English
Means it should be designated again. "Having received it again, It is permissible for seven days" This is said to show That what has been received again, Even with meat on that day, Is permissible. According to the saying: "Monks, I allow bhikkhus To consume what has been received By bhikkhunis in their presence, And bhikkhunis to consume what has been received By bhikkhus in their presence." "On the seventh day" This is said to show That without incurring the Nissaggiya offense, It is permissible to consume it again For seven days. Since what is Nissaggiya for a bhikkhuni Is permissible for a bhikkhu, And what is Nissaggiya for a bhikkhu Is permissible for a bhikkhuni, They say that even on the eighth day, If there is a change of gender, It is permissible to consume it Within seven days Without relinquishing it. "The one in the normal state protects it" Meaning, one whose gender has not changed Protects it from being relinquished. The intention being That due to its undivided nature, The reception is not relinquished. "Having taken it himself, He should put it down" Having received it, He should put it down himself. "There is an offense for one who consumes it" If there is a change of gender, Due to the relinquishment of the reception, There is an offense for one who consumes it After receiving it again. "By reverting to a lower state" Means "by a person who has incurred A pārājika offense Becoming a layperson." This is stated in all three commentaries, And it is well said. For indeed, the state of being a bhikkhu Is not destroyed For one who has not incurred a pārājika offense, Merely by taking on the lay-garb With the thought "I will wander" Without renouncing the training. And one who has incurred a pārājika offense, Remaining in the bhikkhu-garb, As long as he does not acknowledge it, Still has the state of being a bhikkhu; He does not go into the category Of an unordained person. Thus, even if he partakes In communal life... he is not a co-dweller, he does not incur an offense of co-sleeping, etc., and he incurs a pācittiya for abusive speech. Therefore, it is said, “If a person, having incurred a certain pācājika offense, is impure, and a person of pure view, having made him give an opportunity, speaks with the intention of abusing him, there is an offense of abusive speech” (Pārā. 389), a pācittiya for abusive speech is stated. If there were no bhikkhu-state, it would be a dukkaṭa; if there were a bhikkhu-state, it would be improper to abandon the acceptance of what has been accepted. Therefore, the complete absence of the bhikkhu-state, by incurring a pācājika and adopting the lay-garb, thus becoming a layman, is here intended by “reversion to a lower state,” not merely the adoption of lay-garb by one who is in the normal state. Therefore, in some places, because it is of the same category as the renunciation of training, they do not take reversion to a lower state separately. When the abandonment of acceptance by the renunciation of training is stated, there is nothing to be said about the complete absence of the bhikkhu-state for one who has incurred a pācājika and become a layman. Thus, by Acariya Buddhadatta in his Vinayavinicchaya: “By the non-acceptance of cutting off, by indifference, by relinquishment, and by the abandonment of training, by death, and by change of garb; by giving to him and to another who is not a bhikkhu, all acceptance comes to destruction.” Only this much is stated. Likewise, by Thera Dhammasiri: “By training, death, and garb, by indifferent relinquishment; by cutting off, by non-upasampanna, by giving, acceptance ceases.” It is stated. If acceptance were to be abandoned even by merely adopting lay-garb by one in the normal state, those teachers would also state that separately, but it is not stated. From this, it is understood that “the mere adoption of lay-garb by one in the normal state is not intended here by ‘reversion to a lower state’.” However, for a bhikkhunī, due to the absence of renunciation of training, acceptance is abandoned even by merely adopting lay-garb. By indifferent relinquishment means without giving it to another, due to its uselessness, thinking, “There is no use for this, I will not use it now,” regarding the objects, or "I will take it again and use it" or by giving it up without expectation of taking it back. "By seizing it" means by taking it by force from thieves and others. "Here" means in the monks' monastery. "Uparopaka" means trees and shrubs planted by him. "In the thirteen appointments" means in the thirteen appointments known as: the food distributor, the lodging assigner, the storekeeper, the robe receiver, the robe divider, the gruel divider, the fruit divider, the snack divider, the dispenser of trifles, the receiver of outer robes, the receiver of bowls, the sender of monastery attendants, and the sender of novices. Indeed, the assignment of lodgings for both the former and the latter is relaxed. But