English
It was laid down in Savatthi concerning Thullananda in the matter of the boastful speaker, it is with a condition: If she seeks anyone, a second person, or a witness, or a companion, saying "I will make a dispute," there is a dukkata for seeking. From the moment the thought arises "I will go to make a dispute," where she stands, there is a dukkata at every step as she goes. Wherever she is, even if she comes to a bhikkhuni's dwelling, and sees lay arbitrators, and tells her story, there is a dukkata. If the other person tells his story to the bhikkhuni, there is a thullaccaya. The same rule applies if the other person tells first and then the bhikkhuni. But if the bhikkhuni says to him, "You yourself tell my story and your story," he may tell his own story first, or hers. If he tells hers first, there is a dukkata for the bhikkhuni. If he tells his own first, there is a thullaccaya. The same rule applies if the bhikkhuni, being told this, tells her story. But if the bhikkhuni has someone else speak, the same rule applies there too. However it is told, at the first telling, there is a dukkata for the bhikkhuni. At the second, there is a thullaccaya. But when the lay arbitrators, having heard the stories of both, make a decision, that is called the conclusion of the dispute. At that conclusion of the dispute, whether the bhikkhuni wins or loses, it is a Sanghadisesa. But if she is dragged along by hostile people who send a messenger or come themselves, saying "Come, lady," and she goes; or if she, without referring to misconduct committed by others in the dwelling, tells it and asks for protection; or if, without anything being said by her, the lay arbitrators, having heard from elsewhere, themselves conclude the dispute, for her, and for the insane and so on, there is no offense. Making a dispute when not dragged along by others, and the conclusion of the dispute, these are the two factors here. Origin and so on. These are like the first kathina, but this is just an action. The commentary on the training rule concerning those who speak highly (of themselves) is finished. 2. The commentary on the training rule concerning the ordination of a thief In the second (rule): From the value of five māsa onwards, whatever belonging to another has been stolen, this is called a thief; that thief. "Known to be punishable by death" means known as "this one is worthy of execution" by that deed. "Without informing" means without asking. "A group" means a group of wrestlers, a group of mercenaries' sons, and so on. "A guild" means a group of righteous people. "A corporation" means a corporation of perfumers, a corporation of weavers, and so on. Wherever kings delegate villages and towns to groups and so on, saying "You yourselves should govern here," there they themselves are the rulers. Therefore, this was said with reference to them. And here, even after informing the king or the groups and so on, the bhikkhunī Saṅgha must still be informed. "Except for a kappā" means those who were previously ordained among other sects or other bhikkhunīs are called kappā. Ordaining another, apart from such a one, the group-preceptress incurs a dukkaṭa for seeking bowls and robes, for the boundary designation, and for the motion; a thullaccaya for two formal announcements; and a saṅghādisesa at the end of the formal announcement. It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of ordaining a thief. For a thief who is doubtful, there is a dukkaṭa; likewise for one who is not a thief but is perceived as a thief, and is doubtful. There is no offense for one who does not perceive her as a thief, who does not know, who ordains after informing, who ordains a kappā, and for the insane and so on. Being a thief, perceiving her as a thief, and ordaining her without an authorized reason— these are the three factors here. The origin of ordaining a thief, action or non-action, release by perception, with intention, an offense by enactment, bodily action, verbal action, three kinds of intention, three kinds of feeling. The commentary on the training rule concerning the ordination of a thief is finished. 3. The commentary on the training rule concerning going to another village In the third (rule): In "to another village" and so on, for one departing from her own village, there is no offense. But for one who has departed and is going to another village, there is a dukkaṭa at every step, with one foot in the other village's... If the boundary or precinct is transgressed, a grave offense. When the second is merely transgressed, a Saṅghādisesa. Having gone out from there, and entering her own village again, the same rule applies. But if through a broken wall or a gap in the fence, it is possible to enter the nunnery grounds, by entering thus, she is considered to have entered permissible ground. Therefore, it is allowable. Standing outside the village, entering any of her own village or another village, into impermissible ground on foot, there is