English
in the Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga, regarding the training rule of contemptuous speech, since a bhikkhunī stands in the position of an unordained person, it is established that in the Bhikkhunī Vibhaṅga, regarding the training rule of contemptuous speech, a bhikkhu stands in the position of an unordained person to a bhikkhunī. And here, regarding abusing an unordained person, a dukkaṭa offense is stated, regarding abusing an ordained bhikkhu, a pācittiya offense is stated, therefore, these two training rules, when compared with the bhikkhu's case, do not agree with each other. How they agree, that should be known. In that, according to what is stated in the old commentaries, in the bhikkhunīs' training rule of contemptuous speech, "unordained" should not be taken; this is appropriate here. "Should abuse" means apart from the grounds for abuse. For some say that if any of those are present, it is only a pācittiya for contemptuous speech, but that is not appropriate. For in contemptuous speech, if the abuse is outside the Pāli text, it is a dukkaṭa offense. In the place of a dukkaṭa, this pācittiya is designated by them, therefore, the abuse should be understood as only in terms of the words that appear in the Pāli text here, such as "these are fools." The explanation of the second training rule is finished. 1033. The third training rule is clear in meaning. 4. The explanation of the fourth training rule 1038. Here, regarding "invited or requested," in the old commentaries, it is stated thus: "Even if requested, one may drink gruel, but one may not partake of gruel that is food. For gruel here does not fall into the category of edibles or foods. A bhikkhunī who is invited for alms... If she wishes to eat without having gone forth, she may eat only after consulting her husband. For bhikkhunis, there is no offense of successive eating. Having been invited, whether she has eaten that meal or not, if she has been dismissed, she may not have something made allowable and eat it. If invited with an unallowable invitation, she may not accept two invitations. In this regard, it is said in the Pāli and allowed in the commentary that "even if dismissed, she may drink gruel." Indeed, it is said in the Pāli: "Having been invited, if not dismissed, she drinks gruel." Here is the preliminary determination for the explanation of this training rule: Regarding "invited or dismissed," by the word "or," if, having been invited with an unallowable invitation, and not dismissed, she eats or consumes any other solid or soft food, apart from gruel, it is an offense of expiation, unless she has consulted her husband. What benefit arises for bhikkhunis from the absence of successive eating? There is no benefit for them; it has merely become more evident. Even bhikkhus may eat after making a determination and mixing. At the proper time, they may do as they please. What is the meaning of this consultation? Whether dismissed or not invited, they may not have anything made allowable, not even what remains from a sick person. And if invited and dismissed, they may not even have gruel, even after consulting. The explanation of the fourth training rule is concluded. The explanation of the Chapter on Monasteries is concluded. 7. Explanation of the Chapter on Pregnant Women 1. Explanation of the First Training Rule, etc. 1067. "Pregnant" is said because of the possibility of conception even from seeing, etc. In the word analysis, the state of being dismissed is not seen. 1074. Regarding "or a wet nurse," here, having given the child to the owners, she raises the brought-up child. Some say the same for a mother. 1080. The island dwellers prefer the reading "sikkhamāna" because of its active/inactive nature, while the inhabitants of Jambudīpa prefer "sikkhamānā." Its meaning is "sikkhamānā" because she honors the training rules. Here, it is not an action; only a designation is intended. Among these, one who has not trained should not be given higher ordination. There is an offense for the preceptor, etc. states. They say, "She has full ordination thus." 1082. "Dhammakammeti" means the ordination act. 1112. "Vuṭṭhāpitanti" means that the nun who caused the novice to be ordained is called "vuṭṭhāpitā." For this reason, the word "pavattini" is added for further specification. The commentary on the first and other training rules is finished. The commentary on the Pregnant Women Chapter is finished. 8. Commentary on the Chapter on Maidens 2. Commentary on the Second and Other Training Rules 1124. It is not said, "I allow, monks, to give the training agreement to a ten-year-old married woman," as it is said here, "I allow, monks, to give the training agreement to an eighteen-year-old maiden...". Therefore, it is said, "The training agreement should be given only to a married woman who is fully twelve years old." If it is taken that the training agreement should be given to a married woman, then a ten-year-old is also permissible. Why? Because it is said in the old commentaries, "There is no offense if one ordains a fully twelve-year-old who is fully aware" (Pāci. 1093-1095) and "There is no offense if one ordains a fully twelve-year-old married woman... who has completed the training" (Pāci. 1097-1101). What is the use of this objection? Indeed, it is said, "The training agreement should be given to a ten-year-old married woman." If they say, "It is not proper to say 'married woman'," then the act is invalid, it is written. 