English
And when told, "To such-and-such a village, for such-and-such a reason," he says, "Enough, friends, what is the point of going there?" Right there, by Dhamma and Vinaya, he settles that dispute. This is called "settled on the way." For one who reopens this, there is an offense of expiation. "Gone there." But if, "Enough, friends, what is the point of going there..." Even though told, "It is settled," they say, "We will go there and bring about a decision." Not heeding the word of the Vinaya-holder, they go, and having gone, they report this matter to like-minded bhikkhus. The like-minded bhikkhus say, "Enough, friends, a Sangha assembly is weighty." They make them sit right there, decide, and settle it. This too becomes settled. Whoever overturns such a settled case that went there, for him too, it is a Pacittiya. "Settled, having gone there" is not indeed settled by the agreement of like-minded bhikkhus. But rather, having assembled the Sangha, it is reported, and Vinaya-holders settle it in the midst of the Sangha. This is called "settled, having gone there." For him who overturns this too, it is a Pacittiya. Sativinaya: Whoever overturns the Sativinaya given to an Arahant, it is a Pacittiya. The same method applies to the Amūḷhavinaya given to a mad person, and to the Tassapāpiyasikā given to one who has committed a grave offense. Overturns the Tiṇavatthāraka: When a case has been settled by the Sangha with the Tiṇavatthāraka procedure, even if he says, "An offense, it is said, arises when one approaches a bhikkhu, sits squatting, raises one's hands in reverence, and confesses it. But this, which is called the arising of an offense even for one who is sleeping, this is not acceptable to me." Even saying this, he is said to overturn the Tiṇavatthāraka. For him too, it is a Pacittiya. Overturns a case by going with partiality: Being a Vinaya-holder, for the sake of his own preceptor and others, explaining "what is not Dhamma as Dhamma" and so on, overturning a previously decided case by any of the twelve ways of overturning, he is said to overturn the case by going with partiality. But when anger has arisen in one of the two parties (the plaintiff and the defendant) in the manner of "he did me harm" and so on, for the purpose of bringing about his defeat, explaining "what is not Dhamma as Dhamma" and so on, overturning a previously decided case by any of the twelve ways of overturning, he goes with hatred. Desire causes a case to be overturned. But a fool, being utterly deluded, through utter delusion, declaring "the undharma is dharma" and so on, overturns a case in the manner stated, going by the path of delusion, and thus overturns a case. If, however, of the two parties, one is uneven in bodily actions and so on, has a deep wrong view, and relies on powerful and well-known factional monks, being unevenly reliant, deeply reliant, and powerfully reliant, then out of fear of him, thinking "he might cause an obstacle to my life or an obstacle to my holy life," declaring "the undharma is dharma" and so on, overturns a case in the manner stated, going by the path of fear, and thus overturns a case. "Newly ordained" means a certain novice is clever and learned. Having met with defeat in a judgment, he sees the monks are dejected and asks, "Why are you dejected?" They relate that case to him. He says to them, "Please, venerable sirs, ordain me; I will settle that case." They ordain him. On the second day, he beats the drum and convenes the Sangha. When the monks ask, "Who convened the Sangha?" he says, "I did." "Why was it convened?" "Yesterday the case was wrongly judged; I will judge it." "But where were you yesterday?" "I was unordained, venerable sirs, but today I am ordained." He should be told, "Friend, for those like you, the Blessed One has laid down this training rule: 'If one newly ordained overturns a case, it is an offense of expiation.' Go, confess your offense." The same method applies to a newcomer. "One who has acted" means monks who have been defeated, having judged a case together with the Sangha, and having gone to their dwelling, say, "Venerable sirs, why did you judge the case this way? Should it not have been judged this way?" He asks, "Why did you not say so from the very beginning?" and overturns that case. Thus, one who has acted overturns he revokes, for him too, there is an offense of revoking. One who gives a vote, having given a vote in the settlement of a dispute, seeing the bhikkhus of his party defeated and embarrassed, says, "Tomorrow I will decide it," and convenes the Sangha. When asked, "Why did you convene it?" he says, "Yesterday the dispute was ill-decided; I will decide it today." "But where were you yesterday?" "I was sitting, having given my vote." He should be told, "Friend, for people like you, the Blessed One has laid down a training rule: 'If one who has given a vote revokes, there is an offense of revoking.' Go and confess your offense." Description