English
And here, "unholy practice" should be understood as bodily contact, not sexual intercourse. For there is no grave transgression in the vicinity of sexual intercourse. The statement "a discerning person is capable of engaging in bodily contact" is also a supporting factor here. "Three women, that sexual act, let him not engage in, Three men and three ignoble fools; Nor should he engage in sexual acts in a disguise, There would be a cutting off due to the condition of sexual intercourse; This problem has been considered by the skillful." (Pari. 481); If it is asked whether this contradicts the verse for releasing sweat stated in the Parivāra? No; because it is a preliminary part of sexual intercourse. For in the Parivāra itself, it is said: "The preliminary part of sexual intercourse should be known," and thus, the five training rules such as "praise and dispraise, bodily contact, lewd speech, self-serving attendance, and causing emission of semen" are called the preliminary parts of sexual intercourse. Therefore, bodily contact, being a preliminary part of sexual intercourse, is a condition. Thus, in "there would be a cutting off due to the condition of sexual intercourse," the meaning should be understood in this way. By this method, the decision should be understood in all passages. Furthermore, in the word analysis of "or if one goes to an appointed place," it means "come to such and such a place." "Come to a place of such a name." 676. A woman who fulfills the eighth ground is no longer a recluse. Whether in direct order or reverse order, or alternating, or by any other method, a woman who fulfills the eighth ground is no longer a recluse. She who Even if one fills one matter, or seven matters, or even a hundred times, one is not a non-recluse. Having confessed the offenses committed, one is freed. Moreover, here, an offense that counts should be understood. For it is said: "There is an offense confessed that counts, there is an offense confessed that does not count." Herein is the decision: An offense confessed with the laying down of the burden, thinking "I will not commit it again now," is one that counts in the confession and is not an element of a pārājika. Therefore, one who commits one offense, confesses it by laying down the burden, and then commits it again due to defilements, and confesses it again, even if she completes eight matters in this way, is not pārājika. But if one commits an offense and confesses it with the intention of committing another matter again, that offense of hers does not count; even if confessed, it is as if not confessed, it does not go into the count of confessions, and it is an element of a pārājika. As soon as the eighth matter is completed, she is pārājika. The rest is clear. The origin of laying down the burden: It arises from body, speech, and mind; it is action, release by perception, with consciousness, a worldly fault, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome consciousness, of two kinds. The Fourth Pārājika. "The eight pārājika rules have been recited, venerable sirs," meaning that four of these, which were laid down concerning bhikkhus and are common, and these four (for bhikkhunis), thus, "the eight pārājika rules have been recited, venerable sirs," is the meaning to be understood here by the method of reciting the Pātimokkha. The rest is as stated in the Mahāvibhaṅga. In the Samantapāsādikā, the commentary on the Vinaya, in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga, The commentary on the Pārājika section is finished. The Pārājika section is finished. 2. The Saṅghādisesa Section (Commentary on the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga) 1. Commentary on the First Saṅghādisesa Training Rule Following the Pārājika, this will now be the commentary on the unclear meanings of the Saṅghādisesa section. 678. "Udositanti" means a storehouse. "Māyyo evaṃ avacāti" means "Venerable sir, do not speak thus." "Apināyyāti" means "Is it not, venerable sir?" "Accāvadathāti" means "You speak excessively; you insult," it is said. is. 679. "Ussayavādikā" means one disputing by way of pride and by way of anger. But since she is actually a litigant, therefore it is said in the word-analysis, "Ussayavādikā is called aḍḍakārikā (a litigant)." And here "aḍḍa" is called a legal dispute (of laypeople), which renunciants also call "adhikaraṇa." "Or seeks a second" means seeks a witness or a helper; an offense of wrong-doing. "Or goes" means whether it be a monastery or an alms-round path, where, standing, the thought "I will make a dispute" arises in her, from there, as she goes to the laypeople, at every step, an offense of wrong-doing. "Reports to one" means among two people, whoever reports her case to any one of the laypeople. "Reports to a second" means here too, the same method applies. This here is a detailed explanation for the purpose of clarity: Wherever, even seeing laypeople who have come to the bhikkhunī's monastery, if the bhikkhunī