English
and sitting in seclusion. If so, why is it said: "a woman who is discerning and capable"? Because this very woman is the basis for both physical contact and lewd speech together. Therefore, it is said. The basis for physical contact is shown, but not for the other. Therefore, referring only to lewd speech, he says this, showing its basis. Here it is asked: Just as in the first rule, lewd speech, though not intended, was mentioned to show the possibility of its occurrence, why is a secluded place visible to the eye not taken in the sense of physical contact here too? Yes, it should not be taken, and it is not taken. However, it is taken in the sense of sitting, for sitting is not a specific characteristic of the limb. If it is not secluded, how can it be a secluded place visible to the eye? Because of the distance. Why does even a hundred women not cause an offense in the first rule, but even one woman does so here? It is not stated because it is established. It is established, that which is a A certain bhikkhu in the Great Wood at Vesālī… …opened the door and lay down… …many women, having done as they wished, departed. Therefore, a woman is not a companion for sexual intercourse. For women conceal each other’s faults, that is why a pārājika offense is laid down for bhikkhunīs who conceal faults. Likewise, in “the venerable Udāyī, having shown those women the monastery, the private parts of those women,” it is said, “those women who were ashamed, they went out and complained about the bhikkhus.” From this saying, the meaning is established that a woman is a companion for a gross offense. In both cases, there is no offense for those who are mad, etc., as stated in their respective origins, meaning there is no offense for the first offenders. However, in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: “In the section on naked ascetics, in the training rule concerning a secluded, covered seat, ‘a discerning man is a companion’ is said to be in accordance with this, ‘even a hundred women do not cause an offense.’” And also, “in the second indeterminate rule, ‘whether a woman or a man’ this is said in the non-offense clause of the last training rule in the bhikkhunī section, and the training rule concerning an uncovered seat in the section on naked ascetics, ‘whoever a discerning man is a companion.’ It should be understood that this is said in accordance with these.” The description of the second indeterminate training rule is finished. Miscellaneous Description Moreover, this is a miscellaneous point here, namely: Is this indeterminate section useless, because it is not unprecedented? No, because it serves the purpose of illustrating the characteristics of imposing and not imposing offenses, which are distinguished by grave and light categories. For here, it is shown by “if she were to say, ‘Venerable sir, I saw him sitting, engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman,’ and he admits it, he should be made to incur an offense… …he should be made to incur an offense for sitting,” and so on, the characteristic of imposing a grave or light offense, and by “he should be made to incur an offense,” the characteristic of not imposing an offense. Because the characteristics are illustrated, at the beginning or at the end, If it is said, "It should be recited"? No, because it is impossible. How? It is not possible at the beginning, because the training rules, of which this is a characteristic, have not been shown. Not at the end, because of the mixture of grave offenses. Therefore, it is proper that it should be recited only in the middle of grave and light offenses, because it is not mixed with both. The light offense shown there is also of the nature of a grave offense. That is why it is said, "by the secret pleasure, consisting of defilements associated with sexual intercourse," and so on. Therefore, some say that it is recited immediately after the grave offenses. If this is the case, the first one alone would be sufficient for the establishment of the characteristic's exposition. What is the need for the second? No, its purpose is to prevent the wrong grasping of the condition of a fixed place. For if it is understood as a fixed place, "in a concealed, suitable seat," then there would be a wrong grasping that this characteristic is not applied in a place contrary to that. By preventing that, the second one is also meaningful, this is the intention. Why? Because of the distinction of place, because of the exposition of the distinction of privacy, because of the exposition of the distinction of the pleasure of sitting in private. And if there is no fixed place, the distinction of the pleasure of sitting in private arises. And there would be knowledge of the difference between the two training rules of sitting in private, and similarly, because of the exposition of the distinction of physical contact. For even in an unsuitable place, not concealed, or in a concealed place, physical contact is obtained by grasping hair, etc., protruding