English
"Neck" means only the neck, it is not a pārājika offense. "Having caused it to be made, it should be given" - here, if it is a weapon, its blade should not be made. But it should be made known in another way. Since "three thoughts, three feelings" is stated, it should be understood that it is said in the sense of being mostly human-like or mostly anger-like. The explanation of the First Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 2. Explanation of the Second Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 683. "Groups of hired sons" are groups of hired boys. "Are proper" means proper. "Proper conduct" means the nature of what is proper. "Even when they have departed" means when others have departed, excluding one's own assembly. It should be understood that "three thoughts" is stated either because even noble ones, not knowing the regulation, might reinstate, or because at the moment of the offense, at the end of the formal act, it is accompanied by karmic result that is indeterminate. "No dukkaṭa in expulsion" - in the ancient commentary... It has been said. The explanation of the second Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 3. Explanation of the third Saṅghādisesa training rule 687. Bhaddā Kāpilānī, it is said, was Mahākassapa’s former second wife. The village where her relatives’ family lived, that village was the relatives’ family village, meaning she went to the village near the family. Or, making it a double-object verb, as in “He leads the goat to the village,” it is also appropriate to say she went to the village, she went to the relatives’ family village. 692. Even by the statement “transgressing the precinct of an uncircumscribed village,” this should be understood thus: in entering a village at the wrong time, the precinct should be delimited only by two throws of a clod; otherwise, just as here, making a place worthy of circumscription as if it were a circumscription, it is said “transgressing,” so there too it would say “transgressing the precinct of an uncircumscribed village.” But since there, one clod-throw beyond the place worthy of circumscription is intended as the precinct, therefore, to clarify that meaning, it is said “entering the precinct of an uncircumscribed village.” What is said in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: “Considering only the place worthy of circumscription as the ‘precinct,’ and to illustrate the difference between circumscribed and uncircumscribed places, without noticing the special Pāli wording, it is said ‘entering the precinct.’ For one who transgresses the precinct of an uncircumscribed village, if the precinct here were a circumscription, for one who transgresses the first step of that precinct, there is an offense of dukkata. For one who transgresses the second step, there is an offense of pācittiya,” that should not be accepted at all, because of the special nature of the Pāli. It is said, “In some places, ‘entering the precinct of an uncircumscribed village’ is also seen, but others say that should not be accepted.” There, “without noticing the special Pāli wording” is redundant. Why? Because in the training rule about entering a village at the wrong time, in some places, the reading “transgressing the precinct” is also seen, and that is taken from the Andhakaṭṭhakathā reading, so the teachers… For what is not delimited, only the entering of the precinct is the reading that fits, not the passing beyond. Why? Because in many places, it contradicts the Pāli with the commentaries, and in this training rule too, it contradicts. How? For one who falls away from the group, an offense occurs in the wilderness, not in the village. Moreover, an example is shown, the verse "training rules by the Buddha" (Pari. 479), therefore, for one who crosses a river included within the entering of the precinct, it occurs. And furthermore, it is said: "For one going, there are four offenses, and for one standing, the same number" (Pari. 475). It should be concluded that for these ancillary verses, the commentary's reading is only the entering of the precinct. It should be stated, having considered it very well. "Indeed, going on foot is intended here, therefore it is said, 'for one crossing the first foot,' and so on." In this context, because that is not the case in the training rule regarding entering a village at the wrong time, etc., it indicates that an offense occurs for one entering by vehicle or by psychic power, and for one going a long distance. Some say there is no release from offense due to unsuitability there. It should be taken after consideration. A bhikkhuni monastery ground is not called "between villages," even though it is included in "between villages," because it is a permissible ground. "Later, it is said: 'If, among bhikkhunis entering the Mahabodhi courtyard, one stands outside, she incurs an offense.' From such statements, it is established that a bhikkhu monastery is not a permissible ground. Therefore, like the Khandhadhamma monastery in Kañcinagara, and the