English
Sivas are great lords. This is said as an example of wrong view. For only nihilistic views, etc., are actions that have attained the path of action. Here, volition is indescribable. Even when arisen at the door of body and the door of speech, volition does not receive the designation of bodily action or verbal action, because it is predominantly covetousness and so on. But because it is said, “Monks, mental volition is of three kinds, unwholesome mental action,” it is by its very nature mental action, and not because it belongs to the side of covetousness and so on. Thus it is not said, “or belonging to the side of covetousness and so on.” However, in this context, when the bodily and verbal components are not stirred, at the time of thinking, volition and the states associated with volition arise only at the mind-door. Therefore, the intention is that there is no state of volition being without designation in any way. Because of the saying, “Monks, bodily volition is of three kinds, wholesome bodily action,” and so on, it is the volition distinguished by abstinence from killing and so on, which is the opposite of killing and so on, that becomes abstinence from killing and so on. Thus it is said, “or belonging to the side of volition,” not “belonging to the side of abstinence.” “Protects” means to state without destroying. “Breaks” means to state after destroying. The explanation of action is finished. “Eye-consciousness door” means the door of eye-consciousness. Or, eye and that consciousness door, thus eye-consciousness door. Or, eye is the consciousness door, an uncompounded designation. But that is the eye itself. This method applies to the rest as well. In the verse beginning, “Restraint by the eye is good,” restraint by the body is stated by combining the restraint of the sense-faculty and the restraint of the body that stirs. Here, by separating that, eight restraints are stated, and as their opposites, eight non-restraints are stated. Even though the five restraints such as moral restraint arise at all doors, their opposites, such as immorality, are called non-restraints. Therein, immorality is the volition of killing and so on. Forgetfulness is unwholesome states opposite to mindfulness. Some say it is heedlessness. Aversion to cold and so on is impatience. Sloth and torpor is laziness. “Pure, called the body-door, without the speech-door”— this is stated to prevent the impurity that exists due to the possibility of lying and so on, which is characterized by the speech-door, also occurring at the body-door. For that body-door is not there is kamma. But that which is marked by a pure door of speech is only kamma of speech. Here, by "non-restraint" is meant non-restraint marked by a pure door of body, even if it arises at another door. All that unwholesome kamma not marked by another door is to be understood as belonging to that door. And thus, in the correlation of kammapathas, "non-restraint arising by way of the door of non-restraint of the inciting body is only unwholesome kamma of body," and so on, is not contradictory with "unwholesome kamma of body arises by way of the door of non-restraint of the inciting body and by way of non-restraint of speech," and so on. For non-restraint, even if it arises at another door, is still said to be at its own door, and to have arisen by way of its own door; and kamma at another door, and by way of another door, is thus not contradictory. Or, here, it is said "inciting" without considering whether it is pure or impure. In this case, kamma of speech and mind, having attained the state of kammapatha, marked by another door, arises at the door of non-restraint of the inciting body; and all the rest is called "non-restraint of the inciting body" as if it were unwholesome kamma arisen at that door. If kamma of body, arisen at another door, is not so called when it attains the state of kammapatha, there would be a contradiction in the correlation of kammapathas; we will explain its non-contradiction there itself. The five kinds of restraint, such as restraint of morality, will become clear in the section on classification. There, the inclusion of morality based on requisites in restraint of knowledge, and of purity of livelihood in restraint of energy, should be noted. Description of the Discourse on Unwholesome Kammapathas And "excessive killing" is the excessive causing to fall of a being whose nature is to fall by itself, that is, causing it to fall quickly without allowing it to fall slowly. Or, "excessive killing" is causing it to fall by overpowering it with weapons, etc. The great blameworthiness due to the magnitude of the object of effort, etc., is because of the strong nature of the volition arising from these factors. Even in the opposite case of the factors mentioned, the slight or great blameworthiness is to be understood solely by the strong or weak nature of the volition arising from those respective factors. Made of psychic power Made of the power of kamma-result, like those with pointed tusks, etc. Protected by family, protected by her own family. Protected by Dhamma, protected by those in the Dhamma. With a master, she is protected. For whose going the king has set a fine, she is one with a fine. "Destroying the meaning" is said to be reaching the path of action. It is a discourse on the path of action. "Not wishing to give one's own property," etc., is said in the general sense of false speech. False speech is only when there is an intention to deceive with a playful purpose. "Emptiness" means being devoid due to the absence of joy. Due to the failure of meaning, it does not penetrate the heart. For those who do not grasp, who do not believe, there is no breaking of the path of action. Any idle chatter is accomplished by two ingredients. One's own dedication should be understood as being by the mind itself. "Sees wrongly" means sees falsely. "From the parts" means from those parts that are among the mental factor parts, such as contact and the five senses. Is it not the case that volition is not mentioned among the paths of action, so the seven paths of action in sequence are not appropriate? No, because the non-mentioning has another cause. For volition is not unmentioned in the collection of paths of action because it is not a path of action; rather, it is unmentioned because its being a path of action is not fixed, as it is sometimes a path of action, but not always. But when it is a path of action, then its inclusion in the collection of paths of action is not prevented. With "The five precepts are only of limited object," it will itself resolve the contradiction of "taking what is not given," etc., having a being as object, by saying "it proceeds by taking as object only formations reckoned as beings." The view that "there are no spontaneously arisen beings," which arises, is said to have formations as its object, because it concerns the phenomena of the three realms. The results of ripening and flowing are, respectively, the results of hell, etc., and states of woe, etc. The exposition of the discourse on unwholesome paths of action is concluded. Exposition of the discourse on wholesome paths of action "But by abstinence from killing, etc." - this is said because the volition associated with these abstinences is called "bodily and verbal actions," and their being paths of action is appropriate. For thus it will be said. i In sequence, seven volitions arise, and abstinences too. They eat flesh like a living hare's flesh. Having caused destruction, I do not know. Objects of immorality, those are the objects. How do they abandon immoralities, etc., which are objects of the life-faculty, etc.? To show that, "just as," etc., was said. "Non-covetousness... and abstaining" means abandoning covetousness. For there is no abstinence from mental misconduct, as its abandonment is only through non-covetousness, etc. Explanation of the discourse on the connection of courses of action Showing the non-difference in reality of immoralities, etc., and lack of restraint, and misconducts, which have reached the course of action through unwholesome courses of action; and of moralities, etc., and restraint, and good conduct, which have reached the course of action through wholesome courses of action. Or, some say, the connection of courses of action is the demonstration of their non-contradiction with the doors of contact, etc. But this should be considered. For there is no course-of-action-ness for lack of restraint and restraint arising at the five doors of contact, the five doors of lack of restraint, and the five doors of restraint. Because killing, etc., coveting another's property, malice towards other beings, and baseless wrong views, etc., do not arise at those doors. And the three kinds of bodily misconduct, etc., are clearly courses of action. So what is the point of showing their non-difference from courses of action? Nor is the arising of misconducts and good conduct through the doors of contact, etc., demonstrated. Nor of lack of restraint and restraint, from which there might be a demonstration of their non-contradiction with the doors of contact, etc. Only the bodily action, etc., of lack of restraint and restraint arising through the doors of contact, etc., is demonstrated. And if this much is the connection of courses of action, then "unwholesome bodily action does not arise through the five doors of contact," etc., would not be the connection of courses of action. If it is said that this too is a demonstration of non-contradiction with the six doors of contact, etc., then "or" should not be said to show the same thing in another way. And if the word "or" is used in the sense of accumulation, then only immoralities that have reached the course of action When speaking of the origins of mental action through the six sense doors, it should not be said that they arise through the eye-door and so on,