English
And from the moment of attaining ordination, because of the authority to train, it is said "he trains" and "he has entered." He who has thus attained the designation "sikkhāsājīvasamāpanna" (one who has entered the livelihood of training), relying on such a condition, at a later time, without rejecting the training reckoned as livelihood, and without revealing weakness in it, should engage in sexual intercourse – this meaning is appropriate. But the commentary's method is rejected. And it is not worthy of rejection, therefore it should be in accordance with it. The intention here should be sought. Now it is said: In all training rules, this very characteristic of a bhikkhu is common, namely, "for bhikkhus, one who has entered the livelihood of training." Even a perfected disciple incurs an offense unintentionally, and so does a trainee. But an ordinary person incurs it even intentionally. Therefore, considering this characteristic of a bhikkhu to be common to trainees, perfected ones, and ordinary bhikkhus, whether one has entered only the training, or only the livelihood, or both, by the method of including the specific forms and parts, it is summarized as "sikkhāsājīvasamāpanna" (one who has entered the livelihood of training). And since the inclusion of the superior implies the inclusion of the inferior, in the commentary, only the superior is mentioned. To achieve that very point, in "He trains in it, by that he is called 'sājīvasamāpanna'," the training rule... having stated the explanation for the omission of 'dassa', and since he had attained the training even without having trained, therefore, it should be understood that 'having attained the training' is meant in essence. And having stated this, the meaning in the commentary should be understood as: "without having renounced the training he had attained, and without having revealed his weakness in the livelihood he had attained," as it was said. In this meaning, the taking of the training in higher morality alone is because it is universally applicable, and because the Vinaya is concerned with morality. And just as one who undertakes a training rule is said to undertake morality, so too, one who renounces a training rule is appropriately said to renounce the training called morality. Therefore, it was said there: "the training he had attained, that without having renounced." One who permits ordination for one who has engaged in sexual intercourse after renouncing the training does not eliminate him. For he did not engage in it after becoming a bhikkhu, and it was laid down as: "And any bhikkhu who..." Thus far, in brief, what needed to be said regarding "having attained the training and livelihood" has been said. What is the purpose of this specific statement? Is it not enough to say: "And any bhikkhu who, without renouncing the training, and without revealing weakness... ...is not in communion"? If so, it should not be said, due to the undesirable consequence. For one who has attained the training and livelihood, who is a bhikkhu merely by designation, or merely by declaration, such as one involved in theft, even for him there is a renunciation of the training. And for one who engages in sexual intercourse without renouncing the training, there is an offense of defeat. Or for one who later commits an offense of defeat and has not attained the training and livelihood, and for one who, due to being a pakkhapaṇḍaka, by becoming a paṇḍaka, has not attained the training and livelihood, both of these apply. It was said: "And in the case of a paṇḍaka, a pakkhapaṇḍaka is not a basis for ordination." Therefore, it is established that in the other case, he is a basis. One who is ordained in that case, being a paṇḍaka in the case of a paṇḍaka, has not attained the training and livelihood. He should be abandoned from the training. If, without renouncing the training, by mouth, he were to engage in sexual intercourse such as taking another's sexual organ, how could he incur a pārājika offense? This is the meaning. This method applies only to one who does not obtain the non-eunuch state. But for one who obtains it, just as there is no death for formless beings even when the life-continuum is interrupted at the moment of attaining wholesome absorptions, so too there is the state of a bhikkhu even in the eunuch state. And for one who accepts cohabitation, there is no state of a thief-cohabitant, like one who has committed the final offense. Nor does it give rise to shared sleeping and the like. But he is not a quorum-completer, like one who has committed the final offense. He is not one who has entered into the training and livelihood. In the other case, he is. This is the difference from that. Is this with cause, or without cause? Not without cause. Because his ordination is permitted in the non-eunuch state, due to having a rebirth-linking with cause. If it is asked why it is not permitted in the