English
should be understood in terms of the boundary's establishment." And: "This is the purpose of saying it three times when giving consent: first, to indicate unanimity; second, to indicate what is to be done afterwards; third, to release the bearer of consent from a dukkaṭa offense" (Vajiraṭṭhīkā, Mahāvagga 164). It is like being tied with a cat-chain, being useful only within the house; just as it does not go anywhere, so too it does not go anywhere— this is the intention. Otherwise, the qualification would be meaningless— this is what the teacher understood. If it is asked, "Since it was shown before that 'it is not proper to perform the Uposatha without doing that,' why is it said, 'this too is both'?" The remaining things were shown as to be done by the Elder's command, but these two are to be done by the Elder, or the Pātimokkha reciter, or the one who proposes the motion, or anyone else; and sweeping and so on produce such purposes here and there. These two, however, here and there, accomplish nothing. Therefore, without saying, "What's the use of this?", to show that it must be done, "This too is both," and so on, was said. "He bows at the feet of the venerable ones" was said collectively, not individually, because there was nothing else to report. "It is declared to the Saṅgha" means "It is declared by the Saṅgha." If it is said, "In 'of the united Saṅgha,' there is no fault because unity is the cause of physical harmony?" That is not so, because unity is desired both in declaration and in listening. For by "Listen to me, venerable sirs," it indicates mental harmony, because all are united in listening. Here, in "intentionally commits an offense," only one who commits it disrespectfully is shameless, not the other. Here, in "conceals an offense," one who conceals it out of shame is not shameless; but one who conceals it disrespectfully, thinking 'What's the use of this?', is shameless," it is written. If it is said, "It should not be said 'of the seven groups of offenses,' but 'of the six'?" It should be said "of the seven" indeed. For if one who has committed a pārājika offense reveals their state of having committed an offense, and the Saṅgha's Uposatha is completed, then their purification occurs by becoming a layperson or a novice. Some teachers, it is said, are teachers who bear the Dhamma. If it is asked, "Why is this said?" "Yāvatatiyānusāvanā" means "speaking three times." Since it does not appear in the text as such, merely seeing the phrase "declared for the third time," this "whoever has an offense, let him reveal it" indicates the meaning "if you have committed an offense, reveal it." This "if there is no offense, one should remain silent" also indicates the same meaning. This "by your silence, venerable sirs, I shall know you are pure" also indicates the same, so it is said, having taken this meaning. "Others" refers to the Elder Atthadassī, it is said. Here, in "referring to this," by the saying of the word "declared even once," three times declared... "Not to be done"— only this much seems to be indicated. If it is asked, "How is it understood that this was said with reference to this meaning?" It is said, "This is the decision handed down here through the tradition of teachers." By "remembering," it shows the conscious nature of intentional falsehood. "In the midst of the Saṅgha," and so on, is indeed a descriptive phrase. If, for performing the Saṅgha's Uposatha, one is seated in the midst of the Saṅgha, it should be declared in that midst of the Saṅgha. If, for performing a group's Uposatha, one is seated in the midst of the group, it should be declared in that midst of the group. If one wishes to perform the purification Uposatha in the presence of only one person, it should be declared to that single person. By this, it is not only in the midst of the Saṅgha that this falsehood can arise. Rather, even if the stated characteristic is not present here, in a group Uposatha of the type, "Venerable ones, declare your purification," if one, having an offense, wishes to perform the Uposatha without declaring it, remaining silent, then this incurs the offense of intentional falsehood. Because this meaning is revealed, the logicians say that it is indeed a descriptive phrase. Otherwise, "or in the midst of the group" would not be said— that is their intention. It was said according to the intention of declaration— that is the teacher's conjecture. Indeed, one who declares with the intention, "I declare to the Saṅgha," reveals it in the midst of the Saṅgha. One who declares to those seated on both sides reveals it in the midst of a group. One who declares with the intention, "I will declare to only one person," reveals it to a single individual. Even if one is doubtful... ...and says, "I will rectify it," as long as one is doubtful, one may receive a similar offense. And one is considered purified for other actions. Whether, having become no longer doubtful, it should be confessed or not— this is found