English
Where one stands and sees, there is an offense of pācittiya, and so on. But in the eighth, if one goes to see each one, there is an offense of wrong-doing. Where one stands and sees, there is an offense of wrong-doing – this is the Pāli (text). Why? Even though there is no difference in the measure of the parts, it is due to the distinction of the army. But in the tenth, by seeing the eighth part, there would be a wrong-doing. The commentary on the Uyyodhika training rule is finished. The fifth chapter, Acelakavagga, is completed in the order of commentaries. 6. The Chapter on Drinking Alcohol 1. Commentary on the Surāpāna training rule That which the venerable sage Sāgata, by the demonstration of his great psychic power; in order to show the fault of drinking, he had gone to Bhaddavatī before. Therefore, seeing, having struck down the nāga, and Sāgata, having emerged by psychic power; then, in order to prohibit the drinking of alcohol, it should be known that he went to Kosambī. "Pasupālaka" means goat-herders. From the seed of that by which one becomes intoxicated. Some say, "Since it is stated 'in the case of intentional action, the mind is unwholesome' (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā), therefore, for one who drinks knowing the substance, it is unwholesome." If that is the case, when it is said, "it should not be said 'it should be drunk only with unwholesome intention'," they say, "It refers only to the intentional side." If that is the case, when it is said, "It should be said 'wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate mind'," they say, "That too is said by way of prevalence." Kaṅk Even in the Hāvitaraṇī, without distinguishing, it is said "unwholesome mind" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Surāpānasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā); therefore, they say "he drinks it with an unwholesome mind." The commentary on the training rule concerning drinking intoxicants is finished. 2. Commentary on the training rule concerning poking with a finger 330. The training rule concerning poking with a finger has a clear meaning. 3. Commentary on the training rule concerning laughing behavior 336. In the third, how is there three feelings? For one who throws water with the intention of laughing, thinking "I will cause suffering to another," there is the feeling of suffering. The rest is clear. If this is a release from perception, how can it be a triple pācittiya? It is like playing, but not playing, that would be by wrong grasping. How is it playing in this way? Indeed, this is playing. Here, one should be mindful of not playing, and undertake it for the sake of discipline. Because it is entirely unwholesome, the mind delights in play. Therefore, an unwholesome mind, only one is found here. The commentary on the training rule concerning laughing behavior is finished. 4. Commentary on the training rule concerning disrespect 344. It is written: "It is not permissible for one who, transgressing what is blameworthy by the world, says 'This is our teacher's custom'." That which one incurs with a defiled mind, or that which a noble person transgresses in an unpromulgated training rule – this is what is blameworthy by the world, according to the schools of teachers such as the Sabbatthikavādī. Among these, the second and third alternatives are not intended here, because the Sekhiya rules are blameworthy by the world. Here, concerning a reprehensible teacher's custom, it is said that "because sugarcane juice is for seven days, its residue is for life, and the combination of the two is a sugarcane stick, therefore it is permissible to eat a sugarcane stick at an improper time, like a jaggery myrobalan" – such a recently arisen reprehensible teaching of teachers should not be adopted. But in what is blameworthy by promulgation, it is permissible: "a door should not be opened with a hand holding a bowl" – taking the meaning of this as "it should not be opened with the hand holding the bowl, but it may be opened with the other hand," one acting in that way should not be made to incur an offense. Similarly, "it is permissible to take flowers from Buddha-bodhi-cetiya..." acting thus, and so. Thus acts the resident of Abhayagiri. If the residents of the Great Monastery speak thus, they should be rejected, saying, "Do not speak thus!" Therefore it is said, "The Sutta and what conforms to the Sutta are only for those who have learned them," and so on. And it is said, "All this was stated by Thera Upatissa." It is written, "The commentary is what conforms to the Sutta." The explanation of the training rule concerning disrespect is finished. 5. Explanation of the training rule concerning frightening 345. The training rule concerning frightening is clear in meaning. 6. Explanation of the training rule concerning fire 354. By the saying "one who expects to sew," for whom there is no expectation, there is no offense. The explanation of the training rule concerning fire is finished. 