoned by their teachers and preceptors, and valuing gain highly, and having trained them in deceitful practices such as composing deportment, having his qualities praised by evil monks who are capable of winning over the world by such means as praising well-regarded lodgings thus - "This elder, having entered the rains residence at such and such a lodging, dwelt for the rains fulfilling the practice of duties and has come forth" - who are experienced in the Jātakas and other texts, and endowed with a pleasant voice, surrounded by a hundred or a thousand, etc. medicine and requisites. "This, monks, is the first great thief" means this one should be understood as "the first great thief" because, like a burglar and such, he deceives not one family or two, but rather the multitude, and takes the four requisites. But those monks who are experts in the discourses, or experts in the Abhidhamma, or bearers of the Vinaya, who, when almsfood is not forthcoming, go on a journey through the countryside reciting the texts, expounding the commentaries, inspiring the world through thanksgiving, Dhamma talks, and excellence of deportment, honoured, respected, revered, venerated, and esteemed - they should be understood as "those who maintain the continuity of the textual tradition and illuminators of the Dispensation."

"Proclaimed by the Tathāgata" means penetrated by the Tathāgata, made directly known, or made known to others. "Claims it as his own" means in the midst of an assembly, having compared the canonical text and the commentary, having expounded a discourse that inspires confidence in a sweet voice, when asked by a wise person who is filled with wonder and amazement on account of the Dhamma talk - "Oh, Venerable Sir, the canonical text and the commentary are very pure; in whose presence were they learnt?" - without indicating a teacher, saying "Who is capable of teaching one such as me?" he proclaims the Teaching and Discipline as penetrated by himself, attained through self-born knowledge. This is the second great thief, a stealer of the Dhamma penetrated by the Tathāgata through difficulty and hardship, having fulfilled the perfections over four incalculable aeons plus a hundred thousand aeons.

"A pure practitioner of the holy life" means a monk whose taints are destroyed. "Living the pure holy life" means one living the supreme conduct free from defilements; or alternatively, beginning with a non-returner down to a virtuous ordinary person living the pure holy life based on freedom from remorse and so forth. "Accuses with an unfounded charge of not living the holy life" means he charges and accuses that person with a final offence that is non-existent in that individual; this is the third great thief who besmirches one possessing existing virtues and steals the noble qualities.

"Heavy goods, heavy requisites" - just as in the case of taking what is not given, where it is said "four persons having arranged together carried off heavy goods," there what is worth five māsakas is called "heavy goods," but here it is not so. Rather, "These five, monks, are not to be disposed of; they should not be disposed of by the Community, or by a group, or by an individual. Even if disposed of, they are not disposed of. Whoever should dispose of them, there is a grave offence. Which five? A park, a park site, etc. wooden goods, clay goods" - because of the statement thus, they are heavy goods on account of being not to be disposed of. "These five, monks, are not to be divided; they should not be divided by the Community, or by a group, or by an individual. Even if divided, they are undivided. Whoever should divide them, there is a grave offence. Which five? A park, a park site, etc. wooden goods, clay goods" - because of the statement thus, they are heavy requisites on account of being not to be divided, by virtue of being communal requisites. Regarding "a park, a park site" and so forth, whatever is to be said about all of that, we shall explain in the commentary on the discourse that has come in the Khandhaka section beginning with "These five, monks, are not to be disposed of." "With these he treats kindly householders" means by giving and giving those things, he treats kindly and supports householders. "Entices" means he makes those who speak thus "Oh, our venerable sir," who follow along, affectionate. This is the fourth great thief who, having stolen the heavy requisites that are not to be disposed of and not to be divided from their true status, treats kindly householders. And moreover, this one, disposing of these heavy goods for the purpose of treating kindly families, commits the wrongdoing of corrupting families. And he becomes deserving of the act of banishment. Overpowering the community of monks and disposing of them by way of lordly authority, he commits a grave wrongdoing. One disposing of them with thievish intent should be made to have the goods assessed.

"This is the foremost great thief" means this is the chief thief among these thieves; there is no thief equal to this one, who steals the supramundane dhamma that is exceedingly fine and subtle, beyond the grasp of the five sense faculties. But is it possible to steal the supramundane dhamma by deceiving and stealing it, as one would with gold and silver and so forth? It is not possible; therefore he said - "whoever extols a super-human achievement that is non-existent and not factual." For this one merely extols that dhamma which is non-existent in himself, saying "I have this," but he is not able to dislodge it from its place, or to make it exist in himself. Then why is he called a thief? Because, having extolled it, he receives requisites that arise through the esteem for what is non-existent. For when receiving thus, those requisites have been taken by deceiving and stealing through a subtle means. Therefore he said - "What is the reason for this? The country's almsfood has been consumed by you through theft, monks." For here this is the meaning - that which we said - "this is the foremost great thief, whoever extols a super-human achievement that is non-existent and not factual." "What is the reason for this" means if asked, for what reason did we say this? "The country's almsfood has been consumed by you through theft, monks" - monks, because that country's almsfood has been consumed by him through theft, with thievish intent. For here the word "vo" is merely a particle for completing the metre, as in "ye hi vo ariyā araññavanapatthānī" and so forth. Therefore its meaning should not be understood as "consumed by you."

Now, making that same meaning clearer through verses, he said "aññathā santa" and so forth. Therein, "aññathā santaṃ" means being in another manner through impure bodily conduct and so forth. "Aññathā yo pavedaye" means whoever would declare himself in another manner as having pure bodily conduct and so forth. He would make known thus: "I am supremely pure, there is within me a supramundane state." And having declared thus, he consumes the food arisen from that declaration as though he were an arahant. "Nikacca kitavasseva bhuttaṃ theyyena tassa taṃ" - "nikaccā" means having deceived, being in one manner and displaying himself as another. Being in reality neither a bush nor a tree, yet displaying himself as if a bush and as if a tree through the concealment of branches, leaves, and foliage. "Kitavasseva" means just like a fowler, a deceiver, a cheat, who catches birds coming and going in the forest by means of the appearance of a bush or tree, and who makes his living thereby. "Bhuttaṃ theyyena tassa taṃ" means that for him too, being indeed a non-arahant yet displaying the state of an arahant, consuming the food obtained; that which is consumed by him, just as the fowler-cheat's catching of birds is done by deceiving, so because of consuming food obtained by deceiving people, it is called consumed through theft.

But those who, not understanding this reason, consume thus, wearing the orange robe around their necks, etc. "Nirayaṃ te upapajjare" - "kāsāvakaṇṭhā" means those with necks wrapped in the orange robe. This much alone is the mere wearing of the noble banner; the rest of the ascetic life is absent - this is what is stated. "There will be in the future, Ānanda, those of the lineage name only, wearing the orange robe around their necks" - this is the designation for the immoral ones spoken of thus. "Of bad character" means of inferior character. "Asaññatā" means unrestrained in body and so forth. "Pāpā" means inferior persons. "Pāpehi kammehi" means by those evil deeds such as deceiving others, done without seeing the danger at the time of doing them. "Nirayaṃ te upapajjare" means they are reborn in the unpleasant lower realm; therefore the verse "seyyo ayoguḷo." Its meaning is - if this immoral, unrestrained person, established in conduct according to his desires, deceiving the world through hypocrisy, were to consume, were to swallow, a heated iron ball resembling a flame of fire, and between his consuming this country's almsfood and consuming this iron ball, of those two, consuming the iron ball would be better, more excellent, and more superior, for by consuming the iron ball one does not experience in the hereafter suffering whose extent is difficult to determine even by omniscient knowledge. But by consuming that country's almsfood thus obtained, one experiences in the hereafter suffering of the kind described, for this is the extreme of wrong livelihood.

Having thus shown the danger to those who do not see the danger in evil conduct, "then the Blessed One, having rebuked those monks dwelling on the bank of the Vaggumudā in many ways, for being difficult to support, for being difficult to maintain," etc. and having said "you should recite this training rule," laying down the fourth pārājika, he said "yo pana bhikkhu anabhijānaṃ" and so forth.

Thus, having made it firm by means of the root cutting-off, when the fourth pārājika had been laid down, a case of over-estimation arose for the purpose of further supplementary laying down. For the purpose of illustrating its arising, this was said - "And thus this training rule was laid down by the Blessed One for the monks."

Commentary on the Account of Overestimation

196. Therein, "perceiving as seen what was not seen" means having become those who perceive as seen, thinking "Arahantship has been seen by us," when in fact arahantship has not been seen with the eye of knowledge. The same method applies to "not attained" and so forth. But this is the distinction - "Not attained" means not attained by way of arising in one's own continuum. "Not reached" means not reached through the development of the path; the meaning is also "not obtained." "Not realised" means not penetrated, or not made directly visible by way of reviewing. "Through overestimation" means through the conceit of having attained; the meaning is through conceit arisen thus: "We have attained"; or the meaning is through excessive conceit, through rigid conceit. "Declared the final liberating knowledge" means they declared arahantship; they announced to the monks: "Friends, arahantship has been attained by us, what had to be done has been done." Because their defilements had not been abandoned by the path, and their defilements had merely been suppressed by the power of tranquillity and insight, at a later time, when there was a conjunction of such conditions, the mind inclined towards lust; the meaning is it inclined for the purpose of lust. This same method applies to the others.

"But that is negligible" means that declaration of final liberating knowledge of theirs is negligible, it does not come into usage in the designation of an offence; the meaning is it does not become a factor of an offence.

But for whom does this overestimation arise, and for whom does it not arise? Firstly, it does not arise for a noble disciple, for he is free from doubt regarding the penetration of noble qualities, having gained gladness through reviewing the defilements abandoned by the path, fruit, and nibbāna, and the remaining defilements. Therefore, for stream-enterers and so forth, overestimation does not arise in the manner of thinking "I am a once-returner" and so forth. It does not arise for one of bad conduct, for he is indeed without hope of attaining noble qualities. It does not arise even for one who is virtuous but has abandoned the meditation subject and is given to the enjoyment of sleep and the like. However, it arises for one of thoroughly purified virtue who is diligent in the meditation subject, who has defined name-and-form, who has overcome doubt through the discernment of conditions, who has applied the three characteristics and is comprehending formations, and who has begun insight practice; and when it has arisen, it establishes one who has attained pure tranquillity alone or one who has attained pure insight alone at an intermediate stage, for such a one, not seeing the arising of defilements for ten, twenty, or even thirty years, thinks "I am a stream-enterer" or "a once-returner" or "a non-returner." But one who has attained both tranquillity and insight, it establishes at arahantship itself. For his defilements have been suppressed by the power of concentration, and formations have been well comprehended by the power of insight; therefore, even for sixty years, even for eighty years, even for a hundred years, defilements do not arise, and his mental conduct is just like that of one whose taints are destroyed. He, not seeing the arising of defilements for such a long time, without standing at an intermediate stage, thinks "I am an arahant."

Commentary on the Training Rule with Analysis

197. "Not directly knowing" means not knowing directly. Since he behaves as one not directly knowing, it is non-existent in his continuum, not having arisen and not realised through knowledge, thus it is untrue. Therefore, in the word-analysis, having said "non-existent, untrue, not found," it is stated "not knowing, not seeing."

"A super-human achievement" means the achievement of those who are super-human, namely meditators and noble ones. "Bringing it upon himself" means he brings that upon himself, or he brings himself to that - thus it is "bringing upon himself," that "bringing upon himself"; the connection is: having done so, he should behave. In the word-analysis, however, since what is called a super-human achievement is absorption, liberation, concentration, attainment, knowledge and vision, etc. delight in empty dwellings - thus many states beginning with absorption are stated. Therefore, showing the nature of bringing upon himself in respect of all of those, he made the exposition in the plural: "he brings those wholesome states upon himself." Therein, one who behaves saying "these states are found in me" brings them upon himself. One who behaves saying "I am found among these" should be understood as bringing himself to those.

"A sufficient noble knowledge and vision" - here, mundane and supramundane wisdom is "knowledge" in the sense of knowing; because it makes the Dhamma as if directly seen with the eye, it is "vision" in the sense of seeing - thus "knowledge and vision." Noble, purified, supreme knowledge and vision is "noble knowledge and vision." Sufficient, complete, capable of destroying defilements is the noble knowledge and vision herein; or the noble knowledge and vision is sufficient for the super-human achievement classified as absorption and so forth - thus it is "a sufficient noble knowledge and vision"; that sufficient noble knowledge and vision is the super-human achievement - thus the connection of word-meanings should be understood. Therein, it is by that knowledge and vision that he is called one with sufficient noble knowledge and vision. To show precisely that, the word-analysis is stated under the heading of the three true knowledges: "knowledge means the three true knowledges; vision means whatever is knowledge, that is vision; whatever is vision, that is knowledge" - thus the word-analysis is stated under the heading of the true knowledges. However, here all wisdom that is lofty and supramundane should be understood as "knowledge."

"Should behave" means he should declare this super-human achievement of the aforesaid kind, having brought it upon himself. "To a woman or" and so forth, however, is an indication of the persons to whom the declaration is made. For when it is declared to these, it is declared; it is not declared to devas, Māra, or Brahmā, nor to departed spirits, yakkhas, or animals. "Thus I know, thus I see" - this is an indication of the manner of behaving. In the word-analysis, however, "I know these states, I see these states" - this is an elucidation of the occurrence of knowing and seeing with regard to those states such as absorption and so forth; "and these states exist in me" and so forth is an elucidation of the nature of bringing upon himself.

198. "At a later time" - this is an indication of the time of acknowledging the offence. However, this one commits the offence of expulsion at the very moment of declaring. But since one who has committed an offence acknowledges it whether challenged by another or unchallenged; therefore it is said "whether being pressed for reasons or not being pressed for reasons."

Therein, regarding being pressed for reasons first - "What was attained by you" is the question about attainment; among meditative absorptions, deliverances, etc., or among the path of stream-entry, etc., what was attained by you. "How was it attained by you?" is a question about the method. For the intention here is this - was it attained by you making the characteristic of impermanence the leading principle, or one of the characteristics of suffering or non-self? Was it by applying oneself through the power of concentration, or through the power of insight? Likewise, was it by applying oneself to materiality, or to immateriality? Was it by applying oneself internally, or externally? "When was it attained by you" is the question about time. It means: at which time among the forenoon, midday, etc.? "Where was it attained by you" is the question about location. It means: at which location - at the night-time dwelling place, the daytime dwelling place, at the foot of a tree, in a pavilion, or at which monastery? "Which mental defilements have been abandoned by you" is the question about abandoned mental defilements. It means: which mental defilements to be destroyed by which path have been abandoned by you? "Of which mental states are you an obtainer" is the question about mental states obtained. It means: of which mental states among the first path, etc., are you an obtainer?

Therefore, even now, if any monk should declare the achievement of a super-human achievement, he should not be honoured merely by that much. Rather, he should be questioned for the purpose of testing in these six grounds - "What was attained by you - was it meditative absorption, or one among deliverances, etc.?" For whatever mental state was attained by whomever, that is obvious to him. If he says "This indeed was attained by me," then he should be asked "How was it attained by you" - "among the characteristic of impermanence, etc., making which the leading principle, or among the thirty-eight objects, or among mental states distinguished as materiality, immateriality, internal, external, etc., by which approach did you apply yourself?" - for whatever is one's approach, that is evident to him. If he says "This indeed is my approach, thus was it attained by me," then he should be asked "When was it attained by you" - "was it in the forenoon, or at one of the other times such as midday, etc.?" - for the time of one's own attainment is evident to all. If he says "It was attained at such and such a time," then he should be asked "Where was it attained by you" - "was it at the daytime dwelling place, or at one of the other locations such as the night-time dwelling place, etc.?" - for the location of one's own attainment is evident to all. If he says "It was attained by me at such and such a location," then he should be asked "Which mental defilements have been abandoned by you" - "those to be destroyed by the first path, or those to be destroyed by the second path, etc.?" - for the mental defilements abandoned by one's own attained path are evident to all. If he says "These indeed are the mental defilements abandoned by me," then he should be asked "Of which mental states are you an obtainer" - "of the path of stream-entry, or of one among the path of once-returning, etc.?" - for the mental states attained by oneself are evident to all. If he says "I am indeed an obtainer of these mental states," even then his word should not be believed, for learned monks skilled in study and questioning are able to test these six grounds.

However, this monk's preliminary practice should be examined. If the preliminary practice is not pure, he should be dismissed thus: "By this practice, a supramundane state is certainly not obtainable." If, however, his preliminary practice is pure, and it is evident that "for a long time he has been heedful in the three trainings, devoted to wakefulness, unattached to the four requisites, dwelling with a mind like the open sky, like the palm of the hand," then that monk's declaration accords with his practice. "Just as the waters of the Ganges flow together and merge with the waters of the Yamunā; just so, the practice leading to nibbāna, well proclaimed by the Blessed One for his disciples, accords - both nibbāna and the practice" - it becomes similar to what was said.

Moreover, honour should not be given even by this much alone. Why? For even a certain worldling may have a practice similar to the practice of one whose taints are destroyed; therefore that monk should be tested by various means. For one whose taints are destroyed, even when a thunderbolt is falling upon his head, there is no fear, no terror, no horripilation. If fear or terror or horripilation arises in him, he should be dismissed thus: "You are not an arahant." But if, being fearless, unterrified, and unafraid, he sits like a lion, this monk, whose declaration is accomplished, deserves the honour sent from all around by kings, royal ministers, and others.

"Having evil desires" means endowed with that evil desire which is stated by the method beginning with "Here a certain one, being immoral, wishes 'May people know me as virtuous.'" "Overcome by desire" means ruined and overcome by that evil desire, having become one who is expelled.

"Desiring purification" means looking for, wishing for, aspiring to one's own purification. For since this one has committed an offence involving expulsion, therefore, while remaining in the state of a monk, he is incapable of attaining meditative absorption and the like; for the state of being a monk is for him both an obstacle to heaven and an obstacle to the path. For this was said: "The ascetic life wrongly grasped drags one down to hell." Furthermore it was said - "For a lax religious life scatters more dust." Thus his state of being a monk is certainly not purification. But since, having become a householder, or a lay follower, or a monastery attendant, or a novice, he is capable of achieving the path to heaven through giving, going for refuge, moral restraint, and the like, or the path to liberation through meditative absorption, deliverance, and the like, therefore his state as a householder and so forth is indeed purification; therefore, because of looking for that purification, he is called "desiring purification." And for that very reason, in the word analysis, "wishing to become a householder" and so forth is stated.

"Should say thus" means should speak thus. How? "Not knowing thus, friend, I said 'I know,' not seeing, 'I see.'" In the word analysis, however, without extracting this phrase "should say thus," in order to show the manner in which one speaking thus says "Not knowing thus, friend, I said 'I know,' not seeing, 'I see,'" the passage beginning with "I do not know these mental states" is stated. "I spoke what is hollow and false" means: being devoid of the meaning of my words, it was hollow; with the intention of deception, it was false - I spoke, I said. This is what is meant. In the word analysis, however, in order to show just the meaning by different words and syllables, "what is hollow was spoken by me" and so forth is stated.

"With reference to the former" means with reference to persons who have committed the former three offences involving expulsion. The remainder is evident because it has been stated by the method explained before and because its meaning is plain.

Commentary on the Word-Analysis

199. Having thus analysed the training rule as formulated in the order of its terms, now since below in the word-analysis, "meditative absorption, deliverance, concentration, attainment, knowledge and vision, etc. delight in empty houses" - thus the super-human achievement was shown only in brief, and the authoritative text was established without attributing the offence in detail. When the matter is shown in brief, not all are able to grasp the method in all its aspects; therefore, for the purpose of grasping the method in all its aspects, placing that same word-analysis in the position of a matrix, and showing the super-human achievement in detail, wishing to show the classification of offences, he said "meditative absorption means the first meditative absorption, the second meditative absorption" and so forth. Therein, by the first meditative absorption and so forth, the loving-kindness meditative absorption and so forth, the foulness meditative absorption and so forth, the mindfulness-of-breathing concentration meditative absorption, the mundane meditative absorption, and the supramundane meditative absorption are all included. Therefore, one who says "I have attained the first meditative absorption" etc. or "I have attained the fourth meditative absorption, the loving-kindness meditative absorption, the equanimity meditative absorption, the foulness meditative absorption, the mindfulness-of-breathing concentration meditative absorption, the mundane meditative absorption, the supramundane meditative absorption" - should be understood as committing a defeat offence.

"Deliverance" means well liberated, or liberated from various defilements. And this is called "emptiness" because of being empty of lust, hate, and delusion. "Signless" because of being without signs, due to the absence of the signs of lust, hate, and delusion. Because of the absence of the aspirations of lust, hate, and delusion, it is called "desireless." "Concentration" means it places the mind evenly, establishes it on the object. "Attainment" means that which is to be attained by the noble ones. The remainder here is the same as the method already stated. And here, by the triad of deliverance and the triad of concentration, only the noble path is stated. But by the triad of attainment, fruition attainment is meant. Among these, taking up any single term whatsoever and saying "I am one who has obtained this" constitutes a defeat offence.

"The three true knowledges" means recollection of past lives, the divine eye, and knowledge of the destruction of the taints. Therein, taking the name of even one of them and saying "I am one who has obtained this true knowledge" constitutes a defeat offence. But in the Abridged Commentary it is said: "One who says 'I am one who has obtained the true knowledges' or one who says 'I am one who has obtained the three true knowledges' also commits a defeat offence." The thirty-seven qualities conducive to enlightenment stated in the word-analysis of path development are those associated with the path, and only the supramundane ones are intended here. Therefore, in the Great Commentary it is said that one who says "I am one who has obtained the supramundane establishments of mindfulness, right strivings, bases for spiritual power, faculties, powers, factors of enlightenment, noble eightfold path" commits a defeat offence. But in the Mahāpaccarī and others it is said: "One who says 'I am one who has obtained the establishments of mindfulness' - thus by each individual category, or 'I am one who has obtained the contemplation-of-the-body establishment of mindfulness' - thus by each individual quality therein, also commits a defeat offence." That too is consistent. Why? Because it is said with reference to what arises at the moment of the path. Regarding the realisation of the fruit too, a defeat offence should be understood for each individual fruit.

In the triad beginning with "the abandoning of lust," only the abandoning of defilements is stated. But since that does not exist without the path - for the abandoning of sensual lust and hate is by the third path, and of delusion by the fourth - therefore, a defeat offence is stated for one who says "lust has been abandoned by me" and so forth.

In the triad beginning with "the mind free from mental hindrances from lust," only the supramundane consciousness is stated. Therefore, one who says "my mind is free from mental hindrances from lust" and so forth also commits a defeat offence.

However, in the word-analysis of "empty houses," since a defeat offence is not intended by the mere statement "I delight in empty houses" without connecting it with meditative absorption, therefore it is stated "delight in empty houses through the first meditative absorption" etc. Therefore, one who, connecting it with meditative absorption, says "I delight in empty houses through such and such a meditative absorption" - it should be understood that only this one commits a defeat offence.

And in the word-analysis of "knowledge," the five knowledges classified as insight-knowledge, mind-made power, diversity of psychic powers, divine ear, and knowledge of others' minds, which are among the eight knowledges stated in the Ambaṭṭha Sutta and others, are not included. Among those, it should be understood that insight alone does not constitute a ground for defeat, but the rest do. Therefore, there is no defeat offence for one who says "I have attained insight" or "I have attained insight-knowledge." But the Elder Phussadeva says: "The other four knowledges too, when not connected with knowledge, do not constitute grounds for defeat. Therefore, there is no defeat offence for one who says 'I have attained mind-made power, diversity of psychic powers, the divine ear element, I have attained knowledge of others' minds.'" That was rejected by his own pupils: "The teacher is not an Abhidhamma specialist and does not know the underlying basis. Direct knowledges are indeed exalted states based only on the fourth meditative absorption, and they succeed only through meditative absorption. Therefore, whether one says 'I have attained mind-made power' or 'I have attained mind-made knowledge' or however one says it, it is indeed a defeat offence." And here, although nibbāna has not come in the canonical text, nevertheless for one who says "I have attained nibbāna" or "I have realised it," it is indeed a defeat offence. Why? Because nibbāna is supramundane, having arisen as supramundane. Likewise, for one who says "I have penetrated the four truths, they have been penetrated by me," it is indeed a defeat offence. Why? Because "penetration of the truths" is a synonym for the path. However, since it is stated in the Vibhaṅga: "Three analytical knowledges arise in the four knowledge-associated mind-moments from sense-sphere wholesome consciousness, they arise in the four knowledge-associated mind-moments from functional consciousness, and the analytical knowledge of meaning arises in these as well as in the four paths and four fruits." Therefore, if one says "I have attained the analytical knowledge of doctrine," or "linguistic analysis etc. analytical knowledge of perspicacity," or "I have attained mundane analytical knowledge of meaning," there is no defeat offence. If one says "I have attained the analytical knowledges," the case does not yet come to a head. But if one says "I have attained the supramundane analytical knowledge of meaning," there is a defeat offence. However, in the Abridged Commentary, a defeat offence is stated for one who says without distinction "I have attained the analytical knowledge of meaning." In the Kurundī too it is stated "one is not freed." But since in the Great Commentary it is deliberated "to this extent there is no defeat offence, to this extent the case does not come to a head, to this extent it is not a defeat offence," it is not possible to take another authority.

There is no defeat offence for one who says "I attain the attainment of cessation" or "I have attained it." Why? Because the attainment of cessation is neither mundane nor supramundane. But if he thinks thus: "It is a non-returner or one with taints destroyed who attains cessation; they will know me as one of those" - and he declares this, and the other knows him thus, it is a defeat offence - so it is stated in the Mahāpaccarī and the Abridged Commentary. That should be accepted after careful consideration.

Even for one who says "In a past existence, at the time of the Perfectly Enlightened One Kassapa, I was a stream-enterer," there is no offence of defeat. For since past aggregates are being referred to, the charge does not hold. However, in the Abridged Commentary it is said: "For one who says 'In the past I was an attainer of the eight attainments,' there is no offence of defeat, because they are of an unstable nature; but here some say 'There are those of a stable nature.'" That too was rejected therein itself thus: "For one speaking with reference to a past existence, there is no offence of defeat; it is only for one speaking with reference to the present existence that there is."

Commentary on the Plain Section

200. Having thus elaborated the ten matrix terms beginning with the meditative absorptions and so forth, now, in showing the factors of the conscious lie that one speaks when claiming a superhuman state, and in constructing the wheel of abbreviation by means of that very elaboration in order to show both the manner of claiming and the classification of offences, he stated "in three ways" and so forth. Therein, there are three major sections: the simple section, the desiring-to-speak section, and the section connected with conditions. Among these, in the simple section, beginning with the first meditative absorption up to the term "mind freed from hindrances through delusion," for each individual term, each one of the six terms - "I attained," "I attain," "I am one who has attained," "I am one who possesses," "I am one who has mastery," "it has been realised by me" - is combined five times thus: in three ways, in four, in five, in six, and in seven ways. This is called the simple method. Then, by combining each term with the first meditative absorption thus: "both the first meditative absorption and the second meditative absorption," having combined all terms, with that very elaboration, what is called the broken wheel was stated. For that was not brought back and connected with the first meditative absorption and so forth; therefore it is called "broken wheel." Then, by combining each term with the second meditative absorption thus: "both the second meditative absorption and the third meditative absorption," and bringing it back and connecting it with the first meditative absorption, with that very elaboration, what is called the bound wheel was stated. Then, just as with the second meditative absorption, so too with the third meditative absorption and so forth, having combined each term and bringing it back and connecting it with the second meditative absorption and so forth, with that very elaboration, having stated twenty-nine other bound wheels as well, the single-root method was completed. The text, however, is shown in brief; it should be understood in detail by one who is not confused.

And just as the single-root, so too the double-root and so forth, ending with the all-root, thirty-five methods are stated above four hundred. That is: Double-root twenty-nine, triple-root twenty-eight, quadruple-root twenty-seven; Thus the quintuple-root and so forth should be understood, reducing by one each time, up to the thirty-root. In the text, however, even their names are abbreviated, and the thirty-root method is shown as one, as "this is the all-root." And because the term "empty dwelling" is not combined with meditative absorption and does not enter as a heading, therefore, leaving that aside, it should be understood that the combination is shown everywhere ending only with the term "mind freed from hindrances through delusion." Thus, whether combining the first meditative absorption and so forth in sequence or out of sequence, with the second meditative absorption and so forth, or without combining, for one who claims by the method beginning with "I attained," there is no escape; one incurs an offence entailing defeat indeed.

And in this simple major section, stated for the purpose of showing this meaning, this is the explanation of the meaning in brief: "In three ways" means by three factors that are the constituent elements of a conscious lie. "Beforehand he thinks" means in the preliminary stage itself, that person thinks thus: "I will speak falsely." "While speaking he thinks" means while he is speaking, he thinks. "Having spoken, he thinks" means when it has been spoken, he thinks; the meaning is: when what was to be said has been said, he thinks. Or alternatively, "having spoken" means for one who has spoken, for one whose speech is finished, it occurs. One who thus knows in the preliminary stage, knows while speaking, and knows afterwards, "falsehood was spoken by me" - he, speaking "I attained the first meditative absorption," incurs an offence entailing defeat. This is the meaning shown here. Although it has been shown, however, here there is this distinction - First there is a question: "The preliminary stage 'I will speak falsely' exists, but the subsequent stage 'falsehood was spoken by me' does not exist - for someone forgets as soon as it is merely uttered - does an offence entailing defeat apply to him, or does it not?" That has been resolved thus in the commentaries - For one who knows in the preliminary stage "I will speak falsely" and while speaking "I am speaking falsely," it is not possible that in the subsequent stage "falsehood was spoken by me" does not arise. Even if it does not arise, it is still an offence entailing defeat. For the first pair of factors alone is the measure. Even for one who in the preliminary stage has no intention "I will speak falsely," but while speaking knows "I am speaking falsely," and even after speaking knows "falsehood was spoken by me," he should not be made to incur the offence. For the preliminary stage is the more decisive measure. In its absence, it is either spoken impulsively or spoken as a slip of the tongue.

Here, however, the objection of self-knowledge and the objection of combination of knowledge should be rejected. "The identity of knowledge should be abandoned" means: the notion that by the very same mind-moment with which one knows "I will speak falsely," one also knows "I am speaking falsely" and "falsehood was spoken by me" - thus knowing in three moments by one single mind-moment - this identity of knowledge should be abandoned, for it is not possible to know that mind by that very same mind, just as it is not possible to cut that very sword by that very sword. But each former and former consciousness, having become a condition for the arising of each latter and latter consciousness in that way, ceases. Therefore this is said -

"The preliminary stage alone is the measure; when that exists, it will not be;

The remaining two do not exist here" - thus speech is three-factored.

"The conjunction of knowledge should be abandoned" means that these three mind-moments should not be taken as arising at a single moment. For this thing called consciousness -

When the first has not ceased, the subsequent does not arise;

Because of arising without interval, it appears as though it were one.

Now, beyond this, whoever speaks a conscious lie saying "I attained the first meditative absorption," since he holds the view "I do not have the first meditative absorption," for him indeed this belief exists. Likewise, he accepts and approves thus: "I do not have the first meditative absorption." And his mind is of such a nature: "I do not have the first meditative absorption." But when he wishes to speak falsely, he speaks having set aside, put away, concealed, and made non-existent either that view, or together with the view the acceptance, or together with the view and acceptance the preference, or together with the view, acceptance, and preference the nature; therefore, to show the distinction of factors by means of those as well, "in four ways" and so forth was stated. And since in the Parivāra it is stated "false speech is eightfold," together with the perception intended there, another method should also be applied here as "in eight ways."

And here, "misrepresenting his view" - this was stated by way of the misrepresentation of a strong mental state. "Misrepresenting his acceptance" and so on - by way of the misrepresentation of successively weaker and weaker ones. "Misrepresenting his perception" - this, however, is the setting aside of the weakest of all mental qualities. That one would consciously speak falsehood without misrepresenting even a mere perception - this possibility does not exist. But since by a future expression such as "I will attain" there is no offence entailing defeat, therefore "attained" and so forth should be understood as only past and present tense terms stated in the text.

207. Henceforth, everything in this plain great section is of clear meaning. For there is nothing herein - that could not be understood by means of this analysis, except for the meaning of the terms beginning with "lust in me has been given up, vomited out" in the word-analysis of the section on the abandonment of defilements. That is now stated - herein, "given up" is said by way of relinquishing one's own nature. "Vomited out" is by way of showing the state of no longer taking up again. "Released" is by way of freeing from the continuity. "Abandoned" is by way of showing that even what is released does not remain anywhere. "Relinquished" is by way of showing the giving back of what was formerly taken up. "Rejected" is by way of showing the state of no longer clinging again, because it has been frightened away by the noble path. That meaning should be sought from the science of grammar. "Completely rejected" is said by way of showing the state of no longer clinging again even of that which is accompanied by the minutest trace, having been thoroughly frightened away.

The Discussion of the Plain Section is concluded.

Commentary on the Section on Intention to Speak

215. In the section on wishing to say as well, the meaning of "in three ways" and so forth, and the entire classification of the abbreviated sections, should be understood in the manner stated here. For this was stated solely for the purpose of blocking the opportunity of evil persons who seek an opportunity thus: "Since I, having missed my intended statement, wished to say one thing but said another, therefore there is no offence for me." For just as one wishing to say "I renounce the Buddha" who says whatever he says among the phrases of renouncing the training such as "I renounce the Dhamma" and so forth, because he has entered the field, he is indeed one who has renounced the training; so too, one wishing to say any one thing among the phrases of superhuman states such as the first meditative absorption and so forth, who says whatever else he says other than that, because he has entered the field, he is indeed defeated. If the person to whom he speaks understands that meaning at that very moment. And the characteristic of understanding here should be understood in the manner stated regarding the renunciation of the training.

But this is the distinction - The renunciation of the training does not come under hand gestures alone. This false declaration comes under hand gestures as well. For whoever declares an untrue superhuman state to a person standing within the range of communication, even through gestures of hands and other movements of limbs and minor limbs, and that person understands the meaning, it is indeed an offence entailing defeat. But if the person to whom he declares does not understand "what is this one saying," or falls into doubt, or understands only later after investigating for a long time, he is reckoned as one who does not understand. Thus, when it is spoken to one who does not understand, it is a grave offence. But one who does not know meditative absorptions and so forth either through personal attainment or through learning and inquiry, and has merely heard the bare words "meditative absorption" or "deliverance" - if even he, when it is spoken by that person, understands even this much: "This one is saying that he apparently attains meditative absorption," he is reckoned as one who understands. When it is spoken to him, it is indeed an offence entailing defeat. The remaining distinction regarding whether to one, two, or many, whether specified or unspecified, should all be understood in the manner stated in the discussion on the renunciation of the training.

The Discussion of the Intention Section is finished.

Commentary on the Section Connected with Conditions

220. In the section connected with requisites too - having understood the classification of the abbreviation of the sections and the meaning of the terms that have come before in the manner already stated, the sequence of the text should first be understood thus. For here, "whoever dwelt in your monastery, whoever used your robe, whoever used your almsfood, whoever used your lodging, whoever used your medicinal requisites for the sick" - these are the five sections in the nominative case; "by whom your monastery was used" and so forth are the five sections in the instrumental case; "on account of whom you gave a monastery" and so forth are the five sections in the accusative case - by means of these, together with the term "empty house" stated here, the classification of the abbreviation of the sections should be understood in all the terms beginning with the first meditative absorption and so forth stated before. However, since it is stated by way of "whoever in your monastery, by whom your monastery, on account of whom you gave a monastery" and since "I" is not stated, the decision here is that even when one who acknowledges has spoken, there is a grave offence here, and for one who does not acknowledge, a wrong-doing.

Commentary on the Classification of Non-Offences

Having thus shown the classification of offences in detail, now showing the non-offence, he said beginning with "there is no offence for one with over-estimation." Therein, "with over-estimation" means there is no offence for one who acts with the belief that one has attained. "For one whose intention is not to boast" means there is no offence for one who, not standing in deceit and wilful conduct, with the intention of not boasting, declares something different in the presence of fellow monks in the holy life. "One who is mad" and so forth are in the manner already stated. Here, however, the original perpetrators are the monks dwelling on the bank of the Vaggumudā river. There is no offence for them.

The commentary on the word-analysis is finished.

Regarding the origins and so forth, this training rule has three origins - it originates from body and mind for one who communicates by hand gestures, from speech and mind for one who communicates by verbal expression, and from body, speech and mind for one who does both. It is action, freed by perception, with consciousness, worldly wrong, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome consciousness, with three feelings - for indeed one boasts while laughing with pleasant feeling, while being afraid, and also with neutral feeling.

Commentary on the Precedent Cases

223. Regarding the decided cases - The case of overestimation is the same method as stated under the unlegislated section.

Regarding the second case - "Having the intention" means having made an aspiration. "Thus people will honour me" means "Thus people will honour me, dwelling in the forest, as one who has attained Arahantship or the trainee's stage, and thereby I shall be respected, revered, esteemed and venerated by the world." "There is an offence of wrong-doing" means for one going with such an intention thinking "I shall dwell in the forest," there is a wrong-doing at each and every step. Likewise, in the forest, in all activities such as building a hut, walking up and down, sitting, dressing and putting on the outer robe, etc., there is a wrong-doing at each and every effort. Therefore, one should not dwell in the forest in this way. For one dwelling thus commits a wrong-doing whether or not he receives honour. But one who has undertaken the ascetic practice, thinking "I shall maintain the ascetic practice," or thinking "When I dwell near a village my mind becomes distracted, the forest is suitable," or "Surely in the forest I shall attain one of the three kinds of seclusion," or "Having entered the forest, I shall not come out without attaining Arahantship," or "Forest dwelling is indeed praised by the Blessed One, and when I dwell in the forest many fellow practitioners in the holy life will abandon the village vicinity and become forest dwellers" - one who thus wishes to dwell a blameless dwelling, he should dwell there.

In the third case too - Thinking "I shall arrange my deportment and so forth properly and go for almsfood," from the task of dressing and robing onwards until the end of the meal, there is a wrong-doing at each and every effort. Whether or not he receives honour, it is indeed a wrong-doing. However, one who enters for almsfood with graceful going forth and returning, etc., for the purpose of fulfilling the duties of the Khandhaka rules and the Sekhiya rules, or for the purpose of setting an example for fellow practitioners in the holy life, is blameless in the eyes of the wise.

In the fourth and fifth cases - By the same method as stated there regarding "whoever dwelt in your monastery," because "I" was not said, there is no expulsion offence. For the expulsion offence has been stated only for one who speaks bringing it upon oneself.

"Walks up and down with intention" and so forth are by the same methods as stated above.

In the case of the fetters - Whether one says "fetters have been abandoned," or "ten fetters have been abandoned," or "one fetter has been abandoned," the abandonment of defilements has been declared, therefore it is an expulsion offence.

224. Regarding the cases of private places - "Extols in private" means he says "having gone to a private place, I am a Worthy One," he does not merely do what was thought in the mind. Therefore here an offence of wrong-doing is stated.

The case of the monastery and the case of attending upon are according to the method already stated.

225. In the case of the "not difficult" matter - that monk held this view - "Only noble persons are disciples of the Blessed One." Therefore he said - "Those who are disciples of the Blessed One would speak thus." And since his intention was this - "For one possessed of virtue who has begun insight practice, it is not difficult to declare the final liberating knowledge; he is capable of attaining arahantship." Therefore he said "I was not intending to make a claim."

In the case of the energy matter, "can be attained" means it is possible to attain, to accomplish, to bring about - this is the meaning. The remainder is according to the method already stated.

In the case of the death matter, that monk, thinking "One in whom remorse arises would fear. But my virtuous conduct is purified, with no grounds for remorse; why then should I fear death?" - on account of this reason, he said "I do not fear death, friend." Therefore there is no offence for him.

The same method applies in the case of the remorse matter as well. The three matters following that are similar to the energy matter.

In the first of the feeling matters, that monk, standing firm in the patient endurance through the power of reflective consideration, said "No, friend, it is not possible to endure by this or that." Therefore there is no offence for him.

But in the second case, because he did not make it personal and spoke indirectly saying "No, friend, it is not possible by a worldling," it is a grave offence.

226. In the account concerning the brahmin, it is said that the brahmin did not merely say "Come, sirs, Worthy Ones." Rather, whatever words came from his mouth, all were connected with the designation of Worthy Ones, such as "Prepare seats for the Worthy Ones, give water for washing feet, let the Worthy Ones wash their feet." That, however, was his expression of devotion, the speech of one who, being of a faith-inclined nature, was inspired by the strength of his own faith. Therefore the Blessed One said: "There is no offence, monks, for an expression of devotion." However, a monk being addressed thus should not use the requisites merely with delight and satisfaction, but should make effort thus: "I shall fulfil the practice leading to the attainment of Worthy One-ship."

The accounts concerning the declaration of final knowledge are similar to the account concerning the fetters. In the account concerning the household, that monk said "One like me, friend, is incapable" because of his lack of desire for and indifference towards the household life, not with the intention of making a claim. Therefore there is no offence for him.

227. In the case concerning obstructed sensual pleasures, that monk was indifferent towards sensual pleasures as objects and sensual pleasures as defilements through seeing danger in them by worldly means alone. Therefore he said: "Sensual pleasures are obstructed for me, friend." Therefore there is no offence for him. And here, "obstructed" means barred, prevented, rejected - this is the meaning.

In the case concerning delight, that monk said "I am delighted, friend, with the supreme delight" by reason of his state of being without discontent in the dispensation and his state of being delighted in recitation, questioning, and so forth - not with the intention of making a claim. Therefore there is no offence for him.

In the case concerning departing, when an agreement has been made thus - "whoever departs first from this residence" - having designated a residence, a pavilion, a boundary, or any place whatsoever, whoever departs first from that place thinking "let them know me as a Worthy One," he is defeated. But whoever goes beyond that place on business for teachers or preceptors, or for some duty concerning parents, or for the purpose of alms-round, or for the purpose of recitation and questioning, or for any other such duty, there is no offence. If, after having gone thus, the desire to act according to his wish arises afterwards - "I shall not go there now; thus they will regard me as a Worthy One" - there is still no offence.

Also whoever, having arrived at that place for some duty, goes beyond that place being occupied otherwise through recitation, attention, and so forth, or being pursued by thieves and the like, or having seen a rain cloud arisen and wishing to enter a sheltered place, there is no offence. Even one going by vehicle or by psychic power does not commit an offence of expulsion; one commits it only by going on foot. Even that one, going neither ahead nor behind together with those with whom the agreement was made, does not commit an offence. For when going thus, all of them protect one another. If, having designated some place at a pavilion, the foot of a tree, and so forth, an agreement has been made in such a manner as "whoever sits or walks there, we shall know him as a Worthy One," or having placed flowers, "whoever takes these and makes an offering, we shall know him as a Worthy One" - there too, for one who acts thus through desire to act according to his wish, it is an offence of expulsion. If a lay follower has built a monastery along the road, or robes and the like have been placed there, saying "let those who are Worthy Ones dwell in this monastery and take the robes and the like." There too, for one who dwells or takes the robes and the like through desire to act according to his wish, it is an offence of expulsion. But this is an unlawful agreement practice; therefore it should not be made, nor any other of such kind as "during this three-month period let all be forest-dwellers, or bearers of the remaining ascetic practices such as the practice of eating only alms food, or else let all be ones with taints destroyed" and so forth. For monks from various regions assemble together. Among them, some who are weak and lacking in strength are unable to maintain such a practice. Therefore such a practice too should not be made. But such things as "during this three-month period none should recite, none should question, none should give the going forth, the vow of silence should be taken, the Saṅgha's gains should be given even to one standing outside the boundary" - such things should certainly not be made.

228. In the Lakkhaṇasaṃyutta, the Elder Lakkhaṇa who is referred to as "the Venerable Lakkhaṇa" should be understood as one great disciple who was ordained by the "Come, monk" ordination among the thousand matted-hair ascetics and attained arahantship at the conclusion of the Fire Sermon. Since he was endowed with an individual existence complete in all respects, possessing the marks of excellence, and equal to Brahmā, he came to be designated as "Lakkhaṇa." The Elder Mahāmoggallāna, however, attained arahantship on the seventh day from the day of his going forth and was the second chief disciple.

"Manifested a smile" means he manifested a gentle smile; the meaning is that he made known, he showed. But having seen what did the elder manifest a smile? Having seen, with the divine eye and not with the physical eye, a skeleton - a being reborn in the realm of the departed - which is mentioned later in the canonical text. For these individual existences do not come into the range of the eye of sensitive matter. But having seen such a form of individual existence, when compassion should have been shown, why did he manifest a smile? Because of recollecting the excellence of himself and of the Buddha's knowledge. For having seen that, the Elder recollected his own excellence thus: "I am freed from such forms of individual existence that are to be obtained by a person who has not seen the truth. It is indeed a gain for me, it is indeed well gained by me." And then: "Oh, the excellence of the knowledge of the Buddha, the Blessed One, who taught 'The result of action, monks, is inconceivable; it should not be speculated upon.' Indeed, the Buddhas teach having made it directly visible. Well penetrated by the Buddhas is the nature of things." Thus, having recollected the excellence of the Buddha's knowledge as well, he manifested a smile. Since those with taints destroyed do not manifest a smile without reason, therefore the Elder Lakkhaṇa asked him - "What now, friend Moggallāna, is the cause, what is the condition for the manifestation of a smile?" But since those by whom this rebirth has not been seen for themselves are difficult to convince, the Elder, wishing to explain with the Blessed One as witness, said "It is not the right time, friend" etc. Then, when asked in the presence of the Blessed One, he explained in the manner beginning with "Here I, friend" etc.

Therein, "skeleton" means a white assemblage of bones devoid of flesh and blood. "Vultures, crows, and hawks" - these too should be understood as demon-vultures, demon-crows, and demon-hawks. But for ordinary vultures and so on, this form does not even come into their range. "Having pursued and pursued" means having followed and followed. "Were pecking" means they go piercing through. Or the reading is "vitudenti," the meaning being that they pierce with sharp iron beaks resembling sword-edges. "It was making a cry of distress" - here "sudaṃ" is an indeclinable particle; the meaning is that the skeleton was making a cry of distress, a cry of anguish. It is said that for the purpose of experiencing the results of unwholesome actions, such forms of individual existence arise even to the extent of a league in size, and they are prominent in sensitivity, resembling a ripe boil; therefore that skeleton, afflicted by intense feeling, made such a cry. And having said this, the Venerable Mahāmoggallāna, again showing the spiritual urgency arisen on account of compassion for beings, thinking "Beings going along in the round of existence are indeed not freed from such forms of individual existence," said "This occurred to me, friend - 'Wonderful indeed, friend'" etc.

"Monks grumbled" - those for whom that rebirth as a departed spirit was not directly visible, they grumbled. But the Blessed One, making known the Elder's spiritual power, said "Disciples indeed dwell possessing vision, monks" etc. Therein, "possessing vision" means the eye has become, has arisen, has been produced in them; the meaning is that they are those in whom the eye has become, in whom the eye has arisen; having produced the eye, they dwell. In the second term too, the same method applies. "Yatra hi nāma" - here "yatra" is a word expressing reason. Herein, this is the connection of meaning: Since indeed even a disciple will know or see or bear witness to such a thing, therefore we said - "Disciples indeed dwell possessing vision, monks. Disciples indeed dwell possessing knowledge, monks."

"That being was seen by me before, monks" - he says that by me, who at the seat of enlightenment, through the penetration of omniscient knowledge, was making directly visible the immeasurable groups of beings in immeasurable world-systems, as well as their existences, destinations, births, stations, and abodes, that being was seen before.

"Cattle butcher" means a being who made his livelihood by slaughtering cattle again and again, separating the flesh from the bones, and selling it. "By the remainder of the result of that very action" means of that action accumulated by various volitions, which is action to be experienced in successive existences. For therein, when the result of the volition by which rebirth-linking was generated in hell has been exhausted, taking as object either the remaining action or the sign of action, rebirth-linking arises again among ghosts and the like. Therefore, that rebirth-linking is called "the remainder of the result of that very action" by reason of the similarity of the action or by reason of the similarity of the object. And this being was reborn thus. Therefore he said - "By the remainder of the result of that very action." It is said that at the time of his passing away from hell, the sign that appeared was a heap of bones of cattle that had been stripped of flesh. He, as though making that concealed action obvious to the wise, was born as a skeleton ghost.

229. In the story of the slice of flesh, "cattle butcher" means he made slices of beef, dried them, and earned his livelihood for many years by selling dried meat. Therefore, at the time of his passing away from hell, a slice of flesh itself was the sign that appeared to him. He was born as a slice-of-flesh ghost.

In the story of the lump of meat, that fowler, having caught birds, at the time of selling them, made them into mere lumps of meat stripped of feathers and skin, and earned his livelihood by selling them. Therefore, at the time of his passing away from hell, a lump of meat itself was the sign that appeared to him. He was born as a lump-of-meat ghost.

In the story of the skinless one, for that sheep-butcher who earned his livelihood by slaughtering goats and skinning them, in the same manner as before, the skinless body of a goat was the sign that appeared to him. He was born as a skinless ghost.

In the story of the sword-haired one, that pig-butcher earned his livelihood for a long time by slaughtering again and again with a sword the pigs that had been fed with fodder for a long time. Therefore, the state of having a raised sword itself was the sign that appeared to him. Therefore he was born as a sword-haired ghost.

In the story of the Spear-haired One, that deer-hunter, having taken one deer and a spear, having gone to the forest, killed the deer that came and went near that deer by piercing them with the spear; for him, the very state of piercing with the spear was the sign. Therefore he was born as a spear-haired ghost.

In the story of the arrow-haired one, "a torturer" means a man whose task was killing, having oppressed those who had offended against the king with many tortures, and at the end having shot them with an arrow. He, it is said, pierced them knowing that "when pierced in such and such a spot, one dies." For him, having earned his livelihood thus and having arisen in hell, by the remainder of the ripened result from there, at the time of rebirth here, the very state of being pierced by arrows was the sign. Therefore he was born as an arrow-haired ghost.

In the story of the needle-haired one, "charioteer" means a horse-trainer. In the Kurundī commentary it is also stated as "an ox-trainer." For him, the very state of being pierced by the goad-needle was the sign. Therefore he was born as a ghost with needle-like hair.

In the second story of the needle-haired one, "informer" means one who engages in slander. He, it is said, divided people against one another. And in the royal court, by informing again and again that "this one has such and such a thing, this one has done such and such a thing," he brought them to ruin and misfortune. Therefore, just as people were divided by his informing, so too, in order to experience the suffering of being pierced by needles, with kamma itself as the sign, he was born as a needle-haired hungry ghost.

In the story of the testicle-burdened one, "village cheat" means a judicial minister. Due to the similarity of his action, his testicles were the size of water-pots, the measure of large vessels. For since he, in secret, in a concealed place, having accepted bribes, by giving false judgements, openly committed offences, he made owners into non-owners. Therefore his private part was born conspicuously. Since, in imposing punishment, he placed an unbearable burden upon others, therefore his private part was born as an unbearable burden. Since in the position where one standing should be impartial, he stood and was partial, therefore there was an uncomfortable sitting upon his private part.

In the story of the adulterer, that being, touching what was guarded, protected, and owned by another - a touch belonging to another - having delighted his mind with the pleasure of filth, the pleasure of sensuality, was reborn there to experience suffering, touching the contact of excrement, through the similarity of his kamma. The story of the wicked brahmin is obvious.

230. In the story of the skinless woman, since a woman is not sovereign over her own touch, and she, having stolen that touch belonging to her husband, aroused delight in others, therefore, by the similarity of action, having fallen away from pleasant contact, she was reborn as a skinless woman to experience painful contact.

In the story of the hideous woman, "hideous" means ugly, unsightly, and repulsive. She, it seems, while performing the work of a fortune-teller and the work of a spirit-medium, having taken perfumes, flowers, and other things from the people by deception, saying "When such and such offerings are made in this way and that way, such and such prosperity will come to you," caused the people to adopt wrong views and false views. Therefore, by the similarity of that action, because of stealing perfumes, flowers, and other things, she was foul-smelling; because of causing the adoption of wrong views, she was reborn as unsightly, ugly, and repulsive.

In the story of the oozing woman, "scorched, oozing, scattered" means she, it seems, lying on a heap of embers, writhing and turning over, is being burnt. Therefore, she is scorched, with a body cooked by fierce fire; And she is oozing, with a body drenched, as drops trickle from her body. And she is scattered with embers, for beneath her there are embers the colour of kiṃsuka flowers, on both sides as well, and from the sky above her embers fall. Therefore it is said - "Scorched, oozing, scattered." "She, overcome by jealousy, scattered embers from a pan of charcoal over her co-wife" means that one dancing girl of the King of Kāliṅga, it seems, having placed a pan of charcoal nearby, was wiping water from her body and producing perspiration with her hand. The king too engaged in conversation with her and showed signs of satisfaction. The chief queen, not enduring that, having become overcome by jealousy, not long after the king had departed, having taken that pan of charcoal, scattered the embers over her. She, having done that action, was reborn in the ghost realm to experience just such a result.

In the story of the executioner of thieves, he, having cut off the heads of thieves for a long time by the king's command, when reborn in the realm of the departed, was reborn as a headless trunk.

In the story of the monk, "evil monk" means an inferior monk. He, it seems, having consumed the four requisites given in faith by the world, wandered about with corrupt livelihood, unrestrained through the doors of body and speech, playing about according to his whims. Thereupon, having been tormented in hell for one interval between Buddhas, being reborn in the ghost realm, he was reborn with an individual existence resembling that of a monk. The same determination applies also in the stories of the nun, the female trainee, the novice, and the female novice.

231. In the hot spring account, "clear water" means water that is limpid. "Cool water" means water that is cold. "Sweet water" means water that is pleasant-tasting. "Pure" means clean, free from algae, aquatic plants, and mud. "Has good landing places" means endowed with fine bathing places. "Delightful" means producing delight. "Wheel-sized" means the size of chariot wheels. "Flows boiling" means it flows having become heated there. "From where this, monks" means "from where this, monks." "That lake" means that pool. But from where does this flow? Beneath Vebhāra mountain, it is said, there is a nāga realm of the earth-dwelling nāgas, five hundred yojanas in extent, resembling the deva world, endowed with a floor made of gems and with parks and gardens; there, in the playground of the nāgas, is that water-lake, and from there this hot spring flows. "Comes through the interval between two great hells" means that, it is said, encircling the city of Rājagaha is the great realm of the departed; there, through the interval between two great iron-cauldron hells, this hot spring comes, and therefore it flows boiling.

In the battle account, "delight roams about" means the victory drum goes around. "The king, friends, by the Licchavis" - the Elder, it is said, having sat down in his daytime dwelling place and his night-time dwelling place, reflecting thus: "The Licchavis are skilled in arms and trained in archery, and the king is engaging in combat with them," saw with the divine eye the king defeated and fleeing. Then, having addressed the monks, he said: "The king, friends, your supporter, has been defeated by the Licchavis." "Moggallāna spoke the truth, monks" means that, having reflected upon the time of defeat, speaking of what he had seen, he spoke the truth.

232. In the account of the elephants' plunging, "Sappinīkāya" means of the river so named. "Imperturbable concentration" means the concentration of the fourth jhāna, which is without trembling, unshakeable, and devoid of bodily and verbal agitation. "Nāgānaṃ" means of elephants. "Plunging in and coming out" means having plunged in, having immersed themselves, and then coming out again. It is said that they descended into deep water, bathed there, drank, took water with their trunks, and came out splashing one another; thus it is said "plunging in and coming out" of them. "Making a heron's cry" means standing on the riverbank, inserting their trunks into their mouths, and making a trumpeting sound. "Heard the sound" means I heard that trumpeting sound. "There is, monks, that concentration, but it is not pure" means there is that concentration of Moggallāna, but it is not pure. It is said that the Elder, having attained arahantship on the very seventh day after his going forth, not having cultivated mastery in the five modes over the eight attainments, not having thoroughly purified the states that obstruct concentration, having merely formed a notion of adverting, attaining, resolving, emerging, and reviewing, entered the fourth jhāna and sat; having emerged from the jhāna factors, he heard the sound of the elephants and perceived thus: "I heard it while within the attainment." Therefore it was said - "There is, monks, that concentration. But it is not pure."

In the account of Sobhita, "I, friends, recollect five hundred cosmic cycles" means he said "I recollect with a single adverting." For otherwise, it would not be remarkable for noble disciples to recollect this or that past dwelling in sequence through multiple advertings, and the monks would not have grumbled. But because he said "I recollect with a single adverting," therefore the monks grumbled. "There is that, monks, for Sobhita, but that is only one birth" means: the birth that Sobhita said he recollects, there is that birth for Sobhita, but that is only one, successive, not recollected out of sequence - this is the meaning.

But how did he recollect this? It is said that this one, more than five hundred cosmic cycles ago, at a sectarian institution,

having gone forth and produced the attainment of non-perception, having died without loss of jhāna, was reborn in the realm of non-percipient beings. Having remained there for the full lifespan, at the end he arose in the human world, went forth in the dispensation, and realised the three knowledges. While recollecting his past lives, he saw the rebirth-linking in this present existence, and then beyond that he saw only the death in the third existence. Then, being unable to recollect the mindless existence between the two, he discerned by inference: "Surely I was reborn in the realm of non-percipient beings." In discerning thus, he accomplished a difficult feat - as if the tip of a hair split into a hundred parts were pierced by another tip, as if a footstep were shown in the sky. Therefore the Blessed One, in this very account, placed him in the foremost position: "This is the foremost, monks, among my disciples who are monks recollecting past lives, that is to say, Sobhita."

The Commentary on the Precedent Cases is finished.

Commentary on the Conclusion

233. "Venerable ones, the four offences involving expulsion have been recited" - this is merely an elucidation of the expulsion offences recited herein. However, when combined together, all twenty-four expulsion offences should be understood. Which are the twenty-four? First, those that have come in the canonical text: four for monks and four not shared with nuns - thus eight. There are eleven persons incapable of attainment. Among them, the eunuch, the animal, and the hermaphrodite - these three are deficient in basis, having reconnection without root-cause. For them, heaven is not obstructed, but the path is obstructed, for they are incapable of attaining the path due to deficiency in basis. Going forth is also refused to them, therefore they too are expelled. One who lives in communion by theft, one who has gone over to another sect, a matricide, a patricide, a killer of an arahant, a defiler of a nun, one who draws blood, and a schismatic of the Saṅgha - these eight, having reached the state of incapability through failure in their own actions, are indeed expelled. Among them, for these three - one who lives in communion by theft, one who has gone over to another sect, and a defiler of a nun - heaven is not obstructed, but the path is indeed obstructed. For the remaining five, both are obstructed. For they are beings who will be reborn in hell in the immediately following existence. Thus these eleven and the former eight make nineteen. Together with a nun who, having generated a liking for the characteristic of a householder, dresses in the garments of a householder, they make twenty. For she, even without having committed a transgression of misconduct, is by that much alone not a female ascetic - thus far these are the twenty expulsion offences.

And further - one with a pendulous organ, one with a supple back, one who takes another's genital organ in his mouth, one who sits down upon another's genital organ - by virtue of these four, they say there are four expulsion offences by analogy. For since the act of two persons who have come to a similar state under the power of lust is called "sexual intercourse." Therefore, because by this method, without having engaged in sexual intercourse as such, one commits an offence merely by the insertion of a passage into a passage, they conform to the expulsion offence of sexual intercourse - thus they are called expulsion offences by analogy. Thus, combining these four and the former twenty, all twenty-four expulsion offences should be understood.

