English
concerning the group of six bhikkhus and the incident of admonition. It is a special enactment, not by order. If one admonishes bhikkhunis who are merely ordained, or by some other rule, there is a dukkaṭa offense. Even for one who is appointed, if that act of appointment is an unlawful act, and if he perceives it as an unlawful act, and admonishes the community of bhikkhunis when it is divided, there is a tikapācittiya offense. Similarly, for one who is in doubt, and for one who perceives it as a lawful act, there are nine pācittiya offenses. And if it is by the community of bhikkhunis when it is united, there are eighteen [offenses] due to the unlawful act. But if it is a lawful act, leaving aside the final phrase, "perceiving a lawful act as a lawful act, he admonishes a united community of bhikkhunis perceiving it as united," by the same method, there are seventeen dukkaṭa offenses. And if it is said, "We are united, venerable sirs," and he speaks of another rule, and if it is said, "We are divided, venerable sirs," and he speaks of the eight grave rules, Of him, who, not giving the instruction, preaches another Dhamma, there is a dukkata. But of him, who, in a Dhamma-act, perceiving it as a Dhamma-act, advises the harmonious community of bhikkhunis, perceiving it as harmonious, gives the recitation of the weighty rules, gives the questioning, when told, "Remove it, venerable one," removes it, when asked a question, explains it, preaches for the benefit of another while bhikkhunis are listening, or preaches to a female trainee or a female novice, of him, and of the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Not being authorized, the bhikkhuni being fully ordained, and preaching the eight weighty rules by way of instruction— these are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the word-by-word Dhamma. The explanation of the Instruction Training Rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the After Sunset Training Rule In the second, "should instruct" means of one who instructs with the eight weighty rules or with another Dhamma, even if authorized, there is a pacittiya. It was laid down in Savatthi concerning the Venerable Culla Panthaka, regarding the incident of instructing after sunset; it is a non-general enactment, not by command, a triple pacittiya. When the sun has set, of one who perceives it as set, or is in doubt, and instructs one who is ordained on one side, there is a dukkata. As in the previous training rule, there is no offense by way of recitation and so forth. The sun having set, being fully ordained, and instructing— these are the three factors here. The origin and so forth are similar to the word-by-word Dhamma. The explanation of the After Sunset Training Rule is finished. 3. Explanation of the Bhikkhuni Dwelling Training Rule In the third, "bhikkhuni dwelling" means even a place where a bhikkhuni stays for one night. "Should instruct" means here there is a pacittiya only for one who instructs with the weighty rules. But if he is unauthorized, there are two pacittiyas. But if he instructs even after the sun has set, there are three. But for one who is authorized, even if he instructs at night, there are only two. For a bhikkhu, being authorized, there is no pacittiya based on instructing the weighty rules. "Sick" means unable to go for instruction or for communal living. Concerning the group of six bhikkhus in Sakka, regarding the bhikkhus Regarding the basis for the rule of going to the bhikkhunī's residence to admonish, "except at the proper time" is the supplementary rule here, a non-general rule, not an injunction, a *tikapācittiya* offence, for one who admonishes an unordained woman, perceiving her as ordained, or being in doubt, or one who admonishes one ordained woman with one thing, and another with a different teaching, incurs a *dukkata*. At the proper time, to an unordained woman, and by way of instruction, etc., as in the previous training rule, there is no offence. Going to the residence, being fully ordained, absence of the proper time, and admonishing with grave doctrines— these are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the first *kaṭhina* rule. But this is an action. The explanation of the training rule concerning the bhikkhunī's residence is finished. 