English
"for by the third path is the abandonment of greed and hatred," but not with reference to lust for form or formless existence. For these are not abandoned by that, as they must be abandoned by the fourth path. "The mind free from lust is unobstructed" means that the mind is unobstructed by lust. The meaning should be understood as: the mind released from lust, due to the absence of that very hindrance of lust, is unobstructed, having lost its hindrances. This method applies to the rest as well. And "which are the five knowledges" should be connected. "Having become supramundane" means having become supramundane, completely separated from the world. Just as without the word "supramundane," if one says, "I am a recipient of the foundations of mindfulness and so on," it becomes a pārājika offense, similarly here, it is appropriate to say, "even if one says, 'I am a recipient of the analysis of meaning,' it is so." Although it is appropriate, however, because it is stated in the Great Commentary with a distinction, to show that it cannot be said in this way, it was said, "but in the Great Commentary... and so on... no other authority can be made." The connection is that "that too is rejected there." Discourse on the chapter of purity. Explanation The phrase "ullapanākāranti samāpajjintiādiullapanākāraṃ" refers to the manner of exaggeration, such as "entering into the manner of exaggeration." "Āpattibhedanti" refers to the distinctions of offenses, such as "for one who does not understand, there is an offense of grave fault." "Puna ānetvā paṭhamajjhānādīhi na yojitanti" means "not having brought it back and joined it with the first jhāna, etc." Here, "paṭhamajjhānenā" is the reading in the commentary, and that is appropriate. The word "bhaṇita" can also be in the agentive sense, so it says "atha vā" (or). It is not possible to know "I speak falsely" with the same mind with which one speaks falsely. However, it is said that "one knows 'I speak falsely' with another mind in between," as in "for one who speaks, there is 'I speak falsely'." This is the meaning shown here: "musāvāda" (false speech) is endowed with these three factors. "Na sakkā na bhavitunti" means "it cannot but be," because it is spoken with a prior intention from the beginning. "Āpattiyā na kāretabboti" means "one should not be made liable for an offense." This refers to one who speaks suddenly without the prior intention "I will speak falsely." Even if "this is false" arises at the moment of speaking, it is not possible to retract it, so it is outside the scope of an offense. "Davāti" means "suddenly." "Ravāti" means "stumbling and saying something else when intending to say something else." "Taṃ jānātīti taṃñāṇaṃ" means "knowing that is that knowledge." "Tassa bhāvo taṃñāṇatā" means "the state of that is that knowledge." The meaning is "the comprehension of the meaning of knowledge." "Ñāṇasamodhānanti" means "the abundance of knowledge," meaning "many knowledges in one mind-moment." "Na hi sakkā…pe… jānitunti" is said because there is no objectification. There is no clear comprehension of such knowledge. The mind that arises as "I will speak" becomes a condition for the mind that arises as "I speak" and ceases. And that becomes a condition for the mind that arises as "spoken" and ceases. So it says, "purimaṃ purimaṃ pana…pe… nirujjhatī" (the preceding one… ceases). If that prior stage exists, it is not the case that "the other two will not exist"; it means they must exist. The intention is that if there is the prior stage "I will speak," then the two "I speak" and "spoken" are not absent; they must exist. "Ekaṃ viya pakāsatīti anek" means "it appears as one, but is many." Even a mind arisen in a moment appears as if arisen in one moment. "Samāpajjiṃ" and so on: by the word "ādi" (etc.), "I enter," "entered"—these two are included. There, "I entered," "entered"— even though there is no difference in time for these, they are taken separately with reference to a difference in expression. 207. "By way of abandoning one's own nature" means by way of abandoning one's own possession. Because it cannot be said "with lust, with hatred" as before the arising of the path, some take "abandoned" as well, but to show that it is not just this, "vomited" is said. For what has been vomited by someone, that one does not take it up again. Therefore it is said: "by way of showing the state of not taking up again." Even what is vomited might have some lingering trace, but to show that it is not just this, "released" is said. Therefore it is said: "by way of release from the continuum." Even what is released, like a released bond, its result remains somewhere, but to show that this is not so, "abandoned" is said. Therefore it is said: "by way of showing no standing anywhere." Just as something badly expelled, when taken up again and properly expelled, is called "re-expelled," so too, to show that what is expelled by insight, like something taken