English
and by the decision of the majority. When it is settled by settlement in the presence, in the monastery where it arose, or elsewhere, or on the way for those going to settle it, or where it was handed over to the Sangha, there, if the Sangha cannot settle it, it is settled by individuals appointed by a committee (ubbāhikā) right there. And when it is thus settled, that presence of the Sangha, presence of the Dhamma, presence of the Vinaya, and presence of the individuals, this is called "settlement in the presence". And there, the presence of the acting Sangha, by way of the unity of the Sangha, is the presence of the Sangha. The reality of the matter to be settled is the presence of the Dhamma. That it is settled exactly as it should be settled is the presence of the Vinaya. And the presence of both parties, the one who disputes and the one with whom he disputes, the plaintiff and the defendant, is the presence of the individuals. In settling by a committee, the presence of the Sangha is diminished here. Thus, it is settled by settlement in the presence. But if it is not settled even so, then the bhikkhus appointed by the committee, saying, "We are unable to settle it," hand it over to the Sangha itself. Then the Sangha, having appointed a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities as a collector of votes, and he, by means of one of the three kinds of votes— secret, open, or whispering in the ear— having collected the votes, in the assembled assembly, by the majority of those who speak Dhamma, as those who speak Dhamma declare, thus the case, being settled, is settled by settlement in the presence and by the decision of the majority. Therein, settlement in the presence is as already stated. But that which is the performance of the act of the majority, this is called "the decision of the majority". Thus, a dispute-case is settled by two methods of settlement. Accusation-case The settlement of a dispute is by four methods of settlement: by settlement in the presence, by settlement by mindfulness, by settlement by non-delusion, and by the declaration of depravity. When a dispute is settled by settlement in the presence, if someone accuses or is accused, and having heard their words, if there is no offense, both are made to apologize. If there is an offense, it is settled by determining, "This is the offense here." The characteristic of settlement in the presence is as already stated. But when the Sangha gives the settlement by mindfulness to a monk who is an Arahant, who has been falsely accused of a transgression of morality, and who requests the settlement by mindfulness, then it is settled by settlement in the presence and by settlement by mindfulness. Once the settlement by mindfulness is given, no one's accusation against that person is valid again. When an insane monk, due to his insanity, has committed unmonkly misconduct, and being questioned by monks, "Does the venerable one remember such an offense?" even if he says, "Friends, this was done by me when I was insane, I do not remember it," and being questioned by monks again, he requests the settlement by non-delusion so as not to be questioned again, and the Sangha gives him the settlement by non-delusion by a ñatti-catuttha kamma. Then it is settled by settlement in the presence and by settlement by non-delusion. Once the settlement by non-delusion is given, no one's accusation against that person on that account is valid again. But when a person who is depraved, being accused of a pārājika or something close to a pārājika, and responding evasively, is considered by the Sangha to be so overwhelmed by evil that they think, "If this one is not uprooted, by behaving properly, he will obtain rehabilitation; if he is uprooted, his destruction will be by himself," and the Sangha performs the declaration of depravity by a ñatti-catuttha kamma, then it is settled by settlement in the presence and by the declaration of depravity. Thus, a dispute concerning accusations is settled by the four methods of settlement. A dispute concerning offenses is settled by three methods of settlement: by settlement in the presence and by settlement by acknowledgment. and by the covering over with grass. Its settlement by direct presence alone is not possible. But when one bhikkhu, or a bhikkhu in the midst of the Sangha or a group, confesses a light offense in the manner stated in the description of Nissaggiya, then the offense-case is settled by direct presence and by acknowledgment. There, in direct presence, the one who confesses and the one to whom it is confessed, their presence is the presence of individuals. The rest is just as stated. At the time of confession by an individual or a group, the presence of the Sangha is diminished. And here, the acknowledgment: "Venerable Sir, I have fallen into such-and-such an offense," and "Do you see it?" "Yes, I see it." By that, the act of saying "You should restrain yourself in the future" is called settlement by acknowledgment. In Sanghādisesa, the