English
And just as striking a stake made in the urinary path of a woman is mentioned in "in the female organ," etc., so also the characteristic should be understood everywhere in the excrement path, etc. Description of the four types of royal enemies, etc. 65. "Kerāṭikā" means deceivers. Having first shown only the woman-deceiver, now to include and show other deceivers, it is said, "or woman-deceivers, liquor-deceivers, and so on." Description of the section on offenses and non-offenses 66. There is no acknowledged act. The desire to engage, by way of the path, the practice of the path, these two factors... The chanting is accomplished. But for the corrupted, the practice of the path by the path is one such factor accomplished; the approval, called the desire to use, is not accomplished. Therefore, having questioned him, he should be expelled on the basis of the confession "I approved." "There itself" means in the Great Wood at Vesālī. "Pervading all limbs" means pervading the whole body. Since it is said "like blood," it should be understood as everywhere in places free from hair and so on. "He is always mad" is said with reference to one from whose bile sac bile has moved and is always discharged outside. But for one whose bile has moved and remains in the bile sac itself, or sometimes discharged and then discharged again, it should be understood that he regains consciousness from time to time and regains normal health with medicine. The method of the word-division commentary is finished. Commentary on Miscellaneous Matters "Miscellaneous" means a mixed method. "Origin" means the cause of arising. "Action" and so on are merely examples, as non-action and so on are also included. It should be connected: "together with feeling, the wholesome should also be known." "By way of including all" means by way of including all training rules, the six origins of offenses are stated thus: "body, speech, body and speech, body and mind, speech and mind, body, speech, and mind." Origins and so on belong to the offense itself, not to the training rule. However, the statement of origins and so on under the heading of the training rule is for the purpose of grasping the specific offense of that particular training rule. For thus the specific offense is known, since the word "offense" is common to all offenses. But among these six origins, the first three are without mind, the latter ones are with mind. The connection is: "having known this miscellaneous matter in brief, it should be understood." "Having six origins" means that it has six origins. Thus in the remaining ones too. "There is the origin of the kathina" and so on is the showing of two origins and one origin by way of the origin headings. Indeed, there are thirteen origin headings: the origin of the first pārājika, the origin of taking what is not given, the origin of acting as a go-between... originating from that originating from admonition originating from the kathina originating from sheep's wool originating from the rule of a single word originating from a journey originating from a thieving caravan originating from teaching the Dhamma originating from revealing a true accusation originating from raising a thief originating from unauthorized action. Therein, by "there are six origins," the origin of acting as a go-between is stated. Since there is no five-fold origin, instead of saying "there is a five-fold origin," it is said "there is a four-fold origin." By this, the origin of a journey and the origin of unauthorized action are included. Indeed, that which arises from the first, third, fourth, and sixth origins, this is the origin of a journey. But that which arises from the second, third, fifth, and sixth origins, this is the origin of unauthorized action. By "there is a three-fold origin," the origin of taking what is not given and the origin of revealing a true accusation are included. Indeed, that which arises from the three with intention, this is the origin of taking what is not given. But that which arises from the three without intention, this is the origin of revealing a true accusation. But by "there is an origin from kathina," etc., the remaining types of origin, the two-fold origin and the single origin, are included. Indeed, there, that which arises from the third and sixth, this is called the origin of kathina. But that which arises from the first and fourth, this is the origin of sheep's wool. That which arises only from the sixth, this is the origin of laying down a burden; "originating from admonition" is also a name for it. Thus, in essence, eight categories of offenses are shown. And here, by the word "etc.," the remaining five categories of origin are included: the origin of the first pārājika, the origin of the rule of a single word, the origin of a thieving caravan, the origin of teaching the Dhamma, and the origin of raising a thief. Therein, that which arises from body and mind, this is the origin of the first pārājika. That which arises