7. Explanation of the training rule concerning bathing 364. The training rule concerning bathing is clear in meaning. 8. Explanation of the training rule concerning discolouring 368. What is not obtained is gain. Just as it is said, "one who cooks is a cook, one who spreads is a spreader," why is it not said, "one who gains is gain"? Because here, only the completed gain is intended. He seeks on the sewing path. He sews what is not allowable together with what is allowable. As long as the determination is not abandoned, so long is the former allowable. If the allowable is not abandoned, then it should be given again as allowable, such is the teacher's reasoning. The explanation of the training rule concerning discolouring is finished. 9. Explanation of the training rule concerning designation 374. Here, use is bodily action. Not revoking is verbal action. The explanation of the training rule concerning designation is finished. 10. Explanation of the training rule concerning placing a robe aside 379. In the tenth, since both the sitting-mat and the robe-sitting-mat are similar, therefore, having made both into one, he said, "A sitting-mat is called similar." Even there, by the taking of 'robe', the robe-sitting-mat is taken; thus, in meaning, only the mat-sitting-mat is spoken of. If so, should it be said, "A sitting-mat is called similar"? No, because the other would then be liable to be not a sitting-mat or not similar. Here, since the sitting-mat is the basis for an offense, the other is also a basis for an offense. It should be known as such because of its nature. In a needle-house with an owner, by counting needles, there is an offense, say the ancients. The explanation of the training rule concerning the putting away of robes is finished. Finished, in the order of explanation, the sixth chapter on drinking intoxicants. 7. The Chapter on Living Beings 1. The explanation of the training rule concerning intentionally killing living beings 382. The training rule concerning intentionally killing living beings has a clear meaning. 2. The explanation of the training rule concerning living beings 387. Even knowing ‘‘there is a living being,’’ without considering ‘‘they will die,’’ if one drinks, there is no offense. A flower placed in water, this is entering water; Thus the difference between the two should always be known by the wise. The explanation of the training rule concerning living beings is finished. 3. The explanation of the training rule concerning overturning 392. In the third (rule), twelve overturnings should be known. There, an undone act, a wrongly done act, an act to be done again – these are found in disputes concerning accusation. Not carried away, badly carried away, not to be carried away again – these are found in disputes concerning contention. Undecided, badly decided, decided again – these are found in disputes concerning offenses. Unsettled, badly settled, to be settled again – these are found in disputes concerning duties – this is the method of the commentaries, but in the Pāli text, only the essence is shown here. The explanation of the training rule concerning overturning is finished. 4. The explanation of the training rule concerning grave offenses 399. ‘‘As Pārājika offenses’’ – are shown by way of extracting the meaning – how is this understood? From the Pāli text of the Parivāra. For it is said there: ‘‘Due to a dispute concerning an offense, how many offenses does one incur? Due to a dispute concerning an offense, one incurs four offenses. A bhikkhunī, knowing, conceals a pārājika offense, there is an offense of pārājika. One who is doubtful conceals it, there is an offense of thullaccaya. A bhikkhu conceals a saṅghādisesa offense, there is an offense of pācittiya. One conceals a transgression of conduct, there is an offense of dukkaṭa.’’ (Pari. 290) If a bhikkhu concealing a pārājika has no offense, does he not incur an offense because it is not stated? No. Without concealing with a defiled mind, there is an offense... because of impossibility. Even the pārājika offenses that should be spoken of in the dukkaṭa section, because they were mentioned first along with the saṅghādisesa offenses by way of extracting the meaning, it should be understood that they cannot be mentioned again, and so they were not mentioned. Here, regarding "until the end is not cut off," whoever, at least for the purpose of concealing, whether he reported to another or not, incurred an offense with the intention of concealing. For him, by not reporting to another again for the purpose of concealing, the end is not cut off. What then is the purpose of retracting the statement? It is not cut off by not reporting to the last one, it is cut off only by not concealing. Therefore, for the purpose of not concealing, it should be reported to someone new. From then on, the end is cut off. If that is not the case, it should be reported by retracting for the purpose of not concealing.