English
It was laid down at Sāvatthī concerning the group of six monks regarding the matter of overturning. It is a general enactment, without instruction. For one who is in doubt about a Dhamma-action, or for one who perceives a non-Dhamma-action as a Dhamma-action, or for one who is in doubt, it is a dukkaṭa. For one who perceives both as a non-Dhamma-action, for one who knows "the action was done by non-Dhamma, or by a faction, or for one unworthy of action," and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. The state of being settled according to Dhamma, the knowing, and the overturning— these are the three factors here. i. The origins and so forth are similar to taking what is not given, but this is a painful feeling. The commentary on the rule concerning reviling is finished. 4. Commentary on the Rule Concerning a Grave Offence In the fourth, "grave offence" refers to a Saṅghādisesa offence. It is a Pācittiya for one who, knowing it by any means, conceals it. Even if one resolves, "I will not tell any bhikkhu now," and then later tells, it is a Pācittiya; one will incur it by telling. If, however, one resolves thus and tells another for the purpose of concealing, and that other tells another, then by this means even a hundred monastics will incur it, as long as the chain is not broken. How is the chain broken? If one who has incurred it tells one person, and that person tells another, and that person turns back and tells the very one who told him, then when the third person tells the second, the chain is broken. It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning a certain bhikkhu who concealed a grave offence; it is a special rule, not by command. For a grave offence, it is a Pācittiya for the initial act, and a Dukkata for the other two. For a non-grave offence, it is a Dukkata for the three. For an unordained person, whether the transgression is grave or not grave, it is only a Dukkata. There is no offence for one who does not tell, thinking, "There will be quarrels and so forth in the Saṅgha," or "This one is harsh and rough, and will cause danger to life or danger to the holy life," or for one who does not see a suitable bhikkhu, or for one who does not wish to conceal, or for one who does not tell, thinking, "It will become known by his own action," and for the insane and so forth. Here, there are two factors: an ordained person's knowing of a grave offence, and the resolve, "I will not tell out of a desire to conceal." The origins and so forth are similar to the rules concerning admonition. The commentary on the rule concerning a grave offence is finished. 5. Commentary on the Rule Concerning One Under Twenty Years Old In the fifth, "under twenty years old" means one who has not completed twenty years from the time of conception. "Should ordain" means an Upajjhāya. having become a junior monk, he ordains. And that person, whether known or unknown to be unordained, having been ordained, remains unordained. But if he, after ten years, ordains another, and the group is complete apart from him, he is well-ordained. And as long as he does not know, there is no obstacle for him to heaven nor to liberation. But having known, he must be re-ordained. And those monks are blameworthy, except for the preceptor, the rest are blameworthy, all incur a dukkaṭa. This is a pācittiya in that case: the preceptor who ordains, in that very person, this pācittiya should be understood. Therefore, whoever, thinking "I will ordain thus," seeks a group, or a teacher, or a bowl, or robes, or consecrates a boundary, or defines a water-boundary, in all these acts, with the ñatti, and with the two kammavācās, he incurs dukkaṭas, and at the end of the kammavācā, he incurs a pācittiya. In Rājagaha, concerning many monks, it was laid down in the matter of ordaining one under twenty years old. It is a special precept, not subject to command. For one in doubt about being under twenty, for one who thinks he is under twenty when he is fully twenty, and for one in doubt, there is a dukkaṭa. In both cases, for one who thinks he is fully twenty, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Being under twenty years old, thinking one is under twenty, and ordaining: these are the three factors here. Its origin and so forth are similar to taking what is not given. But this is an offense of precept, with three thoughts, with three feelings. The commentary on the training rule concerning one under twenty years old is finished. 