English
By this much, how is it play? Thus, this is indeed play. Here, one should be without the perception of play, one should undertake it for the sake of discipline. Since it is entirely unwholesome, the mind delights in play. Therefore, an unwholesome mind is found here alone. (Vajira. ṭī. Pācittiya 336); The description of the training rule concerning laughing is finished. 4. Description of the training rule concerning disrespect. "His word" means: "This one is suspended, or scorned, or censured; his word will not be done" - thus he shows disrespect. "The Dhamma" means: The Dhamma in the discourse might be ruined, or destroyed, or disappear; or, being unwilling to learn that, he shows disrespect. It is written: "It is not permissible for one who, having transgressed what is censured by the world, says 'This is our teacher's teaching.'" (Vajira. ṭī. Pācittiya 344). The description of the training rule concerning disrespect is finished. 6. Description of the training rule concerning fire. Because it is said "expecting to mend," it is permissible for another, and for others. Many fires or not many, the sages light together. One puts out, not many, according to the distinction of intention. The description of the training rule concerning fire is finished. 8. Description of the training rule concerning discolouring. "Like a peacock's eye, a circle, a finger's back" - this is not absolute; they say "more or less." It is permissible even at one corner; thus, it is permissible even for a single spot anywhere. The description of the training rule concerning discolouring is finished. 9. Description of the training rule concerning assigning. The reading is: "The origins, etc., are similar to the first Kathina; but this is an act or non-act." Here, by use, it is a bodily action. By not returning, it is a verbal action. The description of the training rule concerning assigning is finished. 10. Description of the training rule concerning hiding. The ancients say that in a needle-case with needles, there is an offense by the number of needles. The description of the training rule concerning hiding is finished. The sixth chapter on drinking liquor. 7. The chapter on living beings. 1. Description of the training rule concerning intentional killing. By the number of objects, there is the counting of karmic bonds and the intention to kill, not the intention to kill by the counting of karmic bonds. Here, by one intention, many living beings m This distinction of not delighting should be known. The explanation of the training rule on intentionality is concluded. 2. The explanation of the training rule concerning living creatures "With living creatures" means an offense of expiation by way of the death of living creatures, not an offense of expiation by way of consuming water with living creatures. Therefore, it is said to be "an offense by injunction." Due to an impure mind, it is an offense of expiation; with a pure mind, there is no offense. It is written that the offense by injunction is stated like the lighting of a lamp. "Placing into water" is earlier. "Entering water" is this (later). Thus, the difference between the two should always be known by the wise. The explanation of the training rule concerning living creatures is concluded. 5. The explanation of the training rule concerning one under twenty years old "Ordains another" – If the preceptor himself recites the formal act, some say the act is valid. The expert in Vinaya says it is not. Since an offense of wrong-doing is committed by the teacher and the assembly, therefore, the teacher and the preceptor are distinct here. The explanation of the training rule concerning one under twenty years old is concluded. 7. The explanation of the training rule concerning arrangement Here, a nun with one ordination, a female probationer, and a female novice – these three are included. But for these three, the time (period) protects (them). This is for them, and it should be known as a distinction for women. The explanation of the training rule concerning arrangement is concluded. 9. The explanation of the training rule concerning associating with an expelled monk It is written: "By one who has not renounced that view" refers to one who associates with a different doctrine. Here, "three minds" – the meaning should be understood as one may sleep together with a resultant indeterminate mind. Otherwise, since the training rule is with intention, it is not appropriate to refer to an active indeterminate (mind). The explanation of the training rule concerning associating with an expelled monk is concluded. 