English
of the four kinds of Vinaya discussions is finished. Analysis of words. Explanation In the section on the training rules, although the phrase "whoever" is a term of exhaustive inclusion, yet because it is in apposition with the following word "bhikkhu," its analytical terms are stated accordingly. The three terms defining a bhikkhu, although common to any renunciant, whether in the state of being a bhikkhu or not being a bhikkhu, nevertheless, to show that the person who is "guilty of an offense of defeat, and is impure," and "if, being of pure view, one makes him declare his lack of opportunity and speaks with the intention of expelling him, there is an offense of wrong-doing involving a Sanghādisesa," such a person, who is suitable for this meaning of definition, is the subject here, not a layperson, is what is stated. For the Blessed One began with the characteristic of a bhikkhu as the subject, which is common to the entire Vinaya Piṭaka. And it is shown that if one is pure, but for some reason is in the garb of a layperson, he is the subject by virtue of his being a bhikkhu; and even if impure, by virtue of being in the garb of a bhikkhu. Even if impure, removed from the saffron robes by relatives, or enemies, or due to fear of the king, but still eager for the saffron robes, he is still the subject, because he does not fall into the state of a thief-companion by taking the saffron robes again, and because he has not abandoned his burden in the meaning of a bhikkhu's definition. And it is also shown that if one is a bhikkhu merely by outward appearance, and has himself undertaken the meaning of a bhikkhu's definition, and is stealing the communion, and if, being of pure view, one makes him declare his lack of opportunity and speaks with the intention of expelling him, there is an offense of wrong-doing involving a Sanghādisesa. The two phrases, "a bhikkhu by designation, a bhikkhu by declaration," further elaborate the meaning stated above, and reveal this additional meaning: that one whose roots of skillfulness have been cut off by a fixed wrong view that has arisen in between, is called "bhikkhu" merely by designation and declaration, not in the ultimate sense. What is meant by this? "I do not see, monks, any other single quality..." I observe, that which is so greatly blameworthy, as this, monks, is wrong view. "Wrong views are the worst, monks, of great offenses," so is the direct statement, a Sutta included in the three recitations. And in the commentary it is said, "These have wrong view as their highest, thus they are wrong-view-highest." (A.N. 1.310) The five heinous deeds are greatly blameworthy, but wrong view is even more greatly blameworthy, this is the intention. Why? For those (deeds) have a limit, even the most powerful lasts only for an eon. But for fixed wrong view, there is no limit. For one endowed with it, there is no rising up from existence. Therefore, it cannot be said, "Good qualities exist in this one as a monk," or "He is pure." Since it is said, "Due to perversion of view, one incurs two offenses," it cannot be said, "He is impure," or "He has fallen into a certain pārājika offense." For he does not belong to either side. Therefore it is said, "He is a monk by designation, by declaration, but not in ultimate truth." Why then did the Blessed One not lay down a pārājika for such a greatly blameworthy fixed wrong view? Because it is difficult to discern. Naturally, this view, whether "right" or "wrong," is difficult to understand, let alone whether it is "fixed" or "unfixed." If a pārājika offense were laid down for it, monks, considering each other to have wrong views as pārājika, would soon destroy the Dispensation by not performing Uposatha and other rites, and would themselves accumulate demerit by acting wrongly towards even pure monks. Therefore, out of skill in means, not having laid down a pārājika, he prescribed for it the act of suspension (ukkhepanīyakamma), and proper conduct (sammāvatta), making him not share and not associate with the Saṅgha. For if that monk's view is unfixed, by fulfilling the proper conduct, he would obtain reinstatement and become normal again. But if it is fixed, it is impossible, there is no opportunity, for that one with fixed wrong view, by fulfilling the proper conduct, to be rein... Having engaged in the struggle, he would become a true practitioner. Merely "a monk by designation, a monk by declaration," having become a mere name-bearer, after death, like Ariṭṭha, he would become a mere stump in saṃsāra— this method he saw. Among the eight higher ordinations, three are mentioned here, not the others, because they are specific to individuals, and do not belong to monks. Indeed, the ordination by accepting instruction and by answering questions belonged only to the two Theras; the remaining three belong to nuns, thus they are not intended here. Among these three ordinations, the four terms like "a good monk" are stated, because