English
the three training rules concerning drinking liquor, inciting to fight, and fighting, found in the Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga; and the ten, such as attending assemblies on mountain tops, found in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga— for showing the blameworthiness by the world of these thirteen unintentional training rules, the qualification "in the case of intentional acts" is made. This conclusion should be reached here. But since, for a transgression by rule, with an intention of knowing the transgression of the object, in the case of intentional acts, the intention may be wholesome, may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate; therefore, in its case of intentional acts, the rule that the intention is only unwholesome does not exist. Thus, the rest are said to be transgressions by rule. "Obstructing" means obstructing the transgression. "Closing the door" means closing the door to the stain of transgression. "Cutting off the stream" means cutting off the stream of transgression again and again. Or else, "obstructing" means obstructing the stain of non-offence. "Closing the door" means closing the door to the stain of non-offence. "Cutting off the stream" means cutting off the stream of non-offence, it means making an offence. But surely, in the case of worldly blame, any supplementary rule arising arises making it lax. Therefore, why is it said: "in the case of worldly blame, a supplementary rule arising... makes it more stringent"? He says: "except for over-estimation, except for dreaming," and so on. For "except for over-estimation," for this supplementary rule, the reason "because of the absence of transgression" is stated. For "except for dreaming," for this, the reason "because it is not a transaction" is stated. Therein, "absence of transgression" means absence of transgression like "being of evil wishes, led by desire," and so on. For in the case of superhuman states, by the saying: "being of evil wishes, led by desire, he boasts of a superhuman state" (Mahāva. 129), one who speaks falsely with the intention of deceiving becomes subject to expulsion. But this one, through over-estimation, having the perception of attainment, boasts, not a training rule. wishing to transgress, therefore, this supplementary rule, "except for over-estimation," arising, became non-culpable due to the absence of transgression. Due to being inoperative: even with intention and desire to transgress present in a dream, they are inoperative. Although indeed, in a dream, the intention to release and enjoy is present, and sometimes there is even an attempt, nevertheless, that mind, being overcome by sloth and torpor, is inoperative; and because the mind is inoperative, the intention that brings about the act of attempting is also inoperative. For this reason, the Blessed One said, "Monks, this intention exists, but it is inoperative" (Parā. 235). Therefore, this supplementary rule, "except for a dream," became non-culpable due to being inoperative. When no transgression has been committed: as in "being remorseful, they did not eat," when no transgression has been committed. Making it loose: first, releasing the rule that was generally bound, and then making it loose by making it non-culpable in its respective areas. Giving an opening: giving an opening for non-culpability. Therefore, it is said, "committing non-culpability again and again." But in the rule concerning acting as a go-between, the supplementary rule, "even for a moment," arising, caused an offense to arise. So why is it said, "arises causing non-culpability"? It is said, "even for a moment," and so on. Because it was laid down in the case where the monk Udāyin committed the offense of acting as a go-between for a moment, it is said, "when transgression has been committed." It is only included in the original rule: it is included only in the original rule. The commentary on the story of the monkey is finished. The chapter on the spread of the teaching The commentary on the story of the Vajjiputtakas 43. "Their dwelling is Vesālī," thus they are called Vesālikas. Therefore, it is said, "residents of Vesālī." Those who dwell in the Vajjī country are Vajjīs; the sons of the Vajjīs are Vajjiputtakas. Therefore, it is said, "sons of families in Vesālī, in the Vajjī country." "The destruction of relatives": the ruin of relatives. That ruin of relatives occurs due to causes such as royal punishment or disease and death. due to the reason of not having been away for nine nights.” Bhogabyasana is the ruin, the destruction of possessions. And that is the destruction of objects of enjoyment and use, such as gold, silver, female and male slaves, by royal punishment and so on. Thus it is said: “This is the method for the second phrase too.” “We do not blame the Buddha” means we do not blame the Buddha by saying, “The Buddha is not omniscient,” and so on. “Not a blamer of the Dhamma” means we do not blame the Dhamma by saying, “The Dhamma is not