English
Due to its absence, the drinking of liquor is always unwholesome. Going between is always indeterminate. Due to the absence of either the consciousness of knowing the object or the consciousness of knowing the designation, it is without consciousness. But the drinking of liquor is with consciousness only by the consciousness of knowing the object. For noble persons, or others, or either of the two, the rest is with or without consciousness. Specifically, it is without consciousness due to the absence of the consciousness of knowing the object, or due to the absence of the consciousness of knowing the designation for one who is not aware. There, both that which is always without consciousness and that which is with consciousness are called "without consciousness." This is what is to be known as "offense." Here is the decision. An intermediate offense of fundamental purity is an offense committed by one who, having committed an offense, has performed a fundamental retraction and is standing. An intermediate offense of value purity is an offense committed by one who, having committed many offenses, and having taken the value-summation based on the longest concealed among them, is dwelling. With a mind full of zeal, thinking, "I will commit it again." It is written, "This is only for a bhikkhunī." And this is said to show that it is truly a pārājika. It is said, "Some others say that no offense can be recovered from when taught in this way, but that should not be accepted." Since it is said, "in not making true a righteous promise," there is no dukkata for an unrighteous promise. It is also said, "If one, with a pure mind previously, when told 'you are confused,' assents with 'sādhu' and then is not confused, there is no offense; this is so in all cases." "The disclosure should be known" is also a Pāli text. "I will speak in time, not out of time," and so on, in these fifteen matters. Those capable of offense are those capable of committing an offense. Explanation of the Duka-vāras 322. In the foundation, in the heat. "If a bhikkhu should spend even one night apart from his three robes (Pārājika 472). For a maximum of six nights, by that" (Pārājika 653), one who has committed such an offense, even if he is a quorum member, invalidates the act due to being of different communion. "By an act or by taking the voting sticks" – here, the declaration and the act are one, meaning that the Pātimokkha declaration or the act are essentially the same, and if any of these is done, a schism in the Saṅgha occurs. "Prior parts" means parts prior to the schism in the Saṅgha. "Measure" means that a schism occurs by one of these two, not by others, it is said. "Established in the Vinaya" means Vinaya-established. "Born in the Roman country" means Roman. "Because it is mentioned in the dukas as permitted salt." Explanation of the Tika-vāras 323. It should not be practiced by you. "Having performed a bodily action accompanied by speech" means having performed a prostration with the body. "Destroys" means annihilates. "Having overwhelmed" means having overpowered. "Says" means when speaking. "A fool should be given support" is stated in the pair, but here it is said, "should not be given." Considering the abundance of offenses, it should not be given. "Do not leave this monastery, or come to the Vinaya experts to give a decision," when this is said, his words should not be taken— that is the meaning. Eating in a group of three: if three people eat together, there is no offense of group eating. This refers to the three. "Asleep" is said due to its prevalence. Or, it means "having lain down." "I will leave this, Bhante, please give it temporarily" when this is said, "it is not proper to give without a purpose like new construction," it is written. Wearing a rain-cloak that was put aside after a formal declaration on the last day of the first half of the month incurs a dukkata offense— that is the meaning. "Without taking it back" means without performing the act of taking back. "To declare" means that an offense is incurred in winter due to not declaring, but the declaration should be made on the full moon day of Kattika— this should be understood as the intention. This method refers to not declaring, the former refers to the offense due to using something that was declared. "Vatthapaṭicchādi sabbakappiyatāya" means "vatthapaṭicchādi is permissible everywhere." Some, not understanding this meaning, write "vatthapaṭicchādi sabbakappiyatā tāya paṭicchannenā." Since the analysis is "vatthameva paṭicchādi vatthapaṭicchādī," "tāyā" is not appropriate. "Tenā" should be the case. All this is written in a certain commentary, it should be considered and taken. Explanation of the Four-Fold Division 324. "Incurs an offense in four ways... ...incurs by a formal declaration." Here, if an offense is incurred by a formal declaration, there are no body, etc., involved in the incurring. Therefore, the factors causing an offense