when the assignment of lodgings for the former is relaxed, it is possible for the latter to go elsewhere. Having shown separately the relaxation of the former's lodging assignment, when the latter's lodging assignment is relaxed, it is not possible to go elsewhere. Showing the support to be given by the monks there, he said, "If the latter lodging is taken," and so on. "Only a fortnight's penance should be given" because only the performance of penance is allowed for nuns even for a concealed offense. "Again, only a fortnight's penance should be given" because no penance was performed during the time as a monk. "The nuns should perform the rehabilitation ceremony" is said because, due to the performance of penance during the time as a monk, it is counted as having performed penance even during the time as a nun. "If, due to the result of unwholesome karma... ...six nights' penance should be given" is said because of the authority of gender change for one performing penance. But if, for one residing for a common offense concealed during the time as a monk, or for one who has not undertaken the probation, the gender changes, they say that for such a person, after performing the fortnight's penance during the time as a nun, and when the result of unwholesome karma is exhausted, if the gender changes again, probation should be given, and for one who has completed the probation, six nights' penance should be given. "Offense of acting as a go-between" is said to show a common offense. "There is no giving of probation" because during the time as a monk, it was not concealed... due to being destroyed. But if a common offense, even if declared as a bhikkhunī, was not declared as a bhikkhu, they say it remains concealed. When the bhikkhus have not given the penance, due to the penance not being performed, when there is a change of gender, the connection is that even for one who remains in the state of a bhikkhunī, those (offenses) are well-pacified. "Which offenses were previously pacified" means which uncommon offenses were previously pacified in the state of a bhikkhu. They say, "For one who has incurred a pārājika, when there is a change of gender, due to the oneness of the continuum, he does not receive ordination again. Similarly, a bhikkhunī who has gone astray, when there is a change of gender, does not receive ordination again." 71. "Because of the context 'in what is not taken up,' it is said that the same method applies to what is taken up" —this is stated in the Cūḷagaṇṭhipada and Majjhimagaṇṭhipada, but it is ill-said. For indeed, a dukkaṭa is not seen for one who approaches a sign that is taken up. Thus, for one who approaches outside without entering a sign that is taken up, a thullaccaya is stated, because it is said, "Monks, one should not touch the sexual organ with a lustful mind. Whoever touches it incurs a thullaccaya" (Mahāvagga 252). And whatever needs to be said here has already been discussed in the commentary. It is only a dukkaṭa because there is no desire for release. "Just so" indicates the meaning "whether it is released or not." "Not a sphere" is said because acceptance is difficult in such a situation. "Having taken the woman's word" means having taken the word spoken, such as "I will exert myself, you do not exert yourself." "You do not exert yourself" is said with the understanding that the offense occurs only through mutual exertion. 73. Explaining the meaning of "vaṭṭakata," he says "vivaṭa" (open). They say, "If, out of fear of pārājika, one makes it as if in the air and performs acts like insertion, and suddenly the sexual organ touches the palate or the side, it is only a dukkaṭa due to the absence of sexual desire." This should be taken after examination. "Suphusitā" means well-covered. "There is no space inside the mouth" means the teeth are well... Because of its inherent nature, there is no opportunity to insert it inwards. But if the lip-flesh is torn, and it approaches the teeth, it is a grave offense, like the mouth-shape of a frog or a moth, a grave offense due to the brevity of the wound. Or, it is a grave offense here because it is similar to the definition: "If, out of lust for sex, he does not insert it into the woman, but touches the sign with the sign, it is a grave offense." The same applies to teeth and tongue that have protruded outwards. "If he intends and approaches, but it does not enter, it is an offense of grave offense," according to this saying, it is a grave offense if it does not enter. "Nijjhāmataṇhikādi" (burnt-with-thirst, etc.): by the word "etc.," the hungry and thirsty petas, etc., should be understood as included. "It is not possible to cling": because the bodies of the nijjhāmataṇhikā are constantly ablaze with flames rising from their hair-pores, and because the bodies of the hungry and thirsty, etc., are extremely repulsive, deformed, hideous, skeletal, and constantly afflicted, it is not possible even to touch them.