English
"Only the Tathāgata will know the time there." "By that time/occasion" means due to that time/occasion as a cause. Just as (in the examples) "He dwells by food," "He dwells by knowledge," meaning, "He dwells for the purpose of obtaining food or knowledge." Thus, when "He dwells by that time/occasion" is said, the third case should be seen in the sense of cause. Therefore, it is said that, observing the occasion for the promulgation of the training rule and the transgression, he dwelt here and there. In the Third Pārājika and so on, (the second case should be seen) in passages like, "I wish, monks, for half a month, to seclude myself" (Pārā. 162). Therefore, the second case is possible here, as the second case indicates continuous connection in time, just as in "He studies for a month," "He studies for a day." But here, where the meaning of cause and the meaning of instrument are possible, for which instrumental word the meaning of cause is possible, by that occasion, being a cause, the Blessed One, observing that particular transgression of an object, or that occasion of transgression, and the cause for the promulgation of the training rule, dwelt here and there. For which the meaning of instrument is possible, by that occasion, being an instrument, the Blessed One, having arrived, promulgating the training rules, dwelt here and there — this is the intention. But in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said, "The transgression of Sudinna and others is indeed the cause, but the fixed time for it is the instrument, because the training rule must be promulgated without exceeding that time." That is faultless. But what is said, "This instrument, though it should be said first due to its prior nature, is said later," Indeed, that is ill-stated. For from the meaning of cause, just as the meaning of instrument, when applied later, goes in due order to connection, and so it is applied. But that which the commentator, having first applied this meaning of instrument spoken later, and applied the meaning of cause spoken first, later, that is to be understood as for ease of application, so it is written by the teacher. From this point onwards, wherever it is said "written by the teacher" or "the teacher's reasoning", there the teacher is to be taken as Ānandācariya, resident of Kalasapura. Here it is said – just as in the Suttanta, "at one time the Blessed One" is said, so "at that time the Blessed One in Verañjā" should be said. If the elder wishes to speak with synonyms, "Tathāgata, Sugata," etc., should also be said. So if there is any purpose in taking just these two words, should that be stated? It is said – for some, not knowing the exceedingly profound course of the Buddha's intention, seeing such Vinaya passages as: "seeing no fault in an unpromulgated training rule... etc. ...made known" (Pārā. 36), and "then the Blessed One questioned Venerable Sudinna" (Pārā. 39), and "Did you consent, monk? I did not consent, Blessed One" (Pārā. 72), and likewise, having questioned a monk experienced in ancient customs, the promulgation of the second Pārājika according to the definition stated by him, and the permission for Devadatta's ordination, and so on, seeing such Vinaya passages, doubt might arise concerning the Buddha's perfect enlightenment. And relying on Vinaya passages connected with harsh words such as: "and what is it to you, you wretch, you spittle-eater?" (Cūḷava. 336), doubt might arise concerning the state of an Arahant. It is to be understood that to dispel both these doubts, Venerable Upāli Thera made this very selection of two words everywhere. By this, he reveals – indeed, because of being enlightened to all knowable things, he is the Buddha; and because of having broken all defilements, he is the Blessed One. He is the Teacher. Elsewhere it is also said, "j The Tathāgatas, infinite in number, ask… …for the Tathāgatas, a bridge-breaking is that which is not conducive to welfare. And in the Suttanta it is said: “With the gentle, Kesi, I train, and with the harsh too,” and so on. In “because of an uncommon cause,” here, wholesome roots are never roots of unwholesome things, and likewise unwholesome roots are not roots of wholesome things, and indeterminate roots are never roots of wholesome things—only this method is accepted. Since wholesome causes are a condition for the rūpas arisen from them by way of the cause-condition, therefore the method “wholesome things are only for wholesome things” and so on is not accepted. “Pucimaṇḍo” is said of leprosy, because he weakens and destroys them. In “devotion to accomplishing the welfare and happiness of beings,” here, to show the generally mentioned beings divided into two, it is said “abundant in benefiting humans,” and so on. “For the welfare of the many” means for the welfare of the many people. For the Blessed One, by virtue of his wisdom, is an instructor in welfare for this life and for the next. “For happiness” means for the