This constant, permanent, eternal, true Law has been taught by wise men who comprehend all things. Thus a monk abstains from (the five cardinal sins): slaughter of living beings, &c., (and of vices, all down to) the sin of wrong belief. He does not clean his teeth with a tooth-brush, he does not accept collyrium, emetics, and perfumes. Such a monk does not act nor kill, he is free from wrath, pride, deceit, and greed, he is calm and happy. The Venerable One says that such a (monk) is well controlled and restrained, does avoid and renounce sins, is not active, but careful and thoroughly wise. (11)

Thus I say.

Footnotes

^399:1 'May' is to render yavi = kapi. This word is used here to indicate that the reverse is true in other cases. This paragraph emphasises the Gaina doctrine that the Self or atman is the direct cause of all actions of an individual being, in opposition to the Sankhya philosophers who maintain the absolute inactivity of the purusha, and to the Bauddhas who deny the existence of a separate atman altogether.

^399:2 Literally, sleeping (sutta = supta).

^399:3 Literally, speeches (vakka = vakya).

^399:4 We ought, perhaps, to translate: if he is not conscious of, &c.

^399:5 I.e. when consciousness is fainter than in a dream.

^399:6 The doctrine of the Gainas is that Karman is the result of the action of every being, even of those whose intellect or consciousness is not developed, as with the ekendriyas or beings who possess but one organ of sense. The opponent, however, maintains that only conscious actions of intelligent beings bring about Karman. This question is discussed in the following paragraphs.

^400:1 These words here and in the sequel are in Sanskrit; they probably are a gloss.

^401:1 The Nagarguniyas have another reading (where, is not stated by Silanka): If he sees no opportunity, or his proposed victim is always on his guard, he does not kill him, but he resolves in his mind: If I get an opportunity, or I find that man off his guard, I shall certainly kill him.

^401:2 The original repeats the preceding passage in full. I abridge it here and in the sequel.

^401:3 I.e. every soul, even that of a being with but one organ of sense.

^402:1 Silanka here makes it clear that the discussion, in the preceding paragraphs, is carried on in the form of a syllogism of five parts established in Hindu logics. section 1 contains the proposition, pratigna, section 3 the cause, hetu, section 4 the exemplification, udaharana or drishtanta, section 5 the upanaya or that part which shows that the hetu is in the subject of the syllogism, and section 6 the conclusion, nigamana. We thus see how deeply rooted in, and how genial to, the mind of the Hindus was the pankavayavam anumanam or syllogism of five parts; for the author conforms to it, I dare say, unintentionally.