English
or recite a Jātaka or a story,' it is permissible to accept with 'Sādhu'." 836. "One performance" means looking for one day. "Of those very ones" means whose dance one sees. "A bhikkhuni herself is not allowed to dance, or sing, or or play an instrument," etc., is not in this training rule. Why? Because it arises from sheep's wool. If so, why is it stated? From the great authorities in conformity with the Suttas. If one is not allowed to see or hear dancing, etc., then it is stated because it is obtained by the principle that one should not do it oneself, even more so. Otherwise, the great authorities would be meaningless. Thus, the method should be applied elsewhere too. It is written, "The origin here should also be understood not as stated, but as having six origins." If that is written with reference to verbal actions like "It is not permissible to say to others, 'Dance, sing, play!'" then it is well-written, because there is no speech in the origin of sheep's wool. "Even oneself is not... if it is written referring to the initial bodily action, it is poorly written. For the arising of sheep's wool is exclusively a bodily action. Therefore, it should be understood that what is extracted is not taken, but what is included by the word 'initial' is taken here. "This is because it arises from sheep's wool" – here, in the causal statement, "according to the Suttas and the Great Authorities," but here, what is extracted should be taken. Thus, it should be understood that it is written according to what is available. "It is said that it arises from sheep's wool by way of the precept spoken on the spur of the moment," said Thera Upatissa. "If this precept arises from sheep's wool, the one who commands would be absolved, but he is not absolved," it is said. When asked "Why?", "It is said in all the commentaries," said the commentary teacher, Thera Dhammasiri. 837. "Having stayed in the monastery" – not merely having stayed, but having gone from there, she obtains it in all postures. "Having stayed in the monastery" means "being within the monastery precincts." Otherwise, even if sitting, she would not obtain it. This is well-written. The explanation of the Tenth Precept is finished. The explanation of the Garlic Chapter is finished. 2. Explanation of the Darkness Chapter 1. Explanation of the First Precept 839. "There is darkness even by day; to prevent that, 'in night darkness' is said," say the ancients. "Should stand" – here, by the designation of place, all four postures are included. Therefore, if she walks with a man within his arm's reach, it is an offense of expiation. "Or should converse" is said merely by way of the origin, there being no distinction. "Or should converse" – "if she stands within a man's arm's reach and converses, there is an offense of expiation," it is said, but some say that is not appropriate. Why? Because merely by standing within that man's arm's reach, there is one offense of expiation. It is not that another one is incurred by conversing as well. How is this understood? By way of factors. For these are the four factors: night darkness, standing or conversing within a man's arm's reach, absence of a companion, and seeking privacy. were stated. There, if due to the standing, there were one separate offense, it would have four factors. If due to the conversing, there were one, it would also have five factors. Therefore, in the Mātika-aṭṭhakathā, it should be said, “four or five factors,” but it is not said. Therefore, there is no separate offense due to conversing. Some say, there is indeed, and the statement in the Mātika-aṭṭhakathā is for that very purpose. How? Due to the simultaneous arising of two offenses. What is meant? When there is conversing, the four-factored offense to be committed due to standing, and the four-factored offense to be committed due to conversing, these two pācittiyas arise simultaneously and are committed together. This is improper, due to contradiction with the Pāḷi. For in the Pāḷi it is said, “If she converses, standing within arm's reach of a man, there is an offense of pācittiya.” If there were two, it would not be proper to say, “there is an offense of two pācittiyas.” This method should be understood in the second and subsequent cases, as appropriate. Here, if with the second man, there is also a desire for privacy on the part of the bhikkhunī, and that man is not a second man, the offenses are counted by the number of men. Now, if the second is a bhikkhunī, and she also has a desire for privacy with that man, and that bhikkhunī is not a second bhikkhunī. Some say, both commit an offense, but it should be considered and taken. However, in the ancient commentary it is said, “by standing within arm's reach, a dukkaṭa,” that contradicts the Pāḷi. For the Pāḷi says, “She stands within arm's reach of a man, there is an offense of pācittiya.” What more needs to be said? In the fourth training rule, in the Mātika-aṭṭhakathā, from the statement, “three pācittiyas in standing, etc.,” the offense should be understood by the number of objects. The conclusion is, “Here, the factors are four or five,” should be said. The explanation of the first training rule is finished. 