English
even in examining and accepting, this is the same. This is the method. But having worn white over the saffron robe, whether he examines or accepts, he is protected. If some elder renunciant, not counting his years, and not standing in line, going to one side, to rice-balls scooped out with a ladle from large baskets, etc., holding out his bowl, and takes it like a hawk seizing a piece of meat, he is not a thief-dweller. But if he takes it counting his bhikkhu-years, he is a thief-dweller. If he himself is a novice, and takes it counting false novice-years in the novice-order, he is not a thief-dweller. A bhikkhu who takes it counting false bhikkhu-years in the bhikkhu-order should be made to pay the price of the goods. 139. "Sectarian-gone-over" means one who has gone over or entered among the sectarians; he is a sectarian-gone-over. He too should not be ordained. Here is the decision regarding this: A fully ordained bhikkhu, thinking "I will become a sectarian," goes to their dwelling place in his own robes, at every step, there is an offense of wrong-doing. As soon as he takes on their insignia, he becomes a sectarian-gone-over. Even if he himself, thinking "I will become a sectarian," puts on grass-garments, etc., he is indeed a sectarian-gone-over. But one who, bathing naked, looks at himself and thinks, "My state as an Ajivaka is beautiful; I will become an Ajivaka," and without taking saffron robes, goes naked to the dwelling place of the Ajivakas, at every step, there is an offense of wrong-doing. But if shame and fear of wrongdoing arise in him on the way, he is freed by confessing the offenses of wrong-doing. Even if he goes to their dwelling place, and being advised by them, or seeing for himself that "their renunciation is very difficult," he turns back, he is freed. But if, having asked "What is excellent about your renunciation?" and being told "Plucking out hair and beard, etc.," he causes even one hair to be plucked out, or takes on practices like the squatting posture, etc., or wears peacock feathers, etc., he takes on their insignia, or he comes to the conclusion that "this renunciation is superior," he is not freed; he becomes a sectarian-gone-over. But if he (thinks) "Does it suit me... to test "whether the heretic's renunciation is truly beautiful or not," he puts on grass garments and the like, or binds his hair, or carries a carrying-pole, and as long as he does not accept the doctrine, he protects it. As soon as he accepts it, he becomes one who has gone over to the heretics. But one whose robes have been taken away, putting on grass garments and the like, or adopting the heretical signs due to fear of the king and so on, does not become one who has gone over to the heretics because there is no doctrine. In the Kurundi it is said, "This 'one who has gone over to the heretics' is spoken of by an ordained bhikkhu. Therefore, a novice, even if he goes to a heretical abode with his own signs, obtains renunciation and ordination again." The former, however, the thief-dweller, is spoken of by one not ordained. Therefore, an ordained bhikkhu, even if he counts a false year, does not become a non-ascetic. One who is zealous in the signs, having committed a pārājika, and counts bhikkhu-years and so on, does not become a thief-dweller. 140. As for "animal," whether it be a nāga or one of the Supaṇṇa youths and so on, down to Sakka, the king of devas, whoever is of a non-human species, all of them are to be understood as "animal" in this context. Such a one should neither be ordained nor given renunciation, and if already ordained, should be expelled. 141. Among those who have killed their mother and so on, the one by whom a human woman, his own mother, being herself of human species, was intentionally deprived of life, this one is a mother-killer due to the immediately effective karma of matricide. His renunciation and ordination are forbidden. But if one has killed a human woman who was not his own mother but a foster mother, or a maternal aunt, or if his mother was not a human woman, his renunciation is not prohibited, and he is not one who has committed an immediately effective act. If one, being an animal, has killed a human mother, he is also not one who has committed an immediately effective act, but his renunciation is forbidden because he is an animal. The same method applies to a father-killer. Even if he is the son of a courtesan, he does not know, "This is my father." If the one by whose generation he was born, if by him killed, he is reckoned as a parricide, and he incurs an immediate retribution. An Arahant-killer should also be understood in terms of a human Arahant. Indeed, in the human realm, even an unordained person, a child or a girl, who is an Arahant, if intentionally deprived of life, the one who does so is an Arahant-killer, and incurs an immediate retribution, and his ordination is prohibited. However, one who kills a non-human Arahant, or any other noble