English
And this predominance of it is understood by the success of killing, etc. But when covetousness, etc., are strong at those very doors, and volition is not so strong, then... There, even existing, intention, because it is not primary, does not obtain the designation of 'bodily action' or 'verbal action'. But covetousness and the like, because they are primary, even when involving the movement of bodily parts or speech parts, are called 'mental actions' by their own definition, thus it shows. Those who say, "Intention is not called 'action' here, because it does not attain the state of a path of action in all three doors, and because it occurs in all three doors together with mental action that has attained the path of action," they might have said this referring to the primary nature of covetousness and the like. Or else, because intention is action in the non-figurative sense, and should not be excluded from figurative action, it is called 'non-designative'. But by its own nature, it is called 'action' even here. As it is said: "Intention, monks, I declare to be action," and so on. And in the commentaries, "Intention established in that door," and so on, intention itself is made primary and spoken of. Therefore, it is said: "By its very nature, it is mental action," and so on. Or else, intention, co-arisen in the bodily and verbal doors with covetousness and the like that have attained the path of action, is mental action called 'non-designative intention' in terms of bodily and verbal action. If covetousness and the like are primary, not intention, then in this case, covetousness and the like are action here, not intention, or it might belong to the side of covetousness and the like. Considering this objection, it is said: "Monks, of three kinds," and so on. "Intention also... ...arises only in the mind-door." This, showing the non-distinction of intention from covetousness and the like in being mental action in the mind-door, it says: "Intention... ...is the intention." For the only distinction here is this: intention is intentional action, covetousness and the like are action conjoined with intention. And here, it should be understood that it is not said 'non-designative' because there is no apprehension that intention might be bodily or verbal action, and because unwholesome bodily and verbal actions do not arise in the mind-door. 'Distinguished by abstinence' means it states the primary nature of intention over abstinence. There, "Monks, bodily intention is of three kinds," and so on, as it comes. This shows the reasoning that they are "the opposite of killing, etc." And since in the *Paṭṭhāna*, volition is called "kamma-condition," not abstinence, nor covetousness, etc., therefore, it should be understood that kamma is directly called "volition," and non-covetousness, etc., are called "belonging to the side of volition." Distinguishing the kamma-doors without confusion, it is said "protects," and conversely, "breaks." Thus, protection and breaking are spoken of as not destroying and destroying. The explanation of kamma is finished. The third alternative is found only in the first and fourth consciousness-doors, not elsewhere, because it is not mentioned with "ear, nose," etc., or it is found in an undivided statement. Since the Pātimokkha morality proceeds by way of restraint, he calls that immorality, saying, "Immorality is the volition of killing, etc." Other unwholesome states, free from restraint, accompanied by covetousness and ill-will, or predominantly so, are unwholesome states opposed to mindfulness. The arising of unwholesome consciousness that occurs by way of letting go of the mind on an object is heedlessness. Sloth and torpor are called "idleness" because they drive away energy, or it is a consciousness-arising predominantly of sloth and torpor. "Impurity" means not being exclusive, being mixed with something else. For a door, being a door for kamma between doors, is as if mixed with it. Therefore, it is said, "because even lying, etc., can occur at the body-door." But some say, "It is called pure because the immediately succeeding consciousnesses between doors, which are not cognizable, do not occur intermittently." This is said assuming that even many javana-moments can occur continuously as body-kamma, etc. "It is not contradictory" means that having determined it as unwholesome body-kamma, etc., and having spoken of non-restraint, then the statement that the same non-restraint arises in the doors of non-restraint of speech, etc., means that the non-restraint characterized by the body-door, even if it occurs in another door, is still of the body-door. When explained in this way, there is no contradiction. Now, he explains the way it is not contradictory, starting with "for non-restraint..." closes one's own door. Even if non-restraint arises within the door, it is said to have arisen by way of the door. Thus, even if bodily non-restraint arises by way of the door of verbal non-restraint, it should be understood as having arisen by way of the door of inciting bodily non-restraint. This method applies elsewhere too. "Action closes another door" is said to make clear that action moves through another door. This being so, it is taken as "non-restraint" only in the door of bodily non-restraint, which is called incitement. The commentary states that the nature of action is only attained when it reaches the path of action, so it says, "verbal and mental action by attaining the state of the path of action." The rest is not marked by another door. "It is not said thus" means it is not called bodily action. "We will speak there" means we will speak in the section on the path of action. "For that, having reached incitement at the door of the body, it becomes unwholesome bodily action," and so on (Dhammasangani Commentary, Section on the Path of Action), and "having arisen by way of the door of inciting bodily non-restraint, it becomes unwholesome bodily action," and so on, and when verbal actions and others, which are non-restraint and have reached the path of action, attain the state of bodily action and so on, it should be understood that they are excluded by the exception "all four kinds of verbal misconduct are unwholesome verbal action," and so on. This is said with reference to what will be said. It should be understood that they are included, the intention being that the purity of livelihood and virtue, which are dependent on conditions, must be accomplished by knowledge and effort. Description of the Discourse on Unwholesome Paths of Action By its own nature, by its own essence. The volition by which, due to causing harm to the great elements that are the condition for the life faculty to proceed, those great elements, which arise from those great elements, will not arise—such volition that initiates such an effort is called the destruction of life. For the elements that have been harmed are not pure like the former elements, and so they do not become the cause of elements of the same kind. And the volition that brings about completion, which accomplishes its task by the sudden production of even a single effort, and which has been cultivated by many repeated impetuses. due to the greatness of the effort in terms of the object. Even if the effort is equal for small and great beings, the intention of one killing a great being arises more intensely. Thus, the greatness of the object — both these — occurs through the strength of the intention. Therefore, it is said: "effort…pe… due to the state." Even in the reverse of the aforementioned conditions, even if the effort, object, and other conditions are not great, by those respective conditions, by conditions such as being endowed with good qualities. Here, the great blameworthiness due to the good qualities of the one to be killed should be seen as the greatness of the object. The slight blameworthiness and great blameworthiness due to the mildness and intensity of defilements and efforts should be understood. A living being, the perception of a living being, the killer's thought, these are the preliminary preparations. The effort is initiated by the killer's intention. The intention of taking life, endowed with five components, should be seen as distinct from these five components. This method applies to taking what is not given and so on. Taking another's property by means of incantations is 'magic-based'. Without incantations, drawing another's property by bodily or verbal efforts through such psychic power is 'power-based effort'. Thus, six types of effort, such as 'by one's own hand', should be understood for taking what is not given. Wrong conduct is greatly blameworthy when it involves overpowering and transgression. It is not so when both parties have equal consent. Since it is said, "four components," some say: "Even if there is transgression by overpowering, due to the absence of prior accumulated intention of service and effort in the case of one who is forced to follow a wrong path, there is no wrong conduct for the overpowered." The absence of effort, even if there is a thought of service, is not a valid measure, because the effort of service is mostly absent in women. Indeed, the effort of service is mostly in men. Thus, it would follow that even for a woman who lies down having first established a thought of service, there would be no wrong conduct. Therefore, it should be understood that the four components are stated primarily with reference to men. Otherwise, when a woman performs a man's act, there would be no wrong conduct even for the man, due to the absence of his effort of service. Some, however, say: "one's own There are three factors for what is done willingly, and three for what is done by force. Thus, they say, there are four in total by not taking what is not taken. This should be understood after investigation. A harsh intention, a harsh speech, is a harsh mental volition