English
Therein, the first (Great Authority) is disputed in "If he assents to the insertion, to its being inserted, to its remaining, to its withdrawal, there is an offense; if he does not assent, there is no offense." That venerable one, perceiving the contact of a pleasant, grasped tangible object with the body faculty, and determining that one assents merely by the arising of bodily pleasant feeling, thereby extends the offense of pārājika even to one who has no intention of sexual intercourse. Similarly, for one who experiences painful, unpleasant feeling due to illness or a vaginal defect, or no bodily feeling due to a body afflicted by wind, he, showing the Suttanta "There is no offense for one who does not assent" (Parā. 76), extends non-offense even to one who has the intention of sexual intercourse, whether he knows or not. Similarly, if there is a Saṅghādisesa offense when semen is discharged through effort with the desire for release, how much more so with the desire for sexual intercourse. Taking a minor offense, he makes it a serious offense. Thus, he makes the discipline into non-discipline. The other, saying, "Since it is said, 'No offense for one who does not know,' for one who knows, whether there is pleasant feeling or not, there is approval by knowing," and even for one who knows but has no intention to commit, he makes an offense where there is no offense. He makes the blameless blameworthy. Thus, he makes the Dhamma into non-Dhamma. But one who knows both, saying, "As it is stated (Pārā. 57), 'The monk's intention to engage arises,' the intention to engage is the measure here; by its presence, there is a pārājika offense; by its absence, there is no offense," he preserves and fulfills both. In this way, in all training rules, they should be made purposeful as far as possible. Having established the recitation and set it free from the Pāli text that was established, it is "Pāli-free" in meaning, in method, and in accordance with the Pāli. It proceeds with decisions that have entered the Pāli, meaning it proceeds by way of included decisions. Even though the Blessed One knew, "It will not be abolished," He merely said this at the time of his passing away, "So that later generations may take their view as authoritative, like my own words," to show this: "If it so wishes, Ānanda, the Saṅgha may, after my passing, abolish the minor and lesser training rules" (Dī. Ni. 2.216). Therefore, it is proven: "If the Saṅgha is permitted by the Blessed One to abolish even a promulgated training rule, then the elucidation of additional meanings in accordance with the promulgation is certainly permitted by the Blessed One." Furthermore, to show that there should be no dispute among the teachers' lineages regarding the deficient or excessive training rules. Why did the Saṅgha not abolish them? Because of the likelihood of disputes among themselves. And the Blessed One said: "All should train in harmony, rejoicing, without disputing." And there, because some elders said, "Thus," and because of other views, it became a matter of training while disputing. But for the sake of its absence, having recited the motion-and-second announcement, one should train without disputing. he did. Moreover, this is an introduction to make clear one's own opinion. Therein, it is to be understood that this discussion is common to all three Pitakas, as stated in "in the commentaries on the Suttanta, Abhidhamma, and Vinaya," while "and if this is allowable," etc., refers only to the Vinaya. "Similar to the Sangha that performed the act" means similar to the Sangha that performed the recitation. In the commentary of Dhammasiri Thera, it is stated, "similar to the Sangha that performed an act not contrary to the Suttas, etc., without rejecting the fourfold division," which is incorrect, as it is contrary to the phrases, "the Sutta is stronger. For the Sutta is unalterable, similar to the Sangha that performed the act." However, in the common commentary, it is stated, "having determined that meaning, similar to the Sangha that performed that act." "Another debater" means one who knows our doctrine, belonging to another sect. How can "another debater" be "in accordance with the Sutta"? The Sutta "except for water and tooth-sticks" is for our side, and in accordance with that, the water of a coconut fruit is also water, says the other debater. "The water of a coconut, old, binds bile; That same young water, destroys bile, binds strength." When the other debater says this, our side, because it is the nature of grain-fruit and because it spreads the meaning of food, refutes it by saying, "that is only for a limited time." "Another debater's teacher's view" means, when the other debater says, "one who acts thus commits a pārājika," based on the commentary's statement, "although one avoids the toll by resorting to a figure of speech here, it is still theft," our side refutes it by showing the Sutta, "one avoids the toll, an