English
"Should acquire" means, excluding fellow Dhamma practitioners and relatives who have offered, it should be requested by one who is pleased with some quality, saying, "Speak, venerable one, what is needed?" If she requests more than that, there is a dukkata offense in requesting more than that, and it becomes nissaggiya upon acquisition. It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning Thullanandā, regarding the matter of requesting a blanket from the king. There is a tikapācittiya offense. For less than four *kaṃsa*, there is a dvikadukkaṭa offense. However, if she acquires it with the perception of it being less, or up to four *kaṃsa*, or from relatives who have offered, or for the sake of another, or with her own wealth, acquiring something expensive, something inexpensive by causing to be made, and for the insane, etc., no offense. The heavy robe, being more than four cubits, requesting in an unauthorized place, and obtaining it— these are the four factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of the messenger. The explanation of the training rule concerning the heavy robe is finished. 12. Explanation of the training rule concerning the light robe In the second (rule), a light robe means a robe for the hot season. "Exceeding two and a half *kaṃsa*" means worth ten *kahāpaṇas*. The rest is just like the first (rule). The explanation of the training rule concerning the light robe is finished. From here onwards, eight in this chapter, and ten in the third chapter— these eighteen training rules should be understood in the same way as stated in the explanation of the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha. The chapter on Gold and Silver is the third. "Venerable ones, thirty offenses entailing forfeiture and expiation have been recited." These thirty rules entailing forfeiture and expiation— eighteen are common, having been laid down concerning bhikkhus, and twelve are not common— thus thirty. The rest is clear everywhere. In the explanation of the Pātimokkha, the Dispeller of Doubts, in the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha, The explanation of the rules entailing forfeiture and expiation is finished. The Section on Offenses Entailing Expiation 1. The Chapter on Garlic 1. Explanation of the training rule concerning garlic Among the rules entailing expiation, in the first of the garlic chapter, "garlic" means only raw bulb garlic grown in the Magadha country, not single, double, or triple cloves. For if she receives it thinking "I will eat it," there is an offense of wrong-doing. For each mouthful swallowed, there is an offense entailing expiation. In Sāvatthī, concerning Thullanandā, it was laid down in the story of causing garlic to be carried away. It is a triple expiation offense. For non-garlic, there is a double wrong-doing offense. However, in that (case), with the perception of non-garlic, for onions, for broken pieces, for green leaves, for wild garlic, for preparations of curry, for preparations of meat, for preparations of oil, for *sāḷava*, for additional ingredients, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Raw garlic, and swallowing it— these are the two factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to those of sheep's wool. The explanation of the training rule concerning garlic is finished. 2. Explanation of the training rule concerning hair in private parts In the second (rule), "private parts" means in covered places, and in the armpits and around the urinary organ. is the meaning. Here, 'should cause to remove' with a razor, tweezers, scissors, etc., by causing removal with any of these, the offense is counted by the act, not by the number of hairs. In Sāvatthī, concerning the group-of-six bhikkhunīs, it was laid down regarding the removal of hair in the private parts. If one commands another for one's own purpose, it is an offense by command. There is no difference in the offense. Due to illness, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Absence of illness, and removing hair in the private parts— these are the two factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the training rule concerning a bhikkhunī traveling alone on a road. The explanation of the training rule on private parts hair is finished. 3. Explanation of the training rule on striking the private parts. In the third, 'striking the private parts' means even with a lotus petal, striking the private parts, giving a blow to the private parts, is an offense of pācittiya. In Sāvatthī, concerning two bhikkhunīs, it was laid down regarding the act of striking the private parts. By the previous method, it is an offense by command. There is no difference in the offense. From now on, where it is not present, we will proceed without stating it. Due to illness, if one strikes a boil or a wound, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Absence of illness, striking the private parts, and enjoying the touch— these are the three factors here. The origins, etc., are similar to the first pārājika. The explanation of the training rule on striking the private parts is finished. 