Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Vinayapiṭaka

Vinayālaṅkāra-ṭīkā (First Part)

Introductory Account of the Composition

Verses on the Necklace of Pearls, etc.

He who in the world is beyond the world and the aggregates, the highest, the supreme, the foremost of kings, noble by birth;
Whose form is like the sky, delighting in the ultimate bliss, the god beyond gods, devoid of faults.

The essence of the unessence of saṃsāra, well-honored by noble men, his realm beyond the destroyer, Māra;
The adornment of the world, possessing supreme mindfulness and wisdom, the delight of steadfast heroes.

Verse on the Simile of Turning Back the Lion

Him who destroys the wheel of saṃsāra, that perfectly enlightened one with a noble mind;
I bow down to him, the lord of excellent qualities, who has proclaimed the very difficult to see.

Verse on the Simile of the Anotatta Lake's Whirlpool

By whom sins were destroyed, by whom fears were extinguished;
By whom the worlds were liberated, to whom I bow down.

Verse on the Simile of the Universal Monarch of the Four Continents

I bow to the Saṅgha together with the Saṅgha, offspring of the excellent Dhamma that has relinquished defilements;
Established in the highest path and its fruit, of good conduct and noble mind.

Initial yamaka Verse with Four Feet without Separation

The Vinaya, the Vinaya, the essence; the collection, the collection, making;
The conduct, the conduct, I venerate; the supreme, the supreme, learned.

Initial and Final yamaka Verse with Four Feet with Separation

In various ways, in many ways; the ocean, the ocean of virtues;
Reverence to me, reverence; I venerate, I highly venerate.

By my reverence done with respect to the three objects of reverence and the teachers,
Having abandoned all misfortunes, by the reverence done.

By the monks who desire training, who are wise, who are doers of the Buddha's teaching,
Who are learned in the Vinaya, requested with respect.

To increase joy in the Vinaya-Saṅgaha;
For the monks who are experts in the Vinaya, according to my ability and strength, I will explain.

Although there is a commentary done by the ancients,
Due to its very concise nature, it does not accomplish as desired.

Therefore, having taken the essence well from various treatises,
I will explain the meaning through attha-vaṇṇanā.

May all the good people truly keep in mind this treatise,
Named Vinayālaṅkāra, a delight for the virtuous.

Explanation of the Introductory Account of the Composition

He said beginning with "vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā". Here, "vatthuttayaṃ namassitvā" this expresses reverence to the Triple Gem, because it shows the meaning of reverence as something to be revered. "Saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇina" this shows that it is worthy of reverence, because it shows the reason for reverence. "Pāḷimuttavinicchaya" is the subject matter, because it is the meaning of this treatise. "Vippakiṇṇamanekatthā" is the reason for doing so, because the treatise is made for that very reason. "Samāharitvā ekattha, dassayissamanākula" is the manner of doing so, because the treatise is made in that manner. The name of the treatise, however, is shown by the force of the word "samāharitvā" (having collected), because by collecting and showing, this treatise obtains the name Vinayasaṅgaha.

yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ because of its nature as an object of compassion. The purpose, however, is twofold, in terms of the purpose of reverence and the purpose of the treatise. There, the purpose of reverence is the elimination of obstacles, the generation of serenity, etc., which is shown by the force of "saraṇaṃ sabbapāṇina", because when there is a cause, the result is inseparable. Indeed, it was said by the Abhidhammaṭīkācariya, "For reverence is paid to one who has special qualities, and reverence paid to one who is worthy of reverence is indeed the accomplishment of the stated purpose" (dha. sa. mūlaṭī. 1). The purpose of the treatise is also twofold, the primary and the secondary. Among these, the primary purpose is the penetration and exposition of the meaning in accordance with the letter, and the indication and explanation of the letter in accordance with the meaning, which is stated by "vinaye pāṭavatthāya". The secondary purpose is the meaning extending from virtue, etc., to anupādāparinibbāna, which is shown by the force of "samāharitvā ekattha dassayissa", because when it is collected and shown in one place, the attainment of that meaning is achieved without obstacles by means of learning, questioning, etc., having made effort.

Why, in this case, were reverence to the Triple Gem, etc., done by the teacher, surely the intended commencement of the treatise should be done? It is said – Here, the doing of reverence to the Triple Gem is for the purpose of completing the treatise without difficulty, having overcome obstacles. The statement of being worthy of reverence is for the purpose of showing one's own justified worthiness, that is for the purpose of pleasing the wise, that is for the grasping of the treatise, that is for the accomplishment of all success. The statement of the subject matter is for the wise to engage in the treatise with learning, retention, etc., having known the subject matter. The statement of the reason for doing so is for the rejection of the fruitlessness of effort done without reason. The statement of the manner of doing so is for the generation of interest in learning, etc., for the listeners of the treatise, having known the manner. The showing of the name is for the ease of expression. The statement of the occasion is for the showing of the near cause. The showing of the purpose is for the generation of enthusiasm for the listeners who desire the twofold purpose.

The teachers, however, expand the purpose of reverence to the Triple Gem in many ways, that should be taken in the manner stated there and there. Here, however, for the purpose of alleviating the heaviness of the treatise, we have spoken only of the purpose intended by the commentary masters. Indeed, it was said by the commentary master –

"By the power of that act of reverence
Done to the Triple Gem
Having dried up
All obstacles without residue." (dha. sa. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā 7);

This is the collective meaning here, this, however, is the individual meaning – I reverence the Triple Gem, the refuge, the means of refuge for all beings, having reverenced, having bowed down, I will collect in one place the Pāḷi-muttaka decisions that are scattered in many meanings for the purpose of study in the Vinaya for the Yogāvacara monks, having made it not confused, I will show, I will show, this is the connection.

vatthuttayaṃ. What is that? The Triple Gem beginning with the Buddha. Namassāmīti namassitvā, anamintīti namassitvā. For when the mind arises having made the Buddha, etc., the object, the tvā-suffix is of the present time, therefore the first separation is made, at the time of showing the Pāḷi-muttaka decisions in one place, it is of the past time, therefore the second separation. And for that very reason, in the connection of the meaning also, the connection is made in terms of the present time and the past time.

saraṇaṃ. What is that? The Triple Gem beginning with the Buddha. For that destroys, injures, eliminates fear, terror, suffering, evil destinies, downfall, defilement for good people who have gone for refuge, therefore it is called "saraṇa". Indeed, it was said by the Blessed One –

"At whatever time, Mahānāma, a noble disciple recollects the Tathāgata, at that time his mind is not overcome with lust," etc. (a. ni. 6.10; 11.11),

"For those who recollect the Buddha thus,
The Dhamma and the Saṅgha, monks,
There will be no fear or trembling,
Nor horripilation." (saṃ. ni. 1.249);

The word Sabba is a pronoun expressing the meaning of without remainder. However, when it exists with ava, it is a compound noun expressing totality, like the word sakala. Those who have life are pāṇino, pāṇo here means the life faculty. Sabbe pāṇino sabbapāṇino, tesaṃ sabbapāṇīnaṃ. To this extent, it shows that the Triple Gem is the refuge of the entire world, and from that very reason, it is worthy of reverence, and by the act of reverence done to what is worthy of reverence, it is the accomplisher of the desired meaning, and that one's own action is in a suitable place.

"vinaye pāṭavatthāya, yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ". Here, "vinaye pāṭavatthāya" is the showing of the primary purpose, and by that showing, the secondary purpose is also made clear, because when the cause is accomplished, the effect is accomplished. "Yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ" is the showing of the external occasion, when that is shown, the internal occasion is also made clear, because when the object is known, the one who has the object must be known. There, Vinaya means various methods are there in it, Vinaya means that various methods of many kinds are there in it such as the two kinds of Pātimokkha, the two kinds of Vibhaṅga, the five kinds of Pātimokkhuddesa, the five Āpattikkhandhas, the seven Āpattikkhandhas, etc. Or else, Vinaya means special methods are there in it, Vinaya means that special methods are there in it such as the methods of strengthening actions, loosening actions, the benefits, the methods of not re-promulgating, etc. Or else, Vinaya means it trains. It trains the body, speech, i.e., Vinaya is so-called because of the training of body and speech. Indeed, it was said in the commentary –

"Because of various special methods,
And because of training the body and speech,
This Vinaya is called 'Vinaya'
By those skilled in the Vinaya." (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā; dha. sa. aṭṭha. nidānakathā; dī. ni. aṭṭha. 1.paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā);

vinaye. Paṭati goes to the state of clarity, paṭu. Who is that? A wise person. The state of the paṭu is pāṭavaṃ. What is that? Knowledge. It becomes according to the cause, it means. What is that? Purpose. Pāṭavaṃ itself is the meaning, pāṭavattho, tassa pāṭavatthāya, it means for the purpose of skillful knowledge in the Vinayapiṭaka. Yuñjanaṃ is yoga, the mental application to the meditation subject. Those who frequent are avacarā, those who frequent in yoga are yogāvacarā, monks who are engaged in meditation subjects. Those who see fear in saṃsāra are bhikkhū, those who are yogāvacarā and those who are bhikkhū are yogāvacarabhikkhū, tesaṃ yogāvacarabhikkhūnaṃ. By this, it shows that the state of being skilled in the Vinaya is indeed the purpose of the monks, not of householders, ascetics, wanderers, etc. And among the monks, it is indeed of the modest and virtuous monks who are engaged in meditation subjects, not of the shameless monks who have abandoned meditation subjects.

He said "vippakiṇṇamanekattha, pāḷimuttavinicchaya". There, by "vippakiṇṇaṃ anekattha", he shows the reason for the commencement of the treatise, because it is a special characteristic having a reason, the teacher's commencement is only because it is scattered in many meanings, not when it is not scattered. For he will say "samāharitvā ekattha dassayissa" (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā). By "pāḷimuttavinicchaya", this is the subject matter of the treatise. There, kirati scatters, kiṇṇo, pakārena kiṇṇo pakiṇṇo, vividhena pakiṇṇo vippakiṇṇo. What is that? The Pāḷi-muttaka decisions, taṃ vippakiṇṇaṃ.

Here, in Anekatthā, the word eka, which is a numeral pronoun, not one, many. Anekasaddo expresses many meanings. Although the word eka is in the singular, it is in the plural because it is connected with the negative particle na-iti. There anekattha, the meaning is in many, it means in many treatises such as the Pārājikakaṇḍa commentary, etc., it has been said. In the ancient commentary, however, "anekattha" means in many locations of training rules, if it is like that, since it will be said above "samāharitvā ekattha", because these words "anekatthavippakiṇṇaṃ ekattha samāharitvā" are in combination, the meaning would be having scattered in many locations of training rules, having collected in one location of training rule, and that meaning is not fitting. Why? The meaning we have said is having scattered in many treatises, having collected in one treatise. However, if one were to take the meaning "ekato" having distinguished the meaning of "ekattha", having scattered in many locations of training rules, having collected in one place, that meaning would be fitting.

pāḷimuttavinicchayaṃ. And this is said according to the majority method, like in "ānagarā khadiravana", because Pāḷi decisions are also seen somewhere. In the ancient commentary, however, it should be seen that this is said in terms of one part being similar to the rest, i.e., Pāḷi decisions and Pāḷi-muttaka decisions are Pāḷi-muttaka decisions, or a second method has been said, if it is like that, since there is no decision other than Pāḷi decisions and Pāḷi-muttaka decisions, what is the use of taking Pāḷimutta which makes the treatise heavy. For a special characteristic is meaningful if there is possibility and non-occurrence, therefore the first method should be requested.

‘‘samāharitvā’’ti and so on. Here, there are two ways of doing (karaṇa): one is gathering in one place (ekatthasamāharaṇa), and the other is doing without confusion (anākulakaraṇa). Both of these ways are called ‘‘karaṇappakāro’’ because the subject matter (pakaraṇa) is done (kata) in that manner. Among them, samāharitvā, meaning having gathered, is derived from saṃ, which means to condense; therefore, it means having condensed and brought together. Since the tvā suffix here indicates a future time, being contemporaneous with the word ‘‘dassayissa’’ manifested in the future tense, the tvā suffix here is said to be in the future tense. Ekatthā means in one place, in this context, in the subject matter of the Vinaya collection. Or, ekatthā means together. Dassayissa means I will show, meaning I will make known. Ākula means confused; not confused is anākula, a judgment (vinicchaya) free from disordered sequence and extraneous text (pāḷimutta). Anākulaṃ, however, is in the neuter gender in the sense of bhāva (abstract noun), therefore, it should be connected to the act of showing, linking it with the word katvā formed from the verb root kar.

He says, starting with ‘‘tatrāyaṃ mātikā’’. Indeed, without the mātikā, the judgments shown scatter and disintegrate, like flowers not strung together by a thread. But with the mātikā present, the judgments shown do not scatter or disintegrate, like flowers strung together by a thread. Those who wish to know a particular meaning should proceed according to the mātikā, and upon reaching the desired judgment, that particular meaning should be understood; therefore, the mātikā is established for ease of comprehension. There, tatra means in that judgment free from disordered sequence and extraneous text. Ayaṃ means this, which I am about to speak. Mātikā is like a mother. Just as children originate from a mother, so too do the terms of definition originate from the outline; therefore, the outline is called ‘‘mātikā’’ as it is like a mother.

In Divāseyyā and so on, divāseyyā is the discourse on the judgment of divāseyyā (sleeping during the day). Parikkhāro is the discourse on the judgment of parikkhāra (requisites)...pe... pakiṇṇakaṃ is the discourse on the judgment of pakiṇṇaka (miscellaneous); this is the connection. By that very reason, he will say, ‘‘The discourse on the judgment of sleeping during the day is complete,’’ and so on. The word iti has the meaning of ‘this’, or the meaning of ‘example’, or the meaning of ‘completion of the section’. Among these, what is its meaning when it has the meaning of ‘this’? Divāseyyā...pe... pakiṇṇakaṃ iti ayaṃ (this is it). How is it an example? Divāseyyā...pe... pakiṇṇakaṃ iti daṭṭhabbaṃ (it should be seen thus). In the sense of completion of the section, with how much is it complete? Divāseyyā...pe... pakiṇṇakaṃ iti ettakena parisamattaṃ (it is complete with this much); this is the meaning. However, if the sentence analysis of these words such as divāseyyā is done and the meaning is spoken here, it will become too elaborate and difficult for the listeners to grasp; therefore, we will speak appropriately at the beginning of each of those definitions.

The description of the introductory speech of the text is finished.

1. Discourse on the Judgment of Sleeping During the Day

1. Having thus established the outline of the discourses on judgments free from the Pāḷi, now, defining in accordance with the order of the established outline, he says, starting with ‘‘tattha divāseyyāti divānipajjana’’. There, tattha means among those divisions of the outline, the meaning of the word ‘‘divāseyyā’’ should be seen as ‘‘divānipajjana’’; this is the connection. There, the word divā is an indeclinable in the ā-ending meaning ‘day’. Indeed, it was said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, ‘‘ānukūlyetu saddhañca, nattaṃ doso divā tvahe.’’ Sayanaṃ is seyyā, a particular posture, which is the mode of behavior known as the spreading out extensively in a long manner, by going upwards of the bodily forms produced by karma. Divāseyyā is seyyā during the daytime. That is, the act of taking the sleeping posture during this time, from the rising of the sun until the setting of the sun. Therefore, he said, ‘‘The meaning is sleeping during the day.’’

Tatra means in that sleeping during the day, this judgment that is about to be spoken should be understood; this is the connection. ‘‘Anujānāmi…pe… vacanato’’ (pārā. 77) this is the teaching passage spoken directly by the Buddha that comes in the Vinaya stories of the first pārājika training rule. There, divā paṭisallīyantenā means by one who is sleeping during the day. Dvāraṃ saṃvaritvā paṭisallīyituṃ means to lie down having closed the door. ‘‘Divā…pe… nipajjitabbaṃ is to be made known. Now, in the Pāḷi, it is not said, ‘‘this is the offense,’’ then how is an offense to be understood here? Intending this question, he says, starting with ‘‘ettha ca kiñcāpī’’. There, ettha means in this sleeping during the day. The word ca indicates the beginning of a sentence; kiñcāpi is a cluster of indeclinables, meaning even if. Even if in the Pāḷi, it is not said what the offense is, nevertheless, because in the Commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77) a dukkaṭa offense is said for one lying down without closing the door, therefore, an offense is to be understood here; this is the connection. Even so, how could it be stated in the Commentary without the Buddha's words? He says, ‘‘vivaritvā…pe… anuññātattā’’. By this, he shows that the Buddha’s permission also becomes a cause for offense for one who does not do that.

‘‘uppanne vatthumhī means in the case of misconduct committed by a woman’’; so it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77). In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77), however, it is said, ‘‘when the case of sexual intercourse arose,’’ and in the ancient Ṭīkā (subcommentary) also, taking that same meaning, it is said, ‘‘when the case of sexual intercourse arose.’’ That should be investigated because of the absence of the characteristics of sexual intercourse. Now, the formulation of a training rule is the domain of the Buddha; then why is a dukkaṭa offense stated in the Commentary? He says, ‘‘bhagavato’’ and so on. The Commentary was not established only by elders such as Upāli, but indeed, it was spoken by the Buddha, the Blessed One, both in meaning and in the Pāḷi. Indeed, there is no teaching passage that was not explained by the Blessed One; the meaning of all of them was spoken. Therefore, it should be seen that even the order of the meaning explanation of the three baskets was spoken by the All-Enlightened One. Indeed, in each case, the miscellaneous teachings initiated by the Blessed One are the Commentary.

‘‘atthāpattī’’ and so on. This incurring of a dukkaṭa offense is not established only because it is said in the Commentary, but indeed, it is also established by this Parivāra passage, ‘‘the offense is incurred by sleeping during the day, not at night’’ (pari. 323); this is the connection. Now, in what instance was this training rule spoken? ‘‘At that time, a certain bhikkhu in Vesālī, in the Mahāvana, in the Kūṭāgāra Hall, having gone to the monastery during the day, was lying down having opened the door. His limbs were stimulated by the wind. At that time, many women, taking perfume and garlands, came to the monastery, desiring the monastery. Then those women, seeing that bhikkhu, sat down on his genitals, did what they wanted, and saying, ‘Indeed, this is a bull of a man,’ having placed perfume and garlands, they left. The bhikkhus, seeing the wetness, told this matter to the Blessed One. Bhikkhus, the genitals are workable in five ways: by lust, by excrement, by urine, by wind, by the bite of an Uccāliṅga creature. Indeed, bhikkhus, the genitals are workable in these five ways. Bhikkhus, this is impossible, it cannot happen that that bhikkhu’s genitals would be workable by lust; that bhikkhu, bhikkhus, is an arahat; bhikkhus, there is no offense for that bhikkhu. I allow, bhikkhus, for one who is sleeping during the day, to lie down having closed the door’’ (pārā. 77). It should be seen that this was spoken in this instance.

2. Now, to show the distinction of the door, he says, starting with ‘‘kīdisa’’. There, parivattakadvārameva means just a door that is suitable for turning this way and that way by means of closing and opening. Rukkhasūcikaṇṭakadvāra means a door made of wooden needles and a door made of thorns. Or the reading is just, ‘‘Rukkhasūcidvārakaṇṭakadvāra.’’ That which they make by planting wooden pillars on both sides, piercing them there, and inserting two or three wooden needles in the middle is called rukkhasūcidvāraṃ. That which is made of one or many thorny branches that can be removed and put back at the time of entering and exiting is called kaṇṭakadvāraṃ. For the purpose of closing the village gate, they attach a wheel at the bottom of a door made of matting or thorny branches, which cannot be closed or opened by one person due to the lack of a pivot socket, so that the turning door can be easily closed. Referring to that, it is said ‘‘cakkalakayuttadvāra’’. Indeed, the wheel itself is a cakkalaka because it should be taken for the purpose of closing and opening with a supporting stick. Even the door fitted with it is called cakkalaka, therefore, the door fitted with it is cakkalakayuttadvāraṃ.

‘‘phalakesū’’ and so on. Kiṭikāsu means in the closing made of bamboo strips and thorny branches and so on. Saṃsaraṇakiṭikadvāra means a large door fitted with a moving screen with a wheel mechanism. Gopphetvā means having wrapped around, or having tied with ropes. Ekaṃ dussasāṇidvārameva here includes a door made of matting and cloth. In the Vajirabuddhi Ṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 76-77), however, it is said, ‘‘A door made of cloth and a door made of matting are a dussasāṇidvāra. It is said by way of ‘A dussasāṇi, a kilañjasāṇi,’ all of it, having included it in just the dussasāṇi, it is said as ‘one’ because of being of one kind.’’

3. Having thus shown the distinction of the door, now, to show the measure by which the door is closed, he says, starting with ‘‘kittakena’’. There, sūcī means inserted having made a hole in the middle. Ghaṭikā means fitted on top. Now, to show the procedure to be done where it is not possible to close the door and lie down, he says, starting with ‘‘sace bahūnaṃ vaḷañjanaṭṭhānaṃ hotī’’. Even where it is a place for many to gather, it is indeed allowable to lie down having asked one person. Atha bhikkhū…pe… nisinnā hontī this is said to show the presence of bhikkhus there, not to prevent those not endowed with the remaining postures; therefore, even when lying down, it is allowable to make an announcement. But having lain down and falling asleep, it is not allowable to make an announcement. Because it is established in the absence of a party, he says, starting with ‘‘kevalaṃ bhikkhuniṃ vā’’ because the closing of the door is allowed only for the purpose of preventing the entry of women, like a secluded sitting.

Ettha ca taṃ yuttaṃ, evaṃ sabbatthapi yo yo theravādo vā aṭṭhakathāvādo vā pacchā vuccati, so sova pamāṇanti gahetabbaṃ this statement of the teacher is in addition to the Commentary statement. The preceding and following statement here is just the Commentary statement. There, taṃ yuttaṃ means the statement that was said by the Commentary teachers, ‘‘In the Kurundī Commentary, however…pe… it is not valid,’’ that statement is appropriate; this is the meaning. Evaṃ…pe… gahetabbaṃ just as here, the statement said in the Kurundī Commentary is appropriate, likewise, in every judgment, that Theravāda statement or Commentary statement that is said later, that alone should be taken as the standard; the Theravāda statement or Commentary statement said earlier should not be taken as the standard; this is the intention. This statement seems to be said out of place. How so? As far as what is said, "that is appropriate." In this judgment of asking permission and making an announcement, it cannot be said because of the absence of another inappropriate Commentary statement or Theravāda statement. Indeed, in the previous sentence, the determination "only bhikkhus" was not made; rather, only "bhikkhus are doing robe work," and so on, was said due to nearness or by way of beginning. And that which was said, "likewise, in every case," that too is inappropriate. Because there is no statement of another Commentary statement or teacher's statement in this judgment, the prior and posterior state is not seen, and the state of "this should be taken as the standard" and "this should not be taken" is not able to be said.

Furthermore, in the explanation of the question "who is released, who is not released," three commentaries are mentioned: the Mahāpaccarivāda, the Kurundivāda, and the Mahāaṭṭhakathāvāda; also, the opinion of the Elder Mahāpaduma is given. Therefore, the appropriateness or inappropriateness, the authoritative or unauthoritative nature, and what should be accepted or rejected are to be understood from there itself. It should be discussed in that very context. However, it is unlikely that a teacher of outstanding and extensive wisdom and intelligence would speak what should not be spoken. Therefore, after consulting the commentaries above, it should be stated that the Elder Mahāpaduma said this. Perhaps it was later altered and written by scribes, and this statement is found in the Pārājikakaṇḍa commentary. In the Ṭīkā, this statement is not found in this place but is found above. The latter part of the commentary statement, "He who is possessed by a Yakkha, and he who is forced to lie down," should be regarded as the standard. As it will be said, "Everywhere, whatever commentary statement or Theravāda statement is mentioned later, that alone should be regarded as the standard." Therefore, this should be considered and accepted accordingly.

4.Now, to show that it is permissible to lie down without closing the door when there is an obstacle to closing it, he says, "Atha dvārassa" and so on. Nisseṇiṃ āropetvā: having placed the ladder, having taken it to the upper story, having removed it and dropped it to the ground, or having thrown it away, it is permissible to lie down. This is stated in connection with a single door. Dvepi dvārāni jaggitabbānī: Here, if there is no door leaf in one door, or it is not possible to close it in the manner stated below, it is permissible to lie down without closing the other door. Dvārapālassā: for the one standing at the gatehouse, at the main gate, or at the foot of the ladder, watching the door. Pacchimānaṃ bhāro: This is said referring to one coming due to a single fixed arrangement. Asaṃvutadvāre antogabbhe vāti: should be connected as "blows in the inner chamber, in the unclosed door." Bahi vā: or outside the chamber. Nipajjanakālepi…pe… vaṭṭatiyevā: Here, because it depends on the doorkeeper, without considering his presence or absence at that time, it is indeed permissible to make use of it, so they say.

Yena kenaci parikkhitte: Here, the measurement of the height of the enclosure is similar to that stated in the case of a suitable sleeping space. For it was said in the Samantapāsādikā (pāci. aṭṭha. 51), "Indeed, any dwelling that is entirely covered above by five coverings or by anything else, this is called a completely covered sleeping place...pe... But any dwelling that is enclosed from the ground up to the covering by a wall or anything else, even by a cloth, this is called a completely enclosed sleeping place. Even if enclosed by a wall or the like up to one and a half hattha in height, without reaching the covering, by the last arrangement, it is still completely enclosed," according to the Kurunda commentary. "The one and a half hattha in height should be measured by the carpenter's hattha," it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.51) and the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.50-51). Mahāpariveṇa: a large courtyard. By that, he indicates a place frequented by many people. Therefore, he says, "mahābodhī" etc.

Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhāti, anāpatti: When he gets up at sunrise, there is no offense, because he lay down with a pure mind during the time of night, which is a non-offense area. Pabujjhitvā puna supati, āpattī: If, after waking up at sunrise, whether knowing or not knowing that sunrise has occurred, he lies down again without getting up, an offense arises due to inaction because he did not perform the actions that should be done after getting up, such as closing the door, and because the act of lying down done in a non-offense area is irrelevant. Indeed, this offense is inaction in such a place, and the action and inaction at the moment of lying down without closing the door during the day are to be understood as unintentional. Even if he wakes up before sunrise and lies down until sunrise, the offense is the same as before.

Aruṇe uggate vuṭṭhahissāmīti…pe… āpattiyevāti: Here, when does the offense occur to him? It is said - not at night, because it is said "he is subject to an offense during the day, not at night" (pari. 323). However, the dukkaṭa due to lack of respect, which was said to be unavoidable, is not merely a dukkaṭa for sleeping during the day because it is a dukkaṭa due to lack of respect. "It should be understood that at sunrise, an unintentional offense arises due to inaction," it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77), and in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pārājika 2.77), too, it is said, "He gets up exactly as intended, he gets up exactly at sunrise. For him, there is an offense, because he lay down with an impure mind, even if he is sleeping, an offense based on daytime seclusion occurs at sunrise. Because it is said, 'One who lies down like this does not escape the dukkaṭa of disrespect,' one who lies down with an impure mind incurs a dukkaṭa of disrespect at the moment of lying down, whether he gets up before sunrise or does not get up. However, the dukkaṭa based on daytime seclusion is incurred at sunrise itself." Therefore, it should be understood that one who lies down like this incurs two dukkaṭa offenses.

If he closes the door and lies down intending to get up at sunrise, even if others open the door at sunrise, there is still no offense for him, because there is no difference between the night and day parts regarding the door being closed. It should be understood that only the time of incurring the offense is to be considered, not the avoidance of it. For it is said, "He closes the door and lies down at night" (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.77). Even if someone opens the door after he has closed it and lain down during the day, there is no offense. Also, if he does not get up himself and the door opens due to some cause, there is no offense, so they say. This is also said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.77).

Yathāparicchedameva vuṭṭhātī: He gets up exactly at sunrise, the offense occurs, this is said referring to the root offense. However, the offense of disrespect still occurs to one who gets up before sunrise, because it is said "he does not escape the dukkaṭa." Dukkaṭā na muccatī: And the meaning is that although he is freed from the root offense by getting up before sunrise, he does not escape the dukkaṭa of disrespect.

5.Niddāvasena nipajjatī: He lies down on one side, overcome by sleep. It is said in the manner of the expression "Niddāvasena nipajjatī," but because his feet are not removed from the ground, he is not considered to be lying down, therefore no offense is stated. Apassāya supantassā: For one who sleeps leaning back, with only a small portion of the back from the hip upwards touching the ground. But for one who touches the ground with the hip bone, it is not called lying down. Indeed, lying down is characterized by extending the back. Even in bowing and so on, because the back bones are extended sideways, the offense should be avoided as it is merely lying down. Indeed, bowing is also described as lying down in instances such as "lying down at the base of the feet." Sahasā vuṭṭhātī: He gets up suddenly, like one who has slipped and fallen, tassapi anāpatti: even for him there is no offense, because he is not in control at the moment of falling, and because he got up suddenly when he became conscious. But for one whose lack of control continues even afterwards due to unconsciousness, there is no offense, as at the moment of falling. Tattheva sayati, na vuṭṭhātī: By this, he shows inaction even when conscious, therefore it is said that an offense occurs to him.

‘‘ko muccati, ko na muccatī’’tiādimāha. Tatthamahāpaccariyantiādīsupaccarīti a raft is called, since it was done sitting on it, that name arose. There is a monastery named Kurundivallī, since it was done there, the name kurundī arose. Mahāaṭṭhakathā is the commentary to the Buddha's word in the Tipiṭaka, which was established in the three councils. It was brought to Tambapaṇṇidīpa (Sri Lanka) by the Elder Mahāmahinda, and was later compiled into the Sinhala language by the elders of Sri Lanka. Ekabhaṅgenā: It is said that he lies down by bending the body to one side without lifting his feet from the ground with one turn. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, however, it is related that it was said by the Elder Mahāpaduma. By that, in the statement of the Elder Mahāpaduma written in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, he indicates "this." "Because he fell unconscious, there is no offense seen due to lack of control," so the Elder said. However, the teachers do not state that there is no offense for one who falls unconscious because he knows and lies down for a short time due to being under the control of others, just as one possessed by a Yakkha and one forced to lie down are under the control of others. But if he is unconscious, there is indeed no offense.

Dve janātiādi is a statement in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā itself, and that itself is the standard because it was stated later. Here, even one who has become unconscious is included by the inclusion of one possessed by a Yakkha, but one who lies down with one turn is indeed freed from the offense because he is not lying down. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.77), it is stated, "The latter part of the commentary statement, 'He who is possessed by a Yakkha, and he who is forced to lie down,' should be regarded as the standard. As it will be said, 'Everywhere, whatever commentary statement or Theravāda statement is mentioned later, that alone should be regarded as the standard.'" Since this passage from the commentary has been brought into this place, we do not object to stating that passage in this very place in this compilation on Vinaya. And here, in order to dispel doubt about sunrise, an explanation of sunrise should be given based on the statement, "Having opened the door at night, he gets up at sunrise, there is no offense," etc. Here, this is said:

"What indeed is this sunrise called?
By what does it become sunrise?
What is its color like?
What is its shape like?

"At what time and in what place does sunrise occur?
Is this evident by direct experience, or is it inferred?"

ko esa aruṇo nāmāti Here, this sunrise is a special radiance of the sun. This was said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā –

‘‘Sūrassodayato pubbuṭṭhitaraṃsi siyāruṇo’’ti;

(Aruṇa) is the ray that rises before sunrise Kena so aruṇo bhaveti Here, aruṇa means that it has aruṇa color, that is, it is endowed with a slightly red color. Or else, it is aruṇa because it moves towards, proceeds with a red color. This was said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā Ṭīkā, "It moves towards having aruṇa color, therefore it is aruṇa." Kīdiso tassa vaṇṇoti Here, its color is a non-distinct red color. For it was said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, "Aruṇa is slightly red." And in its Ṭīkā, "Aruṇa is a slightly red, non-distinct red color, like the eye of a fish." And in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.463), "It is a special radiance, a thickened, dense red." Therefore, it should be seen that sunrise is indeed the red radiance of the sun, not white radiance or the like. If so, how can that which is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.383) in the explanation of the Pātimokkha establishment chapter, "In the Pāḷi, nandimukhiyā means with a delighted face towards the white direction," be consistent? No, it is not inconsistent. There, the white direction of the face at sunrise is stated due to the radiance of sunrise, not the whiteness of the radiance of sunrise. This was said in the Udāna Aṭṭhakathā (udā. aṭṭha. 23) ‘‘nandimukhiyāti because of the rising of the sunrise itself, the beings whose faces are delighted by the radiance of the sunrise and who live on the sunlight, are made to rejoice at the dawning of the night."

In the Jātaka Aṭṭhakathā –

‘‘Jighaññarattiṃ aruṇasmimuhate;
Yā dissati uttamarūpavaṇṇinī;
Tathūpamā maṃ paṭibhāsi devate;
Ācikkha me taṃ katamāsi accharā’’ti. (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.254);

jighaññaratti means the last night, the end of the night. Uhateti when the sunrise has risen. Yāti that eastern direction which appears as having the best form due to its red color. Thus, the red color of the eastern direction is stated at the time of sunrise. Therefore, at that time, because the red portion of the eastern direction has arisen and the sunlight has spread, the whiteness of the other directions is apparent.

What kind of shape does it have? Here, the dawn does not have a specific shape because it is merely a collection of rays. Its shape should be understood as the extent of the area it illuminates. Alternatively, it has the shape of the eastern direction. For it was said in the Jātaka commentary (jā. aṭṭha. 5.21.255): “The eastern direction appears with an excellent form due to its red color.”

At what time and in what place does the dawn arise? Here, this dawn arises in the eastern direction before sunrise. This was stated in the Udāna commentary (udā. aṭṭha. 23): “Uddhaste aruṇe” means when the dawn has arisen; dawn is the light that arises in the eastern direction even before sunrise.” And in the Abhidhānappadīpikā: “The rays that rise before the sun rises.”

Is this known by direct experience or by inference? Here, this dawn is known by direct experience, not by inference. Why is it known? Because it is an object of the eye-consciousness, being a color aggregate. Akkha means eye, patīti means direct experience; due to the face-to-face relation of visible forms to the eye, eye-consciousness arises. For this was said by the Blessed One, “Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises” (ma. ni. 1.204, 400; 3.421, 425, 426; saṃ. ni. 2.43, 44, 45, saṃ. ni. 4.60; kathā. 465, 467). Therefore, this color of dawn is known by seeing with the eye, thus it is known by direct experience, not by repeated contemplation with inference that ‘if this, then that will be.’ Having carefully borne this question and answer in mind, the reddish light should be recognized and understood by the wise as the dawn.

But why is the discussion of dawn mentioned in this place? Because the subject of this discussion of dawn is very important. How so? Laymen and laywomen observing the uposatha often, not knowing the true nature of the arising of dawn, think that it has arisen when it has not, and they eat food or consume edibles, or they wear garlands and perfumes, and thus their sīla is broken. Novices similarly destroy their sīla by eating food at the wrong time. Monks who have taken nissaya, wandering outside the boundary without their preceptor or teacher, fall away from dependence; monks within the vassa period, going outside the boundary of the vicinity, break their vassa; monks possessing three robes, separating from their robes in an unboundary, incur a nissaggiyapācittiya; similarly, within a boundary of seven abbhantaras, sleeping with an unordained woman in a place suitable for shared sleeping, incur a pācittiya; similarly, monks consuming yāvakālika, those on parivāsa and so on, relinquishing their duties, incur a break of night. Thus, it should be understood that, due to the possibility of many such disadvantages, it is said for the sake of those monks who are conscientious and skilled to know the true nature of the arising of dawn.

Some monks, thinking that midnight has passed due to the emptiness of the hours at midnight, and therefore another day has begun, believe that dawn has arisen at that time, and they consume edibles and food after midnight. They do this because they do not know the Buddha’s dispensation and only consider the Vedic tradition in their minds; therefore, their doing so is not authoritative. Many monks, not knowing the directly experienced nature of dawn and also unable to contemplate through inference, only believe the words of others through hearsay, saying, “Our teachers, rising and going at the time of dawn, reach a place of two thousand daṇḍas at the time of sunrise, or reach a place of three thousand daṇḍas.” They also say things like, “From this monastery, they reach such-and-such monastery, such-and-such cetiya, such-and-such village.” Thus, they speak words of hearsay, and that too is not authoritative. Why? Distance is short for one who is strong and swift, and long for one who is weak and slow. For it was said by the Blessed One –

“Long is the night for the wakeful; long is the league for the weary;
Long is saṃsāra for fools who do not know the good Dhamma.” (dha. pa. 60);

Therefore, distance is not the same for all; it cannot be a characteristic of the arising of dawn. And those venerable ones do not bring forth any authoritative statement from the three Piṭakas; they speak according to their own inclination, like making a blind guess without evidence, thus it is not authoritative.

Others, however –

“The past night’s watch;
Or the last half of the night;
The arising is at the start;
Or half of that is sounded here –

Saying this verse from the Kaccāyana’s Sārappakaraṇa, “the last watch of the past night is now complete, therefore dawn arises from the beginning of the last watch.” This statement is stronger than the previous ones because it indicates a reason; even so, it is still unsuitable. Why? This verse, in the external science of grammar, is stated in the manner expressed in the Jaṅgadāsappakaraṇa to show the time of the usage of ‘today’ (ajja), which is said to be the present (ajjatanī), not to show the time of the arising of dawn as stated in the three Piṭakas; therefore, it is unsuitable because something else is proven by proving something else.

Others say, “Because it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā that ‘a pahāra is called a yāma,’ and there it is said that ‘the night has three yāmas,’ and because the night has three yāmas, and in the Pāḷi (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383) it comes ‘The night has passed, venerable sir, the last watch has ended, the dawn has risen,’ now, in the four pahāras of the night, dawn has arisen at the end of the third pahāra, therefore a time of only one remaining pahāra is part of the day.” This statement is stronger than the third statement. Why? Because the indicator and what is indicated are in accordance. That is, "a pahāra is called a yāma," this indicator is in accordance with the oneness of pahāra and yāma; "the night has three yāmas" is in accordance with the night having three yāmas; “Pāḷiyañcātiādi” is in accordance with the arising of dawn at the end of the third pahāra; even so, it is still unsuitable. Why? Because it contradicts the statement "a time of only one remaining pahāra is part of the day." In the Middle Country, since a time of ten ghaṭikās is one pahāra, the entire night has only three yāmas, not four yāmas. Now, however, in the border regions, since a time of seven or eight ghaṭikās is one pahāra, there are four pahāras. Therefore, taking the usage of the Middle Country, it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā that "the night has three yāmas," and in the Pāḷi (udā. 45; cūḷava. 383) it is said, "the last watch has ended, the dawn has risen," therefore, dawn should be seen as arising at the very end of the night. Thus, it is said in the Vimat বিনোদনী (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.201) "Likewise, for those on parivāsa etc., a break of night is stated for relinquishing their duties without the dawn having arisen; for it is said that they should relinquish them when the dawn has arisen."

“Ekappahārena”, here, “pahāro” means the third part of the day,” therefore it is known that one night and day has six pahāras. Thus, taking the usage of the Middle Country, dawn arises at the end of the three pahāras, which is called three yāmas, at the very end of the entire night. Since it is said that, taking the usage of the border regions, dawn arises at the end of the three pahāras in the time of one remaining pahāra, this statement is also unsuitable and should be seen as such.

Many wise people, however, say, “It is said in the Khuddasikkhānissaya –

‘First, white dawn; second, nandiyāvaṭṭa;
Third, red color; fourth, donkey-faced.’ –

Relying on this verse, dawn arises four times in one night; there, first it is white, second it is the color of the nandiyāvaṭṭa flower, third it is red, fourth it is the color of a donkey’s face.” Saying this, they perform actions such as relinquishing duties even before the reddish light, in the time of the past night. Their doing so incurs unwise action. This verse is not seen in the Pāḷi, nor in the commentaries, nor in the sub-commentaries; it is only seen in the Nissaya, and in the Khuddasikkhānissaya alone among the Nissayas, not in other Nissayas. Even there, neither a prior-posterior connection is seen, nor a cause-and-effect relationship, nor a fixed gender, so it would not have been established by the Nissaya teachers; rather, it might have been written later by other writers according to their own wishes. Therefore, without seeking the origin of this verse from where it was brought, whether from the Pāḷi or from the commentaries or from the sub-commentaries, from the Vinaya or from the Suttanta or from the Abhidhamma, having taken only what was seen in the Nissaya as essential, and without considering the words stated in the Pāḷi commentaries and sub-commentaries, it incurs unwise action because it was done.

“Nandimukhiyā” means having a face of joy, having a face of a pleased direction. This is the reading in the Vimat বিনোদনী for the interpretation of that (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.346).

“At that time, the Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling at Sāvatthi, in the Migāramātupāsāda in the Pubbārāma. At that time, the Blessed One was seated surrounded by the community of monks on that uposatha day. Then, Venerable Ānanda, after the night had advanced, after the first watch had ended, rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, prostrated with joined palms towards the Blessed One, and said this to the Blessed One: ‘The night has advanced, venerable sir, the first watch has ended, the community of monks has been seated for a long time; may the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha to the monks, venerable sir.’ When this was said, the Blessed One remained silent. A second time, Venerable Ānanda, after the night had advanced, after the middle watch had ended, rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, prostrated with joined palms towards the Blessed One, and said this to the Blessed One: ‘The night has advanced, venerable sir, the middle watch has ended, the community of monks has been seated for a long time; may the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha to the monks, venerable sir.’ A second time, the Blessed One remained silent. A third time, Venerable Ānanda, after the night had advanced, after the last watch had ended, when the dawn had risen, with a joyful face, rose from his seat, arranged his upper robe over one shoulder, prostrated with joined palms towards the Blessed One, and said this to the Blessed One: ‘The night has advanced, venerable sir, the last watch has ended, the dawn has risen, the night has a joyful face, the community of monks has been seated for a long time; may the Blessed One recite the Pātimokkha to the monks, venerable sir.’ ‘The assembly is not pure, Ānanda.’” (cūḷava. 383). This is another Vinaya Pāḷi that comes in the Pātimokkhaṭṭhapanakkhandhaka in the Cūḷavagga.

“Nandimukhiyā rattiyā”: At the time of the arising of dawn, the night appears like having a joyful face. Therefore, he said, “Nandimukhiyā” (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 383). This is the Samantapāsādikā commentary reading for the interpretation of that. “Abhikkantā” means diminished. “Uddhaste aruṇe” means when the head of the dawn has risen. “Nandimukhiyā” means having a face of joy. This is the Sāratthadīpanī reading for the interpretation of that (sārattha. ṭī. cūḷavagga 3.383). In the Pāḷi, “nandimukhiyā” means having a face of white direction, having a joyful face. This is the Vimat বিনোদনী reading for the interpretation of that (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.283).

“Uddhaste aruṇe” means when the dawn has risen. Dawn is the light that arises in the eastern direction even before sunrise. “Nandimukhiyā rattiyā”: Because the dawn has arisen, joy has arisen in the night for beings who live dependent on the light of the dawn and the light of the sun; it means the night is dawning. This is the Udāna commentary for the interpretation of that (udā. aṭṭha. 23).

Nandimukhīti: The night is called "nandāpanadisāmukhī" because it faces the direction that delights beings; it is not like the color of the nandiyāvaṭṭa flower at dawn. Therefore, it is said, "of the night that faces the delight of beings." Since this contradicts the statement in the Abhidhānappadīpikā, is inconsistent with the Pali commentaries, and is a weak justification, this argument should be regarded as incorrect. Therefore, a conscientious bhikkhu who does not transgress the command of the Sammāsambuddha should, if there is an unobstructed open space, perform actions such as placing the bowl from the time the red glow, resembling the eye of a fish, becomes visible.

