English
bases of psychic power, faculties, powers, factors of enlightenment, the path, the fruit, Nibbāna, I renounce it," even the name of one Dhamma-aggregate among the eighty-four thousand Dhamma-aggregates is a synonym for Dhamma. Thus is the renunciation of the training by a synonym of the Dhamma. Renouncing the Saṅgha is not a renunciation by synonym. "I renounce the Saṅgha of good practice, of upright practice, of wise practice, of proper practice, I renounce the Saṅgha, the Saṅgha of four pairs of persons, the Saṅgha of eight individual persons, the Saṅgha worthy of offerings, worthy of hospitality, worthy of gifts, worthy of reverential salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit, I renounce the Saṅgha," thus is the renunciation of the training by a synonym of the Saṅgha. Renouncing the training is not a renunciation by synonym. "I renounce the training of a monk, the training of a nun, the training in higher morality, the training in higher mind, the training in higher wisdom, I renounce it." Thus, by a declaration of training, there is a renunciation of training. "I renounce the Vinaya" is not a declaration of renunciation. "I renounce the Bhikkhu Vinaya, the Bhikkhunī Vinaya, the first pārājika, the second, third, fourth pārājika, the saṅghādisesa, the thullaccaya, the pācittiya, the pāṭidesanīya, the dukkaṭa, the dubbhāsita" – thus, by such a declaration of Vinaya, there is a renunciation of training. "I renounce the Pātimokkha" is not a declaration of renunciation. "I renounce the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha, the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha" – thus, by such a declaration of Pātimokkha, there is a renunciation of training. "I renounce the Uddesa" is not a declaration of renunciation. "I renounce the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha Uddesa, the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha Uddesa, the first Pātimokkha Uddesa, the second, third, fourth, fifth Pātimokkha Uddesa, the Sammāsambuddha Uddesa, the Anantabuddhi Uddesa, the Anomabuddhi Uddesa, the Bodhipaññāṇa Uddesa, the Dhīra Uddesa, the Vigatamoha Uddesa, the Pabhinnakhīla Uddesa, the Vijitavijaya Uddesa" – thus, by such a declaration of Uddesa, there is a renunciation of training. "I renounce the Upajjhāya" is not a declaration of renunciation. "I renounce him who gave me ordination, who gave me full ordination, by whose root I was ordained, by whose root I received full ordination, whose root is my ordination, whose root is my full ordination" – thus, by such a declaration of Upajjhāya, there is a renunciation of training. "I renounce the Ācariya" is not a declaration of renunciation. "I renounce him who gave me ordination, who instructed me, on whom I depend to dwell, whom I make to recite, whom I question, who recites to me, who makes me question" – thus, by such a declaration of Ācariya, there is a renunciation of training. "I renounce the Saddhivihārika" is not a declaration of renunciation. "I renounce him whom I ordained, whom I gave full ordination, who was ordained by my root, who by my root..." O ordained one, whose going forth is rooted in me, whose higher ordination is rooted in me, him I renounce. Thus, by such a statement of a fellow resident, the renunciation of training occurs. "I renounce the student" is not a valid statement of renunciation. Whom I caused to go forth, whom I instructed, who lives dependent on me, who causes me to teach, who questions me, to whom I teach, whom I cause to question, him I renounce. Thus, by such a statement of a student, the renunciation of training occurs. "I renounce the co-preceptor" is not a valid statement of renunciation. Whom my preceptor caused to go forth, whom he gave higher ordination, who went forth rooted in him, who received higher ordination rooted in him, whose going forth is rooted in him, whose higher ordination is rooted in him, him I renounce. Thus, by such a statement of a co-preceptor, the renunciation of training occurs. "I renounce the co-teacher" is not a valid statement of renunciation. Whom my teacher caused to go forth, whom he instructed, who lives dependent on him, who causes him to teach and question, to whom my teacher teaches, whom he causes to question, him I renounce. Thus, by such a statement of a co-teacher, the renunciation of training occurs. "I renounce the fellow practitioner" is not a valid statement of renunciation. With whom I train in higher virtue, in higher mind, in higher wisdom, him I renounce. Thus, by such a statement of a fellow practitioner, the renunciation of training occurs. "Hold me as a layperson" is not a valid statement of renunciation. Hold me as a householder, a farmer, a merchant, a cattle-herder, a hair-dresser, one with bound hair, one enjoying sense pleasures. Thus, by such a statement of a layperson, the renunciation of training occurs. "Hold me as a lay devotee" is not a valid statement of renunciation. Hold me as a two-word lay devotee, a three-word lay devotee, one