English
But in the section on 'same-part', a dispute-case is of the same part, the same side, the same division as a dispute-case, due to the similarity of their subject matter. Likewise, an accusation-case is of the same part as an accusation-case. How so? Indeed, a dispute arisen based on the eighteen divisive matters from the time of the Buddha, and a dispute arising now, are, due to the similarity of their subject matter, just one dispute-case. Likewise, an accusation arisen based on the four failures from the time of the Buddha, and an accusation arising now, are, due to the similarity of their subject matter, just one accusation-case. But since an offense-case is not entirely of the same part as an offense-case, due to its subject matter being both similar and dissimilar, and its likeness being both similar and dissimilar, therefore it is said that an offense-case may be of the same part as an offense-case, or it may be of another part. Therein, because 'other-part' was first designated from the beginning, here too 'other-part' is designated first. And there, being of another part and later being of the same part, should be understood in the manner stated. But here, regarding 'a business-case is of the same part as a business-case', a case arisen based on the four Sangha-acts from the time of the Buddha, and a case arising now based on the four Sangha-acts, are, due to their similarity and likeness, just one business-case. Is a case arisen based on Sangha-acts a business-case? Or is this just a designation for Sangha-acts themselves? This is a designation for Sangha-acts themselves. Even so, a Sangha-act, which contemplates the characteristic of an act as 'this and this should be done in this way', arises based on that, and arises based on each preceding Sangha-act. and a dispute arisen concerning the Sangha's acts is called a 'kiccādhikaraṇa' (dispute concerning acts). 394. Here, regarding "taking some part, a mere trace," since 'desa' (part) or 'lesamatta' (mere trace) are different in expression but one in meaning, as explained before, it says, "A trace is of ten kinds: a trace of birth, a trace of name," and so on. There, birth itself is a trace of birth. The same method applies to the rest. 395. Now, to show that very trace in detail, and to show how, by taking it, a denunciation arises, making it with a basis, it says, "A trace of birth is when a khattiya is seen," and so on. There, "a khattiya is seen" means some other khattiya by birth is seen by this accuser. "Committing a pārājika dhamma" means committing one of the sexual acts, etc. "Seeing another khattiya, he accuses him" means then he, seeing another bhikkhu of khattiya birth who is his enemy, takes that khattiya-birth trace and accuses him thus: "A khattiya was seen by me committing a pārājika dhamma; you are a khattiya; you have committed a pārājika dhamma." Or else, "You are that khattiya, not another; you have committed a pārājika dhamma; you are not a recluse, not a son of the Sakyas; there is no Uposatha or Pavāraṇā or Sangha act with you." This is an offense of Sanghādisesa by word. Here, it should be understood that the difference of those khattiyas from each other, in terms of their dissimilarity, or their length, or their being seen, etc., constitutes their distinctness, and their being the basis of the dispute by means of the designation of khattiya-birth should be understood. By this method, the application in all passages should be understood. 400. In the explanation of the trace of a bowl, a 'sāṭaka-patta' refers to a clay bowl that is like a metal bowl, well-formed, smooth-skinned, glossy, and of the color of a bee. A 'sumbhaka-patta' refers to an ordinary clay bowl. 406. Since the explanation of the trace of an offense was given concisely in a single word, to show it in detail, it is said, "A bhikkhu is seen committing a Sanghādisesa," and so on. But why, without stating its explanation there, is it stated separately here? Because it is dissimilar to the other explanations. For the other explanations are stated by way of accusing one of another offense, having seen one committing a different one. But this one is stated by way of accusing one of another offense, having seen one committing just one other offense. If so, how is it a case of a different category? By the offense. Therefore it is said – "Thus it is a case of a different category by offense, and the characteristic is taken." For that Saṅghādisesa which he incurred is a case of a different category for the Pārājika. And the characteristic of that case of a different category is the common state of offense for all offenses, just as the common state of royalty for all Khattiyas. By this method, the principle of the remaining offenses and the accuser's turn should be understood. 408. No offense for one who, perceiving thus, accuses or causes to accuse, thinking: "He has incurred a Pārājika." The rest is clear everywhere. And the origins, etc., are similar to the first corrupted offense. The explanation of the second corrupted offense training rule is finished. 