2.
Explanation of the Training Rules
Matrix of the Training Rule Text
Having thus shown the entrance to the Dispensation by the goings for refuge, now, for the purpose of explaining the text of the training rules that was laid down in order to show in which training rules a lay follower or one gone forth who has entered the Dispensation should first train, this is the matrix of contents -
Having said, having made the defining, from the standpoint of what is common and what is distinctive.
Having defined that and having done so, from the phrasing and meaning of the terms.
Then from the clarification of the specific meaning in the first five.
From the distinction of object, undertaking, and from great blameworthiness likewise.
From abstaining and from fruit, the judgment should be understood.
And what is distinctive should be stated, and the inferior and so on should also be known."
Therein, these ten training rules beginning with "abstention from killing living beings" were spoken by the Blessed One himself, not by disciples and others. And they were spoken at Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's park, by one who, having given the going forth to the Venerable Rāhula, had arrived at Sāvatthī from Kapilavatthu, for the purpose of defining training rules for novices. For this was said -
"Then the Blessed One, having dwelt at Kapilavatthu as long as he liked, set out on a journey towards Sāvatthī. Wandering on a journey gradually, he arrived at Sāvatthī. There the Blessed One stayed at Sāvatthī in Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's park. Now at that time etc. Then this occurred to the novices - 'How many training rules are there for us, and in what should we train?' They reported this matter to the Blessed One: "I allow, monks, ten training rules for novices, and for novices to train in them - abstention from killing living beings etc. abstention from accepting gold and silver."
These should be understood as having been set upon the recitation method thus: "I undertake the training rule of abstention from killing living beings," in accordance with the discourse "having accepted, one trains in the training rules," and in accordance with the text shown in the goings for refuge. Thus, for now, the method stated as "by whom, where, when, and why these were spoken, having stated that method" - that method should be seen.
Defining the Common and the Distinctive
And here, the first two and the fourth and fifth are common to lay followers and novices by way of permanent morality. But by way of Observance morality, for lay followers, making the seventh and eighth into one factor, all except the very last are common with novices too; but the last is distinctive only for novices - thus the defining should be made from the standpoint of commonality and distinction. And here the first five, because of originating exclusively from unwholesome consciousness, are abstentions from faults by nature such as killing living beings and so on; the remaining ones are faults by regulation - thus what is a fault by nature and what is a fault by regulation should be defined.
Elucidation of the Common
Since here the terms "I undertake the training rule of abstention" are common to all, therefore this common elucidation of these terms by way of phrasing and meaning should be known -
Therein, first as regards phrasing, "one who wards off enmity" (veraṃ maṇati) is abstention (veramaṇī); the meaning is one abandons enmity, dispels it, puts an end to it, brings it to obliteration. Or a person abstains from enmity by means of this as an instrument; by making the alteration of a modification, it is abstention (veramaṇī). For that very reason, here they recite in two ways: "the training rule of abstention" (veramaṇisikkhāpadaṃ) and "the training rule of refraining" (viramaṇisikkhāpadaṃ). "What should be trained in" is training (sikkhā); "one proceeds by means of this" is a step (padaṃ). A step of training is a training rule (sikkhāpadaṃ); the meaning is a means of achieving the training. Or alternatively, it means a root, a support, a foundation. Abstention itself as a training rule is "the training rule of abstention" (veramaṇisikkhāpadaṃ), or "the training rule of refraining" (viramaṇisikkhāpadaṃ) by the second method. "I rightly undertake" means "I undertake" (samādiyāmi); it means I undertake with the intention of non-transgression, with the quality of making it unbroken, with the quality of making it without gaps, and with the quality of making it unspotted.
But as regards meaning, "abstention" means abstinence associated with wholesome consciousness of the sensual sphere. That is stated in the Vibhaṅga by the method beginning thus, of one abstaining from killing living beings: "whatever at that time is abstinence, avoidance, complete abstinence, abstention, non-doing, non-performance, non-transgression, not exceeding the boundary, destruction of the bridge from killing living beings." Certainly this abstention also exists as supramundane, but here, since it is said "I undertake," it is worthy of occurring by way of undertaking; therefore that is not it - thus it is said "abstinence associated with wholesome consciousness of the sensual sphere."
