English
Asking, "Is it possible for all modes of settlement, being in harmony, to settle one case?" (He) said, "The modes of settlement are common to the mode of settlement." The modes of settlement may be common to the mode of settlement, or they may be uncommon. 300. The same method applies to the case of modes of settlement belonging to that part of the mode of settlement. 301. These modes of settlement are modes of settlement, not settlement in the presence – this is the meaning. 302. It is also said, "The modes of settlement are discipline." Therefore, the section on discipline might be extracted as "discipline is settlement in the presence." "Not settlement in the presence" means the remaining modes of settlement, such as settlement by mindfulness, excluding settlement in the presence. 303. When acknowledged in the presence of the Saṅgha, that acknowledgment is called the presence of the Saṅgha. They say, "Referring to that mind of acknowledgment, it is said, 'Settlement in the presence is wholesome,' and so on." "There is no unwholesome settlement in the presence" – "Settlement in the presence is threefold, with the presence of Dhamma, Vinaya, and individuals; without these, it does not exist." "There, when done with wholesome thoughts, it is wholesome." "When done by Arahants, it is indeterminate." "Since these are opposed to unwholesome, there is no possibility of unwholesome." "Therefore, it is written, 'There is no unwholesome settlement in the presence.'" "The decision by majority, when settling with those who speak against the Dhamma, is wholesome when the vote-taker is a speaker of Dhamma." "Even for speakers of Dhamma, if the vote-taker is a speaker against the Dhamma, it is unwholesome." "Everywhere, by the power of an Arahant, it is indeterminate." "For one who is not an Arahant, if settlement by mindfulness is given intentionally, settlement by mindfulness is unwholesome." "Settlement for an undeluded person, when given to one who is not insane (is unwholesome)." "Settlement by acknowledgment, when done by one who is deluded and does not know, by way of acknowledgment (is unwholesome)." "Settlement for greater depravity, when done for an innocent person (is unwholesome)." "Settlement by covering with grass, in a great dispute, when done intentionally, is also unwholesome" – it is written. Description of the section on "where" and the section on "question." 304. The question is: Is it obtained? Explanation of the Chapter on Pacification 305. The explanation of "at the time when by direct confrontation, etc." is as follows: At the time when a dispute is settled by direct confrontation and by the decision of the majority, at that time, wherever the decision of the majority is obtained, there direct confrontation is obtained. Thus is the connection everywhere. Where the admission of guilt is obtained, there direct confrontation is obtained. Here, a monk who has committed one, two, or many offenses, when asked, "You have committed such and such an offense?" replies, "Yes," admitting the offense. Both are obtained. In the direct confrontation thus stated, which is the presence of the Sangha, the Dhamma, the Vinaya, and the individual: if it is admitted and done in the presence of the Sangha, it is the presence of the Sangha. If it is confessed right there, it is also obtained by the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya. If they admit to each other without disputing, it is the presence of the individual. If it is confessed in his presence, it is also obtained by the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya. Or, when one person confesses an offense in the presence of another, and it is said, "Do you see? I see," then direct confrontation, characterized by the presence of the Dhamma, Vinaya, and individual, and the admission of guilt, are obtained. Explanation of the Chapter on Association, etc. 306. The pacification itself is called a settlement, and it does not exist without a dispute. Therefore, it is not possible to separate them and make them distinct. 309-310. In "settlements are settled by settlements," "are settled" means they are accomplished. Or, it means disputes are settled, pacified. Therefore, "the decision of the majority is settled by direct confrontation" means it is accomplished together with direct confrontation, and not with mindfulness-vinaya, etc., because they are not helpful to it. In "settlements are settled by disputes," "settlements" means they cease to exist. 311. The reading is: "Direct confrontation is not settled by a dispute." Because of its similarity to the decision of the majority, and at the end, "direct confronta- "which is not settled by anyone" (Pari. 313) is said, and the 'discipline in the presence' is said to be not settled by itself, by a settlement, or by a legal question. The 'discipline of mindfulness' is settled by a business legal question. The 'discipline of non-delusion', 'confession of evil deeds', and 'covering with grass' are also settled by a business legal question. 