English
If there is that intention, what should it be?” Here, since even when a pācittiya for intentional lying is established, a separate pācittiya is stated for disparaging with a baseless saṅghādisesa, therefore, when there is an intention to disparage, there appears to be no scope for a pācittiya for intentional lying. And it is not possible for one who disparages to be not guilty. Thus, the former method appears to be purer here. Similarly, if a bhikkhunī disparages another bhikkhunī with a baseless charge of a grave offense, it is a saṅghādisesa. If she disparages a bhikkhu, it is a dukkaṭa. Here, the saṅghādisesa is for rehabilitation, the dukkaṭa is for confession. By these, there is no expulsion. But since she was naturally an immoral, wicked bhikkhunī, and now she herself says, “I am immoral,” therefore the Blessed One expelled her precisely because of her impurity. Then, when the Blessed One, having said, “Expel the bhikkhunī Mettiyā, and question these bhikkhus,” rose from his seat and entered the monastery, those bhikkhus said, “Now give us…” Seeing that nun being disgraced, (saying) "These are white for her," those monks, wishing to free her, revealed their own offense. To show this matter, "Then Mettiyabhūmajaka..." and so on, was said. 385-6. "Corrupted fault" means both corrupted and corrupting. Indeed, when a fault arises, the person is corrupted by that fault, made to abandon their natural state. Therefore, they are called "corrupted." And it corrupts others, destroys them. Therefore, it is called "fault." Thus, "corrupted fault" is an illustration of one and the same person through different aspects. Therefore, it was said, "Corrupted fault means both corrupted and corrupting." There, the characteristic of the word should be sought. But since that person, who has come to be called "corrupted fault," a person endowed with aversion, is indeed in a state of being angry and so on, therefore, in the analysis of the word, "angry" and so on, was said concerning him. There, "angry" means having attained a state of agitation, a state of deviation from the natural condition. "Displeased" means not being in control of one's mind, a mind not established in one's own power. Moreover, it means not pleased or not happy in mind with joy and happiness. Thus, "displeased." "Not delighted" means not happy, nor pleased. Thus, "not delighted." "Mind-struck" means his mind is struck by aversion. "Obstacle-born" means the obstacle of aversion has arisen in him, which is called mental rigidity, mental defilement, mental rubbish. "Not gladdened" means not gladdened, devoid of joy, happiness, and so on. It means not pervaded. But in the analysis of the word, to show by means of which states one is "not gladdened," "by that anger" and so on, was said. There, "by that anger" means that by which one is called "corrupted" and "angry." Both of these are of one kind, due to abandoning the natural state. And "by that fault" means that by which one is called "fault." By these two, he shows only the aggregate of formations. And "by that displeasure" means that by which one is called "displeased." And "by that lack of delight" means that by which one is called "not delighted." By these two, he shows the aggregate of feeling. "By a baseless pārājika" means: here, it has no root, thus "baseless." But its baselessness... because it is intended in the sense of the accuser, not in the sense of the accused. Therefore, to show that meaning, in the word analysis, it says: “‘Baseless’ means unseen, unheard, unsuspected.” By this, it clarifies: “That Pārājika which, by the accuser, regarding the accused person, is neither seen, nor heard, nor suspected—this is called ‘baseless’ due to the absence of these roots, namely seeing, hearing, and suspecting. And whether that person has committed it or not, that is irrelevant here.” Here, “unseen” means unseen by one’s own eye of faith or divine eye. “Unheard” means unheard, likewise, when spoken by someone. “Unsuspected” means unsuspected by the mind. “Seen” means seen by oneself or by another, by the eye of faith or by the divine eye. “Heard” means heard likewise. “Suspected” also means suspected by oneself or by another. Among these, what is seen by oneself is indeed seen; what is seen by others is heard by oneself; what is heard by others, what is suspected by others—all of this stands in the category of being heard by oneself. Suspicion, however, is of three kinds: suspicion based on seeing, suspicion based on hearing, and suspicion based on sensing. Among these, “suspicion based on seeing” means: a certain monk, for the purpose of defecation or urination, entered a certain bush near a village. Another woman, for some reason, also entered that bush and returned. Neither the monk saw the woman, nor the woman saw the monk. Both departed as they wished without seeing each other. Another monk, observing their exit from there, suspects, “Surely, they have done it or will do