English
is unshakeable by virtue of the object's suitability. How is it unshakeable by virtue of the motion's suitability? Non-mentioning of the object, the Saṅgha, the person, and the motion, and placing the motion afterwards— these are the five motion-faults. Therein, not mentioning the name of the ordination-seeker as "this one, so-and-so" is called non-mentioning of the object. In "May the Saṅgha, venerable sirs, hear me," saying "May it hear me, venerable sirs" and not saying "Saṅgha" is called non-mentioning of the Saṅgha. Not mentioning the preceptor as "the ordination-seeker of so-and-so" is called non-mentioning of the person. Completely, the non-recitation of the motion Is called a flaw in the motion. Having finished the first formal act, Saying 'This is the motion,' And proclaiming 'It is agreeable to the Sangha'— Such a proclamation of the motion After its establishment Is called a subsequent establishment of the motion. Thus, a motion Complete and free from these flaws Becomes unshakeable By virtue of its completeness. Also, for unshakeability by way of proclamation, Flaws concerning the object, the Sangha, and the person, Omission in the proclamation, And proclamation at the wrong time— These are the five flaws of proclamation. Among these, The flaws concerning the object and so forth Are just like those stated for the motion. But in the three proclamations, Any flaw concerning these Is indeed a flaw. But completely, Without reciting the formal act, Just proclaiming the motion four times, Or else, within the formal act, Non-recitation or mis-recitation Of a letter or a word— This is called an omission in the proclamation. At an unsuitable time for proclamation, Having not established the motion first, Making the proclamation— This is called proclamation at the wrong time. Thus, a proclamation Complete and free from these flaws Becomes unshakeable By virtue of its completeness. But an act done in a boundary That has overcome the characteristics Of a flawed boundary stated previously Becomes unshakeable By virtue of the completeness of the boundary. The non-arrival of bhikkhus As many as are qualified for the act, The non-bringing of consent From those worthy of consent, And the rejection of those present— These are the three flaws of the assembly. An act done by an assembly Free from these, Becomes unshakeable By virtue of its completeness. But by being worthy of the reason, By being worthy of the Teacher's dispensation, One is called worthy of the position. Thus, whoever is ordained By this unshakeable, Position-worthy, Four-part motion formal act of ordination, This one is here intended as a "bhikkhu". But among those who have transgressed the rules, Others are also included. "One who has attained the training and livelihood of bhikkhus" means: That training for bhikkhus Which is called higher morality, And that, where they live together, Are of one livelihood, of like conduct— That which is laid down by the Blessed One As the training rules... the training and the livelihood, having attained them by way of training, means, he has attained the training and livelihood of bhikkhus. “Attained” means, having fulfilled the training and not transgressed the livelihood, he has entered into both of them. “Without rejecting the training, without revealing weakness” means, without rejecting the training he had attained, and without revealing weakness in the livelihood he had attained. Here, the rejection of training should be understood by way of mind, field, time, application, person, and knowing, and non-rejection by their absence. How? Indeed, the rejection of training occurs with the mind desiring to fall away from the state of having received ordination, not when speaking in jest or in a roar. Thus, rejection of training occurs by way of mind, not by its absence. Similarly, “I reject the Buddha, I reject the Dhamma, I reject the Saṅgha, I reject the training, the Vinaya, the Pātimokkha, the recitation, the preceptor, the teacher, the co-resident, the pupil, one with the same preceptor, one with the same teacher, a fellow celibate”— thus, of these fourteen terms like Buddha and so on, when one speaks any of them with the intention of speaking any of those specific words; and “Hold me as a layperson, a lay follower, a monastery attendant, a novice, a sectarian, a sectarian’s disciple, not a recluse, hold me as not a Sakyan son”— thus, of these eight terms like layperson and so on— rejection of training occurs when one says any of these twenty-two field terms with specific words, not when rejecting by naming a tree or some other thing. Thus, rejection occurs by way of field, not by its absence. Here, the present tense words “I reject” and “hold me” and the words “enough for me” and so on, spoken in the manner of a verb without specifying time, such as “enough for me with the Buddha, what is the Buddha to me, I have no need of the Buddha, I am well freed from the Buddha,” when