"He does not obtain communion together with monks" means he does not obtain communion together with monks consisting of the observance day, the invitation, the recitation of the training rules, and the various acts of the Saṅgha. "As before so afterwards" means just as formerly during the time as a householder and during the time as one not fully ordained, so too afterwards, even having committed an expulsion offence, he is likewise not in communion. There is no communion for him together with monks consisting of the observance day, the invitation, the recitation of the training rules, and the various acts of the Saṅgha - thus he does not obtain communion together with monks. "Therein I ask the venerable ones" means in those four expulsion offences I ask the venerable ones "Are you pure in this?" "Kaccittha" means "kacci ettha" (are you in this); the meaning is "are you pure in these four expulsion offences?" Alternatively, "kaccittha parisuddhā" means "kacci parisuddhā attha, bhavatha" - the meaning is "are you pure?" The remainder is of manifest meaning everywhere.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya,

The Commentary on the Fourth Pārājika is finished.

2.

The Section on Initial and Subsequent Meeting of the Community

1.

Commentary on the Training Rule concerning the Emission of Semen

That which was chanted immediately following the chapter on expulsion offences,

this is the explanation of unprecedented terms of that chapter of thirteen.

234. At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's park. In the phrase "Now at that time the Venerable Seyyasaka was living the holy life without delight," here "Venerable" is a term of endearment. "Seyyasaka" is the name of that monk. "Without delight" means with a distracted mind, burning with the fever of sensual lust, but not wishing for the lay life. "Because of that he became lean" means that Seyyasaka became lean because of that state of discontent.

In the phrase "The Venerable Udāyī saw," here "Udāyī" is the name of that elder. For this one was Seyyasaka's preceptor, named Lāḷudāyī, comparable to a startled deer, one of those greedy monks given to delight in sleep and the like. "Kacci no tvan" means "are you perhaps." In the phrases beginning with "eat as much as you like," "as much as there is need" means "as much as one likes." This is what is meant - Eat as much food as you need, as much as you wish; sleep as much time as you wish, whether by night or by day; having rubbed the body with clay and the like and scrubbed it with powder and the like, bathe as much as you wish to bathe; there is no need for recitation, or questioning, or practice of duties, or meditation subjects. "When discontent arises in you" means at whatever time restlessness and distraction of mind arises in you through the power of sensual lust. "Lust assails the mind" means sensual lust destroys the mind, overwhelms it, both scatters it and causes it to wither. "Then having made effort with your hand, release semen" means at that time, having striven with your hand, perform the release of semen, for thus one-pointedness of mind will come to you. Thus the preceptor instructed him, as a fool instructs a fool, as a mad one instructs a mad one.

235. "For those who were unmindful and not fully aware, falling into sleep" means for those who, having abandoned mindfulness and full awareness, were entering into sleep. Therein, although for those falling into sleep the indeterminate life-continuum process occurs and the process of mindfulness and full awareness lapses, nevertheless at the time of lying down, attention should be given. One sleeping during the day should sleep with diligence, thinking "I shall awaken after sleeping only until the hair of a bathed monk has not yet dried." One sleeping at night should sleep with diligence, thinking "Having slept for such and such a portion of the night, I shall awaken when the time has come for the moon or a star to reach such and such a position." One should fall into sleep only after taking up one of the ten meditation subjects beginning with recollection of the Buddha, or another meditation subject that is pleasing to the mind. For one who does thus is said to fall into sleep mindful and fully aware, without having abandoned mindfulness and full awareness. But those monks, being foolish, greedy, and comparable to startled deer, did not do so. Therefore it was said - "For those who were unmindful and not fully aware, falling into sleep."

"There is volition found here" means here, during a dream, there is volition of enjoyment that is found. "There is this volition, monks; but that is negligible" means, monks, this volition of enjoyment exists, but that, having arisen in a domain that is not within one's control, is negligible and does not constitute a factor of an offence. Thus the Blessed One, having shown the negligible nature of volition during a dream, laid down the training rule with a supplementary rule: "And thus, monks, you should recite this training rule - 'Intentional emission of semen, except during a dream, is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.'"

236-237. Therein, "sañcetanā" means that which has volition existing in it; "sañcetanikā" is just sañcetanā itself, or "sañcetanikā" means that which has sañcetanā existing in it. However, since one whose emission of semen is intentional is one who knows and perceives, and since that emission of semen of his is a transgression done deliberately and with full consideration, therefore, without paying regard to the letter but in order to show the meaning alone, its word-analysis was stated thus: "knowing, perceiving, deliberately, having fully considered, a transgression." Therein, "knowing" means knowing "I am making an effort." "Perceiving" means perceiving "I am releasing semen," meaning knowing together with that very mode of knowing the effort. "Deliberately" means having intended and planned through the volition of delight in releasing. "Having considered" means crushing by way of an attack, having dispatched a mind free from hesitation. "Transgression" means that the transgression of one who has thus proceeded - this is said to be the meaning that has reached the peak of the word "sañcetanikā."

Now, regarding "emission of semen" - in order to show the semen whose emission it is, first by number and by distinction of colour, he said "semen means ten kinds of semen" and so forth. Therein, the distinction of colour such as blue and so forth should be understood according to the distinction of the basis of the seminal fluids and the diversity of the elements.

"Emission" means discharge; but in meaning this is dislodgement from its place, therefore he said - "Emission is called dislodgement from its place." Therein, they determine the place of semen in three ways: the top of the bladder, the hip, and the body. One teacher said "the top of the bladder is the place of semen." One said "the hip," one said "the entire body." Among these, the statement of the third is well spoken. For, excluding the places devoid of flesh such as head-hair, body-hair, nails, and teeth, and excluding faeces, urine, saliva, nasal mucus, and hardened dry skin, the remainder of the entire body, pervaded by skin, flesh, and blood, is indeed the place of body-sensitivity, vitality faculty, unbound bile, and also of seminal fluid. For thus, from elephants overcome by the obsession of lust, seminal fluid issues from both ear-flaps; and King Mahāsena, obsessed by lust and unable to endure the force of the seminal fluid, split open the top of his arm with a knife and showed the seminal fluid issuing from the wound's opening.

Here, however, according to the doctrine of the first teacher, when one makes an effort at the sign with delight in releasing, with as much impurity as a single small fly could drink, having released it from the top of the bladder, when it has merely descended into the urinary passage, whether it has come out externally or not, it is a saṅghādisesa. According to the doctrine of the second, likewise having released it from the hip and it has merely descended into the urinary passage; according to the doctrine of the third, likewise having agitated the entire body and having released it therefrom, when it has merely descended into the urinary passage, whether it has come out externally or not, it is a saṅghādisesa. The descent into the urinary passage is stated here because of the impossibility of preventing it midway once one has proceeded; for what has fallen from its place inevitably descends into the urinary passage. Therefore, the offence here should be understood as arising by the mere dislodgement from its place; but that is only when one is making an effort at the sign - if impurity is released through hand-treatment, foot-treatment, or body-treatment, there is no offence. This is the determination common to all teachers.

Regarding "except during a dream" - here, a dream itself is "during a dream"; it means having set aside and excluded that. But one seeing that dream sees it for four reasons: either from disturbance of the elements, or from what was previously experienced, or from divine intervention, or from an advanced sign.

Therein, one whose elements are disturbed through the conjunction of conditions causing disturbance of bile and so forth sees a dream due to disturbance of the elements, and seeing, one sees various kinds of dreams - as if falling from a mountain, as if going through the sky, as if being pursued by wild beasts, elephants, thieves, and so forth. One seeing from what was previously experienced sees an object previously experienced in the past. For one who sees due to the intervention of deities, deities, out of desire for his welfare or desire for his harm, for his benefit or for his detriment, present various objects; he sees those objects through the power of those deities. One who sees due to a premonitory sign sees a dream that is a premonitory sign of benefit or harm that is about to arise through the force of merit or demerit - like the Bodhisatta's mother seeing the sign of obtaining a son, like the Bodhisatta seeing the five great dreams, like the King of Kosala seeing the sixteen dreams.

Therein, the dream that one sees due to disturbance of the elements and due to what has been previously experienced is not true. What one sees due to the intervention of deities may be true or false, for angry deities, wishing to destroy by means of a stratagem, show things in a distorted manner. But what one sees due to a premonitory sign is absolutely true. And through the combination of these four root causes as well, there is indeed a distinction of dreams.

Now, this fourfold dream is seen only by trainees and ordinary persons, because they have not abandoned perversion; but those beyond training do not see it, because they have abandoned perversion. But does one seeing this see it while asleep, or while awakened, or while neither asleep nor awakened? Herein, if one sees it while asleep, a contradiction with the Abhidhamma arises, for one sleeps with the life-continuum consciousness, and that does not have form-signs and other objects, nor is it associated with lust and so forth; yet such states of consciousness arise in one who sees a dream. If one sees it while awake, a contradiction with the Vinaya arises, for what one sees while awake, one sees with ordinary consciousness, and there is no such thing as no offence for a transgression committed with ordinary consciousness. But in a transgression committed by one seeing a dream, there is certainly no offence at all. If one sees it neither asleep nor awake, then who indeed sees it? And if so, the non-existence of dreams would follow - but there is no non-existence. Why? Because one overcome by monkey-torpor sees it. For this was said: "One overcome by monkey-torpor, great king, sees a dream." "Overcome by monkey-torpor" means engaged in the sleep of a monkey. For just as a monkey's sleep is of quick turning; so the sleep that, because of being interspersed again and again with wholesome and other states of consciousness, is of quick turning, during the occurrence of which there is again and again emergence from the life-continuum - engaged in that, one sees a dream. Therefore this dream is wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate. Therein, it should be understood that at the end of a dream, for one performing worship of shrines, hearing the Teaching, teaching the Teaching and so on, it is wholesome; for one performing killing of living beings and so on, it is unwholesome; freed from both extremes, at the moment of adverting and registration, it is indeterminate. This, because of having a weak basis, is unable to drag along conception through volition; but during occurrence, supported by other wholesome and unwholesome states, it gives result. Even though it gives result, yet, because it has arisen in an improper domain, the volition during a dream is merely ineffective. Therefore he said - "Except during a dream."

"Saṅghādisesa" is the name of this class of offence. Therefore, that which is intentional emission of semen apart from during a dream - this is the class of offence called saṅghādisesa; thus the connection here should be understood. The meaning of the word here is: "saṅghādisesa" means that for which the Saṅgha is required at the beginning and at the remainder. What is meant? For one who, having committed this offence, wishes to be rehabilitated, for that rehabilitation from the offence, the Saṅgha is required at the beginning for the purpose of giving probation, at the remainder - in the middle for the purpose of giving mānatta, or together with sending back to the beginning, and at the end for the purpose of reinstatement. For herein not even a single act can be performed without the Saṅgha - thus "the Saṅgha is required at the beginning and at the remainder" means "saṅghādisesa." But without attending to the letter, in order to show just the meaning, "It is the Saṅgha alone that gives probation for that offence, sends back to the beginning, gives mānatta, reinstates - not several individuals, not a single person; therefore it is called saṅghādisesa" - this is its word-analysis:

"As to what is said 'saṅghādisesa,' listen to that as it truly is;

The Community itself gives probation, sends back to the beginning;

Gives mānatta, reinstates - therefore it is thus called."

The reason for the terminology has been stated in the Parivāra. Therein, the giving of probation and so forth have been set out in detail in the Samuccayakkhandhaka; we shall provide their commentary in that very place.

"Of that same class of offence" means of that same group of offences. Therein, although this is but a single offence, it is called a "class" by conventional usage applied to a part, or by the collective designation applied to a component - just as in such expressions as "one aggregate of feeling, one aggregate of consciousness" and so forth.

Having thus analysed the recited training rule in the order of its terms, now, in order to show the means, the occasion, the intention, and the basis of intention of one who commits this emission of semen, he stated the passage beginning with "he emits upon an internal form." Herein, the means is shown by the four terms beginning with "internal form": one may emit upon an internal form, or upon an external form, or upon both, or in space while shaking the hips; beyond this there is no other means. Therein, whether one emits by rubbing against a form or emits by rubbing with a form, it should be understood as emitting upon a form. For it is when there is a form that he emits, not without obtaining a form. The occasion, however, is shown by the five beginning with the support of lust. For at occasions such as the support of lust and so forth, the male organ becomes workable, and it is when there is such workability that he emits. Beyond this there is no other occasion, for without the support of lust and so forth, divisions of time such as the forenoon and so on are not a cause for emission.

The intention is shown by the ten beginning with "for the sake of health"; for one emits through such a variety of intention and not otherwise. The basis of the ninth intention, however, is shown by the ten beginning with blue; for one who examines does so by way of one among blue and so forth, not apart from them.

238. Furthermore, for the purpose of elucidating these very terms such as internal matter and so forth, it is stated beginning with "internal matter means matter that is internally clung-to." Therein, "matter that is internally clung-to" means matter classified as one's own hands and so forth. "Externally clung-to" means that which is of the same kind belonging to another. "Not clung-to" means that which is classified as palm-leaf fans, holes, and so forth. "Both of those" means matter of oneself and of another; this is stated by way of mutual contact of both. It is also applicable in the case of contact together of one's own matter and matter that is not clung-to. "For one striving in the air" means for one who, without making contact with any matter, moves the genitals in the air itself by the effort of shaking the hips.

"Support through lust" means when lust is in a state of strength, or when there is support of the genitals through lust; it is said to mean that a state of stiffness has arisen. "Becomes workable" means it becomes capable of the act of emission, worthy of effort with regard to internal matter and so forth.

"Support through the bite of a caterpillar or insect" means the support of the genitals through the bite of a caterpillar or insect. Caterpillars and insects are hairy creatures. The genitals, when touched by their hairs, become itchy and stiff. Therein, because those hairs pierce as if biting the genitals, therefore it is stated "through the bite of a caterpillar or insect," but in meaning it is said to mean through the piercing by the hairs of a caterpillar or insect.

239. "I will be healthy" means: having released, I will be healthy. "I will produce pleasant feeling" means: the meaning is "I will produce that pleasant feeling which arises through the act of releasing, through the occurrence of what is released, and as a result of what has been released." "It will be medicine" means: this that I have released will be some kind of medicine. "I will give a gift" means: having released, I will give a gift to insects, ants, and so forth. "There will be merit" means: for one who, having released, gives to insects and so forth, there will be merit. "I will perform a sacrifice" means: having released, I will perform a sacrifice to insects and so forth. What is meant is: having recited some mantra phrase or other, I will give. "I will go to heaven" means: having released, through the gift given to insects and so forth, or through the merit, or through the sacrifice, I will go to heaven. "It will be seed" means: it will be the seed of a child who is a sprout of the family lineage. The meaning is that one releases with the intention "through this seed a son will be born." "For the purpose of investigation" means: for the purpose of knowing. Regarding "it will be blue" and so forth, the meaning should be understood thus: "I shall find out whether what I have released will be blue or one of the other colours such as yellow and so forth." "With the intention of amusement" means: devoted to play; what is meant is that one releases while playing with this or that intention.

240. Now, regarding what has been stated as "emits with internal matter" and so forth, showing how one who emits incurs an offence, and whatever classification of offences there is by way of those terms, displaying all of that, he stated beginning with "with internal matter, he intends, makes effort, and emits - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community."

Therein, "he intends" means he intends "let it be emitted" with volition associated with the pleasure of emitting. "He makes effort" means he makes an effort corresponding to that. "He emits" means for one who thus intends and strives with effort corresponding to that, semen moves from its place. "An offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community" means that by these three factors, for that person there is a class of offence called saṅghādisesa - this is the meaning. This same method applies to the remaining twenty-eight terms beginning with "with external matter" and so forth.

Here, however, two thousand offences should be extracted and shown. How? With internal matter, firstly, with the support of lust, for the purpose of health, for one emitting blue, there is one offence; with internal matter itself, with the support of lust, for the purpose of health, by way of emitting yellow and so forth, there are another nine - thus ten. And just as there are ten for the purpose of health, so for the purpose of the nine terms beginning with pleasure and so forth, making ten for each term, there are ninety; thus these ninety and the former ten - with the support of lust, firstly, there are one hundred. And just as with the support of lust, so also with the support of excrement and so forth, in each of the four supports making one hundred each, there are four hundred; thus these four and the former one - with internal matter, firstly, by way of the five supports, there are five hundred. And just as five with internal matter, so five with external matter, five with internal-external matter, and five for one shaking the hips in space - thus all should be understood as two thousand offences by way of the four groups of five.

Now, in the ten terms beginning with "for the purpose of health" and so forth, whether taken in order or in reverse order, whether taking from below and grasping above, or taking from above and grasping below, or taking from both sides and placing in the middle, or taking from the middle and bringing to both sides, or making all as the root and grasping - to show that when there is intention, effort, and emission, there is no exemption whatsoever, the canonical text stated the variegated arrangement of broken cycles, bound cycles, and so forth, beginning with "for the purpose of health and for the purpose of pleasure."

Therein, "for the purpose of health and for the purpose of pleasure, for the purpose of health and for the purpose of medicine" - thus the health-term conjoined with all terms constitutes one broken cycle as stated. The pleasure-term and so forth conjoined with all terms, bringing each up to its own immediately preceding term, constitute nine bound cycles as stated - thus there are ten cycles each with a single root; these should be understood by expanding them without confusion together with the double-rooted cycles and so forth. The meaning here, however, is quite evident.

And just as in the ten terms beginning with "for the purpose of health" and so forth, so also in those beginning with blue and so forth, ten cycles are stated by the method beginning with "blue and yellow, he intends, makes effort"; these too should be understood by expanding them without confusion. The meaning here, however, is quite evident.

Again, "for the purpose of health and blue, for the purpose of health and for the purpose of pleasure and blue and yellow" - thus one with one, two with two, etc. ten with ten - thus conjoining the latter terms with the former terms, one mixed cycle is stated.

Now, since for one who, having intended "I shall emit blue," makes effort, and yellow and so forth are emitted, and also for one who, having intended and made effort by way of yellow and so forth, the others are emitted, there is indeed no exemption, therefore to show this method too, cycles are stated by the method beginning with "he intends 'I shall emit blue,' makes effort, and yellow is emitted." Then further, conjoining the very last term with the nine terms beginning with blue, what is called the belly-cycle is stated. Then conjoining the nine terms beginning with yellow with the single term blue alone, what is called the back-cycle is stated. Then conjoining the nine terms beginning with red with the single term yellow alone, the second back-cycle is stated. Thus conjoining the other nine terms each with the terms beginning with red and so forth, eight further cycles are stated - thus the ten-fold back-cycle should be understood.

Having thus shown in detail only the grave offence by way of the many cycles of broken cycles and so forth, now to show the grave offence, the light offence, and the non-offence by way of the factors alone, he stated beginning with "he intends, makes effort, and emits." Therein, by the first method, with internal matter and so forth, when there is the support of lust and so forth, for one who intends for the purpose of health and so forth, makes effort, and emits impurity, a grave offence possessed of three factors is stated. By the second method, when one intends and makes effort but there is no emission, a light thullaccaya offence possessed of two factors. By the six methods beginning with "he intends, does not make effort, and emits," there is no offence.

Now this distinction between offence and non-offence is subtle and fine; therefore it should be carefully discerned. Having carefully discerned, when one troubled by scruples asks, either an offence or a non-offence should be declared, or a disciplinary procedure should be carried out. For one who acts without discerning is like a physician who treats without knowing the cause of the disease - he encounters difficulty and is unable to cure that person. Herein, this is the method of discernment: A monk who has come with scruples should be questioned up to three times - "By which effort and by which lust have you committed the offence?" If, having said one thing first, he afterwards says another and does not speak consistently, he should be told: "You do not speak consistently, you are evasive; it is not possible to carry out a disciplinary procedure for you. Go and seek your own welfare." But if even three times he speaks consistently and reveals himself as he truly is, then for the purpose of determining offence or non-offence, grave or light offence, eleven modes of effort should be examined in terms of eleven types of lust.

Therein, these are the eleven types of lust: Relish in emitting, relish in emission, relish in what is emitted, relish in sexual intercourse, relish in contact, relish in scratching, relish in seeing, relish in sitting together, relish in speech, affection connected with the household, and forest-produce. Therein, relish in emitting is relish in the act of emitting; relish in emission is relish in the process of emission; relish in what is emitted is relish in what has been emitted; relish in sexual intercourse is relish in sexual intercourse; relish in contact is relish in contact; relish in scratching is relish in scratching; relish in seeing is relish in seeing; relish in sitting together is relish in sitting together; relish in speech is relish in speech; affection connected with the household is affection connected with the household; and forest-produce means whatever flowers, fruits, and so forth that have been broken off and brought from the forest. And here, with nine terms, lust is stated under the heading of associated relish. With one term it is stated in its own nature, and with one term it is stated by way of its object; for forest-produce is the object of lust, not lust itself.

Now, in terms of these types of lust, the modes of effort should be examined thus: In the case of relish in emitting, one who intends with the volition of relish in emitting and who relishes makes effort and emits - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. Likewise, one who intends and relishes and makes effort but does not emit - a grave offence. But if at the time of lying down, being overcome by lust, having firmly pressed the male organ with the thigh or fist, he falls asleep with eagerness for the purpose of emitting, and while sleeping impure matter is emitted - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. If, having calmed the arising of lust by attention to the unattractive, he falls asleep with a purified mind, even if emission occurs while sleeping - there is no offence.

In the case of relish in emission, one who relishes what is being emitted by its own nature and does not make effort - there is no offence. But if, relishing what is being emitted, one makes effort, and through that effort it is emitted - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. When emission occurs by its own nature, thinking "Let it not soil the robe or the lodging," one takes hold of the male organ and goes to a place with water for the purpose of washing - this is permissible, so it is stated in the Mahāpaccarī.

In the case of relish in what is emitted, when impure matter has been emitted by its own nature and has fallen from its place, one who afterwards relishes it without making effort and it flows - there is no offence. If, having relished, one again makes effort on the sign for the purpose of emitting and emits - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the case of relish in sexual intercourse, one seizes a woman through lust for sexual intercourse, and through that effort impure matter is emitted - there is no offence. But because it is an effort towards sexual intercourse, in such seizing there is an offence of wrong-doing; if the head enters - an offence of defeat. If, being lustful through desire for sexual intercourse, one again relishes and makes effort on the sign for the purpose of emitting and emits - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the case of relish in contact, contact is of two kinds: Internal and external. In the case of internal contact, one who plays with his own male organ thinking "I shall know whether it is hard or soft" or through frivolity, and impure matter is emitted - there is no offence. If, while playing, having relished, one makes effort on the sign for the purpose of emitting and emits - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. In the case of external contact, one who through lust for bodily contact touches the limbs of a woman and embraces her, and impure matter is emitted - there is no offence. But one commits an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community for bodily contact. If, being lustful through desire for bodily contact, one again relishes and makes effort on the sign for the purpose of emitting and emits - even on account of the emission, an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the case of delight in scratching, when scratching the genital due to any one among ringworm, scabies, boils, insects, and so forth, if semen is emitted while scratching with delight in scratching alone, there is no offence. If, aroused by delight in scratching, having relished it again, he makes effort upon the genital for the purpose of emission and emits, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the case of delight in seeing, if semen is emitted while repeatedly gazing at the private parts of a woman with delight in seeing, there is no offence. However, for gazing at the private parts of a woman, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If, aroused by delight in seeing, having relished it again, he makes effort upon the genital for the purpose of emission and emits, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the case of delight in sitting, if semen is emitted while sitting with a woman in private due to lust arising from delight in sitting, there is no offence. However, he should be made to undergo the procedure for the offence incurred on account of sitting in private. If, aroused by delight in sitting, having relished it again, he makes effort upon the genital for the purpose of emission and emits, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the case of delight in speech, if semen is emitted while addressing a woman with words connected with sexual intercourse due to lust arising from delight in speech, there is no offence. However, he commits an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community for lewd speech. If, aroused by delight in speech, having relished it again, he makes effort upon the genital for the purpose of emission and emits, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the case of affection connected with the household, if semen is emitted while repeatedly touching and embracing one's mother with a mother's affection or one's sister with a sister's affection, there is no offence. However, for touching on account of affection connected with the household, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If, aroused by affection connected with the household, having relished it again, he makes effort upon the genital for the purpose of emission and emits, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the case of forest-gifts, men and women send to one another some kind of gift such as betel, perfume, flowers, scents, and the like, for the purpose of strengthening the bond of friendship - this is called a forest-gift. If a woman sends such a gift to a certain monk who is a frequenter of families and who lives in association with her, and if he, being attached thinking "this was sent by such-and-such a woman," repeatedly plays with that forest-gift with his hands and semen is emitted, there is no offence. If, attached to the forest-gift, having relished it again, he makes effort upon the genital for the purpose of emission and emits, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. If, even while making effort, there is no emission, it is a grave offence.

Thus, having examined these eleven courses of action by way of these eleven types of lust, one should ascertain whether there is an offence or no offence. Having ascertained, if it is a grave offence, it should be declared as "grave." If it is a light offence, it should be declared as "light." And the appropriate disciplinary procedure should be carried out. For what is done thus is well done, like medicine administered by a physician who has understood the cause of the disease, and it conduces to the welfare of that person.

262. In the passage beginning with "he intends, does not make effort, etc.": he intends with the intention of enjoying the emission, does not make effort, and emits - no offence. Afflicted by the desire for the pleasure of emission, he intends thinking "Oh, may I emit!", does not make effort, and does not emit - no offence. He does not intend with the desire for the pleasure of emission, but makes effort for the pleasure of contact or for the pleasure of scratching, and emits - no offence. Likewise, he does not intend, makes effort, and does not emit - no offence. While thinking sensual thoughts, he does not intend for the purpose of emission, does not make effort, and emits - no offence. If, however, even while thinking he does not emit, this simply comes to be the case stated: "He does not intend, does not make effort, does not emit - no offence."

"There is no offence during a dream" means: for one who is asleep, as if engaging in sexual intercourse in a dream, as if committing bodily contact and so forth, for one whose semen is emitted solely by reason of a dream, there is no offence for him. However, when the intention of enjoyment has arisen during a dream, if it becomes within his range of awareness, he should remain still; he should not play with the sexual organ with his hand. But for the purpose of protecting the ochre-robe bedding, it is proper to hold it with the cupped hand and go to a place with water for the purpose of washing.

"For one not intending emission" means: for one who is applying medicine to the sexual organ, or for one who is performing defecation and so forth, who does not intend emission, and yet emits - for him too there is no offence. There is no offence for a mad person of both kinds. Here, the one who is best in lying down is the first offender; there is no offence for the first offender.

The commentary on the word-analysis is finished.

Regarding origination and so forth: this training rule has the same origination as the first pārājika; it originates from body and mind. It is action, exempt by perception, with consciousness, a worldly fault, bodily action, unwholesome consciousness, of two feelings - by the pair of pleasant and neutral.

263. Among the decided cases, the case of the dream follows the same method as stated under the supplementary rule. The cases of defecation and urination are clear in meaning.

In the case of thought, "sensual thought" means sensual thought connected with the household life. Therein, although non-offence has been stated, one should nevertheless not be given to the course of such thoughts. Among the hot water cases, the first is clear in meaning. In the second, that monk, desiring emission, bathed with hot water striking the genitals repeatedly, therefore an offence was stated for him. In the third, because of the existence of effort, there is a grave offence. The cases of medicine and scratching are clear in meaning.

264. In the cases concerning the path, for the first monk who had thick thighs, while walking along the path, semen was emitted due to rubbing at a narrow place; for him there is no offence because there was no intention to emit. For the second monk, it was emitted in the same way, but because there was intention to emit, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. For the third monk, it was not emitted, but because of the existence of effort, it is a grave offence. Therefore, when walking along the path, if excitement arises, one should not continue walking; having interrupted the walking, having calmed the mind by attention to foulness and so forth, one should take up one's meditation subject and continue walking with a purified mind. If one is unable to dispel it while standing, one should step off the path, sit down, dispel it, take up one's meditation subject, and continue walking with a purified mind only.

In the cases concerning the bladder, those monks, having firmly grasped the bladder, filling and filling it and then releasing, urinated like village boys. In the case concerning the sweat room, for one heating the belly, whether with intention to emit or without intention to emit, when it is emitted there is no offence at all. For one doing the rubbing, semen was emitted by means of moving the genital organ; therefore an offence was declared where there is ground for an offence.

265. In the cases of having the thigh rubbed, it should be understood that those for whom an offence was stated also caused the genitals to be touched - thus it was stated in the Kurundi Commentary. The cases beginning with the novice are clear in meaning.

266. Regarding the case of stiffening the body: "while stiffening his body" means stretching oneself for the purpose of dispelling laziness after sitting for a long time, or lying down for a long time, or doing manual work.

Regarding the case of gazing upon: even if she is wearing a hundred garments, for one standing in front or behind and gazing upon thinking "the sign is in this particular place," it is just an offence of wrong-doing. As for one gazing upon the sign of village girls who are unclothed, what more need be said? The same method applies also regarding the sign of animals. However, for one gazing without looking here and there, even for the whole day, with a single effort, there is just a single offence of wrong-doing. For one looking here and there and gazing upon again and again, there is an offence of wrong-doing for each effort. However, the offence should not be determined by the opening and closing of the eyes. For one who has gazed upon suddenly and then, upon reflection, stands firm in restraint, there is no offence; but for one who abandons that restraint and gazes upon again, it is just an offence of wrong-doing.

267. The cases concerning the keyhole and so forth are clear in meaning. In the cases concerning bathing, an offence is stated for those who struck the water current with their genitals. The same method applies in the cases concerning playing in water. And here, "udañjala" means muddy water. By this same method, all the cases concerning running in water and so forth from here onwards should be understood. But this is the distinction. In the cases concerning the garland of flowers, even though there is no offence for one not intending emission, there is an offence of wrong-doing on account of playing.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning the Emission of Semen is finished.

2.

Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Bodily Contact

269. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the training rule on physical contact. Herein this is the explanation of obscure terms - "Was dwelling in the forest" means not in a separate forest, but at the edge, on one side of the Jetavana monastery itself. "With an inner room" means there is an inner room in the middle of that dwelling. "With a surrounding enclosure" means there is a surrounding pavilion enclosure around it. It is said that having made a rectangular inner room in the middle, it was constructed outside with a surrounding pavilion enclosure, such that it was possible to walk about inside while opening windows.

"Well-arranged" means well placed; in whatever place it was placed, it was pleasing and delightful to people - thus it was placed in each and every such place. For he does not do even a single task carelessly. "Opening some windows" means opening those which, when opened, produce darkness, and closing those which, when opened, let in light.

"When this was said, that brahmin woman said this to that brahmin" means when it was thus said by that brahmin after praising, that brahmin woman, having perceived "This brahmin is pleased and wishes to go forth, it seems," revealing that misconduct done to herself which should have been concealed, solely with the intention of destroying his faith, spoke these words beginning with "From where would he have eminence!" Therein, "one whose self is eminent" is "eminence"; the state of having an eminent self is "eminence of character." Among the terms beginning with "women of good families" - "women of good families" means mistresses of the household. "Daughters of good families" means daughters of good families who have gone to live with a husband. "Young girls of good families" means those who are unmarried. "Daughters-in-law of good families" means brides brought from other families for the young men of the family.

270. "Overcome" means overcome by lust arising internally, as beings are possessed by yakkhas and the like; or, being lustfully attached in a situation that arouses lust without carefully examining it, as beings fall into wells and the like, one has oneself descended into lust. However, since in both ways this is a designation for one who is endowed with lust, therefore the word-analysis of this has been stated thus: "Overcome means one who is deeply attached, desirous, with a fettered mind."

Therein, "deeply attached" means thoroughly dyed with lust for physical contact. "Desirous" means desirous with desire for physical contact. "With a fettered mind" means with a mind fettered by lust for physical contact to that object. "With a perverted" means having abandoned its natural state, which is reckoned as the pure life-continuum stream, and occurring otherwise; or having changed into a distorted form, having turned into a distorted state - the meaning is that it has turned in such a way that, as it turns, it becomes distorted, and having so turned, it remains thus.

271. However, since this does not go beyond association with lust and so forth, therefore, having stated the word-analysis by the method beginning with "changed means a mind infatuated with lust," at the end, showing the meaning intended here, he said: "But a mind infatuated with lust is intended in this meaning as 'changed'."

"Born that very day" means born on that day, just born, having the appearance of a fresh piece of flesh; for even with one of such a kind, there is a saṅghādisesa offence for physical contact, a pārājika offence for transgressing into sexual intercourse, and a pācittiya offence for sitting alone in private with her and so forth. "How much more" means all the more so.

"Should engage in physical contact" means should engage in bodily association such as grasping the hand and so forth, in mingling of bodies. However, since for one who engages in this, that which is called physical contact is in meaning a transgression - conduct that, being overcome by the power of lust, oversteps the boundary of restraint - therefore, showing the meaning in brief, he stated the word-analysis as "is called transgression."

The detailed showing of meaning, however, is through the classification beginning with "grasping the hand and so forth." Therein, for the purpose of showing the distinction of hand and so forth, he said beginning with "hand means from the elbow." Therein, "from the elbow" is the second meaning. From the major joint. Elsewhere, however, the hand is from the wrist up to the tips of the nails; here, together with the upper arm, it is intended from the elbow onwards.

"Pure hair" means hair that is pure, unmixed with thread and so forth. "Braid of hair" is the name for a bundle of hair made by plaiting together three twists of hair. "Mixed with thread" means made by mixing hair with thread of five colours. "Mixed with garlands" means made by mixing with jasmine flowers and so forth and plaiting together three twists of hair; or even without being plaited, merely a bundle of hair mixed with flowers should be understood here as a "braid of hair." "Mixed with silver" means made by mixing with a string of coins. "Mixed with gold" means made by mixing with gold strips or ornaments such as pāmaṅga and so forth. "Mixed with pearls" means made by mixing with strings of pearls. "Mixed with gems" means made by mixing with gems strung on thread. For whoever grasps any of these braids of hair, it is indeed a saṅghādisesa offence. There is no release for one who says "I grasped a mixed braid of hair." And here, by grasping a braid of hair, the hair too is indeed grasped; therefore, for one who grasps even a single hair, there is indeed an offence.

"Setting aside the hand and the braid of hair" means setting aside the hand as defined here and the braid of hair of all kinds, the remaining body should be understood as "limb." When the hand and so forth have been thus distinguished, grasping the hand is grasping of the hand, grasping the braid of hair is grasping of the braid of hair, touching the remaining body is touching of one or another limb; whoever should engage in grasping of the hand, or grasping of the braid of hair, or touching of one or another limb, for him the class of offence called saṅghādisesa applies. This is the meaning of the training rule.

272. Now, since the grasping of the hand, the grasping of the braid, and the touching of any remaining limb - all of these are twelvefold by way of classification, therefore, in order to show that classification, the word-analysis has been stated by the method beginning with "touching, fondling." Therein, as to what has been stated "touching means merely having touched" and "touching means merely having touched" - the distinction between these is as follows: "Touching" means rubbing - pressing against without going beyond the area touched, right there itself. For this is called "merely having touched." "Touching" means merely having come into contact without pressing against.

Also, in the exposition of both "fondling upwards" and "lifting up," the single phrase "lifting up above" has been stated. Therein too, the distinction is as follows: The first is stated in the sense of sending one's own body upwards upon the woman's body; the second is in the sense of lifting up the woman's body; the rest is self-evident.

273. Now, showing in detail the classification of offences by means of these terms for one who, overcome, engages in bodily contact with a corrupted mind, he said beginning with "It is a woman, and he perceives her as a woman, and is filled with lust, and the monk, with his body, the body of the woman." Therein, "and the monk, with his body, the body of the woman" means that monk who is filled with lust and perceives her as a woman, with his own body. "Naṃ" is merely a particle. Or alternatively, it refers to that body of the woman, distinguished as hands and so forth. "Touches, fondles" - if he transgresses in even one of these ways, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. Therein, for one who touches once, there is one offence; for one who touches repeatedly, there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community with each attempt.

In the case of fondling too, if without releasing from the body he moves, carries, or sends his hand or body here and there, even if he fondles for a whole day, there is only one offence. If he releases from the body and fondles again and again, there is an offence with each attempt.

In the case of fondling downwards too, if without releasing from the body he fondles from the woman's head down to the top of the feet, there is only one offence. But if, having reached each particular spot on the belly and so forth, he releases and releases and fondles again, there is an offence with each attempt. In the case of fondling upwards too, for one fondling upwards from the feet up to the head, the same method applies.

In the case of bending down, having seized the woman by the hair and bent her down, having done whatever transgression he wishes such as kissing and so forth, for one who then releases, there is only one offence. For one who bends her down again and again after she has risen up, there is an offence with each attempt. In the case of lifting up too, for one who seizes by the hair or hands and raises her up, the same method applies.

In the case of pulling, for one pulling her towards himself, as long as he does not release, there is only one offence. For one who releases and releases and pulls again, there is an offence with each attempt. In the case of pushing back too, for one who seizes from behind and pushes away, the same method applies.

In the case of restraining, for one who firmly seizes by the hand or arm and goes even a yojana, there is only one offence. For one who releases and seizes again and again, there is an offence with each attempt. The Elder Mahāsuma said that for one who, without releasing, touches again and again and embraces, there is an offence with each attempt. But the Elder Mahāpaduma said - "The original seizing alone is the measure; therefore, as long as he does not release, there is only one offence."

In the case of crushing, for one who presses together with cloth or ornament, if he does not touch the limb, it is a grave offence; if he touches, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community; with a single attempt there is one offence, with separate attempts there are separate offences.

In the case of grasping and touching, even without making any other alteration, one commits an offence by the mere act of grasping or the mere act of touching.

Thus, in these acts of touching and so forth, by transgressing in even one way, for one who perceives a woman as a woman, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community; for one who is doubtful, it is a grave offence; for one who perceives her as a eunuch, a man, or an animal, it is also a grave offence. In the case of a eunuch, for one who perceives him as a eunuch, it is a grave offence; for one who is doubtful, it is an offence of wrong-doing. For one who perceives him as a man, an animal, or a woman, it is also an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of a man, for one who perceives him as a man, for one who is doubtful, and for one who perceives him as a woman, a eunuch, or an animal, it is also an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of an animal too, in every way it is only an offence of wrong-doing. Having noted these offences stated in the single-root method, by this same approach, the offences in the double-root method stated as "two women, of two women" and so forth should be understood as twofold. And just as in the case of two women there are two offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community; so in the case of several women, several should be understood.

For one who embraces several women standing together by encircling them with his arms, he commits offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community according to the number of women touched, and grave offences according to the number of those in between. For they are touched by what is connected to his body. But one who gathers together the fingers or hair of several women and grasps them, he should be dealt with for offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community by counting the women, not by counting the fingers and hair. And for those women whose fingers or hair are in between, he commits grave offences according to their number. For they are touched by what is connected to his body. But one who encircles several women with ropes, cloths, and the like that are connected to the body and grasps them, commits grave offences according to the number of all those who are within the encirclement. In the Mahāpaccarī, an offence of wrong-doing is stated for those not touched. Therein, since in the canonical text there is no such thing as touching by what is connected to what is connected to the body, therefore, including all that is connected to what is connected to the body under what is connected to the body itself, the former method stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā and the Kurundī appears to be the more fitting here.

For one who, having grasped hand to hand, with equal lust towards women standing in a row, grasps one by the hand, he commits one offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community on account of the woman grasped, and grave offences according to the number of the others by the former method itself. If he grasps the cloth or flower connected to her body, he commits grave offences according to the number of all of them. For just as when encircling with ropes, cloths, and the like, all are touched by what is connected to the body, so here too all are touched by what is connected to the body. But if those women are standing holding the edge of each other's cloth, and there he grasps the first woman by the hand by the former method itself, he commits an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community on account of the one grasped, and offences of wrong-doing according to the number of the others. For in the case of all of them, by the former method itself, what is connected to the body has been touched by what is connected to the body. But if he too grasps what is connected to her body itself, he commits a grave offence on account of that woman, and offences of wrong-doing according to the number of the others by the immediately preceding method itself.

But one who, with lust for bodily contact, rubs against the cloth of a woman dressed in thick clothing - a grave offence. If he rubs against one dressed in thin clothing, and there through the gaps in the clothing either the protruding hairs of the woman touch the monk, or the penetrating hairs of the monk touch the woman, or the hairs of both touch each other's hairs - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. For even when touching what is clung to or what is not clung to with clung-to kamma-born matter, or touching what is clung to or what is not clung to with anything not clung to such as hair and the like, one commits an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

Therein, in the Kurundī it is stated: "Counting the hairs, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community." But in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā it is stated: "He should not be dealt with for the offence by counting the hairs; he commits only one offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. But one who lies down without spreading anything on a communal bed should be dealt with by counting the hairs." That itself is fitting. For this offence is on account of the woman, not on account of the bodily parts.

Here it is asked: "But one who grasps the body thinking 'I shall grasp what is connected to the body,' or grasps what is connected to the body thinking 'I shall grasp the body' - what does he commit?" The Elder Mahāsuma says: "According to the actual object itself." This, it is said, was his view -

"The object, perception, and lust, and the awareness of contact;

According to the description as stated, one should be dealt with for the grave offence thereby."

Here, "object" means the woman. "Perception" means the perception of a woman. "Lust" means lust for bodily contact. "Awareness of contact" means the awareness of the contact of bodily contact. Therefore, one who, perceiving a woman as a woman, with lust for bodily contact, even though intending 'I shall grasp what is connected to the body,' touches the body, commits the grave offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community itself. But the Elder Mahāpaduma said that the other is a grave offence -

"When perception has deviated, and grasping too has deviated,

In the description as stated, a grave offence is not seen therein."

This is his view: for one who perceives a woman as a woman, an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community has been stated. And by this, the perception of a woman has deviated and a perception of something connected with the body has arisen regarding what is connected with the body; but for one who grasps that, a grave offence has been stated. And by this, the grasping too has deviated - not having grasped that, a woman was grasped; therefore here, due to the absence of the perception of a woman, an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community is not seen; due to what is connected with the body not having been grasped, a grave offence is not seen; but because of having been touched with lust for bodily contact, it is an offence of wrong-doing. For there is no non-offence for one who touches any such object with lust for bodily contact; therefore it is merely an offence of wrong-doing.

And having said this, he stated this fourfold classification: "Thinking 'I shall grasp one who is lustful,' he grasped one who is lustful - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. Thinking 'I shall grasp one who is without lust,' he grasped one who is without lust - an offence of wrong-doing. Thinking 'I shall grasp one who is lustful,' he grasped one who is without lust - an offence of wrong-doing. Thinking 'I shall grasp one who is without lust,' he grasped one who is lustful - merely an offence of wrong-doing." Even though he said thus, the position of the Elder Mahāsuma accords here with this canonical text: "It is a woman, and he perceives her as a woman, and is filled with lust, and the monk touches, fondles, etc. grasps, or touches what is connected with her body with his body - a grave offence," and with the commentarial decisions such as: "One who embraces with his arms several women standing together incurs offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community according to the number of women touched, and grave offences according to the number of those in between." For if there were deviation through deviation of perception and so forth, then just as in the cases beginning with "it is a eunuch and he perceives him as a woman," a distinction should also be stated in the canonical text by the method beginning with "it is something connected with the body and he perceives it as the body." But since that was not stated, therefore when there is the perception of a woman regarding a woman, for one who touches the woman it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community, and for one who touches what is connected with the body it is a grave offence - thus the principle of "according to the actual object" is fitting.

And this was also stated in the Mahāpaccarī: "Thinking 'I shall rub the body of a dark-skinned woman lying down covered with a dark cloth,' he rubs the body - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. Thinking 'I shall rub the body,' he rubs the dark cloth - a grave offence. Thinking 'I shall rub the dark cloth,' he rubs the body - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. Thinking 'I shall rub the dark cloth,' he rubs the dark cloth - a grave offence." The method of mixed objects stated by the method beginning with "a woman and a eunuch" - in that too, the offences stated by way of the object and doubt about perception should be understood by one who is not confused about the canonical text.

In the case of body with what is connected with the body, for one who perceives a woman as a woman and grasps what is connected with the body, it is a grave offence; in the remaining cases, everywhere it is an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of what is connected with the body with the body too, the same method applies. And in the case of what is connected with the body with what is connected with the body, and in the cases beginning with what is to be relinquished with the body, everywhere it is merely an offence of wrong-doing.

The section beginning with "It is a woman, and he perceives her as a woman, and is filled with lust, and the woman touches the monk's body with her body" is stated by way of a woman's lust towards a monk. Therein, "the woman touches the monk's body with her body" means: a woman filled with lust towards the monk, having gone to the place where he is sitting or lying down, touches that monk's body with her own body, etc. touches. "With the intention of sexual intercourse, he exerts with the body, he recognises the contact" means: having been thus touched or contacted by her, if with the intention of sexual intercourse he moves or stirs the body even slightly for the purpose of recognising the contact, he incurs an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

"Two women" - here he incurs two offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community; in the case of a woman and a eunuch, an offence of wrong-doing together with an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. By this method, the classification of offences should be understood by the former method up to "he touches what is to be relinquished with what is to be relinquished, with the intention of sexual intercourse he exerts with the body but does not recognise the contact - an offence of wrong-doing."

Here, "he exerts with the body but does not recognise the contact" means: seeing a woman striking with a flower or fruit that he has released, striking with her own flower or fruit that is to be relinquished, he makes a bodily movement, or moves a finger, or raises an eyebrow, or blinks an eye, or makes some other such movement - this is called "he exerts with the body but does not recognise the contact." This one too, because of having exerted with the body, incurs an offence of wrong-doing; in the case of two women, two; in the case of a woman and a eunuch too, he incurs just two offences of wrong-doing.

279. Having thus shown the classification of offences in detail by way of cases, now showing in brief the classification of offences and the classification of non-offences by way of characteristics, he said "with the intention for intercourse" and so forth. Therein, in the first method, being touched by a woman, with the intention for intercourse he strives with his body and recognises the contact - through the fulfilment of three factors, it is a saṅghādisesa. In the second method, just as in the case of striving in the forfeitable sitting upon a forfeitable item, and just as in the case of not recognising the contact when there is no touching, through the fulfilment of two factors, it is a dukkaṭa. In the third, because he does not strive with the body, there is no offence. For one who, even with the intention for intercourse, merely recognises, accepts, and experiences the contact with an unmoving body, because there is no offence in the mere arising of a mental impulse, there is no offence. In the fourth, however, just as in the case of the forfeitable sitting upon a forfeitable item, there is not even the recognition of contact; there is merely the arising of a mental impulse alone, therefore there is no offence. For one with the intention for release, in all cases there is indeed no offence.

Here, however, one who is seized by a woman and, wishing to free himself from her body, pushes her back or strikes her - this one strives with his body and recognises the contact. One who, seeing her approaching and wishing to escape from that, frightens her and makes her flee - this one strives with his body but does not recognise the contact. One who, seeing such a long creature that has climbed onto his body, thinking "let it go slowly, if disturbed it could lead to harm," does not disturb it; or one who, knowing that a woman is touching his limb, thinking "she will think 'this one has no interest in me' and will depart of her own accord," remains still as if unaware; or a young monk who, though seized by a strong woman who has tightly embraced him and wishing to flee, remains still because he is firmly held - this one does not strive with his body, but recognises the contact. One who, however, seeing her approaching, thinking "let her come, then having struck her or pushed her away, I shall depart," remains still - this one should be understood as having the intention for release, not striving with his body, and not recognising the contact.

280. "Unintentionally" means without having intended "I shall touch this person by this means." For indeed, when one has not so intended, there is no offence even if a woman's body is touched during the receiving of a bowl and so forth.

"Without mindfulness" means one is otherwise occupied and there is no mindfulness thinking "I am touching a woman." Thus, when without mindfulness, there is no offence for one who touches at the time of stretching out a hand or foot and so forth.

"For one who does not know" means one who does not know that a girl standing in the guise of a boy is "a woman" touches her for some task or other. Thus, there is no offence for one who touches not knowing "she is a woman."

"For one who does not consent" means for one who does not consent to bodily contact. There is no offence for him, as in the case of a monk led away by a succession of arms. "A mad man" and so forth are according to the method already stated. Here, however, the Elder Udāyī was the first offender; there is no offence for him as the first offender.

The commentary on the word-analysis is finished.

Regarding the origin and so forth, this training rule has the same origin as the first pārājika; it arises from body and mind, it is an act of commission, it is released by perception, it involves intention, it is blameworthy in the world, it is bodily action, it is unwholesome consciousness, it has two feelings - by the pair of pleasant and neutral.

281. Regarding the decided cases - "Touched his mother with motherly affection" means he touched his mother's body with motherly affection. The same method applies in the cases concerning a daughter and a sister. Therein, because whether it be a mother or a daughter, all women are indeed obstructors of the holy life. Therefore, even when one touches with household-based affection thinking "this is my mother, this is my daughter, this is my sister," only an offence of wrong-doing is stated.

However, one who bears in mind this command of the Blessed One, even if he sees his mother being carried away by a river current, should never touch her with his hand. Rather, a wise monk should bring a boat, a plank, a banana trunk, or a log of wood. In the absence of such, even a yellow robe should be brought and placed in front of her, but she should not be told "grab hold here." When she has taken hold, one should go pulling it, thinking "I am pulling the requisite." If she is frightened, one should go ahead of her and reassure her saying "do not be afraid." If, being frightened, she suddenly climbs onto her son's shoulders or grasps his hands, she should not be shaken off saying "get away, old woman," but should be brought to dry land. The same method applies even when she is stuck in mud or has fallen into a well.

For in that case too, having thrown in a rope or cloth and knowing that she has grasped it with her hand, she should be pulled up, but should never be touched. Not only is a woman's body itself not to be touched, but also her lower garment, upper garment, ornamental articles, and even a grass-ring cushion or a palm-leaf finger-ring are not to be touched - that is, the lower and upper garments set aside for wearing. However, if she converts a lower garment or upper garment and places it at one's feet for the purpose of making a robe, it is allowable. Among ornamental articles, however, allowable items such as hair ornaments, bone needles, and the like, when being given saying "Venerable sir, please accept this for yourselves," should be accepted for the purpose of making shell-needle and similar implements. However, those made of gold, silver, pearls, and the like are not to be touched and should not be accepted even when being given. Not only are those things that have come into contact with their bodies not to be touched, but also a figure made in the form of a woman - whether of wood, ivory, iron, copper, tin, cloth, any precious material, or even one made of flour - is not to be touched. However, for the purpose of use, having received it saying "let this be yours" and having set it aside, it is allowable to break apart those made of all precious materials and the remainder, and to apply what is suitable as an implement to implements and what is suitable for use to use.

Just as with a female figure, so too the seven kinds of grain are not to be touched. Therefore, when going through the middle of a field, one should go without touching even the grain and fruit growing there. If grain has been spread out at a house door or along a path and there is a way along the side, one should go without treading on it. When there is no path for walking, one should determine it as a path and go. If inside a house they prepare a seat on top of grain and offer it, it is allowable to sit down. Some people scatter grain in the assembly hall; if it is possible to have it removed, it should be removed; if not, one should prepare a small bench to one side without treading on the grain and sit down. If there is no space and people prepare a seat right in the middle of the grain and offer it, one should sit down. Pulses such as mung beans and the like growing there, as well as minor grains, and fruits such as palmyra, jackfruit, and the like, should not be touched in play. The same method applies even when they have been heaped up by people. However, in the forest, it is allowable to pick up fruits that have fallen from a tree, thinking "I shall give them to those who are not fully ordained."

Pearls, gems, beryl, conch, stone, coral, silver, gold, ruby, and cat's eye - among these ten precious things, pearls that are unwashed and unstrung, just as they are in their natural state, are permissible to touch. The rest are not to be touched, they say. However, in the Mahāpaccarī it is stated: "Pearls, whether washed or unwashed, are not to be touched, and it is not permissible to accept them for the purpose of exchanging for requisites, but it is permissible for the purpose of medicine for leprosy." Even including nutmeg, every gem of whatever colour distinction - blue, yellow, and so forth - that has been washed and strung is not to be touched; but a gem in its natural state, just as it comes from the mine, is said to be permissible to accept for the purpose of exchanging for requisites such as bowls and the like. That too is rejected in the Mahāpaccarī; only glass gems that have been made by smelting are said to be permissible. Regarding beryl too, the determination is the same as for gems.

A conch - a blowing conch, and one that is washed and strung, and one mixed with precious materials - is not to be touched. A drinking conch, whether washed or unwashed, is permissible to touch, and the rest is permissible to accept for the purpose of medicine such as collyrium and the like, and also for the purpose of exchanging for requisites. Stones that are washed, strung, combined with precious materials, and of mung-bean colour alone are not to be touched. The rest are permissible to take for the purpose of making knives, whetstones, and the like. Here, "combined with precious materials" means joined together with gold and made by smelting, they say. Coral that is washed and strung is not to be touched. The rest is permissible to touch and permissible to accept for the purpose of exchanging for requisites. However, in the Mahāpaccarī it is stated: "Whether washed or unwashed, all is not to be touched, and it is not permissible to accept it."

Silver and gold, whether fashioned into articles or not fashioned into articles, in every way from the ore onwards, are not to be touched and not to be accepted. It is said that Prince Uttara had a golden reliquary made and sent it to the Elder Mahāpaduma. The Elder rejected it saying: "It is not permissible." In a shrine house there are golden lotuses, golden stars, and the like; these too are not to be touched. However, the shrine house caretakers are stationed at the place where coins are deposited, therefore it is said that it is permissible for them to sweep them aside. But in the Kurundī that is rejected. Only removing rubbish from a golden shrine is permissible - only this much is allowed. Brass too follows the same rule as gold and is not to be touched - this is stated in all the commentaries. However, the use of dwelling requisites is entirely permissible; therefore all dwelling accessories made of gold and silver are permissible to touch. At the place where the Dhamma and Vinaya are expounded for monks, they make jewelled pavilions with crystal pillars adorned with garlands of precious materials; therein it is permissible for monks to look after all the furnishings.

Rubies and cat's eyes that are washed and strung are not to be touched; the others are permissible to touch, and it is said they are permissible for the purpose of exchanging for requisites. However, in the Mahāpaccarī it is stated: "Whether washed or unwashed, they are entirely not to be touched, and it is not permissible to accept them."

All weapon articles are not to be touched, and even when given for the purpose of exchanging for requisites, they should not be accepted. Trade in weapons is not permissible. Even a plain bow-staff, a bowstring, a goad, an elephant hook, and even down to axes, adzes, and the like - things made in the category of weapons - are not to be touched. If someone has placed a spear or a lance in a monastery, the one looking after the monastery should send word to the owners saying: "Take them away." If they do not take them away, the monastery should be looked after without disturbing them. Having seen a sword, a spear, or a lance fallen on a battlefield, it is permissible to break the sword with a stone or something else and take it for the purpose of making a knife; the others too may be dismantled, and some parts may be taken for the purpose of making knives and some for the purpose of making walking sticks and the like. However, when something is being given saying "Take this," it is permissible to accept all of it thinking "I shall destroy it and make it into a permissible article."

Fish nets, bird nets and the like, board lattices and the like, and arrow shields are all not to be touched. However, when they are obtainable for the purpose of use, it is allowable to take a net, thinking "I shall tie it over a seat or a shrine, or I shall wrap an umbrella with it." It is allowable to accept all arrow shields for the purpose of exchanging for requisites. For this is a prevention of obstruction by others and does not cause obstruction; it is allowable to take a board, thinking "I shall make a tooth-stick vessel."

Leather-bound instruments such as lutes and drums are not to be touched. However, in the Kurundī it is said: "An assembled leather drum, an assembled leather lute, an empty sound-box, leather placed on a rim, and a lute handle - all are not to be touched." It is not allowable either to cover them with leather or to have them covered, either to play them or to have them played. Even upon seeing them discarded by people after making offerings in the shrine courtyard, one should sweep around them without moving them; however, at the time of removing rubbish, it is allowable to carry them away in the manner of rubbish and place them to one side - thus it is said in the Mahāpaccarī. It is also allowable to accept them for the purpose of exchanging for requisites. However, when they are obtainable for the purpose of use, it is allowable to take the body of a lute and the sound-box of a drum to make a tooth-stick vessel, and the leather to make a knife sheath - thus, having taken each requisite for the purpose of making utensils, it is allowable to make them accordingly.

The case of the former wife is self-evident. In the case of the female yakkha, even if one engages in physical contact with a female deity of the Paranimmitavasavattī realm, it is only a grave offence. The case of the eunuch and the case of the sleeping woman are well known. In the case of the dead woman, during the period when it could constitute an offence of defeat, it is a grave offence; beyond that, it is an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of an animal, whether with a female nāga, a female supaṇṇa, a kinnarī, or a cow, it is only an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of the wooden doll, not only with one made of wood, but even with a female figure drawn in a painting, it is an offence of wrong-doing.

282. The case of oppressing is clear in meaning. In the case of the bridge, whether it be a single-plank footbridge or a cart-road bridge, by the mere effort of attempting to shake it, whether it shakes or not, it is an offence of wrong-doing. The case of the path is self-evident. In the case of the tree, whether the tree be large, the size of a great rose-apple tree, or small, whether one is able to shake it or not, by the mere effort it is an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of the boat too, the same method applies. In the case of the rope, where by pulling the rope one is able to dislodge her from her position, there it is a grave offence. Where it is a large rope and she does not move from her position even slightly, there it is an offence of wrong-doing. In the case of the stick too, the same method applies. For even a large tree fallen on the ground is included here under the taking hold of a stick. The case of the bowl is self-evident. In the case of paying homage, if a woman, having massaged his feet, wishes to pay homage, she should be prevented, or the feet should be withdrawn, or one should remain motionless. For if one remains motionless, even if one consents mentally, there is no offence. At the end, the case of seizing is self-evident.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Bodily Contact is finished.

3.

Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Lewd Speech

283. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the training rule concerning lewd speech. Therein, "pointing out" means having indicated. "Spoke praise" and so forth will become clear later. "Shameless" means those whose moral dread has been cut off. "Wicked" means deceitful. "Without moral shame" means without modesty. "Laughed" means having smiled, they laugh with gentle laughter. "Chatted" means in the manner of "Oh, noble sir" and so forth, they speak various kinds of enticing talk in a loud manner. "Laughed aloud" means they laugh with loud laughter. "Mocked" means in the manner of "This one is a eunuch, this one is not a man" and so forth, they make ridicule.

285. "Filled with lust" means filled with lust through the desire-lust for lewd speech. "Expectant, with a bound mind" is according to the method already stated; only here the desire-lust for speech should be connected. In the phrase "a woman with lewd speech," showing the woman intended here, he said "a woman" and so forth. Therein, "intelligent, competent to understand what is well-spoken and ill-spoken, what is lewd and not lewd" means one who is wise, competent to understand meaningful and meaningless talk, and talk connected with what is contrary to the true Dhamma and with the true Dhamma - this is the one intended here. But one who, even though elderly, is foolish and dull-witted - this one is not intended here, so it shows.