request for probation and so on is acknowledgment. The granting of probation and so on is called settlement by acknowledgment. But when bhikkhus, having formed two factions and caused a quarrel, having committed many unmonastic transgressions, and then having shame arise, seeing the fault in making each other liable for these offenses, thinking, "If we make each other liable for these offenses, that case might lead to harshness and violence," when they perform the covering over with grass, then the offense-case is settled by direct presence and by the covering over with grass. For there, as many as are within arm's reach, without making a declaration like "This is not acceptable to me," even if they are sleeping, all offenses, except for grave offenses and those connected with laypeople, are removed for everyone. Thus, the offense-case is settled by three settlements. The duty-case (Cūḷavagga 242) is settled by one settlement, by direct presence alone. Thus, these four cases are settled appropriately by these seven settlements. Therefore it was said: "For the calming and settling of cases that have arisen, direct presence should be given... and the covering over with grass." This is the method of determination here, detailed... The method is indeed found in the section on pacification, and its decision is stated in the Samantapāsādikā. There, I ask the venerable ones, "Are you pure?" "Are you pure regarding those seven methods of settling disputes?" "Is there nothing for you to pacify with these methods?" I ask. By this, purity from all offenses is asked. "The introduction, venerable ones, has been recited," and so on, are concluding words. There, "this much" means this much training rule. "Come in the Sutta" means come in the Sutta Pātimokkha. "Included in the Sutta" means contained therein. "It comes to be recited every half-month" means it comes to be recited every half-month on Uposatha days. "By those in concord" means by those in concord by way of bodily harmony. "By those rejoicing" means by those greatly rejoicing by way of mental harmony, being of one intention. "By those not disputing" means by those not disputing even by way of any of the eighteen grounds for dispute. "Should be trained in" means the higher training in morality should be accomplished by not transgressing that particular training rule. And whatever is not stated in between, all that is because it has been stated in previous training rules and because its meaning is clear. The explanation of the methods for settling disputes is finished. In the Pātimokkha Explanation, the Dispeller of Doubts, The explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha is finished. Homage to that Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One. Explanation of the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha The Section on Pārājika Offenses For the welfare of the bhikkhunīs, the Pātimokkha was proclaimed; And now, for that which the Master taught, the time for explanation has arrived. Common Pārājika 1…(and so on)…4. Explanation of the training rule concerning sexual intercourse. There, the meaning of "Listen to me," and so on, should be understood in the same way as stated in the explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha. Indeed, the only difference between that (Bhikkhu Pātimokkha) and this (Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha) is merely the expression "Venerable Sir" or "Venerable Lady," and the difference in gender. And since there is no such thing as a bhikkhunī renouncing the training, therefore for bhikkhunīs, [the phrase is] "having entered the training and livelihood, without renouncing the training, without declaring weakness..." not saying "if a nun, by desire, engages in sexual intercourse." There, "by desire" means with desire and liking connected with sexual passion. But if there is no desire, and she is forcibly violated, there is no offense. Therefore, if a fully ordained nun, among humans, non-humans, or animals, of a man, hermaphrodite, or eunuch, of any living or non-living thing, whether spread out or not spread out, whether known or mostly unknown, into her own private parts, the anus, urethra, or mouth, into any of these three, whether spread out or not spread out, in a wet place, not touched by natural wind, even a sesame seed's worth of space, she inserts it by desire, or if, being inserted by another, she approves of any part of the insertion, penetration, staying, or withdrawal, she is defeated. The rest here, and in the common training rules that follow, should be understood according to the explained method. Uncommon Pārājika 5. Explanation of the Training Rule on Above the Knees Among the uncommon pārājikas, in the first of the four, "being excited" means tinged with desire for bodily contact, meaning wet. The same applies to the second term. "Of a male person" means a human being, conscious, of the male gender, who is a person, with whom to engage in bodily contact. "Below the armpits" means below her own armpits.