leading to liberation,” and so on. “Not a blamer of the Saṅgha” means we do not blame the Saṅgha by saying, “The Saṅgha is practicing wrongly,” and so on. “In the thirty-eight objects” is said by taking the remaining ones, excluding the two kasiṇas of light and space, from these forty meditation subjects —ten kasiṇas, ten asubhas, ten recollections, four brahmavihāras, four formless attainments, the analysis of the four elements, and the perception of repulsiveness in food— as they are not mentioned in the Pāli text. “The wholesome states are distinguished” means the wholesome states of the higher mind, such as the first jhāna with access concentration, are distinguished in this way: “In this object, this occurs.” “Those very states” means those very wholesome states. The middle watch is not taken because it is an opportunity for monks to dispel sleep and fatigue. Thus it is said: “the first watch and the last watch.” “He awakens to and penetrates the truths” is enlightenment, the knowledge of the path of arahantship. “Bodhipakkhiyā” means “belonging to the side of enlightenment,” “being helpful to the knowledge of the path of arahantship,” due to their helpfulness. These are the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment: the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four bases of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of enlightenment, and the Noble Eightfold Path. “Having abandoned the household impediment and the dwelling impediment” is said because of the extreme difficulty of cutting off these two impediments. “Yuttapayuttā” means well-connected. “Āsayanti” means intention. The Blessed One, while permitting the ordination of those Vajji sons who had engaged in sexual intercourse while remaining in the state of a monk without renouncing the training, declared, “He is defeated, not in communion.” He says, "It is called abolishing a training rule." "If indeed the Blessed One... would abolish what was laid down." However, because it is said "But the bhikkhu who...", one who, having renounced the training, and having engaged in sexual intercourse, permits his ordination, does not abolish it. For he does not engage in it having been a bhikkhu. From the saying "He, having come, should not be ordained," he says that the state of a novice is allowed. "But one standing in the state of a novice," and so on. "The highest goal" means Arahantship or Nibbāna itself. The explanation of the story of the Vajjiputtakas is finished. Explanation of the Fourfold Vinaya Discourse 45. "Having extracted" means having extracted from the teaching. For example, "A bhikkhu endowed with five qualities, Upāli, should not be questioned. Which five? He does not know the Sutta, he does not know the Sutta's conformity" (Pari. 442) – from such a teaching of the Pariyatti, they extracted the Sutta and its conformity and proclaimed it. "There is no offense if our teachers thus take up, question, and grasp" – from such a teaching of the Pariyatti, they extracted the teachers' doctrine and proclaimed it. In the story of Bhārukaccha (Pārā. 78), "Venerable Upāli said thus: 'There is no offense, friends, by way of a dream'" – from such a teaching of the Pariyatti, they extracted their own opinion and proclaimed it. Indeed, by that very opinion, the Elder attained that foremost position. "Said" means said by the Elder Nāgasena. That by which meaning is understood is a "word" (pada). A "specific word" (āhaccapada) is a word spoken by the Blessed One, specifically referring to the place of origin of sounds like the throat, and distinguishing it. It is the very word of the Blessed One. Therefore, he says, "By 'specific word' is meant the Sutta." Not distinguishing thus, "This is allowable, this is not allowable," but rather, "Monks, that which I have not forbidden, saying 'This is not allowable,' if it conforms to what is not allowable, and obstructs what is allowable, that is not allowable for you" (Mahāva. 305) – the general characteristic thus stated is here intended as "flavor" (rasa). So he says, "By 'flavor' is meant conformity to the Sutta." The tradition of the commentaries brought down from the lineage of teachers from the time of the First Council. Here, it is said, “‘Teacher’s lineage’ is intended,” so he says, “‘Teacher’s lineage’ means the tradition of the teachers.” Here, since the determination of the Vinaya is prominent, showing a Sutta appropriate to it, he says, “‘Sutta’ means the Pāli text in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka.” “Great References” means great opportunities, great places for establishing the Vinaya, where the Vinaya, being established, is determined without doubt. Or, great reasons are Great References, it means great reasons for determining the Vinaya. “But in meaning, the Pāli text itself, beginning with ‘Bhikkhus, that which was thus said,’ with its intention, is the Great References,” they say. Therefore, he says, “Those which were thus said by the Blessed One,” and so on. And these Great References