English
without saying it thus? Referring to this implicit question, it is said: "Not only this (in this context)..." And of that training, it means: of that training called higher morality. Fulfilling the training, it means: Fulfilling the restraint of morality, causing to arise in oneself the volition associated with abstinence by way of prohibitive morality, and the volition not associated with abstinence by way of obligatory morality—this is the meaning. And training without transgressing that training rule, it means: not transgressing the training rule, which is the word of the Blessed One, spoken as "body of names, body of words, body of expressions, body of syllables," he trains in that aforementioned training rule—this is the meaning. The fulfillment of moral restraint and the non-transgression of livelihood— these two are what is called training here, this is the intention. Therein, non-transgression of livelihood is a condition for the fulfillment of training. For from non-transgression of livelihood, the fulfillment of training occurs up to the path. Moreover, here, by "he trains by fulfilling the training," only the time of causing the moral restraint, which is called volition of abstinence, to arise specifically in one's continuum is taken. By "he trains without transgressing," however, also the time of not causing it to arise. For even when causing the training to arise in oneself by way of fulfillment, and even when not causing it to arise due to sleep, etc., due to the absence of transgression, he is called "he trains without transgressing." The explanation of the analysis of the word 'training and livelihood' is finished. The explanation of the analysis of the renunciation of training. "Without having renounced, for one who has not renounced"— this reading is stated in both ways in all three textual locations. Even when weakness is revealed, it means: even when weakness is declared, beginning with "What if I were to renounce the Buddha?" But when the training is renounced, it means: when the training is renounced, beginning with "I renounce the Buddha." Because when the two-night word is taken, the former and latter words are connected, but not when it is not taken. Therefore, the two-night word is merely for the connection of consonants. Thus he said: "for the connection of consonants." "By being familiar" means: because such a word is familiar to people, that is the meaning. "It produces the consonant" means: since it has no separate meaning, it clarifies the meaning already stated with another word, thus producing the consonant. Clarifying the meaning already stated with a reason, he said: "for it is devoid of accompanying words," and so on. A word that illuminates the meaning is a meaning-word. Regarding the renunciation of training: "I renounce the Buddha," and so on, the statement of renunciation of training. In "I renounce the Buddha," and so on, it is said: "Thus, monks, there is both a declaration of weakness and a renunciation of training." Therefore, both occur. Thus he said: "a certain declaration of weakness is the meaning." Although the meaning of the word "declaration of weakness" is not for the statement of renunciation of training like "I renounce the Buddha," and so on, nevertheless, when "I renounce the Buddha" is said, since the manifestation of weakness in the completion of training is also understood, it is said: "a certain declaration of weakness is the meaning of the renunciation of training." "Referring to it" means: referring to that declaration of weakness which is the meaning. "Distinction and non-distinction": Here, where there is only a declaration of weakness and not a renunciation of training, there is a distinction between renunciation of training and declaration of weakness. But where there is both renunciation of training and declaration of weakness, there is no distinction, this should be understood. "By a difficult livelihood": Because it is read in the roots, it is said: "having attained a difficult livelihood." Discontent is weariness, a difficult livelihood. One who has attained it from here is discontented. "From here" means: from this place, or from this monastery. "Here" refers to the desired destination. Afflicted by discontent, with a distracted mind, lifting his head, looking up, wandering here and there, he said: 'dwelling with an uplifted neck.' Regarding 'aṭṭīyamāno' (being distressed), here, one acts as if one is a prison, one is distressed, thus, because of the action of the simile contained within the word 'aṭṭīya', it is the self that is the object of comparison, not the state of being a monk. Therefore, it says, "bhikkhubhāvaṃ (the state of being a monk) means bhikkhubhāvena (by the state of being a monk)." For he does not act as if the state of being a monk is a prison. What then? He acts as if he himself is distressed by that state of being a monk, which is the instrument. This is how the meaning here should be