"Training" means three trainings: training in higher morality, training in higher consciousness, and training in higher wisdom. But in this meaning, the morality of abstinence by encountering the occasion, mundane insight, fine-material and immaterial meditative absorptions, and the noble path are intended as training. As he said -
"What phenomena are training? At whatever time wholesome consciousness of the sensual sphere has arisen, accompanied by pleasure, associated with knowledge, etc. at that time there is contact, etc. there is non-distraction - these phenomena are training.
"What phenomena are training? At whatever time one develops the path for rebirth in the fine-material realm, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome mental states, etc. the first meditative absorption, etc. one enters and dwells in the fifth meditative absorption, etc. there is non-distraction - these phenomena are training.
"What phenomena are training? At whatever time for rebirth in the immaterial realm, etc. accompanied by the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, etc. there is non-distraction - these phenomena are training.
"What phenomena are training? At whatever time one develops supramundane meditative absorption, leading to liberation, etc. there is non-distraction - these phenomena are training."
Among these trainings, the step towards any training whatsoever, the means of achievement, or alternatively the root, the support, the foundation - that is the training rule. For this was said: "In dependence on morality, established upon morality, developing the seven factors of enlightenment, cultivating them" and so on. Thus here the common elucidation of the common terms, both in phrasing and in meaning, should be made.
Explanation of the First Five Training Rules
Now, what was said - "Then regarding the first five, by the elucidation of the specific meaning, etc. the judgment should be understood" - therein this is said: "Killing living beings" - here first, "living being" means the continuity of aggregates bound to the life faculty, or a being designated with reference to that. But regarding that living being, in one who perceives a living being as a living being, the murderous volition that arises through an effort to cut off the life faculty of that living being, occurring through one or another of the doors of body and speech, is killing living beings. "Taking what is not given" - here, "not given" means belonging to another, where another, exercising ownership as he wishes, is not deserving of punishment and is blameless. In the case of one who perceives as belonging to another that which belongs to another, the volition of theft, aroused by the effort of taking it, occurring through one or another of the doors of body and speech only, is taking what is not given. "Not holy life" means not the best conduct; the volition that transgresses the occasion of practising what is not the good teaching, through the indulgence in sexual intercourse consisting of the union of couples, occurring through the body-door, is not holy life. "False speech" - here, "falsely" means the verbal action or bodily action that destroys the welfare of one with the intention to deceive; but with the intention to deceive, the wrong volition that gives rise to the bodily and verbal action of deceiving another, occurring through one or another of the doors of body and speech only, is false speech. "Spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence" - here, "spirits" means five spirits: flour liquor, cake liquor, rice liquor, with yeast added, and connected with ingredients. Fermented liquor too is fivefold: flower extract, fruit extract, molasses extract, honey extract, and connected with ingredients. "Intoxicant" means both of those in the sense of being intoxicating are intoxicants; or whatever else there is that is intoxicating, by which when drunk one becomes intoxicated and heedless - this is called an intoxicant. "That causes negligence" means the volition by which one drinks and swallows it - that volition is called "that which causes negligence" because it is the cause of the intoxication and negligence; since the volition of swallowing spirits, liquor and intoxicants, occurring through the body-door with the intention of swallowing, should be understood as "spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence." Thus, for now, the judgment here should be understood by means of killing living beings and so on.
Determination of Oneness, Multiplicity, and So On
Regarding "by unity, diversity, and so on," here he said - Does the unity of killing living beings or of another such as taking what is not given and so on come about through the unity of the victim, the killer, the action, the volition, and so on, and diversity through their diversity, or not? But why is this said? If unity comes about through unity, then when many killers kill one victim, or one killer kills many victims, or by one action such as done with one's own hand and so on many victims are killed, or one volition produces an action that cuts off the life faculty of many victims, then there should be only one instance of killing living beings. But if diversity comes about through diversity. Then when one killer, making one action for the sake of one, kills many victims, or many killers, making many actions for the sake of many such as Devadatta, Yaññadatta, Somadatta and so on, kill just one - Devadatta, Yaññadatta, or Somadatta - or by many actions such as done with one's own hand and so on one victim is killed. Or many volitions produce an action that cuts off the life faculty of just one victim, then there should be many instances of killing living beings. Both of these are inappropriate. Then if neither through the unity of these victims and so on does unity come about, nor through their diversity does diversity come about, but rather unity and diversity come about in another way, that should be stated regarding killing living beings, and likewise for the rest also.