1146. "Ahameva nūna... alajjinī, yā saṅghoti" here means "I am indeed foolish." There is also "yaṃ saṅgho," there it means "since the Sangha gives, therefore I am indeed foolish." 1159. A woman who associates with men, who associates with boys, who is fierce, who is a dwelling place of sorrow, is called a trainee. Why is this trainee, in the word analysis itself, called "one who has completed the training in the six qualities"? It should be understood that she is called this because she has previously undertaken the training, and because she has previously completed the training. 1166-7. "Pahūtaṃ khādanīyaṃ bhojanīyaṃ passitvāti" here means "the trainee's relatives." They did, it seems, accomplish it. Seeing that, the elder bhikkhus dismissed them. Having dismissed them, having taken their consent, having made a group of those who gave consent earlier, and having made the consent of the rest as their own consent, they had the act performed. So it is said in the ancient commentary. Regarding "having released the consent," it is said thus in the sub-commentary: "This act should not be done today. Having said 'as you please,' it is released. Therefore, whoever is talkative or foolish, even if he says 'as you please,' because it depends on the elder, it is released with the elder's permission, not without it. Nevertheless, they perform the act only after taking consent again. This is the usage. But there is no purpose in taking it. If the Sangha elder releases it, it should be done only after taking consent." Regarding "having released consent, having risen physically," here there is a difficulty: if they go, having abandoned the arm's reach, saying 'we will do it in such and such a place,' there is no fault. Although there is none, they go without abandoning the arm's reach. This is the usage. "In the case of a night-interval, only Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are not permissible, but other acts are permissible. Uposatha and Pavāraṇā are also not permissible on a day that is not an Uposatha or Pavāraṇā day; other acts are permissible at all times. In the case of an assembly-interval, without abandoning the arm's reach, when four have gone for an act requiring four, or when five, ten, or twenty have gone for another act, it is permissible for the rest to go separately here and there and then return to the assembly place to perform the act. In the case of an intention-interval, if they remain seated as they were seated, without abandoning the arm's reach, it is permissible to do it again because the arm's reach was not abandoned." So it is said in the ancient commentary. According to the opinion of those ancients, it is shown that only one consent-interval is not permissible, and the fault is incurred. Some say that here too it is not shown separately because it is impossible. The teacher says that when the giver of consent has reached the assembly and gone, his prior giving of consent is not a consent-interval, so he thinks. Here is the conclusion: in the assembly-interval, eight... In the commentary, in the statement "they rise up without having given their consent, saying 'we will go elsewhere'... it is permissible to perform the act," the going out of reach is not evident. Here, however, it is said in the ancient commentaries, considering that the non-going out of reach of those who have arrived for the act is desired. Even though it is not evident, if it is permissible because it is not forbidden? No, because it is forbidden. How? Consent, indeed, arises when bhikkhus who have arrived for the act are assembled within one boundary, not when they are not assembled. For here it is said "without having given consent" and "because consent has not been given." It is not said "without having given intention" or "because intention has not been given." Therefore, it is established that the non-giving of consent occurs only by the non-going out of reach of those who have arrived for the act, not by going out of reach. And here it is (said): From where its coming, Of its absence, suppression; Thus among bhikkhus assembled, Because of its distinction. Like the consent for night-probation, so too the purification for night-probation. In accordance with that, consent or purification or invitation for the next day is permissible, and by that, it is permissible to perform the act. However, the Uposatha invitation is not permissible on a non-Uposatha day, but other things are permissible.