English
Whoever, not free from passion, enters that forest grove, for the most part, their hairs stand on end. their mouths facing upwards, like needles, like thorns, they stand. A few do not harm. But they harm many beings. They do not harm a few very brave men. Now, this, Sāriputta, is the conclusion of "this is the cause," and so on. Whatever is not stated in between is clear in meaning. Therefore, it should be understood according to the Pāli sequence. But what is said, "it did not last long," should be understood as said in terms of generations of men. For Vipassī Bhagavā's lifespan was eighty thousand years, and that of his direct disciples was also the same. Thus, his holy life, when combined with his very last disciple, lasted for one hundred and sixty thousand years. But in terms of generations of men, coming down through a succession of generations, it lasted for only two generations of men. Therefore, it was said, "it did not last long." But Sikhī Bhagavā's lifespan was seventy thousand years. And that of his direct disciples was also the same. Vessabhū Bhagavā's lifespan was sixty thousand years. And that of his direct disciples was also the same. Thus, their holy life, when combined with their very last disciples, lasted for more than one hundred and forty thousand and twenty thousand years respectively. But in terms of generations of men, coming down through a succession of generations, it lasted for only two generations of men. Therefore, it was said, "it did not last long." 20. Thus, Venerable Sāriputta, having heard the reason for the short duration of the holy life of the three Buddhas, desired to hear the reason for the long duration of the holy life of the other three, and again asked the Bhagavā, "What then, Bhante, is the cause?" and so on. The Bhagavā also explained it to him. All of that should be understood as the opposite of what was said. And in the case of their long duration, the long duration of the holy life of those Buddhas should be understood both in terms of their lifespan and in terms of generations of men. For Kakusandha Bhagavā's lifespan was forty thousand years, Koṇāgama For that Blessed One, thirty thousand years. For Kassapa, the Blessed One, twenty thousand years. For their chief disciples too, it was the same amount. And many pairs of their disciples maintained the holy life in succession. Thus, for them, both due to the length of life and the pairs of disciples, the holy life endured for a long time. But our Blessed One should have arisen in an age of ten thousand years, half the lifespan of Kassapa, the Blessed One. Not attaining that, he should have arisen in an age of five thousand years, or one thousand years, or even five hundred years. But because, while seeking and searching for the qualities that make one a Buddha, ripening his knowledge, and entering the womb, his knowledge matured in an age of one hundred years. Therefore, he arose in an age of very short lifespan. Hence, it is fitting to say that his holy life, though long-lasting by way of disciple succession, is not long-lasting by way of lifespan, by counting years. Now, what is the connection with "Then indeed, the Venerable Sāriputta"? Thus, having heard the reason for the long endurance of the holy life of the three Buddhas, and having concluded that the promulgation of training rules is indeed the cause for long endurance, the Venerable Sāriputta, wishing for the holy life of the Blessed One also to endure for a long time, requested the Blessed One to promulgate training rules. To show the manner of that request, this was said: "Then indeed, the Venerable Sāriputta rose from his seat... (etc.)... for a long time." There, "addhaniya" means enduring for a long time; it is said to mean "long-lasting." The rest is clear in meaning. Then the Blessed One, declaring, "This is not yet the time for the promulgation of training rules," said, "Wait, Sāriputta," and so forth. There, "Wait, Sāriputta" means "Stay for a while," or "Endure for a while." It is said twice here for emphasis. By this, the Blessed One, rejecting the promulgation of training rules as being the domain of disciples, (indicated that) "only the domain of Buddhas is the training rule..." Revealing "the rule," he said, beginning with "or the Tathāgata." And here, "there" is a locative expression referring to the request for the laying down of a training rule. The connection here is: what was said, "should lay down a training rule," there, for the laying down of that training rule, only the Tathāgata will know the time. Having said this, to show the improper time, he said, beginning with "Not yet, Sāriputta." There, "āsavaṭṭhānīyā" means "those in which defilements stand." In which defilements stand, defilements of suffering, defilements of corruption, pertaining to this life and the next. And blame from others, remorse, killing, binding, and so on, and special kinds of suffering in states of woe, these