English
That too is not fitting. Why? Because of the absence of logical consistency. Some recite this word as "anusāvetaṃ," some as "anusāvetaṃ," both of which indicate the past tense, not the future. If this were its meaning, it would say "anusāvitaṃ hessatī" (it will be announced). Thus, it is not fitting due to the absence of meaning. And if this were said with reference to the statement at the end of the recitation, for one who generates the thought "I will not reveal," even if the introduction is completed, the spoken falsehood would not arise. Why? Because of the statement "when announced for the third time" (Mahāva. 134), this word "yāvatatiyaṃ" would be meaningless. Why? Because there is no three-time announcement in the introduction and recitation. Thus, due to the absence of logical consistency, that too is not fitting. But "yāvatatiyaṃ anusāvitaṃ hoti" (it is announced for the third time) is merely a characteristic statement. By this, it shows this meaning: This Pātimokkha is announced for the third time. When it is being announced for the third time, whoever, remembering, does not reveal an existing offense, for him, a conscious falsehood arises at the end of the three-time announcement. To show how this is announced, how it is called "announced for the third time," "I ask the venerable ones about that" and so on, is said. But this appears at the end of the Pārājikas and so on, not at the end of the introduction. Although it does not appear, yet at the time of recitation, having said "for it is easy for him who reveals," "Venerable ones, the introduction has been recited. About that, I ask the venerable ones," and so on. Therefore, it must be declared. For thus the cause is well-stated; otherwise, it is ill-stated. And with reference to this very meaning, it is said in the Uposatha-khandhaka: "It is announced up to the third time" means "it is announced once, it is announced a second time, it is announced a third time." (Mahāva. 134). This is the decision handed down by the tradition of teachers here. But if a bhikkhu… (etc.)… is guilty of intentional false speech, he has intentional false speech, and thereby he incurs an offense of wrong-doing. And that, however, is not by the characteristic of false speech, but by this word of the Blessed One: "What happens in intentional false speech? A wrong-doing happens." (Mahāva. 135). It should be understood that it is an offense arising from non-action through the door of speech. And this too has been said: "Not speaking with any person, Nor should one utter words to others; One would incur a verbal (offense), not a bodily one, This problem has been considered by the skillful." (Pari. 479). "Hindrance" means that by being a cause for remorse, it prevents the arising of joy, etc., and thus creates an obstacle to the attainment of the first jhāna and so forth. Therefore, because this intentional false speech, which is called non-disclosure, is a hindrance, therefore (it should be disclosed). "By one who remembers" means by one who knows the offense existing in oneself. "By one desiring purity" means by one wishing to rise up (from the offense), wishing to be purified. "An existing offense" means an offense that has been committed and not yet risen from. "Must be disclosed" means it must be declared in the midst of the Saṅgha, or in the midst of a group, or to a single person. Even to the bhikkhu next to one, one should say: "Friend, I have committed such-and-such an offense; having risen from this, I will rectify that offense." (Mahāva. 170). Even if one is in doubt, one should say: "Friend, I am in doubt about such-and-such an offense; when I am free from doubt, then I will rectify that offense." (Mahāva. 169). In "For to him, disclosed, it is comfortable," "disclosed" means by disclosure, by declaration. For just as in "without shame" and so forth (Pari. 295), this too is an instrumental case in the sense of "by means of." "Hī" is merely a particle. "Assa" means "for this monk." "Phāsu hoti" means "it is comfortable" for the attainment of the first jhāna and so on. It means that a pleasant practice is achieved through joy and so on, which have non-remorse as their root. Thus, in the commentary on the Pātimokkha, called "Dispelling Doubt," the explanation of the Introduction is finished. The Pārājika Section Now, this Pārājika section, which follows the introduction, beginning with "therein these four," "therein" refers to the Pātimokkha thus spoken, "I shall recite the Pātimokkha." "Ime" is an indication of what is now to be said. "Cattāro" is a numerical definition. "Pārājika" means "so-named." "Dhammā" means "offences." "Come to recitation" means they come to be recited in their specific form, not merely by a general statement like "if there should be an offence" as in the introduction. 