English
This should be thoroughly investigated. The reading should be taken starting from the word "realization of fruits," and even for the realization of fruits, each one should be understood as a pārājika according to each fruit. In the triad "abandonment of lust" and so on, the abandonment of defilements is stated. But this does not exist without the path. Indeed, by the third path is the abandonment of lust and hatred, by the fourth, of delusion. Therefore, even for one who says "My lust is abandoned" and so on, it is a pārājika. In the triad "the mind is free from hindrances due to lust" and so on, only the supramundane is stated. Therefore, for one who says "My mind is free from hindrances due to lust" and so on, it is indeed a pārājika. Some residents of the Northern Monasteries say "because of the immutability of the state." If it is asked, "Why is it not (a pārājika)?" Because it is stated in the mātikā only with present tense words like "Thus I know, thus I see." If so, since in the word analysis it is stated with "I attained, one who has attained" and so on, should it also be (a pārājika) for one who says "I was a stream-enterer in the past state?" No, because the meaning can be otherwise. How? It is stated to make known that the present tense should be understood in the sense of a continuous present, not a past state. For the past state, since it is stated figuratively, the teachers say it is a "gross offense." 200. "Even if it is not (a pārājika), it is still a pārājika" is said, it seems, by way of an impossible supposition. It will be said, "Thus the speech is threefold." "There is not" means the absence of the latter when the former exists. Although there is no temporal distinction in meaning for "I attained" and "one who has attained," there is indeed a distinction in wording. 207. "Ukkheṭi" means frightened. "Khiṭa" is in the sense of frightening. The commentary on the chapter of Purity is finished. Commentary on the chapter of Desiring to Speak "Viññattipathe" means in the place of understanding, therefore "viññattipa... A monk who has surpassed the standard, standing there, knows by hearing with the divine ear-element. It is said that he reveals, "It is not a pārājika." Here, regarding "he enters jhāna, it is said," if he knows, "This monk speaks thus with the intention of displaying his own qualities," it is indeed a pārājika. But if he knows otherwise? The teacher says, "No shadow of a pārājika is seen." The commentary on the section concerning the desire to speak is finished. The commentary on the section concerning the distinctions of non-offences Regarding the intention of not boasting, others say, "If there were an intention to boast, it would be a dukkaṭa." It is said, "That should be understood by correlating it with the later passage: 'Friend, it is not possible for an ordinary person to endure it.'" The commentary on the word-analysis is finished. The commentary on the explained cases 225-6. In the cases of difficult, house, concealed, desire, and delight, they say, "If there were an intention to boast, it would be a pārājika." But the reason is hard to see; it should be investigated as if it were a thullaccaya. Even going by vehicle or by psychic power, he does not incur a pārājika, which is consistent with the agreement made regarding going on foot. It is said, "Going neither before nor after means going as if holding each other's hand without letting go of arm's reach." The teacher's conjecture is that even going before or after in such a joint journey, saying "Get up, come, let's go," does not incur an offence. Regarding "residing": if he is seen residing thus by a lay follower, he incurs a pārājika. It is said, "One who resides for a night and then goes is not subject to a pārājika." "Of various regions" means residents of various countries. "Sangha's gain" means one's own share according to seniority. 228. Here, regarding "here," in the question-action stated with "who indeed..." and so on. The element of Dhamma is omniscience. 232. Regarding "not in succession," he did not recollect in the manner of a lion's leap. Therefore, the meaning is that he penetrates that there is only one birth, being an intermediate existence. The concluding commentary 233. Here, regarding "twenty-four," matricides, parricides, and arahant-slayers incurred the third pārājika. The defiler of a bhikkhunī, and the four beginning with Lambi, incurred the first pārājika. If it is said, "Indeed, how are there twenty-four?" No, because the intention is not understood. For the four, like matricides, are here intended as unordained; and the four, like those who hang themselves, although included in the first pārājika, because in one way they do not engage in sexual intercourse, therefore they are mentioned separately. Referring to the mere unsuitability of co-residence, spoken of as "one act, one purpose, equal training," it is said, "as before, so after." Otherwise, it would follow that they do not even have the status of a monk by designation or by declaration. The explanation of the Fourth Pārājika is finished. The explanation of the Pārājika Section is finished. 