English
Even so, the end is cut off – this is how it appears to us, says the teacher. Here, regarding "by the third to the second," for those who say "the second is the first," it is not good because it is prohibited to say "the person should not be spoken of." Even reporting to a fourth person is not good. Why? Because having heard it before, it was not reported to another. They say, "Having heard, it should be reported to another." The explanation of the Duṭṭhulla training rule is finished. 5. The explanation of the Under-Twenty-Years training rule. 404. Because of arising again and again, in many ways. Regarding reduction and increase: if in the mother's womb a reduction was made due to being less than twelve months, for the born one, an increase should be made. If in the mother's womb an increase was made, for the born one, a reduction should be made. The "Full Moon of Departure" is the full moon of the month of Sāvaṇa. It is written, "On the second day, the day of the first lunar day, it approaches." For he is fully twenty years old starting from the day of birth. For the remaining two years, there are indeed extra days. Therefore, being free from doubt, they confer ordination. Referring to that: having excluded the womb-year and not counting the acquired year, counting from the day of birth, it is nineteen years. Nineteen years means "womb... having given up the year," is wrongly written. 406. Ordains another: having become a preceptor or a teacher, he ordains. "Because of the spontaneously born being sixteen years old, again, having passed four years, ordination should be done," some teachers say. The commentary on the training rule concerning less than nineteen years is finished. 6. Commentary on the training rule concerning a thieving caravan 409. If it is a thieving caravan and a pure woman, there are two offenses. Then for bhikkhunis, the rule protects. Having made the state of being a thieving caravan as the basis, because it is to be protected, it protects fellow Dhamma-followers, so some say. In the state of thievery, there is no fellowship in the Dhamma, therefore it does not protect, so some say. If there is a state of thievery leading to expulsion, is there fellowship in the Dhamma? In the other case, the other, the rule applies without being released. If a bhikkhu is a thieving caravan, it is just as the case. In a thieving caravan, one who perceives it as a thieving caravan, and conspires together. The word "together" is not in some (texts), that is inappropriate. Likewise in the second (case). The commentary on the training rule concerning a thieving caravan is finished. 7. Commentary on the training rule concerning conspiring 412. The reading "Now at that time, a certain woman" also exists, but not in some (texts). The non-existence is good, because "at that time" is the main subject, so some say. Here, those ordained on one side, probationers, and female novices— these three also are included. But for these, the rule protects, this is the distinction for these and for women. 414. Moreover, here, by the saying "discerning and capable," some say that the incapable are not liable to an offense, that is not appropriate, because it is a matter for a dukkaṭa offense. For it has been said: "If a bhikkhu conspires, and a woman does not conspire, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." Thus indeed, it should be examined. The commentary on the training rule concerning conspiring is finished. 8. Commentary on the training rule concerning Ariṭṭha 417. Even for a householder, the act of corrupting a bhikkhuni is indeed an obstacle to liberation, therefore his ordination is also forbidden. It is an obstacle to results because it is without cause. Previously, having intended Incurred, forgotten, with pure perception, they are indeed obstructive. The rest are by nature. By essence means by state. By way of excessive pounding means by making a case, by way of pounding, by way of cutting. Like a sword-blade, by way of cutting off wholesome states. Like a spear or stake, by way of piercing the mind, say the ancients. In the non-offense Pāli, "for the first offender" is written as a common saying. The commentary on the Ariṭṭha training rule is finished. 9. Commentary on the Ukkhittasambhogasikkhāpada 425. "By not having renounced that view" – by this, it is said, is shown the state of living together with different views. Here, "three minds" – the meaning should be understood thus: it is proper to live together with a resultant indeterminate mind. Otherwise, because the training rule is intentional, it is not appropriate in reference to functional indeterminate actions. The commentary on the Ukkhittasambhogasikkhāpada is finished. 