English
" "Similar to the ordination kammavācā of monks" – here it is said, "just as one who has been ordained, having renounced the training and being dressed and clothed as he was, and then having been re-ordained, again performs acts of veneration and so on to one who was formerly junior to him or of the same seniority, so too a novice, having again taken refuge, again performs acts of veneration and so on to a novice who was formerly junior to him or of the same seniority. Here, the mark does not establish seniority, so it is said." Some say, "eating at the wrong time is an offense for novices." He should be made to confess his offense in the manner of "An offense, venerable sir, has overcome me," and so on. It is said, "by not abandoning the view, if it is said, 'You, novice, go,' he becomes one who has incurred a pārājika offense." They say, "since it is said 'up to the third time,' it is said that the refuges are not broken merely by speaking ill of the Buddha and so on, or merely by holding a view." If this is the case, then my conjecture is that it also applies to one who commits pāṇātipāta and so on. And some say, "expulsion of one without morality is stated," which seems appropriate. For the Blessed One does not allow the expulsion of one who is virtuous, this should be considered. The ancients say that by the designation of one who defiles nuns, the capable and incapable are included. "Just as the meaning here is shown that 'he does not even obtain ordination,' so too, it is indicated that for those mentioned in the manner beginning with 'Monks, a eunuch, if not yet ordained, should not be ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled' (Mahāvagga 109), there is no ordination. Indeed, apart from this passage, there is no place where their ordination is prohibited. Others say that 'Monks, one who defiles nuns, if not yet ordained, should not be ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled' (Mahāvagga 114) is stated, and because it is similar, to show that their ordination is prohibited just like his ordination, the term 'one who defiles nuns' is taken again." What is the point of this? Was it not said in the commentary: "Regarding whoever's ordination is prohibited here, concerning that person it is said: 'if not yet ordained, he should not be ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled.'" The explanation of the story of the prohibition without asking, and so on, is finished. Explanation of the story of the eunuch. 109. For the eunuch by artificial means, because of his deficient limbs, ordination is prohibited for one not yet ordained; for one already ordained, higher ordination should not be performed. The teacher says, "If one was previously fully ordained and there is a way of living, expulsion should not be done, that is not our reasoning." One born with severed limbs is not a eunuch. Among the five, only the impotent eunuch is without a state (of being). The other four should be understood as having a state (of being). Their state, however, is that of a eunuch. Some say that these four are indeed men. Some say that a woman can also be a "pakkhapaṇḍakī" (eunuch by period). When an artificial procedure is done, the state of being a eunuch necessarily arises, therefore he does not obtain ordination. It is said, "If, however, it does not happen to someone, they declare the decision that ordination is not prohibited." It is written: "The meaning of 'ordination is prohibited' is that one should ordain in the case of a non-eunuch, and expel in the case of a eunuch." However, in the ancient commentaries, seven types of eunuchs are mentioned, including the "māsapaṇḍaka" (eunuch by month) and "lekhapaṇḍaka" (eunuch by writing/spell). There, a "lekhapaṇḍaka" is said to be one whose seed is damaged by means of a spell. There, "opakkamikā lekhapaṇḍa..." Who, having gone forth, should not be expelled? Whoever ordains him, that is a wrong-doing. The description of the story of the paṇḍaka is finished. The description of the story of living by stealth 110. Here, regarding "living by stealth," although by way of the meaning of the letters, it is understood as living by stealth simply by the meaning of "living together," yet there are three kinds of living by stealth. "Living together" here is not living together by one act, etc., but a difference in action, such as the number of years as a bhikkhu, is called living together here. For this can be done by stealth, not the other, this is the intention of the commentary. The fault is for one who, having gone to a foreign land, when asked by those who have gone forth, says "I am ten years old" and so on. Some say there is no fault when told to laypeople. Even if there is a deceptive thought in those who have adopted the signs due to fear of the king, etc., "may laypeople know me as a recluse," since there is no desire to deceive bhikkhus, and no desire to live with them, no fault arises. It is also written: "It is difficult to avoid living together for one who comes to the monastery and takes from the Sangha saying 'all sectarian food,' therefore it is said." Since it is said "well-ordained," if they ordain even a householder, it falls under "well-ordained," and by "only at the time of not being ordained," it shows that if he hears at the time of being ordained, he is well-ordained even if he does not declare it. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā and in the ancient commentaries, a bhikkhu of bad conduct is called "living by stealth," which should be understood by this method, as in "the country's alms-food, monks, has been eaten by you by stealth." Therefore it is said, "that should not be taken." By "in large baskets, etc.," what belongs to laypeople is shown. If a novice himself counts false years and takes, he is defeated, but he is not living by stealth; the same for a bhikkhu, but he should be made to pay the value of the goods, with this intention, "a novice himself" and so on is said. But this one, called living by stealth, since he is one who has gone forth, not one who has not gone forth, therefore, "living by stealth, monks, one who has not gone forth should not be ordained." to be conquered, a renunciant to be destroyed,” it is not possible to say. Therefore, from the time of the eunuch, the Pāli text was established with phrases like: “One who is not fully ordained should not be fully ordained,” not because of the mere inability to be fully ordained, for then all eleven of them would be liable to be ordained. Moreover, the Pāli text was established in that way due to the undesirable consequence. Since apostasy to other sects and schism of the Sangha occur only to one who is fully ordained, not to one who is not fully ordained, and such a person, in both cases, is a renunciant, not one who has not renounced, therefore, if there were a Pāli text like: “Monks, an apostate from other sects, one who has not renounced, should not be ordained,” then both of them would not be ordained, which would lead to an undesirable consequence. Among the three types of thieves by cohabitation, one who makes a novice's dwelling is a thief by outward sign. One who makes a fully ordained monk's dwelling is a thief by cohabitation. And one who makes both. For novice cohabitation is not called cohabitation here. That is why in the commentary, some say: “All distinctions of action, such as the counting of a monk's years, are cohabitation in this context.” The teacher says: “Not so, because prostration, acceptance, and refusal of seats are common to novice cohabitation according to seniority.” The explanation of the story of the thief by cohabitation is concluded. The explanation of the story of the apostate from other sects “Monks, an apostate from other sects,” and so on, although it should be said in the story of Pasūra, which is its origin, they are unable to do so because there is no authority prohibited there. It is mentioned here because it can occur without a thief by cohabitation. Here, the phrase “Then he should not be ordained” is to be understood as due to the fear of the consequence of allowing ordination, as Pasūra's desire was only for full ordination, and the Buddha's prohibition was only against his full ordination, saying: “He has come, he should not be fully ordained.” When they have merely adopted the outward sign, whether they have adopted the doctrine or not, they are apostates from other sects. Or they attain the superiority of a naked ascetic, who is not to be venerated, but they are not released. Here, “a dukkata offense at every step, he will become an Ajivaka.” some say, "Having gone by way of uneven minds, not by going naked." It is my thought that it is suitable by way of both. For now, the doctrine protects him because he is not accepted. How is it known that it was spoken by an ordained bhikkhu? Some say, "From the measure of the Commentary's words." Some say, "By way of the origin." Some say, "Because Pasūra was ordained, and it is said that only the ordained went over to the sectarians." As the teacher said, "The preceptor has gone over, or is confused, or has died, or has gone over to another party." Some say, "Has gone over to another party" means it is not found in the cases of novices' expulsion. Some say, "Because there is a fear of one who was formerly a sectarian and is now ordained going over to another party, a probation is prescribed for ordination when he was not ordained." If it is for going forth too? No, because it was previously discussed, and because one who has not gone forth does not have higher virtue. For the Patimokkha virtue is called higher virtue, and that one who has not gone forth does not have. And in this probationary practice, higher virtue is mentioned. As it is said, "Again, bhikkhus, if one who was formerly a sectarian comes with strong desire for instruction, for questioning, for higher virtue" (Mahavagga 87). Moreover, "If, bhikkhus, a Sakyan by birth, who was formerly a sectarian, comes, he, having come,