It is said - Therein, to begin with, regarding killing living beings, there is not unity through the individual unity of the victim, the killer, and so on, nor diversity through their diversity; but rather there is unity through the conjoined unity of the victim, the killer, and so on, and diversity through the diversity of both of them, or of one or other of them. For thus, when many killers, by many actions such as throwing arrows and so on, or by one action such as digging a pitfall and so on, kill many victims, there are many instances of killing living beings. When one killer, by one or many actions, and by one volition that produces those actions, or by many volitions, kills many victims, there are many instances of killing living beings; and when many killers, by many actions of the aforesaid kinds, or by one action, kill one victim, there are also many instances of killing living beings. This same method applies to taking what is not given and so on also. Thus here the judgment should be understood also by way of unity, diversity, and so on.
As regards object: killing living beings here has the life faculty as object. Taking what is not given, unchastity, and spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence have as object one or another among activities such as the visible form sense base and so on among material phenomena. Lying has a being as object, because it proceeds having undertaken the person to whom one speaks falsely. Some say unchastity also has a being as object. And taking what is not given, when a being is to be carried off, then it has a being as object. Moreover, here it has a being as object only by way of activities, not by way of concept. Thus here the judgment should be understood also by way of object.
As regards undertaking: these training rules beginning with abstention from killing living beings, by a novice, are undertaken only in the presence of a monk; but by a lay follower, they are undertaken either when undertaking by oneself or when undertaking in the presence of another. They are undertaken whether undertaken together or undertaken separately. However, the difference is that for one undertaking them together, there is only one abstinence and only one volition; but by way of function, their fivefold nature is recognised. But for one undertaking them separately, it should be understood that there are five abstinences and five volitions. Thus here the judgment should be understood also by way of undertaking.
As regards breaking: for novices, here, when one is broken, all are broken. For these are of the nature of expulsion offences for them; whichever one is transgressed, by that very one he is bound by the action. But for householders, when one is broken, only that one is broken, since for them the fivefold nature of morality is restored by undertaking that same one again. Others, however, say - "When they have been undertaken separately, when one is broken, only that one is broken; but when they have been undertaken together thus: 'I undertake the morality endowed with five factors,' when one is broken, all the rest are broken too. Why? Because what was undertaken is unbroken; whichever one is transgressed, by that very one he is bound by the action." Thus here the judgment should be understood also by way of breaking.
"Of great fault" means: among living beings devoid of virtues, such as animals and so on, killing living beings is of little fault in the case of a small living being, and of great fault in the case of a large-bodied one. Why? Because of the greatness of the effort involved. Even when the effort is equal, because of the greatness of the object. But among those endowed with virtues, such as human beings and so on, killing living beings is of little fault in the case of one of few virtues, and of great fault in the case of one of great virtues. But when body and virtues are equal, it should be understood as of little fault when the mental defilements and the effort are mild, and of great fault when they are intense. The same method applies in the remaining ones too. But here, spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence is itself of great fault, not so killing living beings and so on. Why? Because even for one who has become a human being, it causes the state of madness, thereby creating an obstacle to the noble teaching. Thus here the judgment regarding great fault too should be understood.
