English
full ordination is forbidden. Thus, it is understood that here, in the context of full ordination, having suppressed the expression of full ordination, the expression of renunciation is made with reference to full ordination itself. Indeed, it should not be made. As it is impossible in the case of a mute, it seems that the expression of full ordination should be made from the very beginning in his case. Nevertheless, in the case of that mute, the expression of renunciation is made from the very beginning to prevent wrong grasping. How so? "Monks, a mute is not fit for rehabilitation. If the Sangha rehabilitates him, he is rehabilitated." By this saying, it is established that a mute is fully ordained. The wrong grasping would be: "He is merely fully ordained, but not one who has renounced, as renunciation is impossible for him." Having caused this to be abandoned, whoever is fully ordained, he is indeed one who has renounced. But among those who have renounced, some are fully ordained, and some are not fully ordained. It should be understood that the Blessed One produces this right grasping. Moreover, to show that those who have renounced, such as those with severed hands, are well-renounced, and to prevent the doubt of their not having renounced, the expression of renunciation is made here. How so? By the prohibition: "Monks, one with a severed hand should not be made to renounce," and so on, and by the absence of a place where it is said: "Those who have renounced are well-renounced," there might be a doubt about their not having renounced. As there might be such a doubt, let the doubt remain. In the Khandhaka, with reference to full ordination, the Blessed One prohibits, saying: "Monks, one with a severed hand is not fit for rehabilitation. If the Sangha rehabilitates him, he is rehabilitated," and so on. By that same method, he shows that all of them who have renounced are indeed well-renounced. Otherwise, all of these they are only fully ordained, not renunciants, this undesirable implication arises. How? “A hand-maimed person, monks, should not be ordained; if ordained, he should be expelled,” or “No, monks, a hand-maimed person should not be ordained; whoever ordains him, there is an offense of wrong-doing, and he is not a renunciant.” When this is established in the text, because it is said in the Campeyya Khandhaka “he has been expelled,” the meaning is that merely “these hand-maimed persons, etc., are only fully ordained, not renunciants,” or “even if fully ordained and renunciants, they should be expelled,” this undesirable part arises. This should be considered here: “and he is not a renunciant”— since there is no such statement, and since the ordination of a mute person would be accomplished, how does this undesirable part not arise, that ordination is also by one-sided purity? It does not arise by proper understanding, that full ordination is intended here by the aspiration for renunciation. Otherwise, if the meaning is taken according to the letter, another undesirable part arises, namely, the absence of the offense of wrong-doing as prescribed. How? “No, monks, a mute person should not be ordained; whoever ordains him, there is an offense of wrong-doing”— the wrong-doing mentioned occurs at the completion of ordination, not when it is incomplete. Indeed, the wrong-doing of preliminary action arises first. Therefore, since the completion of a mute person’s ordination is absent, the occasion for this wrong-doing could never arise. But when the meaning is taken in terms of full ordination, it arises from the completion of the act. For this reason, in the Pāli, “No, monks, a eunuch should not be fully ordained; whoever ordains him, there is an offense of wrong-doing”— the wrong-doing is not prescribed. Since it is not prescribed, only the wrong-doing of preliminary action can arise here, not the other. Thus it is established that “full ordination is intended there by the aspiration for renunciation, not renunciation itself.” Here it is asked: How is it known that novice ordination does not occur by bodily action? It is said: From seeing the triad, “he makes known by body,” etc. And here it is: “Even if some rabbit, should stand…” who is in the great ocean; But not in the four-fathom deep, The Vinaya ocean is hard to grasp." Here, regarding "brahmujugatto," it is written: "Taking the word 'brahma' in the sense of 'faultless' and 'supreme,' one who is faultless and has a straight body is 'brahmujugatto'." Or, not taking devas and the like as examples due to their indulgence in sensual pleasures, one whose body is straight like Brahma is "brahmujugatto." A large-bellied pot is "mahākucchighaṭo." One who is similar to it is called "mahākucchighaṭasadiso." How is it known that "galagaṇḍī" is merely a designation? From the saying: "Monks, one afflicted with five diseases should not be ordained." "Kilāso" (leprosy) is also intended here, meaning not just that one person, but those afflicted with five diseases, the royal servants and others up to slaves mentioned in the Pāli, and those whose parents have not given permission, mentioned in the story of Rahula—all ten types of people are intended here. To illustrate this meaning, Upāli Thera, in the Pāli text that has been cut short here, brings in and mentions again those previously stated, such as those with marks from being struck by crows. Therefore, in the Campeyyakkhandhaka, regarding the explanation of "Monks, there is a person who has not reached the stage of being expelled; if the Sangha expels him, some are expelled, some are condemned" (Mahāva. 