English
some in the middle age, some in the last age, and similarly, long with dishevelled hair, with half-shaven heads, with mixed hair, with half-dyed robes, with yellowish robes, making recitations of the Dhamma, chanting, asking questions, answering questions, sewing robes, washing, and so on, or wishing to do various other things, then, rising from the foot-meditation, having made a preparation in the manner of "Let so many monks be of the first age," and so on, and having re-entered and risen, when resolved upon, they become exactly as desired with the resolve-consciousness. The statement "it is not a baseless utterance" means that the utterance "this is a bed" and so on, regarding things created, is not baseless, because beds and chairs are possible everywhere. 383. "Food for a single wanderer" means food that is very pleasing, to be brought to a separate standing body. "By a taddhita expression" means by a taddhita expression such as "its measure is four" (catukka). To show that the question about rice is most conducive, he says: "The word for instrument is only in the sense of instrument." It is said that they ask with rice as the instrument. And to show the manner of questioning of those who ask with rice as the instrument, it is said: "Do they ask, 'Venerable sir, shall we give rice?'" "Bhavo" means "it should be." "Without attending" means without making an intention. "Consulting at night" means having slept for some time, having risen, they consult. Indeed, for those who have slept in the first and middle watches of the night and awakened, there is a perception of "not today" even in the present day. Therefore, they said "yesterday." But for those who are engaged in work and devoted to wakefulness at night, there is only a perception of "today." Therefore, they use the term "today," not "yesterday." "Fuming" means fuming repeatedly due to anger that arises again and again. 384. "Dabba dabba": the second word "dabba" is an appellation for the wise, so he says "dabba means wise." The connection is "they do not disentangle thus." "Disentangle" means they free themselves from fault. "Thinking it is a sign of rising" means thinking it is a sign of rising. "It is not fitting" refers to the elder's declaration of good conduct. The meaning is that her declaration of unchastity is not fitting. What is to be said here, that will become clear later. "Destroy them" means, having given white clothes, make them attain the state of a layperson. Here, the destruction of the mark (of a renunciant) is intended. And to show this very point, "three destructions" and so on were said. Not performing communal acts and so on is the destruction of communion. The destruction by penal action is, having scattered sand and so on, expelling them by way of penal action until they apologize. "Go, stranger, perish!" is a showing of the manner of expulsion. There, "cara" means go, "get away!" is said. "Pire" means stranger, not ours, not belonging to us, is the meaning. Indeed, "pire" is a vocative word synonymous with the word "para" (stranger). Or "pire" is an indeclinable word synonymous with "parato" (from afar, away), therefore "cara pire" means go away, do not stay here, is the meaning. "Vinassa" means go out of sight. Because those bhikkhus remained without revealing themselves, therefore "investigate" means "seek, know," is the meaning stated. "He is the doer" means, because she declared "I was defiled by the venerable one," if she was destroyed by that declaration, the elder is the doer, meaning he is at fault. "He is not the doer" means, if, disregarding the declaration made by her, she was destroyed by the Blessed One with reference only to her natural unchastity, the elder is not the doer, is the meaning. When it was said, "Destroy her by her own declaration," the reality of the declaration made by her, "I was defiled by the venerable one," arises, so it is said: "Venerable sir, in your teaching, the elder is the doer, at fault." "He slanders a bhikkhuni, a dukkata offense" – by this, the Great Commentary's view is shown. "A pacittiya offense for false speech" – it is said that for one who slanders a bhikkhuni, there is a pacittiya offense for false speech. "Therein" refers to those dukkata and pacittiya offenses. From here onwards, up to the statement "therefore only a pacittiya is fitting," is the elucidation of meaning in both commentaries. There, by the former method, "He slanders a bhikkhuni, a dukkata offense" – the commentary said... In the non-commentary method. "Why is it said that only a dukkaṭa is appropriate?" If asked, showing the reason there, he says, "Just as..." and so on. For a bhikkhu, regarding a bhikkhu, it is a Saṅghādisesa. The meaning is: For a bhikkhu who slanders a bhikkhu with a baseless ultimate offense, it is a Saṅghādisesa. Even in the latter method, it is said: "For one who slanders a bhikkhunī, it is a Pācittiya for false speech." Even in the Kurundī