English
There, the venerable Mahākassapa, following the order of teaching that the Blessed One allowed when he permitted the recitation of the Pātimokkha to the bhikkhus in Rājagaha, first asked about the recitation of the Pārājika, then about the recitation of the Saṅghādisesa, then about the recitation of the Aniyata and the detailed recitation, and then about the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga in the same sequence. And to ask about those not explicitly recited in their own form, which are included in the recitation of the origins, he also asked in the Khandhaka. By this, the grave offenses promulgated in the Khandhaka are included. The venerable Upāli Thera, teaching all that, including the distinctions of offenses and so on, in the order in which they were asked, taught it by including the elucidation of grave offenses, offenses of wrong speech, and the origin of offenses, and so on; this is the order of teaching here. But from the Ubhatovibhaṅga and Khandhaka, the Parivāra Pāli was extracted and made separate at that time. Referring to this very method, it is said in the commentary, “By this same method, they also included the Khandhaka and Parivāra,” and so on (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1. Paṭhamamahāsaṅgītikathā). Moreover, in the Pāli, it is only said, “By this same method, he asked in both Vinayas. The venerable Upāli answered as he was asked.” Therefore, Mahākassapa asked only in the Ubhatovibhaṅga. Answering, But the venerable Upāli, when teaching the remaining parts, taught by including the Khandhakas and Parivāra. And at that time, the Khandhaka and Parivāra Pāli were made separate; this is the order of teaching. If so, should the Nidānuddesa be taught first? No, because that is not possible. For it, beginning with "whoever might incur an offense" (Mahāva. 134), proceeds in that manner, and is not possible unless the offenses included in the training rules are first shown. By the saying: "the training rules which I have laid down for the bhikkhus, those should be allowed for their recitation of the Pātimokkha," only the training rules should be taught first; thus the order of the Pārājika recitation is possible. Since the offenses and unwholesome deeds included in the Pārājika recitation and so on must be abandoned in order of their gravity, the order of abandonment is possible here. Immediately after ordination, by the saying: "the four things not to be done should be told" (Mahāva. 129), and by the saying: "he undertakes and trains in the training rules" (Dī. Ni. 1.193), just as the telling of the grave matters and the training, the order of practice is possible here. Thus, for these training rules to be taught in these three orders, the order of their arising is also possible as appropriate. For indeed, whatever is common, that, concerning a bhikkhu, when the matter has arisen, "whatever bhikkhunī willingly engages in sexual intercourse," is also laid down for bhikkhunīs. Otherwise, that would be a rule laid down for bhikkhunīs without a prior occasion. Then, the saying in the Parivāra: "there is no rule laid down without a prior occasion" (Pari. 247) would be contradicted by this statement. Therefore, the Elder Upāli, wishing to teach the Pārājika concerning sexual intercourse first of all, because it arose first in the Pārājika recitation which attained the state of being taught first by the three previous orders, placed it by bringing it to Vesālī, saying: "there indeed the Blessed One was in Vesālī." Otherwise, if there were an intention to teach those laid down in Bārāṇasī, such as: "monks, human flesh should not be consumed" (Mahāva. 280), he would bring it to Bārāṇasī. should place it. The Internal Narrative is finished. The description of the Verañjā section is finished. 1. The Section on Defeats 1. The First Defeat Description of the Sudinna Recitation Section Here, in the origin of the first, standing, of the defeat, it should be known; The method of refuting accusations, and the exposition of the person and the object. There, the Blessed One, having spent the rainy season in Verañjā, wandering in due course, reached Vesālī in the bright half of Kattika, and remained in Vesālī for eight years until the promulgation of the first Pārājika training rule, as appears in the Pāli sequence, but the Blessed One did not remain there for such a long time. For, having allowed Sudinna to go forth and receive ordination in the presence of the disciples, he remained there as long as he wished, and wandering, he reached Bhesakaḷāvana and stayed there for the thirteenth year. In that same sequence, he reached Sāvatthī and stayed for the fourteenth year, in Kapilavatthu for the fifteenth, in Āḷavī for the sixteenth. Then, having spent the rainy season, wandering, he reached Rājagaha and stayed for the seventeenth. In this sequence, he stayed there for three more years. By this time, the Blessed One, having completed twenty years, reached Vesālī