English
There is nothing here that – which By this determination, it would not be possible to understand, apart from the meaning of the words "my passion is given up, vomited," etc., in the word-division of the term 'abandonment of defilements'. And this is said: Here, "given up" is said in the sense of abandoning one's own state. "Vomited" is again in the sense of showing non-acceptance. "Released" is in the sense of liberation from the continuum. "Abandoned" is in the sense of showing that even what is released does not remain anywhere. "Relinquished" is in the sense of showing the relinquishment of what was previously taken up. "Uprooted" is in the sense of showing non-adherence again, being terrified by the noble path. And this meaning should be sought from grammar. "Completely uprooted" is said in the sense of showing non-adherence again, even of what is accompanied by subtle defilements, having been thoroughly terrified. The discourse on the chapter of purity is finished. Discourse on the chapter of intending to speak 215. Even in the chapter of intending to speak, the meaning of "by three modes," etc., and all the divisions of the repetition section, should be understood in the manner stated here. It is solely stated to prevent opportunity for wicked individuals who seek an opening, saying: "I intended to speak something else, but spoke something else by mistake. Therefore there is no offense for me." Just as one intending to say "I renounce the Buddha," but saying something else in the terms of renouncing the training, like "I renounce the Dhamma," etc., is still considered to have renounced the training because they have entered the field; similarly, one intending to speak of any one of the superhuman states like the first jhāna, etc., but saying something else, is still guilty of a pārājika offense because they have entered the field. If the person to whom they speak understands that meaning at that very moment. And the characteristic of understanding here should be known in the manner stated in the renunciation of training. This, however, is a distinction: the renunciation of training does not descend to the head by a hand gesture. This declaration of what is not true descends even by a hand gesture. For whoever, even by hand gestures and other movements of limbs and sub-limbs, places an untrue superhuman state on the path of communication... He tells that person, and he knows that matter, he is guilty of pārājika. But if the one to whom he tells does not know "What is this one saying?", or falls into doubt, or knows later after long investigation, he is counted as not understanding. When spoken to such a one who does not understand, it is a grave offense (thullaccaya). But if someone does not know jhānas etc. by way of his own attainment, or by way of learning and questioning etc., but has merely heard the words "jhāna" or "vimokkha", even if he, when spoken to by that one, knows even this much: "He says he attains jhāna," he is counted as knowing. When spoken to him, it is pārājika. The rest of the distinction, whether to one, two, or many, by way of specified or unspecified, should all be understood in the manner stated in the discourse on the renunciation of training. The discourse on the section of wishing to speak is finished. The discourse on the section connected with requisites. 220. In the section connected with requisites as well – having understood all the variations of the sections and the meaning of the previously mentioned terms in the manner stated, the sequence of the Pāli text should be known thus. Here, "who dwelt in your monastery, who used your robe, who ate your almsfood, who used your lodging, who used your medicine for the sick" – these are the five sections of personal pronouns. "By whom your monastery was used" and so on – these are the five sections of instrumental case. "Relying on whom you gave the monastery" and so on – these are the five sections of dative/locative case. According to these, the variations of the sections should be understood in all the terms mentioned previously, such as the first jhāna, together with the term "empty dwelling" mentioned here. But because it is stated indirectly as "Who dwelt in your monastery, by whom your monastery, relying on whom you gave the monastery," and "I" is not stated, even if spoken to one who understands, here it is a grave offense (thullaccaya), and for one who does not understand, it is a minor offense (dukkata) – this is the decision here. The discourse on the distinctions of non-offenses. Thus, the distinctions of offenses in detail... Having shown the offense, now showing the non-offense, he says, "No offense by over-estimation," and so on. Therein, "by over-estimation" means no offense for one acting with an acquired sense of superiority. "With no intention to flatter" means no offense for one who, not standing in deceitful or willful conduct, declares something else in the presence of fellow