English
"Saṅghasuṭṭhutāya" (for the well-being of the Saṅgha): here, in the declaration of what is blameworthy by the world, there is the well-being of the Saṅgha, as it has obvious disadvantages. In the declaration of what is blameworthy by the rule, there is the comfort of the Saṅgha, as it has obvious advantages. In the former, there is the suppression of the unruly; in the latter, the comfortable living of the agreeable. In the former, there is the prevention of future defilements; in the latter, of defilements in this very life. Similarly, in the former, there is the inspiring of faith in the unfaithful; in the latter, the increase of faith in the faithful. Since it is said, "a worthy young man, being reproached for his past good deeds," they say, "Sudinna dispelled that remorse and realized arahantship, and by that, his ordination was allowed." This should be examined. Similarly, it should be understood that by the former, the Dhamma endures, and by the latter, the Vinaya is supported. Moreover, regarding the transgression of a matter where there is an absolutely unwholesome nature, that is laid down for the well-being of the Saṅgha, as it is blameworthy by the world. Where there is an offense only in knowing the rule, and not otherwise, that is connected with the teaching of the Dhamma for the endurance of the Dhamma or for the purpose of inspiring faith. The other is a training rule (sekhiya). This is called "lokavajja" (blameworthy by the world). Even if there is no intention to transgress the matter or the rule, if one does what is forbidden, When there is non-performance of what should be done, where there is occasion for an offense, all that, except for drinking liquor, is to be understood as an offense by injunction. The duty of an arriving monk, of a resident monk, of a departing monk, of giving thanks, in the refectory, of an alms-gatherer, of a forest-dweller, concerning lodging, in the hot-bath house, in the latrine, towards a co-resident, towards a preceptor, towards a pupil, towards a teacher – these, counted by the method of including what is not yet included, are fourteen; but these, in detail, are called eighty-two great observances. Restraint from the seven groups of offenses is the Vinaya of restraint, which is merely a precept by injunction. There, the Vinaya of injunction is for the sake of the Vinaya of tranquility; the Vinaya of tranquility is for the sake of the Vinaya of restraint; the Vinaya of restraint is for the sake of the Vinaya of abandonment – this connection should be understood. "What is good for the Sangha, that is comfortable for the Sangha" – it is said as if it were one (thing), to show that when there is goodness for the Sangha, there will be comfort for the Sangha. Herein are made those various purposes, reckoned as specific benefits; therefore, "purpose" is called "treatise." Taking each of the ten terms as a root, by connecting them ten times, a hundred terms are spoken of. There, by way of the last term, a hundred meanings; by way of the first term, a hundred doctrines; by way of the elucidating interpretations, a hundred interpretations; by way of the interpretations that are the Dhamma itself, a hundred interpretations – thus two hundred interpretations. In the hundred meanings, a hundred knowledges; in the hundred doctrines, a hundred knowledges; in the two hundred interpretations, two hundred knowledges – thus four hundred knowledges are to be understood. Here, "goodness for the Sangha" means the good state of the Dhamma-Sangha. "Terms of meaning" are the commentaries. "Terms of Dhamma" are the Pāli (text) – so it is said. Sexual intercourse, thus named by common usage, whether by one's own engagement or by another's engagement, if one's own organ is inserted into one's own path or another's path, or another's organ into one's own path, in the acts of insertion, being inserted, staying, or withdrawal, if one indulges in any one of these, one becomes a pārājika (defeated) and is no longer in communion. Some, however, say, "the four (acts) of insertion, etc., or three, or two, or one..." should engage in, he is defeated. This is said: ‘If he accepts the insertion, when inserted, when staying, when withdrawing, he incurs an offense of defeat,’ and so on. They say that, according to their view, he incurs four offenses of defeat in all four instances. They themselves say this: ‘Let him incur an offense of defeat concerning sexual intercourse, an offense of defeat that is related to sexual intercourse.’ And they say this reasoning: ‘Since that person, having incurred an offense of defeat and an offense of Sanghādisesa due to his own transgression, and having renounced the training, and having incurred an offense of defeat concerning sexual intercourse, etc., during his lay life, and then having re-ordained and re-received the full ordination, and having rectified one or many Sanghādisesa offenses, becomes free from offense, therefore, even one who has committed the ultimate offense is considered to have an offense during his lay life, and there is still a way out of the offense. However, since he is not purified by declarations of emergence, it is not said, “an offense of defeat at each act,” because there is no purpose in counting. Even though it is not said, yet this meaning is established by the phrase “an offense of defeat” in the word-by-word analysis.’ If so, in the mātikā (summary), it should also be said, ‘Whatever bhikkhu should engage in sexual intercourse, is defeated,’ and the phrase ‘without remainder’ for defeat would not be appropriate. For all offense categories and the counting of bhikkhus stand without remainder, thus, taking ‘without remainder’ to mean that the offense is only in the insertion, not in the inserted, etc., and referring to that one, the phrase in the nidānuddesa (introduction) ‘whoever has an offense,’ including the offense of defeat, should be understood. Therefore, in the mātikā, not saying ‘defeat’ but saying ‘he is defeated,’ a phrase indicating the person, is for the purpose of showing his unsuitability for full ordination due to that bodily connection. The phrase ‘an offense of defeat’ in the word-by-word analysis is for the purpose of showing that even a person who has committed the ultimate offense, being one of defeat and non-communion, is a person of illicit communion. For even if he accepts communion, he is not a person of illicit communion. Therefore, ‘full ordination’ is called a bhikkhu. Therefore it is said: "A person who has fallen into a certain pārājika offence is impure. If one, being of pure view, makes him unable to find an opportunity, and with the intention of reviling him, speaks to him, there is an offence of dukkaṭa for an insulting speech" (Pārā. 389). Since this is not the case for an unordained person, it is established that he is called "an ordained bhikkhu." Therefore, it should be understood that it does not generate a word-by-word dhamma or co-sleeping, but it does generate slandering bhikkhus and so on. In the case of bhikkhunīs' saṅghādisesas, to show the specific method of rising from a bhikkhusaṅghādisesa, the designation of the person "this bhikkhunī also...pe... has fallen" (Pāci. 679) was made, and to show a different intention from a pārājika, the naming of the offence "a saṅghādisesa leading to expulsion" (Pāci. 679) was also made. Thus, the pair of shown and not-shown offences with personal designation has been elaborated. In the sekhiyas without personal designation, the reason for showing the offence is stated in the Aṭṭhakathā of the sekhiyas themselves. Due to its absence, the offence is shown in the others. And the pair of shown and not-shown offences even in those without personal designation has been elaborated. The commentary on the first promulgation is finished. The Sudinna Recitation Section is finished. Commentary on the Makkaṭī Story 40-1. In the second promulgation, just as in "here wrestlers contend," etc., the present tense "indulges" is used in the sense of frequent indulgence. "And that with a human woman, not with an animal" — this complete meaning was stated in the first promulgation, either by his own wrong grasping or to add a subtle point. To establish the completeness of the meaning, it was said: "Indeed, friend, is it not so?" Therefore, the Makkaṭī story is included among the stories of discipline due to its similarity, as is the Vajji-puttaka story. The deliberation on this will become clear in the third promulgation. "Indeed, friend, by the Blessed One in many ways," etc., is not established merely by the precept with an explicit purpose; "even in the case of animals, etc., a pārāji It was said to show that it is also established by the rule of unspecified training. Or, if he laid down the rule of specified training as having a remainder, it was said to show why it is not also established by this rule of unspecified training. "Therefore, bhikkhus, I will lay down a rule of training for bhikkhus," means that the same rule of training, which was laid down for the first time, will be laid down again, making it a matter of repetition, by making no room for those who are fond of pretexts. Otherwise, as in "pācittiya for those who speak otherwise and cause trouble" and so on, two offenses would arise from two cases, but they do not arise. The same meaning is made clearer and more distinct by another statement, and thus made stronger, is the intention. In the third laying down of the rule, and in others, it is likewise clear. Now, regarding the knot-point explanation in "where there is a conscious intention," it is first said that "conscious intention" refers to unconscious acts like drinking intoxicants. Among conscious acts, those that are exclusively motivated by unwholesome intentions, both are called worldly offenses. In the case of drinking intoxicants, knowing "it is intoxicant" or "it is not proper to drink" and then drinking, is unwholesome.