English
"The unwholesomeness and undeclaredness Of an offense are possible," With this understanding, Even at the moment of wholesome mind's arising, To establish the undeclaredness of form As an offense, "That which one commits with a wholesome mind is wholesome, With others, it is other," (Parajika Commentary 1.66, Miscellaneous Discourse) Relying on this commentary statement, it is said: "That which one commits with a wholesome mind" means "That offense taken at the head of a training rule, Which one commits being endowed with a wholesome mind, By this statement, that it is wholesome, The wholesome nature spoken of for an offense Is by way of analogy, not in the ultimate sense," This is shown. For indeed, one who commits an offense with a wholesome mind Commits an undeclared offense, Which is a form-aggregate, Occurring as a transgression of a training rule, With or without intimation. There, regarding the statement, "That which one commits with a wholesome mind," It is said, "By this statement, that it is wholesome, The wholesome nature spoken of for an offense Is by way of analogy, not in the ultimate sense," This is shown. Similarly, by the statement "with others, it is other," Since the meaning is stated: "That which one commits with an unwholesome mind is unwholesome, That which one commits with an undeclared mind is undeclared," Regarding the statement "with others," it should be said: "By this statement too, that it is other, The unwholesome nature and undeclared nature Spoken of for an offense are shown by way of analogy." Without saying this, We do not see the reason for speaking only of the wholesome side. As for the statement, "An offense-case may be unwholesome," etc., Which was given as a reason, That too is not a reason, Because the unwholesome nature, etc., Is shown by way of analogy, In the manner stated below, "That which one commits with an unwholesome mind is unwholesome," etc., And because it is said, "There is no offense-case that is wholesome," Due to the unsuitability of the term "wholesome" for an offense. For even if an offense arises from a wholesome mind, Because it is rejected by the Blessed One, And is a blameworthy phenomenon, Even by way of a causal metaphor, it is not blameless. The term 'unwholesome' is not appropriate, because blameworthy and blameless are mutually contradictory. Just as the term 'arisen' for conventional truths like space, or the term 'arisen' for birth, aging, and dissolution, is inappropriate due to non-persistence and so on, so here too, the term 'wholesome' is inappropriate due to contradiction. However, the term 'unwholesome' and so on is appropriate, because the nature of unwholesome and so on, by way of metaphorical cause, does not transgress the aforementioned faults. For just as there is no contradiction in the Sutta with the Sutta and its conformity, so too should the meaning be understood. As for what was said: "One who commits an offence with a wholesome mind... (etc.) ...commits an indeterminate offence consisting of the form aggregate," that is inappropriate, because due to the momentary nature of the form aggregate, the offence would cease even without confession or other remedies. If it is said that the offence is a succession of forms? That is not so, because then it would not disappear even with remedies. For a continuum of forms does not cease through confession and so on, as it is dependent on its causes. Thus, the ultimate reality of an offence is entirely inappropriate. And by this, what was said: "When one has attained cessation while lying down, the offence consists of the form-phenomenon that arises in such a way due to co-sleeping," and so on, should also be understood as refuted. Here, however, for those who have attained cessation, the offence, having arisen dependent on form-phenomena, is without consciousness and without feeling. But elsewhere, it is with consciousness and with feeling. In all cases, it should be understood as having the nature of a designation. Therefore, in the commentary on the rule concerning a corrupt fault, to refute the nature of an offence as unwholesome and so on, as conceived by others, it will itself say: "Because it is said that there is no offence for the first offender... (etc.) ...it should be understood that the basis of an offence is merely a designation." Therefore, it is said: "The conventional offence, designated by the Blessed One, arises with the arising of those wholesome and other phenomena," and "it persists as long as there is a cause for cessation," and "it perishes by the causes of cessation." And even though an offence has the nature of a designation, for one who intentionally commits it, and for one who does not perform a remedy out of disrespect, unwholesome... And it is a heap, and it is an obstacle to the path to heaven, thus the conscientious ones do not transgress according to the rule. And due to their not transgressing, their virtues and other qualities, of endless varieties, increase, thus it should be understood. The