English
should be ordained" (Mahavagga 87) —here, only ordination is shown. And here, only ordination is shown, because the giving of probation to him is established. This Pali text is for the purpose of showing the giving of probation. The explanation of the story of those who went over to the sectarians is finished. The explanation of the story of those born as animals 111. "In the Naga realm" means from the Naga realm, the intention is "because of their own Naga birth." For what reason? Because of frequent sexual intercourse in their own species, and the emission of semen for all of them. The explanation of the story of those born as animals is finished. The explanation of the story of matricides, etc. 112-5. "Apavāhanaṃ" means slipping away, the meaning is "desiring to wear the saffron robe." With an evil mind. Of what kind? The intention is "with a murderous mind." Blood Some say it is a corrupted mind by way of its arising. That is not good. The explanation of the story of the matricide, etc., is concluded. The explanation of the story of the hermaphrodite. 116. It is written: “If by the gender arisen at conception they obtain this name, that is the intention.” The explanation of the story of the hermaphrodite is concluded. The explanation of the story of those without an Upajjhāya, etc. 117. What is said, “Some say ‘it is invalid,’ that should not be taken,” is well said, because it is stated in the way beginning with, “Bhikkhus, if an act is to be done by a group of five, a bhikkhuni as the fifth should perform the act; it should not be done as a non-act” (Mahāvagga 390). Thus, the act is invalid only when eunuchs, etc., complete the quorum, not in all cases. Otherwise, it would have to be in the Pāli beginning with, “An act should be done with a eunuch as Upajjhāya; it should not be done as a non-act.” Just as, at the time of ordaining one whose bowl and robes are incomplete, by proclaiming in the formal declaration “one whose bowl and robes are complete,” a non-existent fact, when the ordination is performed, even though that is non-existent, the ordination is valid. Similarly, even when an irrelevant fact like “This Buddharakkhita is an ordination candidate of the Venerable Dhammarakkhita,” or a non-existent fact, such as a eunuch as Upajjhāya, etc., is proclaimed and the ordination is performed, the ordination is valid because the quorum is present. Due to the absence of a statement beginning with, “Bhikkhus, one should not ordain with a eunuch as Upajjhāya; whoever ordains, there is an offense of wrong-doing, and that person is not ordained,” this meaning is indeed established. For the Buddhas do not say what is not fit to be said. Therefore it is said, “Whatever bhikkhu, knowing, ordains one under twenty years old… and that person is not ordained” (Pācittiya 403). Similarly, the statement, “By the statement, ‘The Sangha should be informed by a competent and able bhikkhu’ (Mahāvagga 71), the ordination performed by a teacher who is a thief-companion, etc., by means of a proclamation, is not valid because they are not bhikkhus,” should also not be taken. Furthermore, “These four acts, five...” "Failing in seven ways," and so on (Pari. 482), in the way that the success and failure of acts are spoken of, it should not be taken that "acts fail in seven ways: due to the object, or due to the declaration, or due to the announcement, or due to the boundary, or due to the assembly, or due to the preceptor, or due to the teacher," because it is not stated. If it is said that "due to the assembly" includes the preceptors and teachers? No, because in the analysis of "acts fail due to the assembly in twelve ways," they are not mentioned. This meaning is stated as: "Since it can be known only by the Pāli text stated in its own form here and there, therefore, having shown the method, it is concise – this is its justification." Here, this should be considered: Did those monks, ordaining one without a preceptor, declare that matter as untrue in the manner stated, or, fearing falsehood, did they not announce those very words? And here, if they did not announce it due to the absence of a preceptor, there is the problem of failure as stated: "it does not refer to the person." But if they did announce it, falsehood arises for them. It is said: They did announce it, fearing the problem of failure as stated, and because it is stated in the commentary that "the act, however, does not fail," not because falsehood is impossible, and because an act can arise even with falsehood. For it is not possible to make the failure or success of an act by falsehood. Therefore, the meaning of the phrase "ordaining one without a preceptor" must be sought, free from both faults. And this is the justification here: "Just as previously, even when preceptors for going forth and ordination were present, it was said, 'At that time, the monks were without a preceptor,' and so on, because they were not taken in the order