English
These are four. For this one, however, the transfer in the Saṅgha, knowing one's own transfer, and obtaining it. These are three. Here, the first view is incorrect, even though it makes room in the Aṭṭhakathā, because it is not considered in the Parivāra. If so, should it be said there among the conditions, "not transferred to another"? It should not be said, as it is understood by meaning. Because of the establishment of the two training rules of transfer, because it is called "transferred," and because an offense can arise, he says, "Give it to me too." "It is permissible" is not stated. Because it is said, "We also have it," it is permissible. "Dedicated to the Saṅgha...etc.... an offense of wrong-doing" - here "to a person" is not said, because it comes in the way of a pure pācittiya. "To another shrine" is not said, because the Saṅgha is not a shrine. For that very reason, "dedicated to a shrine...etc.... an offense of wrong-doing" - here too "to another Saṅgha, to another person" is not said. "Since thus here, and in 'dedicated to a person...etc.... an offense of wrong-doing,' although 'for oneself' is not said, it is still possible," they say. But some say that it is not said here because this rule is about dedicating for oneself. And some say it is like the word "for the sake of another" in the subsequent rule. That is not so, because it is not said in this rule about dedicating to a person. But Elder Dhammasiri said: "Gain from another, Dedicated to the Saṅgha or another; If he dedicates it for himself, it's nissaggiya, Pācittiya, and dukkaṭa." Its meaning: If one dedicates for oneself what is dedicated to the Saṅgha, it is nissaggiya. If one dedicates that same thing to another, it is pācittiya. If one dedicates what is dedicated to another, either for oneself or for another, it is dukkaṭa. Therefore, because of the possibility of offenses mentioned in "requesting from an unknown person" etc., the word "for oneself" is not said in these two types of dedication. For if it were said, there would only be the occasion for a dukkaṭa. But when it is not said, one of the offenses mentioned in these (rules) according to the tradition, and the dukkaṭa that is implied here, these two offenses occur together, thus making an opportunity for the complete knowledge of the Vinaya-holders. Thus the section of thirty, the essence-circle, This is enough in the essence-circle of the Vinaya; Here is completed the entire essence-circle, By way of Vinaya, it purifies the essence-circle. The commentary on the rule of dedication is finished. The third chapter on bowls is finished. The commentary on Nissaggiya is finished. Commentary on Pācittiya 5. The Pācittiya Section 1. The Chapter on False Speech 1. Commentary on the Rule of False Speech "Vādakkhitta" (thrown into dispute) - here, without distinction, the three kinds: dispute, idle talk, and wrangling... Also the path of discussion is called "debate" so it should be understood. Among these, setting aside the debate "with sectarians" they say "the rest". Due to skill in the six kinds of refutation points sometimes somewhere having denied, he affirms, and similarly, having affirmed some statement before, he denies it later. Thus or otherwise he acts inconsistently. Behaving thus, having affirmed a deliberate lie, not making it true, having made a promise, he deceives. Thus, being defeated in debate and fulfilling the ground for a pācittiya offense, he wanders about; this meaning should be understood. "He debates his own view" - here, "all phenomena are not-self" is his first initiated view. "What is suffering, that is not-self" is not the proper occasion. When "all phenomena" is said, Nibbāna also is included. But because it is said "Nibbāna is the highest happiness", that is not suffering. This is not possible. This opponent, showing the Sutta "What is suffering, that is not-self", confusing the doctrine, will impute the fault called "contradictory, inconsistent". Perceiving some fault in that first view, whether the fault is imputed or not, denying it, saying "this is not my view", and seeing the Sutta "Nibbāna is indeed eternal" and "not-self, thus is the certainty", perceiving the faultlessness of that first view, he later affirms that very view, saying "this is indeed my view". Thus there, perceiving the aforementioned advantage, having affirmed it, if all phenomena are not-self, then they are not phenomena at all. For they are called "phenomena" because they bear their own nature. And this word 'atta' (self) signifies 'nature'. Thus, whether the fault is imputed or not, perceiving it as a fault, saying "this is not my view", he later denies that very first view. Then that opponent refutes his own side. The denial of what was admitted. It is said, "Your admission is a different kind of censure," by the saying, "He admits it, it is his." With the intention of denying a meaning that is beyond its nature, referring to the self conceived by the foolish as beyond