Sārīdhamma monastery in Kāvīrapaṭṭana, any other such monastery is also like that. Therefore, for the sake of convenience in binding the boundary, for continuous determination in the state of being 'between villages,' for one entering, and for one exiting, an offense of 'between villages' occurs. So say others." Because it is common to four villages, in such a monastery, those who bind the boundary should know that all four villages must be purified. Having arranged it, for a bhikkhuni entering that monastery with another bhikkhuni, or with a woman, or with a band of thieves, four offenses occur at once. "In each 'between villages,' an offense of pācittiya occurs," it is said. Thus some (say). Here, regarding the Saṅghādisesa for the second lifting of the foot: If the second lifting of the foot is on permissible ground, there is no Saṅghādisesa. Only on impermissible ground is there a Saṅghādisesa. It is written: "They wander on both banks, it is permissible because the range of sight is possible there." That is correct. Here, the range of hearing on the river bank or in the vicinity of a village is immeasurable. But in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā, it is said: "Having descended into the river from the opposite bank, within the range of sight, one searches for wood or leaves and brings them, there is no offense. One lets down the three robes on the opposite bank, there is no offense." "If one comes to this bank, there is an offense." This is said because it is entered with the intention to transgress. It is said: "For those who have entered for bathing and other duties, it is permissible as there is no attachment anywhere." In the Aṭṭhakathā, the measure in the vicinity of a village is such that, having descended into the river from the opposite bank, within the range of sight, to search for wood or leaves, it is not permissible to go out and enter, even a little, by crossing from one's own village. "A village-less forest" means a forest with the characteristic of being village-less. By this, the area of offense is shown. Because this is the area of offense, therefore, a bhikkhunī who crosses the village boundary post from the bhikkhunī's residence, in the absence of a village, incurs the offense of separation from the group. Even in the absence of the range of sight and hearing, she incurs the offense at the very moment of crossing the village boundary post. If there is one bhikkhunī there, she incurs the offense at the moment of crossing the range of sight and hearing. This rule should not be taken as applying only when going on a forest path. But to show that one incurs the offense from this point onwards when leaving the village, "a village-less forest" is said. And it is said: "There are also those who are pleasing, supportive, and modest. Having angered them, one should not go elsewhere. If one goes, one is not freed from the offenses of separation from the group, staying overnight in another village, or on the other side of a river," and so on. There, it is said: "The offense of separation from the group is incurred only once. The others (offenses) are to be understood as (incurred) in village after village, bank after bank, dawn after dawn." There, "and it is said" and so on. non-establishing [factors] should be taken as far as possible. It is written: "The courtyard of the Great Bodhi Tree," etc., was said for the purpose of showing that this offense is incurred even in a place near the village. The explanation of the third Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 4. The explanation of the fourth Saṅghādisesa training rule 694. `Paṭivattā` means they give a reply. `Kammadosa` means it is written: "not knowing the consent of the assembly," etc. `Kattabbaṭṭhānadosa`, say the ancients. `Kārakagaṇa` means the assembly of doers. If it is said: "Because it is stated 'having assembled the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha,' is this also the assembly of doers?" In the ancient commentaries, it is said: "This Thullanandā, without first inviting the assembly of doers, forcibly removed that bhikkhunī." Therefore, it is established that even in the presence of the bhikkhus who are the doers, that act should not be performed without first obtaining their permission. The intention is that a completed act should not be done by force. And there it is said: "A bhikkhunī is also allowed to perform a public declaration." 698. "If one removes [her] when the assembly of doers is absent, there is no offense." Here, how far is "absent" meant to be? This is not considered everywhere. Some say, "by the death of the doers." Some say, "by the absence of even one." Some say, "in one kingdom." Some say, "in one country." Some say, "in one village." Some say, "in one dwelling place." Some say, "where it is possible to announce." Some say, "within half a yojana." There, the teachers praise this: "If one removes [her] when the assembly of doers is absent in that dwelling place, there is no offense." "Where it is possible to announce" is proper.