English
a designation of heavy and light is also possible. Otherwise, it is also said: "the blameworthy designation is not obstructive, the blameless designation." The major offence of building a hut is obstructive due to the blameworthy designation by the world. Deliberate lying, compared to abusive speech, etc., would not be heavy, etc., or that this is light, etc. All this is the opinion of some teachers, who say, "all is improper." Why? Because if, by the statement "Parajika is both a name and an offence," the offence were not a speakable phenomenon, and the object were not a speakable phenomenon, due to being stated as having the same grammatical case by genus, therefore, the word "sexual act" indicates the object, which is called transgression. And because the name obtained by the offence, by way of transgression, is a unique name, it is also called "genus"— this is the meaning there. "What precedes the offence-case? Greed precedes, hatred, delusion, non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion precedes." "How many roots? Six roots: three unwholesome roots, three indeterminate roots"— and because it is said, without qualification. Therefore it is said: "The offence-case may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate." But in the Chapter on Tranquillity, it is said thus, by way of implied meaning. Therefore, the offence-case, by its nature, directly, is the four unwholesome aggregates, and indeterminate form. Since it is said: "There is no wholesome offence-case" (Cūḷava. 222), only the wholesome is rejected. Since for those with defilements destroyed there is what is called functional-indeterminate, when the wholesome is rejected, the functional-indeterminate is also rejected. When that is rejected, the result-indeterminate, which is entirely inactive, is also rejected. Some say there is nothing to be said about Nibbāna-indeterminate; that is incorrect, because it is said: "six roots." Although it is said generally, yet only the result-roots are intended there, not the functional-roots, for these are of a wholesome nature. Therefore, form and result-indeterminate are the offence. Therein, the objects removed from unwholesome offence. And for the other, it is said that the covering from the beginning is a wholesome mind. Its nature as an obstructing, definite, blameworthy designation is also to be understood by way of synonym for a designated fault, and for one committed intentionally. Therefore, like the saying: "The life faculty may be with object, may be without object," the entirely unwholesome and the not-entirely unwholesome worldly fault, the entirely indeterminate declaration of fact, and the not-entirely indeterminate remaining designated fault, are all combined together, and it is said: "The offence-case may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate." But in the Chapter on Tranquillity, it is said thus, referring only to designated faults. And this is said in the commentary and in the glosses: "The meaning here, 'The offence-case may be unwholesome, may be indeterminate, there is no wholesome offence-case,' is to be understood by way of implied meaning." For in that offence-case, such as digging the earth, when one who is not yet free from defilements, with the intention of not harming plants, etc., has a wholesome mind as a factor, the indeterminate form, which is reckoned as the effort of digging, etc., gives rise to the offence – this is the intention." Referring to what is it said: "There is an offense, one commits it with a wholesome mind, one rises from it with a wholesome mind," and so on. If that were the case, it would not be possible to say: "There is no wholesome offense-basis." Since it is not said with reference to the mind that originates the offense, therefore, this is not said with reference to the mind that is an essential factor. If it were said with reference to that, it should also be said, "It might be wholesome," but it is not said. Therefore, this is said with reference to the following: Whatever offense-basis is blameworthy by the world, that is entirely unwholesome. There, there is no such variation as "it might be unwholesome." But whatever is blameworthy by rule, since for one who transgresses intentionally, thinking, "I will transgress this offense," it is unwholesome; but for one who commits it unintentionally, not knowing anything, for example, by sleeping together, it is result-of-form, undeclared, due to non-arising. Therefore, with reference to this possibility of that rule-blameworthy offense, depending on intentionality or unintentionality, this is said: "An offense-basis might be unwholesome, it might be undeclared, there is no wholesome offense-basis." But if someone, unskilled in the Vinaya, were to say: "That which one commits with a wholesome mind, this is called a wholesome offense-basis," for such a speaker, even for those offenses arising from non-mental things like sheep's wool, at the time of being endowed with a wholesome