English
“Accompanied by pleasure, accompanied by the joy of the first jhāna, in the unattractive and in mindfulness of breathing,” it is said in the Gaṇṭhipada. Uddhumātaka-saññā means the perception of the first jhāna obtained from the sign of the bloated corpse. Rūpa-saññā means the jhāna perception of the rūpāvacara, such as the earth kasiṇa. He explained it thus: “The perception of the bloated corpse, venerable sir, is not clear, because the unattractive should not be developed; the perception of form, venerable sir, is clear, because kasiṇas should be developed.” The five modes of ordination are taken from the Mahāvagga. In “ñatticatutthena” (by the ñatti-catuttha kamma), although the ñatti is mentioned first, since there is no difference in meaning or expression among the three announcements, and the ñatti is the fourth of these, being distinct in meaning and expression, it is called “ñatticatuttha.” In accordance with the expression, the commentary states: “by three announcements and one ñatti.” Ah, in the order of the meaning's occurrence, the phrase "with one motion and three announcements" should be said. Because here, "Monks, these four actions" (Mahāva. 384) and "Monks, these six actions are unlawful actions, factional actions" (Mahāva. 387) indicate that even a revocable action is sometimes called "action," therefore "irrevocable" is stated. Since even an irrevocable action might not be fit to stand, by which one who has not attained removal is called "removed" in the Campeyya Khandhaka (Mahāva. 395 ff.), therefore "fit to stand" is stated. If so, should only this word "fit to stand" be said, and not the preceding word, since irrevocability is established by this? That is not so, because an undesirable consequence would arise, that one ordained by an irrevocable but unfit-to-stand action is not intended in this context. But when these two are said together, this meaning is understood: "One ordained merely by that irrevocable action is also intended as 'bhikkhu' in this context, and one ordained by an action fit to stand is also intended as 'bhikkhu' in this context, but one ordained by a revocable action is not intended." By this, this meaning is also established: "And if a bhikkhu, knowing, should ordain a person under nineteen years old, that person is not ordained" (Pāci. 403). According to this, as long as it is not known, even if one has attained the state of a bhikkhu by designation or by declaration, one does not become a subject for an offense of disrespect, etc., by standing in the place of ordained bhikkhus like the bhikkhu by designation or declaration shown before. One merely stands in the place of an unordained person, becoming a subject for offenses such as "If one, perceiving an unordained person as ordained, teaches the Dhamma word by word, there is an offense of pācittiya" (Pāci. 47). But one ordained irrevocably, even if later a pārājika, stands in the place of one ordained by birth. However, among those mentioned in the manner of "Monks, a paṇḍaka (eunuch) who is unordained should not be ordained; one who is ordained should be expelled" (Mahāva. 109), those to be avoided Among non-persons, some person is called "fully ordained," but does not remain in the state of full ordination. Some do remain, this should be understood. Here, moreover, there is action unshakable and worthy of its state, there is action worthy of its state but shakable, there is action unshakable but not worthy of its state, there is action shakable and not worthy of its state— this fourfold classification should be understood. Of these, the first has been stated, the third and fourth are obvious. The second, by implication, is obtained for one ordained by the bhikkhunī Saṅgha alone, when there is a change of gender. For that person, the ñatti-catuttha ordination act received previously during training, although it is unshakable and worthy of its state, yet when the male gender manifests, because it is not included in "I allow, bhikkhus, that same preceptor, that same ordination" (Pārā. 69), due to that person merely falling into the state of a sāmaṇera, it is said that the act has now become shakable. Just as the determination of the robe is relinquished by a change of gender, so too, the ordination performed by the bhikkhunī Saṅgha for that person is relinquished, this should be understood, otherwise, that person would become a fully ordained bhikkhu. Or else, even without a change of gender, that ordination act by one side becomes shakable, it does not remain in its proper state. Therefore, she does not yet count as a "bhikkhunī." Because, having committed any pārājika offence or not, for one desiring to disrobe and adopting the lay gender, full ordination is again obtained from both Saṅghas, therefore, by that implication, it is called "shakable" (kuppa means shakable), but because there is no fault in the act as stated, it is called "worthy of its state." But for a bhikkhunī adopting the