English
They say, "For one who ordains a thief without asking, in the manner stated, there is a dukkaṭa." Or it should be understood that "three thoughts" is said either because even noble ones who do not know the rule cause ordination, or because at the moment of the offense at the end of the kammavācā, it is associated with karmic results that are indeterminate. The rest here is clear. Being a thief, the perception of being a thief, and causing ordination for a reason other than an authorized one - these are the three factors here. The explanation of the second Sanghādisesa training rule is finished. 3. The explanation of the third Sanghādisesa training rule. 692. In the third, "by one who transgresses the boundary" means by one who transgresses the boundary of another village from one's own village. For by the saying, "one should go to another village," the offense occurs only by transgressing the boundary of another village, not one's own village. For another village is "another village." Regarding "the precinct of an un-bounded village," here by the word "precinct," the place worthy of a boundary, reckoned as the first throw of a clod from the house precinct, is taken, not the precinct reckoned as the second throw of a clod from there, thus it says "bound..." beyond the boundary.” Therefore, in the Pāli it is said, “when she goes beyond the vicinity.” Otherwise, just as in the training rule about entering a village at the wrong time, it is said, “for one who goes beyond the boundary of a bounded village, for one who enters the vicinity of an unbounded village” (Pac. 513), so here too it would say, “when she goes beyond the boundary of a bounded village, when she enters the vicinity of an unbounded village.” To explain the briefly stated meaning by dividing it, he says, “And here, moreover,” and so on. By “because the monastery is common to four villages,” he states the reason for “it is permissible to go to one village from the monastery.” For indeed, because the monastery is common to four villages, it is permissible to go to any one of the four villages. “Where” means in which river. From the saying, “when she lifts the first foot, there is an offense of grave offense; when she lifts the second foot, there is an offense of Sanghādisesa,” it is an offense only when she descends into the river and crosses on foot. Therefore, he says, “she goes by a bridge, there is no offense,” and so on. “When she steps only on the far bank, there is no offense” means when she goes by means of a vehicle, boat, or some other conveyance without descending into the river and steps only on the far bank, there is no offense. “She wanders on both banks, it is permissible.” This should be understood as stated merely to show the result of the decision to be stated later, even if there is no crossing of the river. “She comes only to the near bank, there is an offense” is said because she descended with the intention of going to the far bank. “That very bank” means that very near bank. “No offense” means no offense because there is no intention of going to the far bank. “In such a forest” means in a forest whose characteristic is stated thus: “beyond the boundary post, all of this is forest” (Vibh. 529). How is it known that such a forest is meant? He says, “Therefore,” and so on. For by this commentary statement, it is understood that even in such a case, when the visual vicinity near a village is abandoned, there is an offense even if the auditory vicinity remains. “Those who are lost make a loud noise,” he says, “those who are lost like a sound." "Saddāyantiyā" means making a sound. "Purimāyo" means going ahead. "Aññaṃ maggaṃ gaṇhāti" means taking another path, due to being lost, not to abandon. Therefore, there is no offense for either. The rest here is clear. No interruption, one state; going to another village, etc., becoming one of these; absence of danger—these are the three factors here. The explanation of the third Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 4. Explanation of the Fourth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 694. In the fourth, "kārakagaṇassa" means the group of doers of the act of suspension. The rule of forty-three kinds will become clear in the Khandhaka. "Netthāravatte" means in the rule that is a cause for removal. The rest is clear. Suspension by a righteous act, and removal for a reason other than an authorized one—these are the two factors here. The explanation of the fourth Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 5. Explanation of the Fifth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 701. In the fifth, "etaṃ na vuttaṃ" means this is not stated: "the nun's being lustful should be seen." "Taṃ" means that not stating it as a regulation. "Pāḷiyā sameti" means it accords with the Pāḷi stated without distinction, "when both are lustful," and with this Pāḷi: "knowing she is not lustful, she receives." If the individual's lustfulness is not a criterion, then why this statement, "knowing she is not lustful"? It should only be said, "there is no offense if both are not lustful, she receives if she is not