English
” It is not said: “Even if there is a thought-arising similar to the unwholesome thought-arising that brings about the success of offenses like taking life in the case of not knowing the object, the novice does not incur a breach of precept.” The statement about attachment is due to the drinking of liquor by novices being of the same kind as taking life and so on. There is no impossibility of unwholesome intention for one who transgresses by knowing the object, such as “these liquors and so on,” and drinking them. Therefore, it is said: “For whom in the case of intentional action,” and so on. And if it is asked here, by the statement of reason, why there is a rule of unwholesome intention in the cases of intentional and unintentional action, since Arahants do not enter into them? No, because even trainees do not enter into them by their very nature. To show the absence of a rule of unwholesome intention in the case of unintentional action, drops of liquor and so on should be exemplified like drops of water put into the mouth of a sleeping person. For when the meaning is taken in the sense of prevalence, the commentary agrees with the earlier and later parts. It is said: “Others say that the meaning, not differing from the Pāli, will become clear later.” This should be considered here. If, in the case of knowing the object, drinking liquor could occur without unwholesome intention, why do the Noble Ones, who perceive it as a drink, not exceed the middle of the measure? If it is said that the transgression of a precept, the object of a breach of precept, does not occur for the Noble Ones by their very nature, even without intention, no, because it contradicts the story of Thera Cakkhupāla (Dha. Pa. Aṭṭha. 1.1) and so on. Moreover, why is the drinking of liquor by a bhikkhu not intentional, like that of a novice? If it is said because it is inappropriate, it is also inappropriate for novices. For they are indeed fellow Dhamma practitioners. Mahāsāva "Is it intentional?" Even for novices, it's the same. "For novices, only intentional [offenses] are *pārājika*, the others are grounds for disciplinary action?" Even for monks, this is not the case with drinking alcohol. Here, it should not be a *tikapācittiya*. For one who perceives alcohol as non-alcohol, an offense of *dukkaṭa* should be prescribed. "If a monk's *pācittiya* offense becomes a *pārājika* for novices, like for animal-novices?" Then even unintentional drinking of alcohol, etc., should be prescribed as *pārājika* for novices. "Is it not possible for an unintentional *pārājika* to occur?" No, a *pārājika* due to a prescribed rule can also occur. In the view of other sects, this is the same fault. For us, indeed, drinking alcohol is merely a worldly offense. Why then do the Noble Ones not drink alcohol as a matter of course? It is not only drinking alcohol that the Noble Ones do not do as a matter of course; they do not, out of anger, cut off heads, etc., perceiving beings as beings; they do not transgress another's wife, perceiving her as another's wife; they do not speak harmful lies, perceiving them as destroying benefit; they do not adopt wrong view, perceiving it as right view. This should be understood. Teachers also say that there is no fixed unwholesomeness in drinking alcohol. Therefore, in the *Gaṇṭhipada* of the *Mātikāṭṭhakathā*, in the section on worldly offenses and prescribed offenses, it is written: " 'Unwholesome in the case of intentional [action]' is for including drinking alcohol, etc. Otherwise, one would say, 'for whom it is only unwholesome'." Its arising from action, however, is mostly in that way, not in the first *pārājika*. How so? The training rule on physical contact arises from the first *pārājika*. Here, when there is physical contact between a monk and a nun, even if the nun does not move her body parts, if she assents with her mind, she incurs an offense. Not so for the monk. But a monk incurs an offense only by moving [his body]. Similarly, in the first *pārājika*, one incurs an offense only when there is movement, not when there is none. "He accepts the insertion" – here, accepting insertion means the arising of the intention to engage. Even so, it is said, "It should be taken after investigation." First *pā* The description of the Rājika training rule is finished. 2. Description of the Second Pārājika Training Rule By the saying, “But, venerable one, knowing what kind of pārājika offense have you fallen into?” and by the saying, “fallen into one of the eight pārājika offenses” (Pāci. 666), and at the end, by the saying, “Venerable ones, the eight pārājika offenses have been recited” (Pāci. 677), and in the Parivāra, by the saying, “common enactment, enactment for both” (Pari. 201), the Blessed One, having come to the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga, explained the common training rules in the context of an arisen incident for bhikkhus, by laying down the mātikā, both specific and non-specific, in the manner of “Whatever bhikkhunī, by choice, engages in sexual intercourse, even with a non-human being, is pārājika, not in communion,” and so on, and in due course, explained the word analysis, the types of offenses, the three-fold division, and the section on blamelessness, without remainder. However, it should be understood that the compilers of the Saṅgīti elaborated here only on the enactments specific to bhikkhunīs. 