English
as an adornment for each other, and not yet was there a case for defeat. There, by that method, the Blessed One, making that case a basis, enacted the rule of defeat. Therefore it is said, "dependent on a basis." In this way, knowing those dependent on a basis, the opposite training rules are to be understood as not dependent on a basis. This is the division of the matrix. The Vibhaṅga is commenced, to show the division of the matrix in various ways, by showing the application of the case, the mental determination, which are sufficient for the root offense; to show the distinction of offenses when there is a transgression due to their insufficiency or due to the lack of any of them; and to show non-offense when there is no transgression. Thus, in all cases, the division of the matrix is undertaken with reference to three aspects. Here, however, the Vibhaṅga that proceeds merely by showing the meaning of the words, such as "bhikkhu means a bhikkhu, bhikkhu means one who has gone for alms, bhikkhu means one who wears torn robes," or that proceeds merely by showing the occasion for the use of the name bhikkhu, without regard to the possibility of being a bhikkhu, such as "bhikkhu by designation," or that proceeds by showing the establishment of bhikkhuhood immediately after ordination, such as "bhikkhu by 'come, bhikkhu,' bhikkhu by one ordained by taking refuge, bhikkhu by one ordained by a ñatti-catuttha kamma," or that proceeds by showing a bhikkhu endowed with the qualities that make one a bhikkhu, such as "a good bhikkhu, a core bhikkhu, a trainee bhikkhu, an accomplished bhikkhu," is overlooked, because they are all common terms. Similarly, the Vibhaṅga that proceeds in terms of doors, or in terms of showing the origin, in other parts of the training rules, is also overlooked, because it is not present elsewhere. There, "three women," and so on, proceeds by showing the determination of the case. For one who engages in sexual intercourse with a human woman through the three paths, there is an offense of defeat. It proceeds by showing the rule of application, such as "if he is desirous," It proceeds by showing the rule of intention, such as "the intention to engage in it arose in the monk." It proceeds to show offense and non-offense based on the presence or absence of the rule of intention, when there is a rule of application concerning the object, such as "if he approves, there is an offense of defeat; if he does not approve, there is no offense." It proceeds to show the distinction of offenses when there is a transgression due to the insufficiency of the object, such as "if the corpse is mostly eaten, there is an offense of grave offense." It proceeds to show non-offense because there is no transgression due to a defect in the rule of intention, such as "if he does not approve, there is no offense." Thus, this method is applicable to other training rules as well, as far as possible. This is the Vibhaṅga with its purpose. The section on non-offense, however, is threefold, in terms of showing non-offense from the root offense, from a part of another offense, and from all offenses. Among these, the first one, like the Vibhaṅga, proceeds based on three purposes. What are these three? To show the purposeful and purposeless nature of the Matika words, whether meaningful or meaningless, by quoting or not quoting them otherwise; to show the sequence of practice otherwise; and to make an explanation even in a place where an offense is possible. How? In the training rule concerning sheep's wool: "If sheep's wool arises for a monk who is on a journey, if he desires, the monk may accept it." These words merely illustrate the object, so they are meaningless. For these, there is no offense. By not quoting them otherwise, in the manner of "if sheep's wool arises for one who is not on a journey, there is no offense if he accepts it desiring it," the purposeless nature is shown. That which is in the Matika, "should engage in sexual intercourse," this is meaningful. To show its purposeful nature, it is said, "there is no offense for one who does not know, who does not approve." Because there is an offense by knowing and approving, and no offense by not engaging, therefore it is said in the Matika, "Whatever monk engages in sexual intercourse, he is defeated." "non-communion" is the intention. For the fulfillment of the five factors mentioned: "another's possession, perception of another's possession, valuable property, intention to steal, and taking away," even in cases where an offense could arise from taking what is possessed by ghosts or animals, it was said, "There is no offense concerning what is possessed by ghosts," etc. (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Dutiya Pārājika Vaṇṇanā), for the purpose of exemption. However, "There is no offense for one who says, 'Know this, give this, bring this, this is the meaning, make this allowable,'" etc., should be understood as having been said to