English
"By the Ubbāhikā" — "Ubbāhikā" is that by which they lift up or separate the shameless, or a threat or a quarrel. It is a Sangha resolution, by that. "Decision" means the decision made by the monks approved by that. For a gathering crowded with shameless ones, two or three monks endowed with the ten qualities mentioned in the Samathakkhandhaka (Cūḷava. 227) should be approved by a ñatti-dutiya kammavācā as stated there. And by those approved ones, either sitting separately, or having made that very assembly listen, "nothing should be said by others," that case should be decided. "In what?" (kimhi) means "in what matter," meaning "in which offense." This "What is it called?" means "By what offense do you accuse him?" Even if it is said in some understandable language, due to the accuser's lack of skill in the Vinaya, he is unable to understand, "Which of the offenses of conduct, livelihood, views, or morality is he asking me about?" This is a question, not for one who merely does not know the meaning of words like "in what". Indeed, an examiner does not ask a foolish accuser, in an unfamiliar language, "In what (do you accuse) him?" The statement "You don't even know 'in what'?" is not said with reference to the mere word. It should be understood as said with reference to the meaning of the statement: "When asked 'in what offense?', you don't even know how to say 'in such and such an offense'." Therefore, it will be said, "A method should be given to the foolish and ashamed one," and then, "In what do you accuse him? In an offense of morality," etc. This is called giving a method by revealing the meaning, not merely showing synonyms for the words "in what". Indeed, even if the fool knows the meaning of the statement "In what offense do you accuse him?", he cannot know the classification of offenses or the nature of the offense he is accusing. Therefore, by that very ignorance, the shameless one should be dismissed. "In what?" is also merely an example. He should be dismissed by revealing his ignorance in any other way. From the statement "for the suppression of unruly individuals" (Pārā. 39; Pari. 2), it is said, "for the suppression of the shameless... (etc.)... it was laid down." Here, the 'hi' in 'ehiti' should be seen as an augment; the meaning is 'will come'. "By the observed sequence" means "by the observed rule". "It should be done only by the shameless one's admission" means that even when the fault is revealed through the sequence of questions and answers, the meaning is that the offense should be made only by the shameless one's admission of the fault, saying, "I am impure." However, some say, "This means that for the shameless one, there is no such thing, and it should be done as no offense, only by a declaration of purity." That is not appropriate, as it would render the examiner useless, and the accuser would have to stand by the shameless one's admission. Indeed, here, "admission" is intended to mean the admission of the removal of the fault. Therefore, it will be said, "He does not give an admission, saying 'this also is not'" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.385-386). For the purpose of clarifying that meaning, even when the fault of the shameless one is revealed, his fault... For the purpose of showing that it should be done only by village agreement. In the matter reckoned as a point of dispute, the adversaries are opponents in the matter. "Having given a sign" means having made a sound for the purpose of cutting off their talk and for the purpose of making them face. "It is improper to decide" is said with reference to the inability to investigate, because by the perception "impure," having entered the side of the accuser, he has gone outside the state of an investigator. For only when there is doubt is it possible to investigate. But when there is the view of impurity, all that is said by the accused appears even as untrue. How could there be investigation there? By "It will be destroyed in that way," it shows that separation from the Sangha, without giving a decision, is also one kind of destruction, like the destruction of the mark (of a monk). "It is violated" means he has intentionally and forcibly incurred an offense. "From the beginning, there is no such thing as shameless" is the statement of the cause for the arising of the characteristic of shamelessness, which is "He does not give a confession for the purpose of protecting his faction." From the time of concealment onwards, he is indeed called shameless; the former state of shame does not protect him, this is the meaning. "He does not give a confession" means he does not give a confession, thinking, "If I speak of the fault committed by me, my followers will break up." "He does not stand in place" means he does not stand in the place of shame; there is indeed a transgression in body and speech, this is the meaning. Therefore he said, "A decision should not be given." This also will be destroyed in that way, because the dispute, even