of taking a preceptor, so here too, it is said, 'ordaining one without a preceptor,' because a preceptor, though existing, was not taken. However, the preceptor, having been taken by the teacher of the act, should be declared as the preceptor with the understanding that he is the preceptor, and the act-recitation should be announced. Or, if the preceptor, for some reason, does not give physical presence, the six Taking the egg, he recites the formal declaration, or the preceptor, having given the preceptor to the candidate for ordination, afterwards, when that person has been ordained, whether questioned or not questioned concerning such a matter, acknowledges that he was a novice even before the giving of the preceptor, or acknowledges that he had renounced the training or had committed a serious offense, or the preceptor, like the gatherers of consent, etc., has gone to another boundary. Because it is said (Mahāva. 259), "The kammavācā is valid," and "I allow, monks, in border regions, ordination by a group of five, with a Vinaya-holder as the fifth," some say, "The Vinaya-holder as the fifth must indeed be present as the preceptor," so it is stated in the ancient commentaries. If that reading is the standard, then in the middle regions, that statement is not present. If it is said that the kammavācā is valid even if the preceptor is not present? No, why? In the completion of the act, the statement "he touches the person" is our standard. For there, a person designated as the preceptor, if not present, is not fit to be touched, therefore, there, the touching of the person should be understood as like the touching of the Sangha. They ordain with the Sangha, with the group, with the preceptor, because they are essentially persons. The ancients say that they ordain with a preceptor who is a eunuch, etc., because it was unknown at the time of ordination. Explanation of matters concerning the bowl, etc., that are not valid. 118. The reciter of the kammavācā, ordaining with a bowl and robes that are not valid, thinking "the bowl and robes are complete," or without considering the actual completeness, recites the kammavācā "the bowl and robes are complete" with a soothing intonation. Just as nowadays, even one whose parents are dead or far away, when asked "Are you permitted by your parents?", says "Yes, venerable sir." What more is there to say? This is the essence here – because the characteristic "at that time, four acts fail in five ways" has not yet been laid down, they ordain one without a preceptor, etc., because prohibited persons have not been mentioned, they ordain with a preceptor who is a eunuch, etc. They ordain. Not seeing the thirteen obstacles when questioned, they ordain without bowl and robe. It should be understood that the non-utterance of "with complete bowl and robe" in the first authorized formal announcement, "I allow, monks, to ordain with a ñatti-cattuttha kamma" (Mahāvagga 69), is the proof here. For that utterance was allowed gradually. Explanation of the story of those with severed hands, etc. 119. Let this be so in every way. "They ordain a mute, they ordain a deaf person"— how can this be possible, since from the very beginning it was allowed, "I allow, monks, ordination by these three refuges" (Mahāvagga 34), and so on? It is said: "And thus, monks, one should ordain. You should say thus... (etc.) ... For the third time I go for refuge to the Sangha." Here, taking the wrong meaning of the phrase "You should say thus," they ordained a mute. The preceptor, having commanded that ordination-seeker, "You should say thus," himself said, "For the third time I go for refuge to the Sangha." Whether that ordination-seeker, thus commanded, repeated the preceptor's words or not, in various places the Blessed One says, "He makes known by body, he makes known by speech, he makes known by body and speech. The preceptor is taken. Consent is given. Purity is given. Invitation is given." Or by inference from that, the going for refuge was made known by the body of that ordination-seeker. Or, in the world, one who makes known by body is said to "speak thus." Taking that interpretation, it should be understood that they ordained a mute. In the ancient commentaries, having asked "How do they ordain a mute?", it is said that "because of the possibility of bodily expression, they ordained him by striking with the body and making known by hand gestures." What more is there to say? This is the essence here: just as before, when the right to ordination existed, interrupting the declaration of ordination, "Monks, a eunuch, a... One who is not fully ordained should not be fully ordained. Thus, the expression is made in terms of full ordination. Although it is not made in the case of a thief-dweller, as it is impossible there, only renunciation is made there. But everywhere, by the expression of full ordination, that is intended by its power. When full ordination or renunciation is forbidden,