English
It is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada. Direct knowledge and... These should be understood when one does not know the designation, at the time of magical displays and so on. Here, however, whatever monk, having entered the training and livelihood of monks... engaging in sexual intercourse, there is someone who is defeated and not in communion, there is someone who is not defeated and not in communion. Engaging in matters of minor and grave offenses, there is someone who is not defeated. A hermaphrodite, ordained in the non-hermaphrodite group, engaging in sexual intercourse in the hermaphrodite manner, he does not incur a pārājika offense, he is not called pārājika. Indeed, there is no offense for a non-monk. Since he is not liable for an offense, having come from the non-hermaphrodite group, is he not in communion or is he? He is. For it is said, "He is incapable by that bodily bond" (Pārājika 55; Mahāvagga 129). Because it is said, "Whatever monk, for monks... not in communion" (Pārājika 44), whatever one, by being a monk, engages in sexual intercourse, he alone is incapable. If it is said that he is not pārājika? No. In the place where it is said, "The Sangha should be informed by a competent and capable monk" (Mahāvagga 86), just as even if the formal act is recited by a non-monk, the act is valid because the failure of the act is impossible, this case should be seen in the same way. Here is the reasoning: if only one who was previously ordained recites the formal act, and the Sangha perceives him as ordained, and if the act is valid in this way, "not otherwise" - this is not acceptable to the teacher. Whether a layman, or a heretic, or a hermaphrodite, perceiving himself as not ordained, recites the formal act, the formal act is not recited by the Sangha. For by the saying, "The Sangha should ordain, the Sangha ordains, he is ordained by the Sangha" (Mahāvagga 127), for the formal act not to be recited by the Sangha, if it is recited by one included in the Sangha, or by one who perceives himself as included in the Sangha, it should be understood as recited by the Sangha itself. This is the reasoning for all acts. Likewise, there is someone engaging in sexual intercourse who should be expelled, because it is said, "Whoever defiles a bhikkhunī, he should be expelled." He is indeed not ordained. generates an offense of cohabitation and so on, and for insulting him there is a dukkaṭa. A non-bhikkhunī who engages in sexual intercourse should not be expelled, because there is no Pāli text saying: "Monks, an unordained person who has committed a final offense... ...should be expelled." Therefore, he is counted as ordained, he does not generate an offense of cohabitation and so on, he is merely not a quorum member due to being non-communal. Even a single act or a single declaration is said to be communal. Since equality in training is also communal, the implication of the reason appears to be that he does not have that with her, but he does generate an offense of a separate rule. Just as there is no communal living for the Bhikkhu Saṅgha with a bhikkhunī for a single act and so on, so the bhikkhunī is non-communal to the bhikkhu, and the bhikkhu to the bhikkhunī, but it does generate an offense of a separate rule. However, that implication of the reason is not accepted by this example, which states: "Even if one has committed a final offense, it is not said that 'a certain one should be expelled'." Furthermore, from the sayings: "If a bhikkhu acts improperly with a sleeping bhikkhunī, and she assents when awakened, both should be expelled" (Pārā. 66), and "Therefore, monks, expel Mettiyā the bhikkhunī" (Pārā. 384), it should be understood that one who has entered the midst of the Saṅgha and has been interrogated by an interrogator and defeated, is also unordained, and does not generate an offense of insulting speech. Although there is no Pāli text saying: "One who intends to insult an ordained person, perceiving him as ordained," and although in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī it is stated: "The four factors here are: the ordination of the one who is insulted, insulting by birth and so on without other designation, knowing 'he is insulting me,' and the absence of malicious intent and so on" (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. Omasavādasikkhāpadavaṇṇanā), nevertheless, in the rule of malicious accusation, it is stated: "A person who is impure, having committed a certain pārājika offense, if one, being of pure view, causes him to make an opening and speaks with the intention of insulting, there is an offense of insulting speech" (Pārā. 389). Thus, regarding an impure ordained person... For one who reviles with the perception of her being a fully ordained nun, there is an offense of expiation. For one with an impure perception, there is an offense of wrong-doing. But in the section on dispelling doubt, it is not stated, "her full ordination, her perception of being fully ordained," because that factor is