English
Similarly, for bhikkhunīs, applying for fragrance or color, but applying for medicinal purposes is not an offense, so it is said "not to be investigated." There, the statement "knowing" in "it is not proper" is not appropriate, because it would lead to the consequence that even a rule-offense is a worldly offense. To avoid this undesirable consequence, it is stated in the knot-point explanation of Venerable Vajirabuddhi, "Here, the investigation of 'conscious intention' and 'unconscious intention' is only in knowing the object, not in knowing the rule. If it were in knowing the rule, all rules of training would be worldly offenses, but not all rules of training are worldly offenses. Therefore, it is only in knowing the object." This is appropriate. Why? Because in the Sekhiya rules, knowing the rule itself is the standard, not merely knowing the object. However, what is said there, "if someone were to put intoxicant into the mouth of a sleeping person, inside If he should enter, an offense. There, just as for a bhikkhuni, below the armpit, above the kneecap, when another touches, etc., without moving the body, by merely assenting with the mind, an offense 'is an action' is said, because action mostly occurs. So this too, then, is an action. That is well-considered, as it proves a non-absolute unwholesome state. But the absolute unwholesomeness of the offense of drinking intoxicants, is said to occur even for one who perceives it as intoxicant, by drinking it once with intent. Herein, this is the meaning: Taking an offense under the heading of a training rule, for whichever training rule with intention, the mind is only unwholesome, that is a worldly offense. For what is reckoned as both intentional and unintentional, and for the unintentional, in the intentional aspect, the mind is only unwholesome. That too, like drinking intoxicants, is a worldly offense. Summarizing this meaning, "For which, in the intentional aspect, the mind is only unwholesome, that is a worldly offense," it is said. For this phrase "in the intentional aspect" refers to the unintentional. For there is no purpose in specifying "in the intentional aspect" for what is absolutely intentional. Because here, for a prohibitive offense, with the mind knowing the prohibition, in the intentional aspect, the mind is only unwholesome. With the mind knowing the object, in the intentional aspect, the mind might be wholesome, might be unwholesome, might be indeterminate. Therefore, it is not said "for that, in the intentional aspect, the mind is only unwholesome," but "the rest is a prohibitive offense" is said. In overestimation, there is no transgression. In a dream, because it is not actionable, even a shadow of transgression existing in a dream, is said to be "not actionable." This statement is also made for the purpose of strengthening and loosening actions. Therefore, what was said in the section on external narratives, "for the purpose of strengthening and loosening actions, it is said mostly," etc., that should be understood as well-said. The commentary on the story of the monkey is finished. Commentary on the story of the Vajjiputtakas 43-4. Those dwelling in the Vajji countries are called Vajjis. Their sons. "As much as is needed" means "as much as is the intention..." is said. Therein, what is said, “without renouncing the training, without declaring weakness,” that is applicable when the renunciation of training and the declaration of weakness, which is the same thing, are laid down, not otherwise. Similarly, it is said with reference to what is to be laid down now, just as it is to be understood that the group of six bhikkhus wore extra robes (Parā. 459), the Āḷavaka bhikkhus built immeasurable huts (Parā. 342), the bhikkhunīs ordained a trainee who had not trained in the six principles for two years (Pāci. 1077), and ordained one not approved by the Saṅgha (Pāci. 1084), and so on. For before that, neither determination nor stipulation was allowed. Due to the absence of which, one would say “extra robe,” or the measure was not laid down, due to the absence of which, one would say “immeasurable.” This is to be understood in a similar manner. Having requested ordination, saying, “May the Saṅgha, out of compassion, lift me up, venerable sir” (Mahāva. 71, 126), and having been ordained, immediately after ordination, by one who wishes to become a non-recluse, etc., when it is laid down, “An ordained bhikkhu should not engage in sexual intercourse; he is not a son of the Sakyas” (Mahāva. 