English
The description of the training rule concerning making a vihāra is finished. 8. The Description of the Training Rule Concerning Ill-Will Some say, “Why do you not perform acts of veneration to me… etc. … since it is said, ‘the head comes only when it is struck,’ it is not proper to venerate one who has fallen into the last category of offenses.” This should not be accepted. Because it is not stated in the Pali text at the end of the Parivara, in the Upali-pañcaka, “How many, venerable sir, are unworthy of veneration?” and so on (Parivara 467), and because it is stated, “One who was ordained later should venerate one who was ordained earlier” (Parivara 468). Therefore, in this section for resolving doubts, it is said, “Ordained means having attained the count.” The intention of the Sutta, however, should be understood thus: it was said to show that by not venerating, one is indeed accusing with an accusation called the rejection of proper conduct. Therefore, it is said, “By this much, it is called an accusation.” Here, to show the intended manner of incurring an offense, it is written, “‘Why do you not perform acts of veneration to me?’ and so on, was said.” “Having performed the ordination” refers to one whose ordination is valid, such as eunuchs and so forth. In “the field of suspension,” there are two kinds of suspension of invitation: general and individual. In the general suspension, it is from the “su” of “May the Sangha, venerable sirs, listen to me… etc. … invite for the third time” up to the “re.” In the individual suspension, however, “Venerable sir, the Sangha invi From the 'saṃ' of 'passanto paṭī' up to the very last 'ṭi' syllable, if one places it even in a single word within this interval, it is considered placed. However, regarding the Uposatha, a distinction should be understood according to this method, without transgressing the 're' syllable in 'kareyyā'. The explanation of the training rule concerning malicious fault is concluded. 9. Explanation of the training rule concerning another's share. "It has another's share" is like in "this gold is golden," where it is said "it has gold by this gold." The body of that image, and the body of the stone statue, are examples. The name "dabba" given to Chagalaka is called "desa" (hint/trace). Why? To not disparage the elder, because it must be attributed even to the elder. Other things are also not just the elder. It adheres, it clings, only by convention, not in reality. The meaning is that "lesa" means "it adheres slightly." In the sense of adhering, clinging, sticking, being attached. Therefore it is said, "lesa means it adheres slightly." Since "desa" and "lesa" are not different in meaning, therefore, having extracted the phrase "taking some hint, a mere trace," it is said in the word-division "ten traces, the trace of birth," and so on. And further, it is revealed only by way of its origin, due to its indefiniteness. For it is not that for all others, like Mettiyabhūmajaka, "Chagalaka alone is the case of another's share here, or something else like cattle or buffalo also is," nor do all, like Mettiyabhūmajaka, take only a mere name-trace; they also take other traces like birth-trace, therefore, due to its indefiniteness, it is not divided. And further, if it were stated thus, only Chagalaka's "another's share" would be possible, not another's, by which it alone would be shown. And "lesa" is indeed "lesa," not "jāti" (birth) etc., by which it alone would be shown; thus it should be understood that there is a risk of wrong apprehension. And here... (and so on)... "even with perception" means in this training rule and in the training rule concerning groundless accusation. Whoever the training rule of another's share, learns not properly; He goes to another's share, by those skilled in Vinaya. Another's share. The description of the rule of training is finished. 11. The description of the rule of training concerning following division In the passage "three or more worthy of action... makes", it is written that it is not proper to do it by saying "these four" or "this one and that one". The description of the rule of training concerning following division is finished. 12. The description of the rule of training concerning being difficult to speak to Difficult to speak to is 'dubbaca'. When spoken to he does not endure. The description of the rule of training concerning being difficult to speak to is finished. Concluding Description The reading is "by way of mere name". It is written "by way of name and lineage". This is said to mean: "If one covers it, knowing 'this action is not proper for monks to do', it is indeed covered." "Only of the same kind" means "only of the same kind, not hostile". Here, "matter and lineage": "matter" means transgression, the discharge of impurity. "Lineage" means that which protects the herd, that which protects the intellect by not allowing it to go elsewhere from its own kind, and that which protects speech. And matter