offense of dukkata," along with the statement from the Mahā-Aṭṭhakathā found there, stating that for one who acts thus, it is only a dukkata. "Another debater's own opinion" means here, "if one attempts to steal another's property before noon, saying 'I will steal it before noon,' but it happens after noon, that is still an attempt before noon. Therefore, the original owner is not freed, and since yours is the Theravāda doctrine, it is a pārājika for the original owner," says the other debater. When it is said, the proponent, showing the Sutta (Pārā. 119): "If one takes away that item, before or after that agreement, for the owner, there is no offense," rejects it. The opponent (says) "Sutta," showing the Sutta written in the Paṭṭhāna: "An indeterminate causal phenomenon is a condition by way of object-condition for a determinate causal phenomenon." When the opponent says: "For the Noble Path, Nibbāna is not *only* the object," the proponent rejects it, (saying): "It does not fit with the Suttas like the 'Object Triad'." Indeed, only that which fits with the Suttas is called a Sutta, not otherwise. Therefore it is said: "It is understood as coming from the Pāli." Even if established by this much, (it is said): "It is understood as coming from the Pāli that ascended the three recitations," and so on. "Indeed, such are careless writings," says the teacher. By the saying: "Diligence is the path to the Deathless, heedlessness is the path to death" (Dhp. 21; Netti. 26), having eaten the given food, having avoided dangers, having established mindfulness, one who dwells becomes eternal. Even a Sutta that has ascended, according to such a meaning, should not be taken. Therefore it is said: "If it is not understood thus," even if established, (it is said): "If it is not understood thus, it does not fit, it does not accord." Because it is said: "Or an external Sutta," even one's own Sutta, if not according with the meaning, should not be taken. In these two methods, "The opponent (says) 'Teacher's statement'," and so on, the commentary statements found here and there, by way of careless writing, should be combined and understood together with the statements of the Elders. Now this is the teacher's statement. The opponent (says) "Sutta." When the opponent says: "Root-seeds are turmeric, ginger, sweet flag...etc. Perceiving it as a seed, one cuts or causes to cut or breaks...etc. There is an offense of pācittiya (Pāci. 91). Because it is recited by you, for one who cuts a turmeric rhizome, there is a pācittiya offense." The proponent, showing: "Or whatever else arises from the root," and so on, rejects it by the teacher's statement, which is reckoned as commentary. "Indeed, a rhizome does not arise from a rhizome." The opponent (says) "Sutta-accordance." When the opponent says: "Thus for us there is no offense, O..." The acceptance of teachers is in accordance with the words: 'Our ancient bhikkhus, having closed a chamber in a single palace, came having done so, saying it is permissible to sleep with an unordained person; therefore, it is permissible for us.' When some among you speak thus, 'nothing can be said to you.' When this is said, the proponent, showing the commentary statement beginning with: 'the acceptance of teachers who have learned the Sutta and its conformity is the standard,' refutes it. The opponent, by his own opinion, says: 'When it is asked, "who are released among those who sleep having opened the door without asking permission?" here, two people are released: the one possessed by a yakkha, and the one made to lie down by force. Because you are Theravādins, all others, even those who lie down in any way, are also released.' He refutes this. Now, this is his own opinion. The opponent, regarding the Sutta, when the opponent says: 'they incur an offense,' the proponent, showing the commentary statement beginning with: 'a person tired during the day, sitting on a couch, without lifting his feet from the ground, lies down due to sleep, for him there is no offense,' refutes that even those who lie down in a single posture are released. Now, this is his own opinion. The opponent, regarding the conformity with the Sutta, when the opponent says: 'by correlating with statements like "I declare dejection, O king of devas, to be of two kinds: to be cultivated and not to be cultivated," there is no fault for you in supporting one's wife and children; therefore it is said, "support of children and wife,"' although the proponent is not very learned, he refutes it, saying it must be unwholesome, accompanied by craving. In other cases too, it should be applied in this way, or otherwise, as appropriate. All this was said by Upatissa Thera and others. Dhammasiri Thera, however, says: 'Here, "opponent" refers to one of another sect. He brings forth his own suttas and so on. The proponent, having brought them into his own suttas and so on, accepts them if they agree, but if not, he refutes them.' The explanation