sake of happiness. For he, by virtue of his generosity, is a bestower of helpful happiness. By virtue of his loving-kindness and compassion, he is like parents, out of sympathy for the world. For he is the protector and guardian of the world. In “of devas and humans,” here, taking only the capable individuals, the trainable beings, he shows his own arising for their attainment of the path and fruit of Nibbāna. When it is said “for the sake of,” it means for the ultimate goal, for Nibbāna. When it is said “for welfare,” it means for the path leading to that, for there is no welfare beyond the path. “For happiness” means for the happiness of fruit-attainment, there being no happiness beyond that. In “by the aggregate of view and virtue,” here, not taking concentration and wisdom, the mere taking of view and virtue is because they are common to all trainees and non-trainees. In the Kosambaka Sutta too it is said: “He dwells endowed with common virtue, he dwells endowed with common view.” If it is said that wisdom is also included by the taking of view? No, because it would lead to the consequence of stream-enterers and others also having fully accomplished wisdom. Therefore, though they have a single characteristic, their wisdom There is a distinction of states among views, like that of the faculty of steadfastness, concentration, and right concentration. Here, "He knew" means known through the ear-door, for things are called "heard," as in "This has been heard, Venerable Gotama, evil practices are seen and heard," and so on. Or in the sense of emphasis, as in "Indeed, Upāli, a monk splits the Sangha," and so on. Existing in Verañjā. Of one who is such, of one who has become thus. Of one who has become how? Of the Sakya son who has gone forth from the Sakya clan, having become thus and remaining, the sound of fame has arisen. This means these are words of usage in conjunction with the prefix "abhi-". They say that by this statement, "One cultivates loving-kindness due to clinging to sensual pleasures, and is reborn in the Brahma-world," the view of those who assert that one is reborn only in the sense-sphere existence, having performed kamma due to clinging to sensual pleasures, is rejected. Having heard "sensual pleasures are refined in the Brahma-world," or having imagined afterwards "I will experience prosperity there," one makes it conducive to that due to clinging to sensual pleasures. Thus, even in the Brahma-world, there are sensual pleasures in the sense of being desirable. And they say, "craving is called clinging to sensual pleasures because it has that as its object." This should be investigated. And kamma is the generative cause of the eye. The root cause of kamma is craving. Therefore, the root cause is not the generative cause. Craving for form and so on is the truth of suffering, because it is included in the aggregates, and by the saying "whatever one desires and does not obtain, that too is suffering." "It is the producer by being its root cause" should be construed as "it is the producer of this fivefold aggregate, which is its cause." By the saying "From the arising of defilements, there is the arising of ignorance," it is proper to say that it is also a cause of that very thing. Moreover, by the saying "like form and so on, craving is also a place for the arising and abandoning of craving," craving is also made the truth of suffering, like form and so on. For it has been said, "Craving for form in the world is a dear form, a delightful form; here, this craving, when arising, arises," and "e". that craving, being abandoned, is abandoned.” In the Visuddhimagga, it is said: “The five aggregates of clinging, in all aspects, are suffering and a noble truth, except for craving.” If it is said that the statement here, that craving for form and so on is the truth of suffering, contradicts this, then the answer is no. It is stated in various places to show them as not intermingling with each other. If craving were not included in the aggregates of clinging, then in the Saccavibhaṅga, where it says: “Therein, what are the five aggregates of clinging in brief, which are suffering? Namely, the aggregate of clinging to form… …the aggregate of clinging to consciousness,” it would have to be said: “the aggregate of clinging to formations, excluding craving.” But it is not said. Therefore, if it is said that craving is included in the truth of suffering, then the answer is no. Because it would lead to the fault of intermingling cause and effect. If it is said that there is no fault of intermingling, then in the Saccavibhaṅga Pāḷi, the truth of origin is defined in five ways. How? Craving is one way. Craving and the remaining defilements is the second. Craving and the remaining defilements and the remaining unwholesome states is the third. Craving and the remaining defilements and the remaining unwholesome states and the three wholesome roots with taints is the fourth. Craving and the remaining defilements