up, and abandoned by the path, is called "re-expelled," "re-expelled" is said. Therefore it is said: "by way of showing the re-expulsion of what was previously taken up." "Ukkheṭito" means frightened, it means having been frightened and driven away. And what has been frightened and driven away, that does not come to that place again, therefore it is said: "by way of showing the state of not clinging again," meaning, by way of showing the state of not arising again in the continuum. The grammarians read the word "khiṭa" in the sense of frightening, therefore it is said: "this meaning should be sought from grammar." "Aṇu" means accompanied by an atom, it means very tiny. The commentary on the section on purification is finished. Commentary on the section on "wishing to speak." 215. "Kevalañhi" (indeed only) means indeed only this. The word "vāro" (turn/section) should be supplied. He knows that very moment... When it is said, "He entered the first jhāna," etc., it is said with reference to the characteristic of naturally understanding its meaning. However, without breaking the speech, if one of the bhikkhus, in the context of departing, etc., thinks, "Let him know me as an Arahant," and departs first from that dwelling, just as in the case that has come up, even if it is not known at that moment, as soon as he has departed, it is a pārājika. The characteristic of knowing means the characteristic stated as "knowing at that moment is like this." By "path of communication" is meant a place suitable for the reception of bodily and verbal communication, a place fit to be seen by the ordinary eye and heard by the ordinary ear. Therefore, if someone, having surpassed the path of communication, stands and knows by seeing and hearing with a divine eye and a divine ear, it indicates that it is not a pārājika. Because doubt arises in one who has not heard it before, "What is this that is said?", it is said, "It is heard." Even if one who has not heard it before, upon hearing the mere statement "He entered the first jhāna," does not produce the doubt "What is this?", but knows at least this much: "Indeed, he entered a jhāna," it is a pārājika. Explanation of the Discourse on the Categories of Non-Offence 222. By "one who has no intention to boast" is meant one who, having transgressed, does not wish to speak, or one who does not perceive "this is a superhuman state." In its true form, however, it should be understood according to the cases that appear here and there in the disciplinary texts, such as "There is no offence for a bhikkhu who has no intention to boast." Even one who speaks without perceiving "this is a superhuman state" is, by convention, declaring something else; therefore, it is said, "for one who declares something else." The explanation of the Word Analysis is finished. By "even one who is afraid" is meant one who is afraid, thinking, "Do others also know that this is not in me?" Explanation of the Disciplinary Cases 223. By "on the ground of a trainee" is also included the ground of jhāna. By "of the three seclusions" is meant the seclusions of body, mind, and attachments. Because going for alms ends with the meal, it is said, "until the end of the meal." Having eaten, having come Even for one who is not present, if one performs acts like arranging robes with the intention of honoring, it is merely a minor offense. 225. "Friend, the Dhamma is to be practiced by one who has aroused energy" - though these two cases were similar, because they were reported separately by two bhikkhus, they were decided by the Blessed One, and it is stated in the Pāli that all such matters should be included in the matters of discipline. 226. "Speaking out of faith" means speaking merely out of faith, not thinking, "These are truly Arahants by nature." Therefore, a non-offense is stated here. But if, thinking "These are truly Arahants by nature," one says things like "Come, venerable Arahants," it should not be assented to. 227. Referring to going on foot, because of the agreement made, it says "or by vehicle," etc. There, "by psychic power" is said, referring to psychic power born of knowledge. "They protect each other" means: because of the agreement made thus, "Whoever departs first from this dwelling, we shall know him as an Arahant," even if they go without precedence or succession, with impure minds, they protect each other by virtue of having departed together. Some, however, say: "Even if one goes without leaving arm's reach, as if holding each other's hand, or if, having arranged the going thus: 'Let's get up and go, come, let's go,' one goes with precedence or succession, one does not commit an offense." But this is an unrighteous agreement, as it is stated in the Cūḷagaṇṭhipada: "If bhikkhus make an agreement, 'Only Arahants shall dwell here,' this is an unrighteous agreement." But that which was stated below refers to all agreements; this is our understanding, and it should be taken after investigation.