10. The explanation of the training rule concerning the thorn It is said in the old commentaries: "This novice is defeated. If he renounces that view, he should be ordained with the Sangha's permission after informing the Sangha." That is not appropriate. For here, the intended meaning is expulsion by disciplinary action. If he were defeated, it would be called expulsion by disrobing. ā. "Those who engage in them are not capable of causing an obstacle," and the view regarding the Teacher, that He is not a Teacher, is not a view. If that arises in someone, he is defeated (pārājika). In that case, too, it should be practiced in the same way. Not abiding in restraint, he should be destroyed by the destruction of his mark (liṅga). (Vajira. Ṭī. Pācittiya 428) This is the teacher's conjecture. The commentary on the "Thorn" training rule is finished. The seventh chapter, "Living Beings." 8. The chapter on "Those in Accordance with the Dhamma." 4. The commentary on the "Blow" training rule. Should it be said that just as there is no intention to kill in the limbs, there is no intention to cause death? It should not be said. Why? Because a monk who intends to strike is free from the application of means for the death of that person by his intention, and because it is a matter of not causing death, it is merely an intention not to cause death. Therefore, they are not stated like that. But there is no anger in the intention to kill, therefore, it is said to be no offense. The commentary on the "Blow" training rule is finished. 5. The commentary on the "Hand-slap" training rule. The hand itself is the hand-slap. "Some say it is a 'weapon' in the sense of being able to strike." Since there is a pācittiya offense for one who strikes with the intention to strike, and merely raising the hand with the intention to raise it causes a pācittiya offense by this rule. But if a blow is given by transgressing this rule, then because it was given without the intention to strike, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Is this dukkaṭa offense due to the blow, or due to the raising of the hand? The dukkaṭa offense is due to the blow itself. The previous pācittiya offense is due to the raising of the hand. Thus, a pācittiya offense with a dukkaṭa offense is appropriate. For the raising of the hand is first, and the blow is later. And the previous raising of the hand cannot be without an offense by relying on the later blow. This is our conjecture, says the teacher. (Vajira. Ṭī. Pācittiya 456) The commentary on the "Hand-slap" training rule is finished. 7. The commentary on the "Deliberate" training rule. Whether another person generates remorse or not, that is irrelevant. "Generating remorse" should be understood as the third factor stated according to his intention. The commentary on the "Deliberate" training rule is finished. 8. The commentary on the "Eavesdropping" training rule. Eavesdropping, Just as 'upakujjha' is called 'samīpakujjha', so 'upassuti' should be understood as 'samīpassuti'. The meaning is: the place where one stands and listens. And here, 'suti' means the sound of others' speech. For that which is heard is called 'suti'. Or that in which one listens is 'upassuti'. Indeed, 'suti' is a place. In "having heard these," the remaining text is "speech". The origins, etc., should not be taken as similar to the two past ones. Its origin is the group of thieves. It may be by going to the act of listening. It may be by the origin of not letting those who come to the inactive place and speak know. It is written: "Release by perception, with intention, blameworthy by the world, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome thought, painful feeling." The explanation of the training rule concerning eavesdropping is finished. 9. The explanation of the training rule concerning obstructing a formal act. However, for one making a robe with a small amount of material, items like needles, etc., of the types mentioned in the explanation of the chapter on dwellings (Cūḷava. 328), may be given even without a formal declaration. One who gives more than that must perform a formal declaration. The intention is that such a declaration, when made, is indeed a characteristic of a formal act. Thus, the characteristic of a formal act should be understood everywhere. In village boundaries and monasteries, formal acts of the Sangha like expulsion, etc., are not permissible. But those that are to be given away and those that are divisible are permissible. And it is written that one should declare, not generally "belonging to the Sangha," but "belonging to the Sangha in this monastery." And it is written that "the origins, etc., are similar to taking what is not given, but this one is painful feeling." The explanation of the training rule concerning obstructing a formal act is finished. 10. The explanation of the training rule concerning going away without giving one's consent. Some say that if one does not come to the assembly and does not give consent, there is no offense. Others say it is a dukkaṭa offense, because the intention is to obstruct a Dhamma-act. The explanation of the training rule concerning going away without giving one's consent is finished. 11. The explanation of the training rule concerning the weak.