English
Immediately his refuges, His preceptor-taking, His dwelling-taking, Are suspended. He gets no Sangha gains. Only the mere mark remains. If he is truly flawed, And future restraint he keeps not, He must be expelled. But if, having erred suddenly, He thinks, "I did wrong," And wishes to stand in restraint again, No need to destroy his mark. As he is dressed and clothed, The refuges should be given. A preceptor should be given. But the rules are fulfilled by taking refuge. For novices, Taking refuge is like ordination for monks. So, like monks, they have fourfold pure morality. By this, the ten precepts are undertaken. Even so, for strengthening, And for future restraint, They should be given again. If in the first half, Refuges are taken again, In the latter half, He will get rains-residence. If taken in the latter half, The Sangha should be informed, And the gain should be given. In taking what is not given, Even a blade of grass, In unchastity, By transgression in any of the three paths, In false speech, Even a lie spoken in jest, He is not a recluse, He incurs expulsion. But in drinking intoxicants, For a monk, even unknowingly, Drinking alcohol from its seed, Is a pācittiya. A novice, drinking knowingly, Breaches morality, Not unknowingly. But for his other five rules, If they are broken, He should not be expelled, A disciplinary action should be taken. But for the training rule, Whether given again or not, it is valid. But having pressured him with discipline, To establish him in future restraint, It should indeed be given. For novices, drinking intoxicants with intent Is a ground for a pārājika. This is the distinction. But in speaking dispraise, Against the Buddha, By opposing "Arahant, Perfectly Self-Enlightened One," etc., Or against the Dhamma, By opposing "Well-expounded," etc., Or against the Sangha, By "Well-practiced," Speaking ill of the Sangha, or disparaging the Triple Gem, reviling and blaming it, due to opposition to these things, he should be restrained by teachers and preceptors, etc., showing the danger in speaking ill, saying: "Do not speak thus." If, being told up to three times, he does not desist, he should be expelled by "thorn-expulsion." So it is said in the Kurundi. But in the Great Commentary, it is said: "If, being told thus, he abandons that view, he should be made to perform a penalty and confess his transgression. If he does not abandon it, but holds onto it just as it is, he should be expelled by "sign-expulsion." That is appropriate. Indeed, this expulsion is intended here. The same method applies to one with wrong view. Indeed, if one holding either the eternalist or annihilationist view, being advised by teachers, etc., abandons it, he should be made to perform a penalty and confess his transgression. If he does not abandon it, he should be expelled. Here, a defiler of nuns is indeed included by the term "one who has broken celibacy." But it is permissible to give the refuges and ordain one who has broken celibacy but wishes to abide in restraint in the future. A defiler of nuns, even if he wishes to abide in restraint in the future, does not even obtain renunciation, much less full ordination. To show this meaning, "defiler of nuns" is stated as a separate tenth factor. This should be understood. The discourse on the matter of ordination without asking, etc., is concluded. The discourse on the matter of eunuchs. 109. "Dahare dahare" means "young, young." "Moḷigalla" means "one with a stout body." "Hatthibhaṇḍa, assabhaṇḍa" means "elephant-keepers and horse-keepers." Here, in "eunuch, O bhikkhus," there are five kinds of eunuchs: the "sprinkled eunuch," the "envious eunuch," the "scheming eunuch," the "half-month eunuch," and the "neuter eunuch." Among these, he whose burning sensation subsides when he takes others' genitals in his mouth and is sprinkled with impure fluid, this is the "sprinkled eunuch." He whose burning sensation subsides when he sees others engaging in misconduct and envy arises, this is the "envious eunuch." He whose testicles have been removed by an operation, this is the "scheming eunuch." But some, due to the power of unwholesome kamma-result, are "kāḷapa-" in the (dark) fortnight he is a eunuch, but in the bright fortnight his burning sensation subsides, this is a fortnight-eunuch. But one who is born without a (male) faculty at conception, this is an impotent eunuch. Among these, for the sprinkled eunuch and the jealous eunuch, ordination is not forbidden, for the other three, it is forbidden. Even among these, for the fortnight-eunuch, in whichever fortnight he is a eunuch, in that very fortnight his ordination is forbidden, so it is said in the Kurundi. And for whom ordination is forbidden here, concerning him, this is said – "one not fully ordained should not be fully ordained, one fully ordained should be expelled." He too should be expelled by the destruction of his (monastic) mark. Henceforth, even when "should be