1. Explanation of the First Pārājika "Yo pana" means any person, by gender and other distinctions, such as short or long. "Bhikkhu" means one who has received ordination through the ñatti-catuttha kamma (a formal motion followed by three announcements), which is unshakeable and worthy of being established, among these eight types of ordination: "Come, monk" ordination, refuge-taking ordination, acceptance-of-admonition ordination, answer-to-questions ordination, acceptance-of-the-eight-heavy-rules ordination, ordination by messenger, eight-utterance ordination, and ñatti-catuttha kamma ordination. The unshakeability of that kamma should be understood in terms of the object, the ñatti (motion), the anusāvana (announcements), the sīmā (boundary), and the completeness of the assembly. Therein, "object" refers to the person seeking ordination, who should be understood as excluding one under twenty years of age, one who has previously committed a final offence, and the eleven types of incapable persons such as eunuchs. Therein, "one under twenty years of age" means one who has not completed twenty years since conception. "One who has previously committed a final offence" means one who has previously committed any one of the four pārājika offences. Eunuchs and so on are mentioned in the discourse on persons to be avoided. Among these, excluding the "sprinkled eunuch" and the "envious eunuch," the "accidentally-made eunuch," the "neuter eunuch," and the "eunuch who is in the state of being a eunuch" (pakkhapaṇḍaka) are intended here. . A thief-dweller, however, is of three kinds: one who steals the mark, one who steals the dwelling, and one who steals both. Among these, whoever has himself gone forth and does not count the years as a bhikkhu, does not accept salutations from bhikkhus or novices according to seniority, does not refuse a seat, does not participate in Uposatha and so on, this one, due to an impure mind, having stolen only the mark, is called a thief of the mark. But whoever, having gone forth by bhikkhus, being a novice, removes the saffron robes, and with zeal for them, engages in sexual intercourse, then puts them on again and claims to be a novice, this one, because the mark given by bhikkhus has not been abandoned, is not a thief of the mark, nor, because he does not accept a dwelling suitable for the mark, is he a thief of the dwelling. The same method applies to one who has fallen into the last offense. And whoever, being a novice, goes to a foreign land and counts the years as a bhikkhu, accepts salutations according to seniority, refuses a seat, participates in Uposatha and so on, this one, having stolen only the dwelling, is called a thief of the dwelling. For all the various actions like counting bhikkhu years are to be understood as "dwelling" in this context. The same method applies to one who, having renounced the training, then acts in this way again, thinking "no one knows me." But whoever, having himself gone forth, goes to a monastery and accepts salutations according to seniority, refuses a seat, counts the years as a bhikkhu, participates in Uposatha and so on, this one, having stolen both the mark and the dwelling, is called a thief of both. The same method applies to one who, having laid down the burden, removes the saffron robes, falls into the last offense, then puts them on again and acts in this way. These three kinds of thief-dwellers are intended here. However, apart from these three kinds: "Whoever here takes up the mark due to fear of kings, famine, wilderness, sickness, or enemies, or for the sake of obtaining robes, "He does not accept the dwelling, as long as his mind is pure; He is not called a thief-dweller as long as that is the case." A fully ordained one, desiring to be a sectarian, either himself takes up the sectarian marks like grass-garments, or goes forth with them, or being naked, goes to the Ājīvakas and takes up their vows— this one is called a sectarian apostate. Excluding human beings, all others are called animal-born. One by whom a human mother, being himself a human, is intentionally deprived of life— this one is called a matricide. The same method applies to a parricide. One by whom even a human Arahant, who has eradicated defilements, though in lay attire, is intentionally deprived of life— this one is called an Arahant-slayer. One who defiles a normal bhikkhunī in one of the three paths— this one is called a bhikkhunī-defiler. One who, like Devadatta, having made the Dispensation unlawful and undisciplined, splits the Saṅgha by one of the four acts— this one is called a Saṅgha-splitter. One who, like Devadatta, with a malicious mind, a murderous mind, causes even a tiny drop of blood, as much as a small fly would drink, to appear on the living body of the Tathāgata— this one is called a blood-producer. One who has both kinds of marks, from the act of producing female marks and from the act of producing male marks— this one is called an hermaphrodite. Thus, these thirteen individuals are not fit for ordination. But excluding these, if there is another who seeks ordination, the ordination act