English
suffered a great frustration of his wish by the Blessed One’s ordination. Then he generated eagerness to see Nanda’s sovereignty as a Wheel-turner; him too the Blessed One ordained. Thus, enduring that suffering too, he then generated eagerness to see Rāhula’s sovereignty as a Wheel-turner; him too the Blessed One ordained. Therefore, “Now the family lineage is cut off, whence will there be sovereignty as a Wheel-turner?” a greater suffering arose for him. Therefore it is said: “Similarly, concerning Nanda, and even more so Rāhula.” But the king’s attainment of the fruit of non-returning after this should be understood. “Good, Venerable Sir, my lord”— why did he say this? He thought: “When even I, who am devoted to the Buddha, devoted to the Dhamma, devoted to the Saṅgha, am unable to endure the suffering of separation from relatives when my dearest sons are ordained, what "How will those people endure when their sons and grandsons are ordained? Therefore, may such suffering not befall others." So he said. The Blessed One, having given a discourse on the Dhamma, saying, "The king speaks of a reason for leaving the world in the Dispensation," enacted a training rule: "Monks, a son should not be ordained without the permission of his parents." Here, "by parents" refers to the mother and father. If both are alive, both should be asked. If the father or mother has died, the one who is alive should be asked. Those who are already ordained should also be asked. When asking, one should go and ask oneself, or send another, or the person himself should be sent, saying, "Go, ask your parents, and come." If he says, "I have permission," he should be ordained by one who trusts him. If a father, himself ordained, wishes to ordain his son, he should ordain him only after asking the mother. Or if a mother wishes to ordain her daughter, she should ordain her only after asking the father. If the father, having no interest in his wife and children, has run away, and the mother gives her son to the bhikkhus, saying, "Ordain him," and when asked, "Where is his father?" she says, "He has run away to play in the pleasure garden," it is permissible to ordain him. If the mother has run away with some man, but the father gives him, saying, "Ordain him," the same rule applies here. If the father is away, and the mother permits the son to be ordained, and when asked, "Where is his father?" she says, "What is your concern with his father? I will take care of it," it is permissible to ordain him, as stated in the Kurundi. If the parents are dead, and the child has been raised by aunts and others, and if, when he is being ordained, the relatives quarrel or complain, then, to prevent disputes, he should be ordained only after asking them. However, there is no offense for one who ordains without asking. Those who take and raise children in their youth are called parents; the same rule applies to them. The son lives by relying on himself, not on his parents. Even if he is a king, he should be ordained only after asking. Parents He who, though permitted by his parents, has gone forth and then disrobes, even if he goes forth a hundred times and disrobes, each time he returns, he should be made to go forth again after asking permission. If they say thus: "This one, having disrobed, has come home and does not do our work; having gone forth, he does not fulfill your duties; there is no need to ask permission for him; let him go forth each time he comes," if he is thus given up, it is permissible to make him go forth again without asking permission. He who, even in his youth, was given thus: "This one is given to you; whenever you wish, you may make him go forth," he too, each time he returns, should be made to go forth without asking permission. But he whom, though permitted in his youth by saying, "Venerable sirs, please make this one go forth," they do not permit when he has reached maturity, this one should not be made to go forth without asking permission. One who, having quarreled with his parents, comes saying, "Make me go forth," and when told, "Go and ask permission," says, "I will not go; if you do not make me go forth, I will burn down the monastery, or I will strike you with a weapon, or I will cause harm to your relatives and supporters by cutting down their groves, or I will fall from a tree and die, or I will enter among robbers, or I will go to another country," it is permissible to make him go forth for the sake of preserving his life. If his parents come and say, "Why did you make our son go forth?" that matter should be reported to them, and they should be told, "We made him go forth for the sake of protection; you should be wise with your son." As for one who, saying, "I will fall from a tree," climbs up and loosens his hands and feet, it is indeed permissible to make him go forth. One who goes to a foreign country and asks for ordination, if he went after asking permission, he should be made to go