English
Even if one intends to swallow, if it enters suddenly, here it is called 'unintentionally'. It is written: "One who eats, taking what is offered or not offered, placed in one spot, suddenly without examining, is called 'unmindful'." In the section on non-offenses, in some books, it is said: "It is written 'rasarasa', that should be taken." The commentary on the Sakkacca Chapter is finished. 5. Commentary on the Kabaḷa Chapter 618. Some say that by the saying "'all' (in the hand)", there is no offense for one who puts a part into the mouth. They say: "By the saying 'all', even a part is not allowed." That is appropriate, because it is not specified in the section on non-offenses. 624. In the Sitthāvakāra (throwing away rice-grains), the reading is "throwing away rubbish, rice-grains are thrown away" and "throwing away rubbish". The commentary on the Kabaḷa Chapter is finished. 6. Commentary on the Surusuru Chapter 627. The reading is "surusuru" and "surosuro". "Sītīkato" means 'made cold'. It is written: "'Silakabuddho' is merely a jesting word of the noble ones." 631. Regarding "in a disgusting manner": If it is forbidden in a disgusting manner, then "just like sense-pleasure enjoyers" should not be said. If (you say): "For they do not act disgustingly"? No, because it is possible to take it as a sign of power. For they are disrespectful. "Pattadhovana" means the water for washing the bowl, connected with the meal. 634. The reading is "with umbrella and sandals" and "at the umbrella's foot". 637. "Cāpo" means the killing of living beings. It is also written: "All other bow-modifications are included in the bow." "Paṭimukka" means inserted, the meaning is 'it is attached'. The commentary on the Surusuru Chapter is finished. 7. Commentary on the Pāduka Chapter 640. Having oneself gone in a vehicle, just as for one in a vehicle, indeed. It is enough to say that, not enough, for one with an umbrella, holding an umbrella. As here, so elsewhere too. 647. In the story of Chapaka, the reading is "if I do not obtain it". And there is also "if ten do not obtain it". And "for one not sick in the matter" appears. That is not good, (it should be) in the training rule itself. Oh, beautiful. The connection is, "I also know 'Thomitoti'." That livelihood, reckoned as gain of wealth and fame, by ruin, becomes a cause of ruin in the future, in the lower realms, and proceeds. Or, "by ruin" is an instrumental case in the sense of cause, the meaning is that it proceeds for ruin. By unrighteous conduct, for unrighteous conduct. And they also read, "Like a pot from this." The commentary on the Chapter on Footwear is finished. Commentary on Miscellaneous Matters Because they arise from body, speech, and mind, they are called "arising from admonition." Admonition is action. These are actions. If it is said that "arising from the teaching of Dhamma" from speech and mind, here, because of the existence of bodily and verbal intimation, like in loud laughter and high sounds, should it be said "from body, speech, and mind"? It should not be said. Because of the existence of bodily intimation such as sitting, going, and putting food, it is appropriate there, but not in the teaching of Dhamma, due to the absence of such. The commentary on Miscellaneous Matters is finished. The commentary on the Sekhiya Section is finished. 8. Commentary on the Seven Ways of Settling Disputes And it is written: "The decision by majority should be made... (and so on)... the covering with grass should be made, that person." The commentary on the Seven Ways of Settling Disputes is finished. The Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga is finished. Homage to that Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One. Commentary on the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga 1. Commentary on the Pārājika Section Commentary on the Commencement of the Text Like in the Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga, which is extensively arranged; Without making for the bhikkhunīs too, a sequence of knotty words in the text. The meaning is that the commentary sequence for whatever Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga there may be, has been reached. The commentary on the Commencement of the Text is finished. 