14.

Analysis of Training Rules

1. Commentary on the Abhidhamma Classification

703. Now, in the analysis of the training rules immediately following that, "five" is a delimitation by number. "Training rules" means items to be trained in; the meaning is sections of training. Furthermore, all wholesome states that have come above are training in the sense of being to be trained in. However, among the five factors of virtue, any factor, being the foundation of those trainings in the sense of a basis, is called a "step" (pada), and because they are the steps of the trainings, they are "training rules" (sikkhāpadāni). "From killing living beings" means from the striking down of a living being; the meaning is slaying, putting to death. "Abstention" means refraining. "From taking what is not given" means from the taking of what is not given; the meaning is the carrying away of what is possessed by another. "In sensual pleasures" means in objective sensual pleasures. "Misconduct" means base conduct by way of the defilement of sensual desire. "From lying" means from speaking what is untrue. "From spirits, liquor and intoxicants that are a basis for negligence" - herein, "spirits" means five kinds of spirits: grain spirit, cake spirit, rice spirit, fermented with yeast, and mixed with ingredients. "Liquor" means five kinds of fermented drinks: flower ferment, fruit ferment, sugar ferment, honey ferment, and mixed with ingredients. Both of those are intoxicants in the sense of being intoxicating. The volition by which one drinks it, that is a basis for negligence because it is a cause of heedlessness; therefore, "from spirits, liquor and intoxicants that are a basis for negligence." This, for now, is the meaning of the setting out of the matrix herein.

704. In the Word Analysis, however, all beginning with "at whatever time wholesome consciousness of the sensual sphere" is clear in meaning, since the method has been stated below. But since not only abstinence alone is a training rule, but volition too is indeed a training rule, therefore the second method was shown to demonstrate that. And since not only these two states alone are a training rule, but also the more than fifty states associated with volition are indeed a training rule from the standpoint of what is to be trained in, therefore the third method was also shown.

Therein, the training rule is twofold: the training rule by way of convention and the training rule in the absolute sense. Therein, abstinence is the training rule in the absolute sense. For it is abstinence that has come in the canonical text as "abstention from killing living beings," not volition. And one who abstains, abstains from this and that by means of that very abstinence, not by means of volition. However, volition was brought in and shown. Likewise for the remaining states associated with volition. For at the time of transgression, the volition of abstention is called bad conduct. Therefore, at the time of abstinence too, it was stated by way of good conduct. Contact and so forth were included because of being associated with that.

Now, for the purpose of arousing knowledge regarding these training rules, the determination of these killing of living beings and so forth should be understood in terms of state, category, object, feeling, root, action, blameworthiness, and mode of undertaking.

Therein, "in terms of state": all five, killing of living beings and so forth, are indeed states of volition. "In terms of category": all five are indeed courses of action.

"In terms of object": killing of living beings has the life faculty as its object. Taking what is not given has either a being as object or activities as object. Sexual misconduct has a woman or a man as its object. Lying has either a being as object or activities as object. Drinking intoxicants has a formation as its object.

"In terms of feeling": killing of living beings is accompanied by painful feeling. Taking what is not given has three feelings. For when one who is delighted and pleased takes what is not given, there is pleasant feeling; at a time of fear, there is painful feeling; when one takes being indifferent, there is neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Sexual misconduct is accompanied by either pleasant feeling or neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. False speech, like taking what is not given, is accompanied by three feelings. Drinking intoxicants is accompanied by pleasant or neutral feeling.

"In terms of root": killing of living beings is rooted in hatred and delusion. Taking what is not given is sometimes rooted in greed and delusion, sometimes rooted in hatred and delusion. Sexual misconduct is rooted in greed and delusion. False speech is sometimes rooted in greed and delusion, sometimes rooted in hatred and delusion. Drinking intoxicants is rooted in greed and delusion.

"As to action" - false speech here is verbal action. The rest are bodily action only.

"As to blameworthiness" - killing living beings is sometimes of little blameworthiness, sometimes of great blameworthiness. Likewise for taking what is not given, etc. The differentiation of these has already been shown above.

But this is another method - the killing of an ant is of little blameworthiness, the killing of one larger than that is of great blameworthiness; that too is of little blameworthiness, the killing of a bird larger than that is of great blameworthiness; then of a monitor lizard, then of a hare, then of a deer, then of a buffalo, then of a horse, then the killing of an elephant is of great blameworthiness, and even more so of an immoral person, then of a person of naturally good conduct, then of one gone for refuge, then of one who observes the five training rules, then of a novice, then of an ordinary monk, then of a stream-enterer, then of a once-returner, then of a non-returner, then the killing of one whose taints are destroyed is of exceedingly great blameworthiness indeed.

Taking what is not given from the belongings of an immoral person is of little blameworthiness, from the belongings of one of naturally good conduct is of great blameworthiness; then from the belongings of one gone for refuge, then of one who observes the five training rules, then of a novice, then of an ordinary monk, then of a stream-enterer, then of a once-returner, then of a non-returner is of great blameworthiness, then from the belongings of one whose taints are destroyed is of exceedingly great blameworthiness indeed.