mind, would one commit those offenses with a wholesome mind, or not? What is the reason? Even a wholesome mind present there is not a factor of the offense. "Its own nature, its intrinsic quality, its natural state" is what is meant. What then is the intrinsic factor of that offense at that time? It is said: But of the body that has moved by way of bodily intimation, and of the speech that has occurred by way of verbal intimation— of these two, the moved body and the occurred speech— one or the other is the intrinsic factor. And that, being included in the form aggregate, is undeclared. What is meant? The body and speech are then the offense-basis, is what is meant. And here, the body and speech at the moment of an unwholesome offense, are undeclared, they are... are like mental actions at the time of bodily and verbal actions. For then the body and speech stand in the place of an offense. Regarding which it is said: “Offense-causing things are to be known. How many roots? Six origins of offenses are the roots,” and so on. But when body and speech are merely a part of the offense, then, like the saying “mind is the chief of mind” (Dhammasangani Commentary, 1, description of wholesome kamavacara), due to the preceding applications being the cause of the subsequent application, they do not abandon the designation of offense-causing and so on. Just as, even in that state, it is said: “How many bases for an offense-case? The seven groups of offenses are the bases. How many grounds? The seven groups of offenses are the grounds.” Similarly, even in that state, the offense-causing things are to be known as being called “origins of offenses.” Thus far, an offense means the four unwholesome aggregates at the time of intentionally transgressing, excluding the declaration of truth, all without distinction; but specifically, all are exclusively unwholesome, unwholesome; but the non-exclusively unwholesome are the ten kinds such as the peaks of mountains, assemblies, mind-houses, rags, women, ornaments, perfumes, colors, scented powders, and the various kinds of fermented rice, and the various kinds of kneading and massaging for bhikkhunis and so on. These, when defined by their own names, are unwholesome only at the time of knowing the object with intention; in the absence of that, at the time of no intention, without an anāpattādhikaraṇa, for one who transgresses that object with a wholesome mind under the heading of meditation object and so on, the offense is merely form and undeterminable. Some here explain: “An offense arises even for one who wears a rag with the perception of a waist-string in an inconspicuous place, or perfume and color with the perception of clay; therefore, it is without intention.” They should be refuted by showing the absence of the passage: “She wears a rag with the perception of a non-rag, an offense of pācittiya.” However, the offense of drinking intoxicants is exclusively unwholesome, even without intention. Therefore, it is said: “She drinks intoxicants with the perception of non-intoxicants, an offense of pācittiya” (Pācittiya 328). Because here, even due to illness, it is not possible without unwholesome to drink intoxicating liquor, therefore, regarding the blameworthy acts that are always unwholesome, like those mentioned, it is not said here, "There is no offense in drinking liquor due to illness." But soup, condiments, etc., are not intoxicants. To dispel remorse there, it is said, "There is no offense," as in the case of water or tooth-sticks. The offense of falsely accusing is merely indeterminate form. In a mindless state, lying down together, etc., is merely indeterminate form, a result of kamma. There, even if there is unwholesome kamma in a dream, it is not considered an offense because it is not an integral part and is not actionable. Regarding wholesome kamma, there is no discussion, as there is no offense due to the nature of wholesome kamma. Similarly, by this method, it is shown that everywhere, as far as possible, it is divided into three: unwholesome, pure form, or with result. There, excluding the drinking of liquor and some offenses by designation, that which is always unwholesome is always with consciousness. False accusation is always without consciousness. The rest, including the drinking of liquor, which is sometimes unwholesome and blameworthy, and sometimes indeterminate and an offense by designation, is mostly with or without consciousness. Thus, every training rule is of three kinds. That which is always with consciousness here is with consciousness by the consciousness of knowing the object, such as sexual intercourse. All the sekhiya rules are with consciousness by the consciousness of knowing the designation, because it is said, "due to disrespect." Thus, "with consciousness" is of two kinds. That which is always without consciousness is due to the absence of the consciousness of knowing the designation, not due to the absence of the consciousness of knowing the object.