English
There is no fault. Its object is itself. For that state of being without fault, whatever fault arises and is obtained in another state, that must be different, and that action must be understood to be of a different nature. Therefore, whatever action was done in the state of having fault, after that it becomes a state of not having fault. And again, after that, if it becomes a state of having fault, then whatever action was done in the state of having fault before, and later again, when it becomes a state of having fault, those actions that are done must be known to be mutually different, and not the same. Like this, the state of not having fault in between is not a field of falling, because it separates the two states of having fault before and after. For example, if a monk, before six years have passed for one mat, starts making another mat within those six years, and then disrobes and later takes full ordination again. He makes another mat and finishes it, and then at an improper time he also finishes the mat he made before, then at that time, the characteristics of making and finishing, the former and latter parts, are the agents of different falls, because for him, before he disrobed, the former part of making another mat at an improper time is the agent of an evil deed arising from action. Later, after taking full ordination, making another mat and finishing it, there is no fault. After that, the latter part of also finishing the mat he made before at an improper time is the agent of the actual object of abandonment and falling. Similarly, if one becomes a nun and then becomes a monk again, it is also like this. Although the thought of abandoning it has not arisen, because it is separated by another state of a different kind, those that were made before and finished later are mutually different, and not the same. What is called abandonment is also like that, that is to say, whatever action of making, the action of abandoning from the depths of the heart, is also different.