129), should not the training first undertaken be renounced, or weakness declared therein? But it is to be understood that it was said to make room for a supplementary rule, because they “engaged in sexual intercourse without renouncing the training, without declaring weakness.” Although it is said right here, “He who has come should not be ordained,” it should be understood, as far as possible, in the other pārājikas as well. For he who, without renouncing the training, without declaring weakness, takes what is not given, which is called theft, or deprives a human being of life, or boasts of a superhuman state to one who knows, he who has come should not be ordained. For a supplementary rule is for the purpose of strengthening or relaxing a rule. For that, to which pārājika It is another offense, because it is a minor rule whose purpose is to show the determination and its characteristic is a sub-enactment. Thus, it is like the sub-enactment spoken at the beginning, "from a village or from the wilderness" (Pārā. 91), without being spoken at the end. But when this training rule is complete— "The origin, the division of the matrix, the analysis that determines it; Then the division of the offense, non-offense is otherwise"— This method should be understood. There, the story of Sudinna, the story of the monkey, and the story of the Vajji-sons, these three kinds of stories are called the origin of this training rule. From that origin, the division of this matrix arose: "Whatever monk, having undertaken the training and livelihood of monks... ...is not in communion." For there, with the feminine gender and word "even with an animal," one might try to introduce another subtlety, like the monkey's pārājika: "Indeed, friends, the training rule was laid down by the Blessed One, and that is for a woman, not for a man, not for a paṇḍaka, not for a hermaphrodite." Therefore, to show the absence of such a loophole, this is said. The division of the matrix word "even with an animal," which is counted as the story of the monkey, was not made because sexual intercourse is seen to be accomplished only with a woman. Therefore, the analysis determines it; the analysis determines the intended meaning of that matrix. For in the analysis, the determination is made by closing off every loophole in the manner of: "Three kinds of women. Three kinds of hermaphrodites. Three kinds of paṇḍakas. Three kinds of men. With a human woman, three ways... ...with an animal man, two ways" (Pārā. 56). Here it is said: If so, either by way of a common training rule or by way of a gender change, not only for monks, but also for nuns, it should be said in the analysis, "having undertaken the training and livelihood of monks." By not saying that, a nun, standing in the state of a monk due to the appearance of the masculine gender, might say this: "I did not undertake the training and livelihood of monks at the time of ordination. Therefore, even without having renounced the training, I am not pārājika by sexual intercourse." It is said: – it should not be said thus because of undesirable implications. Even for bhikkhunīs, if "one who has entered the training and livelihood" is said, it implies that bhikkhunīs also have a renunciation of training, and that is undesirable. This is another undesirable implication, namely: "All training rules are common, not uncommon." Moreover, in order to show that this is for bhikkhus who have entered the training and livelihood, "I allow, bhikkhus, that same preceptor," etc. (Pārā. 69) was said. And moreover, whoever, having thus made a pretext, engages in sexual intercourse, like the Vajjiputtakas, becomes pārājika. For they, in the absence of the statement "one who has entered the training and livelihood of bhikkhus," were told by the Blessed One, "You, bhikkhus, have incurred a pārājika offense." But here, because "bhikkhus" was said, some were established in the bhikkhu gender. And because "Even now, Venerable Ānanda, may we obtain renunciation and obtain ordination in the presence of the Blessed One" was said, it should be understood that some were confused. From that, the division of offenses. From that analysis, "If the body is exposed, pārājika; if mostly exposed, thullaccaya," etc., there is a division of offenses. Non-offense in other ways. From that very analysis, in whatever way an offense is stated, in other ways, there is a division of non-offenses. "If one consents, it is a pārājika offense; if one does not consent, it is a non-offense." For if there is no such analysis, it is not understood. Thus far, in brief, the meaning of the verse has been stated. And here, moreover – "The division of origin and matrix, is the purpose of the analysis; and the type of non-offense, the first is without purpose." – Having shown this method, the meaning of all training rules should be explained. How? But in whatever way the Blessed One laid down a training rule, the origin of that manner is twofold: whether it is capable or incapable. This is the division of origin. The matrix also is twofold: dependent on origin and independent of origin. Therein, training rules like the fourth pārājika are dependent on origin. For not the bhikkhus of Vaggumudā's bank themselves or they spoke, having made a false statement, a characteristic of a superhuman state, which was not their own. Indeed, they spoke of the superhuman state