396), the seven types of people—those afflicted with five diseases, royal servants, thieves, prison-breakers, debtors, and slaves, and those whose parents have not given permission—are not included, nor are they found. Otherwise, these too should have been mentioned in its explanation. If it is said that they should not be mentioned there because they are incapable, then in that case, those who should be mentioned in the explanation of "the Sangha expels him, some are condemned" would be like eunuchs and the like, but they are not mentioned. Since they are not mentioned in either place, these cannot be both. Therefore, the previously mentioned ten types of unmentioned people, such as those who have been written about again, are mentioned for the purpose of inclusion. Why then are they mentioned here in a different order? To show that even if debtors and slaves are expelled, debtors and slaves must be given to their masters, thus showing their dependent state. Therefore, it is said there: "Even if he runs away, should be brought and given. And if a thief who has committed a crime goes forth, or a royal officer who has committed a fault, he should be understood as caught by the creditor's grasp. Or, since none of those described as creditors or slaves are worthy of being called "released," their exclusion is taught in reverse order, ascending rather than descending, as shown above. The "written one" is said to be "released," so he should be taken to another country. The same applies to those who have broken the agreement, and so on. Thus, it should be understood that the Buddha, through his skill in teaching, and by the previously mentioned grasp, demonstrated the accomplishment of going forth and ordination for all ten of those described, and by the reverse order of words, the diversity of individuals was revealed to those skilled in teaching. And here it is said: "Having spoken what is fit to be spoken, and what is unfit but desirable through the method of teaching; The Buddha's words, illuminating, make the mind diverse, as if variegated." Here it is asked: In the Campeyya Khandhaka, since one under nineteen years old is not mentioned in either case, might he be neither? No, he would not be, precisely because he is not mentioned. For if there were to be a third category, it would certainly have to be stated by the Buddha, but it was not stated. Therefore, he is not "neither." Then which side does he join? He joins the side of those who are "faulty." Then why was it not stated? Because it is forbidden by the training rule. "Having bound with a bandage" means having bound again. It is written: "This is a designation for the procedure of binding the foot with various medicines, and then putting it into a pit." Or like an elephant with a cotton head. "Gobhattanāḷikā" is a trough made for the food and drink of cattle. "Upakkamukho" is said to mean an angry face. "Vātaṇḍiko" is one afflicted with a disease of swelling in the testicles. "Vikaṭo" is one with legs that walk sideways. "Guṇī kuṇī" is said to be a twofold reading. And since going forth is forbidden for them, ordination is also forbidden for them, and so on, because those with severed hands, etc., are mentioned only in the context of ordination, therefore they He said this regarding those with severed hands, etc. The description of the story of those with severed hands, etc., is finished. The description of the story of relying on the shameless 120. “Monks, reliance should not be given to the shameless.” By this, both the enjoyment of Dhamma and requisites with shameless monks or novices are forbidden, because of their state of reliance. As it is said, “Monks, a teacher should gather his pupil, should favor him with instruction, with questioning, with advice, with admonition,” etc. (Mahāvagga 79). Since reliance can also be offered to an upajjhāya, he too should be understood as a reliance for his co-resident. Therefore, if the upajjhāya is shameless, it is established that one should not reside relying on him. A monk who is equal in right practice to other monks is a suitable companion. His state is the suitability of a monk. That suitability of a monk. It is permissible to reside with the intention of “I will know.” Suitability with monks. What is that? The state of being conscientious.