from the second and fifth, this is the origin of the rule of a single word. That which arises from the fourth and sixth, this is the origin of a thieving caravan. That which arises only from the fifth, this is the arising from teaching the Dhamma. That which arises from the fifth and sixth, this is the arising from causing a thief to escape. And here, among the last three conscious-arising types, the single-arising types are threefold, according to each single arising. But the two-arising types are to be understood as fivefold, according to their arising from the first and fourth, or the second and fifth, or the third and sixth, or the fourth and sixth, or the fifth and sixth. Thus, having shown all the training rules as thirteenfold by way of arising, now, to show them as fivefold by way of action, "and there, too," etc., was said. "Whatsoever" means a training rule. "By action" means from an act generated by bodily or verbal intimation, like digging the earth, etc. (Pāci. 84-85). "By non-action" means merely by not doing what should be done, like the first kathina, etc. (Pārā. 459 ff.). "By action and non-action" means like receiving a robe from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhunī, etc. (Pārā. 508 ff.). Sometimes by action, sometimes by non-action, like receiving silver, etc. (Pārā. 582 ff.). Sometimes by action, sometimes by action and non-action, like building a hut, etc. (Pārā. 342). "Release by perception" (saññāvimokkha) is to be understood as a compound with a dropped middle word, meaning "there is release due to the absence of the perception of transgression." It obtains a mental factor because it arises only from conscious-arising types. "The other" refers to that for which there is no fixed mental factor. This pair of perception (saññāduka) is stated by way of non-offence, while the pair of conscious (sacittakaduka) is by way of offence. This is the only difference; in meaning, they are the same. Even that which is to be committed through the bodily and verbal doors is included in bodily action or verbal action. There, due to being mostly spoken of, like taking what is not given, false speech, etc., the training rule is called "bodily action," etc. Only the pair of bodily action and verbal action is mentioned. But by division, it is only a triad together with bodily-verbal action. Therefore, in the Mātika Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. First Pārājika Commentary), it is said: "All are threefold by way of bodily action, verbal action, and both combined..." are." Therefore, here too, in cases like taking what is not given, it is shown as both bodily and verbal action. But the precept, "skillful" and so on, is spoken of by way of the mind that causes the offense, as a figure of speech for the cause in the effect, not by way of the ultimate reality of the offense being skillful, etc., because an offense is conventional in nature. Indeed, the Buddha laid down the convention of offense based on ultimate realities like skillful and unskillful. For it will be said: "That which one commits with a skillful mind, that is skillful," and so on. Indeed, an offense, being dependent on the Buddha's command, does not have the ultimate reality of being skillful, etc., because of the implication of offenses for the unordained and for beginners, and because of the implication of the absence of purification for it through confession, etc. Indeed, an offense of the nature of skillful, etc., arising by the power of a cause, does not cease for the unordained, etc., and once it has arisen, its destruction by anyone is not possible. There is a saying that an offense ceases through confession, etc., by the destruction of its essence, but by that, unskillful, etc., does not cease. Indeed, for a monk who has incurred a pārājika by an act like parricide, the pārājika offense ceases by taking up the lay state and abandoning monkhood, but the unskillful act like taking life does not cease, due to its nature as an immediate karma. Therefore, the offense is merely a convention laid down by the Buddha, based on the mind-and-matter phenomena of skillful, unskillful, etc., which arise according to their conditions, for the ten purposes such as the suppression of the unruly, etc. And it should be understood that it is called "ceased" by performing the counter-action according to the procedure. Therefore, it is said: "There are only thirty-two minds that cause offenses," and so on. By the very fact of causing offenses, the distinction here between skillful, etc., and the offense is established. Indeed, it is not proper for that which arises from it to be non-distinct from it, because of the implication of cutting off the distinction and usage between cause and effect. However, in the Sāratthadīpanī, it is not possible for an offense to be ultimately skillful, because "offense-related..." "Unwholesome may be the offense, Undeclared may be, There is no offense-case that is wholesome," From this saying,