English
it is indeed an offense. For this rule is not about action or inaction. If this rule were about action or inaction, it would be appropriate. The intention there is 'no offense'. In the Mahāpaccariya, it might have been said with this very intention, "Do not speak with me." For the novice's action is not the standard here. But when this intention is stated, it is very appropriate, so is the meaning. The meaning of the letters, the meaning of the words. Although it is said, "Whatever word, whatever subsequent word, whatever letter, whatever subsequent letter, all of this is called 'word-by-word Dhamma'," nevertheless, "one recites by word, in the word..." of an offense of expiation. If he recites by syllable, for each syllable there is an offense of expiation." Only these two are joined. Why is that? Because "pada" (word) includes "anupada" (sub-word) and "anubyañjana" (sub-syllable). For it is said: "Anupada is the second part (of a word). Anubyañjana is the subsequent consonant similar to the preceding consonant." Therefore, it is established that only a part of anupada is anubyañjana. And since it is said: "A word is a collection of syllables and sub-syllables," only "pada" should be stated, and thereby the three, anupada and so on, are included. If you say so, it should not be stated due to the specific wording. For one who recites by word incurs an offense in a word, or in a sub-word, or in a sub-syllable. Not in a syllable. But one who recites by syllable incurs an offense in any of the words and so on. For it is not possible that when reciting the first "va" in "varo varaññū varado varāharo" and so on, he incurs an offense in the second "va" and so on; when reciting the first "ro" he incurs an offense in the second "ro"; when reciting the first "ra" he incurs an offense in the second "ra," and there is an offense of expiation. If you say it is possible according to sub-syllables, no, because it contradicts "for each word there is an offense of expiation." For this statement indicates that there is one offense for one word. If you say that according to the saying "when 'rūpaṃ aniccaṃ' is being said, he incurs an offense in 'rū'," it is established that for one who recites the entire phrase, there is an offense when only the first syllable is uttered separately, no, because it contradicts "for each syllable there is an offense of expiation." Therefore, it is impossible to say "he incurs an offense in 'rū'." The word "rūpaṃ aniccaṃ" was stated to show that the syllable "rū" falls under the aforementioned category, without stating it, or it should be understood as a feeling-statement in a sub-syllable, due to the coherence of the statement. The explanation of the training rule concerning reciting by word is finished. 5. The explanation of the first training rule concerning sleeping together. 50. "One should not arrange to sleep together." It is said by way of repetition. In some, the reading is: "One should not arrange for co-sleeping." The meaning is: It is enjoined that a bhikkhuni should not arrange for it. It is written: "Apassenaṃ means a woven bed." The rest of the text is: "What is not suitable for these, that is also for them, without going to the preceptor and others, one may arrange for co-sleeping." 52. It is said by others: "Since 'unordained' means 'the rest, excluding a bhikkhu,' a woman is unordained, and on the fourth night, a woman generates two offenses of co-sleeping." And it is said: "Excluding a bhikkhu... 'pannoti' refers to an animal man who is the object of a pārājika offense." Both should be investigated. In the second training rule, "woman" means only a human woman; yakkhis, petis, and animal beings, though objects of a pārājika, are not included, as there is a dukkaṭa offense in their case. And it is said: "But if there would be a dukkaṭa offense in one's own training rule, then why is there a pācittiya in the first training rule?" "No offense in an unfenced courtyard" is a saying from the Sinhala Commentary. To explain its meaning, it is said in the Andhaka Commentary: "It is spoken with reference to a courtyard on the ground, without a raised platform." "Stays again" means stays on the fourth day. "Bhikkhu lies down" means when a bhikkhu lies down. "Sannipatitamaṇḍapa" (assembly hall) is the place of assembly in the Great Monastery. Some say: "Having stayed for three days in the dukkaṭa field, if one sleeps on the fourth day in a manner sufficient for a co-sleeping offense, it is a pācittiya." But that is not appropriate. The explanation of the first training rule on co-sleeping is finished. 6. Explanation of the second training rule on co-sleeping 55. The reading is: "Then those people" and "those travelers." "For one night" also exists, but it is not good. Since a dukkaṭa is mentioned in the Pāli for a paṇḍaka (eunuch), it appears that "the root offense is with those of both sexes," and they say "those without signs, etc., are women," as stated regarding those of both sexes. Although a dead woman is an object of a pārājika, in the case of the ungrasped side... But being firm here, he does not commit an offense. And the ground for a pārājika offense should not be looked for here. The explanation of the Second Rule on Sleeping Together is finished. 