11:16 PM
mr.vam
Samantapasadika
Introduction
It is not easy to find out this Samantapasdhika Commentary book and what about buddhaghosas are saying exactly in this Atthakata. There are some books I found from internet but cannot download for free user. And tried many time in order to read this Samanpasdhika but unfortunately I couldn’t do it. So, I cannot report this Atthakata exactly however I try to show about some information briefly relative to this Commentary.
What I understand in this Atthakata which are talking about Bhikkhus can act as doctors and monk can accept money..? this Commentary has giving definition how and where can find out this Atthakata including summarily how much I have collected information relative to this Commentary.
I would like to request something before I write about this Commentary that I want to submit another commentary books that I wanna say who were writing down similarly and the same commentary consisting with this Atthatakata and I also give some brief information about this Commentary. It hands out will including general information about this Atthakata too. And, I want to admit one thing to you honestly that I don’t know how to write properly, what this commentary giving meaning exactly too. But I really hope that it report will be correct information what I am writing down regarding with this Commentary.
Relatively About Samantapasadika Commentary
A Commentary on the Vinaya Pitaka written by Buddhaghosa Thera, It was written at the request of Buddhasiri and was based on the Mahapaccariya and the Kurundi Atthakatha. See also Saratthadipani and a monk of the Mahavihara, at whose request Buddhaghosa wrote the Samantapasadika which is made of with two words: Samanta+Pasadika.Here 'samanta' indicates four directions and 'pasadika' means cool-down.
A tika on Buddhaghosas samntapasadika, by Sariputta Thera of Ceylon. Many of the illustrative stories are about Ceylon monks. The book contains a valuable account of the eighteen sects into which the Sangha was divided at the time of the Third Council.
An old Commentary on the Tipitaka, used by Buddhaghosa in the compilation of his works, It is often referred to in the samantapasadika and its comments quoted. Tradition has it that it was so called because it was compiled on a raft.
Pali names for Ceylon, found in the Chronicles for example Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa and the Commentaries. An ancient tradition recorded in the Mahavamsa, and in the as Samantapasadika gives the names of the Island in the times of the three previous Buddhas...
A Thera who lived in the Mahavihara in the time of King Bhatiya, He was an authority on the Vinaya, and a story is related in the Samantapasadika of how he was consulted by a monk who having picked up in a crowd a robe that fell from the shoulders of another monk concealed it,...
In a previous birth he offered three flowers to the Patali, the Bodhi tree or Vipassi Buddha. Thirty three kappas ago he became king thirteen times under the name of Samanatapasadika.
Samantapasadika refers to a collection of pali commentaries on translation in Theravada Tipitaka Vinaya. It was a translation of Sinhala ommentaries into Pali by Buddhaghosa in the 5th century. Many of the verses used in Samanthapasadika are from older Dipavamsa.
The tradition that has come down to all Theravada Buddhist monks is that described in the Samantapasadika, the great commentary on the Vinayapitaka compiled by Buddhaghosa in Sri Lanka in the 5th century C.E.
There are one question “May a monk act as a doctor?” of cause can be in this commentary shows a wise balance which recognizes a monk’s duty to his parents, his responsibilities to those monks and lay people staying with him in his monastery, and his compassion to all those visiting his monastery for emergency help. It prevents in any circumstances receiving any material reward for such services. Moreover, it remembers that the role of a Buddhist monk towards the laity is not to act as a doctor to the body, but to act as a kind sage, a doctor to the mind.
This authoritative work states that a monk may prescribe and supply medicines to his fellow monastics (monks and nuns), to his parents and to any lay people staying in the monastery either preparing to go forth as monks of just staying to help the monks. Also, a monk may prescribe but not buy medicines to his brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents and to whatever travelers, bandits, and people wounded in battle and those without relatives who come to the monastery for emergency help.
Should a monk prescribe or supply medicines beyond his allowance, he commits an offence against his precepts. Further, if he prescribes or supplies a medicine to a layperson for a material gift in return, then he incurs another offence against his precepts for “corrupting families” (kuladusaka). That is what is stated in the Samantapasadika Vinaya Commentary, respected in all Theravada Buddhist countries. The passage may be found in the Pali Text Society’s edition of the Samantapasadika.
After explanation of this kuladusaka there are another point that “does monk can accept money” ?The Samantapasadika commentary explains that it is not only unallowable to accept money in one of these three ways for oneself, but also if the money is for the sangha, a group, another person, a pagoda, a monastery, or for anything else. If a monk accepts money in one of these three ways for himself it is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. If he accepts for the others just mentioned it is a dukkata offense.
