English
would not be possible through indirect reference. If it is said that it is not possible? No, due to the absence of a specific reason, due to the possibility of non-offense there, and due to the possibility of an indefinite meaning through an indefinite statement. For, by the indefinite statement ‘There are some outcasts here,’ the indefinite meaning is possible that an offense is committed by one who speaks referring to an outcast or a non-outcast— this is the intention. If so, should only this much be said, and thereby the illustration of the sequence of the summary shown previously would be accomplished? No, because without ‘he says’ being conjoined with the word ‘thus’, it is not understood that it illustrates this particular manner. And in the method of indirect reference, the word ‘he says’ should be understood as having the purpose of a rule, like the dukkata and pacittiya offenses in the understanding of others. Or, standing near oneself, commanding another bhikkhu, he says, he speaks low with low, an offense of pacittiya. If he himself is low, and speaks low with low, an outcast… a Pukkusa as ‘Pukkusa’, an offense of pacittiya for each word, this method should be understood as applicable in the cases of indirect reference as well. This meaning should be sought in the corrupted texts. Otherwise, either ‘he says’ or ‘he speaks’ would be meaningless in both the cases of direct and indirect reference, or specifically in the cases of indirect reference. It incurs an offense without that, due to the impossibility of verbal fluency. Since it is not stated in the Pāli itself, here "sāṇattika" (with a message) should be understood. Here, the word-combination "vadeti" (he speaks) is from "vada iti" (speak thus). For one speaking not face-to-face, it's a dukkaṭa, because it is said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: "But for one speaking face-to-face, even with the seven groups of offenses, it's a dukkaṭa." "Davakamyatā" is a kind of sport; to show that, "hasādhippāyatā" (with intent to laugh) is said. The teachers say: "Even speaking not face-to-face with an intent to sport is merely ill-spoken." Even speaking angrily, censuring evil, is a dukkaṭa; not face-to-face, no offense. The explanation of the precept on contemptuous speech is finished. 3. Explanation of the Precept on Slanderous Speech 36-7. "Having heard this, to that one" is the reading. "Having heard these" is not good. "Even for division" means for division. Since all three are involved as bhikkhus, the plural "bhikkhūnaṃ pesuññe" (slander among bhikkhus) is used. 38-9. The construction is: "Having said 'Venerable So-and-so is a caṇḍāla... etc. ... he speaks as a pukkusa,' he brings up the slander." Otherwise, it would be necessary to say "he speaks as a pukkusa." Here, though the case of an unordained person is obtainable, it is not brought up, because the method was shown in the contemptuous speech, or because of the desire to show it briefly at the end. Thus, at the end, three dukkaṭas are shown. But the Blessed One, in showing these, since he wished to show that by taking either of the two phrases "having heard from an ordained person, he brings up slander to an ordained person" (or both phrases) as a pācittiya, and thus both are stated together, therefore, first of all, he said: "An ordained person, having heard from an ordained person, brings up slander to an ordained person, there is an offense of pācittiya." "But among these two, since an ordained person who has even committed a pārājika, wishing to insult such an ordained person, speaks contemptuously, having heard from such a one, he brings up slander to such a one, there is an offense of pācittiya, therefore 'upasampan Some say that this initial word "no" is stated everywhere. That is not proper, because for one who has committed a complete offense, another offense is not possible. Therefore, it should be understood that this initial word was stated only because in the mātikā the word "bhikkhu" is absent, and without it, the words "speaks" and "brings together" cannot have a clear agent. This, due to the absence of a Pāli trace, is merely a non-injunction. The genitive case "not for one desirous of affection, not for one intending schism," is dependent on "bringing together," because for one who is silent, there is no purpose in speaking. Therefore it is said: "For one speaking to censure evil, there is no offense." The explanation of the rule on slander is concluded. 