English
should be accepted; the other should not be accepted. For Suttānuloma is stronger than the Teacher's Doctrine. Suttānuloma should also be brought into the Sutta. What enters there and accords should be accepted; the other should not be accepted. For the Sutta itself is stronger than Suttānuloma. For the Sutta is unchangeable, like the assembly of doers, like the time when the Buddhas stood. Therefore, when two bhikkhus discuss, one speaker takes the Sutta and speaks, the other speaker takes Suttānuloma. They, without blaming or criticizing each other, should bring Suttānuloma into the Sutta. If it enters and accords... If it agrees, it should be taken. If not, it should not be taken; one should stand by the Sutta. Then if one, taking the Sutta, speaks, and another, the teacher's doctrine. Without either of them disparaging or blaming the other, the teacher's doctrine should be brought into the Sutta. If it fits and agrees, it should be taken. If it does not fit or agree, the blameworthy teacher's doctrine should not be taken; one should stand by the Sutta. Then if one, taking the Sutta, speaks, and another, their own opinion. Without either of them disparaging or blaming the other, their own opinion should be brought into the Sutta. If it fits and agrees, it should be taken. If not, it should not be taken. One should stand by the Sutta. Then if one, taking what is in harmony with the Sutta, speaks, and another, the Sutta. The Sutta should be brought into what is in harmony with the Sutta. If it fits and agrees, it is recognized as that which has ascended to the three recitations, that which has come into the Pāḷi, it should be taken. If it is not so recognized, does not fit, does not agree, or if it is an external Sutta, or a verse, or another blameworthy Sutta that has come from the Guḷhavessantara, Guḷhavinaya, Vedalla, etc., it should not be taken. One should stand by what is in harmony with the Sutta. Then if one, taking what is in harmony with the Sutta, speaks, and another, the teacher's doctrine. The teacher's doctrine should be brought into what is in harmony with the Sutta. If it fits and agrees, it should be taken. If not, it should not be taken. One should stand by what is in harmony with the Sutta. Then if one, taking what is in harmony with the Sutta, speaks, and another, their own opinion. Their own opinion should be brought into what is in harmony with the Sutta. If it fits and agrees, it should be taken. If not, it should not be taken. One should stand by what is in harmony with the Sutta. Then if one, taking the teacher's doctrine, speaks, and another, the Sutta. The Sutta should be brought into the teacher's doctrine. If it fits and agrees, it should be taken. The other, blameworthy Sutta, should not be taken. One should stand by the teacher's doctrine. Then if one, taking the teacher's doctrine, speaks, and another, what is in harmony with the Sutta. What is in harmony with the Sutta should be brought into the teacher's doctrine. If it fits and agrees, it should be taken; the other should not be taken. One should stand by the teacher's doctrine. Then if one, One speaks holding to the teacher's view, another to his own opinion. His own opinion should be brought into the teacher's view. If it descends and agrees, it should be taken. If not, it should not be taken. One should stand only in the teacher's view. Now, if one speaks holding to his own opinion, another to the Sutta. The Sutta should be brought into his own opinion. If it descends and agrees, it should be taken. Otherwise, the blameworthy Sutta should not be taken. One should stand only in his own opinion. Now, if one speaks holding to his own opinion, another to the Sutta's conformity. The Sutta's conformity should be brought into his own opinion. If it descends and agrees, it should be taken; otherwise, it should not be taken. One should stand only in his own opinion. Now, if one speaks holding to his own opinion, another to the teacher's view. The teacher's view should be brought into his own opinion. If it descends and agrees, it should be taken; otherwise, the blameworthy teacher's view should not be taken. One should stand only in his own opinion. One's own grasp should be made strong. And in all places, no rejection or blame should be made. Now, if one speaks holding "allowable," another "unallowable." It should be brought into the Sutta and the Sutta's conformity. If it is allowable, one should stand in the allowable. If it is unallowable, one should stand in the unallowable. Now, if one shows many reasons and decisions from the Sutta to prove its allowable nature, and the other finds no reason. One should stand in the allowable. Now, if the other shows many reasons and decisions from the Sutta to prove its unallowable nature, one should not stand firm, holding to one's own grasp. Having assented with "Good," one should stand in the unallowable. Now, if a shadow of reason is seen in both, the state of being rejected is better; one