English
That which arises from the second and fifth, this is the origin of a word-by-word teaching. That which arises from the fourth and sixth, this is the origin of a theft-caravan. That which arises only from the fifth, this is the origin of a Dhamma teaching. That which arises from the fifth and sixth, this should be known as the origin of raising up a thief. Having thus shown all training rules in thirteen ways under the heading of origin, now, showing them in five ways according to action, he says, "Therein, some arise from action," and so on. Here, "some" refers to an offense under the heading of a training rule. Therefore, that which occurs when one transgresses by body or by speech, as in digging the earth and so on, this is called arising from action. That which occurs when one does not do what should be done by body or speech, like the first Kathina offense, this is called arising from non-action. That which occurs both when doing and not doing, like the offense of receiving a robe from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī, this is called arising from action and non-action. That which may occur when doing, and may occur when not doing, like the offense of receiving silver, this is called arising sometimes from action, sometimes from non-action. That which may occur when doing, and may occur when doing and not doing It is like an offense of building a hut. This arises from action, or from action and non-action. Now, showing all the training rules divided into two by way of perception, he says, "Therein, there is also release by perception," and so on. "Release by perception" means release by the absence of perception, and should be understood as a compound with the middle word dropped. For one is released by the absence of the perception of transgression; this is called release by perception. "It certainly obtains a mind-factor" because it arises only from mind-related origins like body and mind. By the emphatic "certainly obtains," it shows that it does not not obtain. Therefore, what obtains a mind-factor and does not obtain it, is called "the other," because the word "other" refers to the opposite of what is stated. Again, showing all the training rules divided into two by way of mind, he says, "Again, there is that with mind," and so on. That which is committed with mind, means that which arises only from a mind-related origin, not from a mind-less one. "Even without" — by the word "even," it shows that it is also committed with mind. For that which sometimes arises from a mind-less origin, and sometimes from a mind-related origin, is called "mind-less." Here, the pair of perception is stated by way of non-offense, and the pair of mind-related by way of offense. This should be understood as their distinction. Since the pair of worldly offenses has its characteristics stated below, without dividing it, now, showing that all training rules are twofold by way of action, and threefold by way of wholesome, etc., and by way of feeling, he says, "By way of action, wholesome, feeling," and so on. Here, although in the commentaries, according to the method presented, the pair by way of action is stated as bodily action and verbal action, it is proper to show only the threefold. For every training rule is threefold because it is to be committed through the body-door, through the speech-door, and through both the body and speech doors. Therefore, in the Mātika-aṭṭhakathā (Kankhā. Aṭṭha. First Pārājika Commentary) it is said: "All are threefold by way of bodily action, verbal action, and both. Therein, bodily At the door of the body, what is done is called a bodily action. At the door of speech, what is done is called a verbal action. In both, what is done is a bodily and verbal action. And for this very reason, in the training rules like taking what is not given, bodily action and verbal action are shown as both. However, the training rule, "skillful," and so on, shows that one who commits an offense does so accompanied by a skillful mind, or accompanied by an unskillful mind, or accompanied by an indeterminate mind. But it does not mean that there is also a skillful offense. For there is no such thing as a skillful offense, as it is said: "An offense-basis may be unskillful, may be indeterminate, there is no skillful offense-basis." The ten kāmāvacara functional minds are the eight great functional minds, together with the mind that produces laughter and the determining mind. The two supernormal knowledge minds causing offenses should be seen in the performance of psychic powers, etc., by one who does not understand the designation. "That which one commits with a skillful mind" means that the offense taken under the head of a training rule is committed by one accompanied by a skillful mind. By this statement, however, it is shown that the skillfulness referred to as "that skillful" in an offense is only by way of analogy, not in the ultimate sense. For one who commits an offense with