English
Maccharī means endowed with avarice regarding dwellings and so forth. Saṭho means deceitful. Māyāvī means one who conceals evil deeds. Pāpiccho means one with evil wishes, one who desires what is not possible, one who is immoral. Micchādiṭṭhī means a nihilist, an ahetukavādī (one who denies cause), an akiriyavādī (one who denies action). Sandiṭṭhiparāmāsī means one who clings to and grasps only what one has seen oneself. Ādhānaggāhī means one who holds firmly. Duppaṭinissaggī means one cannot be made to give up what has been grasped. Here, "is wrathful, is resentful" and so forth, shows that unwholesome states like wrath and resentment are roots of disputes, in the sense of being based on individuals. Similarly, "they dispute with corrupted minds" and so forth, shows greed, hatred, and delusion. And "they dispute with uncorrupted minds" and so forth, shows non-greed and so forth are roots of disputes. 217. Dubbaṇṇo means ill-complexioned, like a dust-demon or a burnt stump. Duddassiko means unpleasant to look at even for a mother who has given birth. Okoṭimako means hunchbacked. Kāṇo means one-eyed or blind in both eyes. Kuṇī means one-handed or without both hands. Khañjo means lame in one leg or lame in both legs. Pakkhahato means paralyzed on one side, a cripple. 220. "Is a dispute-case wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate?" It asks whether a dispute-case is wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate. "A dispute-case may be wholesome" and so forth, is the answer. The same method applies to the rest. "They dispute by this" means a dispute, so it says "the mind-state by which they dispute is a dispute." How then is that mind-state called a "case"? It says, "it is a case because it is to be settled by pacifications." It means it is a case because it is to be met with pacifications. For the mind-state that is the cause of dispute By the calming of the arising [of thought], there is also a calming of the sound arising from it. Thus, by the pacification of the arising of thought, the occasion for a dispute becomes possible. 222. "A dispute concerning an offense may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate"— this distinction is stated only with reference to a blameworthy precept, not a worldly offense. To show this, he said, "by way of intentional speech," and so on. Why here should the meaning be understood by way of intentional speech? He said, "Because in that..." and so on. In "digging the earth, etc.," here, by the word "etc.," the disciplinary offense of destroying plant life, etc., is included. Whoever, due to lack of knowledge of the Vinaya, by way of practice, with a broom, etc., performs actions like digging the earth, etc., then, with reference to the thought that arose in him, it is said, "a wholesome thought is a factor." And that it is a factor, even for one doing it by way of practice, by "I am digging this earth," etc., because it proceeds by way of knowing the transgression, that wholesome thought is a dispute concerning an offense. The meaning is that a wholesome thought is the cause of the offense. For one who does not know the transgression, an offense in digging the earth, etc., does not arise. "When that exists" means "when that wholesome thought is taken as an offense"—this is the intention. Therefore, because when a wholesome thought is taken as an offense, it cannot be said, "there is no wholesome dispute concerning an offense," therefore. This is not said with reference to a thought that is a mere factor. The statement "A dispute concerning an offense may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate; there is no wholesome dispute concerning an offense"— this is not said with reference to a thought that is a mere factor, a cause of offense, in the sense of giving rise to an offense. But with reference to what is it said? He said, "But this..." and so on. When a monk is lying down with a meditation-focused mind, or sleeping, if a woman arranges to lie down (with him), at that moment, the offense is merely the form of lying down that occurs, not a thought proceeding by way of wholesome, etc. He said, "For one who commits an offense unintentionally... etc.... by way of lying down together, it is indeterminate (Pari. 323, similar in meaning)." For in that [case]... When something to be done has arisen, from not doing it, the aggregate of form that occurs in that way is indeed an offense. "One who commits an offense, commits it with a wholesome mind, or with an unwholesome or indeterminate mind." If it is asked: "Could even a wholesome mind be the basis of an offense?" No. For it is said, one who commits an offense, is endowed with one of the three minds, not otherwise. To show this, "with a wholesome mind" and so on was stated. The meaning here is this: In digging the earth and such, at the moment of wholesome mind, due to the arising of form by way of transgression and so on, one with a wholesome mind commits an indeterminate offense, reckoned