Sexual misconduct in the transgression against an immoral woman is of little blameworthiness, against one of naturally good conduct is of great blameworthiness; then against one gone for refuge, one who observes the five training rules, a female novice, an ordinary bhikkhunī, a stream-enterer, a once-returner, then the transgression against a non-returner is of great blameworthiness, but against a bhikkhunī whose taints are destroyed is absolutely of great blameworthiness only.

False speech in speaking falsely for the sake of a mere kākaṇika coin is of little blameworthiness, then for the sake of half a māsaka, a māsaka, five māsakas, half a kahāpaṇa, a kahāpaṇa, then speaking falsely for the sake of priceless goods is of great blameworthiness, but for one who, having spoken falsely, splits the Saṅgha, it is absolutely of great blameworthiness only.

Drinking intoxicants in the amount of a pasata measure is of little blameworthiness, drinking the amount of a handful is of great blameworthiness; but for one who, having drunk much enough to make the body sway, commits the destruction of villages and towns, it is absolutely of great blameworthiness indeed.

For with regard to killing living beings, the killing of one whose taints are destroyed is of great blameworthiness; with regard to taking what is not given, the taking of what belongs to one whose taints are destroyed, with regard to sexual misconduct, the transgression against a bhikkhunī whose taints are destroyed, with regard to false speech, the splitting of the Saṅgha through false speech, with regard to drinking intoxicants, having drunk much enough to make the body sway, the destruction of villages and towns - these are of great blameworthiness. But among all of these, the splitting of the Saṅgha through false speech is the most blameworthy. For that is a great crime capable of causing torment in hell for an aeon.

"As to effort" - killing living beings is either done by oneself or by command. Likewise taking what is not given. Sexual misconduct, false speech and drinking intoxicants are done by oneself only.

Thus, having known the determination of killing living beings, etc. by way of states, etc. here, the determination of abstention from killing living beings, etc. should also be understood as to states, as to classification, as to object, as to feeling, as to root, as to action, as to breach, as to undertaking, and as to effort.

Therein, "as to states" - by way of conventional virtue, in sequence, they are five volition-states only. "As to classification" - all five are courses of action only. "As to object" - abstention from killing living beings abstains by making another's life faculty the object through one's own volition of abstinence. The same method applies to the others as well. For all of these abstain through the volition of abstinence alone, having made the matter to be transgressed the object. "As to feeling" - all of them are either of pleasant feeling or of neutral feeling. "As to root" - for one who abstains with consciousness associated with knowledge, they are rooted in non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion; for one who abstains with consciousness dissociated from knowledge, they are rooted in non-greed and non-hatred. "As to action" - only the abstention from false speech here is verbal action; the rest are bodily action. "As to breach" - whatever householders transgress, that particular one alone becomes broken, is breached; the remainder is not breached. Why? For householders are of unbound virtue; whatever they are able to, that alone they protect. But for novices, when one is transgressed, all are breached. And not only these, but the remaining virtues are also breached. Their transgression, however, is a matter for disciplinary action. When disciplinary action has been carried out with the resolve "I shall not do such a thing again," the virtue becomes complete. "As to undertaking" - they are undertaken both by one who determines by oneself "I undertake the five virtues," and also by one who undertakes them one by one. They are also undertaken by one who, having sat down in the presence of another, undertakes them saying "I undertake the five virtues," and also by one who undertakes them one by one. "As to effort" - all should be understood as being of personal effort only.

712. Now, in order to show those trainings as whose constituent parts these five training rules were stated, this training section beginning with "What mental states are training?" has been commenced. Therein, since all wholesome mental states of the four planes are training by virtue of being what should be trained in, therefore, in order to show them, the passage beginning with "At whatever time wholesome consciousness of the sensual sphere" was stated. Therein, the meaning should be understood by expanding the text in the same manner as stated below in the section on the arising of consciousness. Here, however, only a brief indication has been given.

Commentary on the Abhidhamma Classification.

3.

Commentary on the Questions Section

714. In the question-asking section, the wholesome and other nature of the training rules should be understood following the sequence of the canonical text. However, in the object triads, those training rules which are here stated as having beings as their object - since they take as object only formations that have come to be designated as "a being," and since all of these are set forth only by way of abstinence from what is encountered - therefore it is stated that they "have a limited object" and "have a present object." But since the thing from which one abstains is entirely external, the external object nature of all of them should be understood.

In this analysis of training rules, however, the Perfectly Enlightened One has spoken of only mundane training rules in both the Abhidhamma classification and the question-asking section. For both these methods, being mundane, are of one and the same delimitation. Thus this analysis of training rules has been shown by dividing it into two rounds of exposition.

In the Sammohavinodanī, the Commentary on the Vibhaṅga,

the Exposition of the Training Rules Analysis is concluded.