neither in the Pāli nor in the commentaries. But if confessed, there is no fault. Likewise, it is written (Vajira. ṭī. Mahāvagga 169-170) that if one, having risen from here, says, "I will rectify that offense," and if the entire Saṅgha has incurred a similar offense, and is doubtful. The description of the introduction is finished. The Pārājika Section 1. Description of the First Pārājika Here, the order of the training rules should be explained. How? For all training rules, there are four kinds of order, as far as possible: the order of teaching, the order of abandonment, the order of practice, and the order of origin. In this regard, when the Blessed One allowed the recitation of the Pātimokkha to the bhikkhus in Rājagaha, Mahākassapa, following the order of teaching that was allowed for the recitation of the Pātimokkha, first asked about the recitation of the Pārājikas, then about the recitation of the Saṅghādisesas, then about the recitation of the Aniyatas, then about the recitation of the detailed rules. After that, he asked about the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga in the same order. After that, to include the three groups of offenses, he asked about the Sekhiya Dhamma without a numerical classification. Asking about the groups of offenses starting from the similar ones, he asked about the twenty Khandhakas. Or, he asked about the Khandhakas to inquire about those rules not explicitly stated in their own form within the Nidāna recitation. By this, the Thullaccayas laid down in the Khandhakas are also included. Venerable Upāli Thera explained them in the same order as they were asked. This is the order of teaching here. However, the Parivāra was compiled separately from the Ubhatovibhaṅga and Khandhakas at that time, referring to this very statement, it is said in the commentary, "By this method, they also included the Khandhakas in the Parivāra," and so on (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1. Paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā). Moreover, in the Pāḷi, it is only stated, "By this method, he asked about the Ubhatovibhaṅga. Venerable Upāli answered each question as it was asked" (Cūḷava. 439). Therefore, the Thera only asked about the Ubhatovibhaṅga. But Venerable Upāli, in explaining, included the Khandhakas and Parivāra to present everything completely. During the time of communal recitation, the Khandhakas and Parivāra were then made into a separate Pāḷi. This is the order of teaching here. If so, is the Nidāna recitation the first teaching? No, in the Uposatha Khandhaka (Mahāva. 133), "Whatever training rules I have for the bhikkhus..." Now they are laid down, from the saying "they should permit the recitation of the Pātimokkha," and from the saying "whoever has an offense" (Mahāva. 134). Since offenses, whether unwholesome or indeterminate, are the basis for defilements in this life and the next, and must be abandoned by truly avoiding them with moral restraint, the method of abandonment is possible here, from the saying: "Just these four things are to be declared as not to be done." Likewise, from the saying "he undertakes and trains in the training rules" (M.N. 3.75; Vibh. 508), the method of practice is also possible by truly declaring and training. The method of practice is also possible in the sense of the scripture to be learned according to the order of recitation. Thus, for these training rules to be taught by these three methods, the method of origin is possible as appropriate. Indeed, whatever is common, that, concerning a bhikkhu, when the matter has arisen, is also laid down for bhikkhunīs in the manner of "whatever bhikkhunī willingly engages in sexual intercourse," and so on. Since for bhikkhunīs, that would not be a rule laid down without a prior occurrence, therefore the statement in the Parivāra (201-202) that "there is no rule laid down without a prior occurrence in that" is not contradicted. Thus, by the former three methods, what is to be taught first, that, being the first to arise in the Pārājika recitation, the pārājika concerning sexual intercourse, the Venerable Elder Upāli, wishing to teach it first of all, placed it by bringing it to Vesālī itself, saying "there indeed the Blessed One was dwelling in Vesālī" (Pārā. 23). Now, the method of laying down all training rules should be known. How? "And thus, bhikkhus, you should recite this training rule" (Pārā. 39, 43) - in this way, it is twofold, differing as with and without specific mention. Therein, the five groups of offenses that appear in their own form in the Pātimokkha are called "rules with specific mention." That too is twofold, differing as with and without mention of a person. Therein, the rule in which a person is shown, either with or without the offense, is one with mention of a person. The other is one without mention of a person. Therein Now, the designation of persons is twofold, by the division of offenses shown and not shown. Therein, those with offenses not shown