person of human birth, does not incur an immediate retribution, nor is his ordination prohibited, but the karma is powerful. An animal, even if it kills a human Arahant, does not incur an immediate retribution, but the karma is heavy; this is the determination here. But he who, like Devadatta, with an evil mind, a murderous mind, causes even a tiny drop of blood, such as a small fly might drink, to appear on the living body of the Tathāgata, he is called a Blood-producer. His ordination and higher ordination are prohibited. But he who, like Jīvaka, for the sake of curing a disease, cuts with a knife, removes putrid flesh and blood, and brings about ease, he generates much merit. He who, like Devadatta, having made the Dispensation unlawful and undisciplined, breaks the Saṅgha by one of the four acts, he is called a Saṅgha-splitter. His ordination and higher ordination are prohibited. But he who defiles a blameless bhikkhunī in one of the three ways, he is called a Bhikkhunī-defiler. His ordination and higher ordination are prohibited. He who, by bodily contact, causes the loss of her virtue, his ordination and higher ordination are not prohibited. Even one who, by force, having made her wear white clothes, defiles her against her will, is a Bhikkhunī-defiler. But one who, by force, having made her wear white clothes, defiles her with her consent, is not a Bhikkhunī-defiler. Why? Because by the very fact that she consented in the lay state, she is no longer a bhikkhunī. One who defiles her after she has once fallen from virtue, or one who misbehaves with female trainees (sikkhamānā) or female novices (sāmaṇerī), is not a Bhikkhunī-defiler. he obtains both going forth and full ordination. Thus, these eleven are to be known as incapable persons. 142. For one under nineteen years, full ordination is forbidden, not going forth. Therefore, one who is fully twenty years old from the time of conception should be given full ordination. For even one conceived twenty years ago is counted as fully twenty years old. As the Blessed One said: “Whatever first thought arises, whatever first consciousness appears in the mother’s womb, Bhikkhus, from that arises his birth. I allow, Bhikkhus, to give full ordination to one conceived twenty years ago.” There, one who lived in the mother’s womb for twelve months and was born on the Mahāpavāraṇā day, from that time until the Mahāpavāraṇā in his nineteenth year, having passed that, should be given full ordination on the day after the full moon. By this method, increase and decrease should be understood. However, the ancient elders would give full ordination to a novice of nineteen years on the day after the full moon, having passed the full moon of the going forth. Why? In one year there are six fortnightly Uposatha days. Thus, in twenty years, four months are lost. Kings postpone the year in every third year. Thus, in eighteen years, six months are gained. Then, removing the four months lost due to Uposatha, two months remain. Taking these two months, twenty years are complete. Being free from doubt, they would give full ordination on the day after the full moon, having passed the full moon of the going forth. Here, “under nineteen years” is said with reference to one who will be twenty years old after the Pavāraṇā. Therefore, one who lived in the mother’s womb for twelve months is twenty-one years old. One who lived for seven months is twenty years and seven months old. One born at six months does not live. However, for one who gives full ordination to an underage person, mistaking him for “fully twenty years old,” there is no offense. But the person himself is not fully ordained. If, however, after ten years, another whom he ordains, if, having released him, the quorum is complete, he is well-ordained. And as long as he does not know, there is for him neither an obstruction to heaven nor an obstruction to liberation; but having known, he should be ordained again. 143. Thus, even if free from these ordination faults, "Monks, a son whose parents have not given permission should not be ordained" (Mahāvagga 105), by this saying, one whose parents have not given permission should not be ordained. There (Mahāvagga Commentary 105), "by parents" is said referring to the biological parents. If both are present, both should be asked. If the father or mother has died, whoever is alive should be asked; even those who have gone forth should be asked. One who asks should either go and ask himself, or send another. Or that very person should be sent, saying, "Go, ask your parents, and come back." If he says, "I have permission," he should be ordained, believing him. If a father, having himself gone forth, wishes to ordain his son, he should ask the mother and ordain him. Or if a mother wishes to ordain her daughter, she should ask the father and ordain her. If the father, having no interest in his wife and children, has run away, and the mother gives her son to the bhikkhus, saying,