show a different course of action. Thus, the meaning of the verse beginning with "the division of the fundamental matrix" has been made clear. Here, the first promulgation, having been promulgated after the first enlightenment, and having been promulgated during the eight-year period of Venerable Sudinna, was promulgated at the time when the greatness of long-standing experience was attained. The second supplementary promulgation arose at the time when the greatness of extensive learning was attained. That Venerable Makkaṭi, having committed a pārājika, with the perception that just as in the training rules concerning women, animal females are not intended, so too here, said, "Indeed, friend, the training rule was promulgated by the Blessed One, but it was for human women, not for animal women." The third supplementary promulgation arose at the time when the greatness of supreme gain was attained. For those Vajji sons, having attained the greatness of supreme gain, having eaten to their satisfaction, having bathed, and having slept on excellent beds, gave rise to the occasion for the third supplementary promulgation. And they arose in the Saṅgha that had attained the greatness of abundance, and they themselves attained the greatness of abundance, thus it was said, "The greatness of abundance is also found here." It should be understood that this first pārājika training rule, having taken up all three kinds of occasions, and having reached all four kinds of times, was promulgated. Here, "whoever" is a term of exhaustive inclusion. "Monk" is a term to restrict over-application for that. "Who has undertaken the training and livelihood of monks" is its qualifying phrase. For not every person called a monk, who by the Blessed One, by whatever means, has been ordained Having taken, for the fully ordained monks, the training to be trained according to the lowest standard, and the livelihood that is said, "here they live together," he is endowed with both. But when was he endowed? Immediately after being fully ordained by any ordination, whether knowing or not knowing both, because of having undertaken them, he is called endowed. "They live together" means as long as he does not renounce the training, and does not incur a pārājika offense. But what is said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: "one who fulfills the training is endowed with training, one who does not transgress the livelihood is endowed with livelihood," that is said in terms of the highest standard. For it is not that one who does not fulfill the training, or is abundant in sensual thoughts and so on, or transgresses some remaining part of the livelihood, is not called endowed with training and livelihood. But according to the highest standard, a fourfold classification is obtained: There is a monk endowed with training, reviewing the precepts, but not endowed with livelihood, transgressing a training rule unintentionally. There is one not endowed with training, abundant in sensual thoughts and so on, but endowed with livelihood, being faultless. There is one not endowed with training and not endowed with livelihood, having incurred a complete offense. There is one endowed with training and endowed with livelihood, fulfilling the training and not transgressing the livelihood. This fourth monk alone might be intended here as the highest. If it is said, "Is it not proper for the Blessed One to speak of the non-highest?" No, because it contradicts the statement: "Among these, this training in higher virtue, this training is intended in this sense." If the intention were to take the highest, the meaning would be that only "training means the three trainings" should be said. For one endowed with the three trainings is the very highest. If it is said, "Considering the later statement, 'should engage in sexual intercourse,' only the training in higher virtue is spoken of?" No, because that too is impossible. For one who fulfills the training in higher virtue and does not transgress the livelihood is not capable of engaging in sexual intercourse, not fulfilling that training... and transgressing the livelihood, indeed he would engage, this is the intention. Therefore, the meaning here should be understood thus. Because the livelihood, reckoned as training rules, encompasses only the training in higher morality, not the other training in higher mind or higher wisdom. Therefore it is said: "Among these, this training in higher morality, this is the training intended in this context." Therefore, the livelihood encompassing the training in higher morality is called "sikkhāsājīva" (livelihood of training). Thus, for specifying livelihood, the term "sikkhā" (training) is used. And precisely to illuminate that meaning, in the Vibhaṅga, without referring to "sikkhā" (training), it is said: "He trains in it, by that he is called 'sājīvasamāpanna' (one who has entered the livelihood)." By that, it is shown that this is one and the same meaning-term.