not always applicable; thus should it be understood. Moreover, here the tetrad of those who have renounced the training should be understood: There is a person who has renounced the training but is not living the training. There is one living the training but who has not renounced the training. There is one who has both renounced the training and is living the training. There is one who has neither renounced the training nor is living the training. Among these, the third should be understood as a bhikkhunī who has renounced the training. For as long as she does not abandon the emblem, being zealous in the saffron robes, desiring to fall away from the monastic state, even though she renounces the training, she is still a bhikkhunī, living the training. For it was said by the Blessed One: "Monks, there is no renunciation of training for a bhikkhunī." And when, then, does she become a non-bhikkhunī? When, desiring to fall away from the monastic state, she puts on lay attire, she is counted as "fallen away." For it was said by the Blessed One: "Indeed, when she is fallen away, then she is a non-bhikkhunī." And by how much, then, is she fallen away? Desiring to fall away from the monastic state, having no attachment to the saffron robes, she removes the saffron robe, or goes naked, or goes covering herself with grass or leaves, etc., or wears the saffron robe itself in the manner of lay attire, or wears white clothing, or, while still in her own emblem, enters among sectarians and undertakes vows like hair-plucking, or adopts the emblem of sectarians, then she is called "fallen away." Among these, she who, while still in the bhikkhunī emblem, undertakes sectarian vows, like a bhikkhu who has gone over to sectarians, does not obtain ordination later. they obtain only this going forth, not the full ordination. Although in Pāli it seems that it is permitted, as it is said: “Monks, that bhikkhunī who, having been in a yellow robe, has gone over to a sect, when she returns, she should not be fully ordained,” it seems to imply that if she first strayed and then went over to a sect, when she returns, she should be fully ordained. However, since the compilers of the Saṅgīti said “twenty-four pārājikas,” she should not be fully ordained again. Therefore, the renunciation of training was not permitted by the Blessed One. But a bhikkhunī who has committed the last offense is still a bhikkhunī. A pakkhapaṇḍakī is also a bhikkhunī. What is the question? Description of the Determined Cases 67. Determined, decided cases are vinītavatthūni. For each of these cases, such as “At that time, a certain bhikkhu…”, by extracting and extracting the names and numbers of the cases, and for the purpose of correcting defects of excess or deficiency, the uddānas (summaries) and the gāthās (verses) which are characterized by the meter and arrangement of verses, like the matrādisiddhi verses, are called “uddānagāthā.” The form uddāna is to be understood as from the root “de, to purify.” These uddānagāthās were placed by the Dhamma-compiling elders at the time of the Saṅgīti. Where, if you ask? At the end of the Padabhājanīya. In the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said: “Vatthugāthā are the origins of these determined cases, such as ‘At that time, a certain bhikkhu…’.” Therefore, it should be understood that the determined cases themselves are called “vatthugāthā” in the manner stated there. This is a brief explanation of the meaning here: Those cases which are determined and decided, either by showing the root offense, as in “Bhikkhu, you have committed a pārājika offense,” or by showing the types of offenses, as in “Bhikkhu, no pārājika offense, an offense of saṅghādisesa, of dukkaṭa,” or by showing no offense, as in “Bhikkhu, no offense for one who does not consent,” are called vinītavatthūni. The text that illuminates the origin-cases of these determined cases is called vatthugāthā. The uddānagāthā are the “vatthu Some say it is called "gāthā." Their statement contradicts the saying that "by this characteristic, the Vinaya-holders in the future will determine the Vinaya." For in an uddāna-gāthā no characteristic of determination is seen. A separate purpose for uddāna-gāthās has been stated: "that Vinaya-holders may easily learn." Therefore, this difference should be understood as a difference in purpose. Here is the analysis: The stories themselves are gāthās, hence "vatthugāthā." Here, the inclusion of "gāthā" is to distinguish it from a "vinīta-vatthu" (disciplined story). And the inclusion of "vatthu" is to distinguish it from an "uddāna-gāthā," this should be understood. Some, however, say, "It should have been 'gāthānaṃ vatthūni' (stories of gāthās), but 'vatthugāthā' was said." In the story of the monkey, other bhikkhus reported it; here, it was by himself. Since the reason there was stated as "the training rule was laid down by the Blessed One," the Vajji-puttakas are also others. In a certain commentary, it is said: "There, it was Elder Ānanda; here, it was they themselves."