lay gender, no supporting reason is seen that she obtains ordination from bhikkhus when the male gender manifests. Some say that if she disrobes after rejecting the training, she obtains it, but that is improper because a bhikkhunī cannot reject the training, so this is our view, says the teacher. "Just as 'to be done'..." It is said, "If it is not done thus, he will be angry," thinking thus, "the doing is the Teacher's instruction," it is said in the commentary. Wherever "in the commentary" is said, there "in the commentary of Dhammasiri Thera" should be taken. Explanation of the analysis of the term 'sājīva' "Great Bodhisattas are destined," it is said in the sub-commentary. Wherever "in the sub-commentary" (is said), there "of Vajirabuddhi Thera" should be taken. Whether it is the enlightenment of a disciple, or the enlightenment of a Paccekabuddha, or perfect self-enlightenment, among these three enlightenments, beings for perfect self-enlightenment are called Bodhisattas, Great Bodhisattas. Because the Pātimokkha precepts are numerous, because it is the morality of monks, because it functions by way of covering defilements, and because it was laid down by the Supreme Buddha, it is superior; and because it prevails only when a Buddha arises, it is supreme, so it is said in a certain commentary. Although Paccekabuddhas too are naturally endowed with the morality of Pātimokkha restraint, nevertheless, by that expression, it is restricted to "it prevails only when a Buddha arises." Therefore, it is said, "for indeed, having removed that precept," and so on. And morality associated with the path and fruition is higher morality, even more so than Pātimokkha restraint, but that is not intended here. For that is not included in the recitation of the Pātimokkha. The general reason-statement, because it is a common characteristic of all training rules, and because it is established that noble individuals commit some offenses by this supplementary precept, therefore, does the commentary's statement, "for one who has attained that does not engage in sexual intercourse," seem to be inept? It is not inept, it is indeed apt. In whichever training rule there is a specific investigation, the commentary proceeds according to that very rule. For instance, in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, in the section on the boundary for throwing water, it is said, "a bhikkhunī crossing (water) having covered the three circles and not having lifted her inner robe," because it occurs in the Bhikkhunīvibhaṅga. This is the same method in other such cases. If it is asked, "What is its purpose?" By following the Pāli sequence... For showing the meaning of 'āḷikka'. Here is a brief explanation of the meaning: In the section of three regarding the 'padasodhamma' training rule, for one fully ordained who perceives oneself as fully ordained, there is no offense. In the case of the 'akaṭānudhamma' training rule, for one fully ordained but suspended, there might be an offense. Similarly, with the 'sahaseyya' training rule, and so on. The meaning of this will become clear later. What is said in the commentary: "Moreover, the mind of the path and fruit is higher mind, but that is not intended here." And: "Moreover, the wisdom of the path and fruit is higher wisdom, but that is not intended here. For a bhikkhu who has attained that does not engage in sexual intercourse." This contradicts the Pāli text: "Among these, this training in higher morality is the training intended in this context." For this Pāli text indicates that only the training in higher morality is intended here, not the others. The commentary's statement indicates that even those three worldly trainings are intended. Here is the commentary's intention: All three worldly trainings are possible in this first pārājika offense. Even a bhikkhu who has attained higher mind and wisdom, at some time, due to an unsuitable condition, might revert from that higher mind and higher wisdom and incur a breach of morality. This possibility exists, but not for one who has attained supramundane mind and wisdom. This method applies to all other offenses like taking what is not given, etc., which involve intention. But in those without intention, the other applies. Nevertheless, because it (the Pāli text) only encompasses the Vinaya Piṭaka and the Pātimokkha morality, to show that in the latter phrase "without having renounced the training," it is only the worldly higher morality that is subject to renunciation, it should be understood that the Pāli text says: "Among these, this training in higher morality is the training intended in this context." Here, 'sikkhā' (training) should be understood as both abstinence from bodily and verbal misconduct, and intention, or sometimes just intention. 'Sikkhāpada' (training rule) includes both explicitly stated training rules, and some unstated training rules. "Making the mind the basis" means that one trains in it, hence 'basis'.