practitioners, with no intention to flatter. The insane and so on are as stated before. But here, the first offenders are the murmuring, babbling bhikkhus. For them, there is no offense. The explanation of the word-analysis is finished. Among the origins and so on, this training rule has three origins – for one who declares by hand gesture, from body and mind; for one who declares by breaking speech, from speech and mind; for one who does both, from body, speech, and mind it originates. It is an action, with release by perception, with intention, censured by the world, a bodily action, a verbal action, with unwholesome mind, with three feelings; for one speaks with joy even when laughing, with fear, or with indifference. Explanation of the Settled Cases 223. Among the settled cases – the case of over-estimation is just as stated in the supplementary rule. In the second case – "having made a resolve" means having made a wish. "Thus people will esteem me" means, "Thus, as I dwell in the forest, people will esteem me in arahantship or in the training stage; then I will be respected, honored, esteemed, and worshipped by the world." "An offense of wrong-doing" means for one going with such a resolve, "I will dwell in the forest," there is a wrong-doing at every step. Similarly, in the forest, for all activities like making a hut, walking, sitting, wearing robes, putting on outer robes, there is a wrong-doing at every application. Therefore, one should not dwell in the forest in this way. For one dwelling thus, whether he obtains esteem or not, he incurs a wrong-doing. But one who has undertaken the ascetic practices, thinking, "I will observe the ascetic practices," or "My mind becomes distracted when dwelling near a village, the forest is suitable," or "Surely in the forest I will attain one of the three solitudes," or "Having entered the forest, I will not leave without attaining arahantship," or "Dwelling in the forest is praised by the Blessed One..." the purpose, and when I live in the forest, many fellow celibates will leave the village and become forest dwellers,” or if he wishes to live such a blameless life, he should live it. In the third case too – if he thinks, “I will arrange my going forth and so on, and go for alms,” from the act of putting on his lower and upper robes until the end of his meal, there is a dukkaṭa for every action. Whether he gains the estimation or not, it is a dukkaṭa. But if he enters for alms with dignified steps and movements, etc., for the purpose of fulfilling the Khandhaka and Sekhiya observances, or for fellow celibates to follow his example, he is not blameworthy in the eyes of the wise. In the fourth and fifth cases – in “whoever lived in that monastery,” since “I” is not stated in the manner described there, there is no pārājika. For a pārājika is stated only for one who speaks of himself. “He walks with the intention,” etc., are in the same manner as stated earlier. In the case of the fetters – whether he says “the fetters are abandoned,” or “the ten fetters are abandoned,” or “one fetter is abandoned,” it is the declaration of the abandonment of defilements, therefore it is a pārājika. 224. In the cases of solitude – “he speaks in solitude” means he says, “I am an Arahant in solitude,” he does not merely think it in his mind. Therefore, a dukkaṭa is stated here. The cases of the monastery and attendance are in the same manner as stated. 225. In the case of “not difficult” – this monk has this view: “Only noble persons are disciples of the Blessed One.” Therefore, he says, “Those who are disciples of the Blessed One would say this.” And because his intention is this: “It is not difficult for a virtuous person who has begun insight to declare another, he is capable of attaining Arahantship.” Therefore, he says, “I have no intention of boasting.” In the case of energy, “to be accomplished” means it can be accomplished, achieved, brought about. The rest is in the same manner as stated. In the case of death, that monk thinks, “Whoever experiences remorse, he should fear. But my pure actions are without remorse.” My virtues are lost, so why should I fear death? Referring to this matter, he said: "Friend, I do not fear death." Therefore, he committed no offense. In the matter of regret, the same method applies. The next three matters are similar to the matter of energy. In the first matter of feelings, that bhikkhu, by the power of reflection, stood firm in the patience of endurance, and said: "Friend, it is not possible to endure in any way whatsoever." Therefore, he committed no offense. But in the second, not making it personal, but saying indirectly: "Friend, it is not possible for an ordinary person," it is a grave offense. 226. In the matter of the brahmin, that brahmin did not merely say: "Venerable Arahants, please come." Whatever words came from his mouth, all were connected with the talk of Arahants: "Prepare seats for the Arahants, give foot-water,