"As regards the mode of action" means: here, for killing living beings there are six modes of action: by one's own hand, by command, by throwing, by a fixed device, by magical knowledge, and by supernormal power. Therein, striking by body or by something connected to the body is the mode of action by one's own hand; that is twofold by the distinction of directed and undirected. Therein, in the directed case, one is bound by the action through the death of the very one at whom one strikes having directed it. In the undirected case, thinking "Let whoever it may be die," through the death of anyone whatsoever by reason of the blow. And in both cases, whether one dies merely from being struck, or afterwards from that very ailment, one is bound by the action at the very moment of striking. And having given a blow with the intention of killing, if that one does not die from it, and then a blow is given again with a different intention, if afterwards he dies by the first blow alone, then one is bound by the action at that very time. But if by the second blow, there is no killing of a living being. Even if he dies from both, one is bound by the action through the first blow alone; and if he does not die from both, there is indeed no killing of a living being. The same method applies when blows are given to one person by many. For therein too, by whose blow he dies, by that very one is one bound by the action.
But commanding after having determined is the mode of action by command. Therein too, the one bound by the action should be recalled in the same manner as stated for the mode of action by one's own hand. And here a sixfold restriction should be understood -
And the particular action - these are the six determinants of command."
Therein, "object" means the living being to be killed. "Time" means the time such as forenoon, afternoon, and so on, and the time such as youth, old age, and so on. "Place" means a village, or a market town, or a forest, or a street, or a crossroads, and so on. "Weapon" means a sword, or an arrow, or a spear, and so on. "Posture" means the standing, or sitting, and so on, of both the one to be killed and the killer.
"Distinction of action" means piercing, or cutting, or breaking, or the shell-tonsure, and so on. If indeed, having deceived regarding the subject matter, one commanded "kill whichever," he kills another, for the one who commands there is no being bound by the action. But if he kills without deceiving regarding the subject matter, for the one who commands at the moment of commanding, for the one commanded at the moment of killing - for both there is being bound by the action. This same method applies also in the case of time and so on.
But for the purpose of killing, the releasing of a weapon by body or by something connected to the body is the mode of action by throwing. That too is twofold by the distinction of directed and undirected, and the being bound by the action here should be understood in the manner stated previously.
Digging a pitfall for the purpose of killing, placing a leaning support, or the application of medicine, poison, or a trap and so on is the mode of action by a fixed device. That too is twofold by the distinction of directed and undirected, since therein too the being bound by the action should be understood in the manner stated previously. But here is the distinction - In the case of pitfalls and so on set up by the original instigator, even when given to others for payment or for free, if anyone dies because of that, only the original instigator is bound by the action. Even if by him or by another the pitfall there is destroyed and made level with the ground, and washermen taking soil, or root-diggers digging roots make a pit, or when the sky rains mud arises, and there someone having descended or having become stuck dies, only the original instigator is bound by the action. But if the one who obtained it, or another, makes it wider or deeper, and because of that very condition someone dies, both are bound by the action. But just as the original causes correspond with the original causes, so when dry ground is made there, he is released. Thus in the case of leaning supports and so on too, as long as their operation continues, so long the being bound by the action should be understood according to the circumstances.
But the recitation of spells for the purpose of killing is the mode of action by magical knowledge. Just as the gnashing of fangs and so on of those whose weapons are fangs and so on, the making of transformations through supernormal power born of the result of action for the purpose of killing is the mode of action by supernormal power. But for taking what is not given, the modes of action by one's own hand, by command, and so on operate by way of theft, force, concealment, scheming, and fraudulent conveyance, and their classification too should be understood in accordance with what has been stated. For unchaste conduct and the remaining two, only the mode of action by one's own hand is obtained. Thus here the judgment should be understood also from the standpoint of the mode of action.
"From the standpoint of factors" - and here, killing of living beings has five factors: There is a living being, and one perceives it as a living being, and a murderous mind is present, and one strives, and by that it dies. For taking what is not given too there are just five: It belongs to another, and one perceives it as belonging to another, and intention to steal is present, and one strives, and by that the taking of what is to be taken is accomplished. But for unchaste conduct there are four factors: There is a subject of transgression, and therein the intention for intercourse is present, and one engages in the act conditioned by intercourse, and one consents - likewise for the remaining two as well. Therein, for lying, to begin with, the subject matter is false, and the intention to deceive is present, and there is the corresponding effort, and the intimation conveying the deception of another proceeds - four factors should be understood. But for spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence, there is one or another of spirits and so on, and the mind desiring to drink what is intoxicating is present, and one engages in the corresponding effort, and when drunk it enters - these are the four factors. Thus here the judgment should be understood also from the standpoint of factors.
