English
after the Jīvaka story, by way of the rag-robe ascetic practice," ‘‘Having rejected a householder's robe, he becomes a refuse-rag wearer by way of the refuse-rag ascetic practice’’ —they write this, which contradicts the statement ‘‘recently ordained.’’ ‘‘For Sudinna was ordained in the twelfth year of the Blessed One, and in the twentieth year he entered his relatives’ home for alms, having been eight years in his own ordination’’— and ‘‘For from the time the Blessed One attained Buddhahood until this incident, for twenty years no one accepted a householder’s robe; all were refuse-rag wearers’’— this contradicts the commentary’s statement. He was eight years in ordination, not in higher ordination. But he obtained higher ordination after the Jīvaka story (Mahāva. 326). Therefore, if it is said he entered his relatives’ home for alms without having been in higher ordination for years? No, because it is stated immediately together: ‘‘Sudinna, the Kalandaka’s son, obtained ordination from the Blessed One, he obtained higher ordination.’’ Immediately after ordination, he was indeed higher ordained, observing the thirteen ascetic practices, he resided in Vajjigāma for eight years, and being free from dependence, he became self-reliant, and with the thought, ‘‘Now the Vajjians are suffering from famine,’’ he went to Vesālī. Therefore, only the reading ‘‘he becomes a refuse-rag wearer by way of the refuse-rag ascetic practice’’ which is found in some manuscripts, should be accepted as authoritative. By ‘‘he is a forest dweller,’’ the five practices related to dwelling are included, and the sitting ascetic practice because it is part of the monastery. By ‘‘he is an alms-food eater,’’ the five practices related to alms-food are included. By ‘‘he is a refuse-rag wearer,’’ the two practices related to robes are included. It should be understood that the practice of going for alms in unbroken succession is stated separately with the intention of explaining the reason for going to the relatives’ house. ‘‘Do not cause them to be excessively carried’’ is said in terms of time lapse. Because it is very detrimental to the Dhamma, ‘‘this method’’ is indeed a wrong method. For when destruction is imminent for beings, a wrong method takes the form of a right method by coming into the intellect. 36. When a training rule is not laid down Here, the formulation of training rules is of two kinds. How? "And thus, monks, you should recite this training rule" — thus, it is of two kinds, distinguished as with recitation and without recitation. Among these, the five groups of offenses that appear in their own form in the Pātimokkha are called formulations with recitation. That too is of two kinds, distinguished as with and without mention of a person. Among these, that formulation in which a person is shown, either with or without the offense, is one with mention of a person. The other should be understood as without mention of a person. That with mention of a person is also of two kinds, distinguished as with and without the offense shown. Among these, those without the offense shown are the eight Pārājika rules. For in "He is defeated, no longer in communion," only the person is shown, not the offense. Those with the offense shown are, in the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha, "seventeen Saṅghādisesa rules, a Saṅghādisesa leading to expulsion" — for there the offense is shown together with the person. Similarly, those without mention of a person are also of two kinds, from being with or without the offense shown. Among these, those without the offense shown are the Sekhiya rules. The rest should be understood as with the offense shown. That too is of two kinds, distinguished as with and without a specified doer. Among these, those without a specified doer are fifteen kinds, by way of the training rules on emission of semen, false speech, abusive speech, slanderous speech, destroying plant life, speaking otherwise, complaining, group eating, successive eating, intoxicating drinks, poking with a finger, joking, disrespect, striking the palm, and rubbing the body. The rest should be understood as with a specified doer, by way of the mentions of persons. Formulations without recitation are also of six kinds, by way of word division, intermediate offenses, rules for disciplined conduct, prohibitions, and what is established without being stated. Among these, "mostly eaten, an offense of grave fault" (Pārā. 61) — an offense appearing in the word division, such as this, is called a training rule of word division. "One should not come naked; whoever comes, an offense of wrong-doing" (Pārā. 517) — such as this, is called a training rule of intermediate offense. "I allow, monks, during the day, to p "Having closed the door, one should seclude oneself," (Pārā. 75) such as these, are called the training rules of instructed matters. "A blood-producer, monks, who is unordained, should not be ordained; who is ordained, should be expelled," (Mahāva. 