lustful." And this is the meaning of the no-offense clause: "if both are not lustful, knowing she is not lustful, she receives." If both are not lustful, there is no offense in any way. If a nun, being not lustful, receives from the hand of one who is lustful, perceiving him as "not lustful," even then there is no offense. If she herself is not lustful, but knows another, whether not lustful or lustful, as "lustful," it is merely a dukkaṭa. This was stated in the preceding training rule: "Why, venerable one, do you not receive? I am lustful." "O lady!" "But you, O lady, are lustful?" "I, O lady, am not lustful." The rest here is clear. Something to be eaten other than water and tooth-sticks, lustfulness on both sides, taking it with one's own hand, and eating it— these are the four factors here. The explanation of the Fifth Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 6. Explanation of the Sixth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 705. In the sixth, this is the meaning of the summary verse. "Does not give, does not receive" (Pari. Attha. 481): the instigator does not give, nor does the instigated one receive from her hand. "There is no receiving by that" means: for that very reason, there is no receiving by the instigated one from the instigator's hand. "Incurs a serious offense" means: even so, by instigating the taking of alms food from the hand of a lustful person, she incurs a Saṅghādisesa offense. "And that is for the sake of consumption" means: and indeed, incurring that offense, she incurs it for the sake of that instigated one's consumption. For, at the end of her meal, the instigator incurs a Saṅghādisesa. The rest here is clear. A human male, instigation to take and eat solid food or soft food for a reason other than what is permitted, and the end of the other's meal after taking it by that word— these are the three factors here. The explanation of the Sixth Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 7. Explanation of the Seventh Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 709. In the seventh, "kinnumāva samaṇiyo" means: "Are these very nuns?" "Tāsāhaṃ" means: "I am theirs." The rest is clear. The explanation of the Seventh Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 715. The eighth is clear in meaning. 9. Explanation of the Ninth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 721. In the ninth, "vajjappaṭicchādikā" means: a concealer of minor and lesser offenses. And here, at the time of the admonition procedure, two or three should be admonished together. The explanation of the Ninth Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 727. The tenth is clear in meaning. The explanation of the Saṅghādisesa in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga is finished. The Saṅghādisesa section is finished. 3. Nissaggi The Chapter on the Yak (Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga Commentary) 733. In the first Nissaggiya, it is quite clear. 740. In the second, “I give to the venerable one,” thus received, it is given up and received. Therefore, in the Mātika Commentary, it is said, “Even after receiving what was given up, it should be presented as it was received.” “It should be presented as it was received” means that it should be presented as it was given by the donor, it should be placed in the category of out-of-season robes. Here, the robe received through division becomes Nissaggiya, and even after performing the Vinaya act, she does not obtain it for herself. The rest here is clear. Being an out-of-season robe, perceiving it as such, intending it as a seasonable robe, and subtly causing it to be divided, and receiving it— these are the four factors here. 743. In the third, “metan” means “this is mine.” Because it was taken with the perception of ownership, a Pācittiya and a Dukkaṭa are stated. Otherwise, it should be made to be worth the price of the goods. Being an Upasampannā, the exchanged robe not being subject to vikappana, and seizing it or causing it to be seized with the perception of ownership— these are the three factors here. 748-752. In the fourth, “having given the brought ghee” means having given it to oneself. “To cook a pair” means to cook ghee and oil together. The desire to take subtly, causing another to request, and receiving— these are the three factors here. 753. In the fifth, “sā” means Thullanandā. “Ayaṃ” means this sikkhamānā. “Cetāpetvā” means having made known, this is the meaning stated here. But in the Mātika Commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Aññacetāpanasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), it is said, “‘Aññaṃ cetāpetvā’ means having caused another to exchange, saying, ‘Bring this thing with my suitable goods.’” Therefore, the meaning of “cetāpetvā” should also be understood as “having caused to exchange.” “Aññaṃ cetāpeyya” means thinking, “If I give this, she will bring something else,” she might cause another to bring something else, saying, “I have no use for this, bring me this thing.” 758. In the sixth, “dhammakiccaṃ” means a meritorious act. “Pāvārikassa” means to a cloth merchant.