10. Explanation of the first training rule on schism in the Saṅgha 409. At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One – this is the training rule on schism in the Saṅgha. There, in "Then Devadatta," etc., who Devadatta was, and how he went forth, and for what reason he approached Kokālika and others, saying: "Come, friends, let us create a schism in the Saṅgha of the recluse Gotama, a breaking of the wheel." All that has been stated in the chapter on schism in the Saṅgha (Cūḷavagga 343). However, the request for the five points, although it will come there. But since it has also come here, we will speak what needs to be said here and then proceed. "It is good, venerable sir," - this is the request. "May the bhikkhus be forest-dwellers for life" – taking up the ascetic practice of forest-dwelling, may all bhikkhus be forest-dwellers as long as they live, may they dwell only in the forest. "Whoever should enter a village boundary, may fault touch him" – whoever, even a single bhikkhu, abandoning the forest, for residence... Having abandoned the village vicinity, he might withdraw. A fault would touch that bhikkhu. Let a fault touch him. Let the Blessed One make him commit an offense. He speaks with this intention. This is the method for the remaining matters as well. 410. "We will make people understand" means "We will make people know our state of having few wishes, etc." Or, it is said, "We will satisfy them, we will please them." But having heard Devadatta's words, as he requested these five things, the Blessed One understood: "He requests this, intending to cause a schism in the Sangha." But because, if they were allowed, they would lead to an obstacle on the path for many young men of good family, therefore, the Blessed One, having rejected them saying "Enough, Devadatta!", said, "Whoever wishes, let him be a forest dweller," and so on. But here, having known the Blessed One's intention, a young man of good family should know what is suitable for himself. This is the Blessed One's intention here: "One bhikkhu is of great resolve, of great energy. He is able, having rejected a dwelling near a village, dwelling in the forest, to make an end of suffering. One is weak, of little strength. He is not able in the forest, he is able only near a village. One is very strong, with faculties functioning equally, endowed with the patience of endurance, with an equanimous mind regarding desirable and undesirable things. He is able both in the forest and near a village. One is not able either near a village or in the forest; he is a 'foot-ultimate' (very weak)." Among these, he who is of great resolve, of great energy, who is able, having rejected a dwelling near a village, dwelling in the forest, to make an end of suffering, let him dwell only in the forest. This is suitable for him. And his co-residents and others, learning from him, will also think that one should dwell in the forest. But he who is weak, of little strength, who is able to make an end of suffering only near a village, not in the forest, let him dwell only near a village. And he who is very strong, with faculties functioning equally, endowed with the patience of endurance, with an equanimous mind regarding desirable and undesirable things, who is able both in the forest and near a village, let him also abandon a dwelling near a village and dwell in the forest. This is suitable for him. And his co-residents, learning from him, in the forest... they will consider it to be abandoned. But he who can neither in the village nor in the forest, is one whose destination is the foot of a tree. Let him also dwell in the forest. For his practice of the ascetic observances and the cultivation of meditation will be a basis for the paths and fruits in the future. And his fellow students, imitating him, will consider dwelling in the forest to be abandoned. Thus, regarding him who is weak, of little strength, who can make an end of suffering only by dwelling in the village, not in the forest, concerning this person, the Blessed One said: “He who wishes, let him dwell in the village.” And by this person, a door has been opened for others as well. If, however, the Blessed One had accepted Devadatta’s view, then for this person who is naturally weak, of little strength, and for him who, having been able to dwell in the forest in his youth, cannot do so in old age, or during a time of elemental disturbance arising from wind and bile, but can make an end of suffering by dwelling in the village, for them, the noble path would be cut off, the attainment of the fruit of arahantship would not occur, the Teacher’s teaching would be against the Dhamma, against the Vinaya, perverse, and not leading to liberation, and the Teacher would be considered not omniscient, and would be blameworthy, as one who “abandoned his own teaching