114) such as these, are called the training rules of prohibition. The dukkata and thullaccaya offenses enacted in the Khandhakas, are called the training rules of enactment. "Whatever bhikkhunī goes to see dancing, or singing, or playing music, it is a pācittiya," (Pāci. 834) by this statement, "Whatever bhikkhunī dances, or sings, or plays music, it is a pācittiya," such as these, whatever class of offense or disciplinary action is found in the commentaries, is called the training rule of unstated implication. All six of these are not fit for recitation for six reasons, and are known as the training rules not for recitation. Namely: due to the heterogeneous nature of thullaccaya and dubbhāsita offenses, in relation to the five recitations as appropriate; due to the heterogeneous offense of both dukkata and thullaccaya, even when the basis is homogeneous; due to the offenses having different bases for antarāpatti and paññatti training rules; due to not showing the offense for some paṭikkhepa, vinītavatthu, and paññatti training rules; due to the basis not being shown for the thullaccaya of schism-following; and due to the offense and basis not being shown for the avuttasiddhi training rules. Thus far, what was stated as "The enactment of training rules is twofold, by way of recitation and non-recitation," has been briefly explained. There, "in un-enacted training rules" should be understood as referring to the training rules for recitation. Some teachers, it is said, explain thus: "Having asked, 'By the Buddha, the Blessed One, enlightened at how many years, were the four pārājikas enacted?' and so on, the first pārājika was enacted in Vesālī by the Buddha, enlightened at five years, in the first month of winter, on the second fortnight, on the tenth day, when the shadow was two and a half men's height, while seated facing east, in the midst of twelve and a half hundred bhikkhus..." It is not appropriate to say, “It was laid down concerning Sudinna, the son of Kalandaka,” Why? Because the Victorious One dwelt in Verañjā for twelve years. And at that time the Sangha was pure, there was no pārājika then. The request for the laying down of a training rule by the Elder Sāriputta was established at that time, there was no grave offense then. And the Ovāda Pātimokkha— was the Teacher four years old? Did he reject the command? He allowed it to be completed. That which Devadatta caused, the schism of the Sangha, relying on Ajātasattu, that schism was in the latter part of the Bodhi. “In the past, the bhikkhus entreated me,” this statement of the Sage, is our only authority; that time was not long ago. As for what was said, “Then the Blessed One, not seeing any transgression, did not lay down a pārājika or a saṅghādisesa,” this refers to the entire training rule. It does not refer merely to the training rule with a preamble; it means that the entire pārājika, with its distinction of preamble and subsequent enactment, is referred to. Although touching the navel is also physical contact, it is mentioned separately due to this specific regulation and the absence of desire and attachment. For here, physical contact is intended only for one who is inflamed by desire and attachment. In the case of drinking impure substances, a disease called vālakābya arises in an elephant cow from drinking the urine of an ascetic. The cause of vālakābya should be stated. It is said to be from touching Maṇḍabya’s navel. Regarding seeing a form, physicians say: “From seeing women, semen sometimes stirs. That act of village custom, is like two coming together. This is the method for conception, it should be applied to women seeing men.” They also say: “When a woman is in her fertile period, pure, and sees a man, it leads to conception, therefore, it is said to be a cause.” Like the king’s harem, it happened to a certain woman in Sri Lanka, and so it is said to have been stated thus. Although the sound reached up to the Brahma-world, it was not within the scope of humans, just like their form. Therefore, the bhikkhus asked, “Is it well, "Are you not displeased, friend Sudinna?" 39. "Kali" means anger; its teaching is "kalisāsana," which is strife. "Gāmadhamma" here means the custom of the country, the success of the country's inhabitants. "Atta" means mind, and also body. "Asuttantavinibaddha" means not included in the Vinaya Suttas, not included in the Suttas and Abhidhamma either, meaning it is outside the Pāli canon. "Kusumamāla" is said with reference to various qualities. "Ratanadāma" is said with reference to the attainment of benefits. The intention is to reject, like Bhaddāli. "Padaniruttibyañjanāni" are synonyms, as in "nāmaṃ nāmakammaṃ nāmadheyyaṃ niruttī" and so on. "Nippariyāyena virati" is a training rule (sikkhāpada) in the absolute sense. In the unwholesome side, "dussīlya" (immorality) is volition. In the wholesome side, it is also called "sikkhāpada" in the Vibhaṅga, by way of volition.