defilements indeed stand. Because they are the cause for them, this is the meaning. Those transgression-practices, grounds for defilements, as long as they do not appear in the Saṅgha, so long the Teacher does not lay down a training rule for the disciples. This is the connection here. If indeed he were to lay it down, he would not be free from blame from others, reproach from others, and faults of censure. How? For by laying it down, "whatever monk should engage in sexual intercourse," and so on, all would have to be laid down. Without seeing the fault of transgression, knowing this rule, others would thus engage in blame, reproach, and censure: "How indeed could the ascetic Gotama (say) 'the community of monks follows me, obeys my word,' and with so many training rules entangle them, and lay down a pārājika rule?" "Are not these young men of good family a great mass of wealth, and a great circle of relatives, and even kingdoms in their hands, having abandoned them, gone forth? Content with the utmost of food and clothing, with intense respect for the training, they dwell without attachment to body or life. Among them, who indeed would engage in sexual intercourse, which is worldly bait, or steal another's property, or cut off another's desired, beloved, exceedingly sweet life, or sustain life by speaking of non-existent qualities! Even when a pārājika rule is not laid down, is this not made clear by the very summary of going forth?" And the strength and power of the Tathāgata beings would not know. Even a precept laid down would be disturbed, it would not stand in its proper place. Just as an unskilled physician, having called a man who has no boil, says: “Come, good man, in this part of your body a great boil will arise and bring you to ruin and misfortune; have it treated in advance.” And when told: “Good teacher, you yourself treat it,” he cuts open the healthy part of his body, draws out blood, and by anointing, bandaging, washing, and so on, makes that part healthy again, and says to that man: “A great disease has been treated by me for you; give me my fee.” That man would then reproach him, blame him, and criticize him, saying: “What is this foolish physician saying? What disease of mine has he treated? Has he not caused me pain and brought me to loss of blood?” And he would not recognize his good quality. Even so, if the Teacher were to lay down a precept for his disciples when no transgression-faults had arisen, he would not be free from reproaches from others and so on, and beings would not know his strength or power. Even a precept laid down would be disturbed, it would not stand in its proper place. Therefore it was said: “Not yet, Sāriputta, does the Teacher for his disciples… …appear.” Having thus shown the improper time, he then says, “But when, Sāriputta,” and so on, to show the proper time. Therein, “yato” means “when”; it is said to mean “at which time.” The rest should be understood according to what has been said. Or this is the brief meaning here: At the time when transgression-faults, counted as “things that are grounds for defilements,” appear in the Saṅgha, then the Teacher lays down a precept for his disciples, he recites the Pātimokkha. Why? For the suppression of those very transgression-faults counted as “things that are grounds for defilements.” Laying down precepts in this way, just as a skilled physician, treating an arisen boil by cutting, anointing, bandaging, washing, and so on, and calming the disease, and making it healthy again, is not subject to reproach and so on, And in his own teachers' domain, having known the power, he attains respect; thus there is no blame or the like, and in his own domain of omniscience, having known the power, he attains respect. And for him, that training rule is unshakable, it stands firm in its place. Thus, having said that the non-arising of defilement-causing things is the right time for the training rule's enactment, and their arising is the wrong time, now, to show the time of their non-arising and the time of their arising, he says, "Not yet, Sāriputta, here some..." and so on. There, the clear-meaning words should be understood according to the Pāli itself. But this is the commentary on the unclear words: "Knowing nights" means rattaññū, they know many nights from the day of their ordination, it means they have been ordained for a long time. The greatness of those who know nights is rattaññumahattaṃ; it means the state of being great among those long-ordained. It should be understood that the training rule was enacted concerning Upasena Vaṅgantaputta when the Sangha had attained rattaññumahattaṃ. For that venerable one, seeing bhikkhus with less than ten years ordaining, ordained a co-resident with one year. Then the Blessed One enacted a training rule: "Monks, one with less than ten years should not ordain. Whoever ordains, there is an offense of wrong-doing." (Mahāva. 75) When this training rule was enacted,