THE ANUD¢PAN¢
raise any objection, then he commits an offence; and the gold and silver should be
abandoned by him too. This is the disciplinary rule laid down by the Buddha.
Suppose a
dÈyaka
comes to a
bhikkhu
and offers money, even though the
bhikkhu
,
following the Vinaya rules, forbade him and refuses to accepts it; but he leaves it all the
same and goes away; if another
dÈyaka
comes along and the
bhikkhu
tells him about the
money and the
dÈyaka
says: ‚Then please show me a safe place for keeping the money‛,
the
bhikkhu
may go up to the seventh terrace of the monastery, taking the
dÈyaka
with him,
and says: ‚Here is a safe place‛. But he should not say: ‚Keep it here‛. However, when the
dÈyaka
has gone away after keeping the money safely in the place shown by the
bhikkhu
,
the
bhikkhu
can close the door of the room carefully and keep watch on it. In doing so, the
bhikkhu
is not guilty of infringement of any disciplinary rule, states the Commentary
clearly on
r|piya sikkhÈpada
.
If possession of gold and silver is not allowable for the laity observing the
jÈtar|pa
sikkhÈpada
, it will, by no means, be allowable for the
bhikkhu
who observes the subtler and
nobler precepts to keep watch on his gold and silver. Thus, it should be noted that if such a
bhikkhu
is free from offence, so is the laity who is not affected in the observance of the
jÈtar|pa sikkhÈpada
by his possession of wealth left in place of security.
In the Visuddhi-magga MahÈtikÈ, the example of GhaÔikÈra the pot-maker, is not cited to
convey the meaning that ‚the laity should observe the Ten Precepts only when they can
abandon all their wealth without clinging any more‛ like GhatikÈra. Actually, the example
of GhaÔikara, a superior observer of the Ten Precepts, is cited just to exhort the people not
to be content with their ordinary observance of the Ten Precepts, but that they should make
efforts to become observers of a higher type following Ghatikara's example. Even though
they cannot be equal to him, the citation is made in order to encourage them to emulate
Ghatikara as far as possible.
The authority for this remark is: ‚
sÊlamayanti niccasÊla uposatha niyamÈdivasena paÒca
attha dasa vÈ silÈni samÈdiyantassa
‛ as commented in the Itivuttaka AÔÔhakathÈ by Acariya
DhammapÈla Thera, the author of Visuddhi-magga MahÈtikÈ. The Commentary mentions
three kinds of morality, namely, (i) the Five Precepts observed permanently (
nicca sÊla
),
(ii) the Eight Precepts observed on
uposatha
days, (
uposatha sÊla
), and (iii) the Ten
Precepts observed occasionally (
niyama sÊla
). It is clear that, according to this
Commentary, the ten precepts are not observed permanently; they are observed
occasionally.
Again, in the SagÈthÈvagga SaÑyutta PÈli, Sakka SaÑyutta, we find the following
account. Sakka, King of Devas, came down from Vejayanta Palace to go to the royal
garden. When he was about to get onto his chariot, he paid homage to the eight directions.
Then the Deve MÈtali said: ‚To whom do you pay homage, Sir ?‛
Sakka said:
Ye gahaÔÔhÈ puÒÒakarÈ,
sÊlavanto upasakÈ,
dhammena dÈraÑ posenti,
te namassÈmi MÈtali.
MÈtali, some people perform meritorious deeds; they are also endowed with
morality; they take refuge in the Three Gems of Buddha, Dhamma, and
Sangha, and they support their wives and children righteously. To them I pay
homage.
The term ‘
SÊlavanto
’ in the Sakka's reply is explained by the commentator thus:
‚
SÊlavanto ti upÈsakatte patiÔÔhÈya paÒcahi pi dasahi pi sÊlehi samannÈgatÈ
. —— Those, who
are endowed with morality means those who take refuge in the Three Gems and become
established in the Five Precepts and the Ten Precepts.‛ (According to this Commentary it is
clear that the people to whom Sakka, King of Devas, pay homage are the people who,
living with their families, observe the Five and Ten Precepts).
Also in the SaÑyutta Sub-Commentary, it is commented thus:
niccasÊlavasena paÒcahi