English
The explanation of the fourth Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 5. The explanation of the fifth Saṅghādisesa training rule 701. `Etaṃ na vuttaṃ` means this rule, that the bhikkhunī's being overcome by lust should be seen, is not stated. That non-statement agrees with the Pāli. With which Pāli? With this: "Knowing that she is not overcome by lust, she accepts." If indeed the individual's being overcome by lust is not a criterion, what is the purpose of this Pāli, "no offense..." Both are unexcited, she receives from the unexcited.” Only this much should be said. For her own unexcited state is the measure. But the meaning of this non-offence section is: If both are unexcited, there is no offence in any way. If a bhikkhunī, being unexcited, receives from an excited one, perceiving him as “unexcited,” even so, there is no offence. But if she, though unexcited, knows another, whether unexcited or excited, as “excited,” it is a dukkata offence. For it was said in the immediately preceding training rule: “Why, lady, do you not receive?” “He is excited, lady… …I am not excited.” The explanation of the fifth Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 6. Explanation of the Sixth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 705. By that: therefore. Since the one who sends does not give or receive, there is no receiving, this is the meaning. For the other, it is for the sake of consumption. “Unwholesome mind” is said by way of generality. They say, “There is an offence even for one who speaks perceiving ‘it is allowable’.” The explanation of the sixth Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 7. Explanation of the Seventh Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 712-4. Offences incurred before the kammavācā do not cease. Dukkata and thullaccaya offences incurred with the ñatti cease, leading to a saṅghādisesa, say the ancients. This agrees with the Pāli text “when she incurs.” In “hearing, they do not speak,” if they do not speak for fear of danger to life or the holy life, there is no offence. Since it is said, “In an unrighteous act, perceiving it as an unrighteous act, there is an offence of dukkata,” “there is no offence for one who does not admonish” is said with reference to the saṅghādisesa. The explanation of the seventh Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 8. Explanation of the Eighth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 715. Rejected: defeated. The training rule concerning a family-corrupter and this one differ only in their origin. For it was said there, “He should be admonished only for the rejection of his speech, not for the prevention of family-corruption.” This being so, both of these are offences. are similar to each other, therefore this becomes like a supplementary rule for that, and then it becomes meaningless? It should not be seen this way. There is a difference between the two due to the specific object and the specific formal act (kammavācā). The explanation of the Eighth Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. 9. Explanation of the Ninth Saṅghādisesa Training Rule 723. The rest of the text is: "by bodily and verbal contact." The explanation of the Ninth Saṅghādisesa training rule is finished. The explanation of the Saṅghādisesa Section is finished. 3. Explanation of the Nissaggiya Section 1. Explanation of the First Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule 733. The First Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is clear. 2. Explanation of the Second Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule 740. Due to the fulfillment of the object, or because she did not intend to commit an offense, or because it was not given by her command, they gave the untimely robe. It should be presented as received, not divided as personal property—this is the intention. In essence, the other (robe) should also be presented as received. However, in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is written: "received with the words 'I give it to the venerable one' is a relinquished and received item. 'As received' means according to the manner in which it was relinquished by the donors. 'Should be presented' means it should be divided as an untimely robe—this is the intention. Here, only the robe received by being caused to be divided is Nissaggiya; even after performing the Vinaya act, one does not obtain it oneself." If this were said with reference to a relinquished and received item, then since it is said "should be relinquished, should be given to the Saṅgha or to a group or to an individual, they should give, 'I give to the venerable one'," all three of these phrases would have to be stated. Therefore, not only a relinquished and received item, but also a share received by other bhikkhunīs should be presented as received. 741. "No offense in the case of an untimely robe with the perception of a timely robe" only indicates that one does not commit the offense that would be committed due to division; it does not indicate that it is not received, or that it should not be given as received. By implication, however, it is taken. If so, it should be dealt with at the price of the goods. The explanation of the Second Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is finished. 3. The Explanation of the Third Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule 744. Because it was taken with the perception of ownership, a pācittiya and a dukkaṭa are stated. Otherwise, it should be dealt with at the price of the goods. The explanation of the Third Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is finished. 4. The Explanation of the Fourth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule 752. The desire to take by a trick, the informing of another discerning person, and the obtaining— these are the three factors. Therefore, even if one does not obtain what was first requested, but obtains something else even less than that, it is indeed nissaggiya due to the fulfillment of the factors. This principle applies elsewhere too. The explanation of the Fourth Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is finished. 5. The Explanation of the Fifth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule 753. "Having kept the oil, even ghee for me from my own family home"— this is indeed the reading. The explanation of the Fifth Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is finished. 6. The Explanation of the Sixth Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule 758-762. "To the cloak-maker" means to the cloth merchant. For her by whom it was caused to be bought, it is nissaggiya, and there is the obtaining of the forfeited item. "But for the others, even for those who, knowing, accept the bowl-portion by the year, it is not nissaggiya; they should merely offer it just as it was given," they say. "Even having obtained the forfeited item, it should be offered as it was given"— because this was said, "what was taken by the others is rightly taken," they say. Here, even for a sick person, there is no exemption. The explanation of the Sixth Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is finished. 7. The Explanation of the Seventh Nissaggiya Pācittiya Training Rule 764. In the seventh (rule), even though it is stated without distinction "by one who has requested it oneself," nevertheless, the meaning should be understood as by one who has another purpose, by one who has oneself as the object, by one who requests with a specific intention. This meaning should be understood by comparing it with the meaning of this Pāli text: "The bhikkhunis, having requested themselves, and with that requisite, having caused medicine to be bought, consumed it." Its meaning is this: with that requisite, and having caused medicine to be bought— Explaining this meaning, that "having caused medicine to be obtained by a declaration and by asking together," he said, "having himself asked and caused medicine to be obtained." Otherwise, the Pāli should be stated in this order: "having caused medicine to be obtained with that requisite, they themselves asked and consumed." But in the word-division, "by asking together means having asked oneself" is stated as merely the meaning of that very word. For that is the nature of word-division. But in the division of words like "a gain dedicated to the Sangha," it is clear. Otherwise, what other additional meaning would be included by the word "saṃyācika"? That is not seen, so that very word would be useless, and this training rule would be indistinguishable from the previous one. For one's own property should be done as one wishes. And here, it should be understood that "saṃyācika" is that which is obtained by asking, having become one by means of the Sangha's asking. Otherwise, from here onwards, this would become indistinguishable by the word "saṃyācika," so this training rule "by individual asking together" should not be stated separately, as the offense to be incurred by it would be included right here. But it is not included, because there are two offenses. If it is said, "Because it was caused to be obtained by mixing, it is only one offense"? No, because of the implication of the word "saṃyācika" being useless, and thus, in causing Sangha's, public's, and individual's property to be obtained by mixing, there would be the implication of only one offense. The explanation of the seventh Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is concluded. 8. The explanation of the eighth Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule. 769. "Of a group" means of a group of Abhidhammikas and so forth, and of a group of less than four. The explanation of the eighth Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is concluded. 9. The explanation of the ninth Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule. 774. "By a declaration of asking together" means only by what is obtained by a group's asking, not by anything else. The explanation of the ninth Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule is concluded. 10. The explanation of the tenth Nissaggiya Pācittiya training rule. 779. But in the tenth, "Whatever bhikkhunī, with a requisite intended for another purpose, intended for another person..." by whom another is caused to be acquired, it is a Nissaggiya Pācittiya." It should be of this kind. "By a personal solicitor"