313. A dispute legal question is settled by a business legal question, as in "Listen to me, venerable sirs... I cast the first vote-stick." Thus, a dispute legal question is settled by a business legal question. A censure legal question and an offense legal question are also settled by a business legal question. It is written: "The reading should be understood as: 'A business legal question, as in "an undone deed, a wrongly done deed," is also settled by a business legal question.'" However, in another commentary, it is said: "Here, in 'settlements are settled by legal questions,' since all settlements are settled by a business legal question, therefore the reading 'settlements are settled by a business legal question' should be adopted." 314. Which legal question does a dispute legal question give rise to? By merely saying "This is not the Dhamma," no legal question is given rise to. 318-9. The reading is "Included in which legal question?" A dispute legal question belongs to a dispute legal question, meaning a later arisen dispute belongs to an earlier arisen dispute. A dispute legal question belongs to two settlements, as if saying "You are capable of settling this," it is encompassed by two settlements, as if by those saying "We will settle it." The description of the classifications of settlements is finished. Description of the Chapter on Questions Description of the Questions and Answers 320. The 'occasion' means the time, the city, the country, and the Blessed One. The designation of the matter, person, etc. The connection is that the excellent terms stated there in the chapter on ordination, such as "Monks, a person less than twenty years old should not be ordained." That, for each respective term, is called an offense, as in "Monks, a person less than twenty years old should not be ordained..." the offense is designated by the word "to be taken". That is, it belongs to that word. In Cammasaṃyutta, it means in the Cammaskandha. Explanation of the Ekuttarika Method Explanation of the Single Recitation 321. In the Ekuttarika method, regarding "an offense is to be known," is an offense a ultimate reality, or is it a conventional reality? It is a conventional reality. For it is said in the Parivāra, in the analysis of the words "the basis is to be known, the lineage is to be known, the name is to be known, the offense is to be known": "sexual intercourse is both the basis and the lineage. Pārājika is both the name and the offense." And name and lineage are merely conventions, as stated by "name and lineage do not decay." Therefore, it is said, "it is merely a certain convention, a non-existent phenomenon, excluded from the wholesome triad." What is said in the Samathakkhandhaka, "an offense-case may be unwholesome, it may be indeterminate," is said in a figurative sense, just as in "a dispute-case may be wholesome, may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate." For in reality, a dispute is a certain kind of convention. That which belongs to a conscious being is referred to as "that may be wholesome by way of the mind," and so on. Similarly, an offense-case is to be understood. Therefore, it is said in the commentary, "for one who commits an offense, either commits it with an unwholesome mind or with a wholesome or indeterminate mind." Otherwise, the possibility of being a case for the pacifications would not arise. For the pacifications do not operate concerning wholesome or unwholesome states, or wholesome states are not pacified by means of pacifications. And it does not follow that a wholesome dispute or accusation should be settled by wholesome or other pacifications, so their being a case would not even be possible. Therefore, the wholesome nature of cases and pacifications is obtained through figurative teaching, not otherwise. For this reason, in the offense-case, the triad is not completed as in the Sammahāvinaya. Intentionally committing an offense Because the intention of one who is dying is entirely unwholesome. For the other, whether with mind or without mind, taking merely its non-existence, it is called "indeterminate." Just as in phrases like "if, being urged three times, he produces that robe, this is wholesome" (Parajika 538), the word 'wholesome' does not mean 'resulting in happiness,' and in phrases like "for the suppression of future unwholesome states" (Parivara 498), it is not unwholesome. For the other, whether with mind or without mind, taking merely its non-existence, it is called "indeterminate." Just as if, being urged twice, he produces that robe, what is said here as "the offence-case is unwholesome," by its nature, from that unwholesomeness, seven settled matters are to be understood, then, from the possibility of a robe, those without a robe, and those with an intermediate offence. By the nature of what has attained the characteristic of being immediate, it is also to be understood as fixed by name. In the designation by convention,