"Should address" means should speak to, should utter various kinds of speech contrary to the true Dhamma. Since for one who thus addresses, that which is called addressing is in meaning a transgression - conduct that, being overcome by lust, oversteps the boundary of restraint - therefore, showing that meaning, he said "should address is called transgression." In "as a young man would a young woman," herein "taṃ" is merely a particle; the meaning is "as a young man would a young woman."

"Pointing out the two passages" and so forth is stated to show the manner in which addressing constitutes an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. Therein, "the two passages" means the anus and the vagina. The remainder in the summary is already clear. But in the exposition, "extols" means he says "you are endowed with the female characteristic, with a beautiful characteristic" - this does not yet reach the head. When he says "your anus and vagina are such, and therefore you are endowed with such a female characteristic, with a beautiful characteristic," it reaches the head, and it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. "Praises" and "commends" - these are merely synonyms of the word "extols."

"Jeers at" means strikes with the goad of speech. "Scoffs at" means disparages. "Censures" means finds fault with. Furthermore, when not connected with the eleven terms beginning with "you are without a sign" that come in the canonical text, it does not reach the head; but even when connected, only when connected with these three - "you are with protruding flesh," "you are broken," and "you have both characteristics" - is it an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the case of requesting with "give to me," by just that alone it does not reach the head; only when connected with sexual intercourse as in "give me sexual intercourse" is it an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the imploring statements beginning with "when will your mother be pleased," by just that alone it does not reach the head; but only when connected with sexual intercourse in such a manner as "when will your mother be pleased, when will I obtain sexual intercourse with you" or "when your mother is pleased, I will obtain sexual intercourse" is it an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

In the questioning statements beginning with "how do you give to your husband," it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community only when sexual intercourse is stated, not otherwise. In the counter-questioning statements "so I hear you give thus to your husband," the same method applies.

"In explaining, when asked he speaks" means when asked thus "how does one giving become dear to her husband," he explains. And here, even when it is said "give thus, giving thus," it does not reach the head. But only when connected with sexual intercourse in such a manner as "give sexual intercourse thus, offer it thus, giving sexual intercourse thus, offering it thus, she becomes dear" is it an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. In instructing statements too, the same method applies.

In the exposition of reviling - "You are without a sign" means you are devoid of the female sign; it means that your water-channel is merely the size of a keyhole.

"You are merely a sign" means your female sign is incomplete, merely a semblance; this is what is meant. "Without blood" means with a dry channel. "Constantly bleeding" means always bleeding, with a wet water-channel. "Constantly with a cloth" means always with a cloth inserted; it means she always uses a plug-cloth. "Dripping" means flowing; it means your urine is always flowing. "With protruding flesh" means with flesh of the plug protruding outward. "A female eunuch" is called one without a sign. "Mannish" means a woman with a beard and fangs, having a masculine appearance. "Broken" means with the anus and vagina merged together. "With both characteristics" means endowed with both characteristics, namely the female sign and the male sign.

However, among these eleven terms, only these three terms - "you are with protruding flesh," "you are broken," and "you have both characteristics" - by themselves alone reach the head. Thus, these three and the former three terms concerning the anus, the vagina, and sexual intercourse - six terms in all - are by themselves alone productive of an offence. The remaining terms beginning with "you are without a sign" etc. should be understood as being productive of an offence only when connected with sexual intercourse, in such a manner as "give me sexual intercourse, you who are without a sign" or "you are without a sign, give me sexual intercourse" and so forth.

286. Now, showing in detail the classification of offences by way of speaking praise and so forth regarding the anus and the vagina of one who, being overcome, makes suggestive speech with a corrupted mind, he said beginning with "It is a woman, and he perceives her as a woman." The meaning of these should be understood in the same manner as stated in the section on bodily contact.

But this is the distinction - "Below the collar-bone" means downward starting from the collar-bone. "Above the knee-cap" means upward starting from the knee-cap. "Above the collar-bone" means upward starting from the collar-bone. "Below the knee-cap" means downward starting from the knee-cap. However, the collar-bone and the knee-cap themselves are included in the territory of wrong-doing, just as in the case of bodily contact with a bhikkhunī. For the Buddhas do not lay down a grave offence with a remainder. "Connected to the body" means cloth, or flowers, or ornaments.

287. "For one with meaning as the aim" means for one who is explaining the meaning of terms such as "signless" and so forth, or for one who is reciting the commentary.

"For one with the teaching as the aim" means for one who is teaching the canonical text or reciting it. Thus, for one who speaks having given priority to the meaning and the teaching, there is no offence for one with meaning as the aim and for one with the teaching as the aim.

"For one with instruction as the aim" means there is no offence for one with instruction as the aim who speaks having given priority to admonition thus: "Even now you are without distinguishing characteristics, you are of dual sex; you should now practise diligence, so that in the future too you will not be of such a nature." But whoever, while teaching the canonical text to bhikkhunīs, abandoning the normal manner of recitation, laughing and laughing, says repeatedly "You are peaked, you are split open, you are of dual sex" - for him there is indeed an offence. There is no offence for a madman. Here the first offender is the Elder Udāyī; there is no offence for him as the first offender.

The commentary on the word-analysis is finished.

Regarding the origins and so forth, this training rule has three origins: it arises from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech and mind; it is action, it is exempt through perception, it is with consciousness, it is worldly wrong, it is bodily action, it is verbal action, it is unwholesome consciousness, and it is of two feelings.

288. In the Vinītavatthu, in the case concerning blood, that monk spoke referring to the woman's blood-red sign of femininity - the other woman did not understand, therefore it is an offence of wrong-doing.

"Rough hair" means abundant hair with short hairs. "Tangled hair" means matted hair. "Coarse hair" means stiff hair. "Long hair" means hair that is not short. All of this was stated referring to the sign of femininity itself.

289. "Has it been sown for you" - he said this referring to sexual intercourse. She, not having perceived this, said "but it has not been re-sown." "Re-sown" means: in wet-field sowing, having placed seed again in a spot where seeds had not taken root, or in a spot where seeds had been destroyed by creatures, and then watered; or in dry-field sowing, having levelled again with an eight-toothed harrow for the purpose of making even the seeds that had fallen unevenly - she said this referring to one of these.

In the case concerning the path, "is the path sinking" - he said this referring to the passage of the sexual organ. The remainder is clear in itself.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Lewd Speech is finished.

4.

Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Ministering to One's Own Sensual Desires

290. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the training rule concerning ministering to one's own sensuality. Therein, "dependent on families" means one who frequents families, constantly engaged in approaching families for the purpose of the four requisites.

"Requisites of robes, almsfood, lodging and medicine for the sick" means robes, almsfood, lodging, and medicine as requisites for the sick. In "medicine as requisites for the sick," here "requisite" means in the sense of counteracting; this is a designation for whatever is beneficial for anyone. "Medicine" (bhesajja) means the work of a physician, because it is permitted by him. The medicine that is itself a requisite for the sick is "medicine as requisite for the sick"; whatever is beneficial for the sick, the work of a physician - oil, honey, sugar, and so forth - is what is meant. As for "requisite," in such passages as "well furnished with seven city requisites," it means an accessory. In such passages as "the chariot with head-requisite, with the axle of absorption, with the wheel of energy," it means an adornment. In such passages as "those requisites for life that are to be procured by one gone forth," it means a provision. But here both materials and retinue are applicable. For that medicine as requisite for the sick is an accessory of life because it protects by not giving an opening for the arising of illness that destroys life, and it is also a provision because it is the cause for life to continue for a long time; therefore it is called "requisite." Thus, the meaning should be understood as follows: it is medicine as requisite for the sick and it is a requisite - thus "medicine-requisite for the sick"; that is the medicine-requisite for the sick.

"Outcast" means low, inferior. Or alternatively, one who oozes is an outcast, the meaning being one who drips; that outcast - it means one from whom impurity oozes. "Having spat" means having expelled saliva.

"To whom am I inferior in what" illustrates: to what other woman am I inferior in what wealth, or adornment, or beauty - who indeed is superior to me?

291. "In the presence of" means standing within proximity, nearby, not far away; this same meaning is also shown in the word-analysis. "Of ministering to his own sensuality" means: service through sensuality reckoned as sexual intercourse is sensuality-service. Sensuality-service for one's own sake is ministering to one's own sensuality; or "one's own sensuality" means desired and wished for by oneself, the meaning being aspired to through one's own passion for sexual intercourse. It is one's own sensuality and it is service - thus "ministering to one's own sensuality"; of that ministering to one's own sensuality. "Should praise" means should declare the virtue and benefit.

Therein, since in the interpretation of meaning "sensuality-service for one's own sake," sensuality, reason, and service are the meaning, the remainder is mere wording. In the interpretation of meaning "it is one's own sensuality and it is service - thus ministering to one's own sensuality," intention and service are the meaning, the remainder is mere wording. Therefore, without regard for the wording, in order to show only the meaning, the word-analysis is stated as "one's own sensuality, one's own reason, one's own intention, one's own service." For when "one's own sensuality, one's own reason, one's own service" is stated, the wise will understand "to this extent, sensuality-service for one's own sake is stated." Even when "one's own intention, one's own service" is stated, they will understand "to this extent, ministering to one's own sensuality in the sense of being desired and wished for by oneself is stated."

Now, showing the manner of praising that ministering to one's own sensuality, he said "this is the foremost" and so forth. That is clear in meaning both in the summary and in the detailed exposition. Here, however, this is the connection of words and the determination of the offence - "This is the foremost" etc. "Should minister" means: she who should minister to one like me, virtuous, of good character, a practitioner of the holy life, with this practice - of her thus ministering to one like me, this service that is so called, this is the foremost of services.

"Connected with sexual intercourse, it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community" means: thus praising ministering to one's own sensuality, whoever should speak with words connected with sexual intercourse, for him it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

Now here, since an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community is stated only for one who speaks with words connected with sexual intercourse, therefore for one who praises service with such words as "I too am a noble warrior, you too are a noble warrior woman, a noble warrior woman deserves to give to a noble warrior because of being of the same birth," there is no offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. But having spoken in many ways beginning with "I too am a noble warrior," for one who then speaks with words connected with sexual intercourse thus: "You deserve to give me sexual intercourse," it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

"If she is a woman" and so forth is according to the method stated previously. Here the Elder Udāyī is the original offender; for him there is no offence as the original offender.

The origin and all else is similar to that of the gross speech offence. The adjudicated cases are clear in meaning.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Ministering to One's Own Sensual Desires is finished.

5.

Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Acting as a Go-Between

296. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the acting as a go-between. Therein, "wise" means endowed with wisdom, possessing discernment. "Experienced" means endowed with proficiency, endowed with skill, knowing the means, confident. "Intelligent" means endowed with intelligence; she deals with each thing as it presents itself. "Skilful" means adept. "Not lazy" means endowed with energy and initiative. "Suitable" means fitting.

"As if it were difficult" - the meaning is: it is as if it were a difficulty, as if it were a defilement, as if it were a matter of shame for us. "To speak on account of the girl" means to speak on account of the girl, saying "You take this one."

Among "marriage from the bride's side" and so forth, "marriage from the bride's side" means the bringing of a girl from another family for a boy. "Marriage from the groom's side" means the sending of one's own girl to another family. "Proposal of marriage" means the request "Give us a girl for our boy," or the determining of the day, constellation, and auspicious moment.

297. "Of a former accountant's wife" means of the wife of a certain accountant. While he was alive, she was known as "the accountant's wife," but when he died, she came to be reckoned as "the former accountant's wife." "From another village" means an outside village; the meaning is another village. "People" means people who knew of Udāyī's state of being engaged and involved in this go-between activity.

"With the treatment of a daughter-in-law" means they treated her with the treatment by which a daughter-in-law should be treated, such as cooking, having food prepared, and entering the kitchen, etc. "After that, with the treatment of a slave" means after the passing of a month, they treated her with the treatment by which a slave should be treated, such as field work, sweeping refuse, fetching water, etc. "In misfortune" means poor, or gone to a place where one becomes unfortunate - gone to such a family. "Do not, sirs, this girl" means "let not the sirs this girl." "Giving and receiving" means giving and receiving, taking and offering; they indicate that nothing has been taken or offered by us, and there is no transaction of buying and selling with you for us. "An ascetic should be uninvolved, an ascetic would be a good ascetic" means an ascetic should indeed be uninvolved and unoccupied in such affairs; for thus the venerable one would be an ascetic, a good ascetic. Having thus disparaged him, they said: "Go away, we do not know you."

298. "Well-provided" means endowed with all requisites, or adorned and beautified.

300. "Cheats" means those who are cheats with regard to women. "Amusing themselves" means letting the sense faculties roam here and there all around amongst agreeable forms and so forth; what is meant is playing and enjoying themselves. "They made a bet" means they made a wager: "If he will do it, you owe this much as the loser; if he will not do it, I owe this much." However, it is not allowable for monks to make a bet. "Whoever makes it, the loser must pay" - this is stated in the Mahāpaccariya.

In "How indeed could the noble Udāyī engage in momentary," here "momentary" means a short period of time. "Momentary" means pertaining to a short period of time.

301. "Should engage in matchmaking" means should engage in the act of going between. Since, however, one who engages in this, being sent by someone, has to go somewhere, and from the subsequent words "a man's intention to a woman" and so forth, men and women are intended here, therefore, to show that meaning, the word-analysis has been stated thus: "Being sent by a woman, he goes to the presence of a man, or being sent by a man, he goes to the presence of a woman." In "a man's intention to a woman or a woman's intention to a man," the remainder of the text "should convey" should be understood, and therefore in its word-analysis it is stated: "He conveys a man's intention to a woman, he conveys a woman's intention to a man."

Now, showing the purpose for which he conveys their intention, purpose, disposition, desire, and preference, he said "whether for marriage as a wife or for status of being a mistress" and so forth. Therein, "for marriage as a wife" means for the status of being a wife. "For status of being a mistress" means for the status of being a mistress. For one conveying a man's intention to a woman conveys it for marriage as a wife, and one conveying a woman's intention to a man conveys it for the status of being a mistress. Furthermore, one conveying a man's intention to a woman conveys it either for marriage as a wife, meaning for the status of a permanent wife, or for the status of being a mistress, meaning for the status of sexual misconduct. Since, however, the one conveying this has to say such things as "You will apparently become his wife," therefore, to show the manner of what is to be said, its word-analysis has been stated: "'For marriage as a wife' means 'you will become his wife'; 'for status of being a mistress' means 'you will become his mistress.'" And by this same method, even when conveying a woman's intention to a man, the manner of what is to be said should be understood as: "You will become her husband, you will become her master, you will become her lover."

"Even for a momentary one" means by the lowest limit, she who is called "momentary" because she is to be lived with for just a moment, for just a brief time; the meaning is "a temporary one." Even for such a one, for one conveying a man's intention thus: "You will become a temporary one," it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. By this same method, it should be understood that one conveying a woman's intention to a man thus: "You will become a temporary one" also commits an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

303. Now, in order to show the types of women intended in the phrase "to a woman or to a man" by way of classification, and to show the distinction of offences in relation to them by way of acting as a go-between, he stated "ten women" and so forth. Therein, "protected by the mother" means protected by the mother. Protected by the mother in such a way that she does not arrange cohabitation with a man; therefore in the word-analysis too it is stated: "The mother protects, guards, exercises authority over, and exerts control." Therein, "protects" means she does not allow her to go anywhere. "Guards" means she places her in a guarded place so that others do not see her. "Exercises authority" means she prevails over her by prohibiting her free conduct, overriding her. "Exerts control" means she exerts her own control over her thus: "Do this, do not do that." By this same method, "protected by the father" and the rest should also be understood. Neither a clan nor a religious community itself protects; but one who is protected by those of the same clan, by co-religionists, by those gone forth under one teacher, and by those belonging to one group is called "protected by the clan" and "protected by co-religionists." Therefore the word-analysis of those terms is stated by the method beginning with "those of the same clan protect."

"Together with protection" means one who has protection. "Together with penalty" means one who is under penalty. The explanations of those are quite clear. Among these ten, only for the last two does sexual misconduct arise when they go to another man, not for the others.

Among "bought with money" and so forth, one bought with little or much money is "bought with money." But since she is not merely bought but is a wife because she was bought for the purpose of cohabitation, therefore in its explanation it is stated "having bought with money, he keeps her."

"One who lives by her own desire and inclination" is a "kept for passion." But since she does not become a wife merely by her own desire alone but because she is accepted by the man, therefore in its explanation it is stated "the beloved keeps the beloved."

"One who lives by means of goods" is a "kept woman." This is the designation for a country woman who, having received household utensils such as a mortar, pestle, and the like, enters into the state of wifehood.

"One who lives by means of cloth" is "one who receives clothes." This is the designation for a poor woman who, having received even just a lower garment or even just an upper garment, enters into the state of wifehood.

"One who provides water" - this is the conventional name for one who is taken as a wife by both of them dipping their hands into a single water bowl and saying "Be united and inseparable like this water." In its explanation too, the meaning should be understood thus: "Having touched the water bowl together with her, he keeps her."

"One whose pad has been taken off" means one whose head-pad has been removed and set down - she is one among wood-gatherers and the like, for whom, having removed the head-pad from her head, he keeps her in the house. This is the designation for her.

"And a slave" means she is both his own slave and a wife.

A "worker" is one who works in the house for wages; someone arranges household life with her, having no need for a wife of his own. She is called "both a worker and a wife."

"Brought by a flag" means brought by a banner - it means brought back after going with an army with raised banners and plundering another territory; someone makes her a wife. She is called "flag-brought." "Wife for the moment" is as already explained. For all these ten, sexual misconduct arises when they go to another man. But for men, sexual misconduct arises with all twenty of these, and for a monk, acting as a go-between also arises.

305. Now, regarding "a man sends a monk" and so forth, "he accepts" means that monk accepts the words spoken by that man - "Go, venerable sir, tell such and such a woman protected by the mother: 'Be, it is said, the wife of such and such a man, bought with money'" - by saying "Very well, lay follower" or "Let it be so" or "I shall inform her," or by making a verbal expression in any manner whatsoever, or by nodding the head and so forth. "Investigates" means having thus accepted, he goes to the presence of that woman and conveys that message. "Reports back" means when he has conveyed it, whether that woman accepts saying "Very well," or refuses, or remains silent out of shyness, he comes back again and informs that man of the outcome.

To this extent, through this fulfilment of the three factors known as accepting, conveying, and reporting back, there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. Whether she becomes his wife or not, that is irrelevant. However, if he, having been sent to the woman protected by the mother, without seeing her, conveys that message to her mother, it is called "investigated outside," and therefore it is a deviation - so said the Elder Mahāpaduma. But the Elder Mahāsuma said: whether it be the mother or the father, or even a household slave at the very least, or anyone else whosoever who will accomplish that task, even when it is spoken to that person, it is not called "investigated outside"; at the time of the fulfilment of the three factors, it is indeed an offence.

Is it not the case that just as one wishing to say "I renounce the Buddha," having missed, were to say "I renounce the Dhamma," his training would be renounced? Or just as one wishing to say "I attain the first jhāna," having missed, were to say "I attain the second jhāna," he would have committed a pārājika offence. He said: this is of the same kind. Moreover, this accords with the statement "he accepts, having had a pupil investigate, he himself reports back - an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community"; therefore it is well spoken.

And just as when one who has been told "tell the woman protected by the mother," having gone and spoken to the mother and others who are capable of conveying the message to her, there is no deviation; even so, when instead of saying "Be, it is said, the wife of such and such a man, bought with money," one says using any one of the terms stated in the canonical text such as "a wife living by consent" and so forth, or even using any one of the terms not stated therein but indicative of cohabitation, such as "Be, it is said, the wife of such and such a man, his spouse, his consort, the mother of his children, his mistress of the house, his lady of the house, his cook, his obedient wife, his attendant" and so forth - for one speaking thus too there is no deviation; with the fulfilment of the three factors it is indeed an offence. However, for one who has been sent with the instruction "tell the woman protected by the mother," having gone and spoken to any one among others such as those protected by the father and so forth, there is a deviation. The same method applies also in the cases beginning with "tell the woman protected by the father."

Here the only distinction is in the variation of the abbreviation according to the single-root, double-root and so forth, such as "the man's mother sends a monk, the mother of the woman protected by the mother sends a monk," and according to the root positions. Since that too can be understood by following the canonical text itself, as the method has been stated previously, we did not make the effort to show its analysis.

338. Now, regarding the two sets of four beginning with "he accepts," in the first set of four, by the first clause, with the fulfilment of three factors, there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community; in the middle two, with the fulfilment of two factors, there is a grave offence; at the end, with one, with the fulfilment of one factor, there is an offence of wrong-doing. In the second set of four, by the first clause, with the fulfilment of two factors, there is a grave offence; in the middle two, with the fulfilment of one factor, there is an offence of wrong-doing; at the end, with one, due to the absence of factors, there is no offence. Therein, "he accepts" means he accepts the message of the one who commands. "He investigates" means having gone to the place to which he was sent, he informs her. "He reports back" means having come back again, he informs the original person.

"He does not report back" means having informed her, he departs from that very place. "He accepts but does not investigate" means when told by a man "Go to such and such a person and speak," saying "Very well," he accepts his message, and whether having forgotten it or not having forgotten it, having gone to her presence on some other errand, he sits down speaking some conversation or other; to this extent it is called "he accepts but does not investigate." Then that woman herself says to him "It seems your supporter wishes to take me into his household," and having said thus, she says either "I shall become his wife" or "I shall not become his wife." He, neither rejoicing at nor rejecting her words, remaining silent, rising from his seat, having come to the presence of that man, informs him of that occurrence; to this extent it is called "he does not investigate but reports back." "He does not investigate and does not report back" means he merely accepts at the time of conveying the message, but does not do the other two.

"He does not accept, investigates, and reports back" means some man speaks such a conversation in the place where the monk is standing or sitting; the monk, though not sent by him, acting as if sent, having gone to the woman's presence and having investigated in the manner of saying "Become, it seems, the wife of such and such a person" and so forth, having come back again, informs him of her willingness or unwillingness. Having investigated in that same manner but not reporting back, it is called "he does not accept, investigates, and does not report back." Having gone in that same manner but without investigating, having heard the conversation initiated by her, coming back and informing him in the manner stated in the third clause of the first set of four, it is called "he does not accept, does not investigate, and reports back." The fourth clause is self-evident.

The method beginning with "he commands many monks" is also self-evident. But just as many monks incur offences in respect of a single case, so it should be understood that even for one monk there are many offences in respect of many cases. How? A man commands a monk: "Go, venerable sir, in such and such a mansion there are standing about sixty or about seventy women; tell them 'Become, it seems, the wives of such and such a person.'" He, having accepted, having gone there, having informed them, reports back that message again. However many women there are, that many offences he incurs. For this has been stated in the Parivāra as well:

"By merely the extent of a step taken, and by a word spoken;

All the grave ones that are remediable;

One might commit sixty-four offences together;

This question was devised by the skilful."

It is said that this question was stated on account of this reason. And here "sixty-four offences" was stated for elegance of expression. But one acting in this way could incur even a hundred or even a thousand. And just as for one sent by one man there are many offences in respect of many women, so when one man sends many monks to the presence of one woman, there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community for all. One man sends many monks to the presence of many women - there are offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community according to the number of women. Many men send one monk to the presence of one woman - there are offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community according to the number of men. Many men send one monk to the presence of many women - there are offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community according to the number of cases. Many men send many monks to the presence of one woman - there are offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community according to the number of cases. Many men send many monks to the presence of many women - there are offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community according to the number of cases. This same method applies also in the cases beginning with "one woman sends one monk." And here the classification of similar and dissimilar cases is indeed immeasurable; even for one who performs the act of go-between for one's mother or father or for the five co-religionists, there is indeed an offence.

The set of four beginning with "A man commands a monk: 'Go, venerable sir'" is stated for the purpose of showing the classification of offences according to the factors. In its last clause, "the pupil, having investigated, reports back externally" means that he comes back and, without informing the teacher, goes directly to that man and informs him. "An offence of grave transgression for both" means: for the teacher, a grave offence by two factors - because of having accepted and because of having had another investigate; for the pupil, a grave offence by two factors - because of having investigated and because of having reported back. The remainder is well-known.

339. "While going he accomplishes" means he accepts and investigates. "While coming he deceives" means he does not bring back. "While going he deceives" means he does not accept. "While coming he accomplishes" means he investigates and brings back. Thus in both cases, with two factors, there is a grave offence. In the third clause there is an offence; in the fourth there is no offence.

340. Regarding "there is no offence for one who goes on business for the Community, or for a shrine, or for one who is ill, for a mad man, for the first offender" - here, the Community of monks has an uposatha hall or some unfinished work. There, for the purpose of food and wages for the craftsmen, a male lay follower might send a monk to a female lay follower, or a female lay follower to a male lay follower; for one going on such business for the Community, there is no offence. The same method applies also when shrine work is being done. For the purpose of medicine for one who is ill too, there is no offence for one who goes having been sent by a male lay follower to a female lay follower, or by a female lay follower to a male lay follower. The mad man and the first offender are according to the method already stated.

The commentary on the word-analysis is finished.

Regarding the origins and so forth, this training rule has six origins. It originates from the body for one who, having received a message through a bodily gesture such as a nod of the head, goes and investigates through hand signals, then comes back and reports through hand signals alone. It originates from speech for one who, while sitting in the sitting hall, when someone says "such-and-such a woman will come, you should ascertain her mind," accepts saying "very well," speaks to her when she comes, and when she has gone, reports to that man when he arrives again. It also originates from speech alone for one who, having received the message verbally saying "very well," goes to her house on some other business, or upon seeing her while going elsewhere, investigates through verbal expression alone, then departing from there on some other business, upon seeing that man at some point, reports to him. However, for one who does not know the rule, it originates from body and speech even for one whose taints are destroyed. How? If his mother and father, having become angry, are to be considered as separated, and the elder father says to that monk who has come to the house: "Dear son, your mother has abandoned me, an old man, and gone to her relatives' family. Go and send her to attend to me." If he goes and tells her that, and then reports to the father her coming or not coming, it is a saṅghādisesa offence. These are the three origins without intention.

However, for one who, knowing the rule, engages in matchmaking by these same three methods, it originates from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech and mind. These are the three origins with intention through knowing the rule. It is action, not liberation through the attainment of cessation of perception, an offence by rule, bodily action, verbal action; herein there are three types of consciousness according to wholesome and so forth, and three types of feeling according to pleasant and so forth.

341. In the cases of settled matters, in the first group of five cases, there is an offence of wrong-doing merely because of having accepted the commission.

In the matter of a quarrel, he made friendly overtures - having persuaded her, again leading her back to the house.

He made pleasant conversation. "Not one who can be addressed" means she has not been dismissed; that is the meaning. For whichever woman, in whatever manner, in whatever regions, has been dismissed, she is indeed dismissed, she has gone beyond the status of a wife - this one is called "one who can be addressed." But this one was not one who could be addressed, having quarrelled for some reason and gone away; therefore here the Blessed One said "there is no offence." Since, however, in the case of bodily contact a grave offence has been stated regarding a female yakkha, therefore it should be understood that in the case of lewd speech and so forth as well, female yakkhas and female petas are also grounds for a grave offence. But this matter has not been discussed in the commentaries. The remainder is of manifest meaning everywhere.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Acting as a Go-Between is finished.

6.

Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Building a Hut

342. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning hut-building. Therein, "the Āḷavaka" means boys born in the Āḷavī country were called Āḷavaka, and even at the time of their going forth they were known as "Āḷavaka." Referring to them it is said "the monks of Āḷavī." "Begged for themselves" means with materials obtained by begging themselves. "Were having built" means they both built and had others build; it is said that they, having abandoned both duties in the dispensation - the duty of insight and the duty of study - took up only the duty of new construction as their task. "Without a sponsor" means without an owner; the meaning is devoid of a donor who would have it built. "Destined for themselves" means undertaken for themselves, for their own benefit; this is the meaning. "Without a proper measure" means without a determined measure such as "they will be completed with this much," of undetermined measure; or of excessive measure, of great measure; this is the meaning.

"Much given to begging" means begging alone is abundant for them, other work is sluggish. "Much given to asking" should be understood in the same way. However, in meaning there is no difference here; this is the designation for those who beg repeatedly "give a man, give a man's labour." Therein, it is not allowable to ask for a man by way of permanent acquisition; but it is allowable to ask "give a man" for the purpose of companionship or for the purpose of doing work. "A man's labour" refers to manual work that is to be done by a man; it is allowable to ask for that. Manual work is not any material thing; therefore, except for the own work of deer-hunters, fishermen and the like, all the rest is allowable. Whether asked "What have you come for, Venerable Sir, for what work?" or not asked, it is allowable to request; there is no fault on account of asking. Therefore, deer-hunters and the like should not be asked for their own work, nor should they be asked without specifying "give manual labour"; for if asked thus, they, having dismissed the monks saying "Very well, Venerable Sir," might even kill deer and bring them. Rather, one should ask by specifying "there is some work to be done at the monastery, give manual labour for that." Even a farmer or anyone else engaged in their own task, having taken ploughs, yokes and other implements, going to plough or to sow or to reap - it is indeed allowable to ask any of them for manual labour. But whoever is a leftover-eater or any other idle person who dwells talking useless talk or sleeping - it is allowable to have such a person do whatever one wishes without even asking, saying "come here, do this or that."

They state this method for the purpose of illustrating the complete allowability of manual labour. For if a monk wishes to have a mansion built, for the purpose of pillars he should go to the house of stone-cutters and say "it is allowable to obtain manual labour, lay followers." "What is to be done, Venerable Sir?" "Stone pillars are to be quarried and given." If they either quarry and give them, or give their own pillars that have been quarried and set aside, it is allowable. And if they say - "We do not have the time to do the manual labour, Venerable Sir; have others quarry them, we will give the payment" - having had them quarried, it is allowable to say "give the payment to the men who quarried the stone pillars." By this same method, for the purpose of timber for a mansion one should go to carpenters, for the purpose of bricks to brick-makers, for the purpose of roofing to house-roofers, for the purpose of decorative work to painters - for whatever purpose there is a need, it is allowable to go to the respective craftsmen for that respective purpose and ask for manual labour. And by way of asking for manual labour, it is allowable to accept everything obtained whether by way of permanent acquisition or by provision of food-wages. And when having things brought from the forest, everything that is uninhabited should be had brought.

Not only by one wishing to have a mansion built, but also by one wishing to have beds, chairs, bowls, water-strainers, water-pots, robes and the like made, having obtained wood, metal, thread and the like, one should approach the respective craftsmen and request manual labour in the manner already stated. And by means of requesting manual labour, whatever is obtained whether through outright gift or through provision of food-wages, all of it should be accepted. But if they do not wish to do it and expect food-wages, impermissible money and the like should not be given. It is permissible to seek rice and the like through the practice of the alms round and give it.

Having had a bowl made by means of manual labour and having had it fired in the same way, when one has entered the inner village for the purpose of oiling oil for wiping the newly fired bowl, and when it is noticed that one has come for almsfood and gruel or rice is brought, the bowl should be covered with the hand. If a female lay follower asks "What is it, Venerable Sir?", one should say "The newly fired bowl needs wiping oil." If she says "Give it, Venerable Sir" and takes the bowl, wipes it with oil, fills it with gruel or rice and gives it, there is no asking, and it is permissible to accept it.

Monks, having walked for almsfood early in the morning and having gone to the sitting hall, stand not seeing a seat. If there lay followers, having seen the monks standing, themselves have seats brought, those who are leaving after sitting should go having taken leave. Even for those who have gone without taking leave, there is no liability for what is lost, but going after taking leave is the proper conduct. If seats have been brought after monks have said "Bring seats", one should go only after taking leave. For those who have gone without taking leave, there is both a breach of proper conduct and liability for what is lost. The same method applies also to spreads, blankets and the like.

When there are many flies, one should say "Bring a fly-fan." They bring neem branches and the like; having had them made allowable, they should be accepted. When the water vessel in the sitting hall is empty, one should not say "Take the water-pot." For one placing the water-pot into an empty vessel might break it; but it is permissible to say "Go to the river or the pond and bring water." It is not permissible to say "Bring it from the house", nor should what is brought be used. When those taking their meal in the sitting hall or in the forest, if any leaf or fruit that has grown there, that is unoccupied, that is worthy of extra-breakage, and if one has someone doing some work bring it, it is permissible to have it brought by means of manual labour and to use it. But manual labour should not be had done by shameless monks or novices. This, for now, is the method regarding a man's labour.

But it is not permissible to have an ox brought from a place of non-relatives and the uninvited; for one who has it brought, there is an offence of wrong-doing. Even from a place of relatives and the invited, it is not permissible to request as an outright gift, but by the method of temporary use it is permissible everywhere. And an ox thus obtained should be looked after and cared for, and the owners should be made to take it back. If its foot or horn is broken or it is lost, if the owners accept it back, that is good. If they do not accept it back, there is liability. If they say "We give it to you", it should not be accepted. But when they say "We give it to the monastery", one should say "Inform the monastery attendants for the purpose of looking after it."

It is also not permissible to say "Give a cart" to non-relatives and the uninvited; it is indeed an asking and one commits an offence of wrong-doing. But at a place of relatives and the invited it is permissible; temporary use is permissible, and having done the work it should be given back. If the wheel-rims and the like break, they should be restored to their original condition and given back. If it is lost, there is liability. When they say "We give it to you", it is permissible to accept what is called a wooden article. This is the method for adzes, hatchets, axes, spades and chisels. And for creepers and the like that are possessed by others. And only in creepers and the like that are sufficient for heavy articles is there an asking, not for anything less than that.

However, it is allowable to have anything that is uninhabited brought. For what is called asking is only in regard to a place that is guarded and protected. That is not allowable in any way whatsoever regarding the two requisites, but regarding the requisite of lodging, only the mere asking "bring it, give it" is not allowable; indirect speech, hinting, and making a sign are allowable. Therein, for one who wishes for an uposatha hall, or a dining hall, or any other lodging whatsoever, speech by way of "Indeed, it would be allowable to build such a lodging in this place," or "it would be suitable," or "it would be fitting," and so forth, is called indirect speech. "Lay followers, where do you dwell?" "In a mansion, venerable sir." "But, lay followers, is a mansion not allowable for monks?" - such speech and the like is called hinting. Having seen people, he stretches out a rope, has stakes driven in. When it is said "What is this, venerable sir?" then such action as "We shall build a dwelling here" is called making a sign. But regarding the requisite for the sick, even asking is allowable, let alone indirect speech and the rest.

"People, troubled by the begging, troubled by the asking" means afflicted by that begging and asking of those monks. "Were agitated" means they experienced alarm, disturbance, and agitation, thinking "What will they have us bring?" "Were alarmed" means having suddenly become frightened as if seeing a snake, they withdrew. "Fled" means they fled from afar in whatever direction. "Went another way" means abandoning the path they had taken, turning back, they went taking the left or the right; they even closed their doors.

344. "Once in the past, monks": thus the Blessed One, having reproved those monks and having given a Dhamma talk appropriate to that, making manifest once again the fault of making requests, showed three stories by this method beginning with "Once in the past, monks." Therein, "Maṇikaṇṭha" means that king of serpents, it is said, goes about having adorned his neck with a precious jewel that grants all desires; therefore he was known as "Maṇikaṇṭha" (Jewel-neck). "Having made a great hood over the top of his head, stood" means that, it is said, the younger of those two sages was one who dwelt in loving-kindness; therefore the king of serpents, having crossed the river, having created a divine appearance, having sat down near him, having engaged in friendly conversation, having abandoned that divine appearance and having resumed his own form, having encircled that sage, making a display of devotion, having made a great hood over the top of his head, holding it like an umbrella, having stood for a moment, departed. Therefore it is said "having made a great hood over the top of his head, stood." "A jewel as an ornament on his neck" means a jewel adorned on his neck; the meaning is "worn." "Stood to one side" means having come in that divine appearance and exchanging friendly greetings with the ascetic, he stood in one place.

"My food and drink" means my food and drink. "Abundant" means plentiful. "Lofty" means excellent. "You are an excessive beggar" means an exceedingly persistent beggar; the meaning is "you ask again and again." "Youth" means a young man, a person endowed with strength who has reached the prime of youth. "Gravel" is called dark stone; one washed on it is called "gravel-washed"; "gravel-washed hands" means having gravel-washed hands; the meaning is one with a sword sharpened by washing on stone in hand. Just as that man with sword in hand would frighten, so "you frighten me begging for the rock"; the meaning is begging for the jewel.

"One should not ask for that" means one should not ask for that. Which one? "That which is dear to him whose favour one seeks" means what one would know to be dear to that being.

"How much more so for human beings" means what need is there to say that it is disagreeable to human beings?

345. "Troubled by the sound of that flock of birds" means that flock of birds made sound incessantly during the first watch and the last watch; that monk, being distressed by that sound, went to the presence of the Blessed One. Therefore he said - "I approached me" (that is, the Blessed One).

In "And from where are you coming, monk?" here, that monk who is seated is not coming, but in the proximity of the present tense it is permissible to speak thus. Therefore he said - "And from where are you coming, monk?" the meaning is "from where have you come?" In "From there, Blessed One, I am coming" the same method applies here too. "Troubled" means distressed, having become wearied - this is the meaning.

That flock of birds - in "The monk requests a bowl" here, those birds do not understand the monk's words, but the Blessed One, through his own power, made it so that they understood.

346. "I do not know many people for you" means: I do not know your people as to "who are these, or whose are these." "Having met, they request" means: having come together and forming groups, they request. "A beggar is disagreeable" means: whoever begs, he is disagreeable. "One not giving what is requested is disagreeable" means: they beg - that is called what is requested; one who does not give the requested thing is also disagreeable. Alternatively, "they beg" - to one who is begging, "one not giving is disagreeable" means: one who does not give is disagreeable. "May there be no aversion towards me" means: may there be no state of disagreeableness towards me; the meaning is: may I not become disagreeable to you, or may you not become disagreeable and displeasing to me.

347. "Difficult to accumulate" means difficult to gather by means such as farming, cattle-rearing, and so forth.

348-349. "Now when a monk begged for oneself" - here "begged for oneself" (saññācikā) is said to mean a request initiated by oneself; therefore "begged for oneself" means by one's own request, the meaning being with requisites solicited by oneself. Since that which is being made with self-solicited requisites is being made having solicited by oneself, in order to show that synonymous meaning, the word-analysis has been stated thus: "having solicited by oneself, even a man."

"Plastered above" means plastered on the inside. "Plastered below" means plastered on the outside. "Plastered above and below" means it is said to be plastered on both the inside and the outside.

"By one having it built" - in the word-analysis of this, only "by one having it caused to be built" should be stated, for thus the wording agrees. Since, however, even by one building a hut begged for oneself, one must proceed in the manner stated here, therefore whether one is building or having it built, both are included by this very word "by one having it built" - to show this meaning, "whether building or having it built" was stated. If, however, one were to say "by one building or by one having it built," the wording would be contradicted, for one having it built is not called one who is building; therefore it should be understood that only the meaning has been shown here.

"For oneself" means that of which oneself is the designation, thinking "this is for me," thus it is for oneself; that which is for oneself. Since, however, that of which oneself is the designation is for one's own benefit, therefore showing the synonymous meaning, he said: "'for oneself' means for one's own benefit." "It should be made of proper measure" means it should be made conforming to the measure. "Herein this is the measure" means this is the measure of that hut. "By the Fortunate One's span" - the Fortunate One's span is now equal to three spans of a man of medium stature, which is one and a half cubits by a carpenter's cubit. "By the external measure" means twelve spans by the measure of the outer wall of the hut; however, when measuring, the boundary of the thick plaster applied first should not be taken. It should be measured by the boundary of the chaff-plaster. The whitewash above the chaff-plaster is negligible. If one has no need for chaff-plaster and finishes with thick plaster alone, the thick plaster itself is the boundary.

"In width" means in breadth. "Seven" means seven Fortunate One's spans. "Inside" - the explanation of this is "by the internal measure"; not taking the outer edge of the wall, when measuring by the inner edge, it is said that the measure in width is seven Fortunate One's spans.

But if someone, casting a pretext, thinking "I shall make it of the stated measure only," were to make it eleven spans in length and eight spans in width, or thirteen spans in length and six spans in width, it is not allowable. For even exceeding on one side alone is indeed exceeding the measure. Let alone a span - even by reducing the length by as much as a hair-tip and increasing the width, or reducing the width by as much as a hair-tip and increasing the length, it is not allowable; what then need be said of increasing on both sides? For this was said: "Whether in length or in width, having exceeded even by as much as a hair-tip, if one builds or has it built, there is a wrong-doing offence in the effort," etc. But only one of the stated measure is allowable. However, one that is even sixty cubits in length but three cubits or less than four cubits in width, where a bed of proper measure cannot be turned this way and that way, does not count as a "hut"; therefore this too is allowable. But in the Mahāpaccarī, at the final limit, four cubits in width is stated; below that it is not a hut. However, even one of proper measure that is without a designated site, or involving destruction, or without walking space around it, is not allowable. Only one of proper measure, with a designated site, not involving destruction, and with walking space around it, is allowable. Even one smaller than the measure, whether four cubits or five cubits, must be made by the builder only with a designated site. But one who is building one exceeding the measure incurs a grave offence at the completion of the plastering.

Therein, plastering and non-plastering, and a place for plastering and a place for non-plastering should be understood. That is: "plastering" means two kinds of plastering - clay plastering and lime plastering. But setting aside these two kinds of plastering, the remaining plastering consisting of ash, cow dung and so forth is non-plastering. Even if there is mud plastering, it is just non-plastering. "A place for plastering" means the walls and the roofing; but setting aside the walls and roofing, the remaining space not worthy of plastering, such as pillars, beams, door-frame joints, windows, smoke-holes and so forth, should all be understood as a place for non-plastering.

"Monks should be brought for designating the site" means that monks should be brought for the purpose of designating the site at the place where one wishes to have a hut built. "By that hut-builder" and so forth, however, is stated for the purpose of showing the procedure by which those monks should be brought. Therein, "having cleared the hut site" indicates that one should not take monks and go to uneven forest land, but rather, having first cleared the hut site and made it level ground similar to a boundary circle, one should afterwards approach the Community, make a request, and bring them. "He should be addressed thus" means the Community should be addressed thus. But further on, "should be requested a second time" is stated in the plural with reference to the monks. "If the whole Community does not consent" means if the whole Community does not wish to, those various monks are engaged in recitation, attention and so forth. "Involving destruction, not involving destruction" means with danger, without danger. "With walking space around it, without walking space around it" means with surrounding space, without surrounding space.

"It is fitting" means the time for this inspection has arrived, thus it is the fitting time; the fitting time itself is what is fitting. And this formal act of authorisation for the purpose of inspecting the site is permissible to be done even by the method of announcement through consultation. But further on, the formal act of designating the site must be done with the motion and announcement as already stated; it is not permissible to do it by consultation.

353. "Of ants" means of any ants whatsoever among the varieties such as red, black, tawny, and so forth. "Kipīllakānaṃ" is also a reading. "Dwelling place" means a place of permanent habitation; and just as for ants, so too for termites and the like, the dwelling place should be understood as the place of permanent habitation itself. However, where they come and go for the purpose of foraging, such an area of movement is not prohibited for any of them; therefore it is proper to remove them from there, clean it, and build. These six grounds are prohibited out of compassion for living beings.

"Or of elephants" means for elephants, neither a place of permanent habitation nor a place of permanent foraging is permissible; for lions and the like, neither the dwelling place nor the regular path by which they set out for foraging is permissible. Their foraging ground is not restricted. "Of any whatsoever" means of other wild animals as well. These seven grounds, being fraught with danger, are prohibited for the welfare of monks. The remaining ones are attended with various hazards. Therein, "dependent on a field of cereals" means situated near a field where the seven grains grow, dependent on cereals. The same method applies to "dependent on a field of legumes" and the rest as well. Here, however, "prison" means a punishment house, a house for enemies; in the Kurundī and other texts it is said to be "made for the purpose of executing criminals".

"Place of execution" is said to mean a place for cutting off hands, feet, and the like. "Cemetery" means a great cemetery. "Thoroughfare" is said to mean a path of coming and going that cannot be cut through. The remainder is clear in itself.

"It is not possible with a properly yoked cart" means it is not possible to go around with a cart yoked with two oxen, placing one wheel at the edge where water falls and one outside. In the Kurundī, however, it is said "yoked with four". "To go around on all sides with a ladder" means those roofing the building, standing on a ladder, are not able to go around on all sides with the ladder. Thus, in a place involving destruction and without walking space around it, a hut should not be built. But it should be built in a place not involving destruction and with walking space around it; that has come in the canonical text by way of the opposite of what was stated.

"Again, 'begged for oneself' means" and so forth is stated for the purpose of clarifying the meaning of "begged for oneself" and the rest as stated thus: "If a monk should have a hut built on a site involving destruction and without walking space around it, begged for by himself."

"For each effort, a wrong-doing" means thus: thinking "I shall have a hut built on a site not designated or exceeding the measure," he sharpens an adze or an axe for the purpose of bringing trees from the forest - a wrong-doing; he enters the forest - a wrong-doing; there he cuts green grass - an offence of expiation together with a wrong-doing; he cuts dry grass - a wrong-doing. The same method applies to trees as well. He clears the ground, digs, removes soil, piles up; thus, up until he binds the fence, this is called the preliminary effort. In that preliminary effort, everywhere where there would be an offence of expiation, there is an offence of expiation together with a wrong-doing; where there would be a wrong-doing, there is a wrong-doing; from that point onwards, it is called the concurrent effort. Therein, for one to be made with pillars, he raises a pillar - a wrong-doing. For one to be built with bricks, he lays a brick - a wrong-doing. Thus, whatever material he applies, for each and every effort there is a wrong-doing. For one who is planing, at each stroke of the hand, and for one going for that purpose, at each step, there is a wrong-doing. However, having thus made a hut with wooden walls, or with brick walls, or with stone walls, or even a leaf hut, thinking "I shall plaster it with walls and roof," for one plastering with lime or with clay, for each and every effort, as long as a grave offence has not arisen, there is a wrong-doing. But this wrong-doing applies only to the main plastering; in making it white or red in colour, or in decorative work, there is no offence.

"When one lump has not arrived" means the one lump of plaster that is the very last - when the hut work has not been completed with that one lump. What is stated is this: "Now it will be finished with two lumps" - upon the giving of the first lump among those, there is a grave offence.

"When that lump has arrived" means that one lump upon whose non-arrival there is a grave offence in the hut work - when that final lump has arrived, been given, and placed, because the plaster is joined together, there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. And thus for one who is plastering, whether with the inner plaster, or when joined together by making the wall and the roof into one unit with the inner plaster, or with the outer plaster, or when joined together with the outer plaster, there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. But if, having set up a door-frame or a window, one plasters with clay, and when that is placed - having enlarged the opening for it again or without enlarging it - the plaster is not joined together, it is safe for the time being; but when one plasters again, at the very moment of joining together, there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. If that which is being placed stands continuously together with the plaster previously given, there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community from the very first. For the purpose of freeing from termites, having made the roofing incomplete by a measure of eight finger-breadths, one plasters the wall - there is no offence. For the very purpose of freeing from termites, having made a stone wall below and not plastering that, one plasters above - the plaster is not joined together, so there is no offence at all.

In a brick-walled hut, one makes windows and smoke-outlets with bricks themselves - there is an offence only by the joining together of the plaster. One plasters a leaf-hut - there is an offence only by the joining together of the plaster. There, having left a measure of eight finger-breadths for the purpose of light, one plasters - the plaster is not joined together, so there is no offence at all. If one makes it thinking "Having obtained a window, I shall place it here," when the window is placed, there is an offence by the joining together of the plaster. If one makes a wall with clay, there is an offence when it is joined together with the plaster of the roof. One monk, having left one lump remaining, stops; another, seeing that, plasters it thinking "This is a wrong-doing," on his own initiative - there is no offence for either of them.

354. "A monk builds a hut" - such and similar thirty-six sets of four were stated for the purpose of showing the classification of offences. Therein, for involving destruction, a wrong-doing; for being without walking space around it, a wrong-doing; for exceeding the prescribed measurements, an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community; for being on a not designated site, an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. By means of these, the mixed offences should be understood.

355. In the passages beginning with "an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community and two wrong-doings," the meaning should be understood by the method beginning with "two wrong-doings together with two offences entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community."

361. Now, regarding "If he comes when it is not finished" and so forth, here is the determination of meaning. "He" means the monk who, having commanded, departed. "When it is not finished" means when the hut-building work is not completed. "Should be given to another" means it should be relinquished and given to another individual or to the Community. "Having broken it down, it should be made again" - to what extent is it broken down? If pillars are embedded in the ground, they should be pulled out. If they are placed upon stones, they should be removed. In the case of one built with bricks, the walls should be dismantled down to the foundation bricks. In brief, it is broken down when it has been demolished by making it level with the ground; even if something remains standing above the ground by as little as four finger-breadths, it is as though not broken down. The remainder is evident in all the sets of four. For there is nothing else here that would be difficult to understand merely by following the canonical text.

363. In the passage beginning with "what is not finished by oneself," however, it means a hut begun by oneself. "One makes complete by oneself" means: with whatever material it was made - whether with thick clay or with chaff-mixed clay - wishing to bring it to a state of completion, one makes it complete by applying the final lump with that same material.

"One makes complete by others" means: one has others make it complete for one's own purpose. Whether it is not finished by oneself, by others, or by both, if one makes it complete for one's own purpose - whether one makes it complete by oneself, or makes it complete by others, or makes it complete conjointly by oneself and by others - it is indeed an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. This is the determination herein.

However, in the Kurundī it is said: "Two or three monks build thinking 'we shall dwell together'; it is protected for the time being, there is no offence because it is undivided. If they divide it saying 'this section is yours, this is mine' and build, there is an offence. A novice and a monk build together; as long as it is undivided, it is protected for the time being. If they divide it according to the former method and build, there is an offence for the monk."

364. In "there is no offence for a rock cell" etc., there is no offence for one making even a large rock cell. For here no plastering is involved. For a cave too - whether a brick cave, a stone cave, a wooden cave, or an underground cave - there is no offence for one making even a large one.

"For a grass hut" means that even a seven-storeyed mansion, if roofed with grass and leaves, is called a "grass hut." However, in the commentaries, "a hen-coop house" is stated to be a hut whose roofing is made by binding sticks in a lattice pattern and covering it with grass or leaves; there is no offence in that case. It is allowable to make even a large grass-roofed house, for the characteristic of a hut is precisely the state of being plastered and so forth, and that should be understood as stated with reference to the roofing alone. "Grass particles fall in the walking-hall" - "I allow, monks, having removed the old covering, to plaster inside and outside" - these and similar passages are supporting evidence here; therefore, whether gabled on both sides, or ridge-roofed, or round, or rectangular, whatever is made as the roofing of that house in the manner of a roof, when plastering is applied to it together with wall-plastering, there is an offence. But if they cover the top of a house whose roof is plastered inside and outside with grass for the purpose of protecting the plaster, by that much alone it does not become a "grass hut." But here, is there no offence only on account of an undesignated site and exceeding the measure, or also on account of causing disturbance and having no surrounding space? There is no offence in all cases. For thus, with reference to such a hut, it is stated in the Parivāra:

"A monk makes a hut by begging for it himself;

On a not designated site, exceeding the proper measure;

Involving destruction, without walking space around it, there is no offence;

This is a question considered by the skilful."

"For the benefit of another" means there is no offence for one making a hut, even one that has reached the characteristics of a hut, for the benefit of another - whether a preceptor, a teacher, or the Saṅgha. But what is stated in the canonical text as "there is an offence of three dukkaṭas for the builders" etc., that is stated on account of not carrying out as instructed.

"Setting aside a dwelling house, everywhere" means that, setting aside a house for one's own dwelling, one has it built as something else - an uposatha hall, a bath house, a dining hall, or a fire hall - there is no offence everywhere. If he has it built thinking "it will be an uposatha hall and I too shall dwell there, it will be a bath house and a dining hall and a fire hall and I too shall dwell there," even so there is no offence. However, in the Mahāpaccarī, having said "no offence," it is stated "there is an offence only for one making it for the purpose of one's own dwelling house." There is no offence for a mad man, for the first offenders who were the monks of Āḷavī.

Regarding the origins and so forth: it has six origins, both action and action-and-non-action; for this arises from action when one has the site designated but makes it exceeding the measure, and from action-and-non-action when one makes it without having the site designated; it is not connected with release through cessation of perception; it is without consciousness; it is an offence by convention; it is bodily action; it is verbal action; it involves three types of consciousness; it involves three types of feeling.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Building a Hut is finished.

7.

Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Building a Dwelling

365. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning the building of a dwelling. Therein, "at Kosambī" means in the city so named. "In Ghosita's park" means in the park of Ghosita. It was built, it is said, by a merchant named Ghosita; therefore it is called "Ghosita's park." "Of Channa" means of Channa who was the attendant at the time of the Bodhisatta. "Venerable sir, find out about a monastery site" means "Venerable sir, find out about a foundation place for a dwelling." And here, "dwelling" does not mean an entire monastery, but a single residence; therefore he said - "I shall have a dwelling built for the noble one."

"Shrine tree" - here, "shrine" is so called in the sense of being revered; this is a designation for places of deities worthy of worship; a tree regarded as a "shrine" is a shrine tree. "Venerated by the village" means venerated by the village or venerated of the village. This same method applies to the remaining terms as well. Furthermore, here "countryside" means a single district within the kingdom of one king. "Country" should be understood as the entire kingdom, for the entire kingdom too from time to time makes offerings to that tree; therefore it is said "venerated by the country." "With one faculty" - they say this referring to the body faculty. "Perceiving a living being" means perceiving a sentient being.

366. "Large" means: by virtue of having a sponsor, it has greatness compared to a hut built by begging, thus it is "large." Or because, having had the site designated, it is permissible to build it even exceeding the prescribed dimensions, therefore it is also "large" by virtue of the greatness of its dimensions - that is "large." But because that greatness of dimensions is obtained only by virtue of having a sponsor, therefore, to show that meaning, the word-analysis was stated thus: "A large dwelling is said to be one having a sponsor." All the rest should be understood in the same manner as stated in the training rule concerning building a hut, together with the origins and so forth. For here the distinction is merely the fact of having a sponsor, the absence of origination from action alone, and the absence of a restriction on dimensions; and because of the absence of a restriction on dimensions, there is a reduction to four factors.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Building a Dwelling is finished.

8.

Commentary on the First Training Rule concerning a Corrupt Charge

380. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the training rule concerning corrupt intent. Therein, "in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Feeding Ground": "Bamboo Grove" is the name of that park. It is said that it was surrounded by bamboos and by a wall eighteen cubits high, fitted with a gateway tower and watchtowers, having a blue lustre, delightful - therefore it is called "Bamboo Grove." And here they gave food to the squirrels, therefore it is called "the Squirrels' Feeding Ground."

Formerly, it is said, a certain king came there for the purpose of sporting in the park. Intoxicated with the madness of liquor, he slept a midday sleep. His retinue too fell asleep, thinking "The king is sleeping," and being enticed by flowers, fruits and the like, went here and there. Then, drawn by the smell of liquor, a black serpent emerged from a certain hollow tree and came towards the king. Seeing this, a tree deity, thinking "I shall save the king's life," came in the form of a squirrel and made a noise at the base of his ear. The king awoke. The black serpent turned back. Seeing that, he thought "My life was given by this squirrel," and he established a feeding place for squirrels there and had a proclamation of safety proclaimed. Therefore, from that time onwards, it came to be known as "the Squirrels' Feeding Ground." For "squirrels" is the name for those black ones.

"Dabba" is that elder's name. "Mallian" means the son of a Malla king. "Arahantship had been realized at seven years old by birth" - it should be understood that the elder, having gained a sense of urgency when he was only seven years old, went forth and attained arahantship at the very tip of the razor. "Whatever is to be attained by a disciple, all that had been attained by him" - what is to be attained by a disciple, namely, the three knowledges, the four analytical discriminations, the six direct knowledges, and the nine supramundane states - this is the set of qualities, and all of that had been attained by him. "And there was nothing further to be done by him" - because the sixteen-fold task had been accomplished through the four truths by means of the four paths, there is now nothing further to be done by him. "Or any adding to what had been done" - there is no further increase of that very task that has been done, just as there is no re-washing of a washed cloth, no re-grinding of ground perfume, and no re-blossoming of a blossomed flower. "Had gone to a private place" means having gone to a secret place. "Was in seclusion" means having withdrawn from this and that, he was secluded; the meaning is that he had gone into solitude.

Then this occurred to the Venerable Dabba the Mallian - "What if I were to prepare lodgings for the Community and assign meals" - the elder, it is said, seeing that his task was accomplished, reflecting thus: "I bear this final body, and that, like a lamp standing in the face of the wind, stands in the face of impermanence, subject to being extinguished before long. As long as it is not extinguished, what service might I perform for the Community?" - thus he considers: "In outlying countries, many sons of good families go forth without even having seen the Blessed One. They come even from afar, thinking 'We shall see and pay respect to the Blessed One.' Among them, those for whom lodgings are not available make their beds even on stone slabs. But I am able, through my own spiritual power, to create and give to those sons of good families, according to their wishes, lodgings such as mansions, dwelling places, lean-to shelters and the like, as well as beds, chairs, spreads and the like. Furthermore, on the next day, some here are exceedingly weary, and out of respect, standing before the monks, they do not even have meals assigned. But I am able to assign meals for them as well." Thus reflecting, "then this occurred to the Venerable Dabba the Mallian - 'What if I were to prepare lodgings for the Community and assign meals?'"

But are not these two positions suited to one devoted to fondness for talk and the like? And this one is a destroyer of the taints, one who delights in non-proliferation. Why did these occur to him? Because he was prompted by his former aspiration. It is said that under all Buddhas there are indeed disciples who have attained this special position. And this one, having been reborn in a certain family at the time of the Blessed One Padumuttara, seeing the spiritual power of a monk who had attained this special position, having invited the Blessed One together with six million eight hundred thousand monks for seven days and having given a great offering, lying down at his feet, made the aspiration: "In the future, at the time when a Buddha like you has arisen, may I too, being such and such by name, be an appointer of lodgings and a distributor of meals, like your disciple." The Blessed One, directing his knowledge of the future, saw, and having seen, declared: "After the passing of a hundred thousand aeons from now, a Buddha named Gotama will arise. Then you, having become a Mallian named Dabba, going forth at seven years old by birth, will realize arahantship, and you will obtain this special position." He, from that time onwards, fulfilling giving, virtue and the like, having experienced the prosperity of devas and humans, at the time of our Blessed One, realized arahantship just as had been declared by that Blessed One. Then, when he had gone to a private place and was thinking "What service might I perform for the Community?" - because he was prompted by that former aspiration, these two positions occurred to him.

Then this occurred to him - "I have no authority over myself; I dwell in the same place with the Teacher. If the Blessed One will permit me, I shall undertake these two positions" - and he went to the presence of the Blessed One. Therefore it was said - "Then the Venerable Dabba the Mallian" etc. "and to assign meals." Then the Blessed One, having encouraged him saying "Good, good, Dabba," since such a monk, free from going on wrong courses, is worthy of administering these two positions, therefore he said: "If so, Dabba, prepare lodgings for the Community and assign meals." "Assented to the Blessed One" means he accepted the word of the Blessed One, listened to it face to face; the meaning is that he agreed.