its nature, "All phenomena are not-self" is my admitted statement. And that remains in that state. So I have no such denial of what was admitted. But the disavowal, "This is not my doctrine," is made with the intention that "I do not say 'All phenomena are not-self'" referring to the self which is the nature. Thus, by this other reason, he conceals that former reason for denying what was admitted. "It should not be said, 'All phenomena are not-self,' because the word 'atta' means 'nature'." It was on account of this reason that he previously denied what was admitted. The meaning is that he conceals that other reason with another reason shown later. Since he not only disavows the meaning in the way shown, and also admits it, but also the statement, therefore in the commentary (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 1) it is said, "Having first stated the reason 'because it is knowable,' when the opponent says, 'If it is impermanent because it is knowable, then Nibbāna would be impermanent for you,' he says, 'I did not state the reason "because it is knowable," I stated "because it is of the nature to arise," and you, being deaf, misunderstood it as something else,' and so on." It is said, "Having said 'because it is knowable,' he then says 'because it is of the nature to arise,' and so on." It is written, "By admitting again after disavowing, he thereby conceals that disavowal." 2. "Having known and for one who knows" indicates two meanings: "having known" or "for one who knows." 3. Moreover, "included in wrong speech" means included in the four kinds of wrong speech. Some say "included in the different names such as Sinhala." Therefore, both the statement of one who speaks thus and the volition that gives rise to it are mentioned, because both are included in the matrix. In the Vibhaṅga, since that statement does not exist without communication, therefore "in speech." "What is intimation?" and intimation is shown. "The speech of one speaking thus," having said by conventional usage, showing from the ultimate sense, "or the volition that gives rise to it is said," thus he says. Only by the gross (meaning), because the words arising from volition are subtle, it is done only by way of the object. 9. "It has been seen by him" it was seen by him, or by this, by way of access concentration, it is not considered by me as not having acted. "A cloth woven by me was not seen" and for one saying thus etc., only by taking ultimate emptiness, "I do not see a woman, nor a man" and for one saying thus, it is not false speech. 11. "He incurs an offense indeed" here they say "an offense of ill-spoken words". Why? Because it is said "playing a game". "Speech, utterance... etc. ... verbal intimation" referring to what is straightforward, the body is not straightforward. The explanation of the training rule on false speech is finished. 2. The explanation of the training rule on abusive speech. 13. "Again he reaches the spoke" "again, having revolved that place, to another spoke that has come" thus it is written. "The place of the established spoke" means the ground. "Again to the spoke" some say it means "again he reaches the ground at that very spoke". That does not seem good. "Jāpita" means defeated, or "parājito" is the reading. "Pāpesi" means you overcome. A heavy burden for the brahmin speaking pleasantly. "Udabbahi" means he pulled out, that is the meaning, or it is a genitive case in the sense of disrespect. "And he caused him not to obtain wealth" the intention is that he acted so that he did not obtain wealth. 15. "Pubbe" means in the cause. "Avakaṇṇaka" is the name for one with cut ears. "Javakaṇṇaka" is the name for one with crooked ears. "Dhaniṭṭhaka" is the name for one who increases wealth, "Sirivaḍḍhaka" is a name just like "Kulavaḍḍhaka". "Tacchakakamma" means excavators, some say stone workers. "Muddā means counting joints. Gaṇanā means great counting" thus it is said in ancient commentaries. "He urinates honey-urine" thus it is written. Some say it is the accumulation of flesh for a stout person. "Yabha" means in sexual intercourse. Even one who abuses with "free from passion" etc. it is said that he abuses with defilements, similarly "stream-enterer" saying ‘you are not’ reviles with an offense, so say some. Due to being dependent on gender, even ‘very white’ becomes a gender. 16. ‘He says’ everywhere is the summary. ‘He speaks’ is the elaboration. Or, by ‘he says’, it indicates the understanding of others. 26. But in the cases of indirect reference, it is said: ‘He says thus.’ Why? To illustrate the sequence of the summary shown previously. Even previously, ‘low with low, low with high, high with low, high with high’— in each of the categories, four by four, the illustration of the sequence of the summary shown is done by ‘thus’. For, only when ‘he says thus’ is said in the place where ‘he says low with low’ is said, is that manner illustrated— this is the intention. Otherwise, that manner