English
Even in the dispute mentioned as "wholesome thoughts dispute," it is said to be "a designation by way of opposition," and it should be understood that it is not by way of the reason of the stated word. 222. If it is said, "Is it possible that one who commits an offense is also wholesome-minded, according to the saying 'one who commits an offense is wholesome-minded'?" That is not said with reference to an offense-legal question, but to one who commits an offense... Indeed, he, being endowed with one of these three states of mind, incurs (an offense). To show this, it is said, "that which one incurs with a wholesome mind," and so on. If someone were to say, "the offense-matter is merely a designation," then even its unwholesome nature, etc., would not be fitting for the offense-matter, just like dispute-matters, etc., would it? No, because of the possibility of contradiction with "there is no wholesome offense-matter." But in the sub-commentary, "offense-matter" is a designation for the unwholesome mind-arisings and form-aggregates that thus occur. In the remaining wholesome, indeterminate designations, by the statement "offense-matter may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate," the nature of being a designation itself is refuted, because it is not included in the wholesome triad. By the very refutation of the wholesome, because of having the same course as it, the refutation of functional-indeterminate (minds) should also be understood. Because of following the functional-indeterminate, the refutation of resultant-indeterminate (minds) is also made. Nevertheless, due to the commonality of being indeterminate, it should be understood that it is a designation for resultant and functional indeterminate (minds) along with the form aggregate. In that context, "a wholesome mind is a factor" is said in the Vinaya with reference to one not fully knowledgeable, when there is, for example, the act of making green (plants) scarce. Therefore, since it is not possible to say "there is no wholesome offense-matter," therefore, the meaning is that a wholesome mind is not a factor. If so, why is it said "three minds, three feelings"? To show that, some begin with "this is not," and so on. The mind that gives rise to an offense is called the mind capable of being a factor. "Absolutely" means "mostly," otherwise, it would contradict. Why? Because it is said, "for whom, in the case of intentional acts, the mind is only unwholesome," they say. What then? There is no result. Why? Because it is absolutely unwholesome. Therefore, there is no discussion there. But where it exists, showing that, he says, "but that which is a fault of designation," and so on. But for one who does not intend anything, not knowing... ...it is indeterminate, in the monk's practice. When lying down with a distracted mind, Or while sleeping, If a woman arranges a bed, For that bhikkhu, Even an existing wholesome mind Is not a factor of the offense. Therefore, at that moment, Only the form existing as a bed Is called the basis of the offense. Even when the life-continuum mind exists, The same method applies. Indeed at that moment, When it is time to get up, From not getting up, Only the aggregate of form is the offense, Not together with its result. But if one were to say, For one speaking thus, For those without mind, A wholesome mind would incur (an offense). What is said? Taking a sheep's wool, With attention to a meditation object, For one passing three yojanas, Not knowing the rule, And for one reciting the Dhamma word by word, By an offense to be incurred, A wholesome mind would incur (an offense). If it is said, "Does it incur?" It does not incur. Why? From the saying, "There is no wholesome basis of offense." The body moved, The speech uttered, Only one of these is a factor, And only one of these is an offense, is the meaning. Merely by designation, Because the state of unwholesomeness, etc., is not possible, The state of being an offense is not fitting. One incurring an offense, Being endowed with one of the three (minds), In order to show that one incurs (an offense), "When one has a wholesome mind," etc., is said. Its meaning is: In digging the earth, etc., At the moment of a wholesome mind, By way of transgression, Because of the arising of existing form, One with a wholesome mind Incurs an indeterminate offense. Similarly, one with an indeterminate mind, Which is reckoned as indeterminate form, Incurs an indeterminate offense. In killing living beings, etc., Or one with an unwholesome mind, Incurs an unwholesome offense. Here, form is not to be spoken of. In the time of dreaming, etc., Doing killing, etc., By way of lying together, etc., Incurring an offense to be incurred, One with an unwholesome mind Is to be understood as incurring an indeterminate offense. This is called The basis of offense as unwholesome: The arising of an unwholesome mind. But in the ancient commentaries, "Ordinary person, noble ordinary person, trainee, Arahant" Having shown these four persons, Among them, for an Arahant, The basis of offense is only indeterminate. Similarly for trainees, Similarly for a noble ordinary person At the time of unintentional transgression. is indeterminate only. For the other, it is unwholesome and also indeterminate. And because for him, at the time of intentional transgression, it is only unwholesome, therefore it is said, 'There is no wholesome offense-case.' Everywhere it is written that 'indeterminate' refers only to the absence of its result, and thus it is so named, it should be considered and understood. 