English
shows that something specific is obtained. 394. In essence, it is one, therefore, without stating the meaning of the place, it is said, "a trace," and so on. 395. Having made it with a basis, that is, having imposed it upon a person, even if one is of the same birth, like a khattiya, there is a difference in aspect due to what is seen, heard, or suspected regarding long, short, dark, fair, and so on. Seeing a khattiya acting long, one accuses him with a trace of birth due to the khattiya designation of short, etc., being the basis. Or, seeing a khattiya acting, one takes a khattiya who is a different, distinguished part as a trace of birth, and accuses him, "A khattiya has been seen, you are a khattiya," with the different aspect of what is seen, etc. And here it is written, "Long, etc., and seen, etc., are the basis, being the substance of birth, name, etc., thus they are the locus." That does not overcome the fault stated as "due to the non-fixity of being a locus." In the commentary it is said, "The locus-ness is to be understood as the basis of the designation of khattiya birth." That too is not universal, as there is no designation of name and clan different from name and clan for anyone. Therefore, the extraction of the word "of the locus" is to show the four kinds of locus, and that is not our reasoning for showing the same case. Here, in "of the long, etc., or of the seen, etc.," the long-ness, etc., and the seen-ness, etc., are the different aspect, which is the specific quality of the accused from which he is called different. 399. A light offense, means an offense lighter than a pārājika, such as a saṅghādisesa, etc. Therefore, at the end, showing that, it is said, "A bhikkhu is seen committing a saṅghādisesa," and so on. If it is asked, "Why is a trace of offense not elaborated like traces of birth, etc.?" Then it should be understood that it is not possible in that way. 400. The cloth-bowl, the bowl on the body. Of an offense, means a saṅghādisesa, etc., which is a different aspect of a pārājika offense. And the locus is of the designation of offense. Since it is said, "A trace is a part of an offense," the trace of a part of an offense is to be understood as stated. Therefore, in the sense of being the basis of the designation of an offense which is a different aspect from a pārājika offense, "locus." The accusation made by taking a trace of the state of being an offense from the category of offenses such as a Sanghādisesa, which has reached the count of "aṇa" (fault), should be understood as an accusation of a trace of an offense. 408. There is no offense for one who perceives it as such, whether he accuses or causes to accuse, only in the case of an accusation concerning a share of an offense, not elsewhere. To this extent, it is consistent with the investigation mentioned regarding the first fault. If it is asked how this is understood here, it is by the method of the Dispeller of Doubts. For it is said: "Here and there, in an accusation concerning a share of an offense, there is no offense even for one who perceives it as such." He who does not train In the training of a share of another, as is proper, Will go, by those skilled in Vinaya, To the state of a share of another. Thus. The commentary on the training rule concerning the second fault is concluded. 10. The Commentary on the First Training Rule Concerning Schism in the Sangha 409. Also the reading "should not touch a fault." 410. Not knowing them appropriately, he would be not omniscient. It is indeed forbidden, as it is said: "Monks, one without a dwelling should not enter the Rains" (Mahāvagga 204). "Pure in three ways" is said to prevent the imputation of evil to others, not to prevent dependent action by "ways" (koṭīhi). "Pure" means liberated. If ascetics consume what is offered with ten traces, and non-ascetics consume these, then the Dispensation would incur blame, and because of that blame, the world would accumulate demerit or slander the Noble Ones; the meaning is that it is liberated from these. "Vāgura" means a hunter's net. After showing the permissibility of what is done for the benefit of others, such as "for one's own benefit," he then says "for the sake of the dead, for funeral rites," etc., to show what is done for the benefit of monks and others. "Whatever" etc. is said to show the reason for that. Again, it is said that what is done for the benefit of five co-religionists is not permissible, so says Elder Dhammasiri. In the Gaṇṭhipada, it is written: "What is done solely for the benefit of pure monks is not permissible." Others, however, say: "Even if it is said 'for the sake of the dead, for funeral rites,' etc., it is permissible, but by 'solely for the benefit of monks,' it means 'we give to monks and then we eat.'" that it was said, "We will anoint." Again, to show that "what is made for one of five is not proper for the others," it was said, "It is said that 'among the five fellow-Dhamma practitioners' and