reports her own case, for the bhikkhunī, an offense of wrong-doing. If a male lay follower reports his own case, for the bhikkhunī, a grave offense. First, if a male lay follower reports his own case, for the bhikkhunī, an offense of wrong-doing. Then if she reports her own case, a grave offense. If the bhikkhunī says to the male lay follower, "You yourself report my case and your case," whether he reports his own case first or the bhikkhunī's case first, at the first report, an offense of wrong-doing, at the second report, a grave offense. If the male lay follower says to the bhikkhunī, "You yourself report my case and your case," here too, the same method applies. If the bhikkhunī causes a suitable person to speak, there, whether the suitable person reports the bhikkhunī's case first, or the other person reports his own case, or the suitable person reports both cases, or the other person reports both cases, however it is reported, at the first report, for the bhikkhunī, an offense of wrong-doing, at the second, a grave offense. But having heard both cases reported in whatever way, by the laypeople, having decided... what is called a half-finished case, in that half-finished case, whether the nun wins or loses, it is a Saṅghādisesa. But if it is a case that has been heard before, by the judges, and they, seeing the nun and the accuser, say, "You have nothing to say, we know the facts here," and they themselves decide and give judgment, even in such a half-finished case, there is no offense for the nun. "First offense" means it is an offense at the very moment of transgression, that is the meaning of "to be committed at the moment of transgression," that is the first offense. In the word-division, to show the mere intention, it is said, "She commits it together with the basis and the transgression, without a third admonition." And this is the meaning here: that which a nun commits together with the basis and the transgression, not with a third admonition, this is a first offense because it is to be committed together with the basis and the transgression from the very first. "To be expelled" means she is expelled from the community of nuns, that is "to be expelled." In the word-division, to show the mere intention, it is said, "She is expelled from the Saṅgha." There, the meaning should be understood thus: that which, when a nun has committed it, she is expelled from the Saṅgha, that is "to be expelled." For that very rule itself is not expelled by anyone from the Saṅgha. But by that rule, the nun is expelled, therefore, it expels, it is "to be expelled." "Being dragged, she goes" means being told "come" by the accusers themselves, or by coming herself, or by sending a messenger, she goes to the judges. Then the accuser may first report his own case or the nun's case; there is no Dukkata for reporting first, no Thullaccaya for reporting second. Even in a half-finished case decided by the ministers, there is no offense. Even if the accuser says to the nun, "You yourself tell my case and yours"; even if she tells the case, and a half-finished case is decided after hearing it, there is no offense. "She asks for protection" means she asks for lawful protection, there is no offense. Now, the protection as requested if it is righteous, to show that, she tells it without specifying, he said. There, concerning the past, there is specifying, there is not specifying. Concerning the future, there is also specifying, there is also not specifying. How is there specifying concerning the past? In a nunnery, village boys, or rogues, or whoever, commit misconduct, or cut down a tree, or steal fruits, or seize requisites. The nun approaches the officials and says, "This has been done in our nunnery." When asked, "By whom?" she says, "By so-and-so and so-and-so." Thus, there is specifying concerning the past, that is not permissible. If, having heard that, those officials punish them, the entire blame is on the nun. Even if there is an intention to inflict punishment, it is still blame. But if she says, "Punish him," and five māsa coins are taken, it is a pārājika offense. But when asked, "By whom?" it should be said, "It is not permissible for us to say 'by so-and-so'. You yourselves will know. We only ask for protection, give that to us, and have the stolen goods brought back." Thus, there is not specifying, that is permissible. If, having said this, even if those officials search for the perpetrators and punish them, and all their property is taken, there is neither blame nor offense for the nun. Seeing them stealing requisites, it is not permissible to say, "Thief, thief," with the intention of harming them. For even if this is said, whatever punishment they inflict, all the blame is on the nun. But it is permissible to say to one's own servant, "My requisite has been taken by this one, have it brought back, but do not punish him." If they make a fuss for the sake of slaves or servants, this is called an improper fuss, it is not permissible.