English
due to the non-showing of grounds for grave offenses that follow a schism; and due to the non-showing of offenses and grounds for unspoken-established training rules. Thus, what was said, "The establishment of training rules is twofold, divided into recited and unrecited," has been briefly explained. In the establishment of rules, "The agent is specified here, due to the absence of expectation; and due to the absence of a provision to be stated beforehand, and together with the initial removal." This method should be understood. Its meaning is: those specific training rules, such as the emission of semen, which were previously described as having unspecified agents, in those, the agent is not specified due to the presence of expectation in intention, action, object, person, and application, in order to show their dependent nature. All of that will become clear in each respective training rule. But here, in the establishment of the Pārājika rules, the agent is specified due to the absence of expectation. And the agent who is specified in the nominative case, without being specified in the instrumental or other cases, due to the absence of a provision to be stated beforehand, as in "when the robe is finished and has been lifted by the bhikkhu" and so on, is due to the absence of expectation. There, when specified, as in the case of the second and third fixed rules, the delicious food, and the third and fourth rules of confession for novices, Here, not having specified, like "not indeed... to shine" etc., because there was no rule to state it beforehand, it was specified at the beginning. Even though specified at the beginning, like in the thirty-five training rules such as those concerning followers of schism, which were previously mentioned, because there was no rule to state it beforehand without specifying, it was specified from "whatever monk" onwards, together with the word "yo pana". Even though specified thus, since he does not incur an offense arising from another, like the offense "whatever nuns should sleep two on one bed" etc., therefore, "whatever monk" is specified in the singular. If it is said that the offense of sexual intercourse also arises from another, by the statement "two by two offenses"? That is not so, due to understanding the intention. There is a rule there that the offense is indeed of many nuns, not of one. There is no such rule here, so the intention is not restricted. How is the offense of sexual intercourse for the "soft-backed" and the "limp-backed" by the statement "two by two offenses"? This meaning, referring to the eight cases "four causes of sexual intercourse," should be established by the statement "there might be cutting off due to the cause of sexual intercourse" mentioned in the Parivāra. In the training rule concerning followers of schism, more than three should not be admonished, nor should the Sangha be united with the Sangha. To show the method, after making the plural designation "they are monks" from the beginning, it is again stated "one or two or three". Otherwise, beyond that, it would not incur "they are followers." From that, a contradiction of the origin. Indeed, about five hundred were their followers. But what is said in the chapter on the seven hundred, the ñatti-dutiya kamma "the Sangha should appoint four monks from the East, four monks from Pāvā... appointed" etc., that is a rule for them to do, because it is said "let this dispute be settled by a vote." Or it is merely the act of appointing. Having done it excessively, it is permissible. Indeed, they are not worthy of action, nor are they acted upon by that action. For whom the Saṅgha performs an action, that is the mark of being worthy of action. And at that time, the Saṅgha did not perform an action for even those eight bhikkhus. Being made to partake, they partake of the state of having attained the action. Having considered that the action of settling a dispute, when attained and properly performed by the Saṅgha, they are indeed those who have attained the action. By the saying, "Those bhikkhus should be admonished by the bhikkhus up to three times for its relinquishment" (Pārā. 418), this is the procedure to be done by them. If it is said that the making of a resolution itself is the action? That is not so, from understanding the intention, the bhikkhus should be made worthy of action only for its relinquishment, not by way of a fault's occurrence— this is the intention here. Indeed, just as the settlement of a dispute is not achieved for those from the eastern regions by a resolution, so too is the relinquishment not achieved by their admonition-action; a resolution, indeed, is first made by taking permission and requesting it, not so is an action. But in the performance of an action, the achievement of that purpose certainly occurs. It should be understood that by another's resolution, many more