English
are found in the Khandhakas; therefore, the discussion of their determination will become clear there, and is not mentioned here. Although the scattered teachings given by the Blessed One here and there are the Aṭṭhakathā, yet, because the Dhamma reciters, having first recited the three Piṭakas, arranged the method of recitation in accordance with the explanation of its meaning, it is called “the tradition of the teachers,” because the teachers speak and explain the Pāli text by means of it. Therefore, he says, “The tradition of the teachers means… …the Aṭṭhakathā tradition.” And the path of discourse, which is the explanation of the meaning of the Buddha’s word, having been brought to the island of Tambapaṇṇi by the Great Elder Mahinda, afterwards, it was preserved in the Sinhala language by the great elders of Tambapaṇṇi to avoid the mixing of doctrines from other sects. Although one’s own opinion is formulated by comparing it with Suttas, etc., yet, since it is not specifically indicated in the Suttas, etc., he says, “excluding the Sutta, the Sutta-accordant, and the tradition of the teachers.” “By following the understanding” means by an understanding that follows the Suttas themselves. “By grasping the method” means by grasping the method obtainable from the Suttas, etc. Having first shown one’s own opinion in general, now, specifying it, he says, “Moreover,” and so on. Now, showing the manner of practice there, he says, “But one who speaks, having taken that own opinion,” and so on. "By meaning" means by a meaning discerned by oneself. "Should be included in the teacher's doctrine" means should be entered into the teacher's doctrine with knowledge. "Weakest of all" means because it is the individual's own spontaneous thought. Due to carelessness or dullness, the teacher's doctrine might sometimes not conform to the Sutta. Showing that it should not be accepted, he said: "Even the teacher's doctrine... should be accepted only if it conforms." "Should be accepted only if it conforms" means it shows that meanings should be drawn from the Great References, in such a way that it conforms to the Sutta. Even though Suttānuloma is a part of the Sutta, there is nothing directly stated in it, like in the Sutta, definitively saying "this is allowable, this is not allowable." Therefore, he said: "Indeed, the Sutta itself is stronger than Suttānuloma." "Unassailable" means unrefutable. "Like the Sangha that performs" means because it is authoritative, like the Sangha that performed the recitations. "Like the time when the Buddhas were present" means by this, it is said that because it was spoken by the Buddhas themselves, it is like the living Buddha. Indeed, if the Sutta is refuted, the Buddha himself is refuted. "One's own proponent speaks taking the Sutta" means one's own proponent speaks, taking one's own Sutta. "The other proponent speaks Suttānuloma" means the proponent of another school speaks, taking Suttānuloma from their own school. "Without disparagement or blame" means without disparagement like "What's the use of this?" or blame like "What is this fool saying?" "Suttānuloma" means the Suttānuloma spoken by the other proponent in another school. "Should be included in the Sutta" means should be included by one's own proponent in one's own Sutta. "Should stand only in the Sutta" means should stand only in one's own Sutta. Thus, in the remaining instances too, the explanation of meaning should be made. "This" means one's own proponent. "Other" means proponent of another school. Thus, in the remaining ones too. But wasn't it said below that "the Sutta itself is stronger than Suttānuloma"? But here, why is it said, "the Sutta should be included in Suttānuloma," and so on? This is not a contradiction. Indeed, this "the Sutta itself is stronger than Suttānuloma" was said with reference to the Sutta within one's own view. For there, that which is included in one's own view... And concerning suttas etc., it is said: "One's own opinion is weakest of all, from one's own opinion, the teacher's word is stronger, from the teacher's word, conformity with the sutta is stronger, from conformity with the sutta, the sutta itself is stronger." But here, concerning a sutta brought by an opponent from another school, it is said: "A sutta should be brought into conformity with the sutta," etc. Therefore, a sutta etc. brought by an opponent, having brought it into one's own sutta-conformity, teacher's word, and one's own opinion, should be accepted as agreeing. The other should not be accepted. This method is said here, so there is no contradiction between earlier and later. As for external suttas, these are suttas of the Mahāsaṅghika school residents, such as Guḷhavessantara, which are not included in the three recitations. By "Vedalla etc.," it should be understood that Guḷhaummaggā etc. are included by the word "etc." Other blameworthy suttas should not be accepted. By "one should stand by one's