English
, a closed chain should be made by linking it with “What is for the support of the Vinaya, that is good for the Saṅgha; what is good for the Saṅgha, that is comfortable for the Saṅgha.” In this sequence, when the remaining words are also linked, there are ten closed chains in the chain method. In each of these chains, there are ten teachings based on the preceding words, and ten meanings based on the succeeding words, thus resulting in a hundred meanings and a hundred teachings in the chain method. In the single-root method, however, “What is good for the Saṅgha…” That which is comfortable for the Saṅgha, that which is good for the Saṅgha, that which is for the suppression of unruly individuals," and so on. Thus, one single word is connected with the remaining nine words. Because the first word is singular, there is only one Dhamma-word, and there are nine meaning-words. Therefore, in the one-root method, by making each of the ten words a root, and connecting them ten times, there are ten Dhamma-words and ninety meaning-words. Thus, one hundred meaning-words and one hundred Dhamma-words are not obtained. Therefore, in the one-root method, not taking one hundred meaning-words and one hundred Dhamma-words in the manner stated in the chain method, but taking the hundred words mentioned there as ten Dhamma-words and ninety meaning-words, as all Dhamma-words, and then taking the meaning-words like "good for the Saṅgha" etc., mentioned in the commentary for clarifying their meaning, as one hundred meaning-words, in this way, one hundred meaning-words and one hundred Dhamma-words are obtained. Thus, one hundred meaning-words and one hundred Dhamma-words should be understood. And here, "two hundred interpretations" means: one hundred interpretations in terms of interpretations that clarify meaning, and one hundred interpretations in terms of interpretations that are Dhamma itself. Thus, two hundred interpretations should be understood. "Four hundred knowledges" means: one hundred knowledges in the hundred meaning-words, one hundred knowledges in the hundred Dhamma-words, and two hundred knowledges in the two hundred interpretations. Thus, four hundred knowledges. And here, in "And now, O monks," the particle "ca" (and) should be connected in a different order, it is said, as in "and you should recite." How then, when "you should recite" is said, does the meaning of "you should learn" etc., arise? It is said that "the particle 'ca' here has the meaning of bringing in something additional." Bringing in an additional meaning beyond what is stated is "bringing in additional meaning." That meaning belongs to this, hence "having the meaning of bringing in additional meaning." It is said to have the meaning of including what is unstated. Because "non-communion" is stated, "making firm" is stated. Thus, in the Sāratthadīpanī, a sub-commentary to the Samantapāsādikā Vinaya Commentary. The discourse on the First Enactment is concluded. The description of the Sudinna Recitation Section is concluded. Description of the Story of the Monkey. 40. "Description of obscure words" means "uttāna" is clear, evident. By its opposite, "anuttāna" is unclear, not obvious, difficult to understand. The description of obscure words is "anuttānapadavaṇṇanā". Since there is no need for a description of clear words, the term "anuttāna" is used. "Becomes a frequent user" means becomes one who uses it often, meaning, uses it continuously day by day. For the present tense verb used in the sense of frequency, even if there is not always continuous use, like in "Here the wrestlers fight," etc., the present tense verb is used by taking the sense of frequency. "Wandering" means moving about. "Among others" means among other monks too. 41. "Seized with the goods" means seized along with the property. By his own wrong understanding or by a subtle distortion, making even a complete first rule otherwise, he said, "And that is with a human woman, not with an animal." "Seeing" means seeing with lust. "Touching" means touching with the hand due to lust. "Rubbing" is merely rubbing one's own body against her body. "Touching firmly" is touching more strongly than that. "Pressing" is pressing one's body against her body even more strongly than that. "All that" means all that, seeing and so on. 42. "Made the training rule stronger" means in this context, wishing to show, by dividing, the strengthening and weakening of the training rule by a subsequent enactment, which arises from the occasion, he said, "For the training rule is of two kinds," and so on. There, that training rule which is intentional, whose intention is only unwholesome, that is a worldly fault. That which is accompanied by both intentional and unintentional aspects, and that which is unintentional, but in its intentional aspect, the intention is only unwholesome, that too, like drinking alcohol, is a worldly fault. To summarize and show this meaning, it is said, "That whose intention