so on, was stated." However, in a certain knot-point, having said, "When 'ours' and 'of the king's officials' and so on are said, it is proper," and having shown that "even when 'for the purpose of a funeral rite' is said, it is proper," by establishing the characteristic of what is said everywhere and what is included by the word 'and so on,' it was said, "only for monks" and so on. There, it was said, "with the intention that it is only when designated for monks." Not to show that "when 'yours' and 'ours' are said, there is no offense." Why? Because there is no mixed case. A characteristic is for what is stated and what is similar to what is stated. "If, in the place where 'for the purpose of a funeral rite' is said, they do it referring to food for monks," and in the Great Commentary, it is said, "in that case, when 'not yours' is said, it is proper." Therefore, here too, "the same rule applies when done for a funeral rite or for a festive occasion and so on," was said according to the meaning stated earlier. "If it is said, 'it is proper in a mixed case by way of emphasis'?" "By the statement, 'there is no offense in accepting permissible meat,' it is implied that there is an offense in accepting impermissible meat, and 'that should be accepted' should be rejected," it was said. That appears to be good; it should be considered and accepted. And where, even when done for the benefit of monks. To reveal that meaning, "if, however," and so on, was said. Here, however, they say, "for nuns, a dukkata; for others, a disciplinary matter." "For an eon in hell" means for an incalculable eon. A schism in the Sangha occurs only during the period of the world's standing still. "Eon" means a life-span eon. 411. "Skillful" means safe. Here, "done by the conscientious out of fear of offense," to show that they certainly report out of fear of offense, in accordance with the ancient saying, "the conscientious will protect" (Visuddhi. 1.42; Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.45), it was said, "by other conscientious ones." Even for the shameless, For one who does not admonish, there is an offense, according to the saying: “Those who see, those who hear.” 416. “Asamanubhāsantassa” is a nominative of agent for the doer of the action, meaning, for one who does not perform the act of admonishing. Is it that one who is specifically permitted, such as one who is insane, or has a disturbed mind, or is suffering from pain, etc., is not liable, as stated in the Ariṭṭha training rule: “There is no offense for the first offender”? Even that, etc. But this is no offense. “He is called” means that even one who is mentioned there, or one who is engaged in his own work, is called thus. “By this method” means according to the meaning stated for one who does not admonish and for the first offender. “Except for the Ariṭṭha training rule,” because there is no word “first offender” there. In “tivaṅgikaṃ” (three-limbed), when one renounces with speech, there is a bodily intimation like the movement of the lips. Therefore, it occurs for one who expresses both kinds of intimation. For one unable to make a verbal distinction, but making a bodily alteration, there should be no offense. Why? Because one of the three limbs is missing. Therefore, the state of having three limbs is an offense, and the state of lacking a limb should be understood as no offense. Here, it might be said: If there is no offense due to the lack of a limb, then even if that is so, for one who renounces with the mind alone, without making an alteration, there should be no offense. That is not so. Why? Because in the Commentary, it is said: “It is an act of non-doing only when one does not make a bodily alteration or a verbal distinction.” It is not said: “or one who does not produce a thought.” Therefore, if it is to be understood that the mind is indeed bound to intimation, and thus is mentioned as a separate limb? That is not so. It is the non-doing of only two. Therefore, it seems that even for one who renounces with the mind, there is an offense. It should be examined and understood. If it is said there: “unwholesome thought”? They say: “It is said due to the abundance of thoughts.” They too, it seems, say it due to abundance. The explanation of the first training rule on schism is finished. 11. The Explanation of the Second Training Rule on Schism 422. “Saññī” means one who is conscious. The explanation of the second training rule on schism is finished. 12. The Explanation of the Dubbaca Training Rule 424. “Pataṃ pa” It opens, it unfolds. It raises up from one side and places it in the mud. It removes the long-rooted, leafy moss and algae, the pipe-pepper, the small insects, and the fish bones, which are like a single heap of earth, a river, a conch shell. It removes the water-blister, which, like a tiny root-leaf, spreads over the surface of the water, like a sesame seed. 425-6. Some also read "of a stubborn nature." "By former action" means by old kamma.