from Rājagaha in due course. Then Sudinna, eight years after his ordination, engaged in sexual intercourse in Vesālī itself. Then the Blessed One promulgated the first Pārājika on account of that incident. It should be understood thus. There, since the Elder Upāli, wishing to show the training rules promulgated in Vesālī earlier than this, and wishing to show the first Pārājika immediately after the Vinaya Nidāna, combined the first residence in Vesālī and the residence at the time of the promulgation of this training rule, and said, "At that time, the Blessed One was in Vesālī," and so on. Therefore, it was said, "Here, in the origin of the first, standing... and so on... and the exposition of the person and the object." Therefore, standing in this origin, which is the place of promulgation of the first Pārājika, it is said, "At that time, Near Vesālī, there was a village named Kalandagāma…pe… dwelling near a certain Vajji village.” In this explanation of the person for this training rule, and in this explanation of the story, “At that time, the Vajjī were suffering from famine…pe… he made known the sexual act three times” (Pārā. 30), it is said that the method of accusation and the method of refutation should be understood. Here is the explanation: Why did the Elder not state the persons and stories of other training rules briefly, but instead explained in detail all about where he was born, how he became devoted to the Dhamma, how he was ordained, and how he brought about this story, without omitting anything, if it is asked? It is said: Thus, with faith and difficulty, Leaving great wealth and relatives, Even for those who have gone forth, And for those who are entirely pure. If this most base of all things, Sexual intercourse, should occur, Then the teaching of the Dhamma itself Is not entirely successful in restraint. Therefore, even when the nine-fold good Dhamma Is taught by the Teacher, The Vinaya must be laid down, Thence comes the purity of the Dhamma. Without the Vinaya, Such transgression will occur; Therefore, the Vinaya's promulgation Is meaningful even for the pure. Since one who does not see danger Commits whatever evil, The Vinaya alone is for the faithful Who discern danger. Therefore, for those who follow faith, The Vinaya is meaningful; The Dhamma is for those who follow Dhamma, Hence the teaching of both. Moreover, to show that if one who does not transgress a precept still has ill-repute spread even to the Brahma-world, how much more so for others, is to highlight the notoriety of transgression. How? He is incapable of arahantship, Sudinna, the son of the mother; This precept was not made For the sake of those capable of arising. Did not the Elder show the attainment of arahantship by the mother of Bījakabījaka to demonstrate that, overlooking Māgaṇḍika, he taught the Dhamma for the benefit of his parents? “At that time, near Vesālī, there was a village named Kalandagāma, at which time Sudinna "He had sexual intercourse with his former wife" or "at the time the Blessed One laid down the first pārājika" such statements are not appropriate here. Why? Because the commentary's statement "here the meaning of cause and instrument are possible" is not taken here. For that village was established long ago, not at that very time. But since that village, though established long ago, deserves to be called existing at all times from its time of establishment, therefore, by way of explanation, it is said, "At that time, not far from Vesālī, there was a village named Kalandagāma." "Are you permitted?" the Blessed One asks to show the ascetic's practice. "Not permitted by parents" here it is said he asked to show he was not permitted by his birth-parents. "Not so, Sudinna, Tathāgata" thus he spoke by way of requesting, "May the Blessed One ordain me," the Blessed One did not himself give refuges and ordain him. In "of suffering," the remaining part of the text is "even a small portion." In both alternatives, meaning the second and third alternatives. Of the former word, meaning the word "kiñci" (any). With the latter word, meaning the word "dukkhassa" (of suffering). Same case ending, meaning the genitive case. Like what? It should be understood that "kiñci dukkhassa" (any of suffering) is said where "kassaci dukkhassa" (of anyone's suffering) should be said. "We shall be separated unwillingly" means "we shall live unwillingly without dying with you." Even if we do not die, we shall unwillingly experience separation from you. While you are alive, our death might occur. Even by death, we shall unwillingly experience separation from you. "Having taken strength for a few days" Why then, this person, so eager for ordination, though permitted, delayed in the house for a few days and gained physical strength? Being pleased with his parents and friends for granting permission, for the sake of their contentment. In some commentary texts, some teachers, thinking "this Sudinna became a rag-robe wearer