But if the place is obstructed by a mountain or something similar, he should estimate how long it would take for the red glow to be visible in an open place, either about one or two ghaṭikā after the sun's disc becomes visible, and, guessing that the dawn would break at this time, he should act accordingly. If he does not want doubt, he should wait a little longer and act when there is no doubt. This is the proper course there. This argument, however, is consistent with the aforementioned statements like the water of the Ganges with the water of the Yamuna. Therefore, it should be carefully considered by the wise, repeatedly analyzing the beginning and the end. Having thus considered, doubt should be dispelled in places connected with dawn. Having dispelled doubt and being confident, that particular action should be done.

For the purification of virtue, for bhikkhus who are dear to virtue;
This talk on dawn has been made, not for the sake of contention.

Therefore, having carefully considered, let the virtuous accept what is right;
And if it is wrong, let them discard it, may they not be downhearted.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a Saṃvaṇṇanā of the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Entitled Divāseyyavinicchayakathālaṅkāra,

The First Chapter.

2. Parikkhāravinicchayakathā

6. Having thus explained the Divāseyyavinicchaya, now, in order to explain the Parikkhāravinicchaya, he begins with "parikkhāroti samaṇaparikkhāro" etc. Here, bringing forward the word "tatthā" stated at the beginning of the Divāseyyavinicchayakathā, the meaning of the word "parikkhāro" in those subject headings should be understood as "samaṇaparikkhāro." This is the method hereafter as well. Samaṇaparikkhāro is mentioned, not gihiparikkhāro, is the intention. Parikkhāro: that which is done around, such as an umbrella. Tatrā: in that samaṇaparikkhāre. Kappati: is allowable, what is not allowable is akappiyo, what is allowable and not allowable is kappiyākappiyo; scholars prefer the masculine gender even in a samāhāradvanda. And that kappiyākappiyo is parikkhāro, hence tathā, the determination of that is kappiyākappiyaparikkhāravinicchayo.

Keci tālapaṇṇacchattaṃ: This is merely an indication. For not every umbrella made in that way is suitable. Therefore, the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85) says, "By indicating that a dukkaṭa offense is incurred by one who alters the color or smoothness of all requisites, it should be understood that it is not suitable." Na vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāyā: By this, it shows that if it is tied with a single-colored thread for the purpose of reinforcement, and if it results in an alteration of color or smoothness, there is no offense. Āraggena: With a piercing instrument. If it is not suitable, what should be done upon obtaining such an umbrella stick? He says, "ghaṭakaṃ vā" etc. Suttakena vā daṇḍo veṭhetabbo: The stick should be wrapped in such a way that the designs are not visible. Daṇḍabunde: At the base of the stick, meaning the lower end of the umbrella stick. Chattamaṇḍalikaṃ: The small circle inside the umbrella, or the circular rod frame tied in the umbrella frame. Ukkiritvā: Having made it concave or convex, raising it up. Sā vaṭṭati: That design is suitable, whether it is tied with ropes or not, because it is a suitable place for tying. Therefore, Ācariya Buddhadattamahāthera said:

"An umbrella made of leaves, anything at all,
On the outside and inside entirely;

"To sew with thread of five colors is not suitable.

"To cut a half-moon, or a makaradantaka design,
Or a ghaṭaka or vāḷarūpa design, a lekhā on the stick is not suitable.

"To sew an umbrella with thread of one color is suitable;
For stability, or to bind the frame with five colors.

"A ghaṭaka or vāḷarūpa design, or merely a lekhā,
Having cut or smoothed it, it is suitable to keep.

Chattaṃ paṇṇamayaṃ kiñcī: Any umbrella covered with leaves such as palm leaves. Bahī: Above. Anto: Below. Sibbituṃ: To sew, showing a design. Paṇṇe: On the covering leaves. Aḍḍhacandaṃ: A half-moon shape. Makaradantakaṃ: A makaradanta shape, which is called "girikūṭa." "Chindituṃ na vaṭṭati" is the connection. They make a girikūṭa etc. at the tip of the attached leaf or at the tip of the top circle, naming it mukhavaṭṭiyā; this is rejected by this. Daṇḍe: On the umbrella stick. Ghaṭakaṃ: A pot-shaped design. Vāḷarūpaṃ vā: Or a shape of tigers and other wild animals. Lekhā: A line made by carving or cutting, or by means of painting. Among the five-colored threads, it is suitable to sew the umbrella inside and out for stability with a single-colored thread such as blue etc., or to bind the umbrella stick holding spoke frame for stability, is the connection. Pañcavaṇṇānaṃ ekavaṇṇena thiratthaṃ: By this, it indicates that it is not suitable to sew or bind with threads of many colors for the sake of altering the color or smoothness. However, in books, the reading "pañcavaṇṇenā" is seen, of which the connection should be made as: it is suitable to sew or bind for stability with a single-colored thread or with five-colored threads.

Here, it contradicts the reading "pañcavaṇṇena suttena sibbituṃ na ca vaṭṭati" mentioned below, and the commentary passage "keci tālapaṇṇacchattaṃ anto vā bahi vā pañcavaṇṇena suttena sibbetvā vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ karonti, taṃ na vaṭṭati, ekavaṇṇe pana nīlena vā pītakena vā yena kenaci suttena anto vā bahi vā sibbituṃ, chattadaṇḍaggāhakaṃ salākapañjaraṃ vā vinandhituṃ vaṭṭati, tañca kho thirakaraṇatthaṃ, na vaṇṇamaṭṭhatthāyā." Therefore, that should not be accepted.

Lekhā vā pana kevalā: Or any lekhā of the kind mentioned above. Chinditvā: Having cut what was made by carving. Ghaṃsitvā: Having smoothed what was made by means of painting etc. Daṇḍabundamhī: At the phālitabunda for holding the frame of the umbrella stick, meaning at the base. This is the stated method here without doubt. However, in the Khuddasikkhāgaṇṭhipada, it is stated "chattapiṇḍiyā mūle." Ahicchattakasaṇṭhānaṃ: Shaped like a full ahicchattaka mushroom. They bind it to the stick by means of ropes, and in that binding place, valayamiva ukkiritvā: Having raised it up like a circle. Bandhanatthāyā: So that it does not move in the wind, for the binding of the frame to the stick with ropes. A lekhā made by carving is suitable, is the connection. Just as they bind the chattamaṇḍalika to the stick by means of ropes to prevent movement by the wind, they place a lekhā, raising it up like a circle, in that binding place; that is suitable. Even if it is not bound, a valaya raised by carving is suitable because it is a place fit for binding, is what is stated in the Gaṇṭhipada. Therefore, one should act regarding umbrellas according to the method that has come down in the pakkharaṇas.

7. In the case of a robe, nānāsuttakehī: (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85; vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85) with threads of various colors. And this is stated in terms of those who do so; it is not suitable even with a thread of one color. For it is said, "Only natural needlework is suitable." Paṭṭamukhe: This is said referring to the place where two paṭṭas meet. Pariyante: At the edge of the robe. This is said referring to the edge. Veṇī: Sewing in the shape of a varakasīsā. Saṅkhalikaṃ: Sewing in the shape of a double chain, or sewing in the shape of a biḷālasaṅkhalika. Connecting "karonti" to the action of doing veṇī or saṅkhalika. Agghiyaṃ: Is the name for a cetiya-like shape, which they call "agghiyatthambho." Gayā: Is sewing in the shape of a mace, making it thin at the base and large at the tip. Muggaro: Is sewing in the shape of a club, making it uniform at the base and at the tip. Kakkaṭakkhīni ukkirantī: Having made the ends of the gaṇṭhikapaṭṭa and pāsakapaṭṭa tied with string, they establish the shape of the eyes of crabs, meaning they do. ‘‘Koṇasuttapiḷakā: The tips of the threads drawn out from the corners of the gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭas," is stated in all three Gaṇṭhipadas. But how should those piḷakās, which are of obscure form, be made? Having made the nature of the thread ends drawn out from the corners obscure by making a knot once or by sewing them back again, the thread tips should be cut short. However, Dhammasiritthera said, "koṇasuttā ca piḷakā, duviññeyyāva kappare," and Ācariya Buddhadattatthera also said, "suttā ca piḷakā tattha, duviññeyyāva dīpitā." Therefore, according to their opinion, the meaning here should be understood as: koṇasuttā ca piḷakā ca is koṇasuttapiḷakā.

koṇasuttapiḷakā: The tips of the threads coming out from the corners of the gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭas, placed in the shape of piḷakā, is what some say, their intention being that those piḷakās should be cut and made obscure. Others say, "koṇasuttā ca piḷakā ca are two separate things." According to their opinion, the thread drawn out from corner to corner of the gaṇṭhikapāsakapaṭṭas is called koṇasuttā. The square thread that goes around the edge is called piḷakā. Some make both of these two kinds distorted so that they are not clearly visible from the robe; to prohibit that, it is said, "duviññeyyarūpā vaṭṭati," but not entirely in such a way that they are out of sight, because sewing in that way is not possible. The intention is to sew in such a way that the distortion is not apparent from the natural robe. He says, "cīvare ratte" because even if the distinction is visible before dyeing, it is not visible in a robe that is dyed in a single color.

8. Maṇinā: With gems such as nīlamaṇi stones. Some say that it is suitable to smooth aṃsabaddha and kāyabandhana etc. with conch shells etc., because they are not robes. Kaṇṇasuttakaṃ: This is the name for the thread ends that come out at the four kaṇṇas and corners where the robe is sewn lengthwise and crosswise; that should be cut off before wearing. Therefore, he says, "rajitakāle chinditabbaṃ." There is one kaṇṇasutta that has been permitted by the Buddha, but to show that it is different from this even though it is similar in name, "yaṃ panā" etc. is said. Lagganatthāyā: For attaching the robe to the cīvararajju. This much alone is stated in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.85).

"Having made a loop, it should be tied," means it should be tied during dyeing and untied and kept aside at other times," it is said. In the ancient commentary of the Vinayasaṅgahappakaraṇa, the same is taken and said, but that refers to the hem of the robe (mahāva. 344): "It sags in the middle, it slips on both sides." They reported this matter to the Blessed One. "I allow, monks, that it be tied to the ear." The ear wears out. They reported this matter to the Blessed One. "I allow, monks, an ear-string." Thus, it should be understood that the hanging string of the robe that has been dyed and spread out is referred to in the robe-string that has been permitted in this way.

Gaṇṭhika means a knot made of ivory, etc., to attach to the loop when wearing the robe. Piḷakā means raised dots made by making point after point. This was stated in the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa:

"With threads of various colors, for the sake of adorning a robe;
To sew evenly designs like centipedes, etc., is not proper.

"At the edge of the bowl, or even at the mouth of the bowl;
To make braids or chains also entails a dukkata.

"Also, a strip or knotted loop, a design of eight angles, etc.;
There, shapes of agghi, clubs, and hammers are also made.

"There, making crab-eyes is not proper;
Threads and raised dots there, are shown to be hard to discern.

"Only four corners are proper, for strips with knotted loops;
Threads at the corners should be cut when the robe is dyed.

"Needlework designs or anything else;
It is not proper for a monk to do or have done on a robe.

"And that monk who puts a robe,
In kañji, flour-paste, sediment, or molasses, etc.;
Desiring a superior color or finish;
For him, there is no release from the dukkata.

"Making needle-marks, dirt, etc., on the robe;
And also when soiled, it is proper to wash it.

"But in dyeing, perfume or oil or lac;
It is not proper for a monk to put anything there.

"With conch or jewel, or with anything else;
One should not rub the robe, nor should it be rubbed with a trough.

"Having put the robe in the trough, one should not rub too hard with the fist;
It is proper to strike the dyed material lightly with the hands.

"On a knotted loop, neither lines nor raised dots are proper;
Nor variations of the permitted dot, due to differences in hem or edge."

samaṃ satapadādīnaṃ means similar to centipedes, etc. The sāmivacana is used in the sense of similarity where a karaṇavacana is expected. Paṭṭassa pariyante vā means at either end of the hem. Paṭṭamukhepi vā means at the place where two strips of length and width meet, or at the edge or at the place where a single strip is joined to fill a gap. Veṇī means sewing in the shape of a kudrūsa head. Some say "in the shape of a varaka head." Saṅkhalika means sewing similar to a cat's chain. Some say "similar to a centipede."

Paṭṭampī means also a strip. Aṭṭhakoṇādikavidhi means having a method or manner that has eight angles, etc. Aṭṭhakoṇādika is an agama of ruḷhi due to the metrical structure of the verse. "Aṭṭhakoṇādikaṃ vidhi" is a samānādhikaraṇavisesana or an adverb modifying "paṭṭa." It is related to "karonti" by this. Or else paṭṭa here is a bhummatthe upayogavacana, meaning strip. In this case, aṭṭhakoṇādika is a upayogavacana. Vidhi is a adjective of this. Here, aṭṭhakoṇādika is a name other than the four-cornered shape that will be described. Tatthā means in those two strips. Agghiyagadārūpa means sewing in the shape of an agghi and in the shape of a club. Muggara means sewing in the shape of a club. The term Ādi includes shapes like cetiya.

Tatthā means in those two strips, in that place. Kakkaṭakakkhīnī means sewing designs similar to the eyes of a crab. Uṭṭhāpentī means they make. Tatthā means in that knotted loop strip. Suttā means threads sewn from corner to corner, and threads sewn in a square. Piḷakā means the tips of those same threads turned back and sewn. Duviññeyyāvā means they are shown to be indistinct and not prominent when dyeing, which is proper. As it was said, "corner threads and raised dots are proper on a dyed robe if they are indistinct" (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).

Kaṇṇakoṇesu suttānī means one should cut the threads at the corners of the robe and the threads at the corners of the loop strips. And here, threads sewn lengthwise and widthwise in the robe that protrude beyond the hem, and threads for tying to the hem to hang the robe by tying it to a rope or a robe-rod when drying after dyeing, are called corner-threads. As it was said, "the corner-thread of a robe is not proper, it should be cut when dyeing; but that which is permitted, 'I allow, monks, a corner-thread,' that should be tied to the hem, having made a loop for attaching it during dyeing" (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85).

Sūcikammavikāraṃ vā means needlework designs such as sewing something similar to a centipede with various threads for the purpose of adorning the robe, or attaching an extraneous strip. Aññaṃ vā pana kiñcipī means any other kind of sewing design, such as a garland, animal, bird, or foot design. Kātu means to do oneself. Kārāpetu means to have done by another.

Kañjika means sour kañjika, which is like kañjika for anointing the weaving threads. Piṭṭha means rice flour. Khali is made with rice flour. Allikā means exudate. The term Ādi includes lac, etc. It is proper to put kañji, flour-paste, sediment, molasses, etc., for washing away needle marks, dirt, etc., that arise when making the robe, at the time of making, and when it is soiled.

Tatthā means in that dye with which one dyes the robe, gandhaṃ vā for the sake of fragrance of the robe, telaṃ vā for the sake of brightness, lākhaṃ vā for the sake of color. Kiñcī means anything of this kind. Maṇinā means with a stone. Aññenapi ca kenacī means with any other thing such as a club that makes it bright. Doṇiyā means in a dyeing trough, na ghaṃsitabbaṃ should not be held by taking it with the hand. It is proper to strike the dyed robe slightly with the hands. The dyeing trough is where they put the dye liquor. In the gaṇṭhipada, it is said that it is proper to rub the aṃsabaddha and kakāyabandhana, etc., there.

Gaṇṭhike means in a knot made of bamboo, ivory, horn, etc. Lekhā vā means lines of various kinds such as circles. Piḷakā means small bubbles like mustard seeds. Pāḷikaṇṇikabhedato means due to differences in the shape of a jewel garland or the shape of flower petals. It was said, "Variations of the permitted dot are not proper," therefore, one should act accordingly regarding the robe.

9. In Patte vā thālake vā, etc., thālake means in any of the three kinds of proper bowls made of copper, etc., that are for personal use. Na vaṭṭatī means the practice of making a jewel color is not proper, but the practice of using oil color is proper. Telavaṇṇo means it is said with reference to a color suitable for ascetics, but some say that it is proper to obtain and use a bowl of jewel color made by another. Pattamaṇḍale means in a bowl-stand made of tin, lead, etc., for placing a bowl. Because it was said, "Monks, variegated bowl-stands adorned with figures and made with murals should not be kept" (cūḷava. 253), "bhittikammaṃ na vaṭṭatī" is said. Because it was said, "I allow, monks, to cut the makaradantaka" (cūḷava. 253), "makaradantakaṃ pana vaṭṭatī" is said. Therefore, the ancients said:

"On a bowl or a plate, either inside or outside;
Lines drawn with a pointed tool are not proper at all.

"Having placed the bowl on a wheel, having immersed and cooked it;
'We will make it jewel-colored,' it is not proper to do so.

"On a bowl-stand, any mural is not proper;
There is no fault for him, to make a makaradantaka."

āraggenā means with the tip of a spoke or with the tip of a needle. Kācipi lekhā means any line in the shape of a circle or cow's urine. Bhamaṃ āropetvā means having made it adhere to a wheel. Pattamaṇḍalake means on a bowl-stand made of tin, lead, etc., for protecting the surface of the bowl, to be placed under the bowl on a base, etc. Bhittikamma means variegated with various kinds of figure-work. As it was said, "Monks, variegated bowl-stands adorned with figures and made with murals should not be kept." Tatthā means on that bowl-stand. Assā means for the monk. Makaradantaka means mountain peak, it is said, therefore one should act accordingly regarding bowls, plates, etc.

Dhamakaraṇa…pe… lekhā na vaṭṭatī means a line drawn with a pointed tool is not proper, but a line drawn with colors like jātihiṅgulikā is proper. Chattamukhavaṭṭiya means on the umbrella-shaped mouth-rim made for holding the water strainer with the hand. Some say "at the place for tying the filter." In the Vinayavinicchaya also -

"On the umbrella of a water strainer, no line at all is proper;
Having placed it in the abdomen, a line is proper on the mouth-rim." -

It was said. But in the ṭīkā, it was said, "Excluding the line on the mouth-rim that is permitted for the sake of tying the filter, no line at all is proper on the umbrella or the abdomen of the water strainer," therefore, one should act regarding the water strainer in the manner stated there.

10. In the waistband, kakkaṭakkhīnī means resembling the eyes of a crab. Makaramukha means the shape of a makara's mouth. Deḍḍubhasīsa means shapes resembling the head of a water snake. Acchīnī means shapes resembling the eyes of an elephant. Ekameva vaṭṭatī here means it is not proper to tie a single string having folded it two or three times, but it is proper to tie a single string having wrapped it around the body even a hundred times. Because it was said, "It should not be said that multiple strings joined together and continuously wrapped with one are multiple strings, that is proper," it should be understood that it does not amount to a muraja. For they make a muraja by wrapping strings of various colors in the shape of a muraja drum rim. But this, numbered as a muraja or a maddavīṇa, is proper in ten ways in the shape of a pāmaṅga, because it was said, "The ten aspects of a waistband wear out. I allow, monks, a muraja or a maddavīṇa" (cūḷava. 278).

Vidha means a vidha made with ivory, horn, thread, etc., for the purpose of stability at the ten ends (of the waistband). However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.85), it is said: "At the ten bases of the side of the waistband, a vidha made of ivory, horn, etc., should be made for the purpose of its stability." Eight Auspicious Symbols (Aṭṭhamaṅgalāni) are conch shell, wheel, full vase, gayā, sirīvaccha, hook, flag, and sovatthika. They also mention pairs of fish, umbrella, nandiyāvaṭṭa, etc. Paricchedalekhāmatta means just the lines marking the boundaries to be made on both ends of the vidha made of ivory etc. In the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa also –

"Having made the thread double,
They knot it here and there;
For the sake of adorning the waistband,
That is not allowable for a bhikkhu.

"At the ten ends, for firmness, it is allowable at the two ends;
Even ornamentation with garlands, creepers, and paintings is not allowable.

"Having shown eyes there;
What to say of when it is knotted?
Or there, crab's eyes;
It is not allowable to raise up.

"A pot, or a water snake's head,
Or the face of a makara;
Any kind of altered form,
Is not allowable at the ten ends.

"Straight, like a fish bone,
Or smooth, like a tablet;
Having made it in the shape of a date palm leaf,
It is allowable when knotted.

"Tablet and sūkaranta are the two kinds of waistband;
Rope, cloth strip, etc., are all in accordance with it.

"Muraja, maddavīṇa, water snake, and kalābuka;
And ropes are not allowable, the former two should be dasā.

"Dasā in the shape of a measuring rod,
Are specified in the waistband;
One, two, three, or four are allowable, but not more than that.

"A waistband made of a single rope is spoken of,
By the wise one;
And that too, shaped like a measuring rod,
Even one is not allowable.

"Having made many ropes into one,
By continuously wrapping it with one rope;
It is allowable to tie it, indeed.

"Vidha are considered to be made of tooth, wood, horn, bone,
Iron, bamboo, reed, ivory,
Lac, shell, thread, and fruit."

"Even in the vidha of a waistband, alteration is not allowable;
Only the lines marking the boundaries are allowable in that place." –

It is said.

Tahiṃ tahiṃ means at each place on the tablet. Taṃ means that waistband made of double thread knotted in that way. The meaning is that they knot (the thread) having made it double at the ten ends for firmness at the ends, (which) is allowable. Cittakampī means even a waistband adorned with garlands, creepers, and paintings. Akkhīnī means elephant eyes. Tattha means what to say of it not being allowable on the waistband. Uṭṭhāpetuṃ means to carve out.

Ghaṭaṃ means shaped like a pot. Deḍḍubhasīsaṃ vā means shaped like the head of a water snake. The meaning is that any kind of altered form is not allowable at the ten ends. Here, the weaving of a waistband that has fishbone-like joints on both sides, like the spine of a fish, is called macchakaṇṭakaṃ. That which has a weaving like the shape of a date palm leaf is called khajjūripattakākāraṃ.

Sūkarantaṃ means shaped like a key case. Tassa means of the two kinds of waistband. There, rope is in accordance with sūkaranta, cloth strip is in accordance with the tablet. The waistband with a seal is included by the word ādi, and that is in accordance with sūkaranta. As he said, "However, a waistband with a seal made of a single rope is in accordance with sūkaranta" (cūḷava. aṭṭha. 278). There, rajjukā means a single strand, he will speak of the state of not being allowable of many strands. Muddikakāyabandhanaṃ means having prepared it without making it square, it is said in the place of the knot.

Murajaṃ means having wrapped and made it in the shape of a muraja drum. Veṭhetvā means having wrapped it with various threads. However, in the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya it is said, "Having made many ropes into one, wrapped with one rope." Maddavīṇaṃ means shaped like a measuring rod. Deḍḍubhakaṃ means similar to a water snake. Kalābukaṃ means many strands. Rajjuyo means many strands tied together at both ends, tied in that way it is called kalābuka. Na vaṭṭantī means all these waistbands, muraja etc., are not allowable. Purimā dve means the two named muraja and maddavīṇa. Instead of saying "dasāsu siyuṃ," it is said "dasā siyuṃ" by way of shortening the syllables due to metrical requirements. As he said, "The muraja and maddavīṇa are only allowed as dasā."

Pāmaṅgasaṇṭhānā means shaped like a measuring rod, square in shape. Ekarajjumayaṃ means a rope waistband made by wrapping various strands together, to say that it is allowable, a single strand rope is included in "rajjukā dussapaṭṭādī." Here, however, a single rope made by wrapping various strands together is included. Tañcā means that way, even that single-rope waistband knotted in the shape of a measuring rod. Ekampi ca na vaṭṭatī means not even a plain one is allowable.

Vaṭṭati bandhituṃ means the intention is that it is not a muraja or kalābuka, it is only a rope waistband. However, this judgment, "Having made many ropes into one, wrapped continuously with one, it should not be called a multi-rope, that is allowable," is said here from the commentary. What is said in the Sikkhābhājanavinicchaya, "Having made many ropes into one, wrapped with one, it is called muraja," should not be taken, because it contradicts this.

By the word danta, elephant tusks are meant. Jatū means lac. Saṅkhamayaṃ means made of conch shell. Vidhakā matā here, vedhikā is also a reading, synonymous with vidha. Kāyabandhanavidhe means in the vidha made of wood, ivory, etc., for the purpose of the stability of the ten ends of the waistband. Vikāro means the eight auspicious symbols, etc. Tattha tatthā means in that particular place. The meaning is explained that the word tu indicates that even a pot shape is allowable, therefore the examination of the waistband should be done in that way.

11.Añjanī (ointment tube): Because it is said in the Añjanī that "it should be straight," a crooked shape like a square etc., is not allowable. Sipāṭikāyā means in the carrying case for keeping bowls, etc. However, in the Vinayavinicchayappakaraṇa –

"Adorned with garlands, creepers, various kinds of diverse designs;
An ointment tube that delights people is not allowable for bhikkhus.

"However, having rubbed such a one down,
Or having wrapped it with thread;
For a bhikkhu who is using a vaḷañja,
There is no offense whatsoever.

"Round or square,
Or even eight-sided ointment tubes;
It is specified that it is indeed allowable,
But one adorned with colors is not allowable.

"Likewise, an ointment stick,
And for an ointment-tube container too;
Ornamentation with various-colored threads,
Is not allowable.

"Having stitched up whatever carrying case,
With thread of one color, whatever it may be;
It is allowable for one who is using a vaḷañja." –

It has come down.

mālā…pe… cittitā means adorned with garlands, creepers, and diverse designs of various kinds such as the forms of animals and birds. Janarañjanī means enticing to foolish people. Aṭṭhaṃsā vāpī here, the word api includes sixteen sides, etc. Vaṇṇamaṭṭhā means adorned with colors of garlands etc. Likewise, an ointment stick adorned with colors is not allowable, the meaning should be construed. The reading "ointment-tube container too, ornamentation with various-colored threads is not allowable" is appropriate, the reading "thavikāpi vā" is seen, that should not be taken. "Having stitched up whatever carrying case made of rags etc., with thread of one color, whatever it may be, it is allowable for one who is using a vaḷañja, this meaning has come down."

12.Among ārakaṇṭakā (awls) etc., ārakaṇṭake means a long-mouthed knife made for the purpose of preparing books etc. Some say it is a knife for writing wood etc., for turners. Vaṭṭamaṇika means a bubble to be raised by making it round. By añña, he includes blisters etc. Pipphalike means any small knife for cutting. Maṇika means a single round gem. Piḷaka means many round lines similar to mustard seed and the outer line of a plow. Because it is not mentioned in this section, they say that any painting is allowable on the writing tablet. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā, "Because a key is an item of requisites for lodging, even one made of gold or silver is allowable, a shadow is seen. Because of the saying 'decoration with colors on a key is not allowable' (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.85), only keys made of other allowable metals etc., are allowable, because they are requisites to be kept" is said. Ārakaṇṭako is a kind of knife for making books etc., they say that āmaṇḍasārako is made of myrobalan fruit.

Valitaka (nipper) means they only make (nippers) with a curve for the purpose of firmly grasping when cutting nails. Tasmā taṃ vaṭṭatī means by this, they make another alteration for the sake of firmness etc., not for the sake of ornamentation, that is indicated to be allowable, and by that, even though it is not mentioned, the hoop etc., made at the tip of the handle of the scissors for the sake of producing sound by striking against each other is understood, because it is appropriate. Here, daḷhīkammādīti by the word ādi, he includes warding off dangers etc., therefore the sound produced by the hoops made at the tip of the scissor stick striking against each other is for the purpose of warding off dangers such as long-lived beings, therefore it is indicated that it is allowable. Therefore, the teacher said –

"A gem or a blister, or a small knife, an awl;
To place whatever ornament,
Is not allowable for a bhikkhu.

"However, only the lines marking the boundaries are allowable on the handle;
Because they cut nails by curving it, it is indeed allowable."

Maṇikaṃ means a large bubble. Pīḷakaṃ means a fine bubble. Pipphale means a knife for cutting cloth. Ārakaṇṭake means an awl for piercing the rings that hold the blade. Ṭhapetuṃ means to raise up. Yaṃ kiñcī means even the remaining ornamentation. Daṇḍake means in the handle of the knife. As he said, "It is not allowable to place a gem or a blister or anything whatsoever even on the knife, however, lines marking the boundaries are allowable on the handle." Paricchedalekhāmatta means only one line is allowable for the purpose of marking where to cut after reaching the place where the pin is fastened. Valitvā means because they make the nail cutting by making the mouth curve on both ends and inserting a curve in the middle, therefore it is allowable, this meaning has come down.

Uttarāraṇiyaṃ maṇḍalaṃ means there is a circular hole for inserting the upper fire-stick. The connection is that it should be tied straight in the axe for cutting tooth sticks. Here, by ujukamevā, he shows that it is not allowable to tie it having made it crooked, for that very reason it is shown that it should be so even in the ointment tube. Ubhosu passesu means or on one side, the remaining words, the meaning is that it should be tied on both sides of the axe handle for the sake of the stability of the tips of the handle. The connection is that it is allowable to make it square or eight-sided with allowable metal.

13. Āmaṇḍasārake: Meaning, in a vessel of oil made with the sediment from pressing myrobalan fruits. It seems the oil placed there becomes cool. So it was said by the teacher:

"Whether in uttarāraṇī, or in a bow, a pelladaṇḍaka;
Any kind of decorative work, fine craftsmanship is not suitable.

"Tongs, toothpicks, as well as a cutting adze;
On two sides with metal, it is suitable to bind.

"Likewise, on the handle of scissors, fancy work is not suitable;
Only circular lines are suitable, one or two at the bottom.

"Whether in a horn or a tube, likewise in āmaṇḍasāraka;
In an oil vessel, all fine craftsmanship is suitable."

Uttarāraṇī is the name. Vāpī: The word "pi" includes the adharāraṇi. This is a term for the pestle handle. The bow for applying collyrium is called dhanukaṃ. The stick for pressing the mortar head is called pelladaṇḍaka. Saṇḍāse: Fire tongs. It is related that any kind of decorative work, fine craftsmanship, is not suitable for toothpicks or a cutting adze. Dvīsu passesu: On both sides of the adze. Lohena: With metal suitable for a barber. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatī: It is suitable to bind straight, square, or octagonal. Saṇḍāse: It is said without doubt that it means fire tongs. In the commentary, needle tongs are shown here. Heṭṭhā: At the bottom, on the iron band. "Above, like a small parasol" is said in the commentary. Visāṇe: In a horn for pouring oil, from a gavaya, buffalo, or other animal. Nāḷiyaṃ vāpī: In a tube made of bamboo etc. The word "api" includes a gourd. Āmaṇḍasārake: An oil container made of myrobalan powder. Telabhājanake: In an oil container of the type described. Sabbaṃ vaṇṇamaṭṭhaṃ vaṭṭatī: It is said that all fine craftsmanship, without male or female figures, is suitable.

Bhūmattharaṇe: On a spread made of matting etc., to be spread on the prepared ground. Pānīyaghaṭe: With this, all containers are included. Sabbaṃ…pe… vaṭṭatī: In the couches etc. mentioned, even male and female figures are suitable. Because male and female figures were rejected only in oil containers, and because the couches etc. are taken separately, not counted with the oil containers, some say so. Although they say so, because these couches etc. are items to be touched by hand, it should be understood that female figures are not suitable here. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 85), however, it is said, "Decorative craftsmanship is suitable on palm-leaf fans, hand fans etc." Although these should be avoided like keys, it is said because there is no prohibition against not keeping various kinds. For these are only mentioned by "I allow, monks, a fan and a palm-leaf fan," etc. In the Gaṇṭhipada, however, it is said, "Decorative craftsmanship is suitable on oil containers, because they are monastic requisites." The Venerable Ācariya Buddhadatta also said:

"For water strainers, also in troughs for dyeing;
In pots, on a wooden seat, in a ring stand etc.

"Likewise, on a bowl cover, and a palm-leaf fan, and a hand fan;
And also on a foot wiper, and likewise on a broom.

"On couches, ground coverings, seats, cushions and bolsters;
All kinds of decorative and painted work are suitable."

14. Having spoken thus about what is allowable and unallowable among monastic requisites, now, to speak about lodgings, he says, "senāsane panā" etc. Here, the word "pana" is indicative of a distinction. Therefore, it indicates the meaning that even decorative work made of all kinds of jewels is suitable, let alone other kinds of decorative work. If so, even when something should be prohibited, it should be said so, he says, "senāsane kiñci paṭisedhetabbaṃ natthī": "there is nothing to be prohibited in lodgings." This was also said by the Venerable Ācariya Buddhadatta:

"A lodging with pillars, doors, doorframes, and walls made of various jewels;
Is allowed, what to say of decorative work?

"Door frames bound with gold;
A ground and walls of gold and various jewels;
Nothing at all is to be prohibited;
All lodgings are suitable."

"sabbakappiyo": the intention is that the use of monastic requisites made of gold etc. as mentioned above, by way of touching, storing, etc., is suitable in every way. Therefore, he says, "tasmā" etc. Because it is said "in a place for describing the Dhamma and Vinaya to the monks," it should be understood that only monastic lodgings and monastic requisites made of gold are suitable, not personal ones, it is described.

"sabbaṃ pāsādaparibhoga": all the doors, couches, seats, palm-leaf fans, water pots and water jugs made of various kinds of gold, silver etc., whatever is made with painted work, is suitable. When they say, "We give a palace, male and female slaves, fields, property, cows and buffaloes," there is no need to take them individually; when the palace is accepted, it is already accepted. Gonaka etc. are not suitable to be spread on couches and seats in a monastic monastery or a personal monastery and used, but they can be obtained at the dhammāsana by means of the gift from householders, but even there, it is not suitable to lie down, it is said. In the commentary on that, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. cūḷavagga 2.320), "suvaṇṇarajatādivicitrānī" is said with reference to monastic lodgings; a personal one made of gold etc. is not even suitable for a monk to accept, because it is said, "I do not allow, monks, gold and silver to be accepted in any way" (mahāva. 299). Therefore, here in the commentary, it is not said "in a monastic monastery or a personal monastery"; it is said thus only regarding unallowable items such as gonaka, because there is no fault in one monk accepting them, it is described.

"kappiyamañcā sampaṭicchitabbā": by this, he shows that even if an unallowable couch made of gold etc. is said to be "for the Saṅgha," it is not suitable to accept. It should be seen that when it is said, "we give it to the monastery," it is suitable for the Saṅgha only, not for an individual, like a field etc., it is described. Therefore, this point should be carefully considered by monks who accept the Blessed One's command, who are modest, amiable, very learned, and desirous of training.

"aññatra viruddhasenāsanā". Its meaning: viruddhasenāsanā, apart from a conflicting lodging, it is said that there is nothing to be prohibited in lodgings with reference to other kinds of decorative work etc., not the absence of that. If so, that conflicting lodging should be stated by the teacher, what is called a conflicting lodging, he says in response to the question, "viruddha…pe… vuccatī". There, aññesaṃ: of the owners of the boundary. Rājavallabhehī: Intended are monks who are shameless and of different persuasions, who cause obstacles to uposatha etc., to the modest and amiable. And therefore "sīmāyā" is said. Tesaṃ lajjiparisā: The modest assembly capable of giving support to those owners of the boundary. Bhikkhūhi kataṃ: Whatever destruction of lodgings etc. by the shameless monks is done by the modest monks, taṃ sabbaṃ that all is well done, because it should be carried out for the purpose of suppressing the shameless.

"yaṃ pana sīmassāmikehi bhikkhūhī". But what they say, "the boundary of approach is also a part of that field," that should not be taken, we will discuss the non-field nature of that above in the discussion of the boundary demarcation etc. (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 156 ff.). Moreover, because it is proper to prohibit others from making lodgings in the village boundary, and because the boundary where water can be thrown seven times is not always fixed, it should be understood that only the established boundary is intended.

Chindāpeyya vā bhindāpeyya vā, anupavajjo: This is said with reference to something completely unusable, like a mud hut. But what is bound with five-colored threads, such as an umbrella, only the unallowable part should be cut off, not the remainder of it, because that is allowable, and one who cuts is at fault. Therefore, it is said, "even a pot or an image of a crow should be cut and kept," etc.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a compilation of commentary on the Vinaya Saṅgaha,

Named "An Adornment of the Discussion on the Decision of Requisites,"

The Second Chapter.

3. Discussion on the Decision Regarding Medicine etc.

15. Having thus discussed the decision regarding requisites, now, to discuss the decision regarding making medicine, protective chants, and hospitality, he says "bhesajjā" etc. There, bhesajjaṃ is the work belonging to a doctor. What is that? Healing. Kariyate karaṇaṃ: the making, the making of medicine is bhesajjakaraṇaṃ, it is said to be the work of a physician. Parittaṃ: That which protects on all sides, meaning protection. Paṭisanthāro: Hospitality, meaning making connections with oneself and others. There, the decision that was stated by me in the summary, "and also the making of medicine, protective chants, and hospitality" (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā), in that decision regarding the making of medicine that is well established. Sahadhammikā: Those who have the same Dhamma; of those, those who are training together in the dispensation of one Teacher. Or sahadhammikā: those who are engaged in the same Dhamma; of those, those who are engaged in the training rule called the same Dhamma. Samasīlasaddhāpaññānaṃ: Those who are endowed with virtue, faith, and wisdom that are free from defilements. By this, he shows that it is possible not to do it for those who are immoral and of different persuasions.

Ñātakapavāritaṭṭhānato vā: From the place of invitation of relatives of oneself or of them. Akataviññatti: Not done, a request that has never been done before due to its inappropriateness. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), however, it is said, "akataviññattiyā: without a request. For that, because it is unapproved, even if done, is like not done, akataviññatti, 'Venerable sir, you should say what is needed,' thus, a request in a place where it has not been done is an akataviññatti," it is written. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185), "akataviññatti: because a request from a place where there is no invitation for the sake of the sick is allowed, even if done, it is like not done, akataviññatti, 'Say, venerable sir, with what is needed,' thus, also a request in a place where the invitation has not been done is akataviññattī."

16. Paṭiyādiyatī: He prepares. Akātuṃ na vaṭṭatī: Here, they say dukkata, it should be understood that here a prohibition against not doing it is stated due to its inappropriateness, not in terms of an offense. Sabbaṃ parikammaṃ anāmasantenā: Because the bodies of women etc. should not be touched, it is said. Yāva ñātakā na passantī: Until his relatives see. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186) it is said, "It is not suitable to give by one's own hand to parents who are adherents of other sects."

17. Father's sister is pitucchā (paternal aunt). Mother's brother is mātulo (maternal uncle). Nappahontī: The commentaries say, "Unable to do." However, it is said that "Having taken the medicine belonging to them, one should only combine it and give it," and "But if they are unable and ask, 'Give us, venerable sir, we will return it to you'," therefore, the commentary's intention seems to be that they ask only for medicine due to the inadequacy of their own medicine; it should be examined. Na yācantī: They do not ask out of shame or respect. Since "Having made an arrangement" is stated, if one gives it otherwise, there is an offense. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.18) it is said, "Ābhogaṃ katvā": this is stated in terms of showing what should be done; but it is permissible to give even without making an arrangement, as it is written in the three Gaṇṭhipadas." The ancient commentary also takes and writes the same. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185), that statement is rejected. For it is said there: "Some, however, say that it is permissible to give even without making an arrangement; that is not right, because the making of medicine, in the Pali, 'There is no offense of Pārājika for the bhikkhu, there is an offense of Dukkaṭa,' is generally rejected in terms of showing an intermediate offense. It should be seen that the offense is established by the Sutta itself for one who does it in a manner not mentioned in the commentary. Therefore, even in the commentary, 'tesaññeva santakaṃ' etc. is stated."

Ete dasa ñātake ṭhapetvā: Their sons and grandsons, being related to them, are also relatives, so they are included here. Therefore, aññesa should be understood as referring to non-relatives. Therefore, he said, "etesaṃ puttaparamparāyā" etc. Kulaparivaṭṭā: The succession of families, which means the family lineage. Bhesajjaṃ karontassā: For one who makes medicine according to the method described, even if he gives without making an arrangement, thinking "I will give it temporarily," there is no wrong livelihood or defilement of family, except for the intermediate offense of Dukkaṭa. Therefore, he says, "vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotī". For it is permissible to take what belongs to relatives even by asking; therefore, there would be no defilement of family etc. there. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.185) also, it is said, "They say that for one who makes medicine expecting 'They will give to me, they will do for me', there is no practice of medicine or offense of defiling the family among relatives, because it is a place where one should take after asking." In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), however, only this much is said: "From the statement 'vejjakammaṃ vā kuladūsakāpatti vā na hotī', it is permissible to make medicine up to the seventh generation." Sabbapadesu vinicchayo veditabbo: In all passages such as "cūḷamātuyā" etc., the judgment should be understood in the same way as stated below, by connecting with 'cūḷamātuyā sāmikotiādinā'.

Upajjhāyassa āharāmā: This is said to show the method to be followed when the preceptor orders, "Bring medicine for my relatives." And by this, it shows that even for novices etc., it is not permissible to make medicine for strangers without expectation. Vuttanayeneva pariyesitvā: By this, he repeats the meaning stated by "bhikkhācāravattena vā" etc., and "ñātisāmaṇerehi vā" etc. Apaccāsīsantenā (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185): Even for one who makes for newcomers, thieves, etc., without expecting any gain from them, thinking that humans are helpful by nature; but if one makes with expectation, there is a fault such as wrong livelihood, defiling the family, etc. For when help is done in this way, they are pleased, knowing the virtue of the Sāsana, or they become helpful to the Saṅgha, then there is no fault in doing so. Some, however, say that "it is permissible to give even to newcomers etc., who are rejected individuals, without expectation"; that is not right, because it would make the distinction between what should be done and what should not be done meaningless, since it should be said only that "it is permissible to give and do to all" without expectation. And the statement of non-expectation is stated only to prohibit the faults of wrong livelihood, defiling the family, etc., not to be freed from this intermediate offense called making medicine; it should be understood that one is freed from that offense by giving to newcomers, thieves, etc., who are allowed.

18. Therefore, to show the place where it should not be done even without expectation, "saddhaṃ kula" etc. is stated. Even when "Bhesajjaṃ ācikkhathā" is said, "aññamaññaṃ pana kathā kātabbā": this is permissible by way of circumlocution. Thus, the teachers say that even for one who speaks by way of circumlocution, saying "idañcidañca gahetvā karontī" in the manner stated below, there is no fault. Pucchantī: By this, it shows that it is not proper to go around speaking even by way of circumlocution to those who are seen to be ill. Some say that even the circumlocution of speech is not permissible for one who asks with expectation. Samullapesī: One who does not expect, indeed, raised a conversation with another. Ācariyabhāgo: The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) states that the meaning is that by indicating medicine without violating the conduct of Vinaya, one does not go to the state of being a teacher of medicine.

‘kappiyavasena gāhāpetvā’: "Having refused by saying, 'Rūpiya is not suitable for us, flowers are suitable for flower offerings,' the meaning is having it taken by a suitable action," it is said. In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 186), however, only this much is said: "kappiyavasenā": by saying 'Bring flowers for us' etc. Because 'Pūjaṃ akāsī' is stated, they say that it is not permissible to take it oneself." This is the embellishment of the discussion on the judgment of making medicine here.

19. Having spoken about the judgment of making medicine in this way, now, to speak about the judgment of making paritta, he says, "paritte panā" etc. Therein, if they make it when it is said "Make paritta," it becomes like a householder's work, like making medicine, so it is said "na kātabba." But when it is said "Recite paritta," since it is the study of Dhamma, Dhamma should be recited even without being requested, what to say of when requested, so it is said "kātabba." Cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvā: He shows the method to be followed by one who makes paritta. Cāletvā suttaṃ parimajjitvā: This means that by doing so with the thought "I will infuse protection into this," it is said that protection is infused here. Vihārato…pe… dukkaṭa: They say that this is said with reference to a householder who is a stranger. Pādesu udakaṃ ākiritvā: This is said according to the custom in that place. For there, having poured water on the feet of the bhikkhus sitting in the assembly for the purpose of allaying disease etc., and having placed the thread, they go away saying, "Recite the paritta." For if they remove their feet while it is being done, people think it is "ill-omened" and that "the disease will not be allayed." Therefore, he says, "na pādā apanetabbā".