2. The Saṅghādisesa Section 1. The explanation of the Rule on Emission of Semen 235. The reading is "Okkamantānaṃ" (while descending/proceeding). Here it is asked: "Why is the agent 'whatever monk' not specified here?" To show its dependent nature by explicit indication. How? For one who intends with the volition of scratching, etc., and proceeds with the act of scratching, etc., or one who proceeds with sexual desire in minor offenses like thighs, etc., or in grave offenses like wounds, etc., even if there is an emission of semen, there is no Saṅghādisesa. The emission of semen, when there is an act, depends on the intention, called "desire for release and pleasure," not otherwise, according to the saying, "There is no offense for one without the intention of release." Therefore, to show that meaning, the agent is not specified here. Otherwise, if the agent were specified as "whatever monk intentionally emits semen," it would contradict the statement, "If he intends but does not proceed and it is released, there is no offense." Even if it were specified in the locative case as "by intentional emission of semen, except in a dream," the same contradiction would arise. Therefore, without using both those grammatical constructions, it is said, "intentional emission of semen, except in a dream." In that, since there is no locative case in the sense of a sign, the determination of the causal meaning is not made. When that is not made, intentional emission of semen, except in a dream, is a Saṅghādisesa offense, proceeding... When there is no such thing, there is no offense—this meaning is revealed, it should be understood. In "Sañcetanikā," the first analysis shows the prefix's meaningfulness, the second, the suffix -ika. It means, "due to the breaking of the 'seat' of wind, bile, phlegm, blood, etc." Regarding "Dhātu," it is written in the commentary: "the four earth elements, etc., or the eighteen eye elements, etc." "Vatthi-sīsaṃ" means the head of the bladder. They say, "the root of the generative organ is intended, not the tip." "Tathevā" refers to "by effort on the sign," etc. "Tato muccitvā" means, it is written in the commentary, "not from the whole body, but let it be released from that place only." If this does not agree with "as soon as it enters the water channel," then "Tato dakasotaṃ otiṇṇañcetthā" etc. is said. Its meaning is: having made an effort on the sign, having released semen from its place, then, by way of regret, I endure to prevent its entry into the water channel. It is not possible to endure it when it has come out. Nevertheless, with the intention of enduring, having endured, it is said "or not yet come out" because it is impossible to prevent it from the water channel upwards in between. Why? For what is released from its place must necessarily enter the water channel— this is the intention of the commentary, and it agrees with the intention of the sub-commentary. "Tato muccitvā" means from its own place. For if it were from the whole body, it would have already come out, then the saying "whether it has come out or not" would be contradictory. But because what is released from each body part must necessarily enter the water channel, it is said "as soon as it enters the water channel." And by this, it shows the manifest time of the offense. What is meant? By the pleasure of release, due to effort on the sign, even if much semen is released from the body part, whatever remains clinging here and there, as much as a tiny fly would drink, as soon as that much enters the water channel, it is a Saṅghādisesa offense. For it is said in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī: "Saṅghādisesa even if it has not entered the water channel." and so on. Not discerning the semen coming out, even if he teaches thinking it is a grave offense, by the saying, “He intends, he endeavors, he is not released, it is an offense of grave offense,” he is not released. And seeing the urine to be colored, or knowing it to be viscous from the bladder, he should be reinstated from a Sanghādisesa. This is the reasoning here in the view of the third elder. All teachers are these same three elders. And their descent into the water current is an endeavor with a sign— this is the second decision here, in common. Thus, Elder Upatissa is said to speak. Since it is certain that what has fallen from its place descends into the water current, it is said, “Here, the offense should be known by the mere falling from its place.” The offense occurs only when it has entered the water current. For the semen, the whole body is its place. It should be investigated that what has not entered is not called “fallen from its place.” Since the elder is an Abhidhammika, it is said in the Kathāvatthu commentary, “The emission of semen arises from lust,”