7. Explanation of the Rule on Teaching Dhamma 66. By the saying "intelligent and capable," for one teaching even an unintelligent woman, there is no offense. Here, yakkhīs and the like, being not gross like human women, become grounds for a dukkaṭa offense. Because it is said that a woman possessed by an animal or human spirit is capable, some say that the other (women) are also grounds for a dukkaṭa offense. "To a woman" is said with a gender inversion. It is written: "It is indeed allowed to speak as one wishes in Tamil and other languages, apart from the text of the commentaries and so on." If it is asked: "Just as yakkhīs and the like become grounds for a dukkaṭa offense, why does one teaching Dhamma to a woman who is with a yakkha or the like that has taken on a male form, commit a pācittiya offense without committing a dukkaṭa?" Because it does not involve a second party at all. Even a human woman is not a second party, much less yakkhās and the like. If it is asked: "Is it not that he is a second party when there is no fixed second party?" There, being a second party is not dependent on lewd speech, but dependent on sitting together. And here, it is not merely sitting together, but teaching Dhamma is intended here. And that (teaching) is grosser than lying down. Therefore, the example is not suitable. The explanation of the Rule on Teaching Dhamma is finished. 8. Explanation of the Rule on Revealing Supernatural Attainments 67. It is said: "The ground for the fourth pārājika and this (rule) are one and the same." This is not appropriate. Why? Because there it is said: "worthless men." My reasoning is that since they are not mixed with noble ones, both are similar. It is written: "Noble ones also acknowledged (it), because the superhuman dhamma exists within them too." It is said by others: "The word 'bhūta' (supernatural attainment) is used because the superhuman dhamma of both ordinary people and noble ones was revealed as 'Bhagavā, it is true,' and not referring to one's own superhuman dhamma." 77. "By those not mentioned before" means "by those not mentioned in the fourth pārājika." The explanation of the Rule on Revealing Supernatural Attainments is finished. 9. Revealing Gross Faults Description of the Training Rule on Not Training 78-80. "Having approached with that hand, he removed the impurity" - this reading is a good, consistent reading. It should be done after asking permission. If not, it would have been stated in the Pāli itself. "By shame and dread" is said in common usage among others, where "by dread" should be said. It is not stated in the Great Commentary due to its obviousness, for it is established as a dukkaṭa offense by showing the impossibility of a pācittiya offense. 83. Here, "action" is included in the aforementioned transgression, so it is the basis for his disciplinary action. "He incurred an action there" was written previously. In the Great Commentary, the reading is "he incurred his own desire," and they say, "this alone should be adopted"; it should be investigated. The description of the training rule on revealing a serious offense is finished. 10. Description of the Training Rule on Digging the Earth 86. Kaṭasakkharā is a type of soft gravel, like white clay. It is written, "It is said to show the place to be avoided, 'not having made a shelter'." It should be said, "to show a place not exposed to rain." Mūsikukkuranti is earth dug up by mice. "Pure-minded" means that although they know, "if it proceeds thus, the earth will be broken," they are not intent on breaking the earth; they are called pure-minded. Earth and the like, these two categories, are causes for offense. Some say, "Since a dukkaṭa is stated for half in all-covered places and the like, if it is a dukkaṭa, it is appropriate." In that case, it is appropriate due to the possibility of such a situation, but here there are only two situations: earth that has grown and earth that has not grown. Therefore, it is not appropriate that one of the two should occur. If it is said that there is also a dukkaṭa statement here? That, however, is by way of perception, not by way of the situation, so it is not appropriate. 87. Some say that it is permissible to make a fire here because it takes heat to that extent, therefore it is permissible. If so, when a fire is made on the earth, the ground becomes hot even from a distance; that much would have to be disturbed, and it is not permissible. Therefore, others say that the fire burns the place where it falls, therefore it is permissible. Even if it does not burn, "the earth not burned..." since it was said, "It is not proper to place fire,"