English
"For the united Saṅgha, delighting, not disputing, with one recitation, dwells at ease." There, "delighting" means delighting truly in each other's success. "Not disputing" means not disputing thus: "This is Dhamma, this is not Dhamma." "Having one recitation" means one recitation, the recitation of the Pātimokkha proceeding as one, not separately. "Dwells at ease" means dwells happily. "Thus, this is wholesome" means this giving up is wholesome, safe, a state of well-being for that bhikkhu. "If he does not give it up, there is an offense of wrong-doing" means for one who, having been told three times, does not give it up, there is a wrong-doing. "Having heard, they do not speak, there is an offense of wrong-doing" means for those who, having heard, do not speak, there is also a wrong-doing. How far away, having heard, is there a wrong-doing for those who do not speak? In one monastery, there is nothing to be said. But in the commentary, it is said: "For bhikkhus, the responsibility extends for half a yojana all around. Even by sending a messenger or a letter, there is no release from offense. One must go oneself and restrain him, saying, 'Indeed, friend, schism is serious; do not strive for schism.'" But for one who is able, one should go even far, for even at a distance, it is a responsibility for those who are not ill. Now, to show only the meaning in "And if that bhikkhu, being spoken to by the bhikkhus," and so on, it says, "That bhikkhu should be dragged even into the midst of the Saṅgha and spoken to," and so on. There, "having dragged even into the midst of the Saṅgha" means if if he is spoken to in the former way, he does not give up. Even if he is dragged into the midst of the Saṅgha, holding him by the hands and feet, he should be spoken to three times again, saying, "Venerable sir, do not..." and so on. "He should be admonished up to the third time" means he should be admonished until the third admonition. It means that the act should be performed with three acts of admonition. In the word analysis, however, to show the method of admonition by taking only the meaning, it is said, "That bhikkhu should be admonished. And, bhikkhus, he should be admonished in this way," and so on. 414. There, a dukkaṭa in the motion, and thullaccayas from two proclamations are appeased. That is, the dukkaṭa incurred at the end of the motion, and the thullaccayas from the two proclamations, all three of those offenses are appeased by the third proclamation, which reaches the state of "yya" (should speak), by saying, "Whoever does not agree, let him speak." Only the Saṅghādisesa remains. Are the incurred offenses appeased, or the not-incurred ones? Elder Mahāsumā says, "Whoever will give up at the end, he does not incur those offenses. Therefore, the not-incurred ones are appeased." Elder Mahāpaduma, however, says, "Like offenses that are not common due to gender change, the incurred ones are appeased. What appeasement is there for the not-incurred ones?" 415. "In a lawful act, perceiving it as a lawful act" means if that act of admonition is a lawful act, it means perceiving it as a lawful act. This method applies everywhere. Here, perception does not protect. Because the act is lawful, one who does not give up incurs an offense. 416. "For one not admonishing" means for one who is not being admonished, even if he does not give up, there is no offense of Saṅghādisesa. "For one giving up" means before the motion, or at the moment of the motion, or at the end of the motion, or at the first proclamation, or at the second, or at the third, as long as it does not reach the "yya" (should speak), for one who gives up, there is no offense of Saṅghādisesa. "For the first offender." Here, however, Since it is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 17), "Devadatta strove to break the harmonious Sangha, in that matter," Devadatta is the first offender. And he strove to break the Sangha, but not for not retracting. For that act was not done to him. How is this to be known? From the Sutta. Just as it is known that the act was done to Ariṭṭha, because it is stated in the Parivāra (pari. 121), "The monk Ariṭṭha, formerly a vulture-trainer, did not retract after being admonished up to the third time, in that matter," it is not so for Devadatta. Even if someone were to say, according to his own preference, that it must have been done to him, still, there is no non-offence for a first offender in not retracting. For no non-offence is seen for one who transgresses a laid-down rule, except for what is specifically permitted. And what is written in the books as "for the first offender" in the non-offence of Ariṭṭha's training rule, that is a mistake in writing. And its being a mistake in writing should be understood from the statement of imposing an offence in the Kammakkhandhaka, "First, the monk Ariṭṭha should be accused, having accused, he should be reminded, having reminded, an offence should be imposed" (Cūḷava. 