"First Dabba the Mallian should be requested" - why does the Blessed One have him requested? For the purpose of freeing from blame. For the Blessed One sees: "In the future, on account of this position of Dabba, a great calamity will arise through Mettiya and Bhummajaka, and therein some will blame him saying: 'Why does this one, remaining silent and not doing his own work, administer such a position?' Then others will say: 'What fault is there in him? He was requested by them and appointed.' Thus he will be freed from blame." Even after having him requested thus for the purpose of freeing from blame, again, because when an unauthorised monk speaks anything in the midst of the Community, a spirit of complaint arises: "Why does this one make a loud noise in the midst of the Community, displaying authority?" But when an authorised one speaks, there are those who say: "Let the venerable ones not say anything; this one is authorised, let him speak as he pleases." And for one who falsely accuses an unauthorised monk, there is a light offence, merely a wrongdoing. But for one who falsely accuses an authorised monk, there is a heavier offence of expiation. Then an authorised monk, because of the gravity of the offence, becomes even more difficult to assail than by enemies; therefore, in order to have that venerable one authorised, he spoke beginning with "by an experienced monk." But is it proper to give two authorisations to one person? Not merely two; if he is capable, it is proper to give even thirteen. But for those who are not capable, it is proper to give even one to two or three.

382. "Of similar qualities" means of similar qualities in virtues, not of similar qualities in friendly association. Therefore he said "For those monks who are experts in the discourses, for them together" etc. For however many are experts in the discourses, having selected them, he prepares lodgings together for them that are suitable for them; likewise for the rest. "Much devoted to bodily comfort" means much engaged in making the body firm, the meaning is much devoted to nourishing the body. "These venerable ones with this delight" means with this delight in pointless talk, which is contrary to the path to heaven, being of a lowly nature. "Will pass the night" means will dwell.

"Having attained the heat element, by that very light" means having attained the fourth jhāna of the fire kasiṇa, emerging from it, having resolved through the knowledge of direct knowing upon the burning of the finger, by the light of the finger-flame produced by that very attainment of the heat element - this is the meaning. This power of the Elder, however, became well known throughout the entire Jambudīpa before long; having heard of it, monks wishing to see the wonder of supernormal power intentionally arrive at the improper time. "They intentionally indicate far places" means they knowingly indicate far places. How? In this manner: "Friend Dabba, for us on the Vulture's Peak."

"He goes ahead with his finger burning" means if there is one monk, he goes himself. If there are many, he creates many forms of himself. All of them, being identical to himself, prepare the lodgings.

Regarding "This is the bed" etc., when the Elder says "This is the bed," the created forms also say "This is the bed" at each place they have gone to; likewise in all instances. For this is the nature of created forms -

"When one speaks, all the created forms speak;

When one sits in silence, they all become silent."

In whatever monastery beds, chairs and other things are not sufficient, they fill them by his own power. Therefore the speech of the created forms is not without basis.

"Having prepared the lodging, he returns again to the Bamboo Grove" means he does not sit down engaging in country talk with them, but returns to his own dwelling place.

383. "Mettiya and Bhūmajaka" means Mettiya and Bhūmajaka; these were the chief men among the group of six. "And inferior meals" - as for lodgings, it is not surprising that inferior ones fall to junior monks. But as for meals, they allot them by placing tickets into a basket or into the robe-folds, stirring them, and drawing them out one by one; and even these, due to their deficiency of merit, always fall to them as the very last and inferior ones. Whatever meal is a single-invitation meal, even that on the day it falls to them is either inferior, or upon seeing them, without giving the excellent food, they give only the inferior.

"Specially prepared" means made by preparing with various ingredients, well-arranged, well-produced - this is the meaning. "Porridge of broken rice" means a meal of rice with husk-powder. "With vinegar as a second" means with rice-gruel as a second.

"Kalyāṇabhattika" means one whose food is excellent, beautiful, and exceedingly refined - thus he is Kalyāṇabhattika; he was known by his food alone because of being a giver of refined food. "Gives a meal of four" means he gives four meals; but it is expressed as "catukkabhatta" by way of a secondary derivative. "Stood close and served" means having set aside all tasks, having made great honour and respect, standing nearby, he serves. "They ask with cooked rice" means approaching with cooked rice in hand, they ask "Shall we give you cooked rice, venerable sir?" Thus the instrumental case is used in the sense of the instrument itself. The same method applies to lentil curry and the rest.

"For the morrow" means what exists tomorrow is the partaking of food, that is svātana; for its purpose, for the morrow - it is said to mean for the purpose of the partaking of food to be done tomorrow. "Had been allotted" means it had been assigned and given. "For the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka, householder" - this the Elder said without due consideration. For so powerful was their deficiency of merit that even for those who had attained fullness of mindfulness, there is lack of due consideration. "Woman" - here "je" is an address to the female slave.

"Yesterday, friends, for us" - while deliberating during the night, referring to the past portion of the day, they say "yesterday." "Not properly" means not in accordance with their wish; as previously, however much they wished to sleep, that much they slept - they did not sleep thus; it is said that they slept only a little.

"In the porch outside the monastery" means in the outer gate-porch of the Veḷuvana monastery. "With drooping shoulders" means with fallen shoulders, having bent the shoulder-bones, seated. "Pondering" means smouldering.

"From where there was calm, from there comes a storm" - the meaning is that where there was calm, where not even a little wind existed, there a great storm has arisen. "Water, methinks, is ablaze" means ablaze like water.

384. "Do you remember, Dabba, having done such a thing" means "You, Dabba, do you remember having done such a thing?" Alternatively, the meaning here should be understood by construing it thus: "Do you remember, Dabba, such a thing as this nun has said? Did you do such a thing as this nun has said?" But for those who read "katvā" (having done), it is straightforward.

"As the Blessed One knows me, venerable sir" - what does the Elder show by this? "The Blessed One, venerable sir, is omniscient, and I am one whose taints are destroyed; there is no engagement in such a matter on my part; the Blessed One knows me thus; what shall I say in that regard? As the Blessed One knows me, so should I be regarded."

"Indeed, Dabba, the wise do not extricate themselves thus" - here, "Indeed, Dabba, the wise do not extricate themselves in the way that you extricate yourself by relying on another;" "but rather they extricate themselves by what they themselves know" - thus should the meaning be understood. "If it was done by you, say 'it was done'" - what does he show by this? He shows that it is not possible to make a non-doer into a doer by the strength of an assembly or by the support of a faction, nor to make a doer into a non-doer; therefore, one should state only what was done or not done by oneself. But why did the Blessed One, even though he knew, not say "I know; you are one whose taints are destroyed; there is no fault in you; this nun is a speaker of falsehood"? Out of compassion for others. For if the Blessed One were to declare whatever he knows, when another who had committed an offence involving expulsion were questioned, it would have to be said "I know; you are one who is expelled," and then that person would think "Previously he declared Dabba the Mallian pure, but now he declares me impure; to whom shall I now say anything, when even the Teacher shows favouritism among his disciples; how can he be omniscient?" - and having harboured resentment, he would become one destined for a state of misery. Therefore, the Blessed One, out of this compassion for others, did not say so even though he knew.

Furthermore, he did not say so also for the avoidance of reproach. For if the Blessed One had said thus, there would have been this reproach: "The acquittal of Dabba the Mallian was indeed a weighty matter; but having obtained the Perfectly Enlightened One as a witness, he was acquitted." And those who would consider this to be the characteristic of acquittal, thinking "Even in the time of the Buddha, purity or impurity is determined by a witness; we know this person is impure" - thus wicked monks could destroy even a conscientious one. Moreover, also in the future, monks, having charged and reminded one involved in a matter, will take the admission of conscientious ones by saying "If it was done by you, say 'it was done,'" and carry out the formal act. Thus, establishing the guideline in the Vinaya procedure, without saying "I know," he said "If it was done by you, say 'it was done.'"

"I do not know of having engaged in sexual intercourse even in a dream" means "Even in a dream I do not know of sexual intercourse; I have not engaged in it." Alternatively, it means "Having engaged in it, I do not know of sexual intercourse even in a dream." But for those who read "paṭisevitvā" (having engaged in), it is straightforward. "How much less while awake" means "While awake, I certainly do not know of it."

"If so, monks, remove the nun Mettiyā" - because the statements of Dabba and of this nun do not agree, therefore it is said "remove the nun Mettiyā."

Therein, there are three kinds of removal - removal of status, removal of communion, and removal by disciplinary action. Among these, "a corrupter should be removed" - this is "removal of status." They carry out an act of suspension for not acknowledging an offence, or for not making amends, or for not relinquishing a wrong view - this is "removal of communion." They carry out a disciplinary action saying "Go, outsider, be gone!" - this is "removal by disciplinary action." But here, he spoke referring to removal of status - "Remove the nun Mettiyā."

"And investigate these monks" - by this he indicates the following: "This nun, by her own nature, is not the doer; she was certainly incited by others. Therefore, investigate these monks by whom she was incited, search them out, find out."

But was the nun Mettiyā removed by the Blessed One on the basis of her own admission or without her admission? And here, if she was removed on the basis of her admission, the Elder would be the doer and at fault. But if without her admission, the Elder would be not the doer and without fault.

Even in the time of King Bhātiya, there was a dispute on this very point between the elders dwelling at the Mahāvihāra and those dwelling at the Abhayagiri. The Abhayagiri dwellers too, having stated their own text, say: "According to your position, the Elder would be the doer." The Mahāvihāra dwellers too, having stated their own text, say: "According to your position, the Elder would be the doer." The question was not resolved. The king, having heard this, assembled the elders and commanded a minister named Dīghakārāyana, of brahmin birth: "Listen to the discussion of the elders." The minister, it is said, was wise and skilled in the nuances of speech. He said: "Let the elders first state their text." Then the Abhayagiri elders stated their text: "If so, monks, remove the nun Mettiyā on her own admission." The minister said: "Venerable sirs, according to your position, the Elder would be the doer and at fault." The Mahāvihāra dwellers too stated their text: "If so, monks, remove the nun Mettiyā." The minister said: "Venerable sirs, according to your position, the Elder would be not the doer and without fault." But what is proper here? What was stated later - this was examined by the commentarial teachers: when a monk accuses another monk with an unfounded charge of an ultimate offence, it is a saṅghādisesa; when he accuses a nun, it is a dukkaṭa. But in the Kurundī it is stated: "For false speech, a pācittiya."

Herein is this examination: according to the first method, because of the intention to accuse, only a dukkaṭa is fitting. Just as, even though there is false speech, for a monk accusing a monk it is a saṅghādisesa, and even though there is false speech, for one who speaks of an impure person as pure with the intention of insulting, it is a pācittiya only for disparagement, not for deliberate false speech; so here too, because of the intention to accuse, a pācittiya for deliberate false speech is not fitting; only a dukkaṭa is proper. According to the latter method too, because of the false speech, only a pācittiya is fitting, for by the authority of the text, with the intention of accusing, for a monk against a monk it is a saṅghādisesa. And for one with the intention of insulting, it is disparagement. But there is no statement that for a monk against a nun it is a dukkaṭa; there is the statement that for deliberate false speech it is a pācittiya; therefore only a pācittiya is fitting.

But here this should be further examined: "When there is no intention to accuse, it is a pācittiya; when there is such intention, what should it be?" Therein, since even when a pācittiya is established for one speaking falsely, a separate pācittiya has been stated for accusing with an unfounded saṅghādisesa charge, therefore when there is the intention to accuse, no occasion is seen for a pācittiya for deliberate false speech; and it is not possible for there to be no offence for one who accuses - thus the first method appears purer here. Likewise, when a nun accuses another nun with an unfounded charge of an ultimate offence, it is a saṅghādisesa; when she accuses a monk, it is a dukkaṭa. Therein, a saṅghādisesa leads to rehabilitation, a dukkaṭa leads to confession; by these there is no removal. But since she was by nature an immoral, wicked nun, and now she herself says "I am immoral," therefore the Blessed One had her removed precisely because of her impurity.

"Then the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka" - when the Blessed One, having said "Remove the nun Mettiyā and investigate these monks," rose from his seat and entered the dwelling, those monks, seeing that nun being removed by those monks who said "Now give her the white robes," disclosed their own offence out of desire to release her. To show this meaning, "Then the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka" and so forth was stated.

385-386. "Corrupt, hateful" means both corrupted and one who corrupts. For when hatred has arisen, a person is corrupted by that hatred, made to abandon his natural state; therefore he is called "corrupt." And he corrupts others, destroys them; therefore it is called "hatred." Thus "corrupt, hateful" is an illustration of the diversity of aspects of one and the same person; therefore it is said "corrupt, hateful means both corrupted and one who corrupts" - therein the characteristic of the word should be sought. But since that person who has come to be designated as "corrupt, hateful," being one possessed of aversion, remains in a state of being angered and so forth, therefore in the word-analysis "angered" and so forth is stated. Therein, "angered" means one who has reached the state of agitation, the state of falling away from one's natural condition. "Displeased" means one whose mind is not under one's own control, whose mind does not remain under one's own power; furthermore, one who is not pleased with rapture and happiness, not of a mind at ease - thus "displeased." "Not gratified" means not happy, or not satisfied - thus "not gratified." "One whose mind is struck" means one whose mind is struck by aversion. "One in whom barrenness has arisen" means one in whom the barrenness of aversion has arisen, which is reckoned as the hardness of mind and the refuse of mind. "Not content" means not content, deprived of rapture, happiness and so forth; the meaning is "not pervaded." But in the word-analysis, in order to show the states on account of which one is not content, "with that anger" and so forth is stated.

Therein, "with that anger" means that by which one is called both "corrupt" and "angered" - both of these are of one aspect, since they cause the abandoning of one's natural state. "With that hatred" means that by which one is called "hateful." By these two, the aggregate of volitional formations alone is shown.

"With that displeasure" means that by which one is called "displeased." "With that lack of gratification" means that by which one is called "not gratified." By these two, the aggregate of feeling is shown.

"With an unfounded charge of an offence involving expulsion" - here, "unfounded" means it has no foundation; but that unfoundedness is intended from the standpoint of the accuser, not from the standpoint of the accused. Therefore, in order to show that meaning, in the word-analysis it is said "unfounded means not seen, not heard, not suspected." By this, the following is elucidated: "Whatever offence involving expulsion has been neither seen, nor heard, nor suspected by the accuser in the person of the accused - this is called 'unfounded' because of the absence of the foundations reckoned as seeing, hearing, and suspecting; but whether he has committed it or not committed it, that is of no account here."

Therein, "not seen" means not seen with one's own eye of the flesh or with the divine eye. "Not heard" means likewise not heard when being spoken of by anyone. "Not suspected" means not suspected in one's mind.

"Seen" means seen by oneself or by another, with the eye of the flesh or with the divine eye. "Heard" means likewise heard. "Suspected" also means suspected by oneself or by another. Therein, what is seen by oneself is simply seen; what is seen by others is heard by oneself; what is heard by others, what is suspected by others - all of this stands only in the position of what is heard by oneself.

Suspicion, however, is threefold - suspicion based on what is seen, suspicion based on what is heard, and suspicion based on what is sensed. Therein, suspicion based on what is seen means: a certain monk entered a thicket near a village for the purpose of defecation and urination, and a certain woman also, having entered that thicket for some errand, turned back, and neither did the monk see the woman; nor did the woman see the monk, and without seeing each other both departed as they pleased. Another monk, having observed the emergence of both of them from there, suspects: "Surely these have done it or will do it." This is called suspicion based on what is seen.

Suspicion based on what is heard means: here a certain person hears in the darkness or in a concealed place such friendly conversation of a monk with a woman, and even though another person is present nearby, he does not know whether there is one or not. He suspects: "Surely these have done it or will do it." This is called suspicion based on what is heard.

Suspicion based on what is sensed means: several rogues, having taken flowers, perfumes, meat, liquor and the like during the night, went with women to a border monastery and, having enjoyed themselves as they pleased in the pavilion or in the dining halls and the like, scattered flowers and so forth and departed. The next day the monks, seeing that disorder, investigate: "Whose deed is this?" And therein, a certain monk, having risen early and attending to the pavilion or the dining hall as part of his duties, had touched the flowers and the like; a certain monk had made an offering with flowers brought from a supporter's family; a certain monk had drunk a medicinal tonic for medicinal purposes. Then those monks investigating "Whose deed is this?", having smelt the scent of the hands and the scent of the mouths of those monks, suspect those monks. This is called suspicion based on what is sensed.

Therein, what is seen may be with foundation or without foundation; what is seen itself may be with foundation of perception or without foundation of perception. The same method applies to what is heard as well. In the case of suspicion, however, suspicion based on what is seen may be with foundation or without foundation; suspicion based on what is seen itself may be with foundation of perception or without foundation of perception. The same method applies to suspicion based on what is heard and suspicion based on what is sensed. Therein, what is seen with foundation means: having seen someone committing a pārājika offence, he says "It was seen by me." Without foundation means: having seen someone coming out from a concealed place, without seeing the transgression, he says "It was seen by me." What is seen itself with foundation of perception means: having seen it, being one who has the perception of having seen, he accuses. Without foundation of perception means: having previously seen a pārājika transgression, he later becomes one who has the perception of not having seen it; he, having made it without foundation by perception, accuses saying "It was seen by me." By this method, suspicion based on what is heard and suspicion based on what is sensed should also be understood in detail. And here, in every case, there is no offence for one who accuses with foundation or with foundation of perception; but there is an offence only for one who accuses without foundation or without foundation of perception.

"Should accuse" means: should assail, should attack, should overpower, should overwhelm. Since that accusation is indeed done whether one accuses oneself or causes another to accuse, therefore in the word-analysis it is said "he accuses or causes to accuse."

Therein, "he accuses" means: he himself accuses with such words as "You have committed a pārājika offence"; for each and every utterance of his, there is a saṅghādisesa. "He causes to accuse" means: standing nearby himself, he instructs another monk; that one, by his word, accuses him. For each and every utterance, there is a saṅghādisesa only for the one who causes the accusation. But if that one too accuses saying "There is what was seen and heard by me," for both persons, for each and every utterance, there is a saṅghādisesa.

For the purpose of skill in the classification of accusations, the fourfold scheme beginning with one matter and one accuser should first be understood here. Therein, one monk accuses one monk with one matter; in this accusation there is one matter and one accuser. Several monks accuse one monk with one matter, just as five hundred monks of the group of six headed by Mettiya and Bhūmajaka accused the Venerable Dabba Mallaputta; in this accusation there is one matter and various accusers. One monk accuses one monk with several matters; in this accusation there are various matters and one accuser. Several monks accuse several monks with several matters; in this accusation there are various matters and various accusers.

But who is entitled to accuse, and who is not entitled? Taking first the statement regarding a weak accuser, no one is entitled. A weak accuser means: when several monks are sitting in conversation, one monk, taking up a matter concerning one person but making it non-specific, speaks about a pārājika matter. Another, having heard that, goes and informs the other person. That person, having approached him, says: "It seems you say this and that about me." He replies: "I do not know of such a thing; however, in the course of conversation I spoke making it non-specific. If I had known this would cause you distress, I would not have spoken even that much." This is a weak accuser. Taking this conversation, no one is entitled to accuse that monk. However, setting this aside, the Elder Mahāpaduma said that a monk endowed with virtue is entitled to accuse a monk or a nun, and a nun endowed with virtue is entitled to accuse only a nun. But the Elder Mahāsuma said: "All five classes of those living in communion are entitled." But the Elder Godatta, having said "No one is not entitled," cited this sutta: "Having heard from a monk, he accuses; having heard from a nun, he accuses; etc. having heard from followers of other sects, he accuses." In the view of all three elders, the accused should be dealt with only according to his own admission.

Now, this accusation does not reach its head for one who accuses by sending a messenger, a letter, or a message; but it reaches its head only for one who accuses while standing near the person, either by hand gesture or by verbal expression. For the renunciation of the training alone does not reach its head by hand gesture, but this false accusation and the report of what is untrue do indeed reach it. But if one specifies one of two persons standing in a place and accuses him, if that one knows, it reaches its head. If the other knows, it does not reach its head. If one specifies both and accuses, whether one knows or both know, it indeed reaches its head. The same method applies in the case of several persons. And knowing at that very moment is indeed difficult, but when one reflects in due course and it is known, then it is known. If one knows afterwards, it does not reach its head. The training rules concerning renunciation of the training, report of what is untrue, gross speech, self-praise, and the report of what is true with corrupt intent - all these indeed have the same determination.

Thus this accusation is also twofold by way of body and speech. Again, it is threefold: accusation based on what is seen, accusation based on what is heard, and accusation based on what is suspected. Again, it is also fourfold: accusation of failure in virtue, accusation of failure in conduct, accusation of failure in view, and accusation of failure in livelihood. Therein, accusation of failure in virtue should be understood by way of the two weighty classes of offences. Accusation of failure in conduct by way of the remaining ones; accusation of failure in view by way of wrong view and extreme-grasping view; accusation of failure in livelihood should be understood by way of the six training rules laid down on account of livelihood.

Again, it is also fourfold: pointing out the matter, pointing out the offence, refusal of communion, and refusal of proper duties. Therein, pointing out the matter is that which proceeds thus: "You have engaged in sexual intercourse, you have taken what is not given, you have killed a human being, you have made a false report." Pointing out the offence is that which proceeds in such a manner as: "You have committed the offence of expulsion involving sexual intercourse." Refusal of communion is that which proceeds thus: "There is no observance day, or invitation ceremony, or community act together with you." But by this much alone it does not reach its head; it reaches its head only when combined with such words as "You are not a recluse, you are not a son of the Sakyans." Refusal of proper duties is the non-performance of acts such as salutation, rising up, reverential salutation with joined palms, fanning, and the like. This should be understood as occurring when one who is performing salutations and the like in sequence fails to do so for one person while performing them for the rest. By this much it is indeed an accusation, but the offence does not reach its head. But when asked "Why do you not perform salutations and the like towards me?" it reaches its head only when combined with such words as "You are not a recluse, you are not a son of the Sakyans." But when one passes over whomever one wishes in the distribution of gruel, food, and the like, by that much it does not constitute an accusation.

Furthermore, in the chapter on the suspension of the Pātimokkha, beginning with "One unlawful suspension of the Pātimokkha, monks, one lawful" up to "ten unlawful suspensions of the Pātimokkha, ten lawful," thus fifty-five unlawful and fifty-five lawful, one hundred and ten accusations are stated. Those are one hundred and ten for one accusing based on what is seen, one hundred and ten for one accusing based on what is heard, one hundred and ten for one accusing based on what is suspected - thus they amount to three hundred and thirty. Those, for one accusing by body, for one accusing by speech, and for one accusing by both body and speech, being tripled, amount to nine hundred and ninety. Those, for one accusing oneself and for one having another accuse, being just as many, amount to one thousand nine hundred and eighty; and it should be understood that, again, by the division into what is seen and so forth, by way of what is founded and unfounded, there are many thousands of accusations.

Standing at this point, in the commentary, having brought in many discourses stated in the Upāli-pentads and so forth, such as "Upāli, a monk wishing to take up an accusation should take up an accusation endowed with five factors" and "Upāli, a monk who is an accuser, wishing to accuse another, should accuse another after reflecting internally on five qualities" - the characteristics of an accusation, the duty of the accuser, the duty of the accused, the task to be performed by the Community, and the duty of the investigator - all were explained in detail. We shall comment on that in the very place where it occurs.

Among these accusations of the types already stated, by means of whatever accusation, when a case has been brought before the midst of the Community, the accused and the accuser should be told: "Will you be satisfied with our judgement?" If they say "We will be," the Community should accept that legal case. But if they say: "Judge first, venerable sirs; if it is acceptable to us, we shall accept it." Having said such things as "Go and pay respects at the shrine first," and having drawn the matter out at length, they should be dismissed. If they, being wearied over a long time, with the assembly having departed and their supporters having been cut off, request again, having refused up to a third time, when they become free from pride, then their legal case should be adjudicated. And if, when adjudicating, the assembly is predominated by the shameless, that legal case should be adjudicated by a committee. If the assembly is predominated by the foolish, having had them seek out experts in the Vinaya of their own group by saying "Seek out experts in the Vinaya of your own group," that legal case should be settled in the way by which that legal case is settled - by whatever is the Dhamma, by whatever is the Vinaya, by whatever is the Teacher's instruction.

Therein, "Dhamma" means the actual matter. "Vinaya" means the accusation and the reminder. "The Teacher's instruction" means the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the proclamation. Therefore, when the matter has been declared by the accuser, the accused should be asked: "Is this true or not?" Thus, having examined the matter, having accused with an actual matter and having reminded, that legal case should be settled with the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the proclamation. If therein a shameless one accuses a conscientious one, and that shameless one is foolish and incompetent, no guidance should be given to him. Rather, he should be told thus - "On what ground do you accuse him?" Surely he will say: "What is this, venerable sir? On what ground indeed?" "You do not even know on what ground, it is not fitting for one as foolish as you to accuse another" - he should be dismissed, and no cross-examination should be given to him. But if that shameless one is wise and competent, and is able to overwhelm and succeed by what was seen or heard, having given cross-examination to this one, the procedure should be carried out according to the admission of the conscientious one alone.

If a conscientious one accuses a shameless one, and that conscientious one is foolish and incompetent, and is unable to give cross-examination, guidance should be given to him: "On what ground do you accuse him - is it failure in virtue or one of the failures in conduct and so forth?" But why should guidance be given thus only to this one and not to the other? Is it not the case that it is not fitting for experts in the Vinaya to take a wrong course? It is indeed not fitting. But this is not taking a wrong course; this is called support of the Dhamma, for the training rule was laid down for the restraint of the shameless and for the support of the conscientious. Therein, the shameless one, having received guidance, would come overwhelming; but the conscientious one, having received guidance, will speak having established his case - in what was seen, by the continuity of what was seen; in what was heard, by the continuity of what was heard. Therefore, support of the Dhamma is fitting for him. But if that conscientious one is wise and competent, and speaks having established his case, and the shameless one does not give an admission saying "This too does not exist, this too does not exist," the procedure should be carried out according to the admission of the shameless one alone.

And for the purpose of illustrating that meaning, this story should be known. The Elder Cūḷābhaya, master of the three Piṭakas, it is said, having taught the Vinaya to the monks beneath the Brazen Palace, would rise in the evening. At the time of his rising, two adversaries set a discussion in motion. One did not give an admission, saying "This too does not exist, this too does not exist." Then, when little remained in the first watch, the conviction of impurity arose in the Elder regarding that person: "This one speaks having established his case, but this one does not give an admission, and many matters have been brought forward - surely this must have been done by him." Then, giving a signal with the handle of a fan to the foot-rest, he said: "Friends, I am not suitable to adjudicate; have it adjudicated by another." "Why, venerable sir?" The Elder declared that matter. A burning arose in the body of the accused person. Then he, having paid respects to the Elder, said: "Venerable sir, it is fitting that one suitable to adjudicate, an expert in the Vinaya, should be just such as you. And it is fitting that an accuser should be just such as this one." Having said this, he put on white garments and, having asked forgiveness saying "I have troubled you for a long time," he departed.

Thus, when accused by a conscientious monk, a shameless monk does not give admission even when many cases have arisen; he should be called neither "pure" nor "impure." He is what is called "a living dead" and what is called "one rotten while still raw."

If yet another such case arises against him, it should not be adjudicated. He will simply be as one expelled. If, however, a shameless monk accuses a shameless monk, he should be told: "Friend, what can be said about this one on the basis of your word?" Having said the same to the other as well, both should be dismissed with the words: "Live as those sharing common goods and requisites." No adjudication should be made for them regarding the matter of virtue. However, for matters concerning bowls, robes, dwelling places and the like, it should be made after obtaining a suitable witness.

Then, if a conscientious monk accuses a conscientious monk, and their dispute is only a trifling matter, they should be persuaded with "Do not act thus," made to confess the transgression, and dismissed. But here, if the accused has suddenly gone wrong, and from the beginning there has been no one called shameless. And he does not give admission for the sake of protecting his faction, and many rise up saying: "We believe, we believe." Let him be pure once or twice on the basis of their admission. But from the time of the transgression onwards, he does not stand in his position, and no adjudication should be given.

Thus, when a case has come before the midst of the Community by virtue of any accusation whatsoever, having understood the proper conduct regarding the accused and the accuser, the adjudication should be understood by way of the beginning, middle, conclusion and so forth of that very accusation, for the purpose of knowing its success or failure. That is to say: what is the beginning of an accusation, what is the middle, what is the conclusion? The beginning of an accusation is the act of seeking permission thus: "I wish to speak to you; let the venerable one grant me leave." The middle is the adjudication after accusing and reminding with the case that has been brought forward. The conclusion is the settlement by establishing either an offence or a non-offence.

How many roots does an accusation have, how many grounds, how many bases? An accusation has two roots - either with foundation or without foundation; three cases - what is seen, what is heard, what is suspected; five bases - "I shall speak at the right time, not at the wrong time; I shall speak truthfully, not untruthfully; I shall speak gently, not harshly; I shall speak what is connected with the goal, not what is unconnected with the goal; I shall speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not with inner hatred." And furthermore, in this accusation, the accusing person should be established in the fifteen qualities stated in the Upāli-pentad, by way of "Am I one of pure bodily conduct?" and so forth; the accused should be established in two qualities: in truthfulness and in non-anger.

"Perhaps I might cause him to fall from this holy life" means "Perhaps I might cause this person to fall from this supreme conduct"; it is said that "should accuse" is spoken with the intention: "It would be good indeed if I could cause this person to fall from this holy life." In the word-analysis, however, in order to show the synonymous meaning of this very phrase "might cause to fall from the holy life," it is said "might cause to fall from the state of being a monk" and so forth.

"Moment" and the rest are synonyms for "time." "That moment, that interval, that instant having passed" means when that moment, that interval, that instant has passed. For this is an accusative expression used in the sense of the locative.

In the description of "being pressed for reasons," "with whatever ground he has been accused" means: among the four grounds for expulsion, with whatever ground the accused has been accused, overwhelmed, and overcome by the accuser. "Being pressed for reasons regarding that ground" means: regarding that ground stated by the accuser, that accuser is being investigated, examined, and scrutinised by the investigator by way of "What did you see? How did you see it?" and so forth.

In the description of "not being pressed for reasons," "not being questioned by anyone" means: not being questioned by anyone, whether the investigator or another; or alternatively, not being questioned by anyone regarding the grounds of what was seen and so forth. And the connection of these two matrix terms with what follows should be understood through "and the monk admits to hatred." For this is what is meant - "Whether being pressed for reasons or not being pressed for reasons, the monk admits to hatred, relies upon it, acknowledges it - it is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community." And this is said only for the purpose of showing the time when the baselessness becomes evident. However, the offence is incurred at the very moment of the accusation.

Now, regarding the phrase "and that legal case is indeed unfounded," since the characteristic of being unfounded has already been stated above, in order to show something not yet stated rather than repeating that, he said beginning with "a legal case means." Therein, since a legal case, though one in the sense of being a legal case, is diverse by way of subject matter, in order to show that diversity he said beginning with "there are four legal cases: a dispute-legal case." But what is that sense of 'legal case' by which it is one? The quality of being adjudicable by means of settlements. Therefore, that concerning which, on account of which, in dependence on which, with reference to which, settlements operate - that should be understood as a "legal case."

However, in the commentaries it is said: "Some say a legal case is grasping, some say volition, some say impatience, some say verbal expression, some say designation." It was further examined thus: "If grasping were a legal case, then when one, having taken up a charge, while consulting with a fellow monk sees the danger therein and then abandons it, that legal case of his would have reached settlement. If volition were a legal case, the volition that arose as 'I shall take up this charge' ceases. If impatience were a legal case, even having taken up a charge through impatience, at a later stage, not obtaining a judgement or being asked for forgiveness, one abandons it. If verbal expression were a legal case, having gone about speaking, at a later stage one becomes silent, without sound; thus that legal case of his would have reached settlement. Therefore, designation is a legal case."

But that is contradicted by such passages as "the offence of defeat involving sexual intercourse is of the same class as the offence of defeat involving sexual intercourse," etc. "thus an offence-legal case is of the same class as an offence-legal case," and "a dispute-legal case may be wholesome, may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate," and so forth. For they do not accept that designation has the nature of being wholesome and so forth, nor is the offence involving defeat mentioned in the phrase "with an unfounded charge of an offence involving defeat" a mere designation. Why? Because it is absolutely unwholesome. For this too was said - "An offence-legal case may be unwholesome or may be indeterminate."

And as for the unfounded defeat indicated in the phrase "with an unfounded charge of defeat," this phrase "and that legal case is indeed unfounded" is a cross-reference to that very same thing, not to a designation; for one does not cross-reference one thing having indicated another. However, since by whatever designation, by whatever utterance, the accuser has declared that person to have committed an offence involving defeat, and since the legal case reckoned as defeat is unfounded, that declaration too is unfounded; and because it operates in relation to a legal case, it is a legal case. Therefore, by this method, designation could be fitting as a "legal case"; or because what is called an unfounded legal case does not exist in reality, and exists merely as a designation. Therefore too, designation could be fitting as a legal case. But that is so only here, not everywhere. For designation is not a legal case in the case of disputes and so forth. The sense of 'legal case' for those, however, is the quality of being adjudicable by the settlements stated above. Thus, by this sense of 'legal case,' a certain dispute here is both a dispute and a legal case, hence a dispute-legal case. The same method applies in the remaining ones.

Therein, a dispute that has arisen in dependence on the eighteen grounds for schism, thus: "Here monks dispute, saying 'it is Dhamma' or 'it is not Dhamma,'" is a dispute-legal case. A censure that has arisen in dependence on the four kinds of failure, thus: "Here monks censure a monk for failure in virtue," is a censure-legal case. "The five classes of offences are an offence-legal case, the seven classes of offences are an offence-legal case" - thus an offence itself is an offence-legal case. "Whatever is the duty and obligation of the Community - a transaction by announcement, a transaction by motion, a transaction by motion with one proclamation, a transaction by motion with three proclamations" - thus the fourfold act of the Community should be understood as a duty-legal case.

In this matter, however, what is intended is only the offence-legal case, reckoned as a pārājika offence. The remaining ones are stated by way of extracting the meaning, for these are the meanings of the word "legal case." Among those, only pārājika is intended here. That legal case is indeed unfounded by the bases of what is seen, etc. And this monk is established in hate, stands dependent on it, and admits it by saying "What I said was empty" and so forth. For that monk, it is a saṅghādisesa at the very moment of the accusation - this, then, is the meaning of this training rule together with its word-by-word analysis.

387. Now, showing the determination of offences in detail by means of those grounds for accusation beginning with "seen" and so forth that were stated in brief, he said beginning with "one who is not seen." Therein, "one who is not seen" means he is unseen by him. He is unseen by this accuser; the meaning is that that person is committing an offence involving expulsion. The same method applies also in "one who is not heard" and so forth.

"Seen by me" means the statement is "you were seen by me." The same method applies also in "heard by me" and so forth. The remainder in the section based on not seeing is clear in meaning. However, in the section based on seeing, when he accuses him saying "heard by me," the groundlessness should be understood through the absence of what is heard and so forth as thus stated.

And in this entire section on the accuser, just as with the statements that have come here - "you have committed an offence involving expulsion, you are not a recluse, you are not a disciple of the son of the Sakyan" - there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community for each speech by virtue of each one, so too with the statements that have come elsewhere - "immoral, of evil nature, of impure and suspect conduct, of concealed actions, not a recluse though claiming to be a recluse, not a celibate though claiming to be a celibate, inwardly rotten, oozing with defilements, born of rubbish" - there is indeed an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community for each speech by virtue of each one.

However, "there is not with you the Observance or the invitation ceremony to admonish or a legal act of the Community" - these alone do not constitute a heading; but when combined with any of the terms beginning with "you are immoral, there is not with you the Observance" or with any of the terms beginning with "you have committed an offence involving expulsion," they do constitute a heading and are productive of an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

But the Elder Mahāpaduma said - "Not only do the terms beginning with 'immoral, of evil nature' that have not come in the canonical text here constitute a heading, but these too constitute a heading: 'you are a eunuch, you are a great novice, you are a great lay follower, you are one of senior observance, you are a Nigaṇṭha, you are an Ājīvaka, you are an ascetic, you are a wanderer, you are a paṇḍaka, you are one living in theft, you are one who has gone over to another sect, you are an animal, you are a matricide, you are a patricide, you are a killer of an arahant, you are a schismatic, you are one who has shed blood, you are a defiler of a bhikkhunī, you are one of dual sex.'" And the Elder Mahāpaduma himself says: "In 'being doubtful about what was seen' and so forth, to the extent that one is doubtful, to that extent one does not consider; to the extent that one does not consider, to that extent it slips away; to the extent that it slips away, to that extent one has forgotten."

But the Elder Mahāsuma, dividing each one into two, shows the method for each of the four separately. How? "Being doubtful about what was seen" - here, first, one is doubtful either about the seeing or about the person. Therein, "was he seen by me or not seen?" - thus one is doubtful about the seeing. "Was this the one seen by me or another?" - thus one is doubtful about the person. Similarly, one does not consider either the seeing or the person, either the seeing slips away or the person, one has forgotten either the seeing or the person. Here, "doubtful" means one in whom doubt has arisen. "Does not consider" means does not believe. "Slips away" means it slips away when not being reminded. But when they remind him thus: "Venerable sir, at such and such a place, at such and such a time," then he remembers. "Forgotten" means one who, even when being reminded by various means, still does not remember. By this same method the section on the instigator should also be understood; the only difference is that therein "by me" is omitted, the rest is the same as the section on the accuser.

389. Thereafter, in order to show the classification of offences and the classification of non-offences, having set forth the group of four beginning with "view of what is pure regarding what is impure," each term is described with four divisions each, and all of that can be understood by the method of the canonical text itself. Only the classification of intention herein should be understood. For this intention is of many kinds, namely - intention of causing to fall, intention of reviling, intention of formal action, intention of rehabilitation, intention of suspending the observance day or the invitation ceremony, intention of investigating, and intention of teaching the Dhamma. Therein, in the first four intentions, for one who has not obtained permission, there is a wrong-doing. And even having obtained permission, for one who charges face to face with a groundless offence involving expulsion, there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. For one who charges with a groundless offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community, there is an offence of expiation. For one who charges with failure in conduct, there is a wrong-doing. For one who speaks with the intention of reviling, there is an offence of expiation. But for one who speaks not face to face with any of the seven classes of offences, there is a wrong-doing. For one who carries out any of the seven kinds of formal action not face to face, there is only a wrong-doing.

However, in the Kurundī it is stated: "For one who speaks with the intention of rehabilitation, saying 'You have committed this offence; you should make amends for it,' there is no need for the procedure of obtaining permission." But in all texts it is stated: "For one who suspends the observance day or the invitation ceremony, there is no procedure of obtaining permission." However, the scope for suspension should be understood. For in the announcement "Let the Community hear me, venerable sirs. Today is the fifteenth day observance. If it is suitable for the Community, the Community should carry out the observance" - it is permissible to suspend only while the re-syllable has not been passed. But after that, when the yya-syllable has been reached, it is not permissible. This is the method for the invitation ceremony as well. For an investigator too, when the matter has been brought forward, for one who speaks with the intention of investigating, saying "This concerns you," there is no procedure of obtaining permission.

For a Dhamma-speaker too, having sat on the Dhamma-seat, for one who teaches the Dhamma without specifying anyone, in such a manner as "Whoever does this and that, this monk is not a true recluse," there is no procedure of obtaining permission. But if he specifies and designates, saying "So-and-so and so-and-so is not a true recluse, not a true lay follower," he should descend from the Dhamma-seat, confess the offence, and then go. But wherever it is stated "without having obtained permission," the meaning of that should be understood as "not having obtained permission," for there is no such thing as "non-permission" by which one commits an offence; rather, one commits an offence by not having obtained permission. The remainder is clear in itself.

Regarding the origins and so forth, it has three origins - it originates from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech, and mind. It is action, exempt from the factor of perception, with consciousness, a worldly fault, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome consciousness, and painful feeling.

The Commentary on the First Training Rule concerning Malicious False Accusation is finished.

9.

Commentary on the Second Training Rule on Corrupt Ill-Will

391. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the second training rule concerning corrupt accusation. Therein, "Come, friends, let us name this he-goat Dabba the Mallian" - it is said that they, being unable to accomplish their desire in the first case, having received censure and having become distressed, wandered about seeking such an occasion, thinking "Now we shall know." Then one day, having seen and being delighted, looking at one another, they said thus - "Come, friends, let us name this he-goat Dabba the Mallian" - what is meant is "let us make his name 'Dabba the Mallian.'" The same method applies here also with regard to "the nun named Mettiyā."

"Those monks questioned the monks Mettiya and Bhūmajaka" - they questioned thus - "Friends, where was Dabba the Mallian seen by you together with the nun Mettiyā?" "At the foot of the Vulture's Peak mountain." "At what time?" "At the time of going for alms-round." "Friend Dabba, these say thus - where were you then?" "I was assigning meals in the Bamboo Grove." "Who knows of your presence in the Bamboo Grove at that time?" "The Community of monks, venerable sir." They asked the Community - "Do you know of this one's presence in the Bamboo Grove at that time?" "Yes, friends, we know; the Elder has been in the Bamboo Grove itself from the day he received the appointment." Then they said to Mettiya and Bhūmajaka - "Friends, your account does not agree; surely you are not speaking having cast a pretext upon him?" Thus, being questioned by those monks, having said "Yes, friends," they reported this matter.

"But did you, friends, the Venerable Dabba the Mallian, from a legal case belonging to another class" - herein, "belonging to another class" means "this belongs to another class" or "it has another class." "Legal case" should be understood as a basis; what is meant is a ground, a foundation. For that he-goat which was called "named Dabba the Mallian" - whereas the Venerable Dabba the Mallian's class, portion, and side are human birth and the state of being a monk, that he-goat belongs to another class, portion, and side, namely animal birth and the state of being a he-goat, or it has another class - therefore it receives the designation "belonging to another class." And because for those who were saying "let us name this one Dabba the Mallian," the basis, ground, and foundation of that act of naming was that, therefore it should be understood as a "legal case." For it was with reference to that that those monks said "from a legal case belonging to another class," not one among the legal cases of dispute and so forth. Why? Because of impossibility. For they did not take up any pretext, even a mere trifle, from any legal case belonging to another class among the four kinds of legal cases. And there is no such thing as a pretext of the four kinds of legal cases. For pretexts such as the pretext of birth and so forth are stated as pretexts of persons only, not of legal cases of dispute and so forth. And this name "Dabba the Mallian" is some pretext of that he-goat standing in the position of a legal case belonging to another class, a mere trifle sufficient to accuse the Elder with a baseless offence involving expulsion.

Herein, "pretext" means: it is spoken of as "this is his" - it appears and is attributed to him. This is a designation for any one category among birth and so forth. "Trifling pretext" means: it touches, clings to, and slightly adheres to another matter merely by way of expression. This is a designation for any one category among birth and so forth only. What follows beyond that is of clear meaning. The same meaning applies also in the laying down of the training rule. However, in the word-analysis, regarding "one who should accuse with an offence involving expulsion, taking up some trifling pretext from a legal case belonging to another class" - since that has become manifest only by way of the originating incident, it should be understood that it was not analysed.

393. "Whatever legal cases" means the four legal cases that have proceeded by way of extracting the meaning from the common usage of the term; since their belonging to another class and belonging to the same class are not evident and should be known by bearers of the Vinaya, therefore, depending on the legal case obtained from the common usage of the term, making it clear, he said: "'Of a legal case belonging to another class' means either belonging to another class of offence or belonging to another class of legal case," etc. And the accusation that was stated at the end by way of a legal case belonging to another class of offence - in order to show that as well, it should be understood that this classification of belonging to the same class and belonging to another class of all legal cases has been compiled.

Therein, since "or belonging to another class of offence" was mentioned first, the exposition should have begun with "And how is an offence belonging to another class of an offence?" But since this matter will come up in the very investigation of belonging to the same class of a legal case arising from offences, therefore it should be understood that, without beginning thus, the exposition was commenced by taking up only the latter phrase: "How is a legal case belonging to another class of a legal case?"

Therein, the section on belonging to another class is clear in meaning. For each legal case belongs to another class, another side, another portion of the remaining three, because of the dissimilarity of the basis; but in the section on belonging to the same class, a legal case arising from contention belongs to the same class, the same side, the same portion as a legal case arising from contention, because of the similarity of the basis; likewise a legal case arising from censure belongs to the same class as a legal case arising from censure. How? For a dispute that has arisen depending on the eighteen grounds for schism from the time of the Buddha and a dispute arising now are just one legal case arising from contention, because of the similarity of the basis; likewise censure that has arisen depending on the four kinds of misconduct from the time of the Buddha and censure arising now are just one legal case arising from censure, because of the similarity of the basis. But since a legal case arising from offences does not categorically belong to the same class as a legal case arising from offences, due to similar and dissimilar bases and due to similar and dissimilar natures, therefore it was said: "A legal case arising from offences may belong to the same class as a legal case arising from offences, or may belong to another class." Therein, since belonging to another class was described first from the beginning, here too belonging to another class was described first; therein, the belonging to another class and further the belonging to the same class should be understood in the manner already stated.

Regarding "a legal case arising from obligations belongs to the same class as a legal case arising from obligations" - here, a legal case that has arisen depending on the four acts of the Saṅgha from the time of the Buddha and a legal case arising now depending on the four acts of the Saṅgha are just one legal case arising from obligations, because of the similarity and likeness. But is a legal case arising from obligations a legal case that has arisen depending on acts of the Saṅgha, or is this merely a designation for acts of the Saṅgha themselves? This is merely a designation for acts of the Saṅgha themselves. Even so, what is called an act of the Saṅgha - since it arises depending on the characteristic of the act that one attends to as "this and that should be done thus," and since it arises depending on each preceding act of the Saṅgha, it was said that a legal case that has arisen depending on acts of the Saṅgha is a legal case arising from obligations.

394. "Taking up some trifling pretext from a certain point": here, however, since "point" or "trifling pretext" are different only in wording but identical in meaning, in the manner already stated above, therefore he said "pretext means ten pretexts - pretext of birth, pretext of name" etc. Therein, birth itself is the pretext of birth. The same method applies in the remaining ones.

395. Now, in order to show that same pretext in detail, demonstrating it with a concrete case as to how, based on that, intimidation occurs, he said beginning with "The pretext of birth: a warrior is seen." Therein, "a warrior is seen" means some other person of the warrior caste has been seen by this accuser. "Committing an offence involving expulsion" means committing any one among sexual intercourse and the other such offences. "Having seen another warrior, he accuses him" means then he, having seen another monk of the warrior caste who is his enemy, and seizing upon that pretext of warrior birth, accuses him thus: "A warrior was seen by me committing an offence involving expulsion; you are a warrior, you have committed an offence involving expulsion," or alternatively, "You are that warrior, not another; you have committed an offence involving expulsion, you are not a recluse, you are not a disciple of the son of the Sakyan, there is not with you the Observance or the invitation ceremony to admonish or a legal act of the Community," there is an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community for each speech. And here, it should be understood that the dissimilarity between those warriors, one to another, constitutes the factor of being of a different category by virtue of their respective tall stature and so forth, or by virtue of being seen and so forth, and the factor of being the basis is by virtue of the designation of warrior birth; by this method, the application in all cases should be understood.

400. And in the description of the pretext of bowl, "glazed clay bowl" means a clay bowl that is similar to an iron bowl, well-shaped, smooth-surfaced, glossy, and the colour of a bee. "Ordinary clay bowl" means an ordinary clay bowl.

406. But since the exposition of the offence-pretext was stated in brief in just a single phrase, therefore in order to show it in detail as well, "a monk is seen committing an offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community" and so forth was stated. But why was it stated separately here without giving the exposition right there? Because it is dissimilar to the remaining expositions. For the remaining expositions were stated by way of accusing another having seen one thing in another. But this was stated by way of accusing with a different offence having seen one and the same person committing a different offence. If so, how does it belong to another class of legal issue? By reason of the offence. For that very reason it was said - "Thus also it belongs to another class of offence and a pretext has been grasped." For that offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community which he has committed, that is a legal issue belonging to another class than expulsion. The pretext of that legal issue belonging to another class is the state of being an offence which is common to all offences, just as the state of being a warrior-noble is common to all warrior-nobles. By this method, the pattern based on the remaining offences as root and the section on the accuser should be understood.

408. "There is no offence if one who perceives it as actual accuses or causes to accuse" means: whoever, perceiving it as actual thus - "this one has indeed committed a pārājika offence" - accuses or causes to accuse, there is no offence for him. The remainder is clear everywhere. The origins and so forth are similar to those of the first case concerning corrupt motive.

The Commentary on the Second Training Rule concerning Malicious False Accusation is finished.

10.

Commentary on the First Training Rule on Schism of the Saṅgha

409. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the training rule concerning schism in the Community. Therein, in the passage beginning with "Then Devadatta" etc., who Devadatta was, how he went forth, and for what reason he approached Kokālika and the others and said "Come, friends, let us create a schism in the Community of the ascetic Gotama, a breaking of the concord." All that has already come in the Chapter on Schism in the Community. However, although the request for the five cases will also come there itself, since it has also come here, we shall proceed only after stating what should be said here.

"It would be good, venerable sir" - this is the request. "Monks should be forest-dwellers for life" means having undertaken the forest-dweller ascetic practice, all monks should be forest-dwellers as long as they live, they should dwell only in the forest. "Whoever would resort to the edge of a village, a fault would touch him" means whoever, even a single monk, having abandoned the forest, would resort to the edge of a village for the purpose of dwelling, a fault would touch him - he speaks with the intention that "let a fault touch that monk, let the Blessed One make him liable to an offence." The same method applies to the remaining cases as well.

410. "We shall convince people" means we shall make people know our state of having few wishes and so forth, or alternatively, it is said to mean we shall please them, we shall inspire confidence in them.

However, just upon hearing the words of Devadatta requesting these five cases, the Blessed One understood: "This one requests having become desirous of schism in the Community." But because those cases, if allowed, would lead to obstruction of the path for many sons of good families, therefore the Blessed One, having rejected them saying "Enough, Devadatta," said "Whoever wishes, let him be a forest-dweller" and so forth.

Here, however, having understood the Blessed One's intention, a son of good family should discern what is suitable for himself. For here this is the Blessed One's intention - "One monk is of great aspiration and great energy, and is able, having rejected a dwelling at the edge of a village, to make an end of suffering while dwelling in the forest. One is weak and of little strength, unable in the forest, but able only at the edge of a village. One is of great strength, of balanced constitution, endowed with the patience of endurance, even-minded towards the pleasant and unpleasant, and is able both in the forest and at the edge of a village. One is able neither at the edge of a village nor in the forest, and is one for whom the text alone is the highest attainment.

Therein, he who is of great aspiration and great energy, and is able, having rejected a dwelling at the edge of a village, to make an end of suffering while dwelling in the forest - let him dwell in the forest itself; this is suitable for him. And his co-residents and others, following his example, will also consider that one should dwell in the forest.

But he who is weak and of little strength, and is able to make an end of suffering only at the edge of a village, not in the forest - let him dwell at the edge of a village itself. He who is of great strength, of balanced constitution, endowed with the patience of endurance, even-minded towards the pleasant and unpleasant, and is able both in the forest and at the edge of a village - let him too, having abandoned a dwelling at the edge of a village, dwell in the forest; this is suitable for him. For his co-residents too, following his example, will consider that one should dwell in the forest.

But he who is able neither at the edge of a village nor in the forest, and is one for whom the text alone is the highest attainment - let him too dwell in the forest itself. For his practice of the austere practices and development of meditation subjects will become a supporting condition for the path and fruits in the future. And his co-residents and others, following his example, will consider that one should dwell in the forest."

Thus, with reference to this person who is weak and of little strength, and who, while dwelling only at the edge of a village, is able to make an end of suffering, not in the forest, the Blessed One said "Whoever wishes, let him dwell at the edge of a village." And by this person, the door was opened for others as well.

But if the Blessed One were to accept Devadatta's proposal, for that person who is naturally weak and of little strength, and also for one who, having managed forest-dwelling in youth, is unable to manage it in old age or at a time when disturbance of the elements has arisen through wind, bile and so forth, but who, while dwelling at the edge of a village, is able to make an end of suffering - for them there would be an obstruction of the noble path, there would be no attainment of the fruit of arahantship, the Teacher's dispensation would be contrary to the Dhamma, contrary to the Vinaya, adverse, and not leading to liberation, and the Teacher would be one of incomplete knowledge regarding them, and would be blameworthy as "having abandoned his own doctrine, he has established himself in Devadatta's doctrine." Therefore the Blessed One, encompassing such persons, rejected Devadatta's proposal. By this same method, the determination should be understood in the case of the almsfood-eater, in the case of the rag-robe wearer, and in the case of the tree-root dweller for eight months. But for four months, the tree-root dwelling is simply rejected.

In the case of fish and meat, "pure in three respects" means purified by three points, meaning free from the impurities of being seen and so forth. Therefore he said - "Not seen, not heard, not suspected." Therein, "not seen" means not having seen game and fish being killed and taken for the sake of monks. "Not heard" means not having heard that game and fish were killed and taken for the sake of monks. "Not suspected," however, should be understood from the opposite of what is suspected through seeing, suspected through hearing, and suspected free from both of those. How? Here monks see people going out from a village or wandering in the forest with nets, snares and so forth in their hands, and on the following day, when they have entered that village for alms, they offer them almsfood containing fish and meat. They suspect on account of what was seen: "Was this perhaps done for the sake of monks?" This is called "suspected through seeing"; it is not proper to accept this. What is thus unsuspected, that is proper. But if those people, having asked "Why, venerable sir, do you not accept?" and having heard the reason, say "This, venerable sir, was not done for the sake of monks; it was done by us for our own sake or for the sake of those in the king's service and so forth," then it is allowable.

The monks indeed do not see; but they hear, "People with nets, traps, and so forth in hand are reportedly going out from the village or wandering in the forest." And on the second day, when they have entered that village for almsfood, they suspect "Was this perhaps done for the sake of monks?" - this is called "suspected through hearing." On the second day, when they have entered that village for almsfood, the suspicion "Was this perhaps done for the sake of monks?" - this is called "suspected through hearing." It is not proper to accept this; that which is thus unsuspected, that is proper. But if those people, having asked "Why, venerable sir, do you not accept?" and having heard the reason, say "This, venerable sir, was not done for the sake of monks; it was done by us for our own sake or for the sake of those in the king's service and others," it is allowable.

The monks indeed neither see nor hear; but when they have entered the village for almsfood, people take their bowls and, having prepared almsfood with fish and meat, offer it to them. They suspect "Was this perhaps done for the sake of monks?" - this is called "suspected through freedom from both." It is not proper to accept this. What is thus unsuspected, that is proper. But if those people, having asked "Why, venerable sir, do you not accept?" and having heard the reason, say "This, venerable sir, was not done for the sake of monks; it was done by us for our own sake or for the sake of those in the king's service and others, or having obtained only allowable meat that was already available, it was prepared for the sake of monks," it is allowable. Even when done for the purpose of funeral rites for the dead or for the purpose of blessings and so on, the same method applies. For whatever is not done solely for the sake of monks, and regarding which one is without doubt, all that is allowable.

But if in one monastery it has been done specifically for monks, and they do not know the fact of its having been done for their own benefit, but others know. For those who know, it is not proper; for the others, it is proper. The others do not know, but those very ones know; for those very ones it is not proper, for the others it is proper. They too know "It was done for our sake," and the others too know "It was done for their sake" - for all it is not proper. All do not know - for all it is proper. For among the five co-residents, when it has been done designating any one of them, it is not allowable for all.

But if someone, having killed a living being designating one monk, fills his bowl and gives it, and he, knowing that it was done for his sake, takes it and gives it to another monk, and that one consumes it in good faith, for whom is there an offence? There is no offence for either of the two. For the one for whom it was done by designation, there is no offence because he did not eat it; for the other, because he did not know. For indeed there is no offence in accepting allowable meat. And for one who, not knowing it was done by designation, ate it and later came to know, there is no duty of confessing an offence; but for one who, not knowing it was unallowable meat, ate it and later came to know, the offence should be confessed. For an offence arises only for one who eats knowing it was done by designation. Even for one who eats unallowable meat without knowing, there is indeed an offence. Therefore, one who fears offences, even while examining the appearance, should accept meat only after asking. Or, having taken it thinking "I shall ask at the time of consumption and then consume it," one should consume it only after asking. Why? Because of the difficulty of cognizing. For bear meat is similar to pork, and leopard meat and so forth are similar to deer meat and so forth; therefore they say that one should accept it only after asking.

"Glad and elated" means having become pleased and with uplifted body and mind. It is said that he, having shown a gesture to Kokālika indicating "The Blessed One does not allow these five cases; now I shall be able to create a schism in the Community," just as a man wishing to die by eating poison, or by hanging himself with a rope, or by taking up a weapon, having obtained one of these such as poison, not knowing the suffering of death that is near on account of that, is glad and elated; just so, not knowing the suffering to be experienced after being reborn in Avīci on account of the schism in the Community that was near, thinking "Now I have found the means for schism in the Community," glad and elated, together with his retinue, rising from his seat, with that very gladness, having paid homage to the Blessed One, having circumambulated him, he departed.

"We shall live having undertaken these five cases" - here, although it should have been said "these five cases," because of the force of his constant preoccupation with "we shall convince people with these five cases," without noticing the grammatical irregularity due to constant preoccupation, he said "we with these five cases" in accordance with his constant preoccupation, as one whose mind was distracted.

"Austere, living in detachment" - the practice that shakes off the defilements, because of being endowed with that, they are austere. And that which pares away the defilements, that is their way of living, thus they are living in detachment.

"Given to luxurious living" - the abundance of requisites such as robes is luxury; that luxury exists for him, or he is engaged and established in that luxury, thus he is given to luxurious living. "He intends for luxurious living" means he intends, plans, and arranges for abundance. The meaning is: he has fallen into eagerness thinking "How indeed could there be abundance of requisites such as robes for both me and my disciples." "For breaking of the concord" means for breaking of the authority.

"Having given a talk on Dhamma" means according to the method stated in the Khandhaka: "Enough, Devadatta, do not let schism in the Community please you. Schism in the Community is grave, Devadatta. Whoever, Devadatta, splits a united Community, produces a demerit lasting for an aeon, is tormented in hell for an aeon; but whoever, Devadatta, reunites a divided Community, produces the highest merit, rejoices in heaven for an aeon" - having given such a manifold talk on Dhamma, suitable and appropriate, to Devadatta and the monks.

411. "Of a united" means of one that is harmonious, not separated in mind and body - this is the meaning. For this very meaning has been shown in the word-analysis as well. For by saying "of the same communion," non-separation in mind has been shown. By saying "standing within the same boundary," in body. How? For one of the same communion, being free from one of different communion by views or one of different communion by act, is not separated in mind due to equality of mind. One standing within the same boundary is not separated in body due to the giving of bodily unity.