224. A dispute is a dispute-case: Is every dispute called a dispute-case? This is one question. "A dispute is a case: it asks whether a dispute-case is just a dispute and a case. It is said in the ancient commentary that it asks whether both are just a dispute-case." In some books, this question is not present. If so, then there should not be this: a dispute is a dispute-case, a dispute-case is a dispute, a dispute-case is both a dispute and a case— there should be five questions. In some books, there are three; in some, four; five are not present. There, two are distinguished. In the others, a case is a dispute: it asks whether any case goes by the designation of a dispute; a dispute is a case: it asks whether every dispute goes by the designation of a case. This method applies everywhere. 228. "In the presence-discipline" means in the state of presence-discipline. 230. It is written, "By means of" means "by reason of." 233. For one who complains about the Ubbāhikā, a pācittiya offense is not stated, because there is no giving of consent there. 236. "This indeed is that" means "this is," as in "this is the foremost." 238. "And what is his worse conduct?" is indeed the reading. 242. By the saying, "An act is an act-case," this is a designation for acts like the act of announcement. It is not to be settled by pacifications like dispute-cases, etc., but rather it is accomplished by the presence-discipline, so is the meaning. The commentary on the Chapter on Pacifications is finished. 5. Commentary on the Chapter on Minor Matters Commentary on the Discourse on Minor Matters 244. An act to be done by many individuals is a collective act. It is written: "Earrings and the like, such as pearl pendants, that come out of the ear." The Pāli reading is "bracelet." The teacher mentioned "bracelets and the like." It is written: "A good chant is a chant sung in a place of complete Nibbāna." For those who wish to sing a tooth-chant, a speech-act is necessary. To explain the tooth-chant, he said "what we shall sing" and so on. A square-verse is a four-footed verse. It is written: "Wave-verses and the like, methods of recitation, are dramatic performances." External hair is a neuter noun, meaning that just as the hairs of that woollen cloak are seen outside, so it is said to be a minor offence for one who wears it. "By Virūpakkhā" and so on is a word indicating association. Sarabū is a house lizard. It is said to be white and poisonous. The connection is: "I, to whom these are friendly, I pay homage to the Blessed One." In another... etc. ...to be cut off is in the latent tendency of lust. "Having risen" means having thrown. "Let it descend" means "let him descend by psychic power and take it." Anupariyāyī means "wandered around." "They are not touched" means "they do not stick." "Filled with forms" means "mixed with female forms and the like." "Of verandah-ledges and the like" means "of prominent ledges and the like." Here, regarding "having turned it over, right there," it is written: "having turned it over, it stands on the ledge for the third time." Paribhaṇḍa is called a thin ledge made outside the house for the stability of the wall-base. Here it is written: "Because of the fear of breaking the bowl by turning it over, it is permissible to place it in a place where it is not present." A bowl-stand is made by enclosing it with bricks or the like, either round or square, to prevent bowls from falling, and covered with a small roof. It is also written: "A bowl-mat, a bowl-basket, made from palm leaves and the like." It is permissible to place it on ledges as supports, because it is said for the purpose of holding bowls. It is not permissible even on a bed as a support, because it is forbidden due to its use for sitting. Because it is close to the ground, it is permissible to hang it. On the shoulder-peak l "By the word 'aggetvā'," some say, "it is not proper to attach it to the hand and place it on the lap." This is not good. "Not only of him whose bowl," etc. If there is a perception of difference in the bowl held by hand, how much more so with another body part, it is said. But in Pāli, it is said according to common usage. A pot-bowl is a bowl made of a pot-sherd. "The bowl of a dead head" is said according to the usage like "the body of a stone-child," "a stream of milk."