English
"Indeed, there is no dwelling within that village" — thus it is also written. "That too is appropriate in that context, not in reality" — thus it is also written. Explanation of the story of concealed parivāsa and so on. 108. "Mānatta should be undergone separately" means "without pulling back to the root, by a separate formal act" — thus it is also written. Because "saṅghādisesa offense" is said, it is one only. Saṅghādisesas incurred on a single matter are called mixed with thullaccaya and dukkaṭa. The quality of 'makkhadhammo' is the desire to conceal. 143. "Dhammatā" means by nature, by suchness. Like in "shamelessness" here. 148. In "two months should be undergone parivāsa starting from the former," "the days of parivāsa also count" — thus it is written. 184. "In that land" means in that land. He incurs many saṅghādisesa offenses, even a measure. etc., singular by class. The commentary on the Collection Section is finished. 4. Commentary on the Pacification Section Commentary on the Discourse on the Discipline of Presence 186-187. Wherever by the formal act 'this' or 'these' a rule of direct designation in presence is, all that act must be done in presence, not only the five kinds beginning with rebuke. But the showing by extracting of the five kinds themselves, in the section on formal acts, indeed, is because only that is included in the Pāli. It should be understood like the showing by extracting of only the four that appear in the pārājika section, when there are twenty-four pārājikas. There it is said: "The presence of a person is merely coming within arm's reach." That is the reason because even for what must be done in presence there is no rule of direct designation in presence. Indeed, this meaning is established in the section on formal acts itself by the very statement: "Monks, a formal act of rebuke endowed with three factors is an unlawful act... ...and is not done in presence." (Cūḷava. 4) But there, the offense is not shown. Here, "Whoever should do it, there is an offense of wrong-doing." It should be understood that this is begun for the purpose of showing the offense that should occur there. "Even what is settled by a semblance of the Discipline of Presence goes to the reckoning of being settled by the Discipline of Presence itself." To show this, it is said that "'the person who speaks unlawfully' etc. is begun." And it is written. Thus settled, it is called settled by a semblance of the Discipline of Presence, and not by the Discipline of Presence itself, nor by anything else. To show this, the teacher begins this. Commentary on the Discourse on the Discipline of Mindfulness 195. For Dabba, by the formal act, there is no direct designation in presence like "the Sangha (should do) this venerable Dabba." Nevertheless, by the statement "first Dabba should be requested," his being done in presence is established. Similarly, elsewhere also, the implication should be understood as far as possible. The discipline to be given to one who has attained fullness of mindfulness is the Discipline of Mindfulness. Commentary on the Discourse on the Discipline for the Undeluded 196-7. For which mad person there is no offense from this or that transgression, only for such a one... To give a decision for the innocent is fitting, thus it is written: “A decision to be made for the innocent is a decision for the innocent.” That is correct, according to the saying: “The Saṅgha gives a decision for the innocent to the bhikkhu Gaggā, who is innocent.” Regarding the statement: “There are these three, bhikkhus, unlawful givings of a decision for the innocent,” in its explanation, the phrase “I do not remember” refers to the time of transgression, as that explanation was given then. However, at the time of giving a decision for the innocent, his innocence must be ascertained. Description of the Story of Acknowledged Action 200. The reason for beginning with: “They perform actions for bhikkhus without their acknowledgment” has already been stated. An action performed with acknowledgment is an acknowledged action. Description of the Story of the Further Punishment 207. Beginning with: “The action of further punishment, bhikkhus, is endowed with three factors,” the Pāḷi text proceeds after showing five factors. It is written: “It should be understood that it proceeded by abbreviation.” The same applies to the bright half. Description of the Story of the Covering with Grass, etc. 214. If it is asked: “It is stated: ‘All should assemble together,’ and the giving of consent is prohibited. Also, in the commentary on the Pavāraṇā Khandhaka, it is said: ‘Indeed, at the time of making a divided Saṅgha harmonious, in the settlement of covering with grass, and in this collection of Pavāraṇā, in these three instances, it is not fitting to give consent.’ So, if one comes here and gives consent, and then sits in a monastery or such, this seems to contradict it?” For those who understand the intention, it does not seem to contradict. For this is the intention here: All who wish to be purified must assemble. There is no purification for one who does not assemble and gives consent. Only for those who assemble does that action succeed. In the commentary, the intention is that it is not fitting for those who wish to be purified to give consent. Otherwise, it would contradict the Pāḷi. For this Pāḷi statement: “Except for those who are not there,” indicates the presence of those who came to the assembly, gave consent, and remained. If it is said that it refers to those outside the boundary, except for those outside the boundary, What then? Therefore, if one gives consent and stands at the Uposatha of harmony, he stands in a place of diverse communion. For such a giver of consent, there is no inclusion in the Pavāraṇā. And he who does not come to the act of spreading grass, it should be known that he is not purified from those offenses. If this is not pleasing to someone, then the characteristic of the failure of the act, as stated in the Parivāra, from the assembly mentioned, is contradicted. For there it is said that if the consent of those who are merely worthy of consent is not brought, it is not done; otherwise, it is stated as indicating accomplishment. Similarly, the characteristic of being ready for the act is also contradicted. In these three instances, all are ready for the act; is there no one worthy of consent there? No, because in the division of acts like the four-group, the worthy of consent is included without distinction; that is stated generally. And this is a special characteristic. Therefore, even if there is a declaration of opinion, is this not a rejected act? No, because of the nature of diversity. For here, those who "declare their opinion to each other, saying, 'This is not agreeable to me'" (Cūḷavagga Commentary, 214) —by this saying, no declaration of opinion was made to the Sangha. When that is the case, it is indeed a rejected act. Otherwise, those preliminary motions would be meaningless, and no method is given in the Parivāra Commentary regarding those worthy of consent. In the Pavāraṇā Khandhaka Commentary, it is said, "It is not proper to give consent in three instances" (Mahāvagga Commentary, 241). Is this a contradiction? No, when the Commentary is authoritative, some say that everything is not contradicted if it is taken from the desire for purity in such sayings as "Here, having given consent, they sat in monasteries, etc." "Having come or having given consent, they sat in monasteries, etc., they do not rise from offenses"— this should not be said. Why? Because below, it is said, "All should assemble together," which is a statement prohibiting the giving of consent, and because it is stated in the Commentary, "It is not proper to give consent in three instances," and because it is stated likewise in the Andhaka Commentary. No, only together When a matter is being done here, if someone, having set forth a general motion saying, "May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me, our... [etc.] ...connected with laypeople," and then having set forth specific motions saying, "May the venerable ones hear me," and so on, and when a consensus of one party has been made saying, "May the Sangha, venerable sirs, hear me, our... [etc.] ...thus I hold this," if immediately thereafter someone gives their consent for some matter to be done and goes away, there is no emergence from offenses for him. For others also, who are within that one party and are absent from the act, this very meaning is stated. When the second motion has been set forth in a general way, if at that moment, while the motion-followed-by-resolution has not yet begun or has not yet concluded, some give their consent and go away, for them too there is no emergence. And for the phrase "those who are not there," the meaning to be understood is "those who are not there in the manner described." And to clarify the meaning of "as described," the commentary, instead of just saying "having given consent, they sat in the cloisters etc.," says, "but those who, having committed an offense with them, did not come there, or having come, gave consent and sat in the cloisters etc." Thus, the former is connected with the latter. And it is said that "the non-invalidation of the act is to be understood from the Pāli text by the visible action there." Explanation of the Discourse on Legal Questions 220. Dispute arising from thought. The word "dispute" also, by way of figurative cause, goes into the category of wholesome and so on. Referring to that, it is said, "a legal question is that which is to be settled by pacifications." Or, by the calming of the thought-arising which is the cause of dispute, there is also a calming of the sound of dispute; thus, the suitability of thought-arising for pacification by samathas becomes a synonym.