English
due to the inconclusive nature of the reason "because it is to be known" (as it applies even to Nibbāna, which is the opposite), "I did not state this reason," he conceals that reason and says again, "I said 'because it is of the nature of birth'," and so on. When "sampajāna" should be said, it is stated with the elision of the nasal sound, so it says "jānanto" (knowing). 2. "Conscious false speech" means speaking falsely, knowing beforehand the falsity of the meaning being spoken by oneself, and also knowing it at the moment of speaking. Therefore, it says "knowing," and so on. And "musāvāde" is in the locative case indicating a cause; therefore, here and in similar instances elsewhere, the meaning should be understood as "a pācittiya offense due to the cause of speaking falsely." 3. "They speak by means of this" is speech, so it says "falsely," and so on. Just as in "he pierces with a bow," and so on, "seen with the eye" is said in an obvious sense, so it says "grossly." 11.G Therefore, even here, because it was said with firm conviction that "it will be," false speech occurred. "It is an offense" means an offense of Pācittiya, not an offense of Dubbhāsita. Indeed, that occurs for one who speaks to another with malice, using the ten grounds for abuse such as birth, etc. "They made them go" means they led them. The falsity of the matter, the intention to deceive, and the application of communication to the person desiring the matter— these are the three factors here. Indeed, if there is no falsity of the matter, even if communicated with the intention to deceive, false speech does not occur; only a dukkaṭa occurs. Therefore, that also should be understood as a factor. For one speaking falsely for the purpose of proclaiming a superior human state, it is a Pārājika. By implication, it is a Thullaccaya. For defaming with a groundless Pārājika, it is a Saṅghādisesa. For defaming with a Saṅghādisesa, for contemptuous speech, etc., it is a Pācittiya. For the unordained, it is a Dukkaṭa. For one abusing with malice using high or low birth, etc., it is a Dubbhāsita. For one speaking merely falsely, here a Pācittiya is stated. The explanation of the training rule on false speech is finished. 2. The explanation of the training rule on contemptuous speech. 13. In the second case, "the spokes reach again the place where they were previously fixed" means that having turned around, they are fixed again on the ground in the place where the rim was first fixed on the ground. 15. "Previously" means in the origin story. "Flower-throwers" are indeed those who remove fetal impurities, etc. "Carpenter's work" means the work of a carpenter, such as stone-cutting. "Hand-sign counting" means counting merely by bending fingers. "Flawless counting" is indeed counting in sequence, having placed tokens in units, tens, etc. By the word "etc.," aggregate counting occurring in the manner of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc., is included. For whom that is proficient, that person, having seen even a tree, knows, "there are so many leaves here." From the saying "Yabha-sexual intercourse," he said, "the letter 'ya', the letter 'bha'," etc. 16. "Not by the former" means not by the training rule on false speech. Even he, speaking "it is an offense" even in specific cases like prefixes, etc., should indeed be dealt with by a Pācittiya offense. 26. "Dubbhāsita" means because it was said generally. In the Pāli, even if they speak behind their backs in the future, it is still bad speech — so say the teachers. Because there is no lesser offense, and it is inappropriate for there to be no offense here. Here, by "all beings," those skilled in words include animals and so forth. 35. For those who speak with the intention of admonishing or reproaching evil, due to the mind's quick changeability, even if anger arises intermittently, there is no offense. Since contempt can arise even from mere bodily gestures, it is also said to be "three-origined, a bodily action." However, in the Parivāra, having rejected other origins by saying "by the fourth origin of offense... one incurs a dubbhāsita offense. It should not be said 'no'," and so forth (Pari. 276), and having stated only the fifth, it says: "Here, the dubbhāsita offense arises from speech and mind." Indeed, for one who shows contempt with body, speech, and mind out of a desire to torment, only speech and mind are components of the offense, not the body, even if present, unlike the offense of teaching Dhamma merely by bodily gesture. However, even if there is no dubbhāsita offense here for one who shows contempt, it should be understood that there is a dukkaṭa offense by the training rule prohibiting bodily play. Insulting an ordained person with terms like "birth" without other intention, knowing that person, and the absence of intentions like benefit — these are the three factors here. The explanation of the training rule on contemptuous speech is finished. 3. Explanation of the training rule on slander. 