who has gone for refuge to the Buddha, one who has gone for refuge to the Dhamma and Sangha, a lay devotee observing five precepts, a lay devotee observing ten precepts. "Hold me as a lay follower" – thus, by such an expression of a lay follower, there is a renunciation of the training. "Hold me as a monastery attendant" – by this expression, there is no renunciation. "Hold me as one who makes things allowable, one who performs services, one who makes things not green, one who distributes gruel, one who distributes fruit, one who distributes snacks" – thus, by such an expression of a monastery attendant, there is a renunciation of the training. "Hold me as a novice monk" – by this expression, there is no renunciation. "Hold me as a boy, a young lad, a servant, a shaven-headed one, a seeker of recluseship" – thus, by such an expression of a novice monk, there is a renunciation of the training. "Hold me as a sectarian" – by this expression, there is no renunciation. "Hold me as a Nigaṇṭha, an Ājīvaka, an ascetic, a wanderer, a white-clad one" – thus, by such an expression of a sectarian, there is a renunciation of the training. "Hold me as a sectarian disciple" – by this expression, there is no renunciation. "Hold me as a Nigaṇṭha disciple, an Ājīvaka disciple, an ascetic disciple, a wanderer disciple, a white-clad disciple" – thus, by such an expression of a sectarian disciple, there is a renunciation of the training. "Hold me as no recluse" – by this expression, there is no renunciation. "Hold me as immoral, of evil nature, of impure and suspicious conduct, of hidden deeds, no recluse but claiming to be a recluse, no celibate but claiming to be a celibate, inwardly rotten, leaking, born of refuse, a stump" – thus, by such an expression of no recluse, there is a renunciation of the training. "Hold me as no son of the Sakyan" – by this expression, there is no renunciation. "Hold me as no son of the Perfectly Enlightened One, no son of infinite wisdom, no son of peerless wisdom, no son of awakening knowledge, no son of the wise, no son free from delusion, no son who has broken the bolt, no son who has conquered the conquerable" – thus, by such an expression of no son of the Sakyan, there is a renunciation of the training. By these modes, by these marks, by these signs – that is, by the expressions of the Buddhas and others, as stated in the manner of "or the expressions of the Buddha," and so on. by expressions. For expressions are the reasons for renouncing the training, thus they are the forms, or they are indeed the signs, being the form of renouncing the training, because they reveal the nature of the Buddhas and so forth. They are called marks, like the tilaka and so forth for humans, because they are the cause for recognizing the renunciation of training. "Thus, monks," he said, making a determination, because there is no other cause for renouncing the training beyond this. The meaning here is this: it is both an admission of weakness and a renunciation of training, and there is no cause beyond this. 54. Having thus shown the characteristic of renouncing the training, to avoid confusion in non-renunciation, and to show the failure of that very characteristic of renouncing the training in terms of individuals and so forth, he said, "And how, monks, is it not renounced?" Therein, "by which forms" and so forth is as explained before. "Madman" means one who is possessed by a yakkha or one who is mad due to bile, any person with a distorted perception. If he renounces, the training is not renounced. "Of a madman" means of such a madman; for if a normal person renounces the training in his presence, the madman does not know, so the training is not renounced. "Disturbed in mind" is said of one possessed by a yakkha. In the previous phrase, it was said generally of a madman, "possessed by a yakkha or mad due to bile." The distinction between both will become clear in the section on non-offenses. Thus, if such a disturbed person renounces the training, it is not renounced. Even if it is renounced in his presence, if he does not know, it is not renounced. "Afflicted by feeling" means one overcome by strong painful feeling, who has fainted; even if he renounces while wailing, it is not renounced. Even if it is renounced in his presence, if he does not know, it is not renounced. "In the presence of a deity" means even if it is renounced in the presence of an earth deity up to an Akaniṭṭha deity, it is not renounced. "In the presence of an animal" means in the presence of a Naga youth or a Supaṇṇa youth or a Kinnara, elephant, monkey, and so forth. Even if one renounces in the presence of anyone, it is as if not renounced. There, in the presence of mad people and the like, due to their not knowing, it is said to be as if not renounced. In the presence of deities, due to their knowing too quickly. Deities are greatly wise, reborn with three roots, they know very quickly, and their minds are swift to change. Therefore, for a person whose mind is swift, just by the mind,