should stand in the unallowable. For having reached the Vinaya, regarding the investigation of allowable and unallowable, it should be obstructed, it should be made firm, the stream should be cut off, one should stand only in the serious aspect. Now, if one speaks holding "unallowable," another "allowable." In the Sutta and And it should be applied in the straightforward order. If it is allowable, one should stand by the allowable. If it is unallowable, one should stand by the unallowable. Now, if this one shows the unallowable nature with many reasons from the Sutta-determinations, and the other finds no reason, one should stand by the unallowable. Now, if the other shows the allowable nature with many reasons from the Sutta-determinations, and this one finds no reason, one should stand by the allowable. Now, if a shadow of reason is seen for both, one's own understanding should not be abandoned. And just as this determination has been stated for allowable/unallowable and unallowable/allowable; so too, the determination should be understood for non-offence/offence, and offence/non-offence; and for light/heavy offence, and heavy/light offence. For here, there is only a difference in name, there is no difference in the method of application, therefore, it has not been elaborated. Thus, when such a determination regarding allowable/unallowable arises, whoever finds a superior reason among the Sutta, the Sutta's conformity, the teacher's doctrine, and one's own opinion, one should stand by that doctrine. But if one finds no decisive reason at all, the Sutta should not be abandoned; one should stand by the Sutta itself. Thus, by one who desires skill in that training rule, and in the analysis of the training rule, and in the entire Vinaya determination, this fourfold Vinaya should be known. Moreover, even having known this fourfold Vinaya, the person who upholds the Vinaya should be endowed with three characteristics. Indeed, three characteristics are desired for a Vinaya-holder. Which three? "The Sutta is well-received by him, well-practiced, well-determined, from the Sutta and its details" – this is one characteristic. "He stands firm in the Vinaya, unwavering" – this is the second. "His lineage of teachers is well-grasped, well-attended to, well-retained" – this is the third. Here, "Sutta" means the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. "It is well-received by him" means it is well-come. "Well-practiced" means well-practiced, fluent, memorized, well-determined. "From the Sutta and its details" means from the Pāli text and its full... From the Canon And from the commentaries, It is well-determined, Having cut off doubt, It is grasped. "Indeed, one stands in the Vinaya" means One is established in the Vinaya With a sense of shame. For one without shame, Even if very learned, Due to greed for gain, Distorting the text, Teaching what is not Dhamma, Not Vinaya, Explaining the Teacher's Dispensation, Causes great harm to the Dispensation. He even causes schism in the Sangha, And a king's quarrel. But one with shame, Is scrupulous, Desirous of training, Even for the sake of life, Not distorting the text, Teaches only Dhamma And only Vinaya, Holding the Teacher's Dispensation In high esteem. Just so, In the past, the great elders Uttered a saying three times: "In the future, The conscientious one will protect, The conscientious one will protect, The conscientious one will protect." Thus, whoever is conscientious, Not abandoning the Vinaya, Not transgressing, Stands in the Vinaya With a sense of shame, Is well-established. "Undaunted" means: One who is daunted is One who, in the Pāli Or in the commentary, From below or from above, Or by sequence of words, When questioned, Becomes confused, Flounders, Cannot stand firm; Whatever is said by others, That he agrees to; Abandoning his own view, He adopts the view of others. But one who, In the Pāli Or in the commentary, From below or above, Or by sequence of words, When questioned, Does not become confused, Does not flounder, Like one picking out each single hair With tweezers, Answers, "Thus we say; Thus our teachers say"; In whom the Pāli And the determination of the Pāli Like lion's fat Placed in a golden vessel, Remains without waste Or exhaustion, This one is called "undaunted." "Indeed, his teacher-lineage Is well-grasped" means His lineage of elders And his family lineage Are well-grasped. "Well-attended to" means Well-minded; As soon as it is adverted to, It is like a lamp that has been lit. "Well-retained" means Well-retained From the connection of earlier and later parts, Retained from the meaning And the reason; Abandoning one's own opinion, One speaks with the purity of the teachers, "My teacher, so-and-so..." He learned from his teacher, and he from such-and-such, thus bringing forth the entire lineage of teachers, the Theravada tradition, and establishing it up to the Venerable Upāli who learned from the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One.