2-3-4. Explanation of the second, third, and fourth training rules. 842-6. The second, third, and fourth are clear. Everywhere, “when she converses, that which…” is called speaking about animals,” it is said in the ancient commentary. 852. In the fourth, this is the distinction – if it is said, “one by one” first, and then one dismisses a second nun, would there be no offense of pācittiya? There would be. Why? Because it expects only the three things: standing, etc., and because even with that statement, or with any other understanding, if there is a possibility of enjoying privacy, then it is established that both can be in one place. It is only said, “stands or converses having gone beyond arm’s reach.” Why is it not said, “or whispers into the ear”? Because it is not possible when beyond arm’s reach. Since that third phrase is cut off, even if possible, it is not said, “or dismisses a second nun.” Therefore, in meaning, if one stands or converses having gone beyond arm’s reach, or dismisses a second nun, an offense of dukkaṭa is incurred, it is said. This is the method in cases like “with a yakkha,” and so on. There, “within arm’s reach” or “having gone beyond arm’s reach” is not said, because in both cases it is a dukkaṭa. If it is said that in the section on non-offenses, “or whispers into the ear” is not said because it is not possible? It is possible, if there is something to be done, it is possible to whisper into the ear. Then why is it not said so? Because there is no purpose in whispering into the ear in a blameless conversation, and even in a Dhamma talk, it is prohibited with reference to Udāyi. The commentary on the second, third, and fourth training rules is finished. 5. Commentary on the Fifth Training Rule 856. “Family means four kinds of families,” it is said, so some say it is permissible in a hermitage of sectarians because there is no designation of family for them. Others say it is not permissible because sectarians are included among khattiyas and so on. If it is said that it is not proper because it is a suitable place for them? No, because khattiyas and so on as mentioned are possible. Nevertheless, a begging family is intended here. It is written, “The precinct is twelve cubits.” The commentary on the fifth training rule is finished. 6. Commentary on the Sixth Training Rule 860. Without saying, “one for a sitting woman, one for a lying woman,” it is said, “n "Having sat down, going," etc., should not be said. Is this offense not due to going? No, because it is said with the intention of the final act. By the statement "having sat down, lying down, two (offenses)," it is shown that going is not intended here. Similarly, "having lain down, sitting down, two (offenses)" should also be said. If so, why is it not said, "one lies down on it, an offense of two pācittiyas"? Because it is possible to lie down without sitting first. Some say that for one who sits down to lie down, and then lies down, it is one offense because the sitting is for the purpose of lying down. The explanation of the Sixth Training Rule is finished. 7. The Explanation of the Seventh Training Rule 867. In the section on non-offenses, "permanently arranged" is not said, because "having spread or having caused to be spread" is said. Here, in the manner stated in the sixth (rule), if one sits down or lies down on something naturally arranged, it is a pācittiya. Elsewhere, it is permanently arranged. Here, in the manner stated, if one sits down or lies down on something having spread it or having caused it to be spread, it is a pācittiya. In both cases, if one departs without asking, in the manner stated in the fifth (rule), it is a pācittiya, because the time other than that stated in the mātikā in the non-offense section is not touched upon, so the teacher says it is not a conjecture. Furthermore, in the commentaries, since the offenses covered by the fifth, sixth, and seventh training rules here are not touched upon in the sections "one incurs an offense at the proper time, not at the improper time" and "one incurs an offense at night, not by day," it is proper to apply and show these three types (of offenses) in the three types of time, as far as possible, in accordance with the method of the great authorities. The explanation of the Seventh Training Rule is finished. 8. The Explanation of the Eighth Training Rule 869. In the eighth (rule), a bhikkhu incurs a dukkata (offense). The explanation of the Eighth Training Rule is finished. 9. The Explanation of the Ninth Training Rule 875-7. It should be understood that an offense is incurred by making an oath in the manner stated, whether due to a wrong understanding or a right understanding.