English
There is no unwholesome presence-discipline, for presence-discipline is threefold with the presence of Dhamma, Vinaya, and individuals, and it does not exist without these. At the time of acting with wholesome thoughts, it is wholesome; at the time of acting by Arahants, it is indeterminate. Since the presence of the Saṅgha, etc., are opposed to the unwholesome, the unwholesome cannot arise. Therefore, it is said: “There is no unwholesome presence-discipline.” “Settlement by majority is unwholesome when settling by those who speak against the Dhamma, and also for those who speak according to the Dhamma if one who speaks against the Dhamma becomes the vote-taker. Mindfulness-discipline is unwholesome if given intentionally by one who is not an Arahant. Discipline for the Undeluded is unwholesome if given to one who is not insane; Acknowledgment is unwholesome if done by acknowledging when the deluded one does not know; Further Punishment is unwholesome if done to an innocent person; Covering with Grass is unwholesome if done intentionally in a great dispute. In all cases, when done by an Arahant, never undeclared," all this is stated in the knot-sections. Description of the Section on Tranquillity and the Section on Settlement 304-305. Where the majority is obtained, there settlement in the presence is obtained, and so on, is the question. At the time when by settlement in the presence, and so on, is its answer. At the time when by settlement in the presence and by the majority an issue is settled, at that time where the majority is obtained, there settlement in the presence is obtained, thus is the connection everywhere. Where settlement by acknowledgment is obtained, there settlement in the presence is obtained, in this case, when one, two, or many bhikkhus are asked, "You have committed such and such an offense," and they acknowledge, "Yes," both settlement by acknowledgment and settlement in the presence are obtained. There, "presence of the Sangha, presence of Dhamma-Vinaya, presence of individuals," if acknowledged before the Sangha in such a stated settlement in the presence, it is presence of the Sangha. If confessed there, it is also obtained as presence of Dhamma-Vinaya. If disputants acknowledge each other, it is presence of individuals. If confessed in their presence, it is also obtained as presence of Dhamma-Vinaya. Or when one person confesses an offense in the presence of another, and it is said, "Do you see? I see," there settlement in the presence, designated as presence of Dhamma-Vinaya and individuals, and settlement by acknowledgment are obtained. Description of the Section on Association 306. The settling of issues is called tranquillity, therefore without issues there are no tranquillities, so it is said, "He should not be told thus... and so on... having distinguished, to declare a difference." Description of the Section on Tranquillity and Issues 309-310. Tranquillities are settled by tranquillities, and so on, is the question. It may be that tranquillities are settled by tranquillities, and so on, is the answer. There, in "tranquillities are settled by tranquillities," "are settled" means they are accomplished, or rather, issues are settled, they come to an end, therefore the majority is settled by settlement in the presence. In this (context of) 'excess', the majority decision is accomplished together with the decision in the presence, not with the recollection decision and others, because they are not helpful to it. This meaning should be understood. 311. The reading is: "The decision in the presence is agreed upon with the dispute case." For it is said at the end: "The decision in the presence is not agreed upon by anyone." Therefore, the decision in the presence itself is not to be settled by a settlement or by a case. 313. In this (context of) "A dispute case... (etc.)... is agreed upon with a business case," thus, "May the venerable sirs hear me... (etc.)... I cast the first vote," it should be understood that a dispute case is agreed upon with a business case. Explanation of the Section on Giving Rise 314. "Which case does a dispute case not give rise to?" Merely by saying "This is not the Dhamma," the meaning is that it does not give rise to any case. Explanation of the Section on Resorting 318-9. "Which case is included?" (This is) "which-case-included," or this is the reading. "A dispute case resorts to a dispute case" means: a later arisen dispute resorts to a first arisen dispute. "A dispute case resorts to two settlements" means: it resorts as if saying, "You are capable of settling me." "It is comprised of two settlements" means: it is comprised of two settlements as if by those saying, "We will settle it." Chapter on Inquiries Explanation of the Answers to Inquiries 320. In this (context of) "with the origin and with the description," "By origin" means by the origin reckoned as the place of the precept's promulgation. "By description" means by the description of persons, etc. By both, the basis of each precept is shown. Therefore, the meaning here is: "I will ask about the chapter together with its basis." "Therein" means in that chapter on ordination. "Excellent words are spoken" means: excellent words are spoken in the manner of "Monks, a person less than twenty years old should not be ordained" (Mahāva. 