English
they make that bhikkhu sleep alone in a cemetery. If that bhikkhu, being made to sleep in this way, is free from fear and terror, and is able to sleep or sit in that cemetery all night, they determine him to be “pure.” But if he is seized by fear and terror, and is unable to sleep or sit all night, they determine him to be “impure.” That seems inappropriate. Why, if asked? Because it contradicts the Aṭṭhakathā. In the Aṭṭhakathā, such a consideration is mentioned only in the context of the second and third pārājika offenses, not in the context of the first and fourth pārājika offenses. For it is said there: “Indeed, the transgression of sexual intercourse and the transgression of superhuman attainments are gross. But the transgressions of taking what is not given and killing a human being are subtle, light-minded. They are incurred subtly, and protected subtly. Therefore, when questioned about remorse concerning such matters, specifically—” And in the Ṭīkā (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.45) it is said: “‘Concerning such matters’ means those transgressions of taking what is not given and killing a human being, the basis, the foundation—” What is the reason for this? It is related to that matter. This is also one reason. Even there, having had other wise people investigate, if the shadow of a pārājika appears for them too, then a decision should be made, not if purity appears. For it is said in the commentary: "Do not say 'It is an offense!'" "If his teacher is alive... (and so on)... and if the shadow of a pārājika appears even for a young one, even then, do not say 'You are defeated!'" "For the arising of a Buddha is rare, and rarer still are renunciation and ordination." "But this should be said:" This is one point. Even if made to sit, he should be made to sit in a secluded place, not in a charnel ground. For it is said there: "Having swept a secluded place, having sat for a day-abiding..." (and so on). This is one point. Even if made to sit in a secluded place, he should be made to sit during the day, not at night. For thus it is said: "He does not even know that the day has passed," "when he comes for attendance after the day has passed, this should be said:" This is one point. Such a procedure should be carried out only when he himself reports it, not when accused by others. For thus it is said: "When a bhikkhu who has committed such an transgression comes and reports it himself, then it should be proceeded with." So why do they do this now? They do this, thinking it is like the immersion in water for householders in a case without witnesses. Even that, cunning people make false by various means, therefore it can be true, and it can be false. And for that very reason, Bodhisattas like Mahosadha the wise, do not decide even a case without witnesses by immersion in water and so on, but having made the assembly take the words of both, and having understood their words and actions, they decide, only after knowing what is true and what is false. But in the Dispensation, there are bhikkhus who are brave by nature, and there are those who are timid by nature. And a charnel ground, is a cause of fear and terror even for ordinary people, but at night it appears extremely terrifying, if one of timid nature is made to lie down alone at night in such a charnel ground... What monk, even of pure conduct, would not be afraid? How could he sleep or sit all night? Saying of such a monk, "He is impure," how would that be a proper action? But a shameless person, of a bold nature, desiring to conceal his own fault, even though afraid, acting as if unafraid, thinking, "If I show any change, they will harm me," enduring out of fear of harm, might be able to sleep or sit. Saying of such a person, "He is pure," how would that be well-judged? This is also one reason. Or they might say – just as for liars submerged in water, by the power of deities, crocodiles and the like appear as if to seize them, therefore liars quickly float up, but for truth-tellers, they do not appear, therefore they can sit comfortably. In the same way, for those monks of impure conduct, by the power of deities, lions, tigers, and the like appear as if they have come, therefore they cannot sleep or sit all night. But for those of pure conduct, they do not appear in that way, therefore, protected by deities all night, free from fear and terror, they can sleep or sit in the charnel ground. Thus, because the judgment is made with deities as witnesses, it is indeed well-judged – that too cannot be said. Why? Because it is not stated thus in the Commentaries, Sub-commentaries, and so forth. For in the Commentary, it is said: "Having swept a secluded place, having sat down for the day's abiding, having purified one's precepts, one should be told, 'Now, attend to the thirty-two parts of the body.'" If his unblemished precept connects with the meditation subject, the formations become manifest and appear, the mind becomes one-pointed as if it has