understood. Therefore, it says, "the instrumental case in the sense of an instrument." In "may he be distressed by what is attached to his neck," here, it is indeed the instrumental case in the sense of an instrument. Therefore, it says, "it is stated with the instrumental case according to its characteristic." Or the instrumental case should be understood in the sense of an agent. Therefore, it says, "or by that state of being a monk," etc., meaning, by that state of being a monk which is the agent. In this sense, the word 'aṭṭīya' is derived from 'aṭṭaṃ karoti' (makes a prison), and then by adding 'māna' in the passive voice, the word 'aṭṭīyamāno' is formed. Therefore, it says, "being made a prison, being oppressed." When 'jigucchamāno' (being disgusted) is connected in this way, 'bhikkhubhāvaṃ' is in the instrumental case in the sense of an instrument. Therefore, it says, "disgusted with it as if it were impure," meaning, disgusted with that state of being a monk. 'Sacāhaṃ' means 'if I'. "Stated in the manner of rejection" means they are stated in the manner of rejection because it is said, "I would reject, I would reject." "In the manner of a choice of states" means because "I would be, I would be" is used, it refers to the manner of choosing any state one wishes to be in, meaning, in the manner of choosing a state other than the state of being a monk. 50. "I do not strive" indicates his lack of striving in various matters. "I do not endure" indicates the unbearable nature of things like eating one meal a day. "I do not delight" indicates, "there is no happiness for me rooted in renunciation." "I do not rejoice" indicates his lack of contentment with renunciation. Now, standing in the context of the rejection of the training, this decision should be understood— First, with phrases like “wishing to fall away from recluseship,” it shows the determination of mind. With phrases like “the Buddha, the Dhamma,” it shows the determination of field. Just as in the world, the place where crops grow is called a “field,” so too this is called a “field” because it is the place where the renunciation of training grows. With “I renounce, hold it,” it shows the determination of time. With “he says,” it shows the determination of application. With phrases like “Enough for me with the Buddha, what is the Buddha to me, I have no need of the Buddha, I am well rid of the Buddha,” it shows that renunciation can occur even in a time not addressed. With “he makes known,” it shows the determination of understanding. With phrases like “A madman renounces the training, he renounces the training in the presence of a madman,” it shows the determination of person. With phrases like “An Aryan renounces the training in the presence of a barbarian, and he does not understand, the training is not renounced,” it shows the impossibility of the determination of understanding even when there is determination of person and so on. With phrases like “He renounces the training in jest, the training is not renounced,” it shows that it does not grow due to the absence of the determination of mind even when there is determination of field and so on. With “Wishing to make known, he does not make known, the training is not renounced,” it shows that it does not grow due to the absence of the determination of application even when there is determination of mind. With “He makes known to one who does not understand, he does not make known to one who understands,” it shows that even when there is determination of mind, field, time, application, person, and understanding, it grows only by the hearing of the person to whom it is made known, not by another. But “Or if he does not make known at all, the training is not renounced,” this is said to show that the training is renounced only by the determination of mind and so on, not otherwise. Therefore, knowing the renunciation of training by way of the determination of mind, field, time, application, person, and understanding, its non-renunciation should be understood by their absence. How? For the renunciation of training occurs only with the mind of wishing to fall away from the state of being fully ordained, not in jest or in clamor. of one who intends. Thus, the renunciation of training occurs by way of intention, not by its absence. Similarly, "I renounce the Buddha, I renounce the Dhamma, I renounce the Sangha, I renounce the training, the discipline, the Pātimokkha, the recitation, the preceptor, the teacher, the co-resident, the pupil, the co-preceptor, the co-teacher, the co-brahmacārī," thus, for these fourteen, from Buddha and so on, and "Hold me as a householder, a lay follower, a monastery attendant, a novice, a sectarian, a sectarian's disciple, not a recluse, not a Sakyan son," thus, for these eight, from householder and so on, for any of these twenty-two field-terms, by way of any synonym, for one who intends to say anything, or says anything, there is a renunciation of training,