English
not for one who renounces the training by taking the name of a tree or any other thing. Thus, the renunciation of training occurs by way of the field, not by its absence. Here, what is said as "I renounce" and "Hold me" are present tense words, and those four words, "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," and so on, spoken in the manner of a verb, without specifying a tense, combined with the former fourteen terms, and by way of their synonyms, there is a renunciation, not for one who says "You renounce" or "You will renounce" or "You hold me" or "You will hold me" or "Would that I might renounce," and so on, which are past or future hypothetical words. Thus, the renunciation occurs by way of the present tense and by way of an unspecified tense, not by their absence. Application, however, is twofold: physical or verbal. Here, by way of "I renounce the Buddha," and so on, by making a verbal distinction in any language, the renunciation occurs only by verbal application, not by writing letters or showing hand gestures or any physical application. to announce. Thus, by such verbal expression, the renunciation occurs, not in its absence. The person, however, is twofold: he who renounces, and he to whom he renounces. Among these, he who renounces, if he is not one of the mad, the deranged, or those afflicted by pain. And he to whom he renounces, if he is of human birth, and not one of the mad and so forth, and the renunciation of training is in his presence. For, announcing by a messenger or by a letter to one not present is not valid. Thus, by means of such persons as described, the renunciation occurs, not in their absence. Knowing is also twofold: regulated and unregulated. Among these, if one, having regulated to whom or to whomsoever, says, "I announce to this one or to these," and if they, as is natural for people in the world, hearing the words, know at the moment of attention, then immediately after his words, if they know the state of renunciation of training by some means or other, such as "he is weary" or "he desires the lay state," the training is renounced. But if they think, "what was said by him?" and know later, or if others know, the training is not renounced. However, for one announcing without regulation, if any person of human birth knows the meaning of the words in the manner stated, the training is renounced. Thus, by means of knowing, the renunciation occurs, not in its absence. Therefore, it should be understood that the renunciation of training occurs only by means of these described states of mind and so forth, and not otherwise. 51. Having shown the use of verbal expression by "he says," and then having said "he makes known," it is intended here that the making known of the intention is by that very verbal expression, not by any other means. Therefore, he says, "by that very verbal expression." "Having inverted the word" means having reversed the word. And this is said because the use of words is not fixed. Just as in the world, the conveying of meaning is seen with an unfixed use of words, such as "bring the bowl, the bowl bring," so here too, "Buddha I reject, I reject the Buddha, with an unregulated use of words, the intention is to convey that meaning. "I reject the Buddha" is a statement primarily about meaning, not about sound, so it says, "whether in barbarian languages or any other language, he should express that meaning." All languages other than Magadhan, such as Andha and Damila, are to be understood as barbarian languages. To show that even if one intends to say one thing in the context of the field (of rejection) but says another, the training is still rejected because it falls within the scope of the field, it says, "if he intends to say 'I reject the Buddha'," and so on. Even if one does not wish to say "I reject the Buddha," and mentally rejects it, intending to say something else, but then errs and says that very thing, still, if there is the intention to abandon the Dispensation, since the words of the field itself have been spoken, and the components are complete, the rejection of the training occurs. "Has entered the field" means it has entered the field, which is the ground for the growth of the rejection of the training. "I reject, hold it!" By wishing to state the present tense as primary, to show that there is no rejection of the training with past or future tense expressions, it says, "if, however, he says 'he will reject the Buddha'," and so on. In "he speaks, he makes known," by specifying the act of speaking, it shows that the rejection of the training occurs only through one's own verbal expression in the presence of another, not through a messenger's message or similar means, so it says, "or sends a messenger," and so on. There, "or sends a messenger" is said in the sense of an oral message, "tell him that I reject the training." "Or sends a message" is said in the sense of sending it written on a leaf. "Or carves letters" is said in the sense of carving letters on trees and showing them. "Or makes that meaning known by a hand gesture" is said with reference to conveying the intention by hand. A hand gesture that conveys intention is a hand signal. The word "hand" here refers to a part of it. It should be understood in these fingers, as in "I will not put the whole hand into the mouth," etc. (Pāci. 618); therefore, the meaning here should be understood as: he makes known that matter by a hand gesture, such as contracting the fingers, which expresses his intention. "Associated with mind" means associated with the mind of wishing to renounce. Now, showing that the renunciation of training should be understood in two ways, as determined and undetermined, according to the understanding, he said: "If only this one knows," and so on. And this distinction should be understood as obtained by this method: "He speaks, he makes known," being of one scope, means that the understanding of the one to whom he speaks is intended, not that of another. For this meaning, that he makes known to another than the one to whom he speaks, is not possible. By the emphasis "only he knows," it rejects the knowing of another even if that one does not know. Therefore, he said: "If he does not know, but another standing nearby knows, the training is not renounced." Therefore, when it is declared, having determined one, "only this one should know," even if he knows and another also knows, since the understanding of the determined one is possible in a determined way, the renunciation of training occurs; it should be understood that "let another not know" is undetermined. "Having determined two" refers to a declaration made by determining thus: "Let two know, or one, I declare to these two only." Therefore, he said: "Even if one knows, or if two know." Therefore, when it is declared, having determined two, "let only two know, let one not know," the renunciation of training occurs only if two know, they say, not if one knows. "Of the same kind" means trustworthy. "Doubting" means fearing, "if they know, they will prevent me." "Knower of the occasion" means skilled in the conduct of the Dispensation; but here, one is called a knower of the occasion merely by knowing his intention. Therefore, he said: "This one is discontented... (etc.)... he knows that he has fallen from the Dispensation." Therefore, even if one knows the meaning of "I renounce the Buddha," if "this monk..." desiring to fall away from the monk state, or desiring to be a layperson, he does not know (the meaning of the words), the training is not renounced. But if, even without knowing the meaning of the words "I renounce the Buddha," he knows the intention "I am discontented and wish to be a layperson," the training is renounced. In one moment, the apprehension of sound by the ear-consciousness process, and in another moment, the understanding of its meaning by the mind-consciousness process, thus it is said – "for it is difficult to know simultaneously, without prior or subsequent occurrence." Indeed, in one single moment, the hearing of sound and the understanding of its meaning cannot occur. For example, when someone says "pot" or "cloth," taking the present sound 'gha', one ear-consciousness process arises and ceases, immediately after, one mind-consciousness process arises, taking that same past (sound). Thus, in the words spoken by him, as many letters as there are, taking each and every letter, both present and past, after the ear-consciousness process and mind-consciousness process have arisen and ceased, gathering those letters together, taking the group of letters, one mind-consciousness process arises and ceases. Immediately after that, by way of apprehending the designation of the name, "this group of letters is the name of this," after another mind-consciousness process has arisen and ceased, by the mind-consciousness process that arises immediately after, the natural understanding of its meaning, "this is its meaning," becomes possible. "By the time of advertence" – this is an instrumental case in the sense of locative, meaning "at the time of comprehending the meaning." Now, explaining that very time of advertence, he says – "as naturally... (etc.)... they know." Since the conveying of intention by means of that verbal utterance is intended here, the understanding of the intention after a long time by one who doubts "what was said by this?" can occur by some other means as well, not merely by the verbal utterance itself, thus he says – "then later... (etc.)... the training is not renounced." When "I will be a layperson" is said, meaning If there is no difference in meaning or time, the training is not rejected. For the meaning and time of "Hold it!", it is not that of "I will be." But when "I am a householder" is said, there is only a difference in meaning, not a difference in time,