"sīvathikadassane…pe… maraṇassatiṃ paṭilabhissāmāti gantuṃ vaṭṭatī": The Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185) states that it is permissible to go even when they say "Let them come for the funeral arrangements" with a pure mind that has arisen without making a pretext. By this, he shows that it is not permissible to go with an impure mind, making a pretext with just the statement of seeing corpses, thinking that "the relatives of the deceased will be pleased, they will give a gift, we will get gain, we will get a supporter." But it is said that it is permissible to go, whether invited or not, with a pure mind, saying "maraṇassatiṃ labhissāmā" etc., with the mind focused on meditation. Because a palm leaf is a place for writing paritta, and the paritta thread is a sign of making paritta, the non-humans retreat, seeing those with the perception of paritta, so he says "tālapaṇṇaṃ pana parittasuttaṃ vā hatthe vā pāde vā bandhitabba".

"idha pana āṭānāṭiyasuttassa parikammaṃ veditabba" etc. is stated. Therein, idhā: in the statement "āṭānāṭiyaparittaṃ vā bhaṇitabba". Panā: A particle in the sense of distinguishing. The construction is that the preliminary act of the Āṭānāṭiya Paritta, which appears in the Pāthikavagga of the Dīgha Nikāya, should be understood in this way. If it should not be said at the very beginning, then what should be done? He says, "mettasutta" etc. For having been practiced, it becomes very powerful.

Piṭṭhaṃ vā maṃsaṃ vā: The word vā is in the sense of indefiniteness, so it includes fish pieces, cakes, and sweetmeats. Otāraṃ labhantī: They obtain an opportunity to get a place tied to the requisites of edible things they like. Haritūpalitta: Smeared with fresh cow dung. This is an ancient custom, making the ground pure. Parisuddhaṃ…pe… nisīditabba: By this, it shows that purity of mind in terms of loving-kindness and compassion should also be desired for the bhikkhu who makes paritta. For then it agrees with the twofold arrangement for protection that will be said above. In the Ṭīkā (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282), however, it is said that "it shows that purity of body should also be desired." That should be examined. For it is not said that "one becomes dear to non-humans merely by purity of body," but it is said only by way of loving-kindness. For this was said by the Blessed One: "Bhikkhus, eleven benefits are to be expected from the liberation of mind by loving-kindness…pe… What eleven? He sleeps soundly, he wakes up soundly, he does not see bad dreams, he is dear to humans, he is dear to non-humans" etc. (a. ni. 11.15; pari. 331; mi. pa. 4.4.6).

Parittakārako…pe… samparivāritenā: This is an arrangement for protection from the outside for the one who makes paritta, and "metta…pe… vattabba" is an arrangement for protection from the inside; thus there is a twofold arrangement for protection. For then the non-humans do not dare to cause harm to the one who makes paritta. Maṅgalakathā ответственностиā: Having made an offering for the pleasing of non-humans, the Mahāmaṅgala Katha should be spoken. Thus it agrees with the statement "tuyhaṃ paṇṇākāratthāya mahāmaṅgalakathā vuttā" that will be said above. In the Ṭīkā, however, it is said that "it should be said by way of preliminary service." Sabbasannipāto: The gathering of all the bhikkhus in that monastery, in that village area, ghosetabbo: should be announced: "All should gather in the courtyard of the Cetiya." Anāgantuṃnāma na labhatī: A non-human cannot come without the authority of the Buddha, without the authority of the king, because the authority of the four Great Kings is fixed. By the pretext of taking hold, it is as if the non-human is asked, so "amanussagahitako ‘tvaṃ ko nāmo’ti pucchitabbo" is said. Mālāgandhādīsū: In offerings of garlands, incense, etc. Āsanapūjāyā: In the offering of Buddha's seat at the Cetiya. Piṇḍapāte: In the giving of alms food to the community of bhikkhus. Thus, intention is stated by way of the occasion, therefore, the giving of merit is possible.

Devatāna: To the generals of the Yaksha armies. For in the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta (dī. ni. 3.283, 293) it is said: "These Yakkhas, great Yakkhas, generals, great generals should be caused to shout" etc. Āṭā: Birds with beaks like ladles. The place where those Āṭās cry is Āṭānāda, the city of the gods; āṭānādiyaṃ, the Sutta, is made at Āṭānāda. In the Ṭīkā (dī. ni. ṭī. 3.282), it is said that "even in "parittaṃ bhaṇitabba", everything said about the preparation for making paritta for householders, such as 'having made the mind of loving-kindness go before', 'the talk of auspiciousness should be spoken', and 'in the vicinity of the monastery', should be done." If that is the case, the statement in the commentary (dī. ni. aṭṭha. 3.282) "This, indeed, is the preliminary act for householders," and then saying "sace pana bhikkhū" with the word pana indicating a special meaning, the statement "this is the preliminary act for bhikkhus" becomes meaningless. For if there is no distinction, there should be no need to make a difference. And for bhikkhus, external protection as described is difficult to do, therefore, my opinion is that it should be done in the manner stated in the commentary, even if the preparation mentioned in the making of paritta for householders is not accomplished.

Now, having heard this Āṭānāṭiya Sutta introduction that has come here, some elders, thinking, "This sutta is displeasing to non-humans, and the non-humans might cause obstruction to one who recites it or performs paritta with it," abandoning the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta (Dī. Ni. 3.275 ff.), which was declared by the All-Knowing Buddha, proclaimed by the four Great Kings, fundamental, and found in the Dīgha Nikāya, took only six verses from the original sutta, left out the rest of the sutta, inserted other verses, and established it as the "Āṭānāṭiya Paritta." Because that paritta is not fundamental, some, being unable to retain it in one form, retain it in brief, some in detail, some insert certain verses, some omit them, and some monks, being unwilling to recite even that mixed paritta at times for performing auspicious ceremonies, abandon it and recite other suttas instead. All of this seems inappropriate. Why? Because the four Great Kings, in arranging this protection of the Āṭānāṭiya, did so for the appeasement of non-humans in the Buddha's dispensation and for the non-harassment of the four assemblies, not for any other reason. For it was said there, "There are great abodes of Yakkhas, who are not pleased with this dispensation of the Blessed One; may the Blessed One learn the Āṭānāṭiya protection for the safety, protection, non-violence, and comfortable dwelling of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen" (Dī. Ni. 3.276).

Even the Sammāsambuddha, at the conclusion of this sutta, urged the monks to retain it and declared its benefit, saying, "Learn the Āṭānāṭiya protection, O monks; master the Āṭānāṭiya protection, O monks; retain the Āṭānāṭiya protection, O monks; the Āṭānāṭiya protection is full of meaning, for the safety, protection, non-violence, and comfortable dwelling of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen" (Dī. Ni. 3.295). The Aṭṭhakathā masters also said, "Not even a single letter or a single word in the Buddha's utterance should be removed." Therefore, it is appropriate to retain and recite only the original Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, which was arranged by the four Great Kings, spoken directly by the Sammāsambuddha, and included in the three recitations, not the mixed sutta, which was not spoken by the Blessed One and not included in the three recitations. This Āṭānāṭiya Paritta introduction that appears in the Dīgha Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282) was not stated by the Aṭṭhakathā masters with reference to the regular recitation and reading, but rather it was stated with reference to reciting it like a worldly mantra in order to free a lay person or a renunciate at a time when they are possessed by non-humans. For it was said there, "The possessed person should be asked, 'Who are you by name?'" etc. (Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 3.282).

The Āṭānāṭiya protection is not the entire sutta, but rather only a portion of the sutta, beginning with the phrase "Namo Vipaśśissa ca" and ending with the phrase "Jinaṃ vandāma Gotama," which appears four times in relation to the four Great Kings. How is this to be understood? Because, beginning with "Then Vessavaṇa Mahārāja, knowing the Blessed One's acceptance, spoke this Āṭānāṭiya protection," and at the end of the aforementioned portion of the sutta, it is concluded with "This, O sirs, is the Āṭānāṭiya protection." Therefore, just as tigers and other animals become fiercely angry at those who plunder their prey, so too, non-humans become angry at those who free a person they have seized. Thus, it should be understood that this Āṭānāṭiya Paritta introduction was stated by the Aṭṭhakathā masters for the removal of dangers to monks when beginning to free someone in that way. This is the embellishment of the discourse on the determination of performing paritta.

20.Anāmaṭṭhapiṇḍapātoti (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.185): Here, āmasiyitthāti āmaṭṭho, na āmaṭṭho anāmaṭṭho. Because it falls bit by bit, it is piṇḍapāto. Anāmaṭṭho and that piṇḍapāto is thus; meaning, the untaken first portion, the unconsumed alms food. Even if it were worth a kahāpaṇa, this indicates that it was prepared with many dishes by the donors and given respectfully. Therefore, it was said, "There is no wasting of the gift given with faith." Even such expensive food, given respectfully with faith, giving to mother and father, there is no wasting of the gift given with faith, how much more so with inexpensive food is the idea. By stating only the five beginning with mother, it is concluded that it is not suitable to give to others, even to relatives, since it was not mentioned that it is suitable to give to others of the ten, like in the case of making medicine; however, since it will be said, "to any visitor who has come to the monastery," etc., it is suitable to give to relatives who have come to the monastery, as a common visitor. Thālake means in a communal bowl made of bronze, etc. The bowl (patta) is also included here. Is not suitable indicates a dukkaṭa. Dāmarikacorassā means to a notorious thief who desires the kingdom. Even if it is not given, they get angry, "They do not give," is the connection.

Paṭisanthāro: that is twofold in the way of Dhamma and material things. There, with reference to material hospitality, it was said, "To whom should it be done, to whom should it not be done?" In order to make clear the meaning of what was said, "To a newcomer...pe...it should be done," he said, "To a newcomer indeed..." etc. Khīṇaparibbaya by this, he shows the state of not being biased and the basis of compassion. By that, even if they are wealthy newcomers who are without these qualities, it is concluded that it is not suitable to give. "Without expecting," having said this, to show the way of expecting, he said, "Humans by name..." etc. However, it is not suitable to give to those who are unapproved, even without expecting, because it is a waste of the gift given with faith; but if there is expectation, it also disgraces the family. Ubbāsetvā: having caused the people who were plundering within three yojanas all around to flee. Varapotthakacittattharaṇaṃ: a spread adorned with various kinds of excellent figures, such as women and men. This is the embellishment of the discourse on the determination of hospitality.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

The embellishment of the discourse on the determination of medicine, etc.

The third chapter.

4. Viññattivinicchayakathā

21.Having thus discussed the determination of medicine, etc., now, in order to discuss the determination of requesting, he said, "Viññatti means asking," etc. There, viññāpanā is viññatti, "we need this," viññāpanā, is what is meant by 'asking.' Therefore, he said, "Viññatti means asking." Tatra, in that viññatti, ayaṃ, this vinicchayo, determination that I will say, should be known, is the connection. Mūlacchejjāyāti (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.342): by way of making it one's own possession by freeing it from being the possession of another. Thus, for one who asks in this way, there is a dukkaṭa for requesting from an unknown person, as well as a dukkaṭa for accepting a slave, since it is rejected in the commentary, relying on the statement, "He is abstinent from accepting male and female slaves (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194)." However, for one who asks for a slave from a relative at an approved occasion for freeing, there is a dukkaṭa only by way of approval. Sakakammaṃ: means killing. And this was said for avoiding the fault of taking life, not for avoiding the request. Aniyametvāpi na yācitabbā: this was said for the sake of showing respect; however, there is no offense for one who asks for handiwork with a pure mind. Yadicchakaṃ kārāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī: without asking with "I ask for handiwork, give," etc., it is suitable; even for one who causes another who is busy with their own work to do so, there is no requesting, however, it was said separately for the sake of showing respect.

Sabbakappiyabhāvadīpanatthaṃ: for the sake of showing the state of being allowable in every way. Mūlaṃ dethāti vattuṃ vaṭṭatī: it is suitable to say "give the price", because it was first said, "we will give the price", thus it was said considering that there is no offense for causing to give things that are the end of the fixed allowance or for approving things that are unallowable since the request is a word that is common to both allowable and unallowable things or the word "price" is unallowable. Mūlacchejjāya vā: this was said here because of the presence or absence of the state of being a slave, etc., for pillars, etc. Anajjhāvutthakaṃ: means unpossessed, ownerless.

22.Na kevalañca…pe… cīvarādīni kārāpetukāmenātiādīsu: In the cases of "Not only...pe...by one who wants to have robes made," etc., it should be understood that even if there is no dukkaṭa due to the request as handiwork from weavers who are unknown and unapproved, for one who wants to have robes woven, there are pācittiya and dukkaṭa offenses, as appropriate, by the robe-weaving training rule. Akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabbaṃ: even if it was obtained by way of something allowable, it was said that it is suitable to give by saying, "Give this kahāpaṇa for doing the work there." Although no fault is seen in giving for work that was done previously, still, they say that it is unsuitable. There is no fault for one who causes payment for past work in a roundabout way with allowable speech; however, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 1.342), it was said, "Akappiyakahāpaṇādi na dātabbaṃ: even if it is suitable to give akappiya kahāpaṇa, etc., from allowable speech, for one who does not approve of it, still, it is not suitable, and people think that there is something that belongs to him and should be harassed, thus, the giving of akappiya kahāpaṇa, etc., was rejected." Tatheva pācetvā: having cooked by way of handiwork. Even if asked only "What, Bhante?", it is permissible to say what he entered for, since it is a question that was asked.

23.Vattaṃ: means custom, the idea is that there is no offense. Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbānī: this was said for the sake of avoiding seed-killing for the cutting of leaves, etc., with branch, bee-larva, and the unaccepted resin that is attached there, and when there is doubt about both, there is no fault in not doing so. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 1.342) it was said, "Kappiyaṃ kārāpetvā paṭiggahetabbānī: this was said for the sake of comfortable enjoyment, even when there is resin attached to the branch, when a leaf has fallen, and when there is a desire to eat after cutting the branch." Since water in rivers, etc., is unowned, "āharāti vattuṃ vaṭṭatī"ti was said. "Gehato…pe… neva vaṭṭatī": the idea is that there is a dukkaṭa because of requesting water that is possessed. "Na āhaṭaṃ paribhuñjituṃ": because of the statement "One should not use what has been brought," even if one who has incurred a dukkaṭa by requesting declares it, he incurs a dukkaṭa with each use of that thing, it is not suitable for even the five co-religionists.

"Alajjīhi pana bhikkhūhi vā sāmaṇerehi vā hatthakammaṃ na kāretabba": Since it was stated generally, it is not suitable to cause any kind of handiwork to be done for one's own sake. However, there is no fault when a shameless one does seed-killing, etc., even when being prevented; however, it is suitable to have them do work on shrines, etc., this was said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.342). However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.342) it was said, "alajjīhi…pe… na kāretabba: This was said with reference to what should be swallowed, since it is the section on further breaking; however, it is suitable to have even shameless ones do handiwork for external use." And here, since it was said, "by shameless sāmaṇeras," the characteristic of being shameless, "one intentionally incurs an offense" (pari. 359), was said with reference to one who is fully ordained in an extreme way, and it should be understood as a quality, and for sāmaṇeras, etc., who are without that characteristic, the characteristic of being shameless, in a common way for those who are of different lineage, with different names, for those monks who profess to be monks, it is simply not standing by the practice that has been established.

24. "But with regard to leading an ox…pe… it is an offense of wrong-doing," means wrong-doing at the moment of request, due to the condition of requesting, and wrong-doing at the moment of receiving, due to the condition of enjoying the oxen. For even if an ox is obtained without requesting, for one's own sake, it is not proper to enjoy it, because it is said, "He is one who abstains from accepting elephants, cattle, horses, and male and female slaves" (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194). Therefore, it was said, "It is not proper to request, even at the place of an invited relative, to the point of severing the root." Here, even in the absence of the wrong-doing of requesting, there is still wrong-doing in requesting and accepting an improper item. "Having protected," means having protected from dangers such as thieves. "Having fostered," means having nourished with grass, food, etc. "Should not be accepted," it was said because the enjoyment of cattle for one's own sake is prohibited.

25. "But in the place of an invited relative, it is proper," it is proper to request in the manner of severing the root, because it is proper to accept a cart. "It is proper for a limited time," in both cases, it is proper, this is the meaning, it was said in Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.342). In Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.342), however, it was said, "Saying 'Give a cart'…pe… is not proper," it is not proper to say 'Give a cart' in the manner of severing the root. "It is proper for a limited time," having made it temporary, it is proper to request everywhere. He said that personal items such as axes are also proper, "This is the method with an axe," etc. And with regard to creepers etc. that are possessed by others, this method should be applied. "Only for things that are heavy and costly," this was said with reference to requesting. However, in the case of taking what is not given, even taking a blade of grass or a splinter possessed by another with the intention of theft is appropriation itself, it should be valued by the price of the item. "In creepers, etc.," here, the "etc." should be understood as including bamboo, muñja grass, reeds, and clay that come in the Pāli. And there, in whatever region even a small amount of haritāla (orpiment), hingulika (cinnabar), etc., is very expensive, there, even if it is less than the size of a palm fruit, it is still a heavy item, and it is not proper to request it.

26. "That," means the requesting. Among "preliminary talk," etc., speaking in a roundabout way, such as "The dwelling is crowded," is called "preliminary talk." Without speaking directly, speaking in such a way that the intention is clear, such as "Is a building not suitable for the monks?" is called "hinting." Making a sign for the arising of a condition, such as preparing the ground for a dwelling etc., is called "making a sign." Among the three conditions, requesting etc. were shown, but how to speak in the condition of sickness? He said, "But in the condition of sickness," etc. Moreover, is it proper to consume medicine that has arisen in that way, even after the disease has subsided, or is it not proper? There, the Vinaya masters say, "The Blessed One has given an opening for using it as long as the illness is present, therefore, it is proper to consume it even when not sick, there is no offense." But the Suttanta masters say, "Although there is no offense, it corrupts one's livelihood, therefore, it is not proper for one established in the practice of reducing, it corrupts reducing."

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Entitled "The Adornment of the Discourse on the Determination of Requesting,"

The Fourth Chapter.

5. Discourse on the Determination of Association with Families

27. Having thus spoken on the determination of requesting, now, in order to speak on the determination of association with families, he said "Association with families," etc. There, saṅgaṇhanaṃ is association, kulānaṃ saṅgaho is "association with families," doing favor for the lay people who are givers of requisites, etc. Here, the word saṅgaha is in the sense of favor, as in "Association with children and spouse" (Khu. Pā. 5.6; Su. Ni. 265).

28. There, "cutting" means cutting oneself. "Causing to be cut" means causing others to cut, saying "Cut this." "Binding in a depression" means binding all around, so that water collects as it does at the base of a tree. "Of water," of improper water, because "sprinkling with proper water" will be said separately, and because it will be said that sprinkling with proper water etc. is proper in both proper and improper usages of what is for the sake of a monastery etc. for planting, therefore here also, having made a distinction, sprinkling with proper water etc. is shown separately. And here, what is improper water, and what is proper water? Water with living beings is improper water, water without living beings is proper water. How is it known? Because of the statement, "Whoever monk knowingly sprinkles or causes to be sprinkled grass or mud with water containing living beings, there is expiation." Just as physical actions such as cutting and digging are included in improper usage, so too are proper usages such as straightening dry soil, therefore he said, "Straightening dry soil." "Sprinkling water for washing hands, feet, and face, and for bathing," with this he shows sprinkling with proper water in another way. How is doing oneself included in improper usage in the manner of cutting and digging? What is used is called "improper usage," all actions of doing and causing to do that are improper are included, but not just improper speech, this should be seen. This same method applies to proper usage. "Straightening dry soil," with this, the removal of old leaves etc. is also included, this should be seen. Placing shovels etc. on the ground and then taking them from their place with the hand is more obvious than placing them somewhere else, therefore it is called "hinting."

29. One who wants to establish a great doctrine says it afterwards. "For the sake of a forest," some read this as "for the sake of a garden," for them the meaning is for the sake of a garden. In the Vajirabuddhi Ṭīkā it is also said the same way, but because of the statement, "Planters of groves and gardens, those who are builders of bridges" (Saṃ. Ni. 1.47), that should be considered. In order to show that even a certain part of improper usage is proper, he said, "Not only the remainder," etc. "Whatever soil," whether dry soil or not dry soil. "To sprinkle proper water," with this, he shows that it is proper to say "Sprinkle proper water." "It is also proper to plant oneself," with this, it is also established that it is proper to say "Plant!"

30. "Both expiation and wrong-doing," expiation because of digging the earth, wrong-doing because of association with families. "With improper usage," with improper usage, saying "Dig this, plant this." "Only wrong-doing," wrong-doing because of association with families. "In both," in proper and improper ground.

"Everywhere," planted for the sake of association with families, use, a monastery, etc. "Also wrong-doing," not only expiation. "With proper," with proper water. "Of those two," of association with families and use. "Wrong-doing," wrong-doing for one's own sprinkling for the sake of association with families, wrong-doing for causing to sprinkle with either proper or improper usage, and wrong-doing for one's own sprinkling for the sake of use, and for causing to sprinkle with improper usage. "Due to the abundance of effort," due to the abundance of physical effort in doing oneself, and verbal effort in causing to do. "An abundance of offenses should be known," here, in one's own sprinkling, the reckoning of offenses should be known by counting the breaks in the stream. But in causing to sprinkle, there is an offense for each word of one who repeatedly commands, but only one offense for many sprinklings of one who is commanded once.

"Wrong-doings and expiations in picking," wrong-doing because of association with families, expiation because of destroying plant life. "Elsewhere," in picking for the sake of worshiping objects etc. "Commanded once," commanded with improper usage. "Only expiation," expiation by the training rule regarding plant life (pāci. 90-91) because of being commanded with improper usage. But there is no offense for one who causes to pick for the sake of worshiping objects etc. with proper speech.

31. A garland made by stringing is "stringed." This same method applies to the rest. "Is not proper," for the sake of association with families, or there is wrong-doing for one who does or causes to do in the way stated for the sake of worshiping objects etc., this is the meaning. "Is proper," it is proper for the sake of worshiping objects etc., but even for one who causes to do with proper usage for the sake of association with families, there is still wrong-doing. "In the same way as before," in the way stated beginning with "For a monk or…" The connection is that one pierces and places flowers among the thorns attached to the awning of a Dhamma seat. Because it is covered by piercing one above the other, making it like an umbrella, it is said "Like an umbrella upon an umbrella." Referring to everything said beginning with "In the trunk of a banana tree," it is said "That is very coarse," in all cases, there is wrong-doing in doing and causing to do with improper usage, this is the meaning. "It is not proper to even attach thorns for the sake of piercing flowers," because this is an indication, some say that tying ropes etc. for the sake of hanging flower garlands etc. is also not proper. Others, however, say, "Because it is specified as 'thorns for the sake of piercing flowers,' it is not proper to tie only thorns for that purpose, and that is according to the authority of the commentary," it should be considered and taken. "Flower receptacle" means a flower container made of teeth etc. This should be taken as having holes even like a nāgadanta tree. "A heap of Asoka," a collection of Asoka branches or flowers. In Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.431), however, it is said "A heap of Asoka," means a cluster of Asoka flowers. "Dhamma rope" means a rope tied around a cetiya or Bodhi tree for the purpose of inserting flowers. In Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.431), however, it is said "Dhamma rope" means a rope tied encircling cetiyas etc. and for the purpose of inserting flowers in between them and the rope. Or they say that it is a rope tied in such a way as to insert flowers inside a loosely twisted wick."

"Head garland" means a garland hanging from the top of a Dhamma seat etc. "Of those," only of lotuses etc. "Or with a wedge," by splitting the stem of the flower and with a stick bound together with the flower with the wedge. By this, the flower does not go to the inclusion of seed life because it does not enter into the five kinds of seeds, like a leaf, therefore there is no fault in removing it without having it made proper. And the blossoming even of a cut bud is not a characteristic of growth due to the absence of extreme youth, but for a mature bud, the separation is only a vanishing, with the moisture of the leaves having gone to exhaustion, therefore the blossoming of a cut bud is seen as inferior to the blossoming of an uncut bud, or as something that is about to wither. And the non-withering that occurs with the contact of water of something that has withered is the same as in betel leaves etc., it is not a characteristic of growth. And nowhere in the Pāli commentaries has the making proper of flowers come, therefore it is known that a flower is in every way without seed, it should be considered and taken.

Because it is said "Like in a bag," it is established that it is proper to put a flower in a bag or something similar to a bag and place it in whatever cloth. In Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.431), however, it is said "A robe placed on the shoulder," this is said referring to a double robe placed on the shoulder. For it might be possible to tie it in that way. And by this it is established that it is proper to tie another such robe or cloth in the way stated and put flowers in it. Because it is similar to putting it in a shoulder bag or bag, it is not called a wrapping, therefore they say that it is proper to put it in from time to time with a loose tie. "But it is not proper to tie a stick underneath," this is said referring to tying with ropes etc., but it is certainly proper to tie with uncut stems of flowers themselves.

"Pupphapaṭe ca daṭṭhabba" means, regarding the making of a pupphapaṭa, it refers to filling the length of the flower garland by bringing [flowers] to and fro. However, taking [flowers] across its width is called vāyima, not the former. "Purimaṭṭhānaṃ atikkāmeti" because it is stated generally, whether one touches the previous flower tip or not, there is an offense for exceeding [the position] by encircling. Bandhituṃ vaṭṭatī means it is permissible to tie [the garland] with the thread end devoid of flowers. "Ekavāraṃ haritvā parikkhipitvā" this refers to both the encircling of a cetiya, etc., mentioned earlier, and the making of a pupphapaṭa. Therefore, when encircling a cetiya or a bodhi tree, after encircling it once and reaching the previous position, it should be given to another [monk], and that [monk] should also encircle it once and do likewise. And when making a pupphapaṭa, it should be taken and given to another, and that [monk] should do likewise. Some say that even if only two monks stand on either side and take [the garland] in turn, it is still permissible.

Parehi pūrita means stretched lengthwise. Vāyituṃ means to take [flowers] across its width, but that is not allowed even once. Pupphāni ṭhapentenā means even by placing unstitched, natural flowers touching each other. However, some say that when placing a flower garland on the ground for worship, it is not permissible to fold it in two, whether the flowers touch each other or not.

32. Ghaṭikadāmaolambako means a pendant shaped like a small pot at the bottom, or a pendant shaped like a wooden pot. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.431), it is stated, "ghaṭikadāmaolambako" means a yamakadāmaolambaka with a pot shape at the end." In the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. ṭī. pārājika 431), it is stated, "ghaṭikadāmaolambako" is written as yamakadāmaolambaka. However, it is permissible to hang each garland by tying it only with the protruding thread ends. Even if one wants to join two flower garlands together, it is permissible to join the thread ends only with the protruding thread ends. Aḍḍhacandākārena mālāguṇaparikkhepo means encircling by filling [the space] with the thread of flowers (mālāguṇa) in a semicircular shape by repeatedly bringing [flowers] to and fro. By doing that, it is entering the previous [position]; therefore, it is not permissible to fill even this semicircle by repeatedly bringing [flowers] to and fro. Some say that it is permissible to take the thread of flowers once when making a semicircular shape. Pupphadāmakaraṇa means here it is not permissible to gather [flowers] into one by taking them at the thread end. A thread-made ball is called geṇḍuka. Because geṇḍuka and garlands made of rough leaves have been prohibited, it is said that even a garland made of cloth, etc., is not permissible because it conforms to what is unallowable. Parasantakaṃ deti, dukkaṭamevā this is stated regarding giving another's property after taking it with trust. Thullaccaya here there is also a bhaṇḍadeyya.

33. Tañca kho vatthupūjanatthāyā this shows that even when giving flowers to parents, it should be given only for the purpose of honoring an object [of veneration]. "Maṇḍanatthāya pana sivaliṅgādipūjanatthāyā" because only this much has been said, it is permissible for parents [to do as they wish] with the flowers, [such as saying,] "They will live by selling these," but for other relatives, it is permissible to give [flowers] only temporarily. Kassacipī to anyone, whether a relative or a non-relative. Ñātisāmaṇerehevā this is stated for the purpose of releasing them from household duties. Itare non-relatives. Even they, the sāmaṇeras, should carry [flowers] with the permission of the preceptor and teacher as a matter of duty. Sampattānaṃ sāmaṇerānaṃ upaḍḍhabhāgaṃ dātuṃ vaṭṭatī this is said because even sāmaṇeras who are near the boundary of the monastery have a share in the common gains of the Sangha, so they are entitled to half a share. Cūḷaka half of half. This is a term for a quarter share. Sāmaṇerā…pe… ṭhapentī this is stated in reference to [flowers] that are unguarded and unprotected. In the Sāratthadīpanī, it is stated that "it is stated in reference to what is not to be shared due to being rained on." Tattha tatthā on the road or in the cetiya courtyard.

34. Sāmaṇerehi dāpetuṃ na labhantī this is stated because it would be like having sāmaṇeras do lay work; however, it is not [due to] the sāmaṇeras not being allowed to give flowers. And it was said, "sayamevā" etc. For that would not be called giving flowers. For if giving to those who have come in that way were called giving flowers, even sāmaṇeras should not be allowed to give. Sayamevā the sāmaṇeras themselves. Yāgubhattādīni ādāyā because this is stated in reference to preparing rice-gruel, cooked rice, etc., for the benefit of the monks, it is stated "na vaṭṭatī" without qualification. Avisesena vutta by this, he shows that it is not permissible for anyone.

35. Vuttanayenevā "It is permissible to give to parents by bringing [fruits] oneself, having [fruits] brought, inviting [them], or having [them] invited; for other relatives, only by having [them] invited. And when having [fruits] brought for parents, it should be done only by relatives who are sāmaṇeras. However, if the others wish to [bring them] themselves, it is permissible," this extends the rule stated regarding giving flowers to the giving of fruit as well. Therefore, it is permissible to give fruit to parents by bringing it oneself, having it brought, etc.; for other relatives, only by having [them] invited. Now, to show concisely the rule stated regarding giving flowers in the giving of fruit, [namely,] "whoever gives with the intention of being generous after bringing [flowers] or having [flowers] brought…pe… there is a thullaccaya," (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.436-437) he says "kulasaṅgahatthāya panā" etc. Khīṇaparibbayāna this is stated in reference to newcomers. Phalaparicchedenā either by specifying the fruits, [saying,] "So many fruits should be given," in this way specifying the fruits. Rukkhaparicchedena vā or by specifying the trees, [saying,] "They should be given from these trees," in this way specifying the trees. However, he says "evaṃ pana na vattabba" that even when the trees have been specified, to say, "Here the fruits are beautiful, take them from here," is called showing favor to a family. Rukkhacchallī tree bark, that is said to be "bhājanīyabhaṇḍa." Vuttanayenā this shows that showing favor to a family is in accordance with the rule stated regarding flowers, fruits, etc.

36. Conveying messages pertaining to the Sāsana and counter-messages to those various laypeople in other villages and countries is jaṅghapesaniyaṃ. Therefore, he says "gihīnaṃ dūteyyaṃ sāsanaharaṇakamma". The work of a messenger is dūteyyaṃ. Paṭhamaṃ sāsanaṃ aggahetvāpi…pe… pade pade dukkaṭa this is stated in reference to going with the intention, "I will announce his message." However, if one rejects his message and, standing on one's own compassion, goes and announces a message suitable for oneself, there is no offense. And the connection is that it is permissible to convey an allowable message from laypeople. Imehi pana aṭṭhahi kuladūsakakammehī by these eight acts that spoil families, namely, giving flowers, giving fruit, giving powder, giving clay, giving tooth sticks, giving bamboo, giving leaves, and being a messenger, as stated. Pabbājanīyakammakato one for whom an expulsion act (pabbājanīyakamma) has been done because of causing a family to be spoiled.

37. Sekkhabhūmiyaṃ vā by this, he includes the state of jhāna as well. Tiṇṇaṃ vivekānaṃ of the three kinds of seclusion, namely, the seclusion of body, mind, and defilements. Because going for alms ends with the conclusion of the meal, it is said "yāva bhojanapariyosāna". It should be understood that even for one who is coming back after eating, there is an offense for doing things like arranging the robe with the same intention as before.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra,

which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

entitled "An Adornment of the Discourse on the Resolution of Showing Favor to Families,"

the Fifth Chapter.

38. Having thus spoken about the resolution of showing favor to families, now, in order to speak about the resolution of fish and meat, "macchamaṃsesu panā" etc., was said. There, maccho means a fish that dies as soon as it is placed on land or is killed by fishermen, etc. Macchassa idaṃ means macchaṃ; masiyate āmasiyateti maṃsaṃ; macchañca maṃsañca macchamaṃsāni, in them. The interpretation in regard to fish and meat should be understood thus. Macchaggahaṇenā here, a determination should not be made. The word pana has the meaning of another alternative; the meaning is that the interpretation in regard to fish and meat is different from the interpretation in regard to sleeping during the day, etc. Gayhate anenāti gahaṇaṃ. What is that? A word. Macchaiti gahaṇaṃ macchaggahaṇaṃ, by that macchaggahaṇena, means by the word "fish." Maṃsesu pana…pe… akappiyānī here, human meat is prohibited because it is from the same species. The meat of elephants and horses [is prohibited] because of royal association; the meat of dogs and snakes [is prohibited] because of their repulsive nature; and the meat of the remaining wild animals [is prohibited] in order to release the monks from entanglement.

Tikoṭiparisuddha means pure and free from the three aspects (koṭi) or three ways or three reasons, which are called seen, heard, and suspected. There, the unseen and unheard should be understood as being beyond the range of eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness. But how should the unsuspected be known? He says "aparisaṅkitaṃ panā" etc.; the meaning is that after knowing the three kinds of suspected [meat], the unsuspected should be known as the opposite of those. Now, in order to show in detail those three kinds of suspected [meat] and the course of action to be taken by the monks when there is suspicion, and what should be done when there is no suspicion according to that course of action, he says "kathaṃ" etc. There, suspected due to seeing is called diṭṭhaparisaṅkitaṃ. Suspected due to hearing is called sutaparisaṅkitaṃ. Suspected without seeing or hearing, by reasoning and inference, is called tadubhayavinimuttaparisaṅkitaṃ. Even that threefold [suspicion] is one aspect (koṭi) in the general sense of suspected; what is free from that is called aparisaṅkitaṃ. Thus, fish and meat that are unseen, unheard, and unsuspected are tikoṭiparisuddha.

Jālaṃ a fish trap. Vāgurā a trap for catching animals. Kappatī if the doubt is removed by their words, it is permissible; that statement should not be made deceitfully. Therefore, he will say, "And where one is free from doubt, all that is permissible." Pavattamaṃsa meat that is available in shops, etc., either for sale or dead meat. Maṅgalādīna by the word ādi, he includes gifts presented to guests, etc. Bhikkhūnaṃyeva atthāya akata here, the word eva is inappropriately used; it should be connected as "it is truly not made for the benefit of the monks," therefore, it should be understood that what is mixed and made for both the monks and auspicious occasions, etc., is not permissible. Some say, "It is permissible by taking the determination according to the existing situation," but that is not proper. Yattha ca nibbematiko hotī even in what is made for the benefit of the monks, he speaks of the complete absence of suspicion in every way.

39. In order to reveal that very meaning, "sace panā" etc., was said. Itaresaṃ vaṭṭatī it is permissible for those who do not know; for one who knows, there is an offense here. Teyevā only those for whom it was made with the intention [of giving]. In order to show the difference between consuming meat made with the intention [of giving] and consuming unallowable meat, "akappiyamaṃsaṃ panā" etc., was said. In the former, there is an offense with intention; in the latter, there is an offense without intention. Therefore, he says "akappiyamaṃsaṃ ajānitvā bhuñjantassapi āpattiyevā". Because of the statement, "Having received unallowable meat without knowing, one should ask at the time of consumption and then consume it after asking," (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 39) it is established that there is no offense in receiving unallowable meat without knowing. For an offense is stated only for consuming [unallowable meat] without knowing. Vattanti vadantī by this, he shows that there is no offense.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra,

which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

entitled "An Adornment of the Discourse on the Resolution of Fish and Meat,"

7. Anāmāsavinicchayakathā

40. Having thus concluded the determination of touching gold and silver, now, to explain the determination of what is not to be touched, he begins with "anāmāsa." Here, "āmāsiyati" means touching; "na āmāsaṃ" means anāmāsaṃ, not to be touched. Pāripanthikā means causing disturbance, that is, causing an obstacle. Nadīsotena vuyhamānaṃ mātara (a mother being carried away by the river current) is stated to show an extreme case. However, they say that there is no offense for one who treats other women with compassion in the manner described for the mother. Because "mother" is mentioned, some say it does not apply to others. Ettha gaṇhāhīti na stockbildā (here, one should not say "take it") is said with reference to a dukkata offense for touching with affection rooted in attachment to the body. However, there is no offense even for saying "take it" to someone who is unable to take cloth etc. out of compassion; or for compassionately and quickly pulling someone drowning in the water without thinking "anāmāsa," by grabbing their hair, etc., with the intention of saving them. For it is not proper to neglect a dying mother. The same principle applies to a non-relative woman. "Mātara" (mother) is stated to show that even an extreme case with the mother, touching is not allowed. However, there is no offense for doing what needs to be done for other women because there is no difference in being "anāmāsa".

Tiṇaṇḍupaka is a small container made from roots like hirivera for the purpose of adorning the hair. Tālapaṇṇamuddika is a finger ring made of palm leaves. Thus, it is established that everything made of palm leaves, such as waistbands and ear ornaments, is not allowed. Parivattetvā (having converted) means having removed it from being one's wearing or covering, that is, having changed it for the purpose of a robe. Cīvaratthāya pādamūle ṭhapetī (he places it at the foot for the purpose of a robe) is just an example of the reason. It is also allowed for the purpose of a mat or a canopy; it is even allowed to touch it temporarily for the purpose of veneration, etc. Sīsapasādhanadantasūcī (a head-dressing toothpick) refers to two or three things: both a head-dressing made of strips of cloth for head adornment and a toothpick, etc. "Sīsapasādhanaṃ sipāṭikopakaraṇatthāya ceva dantasūciṃ sūciupakaraṇatthāya ca gahetabbaṃ" shows the meaning respectively as: The head-dressing is to be used for the purpose of equipment for a bag, and the toothpick for the purpose of equipment for a needle. A needle made to be inserted sideways into a tied bunch of hair is the head-dressing toothpick, making it just one, it should be put into the bag and used as equipment for that particular task, or the arrangement should be done in this way.

Potthakarūpa (book-figure) means even something made of plaster, etc., in the shape of female animals, which are objects related to the Pārājika offense, is "anāmāsa". It is permissible to paint a cloth, wall, etc., that has female forms depicted on it, without touching the female forms. In such cases of "anāmāsa," there is no offense due to touching with affection attached to the body, as there is no physical contact-attachment. Bhinditvā (having broken) here means it should be broken with a stick, etc., without taking it with the hand. Here, because it is stated in the commentary that even an "anāmāsa" can be broken with a stick, stone, etc., and because it is stated in the Pali that there is no offense even in touching with the intention of saving someone in emergencies, it should be understood that it is permissible to take and move away the particular thing like a snake, etc., with a stick, etc., to release the hand held by snakes, etc.; to take one's mother, etc., drowning in the water with cloth, etc.; and to lift up with compassion by grabbing the hair, etc., if they are unable to do so. "Aṭṭhakathāyaṃ ‘na tveva āmasitabbā’" (however, it should not be touched) this statement is said with reference to something that is not dying; this is our opinion" is stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.281).

41.Maggaṃ adhiṭṭhāyā (having determined a path) means having generated the perception that "this is the path." Paññapetvā dentī (they spread out and give) this is stated out of propriety, but if they say "spread out the seat and then sit," it is permissible to spread it out oneself and sit. Tattha jātakānī (those that have grown there) means those that remain in their natural state without being cut off. ‘‘Kīḷantenā’’ (by one playing) because it is said, there is no offense for one who touches it with a reason, and this is said with reference to what belongs to laypeople, but what belongs to monks, which is suitable for use, should not be touched at all because it is difficult to acquire. Tālapanasādīnī (palm fruits, jackfruits, etc.) here, the ādi (etc.) includes coconuts, bujatipusa, gourds, pumpkins, pus saphalas, and eḷālukaphalas. Because it is stated that "touching only the fruits mentioned above for the purpose of play is not allowed," it is permissible to touch stones, pebbles, etc., even for the purpose of play. Anupasampannānaṃ dassāmī (I will give it to those who are not fully ordained) this is said with reference to taking without receiving. There is no offense in receiving and taking even for oneself because there is no absence of "anāmāsa".

42.Muttā (pearls) (ma. ni. ṭī. 1.2 pathavīvāravaṇṇanā; sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) are eight kinds of pearls originating from the elephant's temples. That is, there are eight sources of pearls: the elephant's temples, the boar's tusk, the snake's head, the cloud, the bamboo, the fish's head, the conch, and the oyster. Among them, hatthikumbhajā (those from the elephant's temples) are yellow in color and lack luster. Varāhadāṭhā (those from the boar's tusk) are the color of a boar's tusk. Bhujagasīsajā (those from the snake's head) are blue, etc., in color, very pure, and round. Valāhakajā (those from the cloud) are radiant, doubly divided, and stand dispelling the darkness in the night, and they are only for the enjoyment of the gods. Veḷujā (those from the bamboo) are the color of karaka fruits and not radiant; they grow only in places inaccessible to humans. Macchasirajā (those from the fish's head) are the color of the back of pāṭhīna fish, round, light, and powerful, but without luster; these fish are born only in the middle of the ocean. Saṅkhajā (those from the conch) are the color of the inside of a conch and are the size of kola fruits, but without luster. Sippijā (those from the oyster) have special luster and various shapes. Thus, among the eight kinds of pearls by origin, those that come from fish, conches, and oysters are marine. Some that come from snakes are also marine; the others are non-marine. Since marine pearls are mostly seen in the world, especially those from oysters, while others are rare, the Sammohavinodanī (vibha. aṭṭha. 173) states, "muttāti sāmuddikā muttā" (pearls means marine pearls).

Maṇī (gems) means any jewel other than beryl that has various characteristics such as luster and taste. Veḷuriyo (beryl) is a gem the color of fresh bamboo; some also say it is "the color of the marrow's circular part." Saṅkho (conch) is a marine conch. Silā (stone) is a very smooth black stone the color of green gram. Some say that even a well-polished stone of red, white, etc., color that is not used as a jewel is "anāmāsa". However, the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) states, ‘‘saṅkhoti sāmuddikasaṅkho. Silāti kāḷasilāpaṇḍusilāsetasilādibhedā sabbāpi silā’’ (conch means a marine conch. Stone means all kinds of stones, such as black stone, yellowish stone, and white stone). Pavāḷaṃ (coral) is a non-red gem born from the ocean. Rajatanti (silver) means all remaining silver, including kahāpaṇas, māsas, and jatumāsas. Jātarūpanti (gold) means gold. Lohitaṅkoti (ruby) is a red gem. Masāragallanti (emerald) is a gem of mixed color; some also call it "marakata".

