English
during the period of higher ordination and does not reveal it out of deception, one is not a thief-dweller. He, having taken the robes with a pure mind, is not a 'robber of the robes'. And having received higher ordination, and having assented to co-residence appropriate to that, he is not a 'robber of co-residence'. But one not having received higher ordination is a 'robber of the robes'. And having taken the robes worthy of co-residence, by merely assenting to co-residence, he is a 'robber of co-residence'. "Remaining in one's own guise" means remaining in the state of one's own guise. "He is not a thief-dweller" means: he is not a 'robber of the robes' because the robes given by the bhikkhus have not been abandoned; and he is not a 'robber of co-residence' because the bhikkhus' declaration has not been abandoned. But what is stated in the Mātika Commentary as "following the guise..." "because of delighting in the co-residence of form, he is not one who seeks co-residence" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Paṭhamapārājikavaṇṇanā) is the reason stated, and that too was stated with this very reason in mind. Otherwise, even for a novice, the co-residence suitable for the mark (of a monk) in the counting of monastic years, etc., is delighted in, so there would be no seeking of co-residence, because the mark given by the bhikkhus is common to both. Just as here a bhikkhu, so too a novice who has incurred a pārājika, because he has not abandoned the novice's declaration, is not one who seeks co-residence, so it should be understood. "It is good," having accepted it, means having laid down the burden of wearing the saffron robes and having accepted the state of a householder. "Whoever is an old renunciant" is said with reference to a novice. "In large baskets, etc." refers to special food containers placed at house doors made of bamboo strips, etc. By this, it shows the non-performance of counting monastic years, etc., with bhikkhus in the monastery. The explanation of the story of the object of co-residence by theft is finished. Explanation of the story of one who has gone over to the sectarians. In the stories of one who has gone over to the sectarians, etc., "merely taking their mark" means merely wearing the mark on one's body with the intention of "I will be a sectarian," without any investigative or similar purpose. "By himself" means without going to the sectarians, he himself puts on grass robes, etc., even in the monastery. "I will be an Ājīvaka... and so on... he goes" means he goes to the Ājīvakas with their ordination procedure, saying "I will be an Ājīvaka." Indeed, for him, even though there is a determination to become a sectarian, because it is conceived as "I will go and become," only a dukkaṭa is stated in the step-by-step sequence. "Dukkaṭa" is stated in accordance with the previously mentioned preliminary application dukkaṭas in sexual intercourse, etc., even though it is not stated in the Pāli text itself. By this, it should be understood that when the mark is accepted with determination, it is a pārājika, and a thullaccaya in the preceding application is certainly to be stated; even if one turns back at the moment of thullaccaya, one is freed by confessing the offense. Just as here, so too in schism and in causing blood to flow, in the preliminary applications of bhikkhus, a dukkaṭa... The boundary for release from the grave offenses of minor transgressions should also be known. Here, for those who commit the initial act, it is not stated that there is no offense, due to its opposition to the Dispensation. It should be understood that these, and others in the section on grave offenses, are stated only for those who are incapable of ordination, without showing a grave offense, etc., by a separate training rule. "Having adopted that view" is said with reference to the acceptance of superiority in the guise of a heretic. For even if one holds the eternalist, etc., views of those heretics, if the outward signs are not adopted, one is not a follower of heretics. But even without adopting that view, if one adopts the outward signs, thinking, "The ascetic practices of these are good," one is indeed a follower of heretics. "Due to the absence of the view" means due to the absence of the view of becoming a heretic through attachment in the state of a monk. By this, it shows that there is no offense even for one who wears grass garments, etc., in times of distress, like one who is naked. "Spoken by an ordained monk" —here, even a schismatic is spoken of by an ordained monk. But parricides, etc., should be understood as being spoken of even by an unordained person. The description of the story of the follower of heretics is finished. Description of the story of animals 111. It should be connected as: "The body of a nāga, a water-dweller, eaten by a frog." "Due to fear of a loud cry" means due to the monk's fear of crying out upon seeing the nāga's body. Showing the limit of its