"A legal case conducive to schism" means a cause conducive to the purpose of schism, that is, the splitting of the Community. For in this context, "legal case" (adhikaraṇa) is intended as "cause," just as in such passages as "on account of desire, with desire as origin, with desire as cause" and so forth. And since that is of eighteen kinds, therefore in the word-analysis it is said "eighteen grounds for creating schism." These, however, have come in the Khandhaka by the method beginning with "Here, Upāli, a monk represents what is not Dhamma as Dhamma," therefore we shall explain their meaning in that very place. And also that schism of the Community occurs based on these grounds by five causes - namely, by act, by recitation, by declaration, by proclamation, and by taking of voting tickets - that too we shall make clear in the very place where it occurs. In brief, however, "taking up a legal case conducive to schism" - here the meaning should be understood thus: having taken up a cause conducive to the purpose of schism of the Community, capable of accomplishing the schism of the Community. "Holding forth" means having held up, raised up, and made manifest. "Should persist" means should remain keeping it just as undertaken and just as held forth. But since by one who thus holds forth and persists, that is both displayed and not relinquished, therefore in the word-analysis it is said "should display" and "should not relinquish."

"Should be addressed thus by the monks" means he should be thus spoken to by other conscientious monks. And in the word-analysis, "those who see" means those who see him face to face holding forth and persisting. "Those who hear" means also those who hear "In such and such a monastery, monks are persisting in taking up and holding forth a legal case conducive to schism."

"Let the venerable one be united with the Community" means let the venerable one come together with the Community, let him assemble together, let him be of one view - this is the meaning. Why? For a united Community, being joyful, without contention, with common recitation, dwells comfortably.

Therein, "being joyful" means rejoicing with one another through the attainment of the Teacher. "Without contention" means not disputing thus: "This is Dhamma, this is not Dhamma." "With common recitation" (ekuddeso) means there is one recitation, the Pātimokkha recitation carried out together, not separately - this is the meaning. "Dwells comfortably" means dwells happily.

"This is wholesome" means this relinquishment is wholesome, safe, a state of well-being for that monk. "If he does not relinquish, there is an offence of wrong-doing" means an offence of wrong-doing for one who does not relinquish after being told three times. "Those who, having heard, do not speak, there is an offence of wrong-doing" means for those who, having heard, do not speak, there is also an offence of wrong-doing. At what distance is there an offence of wrong-doing for those who, having heard, do not speak? Within one monastery, there is nothing to be said about it. But in the Commentary it is said: "Within half a yojana all around, it is the responsibility of the monks. There is no freedom from offence even for one who speaks by sending a messenger or a letter. One should go oneself and restrain him saying: 'Schism of the Community is serious, friend. Do not strive for schism of the Community.'" But one who is able should go even far, for it is indeed the responsibility of those who are not ill even at a distance.

Now, in order to show only the meaning in the passage beginning with "And if that monk, when spoken to thus by the monks," he stated the passage beginning with "that monk should be spoken to even by dragging him into the midst of the Community." Therein, "even by dragging him into the midst of the Community" means: if, when spoken to in the former manner, he does not relinquish it, even by seizing him by the hands and feet and dragging him into the midst of the Community, he should again be spoken to three times in the manner beginning with "Let not the venerable one."

"Should be admonished up to the third time" means: he should be admonished up to the third admonition. It is stated that the formal act should be performed with three formal act statements of admonition. However, in the word-analysis, taking only the meaning, in order to show the procedure of admonition, the passage beginning with "that monk should be admonished. And thus, monks, he should be admonished" etc. was stated.

414. Therein, "at the motion there is a wrong-doing, at the two proclamations the grave offences are revoked" means: both the wrong-doing committed at the conclusion of the motion, and the grave offences at the two proclamations - those three offences too are revoked by the third proclamation merely upon reaching the syllable "yya" in the phrase "let him who does not consent speak," and only the offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community remains. But do offences already committed become revoked, or those not yet committed? The Elder Mahāsuma states: "One who will relinquish at the conclusion does not commit those offences; therefore, offences not yet committed are revoked." The Elder Mahāpaduma, however, said: "Just as offences not shared in common are revoked through change of sex-characteristic, so too offences already committed are revoked; what need is there of revocation for those not yet committed?"

415. "If it is a legally valid act, perceiving it as a legally valid act" means: if that act of admonition is a legally valid act, "perceiving it as a legally valid act" in regard to that - this is the meaning. This same method applies everywhere. Here, perception does not protect; precisely because the act is legally valid, one who does not relinquish commits an offence.

416. "For one who is not admonished" means there is no offence of saṅghādisesa for one who is not being admonished, even if he does not relinquish.

"For one who gives up" means there is no offence of saṅghādisesa for one who gives up before the motion, or at the moment of the motion, or at the conclusion of the motion, or at the first proclamation, or at the second, or at the third, so long as the final syllable "-yya" has not been reached.

For the first offender. Here, however, because it is stated in the Parivāra "Devadatta strove for the schism of a united Saṅgha, in that matter," Devadatta is the first offender. And that was only for striving for schism of the Saṅgha, not for not relinquishing. For that formal act was not carried out against him. If one asks, how is this to be known? From the text. For just as it is understood that the formal act was carried out against Ariṭṭha because it is stated in the Parivāra "The monk Ariṭṭha, formerly a vulture-trainer, did not relinquish after being admonished up to three times, in that matter," it is not so in the case of Devadatta. Even if someone were to say merely according to his own preference that the formal act must have been carried out against him, even so there is no such thing as non-offence for the first offender in the case of not relinquishing. For there is no such thing as non-offence seen for one who transgresses an enacted training rule, except for what has been specifically permitted. Whatever has been written in the manuscripts as "for the first offender" in the non-offence clause of Ariṭṭha's training rule, that was written through carelessness. And that it was written through carelessness should be understood from the statement concerning the imposition of the offence in the Kammakkhandhaka thus: "First the monk Ariṭṭha should be charged, having charged him he should be reminded, having reminded him the offence should be imposed upon him."

Thus, since that formal act was not carried out against Devadatta, the first offender, in the case of striving for schism, therefore no offence at all arose for him. However, because the training rule was enacted on account of him, he is called "the first offender." Thus non-offence is stated for him precisely because of the absence of an offence. Although this non-offence is already established by the phrase "for one who is not admonished," the term "one who is not admonished" refers to one against whom they simply do not carry out the admonition, not to the first offender. And this Devadatta is indeed the first offender, therefore "for the first offender" is stated. By this method, the determination in all admonitions should be understood, except for Ariṭṭha's training rule. The remainder is clear everywhere.

Among the origins and so forth, it is three-factored, of one origin, and this is called the admonition-origin; it arises from body, speech, and mind. However, because the offence is incurred by one who does not make any bodily gesture or verbal expression saying "I relinquish," it is non-activity, released by perception, with consciousness, a worldly fault, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome consciousness, and painful feeling.

The Commentary on the First Training Rule concerning Schism of the Saṅgha is finished.

11.

Commentary on the Second Training Rule on Schism of the Saṅgha

417-418. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the second training rule on schism in the Community. Therein, "followers" means those who follow along by adopting his views, acceptance, and approval. "Partisans" means those who speak words siding with discord, that is, factious speech. In the word-analysis, however, it is stated "they stand for his praise and for his faction." The meaning is: they stand for the purpose of praising him who is striving for schism in the Community and for the purpose of increasing his faction. For those who are partisans are invariably of this nature; therefore it is stated thus. But since those numbering more than three are not eligible for the formal act - for the Community does not perform a formal act against the Community - therefore it is stated "one or two or three."

"He knows us" means he knows our desires and so forth. "He speaks" means he speaks together with us saying "let us do thus." "This is agreeable to us too" means what he does, that is pleasing to us as well.

"Let the venerable ones' minds be reconciled with the Community" means: let the venerable ones' minds come together, meet with the Community, become unified - this is what is stated. The remainder here is evident by reason of having been stated in the method of the first training rule and by reason of its meaning being clear.

The origin and so forth are also similar to those of the first training rule.

The Commentary on the Second Training Rule concerning Schism of the Saṅgha is finished.

12.

Commentary on the Training Rule on Being Difficult to Admonish

424. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the training rule on being difficult to speak to. Therein, "was engaging in misconduct" means he was committing manifold transgressions through the doors of body and speech. "What indeed" - this is a word of disparagement. "I indeed" - this is a word of self-exaltation. "I should speak to you" shows that "do this, do not do this" - I am worthy to speak thus to you. If one asks why? Because he spoke referring to such matters as "the Blessed One, the Buddha, having mounted Kaṇṭhaka, went forth together with me and became a renunciant." Having said "the Teaching is ours," then showing the justification for its being his own possession, he said "the Teaching was fully realised by our master's son." Because the Teaching of the Four Truths was penetrated by our master's son, therefore the Teaching too is ours - this is what is meant. However, considering the Saṅgha as standing on the side of his enemies, he does not say "the Saṅgha is ours." But having stated a simile, wishing to disparage the Saṅgha, he said "just as" and so forth. "Grass, sticks, and fallen leaves" means grass, sticks, and leaves fallen here and there. Alternatively, grass and worthless, light sticks are "grass and sticks." "Fallen leaves" means old leaves. "Might heap together" means might make into a pile.

"Mountain" means originating from a mountain; for such a river has a swift current, therefore he takes that very one. "Shells, moss, and water plants" - herein, "shells" refers to the long-rooted leaf-moss. "Moss" means blue-green moss; the remainder - water-scum, sesame seeds, and so forth - all come under the designation of "water plants." "Heaped together" shows that they have been gathered together and made into a pile in one place by whatever means.

425-426. "Difficult to admonish by nature" means one whose nature is difficult to admonish, meaning one who cannot be spoken to. In the word-analysis too, "difficult to admonish" means one who must be spoken to with difficulty and hardship; it is not possible to speak to him with ease - this is the meaning. "With qualities that make one difficult to admonish" means with those that produce the state of being difficult to admonish; endowed with those qualities that make a person difficult to admonish - this is the meaning. Those, however, are set out in sequence in the Anumāna Sutta by the method beginning with "And what, friends, are the qualities that make one difficult to admonish? Here, friends, a monk has evil wishes" - having evil wishes, self-exaltation and disparagement of others, being prone to anger, bearing grudges on account of anger, being resentful on account of anger, uttering words bordering on anger on account of anger, opposing the accuser, disparaging the accuser, counter-charging the accuser, evading the issue with another issue, not explaining one's conduct, being contemptuous and domineering, being envious and miserly, being deceitful and fraudulent, being obstinate and arrogant, and adhering to one's own views, grasping firmly and being difficult to make relinquish - these nineteen qualities should be understood.

One who does not endure admonition, who does not accept it, is "impatient." Because of not practising as instructed, one who does not receive instruction in the proper manner is "one who does not receive instruction properly."

"Included in the recitation" means included in, comprised within, the recitation. Because they are comprised thus: "Whoever should have an offence, let him reveal it" - the meaning is: occurring within the Pātimokkha. "Being spoken to legitimately" means being spoken to by means of what is legitimate - this is an instrumental used in the sense of means; because one must train in the five legitimate matters, or because they belong to those, the meaning is: being spoken to by means of a training rule laid down by the Buddha, which has received the designation "legitimate."

"Refrain, venerable ones, from speaking to me" means: refrain from that speech of mine by which you speak to me. What is said is: "Do not speak those words to me."

"Let him speak with reason" means: let him speak by means of a legitimate training rule, or with reason, or even with any other speech conducive to a state of confidence. "That is to say" is a particle used in the sense of indicating the cause of growth. By that, the cause of the growth of the assembly is shown thus: "This mutual speech of benefit to one another and the raising up from offences - by that mutual speaking and mutual raising up, the assembly has grown." The remainder is clear everywhere.

The origin and other factors are similar to those of the first schism.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Difficult to Admonish is finished.

13.

Commentary on the Training Rule on Corrupting Families

431. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the training rule concerning the corruption of families. Therein, "named Assaji and Punabbasuka" means Assaji and Punabbasuka. "At Kīṭāgiri" means in the country district so named. "Were resident" - here, "resident" means those who have a residence. "Residence" refers to a monastery. Those upon whom it is dependent by way of bearing the burden of carrying out new construction, restoring old buildings, and so forth - they are "resident monks." But those who merely dwell in a monastery are called "nevāsikā" (mere dwellers). These were resident monks. "Shameless, evil monks" means monks without shame, inferior monks; for they were the senior group of six among the group of six.

It is said that in Sāvatthī, six companions said: "Farming and such work are difficult; come, friends, let us go forth! And when a matter arises for those going forth, it is proper to go forth at a place where one can get through it," and having consulted thus, they went forth in the presence of the two chief disciples. Having become five years in seniority and having mastered the mātikā, they consulted: "A country district is sometimes prosperous and sometimes in famine; let us not dwell in one place, let us dwell in three places." Then they said to Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka: "Friends, Sāvatthī is inhabited by five million seven hundred thousand families, and is the gateway to the two kingdoms of Kāsi and Kosala, each three hundred leagues in extent and adorned with eighty thousand villages. There, having built residences in a strategic location, having planted mangoes, jackfruits, coconuts, and the like, winning over families with flowers and fruits, having ordained the young men of families, increase your following."

They said to Mettiya and Bhūmajaka: "Friends, Rājagaha is inhabited by one hundred and eighty million people and is the gateway to the two kingdoms of Aṅga and Magadha, each three hundred leagues in extent and adorned with eighty thousand villages. There, in a strategic location, you should etc. increase your following."

They said to Assaji and Punabbasuka: "Friends, Kīṭāgiri, being supported by two rains, produces three harvests. There, having built residences in a strategic location etc. increase your following." They did so. Among them, each faction had five hundred monks as a retinue; thus there were somewhat more than one thousand five hundred monks. Therein, Paṇḍuka and Lohitaka with their retinue were virtuous and even wandered on tour of the country districts with the Blessed One; they created cases without precedent but did not transgress the training rules that had been laid down. All the others, however, were shameless; they both created cases without precedent and transgressed the training rules that had been laid down. Therefore it is said: "Shameless, evil monks."

"Such" means of such a kind. "Engaged in misconduct" means they practised what should not be practised, they did what should not be done. "Flower shrubs" means young flowering trees; for young flowering trees as well as flowering bushes are all called "flower shrubs." And they planted flower shrubs of many kinds themselves and also had others plant them. Therefore it is said: "They planted and had others plant flower shrubs." "They watered" means they themselves watered with water. "They had others water" means they had others water as well.

Here, however, five things should be known: improper conduct, proper conduct, indirect expression, hint, and making a sign. Therein, improper conduct means: cutting and having others cut fresh green plants, digging and having others dig a pit, planting and having others plant a flower shrub, binding and having others bind an embankment, watering and having others water, straightening a channel, pouring allowable water, and pouring water for washing hands, face, feet, and bathing. Proper conduct means: the statement "attend to this tree, attend to this pit, attend to this flower shrub, attend to the water here," and straightening a dry channel. Indirect expression means: a statement such as "a wise person should have flower shrubs and the like planted; before long they serve a useful purpose." Hint means: standing while holding hoes, spades, and the like together with flower shrubs; for having seen one standing thus, novices and others, thinking "the elder wishes to have it done," go and do it. Making a sign means: bringing hoes, spades, adzes, axes, and water vessels and placing them nearby.

All five of these are not allowable for planting for the purpose of winning over families; for the purpose of enjoying the fruit, only the two - proper and improper conduct - are not allowable, the other three are allowable. However, in the Mahāpaccarī it is said: "Proper conduct is also allowable. And whatever is allowable for one's own enjoyment is also allowable for the purpose of another individual, or the Saṅgha, or a shrine."

However, for the purpose of a park, for the purpose of a grove, and for the purpose of shade, only improper conduct is not allowable, the rest is allowable; and not only the rest - it is also allowable to straighten any channel whatsoever, to pour allowable water, to make a bathing room and bathe, and to discard hand-washing, foot-washing, and face-washing water there. However, in the Mahāpaccarī and the Kurundī it is said: "It is also allowable to plant oneself on allowable ground." And it is also allowable to enjoy the fruit of what has been planted or had planted for the purpose of a park and the like.

In picking and having others pick, there is a pācittiya offence even ordinarily. But for the purpose of corrupting families, there is both a pācittiya and a dukkaṭa offence. And in stringing and the like, ending with breast-coverings, for one doing it for the purpose of corrupting families or for any other purpose, there is only a dukkaṭa offence. Why? Because it is misconduct, and because of the evil conduct stated here as "of evil conduct." If one asks: just as in planting trees for the purpose of a park and the like, why is there no offence for the purpose of honouring a sacred object? There is indeed no offence. For just as there is no offence there through proper conduct and indirect expression and the like, so too for the purpose of honouring a sacred object there is indeed no offence.

But was it not said there: "It is also allowable to plant oneself on allowable ground"? It was said, but not in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. And yet you might think that what is said in the other commentaries is also authoritative. And in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā the pouring of allowable water is stated - how about that? That too is not contradictory. For therein, when it could have been said without distinction "they plant and have others plant trees, they water and have others water," by saying "flower shrub" he indicates: "this was said referring only to what yields flowers and fruits, for the purpose of winning over families, but elsewhere there is an indirect expression." Therefore, knowing the indirect expression there and the absence of indirect expression here, whatever is said in the commentaries is well said indeed. And this was said -

"The Dhamma and Vinaya were declared by the Buddha;

Which was known in the same way by his sons;

Because those who, not abandoning their understanding,

Made commentaries in ancient times.

"Therefore, whatever is stated in the commentaries,

Setting aside errors of carelessness,

All of it, for those who are respectful towards the training rules,

Is authoritative here for the wise."

Everything should be understood in the manner already stated. Therein, one might ask: if there is an offence in stringing etc. even for the purpose of venerating a shrine, why is there no offence in carrying etc.? Because carrying is for the sake of women of good families etc., in the section on carrying, it is specified by stating "for those women of good families" etc.; therefore, there is no offence for one carrying for the sake of the Buddha etc.

Therein, "single-stalked" means a garland made by gathering the stalks of flowers together on one side. "Double-stalked" means a garland made by arranging the flower stalks on both sides. As for "flower-bunch" and so forth, a flower arrangement made like a cluster is called a flower-bunch. "Pierced garland" means one made by piercing sinduvāra flowers and the like with a needle or a pin. "Wreath" means a head-ornament. "Ear-ornament" means an ear-decoration. "Breast-covering" means a flower garland resembling a necklace, placed upon the chest. This, for now, is the word commentary herein.

Now this is the detailed determination of offences from the beginning. For one planting a flower shrub on unallowable ground for the purpose of corrupting families, there is both a pācittiya and a dukkaṭa offence; likewise for one having others plant by means of unallowable speech. For planting or having others plant on allowable ground, there is only a dukkaṭa offence. In both cases, with a single command, even when many are planted, there is only one dukkaṭa with pācittiya or a pure dukkaṭa. For the purpose of personal use, there is no offence in having others plant by means of allowable speech, whether on allowable or unallowable ground. Even for the purpose of a monastery etc., for one planting on unallowable ground or having others plant by means of unallowable speech, there is a pācittiya offence. However, this method is not well analysed in the Great Commentary, but is analysed in the Mahāpaccarī.

As for watering and having others water, with unallowable water there is a pācittiya offence in all cases, and also a dukkaṭa offence when for the purpose of corrupting families or for personal use. With allowable water, for those same two purposes, there is a dukkaṭa offence. For the purpose of personal use, there is no offence herein when having others water by means of allowable speech. However, at the point of offence, the multiplicity of offences should be understood according to the multiplicity of efforts by way of the breaking of the stream.

For picking for the purpose of corrupting families, there are dukkaṭa and pācittiya offences according to the count of flowers; elsewhere, there are only pācittiya offences. However, when picking many flowers with a single effort, one should be dealt with according to the effort. In having others pick, for the purpose of corrupting families, when commanded once, even if one picks many, there is only one dukkaṭa with pācittiya; elsewhere, there is only a pācittiya offence.

Regarding stringing and so forth, all six types of flower arrangements should be understood - the knotted, the woven, the pierced, the wrapped, the filled, and the plaited. Therein, "the knotted" should be seen in flowers with stems, such as blue lotuses, red lotuses, and others with long stalks. For the knotted is indeed made by tying stem to stem or stalk to stalk. It is not allowable for a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī either to make it or to have it made using improper speech. However, it is allowable to have it made using proper speech such as "Know this, it would look beautiful if done thus, do it in such a way that these flowers do not scatter."

"The woven" means the weaving of jasmine flowers and the like with thread or bark fibre and so forth in the manner of single-stalked and double-stalked garlands; or doubling bark fibre or cord and inserting stalkless flowers such as nīpa flowers and the like therein, binding them in sequence - this too is indeed woven. All of it is not allowable in the same manner as before.

"The pierced" means flowers with stalks such as jasmine flowers and the like are strung through their stalks, or stalkless flowers such as vakula flowers and the like are pierced through their inner holes with needles, palm-leaf ribs, and the like, and strung together - this is called the pierced; that too is not allowable in the same manner as before. Some, however, insert thorns or palm-leaf ribs and the like into a plantain trunk and pierce flowers thereon and place them; some on thorny branches; some insert thorns into canopies and walls and place them there for the purpose of making flower-parasols and flower-pavilions; some on thorns tied to the canopy of the Dhamma seat; some pierce kaṇikāra flowers and the like with sticks and make them like parasol upon parasol - that is extremely coarse indeed. However, it is not allowable to tie even a thorn to the canopy of the Dhamma seat for the purpose of piercing flowers, or to pierce even a single flower with thorns and the like, or to insert a flower into a flower. But there is no fault in inserting flowers into the holes of net-canopies, railings, wall-pegs, flower-receptacles, palm-leaf balls, and the like, or in the spaces between asoka flower-clusters. This is not called the pierced. The same method applies also to the Dhamma-cord.

"The wrapped" should be seen in flower garlands and flower bouquets. For some, when making a crown garland, wrap flowers around the lower part to show a pot-like shape; some tie eight or ten blue lotus flowers and the like with thread or bark fibre to sticks and make blue lotus bouquets or red lotus bouquets - all of that is not allowable in the same manner as before. It is not allowable to tie into a bundle with the robe blue lotuses and the like that have been plucked by novices and placed on dry ground. However, it is allowable to tie those very same with bark fibre or a stick, or to make a shoulder-bundle. A shoulder-bundle means bringing together both ends of the robe placed on the shoulder, making a bundle, and placing flowers therein as if in a bag - this is called a shoulder-bundle; it is allowable to make this. They pierce lotus leaves with sticks and wrap blue lotuses and the like with the leaf and take them; in that case too, it is allowable to tie only a lotus leaf over the flowers. However, it is not allowable to tie a stick underneath.

"The filled" should be seen in garland strings and flower-cloths. For whoever, while encircling a cetiya, a Bodhi tree, or a railing with a garland string, brings it back and passes the filling point - even to that extent it is called the filled. What need to speak of one who encircles many times; passing through the spaces of wall-pegs and carrying it, making a hanging loop and encircling the wall-peg again - this too is called the filled. However, it is allowable to insert a flower ring onto a wall-peg. They make flower-cloths with garland strings. In that case too, it is allowable to carry only a single garland string. When one brings it back again, it becomes the filled itself; all of that is not allowable in the same manner as before. However, having obtained a flower garland made with even many garland strings, it is allowable to tie it at the top of a seat and such places. However, it is allowable, having carried or encircled an excessively long garland string once, to give it to another bhikkhu. It is allowable for him too to do likewise.

"Woven" should be understood in relation to flower-nets, flower-cloths, and flower-figures. For one making a flower-net at shrines, there is an offence of wrong-doing for each mesh-opening of the net. The same method applies also to walls, parasols, Bodhi-tree pillars, and so forth. However, a flower-cloth, even if filled by others, may not be woven. They make figures of elephants, horses, and so forth with tied flowers alone, and these too fall under the category of woven. In the same manner as before, all of it is not allowable. However, for one placing flowers in an outline made by others, it is allowable to make even figures of elephants, horses, and so forth. In the Mahāpaccarī, however, eight types of flower-arrangements are stated, together with the festoon and the half-moon. Therein, "festoon" is stated as a hanging garland-strand in the space between half-moons. "Half-moon" is the encircling of a garland-strand in the shape of a half-moon. Both of these are included under the category of "filled" itself. In the Kurundī, however, it is stated: "Making a flower-garland by combining two or three garland-strands together is also woven itself." That too is included here under the category of "filled" itself. And not only flower-ball garlands, but also flour-made garlands and ball-flower garlands are stated in the Kurundī; and rough-leaf garlands too, because the training rule is common to both, are not allowable for either monks or nuns to make or to have made. However, for the purpose of worship, it is allowable everywhere to use permissible speech. Indirect suggestion, intimation, and hinting are indeed allowable.

"They shared" means they lay down. "They performed" means rising up as if floating with delight, they perform a lively dance, they give a display. "They danced while she danced" means when the dancing woman dances, then they too, going in front of or behind her, dance. "They sang while she danced" means when she dances, then they sing in accordance with the dance. This same method applies everywhere. "They played with eight-row boards" means they play a board game on an eight-row board. Likewise with ten-row boards; "in space" means they play in space itself, just as with eight-row and ten-row boards. "On circular paths" means having made various circular path designs on the ground, they play by navigating the path that must be navigated there. "They played santikā" means they play the santikā game; pieces or stone pebbles placed together, without moving them, they remove and bring near with the fingernail alone; if any one of them moves, there is defeat. "Khalikā" means they play with dice on a gambling board. "Ghaṭikā" means ghaṭikā is called the stick-game; they play with that. They go about striking a short stick with a long stick.

"With hand-sticks" means having dipped a hand-stick in lac, or in red dye, or in flour-water, saying "what shall it be?" they strike it on the ground or on a wall and play by showing figures of elephants, horses, and so forth. "With dice" means with a ball. "With leaf-pipes" means paṅgacīra is called a leaf-tube; they play by blowing into it. "With toy ploughs" means with a small plough, a plaything for village boys. "With somersaults" means mokkhacikā is called the tumbling game; the meaning is that they play by turning upside down, either grasping a bar in the air or placing the head on the ground. "With windmills" means a windmill is called a revolving wheel made from palm leaves and the like, which spins by the force of the wind; they play with that. "With toy measures" means toy measures is called a leaf-tube; with it they play by measuring sand and the like. "With toy chariots" means with a small chariot. "With toy bows" means with a small bow.

"At guessing letters" means guessing letters is called the game of guessing letters written in the air or on the back; they play with that. "At guessing thoughts" means guessing thoughts is called the game of guessing what has been thought in the mind; they play with that. "They played at mimicking defects" means: yathāvajja is called the game of displaying by imitating whatever defects of the one-eyed, the crippled, the lame, and so forth; they play that game, like jesters. "They trained in elephants" means: whatever skill pertaining to elephants is to be trained in, that they train in. The same method applies to horses and so forth. "They ran" means: they run going with their backs turned. "They ran back" means: however far they run, that same distance they run back again coming face to face. "They wrestled" means: they engage in wrestling. "They gave forehead-taps" means: saying "Well done, well done, sister," they place a finger on their own forehead and then place it on her forehead. "They engaged in various misconduct" means: they engage in various other misconduct not mentioned in the text, such as mouth-drumming and the like.

432. "With pleasing" means bringing about confidence, befitting and suitable for a recluse. "With going forward" means by going. "With going back" means by turning back. "With looking ahead" means by looking in front. "With looking around" means by looking here and there. "With bending" means by the contraction of the limbs. "With stretching" means by the extending of those very same limbs. In all cases the instrumental case is used in the sense of a predicate of manner; because of being fashioned by mindfulness and clear comprehension, what is stated is that he was one whose going forward, going back, looking ahead, looking around, bending and stretching were pleasing. "With eyes downcast" means with eyes cast downward. "Accomplished in deportment" means one whose deportment is accomplished through that pleasing manner of going forward and so on.

"Where is this one" means who is this one. "Like a weakling" - a weak person is called a simpleton, and this reduplication is in the sense of excess, therefore what is stated is "like an utter simpleton." "Like a dullard" means excessively dull due to the unagitated nature of his going forward and so on. "Excessively refined" - thus they show a virtue itself as a fault. "Like one who frowns and frowns" - because of his having downcast eyes, thinking that he goes about with a frown, with a contracted face, as if angry, they say this. "Smooth" means skilful, adept at bringing lay people to the appropriate place by addressing them as "mother, father, sister" - not like this one; thus the intended meaning is "like a weakling." "Kindly in speech" means endowed with kindliness. "Pleasant to converse with" - this is a statement of the reason for the former. For those whose pleasant conversation, friendly talk, is faultless and agreeable to the ear, they are called "kindly in speech." Therefore they said - "kindly in speech, pleasant to converse with." Now here this is the intention - our noble ones, having seen lay followers, speak sweet friendly talk, therefore they are kindly in speech and pleasant to converse with, not like this one; thus "like dullards." "Preceded by a smile" - a smile is the forerunner of their speech, thus they are "preceded by a smile"; the meaning is that they first smile and then speak. "Saying 'come, welcome'" means those who, having seen a lay follower, speak thus "come, welcome to you" - not like this one; thus, having shown the absence of frowning by implication through the quality of being preceded by a smile and so on, in contrast to the appearance of frowning due to having a contracted face, showing it again in its own form as well, they said - "without frowning, with open faces, speaking first." Or it should be understood that this is a showing of the absence of all three aspects in reverse order. How? Here, by "without frowning" the absence of the frowning aspect is shown. By "with open faces" the absence of the dullard aspect is shown, for those who have open faces by looking with eyes wide open are not dullards. By "speaking first" the absence of the weakling aspect is shown, for those who, through skill in addressing, speak first saying "mother, father," they are not weaklings.

"Come, venerable sir, let us go to the house" - that lay follower, it seems, when it was said "No indeed, friend, almsfood has not been obtained," having said "This has been done by your monks themselves; even if you wander through the entire village you will not obtain any," wishing to give almsfood, said "Come, venerable sir, let us go to the house." But is this a prompted utterance or not? It is not. This is called a question asked, and it is proper to speak of it. Therefore, even now, if someone were to ask a monk who has entered among the houses in the morning or in the evening - "Why, venerable sir, are you walking about?" Having stated the purpose for which he is walking, when asked "Has it been obtained or not obtained?" if it has not been obtained, having said "It has not been obtained," it is proper to accept what that person gives.

"Corrupted" means not corrupted through the destruction of faith and the like, but corrupted on account of the persons. "Channels for gifts" means the gifts themselves are referred to. Alternatively, "channels for gifts" means what is said is gifts that are regularly established, regular practices of giving. "Cut off" means cut off by the donors; they do not give those now. "Are leaving" means they become separate, they become dispersed; what is said is that they depart. "Might become established" means it might stand properly, it might become a support for well-behaved monks.

"Yes, friend" - that monk accepted the message of the lay follower who had faith and was devoted. It seems it is proper to carry such a message as is allowable; therefore, one should not have scruples regarding such messages as "In my name pay respect at the Blessed One's feet," or "Pay respect to the shrine, the image, the Bodhi tree, the elder of the Community," or "Make an offering of incense at the shrine, make an offering of flowers," or "Assemble the monks, we will give a gift, we will listen to the Dhamma." These are allowable messages, not connected with the household affairs of laypeople. "And from where are you coming, monk?" - that monk, being seated, is not coming, but in meaning he has come; even so, the use of the present tense in proximity to the present is obtained; therefore there is no fault. At the conclusion, in the utterance "From there, Blessed One, I am coming" - here too the same method applies.

433. "First the monks Assaji and Punabbasuka should be accused" means that having obtained permission by saying "we wish to speak to you," they should be accused with the ground and the offence. Having accused, whatever they do not remember, they should be reminded of that. If they acknowledge both the ground and the offence, or if they acknowledge only the offence but not the ground, the offence should be charged. But if they acknowledge only the ground and not the offence; even so, the charge should be made thus: "In this ground, this is the offence named such." If they acknowledge neither the ground nor the offence, the offence should not be charged - this is the decision herein. But having charged the offence according to the acknowledgement; showing that the act of banishment should be performed thus, he said beginning with "an experienced monk," and that is clear in meaning.

A monk upon whom the act of banishment has thus been performed should not dwell in the monastery where he was dwelling or in the village where the act of corrupting families was committed. While dwelling in that monastery, he should not go for alms even in the neighbouring village. Even while dwelling in a neighbouring monastery, he should not go for alms in that village. However, when the Elder Upatissa was told by his pupils "Venerable sir, a city can be large, even twelve leagues in extent," he said "It is prohibited only in the street where the act of corrupting families was committed." Then when told "A street too can be large, even the extent of a city," he said "In the row of houses." When told "A row of houses too can be the extent of a street," he said "Seven houses on this side and that side are prohibited." But all of that is merely the Elder's personal opinion. Even if the monastery extends up to three leagues and the city up to twelve leagues, it is neither permissible to dwell in the monastery nor to go about in the city.

435. "They, having had the act of banishment performed on them by the Community" - how did the Community perform the act on them? It did not perform it by simply going and overwhelming them. Rather, having been invited by families, when communal meals were being prepared, the elders at each place explained the practice of a recluse, made the people understand "this one is a recluse, this one is not a recluse," sent one or two monks into the boundary, and by this very means performed the act of banishment on all of them. And for one who has had the act of banishment thus performed on him, the act should be revoked when he requests it after fulfilling the eighteen duties. And even for one whose act has been revoked, from those families where he previously committed the act of corrupting families, requisites should not be accepted from them; even by one who has attained the destruction of the taints they should not be accepted - they are simply not allowable. When asked "Why do you not accept?" and it is said "Because of what was previously done thus," if they say "We do not give for that reason; we now give on account of your virtuous conduct," then it should be accepted. The act of corrupting families is done precisely at the place of ordinary giving. From that, it is proper to accept only the ordinary offering; what they give having increased it, that is not proper.

"Do not behave properly" means those monks Assaji and Punabbasuka do not behave properly in the eighteen duties. "Are not subdued" means by not following the conforming practice, they are not of fallen hair, i.e. not subdued. "Do not make amends" means they do not follow the path of their own extrication. "Do not ask forgiveness of the monks" means they do not make the act of asking forgiveness of the monks thus: "Venerable sirs, a wrong-doing has been committed by us; we shall not do so again; please forgive us." "Revile" means they revile the Community that performed the act with the ten grounds of abuse. "Abuse" means they instil fear in them. "Acting through desire" etc. "Bring charges of acting through fear" means these are acting through desire and etc. acting through fear, and thus they bring charges of acting through desire and etc. acting through fear; the meaning is they charge, they accuse. "Depart" means among their retinue of five hundred recluses, some depart to other regions. "Leave the monastic community" means some become laypeople. "How indeed could the monks Assaji and Punabbasuka" - here, by virtue of the two leaders, all of them are called "Assaji and Punabbasuka."

436-437. In "a village or," here a city too is included by the term "village." Therefore in its word-analysis it is stated: "a village, a market town, or a city - both a village and a market town." Therein, a market town should be understood as one without a surrounding wall but having shops.

"He corrupts families" - thus he is a corrupter of families. And in corrupting, he does not corrupt with impure mud and the like, but rather he destroys their confidence through his own misconduct. Therefore in its word-analysis "with flowers or" and so forth is stated. Therein, whoever, having brought or having caused to be brought, having invited or having caused to be invited, or to those who have come of their own accord, gives any flowers belonging to himself for the purpose of winning over families, it is an offence of wrong-doing. If he gives what belongs to another, it is likewise an offence of wrong-doing. If he gives with a thieving intent, he should be made to pay the value of the goods. The same method applies also to what belongs to the Community. But there is this distinction: for one who gives by authority of ownership what has been designated for the purpose of lodgings, it is a grave offence.

To whom is it allowable to give flowers, and to whom is it not allowable? To mother and father, first of all, it is allowable to give by bringing, by having them brought, by inviting, or by having them invited; to other relatives, only by having them invited. And that is for the purpose of venerating objects of worship; but for the purpose of adornment or for the purpose of worshipping a Siva-liṅga and the like, it is not allowable to give to anyone. And when having flowers brought for mother and father, they should be brought only by novices who are relatives. But if the others themselves wish to do so, it is allowable. By an appointed flower-distributor, at the time of distribution, it is allowable to give a half share to novices who are present. In the Kurundī, a half share to lay people who are present. In the Mahāpaccarī it is stated: "It is allowable to give a small portion." By one who is not appointed, it should be given after obtaining permission.

Novices who are respectful towards their teachers and preceptors, having brought many flowers, make a heap and set them down; the elders give to co-residents and others or to lay devotees who arrive early in the morning, saying "You take this, you take this" - this is not called a gift of flowers. Even those who, having taken them saying "We shall make an offering at the shrine," go and make offerings, and give to those present here and there for the purpose of shrine-worship - this too is not called a gift of flowers. Having seen lay devotees making offerings with akka flowers and the like, it is also allowable to say: "There are kaṇikāra flowers and the like at the monastery; lay devotees, take those and make offerings." When monks, having made a flower-offering, enter the village earlier in the day, people ask: "Why, venerable sirs, have you entered so early?" They reply: "There were many flowers at the monastery; we made an offering." People, thinking "There are apparently many flowers at the monastery," on the following day take abundant hard and soft food, go to the monastery, make a flower-offering and give a gift - this is allowable. People, having requested a turn for flowers saying "We, venerable sir, shall make an offering on such and such a day," come on the permitted day, and the novices have already picked and set aside the flowers; those people, not seeing flowers on the trees, say "Where, venerable sir, are the flowers?" - "They have been picked and set aside by the novices; but you make your offering and go; the Community will make its offering on another day." They make the offering, give a gift, and go - this is allowable. But in the Mahāpaccarī and the Kurundī: "The elders are not permitted to have the novices give them. If they themselves give those flowers to them, it is allowable. But the elders should say only this much: 'They have been picked and set aside by the novices.'" But if, having requested a turn for flowers, when the flowers have not yet been picked, they come bringing congee, rice-food and the like, and say to the novices "Pick them and give them." It is allowable to pick and give only to novices who are relatives. Non-relatives they lift up and place on a tree branch; they should not climb down and run away; it is allowable to pick and give. But if any Dhamma-preacher says "There are many flowers at the monastery, lay devotees; take congee, rice-food and the like, go and make a flower-offering" - it is not allowable for him alone - thus it is stated in the Mahāpaccarī and the Kurundī. But in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā it is stated without distinction: "This is not allowable, it is not proper."

Fruit too, being one's own, is allowable to give to parents and other relatives in the manner already stated. However, for one giving for the purpose of ingratiating families, offences of wrong-doing and so forth should be understood in the manner already stated regarding what is one's own, what belongs to others, what belongs to the Community, and what has been designated for the purpose of lodgings. It is allowable to give only what is one's own to sick people, or to visiting persons of authority, or to those whose provisions are exhausted; this does not constitute the giving of fruit. Even by an appointed fruit-distributor, at the time of distributing the Community's fruit, it is allowable to give a half-share to people who have arrived. By one who is not appointed, it should be given after obtaining permission. Even in a monastery, an agreement should be made either by apportioning fruit or by apportioning trees. Then, to sick people or to others requesting fruit, four or five fruits should be given according to the apportionment. Or trees should be pointed out, saying "It is permissible to take from here." However, one should not say thus: "Here the fruits are fine, take from here."

Regarding "with powder" - herein, if one gives one's own siris-tree powder or any other astringent substance for the purpose of ingratiating families, it is an offence of wrong-doing. Regarding what belongs to others and so forth too, the judgement should be understood in the manner already stated. But this is the distinction - herein, even tree bark guarded and protected by the Community is heavy property indeed. Regarding clay, tooth-sticks, and bamboo too, knowing them to be accessory to heavy property, the judgement should be understood in the manner already stated for powder. However, the giving of leaves has not been mentioned here; that too should be understood in the manner already stated. Further on, in the judgement concerning heavy property, we shall explain everything in detail.

Regarding "or by medical practice" - herein, the procedure for medical practice should be understood in the manner already stated in the commentary on the third offence of defeat.

Regarding "by running errands on foot" - herein, "running errands on foot" refers to the act of carrying messages and communications for householders; this should not be done. For one who takes a message for householders and goes, there is an offence of wrong-doing at every step. For one who eats food obtained on account of that act too, there is an offence of wrong-doing with every mouthful. Even for one who did not initially accept a message but later, thinking "This is now that village, come, let me deliver that message," turns off the path, there is an offence of wrong-doing at every step. For one who eats food obtained after delivering the message, there is an offence of wrong-doing in the manner already stated. However, for one who has come without accepting a message, when asked "Venerable sir, what is the situation of so-and-so in that village?" it is allowable to tell; there is no fault in a question that is asked. However, it is allowable to carry messages for the five who are fellow Dhamma-followers, for parents, for one who is gravely ill, and for one's own attendant, and also permissible messages for householders of the kind previously stated. For this does not constitute the act of running errands on foot. However, requisites arising from these eight acts of corrupting families are not allowable even for the five fellow Dhamma-followers; they are just like requisites arising from false accusation and trading in money.

"Whose conduct is evil" means one of evil conduct. But since planting garland-creepers and the like are intended here, therefore the word-analysis was stated in the manner beginning with "they also plant garland-creepers." "Behind their backs" means in their absence. Regarding "and families corrupted by him" - herein, since "families" is merely a conventional expression, for in reality it is the people who are corrupted by him, therefore in the word-analysis it was said beginning with "having formerly been faithful." "Led by desire" means those who go by desire, thus they are led by desire. The same method applies in the remaining ones. Regarding "he should be admonished for the relinquishment of that" - herein, by the act of corrupting families there is merely an offence of wrong-doing. But that which he said, showing contempt for the Community, beginning with "led by desire." The meaning should be understood thus: the act of admonition should be performed for the relinquishment of that. The remainder is of manifest meaning everywhere.

The origin and other factors are similar to those of the first offence entailing initial and subsequent meetings of the Community concerning schism.

The Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Corrupter of Families is finished.

Commentary on the Conclusion

442. "The following have been recited" etc. In the passage "thus I remember it," herein "the offence is the first for these" means "become offences at once" (paṭhamāpattikā); the meaning is that the offence is to be committed at the very first moment of transgression. But the others, just as they occur on the third and fourth day, are called by the designation "third-time" and "fourth-time"; thus "up to the third time" (yāvatatiyakā) should be understood as meaning that they become offences at the third act of admonition.

"For as many days as he knowingly conceals" means for however many days he knowingly conceals it, he does not inform his fellow monks in the holy life, saying "I have committed such-and-such an offence." "For that many days" means that number of days. "Must unwillingly undergo probation" means not willingly, not by one's own power, but rather unwillingly, without control, one must undertake and observe probation. "A further six nights" means six nights beyond the probation. "For penance before the monks" means for the purpose of winning the approval of the monks; the meaning stated is "for the purpose of pleasing them." "A group of twenty would be the community" means a group of twenty (vīsatigaṇo). "There" means where, by the final reckoning, there is a community of monks with a group of twenty, there. "Should be rehabilitated" means should be accepted, should be received back; the meaning stated is that he should be reinstated by means of the act of rehabilitation, or the meaning is that he should be called back. "Not rehabilitated" means not rehabilitated, not accepted back; the meaning stated is that the act of rehabilitation has not been performed, or the meaning is that he has not been called back. "The proper course" means conformity with the Dhamma, instruction and guidance that follows the supramundane Dhamma; the meaning stated is that it is the proper procedure in accordance with the Dhamma. The remainder here is the same as the method already stated.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya,

The Commentary on the Thirteen is finished.

3.

The Section on Undetermined Rules

1.

Commentary on the First Undetermined Training Rule

443. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the first indefinite training rule. Therein, "conversing at the appropriate time" means having observed the time, when no other person is going or coming nearby, then speaking accordingly household talk such as "Are you not discontented, are you not weary, are you not hungry?" and so forth. "Speaking the Teaching at the appropriate time" means having observed the time, when some other person is going or coming nearby, then speaking accordingly a Dhamma talk such as "You should observe the Uposatha, you should give ticket-food" and so forth.

"Had many sons" means she had many daughters and sons. It is said that she had ten sons and ten daughters. "Had many grandsons" means she had many grandsons. For just as she had, so too each of her sons and daughters had twenty children each; thus she was surrounded by an entourage of four hundred and twenty sons and grandsons. "Considered supremely auspicious" means considered as having the highest auspiciousness. "At sacrifices" means at the giving of gifts. "At festivals" means at minor celebrations such as wedding ceremonies and marriage festivities and the like. "At celebrations" means at major celebrations such as the Āsāḷhī, Pavāraṇā, and Nakkhatta festivals and the like. "Fed first" means wishing "May these children too be of equal lifespan and free from illness like you," they fed her first of all; even those who were faithful and devoted, after feeding the monks, immediately thereafter fed her first of all. "Did not heed" means he did not heed her words, did not accept them, or did not show regard - this is the meaning.

444-445. "Convenient" means: "suitable for action, fit for action" is "workable"; "sufficiently prepared for the state of being workable" is "convenient"; in that which is convenient, where those committing transgression are able to do so - such is the meaning, that it is of such a nature that the act can be performed. Therefore in its word-analysis it is stated: "It is possible to engage in sexual intercourse" - meaning it is stated that where it is possible to engage in sexual intercourse. "Should sit" means should arrange a sitting, meaning should sit down. But since after sitting down one also lies down, therefore in its word-analysis both are stated. Therein, "seated near" means having approached and sat down. Similarly, "lying down near" should also be understood. "The monk sitting" means "when the monk is sitting" - this is the meaning. "Or both sitting" means both sitting neither after nor before each other. And here, although in the text it has come as "secret from hearing," the determination should be understood as being only by secrecy from sight. For even if a wise man is sitting at the door of a room with closed shutters, he does not create a state of non-offence. But one sitting at the door of a room with open shutters creates a state of non-offence. And not only at the door, but even one sitting in a space within twelve cubits, if he has eyes and is distracted or even dozing, creates a state of non-offence. Even one standing nearby who is blind does not create it, and even one with eyes who has lain down and is sleeping does not create it. But even a hundred women do not create a state of non-offence.

"Trustworthy" means one whose word is to be believed. But since she is indeed a noble disciple, therefore in its word-analysis "one who has attained the fruit" and so forth is stated. Therein, "one who has attained the fruit" means one for whom the fruit has come, meaning one who has obtained the fruit of stream-entry. "One who has comprehended" means one who has penetrated the four truths. "One who has understood the teaching" means one by whom the teaching of the threefold training has been understood. "The monk acknowledging the sitting" means although such a female lay follower having seen speaks, yet the monk should be dealt with according to one of the three rules only when acknowledging the sitting, not when not acknowledging - this is the meaning.

"By whichever that trustworthy female lay follower should speak, by that that monk should be dealt with" means in the modes of sitting and so forth, by whichever mode that female lay follower should speak, attributing sexual intercourse and so forth, only when acknowledging should that monk be dealt with by that. The meaning is that he should not be dealt with merely by the word of even such a female lay follower. Why? Because what is seen can be so and can also be otherwise.

And to illustrate that meaning, they cite this account: At the Mallārāma monastery, it is said, a certain elder who was an arahant one day went to a supporter's family and sat inside the house, and a female lay follower was standing leaning against a couch. Then a certain almsman standing at the door, having seen and gained the perception that "the elder is sitting on one seat with the female lay follower," looked again and again. The elder too, having observed "this one has formed an impure suspicion about me," having finished his meal duty, went to the monastery, entered his own dwelling place, and sat inside. That monk too, thinking "I shall accuse the elder," came, cleared his throat, and opened the door. The elder, knowing his mind, rose up into the air and sat cross-legged resting against the pinnacle of the gabled hall. That monk too, having entered inside and having looked at the bed and under the bed, not seeing the elder, looked upwards; then seeing the elder sitting in the air, he said: "Venerable sir, being of such great psychic power, you allow it to be said that you were sitting on one seat with a woman!" The elder said: "Friend, this is the fault of being inside a house. But being unable to convince you, I acted thus. Please keep this to yourself" - and descended.

446. Hereafter, all that is stated beginning with "If she should say thus" is said for the purpose of showing the manner of dealing according to the acknowledgement. Therein, "engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman" means engaging in sexual intercourse in the passage of a woman - this is the meaning. "He should be dealt with for the sitting" means that having acknowledged the sitting but not acknowledging the engaging in sexual intercourse, without being dealt with for the offence of defeat for sexual intercourse, he should be dealt with for the offence he incurs merely by the sitting - the meaning is that he should be dealt with for the offence of pācittiya. By this method, the judgement in all the sets of four should be understood.

451. Now, at the conclusion of the training rule, in the statements beginning with "he acknowledges the going" etc., which are stated for the purpose of showing the determination of what is an offence and what is not an offence, "he acknowledges the going" means he acknowledges the going thus: "I went for the purpose of the enjoyment of sitting in private." "The sitting" means he acknowledges the sitting by the very enjoyment of the sitting. "The offence" means any one of the three offences. "He should be dealt with for an offence" means whichever of the three he acknowledges, he should be dealt with for that. The remainder here in the set of four is of obvious meaning. But in the second set of four, "he does not acknowledge the going" means he does not acknowledge it on the basis of the enjoyment of sitting in private, but says: "I went on my own business such as a meal by ticket, and she came to the place where I was sitting." The remainder here too is of obvious meaning.

Now, this is the determination in all cases - "The enjoyment of sitting in private" is called a defilement connected with sexual intercourse. Whatever monk, desiring to go to the presence of a woman with that enjoyment, applies collyrium to his eyes, it is an offence of wrong-doing. He puts on his lower garment, ties his waistband, wraps his robe - at each and every effort, it is an offence of wrong-doing. He goes - at each and every step, it is an offence of wrong-doing. Having gone, he sits down - it is just an offence of wrong-doing. When the woman has come and merely sat down, it is an offence entailing expiation. If that woman, on account of some task, gets up again and again and sits down repeatedly, for each and every sitting, it is an offence entailing expiation. The one with reference to whom he went is not seen, but another comes and sits down - when enjoyment arises, it is an offence entailing expiation. But in the Mahāpaccarī it is said: "Because of the impure mind from the time of going, it is indeed an offence." If several women come, there are offences entailing expiation according to the number of women. If they get up again and again and sit down repeatedly, there are offences entailing expiation according to the number of sittings. Even for one who has gone and sat down without specifying, thinking "I shall enjoy the pleasure of privacy with whichever one I see," the offences should be understood in the same manner as stated, according to each one who comes and according to each repeated sitting. If, having gone with a pure mind and sat down, a woman comes into his presence and sits down, and the enjoyment of privacy arises, there is no offence.

The origin and so forth are similar to those of the first pārājika.

The Commentary on the First Undetermined Training Rule is finished.

2.

Commentary on the Second Undetermined Training Rule

452. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the second indefinite training rule. Therein, in the passage beginning with "rejected by the Blessed One," the connection should be understood thus: "That which one alone with one alone in a secret place, on a concealed seat, convenient, should arrange a sitting - to arrange that sitting has been rejected." Otherwise, it would have to be said "of one alone with one alone" - why? Because it is said "rejected." Or this nominative case should be understood in the sense of the possessive.

453. Regarding "but if not concealed" - here, whatever is enclosed on the outside but open within, such as a courtyard of a residence, etc., should be understood as included herein. For such a place is taken as uncovered indeed - this is stated in the Mahāpaccarī. The remainder should be understood according to the method of the first training rule. For here, exclusively, whether a woman or a man, any wise person who is not blind and not deaf, standing or sitting in a space within twelve hands' reach, even if distracted or sleeping, renders it a non-offence. But one who is deaf, even if possessing sight, or one who is blind, even if not deaf, does not render it so. This is the distinction: excluding the offence of defeat, the offence of lewd speech is stated. The remainder is just as before. In both cases, there is no offence for those who are insane and those who are the original doers.

Regarding the origins and so forth, this training rule has three origins - it originates from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech, and mind. It is action, exempt from perception, with consciousness, worldly wrong, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome consciousness, and of two feelings - pleasant and neutral. The remainder is of manifest meaning only.

The Commentary on the Second Undetermined Training Rule is finished.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya,

The Explanation of the Undetermined is completed.

4.

The Section on Forfeiture

1.

The Chapter on Robes

1.

Commentary on the First Training Rule on Kaṭhina

The thirty rules entailing relinquishment, which were spoken by the Peaceful One;

Of those I shall now make a word-by-word commentary on terms not previously explained.

459. At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Vesālī in the Gotamaka shrine. "Now at that time the three robes had been permitted by the Blessed One for the monks" - here, "three robes" means the inner robe, the upper robe, and the double-layered robe; this set of three robes had been permitted for use. Where this was permitted, when it was permitted, and for what reason it was permitted - all of that has come in the Jīvaka account in the Cīvarakkhandhaka. "They entered the village with one set of three robes" means with a set different from the one with which they stayed in the monastery and went down to bathe; thus, day after day, they wore nine robes.

460. "It has arisen" means that, giving an opening for non-enactment, it has arisen by way of acquisition, not by way of production.

"He wished to give to the Venerable Sāriputta" means that the Venerable Ānanda, it is said, out of great respect for his virtues, was excessively attached to the Venerable Sāriputta, thinking that apart from the Blessed One there was no other person so distinguished in virtues. He, whenever he obtained a pleasing robe, having dyed it and applied the mark of legitimacy, would give it to the Elder alone; having obtained before the meal excellent rice-gruel or hard food or almsfood, he would give it to the Elder alone; having obtained after the meal honey, sugar and so forth, he would give it to the Elder alone; and having brought boys from supporter families and given them the going forth, he would have them take the Elder as their preceptor and himself perform the announcing ceremony. The Venerable Sāriputta too, thinking "The duty to be done for a father is indeed the burden of the eldest son; that duty which should be done by me for the Blessed One, Ānanda does it; depending on Ānanda I am able to dwell free from concern," was excessively attached to the Venerable Ānanda; and he too, having obtained a pleasing robe, would give it to the Elder Ānanda alone - everything was just as before. Thus, being attached out of great respect for virtues, it should be understood that at that time, even though that robe had arisen, he wished to give it to the Venerable Sāriputta.

"On the ninth or the tenth day, Blessed One" - here, however, if there should be the question "How does the Elder know?" He knows by many reasons. The Elder Sāriputta, it is said, when setting out on a journey through the countryside, would depart only after taking leave of the Elder Ānanda, saying "I shall return within such and such a time; in the meantime, do not be negligent regarding the Blessed One." If he does not take leave in person, he sends monks and departs only after taking leave. If he spends the rains residence elsewhere, he sends those monks who come first, saying "In my name, pay homage with your heads at the feet of the Blessed One, and having conveyed wishes for good health to Ānanda, tell him 'He will come on such and such a day'"; and he always comes on the very day determined. Moreover, the Venerable Ānanda knows even by inference: "The Venerable Sāriputta has dwelt enduring and bearing separation from the Blessed One for so many days; from now on he will not exceed such and such a day; he will certainly come." For those who have great wisdom, their love and reverence for the Blessed One is also great - by this method too he knows. Thus he knows by many reasons. Therefore he said - "On the ninth or the tenth day, Blessed One." When this was said, since this training rule is an offence by enactment, not an offence by worldly convention, therefore, the Venerable Ānanda, making a determination just as stated, "Then the Blessed One etc. should keep." If, however, the Elder had specified a fortnight or a month, that too would have been permitted by the Blessed One.

462-463. "When the robe is finished" means when the robe is finished by whatever kind of completion. But since that robe can be finished by making it, and also by loss and so forth, therefore in the word-analysis, to show only the meaning, it is stated "a monk's robe is either made" and so forth. Therein, "made" means made by the completion of needlework; the completion of needlework means having done whatever is to be done with a needle up to the completion of the border-strip and the knotted border-strip, and then putting away the needle. "Lost" means taken by thieves and the like; for this too is called "finished" because the hindrance of making is finished. "Destroyed" means eaten by termites and the like. "Burnt" means burnt by fire. "Or the expectation of a robe is cut off" means whatever expectation of a robe has arisen, thinking "I shall obtain a robe from such and such a family," that expectation is cut off; for in these cases too, the state of being finished should be understood as the finishing of the hindrance of making itself.

"When the kathina-privilege has been withdrawn" means when the kathina has been withdrawn. By this, he shows the absence of the second hindrance. But since that kathina is withdrawn either by one of the eight grounds or by a formal withdrawal in between, therefore in its exposition it is stated "of the eight grounds" and so forth. Therein, "There are, monks, these eight grounds for the withdrawal of the kathina-privilege - ending with departure, ending with completion, ending with decision, ending with loss, ending with hearing, cutting off of expectation, passing beyond the boundary, and simultaneous withdrawal" - thus eight grounds have come in the Kathina Section. The formal withdrawal in between is also: "Let the Saṅgha hear me, venerable sirs. If the Saṅgha is ready, the Saṅgha should withdraw the kathina-privilege. This is the motion. Let the Saṅgha hear me, venerable sirs. The Saṅgha withdraws the kathina-privilege. If the venerable one approves of the withdrawal of the kathina-privilege, let him be silent. he to whom it is not agreeable should speak. The kathina-privilege has been withdrawn by the Saṅgha. The Saṅgha approves, therefore it is silent. Thus do I hold it." Thus it has come in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga. What is to be said there, we shall explain in the very place where it has come. But when it is discussed here, the text has to be brought in, and the meaning also has to be stated. And even when stated, it is not easily understood, because it is stated out of place.

"For ten days at most" means ten days is the maximum limit, thus "ten days at most"; the meaning is that it may be kept for that period of ten days at most. But in the word-analysis, to show only the meaning, it is stated "it may be kept for a maximum of ten days." For what is stated here is this: in "for ten days at most," the state of being ten days at most, the condition of being ten days at most - for this much time, as long as one does not exceed it, it may be kept.

"Extra robe" means an extra robe because it is not included among those that are determined or assigned. Therefore in its word-analysis it is stated "not determined, not assigned."

"Any one of the six kinds of robe" means any one of these six kinds of robe: linen, cotton, silk, wool, hemp, and mixed fabric. Having thus shown the type of robe, now to show the measurement, he said "the smallest eligible for assignment." Its measurement is two spans in length and one span in width. Herein this is the canonical text - "I allow, monks, that the smallest robe eligible for assignment, eight finger-breadths in length by the Sugata finger-breadth and four finger-breadths in width, may be assigned."

"For one who exceeds that, it is an expiation involving forfeiture" means: for one who causes that robe of the aforementioned type and measure to exceed the period of ten days at most, without acting in such a way that it does not remain an extra robe during that interval, it is an expiation involving forfeiture; and that robe becomes subject to forfeiture, and there is a pācittiya offence for him - this is the meaning. Alternatively, forfeiture is nissaggiya; this is the name of the disciplinary procedure that must be performed as a preliminary part. "There is nissaggiya for this" means simply nissaggiya. What is that? An expiation. For one who exceeds that, there is a pācittiya with a disciplinary procedure involving forfeiture - this is the meaning here. However, in the word-analysis, in order to first show the interpretation of the meaning, having set down the matrix "for one who exceeds that, it becomes subject to forfeiture," it was stated "at the eleventh dawn-rising it becomes subject to forfeiture, it must be forfeited." Again, in order to show to whom it must be forfeited and how it must be forfeited, "to the Saṅgha or" etc. was stated. Therein, "at the eleventh dawn-rising" means: the dawn of the day on which the robe arose is dependent on the day of arising; therefore it should be understood that it becomes subject to forfeiture at the eleventh dawn-rising counting together with the day on which the robe arose. Even if many robes are placed together, having been tied or wrapped, there is only one offence. For those not tied or wrapped, there are offences according to the count of the items.

