English
there, they declared what was unreal; here, what is real. ṃ. Common folk reported what was real, not Noble Ones. For Noble Ones have no boastful speech. But when others reported their qualities, they did not reject them, and they accepted the offerings that arose, not knowing how they had arisen. But in the passage “Then those bhikkhus reported this matter to the Blessed One,” it should be understood that those who spoke of their superior human states were the ones who reported. And when asked, “Is it true, bhikkhus?” all of them acknowledged, “It is true, Blessed One.” For the superior human state is real even within the Noble Ones. Then the Blessed One, because they were mixed with Noble Ones, did not say “Worthless men!” but said, “How can you, bhikkhus,” and then said, “for the sake of your belly,” and so on. Here, because the Noble Ones, when questioned by people who were pleased after hearing from others in the manner of, “Venerable sir, the venerable one is a stream-enterer,” and so on, seeing no danger in an undeclared training rule, with pure minds, acknowledged their own and others’ special attainments. And when they acknowledged thus, what others had produced as almsfood by speaking of their superior human states for the sake of their belly, even by accepting it with pure minds, it becomes as if the superior human state was spoken of for the sake of the belly. Therefore, in an all-inclusive manner, he said, “How can you, bhikkhus, for the sake of your belly, speak to householders of each other’s superior human states?” The rest is the same as the fourth Pārājika story. In the training rule analysis, the only difference is that there it is pārājika and thullaccaya, but here, because it is real, it is pācittiya and dukkaṭa. The rest is as stated. 77. “Reports what is real to an ordained person” is said with reference to the superior human state itself. For at the time of parinibbāna, or when greatly pressed, it is permissible to report what is real to an ordained person. But it is permissible to report qualities of learning, practice, and virtue even to an unordained person. And so on. For a mad person, there is no offense. But the phrase "for a mad person" is not mentioned here. Why? Because for those endowed with right view, there is no madness or mental derangement. Indeed, it has been considered in the Mahāpaccari: "If one who has attained jhānas were to become mad upon losing jhānas, it should not be said that there is no offense for him due to revealing a real occurrence, because the real occurrence itself is absent." The rest is clear. This revealing a real occurrence arises from three origins not mentioned before: from body, from speech, or from both body and speech. It is an action, not a perception-release, unaccompanied by thought, free from designation, a bodily action, a verbal action, with two thoughts (wholesome and indeterminate), with two feelings (pleasant and neutral). The eighth training rule is about revealing a real occurrence. 9. Explanation of the Training Rule on Revealing a Gross Offense In the ninth training rule— "Gross offenses are the four pārājikas and the thirteen saṅghādisesas"— regarding this Pāli passage, it is stated in the commentaries that "the pārājikas are mentioned to show the meaning of the word 'gross,' but here the saṅghādisesa is intended." Herein is this consideration: If one who reveals a pārājika were not to incur a pācittiya, just as in the case of the word "upasampanna" for both monks and nuns, where the nun is not intended, the one remaining after excluding the monk is called "unupasampanna"; similarly here, if in the common word "gross" for both pārājika and saṅghādisesa, the pārājika is not intended, then it should simply be said: "Gross offenses are the thirteen saṅghādisesas." In that case, it might be said: "One who has incurred a pārājika is fallen from the state of a monk, therefore, one who reveals his offense incurs a dukkata." If this were so, even one who reviles would incur a dukkata, but in fact, one incurs a pācittiya. For it is said: "The person is impure, having incurred a certain pārājika offense. If, with an impure view, he makes him give an opening and speaks with the intention of reviling, there is an offense of abusive speech" (Pārā. 389). Thus, it is considered in the Pāli. Even for one who reports a pārājika while going, a pācittiya is seen. Although it is seen, yet because it is stated in all commentaries, the commentary teachers are the authority here, not any other consideration. And we have also said before – "The Dhamma and Vinaya were spoken by the Buddha, which was likewise known by his sons," etc. Indeed, the commentary teachers know the Buddha's intention. And this should be understood by this method. For it is said, "Except by the permission of bhikkhus." And the reporting by the permission of bhikkhus was allowed by the Blessed One for future restraint, for not committing such an offense