English
For the male ubhatobyañjanako, when assuming the state of a female among males, the male characteristic is hidden, and the female characteristic is manifest. The female ubhatobyañjanako herself conceives, and also causes others to conceive. The male ubhatobyañjanako, however, does not conceive herself, but causes others to conceive. This is the distinction between them. For neither of these two kinds of ubhatobyañjanako is there ordination or full admission. 137. "Theyyasaṃvāsako" (one who lives by stealth) refers to three kinds of theyyasaṃvāsakā: one who steals the characteristic, one who steals the communal life, and one who steals both. Among these, one who, having ordained himself, goes to a monastery and does not count his years as a bhikkhu, does not accept salutations according to seniority, does not refuse a seat, and does not participate in Uposatha and Pavāraṇā ceremonies, is called "liṅgatthenako" (one who steals the characteristic) because only the characteristic is stolen. One who, having been ordained by bhikkhus as a novice, goes to a foreign land and falsely says, "I am ten years ordained or twenty years ordained," and counts his years as a bhikkhu, accepts salutations according to seniority, refuses a seat, and participates in Uposatha and Pavāraṇā ceremonies, is called "saṃvāsatthenako" (one who steals the communal life) because only the communal life is stolen. Indeed, all the different actions such as counting bhikkhu years are to be understood as "saṃvāsa" (communal life) in this context. One who, having renounced the training, thinks, "No one knows me," and again practices in this way... And also this is the method. But whoever, having gone forth by himself, goes to a monastery and counts years as a bhikkhu, accepts salutations according to seniority, refuses a seat, participates in Uposatha, Pavāraṇā, and so on, this one, due to stealing both the insignia and the communion, is called an 'ubhayatthenaka' (thief of both). This three-fold thief of communion, if not fully ordained, should not be fully ordained; if fully ordained, should be expelled; even if he asks for re-ordination, he should not be ordained. 138. And here, for the sake of clarity, this miscellaneous point should be known – "By fear of king, famine, wilderness, disease, or enemy; or to obtain robes, whoever here takes up the insignia. He does not dwell in communion, as long as his mind is pure; He is not called a 'thief of communion' until then." (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 110); Here is the detailed method – Here, a king is angry with someone, he, thinking "thus will I be safe," takes the insignia himself and flees. Seeing him, they report to the king, the king, thinking "if he is ordained, nothing can be done to him," restrains his anger towards him. He, thinking "my fear of the king has subsided," without approaching the Sangha, having taken up lay insignia, comes back and should be ordained. Or, having arisen a sense of urgency, thinking "I have gained life relying on the Dispensation, come now, I shall go forth," he comes with that same insignia and does not observe the duties of a newcomer, whether asked by bhikkhus or not asked, he reveals himself as he truly is and asks for ordination, having removed the insignia, he should be ordained. But if he observes the duties, shows the disposition of an ordained one, and practices all the previously mentioned procedures such as counting years, etc., he should not be ordained. Here, someone unable to live during a famine, takes the insignia himself, eats all kinds of food from various sects, and when the famine passes, without approaching the Sangha, having taken up lay insignia, comes back; this is all just like the previous case. Another wishes to cross a great wilderness, and the caravan leader taking a renunciant, he goes. So, thinking, "Thus will the caravan leader take me," he himself takes the mark and with the caravan leader crosses the wilderness, reaches a safe place, and without entering the midst of the Saṅgha, takes the lay mark and comes back. All is just like before. Another, when the fear of illness arose, unable to live, himself took the mark, eating all kinds of sectarian food. When the fear of illness subsided, without entering the midst of the Saṅgha, he took the lay mark and came back. All is just like before. For another, an enemy is angry, desiring to kill him, he roams. So, thinking, "Thus will I be safe," he himself takes the mark and flees. The enemy, searching, "Where is he?" hears, "He has renounced and fled." Thinking, "If he is a renunciant, nothing can be done to him," he suppresses his anger towards him. So, thinking, "My fear of the enemy has subsided," without entering the midst of the Saṅgha, he took the lay mark and came back. All is just like before. Another goes to his relatives' home, renounces the training, becomes a layman. Thinking, "These robes will perish here. Even if I take these and go to the monastery, on the