English
"That is not proper" refers to what is said by some in the commentaries, ad Denying the conventional nature of the matter, to establish its ultimate nature as wholesome, etc., it was shown in detail with "this is an offense of sexual intercourse involving defeat," and so on. That meaning is not appropriate. There, the reason is stated with "for the first offender," and so on. And by that, in that argument, if an offense were unwholesome or indeterminate, how could there be no offense for the first offender? Since unwholesome states, etc., arise even for him, it cannot be said that an offense exists only from the time the Buddha laid down the training rule, because unwholesome states, etc., arise in sexual intercourse, etc., even before the laying down of the training rule. For that very reason, there would be the consequence of an offense even for the unordained, and since it arises for the sick, etc., there would be the consequence of no non-offense even without a specific rule. If it is thought, "Not merely unwholesome states, etc., but unwholesome states, etc., arising for one who knows that it is forbidden by the Buddha are offenses," that too is baseless, because there would be the consequence of no offense for one who transgresses in sexual intercourse, etc., without knowing the laying down of the training rule, and for an offense whose nature is unwholesome, etc., there would be no unity in a single act, etc. For it is not the case that only one unwholesome state arises for one who touches a woman without releasing her body for the entire day, or many for one who touches many women and then departs, by which there would be one offense or many offenses. It should be understood that such unreasonableness, etc., has been gathered and shown. There, "vatthu" (basis) is the transgression. For it is called "vatthu" in the sense of being the occasion for the designation of an offense by convention. "Gotta" (class) is the general form conceived as excluding the mental designation from taking what is not given, etc. "Nāma" (name) is the designation of a non-existent name. But "pārājika" (defeat) for that name should be understood as the actual designation of an offense that is real for the name. But the Sutta, "A dispute-case may be wholesome," etc. (Cv. 220; Parivāra 303), and "An offense-case may be unwholesome," etc. (Cv. 222), which was quoted by them, that too does not mean that disputes, etc., are wholesome, etc. What needs to be said here regarding the teaching in due course of the rains, that has been extensively stated below in the Sāratthadīpanī, in the description of the origin of the first pārājika and so on, for the purification of mistaken views, and should be taken from there. The view of the author of the Sāratthadīpanī is that an offense is of the nature of unwholesome deeds and so on. Therefore, here too, having shown the conclusion made in the commentaries that "therefore, the adhikaraṇa (legal question) is a designation (paṇṇatti)", he then said, "Now even that is not proper," and so on, to show that it is not proper, thus making his own view the view of the commentary teachers, and presented it without even considering the contradiction with the text. Here, the Venerable Buddhaghosa did not begin with "But this..." and so on, to show that the commentary's statement was improper, because it is stated above that "the adhikaraṇa of an offense should be understood as merely a designation." Rather, he began by showing the disagreement of some with wrong views regarding that, and then wishing to refute it again. Therefore, it should be understood that "some" is stated at the end. If disputes and so on are wholesome and so on, then their settlements would also be of that nature, but in ultimate realities, a designation cannot be settled. Therefore, it is said, "by settlements of wholesome deeds and so on." The four adhikaraṇas, which are of the nature of designations, are to be settled by settlements, but not those ultimate realities such as wholesome deeds and so on, which, due to their momentary nature, reach settlement by themselves. This is the meaning of what was stated below as a conclusion, "Thus, by this meaning of adhikaraṇa," meaning that they are to be settled by settlements in the manner described. By "Here, some," the intended dispute here is averted. "Anuvāda" means both reproaching and accusing with regard to transgressions. Therein, "upavadanā" means blame and abuse. "All five" refers to the offenses included in the mātikā (summary list). "Kiccayatā" means what is to be done. In "sapadānukkamaniddesassa" (of the rule with the sequential exposition of words), "padānukkamaniddesa" is called "padabhājana" (word-by-word analysis). The meaning is "of the training rule accompanied by that." 387. It should be, doer Regarding the master's words, it is said, "by this accuser," and so forth. But regarding the root of what is seen, it is said, "one who is seen committing a pārājika offense," and so forth, referring