Venerable Pandita,
Thank you for sending me off line the pdf. Now I have no trouble
quoting or copying the pdf whereas with the Relational Grammar paper
I still cannot get it perfect, especially the footnotes.

I shall just give a few additional remarks to your paper. I found
your final conclusions interesting and I agree.
Meanwhile I shall begin to make a few notes to the first parts of
your paper and come to the conclusion later on. Forgive me for
elaborating on the layperson's view of the Vinaya, but I think that
some people have misunderstandings when they read about the rules,
they may not see their deep meaning.
-----------
Juo-Hsüeh Shih suggests that nobody is above the law, not even a
Buddha.

When I read 'above the law' or 'above the rules', I wonder whether
some people may not see the close connection of the Vinaya with the
other parts of the Tipi.taka, which is the Buddha's teaching. Then
one might not question so much whether the Buddha is above the law or
not. The question may not even occur when one sees the connection of
the Vinaya with the other parts of the teachings.
Failing to see the connection is perhaps the reason that laypeople do
not know that they can learn a great deal from rules pertaining to
conduct in daily life. Laypeople may not see that the Vinaya is much
more than a set of rules, they may not know that the Vinaya should
not be separated from Satipa.t.thaana, nor from the Abhidhamma. When
one reads about the transgressions and the rules given on account of
them, one can be reminded of one's own defilements, even when they
are more subtle. The Vinaya becomes very meaningful, also for
laypeople, when it is remembered that the rules have to be observed
with sati sampaja~n~na, awareness and understanding of all dhammas
appearing through the six doors. The Abhidhamma is most helpful to
understand the purpose of the rules, it goes to the source of good
and evil, to the citta. We learn that we take for noble motives of
our actions are in fact selfish motives. We are seeking gain for
ourselves, or we find ourselves very important, conceit arises time
and again. The Vibha"nga (Second Book of the Abhidhamma) gives many
striking examples. The suttas repeatedly say that the monk should see
danger in the slightest fault. Why is it not allowed to play with
water, to decorate dwellings, to talk on Kings? The citta is akusala,
most often it is rooted in lobha. Each of these rules stem from the
Buddha's great wisdom and compassion.
There were amendments for monks in the case of transgressions and
this shows the Buddha's great compassion. We read that there is no
offense in the case of taking what is not given <...if he is mad, if
his mind is unhinged, if he is afflicted by pain, if he is a
beginner.> (Horner p. 92, 93).
-------
You speak about Subhadda's ordination. He could skip the probation
and be ordained immediately. <What was the Buddha’s excuse for this
favour? He simply said: api ca m’ettha puggala-vemattatā viditā
(Lit. “However, the distinction of individ-
uals is known by me in this case”, i. e., “However, I know the
distinction of
individuals in this case”). Now we can clearly see that the Buddha
ignored
one particular Vinaya rule in the case of Subhadda’s going forth,
and his us-
age of the 1st person agent (me) seemingly implies that the right to
do so was
the privilege of the Buddha alone. >

I would like to add from the Pa.tisambidhaamagga, Knowledge not
shared by Disciples: Knowledge of others' faculties, and knowledge of
beings' biases and underlying tendencies (Ch LXVIII and LXIX. ) Only
the Buddha with his omniscience knew the dispositions and latent
tendencies of beings. Out of compassion he made an exception.
------------
Respectfully,
Nina.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]