The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha - Bhikkhu Nanamoli [627]
984 Sammukhāvinaya. Horner translates “verdict in the presence of.” At Vin ii.93, this is explained as confrontation with (or presence of) the Sangha, the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the individuals who are parties to the dispute. This kind of settlement applies to all four kinds of litigation, with minor differences in formulation.
985 Dhammanetti samanumajjitabbā. MA gives as an example of dhammanetti the ten courses of wholesome and unwholesome conduct, but says that here the Dhamma and Discipline themselves are meant.
986 Sativinaya. Horner renders “verdict of innocence”. At Vin ii.80, it is said that this is given when a bhikkhu is pure and without offences and he is reproached with an offence; he must ask the Sangha to give him such a verdict by appeal to his full and accurate recollection of his behaviour.
987 An offence involving defeat, a pārājika offence, requires expulsion from the Sangha. An offence bordering on defeat is either a sanghādisesa offence, which requires a formal meeting of the Sangha and a period of temporary penalisation, or the preliminary steps leading to a pārājika offence. I follow BBS and SBJ, which have one bhikkhu as accuser, rather than PTS, which uses a plural form. So too below.
988 Amūḷhavinaya. A verdict of past insanity is given when a bhikkhu commits offences during a period of madness. The criterion for determining insanity is that he must have no recollection of his behaviour during the period for which the verdict is requested.
989 The procedure described is the established method by which a bhikkhu obtains exoneration for his transgression when he has fallen into any offence that can be cleared by confession.
990 Pāpiyyāsikā. Horner renders “decision for specific depravity.” This verdict is pronounced against a bhikkhu who is a maker of strife and quarrels in the Sangha, who is ignorant and full of offences, or who lives in unbecoming association with householders.
991 Tiṇavatthāraka. This means of settlement is resorted to when the Sangha has been involved in a dispute in the course of which the bhikkhus committed many minor offences. Since to pursue charges for these offences might prolong the conflict, the offences are cleared by the means described in the sutta. MA explains that this method is like throwing grass over excrement to remove the bad smell, hence the name “covering over with grass.”
992 Offences calling for serious censure are those of the pārājika and sanghādisesa classes. Those connected with the laity are cases where a bhikkhu reviles and disparages householders.
993 As at MN 48.6.
994 At MN 21.21, this is said with reference to the simile of the saw.
SUTTA 105
995 See MN 12 and n.177.
996 Adhimānena. MA: They declare this out of conceit, considering themselves to have attained what they have not attained.
997 MA: To make clear to them their level of attainment.
998 MA: Because they are motivated by desire, the Tathāgata’s thought of teaching the Dhamma, which arises towards true practitioners, changes (i.e., fades away).
999 Lokāmisa. These are the five cords of sensual pleasure.
1000 Āneñja (BBS); āṇañja (PTS). This is a technical term for the meditative attainments from the fourth jhāna through the four immaterial attainments. But since the highest two immaterial attainments are dealt with separately, it seems that in this sutta only the fourth jhāna and the lower two immaterial attainments are intended as “the imperturbable.”
1001 The Buddha.
1002 Reading with BBS, evaṁmāni assa atathaṁ samānaṁ. CPD suggests atathaṁ samānaṁ may be an accusative absolute. This passage refers back to the problem of self-overestimation with which the discourse began.
1003 I follow PTS here, whose reading seems supported by all versions prior to BBS. Because the surgeon is later compared to the Tathāgata, and the text cannot ascribe an error in judgement to the Buddha, BBS insists on a strict