English
Pārājika 131, Miscellaneous Commentary) The commentary on the second Pārājika is finished. 3. Commentary on the third Pārājika Just as comprehension by knowing, which is the knowing of the nature of phenomena, is “this is form, this is feeling,” so too, comprehension by deliberation, which occurs with the nature of phenomena in terms of impermanence and so on, is “form is impermanent,” and so on. Similarly, here, it is said “should deprive of life” because, even by intending together, there is no killing of living beings in a unified sense. Because it is said “human being,” to show from the most subtle existence, starting from the embryo in the womb, it says “starting from the kalala (embryonic fluid).” Here, one who deprives of life separates from the present. There, it is not possible to deprive of life the momentary present, but it is possible to deprive of life the continuous present or the extended present. How? When such an attempt is made, the life-decad, having received the attempt, ceases, becoming a condition for the weak and those whose vigor has declined. The continuous present ceases after two or three moments of impulsion, and the extended present ceases after being made to conform to that, thus it becomes a condition. Therefore, the continuous present or the extended present ceases prematurely, without reaching its predetermined time. Thus, both of these can be deprived of life. Therefore, it separates from the present. “Of this meaning,” the meaning stated in terms of conventional usage, in the ultimate sense For the manifestation of the weapon, it is said, "A living being is to be understood," and so on. "It is applied with volition accompanied by bodily intimation" - this is the application. What is it? The movement of a weapon, etc., in the body is striking. It is the dropping of a weapon onto another's body with volition accompanied by bodily or verbal intimation. "Standing far away" means whether one stands far away or near. A blow from something released from the hand is a 'nissaggiya' (thrown) blow. "Therein" means in the 'nissaggiya' application. "Let whoever dies" - in this, it is not possible in a large crowd. Only for whom the arrow falls upon can life or death be caused, not for just anyone. 'Āṇāpana' (commanding) is the accomplishment of the intended purpose with volition accompanied by verbal intimation. Therefore, it is said, "Desiring to make known, he does not make known" (Pārā. 54). 'Āṇattiniyāmaka' (regulator of command) means that which accomplishes the application of command. For indeed, only when these are not violated does the application of command occur, not otherwise. Here, regarding "Rūpūpahāra" (offering of form) – "By my gain, may this woman die!" If, with such thought, one approaches. If, with evil mind, he goes, he is a woman-killer. If he goes for alms, even knowing, he is not a killer. For he has no purpose in her death, he is indifferent. "By separation from me, my wife and mother do not live." Knowing this, if he causes separation, he is a killer with that purpose. If he goes for the purpose of ordination, etc., even knowing, he is not a killer. For he has no purpose in her death, he is indifferent. Having elaborated the meaning by distinguishing the word 'hārakā' (carrier/remover), it is said, "And that weapon and carrier," and so on, to show that both are one and the same. By this, it shows the 'thāvara' (immovable) application among applications like 'sāhatthika' (by one's own hand). Even having quoted "Thus with mind," the meaning of the word 'iti' has not yet been stated. Although not stated, by connecting the word 'iti' that comes by way of context, in "thus with mental resolve," it is to be understood that it will speak of death, because it is said, "perceiving death, intending death, aiming at death." "By the method stated" means by way of the six applications. In the 'sāhatthika' and 'nissaggiya' applications, the 'sāhatthikatā' (being by one's own hand) is to be understood by the bodily intimation that arises together with the seventh volition, the volition of final determination. But in a command, since verbal communication arises with seven volitions, seven sounds, becoming one, go into the state of single letters. By as many letters as they make their intention known, the nature of a command should be understood as the verbal communication co-arising with the seventh volition, which gives rise to the final letter. The explanation of the third Pārājika is finished. 