are to be resolved. "Sexual intercourse," thus commonly named, by one's own use or another's use, of one's own organ into one's own path or another's path, or another's organ into one's own path, in insertion, being inserted, remaining, or withdrawal, should one accept any one of these, one is defeated, no longer in communion. But some say: "Insertion and so on, four, or three, or two, or one, should one engage, one is defeated. For it is said: 'If he accepts insertion, accepts being inserted, accepts remaining, accepts withdrawal, an offense of defeat,' and so on" (Pārā. 58). According to their view, in all four, four offenses of defeat are incurred. They themselves say thus: "Let an offense of sexual intercourse defeat be incurred, offenses of defeat in one's transgression, being a part of sexual intercourse defeat, and an offense entailing Saṅgha meetings." And having committed (an offense), having renounced the training, having committed a pārājika like sexual intercourse in lay life, then having gone forth and received ordination, having dealt with one or many Saṅghādisesa offenses, since that person is then without offense, therefore, he was with offense in lay life. Even for one who has fallen into the final offense, there is still an offense. But because one is not purified by declarations of rising (from the offense), it is not said, "an offense of pārājika in every instance." Although it is not said due to the absence of a purpose for counting, yet in the word-analysis (Pārā. 58) by the statement "an offense of pārājika," this meaning is established, and they speak of the reasoning. If so, in the mātikā (summary), it should have been said, "Whatever monk engages in sexual intercourse, (it is) a pārājika." And the statement "pārājika without remainder" would not be appropriate. For, having made the statement "without remainder" to mean that it stands without leaving any offense-groups or monk-counts, the offense is only in the entry, not in those who have entered and so on. Referring to that one (offense), the statement of the introductory exposition, "Whoever has an offense" (Mahāva. 134), including the pārājika offense, should be understood. Therefore, in the mātikā, not saying "pārājika" but "he is a pārājika" (Pārā. 42, 44) is a statement indicating the person, for the purpose of showing his inability to receive ordination due to that binding of the body. The statement "an offense of pārājika" in the word-analysis is for the purpose of showing that even for a person who has fallen into the final offense of pārājika and is without communion, he is not a thief-in-communion. For even if he desires communion, he is not a thief-in-communion; therefore, one who has received ordination is called "monk." Therefore, it is said: "A person who has fallen into any pārājika offense is impure. If, being of pure view, one causes him to be without opportunity and speaks with the intention of reviling, there is an offense of wrong-doing due to insulting speech" (Pārā. 389). Since this is not the case for an unordained person, it is established that such an ordained person is called "monk," and thereby generates the word-by-word teaching and shared lodging. it should be understood that it gives rise to slander among monks, etc. From the origin, the mātikā's breakdown, the Vibhaṅga is its regulator; Then the offense's breakdown, and non-offense otherwise. This method should be understood. There, the story of Sudinna (Pārā. 24 onwards), the story of the monkey (Pārā. 40 onwards), and the story of the Vajjiputtaka (Pārā. 43) – these three types of stories are called the origin (nidāna) of this training rule. From that origin, the breaking down of this mātikā occurred: "Whatever monk, among monks... (etc.)... is not in communion" (Pārā. 44). For there, by reason of the feminine gender in "even with an animal" (Pārā. 44), someone else, like the monkey-pārājika, could raise a doubt, saying, "Indeed, friend, the training rule was laid down by the Blessed One, but it is for a female, not for a male, not for a paṇḍaka, not for an hermaphrodite." Therefore, to show that there is no room for such a doubt, this is said: from the origin concerning the monkey, the wording of the mātikā "even with an animal" is a differentiation, not because sexual intercourse is only accomplished with a female. Therefore, the Vibhaṅga is its regulator. The Vibhaṅga is the regulator of the intended meaning of that mātikā. For in the Vibhaṅga, "Three females, three hermaphrodites, three paṇḍakas, three males. For a human female, three paths; for a male animal, two paths" and so on (Pārā. 56), a regulation is made, closing off all room for doubt. Here it is said: If so, then by way of a common training rule or by way of gender change, it should be said in the Vibhaṅga, not only for monks, but also for nuns, "one who has entered the training and livelihood.