English
It is said for the purpose of showing 'there is no ground'. 'According to the training rule' is said in the manner of reflection. Indeed, even reflection on virtue is virtue itself, therefore, even while maintaining an intention of abstinence in conduct like being well-covered, etc., one is counted as fulfilling the training. Not transgressing the stated boundary, "'In intentional lying, there is an offense of expiation'" (Pāci. 2), he is called "one who trains in that training rule". But in another knot-passage it is said: "'Sikkhā' (training) is the arising of consciousness that proceeds in the state of training in that training rule. 'Sājīva' is a designation. For the purpose of showing its meaning, this is previously a synonym for restraint from sexual intercourse." Because, for training, considered as virtue, considered as merit, due to the absence of a lineage, the manifestation of weakness of the world is not possible there. Indeed, that is desirable, therefore it is said: "and having entered into proper living, without manifesting weakness there." Indeed, weakness is possible by command, so said Venerable Upatissa. Explanation of the discourse on the renunciation of training 'I go here' means at such and such a bathing place, or in a house, etc. 'In the manner of choosing a state of being' means, because it comes as 'I might be', whatever one wishes to be, in the manner of choosing that state of being. The meaning is: in the manner of choosing a state of being other than the state of being a monk. 46. 'Handa' means by word alone. By phrases like 'wishing for the state of a householder', etc., he shows the rule of intention. The renunciation of training occurs by one intention alone, not by its absence. 51. By phrases like 'Buddha, Dhamma', etc., he shows the rule of the domain. There, by the first fourteen phrases, the relinquishment of one's own state, and by the last eight, the taking on of another state, is shown. By these, 'I renounce, remember!', he shows the rule of time. By this phrase 'He speaks', he shows the rule of utterance. By this 'He makes known', he shows the rule of understanding. By these, 'A mad person renounces the training', 'renounces the training in the presence of a mad person', etc., he shows the rule of persons. A noble one renounces the training in the presence of a barbarian. And by these, etc., even when there is a specification of persons, etc., it shows the impossibility of a specification of understanding. Therein, the teacher says: "Even if there is no time specification in the barbarian language, if the meaning of time specification is shown in that language, the renunciation of training is valid - this is our view." By "for the sake of giving," etc., it shows that even with a specification of place, etc., it is not valid due to the absence of a specification of intention. It shows that even with a specification of intention ("wishing to make known, he does not make known"), it is not valid due to the absence of a specification of application. "He makes it known to the ignorant, he does not make it known to the wise" - this is said to show that even with a specification of intention, place, time, application, person, and understanding, it is not valid if heard by the person for whom it was intended, but not by another. Therefore, it is said in the commentary: "If one makes it known, specifying one person, 'May this one alone know,' and if that one alone knows, the training is renounced. But if that one does not know... (etc.) ... the training is not renounced." Or if he does not make it known at all, the training is not renounced - this is said to show that the training is renounced only by a specification of intention, etc., and not otherwise. Thus far, the analysis of the phrase "training... (etc.) ...without revealing weakness" has been shown in three ways. Therein, two are unmixed, and the last one is mixed, so it should be understood. "By that very difference in words" means that upon hearing a mere statement indicating that meaning, one makes it known by that very difference in words. "Associated with mind" means associated with the mind of wishing to renounce. "One who knows the convention" is one who knows the intention by mere understanding. 