4. The explanation of the rule on "word by word Dhamma." Here, concerning "all this, Dhamma word by word," the connection is "Dhamma means what was spoken by the Buddha." "A group of letters" refers to incomplete words. What is spoken by a Paccekabuddha is also Buddha-spoken. What is spoken by non-lay followers or householders should be understood to fall into the category of what is spoken by sages, etc. In some books, the word "spoken by devas" is not present. Where it is, that is the Pāli. And in verse compositions, this is the method: even by saying just one letter, one takes a stand. If, when reciting a Sutta beginning "Thus have I heard," one stops after saying the letter "e," there is an offense for each subsequent letter. If one stops after saying an incomplete word, it is for each subsequent consonant. If, among words, one first word is incorrect, there is an offense for each subsequent word. "Dependent on the commentary" means standing in dependence on the commentary. Referring to the commentary spoken previously in the ordinary language. "Dependent on the Pāli" means what has come in the Pāli itself. And treatises like the Maggakathā are also included. "Upacāra" is twelve cubits. It is written: "Opāteti means speaks together, comes together." Although even the suppression of chaff and the instruction on virtue arose in the time of the Blessed One, yet, to make it known that among these, whatever was spoken having been drawn from the Buddha's words, that alone becomes the ground for an offense, it was made flexible in the Great Commentary with the words "they say." Buddha's words... Therefore, having brought it from there, due to its frequency, by that frequent method, an offense is stated in them. Therefore, in the Mahāpaccariya, its intention is revealed—this is the meaning. It is said by others: "It is a word for all." If a teacher, standing, gives a lesson to those sitting, some say he does not incur the offense stated: "I will not teach Dhamma to one sitting while I am standing." That is not appropriate, as their giving of lessons is not different from teaching Dhamma. It would lead to the non-incurrence of offense for those with umbrellas in hand, etc., by giving lessons, but the state of offense is established. For this has been said: "Both do not know the meaning, both do not see the Dhamma; He who recites a mantra, and he who learns unrighteously." (Pāci. 647); Here, "learns" is the meaning. Therefore, giving a lesson is also teaching Dhamma. In the Sekhiya Commentary (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 634), it is said: "Here, the definition of Dhamma should be understood in the way stated for Dhamma word by word." Therefore, this very Dhamma should be understood everywhere in the training rules related to Dhamma. If so, for one teaching mind-Dhamma by way of conditioned speech, etc., there would be no offense according to the Sekhiya, which would contradict the Chapaka Jātaka. Is it because the mantras there are external texts? No, because their intention is not known. For this is the intention there: "Bhikkhus, it is displeasing to me to recite even a mantra, which is considered an external text, to one sitting on a high seat, let alone to teach Dhamma." For this Pāli text: "Even then, Bhikkhus, it is displeasing to me to sit on a low seat and recite a mantra to one sitting on a high seat, how much more so now... to teach Dhamma" (Pāci. 647) reveals the intention as stated, and not otherwise. Therefore, the distinction in wording "to recite a mantra, to teach Dhamma" is made. Otherwise, in both cases, it would simply be said "to teach Dhamma." However, in the supplementary commentary on "Do not speak with me," etc., it is stated thus: "If a bhikkhu wishes to speak with a novice, and likewise a novice wishes to speak with a bhikkhu, and suddenly interrupts, 'y Like in cases such as when reciting a mostly familiar text, one makes a mistake, there is no offense. For by this much, a bhikkhu is not said to be teaching a novice. Since it is not in the Great Commentary, therefore this is also appropriate. If, having considered it there, it were rejected, it would be an offense. And one does not incur an offense of action or inaction. Why? Because one desires to speak together intentionally. But even having been forbidden, 'Do not speak together,' if one speaks together, one incurs an offense. For one who does not desire to speak, having erred suddenly and speaking together, there is no offense. Therefore it is said, 'If, having been told "Do not speak with me," one speaks, there is no offense.' Nevertheless, following the opinion of the teachers, in such instances, one should act in the manner stated. Why? Because it is not in the Great Commentary. And because of its absence, there is an offense. If the statement of no offense is not possible there, it is because it is not the proper place. Herein is this consideration: If, having been told "Do not speak with me," one speaks, it is appropriate that there is no offense for the bhikkhu, because the bhikkhu has no desire to speak. And even if there is desire, there is no offense in the three cases such as reciting. Now, if the bhikkhu, having been told by the novice with skill, "Do not speak with me," speaks with prior intention, it is indeed an offense, because there is a desire to speak. If one speaks suddenly, there is no offense, because of the absence of that desire. If a bhikkhu, having said "Do not speak with me" in this way, then speaks with him himself,