Bhaṇḍamūlatthāyā (for the value of goods) for the value of bowls, robes, etc. Kuṭṭharogassā (for leprosy) is just an example. It is allowed for any disease that needs to be treated with it. "Bhesajjatthañca aviddhāyeva muttā vaṭṭatī" (and for medicinal purposes, even undrilled pearls are allowed) is stated in all three knot passages. ‘‘bhesajjatthāya pana vaṭṭatī’’ (but it is allowed for medicinal purposes) because when pearls are ground and used for medicinal purposes, they lose their quality as jewels, and there is no expectation of them being in the form of jewels even at the moment of taking. However, as long as those pearls remain in the form of jewels, they are not allowed to be touched. Similarly, it is allowed to take other gemstones and crush them to use them in medicine. However, it is not allowed to accept gold and silver mixed for medicinal purposes. Even medicine given mixed by laypeople is not allowed if the gold, etc., remains in its form in the medicine and can be separated. If it has become unusable, it is allowed. ‘‘Jātiphalikaṃ upādāyā’’ (taking jātiphalika) because it is said, jāti stones such as sunstone and moonstone should be regarded as included in gems. Ākaramuttoti (a pearl from a mine) just a pearl from a mine. Bhaṇḍamūlatthaṃ sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭatī (it is allowed to accept it for the value of goods) by this, it shows that it is also allowed to touch it. Pacitvā katoti (made by cooking) made by potters by cooking.

Viddhotiādibhāvena katachiddo (drilled), having a hole made by drilling, etc. Ratanamissoti (mixed with gems) decorated with various gold vines, etc., and inlaid with pearls, etc. By this, it shows that something mixed with gems other than a dhamanasaṅkhato is anāmāsa. The same principle applies to stone. Pānīyasaṅkhoti (water conch) by this, it is established that monks are allowed to accept conch-made vessels in the shape of a plate, etc. Sesanti (the remainder) means the remainder excluding what is mixed with gems. He says "they make something mixed with gems only in the color of green gram, not other colors", ‘‘muggavaṇṇāvā’’ti, (or of green gram color), it means that something mixed with gems of green gram color is not allowed. Sesāti (the remainder) means the remainder of the stone excluding what is mixed with gems.

Bījato paṭṭhāyāti (starting from the seed) starting from the dhātu stone. Suvaṇṇacetiyanti (golden shrine) a relic casket. Paṭikkhipīti (he refused) because he sent it saying "take it for yourselves" without saying "take it for the purpose of placing the relics." However, the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) states, ‘‘paṭikkhipīti suvaṇṇamayassa dhātukaraṇḍakassa buddhādirūpassa ca attano santakakaraṇe nissaggiyattā vutta’’nti (he refused because it was said to be a nissaggiya offense to make the golden relic casket or the image of the Buddha, etc., one's own property). Suvaṇṇabubbuḷakanti (golden bubble) a golden star. ‘‘Rūpiyachaḍḍakaṭṭhāne’’ti (in the place for throwing silver) because it is said, it is stated that it is permissible for one throwing silver to touch gold and silver and throw it away. Keḷāpayitunti (to cause to play) to move it around here and there by touching it. Vuttanti (it is said) it is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. Kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti (it is only allowed to remove rubbish) whether they are sweepers or others, it is permissible to wipe and remove rubbish even with the hand, "malampi pamajjituṃ vaṭṭatiyevā" (it is even permissible to wipe off dirt) is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281). However, the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.281) states, ‘‘kacavarameva harituṃ vaṭṭatīti gopakā vā hontu aññe vā, hatthenapi puñchitvā kacavaraṃ apanetuṃ vaṭṭati, malampi majjituṃ vaṭṭati evāti vadanti, taṃ aṭṭhakathāya na sameti keḷāyanasadisattā’’ti (it is only allowed to remove rubbish, whether they are sweepers or others, it is permissible to wipe and remove rubbish even with the hand, and they say it is even permissible to wipe off dirt, but that does not agree with the commentary because it is similar to causing to play). How does it not agree? In the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, causing to play is only allowed for those who stand in the place for throwing silver in the shrine house, not for others, therefore the statement "whether they are sweepers or others" does not agree with the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā.

But the Kurundī also rejects that, only this much is allowed: to remove the refuse from a golden shrine, therefore, because it is stated with emphasis, the statement in the Kurundī Commentary, "even wiping with the hand" and "it is allowable even to wipe away dirt" does not agree, therefore this should be examined.Ārakūṭaloha means a special kind of alloy with a golden color. For kittimaloha is of three kinds: kaṃsaloha, vaṭṭaloha, and ārakūṭaloha. Therein, kaṃsaloha is made by mixing tin and copper, vaṭṭaloha is made by mixing lead and copper, and ārakūṭaloha is copper colored with રસતુત્ત(rasatuttha). In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281) it is said, "Ārakūṭa is made by mixing raw copper with રસતુત્ત(rasatutta)". Some say that since it is said to be "of the nature of gold," it also becomes nissaggiya when being acquired. However, since it is not counted among rūpiyas, it is not nissaggiya; it should be understood that it is only dukkata in touching and receiving. Sabbopi kappiyo means that all the permitted uses of the requisites for lodging, made of gold and so on as mentioned, such as touching, storing, etc., are allowable in every way. Therefore he says, "tasmā" etc. Because it is said "in places for explaining the Dhamma and Vinaya to the bhikkhus," it should be understood that only saṅghika lodging and requisites for lodging made of gold and so on are allowable, not individual ones. Paṭijaggituṃ vaṭṭantī is said in connection with the maintenance of lodging.

43. Sāmikānaṃ pesetabbaṃ means a message should be sent to the owners. Bhinditvā means, without touching it first, after making a small break with stone or other material, it is allowable to take it with the hand after designating it for permitted goods. Therefore, he says, "kappiyabhaṇḍaṃ karissāmīti sampaṭicchituṃ vaṭṭati". Here too, it should be touched after separating it. Phalakajālikādīnī means here, it should be taken by hand for protection against arrows. Kiṭikāphalakaṃ means a lattice made of iron or other materials to protect the eyes, which should be fastened on the head, etc. Ādi-saddena includes armor and so on. Anāmāsānī is said with reference to obstructing others’ fishing nets, etc., not for protection against arrows, because that is not an item of weaponry. Therefore, he will say, "parūparodhanivāraṇañhī" etc. (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 43). Āsanassāti means around the enclosure made around the Cetiya. Bandhissāmīti means I will tie it up to prevent disturbance by crows, etc.

"Bherisaṅghāṭoti means a drum made of joined leather. Vīṇāsaṅghāṭoti means a lute made of joined leather," as it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.281). Because of the statement in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, "Lutes, drums, etc. covered with leather," there is no difference, and because beginning to state the difference from that with "kurundiyaṃ panā" etc., the collection of instruments covered with leather, drums, etc., should be understood as bherivīṇāsaṅghāṭo, considering "saṅghaṭitabboti saṅghāṭo." Tucchapokkharanti means the frame of drums or lutes not covered with leather. Āropitacammanti means only the face of the leather which had been stretched earlier and later removed from that and kept separately, not with all the equipment included. However, that is saṅghāta, this is the difference. Onahitunti means to cover drums, frames, etc. by stretching leather and fastening with leather straps and other equipment. Onahāpetunti means to have others cover it in the same way.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

named the Alaṅkāra on the Judgment of What May Be Touched and What May Not.

The Seventh Chapter.

8. Discussion of the Judgment on Assigning and Releasing

44. Having thus discussed the judgment of what may be touched and what may not, now, in order to discuss the judgment on assigning and releasing, he says, "adhiṭṭhānavikappanesu panā" etc. Therein, adhiṭṭhiyate is adhiṭṭhānaṃ, meaning grasping or noticing. Vikappiyate is vikappanā, meaning planning or thinking. Therein, "ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātu" means to assign by stating the name. "Na vikappetu" means not to release by stating the name. This is the method everywhere. Therefore, one who is assigning the three robes should assign it by stating the name, "imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ adhiṭṭhāmī" etc. But one who is releasing should release by saying "imaṃ cīvaraṃ tuyhaṃ vikappemī" without taking the name of that particular robe, "imaṃ saṅghāṭi" etc. Whether it is the three robes or something else, if one releases it by taking that name, it is not released, it remains in the state of an extra robe," as it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469).

"ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātu" means to assign with the name saṅghāṭi etc. "Na vikappetu" means not to release with this name, this shows that one who has released the three robes in this way is not tecīvariko, because the rules to be done such as not being separated, etc., are not to be done for him, as with the assigned three robes, but there is no fault in releasing," it is said. However, in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (vajira. ṭī. pārājika 469), "ticīvaraṃ adhiṭṭhātu" here, ticīvaraṃ is suitable to be assigned by the assigning of the three robes, or I allow to assign that which is not to be released by the assigning of the three robes; because there is no time limit for that assigning, I allow to assign it always to one who wants to, but I do not allow to release it after setting a time limit; however, it is allowable to release it at any time when there is a reason, after disassigning it, this is established by the statement, ‘anāpatti antodasāhaṃ adhiṭṭheti vikappetī’."

Among these three ṭīkā statements, however, the third statement seems more correct. Why? Because of comparing with the Pāḷi and the Aṭṭhakathā. How? In the Pāḷi, it is stated that after making a limit, in the two, the vassikasāṭika and kaṇḍupaṭicchādi, it is allowable to release it after that, but it is not allowable to release others; therefore, in those, in the absence of a reason, it must always be assigned, it is not to be released, this is what appears to be the meaning of the Pāḷi. However, in the other two, it is to be assigned only at the time allowed, "tato paraṃ vikappetu" thus it agrees with the Pāḷi, in the Aṭṭhakathā, I allow to assign the three robes to one who keeps the three robes in the manner of three robes, but not to release it. However, it is allowable to only release the vassikasāṭika after four months, not to assign it, and thus, an opportunity is given to one who wishes to be separated from the three robes with one robe, to release it for the sake of the happiness of being separated, after disassigning the robe.

In the first statement, "na vikappetu" the meaning is stated as "na vikappetu" after stating the name, thus, in "tato paraṃ vikappetu" there would be the meaning of releasing after stating the name after that, and that meaning is stated in the chapter on releasing, and if "nāmaṃ vatvā" is to be made as a specification, then there would be no difference in the statement "na vikappetu" and "tato paraṃ vikappetu," because in all the robes, it is to be released without stating the name, and in the second statement, "na vikappetu" means not to release with this name, the remaining text is na anujānāmīti. And in the first, "ticīvaraṃ vā hotu aññaṃ vā, yadi taṃ taṃ nāmaṃ gahetvā vikappeti, avikappitaṃ hoti, atirekacīvaraṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī." And in the second, "na pana vikappane doso," and that seems contradictory to each other, therefore this should be examined.

Tato paraṃ vikappetu means it is allowable to release and use after four months, as it is said in the three gaṇṭhipadas. But some say, "it is allowed to keep it after releasing it after that until the four months of the rains in the coming year." "It should not be understood that by just saying, 'tato paraṃ vikappetuṃ anujānāmīti', it is allowed to release the vassikasāṭika etc. by taking that name. Because after that there is no name of vassikasāṭika etc., why should it not be released by taking the name even by one who releases after that? Because the use of both is allowed after releasing it after that, it should be used after assigning it with another name that is released in that way," as it is said in the three gaṇṭhipadas," as it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) also, "tato paranti it is allowed to release and use after four months, some say. Others say, 'it is allowable to keep it after releasing it until the coming rains.' Others say, 'there is no fault in releasing, that which is released in that way should be used after assigning it with the name parikkhāra etc.'"

Muṭṭhipañcakanti means five marked by a fist, muṭṭhipañcakaṃ, meaning it should be measured by measuring four cubits and making the fifth hand a fist. But some say, "muṭṭhipañcakaṃ is five fist-hands. All five hands should be measured by making fists." Muṭṭhittikanti here too, this is the method. He says that the antaravāsaka can cover the timaṇḍala with two cubits, "pārupanenapī" etc. Atirekanti means more than the sugatacīvara. Ūnakanti means less than muṭṭhipañcakādito. And he shows that the assigning of the three robes does not apply to those.

Imaṃ saṅghāṭiṃ paccuddharāmīti means I withdraw the assigning of this saṅghāṭi, I renounce it. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469), "paccuddharāmīti means I put it aside, or I renounce it," only this is said. Kāyavikāraṃ karontenāti means by touching or moving the robe with the hand. Vācāya adhiṭṭhātabbāti here, it should be understood that assigning is included by both body and speech by moving with the body as well and breaking with speech, because it is to be said "kāyena aphusitvā," assigning is of two kinds, ahatthapāsa and hatthapāsa. Therein, "hatthapāsonāma means one and a half cubits. Some say 'twelve cubits,' but that does not agree here," as it is said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469). "Now, in order to show the two kinds of assigning, sammukhāparammukhābhedena, "sace hatthapāsetiādi is said. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469), "hatthapāsa here is said with reference to twelve cubits, therefore it should be assigned by saying 'ima' when standing within twelve cubits, it should be assigned by saying 'eta' after that, some say, but nothing is said about this in the gaṇṭhipadas, everywhere in the Pāḷi and Aṭṭhakathā 'hatthapāso' means one and a half cubits, therefore a reason should be sought here for a special interpretation." Thus, in the Pāḷi and Aṭṭhakathā, hatthapāsa is stated as only one and a half cubits, and that is accepted by the ṭīkā teachers, therefore a robe that is within one and a half cubits should be assigned by saying "ima," and that which is outside should be assigned by saying "eta."

"Sāmantavihāre" here refers to keeping it within a suitable place that can be observed. Even if it is far away, it should be kept in a suitable place within sight. The observation of the placing of the robe is the standard here. Because it is not possible to observe the permanent place, it is not suitable to determine "having kept in one monastery, it is kept in another monastery." Some say that "even if determined in that way, there is no offense," but this does not agree with the commentary; it should be investigated," as stated in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.469). In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.469): "Sāmantavihāro means where one can go and return on the same day. Sāmantavihāre is merely an expression, therefore, having observed the place where it is kept, even if it is far away, it should be determined." Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā is stated considering the observation of the placing of the robe is appropriate, but the observation of the robe itself is the standard here." And in the Vajirabuddhiṭīkā (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 469): "Saṅghāṭi, uttarāsaṅga, and antaravāsaka are the same names for determined and undetermined robes. In ‘Ayaṃ saṅghāṭī’ etc., undetermined robes are mentioned. In ‘Ticīvarena vippavaseyyā’ it is mentioned as determined. Sāmantavihāre means from the village for alms to the monastery, according to Dhammasiri Thera. The teachers say that it can be obtained even from further away. In the Anugaṇṭhipada also, ‘Sāmantavihāre is merely an expression, therefore, having observed the place where it is kept, even if it is far away, it should be determined’ is stated. Sāmantavihāro means where one can go and return on the same day. One who protects against spending the night away should not determine something far away from there; thus, it is said in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā. Some say, ‘If someone places a robe on the robe rack and another person moves it and places it on a peg, even if he determines it without knowing, it is valid because the robe has been observed,’" therefore, the differing opinions of the teachers should be considered and adopted.

Adhiṭṭhahitvā ṭhapitavatthehī means with robes that have been determined and put away, called parikkhāracoḷa. Therefore, he shows the revocation of parikkhāracoḷa by saying, "I revoke this." And with this, he indicates that a monk maintaining the dhutaṅga of possessing three robes, who is unable to make and dye a robe obtained through paṃsukūla etc. within ten days, should let the ten days pass only after determining it as a parikkhāracoḷa, otherwise, it becomes nissaggiya. Therefore, in the Visuddhimagga (Visuddhi. 1.25) it is said, "But from the time of dyeing, it is not proper to put it away; he is called a dhutaṅga thief." Puna adhiṭṭhātabbānī This is stated with reference to one who wishes to determine and use the robes beginning with the saṅghāṭi, etc.; for the other, the previous determination is sufficient. Puna adhiṭṭhātabba by this, it shows that the kappa bindu should also be given. Adhiṭṭhānakiccaṃ natthī by this, it shows that there is no need to give kappa bindu; mahantataramevā etc., is a characteristic common to all determinations. There, "puna adhiṭṭhātabbanti" because it is a part of an undetermined robe, if it is undetermined, because of the insignificance of the determined one, it goes to the category of undetermined, similarly, if it is determined, because it is a part of the undetermined one, it goes to the category of undetermined, this is the characteristic. And not only the second layer here, but also the third layer etc. As he said, "I allow, monks...pe... a four-layered saṅghāṭi of discarded cloths...pe... as needed from a dust heap" (Mahāva. 348).

‘‘ticīvaraṃ panā’’tiādi is stated. Parikkhāracoḷaṃ adhiṭṭhātu means to determine as a parikkhāracoḷa. Avasesā bhikkhū means the monks who are sitting at the time of speaking. Tasmā vaṭṭatī just as it is said, "I allow, monks, to determine the three robes, but not to disjoin" (Mahāva. 358), so too, parikkhāracoḷa is mentioned, but neither its highest limit nor its numerical limit is mentioned. Therefore, it is suitable to revoke all three robes and determine these robes as parikkhāracoḷa and use them, this is the meaning. Nidhānamukhameta this determination of parikkhāracoḷa is an opening for storing, an opening for placing, a reason for placing extra robes, this is the meaning. How is it known? At that time, the monks have complete three robes, and there is a need for strainers and bags. In this matter, because "I allow, monks, parikkhāracoḷaka" is allowed, and the monks need only one strainer or bag, not two or three, and because there is no rejection, strainers etc., of limited size, appropriate size, or extra size, are allowed, it is established. First, it should be determined by the determination of the three robes, then, one who is unable to use it should revoke it and determine it as parikkhāracoḷa, but not like this from the beginning. Because there is the possibility of an avippavāsasīmā agreement within a baddhasīmā, there is no offense in being separated from the robe, so it is not difficult to avoid, therefore he says, ‘‘abaddhasīmāya dupparihāra’’nti.

45. Cutting to an excessive size is a pācittiya, so he says ‘‘anatirittappamāṇā’’ti. Tato paraṃ paccuddharitvā vikappetabbā after that, after the vassika month, the determination should be revoked and disjoined, by this, it is known that the determination remains for more than four vassika months, because there is no possibility of revoking what does not exist, and what is said in the mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Kathinasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) "the vassikasāṭikā relinquishes its determination even after the vassa months have passed, or after the suppression of scabies," this is not in the Samantapāsādikā, and in the parivāraṭṭhakathā also, "it incurs an offense in the hemanta, not in the gimha" is not mentioned there, one incurs an offense in the hemanta when wearing a vassikasāṭikā that was disjoined and put away on the last paṭipada day of Kattika Puṇṇamāsī. But in the Kurundī, "one incurs an offense in the hemanta without revoking it on the Kattika Puṇṇamā day" is said, that too is well said. Because it is said, "to determine for four months, after that, to disjoin." There, in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā, a dukkaṭa offense is said because of wearing it, but in the Kurunda-aṭṭhakathā, it is because of not revoking it, therefore, it is understood that even if the vassa season has passed, the determination of the vassikasāṭikā does not lapse according to the method stated in the Kurundī. And in the lapsing of determinations, the lapsing upon the passing of the vassa months or illnesses is not mentioned even in the mātikāṭṭhakathā, therefore, it should be taken that the determination remains until revocation, according to the method given in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.469).

‘‘vaṇṇabhedamattarattāpi cesā vaṭṭatī’’ti is said. Dve pana na vaṭṭantī By this, it shows that a second determination is not valid even for saṅghāṭi etc., because it becomes an extra robe. In the Mahāpaccari, "no offense" is said with reference to the absence of the function of use as a robe, like a spread given for the purpose of using the senāsana. But what is said "even the paccattharaṇa should be determined," that is limited to the purpose of the senāsana, because it is included among the nine robes, therefore, it should be taken that having determined it in one's own name, having stored it away, it should be used as one wishes, like parikkhāracoḷa. pāvārokojavoti because these are also used in the world as paccattharaṇa etc., a separate mention is made from the paccattharaṇa given for the purpose of senāsana parikkhāra. If another vassikasāṭikā arises at the end, one says that the previous vassikasāṭikā should be revoked, disjoined, and determined.

pamāṇayutta means endowed with the measure, "in length, two sugata spans, in width, one and a half, ten spans." But that is three cubits long in terms of the carpenter's cubit measured by the middle man's hand, two cubits with six fingers extra in width, ten spans extra, now in terms of people's natural cubit, it is four cubits extra a span in length, three cubits with nine fingers extra in width, two cubits with ten fingers extra, less than that is allowed, not more, because it is said "to one who exceeds that, it is a cutting pācittiya" (pāci. 533). pamāṇikā for kaṇḍupaṭicchādi, because it is said "in length, four sugata spans, across, two spans" (pāci. 538), it is endowed with the measure stated thus, but that is six cubits long in terms of the carpenter's cubit, three cubits in width, now in terms of the natural cubit, it should be understood that it is nine cubits long, four cubits extra a span across. Vikappanūpagapacchimacīvarappamāṇaṃ parikkhāracoḷa here, the measure of vikappanūpagapacchimacīvara is eight fingers long in terms of the sugata finger, four fingers across, one cubit long in terms of the carpenter's cubit, a span in width, now in terms of the natural cubit, it is one cubit extra a span in length, a span with six fingers extra in width. Therefore, he says ‘‘tassa pamāṇa’’ntiādi.

Bhesajjatthāyātiādīsu regarding those things which, having released them from being one's own property, he has kept aside, ‘‘anadhiṭṭhitepi natthi āpattī’’ti is stated, "for this medicine, this for my mother," the meaning is that one who sets it aside, having separated it by releasing it from being one's property, there is no need for determination. But they say that one who sets it aside thinking, "I will buy medicine with this, I will give this to my mother," should definitely determine it. Senāsanaparikkhāratthāya dinnapaccattharaṇe here, they say that it is suitable not to determine even a paccattharaṇa that is given for the purpose of spreading it only on beds and seats without wearing or covering it, even if it is one's own. But below, because it is stated without distinction that even the paccattharaṇa should be determined, it is our opinion that what is one's own should definitely be determined, it should be considered and adopted. Tante ṭhitaṃyeva adhiṭṭhātabba here, what is later separated is already determined, there is no need for re-determination. But if it is separated from time to time, showing a boundary, they say that it should be re-determined. Eseva nayo means that even with a small amount of vikappanūpagappamāṇa, what remains on the loom should be determined.

46. Regarding ‘‘Hīnāyāvattanenā’’: In all three gaṇṭhipadas, it is stated, ‘by returning to a lower state, by undertaking the state of a householder without renouncing the training.’ This is fitting because, like giving to another, the robe is relinquished with no attachment. However, some say, ‘‘‘Hīnāyāvattanenā’’ means only by a bhikkhuni undertaking the state of a householder. But even if a bhikkhu is disoriented, as long as he does not renounce the training, he is still a bhikkhu and does not abandon his determination.’ This should not be accepted, because it is not specifically stated as ‘by a bhikkhuni returning to a lower state.’ For a bhikkhuni, the abandonment of determination by undertaking the state of a householder does not need to be stated separately, since she becomes a non-ascetic simply by disorientation. Regarding ‘‘Sikkhāpaccakkhānenā’’, this is said to show that even if someone renounces the training while still in the guise of a bhikkhu, the robe touching the body loses its determination,’ as stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.469). In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469), however, it is stated, ‘‘‘Hīnāyāvattanenā’ refers to taking on the garb of a householder or a titthiya, due to indifference towards the state of a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni after committing the final offense or after defecting to the titthiyas. Some say it refers to undertaking the state of a householder without renouncing the training, but that is not fitting, because even then, since he is ordained and the robe belongs to him, it cannot be abandoned.’’ Thus, these two statements appear contradictory.

In the Commentary, however, since "hīnāyāvattanena sikkhāpaccakkhānenā" (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469) is stated separately, the intention seems to be that even if the training is not renounced when returning to a lower state, the robe loses its determination. And even if one does not return to a lower state when renouncing the training. Therefore, even if one remains a bhikkhu, the robe belongs to him, and it can be abandoned when merely taking on the state of a householder without renouncing the training, similarly, the determination is relinquished by merely taking on the state of a householder, just as with a change of attire. And even if one does not take on the state of a householder, but merely renounces the training, even though the bhikkhu's appearance remains, the robe belongs to him, and it can be abandoned. Thus, the determination is relinquished by merely renouncing the training, just as with disrobing. Therefore, whether bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, the robe loses its determination upon taking on the guise of a householder with the intention of returning to a lower state. However, the robe of a bhikkhu loses determination by renouncing the training, since a bhikkhuni does not renounce the training; this is our understanding. But the relinquishing of determination for the robe of one who has committed the last offense or defected to the titthiyas is not mentioned in the Commentary, and since there is no use of the term 'returning to a lower state' for them, it needs to be considered.

Kaniṭṭhaṅgulinakhavasenā: indicates the lower limit of the cloth. Regarding ‘‘Orato parato’’, it is said here, ‘‘A hole near severs the determination; not from far.’’ How should near and far be understood? Just as in a region defined by a river, the bank on the side where people live is called the near bank, and the bank on the other side is called the far bank, similarly, for bhikkhus, the middle part of the robe, which is the place for dwelling and covering, within the measure of a vidatthi and so forth, is called near, and the edge of the robe is called far, according to worldly convention. Or, as when it is said, "Keep the robe with the near part as the place for enjoyment and the far part as the end," the part facing the bhikkhu is called near, and the other part is called far. Thus, for bhikkhus, the place for dwelling and covering is called near, and the other is called far. In this way, near and far should be understood according to the Teaching. Therefore, "If one first places a lock on the weak spot and then cuts and removes the weak spot, the determination is not broken. The same method applies to changing the shape", the breaking or not breaking of the determination in the entire robe is shown. Therefore, the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.469) states, ‘‘This method includes the meaning that the determination is relinquished in any hole with proper measure.’’

Khuddakaṃ cīvara: A small robe is not less than the measure of five fists, etc. ‘‘Mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ karotī’’: Here, the intention is that if one cuts around the area where the hole does not break the determination on the four sides of the three robes, the determination is not broken when making it smaller. The Vimativinodanī, however, states, ‘‘mahantaṃ vā khuddakaṃ vā karotī’’: Here, it is established that even if a very large robe is made to fit the ultimate measure of five fists, etc., by cutting all around, the place being cut at the time of cutting does not become a hole, and the determination is not broken. This agrees with the saying, 'It does not break when joined and cut.' However, if a parikkhāracoḷa is made smaller than the ultimate measure subject to assignment, the hole breaks the determination, because the determination is not dependent. These, when bound and joined, must be determined again. Some, however, say, 'If the vassikasāṭika robe is cut in two, even if each piece is of the ultimate measure, the determination remains in one piece, not in the other, but the two are not suitable.' The same method applies to sitting cloths and bandages."

47. Sammukhā: Occurring in one's presence is a reflexive word, and it is an attribute of assignment. Therefore, some explain the meaning by making "sammukhe" an indeclinable word in the plural, meaning in front of. Or, assignment with one's own voice in one's presence is sammukhāvikappanā. Assignment behind one's back is parammukhāvikappanā, the meaning should also be seen in the instrumental sense. This agrees with the Pali. Sannihitāsannihitabhāva: means nearness and distance. Ettāvatā nidhetuṃ vaṭṭatī: The intention is that since the business of assignment is finished with just this much, it is not an extra robe, so it does not produce nissaggiya upon exceeding ten days. Paribhuñjituṃ…pe… na vaṭṭatī: refers to a pācittiya for using without disassigning oneself, and a dukkaṭa for assigning to others when determining. Paribhogādayopi vaṭṭantī: means that use, assignment, and determination are allowable. The word Api implies that it is also allowable to store. This shows that even when disassigned, a robe that one wishes to determine is still an assigned robe, not an extra robe; that should be determined with the name of the triple robe, etc., and the other should be used as an assigned robe.

Some, however, say, "The assigned robe should be stored without being disassigned until the time of use. When the time of use arrives, it should be disassigned, determined, and then used. For if one were to disassign it even before that, it would become an extra robe because the assignment has been removed by the disassignment, and nissaggiya arises as soon as ten days have passed. Therefore, what should be kept without being used should be assigned. And once disassigned, it must be determined within ten days. What is said in the Commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469), 'after that, use, etc., is allowable,' contradicts the Pali." This is merely their own opinion. For in the Pali, it is said generally, "He may determine or assign within ten days" (pārā. 469), "Having assigned a robe himself, if he uses it without disassigning it, there is a pācittiya" (pāci. 373), and "There is no offense if he gives it away or uses it with confidence" (pāci. 376). And in the Commentary (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.469), without showing disassignment with "I disassign this robe or assignment," it is said, "Use it, give it away, or do as you see fit, since it is mine," thus, without relinquishing ownership, use, etc., is stated as disassignment. "From then on, use, etc., is allowable" because use and storage are stated separately without determination. Therefore, it is evident that using and storing a robe fit for assignment, which lacks the triple robe, can be done separately immediately after assignment, even after disassigning without determining, and that this is a distinct act of discipline. Moreover, it is established that the state of having extra bowls is shown for the many bowls that are mentioned for assigning and disassigning, since only one of them should be determined. Therefore, it should be understood in accordance with the method given in the Commentary.

Mitto: a firm friend. Sandiṭṭho: merely seen, not a firm friend. Paññattikovido na hotī: does not know the act of discipline of how to disassign immediately after assigning in this way. Therefore, he says, ‘‘na jānāti paccuddharitu’’: does not know how to disassign. By this, it should also be understood that "disassignment should be done immediately after assignment." Vikappitavikappanā nāmesā vaṭṭatī: The idea is like a determination of what has already been determined.

48. Having thus shown the method of determination and assignment for robes, now, showing the method of determination and assignment for bowls, he said, ‘‘patte panā’’, etc. There, patto means that into which alms fall, a special type of alms bowl that is part of the Buddha's dispensation. For it is said, "Patto is said to be in the sense of falling, in the sense of a bowl, and in the sense of going in three." In that patte, Panā is a particle in the sense of another alternative. Nayo: means the method of determination and assignment. This method of determination and assignment for bowls, which is about to be explained, should be understood as different from the method of determination and assignment for robes that has been stated. A bowl should be determined only if it is of proper size, not if it is not of proper size. Therefore, a determination is not effective for bowls that are too small or too large. Therefore, it shows that such a bowl should be used for eating, not for determination or assignment. For he will say, "These should be used for eating, not for determination or assignment."

Dve magadhanāḷiyo: Here, a magadhanāḷi is a measure that holds one and a half palas of water by the māgadhika scale. In Sri Lanka, it is smaller than the natural nāḷi, but larger than the Tamil nāḷi. This has been said in the Samantapāsādikā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.602), "A magadhanāḷi is one and a half palas, according to the Andhra Commentary. In Sri Lanka, the natural nāḷi is larger, the Tamil nāḷi is smaller, equal to the magadhanāḷi measure, one Sri Lankan nāḷi is one and a half of that magadhanāḷi," according to the Great Commentary. Or, a magadhanāḷi is that which holds five kuḍuvas, one fistful, and one-third of one fistful. This has been said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.598-602), "Some say a magadhanāḷi is six hundred nāḷis. Others say eight hundred. There, according to the former opinion, two nāḷis of three hundred nāḷis is one magadhanāḷi. According to the latter, two nāḷis of four hundred nāḷis is one magadhanāḷi. Ācariya Dhammapāla Thera, however, said that by nature, four fistfuls is a kuḍuva, four kuḍuvas is a nāḷika, and sixteen nāḷis of that nāḷika is a doṇa, but twelve nāḷis are magadhanāḷis. Therefore, according to that method, it should be understood that a magadhanāḷi is that which holds five kuḍuvas, one fistful, and one-third of one fistful." There, kuḍuvo means a pasato. For it is said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā –

‘‘A kuḍuva is one pasato;
Four of those are a pattha;
Four patthas are an āḷhaka;
Or four āḷhakas are a doṇa.’’

"Damiḷa nāḷī" refers to an ancient nāḷī measure. It consists of eight kuḍuvas, with each kuḍuva containing four muṭṭhis. Two of these nāḷīs are equivalent to one Magadha nāḷī. Some say an old Sīhaḷa nāḷī is equivalent to three nāḷīs. According to their view, a Magadha nāḷī is equal to four nāḷīs of the current Damiḷa nāḷī, which contains four kuḍuvas. Half of that Magadha nāḷī, known as a pattha, is the measure for a pot called omaka, which holds a pattha of rice. This aligns with the Pali statement that an omaka pot holds a pattha of cooked rice. Also, in common parlance –

‘Lokiya and Magadha, these are the two kinds of patthas mentioned;
Lokiya is sixteen palas, while Magadha is considered double that.’ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.602) –

Ālopassa ālopassa anurūpaṃ means about one-fourth the quantity of cooked rice. This has been stated in the commentary to the Brahmaāyu Sutta in the Majjhima Nikāya (ma. ni. aṭṭha. 2.387): "The measure of sauce is one-fourth the amount of rice." Odanagatikāni means those whose movement (gati) depends on cooked rice (odana). Gati here means opportunity (okāsa); since they have the characteristic of entering into the rice, their opportunity is only in the rice. It means that they do not seek their own separate opportunity. Bhājanaparibhogenā means by using the bowl for fetching water and so on.

He stated "pamāṇayuttānampī" etc. Here, ayopatto pañcahi pākehi patto means the iron bowl should be repeatedly fired with various materials, without merely relying on the firing by the blacksmith, to achieve a color that suits a renunciate and a blue hue. Due to the extreme hardness of the iron bowl, it only achieves a color suitable for a renunciate and a blue hue after being fired five times along with the blacksmith's firing. Mattikāpatto dvīhi pākehi pakko—the same method applies here as well. However, because it is soft, a color suitable for a renunciate and a blue hue is achieved even after being fired twice along with the potter's firing. Only when treated in this way does a bowl become suitable for resolution (adhiṭṭhāna) and rejection (vikalpana); if not, it is unsuitable. Therefore, it will be said, "It is suitable for resolution only when the firing and the base are well-established. That which is suitable for resolution is itself suitable for rejection" (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 48). So hatthaṃ āgatopi anāgatopi adhiṭṭhātabbo vikappetabbo means that even if it is far away, it is permissible to resolve on it and reject it, indicating that merely noting the place where it is kept is sufficient. Now, to elaborate on that very matter, he says, "yadi hī" etc. The word hi indicates elaboration. Here, pacitvā ṭhapessāmī refers to firing it to make it black.

"tattha dve pattassa adhiṭṭhānā" etc. Here, sāmantavihāre is stated by way of illustration; therefore, even if it is far away, it should still be resolved upon. Ṭhapitaṭṭhānaṃ sallakkhetvā is merely conventional; noting the characteristics of the bowl itself is what matters here.

He said "evaṃ appamattassa" etc. Here, patte vā chiddaṃ hotī means there is a hole anywhere starting from about two finger-widths below the rim.

Sattannaṃ dhaññānanti –

‘‘Sāli, vīhi and kudrūsa;
Godhūma, varaka and yava;
Kaṅgū—these are the seven grains;
Nīvāra and others are varieties thereof.’’ –

Of the seven kinds of grains that have been mentioned.

49. Having thus shown the resolution on a bowl, now to show the rejection of a bowl, he says "vikappane panā" etc. This should be understood in the same way as stated for the rejection of a robe.

50. Having thus shown the method of rejection, now to show what should be done when a bowl is broken, he says "evaṃ adhiṭṭhahitvā" etc. Here, apatto also indicates the abandonment of resolution. Even with a bowl that is joined in five places, resolution does not hold, just like with a bowl that is incompletely fired. "Tipupaṭṭena vā" since it is stated, it is permissible to cover a hole in an iron bowl with an appropriate metal such as copper. Therefore, "lohamaṇḍalakenā" is stated. Suddhehi…pe… na vaṭṭatī—this is stated because they melt when placed in hot food. Phāṇitaṃ jhāpetvā pāsāṇacuṇṇena bandhituṃ vaṭṭatī—it is permissible to cook molasses with stone powder and then bind it with the cooked stone powder. Aparibhogenā means by inappropriate use. "Anujānāmi bhikkhave ādhāraka" since it was said, it is permissible to place a bowl on a stand anywhere, such as on a bed or chair, as the location for placing the stand is not fixed, they say.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

The chapter called "Adhiṭṭhānavikappanavinicchayakathālaṅkāro,"

The Eighth Pariccheda.

9. Cīvaravippavāsavinicchayakathā

51. Having thus shown the Adhiṭṭhāna-Vikalpana-Vinicchaya discourse, now to show the decision-making regarding dwelling without a robe, he says "cīvarenavināvāso" etc. Here, cīvaraṃ means that which is accumulated (cīyatīti), that is, accumulation (cayaṃ sañcayaṃ karīyatīti) is done; it is a special type of cloth that is the banner of the noble ones. Here, however, it refers only to the set of three robes that have been resolved upon by way of the three-robe resolution. Vinā is a particle in the sense of exclusion. Vasanaṃ means dwelling (vāso), vinā vāso means dwelling without (vināvāso), cīvarena vināvāso means cīvaravināvāso, it should be seen that it is stated in this way by making an alutta compound, either because of the desire to use a certain expression where "cīvaravippavāso" should be said, or to fill a line of verse. Thus, he will say, "by way of the three-robe resolution…pe…vippavāso," "I resolve upon this saṅghāṭi, I resolve upon this uttarāsaṅga, I resolve upon this antaravāsaka," thus, the meaning is separation from each of the three robes that have been resolved upon by name; it is not permissible to dwell even without one. For a bhikkhu who dwells without a robe, upon the sunrise the robe becomes forfeitable (nissaggiya), and he incurs a pācittiya offense. Vasitabbanti here, the act of dwelling (vasanakiriyā) is common to the four postures; therefore, whether it is touching the body or not, whether he is standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, having placed it within the area of one and a half ratanas, he is said to be dwelling.

"gāmi" etc. Here, gāmanivesanāni are simply settlements. Udosito means a shed for goods like vehicles. Aṭṭo means a special kind of storied building with thick walls made of bricks, four or five stories high, built to repel enemies and so on. Māḷo means a square building with a single roof. Pāsādo means a long building. Hammiyaṃ means a building with a flat roof, and muṇḍacchadanapāsādo also refers to a building with a courtyard and terrace. Sattho means a caravan on foot or a caravan of carts. Khettaṃ means a place where early and late crops grow. Dhaññakaraṇaṃ means a threshing ground. Ārāmo means a flower garden or a fruit garden. Vihārā etc. are simply known. Here, it should be understood that the settlements etc. are taken as being located outside the village. Because those situated inside the village are included in the term "village," it is simply an exclusion from the village. By the term "village," market towns and cities are also included.

Parikhāya vā parikkhitto—by this, he shows that even if it is surrounded on all sides by water such as a river or pond, it is still considered surrounded. Taṃ pamāṇaṃ atikkamitvā—exceeding one and a half ratanas in the sky above the house. Sabhāye vā vatthabbaṃ—by this, he shows that there is the word sabhāya, which is a synonym for the word sabhā, and that it is neuter in gender. The word sabhā is feminine in gender, while the word sabhāya is neuter. Dvāramūle vā—or at the gate of the city. Tesanti—of those assembly halls and city gates. By including the gates of that street, assembly halls, all the houses there and that inner street are also included. Here, one dwelling in the gate street houses must avoid the faults of entering a village and shared lodging and must be well-covered. However, if the assembly hall is made like a free lodging for everyone to dwell in, it should be understood that it is permissible to dwell as one pleases, like in an inner monastery. Atiharitvā ghare nikkhipatī—he puts it in another house located away from the street. Therefore, he says, "vīthihatthapāso na rakkhatī." Purato vā pacchato vā hatthapāse—he speaks with reference to the hand's reach from the house.

He stated "sace ekakulassa santakaṃ nivesanaṃ hotī" etc. Here, ovarako means another room inside a room, or it is said to be a synonym for a room. Now, while showing based on a shed, he says "udositi" etc. Here, vuttanayenevāti—in the same way as stated for a dwelling, such as "a shed belonging to one family is surrounded". The word eva is used to exclude a distinction. Therefore, it shows that there is no distinction.

He stated "sace ekakulassa nāvā" etc. Here, pariyādiyitvā means by making a gap, or by covering it over. He clarifies the stated meaning with "antopaviṭṭhenā" etc. Here, antopaviṭṭhenā means having entered inside the village or river. "Satthenā" is the remainder of the text. Nadīparihāro labbhatī—here, in all three gaṇṭhipada texts, it is stated that "since a river boundary is not specifically mentioned, the hand's reach with the robe is the river boundary, just as it is elsewhere besides villages etc." Others say, "By this statement in the commentary, a river boundary is also separately established, so the hand's reach to the river should not be abandoned." However, just as a forest boundary is obtained by way of the seven interiors in an open space, so too, in a river, a river boundary may be obtained by way of throwing water, which is why a river boundary is not specifically mentioned in the commentary, since the boundaries of throwing water to the seven interiors are obtained in forests and rivers where boundaries have not been established. If this is the case, the boundary is also tacitly established in naturally formed lakes, since they have the same characteristics as a river. However, if the hand's reach to the river should not be abandoned, then because of the river's great expanse and common access, it would not be possible for one standing within hand's reach of the river, having placed the robe inside the river, to know the condition of the robe. This method also applies to naturally formed lakes. However, it is possible for one standing within the reach of throwing water or within hand's reach of it. This is our own opinion; it should be considered carefully. Vihārasīmanti refers to a boundary where there is no separation. Here, because there is the possibility of no separation from the robe everywhere within the defined boundary of no separation, even when the monastery belongs to different families, it is paramount, and so a caravan boundary is not obtained there. Therefore, "vihāraṃ gantvā vasitabba" is stated. Satthasamīpeti is stated according to the aforesaid boundary of the interior.

Since it is said, "having placed the robe in a field surrounded by different families, one should dwell at the gate of the field or within hand's reach of it," therefore, even when dwelling in a field other than at the gate, one must dwell having placed the robe within hand's reach.

Vihāronāma, they say, is the entire dwelling, whether it is surrounded by a boundary or not. Yasmiṃ vihāreti here, however, only one dwelling is mentioned. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.491-494), however, it is said that "vihāronāma is the boundary of the vicinity. Yasmiṃ vihāreti refers to the inner enclosure etc." The ownership by one family etc. here should be understood according to the builders.

Yaṃ majjhanhike kāle samantā chāyā pharatīti refers to the area that the shadow covers when the sun, going directly in the great street, reaches midday. In the Vimativinodanī, however, it is said that "chāyāya phuṭṭhokāsassā refers to the area within the direct, undisturbed falling of a clod of earth." Agamanapatheti—the meaning is in those islands in the middle of the ocean where it is not possible to go and return on the same day. Itarasminti—the robe on the eastern side.

52. Nadiṃ otaratīti: He gets down the river having released his hand-reach. Nāpajjatīti: He does not incur a dukkaṭa due to using it. Therefore, he said, ‘‘so hī’’ and so on. Aparibhogārahattāti: With this, it is established that there is no offence for one who uses a nissaggiya cīvara without relinquishing it, because it is acittaka. Ekaṃ pārupitvā ekaṃ aṃsakūṭe ṭhapetvā gantabbanti: This was said considering that traveling in a place where many people are moving about without doing so is not appropriate, not because it is a part of the offence. Because it was said that it should not be worn even after leaving it outside the village, it was said ‘‘vinayakammaṃ kātabba’’nti. Or else, he does not see a fellow bhikkhu in the monastery; in such a case, the interpretation is that he should go to the assembly hall and perform the act of discipline. When going to the assembly hall, why should he go with three robes? He said, ‘‘santaruttarenā’’ti, because the robe that was lost was satisfied with the santaruttara. But what should be done with the saṅghāṭi? He said, ‘‘saṅghāṭiṃ bahigāme ṭhapetvā’’. Having first performed the act of discipline on the uttarāsaṅga and the saṅghāṭi that was left outside the village, he should then wear the uttarāsaṅga and do it on the antaravāsaka. And here it should be understood that even if it is left outside the village, it is permissible to relinquish what is facing away and to give away what has been relinquished, since the act of discipline is mentioned.