they are common to all three. Indeed, one ordained by "Come, monk!", or by the Three Refuges, or by the four-fold motion, is good, and essential, a trainee, and one beyond training. But the word "ordination" is for indicating their state as disciples. Indeed, only these fall into offense, not Perfectly Self-Enlightened Ones, nor Paccekabuddhas. And here, regarding "this is intended in this sense," those ordained by the four-fold motion alone are capable of falling into offense. Indeed, others ordained by "Come, monk!", by the Three Refuges, by accepting instruction, or by answering questions, are not capable of falling into offense. Therefore, having rejected these, "this monk is intended in this sense" was said to refer only to the last one, so says Thera Dhammasiri, but that is incorrect. For it is only said: "Two persons are incapable of falling into offense: Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas." (Pari. 322) Otherwise, those ordained by "Come, monk!" and so on would also have to be mentioned. Moreover, because it is generally stated: "Two persons are capable of falling into offense: monks and nuns," and because places of danger from offense are seen. How so? Venerable Sāriputta, being scrupulous about the monastery meal, did not accept it. And fearing the separation from his robe, having taken all three robes, Venerable Mahākassapa, crossing the river, was carried away by the current. Moreover, regarding those ordained by the Three Refuges, the duties of co-residents and so on are not properly observed. their evil deeds are also laid down, and are seen, therefore this is ill-considered. "This bhikkhu intended in this matter" is what Elder Upatissa said, fearing the possibility of allowing ordination by taking refuge, which was previously rejected. When that is said, regarding the suitability for an offense, a wrong apprehension or doubt arises among bhikkhus that even that which was previously rejected is now allowed by saying this. Therefore, it is said that it was not said, and this agrees with "A bhikkhunī is one who is ordained in both Sanghas." For this was said fearing the possibility of not continuing the ordination allowed for the Sakyas and others. This is our agreement here: Since it is an explanation of the word "bhikkhu," as many as are included by that word, and those who are found here and there in the Vinaya Piṭaka, either by themselves incurring an offense, or by causing others to incur an offense in matters of revealing or concealing grave offenses, all of them are shown. And now, what is said as a qualifying word for that word "bhikkhu," the other word "endowed with the livelihood of training," by virtue of that, it is said: "This bhikkhu is intended in this matter." For he becomes endowed with the livelihood of training immediately after the kammavācā, from which point the arising of the training rules with an objective is seen, and his renunciation of training is seen, not that of another. And his renunciation of training is possible by having undertaken it, saying, "May the Sangha lift me up, venerable sir, out of compassion." And immediately after his ordination, the declaration of the things not to be done is seen. And because of the fulfillment of the characteristics of renunciation of training, such as "I renounce the Vinaya, the Pātimokkha, the recitation," it is said that he alone is intended here by virtue of the renunciation of training. And since his renunciation of training is entirely appropriate, it is said that "for one who renounces the training and transgresses this or that matter, there is no offense from this or that offense, but for another, there is an offense." It is fitting, therefore, it should be understood that it is fitting to say: “Wherever there is a blameworthy designation, or a blameless designation, this is the bhikkhu intended in this context, there, by the meaning of that transgression, this one, ordained by a ñatti-catuttha kamma, is indeed the one intended.” This being so, what was said: “By whatever ordination this one is intended as a bhikkhu in the context of ‘having engaged in sexual intercourse, he is defeated’,” that too should not be said. How does it happen? The fault of contradiction is also avoided. How? If only one ordained by a ñatti-catuttha kamma is intended here as “bhikkhu” and “ordained,” then, considering that one not ordained is an unordained person, the Mahākassapa Thera and others, who were ordained otherwise than by a ñatti-catuttha kamma, would stand in the position of unordained persons for others, and would incur an offense of sahaseyya (sleeping together) and sodhamma (sharing the Dhamma), and at the time of insult and so on, they would incur only a dukkaṭa offense. Thus, this kind of fault of contradiction is avoided, so says the teacher. Maṅguracchavi is the name of the Sāma. Because an exceedingly great pride of birth overwhelms your minds, therefore, you should train yourselves in my Dispensation thus: