English
through another conjunct consonant, which is also dissimilar in place, dissimilar in manner, and dissimilar in class? Not only are these letters dissimilar in place, dissimilar in manner, and dissimilar in class... They are primary, but then they are not close in place, not close in articulation, and not close in group. Just as when playing a lute, the sound of a string from afar is not the same as the sound of a string from further afar, so how could a letter distant in place and articulation be of the same sound as one further distant in place and articulation? And because group letters operate with distinct sounds, not mixing with each other, when the niggahīta is made a group-final according to the rule "vaggantaṃ vā vagge" (group-final or in a group), then when another group follows, it does not become the group-final of that other group. And by the rule "vagge ghosāghosānaṃ tatiyapaṭhamā" (in a group, for voiced and unvoiced, the third and first), when dissimilar doubling is made, the doubling of another group does not occur in another group. And if a 'ca'-ending letter were of the same sound as a 'ta'-ending letter, then why write 'ca'-ending letters? One would write 'ta'-ending letters everywhere. But not writing thus, according to usage, in places of similar doubling of the first letter, like "kacco kaccāyano", and in places of dissimilar doubling, like "vaccho vacchāyano"; and in places of similar doubling of the third letter, like "majjaṃ sammajjaṃ", and in places of dissimilar doubling, like "upajjhā upajjhāyo" – only the doubling of letters of the same place, same articulation, and same group is written, not of others. Therefore, according to usage, in places of 'ca'-ending and 'ja'-ending, it should be spoken only according to the sound of its own group, not according to the sound of another group. But concerning 'sa'-ending, because 'sa' is of the same place and same articulation as 'ta', even though they differ by being group or non-group, and because non-group letters are common with group letters, and because non-group letters do not have a distinct sound like group letters, therefore, speaking 'sa'-ending as 'ta'-ending would be appropriate. Indeed, 'sa' is also dental, and 'ta' is also. 'Sa' is also articulated by the tongue-tip, and 'ta' is also. Therefore, for letters of the same place and same articulation, having the same sound is appropriate. Even in speaking 'ña'-ending and 'la'-ending as 'na'-ending, by this method, 'ña'-ending 'na'-... The non-similarity in sound of words ending in -kā, and the similarity in sound of words ending in -la and -na, should be understood. This is the reasoning here. But the consideration of tradition should be made thus: "A word ending in -ca, or one ending in -sa, should be pronounced like one ending in -ta; A word ending in -ña, or one ending in -la, should be pronounced like one ending in -na." From where did this verse originate? Where did it come from? By whom was it made? Regarding "from where did it originate?": It originated from the Blessed One, or from the Theras who compiled the Dhamma, or from the Aṭṭhakathā teachers. Regarding "where did it come from?": It came from the Vinaya, or from the Suttanta, or from the Abhidhamma, or from the Pāḷi, or from the Aṭṭhakathā, or from the Ṭīkā and so on. Regarding "by whom was it made?": It was made by the venerable Mahākaccāyana Thera, who composed the Netti, Nirutti, Peṭakopadesa, and Kaccāyana treatises; or by Vajirabuddhācariya, who composed the Mukhamattadīpanī; or by Buddhapiyācariya, who composed the Padarūpasiddhi; or by Aggavaṃsācariya, who composed the Saddanīti treatise; or by other great Theras who composed such works. When there is such a consideration of tradition, it is not evident that this verse originated from the Blessed One, or from the Theras who compiled the Dhamma, or from the Aṭṭhakathā teachers. Indeed, it cannot be said that it "came from the Vinaya, or from the Suttanta, or from the Abhidhamma, or from the Pāḷi, or from the Aṭṭhakathā, or from the Ṭīkā." Nor does it appear to have been made by teachers who composed grammatical works, such as Kaccāyana. If this is the case, this statement becomes one without authority. However, we have considered this: It is said that in the Ramañña country, in their own language, there are no words ending in -ca and -ña. Therefore, the bhikkhus of the Ramañña country, when reciting the word "sacca," say "satca"; when reciting the word "pañcaṅga," say "pancaṅga." Therefore, it is likely that this verse was made by those bhikkhus, who, being unable to pronounce words ending in -ca and -ña as they are written, since they do not exist in their own region, made it to conform to their own language. Even so, in the Maramma language, words ending in -ca and -ña are distinctly recognized by their specific sound. Monks from the Maramma country, following that custom, are not allowed to say "I go for refuge to the Buddha" or "First, one should be made to take the preceptor" or "Condition of cause, condition of object." And those from the Ramañña country, even if a word ending in 'ca' or 'ña' does not exist separately in their own language, when speaking in their own language, it should be spoken in a way that is appropriate to the language, as a word ending in 'ta' or 'na'. But when speaking the Magadhan language, since the separate usage of words ending in 'ca' and 'ña' is seen in the Magadhan language, it is our opinion that words ending in 'ca' and 'ña' should be spoken separately, according to the Magadhan language, just as they are written, by way of sound. This is the traditional consideration here. Concerning the Teaching of the Conqueror, this discourse has been spoken by me; Let the wise disciples of the Conqueror consider what is proper and improper. Having considered what is proper and improper, let them uphold what is proper; And let them abandon what is improper, free from pride and fault. 254. Thus, having shown the success and failure of the four acts, now, showing the classification of the grounds of these acts, it is said, beginning with, "To which five grounds does the act of declaration go?" The decision there should be understood in the way stated in the commentary. We will show only the meaning of the obscure words. In phrases like "Even if a novice now," speaking ill of the Buddha and others, or presenting what is improper as proper, falls under wrong view. Therefore, it will be said, "He should be made to abandon that doctrine." The same method applies to monks. "One with wrong view" means one who grasps the intention of the Buddha's words in a distorted way; he is also called "one endowed with a view that grasps extremes." Some, however, say, "one endowed with one of the views of eternalism or annihilationism," but that is not appropriate. Because the grasping of eternalism or annihilationism was stated below in the commentary itself as a reason for the expulsion of novices from the order, and here it is intended for the expulsion from the disciplinary act. "Bodily communion" means accepting to sleep together, etc. "Sorato" means beautiful/good. He who delights, or delights well, is called 'sorato'. 'Nīcavutti' means of humble conduct. Even to him it should be given: relying on his existing state of being a chatterer and so on, without asking him again, without taking his agreement, without imposing an offense, even if the offense has been taught, it should be given to him who does not desist from scoffing and so on. But to him who desists, who asks for forgiveness, it should not be given. Giving the Brahma-punishment is giving a harsh punishment, a severe punishment. For when an act of rebuke and so on has been performed, there is no prohibition of giving advice and instruction. But when that Brahma-punishment has been given, it is not proper to do even what has been prohibited along with the acts of rebuke and so on, because even mere conversation and talk are prohibited by the negative particle in "he should not be spoken to" and so on. For seeing him, monks do not even turn their necks to look at him. He should be avoided in this way, for that punishment was allowed precisely for the purpose of humbling him. Therefore, even Elder Channa, though he had been subjected to the act of suspension and so on, did not fear. When the Brahma-punishment was given, he fainted and fell, saying, "I have been completely avoided by the Saṅgha." But if someone, knowing, associates with one who has been subjected to the Brahma-punishment, and lives without avoiding him, it should be understood that he incurs a dukkaṭa offense. Otherwise, the provision of the Brahma-punishment would lead to meaninglessness. "By him" means by one who has been subjected to the Brahma-punishment. Just as with those who have been subjected to acts of rebuke and so on, even more so, he should conduct himself properly to please the Saṅgha. And this has been shown in its true nature by "sorato, nivātavutti" and so on. Therefore, it is said, "When he has conducted himself properly and asked for forgiveness, the Brahma-punishment should be revoked." "Paṭisaṅkhā" means having reflected, having examined with wisdom. "That act of non-veneration which was allowed by the Blessed One" —this is the connection. It should be understood that the Pāli passage "atha kho" and so on is quoted to show the manner in which it was specifically allowed, after showing the manner in which "to perform the act of punishment on that monk" was generally allowed. "This becomes the basis for the act of announcement" means it becomes the basis for the occurrence of the general act of announcement. Specific distinction. By the line, even if non-existent, to show non-occurrence elsewhere, it is spoken of as if dependent on a special quality. By "Action itself is the characteristic," since all remaining actions, taken in the sense of removal and so on,