an offense. This is the summary here. In crossing a river, a river of the described type, going to the other bank without a companion, or quarreling with her companion in the middle of the river, and returning to the near bank, at the moment of lifting the first foot and placing it on the bank, a grave offense. Upon lifting the second foot, a Saṅghādisesa. But by psychic power, by a bridge, by a vehicle, or by a boat, to cross to the other bank is allowable. And having descended for bathing or other reasons, to return to the near bank even on foot is allowable. In a night's separation, without the intention "I will come within arm's reach of my companion before dawn," even in the same room, standing beyond arm's reach of her companion, and letting dawn break, there is an offense. Here, in "one from the group," even one nun is a group. "Should be left behind" means "should be separated," or "should lose the range of sight or the range of hearing." Therefore, from the transgression of the main gatepost onwards, even if in the outer village, due to being obstructed by trees, pillars, rocks, walls, etc., the range of sight of the companion is lost, even if the range of hearing exists, there is an offense. But in an open space, the range of sight can be far. There, like the sound of one lost on the road, or like the sound of announcing the Dhamma, if she calls out "Ayye!" (Venerable one!), and the sound's hearing range is transgressed, there is an offense. But if, while walking on the path, having been left behind, she follows with enthusiasm, thinking "Now I will catch up," it is allowable. This was laid down in Sāvatthī, concerning a certain nun, in the context of going between villages. This and other rules, such as "one or across a river," Then there are three kinds of subsequent offenses: Having left her own village before dawn, and at dawn, when descending to the river bank belonging to another village, all four offenses occur at one and the same moment. And this has been said: The rules described by the Buddha, Four Saṅghādisesas there may be; All may be incurred by one act; This problem has been considered by the skilled. (pari. 479); By this method, the occurrence of three or two together should be understood. But if the second nun has departed, or gone astray, or died, or gone over to another sect, or in cases of misfortune, or when performing acts like going to another village, there is no offense for the insane and so on. The occurrence of one together due to an obstacle, the incurring of any one of the acts like going to another village, and the absence of misfortune – these are the three factors here. The origins and so on are similar to the first Pārājika. This, however, is an offense by enactment, with three thoughts, and three feelings. The explanation of the rule concerning going to another village alone is finished. 4. Explanation of the rule concerning reinstating an expelled nun In the fourth, "expelled" means expelled for not seeing the offense and so on. "Without knowing the assembly's wish" means without knowing the wish of that very performing Saṅgha. "Should reinstate" means should perform the act of reinstatement. For her, while doing so, there is a dukkaṭa for seeking the assembly, for the boundary designation, and for the motion; a thullaccaya for two formal pronouncements; and a saṅghādisesa at the conclusion of the formal pronouncement. This was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning the matter of reinstatement, with reference to Thullanandā. It is a Saṅghādisesa of three kinds. In an unlawful act, there is a dukkaṭa of three kinds. But if she reinstates after consulting the performing Saṅgha, or knowing the assembly's wish, or if she is acting according to the rule, or if there is no performing Saṅgha, there is no offense for the insane and so on. Being expelled by a lawful act, and reinstating without an authorized reason – these are the two factors here. The origins and so on are as stated in the rule concerning schism in the Saṅgha. This, however, is both action and non-action. The explanation of the rule concerning reinstating an expelled nun is finished. 5. The first rule concerning the acceptance of food Explanation In the fifth (rule), "avassutā" means stained with the defilement of lust. "Avassutassa" means the same. Here, in "should eat or should consume," upon acceptance, it is a grave offense. With each mouthful, a saṅghādisesa offense. In Sāvatthī, concerning Sundarīnandā, it was laid down regarding the acceptance of food from the hand of a lustful woman by a lustful man. If one is lustful, upon acceptance, it is a dukkaṭa offense. With each mouthful, a grave offense. From the hand of a yakkha, peta, paṇḍaka, animal, or human, even if both are lustful, the rule is the same. However, if only one is lustful, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Everywhere, even in accepting water or tooth-sticks, or in consuming them, it is a dukkaṭa offense.