though previously settled by the confession of the factions, was badly settled, this is the meaning. "Having known the conduct towards the accused and accusers" means having known the action to be performed by the investigator towards the accused and accusers, as said by "You will be satisfied with our decision," etc. "The decision is in the middle" means that the middle is called the investigations ending in a decision, whether it is an offense or not an offense, this is the meaning. "They say even what is rootless, having made it with a root," therefore he said, "two roots." In phrases like "I will speak in due time," speaking after having caused an opportunity to be made. He speaks in due time. When he urges in places like the best gruel, the best alms-round, etc., he speaks out of due time. When he speaks with the desire to make one rise from a fault, he speaks with a purpose. "Dosantaroti" means having a mind full of faults. In the fifteen qualities: "Purity of bodily conduct, and purity of verbal conduct, a mind of loving-kindness towards fellow celibates, great learning, welcome to both Pātimokkhas, I will speak in due time," and so on, the five qualities mentioned (Pari. 362), and compassion, desire for welfare, sympathy, rising from an offense, and reverence for the Vinaya (Cūḷava. 401) – in these fifteen. Therein, "compassion" shows karuṇā. "Desire for welfare" means seeking welfare. "Sympathy" means connecting with that welfare; by these two, mettā is shown. "Rising from an offense" means establishing in purity. To urge a matter, to remind, to make one confess, and to act according to the confession is called reverence for the Vinaya. By the meaning of 'adhikaraṇa' (case/matter): It means that which should be taken up, that which should be settled by the pacifications. "To show that diversity": Here, even if not intended, the intention is to show that diversity by way of extracting the meaning. Therefore, it will be said: "The rest are stated by way of extracting the meaning" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.385-386). "Yaṃ adhikiccātiādinā" states the object-instrumentality of the word 'adhikaraṇa'. "Gāhanti" means the mental grasping of the form of urging, thinking, "I will urge so-and-so." "Cetananti" means the mental action, which is the mental activity that arises with the thought, "I will urge." "Akkhantinti" means the inability to endure the anger that arises upon seeing the failure of the one being urged, or any mental and volitional aggregate that has thus arisen. "Vohāranti" means the speech that occurs by way of urging. "Paṇṇattinti" means the conceptual designation mentally conceived that occurs by way of urging. "Attādānaṃ gahetvāti" means having mentally grasped the urging. "Taṃ adhikaraṇanti" means that matter characterized by grasping. It ceases due to the momentary nature of volition, and that (volition) reaches pacification – thus, in this, the undesirable... The occasion should be understood. Thus, further, by "be silent," it shows the cessation of the conventional expression. Therefore, it says, "that case will reach settlement." Having shown the conclusion made in the commentaries, "Therefore, a designation is a case," now, having shown that it is rejected by some, and again having refuted that, to establish that only the designation mentioned in the commentaries is a case, it says, beginning with "but this." There, "but this" means that this understanding, "a designation is a case," is contradictory. With the perception that offenses like pārājika are either absolutely unwholesome or indeterminate in nature, the Sutta beginning with "the pārājika offense of sexual intercourse" is cited to show that it contradicts the view that a designation is a case. Therefore, it says, "for they are not... (etc.)... due to being absolutely unwholesome." "They" refers to the commentary teachers. Here, in "that case is indeed groundless," to show that only a groundless pārājika is intended by the word "case," it is said, beginning with "and that which." And the section beginning with "since" is begun to show that the nature of a designation is appropriate only for the groundless pārājika offense intended here. There, "by which designation" refers to the nominal designation, initiated by the accuser, such as "he is pārājika," even in a person who is naturally pure. "Designated" means stated. "Because it occurs in a case" means because it occurs as a verbal expression in a case of offense, even if it is merely mentally imposed as non-existent. Thus, having shown the nature of the offense-case as a nominal designation in this training rule, now, to show it also as a conceptual designation, it is said, beginning with "or since." "It is merely a designation" means it is merely a conceptual designation mentally imposed as existing, though non-existent. "And that indeed is here" means that the nature of a designation as a case, in the manner described, is only here, in this very training rule. "Some say."