"Having forfeited, the offence should be confessed" - how should it be confessed? As stated in the Khandhaka. And how was it stated there? It was stated thus - "That monk, monks, having approached the Saṅgha, having arranged the upper robe over one shoulder, having paid homage at the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on his haunches, having raised his joined palms, should say thus - 'Venerable sirs, I have committed such-and-such an offence; I confess it.'" Here, however, if there is one robe, one should say "one expiation involving forfeiture." If there are two, one should say "two." If there are many, one should say "several." In the forfeiture too, if there is one, one should say exactly as in the text "this robe of mine, venerable sirs." If there are two or many, one should say "these robes of mine, venerable sirs, having exceeded ten days, are subject to forfeiture; I forfeit them to the Saṅgha." By one who is unable to say the text, it may also be said otherwise.

"The offence should be acknowledged by an experienced, competent monk" means it should be acknowledged in the manner stated in the Khandhaka. For thus it was stated there - "By an experienced, competent monk the Saṅgha should be informed -

'Let the Saṅgha hear me, venerable sirs. This monk named so-and-so remembers, reveals, makes open, and confesses an offence. If the Saṅgha is ready, I would acknowledge the offence of the monk named so-and-so.'

He should be asked by him 'Do you see it?' 'Yes, I see it.' 'You should restrain yourself in the future.'" However, for two or several offences, the variation in wording should be understood in the same manner as before.

Regarding the giving of the robe too, the variation in wording should be understood according to the object: "the Saṅgha this robe" or "these robes." The same method applies to forfeiture to a group and to an individual as well.

However, here regarding the confession and acceptance of the offence, this is the canonical text - "That monk, monks, having approached several monks, having arranged the upper robe over one shoulder, having paid homage at the feet of the senior monks, having sat down on his haunches, having raised his joined palms, should address them thus - 'Venerable sirs, I have committed such-and-such an offence; I confess it.' An experienced and competent monk should inform those monks:

'Let the venerable ones hear me. This monk named so-and-so remembers, reveals, makes open, and confesses an offence. If it seems right to the venerable ones, I would accept the offence of the monk named so-and-so.'

He should be asked by him 'Do you see it?' 'Yes, I see it.' 'You should restrain yourself in the future.'

That monk, having approached one monk, having arranged his upper robe on one shoulder, having sat down squatting, having raised joined palms, should address him thus - 'Friend, I have committed such-and-such an offence; I confess it.' He should be asked by him: 'Do you see it?' 'Yes, I see it.' 'You should restrain yourself in the future.'" Therein, the naming of the offence and the variation in wording should be understood in the same manner as before.

And just as the canonical text applies to forfeiture to a group, so too should the canonical text be understood for forfeiture to two monks. For if there were a distinction, just as by the method beginning with "I allow, monks, the observance of the purity-uposatha for three monks, and it should be done thus, monks. A competent and capable monk should inform those monks" - having said "to perform the purity-uposatha for three," and then again by the method beginning with "I allow, monks, the purity-uposatha to be performed for two monks, and it should be done thus, monks. The senior monk, having arranged the upper robe over one shoulder" - the purity-uposatha for two was stated separately; so here too a separate canonical text would have been stated. But since there is none, it was passed over without stating it; thus the canonical text stated for a group is the canonical text here as well. However, in the acceptance of the offence there is this distinction: just as when, after forfeiting to a group, the offence is being confessed, the monk who accepts the offence puts forth a motion, so too, without putting forth a motion, the offence should be accepted just as a single individual accepts it, by either one of the two.

For there is no such thing as putting forth a motion for two monks; if there were, the purity-uposatha for two would not have been stated separately. Regarding the giving of the forfeited robe too, just as one person says "I give this robe to the venerable one," so it is proper to say "We give this robe to the venerable one."

For even acts of a motion with one announcement, which are weightier than this, have been stated as "to be done after consultation"; this is in conformity with those. However, the forfeited robe must indeed be given back; it is not allowable not to give it, for this is merely a disciplinary procedure. It is not the case that by that act it has been actually given to the Saṅgha, or to the group, or to the individual. It is not the case that by that it has been given to the Saṅgha, or to a group, or to an individual.

468. "When ten days have passed, perceiving it as passed" means one who has such a perception that "this has passed" regarding a robe when ten days have passed, or one who has such a perception that "the ten days have passed" when the ten days have passed. "An expiation involving forfeiture" - here perception does not protect. Even one who has such a perception, for him too that robe is forfeitable and there is an offence of expiation. Both interpretations of meaning are applicable, namely "an expiation together with the disciplinary act of forfeiture" or "an expiation." This same method applies everywhere.

"When not relinquished, perceiving it as relinquished" means one who has such a perception that "it has been relinquished by me" when it has not been given to anyone and has not been given up.

"When not lost, perceiving it as lost" means thieves carry away many robes of others that were placed together with one's own robe. Therein, one has the perception that it is lost regarding one's own robe when it is not lost. This method applies also in the cases of not destroyed and so forth.

"Not plundered" - here, however, "not plundered" should be understood in the sense of not taken by force after breaking into a room.

"Uses without relinquishing it, an offence of wrong-doing" means if one goes about even for a day without removing from the body what was once worn as a lower robe or once donned as an upper robe, there is only one offence. If one removes it and removes it again and again, and wears it as a lower robe or dons it as an upper robe, there is a wrong-doing with each attempt. There is no offence for one who is adjusting what is badly worn as a lower robe or badly donned as an upper robe. There is no offence for another person using it either, and the statement beginning with "there is no offence for one who uses what has been made by another after receiving it" is the supporting evidence here. The wrong-doing for one who perceives it as passed when it has not passed, and for one who is doubtful, is stated with reference to use.

469. Regarding the statement "there is no offence if within ten days he determines or assigns," here one should understand what is subject to determination and what is subject to assignment. Herein this is the canonical text - Then it occurred to the monks - "Those things that have been permitted by the Blessed One as 'the three robes,' or 'the rains-bathing cloth,' or 'the sitting cloth,' or 'the bedspread,' or 'the itch-covering cloth,' or 'the face-wiping cloth,' or 'the requisite cloth' - should all of those be determined or should they be assigned?" They reported this matter to the Blessed One -

"I allow, monks, the three robes to be determined, not to be assigned; the rains-bathing cloth to be determined for the four months of the rains, and after that to be assigned; to determine the sitting cloth, not to assign it; to determine the bed-sheet, not to assign it; to determine the scab cloth for as long as the illness lasts, after that to assign it; to determine the face-wiping cloth, not to assign it; the requisite cloth to be determined, not to be assigned."

Therein, "the three robes" - one who determines them should determine them only after dyeing, applying the mark of legitimacy, and ensuring they are of the proper measurement. As for their measurement, by the maximum limit, less than the Sugata's robe size is allowable; by the minimum limit, for the outer robe and the upper robe, the measurement of five fist-lengths in length and three fist-lengths in width is allowable. The inner robe may be five fist-lengths in length and even two cubits in width. For it is possible to cover the navel even with the outer wrapping. However, what exceeds or falls short of the stated measurement should be determined as a requisite cloth.

Therein, since it has been stated "there are two ways of determining a robe - one determines either by body or by speech," therefore, having relinquished the old outer robe by saying "I relinquish this outer robe," and having taken the new outer robe in hand, having directed the mind with the thought "I determine this outer robe," it should be determined by body through making a bodily action. This is determination by body; it is not allowable for one who is not touching it with any bodily limb. But in determination by speech, having made a verbal utterance, it should be determined by speech. Therein, determination is twofold - if it is within arm's reach, the words "I determine this outer robe" should be uttered. But if it is inside a room, or on an upper storey, or in a neighbouring monastery, having noted the place where it is kept, the words "I determine that outer robe" should be uttered. The same method applies for the upper robe and the inner robe. For the difference is merely in the name. Therefore, all should be determined by their own names thus: outer robe, upper robe, inner robe. If one makes outer robes and so forth from cloths that have been determined and set aside, when the dyeing and the marking of legitimacy are completed, having relinquished this by saying "I relinquish," they should be determined again. But when sewing on a second layer or a patch larger than the one already determined, it must be determined again. When it is equal or smaller, there is no need for determination.

But is it allowable to determine the three robes as requisite cloths or not? The Elder Mahāpaduma reportedly said: "The three robes should be determined as the three robes only. If the determination as requisite cloth were obtainable, the safeguard in the training rule concerning keeping robes overnight would become meaningless." When this was said, the remaining monks reportedly said: "It was stated by the Blessed One himself that requisite cloth should be determined, therefore it is allowable." In the Mahāpaccarī too it is stated: "What is called requisite cloth is a separate means of storage, therefore it is allowable to determine the three robes as requisite cloth and use them. But in the training rule concerning keeping robes overnight, the safeguard is stated for one who maintains them having determined them as the three robes." The Elder Mahātissa of Puṇṇavālika, a reciter of both Vibhaṅgas, also reportedly said: "We formerly heard from the great elders that forest-dwelling monks, having placed their robes in tree hollows and such places, go for the purpose of striving in exertion. And when they have gone to a neighbouring monastery for the purpose of hearing the Dhamma, after the sun has risen, novices or junior monks take their bowl and robes and go. Therefore, for the purpose of comfortable use, it is allowable to determine the three robes as requisite cloth." In the Mahāpaccarī too it is stated: "Formerly, forest-dwelling monks, finding them difficult to maintain in an unbound boundary, used them having determined the three robes as requisite cloth only."

The "rain-bathing cloth" of a size not exceeding the limit should be determined for the four rainy months by stating its name in the manner already described, and after that it should be relinquished and assigned. And even one dyed merely with a different colour is allowable. But two are not allowable. The "sitting cloth" should only be determined in the manner already described, and that of the proper size, only one; two are not allowable. The "bedspread" too should only be determined, but a large one is allowable, one is allowable, and many are allowable. Blue, yellow, crimson, or flower-patterned - every kind is allowable. Once determined, it remains determined. The "itch-covering cloth" should be determined of the proper size as long as the affliction exists. When the affliction has subsided, it should be relinquished and assigned; only one is allowable. The "face-wiping cloth" should only be determined; since while one is being washed another is needed for use, two are allowable. But other elders say: "This is a means of storage; many too are allowable." For requisite cloths there is no limit; as many as one wishes, that many should be determined. Even a bag and a water-strainer of the minimum size eligible for assigning should only be determined as "requisite cloth." It is also allowable to determine many together, saying: "I determine these robes as requisite cloths." Even when setting aside for the purpose of medicine, new construction, mother, father, and so forth, one should still determine them. But in the Mahāpaccarī it is stated: "There is no offence." However, for bed pillows, chair pillows, bolsters, cloaks, and coverlets, and for bedspreads given for the purpose of lodging requisites, there is no need for determination at all.

But how does the determination lapse for one using a determined robe? It lapses by these nine reasons: by giving to another, by taking after snatching, by taking on trust, by reverting to the lower life, by renouncing the training, by death, by change of sex, by relinquishment, and by becoming torn. Therein, by the first eight, all robes lose their determination; but by becoming torn, the loss of determination is stated in all the commentaries only for the three robes, and that by a hole the size of a fingernail-back. Therein, the size of a fingernail-back should be understood in terms of the little finger's nail, and the hole must be a pierced-through hole only. For if even a single thread within the hole remains uncut, it preserves the determination. Therein, for the outer robe and the upper robe, a hole within the area of a span in length and eight finger-breadths in width breaks the determination; beyond that it does not break it. But for the inner robe, a hole within the area of a span in length and four finger-breadths in width breaks the determination; beyond that it does not break it. Therefore, when a hole has arisen, that robe stands in the position of an extra robe, and after doing needlework it should be determined again. But the Elder Mahāsuma said: "For a robe of the minimum size, a hole anywhere breaks the determination; but for a large one, a hole outside the minimum size does not break the determination; one arising within does break it." The Elder Karavīkatissa said: "Whether small or large is not the measure. For one wearing two robes, a hole at the place where they are gathered and placed on the left hand does not break the determination; in the portion below it does break it. For the inner robe too, a hole at the place gathered when making the waistband does not break it; below that it does break it." But in the Andhaka Commentary, taking the view of the Elder Mahāsuma as authoritative regarding the three robes, this further statement is made: "The minimum size preserves the determination." For a requisite cloth, a hole anywhere within eight finger-breadths in length by the Sugata finger-breadth and four finger-breadths in width causes the determination to lapse. For a large cloth, a hole beyond that does not cause the determination to lapse. This method applies to all robes that are to be determined.

Therein, since for all robes that are to be determined there is no minimum measure other than the minimum measure subject to assignment, for the measure stated for the sitting cloth, the itch-covering cloth, and the rains-bathing cloth is the maximum, because anything exceeding that is prohibited, it is not the minimum, because anything below that is not prohibited. For the three robes too, being less than the measure of the Sugata's robe is itself the maximum measure. But no minimum has been separately stated in the sutta. For the face-wiping cloth, the bed-spread, and the requisite cloth, there is no maximum limit at all. But the minimum limit has been stated by means of the minimum subject to assignment. Therefore, as for what was stated in the Andhaka Commentary, having said "the minimum measure protects the determination," and having shown therein the minimum measure of eight finger-breadths by four finger-breadths in Sugata finger-breadths for the requisite cloth alone, and then referring to the minimum measure of the five fist-spans and so forth for the remaining three robes and others, the statement "the same method applies to all robes that are to be determined" - that does not hold.

In the opinion of the Elder Karavīkatissa too, the hole was shown only in terms of the length, not in terms of the breadth; therefore that is indeterminate. In the opinion of the Elder Mahāsuma, it was stated: "For a robe of the minimum measure, a hole anywhere breaks the determination, but for a larger one, a hole outside the measure does not break the determination." But this was not stated - "This is a robe of the minimum measure, anything larger than this is a large robe." Moreover, here the intended meaning is that the minimum measure for the three robes and others is the classification of five fist-spans and so forth. Therein, if a hole outside the minimum measure were not to break the determination, then even for a bowl of the superior size or of the middle size, a hole outside the inferior measure would not break the determination, but it does indeed break it. Therefore this opinion too is indeterminate.

But the very first commentary opinion - that alone is the authority here. Why? Because of the existence of a clear definition. For regarding the three robes, the minimum measure, the measure of the hole, and the measure of the area where the hole arises have been defined and stated in all the commentaries; therefore that opinion alone is the authority. Indeed, that was certainly stated having followed the Blessed One's intention. But in the others, there is neither a clear definition, nor do the earlier and later statements agree.

But one who first applies a patch to a weak spot and afterwards cuts away and removes the weak spot - the determination is not broken. The same method applies in the case of replacing a circular patch. When in a double-layered robe a hole arises in one layer or it becomes worn away, the determination is not broken. When one makes a small robe larger, or makes a large one smaller, the determination is not broken. When bringing both ends to the middle, if one first cuts and afterwards joins, the determination is broken. But if one joins and then cuts, it is not broken. Even for one who has it washed by washermen and has it made white, the determination remains the determination. This, then, is the decision regarding determination in the phrase "within ten days he determines or assigns."

Regarding assignment, there are two types of assignment - assignment in one's presence and assignment in one's absence. How does assignment in the presence take place? Having known whether the robes are one or many and whether they are near or far, one should say "this robe" or "these robes" or "that robe" or "those robes" - "I assign to you." This is one type of assignment in the presence. To this extent, it is allowable to store it, but it is not allowable to use it, to give it away, or to determine it. But when it is said thus: "It is my property, they are my property - use it, or give it away, or do with it as you see fit," this constitutes a relinquishment. From that point onwards, use and so forth are also allowable.

There is also another method - Having likewise known the singular or plural nature of the robes and their proximate or non-proximate state, in the presence of that very monk, having said "this robe" or "these robes" or "that robe" or "those robes," having taken the name of any one among the five co-religionists whom one personally favours, one should say "I assign to the monk Tissa" or "I assign to the bhikkhunī Tissā, to the female trainee, to the novice Tissa, to the female novice Tissā." This too is a face-to-face assignment. To this extent it is allowable to store, but as for use and so forth, not even one of them is allowable. But when that monk says "The property of the monk Tissa" etc. "the property of the female novice Tissā - use it or give it away or do as you see fit," this is called a relinquishment. From that point onwards, use and so forth are also allowable.

How does an assignment in the absence of the recipient take place? Having likewise known the singular or plural nature of the robes and their proximate or non-proximate state, having said "this robe" or "these robes" or "that robe" or "those robes," one should say "I give this to you for the purpose of assigning." He should be told - "Who is your friend or acquaintance?" Then by the other, in the same manner as before, it should be said "the monk Tissa" or etc. "the female novice Tissā." Then by that monk it should be said "I give to the monk Tissa" or etc. "I give to the female novice Tissā." This is an assignment in the absence of the recipient. To this extent it is allowable to store, but as for use and so forth, not even one of them is allowable. But when that monk, in the same manner as stated in the second face-to-face assignment, says "The property of so-and-so - use it or give it away or do as you see fit," this is called a relinquishment. From that point onwards, use and so forth are also allowable.

What is the difference between the two types of assignment? In the face-to-face assignment, one assigns oneself and has another make the relinquishment. In the assignment in the absence of the recipient, one has another make the assignment and has another make the relinquishment. This is the difference here. But if the one to whom he assigns is not skilled in the formulations and does not know how to make the relinquishment, one should take that robe, go to the presence of another competent person, assign it again, and have him make the relinquishment. This is called an assignment of what has already been assigned, and it is allowable. This is the determination regarding the word "assigns."

And because of the statement "I allow, monks, the triple robe to be determined, not to be assigned," and so forth, this word "assigns" stated without distinction appears to be contradictory, but the Tathāgatas do not speak what is contradictory. Therefore its meaning should be understood thus: I allow one who maintains the triple robe simply as a set of three robes only to determine it, not to assign it. But the rainy-season robe, after the four months, is only to be assigned, not to be determined. This being so, for one who wishes to dwell apart from one robe among the triple robe, having relinquished the determination of the triple robe, the opportunity for assignment is given for the sake of comfortable separation. And there is no offence in exceeding ten days - by this method, the non-prohibited nature of assignment everywhere should be understood.

"Gives up" means he gives to another. But how is it given, and how is it received? Whether he says "I give this to you, I bestow, I would give, I hand over, I relinquish, I let go, I give up," or "I give to so-and-so" etc. "I let go," whether face-to-face or in the absence of the recipient, it is indeed given. When he says "Take it for yourself," and the other says "I take it for myself," it is well given and well received. When he says "Make it your own property, let it be your own property, you shall make it your own property," and the other says "I make it my own property, let it be my own property, I shall make it my own property," it is badly given and badly received. Neither does the giver know how to give, nor does the other know how to receive. But if when he says "Make it your own property," the other takes it saying "Very well, venerable sir, I take it for myself," it is well received. But if one says "Take it yourself," the other says "I do not take it," and then the first says "It has been given by me to you, take it," and the other also says "I have no need of this." Then the first one exceeds ten days thinking "It has been given by me," and the latter also thinking "It has been refused by me." For whom is there an offence? There is no offence for anyone. But whoever wishes it, he should determine it and use it.

But one who is doubtful about the determination, what should he do? Having declared his state of doubt, he should relinquish it in the manner already stated, saying "if it is undetermined, in this way it is allowable for me." For there is no false speech for one who, having made it known thus, performs the Vinaya procedure. Some, however, say "having taken it on trust by one monk and then giving it back is allowable," but that is not fitting. For this is not a Vinaya procedure for him, nor does it become a different matter by that much.

"If it is lost" etc. is of obvious meaning. Regarding "whoever would not give, there is an offence of wrong-doing," the offence of wrong-doing is for one who does not give with the perception "this was given to me by him." But knowing that it belongs to him, one who takes it away on a pretext should have the goods appraised and should have it settled.

Regarding the origin and so forth, this training rule is called "of kathina origin"; it arises from body and speech and from body, speech, and mind; since the offence is committed through non-determination and non-assignment, it is one of non-doing; even in the absence of perception one is not freed, and even one who does not know commits it, thus it is not freed by perception; it is without consciousness; it is an offence by convention; it is bodily action; it is verbal action; it is of three types of consciousness; it is of three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the First Kaṭhina Training Rule is completed.

2.

Commentary on the Training Rule on Keeping Beyond the Time Limit

471. "At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One" - this is the training rule concerning separation. Therein, "with just their inner and upper robes" - "inner" refers to the inner robe, "upper" refers to the upper robe, the upper together with the inner is "inner-and-upper," "with that inner-and-upper" means together with the inner robe and the upper robe. "Mildewed" means having developed dark and white patches in places affected by moisture. "The Venerable Ānanda, wandering on a lodging tour, saw" - it is said that when the Blessed One had entered the Fragrant Chamber for the purpose of daytime seclusion, the Elder, having obtained that opportunity, while putting away improperly placed wooden articles and earthen articles, sweeping unswept places, and exchanging friendly greetings with sick monks, arrived at the lodging place of those monks and saw them. Therefore it was said - "The Venerable Ānanda, wandering on a lodging tour, saw."

473. "To give authorisation for non-separation": authorisation regarding non-separation is authorisation for non-separation, or authorisation for the purpose of non-separation is authorisation for non-separation. But what is the benefit herein? The robe from which one is separated does not become subject to forfeiture, and one does not incur an offence. For how long? The Elder Mahāsuma first said: "As long as the illness has not subsided; but when the illness has subsided, one should come quickly to the place where the robe is." The Elder Mahāpaduma said - "If one comes quickly, the illness might relapse; therefore one should come gradually. For from the time one seeks a caravan or turns one's attention thinking 'I shall go,' from that time it is valid. But if one abandons the responsibility thinking 'I shall not go now,' it should be revoked; it will stand in the position of an extra robe." But if his illness relapses, what should be done? The Elder Phussadeva first said - "If that same illness relapses, that same authorisation stands; there is no need to give the authorisation again. But if another illness arises, the authorisation should be given again." The Elder Upatissa said - "Whether it be that same illness or another, there is no need to give the authorisation again."

475-476. "When the robe is finished by a monk" - here, however, without taking the meaning as in the preceding training rule, the meaning of the instrumental case should be understood in the sense of the genitive, thus: "when the robe is finished, for a monk." For in the sense of the instrumental, there is nothing that must be done by a monk in this regard. But in the sense of the genitive, the meaning fits thus: "when the robe is finished for a monk and the kathina-privilege has been withdrawn, thus freed from the obstacle, if a monk should stay apart from the three robes even for one night." Therein, "from the three robes" means from any one among the three robes that have been determined. For even one who has stayed apart from one robe is one who has stayed apart from the three robes, because he has stayed apart from one included in what is prohibited. Therefore, in the word-analysis of this rule, "from the outer robe, or" etc. is stated. "Should stay apart" means should dwell separated.

477-478. "A village has one precincts" etc. is stated for the purpose of determining the characteristic of non-separation. Thereafter, elaborating those same fifteen matrix terms in sequence, he said beginning with "a village named as having one precincts." Therein, "a village of one family" means a village belonging to one king or one feudal lord. "Enclosed" means enclosed by any wall, fence, or moat whatsoever. To this extent, the state of having one precincts for a single-family village has been shown. "One should stay within the village" means that in such a village, having deposited the robe, it is permissible to let dawn rise at any place one likes within the village. "Unenclosed" - by this, the state of having different precincts for that same village is shown. In such a village, one should stay in whichever house the robe has been deposited. "Or one should not leave the reach of the hand" means alternatively, one should not leave the reach of the hand all around that house; it is said that one should not go beyond a distance measuring two and a half cubits. However, it is permissible to stay within the area of two and a half cubits. Having exceeded that measure, even if a monk with supernormal powers lets dawn rise in the air, it is still entailing forfeiture. And here, "in whichever house" - the delimitation of the house should be understood by the characteristic beginning with "it is a dwelling of one family."

479. "A village of different families" means a village belonging to different kings or chieftains, similar to Vesālī, Kusinārā, and so forth. "Fenced" - by this, the single-boundary status of the village of different families is shown. "In the assembly hall or at the doorway" - here "sabhāya" is stated as "sabhā" with all three genders. "At the doorway" means near the city gate. This is what is meant - In such a village, one should stay in whichever house the robe has been deposited. If one is unable to stay there due to the disturbance of noise or the crowding of people, one should stay either in the assembly hall or at the city gate. If one is unable to stay even there, having stayed in any comfortable place, one should come back before dawn and not leave the arm's reach of those very assembly halls or doorways. However, there is no requirement to stay within arm's reach of the house or the robe.

"When going to the assembly hall, having deposited the robe within arm's reach" - if, having placed it in the house, one goes to the assembly hall thinking "I shall deposit it in the assembly hall," then "when going to the assembly hall, within arm's reach" means having stretched out the hand, thinking "let me deposit this robe here," having deposited the robe in some shop that is within arm's reach where it is convenient to deposit, one should stay either in the assembly hall or at the doorway in the same manner as before, or one should not leave the arm's reach.

Herein this is the determination - The Elder Phussadeva first said: "There is no requirement to stay within arm's reach of the robe; it is permissible to stay anywhere - within arm's reach of the street, within arm's reach of the assembly hall, or within arm's reach of the doorway." But the Elder Upatissa said: "A city may have many gates and many assembly halls; therefore, it is not permissible everywhere. Rather, on whichever street the robe has been deposited, whichever assembly hall and gate are in the place directly facing that street - one should not leave the arm's reach of that assembly hall and that gate. For in this way, it is possible to know the whereabouts of the robe." However, when going to the assembly hall, if one has deposited it in the hands of a shopkeeper, and if he carries that robe away and deposits it in his house, the arm's reach of the street is not maintained; one should stay within arm's reach of the house. If the house is large, standing spanning two streets, one should await the dawn within arm's reach either in front or behind. But having deposited it in the assembly hall, one should await the dawn either in the assembly hall, or at the city gate directly facing it, or within arm's reach of those very places.

"Unfenced" - by this, the separate-boundary status of that same village is shown. By this same method, the single-boundary status and separate-boundary status should be understood everywhere. But in the canonical text, having extracted a single matrix term at the beginning as "a village is called single-boundary" and at the end as "an open space is called single-boundary," the word analysis has been elaborated. Therefore, following that very term, the single-boundary status and separate-boundary status should be understood everywhere by way of fencing and so forth.

480-481. Regarding "chambers" in the passage beginning with "dwelling": this is just a synonym for inner rooms. "Or the stretched arm's reach" means the stretched arm's reach from the inner room. "Or at the entrance of the door" means at the entrance of the house door that is common to all. "Or the stretched arm's reach" means the stretched arm's reach from the inner room or from the entrance of the house door.

482-487. "Storehouse" means a hall for goods such as vehicles and the like. And from this point onwards, the determination should be understood in the same manner as stated regarding a dwelling. "Raised structure" means a special type of shelter with thick walls made of bricks, having four or five storeys, for the purpose of warding off rival kings and the like. "Pavilion" means a square mansion comprised under a single peak. "Mansion" means a long mansion. "Pinnacled house" means a mansion with a flat roof.

489. Regarding "seven interiors" here, one interior is twenty-eight cubits. If the caravan, while travelling, passes through a village or a river and stands still, being joined together with one who has entered within, extending across both the near and far sides, only the caravan allowance is obtained. But if one who has entered within is included within the village or the river, both the village allowance and the river allowance are obtained. If it stands having passed beyond the monastery boundary, and the robe is within the boundary, one should go to the monastery and dwell there. If the robe is outside the boundary, one should dwell near the caravan itself. If, while travelling, the caravan is broken off midway due to a cart breaking or an ox being lost, one should dwell in whichever section the robe is.

490. In a field of one family, the stretched arm's reach means the stretched arm's reach from the robe itself; in a field of different families, the stretched arm's reach means the stretched arm's reach from the field's doorway. In an unfenced one, the stretched arm's reach is from the robe itself.

491-494. "Threshing floor" (dhaññakaraṇa) means a threshing ground (khala). "Garden" (ārāma) means either a flower garden or a fruit garden. In both cases, the determination is the same as stated for a field. A monastery (vihāra) is similar to a dwelling. "At the foot of a tree, within the shade" means within the area covered by the shade. However, if a robe is placed in a spot touched by sunlight under a tree with sparse branches, it entails forfeiture. Therefore, it should be placed in the shade of the branches or the shade of the trunk of such a tree. If one places it on a branch or in the foliage, it should be placed only in a spot above that is covered by the shade of another branch. The shade of a crooked tree extends far; it is indeed allowable to place it at the spot where the shade reaches. Here too, "the stretched arm's reach" means the stretched arm's reach for a robe only.

"In a wilderness without a village" means a wilderness without a village can be found in places such as the Vindhya forest and the like, or on islands in the middle of the ocean that are not on the route of fishermen. "Seven abbhantaras on all sides" means seven abbhantaras in all directions from one standing in the middle; by full extent, they amount to fourteen. One sitting in the middle guards a robe placed at the boundary in either the eastern or the western direction. However, if at the time of dawn one moves even a hair's tip towards the eastern direction, the robe in the western direction entails forfeiture. The same method applies in the other case. But at the time of the Uposatha, the boundary of seven abbhantaras should be reckoned starting from the monk sitting at the edge of the assembly. To whatever extent the community of monks increases, to that extent the boundary also increases.

495. Regarding "if one uses without relinquishing, there is an offence of wrong-doing" - here, if a monk devoted to striving, having engaged in striving throughout the entire night, at the time before dawn, thinking "I shall bathe," places all three robes on the bank and descends into the river, and while he is bathing dawn arises, what should be done? For if he comes out and puts on a robe, he commits a wrong-doing on account of using a forfeitable robe without relinquishing it. But if he goes naked, does he also commit a wrong-doing? He does not commit an offence. For as long as he has not seen another monk and performed the disciplinary procedure, he stands in the position of one whose robes are lost, because those robes are not worthy of use. And for one whose robes are lost, there is nothing that is improper. Therefore, having put on one, taking two in hand, he should go to the monastery and perform the disciplinary procedure. If the monastery is far away and people are moving about along the road, he should put on one, wrap one around, place one on the shoulder, and go. If he does not see fellow monks at the monastery, and they have gone on alms-round, he should leave the outer robe outside the village, and wearing the inner and upper robes, go to the assembly hall and perform the disciplinary procedure. If there is danger from thieves outside the village, he should go wearing it. If the assembly hall is crowded and full of people, and it is not possible to remove a robe to one side and perform the disciplinary procedure, he should take one monk, go outside the village, perform the disciplinary procedure, and then use the robes.

If monks, having given their bowls and robes into the hands of junior monks while travelling on the road, wish to sleep during the last watch, they should sleep keeping their own robes within arm's reach. If, while the junior monks who are still travelling have not arrived, dawn arises, the robe becomes forfeitable, but the dependence is not cancelled. The same method applies also when the junior monks are going ahead and the elders have not arrived. The same method applies also when they have missed the road and cannot see each other in the forest. But if the junior monks say "Venerable sir, we shall sleep for a moment and meet you at such and such a place" and sleep until the rising of dawn, the robe becomes forfeitable and the dependence is cancelled. The same method applies also when the elders sleep after sending the junior monks ahead. Having seen a fork in the road, the elders say "this is the path" and the junior monks say "this is the path," and without accepting each other's word they go their ways - at the rising of dawn the robes become forfeitable and the dependence is cancelled. If the junior monks, leaving the road, thinking "we shall return before dawn," enter a village for the purpose of obtaining medicine and come back, and dawn arises while they have not yet arrived, the robes become forfeitable, but the dependence is not cancelled. But if, out of fear of cows or fear of dogs, thinking "we shall stand for a moment and then go," they stand or sit down and then go, and dawn arises in the meantime, the robes become forfeitable and the dependence is cancelled. If, thinking "we shall come back before dawn," they have entered a village within the boundary and dawn arises in the meantime, neither do the robes become forfeitable nor is the dependence cancelled. But if they sit down thinking "let it become light first," even when dawn has arisen the robes do not become forfeitable, but the dependence is cancelled. Also those who, thinking "we shall come back before dawn," go eagerly to a neighbouring monastery for the purpose of hearing the Dhamma, and dawn arises while they are still on the road, the robes become forfeitable, but the dependence is not cancelled. If, out of respect for the Dhamma, they sit down thinking "we shall go only after hearing it to the end," at the rising of dawn the robes also become forfeitable and the dependence is also cancelled. When an elder sends a junior monk to a village for the purpose of washing robes, he should give them only after withdrawing the determination of his own robe. The junior monk's robe too should be kept after having him withdraw its determination. If he goes through forgetfulness, one should withdraw the determination of one's own robe, take the junior monk's robe on trust, and keep it. If the elder forgets but the junior monk remembers, the junior monk should withdraw the determination of his own robe, take the elder's robe on trust, go and say to him "Venerable sir, please determine your robe and use it," and he too should determine his own robe. Thus, even when one of them remembers, there is freedom from offence. The remainder is of clear meaning.

Regarding the origin and so forth, in the first Kaṭhina training rule, non-determination and non-assignment are the non-action; here, non-withdrawal is the only difference. The remainder is the same as the method stated everywhere.

The Explanation of the Expired Training Rule is completed.

3.

Commentary on the Third Training Rule on Kaṭhina

497. "At that time" - this is the third Kaṭhina training rule. Therein, "having lifted up, wiped it again and again" means: thinking "when the creases have disappeared, this will become large," he sprinkled it with water, trampled it with his feet, lifted it up with his hands, raised it, and rubbed it on his back; when that dried in the sun, it was just the same size as before. He did the same again; therefore it is said - "having lifted up, wiped it again and again." The Blessed One, having seen him thus struggling while seated in the Fragrant Chamber itself, came out and went there as though wandering on a lodging tour. Therefore it was said - "The Blessed One saw" etc.

499-500. "Eleven months" means the remaining eleven months, excluding the one last month of Kattika. "Seven months" means the remaining seven months, excluding the five months consisting of the month of Kattika and the four of the winter season. "Given designating even in season" means either given to the Saṅgha having designated it saying "this is out-of-season robe-cloth," or given to an individual saying "I give this to you."

"From the Saṅgha" means it may arise from the Saṅgha by way of one's own allotted share. "From a group" means they give to a group thus: "We give this to the group of sutta-specialists, we give this to the group of Abhidhamma-specialists." From that, it may arise from a group by way of one's own allotted share.

"If there is no fulfilment for him" means if there were no fulfilment, the meaning is: if the robe being made is sufficient as a determined robe with a certain amount, but that robe-cloth were not of that amount and were deficient.

Regarding "there is expectation from the Saṅgha" etc., the expectation from the Saṅgha or from a group is thus: "On such-and-such a day the Saṅgha will receive robes, the group will receive them, and from that a robe will arise for me." The expectation from relatives or friends is thus: "Robe-cloth has been sent for me by relatives for the purpose of robes, sent by friends; when they come they will give robes." "Or rag-cloth" - here, however, it should be construed thus: the expectation is "I shall obtain rag-cloth." "Or with one's own wealth" means with one's own wealth such as cotton, thread, and so forth; the meaning is: the expectation is thus "I shall obtain it on such-and-such a day."

"If he should set it aside beyond that, even if there is expectation" means if he should set it aside beyond the month at most, the meaning is: it is an expiation involving forfeiture. However, without stating it thus, because when expected robe-cloth arises in the interval, expected robe-cloth that arises up to the twentieth day from the day the original robe-cloth arose makes the original robe-cloth follow its own course, and beyond that the original robe-cloth makes the expected robe-cloth follow its own course. Therefore, in order to show that distinction, the word-analysis is stated by the method beginning with "when the original robe-cloth arises on that very day"; that is clear in meaning.

"When incompatible original robe-cloth arises" means if the original robe-cloth is fine and the expected robe-cloth is coarse, they cannot be combined. And nights remain, the month is not yet complete, the robe should not be made unwillingly by force. It should be made only after obtaining other expected robe-cloth within the time period. The expected robe-cloth too should be determined as an accessory cloth. But if the original robe-cloth is coarse and the expected robe-cloth is fine, having determined the original robe-cloth as an accessory cloth, only the expected robe-cloth should be kept as the original robe-cloth. That again obtains the month's allowance; by this method, for as long as one wishes, it is permissible to keep setting aside each one in turn as the original robe-cloth. The remainder is clear in itself.

The origin and other factors are similar to those of the first kathina rule.

The Explanation of the Third Kaṭhina Training Rule is completed.

4.

Commentary on the Training Rule on Old Robes

503-505. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning old robes. Therein, "up to the seventh generation of grandfathers" means: one's father's father is the grandfather; the generation of the grandfather is the grandfather-generation. "Generation" is called the measure of a lifespan. This is merely a manner of expression. In meaning, however, the grandfather himself is the generation of ancestors. Beyond that, all the forefathers too are included by the term "grandfather" itself. Thus, one who is not related up to the seventh person is said to be "not related up to the seventh grandfather-generation." This is merely a mode of teaching. However, from the statement "from the mother's side or from the father's side," it should be understood that the grandfather-generation, the grandmother-generation, the maternal grandfather-generation, the maternal grandmother-generation, and their brothers, sisters, nephews, sons, grandsons, and so forth are all included herein.

Herein, this is the detailed method - Father, father's father, his father, his father too - thus up to the seventh generation; father, father's mother, her father and mother and brother and sister and sons and daughters - thus too both upwards and downwards up to the seventh generation; father, father's brother, father's sister, father's sons, father's daughters, and their succession of sons and daughters too - thus too up to the seventh generation; mother, mother's mother, her mother, her mother too - thus too up to the seventh generation; mother, mother's father, his mother and father and brother and sister and sons and daughters - thus too both upwards and downwards up to the seventh generation; mother, mother's brother, mother's sister, mother's sons, mother's daughters, and their succession of sons and daughters too - thus too up to the seventh generation; one who is connected neither through the mother's relationship nor through the father's relationship - this one is called "not a relative."

"In both Saṅghas" means one who has received the full ordination through a formal act of the Vinaya with eight proclamations - by a motion with three announcements in the bhikkhunī Saṅgha and by a motion with three announcements in the bhikkhu Saṅgha.

"Even once worn or even once draped" means having dyed it and made it allowable, even once worn as a lower robe or draped as an upper robe. Even if one has merely placed it on the shoulder or on the head as a token of use and gone on a journey, or has used it as a pillow and lain down, this too is indeed an old robe. But if one places it under a bedspread and lies down, or lifts it up with the hands and makes a canopy in the air and walks without touching it with the head, this is said in the Kurundī not to constitute use.

Regarding "washed, it is to be forfeited" - herein, a nun so instructed prepares a stove for the purpose of washing, gathers firewood, makes a fire, brings water - with each and every effort by the nun until she has washed it and taken it out, there is an offence of wrong-doing for the monk. As soon as it has been washed and taken out, it becomes subject to forfeiture. If, thinking it is poorly washed, she sprinkles or washes it again, with each and every effort until it reaches completion, there is an offence of wrong-doing. This same method applies to dyeing and beating. For in the dyeing trough, having scattered the dye, as long as she dyes the robe even once, whatever she does before that for the purpose of dyeing, or afterwards re-dyes it, in every case with each and every effort there is an offence of wrong-doing for the monk. Thus the effort in beating too should be understood.

506. "Perceiving one who is not a relative as not a relative, she causes an old robe to be washed" - even if she does not say "wash this," yet having made a bodily gesture for the purpose of washing, she either gives it into her hand by hand, or places it at her feet, or throws it towards her, or sends it into the hands of a female probationer, a female novice, a male novice, a male lay follower, a follower of another sect, and so forth, or throws it within the vicinity of one who is washing at a river ford - standing within a space of twelve cubits, it is indeed as if she has caused it to be washed. But if, having left the vicinity, she places it on this side, and that one washes it and brings it back, there is no offence. If she gives it into the hands of a female probationer, a female novice, or a female lay follower for the purpose of washing, and that one, having received full ordination, washes it, it is indeed an offence. If she gives it into the hands of a male lay follower, and he, upon a change of sex, goes forth among the bhikkhunīs and receives full ordination and washes it, it is indeed an offence. Even if it is given into the hands of a male novice or a bhikkhu, in the case of a change of sex, the same method applies.

In the cases of "she causes it to be washed and causes it to be dyed" and so forth, by one act there is an offence entailing forfeiture, and by the second a wrong-doing. For one who causes all three to be done, by one there is an offence entailing forfeiture, and by the remaining two there are two wrong-doings. Since there is no escape for one who causes these acts of washing and so forth to be done whether in order or out of order, therefore three sets of four are stated here. For even if it is said "dye this robe, wash it, and bring it," and that bhikkhunī first washes it and afterwards dyes it, with the forfeiture there is only a wrong-doing. Thus the method should be applied in all cases of reversed instructions. But if one who is told "wash it and bring it" both washes and dyes it, the offence is only on account of causing it to be washed; in the dyeing there is no offence. Thus in all cases where something additional to what was stated is done, there is no offence, which should be understood by the principle "she washes without being told." But one who says "whatever needs to be done to this robe, all that is your responsibility" incurs multiple offences by a single statement.

The terms "if she is doubtful about one who is not a relative" and "perceiving one who is not a relative as a relative" - these terms too should be understood in detail by way of the same three sets of four already stated.

"One ordained unilaterally" - for one who causes a robe to be washed by one who has received full ordination in the presence of bhikkhunīs only, there is a wrong-doing. But for one who has received full ordination in the presence of bhikkhus, it is as in the original case itself. Those who received full ordination in the presence of bhikkhus are the five hundred Sākiyan women.

507. "Without being asked she washes" means: having come for recitation or exhortation, seeing a soiled robe, she takes it from the place where it was kept, or having had it brought saying "Give it, venerable sir, I shall wash it," she washes, dyes, and beats it - this is called "without being asked she washes." Also she who, having heard a monk instructing a young one or a novice saying "Wash this robe," says "Bring it, venerable sir, I shall wash it" and washes it, or takes it for the time being, washes it, dyes it, and gives it back - this too is called "without being asked she washes."

"Another requisite" means: whatever she causes to be washed - a sandal-bag, a bowl-bag, a shoulder-strap, a waist-band, a bed, a chair, a mattress, a bolster, and so forth - there is no offence. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

Among the origins and so forth, this training rule has six origins, is an act of commission, is not a liberation through perception, is without consciousness, is an offence by convention, is bodily action, is verbal action, has three types of consciousness, and has three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Old Robe Training Rule is completed.

5.

Commentary on the Training Rule on Accepting Robes

508. "At that time" refers to the training rule on accepting robes. Therein, "having returned from the alms round" means having returned from the almsfood collection. "She approached the Blind Men's Grove" means she approached the Blind Men's Grove when the training rule had not yet been laid down. "Having done their deed" means having done their thieving deed; it means they had stolen others' goods by means of breaking through walls and so forth. "Chief of the thieves" means the leader of the thieves. He, it is said, knew the elder nun from before; therefore, going ahead of the thieves and seeing her, he said "Do not go this way, all of you come this way," and taking them, he went by another path. "Having emerged from concentration" means the elder nun, it is said, emerged from concentration at the very time she had determined. He too spoke thus at that very moment; therefore she heard it, and having heard, thinking "There is now no other ascetic or brahmin here apart from me," she took that meat. Therefore it was said - "Then the nun Uppalavaṇṇā" etc.

"Left behind" means the one remaining behind; the meaning is that, having received the turn of monastery duty, he alone stayed in the monastery. Why did he say "If you would give me your inner robe"? Having seen the smooth, thick, and well-finished inner robe, out of greed; however, his greed for the inner robe was slight, but having aroused improper greed thinking "I shall see the bodily perfection of the elder nun who has attained the peak of excellence in her physical endowments," he spoke thus. "Last" means being the final one of the five robes as the outermost limit of all; "last" means the final one. "There is no other robe set aside even by expedient, whether by assigning or by withdrawing" - thus she spoke only in terms of wearing the five robes as permitted, not out of greed, for there is no greed in those who have destroyed the taints. "Being pressured" means being firmly pressed after he had shown a simile.

"Having given the inner robe, she went to her dwelling" means having wrapped herself in a bodice, she showed it only on the palm of her hand so that his desire would not be fulfilled, and departed.

510. Why did they grumble when the exchange robe was not accepted? Because of feeling disregarded and being distressed, thinking: "If the venerable ones do not have even this much trust in us, how shall we get along?"

"I allow, monks, from these five" means: the meaning is "I allow to accept an exchange from these five who are fellow practitioners of the Dhamma, of equal faith, of equal virtue, and of equal views."

512. "There is a wrong-doing in the effort" means there is a wrong-doing in the extending of the hand and so forth for the purpose of taking. "By the acquisition" means by the accepting. And therein, whether she gives it into his hand, or places it at his feet, or throws it from above, if he consents to it, it is as good as taken. But if he accepts what has been sent through the hands of female probationers, male novices, female novices, male lay followers, female lay followers and so forth, there is no offence. When one is giving a Dhamma talk, all four assemblies bring robes and various dyed cloths and place them at his feet, or standing within the vicinity or releasing them from the vicinity they throw them; whatever therein belongs to nuns, for one who takes that except in exchange, there is indeed an offence. But if they are thrown during the night-time, and it is not possible to know "this belongs to a nun, this belongs to others," it is stated in the Mahāpaccarī and the Kurundī that there is no need for exchange; that does not accord with the principle of absence of intention. If a nun gives a rains-residence offering, an exchange should indeed be made. But if she places it on a rubbish heap and so forth, it is allowable to determine it as a rag-robe and take it, thinking "they will take it as a rag-robe."

513. "Perceiving one who is not a relative as not a relative" - a triad of expiation offences. "One ordained unilaterally" means for one who accepts from the hand of one ordained in the presence of bhikkhunīs, there is a wrong-doing; but for one ordained in the presence of bhikkhus, it is indeed an expiation offence.

514. "Something small for something large" means if one exchanges a robe of little value, or sandal-cases, bowl-cases, shoulder-straps, waist-bands and the like, for something of great value and receives a robe, there is no offence. In the Mahāpaccarī, however, it is said "even with a piece of myrobalan." "Something large for something small" - this should be understood by reversing what has been stated. "Another requisite" means bowl-cases and the like, whatever they may be. However, even a cloth water-strainer of the size of a robe eligible for assignment as the last robe is not permissible. Whatever is neither eligible for determination nor eligible for assignment, all of that is permissible. Even if a lotus-fibre skin is the size of a bed, it is indeed permissible; what then need be said of bowl-cases and the like? The remainder is of clear meaning.

Among the origins and so forth, this has six origins, is action and non-action, is not liberation through perception, is without consciousness, is an offence by convention, is bodily action and verbal action, involves three types of consciousness, and involves three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Robe-Acceptance Training Rule is completed.

6.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Requesting from Those Who Are Not Related

515. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning making requests to unrelated persons. Therein, "Upananda the Sakyan" was despised among the approximately eighty thousand monks who had gone forth from the Sakyan clan, being of a greedy nature. "Competent" means skilful, accomplished, capable, endowed with a good voice, and possessed of sweetness of throat. "How could we" means what is it like, it is like affliction, the meaning is that it is like trembling, like shaking, on account of moral shame and fear of wrongdoing.

"Highway" means a long road reckoned as a journey, the meaning is not a city street road. "Those monks robbed them" means they plundered them, the meaning is they took away their bowls and robes. "Examine them" means question them for the purpose of ascertaining their status as monks. "Being examined" means being questioned about their going forth, higher ordination, determination of bowls and robes, and so forth. "They reported this matter" means having made known their status as monks, they reported this matter which was stated in the manner beginning with "travelling along the highway from Sāketa to Sāvatthī."

517. Regarding "an unrelated householder or" and so forth, what is stated further on as "having covered oneself with grass or leaves," taking that as the starting point, the gradual discussion should be understood thus. If, upon seeing thieves, the junior monks took their bowls and robes and fled, and the thieves carry off only the lower and upper robes of the elders, the elders should not yet ask for robes, nor should they break off branches and leaves. But if the junior monks fled abandoning all their belongings, and the thieves take the elders' lower and upper robes together with those belongings, the junior monks, having returned, should not yet give their own lower and upper robes to the elders, for those whose robes have not been stolen are not permitted to break off branches and leaves for their own sake, but they are permitted to do so for the sake of those whose robes have been stolen, and those whose robes have been stolen are permitted to do so for both their own sake and for the sake of others. Therefore, either the elders should break off branches and leaves, tie them with bark and the like, and give them to the junior monks, or the junior monks should break off and tie them for the elders' sake, and whether or not placing them in the elders' hands, having dressed themselves, they should give their own lower and upper robes to the elders; there is no pācittiya offence for destroying plant life, nor is there a dukkaṭa offence for wearing them.

If on the road there is a washerman's spreading cloth, or they see other such people, they should ask for a robe. And whatever cloths those people who were asked, or others, seeing monks dressed in branches and leaves, being inspired, give to them - whether those are with fringes or without fringes, or of various colours such as blue and so forth, whether allowable or not allowable - all of them, because of being in the position of those whose robes have been stolen, are suitable for them to wear as lower and upper robes. For this too has been stated in the Parivāra:

"Not made allowable, nor dyed with dye;

Clothed in that he may go wherever he wishes;

And there is no offence for him;

And that rule was taught by the Fortunate One;

This is a question considered by the skilful."

For this question was stated with reference to a monk whose robe has been stolen. But if they travel together with sectarians, and those give them garments of kusa grass, bark garments, or wooden-strip garments, it is suitable to wear even those without adopting their views, and even after wearing them, their views should not be adopted.

Now, regarding "to whatever residence he first goes, if there is the Community's dwelling robe" and so forth, a dwelling robe means: people, having had a residence built, prepare a set of three robes thinking "let even the four requisites, being our own property, go for use," and place them in the residence they had built; this is called a dwelling robe. Upper cover means a covering spread on top of a bed. Floor covering means a covering made of cloth strips for the purpose of protecting the prepared floor; spreading a mat on top of it, they walk about. Mattress skin means the skin of a bed mattress or a chair mattress; if it is stuffed, it is suitable to take it even after shaking out the stuffing. Thus, among these dwelling robes and so forth, whatever is there in the residence, it should be understood that it is permissible for monks whose robes have been stolen to take it, even without asking, and to wear it as a lower or upper robe. And that should be obtained with the intention "I will put it back, I will replace it," not for the purpose of permanent appropriation. And having obtained it, one should restore it to its original state from a relative, or a supporter, or from anywhere else. One who has gone to another region should deposit it in a single Community residence for use as Community property. If through his use alone it wears out or is lost, there is no fault. But if none of these aforementioned things, from lay cloths and so forth up to mattress skins, can be obtained, then one should come having covered oneself with grass or leaves.

519. Regarding "or has been stolen by anyone whomsoever," here it is fitting to say that even when teachers and preceptors whose robes have been stolen obtain robes from others either by requesting "Bring robes, friends" or by taking them on trust, that too falls within the scope of this rule.

Regarding "or has become worn out through use," here too it is fitting to say that even a robe given after one has covered teachers, preceptors and others whose robes have been stolen with grass and leaves oneself, that too falls within the scope of this rule. For in this way they will be standing in the position of those whose robes have been stolen and those whose robes have been lost, and therefore there will be a fitting non-offence for them in making a request and in the use of improper robes.

521. Regarding "for relatives, for those who have invited to admonish" - here the meaning should be understood thus: there is no offence for one who requests or asks "Give from what belongs to them." For indeed, there is neither offence nor non-offence for those who are relatives and have invited to admonish. Regarding "with one's own wealth" - here too the meaning should be understood thus: there is no offence for one who requests, procures, or exchanges a robe with one's own allowable goods through an allowable transaction. Regarding "for those who have invited to admonish" - here, when one has been invited on behalf of the Saṅgha, only the proper measure is appropriate. In the case of a personal invitation, whatever one invites for, only that should be requested. One who, having invited with the four requisites, himself observes and gives robes from time to time, rice-gruel and meals and so forth day by day - thus giving whatever is needed - for him there is no need to make a request. But one who, having invited, does not give due to foolishness or lapse of memory, he should be requested. One who says "I invite you to my house" - having gone to his house, one may sit or lie down at ease, but nothing should be taken. But one who says "Whatever is in my house, that I invite you to." Whatever is allowable there, that may be requested, but one is not permitted to sit or lie down in the house - thus it is stated in the Kurundī.

Regarding "for the benefit of another" - here one meaning is: there is no offence for one who requests from those who are one's own relatives and have invited to admonish, not merely for one's own benefit, but for the benefit of another. But this is the second meaning: "of another" means those who are relatives and have invited to admonish of another - there is no offence for one who requests for the benefit of that very person designated as "another," whether Buddharakkhita or Dhammarakkhita. The remainder is of clear meaning.

Regarding the origins and so forth, this too has six origins, is an act of commission, is not a liberation through the cessation of perception, is without consciousness, is an offence by convention, is bodily action and verbal action, involves three types of consciousness, and involves three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Asking from Unrelated Training Rule is completed.

7.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Beyond That

522-524. "At that time" refers to the next training rule. Therein, "abhihaṭṭhuṃ" - "abhi" is a prefix, the meaning is "to bring," and what is stated is "to take." "Pavāreyya" means one would cause to wish, would arouse a wish and inclination, would say, would invite - this is the meaning. However, to show the manner in which one who invites by bringing should speak, the word-analysis is stated thus: "Take as much as you wish." Alternatively, just as in "nekkhammaṃ daṭṭhu khemato" the meaning is "having seen," so too here "abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya" means "having brought, one would invite." Therein, bringing is twofold: bodily bringing and verbal bringing. For one might invite by physically bringing cloths and placing them at the feet, saying "Take as much as you wish," or one might invite verbally, saying "Our cloth storehouse is full, take as much as you wish." Combining both of these together, it is said "abhihaṭṭhuṃ pavāreyya."

"Santaruttaraparamaṃ" means that which has an inner robe, an upper robe, and an outer robe as the maximum for that robe - this is "santaruttaraparamaṃ." What is stated is that the upper limit is the outer robe together with the inner robe. "Tato cīvaraṃ sāditabbaṃ" means from those brought robes, this much robe should be accepted, and not more than this - this is the meaning. However, since only a monk who has had all three robes stolen, possessing the triple robe, should act thus, while another may act differently, in order to show that distinction, the word-analysis is stated by the method beginning with "if three are lost."

Herein this is the determination - For one whose three are lost, two should be accepted; having dressed in one and having wrapped in one, he will seek another from a suitable place. For one whose two are lost, one should be accepted. If one normally goes about with just the inner and upper robe, two should be accepted. Thus by accepting just one, he will be equal. For one whose one out of three is lost, none should be accepted. But for one whose one out of two is lost, one should be accepted. For one who has only one, and that is lost, two should be accepted. But for a bhikkhunī, even when five are lost, two should be accepted. When four are lost, one should be accepted; when three are lost, nothing should be accepted - what need to speak of two or one. For by whatever means one must maintain the state of having the inner robe, upper robe, and outer robe as the maximum, nothing beyond that is obtainable - this is the principle herein.

526. "I will bring the remainder" means having made two robes, he will bring the remainder again - this is the meaning. "Not because of robbery" means they give on account of qualities such as great learning and so forth. In the passage beginning with "for relatives" and so forth, the meaning is: there is no offence for one who accepts when relatives give, for one who accepts when those who have invited give, and for one who accepts with one's own wealth. However, in the commentaries it is said: "In the case of relatives and those who have invited, even much is allowable by nature; when it is because of robbery, only the prescribed amount is allowable." That does not accord with the canonical text. Since, however, this training rule was laid down only in connection with the matter of making a request for the sake of another, therefore "for the sake of another" is not stated here. The remainder is of clear meaning.

Regarding the origins and so forth, this too has six origins, is an act of commission, is not a liberation through the cessation of perception, is without consciousness, is an offence by convention, is bodily action and verbal action, involves three types of consciousness, and involves three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Beyond-That Training Rule is completed.

8.

Commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning What Has Been Prepared

527. "At that time" refers to the training rule that has been prepared. Therein, "Friend, he is my attendant" means: "Friend, the one you speak of, there is indeed such an attendant of mine" - this is the meaning here. "Indeed, noble sir, it occurs to me thus" means "indeed, to me, noble sir, it occurs thus." There is also the reading "api mayyā evaṃ."

528-529. In "but for a monk, having designated" (bhikkhuṃ paneva uddissa), here "having designated" (uddissa) means having indicated, with reference to. Since whatever has been set aside designating someone, that is called set aside for his purpose. Therefore in its word-analysis it is stated "for the monk's purpose" (bhikkhussatthāya).

"Having made the monk the object" (bhikkhuṃ ārammaṇaṃ karitvā) means having made the monk the reason; for whatever has been set aside designating a monk, that has necessarily been set aside making the monk the reason; therefore it is stated - "having made the monk the object." For "reason" (paccaya) too has come as "object" (ārammaṇa) in such passages as "Māra gains an object" etc. Now, to show the manner of the agent in "having designated" (uddissā), it is stated "desiring to clothe the monk" (bhikkhuṃ acchādetukāmo). For it is by one desiring to clothe the monk that it has been set aside designating him, not for any other reason. Thus he is one desiring to clothe. Therefore it was said - "desiring to clothe the monk."

"Of an unrelated householder or" (aññātakassa gahapatissa vā) means by an unrelated householder or; this is the meaning. For this is the genitive case used in the instrumental sense. But in the word-analysis, without examining the letter, merely to show the meaning, "one called unrelated" etc. "one called a householder" etc. is stated.

"Robe fund" (cīvaracetāpanna) means the price of a robe; and since that is one among gold and such things, therefore in the word-analysis "gold or" etc. is stated. "Has been set aside" (upakkhaṭaṃ hoti) means has been prepared, collected and deposited; but since its state of being set aside has been shown by the expression "gold or" etc., therefore the term "what is called set aside" (upakkhaṭaṃ nāma) has not been extracted and analysed separately in the word-analysis. "With this" (iminā) is said referring to what has been set aside; therefore in its word-analysis it is stated "with what is available" (paccupaṭṭhitena). For whatever has been set aside, collected and deposited, that is available. "I will clothe" (acchādessāmi) is a conventional expression; "I will give to the monk of such and such a name" - this is the meaning here. Therefore in its word-analysis too it is stated "I will give" (dassāmi).

"If that monk there" (tatra ce so bhikkhu) - the syntactical connection here is: where that householder or woman householder is, there that monk, not previously invited, having approached, should put forward a consideration regarding a robe. Therein, for "having approached" (upasaṅkamitvā), though the meaning is established by just "having gone" (gantvā), by common usage "house" (ghara) is stated. But the meaning here is just "having gone to where that donor is"; therefore it is also stated "having approached wherever" (yattha katthaci upasaṅkamitvā). "Should put forward a consideration" (vikappaṃ āpajjeyya) means should put forward a special arrangement, an additional specification; but in the word-analysis, to show the very manner in which one puts forward a consideration, "long or" etc. is stated. "Good" (sādhu) is a particle of request. "Indeed" (vata) is used in reflection. "Me" (maṃ) indicates oneself. "Venerable one" (āyasmā) addresses and calls upon another. But since all of this is merely a matter of wording, with obvious meaning, therefore its meaning is not stated in the word-analysis. "Desiring something fine" (kalyāṇakamyataṃ upādāya) means having taken up mentally the desire for something beautiful, the desire for something superior; its syntactical connection is with "should put forward" (āpajjeyya ce). But since one who puts forward a consideration desiring something fine is one who desires something good, who desires something costly, therefore in its word-analysis, setting aside the letter and showing only the intended meaning, that very expression is stated. But since the offence does not come to a head merely by his putting forward a consideration, therefore "by his word" (tassa vacanena) etc. is stated.