way they will seize me as a 'thief.' Why don't I make them body-covering?" He puts on and wraps the robes to carry them and goes to the monastery. Seeing him coming from afar, the novices and young ones go out to meet him, show respect. He does not accept it, he reveals himself as he is. If the bhikkhus, thinking, "Now we will not release you," wish to ordain him by force, they should remove the saffron robes and re-ordain him. But if, thinking, "These do not know my fallen state," he claims that very bhikkhu status and follows all the previously mentioned procedures regarding the number of years and so on, this one should not be re-ordained. Another great novice went to his relatives' home, renounced, and being troubled by engaging in work, again, "Now "I will be a novice, and the elder will not know that I have disrobed." So, taking that bowl and robe, he goes to the monastery. He does not inform the monks of the matter, but pretends to be a novice. This one is a thief-dweller, he does not obtain ordination. Even if at the time of taking the robes it occurs to him, "I will not tell anyone," and having gone to the monastery, he tells, by the very act of taking, he is a thief-dweller. Or if at the time of taking, the thought arises, "I will tell," and having gone to the monastery, when asked, "Where have you been, friend?" he deceives, "Now these do not know me," and does not tell. "I will not tell"— with the laying down of the burden, this one too is a thief-dweller. But if at the time of taking, it occurs to him, "I will tell," and having gone to the monastery, he tells, this one again obtains ordination. Another is a young novice, or else a grown-up but ignorant one. He, having disrobed in the former manner, does not wish to do work like herding calves or cattle at home. His relatives, clothing him in those same saffron robes, and giving him a small bowl or a bowl in his hand, drive him from the house, saying, "Go, be a monk!" He goes to the monastery. The monks do not know him, "This one disrobed and then re-ordained himself." Nor does he himself know, "One who ordains in this way is called a thief-dweller." But if they ordain him when he is of full age, he is well-ordained. However, if, while not yet ordained, he hears in a Vinaya judgment, "One who ordains in this way is called a thief-dweller," then he must tell the monks, "I did it this way." Thus he again obtains ordination. But if he does not inform, thinking, "Now no one knows me," as soon as the burden is laid down, he is a thief-dweller. A monk, having renounced the training, without removing the robes, having committed or not committed an immoral act, again, all the previously mentioned procedures, such as the counting of years, and the distinctions... commits it, he is a thief-dweller. Without renouncing the training, remaining in his own garb, having engaged in sexual intercourse, and performing rites like counting years, he is not a thief-dweller; he obtains merely the going forth. But in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, "he is a thief-dweller." That should not be accepted. A certain bhikkhu, with zeal for the saffron robes, having worn white clothes, engaged in sexual intercourse, then wore saffron robes again, and performs rites like counting years. He too is not a thief-dweller; he obtains merely the going forth. If, however, having abandoned the burden of the saffron robes, he wears white clothes, engages in sexual intercourse, then wears saffron robes again, and performs rites like counting years, he is a thief-dweller. A novice, remaining in his own garb, even having committed acts that make one not a recluse, such as sexual intercourse, is not a thief-dweller. Even if, with zeal for the saffron robes, he removes the saffron robes, engages in sexual intercourse, then wears the saffron robes again, he is certainly not a thief-dweller. If, however, having abandoned the burden of the saffron robes, either naked or in white clothes, having become not a recluse through acts like sexual intercourse, he wears the saffron robes, he is a thief-dweller. If, desiring the state of a layperson, having folded the saffron robe, or in another manner, he wears lay clothes for the purpose of examining, "Does my lay garb look good, or not?" he still maintains (his monastic status). But having accepted, "It looks good," then accepting the (monastic) garb again, he is a thief-dweller. Having worn white clothes, even in examining and accepting, this is the same rule. If, however, over the worn saffron robe, he wears white clothes, and either examines or accepts, he certainly maintains (his monastic status). For a bhikkhunī too, this is the same rule. She too, desiring the state of a layperson, if she wears lay clothes with the saffron robe for the purpose of examining, "Does my lay garb look good, or not?" she certainly maintains (her monastic status). If she accepts, "It looks good," she does not maintain (her monastic status). Having worn white clothes,