of the Origin of Disputes, etc. 342. In "What is the origin of a dispute?" and so on, "What is its origin?" means "What is its origin?" "What is its source?" means "What is its source?" "What is its birth?" means "What is its birth?" "What is its arising?" means "What is its arising?" "What is its constituent?" means "What is its constituent?" "What is its cause?" means "What is its cause?" All these are synonyms for "cause." In "The origin of a dispute," and so on, "The dispute is its origin" means the dispute, consisting of eighteen kinds of basic issues, is its origin. This is said in terms of disputes arising from disputes. "The accusation is its origin" means the accusation is its origin. This is also said in terms of accusations arising from accusations. "The offense is its origin" means the offense is its origin. This is said in terms of offenses arising from offenses, as four offenses are committed due to the cause of an offense-dispute. "The business is its origin" means the business is its origin; the meaning is that the four kinds of Sangha-acts are its cause. This is said in terms of businesses arising from businesses, such as the third admonition of an expelled nun. This is a single-word explanation for the resolution of all four kinds of disputes. All words should be explained according to this method. In the answer to the second question, in "The root is its origin," and so on, it is "the root is its origin" in terms of the nine wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate roots. should be understood. In the explanation of the third question, only the wording is different. For here, cause is indeed called condition. 343. In the explanation of the root question, the twelve roots are: the six roots of dispute, such as anger and resentment; the three of greed, hatred, and delusion; and the three of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. These are the twelve roots arising in one's own mental continuum. The fourteen roots are: those same twelve, together with body and speech, making fourteen. The six roots are: the six origins, such as body. In the explanation of the origin question, the eighteen divisive matters are the origins, for it originates in these eighteen divisive matters, or it originates from these as causes. Therefore, these are called its origins. This method applies everywhere. 344. "A dispute-case is an offense," and so on, in the classification, "by one case, by a business-case"— this is said to show by which case it is settled, but these are not always settled by a business-case. For there is no such thing as a business-case when confessing to a person. "By which settlement not?" It is not settled like an offense with a remainder. For it cannot be confessed, nor can one rise from it and be established in purity. 348. The method of "A dispute-case is an accusation-case," and so on, is obvious. 349. Thereafter, where the six paired questions beginning with "where there is a mindfulness-settlement" are stated, without abandoning the face-to-face settlement, their meaning is clarified by their explanations. 351. In the explanation of the "intermingled" and other questions, "intermingled" means: since both settlements are accomplished at the very moment of the mindfulness-settlement formal act, these phenomena, whether "face-to-face settlement" or "mindfulness-settlement," are intermingled, not un-intermingled. But since it is not possible to separate and show their distinctness, like the leaf-sheaths on a banana trunk, it is said: "Nor is it possible to separate and separate and declare the distinctness of these phenomena." This method applies everywhere. Description of the Origin of the Seven Settlements 35 2. In the explanation of the question "What is the origin?", the origin is its origin, thus "origin-origin". Therein, the presence of the Sangha, the presence of the Dhamma, the presence of the Vinaya, the presence of the individual— this is the origin of the 'Vinaya of Presence'. An Arahant who has attained the fullness of mindfulness and received the invitation (to speak) is the origin of the 'Vinaya of Mindfulness'. A mad monk is the origin of the 'Vinaya of Not-Bewildered'. The one who teaches and the one to whom he teaches, the presence of both, is the origin of the 'Vinaya of Acknowledged Action'. The inability to settle a dispute among quarrelsome people is the origin of the 'Vinaya of Majority'. A person overcome by evil is the origin of the 'Vinaya of Further Punishment'. Many unmonkly transgressions among quarrelsome people are the origin of the 'Vinaya of Covering with Grass'. The sections on causes and conditions are just as stated. 353. The explanation of the root question is clear. Regarding the question of origins, although it is said, "Which are the thirty-six origins of the seven pacification procedures?", since the 'Vinaya of Presence' has no inclusion in an act and thus no origin, the six origins are distinguished