own opinion," it shows that even from a sutta brought from another school, one's own opinion in one's own school is stronger. One's own proponent speaks taking a sutta, the opponent also speaks taking a sutta - in this way, the turn is not stated by way of similar kinds. The bringing of a sutta into a sutta does not appear as if it were different, and it can be connected by the method already stated. Now, showing the method to be followed when a dispute arises concerning the permissibility or impermissibility etc. of one's own proponent and an opponent, he says: "Now, if this one speaks taking it as permissible," etc. There, "it should be brought into the sutta and sutta-conformity" means by one's own proponent, it should be brought into one's own sutta and sutta-conformity. "The other finds no reason" means the opponent obtains no reason. "From the sutta, he shows many reasons and decisions" means the opponent, bringing forth many reasons and decisions from his own sutta, shows them. By "having accepted it with 'Good,' one should stand by the impermissible," it says that one's own proponent, not finding suttas etc. in his own school, should stand by the opponent's statement. "A shadow of reason appears for both" means for one's own proponent and the opponent... For both, a semblance of reason establishing what is allowable and unallowable, is seen. If for both, a shadow of reason is seen, why is it said, "one should stand by the unallowable," as in "having reached the Vinaya," and so on? Making the meaning "having reached the Vinaya" clearer, he says, "by resorting to the investigation of what is allowable and unallowable." In cases like "should be obstructed," when the determination of what is allowable and unallowable is difficult to know, the acceptance of "allowable" should be obstructed, the acceptance of "unallowable" should be made firm. The continuous stream of accepting "allowable" should be cut off, and one should stand by the "unallowable," which is considered grave. This is the meaning. "By many reasons for Vinaya determination" means by many suttas, and by the reasons for determination drawn from them. "One should not abandon one's own acceptance" means one's own acceptance of "unallowable" should not be abandoned by one's own party. Now, concluding the meaning just stated, he says "thus," and so on. There, "whoever" means whoever among one's own party and the other party. Some, however, say, "whoever among one's own party is intended here." If this were so, then in "but if this one, having taken it as allowable, speaks," and so on, both would be of one's own party everywhere, because "thus," and so on, is stated as a conclusion of what was said below. Therefore, that should not be accepted. "Obtains an additional reason" here means the former and former among the suttas, etc., is called an additional reason. Or, whoever obtains more reasons among the four suttas, etc., is said to obtain an additional reason. "Suppavatti" means "good conduct is his," or "he conducts himself well by virtue." Therefore, he says, "Suppavatti means well-conducted." "Vācuggata" means "risen by speech," it is said to be "well-grasped by word." The explanation for "from the sutta" is "from the Pāḷi." And here, since it is said that "sutta means the entire Vinaya Piṭaka," "Pāḷi" should be understood as a different Pāḷi, one that illuminates its meaning. The explanation for "from the sub-commentary" is "from questioning and from the commentary." The Pāḷi. "Anubyañjana" is indeed called inquiry and commentary, because it follows, manifests, and elucidates the meaning. And here, because commentary is taken separately, inquiry is called the Theravāda. "Saṅgharājī" is a designation for the quarrel that arose in the earlier part of the schism of the Saṅgha. "Kukkuccaka" means one who generates remorse by seeing danger even in the smallest faults. "Tantiṃ avisaṃvādetvā" means without making the Pāli text otherwise. "Avokkamanto" means not overstepping. "Vitthunati" means to lament without seeing the meaning. "Vipphandati" means trembles. "Santiṭṭhituṃ na sakkoti" means cannot establish oneself in just one meaning. Therefore it is said, "Whatever is said by others, that he assents to." "Paravādaṃ gaṇhāti" means when another debater says, "In sugarcane, the refuse lasts a lifetime, the juice for seven days; there is no sugarcane apart from these two. Therefore, sugarcane is permissible even at an improper time," he accepts even that. "Ekekaloma" is said with reference to gray hair. "Yamhi" means in which person. "Parikkhaya" and "pariyādāna" are one in meaning. In "And indeed, his tradition of teachers is well-grasped," "ācariyaparamparā" here means the tradition of the teachers' decisions. Therefore it will be said, "Just as the teacher and the teacher's teacher speak of the Pāli and the inquiry, so it is proper to know." "Pubbāparānusandhito" means "This is the prior statement, this is the subsequent statement,