to the Pāli passage (Pārā. 387). There, the person committing a pārājika offense is seen by him merely in the act of sitting alone with a woman, and so forth, but not in the act of performing sexual intercourse, and so forth. For if he had been seen by him in that way, then this person would have been of impure perception regarding that individual. And for one who accuses, whether pure or impure, with an impure perception, there would be no saṅghādisesa, because it is said, "no offense for one who sees pure as impure, for one who sees impure as impure," and so forth (Pārā. 390). Therefore, only for one who, even having merely seen sitting alone with a woman, and so forth, and having a pure perception of that person — "this faithful lay follower does not commit a pārājika" — or being in doubt, then determines and accuses, saying, "I heard him committing a pārājika offense," and so forth, is there a saṅghādisesa, not for one with an impure perception. For him, however, it is only a light offense, due to false speech, and so forth, regarding what was seen or heard. This should be understood. If, however, even with the intention of causing that person to fall from a pure view, he only states what was seen, such as sitting alone, and so forth, but does not state the unseen pārājika act of sexual intercourse, and so forth, or "you are not a recluse," and so forth, there is no offense for him. But for one who states more, there is an offense, because it is said, "the unseen as seen" (Pārā. 386-387). Some say that for one who, with the intention of causing to fall, becomes of impure perception due to the first pārājika, such as sitting alone, which was seen, and then states, "he was seen" or "he was heard" committing an act of taking what is not given, there is also no saṅghādisesa, because of seeing the impure as impure. Others, however, say, "there is indeed an offense, due to the absence of pure perception regarding the pārājika by which one accuses." This is correct. For it is said in the Mātika-aṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Duṭṭhadosasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), "that pārājika by which one accuses, that..." knowing 'this one is not guilty,' with the intention of expelling...etc... a Saṅghādisesa. In this way, the decision should be understood even in cases based on hearsay, etc. When it comes to other matters: when it comes to contemptuous speech, etc. Avassuto means soaked through the three doors with the repeated contemplation of misconduct that constitutes a pārājika offense. Kasambujāto means like rubbish, meaning worthless. Koṇṭho means a thief, meaning immoral. Jeṭṭhabbatiko means a sectarian assigned to the vow of the goddess Kāḷakaṇṇī, it is said; she is indeed called the elder sister of the goddess Siridevī. Yadaggena means for which reason, meaning by how much. In Tadaggena, the same applies. The phrase 'No kappeti' (it is not proper) and so on, was stated only to indicate a state of doubt, this is the opinion of Mahāpaduma Thera. 389. Here, in the accusation. The intention of one who accuses of an offense, saying 'I will perform the act of reproof, etc.,' is called 'intention for action'. The intention of one who accuses of an offense in order to raise him from the offense by means of giving probation, etc., is called 'intention for raising'. The intention of one who accuses of an offense in order to prevent the performance of Uposatha or Pavāraṇā in the Saṅgha is called 'intention for suspending Uposatha or Pavāraṇā'. Asammukhā...etc...a dukkaṭa: a dukkaṭa for one who does not admonish, and for one who reviles. Sabbattheva means in all commentaries. Since Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are declaration-actions, the suspension of Uposatha and Pavāraṇā occurs only when the declaration is in progress, not when it is completed. And it is said to be completed when it reaches the 'yya' sound, therefore it is said, 'it is not obtained when it reaches the 'yya' sound'. Anupāsako means that bhikkhu is not even a lay follower, because his going for refuge has been revoked, so they say. By 'for one who teaches Dhamma without addressing,' it shows that one should make an opportunity by addressing him. Having confessed the offense: having confessed the offense of not making an opportunity. Whom he accuses, that fully ordained monk, by reckoning; in him, a perception of purity or doubt; the groundlessness of the pārājika with which he accuses, by way of seeing, etc.; with the intention of expelling, by stating 'you are defeated' and so on, having determined... The accusation from the mouth, the causing to accuse— these five factors are known instantly. The explanation of the first offense of ill-will is finished. 9. The Explanation of the Second Offense of Ill-Will 391. In the ninth, "the nun Mettiyā"— this is said by taking her former usage, even though she was expelled from the assembly of nuns. "Of another part"— the portion of the elder, who is of human birth, a monk,