666. There, the phrase “of the eight pārājika offenses” is a statement laid down only according to the method of the compilers of the Saṅgīti, because the sixth, seventh, and eighth pārājika offenses had not been enacted before this. But by the Blessed One, including this first training rule that was enacted, it might have been said, “of the six pārājika offenses.” Some teachers say that the phrase “of the eight pārājika offenses,” including those enacted after this, arose later. However, in the Aṭṭhakathā, it is said, “And this pārājika was enacted later, therefore it is said ‘of eight’ in the Vibhaṅga,” and so on. Therefore, according to the opinion of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, it is established that these were compiled in the order of their enactment. The reading is “aññāsi.” “Aññāsīti” should not be taken. By the saying, “in the same way as stated in the duṭṭhulla training rule,” it is established that she who conceals a fault is also a fault-concealer. Although the concealment of a fault is out of affection, nevertheless, the transgression of the training rule... because it is only mental pain, it is called "painful feeling." The explanation of the Second Pārājika training rule is finished. 3. The explanation of the Third Pārājika training rule 669. This is merely the intention as in "having reproved and reminded." Here is the consideration: A monk who holds the same view as an expelled monk and lives in different communion, he is not to be venerated, he is not a quorum member in acts and non-acts, like an expelled one, nor does he obtain shared lodging, but not so a bhikkhunī. For as long as she has not been admonished, she is a quorum member, and obtains communion. One who follows those of different communion is also one who follows an expelled person. If the expelled one has passed away, the monk who follows him is indeed one of different communion. Similarly, even if he has gone astray, even if he has gone over to another sect, even if he has renounced the training and stands in the state of a novice, say some. According to their view, even if the expelled one is in such a state, the bhikkhunī who follows him should be admonished. The act of admonition belongs to the Saṅgha, and it seems improper for the Saṅgha to deliberately remove a previous offense. And the act of expulsion is done merely for not seeing an offense, merely for not making amends, and merely for not relinquishing a wrong view. Is it not proper, then, that merely by following him, they should be admonished and removed from the Dispensation? It should not be said so, because this is also connected with non-pārājika matters, and because the Vinaya has no other scope. The explanation of the Third Pārājika training rule is finished. 4. The explanation of the Fourth Pārājika training rule 675. "By way of the friendship, called worldly pleasure, to show that, it is said 'with lust for bodily contact'," it is written. "Tissitthiyo" means among three women, or three women. "Does not associate with her" means does not associate with them. "Anariya" means one with both characteristics. "In one's own characteristic" means in one's own characteristic. "Does not associate" means does not associate. "Does not behave" means does not behave. "Vaṇṇāvaṇṇa" means discharge of semen from both. "Causing to go" means going about. 676. "Clothed "whether worn or covered" - here, the meaning is that it is permissible to take a garment that is either worn or covered. The explanation of the Fourth Pārājika training rule is finished. The explanation of the Pārājika section is finished. 2. Explanation of the Saṅghādisesa Section 1. Explanation of the First Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 681. "Āhatako" means brought. "Niyatako" means intended. "Improper half" means: for the sake of the Sangha's property or the property of a monastery attendant, by being the Sangha's turn-holder, or by oneself, going to a place of dispute and saying, "This is our slave, female slave, pond, field, monastery, monastery land, cattle, cow, buffalo, goat, chickens," and so on, is improper. "This is our monastery attendant, female monastery attendant. This pond was given into the Sangha's hands by so-and-so for drawing water. The four requisites arising from this field, from this monastery, and the milk products arising from this cow, buffalo, goat, were given to the Sangha by so-and-so." It is permissible to say this, whether asked or not asked. By saying "they are doing" instead of "it was done," it is said that it refers to something not yet done.