goes to its own kind. Here, "own kind" means actions that are distinguished or not distinguished from others, not physical contact and so on. Here, "name and offense": "offense" means the name of the offense incurred by transgression. Here, concerning "informing the monks who have come again and again": the method of informing should be understood thus: when informing two, say "Venerables, hold it"; when informing three or more, say "Venerables, hold it". Here, concerning "without making a break in practice and a break in night": a break in practice occurs in accepting greetings and so on, in sitting in order, in admonishing, in reproving those who perform actions, and so on, for the remaining ones, even those worthy of initial demotion and so on, except for the newer temporary resident. And a break in night occurs in not informing in matters of seeing and hearing, in monks dwelling in one covered place, and in monks coming and going in the monastery without one's knowledge, and so on. For those of different communion, since there is no Vinaya action, there is no break in night by not informing them. From the saying "having passed two clod-throws", inside not... It moves. Having become one who has laid down the observance, when one is going about, one should lay it down only after informing the one to whom it was previously undertaken and announced. Therefore, when undertaking it again, if that person goes from there, one should not go that day, but even if one has announced it during the day and it has become a past day in this way, it is said, "When the dawn has risen, one should announce it to that person, lay down the observance, and go to the monastery." It is also said, "Having gone to the monastery, one should announce it to the first monk one sees and lay it down." If there is a break in the night, it should be announced to all those within the monastery boundary. The phrase "having announced it to that person" was said to prevent the breaking of the observance, referring to when it was not announced before. Therefore, in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷava. aṭṭha. 97) it is said, "another who has departed from the monastery or an arriving one." However, in the Suddhantaparivāsa, if one took it saying, "I am impure for about a month," and while observing the parivāsa, one makes a determination of less or more, one must observe parivāsa for that much time; there is no need to give parivāsa again. For this suddhantaparivāsa, it ascends upwards and descends downwards. This is its characteristic. "Having combined" means having placed it at the original offense, having included it. If the intermediate offense is unhidden, one should observe parivāsa with the parivāsa previously taken, without pulling it back to the original. But for one who commits an offense, becomes confused, and then, even after being re-ordained, hides it; and for one who hid it before but does not hide it later; and for one who hides it in both cases, parivāsa should be given according to the number of days it was hidden. And because it is said in the Pāli, "in the former group of offenses" and "in the latter group of offenses" (Cūḷava. 166 onwards), two monks become involved in purification; they are of the view of purification. One hides One person should not conceal. Whoever conceals, he should be made to confess a dukkaṭa. "Both should be made to act according to the Dhamma" (Cūḷavagga 181) by this saying, it should be understood that by concealing any offense, one incurs a dukkaṭa. Whether they have gone or not gone, one should proceed in the former manner; here, acting in a deficient group, not rising, even for one night, separation from the group, if the Sangha dwells for a single moment of the night, if he has gone before dawn for some business, even in such a case of Mānatta occurring. "And since he dwelt after informing the group and observing the presence of the bhikkhus, therefore there is no fault of acting in a deficient group or separation for him" — this is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Cūḷavagga Commentary 97). Therefore, even if he sits for a moment after informing and then leaves, there is no separation. For the probationer, and the suspended one, dwelling there is forbidden by the water-pouring rule, due to their ordinary state. Therefore, not even in one dwelling, not even in the same precinct, is it allowed. Now, the textual analysis should be known: "Nine initial offenses, four up to the third time" — this is a statement of natural rule. By this, it shows that the rising (from the offense) is not fixed. For the rising from some offenses occurs both by action and by non-action; it is not said that it occurs by such falling into offense. "Either one or the other" — this is a statement indicating the absence of a difference in the order of rising, even for those divided into two ways. "For as many days, for so many days" — here, the demarcation of days is by dawn. By "knowing,"