along with a formal declaration are seven. If this is the case, there is a contradiction with the statement "there are six origins of offenses," for those are indeed the factors causing an offense. Are the body, etc., also there, either together or separately? They contradict, it is not fitting to say by four modes. It should be said that one incurs an offense by six modes. Thus these scripture passages are contradictory. How are they not contradictory? Due to the distinction of being with or without intimation. The offense that is an action of body and so on, some of it one incurs by the body with intimation, some by speech with intimation, some by body and speech with intimation. But the offense that is an inaction, some of it one incurs by formal proclamation, and indeed that is by the remaining body and speech without intimation, not without the saying: "if he does not give it up by body or speech, at the end of the formal proclamation, there is an offense of Sanghādisesa" (Pārā. 414). Or without distinction, some offense one incurs by body, some by speech, some by body and speech. What here is by body and speech, some of it one incurs by body and speech alone, some by formal proclamation. This meaning should be understood. Thus they are not contradictory. Here is a brief explanation of the meaning: "incurs by body" means one incurs some by the body with intimation, having done what should not be done, and one incurs some by the body without intimation, having not done what should be done. Both of these are called 'body-action'. For even what is not done is called "done" in the world, as in "I have done wrong, that I did not do merit," and so on. And in the Dispensation, as in "This is wrong for you, friend Ānanda, that you did not ask the Blessed One" (Cūḷava. 443), and so on. Thus here, in the context of the Vinaya, even not doing by body is called "body-action." This same method applies to "incurs by speech," and so on. "Purisa" (man) means "purati" (goes forward), "pura" in the sense of going to the front. "Purati" means he goes to the front, he is the foremost in all actions. In the sense of being first arisen. For among the first beings, the male gender first arises. The meaning is that the male gender, having gone by the designation "foremost," is born. Here, "one hundred and thirty" even the non-common Pārājikā offenses are not included, having arisen, the state of being a bhikkhu for those who have incurred Pārājikā due to inability to come. "But they are extracted in general terms with uncommon wording," they say. "The reading is 'one hundred and thirty training rules'," they also say. For both monks and nuns, in the four pārājikas, they are common. "There is a diversity of objects, but no diversity of offenses" - this first question here is called the second. "There is a similarity of offenses, but no similarity of objects" - with this there is no distinction. Mantābhāsā means speaking with intention. "Worthy of salutation" means they bow by lifting their heads while remaining seated. From the ninth nun onwards, since they should not rise, they do not get up from their seats. "Without distinction" means for the preceptor, or for another whose meal is unfinished, or for any elder who has come near. Indeed, even for one whose meal is unfinished, one should rise and give a seat. Even one who says "It is not allowable here," by staying in border regions and saying "It is not allowable here," incurs an offense of wrong-doing for exceeding the Vinaya. For one who says "It is not allowable" regarding what is allowable, indeed, eradicates what has been laid down. Similarly, by staying in places like "It is allowable here," one who says "It is allowable here," means that a monk who has come from the Vinaya should be questioned about the Vinaya. Explanation of the Five-fold Recitation 325. The person does not approach. Since there is no invitation, according to the saying "Having been invited and having eaten, without asking a present monk" (Pāci. 299), for an alms-gatherer, going without invitation is allowable. "Time for the sick," etc., means food that has been determined as food by making a mental resolve. "I give my expectation of food to so-and-so" - such is the non-specification. Speaking ill behind one's back is disgrace. Reproach is face-to-face. Since moral conduct, views, and misfortunes are included in the Vinaya, the others are mentioned with them to complete the five. Since it is said "by a group of five, with the fifth being a Vinaya-holder" (Mahāva. 259), the five is formed. It means one elder in a certain monastery. "From the Yonaka country" is written as "from the land of China." "He recollected eight aeons" means he developed the knowledge of past lives. Standing in the immediate place, this is the meaning. Having become fit for the act by the motion, at the time the motion is established, one becomes fit for the act. Then by the formal proclamation, the act is accomplished.