English
knowledge arises like a thunderbolt crushing the mountain of defilements, and he attains Arahantship at the razor’s edge. All those who attained Arahantship at the razor’s edge received such instruction and relied on the method given by a good friend and teacher, not without it. Therefore, such talk should be spoken to him from the very beginning. After the hair is shaved, he should be rubbed with turmeric powder or fragrant powder on his head and body, to remove the lay scent, and then made to accept the saffron robes three times, or twice, or once. If the teacher or preceptor does not give them into his hands, but dresses him himself, that is permissible. If he instructs another young monk, or a novice, or a lay follower, saying: “Friend, take these saffron robes and dress him,” or if he instructs the candidate himself: “Take these and dress yourself,” all that is permissible; all is considered given by that monk. But if he puts on a lower robe or an upper robe without instruction, that should be removed and given again. For only a saffron robe given by the monk himself or by his instruction is permissible; one not given is not permissible. Even if it belongs to him, what then of one from the preceptor’s stock? 147. Thus And having made him wear the given saffron robes, having made him arrange the upper robe over one shoulder, having made him bow at the feet of the bhikkhus assembled there, then having made him sit in a squatting position for taking refuge, having made him raise his joined hands, he should be told, "Say this," he should be told, "What I say, that you say." Then by his preceptor or by his teacher, the refuges should be given in the manner beginning "I go to the Buddha for refuge," in the order stated, not in reverse order. For if he gives even one word or one letter in reverse order, or if he gives "I go to the Buddha for refuge" three times, and then gives each of the others three times, the refuges are not given. But having rejected this refuge-taking ordination, the permitted ordination is valid with purity on one side. But the novice's going forth is valid only with purity on both sides, not with purity on one side. Therefore, for ordination, if the teacher performs the act avoiding both the defect of the motion and the defect of the formal declaration, it is well done. But for the going forth, these three refuges must be spoken by both the teacher and the pupil, without losing the proper articulation and pronunciation of the consonants like 'bu' and 'dha'. If the teacher can say it, but the pupil cannot, or if the pupil can, but the teacher cannot, or if both cannot, it is not valid. But if both can, it is valid. And when giving these, they should be given as connected words ending in a nasal sound, like "buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmī," or they should be given as separate words ending in 'm', like "buddhama saraṇama gacchāmī." In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said, "Having announced the name, 'Venerable Sir, I, Buddharakkhita, for as long as life lasts, go to the Buddha for refuge'," that is not in any commentary, nor is it stated in the Pāli, it is merely their preference, therefore it should not be adopted. For the refuge is not spoiled for one who does not say it that way. And by this much, he is established in the state of a novice. Thus. 148. If, however, he is intelligent and of a wise nature, then in that very place the training rules should be pointed out to him. How? As taught by the Blessed One. For it has been said – "Monks, I allow ten training rules for novices, and for novices to train in them. Abstinence from taking life, Abstinence from taking what is not given, Abstinence from unchastity, Abstinence from false speech, Abstinence from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are a basis for heedlessness, Abstinence from eating at the wrong time, Abstinence from dancing, singing, music, and unseemly shows, Abstinence from wearing garlands, perfumes, and anointing with ointments, and from adornment and beautification, Abstinence from high and luxurious beds, Abstinence from accepting gold and silver." (Mahavagga 106). But in the Andhaka Commentary, "Venerable sir, I, so-and-so, undertake the training rule of abstinence from taking life for as long as I live" – such a giving of training rules, like the giving of refuges, is mentioned. That is neither in the Pāli canon nor in the commentaries. Therefore, they should be pointed out according to the Pāli canon itself. For ordination is accomplished by taking refuge alone, but the training rules are to be known merely for the sake of fulfilling the training rules. Therefore, for one who cannot grasp them in the manner presented in the Pāli, it is permissible to explain them in any language, even by way of meaning. However, as long as he does not know the training rules to be observed by himself, regarding the wearing of the outer robe, bowl, and robes, sitting, etc., and is not