531. In the passage beginning with "there is no offence for relatives," the meaning should be understood thus: there is no offence for one who makes an arrangement regarding a robe with relatives. "When one wishing to get in exchange something very costly gets in exchange something of little value" means: when a householder wishes to get in exchange a robe worth twenty, one says "this is sufficient for me, give me one worth ten or one worth eight" - there is no offence. "Of little value" - this is stated only for the purpose of preventing excess, but there is no offence even for an equal amount, and that indeed is by way of value, not by way of measure, for this training rule concerns the increase of value. Therefore, one who wishes to get in exchange an inner robe worth twenty may also say "give me a robe of exactly that much value." The remainder is of clear meaning.

The origin and so forth are similar to the training rule concerning the higher robe.

The Explanation of the First Prepared Training Rule is completed.

9.

Commentary on the Second Training Rule Concerning What Has Been Prepared

532. In the second case of what has been prepared too, the meaning should be understood by this same method. For that is similar to a subsequent enactment of this. The only difference here is that in the first training rule, the affliction was caused to one person, while in the second, to two. All the rest is exactly the same as the first. And just as with two, so also when one takes after causing affliction to many, an offence should be understood.

The Explanation of the Second Prepared Training Rule is completed.

10.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning the King

537. "At that time" - this is the King training rule. Therein, "having informed the lay follower" means having made him know, the intention being that he said thus: "Having purchased a robe with this fund, give it to the elder." "Bound to fifty" means it is said to be a penalty of fifty kahāpaṇas. "Bound to pay fifty" is also a reading; the intention is: defeated by fifty, he must be made to pay fifty. "Wait for today, venerable sir" means: venerable sir, stay with us for just one day today, please be patient - this is the meaning. "Fondled" means he seized. "You have lost" means you have been defeated.

538-539. "A king's official" means one who has something to be enjoyed, something that should be consumed, from the king - thus a king's official. There is also the reading "rājabhogo"; the meaning is: one who has wealth from the king.

"Should send" means should dispatch. Because its meaning is plain, the word-analysis has not been stated. And just as for this, so too it should be understood that the word-analysis has not been stated for the words "a robe for the monk of such and such a name" etc., precisely because their meaning is plain. "Brought" means conveyed. "At the right time that is allowable" means at the appropriate and fitting time; the meaning is: when we have need, then we accept an allowable robe.

"Steward" means one who performs duties; the meaning is one who acts as an agent for allowable things. "He has been informed by me" means he has been instructed by me, such that when you have need of a robe he will give a robe - thus is the meaning of what was said. "I have need, friend, for a robe" - this is an illustration of the characteristic of prompting, for this statement should be spoken, or its meaning in whatever language; this is the characteristic of prompting. But "Give me a robe" and so forth are stated to show the manner in which one should not speak, for these statements, or their meaning in whatever language, should not be spoken.

"He should be told a second time and a third time" means this very statement "I have need, friend, for a robe" should be spoken up to three times. Thus, having shown the limit of the prompting prescribed in "he should be prompted and reminded two or three times," now showing in brief the meaning of the words "prompting and reminding two or three times, if he should produce that robe, this is wholesome," he said "if he produces it, this is wholesome." Thus, prompting up to three times, if he produces that robe, if he is able to produce it by way of one's own obtaining, this is wholesome - good, excellent, fine.

"He should stand silently for it four times, five times, six times at most" - this is an illustration of the characteristic of standing. And "six times at most" is a neuter expression denoting a state; for by this one should stand silently for the robe six times at most, and nothing else should be done - this is the characteristic of standing. Therein, in order to show the silence that is common to all standings, in the word-analysis it is stated "having gone there, remaining silent" etc. Therein, "one should not sit on a seat" means one should not sit even when told "Please sit here, venerable sir." "Material gifts should not be accepted" means one should not accept any material gift such as gruel, hard food and the like, even when requested "Please accept, venerable sir." "The Dhamma should not be spoken" means one should not speak anything even when requested "Please speak a blessing or a thanksgiving"; only when asked "For what reason have you come?" one should say "You know, friend." "When asked" - this is indeed a reflexive case used in the instrumental sense. Or alternatively, the meaning here should be understood as: one who is making an inquiry is "one who asks." For one who makes an inquiry, by saying just that much, breaks the standing - that is, breaks the purpose for which he came.

Now three promptings and six standings have been stated. Therein, showing the increase and decrease, he said "having prompted four times" etc. And because here, with the increase of one prompting, the decrease of two standings has been stated, therefore the characteristic "one prompting equals double the standing" has been shown. Thus by this characteristic, having prompted three times one should stand six times, having prompted twice one should stand eight times, having prompted once one should stand ten times. And just as it is said "having prompted six times one should not stand," so too it is as if said "having stood twelve times one should not prompt." Therefore, if one only prompts and does not stand, six promptings are obtained. If one only stands and does not prompt, twelve standings are obtained. If one both prompts and stands, for each prompting two standings must be deducted. Therein, one who goes repeatedly on a single day and prompts six times, or having gone just once says "I have need, friend, for a robe" six times - likewise, one who goes repeatedly on a single day and stands twelve times, or having gone just once stands at various spots - he too breaks all the promptings and all the standings. What need to speak of one who does so on different days - thus the determination here should be understood.

"From where the robe fund was brought for him" means from where - whether from the king or from the king's official - the robe fund was brought for that monk. "Yatvassā" is also a reading. The meaning is the same. Some also read "yatthassā," and they explain the meaning as "to the place where the robe fund was sent for him," but the wording does not fit. "Therein" means in the presence of that king or king's official; for this is a locative case used in the sense of proximity. "That does not benefit that monk in any way" means that robe fund does not accomplish even the slightest purpose for that monk. "Let the venerable ones recover your own" means let the venerable ones retrieve their own wealth. "Lest your own be lost" means let what belongs to you not be lost. But one who neither goes himself nor sends a messenger commits an offence of wrong-doing for breach of proper conduct.

But should one proceed in this manner with regard to all stewards? One should not proceed thus. For a steward, in brief, is of two kinds: pointed out and not pointed out. Therein, the pointed out is of two kinds - pointed out by the monk, and pointed out by the messenger. The not pointed out is also of two kinds - the face-to-face volunteer steward, and the behind-the-back steward. Among these, the one pointed out by the monk is of four kinds by way of being in his presence and not in his presence. Likewise, the one pointed out by the messenger also.

How? Here someone sends an unallowable item by messenger for a monk's robe, the messenger having approached that monk says "This, venerable sir, has been sent by so-and-so for your robe, please accept it," the monk refuses saying "This is not allowable," the messenger asks "But do you, venerable sir, have a steward?" and either lay followers desiring merit have been instructed "Perform services for the monks," or there are some stewards who are acquaintances and companions of the monks, and one of them is at that moment seated near the monk, and the monk points him out saying "This is a steward for the monks." The messenger, having placed the unallowable item in his hands and saying "Buy a robe for the elder and give it," departs. This is one pointed out by the monk in his presence.

If he is not seated near the monk, but the monk points out - "In such and such a village, so-and-so is a steward for the monks," and he, having gone and placed the unallowable item in his hands and saying "You should buy a robe for the elder and give it," having come back and informed the monk, departs. This is the first one pointed out by the monk not in his presence.

That messenger does not come himself to inform, but rather sends another saying "I have given, venerable sir, the robe fund into his hands; you should accept the robe." This is the second one pointed out by the monk not in his presence.

He does not send another, but rather while departing says to the monk "I shall give the robe fund into his hands; you should accept the robe." This is the third one pointed out by the monk not in his presence. Thus one pointed out in his presence and three pointed out not in his presence - these four are called stewards pointed out by the monk. Among these, one should proceed in the manner stated in this training rule concerning the king.

Another monk, when asked by the messenger in the same manner as before, says "We have no steward," either because there is none or because he does not wish to make arrangements, and at that moment some person arrives, the messenger places the unallowable item in his hands and saying "You should accept the robe from this person's hands," departs. This is one pointed out by the messenger in his presence.

Another messenger, having entered the village and placed the unallowable item in the hands of someone he himself approves of, either comes back and informs in the same manner as before, or sends another, or while departing says "I shall give the robe fund into the hands of so-and-so; you should accept the robe," and departs. This is the third one pointed out by the messenger not in his presence. Thus one pointed out in his presence and three pointed out not in his presence - these four are called stewards pointed out by the messenger. Among these, one should proceed in the manner stated in the Meṇḍaka training rule. For this was said: "There are, monks, people who are faithful and devoted; they deposit gold in the hands of stewards - 'With this give whatever is allowable to the noble one.' I allow, monks, to accept whatever is allowable from that. But I do not say, monks, that by any means whatsoever gold and silver should be accepted or sought after." Here there is no limit to prompting; one who does not accept the capital may obtain allowable goods even a thousand times by prompting or by standing. If he does not give, one may have it brought even by appointing another steward. If he wishes, he may also speak to the owners of the capital; if he does not wish, he should not speak to them.

Another monk, when asked by the messenger in the same manner as before, says "We have no steward," and another person standing nearby, having heard, says "Bring it, sir, I will get a robe in exchange and give it to the venerable one." The messenger, saying "Well then, sir, please give it," places it in his hands and departs without informing the monk. This is a mouth-opening steward. Another person, having placed an unallowable item in the hands of the monk's attendant or someone else, saying "Please give a robe to the elder," departs right there. This is an absent steward. These two are called undesignated stewards. In their case, one should act as with uninvited persons who are not relatives. If they themselves bring a robe and give it, it should be accepted. If not, nothing should be said to them. This is merely a teaching example that "one should send a robe fund by messenger"; the same method applies even when one brings it oneself and gives it for the purpose of almsfood and so forth. It is not only for one's own purpose that it is not allowable to accept; even if someone brings gold and silver and says "I give this to the Saṅgha, build either a monastery or a shrine or a dining hall or any other," this too is not allowable to accept. For whoever accepts it for any other purpose whatsoever, there is an offence of wrong-doing - thus it is stated in the Mahāpaccarī.

But if, when it has been refused saying "It is not allowable for monks to accept this," he says "It will be in the hands of carpenters or labourers; you just know what is well done and what is wrongly done," and places it in their hands and departs, it is allowable. And also if he says "It will be in the hands of my people or in my own hands; you just send for whatever purpose whatever should be given," this too is allowable.

But if, without addressing the Saṅgha or a group or an individual, they say "We give this gold and silver for the shrine, we give it for the monastery, we give it for new construction," it is not allowable to refuse. "These people are saying this" - thus it should be made known to the stewards. But if one says "Take it and keep it for the purpose of the shrine and so forth," it should be refused saying "It is not allowable for us to take it."

But if someone brings a large amount of gold and silver and says "I give this to the Saṅgha, use the four requisites," if the Saṅgha accepts it, there is an offence both in the acceptance and in the use. If therein one monk refuses saying "This is not allowable," and the lay follower says "If it is not allowable, it will be mine," and goes away - That monk should not be told anything by anyone saying "You have caused an obstruction to the Saṅgha's gain." For whoever reproves him, he himself becomes one with an offence, but by that one person many have been made free from offence. But if, when it has been refused by the monks saying "It is not allowable," he says "It will be in the hands of the stewards, or in the hands of my men, or in my own hands; you just use the requisites," it is allowable.

What is given for the purpose of the four requisites should be applied for the purpose of whichever requisite is needed; what is given for the purpose of robes should be applied to robes only. If there is no such need for robes and the Saṅgha is struggling with almsfood and so forth, having announced it for the well-being of the Saṅgha, it should be applied for that purpose too. The same method applies to what is given for the purpose of almsfood and medicine for the sick; but what is given for the purpose of lodgings, because lodgings are heavy property, should be applied to lodgings only. But if, when monks have abandoned the lodgings and departed, the lodgings are deteriorating, at such a time the use by monks is permitted even by disposing of the lodgings; therefore, for the purpose of maintaining the lodgings, without cutting off the capital, only enough for sustenance should be used.

Not only gold and silver, but also other unallowable things such as fields and land should not be accepted. For if someone says "I have a great reservoir that produces three crops, I give it to the Saṅgha," if the Saṅgha accepts it, there is indeed an offence both in the acceptance and in the use. But whoever refuses it, he, in the same manner as before, should not be told anything by anyone. For whoever reproves him, he himself becomes one with an offence, but by that one person many have been made free from offence.

But if one who has said "I will give just such a reservoir" and has been refused by the monks saying "It is not allowable," says "Such and such a reservoir belongs to the Saṅgha; how is that allowable?" He should be told - "It must have been given having been made allowable." How is what is given made allowable? "By saying 'Use the four requisites' and then giving." If he says "Very well, venerable sir, let the Saṅgha use the four requisites" and gives, it is allowable. And also if, having said "Accept the reservoir" and being refused saying "It is not allowable," he asks "Is there a steward?" and when told "There is not," says "So-and-so will manage this, or it will be in so-and-so's hands, or in my own hands; let the Saṅgha use the allowable goods," it is allowable. Even if, when refused saying "It is not allowable," he says "They will use the water, they will wash their belongings, animals and birds will drink," this too is allowable. And also if, when refused saying "It is not allowable," he says "Accept it under an allowable heading." Having said "Very well, lay follower, the Saṅgha will drink the water, will wash their belongings, animals and birds will drink," it is allowable to use.

Furthermore, when it is said "I give my pond or my lotus pool to the Saṅgha," having said "Very well, lay follower, the Saṅgha will drink the water" and so forth, it is indeed allowable to make use of it. But if, having been requested by monks for manual labour and having dug allowable earth with their own hands, a pond has been made for the purpose of using water, and if, depending on that, people produce crops and give allowable goods to the monastery, it is allowable. If people themselves, for the purpose of assisting the Saṅgha, dig the Saṅgha's land and give allowable goods from the crops produced depending on that, this too is allowable. And when it is said "Appoint one steward for us," it is also permissible to appoint one. But if those people, oppressed by the king's tax, depart, and others take over, and they do not give anything to the monks, it is permissible to withhold the water. And that only at the time of ploughing, not at the time of the crop. If they say "But, venerable sir, did not people formerly also grow crops depending on this?" Then they should be told: "They rendered such and such service to the Saṅgha, and gave such and such allowable goods." If they say: "We too shall give," this too is allowable.

But if any ignorant person accepts or has made a pond through an unallowable transaction, that should not be used by monks, and even the allowable goods obtained depending on that are themselves unallowable. If, having known that it has been relinquished by the monks, the owner or his sons and daughters or anyone else arisen in the lineage gives it again through an allowable transaction, it is allowable. When the family lineage is cut off, whoever is the lord of that country, having reclaimed it, gives it again - just as the chief queen of King Aḷanāga gave the water channel that had been removed by a monk at Cittalapabbata - this too is allowable.

Even in an allowable transaction, in a pond accepted on the basis of water, it is allowable for those of pure intention to do such things as removing clay, binding embankments, and so forth. But seeing people growing crops depending on that, it is not allowable to appoint a steward. If they themselves give allowable goods, they should be accepted. If they do not give, they should not be prompted, nor reminded. In a pond accepted on the basis of requisites, it is allowable to appoint a steward. But it is not allowable to do such things as removing clay, binding embankments, and so forth. If the stewards do them of their own accord, it is allowable. But when things are made to be done by an ignorant conscientious monk, although the acceptance is allowable, because of being mixed with what has arisen through the monk's own effort, it becomes difficult to separate - like almsfood that has gone beyond the boundary, or like food mixed with the taste of unallowable meat - and it is unallowable for all.

But if he manages only the water thus: "There is space for water, the embankment of the pond is firm, make it so that it holds much water, make water near the bank" - this is allowable. They do not light a fire in the oven. It is allowable to say "Let the water work be done, lay followers." But it is not allowable to say "Grow crops and bring them." But if, seeing too much water in the pond, whether in his presence or behind his back, he has a channel led out, has forest cut down and has paddy fields made, or in old paddy fields takes more than the customary share without taking the standard portion, or in new crops or out-of-season crops where the share has not been determined, raises money saying "Give so many coins" - it is unallowable for all.

But whoever, without saying "Plough and sow," establishes the land thus: "In such an extent of land, such is the share," and when farmers say "We have grown crops on such an extent of land, take such a share," measures with a rope or a rod for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of land, or stands at the threshing floor and guards it, or has it removed from the threshing floor, or stores it in the granary - for him alone that is unallowable.

If farmers bring coins and say "These have been brought for the Saṅgha," and a certain monk, with the perception that "The Saṅgha does not eat coins," says "With so many coins bring cloth, with so many procure gruel and so forth." Whatever they bring, it is unallowable for all. Why? Because of having managed the coins.

If they bring grain and say "this has been brought for the Saṅgha," and a certain monk, in the same manner as before, says "with this much rice, bring such and such things." Whatever they bring is not allowable for that monk alone. Why? Because grain has been disposed of.

If they bring husked rice or pulses and say "this has been brought for the Saṅgha," and a certain monk, in the same manner as before, says "with this much husked rice, bring such and such things." Whatever they bring is allowable for all. Why? Because allowable things such as husked rice have been disposed of. There is no offence even in buying and selling, because it has been indicated to the steward.

Formerly, however, at Cittalapabbata, a certain monk drew a circle on the ground at the entrance of the dining hall, in order to give a hint to the monastery attendants, thinking "Oh, if only tomorrow they would bake cakes of such a size for the Saṅgha." A clever monastery attendant, having seen that and done accordingly, on the second day, when the Saṅgha had assembled at the sounding of the drum, took the cakes and said to the elder of the Saṅgha - "Venerable sir, neither by us before this, nor by our fathers, nor by our grandfathers has such a thing been heard of before. A hint for cakes was made by one master at the entrance of the dining hall. From now on, let the masters each say whatever accords with their own wishes, and there will be comfortable living for us too." The Great Elder turned back from that very place, and not even one monk accepted a cake. Thus, in the past, they did not even partake of what arose there. Therefore -

By a monk who excels in austerity, who is heedful,

Even in allowable things, greed for the sake of material gain should not be practised.

And what has been stated regarding a pond applies in the same way to lotus ponds, water channels, irrigation canals, and the like.

Even when someone says "I give whatever field or site that is a growing place for early crops, later crops, sugar cane, fruits, non-fruits, and the like," it should be refused saying "it is not allowable," and in the same manner as stated for the pond, when he says in allowable terms "I give it for the purpose of using the four requisites," then it should be accepted. But when he says "I give a forest, I give a wilderness," it is allowable. If people, without being instructed by the monks, cut trees there and produce pulses and the like and give a share to the monks, it is allowable; If they do not give, they should not be prompted. If due to some obstacle those people depart and others take over, and they do not give anything to the monks, they should be prevented. If they say: "But, venerable sir, did not people formerly cultivate crops here too?" then they should be told - "They gave such and such allowable goods to the Saṅgha." If they say: "We too shall give" - thus it is allowable.

If, referring to a certain tract of land with good produce, they say "we give a boundary," it is allowable. However, for the purpose of demarcating the boundary, pillars or stones should not be placed by oneself. Why? Land is invaluable; one could incur defeat even for a small amount. But the monastery attendants should be told - "Our boundary extends to this place." Even if they take more, because it has been stated indirectly, there is no offence. But if kings, royal ministers, and the like themselves have pillars set up and give saying "use the four requisites," it is indeed allowable.

If someone digs a pond within the boundary, or leads a canal through the middle of the monastery, and the shrine grounds, the Bodhi tree grounds, and so forth are damaged, he should be prevented. If the Saṅgha, having received something, does not prevent it out of regard for material gain, but one monk prevents it, that monk alone has authority. If one monk does not prevent it, saying "You may proceed," he takes their side; if the Saṅgha prevents it, the Saṅgha alone has authority. For in communal affairs, whoever performs the act in accordance with the Dhamma, he alone has authority. If he continues even when being prevented, the earth taken from below should be thrown back below, and the earth taken from above should be thrown back above, and it should be filled in.

If someone, wishing to give sugarcane or pulses or gourds, pumpkins, and the like, or creeper fruits just as they have grown, says "I give all this - the sugarcane field, the pulse land, the creeper-fruit garden," the Elder Mahāsuma said "It is not allowable" because it is grasped together with the land. But the Elder Mahāpaduma said "This is merely a verbal expression, for that portion of land remains the owners' own, therefore it is allowable."

If one says "I give a slave," it is not allowable. If one says "I give a monastery attendant, I give a steward, I give an attendant for allowable matters," it is allowable. If that monastery attendant works for the Saṅgha both before and after the meal, all medicine and care should be provided for him, just as for a novice. If he works for the Saṅgha only before the meal and does his own work after the meal, the evening meal-offering should not be given. Even those who work for the Saṅgha on a five-day rotation or a fortnightly rotation and do their own work the rest of the time, food and meal-offerings should be given to them only during the time they are working. If there is no work for the Saṅgha and they live by doing their own work, if they bring and give the proceeds of their handiwork, it should be accepted. If they do not give, nothing should be said to them. It is allowable to accept under the name of monastery attendant any washerman-servant or weaver-servant whatsoever.

If they say "We give cows," they should be refused saying "It is not allowable." When the wise ask "Where did these cows come from?" and are told they were given for the use of the five cow-products, if they say "We too give them for the use of the five cow-products," it is allowable. The same method applies to she-goats and the like as well. If they say "We give an elephant, a horse, a buffalo, chickens, pigs," it is not allowable to accept them. If some people say "Be unconcerned, venerable sirs, we shall take these and give you allowable goods," and they take them, it is allowable. It is allowable to release chickens and pigs into the forest saying "May the chickens and pigs live happily." When it is said "We give this pond, this field, this site to the monastery," it cannot be refused. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

Regarding the origin and so forth, this too is of sixfold origin, is an act of commission, is not connected with the perception-release, is without consciousness, is an offence by convention, is bodily action and verbal action, involves three types of consciousness, and involves three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the King Training Rule is completed.

The first chapter on robes is completed.

2.

The Chapter on Silk

1.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Silk

542. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning silk. Therein, "made by spreading out" means it is made by spreading silk threads layer upon layer on a level piece of ground and sprinkling them with rice gruel and the like. "Mixed with even a single silk thread" means setting aside what is mixed according to one's own preference, even if the wind brings and drops a single silk thread at the place where it is being made, it is still considered made by mixing. The remainder is of clear meaning.

Six origins, action, not liberation by cessation of perception, without consciousness, an offence by convention, bodily action and verbal action.

Three types of consciousness, three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Silk Training Rule is completed.

2.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Pure Black

547. "At that time" - this is the training rule concerning pure black. Therein, "of pure black" means of pure black ones, meaning of black ones unmixed with others. The remainder is of clear meaning. The origin and so forth are similar to the training rule concerning silk.

The Explanation of the Pure Black Training Rule is completed.

3.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Two Parts

552. "At that time" refers to the two-portion training rule. Therein, "having taken at the edge" means having displayed white at the edge of the rug like a border strip and having attached it.

"Two portions" means two parts. "Should be taken" means should be obtained. "Of tawny" means of tawny-coloured ones. "Two tulā should be taken" is said with reference to one who wishes to have it made with four tulā. But in meaning, it should be understood that this itself has been shown: of whatever amount of goat wool one wishes to make it, two parts of that should be of black, one of white, and one of tawny. The remainder is of clear meaning.

The origin and so forth are similar to those of the silk training rule. However, this should be understood as involving action and non-action, since it can be done both by taking and by not taking.

The Explanation of the Two-Parts Training Rule is completed.

4.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Six Years

557. "At that time" refers to the six-year training rule. Therein, "defecate and urinate" means it is said that they defecate and urinate upon the rugs.

"The authorisation for a rug has been given by the Saṅgha to the monk named so-and-so" - a monk who has thus received authorisation is permitted to make a rug wherever he goes, as long as the illness has not subsided. If, having recovered, he falls ill again with the same original disease, the same remedy applies and there is no need for another authorisation procedure - so said the Elder Phussadeva. But the Elder Upatissa said: "Whether that disease recurs or another arises, once the designation 'ill' has been obtained, it is obtained indeed; there is no need for another authorisation procedure."

"If within six years" means in the earlier part of six years; the meaning is "within." But in the word-analysis, "less than six years" is stated for the purpose of showing the mere number.

"There is no offence if he makes it after six years" means when six years are complete, then he makes a rug. Regarding the second term also, the meaning should be understood thus: "When more than six years have passed, then he makes it." For he does not make it within six years. The remainder is of clear meaning.

The origin and so forth are similar to those of the silk training rule.

The Explanation of the Six-Years Training Rule is completed.

5.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning the Sitting-cloth Spread

565. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning the sitting-cloth spread. Therein, "I wish, monks" - the Blessed One, it is said, during those three months did not see any being capable of being awakened, therefore he spoke thus. Even so, a teaching of the Dhamma should have been given by way of the textual tradition. But because this occurred to him - "When I have made an occasion and gone into seclusion, the monks will make an unlawful agreement, and Upasena will break it. Having been pleased with him, I will allow the monks an audience, and then many monks wishing to see me will undertake the ascetic practices, and I will lay down a training rule on account of the spread discarded by them" - therefore he spoke thus. For there are indeed many benefits in this.

"Together with his following, he approached the Blessed One" - the Elder, it is said, having received censure in the manner beginning with "How can you, foolish man, who should yourself be admonished and instructed by others, think to admonish and instruct another" regarding this chapter training rule "Monks, one should not give full ordination to one of less than ten years' standing; whoever should give full ordination, there is an offence of wrong-doing," the good-hearted son of family, thinking "The Teacher gave me censure on account of my following; now I shall cause the Blessed One, having uttered his Brahmā-like voice from that very face resplendent as the full moon and complete in every respect, to give approval on account of my following itself," having travelled back more than a hundred leagues, having gathered a following, surrounded by about five hundred monks, was again approaching the Blessed One. Therefore it was said - "Together with his following, he approached the Blessed One." For it is not possible to please the Buddhas otherwise than through the accomplishment of proper conduct.

"Seated not far from the Blessed One" - being without apprehension due to the purity of his accomplishment of proper conduct, like a lion, he sat not far from the Blessed One who was like a golden mountain. "Said this" - he said this for the purpose of initiating a conversation. "Are rag-robes agreeable to you, monk" - the meaning is: monk, these rag-robes of yours are agreeable, taken by your own preference and liking. "No indeed, venerable sir, they are not agreeable to me" - he shows that "Venerable sir, they were not taken by me through my own preference; I was made to take them as if seized by the throat and as if struck on the head."

"Will be known" - he will be known and recognised; what is meant is that it will be evident therein. "We will not establish what has not been established" - we who are disciples will not establish what has not been established, for this is the domain of the Buddha, namely the establishing of training rules not yet established or the abolishing of those established, in the manner of "an expiation, a wrong-doing" and so forth. "Having accepted" - having undertaken each respective training rule, having agreed "Good, excellent," he shows that "we will train in all training rules as they were established." Being pleased in mind with him, he again gave his approval saying "Good, good."

566. "It has been permitted, friends" means "it has been permitted, friend." "Longing" means desiring. "Having abandoned their rugs" means having abandoned all rugs, since the rug was regarded as a fourth robe. "Having given a talk on the Teaching, he addressed the monks" means the Blessed One, having seen the rugs scattered about, thinking "there is no reason for the destruction of what is given in faith; I shall show them a means of making use of them," gave a talk on the Teaching and addressed the monks.

567. "Once worn and once draped" means once sat upon and once lain upon. "From the edge" means having cut a round or square piece from one side, the place taken should be a span in measure; thus it should be taken. However, one who is spreading it should spread it on one spot in the manner stated in the canonical text, or having unravelled it and mixed it, it should be spread; thus it becomes more durable. The remainder is of clear meaning.

The origin and other factors of this training rule, owing to its nature of being both an act of commission and an act of omission, are similar to the two-part training rule.

Among these five rugs, the first three, even after performing a formal act of the Vinaya and obtaining them, are not allowable to use; the last two are allowable - thus it should be understood.

The Explanation of the Sitting-Mat Spread Training Rule is completed.

6.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Sheep's Wool

571. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning goat wool. Therein, "mocked" means they ridiculed him, saying such things as "For how much, venerable sir, were they bought?" "Threw down while still standing" means just as people, having brought a large load of wood from the forest, being exhausted, drop it while still standing, so too he dropped it - this is the meaning.

572. "With one's own hand" means by one's own hand; it is stated that they should be carried by oneself. "Drops beyond three yojanas" means he drops them outside of three yojanas. When they fall without obstruction, as soon as they are released from the hand, there are expiation offences involving forfeiture according to the count of hairs. If, beyond three yojanas, they strike a tree or a pillar and fall back inside, there is no offence. If a bundle of goat wool, having fallen on the ground and rolling, stopping and stopping, enters back inside, it is indeed an offence. If, standing inside, one rolls it with the hand, foot, or stick, whether the bundle goes rolling while standing or not standing, it is indeed an offence. If one places it thinking "another will carry it," even if that person carries it, it is indeed an offence. If what was placed with an innocent mind is dropped outside by the wind or by another through its own nature, it is indeed an offence. Because the training rule involves effort and is without mental intention. However, in the Kurundī and other texts it is stated "here there is no offence," but that non-offence does not accord with the canonical text. If one makes a double bundle tied as one and places one bundle inside the boundary and one outside the boundary, it is protected for the time being. The same method applies to a single tied carrying-pole load as well. But if, without tying, it is merely placed on the end of the carrying-pole, it does not protect. Even when tied as one, if it is turned around and placed, it is indeed an offence.

Regarding "or in another's vehicle," here one places it on a moving vehicle or on an elephant's back and so forth, without the owner knowing, thinking "it will be carried." When that passes beyond three yojanas, there is an offence. The same method applies even when it is not moving. But if one places it on a stationary vehicle or on an elephant's back and so forth, mounts and drives it, or walking below urges it on, or calling out causes it to follow, there is no offence because of the statement "he has another carry it." However, in the Kurundī and other texts it is stated "there is an offence," but that does not accord with this statement "he has another carry it." But in the case of taking what is not given, there is an offence in evading customs duty. For what is an offence there is a non-offence here. What is an offence here is a non-offence there. If, having reached that place, one goes off being occupied with something else or being troubled by thieves and so forth, it is indeed an offence. Everywhere, the determination of the offence should be understood according to the count of hairs.

575. "Having gone with the intention of residing for three yojanas, carries it beyond that" means wherever one has gone, due to not obtaining recitation, questioning and the like, or requisites and the like there, one goes elsewhere beyond that, and from there to yet another place - thus even for one carrying it a hundred yojanas, there is no offence. "Having received back what was robbed" means robbers, having stolen it and knowing it to be useless, return it; for one carrying that, there is no offence. "Having received back what was handed over" means having received back what was subjected to a disciplinary act of the Vinaya - this is the meaning.

"Made-up goods" means goods that have been made up - blankets, coverlets, spreads and the like, anything whatsoever, even merely bound with thread. But whoever, placing wool in the spaces between thin-leafed bags, or in the spaces between yokes, shoulder-straps, body-bands and the like, for the purpose of protecting against dirt from long pepper and the like, or in a shell-case, or even one afflicted by wind disorder placing wool in the ear-hole and going - it is indeed an offence. But that which is inserted after being bound with thread stands in the category of made-up goods; one who carries it having made it into a braid - this is called a "store-opening," and it is indeed an offence. The remainder is of clear meaning.

Regarding the origin and so forth, this is called the sheep-wool origin; it arises from body and from body-and-mind; it is an act, not liberation through cessation of perception, without consciousness, an offence by convention, bodily action, with three types of consciousness, with three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Sheep's Wool Training Rule is completed.

7.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Having Sheep's Wool Washed

576. "At that time" refers to the training rule on having goat wool washed. Therein, "neglecting" means they abandon, give up; the meaning stated is that they are unable to apply themselves. The remainder here, together with the origin and so forth, is according to the method stated in the training rule on old robes.

The Explanation of the Washing Sheep's Wool Training Rule is completed.

8.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Money

582. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning money. Therein, "portion" means a share.

583-584. In the phrase "gold and silver" (jātarūparajata), herein "gold" (jātarūpa) is a name for gold (suvaṇṇa). But since it is similar in colour to the Tathāgata, therefore in the word-analysis it is stated "it is called the Teacher's colour." Its meaning is - "That which is the Teacher's colour, a special kind of metal - this is called 'gold' (jātarūpa)." But "silver" (rajata) - in such passages as "conch, stone, coral, silver, gold" etc., it refers to silver coin (rūpiya). But here, whatever is current in trade, such as kahāpaṇas and the like, is intended. Therefore in its word-analysis it is stated "a kahāpaṇa, a metal coin" etc. Therein, "kahāpaṇa" means one made of gold, or one made of silver, or an ordinary one. "Metal coin" (lohamāsaka) means a coin made of copper and other metals. "Wooden coin" (dārumāsaka) means a coin made by cutting a form from heartwood, or from a strip of bamboo, or even from a palmyra leaf. "Lac coin" (jatumāsaka) means a coin made by moulding a form from lac or from resin. But by the phrase "whatever passes as currency," whatever in whatever region at whatever time passes as currency - even one made of bone, or one made of leather, or one made of fruit seeds, whether with a moulded form or without a moulded form - all is included.

Thus all this - silver, gold, gold coins, and all silver coins of the kinds described - constitutes the fourfold subject of forfeiture. Pearls, gems, lapis lazuli, conch, stone, coral, ruby, agate, the seven grains, female slaves, male slaves, fields, sites, flower gardens, fruit orchards and the like - this is the subject of wrongdoing. Thread, ploughshares, cloth, cotton, various kinds of green crops, and medicines such as ghee, butter, oil, honey, sugar and the like - this is the allowable subject. Therein, it is not proper to accept the subject of forfeiture for one's own benefit or for the benefit of the Saṅgha, a group, an individual, or a shrine. For one who accepts it for one's own benefit, there is an expiation involving forfeiture; for the benefit of the others, there is a wrongdoing. For one who accepts the subject of wrongdoing for the benefit of any of them, there is only a wrongdoing. In the case of the allowable subject, there is no offence. For one who accepts all of it for the purpose of depositing it, under the authority of a steward, there is an expiation by virtue of what is stated above in the training rule on precious things.

"Should take" (uggaṇheyya) means should take. But since one who takes it incurs an offence, therefore in its word-analysis it is stated "if he takes it himself, it is an expiation involving forfeiture." This same method applies to the remaining terms as well.

Therein, in the case of gold and silver articles and kahāpaṇa coins, for one who takes or has taken one, there is one offence. Even if one takes or has taken a thousand at once, the offences are according to the counting of the objects. But in the Mahāpaccarī and the Kurundī, in the case of a loosely tied bag or a loosely filled vessel, the offence is according to the counting of the coins. But in the case of a tightly tied or tightly filled one, it is stated that there is only one offence.

But regarding consenting to what is placed nearby, when it is said "let this be for the venerable one," even if one consents to it mentally, desiring to take it, but rejects it by body or by speech saying "this is not allowable," there is no offence. Even without rejecting it by body or speech, if one remains with a pure mind and does not consent, thinking "this is not allowable for us," there is no offence indeed. For among the three doors, what is rejected by any one of them is indeed rejected. But if, without rejecting it by body or speech, one consents to it mentally, because of the non-performance of the rejection that should have been done by body and speech, one incurs an offence arising from non-action at the body-door and the speech-door; but at the mind-door there is no such thing as an offence.

Someone places a hundred or a thousand at his feet saying "May this be for you," the monk rejects it saying "This is not allowable," the lay follower goes away thinking "It has been relinquished by me to them," another person comes there and asks - "What is this, venerable sir?" What was said by him and by oneself, that should be told. If he says - "I will keep it safe, venerable sir, show me a secure place," even having climbed up to a seven-storeyed mansion, one should indicate "This is a secure place," but one should not say "Place it here." To this extent, it remains dependent on both what is allowable and what is not allowable. One should dwell guarding it, having closed the door. If some merchandise, a bowl or a robe, comes along, and it is said "Please accept this, venerable sir," one should say "Lay follower, we have need of this, and there exists such and such a fund, but there is no steward." If he says "I will be the steward, open the door and give it," having opened the door, one should say "It was placed in this spot," but one should not say "Take this." Even so, it remains dependent on both what is allowable and what is not allowable. If he takes that and gives allowable goods in exchange, it is permissible. If he takes more, he should be told "We do not accept your goods, 'please leave.'"

Regarding "it should be forfeited in the midst of the Saṅgha" - here, since money is indeed not allowable, it is not said "therefore it should be forfeited to the Saṅgha or to a group or to an individual." But since it has merely been received and no allowable goods have been procured with it, therefore it is said "it should be forfeited in the midst of the Saṅgha" for the purpose of showing the means of use. Regarding "what is allowable should be indicated, ghee or" - it should be indicated thus: "Ghee or oil is allowable for those gone forth, lay followers."

Regarding "it should be enjoyed by all except the one who received the money" - it should be divided and enjoyed by all. The one who received the money should not take a share. It is not permissible to obtain and enjoy even the share allotted to other monks or to monastery attendants. Even what has been carried away from there by monkeys and the like and left in the forest, or what has fallen from their hands, even what is possessed by animals, even what is like a rag-robe, is not permissible at all. Even fumigating a dwelling with molasses brought from there is not permissible. It is not permissible to make a lamp with ghee or oil and lie down by the lamplight, or to do kasiṇa practice, or to read a book. It is certainly not permissible to smear a wound on the body with oil, honey, or molasses. If beds, chairs, and the like are obtained with that fund, or an uposatha hall or a dining hall is built, it is not permissible to use them. Even the shadow standing within the boundary of the building is not permissible, but that which has passed beyond the boundary is permissible because it is adventitious. It is not permissible to travel by a road made by disposing of that fund, or by a bridge, or by a boat, or by a raft. It is not permissible to drink or use spring water from a pond dug with that fund. But when there is no water inside, other adventitious water or rainwater that has entered is permissible. In the case of a purchased pond, the water together with which it was purchased, even that adventitious water is not permissible. If that fund is placed as a deposit and the Saṅgha enjoys requisites from it, those requisites too are not permissible for him. If a park has been acquired, it too is not permissible to use. If both the land and the seeds are not allowable, it is not permissible to use either the land or the fruit. If only the land is purchased and other seeds are planted, the fruit is permissible. But if seeds are purchased and planted on allowable land, the fruit is not permissible; however, it is permissible to sit or lie down on the land.

Regarding "if he discards it" - he throws it anywhere. And if he does not discard it but takes it himself and goes, he should not be prevented. Regarding "if he does not discard it" - then he neither takes it and goes nor discards it, thinking "What have I to do with this business?" and departs wherever he wishes. Then a money-disposer with the aforementioned qualifications should be appointed.

Regarding "one who does not act through desire" and so forth - through the influence of greed, one who makes that fund his own or who exalts himself is said to follow the course of desire. Through the influence of hatred, one who disparages another saying "This one knows neither the matrix nor the Vinaya" is said to follow the course of hatred. Through the influence of delusion, one who falls into a state of confused and bewildered mindfulness is said to follow the course of delusion. One who is unable to discard it through fear of the one who received the money is said to follow the course of fear. One who does not act thus should be understood as one who does not follow the course of desire, does not follow the course of hatred, does not follow the course of delusion, and does not follow the course of fear.

585. "Having made it without a sign" means without making a sign, having closed the eyes, it should be thrown away by one who is indifferent, like excrement, without taking note of the place where it has fallen, whether in a river, a precipice, or a dense forest - this is the meaning. Even though money is thus to be abhorred, the Blessed One indicated by a method its use by monks. However, for one who accepts money, the use of requisites arisen from it is not permissible by any method whatsoever. And just as this is not permissible for him, so too requisites arisen through claiming non-existent attainments, or through the act of corrupting families, or through scheming and the like, are permissible neither for him nor for another; even those arisen through the Dhamma in a proper way are not permissible to use without reflection.

For there are four kinds of use: use by theft, use by debt, use by inheritance, and use by ownership. Therein, the use by an immoral person who sits even in the midst of the Community and consumes is called "use by theft." The unreflected use by a virtuous person is called "use by debt." Therefore, the robe should be reflected upon each time it is used, and almsfood at each morsel. By one unable to do so, it should be reflected upon before the meal, after the meal, in the first watch, and in the last watch. If dawn rises while he has not yet reflected, he stands in the position of use by debt. Lodging too should be reflected upon each time it is used. For medicine, mindful reflection is appropriate both at the time of receiving and at the time of using. Even so, for one who applies mindfulness at the time of receiving but does not do so at the time of using, there is an offence; but for one who does not apply mindfulness at the time of receiving yet does so at the time of using, there is no offence.

For there is a fourfold purification: purification by confession, purification by restraint, purification by seeking, and purification by reflection. Therein, purification by confession is the virtue of Pātimokkha restraint, for since it is purified by confession, it is called "purification by confession." Purification by restraint is the virtue of sense-faculty restraint, for since it is purified solely by the restraint of mental resolution "I shall not do thus again," it is called "purification by restraint." Purification by seeking is the virtue of livelihood purification, for since it is purified through the seeking of one who, having abandoned wrong livelihood, produces requisites through the Dhamma in a proper way, it is called "purification by seeking." Purification by reflection is the virtue dependent on the use of requisites, for since it is purified by reflection stated in the manner beginning with "Reflecting wisely, he uses the robe," it is called "purification by reflection." Therefore it was said - "But for one who does not apply mindfulness at the time of receiving yet does so at the time of using, there is no offence."

The use of requisites by the seven trainees is called use by inheritance, for they are sons of the Blessed One, therefore, having become heirs to the requisites belonging to the Father, they use those requisites. But do they use the requisites of the Blessed One, or do they use the requisites of householders? Even though given by householders, because they have been permitted by the Blessed One, they belong to the Blessed One; therefore it should be understood that they use the requisites of the Blessed One. The Dhammadāyāda Sutta is the supporting text here.

The use by those with taints destroyed is called use by ownership, for having gone beyond the slavery of craving, they use as owners. Among these kinds of use, use by ownership and use by inheritance are permissible for all. Use by debt is not permissible; regarding use by theft, there is no discussion at all.

There are also another four kinds of use: use by one with moral conscience, use by one without moral conscience, rightful use, and wrongful use.

Therein, the use by one without moral conscience together with one who has moral conscience is permissible; he should not be made to make amends for the offence. For one with moral conscience, use together with one without moral conscience is permissible as long as he does not know. For from the beginning there is no one called "without moral conscience"; therefore, when he knows of his state of being without moral conscience, he should be told: "You commit transgressions through the door of body and the door of speech; that is improper, do not act thus." If, disregarding this, he continues to do so, and if one shares in use with him, that one too becomes one without moral conscience. He too who shares in use with one without moral conscience who is his dependent should be restrained. If he does not desist, he too becomes one without moral conscience. Thus one person without moral conscience can make even a hundred without moral conscience. But for those without moral conscience sharing in use only with others without moral conscience, there is no offence as such. The use by one with moral conscience together with one who has moral conscience is like the meal of two royal princes from a golden dish.

The lawful and unlawful use should be understood in terms of requisites. Therein, if both the person is shameless and the almsfood is unlawful, both are to be abhorred. If the person is shameless but the almsfood is lawful, having abhorred the person, the almsfood should not be accepted. However, in the Mahāpaccarī it is said that an immoral person, having received designated meals and the like from the Community, gives them back to the Community itself, and these are allowable since they go just as they were given. If the person is conscientious but the almsfood is unlawful, the almsfood is to be abhorred and should not be accepted. If the person is conscientious and the almsfood is also lawful, it is allowable.

There are another two kinds of support; and two kinds of use - support of a conscientious person, support of a shameless person; use of the Dhamma and use of material things.

Therein, it is allowable for a shameless person to support a conscientious person; he should not be made to undergo the penalty for an offence. But if a conscientious person supports a shameless person, invites him for thanksgiving, invites him for Dhamma talks, and establishes him in families. The other one too speaks praise in his assembly saying "Our teacher is such and such," this should be understood as causing the Dispensation to decline and to disappear.

Regarding the use of the Dhamma and the use of material things, wherever the use of material things is allowable, there the use of the Dhamma is also allowable. But it is said that a text which stands at the point of being lost and will perish upon that person's passing away, it is allowable to learn it through the support of the Dhamma.

Herein is this story - During the Great Terror, it is said, only one single monk had mastered the Mahāniddesa. Then the preceptor of the Elder Tissatthera of the Four Nikāyas, the Elder known as the Master of the Three Piṭakas, said to the Elder Mahārakkhita - "Friend Mahārakkhita, learn the Mahāniddesa in his presence." "This one is said to be wicked, venerable sir; I will not learn it." "Learn it, friend; I shall sit in your presence." "Very well, venerable sir, I shall learn it while you are seated there." Having begun, while learning continuously day and night, on the final day, seeing a woman under the bed, he said: "Venerable sir, I had only heard of this before; had I known it to be so, I would not have learned the Dhamma in the presence of such a person." However, many great elders, having learned in his presence, established the Mahāniddesa.

586. "If it is money, perceiving it as money" - here it should be understood that all gold and silver falls under the category of money.

"If it is money, being doubtful" means doubt has arisen in such a manner as "Is it gold or is it base metal?" and so forth.

"If it is money, perceiving it as not money" means perceiving gold and the like as base metal and the like. Furthermore, royal consorts and others who desire merit place gold coins inside offerings of cooked food, hard food, balls of perfume, and the like, and give them; to those going about for cloth-alms, donors give cloths together with coins tied up in them and the like; monks accept them with the perception of cooked food and the like or with the perception of cloth - thus too it should be understood that one perceiving money as not money accepts money. However, the one who accepts should note "This was received in this house." For the one by whom it was given inadvertently, having regained awareness, comes back again, and then he should be told - "Look at your cloth." The remainder here is clear in meaning.

Regarding the origin and so forth, it has six origins; it may be an act of commission since the offence is incurred by accepting, or it may be an act of omission since there is failure to make the rejection. The training rules on money, false speech, and overhearing - these three are of a single category; they are not released by perception, they are non-mental, they are an offence by convention, they are bodily action and verbal action, they are associated with three types of consciousness, and with three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Gold and Silver Training Rule is completed.

9.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Exchange of Money

587. "At that time" - this is the training rule on monetary transactions. Therein, "of various kinds" means of many sorts by way of wrought and unwrought, and so forth. "Monetary transactions" means the exchange of gold and silver. "They engaged in" means that, since only the acceptance was prohibited, not seeing any fault in the exchange of what had been accepted, they did so.

589. Regarding "what goes on the head" and so forth: "what goes on the head" means what approaches the head; however, in the manuscripts it is written as "sīsūpaka"; this is a designation for any head ornament whatsoever. This same method applies everywhere. Regarding "wrought in exchange for wrought" and so forth, this is purely a monetary transaction involving money.

Regarding "perceiving money as money" and so forth, among the cases stated in the preceding training rule, for one who exchanges a forfeitable item for a forfeitable item, at the initial acquisition there is an expiation involving forfeiture by the preceding training rule, and for the subsequent exchange there is an expiation involving forfeiture by this rule. The same method applies also for one who exchanges a forfeitable item for a wrongdoing item or an allowable item. For the second triad stated as "perceiving what is not money as money, he exchanges it for money" and so forth, by analogy with that, although not stated, this other triad beginning with "perceiving money as money, he exchanges it for what is not money" should also be understood. For whether one exchanges what is not money of one's own for money of another, or money of one's own for what is not money of another, in both cases a monetary transaction has indeed been carried out; therefore in the canonical text, only one triad is stated, being exclusively on the side of money.

However, for one who exchanges a wrongdoing item for a forfeitable item, at the initial acquisition there is a wrongdoing offence by the preceding training rule, and for the subsequent exchange there is an expiation involving forfeiture by this rule, because what is weighty has been exchanged. For one who exchanges a wrongdoing item for a wrongdoing item itself, or for an allowable item, at the initial acquisition there is a wrongdoing offence by the preceding training rule, and for the subsequent exchange also there is only a wrongdoing offence by this rule. Why? Because it has been exchanged for an unallowable item. However, in the Andhaka Commentary it is stated: "If he should engage in buying and selling, it is an expiation involving forfeiture." That is wrongly stated. Why? For there is no buying and selling other than giving and receiving, and the training rule on buying and selling was stated with reference to the exchange of an allowable item for an allowable item, and that too except with those sharing the same Dhamma. This training rule concerns the exchange of money for money or what is not money, and the exchange of what is not money for money. However, the exchange of a wrongdoing item for a wrongdoing item is stated neither here nor there in the canonical text, and there should not be non-offence in this matter. Therefore, just as there is a wrongdoing offence for the acceptance of a wrongdoing item, so too there is a wrongdoing offence for exchanging that or by means of that - thus it has been stated by those who know the intention of the Blessed One.

However, for one who exchanges an allowable item for a forfeitable item, at the initial acquisition there is non-offence by the preceding training rule, and for the subsequent exchange there is an expiation involving forfeiture by this rule. For this was said: "Perceiving what is not money as not money, he exchanges it for money - an expiation involving forfeiture." Likewise, for one who exchanges an allowable item for a wrongdoing item, at the initial acceptance there is similarly non-offence, and for the subsequent exchange there is a wrongdoing offence by this rule. Why? Because it has been exchanged for what is unallowable. However, for one who exchanges an allowable item for an allowable item, except with those sharing the same Dhamma, at the initial acquisition there is non-offence by the preceding training rule, and for the subsequent exchange there is an expiation involving forfeiture by the training rule on buying and selling above. For one who takes it having released it from buying and selling, there is non-offence even by the training rule above; for one who charges interest, there is a wrongdoing offence.

And this set of four regarding bowls should be understood as illustrating the gravity of this monetary transaction. For one who, having accepted money, procures iron ore with it, and having smelted that, has a bowl made with that metal - this bowl is called greatly unallowable, and it cannot be made allowable by any means whatsoever. For if, having destroyed that, he has a plate made, that too is unallowable. If he has an adze made, even a tooth-stick cut with it is unallowable. If he has a fish-hook made, even fish killed with it are unallowable. If, having heated the blade of the adze, he warms water or milk, that too is entirely unallowable.

But whoever, having accepted money, buys a bowl with it - this bowl too is not allowable. "It is not allowable even for the five co-religionists" - this was stated in the Mahāpaccarī. However, it can be made allowable; for when the money is given to the owners of the money and the bowl to the owners of the bowl, it becomes allowable. It is proper to give allowable goods, take it, and use it.

And whoever, having had money accepted, goes with the attendant to a smith's family, and having seen a bowl, says "This pleases me." And the attendant gives that money and negotiates with the smith - this bowl too, even though obtained through an allowable transaction, is just like the second bowl; because the money was accepted, it is not allowable. Why is it not allowable for the others? Because the money has not been relinquished.

But whoever, without having accepted the money, goes with an attendant sent with the instruction "Buy a bowl for the elder and give it to him" to a smith's family, and having seen a bowl, says "Take these coins and give me this one," and having had the coins given, obtains it - this bowl is not proper for that monk himself, because of his misconduct, but it is proper for others, because the money was not accepted by him.

It is said that the preceptor of the Elder Mahāsuma was the Elder named Anuruddha. He filled such a bowl of his own with ghee and relinquished it to the Community. The co-residents of the Elder Tipiṭaka Cūḷanāga also had such a bowl. That elder too had it filled with ghee and had it relinquished to the Community. This is the fourfold classification of not-allowable bowls.

But if, without having accepted the money, one goes with an attendant sent with the instruction "Buy a bowl for the elder and give it to him" to a smith's family, and having seen a bowl, says either "This pleases me" or "I shall take this one," and the attendant gives that money and negotiates with the smith - this bowl is entirely allowable and is worthy of use even by Buddhas.

591. "If it is not money, perceiving it as money" means perceiving gold and the like in rough leaves and such things. "An offence of wrong-doing" means if one gets what is not money in exchange by means of that, there is an offence of wrong-doing. The same method applies in the case of being doubtful. However, for one who perceives it as not money, even when conducting buying and selling with the five co-religionists, saying "Take this and give that," there is no offence. The remainder is clear in itself.

It has six origins, it is action, it is not release through perception, it is without mind, it is an offence by convention, it is bodily action and verbal action, it involves three types of consciousness, and three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Gold and Silver Exchange Training Rule is completed.

10.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Buying and Selling

593. "At that time" refers to the training rule on buying and selling. Therein, "katihipi tyāyaṃ" means "kati te ayaṃ" (how many for you this); the syllable "hi" here is a mere particle for completing the word, the syllable "pi" is used in the sense of reproach; the meaning is "for how many days will this flimsy double robe of yours last?" Alternatively, "katihampi tyāyaṃ" is also a reading. Therein, "katihaṃ" means "how many days, how many days" - this is what is stated. The remainder is according to the method already stated. "Katihipi myāyaṃ" - this too should be understood by the same method. In "gihīpi naṃ gihissa," here "naṃ" is a particle used in the sense of a name; what is stated is "a householder indeed to a householder."

594. "Of various kinds" means of many kinds by way of allowable goods such as robes and so forth. Therefore, in the word-analysis of this rule, only allowable goods are shown, beginning with robes and ending with cotton thread. For the exchange of unallowable goods does not come under the category of buying and selling. "Buying and selling" means both buying and selling. For by the method beginning with "give this for this," one who takes another's allowable goods engages in buying, and one who gives one's own allowable goods engages in selling.

595. "He transgresses" means he acts in an overbearing manner; the meaning is that he speaks words of transgression. "When it has been bought and sold" means when it has been bought by one making another's goods come into one's own hand, and sold by one making one's own goods go into another's hand. However, in accordance with the wording beginning with "this for this," in the text one's own goods are shown first.

"It should be forfeited" means the allowable goods thus taken from another's hand by way of buying should be forfeited. For this buying and selling, apart from the five co-religionists, is not permissible with the remaining householders and renunciants, even down to one's own mother and father.

Herein this is the determination - Whether cloth for cloth or food for food, whatever allowable thing one says "give this for this," it is an offence of wrong-doing. Having spoken thus, if one gives one's own goods even to one's mother, it is an offence of wrong-doing. Whether told "give this for this," or having said "give this, I will give you this," if one takes goods even from one's mother, it is an offence of wrong-doing. When one's own goods have reached another's hand and another's goods have reached one's own hand, it is forfeitable. However, when one says "give this" to one's mother or father, there is no solicitation. When one says "take this," there is no misuse of gifts given in faith. When one says "give this" to an unrelated person, there is solicitation. When one says "take this," there is misuse of gifts given in faith. When one engages in buying and selling saying "give this for this," it is forfeitable. Therefore, one exchanging allowable goods should exchange even with one's mother and father avoiding buying and selling, and with unrelated persons avoiding the three offences.

Herein this is the method of exchanging: A monk has rice for provisions on a journey. He, seeing a man with food in hand along the road, says "we have rice, but we have no need for it; however, we have need for cooked food." The man takes the rice and gives cooked food; it is permissible. The three offences too do not arise. Even down to the mere act of hinting does not occur. Why? Because of the existence of a basis. And further on it is stated thus: "He says 'we have this, and we have need for this and this.'" But whoever, without doing thus, exchanges saying "give this for this"; it is just as in the case of the original matter. Seeing one who eats leftovers, if one says "having eaten this rice, bring dye or firewood," by the reckoning of dye-bark and by the reckoning of firewood, they are forfeitable. Saying "having eaten this rice, do such and such work," if one has craftsmen such as ivory-workers make various requisites such as bellows, or has washermen wash cloth; it is just as in the case of the original matter. If one has a barber cut hair, or has labourers do new construction work; it is just as in the case of the original matter. But if one does not say "having eaten this food, do this," but says "eat this food; you have eaten, you will eat; do such and such work," it is permissible. And here, although in the washing of cloth, or cutting of hair, or new construction work such as ground-clearing, there is no other's goods that have come into one's own hand to be forfeited. But since it is stated firmly in the Great Commentary, it cannot be rejected. Therefore, just as when a forfeitable object has been used or lost one confesses an offence of expiation, so too here it should be confessed.

596. In the passage beginning with "if it is buying and selling, perceiving it as buying and selling," whoever engages in buying and selling, whether he perceives it as buying and selling, or is doubtful, or does not perceive it as buying and selling, it is only an expiation involving forfeiture. In the minor triad, in the two cases it is only an offence of wrong-doing - thus should the meaning be understood.

597. "Asks the price" means he asks "What is this bowl of yours worth?" When it is stated "It is worth such and such," however, if his legally allowable goods are of great value, and he replies to him thus: "Lay follower, this article of mine is of great value; give your bowl to someone else." Having heard that, if the other says "I will give an additional dish as well," it is allowable to accept it; it falls under the category of what has been stated as "This we have." If that bowl is of great value, the monk's article is of little value, and the owner of the bowl does not know its low value, the bowl should not be accepted, and he should inform him: "My article is of little value." For one who, knowing its great value, deceives and accepts it, incurs the obligation to have the accepted goods appraised and to have it made up. If the owner of the bowl gives it saying "Let it be, venerable sir, the remainder will be merit for me," it is allowable.

"Tells the caretaker of legally allowable things" means setting aside the one from whose hand he receives the goods, he appoints another person, even that person's son or brother, as the caretaker of legally allowable things, and tells him: "Take this particular thing with this and give it." If he is skilful, he removes items repeatedly, bargains, and accepts; one should stand silent. If he is not skilful, does not know how to take, and the trader deceives him, one should say "Do not accept it."

Regarding "This we have" and so forth, he says: "This received oil or ghee we have, and we have need for other unreceived items." If he takes that and gives something else, one's own oil should not be measured out first. Why? For there is oil remaining in the measure, and when measuring afterwards, it would contaminate the unreceived item. The remainder is clear in itself.

It has six origins, it is action, it is not release through perception, it is without mind, it is an offence by convention, it is bodily action and verbal action, it involves three types of consciousness, and three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Buying and Selling Training Rule is completed.

The second chapter on silk is completed.

3.

The Bowl Chapter

1.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Bowls

598. "At that time" - this is the training rule concerning bowls. Therein, "bowl trade" means wandering about in villages, towns, and so forth, they will engage in bowl trade. "Or a crockery shop" - "amattāni" are called vessels; those whose merchandise they are, they are "āmattikā"; the shop of those crockery dealers is "āmattikāpaṇaṃ"; the meaning is the shop of traders in potter's wares.

602. "Three sizes of bowls" means three measures of bowls. "Takes half an āḷhaka of cooked rice" means it takes cooked rice made from two nāḷi measures of husked rice by the Magadhan nāḷi. "A Magadhan nāḷi is twelve and a half palas" - this was stated in the Andhaka Commentary. In the island of Sīhaḷa, the ordinary nāḷi is large, the Damiḷa nāḷi is small, the Magadhan nāḷi is of proper measure, and one and a half Magadhan nāḷis make one Sīhaḷa nāḷi - this was stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. "A quarter portion of food" means food amounting to a quarter of the cooked rice; this should be understood in terms of mung bean soup that can be taken by hand. "A suitable amount of vegetables" means vegetables such as fish, meat, greens, fruits, bamboo shoots, and so forth, suitable for that cooked rice.

Herein this is the determination - Having taken two Magadhan nāḷis of undamaged old rice grains that are well-pounded and purified, having cooked with those grains undrained cooked rice that is free from uncooked grains, not soggy, not lumpy, well separated, resembling a heap of jasmine buds, and having placed all of it without remainder into the bowl, mung bean soup amounting to a quarter of that cooked rice, neither too thick nor too thin, that can be taken by hand, prepared with all ingredients, should be placed in. Then, suitable for each morsel, sufficient up to the last morsel, vegetables such as fish, meat, and so forth should be placed in; but ghee, oil, buttermilk, fruit juice, sour gruel, and the like are not to be counted, for they simply go with the cooked rice and can neither diminish nor increase it. If all this thus placed in stands level with the lower rim of the bowl's mouth-circle, or when cutting with a thread or a string, the lower edge of the thread or string touches it, this is called a large bowl. If it stands heaped up exceeding that rim, this is called a bowl that is smaller than large. If it does not reach that rim and remains below, this is called a bowl that is larger than large.