rule "thirty-two" is made because the causes of offenses, bodily and verbal intimations, arise from these alone; but not because all offenses arise from these alone. Indeed, for those lying down and sleeping, and for those attained to the cessation of jhāna, offenses like co-sleeping are possible through non-intimating resultant appanā-consciousness and through material phenomena. "Ten" means the eight great functional consciousnesses together with the two functional rootless mind-consciousness elements. It should be understood that for those with supernormal knowledge, not knowing the designation (rule), causes the arising of offenses in feats of psychic power and so on. And here, some training rules are only unwholesome consciousness; some are two-consciousness, by way of wholesome and indeterminate; some are three-consciousness. This very distinction is obtained, not otherwise, thus it should be understood. "Arising from functional (consciousness)" means that the movement of the sexual organ and so on, arising from another's action, when the enjoying consciousness, called the consenting consciousness, has arisen, is indeed produced by that consciousness, thus it is said. Otherwise, it would be said: "It might arise from functional (consciousness), it might arise from non-functional (consciousness)." But that which is said in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sāratthadīpanī, Pārājika section 2.66, miscellaneous discussion), "This 'arising from functional (consciousness)' is said mostly, because when there is another's action, for one consenting, it is of a non-functional arising," and so on – that should not be accepted. Because it is not stated in the Pāli commentaries that the first pārājika is of a non-functional arising. Indeed, it is said: "There is no offense in the mind-door." (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha., first Pārājika commentary; Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.583-4) How indeed would one consenting to sexual intercourse by another's action not consent to his own bodily movement of the sexual organ and so on? But it should be seen that in accordance with the consenting consciousness, even a subtle intimation is indeed arisen through the arising of mind-born matter in the entire body. Therefore it is said: "Arising only through the body-door." Therefore, "bodily action," and so on. Here, mind is merely a factor. Bodily intimation alone is the cause for bodily action, not the mind. Here, that is merely a factor of the intimation called "body," not of the state of bodily action. Otherwise, sexual intercourse would be called "mental action." Therefore, it is said, "the state of action is not obtained by means of that." "State of action" means state of bodily action. "All this" refers to this origination, and so on. "By way of the training rule" means by means of the training rule, for the purpose of taking only the offense specific to that particular training rule. The method of explaining miscellaneous topics is concluded. Explanation of the Decided Cases "What is this?" is a question expressing a desire to explain. "These," and so on, is the answer. "Decided cases" are the cases decided by the Blessed One, beginning with "You, monk, have fallen into an offense" (Pārā. 67). The verses that are summaries, given by extracting each case beforehand, are called "summary verses," "compilation verses," or "recitation verses." "Case verses" refers to the Pāli text of the decided cases themselves, beginning with "Now at that time a certain monk," and so on, because they string together those various decided cases, not by the characteristic of metrical composition. Or, here, the meaning should be understood as: the "case verses" are the subject matter of the "summary verses." "Here" means in the decided cases. "Of the second, and so on" means of the second pārājika, and so on. That which artists and other craftsmen see and learn painting and other arts, that is a covered form, meaning a statue or image. 67. "The first two" refers to the two cases of the monkey and the Vajji-son. These too were again included in the decided cases by the Blessed One, as they were decided. However, "There he felt remorse," and so on, although remorse did not arise in them at first, it is said with reference to its arising later, referring to the words spoken by the monks and the Blessed One after reproaching them. And "They reported this matter to the Blessed One," and so on, refers to the monks and Venerable Ānanda first reporting it to the Blessed One, and the Blessed One declaring their pārājika status. Frightened by this, they themselves went and later reported their own remorse. When questioned by the Blessed One, "Is it true, indeed, that you...?" and so on, they also reported by admitting, "It is true, Blessed One." The Blessed One, too, "You have committed an offense," and so on, determined their pārājika offense. However, in the discourse on subsequent regulations, not all of that was said,