4. Explanation of the training rule on the lacquered stick. In the fourth, 'lacquered stick' means a smooth stick made of lac. This was stated based on the incident, but if one inserts even a lotus petal out of lust, there is an offense. In Sāvatthī, concerning a certain bhikkhunī, it was laid down regarding the enjoyment of a lacquered stick. The rest is just like the third. The explanation of the training rule on the lacquered stick is finished. 5. Explanation of the training rule on water cleansing. In the fifth, 'water cleansing' means washing the private parts. 'When taking' means 'when doing'. 'Up to two finger-joints should be taken' means making each of two fingers, up to two finger-joints should be taken. If one exceeds that... If, at the time of washing, out of lust, she inserts extensively the top joint of the third finger, or deeply the third joint of one finger, it is a pācittiya offence. It was laid down concerning a certain bhikkhunī among the Sakyas, in the case of taking an excessively deep water-purifier. A triple pācittiya. If less than two finger-joints, a double dukkaṭa. But in that case, with a perception of being less, if she takes up to two finger-joints, or even more due to illness, or for the insane and so forth, there is no offence. The rest is similar to the third (rule). The explanation of the training rule concerning the water-purifier is finished. 6. The explanation of the training rule concerning attending. In the sixth (rule), "for one who is eating" means for one who is eating any of the five kinds of food. "With a drink" means either with pure water, or with any other (drink) such as buttermilk. "With a fan" means with any kind of fan. "Should attend" means she who, having taken one of these two, stands within arm's reach, for her it is a pācittiya offence. Concerning a certain bhikkhunī in Sāvatthī, it was laid down in the case of standing thus for one who is eating. A triple pācittiya. If she attends to one eating food, having gone beyond arm's reach, it is a dukkaṭa. For an unordained person, a triple dukkaṭa. Or if she gives thus, saying, "Drink this, fan with this," or causes to be given, or orders an unordained person to attend, and for the insane and so forth, there is no offence. Standing within arm's reach of a bhikkhu who is eating, or taking a drink or a fan— these are the two factors here. The origins and so forth are similar to the sheep's wool (rule). The explanation of the training rule concerning attending is finished. 7. The explanation of the training rule concerning raw grain. In the seventh (rule), "having requested" means having requested even one's mother. "Should eat" means should ingest. Here, both the request and the eating are the measure. Therefore, having requested oneself and caused another to roast and so forth, or having caused another to request and having roasted and so forth oneself, from the moment of receiving until chewing with the teeth, there are dukkaṭa offences in the preliminary actions. a If she consumes it, it is an offense entailing expiation. It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning several nuns, on the occasion of asking for raw grain. If, without being asked, she receives it herself or through another, and having roasted it or done other things, or having had it done, she consumes it, it is a dukkaṭa. If, having received it through another's asking, she herself roasts it or does other things, or has it done, and consumes it, it is still a dukkaṭa. There is no offense for one who, being ill, asks for it for the purpose of fomentation or other treatments; for one who accepts it for new construction when it is obtainable without asking; for one who asks for pulse, beans, or other grains in a place where relatives are invited; and for one who is insane, etc. Herein, the three factors are: asking for or having asked for any of the seven grains, receiving it, and consuming it after having roasted it or done other things, or having had it done. The origin, etc., are similar to the rule concerning the journey on the road. The commentary on the rule concerning raw grain is finished. 8. Commentary on the First Rule Concerning Disposing of Excrement In the eighth, "saṅkāra" means rubbish. "Vighāsa" means anything left over from consumption, even leftover water or tooth-sticks; there is no need to mention bones, hair, etc. "Tirokuṭṭe vā tiropākāre vā" means beyond any wall or fence. "Chaḍḍeyya vā chaḍḍāpeyya vā" means that if she disposes of all these together, there is one offense for one act; if many are disposed of by one command, there is still only one. It was laid down in Sāvatthī concerning a certain nun, on the occasion of disposing of excrement beyond a wall. It is an offense with a command. For a monk, it is a dukkaṭa. There is no offense for one who disposes of it after looking or in a place for disposal, and for one who is insane, etc.