65). Thus, since that act was not done to Devadatta, the first offender in striving to break the Sangha, therefore, no offence arose for him. But the training rule was laid down concerning him, and so he is called "the first offender." Thus, his non-offence is stated because of the absence of an offence. And even though this is established by "for one who is not admonished," since "one who is not admonished" is said of one to whom admonition is simply not given, not of a first offender. And this Devadatta is only a first offender, therefore it is said, "for the first offender." By this method, except for Ariṭṭha's training rule, the decision should be understood in all admonitions. The rest is clear everywhere. Among the origins, it is threefold, one origin, this is called the origin of admonition, by body and speech. It arises from intention. It is an inaction, a release of perception, with consciousness, a worldly fault, a bodily action, a verbal action, an unwholesome thought, and painful feeling, for one who does not make a bodily alteration or a verbal break when saying "I relinquish." The explanation of the first rule on schism is finished. 11. The Explanation of the Second Rule on Schism 417-8. At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One—this is the second rule on schism. Here, "followers" means those who follow after, by grasping his view, conviction, and preference. "Speaking divisively" means speaking words that belong to the faction of disunity, thus they are "divisive speakers." In the word analysis, however, it is said, "they stand for his praise and for his side," meaning they stand for the sake of his praise and for the increase of his side, for one who strives for schism in the Sangha. For those who are divisive speakers are necessarily of this kind, therefore it is said thus. But since more than three are not fit for an act, for the Sangha does not perform an act for the Sangha, therefore it is said, "one, or two, or three." "He knows" means he knows our wishes and so on. "He speaks" means he speaks with us, saying "we will do this." "This is agreeable to us too" means what he does is also pleasing to us. "May the minds of the venerable ones meet with the Sangha" means may the minds of the venerable ones meet, come together, and become one with the Sangha. This is what is said. The rest here is clear, being in the manner stated in the first rule and having a straightforward meaning. The origins and so on are also similar to the first rule. The explanation of the second rule on schism is finished. 12. The Explanation of the Rule on Being Difficult to Admonish 424. At that time the Buddha, the Blessed One—this is the rule on being difficult to admonish. Here, "he acts improperly" means he commits various kinds of transgressions through body and speech. "What indeed is it?" This is a word of contempt. "I indeed am" is a word of exaltation. "You should speak" indicates "I am worthy to tell you, 'do this, do not do this.'" Why? Because our The Buddha, the Blessed One, having climbed a thorn bush, went forth with me, and became an ascetic. Referring to such a meaning, he says: "Our Dhamma." And then, showing the justification for it being his own, he says: "The Dhamma was fully understood by our noble son." Since the four noble truths were penetrated by our noble son, it means that the Dhamma is also ours. But considering the Sangha to be on the side of his enemies, he does not say "our Sangha." But wishing to disparage the Sangha by giving an analogy, he says: "Just as, for example," and so on. "Grass, wood, and old leaves" means grass, wood, and leaves fallen here and there. Or, grass is unsubstantial and light, and wood is grass-wood. "Old leaves" means old leaves. "Would pile up" means would make a heap. "Mountain-born" means originating from a mountain, for it is swift-flowing, therefore it takes only that. "Conch-algae and water-plants" here "conch" is said to be a long-rooted leafy algae. "Algae" means blue algae. All the rest, such as water-bubbles and sesame seeds, are counted as "water-plants." "Piled up together" shows that they are collected and heaped up in one place by someone. 425-6. "Of a difficult-to-speak-to nature" means of a difficult nature, unable to be spoken to. In the division of words, "difficult to speak to" means to be spoken to with difficulty and effort, it is not possible to speak to easily. "By the causes of being difficult to speak to" means by the things that cause one to be difficult to speak to, it means endowed with those qualities that make a person difficult to speak to. These are, "And what, friends, are the qualities that make one difficult to speak to? Here, friends, a bhikkhu is of evil wishes," and so on, as they appear in sequence in the Anumāna Sutta (MN 1.181): evil wishes, self-exaltation and disparagement of others, anger, resentment due to anger, hostility due to anger, uttering angry and hostile words due to anger, retaliating against the reprover,