English
those with severed hands and so on are also included—this is what the ancients say. Therefore, by "Are you a human? Are you a man?", it avoids suitable and unsuitable individuals. By "Are you free? Are you debtless?", and so on, it supports the second interpretation among the interpretations of meaning stated previously in the section on those with severed hands. Here, by the words “You are not indebted, you are free,” not said in sequence, but in reverse order, he becomes free, and is not a hired worker by reason of the king’s food and wages. But because he is dependent on the king, he belongs to the king’s hired worker faction, so to ask about the opposite state, it is said, “You are not a king’s hired worker.” Otherwise, if the taking of those afflicted with the five ailments is sufficient for taking all, the others should not be mentioned. If they are to be mentioned, all should be mentioned. Explanation of the Discourse on the Four Dependencies, etc. 128-9. “The shade should be taken only for that long,” etc., is said to know the state of elder and non-elder, according to the saying, “having made the bhikkhus bow at the feet.” “He went after a long time” is said to be the ancient reading; “he did for a long time” is another. 130. In blameless association, if one associates with an excommunicated person, an offense of expiation is laid down due to association and co-residence; therefore, there is no offense. How is this understood? By the taking of “co-residence.” However, a minor offense that should be incurred due to association with a shameless person is indeed incurred, but not due to co-residence. For co-residence with a shameless person is not prohibited. Co-residence here means dwelling together in an abode sufficient for sleeping together, not the co-residence mentioned in “he is a parajika, not co-resident.” This co-residence is not permissible with an excommunicated person. Some co-residence is permissible with a shameless person. The other is free from Dhamma-association. But this discourse, “the excommunicated one apostatized,” etc., is said in general for the purpose of indicating who should be ordained and who should not. Moreover, purification from an offense occurs only through the sequence of practice, not through apostasy. Therefore, a bhikkhu who has been ordained, even if he has committed a minor offense, and later apostatized and returned, is ordained; he is purified only by confessing that offense, not otherwise. This is to show the sequence of purification for an ordained person. If, due to not seeing an uncommon offense, the excommunicated person, having changed his gender, has risen from the offense, and then his original gender reappears, there is indeed a state of separate co-residence, even if he returns after apostatizing. i If it is said, "Having ordained him in the manner stated, he has not fallen away," No, because of the appearance of a different gender. No, because the act is not invalidated by confusion. No, because if the act were invalidated, there would be a risk of the ordination act failing again. And there is no failure of the act, nor is there a cessation of the act. And one who is not ordained due to confusion, by being of a different communion, invalidates the act, because it was spoken with a decisive voice according to the Dhamma. Therefore, the future tense "you will see" was used. It should be understood that this entire discussion of meaning was stated to show that such a householder, like one whose vows and probation have been set aside, remains in the state of one not ordained due to confusion, in his original status. However, one who was suspended, having changed gender as previously stated, and then returned to his original gender, should be asked again, "Do you see?" If he says, "Yes, I see," he should be reinstated. He should not be told, "Confess," because he has fallen away by changing gender. The suspended one who has performed the counter-act should be asked, "What counter-act have you performed?" If he says, "Yes, it has been performed," he should be reinstated. Some say that one who says, "There is no counter-act for me to perform," should not be reinstated. This rule applies to a non-common offense, not to a common one. In that case, some say that the suspended one's act ceases merely by changing gender. The teacher says that one should consider and accept what is more appropriate. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, however, it is stated: "The use by a shameless person should be defined in terms of giving with one's own hand, etc. The argument of those who say, 'It is permissible to give with one's own hand to a shameless person after showing the duties of reconciliation, etc.,' should be refuted. How? According to the decision that it is not permissible to give with one's own hand to a suspended person. But it is permissible to have it given. Although it is a dukkaṭa due to the use by a shameless person, yet this person is not shameless, therefore, with reference to being entirely blameless, it is said, 'There is no offense in sharing, in communion.' How is this understood? It should be understood from the meaning that the seven-day period for sugarcane juice and gruel is for life, 'it is permissible. Having produced the perception 'I will eat sugarcane at the wrong time,' Having eaten it, He does not see the pācittiya on account of that. It is allowable because of such a perception. Or whoever, Having acknowledged the state Of having committed an offense, Insists 'I will not make amends' – These two – 'Intentionally commits an offense, Conceals the offense; And goes to a wrong destination, Such a person is called shameless.' (Pari. 359) – They are not shameless By falling from the described characteristics. Therefore, by the statement specifically made: 'Whoever does not perform The declaration and amendment of offenses, There is no offense In association with him.' Although there is no money transaction with others, Yet the rule is given That there is indeed an offense By buying and selling, And the rule that there is no offense at all With the five. Thus, in places of offense, Having specified, Since it is not stated so here, There is no association With the shameless with him. But if he is made to associate, He associates with the shameless side. By this method, The meaning should be sought By comparing each case everywhere, Say others. 'But the teachers do not say so,' It is said. Since it is said: 'If he says, "I will not see it," He should not be expelled,' It is established that offenses committed previously Do not cease even for one who has been expelled. Therefore, teachers make them declare the offense And then make them renounce the training. And it should be suspected that 'No offense in association' Means he does not see the existing offense Committed previously. And some say it is said To make known that it has ceased. 'You will see it' Is said in the future tense Because, being a layman, It is not allowable to declare it. 'Having been ordained, you will see it' Is said in the future tense, Not 'you see it,' Because there is something to be done, Such as probation. 'Having been reinstated' Means by way of rehabilitation. There, because there is nothing Further to be done, 'You see it' is said. All this is said With reference to acknowledging everywhere. If he does not acknowledge again Even in one place, With him, that offense... Living together inappropriately should not be done, it is said, due to shamelessness. In 'views' and so on, 'restoration' means performing it with a common act, etc. - this is the meaning. No offense in association means no offense in associating with an expelled monk. Why? Because the act of expulsion is relaxed by his becoming a layperson, therefore it is said, "when unity is not obtained." Now, some say it should be done in the state of a monk. They alone know the rule for relaxing the act in both cases, therefore, in all cases, what is proper and improper should be carefully considered and stated. Whoever, the Khandhaka, named 'Ordination', The root of the Teaching, with various methods; Having known, rightly proclaims to others, His is the authority in the Dispensation of the Sage. The commentary on the Great Khandhaka is finished. 2. Commentary on the Uposatha Khandhaka Commentary on the discourse beginning with the permission for assembly 132-3. "At that time" means at the time when, having laid down the burden of his own admonition and recitation of the Pātimokkha, he allowed the monks to perform the Uposatha separately. And what is that? It is the time when the training rules sufficient for the recitation of the Pātimokkha were completed in Majjhimabodhi. Therefore it is said, "He should allow them to recite the Pātimokkha." And "Thus, monks, it should be recited" was said with the desire to establish the introductory recitation and to illustrate the division of the recitation of the training rules. Otherwise, since the method of reciting all training rules was shown as "Thus, monks, you should recite this training rule," now this "Thus, monks, it should be recited" would become meaningless, and this was said with reference to the Uposatha of the entire Sangha. 134. "What if the venerable ones also... etc. ... should assemble" refers to the activity of many. There, too, it is to show that a monk spoken of with reference to the Vinaya is the master, not merely the elder of the Sangha, and to show that the Sangha is worthy of respectful address, that he said, "May the venerable ones listen to me." There, if he himself is an elder, referring to a monk, he says "āvuso" (friend). it is proper to say. How is it understood? In the Buddha's time, a dull Sangha elder was rare. And in the examples of using all formal acts, the Blessed One shows, "May the Sangha hear me, sirs," if it is said? So it is to be understood. Referring to the Sangha, even by the Sangha elder,