"From the standpoint of origination" - killing of living beings, taking what is not given, and lying here have three originations: from body and mind, from speech and mind, and from body, speech and mind. Unchaste conduct has only one origination by way of body and mind. Spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence has two originations: from body, and from body and mind. Thus here the judgment should be understood also from the standpoint of origination.
As regards feeling: and here killing living beings is associated only with unpleasant feeling. Taking what is not given is associated with one or another of the three feelings; likewise lying. The other two are associated with either pleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling. Thus here the judgment should be understood also from the standpoint of feeling.
As regards root: and here killing living beings has hate and delusion as root. Taking what is not given and lying have either greed and delusion as root or hate and delusion as root. The other two have greed and delusion as root. Thus here the judgment should be understood also from the standpoint of root.
As regards action: and here killing living beings, taking what is not given, and not practising the holy life are bodily action only and have attained the status of a course of action only; lying is verbal action only. But whoever destroys the welfare, he has attained the status of a course of action. The other is merely action. Spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence is bodily action only. Thus here the judgment should be understood also from the standpoint of action.
As regards abstaining: here it is asked "One who abstains from killing living beings and so on - from what does he abstain?" It is said - To begin with, one abstaining by way of undertaking abstains from the unwholesome of killing living beings and so on, whether one's own or others'. Having undertaken what? That very thing from which one abstains. One abstaining by way of encountering also abstains from the aforesaid type of unwholesome only. Having undertaken what? The very objects stated for killing living beings and so on. Some, however, say: "Having undertaken the activities reckoned as spirits, liquor and intoxicants, one abstains from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence; but among the activities relating to beings, having undertaken whatever is to be carried away and whatever is to be destroyed, one abstains from taking what is not given and from lying; and having undertaken beings themselves, one abstains from killing living beings and from not practising the holy life." Others, on the contrary, say: "This being so, having become holders of the view that 'thinking of one thing one would do another, and what one abandons one would not know,' unwillingly, whatever one abandons, one abstains having undertaken that very unwholesome of one's own killing living beings and so on." That is inappropriate. Why? Because of its non-existence as a present object and its non-existence as an external object. For in the Vibhaṅga text of the training rules, having asked "Of the five training rules, how many are wholesome? Etc. How many are without conflict?" and in the answer proceeding thus: "They are wholesome only; they may be associated with pleasant feeling," the state of having a present object and an external object has been stated as "having a present object" and "having an external object"; that does not fit for one who abstains having undertaken one's own unwholesome of killing living beings and so on. But as for what was said - "Thinking of one thing one would do another, and what one abandons one would not know." There it is said - One proceeding by way of accomplishing a function is not said to think of one thing and do another, or to not know what one abandons.
And here the illustration would be the noble person who has attained the path."
Thus here the judgment should be understood also as regards abstaining.
"As regards result" means all these beginning with killing living beings are productive of results in unfortunate realms, and in fortunate realms they are productive of undesirable, unwanted, and disagreeable results, and they are productive of results such as lack of self-confidence and so on both in the future state and in the present life itself. Furthermore, by the method beginning with "whatever is the very lightest result of killing living beings, for one who has become a human being, it is conducive to a short life span," the judgment here should be understood also as regards result.
Furthermore, here the judgment should be understood also as regards the origination, feeling, root, action, and result of the abstentions from killing living beings and so on. Therein, this is the explanation - All of these abstentions originate from four sources: from the body, from body-and-consciousness, from speech-and-consciousness, and from body-speech-and-consciousness. And all are either associated with pleasant feeling or associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, and are either rooted in non-greed and non-hate, or rooted in non-greed, non-hate, and non-delusion. And here the four are bodily action, abstention from lying is verbal action, and at the moment of the path they originate from consciousness alone, and all are mental action.