‘‘nissayo pana na paṭippassambhatī’’ti was said. Muhuttaṃ…pe… paṭippassambhatīti was said because the zealous going was interrupted, but for those who get up before dawn and go zealously, it does not cease even if dawn arises in between, because it was said, "lying down until sunrise." Therefore, ‘‘gāmaṃ pavisitvā…pe… na paṭippassambhatī’’ti was said. In Aññamaññassa vacanaṃ aggahetvāti and so on, cessation was not mentioned at the moment of going due to zealousness. Dhenubhayenāti: Due to the fear of being struck by the horn of young cows that have calves running after them. Nissayo ca paṭippassambhatīti: Here, because those standing in fear of cows etc. must stand until the fear subsides, it was said because it is not possible to resolve, "I will go only before dawn." But where it is possible to resolve thus, the dependence does not cease even if dawn rises in between, like the young ones who have entered the village for medicine.

Antosīmāyaṃ gāmanti: He speaks with reference to the village established after the boundary agreement without emigration, because the village and the vicinity of the village should be agreed upon after setting them aside. Paviṭṭhānanti: Because of the boundary without emigration for the preceptor and pupils who have gone separately, neva cīvarāni nissaggiyāni honti, saussāhatāya na nissayo paṭippassambhati. Antarāmaggeti: On the way for those coming after hearing the Dhamma.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Entitled "The Elaboration on the Judgement of Robe-Separation,"

The Ninth Chapter.

10. Bhaṇḍapaṭisāmanavinicchayakathā

53. Having spoken thus about the judgment of robe-separation, now, in order to speak about the judgment of handling goods, he said ‘‘bhaṇḍassa paṭisāmana’’nti and so on. There, that which should be divided or shared is bhaṇḍaṃ, or that which should be desired is bhaṇḍaṃ, or beings sport with this, therefore it is bhaṇḍaṃ, capital, or equipment. For it was said in the Abhidhānappadīpikā –

"Equipment such as vessels, and capital too, are bhaṇḍa."

paṭisāmanaṃ: protection, guarding, is the meaning. Therefore, he said ‘‘paresaṃ bhaṇḍassa gopana’’nti. Mātu kaṇṇapiḷandhanaṃ tālapaṇṇampīti: The pi indicates probability. Therefore, it shows that it belongs to unknown persons in particular. Gihisantakanti: With this, he shows that it is permissible to return the property of the five co-religionists. Bhaṇḍāgārikasīsenāti: With this, he shows that there is no offence for one who takes it with confidence, etc., and returns it. Therefore, he will say, "Having taken it for one's own purpose, it should be returned." Chandenapi bhayenapīti: In the case of carpenters and so on, by desire; in the case of royal favorites and so on, by fear, when they are forcibly overthrown, it should be construed that it is permissible to return them.

Dāne saussāho, rakkhati tāvāti: Because it was not said with reference to misappropriation, if he speaks falsely with "I do not take it," there is only a pācittiya, not a dukkaṭa, because there is no intention to steal and because there is no shared use, it should be understood.

Yadipi mukhena dassāmīti vadati…pe… pārājikanti: Here, by which application is there an offence? Not by the first application of returning the goods, because there is no intention to steal at that time, nor by the application of saying "I will give," because even if there is an intention to steal at that time, the application is allowable? It is said: even though he is repeatedly asked by the owner, he does not give it, and by which application he makes known his unwillingness to give to the owner, and by which the owner, knowing that this person is unwilling to give, abandons the responsibility, by that very application there is an offence for him. Here, there is no release by means of a pretext in the case of entrusted goods. Indeed, if, due to unwillingness to give, the owner is made to abandon responsibility even by pretextual words such as "When did I give it to you? Where did I give it to you?", there is an offence. Therefore, it was said in the commentary, "What are you saying?...pe...the bhikkhu incurs a pārājika through the abandonment of responsibility by both." Indeed, the release from another's property by having others take it is only by means of a pretext, not everywhere, it should be understood. Attano hatthe nikkhittattāti: Here, because it was given into his own hand by the owner and because he is standing in the position of a storekeeper, there is no misappropriation even if he moves from that place, but he is not freed from a dukkaṭa if he takes it with the intention to steal, it should be understood. Eseva nayoti: There is no misappropriation, but the goods must be given, is the meaning.

54. Pañcannaṃ sahadhammikānanti: Of monks, nuns, female trainees, novices, and female novices. With this, he shows that it is not only permissible to return the property of laypersons, but also not permissible to return the property of ascetics, wanderers, etc. Naṭṭhepi gīvā na hoti: There is no responsibility even if it is lost. Why? Because it was not acknowledged. In the second case, eseva nayoti: There is no responsibility. Why? Because it was not known. And in the third case, eseva nayoti: There is no responsibility. Why? Because it was rejected. And here, even if it is rejected by body, speech, or mind, it is indeed called rejected.

Tasseva gīvā hoti: The responsibility is his alone, not of the other bhikkhus. Why? Because the storekeeper alone has authority over the store. Bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti: The storekeeper has no responsibility because it was taken out of negligence, just like a lazy person. In the second case, bhaṇḍāgārikassa gīvā na hoti: The storekeeper has no responsibility because it was not announced to him. Naṭṭhe tassa gīvā: If it is lost, the responsibility is his because he had kept it. Tasseva gīvā: The responsibility is his alone, not of others, because it was acknowledged and kept by that storekeeper. Natthi gīvā: There is no responsibility because it was rejected by him. Naṭṭhaṃ sunaṭṭhameva: The loss is indeed a complete loss because it was not acknowledged by the storekeeper. Naṭṭhe gīvā: If it is lost, there is responsibility because he had kept it. Sabbaṃ tassa gīvā: All the responsibility is his, because the storekeeper took it out of negligence. Tattheva upacāre vijjamāneti: When he is present in the vicinity of the storekeeper, in the place for urination and defecation.

55. Mayi ca mate saṅghassa ca senāsane vinaṭṭheti: Here, some say that it is permissible to reveal it even with the intention that the monastery of the Saṅgha alone should not be destroyed. Even if it is said only to the extent of "I will kill him," vivarituṃ vaṭṭati, it is permissible to reveal it, because it was said that it is "not applicable because it stands on the side of the sick." For after death, there is neither sickness nor inapplicability. Even if it is said only to the extent of "We will cut down the door and take it," it is still permissible to reveal it. Sahāyehi bhavitabbanti: It was said that they should also search with alms-seeking etc., and give something from their own possessions. Ayañhi sāmīcīti: This is the proper course of conduct for those living in the store. Lolamahātheroti: A foolish, confused, crowded-dwelling, always playful great elder.

56. Itarehīti: By the bhikkhus living in that same room. Appointed to the duty of protecting the monastery is the vihāravāriko, the monastery watchman, the one who protects the monastery in his turn according to the order of seniority. Nivāpanti: food wage. Corānaṃ paṭipathaṃ gatesūti: When they know the arrival of thieves and go towards the thieves, thinking, "We will go earlier and make a noise." The same method applies even if they go after them, thinking, "We will bring back the goods seized by the thieves." Nibaddhaṃ katvāti: Having made a regulation such as "Rice-gruel is only for the monastery watchmen in such-and-such a family." Dve tisso yāgusalākā ca cattāri pañca salākabhattāni ca labhamānovāti: This is merely a statement of example; whether it is less or more than that, the mere fact that he obtains enough to support himself and his attendant is the measure to be taken. Nissitake jaggāpentīti: While supporting their own dependents by alms-seeking, they protect the monastery with their dependents. Asahāyassāti: For one without a companion. "Asahāyassa adutiyassā"ti is the proper reading. The latter is merely a synonym of the former. However, in this reading of "Asahāyassa vā attadutiyassa vāti," some say that the turn is prevented even for one who has himself as a second, because what is brought by one is not enough for two, but that does not agree with "For whom there is no fellow bhikkhu who brings and gives food," it should be investigated. However, in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.112), ‘‘attadutiyassāti, for one who is of few desires. Indeed, one who has only his own body as a second, not another, is one who has himself as a second; the illustration of both of those meanings is "For whom" and so on. By all this, he shows that the turn should not be given to each one."

Pākavattatthāyāti: For the purpose of the regular duty consisting of rice-gruel which should be cooked constantly. Ṭhapentīti: The donors establish it. Taṃ gahetvāti: Having taken that portion given by the attendants etc. Upajīvantena ṭhātabbanti: Even one who lives on alms or at the foot of a tree should remain, having reached his turn for the monastery watch, depending on the regular cooking, for the sake of protecting his bowl and robe. Na gāhāpetabboti: Here, even if one who lives on alms has more equipment of his own kept there, and there is attachment even to the monastic share of robes, etc., he too should be made to take it. Paripucchanti: Asking questions and answering them, or the commentary. Diguṇanti: Twice as much as what is obtained by others. Pakkhavārenāti: Every half month.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Entitled "The Elaboration on the Judgement of Handling Goods,"

The Tenth Chapter.

11. Kayavikkayasamāpattivinicchayakathā

57. Having spoken thus about the judgment of handling goods, now, while speaking about the judgment of buying and selling, he said ‘‘kayavikkayasamāpattī’’ti and so on. There, buying is kayo, taking another's goods, selling is vikkayo, giving one's own goods; kayo ca vikkayo ca is kayavikkayaṃ. Samāpajjanaṃ is samāpatti, the doing of that twofold action. He shows its form with ‘‘iminā’’ and so on.

‘‘mātaraṃ vā pana pitaraṃ vā’’tiādi was said. Therefore, he shows that there is neither entreaty nor giving in faith nor surrendering for one who says "Give this to me with this," but he incurs buying and selling for one who says "Give this to me with this." And with this and with "unknown" above and so on, it is also shown by the migapadavalañjana method that for one who says "Give this" to a remaining relative, there is no entreaty, but for one who gives, saying "Take this," there is surrendering in faith, and for one who incurs buying and selling, saying "Give this with this," it is nissaggiya. Tasmā and so on, too, should be understood in the same way, thinking that it was not said because it is possible to know by that very method that "Buying and selling with mother and father, two offences with remaining relatives, three offences with unknown persons" should be stated, otherwise there would be the fault of non-application.

‘‘Ettha cā’’ti and so on, he shows that a pācittiya should be confessed even if there is no nissaggiya object.

It is permissible to ask the price, meaning that a purchase and sale do not occur merely by asking the price. It is permissible to take it, because there is no statement such as "Give me this for that," a purchase and sale does not occur; nor is there an announcement due to the existence of a price. A bowl should not be taken due to the high value of another's property. If that is the case, how should it be done? He says, "One should state, 'My item is of little value.'" It falls into the state of having the goods appraised and made due to the possibility of theft. If it is priced less than a māsaka, there is a dukkata. If it is priced from a māsaka up to less than five māsakas, there is a thullaccaya. If it is priced at five māsakas, it is said to be a pārājika. He gives, it is permissible, because it is given for the sake of merit, for something extra. But for a kappiyakāraka…pe…it is permissible because it is kappiya property from both sides. If it is akappiya property from one or both sides, it is not permissible. "Do not take it" should be said, why? Because the kappiyakāraka is not astute.

He needs what has not been accepted by another, why? Because oil is allowed for a week. Accepted oil should be kept for a maximum of seven days; therefore, one who wishes to keep it beyond that needs unaccepted oil. He might spoil unaccepted oil, unaccepted oil for an indefinite time and accepted oil left in a coconut shell should make his time pass.

58. This set of four bowls should be understood refers to a set of four akappiya bowls; the fifth, however, is kappiya. Therefore, he will say, "This bowl is entirely kappiya, fit for use even by the Buddhas." This bowl is called greatly akappiya, why? Because after acquiring silver, he produced iron ore and had the bowl made from that metal; thus, it is tainted from the very beginning of the ore. Just as in the case of the third pārājika, with immovable uses, such as stakes and impaling posts, if anything remains—even a bit of stick or bark—from those made from the beginning, one is not freed; one is freed only when everything is destroyed. Similarly here, because it was made from the beginning of the ore, it is not possible for that bowl to become kappiya even if something remains in the bowl. And so he will say, "Even if he destroys it and makes a plate, that too is akappiya," etc. Even so, might it be possible to make it kappiya if the price is given to the owners of the price as in the case of the second bowl, and the bowl to the owners of the bowl? To dispel that doubt, he says, "It is not possible to make it kappiya by any means." Its meaning is: the second bowl is bought by accepting silver and having it finished by laypeople; it is not tainted from the beginning of the ore. Therefore, it is possible to make the second bowl kappiya. Here, however, because it is tainted from the beginning of the ore, and because that bhikkhu is unable to turn that bowl back into iron ore, and because the accepted silver has been embezzled and cannot be given back to the owners, it is not possible to make it kappiya by any means.

He says, "Even if…" etc. By this, he shows that if anything at all remains of the iron material, it remains akappiya. Therefore, it is said in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.591): "Having acquired silver" this is said from the standpoint of the highest standard; it is not permissible to make the five things even by acquiring inferior materials like pearls. "He produces" means he produces it himself by going or by ordering another, saying, "Give this kahāpana etc. to the artisans and have them produce the ore." "Mahāakappiya" is said because it is tainted from the very beginning of the ore by oneself, and because there is no owner of the price. Even if it is cut off by thieves and recovered, it is not permissible for anyone who knows. For if it were permissible, the teachers would say, "What is cut off is permissible," as with ponds and the like. "It is not possible by any means" means it is not possible to make it kappiya even by assigning it to the Sangha or by thieves cutting it off. And this is said in reference to that which remains in that form and that which remains in the form of cloth, pearls, etc., which are based on it. For even an object that incurs a dukkata and a kappiya object that is based on it cannot be made kappiya in that form by any means. If, however, that bhikkhu were to have silver obtained again with that kappiya object or the object that incurs a dukkata, it should be seen that it would be possible to make something else kappiya after having that silver renounced." But what is elaborated in the Sāratthadīpanī, and what is elaborated in the ancient commentary, taking that very thing, will become excessively lengthy when spoken in detail, and difficult for listeners to understand. Therefore, we have said only this much; those who are interested should take it by looking at those various treatises.

It is not permissible for even the five fellow-dwellers because silver has been accepted and a purchase and sale has been made. But it is possible to make it kappiya because only a bowl finished by laypeople has been bought, because it has not been tainted from the beginning of the ore, and because the price and the owners of the price and the bowl and the owners of the bowl exist. To show how it is possible, he says, "With the price…" etc.

It is just like it indicates this principle: "It is not permissible for even the five fellow-dwellers, but it is possible to make it kappiya." Now, the third bowl was taken with kappiya usage, so why is it akappiya? To address that objection, he says, "Even if it is taken with kappiya usage, it is just like the second bowl, it is akappiya because the price has been accepted." He himself states the second objection. And here, because it is said "It is just like the second bowl," it should be seen that it becomes kappiya when the price is given to the owners of the price and the bowl to the owners of the bowl, and it is permissible to take, receive, and use the kappiya item after giving kappiya goods. Because the price has not been relinquished because the price with which the bowl was bought has not been relinquished in the midst of the Sangha. By this, he shows that only the silver should be relinquished, not the non-silver based on it. If the accepted price had been relinquished in the midst of the Sangha, a bowl given by the ārāmikas etc. after taking it with that kappiya act would be permissible for the remaining bhikkhus, except for the one who accepted the silver.

Because it was improperly considered because it was taken, saying "Give this for these kahāpanas," meaning that it is not permissible for this bhikkhu who is considering the fault because the laypeople's kahāpanas were improperly considered. Because the price has not been accepted by this he shows that the price belongs to the laypeople, and by that he also shows that the bowl did not arise through the use of silver, and by that he indicates the absence of relinquishment for that bowl and the absence of a pācittiya for the bhikkhu, and by that he reveals that there is only a dukkata due to mere improper consideration. He should relinquish and this is said in the sense of giving, not in the sense of a Vinaya act. And therefore it is said, "Having filled it with ghee."

Entirely kappiya means kappiya for oneself and for the five fellow-dwellers and for the Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas. Therefore, he says, "Fit for use even by the Buddhas."

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Entitled "The Adornment of the Discourse on the Determination of Offenses Involving Purchase and Sale,"

The Eleventh Chapter.

12. Discourse on Determining the Acceptance of Silver and the Like

59. Having thus discussed the determination of offenses involving purchase and sale, now, when discussing the determination of the acceptance of silver and the like, he says, "Acceptance of silver and the like," etc. Therein, that which has form (rūpa) made for recognition is called silver (rūpiya), any wealth that is suitable for use. Therefore, it is said in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.583-584), "Here, however, anything usable, such as kahāpanas, is intended." What is accepted first is the beginning, what is that? Silver. Silver and what begins with silver are rūpiyādayo, such as male and female slaves, fields, and property. Acceptance (paṭiggahaṇa) is acceptance (paṭiggaho), meaning acceptance (sampaṭicchana). The acceptance of silver and the like is acceptance of silver and the like. Form (rūpa) that arises at the time of birth becomes his form, and does not undergo change is new silver (jātarūpa), gold. Because it is white in nature, it is colored by beings is silver (rajata), tin. A māsaka made of new silver is a new silver māsaka (jātarūpamāsako). A māsaka made of silver is a silver māsaka (rajatamāsako). Only these four types are objects requiring relinquishment (nissaggiyavatthu), not metal māsakas and the like, he says, "Made of copper and other metals…pe…included." "Made of copper and other metals" by the word "other," he shows that even those made of bell metal, wrought iron, tin, lead, etc. are just metal māsakas (lohamāsako). Is this alone an object requiring relinquishment, or are pearls and the like also objects requiring relinquishment? He says, "Pearls…pe…are objects that incur a dukkata." What is the difference between these two objects? He says, "Therein, an object requiring relinquishment…pe…is only a dukkata." Therein, an object requiring relinquishment is a nissaggiya pācittiya for oneself and a dukkata for others; an object that incurs a dukkata is a dukkata for all, that is the connection.

"Therein, this is the determination." Therein, it is not permissible to accept, why? Because it is given with akappiya usage, saying "I give this to the Sangha." Having given it and departed, it is permissible, why? Because it was given into the hands of carpenters etc. without giving it into the hands of the Sangha. Even in this way it is permissible because it was placed in the hands of laypeople. It is not permissible to refuse because it was not touched by the Sangha, a group, or an individual. "It is not permissible" should be refused because it was said, "You should take it and keep it." There is an offense in acceptance and in use, because it was said "I give it to the Sangha," there is a pācittiya in acceptance and a dukkata in use. He himself is subject to an offense, he speaks in reference to the dukkata offense. He says, it is permissible, because it was said with kappiya usage, "You should use it for requisites." What is given for the sake of robes should be used only for robes, why? Because one should act as the donors say. Showing the difference of lodging requisites from the other three requisites, he says, "For the sake of lodging…" etc. By this, he shows the state of being unassigned and undivided. Even so, showing the procedure to be followed in times of distress, he says, "But if…" etc.

60. Having thus shown the procedure to be followed with regard to objects requiring relinquishment, now, when showing the procedure to be followed with regard to objects that incur a dukkata, he says, "If someone…" etc. Here, however, there is an offense in acceptance and in use, is said only in reference to a dukkata. Because a pond is included in property, an offense is stated in its acceptance. "He gives, saying, 'Use the four requisites,'" here, he says either "I give the pond to the community of bhikkhus to use the four requisites" or "I give the pond for the purpose of using the four requisites," it is indeed permissible. "But if he says, 'I give the requisites that arise from this pond,' there is no need to speak about what should be said," it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.537-539). The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539) also says the same, saying, "And this is said in reference to what is given to the Sangha alone; however, a pond, field, etc. given in this way to an individual is not permissible. However, wells, ponds, etc. are permissible for the purpose of using water for one of pure intention. For 'How is the Sangha's pond?' etc. is said everywhere only in the context of the Sangha." "It will be in (his) possession" will be in (his) control.

When it is said, "Establish a kappiyakāraka," it is said in a respectful manner; even if it is not said, there is no offense for one who establishes it. Therefore, it is said, "It is permissible to prevent water." Because it is not proper for monks to destroy property belonging to others, it is said, "Not during the harvest season." Even during the harvest season, it is permissible to frighten them and then release them, but if one does not release them, a fine must be paid for the goods. The owner of the country: by this very term, it is said that even if the one who governs that country gives it without confiscating it, it is permissible. He gives it again: he gives it again without confiscating it; this too is permissible, is the connection. By this, it shows that even if someone in authority, thinking "this is abandoned by the monks, ownerless," takes it himself and gives it, it is permissible. Water carrier: refers to a water trough. "I will state the decision even regarding the use of permissible things," is a remaining portion of the text. Due to water: for the purpose of using water. With pure minds: only for the purpose of using water. This is said referring to doing it with one's own hands and with non-permissible use. However, even those with impure minds, such as "for the purpose of producing crops," may order it to be done through a permissible transaction, without doing it themselves. It is not permissible to establish a kappiyakāraka: this is said because the lake made with one's own hands, etc., is inappropriate. However, if someone establishes it, or if the Sangha uses that resource, no offense is apparent; or an offense should be taken here according to the authority of the commentary. There is no need to speak of those made by the shameless, therefore he said, "By a scrupulous monk," the meaning is in things caused to be done such as the removal of clay.

61. New crop: in a field not previously prepared. Kahāpaṇa: by this, he shows that the same is impermissible for raising grain. Undetermined portion: in a portion where it is not determined, "so much portion of the land, so much share should be given." If he cultivates when raising grain, it is only a dukkata offense, not like when raising kahāpaṇas. It might be argued that everything is impermissible due to the statement "cultivate, sow," therefore he said, "Without saying." Such and such a portion: here, he speaks also implying "so many kahāpaṇas." Even if it is said like that, since kahāpaṇas do not exist at that time, it is permissible for others as they arise in the future. Therefore, he said, "That is impermissible for him alone." However, for him, there is a dukkata for all uses and consumption. Some say there is an offense only for consuming the grain, not for the prior action, but that is not right, because it is unreasonable that there is no offense for doing the action by which later there is an offense for consuming the grain due to the use of measuring, protecting, etc. However, there is no offense everywhere by indirect speech. Therefore, it is said that a specified statement, "Bring this and that with so many vīhi grains," is impermissible. The same method applies to the consideration of kahāpaṇas. "It should be said, 'Such and such a thing exists, there is no kappiyakāraka'," etc., this statement is evidence here. With a rope or a stick: here some say, "It is not permissible to measure even with the feet." Standing in the threshing floor, he protects: here, if he sees thieves taking and prevents them, saying, "Do not take," he is said to be protecting. But if he just stands silently watching for the purpose of protecting, without considering, it is permissible. "Even if thieves steal while he is silent, it is permissible to say, 'We will report to the community of monks'," some say. He causes to take out, he returns: here also, "If he speaks indirectly, it is permissible," some say. Because it was not produced for another, it is permissible for others, therefore he said, "This is impermissible for him alone."

What they bring to you is impermissible for all. Why? Because the kahāpaṇas have been considered: why is this said? Here, some say, "This is said referring to having approved the kahāpaṇas." And because it is communal property, it cannot be relinquished, therefore it is not permissible for all, is their intention. Some say, "Even without approving, because the kahāpaṇas have been considered, an exchange with money has been made, and because it is communal property, it cannot be relinquished, therefore it is not permissible for all." However, in the Gaṇṭhipada, all three of these are said: "Since the kahāpaṇas of the fourth offering belong only to the householders, it is permissible for others, but here, since it has been considered for the communal property, it is not permissible for all." The argument of all is justified by this or that method.

62. Four-sided hall doorway: refers to the dining hall.

63. But when it is said, "I give a forest, I give a wilderness," it is permissible: here, because it is a dwelling place, it is permissible for an individual to take it with a pure mind. Let us give a boundary: because it is said with a common statement such as a monastery boundary, it is said, "It is permissible." Because it is spoken indirectly: because it is spoken indirectly, "The boundary is gone," without saying "Take." "Soil taken from below" etc. is said for the purpose of making the natural ground. "I give a slave": here, some say, "It is permissible when it is said, 'I give a human being'." It is permissible for an individual to take a slave when it is said with "Veyyāvaccakara," etc., because it is specially permitted, "I allow, monks, a monastery attendant." And that should be according to the practice of taking and using established by Pilindavaccha, not according to the practice of householders using slaves. However, all the fields, etc., are permissible only for the Sangha, it should be seen that it is not permitted to take them individually in the Pāḷi. "Chickens, pigs…pe… it is permissible": here, when chickens and pigs are being given, it is permissible to say, "We have no need of these, let them live happily, release them in the forest." "Let us give to the monastery": refers to the Sanghika monastery. It should be understood that this entire decision outside the Pāḷi, which is free from the acceptance of fields, etc., is said by the great elders who compiled the Sangīti, knowing the intention of the Blessed One, because the Blessed One made the prohibition that comes in the discourses, "He is abstaining from accepting fields, etc." (Dī. Ni. 1.10, 194) a reason for offense.

64. Cīvara price-money: the cost of a robe. Pahiṇeyyā: should send. Cetāpetvā: having exchanged. Acchādehī: this is a term of usage, the meaning here is, "Give to a monk named so-and-so." Ābhata: brought.

With "With this cīvara price-money" etc., he shows this meaning: "Even the robe-money brought through a permissible transaction becomes impermissible with such a messenger's message, therefore it should be rejected." Therefore, he said, "That messenger should say thus to that monk," etc.

However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539) it is said thus: "What is said in the Mātikā Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), 'Having exchanged a robe with this cīvara price-money, cover a monk named so-and-so with a robe,' this is said to show the purity of arrival. For if he sends it, saying, 'Give this to a monk named so-and-so,' because the arrival is impure, a kappiyakāraka should not be designated by the monk in connection with an impermissible thing." That impermissible robe-money, which is a nissaggiya thing and a dukkata thing, should be rejected in every way when the purity of arrival is absent, such as 'Give to such-and-such a monk,' and when the messenger's message is impure according to the method mentioned in the training rule; but it is not permissible to say, "We will accept the robe," and to designate a veyyāvaccakara accordingly, because both the arrival and the messenger's message are impure. However, it is said to show that when the purity of arrival is present according to the method mentioned in the Pāḷi, it is permissible to do everything according to the method mentioned in the training rule, even if the messenger's message is impure. Therefore, just as it is permissible to designate a veyyāvaccakara even when the purity of arrival is present despite the impurity of the messenger's message, similarly, even when the impurity of arrival is present, it is certainly permissible when the messenger's message is pure. There is no need to speak of when both are pure, so it should be understood that in the Mātikā Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Rājasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said referring only to the case where both are impure, "A kappiyakāraka should not be designated."

What is said here in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.237-539), "No special purpose is seen in the purity or impurity of arrival," etc., that is said without considering the meaning of the Mātikā Commentary, because it serves a purpose in the manner stated above with the purity of arrival, etc. The undesirable consequence that is stated here, "Even if the messenger sent by the owner of the money speaks with permissible usage, a kappiyakāraka should be designated," that is not an undesirable consequence at all, because it is intended. For thus, in the training rule itself, it is said that when a messenger speaking with impermissible usage, "May the venerable one accept the robe price-money," a veyyāvaccakara should be designated by permissible action because the arrival is pure. But when even the arrival is impure, a veyyāvaccakara should not be designated even by permissible action; thus, the purity or impurity of arrival serves a purpose. How is the purity of arrival known by the messenger's message? This is not a burden. Only when the messenger speaks with impermissible usage should the purity of arrival be investigated, not otherwise. And there it can be known by his manner of speaking, by questioning, and by reasoning, etc. Here also, in the training rule, the fact that it was sent to buy and give a robe is known by the messenger's message itself, "The robe price-money is brought." If the purity of arrival is not known in any way, then rejection should be done.

Permissible at the right time: the meaning is, "When we need it at the time suitable for a bowl and robe, then we will accept the permissible robe." Veyyāvaccakaro: one who does service, the meaning is kappiyakāraka. "A veyyāvaccakara should be designated": this is permitted because it is said with a permissible statement, "Is there any veyyāvaccakara for the venerable one?" If the messenger says, "Who takes this? To whom shall I give it?" he should not be designated. "A monastery attendant or a lay follower": this is said for the sake of appropriateness, but except for the five fellow practitioners, any kappiyakāraka is permissible. "This, friend, is the veyyāvaccakara of the monks": this is said by the messenger to show the permissible statement of the monk in response to the question, "Is there any veyyāvaccakara for the venerable one?" because he was asked. The monk should say just so, not say "Give it to him" etc. Therefore, in the Pāḷi, he said "He should not say 'Give it to him'" etc. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539) it is said that "This…pe… he should not say 'Give it to him' etc." is said to avoid approval of an impermissible thing."

"He is instructed by me": the meaning is, "He has said that when you need a robe, he will give you a robe." However, in the Vimativinodanī, it is said, "It is said to show that it is permissible to question only when the messenger says thus again, not otherwise." Here, it is said thus because in the Pāḷi it comes as "He is designated by me." However, in the earlier sentence, in the Vinayasaṅgaha Commentary (Vi. Saṅga. Aṭṭha. 64), it is said thus because it is placed having been converted into a paraphrase, "He is instructed by me." And by that, it shows that the monk should question the kappiyakāraka only when the messenger again announces to the monk that the kappiyakāraka has been designated, not when it is not announced.

"I have need of a robe, friend": This is an example showing the characteristic of solicitation. This statement should be made, or its meaning expressed in any language. However, statements such as "Give me a robe" are mentioned to illustrate what kind of expression should not be used. These statements, or their meanings in any language, should not be uttered. The Mahāgaṇṭhipada and Majjhimagaṇṭhipada state, "While speaking thus, because of being refused, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense due to the difference in expression, but the solicitation still occurs." However, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539) says, "One should not say, 'Give me a robe…pe… have a robe made for me,' because when accepting money in the form of a messenger’s offering, one becomes the unappointed acceptable-item-maker oneself by saying 'Give me a robe…pe… have a robe made for me,' due to the nature of money being involved, one is engaging in monetary exchange by converting it with that money when saying 'Give me, have made.' This is said to avoid that fault from afar, like money discarded in the midst of the Sangha by one who accepts money. For it was said there, 'One should not say, "Bring this or that"' (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.583-584). Therefore, it should be understood that this is not said to avoid the fault of requesting, because there would be the undesirable consequence of not being able to say 'I have need of a robe, friend.' Therefore, even having established another kappiyakāraka due to the absence of the possibility of monetary exchange in the case of those appointed by a messenger, it should still be brought." Even there, it is said that one should take the intention as simply "Have a robe brought," without saying "Have a robe made with the money left by the messenger."

"This is proper": Thus, soliciting up to three times, one can succeed in having that robe made, depending on one's ability to obtain it. "This is proper" means good, excellent, beautiful. "To stand silently, aiming at the person, for up to four, five, or six times": This is an example showing the characteristic of standing. "Up to six times" is a neuter noun of verbal action (bhāvanapuṃsaka). By "up to six times," it means one should stand silently, aiming at the person for the robe, and not do anything else; this is the characteristic of standing. Therefore, the commentary says, "not sitting down, etc." In treatises on grammar, however –

"An adverb of action in the treatise,
A qualifier of the verbal root is stated;
But as a neuter noun of verbal action,
Thus in the Teaching, it is proclaimed."

From this statement, what is an adverb of action has become a neuter noun of verbal action in the usage of the Teaching;
"He cooks softly" here, "cooking occurs," and;
"He sleeps happily" here, "he makes sleeping."

"One should not sit on the seat": Even if told, "Venerable, please sit here," one should not sit down. "One should not accept material things": Even if entreated, "Venerable, please accept some material thing, such as rice-gruel or snacks," one should not accept it. "One should not speak Dhamma": Even if entreated, "Please speak a blessing or a thanksgiving," one should not say anything; only if asked, "Why have you come?" should one reply, "Know, friend."

"Breaks the standing": Frustrates or angers the reason for coming. "Standing" is a name for both the act of standing and the reason. Therefore, by sitting on the seat, the standing is disrupted, and so is the reason for coming. But in the acceptance of material things, etc., only the reason for coming is frustrated, not the standing. Therefore, it is said, "Frustrates the reason for coming." Some, however, say, "By accepting material things, etc., one also frustrates the standing." This does not agree with the commentary, and even in the subcommentary, after showing various opinions, the breaking of the standing is stated. Because it does not align with the commentary, we do not mention it due to the gravity of adding to the text. Now, having stated the three solicitations and the six standings, showing the increase and decrease therein, it is said, "If one solicits four times," etc. Since with an increase of one solicitation, a decrease of two standings is stated, it implies that the solicitations are twice the standings. Thus, with this principle, having solicited three times, one should stand six times; having solicited twice, one should stand eight times; having solicited once, one should stand ten times.

"He stands in each of those places": This is said with reference to the solicitor moving away from the place of standing and standing, aiming at the person in each of those places. "What need be said on different days?": What need be said about one who does this on different days; the implication is that there is nothing to be said. "One should go oneself, or a messenger should be sent": Some say that this must be done even by one who, by nature, is unwilling to solicit. "That brings no benefit to that bhikkhu": That having-a-robe-made money does not accomplish even the slightest task for that bhikkhu. "May the venerable ones enjoy what is their own": May the venerable ones attain their own property. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.538-539) says, "The following shows what should be done by one for whom having-a-robe-made money etc., by whom a helper has not been appointed, and whose robe has not been made. When bhikkhus speak thus to the owners of the material, they solicit and give, it is allowable, because it is said in the section on non-offenses 'the owners solicit and give' (Pārā. 541). Therefore, without soliciting himself, he causes upāsakas, etc., to speak in turn and solicit. Even if they solicit a hundred times and cause a robe to be given, no offense is incurred by him, because the training rule is not an instruction."

65. One who has not been appointed by anyone, but has become involved and attained the state of being a helper by his own words, is called one who is bound by his own words. By "due to unwillingness to investigate," it shows that even noble ones who are unwilling to give, though having the means, say that such behavior does not exist in common usage, without intending to deceive. The Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.537-539), however, says, "In this case of 'due to unwillingness to investigate,' 'we have no kappiyakāraka' is said with the intention that one who acts in such a way has no kappiyakāraka." In the Meṇḍaka story in the Bhesajjakkhandhaka (Mahāva. 299), the statement "There are, bhikkhus," etc., is called the Meṇḍaka training rule. There, when Meṇḍaka the wealthy man requested, "For there are, venerable sir, roads that are desolate, waterless, with little food, difficult to travel without provisions; it would be good, venerable sir, if the Blessed One would allow provisions for the bhikkhus," the Blessed One said, "I allow, bhikkhus, the seeking of provisions. Rice for those seeking rice, beans for those seeking beans, lentils for those seeking lentils, salt for those seeking salt, molasses for those seeking molasses, oil for those seeking oil, ghee for those seeking ghee," and then said this: "There are, bhikkhus, people who are faithful and devout; they deposit gold in the hands of kappiyakārakas, saying, 'With this, give whatever is allowable to the venerable ones.' I allow, bhikkhus, whatever is allowable from that to be accepted, but I do not say, bhikkhus, that gold or silver should be accepted or sought by any means." Even in "They deposit gold in the hands of kappiyakārakas," there is still a notification to the bhikkhu; otherwise, he would be following the case of an unappointed kappiyakāraka, and he should not be solicited. This, however, is said with reference to kappiyakārakas appointed by a messenger, not to those appointed or unappointed by the bhikkhu. Therefore, it is said, "Here, there is no limit to the solicitation," etc. If one solicits with reference to the source, it would be acceptable to accept it, therefore it is said, "By not accepting the source."

"One should behave as with strangers and those not invited": This is said to show that one should not create the situation for solicitation oneself. "For the sake of alms-food, etc.": This shows that it is not solely for the sake of a robe. "This is the same method": This shows that even in the case of kappiyakārakas appointed by the owner of the material, and when given for the sake of alms-food, etc., all the standing, solicitation, etc., should be done in the same way as described below.

66. Regarding "Accepting what has been deposited," "then" etc., the acceptance with the mind, without rejecting it by body or speech, of what has been given away, either face-to-face with "May this be for the venerable one," or behind one's back with "In such and such a place, I have gold and silver; may that be for you," said merely by word or hand gesture, is called accepting what has been deposited. "He accepts": It explains the stated meaning, "He intends to receive."

"The safe place should be pointed out": It should be pointed out only with reference to the use of requisites. Because nissaggiya is incurred by the characteristic stated as "if he should cause it to be picked up" when one says, "Deposit it here," it is said, "One should not say, 'Deposit it here.'" Or rather, in pointing out "This is a safe place," one is only showing the safety of the place, not referring to the object; therefore, it should be pointed out. But in saying "Deposit it here," one is referring to the object to be deposited when saying, "Deposit the object to be deposited here"; therefore, it should not be said. Further on, the same method applies to "Accept this." "It stands depending on both what is allowable and what is not allowable": Since the use of requisites arising from that is allowable, it should be understood that it stands depending on what is allowable. Since the use of requisites arising from that is not allowable due to lack of proper consideration, it should be understood that it stands depending on what is not allowable. Or rather, since that money has been rejected with "This is not allowable," it stands depending on what is allowable. Since it has not been completely relinquished, it stands depending on what is not allowable. Or rather, since that money will be allowable if there is a good consideration later, and will be unallowable if there is no proper consideration, it stands depending on both what is allowable and what is not allowable. The Vimativinodanī, however, says, "The following shows the way of proceeding with money at the lowest level, namely, 'one hundred or one thousand,' etc." and "But it is not to show that one should necessarily act in this way; it says 'One should not say, "Deposit it here," because causing it to be picked up is involved when one says, "Deposit it here,"'" and "It stands depending on both what is allowable…pe… because the requisites arising from that are permissible due to not having been accepted, therefore, it stands depending on what is allowable. Since what arises from it is not permissible due to lack of proper consideration, therefore, it should be understood that it stands depending on what is not allowable."

67."It should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha": Since money is unallowable, it is not said that it should be relinquished to the Sangha, a group, or an individual. However, since it is only accepted, and no allowable item has been purchased with it, therefore, in order to show a way of using it, it is said, "It should be relinquished in the midst of the Sangha" (Pārā. 584). "No allowable item has been purchased with it": By this, if an item has been purchased, there is no way to use it because it was purchased with money that had been taken up and not relinquished. This shows that after making such a relinquishment in the midst of the Sangha, one should discard it and confess a pācittiya offense. Some, however, say, "Since an allowable item purchased after accepting a nissaggiya object is like an allowable item brought after being exchanged by kappiyakārakas with money relinquished to the Sangha, therefore, it is permissible to divide and use it without any stratagem." This does not agree with the discourse on the four bowls, etc. There, only the non-use of a bowl exchanged with money is shown, not a consideration of relinquishment. "What is allowable should be pointed out": One should point out that ghee or oil is allowable for renunciates but not for a lay follower.

Ārāmikānaṃ vā pattabhāganti, this is said considering that even what is in the hands of laypeople is the same share. However, if they give something else to the ārāmikas in exchange for it, it is permissible to use, as stated in the Majjhima-gaṇṭhipada and Cūḷagaṇṭhipada. Tato haritvāti, having taken from the shares of others. Kasiṇaparikammanti, the preliminary work on the light kasiṇa. Mañcapīṭhādīni vāti, here, if something else is taken in exchange for the couches, chairs, etc., taken from there, some say it is permissible. Chāyāpīti, even the shade of the dining hall, etc. Paricchedātikkantāti, exceeding the boundary of the dwelling; the implication is that the places the shadow moves to are not the dwelling. Maggenapīti, here, if there is no other path, some say it is permissible to go having determined the path. Kītāyāti, bought with that item. Upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvā saṅgho paccaye paribhuñjatīti, if a lay follower says, "This silver is too much, venerable sir, it should not be destroyed today," and keeps it as a deposit himself, or has someone else keep it, the Sangha uses the requisites that arise from that, having kept it as a deposit. Because it is taken with that item, it is said to be ‘‘akappiya’’ (unallowable). However, in the Vimativinodanīyaṃ (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.583-584), it says, ‘‘upanikkhepaṃ ṭhapetvāti, it is said by those who make things allowable, intending a benefit from the increase. Akappiyanti, it is said because it is taken with that item.’’

Sace so chaḍḍetīti, if he throws it away anywhere, or even if he does not throw it away but picks it up himself and leaves, he should not be prevented. No ce chaḍḍetīti, but if he neither picks it up and leaves, nor throws it away, but departs saying, "What is my business with this?", then a rūpiya-chaḍḍako (one who discards money) with the characteristics as stated above should be recognized. Yo na chandāgatinti, in these instances, one goes to chandāgati (the way of partiality due to desire) by making that item one's own due to greed, or by extolling oneself. One goes to dosāgati (the way of partiality due to aversion) by disparaging another due to aversion, saying, "This one knows neither the matrix nor the Vinaya." One goes to mohāgati (the way of partiality due to delusion) by being confused, falling into a state of confused mindfulness. One goes to bhayāgati (the way of partiality due to fear) by being unable to dare to discard it due to fear of the one who accepts money. One who does not do so should be understood as not going to chandāgati, not going to dosāgati, not going to mohāgati, and not going to bhayāgati.

68. Patitokāsaṃ asamannārahantena chaḍḍetabbanti, this should be understood as showing an attitude of detachment. Therefore, even when the place where it has fallen is known, the standard here is simply an attitude of detachment, just as for one discarding excrement. Asantasambhāvanāyāti, this is said with reference to declaring anuttarimanussadhammā (superior human states) that do not exist in oneself. Theyyaparibhogo nāma, is the use by one who is unworthy. The Blessed One, in his dispensation, has allowed requisites for those who are virtuous, not for those who are immoral. Givers also give to those who are virtuous, not to those who are immoral, expecting a great fruit of their actions. Thus, because it is not allowed by the Teacher and not given by the givers, the use by an immoral person is theyyaparibhogo (use by theft). Use as a debt is iṇaparibhogo, meaning use like using after taking a loan, due to the absence of purity of the offering from the recipient. Tasmāti, this refers back to what was said with "for those who are virtuous," stating the same meaning as a cause. Cīvaraṃ paribhoge paribhogeti, each time after removing it from the body and using it. Purebhatta…pe… pacchimayāmesu paccavekkhitabbaṃti, the connection is that it should be reflected upon in the forenoon…pe… and in the late evening. Likewise, one who is unable should reflect upon it four times, three times, twice, or even once a day, according to the specific times mentioned.

Sacassa appaccavekkhatova aruṇo uggacchati, iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti, here, if one does not reflect on the past use, thinking "Yesterday, I used the robe only to ward off cold…pe… and to cover the sense of shame. Yesterday, I used the alms food not for pleasure," etc., they say one remains in a state of debt. This should be examined. Senāsanampi paribhoge paribhogeti, at each entry. But in this way, one who is unable should reflect upon it in the forenoon, etc., it can be understood easily in the manner stated below, so it is not stated separately here. Satipaccayatāti, the conditionality of mindfulness. The conditionality of mindfulness is fitting for both acceptance and use, meaning it should be accepted and used only after reflecting. Therefore, he said, ‘‘satiṃ katvā’’ti, etc. Evaṃ santepīti, even though reflection is fitting in both instances. Others say, ‘‘satipaccayatāti, mindfulness is a condition for the use of medicine, it conditions, is the meaning. Evaṃ santepīti, even with the condition present,’’ that is merely their opinion. For indeed, sīla (virtue) dependent on requisites is purified by reflection, not merely by the presence of the requisite.

‘‘paribhoge karontassa anāpattī’’ti, with this, pātimokkhasaṃvarasīla (the virtue of restraint according to the Pātimokkha) is stated. Therefore, what is the distinction between sīla dependent on requisites and pātimokkhasaṃvarasīla? It is said – in the first three requisites, the distinction is clear; but in the case of medicine, just as when a fence is made and hidden at the foot of a tree, its fruits are also protected, so too, when sīla dependent on requisites is protected by reflection, the pātimokkhasaṃvarasīla related to it is also accomplished. For one who uses medicine without reflecting, it is only the pātimokkhasaṃvarasīla that is broken when the sīla is broken; but sīla dependent on requisites is broken only for one who does not reflect from the after-meal period and the first watch of the night until the rising of the dawn. For even if one uses medicine without reflecting in the forenoon, there is no offense; this is the distinction between them, as it comes in the Sāratthadīpanīyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585).

