English
233), it is stated without distinction, "In showing the incapable persons, the paṇḍaka, the animal, and the hermaphrodite, these three are defective in their basis, having rootless rebirth; for them, heaven is not prevented, but the path is prevented." The commentary on the story of the paṇḍaka is finished. The commentary on the story of the thief-dweller 110. In the story of the thief-dweller, "kolaññā" means the mother's lineage and the father's lineage, the mother, father, and all relatives born therein. "Theyyasaṃvāsako" is one whose dwelling is by theft. And here, it is not merely the thief of dwelling that is intended, but rather the thief of the monastic insignia and of both (insignia and dwelling), thus it says, "There are three thief-dwellers," and so on. "Does not accept salutation according to seniority" means he does not accept salutation from monks or novices according to seniority. "Accepts salutation according to seniority" means having lied himself, he accepts salutation according to seniority, corresponding to the years he has shown. "Counting of monastic years," and so on, shows that here, dwelling is not merely a single act of ordination, and so on. "Rāja...pe... by fear" Here, the word "fear" should be connected individually, as in "by fear of the king, by fear of famine," and so on. "Does not endure the dwelling, as long as he is pure-minded." The meaning is that as long as he is pure-minded, he does not endure the dwelling, having taken the insignia due to fear of the king, and so on. For one who, without fear of the king, and so on, merely wishing to deceive monks and dwell with them, takes the insignia. ...he, by impure intention, by merely taking the robes, is called a thief-dweller. But this one, due to the absence of a desire to deceive monks with such an impure mind, as long as he does not accept the communion, is not called a thief-dweller. Therefore, it is said in all three commentaries: "For those who have taken the robes due to fear of kings and so on, even if there is a deceptive thought 'Let laypeople know me as a monk,' because there is no desire to deceive monks, no fault arises." Some, however, say: "Here, purity of mind is the cessation of fear." And if that is so, this meaning is understood: that one whose fear has ceased, as long as he does not accept the communion, is not a thief-dweller. And if this meaning is understood, it would follow that even if one whose fear has not ceased accepts the communion, he is not a thief-dweller. But in the commentaries, it is not shown that even if one whose fear has not ceased accepts the communion, he is not a thief-dweller. And by "Let them eat the food of all sects," it is shown that even one whose fear has not ceased should dwell without accepting the communion. Therefore, it is said in all three commentaries: "Since it is difficult for one who has come to the monastery and taken what belongs to the Sangha to avoid the communion, therefore, this was said: 'Let them eat the food of all sects.'" Therefore, it should be understood that here, purity of mind is merely having taken the robes due to fear of kings and so on. "Food of all sects" means food to be given after making it common to all adherents, and placing it in streets, crossroads, and so on. "To be carried by the body" means to be carried by the body. "They go forth" means they go towards. "By engaging in work" means by doing work like farming and cattle-herding. "He takes the bowl and robes and goes to the monastery" means he takes the robes for wearing and covering, and hanging the bowl on his shoulder, he goes to the monastery. "Nor does he himself know" means he does not know "Whoever ordains thus is called a thief-dweller," or "It is not allowed to do this," or "One ordained thus is not a monk." Whoever thus he goes forth, he is called a thief-dweller. This is just an example. By "in the state of not being fully ordained," it shows that even if he hears it when fully ordained and does not declare it, he is not a thief-dweller. Without renouncing the training... and so on... he is not a thief-dweller. This is said because, since the mark given by the bhikkhus has not been abandoned, he is not a mark-thief, nor is he a dwelling-thief, as he has accepted a dwelling suitable for the mark. The same reason should be seen in "a certain bhikkhu, with zeal for the saffron robe, wears white." In the cases of a novice remaining in his own mark, as mentioned later, this is the same principle for the non-thief-dweller side. The same principle applies to a bhikkhuni; this is explained by "for she too, desiring the state of a laywoman," and so on. "Any elder who has gone forth" is said with reference to a novice. "In large baskets, etc." indicates something belonging to a layperson. "A novice himself... and so on... he is not a thief-dweller." Although he is not a thief-dweller here, he still incurs a pārājika offense. The rest here is clear. The