English
or of discerning a wrong view that has arisen according to the Dhamma. 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 does not know an offense, he does not know a non-offense, he does not know a light offense, he does not know a grave offense, and he does not know both Pātimokkhas in detail... not well-received, not well-divided, not well-practiced, not well-discerned in terms of suttas, in terms of detailed explanations. By these five factors, monks, a monk endowed with them should not give ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice. By other five factors, monks, a monk endowed with them should not give ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice. He does not know an offense, he does not know a non-offense, he does not know a light offense, he does not know a heavy offense, he is less than ten years old. By these five factors, monks, a monk endowed with them should not give ordination, should not give dependence, should not attend to a novice. (Mahāva. 84) And so on. That too – “I allow, monks, a competent monk, a capable monk, one who is ten years old or more than ten years old, to give ordination, to give dependence.” (Mahāva. 76, 82) This was said to elaborate on the characteristics of a preceptor and teacher, which were stated concisely in this way. There (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 84), some things are prohibited due to impropriety, some due to being a factor of offense. Thus, in the three sets of five, such as “not with an unlearned aggregate of virtue,” and “not by oneself unlearned,” and “faithless,” the prohibition is made due to impropriety, not due to being a factor of offense. For one who is not endowed with the unlearned aggregates of virtue and so on, and is unable to encourage others in them, being full of the fault of faithlessness and so on, manages the assembly; his assembly declines in virtue and so on, it does not grow. Therefore, “he should not give ordination,” and so on, is said due to impropriety, not due to being a factor of offense. For the state of preceptor and teacher was not allowed by the Blessed One only for an Arahant. If it had been allowed only for him, he would not have said, “If dissatisfaction arises in the preceptor,” and so on. But because the assembly of an Arahant does not decline in virtue and so on, therefore, “by five, b Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu endowed with these qualities should give ordination, and so on, was said. One who has fallen into a pārājika or saṅghādisesa offense, in terms of higher morality, is called 'morally deficient in higher morality'. One who has fallen into the other five classes of offenses, in terms of conduct, is called 'conduct-deficient in conduct'. One who has abandoned right view and is endowed with an extreme view, in terms of higher view, is called 'view-deficient in higher view'. Lacking what is desired to be heard by one who maintains the assembly, he is 'of little learning'. Not knowing what should be known by him, such as offenses, he is 'unwise'. In this group of five, the first three terms are stated in terms of unsuitability, the last two in terms of offense-factors. He does not know the offense: when it is said 'this was done by me', he does not know 'this person has fallen into this offense'. He does not know the recovery: he does not know 'from an offense leading to recovery or an offense leading to confession, recovery is thus'. Indeed, in this group of five, the first two terms are stated in terms of unsuitability, the last three in terms of offense-factors. Regarding the training in proper conduct: it means he is not capable of training in the Khandhaka duties. Regarding the training in the beginning of the holy life: it means he is not capable of training in the Sekhiya rules. Regarding Abhidhamma: it means he is not capable of training in the analysis of mind and matter. Regarding Abhivinaya: it means he is not capable of training in the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. And 'not capable of training' everywhere means he cannot teach. To distinguish by Dhamma: to clarify by reason of Dhamma. In this group of five, there is an offense in all instances. In the group of five beginning with 'does not know the offense', 'in detail' means together with both Vibhaṅgas. Not well-received: not well-come. Well-analyzed: well-divided, free from the fault of confusion of words and their referents. Well-practiced: well-mastered, committed to memory, well-discerned. By way of Sutta: well-discerned by way of Suttas to be drawn from the Khandhakas and Parivāra. By way of Anubyañjana: by way of letters And by complete fulfillment, well-determined, unbroken, with unperverted letters. By this, the commentary is illuminated. For this determination comes from the commentary. In this group of five, there is an offense in all instances. The same method applies to the group of five ending with less than ten years. Thus, the first three groups of five, in the fourth, three terms, in the fifth, two terms— all four groups of five are stated as inappropriate. In the fourth group of five, two terms, in the fifth, three, the sixth, seventh, and eighth are three groups of five— all four groups of five are stated as components of an offense. But in the bright fortnight, in the reverse of what was said: "Monks, a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities should confer ordination, should give dependence, should attend to a novice. He is endowed with the unlearned aggregate of morality," and so on (Mahavagga 84), eight groups of five are indeed mentioned. There, in all cases, there is no offense. 152. To whom should it be given, to whom should it not be given? Here, however, to one who is conscientious, it should be given. To the other, it should not be given, according to the saying: "Monks, dependence should not be given to the shameless. Whoever gives it commits an offense of wrong-doing" (Mahavagga 120). Even when dwelling in dependence, one should not dwell in dependence on the shameless. For this has been said: "Monks, one should not dwell in dependence on the shameless. Whoever dwells commits an offense of wrong-doing" (Mahavagga 120). Here (Mahavagga Commentary 120), "alajjīnaṃ" is a genitive case in the sense of use; it means one should not dwell in dependence on a shameless person. Therefore, even when one who has gone to a new place is told, "Come, bhikkhu, take dependence," one should examine the conscientiousness of the giver of dependence for four or five days, and then dependence should be taken. For it has been said: "Monks, I allow you to wait for four or five days until you know the bhikkhu's suitability" (Mahavagga 120). If, having heard from bhikkhus that "the elder is conscientious," one wishes to take it on the very day of arrival, the elder, however, (might say) "Wait for a while; by dwelling, you will know," and (observe) the conduct for a few days... Having examined, he gives dependence. It is allowable. But by one who has gone to the place for taking dependence as a matter of course, it must be taken on that very day. There is no exemption for even one day. If the teacher has no time in the first watch, and not obtaining time, he lies down thinking, "I will take it at dawn," and does not even know when the sun has risen, there is no offense. But if he lies down without making the intention, "I will take it," there is a dukkaṭa offense at sunrise. By one who has gone to a place not previously visited, and intends to leave after staying two or three days, it is allowable to stay without dependence. But by one who intends to stay for seven days, dependence must be taken. If the elder says, "What is the need for dependence for one staying seven days?" then he has obtained an exemption from the time it was rejected. However, according to the saying, "I allow, monks, that a monk on a journey, not obtaining dependence, may stay without dependence," a monk on a journey, if he does not find a dependence-giver who is also on a journey with him, then not obtaining dependence in this way, it is allowable for him to travel for many days without dependence. If he enters any dwelling where he has previously stayed having taken dependence, he must take dependence even if staying for one night. If he rests on the way or stays for a few days searching for a caravan, there is no offense. But during the rainy season, he must stay for a fixed residence, and dependence must be taken. For one traveling by boat, even if the rainy season arrives, if he does not obtain dependence, there is no offense. If he becomes ill on the way, it is allowable for him to stay without dependence, not obtaining dependence. A sick attendant, being requested by the sick person, may also stay without dependence. For it has been said, "I allow, monks, that a sick monk, not obtaining dependence, may stay without dependence. I allow, monks, that a sick attendant monk, not obtaining dependence, being requested, may stay without dependence" (Mahāvagga 121). But if he is told, "Request me," Even if a sick person does not ask out of pride, he should go. "I allow, monks, that a forest-dwelling monk, considering a comfortable dwelling, not obtaining a preceptor, may dwell without a preceptor, with the thought: 'When a suitable preceptor comes, then I will dwell dependent on him.'" However, by this saying, one should dwell without a preceptor, not obtaining a preceptor, considering a comfortable dwelling where dwelling is comfortable in terms of the attainment of calm and insight.