a skillful mind commits an indeterminate offense, which is the aggregate of form, manifesting as a transgression of the training rule, either with or without communication. "The others with the others" means that what one commits with the other unskillful and indeterminate minds is the other, meaning unskillful and indeterminate. And this is said to show that one who commits an offense does so accompanied by an unskillful mind, or accompanied by a skillful or indeterminate mind. Even so, in all training rules, some are only with an unskillful mind, some are with two minds (skillful and indeterminate), and some are with all three minds. Only this classification is obtained, and no other, this should be understood. "With three feelings, with two feelings, with one feeling," this too is obtained only according to the feelings mentioned, and not otherwise, this should be understood. For one who has lain down and entered cessation, by way of sleeping together... Because the offense is of the form-aggregate that arises in that manner, this must also be said as "there is non-feeling"; and it should be understood that it is said, not taking what might occur sometimes, anywhere, at will, but taking what is generally obtained. Now, showing the aforementioned origins and so on, divided in this rule being explained, he said, "Having known this miscellaneous matter," and so on. There, the connection of "having known" with "to be known" by this later verbal participle should be understood. This "origin from action" is generally said, because for one who assents when there is an attack by another, it is an origin from non-action. They say, "There is no offense in the mind-door" – this too is said mostly. Here, consciousness is merely a factor, thus the first pārājika arises from body and mind, so here consciousness is merely a factor of the offense. It does not obtain the nature of kamma by its means, meaning that because it occurs in the body-door by generating communication, the mind-kamma nature of this rule is not obtained by means of that consciousness. Because the rule is a designation in the manner stated below, it is said, "All this is connected with the offense." Indeed, the aforementioned origins and so on are not connected with the designation. The explanation of the miscellaneous matters is finished. Explanation of the Decided Cases He asks, desiring to explain, "What is this?" "Vinīta" are decided, "vinicchita" are cases; "vinītavatthūni" are decided cases. Indeed, these were decided by the Blessed One himself, saying, "You, bhikkhu, have incurred a pārājika offense. Bhikkhu, there is no pārājika offense, there is a saṅghādisesa offense. Bhikkhu, there is no offense for one who does not assent," and so on. Therefore, he said, "Decided by the Blessed One himself." "Uddānagāthā" means a summary verse, a compilation verse. "Vatthugāthā" (case verse) refers to the Pāli text of the decided cases itself, which illuminates the originating cases, beginning with "Now at that time a certain bhikkhu," and so on, and is called "vatthugāthā" because it compiles those various cases, not due to metrical characteristics... by striking. The story of the verses, or the verse-story, this is how the meaning here should be understood. "Here" means among the disciplined matters. "Second and so on" means the second pārājika and so on. "Second and so on" should be connected with "are to be decided." "Of artisans" means of artisans like painters. That which painters and others, having seen it repeatedly, learn and do paintings and so on, that is called "hidden form." 67. The two former stories are the story of the monkey and the story of the Vajjiputtaka. Although these have indeed appeared in the subsequent enactments, yet because they were matters decided by the Blessed One himself, they are again included among the disciplined matters, like the stories of the washermen and so on, which appeared in the subsequent enactments concerning taking what is not given and so on. If so, "he felt remorse" would be contradictory. For in the subsequent enactment, other bhikkhus, having seen him, would reproach that bhikkhu, wouldn't they? This is true. But it should be understood that after those bhikkhus reproached him in the manner stated in the subsequent enactment, saying, "Indeed, friend, is it not so?", then he felt remorse. And "he reported this matter to the Blessed One" should be understood as: when those bhikkhus reported it to the Blessed One in the manner stated in the subsequent enactment, and the Blessed One asked, "Is it true, bhikkhu, that you engaged in sexual intercourse with a monkey?", he, being asked, said, "It is true, Blessed One," and thus reported this matter to the Blessed One. In the story of the Vajjiputtaka, however, concerning those who, without renouncing the training and without revealing their weakness, engaged in sexual intercourse and then fell away, and then approached Elder Ānanda and requested re-ordination