combined with the previous fourteen terms, these “enough for me” and so on. There are four words, and by means of their synonyms, there is the renunciation, not for one who says "You renounce," or "I will renounce," or "You hold me," or "You will hold me," or "Oh, that I might renounce," and other such words of past and future conjecture. Thus, renunciation occurs by means of the present tense and the unaddressed tense, not by their absence. The application, however, is twofold: physical and verbal. There, renunciation occurs by means of a verbal application, by making a verbal distinction in any language, such as "I renounce the Buddha," and so on, not for one who performs a physical application by writing letters or showing hand gestures. Thus, renunciation occurs by means of a verbal application, not by its absence. The person, however, is twofold: he who renounces, and he to whom one renounces. There, he who renounces, if he is not one of those who are mad, disturbed in mind, or afflicted by pain. But he to whom one renounces, if he is of human birth, and not one of those who are mad, and so on, and is present, then the renunciation of training occurs. For it is not valid to announce it to one who is not present by a messenger or by a letter. Thus, renunciation occurs by means of the person as stated, not by their absence. The knowing is also twofold: determined and undetermined. There, if one says, determining to whom or to whom one announces, "I announce to this one, or to these," if they, as people normally do in the world, hearing the words, know at the time of attention, and thus immediately after his words, they know the state of renunciation of training by some means, such as "This one is discontented," or "He desires the lay state," then the training is indeed renounced. But if they think "What was said by this one?" and know later, or if others know, then the training is indeed not renounced. But for one who announces without determining, if any person of human birth knows the meaning of the words in the manner stated, the training is rejected. Thus, rejection occurs by way of knowing, not by its absence. But if one rejects it even by mistake, the training is not rejected by him. Thus, by reason of these aforementioned thoughts, etc., or by not rejecting the training in any way, and without revealing any weakness that is the essence of the rejection of training: Here, "should engage in sexual intercourse" means sexual intercourse, which is the act of two beings, similar in being overcome by lust. "Should engage in" means should engage in, should commit. "Even to the extent of" means to the very last limit. "Even with an animal" means with one who has gone to animal existence by way of rebirth; this is a supplementary rule here. "Becomes defeated" means is defeated, has fallen into defeat. "No communion" means that the normal bhikkhus live together in this (Saṅgha), and the three kinds of communion, such as the one involving common acts, are called communion. That is not with him, hence "no communion." Indeed, in Saṅgha acts, he is not even a quorum member. This is the explanation of the words. This is the determination here: There are three types of women: human, non-human, and animal. For them, there are nine passages, three each for the excretory passage, the urinary passage, and the mouth passage. Similarly for hermaphrodites. For men, there are six passages, two each for the excretory passage and the mouth passage. Similarly for eunuchs. Thus, there are thirty passages. Among these, if a bhikkhu, with the intention of sexual intercourse, inserts even a sesame seed's worth of his own organ, whether it is developed or undeveloped, into any passage of his own or another's, whether it is developed or undeveloped, or into the passage of another, even if dead, whether it is mostly decayed or not, in a moist place not touched by natural wind; or if, when it is being inserted by another, he approves of anything during the insertion, the being inserted, the staying, or the withdrawal— he is said to have incurred a pārājika offense. This is the specific determination here. For the general determination of all training rules, This is the matrix – Cause, person, object, and the method of enactment; Command, offense, non-offense, transgression, and the factors. Method of origination, difference by action, perception, and thought; And the classification of blameworthy deeds, and the method of triads and dyads. Seventeen kinds of characteristics, this stands as common; Knowing this, the wise one should apply it, here and there, as appropriate. Therein, "cause" refers to the seven kinds of places of enactment, namely, Vesālī, Rājagaha, Sāvatthī, Āḷavī, Kosambī, Sagga, and Bhagga. This indeed is the cause for all training rules. "Person" refers to whoever is the subject concerning whom a particular training rule is enacted. "Object" refers to the transgression of that particular person.