36. In the third, "bhaṇḍanajātā" means "those for whom a quarrel has arisen." "Pisuṇā" (slanderous) is speech that "crushes," meaning it makes the united divided. One endowed with such speech is "pisuṇo" (a slanderer); his action is "pesuñña" (slander) — this is how the meaning here should be understood. Here too, one who brings slander by the ten grounds such as birth incurs a pācittiya offense; by other grounds of insult, a dukkaṭa. But for one who brings it by grounds not involving insult, they say it is only a dukkaṭa. Hearing a monk insulting with terms like "birth" without other intention, and bringing it to another monk, with one of the intentions of desiring affection or causing division, and knowing that. Herein are these three factors. The explanation of the rule on slander is finished. 4. Explanation of the rule on teaching Dhamma word by word 45. In the fourth, "similar to the preceding consonant" means that the word "anicca" in "vedanā aniccā" is similar to the word "anicca" in "rūpaṃ aniccaṃ". "A group of letters" is said to be without inflection. "A word" is said to be ending in an inflection. "One word" refers only to a verse-line. "By counting words" means by counting verse-lines. "Without reaching" means without speaking together. By this, it is shown that if, when the last line of a verse is being recited, a novice recites the first line and so on, it is an offense. It is to be recited by the other only when the novice is silent. "Based on the commentaries" refers to the ancient commentaries included in the three recitations. Even now, commentary passages like "Just as a leopard, having lain in wait, seizes deer" (Mi. Pa. 6.1.5; Visuddhi. 1.217; Dī. Ni. Aṭṭha. 2.374; Ma. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1.107; Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.165; Paṭi. Ma. Aṭṭha. 2.1.163) exist. They say that what was said by Acariya Buddhaghosa and others in the manner of the ancient commentaries should also be included here. "Based on the Pāḷi" refers to the Udānavagga Saṅgaha and so on. "Based on the unrolling" means based on Nibbāna. "Of the Elder" means of Elder Nāgasena. The "Maggakathā" and so on are treatises. 46. "By letters in the Pāḷi" and so on is stated with a gender inversion. The meaning should be understood as "by a letter" and so on. 48. "Having released the vicinity" means that there is no offense even for one who, having left a twelve-cubit radius from the assembly, speaks, addressing others, without speaking to an unordained person who is standing or sitting together. However, if one speaks addressing even one sitting far away, it is an offense. "Opāteti" means speaks together. Being unordained, reciting the described Dhamma word by word, and speaking together: these are the three factors here. The explanation of the rule on teaching Dhamma word by word is finished. 5. Explanation of the rule on sleeping together 50-51. In the fifth, "this is the illustration there" is the remainder. "Two nights or three nights" here... And the mention of "two nights" is for rhetorical embellishment. It should be understood that the offense occurs only for one who, having stayed for three consecutive nights, sleeps on the fourth day and so on, not for one who sleeps intermittently. This is also to show that. For "three nights" being said as distinguished from "two nights," thereby indicates three consecutive nights. By "five coverings" means bricks, stones, plaster, grass, and leaves. By "by way of having come to speech" means by way of being fluent. One and a half cubits high should be measured by a carpenter's cubit. A single approach is that which, having entered by one path, and having proceeded into the open space, is suitable for going all around everywhere. Even if it has many doors, it is still a single approach. But if, having blocked it with walls and so on, they make separate doors, then it becomes a multiple approach. But if they merely block it, and do not make separate doors, it should be understood that "this too is a single approach, like a chamber with a door sealed with clay and so on." Otherwise, if one were to enter a chamber, and to avoid sleeping together with unordained persons lying in the antechamber and so on, were to have the chamber door sealed with clay and so on, and then have it opened at dawn, there would be no offense for him. Regarding "an offense for the bhikkhu at each application of these," some say: "The offense is said to arise from non-action, by not getting up, due to the absence of action for one sleeping at that moment. For this training rule may arise from action, or it may arise from non-action. And its arising from action is said to be by way of being mostly so. And just as this is so, so too is daytime sleeping. For by not getting up, and by not closing the door, this also arises from non-action," they say. And this seems reasonable, it should be considered and accepted. "For one whose walls are not connected