6. Commentary on the Training Rule concerning a Robber Troop In the sixth, those who, having deceived the king or wishing to avoid customs duty, are thieves, having committed deeds or not committed deeds, are on the road, among them, for one who, knowing it to be a robber troop, and having conspired with them, goes with them, the decision on the offense in conspiracy and in going should be understood in the manner stated in the section on advice. In Sāvatthī, concerning a certain monk, a robber It was laid down concerning the case of arranging with a man and proceeding on a single path. A general precept, not an order. For one who, when people do not arrange, arranges by himself and goes, for one who is doubtful about a caravan of thieves, for one who perceives a non-thieves' caravan as a thieves' caravan, and for one who is doubtful, there is a dukkaṭa. For one who perceives it as a non-thieves' caravan, or without arranging, or due to a misunderstanding of the time, or in dangers, for one who goes, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offense. Being a thieves' caravan, knowing, arranging, and going without misunderstanding of time— these are the four factors here. Originating from a thieves' caravan, an action, release by perception, with intention, an offense against the precept, a bodily action, a verbal action, with three thoughts, with three feelings. The explanation of the training rule concerning a thieves' caravan is finished. 7. Explanation of the training rule concerning arrangement. The seventh was laid down in Savatthi, concerning a certain bhikkhu, regarding the case of proceeding on a single path with a woman. The rest here should be understood in the same way as stated in the training rule concerning arrangement with a bhikkhuni. The explanation of the training rule concerning arrangement is finished. 8. Explanation of the training rule concerning Ariṭṭha. In the eighth, those that cause an obstruction to heaven and liberation are called "obstructive." They are fivefold by way of kamma, defilement, result, blame, and transgression of a precept. Among these, seeing no fault in sexual transgression, thinking that contact with a woman is permissible, like the contact of soft rugs and so forth, it was said, referring to the obstructive factors of precept transgression: "These obstructive things that were spoken of by the Blessed One, when one practices them, are not sufficient for obstruction." "In many ways" means by many reasons such as "sensual pleasures are like a skeleton" and so forth. That bhikkhu, by the bhikkhus— that is, by those who see or hear— should be told three times thus: "Venerable sir, do not speak thus... (etc.)... and indeed, when you practice them, they are sufficient for obstruction." When thus spoken to, for one who does not renounce it, there is a dukkaṭa. Having heard, for one who does not speak Even in bringing, a dukkaṭa. Again, having dragged him into the midst of the Saṅgha, he should be spoken to in the same way. Even there, if he does not relinquish it, and if others do not speak, it is a dukkaṭa. Even if he does not relinquish it in this way, he should again be admonished up to the third time with a ñatti-catuttha kamma. Then, if he does not relinquish it, again with the ñatti and two kammavācās, it is a dukkaṭa. At the conclusion of the kammavācā, it is a pācittiya. It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Ariṭṭha, regarding the matter of not relinquishing a wicked view. It is a general rule, without an injunction, a tikapācittiya, and in an unlawful act, a tikadukkaṭa. There is no offense for one who is not admonished, for one who relinquishes, and for one who is insane, etc. Lawfulness of the act, admonition, and non-relinquishment— these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of admonition. The explanation of the Ariṭṭha training rule is concluded. 9. Explanation of the Training Rule on Associating with an Expelled Monk In the ninth (rule), "one who speaks thus" means one who says "I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One thus," etc. "One for whom the proper course has not been done" means: "proper course" refers to the reinstatement performed after seeing the conforming conduct of one who has been expelled by Dhamma and Vinaya for not seeing an offense, or not making amends, or not relinquishing a wicked view. That proper course, which is called reinstatement, for whom it has not been done, that one is called "one for whom the proper course has not been done." This is the meaning, "with such a one." "Should associate" means should engage in material association or Dhamma association. "Should dwell together" means should perform Saṅgha acts such as Uposatha. "Or should lie down together" means should lie down under the same covering, even if in different precincts. There, in material consumption, by one act, whether giving to many or receiving from many, it is one pācittiya. If there is interruption, it is a pācittiya for each act. In Dhamma association, for one who recites or causes to recite, by words, etc., according to the method stated in "by word Dhamma." In dwelling together, according to the completion of the act. In lying down together, when one lies down, the offense is to be understood according to the act of the other lying down. In Sāvatthī, the group of six which was laid down concerning the matter of the monk Ariṭṭha who was associated with and ate with others, it is a general precept,