Here, the results of abstention from killing living beings are: completeness of major and minor limbs, achievement of height and girth, achievement of speed, firmly established feet, gracefulness, softness, cleanliness, courage, great strength, confident speech, being dear to the world, faultlessness, an assembly that cannot be divided, fearlessness, being difficult to assail, not dying through attack by others, an unlimited retinue, handsome appearance, good form, freedom from illness, freedom from sorrow, non-separation from those who are dear and beloved, and long life - such and similar are the results.
The results of abstention from taking what is not given are: great wealth, abundance of wealth and grain, unlimited possessions, arising of unarisen wealth, stability of arisen wealth, quick acquisition of desired wealth, wealth not shared with kings, thieves, water, fire, and unloved heirs, acquisition of wealth not shared with others, being supreme in the world, not knowing the state of non-existence, and dwelling in happiness - such and similar.
The results of abstention from unchaste conduct are: freedom from adversaries, being dear to all people, obtaining food, drink, clothing, bedding and so on, sleeping happily, waking happily, freedom from the fear of realms of misery, impossibility of obtaining the state of a woman or the state of a eunuch, non-wrathfulness, acting openly, non-fallen aggregates, not being downcast, mutual dearness of women and men, completeness of faculties, completeness of characteristics, freedom from suspicion, living at ease, dwelling in happiness, fearlessness from any quarter, and absence of separation from the dear - such and similar.
The results of abstention from lying are: clarity of faculties, confident and sweet speech, even, sharp, and pure teeth, not being too fat, not being too thin, not being too short, not being too tall, pleasant contact, a mouth with the fragrance of a waterlily, an obedient retinue, authoritative speech, a tongue that is soft, red, and thin like a lotus or waterlily, non-agitation, and steadfastness - such and similar.
The results of abstention from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence are: quick understanding in all duties and tasks to be done regarding the past, future, and present, always having established mindfulness, non-madness, possessing knowledge, non-laziness, non-stupidity, non-dumbness, non-intoxication, diligence, non-confusion, fearlessness, non-impetuousness, non-suspiciousness, speaking truth, speaking without divisiveness, harshness, or idle chatter, being untiring day and night, gratitude, thankfulness, non-stinginess, possessing generosity, possessing morality, straightness, non-wrathfulness, possessing a sense of shame, possessing moral dread, having right view, possessing great wisdom, being intelligent, being wise, and skilfulness in what is beneficial and unbeneficial - such and similar are the results. Thus here the judgment should be understood also as regards the origination, feeling, root, action, and result of the abstentions from killing living beings and so on.
Explanation of the Latter Five Training Rules
Now, what was said -
And what is distinctive should be stated, and the inferior and so on should also be known."
This is the explanation of its meaning - Whatever is fitting from this explanation of the first five training rules, having taken that from there, should be connected to the latter five training rules also. Therein, this is the connection - For just as among the former training rules, as regards object, spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence have as their object one or another activity beginning with the visible form sense base, so too here eating at the improper time. By this method, the classification of objects of all should be known. And as regards undertaking, just as the former ones are undertaken when being undertaken by a novice or by a lay follower, so too are these. And as regards factors, just as there the classification of factors of killing living beings and so on was stated, so too here eating at the improper time has four factors - the improper time, food allowed until noon, swallowing, and not being mad. By this method, the classification of factors of the remaining ones too should be known. And just as there, as regards origination, spirits, liquor and intoxicants that cause negligence have two originations - from the body and from body-and-consciousness - so too here eating at the improper time. By this method, the origination of all should be known. And just as there, as regards feeling, taking what is not given is associated with one or another of the three feelings, so too here eating at the improper time. By this method, the association with feeling of all should be known. And just as there unchaste conduct is rooted in greed and delusion, so too here eating at the improper time. And the other two also - by this method, the classification of roots of all should be known. And just as there killing living beings and so on are bodily action, so too here eating at the improper time and so on. But the acceptance of gold and silver may be either bodily action or verbal action, by way of the method of occurrence through the body door and so on, not by way of course of action. "As regards abstaining" means just as there one abstaining abstains from the unwholesome beginning with killing living beings of oneself or of others, so too here from the unwholesome beginning with eating at the improper time, or from the wholesome as well together. And just as the former five abstentions have four originations - from the body, from body-and-consciousness, from speech-and-consciousness, and from body-speech-and-consciousness - and all are either associated with pleasant feeling or associated with neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling, and are either rooted in non-greed and non-hate, or rooted in non-greed, non-hate, and non-delusion, and all are productive of various kinds of desirable results, so too here also.