99, 124) and so on. "In the leather section" means in the chapter on leather. The Method of One-More The Section on Ones Explanation 321. "An intermediate offense due to fundamental purity" means having committed an intermediate offense, then having made a fundamental retraction, and then having committed it again. It is stated in the commentaries that "an offense committed by one who, having committed many offenses, takes the longest-concealed one as the basis for aggregation due to the purity of the value, is an offense committed by one who is dwelling." "With an eager mind" means with a mind eager to commit it again. This is said in reference to the eight grounds for bhikkhunis. Therefore, it is said, "in the eighth ground, for a bhikkhuni, it is a parajika." Since it is said, "in not fulfilling a righteous promise," there is no dukkata for breaking an unrighteous promise. For if, when told, "you are confused," one, with a pure mind, assents saying, "good," and then is not confused, there is no offense. This applies everywhere. "In the fifteen qualities" refers to the fifteen qualities stated, beginning with "I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time." "Capable of committing an offense" means one is capable of committing an offense. The explanation of the single section is finished. Explanation of the double section 322. "In the doubles, burying" means burying after placing them in the sun for too long. One commits an offense by describing the nature of the object, and one commits an offense by not describing it, by abandoning the intention not to describe the offense committed. "Romaka" means born in the Roman country. "Pakkalaka" means barley water. Salt is also mentioned in the doubles because it is permitted. The explanation of the double section is finished. Explanation of the triple section 323. "In the triples, having performed a bodily action connected with speech" means having performed a prostration with the body. "Such as making a mouth-drum" refers to varieties like playing a mouth-drum. A training rule, the transgression of which results in offenses originating from the body, is a training rule laid down for the bodily door. "Destroys" means annihilates. "Should not be taken" means that if it is said, "do not go out from this monastery, or come to the vinaya-holders to give a decision," one should not accept that statement. "Both unwholesome and roots" means originating from unwholesomeness. Therefore, because of their entirely unwholesome nature, they are unwholesome, they are roots because they establish the associated phenomena firmly, not because they establish an unwholesome nature. For the unwholesome nature of unwholesome things, or the wholesome nature of wholesome things, does not arise from the roots. If that were the case, the unwholesome nature of the delusion in the two bewildered minds would not exist. "Ill-conducted" means, due to their conditions, associated phenomena, and mode of occurrence, they are not well-conducted, but wrongly conducted. "Deformed" means disgusting, because their nature is undesirable both now and in the future. The meaning of "well-conducted" and so on should be understood by the opposite of what has been said. Both these sets of three (good/bad conduct) should be explained either by way of designation or by way of courses of action. First, by way of designation: the transgression of a precept designated for the bodily door is bodily misconduct; non-transgression is bodily good conduct. The transgression of a precept designated for the verbal door is verbal misconduct; non-transgression is verbal good conduct. The transgression of a precept designated for both (body and speech) is mental misconduct, because there is no precept designated for the mental door. This should be understood in terms of an offense arising from non-action in the two doors. Non-transgression of the aforementioned offense is mental good conduct. This is the explanation by way of designation. However, the three volitions such as taking life, even when arisen at the verbal door, are bodily misconduct, because the action, even when arisen at another door, does not abandon its own name, and because of its predominant occurrence and frequent occurrence. Therefore, the Aṭṭhakathā teachers said: Actions move in the doors, not the doors moving the doers; Therefore, actions by the doors are mutually distinguished. Similarly, the four volitions such as false speech, even when arisen at the bodily door, are verbal misconduct. Covetousness, ill-will, and wrong view –