4. Explanation of the training rule concerning material gain In the fourth, "for the sake of material gain" means for the sake of robes or other such things. "Bhikkhus" here refers to bhikkhus who have been appointed. "Pācittiya" means for one who speaks thus, desiring to disparage such bhikkhus, there is a *pācittiya* offence. In Sāvatthī, concerning the group of six bhikkhus, the rule was laid down on the occasion of saying, "They admonish for the sake of material gain." It is a non-general rule, not an injunction. In a proper act, it is a *tikapācittiya*. In an improper act, it is a *tikadukkaṭa*. For one who speaks thus concerning an unappointed ordained person, or an unordained person, whether appointed or unappointed, it is a *dukkata* offence. Here, a bhikkhu who has received an appointment at the proper time, but remains in the state of a novice, is called an appointed unordained person. However, for one who speaks thus concerning someone who naturally admonishes for the sake of robes, etc., and for the insane, etc., there is no offence. Being ordained, having received appointment according to the Dhamma, not having material gain as an inner motive, and speaking thus with a desire to disparage— these are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the rule of taking what is not given. But this is only a painful feeling. The explanation of the training rule concerning material gain is finished. 5. Explanation of the training rule concerning giving robes In the fifth, in Sāvatthī, concerning a certain bhikkhu, the rule was laid down on the occasion of giving robes. The rest of the narrative here is in the training rule concerning receiving robes. It is to be understood in the manner stated. There, a bhikkhu is the recipient; here, a bhikkhunī. This is the distinction; the rest is the same. The explanation of the rule on giving robes is finished. 6. The Explanation of the Rule on Sewing Robes In the sixth, 'robe' means that which is suitable for an undergarment or an upper garment. Here, regarding 'should sew or should cause to be sewn,' for one who sews oneself, when inserting and withdrawing the needle repeatedly, there is an offense of pācittiyaṃ. Even if one pierces a hundred times and withdraws once, there is only one pācittiyaṃ. However, if, being told 'Sew!', one completes all the needlework, the one who commanded incurs only one pācittiyaṃ. But if, being told "Whatever is to be done with this robe, all that is your responsibility," one completes it, for that one, at each stage of the work, there is a pācittiyaṃ. For the one who commanded, even with a single utterance, there are many (offenses). And if there are repeated commands, there is nothing to say. It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the Elder Udāyi, regarding the matter of sewing robes. It is a non-general precept, with a command, a triple pācittiyaṃ. For one who sews for a relative (bhikkhunī) with the perception of a non-relative, or with doubt, or for one who sews for a bhikkhunī ordained on one side, there is an offense of dukkaṭa. For one who sews other requisites like a bag, for a relative (bhikkhunī), or for a sikkhamānā or sāmaṇerī, even if sewing a robe, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Belonging to a non-relative bhikkhunī, suitable for an undergarment or upper garment, and sewing or causing to be sewn of the described type— these are the three factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to those of the messenger rule. The explanation of the rule on sewing robes is finished. 7. The Explanation of the Rule on Arranging In the seventh, 'having arranged' means having made an agreement at the time of departure. 'A single journey-path' means a path reckoned as a journey, or a journey-path together. 'To be gone with a caravan' means to be gone together with a caravan. The rest of the word meanings are clear. This is the determination here: For one who arranges in an unsuitable place, there is first an offense of dukkaṭa due to the arrangement. There, excluding the bhikkhunī's residence, the inner monastery, the assembly hall and the resting place of heretics, and other improper grounds. The meaning is, for one who makes an arrangement standing there. But having made an arrangement, without making the appointed time ("today or tomorrow") a non-appointment, but having made a non-appointment concerning the door or a non-appointment concerning the path, for one going with a bhikkhuni, as long as one does not enter the boundary established by people for even a nearby village, saying "this is its precinct," there is no offense. But for one entering it, on the first step, a dukkaṭa; on the second step, a pācittiya. Thus, pācittiyas are counted by entering the village boundary. But if there is no village beyond half a yojana, a pācittiya is counted by half a yojana. It was laid down in Savatthi concerning the group of six bhikkhus, regarding the matter of traveling on a single road. "Except at the proper time" is a supplementary rule here, a special rule, not by command, a tikapācittiya. For one who perceives an arrangement where there is none, or is in doubt, and for one who makes an arrangement only by himself, when the bhikkhuni does not arrange, there is a dukkaṭa. For one going even having made an arrangement at the proper time, for one not having made an arrangement himself, or by a non-appointment, for one going in emergencies, and for the insane and so on, there is no offense. The five factors here are: both having made an arrangement and traveling on the path, no non-appointment, absence of proper time, no emergency,