expelled" is said, this is the method. The story of the eunuch is finished. The story of the thief-companion 110. "Son of an old family" means a son of a family that has attained eminence through ancient lineage. "One whose lineage is exhausted" means one whose kinsmen on the mother's and father's side are diminished, destroyed, or dead. "Unattained" means not reached. "To make prosperous" means to increase. "Iṅgha" is a particle used in the sense of urging. "Being questioned" means having been led aside, being asked about the shaving of hair and beard, the taking of the yellow robes, the going for refuge, the taking of a preceptor, the formal acts, and the rules of dependence. "He reported this matter" means he explained his own state of having gone forth from the beginning. "A thief-companion, bhikkhus" – here there are three thief-companions – one who steals the mark, one who steals the companionship, and one who steals both. Among these, one who, having gone forth by himself, goes to a monastery, does not count his bhikkhu-years, does not accept salutations from elders, does not refuse a seat, does not participate in Uposatha and Pavāraṇā ceremonies, etc., this one, because he has stolen only the mark, is called a "thief of the mark." But one who, having been ordained by bhikkhus, even though he is a novice, goes to another country, and falsely says, "I am ten years (ordained) or twenty years (ordained)," counts bhikkhu-years, accepts salutations from elders, refuses a seat, participates in Uposatha and Pavāraṇā ceremonies, etc., this one, because he has stolen only the companionship... Due to stealing the communion, he is called a communion-thief. Indeed, all distinctions of actions, such as counting the years of a monk, are to be understood as "communion" in this context. Even for one who, having renounced the training, behaves saying "No one knows me," the same rule applies. But one who, having himself gone forth, goes to a monastery and counts the years of monks, accepts salutations according to seniority, prevents others from seats, and appears in Uposatha and Pavāraṇā ceremonies, this one, due to stealing both the insignia and the communion, is called a double-thief. This threefold communion-thief, if not fully ordained, should not be fully ordained. If fully ordained, he should be expelled. Even if he requests to go forth again, he should not be allowed to go forth. And here, for the sake of clarity, this miscellaneous point should be known: "By fear of king, famine, wilderness, disease, or enemies; Or for the sake of obtaining robes, whoever here takes up the insignia. If he does not partake in the communion, as long as his mind is pure; He is not called a communion-thief, not yet." Here is the detailed explanation: Here, a king is angry with someone. He, thinking "Thus will I be safe," himself takes up the insignia and flees. Seeing him, they report to the king. The king, thinking "If he has gone forth, nothing can be done to him," restrains his anger towards him. He, thinking "My fear of the king has subsided," without even approaching the assembly of monks, takes up lay attire and comes back. He should be allowed to go forth. Or else, if, having gained a sense of urgency, thinking "I have gained my life thanks to the Dispensation, come now, I will go forth," he comes with that same insignia and does not observe the duties of a newcomer. Whether asked by the monks or not asked, having revealed himself as he truly is, he requests to go forth. He should be allowed to go forth after removing the insignia. But if he observes the duties, shows the disposition of one gone forth, and practices all the previously mentioned procedures such as counting years, this one should not be allowed to forth. Here, someone, unable to live during a famine, himself takes up the insignia and, eating all sectarian meals during the famine... having gone past the assembly of monks, without having entered it, having taken up the lay state, he came back. All is just as before. Another wishes to cross a great wilderness, and the caravan leader takes the renunciants. Thinking, "Thus the caravan leader will take me," he himself takes up the renunciant state, and with the caravan leader, crosses the wilderness, reaches a safe place, and without having entered the assembly of monks, having taken up the lay state, he came back. All is just as before. Another, when fear of illness arose, unable to survive, he himself took up the renunciant state, eating the food of all sects. When the fear of illness subsided, without having entered the assembly of monks, having taken up the lay state, he came back. All is just as before. Another had an enemy who was angry, who wandered about wishing to kill him. Thinking, "Thus will I be safe," he himself took up the renunciant state and fled. The enemy, searching, "Where is he?" hearing, "He has renounced and fled," thought, "If he has renounced, nothing can be done to him,"