eunuch state? Because of being a eunuch, like an eunuch by accident. Furthermore, by "one who has entered into the training and livelihood," having shown his undertaking of the training, it is appropriate to say: "without renouncing that undertaken training and without revealing weakness therein," and not otherwise. For this reason, to avoid the undesirable consequence as stated, it is said: "Whatever monk, having entered into the training and livelihood of monks, without renouncing the training..." and so on. Just as here, so too: "Whatever monk, having entered into the training and livelihood of monks, without renouncing the training, without revealing weakness, should take what is not given, amounting to theft, from a village or a forest (Pārā. 89), or should have a robe made exceeding the standard measure of the Sugata, or more, it is a pācittiya offense of cutting" (Pāci. 548) and so on. This method should be applied everywhere. "Even with an animal" is said with reference to a human female. For it is not appropriate to say "much less with eunuchs or men." The rest is as stated in the respective places. This is the decision regarding the matrix of the first pārājika. Fourfold Vinaya. Explanation of the Story 45. Here, "having extracted" means having extracted from the Dispensation. "Upāli, a bhikkhu endowed with five qualities should not be questioned. Which five? He does not know the Sutta, he does not know what is in conformity with the Sutta" (Pari. 442). From such statements, they extracted the Sutta and what is in conformity with the Sutta from the Dispensation of the Teachings and proclaimed them. "It is no offense, thus our teachers' learning and questioning," from such statements, they extracted the teachers' views from the Dispensation of the Teachings and proclaimed them. In the Bhārukaccha story, "Venerable Upāli said thus: 'There is no offense, friend, by means of a dream'" (Pārā. 78). From such statements, they extracted their own opinion from the Dispensation of the Teachings and proclaimed it. By that own opinion, indeed, the Elder attained that foremost position. Moreover, this was said by the Blessed One: "If one, not fully ordained, or one who is designated or not designated, being spoken to... disregards, there is an offense of wrong-doing" (Pāci. 343). Here, "designated" means the Sutta. The other three are "not designated." Therefore, this verse, "Indeed, the Great Elders, the Vinaya is fourfold," is well said. This is what was referred to by the Elder Nāgasena. "By a direct statement" means by a body of words spoken directly, referring to the eight points of explanation; the meaning is by a group of words that have been cited and are well-known. "By the meaning" means by the meaning of that direct statement, by the decision extracted from it. What is in conformity with the Sutta is like the shadow of the Sutta. The teachers' view is called "the lineage of teachers" to show that the tradition brought down by the teachers mentioned in the Pāli is indeed the authority. "Intention" is that which is established by reasons and logical derivations, proceeding through the method of inference and deliberation, resembling direct perception and other proofs. Here, some say that "intention" means "one's own opinion." Although in the Parivāra Commentary and here it is said, "What is in conformity with the Sutta means the four Great Authorities," nevertheless, it is said in terms of meaning that what is rejected and not rejected, what is allowed and not allowed, what is allowable and not allowable, are established by the method of the Great Authorities. Therein, since 'place', 'opportunity', 'region' are synonyms for 'reason', from the teaching "This is no place, Ananda, no opportunity" (Parā. 43) and so on, and from common usage "place of censure," "place of disagreement," and "a region of disagreement," therefore, 'mahāpadesā' means 'great reasons'. 'Reason' here is intended to mean an explanatory cause. Their greatness, however, is like that of the great elements, due to their vast scope. They are of two kinds: Vinaya Great Authorities and Suttanta Great Authorities. Therein, Vinaya Great Authorities apply to the Vinaya. The others apply to both. For this reason, in the Parivāra, in the section on questioning, it is said: "He does not know the Dhamma, he does not know what is in conformity with the Dhamma" (Pari. 442). Therein, 'Dhamma' means the remaining two Piṭakas, excluding the Vinaya Piṭaka. 'What is in conformity with the Dhamma' refers to the four Great Authorities in the Suttantas. Therein, whoever knows the Dhamma and what is in conformity with the Dhamma, but not the Vinaya and what is in conformity with the Vinaya, he, saying "I protect the Dhamma," makes the Vinaya into a non-Vinaya. The other, saying "I protect the Vinaya," makes the Dhamma into a non-Dhamma. One who knows both accomplishes both. Here is just an introduction –