‘‘theyyaparibhogoti, it is said because it is not allowed by the Blessed One, the owner of the requisite. Iṇaparibhogoti, it is said of one who uses even what is allowed by the Blessed One without doing what should be done. By that, he shows that sīla dependent on requisites is ruined. Paribhoge paribhogeti, at each use after removing it from the body. It should be connected to "pacchimayāmesu paccavekkhitabbaṃ (it should be reflected upon in the late evening)." Iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatīti, here, some say that even past reflection is fitting with "yesterday, I used the robe," etc. Paribhoge paribhogeti, at the places of water dropping, and in the places of sitting and lying inside the dwelling. Satipaccayatā vaṭṭatīti, it is fitting to obtain the conditionality of mindfulness of reflection. He shows that mindfulness of reflection should necessarily be obtained in acceptance and in use. Therefore, he said ‘satiṃ katvā’ti, etc. Some, however, say that ‘satipaccayatā, when there is mindfulness, when there is a cause for the use of medicine,’ even for them, the meaning should be taken as ‘when there is mindfulness, when there is a consideration of the presence of a cause,’ because sīla is not purified merely by the presence of a cause. Paribhoge akarontasseva āpattīti, with this, the distinction of pātimokkhasaṃvarasīla is shown, not of sīla dependent on requisites, because it is purified by past reflection. But in this, with the statement of debt-use, etc., regarding the remaining requisites, the breaking of sīla dependent on requisites is shown, thus the distinction between these should be understood," so it comes.

In these two treatises, regarding ‘‘iṇaparibhogaṭṭhāne tiṭṭhatī,’’ it comes that "...yesterday, I used the robe," etc., they say. Now, relying on this method, some learned ones say, "One who reflects in the evening on what was used in the morning should reflect in the past tense with 'today I used the robe,' etc." Some say, "Only what was used yesterday should be reflected upon in the past tense, not what was used today, that is only reflection in the present tense." There, in the root statement, such an inquiry should be made. How? Is this statement, "yesterday," etc., a Sutta, or in accordance with the Sutta, or a teaching of the teachers, or one's own opinion? There, it is not a Sutta, because it is said that "a Sutta is the Pāḷi in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka," and because this statement is not in the form of Pāḷi. Nor is it in accordance with the Sutta, because it is said that "in accordance with the Sutta means the four great references" (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), and because this statement does not have the characteristic of the great references. Nor is it a teaching of the teachers, because the teaching of the teachers is "the Aṭṭhakathā tradition, established by five hundred arahants who compiled the Dhamma, free from Pāḷi, proceeding with settled judgments," and because this statement is not in the form of an Aṭṭhakathā text. Nor is it one's own opinion, because "one's own opinion is the explanation of a matter that has arisen by inference, by grasping the meaning with one's own intellect, excluding the Sutta, what is in accordance with the Sutta, and the teaching of the teachers; moreover, all the Theravāda that comes in the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, Vinaya, and Aṭṭhakathā is called one's own opinion," and because this statement does not have the characteristic of the Theravāda that comes in the Aṭṭhakathās.

Thus –

‘‘The great Theras, mighty ones,
Extracted and revealed the fourfold Vinaya;
The compilers of the Dhamma, in ancient times.’’ (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45) –

Among the fourfold Vinaya mentioned, because of its endless extent, this statement should be examined. Therefore, the ṭīkācariya (subcommentary master) said in the Sāratthadīpanīyaṃ (sārattha. ṭī. 2.585), "That should be examined." Or else, the statement of the matter as it has arisen according to the manner in which each of those teachers has grasped the meaning, with the characteristic "explanation of a matter that has arisen by grasping the meaning," could be one's own opinion, even so it should be examined. "One's own opinion should be brought down to the teaching of the teachers. If it comes down there and agrees, it should be taken. If it neither comes down nor agrees, it should not be taken. For this one's own opinion is the weakest of all" (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.45), and because this statement does not descend into and does not enter into the Aṭṭhakathā statement. For it is said in the Aṭṭhakathā, "If the dawn rises before he has reflected, he remains in a state of debt."

Another method – Is this statement a Pāḷi statement, or an Aṭṭhakathā statement, or a Ṭīkā statement, or a statement from another text? There, it is not a Pāḷi statement, nor an Aṭṭhakathā statement, nor a statement from another text, but rather a Ṭīkā statement. Let it be a Ṭīkā statement, is it one's own statement, or another's statement, or a statement intended, or a statement not intended? There, it is not one's own statement, but rather another's statement. Therefore, he said, "vadantī (they say)." It is not a statement intended by the ṭīkācariya, but rather a statement not intended. Therefore, he said, "taṃ vīmaṃsitabbaṃ (that should be examined)." But by those teachers, the reflection on past use, that reflection on the past use, may have been done by conceiving and connecting it with a word denoting the past. The use in the past is past use, the reflection on past use is reflection on past use; in this way, when it is done, the statement is with a word denoting the present due to the proximity of the past use to the present, just as when a man who has come from a town and is sitting is asked "Where are you coming from?", he says "I am coming from the town," with a word denoting the present.

And in the Vinaya, Suttanta, Visuddhimagga, etc. (ma. ni. 1.23; visuddhi. 1.18), the reading is with a present tense statement, "paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevatī (reflecting mindfully, he uses the robe)," not with a past tense statement; and in this case, past use should be understood as use from the after-meal period onwards on this very day, not the use of yesterday. How is it known? By the Aṭṭhakathā as प्रमाण (authority). For it is said in the Aṭṭhakathā (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585), "piṇḍapāto ālope ālope (alms food, with each mouthful), likewise, for one who is unable, in the four divisions of forenoon, after-meal period, first watch of the night, and last watch of the night. If the dawn rises before he has reflected, he remains in a state of debt." By this, he shows that for one reflecting on alms food with each mouthful, because the act of eating is not completed, the reflection is primarily in the present tense; for one reflecting in the four divisions of forenoon, etc., because the act of eating is completed, the reflection is in the past tense. But that is prescribed with a word denoting the present due to its proximity to the present. For if what was used yesterday were to be reflected upon with past reflection, what was used on the second day, third day, and so on, months, years, etc., in the past would also have to be reflected upon; and if that were the case, the Aṭṭhakathā statement as stated would be meaningless; therefore, only the Aṭṭhakathā statement should be taken as प्रमाण (authority). As he said –

"The Dhamma and the Vinaya were spoken by the Buddha;
Which was understood exactly as such by his sons;
Those who, without transgressing their understanding;
Made the commentaries since long ago.

"Therefore, whatever is stated in the commentaries;
Excluding the errors of negligence;
And with reverence for all the trainings;
Is the standard here for the wise." (pārā. aṭṭha. 1.ganthārambhakathā);

And since in the Sabbāsava Sutta and others (ma. ni. 1.23), when the Blessed One taught, because of the agent being the bhikkhu and the connection to 'I', it was taught in the present tense, first person as "paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevati" (reflecting wisely, one uses the robe), when bhikkhus reflect, because of the agent being oneself and the connection to 'we', it should be reflected upon in the present tense, first person plural as "paṭisaṅkhā yoniso cīvaraṃ paṭisevāmī" (reflecting wisely, I use the robe). The phrases expressing the purpose, such as "sītassa paṭighātāya" (for protection against the cold) and so on, should be connected only with the act of using, "paṭisevati, paṭisevāmī" as stated. And these verb forms are connected to the present tense or the past tense close to the present, having present tense endings. Therefore, in reflecting on requisites used in the present or past, the statement "paṭisevāmī" (I use) is appropriate, being in accordance with the Blessed One's word, it should be seen.

Even in repetition, such consideration should be made: "Today, what was used in the morning, when reflecting in the evening, should be reflected upon in the past tense, as 'Today, the robe was used by me.'" Those who say this should be asked, "Did the Blessed One teach reflection in the past tense on what was used in the past?" He did not teach it. How did he teach it? He taught it in the present tense as "Paccavekkhati" (He reflects). Do you believe there was no reflection on what was used in the past during the time of the Blessed One? There was. Then why did the Blessed One teach reflection only in the present tense? It was taught in relation to the near past or in a general sense. In that case, following the example of the Blessed One, even now, reflection on requisites used in the past should be done in the present tense. However, those who say, "Only what was used yesterday should be reflected upon in the past tense, not what was used today; for those, there should only be reflection in the present tense," should be told, "Is there anything like what you say in the Pali?" There isn't. Is there anything in the commentary? There isn't. That being so, how can your words, which do not exist in the Tipitaka along with its commentaries, be accepted?" By the lineage of teachers. Let it be your explanation based on what you have received from your teachers. Time is of three kinds: past, future, and present. Of these, an action that is completed is called the past; an action that is about to occur is called the future; an action that has begun but is not finished is called the present. Therefore, the ancients said:

"A state that has begun but is not finished is the present, well-defined;
The arising of the past and future is action that is not yet attained or about to occur."

Therefore, whether it is today, yesterday, or before that, a requisite that has been used is called past because the act of using is fully completed. There, a requisite used yesterday or before that is not worthy of reflection because the dawn has already broken; even if reflected upon, it is as if it has not been reflected upon, it remains in the state of debt consumption. For it is said in the commentary, "If the dawn breaks without him having reflected, it remains in the state of debt consumption." But when reflecting upon the robe and dwelling used today, with each use; upon the alms-food, with each morsel; and upon the medicine, with each acceptance and use, because the act of using is not completed, it is called present-use reflection. What was used before, when reflecting upon it later in the four sections, because the act of using is fully completed, it is called past-use reflection. This much is the field for reflection, not before or after that. As it is said in the commentary, "Use without reflection by one possessing virtue is called debt consumption. Therefore, with each use of the robe...pe... even with the acceptance and use of medicine, mindfulness is required." Therefore, since what was used yesterday is debt consumption, without touching upon that, reflection upon what was used today, both past and present, with a verb form in the present tense, "paṭisevāmī" (I use), is very appropriate, it should be seen. It is with reference to such reflection that it is said in the Vimativinodanī and others (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.585), "Because of purification through past reflection of the morality based on requisites."

"Indeed, there are four kinds of purity," etc., he said. There, suddhi means that by which one is purified, purity is the appropriate Dhamma teaching, desanāsuddhi (purity of teaching). The arising (vuṭṭhāna) is included in this teaching and should be seen as such. For those with uprooted offenses (chinnamūlāpatti), the teaching is simply the non-bhikkhu acknowledgment (abhikkhutāpaṭiññā). Purity is the restraint (saṃvara) distinguished by resolution (adhiṭṭhāna), saṃvarasuddhi (purity of restraint). Purity is the seeking (pariyesṭhi) of requisites in accordance with the Dhamma and with equity, pariyeṭṭhisuddhi (purity of seeking). Purity is the reflection (paccavekkhaṇā) on the four requisites in the manner described, paccavekkhaṇasuddhi (purity of reflection). This is the concise method for the purities. But for moralities (sīla) possessing purity, teaching is purity, therefore desanāsuddhi (purity of teaching). The same method applies to the rest. "Na punevaṃ karissāmī" (I will not do this again): here, "evaṃ" refers to a kind of restraint. "Pahāya" means avoiding, not doing. But in the Vimativinodanī, it is said, "Suddhi, because it is purified by teaching and so on, or because it is cleansed, is fourfold morality. Therefore, he said 'desanāya sujjhanato' etc. Here, by the inclusion of teaching, arising (vuṭṭhāna) and the non-bhikkhu acknowledgment of those with uprooted offenses are included. For even the bhikkhu morality, protected below by the arising from a pārājika offense, is called purified. Therefore, the attainment of the path is also accomplished for them."

desanā, the root is disī, to utter; or desanā because it is made known by it, the root is disa, to see. In either case, it is the speech element, a variety of speech, arising from a wholesome state of mind, focused on abstaining (virati). Saṃvaraṇaṃ is saṃvaro (restraint), saṃ- prefix, vara, the root is saṃvaraṇa, to restrain; it is a mental state focused on mindfulness. Pariyesanā is pariyeṭṭhi (seeking), pari- prefix, isa, the root is pariyesanā, to seek; it is a mental state focused on effort. Paṭi, repeatedly; ogāhetvā, having plunged into; ikkhanā is paccavekkhaṇā (reflection), paṭi- prefix, ava- prefix, ikkha, the root is dassanaṅkesū, in seeing; it is a mental state focused on wisdom. Among these, since teaching has the nature of a speech element, it is not accomplished for one who cannot make a speech element or for one who does not obtain a second person. But the rest, since they are merely mental states, are accomplished even for one who cannot make a speech element or for one who does not obtain a second person. Therefore, even if one cannot recite the passage for reflection during times of illness, reflection should be done with the mind by focusing on the meaning.

dāyādā (heirs), because there is absolutely no use of what is unpermitted, and because there is full use of what is permitted, the requisites that should be used by bhikkhus belong to the Blessed One. "The Dhammadāyāda Sutta is evidence here," that is, the Dhammadāyāda Sutta which proceeds thus: "Be my heirs in Dhamma, bhikkhus, not heirs in material things. There is compassion in me for you, that my disciples might be heirs in Dhamma, not heirs in material things" (ma. ni. 1.29), is evidence in this matter. For those whose defilements are not gone, there is no ownership in the use of requisites because they are dominated by craving; due to the absence of that, there is ownership for those whose defilements are gone, since they have full use as they please. Thus, they use requisites by rejecting what is repulsive in a non-repulsive way, and what is non-repulsive in a repulsive way, and both of those, in a way of equanimity, and they fulfill the wishes of the donors. Therefore, he said, "Because they have gone beyond being slaves to craving, they use as owners." But for a virtuous worldling, use with reflection is called use without debt because it is the opposite of debt consumption. Just as a debtor cannot go to any desired place according to his own inclination, so one connected with debt consumption cannot escape from the world, and because it is the opposite of that, the virtuous one's use with reflection is called use without debt. Therefore, this use should be understood as separate, being freed from the four uses without qualification; it is not mentioned separately here, or it goes to inclusion in the inheritance use. For even the virtuous one is called a trainee (sekha) because he is endowed with this training.

"Of all," that is, of noble ones and worldlings. How can these uses be possible for worldlings? In a conventional sense. For even the worldling who is established in the practice of reducing defilements (sallekhapaṭipatti), use with a mind that has abandoned craving for requisites and is not stained by it, is like use as an owner. But the virtuous one's use with reflection is like inheritance use because there is no offense to the donors' wishes. Therefore, it was said, "Or it goes to inclusion in the inheritance use." There is nothing that needs to be said about the use of a well-behaved worldling because of his inclusion among the trainees (sekha). The Sekha Sutta is evidence for this meaning (a. ni. 3.86).

dāyādā (heirs). "Of the seven trainees," here, well-behaved worldlings are also included, it should be known, because their use without debt is included in the inheritance use. "The Dhammadāyāda Sutta," that is, the sutta that proceeds with "Be my heirs in Dhamma, bhikkhus, not heirs in material things" etc. (ma. ni. 1.29). There, "The meaning should be understood by bringing in the word 'me' in 'mā me āmisadāyādā' (do not be my heirs in material things). For in this way, it is evidence for the meaning as stated," it was said. There, "me" (my), my heirs in material things, those who partake of the four requisites, the requisites that are related to the Blessed One are stated, therefore, even the requisites given by donors, because they are permitted by the Blessed One, are the Blessed One's requisites, the Dhammadāyāda Sutta is evidence for this meaning, this is the meaning, it was said.

"Use together with one who is ashamed" means use by taking what belongs to one who is ashamed. "Together with one who is shameless," here too, the same method applies. "From the beginning, there is no such thing as one who is shameless," with this, he shows that doubt should not be made only in what is seen. "Those who are one's own responsibility," are preceptors, pupils etc. That they should be prevented, he who sees that, should prevent them, is the reading. But in the commentary, the reading "Also, one who makes use together with a shameless person who is his own responsibility should also be prevented" is seen, even so, in terms of meaning, both ways are appropriate. One's own preceptors, pupils, etc., should also be prevented because of their shamelessness. Others who make shared use with shameless preceptors, pupils, etc., should also be prevented. "If he does not desist, even this one is shameless," here, it is skillful that the person prevented in this way desists, turns away, from use together with a shameless person. If he does not desist, even this one is shameless, he who makes use together with him is also shameless, this is the meaning. Therefore, it was said, "Thus, one shameless person makes even a hundred shameless." "Adhammiyo" (unlawful), arisen from improper seeking etc. "Dhammiyo" (lawful), arisen from alms-round etc. "He gives only to the Saṅgha," he gives only the lotteries he has obtained himself, without taking the meal.

"Use together with one who is ashamed," means being mixed together in terms of Dhamma and material things. "Together with one who is shameless," here too, the same method applies. "From the beginning, there is no such thing as one who is shameless," with this, he shows that doubt should not be made only in what is seen, it should be made only when there is a reason that is seen, heard, etc. "Those who are one's own responsibility," are preceptors, pupils etc. "If he does not desist," he does not desist from the use of Dhamma and material things due to going to wrong destinations (agati). "There is no offense," this was said with reference to the Dhamma-born requisite and the Dhamma actions of the shameless. For even for those using requisites arisen from family pollution etc., and for those doing group actions etc., there is indeed an offense. "Lawful and unlawful use should be understood only in terms of requisites," because it was said, the use of one who is ashamed and the use of one who is shameless were already stated below in terms of requisites, in terms of single actions, etc., it should be known. Therefore, in the commentary on the Duṭṭhadosa Sikkhāpada (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-386), two shameless persons standing in the state of accuser and accused were spoken of as 'living having become shared-use users' even with reference to Dhamma use, because there is no contradiction in their mutual use of Dhamma and material things. Indeed, it is not proper for those who are ashamed to use both together with one who is shameless," it was said.

Sace pana lajjī alajjiṃ paggaṇhāti…pe… antaradhāpetīti, here, it is not proper to do so merely with the intention of supporting them. However, it should be understood that it is proper for the benefit of the Dhamma, the Teaching, and the hearers. Since it was said earlier, "So āpattiyā kāretabbo" ("He should be made to do penance"), some say that this itself is an āpatti. The enjoyment of the Dhamma through recitation, etc., is dhammaparibhogo (enjoyment of the Dhamma). Even if there is no āpatti for one who supports out of Dhamma-anuggaha (support of the Dhamma), the Elder, alluding to that shamelessness itself, said, "Pāpo kirāya" ("Indeed, he is wicked"), etc. Tassa pana santiketi, in the presence of Mahārakkhita Thera.

Dhammaparibhogoti, the saṃvāsa (communion) mentioned as "ekakammaṃ ekuddeso" ("one kamma, one recitation"), etc., and all the nirāmisa-paribhoga (unmaterial enjoyment), starting with accepting dependence, should be understood. "Na so āpattiyā kāretabbo" ("He should not be made to do penance") has been said, it should be understood that there is an āpatti when a shame-observing monk supports a shameless monk. Itaropīti, even the shame-observing monk. By this it shows that even for the shame-observing monk who supports that shameless monk because of gain from praising his virtues or because of deep attachment to the household life, the shame-observing monk makes the Teaching disappear. Thus, a shameless monk, supported by laypeople, etc., gains strength, overcomes the virtuous, and soon turns the Teaching into un-Dhamma and un-Vinaya.

Dhammaparibhogopi tattha vaṭṭatīti, by this, it shows that enjoyment of the Dhamma is more important than material enjoyment. Therefore, it should be done with great discernment of the shameless. Since it has been said that "it is proper to learn for the sake of the Dhamma," when the Teaching declines due to the presumption of the shameless, and when the shame-observing monks are not sufficient, it is even proper to support the Teaching by taking a shameless monk as a gaṇapūraka (quorum-filler) and performing upasampadā (higher ordination) etc., and by gathering some shameless monks with material and Dhamma enjoyment, and by punishing the remaining group of shameless monks.

Some, however, say, "Since it is said that the book is based on the koṭi (limit), the enjoyment of the Dhamma is only the completion of studying the texts, not the ekakamma, etc. Therefore, it is proper to do kammas (acts) such as Uposatha with the shameless, there is no āpatti." That is not right, because here, the book is summarized as an example to show the dhammaparibhoga that must be done with the shameless in many dhammaparibhogas such as ekakamma, etc., when the situation demands it. Indeed, it cannot be said that the ekakamma etc. are not dhammaparibhoga, because they are unmaterial, and there is no one who is not included in material and Dhamma. Therefore, in the Aṭṭhasālinī, in the discussion of offering hospitality in accordance with the Dhamma (dha. sa. aṭṭha. 1351), "the Kammaṭṭhāna (meditation subject) should be taught, the Dhamma should be recited…pe… Abbhāna-vuṭṭhāna (rising from suspension), mānatta (probation), and parivāsa (penance) should be given, one who is worthy of ordination should be ordained, one who is worthy of higher ordination should be given higher ordination…pe… this is called offering hospitality in accordance with the Dhamma," thus, Saṅghakamma (acts of the Sangha), etc., are shown in the category of Dhamma. But, in those categories of Dhamma, that which is done by depending on the shameless as gaṇapūraka etc., such as Uposatha or learning Dhamma, accepting dependence from them, is called both Dhamma and enjoyment, dhammaparibhoga. It is not proper to do this without such a reason. For one who does so, it is enjoyment of the shameless, and also a dukkaṭa (wrongdoing). But that which is done without depending on hundreds of shameless monks, such as a tajjanīya-kamma (act of censure) etc., or parivāsa etc., upakāra-kamma (supporting act) or giving uggaha-paripucchā (learning and questioning), is only Dhamma, not enjoyment. It is proper to do this for suitable people, there is no āpatti, like giving material things. Giving dependence, giving the thirteen sammutis (agreements), and the enjoyment of approving the fulfillment of duties, etc., are also not proper because they are the cause.

But for the greatly shameless monk who makes the Teaching of the Buddha into un-Dhamma and un-Vinaya, it is not proper to do upakāra-kamma (supporting acts) such as upasampadā (higher ordination) etc., and uggaha-paripucchā (learning and questioning) etc., for his saddhivihārika (co-resident) etc. There is only āpatti. Only niggaha-kamma (act of punishment) should be done. Therefore, supporting the shameless is also rejected. Indeed, by avoiding material and Dhamma enjoyment, punishment of the wicked people is intended, and that is for the benefit of the virtuous, for the purpose of their comfortable dwelling, for the stability of the good Dhamma, and for the benefit of the Vinaya, because the sikkhāpada (precepts) are established for this purpose. Therefore, whatever is for the support of the wicked, for the discomfort of the virtuous, and for the purpose of the decline of the good Dhamma, whether it is enjoyment or non-enjoyment, it is not proper to do it. Those who do so make the Teaching disappear and incur āpatti. Among the material and Dhamma enjoyment here, ekakammādi-dhammaparibhoga (communion on acts, etc.) with the shameless is especially for the discomfort of the virtuous and for the purpose of the decline of the good Dhamma, not so with material enjoyment. Indeed, mere enjoyment of requisites by the shameless does not cause discomfort, etc., for the virtuous, but it does with the aforementioned dhammaparibhoga. By avoiding that, there is comfortable dwelling, etc. Thus, shameless people who have transgressed the established precepts, having entered the Uposatha, etc., should be told by the monks, "You are transgressing in body and speech," etc. Just as those who do not stand in the Vinaya should be well punished by expulsion from the Sangha, etc., so those who live with them without doing so are also shameless. "Even one shameless monk makes hundreds shameless," etc. (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.585). If they were not punished in this way, they would increase quarrels, etc., in the Sangha, causing discomfort to the virtuous by obstructing the samaggī-kamma (act in concord) of the Uposatha, etc., and gradually, like Devadatta, the Vajjiputtakas, etc., they would increase their following, declaring their own dissension to be in accordance with the Dhamma and Vinaya, and soon, having caused schism in the Sangha, they would make the Teaching disappear. But when they are punished by expulsion from the Sangha, etc., all this trouble does not occur. Indeed, it was said, "Depending on an immoral person, the Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, the Saṅghakammas do not proceed, there is no concord…pe… but when the immoral are punished, all this trouble does not occur, then the virtuous monks dwell comfortably." Therefore, ekakammādi-dhammaparibhoga (communion on acts, etc.) should be done with even more discernment of the shameless than material enjoyment, and it should be understood that it causes āpatti and is a cause for the decline of the good Dhamma.

Moreover, this is also proven by the fact that in the commentary on the non-performance of Saṅghakamma (acts of the Sangha) with the shameless, such as "the Uposatha does not stand, the Pavāraṇā does not stand, the Saṅghakammas do not proceed," etc., is explained. Similarly, in the discussion of the practice of a bhikkhu (monk) who has changed his gender going to a bhikkhunī-upassaya (nunnery), "there are those who are respectful and gather around, the shame-observing nuns; having angered them, one should not go elsewhere. If he goes, he is not freed from the āpattis of going to another village, across a river, spending the night away from the community…pe… there are those who are shameless, but they gather around; even abandoning them, one is allowed to go elsewhere." Thus, since grave āpatti-ṭṭhānānas (situations for incurring grave offenses) such as going across a river are permitted to avoid saṃvāsāpatti (offense of association) in taking a second one among the shameless nuns, it is understood from that that saṃvāsāpatti (offense of association) with the shameless is a more serious cause for the decline of the good Dhamma. Indeed, the teachers do not allow transgression of a grave āpatti-ṭṭhānānas (situations for incurring grave offenses) in order to avoid a light āpatti-ṭṭhānānas (situations for incurring grave offenses) or a non-āpatti-ṭṭhānānas (situations for incurring no offenses). Similarly, in the commentary on the word asaṃvāsa (non-association), "samasikkhātā (having the same training) is so called because all shame-observing people must train together. Here, since all the shame-observing live together in these kammas, etc., not even one is seen outside of that, therefore, having taken all of those, this is called saṃvāsa (association)," thus, it is explained that only ekakammādi-saṃvāsa (communion in acts, etc.) with the shame-observing is proper.

If so, why are the shameless not included among those with whom one should not associate? This is not a contradiction, because only those whose kamma is ruined by making a gaṇapūraka (quorum-filler), and who have committed pārājika (defeat) etc., are included among those with whom one should not associate. But there are also shameless people who are competent. If they accomplish the kamma by becoming gaṇapūraka (quorum-filler), they are āpattikarā (cause for offense) only for those who do so by going to corruption, like those who have committed a sabhāga-āpatti (offense of the same kind), they become mutually offensive. Since shamelessness and shame-observing are dependent on the moment of thought of ordinary people, not for all time. Indeed, when a thought of intentional transgression arises, the shameless become shame-observing with the thought, "I will not do such a thing again."

And among those who, even when admonished by the virtuous, do not refrain and do it again and again, only they should not be associated with, not the others, because they have entered into the quality of being shame-observing. Therefore also, without counting the shameless among those with whom one should not associate, the Uposatha etc. should be done only after purifying for the purpose of avoiding them, so that it is not unknown. Thus, "Venerable ones, announce your purity, I will recite the Pātimokkha" etc. (mahāva. 134), the impropriety of doing Uposatha for an impure assembly is declared. "If there is an offense, let him reveal it…pe… it is comfortable" (mahāva. 134), thus, the way of doing Uposatha after establishing even the shameless in the quality of being shame-observing is also stated, and "Is the assembly pure…pe… Venerable ones, the assembly is pure" (pārā. 233) in the pārisuddhi-uposatha (purity-uposatha), and "I am pure, venerable sir, remember me as pure" (mahāva. 168), thus, the purity of those who do the Uposatha is declared. And the method of establishing Uposatha-Pavāraṇā (invitation) for those who do not refrain by mere words is stated, and because association is improper for those who do not enter into the quality of being shame-observing in every way, the rejection of giving and accepting dependence, and the method of making the shameless, along with the following assembly, those with whom one should not associate by doing tajjanīya-kamma (act of censure) etc., and ukkhepanīya-kamma (act of suspension) is stated. Therefore, by all the shameless, both competent and incompetent, ekakammādi-saṃvāsa (communion in acts, etc.) is not proper, by the Suttanta-naya (method of the Suttantas) and the words of the commentary as stated above. Indeed, the establishment of all the sikkhāpada (precepts) is for the punishment of wicked people, this conclusion should be reached here. Therefore, in the Second Council, even though they were competent, the shameless Vajjiputtakas were separated from the Sangha by Yasa Thera and others with great effort. Indeed, there is no pārājikādi-asaṃvāsika-āpatti (defeat etc., offense with which one cannot associate) in them, it is said that the ten points declared by them are in the scope of light offenses.

Tassa santiketi, in the presence of Mahārakkhita Thera.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra,

Which is a summary of the Vinaya, and the embellishment of the discussion of the judgment regarding the acceptance of silver, etc.,

The twelfth chapter.

13. Discussion on the Judgment of the Characteristics of Giving, Etc.

69.Having discussed the judgment regarding the acceptance of silver, etc., in this way, now, in order to discuss the judgment regarding giving, confidence, grasping, gain, and parināmana (transformation), he says, "dānavissāsaggāhehī"tiādimāha ("by giving, confidence, grasping") etc. There, dānaṃ (giving) is that which is given, the kusala-kiriyacittuppāda (wholesome functional consciousness), predominantly non-greed, belonging to the Sensuous Sphere, which occurs with an object such as cloth as its object. Sasanaṃ (injunction) is sāso (discipline), from the root sasu, meaning injury, hiṃsananti (injuring) means injury, vigato sāso etasmā gāhāti (confidence) vissāso (trust). Gahaṇaṃ (grasping) is gāho (taking), vissāsena gāho (grasping with trust) is vissāsaggāho (grasping with trust). Here, the instrumental case is used as an adjective, grasping by means of trust, not by means of a thieving mind, is the meaning. Lacchateti (is obtained) lābho (gain) is the material such as cloth, lābhassa (of gain). Pariṇamiyate (is transformed) pariṇāmanaṃ (transformation), the transforming of oneself or another for the sake of others, meaning giving. Dānavissāsaggāhehi lābhassa pariṇāmananti, here, the analysis of the meaning of the word "dāna" (giving), which is fixed in the statement, should be understood first in this way is the connection. The giving of one's own cloth and requisites is the connection. Yassa kassacīti, the designation of the recipient, meaning for any recipient whatsoever.

"Tatridaṃ dānalakkhaṇa"nti. The explanation is that saying "Idaṃ tuyhaṃ demī" constitutes the characteristic of giving, complete with three aspects. Here, idaṃ indicates the object to be given. Tuyhaṃ indicates the recipient. Demī indicates the giver. Words such as dadāmī are synonyms. For it was said, "The giver, the recipient and the object are essential for the act of giving," and "Merit arises from the presence of these three." "The characteristic of giving is the relinquishing of an object" is only a partial description. Whether something given is given directly or indirectly, he says "Sammukhāpi parammukhāpi dinnaṃyeva hotī". In phrases such as "Tuyhaṃ gaṇhāhī," the meaning is this: saying "Gaṇhāhī" is like saying "Demī," therefore, because it is given directly, it is sudinnaṃ (well-given), and saying "Gaṇhāmī" is a direct acceptance, therefore it is suggahitaṃ (well-received). However, "Tuyhaṃ mayhaṃ" these words cause an attachment to the recipient. Phrases such as "Tava santakaṃ karohī" indicate giving and receiving indirectly, therefore it is dudinnaṃ, duggahitañca (badly-given and badly-received). In the world, even those unwilling to relinquish and wanting to take back give away saying, "Let it be yours," like Kusarañño's mother giving away the rope. Therefore, he says "Neva dātā dātuṃ jānāti, na itaro gahetuṃ". "Sace panā" etc., even if the giver uses a roundabout expression due to ignorance of the convention, if the recipient accepts with a direct expression, being skilled in his own convention, therefore it is called "suggahitaṃ".

"Sace pana eko" etc., if the giver gives with a direct expression, and the recipient refuses with a direct expression, then even the robe previously intended by the giver relinquishes its intended status due to the act of giving, and because it has been relinquished and is no longer his, it is not an extra robe, therefore there is no offense even if ten days pass. And because the recipient has refused, it is not his property, therefore it is not an extra robe, so there is no offense even if ten days pass. "Yassa pana ruccatī"ti, here, because this robe is unowned and remains in the place for discarded cloths, whoever likes it may take it as a discarded cloth and use it. However, the giver should first intend it again before using it, as the previous intention was relinquished by the act of giving; the other person should use it without prior intention.

"Itthannāmassa dehī" etc., because it is stated in the dative case used in the sense of a command, it becomes the property of the recipient at the very moment it is given to the recipient by command, not before; before that, it belongs to the one who commanded it, therefore it is said "Yo pahiṇati, tasseva santaka". "Itthannāmassa dammī", because it is stated in the present tense, used in the sense of the present, it becomes the property of the recipient from that moment on, therefore it is said "Yassa pahīyati, tassa santaka". "Tasmā": with this, the venerable Revata Thera shows that, in the intentions described by the Blessed One in the incident of sending a robe to the venerable Sāriputta, one should know without confusion by the characteristics stated here.

"Dvādhiṭṭhitaṃ, svādhiṭṭhitaṃ" is not said with reference to the intention regarding the three robes, but rather with reference to taking a robe as a robe taken on trust while the owner is alive, or as a deceased person’s robe when the owner is dead; after that, one must make an intention regarding the three robes or the requisites within ten days, or disclaim them. "Yo pahiṇati" refers to the giver; "yassa pahīyati" refers to the recipient.

"Pariccajitvā…pe… na labhati," means one should have it made at the price of the goods, bringing them back. "Attanā…pe… nissaggiyaṃ": by this, he shows that one who, knowing it to be the property of another, takes it by theft or force, commits a pārājika offense. However, the ancient commentary says, "One who takes goods without acknowledging ownership should have the item appraised and make amends for the offense." Even without acknowledgement of ownership, one who takes it with the perception of temporary discarded-cloth etc., should not have to make amends for the offense. The commentary speaks with reference to forceful taking. Therefore, he says "acchindato nissaggiyaṃ". "Sace pana…pe… vaṭṭatī" refers to a gift given willingly; "atha panā" etc. refers to a gift given in anger. In both cases, because it is given by oneself, it is allowable; there is no offense in accepting it, is the meaning.

"Mama santike…pe… evaṃ pana dātuṃ na vaṭṭatī" means that because the characteristic of giving is relinquishing the object, giving in this way is not allowable, because it is given without relinquishing it, so it is not a gift; therefore it is not allowable, and thus a dukkaṭa arises. "Āharāpetuṃ pana vaṭṭatī": because it was previously said, "I will not give to one who does not do it," it is stated with reference to the fact that if he does not do the duties mentioned, such as taking from the preceptor, it belongs to the teacher. But if he does them, it might belong to the novice, because it was not relinquished entirely. It could be said that "āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī" is stated because acknowledgement of ownership exists. However, the commentary (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.635) says, "Giving in this way is like wages, so it is allowable to bring it back." Even if it is like wages, the wages should be received after the work is done, so it should not be allowable to bring it back. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.635) says "āharāpetuṃ vaṭṭatī" is said because it is like wages even if the work is not done," thus it is established that it is not allowable to bring it back if the work is done. Giving to a novice indicates that the preceptor will take it, and by this it indicates that even if he gives it during the time of the novice and takes it back when he is ordained, a pācittiya offense results. "Ayaṃ tāva dāne vinicchayo": by this, it indicates that the three determinations, such as the determination of giving, have a single chapter-defining function.

Discussion on the Determination of Taking on Trust

70.Anuṭṭhānaseyyā is the bed from which one lying down does not get up until the cessation of the life-faculty is reached. When giving away the property of the deceased, it should be given to those laypeople or renunciants who have authority over that property. Who are these laypeople and renunciants, and for what reason do they have authority over that property? The laypeople are those who attend to the sick, and for that reason they have authority over that part of the property which consists of the sick-attendant's share. And those merchants from whose hands the attendant had bowls and other requisites bought are also entitled to the original purchase price from the property. Those clothes that were set aside for the parents are also entitled to that property. In this way, for whatever reason whatever requisite-property should be obtained by whatever laypeople, for that reason those laypeople have authority over that property.

Renunciants who are outsiders have authority in the same way, if there is a reason. However, among the five co-religionists, monks and novices receive the property of deceased monks and novices as heirs, even without a reason, but not the others. Nuns, female trainees, and female novices also receive the property in the same way, but not the others. This receiving of the property of the deceased will become clear in the determination of the recipients of the four requisites; however, many elder Vinaya-holders, relying on the passage "those laypeople or renunciants who have authority over that property," determine that "relatives who are laypeople receive the property of a deceased monk"; we will discuss that determination and its appropriateness there.

Anattamanassa santakaṃ: The property of one who has reached displeasure, either by a verbal expression such as "You have done badly, taking my property without my permission," or merely by a mental state. Yo pana paṭhamaṃyeva "suṭṭhu kataṃ tayā mama santakaṃ gaṇhantenā"ti vacībhedena vā cittuppādamattena vā anumoditvā pacchā kenaci kāraṇena kupito, paccāharāpetuṃ na labhati. Yopi adātukāmo, cittena pana adhivāseti, na kiñci vadatī: Here, in the ancient commentary (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.131) "'cittena pana adhivāsetī'ti vuttamevatthaṃ vibhāvetuṃ 'na kiñci vadatī'ti vutta" it is said that in order to explain the meaning of "he approves with his mind," it is said "he says nothing". In this case, "cittenā" is the instrument of the action of approving. Adātukāmo: Here too, it could be the same instrument, then the statement "he is unwilling to give with his mind, he approves with his mind" would not be appropriate. Setting that aside, in "adātukāmo" another instrument, such as "with his body" or "with his speech" is not possible, and when that is not possible, the word "pana" which denotes a special meaning, would be meaningless. Na kiñci vadatī: Here, for the action of speaking, the instrument "vācāyā" (with speech) should be desired, and in that case, the instrument for the action of approving is different, the instrument for the action of speaking is different, the action of approving is different, the action of speaking is different, therefore it is not right to say "to explain the meaning that was said". Therefore, one should make the connection: "even if one is unwilling to give with his mind, nevertheless he approves with his speech, he says nothing," and one should say that "na kiñci vadatī is said to reveal the meaning that was said, namely ‘adhivāseti’". Here, the word pana suggests a characteristic of disinclination. "Cittenā" is the instrument of the action of being unwilling to give, "vācāyā" is the instrument of the action of approving and the action of not speaking. The action of approving is the very action of not speaking. Because the action of not speaking is not obvious when "adhivāseti" is said, "na kiñci vadatī" is said to reveal that. If understood in this way, the meaning of the preceding and subsequent statements would be appropriate. Therefore, it should be taken after considering with such distinctions.

Discussion on the Determination of Transformation of Gains

71.In the determination of the transformation of gains, "tumhākaṃ sappiādīni ābhatānī" means: ghee etc. were brought for you. He says "Mayhampi dethāti vadati, vaṭṭatī", meaning that even having known that it has become transformed, if one requests according to the method stated, it is as if what was requested was his own property.

"Pupphampi āropetuṃ na vaṭṭatī" is said with reference to that which has become transformed. "However, if one takes a flower offered at one shrine and offers it at another shrine, it is allowable," is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. 2.660). In the commentary (Pārā. aṭṭha. 2.660), because it is stated specifically as "from a garland offered for another shrine," it is not only the state of having become transformed that is spoken of, but also the state of having been offered specifically. "Pupphampī": with the pi-particle, he shows whence the garlands. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. 1.660) it is said, "‘ropitamālāvacchato’ is said with reference to something offered specifically by someone; it is allowable to pick off what is unsuitable and withered and offer it wherever." "Ṭhitaṃ disvā" means having taken the remainder, seeing what is left. "Imassa sunakhassa mā dehi, etassa dehī" this is only when it has become transformed; however, if it is given, having relinquished it, to an animal, it is allowable to drive that one away and feed another, therefore "kattha demā" etc. shows non-offense in one way. Even if not asked, if one knows that ‘this has not become transformed,’ it is allowable to have it given wherever one wishes according to one's preference," is said in all three Gaṇṭhipadas. "Yattha icchatha, tattha dethā" here too, because it is said "according to your preference," one can have it given wherever one wishes.

nava adhammikāni dānāni: To transform something transformed for the Sangha to another Sangha or a shrine or an individual; to transform something transformed for a shrine to another shrine or the Sangha or an individual; to transform something transformed for an individual to another individual or the Sangha or a shrine—these are the ones mentioned. Nava paṭiggahā paribhogā cā: the acceptance and use of these same gifts. Tīṇi dhammikāni dānāni: to give what is intended for the Sangha to the Sangha, to give what is intended for a shrine to the shrine, to give what is intended for an individual to the individual—these are the three. The acceptance and use are also the acceptance and use of those same things, so it is said.

Thus, in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

ends the thirteenth chapter, named the Discourse on the Adornment of the Determination of the Characteristics of Giving, etc.

The Thirteenth Chapter

14. Discussion on the Determination of Digging the Earth

72. Having explained the determination of confidence in gifts and acquisition of gains in this way, now, to explain the determination of earth, he says, "Pathavī" [earth] etc. Herein, that which spreads out is pathavī [earth], from the root "thara santharaṇa" [to spread out] preceded by "pa," the "ra" becomes "va"; the earth with its constituents. He speaks of its varieties: "Dve pathavī, jātā ca pathavī ajātā ca pathavī" [There are two kinds of earth: produced earth and unproduced earth]. To show their distinction, he says, "tattha jātā nāma pathavī" [Therein, produced earth] etc. Therein, pure dust…pe… mostly clay earth is called produced earth. Not only that, loose earth is also called "produced earth." Not only these two, but also any heap of dust…pe… covered for four months, that too is called "produced earth," this is the connection. The same method applies to the other as well.

suddhapaṃsukā: Thus, suddhamattikā [pure clay]. appā pāsāṇā etthāti appapāsāṇā [where there are few stones is called appapāsāṇā]. The same method applies to the others as well. yebhuyyena paṃsukā etthāti yebhuyyenapaṃsukā [where there is mostly dust is called yebhuyyenapaṃsukā], this is an elided compound; likewise, yebhuyyenamattikā [mostly clay]. Therein, stones larger than fist-sized are pāsāṇā [stones]. Fist-sized are sakkharā [gravel]. Kathalā means pieces of pots etc. Marumpā means hard gravel. Vālukā is sand itself. In yebhuyyenapaṃsukā, in three portions, two portions are dust, one portion is one of the stones etc. Adaḍḍhāpīti [even uncompacted earth] means uncompacted in such and such a way due to the heat of the potter's drying rack etc.; however, that does not exist separately, it should be understood as one of the pure dusts etc. Yebhuyyenasakkharā [mostly gravel] means mostly gravel. It is said that in the elephant's belly, having had a basketful brought, washed in a trough, knowing the state of mostly gravel in the earth, the monks themselves dug a pond. However, the two words in the middle, "appapaṃsuappamattikā" [little dust, little clay], these enter into the five, mostly stones etc. For this is a statement of distinction of those two, namely, pure stones etc.

And here, although having stated the earth that is mostly dust and little dust, the earth that is half dust is not stated, nevertheless, in the rules of training that are exceptions to the formulation, since the remaining formulation is also possible, it should be understood that even for earth that is half dust, it is only pācittiya. Some, however, say, "since for the half-covered in all the covered etc., a dukkata offense is stated, here too a dukkata offense is appropriate," that is not appropriate, because having established two kinds of earth, the object of a pācittiya offense and the object of a non-offense, there is no third earth that is the object of a dukkata offense. For only two earths are stated, "produced earth and unproduced earth," therefore, it must be one of the two earths. And in the Vinaya decision, when confronted with serious and light offenses, because only the serious one should stand, it is not possible to have non-offense here. However, in all the covered etc., a dukkata offense for half is appropriate, because there the object of such a dukkata offense is possible. In the Vimativinodanī also (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.86) it is said, "because for earth with little dust and clay, it is stated as an object of non-offense, even for half dust and clay, it should be understood as only pācittiya. For it cannot be said to be an object of a dukkata offense, because there is no third earth that is free from produced and unproduced."