it.” This is called “suspicion based on seeing.” “Suspicion based on hearing” means: here, someone in the dark or in a secluded place hears such a conversational greeting of a monk with a woman. Even if another person is present nearby, he does not know “whether it is so or not.” He suspects, “Surely, they have done it or will do it.” This is suspicion based on hearing. is called suspicion. That which is called suspicion based on what is heard, smelled, or tasted: a number of rogues, in the nighttime, taking flowers, perfumes, meat, liquor, and so forth, went with women to a border monastery. In the pavilion or dining hall, or similar places, they played as they pleased, scattered the flowers and so forth, and then left. The next day, the monks, seeing this defilement, wondered, “Whose deed is this?” Now, it happened that some monk had risen early and, in the course of his duties, had cleaned the pavilion or dining hall, and had touched the flowers and so forth. Another had performed an offering with flowers and so forth brought from a lay supporter’s family. Another had drunk neem for medicine. Then, those monks, wondering “Whose deed is this?”, smelled the scent on their hands and the scent on their mouths, and suspected those monks. This is called suspicion based on what is heard, smelled, or tasted. Among these, there is what is seen with a basis, and there is what is without a basis. Among what is seen, there is what is based on perception, and there is what is not based on perception. The same method applies to what is heard. In the case of suspicion, there is suspicion based on what is seen with a basis, and there is what is without a basis. Among suspicion based on what is seen, there is what is based on perception, and there is what is not based on perception. The same method applies to suspicion based on what is heard, smelled, or tasted. Among these, what is seen with a basis means one sees someone committing a pārājika offense and then says, “I saw him.” What is without a basis means one sees someone coming out of a hidden place, but without seeing the transgression, says, “I saw him.” What is seen based on perception means one sees and, having the perception of having seen, accuses. What is not based on perception means one previously saw a pārājika transgression, but later became without the perception of having seen, and so, making it without a basis in perception, accuses, “I saw him.” By this method, suspicion based on what is heard, smelled, or tasted should also be understood in detail. In this regard, in all cases, there is no offense for one who accuses with a basis or with a basis in perception. But there is an offense for one who accuses without a basis or without a basis in perception. “Should not revile” means should destroy, should utterly destroy, should overcome, should overwhelm. That But since defamation whether one denounces oneself or causes another to denounce one does it, therefore, in its analysis of terms it is said: "denounces or causes to denounce." Here, "denounces" means one denounces oneself with words like: "You have fallen into a pārājika offence." For each word of his, a saṅghādisesa. "Causes to denounce" means one stands nearby and instructs another bhikkhu, and that one denounces him with his words. For each word of the one who causes to denounce, a saṅghādisesa. If he also denounces, saying: "I have seen, I have heard," for each word of both persons, a saṅghādisesa. Now, for skill in the types of denunciation, the fourfold classification of one-object-one-denouncer, etc., should be understood. Here, one bhikkhu denounces one bhikkhu with one object. In this denunciation, one object, one denouncer. Many denounce one with one object, like the five hundred bhikkhus, led by Mettiya and Bhūmajaka, of the group of six, denounced Venerable Dabba the Mallaputta. In this denunciation, one object, many denouncers. One bhikkhu denounces one bhikkhu with many objects. In this denunciation, many objects, one denouncer. Many denounce many with many objects. In this denunciation, many objects, many denouncers. But who is able to denounce, and who is not? Taking the words of a weak denouncer, no one is able. A weak denouncer is one who, when many are seated in conversation, speaks about a pārājika matter, referring to someone without naming them. Another, hearing that, goes and reports it to the other. That one approaches him and says: "So you say this and that about me?" He says: "I do not know such a thing; but in the course of conversation, I spoke without naming anyone. If I had known that this would cause you distress, I would not have spoken even that much." This is a weak denouncer. Taking his conversation, no one is able to denounce that bhikkhu. But not taking this, a bhikkhu endowed with virtue... Mahāpaduma Thera said, "Only a bhikkhunī who is endowed with virtue may admonish a bhikkhunī." But Mahāsumana Thera said, "Five co-religionists may admonish."