English
he strives for the disadvantage of the monks, he strives for the non-residence of the monks, He goes about, he insults monks, he reviles, he divides monks from monks. From the statement, these are five factors, and among the training rules, the latter five, such as eating at the wrong time, are ten grounds for punishment. What then here is the punishment to be done? "I allow, monks, where he dwells, or where he goes, to make a barrier there." Therefore, where he dwells or enters, a barrier should be made there, "Do not enter here." By both, his own precinct and the dwelling obtained by seniority is meant. Therefore, not the entire monastery should be made a barrier. And one who does so incurs a dukkaṭa, because it was said: "Monks, the entire monastery should not be made a barrier. Whoever does so incurs an offence of wrong-doing." And food at the mouth should not be made a barrier. And one who does so incurs a dukkaṭa, because it was said: "Monks, food at the mouth should not be made a barrier. Whoever does so incurs an offence of wrong-doing." Therefore, even for one who says, "Do not eat, do not consume today," or "I will also withhold food," or even for one who puts away the bowl and robe inside, there is a dukkaṭa in all such attempts. But for a misbehaving, disobedient novice, having performed the punishment, and showing gruel, or food, or bowl and robe, it is permissible to say, "When such-and-such a punishment is brought, you will receive this." Indeed, by the Blessed One, only the barrier was stated as punishment. But by the elders who compiled the Dhamma, it was said that "causing to bring water, wood, sand, etc., according to the offence, should also be done." Therefore, that too should be done. And that indeed out of compassion, thinking, "he will desist, he will cease," not with an evil intention, proceeding in the manner of "he will perish, he will go astray," and so on. And saying, "I am performing punishment," to make one lie on hot stones, or to make one place stones, bricks, etc., on the head, or to make one enter water, is not permissible. Even without consulting the preceptor, punishment should not be done. It should be done according to the saying: "Monks, without asking the preceptor, a barrier should not be made. Whoever makes it, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." However, here, if it is said three times, "This is the offense of your novice. Impose a punishment on him," and if that preceptor does not impose a punishment, it is permissible to do it oneself. Even if the preceptor says from the beginning, "If there are faults in my novices, you may impose a punishment," it is permissible to do so. Just as with novices, it is permissible to impose punishment on one's co-residents and pupils. But the retinue of others should not be enticed away. One who entices away incurs a dukkaṭa offense, according to the saying: "Monks, the retinue of another should not be enticed away. Whoever entices away, there is an offense of dukkaṭa." Therefore, whether they are novices or fully ordained monks, even if they are wicked monks, it is not permissible to gather them by saying, "We will give you a bowl, we will give you a robe," for the purpose of serving oneself, and thus breaking up another's retinue. However, it is permissible to speak of the danger, saying, "You, who have come to bathe, have acted like one who smears himself with excrement, by dwelling with such wickedness." If he himself understands this and asks for a preceptor or a dependence, it is permissible to give it. Thus, in the Pāḷi-Muttaka-Vinaya-Vinicchaya-Saṅgaha, The discourse on the determination of going forth is concluded. 23. The discourse on the determination of dependence 151. Here, regarding "dependence," by whom should this dependence be given? By whom should it not be given? To whom should it be given? To whom should it not be given? How is it received? How is it relinquished? By whom should one dwell in dependence? And by whom should one not dwell? First, regarding "by whom should it be given, by whom should it not be given," according to the saying: "Monks, I allow a competent and capable monk, who is ten years old or more than ten years old, to give ordination, to give dependence," one who is competent and capable for ordination, and is ten years old One who has more than ten years (of ordination), by him it should be given, by another it should not be given. If he gives, he incurs a dukkaṭa (offence of wrong-doing). Here (Pāci. Aṭṭha. 145-147), by "competent" is to be understood one who is learned and able to attend to the assembly. Indeed, by one who attends to the assembly, for the ultimate purpose of training the assembly in the Vinaya, the two Vibhaṅgas must be mastered and recited. If unable, they must be capable of recitation with three other people. And the rules of action and non-action, and the Khandhaka duties, must be learned. But for training the assembly in Abhidhamma, if one is a Majjhima reciter, the Mūlapaṇṇāsaka must be learned. By a Dīgha reciter, the Mahāvagga. By a Saṃyutta reciter, either the lower three sections or the Mahāvagga. By an Aṅguttara reciter, either the lower or upper half of the Nikāya must be learned. If unable, it is permissible to learn from the Tikanipāta onwards. However, in the Mahāpaccariya, it is said: "One who learns a single (Nikāya) may learn the Catukkanipāta or the Pañcakanipāta." By a Jātaka reciter, the Jātaka with its commentary must be learned. Less than that is not permissible. "Even the Dhammapada with its stories is permissible to learn," it is said in the Mahāpaccariya. Having made a collection from various sources, the amount of the Mūlapaṇṇāsaka is permissible. "It is not permissible," is rejected in the Kurunda commentary. In other (commentaries), there is no such discussion. It is not stated that anything in Abhidhamma must be learned. But if one has mastered the Vinaya Piṭaka with commentary and the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, but does not have the kind of text mentioned in the Suttanta, he is not allowed to attend to the assembly. But by one who has learned the prescribed amount of text from the Suttanta and the Vinaya, this attendant to the assembly is indeed learned. A renowned teacher, free to go anywhere, is allowed to attend to the assembly. This is what is meant by "competent" in this context. But one who is able to perform services and the like for a sick pupil or a sick co-resident, this one is here meant by "capable." And what is said – With five qualities, monks, a bhikkhu endowed should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not look after a novice. He is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of virtue, he is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of concentration, he is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of wisdom, he is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of liberation, he is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation. Indeed, monks, with these five qualities, a bhikkhu endowed should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not look after a novice. Again, monks, with five other qualities, a bhikkhu endowed should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not look after a novice. He himself is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of virtue, nor does he establish others in the training-free aggregate of virtue. He himself is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of concentration, nor does he establish others in the training-free aggregate of concentration. He himself is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of wisdom, nor does he establish others in the training-free aggregate of wisdom. He himself is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of liberation, nor does he establish others in the training-free aggregate of liberation. He himself is not endowed with the training-free aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation, nor does he establish others in the training-free aggregate of knowledge and vision of liberation. Indeed, monks, with these five qualities, a bhikkhu endowed should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not look after a novice. Again, monks, with five other qualities, a bhikkhu endowed should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not look after a novice. He is faithless, he is shameless, he is without dread, he is lazy, he is unmindful. Indeed, monks, with these five qualities, a bhikkhu endowed should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not look after a novice. Should be appointed. Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not appoint a novice. He is deficient in higher virtue, he is deficient in conduct, he is deficient in higher view, he is unlearned, he is unwise. Indeed, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five qualities should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not appoint a novice. Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not appoint a novice. He is not capable of attending to or having attended to a sick pupil or co-resident, or of settling or having settled one who is discontent, or of dispelling remorse that has arisen according to the Dhamma, he does not know an offense, he does not know the rising from an offense. Indeed, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with these five qualities should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not appoint a novice. Furthermore, monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities should not give ordination, should not give reliance, should not appoint a novice. He is not capable of training a pupil or co-resident in the training in proper conduct, or of guiding them in the training in the fundamentals of the holy life, or of guiding them in the higher Dhamma, or of guiding them in the higher Discipline,