10. Commentary on the Kaṇṭaka training rule 428. "Where we do not see them" – "them" means that. Or else, we do not see your form and so on. This novice becomes one who has incurred a pārājika offense. "If he renounces that view, having informed the Saṅgha, he should be ordained with the Saṅgha's permission" – this is said in the ancient commentaries, but that is not appropriate. Indeed, expulsion by disciplinary action is intended here. If he is a pārājika offender, it would be expulsion from the order. And the view, "for one who practices them, it is not enough for an obstruction," is not the view that the Teacher is not the Teacher and so on. If that (view) arises in someone, he becomes a pārājika offender. Even in that case, one should proceed in the same way: not abiding in restraint, he should be expelled from the order – such is the teacher's reasoning. The commentary on the Kaṇṭaka training rule is finished. Finished is the seventh chapter, the chapter on living beings, by way of commentary. 8. The Sahadhammika Chapter 1. Commentary on the Sahadhammika training rule 434. The Sahadhammika training rule has a clear meaning. 2. Commentary on the Vilekhana training rule 438. In "and an offense due to confusion of mindfulness," the word "and" here indicates "does not do what should be done," not that "only four" are meant. A part of the country is a district. In the time of the Buddha, Ariṭṭha and Kaṇṭaka were enemies of the Dispensation. By the statement "It is not enough for an obstacle," they indeed point out the Buddha's non-omniscience. When the Buddha had attained final Nibbāna, the Vajjiputtakas were exponents of ten points. They were indeed enemies of the Vinaya teaching. But the doctrines like "gifts from others" were enemies of the Suttanta and Abhidhamma. Who then are they? Some Mahāsaṅghikas and others, not all, to show this, the qualifying phrase "gifts from others... etc.... doctrines" is used. Therein, those who are deceivers, of evil wishes, having spoken falsely, having eaten excellent food obtained, having fallen into sleep with lost mindfulness, having experienced the emission of semen, when others see it and say, "There is emission of semen for an Arahant," they deceive people by saying, "Māra's beings bring it about." And those who are rightly practicing, not deceivers, even they, having heard that statement, some become of that view, and are conceited. Even seeing their own emission of semen, they do not assent to it, they are merely perceivers of attainment in what is not attained. Similarly, there is for an Arahant the removal of doubt about ignorance, and the meaning that "names are designated by others for the sake of explaining truths," like in names and clans, should be connected as far as possible. Therein, the Vinaya-holder, showing the Sutta passages like "This is impossible, monks, there is no occasion for an Arahant to emit impure matter (Kathā. 313; Mahāva. 353). Having seen the Dhamma... etc.... not dependent on others in the Teacher's Dispensation" (Mahāva. 30), the meaning is that he censures those who are enemies of the Dispensation. The others are those who hold the view "Pariyatti is the root." "When the Pātimokkha is recited" is said by way of cause. The analysis terms of the Tathāgata are established. What are its components when it is already established? The desire to blame and the disparagement of a training rule in the presence of an ordained person. The commentary on the Vilekhana training rule is finished. 3. Commentary on the Mohana training rule 444. The Mohana training rule is clear in meaning. 4. Commentary on the Pahāra training rule 452. "With a mind of passion" means with the passion of bodily contact. But seeing one who wishes to harm, thinking, "If I kill this one, there is no release for me." or being angry, having taken a being as the object, strikes a blow, for him it is just as it happened. The explanation of the training rule on striking a blow is finished. 5. The explanation of the training rule on the hand-missile "Body or what is connected with the body" (Pacittiya 456) By this saying, whatever one throws up from the body and so on, that is called a "hand-missile." A hand-missile is just a hand-missile. Some say it is a "missile" because it is capable of striking. This is defined by "even a lotus leaf." For when angry, out of anger, without considering its capacity to strike, they throw whatever is in their hand. Even if it is pleasant to the touch, it is still a pacittiya. Because if one strikes out of a desire to strike, it is a pacittiya by the former rule. If one merely throws up out of a desire to throw up, it is a pacittiya by this rule. But if one errs by this rule and a blow is given, then because it was not given out of a desire to strike, it is a dukkaṭa. Is this dukkaṭa due to the blow, or due to the throwing up? It is a dukkaṭa due to the blow. The former, a pacittiya due to the throwing up, thus a pacittiya with a dukkaṭa is appropriate. For the throwing up is first, the blow is later. And the former throwing up should not be without an offense because of the later blow, so says the teacher. "If anything breaks in the hands and so on by that blow,