Khaṇantassa khaṇāpentassa vā [Whether digging or having (someone) dig] means even with the tip of the toe or with a broom needle, whether digging oneself or having (someone) else dig. ‘‘Pokkharaṇiṃ khaṇā’’ti vadati, vaṭṭatī [He says, "Dig a pond," it is allowable] means it is allowable because it is stated without specifying "in this place." Even when saying, "‘‘Imaṃ valliṃ khaṇā’’ [Dig this vine]," because the usage occurs referring to digging earth, it is a pācittiya offense by this training rule itself, not by the bhūtagāma [vegetation] training rule; however, when stated referring to both, then there are two pācittiya offenses.

73.Kuṭehīti [kuṭehī] with pots. Tanukakaddamoti [Tanukakaddamo] thin mud mixed with water, and that is allowable because of the movement of water. Udakapappaṭakoti [Udakapappaṭako] when water enters the underground, covering its upper part, a thin layer of dust or clay arises floating, even when that water is dry, that layer stands moving with the wind, that is called udakapappaṭako. Omakacātumāsanti [Omakacātumāsa] less than four months. Ovaṭṭhanti [Ovaṭṭha] covered by rain. Akatapabbhāreti [Akatapabbhāre] stated to show the place of avalañjana [sliding down]. For in such a place there is the nature of an ant hill. Mūsikukkuraṃ nāma [Mūsikukkuraṃ] is the heap of dust dug out and brought outside by mice.

Eseva nayoti [Eseva nayo] means only that which is covered for less than four months is allowable. Ekadivasampi na vaṭṭatīti [Not even for one day is it allowable] means even if one day has passed since it was covered for four months, it is not allowable to destroy it. And regarding the connection to the lower ground, in the case of gokaṇṭaka, because it has sprouted cutting it off from the ground, it is allowable to cut off from the top the very tall one and to take it. It is allowable to take mud that has been trampled with the feet and stirred up after making it not standing in its own place.

Because it is stated by Acchadanantiādinā [Acchadana etc.], only that which is covered by rain water falling directly from the sky is produced earth; it should be understood that it is not moistened by water that has fallen on coverings etc. and then flowed from there. Tatoti [Tato] from the old dwelling. Iṭṭhakaṃ gaṇhāmītiādi [Iṭṭhakaṃ gaṇhāmī etc.] is stated referring to a pure intention. ‘‘Udakenā’’ti [‘‘Udakenā’’] with water fallen directly from the sky itself. Some say, "However, if it is wetted by water that has been struck elsewhere and then fallen, it is allowable." Maṇḍapatthambhanti [Maṇḍapatthambha] means the post of a branch pavilion.

74.Uccāletvāti [Uccāletvā] having lifted up. Tena apadesenāti [Tena apadesenā] with that pretext. Avisayattā anāpattīti [Avisayattā anāpattī] Here, even if it is possible to extinguish it, because it was given with pure intention at first, even if one thinks "let it burn" and remains, there is no offense. Mahāmattikanti [Mahāmattika] plastering the wall.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra,

which is a Saṃvaṇṇanā on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

entitled "The Adornment of the Explanation of the Determination of Digging the Earth,"

the Fourteenth Chapter.

15. Explanation of the Determination of Vegetation

75.Having explained the determination of earth in this way, now, to explain the determination of vegetation, he says, "bhūtagāmo" [vegetation] etc. Herein, they come into being, they have come into being, is bhūtā [beings], meaning they are born and they grow, they are born and they have grown. Gāmoti [Gāmo] means a mass; bhūtānaṃ gāmoti bhūtagāmo [a mass of beings is bhūtagāmo], or bhūtā eva vā gāmo bhūtagāmo [beings are the mass is bhūtagāmo], this is a designation for established green grass, trees, etc. Therein, the explanation of "bhavantī" [they come into being] is "jāyanti vaḍḍhantī" [they are born and they grow], the explanation of "ahuvu" [they have come into being] is "jātā vaḍḍhitā" [they are born and they have grown]. Thus, the word "bhūta" refers to the present and the past. Therefore, the Vimativinodanī says (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.90), "bhavantīti vaḍḍhanti [bhavantī means they grow], ahuvunti babhuvū [ahuvu means they have become]." Now, showing that vegetation, he says, "bhūtagāmoti pañcahi bījehi jātānaṃ rukkhalatādīnametaṃ adhivacana" [vegetation is a designation for trees, creepers, etc. born from five kinds of seeds]. Latādīnanti [Latādīna] by the ādi [etc.] should be understood medicinal herbs, bushes, etc.

‘‘tatrimāni pañca bījānī’’tiādimāha [‘‘tatrimāni pañca bījānī’’ etc.]. Therein, the root itself is the seed is mūlabījaṃ [root-seed]. Thus, in the rest as well. Or, the root is the seed for this is mūlabījaṃ [root-seed], or born from a root-seed is mūlabījaṃ [root-seed]. Thus, in the rest as well. Therein, by the first analysis, only the seed-mass is obtained, by the second and third, the vegetation. Now, showing those vegetations in their own form, he says, "tattha mūlabījaṃ nāmā" [therein, root-seed is] etc. Therein, among those five, turmeric…pe… bhaddamuttaka is called root-seed. Not only these are root-seeds, but also others which exist as vegetation births, are born from a root, originate from a root, this vegetation birth is called root-seed, this is the connection. The same method applies to the rest as well. For it was said in the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 91), "Now, showing that vegetation dividing it, he says, 'vegetation is five seed-births' etc." Therein, "vegetation is," having extracted vegetation, to show that when which there is vegetation, he says "five seed-births," thus it is said in the commentaries. Even so, "whatever other exist, are born from a root" etc., do not agree. For root-seeds etc. are not born from roots etc. However, those seed-births are born from roots etc., therefore, the explanation of the meaning should be understood thus: bhūtagāmo nāmā [vegetation is] is the term to be divided. Pañcā [Five] is the limit of that division. Bījajātānī [Seed-births] is the showing of the limited things, because those born from seeds are seed-births, this is a designation for trees etc. Just as in "even if he eats rice of sāli" (ma. ni. 1.76) etc., rice of sāli grains is called sāli rice, so too, vegetation born from a seed is said to be "bīja" [seed], thus it should be understood.

76.Sañcicca ukkhipituṃ na vaṭṭatīti [Sañcicca ukkhipituṃ na vaṭṭatī] Here, because it is stated "sañcicca" [intentionally], even knowing the state of being stuck to the body, he gets up, it is allowable because of the absence of the perception "I will remove it." By the taking of Anantaka, mustard clay is taken. This is the name of that kind of algae. Because of the absence of roots and leaves, it is stated "‘‘asampuṇṇabhūtagāmo nāmā’’ [asampuṇṇabhūtagāmo nāmā]." Abhūtagāmamūlattāti [Abhūtagāmamūlattā] Here, bhūtagāmo is the root, the cause for this is bhūtagāmamūlo [having vegetation as its root], or the root is the cause for vegetation is bhūtagāmamūlaṃ [having vegetation as its root]. For the seed-mass arises from vegetation and is the cause for vegetation. However, this is not such, therefore it is stated "abhūtagāmamūlattā" [because it does not have vegetation as its root].

So bījagāmena saṅgahitoti [So bījagāmena saṅgahito] it is stated because it has vegetation as its root even though it is not growing.

‘‘Aṅkure harite’’ti vatvā tamevatthaṃ vibhāveti [‘‘Aṅkure harite’’ti vatvā tamevatthaṃ vibhāveti], having said "green sprout," he explains that same meaning, ‘‘nīlavaṇṇe jāte’’ti [‘‘nīlavaṇṇe jāte’’], the meaning is a leaf born similar to the color of a blue leaf, or the reading should be taken as "nīlavaṇṇe jāte." Amūlakabhūtagāme saṅgahaṃ gacchatīti [Amūlakabhūtagāme saṅgahaṃ gacchatī] he says making this a common thing for coconuts. Some say, "because the algae outside of water pots etc. are not standing in water and are in accordance with the seed-mass, they are objects of a dukkata offense." Kaṇṇakampi abbohārikamevāti [Kaṇṇakampi abbohārikamevā] even the blue color is only not in common use.

77. Seleyyakaṃ is a type of fragrance that arises from stone. Pupphitakālato paṭṭhāyā means from the time of blossoming. Ahicchattakaṃ gaṇhanto means gathering when blossomed. However, it is not permissible to gather a bud by damaging the bark of the tree. Since it is said "Rukkhattacaṃ vikopeti," some say, "It is permissible to gather any ahicchattaka that grows on a tree by cutting it from the top without damaging the bark." That is not appropriate because it is said, "As long as the ahicchattaka is a bud, it is an object of a dukkaṭa offense." Rukkhato muccitvā: Some say, "Even if it remains slightly attached to the tree, it is permissible if it does not damage the bark when taken from the tree." Allarukkhato na vaṭṭatī: Here too, it should be understood that it is permissible to cut and take it from the top without damaging the bark. Hatthakukkuccenā: due to clumsiness of the hand. Pānīyaṃ na vāsetabba This is said in reference to water strained for one's own use. However, there is no rule that one cannot strain water for an unordained person and then later obtain it from them for one's own use. However, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.92) says, "pānīyaṃ na vāsetabba this is said in reference to one's own drinking water, but it is permissible for others because it is allowed. Therefore, it is said, attanā khāditukāmenā (by one who wants to eat it himself)." Some say, "Since it is said, Yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā ruhatī (trees of which the branches grow), there is no need to make it allowable for those of which the branches do not grow." The Vimativinodanī also says, "yesaṃ rukkhānaṃ sākhā ruhatī (trees of which the branches grow): even if the root is not pulled out, but it grows merely by the emergence of a leaf, it is permissible to damage cut coconut shells, bamboo sticks, etc., without making it allowable." "Since it is said, ‘‘Caṅkamitaṭṭhānaṃ dassessāmī’’ (I will show you a place for walking meditation), there is no offense for one who steps without the intention of merely walking meditation or traveling along a path, or for one who sits with the intention of sitting on grass."

78. Samaṇakappehī: with practices allowable to ascetics. Although seeds, etc., do not lose their ability to sprout merely by being touched by fire or scratched with nails, the practices of making them allowable for ascetics arise only when they are treated in this way. Therefore, the intention is that I allow the fruit to be consumed by means of these practices allowable for ascetics, such as being scorched by fire. Seeds produced without seeds are also allowable for ascetics, and because of their established permissibility, they are considered practices allowable for ascetics. Or, it should be understood that the intention here is that I allow the fruit to be consumed by the five causes known as the practices allowable for ascetics, because of the permissibility of being scorched by fire, etc. In Aggiparijita etc., some read "paricita". Abījaṃ means young mango fruit, etc. Nibbaṭṭabījaṃ means mango, jackfruit, etc., whose seeds can be removed and consumed separately. That in which the seed that must be removed and separated is present, that jackfruit, etc., is called nibbaṭṭabījaṃ. "Since it must be done ‘‘Kappiya’’nti vatvāva kātabba (only after saying 'kappiya')", one should not assume that it is permissible to do it even if the monk does not say anything, because the procedure to be done by the one who makes it allowable has already been stated. Since it was said earlier that "kappiyaṃ kāretabba" (it should be made allowable), it should be understood that the unordained person should say "kappiya" and then do the scorching with fire, etc., only when the monk says "kappiyaṃ karohī" (make it allowable). Some say, "It is permissible to say 'kappiya' in any language." It should be understood that, according to the statement "kappiyanti vatvāva kātabba" (only after saying 'kappiya'), the touching with fire, etc., should be done only after saying "kappiya" first. Some also say, "It is permissible to say 'kappiya' only after first placing it in the fire or piercing it with a nail and then taking it out."

Although it is said in terms of the action preceding the time of speech ‘‘kappiyanti vatvāvā (only after saying 'kappiya')", since it is said that the wound must be made on the seed village with fire, a knife, etc., at the very moment of speaking, it is not permissible to do it beforehand, and only cutting and splitting should be shown without doing it in two ways. And it should be done by the one who is doing it only when the monk says 'kappiyaṃ karohī' (make it allowable) in any language. It is said that "since it was stated earlier that it is additionally permissible to have it made allowable again to release the seed village."

Ekasmiṃ bīje vā etc., some say, "Even if the intention is to make only one allowable, since all are connected, it is as if all have been made allowable." Dāruṃ vijjhatī: Here, some say, "It is permissible whether he pierces knowingly or has it pierced." Bhattasitthe vijjhatī: Here too, this is the same method. Some say, "‘‘Taṃ vijjhati, na vaṭṭatī (piercing that is not permissible) because ropes etc. pertain to vessels." Marīcapakkādīhi ca missetvā: Here, the connection should be understood in relation to the rice gruel, not in relation to the fruits themselves in mutual connection. Since it is said "‘‘Kaṭāhepi kātuṃ vaṭṭatī’’ (It is permissible to do it in a pot too)", it is permissible to pierce the pith or seed taken out of the pot anywhere at all. Bhindāpetvā kappiyaṃ kārāpetabba: Because the pot that is freed from the seed pertains to vessels.

Thus ends in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

the section called "Explanation of the Decision on What is Capable of Reproduction,"

the Fifteenth Chapter.

16. Discussion on Deciding on Cohabitation

79. Having thus explained the decision on what is capable of reproduction, now, in order to explain the decision on cohabitation, he says, ‘‘duvidhaṃ sahaseyyaka’’ etc. Of that cohabitation, that which has two kinds of ways is duvidhaṃ (twofold); saha sayanaṃ, the act of lying down together, or saha vā sayati ettha, (together, or where one lies down together), the cohabitation itself is sahaseyyakaṃ (cohabitation), by way of the ka-suffix in the sense of "itself". That, however, is twofold in the sense of cohabitation with an unordained person or a woman. Therefore, he says, "duvidhaṃ sahaseyyaka (cohabitation is twofold)." Dirattatiratta: Here, it should be understood that the mention of "two nights" is made merely for the sake of elegance of expression. For, when cohabitation for three nights is obtainable, there is no need to mention two nights; the mention of two nights is not useful separately. Therefore, he says, "uttaridirattatirattanti bhagavā sāmaṇerānaṃ saṅgahakaraṇatthāya tirattaparihāraṃ adāsī" (the Blessed One granted the concession of three nights to novices in order to show them favor, namely two nights or three nights). Or, the mention of "two nights" is made in order to take three consecutive nights. For if only "three nights" were said, one might include three nights with intervals by staying elsewhere. But when three nights qualified by "two nights" is said, it indicates only three consecutive nights. The Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.50-51) also says, "The mention of 'two nights' is for the sake of embellishing the expression. It should also be seen as showing that the offense occurs only for one who lies down for three consecutive nights and on the fourth day, etc., not for one who lies down with intervals, etc." Sahaseyyaṃ (cohabitation) means lying down in one place. Here, Seyya (lying down) is said to mean both the act of lying down, which is stretching out the body, and the lodging in which one lies down. Therefore, here, in seyyaṃ kappeyyā (he should arrange a lodging), the meaning is that he should enter a lodging in the sense of a dwelling and arrange the lying down in the sense of stretching out the body, that is, he should accomplish it. Diyaḍḍhahatthubbedhenā: Here, the diyaḍḍhahattha (one and a half hand-spans) should be taken as the carpenter's hand-span. Pañcahi chadanehī: with the five coverings consisting of bricks, stones, mortar, grass, and leaves. Vācuggatavasenā: According to common usage.

Ekūpacāro: This is said in reference to the oneness of the door of the courtyard. However, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.50-51) says, "ekūpacāro (single enclosure) is where one can enter by one path and, without stepping into the open air, can go around everywhere; even if it has many doors, it is still a single enclosure. But where they block it with walls, etc., and attach a separate door, it is not a non-enclosure. But if they block it in that way and do not attach a separate door, that too should be taken as a single enclosure, like a room with a door covered with clay, etc. Otherwise, there would be no offense even for one who, having entered a room and had an unordained person lie down in front, etc., and then had the room door closed with clay, etc., and opened it when he got up at dawn." The connection is that a four-sided building is a single enclosure. Tesaṃ payoge payoge bhikkhussa āpattī: Here, some say, "The offense is said to arise from non-exertion and non-action, because there is no action by one who is sleeping at that moment. This training rule arises from both action and non-action. And its arising from action is said mainly." "As this is, so is sleeping during the day. This also arises from non-action, from non-exertion and from closing the door." And this seems fitting; it should be taken after investigation.

80.Uparimatalena saddhiṃ asambaddhabhittikassā: This is said to show that there is no need to say anything about a building with connected walls. Since there is no possibility of suspicion for one sleeping on the upper floor, ‘‘heṭṭhāpāsāde’’ etc. is said. Nānūpacāre: This is said in reference to such a thing where they make a ladder outside and climb up to the upper floor ‘‘uparimatalepī’’. Since there is no offense for one lying down in the open courtyard, ‘‘chadanabbhantare’’ is said. Sabhāsaṅkhepenā: in the form of a hall. Aḍḍhakuṭṭake senāsane: Here, "aḍḍhakuṭṭakaṃ nāma (a semi-walled dwelling) is where the walls are built on three sides leaving half open, or where they build a wall on one side and then build walls on the other two sides, making them half and half," this is said in all three Gaṇṭhipadas, but in the Gaṇṭhipada it is said "aḍḍhakuṭṭaketi chadanaṃ aḍḍhena asampattakuṭṭake (a semi-walled means walls of which the roof does not reach half)", but that is not right. However, the Vimativinodanī says, "sabhāsaṅkhepenā (in the form of a hall) the structure is shown by this aḍḍhakuṭṭake. Where walls are built on three or two sides, or a semi-wall that does not reach the roof, this is called a semi-walled dwelling." Vāḷasaṅghāṭo means a structure made in the form of a bamboo fence above pillars, etc., inside the enclosure.

Parikkhepassa bahi gate: Here, it should be seen that even where there is no enclosure on a certain side, there is no offense when one goes outside the area suitable for an enclosure. However, the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Pācittiya 2.50-51) says, "parikkhepassa bahi gate (when one is outside the enclosure): Here, if there is no enclosure on a certain side, if the ground is higher than the object, there is no offense in the space between the two high objects and the lower ground, because there is no designation of lodging there. But if the object is low, level with the ground, and it stands on the lower level of the lodging, there is an offense everywhere in the space lacking an enclosure in the direction lacking an enclosure, because there is no boundary; it should be seen that there is no offense only outside the enclosure." Aparicchinnagabbhūpacāre: Here, in large four-sided buildings with an open courtyard in the middle, just as it is not possible to enter all the rooms by going directly through the entrance without entering the open courtyard, so a paricchinnagabbhūpacāraṃ (enclosed room enclosure) is made by extending a wall on two sides of each room; this, however, is not like that, therefore it is said "aparicchinnagabbhūpacāre (unenclosed room enclosure)". Sabbagabbhepi pavisantī: Because the room enclosure is unenclosed, they enter each room by going directly through the entrance without entering the open courtyard. Then how can it be said that the enclosure itself is fully enclosed? He says ‘‘gabbhaparikkhepoyeva hissa parikkhepo’’, and this is said in reference to the room walls on all sides. For in a lodging arranged as a four-sided building, even if the front of the room is not enclosed separately, it is called enclosed due to the room walls standing on all sides.

81. A building constructed lengthwise in one direction is called an ekasālasanniveso (single-hall construction). Those constructed in two, three, or four directions, like a crossroads, are known as dvisālādisannivesā (two-hall etc. constructions). The explanation here is primarily a clarification of the different types of halls. "Eight pācittiyas" are mentioned in the Pāli, starting with a dwelling that is half-covered and half-enclosed, relating to the dukkata offense. Therefore, even those not explicitly mentioned in the Pāli, such as fully covered and half-enclosed dwellings, are also considered subject to the pācittiya offense, as they fall under the provision of the rule, and are to be treated seriously. "Seven pācittiyas" are mentioned in the Pāli by counting the two pācittiyas as one in a general sense. In the Pāli (pāci. 54), "having left before the third dawn and then lying down again" is stated as the most severe case; even if one does not leave but gets up before dawn and sits inside the roofed area, there is no offense of shared sleeping if one lies down again during the day. Here, one-fourth is cūḷakaṃ (small), two-fourths is upaḍḍhaṃ (half), and two parts out of three parts is yebhuyya (the greater part). By these characteristics, cūḷakacchanna (small covering), cūḷakaparicchanna (small enclosure) and so on are to be understood. Now, extending the previously stated method to the second training rule, he says, "With a woman…pe… this same judgment." "Even a female ascetic who could be the subject of a pārājika offense does not create an offense of shared sleeping because she stands outside the Order". It should be understood that according to the statement, "When the sun has set, if a monk lies down where a woman is lying down, there is an offense of pācittiya" (pāci. 57), there is no offense of shared sleeping if she is sleeping during the day.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra,

Which is a subcommentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Entitled "The Adornment of the Discussion on the Judgments of Shared Sleeping,"

The Sixteenth Chapter.

82. Having discussed the judgments on shared sleeping, now, to discuss the judgments to be made regarding beds in a monastery belonging to the Saṅgha, he begins with "In a Saṅghika monastery, a bed…" etc. Here, saṅgho means that which comes together as a group, this itself is the meaning of the word common to the entire Saṅgha. Saṅghiko means given to the Saṅgha, vihāro means a dwelling, seyyā means a bed. Santharitvāna means having spread. Pakkamo means departure, meaning going. The meaning of this statement of intention, "In a Saṅghika monastery, a bed, having spread, departure" should be understood as: in a monastery belonging to the Saṅgha…pe…departure. "Tatra" means in that departure, this judgment being stated by me should be understood. What is that judgment? He says, "In a Saṅghika…pe… pācittiya." Aparikkhittassa upacāro (the surrounding area of an unenclosed dwelling) means two leḍḍupātā (stone's throws) from the dwelling. "Pācittiya": a dukkata offense for crossing the first foot, and a pācittiya offense for the second crossing. How is this known? He says, "Yo pana bhikkhu…pe… because of the statement."

"Seyyā nāma…pe… ten kinds." There, what is a bhisi, and what are cimilikā etc.? He says, "There, a bhisi…pe… this same method applies to a paṇṇasanthāra (leaf mat)." Mañcakabhisi means a bhisi to be spread on a bed, and so on for the other items; "made to protect the color" means made by sewing with cut pieces, etc. "To be spread on the ground" means to be spread on top of the cimilikā if there is one, or on the bare ground if there isn't. "Rejection only in regard to keeping safe" means that it is not allowed to keep a bed, chair, etc. after spreading it, by gathering it up again for one's own use, but using it for spreading on the ground etc. is allowed, since using it like that is not keeping it safe for oneself. In the Khandhaka, it says, "There are those prescribed for inside the bed, and there are those prescribed for outside the bed," thus, having prescribed for oneself on beds etc. and in the matter of keeping safe, "Monks, great skins should not be kept: lion skins, tiger skins, leopard skins; whoever keeps them incurs a dukkata offense" (mahāva. 255), a rejection was made, therefore the intention here should be understood in the manner stated. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.112) it says, "If so, why was this said: 'rejection only in regard to keeping safe?'" After posing the question, it continues, "I allow, monks, all use of a building" (cūḷava. 320). Even though it is allowed to use items limited for the use of a building, such as a golden pot, in a personal dwelling, it is not allowed to use it by making it exclusively one's own. Similarly, even though it is allowed to use it for spreading on the ground, it is not allowed to use it by taking possession of it and carrying it off to another dwelling. Therefore, the rejection should be understood as being only in regard to keeping it safe."

Pāvāro kojavo means a special kind of rug with the wool turned up, placed for spreading over. "Only this much was said" is what was said in the commentaries (pāci. aṭṭha. 116). "This was said to show that it was stated thus in the commentaries; any similar covering that should be spread on beds and chairs" is what was said in all three Gaṇṭhipadas. However, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. dutiyasenāsanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is stated restrictively that "paccattharaṇaṃ means pāvāro kojavo," therefore what is stated in the Gaṇṭhipadas does not agree with this; "it should be examined carefully and then accepted" is what is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.116). Upon careful examination, however, this intention appears: the Mātikāṭṭhakathā is also a commentary, therefore, in accordance with the method stated in the Mahā-aṭṭhakathā etc., "pāvāro kojavo" is stated restrictively. Even with such a restriction, just as when it is stated restrictively that "laddhātapatto rājakumāro (a prince who has obtained a sunshade)," even though it is stated restrictively that the sunshade has been obtained, by way of the illustration, items similar in nature to royal paraphernalia, such as fans made of yak tails, are also included. Similarly, even though "pāvāro kojavo" is stated restrictively, by way of the illustration, other coverings that are similar in that they should be spread on beds and chairs are also included. Therefore, the statement in the Gaṇṭhipadas is not contrary to the statement in the commentary, but rather is in accordance with it, and should be understood thus.

In this place, however, relying on the reading "yena vihāro kārito, so vihārassāmiko (whoever has the monastery built, he is the owner of the monastery)," some Vinaya masters make the judgment that "only the donor of the monastery is the owner of the Saṅghika monastery or the personal monastery, he alone is the master; it is only with his consent that one may dwell there, not with the consent of the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual." This should be examined carefully: how does this reading establish what, whether the meaning of being the master or the meaning of needing to ask permission? Upon careful examination, it is evident that it only establishes the meaning of needing to ask permission, not the meaning of being the master, because of statements such as "if there is a monk, a monk should be asked for permission."

But if it were said, "If the need to ask permission is established, the meaning of being the master is automatically established, for it is because of being the master that one needs to be asked for permission," then it should be said in response, "Because of statements such as 'the one asking permission, if there is a monk, a monk should be asked for permission; if there isn't one, a novice; if there isn't one, a monastery attendant,' it would follow that, according to the Venerables' opinion, the monk, the novice, the monastery attendant, the one who had the monastery built, or any individual in his family, is the master." Even if it is understood in this way, if there is a monk, a novice, or a monastery attendant, they are the masters, not the one who had the monastery built. Only if there isn't even one of them is the one who had the monastery built the master. In this context, however, it only speaks of needing to ask permission in order to protect the Saṅghika dwelling, not needing to ask permission because of being the master. For it was said in the commentary (pāci. aṭṭha. 116), "Anāpucchaṃ vā gaccheyya (or might leave without asking permission): here, if there is a monk, a monk should be asked for permission," etc.

vihārassāmiko (the owner of the monastery). When asked, "Who is the owner of the monastery?", one should say, "Whoever has the monastery built, he is the owner of the monastery." Therefore, it is known that the donor who had the monastery built is called the owner of the monastery. If it is understood thus, a sāmiko (owner) is the master of the field and wealth; others obtain it only with his consent. Therefore, "With this meaning in mind, it was said that monks can only dwell with the consent of the donor who is the owner of the monastery, not with the consent of the Saṅgha, a group, or an individual." They should be told, "Venerables, do not say it like that. Just as the Brahma named Ghaṭikāra (potter) does not make pots now, but did so in a previous lifetime, therefore he gets the name 'potter' because of the act of making pots. Thus, even though he is Brahma by virtue of a name obtained in the past, he is still called 'potter' according to previous usage. Similarly, that one who had the monastery built is not the owner of the monastery from the time he relinquishes it to the monks, because of the characteristic of giving as the relinquishment of the property. But previously, before relinquishing it, he was called the owner of the monastery because he was the builder of the monastery. So, by virtue of that name obtained previously, he is called 'the owner of the monastery' according to previous usage, not because of being the master of the relinquished monastery." Therefore, the Sammāsambuddha, instead of saying "let the monks dwell with the consent of the donors of the monasteries," is seen to have allowed the one who assigns the dwelling. For it was said in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295), "Tesaṃ gehānīti (these dwellings): here, it should be understood that even if a dwelling is built for the monks to live in, it will still belong to them until they give it away." Thus, it shows that from the time of giving, they no longer belong to them. This discussion, however, is spoken of in this place because it is directly related to the reading. The judgments regarding monasteries, however, will become clear in the judgments on the recipients of the four requisites (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. 194 ff.). Yo koci means anyone, whether a relative or a stranger. Mañcapīṭhakavānaṃ means the framework with which a bed or chair is woven.

83. Siluccayaleṇaṃ means a dwelling in a rock pile, meaning a mountain cave. Because it was prescribed in this case of "a dwelling eaten by white ants," in accordance with the case, the commentary says that there is no offense because of the absence of the perception of white ants. Because the Gamikavatta (conduct for going on a journey) was prescribed in the Vattakkhandhaka (cūḷava. 360 ff.) with the statement "a dwelling should be asked permission," "asking permission, however, is a custom" is said only to show that it is a matter of etiquette, not to show that there is a dukkata for a breach of conduct; therefore, in the Andhaka commentary it is said, "a dwelling should be asked permission": here, "for a dwelling made on a stone slab or on stone pillars, where white ants do not climb, there is no offense even if one goes without asking permission." Therefore, what was said in the Gaṇṭhipada, "in such a dwelling, there is no pācittiya for going without asking permission; in the Gamikavatta, one incurs a dukkata for a breach of conduct by going to a dwelling without asking permission," should not be accepted.

Pacchimassa ābhogena mutti natthī (there is no release because of the hinderance of the one behind) is said because there is no one else for the one going behind. "Ekaṃ vā pesetvā āpucchitabbaṃ" (or having sent one, permission should be asked) means here that if one goes without asking permission from the place where the intention to go arose, there is a pācittiya upon raising the second foot. "Maṇḍape vā" means in a branch pavilion or a creeper pavilion. "Rukkhamūle" means under any tree whatsoever. "Palujjatī" means is destroyed.

84. Majjhe saṃkhittaṃ paṇavasaṇṭhānaṃ katvā baddhaṃ (having made a drum-shaped construction contracted in the middle and tied) means having made a braid with eraka leaves etc., and having wound that braid around the expanded place on both sides, and from there up to the middle place, winding it in such a way that it is pulled inward, contracting it in the middle, and tying it here and there. "Yattha kākā vā kulalā vā na ūhadantī" (where crows or weaver-birds do not bring), meaning, I allow to put it under such a tree where these crows and weaver-birds, or other birds that dwell by making nests for permanent dwelling, do not bring (materials) to that dwelling.

85. Navavāyimo means a new couch wrapped with cloth that has had the hem removed. Onaddho means covered with proper leather, and onaddhako is the same meaning, due to the addition of the suffix "ka". Therefore, it does not quickly deteriorate with rain. Ukkaṭṭhaabbhokāsiko indicates only the ease of use, but even for an extreme ascetic, a dwelling hut is suitable. Kāyānugatikattā indicates that the bhikkhu remains seated there, and thereby shows that an offense is incurred if he goes elsewhere himself due to fear of the rain. Even what is given by donors, having been designated for those living in the open, must be protected by one protecting himself, not thinking it worthless. In the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. tī. pācittiya 3.108-110) it is said: "Since even a blanket worth a hundred thousand that has been given by donors at the time of donation, saying, 'Make it a foot-wiper and use it,' is suitable to use in that way, therefore, if this seating such as a couch or chair is given by donors, saying, 'Use it as you like even in the open,' it is suitable to place it in the open at all times." Pesetvā gantabba here means that one should send word, saying, "Give it to the bhikkhu who comes and stays in this place."

Valāhakānaṃ anuṭṭhitabhāvaṃ sallakkhetvā indicates that it is not suitable to place it in the open even in the hot season when clouds arise. Tatra tatrā means designated and placed in that particular open space, such as a courtyard of a cetiya. Majjhato paṭṭhāya pādaṭṭhānābhimukhā is stated to show the procedure to be followed in a place where sand is accumulated in the middle due to sweeping all around and always dragging rubbish to the middle, facing towards the base of a raised object, the base of a wall, or a stand for the feet; the sand should be removed. Some say the meaning is, "Where sand is accumulated in corners, it should be removed from there, facing away from the opposite direction." Others say, "It is said that the sand should be removed facing one's feet, standing in a place that has not been swept, so as not to disturb the swept place with the movement of the feet." In that case, the purpose of the statement "majjhato paṭṭhāya" is not evident. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī, it is said, "pādaṭṭhānābhimukhā means some say facing the place for the feet of those sitting, others say facing the place for the feet of one sweeping, and some say it is said that it should be removed facing the place for the feet so that the outer sand does not come in." Kacavaraṃ hatthehi gahetvā bahi chaḍḍetabba indicates that the sand should not be thrown thinking, "I will throw the rubbish."

86. Kappaṃ labhitvā means having obtained permission by the statement, "Go." For there is no offense for a Thera going by command. Purimanayenevā means in the same way as stated before, beginning with "sitting and going himself".

Aññattha gacchatī means going elsewhere, passing that path. Because he is standing outside the throwing distance of a clod, it is said ‘‘pāduddhārena kāretabbo’’, meaning that for one going elsewhere, a dukkaṭa offense is incurred with the first lifting of the foot, and a pācittiya offense with the second lifting of the foot. Pākatikaṃ akatvā means without restoring it. Antarasannipāte means at intervals.

87. Āvāsikānaṃyeva palibodho here means that even if newcomers come and sit there without saying anything, and then leave thinking, "The residents will remove it," the responsibility remains with the residents. However, in the Mahāpaccarivāda, the intention is that it is the responsibility of those who sit down, whether they say "This is ours" or not. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathāvāda, only a pācittiya offense is stated. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, a dukkaṭa offense is stated because it is enacted without command, as the laying out of bedding is to be accompanied by a pācittiya offense. Ussārako means one who recites aloud. For he causes the Pāḷi text to be recited higher and higher, therefore he is called "ussārako". Because it is specifically designated, "This is for the reciter, this is for the Dhamma speaker," even if it is enacted without command, it should be accompanied by a pācittiya offense, with the intention that ‘‘tasmiṃ āgantvā nisinne tassa palibodho’’ (the responsibility falls on him when someone comes and sits there). Some, however, say, "Even if it is enacted without command, a pācittiya offense should be incurred because the Dhamma speaker cannot be made to get up, but a dukkaṭa offense is stated for the newcomer because he can be made to get up by the older monks who come later."

88. Pādapuñchanī means something made of ropes or rags for wiping the feet. Phalakapīṭhaṃ means a seat made of planks. Alternatively, it refers to both a plank and a wooden seat. Dārumayapīṭha should also be understood as a seat made of planks. Pādakaṭhalika means something placed under the feet. Ajjhokāse rajanaṃ pacitvā …pe… paṭisāmetabba here means that when the dyeing is finished, if there is no dyeing work to be done, it should be returned. Some say, "Because it is said, 'A bhikkhu, a novice, or an ārāmika is conscientious,' it is not suitable to go after asking a shameless person." Otāpento…pe… gacchatī here, some say, "Although there is no limit to how far one should go, one should not go too far beyond the throwing distance of a clod."

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

entitled "The Elaboration of Judgments on How to Treat Couches, Chairs, and Lodgings Belonging to the Saṅgha,"

the Seventeenth Chapter.

18. Discussion on the Judgments Concerning the Allowable Time

89. Having thus spoken about the judgments to be made regarding lodgings belonging to the Saṅgha, now, in order to speak about the judgments regarding the four kinds of allowable time, he says, ‘‘kālikānipi cattārī’’ (there are also four kinds of allowable time), etc. There, karaṇa is kāro, meaning action. Kāro itself is kālo, with the replacement of ra by la, as in "mahāsālo." Kālo here refers to actions such as those that are present. For it was said –

‘‘A state begun but not finished is present,
A state well finished;
The arising of the past and the future
Are actions approaching but not yet reached.’’

kālikāni. The word pi has the meaning of aggregation; thereby, it aggregates the four grounds that are allowable. Cattārī is a numerical designation; thereby, it shows that the kālikas are only four, not three, not five; this is the word-by-word explanation of the topic. There, in the summary, what was said in the summary (vi. saṅga. aṭṭha. ganthārambhakathā) as "kālikānipi cattārī" (there are also four kinds of allowable time), here in this topic of the summary, four kinds of kālika should be understood is the connection. What are those? He says, ‘‘yāvakālika’’ (allowable until the next day), etc. Yāvakālikaṃ…pe… yāvajīvikaṃ, these four things are called kālika, is the meaning.

‘‘tattha purebhatta’’nti (there, before the meal), etc., he says. There, among those four kinds of kālika, whatever is food or edibles is yāvakālika, the eight kinds of drinks are yāmakālika, the five kinds of medicine beginning with ghee are sattāhakālika, and everything received is called yāvajīvika, is the connection. Yaṃ kiñci khādanīyabhojanīya (whatever is food or edibles): here, to avoid overextension, he gives the qualification ‘‘purebhatta’’ntyādi (before the meal), etc. What should be received and consumed before the meal is yāvakālika, not other food or edibles, is the meaning. Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbato (because it should be consumed until…) is the reason for the name; by this, he shows the etymology that yāvakālika means "until there is time". Aṭṭhavidhaṃ pāna (eight kinds of drinks): here, to avoid overextension, he says ‘‘saddhiṃ anulomapānehī’’ (together with drinks that are in accordance). Yāva…pe… tabbato (because…until…that) is the reason for the name; by this, he shows the etymology that yāmakālika means "until there is a watch". Sattāhaṃ nidhetabbato (because it should be kept for seven days) is the reason for the name; by this, he shows the etymology that sattāhakālika means "until there is a week". Sabbampi paṭiggahita (everything received): here, to avoid overextension, he says ‘‘ṭhapetvā udaka’’ntyāha (except for water). Yāva…pe… paribhuñjitabbato (because…until…that) is the reason for the name; thereby, he shows the etymology that yāvajīvika means "as long as life lasts."

Here, one might ask: "Because of the statement, 'Whatever bhikkhu takes food into the mouth that has not been given, except for water and a toothpick, it is a pācittiya offense' (pāci. 265), surely water should not be received. Then why is it said, 'Except for water, everything else received'?" It is true that pure water should not be received, but water mixed with mud, etc., should be received; therefore, because it is included among things that can be received, it is said, "Except for water." Even so, is the acceptance of water that is to be received not already established by this "sabbampi paṭiggahita" (everything received)? It is true, nevertheless, because of the generality of water, if only "sabbampi paṭiggahita" is said, it might be understood that water is also called yāvajīvika because some water is to be received; however, water is not yāvajīvika because pure water is not to be received. Therefore, this is said – even though some water is to be received, because pure water is not to be received, that water is excluded, and everything else received is called yāvajīvika."

90. Mūlakamūlādīni (roots, root-tubers, etc.) should be understood only through instruction, even if they are being spoken about in detail, they cannot be understood. For if they are spoken about in a different way, confusion would arise for those who do not know the different names; therefore, we will not say anything about it there. Khādanīye khādanīyattha (the function of edibles in edibles) means the function of edibles that exists in edibles such as cakes, the purpose, the benefit, consisting of allaying hunger, that should be done by edibles neva pharanti (does not fulfill). He says ‘‘tesu tesu janapadesū’’tiādi (in those various countries), because it might happen that something that fulfills the function of food in one country, or does not fulfill it, might not fulfill the function of allaying hunger and thirst in another country, due to the difference in the essence of the earth that arises. However, some also say, "This is stated to show that something that fulfills the function of food in one country is not allowable at the wrong time in other countries." Pakatiāhāravasenā (by way of being naturally food) means by way of doing the function of food by its own nature, not combined with other yāvakālikas. Sammohoyeva hotī (there would only be confusion) because of the possibility of many names with different meanings and meanings that are difficult to grasp, there would only be confusion. Therefore, we ourselves have not taken interest in showing different versions of roots, root-tubers, etc., because it should be taken from instruction.

Ya means the round bulb.

Muḷāla means only the thick, tender root.

Rukkhavalliādīna (trees, creepers, etc.) is said summing up what was said below.

Antopathavīgato (with the inner bark removed) is said referring to the heartwood of Sāla and Kalyāṇi trees.

Sabbakappiyānī (all allowable things) in terms of roots, bark, leaves, etc., are allowable in every way; it is not possible to show the limit in terms of names, is the connection.

‘‘aparipakkānī’’ti (unripe) is said.

Harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnī (the pits of harītakā, etc.): here, the teachers say that the shells that cover the kernel are yāvajīvika. Some say the kernel is also yāvajīvika. However, in the Vimativinodanīya (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.248-249), it is said, "harītakādīnaṃ aṭṭhīnī (the pits of harītakā, etc.): here, some say that the kernel is yāvakālika, but that is not appropriate because it is not stated in the commentary."

Hiṅgū is the sap that oozes from the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgujatu, etc., are also variations of hiṅgu. There, hiṅgujatu is the sap extracted by cooking the branches and leaves of the hiṅgu tree. Hiṅgusipāṭikaṃ is the sap extracted by cooking the hiṅgu leaves. Some also say, "It is made by mixing with something else." Taka is the slime that comes out at the tip. Takapattī is the slime that comes out from the leaves. Takapaṇṇī is the slime made by frying the palāsa leaves. Some also say, "It is the slime that comes out from the stalk."

91. Yāmakālikesu panā (however, regarding yāmakālika): here, although in the Pāḷi, only yāvakālika is included by the terms "food" and "edibles", not yāmakālika, nevertheless, because of the statement "there is no offense in consuming yāmakālika after keeping it for a watch" here, and "bhikkhus, with yāmakālika, sattāhakālika…pe… yāvajīvika received that day is allowable for a watch; it is not allowable after the watch has passed" elsewhere (mahāva. 305), and because of the capacity of the word "yāmakālika", the commentary masters, who understand the Buddha's intention, said that yāmakālika is itself an article for which a pācittiya offense is incurred for storing, this should be seen.

Ṭhapetvā dhaññaphalarasanti, here, some say that even rice-washed water is a grain or fruit juice.

92.Sattāhakālika pañca bhesajjānīti, whether they perform the function of medicine or not, these five are known by that designation. Having shown what is well-known in the world with "Gosappī" etc., with "yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī" this shows that even the ghee of other animals like rohita deer etc. is acceptable. For those who have milk, they certainly have ghee, but it is mentioned for the sake of non-confusion whether it is easily available or difficult to obtain. The same applies to fresh butter. "Yesaṃ maṃsaṃ kappatī" is stated to illustrate an object of Nissaggiya, not to indicate that for those whose meat is not allowable, ghee etc. are also not allowable. For, human milk etc. are not allowable for us.

93.Yāva kālo nātikkamati, tāva paribhuñjituṃ vaṭṭatīti, here, kālo means the time for monks to eat, which is midday, fixed by the final limit. Fixed midday also falls under the category of time, but from then on it is not possible to eat or consume, though it may be possible to drink quickly, but it should not be done with doubt. A time marker should be set up to know the time limit. Or the meal should be taken at another time. Paṭiggahaṇeti is said referring to the act of receiving itself. For it is only what has been received that is not allowable to be stored, there is no further act of receiving to be done, therefore it is said "ajjhoharitukāmatāya gaṇhantassa paṭiggahaṇe". But in the Mātikā Aṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. sannidhikārakasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā) it is said only "ajjhoharissāmīti gaṇhantassa gahaṇe".

Yanti, the broth that.Sandissatīti, is visible on the surface of the rice gruel. Even if there is oiliness on the bowl, lines are visible by the nature of the color when rubbing with a finger due to the lack of greasiness, therefore, to show that there is no offense there, ‘‘sā abbohārikā’’ti is said. Sayaṃ paṭiggahetvā apariccattameva hi dutiyadivase na vaṭṭatīti, here, having abandoned the acceptance by giving it away without expecting it back, or by giving it to one who is not ordained without expecting it back, the acceptance is abandoned, "apariccatta" means acceptance that has not been abandoned in both ways. Therefore, even what has been relinquished to another without being given, if the acceptance is abandoned by relinquishing it without expectation, that too is allowable on the second day. If so, why is an offense mentioned in "patto duddhoto hotī" etc.? It is said in all three knotty passages that "if the bowl is emptied by oneself or by another without relinquishing the acceptance and without properly washing and finishing it, even what is stuck to the bowl is acceptance that has not been abandoned, therefore there is an offense there". Some, however, say that "standing in the authority of 'sāmaṇerānaṃ pariccajantīti', because it is said 'apariccattamevā', what is relinquished to one who is not ordained is allowable, and what is not relinquished incurs an offense, therefore, even if the acceptance is abandoned with a sense of detachment, what is not relinquished to one who is not ordained is not allowable". That does not seem right. For by the very means by which acceptance is abandoned, one does not store it, because what has had its acceptance abandoned is like something that has not been accepted. And an offense is stated because of the condition of storing after receiving it.