And what is exceptional should be stated, and the inferior and so on should be known."
Here, however, "eating at the improper time" means food when midday has passed. For this is food when the permitted time has passed, therefore it is called "eating at the improper time," hence abstention from eating at the improper time. "Watching dancing, singing, music and shows" - here, "dancing" means whatever dancing, "singing" means whatever singing, "music" means whatever music. "Seeing shows" means the seeing of shows that break the wholesome side because they are a condition for the arising of mental defilements, or seeing that has become a show is seeing shows. Dancing and singing and music and seeing shows - these are watching dancing, singing, music and shows. And seeing shows here should be understood by the very method stated in the Brahmajāla. For it is said there -
"While some honourable ascetics and brahmins, having eaten food given in faith, engage in watching shows such as these: dancing, singing, music, plays, story-telling, hand-clapping, cymbals, drums, magic shows, acrobatic shows, bamboo-pole climbing, washing of an elephant, elephant fights, horse fights, buffalo fights, bull fights, goat fights, ram fights, cock fights, quail fights, stick fights, fist fights, wrestling matches, military parades, battle arrays, and troop reviews - the ascetic Gotama abstains from watching such shows."
Or alternatively, by the aforesaid meaning, dancing, singing and music are themselves shows, thus they are dancing-singing-music-shows; the seeing of them is watching dancing, singing, music and shows; therefore abstention from watching dancing, singing, music and shows. Where "seeing and hearing" should be said, just as in such passages as "he holds wrong views, has perverted vision," even the apprehension of an object not occurring through the eye-door is called "seeing," so hearing too is stated as just "seeing." And here, the transgression occurs only for one who approaches out of desire to see and sees. But for one who, while in a place where one is standing, sitting, or lying down, sees something that has come or that has come within range while going, there may be defilement, but not transgression. And here it should be understood that even singing connected with the Dhamma is not proper, but the Dhamma connected with singing is proper.
Garlands and so on should be connected respectively with wearing and so on. Therein, "garland" means whatever kind of flower. "Cosmetic" means whatever has been ground and prepared for the purpose of anointing. The remainder, all kinds of perfume such as perfumed powder, incense and so on, is "perfume." All that is not proper for the purpose of adorning and decorating, but it is proper for the purpose of medicine, and for one who consents to what has been brought for the purpose of worship, it is not improper by any method whatsoever. "High bed" is said to mean exceeding the proper measure. "Luxurious bed" means an unallowable bed and an unallowable covering. For one who consents to both of those, it is not proper by any method whatsoever. "Gold" means gold. "Silver" means a coin, copper small coins, wooden small coins, lac small coins and so on - whatever is used as a medium of exchange here and there; both of those are gold and silver. The acceptance of that in whatever manner is called formal acceptance; that is not proper by any method whatsoever - thus what is exceptional should be stated.
These ten training rules, when undertaken with inferior desire, or with inferior consciousness, energy and investigation, are inferior; with middling ones, middling; with superior ones, superior. Or those defiled by craving, wrong view and conceit are inferior; those undefiled are middling; those supported by wisdom in each case are superior. Or those undertaken with wholesome consciousness dissociated from knowledge are inferior; with prompted consciousness associated with knowledge, middling; with unprompted consciousness, superior - thus the inferior and so on should also be known.
And to this extent, the matrix that was previously laid down with six verses beginning with "by whom, where, when, and why" for the purpose of explaining the text of the training rules has been elucidated in meaning.
In the Paramatthajotikā, the Khuddakapāṭha Commentary,
the Explanation of the Training Rules is concluded.