occurrence, that a nāga's body does not arise in the sleep of a monkey, etc., he says, "released," etc. The description of the story of animals is finished. Description of the story of parricides, etc. 112. "Apavāhanaṃ" means purification. He says, "The mother, the female human who gave birth," because compassion, etc., towards children are keen and clear only in human beings, not in animal or other non-human species, just like supramundane qualities. Just as the performance of wholesome deeds is keen and clear only in humans, so too is the performance of unwholesome deeds, he says, "and by a human being himself," etc. "Anantariyena" (immediately following) —here, the fruit of rebirth in hell immediately after death is called "anantaraṃ" (immediate). "Ānantariyaṃ" (an immediate deed) is that which is appointed to cause that immediate result. , by that. "Son of a courtesan" is merely an example; even the son of an unchaste woman, not knowing his own father, and killing him, is a parricide. 114. "The rest" refers to the Anāgāmi and so on. What needs to be said here has already been stated in the Pārājika concerning the human form. 115. "This is a schismatic of the Saṅgha" is said with reference to a bhikkhu who is in a normal state. One who has already incurred a pārājika, or one whose ordination is invalid due to a fault in the object (of ordination) and so on, even if he splits the Saṅgha, does not incur an anantariya (immediate retribution). However, the Saṅgha is indeed split, and his ordination is not prevented; this should be understood. "With a malicious mind" explains the meaning already stated as "with a murderous mind." "Causes blood to flow" means that because the Tathāgata's body is impenetrable by enemies, it is not possible for anyone to forcibly cut the skin or other tissues and make blood flow out. However, by a blow from a weapon or the like, blood, having moved from its place and become agitated, accumulates in one spot. By this much, the one who delivers the blow is called a "causer of blood," like Devadatta. However, breaking a cetiya, a Bodhi tree, or an image does not incur an anantariya, but it is a great offense similar to an anantariya. But branches that draw sap from the Bodhi tree, and those that obstruct a cetiya containing relics, should be cut; there is only merit in this. The explanation of the stories of parricide and so on is finished. The explanation of the story of the hermaphrodite 116. "Female hermaphrodite" means one endowed with the female faculty; the other is endowed with the male faculty. For one person, two states (faculties) do not arise simultaneously, as it is denied in the Yamaka (Yamaka, 3. Indriya-Yamaka, 188). The second characteristic, however, arises without a state (bhāva-virahitaṃ) only with an unwholesome mind, as an assistant to kamma. Even for ordinary men and women, kamma is the cause of the characteristics and genders, not the state (bhāva), as it is not stated in the Paṭṭhāna that the state is a condition for anything. It is merely to show the occurrence of characteristics and genders accompanied by a state that in the commentaries it is said, "Dependent on the female faculty, female characteristics and so on" (Dhammasaṅgaṇī Aṭṭhakathā, 63). 2) The faculty is said to be for the manifestation of the sign, but here it is said that by the power of unwholesome kamma, the sign arises even without the faculty. When lust arises in a woman who has both signs, then the male sign becomes manifest, and the other is concealed. When lust arises in a man, then the female sign becomes manifest, and the other is concealed. The method of investigation there is to expose the impropriety of the Kurundi statement, which declares the manifestation of male and female signs at the moment of rebirth, by means of an investigation of meaning. For in the Aṭṭhasālinī it is said, "Female signs, etc., arise dependent on the female faculty," and so on. The meaning is, "He has no ordination." If one, knowing a person to be unfit and also a fit person, ordains or gives higher ordination, it is a dukkaṭa offense. It should be understood that there is no offense for one who does not know, in any case. The description of the story of those with both signs is concluded. The description of the story of those without a preceptor, etc. 117. Regarding the stories of those without a preceptor, etc., it is said that the training rule is not laid down, referring to the training rule being laid down here: "Monks, one without a preceptor should not be given higher ordination." It is said that "the act is not spoiled" because even in the absence of a preceptor, the preceptor's name is mentioned everywhere, whether it be that of a deceased or deluded former preceptor, or of any other non-existent person, with the words "So-and-so seeks higher ordination, with So-and-so as preceptor." If the preceptor's name were not mentioned, there would be a failure of the act as stated, "He does not refer to a person.