method, because it is false speech, only a Pācittiya is appropriate. The intention is: because it involves deceit, only a Pācittiya is appropriate. If so, for one who slanders a bhikkhu with a baseless ultimate offense, and for one who abuses, because it is false speech, it should be only a Pācittiya. If asked, Even if there is false speech there, according to the measure of the words, it should be a Saṅghādisesa or a Pācittiya for false speech, not a Pācittiya for intentional false speech. To show this, he says, "According to the measure of the words..." and so on. There, "according to the measure of the words" means according to the Pāli words spoken by the Blessed One. Now, to show those words, "with the intention of slandering" and so on is said. But for a bhikkhu, the statement "a dukkaṭa for a bhikkhunī" does not exist. Thus, for a bhikkhu slandering a bhikkhunī, the statement "a dukkaṭa" does not exist, as it is not found in the Pāli text. The statement "a Pācittiya for intentional false speech" exists. Thus, it shows the training rule on intentional false speech, which is generally stated. Now, having clarified the intention in both commentary methods, and having shown the fault in the latter method, the teacher, wishing to establish the former method, says, "But there..." and so on. "There" refers to the statement "only a Pācittiya is appropriate." "If there is no intention to slander, it is a Pācittiya." By this, he shows the scope for a Pācittiya in intentional false speech. "A separate Pācittiya is stated." This means a Pācittiya different from the Pācittiya for intentional false speech is stated. "By these, there is no destruction" is stated generally. But the intention is: by this dukkaṭa, there is no destruction. If so, "Why does the Blessed One destroy it?" he says, "Because..." and so on. 385-386. Corrupted. i. It shows the agentive function of the word 'duṭṭha' (corrupted). He corrupts, he destroys others, thus he is a corruptor. By this, the agentive function of the word 'dosa' (corruption) is stated as "it corrupts, thus it is corruption." It is said that it makes one abandon the natural state, because it is read in the sense of 'vikati' (distortion) of the root 'dus'. The meaning is, it makes one abandon the natural, pleasant state. It is said that it brings about a distorted state. By difference in aspect, it means by the difference between the aspect of being corrupted and the aspect of the corruptor. Displeased, meaning not satisfied. And he who is not satisfied is not happy, thus it says "not happy." In phrases like "the king was pleased," since the meaning of 'pasādito' (pleased) is possible, it is said "or not pleased." The word 'khīla' means a state of stiffness and also a synonym for rubbish. Thus it says: "the obstacle of resentment, which is the stiffness of mind and the rubbish of mind." The mind becomes stiff by it, thus it is 'khīla' (obstacle), the stiffness of mind. And that, in essence, is just resentment. For resentment is characterized by the stiffness of mind. And when it arises, the mind becomes unpleasant, like a place covered with dirt. Therefore, resentment is also called 'khīla' because it is like rubbish. Thus it says "the obstacle of resentment." Because of the stiffness of mind and its similarity to rubbish, resentment itself is 'khīla', the obstacle of resentment. Not attained, meaning not reached, not followed, not approached by joy, happiness, etc. And he who is not approached by joy, happiness, etc., is deprived of them, thus it says "deprived of joy, happiness, etc." And he who is deprived of them is not pervaded by them, thus it says "not pervaded," meaning not spread with joy, happiness, etc. By which, meaning by which anger. Corrupted, it shows the word that came in the matrix. Angry, the word that came in the word analysis. Even though they are one in meaning, it is said "both" due to the two words. Similarly, it is said "by these two" due to the words "by that anger and by that corruption." But in essence, it is just corruption. And that is included in the aggregate of formations, thus it says "by these two formations." shows only the fault.” Regarding the words “discontent, displeasure,” it is said that a feeling of mental pain is meant, so he says, “By these two, he shows the aggregate of feeling.” But when it is unseen, unheard, or un-suspected by the accuser, then it is baseless, so he says, “That, however… …is intended according to the accuser.” If it were intended according to the accused, the word division would say, “baseless means not fallen into,” this is the intention. “Which is a pārājika” means one of the nineteen pārājikas suitable for a bhikkhu. In the word division, however, taking only those that appear in the Pāli text, it is said, “by one of the four.” This is the accused’s state of having fallen or not fallen. “Here” means in this training rule. “Just as” refers to this meaning by divine sight or divine hearing.