4. The explanation of the fourth Pārājika Herein are included: if one speaks the phrases 'thus I know, thus I see,' one says 'thus I know,' and so on. It is merely shown that there is no offense for one acting out of 'evil desire' (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Catutthapārājikavaṇṇanā), due to dullness and delusion. One who says, 'I was a stream-enterer in the past,' speaks by implication. Just as in, 'the monk who dwells in your monastery is an Arahant' and so on (Pari. 165), in the training rule too, 'thus I know' (Pārā. 195, 197) refers only to the present. The explanation of the fourth Pārājika is finished. Mother-killers, father-killers, Arahant-killers incur the third Pārājika. The defiler of a bhikkhunī, and the four such as Lambī incur the first Pārājika. If one asks, 'then why twenty-four?' No, it is from not understanding the intention. For the four such as mother-killers are here intended as unordained. And although the four such as Lambī are included in the first Pārājika, since they engage in sexual intercourse in a certain way, they are mentioned separately. In 'he does not obtain from the bhikkhus,' this much is said: 'communion of the Uposatha-type.' In the Vinaya Commentary, it is said: 'of the nature of Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, Pātimokkha recitation, and Saṅgha-kamma.' In the Pāli, it is said: 'Communion means one act, one recitation, and equality in training' (Pārā. 55, 92, 172, 198). It is forbidden to perform Saṅgha-kamma in any of these three ways. 'Monks, the Pātimokkha should not be recited by a layperson in an assembled company' and so on (Mahāva. 154) appears only in relation to Pātimokkha and Pavāraṇā, and in other cases... In such places, to do other work, there is no prohibition. Teachers also say: "To do other work is permissible, there is no offense." "Accusing one who has fallen into a final offense of a groundless pārājika is a Saṅghādisesa; accusing him of a Saṅghādisesa is a Pācittiya." This is said as for a bhikkhu, not as a dukkaṭa for an unordained person. "Therefore, co-sleeping with him, and receiving from him, is permissible for a bhikkhu," so it is written that teachers say. "As before, so after," "one act, one purpose, equal training," regarding communion, it is said with reference to mere inability," they say; it should be investigated. Now, a miscellaneous point common to all four: One who engages in sexual intercourse, sometimes he is pārājika, without communion; sometimes he is not pārājika, without communion; sometimes he is not pārājika, with communion, engaging in a dukkaṭa matter or a thullaccaya matter; sometimes he is not pārājika, a pakkhapaṇḍaka, ordained in the non-eunuch period, engaging in sexual intercourse in the eunuch period. He does not incur an offense, so he is not called pārājika. For there is no such thing as an offense for a non-bhikkhu. Since he incurs no offense, having come in the non-eunuch period, is he without communion, or not? He is. For it is said: "He is unfit by that bodily bond" (Mahāva. 129). And since it is said: "But whatever bhikkhu, having entered the training and livelihood of bhikkhus... without communion" (Pārā. 44), whoever engages in sexual intercourse in the state of a bhikkhu, he alone is unfit. If it is said: "Is he not non-pārājika?" No. In the place where it is said: "The Saṅgha should be informed by a competent and able bhikkhu" (Mahāva. 126), just as when a non-bhikkhu recites the kammavācā, the act is effective because there is no failure of the act, so this case should be seen. Here is the distinction: If one who was formerly ordained recites the kammavācā in this way, and if the Saṅgha perceives him as ordained, the act is effective, not otherwise, so our teachers do not agree. yo. Whether a layperson, a sectarian, or a eunuch recites the motion, the motion is not recited by the Saṅgha. For, by the saying, “The Saṅgha should give ordination, the Saṅgha gives ordination, he is ordained by the Saṅgha” (Mahāva. 127), it is to be understood that when it is recited by one who is included in the Saṅgha, or by one who perceives himself as included in the Saṅgha, it is recited by the Saṅgha, not by any one of laypersons, sectarians, or eunuchs. This same reasoning is to be seen in all acts. Similarly, if someone who has engaged in sexual intercourse is to be expelled, because it is said, “Whoever defiles a bhikkhunī, he is to be expelled” (Mahāva. 114-115, similar in meaning), by that, he, being unordained, incurs an offense of co-sleeping or another similar offense, and in his disparagement, there is a dukkaṭa. One who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a non-bhikkhunī is not to be expelled, because there is no Pāli text saying, “Monks, one who has incurred a grave offense, being unordained, is not to be ordained.” Therefore, he is considered ordained, and does not incur an offense of co-sleeping or the like; he merely does not count as a quorum member because he is not in communion. For, a single act and a single recitation are said to be communion, and since equality in training is also communion, he does not have that with him. However, it appears that he incurs an offense of a specific rule. Just as there is no communion of a single act or the like between the Saṅgha of bhikkhus and a bhikkhunī, so a bhikkhunī is not in communion with a bhikkhu; but he does not incur an offense of a specific rule. Similarly, some who have incurred a grave offense