in its intentional aspect is only unwholesome, is called a worldly fault." For this phrase, "in its intentional aspect," is said with reference to the unintentional. For there is no purpose in qualifying an intentional act as "in its intentional aspect" absolutely. And by "intentional side" it should be understood by a mind knowing the object's transgression, not by a mind knowing the precept (rule). For if, even by a mind knowing the precept "it is not allowable," for which training rule on the intentional side the mind is always unwholesome, if one were to say that is also a worldly offense, then all training rules that are precept-offenses would also become worldly offenses, because even for precept-offenses, when one transgresses knowing "it is not allowable," only an unwholesome mind can arise. For indeed, for one who transgresses knowing the Buddha's command, a wholesome mind does not arise, because due to disrespect, only a mind of aversion arises. Moreover, here, from the statement "on the intentional side, the mind is always unwholesome," it is understood that there is no such rule that for an unintentional act, on the unintentional side, due to not knowing the object, the mind is always unwholesome. For if, even for an unintentional act, on the unintentional side, the mind were always unwholesome, then this qualification "on the intentional side" would be meaningless. If it were merely said, "That for which the mind is always unwholesome is a worldly offense," for one who drinks, not knowing it is liquor, and for nuns who apply scents, dyes, and the like, not knowing their nature, since an offense can arise even without an unwholesome mind, then, apart from intentional training rules which are always unwholesome, the unintentional training rules like drinking liquor would not be worldly offenses. To include these as well, it was said, "That for which, on the intentional side, the mind is always unwholesome, is a worldly offense." Therefore, in the Cūḷagaṇṭhipada and Majjhimagaṇṭhipada it is said: "Just as for one who intends 'I will kill this being,' but kills another lying in that very spot, because there is a commonality of 'being,' it is an offense of taking life, so too, for one who intends 'I will drink this liquor,' but drinks another liquor, because there is a commonality of 'liquor,' it is unwholesome." "But just as for one who kills a snake, perceiving it as a stick, there is no offense of taking life, so too, for one who drinks liquor, perceiving it as coconut water, there is no unwholesome act." Some, however, say: "Sāmaṇera having drunk without knowing it is liquor, there is no defeat, but it is unwholesome. This is merely their opinion. For in the commentary, it is only stated: "A bhikkhu who drinks liquor, even without knowing it, from the seed onwards, incurs an offense of expiation. A novice who drinks knowingly breaks his precepts, but not unknowingly." It is not stated: "but it is unwholesome." Others also say: "Even for a stream-enterer who drinks unknowingly, liquor does not enter the mouth, because it must be drunk with an unwholesome mind that has reached the path of action." This is also not good. For this, like the virtue of the Bodhisatta's mother when the Bodhisatta was in her womb, should be understood as a natural characteristic of the noble disciples. Therefore, in the commentary to the Kūṭadanta Sutta in the Dīgha Nikāya, it is said: "Even in other existences, a noble disciple, even for the sake of life, does not kill a living being, nor does he drink liquor. Even if they mix liquor and milk and put it into his mouth, only the milk enters, not the liquor. Like what? Like when milk is mixed with water for cranes, only the milk enters, not the water. If this is established by origin? This too should be understood as established by nature." If so, why is it said in the commentary to the precept on drinking liquor: "Here, the absence of intention is to be understood due to not knowing the object, and the worldly fault due to having to drink it with an unwholesome mind"? This is not a fault. For this is the intention here: in the case of intentional action, it is a worldly fault due to having to drink it with an unwholesome mind. Indeed, with this very intention, in other precepts on worldly faults that are unintentional, an unwholesome mind is mentioned, but not intentionality. Therefore, in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga commentary, it is said: "The ten precepts concerning the assembly on the mountain peak, the picture house, the robe, women's ornaments, perfume, color, perfumed powder, and being pressed and massaged by bhikkhunīs, etc., these are unintentional, worldly faults, and unwholesome in mind." This is the intention here: Even without intention they are incurred, thus unintentional. But when there is intention, they are incurred only with unwholesome intention, thus blameworthy by the world and with unwholesome intentions. Therefore,