through a window, door, or crack, from one who is seated. And such methods as these should be understood in detail. Some say, "Because it is found in the Bhikkhu Pātimokkha, this section should be understood as missing in the Bhikkhunī Pātimokkha." Some say, because it did not arise there in the origin of the matter. That is inappropriate, because it shows the existence of many meanings. For in the time of all Buddhas, there are five recitations for bhikkhus, and four for bhikkhunīs. Some say, because of the non-commonality of the Pātimokkha recitation's promulgation, the Saṅghādisesas and Pācittiyas specified there. For those bhikkhunīs, a specific type of physical contact, up to the knee-cap, with eight objects, is a Pārājika offense: "should accept the grasping of a hand, or should bring the body close for that purpose." 5) Thus, accepting, and standing, by the saying, "or should stand" (Pāci. 675); and going, by the saying, "or should go to an appointed place" (Pāci. 675); and entering a concealed place, by the saying, "or should enter a concealed place" (Pāci. 675); similarly, and coarse speech, by the saying, "in the dark of night, without a lamp, in a concealed place, one by one, should stand or converse" (Pāci. 838); considering these as grounds for a pācittiya offense, their intention is that these were not stated, because otherwise, the Aniyata section would not be applicable. The Miscellaneous Commentary is finished. The Undetermined Section is finished. 4. The Nissaggiya Section 1. The Robe Chapter 1. Commentary on the First Kathina Training Rule 459. "Samitāvī" means "he by whom defilements are calmed," thus, "Samitāvī." By that Samitāvī. Where "three robes" should be said, "ticīvara" (three robes) is said. Here, the characteristic of a numerical compound in the singular form should be understood. That is a name for both what is determined and what is not determined. In phrases like, "if a bhikkhu should be separated from his three robes even for one night," it is the name for what is determined by the determination of the three robes. In "I allow, bhikkhus, to determine the three robes" (Mahāva. 358), it is the name for what is not determined. Here, both are possible. In "The three robes are allowed to bhikkhus by the Blessed One," it is only what is determined. In "entering a village with other three robes," it is only what is not determined. Indeed, the determination of the three robes applies to only one robe, not to others, like the determination of a bowl. Therefore, the other stands in the category of extra. Therefore it is said, "How indeed can the group of six bhikkhus wear extra robes?" and so on. 460-1. Here, by the first promulgation, if one wears an extra robe even for one night, it is said to be nissaggiya. After that, "I allow, bhikkhus, to wear an extra robe for a maximum of ten days. And thus, bhikkhus, you should recite this training rule: 'ten... Beyond that, an extra robe may be kept. For exceeding that, there is an offense of relinquishment and expiation. Thus the Blessed One enacted the complete training rule. Then, in the last watch, in the time of Ajātasattu, the kathina was allowed. From then on, the bhikkhus recite this training rule: “When the robe-making is finished, when the kathina is lifted by a bhikkhu, for ten days… …expiation.” This is the method for the second and third kathinas too. Nevertheless, in the Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī, it is only said: “‘Beyond ten days’ —this is an additional enactment here.” Therefore, it is established that the phrase “when the robe-making is finished, when the kathina is lifted by a bhikkhu” is neither an enactment nor an additional enactment. For in the ground of an enactment, or in the ground of an additional enactment, no mention of kathina is seen. Thus, the aforementioned method is the essence, and this should be concluded here. Even if it were said: “From the time of the kathina’s origin, the Blessed One’s word was spoken as an additional enactment.” If so, there would be two additional enactments. Then there would be a contradiction with the statement in the Parivāra: “There is one additional enactment.” Moreover, to illustrate the aforementioned method, that statement was not made at the time of the first enactment, but later. Since it is established here, it was said thus in the second and third first enactments spoken later. Otherwise, that statement would have to be made later there too. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, however, it is said: “Referring to the fact that it was spoken later, ‘when the robe-making is finished’ and so on is an additional enactment.” The affection of trainees and ordinary people, the reverence of arahants. “In the tenth or ninth” —here the word is used in the sense of location. “When the robe-making is finished” —this is said merely to indicate the absence of the impediment of robes. Therefore, it is said: “The robe is lost, or destroyed, or burnt, or the hope for a robe is cut off.”