as form occurring in that way. Similarly, one with an indeterminate mind commits an indeterminate offense, reckoned as indeterminate form. One with an unwholesome mind commits an unwholesome offense like killing living beings. But here, form is not spoken of. And in a dream, one who kills living beings and so on, committing an offense that should be committed by way of cohabitation and so on, with an unwholesome mind, commits an indeterminate offense. One might commit with a wholesome mind: For example, one who takes sheep's wool, and crosses three yojanas with attention to a meditation object, not knowing the rule; or one who recites the Dhamma word by word. Such a one might commit an offense with a wholesome mind. But even if a wholesome mind is present there, it is not a factor of the offense. Even if a wholesome mind is present in that, it is not a factor of the offense. The meaning is: it is not an offense itself. "Of movements and occurrences" means of movements and occurrences. The body is moved. Speech occurs. "Just one factor" means just one of body or speech is the offense. And because it is included in the aggregate of form, it is indeterminate. By this, it shows that the basis of the offense is indeterminate, not otherwise. If so, by the saying: "For one who has committed an offense, monks, I declare either hell or the animal realm." Would even an indeterminate (offense) incur a karmic result? It would not incur. For offenses committed unintentionally, as long as one does not know, they are not obstructive. But if one knows and conceals them, due to the concealment, another offense reckoned as a wrongdoing arises... When a non-wholesome offense-case arises, and because of its non-wholesome nature, it obstructs heaven and liberation, thus, the offender's going to a lower realm is stated. But an indeterminate offense-case is indeed a non-resultant phenomenon; this conclusion should be reached here. Therefore, even in ancient commentaries, having shown four types of individuals: the ordinary person, the virtuous ordinary person, the trainee, and the Arahant, among them, the Arahant's offense-case is indeterminate. Likewise for trainees. Likewise for the virtuous ordinary person, when transgressing unintentionally, it is indeterminate. For the other (ordinary person), it can be non-wholesome, and it can be indeterminate. And because when he transgresses intentionally, it is only non-wholesome, therefore it is said: "There is no wholesome offense-case." "Everywhere, 'indeterminate' thus, is said with reference to the mere absence of result," it is written. And that offense-case which is non-wholesome, even if confessed or risen from, it is not an obstruction. Just as an action of slandering noble ones, though non-wholesome, by confessing the fault and asking for forgiveness, due to the obstruction of the completeness of the effort, becomes a non-resultant phenomenon, a "nullified action," similarly, this (offense-case), when confessed or risen from, due to the obstruction of the completeness of the effort, by becoming a non-resultant phenomenon, a "nullified action," becomes non-obstructive. Therefore, "For the offender, monks, I declare either hell or the animal realm," thus, the going to a lower realm is stated only for the offender. Explanation of the Methods for Settling Disputes. 228. In the matter called dispute, the adversaries are the opponents in the matter. 229. In the presence-discipline, meaning, in the state of presence-discipline. 230. By means of, meaning, by reason of. 231. For a complaint in a formal act (ubbāhikā), a pācittiya is not stated, because there is no giving of consent there. 236. "Tassa kho" here, "kho" is merely a particle. 238. In the books, they write: "And what is the Tassapāpiyasikā there?" But here, the reading should be understood as: "And what is the Tassapāpiyasikā?" 242. "A business-case is settled by one method," here, "a business-case is indeed a business." (pārā. aṭṭha. 2.385-86) This is a designation for acts of announcement and so on. It is not to be settled by means of pacifications, like disputes and so on, but it is accomplished by means of face-to-face settlement. Therefore, in "sammati" (agreement), the meaning "is accomplished" should be taken. The rest here is easily understood. The commentary on the Section on Pacifications is finished. 5. The Section on Minor Matters The commentary on the Discourse on Minor Matters 243. In the Section on Minor Matters, "in the manner of an eight-square board" means in the manner of an eight-square gaming board; it is said to be like a dice board. "In the manner of a spittle-ball root" means in the manner of a spittle-ball root. 245. "Of dangling ornaments and so on" the word "and so on" includes earrings and so on. "Dangling thread" means a dangling thread in the manner of a sacred thread. 246. "With mud" means with slime. 248. "Well-sung" means a song connected with impermanence and so on. 249. "With a square utterance" means