53. The Vaṇṇapaṭṭhāna Sutta, which illuminates the qualities of the Buddha. The Upāli verses were indeed spoken by the householder Upāli. "Paññāṇa" and "saññāṇa" are one in meaning. Therefore, "bodhipaññāṇa" means "bodhisaññāṇa," and it is said to be the seed of awakening. Here, regarding "specifying both," it is said in some gloss: "If it is said with the intention 'I renounce only if both know,' and if only one of them knows, it is not renounced." This does not agree with the commentary. "I will be a layman," or "I am a layman," or When said, although it is a present tense word. And because there is no meaning (of holding) in "Hold it!", and when "Hold it!" is said, it goes over to another, therefore it is not (the case). "The Dhamma visible here and now"—everywhere the word Dhamma is said, referring to which he says "visible here and now," to explain that. Otherwise, if "I renounce the conquered victory" were said, then even the word Buddha would have to be said at the end, due to its implication even in the case of universal monarchs, etc. But in the synonyms for teacher, "who ordained me" and so on, it is said with reference to one who has gone forth, not taking the preceptor, or referring to another. "Okallaka" is a synonym for a poor person. "Moḷibaddha" means one with a topknot tied, or one with a crown removed. Cellaka is an elder. Ceṭaka is a middle one. Moḷigalla is a great novice. In the presence of Nāgas in human form, etc., or Nāgas in Nāga form, etc., or Kinnaras, etc., who understand language. "Deities are indeed greatly wise"—so it is said to be the reading. "Davāya" means suddenly. "Ravābhaññena" means with stumbling speech. For indeed, stumbling speech occurs either from not knowing the letters and their combinations well, or from the unclearness of the organs (of speech). Because of uncontrolled faculties, "like a figure in a book" is said of one with heavy intellect, of one with dull wisdom. But by what measure does one become heavy-witted, if (you ask)? By not being skilled in the right time. The commentary on the story of renouncing the training is finished. Commentary on the story of the original promulgation 55. The word "paṭisevati nāma" is not in the mātikā. Therefore, he says, "in 'paṭiseveyya' here" and so on. "This is indeed called sexual intercourse"—thus in all Pāli manuscripts. In the commentary, "This is indeed called sexual intercourse"—thus it is extracted. "With the woman's organ, one's own organ"—this is shown to be difficult to understand. "With one's own organ, the woman's organ"—because it is easy to understand, it is not shown. "Excluding four places"—here it is said with reference to only touching the inner surface. For one who withdraws without touching, there is no offense. "Majjha" means the topmost part. "Uparibhāgamajjha" means the topmost part of the upper part. "Naṭṭhakāyappasāda"—here, of one whose faculties are damaged, an offe If it is said that an offense arises here from self-origination? It is not so, for the purpose of showing this, it was said, "or a dead hide," and so on. For a dead hide is not appropriated, the offense of defeat is only in what is appropriated. By covering, not by concealing. The intention is that one should sit covering oneself so that the teeth are not seen. Gonasoti is a circular snake with a bull's back, on whose back red circles are seen. Although, by catching fish that frequent muddy waters, even those larger than those capable of swallowing an elephant's body in one gulp, with a large mouth in the ocean, are caught, sexual intercourse is not possible in their mouths and so on. Therefore, some say there is no determination of place there; it should be considered and understood. This very thing, indeed, refers to what immediately follows. Together with the connection, with the connection of words. "Since the precept that has been laid down must be learned equally by all modest individuals, it is called 'equal training.' Therefore, all precepts must be learned by all bhikkhus. For there is nothing less or more for anyone," it is said in the commentary on that. In the Parivāra, however, it is said: "Not one who is suspended, nor one on probation, Not one who has split the Sangha, nor one who has gone over to a faction; One who stands on the ground of equal communion, How could he be uncommon in training?" (Pari. 479) And in the commentary on that, it is said, "This question was stated with reference to one who was formerly a barber. For he is not allowed to carry shaving implements, others are. Therefore, he is uncommon in training." All that should be understood so that it corresponds and agrees. Even precepts that are common only to bhikkhunīs are learned by bhikkhus. In the same way, another bhikkhu who was formerly a barber also learns that precept for the sake of skill in its meaning. Thus, all precepts are called "equal training." The connection is "that which was said." "Three women," and so on, was said to determine the object, because of its characteristic of regulating the Vibhaṅga. Therefore, in cases arising from the context of non-human women, rejects those made of gold, silver, and so forth. From this point onwards, those three reasons for which the analysis proceeds, as stated previously, should be understood by connecting them as appropriate. Explanation of the First Tetrad 57. "There is a pārājika offense for him." Here, because that unwholesome offense overcomes the purity of that monk's virtue, and being overcome by defilement, it is called pārājika. It overcomes and destroys the dukkaṭa, thullaccaya, and other offenses committed earlier, and stands alone as the only one for him.