again, not merely for proclaiming that bhikkhu's dispraise, nor for preventing his establishment in the Dispensation. And for one who has incurred a pārājika, there is no bhikkhu-state by not committing such an offense again. Therefore, what is stated in the commentaries— "Pārājikas are spoken for showing the meaning of the word 'gross,' but Saṅghādisesa is intended here"— that is well said. 80. However, the permission of bhikkhus mentioned in "Atthibhikkhusammuti āpattipariyanta" and so on, has not appeared anywhere else. But because it is stated here, it should be understood that seeing a bhikkhu who frequently commits offenses, and thinking "this one will attain future restraint through shame and moral dread among others," it should be done by the Saṅgha after a three-time announcement, for the welfare of that bhikkhu. 82. If one reports a non-gross offense, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. For one who reports any of the five groups of offenses, there is a dukkaṭa. In the Mahāpaccari, however, it is stated that even for one who reports a pārājika, there is only a dukkaṭa. Regarding "for an unordained person, a gross or non-gross transgression," here the first five training rules are called gross transgressions, the rest are non-gross. But emission of semen, bodily contact, gross, and self-desire are called his transgressions, it is said. 83. If one reports the matter, saying: "This one has committed emission of semen, has committed a gross offense, has committed self-desire, has committed..." "has fallen into bodily contact," if one says thus, there is no offense. Regarding "he declares an offense," if one says, "This one has fallen into a pārājika, a saṅghādisesa, a thullaccaya, a pācittiya, a pāṭidesanīya, a dukkaṭa, a dubbhāsita," there is no offense. However, if one declares the offense connecting it with the specific case, for example, "This one has emitted semen and fallen into a saṅghādisesa," then there is an offense. The rest here is clear. It arises from three sources: from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech, and mind. It is an action, a release by perception, with intention, blameworthy by the world, a bodily action, a verbal action, with unwholesome consciousness, with painful feeling. The ninth training rule on declaring a grave offense. 10. Explanation of the training rule on digging the ground. 86. In the tenth training rule, by the terms "grown earth" and "ungrown earth," both grown earth and ungrown earth are shown. In "with few stones," etc., the meaning "where there are few stones" should be understood as "appapāsāṇa." Therein, stones are to be known as larger than a fist; gravel is fist-sized. "Kathala" means potsherds. "Marumba" means hard gravel. "Vālika" means sand itself. "Mostly earth" means two parts earth out of three parts, and one part is any of the stones, etc. "Unaltered" means not altered by being baked in an oven, or by a potter's kiln, etc. This, however, does not exist separately; it should be understood as one of the pure earth, etc. "Mostly gravel" means more gravel. It is said that having brought one measure in an elephant's belly, and washed it in a trough, the bhikkhus themselves dug a pond, knowing that the earth was mostly gravel. The two terms in the middle, "with little earth" and "with little clay," fall into the five categories of "mostly stones," etc., for these are indeed a display of the distinctions of those two. Regarding "if he digs himself, there is an offense of pācittiya," the pācittiya should be understood for each stroke. "If, once ordered, he digs a lot," even if for the whole day... digs, for the one who orders, there is only one offense of expiation. But if he is lazy, he should be ordered again and again. Having ordered him, for each word of the one who makes him dig, there is an offense of expiation. This is the explanation of the Pāli text. Now, this is the decision outside the Pāli text: If he says, "Dig a pond," it is permissible. For a pond is indeed called a dug thing, therefore this is a permissible usage. The same applies to "Dig a well, a tank, a pit," and so on. But to say, "Dig this place," or "Dig a pond in this place," is not permissible. To say, "Dig a root, dig a tuber," without specifying, is permissible. To say, "Dig this creeper," or "Dig a root or a tuber in this place," is not permissible. When cleaning a pond, if there is thin mud that can be scooped out with pots, it is permissible to remove it; thick mud is not permissible. Dry mud cracks in the sun; it is permissible to remove only that which is not connected to the earth below. In a place where water has flowed, there is something called a water bubble, which moves with the force of the wind; it is permissible to remove it. When the bank of a pond or the like breaks and falls near the water, if it has been rained on for less than four months, it is permissible to cut or break it; after four months, it is not permissible.