commentary on the story of the thief-dweller is finished. The commentary on the story of one who has gone over to the sectarians. In the story of one who has gone over to the sectarians, it is said that as soon as he takes on their mark, he becomes one who has gone over to the sectarians. This is stated on the basis that for one who has gone saying, "I will become a sectarian," by the mere taking of their mark, their doctrine is also considered to have been taken. However, some have said, "As soon as he takes on their mark, whether the doctrine has been taken or not, he becomes one who has gone over to the sectarians." This should not be accepted. For there is no other taking of doctrine for one who has gone saying, "I will become a sectarian," apart from accepting their mark. Indeed, by accepting the mark, he becomes one who has taken their doctrine. Therefore, it is said, "For the purpose of investigation, grass-garments, etc.... and so on... as long as he does not accept them, that doctrine protects him. As soon as he accepts them, he becomes one who has gone over to the sectarians." He goes naked to the ācīvakas' dwelling, at the entrance Dukkaṭa at the wrong door, Dukkaṭa is said on account of going with an impure mind, thinking, "I will be an Ājīvaka." Even on account of going naked, one is not freed from dukkaṭa. "Counting a false rainy season" means accepting cohabitation after counting a false rainy season. The explanation of the story of those who went over to other sects is finished. 111. The story of the animal is clear. Explanation of the stories of matricides, etc. 112. In the stories of matricides, etc., "apavāhana" means "going away," the meaning is "making amends." Just as the action of harming one of the same species is more serious, not so for one of a different species, therefore it is said, "being a human woman." The designation of mother and father is by relation to a child; the term "child" is also seen in the world in the sense of adopted, artificial, etc., but that is by implication. To show its direct establishment, it is said, "the birth-giving mother." Just as for one who is in the human state, wholesome qualities attain sharpness, purity, and heroism, as in the attainment of the three Bodhisattas' Buddhahood, so too for one who is in the human state, unwholesome qualities attain sharpness, purity, and heroism. Therefore, it is said, "by one who is also of human species." The result immediately after decease is called "anantara" (immediate). That which is appointed to that immediacy, that which by its production makes it immediate, or that which has an immediate purpose, is "ānantariya" (immediate karma). By that immediate karma, the matricide. In the case of parricide too, where the human father, the progenitor, being himself of human species, is intentionally deprived of life, this is parricide by immediate parricidal karma. Therefore, it is said, "In the case of parricide, the same method applies," meaning everything should be understood by this, etc. Even for one who has changed gender and deprives a mother or father of life, it is indeed an immediate karma. For even with a change of gender, that very stream of subconsciousness and stream of life faculty is produced by one single karma, not another. But if one, being human oneself, deprives an animal mother If one kills one's mother or father, or being an animal, kills a human, or being an animal, kills another animal, that karma is not an immediate retribution, but it is heavy. Immediate retribution stands by itself. Here, the fourfold case of the ram, the fourfold case of battle, and the fourfold case of the thief should be explained. Indeed, if a human, intending to kill a ram, kills their human mother or father who is in the place of the ram, they incur immediate retribution, because the object of immediate retribution has been violated with the intention to kill. But if, with the intention of a ram, or with the intention of a mother or father, one kills a ram, one does not incur immediate retribution, because there is no object of immediate retribution. If, with the intention of a mother or father, one kills a mother or father, one certainly incurs it. This is the method in the other two fourfold cases as well. And just as with mothers and fathers, so too with Arahants, these fourfold cases should be understood. In all cases, the prior intention-mind is immeasurable, but the killer-mind at that time, and the life faculty, are the measure for immediate or non-immediate retribution. One who has committed an immediate retribution karma, even if they were to fill the entire cosmos with golden stupas the size of great stupas, saying, "I will avert the result of that karma," even if they were to give great alms to the assembly of monks filling the entire cosmos, even if they were to wander about without letting go of the hem of the Buddha's robe, upon the breaking up of the body, they are reborn in hell itself,