forth. If not, a young monk should be sent to ask permission, and then he should be made to go forth, if it is very far. Even after making him go forth, it is permissible to send him with monks to show him. In the Kurundi, however, it is said: "If the way is far and a great wilderness, it is permissible to make him go forth with the intention of 'we will go and ask permission'..." if it is so. But if the parents have many sons, and they say thus: “Venerable sir, whichever of these boys you wish, you may ordain him.” Having examined the boys, whichever one he wishes, that one should be ordained. Even if the entire family or village has given permission, saying: “Venerable sir, in this family or village, whichever one you wish, you may ordain him.” Whichever one he wishes, that one should be ordained. “As many as he is able” means as many as he can. The story of Rāhula is finished. The story of the disciplinary action concerning the training rules 106. Transgression of the first five of the ten training rules is a ground for expulsion; transgression of the latter ones is a ground for disciplinary action. 107. “Do not respect” means they do not place the bhikkhus in a senior position or a position of authority. “Of dissimilar conduct” means they are not of similar livelihood; the meaning is, they are of dissimilar livelihood. “Strives for their disadvantage” means he strives so that they do not obtain gains. “For their harm” means for their trouble. “For their non-residence” means he strives, thinking: “How might they not reside in this dwelling?” “Reviles and abuses” means he reviles and threatens with a display of fear. “Divides” means he causes division by bringing up slander. “To make an obstruction” means to prevent, saying: “Do not enter here.” “Wherever he resides or wherever he goes” means wherever he resides or enters; by both, his own precinct and the lodging and seat obtained by seniority are meant. “Making an obstruction to food at the mouth-door” means they prevent, saying: “Do not eat today, do not consume.” “Bhikkhus, food at the mouth-door should not be obstructed.” In this, for one who says “Do not eat, do not consume,” and for one who puts away the bowl and robe inside, thinking “I will obstruct their food,” there is a dukkaṭa offense in all such attempts. However, for a misbehaving and disobedient novice, having imposed disciplinary action, it is permissible to show him gruel or food or a bowl and robe and say: “When such and such a disciplinary action has been carried out, you will receive this.” For the Buddha declared obstruction itself to be disciplinary action. The elders who uphold the Dhamma have said that according to the offense, causing them to fetch water, wood, sand, etc., should also be done. Therefore, that too should be done. But that should be done out of compassion, thinking, "He will desist, he will refrain," not with an evil intention, thinking, "He will perish, he will be ruined," or with the thought, "I am inflicting punishment." It is not proper to make him lie on hot stones, or to place stones or bricks on his head, or to make him enter water. The discourse on the grounds for disciplinary action concerning the training rules is concluded. The discourse on the grounds for not asking permission, for preventing, and so on. 108. Here, regarding "Monks, without asking the preceptor," if it is said three times, "Your novice has committed this offense, inflict disciplinary action upon him," and if the preceptor does not inflict disciplinary action, it is proper to do it oneself. Even if the preceptor says from the outset, "If my novices have faults, you may inflict disciplinary action," it is certainly proper to do so. And just as for novices, so too for co-residents and pupils, it is proper to inflict disciplinary action. "Apalāḷenti" means they gather them for their own service, saying, "We will give you a bowl, we will give you robes." Here, regarding "Monks, another's retinue should not be enticed," whether they are novices or fully ordained monks, it is not proper to break up and take another's retinue, not even that of an immoral monk. But it is proper to speak of the danger, saying, "By dwelling relying on immorality, you have acted like one who, having come to bathe, anoints himself with excrement." If he, knowing this, requests a preceptor or a teacher, it is proper to give one. Here, regarding "Monks, I allow a novice endowed with ten factors to be expelled," among the three kinds of expulsion mentioned in the commentary on the "Thorn" training rule, only expulsion from the outward signs (of a monk) is intended. Therefore, whoever commits even one act among killing living beings and so on, he should be expelled from the outward signs. And just as monks incur various offenses for killing living beings and so on, it is not so for novices. For a novice, if he (kills) an ant or a worm... Even by killing one, Or breaking a maṅguraṇḍaka, He incurs expulsion.