"A nāḷi of cooked rice" means cooked rice made from one nāḷi measure of husked rice by the Magadhan nāḷi. "A pattha of cooked rice" means cooked rice made from half a nāḷi by the Magadhan nāḷi. The remainder should be understood by the method already stated. But here is the difference only in name: If all the nāḷi of cooked rice and so forth placed in stands level with the lower rim in the same manner as stated, this is called a medium-sized bowl. If it stands heaped up exceeding that rim, this is called a bowl that is smaller than medium-sized. If it does not reach that rim and remains below, this is called a bowl that is larger than medium-sized. If all the pattha of cooked rice and so forth placed in stands level with the lower rim, this is called a small bowl. If it stands heaped up exceeding that rim, this is called a bowl that is smaller than small. If it does not reach that rim and remains below, this is called a bowl that is larger than small - thus there are these nine bowls. Among them, two are not bowls: the one larger than large and the one smaller than small. "Larger than that is not a bowl, smaller than that is not a bowl" - this was stated with reference to these. For here, the one larger than large, being larger than the large, is called "larger than that is not a bowl." And the one smaller than small, being smaller than the small, is called "smaller than that is not a bowl." Therefore, these should be used merely as vessels, they are not subject to determination, nor subject to assignment. But the other seven should be used after either determining or assigning them; for one who, not having done so, allows those ten days to pass, it is an offence of relinquishment with expiation - meaning that for one who allows any of those seven kinds of bowls to exceed the period of ten days at most, it is an offence of relinquishment with expiation.

607. "If one uses a forfeitable bowl without relinquishing it" means: when one has drunk gruel and washes it - an offence of wrong-doing; when one has eaten hard food and eaten rice and washes it - an offence of wrong-doing. Thus, for each and every use, an offence of wrong-doing.

608. Regarding "there is no offence if within ten days he determines or assigns," here the eligibility for determination and assignment even of one that meets the standard should be understood thus: An iron bowl fired five times and a clay bowl fired twice is eligible for determination, and for both, whatever price is to be paid, only when that has been paid. If even one firing is lacking, or even a kākaṇika's worth of the price has not been paid, it is not eligible for determination. Even if the bowl-owner says "When you have the money, then you shall pay; having determined it, use it," it is still not eligible for determination, for due to the deficiency in firing it does not count as a bowl, and due to the price - whether in whole or in part - not having been paid, it does not come into one's own possession but remains the property of another; therefore it is eligible for determination only when both the firing and the price are completed. What is eligible for determination is itself eligible for assignment; whether it has come to hand or has not yet come, it should be determined or assigned. If indeed the bowl-maker, having received the price, or wishing to give it himself, says "Venerable sir, I shall make your bowl and fire it and set it aside on such-and-such a day," and the monk lets ten days pass from that specified day, it is an offence of forfeiture with expiation. But if the bowl-maker, having said "I shall make your bowl, fire it, and send a message," does accordingly, but the monk sent by him does not inform that monk, and another, having seen or heard, informs him "Venerable sir, your bowl is finished," that person's notification is not authoritative. But when the very one sent by him informs, from the day of hearing his words, if one lets ten days pass, it is an offence of forfeiture with expiation. If the bowl-maker, having said "I shall make your bowl, fire it, and send it by someone's hand," does accordingly, but the monk who came carrying the bowl, having placed it in his own dwelling, does not inform him, and someone else says "Indeed, venerable sir, a fine bowl has just been brought!" "Where is the bowl, friend?" "It was sent into the hands of so-and-so." This person's words too are not authoritative. But when that monk gives the bowl, from the day of receiving it, if one lets ten days pass, it is an offence of forfeiture with expiation. Therefore, without letting ten days pass, it should be determined or assigned.

Therein, there are two ways of determining a bowl: one determines either by body or determines by speech. And in accordance with these, the one determining should, having relinquished the old bowl standing either in front or out of sight by saying "I relinquish this bowl" or "I relinquish that bowl," or having given it to another, and having touched with the hand the new bowl standing wherever it may be, having made mental advertence thinking "I determine this bowl," determine it by body by making a bodily gesture, or determine it by speech by making a verbal utterance. Therein, determination is twofold - if it is within arm's reach, the words "I determine this bowl" should be uttered. But if it is inside the inner room, or upstairs in the upper storey, or in a neighbouring monastery, having noted the place where it was deposited, the words "I determine that bowl" should be uttered.

Furthermore, it is proper for the one determining to determine alone, and it is also proper to determine in the presence of another. The benefit of determining in the presence of another is this: if doubt arises in him, "Have I determined it or not?" the other, having reminded him, will dispel the doubt. If someone, having obtained ten bowls, wishes to use them all himself, he should not determine all of them. Having determined one bowl, on the following day he should relinquish that one and determine another. By this method, one can maintain them even for a hundred years.

Could there be a relinquishing of determination for a monk who is thus diligent? There could be. For if he gives the bowl to another, or disrobes, or renounces the training, or dies, or his sex changes, or he relinquishes it, or a hole appears in the bowl, the determination is abandoned. And this too was said -

"By giving, by disrobing, by renouncing,

By death, by change of sex, by relinquishing, and by a hole - the seventh."

The determination is also relinquished by theft, by taking by force, and by taking on trust. By how large a hole is the determination broken? By one through which a grain of millet can both exit and enter. For this is the husk of the inferior grain among the seven grains; when a repair has been made to it with iron filings or a rivet, it should be re-determined within ten days. This, then, is the decision regarding determination in the phrase "within ten days he determines or assigns."

Regarding assignment, there are two types of assignment - assignment in one's presence and assignment in one's absence. How does assigning in the presence take place? Having ascertained whether the bowls are one or many, and whether they are present or not present, having said "this bowl" or "these bowls" or "that bowl" or "those bowls," one should say "I assign it to you." This is one kind of assigning in the presence. By this much it is allowable to store it, but it is not allowable to use it, to give it away, or to determine it. But when it is said "Use what belongs to me, or give it away, or do with it as you see fit," this is called relinquishment, and from then on use and so forth are also allowable.

Another method - Likewise, having ascertained whether the bowls are one or many, and whether they are present or not present, having said in the presence of that very monk "this bowl" or "these bowls" or "that bowl" or "those bowls," having taken the name of any one among the five co-religionists whom one personally favours, one should say "I assign it to the monk Tissa" or "I assign it to the nun Tissā, to the female trainee, to the novice, to the female novice Tissā" - this is another kind of assigning in the presence. To this extent it is allowable to store, but as for use and so forth, not even one of them is allowable. But when that monk says "The property of the monk Tissa" etc. "the property of the female novice Tissā - use it or give it away or do as you see fit," this is called a relinquishment. From that point onwards, use and so forth are also allowable.

How does assigning in the absence take place? Having ascertained likewise whether the bowls are one or many, and whether they are present or not present, having said "this bowl" or "these bowls" or "that bowl" or "those bowls," one should say "I give it to you for the purpose of assigning." He should be told - "Who is your friend or acquaintance?" Then by the other, in the same manner as before, it should be said "the monk Tissa" or etc. "the female novice Tissā." Then again by that monk it should be said "I give it to the monk Tissa" or etc. "I give it to the female novice Tissā" - this is assigning in the absence. By this much it is allowable to store it, but not even one among use and so forth is allowable. But when that monk, in the same manner as stated in the second face-to-face assignment, says "The property of so-and-so - use it or give it away or do as you see fit," this is called a relinquishment. From that point onwards, use and so forth are also allowable.

However, the distinction between these two kinds of assigning, and all the remaining procedural sequence, should be understood in the manner stated in the explanation of the first Kaṭhina training rule, together with the origins and so forth.

The Explanation of the Bowl Training Rule is completed.

2.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Less Than Five Bindings

609. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning fewer than five bindings. Therein, "he could not sustain himself" means that, it is said, if he had not been a noble disciple, he would even have changed his mind; being thus harassed by them, but because of being a stream-enterer, he could not sustain himself only in body. Therefore it was said - "He could not sustain himself, and his children and wife became exhausted."

612-613. "With a bowl having less than five bindings" - here, "one whose five bindings are incomplete" is "one having less than five bindings," meaning its five bindings are not complete; with such a bowl having less than five bindings. The instrumental case is used in the sense of characterising one in such a state. Therein, since even for one without any binding, the five bindings are not complete, due to their complete absence, therefore in the word-analysis it is stated "without binding, or" etc. And because it is stated "with a bowl having less than five bindings," for one whose bowl has reached five bindings, that is not a bowl for him; therefore it is allowable to make known the need for another. And since this so-called binding exists when there is an occasion for binding, and does not exist when there is none, therefore to show its characteristic, it is stated "one without occasion for binding means" etc.

"There is no crack of two finger-breadths" means there is not even a single crack measuring two finger-breadths below the rim. "For one which has a crack of two finger-breadths" means for one which has one such crack, it should be pierced with a bowl-borer at the lower end of that crack, fired, and bound with string-cord, fibre-cord, or the like, or with tin wire; that binding should be covered with a tin plate or with some boundite to prevent food from sticking. And that bowl should be determined and used, or a fine hole should be made and it should be bound. However, it is not allowable to bind with pure beeswax, lac, resin, and the like. It is allowable to burn molasses and bind with stone powder. However, when being pierced with a bowl-borer near the rim, it breaks due to the thickness of the sherd; therefore it should be pierced lower down. For one which has two cracks, or a single one of four finger-breadths, two bindings should be given. For one which has three, or a single one of six finger-breadths, three. For one which has four, or a single one of eight finger-breadths, four. For one which has five, or a single one of ten finger-breadths, whether bound or unbound, it is simply not a bowl; another should be made known. This, for now, is the determination regarding a clay bowl.

But regarding an iron bowl, even if there are five or more holes, if they are bound and smoothed with iron powder, or a rivet, or a metal disc, that very bowl should be used, and another should not be made known. But if even one hole is large, and even though bound with a metal disc it is not smooth, and food sticks to the bowl, it is not allowable; this is not a bowl. Another should be made known.

615. "The elder should be addressed" means having shown the benefit of the bowl, he should be addressed thus: "Venerable sir, this bowl is of proper size, beautiful, and suitable for the elder; please take it." "Whoever should not take it" means there is an offence of wrong-doing for one who does not take it out of compassion. But whoever does not take it out of contentment, thinking "What need have I of another bowl?" - for him there is no offence. "The last bowl" means the bowl standing at the end after having been exchanged in this way.

"Not in an unsuitable place" means it should not be placed in an unsuitable place such as on beds, chairs, umbrellas, ivory, and the like. It should be placed in the very same place where one places one's former good bowl. For the suitable place for placing a bowl has already been stated in the Khandhaka by the method beginning with "I allow, monks, a bowl-stand."

"Not without reflective attention" means it should not be used without proper use, such as cooking gruel, dyeing, boiling, and the like. However, if illness arises while on the road and there is no other vessel, it is allowable to smear it with clay and cook gruel or heat water.

"Should not be given up" means it should not be given to another. But if a co-resident or a pupil, setting aside another excellent bowl, takes it thinking "This one is suitable for me, this one is for the elder," it is allowable. Or if another takes that one and gives his own bowl, it is allowable. There is no obligation to say "Bring the bowl to me alone."

617. "For those who have invited to admonish" - here, in the case of invitation on behalf of the Saṅgha, only a five-fold binding is applicable. In the case of invitation on behalf of an individual, even a binding of less than five is applicable - so it is stated in the Kurundī. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

It has six origins, it is action, it is not release through perception, it is without mind, it is an offence by convention, it is bodily action and verbal action, it involves three types of consciousness, and three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Less-Than-Five-Mending Training Rule is completed.

3.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Medicines

618. "At that time" - this is the training rule concerning medicines. Therein, "Is there need, venerable sir" - the king, having seen the monks strenuously engaged in cleaning the cave for the purpose of making a rock cell for the elder, wished to give a monastery attendant and asked.

619-621. "Separate" means individually one. "Garlanded" means wearing made garlands, garland-bearers; the meaning is adorned with flower garlands. "Grass-ring" means a grass pad. "Fastened" means placed. "That became a golden garland" means that as soon as it was placed on the girl's head, through the Elder's determination, it became a golden lotus garland. For that grass-ring, as soon as it was placed on the head, the Elder determined: "Let it become a golden garland." For the second time, etc. "Approached him" means he approached on the very second day.

"Determined as gold" means he determined: "Let it become made of gold." "Of the five medicines" means of ghee and so forth. "Given to luxury" means practising abundance of requisites. In "in pots and jars too," here "pots" are called large-mouthed vessels. "Dripping and oozing" means having flowed down below and on both sides. "Scattered and strewn about" means scattered by those digging the ground due to the smell of ghee and so forth, and strewn about by those digging the walls and moving about above. "Having internal storerooms" means having storerooms arranged within.

622. "To be used" means to be taken, the meaning is to be consumed. "Medicines" means those that have acquired this designation whether or not they serve a medicinal purpose. Having shown what is well known in the world by means of "cow's ghee" and so forth, by the phrase "whose flesh is allowable," he showed inclusively the ghee of other animals such as deer, rohita fish, hare, and so forth. For those from whom there is milk, there is certainly ghee from them as well; whether it be easily obtainable or difficult to obtain, this was stated for the purpose of avoiding confusion. The same applies to butter as well.

"May be consumed stored" means they may be consumed after storing and keeping them. How? Among the ghee and so forth mentioned in the canonical text, ghee received before the meal is allowable to be consumed on that same day before the meal, whether with or without staple food; from the afternoon onwards, it should be consumed without staple food for seven days. When the seven days are exceeded, if it is stored in one vessel, there is one offence of forfeiture. If in many vessels, there are offences of forfeiture according to the count of items; that received in the afternoon is allowable only without staple food for seven days. That which has been picked up without formal receiving, whether before the meal or after the meal, and stored, is not allowable to be swallowed; it should be applied for anointing and such purposes. Even when the seven days are exceeded, there is no offence, because it has reached the status of not being fit for swallowing. For it is said "to be used." If an unordained person makes ghee from butter received before the meal and gives it, it is allowable with staple food before the meal. If one makes it oneself, it is allowable only without staple food even for seven days. However, ghee made by anyone from butter received after the meal is allowable only without staple food even for seven days. In the case of that made from what was picked up without formal receiving, the determination should be understood according to the method of pure ghee stated previously.

Ghee made from milk or curds received before the meal, if made by an unordained person, is allowable even with staple food on that same day before the meal. That made by oneself is allowable only without staple food. For in heating butter, there is no self-cooking; but with that which is self-cooked, staple food is not allowable. And from the afternoon onwards, it is certainly not allowable. Even when the seven days are exceeded, there is no offence, because it was received with its base substance; for it is said "having received them." However, that made from what was received after the meal should be applied for anointing and such purposes. And that made from what was picked up without formal receiving even before the meal - for both of these, there is no offence when the seven days are exceeded. This same method applies to ghee from animals whose flesh is not allowable. But this is the distinction - where with ghee mentioned in the canonical text there is an offence of forfeiture, with this there is an offence of wrong-doing. In the Andhaka Commentary, having stated a semblance of reason, human ghee and butter were rejected; that rejection is improper, because they are permitted in all the commentaries. And further on, the determination regarding this will also come.

Butter mentioned in the canonical text, when received before the meal, is allowable even with staple food on that same day before the meal, but from after the meal onwards, only without staple food. When exceeding seven days, if stored in separate containers, they are to be forfeited by count of containers; if stored unmixed in a single container in separate lumps, they are to be forfeited by count of lumps. That received after the meal should be understood in the same manner as for ghee. Here, however, even in a ball of curd there are drops of buttermilk; therefore, the half-elders said that it is allowable when washed. But the Elder Mahāsīva said: "From the time it was permitted by the Blessed One, they consumed only what was freshly taken out from the buttermilk." Therefore, one consuming butter should wash it, remove curd, buttermilk, flies, ants and the like, and then consume it. For one wishing to cook it and make ghee and then consume it, it is allowable to cook it even unwashed. Whatever curd or buttermilk is therein will be destroyed in the process; to this extent, it is not reckoned as received together with its base - this is the intention here. But because it is cooked together with staple food, even regarding that the scrupulous have scruples. Now, regarding butter that has been picked up and stored, butter made from milk and curd received before the meal, butter made from those received after the meal, butter made from what was picked up, and butter from the flesh of animals whose meat is not allowable - the entire method regarding offence and non-offence, allowable and non-allowable consumption, should be understood in the same order as stated for ghee.

However, for monks who have entered for oil-alms, right there they pour out ghee, butter, cooked oil, and uncooked oil; therein there are drops of buttermilk and curd, leftover rice, rice husks, flies and the like. Having sun-cooked it and strained it, what is obtained becomes seven-day allowable; having cooked it together with medicines that were received and stored, it is allowable even to make nasal medicine. If at the time of rendering, a conscientious novice, freeing it from cooking with staple food in such a way that the rice husks and the like that have fallen therein are not cooked, melts it over fire, strains it, cooks it again and gives it, it is allowable for seven days in the same manner as before.

Among oils, first, sesame oil received before the meal is allowable even with staple food before the meal, but from after the meal onwards, only without staple food. When exceeding seven days, however, its status as requiring forfeiture should be understood by count of containers. That received after the meal is allowable for seven days only without staple food. What has been picked up and stored is not allowable to swallow; it should be applied for anointing the head and the like; there is no offence even when exceeding seven days. Oil made from sesame seeds received before the meal is allowable even with staple food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it becomes not to be swallowed; it should be applied for anointing the head and the like; there is no offence even when exceeding seven days. Oil made from sesame seeds received after the meal is simply not to be swallowed, because it was received together with its base; there is no offence even when exceeding seven days; it should be applied for anointing the head and the like. The same method applies also to oil made from sesame seeds that were picked up, whether before the meal or after the meal.

Oil made from sesame seeds received before the meal by roasting them, or grinding them into sesame flour, or moistening them with hot water - if made by an unordained person, it is allowable even with staple food before the meal. But oil made by oneself is allowable only without staple food before the meal, because it has been produced. Because it is self-cooked, it is not allowable with staple food; but because it was received together with its base, from after the meal onwards both are not to be swallowed; they should be applied for anointing the head and the like; there is no offence even when exceeding seven days. But if the hot water is only a small amount, merely for sprinkling, it is negligible and does not count as self-cooking. Regarding mustard oil and the like too, when received without their base, the determination is the same as stated for sesame oil without its base.

But if it is possible to make oil by sun-cooking the powder of mustard seeds and the like received before the meal, that is allowable even with staple food before the meal, only without staple food from after the meal onwards, and requiring forfeiture when exceeding seven days. But since they make oil by sweating mustard, madhuka powder and the like, and by roasting castor seeds, therefore oil made from them by unordained persons is allowable even with staple food before the meal. But because the base materials are lifetime allowables, there is no fault in receiving them together with their base. That made by oneself should be consumed for seven days only by consumption without staple food. That made by those who picked it up is not to be swallowed; it is allowable for external use; there is no offence even when exceeding seven days.

Oil made after receiving mustard seeds, madhuka seeds, or castor nuts for the purpose of making oil is of seven-day duration. That made on the second day is allowable for six days. That made on the third day is allowable for five days. That made on the fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh day is allowable for that very day only. If it remains until the rising of dawn, it entails forfeiture. That made on the eighth day is not to be consumed. However, because it does not entail forfeiture, it is allowable for external use. Even if one does not make it, when mustard seeds and so forth taken for the purpose of making oil exceed seven days, it is merely a wrongdoing. However, there are also other oils not mentioned in the canonical text, such as oils of coconut, neem, kosambaka, karamanda, linseed, and so forth; for one who, having received them, causes them to exceed seven days, there is a wrongdoing. This is the distinction among these. The remainder should be understood entirely in the manner already stated, having considered the raw material of limited-period allowables and the raw material of lifetime allowables, and the classification regarding self-cooking, with-raw-material, received before the meal, received after the meal, and picked-up-by-oneself raw material.

623. "Fat oil" means the oil of fats permitted thus: "I allow, monks, fats as medicines - bear fat, fish fat, crocodile fat, pig fat, donkey fat." And here, by the expression "bear fat," excluding human fat, the fats of all animals whose meat is not allowable are permitted. And by the inclusion of fish, crocodiles are also included, but because they are fierce fish, they are mentioned separately. And here, by the inclusion of fish and so forth, the fats of all animals whose meat is allowable are permitted. For among meats, ten are not allowable - the meats of humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. Among fats, only human fat alone is not allowable. Among milk and so forth, there is nothing that is not allowable.

Fat oil produced and made by those not fully ordained, received before the meal, is allowable even with food before the meal. From after the meal onwards, it is allowable for seven days only without food. But whatever flesh or sinew or bone or blood therein is like fine dust, that is negligible. But if, having received the fat, one makes it oneself, having received it before the meal, having cooked it and strained it, it should be consumed for seven days by use without food. For this was stated with reference to use without food - "Received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, mixed at the proper time, it may be consumed by use as oil." There too, what is negligible is just negligible. But after the meal, it is not allowable either to receive or to make it. For this was said:

"If, monks, it is received at the wrong time, cooked at the wrong time, mixed at the wrong time, and if one should consume it, there is an offence of three wrong-doings. If, monks, received at the proper time, boiled at the improper time, conjoined at the improper time, if one should consume that, there is an offence of two wrong-doings. If, monks, received at the proper time, boiled at the proper time, conjoined at the improper time, if one should consume that, there is an offence of wrong-doing. If, monks, it is received at the proper time, cooked at the proper time, mixed at the proper time, and if one should consume it, there is no offence."

But the pupils asked the Elder Upatissa - "Venerable sir, are ghee, butter and fats cooked together and produced allowable or not allowable?" "They are not allowable, friends." The Elder, it seems, had scruples here as with the residue of cooked oil. Then they asked him further - "Venerable sir, if in butter there is a lump of curd or a drop of buttermilk, is that allowable?" "That too, friends, is not allowable." Then they said to her - "Venerable sir, when cooked together and mixed, they become potent and suppress disease." "Very well, friends," the Elder accepted.

But the Elder Mahāsuma said: "Fat of allowable meat is permissible for consumption with food, the other is permissible for consumption without food." But the Elder Mahāpaduma, rejecting this by saying "What is this?", said "Do not monks afflicted with wind disorders drink gruel made with a decoction of five roots into which bear fat, pig fat, oil, and so forth have been added, and that gruel, being potent in energy, suppresses the disease?" and declared "It is permissible."

"Honey means bee honey": honey made by honey-bees, namely honey-making bees, small bees, and bumble-bees. That, if received before the meal, is permissible even for consumption with food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is permissible only for consumption without food for seven days. When the seven days are exceeded, if thick honey resembling phlegm has been stored broken into pieces, or the other kind in various containers, they are forfeitable by counting of items. If there is only one piece, or the other kind in one container, it is only one forfeitable offence. What has been picked up should be understood in the manner already stated, and should be applied for smearing on sores and the like. If a honeycomb or beeswax is unsmeared with honey and pure, it is a lifetime allowable. But if smeared with honey, it follows the course of honey itself. Cīrikā are winged long flies, and those called tumbalā are black large bumble-bees with bony wings; in their dwelling places there is honey resembling resin, and that is a lifetime allowable.

"Molasses means produced from sugar-cane": taking sugar-cane juice as the basis, whether uncooked or cooked without a base, all baseless sugar-cane products should be understood as "molasses." That molasses, if received before the meal, is permissible even with food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, it is permissible only without food for seven days. When the seven days are exceeded, it is forfeitable by counting of items. If many lumps are crushed and placed in one container in a dense mass, it is only one forfeitable offence. What has been picked up should be understood in the manner already stated, and should be applied for fumigating houses and the like. Molasses made from unstrained sugar-cane juice received before the meal, if made by one not fully ordained, is permissible even with food. That made by oneself is allowable only without staple food. From after the meal onwards, however, because it was received with a base, it is not to be swallowed, and there is no offence even when the seven days are exceeded. That which is made from what was received unstrained after the meal is also not to be swallowed, and there is no offence even when the seven days are exceeded. This same method applies also to molasses made after receiving sugar-cane. But that which is made from what was received strained before the meal, if made by one not fully ordained, is permissible even with food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, only without food for seven days. If self-made, even before the meal it is only without food. But that which is made from what was received strained after the meal is permissible only without food for seven days. That made from what has been picked up follows the method already stated. "Molasses from burnt sugar-cane or molasses from pounded sugar-cane is permissible only before the meal" - thus it is stated in the Great Commentary.

But in the Mahāpaccarī, having raised the question "Is this, cooked with a base, permissible or not permissible?", it is stated "There is nothing called sugar-cane molasses that is not permissible after the meal." That is reasonable. Madhuka-flower molasses made with cold water is permissible with food before the meal; from after the meal onwards, only without food for seven days. When the seven days are exceeded, it is a wrongdoing by counting of items. Madhuka molasses made by adding milk is a one-period allowable. But raw sugar is purified by removing the milk froth, therefore it is permissible. Madhuka flowers, however, are permissible fresh before the meal, and also permissible when roasted. Having roasted them, whether mixed or unmixed with sesame and the like, even when pounded, it is permissible. But if, having taken that, they prepare it for the purpose of making liquor, from the moment it is prepared as a ferment onwards, it is not permissible. The molasses of all one-period allowable fruits such as banana, date palm, mango, breadfruit, jackfruit, tamarind, and the like is itself only a one-period allowable. They make molasses from ripe pepper; that is a lifetime allowable.

"Having received them": even if one receives all of them and places them undifferentiated in a single pot, when the seven days are exceeded, it is only one forfeitable offence. When they are separated, there are five forfeitable offences. However, without exceeding the seven days, whether ill or not ill, they may be consumed at pleasure in the manner stated. For there are seven kinds of specific allowance: specific to illness, specific to person, specific to time, specific to occasion, specific to region, specific to fat, and specific to medicine.

Therein, specific to illness means: "I allow, monks, raw flesh and raw blood for affliction by non-human beings" - thus what is allowed with reference to an illness is permissible only for one afflicted by that very illness, not for another. And that is permissible both in the proper time and in the improper time, whether allowable or not allowable.

Specific to person means: "I allow, monks, chewing the cud for one who chews the cud. But, monks, it should not be taken out through the outer door and swallowed" - thus what is allowed with reference to a person is permissible only for that person, not for another.

Specific to time means: "I allow, monks, the giving of four great disgusting things - dung, urine, ashes, and clay" - thus what is allowed with reference to the time of being bitten by a snake is permissible even without formal receiving at that very time only, not at another time.

Specific to occasion means: By the method beginning with "in a group meal, except on an occasion" - the non-offences allowed with reference to each particular occasion are non-offences only at that particular occasion, not at other times.

Specific to region means: "I allow, monks, in such border regions, ordination by a group with a Vinaya-holder as the fifth" - thus ordination and the like allowed with reference to a border region are permissible only there, not in the middle country.

Specific to fat means: "I allow, monks, fats as medicines" - thus what is allowed under the name of fat, excluding human fat, the oil of all fats whether allowable or not allowable may be consumed by those who need them for the purpose of oil use.

Specific to medicine means: "I allow, monks, five medicines" - thus what is allowed under the name of medicine, being capable of pervading for the purpose of nourishment, namely ghee, butter, oil, honey, and molasses. Having received them, on that same day before the meal they may be consumed at pleasure; from after the meal onwards, when there is a reason, they may be consumed for seven days in the manner stated.

624. "When seven days have passed, perceiving it as passed - an expiation involving forfeiture": even if it is only the size of a mustard seed, or just enough to take once with a finger and taste with the tongue, it must indeed be forfeited, and an expiation must be confessed.

"It should not be used for bodily use": it should not be applied to the body or to a sore on the body. Items smeared with those, such as robes, scissors, staffs, sandals, foot-stools, beds, chairs and so forth, are also not to be used. "The place for grasping with the hand on doors, windows and shutters should not be smeared" - this was stated in the Mahāpaccarī. "However, having mixed them into a dye, doors, windows and shutters may be smeared" - this was stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā.

"No offence: within seven days one determines": within the seven-day period, one determines ghee, oil, fat, head-oil, ointment, honey, wound-salve, molasses, or house-fumigation - no offence. If one wishes to pour determined oil into a vessel containing undetermined oil, and if through a fine hole in the vessel the oil enters little by little and is covered over by the old oil, it must be determined again. But if the opening is large, and much oil enters at once and covers over the old oil, there is no need for the act of determination again. For that follows the course of what has been determined. By this method, the pouring of undetermined oil into a vessel of determined oil should also be understood.

625. "Gives up" - here, if what belongs to two persons has been received by one and remains undivided, when seven days have passed there is no offence for either of them, but it is not proper to use it. If the one by whom it was received says to the other - "Friend, use this oil for just seven days." And he does not make use of it, for whom is there an offence? There is no offence for anyone. Why? Because it was given up by the one who received it, and because the other did not receive it.

"Perishes" means it becomes unfit for use. In "as discarded" etc., the mental state by which medicine is discarded, rejected, and released - that mental state is called "discarded, rejected, released." A person with that mental state is called "without attachment" - thus the meaning is "having given to a novice without attachment." Why was this said? The Elder Mahāsuma said: "For the purpose of showing that there is no offence for one who, having given thus within seven days, later receives it back and uses it." But the Elder Mahāpaduma said - "This should not be asked for, for indeed there is simply no offence in using again what was given within seven days. This was stated for the purpose of showing that there is no offence in using what has exceeded seven days." Therefore, if a novice should give such given medicine to that monk for the purpose of nasal treatment, whether having prepared it or without having prepared it, he should take it and perform the nasal treatment. If he is young and does not know how to give, another monk should say - "Do you have oil, novice?" "Yes, venerable sir, I have." "Bring it, we shall prepare medicine for the elder." This too is proper. The remainder is of clear meaning.

Kaṭhina origin, non-action, not liberation by cessation of perception, without consciousness, an offence by convention, bodily action and verbal action.

Three types of consciousness, three types of feeling.

The Explanation of the Medicine Training Rule is completed.

4.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning the Rains-Bathing Cloth

626. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning the cloth for the rains. Therein, "the cloth for the rains had been permitted" means permitted in the Cīvarakkhandhaka in the account of Visākhā. "Beforehand" means before indeed.

627. "When a month of summer remains" means one last month of the four summer months remains. "Having made" means having completed by finishing the sewing, dyeing, and marking. And the one making it should make only one and determine it at the proper time; it is not allowable to determine two.

"When more than a month of summer remains" means when more than a month of what is called summer remains.

"When more than a fortnight of summer remains, having made it, he wears it" - now, standing here, regarding the cloth for the rains, four kinds of scope should be understood: the scope for seeking, the scope for making, the scope for wearing, and the scope for determining; two kinds of season: the inner season and the outer season; and two groups of four: the group of four for the outer season and the group of four for the inner season.

Therein, from the first day after the full moon of the first month of Jeṭṭhamūla up to the Uposatha of the dark fortnight, this is one fortnight that is the scope for seeking and the scope for making. For during this interval, it is allowable to seek a cloth for the rains if not yet obtained and to make it if obtained, but it is not allowable to wear it or to determine it. From the first day after the Uposatha of the dark fortnight up to the full moon of Āsāḷhī, this is one fortnight that is the scope for all three: seeking, making, and wearing. For during this interval, it is allowable to seek, to make, and to wear, but it is not allowable to determine. From the first day after the full moon of Āsāḷhī up to the full moon of Kattika, these four months are the scope for all four: seeking, making, wearing, and determining. For during this interval, it is allowable to seek if not yet obtained, to make if obtained, to wear, and to determine. This is the fourfold scope that should be understood for now.

However, from the first day after the full moon of Kattika up to the full moon of Jeṭṭhamūla, these seven months are called the outer season. During this interval, for one who, by arousing awareness in the manner beginning with "It is the time for the cloth for the rains," produces robe-material as a cloth for the rains from a place of those who are not relatives and have not given invitation, there is an expiation involving forfeiture under this training rule. For one who, by making a request in the manner beginning with "Give me robe-material as a cloth for the rains," produces it, there is an expiation involving forfeiture under the training rule concerning requesting from non-relatives. For one who, by arousing awareness in the aforesaid manner, produces it from a place of relatives or those who have given invitation, there is an expiation involving forfeiture under this very training rule. For one who, having made a request, produces it, there is no offence under the training rule concerning requesting from non-relatives. For this has been stated in the Parivāra:

"Should one ask one's mother for a robe, and it is not assigned to the Saṅgha;

By what is there an offence for him, and no offence regarding relatives;

This is a question considered by the skilful."

For this question was stated with reference to this meaning. Thus the group of four for the outer season should be understood.

However, from the first day after the full moon of Jeṭṭhamūla up to the full moon of Kattika, these five months are called the inner season. During this interval, for one who, by arousing awareness in the aforesaid manner, produces robe-material as a cloth for the rains from a place of those who are not relatives and have not given invitation, there is an offence of wrong-doing for breach of proper conduct. But those people who have given robe-material as cloths for the rains even previously - even if these are not relatives of his and have not given invitation, there is no breach of proper conduct, because arousing awareness regarding them is permitted. For one who, having made a request, produces it, there is an expiation involving forfeiture under the training rule concerning requesting from non-relatives. And this applies even to those who are regular givers of robe-material as cloths for the rains. For one who, by arousing awareness in the aforesaid manner, produces it from a place of relatives or those who have given invitation, there is no offence under this training rule. For one who, having made a request, produces it, there is no offence under the training rule concerning requesting from non-relatives. "They should not be told 'give me'" - for this was stated with reference only to those who are not relatives and have not given invitation at the time of seeking. Thus the group of four for the inner season should be understood.

Regarding "naked, he lets the body be rained upon, there is an offence of wrong-doing," here, without counting by the number of water drops that touch him, he should be dealt with by a wrong-doing for each effort, by way of the completion of bathing. And that is only when bathing in an open space with water fallen from the sky. There is no offence for one bathing in a bathing room, reservoir, and so forth, with water poured from pots.

Regarding "the rains are postponed," here, if, having spent the last month of summer with a cloth for the rains that has been sought and made, they then postpone the first month of the rains and make it the last month of summer itself, the cloth for the rains should be washed and put away. Not determined and not shared, it receives an allowance of two months, and it should be determined on the day of the approach of the rains. If through lapse of mindfulness or through insufficiency it has not been made, it receives an allowance of six months - those two months and the four months of the rains. But if the kaṭhina is spread in the month of Kattika, it receives a further four months, thus there are ten months. Beyond that too, with mindful expectation, for one who makes it into a basic robe and keeps it, one month - thus it receives an allowance of eleven months. But if it is obtained and completed one day, two days, etc. before the approach of the rains has arrived within ten days, or during the rains, when should it be determined? This has not been discussed in the commentaries. However, if completed within ten days from the day of obtaining, it should be determined within those very ten days. If completed after the lapse of ten days, it should be determined on that very day. When ten days are not sufficient, the robe-season should not be exceeded - this is our own view. Why? "I allow, monks, the three robes to be determined, not to be assigned; the cloth for the rains to be determined for four months of the rains, after that let him share it" - for thus it has been said. Therefore, before the approach of the rains, even if ten days are exceeded, there is no offence. "Extra robe-material should be kept for ten days at most" - this too has been said. Therefore, if obtained and completed one day, two days, etc. before the approach of the rains has arrived within ten days, or during the rains, it should be determined in the manner stated either within ten days or on that very day; when ten days are not sufficient, the robe-season should not be exceeded.

Therein, one might say, from the statement "let him determine it for four months of the rains," "it is proper to determine it at any time within the four months." If so, regarding what has been said "let him determine the itch-covering cloth for as long as the illness lasts," that too could be allowed to exceed ten days. And if that were the case, the statement "extra robe-material should be kept for ten days at most" would be contradicted. Therefore, it should be understood as stated, or having found another firm reason, it should be rejected. Moreover, in the Kurundī too, at the end of the forfeiture section, it is said: "When should it be determined? However, if completed within ten days from the day of obtaining, it should be determined within those very ten days. If it is not sufficient, it receives an allowance until the full moon of Kattika."

630. "For one whose robe has been stolen" - this is said with reference to the cloth for the rains itself. For those who are naked, there is no offence in bathing the body. And here, the danger of thieves for one who bathes having worn an expensive cloth for the rains is called a misfortune. The remainder here is clear in itself.

It has six origins, it is action, it is not release through perception, it is without mind, it is an offence by convention, it is bodily action and verbal action, it involves three types of consciousness, and three types of feeling.

The explanation of the training rule on the rains-bathing cloth is finished.

5.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Snatching Away a Robe

631. "At that time" - this is the training rule concerning the snatching away of a robe. Therein, "even that which I gave you" means "even that which I gave to you." He, it seems, gave it thinking "Carrying my bowl, robe, sandals, and bedding, he will set out on a journey with me." Therefore he spoke thus. "Took by force" means he seized it forcibly. However, because he took it with the perception that it was his own, there is no offence of defeat for him. Because he took it causing distress, an offence was laid down.

633. "He takes by force himself - an expiation involving forfeiture" means when taking by force one robe or many that are bound together as one, there is a single offence. When taking by force many that are not bound together or standing separately, and when having them brought thus: "Bring the outer cloak, bring the upper robe," the offences are according to the number of items. Even when saying "Bring all that were given by me," by a single statement there are multiple offences.

"He commands another - an offence of wrong-doing" means he commands "Take the robe" - a single offence of wrong-doing. The one commanded takes many - a single expiation. When saying "Take the outer cloak, take the upper robe," for each statement there is an offence of wrong-doing. When saying "Take all that were given by me," by a single statement there are multiple offences.

634. "Another requisite" means anything whatsoever, down to even a needle, apart from the last robe eligible for assignment. Even regarding needles that have been wrapped and set aside, there are offences of wrong-doing according to the number of items. Thus it is regarding those loosely wrapped. However, regarding those firmly bound, there is only a single offence of wrong-doing - this was stated in the Mahāpaccarī. The same method applies also regarding those placed in a needle case. The same method applies also regarding medicines such as the three pungents placed in a bag, whether loosely tied or firmly tied.

635. "He gives it" means he gives it thus: "Venerable sir, this is indeed suitable for you," or else, when told "Friend, we gave you the robe thinking 'He will fulfil the duties, he will take ordination in our presence, he will learn the Dhamma,' but now you do not fulfil the duties, you do not take ordination, you do not learn the Dhamma," he gives it saying "Venerable sir, I think you are speaking for the sake of the robe; here is your robe." In this way too, "he gives it." Or else, he tells a young monk who has departed to another region "Will you not return?" and he does not return. "Take the robe and restrain him" - if he returns in this way, good. If he gives it saying "I think you are speaking for the sake of the bowl and robe; take them, will you not?" In this way too, "he gives it." Or having seen one who has left the order, he says "We gave you the bowl and robe thinking 'He will fulfil the duties,' but now you have left the order and are wandering about." The other gives it saying "Take your bowl and robe." In this way too, "he gives it." "I give only to one who takes ordination in my presence; I do not give to one who takes it elsewhere. I give only to one who fulfils the duties; I do not give to one who does not. I give only to one who learns the Dhamma; I do not give to one who does not. I give only to one who does not leave the order; I do not give to one who leaves the order." However, it is not proper to give in this way; for one who gives thus, there is an offence of wrong-doing. However, it is proper to have it brought back. One who takes by seizing what was given after relinquishing it should be dealt with according to the value of the goods. The remainder here is clear in itself.

It has three origins - it originates from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech and mind; it is action; it has release through perception; it is with consciousness; it is a worldly offence; it is bodily action and verbal action; it is unwholesome consciousness; it is unpleasant feeling.

The explanation of the training rule on snatching back a robe is finished.

6.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Requesting Thread

636. "At that time" - this is the training rule concerning asking for yarn. Therein, "linen" means yarn made from linen fibres. "Cotton" means produced from cotton. "Silk" means yarn made by spinning from silkworm threads. "Wool" means yarn of sheep's wool. "Hemp" means yarn of hemp fibres. "Mixed" - some say it is simply yarn of separate fibres. However, yarn made by mixing these five should be understood as "mixed."

"Has it woven - for each effort, an offence of wrong-doing" means if the weaver does not have a loom and such things, and he sharpens an adze or an axe thinking "I shall bring them from the forest," from that point onwards, whatever he does for the purpose of equipment or for the purpose of weaving the robe, in every case, for each effort of the weaver, there is an offence of wrong-doing for the monk. When woven to the measure of a span in length and a cubit in width, it is an offence of relinquishment with expiation. However, in the Mahāpaccarī it is stated: "For one having it woven until completion, for each stroke of the shuttle, it is an offence of relinquishment with expiation." That too should be understood as stated with reference to this very measure. For the last robe eligible for shared ownership counts as a robe.

Moreover, here the determination should be understood thus - Firstly, yarn asked for by oneself is not allowable; the remainder, obtained through relatives and so forth, is allowable. A weaver too, who is unrelated and not previously invited, obtained through asking, is not allowable; the remainder is allowable. Therein, for one having not-allowable yarn woven by a not-allowable weaver, it is an offence of relinquishment in the manner stated previously. But for one having allowable yarn woven by that same weaver, just as previously it would be an offence of relinquishment, so it is an offence of wrong-doing. For one having both allowable and not-allowable yarn woven by that same weaver, if by the measure of the last robe one section is made purely of allowable yarn and one section is made of not-allowable yarn, thus the robe is like a field with boundaries - in the section made of not-allowable yarn there is an offence of expiation, in the other there is likewise an offence of wrong-doing. If the sections are smaller than that, even down to the size of a flame circle, in all sections, by the counting of sections, there is an offence of wrong-doing. But if it is woven with alternating yarn or with allowable yarn lengthwise and not-allowable yarn widthwise, for each stroke of the shuttle there is an offence of wrong-doing. Even when having not-allowable yarn woven by an allowable weaver, just as previously it would be an offence of relinquishment, so it is an offence of wrong-doing. For one having both allowable and not-allowable yarn woven by that same weaver, if the sections of not-allowable yarn are of the measure of the last robe or smaller, in those, by the counting of sections, there is an offence of wrong-doing. In sections of allowable yarn, there is no offence. But if it is woven with alternating yarn or with allowable yarn lengthwise and not-allowable yarn widthwise, for each stroke of the shuttle there is an offence of wrong-doing.

If, however, there are two weavers, one allowable and one not-allowable, and the yarn is not-allowable, if they weave in turns, when woven by the not-allowable weaver, for each stroke of the shuttle there is an offence of expiation; when less than the measure, an offence of wrong-doing. When woven by the other, in both cases there is an offence of wrong-doing. If both take an end each and weave together, for each stroke of the shuttle there is an offence of expiation. But if the yarn is allowable and the robe has sections through field-boundaries and such, when woven by the not-allowable weaver, for each section there is an offence of wrong-doing; when woven by the other, there is no offence. If both take an end each and weave together, for each stroke of the shuttle there is an offence of wrong-doing. But if the yarn is both allowable and not-allowable, and they weave in turns, when sections of the measure of the last robe made of not-allowable yarn are woven by the not-allowable weaver, by the counting of sections there is an offence of expiation. In those that are smaller and in those made of allowable yarn, there is an offence of wrong-doing. When sections made of not-allowable yarn, whether of the proper measure or smaller, are woven by the allowable weaver, it is only an offence of wrong-doing. In sections made of allowable yarn, there is no offence.

If they weave with alternate yarn or making the lengthwise allowable and the crosswise unallowable, or if both of them take the edges and weave together, for a robe without sections there is an offence of wrong-doing for each stroke of the shuttle, and for a robe with sections there are offences of wrong-doing according to the sections. This meaning, however, is not evident in the Great Commentary, but is evident in the Mahāpaccarī and others. Here it is evident in every respect.

If the yarn too is allowable, and the weaver too is allowable - being either a relative or one not prohibited, or engaged by means of funds - there is no offence on account of having it woven. However, one guarding against an offence on account of exceeding ten days should determine it while still on the loom, as soon as the measure eligible for shared ownership has been woven. For if it is completed by exceeding ten days, it would become subject to forfeiture. The same method applies even when relatives and others have set up the loom and offered it saying "Venerable sir, please accept this robe."

If the weaver, being thus engaged or wishing to give of his own accord, says "I, venerable sir, will weave your robe and keep it ready on such and such a day," and the monk exceeds ten days from the day specified by him, it is an offence of forfeiture with expiation.

If, however, the weaver, having said "I will weave your robe and send a message," does accordingly, but the monk sent by him does not inform that monk, and another, having seen or heard, informs him "Your robe, venerable sir, is finished," that person's notification is not authoritative. But when the very one sent by him informs, from the day of hearing his words, if one lets ten days pass, it is an offence of forfeiture with expiation.

If the weaver, having said "I will weave your robe and send it by someone's hand," does accordingly, but the monk who took the robe and went places it in his own dwelling and does not inform that monk, and someone else says "Is the robe recently brought beautiful, venerable sir?" "Where is the robe, friend?" "It was sent by the hand of so-and-so." This person's words too are not authoritative. But when that monk gives the robe, from the day of receiving it, if one exceeds ten days, it is an offence of forfeiture with expiation. If, however, the payment for weaving has not been given, as long as even so much as a kākaṇika coin remains outstanding, it protects for that long.

640. "No offence - for sewing a robe" means there is no offence for one who requests thread for the purpose of sewing a robe. In "for a bandage" and so forth as well, the locative case is used in the sense of a reason; it is said that there is no offence for one who requests on account of a bandage and so forth. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

It has six origins, it is action, it is not release through perception, it is without mind, it is an offence by convention, it is bodily action and verbal action, it involves three types of consciousness, and three types of feeling.

The explanation of the training rule on requesting thread is finished.

7.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning the Master Weaver

641. "At that time" refers to the Great Weaver training rule. Therein, "having weighed the thread" means having measured the thread and determined the quantity of yarn. "Thick" means dense. "Well-woven" means well woven, woven evenly in all places. "Well-spread" means well spread out, the warp threads spread evenly in all places. "Well-scraped" means well scraped with a scraping instrument. "Well-smoothed" means well combed with a comb; the meaning is well-cleaned. "Bound" means deficient. "Onto the loom" means the meaning is having put it onto the loom by stretching it lengthwise.

642. "If that monk there" means wherever those weavers are, whether in a village or a town, there. "Should put forward a consideration" means he should put forward a superior arrangement, an additional specification. However, in order to show the manner in which he has put forward a consideration in the canonical text, "This, friend" and so forth was stated.

"He also speaks the Dhamma" means he also gives a Dhamma talk; "by his word, long or wide or thick" shows only the manner of increasing the thread.

"Not previously invited" means not having been previously invited by the owners of the robe. The remainder is of manifest meaning only.

It has six origins, it is an act of commission, it is not the liberation through non-perception, it is without consciousness, it is an offence by convention, it is bodily action and verbal action.

Three types of consciousness, three types of feeling.

The explanation of the training rule on the master weaver is finished.

8.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Out-of-Season Robes

646-649. "At that time" refers to the training rule on emergency robes. Therein, "ten days before the arrival" means ten days is a period of ten days; not arrived within that period of ten days means "ten days before the arrival"; the meaning is "not yet reached within ten days." That "ten days before the arrival" - the accusative case is used in the locative sense by way of absolute connection; therefore in the word analysis it is stated as "ten days before the arrival of." "Of the Pavāraṇā" - this, however, is a non-accusative expression for the purpose of avoiding confusion, in order to show in its own form what was referred to as "ten days before the arrival."

"The full moon of the Kattika month" means the full moon of the first Kattika month. Here too, because the first word is non-accusative, the accusative case is used in the locative sense in the same manner as before. This is what is meant - "From the time when it is said 'ten days before the arrival of the first great Pavāraṇā,' if during those days an emergency robe should arise for a monk at any time whatsoever, it should all be accepted by the monk who knows 'this is an emergency robe.'" Thus the time for storing a robe that has arisen from the fifth day of the bright fortnight of the Pavāraṇā month has been shown. Although this is indeed already established by the rule "an extra robe may be kept for ten days at most," the training rule was laid down by showing the purpose as if it were something unprecedented, by way of the originating circumstance.

"Emergency robe" means an urgent robe; however, to show its urgent nature, "wishing to go with the army" and so forth was stated. Therein, "faith" - by this, mere faith alone is indicated. "Confidence" - by this, well-established strong faith is indicated. "This is called an emergency robe" means a robe that has been announced thus - "I will give a rains-residence gift" - by one wishing to give for these reasons, either by sending a messenger or by coming oneself, is called an emergency robe. However, even a non-emergency robe that has arisen from the sixth day onwards, and even a robe that has been withdrawn and set aside, obtains this same allowance.

"Having made a mark, it should be set aside" means it should be stored having made some distinguishing sign. Why was this stated? For if they distribute it before the Pavāraṇā, the one by whom it was taken must not have broken the rains residence. But if he has, that robe becomes the property of the Saṅgha itself. Therefore, having ascertained this, it will be easy to distribute.

650. "In the case of an emergency robe, perceiving it as an emergency robe" and so forth is stated with reference to what has been taken after having been divided. But if it has not been divided, or is in the storehouse of the Saṅgha, there is no offence even when the robe-season has been exceeded. Thus, the allowable period for an extra robe is ten days. For an unmade rain-cloth robe, when the kaṭhina has not been spread, five months; when the rains residence has been extended, six months; when the kaṭhina has been spread, a further four months. On the last day of the cold season, by means of determining it as a basic robe, yet another one month - thus the allowable period is eleven months. It should be understood that for a basic robe with expectation in mind, one month; for an emergency robe, when the kaṭhina has not been spread, one month plus eleven days; when the kaṭhina has been spread, five months plus eleven days; beyond that, there is no allowable period even for a single day.

"Not an emergency robe" means another robe similar to an emergency robe. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

The origin of the kaṭhina offence - it is non-commission, not release through perception, without consciousness, an offence by convention, bodily action and verbal action, with three types of consciousness, with three types of feeling.

The explanation of the training rule on the out-of-season robe is finished.

9.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Dangerous Places

652. "At that time" refers to the training rule concerning suspicion. Therein, "who had finished keeping the rains retreat, in forest lodgings" means they had been dwelling in the forest even before. However, due to the weakness of their robes, they spent the rains residence in lodgings near a village on account of requisites, and having completed their robes, thinking "Now, free from hindrances, we shall practise the ascetic's duty," they dwell in forest lodgings. "Thieves of the Kattika month" means thieves in the month of Kattika. "Attacked" means they assailed, rushing here and there, frightening and driving them away. "To deposit in an inhabited area" means to deposit within a village. The Blessed One, because requisites are indeed difficult to obtain by righteous and proper means - for a monk practising austerity is unable to make a request even of his own mother. Therefore, for the purpose of safeguarding robes, he allows depositing them in an inhabited area. However, because forest dwelling is suitable for monks, he did not prohibit dwelling in the forest.

653. "After having observed the rains retreat" - here "upavassaṃ" means "upavassa" from "upavassanti"; it means "having observed the rains retreat." For here the nasal should be understood as in "upasampajjanti" and so forth. The meaning is "having entered upon and dwelt through the rains retreat." And this word is connected with "a monk dwelling in such lodgings." What is meant? Having entered upon and dwelt through the rains retreat, and thereafter until the concluding time of the full moon of the last month of Kattika, whatever forest lodgings are considered dangerous and perilous; a monk dwelling in such lodgings, if he wishes, may deposit any one of the three robes in an inhabited area. But since one who has entered upon the rains retreat and dwells until the first full moon of Kattika is included among those who have completed the rains retreat, therefore, without making this excessively complex analysis of the wording, in the word-analysis, merely to indicate the person eligible to deposit a robe, "of those who have completed the rains retreat" was stated. That too is connected with "a monk dwelling in lodgings." For the meaning here is this: "of those who have completed the rains retreat, a monk dwelling in lodgings" - it means any monk whatsoever among such monks.

The characteristic of forest has been stated in the explanation of the taking of what is not given. But this is the distinction - if the monastery is enclosed, one should measure from the boundary post of an enclosed village, or from the place deserving of enclosure of an unenclosed village, up to the enclosure of the monastery. If the monastery is unenclosed, whichever comes first - a lodging, a refectory, a place of regular assembly, a Bodhi tree, or a shrine - even if it is far from the lodging, one should make that the boundary and measure from there. Even if the village is nearby, and the sounds of householders can be heard by those standing in the monastery, but because of being obstructed by mountains, rivers, and so forth, one cannot go directly, and whatever is the normal path, even if one must travel by boat, one should reckon five hundred bow-lengths from the village by that path. One who blocks paths here and there in order to fulfil the qualifying condition of a nearby village should be known as "a dhutaṅga thief."

"Considered dangerous" means considered as "dangerous"; the meaning is "thus recognised." But in the word-analysis, in order to show the reason why they are considered dangerous, "in a monastery, in the vicinity of a monastery" and so forth was stated.

"Perilous" means accompanied by peril; the meaning is that danger and threat are present nearby. But in the word-analysis, the reason why they are perilous; in order to show that, "in a monastery, in the vicinity of a monastery" and so forth was stated.

"He may deposit in the surrounding alms-resort village" means he may deposit, when the qualifying conditions are met, in an alms-resort village of his own choice in all directions surrounding the forest lodging.

Herein, these are the qualifying conditions - he has entered upon the earlier rains retreat and has been invited at the great Pavāraṇā; this is the first condition. If he has entered upon the later rains retreat or has a broken rains retreat, he is not permitted to deposit. It is the month of Kattika itself; this is the second condition. After the month of Kattika it is not permitted. The lodging is at the last measurement of exactly five hundred bow-lengths; this is the third condition. If the measurement is less or exceeds a quarter-yojana, it is not permitted; for wherever, having gone for alms, one is able to return to the monastery at mealtime, that alone is intended here. But when invited, one may go even half a yojana or a yojana and return to dwell; this is without fixed measure. It is indeed considered dangerous and perilous; this is the fourth condition. For one dwelling in a lodging that is not dangerous and not perilous, even if the other conditions are met, is not permitted to deposit.

"Except with the authorisation of the monks" means except for the Kosambaka authorisation that was permitted in the Udosita training rule; if that has been obtained, it is allowable to stay apart even beyond six nights.

"Having re-entered the village boundary" means if the lodging is to the east of the alms-resort village; and he has gone to the western direction, the meaning is that one who is unable to return to the lodging and see the seventh dawn arise there, may even enter the village boundary and, having stayed in a hall or wherever, ascertain the status of the robe and then depart. One who is thus unable and remains right there should retrieve it, as it will stand in the position of surplus robe. The remainder is clear in itself.

The origin of the kaṭhina offence - it originates from body and speech, and from body, speech and mind; it is a non-act; it is not release through cessation of perception; it is without consciousness; it is an offence by convention; it is bodily action and verbal action; it involves three types of consciousness; it involves three types of feeling.

The explanation of the training rule on dangerous situations is finished.

10.

Commentary on the Training Rule Concerning Dedicated Offerings

657. "At that time" - this is the training rule on diversion. Therein, "of the guild" means of the group; the meaning is "of the association." "Prepared" means made ready. "The Community has many supporters" means the Community has many meals, many sources of gain; they indicate that there is no loss to the Community from anyone. "Distribute" means give. "But is it proper to say thus?" - why is it not proper? For this is an offering brought and prepared in one place for the benefit of the Community, and there is no prescribed statement applicable to what has been brought and prepared and to portions set aside by designation.

658. "Belonging to the monastic community" means the property of the monastic community. For even though it has not yet come into hand, by reason of being designated for the monastic community, it belongs to the monastic community in one sense; but in the word-analysis, by way of extracting the meaning thus: "What is 'belonging to the monastic community' is what has been given to the monastic community, relinquished" - thus what belongs to the monastic community is shown in the absolute sense. "Material gain" refers to the object to be received. Therefore in its exposition, "even a robe" and so forth is stated. "Designated" means standing as inclined towards the monastic community, sloping towards the monastic community, tending towards the monastic community. But to show the reason by which it becomes designated, the word-analysis states: "The utterance 'we shall give, we shall make' has been made."

659. "For the effort, a wrong-doing" means there is a wrong-doing for the effort of diverting to oneself a designated material gain; by the acquisition, when it has come into one's hands, it is forfeitable. If, however, it has been given to the Community, it is not allowable to take it; it should be given to the Community itself. Even one who eats together with the monastery attendants should be made to pay after having the goods valued. However, for one who, knowing the state of being designated for the Community, diverts to himself and takes what is designated for fellow Dhamma practitioners or for householders, or even what belongs to one's own mother, saying "Give this to me" - it is a forfeitable offence with expiation. For one who diverts to another, saying "Give it to this monk," it is a simple offence of expiation. If one diverts one bowl or robe to oneself and one to another, there is both a forfeitable offence with expiation and a simple offence of expiation. The same method applies in the case of many. And this too was said -

"An offence with forfeiture, and a simple expiation,

One may commit at once;

This is a question considered by the skilful."

For this was stated with reference to diversion. Even one who, at the time of the rains-bathing cloth, knowing that a rains-bathing cloth designated for the Community even at one's mother's house, diverts it to oneself - it is a forfeitable offence with expiation. If one diverts it to another, it is a simple offence of expiation. When people bring ghee, oil and the like, saying "We shall prepare a meal for the Community," even if a sick monk, knowing the state of being designated for the Community, asks for anything, it is indeed a forfeitable offence with expiation. If, however, he asks "Do you have ghee and the like brought for yourselves?" and when told "Yes, we do," he says "Please give some to me too," it is allowable. Moreover, if lay followers say to him while he is feeling scrupulous: "The Community too receives only what is given by us; please accept it, venerable sir" - in this way too it is allowable.

660. "What is designated for the Community, to another Community" means what is designated for the Community in one monastery, he diverts by specifying another monastery, saying "Give it to the Community in such-and-such a great monastery."

"Or to a shrine" means he diverts to a shrine thus: "What is the use of giving to the Community? Make an offering to the shrine."

"What is designated for a shrine" - here, having been specifically designated, it is not allowable even to place a flower upon another shrine from a flower-bed planted for the purpose of another shrine. However, having placed a canopy or a banner upon one shrine, seeing someone standing with the remainder, it is allowable to have it given to another shrine.

"What is designated for an individual" - even what is designated for a dog, he diverts to another individual thus: "Do not give to this dog, give to that one" - an offence of wrong-doing. But if the donors say: "We wish to give food to the Community, we wish to make an offering to a shrine, we wish to give requisites to a single monk; we shall give according to your preference; tell us, where shall we give?" When spoken to thus, that monk should say: "Give wherever you wish." But if they merely ask "Where shall we give?", one should speak in the manner given in the canonical text itself. The remainder here is clear in meaning.

It has three origins - it originates from body-and-mind, from speech-and-mind, and from body-speech-and-mind; it is an action; it has release through right perception; it is with consciousness; it is a worldly offence; it is bodily action and verbal action; it is unwholesome consciousness; and it is of three feelings.

In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya,

the explanation of the training rule on the dedicated robe is finished.

The third chapter on the bowl is finished.

The explanation of the Relinquishment section is finished.

The commentary on the Pārājika chapter is finished.

×

Error: Contact form not found.

×

Add notes for personal use