1. Commentary on the First Pārājika Training Rule 656-7. The wisdom of arising in each place, an investigation. "By the sequence of words" means by the sequence of the main text's words. And it is written: " 'Said' means the division of the proposals of the reciters is said." 658. This, however, "A bhikkhunī is one who has come as a bhikkhunī; a bhikkhunī is one who has received ordination by the three refuges," is said according to the style of exposition. some say. Some say it existed in the time of other Buddhas, but that does not seem appropriate, since it would imply its possibility in our Buddha's time, and there is a hint of prohibition against an 'ehi-bhikkhunī'. As it is said in the Visākhā story in the Dhammapada Commentary (DhpA. I. Visākhā-vatthu): "As a result of that robe-giving, she obtained this great creeper ornament. Indeed, for women, the giving of robes culminates in the great creeper ornament, and for men, in robes made of psychic power." However, the possibility of a bhikkhunī ordained by the three refuges might exist in the time of other Buddhas, but certainly not in our Buddha's time. But in the style of exposition, the designation of bhikkhunīs is stated in the same order as the designation of bhikkhus. Therefore, bhikkhunīs, even if they existed, having been ordained together with the Bhikkhu Saṅgha, are not mentioned there. Their existence should be understood from this supplementary statement: "Both ordained together, One might receive a robe from the hands of both; The offenses might be different, This is a problem pondered by the wise." (Pari. 479) Or, some say that in the time of ordinary people, a man ordained by the 'ehi-bhikkhu' formula of refuge, upon the manifestation of a female form, and remaining in the state of a bhikkhunī, is counted as an "ehi-bhikkhunī" and a "bhikkhunī ordained by the three refuges," by taking into account the male who was ordained. If not, that statement would be contradictory. This should be considered and accepted. "The discerning and capable one" is said because of the accomplishment of the non-flowing state of the two. Here, since the hands of men, who are the primary recipients, sometimes mix with those of women when receiving any offering, or the heads of men who are bowing sometimes mix with the primary feet, or when cutting hair, the head mixes with the hands of men, and the mind is indeed excessively inquisitive or difficult to guard; therefore, "Lest the bhikkhunīs incur a pārājika offense too quickly," the Buddhas, the Fortunate Ones, out of compassion, defined the scope of the pārājika offense and the scope of the thullaccaya offense. And the definitions separately, individually, they will teach, it should be understood. 659. Here, regarding "it is said by way of the majority," this is the sequence of the sub-commentary's explanation: Because for the most part it arises from action, it is called "arising from action." But not having said, "he should engage in bodily contact," but having said, "he should consent," it should be understood that it also arises from non-action. Just as here, so below, by the method beginning with "for one who engages in sexual intercourse in the three paths of a human woman, there is an offense of defeat," having stated its arising from action, immediately thereafter, by the method beginning with "enemies of the bhikkhu... (etc.)... if he consents to the insertion, there is an offense of defeat" (Pārā. 56), and because its arising from non-action is also stated, it should be understood that even the first pārājika arises from action by way of the majority. Indeed, in the consent to insertion, etc., the arising from action is not seen. And the movement of the organ here should not be seen as essential, in the passage "if he does not consent to the insertion, does not consent to what is inserted, does not consent to what is staying, but consents to the withdrawal, there is an offense of defeat" (Pārā. 58), because even in not consenting to what is staying, there is naturally complete movement. Indeed, due to consent, the movement of engaging is not seen here, therefore, the arising from action should be taken by way of the majority. If it is asked, "Why is the 'way of the majority' not mentioned in the commentaries here and there?" In the mātikā (root text) "Whatever bhikkhu should engage in sexual intercourse" (Pārā. 39, 42), because the arising from action is stated in its own form, and without looking at the method of analysis in accordance with that, it is simply called "arising from action." Just as in these, the arising from action is stated by way of the majority, so too, the drinking of intoxicants, etc., is to be drunk only with unwholesome intent, not otherwise. When it is said, "That which is incurred only with unwholesome intent, that is a worldly offense; the rest are disciplinary offenses" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Commentary on the First Pārājika), the definition of worldly offenses and disciplinary offenses becomes established. Similarly, without saying that, "for which, in the side of intentionality, the mind is unwholesome..." it is enough, this is a worldly offense. The rest are offenses by designation.” If it were said thus, the statement about worldly offense would be meaningless, because even in the case of not knowing the object, it is to be drunk with unwholesome intention. Since there is no unwholesome thought-arising for the transgression of drinking liquor in that case, it is said in the Khandhaka Commentary (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 108): “But for a bhikkhu, even unknowingly drinking liquor from the seed onwards, it is an offense of expiation. A novice, knowing, drinks and incurs a breach of precept, not unknowingly.