skilled in the procedures for drinking, eating, etc., then he should not be sent to the refectory, or the place for distributing tickets, or any other such place. He should be kept close by, treated like a young child. All that is allowable and unallowable should be explained to him, and he should be trained in proper conduct regarding wearing robes, covering, etc. For it has also been said – "Monks, I allow a novice endowed with ten factors to be expelled. He is a killer of living beings, he is a taker of what is not given, he is unchaste, he is a speaker of false speech, he is a drinker of intoxicants, he speaks dispraise of the Buddha, he speaks dispraise of the Dhamma, he speaks dispraise of the Sangha..." speaks ill of the Sangha, is of wrong view, defiles a bhikkhuni. These ten grounds for expulsion thus stated, having completely avoided them, and fulfilling the proper conduct, one should train well in the ten precepts. 149. Whoever, among the ten grounds for expulsion such as taking life, commits even one act, he should be expelled by disrobing. Indeed, among the three kinds of expulsion, disrobing is intended here. Just as bhikkhus incur various offenses for taking life and so on, it is not so for novices. For a novice, by killing even a worm or an ant, or by breaking a rotten egg, incurs expulsion. Immediately, his going for refuge, his taking a preceptor, and his acceptance of a dwelling cease. He does not receive benefits from the Sangha. Only the outward appearance remains. If he is habitually faulty, and does not abide in future restraint, he should be expelled. But if, having erred suddenly, he wishes to abide in restraint again, saying, "I have done wrong," there is no need for disrobing. The refuges should be given to him just as he is dressed. A preceptor should be given. The precepts, however, are accomplished merely by going for refuge. For the going for refuge of novices is like the ordination formal act of bhikkhus. Therefore, just like bhikkhus with their fourfold pure morality, these ten precepts are already undertaken by him. Even so, for strengthening and for establishing him in future restraint, they should be given again. If the refuges were taken again in the first half of the Rains, he will receive the Rains residence. If they were taken in the latter half, the Sangha should announce it and give him benefits. In taking what is not given, even with an object as small as a blade of grass, in unchastity, by any transgression in the three paths, in false speech, even if a lie is spoken with a joking intention, he is no recluse, he incurs expulsion. However, in drinking intoxicants, a bhikkhu, even unknowingly, drinking liquor from the very seed, incurs a pācittiya offense. A novice, knowing, by drinking, incurs a breach of precept, not unknowingly. But as for his other five training rules, when these are broken, he should not be expelled; punishment should be inflicted. And as for the training rule, whether given again or not given, it is valid. But having oppressed him with punishment, it should indeed be given for the purpose of establishing him in future restraint. But in speaking ill: One who speaks ill of the Buddha, by way of opposition to "Arahant, Perfectly Self-Enlightened," and so on; or of the Dhamma, by way of opposition to "Well-proclaimed," and so on; or of the Sangha, by way of opposition to "Well-practiced," and so on; reviling and blaming the Triple Gem— such a one should be restrained by teachers, preceptors, and others, by showing the danger in speaking ill, saying, "Do not speak thus." "If, being told up to the third time, he does not desist, he should be expelled by the expulsion of a thorn," it is said in the Kurundi. But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā it is said: "If, being told thus, he abandons that view, he should be made to perform punishment and confess his transgression. If he does not abandon it, but holds to it and maintains it just as it is, he should be expelled by the expulsion of the mark." That is appropriate. For this very expulsion is intended here. The same method applies to one with wrong view. For if one holding any view of eternalism or annihilationism, being advised by teachers and others, abandons it, he should be made to perform punishment and confess his transgression. If he does not abandon it, he should be expelled. Here, a defiler of bhikkhunīs is indeed included by the term "one who is not a celibate." But it is permissible to give the refuges to one who is not a celibate and wishes to establish himself in future restraint, and to give him higher ordination. A defiler of bhikkhunīs, even if he wishes to establish himself in future restraint, does not obtain even renunciation, much less higher ordination. To show this meaning, it should be understood that "defiler of bhikkhunīs" is stated as a separate tenth factor. 150. "Monks, I allow to inflict punishment on a novice endowed with five factors. He strives for the loss of the monks,