‘‘apariccattamevāti, without expectation, what is not given to one who is not fully ordained and not relinquished refers only to yāvakālika etc., not to the acceptance associated with it. For it is not possible to relinquish the acceptance associated with an object without relinquishing the object itself, nor is there such a statement, if there were, the statement ‘sace patto duddhoto hoti…pe… bhuñjantassa pācittiya’ would be contradicted. For there is no expectation in acceptance for one trying to remove the meat by washing, which would cause a pācittiya for one eating on the next day; the expectation that is present in the bowl is certainly also present in the meat associated with it, therefore non-detachment from the meat is not obtained here, hence acceptance of the meat that has not been abandoned causes a pācittiya on the following day, this is what is said. Now the view is that ‘insofar as detachment from meat is not obtained here, detachment from acceptance is also not obtained’. If that is the case, then where there is attachment to meat, attachment to acceptance does not cease, and therefore relinquishing acceptance without expectation should not be stated separately, and in the commentary, abandonment of acceptance would be considered a cause. This should be made clearer and stated separately, like the abandonment of determination by withdrawing consent even when there is a need for a robe. And with this method, the name avaṭṭanatā would not exist in bowls stuck with knots; such is the meaning stated, therefore what is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.252-253) ‘yaṃ parassa pariccajitvā adinnampi sace paṭiggahaṇe nirapekkhavissajjanena vijahitapaṭiggahaṇaṃ hoti, tampi dutiyadivase vaṭṭatī’tiādi, taṃ na sārato paccetabba’’nti is stated.

‘‘āhāratthāya ajjhoharato dukkaṭena saddhiṃ pācittiya’’nti. Pakatiāmiseti, in acceptable meat such as rice etc. Dveti, having accepted yāmakālika in the forenoon, there is one pācittiya due to the condition of storing when eating yāmakālika in the forenoon with a mouth mixed with meat, and another due to partaking of yāvakālika because of its combination with yāvakālika, and due to the condition of not being leftover, thus there are two pācittiyāni. Vikappadvayeti, in the two alternatives of meat and no meat. Thullaccayaṃ dukkaṭañca vaḍḍhatīti, a thullaccaya increases in human meat, and a dukkaṭa increases in other unacceptable meat.

Paṭiggahaṇapaccayā tāva dukkaṭanti, here, due to being stored, even the forenoon meal is a dukkaṭa. But if there is a reason, there is no offense for one who accepts and consumes yāvakālika and sattāhakālika for medicinal purposes, even if it is stored.

94.Uggahitakaṃ katvā nikkhittanti, having taken and put down what has not been accepted. In the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. 1.622), ‘‘uggahitakanti, sayaṃ gahitaṃ paribhogatthāya’’ is said. Sayaṃ karotīti, he cooks and makes it. Purebhattanti, only the forenoon meal of that day is allowable because it has been accepted with the ingredient. Sayaṃkatanti, fresh butter cooked and made. Nirāmisamevāti, this is said referring to the forenoon meal of that day.

95.Why is there no sāmaṃpāka offense for someone eating self-made food without meat today? He says, ‘‘navanītaṃ tāpentassā’’tiādi. Pacchābhattaṃ paṭiggahitakehīti, this is said referring to milk and yogurt. The interpretation is that one should apply what is made with what has been taken without being offered, such as oil massage etc. Ubhayesampīti, of those made with milk and yogurt taken in the afternoon and those made with what has been taken without being offered in the forenoon. Esa nayoti, the meaning is that there is no nissaggiya. Akappiyamaṃsasappimhīti, in the ghee of elephants etc. Kāraṇapatirūpakaṃ vatvāti, having stated a plausible reason, "due to the nature of ghee of the same species". Sappinayena veditabbanti, the meaning is that only what is without meat is allowable for a week. Etthāti, in the fresh butter. Dhotaṃ vaṭṭatīti, if it is not washed, it is accepted with the ingredient, therefore the opinion of the elders is that it is allowable to wash it, accept it, and store it for a week.

‘‘tasmā navanītaṃ paribhuñjantena…pe… savatthukapaṭiggahaṃ nāma na hotī’’ti. There, the meaning is that even if one accepts fresh butter without washing it, one should eat that fresh butter after removing yogurt etc. from it. Some, not knowing the meaning of the saying "takkato uddhaṭamattameva khādiṃsū", say that "even what is simply taken from buttermilk, even if it is unwashed and mixed with yogurt balls etc., is allowable to consume at the wrong time", that should not be taken. For it cannot be said that it is allowable to consume fresh butter mixed with meat such as yogurt balls etc. Navanītaṃ paribhuñjantenāti, by one consuming fresh butter that has been accepted without washing it. Dadhi evadadhigataṃyathā ‘‘gūthagataṃ muttagata’’nti (ma. ni. 2.119; a. ni. 9.11). Because of the statement "khayaṃ gamissatī", it should be understood that even milk added and cooked ghee etc. are allowable at the wrong time. Khayaṃ gamissatīti, it becomes without meat, therefore it is allowable even at the wrong time, this is the meaning. Ettāvatāti, with just a small amount stuck to the fresh butter, without having a separate designation of yogurt etc., meaning with a small amount of yogurt etc., this shows that what is cooked together with separately accepted yogurt etc. goes to the category of being accepted with the ingredient. Tasmimpīti, even in that which is without meat. But this is the intention of those who are scrupulous - as long as it is not mixed with yogurt etc. at the time of acceptance, it is called accepted with the ingredient, like a ball of jaggery etc. together with food. But that should be cooked only after washing by one who is cooking. Otherwise, at the moment of cooking, due to the taste being mixed with the cooking yogurt balls etc., it becomes self-cooked, and even if those are gone, it is still self-cooked, therefore it should be cooked only without meat. Therefore, the reason is given as "āmisena saddhiṃ pakkattā".

Here there is this consideration - whether the fault of self-cooking is suspected by the monk, or whether it is yāvakālika, due to the absence of being accepted with the ingredient along with it. There, the fault of self-cooking is not possible here because it is sattāhakālika. For what is in the meat, such as yogurt etc., is depleted. Now, if it is suspected that it would be like something cooked with the ingredient because it is cooked by oneself together with the accepted yogurt balls etc., then the reason should be stated as "āmisena saha paṭiggahitattā", but not as "pakkattā", and thus the opinion of the elders would be accepted. And there, even what is cooked by novices etc. would be only yāvakālika, like ghee etc. made by those who are not fully ordained by cooking accepted milk etc., and that is not appropriate because of the implication that fresh butter etc. obtained by begging should not be consumed due to the possibility of being mixed with buttermilk etc. For there is no rule that householders pour into a washed or cleaned bowl.

And in the commentary, "yathā tattha patitataṇḍulakaṇādayo na paccanti, evaṃ…pe… puna pacitvā deti, purimanayeneva sattāhaṃ vaṭṭatī" this contradicts that statement, therefore here, there is no reason for the arising of scruples for those who are scrupulous. Just as here, there is also no reason for the statement, "lajjī sāmaṇero yathā tattha taṇḍulakaṇādayo na paccanti, evaṃ aggimhi vilīyāpetvā…pe… detī". If this was said to avoid combination with yāvakālika, then it should be done by oneself as well. And the doubt of being mixed with meat would not disappear in ghee etc. given by householders. For householders do not melt it, strain it, remove husks of rice etc., and cook it again. Moreover, just as milk etc. are added to medicine and the milk etc. are depleted, the medicinal oil etc. cooked by others would also be only yāvakālika, and that is not appropriate either, because it is said "puna pacitvā detī" for the purpose of depleting yogurt etc., therefore, in the view of the great Sīva Thera, without being scrupulous, it is allowable to cook even unwashed fresh butter on that day and on subsequent days, and to melt ghee etc. mixed with rice etc. in the fire and cook it again oneself to deplete buttermilk etc.

It was said, "It is not considered as received with property". However, if ghee etc. which is separately received, is mixed with āhāra like milk etc. or oil-based medicine cooked by the bhikkhu or others, it will be included within what is considered "received with property" because what is allowed for a limited time is no longer considered unrestricted. However, if unreceived milk etc. is added to previously received medicine and oil-based things are cooked even by those who are not fully ordained, it is not considered "received with property" nor storage, because even the milk etc. added is at that moment considered previously received due to the mixing of flavors. But if the taste of food is apparent in oil-based items cooked by unordained people or by others, it should be understood as something allowed for a limited time only. This line of discussion comes from the Vimati-vinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. 1.622). In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.622), however, it says, "By saying, 'He feels scruples, he is scrupulous,' it shows that he himself has scruples about it. Therefore, in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Bhesajjasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it only says, 'It is allowable to cook extracted ghee or fresh butter.'"

"Having taken" means having taken it oneself. "Having received those" means having received those milk and yogurt. "Taken" means having cooked it again to remove the rice etc., that is the meaning. "With medicine that has been received and stored" means with medicine allowed for life that has been received for more than seven days; this shows that even ghee etc. combined with those are not considered received for more than seven days. "At the time of the rains" means during the rainy season, a time without sunshine. The mention of a shameless novice indicates that just as rice etc. do not ripen easily, he will prepare and give lajjī at once. Moreover, it is not appropriate to have anything prepared by someone shameless, therefore he said this.

96. "Sesame seeds having been received, oil made" means oil made without doing things like frying oneself. Therefore, it was said, "Even with āhāra, it is allowable." "Because it is separated" means because it is distinguished from what is allowed for a limited time; this shows that because there is no elā, it is not allowed for a limited time, and the bhikkhu accepts that it is allowed for a limited time because it is received with property. "Both" means made by oneself and by others.

"If it remains until the dawn, it is to be forfeited" means if the oil made on the seventh day remains until the dawn, it is to be forfeited.

"Because of the dwelling" means because it is allowed on account of the dwelling in a minor offense matter, it is allowed only on account of minor offense matters similar to it, non-allowable meat-beings; he says "having excluded the dwelling of humans." "Filtered" means strained. "Of three dukkaṭas" is said referring to three dukkaṭas for each act of swallowing. Although in the Pāli and commentary, no offense is mentioned for prior actions such as receiving, cooking, and filtering at the wrong time for the purpose of consumption, there must be an offense here, just as there is for receiving things allowed for a limited time etc. at the wrong time for the sake of food, because of doing what is prohibited. "Even if one who is not fully ordained cooks and filters what was received at the right time and consumes it at the wrong time, there are definitely two dukkaṭas," some say.

"He feels scruples, like when mixed with oil". When they asked, "If it is not allowable because it is cooked with dwelling, why is this allowable?" they said, "Bhante...is allowable," the Elder, being overly scrupulous, said, "Even this, Āvuso, is not allowable," later realizing that dwelling is allowed only for the purpose of suppressing disease, he approved, saying "Sādhu."

97."'Madhukarī' and 'madhumakkhikā' this is a qualification of only the two kinds of small bees," some say. Others say, "In bamboo groves, there are bees called madhukārikā madhukarimakkhikā, so there are three kinds of honeybees." "Bhamaramakkhikā" means large petal-makers. "Like silesa" means solidified because it is dry or cooked. "The other" means thin honey. "Madhupaṭala" means a pure honeycomb without honey. "If they receive and store a honeycomb with honey, because the honeycomb is like a container, it is to be forfeited if seven days pass because of the honey," some say, he reconciles that with this, "but honey mixed in, the same as honey."

98. Because in the Pāli (pāci. 260), it is said non-specifically, " Phāṇita is produced from sugarcane," and in the commentary it is said, "Taking sugarcane juice...unmixed sugarcane products are known as phāṇita," sugarcane juice without sediment should be understood as allowed for seven days. However, someone saying, "The four durations should be applied as appropriate to honey and sugarcane," and saying, "Honeycomb with honey, selaka honey, is allowed for life, without elā, mixed with water is allowed for a watch, unmixed is allowed for seven days, honey residue pure is allowed for life, likewise sugarcane juice with sediment is allowed for life, without sediment, mixed with water is allowed for a watch, unmixed is allowed for seven days, pure without sediment is allowed for life," and elaborating further in many ways. Of these, "honey or sugarcane juice mixed with water and with sediment is allowed for life, without sediment, mixed with water is allowed for a watch" this is seen neither in the Pāli nor in the commentary, the reason why "water bringing about lightness, associating with itself heavy grape-type juice that is allowed for life, makes it suitable to be allowed for a watch, water associating with itself even lighter juice that is allowed for seven days, makes it suitable to be allowed for a watch" should be asked of him. Everywhere in the Pāli and commentary, only the attainment of lightness by heavier things mixed with water is shown. In the Pāli (Mahāva. 284) too, by saying "I allow, bhikkhus, molasses to the sick, molasses water to the healthy," even molasses unsuitable for consumption by the healthy, mixed with water, is allowed for even the healthy.

Here, "Self-made, only without āhāra is allowable" it should be understood that even what has been received unfiltered, strained at the time of making, and made oneself after removing the sediment is allowable, this is the reading in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.623).

"Taking sugarcane juice" shows that even juice without sediment is allowed for seven days because in the Pāli it is said generally, "Produced from sugarcane." However, that which is said in the Suttanta Commentary, "If it is sugarcane, it is allowed for life, if it is sugarcane juice, it is allowed for a watch, if it is phāṇita, it is allowed for seven days, if it is the bark, it is allowed for life," that should be taken as said referring to being allowed for a watch because of being mixed with mango juice etc., because it is not a statement of the Vinaya, that is not authoritative. Therefore, "with unfiltered sugarcane juice received before the meal" etc. was said. "Only without āhāra is it allowable" because what is allowed for a limited time in it is unrestricted, it is said that even sediment present in molasses becomes allowed for life because it is dried by the cooking. For if it were allowed for a limited time, it would not be allowable even before the meal due to the self-cooking. "Because it is received with property" this is said referring to the sediment that is crushed and powdered and remains in the sugarcane juice, and thereby, it is said, "it shows that what is unfiltered, unreceived, and made by those not fully ordained is allowable for seven days."

"Jhāmaucchuphāṇita" means made by heating sugarcane in a fire. "Koṭṭitaucchuphāṇita" means finely chopped, pounded, squeezed, and cooked. He says that even the sediment present in it gives up being allowed for a limited time at the time of cooking, "that is combined." "Made with cold water" means made by crushing madhuka flowers with cold water, straining, and cooking. "Made without straining" say some, the reason for that is not seen. "Madhuka phāṇita made by adding milk is allowed for a limited time" here, if it is asked why oil cooked with milk is allowable at the wrong time? Milk added to oil becomes only oil, but milk added to other things takes on the nature of milk, this is the reason here. If so, they also make khaṇḍasakkharā by adding milk, why is that allowable? He says "However, khaṇḍasakkharā" etc. There, "khīrajallika" means milk froth.

99. "However, madhuka flowers" etc. was begun to show the seed material of intoxicants that are still in the form allowed for a limited time. To resolve the objection of why these should be consumed like this while doing the business of food, by showing it as intended for medicine, he said "Indeed seven kinds" etc. to show all intended things together along with that occasion, in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.623). However, that is not said in the Vinayasaṅgaha-ppakaraṇa, "Because it is said 'from after the meal onwards when there is a reason', medicines that have been received must be consumed even before the meal from the second day onwards only when there is a reason, not for the sake of food because they have been received for the sake of medicine," some say. "In door frames and window lattices" means in the door panels of the main door and windows. Because those placed in dye abandon their own nature, it was said "In dye...should be smeared," it means they should be smeared to avoid weevils and insects etc. "He determines" means he generates the thought, "Now it will not be consumable for me, it will be for external use." Therefore, he says "Ghee and oil and fat, oil on the head or massage" etc., the intention is that in this way, he abandons the receiving by not expecting consumption. Thus, it should be seen that in other allowed durations too, even if he intends not to consume it and intends it purely for external use, this too is a separate abandonment of receiving.

"It should be requested by another bhikkhu" here, because it was given with pure intention, it is certainly allowable to have it brought and consumed oneself. "No offense to both" just as what belongs to another is not to be forfeited even if received by one and seven days have passed because it belongs to another, so too, this, because it is undivided, is not to be forfeited because there is no separation of property, that is the intention. "But it is not allowable to consume" because it was received by a bhikkhu, it is not allowable for any bhikkhu to consume it after seven days have passed because the consumption of received ghee etc. is limited to seven days only. For it was said, "Having received those, they should be consumed as long as they are stored for a maximum of seven days" (Pārā. 623).

"Āvuso, this oil is suitable to be used for only seven days," by this statement, the one who received it shows that it has been given away to another within the seven days. Whose offense is it? is a question arising from the thought, "Firstly, no offense was stated because it was common to both; but now, since it has been given away by one to the other, there is no common ownership; thus, it stands as if divided. Therefore, there must be an offense for one who exceeds seven days after receiving it." He asks, "Is the offense due to receiving, to the receiver, or to the one to whom it has become belonging?" Indeed, here, without stating the reason as "due to the state of being undivided," "because it was given away by the one who received it," is stated because of the very fact of having given it away. And this is stated to show that even when it becomes the property of one, abandoning the common ownership due to the giving away, it has become the property of someone other than the one who received it; therefore, there is no offense to the receiver due to the act of receiving, as in the case of receiving property belonging to another, not to show that even if it is not given away, there is an offense upon exceeding seven days, even in an undivided state, because no offense is established by the very fact of being undivided when it is not given away. But if the other person gives away his share as well to the very person who received it within the seven days, there would be an offense upon exceeding seven days, because it has come to be owned by the very person who received it. "Because it was not received by the other," by this, he indicates that even in the state of being owned by him, there is no offense because it was not received by him, like one's own property received by others. However, this intention, having not known, has been elaborated in other ways by Gaṇṭhipadakāra and others; that should not be accepted as essential. This is the Sāratthadīpanī statement (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625).

"If it belongs to two…pe… it is not suitable," here, the reading is corrupted. Thus, the reading here should be understood as follows: If something belonging to two is received by one person and is undivided, there is no offense for either of them upon exceeding seven days, but it is not suitable to consume. Otherwise, the usage of words does not make sense. "And this same reading is shown in the Gaṇṭhipada," is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. 2.625). "No offense for either of them," is stated because of being undivided. "But it is not suitable to consume," this is stated because of the statement "Sannidhikārakaṃ should be consumed within seven days at most" (pārā. 623). "Because it was given away by the one who received it," by this, he shows that this is stated referring even to the giving to an upasampanna monk, with the meaning of "gives away." Even when the act of receiving something given without attachment to an upasampanna monk is not absent, the state of being one's own property is indeed absent; therefore, it is not nissaggiya. It is nissaggiya due to these two reasons: "having received it oneself and the state of being one's own property," not by one alone. However, in the case of giving to a non-upasampanna without attachment, both of these are relinquished, and consumption is suitable here; not in the case of giving with attachment, because of the absence of the characteristic of giving. And in this Pali word, "vissajjati," it should be understood that abandoning due to detachment without giving to anyone is also included. "Having given without expectation," this is stated only to show the method of abandoning the act of receiving. Indeed, when receiving is relinquished, consumption after receiving again will be suitable by itself, and that relinquishment occurs by abandoning the state of the thing being one's own property. And by this, it is established that the act of receiving and giving away is not obtained separately when there is an expectation of ingesting the thing. Otherwise, it should be stated, "Having relinquished the act of receiving without expectation in the act of receiving, he consumes after receiving again." "Because it was not received," by this, he shows that even something owned by one person received by another is nissaggiya. "Evaṃ," thus, refers to the state of being abandoned with a pure mind, without having the expectation "I will take it again." "For showing no offense to the one consuming," the intention is for showing no offense from pācittiya and other offenses rooted in nissaggiya. "For showing no offense in consumption," here, however, the intention is for showing no offense from the dukkaṭa offense that is stated in physical consumption and so on of the nissaṭṭha-paṭilābha.

100. Thus, having shown the catukālika-paccaya, now, showing the distinctive characteristics among them, he says, "imesu panā" and so on. There, the yāvakālika and yāmakālika, whether belonging to the Saṅgha or to an individual, belonging to a bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī, kept for even one night in an unsuitable place or in a dwelling sufficient for shared occupancy, is called antovutthaṃ; and what is cooked there is called antopakkaṃ. However, what is sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika is allowable. But any yāvakālika or yāmakālika that has been received and has passed one night, an offense of dukkaṭa arises at the moment of receiving, for one who takes it intending to ingest it, and when ingesting it, a pācittiya offense arises for each instance of ingestion due to sannidhi-paccaya. Now, showing another distinctive characteristic, he says, "yāvakālikaṃ panā" and so on. There, sambhinnarasānī means mixed in taste. Long-lasting things, when mixed with short-lasting things, follow only the short-lasting time frame, he says, "yāvakālikaṃ pana…pe… tīṇipi yāmakālikādīnī." The same method applies to the others as well. "Tasmā" and so on, only tadahupurebhattaṃ is allowable, not tadahupacchābhattaṃ, not at night, not on the second day, and so on, is the meaning.

"Sambhinnarasa" by this, he shows that even if it is mixed, if it is asambhinnarasa, the remaining three kālikas are allowable in their respective times. "Yāmakālikena," here, the third-case-ending adjective phrase "tadahupaṭiggahitena" should be supplied or should be carried over from the previous sentence. The result of that is the same as stated.

However, in the books, it is seen "yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ," that is not beautiful. That which is not there is beautiful. Why? Indeed, the second-case-ending adjective phrase specifies the other two. Then, when the sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika are mixed with the yāmakālika, only what is received on that day is allowable until the rising of the dawn, not what was received earlier, would be the meaning. That is not fitting. Why? Because the sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika do not generate sannidhi, and because it contradicts the characteristic "long-lasting things follow the short-lasting time frame." Therefore, whether it is received on that day or received earlier, the sattāhakālika and yāvajīvika, because of being mixed with the yāmakālika received on that day, are allowable until the rising of the dawn, this meaning is fitting. And thus, it would be consistent with the statement to be stated later, "sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitena saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappati."

Moreover, it should be "yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahu yāva aruṇuggamanā vaṭṭati" in the original reading. That may have been written by the scribes having seen "tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ" existing in other readings, thinking that the word paṭiggahitaṃ is missing from the word tadahu here, and inserting it. "Tadahu" specifies the phrase "yāva aruṇuggamanā," thus, it shows the meaning that it is allowable until the rising of the dawn on that day, not until the rising of the dawn on the second day and so on. Therefore, even in the passage above, "sattāhakālikena pana tadahupaṭiggahitenā," the adjective phrase in apposition with the short-lasting-meaning word specifies only that, not the long-lasting-meaning word yāvajīvikapadaṃ. Therefore, it is stated, "tadahupaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ sattāhaṃ kappati."

In "dvīhapaṭiggahitenā" and so on as well, "dvīhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ chāhaṃ vaṭṭati, tīhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ pañcāhaṃ vaṭṭati, catūhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ caturāhaṃ vaṭṭati, pañcāhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ tīhaṃ vaṭṭati, chāhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ dvīhaṃ vaṭṭati, sattāhapaṭiggahitena sattāhakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ vā purepaṭiggahitaṃ vā yāvajīvikaṃ tadaheva vaṭṭati," thus, only for the sattāhakālika, having diminished the past days, it should be connected according to the remaining days, not for the yāvajīvika. Indeed, there is no such thing as a past day to be diminished for the yāvajīvika, because it should be consumed as long as life lasts when there is a reason. Therefore, he says, "sattāhakālikampi attanā saddhiṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ yāvajīvikaṃ attano sabhāvaññeva upaneti." In some books, relying on the reading "yāmakālikena saṃsaṭṭhaṃ pana itaradvayaṃ tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ," those who think that "in this passage too, only tadahupaṭiggahitaṃ should be desired," reject the reading "purepaṭiggahitaṃ." Some write "purebhattaṃ paṭiggahitaṃ vā," all that should be seen as doing so with a bewildered mind, not considering the method as stated.

"kālayāma" etc. Its meaning is: for the one consuming the yāvakālika exceeding the time, an offense arises due to this vikālabhojana-sikkhāpada (rule against eating at the wrong time), "yo pana bhikkhu vikāle khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ" (pāci. 248). For the one consuming the yāmakālika exceeding the yāma, an offense arises due to this sannidhi-sikkhāpada (rule against storing up), "yo pana bhikkhu sannidhikārakaṃ khādanīyaṃ vā bhojanīyaṃ vā khādeyya vā bhuñjeyya vā, pācittiyaṃ" (pāci. 253). For the one consuming the sattāhakālika exceeding the seven days, an offense arises due to this bhesajja-sikkhāpada (rule about medicine), "yāni kho pana tāni gilānānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ paṭisāyanīyāni bhesajjāni, seyyathidaṃ, sappi navanītaṃ telaṃ madhu phāṇitaṃ, tāni paṭiggahetvā sattāhaparamaṃ sannidhikārakaṃ paribhuñjitabbāni, taṃ atikkāmayato nissaggiyaṃ pācittiyaṃ" (pārā. 622).

"sace panā" etc. Its meaning is very easy to understand.

Thus ends the eighteenth chapter,

entitled "The Elaboration of the Catukālika Decision,"

in the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is the Vinayasaṅgahasaṃvaṇṇanā.

19. Kappiyabhūmivinicchayakathā

101. Having thus explained the determination of what is allowable regarding the four grounds, he now begins to explain the determination of a kappiya-kuṭi, saying, "Kappiyā catubhūmiyo..." etc. Here, kappanti (they make allowable), therefore kappiyā; the root is kappa meaning capability. Bhavanti etāsu antovutthaantopakkānīti bhūmiyo, grounds where being inside, cooking inside happen, four grounds, therefore catubhūmiyo, meaning four kappiya-kuṭis. What are they? He says, "ussāvanantikā…pe… veditabbā". How is it known? He says, "anujānāmi…pe… vacanato". This refers to the Bhesajjakkhandhaka-pāḷi (mahāva. 295). There, uddhaṃ sāvanā is ussāvanā; a kappiya-ground within ussāvanā, therefore ussāvanantikā. Gāvo nisīdanti ettha (cows sit here), therefore gonisādikā; go-sadda upapada, ni-pubba, sada in the meanings of visaraṇa (spreading), gati (going), and avasāna (ending). Gahapatīhi dinnā (given by householders), therefore gahapati; this is a tatiyā-tappurisa with the latter word elided. Kammavācāya sammannitabbā (to be designated by a formal act), therefore sammutī; thus the analysis of these terms should be done. Tattha means in the determination of kappiya-kuṭis. Taṃ pana avatvāpī means even without stating the method mentioned in the Andhaka commentary. The particle pi allows even stating it that way. Aṭṭhakathāsu vuttanayena vutte means if one says "kappiyakuṭiṃ karomā" (let us make a kappiya-kuṭi) or "kappiyakuṭī" (a kappiya-kuṭi) according to the method stated in the remaining commentaries. Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇa means the common characteristic of all commentaries regarding the making of a ussāvanantikā-kuṭi. Caya means the foundation, the raised structure. Yato paṭṭhāyā means from when, starting from a brick, stone, or lump of clay. Paṭhamiṭṭhakādīnaṃ heṭṭhā na vaṭṭantī means the bricks, etc., that are being placed beneath the first brick, etc., should not be placed after saying "kappiyakuṭiṃ karomā" due to being part of the ground. If so, why are posts that are fixed by digging into the ground allowed to be fixed after saying so? He says, "thambhā pana…pe… vaṭṭantī".

Saṅghasantakamevā refers to a saṅghika-senāsana (lodging belonging to the Sangha) made for dwelling. Bhikkhusantaka means a personal senāsana of a bhikkhu made for dwelling.

102. Mukhasannidhī indicates only the antovuttha (dukkaṭa offense) by this.

Taṃ pana avatvāpī The particle pi allows even stating it that way. Aṭṭhakathāsū In the remaining commentaries, excluding the Andhaka commentary. Sādhāraṇalakkhaṇa Common to all commentaries including the Andhaka commentary. Caya Foundation, raised structure. Yato paṭṭhāyā From when, starting from a brick, etc., intending to raise a wall by beginning with the foundation. "Thambhā pana upari uggacchanti, tasmā vaṭṭantī" (But posts go upwards, therefore they are allowable.) By this, it is established that even if bricks or stones are placed below, if they stand raised even by an inch from the foundation or ground, they are allowable.

Ārāmo The entire monastery bounded by the boundary of the upacāra (vicinity). Senāsanānī Lodgings of the Sangha such as grass huts, etc., within the monastery. Vihāragonisādikā nāmā Named senāsanagonisādikā. Because the senāsanāni, even if they are enclosed by themselves, are called "gonisādikā" due to the absence of enclosure of the ārāma. "Upaḍḍhaparikkhittopī" By this, it shows that what is less than half enclosed is mostly unenclosed, therefore it goes into the category of unenclosed. Etthā In the half-enclosed etc. Kappiyakuṭi laddhuṃ vaṭṭatī Because of the absence of a gonisādikā, any of the three remaining kappiyakuṭis can be made.

Tesaṃ gehānī Here, it should be seen that even a house made for the dwelling of bhikkhus will belong to them until they give it away. Vihāraṃ ṭhapetvā means setting aside a house made for the dwelling of fully ordained monks. Geha means a dwelling house. But all other things, such as the uposathāgāra, are non-dwelling houses, a fifth kappiyabhūmi freed from the four kappiyabhūmis. Indeed, even in such a house belonging to the Sangha, even if it is situated in a well-enclosed monastery, there is no fault of antovuttha, etc., as in an open space. The fault of antovuttha, etc., is in a dwelling house of a bhikkhu or the Sangha that is covered and enclosed by anyone and capable of providing shared lodging, and not elsewhere. Therefore he said "yaṃ panā" etc. There, "saṅghikaṃ vā puggalikaṃ vā" Although this is said generally regarding bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, it should be understood that the saṅghika and puggalika (belongings) of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, and the saṅghika and puggalika (belongings) of bhikkhunis, stand in places belonging to householders.

Mukhasannidhī The fault of being inside (antosannihita) causes an offense because it is the cause of entering the mouth, not otherwise, therefore it is said "mukhasannidhī" (vi. vi. ṭī. mahāvagga 2.295).

Tattha tattha khaṇḍā hontī There are more than half broken. Sabbasmiṃ chadane vinaṭṭhe When the covering made of grass, leaves, etc., which protects from rain, is destroyed. But even if the crossbeams are placed on top of poles bound with creepers, they are considered abandoned material. Pakkhapāsakamaṇḍala The covering of grass, leaves, etc., placed on top of three crossbeams on one side is called that.

103. "Anupasampannassa datvā tassā" etc. By giving to a non-ordained person, even dwelling in a non-kappiya-kuṭi becomes kappiya, and dependent giving is allowable here; it is not like acceptance. But regarding antopakka and sāmaṃpakka, "Na, bhikkhave, antovutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ paribhuñjitabbaṃ, yo paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti tiṇṇaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dvinnaṃ dukkaṭānaṃ. Anto ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ antopakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ sāmaṃpakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa. Bahi ce, bhikkhave, vutthaṃ bahipakkaṃ aññehi pakkaṃ, tañce paribhuñjeyya, anāpattī" (mahāva. 274) (Monks, what has been dwelt inside, cooked inside, and cooked by oneself should not be consumed. Whoever consumes it incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Monks, if what has been dwelt inside, cooked inside, and cooked by oneself is consumed, one incurs three dukkaṭa offenses. Monks, if what has been dwelt inside, cooked inside, and cooked by others is consumed, one incurs two dukkaṭa offenses. Monks, if what has been dwelt inside, cooked outside, and cooked by oneself is consumed, one incurs two dukkaṭa offenses. Monks, if what has been dwelt outside, cooked inside, and cooked by oneself is consumed, one incurs two dukkaṭa offenses. Monks, if what has been dwelt inside, cooked outside, and cooked by others is consumed, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Monks, if what has been dwelt outside, cooked inside, and cooked by others is consumed, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Monks, if what has been dwelt outside, cooked outside, and cooked by oneself is consumed, one incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Monks, if what has been dwelt outside, cooked outside, and cooked by others is consumed, there is no offense.) Therefore, there are eight: one with three offenses, three with two offenses, three with one offense, and one with no offense. There, antovuttha means dwelling in a non-kappiya-kuṭi. Antopakkepi The same method applies here as well. Sāmaṃpakka Whatever food is not allowed for a bhikkhu to cook. What should be said there has already been said in the commentary.

Thus ends the Vinayālaṅkāra, which is a commentary on the Vinayasaṅgaha,

Named the Explanation on the Determination of Allowable Grounds,

The Nineteenth Chapter.

20. Explanation on the Determination of Acceptance

104. Having thus explained the determination of allowable grounds, he now begins to explain the determination of acceptance, saying "khādanīyādipaṭiggāho..." etc. There, what is chewed is khādanīya; except for the five foods, this is a term for everything that is to be consumed. The word Ādi includes bhojanīya. Paṭiggahaṇaṃ is sampaṭicchanaṃ, paṭiggāho, acceptance of khādanīya, etc., is khādanīyādipaṭiggāho. Therefore he said "ajjhoharitabbassa yassa kassaci khādanīyassa vā bhojanīyassa vā paṭiggahaṇa" Acceptance of whatever chewable or edible thing is to be consumed. Among the five factors, uccāraṇamatta means merely raising (the object); by this, it shows the measure of the object to be accepted. By that, it shows that acceptance is not valid for an object that cannot be lifted by such a person. "Hatthapāso" (arm's reach) means nearness. By that, it shows that acceptance is not valid if one is standing far away and bringing it. Abhihāro means being within reach; by that, it shows that it is not valid for those standing there, etc. "Devo vā" etc. shows the three efforts on the part of the giver. "Tañce" etc. shows the two efforts on the part of the receiver.

"tatthi" etc. There, the meaning is that an arm's reach is one and a half hands. "Tassa orimantenā" By this, it shows that even for one standing upright in the air and accepting what is lifted by another, the arm's reach should be determined starting from the bottom of the foot, which is a part of the body that is close by, not starting from the head. There, "orimantenā" should be understood to mean the lower end.

Akallako A sick person who cannot use his own hands consumes by accepting with his mouth. But in the Vimativinodanī (vi. vi. ṭī. pācittiya 2.265), only "akallako" is said to mean a sick person to accept. By this, it shows that akallako means either a sick person or one who is unable to accept. Therefore he says "sacepi natthukaraṇiyaṃ dīyamānaṃ nāsāpuṭena akallako vā mukhena paṭiggaṇhātī" (Even if something to be sniffed is given, a sick person accepts with the nostril or mouth).

105. Ekadesenāpī Even with just the touch of a finger.

Tañce paṭiggaṇhāti, sabbaṃ paṭiggahitamevā Because it is tied and placed on the tip of a bamboo stick. If a pot standing on the ground is given by a giver standing within arm's reach, saying "I will give the pot," it is all accepted by accepting it by means of the bamboo stick. Because it is said "take it" referring to sugarcane juice being squeezed without pressing it into the bhikkhu's hand, "abhihāro na paññāyatī" is said; but it is allowable to take the sugarcane juice flowing out for the benefit of a bhikkhu standing within arm's reach. It is also allowable to take sugarcane juice flowing by itself into a trough by blocking and releasing it in the middle. Paṭiggahaṇasaññāyā By the intention produced, "I will accept with a couch, etc."; by this, it shows that there is no need to say "I accept" verbally.

Yattha katthaci In whatever commentaries or regions. Asaṃhārime phalake On a plank that cannot be moved with medium strength. "From the statement 'on tintiṇikā, etc., leaves, acceptance is valid on branches' should be seen," it is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (sārattha. ṭī. pācittiya 3.265). It is also said that way in the ancient ṭīkā, but that should be considered. In the commentary, it is said, "Acceptance is not valid on thin, fine tintiṇikā, etc., leaves that are spread on the ground." Because of the thinness of those tintiṇikā, etc., leaves, and because the food placed there does not stay firm and is similar to being placed on the ground, it is said "na ruhatī." It would be the same even if it were placed on tintiṇikā branches, therefore the statement "acceptance is valid on branches" seems incorrect. When seeking the reason why the verb "na ruhatī" is used in the commentary, there is no need to seek another reason; the qualifying word "sukhumesū" itself becomes a reason-containing adjective. Therefore, acceptance is not valid on tintiṇikā leaves, etc. Why? Because of their thinness. But it is valid on other lotus leaves, etc. Why? Because of their thickness. Thus, a cause-and-effect relationship should be desired, it seems. Therefore it is said "tadetaṃ vicāretabbaṃ." Indeed, it is said in the commentary, "Because they are not capable of supporting it, but it is valid on large lotus leaves, etc."

106.Puñchitvā paṭiggahetvā (Having wiped and then received): This is said for the purpose of receiving even when there is doubt that dust or powder remains after wiping, not when there is no such doubt.Taṃ pana (But that): The alms-food that falls off, without receiving it, but taking alms-food placed on top.Anāpattī (No offense): There is no fault of wrong practice. In accordance with the initial intention, ‘‘anupasampannassa datvā…pe… vaṭṭatī’’ (It is allowed to give to one who is not fully ordained…pe… it is allowed) is said. However, since that does not become the property of another merely by the thought "I will give it to another," it is allowed to receive and consume it without giving it away. The statement "I will give it to one who is not fully ordained," etc., is said to avoid the vinaya dukkata offense; even if it is taken without doing so, there is no offense for one who receives and consumes it.Bhikkhussa detī (Gives to a bhikkhu): He gives to another bhikkhu.Kañjikanti (Kañjika): This is said referring to any liquid, such as milk extract. He releases it from his hand and takes it again, it becomes uggahitaka (taken up), he says, ‘‘hatthato amocentenevā’’ (without releasing it from the hand).Āluḷentānanti (While stirring): To those who are stirring, or this is the reading. Because it was brought and placed on the ground, there is no abhihāra (carrying), he says, ‘‘patto paṭiggahetabbo’’ (the bowl should be received).

107.Paṭhamataraṃ uḷuṅkato thevā patte patantī (If at first a drop falls into the bowl): Here, they say, "Just as there is no fault if the first drop falls, similarly, there is no fault in the last drop that falls while pouring and removing because it has not been abhihaṭattā (carried)."Carukenāti (With a small pot): With a small vessel.‘‘Abhihaṭattā (Because it has been carried): This is said referring to the moment of giving. However, they say, "If ash or drops fall while giving and removing, it should be received again because the abhihāra (carrying) has ceased." It is fitting if he prevents it so that it does not fall; abhihāra (carrying) is not broken for one who removes it with normal perception; it has completely fallen. Indeed, that is what has been received.Mukhavaṭṭiyāpi gahetuṃ vaṭṭatī (It is permissible to take it with the rim of the mouth of the bowl): It is permissible to extend the hand and touch the upper part of the rim of the bowl that is being carried.Pādena pelletvā (Having pressed with the foot): Having stepped on it with the intention of "I will receive it" with the foot.Kecīti (Some): Those who dwell in Abhayagiri.Vacanamattamevā (Merely a verbal utterance): The meaning is that the mere sound of "bound, bound, bound" is not different; it is only physically bound. Therefore, their words should not be taken. Esa nayo (This is the method): This is the method that "even repeated binding is only physical binding." And thus, in that case, only a thullaccaya offense is stated for physical binding and for what is bound to it.

Tena āharāpetunti (Let him have it brought by him): The meaning is that it is permissible for the other bhikkhu to order the bhikkhu to whom it has gone, saying, "Bring it here," and have it brought by him.Tasmāti (Therefore): Because consumption is permitted only for what is at the original place. If he takes it with his hand that day and receives and consumes it the second day, it becomes uggahitakapaṭiggahitaṃ (taken up and received), he says, ‘‘anāmasitvā’’ (without touching). Because it has not been received, ‘‘sannidhipaccayā anāpattī’’ (no offense due to the condition of storing up) is said. If he consumes it without receiving it, there is an offense through the unpermitted mouth-door, he says, ‘‘paṭiggahetvā pana paribhuñjitabba’’nti (but it should be received and then consumed).‘‘Na tato para (Not after that): This is said referring to what was not received by oneself that same day, but it is permissible to consume what was received that same day on subsequent days without receiving it again," they say.

108.Khīyantīti (They wear out): They are consumed, meaning there are no thullaccaya or non-acceptance offenses due to their particles.Satthakenāti (With a knife): With a knife that has been received.Navasamuṭṭhitanti (Newly arisen): By this, he shows that because it is newly attached to sugarcane etc., it is not unconventional.Eseva nayo (This is the same method): He speaks referring to the fault of storing up, etc. Therefore he says, ‘‘na hī’’ (not indeed), etc. Why is there no fault here due to the condition of taking up or the condition of storing up? He says, ‘‘na hi taṃ paribhogatthāya pariharantī’’ (for they do not carry it for the purpose of consumption). And by this, he indicates that it is permissible to carry what is taken by oneself or given by one who is not fully ordained for the purpose of external use. Therefore, if he wants to consume oil etc., taken by oneself for the purpose of anointing the bowl, etc., there is no offense for one who receives and consumes it. But for the purpose of internal use, if he receives and consumes what is taken by oneself, it is a case of taking up and receiving, and if he consumes without receiving, there is an offense through the unpermitted mouth-door. For the purpose of internal use only, if he takes and carries what is given by one who is not fully ordained, there is an offense due to the condition of storing up, like the case of the horn salt. But some say, "If one accepts what is given by those who are not fully ordained even for external use, due to the arising of acceptance with the five qualities mentioned as 'the amount that a man of medium strength can utter,' it is already received." In this case, it should be said that there is an offense due to the condition of storing up for one who takes and carries what is given by one who is not fully ordained for the purpose of external use. And "they do not carry it for the purpose of consumption" should not be said, therefore it should be understood that what is taken for the purpose of external use is not called received.

Udukkhalamusalādīni khīyantī (Mortars, pestles, etc., wear out): Here, if an adventitious color appears in the flour or ground medicine due to the wearing out of the mortars and pestles, it is not allowed.Suddhaṃ udakaṃ hotī (It is pure water): This is said referring to water that falls filtered by tree branches, etc.

109.Patto vāssa paṭiggahetabbo (His bowl should be received): Here too, the acceptance of the bowl is for the purpose of internal use, in order to show that there is no fault with the meat that sticks to the hand of one who gives after touching what is in the bowl.Yaṃ sāmaṇerassa patte patati…pe… paṭiggahaṇaṃ na vijahatī (Whatever falls into the novice's bowl…pe… the reception does not cease): Here, because of making the determination that what is repeatedly taken and placed in one's own bowl is one's own property, the reception in the hand does not cease. However, because the determination that what is delimited and given is one's own property is made at the moment of taking, the reception in the hand ceases.Kesañci atthāya bhattaṃ pakkhipatī (He puts food for someone): Here, even if he puts it for the sake of one who is not fully ordained, the reception does not cease because he puts it down himself, thinking that he will come and take it. However, what is put in the hand of one who is not fully ordained is as if it were placed by one who is not fully ordained, so the reception ceases due to the state of being relinquished. Therefore it is said, ‘‘sāmaṇera…pe… pariccattattā’’ (novice…pe… due to being relinquished).Kesañcītiādīsu (In some cases): Even if it is placed somewhere for the sake of those who are not fully ordained, the reception does not cease as soon as it is released from the hand, but the reception ceases only when it falls into the vessel. And the vessel is something that the bhikkhu expects for the next day, so, thinking that the reception ceases like what is in a bowl that has been rinsed out, even if it is connected to it, it is said "it should be put in the novice's hand." Indeed, in such cases, reasons should not be sought, one should proceed according to the stated method.