attained access and absorption, he does not even know that the day has passed... But for one whose precept is broken, his meditation subject does not connect, his mind trembles as if pierced by a goad, he is burned by the fire of remorse, like a heated stone... This much only is said: “He rises up immediately, as if seated.” And in the Ṭīkā (Sāratthadīpanī 2.45), this much only is said: “‘He joins the meditation subject’ means he joins it with his mind for a long time as an object, without showing any break in between. ‘The formations appear clearly’ means if he is a Vipassanā meditator, the formations appear clearly to him. If he has committed a Pārājika transgression, even if he does not wish to remember it, it appears to him again and again by way of a cause for remorse, and thus he does not find one-pointedness of mind.” And in the Vimativinodanī (Vimativinodanī Ṭīkā 1.45), this much only is said: “‘He joins the meditation subject’ means he joins it with his mind continuously, without showing any break in between, due to distraction rooted in remorse. ‘Formations’ is said in the context of a Vipassanā meditation subject. For one who has committed an offense, even a well-practiced meditation subject does not appear clearly. How much more so for one who has committed a Pārājika. For him, the mind is not one-pointed due to its inclination towards remorse. But for someone whose mind is not concentrated due to an abundance of discursive thoughts and other distractions, even if he has pure virtue, that is not to be taken as rooted in a Pārājika here. It is with reference to the non-concentration of the mind here, due to remorse rooted in an evil deed committed, that ‘he does not join the meditation subject’ and so on is said.” This much only is said, and it is not said “by the power of deities” and so on. Therefore, if a bhikkhu, respectful of the Buddha’s Dispensation and desirous of training, sees some transgression of his own regarding a second or third Pārājika, and being assailed by doubt, “Am I or am I not fallen into a Pārājika?”, approaches a Vinaya expert and, having truthfully explained that transgression, asks about it, then the Vinaya expert should say only this much, in the manner stated in the commentaries: “Having made all preliminary arrangements, having swept a secluded place, having sat down for the day’s abiding, having purified your virtues, attend to the thirty-two parts of the body.” He should not say “Make your bed in a charnel ground” and so on. In the coming time, And it should be understood that, having questioned in the manner that has come in the commentary, its state of purity or impurity should be declared in the manner that has come in the commentary. So be it. This being so, now, for those who accuse in the matter of the first pārājika, how should the decision be made? When the accuser has reported the matter, the accused should be asked, "Is this true, or not?" Thus, having investigated the matter, having accused and reminded with the true matter, that case should be settled with the completeness of the motion and the completeness of the proclamation. Even so, a shameless one might say, "This is not, this is not," and would not give an admission. Then what should be done? Even so, the shameless one should be made to incur an offense by his own admission, just as by the Elder Tipiṭaka Cūḷābhaya. For it is said in the commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.385-386): "A shameless one, being accused by a conscientious one, even when many matters have arisen, does not give an admission. He should be called 'neither pure' nor 'impure'. He is called 'living dead' and 'raw rotten'. But if another such matter arises for him, it should not be decided. He will thus be ruined," and so on. 235. Thus, having known the characteristics of a Vinaya-holder and the observation of the six places, now... (etc.)... the decision should be known, is the connection. For what purpose? he says. "That which... (etc.)... for the purpose of knowing." That accusation which has been described previously, for the purpose of knowing its success and failure, the decision should be known in terms of its beginning, middle, and end, etc. Not for the purpose of knowing the types of accusation not mentioned, is the meaning. "Seyyathidaṃ" is a particle in the sense of asking. What is that decision? is the meaning. "How many roots does an accusation have, how many matters, how many grounds?" Here, "in how many ways?" should also be said. For it is said in the Parivāra (Pari. 362), in the section on accusation: "How many roots does an accusation have, how many matters, how many grounds, in how many ways does one accuse?" "I will speak with a mind of loving-kindness, not from inner hatred." And after this, "These are the five grounds of accusation. Which... He admonishes in two ways: He admonishes by body, Or he admonishes by speech. It should be said: "He admonishes in these two ways." Why? Because it is found thus