Not only is it unallowable to accept money for oneself, but it is also unallowable to accept money if it is brought by the donor and he says, this I offer to the sangha. Make a park, pagoda, eating hall or anything whatsoever. Whoever accepts money for any other person has committed a dukkata offense according to Mahapaccariya commentary.
1. If a bhikkhu refuses to accept money saying, it is not allowable for bhikkhus to accept this. Then if the donor says, I will place this in the hands of a carpenter or workman. You simply watch them to see that their work is done properly. Then if he gives the money into their hands and leaves then that is allowable. If he says, I will place this in the hands of my man or I will keep it myself. Whatever you want to be given to whoever sends them to me to obtain it. This is also allowable.
2. If without referring to the sangha, a group, or an individual they simply say, We give this gold, silver, or money for the pagoda, for the monastery, for new work, then it is not allowed to refuse that. The bhikkhu should inform his kappiya saying, this is what they said. If however they should say, `We offer this for the benefit of the pagoda; monastery, new work and you take this and keep it. Then the bhikkhu must refuse it saying, it is not allowable for us to take this.
In the first case the bhikkhu does not have to refuse because he is not being asked to accept the money. He cannot do anything except to tell his kappiya what they said. He cannot accept that money.
3. If a person should bring a large amount of gold, silver, or money and say, This I offer to the sangha, Venerable Sirs, use the four requisites obtained from this. Then if that sangha should accept that then that acceptance is an offense and using the requisites obtained with it is also an offense.
If at that time when it is offered to the sangha one bhikkhu refuses it by saying, This is not allowable, and that layperson goes away saying, If this is not allowable then I will keep it.´ Then those other bhikkhus should not say to that bhikkhu, `You have obstructed the gains of the sangha, or anything else to that effect. For whoever says such a thing to him has committed an offense (dukkata) because by refusing that single bhikkhu has saved many from committing an offense.
If those bhikkhus refuse the money saying, it is not allowable, and the layperson then says, I will give this into the hands of a kappiya or to my man or keep it myself. You just accept and use the requisites obtained with it. That is allowable.
The commentary explains that the method shown in this rule does not need to be practised with all kappiyas. It explains that there are ten types and two classes of kappiyas. The details are as follows:
4. If a certain person sends a messenger with a fund for buying a robe for a bhikkhu and that messenger having approached that bhikkhu should say, `Venerable Sir, such and such a person has sent this money to buy a robe for you. Take this money. Then that bhikkhu must refuse saying, `This is not allowable.
The Samantapasadika commentary gives an explanation by way of an example called `the four unallowable bowls. It reads:
In order to show the great fault in breaking this rule the four unallowable bowls should be explained: If a bhikkhu having accepted money buys iron ore and has it smelted into iron and then made into an alms-bowl. Then this bowl is called a great unallowable bowl because there is no way whatsoever by which it can be made allowable. If that bowl is broken up and made into cups they would also be unallowable. If it is made into a knife then tooth-woods made with that knife would be unallowable. If it is made into fish hooks then even the fish caught on them would be unallowable. If he were to heat the blade of a knife made from it and dip it into water or milk and warm them then that water or milk would be unallowable.
If a bhikkhu having accepted money buys a ready-made bowl then that bowl is unallowable. It is said in Mahapaccariya Commentary that, that bowl is unallowable to any bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, samanera, samaneri, or sikkhamana. This bowl can be made allowable again. If he returns it to where he bought it, takes back his money, and gives back the bowl, then it becomes allowable.
If a bhikkhu having accepted money goes to a bowl shop with his kappiya and having seen a bowl he says, I like this one, and that kappiya gives the money and arranges with the shopkeeper to buy the bowl. Then even though that bowl was obtained by allowable speech it is still unallowable because of the original acceptance of the money. It is no different from the second example. Why are they unallowable for other bhikkhus also? It is because the original money was not forfeited (in accordance with Vinaya in the midst of the sangha).
The rules concerning money are complex to explain but not difficult to practise; all a bhikkhu needs to do is to refuse to accept money. For those who do keep the rules sincerely they will gain a deeper understanding of Dhamma. They will be able to realize the fruits of the Vinaya which are not found within the letter of the rules, but within the hearts of those who practise it.
Conclusion
If I conclude what I submit relative to this Samantapasdhika Commentary there are found two important things that bhikkhus can act as the doctor and can accept money avoid with unpleasant ways.
References
3. http://www.archive.org
Pali Literature
Lecturer: Dr. Ven.Piyaratana
Relatively About Samantapasadika Commentary
Vamsapala
ID 5301201125
2nd year, Second Semester
International Bachalar of Art English Programme, Mahachularlongkorn University, Wan Noi , Ayutthaya
Submit Date / 3/4/2012
Posted in: daily learning
Translate
0 comments:
Post a Comment