56. As to the words through which, etc., the meaning is: by reason of which, because of which non-restraint of the eye faculty, if he, if that person, left the eye faculty unguarded, remained with the eye door unclosed by the door-panel of mindfulness, these states of covetousness, etc., might invade, might pursue, might threaten, him. He enters upon the way of its restraint: he enters upon the way of closing that eye faculty by the door-panel of mindfulness. It is the same one of whom it is said he guards the eye faculty, undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty.
57. Herein, there is neither restraint nor non-restraint in the actual eye faculty, since neither mindfulness nor forgetfulness arises in dependence on eye-sensitivity. On the contrary when a visible datum as object comes into the eye’s focus, then, after the life-continuum has arisen twice and ceased, the functional mind-element
accomplishing the function of adverting arises and ceases. After that, eyeconsciousness with the function of seeing; after that, resultant mind-element with the function of receiving; after that, resultant root-causeless mind-consciousnesselement with the function of investigating; after that, functional root-causeless mind-consciousness-element accomplishing the function of determining arises and ceases. Next to that, impulsion impels. Herein, there is neither restraint nor nonrestraint on the occasion of the life-continuum, or on any of the occasions beginning with adverting. But there is non-restraint if unvirtuousness or forgetfulness or
unknowing or impatience or idleness arises at the moment of impulsion. When this happens, it is called “non-restraint in the eye faculty.”
58. Why is that? Because when this happens, the door is not guarded, nor are the life-continuum and the consciousnesses of the cognitive series. Like what? Just as, when a city’s four gates are not secured, although inside the city house doors, storehouses, rooms, etc., are secured, yet all property inside the city is unguarded and unprotected since robbers coming in by the city gates can do as they please, so too, when unvirtuousness, etc., arise in impulsion in which there is no restraint, then the door too is unguarded, and so also are the life-continuum and the consciousnesses of the cognitive series beginning with adverting. But when virtue, etc., has arisen in it, then the door too is guarded and so also are the life-continuum and the consciousnesses of the cognitive series beginning with adverting. Like what? Just as, when the city gates are secured, although inside the city the houses, etc., are not secured, yet all property inside the city is well guarded, well protected, since when the city gates are shut there is no ingress for robbers, so too, when virtue, etc., have arisen in impulsion, the door too is guarded and so also are the life-continuum and the consciousnesses of the cognitive series beginning with adverting. Thus, although it actually arises at the moment of impulsion, it is nevertheless called “restraint in the eye faculty.”
59. So also as regards the phrases on hearing a sound with the ear and so on. So it is this virtue, which in brief has the characteristic of avoiding apprehension of signs entailing defilement with respect to visible objects, etc., that should be understood as virtue of restraint of faculties.
60. (c) Now, as regards the virtue of livelihood purification mentioned above next to the virtue of restraint of the faculties, the words of the six precepts announced on account of livelihood mean, of the following six training precepts announced thus: “With livelihood as cause, with livelihood as reason, one of evil wishes, a prey to wishes, lays claim to a higher than human state that is non-existent, not a fact,” the contravention of which is defeat (expulsion from the Order); “with livelihood as cause, with livelihood as reason, he acts as go-between,” the contravention of which is an offence entailing a meeting of the Order; “with livelihood as cause, with livelihood as reason, he says, ‘A bhikkhu who lives in your monastery is an Arahant,’” the contravention of which is a serious offence in one who is aware of it; “with livelihood as cause, with livelihood as reason, a bhikkhu who is not sick eats superior food that he has ordered for his own use,” the contravention of which is
an offence requiring expiation: “With livelihood as cause, with livelihood as reason, a Bhikkhunì who is not sick eats superior food that she has ordered for her own use,” the contravention of which is an offence requiring confession; “with livelihood as cause, with livelihood as reason, one who is not sick eats curry or boiled rice
that he has ordered for his own use,” the contravention of which is an offence of wrongdoing (Vin V 146). Of these six precepts.
By Bhikkhu Ñānamoli